Update on Fr. John Corapi

[Michie]

Corapi claims retired bishop, SOLT founder suggested lawsuit that blocked Church investigation; threatens accuser with online posting of phone messages...

 

[JoabAnias]

A wrap-up of the Corapi situation, with some new information...
Read more: [URL]http://www.ncregister.com/new-information-on-the-fr.-corapi-situation.html#ixzz1PvtmFyjS[/URL]

There could have been an entirely legitimate reason for this—but I cannot think of it off the top of my head. I am thus left at a loss, trying to imagine what such a reason might be.

The accuser will be forced to testify to her claims under oath. I'm surprised Jimmy didn't figure that out. Perhaps he has no experience with lawyers and civil courts.

 

[thereselittleflower]

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.

You can still bring a case in Texas. I don't know where the suit is filed, I assumed Texas since the Bishop to whom the letter was sent is in Texas no?

Bringing a case to court and proving your case are two different issues. . you may not be able to prove your case, but you can still file for a court hearing.

 

[JoabAnias]

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.

If you want to sue someone, generally you have to go to where they are or otherwise force them to come to court which can be hard to do across state lines. I think the accuser may be in either Montana or Fla.

 

[thereselittleflower]

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.

:facepalm: And the good Bishop HOPES this is what he is doing. Your rendition is based on Corapi's version of the facts. Has the Bishop himself said he counselled him to do so? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

You are relying on second hand evidence, I am pointing out what the Bishop has actually said publically. I simply do not as easily jump to the conclusion you have.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Corapi claims retired bishop, SOLT founder suggested lawsuit that blocked Church investigation; threatens accuser with online posting of phone messages...

This is going too far. . . .

 

[thereselittleflower]

So isshinwhat, he was NOT directly advised to file this suit by the bishop, but NOW says:

"This advice was conveyed to me through Fr. Tony Anderson of the Society of Our Lady."

​

Then this:

The Bishop’s star witness against me is a severely troubled person that I tried to help for years. I provided the Church with evidence as to this accuser’s credibility very early on. There are two hours of audio telephone messages that clearly demonstrate this person’s serious lack of credibility. We shall consider posting some of these audio clips in the future. You can decide if this person sounds sober and/or sane."

​

This just goes too far.




God have mercy . . .

 

[thereselittleflower]

If you want to sue someone, generally you have to go to where they are or otherwise force them to come to court which can be hard to do across state lines. I think the accuser may be in either Montana or Fla.

Except in Texas where anyone can sue anyone for anything. lol

At least that's the way it used to be.

 

[isshinwhat]

:facepalm: And the good Bishop HOPES this is what he is doing. Your rendition is based on Corapi's version of the facts. Has the Bishop himself said he counselled him to do so? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

You are relying on second hand evidence, I am pointing out what the Bishop has actually said publically. I simply do not as easily jump to the conclusion you have.

His Excellency posted Father Corapi's statement on his blog without denying it's content. Given what I know of Bishop Gracida, I am comfortable in my assessment.

 

[isshinwhat]

So isshinwhat, he was NOT directly advised to file this suit by the bishop, but NOW says:

"This advice was conveyed to me through Fr. Tony Anderson of the Society of Our Lady."

​

Then this:

The Bishop’s star witness against me is a severely troubled person that I tried to help for years. I provided the Church with evidence as to this accuser’s credibility very early on. There are two hours of audio telephone messages that clearly demonstrate this person’s serious lack of credibility. We shall consider posting some of these audio clips in the future. You can decide if this person sounds sober and/or sane."

​

This just goes too far.




God have mercy . . .

No one has claimed he was directly advised, but that the advice was given. There is no contradiction.

That being said, I hope he decides not to post the audio. I don't see that it would do any good, but for a man who is being tried in the public eye, I can see him wanting to provide evidence to the contrary in public.

 

[thereselittleflower]

His Excellency posted Father Corapi's statement on his blog without denying it's content. Given what I know of Bishop Gracida, I am comfortable in my assessment.

Regardless of your comfort level with your assessment, the Bishop expressed a hope in his own words, and despite that, the drama Corapi is causing continues to unfold with his public announcment of his intentions of posting phone recordings on the internet to let us be the judge of whether or not this woman is sane.

