Update on Fr. John Corapi

thereselittleflower · Jul 8, 2011

And look more closely at this:

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.

This is the essence of his court case. . the breach of the Separation Agreement and its financial impact on Corapi.

And yet he himself has tendered his letter of resignation to prevent his priestly faculties being restored. . . .

It is his own actions that have resulted in the damages he claims she caused. . . .

thereselittleflower · Jul 8, 2011

isshinwhat said:
Fr. Sam Medley, SOLT's webmaster stated it in the comments field of the post David linked to before the comments were closed and deleted. They also match this report:

Corapi’s superior: “We wanted him to come back to the community…” — UPDATED | The Deacon's Bench

That is also the same article which stated that SOLT stopped their investigation when Fr. Corapi sent his letter of resignation.

That doesn't mean that through the years it has only been "an invitation" - and that someone chose to put it nicely on a website in that fashion to minimize scandal, does not mean that it was simply an invitation - it is, and has been, an expectation of the order. Using an euphemism, ie "invitation", to mean something stronger is not an uncommonly used literary device.

As far as the investigation goes, what they were forced to stop was their interviews of key people - that does not mean they stopped all efforts and it is now evident they did not stop completely as they now have evidence of his guilt.

isshinwhat · Jul 8, 2011

While he may be asserting that, he is also suing for breach of contract - a contract in which he paid what amounts to hush money in an attempt to abridge and take away her rights to talk to his superiors in the Church about his behavior.

Your original assertion was that the case was not primarily about her alleged lies, but that is the very first part of the case. As for the breach of contract, the contract she signed stated that she would, "...not to interfere with, disparage or otherwise cast a negative light upon Santa Cruz or John Corapi or their activities." Your assertions that he did so to take away her rights are assumptions, not fact. A man who is trying to hush something up rarely confronts his accusers in public when it could have been kept private.

The court documents make clear the intent of his lawsuit, one of which, interestingly enough was the restoration of his priestly faculties.

30. XXXXX's unprivileged publication of the Letter interfered with, disparaged and cast a negative light on Corapi and Santa Cruz Media, Inc.

31. XXXXX's unprivileged publication of the Letter discouraged or dissuaded others from attending Santa Cruz Media, Inc., seminars and events.

32. XXXXX's unprivileged publication of the Letter constitutes harassment of Corapi and Santa Cruz Media, Inc.

33. As a result of XXXXX's breach of the Separation Agreement and Release of Claims, Catholic Charities cancelled an event featuring Corapi which Santa Cruz Media, Inc., had booked for Corapi in DeKalb, Illinois, which was scheduled for March 26, 2001.

Etc, etc... You can claim all you want that the filed a suit to shut her up, but if that is the case he did a poor job of it by confronting the situation in a civil court where everything will come out publicly and risking jail time if he is lying. That would have only worked if he said, "you can't talk and neither am I," which he most definitely did not do. His civil filing makes it most clear what he was accused of, and it did so in April.

isshinwhat · Jul 8, 2011

thereselittleflower said:
That doesn't mean that through the years it has only been "an invitation" - and that someone chose to put it nicely on a website in that fashion to minimize scandal, does not mean that it was simply an invitation - it is, and has been, an expectation of the order. Using an euphemism, ie "invitation", to mean something stronger is not an uncommonly used literary device.

As far as the investigation goes, what they were forced to stop was their interviews of key people - that does not mean they stopped all efforts and it is now evident they did not stop completely as they now have evidence of his guilt.

We tried to continue the investigation without speaking to the principal witnesses.

The investigation was halted after Father Corapi sent us a letter resigning from active ministry and religious life. I have written him a letter asking him to confirm that decision. If so, we will help him with this process of leaving religious life, said Father Sheehan.

They tried to continue the investigation without speaking to key witnesses after the civil suit was filed, but they stopped it altogether once they received the letter, according to this.

thereselittleflower · Jul 8, 2011

isshinwhat said:
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. 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.

