The best-selling book Surprised by Truth (vol. 1) contains Jimmy’s dramatic conversion story. There are several ways you can order it. You can:
There are several ways you can order Jimmy Akin’s best-selling new book, The Salvation Controversy. You can:
There are several ways you can order Jimmy Akin’s best-selling new book, The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Church. You can:
.
.LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BOOK AT WWW.THEFATHERSKNOWBEST.COM!
Yes! It’s true!
If you believe all the nonsense there is on the Internet.
Take for example, this story from NBC’s station WTHR and its “Eyewitness News” team:
Pope Challenges Big Bang theory
Vatican City – Pope Benedict is offering his thoughts on how the universe was created. Thursday, the Pope said God’s mind was behind the complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and Christians should reject the idea the universe was created by chance.
The Pope has rarely talked about specific scientific concepts such as the Big Bang, which scientists say caused the formation of the universe some 13.7 billion years ago.
The Pope added scientific theories on the origin and development of the universe and humans leave many questions unanswered.
And that’s all there is to this story, which was picked up and echoed in other locations in the mainstream media’s vast news echo chamber.
The dateline of the story, you will note, says “Vatican City,” and given journalistic praxis for datelines, that implies that the story was written by somebody in Rome, allowing this to fall under the “Eyewitness News” heading.
But not all eyewitnesses have eyes to see or wits to think—or ears to hear for that matter. And not all editors compose (or approve) headlines that accurately reflect the story.
I held back on commenting on this until the English translation of the homily was available, but even looking over the Italian original I was scratching my head, saying, “This doesn’t seem to say what the press accounts are saying it says.”
This story does have a nucleus of truth to it. Pope Benedict did give a homily for the feast of the Epiphany (when the Magi showed up, following the star) in which he reflected on the fact that God created the universe, but that’s got to be the ultimate dog-bites-man story, right? The pope describes God as the Creator? It’s not exactly like this story is without precedent.
But guess how many times Pope Benedict mentions the Big Bang in his homily?
That’s right! NONE!
And while it’s true that “The Pope has rarely talked about specific scientific concepts such as the Big Bang,” if by “rarely” you mean “not every single day,” you’d be right—though specific scientific concepts do come up rather often in papal statements (every time the Pope addresses the Pontifical Academy of Sciences . . . or the Pontifical Academy of Life . . . or the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences . . . or, you get the picture. But the ironic thing is that on this occasion the Pope did not address any specific scientific concepts. Not the Big Bang (or anything else except for a mention of novas, which I’ll get to in a minute).
What he did was say was . . .
The universe is not the result of chance, as some would like to make us believe. In contemplating it, we are asked to interpret in it something profound; the wisdom of the Creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God, his infinite love for us.
We must not let our minds be limited by theories that always go only so far and that — at a close look — are far from competing with faith but do not succeed in explaining the ultimate meaning of reality. We cannot but perceive in the beauty of the world, its mystery, its greatness and its rationality, the eternal rationality; nor can we dispense with its guidance to the one God, Creator of Heaven and of earth.
This is hardly the Pope “challenging” the Big Bang. Not only does he not mention it, he acknowledges that scientific theories “always go only so far” and that some “are far from competing with the faith.” If anything, that would be an endorsement of the idea that the Big Bang is compatible with the Christian faith—a papal claim that is hardly without precedent.
While the Pope is certainly aware of the Big Bang, and while it forms part of the background to his remarks, his point is a more general one about the world arising from chance. This claim is not restricted to advocates of Big Bang cosmology. There have been people claiming the world is the result of randomness since ancient times and many advocates of non-Big Bang cosmologies have held the same. For that matter, apart from the question of how the cosmos first came into being, many advocates of biological evolution maintain that the world came to have its present form purely through chance. These theories also form part of the background to what the Pope said. It’s not just about the Big Bang, it’s about the world in general.
So . . . thanks to the media for covering this. It’s always good to get the message out about God being the Creator and him loving us and so forth. But could the message be communicated a little more clearly next time? Pretty please? With sugar on top?
Oh, and speaking of communicating the message clearly, a couple of thoughts for the folks responsible for getting the Pope’s homilies up on the Vatican web site (translators, web guys, whoever):
1) What’s the major international language these days? Hint: It’s not Italian.
It’s also not French, or Spanish, or even Chinese. It’s English. English has 450 million native and secondary speakers. It is an official or the majority language in fifty-seven countries (nearly twice that of its closest competitor, French, which has this distinction in 31 countries).
