A Well Reasoned and Balanced Appraisal of the Father John Corapi Case (Catholic Caucus)

Abyssum Abyssum Invocat ^ | July 12, 2011 | John Stevens

[mlizzy]

I just don't think it is the issue now ...

However, there are still those that feel they are going to receive some sort of positive Christian message from "The Black Sheep Dog" in the future, when that's seemingly all but impossible, as he doesn't speak about Jesus too much, and he's yet to mention Mary at all.

That coupled with his odd videos and his [literally] distorted image (in his latest one) should be a "heads-up" as to what is going on, even amongst his strongest "followers."

Personally, I believe SOLT probably knows more regarding Corapi ("improper sacramental practices" for instance) and that's why they came out hard and firm with what they did report, and they only struck on these few points so as not to cause further scandal within the Church.

In other words, there's just so much a person can take, without getting sick to their stomachs ... or worse.

So it is increasingly more important to pray, pray, pray for Fr. John Corapi, but to discourage any type of positive direction toward his "Black Sheep Dog" persona, but, of course, that's just my opinion.

Crying for Corapi

[bronxville]

They’ve kept their anonymity but are clearly friends of Bill W with the exception of the third speaker:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZNUKpWfhoc

You can see how much they love him, could really help him, while at the same time take no bull.

[mlizzy]

I'm getting old myself sitetest, and had to read over Bishop Gracida's post and follow his links too, before I could figure out what he was doing, and I think Bishop Gracida himself is getting on in years, and so is not explaining his posts as well as he could.

My feeling is that SOLT had to get this news out pronto (and not wait) because they feared the fall of spiritual health amongst Corapi's wide audience, and, of course, you are correct in saying it's either one way or the other. Both Corapi and SOLT can't be telling the truth. I'm with SOLT on this one.

[bronxville]

I just checked your link to facebook. That twisted picture of him has truly pierced by heart as it looks like he’s back on drugs. He’s a very sick man. Please God and His holy mother help Fr Corapi.

[mlizzy]

Thanks bronxville ...

[sitetest]

Dear mlizzy,

“My feeling is that SOLT had to get this news out pronto (and not wait) because they feared the fall of spiritual health amongst Corapi’s wide audience,...”

I imagine that's what they told themselves, but to me, they are objectively in error.

First, although they believe they have evidence, I doubt that any members of SOLT were present for the events actually described by Fr. Corapi’s accuser. Thus, they have evidence that hasn't been defended against by the accused. Their "evidence," then, is untested. To me, the release of their judgment of guilty, in fact, the judgment itself, is rash.

Fr. Corapi seems willing to challenge these charges in a court of law, not the kangaroo court that he believes awaits him run by what he believes are his enemies in the Church. A man willing to sue for libel and slander deserves at least a fair hearing, as in the United States, it is exceedingly difficult for a public figure who is a plaintiff to prevail in such a suit.

If he drops his suit, or is unable to demonstrate the likelihood of his innocence, then things will change. If unrefutable evidence of his guilt is openly presented in an open court, then I may even come to believe that he did those things of which he is accused.

But until then, there isn't any actual evidence presented against him publicly. There are charges by someone who apparently tried to sell a Rosary on eBay for $5K, and those charges are affirmed by at least one priest.

So, it seems that at least one priest is in error. Or possibly even there is a priest who is implicated in evil.

There are reasons to think that perhaps that priest is Fr. Corapi. There are also reasons to think it is at least one priest at SOLT.

As if a misinformed or even an evil-minded priest would surprise me at this point any longer.

I'm content to let it play out quite a bit further while giving the benefit of the doubt of innocence to the accused, but not prejudging the final conclusion.

sitetest

[mlizzy]

Yes, a very sad image indeed (I was reluctant to put it up), but it's one of maybe 10 or 15 on just that one tape alone, so it doesn't seem to be much of a secret. The whole video (try stopping it periodically; you'll see) has similar images. Hopefully, someone is intervening on his behalf.

[mlizzy]

No, she was no saint, either. But Fr. at some point in time during his ministry (if you’re to believe what SOLT says), was fooling people, while taking their money and applause. She, as a prostitute, however, was just “doing her job,” but nonetheless was still a victim, as a priest should remain chaste regardless.

[sitetest]

Dear mlizzy,

“But Fr. at some point in time during his ministry (if you’re to believe what SOLT says), was fooling people, while taking their money and applause.”

Sorry, I don't believe what SOLT has said. Why should I? They've offered no evidence, only accusations dressed up as final judgments, as if the process has already been played out. You're going on SOLT’s word of their interpretation of some stuff they have that they think is evidence. Might turn out to be true. Might be a pack of lies. Until SOLT actually comes across with some ACTUAL EVIDENCE, they don't get brownie points for making accusations without evidence.