And for Corapi to be telling the truth, IN THE FACE OF HIS DISOBEDIENCE AND FAILURE TO HONOR HIS VOWS TO HIS ORDER, and the SOLT to be lying, there would need to be a huge conspiracy - THAT IS EXACTLY what Fr Corapi wants people to believe. . . it gives him a cloak of protection within the minds and hearts of those who refuse to believe he is guilty as charged. . . it gives him an army of followers who will rise up in the public form and defend him against the charges, which his superiors have officially stated are true, and help him denounce his superiors and bishops.

He has failed to honor his vows to his order FOR YEARS AND YEARS . . . he has been DISOBEDIENT for YEARS AND YEARS.

There is no conspiracy.

There is simply a disobedient priest who has been caught in his own web of lies and deception who counts on his "followers" to help him keep it going.

thereselittleflower · Jul 8, 2011

isshinwhat said:
They tried to continue the investigation without speaking to key witnesses after the civil suit was filed, but they stopped it altogether once they received the letter, according to this.

That letter of resignation? That letter was recently received. . . they had to stop talking to key witnesses long before that. I am speaking of the time inbetween those two incidents.

isshinwhat · Jul 8, 2011

thereselittleflower said:
And for Corapi to be telling the truth, IN THE FACE OF HIS DISOBEDIENCE AND FAILURE TO HONOR HIS VOWS TO HIS ORDER, and the SOLT to be lying, there would need to be a huge conspiracy - THAT IS EXACTLY what Fr Corapi wants people to believe. . . it gives him a cloak of protection within the minds and hearts of those who refuse to believe he is guilty as charged. . . it gives him an army of followers who will rise up in the public form and defend him against the charges, which his superiors have officially stated are true, and help him denounce his superiors and bishops.

He has failed to honor his vows to his order FOR YEARS AND YEARS . . . he has been DISOBEDIENT for YEARS AND YEARS.

There is no conspiracy.

There is simply a disobedient priest who has been caught in his own web of lies and deception who counts on his "followers" to help him keep it going.

Like I said, it will all come out eventually. My point in playing Devil's Advocate here is this: the situation is complex and we are not privy to very much information. I know first hand how quickly things can be twisted and have had people close to me hurt by the media running with the Obvious Truth©. I am not going to bet my soul on rushing to judgment, and I pray that no one else does either.

If he is guilty, what will I have lost by withholding judgment? If he is innocent, what will you have lost by making statements like this, "There is simply a disobedient priest who has been caught in his own web of lies and deception who counts on his "followers" to help him keep it going."

isshinwhat · Jul 8, 2011

thereselittleflower said:
That letter of resignation? That letter was recently received. . . they had to stop talking to key witnesses long before that. I am speaking of the time inbetween those two incidents.

I'm talking about their June 20 statement that they, "had not arrived at any conclusion as to the credibility of the allegations under investigation," and, "that Fr. Corapi had not been determined guilty of any canonical or civil crimes." The reception of the letter, as mentioned in the 20 June statement, halted the investigation. Why now, with no further investigation, are they able to determine that he is guilty and the evidence is credible? Again, just questions that don't make sense to me.

thereselittleflower · Jul 8, 2011

isshinwhat said:
Your original assertion was that the case was not primarily about her alleged lies, but that is the very first part of the case. As for the breach of contract, the contract she signed stated that she would, "...not to interfere with, disparage or otherwise cast a negative light upon Santa Cruz or John Corapi or their activities." Your assertions that he did so to take away her rights are assumptions, not fact. A man who is trying to hush something up rarely confronts his accusers in public when it could have been kept private.

Do you not think that people would have begun to ask questions when he stopped appearing, etc because of his suspension?

The man appears to be unstable to me. . . it would not surprise me at all that he would act in such away even if you don't think it is typical.

And he did, in fact, by his contract for which he paid $100,000 for her silence, try to prevent her from talking to ANYONE PERIOD - this includes, by necessity, his superiors in the Church.

If he had something to hide it makes PERFECT sense.

No one can take away your right to go to the leadership of the Church regarding imporper behavior of a priest.

