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.
Seems rather average these days.I listened to his statement and I hear a man with more faith in himself than the Church. That is part of what upset me.
Thats true.In canonical terms the process is not going to move like lightning in 3 months
and he knows that. Anyone who knows canon law, and he does, knows that.
Saw the same thing at his conference. The Lord humbles.Like I said, when I listen to his recent comments I head mountains of pride and it really turns me off. I really tried to not have an opinion on this until it was over but he kind of really tipped it for me with his actions. I don't see them as the actions of an innocent man seeking justice...now he may be innocent, that is not my point.
Maybe he is just being a realist. Did you hear how often he felt thrown under the bus? This is the culmination so maybe, just maybe, the Church does have some responsiblity in this too.Even if he is innocent he is taking this road that says he is bigger than the Church and secular law will get him justice and the Church is not good enough for him. If after a canonical process he felt he still was not cleared that is one thing. But thinking he deserves some 3 month clear when the canonical process for everyone else takes longer is another sign of pride in my view.
Sadly this is the human conditionPerhaps 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.
Yep just checked it. His civil suit is breach of contract not libel, slander or false accusation.
This is why I think this thread should get closed, its producing no good fruits, and lacks charity.
This is why I think this thread should get closed, its producing no good fruits, and lacks charity.
I will be attacked for this, but Corapi is arrogant and thinks he is above the law. He wants his parishioners to be obedient to the magisterium, but when it comes to him no.
I say, don't let the door hit you in the backside. I knew it from jump street and I let my intuition be known on this forum. Corapi was a sketchy guy and I think he was in the ministry for all the wrong reason.
I think it is very interesting how the daily Mass readings seem to mirror what is happening in our every day lives! Just saying........
Thats pretty much it. The same reasons the last two should have been closed too. Rather ugly and dark isn't it? Of course its ok to judge those in the public eye. Its hypocrisy.
this is probably one of the more ugly threads out there. A huge example of log/speck. When he have 'gay masses' going on in our Churches and the priest receives nothing but a wrist slap while at the same time a priest getting defrocked for a claim that hasn't even been proven, we then know there is a big problem with the Church in America.
LOL Joab come on, Jesus stopped him, and Peter was not yet a saint, and the Great Commission had not even yet been given.
This is no proof of anything.
They were only in court when brought as one of the accused. These were opportunities for them to witness to the Truth and God before rulers, not to point the finger at someone else and say "They wronged me."
Show me where they were the accusers in a secular court of law. You will not find one instance.
As defense or as plaintif?
As defnse Joab. . . this has absolutely nothing at all to do with Fr Corapi's case for he has not been hauled before the secular court to defend himself.
HE is talking about his civil rights. - and since he has not been taken to court, that means he intends to use the secular law to protect his civil rights, which means taking the accuser to court, and becoming the accuser himself. something Paul NEVER did.
.
Where does it say anywhere these are the words (in the link above) of a retired Bishop?
It says:
RYAN MacDONALD HAS SOME VALUABLE INSIGHTS INTO FATHER JOHN CORAPI’S CASE →
A FEW THOUGHTS ON FATHER CORAPI’S ANNOUNCEMENT YESTERDAY
Posted on June 18, 2011 by abyssum
Ryan MacDonald is a journalist . . I see no Bishop named or referred to . . . . am I missing something?
Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. - 2 Timothy 4:14
St. Paul had claimed many times of being abused and wronged by the peoples. He even stated he was beaten more than the other apostles, shipwrecked, without food and clothing. He condemned the ungratefulness of some of the laypeople and the accusations that he was 'hard in his letters but soft in person'. He defended himself many times from certain laymen, some of which who turned on him like Alexander the metalworker. And St. Paul specifically claimed Alexander the metalworker did him harm, as well as Hymenaeus and Philetus. So there are plenty of areas where the apostles claim of being wronged by someone.
Lets not be like Alexander the metalworker and start turning on our clergy like many of the greeks and jews did.
As far as resisting an evil person I take it you have not read St. Augustine's just war theory? Or the justification for the Crusades? That verse doesn't mean Christians just stand back and take it, and neither did Aquinas or Augustine think the same thing.
Article 1. Whether vengeance is lawful?
Objection 1. It seems that vengeance is not lawful. For whoever usurps what is God's sins. But vengeance belongs to God, for it is written (Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 12:19): "Revenge to Me, and I will repay." Therefore all vengeance is unlawful.
Objection 2. Further, he that takes vengeance on a man does not bear with him. But we ought to bear with the wicked, for a gloss on Canticles 2:2, "As the lily among the thorns," says: "He is not a good man that cannot bear with a wicked one." Therefore we should not take vengeance on the wicked.
Objection 3. Further, vengeance is taken by inflicting punishment, which is the cause of servile fear. But the New Law is not a law of fear, but of love, as Augustine states (Contra Adamant. xvii). Therefore at least in the New Testament all vengeance is unlawful.
Objection 4. Further, a man is said to avenge himself when he takes revenge for wrongs inflicted on himself. But, seemingly, it is unlawful even for a judge to punish those who have wronged him: for Chrysostom [Cf. Opus Imperfectum, Hom. v in Matth., falsely ascribed to St. Chrysostom] says: "Let us learn after Christ's example to bear our own wrongs with magnanimity, yet not to suffer God's wrongs, not even by listening to them." Therefore vengeance seems to be unlawful.
