Update on Fr. John Corapi

[LinuxUser]

The latest from Fr. Corapi:

I am sincerely thankful to all of you that have been kind and charitable, and also those that have perhaps been something less than that. Everyone has their opinions, and a perfect right to them. I respect that. Knowledge is a great thing, but as the old saying goes, “A little knowledge can be dangerous.” There is a dilemma that we face in the information age: On the one hand we want to use all of the marvelous technology we have. On the other hand, we don’t want to end up guilty of scarcely having a single unpublished thought. We have to say something, but we can’t say everything.

I think it’s a bit too easy to arrive at an erroneous conclusion when you base it on a fallacious presupposition. For instance, some very kind and fine people assume that I have “left the Church.” Please, understand this, I have not left the Church. I love the Catholic Church and would not “leave the Church.” I have resigned from public ministry, which is rather anticlimactic to be sure since I was out of it anyhow due to the suspension or “administrative leave,” which is tantamount to suspension. There are elements of this that you don’t know about, and that’s not your fault.

Once a man is ordained a priest he remains a priest for all eternity. Holy Orders is one of the three sacraments that imprints an indelible mark on the soul. What the Church can give or remove is “faculties”, which authorizes the person to publicly administer the sacraments. I always cringe when I hear “he’s not a priest anymore.” If he ever was, he still is. What they mean is that he is not functioning in the normal way most priests function, that is, publicly administering the sacraments. Most folks’ contact with priests is the parish priest. They come in contact with him primarily when he administers the sacraments.

A priest is ordained primarily to confect the Eucharist. A validly ordained priest can do this in the normal setting of a parish or community celebration of the holy Eucharist, or in private, as I have done for twenty years. It has the same power. The power is not from how many people are present, it is from the same sacrifice of Calvary made present in time and space. The celebration of the sacraments is a monumentally noble, holy, and powerful thing. Please don’t misunderstand me and think I believe anything less than that. Each of us is called to a unique way of serving God and society. Certainly I was called to be a priest, but not as a parish priest, and that is not out of character with the history and tradition of the Church. St. Paul was a mission preacher basically. He traveled widely and preached. He did not function like a parish priest, at one time almost boasting that he thanked God that he hadn’t baptized many of them as he didn’t want to share in their sins. He was not demeaning the sacrament, just thankful he wouldn’t have to answer to God for having some share in profaning such a holy state of life.

My mission was discerned by my legitimate superior in the Church long before I was ordained. It was preaching. He, Fr. James Flanagan, told me this in 1987. I was ordained in 1991. He said it would be a huge mistake for me to ever be constrained by a parish or conventional way of life in one place. I did not take this upon myself. It was given to me by the Church and I was sent. Please don’t think I don’t value the sacraments. I do. However, the public administration of the sacraments was never what the Church told me to do. They sent me to preach. The two are not mutually exclusive. They are complimentary. Not all of the members of the Body of Christ are the same, but they are all necessary, noble, and holy.

Some of you have thought I might have acted too fast and not given the Church enough time to complete their investigation. You could be right, but you also don’t know the facts like I do. The utter disregard for our reasonable requests and certain statements made by the lawyer for the Society of Our Lady confirmed to us that they would not complete the investigation so long as I insisted in exercising my civil and human rights. That is a dead horse. Why beat it? My lawyers would not allow me to continue unless ten questions were answered regarding the nature of the process—simple reasonable questions. They ignored the request for 6 weeks and still ignore it. These weren’t rocket science questions. At a future time we’ll publish the entire letter and the questions.

For about ten years I have been attacked, threatened, and endured extortion attempts. The leadership of the Church never lifted a finger to help me in any way with this. Every time someone gets angry with me or decides they want a payday I have to go through hell with no help from the leadership of the Church. I admit I have grown weary of that. The trauma created by all of the sexual abuse of minors scandals has warped the judgment of some in authority. They are running scared. I believe in my case they panicked. “We don’t know if the dog is rabid, but let’s shoot him in the head just in case.” Well, this black sheep of a sheepdog has been “shot in the head” before and lived to tell about it. I’ll be telling about it for awhile longer.
The name “The Black Sheep Dog” is the title of my autobiography, a title which I came up with about a year and a half ago. That title was, by the way, stolen by a person who worked for me while they were working for me, attempting to secure internet domain names under that title. That is in effect a violation of federal intellectual property laws since I have both registered trademarks and copyright on that title. The title is simply the combination of a black sheep, that would be me; and a sheepdog, that would also be me. The concept of a sheepdog guarding the flock is certainly biblical and also an idea I gleaned from an article from LTC Dave Grossman, which we’ll post for you to read at a future date, or you can read it on the internet where it has been circulating for some time.

