Fr John Corapi has Announced in a Video Message that he is Leaving the Priesthood

[GraceSofia]

Fr. Sheehan said that under SOLT’s new(ish) constitution, the priests in the society donate all their earnings to the religious society, and they in turn receive an allowance. A very few priests who joined SOLT before this new constitution were allowed to be “lone wolves” but Fr. Sheehan indicated the Society was working to incorporate all these into the fold of their new order which imposes more obligations to the religious order’s authority.

For the sake of truth, Fr. Sheehan did NOT use the words “lone wolf”-- these are the poster’s words, which in the context of this discussion are rather loaded.

 

[guanophore]

Does he also have to give up his money? Priests are allowed to have money.

I think it depends upon the community. Some communities have vows of poverty, so that any income is turned over to the community. I suspect he chose this community because it did afford him the freedom to live on his own, and manage his own ministry and business. When the community recently changed their constitutions so that all members are expected to reside together (not solitarily outside the residence as Corapi does), he was urged to return, but did not wish to do so.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If I were in Father Corapi’s shoes I would like to have the wisdom to pour a gallon of Holy Water on myself, hop on the next flight to Rome, meet with Father Amorph and take a plane straight to Father Sheehan and sign whatever papers he will request giving up all my property to the SOLT and live in community and obedience. There, Father Corapi will heal and if it would be good for his salvation and it is the will of God he may once again be permitted to preach to the public in communion with the Church.

You’re not in his shoes.
I’m not in his shoes.
The posters on CAF are not in his shoes.
etc.

I’m glad that you all think that:
(1) You would be saints in his position
or
(2) Fulton J. Sheen would have been a saint in his position
or
(3) The rest of the Catholic clergy and laity would be saints in his position.

None of us is in his position. Nor has he really told us everything. (He said he would not release the audiotapes.)

We are called not to judge the spirituality of our neighbor. That is a commandment. No one here has to worry about which commandments, and which vows, John Corapi is obeying or not obeying, because he is not promoting dissidence and disaffection. We have to worry about which commandments we are obeying. He’s not asking us to ‘follow him’ or any such nonsense. He’s asking us to continue to pray for all parties involved, just as he states he is doing.

He has been given non-uniform advice by more than one bishop (at least one of whom is supportive of him, apparently), and we do not know all the details of what is going on with the bishop whom he claims on one tape is undermining him. I believe in giving Corapi the benefit of the doubt on this. He is not leading a rebellion against the church, encouraging lay people to disobey their bishops. And he has not left the Church. He was explicit about this on today’s blog.

As to the money thing, I think some people make much ado about nothing. He stated in at least one of his talks some time ago that he takes no money from his Order. So it is not so “odd” that he would need to make money in a different way (such as selling media) in order to eat. If people are horrified about that, what should horrify you is that his Order permitted it. He also gives money away to individuals who need it; he has sponsored needy people, if I understand him correctly. I’m troubled by the innuendos on this thread that he has been in the habit of being some avaricious priest – just because his lifestyle is somewhat unconventional for a priest. That has been all approved by his Order. If it hadn’t, he wouldn’t have been allowed to remain in good standing with his Order all these years. They must have either allowed it under their previous Constitution, or decided that in his case an exception could be made because of (1) his potential reach to the faithful (2) the fact that selling media, etc. would allow him to be financially independent from the Order, or (3) some other reason. We do not have details about previous agreements between his Order and him.

I also find it very interesting that some of the points I independently made about him and this situation, before today, were later stated by Corapi himself, on his blog.

I’ve seen this so often in the Church, just as I have seen it in secular politics on occasion. People turn someone into an artificial hero, creating a fantasy image for their own needs; then when that fantasy dissolves, they condemn their former hero for daring not to fit into their image. It is actually not an act of charity to put someone on a pedestal which will inevitably fall because of the person’s human frailty, and then devalue absolutely everything the person has gifted you with because you are disappointed that your fantasy is an illusion.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think it depends upon the community. Some communities have vows of poverty, so that any income is turned over to the community. I suspect he chose this community because it did afford him the freedom to live on his own, and manage his own ministry and business. When the community recently changed their constitutions so that all members are expected to reside together (not solitarily outside the residence as Corapi does), he was urged to return, but did not wish to do so.

Thanks Guanophore. I respect your efforts to clarify this further.

 

[GraceSofia]

Originally Posted by** surf(name removed by moderator)ure **
Perhaps it would be helpful to elaborate on which bloggers are being found offensive.

