Corapi: Why were warning signs ignored?

Catholic Culture ^ | July 5, 2011 | Phil Lawler

[Alex Murphy]

Have we really learned so little, over the past decade, about how we should respond to charges of priestly misconduct?  

The fact that so many good Catholics are willing to cling loyally to the belief that Father John Corapi is innocent of all wrongdoing, despite so many clear warning signs, suggests that we still have not learned the necessary painful lessons. Consider:

• Until today we did not even know what charges had been leveled against Father Corapi. SOLT, the apostolic society of which he is (or was) a member, had confirmed that he had been accused of misconduct. Other than that, every public statement about the accusations had come not from his accuser, nor from investigators, but from Corapi and his defenders. So one party to the dispute (the accuser) was following proper procedures, observing proper decorum, while the other (the accused) was seeking to try the charges in the court of public opinion. That in itself should have been enough to prompt suspicions that Father Corapi was unwilling to fight this battle on even ground.
• Since the public did not know the nature of the charges, it was impossible for any objective observer to say whether or not they were plausible. Was Corapi accused of sexual misconduct, as most people assumed? Or was he charged with financial irregularities, or improper administration of the sacraments, or drug and alcohol abuse? The answer, SOLT has now informed us, is “all of the above.” By refusing to specify the charges, while lashing out against the accuser, Corapi sent another signal that he was uncomfortable discussing the facts.
• Corapi announced that his accuser is a destructive alcoholic. Maybe she is; we don’t know. But his willingness to impugn the integrity of his accuser—who does not have the public stature necessary to defend herself—was churlish. How often have we seen the same pattern: the rush to attack the accuser rather than to weigh the substance of the charges? Corapi said that he had been accused unfairly, and his reputation smeared; now his accuser might say the same. And if he is truly guilty of abusive behavior, the public attacks on her constitute a second form of abuse.
• Thoughtful Catholics are troubled by the realization that many priests have no doubt been accused falsely of molesting children, and are now suffering through the nightmarish procedures of the Dallas Charter. Father Corapi has skillfully tapped into those fears, claiming that he, too, is unable to receive a fair hearing. But he was never subject to the Dallas Charter process; by his own account, his accuser is an adult. Corapi was not suspended—as many other American priests have been suspended—because a single accusation triggered the implementation of the Dallas protocols. So when he was suspended, the only logical conclusion was that SOLT had found credible evidence of misconduct.
• And why had SOLT found that credible evidence? Two explanations are possible. Either the evidence was there, ready to be found, or SOLT was part of a grand conspiracy. The public statements from Father Corapi pointed to the latter explanation—which is, needless to say, less probable. Yet he told his faithful followers that SOLT was not really the problem. The investigation had been launched on orders from Bishop Willam Mulvey of Houston. Yet Bishop Mulvey wasn’t really the problem, either, he said. In a transparent bid for the sympathy of conspiracy theorists, he said: “There are certain persons in authority in the Church that want me gone.” Sorry, but that’s not good enough. Father Corapi had stoked his own reputation as a fearless preacher—as someone who would tell the truth regardless of the personal consequences. Why was he now so coy about naming the “certain persons” who were trying to destroy him?
• Corapi sued his accuser for breach of contract, because she had signed an agreement that she would not disclose anything about her work with his organization. Apparently other employees had signed similar documents. What sort of priest asks his employees and colleagues to sign non-disclosure agreements? What did he have to hide?
• After announcing that he was voluntarily leaving the priesthood—choosing not to fight to preserve his vocation—Corapi assured his faithful followers that this would not be a major change. He explained that 90% of what he had been doing over the past years was unrelated to his function as a minister of the sacraments. At that point, any sincere Catholic should have realized that something was profoundly wrong. A priest who thinks that his life will not be totally disrupted by suspension from priestly ministry? The life of a priest should be centered on the Eucharist. A priest who can divorce his preaching from his sacramental ministry is a priest with a major problem. He is showing a tendency to compartmentalize his life. Such a man just might be capable of private conduct that was completely at variance with his public preaching.

So there were several bright red flags raised when Father Corapi was suspended from ministry, and then again when he announced that he was leaving the priesthood. And yet a prudent observer might have seen the signs of trouble even earlier. The real question today is not why SOLT investigated his behavior, but why the investigation was delayed so long.

