 |
|
|
|
|
January 24th, 2011
11:02 PM ET
Exposed priest: We shouldn't have to choose between marriage, faithBy the CNN Wire Staff Almost two years after racy photos exposed his relationship with a woman and prompted the end of his tenure as a Roman Catholic priest and media star, Albert Cutie on Monday said celibacy is not necessary or particularly healthy for those aiming to heed God's call. Speaking with HLN's Richelle Carey to promote his best-selling book, "Dilemma," Cutie (pronounced koo-tee-AY) criticized Catholic doctrine that prohibited priests from marrying. The South Florida resident married the woman shown in those photos - one of his former parishioners, Ruhama B. Canellis. After leaving the Roman Catholic Church, he started on the path to become an Episcopalian priest in spring 2009. "Unfortunately, (Catholic) priests are forced to choose between something that is very good - like your love for God and the church - and something that is also very good - which is the love of your partner, your wife," he said. Cutie added that the Catholic Church's emphasis on celibacy, which prohibits "a healthy sexual life that you would have with a married partner," did little to further priests' overall mission of serving God. "In the church, we talk a lot about violations that have to do with sex, but we forget that there are other things that can also be violations of giving your single-hearted service to God," he said. "And that happens in the church every day." Before the scandal, Cutie was sometimes called "Father Oprah" because of the advice he had given in Spanish-language media, where helmed several talk shows and served as president as Pax Catholic Communications. But his image came crashing down when photographs published in TV Notas magazine showed him embracing a woman in a bathing suit. Within weeks, the Cuban-American admitted to having a two-year relationship. On Monday, he said his only regret was that the media detailed his relationship with Canellis before he could do so himself. "I never expected that the paparazzi would have announced my dilemma before I could," Cutie said. After the photographs surfaced, he was removed from his duties at St. Francis De Sales Catholic Church in Miami Beach and on the Radio Paz and Radio Peace Networks. When Cutie signaled he planned to become an Episcopal priest, the archbishop of the Catholic Church's Miami archdiocese said he was "deeply disappointed." "Father Cutie's actions have caused grave scandal within the Catholic Church, harmed the Archdiocese of Miami - especially our priests - and led to division within the ecumenical community and the community at large," John C. Favalora said in a statement. Cutie said Monday that, growing up, he dreamed that he "would have 10 children and a wife." "But then you you receive this call from God. And one of the conditions, unfortunately, as a Roman Catholic (priest) is that you accept celibacy as a discipline," he said. Discipline is central to much of the Catholic Church's doctrines, he claims, given restrictions on everything from watching pornography to drinking or smoking too much. In comparison, he said, a monogamous, loving relationship should not be seen as a vice. "The excess of anything that is not healthy that you are using to compensate the healthy sexual life that you would have with a married partner - those things are violations of celibacy, too," he said. He said that his relationship with Canellis or decision to leave the Catholic priesthood, something he claimed many others do every day, wasn't planned or easy. "But I think love happens, and sometimes you have to make a choice," said Cutie, who is serving at The Church of the Resurrection in Biscayne Park, Florida. Asked if he were to have a son whether he would try to persuade him not to become a Catholic priest, Cutie said it would be "sad" that his son would have to choose between his faith and marriage. The better option, he said, would be to join him and be a priest in the Episcopal Church, which shares many of the same beliefs and practices as Catholicism. "I don't think those kids really have a fair shot at ministry, because they are being told this beautiful thing (marriage) you saw in your home, you're not able to do it here because celibacy is a requirement," he said. "So it would be difficult for me to say to my child, this is right for you."
Next entry »Fight emerges over yoga's religious roots
« Previous entryPastor Joel Osteen: Homosexuality is "a sin"
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Would you like to have a family man as a priest who always thinks of his family first? I used to visit the home for the ex addicts. Once when I was there one of them told me that ever since the pastor got married they seldom see him. When his wife has given birth to their first child they saw him even less. If Jesus were a family man who only thinks of his family first Christianity wouldn't have existed at all.
Lavinia Tai,
Jesus is a family man in the sense that He became Incarnate as a humble baby boy to live in a family with his Mother, Mary, and Joseph.
He commanded that we honor our mothers and fathers. He showed us how to do that. We are a family of believers of the Baptized, members of His Body. He is our High Priest and all holy Priests emulate Christ…they are like Fathers to us and we are like children to them. It is a wonderful vocation for those called to it.
Marriage is a wonderful vocation, too, for those called to it. But when asked, during Bible study or other such meetings, and talking about celibacy, I have never heard a priest say he wanted to try to balance two vocations. They are not ‘jobs’ like going to work for 8 hours and then coming home and leaving all that behind you until the next day when you go back to the job. No, vocations are a ‘way of life’, not a job.
