Posted on 07/12/2011 10:22:42 PM PDT by sockmonkey
The below are my comments on the situation of Fr. Corapi regarding the charges that have been leveled against him. I may appear uncharitable in places as that is a weakness that I struggle with. I have tried to convey my thoughts as charitably as I am able. Please forgive me if I have failed to do this in any way.
John Stevens
I am one who still supports Fr. Corapi. I do not adulate people no matter who they are. I do not place Fr. Corapi on a pedestal. But for God’s grace he is capable of anything. I would like to offer a number of things for consideration. They may not be in order.
1) The accuser of Fr. Corapi is his god daughter. He has said for a long time that she needs prayer because she and her husband have been struggling with drug addiction for many years. He commented on this during his conference in San Antonio in August, 2010. He may have commented on this even earlier. He said he has tried to help them overcome their problems and that they need help. If you read the lawsuit he has filed against her you will see that the confidentiality statement is quite appropriate for the circumstances. She lists in her LinkedIn profile that she is the owner of Santa Cruz Media and also has tried to take his copyrighted moniker “The Black Sheep Dog” as her own. This is theft. Fr. Corapi has a right to sue her for protection of his property. If she has lied, he also has a right to sue her for damage to his good name. Many have claimed that the $100,000 she has received is hush money to keep her quiet. This is not at all clear. As she is his god daughter, he has tried desperately to help them over the years. I am sure this includes, but is not limited to, financial compensation.
2) Fr. Corapi initially said he would co-operate with the investigation despite disagreeing with the process. Bishop Rene Gracida advised him that he could not clear his name through the canonical process in the Diocese of Corpus Christi and suggested he proceed civilly. On that basis Fr. Corapi filed the suit. Depending on the diocese the canonical process may or may not work. In my opinion, Bishop Gracida is one of the best bishops we have had in the U.S. in many years. Someone I know asked Fr. John Hardon back around 2001 AD what he thought of the condition of the hierarchy in the U.S. Fr. Hardon responded that he thought there were about 6 bishops that were 100% faithful to the teachings of the Church. He felt there were about 40 bishops that were pretty much faithful to the teachings of the Church. Fr. Hardon then said that he considered the rest to be ‘non-believers’. I would consider Bishop Gracida to be one of the 6. Well, the hierarchy in the U.S. has definitely improved since 2001 but it is obvious that there is a lot rot still existing in places.
3) Read closely everything that Bishop Gracida has had to say. He definitely does not appear to be distancing himself from Fr. Corapi as some bloggers have suggested. As a good bishop, he has stated correctly that he does not have personal knowledge of the particulars of the charges against Fr. Corapi. He continues to state that what the Diocese of Corpus Christi and SOLT have done is wrong. By saying that he had hopefully placed his last post on the matter he was saying that he would not participate in the back and forth fighting that is going on between those who either support or oppose Fr. Corapi.
4) I have a problem with some of the statements by SOLT. Fr. Sheehan stated in NCR that Fr. Corapi was suspended in accordance with Canon Law. I could not find any statute that would mandate such action. I wrote to Fr. Sheehan and he sent me a response referring to statute 1722. Well, the local bishop can do pretty much whatever he wants, but statute 1722 does not call for suspension as it occurred with Fr. Corapi. I think Bishop Gracida has also indicated this was wrong. One of the problems we have had over the last 40 years or so is that heterodox prelates have used obedience as a hammer to destroy orthodox priests. A reading of the Catholic Encyclopedia on ‘Religious Obedience’ would be very instructive. This obedience is not absolute and its application to Fr. Corapi’s case is confusing at best. There is the example of St. Padre Pio who submitted to injustice and lies in all humility. There is tremendous grace in this approach. Then there is the approach of directly fighting lies and injustice. Fr. Corapi is a fighter and this is the approach he seems to be taking. It doesn’t sit well with those who would seek to silence him. My initial reaction has been that the Padre Pio approach is preferred but Bishop Gracida seems to support Fr. Corapi’s approach. Due to the fact that I consider Bishop Gracida one of the finest prelates we have ever had, I reserve judgement.
5) It is not at all clear that SOLT has ordered Fr. Corapi back to headquarters prior to their recent statement. In NCR in April, Fr. Sheehan had talked about the original arrangement with Fr. Corapi and other priests prior to 1994 where they were expected to provide for themselves. He stated that the constitution had since changed. New priests were now provided for by SOLT. Fr. Sheehan said that they were looking at ways to bring the older priests under the new constitution. In the same statement he said that they never realized that Fr. Corapi’s ministry would become so profitable. That last part speaks volumes. SOLT was interested in bringing Fr. Corapi’s ministry in house although his statements seem to suggest that they were looking at their options in this matter (reconciling priests who were not under the new constitution). In my opinion, that would have been a good thing for Fr. Corapi’s spiritual development. However, I think SOLT should have been more forth right about their motivations. I am sure it was for his spiritual well being but the money was also on Fr. Sheehan’s mind.
6) I don’t believe that SOLT had required Fr. Corapi to return prior to his suspension. Fr. Sam Medly stated that he was trying to get his superiors to demand this but that his requests were not acted upon. In late June Fr. Sheehan stated in NCR that he was disappointed that Fr. Corapi had decided to resign but that SOLT would assist him in this transition – all the while taking care to protect his good name. Barely a week later Fr. Sheehan issued his statement declaring that Fr. Corapi was guilty of abusing alcohol and drugs, sexting, cohabitation, sacramental abuse, and that he was unfit for ministry. Fr. Sheehan stated that contemporaneously with the release of his July 5th statement he was demanding that Fr. Corapi return under obedience and drop the
lawsuit. It seems that this was the first demand under obedience that was made. It may, or may not , have been suggested earlier. It certainly wasn’t demanded as Fr. Medley indicated in his statements. It is my feeling that Fr. Corapi would have been required, under obedience, to obey a demand for his return to headquarters before the accusations and suspension occurred. So as to protect his civil rights, I do not believe he is required, under obedience, to obey the demand at this time.
7) In late June Fr. Sheehan promised to do all possible to protect Fr. Corapi’s good name. On July 5th he and Fr. Medley participated in a serious violation of the Eighth Commandment by detraction against Fr. Corapi’s good name. Whether the accusations are true or not – SOLT had no business as a Catholic society in making such information public. You talk about saying one thing and doing another.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks bronxville ...
“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
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.
“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
“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
God bless him,he needs to be hospitalized.
God bless him,he needs to be hospitalized.You are kind; my sentiments exactly.
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.
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.
“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
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.My husband used Fr.'s quotes in an article he wrote as well ... http://www.speroforum.com/a/56755/Father-Corapi-corrupted-part-IV
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.
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.
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
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.