If you want to get the Pope’s message out to the world and avoid (or at least mitigate) him being misunderstood due to difficulty checking what he actually said, devote the resources needed to get his speeches on the web site in English in a timely manner! Don’t make us wait over a week, as in this case, by which time the media story has grown cold and sewn whatever misunderstandings it contained. Also . . .
2) Make sure that your translation into English is correct.
Because it isn’t always.
There have been any number of cases when people point to a sloppy translation that has been posted on the Vatican web site and come away with a misimpression. This is particularly bad because people will say—and often have said—“Hey, this is what it says on the Vatican’s own web site!” It’s understandable that they’d think that what they find on the Vatican’s web site is accurately translated, and they have every right to think that, because it should be.
But too often it’s not, and it creates a mess for those of us who are trying to help get the Vatican’s actual message out, in spite of mistranslations appearing on its web site.
So lest anybody be too sure that just because something appears on Vatican.va, it must be an accurate translation, consider this passage from the English version of Pope Benedict’s Epiphany homily:
And so we come to the star. What kind of star was the star the Magi saw and followed? This question has been the subject of discussion among astronomers down the centuries. Kepler, for example, claimed that it was “new” or “super-new”, one of those stars that usually radiates a weak light but can suddenly and violently explode, producing an exceptionally bright blaze.
These are of course interesting things but do not guide us to what is essential for understanding that star.
Here the Pope asks a question we’ve all wondered about: What was the Star of Bethlehem? He notes as an “example” (presumably one among several) an idea Kepler had and says it is “interesting” (which means he finds it interesting, not that he’s endorsing it as the truth), and all that’s fine.
What is not fine is the way whoever translated this rendered the Pope’s description of Kepler’s idea.
“NEW”????
“SUPER-NEW”???
You don’t have to have a doctorate in astronomy (or Italian) to recognize this for what it is: a mistranslation of nova and supernova.
I mean, just look at the Italian:
Keplero, ad esempio, riteneva che si trattasse di una “nova” o una “supernova” . . .
It’s got the words “nova” and “supernova” right there! And notice it doesn’t have a bare presentation of these words without the indefinite article (un, una = “a, an”). It’s got the indefinite article right in front of both nouns! That tells you these are nouns, not adjectives. “A nova,” not “new”; “a supernova,” not “super-new.”
The translation is so bad that one wonders if the Italian was plopped into a machine translation program or something. If so, it wasn’t Google’s, because that churns out:
Kepler, for example, believed that it was a “nova” or a “supernova” . . .
So, Google’s machine translation wins hands down on this one.
While even Homer nods, it is hard to imagine how such an obviously erroneous translation could be made by someone with a functional grasp of Italian and English, much less how it could survive any kind of review.
So, it’s not just the mainstream media that needs to shape up in how it presents the Pope’s message.
The Vatican’s translation service needs to, too.
Or that’s my opinion.
What do you think?
Just today I was reviewing a proofread version of my forthcoming book Mass Revision: Your Essential Guide to the Changes in the Liturgy, which is scheduled to come out in just a few months. It seemed like an opportune time to do a post about liturgy, so here goes . . .
There’s a passage in C. S. Lewis somewhere in which he talks about liturgy being like dancing. As a dancer, dance instructor, and dance caller (I call square dances, contra dances, etc.) I recognize just how apt the comparison he makes is. What he says is that learning the liturgy is like learning to dance. At first you are focused on the mechanics and trying to get them right. When you’re new to the liturgy it’s rather like dancing and having to think about what your feet are doing. The result is clumsy and not particularly pleasant. But there comes a point when the mechanics of the dance becomes second nature and you don’t have to think about it, you can just do it. This is the point at which the dance becomes smooth, flowing, and enjoyable. You have been freed from having to think about the mechanics of individual moves so that you can grasp the overall flow and pattern of the dance.
The same thing happens when learning liturgy. If you’re a convert, as I am, or if you’re old enough to have clear memories of the liturgical reform that followed Vatican II, then there’s a stage in your life where you had to make a conscious effort to learn the liturgy. You didn’t just grow up with it. At first it was a awkward, clumsy process (“Is this the part where we stand up?”, “What’s the next word in the Creed?”, “Am I supposed to say ‘Thanks be to God’ or ‘Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ’ now?”). But eventually it became second nature and, as in the dancing example, you were freed from the burden of having to think about the mechanics of individual actions and your mind could rise to contemplate the overall flow and pattern of the liturgy, the meaning of the symbols it contains, and the theological truths it expresses.