Mr. Cutie must have thought of his priesthood as something more like a job and a job that was more about himself than his Church family.
Jesus says in Matt 19 when Peter says "it is better not to Marry"...."To some this has been given for the sake of the kingdom". How much of the world would be converted by now had not celibate Catholic priests traveled to foreign lands? Hummmmm? Any guesses. Most of the ground in primative lands with primative people was in fact broken by Catholic missionaries.
I once went to a Methodist Church. The friend who invited me there told me that it is normal for the pastor to be extra nice to those who always buy presents for his wife and son. This is human nature. My God! I never go to that Church again even though the members of that church kept begging me to go there. They even sent drivers to fetch me. I still prefer our celibate Catholic priests because they are the ones who really live the life of Christ.
"I still prefer our celibate Catholic priests because they are the ones who really live the life of Christ."
This is key. Paul says in his writings that we are "in persona Christi". In the person of Christ! Christ was celibate. Paul also choose to be celibate.
Professor Bruce Chilton pulls no punches in criticizing one of the founders of Christianity. Basically Paul was a "prude". An excerpt for Chilton's book, Rabbi Paul,
"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity.
Professor Chilton btw is a Professor of Religion at Bard College and a priest at the Free Church of St. John in Barrytown, NY.
THere are a million other professors out there teaching different things. Wow you really impressed me with some quote from some little known professor. Big deal.
gerald,
"Bruce Chilton is a scholar of early Christianity and Judaism, now Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion at Bard College, and formerly Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament at Yale University.[1] He holds a degree in New Testament from Cambridge University (St. John's College).
He has previously held academic positions at the Universities of Cambridge, Sheffield, and Münster.
He wrote the first critical commentary on the Aramaic version of Isaiah (The Isaiah Targum, 1987), as well as academic studies that analyze Jesus in his Judaic context (A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible, 1984; The Temple of Jesus, 1992; Pure Kingdom, 1996), and explain the Bible critically (Redeeming Time: The Wisdom of Ancient Jewish and Christian Festal Calendars, 2002; The Cambridge Companion to the Bible, 2007).
He founded two academic periodicals, Journal for the Study of the New Testament and The Bulletin for Biblical Research. He has also been active in the ministry of the Anglican Church, and is Rector of the Church of St. John the Evangelist in Barrytown, New York.
His popular books have been widely reviewed. Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography showed Jesus' development through the environments that proved formative influences on him. Those environments, illuminated by archaeology and by historical sources, include: (1) rural Jewish Galilee, (2) the movement of John the Baptist, (3) the towns Jesus encountered as a rabbi, (4) the political strategy of Herod Antipas, and (5) deep controversy concerning the Temple in Jerusalem.
Popular books
Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography, Doubleday, 2000. ISBN 978-0385-49793-0
Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography, Doubleday, 2004. ISBN 978-0385-50862-9
Mary Magdalene: A Biography, Doubleday, 2005. ISBN 978-0385-51318-0
Abraham's Curse: The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Doubleday, 2008. ISBN 978-0385-52027-0
Academic books
The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes, Michael Glazier, 1987. ISBN 978-0894-53480-5
A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus' Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time, Michael Glazier, 1984. ISBN 978-0894-53374-7
The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural History of Sacrifice, 1992. reprint: Global Scholarly Publications, 2001. ISBN 978-1586-84137-9
The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission, Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0664-22299-4
Judaism in the New Testament: Practices and Beliefs, Routledge, 1995. ISBN 978-0415-11844-6
Pure Kingdom: Jesus Vision of God, SPCK Publishing, 1997. ISBN 978-0281-05060-4
Redeeming Time: The Wisdom of Ancient Jewish and Christian Festal Calendars, 2002.
Altruism in World Religions, Georgetown Univ. Press, 2005. ISBN 978-1589-01065-9
The Cambridge Companion to the Bible, 2007. ISBN 978-0521-86997-3
Religious Tolerance in World Religions. Co-ed. with Jacob Neusner, Templeton Foundation Press. 2008, ISBN 978-1599-47136-5
References
1.^ Bard Collge Insti-tute of Advanced Theology – Bruce Chilton. Accessed June 1, 2009."
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/bruce-chilton#ixzz1CBgZ3JTX
OK, gerald your turn!!
Said I don't care who he is. What makes you think I'm going to read the whole blob about him. Lots of people like to make names for themselves saying "this is the real truth". And there are plenty like you to buy their books and put money in their pockets. Sx sells and so does rivisiionist history and controversy. Histories telling it like it was have already been written closer to the events. Enjoy the koolaid,.
