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

[jwinch2]

Is it safe to say that until the Church officially announces that he has been laicized or excommunicated he can still teach or preach without faculties for the time being?

SOLT said “Catholics should understand that SOLT does not consider Fr. John Corapi as fit for ministry”. But he hasn’t yet been considered laicized or excommunicated by the Church. What does this mean for Catholics who might still listen to him going forward since SOLT said he is not “fit” for ministry? Can we still listen in with prudence or has Coprai been added to the offical ban list for Catholics?

I’m honestly not sure to tell you the truth. My understanding of being removed from faculties but not being laicized is that he cannot celebrate the sacraments in public but could do so for himself in private. In addition, my understanding of the process of being laicized or defrocked is that it typically takes years and the priest is typically given many many chances to return to the fold unless he is specifically requesting laicization. My understanding of that may be imperfect or even completely wrong so please do not accept it as authoritative.

As to the second questions, I think that is open to interpretation. What SOLT means by “not fit for ministry” is a bit vague in my view. Does it mean he is A) not fit to celebrate the sacraments; B) preach; C) teach; D) etc.? All of the above? Only A and B? I honestly cannot say what they mean by that, and frankly do not want to speculate. It is a very important question that you have raised. There is a huge difference between not being able to celebrate the sacraments publicly and not being fit to preach and teach the faith. Considering that this is the precise route he seems to be taking, I wish I had the answer.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Is it safe to say that until the Church officially announces that he has been laicized or excommunicated he can still teach or preach without faculties for the time being?

SOLT said “Catholics should understand that SOLT does not consider Fr. John Corapi as fit for ministry”. But he hasn’t yet been considered laicized or excommunicated by the Church. What does this mean for Catholics who might still listen to him going forward since SOLT said he is not “fit” for ministry? Can we still listen in with prudence or has Coprai been added to the offical ban list for Catholics?

Would you listen to another priest if you found out that he did not have faculties?

 

[whm]

I do not see how one can remain in the Church while at the same time violating Church law by: A) not following the legitimate orders of his superior; or B) continuing to teach religion as a laicized priest or priest with no faculties. These things do not equal.

I agree with B, it will be the Bishop of Montana’s responsibility to enforce this, I believe to monitor this. If he (Fr Corapi) violates this rule the prober action is to write that bishop.

A is not always true, there may be occasions when it is the right thing to quit actively being a priest and leave the order. It is more honest to quit the order than to remain and continue in disobedience, imho. Such a person (who has quit an order) could again be in good standing because they can always repent and go to confession, they would not be required to rejoin the order after their confession. Yes it is disturbing but, really it is between such a person and God.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Just a naive question, but has he taught any religion since he said he was leaving active ministry?

 

[jwinch2]

Would you listen to another priest if you found out that he did not have faculties?

VERY good point. If this were not Father Corapi, how many people would willing to listen to his teaching or preaching on faith and morals? Other than perhaps some parishioners who had become close to the priest in question, I doubt it would be very many.

 

[GraceSofia]

Well this shows the Catholic church is different then other churches because it can self clean itself. The hierarchy of the structure does do this well but it can also try to protect the faithful when the church covered up priest abuse.

All in all I would rather be part of a church with Hieracrchy as long as it’s transparent in it’s leadership and watched over by the lay people to keep it’s leaders true to the faith.

Journey,
I see you are fairly new, so please don’t take this personally, that I’m picking on you, okay, but you have said something here that I wonder about.

Is it true that the lay people keep our leaders true to the faith? I would have thought we have no influence really. Which can be a good thing. Look at Germany with these 250 theologians demanding women priests . I for one, am glad to know that Pope Benedict is not going to take their votes into consideration. Don’t we always say the Church is not a democracy?

Thoughts on this?

 

[valient_Lucy]

VERY good point. If this were not Father Corapi, how many people would willing to listen to his teaching or preaching on faith and morals? Other than perhaps some parishioners who had become close to the priest in question, I doubt it would be very many.

Exactly. Some of Fr. Corapi’s seem to employ a double standard to Fr. Corapi. If a liberal priest behaved this way, there’s a good chance they would be up in arms over this.

It also bugs me when they say it’s wrong to criticize Fr. Corapi because he’s a priest, but then they criticize Fr. Sheehan or Bishop Mulvay. Bishops are priests too.

