I am always fascinated when seemingly faithful Catholics leave the Church. I am even more fascinated – maybe amazed, stunned, or shocked are better words – when priests leave the priesthood. 

Why? 

Because I am convinced that nobody who (a) understood the Catholic Church, and (b) loved the Catholic Church has ever left it. Indeed, I don’t think anyone who understands and loves the Catholic Church COULD ever leave it. 

So, when someone leaves the Church, I want to know, as Ricky Ricardo said, “wha hoppin?” 

Over the years, I have contacted three priests who left priesthood and asked them one very simple question:  “How could you walk away from the Eucharist?”

I got three different answers:

1.  One said that he only believed in the Real Presence in the first place because the Church said he had to.  Thus, when he left to become a “non-denominational Christian” (and, by the way, get married), he felt like he no longer had to believe.  (I’m not sure how this guy got out of Seminary…)

2.  The second said he didn’t stop believing, and that he was remaining Catholic; he just had lost the calling to be a priest.  Okay, fair enough.

3.  The third is the subject of this post (which will be my longest post ever).  That priest is Alberto Cutie.  The short version of his story (in case the name does not ring a bell) is that he was a popular and handsome Catholic priest in south Florida who was often seen in the media.  He had a television show on Telemundo in which he dispensed advice.  They called him “Father Oprah.” 

In any event, in 2009, he was caught cavorting on a beach with a woman.  Long story short, he left the priesthood, married the woman, had a child, and became an Anglican.

CLICK HERE for an article from Time Magazine about him; CLICK HERE for his Wikipedia Page; and CLICK HERE for his personal website. 

Well, my fascination with Cutie led me to send him an email asking him that one question above.  Surprisingly, he was quick to respond, and we emailed back and forth over about a week. 

Below is the full and unedited exchange of every email. The only thing I have edited out is his email address and his email signature with his phone number.  He’s easy enough to find, and I encourage you to find him yourself if you want to contact him.

I think you will be very interested in his sidestepping, avoiding, and outright refusal to answer even the most simple and basic questions.  Besides his obvious communication skills, you’d think that someone with his intellect and religious education would at least understand 1 Peter 3:15 (Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence . . .)

I wish to say, up front, that, until his last email, I found Cutie to be engaging and polite, even though he couldn’t or wouldn’t stay on point.  You can see for yourself whether he is comfortable with his journey and addressing this interesting issue head on.

My emails are in red, and his are in blue.  Have fun (and please pray for Alberto Cutie)…

MY FIRST EMAIL TO HIM:

I sent the following email to you via the “Send Father Albert Your Private Message” link on your website, but I’m sending it here, because I’d really like to hear from you:

Mr. Cutie, I am a faithful Roman Catholic.  I have read about you, and I have followed your story with interest.  

If I may, I wish to ask you one very simple question. I assure you that my question is asked in good faith, SOLELY out of curiosity, and is NOT meant to provoke or insult in ANY WAY. I hope you will favor me with a response:

Simple version of the question:  How could you leave Christ in the Eucharist?

Longer version of the question: When you were a Roman Catholic, I assume that you believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? In leaving the Church, I can only think of two possibilities for a change in belief: (1) You never believed in the first place, or (2) you did believe in the first place, but then stopped believing?  Could you explain which it is, and the evolution of your thinking?

Again, I promise you that this question is one asked in love and based in mere curiosity.  I hope you will respond.

Meanwhile, I offer you love and support, and all my best wishes.

Thank you, and God bless you.

HIS FIRST RESPONSE TO ME:

On Jan 25, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Rev. Alberto Cutie wrote:

I never left Christ in the Eucharist.

Can I ask you ONE QUESTION:  Do you know what an Anglican is?  

With all due respect, I am a priest and I do not know where the Mr. Cutie comes from?  Are you referring to someone else in my family?