“She, as a prostitute, however, was just ‘doing her job,’ but nonetheless was still a victim, as a priest should remain chaste regardless.”

Nope. A prostitute is also obligated to be chaste. That may conflict with her current life, but she chooses to violate the moral law, too, and often not out weakness in the face of temptation (as in the case of her customer), but rather out of the desire to make money. I would say that when party entices another party to sin by appealing to his weakness, and the first party is doing it for money, the second party is more akin to being the "victim" than the first. Turning it around the way you have, the drug dealer is the victim and the drug addict is the victimizer. I don't think so.

But that's if I posit any truth to the accuser. If she is a prostitute or a former prostitute, she is likely already fairly adept at lying. Even if she is a former prostitute, it appears that she is still someone willing to do gravely evil things for money, like selling relics for $5,000.

To judge Fr. Corapi guilty is to fail to accurately assess the probable truth value of a prostitute who shows herself willing to do most anything for money, including the grave crime of simony.

My own view is that absent real evidence, to assess Fr. Corapi guilty on the word of this accuser is to “bootstrap” the allegations against him. It is almost a case of assuming the premise.

That SOLT judged him guilty, in public, without any process by which he got his chance to make his defense, indicates to me the likelihood of either very bad judgment, perhaps even morally-culpable bad judgment, on the part of SOLT, or possibly strong pressure to do evil from more powerful precincts. There are any number of statements that SOLT could have made that wouldn't have prejudged Fr. Corapi unjustly.

sitetest

[mlizzy]

I don't believe that SOLT is basing their statement solely on the words of an ex-prostitute. My guess is SOLT is protecting their additional "sources." I don't think Corapi has yet brought suit against SOLT (regarding their statement), has he?

It will take time before more of this case comes out, and SOLT felt JC's "followers" could be harmed during that window of time, which could be significant in duration. (Prayers always for Fr. John Corapi, but not for the success of "The Black Sheep Dog.")

[sitetest]

Dear mlizzy,

“I don't believe that SOLT is basing their statement solely on the words of an ex-prostitute. My guess is SOLT is protecting their additional ‘sources.’”

I'm sorry, but SOLT’s involvement here is fatally and intrinsically compromised. They started out in the role (I hope, at least) of disinterested investigator, but in their public statement have gone over to the role of aggressive prosecutor, judge and jury. They remind me of the vile creature Nifong. They are, at the very best, confused. Their opinions are not worthy of credit at this point.

When they actually show some evidence, and that evidence can be poked and prodded, examined and challenged, then the process can move forward. Until then, they appear to me to be detractors or calumniators. And to be exhibiting rash judgment.

“I don't think Corapi has yet brought suit against SOLT (regarding their statement), has he?”

Why would he? It's very unlikely that he'd prevail against them in a US court. He is a public figure. He must not only prove the allegations false, but that they were made maliciously or with reckless disregard for the truth.

In that his accuser, who claims to be a party to the deeds of which he is accused, has absolute knowledge of the truth or falsity of her claims, if he can demonstrate in court by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegations are false, then demonstrating that she knowingly made false defamatory charges is tautological, and her malice and disregard for the truth are nearly tautological, as well.

On the other hand, no one at SOLT, to my knowledge, was a direct participant in the deeds of which Fr. Corapi is accused. Thus, they don't actually have absolute knowledge of the truth or falsity of the charges. They have what they think is damning evidence. In a case against SOLT, should Fr. Corapi show the allegations likely untrue, SOLT merely needs to plead gross stupidity to successfully defend. A defense which may have the advantage of being entirely true.

If they demonstrate that it wasn't particularly unreasonable for them to believe the allegations, even if disproven, there isn't a case to be made against them.

Again, knowing the likelihood of prevailing against SOLT is slim, why would Fr. Corapi pursue them in court?

“It will take time before more of this case comes out, and SOLT felt JC’s ‘followers’ could be harmed during that window of time, which could be significant in duration.”

If I give them the benefit of the doubt, this again represents their confusion. Having “convicted” him in their own minds, they believe they now have an obligation to protect others from him. Perhaps a little humility could go a long way, and they might understand that their own allegations aren't proof. A somewhat more circumspect statement from them could have had much the same effect to warn, but wouldn't have veered off the cliff of detraction/calumny/rash judgment. If I'm not entirely willing to give them the full benefit of the doubt (and there are good reasons not to do so), then I might think that they merely wish to destroy him for the crime of defending himself against unjust charges.

sitetest

[fatima]

God bless him,he needs to be hospitalized.

[mlizzy]

God bless him,he needs to be hospitalized.