The Church REQUIRES us to go to the bishops if a priest is behaving improperly. This is not merely a right, but AN OBLIGATION imposed on us by the Church.

Paying someone $100,000 in order to be able to penalize them civilly for doing what the Church OBLIGATES us to do puts this all in its proper perspective.

This is an indefensible act. It attempts to strip the Church of Her means to investigate and discipline Her priests.

Only a priest with something to hide would engage in such behavior.

The court documents make clear the intent of his lawsuit, one of which, interestingly enough was the restoration of his priestly faculties.

And yet he then goes and attempts to resign. . . sounds like he really wants them back, right?

No .. .

Etc, etc... You can claim all you want that the filed a suit to shut her up, but if that is the case he did a poor job of it by confronting the situation in a civil court where everything will come out publicly and risking jail time if he is lying. That would have only worked if he said, "you can't talk and neither am I," which he most definitely did not do. His civil filing makes it most clear what he was accused of, and it did so in April.

I did not claim he filed a suit to shut her up.

He had her sign a contract and paid her $100,000 to shut her up.

It did not work.

And so his efforts to keep things secret have unraveled - the payment of $100,000 did not work . ..

And what jail time is he risking? He would only have his case thrown out . . .unless he is prosecuted for illegal drug use, how did he violate any civil laws otherwise?

And yes, by filing his civil suit, which prevented anyone from taking further with the Church's investigating team, he was saying "you can't talk and neither am I" - fortunately, or unfortunately for him, he left a trail of evidence obviating the need to talk to people to gather the evidence to reach a preliminary conclusion that he is unfit for ministry.

thereselittleflower · Jul 8, 2011

isshinwhat said:
I'm talking about their June 20 statement that they, "had not arrived at any conclusion as to the credibility of the allegations under investigation," and, "that Fr. Corapi had not been determined guilty of any canonical or civil crimes." The reception of the letter, as mentioned in the 20 June statement, halted the investigation. Why now, with no further investigation, are they able to determine that he is guilty and the evidence is credible? Again, just questions that don't make sense to me.

Look again.

They did not say they weren't able to determine his guilt.

They said they had not yet arrived at any conclusion . . that they had not yet determined guilt.

They did not say one way or the other that they could or could not.

That they said they had not yet arrived at any conclusion, any determination speaks of the point in the process they were at - they had not made any official pronouncement. . . I would think in hopes that Corapi would change his mind and cooperate with them.

When they got his letter, it is evident they took the evidence they had and proceeded to the next step . they halted, concluded the investigation and arrived at a determination (you do not arrive at a conclusion until you finish your investigation just as a judge and jury, even if they know they have the evidence to convict, will not say they have arrived at a conclusion until the proceedings have come to an end). . he is guilty and unfit for ministry.

thereselittleflower · Jul 8, 2011

isshinwhat said:
Like I said, it will all come out eventually. My point in playing Devil's Advocate here is this: the situation is complex and we are not privy to very much information. I know first hand how quickly things can be twisted and have had people close to me hurt by the media running with the Obvious Truth©. I am not going to bet my soul on rushing to judgment, and I pray that no one else does either.

If he is guilty, what will I have lost by withholding judgment? If he is innocent, what will you have lost by making statements like this, "There is simply a disobedient priest who has been caught in his own web of lies and deception who counts on his "followers" to help him keep it going."

The official statement by the SOLT is very clear and unambiguous.

There is no rushing to judgment about their official statement.

There is no twisting of their official statement.

What disturbs me greatly in this thread is the defense by some members of Fr Corpai's attack on the Church, his order and bishops, and their attack on them as well.

It is for that reason I have been so outspoken to try separate the facts from the smoke screen Fr Corapi has erected around this whole situation.

Michie · Jul 8, 2011

“Pride makes everyone into ‘God,’ and you have no objective truth. The antidote is humility. If God humbled himself, who are we not to humble ourselves? Remember that humility leads to obedience, which leads to life. Pride leads to disobedience and death.”