Peace,

Fr. Albert 

MY SECOND EMAIL TO HIM:

First, my SINCERE apologies by the “Mr.”  I meant nothing by it.  Just poor and unfortunate word usage. PLEASE FORGIVE ME. 

Second, as for the Eucharist, yes, I know that there are several different kinds of Anglicans, so to speak - high church, evangelical, continuing Anglican, low church, Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, etc. I think (although I may be wrong) that most Anglicans, for the most part, believe in consubstantiation, not transubstantiation.  I also know that there is a debate on whether Anglicans have valid holy orders.  

In any event, more to the point, and putting aside the different Anglican traditions and the validity of Anglican Holy Orders, I think your real question is: Why do I believe that you walked away from the Eucharist?  Here is my answer: 

I concede that YOU have valid holy orders and that YOU are a priest. The indelible mark never goes away.

That said, the question, in my view, is one of validity versus licitity.   The components of a valid Eucharist (as you well know) are these: valid holy orders, intention to confect, and wheat hosts and grape wine.  If all these components are present for you, then I also concede that you may have indeed performed a valid consecration.

The question, though, is whether that Eucharist is licit.  With high respect, I do not think that it is. 

I say this because, in the Catholic Church’s eyes, you have, with respect, involved yourself in some very serious sins.  For example, you were a priest who abandoned his faith, you may have committed adultery (I don’t know your wife’s marital state at all times); you may have committed fornication (again, I don’t know); and, at the very least, you were an integral part of a very public scandal.  I think that this, at the “bottom line,” calls the licitity of consecrations you do now into question.

More simply, the licitity of the act has to do with the lawfulness of the act. Under which law is your consecration now licit?  Catholic law?  Episcopal law? Some other law?

My point is, when you were a Catholic priest, your Masses were valid and licit because Catholic law said so.  Since you abandoned the Catholic Church and are no longer following Catholic Church law, by what law is your current consecration licit?  In other words, if you respected Catholic law when you were a Catholic priest, and your ministry as a Catholic priest was subject to the laws of the Catholic Church, then what changed to allow your current Mass in the Anglican Church to now be licit, as well?

Thank you VERY much for your prompt response; I didn’t expect it, but I truly appreciate it. I also pray that my words here are not taken as insulting or provocative. Email is one dimensional, and not subject to anything beyond the black and white of the computer screen.   I only wish you could see my face or hear my tone of voice so you would understand.  

God bless you, and I hope you will tell me where you think I am wrong above.  

HIS SECOND RESPONSE TO ME:

On Jan 25, 2011, at 8:24 PM, Rev. Alberto Cutie wrote:

We believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, as the apostles did and Christians for centuries before St. Thomas used Aristotelian philosophy to come up with "transubstantiation" - heavy word... Real Presence is just as good.  Jesus is there! How exactly Jesus is there is a very Roman way to defining things...

 

Peace,

Fr. Albert

MY THIRD EMAIL TO HIM:

Father, with respect, I think you either missing my point, or possibly avoiding it.  

First, we have to define terms.  Not all Anglicans believe in the “Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist” in the same way Catholics do.  Low church Anglicans tend to have an evangelical view of the Eucharist; high church anglicans are, I suppose, relatively close to the Church; others believe in consubstantiation; and still others believe it is only the “real presence” for those who receive faithfully. To my knowledge, no Anglicans hold the same view as the Catholic Church that the “real presence” means a real, true, concrete, literal change in substance. Am I wrong?

Second, regarding terms, as I understand it (and you as an Anglican now probably know more than I do), “real presence” in the Anglican sense does not mean always a change in substance.  (Aside: you did not use the words “real presence of Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity in the sacrament of the altar.”  Was this an oversight/mistake (like my use of “Mr.”), or an intentional omission designed to mask a difference?)