One more time with respect to: " Christ was celibate" and the illiterate, preacher-man's "reasoning":
Matt 19: 11-12 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Hmmm?
"From a physiological point of view, two different types of eunuchs can be distinguished depending on whether castration has taken place before or after puberty. In the latter case, eunuchs retain, in some instances, the capacity to achieve erection, and the penis, if still present, maintains its normal size. In the case of emasculation before puberty many features of childhood are prolonged. The voice, for example, stays high-pitched, the body develops a rounded contour, and the loss of hormones produces an unusual tallness and also prevents the skin from tanning."
More about eunuchs:
Definition :
1. A castrated man employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary in certain Asian courts.
2. A man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been removed.
3. Informal. An ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man.
Not the way to go in my opinion and not a good reference for promoting celibacy.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/eunuchs#ixzz1C6yBCrU1
But what do some of the contemporary NT experts say about said passage?
Both Professor JD Crossan and Professor Gerd Ludemann have concluded from their separate scripture studies that the passage is authentic. e.g. http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb427.html
Reality:
"who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heavena"
There is no indication this passage means castration. No indication it means anything other than celibacy. Your points are foolish nonsense.
We do not want priests who are always busy trying to make money for his family. Priesthood is not an occupation but a vocation for those who can remain holy. Celibacy is still the best option for someone who really wants to serve the Church faithfully.
A priest should be allowed to serve beyond apprenticeship only after having gotten married. Only married persons should be allowed to become bishops. This is not about paedophillia. It is about the stability and maturity of a person. In fact, priesthood should be the combination of both spouses.
Amen to that!!!
Trying to get this to post further down..
Darnall
Something
gerald,
Granted, the Church has mellowed a bit recently, but would you have wanted people like these to reproduce:
"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
-Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino, (1441 AD)
Scripture said this:
John 3:16 (New International Version, ©2010)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
NOTE...WHOEVER (which includes ALL people) and says SHALL NOT PERISH but have ETERNAL LIFE.
So, tell me, who is wrong...John the apostle of Jesus, or Pope Eugene? My vote is Pope Eugene!
Comments please.
John 3:16 is a single attestation in the NT and many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. JD Crossan, G. Ludemann, R. Brown) have concluded that it was not historic. It was, they conclude, an addition to embellish the life of Jesus to gain converts/money to/for the cause.
See added commentary at http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?ti-tle=350_Jesus_to_Nicodemus, in Professor Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus and in Professor Ludemann's book Jesus After 2000 Years.
Darnall,
What Pope Eugene IV is saying is that all people [whether they are Jews or any other people] who have heard the Word of God, the Truth, and refuses to believe in it will not be saved. At that time, there were no other Christians except those abiding in the Catholic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ himself of which is the pillar and foundation of Truth. He is talking to people who have a choice to make…
The Word says that those who abide in ME [Jesus Christ] and I in them will be saved…the Church is the Body of Christ…those who do abide in this body will not be saved… “I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned” (John 15:5–6). …it is the Word of God which is what Pope Eugene IV is reminding the people of that time about. Truth never changes.
The Douay-Rheims Bible: John 3:16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
When did ‘may [or might]’ change to ‘shall [will]’? This is what has happened to the Bible over the years of translating the translations….
The Douay-Rheims Bible is a Latin translation of the Vulgate, the official Catholic version of the Bible. The Vulgate was translated directly from the original Greek text by St. Jerome (c. 340-420). Other versions in modern day use include the New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible (NAB) and the popular Revised Standard Version (Catholic edition).
Google:
Douay-Rheims Bible on Line, Catechism of the Bible……… will answer many questions…..
Darnell,
So sorry...see what 'taking out/puttin in' one word can do?! "..…the Church is the Body of Christ…those who do abide in this body will not be saved… should say 'those who do abide in this body will be saved".... Sorry for any confusion.
...Where in the heck is @CatholicMom...?
We have had several discussions over the last 6 to 8 months on this very topic, hopefully she will 'weigh in' and give us her perspective; becaue I 'still' don't comprehend why they can't marry.
Peace...
Hi, Peace2All, didn’t we just have this disc-us-sion about a month or two ago? Bet it is still a page we could find in the ‘older com-ments’. This is not much different than the last one….
The major thing in Mr. Cutie’s life now, since his secret was found out is supporting his family with book writings; so when does he have time for his Episcopalian duties?
Why would he say priests are forced to choose between the Church and marriage? First off, se-min-arians study for many years [6-8] while dis-cerning the priesthood as their vocation…they can dis-cern at any time during those years if they truly received a calling to the priesthood in the Catholic Church. Secondly, a priest is not forced to choose between Church and his wife because he doesn’t have a wife.
