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

[sojo]

I wonder how many people really know who Anton LaVey is.

I think it’s silly his name has come up in this discussion. Reminds me of this scene from this movie. There are some “rough” words, so if you are easily offended, don’t watch it.

Many, many people know who Anton LaVey was. And sadly, Fr. Corapi himself said he knew quite a bit about Satanism because some people he associated with from his Hollywood/Rock and Roll days were Satanist. He warned us very clearly about the evils of Satanism. Nobody who is an avowed Satanist would NOT know of Anton LaVey.

And it is one of those iconic visages that once seen, stays with you forever.

In short, I’m 100% sure John Corapi knew who Anton LaVey was… unless he was lying about associating with avowed Satanists. Which is entirely possible.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

brb3,

I think the point that many seem to be making is that it doesn’t matter what the allegation were or whether they were credible or whether they were entirely fabricated by SOLT or the accuser, or whoever.

What matters is that Fr. Corapi chose to leave. Why? He claims he wouldn’t get a fair shake. And he also doesn’t want to “lay down and die”. But what does that mean? That he might not get to “preach” anymore? While I think he did a good job of preaching, I don’t personally think that it was crucial to his well-being or ours (and certainly not essential to the Church) that he continue to do so. So. . . if he had to take a hiatus while this was figured out, so be it. If he never preached again, so be it. That is what he had promised to do when we became a member of SOLT – to say “so be it” to his superior.

I lament that whatever good he does will be colored by him not obeying. Whatever converts he makes will have his example of disobedience as the seed of their conversion. I’m not sure any good can come of a start like this.

VC

 

[guanophore]

We know from the JC's personal testimony about his adult drug/alcohol/sexual sins.  Maybe a 'prostitute' from his past is bringing his past sins with her 'forward in time' into the last 20 years .... to blackmail him for a payoff payday to her.

Yes, it is possible, the problem is that the timeline established for his co-habitation with her post-dates his ordination.

And, the sexting charge could also be contrived … and w/o his phone records, it could not be substantiated. Even, his phone records could not definatively prove it was he who texted. We all have been known to leave our phones on … and left on desktops while we are briefly out of rooms, etc. Anyone, esp. an old friend, [who perhaps works with us] could send out a bogus email off our fones to another person. We don’t sign our TM’s.

Yes, of course. It could be contrived, or it could be intracately planted by conspirators.

That is why it is necessary for him to participate in the investigation.

Since SOLT only had certain information available, the decision was based upon what evidence they have. They determined he was not fit for ministry. His refusal to cooperate is sufficient for that, never mind any of the allegations.

 

[Elixir]

Bottom line:

Corapi has refused the very obedience he once preached as vital & necessary. He has chosen the opposite. He has chosen himself, his autonomy & his toys. Humility indeed.

That alone (not to mention the comical biker jacket and growing “black” goatee) is enough to show me he’s left the path of wisdom and is merely another Joel Osteen/Joyce Meyer/Rick Warren wannabe in leather.

Good luck Mr. Corapi. I hope & pray & ask Mary (whom he’s not mentioned once since this whole scandal broke) to bring you back to your vocation and rightful place living in community as commanded by your religious superiors.

 

[sojo]

It is very interesting that the woman who wrote the letter is a devout Catholic running a devout Catholic site and a facebook page with many clergy and religious as “friends.” She has neither ranted, nor written non-cohesive posts, nor have any tendency to repeat the same phrases over and over. Her sites have no “creepy” imagery. She, of course quit (or was fired) by John Corapi. He claimed originally that she quit and he was heartbroken, but in the suit he claims he terminated her employment.

The previous manager of Fr. John Corapi was apparently a devout Catholic. She has quit (that would be Bobbi R."

The Fr. John Corapi website is being taken down shortly after the fire sale of his media. That site was very Catholic in its flavor. It is being replaced by a very dark, scary web presence, “The Black SheepDog” which has no pictures of saints, no crucifix, no icons, no rosary link, no prayer links, and no mention of the Eucharist.

The new website is apparently being managed by an Evangelical Protestant who has his own website with skulls and dark, scary imagery. Both sites have the same type of countdown (do they match in time sequence?)