You are kind; my sentiments exactly.

[mlizzy]

I can tell by your commentary that you most probably are not one of the people that SOLT was out to warn, but if you read "The BS-Dog's" website or his facebook, you'll see there are enough (anyway) of his "followers," that are primed up and ready to follow the dog "Onward."

After reading (too many) entries (on his sites) over the course of a few days, I didn't know whether to laugh, or cry, or get drunk. Corapi is leading weak Catholics in a poor direction -- just for not being obedient alone. The rest (SOLT's statement, Fr. Joe Jenkins' posts, etc.) is all cautionary stuff, a "skull and crossbones" warning, if you will.

[annalex]

there are still those that feel they are going to receive some sort of positive Christian message from "The Black Sheep Dog" in the future, when that's seemingly all but impossible

Fighting to clear one's name is a positive Christian message. It is in fact the best message he can possibly have. We surely don't know what his sermons will be in the future. The esthetics he chose as well as his biker-priest image from before the scandal are not my preference, but matters of style should not be the subject matter today.

I believe SOLT probably knows more regarding Corapi

Possibly. You, however, are saying that not as an admission of ignorance of the facts -- as I would do -- but rather based on the public statements they already made. That is precisely the reason they made them: to encourage others to sin with them. The statements of SOLT, as Sitetest clearly explained are either detraction or calumny. It is grossly sinful to even listen to them, let alone pile innuendos on the victim.

I agree that we should pray for Fr. Corapi, the only victim I see in this. We should also pray for his tormentors, and for the sorry state of the Church in America. We should, finally, pray that the day when the Holy Inquisition sets a comprehensive review of American bishops' behavior and faithfullness. I do.

[mlizzy]

That is precisely the reason they made them: to encourage others to sin with them. The statements of SOLT, as Sitetest clearly explained are either detraction or calumny. It is grossly sinful to even listen to them, let alone pile innuendos on the victim.

We do not agree on this point, so to continue talking is pointless. Corapi is guilty regarding obedience. That's all I need to know.

[sitetest]

Dear mlizzy,

“Corapi is leading weak Catholics in a poor direction —...”

If SOLT wished to dissuade Catholics from “a poor direction,” rather than committing the objectively grave evil of detraction or calumny, and rash judgment, SOLT could well have followed the direction of Fr. Jenkins, who, while giving Fr. Corapi the benefit of the doubt on the original charges, deals with the consequences of Fr. Corapi’s subsequent actions, including, even granting the possibility of laicization, the right to ever teach or preach the Catholic faith again, at least as a faithful Catholic.

I didn't know that Fr. Jenkins was blogging. He is a friend of mine. In fact, I just returned from Mass celebrated by him followed by a related event.

He is a good, wise, and from what I can tell, holy priest. He's also smart as a whip. It would have been nice to see SOLT take his approach in their “warnings.”

In commenting about SOLT’s statement, Fr. Jenkins STILL treats Fr. Corapi’s possible guilt on the underlying charges in the conditional: “If he is guilty of such things and is falsely placing the blame on the leadership of the Catholic Church, then public correction needs to be made.”

Who would argue with that? But just because SOLT repeats the charges and claims to have evidence isn't proof of guilt.

But instead of dwelling on Fr. Corapi’s possible guilt or innocence, he focuses on the consequences of Fr. Corapi’s subsequent actions WITHOUT PREJUDGING HIM on the underlying initial accusations.

Instead of taking the time to explain to folks, as Fr. Jenkins does, why Fr. Corapi could never again be a teacher or preacher of the Gospel while remaining a faithful Catholic, the order decided rather to rashly prejudge the original facts. Doing what Fr. Jenkins did would have been an appropriate warning.

On the original charges, I remain unconvinced. Fr. Corapi may not be acting like a very good priest. But his background is as a businessman. I am a businessman (though neither never as successful, at least in a worldly sense, as Fr. Corapi, nor never as degraded in my sins, again, at least in a worldly sense, either). I understand his approach. It may be inappropriate for a priest, but it is not indicative of guilt on the original charges.

In the meanwhile, when next I see Fr. Jenkins (probably tomorrow night), I may ask him if he has read the blog "These Stone Walls," for another priest's thoughts on the topic.

Or not. On his blog, he says:

"A good friend feels that this topic and the argumentation associated with it is not good for me. It is true that I find it very upsetting. I love the priesthood and the Church. I get defensive when they are threatened. I also worry deeply about the good of souls. It is true too that the plight of a brother priest is always felt very personally. Many of the comments, moderated and mostly not posted, are unreasoning and angry. So I am going to end it here and give Father Corapi the last word, albeit with an advertisement tagged to it."

