I refuse to join in the shameful verbal destruction of a human being which I read on the internet, including on this forum. All the rank speculation about his supposedly being deranged, in the arms of the devil, all of the amateurish “insider knowledge” about whether he is drug-addicted, suicidal, etc. is both useless and highly un-Christian, i.m.o.
That said, I want to limit myself in this post merely to the thread’s subject: this recent video, and legitimate response to those images and audio. While none of this is “evidence” or even an indicator of his state of soul, let alone his guilt or non-guilt about the allegations brought, it is i.m.o. fair to discuss impressions which he himself initiates and communicates.
I.m.o. it was appropriate for him not to be in a collar, but it was bad taste to be wearing a Harley Davidson leather jacket. It makes him appear as a ‘pop figure,’ something that would appear on some truly shallow secular TV show (i.e., daytime talk shows with the latest ‘guru’ of this or that – take your pick, “religion,” “relationships,” etc.). Disclaimer: I never watch those shows; I hear about them after the fact and see clips, and am incredulous that people actually waste 30-60 minutes of their day watching this. So why would he want to place himself in such a superficial category? I was also disappointed in the (yes) dyed beard. Several years ago in his lectures I thought he struck the perfect median note: Not the Rip Van Winkle look of early Corapi, but the modern respectful look with his clerics, undyed eyebrows/beard, and clipped, groomed appearance. I thought he looked really sharp with that well-groomed, undyed look of his.
Yesterday’s change in appearance does not signify any devolution into the grips of Satan, for heaven’s sake. It has nothing to do with his state of soul. It just, to me, struck an ‘off’ note. That was coupled with the use of the royal “we,” which made him sound like a spokesperson for a corporation. That was coupled (or tripled) also with the rambling references to social networking, which sounded as if he was trying to be “relevant” (hip), rather than himself following the advice he was giving us: Follow the Church. Hey, the Church uses twitter & facebook, too, but The Message is not ‘social networking.’ I found nothing specifically Christ-centered in his video of yesterday.
Further, I found nothing specific at all in the video. Indeed, I was disappointed that he seemed to indicate obliquely that he would probably not be addressing the concerns most people have about the allegations, except for “one or two” comments about that. Most faithful Catholics do not want him to slide over those and “move on.” We want those addressed, head on. And if he has legitimate reason for not addressing those, he needs to say that, even broadly: such as, ‘None of the allegations listed by my order are true,’ or *‘I am guilty of one (or 2) of those to a minor degree but have been told by my lawyer not to discuss details of my involvement ahead of any civil proceedings.’ * Or, ‘This is what I am guilty of, and this alone, and I am sorry, have repented, and hope to be returning to my Order after civil proceedings.’
If he wants all of those who have appreciated his preaching to ‘just follow the Church,’ then it will be helpful to know where he himself stands in relation to charges of impropriety, regardless of his, plus a bishop’s, plus his lawyer’s advice not to submit to a procedure which he was told would not fully air both the allegations and his rebuttal of those, if he has legitimate truthful rebuttal.
I do not share the rage and condemnation on this forum about his refusal to “come home” to his Order, given the way that they have so far handled this – that is IF he is not guilty of those charges, and only if that. That is why it is important, i.m.o., for him to respond directly to all the charges, publicly, OR to explain why he is not responding to some of them.