 

[jwinch2]

Journey,
I see you are fairly new, so please don’t take this personally, that I’m picking on you, okay, but you have said something here that I wonder about.

Is it true that the lay people keep our leaders true to the faith? I would have thought we have no influence really. Which can be a good thing. Look at Germany with these 250 theologians demanding women priests . I for one, am glad to know that Pope Benedict is not going to take their votes into consideration. Don’t we always say the Church is not a democracy?

Thoughts on this?

There is a difference between the faithful encouraging the church towards the wrong path and pointing out the right path when we believe certain members of the clergy is going astray.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen to the Supreme Convention of the Knights of Columbus in June 1972, “Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, and the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops act like bishops, and your religious act like religious.”

St. Catherine of Sienna called out the clergy on more than one occasion when she believed they were in the wrong to include the Holy Father himself. On more than one occasion, they listened to and took her advice.

 

[dfp42]

Would you listen to another priest if you found out that he did not have faculties?

With prudence why not? I listen to a lot of people who don’t have faculties and are more than likely struggling with sin in their lives one way or another. It’s one thing this simply listen to someone and another thing to accept what they say. I haven’t yet heard him teach or preach so far anything opposed to faith and morals. Actions on the other hand are a different story. I don’t agree with what took place between his choice and solt’s demand. Outside of the action’s that have taken place I still need to find a way in my heart to love and pray for him even if I don’t agree with it. That’s one of the hardest things to do, I admit. If it was my choice, I’d prefer that none of this ever happened regardless or who did what etc.

 

[jwinch2]

It also bugs me when they say it’s wrong to criticize Fr. Corapi because he’s a priest, but then they criticize Fr. Sheehan or Bishop Mulvay. Bishops are priests too.

Not to mention completely piling on other priests or religious who have questioned Father C.'s motives on his FB page or publicly.

 

[jwinch2]

With prudence why not? I listen to a lot of people who don’t have faculties and are more than likely struggling with sin in their lives one way or another. It’s one thing this simply listen to someone and another thing to accept what they say. I haven’t yet heard him teach or preach so far anything opposed to faith and morals. Actions on the other hand are a different story. I don’t agree with what took place between his choice and solt’s demand. Outside of the action’s that have taken place I still need to find a way in my heart to love and pray for him even if I don’t agree with it. That’s one of the hardest things to do, I admit. If it was my choice, I’d prefer that none of this ever happened regardless or who did what etc.

Good points. I would suggest there is a big difference between listening to someone who has never had faculties such as your RCIA director for example, and listening to someone who has their faculties removed due to some scandal or non-compliance with Church authority. In addition, praying for someone and living them, which absolutely should be done, is not the same as trusting them to teach you the true faith once they have been removed from their position of trust within the Church.

Thoughts?

 

[catharina]

Is it safe to say that until the Church officially announces that he has been laicized or excommunicated he can still teach or preach without faculties for the time being?

SOLT said “Catholics should understand that SOLT does not consider Fr. John Corapi as fit for ministry”. But he hasn’t yet been considered laicized or excommunicated by the Church. What does this mean for Catholics who might still listen to him going forward since SOLT said he is not “fit” for ministry? Can we still listen in with prudence or has Coprai been added to the offical ban list for Catholics?

Hope this helps clarify your thinking.

From the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 1722 At any stage of the process, in order to prevent scandal, protect the freedom of the witnesses and safeguard the course of justice, the Ordinary can, after consulting the promotor of justice and summoning the accused person to appear, prohibit the accused from the exercise of the sacred ministry or of some ecclesiastical office and position, or impose or forbid residence in a certain place or territory, or even prohibit public participation in the blessed Eucharist. If, however, the reason ceases, all these restrictions are to be revoked; they cease by virtue of the law itself as soon as the penal process ceases.

IOW, removal from public ministry is a very serious action by the Church.

 

[dfp42]

I’m honestly not sure to tell you the truth. My understanding of being removed from faculties but not being laicized is that he cannot celebrate the sacraments in public but could do so for himself in private. In addition, my understanding of the process of being laicized or defrocked is that it typically takes years and the priest is typically given many many chances to return to the fold unless he is specifically requesting laicization. My understanding of that may be imperfect or even completely wrong so please do not accept it as authoritative.