Even if you’re not a convert or someone who clearly remembers the liturgical reform, you’ll be getting something of that experience come this November, when the new translation of the Roman Missal goes into effect and—although the fundamental structure of the Mass will be the same—lots of individual prayers will be . . . different. And there’ll be a period of time where you have to think about the mechanics of the liturgy (“Am I supposed to say ‘And also with you’ or ‘And with your spirit’?”, “Oops! I almost said ‘Was born of the Virgin Mary’ instead of ‘Was incarnate of the Virgin Mary’!”, “Wow, you mean we’re supposed to stand after the priest finishes this invitation, not before it, like we’ve been doing the last ten years?”). But soon this phase will pass and you’ll be able to think about higher matters, like how the liturgy more profoundly expresses certain truths not that it’s not encumbered with a dumbed-down, 1970s translation.
Or whatever else you choose to think about at Mass.
The point I’m making is that changing the expressions people are used to will jerk them out of a contemplative mode and land them smack in the middle of a mechanical thought process—at least until the change becomes second nature. For this reason, you shouldn’t make changes lightly.
All the liturgical loosey-gooseyness of the last 40 years has had the effect of jerking the faithful out of a contemplative mode and putting them in other modes of thought (confusion, bewilderment, suspicion, rage).
I understand and appreciate the need for the new translation of the Mass, but it will be an adjustment. It will take some getting used to.
But one shouldn’t make arbitrary changes for no good reason, even when they are permitted by liturgical law.
A good example is the response used in the prayer of the faithful. In the United States the response is commonly “Lord, hear our prayer” (although some seem to mishear it as “Lord, hear our prayers”; a minor liturgical mondegreen).
This response is not mandated by liturgical law, and so it can be changed. That makes changing it not a liturgical abuse in the proper sense (a violation of liturgical law), but just because it can be changed doesn’t mean it should be changed. Changing it can result in the faithful being jerked out of their usual, prayerful mode of thought and into an awkward state where they have to think about the new response and even wondering whether it fits with the things being prayed for. This results in Bad Liturgy.
Take, for example, the practice of one of the local parishes near me. During certain liturgical seasons and on certain liturgical days they alter “Lord, hear our prayer” to something else.
For example, last Sunday (baptism of the Lord), they were using “Lord, send us your Spirit.” You might think that would be more appropriate for Pentecost, but because the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus at his baptism, they were using it there.
And since the action of the Holy Spirit is involved in every answered prayer, asking God to send the Holy Spirit is something that can be an appropriate response to any legitimate prayer intention.
But “Lord, send us your Spirit” is not the familiar response and it snatches the contemplative, prayerful mindset away and forces the congregation to think about the mechanics of what they’ve just been told to say.
Worse is what they were using on Epiphany, when the response they said to use was “O come let us adore him.”
Not only is response unfamiliar, it’s also a line from a well-known song (meaning that people are going to be thinking about the song), and it’s just too cutsey by half.
Worst of all, it is not a suitable response to all possible petitions. For example:
Lector: That God may guide our president as he makes decisions affecting the welfare of our nation.
People: O come let us adore him.
Now, that specific petition wasn’t one the parish used, but I’ve heard similarly problematic petitions used with “O come let us adore him” in the past.
Like I said, I can’t say that it’s a liturgical abuse in the technical sense to do this, but I can say that it’s Bad Liturgy, and thus it’s one of my liturgical pet peeves.
What are some of yours?
Over on Facebook, a reader writes:
Mr. Akin, could you possibly post "Abba" in Aramaic fully pointed. Why is the Beta repeated?~Thanks again
First let's look at "Abba" in Greek, which is displays the issue that the reader is wondering about. Here is how the word appears in Greek (cf. Mark 14:36 in a typical Greek New Testament):
As you can see, the term is spelled alpha-beta-beta-alpha. The reader asks why the beta is repeated, and the answer is that this is how they said it, with a reduplicated "b" sound separating the two vowel sounds. The Greek is giving us a fuller phonetic explanation of the word (how it sounds)–at least in this respect. (The Greek, like the English, does not record the invisible consonant on the front of the word.)
Now here's how the same word looks in Hebrew/Aramaic block script (which is a stylized form of the Aramaic alphabet, though it is most familiar to us as the script used to write modern Hebrew):
It's spelled aleph-beth-aleph, which prompts the reader's question: Why only one letter corresponding to "b" in this version?
The answer is that the original Semitic scripts were unpointed, meaning that they only included consonants (aleph is a consonant, believe it or not, though it later came to serve as a kind of vowel marker, making it a mater lectionis). Also, because of the way syllabification works in Semitic languages, their scripts often do not (or in unpointed versions do not) mark reduplicated consonants.
Thus even though you said the word "ABBA," you'd spell it "ABA." In an unpointed script, if you spelled it "ABBA" then the second "B" would suggest an extra syllable: "a-ba-ba" or something like that.
