Update on Fr. John Corapi

[thereselittleflower]

We have emailed and have a dear friend in common, so I know through that, but it's also on the About Me section of the blog.

ok so I clicked on the user name, and got this:

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
​

He doesn't identify who he is. . . how do we find that information?



Wait nvm I found it.

 

[Michie]

A wrap-up of the Corapi situation, with some new information...


Since Fr. John Corapi released his bombshell statement Friday, in which he announced that he was leaving the priesthood, several pieces of new information have emerged that shed light on the situation.

Before we get to those, though, I would like to again call attention to the written statement on his new web site and the narrated version available on YouTube. These present Fr. Corapi’s own explanation of the current situation and provide a valuable source of information regarding it.

I would also point out something that may not be obvious if you are exposed to just one of the two sources: Though the wording is the same in both (except for very slight differences), they are significantly different in tone. In particular, the modulations of Fr. Corapi’s voice convey a tone of reasonableness not conveyed by the words of the printed edition. If you’ve read only the latter, be sure and listen to the former, because it contains important tonal information not captured in the written version.

At the same time, the substance of the two is the same, and the facts are not altered: Fr. Corapi has chosen of his own volition to abandon his priestly ministry rather than wait for the outcome of the investigation of the charges against him.
At this point, allow me to issue . . .

THE BIG RED DISCLAIMER: I do not claim to know whether Fr. Corapi is innocent or guilty. I have no way of assessing that. I pointed this out several times in my previous post, but I got quite a few messages accusing me of “judging” Fr. Corapi and assuming him guilty before the facts are in, etc. None of that is true. I understand that his fans are hurting from recent events, and I fully understand that, so let me once again stress—this time in more emphatic form—that I do not know whether he is innocent or guilty. I am trying to offer perspective on the facts as they are known at this time.

Now, let’s get to the new information about his situation.

The Black-Sheep Dog (tm)
I’ve received several communications by email pointing to the fact that Fr. Corapi’s business—

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/new-information-on-the-fr.-corapi-situation.html#ixzz1PvtmFyjS

 

[Chrystal-J]

According to a post from someone on the "Father Corapi" Facebook page, his "Black Sheep Dog" site has been "high jacked by his accuser" and will now go to the "Online Catholic Network" site.
From the "Father Corapi" facebook page:
"The accuser has hijacked the domain name www.theblacksheepdog.com. It diverts you to Online Catholic Network."

Link to the Father Corapi facebook page:
Fr John Corapi | Facebook

Note that www.theblacksheepdog.us still goes to Corapi's new site. It's the ".com" that goes to the Catholic Network. So, I'm not sure about the "hijacking" but it's a little weird.

 

[thereselittleflower]

The Bishop's post has been used by some here to promote Corapi's decision to forgo ecclesial investigation and turn to the secular court system, as if the Bishop was giving his blessing.

Here is what the Bishop actually 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. Since I believe that his accuser is a former manager of his media company who he terminated with some kind termination agreement, and since she has evidently sought revenge for her termination by writing to the Bishop of Corpus Christi denouncing Father John, I believe that it is possible for him to do so and I wish him every success in such an endeavor. The basis for his lawsuit would probably be defamation of character, libel, extortion, breech of contract, or whatever.

​

As we know, the basis of the lawsuit is not defamation but breech of contract.

Notice that he says "I would LIKE to believe . ." not "This is what Corapi is doing . . ."


The Good Bishop is trying to assume the best. That does not mean he has fully informed himself of the details, or looked at all aspects. He is speaking as to what he hopes is the case in regards to Corapi's intent.

 

[thereselittleflower]

According to a post from someone on the "Father Corapi" Facebook page, his "Black Sheep Dog" site has been "high jacked by his accuser" and will now go to the "Online Catholic Network" site.
From the "Father Corapi" facebook page:
"The accuser has hijacked the domain name www.theblacksheepdog.com. It diverts you to Online Catholic Network."

Link to the Father Corapi facebook page:
Fr John Corapi | Facebook

Note that www.theblacksheepdog.us still goes to Corapi's new site. It's the ".com" that goes to the Catholic Network. So, I'm not sure about the "hijacking" but it's a little weird.

Everything about this is weird.

And how in the world would he know who is responsible?

Aditionally, the audio file was not at thblacksheepdog.com it was :

http://theblacksheepdog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/unleashed_ep106-20-11.mp3

theblacksheepdog.files.wordpress.com . . . .

 

[Michie]

Fr Corapi: reflections from a priestly point of view...

 

[thereselittleflower]

A wrap-up of the Corapi situation, with some new information...


Since Fr. John Corapi released his bombshell statement Friday, in which he announced that he was leaving the priesthood, several pieces of new information have emerged that shed light on the situation.

Before we get to those, though, I would like to again call attention to the written statement on his new web site and the narrated version available on YouTube. These present Fr. Corapi’s own explanation of the current situation and provide a valuable source of information regarding it.