My point is, unless we define and agree on what the words mean, we don’t know if your “real presence” is “just as good” as, or the same as, the Catholic view of transubstantiation.  (Another aside: Methodists and other evangelicals also use the term “real presence” - do they, in your view, have the real presence in the same identical way that you do, and in the same identical way that Catholics do? If not, what is the difference, and why do they, too, use the same words?) 

Third, and finally, you seem to have missed my questions about authority. 

Fr. Cutie, I reiterate that my questions/comments are designed to understand your path.  I do NOT mean to chastise you or insult you.  I hope it is coming across that way in the one-dimensional world of email.

God bless you.

HIS THIRD RESPONSE TO ME:

On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:46 AM, Rev. Alberto Cutie wrote:

My friend, I cannot speak for ALL ANGLICANS and their faith, just like you cannot speak for ALL ROMANS... We profess the Catholic faith and celebrate the sacraments.  As a matter of fact, nobody in the Church of England went the route of the rest of the Protestant Reformation - we kept the Catholic faith alive...even after Bloody Mary killed so many who were not under the Pope.

 

I would tell you that belief in Christ in the Eucharist is an APOSTOLIC aspect of faith, handed down through the centuries. The real crime is SO MANY NON-SACRAMENTAL Christians today, brought up in our traditional churches (Roman and not) and they totally abandon the liturgy and sacraments. I dont get it!!!

 

There are two documents I want you to read... The one about MARY and the one about the EUCHARIST of the Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues...

MY FOURTH EMAIL TO HIM:

Wait, I just clicked on your links and don’t find articles on Mary or the Eucharist.  Am I missing something?  Could you please send them again?

Thanks...

HIS FOURTH RESPONSE TO ME:

On Jan 27, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Rev. Alberto Cutie wrote:

[Lengthy and rambling “cut and paste” on portions of the “Agreed Statement on Eucharistic Doctrine 1971 - Anglican - Roman Catholic Joint Preparatory Commission” are omitted here merely to save space; I hyperlinked it instead.]

 

MY FIFTH EMAIL TO HIM:

Fr., I read all the information you sent.  I was certainly familiar with the ARCIC, but your reminder made me look at it more closely than I had.  I will be brief with my comments, and then give you the two reasons we are talking past each other.

The ARCIC does not reach complete, total, and full 100% overlap of agreement between Catholics and those Anglicans involved on Eucharistic doctrine.  So, whether you, as an Anglican now, are close to the Catholic view of the Eucharist, far away from the Catholic view, or somewhere else, you are not in the exact same place as you were when you were a Catholic.  Thus, you clearly walked away from something, and now enjoy something different than what you once did.  If you deny this, perhaps you can just tell me, without beating around the bush (grin), how you now enjoy - completely and totally - the EXACT same Eucharist as an Anglican that you did as a Catholic?

The reason we are talking past each other is two-fold.  First, you have not answered any of my questions (e.g., the very simple ones about authority), except with another question or a link to something without explanation.  Second, it appears rather obvious, with respect, that you are having trouble acknowledging that you did walk away from something.  I understand that - I could never walk away from the Eucharist.  

In any event, let me try one more time to try to get a simple answer to a simple question:  You once believed that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.  (Assuming, of course, that you believed in the truth of the CCC, beginning at Article 846.)  Do you still believe that, or do you no longer believe that?  This is a binary question - “yes” or “no,” unless, of course, you never believed it in the first place, which, again, I assume is not the case.  

God bless you...

HIS FIFTH RESPONE TO ME:

On Jan 30, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Rev. Alberto Cutie wrote:

nothing is 100%... Not even the Pope's own commitment to celibacy.  Have you watched the news where he signed a letter requesting OPTIONAL CELIBACY 41 YEARS AGO...?  Let's be honest...

