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

[duggan5]

to the reaL JULIANNE ON ONE OF HIS RECENT YOUTUBES MAYBE 10O DAYS AGO. NO NOT UPSIDE DOWN CROSS. VERIC AL CROSS WITH HAND MOVI NG STRAIGHT IS PART OF SATANIC RITUAL I CAME UP AGAINST WHEN A TEACHER CAME BACK FROM A SATAN WORSHIP CONFERENCE SHE USED A RITUAL ON HER CLASS OF 15 YEAR OLDS TELLING TGHEM SATAN HAD MORE POWER THAN GOD. SHE DID THIS FOR OVER A WEEK AND STUDE NTGS WERE APPOSING HER. I WENT TO PRI NCIPAL WHO WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS GOI NG ON AND HE STGOPPED IT.

 

[duggan5]

Meant to sday 10 days ago but an extra zero got on previous post.

 

[sojo]

If so, why would anyone be so inconsiderate or presumptuous as to insert himself or herself into Mrs. Corapi’s life? No stranger has the right to invade her privacy. She shouldn’t even be called, let alone be expected to “return calls.” !

:tsktsk:

Can only assume that the poster was a friend or acquaintance of Kathleen Corapi and wanted others who had her number and were friends not to bother her right now? They didn’t give out the number or anything. I thought it was a very nice thing to do - to sort of let friends know to keep her in prayers but not to bother her right now.

Nice to know that this person (still not sure if it is his mother, could be another relative) was looking out for her during a difficult time. Rather sweet.

 

[debraran]

I don’t think that was his mother, I saw someone on FB with that name when I looked at his site or BSD a few weeks ago and she was younger. His mom would be 80 or so.

 

[sojo]

Ah, that’s good. Have never really heard anything about John Corapi’s mother other than he moved back to live with her after he got out of the mental hospital.

 

[J_Katherine]

Someone on the Fr. Corapi facebook page said that Kathleen Corapi is very ill and cannot return calls. Assuming that’s his mother?

This is someone posting on Facebook using that name, who may be related but is not a close relative. His mother, Veronica, was still living as of January, but does not use the last name Corapi and no longer lives in Hudson.

 

[Lucky_Scrunchy]

Just like life itself, the real truth is somewhere between the 2 sides.

We will probably never really know the truth on this…

I think that effort and energy needs to be expended elsewhere, on more important things.

I have enough of my *own *sins to worry about!

I do not want to add gossiping and rumor-mongering to them!

Heading for higher ground…

J Heath

I admire what you said, we need to hear it!

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I was going to stop reading these theads on Corapi, but stuff just keeps coming.

Apparently SOLT Needed Money to Settle Substantial Abuse Claim Against Another Priest

Are people REALLY suggesting that SOLT, an order of religious, have consciously decided to go after Corapi’s MONEY??? That this whole thing was motivated by MONEY?? Maybe Corapi has implied that, but we’re not going down that road.

Who is this mysterious priest who raped a young boy and then contracted someone to murder the boy??? That article is disgusting on its face. And full of lies and rumors.



It sounds as though it has come right out of the anti-Catholic camp. You know, the ones who are always saying the Vatican has bazillions of gold bouillons in the basement yet asks for money from Catholics so the Pope can live an extravagant lifestyle.

 

[J_Katherine]

Are people REALLY suggesting that SOLT, an order of religious, have consciously decided to go after Corapi’s MONEY??? That this whole thing was motivated by MONEY?? Maybe Corapi has implied that, but we’re not going down that road.

Who is this mysterious priest who raped a young boy and then contracted someone to murder the boy??? That article is disgusting on its face. And full of lies and rumors.



It sounds as though it has come right out of the anti-Catholic camp. You know, the ones who are always saying the Vatican has bazillions of gold bouillons in the basement yet asks for money from Catholics so the Pope can live an extravagant lifestyle.