Well, folks… this is unpleasant, but it could be worse. At least there is no mention or pictures of Anton LaVey! It would be a shame if he turned Protestant, but it could be so much worse.

I did find it unsettling in one of the very early BSD posts or videos where the BSD told us, “You follow the church…” (my emphasis). This sounded odd to me – most priests would have said, “we must all follow the Church…”

 

[guanophore]

Well, men are more trusting [or careless perhaps] … and it could very easily happen in the office or home setting.

Again, as JC says in his audiotape … he has been assumed “Guilty” by SOLT [and some of us here] … w/o benefit of presentation of the evidence & his crossexamination rights of the accuser.

I think this is a stretch on Corapi’s part. He was relieved of duty because it is standard procedure during investigation. Maybe it was not a proper application of the procedure, which was designed to protect children. Never theless, rather than accept his suspension graciously and return to the headquarters to reside and to pray, he chose to file a lawsuit against his accuser.

After more information was uncovered, it did indeed appear that he is guilty. The only way to clear himself is to follow the orders of his superiors, drop the lawsuit, return to SOLT, and cooperate with the investigation.

 

[Robertanthony]

Bottom line:

Corapi has refused the very obedience he once preached as vital & necessary. He has chosen the opposite. He has chosen himself, his autonomy & his toys. Humility indeed.

That alone (not to mention the comical biker jacket and growing “black” goatee) is enough to show me he’s left the path of wisdom and is merely another Joel Osteen/Joyce Meyer/Rick Warren wannabe in leather.

Good luck Mr. Corapi. I hope & pray & ask Mary (whom he’s not mentioned once since this whole scandal broke) to bring you back to your vocation and rightful place living in community as commanded by your religious superiors.

Agreed. I would, however, not place Joyce Meyer next to those two (“clears throat”) gentlemen.

 

[7_Sorrows]

It is very interesting that the woman who wrote the letter is a devout Catholic running a devout Catholic site and a facebook page with many clergy and religious as “friends.” She has neither ranted, nor written non-cohesive posts, nor have any tendency to repeat the same phrases over and over. Her sites have no “creepy” imagery. She, of course quit (or was fired) by John Corapi. He claimed originally that she quit and he was heartbroken, but in the suit he claims he terminated her employment.

The previous manager of Fr. John Corapi was apparently a devout Catholic. She has quit (that would be Bobbi R."

The Fr. John Corapi website is being taken down shortly after the fire sale of his media. That site was very Catholic in its flavor. It is being replaced by a very dark, scary web presence, “The Black SheepDog” which has no pictures of saints, no crucifix, no icons, no rosary link, no prayer links, and no mention of the Eucharist.

The new website is apparently being managed by an Evangelical Protestant who has his own website with skulls and dark, scary imagery. Both sites have the same type of countdown (do they match in time sequence?)

Well, folks… this is unpleasant, but it could be worse. At least there is no mention or pictures of Anton LaVey! It would be a shame if he turned Protestant, but it could be so much worse.

I did find it unsettling in one of the very early BSD posts or videos where the BSD told us, “You follow the church…” (my emphasis). This sounded odd to me – most priests would have said, “we must all follow the Church…”

you bring up some interesting points. i agree with your last paragraph. i also caught on when he said “YOU FOLLOW THE CHURCH…” like, go ahead, and do what you have to do. he doesn’t want to be accused of misleading or steering Catholics away from the Church i guess. but he didn’t seem to include himself. that was my feeling anyway.

 

[Cinette]

Not necessarily. A person behaving badly or does not necessarily make it a “sin” - mortal anyway. In order to commit a deadly sin, a person must have full knowledge and consent of the will. If a person is in the grip of an addiction or a mental problem, they may not be in control of their own senses, and therefore, are not culpable of a mortal sin.

Further, just because a person appears to be sinning, we still cannot know the state of their soul. I agree, we are not allowed to do that.

I suppose it might. That is why I have never used the terms that way. All I can see from where I am sitting is that his superior gave him an order, and he is refusing to obey. Whether or not his soul is in a state of grace around that is between him and God.