Cutie said,… ‘….that the Catholic Church's em-phas-is on celibacy, which prohibits "a healthy s3xual life that you would have with a married partner," did lit-tle to further priests' overall mis-sion of serving God.’ Should He be the one dis-cerning Priests’ mis-sion of serving God?
Cutie said,… ‘In the church, we talk a lot about vio-lations that have to do with s3x, but we forget that there are other things that can also be vio-lations of giving your single-hearted service to God," he said. "And that happens in the church every day.” So besides s3x vio-lations, there were some other sins that prevented him from giving his single-hearted service to God? And he did them every day?!
Cutie’s ‘only regret’ is that he was found out…saying two years was not enough time to ‘get it out’ himself. Not even to his family? I suppose he was hoping for at least 6-8 years to discern what to do.
When the Church told Cutie he could re-main a Catholic [but not as a priest] his pride told him he could have both a wife and his priesthood…two vocations….well, maybe even three now… it looks like he is tuc-king in a media career also.
So now he is a man who can pretend to have his priesthood as it was…however lacking it is…it doesn’t matter because he is good at pretend-ing. Has he stopped the po-rn, exces-sive drinking and smoking now that he can have s3x? I as-sume he was talking about himself concerning those things…..
“But I think love happens, and sometimes you have to make a choice," said Cutie. His formation as a priest concerning ‘love’ was inadequate…or perhaps he was daydreaming about ‘something else’ when they were talking about love? People decide to love, it doesn’t hit you over the head one day…and uh, oh, too late now….when was he going to think about love for his Church, for the Sacraments, for his neighbor?
So if he had a son, he would not encourage his son to be a Catholic Priest…but choose something that has some of the same beliefs and practices….better start training the son early….if he wants Raisin Bran Cereal….get him bran without raisins….if he wants a cat…get him a rat, if he wants a motorbike…get him a pedal bike…This way he will be used to never having what his heart really desires…
Peace2All,
Scroll up to see comments about celibacy and eunuchs i.e. Matt 19: 11-12.
@CatholicMom
Well, Hello...CMoM...! It, seems as if whenever we call on each other, one or the other shows up. You know, just practicing for when we are on the 'other side' and we're looking for each other...! 🙂
You Said: "Hi, Peace2All, didn’t we just have this disc-us-sion about a month or two ago? Bet it is still a page we could find in the ‘older com-ments’. This is not much different than the last one…."
Yes, and I would add that we have been having these kinds of discussions, actually for several months now concerning the RCC and its beliefs, policies, doctrines, procedures, etc... which, I have found fascinating in our civil discussions, yes...?
You really wrote a lot, so I will try and sum up my thoughts as best as I can.
I think we have discussed the issues of 'non-married' se-x and Catholic Priests having the opportunity to marry, and all of the reasoning as to why the Catholics...or at least the Orthodox/hard-line Catholics view things the way you do.
So... I know as far as the Priests you have mentioned doctrine, and quoted from the Bible, etc... And, what can I say to that...? Other than, that seems to be the way that you Catholics have chosen to believe and practice your faith, as apparently passed down from Pope, to Pope, etc... through the ages.
Though, it may seem 'silly' to me, if... however, a person that chooses to go through the process of becoming a Catholic Priest, willingly and voluntarily, and... is... 'happy' and 'fulfilled' and feels that they are a servant of the Lord, then that is their business.
I don't know if there is any research other than the Pope and his associates' opinions, that this is the way that is 'best...?'
As we discussed before about the RC Priests that left, because they found a spouse/fell in love, wanted to start a family etc..., became Episcopalian, and then... went back to becoming an RC Priest. I would 'love' to hear what they have to say, having had 'both' experiences now, and see, in 'truth' if in fact, they experience that they are somehow not able to serve the Lord as well as they were when they were celibate. Or... is it even 'better' for them, and their congregations and the RCC in general now that they have been allowed to come back... with a spouse...with children, and... 'still' be a Catholic Priest again.
I would 'really' like to know about that, wouldn't you...?
As for Mr. Cutie, ya' know, I just can't judge this man and his choices. He seems to be happy, has a family, and... still gets to spread the word of God. Looks and sounds to me like a win for everyone.
And, it might be a bit pressumptious to suggest that all of what Mr. Cutie is doing now, and with his children will always be 'less than' in relationship to the RCC.
I know you are a believer CMoM... but, the RCC doesn't 'necessarily' hold the corner on the *absolute truth* of Christianity. Lots of other valid viewpoints and interpretations out there.
Anyways, hope that you are well...
Peace...
@Reality
Thanks for the 'heads-up' on your reference. Interesting...