• His life story was dramatic, yet few of the spectacular items in his biography could be pinned down, and some claims seem to have been exaggerated—or corrected only after skeptics raised questions about them.
• He brought in a substantial income from this speaking appearances, and the sales of his books and tapes. There was no public accounting for those funds.
• He lived in isolation in Montana, surrounding by his colleagues (who, we now know, were pledged not to talk about what went on), not associated with any diocese, not under the regular supervision of any religious superior.

Like the late Father Marcial Maciel, the disgraced founder of the Legion of Christ, John Corapi has worked for years as a celebrity priest: encouraging a cult of personality, set his own agenda, raising large sums of money that he spent at his own discretion, and—most dangerous of all—accountable to no one. It was a formula for disaster, and now the disaster has occurred. Again.

[Alex Murphy]

Have we really learned so little, over the past decade, about how we should respond to charges of priestly misconduct? The fact that so many good Catholics are willing to cling loyally to the belief that Father John Corapi is innocent of all wrongdoing, despite so many clear warning signs, suggests that we still have not learned the necessary painful lessons....there were several bright red flags raised when Father Corapi was suspended from ministry, and then again when he announced that he was leaving the priesthood. And yet a prudent observer might have seen the signs of trouble even earlier....

[Antoninus]

So now it appears that we have a corrupt televangelist scandal just like the many that have afflicted the Proties over the years. Are you sympathizing with us, Alex? Or do you just get a thrill rubbing our noses in it?

[Steelfish]

The problem with this train of logic is that the same could be said of (Non-Catholic) Billy Graham and Crystal Cathedral’s Schuller. The cult of personality does not necessarily lead to a dissolute life of drugs, alcohol, and sexual harassment. Bishop Sheen for example was quite a celebrity but then again a saintly man.

[Winstons Julia]

“Proties”

My protie itches...especially when the Catholics imply that I don’t share their faith.

Is this a caucus thread? If so... sorry... I have been reading some of the news.

It’s kind of lame that you get yourself a bad priest and try to say he has “Proties.”

[jongaltsr]

Because the blind can not see,
and the ignorant refuse to see.

[STARWISE]

About abyssum
I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
http://abyssum.wordpress.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MY FINAL COMMENT (HOPEFULLY) ON THE CASE OF FATHER JOHN CORAPI
Posted on July 5, 2011 by abyssum

###

BY NOW MOST OF YOU HAVE READ THE STATEMENT ISSUED TODAY BY THE LEADERSHIP OF THE SOCIETY OF OUR LADY OF THE MOST HOLY TRINITY ON THE CASE OF FATHER JOHN CORAPI.

(THE STATEMENT: http://www.societyofourlady.net/welcome.html)

The statement seems to me to be nothing more or less than an effort by the SOLT leadership to ‘throw Father John Corapi under the bus.’ Maybe he deserves it, maybe he does not, I do not know.

I have had no direct contact with Father Corapi in many years. But it seems to me that the issuing of the statement is an effort by the SOLT leadership to justify their own mishandling of his case from the beginning. It is a classic example of what psychologists call transference.

As I have previously pointed out, Father Corapi was not charged, as far as I can figure out, with a civil crime. Nor was he accused of sexual misconduct with a minor. Rather, his conduct which resulted in the accusatory letter sent by the woman seems to have been fostered by the lax leadership of SOLT itself.

Even though he did not have a vow of poverty he was given freedom to acquire and use wealth which can in itself have a corrupting influence on anyone.

MY CHIEF COMPLAINT AGAINST BOTH THE CHANCERY OF THE DIOCESE OF CORPUS CHRISTI AND THE LEADERSHIP OF SOLT IS THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE THE GOOD OF THE CHURCH IN MIND WHEN THEY ACTED PRECIPITOUSLY TO PUBLICLY SUSPEND FATHER CORAPI.

By rushing to publicly suspend him before any investigation of the facts had been done, these Church officials totally overlooked the impact of their actions on the tens of thousands of innocent people who have been brought into a closer relationship with Our Lord, Jesus Christ, through the TEACHING of Father Corapi. He did not seem to have any other form of ministry.