Yes, people (or at least some of the Corapi faithful) are indeed suggesting this was a setup for the SOLT to refill their coffers after they–like several dioceses and religious communities with whom the indicted Mr Fiala has been associated–agreed to pay damages to his victims. The Fiala story has been in the news in the dioceses of Corpus Christi and St. Louis for years, and it is indeed both true and disgusting. He was a serial molester who used the priesthood as a cover for his activities and went so far as to attempt to contract the murder of one of his victims. It’s a very sad story, but anyone who thinks the SOLT concocted accusations against John Corapi to get his money is simply in deep denial.

If there is any coincidence in these stories, it is that they both hit the news again this year, when the SOLT is on the verge of achieving status as a society of pontifical right. These two examples of very poor supervision of its priests have long been stumbling blocks in the process of reordering and disciplining the Society and holding its members accountable, and the experience with the Fiala suit gave added impetus to the SOLT’s attempts (which have gone on for years) to regularize Fr Corapi’s status, which he steadfastly refuses. If the accusations of impropriety gave them another reason to get firm, it was their canonical status as a community, not greed, that was the priority.

Although, as Ken Follis has pointed out earlier in this thread, Fr Corapi’s own words describing himself as being bound by a vow of poverty–from 1994, long before the SOLT reworked its constitution, and back near the beginning of his supposedly “freelance” apostolate–have now come to light (due to Ken’s diligence). That should, I trust, put an end to the constant debate about which vows/promises he made to whom when, and provide evidence that the SOLT was correct in stating that he has been found in violation of his vow of poverty.

 

[jwinch2]

Yes, people (or at least some of the Corapi faithful) are indeed suggesting this was a setup for the SOLT to refill their coffers after they–like several dioceses and religious communities with whom the indicted Mr Fiala has been associated–agreed to pay damages to his victims. The Fiala story has been in the news in the dioceses of Corpus Christi and St. Louis for years, and it is indeed both true and disgusting. He was a serial molester who used the priesthood as a cover for his activities and went so far as to attempt to contract the murder of one of his victims. It’s a very sad story, but anyone who thinks the SOLT concocted accusations against John Corapi to get his money is simply in deep denial.

If there is any coincidence in these stories, it is that they both hit the news again this year, when the SOLT is on the verge of achieving status as a society of pontifical right. These two examples of very poor supervision of its priests have long been stumbling blocks in the process of reordering and disciplining the Society and holding its members accountable, and the experience with the Fiala suit gave added impetus to the SOLT’s attempts (which have gone on for years) to regularize Fr Corapi’s status, which he steadfastly refuses. If the accusations of impropriety gave them another reason to get firm, it was their canonical status as a community, not greed, that was the priority.

Although, as Ken Follis has pointed out earlier in this thread, Fr Corapi’s own words describing himself as being bound by a vow of poverty–from 1994, long before the SOLT reworked its constitution, and back near the beginning of his supposedly “freelance” apostolate–have now come to light (due to Ken’s diligence). That should, I trust, put an end to the constant debate about which vows/promises he made to whom when, and provide evidence that the SOLT was correct in stating that he has been found in violation of his vow of poverty.

Very good insight. Thanks for that!

Jason

 

[JReducation]

Did he make a vow of poverty? He says he did- even after the SOLT 1994 constitutional changes. Fr. Corapi: “I’m a religious with a vow of poverty, and the richest man in the world,” he said. “I exchanged what seems to be everything for nothing, and ended up losing nothing and getting everything. It was a pretty good exchange.” (Syracuse Herald-Journal, Friday, Dec. 2,1994, pg. E5 “Road to Priesthood detoured in Hollywood”.)

This was actually discussed earlier in the thread. My response to it, particularly the blog you linked to, would be that if Father indeed feels that this is the case, he should appeal immediately to Rome as is his right to do. He can easily place his assets in a trust while his case is being adjudicated and still comply with his order to return to SOLT.

