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.
I thought that too, at first. Then I read his answer, and it made sense.
What specifically did he say that was a lie? Please support your impression with some form of reasoning.
SOLT is not the church
Yes, the daily Gospel and the office of readings are part of my waking holy hour.
They never fail to speak in the spirit to every aspect of life, from recent days, to dreams, to current events.
You know, the one thing I find most disturbing about this whole situation, is even if it does turn out that Corapi is fallen, (which is how it looks because it appears SOLT believes its so) there are way to many already condemning or chomping at the bit to condemn the man. No one has a right to cast stones and condemn anyone for sin. We are all in the same boat.
Lest we forget, there but for the grace of God, go I.
The noon reading:
Baruch 4:28-29
As by your will you first strayed away from God, so now turn back and search for him ten times as hard; for as he brought down those disasters on you, so will he rescue you and give you eternal joy.
Joab . . for starters, he was accused of having sexual relations with more than one woman. The SOLT affirms this to be true. His response deals with only one for starters and so is an obfuscation, as if denying one he denies all.
He was accused of illegal drug use. The SOLT reveals they have proof he has been using drugs. He claims he has not.
That makes him a liar.
And it is really odd that he refers to the direct call to obedience as a "suggestion".
No, that means someone is... There is a difference, and right now we don't know who that is. One good thing to come of all of this, though, is the civil repercussions that come into play because the civil suit Fr. Corapi has filed has filed. It is evident that someone is lying, and Fr. Corapi was very up front in his filing that the claims made against him are false. Whoever is lying will now have civil penalties to pay in addition to the Canonical penalties that will probably be levied.
Originally it was an invitation, it was not until their last letter that obedience was invoked, which is odd because they said, "SOLT will do all within its power to assist Fr. Corapi if he desires to seek a dispensation from his rights and obligations as a priest and as a professed member of the SOLT..." If he has said he wants out, you say he is unfit and will help him get out, why the change now?
Something is definitely fishy in DenmarkOriginally it was an invitation, it was not until their last letter that obedience was invoked, which is odd because they said, "SOLT will do all within its power to assist Fr. Corapi if he desires to seek a dispensation from his rights and obligations as a priest and as a professed member of the SOLT..." If they know he wants, "to end his ministry as a priest and a member of the SOLT," and say he is unfit and will help him get out, why the change now?
Originally it was an invitation, it was not until their last letter that obedience was invoked, which is odd because they said, "SOLT will do all within its power to assist Fr. Corapi if he desires to seek a dispensation from his rights and obligations as a priest and as a professed member of the SOLT..." If they know he wants, "to end his ministry as a priest and a member of the SOLT," and say he is unfit and will help him get out, why the change now?
Not sure. But if they do not grant the dispensation he is subject to the vow. I think they did not want to publicly expose him even when he left. But when he started going full black sheep dog and misleading the faithful they felt they needed to do all in their power to stop that.
That is my guess
And it is really odd that he refers to the direct call to obedience as a "suggestion".
The civil suit is not about lying per se. . . . the civil suit is about breech of contract, a contract in which he paid $100,000 for her silence and tried to take away her right and obligation to go to the Bishops of the Church with his behavior.
That, right there, stinks to high heaven - no one, LET ALONE A PRIEST, pays that kind of money for silence unless they have something to hide.
16. All of the alleged events giving rise to the false, malicious and unprivileged statements included in XXXXX Letter allegedly took place during the time that Corapi was an ordained Priest in the Catholic Church.
17. XXXXX's publication of the Letter was unprivileged and made with knowledge of its falsity and with reckless disregard of the truth. These acts constitute actual malice.
18. XXXXX's Letter has caused actual damages to Corapi.
19. As a result of XXXXX's publication of the Letter, the Catholic Church has placed Corapi on adminishative leave from priestly ministry for allegedly behaving in a manner unbecoming of a priest.
20. The SOLT released a statement regarding Corapi being placed on administrative leave from priestly ministry for allegedly behaving in a manner unbecoming of a priest.
21. The SOLT's statement and the Church's placing Corapi on administrative leave has been reported by media outlets across the country.
22. As a result of XXXXX's publication of the Letter, Corapi's regularly scheduled television shows were removed from EWTN television network and Corapi's regularly scheduled radio programs were removed from radio stations across the country.
23. XXXXX's publication of the Letter has caused permanent and irreparable damage to Corapi's good name, reputation and to his ability to perform his occupation.
24. Corapi is entitled to punitive damages due to XXXXX's actual malice in publishing the Letter with knowledge of its falsity and with reckless disregard of the truth.
As a result of XXXXX's breach of the Separation Agreement and Release of Claims, Santa Cruz Media, Inc., is unable to book any Church related speaking engagements for Corapi until such time as Corapi's priestly faculties are restored by the Catholic Church.
I think that to characterize previous calls as only an invitation is to whitewash what has been going on.
How do you know it was only an invitation before? How do you know obedience was not invoked before? Putting forth assumptions as fact then arguing based on presumed facts only causes confusion. Where is your evidence that the SOLT has never tried to invoke obedience on him before?
But now that it has been made unambiguously clear for all . . . .where is his obedience?
He expressed disappointment that Father Corapi chose not to remain in SOLT and to refuse the orders invitation for him to live in community, leaving his Montana home. Father Sheehan said he had tried to arrange a meeting with Father Corapi before any final decision was announced, but had not heard back from him. Father Sheehan said that SOLT would issue a statement shortly.
We wanted him to come back to the community, and that would have meant leaving everything he has. It would have been a drastic change for him, Father Sheehan said. We will continue to move pastorally and charitably, taking steps to protect his good name.
Have you read it? Count I of the suit is precisely about libel and the damage her alleged lies caused his ministry.
And as for Fr. Corapi's desired end state for all of this, I find item 35. quite telling:
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?