Instead of rushing to publicly suspend Father Corapi these people should have quietly launched an investigation into the accusations and, if they proved to be credible, they could have quietly removed him from active exercise of his public activities and then after further investigation determined whether or not to take more drastic canonical disciplinary action against him.

INSTEAD OF RUSHING TO PUNISH HIM PUBLICLY, they should have been concerned for the welfare of the thousands and thousands people who have either been brought to the faith or have had their faith strengthened by the man who, in spite of his having clay feet, had been an effective teacher of the Gospel.

THAT WAS MY CHIEF COMPLAINT AND THAT REMAINS MY CHIEF COMPLAINT.

I doubt that I will have much, if anything, further to say about the sad case of the Diocese of Corpus Christi, The Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity and Father John Corapi.

~~~~~~~

God bless and protect Fr. Corapi

[BlueDragon]

Mr. Lawler nails it here;

"...encouraging a cult of personality, set his own agenda, raising large sums of money that he spent at his own discretion, and—most dangerous of all—accountable to no one."

Sounds like a Tycoon's wet dream, doesn't it? The Chicoms got it going on, but with little or nothing to restrain them. Not law, nor much of conscience (certainly not any cultural Christian conscience or morality).
Many Western capitalists have it going on --although they have to toe the line, a little bit. Christian conscience frequently and increasingly going right out the window among that crowd, if something get's in the way of profits.

The advice that these are warning signs goes well for all, not only for Corapi.

I've seen it up close and personal, on a smaller, less 'famous' scale, among a religious "personality". I forgave him 2 days before he died. Was lead to believe that was what the Lord would have me do.

When it sunk in with that man, just what I had said and meant-- it staggered him, quite literally. He almost fell down.

[Rashputin]

Maybe what we need to learn, Catholic and non-Catholic Christian alike, is that the sort of folks who are most likely to be successful at the televangelist approach to spreading the Word are also among the most prone to personal failings. Only a few of those who are successful with such a ministry seem to have the restraint and caution that it takes to resist the temptations they'll encounter. In a nation where people are starved for real leadership in all facets of their lives, those who provide real spiritual leadership should be very, very, cautious in their personal lives but seldom have the sort of personality that tends towards caution.

JMHO

[HangnJudge]

The source would seem to be Catholic

From the perspective of one who accepts my Total Depravity
I Know that healing cannot begin, until one
inspects their sins, confesses, and acts in contrition
Forgiveness and repair cannot proceed
This is true of all Christians as best I can tell
These stories speak to our fallen and broken natures
True everywhere, Princes, Paupers, Priests, and Kings
Resisting the effort to face our sins, confess them, and act in contrition
is a complete waste of energy, and a profound injury to our witness

It is NOT a Catholic vs Protestant issue

From the source...

The mission of CatholicCulture.org is to give faithful Catholics the information, encouragement, and perspective they need to become an active force for renewal in the Church and in society, working to shape an authentically Christian culture in a secular world.

CatholicCulture.org is run by a non-profit (501 c 3) corporation, Trinity Communications. The board and officers of Trinity Communications are Catholic laymen faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, who seek to enrich faith, strengthen the Church and form Catholic culture according to the mind of the Church.

Trinity Communications draws special inspiration from the outstanding Catholic vision and wisdom of Pope Benedict XVI.

[STARWISE]

Cached = Posted June 21, 2011 by abyssum
http://tinyurl.com/3pt5dfn

The Church law is clear that when a cleric is penalized, as Fr. John has been, it must always be by means of a formal process that has an official beginning and ends with a final judgment.

A priest cannot simply be left in legal limbo without a resolution of charges that resulted in a penal action. Technically what has happened to Fr. John is a penal action and the Church is clear about when such action can take place.

Canon 1341 states that a penalty can only be imposed as last resort (after lesser means have been attempted to “repair the scandal, restore justice, reform the offender”) and can only be applied as the formal outcome of an administrative or judicial process.

And this outcome always gives the defendant opportunity for appeal to higher authority. I do not believe that either a true administrative process or a judicial process was begun here, which is implied by Fr. John’s level of frustration.

~~~~

I pray for the Church and priests.

[Daffy]

In the opinion piece posted above (Phil Lawler), there are 7 question marks within the first 6 bullet points. This usually tells me the writer has a viewpoint unsupported by facts. The technique of suggestion can be employed to create doubt and suspicion, for example: “Was she the real cause of her mother‘s death?” Yep, that’s how to plant a suggestion.