I would also point out something that may not be obvious if you are exposed to just one of the two sources: Though the wording is the same in both (except for very slight differences), they are significantly different in tone. In particular, the modulations of Fr. Corapi’s voice convey a tone of reasonableness not conveyed by the words of the printed edition. If you’ve read only the latter, be sure and listen to the former, because it contains important tonal information not captured in the written version.



Read more: [URL]http://www.ncregister.com/new-information-on-the-fr.-corapi-situation.html#ixzz1PvtmFyjS[/URL]

I'm sorry, but there is nothing reasonable in the way he rants against his accuser, flaying her publically, putting her sins and failings out there for the world to see.

She did not publically accuse him.


But he has publically accused her and not just in passing, but repeatedly, listing out her character flaws, substance abuse, etc and publically detracted her at best.

 

[Chrystal-J]

Everything about this is weird.

And how in the world would he know who is responsible?

Aditionally, the audio file was not at thblacksheepdog.com it was :

http://theblacksheepdog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/unleashed_ep106-20-11.mp3

theblacksheepdog.files.wordpress.com . . . .

Well, the post was not from Corapi himself, but was posted on his Facebook page by someone and re-posted on mine. (Which usually only happens when Corapi himself posts something.)
But, I can't figure out how they can blame the accuser and say they don't know who the accuser is at the same time. Has the "accuser" been revealed and I missed it?

 

[thereselittleflower]

Fr Corapi: reflections from a priestly point of view...

From your link:

Fr Corapi: reflections from a priestly point of view

​

Fr Corapi has published another defence of himself, including a further attack on his accuser, the process by which he was being investigated, and the people conducting it. I think most priest bloggers will be profoundly disturbed by all of this, and, if sensible, will make a serious examination of conscience.


....Considering that priests, along with the rest of the human race, are damaged by original sin and their own personal sins, "celebrity status" is also a danger for the "fans." When a parish priest falls, there are always parishioners who insist that "he was the best priest we ever had." When a "celebrity priest" announces that he is leaving active ministry, the number of the confused and hurt is likely to be several orders of magnitude higher.


....As priests,we are subject to the waking nightmare that someone will make a false allegation against us, and we will be out on administrative leave forthwith. Given the damage done by priests, we just need to accept that this will be a penance we have to do for the good of the whole Church. The process can seem unjust and a priest can feel he has been hung out to dry, thrown under a bus, fed to the crows or whatever; but we all know why this has to happen. I'm sure that some details in the process need to be corrected for the sake of justice but it is essentially the right thing for the Church to do.

I am not speaking purely theoretically here. Recently I met a good priest, an old friend whom I had not seen for some years. He told me that he had been put on leave because of a malicious allegation. After seven months it had just been proved to be false. When Father spoke of his joy at being able to wear a clerical collar again, it was hard not to be moved to tears.

....I have mentioned another important lesson for priests, especially priests who are bloggers or otherwise well-known. We need to examine our conscience seriously and regularly, and put St Charles Borromeo's motto Humilitas somewhere prominent so that we can reflect on it often. In our situation, humility is not just a pious aspiration, it is a matter of spiritual life or death.


http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2011/06/fr-corapi-reflections-from-priestly.html
​

 

[thereselittleflower]

Well, the post was not from Corapi himself, but was posted on his Facebook page by someone and re-posted on mine. (Which usually only happens when Corapi himself posts something.)
But, I can't figure out how they can blame the accuser and say they don't know who the accuser is at the same time. Has the "accuser" been revealed and I missed it?

He's taking the accuser to court for breach of contract. But how they know the accuser is responsible for this redirect if that is what it is? Makes no sense to me.

And when you initiat a court proceeding, your lawyers tell you not to talk about the case publically . . . yet we see Corapi doing just the opposite. .


This is all weird . . . . not adding up.

 

[Chrystal-J]

He's taking the accuser to court for breach of contract. But how they know the accuser is responsible for this redirect if that is what it is? Makes no sense to me.

My question is...how did he find out who the accuser is since it's being kept a secret by the church?

From his "black sheep dog" site:
Some of the things that might surprise you about the way some of the bishops treat accused priests are as follows: 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).

I would think he can't sue someone based on a "guess"--unless the name was revealed and I missed it.

 

[thereselittleflower]

My question is...how did he find out who the accuser is since it's being kept a secret by the church?

From his "black sheep dog" site:
Some of the things that might surprise you about the way some of the bishops treat accused priests are as follows: 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).

I would think he can't sue someone based on a "guess"--unless the name was revealed and I missed it.

Have no idea.

but remember, in Texas you can sue anyone for anything - you don't need proof to bring a lawsuit against someone in Texas.

 

[isshinwhat]

The Bishop's post has been used by some here to promote Corapi's decision to forgo ecclesial investigation and turn to the secular court system, as if the Bishop was giving his blessing.

