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