MY SIXTH EMAIL TO HIM:

Father, your statement that “nothing is 100%” is just plain wrong.  In fact, many things are 100%.  If we’re talking about faith, 100% of all abortions are wrong; adultery is wrong 100% of the time; and worshipping something other than God is wrong 100% of the time.  If we’re talking about things other than faith, the same is true.  There is a 100% chance that I will not meet President Abraham Lincoln tomorrow; the sun rises in the east 100% of the time; and if I get hit by a train and get decapitated, there is a 100% chance that I will die.  Oh, and, yes, I am quite familiar with the custom of celibacy.  

But, my friend, abortion and celibacy are not the issue, and you have still not answered a single one of my questions.  You have, though, by claiming that “nothing is 100%,” unwittingly admitted that you do know that you did, indeed, walk away from something in the Eucharist when you rejected the Catholic Church.  

Father, it is, again, rather obvious that you would prefer not to answer even one of my simple questions, I assume because doing so would cause you to admit things that, deep down, make you uncomfortable.  So, instead, you try to misdirect me away from my questions and make unrelated rationalizations to support your decision to leave Christ’s church behind.  I understand that you chose the flesh over your vows; like everyone else, I suppose that you have the right to do that.  Now, what the consequence is for this behavior, I have no idea.  I do know, though, that Luke 12:48 is true.  

If you ever become comfortable answering any (or even just one) of my questions, I would, very much, like to hear your thinking. 

Be well...

HIS SIXTH RESPONE TO ME:

On Jan 31, 2011, at 7:49 AM, Rev. Alberto Cutie wrote:

Chris... I lived in that world before. I no longer believe in BLACK AND WHITE answers to complicated questions.  That is where we must AGREE TO DISAGREE.

Those who cannot live with ambiguity, cannot be Anglicans.

God bless you,

Fr. Albert

MY SEVENTH EMAIL TO HIM:

Father, I love you and I am praying for you.  Among other things, I am praying that you will see, or at least admit, that you do still live in a 100% world.  It’s just that the things that are 100% for you now, are different than the things that used to be 100% for you when you were a Catholic. Denying this, and claiming that “Those who cannot live with ambiguity, cannot be Anglicans,” is, frankly, disingenuous.  You, my friend, have not made a name for yourself by being ambiguous or disingenuous. 

Here are just a few 100%, “black and white,” non-ambiguous Anglican statements or positions taken directly from the links you provided:

1.  “Episcopalians invite all baptized people to receive Holy Communion.”  Is this optional? 

2.  “The Sacred Scriptures (Bible) as contained in the Old and New Testaments are our guide.”  So, you don’t use the Book of Mormon as your guide?  

3.  “ Sunday is the Lord's Day.”  What if I want to be Anglican and I insist that the Lord’s Day is Thursday. Can I do that?

4.  “The Churches of the Anglican Communion are . . .  in full communion with the See of Canterbury.”  So, it’s not “partial communion” or “ambiguous communion.”

5.  “In the Episcopal Church at least one of the parties must be a baptized Christian.”  Is this optional?

6.  “When you come to us for The Service of Holy Matrimony, which is one of the seven sacraments . . .”  What if I want to be Anglican and I insist that there are only two sacraments. Can I do that?    

7.  “Our Episcopal canons (governing laws) require that any couple being married by an Episcopal priest must undergo pre-marital counseling.”  So, pre-marital counseling is not optional?  

Please don’t misunderstand my use of these seven statements/examples.  It is perfectly fine with me if you want to believe them.  My point is that you should not claim that “Those who cannot live with ambiguity, cannot be Anglicans” when, in fact, it’s not true.  In fact, Anglicans do have many 100%, black and white, and non-ambiguous beliefs.  Claiming something other than the truth at the very least dilutes your message, and, at the very most, kills your message.  You see, Jesus wants both feet in the boat - not one foot on the land and one in the boat.

Father, I doubt that you will respond to this because, again, you seem intent on intentionally avoiding my questions and talking past me instead of with me.  I have directly answered every single question you have asked me. You have not done so in return.  So, again, I can only conclude that you are uncomfortable answering my questions.  Indeed, I can certainly understand how justifying your decision to leave the Catholic Church behind, under the circumstances, would be difficult and uncomfortable, if not impossible. 