To the best of my knowledge, the SOLT does not make a vow of poverty or chastity. Those vows are usually made only by religious. The members of the SOLT are not religious. The SOLT is a secular society of apostolic life. Their members make a promise to obey the constitution and the superior.

One has to know what’s in the constitution. They did change it after Corapi entered. It may be like the Rule of St. Benedict. Benedictine monks do not make vows of poverty or chastity. They make two vows: obedience and stability. However, the rule dictates on poverty and on chastity. There is on need to make the vow, because it’s covered by St. Benedict in his rule. It may also be the case that the constitutions of the SOLT have explicit regulations regarding the ownership and use of assets and property. If they do, the members must comply.

The idea that Father place his assets in a trust while appealing to Rome does not work. A diocesan society does not appeal its case to Rome. The Holy See only serves religios and secular orders and religious congregations of pontifical right. These are attached to the Holy See. Examples of these are the Benedictines, Secular Franciscans, Maryknoll Sisters, Christian Brothers, Dominican Friars, Jesuits, etc.

Any institute: society, congregation, fraternity or other, that is of diocesan right, goes through the diocesan tribunal. Just like civil court, you work your way up as you appeal. Eventually, you will reach the Holy See.

As to putting your money in a trust, that can be done by anyone who has not made a solemn vow of poverty. Societies of apostolic life and religious congregations do not make solemn vows of poverty. The members retain ownership of their assets, UNLESS the constitution forbids it. If the constitutioin prohibits it, then the member cannot create such a trust. For example, Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity are not an order. They are a religious congregation. Therefore, they do not make solemn vows of any kind. They make simple vows. Canonically, they are allowed to own property, but not use it. They can put it into a trust. However, Mother wrote into their statutes that they may not own anything. Even though it is allowed by Canon Law it is prohibited by the constitutions. The constitution prevail. They cannot own anything; therefore, no trusts. If the SOLT says that they cannot own anything, then Father cannot create said trust.

Usually, the community will require that the individual free himself of all property and assets by giving them to someone outside of the community. The community does not interfere in his choice. He can give it all to the Foundation to Save the Box Turtle. It’s his money, not their money.

There is a glitch here. Just as in marriage what you acquire after the wedding is joint property, so in the consecrated life, what you acquire after you make profession is community property. Just like in marriage, inheritances do not enter into the common fund, neither do they enter in the case of consecrated people. We sign a legal document that transfers such inheritances and benefits to a beneficiary who becomes the unencombered and absolute owner of said estate. If my father dies, the National Foundation for Sky Diving gets my inheritance. All of this is anticipated and documented.

The actual execution of all of this is determined by the laws that govern each community. In the case of the SOLT, they have a constitution that is approved by the bishop of the diocese where they were erected. All of them have to go by that document.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sojo]

“If” your father dies, Brother? Are you betting on Jesus returning before then (hee-hee, sorry, I couldn’t resist).

So if that quote by Ken is correct, then Fr. Corapi misspoke about his vow of poverty back in 1994. It was either a promise of poverty, or a promise to obey the then current constitution which required some form of poverty. Interesting.

We keep going 'round and 'round these points of the constitution. Is that constitution something that is kept confidential to the Society or is it something that can be researched?

I have seen some Religious Orders who are in the recruiting phase put information about their rules on their websites - maybe not the whole thing in its entirety, but stuff like, “our rules closely follow the Rule of St. Benedict, but also include…”

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Br. JR, I know others have thanked you for your participation on this thread and others, but I want to personally say how much I appreciate your help on this topic. You have “inside information” that the rest of us can only speculate about, and you’ve cleared up many points of confusion and error. Thank you so much for continuing to help us understand this difficult situation.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, I know others have thanked you for your participation on this thread and others, but I want to personally say how much I appreciate your help on this topic. You have “inside information” that the rest of us can only speculate about, and you’ve cleared up many points of confusion and error. Thank you so much for continuing to help us understand this difficult situation.

