Fr. Corapi placed on Administrative Leave Following Accusations

[ChadS]

I wish the best to both Fr. Corapi and his superiors, but there’s an apparent conflict here. Fr. Corapi’s statement says that he was suspended on the basis of one accuser’s three-page letter. Either there’s more evidence than Fr. Corapi is letting the public know through his statement, or his superiors departed from St. Paul’s instruction. More evidence could mean more witnesses, or perhaps some incriminating material such as audio recording, photos, video recording, phone logs, etc. If there’s more evidence, that would be inconsistent with Fr. Corapi’s statement that there’s a single person’s letter against him. If there’s no more evidence than the single person’s accusatory letter, and yet Fr. Corapi was suspended, that’s in apparent conflict with St. Paul’s instruction that “Against a priest receive NOT an accusation, but under two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19)

The church would be in a lot better shape right now if the accusations of one accuser were taken seriously when dealing with certain priests and their behaviors. We shouldn’t automatically discount what one person says because only one person says it. That type of thinking and the willingness to say “Not Father So-and-So, he’s a good man. Quit making up stories about priests,” got the church to where it is now.

Fr. Corapi should be able to fully defend himself and have a chance to have his side heard, but to automtically assume the story is less credible because it’s one person is not the right thing to do. The story should be at least investigated as plausible until it’s determined it’s not.

ChadS

 

[Jesus_123]

:bible1:
"Thou shalt NOT bear false witness against thy neighbor."
Exodus 20:16

+TMC . . . Father’s statement clearly speaks of . . . one accuser . . . singular . . . not plural . . . that’s all it says . . . to say otherwise is to deliberately bear false witness . . . *enuf said *. . .

** A CALL TO PRAYER **
by Father John Corapi

On Ash Wednesday I learned that a former employee sent a three-page letter to several bishops accusing me …

. . . all for Jesus+​

 

[CathModerate]

If these alleged other women come forward and admit it then I would guess hes pretty much guilty. I wish I could find that info out. Hope hes not, but if so, I think those here who try to state that fancy suits, colored beard and french cuff shirts mean nothing and go so far as to say wild stuff like he can dye his beard purple and that doesnt mean anything, learn in the future how to look at the bigger picture.

 

[pnewton]

TMC . . . Father’s statement clearly speaks of . . . one accuser . . . singular . . . not plural . . . that’s all it says . . . to say otherwise is to deliberately bear false witness . . . *enuf said *. . .

TMC is correct. What you are offering is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy. No where in the blog did Fr. Corapi state that there was only one accuser. TMC is not bearing a false witness by pointing out a logical fallacy. Furthermore, I am amazed at the way that Fr. Corapi fans give him the benefit of the doubt yet refuse such considerations for others. (Leave Britany alone!) Perhaps there is something too this cult of personality complaint. Does not every Christian here and in the SOLT deserve the same consideration?

 

[Havard]

TMC is correct. What you are offering is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy. No where in the blog did Fr. Corapi state that there was only one accuser. TMC is not bearing a false witness by pointing out a logical fallacy. Furthermore, I am amazed at the way that Fr. Corapi fans give him the benefit of the doubt yet refuse such considerations for others. (Leave Britany alone!) Perhaps there is something too this cult of personality complaint. Does not every Christian here and in the SOLT deserve the same consideration?

They absolutely do. I have not seen anyone on here be condemning of Fr. Corapi. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of people condemn his superiors, and EWTN, without clear evidence of their wrongdoing.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Fr. Corapi says he’s innocent. There is no reason to not believe him at this point. He said everthing was a lie. Women who hang around priests tend to be weird. It wouldn’t be surpising if a batty women on medication made this up.

There is no reason to think that Fr. Corapi would lie. He’s a very smart guy who could probably make good money no matter what. He doesn’t need this job.

What is sad is the amount of people on catholic answers who think it’s justified that EWTN and Fr. Corapi’s superiors assume he’s guilty just in case.

I’m further confused by the claims that Father has ‘been placed on administrative leave,’ then the EWTN statement, which almost makes it sound as though he has been defrocked, and yet others here who state he is still a priest in good standing.