– John Corapi, 1 May 2010, St. Louis

Read the rest.

Michie · Jul 8, 2011

Pride makes everyone into God, and you have no objective truth. The antidote is humility. If God humbled himself, who are we not to humble ourselves? Remember that humility leads to obedience, which leads to life. Pride leads to disobedience and death.

 John Corapi, 1 May 2010, St. Louis

Read the rest.

isshinwhat · Jul 8, 2011

thereselittleflower said:
The official statement by the SOLT is very clear and unambiguous.

There is no rushing to judgment about their official statement.

There is no twisting of their official statement.

What disturbs me greatly in this thread is the defense by some members of Fr Corpai's attack on the Church, his order and bishops, and their attack on them as well.

It is for that reason I have been so outspoken to try separate the facts from the smoke screen Fr Corapi has erected around this whole situation.

Without a trial there can be no declaration of guilt; before a trial there must be a presumption of innocence. I will withhold my judgment until there is a trial.

JoabAnias · Jul 8, 2011

thereselittleflower said:
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.

What the SOLT affirms does not necessarily make it truth.

It makes it a claim that the SOLT believes to be true. We know nothing further as to why they believe it.

All that proves for me is SOLT believes they have proof.

They have also said the evidence they had wasn't conclusive. Now this appears to be a 180 degree turn around. Again we do not know why.

That the SOLT commission is believing spurious information is not outside of the realm of possibilities.

Though I think its likely there are untruths, nothing said is provable as a lie at this point.

I find no evidence to the contrary so I remain on the fence until such evidence is presented.

Your judgement may be correct, and I am leaning that way myself, however, objective fact is not based on opinion but on evidence and right now, evidence is lacking.

isshinwhat · Jul 8, 2011

JoabAnias said:
What the SOLT affirms does not necessarily make it truth.

It makes it a claim that the SOLT believes to be true. We know nothing further as to why they believe it.

All that proves for me is SOLT believes they have proof.

They have also said the evidence they had wasn't conclusive. Now this appears to be a 180 degree turn around. Again we do not know why.

That the SOLT commission is believing spurious information is not outside of the realm of possibilities.

Though I think its likely there are untruths, nothing said is provable as a lie at this point.

I find no evidence to the contrary so I remain on the fence until such evidence is presented.

Your judgement may be correct, and I am leaning that way myself, however, objective fact is not based on opinion but on evidence and right now, evidence is lacking.

My sentiments exactly.

thereselittleflower · Jul 8, 2011

isshinwhat said:
Without a trial there can be no declaration of guilt; before a trial there must be a presumption of innocence. I will withhold my judgment until there is a trial.

No. . . .The Church is NOT beholden to the secular court system on such matters. There is no need for a civil trial for the Church to understand the nature of the beast and to reach a judgment.

The Church does Her investigation . . . The Church determines innocence or guilt. The Church does not need the state for the Church to be able to make this determination.

And if you believe that his guilt or innocence is going to be proven by his civil case, you are sadly mistaken.

He brought the suit. . . . That means He is the prosecuting party. His guilt or innocence is not on trial.

Hers is.

And since it will be impossible for him to prove she is lying, there will be no determination of this - except if she brings evidence to prove her accusations are factual . . but she has not need to do this for CORAPI has the burden of proof. . . she is innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUITLY.

He must prove her guilty of slander/libel. He cannot prove her guilty of slander/libel.

All he can prove her guilty of is breaking a hush money contract.

In contrast:

Those with the authority to speak on the matter in the Church have spoken their judgment.

He is unfit for ministry.

thereselittleflower · Jul 8, 2011

JoabAnias said:
What the SOLT affirms does not necessarily make it truth.

It makes it a claim that the SOLT believes to be true. We know nothing further as to why they believe it.

They have the authority to make such a pronouncement. We know why they know it to be true. They have clearly stated the nature of their evidence upon which they have based their judgment.

All that proves for me is SOLT believes they have proof.

No, it proves they KNOW they have proof.

