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.
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