Posted on 07/05/2011 10:29:33 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler
Ahhh, I see the problem; you do not understand the concept of truth.
And that's how it works, doesn't it? Somebody tells you what you want to hear -- what you agree is truth -- and you beatify them..
No, that's not how it works at all, truth is not dependent on anything, it simply is. If Joseph Stalin said that Jesus Christ is the only son of God, does that render that truth moot? Of course not, truth stands on its own, independent of the messenger. Obama and other cult leaders distort the truth and create "truth" as needed. Corapi, for all his faults seems to have preached Catholic teaching accurately so your comparison to someone who blindly follows Obama, who speaks lies and someone who appreciated the preaching of Corapi, who lived a lie, fails.
Who was it before him, Benny Hinn?
It's a rhetorical question. The discussion is over.
Ok.
“confirming my hypotheses about the sorts of people who idolize people like “Father” Corapi.
Who was it before him, Benny Hinn? It’s a rhetorical question. The discussion is over.”
Yes, of course Benny Hinn, who else? He’s SO mesmerizing...
And certainly outclasses Fr. Corapi in the “big hair” department, LOL!
One of my neighbors had a brother who was murdered. They've never found a clue to who did it much less arrested them and charged them with the murder. So there's no one to charge and then permit to confront their accuser, hence no crime by your logic. The guy's brother is still dead, though, that's the fact whether you can understand the difference between a conviction and a fact or not.
And those pro abortion Bishop’s are the reason why I cannot with good conscience give to the Campaign for Human Development. It’s funny, most of the parishioners in my Church feel the same way. The basket is usually empty.
Praise the Lord!
Owning real estate is a fact that can be readily evidenced. Being dead, like your neighbor’s brother is a fact that can be likewise readily evidenced. Having sex with someone or doing drugs is also in the domain of facts — you either do it or you don’t, but the ready evidence usually does not exist. So in the case of Fr. Corapi, if he had been in violation of poverty vows, SOLT should have disciplined him when he acquired all these possessions, and the due process could be accomplished by checking the registry deed and the SOLT policy of that time with respect to Fr. Corapi. Whether or not Fr. Corapi cohabited with someone, had sex with someone or did drugs is not as easily checked; one of the basic requirements of justice is the ability to examine the evidence and present evidence in defense (for example, a once-twice lapse is not the same as cohabitation or habitual illicit behavior), withing some reasonable timeframe. That requirement was not satisfied.
Back to your comparison with the neighbor’s brother’s murder, surely there was a crime (assuming evidence of violent death) but how would you like me to accuse, say, you of that murder based on the fact that you had a connection to the victim through the neighbor? Throwing allegations is not proof, yet that is all SOLT is doing.
If I had taken a vow to not hang around with my neighbor's brother, was found to have been doing so, and was also found to have been on drugs while hanging out with him, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you accused me of the murder. In fact, I'd lawyer up in a heartbeat and try to talk to all the witnesses before you could in order to delay the process and taint the witnesses. Whether I did it or not, my goal would be the same, to make it difficult to prove anything about me by tainting the witnesses and delaying the process in hopes that you'd find a better suspect and to try and limit the amount of information that got out about the brother and I partying around and doing dope.
That's the way criminal defense attorneys play the game when they're pretty sure their client is guilty and that's the game Corapi played. If he is not guilty then he's stupid for allowing his legal counsel to act in the same manner in his situation as they would when a guilty person engaged them and asked how to get out of their problem even though they're guilty. Really, the question is, just how stupid and naive do you do you think Corapi is? From everything I can find, he's neither stupid or naive. If he were some bumpkin or someone with little exposure to the ways of the world I might believe he was being set up or taking bad advice but he's a far cry from you basic 'babe in the woods', now isn't he?
Some may wish to keep their heads in the sand and pretend that it’s all a big misunderstanding. The SOLT probably has emails in which he acknowledges his conduct, not to mention the ‘sexting’ messages. They don’t need to put all of their cards on the table—yet. I’m sure they have more, such as the 1999 DUI arrest in Sacramento, the use of an alias (’Tony Coradi’) for renting a house in Sacramento, etc.
I’m beginning to wonder if there are some here from the Casey Anthony jury.
But Father Corapi was not "found" anything that I know of. He was merely alleged to do so, -- anyone can throw allegations, especially a disgruntled employee, against a man who earned himself enemies for being conservative.
That's the way criminal defense attorneys play the game when they're pretty sure their client is guilty and that's the game Corapi played
But before you say, in your hypothetical "I'd lawyer up in a heartbeat". In other words, whether Fr. Corapi guilty as alleged or not, his behavior as of a rationall man would be the same: get a lawyer, and get in a position to best defend himself, which, in his case is to fight outside of the SOLT jurisdiction. That behavior is not evidence of guilt but merely evidence of intelligent self-interest.
Obviously you didn't read or are trying to divert attention away from the latest SOLT statement. They have documentation of his behavior according to that statement and they made that statement in the face of clear evidence that Corapi is financially capable of suing them for slander. You are also ignoring the latest statement from Corapi in which he dances all around the issues SOLT mentioned and does the same thing you just did, pretends that nothing is at issue other than a single original accusation that has yet to be proved. We're long past that point and Corapi continues to play games rather than address the issues. That is not, however you chose to portray it, "merely evidence of intelligent self-interest" any more than some of his earlier actions have been.
I've stated my opinion and you clearly intend to repeat the Corapi party line and nothing else. So, have a nice day and follow whoever you like over whatever cliffs you like.
One thing for sure, "Tony Coradi" is still very, very, worried about something and it's not anything related to his relationship with SOLT. Otherwise there's not much reason to be splitting hairs over the property aspect of his activities.
I agree.
... that Fr. Corapi's lawyers could not gain access to, let alone question in court. That is a sham. He may be guilty of something or he may be innocent, but we'll never know it from SOLT statements.
ROTFL.
It's interesting that you keep pretending that the issue is the process rather than substance which is the same thing the left always does. You know, like pretending that perjury charges don't matter when the perjury concerns sex, or beating on process and property ownership rather than sex and drugs.
We'll see if another shoe drops or not and if so what you think of things at that point. I'm pretty sure Corapi is counting on SOLT to be as worried about the repercussions of that other shoe dropping as he is about the consequences. If that turns out not to be the case, all the diversions are going to be worthless because he won't be dealing with SOLT anymore.
have a nice day
Indeed the issue is at this point the process. Unless you have proper process, you do not know substance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.