“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