He continues to detract her character publically, drag her through the mud and try her in the courtroom of public opinion, (which, by the way, she did NOT do), instead of letting things be handled in a court of law.



This is going too far.

 

[thereselittleflower]

No one has claimed he was directly advised, but that the advice was given. There is no contradiction.

That being said, I hope he decides not to post the audio. I don't see that it would do any good, but for a man who is being tried in the public eye, I can see him wanting to provide evidence to the contrary in public.

How did this get in the public eye in the first place? From all I have read it was Father Corapi himself who put this all in the public eye, so if he is getting tried in the public eye it is HIS OWN DOING. How can anyone justify him doing the same to someone else because of what he did to himself?

And since it is in the public eye, are you saying or implying you believe he has the right to go against Church teaching and engage in detraction of his accuser as he has been doing, not even including the phone conversations being threateneed?

CCC
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
​

​

And to what he has already done in detraction of his accuser, he now threatens to release phone recordings to prove his claims to the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION?

Why is he continually engaging in detraction of this woman against the teaching of the Church and why are people supporting him in this?

And another question arises now with the phone recordings - did he even have a legal right to make those recordings?

Did you know that in Montana and in Florida all parties have to give their permission?

Eleven states currently require that all parties consent to the recording. These states are:

• California
• Connecticut
• Florida
• Illinois
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Montana
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• Pennsylvania
• Washington

Telephone recording laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


​

If these were made with her consent, why are they not being reserved as evidence for his court hearing?

Why is he compromising his court case by hanging all this dirty laundry out to dry in front of the public eye?


Are they even admissable as evidence?

 

[BAFRIEND]

If you want to sue someone, generally you have to go to where they are or otherwise force them to come to court which can be hard to do across state lines. I think the accuser may be in either Montana or Fla.

no, you sue them where the action took place

as for the corporation- i saw an employee released statement making accusations against the victim, stating the company was not affiliated with the RCC, and supported fr corapi

one of the posted resonses to the statement was to point out the charter for the corporation had corapi's signature and he was listed as the ceo

so much for the cheesy letter of support from corapi's employee

the author that posted that letter then locked out comments

 

[BAFRIEND]

nm

 

[isshinwhat]

How did this get in the public eye in the first place?

And since it is in the public eye you believe he has the right to go against Church teaching and detract her as he has been doing, not even including the phone conversations being threateneed?

CCC
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
​

​

Why is he continually engaging in detraction of this woman against the teaching of the Church and why are people supporting him in this?

And another question arises now with the phone recordings - did he even have a legal right to make those recordings?

Did you know that in Montana and in Florida all parties have to give their permission?

Eleven states currently require that all parties consent to the recording. These states are:

• California
• Connecticut
• Florida
• Illinois
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Montana
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• Pennsylvania
• Washington

Telephone recording laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


​

If these were made with her consent, why are they not being reserved as evidence for his court hearing?

Why is he compromising his court case by hanging all this dirty laundry out to dry in front of the public eye?

I think you are skimming more than reading the things you post about... They were voicemails left on an answering machine.

CCC
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

As I said, perhaps he believes being tried in public, which his accuser knew would happen, warrants a public response and defense. In that case he could assume he has sufficient foundation and valid reason for airing the recordings and such an airing would be just because no false judgments would be made. Again, I personally hope he refrains, but I'm not privy to everything he is, either. If you feel that passionately about it, post it to his blog. There is a lot of traffic about that very issue.

 

[isshinwhat]

no, you sue them where the action took place

as for the corporation- i saw an employee released statement making accusations against the victim, stating the company was not affiliated with the RCC, and supported fr corapi

one of the posted resonses to the statement was to point out the charter for the corporation had corapi's signature and he was listed as the ceo

so much for the cheesy letter of support from corapi's employee

the author that posted that letter then locked out comments

What is your point? His employees wrote a letter in support of Father Corapi, what is so odd about that? It's not like no one knows the company isn't his, and it ain't his signature at the bottom of the letter...

