Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
My personal opinion from reading what he has done and his statements is that he is putting too much faith in the secular authority and too little in the clerical ones.
He is not pursuing the secular case saying he did nothing...he is saying she signed an agreement to tell no one what went on in his business. Of course that does not remove her canonical rights and obligation as a member of the laity to tell the Bishop of misconduct.
So see how this looks? He is tossing the Church process aside after 3 months after personally truncating their ability to investigate at pretty much the start. And rather than pursue innocence civilly he goes after a basic gag order he made her sign to give up her rights to say anything that happened.
That does not look very good.
And that may very well be the case. But we do not know that with any degree of certainty, and that is my entire point...
It is conjecture.
Once again, as Bishop Gracida said, "I believe that he is justified in not seeking to clear his name through a canonical process; at the present time such processes are very flawed in most dioceses. Rather I would like to believe that he intends to try to clear his name through the civil courts." It's not like Bishop Gracida is speaking off the cuff here with no frame of reference at all...
Did you listen to todays statement? It does seem that his faith in the Church process has erroded over the years.
It does seem the Church is assuming guilt without proof. They have had plenty of time to question her.
And again he is not seeking innocence civilly...he is seeking to say she had not right to speak of anything that happened. Unless I missed it that is the core of his civil case, not false accusation. But violation of secrecy that was a condition of employment.
Does anyone here think that if he was patient with the process and appealed all the way to the Vatican instead of pushing a civil suit against his accuser, that the Vatican would not ensure he received a fair investigation and outcome?
So he's not even going after libel . he's not even trying to clear his name?
0.0
He is not to speak in his capacity as a priest. He does not give a homily for instance. But that does not mean we stop calling him father.
Bishop Gracida did not approve of this continuing to speak or to represent himself not as a priest, but as blacksheepdog .
"As a good sheep dog he will continue to try to protect the flock from the dangers of heresy, heterodoxy, and all other forms of untruth."
Now, until his suspension is lifted, he is free from the Church’s prohibition on clerics participating in the political life of the nation. Given his past outspoken criticism of the current slide of our government to become more and more like the socialist governments of Europe, I think that we can expect to hear The Black Sheep Dog speak out more openly on the burning issues we will face in the election year of 2012. I know from my own experience that God sometimes “writes straight with crooked lines” as the Portuguese put it, and so perhaps God is using this new (unwanted) freedom from ecclesiastical restraint to permit The Black Sheep Dog to say some important things in the next 16 months on those burning issues.
Yes we do. It is now stated fact as has been presented in this thread. His superiors have revealed this information.
I mean he said:
Yeah that just sounds suspect to me. Civil and human rights? uh huh. People in power want him gone?
There are certain persons in authority in the Church that want me gone, and I shall be gone. ... 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. ... My canon lawyer and my civil lawyers have concluded that I cannot receive a fair and just hearing under the Church's present process. 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. ... I am, indeed, not ready to be extinguished. Under the name "The Black Sheep Dog," I shall be with you through radio broadcasts and writing. My autobiography, The Black Sheep Dog, is almost ready for publication. My topics will be broader than in the past, and my audience likewise is apt to be broader. I'll do what I can under the circumstances.
I pray for him, but I personally find these actions more suspect than brave or exonerating.
TLF, you nor I know the ins and outs. Did something drive Fr. Corapi to pursue civil action knowing the canonical consequences? Fr. Corapi has stated he has a Bishop advising him that his course of action is appropriate, Bishop Gracida believes it is appropriate, and he is the Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese where the charges stem from, still lives there, and established SOLT within the Church. These are the details I am talking about, and they are where the Devil lies... That is why it is conjecture; no one here knows.
Perhaps this thread should be closed because all that can be done is speculations and gossip, which despite all of our own opinions on the matter, should be something we all strive to not do.
just my humble two cents.
Pax Christi.
Which would be winable.Yep just checked it. His civil suit is breach of contract not libel, slander or false accusation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?