I have no wish to poke at his wound.

sitetest

[mlizzy]

Ah, ha! It's a small world indeed! Yes, I'm a big fan of Fr. Joe Jenkins. He makes himself abundantly clear:

An element which really upsets me about this situation is how one segment of the Church is set against another. Father Corapi comes under investigation and the priest comes out with a statement that the bishop and his superior have a right to do what they do; but next he talks about the real enemies of the Church and we all know he is targeting those who put him on administrative leave. Then he claims obedience but his personal corporation makes a statement that they are under no one’s thumb and the ministry media business will continue as if nothing has happened.

By the beginning of June he submits his resignation and tells his fans weeks later that the Church has forced him out. Bishop Michael Mulvey and his lawful superior, Fr. Gerard Sheehan, SOLT, seek to clarify matters but then there is the public intervention on his behalf of the founders of SOLT, Father Flanagan and the Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Bishop Rene Gracida. Critics and fans of the priest can now take their pick and decry the other side as wrong-headed or evil. The impression is given that the Church is fighting with herself. Despite the lament of Fr. Corapi that this is a plot of the liberals who are out to get him, the battleground that emerges is between very conservative or orthodox churchmen and laity. Liberal revisionists are no doubt having a delight in watching the so-called “religious right” of the Church rip itself apart over the media priest.

My husband used Fr.'s quotes in an article he wrote as well ... http://www.speroforum.com/a/56755/Father-Corapi-corrupted-part-IV

Enjoy your talk with the good Father.

[annalex]

Corapi is guilty regarding obedience

First that doesn't excuse repeating SOLT calumnies which are not regarding obedience, and second he is not guilty of obedience because he left the order. Or rather the order left him.

[sitetest]

Dear mlizzy,

I'm not really a fan of Fr. Jenkins’ blog, as I just discovered it today. But I am a fan of Fr. Jenkins. I've known him for about 10 years, I guess, or thereabouts. In fact, my wife and I were discussing going to Mass at his parish more often than we currently do, as he is one of the two or three best homilists we know. As well, we have a number of friends there.

However, his take on all this is as a priest. And who can blame him? That's what he is. My take on it is as a layperson who works in the world of business, who has owned and owns businesses, who is an active investor in businesses. And Fr. Corapi’s actions are upright as a businessman.

That doesn't mean he's innocent of the original charges. Only that his actions are consistent with those of a shrewd businessman who very well could be innocent.

As to submitting to the canonical process, I'm not sure I'd be willing to do so. I've read that in many places, now, when accusations are made, dioceses settle with the accusers without ever giving the accused the chance to make a defense. These folks spend years in limbo. Fr. Corapi is in his 60s and apparently is not in very good health. I think he made a judgment that essentially, if he submitted to the canonical process, he probably would not outlive his suspension. Thus effectively, he determined that his priesthood had been taken away from him. In resigning, he was "giving up" something which he perceived as no longer having.

In sales, there is a saying, "You can't lose what you never had." Here, it would be, "You can't give up what's already been taken from you."

In that SOLT just got whacked pretty hard with a huge settlement for their abject failure to do proper due diligence on one of their priests before he molested one of his victims, and then planned to murder the victim, it wouldn't surprise me if Fr. Corapi was afraid of this sort of outcome - where the order might settle with the woman committing the crime of simony without giving him a chance to defend himself - to make it go away. Considering that the order has admittedly not previously required Fr. Corapi to live according to their rule that they promulgated after he joined their order, the case could be made that they inadequately supervised him, and that could lead to a high damage award in court. It seems to me that Fr. Corapi may have just cause to believe that they would act without regard to justice for his reputation. This view is strengthened by their rash judgment and their publication of their rash judgment.

As well, I think it's manifestly unjust to try to prevent Fr. Corapi from seeking justice in a venue - the US civil courts - where his right to defend himself is at least somewhat protected. Do his superiors have the absolute ecclesial juridical right to treat him unjustly? Maybe. I'm not a theologian, I'm not an expert on Catholic ecclesiology. Fr. Jenkins has more knowledge of that stuff in his pinkie finger than I do in all of me. But am I going to judge him guilty of all sorts of moral crimes because he insists on defending himself in a venue where he believes he has a chance to obtain some modest measure of justice? Absolutely not.

So, it may be that Fr. Corapi’s not doing the priest thing so well. But he may believe that ship has already sailed, that realistically, he could very well have been in limbo for pretty much the rest of his days. His actions are reasonable from the perspective of an ordinary person in the business world.

“Enjoy your talk with the good Father.”

Nah. I'm not going to bring this up with him. He's holding back a lot in his blogging on this subject, and I won't press him to places he'd rather not go. It just isn't that important.

sitetest