In general, though, when a person has promised obedience then abandons their promise, red flags go up. When one promises chastity, then has sexual relations secretly, red flags go up. When one is asked to live in community, and one refuses, red flags go up. When a Roman Catholic priest is living large on money made selling the gospel, ref flags go up.

The judgement that needs to be made here is for myself, not for him. Is it prudent for me to follow such a person?

*Makes perfect sense to me!

God bless all
Cinette*

 

[Cinette]

you bring up some interesting points. i agree with your last paragraph. i also caught on when he said “YOU FOLLOW THE CHURCH…” like, go ahead, and do what you have to do. he doesn’t want to be accused of misleading or steering Catholics away from the Church i guess. but he didn’t seem to include himself. that was my feeling anyway.

*I assume that given the circumstances and ongoing public pronouncements (in his Harley Davidson leather jacket and black beard - could that have anything to do with "black sheepdog I wonder? -) and his alienation from his Order, he would no longer attend daily Mass and receive the Sacraments? That would be a tragedy.

Cinette *

 

[JReducation]

*I assume that given the circumstances and ongoing public pronouncements (in his Harley Davidson leather jacket and black beard - could that have anything to do with "black sheepdog I wonder? -) and his alienation from his Order, he would no longer attend daily Mass and receive the Sacraments? That would be a tragedy.

Cinette *

Let’s not speculate. Besides, he does not need to attend mass. Unless the letter of suspension explicitly says that he cannot celebrate mass at all, he can celebrate alone.

As far as confession, he has always had to go to another priest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[brb3]

he does not need to attend mass. … he can celebrate alone.

As far as confession, he has always had to go to another priest.

I dunno …

I wouldn’t advise him ever to leave the Church and be a lone-ranger minister to the drug addicts/motorcycle crowd/prostitutes/ etc. The Joel Olstein TV Mininster types [and their followers] … can very easily be deceived and led off into major error/beliefs.

We are all made so weak and vulnerable after only several weeks apart from the Mass / Eucharist. Martin Luther could not survive apart from the Church … he went over the edge.

The Holy Bible states that only the Church [and her devoted saints] are protected from satan & hell … individuals, no matter what their past ties to Church, are not given that same guarantee.

 

[NeedImprovement]

This is the second time that someone has brought this up:

…

LOL … and how many times have Fr. Corapi’s (alleged) sins been brought up on these threads…?.. Can anyone count that high ?

This is the second time that someone has brought this up:

*Repeating a priest’s (alleged) sins over and over again on a thread serves no positive purpose; neither to one’s soul, nor to the priest, nor to the ministerial priesthood which is at the heart of our Holy Catholic faith . *

I find this untruthful. Clearly, nobody here has been rehashing the Father’s sins just to relish in them. …

“Untruthful” is an interesting choice of word – synonymous with “dishonest” , and close cousin of “mendacious” and “liar” .

Furthermore, “rehashing Father’s sins just to ‘relish in them’” are totally your words – not mine . My words are

NeedImprovement:

Repeating a priest’s (alleged) sins over and over again on a thread serves no positive purpose; neither to one’s soul, nor to the priest, nor to the ministerial priesthood which is at the heart of our Holy Catholic faith

… which has been happening and is exceedingly obvious for anyone who knows how to read, and who has been reading these threads.

So in one sense, we are indeed asking the same question:

sojo:

How many times to we have to repeat that yes, Father WAS declared unfit for ministry, he WAS called guilty by his society’s authority, that the SOLT DOES have authority to do so, that there will be no civil trial for these allegations (the one civil trial has to do with breach of contract and false allegations that disrupted a business… and so forth.

In large part, the repetitiveness can be attributed to the internet setting – but I believe that it should be precisely this which call us to be all the more vigilant… to not keep repeating it over and over again because of the volatitlity.

What is “truthful” is that I made no inference as to what the intentions of anyone repeating these (alleged) sins might be - you did . What I wished to point out is the corrosiveness of repeating a priest’s sins : to the soul of the one repeating, to the priest in question and to the ministerial priesthood at the heart of our Holy Catholic faith ; and this regardless of anyone’s intentions – it’s still corrosive.

