Update on Fr. John Corapi

[Basil the Great]

the more i think about this the more i have to reach the personal conclusion that fr corapi is less than forthcoming

he never appeared to me to be the kind of man who would run from a fight if truth was on his side

let us hope the euteneur will follow the example and leave the priesthood also

honestly, all we the sheeple ask of the clergy is to bring a little bit of honesty and and simple honor to the cloth- and what do we get ?

bozo the clown, that is what

It does seem strange that if a man is innocent, why would he not stand and fight, instead of giving up?

 

[BAFRIEND]

It does seem strange that if a man is innocent, why would he not stand and fight, instead of giving up?

i think someone here hit the nail on the head

if he is exposed by a Church investigation then his commercial enterprise is done

with him quiting he no longer has to take orders from Church lawyers or be answerable to Church authority in an investigation- he is not stuck between the Church and plaintiff's lawyers

he can represent himself, pay people off, and have them sign confidentiality agreements and never have to say he was fired or own up to anything

 

[Tigg]

Fr. Corapi: "Soft you; a word or two before you go"...

It has never been my intention to comment much on l'affaire Corapi. We simply don't know enough about the facts surrounding the case to comment intelligently about it. However, one theme that has run through the various communiques issued by the Corapi camp has been about the ecclesial process looking into the matter.

Essentially, and variously, the process has been described as lacking transparency, as being fundamentally flawed, and even "of the devil" and so on. While I don't know the facts of the case, I do have some familiarity with the process, and want to comment on it briefly. I do so out of concern over many of Corapi's "fans" who are now vilifying and demonizing "the bishops" and their process.



Continued-
Fr. Corapi: "Soft you; a word or two before you go"...

Thank you Michie for the link. Much needed by me.

 

[thereselittleflower]

You don't know the man's heart, that he "considers it no longer worthy of respect..." Kinda judgmental, yes?

Religious, such as Franciscans, Jesuits, SOLT, etc., take three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Their vow of poverty means that their use of property is subject to the will of their superiors. The vow of chastity obliges them to celibacy and a chaste life. Their vow of obedience submits their daily activities to the direction of their superiors.

Which of these do you allege he has broken? Again, kinda judgmental, which in itself is breaking one of the ten on your part. But that's ok, huh?

Your posts continually carp with allegations that you know nothing about, personally, yet you continue to impute your characterizations to him. I would hate to be in any court where you are a jurist!

You have a propensity for making me the subject of your posts. You may want to reconsider.

The more you attack me, the stronger I become.​

The above seem to be confusing the Vows given when given the Sacrament of Ordination with the vows of an order one may associate themselves with.

They are not the same.

Vows given to an order can be easily dispensed from . .they are of the ECCLEISIAL traditions which are changable and can be bound or loosed. There is no sacrament, there is no indelible mark left on the soul by souch vows.


The VOWS given in the SACRAMENT are part of SACRED TRADITION and are not of a changable nature, and one can only be released from the pristhood by the Pope which is rarely done. Even so, the indelible mark is present on the soul for all eterinty.

 

[Michie]

Thank you Michie for the link. Much needed by me.

You're welcome.

 

[thereselittleflower]

If you essentially volunteer to go into marriage, why aren't you allowed to leave it? This isn't about volunteering a few hours for a community dinner. I think people are just worried that things may turn sour and he will bring a lot of people along for the ride. He brought a lot of people into the church and unfortunately if he were to start preaching against the church it's quit possible he would bring a lot of Catholics out of the church. I personally don't think he has any intentions of turning against the church. i think he's just rightfully upset over teh church's methods of dealing with such matters. I think he fully intends to continue in some sort of mission to save souls so to speak only as a sheepdog guards the flock rather than as a shepard guides the flock. He may be able to do a lot more in his new role than he could achieve as merely a preacher to Catholics. Too early for anyone to say for sure though.
-Matthew

I think that comparing the vows and Sacrament of Holy Orders to that of Marriage is a great analogy.


However, just as I don't believe that someone forsaking their marriage vows and the Sacramnet of marriage to engage in another relationship cannot be used to "do a lot more" than in the marriage itself, I do not believe someone forsaking their vows of Holy Orders to engage in ministry in another form "can do more" than within the priesthood itself - just as adultery is a mockery of the Sacrament of marriage, so is this a mockery of Holy Orders.

 

[JoabAnias]

He basically said that persons can know the faith thoroughly, and comprehend all mysteries, but if they fail to grow in self-knowledge and increase in virtue, all the knowledge of God in the world will not be a benefit to them. I missed the first few minutes, so I'm not aware how he opened his homily.

Oh thats good and so true. Love Fr. Wade and all the Fr.'s of Mercy. How personal pride can even make the most knowlegable fall eh? Would like to see that homily.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Virgil, you didn't respond as to why you continue to use the sock "Romanist?" I thought at first it was a joke, after we discussed it in another thread, where you said you had retired that account. Why would you want to cause confusion with our members?