This reflects a fact that is also true of English (and even moreso French!): the script for the language is not fully phonetic. It is assumed that you already know the words you are reading and just need enough visual information to help you identify the word. You don't need how it's actually said spelled out in detail. That's what allowed the ancient Semites to get away without using VWLS N TH FRST PLC.
Eventually, they did come up with ways of indicating vowels–and other things–using a system of "points," which are small marks placed above, below, or within the letters. In the block script version of the word above, the marks under the first two letters (reading from right-to-left) are vowels–two different versions of the "a" sound.
The dot in the middle of the middle letter (beth), however, is not a vowel. It's a mark known as a dagesh forte (borrowing from Latin, meaning a "strong" dagesh). The dagesh forte (also called a dagesh hazak) tells you "double this consonant."
Thus even if you don't know the word "Abba," you could figure out how to say it using the modern, pointed version, because the dagesh forte tells you to say it "ABBA" rather than "ABA."
There are a variety of other Aramaic scripts that the word can be written in, and they have their own unique pointing rules, but the same basic issue applies.
Hope this clarifies the case of the missing "B"!
Parts in This Series: One (Celibacy in General) | Two (Cutie’s Options)
As of Tuesday (January 4th), Fr. Albert Cutié‘s book DILEMMA: A Priest’s Struggle With Faith and Love is supposed to be out. I have not yet seen a copy, but I have seen the press release that was sent around last week in anticipation of the book’s release. To lay the groundwork for the story, I’ve done two posts—the first giving the background to the Catholic Church’s discipline of celibacy in its Latin rite and the second explaining the options Fr. Cutie had when he began to be attracted and then involved with Ruhama Buni Canellis, a divorced mother who he began a romantic relationship with while still a Catholic priest.
The Spanish-language press discovered the relationship and took pictures of the two having romantic frolics on beaches and in clearly inappropriate situations, such as Buni Canellis romantically wrapping her legs around Fr. Cutie and Fr. Cutie putting his hands down her swimsuit to fondle her behind.
When the pictures were published, Cutie requested a leave of absence from the Archdiocese of Miami. In an interview that same month (May 2009) he said he respected the Latin Church’s discipline of celibacy and did not want to become the “anti-celibacy priest.”
By the end of the month, Fr. Cutie defected from the Catholic Church and joined the Episcopal Church, where he was assigned pastoral duties at a local Episcopal parish. The following month (June 2009) he attempted marriage with Buni Canellis in an Episcopalian ceremony. (Note: Because of his canonical situation, this marriage is not valid, meaning that the two are objectively living in sin.) The two have subsequently had a child.
Fr. Cutie has apparently changed his mind about not wanting to become the “anti-celibacy priest,” if the press release to it is any guide.
The press release was send with a cover e-mail by Barbara Teszler, of Levine Communications Office, Inc., a public relations firm.
Let’s look at it an note [in parentheses] some of the themes it contains (we’ll skip the hackneyed cliches it’s also stuffed full of).
Here is how her letter begins:
The man the media turned into a living [NAME], when the paparazzi “caught” [theme:Cutie as victim] Father Cutié embracing the love of his life in a romantic moment on the beach [theme:Cutie as victim; how could anybody stand up to his emotions regarding “the love of his life”?], it sparked an explosive media scandal – the culmination of a private struggle [theme:Cutie as victim] that had been burdening him [theme:Cutie as victim] for years. He could live the lie no longer[theme:Cutie as victim]: his private agony [theme:Cutie as victim]was now national news.scarlet letter
[theme:Cutie as victim]
Resolving that a pure hand needs no glove to cover it [theme:Cutie as forthright, honest man—wow is the glove statement audacious and bizarre], Father Cutié decided to take a leave from the Church [theme:Cutie as forthright, honest man; this is also spin since Cutie requested a leave of absence; he didn’t just decide to “take a leave”]. Many backs were consequently turned on him for good [theme:Cutie as victim; he apparently determined that these backs were turned “for good” rather quickly since he left the Church in under a month] – this, in the face of all the scandals kept quiet on the inside of the institution [theme:Cutie as victim; the Church is picking on him but not others].
His crime?
Falling in love. [theme:Cutie as victim; nobody should suffer for the “crime” of falling in love; two notes: (1) this is just too hackneyed a cliche to go by without comment, and (2) “falling in love” with someone you cannot legitimately pursue romantically is a “crime” in the sense of being immoral and gravely sinful; it is indeed a “crime” for a husband to “fall in love” with someone other than his wife or for an adult to “fall in love” with a small child or for a priest to “fall in love” with anybody except in some kind of spiritual, non-romantic, non-sexual way.]