Peace...
Peace2All,
Yes, there is no good reason to lose that ‘connection’…may it be eternal!
You said, ‘I think we have discussed the issues of 'non-married' se-x and Catholic Priests having the opportunity to marry, and all of the reasoning as to why the Catholics...or at least the Orthodox/hard-line Catholics view things the way you do.
I am Catholic not Orthodox/hardline Catholic….are you starting a new ‘ecclesial community’? What is Orthodox/hardline?
You said, ‘I don't know if there is any research other than the Pope and his associates' opinions, that this is the way that is 'best...?'
Yes, the Tradition of the Church is looked at along with the Bible to come to a conclusion as to what Jesus Christ wanted for His Church and the Magisterium decides what is best [remembering that the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit].
I have never heard of a Priest leaving the Catholic Church to get married and then joining the Episcopalians and then coming back to the Catholic Church as a Priest….maybe he came back as a member of the laity of the Catholic Church but not as a Priest.
You said, ‘As for Mr. Cutie, ya' know, I just can't judge this man and his choices. He seems to be happy, has a family, and... still gets to spread the word of God. Looks and sounds to me like a win for everyone.
We judge choices all day long. We just cannot judge Mr. Cutie’s soul. As far as him spreading the Word of God…from what he has spread already appears that he doesn’t adhere to the Word of God in his own life choices…but we do have a merciful God and He will decide the important judgments. All we can do is ask ourselves, is Mr. Cutie’s actions something sacred and holy and should we all pursue those same kind of actions in our own lives.
You said, ‘And, it might be a bit pressumptious to suggest that all of what Mr. Cutie is doing now, and with his children will always be 'less than' in relationship to the RCC.
Mr. Cutie is the one who ‘made it less than’ in his own words and actions.
I know, Peace2All, that you prefer to think that there are many valid viewpoints and interpretations out ‘there’ but since I am one who trusts in Jesus Christ, I would have to agree with Him when He says there is only One Way and One Truth.
Keep that connection!
@CatholicMom
Yes... may our connection, hopefully... be eternal !
Peace...
Peace2All,
Hopefully!....never lose hope! [Once we get there...we won't need faith or hope any longer...all there will be is LOVE!]
A statement you are unable to understand or put in to context of the times. Perhaps 1000 years from now someone will look at things you have written as wacked.
I think that celibacy for Catholic priests over the centuries has been a good thing. Just think; if each one of them had married and spawned 9 or 10 kids, where would we be now?! Please keep 'em single.
Ah yes. Belittle and chide based on bigotry.
gerald,
Granted, the Church has mellowed a bit recently, but would you have wanted people like these to reproduce:
"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
-Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino, (1441 AD)
A statement you are unable to understand or put in to context of the times. Perhaps 1000 years from now someone will look at things you have written as wacked.
"In comparison, he said, a monogamous, loving relationship should not be seen as a vice."
Um, Former Father Cutie, it's not. As Paul says not being married frees one from the cares of family to dedicate his life to the service of God. Jesus tells us in Matt 19 that to some this celibacy has been given for the sake of the kingdom. Fr. Cutie was a poor priest if he thinks the Church sees marriage as a vice. He should have taken a look at JPII's theology of the body. Sad.
Matt 19: 11-12 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Hmmm?
"From a physiological point of view, two different types of eunuchs can be distinguished depending on whether castration has taken place before or after puberty. In the latter case, eunuchs retain, in some instances, the capacity to achieve erection, and the penis, if still present, maintains its normal size. In the case of emasculation before puberty many features of childhood are prolonged. The voice, for example, stays high-pitched, the body develops a rounded contour, and the loss of hormones produces an unusual tallness and also prevents the skin from tanning."
More about eunuchs:
Definition :
1. A castrated man employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary in certain Asian courts.
2. A man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been removed.
3. Informal. An ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man.
Not the way to go in my opinion and not a good reference for promoting celibacy.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/eunuchs#ixzz1C6yBCrU1
But what do some of the contemporary NT experts say about said passage?
Both Professor JD Crossan and Professor Gerd Ludemann have concluded from their separate scripture studies that the passage is authentic. e.g. http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb427.html
By cutie's logic, men should not be getting married, i.e. making vows toward manogamy. It's much to hard to follow them and some don't so why make them is the logic of his self serving, me centered life.
@Reality! Bad choice of screen name. you could'nt be further from reality.he i feel sad about your dark thoughts. i couldnt imagine living my life without Jesus. i will pray that you hear our lord and savior calling. he gave us all free will to love and choose him over an empty, dark and lonely existance. your life would be so much better with love and faith instead of negative disbelief and trying to drag others down with you in your misery of empty existance.