You’re very welcome. I know that much of this language is very foreign to the person in the pew:

religious - secular

order - congregation - society

rule - constitution - statutes

simple vows - solemn vows - solemn promise - promise

diocesan right - pontifical right - exempt religious

“If” your father dies, Brother? Are you betting on Jesus returning before then (hee-hee, sorry, I couldn’t resist).

Silly. It’s allegory. My father, wife and one of my sons were killed in a car accident many many years ago. If he were alive and if he were Bill Gates . . .

So if that quote by Ken is correct, then Fr. Corapi misspoke about his vow of poverty back in 1994. It was either a promise of poverty, or a promise to obey the then current constitution which required some form of poverty. Interesting.

I’m finding that many things that are being stated as having said by this one or that one are being misquoted or quoted out of context. This could be one of those.

We keep going 'round and 'round these points of the constitution. Is that constitution something that is kept confidential to the Society or is it something that can be researched?

Most communities keep their constitutions confidential. They may put portions of it on their site.

The rule is a different document. There are only five religious rules in the Catholic Church:

• Benedictine
• Basilian
• Augustinian
• Carmelite
• Franciscan

They’re the public domain, because they were all sealed by the popes at the time they were promulgated and were made available to founders of religious institutes to use as their guides. For example, the Dominicans follow the Augustinian Rule. Dominic never wrote a rule. He wrote a constitution for them that filled in the blanks on points that Augustine never mentions. Francis of Assisi wrote four rules. He founded three orders and a fraternity of hermits.

The SOLT don’t follow any of the above rules. Many communities do not have a rule. They write constitutions that they can change through a general chapter. You can never change a rule. The five rules are set in stone. They were promulgated by popes to be believed by all, iincluding the faithful, to be followed by those who vow to obey them, and to be accepted as they are by everyone who comes into contact with those who follow said rule.

While we are are not bound to live according to the Rule of St. Augustine, we may not question what it says. Once it was decreed as official teaching of the Church, we must give our assent.

I have seen some Religious Orders who are in the recruiting phase put information about their rules on their websites - maybe not the whole thing in its entirety, but stuff like, “our rules closely follow the Rule of St. Benedict, but also include…”

That’s because the rules are public documents. The constitutions are not. It’s up to the community how much they want to share.

Sharing the constitution was discouraged to keep the laity out of the internal affairs of the religious. With the explosion of mass communication, this no longer works. In the past, something like this would have only been known to those lay faithful who were in direct contact with Fr. Corapi and the SOLT. The rest of the world would not know about it. You can’t have an opinion on something you don’t know.

There is still a policy that we must be very careful to observe. In our American culture, transparency has become an obsession. The Church does not subscribe to that idea. Then, the Church is not American. Americans make up a very small percentage of Catholics.

We tend to believe that the public has a right to know. The Church does not subscribe to that. Bl. John Paul once described it as America’s heresy. He explained that we have raised democracy from a means to an end. Democracy and all of its elements, including transparency, serve a purpose in civil society. The purpose is the end, not the process. That purpose is to do the will of God.

We don’t have to know all the facts related to Father Corapi or to the SOLT. However, we must all do the will of God. Knowledge of the facts usually satisfies our curiosity, but it’s not going to make us saints. I find this to be very true. I think of people like Carthusians, Cistercians, Trappists, diocesan hermits and others who live with little or no contact with the world. They are not less holy because they don’t know every detail. They are holy, because they are faithful to what they promised to live. If they are unfaithful, they jeopardize their sanctity.

In my own community, we have a brother who has no idea who Fr. Corapi is or what’s going on. He has no reason to read the newspaper, watch TV, listen to the radio or use the internet. His ministry does not require any of that. When he heard one of the Secular Franciscans and I talking about this, he asked, “Who’s Father Crabcake?”

I, on the other hand, do a great deal of writing, online ministry and I used to teach graduate school theology. I have more contact with the world of the internet. It’s cheaper than buyiing a lot of books. Brother is probably a much holier man than I.