Listen my friends, I realize this situation is less than ideal. I don’t like it either, but under the circumstances I honestly believed and still do that I had one of two choices to make:

1. Crawl under a rock and quietly die; or

2. Don’t crawl under the rock and don’t die. I feel that I still have something to offer.

The leadership of the Church has made it clear to me they don’t want me anymore. They have a right to do that and I have to accept that. So, I’ll do what I can outside of the Church. I’m not leaving the Church. I am simply doing something else in life so that I won’t wither up and die, and so that you can still derive some benefit from my gifts from God. It may not be as good as before, or it may be better. The only thing I know for sure is that I’m not going to disobey the Church and attempt to “minister” as a priest, and I’m not going to lay down and die. I’m not ready to do that just yet. As a matter of fact, you might be pleasantly surprised at what’s in our future. Stay in touch. We may not have the old meeting places anymore, but we have some new ones and I would like to meet you there. Until next time this is the Black SheepDog, unleashed and very much alive.

The Black SheepDog

 

[DarylFawcett]

MOD HAT ON!!!​

Unless Staff decides the thread needs to be closed, only the user who created the thread can rightfully request the closing of his/her thread.

MOD HAT OFF!!!​

 

[thereselittleflower]

It is a shame to see this thread re-opened. It should have been closed immediately it was started.

As I said elsewhere - none of us know the full facts , we cannot and should not make any judgements , therefore, on the perceived rights and wrongs of this matter.

All those who post here are just putting their own thoughts on public view, without being in possession of the complete story - this just allows rumours to spread and grow .

Look no one can judge his guilt or innocence regarding the charges levelled against him, or that of the one who brought the charges, though some people have tried to do so.

A good deal of this discussion had to do with his public behavior that resulted after he was made aware of the charges. We are called to discern.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Corapi has caused the scandal. His constant preaching against Liberals and his adamant stance that we should be obedient to the Institutional church, but the first hint of adversity and Corapi heads for the hills. His website is all about him and HIS gifts. It is Corapi that has opened himself up to scrutiny and public scorn.

 

[JoabAnias]

Corapi has caused the scandal. His constant preaching against Liberals and his adamant stance that we should be obedient to the Institutional church, but the first hint of adversity and Corapi heads for the hills. His website is all about him and HIS gifts. It is Corapi that has opened himself up to scrutiny and public scorn.

Thats true but doesn't change what detraction and lies are.

Thats a point that goes along with this topic as We support Bishop Mulvey and pray for all.

DETRACTION
CALUMNY


2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 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;279
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Detraction requires that someone be informed of something negative about someone they did not already know.

detraction . . discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them
​

Fr Corapi himself made the public aware of what was going on as well as his responses - he did this all by himself. . . he made known the charges and his suspension on Ash Wed. He made known he was no longer going to function as a priest ON FATHER"S DAY . . . this is not something that is hidden and then being spread by others . . HE DID IT HIMSELF. . .

There is no detraction.

We are not revealing anything that he himself had not already revealed by discussing it, so discussing this is not detraction at all.

 

[Colin]

Detraction requires that someone be informed of something negative about someone they did not already know.

detraction . . discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them​

I did not already know about John Corapi until I read this thread .

There are many more words on this thread than simply the words of John Corapi , and many of these words are detraction , and possibly calumny .
​

 

[thereselittleflower]

I did not already know about John Corapi until I read this thread .

There are many more words on this thread than simply the words of John Corapi , and many of these words are detraction , and possibly calumny .
[/indent]

The op was simply a news report.

One who is worried about learning something about someone should never read or listen to the news.

Since Fr Corapi made known the information himself, it is not detraction.

Comments about it are not detraction.

What would be detraction would be if someone knew the accusations were true and put that information in the thread - THAT would be detraction for it would be private information being made known.