In closing, perhaps the best, easiest, and most truthful answer you could have given me at the start, or at any time since, would be, “Chris, look, I left the Catholic Church behind because I no longer believe that the fullness of Christ’s truth is found there, and I was wrong to have believed that for so long.”  At least that is an answer that would not be ambiguous, confusing, or disingenuous.   

Again, please know that my family and I are praying for you.

HIS SEVENTH RESPONSE TO ME:

On Jan 31, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Rev. Alberto Cutie wrote:

Im talking about THEOLOGY not pastoral practice.  Thanks again Chris... Your prayers are very much appreciated.  Peace, Fr. AC

MY EIGHTH EMAIL TO HIM:

Wow, your lightning fast responses are truly impressive. 

I, too, am talking about theology, not pastoral practice.  For example, I brought up the Eucharist, abortion, adultery, and worship of something other than God. These are theological issues.  In response, you brought up celibacy, which, using your words, I assume to be a “pastoral practice” (i.e., a custom rather than a dogma).  Maybe I’m missing something...

Please pray for me, too...

HIS EIGHTH RESPONSE TO ME:

On Jan 31, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Rev. Alberto Cutie wrote:

Chris says, "I am a faithful Roman Catholic and I am proudly anti-abortion. My website therefore has two main goals, plus a third related goal"

•First, to present the truth of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.  (Is this a different truth from the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Don't you think people need to know Jesus before they know the Church?)

•Second, to present the truth about abortion. (Abortion is evil, but don't you know how many babies have been aborted in convents and by priests throughout history to hide promiscuous lives? Are you aware that "pro-life" people are getting a bad rap, not for what they defend, but the way they go about defending it? There is a better way to present ALL POSITIONS, with love and respect for all.)

•Third, to share my personal views on today’s society.  (This is HONORABLE AND GOOD... Sharing your personal thoughts is fine, but please do it in a way that demonstrates you can also try to see things a LITTLE BIT, from another perspective... not just yours.) 

In Christ,

Father Albert

MY NINTH EMAIL TO HIM:

Hey, wait just a second - I didn’t say that you could go to my website!!  That’s not fair!!  (grin)

Seriously, answering your questions in order:

1.  “Is this a different truth from the Gospel of Jesus Christ?”   From a Catholic standpoint, no.  From a non-Catholic Christian standpoint, yes.  

“Don't you think people need to know Jesus before they know the Church?”  Assuming I am reading your words the way you intend them to read, yes, I think people need to know Jesus first, but then they will learn that Jesus left us a Church (not a book), and that Jesus’ Church is the Holy Roman Catholic Church. 

2.  “Don't you know how many babies have been aborted in convents and by priests throughout history to hide promiscuous lives?”  I’ve heard this alleged before, but I have no personal or first hand knowledge of it.  (I’ve also heard the Congo Nun story.)  But, I don’t find unsupported rumor to be helpful; I only believe things that I can investigate and prove true for myself.  But, assuming for argument’s sake that priests and nuns and others have, in fact, had abortions to cover for promiscuous lives, then all I can say is, there is a consequence for that. I don’t know what the consequence is - I am not God - but I do know that there is a consequence. 

“Are you aware that "pro-life" people are getting a bad rap, not for what they defend, but the way they go about defending it?”  Yes, I am well aware of this, but the media never lets the truth get in the way of a good agenda.  CLICK HERE for just one example.

“There is a better way to present ALL POSITIONS, with love and respect for all.”  Generally, I agree with this.  In fact, I refer to 1 Peter 3:15 on my website in several places, and I hope that I have been cordial to you.  At the same time, I am not sure how to defend, say, NAMBLA with love and respect.  Do you?

Also, generally on abortion, I don’t know how much of my website you read, but I have a personal stake in this issue, having killed two of my own kids before I knew the truth. CLICK HERE.   