We have to keep in mind that holiness is acheived not by what we know, but by how we love.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I am honored to read what you write, Brother JR.

 

[Shoshana]

Bro…thank you. You are always and most edifying…a balm to the soul…

 

[Onyx88]

I still think he might repent and atone for his sins, put his collar back on and become a cathollic priest again ~ god willing

 

[coco2]

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.

The fear of committing the sin of detraction, imo, perhaps contributed to the moving of priests that sexually abused children from parish to parish. Sorry, but I would like to know the names of sex offenders that are anywhere within reach of my children, including priests.

Father Corapi has not been accused of hurting children ( Praised be Jesus), but has been accused of behaving less than morally acceptable for a priest. People need to know what is happening with Fr. Corapi, and then decide for themselves if they want to continue following him. I think it should be possible to express an opinion about someone’s behavior, without it being a sin. Look, Fr. Corapi will continue to try to make money off of his Catholic followers and people have a right to know all the facts ( even if they are confusing) to make a sound decision as to whether to continue financially supporting him in his new endeavors.

The majority of people who are writing on this thread are just trying to decipher the facts talk through their shock and disappointment, to try and make sense out of it and come to some conclusion. I liked listening to Fr. Corapi, but I don’t own any video’s nor did I spend money to see him speak. I wasn’t really one of his soldiers, so I am not personally hurt by any of this. I am, however, saddened by yet another scandal which hurts the Church( although this is on a smaller scale than some think, many Catholics don’t even know who Fr. Corapi is!)

The only person who knows all the truth in this matter is Jesus. My conclusion, then is to just lay Fr. Corapi at the foot of the cross and ask Jesus to take care of him.

There is really only one absolute FACT in this matter, which is Fr. Corapi’s refusal to go and join his community when asked by his Superior. Based on that, I’ve made my decision to not follow this man, because that doesn’t sound like an unreasonable request and is something the Church requires of it’s members…obedience. If Fr. Corapi is guilty of the other accusations, that doesn’t matter as much to me because he is a mere human creature who sins just like the rest of us. We all crack, and sometimes can shatter into many pieces, but luckily can be glued back together with God’s tender mercy.

 

[catharina]

The fear of committing the sin of detraction, imo, perhaps contributed to the moving of priests that sexually abused children from parish to parish. Sorry, but I would like to know the names of sex offenders that are anywhere within reach of my children, including priests.

Father Corapi has not been accused of hurting children ( Praised be Jesus), but has been accused of behaving less than morally acceptable for a priest. People need to know what is happening with Fr. Corapi, and then decide for themselves if they want to continue following him. I think it should be possible to express an opinion about someone’s behavior, without it being a sin. Look, Fr. Corapi will continue to try to make money off of his Catholic followers and people have a right to know all the facts ( even if they are confusing) to make a sound decision as to whether to continue financially supporting him in his new endeavors.

The majority of people who are writing on this thread are just trying to decipher the facts talk through their shock and disappointment, to try and make sense out of it and come to some conclusion. I liked listening to Fr. Corapi, but I don’t own any video’s nor did I spend money to see him speak. I wasn’t really one of his soldiers, so I am not personally hurt by any of this. I am, however, saddened by yet another scandal which hurts the Church( although this is on a smaller scale than some think, many Catholics don’t even know who Fr. Corapi is!)

The only person who knows all the truth in this matter is Jesus. My conclusion, then is to just lay Fr. Corapi at the foot of the cross and ask Jesus to take care of him.

There is really only one absolute FACT in this matter, which is Fr. Corapi’s refusal to go and join his community when asked by his Superior. Based on that, I’ve made my decision to not follow this man, because that doesn’t sound like an unreasonable request and is something the Church requires of it’s members…obedience. If Fr. Corapi is guilty of the other accusations, that doesn’t matter as much to me because he is a mere human creature who sins just like the rest of us. We all crack, and sometimes can shatter into many pieces, but luckily can be glued back together with God’s tender mercy.