As Father Cutié began the long, uphill battle ahead [theme:Cutie as victim]– one that continues today [theme:Cutie as victim]– it became increasingly clear that far bigger questions were now at hand.[theme:Cutie as forthright, honest man]
Ever adamant about his devotion and love for God,[theme:Cutie as forthright, honeset man] and now an Episcopal priest, Father Cutié’s actions reignite a debate that may very well never be laid to rest[theme:Cutie as forthright, honest man]: must Catholic priests be denied the right to physically express their love[theme:Cuties as victim & as forthright, honest man]?
Father Cutié’s DILEMMA: A Priest’s Struggle with Faith and Love [theme:Cutie as victim & as forthright, honest man]takes you through the life of a man torn between his devotion to the Church [theme:Cutie as forthright, honest man] and the passions and convictions of his own heart [theme:Cutie as forthright, honest man], as well as eloquently raising questions about the origins of the promise of celibacy, its logical fallacy,[Huh?] and the various reasons for abolishing it as a requirement for priesthood.[theme:Cutie as forthright, honest man]
I implore you to get in touch about featuring the very compelling and personable Father Cutié [theme:Cutie as forthright, honest man]to see if he won’t shake your notions on religion. I’ve included more info below.
All the best,
Barbara Teszler
Account Executive
Levine Communications Office, Inc.
1180 S. Beverly Drive, 3rd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90035
E. BTeszler@LCOonline.com
T: 310.300.0950 x 239
F. 310.300.0951
www.LCOonline.com
www.twitter.com/LCOonline
Passion. Focus. Results. Since 1983.
www.LBNElert.com
LCO is the winner of the Bulldog Award for Excellence in Media Relations and Publicity
2010 Arts & Entertainment Campaign of the Year
Of course, public relations firms are paid to present their clients in a good light and to write prose compelling enough to generate positive PR. That means some degree of hyperbole is inevitable. But if you look past Teszler’s writing style, it’s startling the number of times that Cutie is portrayed as a victim and as a forthright, honest man. There is no sense of personal culpability or responsibility. He’s an innocent saint who is being mercilessly victimized, the way this press release reads. His book may portray a different picture, but frankly, if I’d messed up the way Fr. Cutie did, I’d be ashamedto have my story represented with this kind of smug sanctimoniousness. Instead, I’d wan’t a far more humble tone about a gripping story of broken humanity, the desperate search for solutions, and honest questions for the benefit of others in the future. But we get none of that here. Nor do we get it in the accompanying press release that Teszler sent:
His love life became international news. Now Father Albert Cutié tells his side of the story: On falling in love, continuing priestly ministry outside the Roman Catholic Church, and becoming a father. “As a Roman Catholic priest, I was forced to decide between a supernatural love—in a ministry serving the Lord—and natural love—in a forbidden relationship with a woman. Both were blessings given to me by the same God, the source of all love. This was my dilemma.”—Father Albert Cutie [Sorry, but no. God did not put Fr. Cutie in this dilemma. Don’t blame God. And don’t refer to an illicit relationship with a woman as a “gift” from God.]In 1995, Alberto Cutie was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of Miami. Years later, he was the internationally known host of a number of television programs, bestselling author of Real Life, Real Love [How ironic is that title, in hindsight?], and immensely popular figure known for his compassion and kind image. He was so beloved that he’d even come to be known as “Father Oprah.” He thrilled at spreading God’s word and never tired of the solace and comfort he brought to his congregation and his audience. But he was also chafing under a Church system that, he believes, too often treats priests inhumanely, denying them the chance to lead happy, fulfilling lives. Father Albert was facing a dilemma.
The celibate Roman Catholic priest had fallen in love and had gone through an ideological evolution on several controversial church policies.[As often happens when people seek to rationalize personal sin; they start rejecting the intellectual premises that require it to be sinful; homosexuals reject the obvious procreative aspect of sex in favor of homosexual acts; pedophiles reject the same in favor of sexual acts with children; husbands and wives reject the principle of fidelity so that they can cheat on their spouses; it’s quite common for people to subject their principles to their lusts rather than the other way around.]