…The ONLY reason folks have to keep reiterating the same stuff over and over is for the very few folks who remain in denial …
And those of us answering the ones in denial …

It appears a little rash , in my limited opinion, to claim that certain members are in denial. I think I would’ve stopped at saying someone wasn’t totally informed instead. Claiming a fellow member is in denial presumes to have access to their inner workings ; it’s pronouncing a diagnosis. I can’t even claim to have entire access to my own inner workings personally.

In my previous post partially quoted and referred to above , there was also a request not to put labels on people – not to classify fellow members – particularly because these type of comments extend to other individuals, and are often based on erroneous concepts – on jumping to the wrong conclusions… as was demonstrated.

Here is another example from earlier in the thread:

…The reason I hope this thread stays up a bit longer is because of Shoshana’s last post. She is HURTING. She is grieving. She is reaching at straws to defend her belief in Fr. Corapi, and then admitting that very fact. …

In my opinion this is misleading … and about a fellow member . If by “reaching at straws” this person means “desperate” , then it would almost appear condescending. I’ve read Shoshana’s posts and I believe their focus is not so much on Father Corapi’s wound as it is on the wound to the ministerial priesthood and on the way some of the posts on this and previous threads have been exacerbating that wound. Shoshana isn’t defending a belief in Fr. Corapi (that is a presumptuous thing to say) … wanting to “defend the ministerial priesthood” would be a potentially clearer perception.

That being said, I really don’t have the temporal or emotional outlay to continue with this thread. Refrain from reading or commenting any further is probably the best recourse… Besides , who knows,…… maybe that will mean at least one less posting or repetition of Fr. Corapi’s (alleged) sins.

 

[J_Heath]

Hello - this is my first post here!

Perhaps I can shed a little light on this sheepdog / wolf concept:

militarygear.com/asp/2008/02/09/sheep-wolves-sheepdogs/

This link references the original concept from Lt. Col. Grossman.

The concept is generally used by pro-gun folks to describe their affinity to protect themselves and their families.

The sheepdog protects the sheep, those who are incapable of unwilling of protecting themselves, from predators, who are described as wolves.

Given Corapi’s affinity for guns, and the fact that he lives in Montana, where this logic is readily practiced, I would logically assume that he has adopted this Second Amendment philosophy to describe himself.

It is a theory that I believe to be simple, logical, and applicable!

I am a Second Amendment supporter, and a gun owner, but I always try and keep everything in the proper perspective.

J Heath

 

[cecelia81]

I just want to respond to the confusion of Corapi being “found guilty”. My first post included a link to the EWTN article that was titled Fr. Corapi’s Order Finds Him Guilty - ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=114254
That is why I said in that post that he was found guilty, and I’m sure many others have read the same thing. The very first line of the article even states " Father John Corapi’s religious order has found him guilty of substance abuse, sexual activity and violating his promise of poverty."
Maybe this has been cleared up already, so I’m sorry if this is a repost.

Also- Hi, everyone! I’m new here

 

[wisdomseeker]

Maybe it’s just me but I don’t agree about this “litigious frame of mind” at all. Fr. Corapi has to do what’s necessary to clear his name in a civil court (where his original accuser will have to defend the charge of defamation and libel). I also happen to think that Fr. Corapi is truly a faithful son of the church and that he won’t even consider suing SOLT or the church. I’m not saying whether Fr. Corapi is or not guilty as charged. I say wait for more info to come forward before “throwing (him) under the bus” so quickly and judgmentally.

I would also say that his superiors had no business in turning public the dirty laundry in the Church. The Church is an independent institution in itself and do not need public help to sort it out its problems. this is just more scandal for the Church. it seems to be a habit now and days for clericals to run to the ungodly world for help. Coursed is the man who seeks the council of the ungodly.

I don’t know about you all but as for me I sense that more and more leaders of the House of God acting with the mind of the ungodly world instead of seeking the council of God.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Allegations only …

have you/I seen or will we ever be allowed to examine the evidence by SOLT ?:nope:

One thing is for sure, the former Protestant Pastor, turned Catholic Theologian Scott Hahn … will never put the Church thru such a sordid mess.