Someone, clear the air regarding this.

And there have been a lot of waspish comments, disguised as ‘support’ for Father and his situation, that are fooling no one.

Don’t we all remember threads like, “Father Corapi claims he bench-pressed four hundred pounds and I know for a fact it was only 399, therefore everything he says is a lie.”

We must assume innocence until proven guilt, or else we are hypocritical beyond belief.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Fr. Corapi says he’s innocent. There is no reason to not believe him at this point. He said everthing was a lie. Women who hang around priests tend to be weird. It wouldn’t be surpising if a batty women on medication made this up.

Yes, we should give Fr Corapi the benefit of the doubt while the investigation is undergoing but…

There is no reason to think that Fr. Corapi would lie. He’s a very smart guy who could probably make good money no matter what. He doesn’t need this job.

Condeming his accuser in this manner is no better than those who condemn Fr Corapi in this. You have no right not judge this individual in any way. Shame on you.

What is sad is the amount of people on catholic answers who think it’s justified that EWTN and Fr. Corapi’s superiors assume he’s guilty just in case.

The actions of his superiors and EWTN in no way assume any guilt. They are things in place that happen when an accusation is made and it is under investigation. It is a standard proceedure in the real world that the Church has finally embraced.

 

[SwizzleStick]

"Father Who? Why Corapi Matters

What seemed “The Most Important Story in the Catholic Universe” to some is causing nary a ripple in the lives of other Catholics, but in another sense, it concerns the whole Body of Christ.

Since Saturday, the blogosphere has been crackling with the sensational news that Fr. John Corapi—renowned speaker, televangelist, and a “star” at EWTN—has been placed on “administrative leave.” Corapi’s own website broke the story Friday night with the headline “A Call for Prayer,” explaining that a female former employee had accused him of “everything from drug addiction to multiple sexual exploits”—all allegations that the priest says are false."…

Entire entry: patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Father-Who-Why-Corapi-Matters-Deacon-Greg-Kandra-03-23-2011.html

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzantineCatho or NewEnglandPries, could you respond to this post?

1. 
   *]anthony022071 is declaring Fr. Corapi of being in the state of sanctifying grace.
   *]anthony022071 is declaring one cannot commit mortal sin when in the state of sanctifying grace
   
   .

1. 
   To me this seems like a hold over of OSAS that a protestant convert might carry into Catholicism. Or it is a very bad catechisis.
   
   While we may be in a state of sanctifying grace this does not end our free will or temptation. In such a state one may commit a mortal sin and lose that state.
   
   This is what the Church teaches.

 

[TMC]

:bible1:
"Thou shalt NOT bear false witness against thy neighbor."
Exodus 20:16

+TMC . . . Father’s statement clearly speaks of . . . one accuser . . . singular . . . not plural . . . that’s all it says . . . to say otherwise is to deliberately bear false witness . . . *enuf said *. . .

. . . all for Jesus+​

You are reading too much into that sentence. He says that an employee sent a letter, that is correct. No where does he say that is the only accusation or that there is no other evidence against him. Nor does he say what the letter says, it could contain the names of other accusers. We have to wait to see what comes of the investigation, and we need to give the Church officials responsible for handling this the same benefit of the doubt that we give Fr. Corapi.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

The church would be in a lot better shape right now if the accusations of one accuser were taken seriously when dealing with certain priests and their behaviors. We shouldn’t automatically discount what one person says because only one person says it. That type of thinking and the willingness to say “Not Father So-and-So, he’s a good man. Quit making up stories about priests,” got the church to where it is now.

Fr. Corapi should be able to fully defend himself and have a chance to have his side heard, but to automtically assume the story is less credible because it’s one person is not the right thing to do. The story should be at least investigated as plausible until it’s determined it’s not.

ChadS

I agree that even a single person’s accusation must be taken seriously and should be investigated. What irks me is rather that he was placed on a leave and his programs pulled from TV and radio, based on a single person’s accusing letter.

What if someone writes a letter against my new Archbishop (Thomas Wenski), accusing him of sexual involvement with a woman, or embezzlement or something? Will he be automatically placed on an administrative leave based on one person’s accusation, while the Church investigates? I use his example because he recently ruffled some feathers by writing a peace in the Miami Herald, condemning the gay agenda. What if someone mad with him about that article simply fabricates an accusation, out of thin air, just to shut him up? Will the Church automatically shut up my Archbishop, and place him on a leave for the duration of his investigation, based on one person’s accusatory letter?

 

[Chelalu]

I don’t understand why his pre-approved/pre-recorded material is now being treated as scandalous material. I under they are taking precautions “just in case” but I personally feel that this is sending the wrong message. A message that states that somehow the truth can’t be preached or even trusted if you “happen” to be a sinner later on…

On top of that, by yanking all his stuff, EWTN and certain Catholic radio networks have (unintentionally, I hope) sent us the message that the charge is credible.

  Ouch! 



 While it was a kick in the stomach to learn of the allegation and Fr. Corapi's administrative leave, after reflection, I realized that I could not possibly know enough to criticize Fr. Corapi, the head of his order nor the former employee who made the allegation. I have to suffer with uncertainty.

 But I am angry. I am angry with some Catholic broadcast media for this rush to distance themselves from the name and work of  Corapi. It recalls for me other shunnings:.

• Former radio show hosts. I'm thinking of two whose shows I tuned in to for months, until, one day, they were never heard of again -- like disinherited siblings whose names we were forbidden to say at table. The silence made the radio-show hosts' separation seem ominous. Did the station think the listeners wouldn't notice?

• Mel Gibson. When the whole anti-Christian, anti-Traditionalist  and Materialist world ganged up on him, some in Catholic radio joined the pile-on. The Anti's had been beating him up since way before his completion of one of the most beautiful, moving and orthodox films ever made about the central belief of Christianity. I wonder if that had any thing to do with his meltdown? At any rate, it seemed like his veneer cracked, whereupon some in Catholic media forgot that God often chooses the unfit for His work. Instead, (it seemed to me) they encouraged us to finish stomping the man to pieces

It we repudiate the gifts God chooses to send us by way of the flawed, we don’t have a Church. (I wonder, how would this play out were Corapi accused of denying Christ?) The only legitimate reason to keep us from Fr. Corapi’s preachings, i believe, would be if they contained heresy. I doubt anyone accuses him of that.

So dfp, i heartily agree with you and additionally, hope that Catholic broadcast media (another gift via the unworthy) will rethink how it handles the work of the flawed, the sinful (who? me?) and those accused of scandal.

 

[dfp42]

I agree that even a single person’s accusation must be taken seriously and should be investigated. What irks me is rather that he was placed on a leave and his programs pulled from TV and radio, based on a single person’s accusing letter.

What if someone writes a letter against my new Archbishop (Thomas Wenski), accusing him of sexual involvement with a woman, or embezzlement or something? Will he be automatically placed on an administrative leave based on one person’s accusation, while the Church investigates? I use his example because he recently ruffled some feathers by writing a peace in the Miami Herald, condemning the gay agenda. What if someone mad with him about that article simply fabricates an accusation, out of thin air, just to shut him up? Will the Church automatically shut up my Archbishop, and place him on a leave for the duration of his investigation, based on one person’s accusatory letter?

Good question. With a zero-tolerance policy I don’t see why he would be any different if we are in fact following the newly zero-tolerance policy…I believe this will probably the new attack for anyone popular in the Catholic Church going forward. Seems all to easy to shut anyone up if you were indeed anti-catholic and flat out didn’t really care about the individual…

seems unlikely though that anyone in the world would actually have this type of agenda…

 

[TMC]

I agree that even a single person’s accusation must be taken seriously and should be investigated. What irks me is rather that he was placed on a leave and his programs pulled from TV and radio, based on a single person’s accusing letter.

What if someone writes a letter against my new Archbishop (Thomas Wenski), accusing him of sexual involvement with a woman, or embezzlement or something? Will he be automatically placed on an administrative leave based on one person’s accusation, while the Church investigates? I use his example because he recently ruffled some feathers by writing a peace in the Miami Herald, condemning the gay agenda. What if someone mad with him about that article simply fabricates an accusation, out of thin air, just to shut him up? Will the Church automatically shut up my Archbishop, and place him on a leave for the duration of his investigation, based on one person’s accusatory letter?

The Dallas Norms lay out what would happen. The diocese is supposed to have a board established to review such charges. The board would promptly conduct a preliminary investigation. If the preliminary investigation revealed that the charges were credible, the Archbishop would be removed from ministry until the full investigation was complete. If credible allegations of crimes against children were made, the civil authorities would be notified. That is what Canon Law requires be done. Everyone is assuming that was not done in Fr. Corapi’s case, but no one here knows, instead people are happy to assume that his religious superiors are acting improperly.

BTW, more information on the norms for handling abuse allegations are available via the USCCB website:

usccb.org/ocyp/norms.shtml

 

[Jesus_123]

TMC is correct. What you are offering is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy. No where in the blog did Fr. Corapi state that there was only one accuser. TMC is not bearing a false witness by pointing out a logical fallacy.

Father Corapi has identified only one accuser, a . . . ** “former employee”** . . . singular. Facts . . . solid well founded facts . . . are what are needed in a . . . grave . . .situation such as this . . . and are the only basis on which righteous just sound judgement can be made . . . NOT . . . unfounded . . . unsupported . . . imaginings . . . speciously masquerading as some weird sort of . . . “logic” . . . presumptiously derived from . . . “silence” . . . where there is a total lack of factual information or foundation . . . when not restrained . . . such . . . unrestrained licentious imaginings . . . leave the door wide open for the . . . grievious sins . . . of bearing . . . false witness . . . lying . . . calumny (a misrepresentation which can harm another’s reputation) . . . the sin of detraction * (a lessening of reputation or esteem especially by envious, malicious, or petty criticism and imaginings)* . . . **libel **. . . slander . . . etc. Seeking the truth based on fact is what any honest decent investigation regarding such as this matter is all about . . . and is the only basis for sound just judgment . . . whether in the public forum or within the Church . . . or when faced with the necessity of making a personal value judgment . . .
:bible1:
Woe unto them
that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 5:20

In this . . . grave . . . situation . . . we need . . . **to stick to the **facts . . . and wait on the Lord and **His **Church to reveal more when the investigation of the facts is complete . . .

The below reference from Sacred :bible1: Scripture is the Eighth Commandment of the Ten Commandments . . . and is covered in considerable detail in The Catechism of the Catholic Church . . . a portion of which is below . . .

:bible1:
"Thou shalt NOT bear false witness against thy neighbor."
Exodus 20:16

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
ARTICLE 8
THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT
**
2483 **
Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

**2484 **
The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.
**
2485 **
By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. **It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate **known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

**2486 **
Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.​

. . . all for Jesus+​

 

[dfp42]

The Dallas Norms lay out what would happen. The diocese is supposed to have a board established to review such charges. The board would promptly conduct a preliminary investigation. If the preliminary investigation revealed that the charges were credible, the Archbishop would be removed from ministry until the full investigation was complete. If credible allegations of crimes against children were made, the civil authorities would be notified. That is what Canon Law requires be done. Everyone is assuming that was not done in Fr. Corapi’s case, but no one here knows, instead people are happy to assume that his religious superiors are acting improperly.

BTW, more information on the norms for handling abuse allegations are available via the USCCB website:

usccb.org/ocyp/norms.shtml

Is this what was done in his case? The board promptly conducted a preliminary investigation on Corapi and were credible and removed him from ministry? If so then we must admit that the charges are indeed credible against him based on the board?

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

I think that for anyone to stop sending contributions to EWTN on account of this pending situation is making a huge mistake----and doing exactly what the devil wants.

We are in the midst of a spiritual battle against an enemy who wages war against the Church and the family. The Eternal Word Television network started by Mother Angelica needs to continue to reach the millions of viewers around the world with it’s powerful message.

Regardless if we agree with their decision to put Fr. Corapi’s lectures on hold, it is imperative that this network stays on the air. Those who suspend their contributions are making a huge mistake.