DILEMMA: A Priest’s Struggle With Faith and Love (Celebra Hardcover; January 4, 2011; $25.95) is Father Albert Cutié’s personal hard-hitting indictment of the Roman Catholic Church [emphasis added; if the book is, indeed a “hard-hitting indictment” then he obviously has changed his mind about wanting to be the “anti-celibacy priest”], an institution he identifies as being stuck in the past, and often inhumane. Cutié relates his story of being cast out of the Church for the sin of falling in love with a woman [this is flat-out false; Fr. Cutie was not “cast out of the Church”; the Catholic Church has no procedures for casting out members; not even excommunication does that; Fr. Cutie voluntarily left the Church; his status as an Episcopalian is entirely his choice], and his no-holds-barred treatment of the Church’s rules will raise eyebrows and spark debate.[So, like, more on that whole, “I now want to be the anti-celibacy priest” thing]
When paparazzi captured Father Cutié and his then girlfriend (now his wife) in a romantic moment on the beach, it was the start of an explosive media scandal, but the culmination of a private struggle that he had been living with for years. He had made a promise of celibacy with every intention of keeping it for life– but how could he ignore true, earthly love, a love that God himself had put in front of him?[GAH! Please do not blaspheme God in this way!] And why would the Church, which had turned a blind eye to years of abusive, promiscuous and criminal behavior on the part of so many priests,[This indictment is in significant measure inaccurate; to the extent it is accurate, the Church has experienced a major shift for the better on this point; “All the other kids have been able to have illicit sex, so why can’t I?” is not a good defense; using the crimes of pedophiles to cover your own illicit sex is a cynical, manipulative, and degrading move] take such a hard line on this issue [Dude, what on earth did you expect?] and react so negatively toward the announcement by the popular priest to realize his dream of continuing priestly ministry as a married man and having a family?[What “announcement” are we talking about? “I’m ditching the Church to become an Episcopalian?” What was the negative reaction? “We regret Fr. Cutie’s decision?” Have officials of the Catholic Church said anything intemperate at all in this matter?]
In DILEMMA, Father Cutié opens up about answering the call to become a priest as a young man and falling in love with priesthood; the television and radio shows that made him famous and loved around the world; becoming “Father Oprah” and the immense joy he finds in spreading God’s word and comfort. But he also discusses feeling abandoned, neglected and overworked by absent Church leaders; the outdated, bigoted and hypocritical actions and beliefs of the Church; the open secret that many priests carry on love affairs – both gay and straight – and even have children; and the remarkable way the Church cast one of their own aside.[Dude, you left] He also eloquently illuminates the origins of the promise of celibacy, its logical fallacy,[Huh?] and the many reasons for abolishing it as a requirement for priesthood.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Father Albert Cutié has had the special privilege of entering millions of homes throughout the world with his television and radio talk shows, as well as his newspaper advice columns. He was the first priest to host a daily “talk-show” [Why does “talk show” need scare quotes?] as part of a major network on national and international secular television. His first self-help book, Real Life, Real Love was published by Penguin and became a best-seller in Spanish. He is now a married priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida. Visit his website at: www.fralbert.com.
# # #
DILEMMA A Priest’s Struggle With Faith and Love By Father Albert Cutié Celebra Hardcover; On-sale: January 4, 2011 $25.95; ISBN: 978-0-451-23201-4
Penguin Group (USA) Inc. is the U.S. member of the internationally renowned Penguin Group. Penguin Group (USA) is one of the leading U.S. adult and children’s trade book publishers, owning a wide range of imprints and trademarks, including Berkley Books, Dutton, Frederick Warne, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, Grosset & Dunlap, New American Library, Penguin, Philomel, Riverhead Books and Viking, among others. The Penguin Group is part of Pearson plc, the international media company.
Obviously, much more could be said. But let’s pray for Fr. Cutie, for his civil law wife, his child and step-child, and for all who may be led astray by the scandal (in the theological sense: an example that encourages others to fall into sin) whose flames he and his press agency is so anxiously fanning. What do you think?
GET THE BOOK! (REGULAR | AUTOGRAPHED w/BONUS INTERVIEW)
In our previous post, we looked at the situation regarding Fr. Albert Cutié, who has written a self-justifying book regarding the scandal he created by having an inappropriate romantic (and presumably sexual) relationship with a woman and, when this relationship was revealed through the press, abandoned his role as a Catholic priest, joined the Episcopalian church, and civilly married the woman, by whom he has subsequently fathered a child.
The previous post looked at the Catholic Church’s general discipline of celibacy (remaining unmarried) for the priests of the Latin Church that exists within it (the celibacy requirement operates differently in many of the Eastern Catholic churches also in union with the pope). In this post we will look at the options that were open to Fr. Cutie at different stages of events and the choices he made.
We will begin with the stage where he first began to be attracted to Ruhama Buni Canellis, the divorced woman with whom he eventually attempted civil marriage. What options did he have at this stage?
1) Just Say No.
