Corapi accuser promised to ‘destroy’ priest after being fired: claim

[PaulinVA]

They made the rules up and are not bound to follow them in each and every case. They should have continued to broadcast Fr. Corapi until the investigation was finished. They implicitly support this unjust suspension.
.

These rules are applied without regard to the status of the priest, be it parish priest of Rock Star Priest. By removing discretion from the Bishops and Superiors, we have immediately resolved one of the problems of the sex abuse scandal, which was that the Bishops don’t know how to properly exercise discretion in this area.

The unfortunate effect of this suspension is that the Rock Star Priest can not exercise his ministry. That’s not fair to him, but that’s the after effect of how his brother priests have handled these things in the past.

It is incumbent on the Superior calling for the investigation to have it completed quickly - like by April 30. How long does it take to appoint two priests, have them interview people, consult with lawyers, and write a report?

I am totally against celebrity in general, and in the Church in particular, but no one should be left hanging with a cloud over their head any longer than necessary.

 

[surfinpure]

They made the rules up and are not bound to follow them in each and every case. They should have continued to broadcast Fr. Corapi until the investigation was finished. They implicitly support this unjust suspension.

If they were consistent, they would have stopped showing Benedict XVI when he was accused of covering up sex crimes.

Here’s a great interview on Relevant Radio explaining just what “Administrative Leave” is and why it’s not the discipline you seem to be making it out to be:

relevantradio-od.streamguys.u…e/canonlaw.mp3

1. Administrative Leave is a time-out, not a penalty. It’s temporary, and it’s as much for his good as anything else.
2. Nobody calls the time-out unless there is more to the claims than hot air, indicating they might have substance. It does not mean a declaration of guilt or innocence, merely that they have met with the woman and decided this is worth investigating.
3. No cleric has the “right” to his priestly duties - he given these privileges by his bishop and superiors. They don’t operate in a vacuum (well, unless they’re the SSPX ).
4. Catholic broadcasters are instructed by the bishops to cooperate with their decisions in these matters. So if EWTN really wants to be obedient, they don’t have much of a choice here.

My loyalty lies always with Holy Mother Church, and I will trust the graces God gave to his Bishops to handle these matters with prudence. And I MOST CERTAINLY trust them over the judgment of some lay person named Bobbi Ruffato, who has zero protection of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in these matters. :ehh: Since when did we become autonomous like the Protestants?

 

[manualman]

If they were consistent, they would have stopped showing Benedict XVI when he was accused of covering up sex crimes.

Actually, this is the best point made yet. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church OBVIOUSLY does not have a policy in which any and every accusation made against anyone in the church is taken seriously and the person in question removed until his/her innocence can be established.

Lots of claims have been made against Pope Benedict. I think we all agree that they are spurious, but I don’t recall him having to go on administrative leave while some tribunal was formed to investigate.

What this case might end up demonstrating is that there is a need to establish a threshold of credibility before an accusation is taken seriously and the priest’s good name besmirched like this. If this is the eventual outcome, I suspect Fr. Corapi will, in the end, be happy to have been part of the history of improving the safeguards process. He’s that kind of guy, IMO.

 

[TMC]

Actually, this is the best point made yet. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church OBVIOUSLY does not have a policy in which any and every accusation made against anyone in the church is taken seriously and the person in question removed until his/her innocence can be established.

Lots of claims have been made against Pope Benedict. I think we all agree that they are spurious, but I don’t recall him having to go on administrative leave while some tribunal was formed to investigate.

What this case might end up demonstrating is that there is a need to establish a threshold of credibility before an accusation is taken seriously and the priest’s good name besmirched like this. If this is the eventual outcome, I suspect Fr. Corapi will, in the end, be happy to have been part of the history of improving the safeguards process. He’s that kind of guy, IMO.

I am not going to argue that the Church has always applied the rules consistently, but using the Pope as an example is a red herring. First, the Dallas Norms only apply in the US. The Pope is not a US priest so they don’t apply to him. Second, the Norms do not require imposing administrative leave for the crime of covering up abuse (which is what has been alleged about the Pope), only for the abuser himself. Finally, a threshold of credibility is required by the Norms, but the threshold is supposed to be very low and the bishops/superiors are suppposed to err on the side of protecting potential victims.

The larger question is whether failure to apply the rules properly in other cases should be a reason to fail to apply them in this instance. I think the better course is to start applying the rules consistently to everyone, not to let a popular priest slide because other popular priests have received lax treatment in the past. If we have learned anything in the last few decades, it is that many of the worst abusers have been popular, and that outward indications of holiness are not a reliable indicator of innocence.

 

[manualman]

If we have learned anything in the last few decades, it is that many of the worst abusers have been popular, and that outward indications of holiness are not a reliable indicator of innocence.

You argue your position well, but I still contend that we are about to learn that if we establish a system in which we set up a PR rifle, load it and aim it at each and every priest, walk away from it unattended and advertise its existence, we will soon see the Evil One take advantage of that system such that we will never again have a St. John Vianney, a Padre Pio or a St. John Bosco. They will be besmirched before they ever achieve critical mass.

I’m not entirely sure where the best middle ground lies, but I am becoming convinced that there needs to be a reasonable level of credibility before public action is taken, regardless of how loudly we say that it is merely precautionary.

 

[TMC]

You argue your position well, but I still contend that we are about to learn that if we establish a system in which we set up a PR rifle, load it and aim it at each and every priest, walk away from it unattended and advertise its existence, we will soon see the Evil One take advantage of that system such that we will never again have a St. John Vianney, a Padre Pio or a St. John Bosco. They will be besmirched before they ever achieve critical mass.

I’m not entirely sure where the best middle ground lies, but I am becoming convinced that there needs to be a reasonable level of credibility before public action is taken, regardless of how loudly we say that it is merely precautionary.

You make a good point, and I agree that the system needs additional reform. The problems we have seen in Philadelphia show us that even a supposedly “zero-tolerance” system is no guarantee if it is not administered properly. I think that the bishops need to rethink the entire system and put something better in place - I am not sure what that is, but I am confident they have access to resources to help develop something. My main point is that, in the meantime, the Church should apply what rules do exist as consistently as possible.

 

[dfp42]

You make a good point, and I agree that the system needs additional reform. The problems we have seen in Philadelphia show us that even a supposedly “zero-tolerance” system is no guarantee if it is not administered properly. I think that the bishops need to rethink the entire system and put something better in place - I am not sure what that is, but I am confident they have access to resources to help develop something. My main point is that, in the meantime, the Church should apply what rules do exist as consistently as possible.

Fr. Rocky from relevant radio had a talk about the Corapi issue here relevantradio-od.streamguys.us/MA%20Archive/canonlaw.mp3

During the show the question was asked about this somehow being used as an exploit to accusing priests falsely. In his response he stated that it basically never really happens that way. People don’t accuse priests in the 100’s. What I find interesting is it’s easy to say people don’t do these things, but could it leave an exploit to the situation against our priests in the future. It just seems too easy to accuse anyone today. When Fr. Rocky was asked what he’d do in this situation if it was him, he said he’d probably go bike riding.