Now has there been calumny?

cal·um·ny/ˈkaləmnē/Noun
1. The making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage someone's reputation; slander.
2. A false and slanderous statement

calumny - Google Search

​

Only if one claimed they knew something negataive to be true that was not true about Fr Corapi, which would mean there was an intent to damage his reputation, to slander him, and announced it in the thread. I'm not going to read back through the thread, but I don't remember anyone saying any such thing.

People have speculated, have tried to understand . . but that's not calumny.

The issue here isn't really detraction or calmuny, but gossip. When does discussion turn into gossip? . . it can be a very fine line.

 

[Fantine]

Although I know very little about Fr. Corapi, it seems as if he is a modern day St. Augustine.

What a model he is for those who have struggled with addictions and sexual sins, and recovered from homelessness and gained the courage to begin a new life.

What an encouragement for parents who see their adult children struggling, knowing that the challenges God places in their path might be necessary detours in their road to sainthood.

The "goodie-goodie" saints (Therese of Lisieux, for example) are difficult for many people to relate to. The "goodie-goodie" priests and sisters who discovered their vocations after being the presidents of their sodalities in Catholic high schools are difficult for many of us to relate to.

But for many of us, someone like Fr. Corapi, who has successfully slain many more demons than most of us will ever encounter, is a sign that God's abundant grace is there...

I am sorry that he has one more cross to bear.

 

[BAFRIEND]

detraction . . discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them
​

cal·um·ny/ˈkaləmnē/Noun
1. The making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage someone's reputation; slander.
2. A false and slanderous statement

give us the one on bearing false withness now- let 'them' know what it is they do

 

[thereselittleflower]

Although I know very little about Fr. Corapi, it seems as if he is a modern day St. Augustine.

What a model he is for those who have struggled with addictions and sexual sins, and recovered from homelessness and gained the courage to begin a new life.

What an encouragement for parents who see their adult children struggling, knowing that the challenges God places in their path might be necessary detours in their road to sainthood.

The "goodie-goodie" saints (Therese of Lisieux, for example) are difficult for many people to relate to. The "goodie-goodie" priests and sisters who discovered their vocations after being the presidents of their sodalities in Catholic high schools are difficult for many of us to relate to.

But for many of us, someone like Fr. Corapi, who has successfully slain many more demons than most of us will ever encounter, is a sign that God's abundant grace is there...

I am sorry that he has one more cross to bear.

Do we really know what we think we know?


As I was surfing the net, I came across an article which raised a very thought provoking point brought to the fore due to the recent scandel.

"I am disturbed by how much we Catholics have let the media influence our judgement. Just because you see someone on TV, or hear him on the radio, or read his blog, doesn’t mean you truly know them. The best reaction in these situations is not to assume guilt by either party, but to pray that the truth might come out and justice served."
​

Do we REALLY know them?

Fr. Corapi and media’s reality distortion field

Thirty years ago someone coined the term “reality distortion field” to describe the effect on an audience when Steve Jobs made a presentation. Due to his charisma, Jobs is supposedly able to convince others of his viewpoint even when reality says otherwise. In other words, he could convince Eskimos that they need the ice-making machine he has built.

While this may or may not be true, I think there is a similar effect that occurs with every media personality. When we regularly see someone on TV, or hear him on the radio, or even read his blog, we begin to believe that we really know him personally. We believe that we have developed a relationship with this person, much like the relationships we have with our family and friends. But this is not reality: having access to someone solely via media grants us no real knowledge of a person, at least not the type of knowledge that comes from interacting with someone in person. Although we think we know him, we are in truth strangers. Of course, one can be fooled even when in close personal contact with someone, but this is much more unlikely than if our only contact is through some technological medium.

Which brings us to Fr. Corapi. As most people know by now, he has been accused of immoral behavior and has been put on administrative leave. It is also important to note that he has denied all the charges against him. What I am most surprised by, however, is how many people have strongly defended him (and attacked the accuser) in spite of only “knowing” him through his TV and radio shows. If we have learned anything over the past few years, it is that someone who is orthodox in his public preaching is not immune from personal failings and sins (which we should have known from our reading of the Bible – see St. Peter). Most of us don’t know Fr. Corapi (or the woman who is accusing him), so how can we know whether the accusation is true or not? Because he’s a good preacher?