There is also a news story on the same web site (CatholicCulture.org); “SOLT reveals a pattern of grave misconduct by Father Corapi” dated July 5 2011. A source link refers to the same topic on the site; “Corapi’s departure from priesthood leaves questions unanswered” dated June 20 2011. A source link following that refers to “A Few Thoughts on Father Corapi’s Announcement Yesterday (Bishop Rene Gracida)” who is Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi. But clicking on the link returns “page not found.” But what may be found dated 20 June 2011 is “The Persecuted Catholic Priest” (NOT about Fr. Corapi, and not by Bishop Gracida) which tells the sorrowful story of a good priest hammered.
http://abyssum.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-persecuted-catholic-priest/

Another thing; Fr. Corapi set up his organization with Father James Flanagan, the founder of SOLT. This from a story at NCRegister, May 31 2011:

“While Father Corapi was still in the seminary, Father Flanagan discerned that he had a gift for apostolic preaching. The founder felt that Father Corapi needed a lot of freedom and prayer to offer that gift for the Church.

“Initially, Father Corapi was allowed to live an eremitic life in a cottage on a compound with a community of sisters. Father Corapi stayed there for some time, conducting parish missions. Ultimately, he moved into his own home.

“His preaching had tremendous results and many people were converted to the faith, while others came back to the Church. Many vocations came from his preaching. Subsequently, he began producing tapes that showcased his presentation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the subject of his doctoral dissertation.

“He made Santa Cruz Media a for-profit company, he told his superiors, in order to have the proper freedom to proclaim the Gospel without any fear of raising issues that might threaten the company’s tax-exempt status.

“He said he would pay his taxes and proclaim the Gospel fearlessly. Father Flanagan allowed him to manage his own funds. No one knew it would become so big.”
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/solt-and-father-john-corapi/

“... No one knew it would become so big.” New rules require all earnings by the priests be turned over to the order (not applicable to Fr. Corapi’s pre-existing arrangement), and SOLT will provide a allowance for the priests to live on.

[livius]

The thing that prevented this from happening with the Catholic clergy in the past was discipline. Fulton J. Sheen was protected by the fact that his superiors (particularly Cardinal Spellman) kept a close eye on him and in fact didn’t like him very much, which eventually resulted in his reassignment to Rochester. He was a very holy man, but certainly being under supervision didn’t hurt and no doubt helped to keep him humble and honest.

Discipline broke down in the years after Vatican II, and these celebrity priests felt free to do whatever they wanted. And because the devil like a roaring lion goes about seeking whom he may devour, once they were out there on their own in their pride and self-obssessed blindness, they were vulnerable to his attacks and they fell.

Protestants, particularly self-proclaimed evangelists setting up their own churches, never had the protection of being under authority or subject to supervision, and a lot of the TV evangelists and others probably started off as honest, well-intentioned preachers, but they were particularly vulnerable to the cult of personality and its effects on their faith and personal lives.

The sad thing is that after Vatican II, the Catholic Church simply threw out the authority structure (both for the secular clergy and in religious orders) that had been one of its great advantages and had contributed greatly to the formation of saints by keeping people honest and humble and preventing celebrity status. And this is the result.

[erod]

Ping

[redgolum]

For the same reason so many rush to follow a politician with the same red flags.

Most want a leader. Most want a strong personality to tell them right from wrong, or at least what to do. Most make decisions on emotion, and not logic.

People didn't see Corapi’s warning signs, because they didn't want to. They saw only what they projected onto him. Same with the followers of the big politicians/celebrities.

[Campion]

He lived in isolation in Montana, surrounding by his colleagues (who, we now know, were pledged not to talk about what went on), not associated with any diocese, not under the regular supervision of any religious superior.

raising large sums of money that he spent at his own discretion, and—most dangerous of all—accountable to no one.

This is what appalls me. Who at SOLT decided to allow Corapi to operate as a lone wolf with no community, no superior, and no accountability, and why did they do that?

Assuming SOLT has uncovered the truth, good for them. But they also bear some responsibility for letting the situation get anywhere near this point. I hope the Congregation for Religious in Rome applies some fraternal correction to the SOLT leadership.