It's his account and he is free to use it as he wishes .. . why this harrassing him about it?

 

[thereselittleflower]

I tried to find EWTN's homily Friday from Fr. Wade Menezes, but they haven't posted it yet. My instinctive feeling was that he had been informed about Fr. Corapi, for much of his sermon seemed to give indirect innuendos. It was excellent, and if they post it soon, I hope to share it with everyone.

He basically said that persons can know the faith thoroughly, and comprehend all mysteries, but if they fail to grow in self-knowledge and increase in virtue, all the knowledge of God in the world will not be a benefit to them. I missed the first few minutes, so I'm not aware how he opened his homily.

There is nothing virtuous about abandoning the Priesthood because of accusations by another or dissatisfaction with the internal process of the Church.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Fr. Corapi: "Soft you; a word or two before you go"...

It has never been my intention to comment much on l'affaire Corapi. We simply don't know enough about the facts surrounding the case to comment intelligently about it. However, one theme that has run through the various communiques issued by the Corapi camp has been about the ecclesial process looking into the matter.

Essentially, and variously, the process has been described as lacking transparency, as being fundamentally flawed, and even "of the devil" and so on. While I don't know the facts of the case, I do have some familiarity with the process, and want to comment on it briefly. I do so out of concern over many of Corapi's "fans" who are now vilifying and demonizing "the bishops" and their process.



Continued-
Fr. Corapi: "Soft you; a word or two before you go"...

Thank you for this, and it reveals the distortion of reality in Corapi's rendition of the facts, which goes even more towards what I am suspecting - if this is not a deliberate attempt on his part to obfuscate the issue, then his perception of reality is indeed distorted.

From your link above:

Let me begin with full disclosure: I was a member of the USCCB's senior staff for more than five years (2002-2007), and a consultant to the USCCB before that and since. It is in this capacity that I offer some observations.

1) I readily acknowledge that no human legal process is without flaws, and I'm not suggesting here that the process being followed is flawless or perfect. On the other hand, it has good points as well.

2) Despite innuendo and even some statements otherwise, this matter is NOT subject to the so-called "Dallas Charter" which address clergy sex abuse cases dealing with children, and vulnerable adults. So, there should be clarity here: Whatever is going on with Corapi vis-a-vis this particular case -- which as I understand it deals with the claims of an adult woman against Corapi -- it does not involve the Dallas Charter and its provisions. So, discussions which suggest otherwise are grossly inaccurate and should be discounted.

3) So, what process IS being invoked? Rather simple, actually: it is the process contained in the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church (the Eastern Catholic Churches have their own Code of Canons). When a cleric is accused of a crime, he is subject both to ecclesial law ("Canon Law") and to civil law. The legislator for a cleric is either his bishop (if he is a diocesan deacon or presbyter) or his religious superior (if he is a member of a religious order). When religious orders minister within a particular diocese, of course, they do so under the authority of the diocesan bishop. For example, if the bishop has asked the Franciscans to staff a particular parish in the diocese, the Franciscan superior will make the actual assignment (he'll pick the priest to be assigned), but the priest will be responsible both to his own superior and also to the diocesan bishop.

4) Now, I'm not too clear about Corapi's arrangement. (I was never aware of him until this whole thing broke in the news.) However, what I'm told is that he was not living in community with this order (SOLT), and so I must presume that his religious superior had agreed with whatever arrangement was in place, and of course, the diocesan bishop would be informed of it, and have to agree with it, as well, especially if he was functioning as a presbyter in the parishes of the diocese. The local bishop would extend faculties (authority) to exercise priestly ministry within the diocese, and so on.

5) Now comes the complaint. Ultimately, the religious superior is the responsible person, and it appears that the complaint was given to the diocesan bishop, who took the steps he needed to, and then referred the rest of it to the superior for HIS action. When a complaint is levied, an investigation is made. It is not uncommon to ask the cleric (presbyter or deacon) to step away from ministry until the investigation is complete and the disposition made. This, of course, is not a question of "presuming guilt" in the matter; it's simply prudential judgment pending the outcome of the case. While it's not a perfect analogy, it's not unlike what happens when a police officer is suspected or accused of wrongdoing; or sometimes just when he discharges his or her weapon in the line of duty. Such an officer is suspended from duty pending the outcome of the investigation; if everything is found to be in order, he is returned to duty. THE REASON FOR THIS IS TO ENSURE THE CONTINUED SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY, not to "presume guilt" of the officer.
​

Similarly, the bishop/superior's main concern must be the CONTINUED SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY pending the conclusion of the investigation.

​

This is what I believe I said earlier .. they are ensuring the safety of the flock.

