[mlizzy]

That was not written by Gracida. It was written by Carmela Recupero. Here is the link. She signs off as Lourdes 11, using a pseudonym when writing Sheehan. Gracida simply copy-pasted her entry on The Black Sheep Dog site, and placed it on his.

I posted regarding this commentary on another Corapi thread on Free Republic and it was poofed by the Religion Mod because it contained "potty language," and I even used an asterisk in "p*ss-fight." Anyway, my husband's retort to this posting of Gracida who posted Carmela's commentary on his personal blog was:

I read Gracida's blog. Is not, then, Gracida's posting (and agreeing with) negative reader mail accusing Sheehan of "getting into a p*ss-fight" with Corapi not the very definition of what you call "detraction and calumny"?

I would have to agree with my DH on that one; and I do not know who John Stevens is on the other recent post of Gracida's, but JS' manifesto has several points that are arguable, but where does one begin?

Crying for Corapi -- A page for those who pray for Fr. Corapi to come back, as well as those who wish his "Black Sheep Dog" character to be whacked.

[annalex]

That was not written by Gracida

Yeah, I had my doubts as well having re-read it.

I actually agree that Fr. Corapi's blacksheepdog persona leaves much to be desired, I just don't think it is the issue now, when he is clearly a victim of detraction and most likely, cynical slander.

[sitetest]

Dear mlizzy,

You're right. I don't remember it being labeled there as such, but maybe I'm just getting old. I remember looking for identifying information, finding none, and thus thinking, ah, this is written by the blogger, himself.

But it's clearly marked now. Whether that is new or I just missed it, I don't know.

“’I read Gracida’s blog. Is not, then, Gracida’s posting (and agreeing with) negative reader mail accusing Sheehan of “getting into a p*ss-fight” with Corapi not the very definition of what you call “detraction and calumny”?’

“I would have to agree with my DH on that one;”

I strongly disagree. Fr. Sheehan’s behavior is manifest to all. It isn't detraction or calumny to point out that the public, manifest behavior of another is bad, however one describes it. Detraction is making public unnecessarily the private sins of another. Labeling the PUBLIC behavior of another is almost by definition incapable of being detraction. Calumny also doesn't apply as that it is lying about another in a way that harms his reputation. No lie has been told about Fr. Sheehan. Nobody has ascribed to him behavior that is not publicly manifest. It may be that the author's interpretation of that behavior is wrong, but that isn't quite calumny at all.

Fr. Sheehan’s behavior toward Fr. Corapi (assuming that he is responsible for the letter from SOLT pronouncing Fr. Corapi's guilt definitively), on the other hand, is either detraction or calumny because 1) either what he stated is true and it needn't have been made public (at least not at this point) or 2) what he stated is false, and thus it is calumny on its face. Another possibility is that it is rash judgment, in that Fr. Sheehan believes he has evidence of Fr. Corapi's guilt, but hasn't, apparently, heard the other side of the story, and thus, should be more careful about what conclusions he has drawn from the evidence he believes he has in his possession.

sitetest