This was the only morally legitimate option open to Fr. Cutie upon the onset of attraction to Buni Canellis. We do not know at this point in time (though his forthcoming book may reveal more about the matter) whether she first pursued him or he first pursued her or whether they simultaneously began pursuing each other, but Fr. Cutie had an obligation to neither make amorous advances toward her nor to respond to amorous advances on her part.
As part of the rite of ordination, Fr. Cutie had freely assumed the obligation to remain celibate (unmarried) and thus, via the virtue of chastity (behaving in a sexually appropriate manner) to remain continent (not have sex). This obligation is further canonically specified by Canon 277 §1 of the Code of Canon Law, which states:
Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.
Basic principles of moral theology also require that if one is not a potential, legitimate sexual partner (i.e., spouse) for another person, one also must not engage in behavior oriented toward generating romance, fostering sexual temptation, and raising hopes of a union with that person that one is not free to contract. Consequently, §2 of Canon 277 also specifies:
Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful.
As was documented in part one of this series, Fr. Cutie was caught on film allowing Buni Canellis to amorously wrap her legs around him and also putting his own hand down Buni Canellis’ swimsuit to fondle her behind. Both of these actions were clear violations of his moral and canonical obligations, as discussed above.
While becoming ordained is not in every respect the same as becoming married, both involve the free assumption of a state of life that involves a sacred commitment regarding sexual matters. In the case of ordination, one makes a sacred commitment that one will not pursue sexual or romantic relationships with anyone, while in the case of matrimony one makes a sacred commitment that one will not pursue sexual or romantic relationships with anyone but one’s spouse. Fr. Cutie’s violation of this sacred commitment is thus analogous to a husband’s pursuit of a sexual or romantic relationship with someone who is not his wife. It counts as the violation of a grave obligation, freely undertaken (canon law is explicit that both ordination and matrimony must be freely chosen commitments), and in this regard it is thus analogous to “cheating” on one’s spouse.
There are also serious moral and canonical questions to be raised regarding the abuse of Fr. Cutie’s spiritual office as a priest in this regard.
In the realm of moral theology, it is gravely sinful for a priest in particular to cooperate with another person in sexual sin, particularly if that person is one of the souls entrusted to his spiritual care, but also in regard to anyone in general. The priest by virtue of his ordination has a sacred position that elevates him above the ordinary faithful in a way paralleling Jesus’ words:
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come! (Matthew 18:6-7).
On the canonical side, the Church is quite concerned that its ministers not abuse their sacred office by using it for purposes of seduction, or even for the willing subversion of another’s soul. This is illustrated by the canonical penalties to which a priest is subject if he solicits a sexual sin in conjunction with the sacrament of confession or if he sacramentally absolves one who is his accomplice in sexual sin, both of which are regarded by the Holy See as graviora delicta (Latin, “graver offenses”) that are reserved to the competence of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome to deal with (cf. this resource).
We do not know at this point, and may never know, whether Fr. Cutie committed either of these offenses specifically, but the two illustrate the Holy See’s concern that priests not abuse their sacred office toward sexual ends.
Given that Fr. Cutie failed to exercise the morally legitimate option to “just say no” to the attraction he was feeling toward Buni Canellis (and please note: feeling attraction is not a sin; the question is how one chooses to deal with it) and dug himself in this deep, what further options were open to him? The morally legitimate one was . . .
2) Repent
Having cooperated with his own fall into sexual sin, as well as that of Buni Canellis, what should Fr. Cutie have done at some point—either when the press publicized his relationship or before or after this point?
An obvious solution would have been to repent—which is what we all need to do when we have fallen into sin, whether sexual or otherwise. Such an action is required by the terms of the gospel:
Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news [gospel] of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:14b).
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
A clear and obvious way in which his act of repentance could have been expressed would be to break off his romantic (and possibly sexual) relationship with Buni Canellis.
Given that the matter had now been made public, there would remain questions regarding his ability to function as a priest. He certainly would have had to accept a lesser role, certainly retiring from the high-profile work he had been doing on radio and television, and quite likely retiring from any exercise of priestly ministry apart from certainly highly specialized cases (e.g., hearing the confession of a person about to die).
Even if the matter had not become public at the time of his repentance, however, there would be various factors that could make the exercise of ministry doubtful—e.g., if Buni Canellis would not accept his decision and threatened to expose him to the press.
We do not know, and likely will never know, whether that would have been the case, but a simple “call off the affair” course of action may have been difficult for any number of reasons, including Cutie’s emotionally attachment to Buni Cannelis and commitments he may have made to her regarding their future. In that case, what options would be open to him? The obvious one would be . . .
3) Pursue Laicization
While the Church recognizes the sacred commitment that is entailed through ordination to the priesthood, it also recognizes that the ordained may be or become unsuitable for the role of priest.