So, the priest or deacon is asked to step aside from ministry for the good of the community; if he refuses to do so voluntarily, he may be temporarily suspended, exactly as in the case of the police officer. Again, it's about the safety of the community. Once the investigation is complete, and if there's no problem, the suspension is lifted, he "gets his badge back," and returns to serving the community.
​

6) Now, what has happened in the Corapi case? It appears that, hurt and wounded as he surely is, Fr. Corapi has decided to forego the investigation altogether and simply walk away. No one has asked him to leave the priesthood, nor as any religious superior sought (yet) to have him returned to the lay state. All of this seems to be HIS decision, not ecclesial authority. To use my secular analogy: it would be the same as if the suspended police officer simply decided not to wait for the end of the investigation, and he or she just resigned from the police force altogether. Again, HIS initiative, not the Chief of Police's decision.

​

 

[St_Barnabus]

Joab, check your visitor message at the other forum.

 

[St_Barnabus]

There is nothing virtuous about abandoning the Priesthood because of accusations by another or dissatisfaction with the internal process of the Church.

Just another slam dunk from tlf. What on earth does this have to do with Fr. Menezes or my post......other than your persistent passion to use every opportunity to impugn Fr. Corapi's motives, of which you are not the judge.

And as for Virgil, why is that your concern?

 

[St_Barnabus]

The more you attack me, the stronger I become.

And speaking of psychological delusions.....

The VOWS given in the SACRAMENT are part of SACRED TRADITION and are not of a changable nature, and one can only be released from the pristhood by the Pope which is rarely done. Even so, the indelible mark is present on the soul for all eterinty.

Again, you pontificate without a shred of knowledge. Do you know for a certain fact that he has not petitioned the Holy See for laicization, or whether he plans to do so? All we have is an announcement giving his present intention. Nothing more! And how would you know whether or not the Magisterium laicizes 'rarely?' Source?

 

[isshinwhat]

Watch it, Barnabas... This is the internet and you're trying to bring balance and common sense to it. I'm pretty sure that causes earthquakes and tornadoes.

 

[St_Barnabus]

Watch it, Barnabas... This is the internet and you're trying to bring balance and common sense to it. I'm pretty sure that causes earthquakes and tornadoes.

!!

 

[Chrystal-J]

This is from the "Sheep dog" web-site:
The Church will conclude that I am not cooperating with the process because I refuse to give up all of my civil and human rights in order to hold harmless anyone who chooses to say defamatory and actionable things against me with no downside to them.

What "civil and human" rights is he referring to? Are they asking him to take a drug test and he is refusing? Is he referring to asking for (and being refused) a trial by jury regarding these charges? It's not like they're putting him in jail and not giving him medical treatment or something similar. I'm confused as to what civil/human rights he is being refused.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

Right to a fair trial perhaps? *shrugs* its honestly all speculation right now.

 

[BAFRIEND]

he is threatening to sue us

 

[BAFRIEND]

Joab, check your visitor message at the other forum.

i knew there was conspiracy against me

 

[isshinwhat]

This is from the "Sheep dog" web-site:
The Church will conclude that I am not cooperating with the process because I refuse to give up all of my civil and human rights in order to hold harmless anyone who chooses to say defamatory and actionable things against me with no downside to them.

What "civil and human" rights is he referring to? Are they asking him to take a drug test and he is refusing? Is he referring to asking for (and being refused) a trial by jury regarding these charges? It's not like they're putting him in jail and not giving him medical treatment or something similar. I'm confused as to what civil/human rights he is being refused.

From his website:

I cannot give a lengthy explanation of what has transpired, but I can tell you that the most likely outcome is that they leave me suspended indefinitely and just let me fade away. They can’t prove I’m guilty of the things alleged because I’m not, and they can’t prove I’m innocent because that is simply illogical and impossible. All civilized societies know that. Certain leaders in the Catholic Church apparently do not.

He believes he is stuck in a position where he is unable to comply with what is asked of him and therefore will be left suspended and unable to practice his ministry indefinitely, despite not being found guilty of wrongdoing.

1. The identity of the accuser is not revealed. You can guess, but you don’t actually know. Nor are the exact allegations made known to you. Hence, you have an interesting situation of having to respond to an unknown accuser making unknown accusations (unknown to the accused and his counsel).

He has not been informed of the exact nature of the allegations, nor who is making the allegations to confront the accuser.

5. The accused and his counsel have no right to obtain and review any of the evidence against him.

6. The accused and his counsel are not provided the names of witnesses, nor are they permitted to cross-examine them.

He states he has not been able to review any evidence against him, nor cross-examine witnesses.

I will not try to fight this irrational and unjust situation for the simple reason that I don’t want to be placed in an adversarial posture against the Church.

And here is why he taking the action he is.