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.
Fr John Corapi's Kafkaesque Catch-22: Good-Bye Good Priest!When a good priest’s good name is under siege these days, the situation he faces is best summed up in a combination of two terms from classic literature used in my title. What Father John Corapi and other accused priests face is an all-too-familiar “Kafkaesque Catch-22.”
“Kafkaesque” refers to an oppressive, nightmarish situation from which there seems no escape. It’s a reference to the fictional worlds created by Czech writer Franz Kafka (1883-1924) who wrote in German. “Kafkaesque” is today used to describe a scenario like that in Kafka’s most famous novel, The Trial (1925). It’s the story of an innocent man accused and facing trial, but subtly prevented from offering any defense because the tools for doing so elude him at every turn while prosecutors lurk in the shadows with agendas and motives that are never clear.
A “Catch-22″ is also a situation with no hope of resolution because two mutually incompatible conditions are imposed, each countering and contradicting the other. The term comes from the title of a famous American novel, Catch-22 by Joseph Heller (Simon and Shuster, 1955). In Catch-22, a World War II U.S. Air Force pilot desperately wants to avoid combat duty. The only way to do so is to be judged insane. But wanting to avoid combat duty is itself seen as evidence of his sanity. So in the end, a claim of insanity to avoid combat ends up proving his sanity and fitness for combat.
MY FINAL COMMENT (HOPEFULLY) ON THE CASE OF FATHER JOHN CORAPI | ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEPA READER SENT ME THIS COMMENT, BUT WISHED TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS:
1.) In the moral sphere, is not the disclosure of private sins in public the essence of detraction? Did the author of today’s statement not commit a grave sin by mentioning the particular sins that Father is accused to have committed? If Father is lying, and anything here said is true, he must be compelled by someone he respects to admit wrong, and take the appropriate ecclesiastical penalties that come with it. If he is telling the truth and this an assassination campaign on the part of a cabal of American prelates, is this statement nothing more than mere game play on the part of SOLT and your successor to compel obedience on two definitive articles so that they can proceed forward on pretext when Father refuses to return to community or drop his civil suit? If he refuses to enter community and refuses to drop the suit, they can proceed in the canonical realm, no? Thus avoiding the impedance of the civil suit?
2.) Is it illicit, illegal, or immoral for a superior to propose terms of obedience as a pretext for further canonical action? Why would they want him to return to community and drop the lawsuit given the litany of injurious and reprobate actions he has committed. My thought is simple, and is one echoed by his accuser and SOLT. Forcing him into community and more than likely asking him to forfeit SCM and his personal wealth would castrate his public ministry. If he refuses, they accomplish the same thing by deeming him rogue priest and unfaithful Catholic.
3.) This issue is much large than Father Corapi. His is a high profile emblem of episcopal abuse in the post-Conciliar Church. It goes not just to the most egregious cases like Father Macrae, but every orthodox priest (either conservative or traditional) that has had the full weight of the episcopal office brought down on them for simply or for forcefully proclaiming the Faith only adding injury to the social isolation, the assignments to the middle of no where (not that the souls in the middle of no where do not need priests, but you understand my meaning), involuntary sabbaticals, forced psychological counselling, etc, etc, ad nauseam. I plan to carry on this crusade for all of them that suffer for Him at the hands of lawful, albeit heretical or immoral superiors. It won’t make me friends, but mundane fear is the grave sin.
MY FINAL COMMENT (HOPEFULLY) ON THE CASE OF FATHER JOHN CORAPI | ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP1) As reported on EWTN in an interview by Raymond Arroyo with a journalist from NCR, the journalist spoke with Fr Sheehan who told the journalist that the civil suit brought by Fr Corapi put pressure on the accuser and other witnesses, which under canon law poses a problem as witness must not be pressured. This is the only theory under which I know of that SOLT was requesting or demanding that Fr Corapi drop the civil defamation suit. AS SOLT violated Father Corapi’s canonical rights by suspending him without judgment, they had no authority to demand he drop the civil suit.
2) Now, apparently SOLT has rendered judgment on Fr Corapi, and thus ending the canonical investigation, and imposed the penalties of continuation of his suspension, ordering him to the SOLT community under obedience, and ordering him to drop the lawsuit under obedience. This is a violation of Father’s civil rights, ordering him to drop the lawsuit, AND SOLT no longer has the ‘justification’ that the lawsuit impedes canonically on the investigation as it is over. On the other hand, if judgment has NOT been rendered, then SOLT is once again in violation of Father Corapi’s canonical rights by imposing penalties without judgment.
3) SOLT already violated Father Corapi’s canonical rights by suspending him prior to any investigation of the allegations, including not even determining if the allegations were credible.
4) Furthermore, SOLT seems to have committed the sin of detraction by publicly announcing Father’s suspension, leaving hanging implications.
5) Furthermore, SOLT committed a more grave sin of detraction on July 5 by announcing in gruesome detail the allegations and/or the judgment of what sins Father committed.