Here is what the Bishop actually 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. Since I believe that his accuser is a former manager of his media company who he terminated with some kind termination agreement, and since she has evidently sought revenge for her termination by writing to the Bishop of Corpus Christi denouncing Father John, I believe that it is possible for him to do so and I wish him every success in such an endeavor. The basis for his lawsuit would probably be defamation of character, libel, extortion, breech of contract, or whatever.

​

As we know, the basis of the lawsuit is not defamation but breech of contract.

Notice that he says "I would LIKE to believe . ." not "This is what Corapi is doing . . ."


The Good Bishop is trying to assume the best. That does not mean he has fully informed himself of the details, or looked at all aspects. He is speaking as to what he hopes is the case in regards to Corapi's intent.

Incorrect, TLF.

Many have asked, or criticized, me concerning the reason I filed a civil defamation suit against the accuser in this case. It is because the two men I respect most in the Catholic Church advised me to do so. Fr. James Flanagan, Founder and most respected member of the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity, and Bishop Rene Gracida, the former Bishop of Corpus Christi, had a meeting on this matter. The result was that they advised me strongly to file a civil defamation suit. Why would they do this? Because they felt it was the only way I could receive a fair and just hearing. This advice was conveyed to me through Fr. Tony Anderson of the Society of Our Lady.

 

[isshinwhat]

My question is...how did he find out who the accuser is since it's being kept a secret by the church?

You have someone whom you have fired who threatens to destroy you, who had the police called on her after assaulting a member of your staff, etc. Within a short time, you have claims made to the Church against you, but they will/cannot tell you who made the claims. You know with a comfortable degree of certainty who it is, although those involved in the canonical process will/are unable to acknowledge, so you provide evidence that the person lacks credibility and has made threats to defame you.

When that doesn't work, you seek counsel from your Spiritual Advisors, the founder of SOLT and the Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi who established SOLT within the Church, and they advise you to pursue the matter in civil court, and then the canonical court comes back and says the civil action is impeding the canonical action because it is pressuring your unnamed witness. Now you know with a high degree of certainty who it is.

 

[isshinwhat]

One more thing, Fr. Corapi is legally limited in what he can sue for civilly due to his not being told during the canonical process who his accuser is. You cannot sue a person for libel when you are not told who is making what are presumably false allegations against you. You have to go with what you've got, which is evidently breach of contract, and I assume something pertaining to the assault which the police were called in for.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Incorrect, TLF.

You're quoting what Corpai said someone said to him. I am quoting what the Bishop himself said.

What Corapi says he was told is called heresay evidence.

I was quoting what the Bishop said directly.

"I would like to believe that he intends to try to clear his name through the civil courts. "
​

 

[thereselittleflower]

One more thing, Fr. Corapi is legally limited in what he can sue for civilly due to his not being told during the canonical process who his accuser is. You cannot sue a person for libel when you are not told who is making what are presumably false allegations against you. You have to go with what you've got, which is evidently breach of contract, and I assume something pertaining to the assault which the police were called in for.

In the State of Texas, one can sue anyone for anything no matter how outlandish.

Texas is infamous for this.. . People go to Texas to file suit that they can't file anywhere else in the country.

 

[isshinwhat]

In the State of Texas, one can sue anyone for anything no matter how outlandish.

Texas is infamous for this.. . People go to Texas to file suit that they can't file anywhere else in the country.

Santa Cruz Media is based out of Montana, so I would assume the civil action is taking place within the Montana legal system. But regardless, you still have to prove you case, hence my previous post.

 

[isshinwhat]

You're quoting what Corpai said someone said to him. I am quoting what the Bishop himself said.

What Corapi says he was told is called heresay evidence.

I was quoting what the Bishop said directly.

"I would like to believe that he intends to try to clear his name through the civil courts. "
​

TLF, neither Bishop Gracida or Fr. Corapi's statements disagree with one another... Your assertion was incorrect. Father Corapi received counsel from Bishop Gracida and the founder of SOLT. I know that doesn't fit your narrative, but it is what has happened.

 

[MariaRegina]

You have someone whom you have fired who threatens to destroy you, who had the police called on her after assaulting a member of your staff, etc. Within a short time, you have claims made to the Church against you, but they will/cannot tell you who made the claims. You know with a comfortable degree of certainty who it is, although those involved in the canonical process will/are unable to acknowledge, so you provide evidence that the person lacks credibility and has made threats to defame you.

When that doesn't work, you seek counsel from your Spiritual Advisors, the founder of SOLT and the Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi who established SOLT within the Church, and they advise you to pursue the matter in civil court, and then the canonical court comes back and says the civil action is impeding the canonical action because it is pressuring your unnamed witness. Now you know with a high degree of certainty who it is.

Well stated.

We should be praying for all parties involved.