In other words: There can be mistakes. Sometimes a man may be ordained to the priesthood who is not truly suitable for it. Alternately, a man can through his actions make himself unsuitable for priestly ministry. It could be the case that Fr. Cutie was unsuitable from the beginning for priestly ministry or that, though his actions, he had made himself such.
In such cases, the remedy that canon law provides is a procedure known as “laicization” or, more technically “loss of the clerical state.” This does not (automatically) mean that his ordination was invalid, but it does mean that—in the cases of a valid ordination—a laicized priest apart from certain carefully subscribed situations (e.g., hearing the confession of a dying person), is returned to the lay state such that he is prohibited from exercising his faculties as a priest. It also can (but does not always) involve release from the obligation of celibacy. (See this part of the Code for more on the loss of the clerical state in general.)
After reflection on his situation, Fr. Cutie thus could have deemed that he was unsuitable for priestly ministry from the beginning and pursued laicization. He also may have (with a very high degree of plausibility) thought that his actions with regard to Buni Canellis had made him unsuitable for it and pursued laicization on those grounds, including an appeal to the Holy See to allow him to be released from the obligation of celibacy so that he could marry Buni Canellis in view of the emotional/other attachments and obligations he felt existed between them.
Such a path would not have resulted in an instantaneous way of rectifying their situation, or an easy and quick means of resolving the situation (such decisions are left to the discretion of the Holy See), but pursuing this path could represent a fundamental act of repentance and an intention to “make things right.”
Regrettably, Fr. Cutie did not choose even this path. Instead, according to Wikipedia:
By the end of [May, 2009] Cutié announced that he had been in the process of discerning entering The Episcopal Church for the last couple of years, which in turn helped him consolidate marriage and his calling to serve God.
Father Alberto Cutié was received into the Episcopal Church on May 28, 2009, by the Rt. Rev. Leo Frade, the Cuban-born bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida, and became the administrator and pastoral minister of the Episcopal Church of the Resurrection in Biscayne Park, Miami, where he was licensed as a pastoral assistant. He was subsequently received as an Episcopal priest and instituted as priest-in-charge of the congregation on May 29, 2010.
On June 26, 2009, Cutié and Ruhama Buni Canellis married in a church ceremony at St. Bernard de Clairvaux Church in North Miami Beach. [Episcopalian] Bishop Frade officiated, assisted by the Rt. Rev. Onell Soto (retired Episcopal Bishop of Venezuela) and several other Episcopal clergy.
Cutié is presently serving as the Priest-in-Charge at the Church of the Resurrection in Biscayne Park, Florida. On November 30, 2010, Canellis gave birth to the couple’s first child, daughter Camila Victoria Cutié. Canellis has one other child from a previous marriage.
Cutie thus chose to “jump ship”—to defect from the Catholic Church and enter the Episcopalian Church, where he attempted marriage with Buni Canellis.
Was this a legitimate option for him?
On objective moral and canonical grounds, the answer is no.
While one can never judge the subjective state of a person’s heart, from the perspective of objective moral theology, the answer is no. Objectively speaking, many non-Catholic communities retain elements of the patrimony willed by Christ for his followers, but only the Catholic Church retains these elements in their fullness. While a person in good conscience may find salvation in many faith communities, to deliberately to separate oneself from the fullness of truth and grace that the Catholic Church represents is gravely sinful. As an informed Catholic to whom God would provide sufficient light and grace to retain his faith, Fr. Cutie’s abandonment of the Church represents an objectively grave situation that could only be a non-mortal sin through a lack of due knowledge or a lack of due consent.
Further, from the canonical perspective, Fr. Cutie’s situation does not mean that he is validly married to Buni Canellis. According to Canon 1087:
Those in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.
The fact that Fr. Cutie was ordained and has not—so far as we know—been laicized with the ability to contract marriage—means that his attempt to contract marriage in the Episcopalian Church is just that—an attempt, and not a successful one.
Unless there are facts regarding the case that have not yet become public, his present civil marriage to Buni Canellis is invalid and thus in the category that Jesus warned us against, telling us that divorce does not entail an automatic right to marry someone else and can, thus, lead to situations of adultery.
From what is presently publicly known (so far as I can determine), Fr. Cutie is living in an invalid marriage and thus is engaging either in objective fornication or objective adultery (given Buni Canellis’s previous marriage).
Either way, things look bad.
In this part of the series, we have looked at the options available to Fr. Cutie at different steps in his life history. In the next part we will look at the book he has chosen to write, as represented by its press release.
In the meantime, what do you think?