A previous “absolute fact” known to all is that
Father C has been removed from public ministry
as a priest. That leads me to wonder if/why any
Catholic would follow his teachings now if they
are looking to follow a Catholic priest. At this
time, his future is totally unresolved.

Therefore, what would one be "following’ in this regard?

 

[coco2]

You’re very welcome. I know that much of this language is very foreign to the person in the pew:

religious - secular

order - congregation - society

rule - constitution - statutes

simple vows - solemn vows - solemn promise - promise

diocesan right - pontifical right - exempt religious

Silly. It’s allegory. My father, wife and one of my sons were killed in a car accident many many years ago. If he were alive and if he were Bill Gates . . .

I’m finding that many things that are being stated as having said by this one or that one are being misquoted or quoted out of context. This could be one of those.

Most communities keep their constitutions confidential. They may put portions of it on their site.

The rule is a different document. There are only five religious rules in the Catholic Church:

• Benedictine
• Basilian
• Augustinian
• Carmelite
• Franciscan

They’re the public domain, because they were all sealed by the popes at the time they were promulgated and were made available to founders of religious institutes to use as their guides. For example, the Dominicans follow the Augustinian Rule. Dominic never wrote a rule. He wrote a constitution for them that filled in the blanks on points that Augustine never mentions. Francis of Assisi wrote four rules. He founded three orders and a fraternity of hermits.

The SOLT don’t follow any of the above rules. Many communities do not have a rule. They write constitutions that they can change through a general chapter. You can never change a rule. The five rules are set in stone. They were promulgated by popes to be believed by all, iincluding the faithful, to be followed by those who vow to obey them, and to be accepted as they are by everyone who comes into contact with those who follow said rule.

While we are are not bound to live according to the Rule of St. Augustine, we may not question what it says. Once it was decreed as official teaching of the Church, we must give our assent.

That’s because the rules are public documents. The constitutions are not. It’s up to the community how much they want to share.

Sharing the constitution was discouraged to keep the laity out of the internal affairs of the religious. With the explosion of mass communication, this no longer works. In the past, something like this would have only been known to those lay faithful who were in direct contact with Fr. Corapi and the SOLT. The rest of the world would not know about it. You can’t have an opinion on something you don’t know.

There is still a policy that we must be very careful to observe. In our American culture, transparency has become an obsession. The Church does not subscribe to that idea. Then, the Church is not American. Americans make up a very small percentage of Catholics.

We tend to believe that the public has a right to know. The Church does not subscribe to that. Bl. John Paul once described it as America’s heresy. He explained that we have raised democracy from a means to an end. Democracy and all of its elements, including transparency, serve a purpose in civil society. The purpose is the end, not the process. That purpose is to do the will of God.

We don’t have to know all the facts related to Father Corapi or to the SOLT. However, we must all do the will of God. Knowledge of the facts usually satisfies our curiosity, but it’s not going to make us saints. I find this to be very true. I think of people like Carthusians, Cistercians, Trappists, diocesan hermits and others who live with little or no contact with the world. They are not less holy because they don’t know every detail. They are holy, because they are faithful to what they promised to live. If they are unfaithful, they jeopardize their sanctity.

In my own community, we have a brother who has no idea who Fr. Corapi is or what’s going on. He has no reason to read the newspaper, watch TV, listen to the radio or use the internet. His ministry does not require any of that. When he heard one of the Secular Franciscans and I talking about this, he asked, “Who’s Father Crabcake?”

I, on the other hand, do a great deal of writing, online ministry and I used to teach graduate school theology. I have more contact with the world of the internet. It’s cheaper than buyiing a lot of books. Brother is probably a much holier man than I.

We have to keep in mind that holiness is acheived not by what we know, but by how we love.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother, would it not be wrong for people to continue following Fr. Corapi without discernment of the situation? In order to do this, wouldn’t they need to know what has happened? I do not mean that people have to know: who?, what?, where?, and when?, rather just what has happened in general terms, which is all we know now.