Statement of Santa Cruz Media, Inc. Relative to Fr. Corapi’s Suspension


Santa Cruz Media, Inc. is the owner of all of Fr. John Corapi’s intellectual property and the DVDs, CDs, and books that flow from it. We are a secular corporation and not affiliated with the Catholic Church in any way. As such, we are not under the jurisdiction of any bishop or other official in the Catholic Church, although we have the utmost respect for Church authority.

We fully support Rev. John Corapi in this terrible trial, not surprisingly having begun on Ash Wednesday. Through the sacrifice and struggle of the desert and all of the dark moments that this entails, we are confident that the glory of the risen Lord will shine forth from the power of the Resurrection and Easter.

We have consulted with a number of canon lawyers. They have assured us that the actions of the Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas are, on several points of canon law, illicit. It is our fervent hope that The Dallas Charter will be changed because of false accusations like this. There is no evidence at this time that Fr. Corapi did anything wrong, only the unsubstantiated rant of a former employee, who, after losing her job with this office, physically assaulted me and another employee and promised to "destroy" Father Corapi. We all continue to pray for this person, and we ask you to do the same.

We sincerely believe that the work Fr. Corapi has done is of greatest value to the Church, hence hated by the devil. We fully intend to make Fr. Corapi’s material available as a service to the Church and the world for as long as we possibly can.

The Church provides no financial support to Fr. Corapi. He has to pay for his own legal representation, medical costs, food, housing, etc. We have never accepted donations or charitable contributions of any kind. We are supporting Father’s efforts to defend himself. Your purchase of products from Santa Cruz Media helps provide the funding for Father's continued work as well as the legal expenses he continues to incur as a result of these malicious allegations.

Father Corapi and all of us here at Santa Cruz Media, Inc. greatly appreciate your kindness, support, and prayers. Please continue to pray for Father Corapi and his accuser, as well as all priests who find themselves in this unfortunate situation.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Bobbi Ruffatto
Vice President of Operations
Santa Cruz Media, Inc.

 

[BAFRIEND]

What is your point? His employees wrote a letter in support of Father Corapi, what is so odd about that? It's not like no one knows the company isn't his, and it ain't his signature at the bottom of the letter...

the truth will come out, it always does

i hope he did not do what the victim says he did, but what if he did ?

what will you do then

 

[isshinwhat]

the truth will come out, it always does

i hope he did not do what the victim says he did, but what if he did ?

what will you do then

Pray for him. As I started this whole thing out saying, I don't know if he's innocent or not. He could have done the things she claims. He's human, he has a past, and men fall. BUT... I believe in charity that without evidence to the contrary everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt. If that means I have to play Devil's Advocate and provide counterbalance to what I believe are incorrect perspectives, false conclusions, etc. then I'll do that. That doesn't mean I have to agree with his handing of the situation or stop discerning, but I can't give up on the principle even when, no especially when it's a difficult one to maintain. It ain't over til it's over, and like you said, the truth will come out.

Sleep well, BA.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Pray for him. As I started this whole thing out saying, I don't know if he's innocent or not. He could have done the things she claims. He's human, he has a past, and men fall. BUT... I believe in charity that without evidence to the contrary everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt. If that means I have to play Devil's Advocate and provide counterbalance to what I believe are incorrect perspectives, false conclusions, etc. then I'll do that. That doesn't mean I have to agree with his handing of the situation or stop discerning, but I can't give up on the principle even when, no especially when it's a difficult one to maintain. It ain't over til it's over, and like you said, the truth will come out.

Sleep well, BA.

i hope the accuser is given the same level of charity corapi is given by his supporters

a simple drug test would go along way for corapi, but all he offers is an argument for his rights and threats of lawsuits and attacking the process

i stated also i do not know if he did it or not, but i will state that he is not acting like an innocent man

i hope he did not do the things he was accused of doing, but most innocent people do not handle their situations the way he is handling it

i will try to sleep well, maybe tonite i will count black sheep dogs and see how that goes

 

[mg0086]

This just doesn't seem like him to just pack up and leave just from accusations that haven't been proven (at least to my knowledge).

It's very saddening, but I do pray for him...