I believe that he is being scapegoated for others’ crimes and failings that were not prosecuted when those should have been addressed, prosecuted, etc. I think he probably believes so, too. I did appreciate the far more revelatory info provided by NCR than the portions of info & speculation provided elsewhere.
There’s a sequence here. And for those of you who have truly listened to him for a long period of time, the sequence is logical. This is a very independent man, a man of principle, and a man acquainted with the world. That doesn’t make him bad. It makes him a different kind of priest, but i.m.o. legitimately so. I appreciate completely, as one being thoroughly grounded in the tradition of religious orders, the comments below the article on his supposed “pride” et al. But independence is not necessarily sinful or faulty pride. I’m speaking now of his ‘apart’ lifestyle. He cannot be faulted for that. As the article and comments note, his decision to live outside of community occurred, and were approved, prior to the new SOLT Constitution. Now, as one who understands that by definition religious life is communal life, I also think that it was probably recognized by his superiors early on that the (previous) option to live apart was the best way, for this priest, to make his priesthood effective.
I don’t know about the whole ‘blacksheepdog’ thing. I don’t have a strong negative reaction to it, although I do understand why others would; I also don’t have a positive reaction to it. Again, though, picking up on his ‘persona’ through his many lectures, it is another logical development. He has somewhat presented himself, earlier on, as “rogue” or “renegade” or “singular” or “unusual” (my words, not his, and not the best words!) and not in a disobedient or dissenting way, but in an idiosyncratic way, and in a disapproving way when it comes to ignored scandal, ignored dissent, ignored lack of leadership within the Church.
I don’t think he’s being unfaithful. I think he is responding in his own way to his desire to be hyper-faithful as he understands that fidelity to all the core teachings of the Church, and, given his lack of opportunity to do that right now in the way that he has been able to do that optimally, has decided to leave. Again, judging from his personality, this is all logical, and he’s a logical guy. I think that if there’s an outcry from the faithful about this (in his support), it just may help to improve the investigative process for other priests, now & later, and perhaps that was one of his intentions in taking this action.
Again, I understand about community and religious life, but perhaps the Church might want to take a look at valid varieties of ministerial priesthood. His independence is a contra-indicator even for diocesan life. He has as much admitted that himself. (“I do not have a calling to parish ministry.”) It can also be argued that he has reached, and converted, and reverted, thousands more to Catholicism, as a lone preacher, than he ever would have in a parish or in communal religious life. As an itinerant preacher, he has done enormous good for the conversion of sinners and has done so in communion with the magisterium. There are itinerant preacher Orders (such as the Fathers of Mercy), yes, but I do think on the occasional and rare basis in which a Fr. John Corapi comes along, the Church might consider that there’s a third way other than community or diocesan lifestyle.
Unlike many others on CAF and elsewhere, I am not scandalized by his decision. I have not lost an ounce of respect for him. And I will keep him just as much in my prayers, probably more so.