[Steelfish]

Agree- this is a good analysis.

[Salvation]

Vows:
poverty
obedience
celibacy

Hmmm.

I’ve always thought that obedience was the big one here, although I know not everyone would agree with me. But if the priest is obedient to his superior, the other two follow.

[dangus]

I don’t know whether Corapi is guilty or not. I’m very troubled to see SOLT make such declarative statements as they have been, declaring that he did such and such, rather than just clarifying what the allegations were.

>> And why had SOLT found that credible evidence? Two explanations are possible. Either the evidence was there, ready to be found, or SOLT was part of a grand conspiracy. <<

THIS statement is nonsense. The third alternative is that SOLT believes him to be guilty, and, like a typical mediocre prosecutor, doesn’t want to acknowledge any uncertainty for fear of looking bad in public.

>> After announcing that he was voluntarily leaving the priesthood—choosing not to fight to preserve his vocation—Corapi assured his faithful followers that this would not be a major change. He explained that 90% of what he had been doing over the past years was unrelated to his function as a minister of the sacraments. At that point, any sincere Catholic should have realized that something was profoundly wrong. A priest who thinks that his life will not be totally disrupted by suspension from priestly ministry? The life of a priest should be centered on the Eucharist. A priest who can divorce his preaching from his sacramental ministry is a priest with a major problem. He is showing a tendency to compartmentalize his life. Such a man just might be capable of private conduct that was completely at variance with his public preaching. <<

I agree with this statement, but the reality is that if it were a uniform standard used to evaluate all priests, almost all of these Kumbaya liberals would be gone. Monday to Saturday, you’d mistake them for social workers, business managers or union activists, as the only sacramental behavior they do is 30 minutes of confession on Saturday afternoon... and that’s only if the line for confession is 30 minutes long when they get there.

[TotusTuus]

This is what appalls me. Who at SOLT decided to allow Corapi to operate as a lone wolf with no community, no superior, and no accountability, and why did they do that?

This is what stunned me the most too in this whole sordid affair. See above post 11 from 'daffy' which has a link to an NCRegister interview concerning the SOLT arrangement.

I have no way of knowing anything about the guilt or innocence of Fr. Corapi, am neither a 'fanboy' or critic of his, and have found his preaching from the shows I've seen of him to be orthodox and good - but THIS issue of his arrangement within SOLT is begging for a proper resolution worthy of the Church, all other accusations aside.

If he is innocent of the more salacious charges, accusations, or whatever is being investigated, even then I am disappointed and confused as to his actions and excuses of trying to "walk away" from his vows to his community and Priesthood so quickly and profanely with his "Black SheepDog" routine. Just so bizarre. From what little I know about him, gathered from seeing his preaching on EWTN at times, he is far too intelligent to know this action is neither moral nor proper within context of his vows of obedience to God and His Church. This action is, depending on where it currently stands (is he seeking laicization?), objectively sinful in and of itself for a vowed minister of the Church. He of all people would know this.

It has me thinking of whether or not there is a back story to all of this. Maybe he has been seeking an "out" for a while. Maybe there has been growing conflict between him and SOLT for a while concerning his arrangement. Apparently under SOLT's new constitution his arrangement hasn't been proper for some time. Perhaps he presumes he should be "grandfathered" in under the terms of his original vows (which apparently didn't include poverty). I have no way of knowing. He could also be guilty of all charges we've seen so far which would make it an Act of Mercy on SOLT's part in trying to save his soul! Certainly, he resigned in such a way to preclude his superiors from performing or finishing a proper investigation. He essentially blames "bishops" who want him gone, then, in the same breath (on the page at least), tells his supporters to not bother the Bishop of Corpus Christi or superiors at SOLT since it is a waste of time, etc. Awkward at best. Deceitful? Sinister? Malicious (against the Bishop and his superiors at SOLT in a "soft" manner)? He never seemed to be an awkward man or Priest to me before this.

You called him a "lone wolf" above. He calls himself a "Black SheepDog" now. ??? Which is it? He is a Priest of Almighty God above all else and he better start acting like one!

[Quix]

NOT of Billy Graham.

He has always been paid a minimal level salary for his stature and has always been extremely scrupulous morally.

He will get out of the elevator if he’s alone and a woman gets on.