“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