Corapi grew up as Catholic, fell away, returned again, and now appears to have become a Cafeteria Catholic who wants to operate outside the Church

No, we haven’t seen the evidence that the SOLT has because it is not our right or business to see it. We are not in authority over Fr. Corapi, the Superior of the SOLT is. We should not have to demand to see every detail to believe the people put in pace by Holy Mother Church to decide these things. We have all been living in a “Nancy Grace” culture too long when we feel that if we don’t see ever bit of evidence ourselves that nothing can be true that we don’t want to believe.

 

[cecelia81]

These things are very troublesome. At his age, he should know better. The decisions he is making do remind one very much of the type of decisions made by people in the grip of alcoholism/addiction.

It’s a weak analogy, but if I suddenly started dressing like Lady GaGa, I would be sending a message with my appearance. For whatever reason, if I decided that look was what I was going for, people would make some assumptions about me. The Black Sheepdog image seems to include this shaved-head, black-dyed beard and eyebrows look. As a matter of fact, his Fu Manchu facial hair does somewhat resemble the “beard” of a Collie or a Schnauzer. Maybe he is unintentionally or intentionally trying for that look, and coming out looking more like Anton LaVey. Or maybe that’s the look he really is going for. All I know is that the transformation is NOT random.

Would you EVER have guessed that this man would look like he does today? Look at how clear and calm his eyes are…there is peace in his face. No longer. So sad.

Corapi

That picture absolutely sums it up. Thanks for posting it. And you’re right- perhaps he was going for some different look, but as I said, the very fact that people are making the connection between his new look an LaVey’s is disturbing on it’s own.

I wonder how many people really know who Anton LaVey is.

I think it’s silly his name has come up in this discussion. Reminds me of this scene from this movie. There are some “rough” words, so if you are easily offended, don’t watch it.

I’m not easily offended, but no, I didn’t go to your link. And I’m not sure why it’s silly that his name has come up. As I said- I’m clearly not the only one seeing the connection. If you read my response I’d think you’d realize that I’m not basing it on some wild speculation. It is a clear observation that at the very least raises some questions.

The same can be said about the name “Adolph”. Naming a baby Adolph in 2011 ain’t quite the same as doing it in 1911, no?

Absolutely the point.

My issue is calling someone a “weird dude” without even knowing him.

Perhaps many aren’t as knowledgeable of LaVey as perhaps they should be, but why does it matter how a person chooses to express what understanding they have of him? Why did this description bother you? Last I checked it wasn’t a sin to not word things in a perfect manner that needed to be found acceptable to all. As C.S. Lewis said “What seem our worst prayers may really be, in God’s eyes, our best. Those, I mean, which are least supported by devotional feeling. For these may come from a deeper level than feeling. God sometimes seems to speak to us most intimately when he catches us, as it were, off our guard.”
And I know what you’re thinking- this wasn’t a prayer but a statement. My point is that it’s not for you to judge if someone is explaining themselves good enough or not. RobertAnthony made his point perfectly fine.

As for why I brought it up- I have a very decent understanding of The Church of Satan and Levay’s teachings. It was startling to me to see Corapi fall from grace as he as and to see his new look and read his very defensive and pride-filled comments. There is too much that falls in line with LaVey’s teaching and Corapi’s uncanny resemblance is icing on the cake. And as I know I really have nothing to prove to you, I am more so writing this for those who aren’t aware.

And as my main point has been in every post- this man needs our prayers. God bless John Corapi. May God have mercy on his soul as well as all our own.

 

[duggan5]

as an orthodox one thing seems not to come up here in discussion is how he is effecting his previous followers and his responsibilty to set a good example for souls. he must be unaware of the dangerous vertical sign of cross he was using on an earlier youtube as that is part of a sata nic ritual so i am assuming he must be unaware of that.

 

[cecelia81]

as an orthodox one thing seems not to come up here in discussion is how he is effecting his previous followers and his responsibilty to set a good example for souls. he must be unaware of the dangerous vertical sign of cross he was using on an earlier youtube as that is part of a sata nic ritual so i am assuming he must be unaware of that.

Do you happen to have a link to that video?