Does this mean that whenever someone is accused of immoral behavior we should never defend him before all the facts are out? No, but it does mean that we should withhold judgement regarding people we don’t really know. If one of my good friends were accused of something like this, and he denied it, I would defend his good name until any facts contradicted his story. This is because I have built a personal trust that allows me to give him the benefit of the doubt. But if a stranger were accused and protested his innocence, I would wait until all the facts were in before forming a judgement.


....

I am disturbed by how much we Catholics have let the media influence our judgement. Just because you see someone on TV, or hear him on the radio, or read his blog, doesn’t mean you truly know them. The best reaction in these situations is not to assume guilt by either party, but to pray that the truth might come out and justice served.

Fr. Corapi and media’s reality distortion field « Divine Life – A Blog by Eric Sammons
​

 

[thereselittleflower]

I had forgotten about things that have been said about her. I agree. . . it is uncalled for and calumny.

 

[StThomasMore]

I find this to be an interesting twist of scripture .


When did Paul ever take anyone to court for such things?

Where does Paul go on and on and on about the failures of such people?



I listened to Corapi's 2nd address, and he went on and on and on and on about this woman, about how horrible a drunk she was, etc, etc, etc. . most of his speach semed to be about her . .I found it revolting - and he is taking her to court .. . the way he talked about her, and how wide spread his words may become, may have compromised the case against her presumed innoncence until proven guilty and ensured she cannot get a fair trial, as she will have already been tried by public opinion based on his vitrol against her.

Did Paul do any of that? No. A single comment here or there is nothing like Corapi's rant.


What did Paul do to ensure justice was done?

According to what you posted above:

the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. - 2 Timothy 4:14

​

What has Corapi done?

What can a victim of false witness, libel, and poisonous gossip do?

Yes, Paul did go on about the falures many times of laypeoples. I already showed you examples of Alexander the metalworker and Philetus. Same thing with Peter and Simon Magus, and Ananias and Saphhira who dropped dead before him by trying to lie to him about their donations. The book of Revelation is around 1/3 about the failures of the laypeoples in the 7 churches in lydia


Seriously, this woman ruined this man's career by her poisonous gossip. No matter whether you like the man or not, no one deserves to have their livelihood ruined by gossip and false witness. What does St. Paul say about women who are gossips and busybodies? This woman was known to be unstable and attacked her co-workers physically. What seems to be left out of all this commenting is HOW this all began...an annonymous woman who turns out to be a disgruntled ex-employee, an alcoholic and very unstable person. who has a police record of having forced her way into the offices of this priest and physically threatened those working there as well as shouting her intentions to DESTROY Father Corapi. This is glossed over if even mentioned

Paul stated many many times about the failures of the laypeoples, like the man who slept with his fathers wife, the stubbornness of the Corinthians and the Ephesians, the judiazers, etc. The corapi case has been caused by nothing but poisonous gossip and improper canon procedures. And canon law itself states that allegations must be substantiated before a priest is tried.

Innocent till proven guilty is in canon law.

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.”
CCC ” 2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

A Bishop or Superior may indeed suspend or place a priest on leave but only with due process which includes:

1. Providing the accused with a written copy of the exact charges against him.
2. Providing the accused with a written list of the Canons he has allegedly broken.
3. Providing the accused with an Advocate.
4. The appearance of the Promoter of Justice in the case.
5. Protecting the accused priest's good name.

Corapi's Superior failed to provide Corapi with his Canonical due process before suspension and in so doing fatally compromised the case against Corapi.

Again, whether you hate the man or not, no one deserves to have their livelihood ruined or their job taken away because of unsubstantiated gossip and statements. Surely if you lost your job because of such reasons you would feel the same injustice

 

[StThomasMore]

There is no objective valid reason - the key word is objective.

He has a court case. . that is where the trial happens, not in the public eye.

There is no need for us to know the details for him to have a fair trial, actually for her to have a fair trial, for he is not being taken to court, she is.

In fact, by disclosing such details and impugning her character in such terrible ways, wether he is right about his impressions of her or not, could actually work to deny her a fair trial, for these accusations and assertions are becoming widely known, through his own efforts, and prejudice those chosen to determine her guilt or innocence.

Thus there can be NO OBJECTIVELY valid reason to disclose her sins to thsoe who did not know of them.