If I have a minute, I will dig some up for you. There is one in particular, and I cannot recall now the website, but I myself was surprised by the downright ridicule of Fr. Corapi by a You Tube video they made. Something about “two dogs”. It was supposed to be funny. I was embarassed these people were representing the Church. Couldn’t believe it was a Catholic Christian site. Whether or not people are put off by this tragedy and put off by Fr. or not, this was downright uncalled for to do to any human…

As these comments were posted way back on page 32 in response to my comment,
I better just say for the record that actually I found the two chihuahuas video well-done and very funny.

I don’t think it would be helpful to go through and analyse articles by Catholic writers, and I certainly don’t have the time.
I suppose what it comes down to is that they have been loaded with negative adjectives about Fr Corapi. It has just been a huge rush to (rash?) judgment IMO, and they have kept up a constant drumbeat of making war on Fr Corapi. Some of it has been inflammatory and possibly slanderous.

I see three intertwined issues: the process that accused priests go through, the particular situaton of Fr Corapi, and the way the Catholic writers have responded. And they are all getting mushed together…

My 2 cents (worth almost nothing in Europe).

 

[StrawberryJam]

You’re not in his shoes.
I’m not in his shoes.
The posters on CAF are not in his shoes.
etc.

I’m glad that you all think that:
(1) You would be saints in his position
or
(2) Fulton J. Sheen would have been a saint in his position
or
(3) The rest of the Catholic clergy and laity would be saints in his position.

None of us is in his position. Nor has he really told us everything. (He said he would not release the audiotapes.)

We are called not to judge the spirituality of our neighbor. That is a commandment. No one here has to worry about which commandments, and which vows, John Corapi is obeying or not obeying, because he is not promoting dissidence and disaffection. We have to worry about which commandments we are obeying. He’s not asking us to ‘follow him’ or any such nonsense. He’s asking us to continue to pray for all parties involved, just as he states he is doing.

He has been given non-uniform advice by more than one bishop (at least one of whom is supportive of him, apparently), and we do not know all the details of what is going on with the bishop whom he claims on one tape is undermining him. I believe in giving Corapi the benefit of the doubt on this. He is not leading a rebellion against the church, encouraging lay people to disobey their bishops. And he has not left the Church. He was explicit about this on today’s blog.

As to the money thing, I think some people make much ado about nothing. He stated in at least one of his talks some time ago that he takes no money from his Order. So it is not so “odd” that he would need to make money in a different way (such as selling media) in order to eat. If people are horrified about that, what should horrify you is that his Order permitted it. He also gives money away to individuals who need it; he has sponsored needy people, if I understand him correctly. I’m troubled by the innuendos on this thread that he has been in the habit of being some avaricious priest – just because his lifestyle is somewhat unconventional for a priest. That has been all approved by his Order. If it hadn’t, he wouldn’t have been allowed to remain in good standing with his Order all these years. They must have either allowed it under their previous Constitution, or decided that in his case an exception could be made because of (1) his potential reach to the faithful (2) the fact that selling media, etc. would allow him to be financially independent from the Order, or (3) some other reason. We do not have details about previous agreements between his Order and him.

I also find it very interesting that some of the points I independently made about him and this situation, before today, were later stated by Corapi himself, on his blog.

I’ve seen this so often in the Church, just as I have seen it in secular politics on occasion. People turn someone into an artificial hero, creating a fantasy image for their own needs; then when that fantasy dissolves, they condemn their former hero for daring not to fit into their image. It is actually not an act of charity to put someone on a pedestal which will inevitably fall because of the person’s human frailty, and then devalue absolutely everything the person has gifted you with because you are disappointed that your fantasy is an illusion.

Was Father’s repeated references to alcoholism a convincing argument?

 

[Cinette]

I understand he was popular but most of his shows were reruns, hopefully people who really loved him have it copied or bought his DVD’s. You can see part on youtube type programs also.

I watched him a little, but found after a while, it was more “background”. I like interaction and live shows. And even if people tuned in for him, they weren’t giving money to him, they were giving it to the network. Without EWTN, he never would have reached the millions he did, which helped his profits later (they allowed him to put his website/phone # after his show)There is no way he would be having this much “talk time” without them and no matter what happens, as with Fr. Francis, they help a ton of people, not just Catholic with or without him there.

*You are so right! A priest I so much appreciate is Fr Robert Barron. He stirs me. I hope he will be making tons of recordings for EWTN.

*

 

[Elizabeth502]

Was Father’s repeated references to alcoholism a convincing argument?

I’m not sure how to answer your question, SJ. Are you asking me whether I am convinced that his accuser is an alcoholic whom he has offered support to for several years? (I would tend to believe him, if that’s what you’re asking. Since I’m not in a court of law, not on a jury, I think it’s probably not up to me to be “convinced,” as you say.)