Objection 5. Further, the sin of a multitude is more harmful than the sin of only one: for it is written (Sirach 26:5-7): "Of three things my heart hath been afraid . . . the accusation of a city, and the gathering together of the people, and a false calumny." But vengeance should not be taken on the sin of a multitude, for a gloss on Matthew 13:29-30, "Lest perhaps . . . you root up the wheat . . . suffer both to grow," says that "a multitude should not be excommunicated, nor should the sovereign." Neither therefore is any other vengeance lawful.
On the contrary, We should look to God for nothing save what is good and lawful. But we are to look to God for vengeance on His enemies: for it is written (Luke 18:7): "Will not God revenge His elect who cry to Him day and night?" as if to say: "He will indeed." Therefore vengeance is not essentially evil and unlawful.
I answer that, Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. Accordingly, in the matter of vengeance, we must consider the mind of the avenger. For if his intention is directed chiefly to the evil of the person on whom he takes vengeance and rests there, then his vengeance is altogether unlawful: because to take pleasure in another's evil belongs to hatred, which is contrary to the charity whereby we are bound to love all men. Nor is it an excuse that he intends the evil of one who has unjustly inflicted evil on him, as neither is a man excused for hating one that hates him: for a man may not sin against another just because the latter has already sinned against him, since this is to be overcome by evil, which was forbidden by the Apostle, who says (Romans 12:21): "Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good."
If, however, the avenger's intention be directed chiefly to some good, to be obtained by means of the punishment of the person who has sinned (for instance that the sinner may amend, or at least that he may be restrained and others be not disturbed, that justice may be upheld, and God honored), then vengeance may be lawful, provided other due circumstances be observed.
Reply to Objection 1. He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that "he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." If, however, a man takes vengeance outside the order of divine appointment, he usurps what is God's and therefore sins.
Reply to Objection 2. The good bear with the wicked by enduring patiently, and in due manner, the wrongs they themselves receive from them: but they do not bear with them as to endure the wrongs they inflict on God and their neighbor. For Chrysostom [Cf. Opus Imperfectum, Hom. v in Matth., falsely ascribed to St. Chrysostom] says: "It is praiseworthy to be patient under our own wrongs, but to overlook God's wrongs is most wicked."
Reply to Objection 3. The law of the Gospel is the law of love, and therefore those who do good out of love, and who alone properly belong to the Gospel, ought not to be terrorized by means of punishment, but only those who are not moved by love to do good, and who, though they belong to the Church outwardly, do not belong to it in merit.
Reply to Objection 4. Sometimes a wrong done to a person reflects on God and the Church: and then it is the duty of that person to avenge the wrong. For example, Elias made fire descend on those who were come to seize him (2 Kings 1); likewise Eliseus cursed the boys that mocked him (2 Kings 2); and Pope Sylverius excommunicated those who sent him into exile (XXIII, Q. iv, Cap. Guilisarius). But in so far as the wrong inflicted on a man affects his person, he should bear it patiently if this be expedient. For these precepts of patience are to be understood as referring to preparedness of the mind, as Augustine states (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i).
Reply to Objection 5. When the whole multitude sins, vengeance must be taken on them, either in respect of the whole multitude--thus the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea while they were pursuing the children of Israel (Exodus 14), and the people of Sodom were entirely destroyed (Genesis 19)--or as regards part of the multitude, as may be seen in the punishment of those who worshipped the calf.
Sometimes, however, if there is hope of many making amends, the severity of vengeance should be brought to bear on a few of the principals, whose punishment fills the rest with fear; thus the Lord (Numbers 25) commanded the princes of the people to be hanged for the sin of the multitude.
On the other hand, if it is not the whole but only a part of the multitude that has sinned, then if the guilty can be separated from the innocent, vengeance should be wrought on them: provided, however, that this can be done without scandal to others; else the multitude should be spared and severity foregone. The same applies to the sovereign, whom the multitude follow. For his sin should be borne with, if it cannot be punished without scandal to the multitude: unless indeed his sin were such, that it would do more harm to the multitude, either spiritually or temporally, than would the scandal that was feared to arise from his punishment.
Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. - 2 Timothy 4:14
St. Paul had claimed many times of being abused and wronged by the peoples. He even stated he was beaten more than the other apostles, shipwrecked, without food and clothing. He condemned the ungratefulness of some of the laypeople and the accusations that he was 'hard in his letters but soft in person'. He defended himself many times from certain laymen, some of which who turned on him like Alexander the metalworker. And St. Paul specifically claimed Alexander the metalworker did him harm, as well as Hymenaeus and Philetus. So there are plenty of areas where the apostles claim of being wronged by someone.
Lets not be like Alexander the metalworker and start turning on our clergy like many of the greeks and jews did.
As far as resisting an evil person I take it you have not read St. Augustine's just war theory? Or the justification for the Crusades? That verse doesn't mean Christians just stand back and take it, and neither did Aquinas or Augustine think the same thing.
Where do you find that info? That's what I could not find.Those are Bishop Gracida's words. "abyssum" is Bishop Gracida's login for his Blog, and comes from his Episcopal motto, "Abyssus abyssum invocat" which is a line from the 41/42/43 rd Psalm, which is his favorite. The Ryan McDonald post is different and is a repost of a previous article.
Amen!
Here is a passage from the Second Part of the Second Part of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. The entire article is very interesting, but pay close attention to the balance in his reply to Objection 4.
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Vengeance (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 108)
Where do you find that info? That's what I could not find.
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?