Revealing the content of these tapes, revealing her character flaws, her sins, DOES NOT PROVE his innocence. It makes him look vindictive, self serving, and cruel.[quote/]

It went public because all cases against priests go public since the media spotlight is already on the Church regarding priests in scandals. Secondly this was all started by the allegations of this unknown woman. The issues of bringing up this woman's character does have importance, as if it is proven she is mentally unstable, which from reports it shows she is as she was known to attack employees and make threats. If she was mentally unstable everything changes regarding her case. She may have been consumed with revenge regarding the issue with her job with him or her employers. But you cross the line when you seek to ruin someones job and career by actively promoting libel and slander in order to get back and someone.

Don't cry if you liberal and slander someone and end up in court for it. People take each other to court for defamation all the time.

 

[Michie]

There is no objective valid reason - the key word is objective.

He has a court case. . that is where the trial happens, not in the public eye.

There is no need for us to know the details for him to have a fair trial, actually for her to have a fair trial, for he is not being taken to court, she is.

In fact, by disclosing such details and impugning her character in such terrible ways, wether he is right about his impressions of her or not, could actually work to deny her a fair trial, for these accusations and assertions are becoming widely known, through his own efforts, and prejudice those chosen to determine her guilt or innocence.

Thus there can be NO OBJECTIVELY valid reason to disclose her sins to thsoe who did not know of them.


Revealing the content of these tapes, revealing her character flaws, her sins, DOES NOT PROVE his innocence. It makes him look vindictive, self serving, and cruel.[quote/]

It went public because all cases against priests go public since the media spotlight is already on the Church regarding priests in scandals. Secondly this was all started by the allegations of this unknown woman. The issues of bringing up this woman's character does have importance, as if it is proven she is mentally unstable, which from reports it shows she is as she was known to attack employees and make threats. If she was mentally unstable everything changes regarding her case. She may have been consumed with revenge regarding the issue with her job with him or her employers. But you cross the line when you seek to ruin someones job and career by actively promoting libel and slander in order to get back and someone.

Don't cry if you liberal and slander someone and end up in court for it. People take each other to court for defamation all the time.

You mean libel?

 

[StThomasMore]

You mean libel?

lol that word tends to be ingraved in many catholics minds lol

 

[Michie]

lol that word tends to be ingraved in many catholics minds lol

 

[thereselittleflower]

What can a victim of false witness, libel, and poisonous gossip do?

Wait a moment.

How do you know she gave false witness?

How do you KNOW one way or the other?


You don't. NONE of us do.

For you to say she gave false witness, lilbel, and poisonous gossip is itsleff calumny or at best destraction.

YOU DO NOT KNOW.

And she did NOT gossip about anything. Letters were sent to Bishops. That is not gossip.

But what you are saying above IS gossip.

It was Fr Corapi himself who made it public knowledge what he was accused of and it was FR CORAPI who made public HIS allegations against her.


Please, don't act as if you know what is secret and hidden.

Yes, Paul did go on about the falures many times of laypeoples. I already showed you examples of Alexander the metalworker and Philetus. Same thing with Peter and Simon Magus, and Ananias and Saphhira who dropped dead before him by trying to lie to him about their donations. The book of Revelation is around 1/3 about the failures of the laypeoples in the 7 churches in lydia


Seriously, this woman ruined this man's career by her poisonous gossip.

First, PRIVATE LETTERS to Bishops are NOT gossip. You are maligning someone who you have no true idea is even lying.

Second, she did not ruin his career - and what a way to refer to the priesthood. The priesthood is not a "career" no more than beinga husband is a "career" . . it is a way of life. . .

Who ruined this? He did by not submitting to the Church's authority and following in the footsteps of saints such as St John of the Cross, St Pio, etc, and accept the Church disciplines imposed, and carry his cross, which could have born UNTOLD FRUIT in his life and the lives of others.

He was given a precious gift, to walk in Jesus' footsteps - and what did Jesus do when falsely accused? He opened not his mouth. Yet Fr Corapi tossed this gift to the wayside and is doing it "my way"



And this is it in a nutshell.

 

[thereselittleflower]

It went public because all cases against priests go public since the media spotlight is already on the Church regarding priests in scandals.

It went public because FR CORAPI MADE IT PUBLIC and for no other reason.


It is his fault and his fault only at this point it went public.