3.  “Sharing your personal thoughts is fine, but please do it in a way that demonstrates you can also try to see things a LITTLE BIT, from another perspective... not just yours.”  Generally, I agree with this. But, again, just as one example, there is no way that I will ever see NAMBLA from another perspective, save to conclude that the NAMBLA crowd is lost and needs help. I also doubt that I will ever see the other side of the abortion debate with any perspective other than my own.   

Further, while I am pretty smart and a decent writer (not trying to be immodest), I am not Shakespeare and I am not perfect on everything.  It is true that I have, at times, written something improvident, or that I might like to change.  For example, CLICK HERE and HERE.  What I am perfect on, however, is my own opinion.  I know with 100% certainty (darn, there’s that “100%” again!) that my opinion is my opinion. I am, truly, open to hearing the other side on anything. But, like the congo nun story alluded to above, I just ask that other side support its opinions with reason.

I hope this make sense?

P.S. Can we at least agree that I have answered all of your questions and inquiries directly?  I hope so...

HIS NINTH RESPONSE TO ME:

On Jan 31, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Rev. Alberto Cutie wrote:

Why was this hidden for so long?

HIDDEN LETTER FOR 41 YEARS...

Benedict XVI had doubts about celibacy

Pope Benedict XVI had doubts about the sense of maintaining the rule of priestly celibacy as a young professor of theology in Germany.  This is indicated by a document, which until now had remained unpublished and published by the magazine ‘Pipeline’, mouthpiece of the Circle of Action of Regensburg (AKR)-group of Catholic critics than it does today echo the newspaper “Suddeutsche Zeitung.

Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, appears among the signatories of that document, dated February 9, 1970 and sent to the German bishops’ conference.  A draft document was on file with the theologian Karl Rahner, one of the signatories, and his former colleague made it available for AKR.

“Our reflections suggest the need for an urgent review and differential treatment of the rule of celibacy for the German church and the universal church,” says the document whose signatories are, in addition to Ratzinger, people like Karl Lehman, later Cardinal and president of the German Bishops Conference, and Walter Kasper, now cardinal in the Roman curia.

Ratzinger and other theologians expressed concern that the celibacy rule not only lead to a shortage of candidates for the priesthood but also to a decrease in the talent of those who choose the priesthood. Theologians point to the difficulty of celibacy in the world today.  On the one hand, living alone often leads to loss of recognition of the priests in their communities. Furthermore, thepractice of sexual continence in a world of erotic stimuli becomes increasingly difficult.

The document warns that if the issue of celibacy is not discussed at the highest level, sooner or later it will be discussed at a lower level, and express their fears about a loss of authority of bishops and a mass defection of priests.  The document recalls that celibacy is not dogma, and says that if you can not recruit enough young priests then the Church is bound to change.

MY TENTH EMAIL TO HIM:

You ask, “Why was this hidden for so long?”  My answer is: I have no idea.

I’m sure, though, that this is not really your point.  So, I’ll suggest what I think may be your point: “How can the Catholic Church be the repository of all truth if the Pope himself, 41 years ago, expressed concern about priestly celibacy?”  Is this really your point?

Assuming it is, the asking of the question evidences a misunderstanding of the concept of papal infallibility.  Only the pope is infallible.  Infallibility does not include the Pope’s personal beliefs, or the Pope’s teachings before he became pope - it is not retroactive. The pope is also not impeccable - only Jesus was impeccable.  Priests, bishops, deacons, and, yes, even the Pope himself can be wrong from time to time.  

So, all I think about this article is that, at a certain point in 1970, Joseph Ratzinger was wrong.  

If I have missed your point, or if you have a different question about this, please tell me what it is, and I’ll endeavor to respond.

Meanwhile, I will certainly admit that Chris Aubert has, on occasion, not understood Church teaching fully.  

Will you admit the same thing?