They have also said the evidence they had wasn't conclusive. Now this appears to be a 180 degree turn around. Again we do not know why.

They never said the evidence wasn't conclusive.

That the SOLT commission is believing spurious information is not outside of the realm of possibilities.

The statement gives the nature of the evidence. The investigating team was made up of professionals. . Corapi's own emails are part of that evidence. That is hardly "spurious" evidence. And to state that the evidence they have is spurious is to demean the SOLT.

Though I think its likely there are untruths, nothing said is provable as a lie at this point.

That is an unfounded assumption.

The SOLT claims differently and has taken action and declared Corapi unfit for ministry because of the facts they discovered.

I find no evidence to the contrary so I remain on the fence until such evidence is presented.

You are not entitled to the actual evidence.

The SOLT has the actual evidence and they have the authority to judge and pronounce judgment on their member based on that evidence.

It is uncalled for and calumnious to accuse the leadership of the SOLT, by insinuation, of incompetence or evil intent when they make the absolute claim they have the evidence to prove his guilt of the charges made against him, especially given Corapi's bizarre behavior, rank disobedience, flaming attacks against the Church and his superiors, and especially his paying off those who could accuse him $100,000 to sign a contract civilly binding them to absolute silence.

Your judgement may be correct, and I am leaning that way myself, however, objective fact is not based on opinion but on evidence and right now, evidence is lacking.

You should never have the objective evidence in your hands. . . you probably never will unless someone leaks it,

You do, however, have those the Church has vested authority in to investigate and decide this telling you they have the evidence he is guilty and he is unfit for ministry.

JoabAnias · Jul 8, 2011

Davidnic said:
Catholic Culture has a good article on it: link

A quote that shows how things were askew:

Father Sam Medley, webmaster of the Society of Our Lady of the Holy Trinity, attributed the scandal to a lack of fidelity to the societys charism. This whole Corapi conundrum would have never happened if we would have been faithful to our SOLT Charism of ecclesial teams-communion, he said.

Father Medley added:
I was asked years ago by my superiors if John Corapi could come and work in the community life of the media apostolate I was running at the time, Father Medley recounted. YES, I cried! Please bring him back to community life! Canon law tells us that no one from a community should live outside for an extended period of time. This would have also meant the regulation of his bank account and other violations would have been remedied. Sadly this didn't happen.

SOLT has mentioned that they have asked Fr. Corapi in the past to return to community and did so as suggestions. The most recent however is a direct invoking of his vow of obedience.

A very good post on the blog of the SOLT webmaster: link

A quote:

The grace of certain charisma must always be subject to hierarchical grace of the Church. I used to tell my nieces and nephews when they tried to impress their mother with good deeds that nothing they could do would ever compare with obedience. Obedience will always be the mark of holiness, as rebellion, even by a gifted genius, will always be a mark of the devil. Obey. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.". What is implied is if you don't love me, don't keep them. If someone stops obeying the legitimate authority of the Church, it is at that moment that I stop following them.

Saw that this morning. It made me wonder where he would be if he had not been allowed to be a celebrity in the first place.

Have you seen the first youtube appearance of the black sheepdog yet?

YouTube - ‪The Black SheepDog: Changes and Future‬&rlm;

thereselittleflower · Jul 8, 2011

Michie said:
 John Corapi, 1 May 2010, St. Louis

Pride makes everyone into God, and you have no objective truth. The antidote is humility. If God humbled himself, who are we not to humble ourselves? Remember that humility leads to obedience, which leads to life. Pride leads to disobedience and death.
John Corapi, 1 May 2010, St. Louis
Read the rest.

I guess these words apply to everyone else but their author.

Update on Fr. John Corapi

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Pro Deo et Patria

Pro Deo et Patria

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Pro Deo et Patria

Pro Deo et Patria

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Pro Deo et Patria

Steward of proportionality- I Cor 13:1, 1 Tim 3:15

Pro Deo et Patria

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Steward of proportionality- I Cor 13:1, 1 Tim 3:15

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency