Fr. Corapi Responds to Some of His Order's Charges

[Shoshana]

You echo the sentiments of the Curé of Ars .Speaking against any priest was not something found on his “things to recommend” list . It was something he discouraged vigorously . He also used to say (about anyone) : “If something uncharitable is said in your presence , either speak in favour of the absent, or withdraw, or if possible , stop the conversation.”

(Could you imagine this dear Saint John Vianney ever trying to moderate an internet forum today …?..uch: ).

One of the problems related to deliberating on a priest , is it can turn into other things. As I was endeavoring to point out earlier, internet forum settings are environments which can tend to amplify these problems.

• A few definitions in that domain from Father John Hardon , SJ’s Modern Catholic Dictionary :

DETRACTION.
Revealing something about another that is true but harmful to that person’s reputation. It is forbidden to reveal another person’s secret faults or defects, unless there is proportionate good involved. The fact that something is true does not, of itself, justify its disclosure. Detraction is a sin against justice. It robs one of what most people consider more important than riches, since a person has a strict right to his or her reputation whether it is deserved or not. (Etym. Latin detractio, a withdrawal.)

GOSSIP.
Idle talk, especially about others. The morality of gossip is determined by the degree to which time is wasted in useless conversation, by the failure in justice or charity committed against others, and by the damage done to people’s reputation by those who gossip.

**SLANDER. **
Detraction. Essentially slander is verbal defamation of a person’s character, although it may be either spoken or written. It also implies suffering or positive harm done to the victim of slander. In popular language calumny is a form of slander. (Etym. Latin scandalum, stumbling block, offense.)

CALUMNY.
Injuring another person’s good name by lying. It is doubly sinful, in unjustly depriving another of his good name and in telling an untruth. Since calumny violates justice, it involves the duty of making reparation for the foreseen injury inflicted. Hence the calumniator must try, not only to repair the harm done to another’s good name, but also to make up for any foreseen temporal loss that resulted from the calumny, for example, loss of employment or customers. (Etym. Latin calumnia, a false accusation, malicious charge; from calvi, to deceive.)

Donoso Cortés , after his conversion, stated:

“Those who pray do more for the world than those who fight, and if the world is going from bad to worse, it’s because there are more battles than prayers.”

As we continue to pray for Fr. Corapi , particularly lifting him up at Mass, we’ll eventually see where God is leading us.

Thank you! and God bless! I thank God that he has given me a respect for priests because we have received such a gret gift in them. I have never criticized SOLT or Corapi…and never will. I have never criticized the other parties and I never will.

But my criticism lies with this forum. Enough said. Thank y’all for responding and have a blessed day. it will be another hot day. I am a t peace and leave in peace!

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Originally, his Superior told him to go civilly…this is a fact. This was before he was called back to community. We are talking about two different things here…

No. Fr Corapi stated that he had advice from the former head of the SLOT and the retired bishop. Never did the current superior of the SOLT recommend a civil suit. He in fact has asked several times that it be dropped. The bishop has now removed several posts from his blog which supported Fr Corapi.

It makes no sense for a religious order/society to recommend a civil suit against someone they are trying to interview in a canonical trial.

 

[Shoshana]

No. Fr Corapi stated that he had advice from the former head of the SLOT and the retired bishop. Never did the current superior of the SOLT recommend a civil suit. He in fact has asked several times that it be dropped. The bishop has now removed several posts from his blog which supported Fr Corapi.

It makes no sense for a religious order/society to recommend a civil suit against someone they are trying to interview in a canonical trial.

Do not people read all the posts? There is such repetition here…I have been corrected a couple of times and was thankful for it…

 

[guanophore]

Sorry, I don't see your point. I think that if someone resigns, one is no longer compelled to be obedient to his former superior. It's a parting of ways.

One cannot “resign” from the priesthood. It is a perpetual calling. A priest is permanently marked by the Holy Spirit during Holy Orders, just as a Chrisitan is permanently marked during baptism. One cannot “resign” from being baptized. All one can do is abandon the imperishable birthright that is being kept in heaven for one.

Rom 11:29-30
29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

I think you are right, that his decision to walk away from his responsibilities and promises prevents them from being able to compel him to be obedient. This “parting of ways” is an act of disobedience. Now, if he had done it because they were ordering him to do something sinful then it could be understood as an act of holiness. But, as it is, it simply gives the appearance of a rebellious heart, defiant against authority, and unwillinghess to face the accusations against himself.

I’m quite sure that Fr. Corapi will seek lacization through proper channel so he’s right with the church too.

What makes you sure of this? Everything he has said to date indicates the opposite. But then, everything he has said for the last 20 years indicates the opposite of his present behavior, so I can’t rule it out. Bottom line is that nothing he is saying right now is trustworthy, because he has misrepresented the facts.

Like everything else, we should not treat the ministerial priesthood as an end in itself to the point of polluting the office by the stain of idolatry

I find this a curious statement. I can agree with it in principle, but clearly, the stain of idolotry that is upon this whole affair does not come from his identity as a priest, but failure to live up to that calling. The pollution here is the pollution of secularization and works of the flesh entering into that holy office.

. Fr. Corapi has not acted in defiance by continuing to represent himself as an official spokesperson for the church or SOLT.

Yes, and I appreciate that. His defiance has been against the God appointed authorities in his life. I think it is quite possible he has been served with some kind of injuction on the materials he produced with the SOLT name on them, and he is unloading them fast. I am glad that he will no longer maintain these items and the website that goes with them so as to misrepresent to the public that he is in good standing with SOLT.

He’s not been preaching on church properties nor holding himself out to be a priest externally by wearing his habit or the Roman in public.

Yes, and I applaud this. Matters would be worse if he were continuing to misrepresent the Truth in this way.

 

[guanophore]

Ultimately, Fr. Corapi has to follow his conscience … one may argue that he’s not properly formed but who are we to judge him?

Yes, he does. And the reason that God gives us shepherds and superiors is so that we will not be left on our own in the following of conscience and thus erroneously and with the best of intentions, be misled. I think it goes without question that his intellectual apprehension of Truth is right on (I have never heard anything in his talks that goes against the teachings of the Church). What seems to be lacking here is the formation of the heart, the pride, the arrogance, the willful disobedience. Another poster called his actions “cowardly” and I strongly resisted that characterization (I don’t think we can really judge this from where we sit), but it would be healthy for him to be in quite a bit of fear. When I listen to his messages, I hear a man who is terrified to “crawl under a rock and die”. He seems to be very fearful of the changes that God is asking him to go through right now (return to SOLT, and drop the lawsuit). I know that change is, as he indicated on his last message, very hard. Giving up his public persona leaves him faced with just John, and John’s demons. This is a point to which God brings all of us, either now, or in purgatory.

It’s not like that he is behaving like that “other priest” Cutie who jumped ship, got married and joined another church.

Yes! As bad as this is, it could be worse!

Although I also want Fr. Corapi to be reconciled to the church so he can continue his ministerial priesthood, I also understand that all Christians also shared this common “holy priesthood” through baptism so John Corapi, in my humble view, can certainly “be fit for ministry” as a lay Catholic to do God’s work.

I am glad you can see that his actions have put him in a position where he is not reconciled to the Church. I, too, want him to return to his minsterial priesthood.

However, SOLT is correct, he is not “fit for ministry” right now. He needs to get his life in order, starting with obeying the authorities that God has put in his life. What is being asked of him is nothing different than what is asked of all of us. It is regrettable that his rebellion has to be played out so publicly. Being in that fishbowl of the public eye makes it much more difficult to face the shadows in one’s life.

1 Peter 2:13-16

13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God.

Rom 13:1-7
13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.** For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. **3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Do not people read all the posts? There is such repetition here…I have been corrected a couple of times and was thankful for it…

No, I’m sorry I did not read all the posts before I posted. I am catching up on reading the posts from overnight.

I responded to yours right away because I have seen this confusion before on multiple discussions and it seems like a quick thing to help explain things.

I have now caught up with the thread and with Br JR’s thoughtful explainations. I don’t have anything else to add except additional prayers for this situation and for all our priests who are our protection and need our support.

God bless you today.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

This is not a news story. This is your imagination about what is going on. I don’t think this thread should be in News, in fact, I’m not sure this thread should be anywhere. A call to prayer and fasting for all priests and faithful is a good idea, but your speculation about demonic possession is not wise.

 

[agnes_therese]

This is not a news story. This is your imagination about what is going on. I don’t think this thread should be in News, in fact, I’m not sure this thread should be anywhere. A call to prayer and fasting for all priests and faithful is a good idea, but your speculation about demonic possession is not wise.

What Mrs. Sally said.

 

[jwinch2]

Even though he was ordained by the pope. You see, when the pope ordains, his right and power to ordain come from the fact that he’s a bishop. When he ordains, he has the right to request that the men being ordained for the Diocese of Rome promise him to remain celibate and to obey him and his successors. Those men who are being ordained for another diocese are asked the question slightly differently,

“Do you promise to obey your bishop and his successors?”

Those men who belong to institutes of consecrated life or to societies of apostolic life are not asked the question at all.

When you reach that part of the ceremony, if you belong to the SOLT, you remain silent. You don’t answer. Only diocesan have to answer the question.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Very interesting. Thanks!

Peace,

 

[guanophore]

It seems with this case, people see what they want to see. I never believed fully the woman in this case was that crazy, it all came from him and his workers which I’m sure are loyal to him. No one thinks its wrong to make her a raging alcoholic or “disturbed”.

I don’t think this is true at all. In fact, I have read a number of posts here, and on his website that have clearly said it is wrong to bring her personal sins into the open as has been done. Followers literally begged him not to post her voice mails, which he conceded to refrain from doing, thank God! I just read the post above this one which defines calumny, detraction, etc. Even if all the things that have been said about her are true, that doed not 1) make it ok to publicize them and 2) mean that her allegations have no merit. Even an out of control alcoholic can be mistreated.You may be undersestimating how “crazy” people can get when they are in the grip of a harmful addiction.

 You would think she'd be committed by now. Don't defame Father but don't defame her. I think it's wrong to say detraction or to say not to lie, when no one knows her either.

Yes, I agree.

I also feel, with the definitioinof detracton, his superiors most have thought that they needed to do what they did to curtail a bad thing down the line, his supporters were so fervent.

I agree with this too. It was the lesser of two evils.

Not once, did the 3 investigators say anything she said wasn’t true, that she was crazy, they talked about recent things, not 5 years ago. Most witness’s aren’t perfect and although it’s distracting, I can’t believe as posted earlier by someone, everyone but him is lying.

Right.

The bottom line is that he told SOLT for years he was unhappy, told us that also, he wants to leave, he didn’t want to answer questions or have his staff answer questions, the investigators said he wasn’t acting in a manner becoming to a priest. He had obvious physical changes along with the rest and to me, is a train running down a track without breaks.

Yes. I get the impression that he has been functioning as a lone ranger all his life. He was separated from two communiites (according to his own accounts) before he got to SOLT, and he really never “belonged” to SOLT after they changed their constitution. He like things the way they were when he joined, where he did not have to suffer the rigors of daily scrutiny by superiors, and learn to live in community. His lifestyle enabled him to avoid dealing with the selfish desires that plague all of us, that living with others grinds and polishes changes we need to make. It is not healthy for anyone to serve in a powerful public ministry such as his without the support of a community.

No one really wants to see it crash or go "wild’ without direction. He has a lot of prayers going his way, if he lets the grace in, he will be okay.

Amen! Let that grace flow!

 

[guanophore]

Which video ? A search of Father Corapi and Scandal … brings up multiple videos. Some of which don’t seem legit, are spoofs of him, and have him talking very foolishly.

Even the “serious” ones have significant foolishness in them.

Don’t know if these are him or a parody of him, …making him sound as if he has gone over the cliff.

In every parody, there is a grain of truth. Clearly the cliff is imminent.

Who would resign a position w/o defending himself.  He has 20 years with Catholic church, since his wild & crazy California drug/sex/materialistic days.   Would he give all this up to return to his former ways of sinning .... or has he been a fraud in priest's cloth for all this time ?

I wonder this myself. But I also receive his ministry as authentic. He taught the Truth, and did so very well. One cannot do this without the grace of God. To the extent that we all have secret sins, we are all fraudulent.

 

[mom4mary]

The following is pure speculation although some statements coming out of Santa Cruz Media seems to support the theory. I’m guessing that there’s maybe some truth to the accuser being mentally unstable and Fr. Corapi gave her a generous offer as severence pay as well as to keep her from “ranting” about imagined things. ?

Sorry, but I don’t buy this. And according to SOLT, there is more than just one other NDC floating around out there. I used to work in Research and Development. In that environment, signing an NDC makes sense. In the kind of work Fr. Corapi did, an NDC makes no sense. Furthermore, if this woman is truly as insane/under the influence as Fr. Corapi suggests, then his civil suit will go nowhere because the court will likely deem her as incompetent and not able to be held accountable for having signed anything. It is curious, though, that when she left Santa Cruz media in 2009, Fr. Corapi was nothing but glowing about how wonderful she was, how she “travelled over a million miles” with him, etc. So which is it - a faithful goddaughter, or a raving lunatic/alcoholic? The burden lies with him, not her.

Also, why is it that Fr. Corapi’s word regarding this woman’s character and her charges against him should be viewed as “good enough”, while all the words combined of all of the priests at SOLT, the 3 person investigative panel and the sitting Bishop of Corpus Christi are viewed as “not good enough”? That makes no sense to me. Furthermore, SOLT has said that they have hard evidence from additional witnesses sources. Why doesn’t that seem to make any difference to the die-hard supporters of Fr. Corapi?

Finally I ask once again, how is it that one human being (Fr. Corapi) has engendered such a sense of loyalty in his followers that they choose to suspend all sense of logic and reason in order to defend him? That is the scariest part.

 

[mom4mary]

[If you look back at my early posts when this came out, I championed every and any explanation I could think of to justify his actions. After SOLT published, I just had to accept that it is exactly how it looks. Disobedience.

"Sorry, I don’t see your point. I think that if someone resigns, one is no longer compelled to be obedient to his former superior.
[/quote]

Sorry, but priests don’t just “resign”. The priesthood is not just a club that you join. Being a priest is not like a secular job. Or a military one, for that matter. How about when a soldier or seaman or airman decides he just wants to resign, he’s had enough? What do you think his commanding officer would have to say about that? I’ll tell you - court marshall.

 

[Robertanthony]

Which video ? A search of Father Corapi and Scandal … brings up multiple videos. Some of which don’t seem legit, are spoofs of him, and have him talking very foolishly.

Go to post#1, jwinch2 provided the link.

 

[JReducation]

The problem is spiritual. It appears that Father Corapi has become possessed by diabolical forces who are speaking through him.

I’ve have never takene exception with anything anyone ever posts, but this time I will. This is totally inappropriate. No one has the right to make such a statement about another person, unless one is a bishop, a Spiritual Theologian who specializes in demonic matters, or an exercist. It is highly dangerous to implant these thoughts in tthe minds of others.

Brother JR,

Do you happen to have a source or sample of the ordination rite for a religious I would really like to see an example of it.

Thanks

There is no such thing.

You see, religious life and priesthood are not the same thing. There are two rituals.

The Rite of Ordination

The Rite of Religious Profession or the Consecration of Virgins (for women)

If you belong to a community, you must first complete your formation within the community. At the end of the formation period, you make a perpetual commitment. That comes in one of several forms:

1. Solemn vows: only made by monks, nuns, friars and Jesuits
2. Simple vows: made by every religious and even some lay orders
3. Solemn promises: made by members of societies: SOLT, Maryknoll, FSSP, SSPX, etc

During that right you are asked to vow or promise, depending on your community, to obey until death. You may be askd to vow chastity until death or just obedience, because chastity is covered in the statutes. If you promise to obey, the statutes, chastity is taken care of.

Once you have completed your formation and made perpetual profession, your superior can decides if you should be ordained, not before. He then presents a letter to a bishop (it can be the pope) asking him to ordain you and vouching for you.

During the Rite of Ordination to the diaconate, not to the priesthood (people make this mistake) the candidate is asked:

1. If he promises obedience to his bishop and his successors.
2. If he promises to live a celibate life (if he’s single, that means beginning now. If he’s married that means after his wife dies)

If the man has alrady made profession in an institute of consecrated life or a society of apostolic life, the question is not directed at him. Only those men who are incardinated into a diocese answer the question, if the group is mixed. If the group is made up of consecrated men, the question is not asked and the rite continues as usual.

In the book that the bishop is holding, there little red letters will instruct him what to ask and what not to ask.

The reason that these questions are asked at the ordination to the diaconate, only of secular men, is because they are going to be part of a diocese. Consecrated men are not going to be part of any diocese. They are free from diocesan control. That’s why the ordaining bishop skips that question. The celibacy question is useless, because the man has already made a vow of chastity.

Contrary to popular belief, these promises of obedience to the bishop and to celibacy are not made at the ordination to the priesthood, but at the ordination to the diaconate. They are renewed at the ordination to priesthood. A renewal is like renewing your marriage vows. You’re not getting married again. You’re already married. It’s a public decree of your intention to stay the course.

The law of the Church does not allow consecrated men to be incardinated into any diocese or any other community while they belong to one. That’s why you cannot make that promise of obedience to a bishop. That promise incardinates you into his diocese.
Does that help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[dfp42]

I see so much confusion going on on his facebook page that it makes me sick. For example.

someone will say.

“Father Corapi, Now is the time to preach by example.
You told us: “Act like the saints; they are the ones who knew how to live”.
Great Saints have advised to very OBEDIENT with the Superiors (Padre Pio, St. Faustina, St. Bernadette Soubirous, Blessed Mother Teresa, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Jose Maria Escriva, St. Ignatius, St. John of the Cross, St. Thomas Aquinas , St. Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Siene, Blessed John Paul II and many more)
Father Corapi We need you, we love you, Please COME BACK to Our Holy Mother Catholic Church.”

and yet someone will say.

“Fr. Corapi is like St. John of the Cross who had the right to not obey immoral orders given by a superior. Blind obedience is not, never has been, Catholic.”

On and on it goes…

Besides Catholics being confused on this, I see a split going on over calling SOLT a lair and calling Corapi a liar.

 

[DCNBILL]

During the Rite of Ordination to the diaconate, not to the priesthood (people make this mistake) the candidate is asked:

1. If he promises obedience to his bishop and his successors.
2. If he promises to live a celibate life (if he’s single, that means beginning now. If he’s married that means after his wife dies)

If the man has alrady made profession in an institute of consecrated life or a society of apostolic life, the question is not directed at him. Only those men who are incardinated into a diocese answer the question, if the group is mixed. If the group is made up of consecrated men, the question is not asked and the rite continues as usual.

In the book that the bishop is holding, there little red letters will instruct him what to ask and what not to ask.

The reason that these questions are asked at the ordination to the diaconate, only of secular men, is because they are going to be part of a diocese. Consecrated men are not going to be part of any diocese. They are free from diocesan control. That’s why the ordaining bishop skips that question. The celibacy question is useless, because the man has already made a vow of chastity.

Contrary to popular belief, these promises of obedience to the bishop and to celibacy are not made at the ordination to the priesthood, but at the ordination to the diaconate. They are renewed at the ordination to priesthood. A renewal is like renewing your marriage vows. You’re not getting married again. You’re already married. It’s a public decree of your intention to stay the course.

The law of the Church does not allow consecrated men to be incardinated into any diocese or any other community while they belong to one. That’s why you cannot make that promise of obedience to a bishop. That promise incardinates you into his diocese.
Does that help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes I remember that part well enough.

So at the point in the diaconal ordination where the candidate kneels before the bishop and places his hands between those of the bishop and makes his promise of obedience is skipped in the case of the religious?

And thanks for the other info as well!

Sorry all did not mean to derail the thread just wanted to understand this point.

Fr. Corapi in in my daily prayer.

 

[jwinch2]

1. Solemn vows: only made by monks, nuns, friars and Jesuits
2. Simple vows: made by every religious and even some lay orders
3. Solemn promises: made by members of societies: SOLT, Maryknoll, FSSP, SSPX, etc

The fact that there are three different types of vows/promises suggests a greater or lesser degree of authority or binding to the promises/vows being made. If they are binding in the same manner, there would seem to be no need for three different types. Can you provide some detail on this?

Thanks for all of the information.

 

[jwinch2]

The problem is spiritual. It appears that Father Corapi has become possessed by diabolical forces who are speaking through him.

This statement along with the remainder of your post is WAY out of line in my view.

We have been working quite hard to keep things as respectful and within the bounds of the forum as is possible and are trying to keep this thread open so that people have a place to discuss this situation.

 

[Cinette]

*Matt 23:1-3

1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,

2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.

3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

This reminds me of Fr Corapi. I have been trying my best to understand him and this scripture helps I think.