Lived with Jesus for over 60 years. Lived the past 10 without. I sleep better now without all the guilt trips.
Ya now there is no morality for you. No reason to call anything wrong. If it feels good do it.
@gerald
Hi Gerald...
You Said: "Ya now there is no morality for you. No reason to call anything wrong. If it feels good do it."
Respectfully, that's kind of presumptuous, don't you think...?
What if he, -Reality, has 'decided' on a code of personal conduct of morality, that not only fits within the laws of society, but also works for he, his family, his friends and society. And... if there should happen to be ...God... then it works for God too...?
You are in effect, presupposing and assuming that unless you are a Jesus believing human, you must somehow 'not' have the capacity to be and act within the morals of society. In essence, unless you are a 'believer' you are in fact incapable of being a 'moral' being.
That's a pretty big assumption there -Gerald... But, ya' know... maybe you're right, I'll give ya' that.
Just some thoughts, but again, your statement to -Reality seems awfully presumptuous and made without any kind of 'verifiable evidence' about -Reality, or REALITY in general.
Peace...
The problem I find in his statement is that he doesn't have guilt any more. I.e. the things that he did that bothered his conscience it seems he embraced. Thank God we don't all do that with things that we do along the way. You may be right that he choses some "right" behavior. Problem is there is no basis for it and it would seem that he would only choose what was easy to choose if he rejects guilt. Guilt has a purpose.
Gerald, Gerald, Gerald,
The major guilt trips involved missing Mass on Sunday, now it is obvious that attending this service was simply "worthless worship" so no more guilt trips. Oh and then there was confession to a priest. No longer a problem after I said to the priest after my final confession, "Now it is your turn" to yet again end another form of "worthless service" and guilt trip.
@gerald
Hi Gerald...
You Said: "The problem I find in his statement is that he doesn't have guilt any more."
Maybe he doesn't need to 'have guilt' any more about this.
You Said: "Thank God we don't all do that with things that we do along the way."
Guilt, as an emotion, is useful to a certain degree. If you have been hurting people, I think we can reasonably agree, that at least in our society, if not the world, it would be very useful for you to 'feel extremely' guilty, as one of the factors for helping you stop that behavior.
After awhile, in general with other behaviors, it can become 'counter-productive' to continue to feel guilty about something, especially when you have long-stopped said behavior. Isn't that part of what the Christian concept of 'repentance' is about... no need to continue to feel horrible, as you have allegedly 'stopped' said behaviors and God, forgives you...?
You Said: "You may be right that he choses some "right" behavior. Problem is there is no basis for it and it would seem that he would only choose what was easy to choose if he rejects guilt. Guilt has a purpose."
No 'basis' for it...? And, why would that matter anyway, if there weren't any 'basis' for it...? Early man learned and it has been ingrained within us that it typically best for us personally, and our society to cooperate, give, love, etc... These qualities didn't just all of a sudden pop up because God said so in the Bible, or when Yeshua showed up !
(Also-please go back to my point in this post above which speaks to your comment..."Guilt has a purpose.")
Point being... Christians/believers and non-believers alike can and are moral beings... some on both sides are better and worse than others.
No God is required to be a moral individual however. Because, as i argued above, so what if -Reality has chosen a code of morality or conduct that fits within society, himself, family, friends, and even God would agree with... then again, ...what's the problem...?
In fact, there really 'isn't' any problem.
Peace...
i was a catholic-i had 5 sons and 1 daughter. i raised them as catholic and sent them to a catholic school. today i am a divorced women attending the episcopal church and none of my children is catholic. the church today is more t-party than spiritual . i loved my church but the constant drumming on dead fetuses and judgements on people-their constant interference between husband and wife– the anti-choice stance that most catholics do not practice is something that is anti-spiritual. using birth control is also supposed to be a mortal sin. since the female uterus is built to house on average 12–14 pg–and i have yet to see bunches of husband and wives leaving mass with their 14 kids i must conclude birth control is rampant amount catholic couples.the many priests have hidden girl friends or even families-girls becoming nuns are now rare-i think it is time catholic couples fess up to birth control-priests insist on being married–and women insist on female priests-it coming anyway-may take awhile but it's coming anyway-
mabel floyd,
Sounds like your main gripe with the Church is the right to life that it speaks of for all persons, which includes babies not yet born. How is killing your baby in the womb spiritual? Just because you don’t see families of 14 children does not mean families are living in sin. Priests like Cutie are rare indeed.
We are a small parish, only a few families and we can proudly say we have a girl in our Church family that became a nun two years ago, our small town produced a Priest, too, and our diocese has more men in the seminary than ever before! No, there will not be women priests…Jesus Christ was a Son of the Father not a daughter…priests stand in for Jesus Christ…in persona Christi; priests are not insisting to marry as you say….Think about it….why would anyone want two vocations?
Mabel I want to ignore 90% of what you said just because. I don't know if you're familiar with the bible, but women used to have plenty children. It's through generations, up until now that the secular world has introduced ways to take away our womanhood. That is what the Catholic Church is up against. Birth control pills destroy God's invitation of life, destroys a woman's uterus, and gives pre-marital another open gate. We forget that our bodies are temples. Our bodies can do what God does, which is create life. But through our rampage, we forget that. We ignore our essence. You have essence, I have essence, we have essence.
The devil is clever indeed.
Alberto Cutie's argument and views toward celibacy in the Catholic priesthood, is a generic, popular outlook on celibacy. Its the age old argument, that how can priests, who live chaste celibate lives, be effective pastors, especially toward the issues of marital problems. People only see what they want to see, without doing any kind of research on their own to form their reasons to speak either for, or against something.
Cutie's statement about feeling the call to the priesthood, and having to "unfortunately" accept celibacy as a requirement for ordination to the priesthood. If he truly felt that way before he entered the seminary, he could have not entered. In the seminary there are spiritual directors and countless other means for seminarians to speak about their fears about the priesthood. It seems like Cutie, having a problem with celibacy wither before or while in the seminary, that he should have reconsidered his vocation in life...through prayer and discernment.
Cutie is doing a good job at creating scandal for the Catholic, which seems to be a personal vendetta that he brought on himself, because he was unhappy with having been ordained a priest...in other words, that he didn't want to be priest. No matter how much Cutie blames the Church, he has to know that almost everything that has come about, was because of his own doing. He knew fully, what the church expected of him, and had the option, through prayer, discernment, and council from other priests, spiritual directors etc. to leave either before ordination, or even after, has heart wrenching that may be.
So Cutie's "attacks" on the Church is very unnecessary, and very personal. He is confusing it with how "the general population" feels, which is not entirely true. All of this is the consequence of his own unwillingness to do what he should have done, and thus became a result of his negligence to ultimately what Gods will might have been in his life, if he was more willing to listen.
I remember this yahoo from seminary days. What a fake. He has and always has been about being the center of attention. It's Cutie's way or the highway. He doesn't care about any damage he causes in the wake of things. It's all about " poor little me". Selfish and self-serving. The media is just as bad – there are thousands who serve honest, faithful lives in service to their faith yet the media ignores all that to give face to some shameless big-mouth like Cutie. I chose to not continue my pursuit of priesthood because of the gross hypocrisy envisioned and dwelling within the church and heirarchy. So many people today listen to what the media plays up as real, those ignorant 10%ers versus the rest of us who live faith-filled, honest lives.
The Authors of the bible, were obsessed with $ex and their genitals. It is so laughable that it is 2011 and some still want to be ruled by ideas and concepts from the Bronze Age.
Cheers!
Its called "CHOICE" and FREEDOM TO PRACTICE IT"
Celibate or not, why even bother becoming a priest, nun, rabbi, imam or monk?
Thats like saying why get up in the morning, when you just have to lay back down at night!
As in, "whats the use"!
Something
gerald,
Granted, the Church has mellowed a bit recently, but would you have wanted people like these to reproduce:
"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
-Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino, (1441 AD)
Scripture said this:
John 3:16 (New International Version, ©2010)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
NOTE...WHOEVER (which includes ALL people) and says SHALL NOT PERISH but have ETERNAL LIFE.
So, tell me, who is wrong...John the apostle of Jesus, or Pope Eugene? My vote is Pope Eugene!
You are quoting what a man said that was his personal opinion and a poorly expressed one at that. Magesterium of the church promulgates the teaching of the church – catechism. Catechism expressly conveys that we know there is salvation in and through the Catholic church and all others outside of it can achieve salvation through the mercy of God.
Reality, That sounds like a "controlled" society, where freedoms to practice your beliefs, are not free! Would you realy like to be silenced to that extent? I may not agree with others belief systems, but I would never want to see them lose thier right to be allowed to express such.
If I may ask, what religion are you? Based on what I read, I could not tell if you are just quoting someone elses thoughts, or they are your own?
Thats like saying why get up in the morning, when you just have to lay back down at night!
Mona et al,
The agnostic thoughts are my own influenced by reading, rational thinking and common sense. And note it is the "pew peasants", "bowers" and "kneelers" who are doing the same thing and are fast coming to the same conclusion about "worthless houses of worship". No attendance, no worship and an end for the need of any religious leaders. Tis called evolution of the mind!!!
A quick summary for anyone's perusal:
The Apostles' Creed 2010: (updated based on the studies of historians and theologians during the past 200 years)
I might believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven.
I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary.
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Jerusalem.
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
Amen
Celibate or not, why even bother becoming a priest, nun, rabbi, imam or monk?
As noted many times:
Recognizing the flaws, follies and frauds in the foundations of Islam, Judaism and Christianity by the "bowers", kneelers" and "pew peasants" will quickly converge these religions into some simple rules of life (e.g. Do No Harm). No koran, bible, clerics, nuns, monks, imams, evangelicals, ayatollahs, rabbis, professors of religion or priests needed or desired. Ditto for houses and classes of "worthless worship" aka mosques, churches, basilicas, cathedrals, temples or synagogues.
Interesting comment – what influenced you to believe the chronicle of Jesus' life, but not of his death? I ask, because all the biblical figures that were straining to discredit him were not able to produce a body to refute his claims.
Reality. Come on Real. Some of us have great faith. Much good has come by the devout. ( I know what you will say, but many have served harmlessly over the centuries.) Peace.
St. Peter was married. Yet, God choose him to build his church on. Jesus even healed his mother in law of an illness. I never did understand why our church won't allow marriage, a natural ins-t-itution, between a man and a woman. Since marriage is not a sin, but a blessing from God, I don't see the reasoning.
Some may argue they (priests) can do a better job, devoting all thier time to the church, without a family. Some priests are "married" to the church, but I would see that as in the spiritual sense. Some nuns do this too, and wear a ring on thier finger.
I think God knew thier would be natural desires, and I don't think he had a problem with it. I guess this was drwn up by the ec-u-menial councils of old. I would like to see this one, amended. I do think it would be helpful, and yes, even prevent some of these molestations that occ-u-r.
I know some will argue it happens with people that are married as well. Yes, I know that I just wonder how much higher the statistics of it are amongst unmarried celibate priests, by comparison.
Your example of peter being married is a red herring/Straw man argument. The Church does not say priests can't be married. The eastern rite, in full communion with Rome, has married priests. Even in the Latin rite there are married priests who have come in from a different denomination. The Church has chosen as a discipline, to require vows of celibacy for those in the latin rite entering the priesthood. It is not something that could not change as your comment about Peter implies. Again Christ and Peter encourage celibacy, particularly for those in minestry. See matt 19 and 1 Cor 7.
It is true that Peter at some point was married. Yet it is very odd that his wife is never mentioned in scripture. Further we are told that Peter and Andrew own the house. A strange arrangement if Peter's wife were living. Speculation, even among the early Church is that his wife had died. So your argument on both counts you have presented fails.
Catholic,
Try to think about Jesus Christ…He never married, spent His time tending His flock and completing what he came to do…founding His Church, inst!tuting the Sacraments, preparing the Apostles for their great job ahead…and more, all for our benefit.
Priests stand in for Jesus Christ; [you know about Persona Christi]. Jesus Christ is the Son of God not His daughter…thus no women priests either. Jesus Christ thinks of His Church as His Bride…[could a woman priest think of the Church as her Bride?]...how much more holy for a man to emulate Jesus Christ, our High Priest…taking the Church as his Bride and devoting his life to tending to ‘us’ his children in Christ.
I fully appreciate our Priest and love the devotion he has for our Church and the commitment he has towards our well-being...serving us when we are happy, sad, sick, and dying…and he does so well because his heart is not on the things of this world.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
We shouldn't have to choose between marriage and faith. I've never believed that Catholic priests and nuns must be celibate. Can't we see after all the abuse that has happened within the church, that it doesn't work. And we haven't heard anything about the nuns. (that should be interesting to do research on.)
I have a friend who is a Buddhist teacher, he's young, and has willingly taken an oath of celibacy for over l5 years. When I first met him, he actually made a pass at me, without even realizing it. I asked him how he dealt with his oath of celibacy and he said "I have ways." I said to myself "they are not working." I told him that he would make a much better teacher if he opened his heart to other with love. Lovet is such a natural phenomenon within the human existence, that to stop it, can turn it into evil (as witnessed by so many priests abusing children)
By the way, if priests not following the vows they took is evidence the vows were wrong, then I guess men and women who cheat in their marriages are evidence that such vows should not force one man to be with one woman for life. Do you agree to that? The fact is that Christ and the Apostle Paul encouraged celibacy. See Matt 19 and 1 Cor 7 if you don't believe me.
Sherri Rosen,
People who are pedophiles don’t stop being pedophiles when they get married; ask the children. Celibacy does not cause pedophilia; if that were true then all single chaste men would be harming children and everyone should be forced to marry to save the children.