As to the second questions, I think that is open to interpretation. What SOLT means by “not fit for ministry” is a bit vague in my view. Does it mean he is A) not fit to celebrate the sacraments; B) preach; C) teach; D) etc.? All of the above? Only A and B? I honestly cannot say what they mean by that, and frankly do not want to speculate. It is a very important question that you have raised. There is a huge difference between not being able to celebrate the sacraments publicly and not being fit to preach and teach the faith. Considering that this is the precise route he seems to be taking, I wish I had the answer.

I hope someday this will be cleared up by SOLT or someone in Church authority. Some priest have stated on their online blogs that we could be sinning by following Fr. Corapi into his sin if we buy or listen to any of his media and yet on the other hand, you have some priest’s who don’t agree with his actions but tell us to pray for him and still love him either way. If I had only one question for SOLT to clear up I would ask them what you just said.

“Does it mean he is A) not fit to celebrate the sacraments; B) preach; C) teach; D) etc.? All of the above? Only A and B?”

I wish this was cleared up honestly.

 

[jwinch2]

I hope someday this will be cleared up by SOLT or someone in Church authority. Some priest have stated on their online blogs that we could be sinning by following Fr. Corapi into his sin if we buy or listen to any of his media and yet on the other hand, you have some priest’s who don’t agree with his actions but tell us to pray for him and still love him either way. If I had only one question for SOLT to clear up I would ask them what you just said.

“Does it mean he is A) not fit to celebrate the sacraments; B) preach; C) teach; D) etc.? All of the above? Only A and B?”

I wish this was cleared up honestly.

I could not agree more.

Pax Christi,

Jason

 

[catharina]

I hope someday this will be cleared up by SOLT or someone in Church authority. Some priest have stated on their online blogs that we could be sinning by following Fr. Corapi into his sin if we buy or listen to any of his media and yet on the other hand, you have some priest’s who don’t agree with his actions but tell us to pray for him and still love him either way. If I had only one question for SOLT to clear up I would ask them what you just said.

“Does it mean he is A) not fit to celebrate the sacraments; B) preach; C) teach; D) etc.? All of the above? Only A and B?”

I wish this was cleared up honestly.

See Post 90.

 

[catharina]

I could not agree more.

Pax Christi,

Jason

See Post 90.

 

[dfp42]

Hope this helps clarify your thinking.

From the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 1722 At any stage of the process, in order to prevent scandal, protect the freedom of the witnesses and safeguard the course of justice, the Ordinary can, after consulting the promotor of justice and summoning the accused person to appear, prohibit the accused from the exercise of the sacred ministry or of some ecclesiastical office and position, or impose or forbid residence in a certain place or territory, or even prohibit public participation in the blessed Eucharist. If, however, the reason ceases, all these restrictions are to be revoked; they cease by virtue of the law itself as soon as the penal process ceases.

IOW, removal from public ministry is a very serious action by the Church.

Still confused. I’m sorry…


Can someone explain this so I can understand a little better with the question…

 

[mom4mary]

If I had only one question for SOLT to clear up I would ask them what you just said.

“Does it mean he is A) not fit to celebrate the sacraments; B) preach; C) teach; D) etc.? All of the above? Only A and B?”

I wish this was cleared up honestly.

By placing Fr. Corapi on suspension, SOLT has answered your question: at present and until further notice, Fr. Corapi is not supposed to be participating in any of the activities that an active priest is good standing would be participating in/leading, which would include everything you listed above.

 

[jwinch2]

See Post 90.

What we were discussing in that instance was the intent of the SOLT’s statement as far as what they meant by him not being fit for ministry, not Canon law. Even if we do refer back to that quotation, it says quite clearly “or” on pretty much all occasions meaning that it is likely open to the superior, as to how that will be applied in a particular case.

 

[catharina]

What we were discussing in that instance was the intent of the SOLT’s statement as far as what they meant by him not being fit for ministry, not Canon law.

Sorry. Didn’t realize you are part of a group called “we.”

SOLT is doing what Canon Law directs.
SOLT is acting within the law.
Fr. C, refusing to return to community, is acting in opposition to the law.

As far as offering the Mass, it’s likely he might still be allowed to do so in private.
All standing regarding his offering of the Sacraments in public is forbidden.