6) Furthermore, the only substantial allegation/conviction that could be proven beyond “he said/she said” in the July 5 statement by SOLT was that of excess wealth. Bishop Gracida stated Father Corapi did not take a vow of poverty. SOLT says that he did, “as a perpetually professed member”. SOLT changed their constitution in 1994 to include a vow of poverty, Father Corapi apparently never took the vow.
7) Father Corapi did not file the civil suit until after being suspended in violation of his canonical rights.
Pretty much what I expected. A big no on following his vow of obedience and a desire to act outside the Church.
BY NOW MOST OF YOU HAVE READ THE STATEMENT ISSUED TODAY BY THE LEADERSHIP OF THE SOCIETY OF OUR LADY OF THE MOST HOLY TRINITY ON THE CASE OF FATHER JOHN CORAPI.
The statement seems to me to be nothing more or less than an effort by the SOLT leadership to ‘throw Father John Corapi under the bus.’ Maybe he deserves it, maybe he does not, I do not know. I have had no direct contact with Father Corapi in many years. But it seems to me that the issuing of the statement is an effort by the SOLT leadership to justify their own mishandling of his case from the beginning. It is a classic example of what psychologists call transference.
As I have previously pointed out, Father Corapi was not charged, as far as I can figure out, with a civil crime. Nor was he accused of sexual misconduct with a minor. Rather, his conduct which resulted in the accusatory letter sent by the woman seems to have been fostered by the lax leadership of SOLT itself. Even though he did not have a vow of poverty he was given freedom to acquire and use wealth which can in itself have a corrupting influence on anyone.
MY CHIEF COMPLAINT AGAINST BOTH THE CHANCERY OF THE DIOCESE OF CORPUS CHRISTI AND THE LEADERSHIP OF SOLT IS THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE THE GOOD OF THE CHURCH IN MIND WHEN THEY ACTED PRECIPITOUSLY TO PUBLICLY SUSPEND FATHER CORAPI.
Like I said before...just break out the Fulton Sheen. His preaching is better and his character clean.
Like I said before...just break out the Fulton Sheen. His preaching is better and his character clean.
Everyone is assuming SOLT is standing up for truth and ready to metaphorically kill this stupid priest. Yet SOLT is doing their own running and won't respond to question. It's true innocent until proven guilty is a fantasy
Excellent series!
Indeed. I love some of the audio I have of him too.
awesomeBishop Fulton Sheen = "Life is Worth Living"
Superifical facts can seem important, but they are superficial.
The REAL questoin is why? Why is this a fact? What is this fact's relvance to the argument? Dos this fact have the importance the argument seems to give it?
Well, no, it has no real relevance or importance to the argument. Why? Bcause it is superficial only. It has no real meat to it.
Why?
Fr Corpai filed a civil suit against her and that STOPPED the investigation by the Church . . . how can they be proven by the church when the investigation was hamstrung by Fr Corapi himself?
Considering she is the one making the allegations then she is the one who has to prove herself and provide weight and substantial evidence to her claim. She originally is the accuser, not the defendant, and the accuser has to provide a substantial base and credibility to their allegations. Corapi did not stop the investigation but rather SOLT viewed his civil suit as putting "pressure" on the woman which is what stopped it. Secondly SOLT did not properly investigate the accusations and instead suspended Corapi without making any attempt to first investigate the charges.Such misuse of this "fact" to claim or imply Corapi's innocence or the woman's guilt is misleading at best and extremely prejudicial.
Again: And why? Fr Corpai filed a civil suit against her and that STOPPED the investigation by the Church . . . how can they be proven when the investigation was hamstrung by Fr Corapi himself?
Other co-workers who worked with Corapi saw this woman do this. There are eyewitnesses to her threats and her attacks.Unproven allegegations. . probably true, but still UNPROVEN. And such allegations are to be proven in a court of law, not on the internet.
Thank goodness the court system doesns't work the way you lay things out here.
Yes, and who is the defendant here? Corapi. Not the woman. His civil suit regarding defamation and breach of contract is a secondary case that was brought forth due to the damage of character that has been caused. The civil suit was viewed as putting undue pressure on the woman, which is what caused the case to be stopped.Again, ALL UNPROVEN and still allegations. . ONE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
Thank GOODNESS our laws require that.
.Corapi is the defendant in the case, not the woman. Innocent till proven guilty regards the defendant. Any secondary court cases regarding slander and libel is a secondary issue that stems from Corapi originally being the defendant to the case.But here I see in this post she is already judged guilty instead of presumed innocent, as a court requires, based on unproven allegations and CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE. .
NO ONE here knows, NO ONE here can know who is innocent and who is guilty of what
There is an audio sheen Site...let me find it...link
Some is pay some is free. My wife got a whole CD of stuff for her dad and I.
Did you find it online?
Audio Sancto Sermons Series has some good homilies on mp3, but none are of Bishop Sheen.
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?