And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Revelation 12:17

I too hope for the best case scenario with Fr. Corapi’s case. But even if it turned out that he was lying and did fall into sin, I would love him even more, because I know that Satan has wicked ways of tricking people, and lays down snares especially against influential priests—even though the world and the flesh offer enough temptations as it is.

We must NEVER abandon any priest, or anyone for that matter, who has the misfortune of yielding and falling to temptation. We in the Church Militant are at war with the infernal enemy, and when one of our fellow soldiers falls and is wounded, we must come to his aid.

I have been worried about Fr. Corapi for the past year ever since I saw his changing appearance. I found it rather troubling and odd to say the least for a priest in a religious order who is 62 years old with white/gray hair to suddenly trim and dye his beard black. I tried to reconcile this by offering the benefit of the doubt, thinking, well, maybe he wants to appeal to the younger generation and appear strong. But my gut feeling was that it was strange.

img405.imageshack.us/img405/534/carapiappearance.jpg

img862.imageshack.us/img862/9039/charlesdefoucald.jpg

Since our pilgrimage on earth is a journey to increasingly become more and more united to Jesus Christ and reach perfect union with God in heaven, I’m hoping that Fr. Corapi turns his back completely on the world and lets his beard grow as white as Fr. Groeschel’s. Maybe this event in his life is a blessing in some way, even though he’s probably telling the truth and is innocent, because fame, power, and adoring fans is a recipe for temptation and corruption, especially since there are wicked people who are more than willing to do what they can to help you fall into sin. No man can live in the world and not be tempted. I know that if I had fame, power, adoring fans and plagued with occasions of sin, I know that I would probably be in trouble, with no need of the devil.

When we yield to the world and to the flesh and fall into the snares of the infernal foe, we make ourselves vulnerable. Father Corapi himself said that Satan is like a ferocious dog on a chain, and cannot harm us unless we get close enough and fall within his grasp through yielding to mortal sin.

“A saint is one who is so fascinated by the beauty of God and by his perfect truth as to be progressively transformed by it.”–Pope Benedict XVI

 

[TMC]

Is this what was done in his case? The board promptly conducted a preliminary investigation on Corapi and were credible and removed him from ministry? If so then we must admit that the charges are indeed credible against him based on the board?

We simply do not know. All we know is the information that Fr. Corapi has chosen to release. The officials conducting the investigation are not releasing any information about their investigation - and I think that is the right thing for them to do. We should withold judgment against anyone involved in this situation until the facts come out.

 

[pnewton]

Father Corapi has identified only one accuser, a . . . “former employee” . . . singular.

That is not what Fr. Corapi said. As said earlier, he wrote:

On Ash Wednesday I learned that a former employee sent a three-page letter to several bishops accusing me of everything from drug addiction to multiple sexual exploits with her and several other adult women.

You have changed the wording and included the word “one” and “only”. These are not in the Father’s statement and are not implied in it. I would suggest you read your own post about Truth. I did nothing contrary to what you posted.

Also, it does not add weight to an argument to keep changing fonts. There is not need to be uncharitable.

 

[dfp42]

Immaculate Heart Radio is standing by Fr. Corapi and will continue to play his stuff until he is found guilty. You can listen to them online ihradio.org/

What I don’t understand is why Immaculate Heart Radio is allowed to play his material but EWTN is not. Did the Church mandate that his stuff stop being played on the air? If so, why is Immaculate Heart Radio is going against what the Church asks…

EWTN states: “We are obliged to do so in obedience to the discipline of the Church.”
Immaculate Heart Radio…isn’t obliged to the discipline of the Church?

Kinda makes you wonder honestly if this was just a personal decision of EWTN or if they are really are obliged to the discipline of the Church. And it’s not even that they don’t play his material, they completely took him out of their catalog as well. This happened and a decision was made in 1 day.

If it wrong to play his material over the air because of EWTN’s claim, is it wrong for me to pop in his dvd and watch it with my family on the TV after dinner? both are doing the same thing broadcasting his material…