Secondly this was all started by the allegations of this unknown woman. The issues of bringing up this woman's character does have importance, as if it is proven she is mentally unstable, which from reports it shows she is as she was known to attack employees and make threats. If she was mentally unstable everything changes regarding her case. She may have been consumed with revenge regarding the issue with her job with him or her employers. But you cross the line when you seek to ruin someones job and career by actively promoting libel and slander in order to get back and someone.

Don't cry if you liberal and slander someone and end up in court for it. People take each other to court for defamation all the time.

First, she made nothing public.. . Fr Corapi did. All of it.

Bringing up the woman's personal failings in public SERVES NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE . it is either calumny or detraction . . . the public has NO NEED to know ANY of this. The public is not her judge and jury . .. the court room is not on the internet etc.

One cannot make something private known and then compound the problem by making more private information known and then say "Oh, but I had to defend myself in the public eye . . " One cannot create the situation in the public eye then say that revealing more private information is necessary . . .

That, my friend, IS calumny or detraction - on Fr Corapi's part.

 

[StThomasMore]

Wait a moment.

How do you know she gave false witness?

How do you KNOW one way or the other?


You don't. NONE of us do.

For you to say she gave false witness, lilbel, and poisonous gossip is itsleff calumny or at best destraction.

YOU DO NOT KNOW.

And she did NOT gossip about anything. Letters were sent to Bishops. That is not gossip.

But what you are saying above IS gossip.

It was Fr Corapi himself who made it public knowledge what he was accused of and it was FR CORAPI who made public HIS allegations against her.


Please, don't act as if you know what is secret and hidden.




First, PRIVATE LETTERS to Bishops are NOT gossip. You are maligning someone who you have no true idea is even lying.

Second, she did not ruin his career - and what a way to refer to the priesthood. The priesthood is not a "career" no more than beinga husband is a "career" . . it is a way of life. . .

Who ruined this? He did by not submitting to the Church's authority and following in the footsteps of saints such as St John of the Cross, St Pio, etc, and accept the Church disciplines imposed, and carry his cross, which could have born UNTOLD FRUIT in his life and the lives of others.

He was given a precious gift, to walk in Jesus' footsteps - and what did Jesus do when falsely accused? He opened not his mouth. Yet Fr Corapi tossed this gift to the wayside and is doing it "my way"



And this is it in a nutshell.

Thank the Lord the justice system doesn't work that way. As in your world it seems people are guilty before proven innocent. There is no justice in that. If you honestly believe that, then you should move to a communist country where people are given no proper defense.

Have these allegations been proven?

No

Since the allegations months ago, have they been able to prove anything?

No

Does this woman have a history of being unstable and making vows to ruin corapi?

Yes

Did this woman threaten the priest and attack her coworkers?

Yes


Its easy to add 2 plus 2. Any competent lawyer can see this is employee based retaliation



Innocent till proven guilty? That's how justice works. Until its proven, he is innocent of the charges and should be deemed as innocent. And based on how long it has taken and still none of her statements have been proven or been shown to have any credibility or weight behind them. Her history shows she was a woman who was consumed with revenge for Corapi, at any costs. She herself told him she was gonna ruin him. The bishop, afraid of scandal decided to cut him off too soon, probably due to the media spotlight and worrying that he would be labeled as a bishop who 'shuffled priests'. The media spotlight has had an enourmous influence on Corapi's case. Corapi is in the position he is in because of improper canon procedures and the influence of the recent sex scandals in the Church, as all cases regarding priests are in the spotlight. A fallen or troubled priest is like gold for the US media, and they are always on the lookout for them like wolves being ready to pounce, considering the media hates the Church and does everything in its power to smear them. Add that on with the internet and blogs and Corapi's fan base. This is why it went public. I cannot remember a case against a priest that hasn't gone public.

And I didn't say the priesthood was a career. But part of Corapi's ministry was his livelihood and what he lived for. No one, whether it be a vocation or career deserves to have their livelihood taken away from them from unsubstantiated statements and libelous letters.

The woman dug herself in her own hole. She instigated the whole thing. Now she must dig herself out of her own hole she created. Without her, Corapi would have done what he normally would have done, preach. So to say this has happened because of him doesn't make any sense. The thousands of people who listened to him cannot listen to him anymore and receive spiritual consolation from his preaching. The people who listened to him and found spiritual consolation will not have this anymore, which could cause spiritual damage for thousands of people.