HIS TENTH RESPONSE TO ME:

On Jan 31, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Rev. Alberto Cutie wrote:

no... you dont get it.  It is all about the Church's image.  There is a culture of secrecy....

MY ELEVENTH EMAIL TO HIM:

Oh, okay - secrecy was your point.  Sorry for having missed it.

Here are my thoughts on secrecy.

1.  Just because a document is not released does not mean that the reason is, “Hey, that’s secret - hide it behind that cabinet, we don’t want anyone to see it!!!” is the reason.

2.  Even if that were the reason, I’d still say “So what?”  The Catholic Church is either the Church Jesus started, or it’s not.  That some people IN the Church - some Catholics - might be secretive or fallible or evil or wrong doesn’t change the truth that the Church was started by Jesus Christ.  Remember, the Church is a “hospital for sinners, not a museum of saints.”

3.  EVERYONE is secretive to one degree or another.  Two examples:  First, YOU were secretive, right? Does that change the truth of the Catholic Church?  No, it makes you a sinner, like everyone else.  Second, the Anglicans were secretive HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE, just as four examples of many.  Does that mean that, therefore, the Anglican Church is a sham?

Now, if “the Church’s image” is another point, then I think we can agree that the Anglican Church’s image is far from perfect: click HERE, HERE, and HERE, just for three examples.

Was there another point besides secrecy and image that you wanted me to address?

HIS ELEVENTH RESPONSE TO ME:

On Jan 31, 2011, at 4:36 PM, Rev. Alberto Cutie wrote:

Ever heard of EMAIL ABUSE? 

Nobody is speaking of Anglicans being perfect - FAR FROM IT - but talk about all our garbage openly...

A good, profound and objective study of Church History will demonstrate that what is TODAY CALLED the Roman Catholic Church is not what Jesus was thinking when he brought his disciples together... Again, GO BACK AND READ THE GOSPELS. 

Peace Chris...

Fr. Albert

MY TWELFTH (AND LAST) EMAIL TO HIM:

I slept on your last email yesterday because, quite honestly, I was taken aback at what you wrote and how you wrote it.  Since I have apparently angered you - this was NEVER my intent - and, also, it appears that you will not answer any of my questions, I will leave you with some concluding thoughts in this final email.  If you wish the “last word” in response, I will be happy to read it. But, I will not respond unless you ask me to. Here goes...

I am sorry you think I abused you with email, made you angry, or responded to your statements or questions in a way that you didn’t like. In truth, I have simply been responding to your emails as well as I could, and addressing your attacks against the Catholic Church, its history, its teachings, me, and my website.  I consider your emails fair game, since I started this discussion with you and you didn’t have to respond.  I am happy you did, though, even it if led to this unpleasant ending.  

In closing, I will leave you with two final thoughts.  

First, I assure you that I have read the gospels many times, and I am well familiar with Church history. And, I believe that Matthew 16:18 is true - the gates of hell will NEVER prevail against the Church, bad Catholics, bad Popes, and bad priests notwithstanding.   It is you, my friend, who chose to reject the Church by elevating the flesh above your priestly vows.  (This is a right you have.)  I have asked you but a very few simple questions to understand your evolutionary thinking on this, but you have sidestepped, or simply ignored, every one. (This is another right you have.)  I, on the other hand, have answered every question, inquiry, comment, and attack that you have sent me in the most gracious way I know how, given the one dimensional constraints of email. (This is a right I have.) That you don’t like, or are uncomfortable with, my answers is understandable, given the circumstances of this discussion. 

Second, and finally, the fact that you are angry now reminds me of something Whitaker Chambers (I think) said: “People don’t get angry when you tell lies about them, they get angry when you tell the truth.”

You will remain in my prayers, Father.  And I apologize for making you uncomfortable or angry. Please forgive me.

If I am ever in Miami, I will stop by and see you.  Please don’t punch me in the face if this happens.  (final grin.)