Naturally I have no more information than anyone else here as to the truth of the matter. I do find him, overall, credible. I have also met plenty of irrational people in my time, both those who are substance-abusers and those who are not. (Naturally one need not be an alcoholic to lie, have avaricious motives, be unaware or in denial of one’s own behavior, be filled with hatred, be frustrated and tempted to lash out at the nearest convenient victim, etc.) His story is possibly true. His leaving the priesthood is not an indication that his story is false, regardless of how anyone subjectively interprets his decision as “premature” or “impatient,” “disobedient,” or “proud.”

People do bizarre things out of opportunism, and also out of envy. It has happened to me, and I’m a rather unfamous person. People who are high-profile tend to be targets. It has happened to “celebrity” lawyers, politicians, and entertainers. I seem to recall that it has happened to a few professors and scientists as well. Lawsuits and formal complaints can be a form of blackmail, even when the target is innocent.

 

[Cinette]

You’re not in his shoes.
I’m not in his shoes.
The posters on CAF are not in his shoes.
etc.

I’m glad that you all think that:
(1) You would be saints in his position
or
(2) Fulton J. Sheen would have been a saint in his position
or
(3) The rest of the Catholic clergy and laity would be saints in his position.

None of us is in his position. Nor has he really told us everything. (He said he would not release the audiotapes.)

We are called not to judge the spirituality of our neighbor. That is a commandment. No one here has to worry about which commandments, and which vows, John Corapi is obeying or not obeying, because he is not promoting dissidence and disaffection. We have to worry about which commandments we are obeying. He’s not asking us to ‘follow him’ or any such nonsense. He’s asking us to continue to pray for all parties involved, just as he states he is doing.

He has been given non-uniform advice by more than one bishop (at least one of whom is supportive of him, apparently), and we do not know all the details of what is going on with the bishop whom he claims on one tape is undermining him. I believe in giving Corapi the benefit of the doubt on this. He is not leading a rebellion against the church, encouraging lay people to disobey their bishops. And he has not left the Church. He was explicit about this on today’s blog.

As to the money thing, I think some people make much ado about nothing. He stated in at least one of his talks some time ago that he takes no money from his Order. So it is not so “odd” that he would need to make money in a different way (such as selling media) in order to eat. If people are horrified about that, what should horrify you is that his Order permitted it. He also gives money away to individuals who need it; he has sponsored needy people, if I understand him correctly. I’m troubled by the innuendos on this thread that he has been in the habit of being some avaricious priest – just because his lifestyle is somewhat unconventional for a priest. That has been all approved by his Order. If it hadn’t, he wouldn’t have been allowed to remain in good standing with his Order all these years. They must have either allowed it under their previous Constitution, or decided that in his case an exception could be made because of (1) his potential reach to the faithful (2) the fact that selling media, etc. would allow him to be financially independent from the Order, or (3) some other reason. We do not have details about previous agreements between his Order and him.

I also find it very interesting that some of the points I independently made about him and this situation, before today, were later stated by Corapi himself, on his blog.

I’ve seen this so often in the Church, just as I have seen it in secular politics on occasion. People turn someone into an artificial hero, creating a fantasy image for their own needs; then when that fantasy dissolves, they condemn their former hero for daring not to fit into their image. It is actually not an act of charity to put someone on a pedestal which will inevitably fall because of the person’s human frailty, and then devalue absolutely everything the person has gifted you with because you are disappointed that your fantasy is an illusion.

*You are so right and I appreciate your observations. However there is a point I wish to make. Fr Corapi must bear in mind that perception is as important as truth and one must be careful not to create a perception that people interpret as truth.

I believe many people are so shocked by Fr Corapi’s announcement that he is leaving the priesthood as it nullifies what he has said and taught in the past. They are in a panic as they consider him a mentor. He has led many to the Faith. And now? We have to sympathise with them.

For me the big thing is, if he is giving up the priesthood, he is giving up the power to consecrate the Body and Blood of Jesus - the most precious gift given to him as priest.

So what is most important? His public persona or his priesthood?

THAT is the crux of the matter.

What about the Beatitudes? Fr should reflect on them… especially:

“Blessed are they who suffer Persecution for Justice Sake.”

Fr. must definitely consider obedience and humility. He has preached on these things.

God bless Fr Corapi and all who are hurting for him
Cinette*

 

[GraceSofia]

People do bizarre things out of opportunism, and also out of envy. It has happened to me, and I’m a rather unfamous person. People who are high-profile tend to be targets. It has happened to “celebrity” lawyers, politicians, and entertainers. I seem to recall that it has happened to a few professors and scientists as well. Lawsuits and formal complaints can be a form of blackmail, even when the target is innocent.

YEP. Because the process is a huge punishment.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You are so right and I appreciate your observations. However there is a point I wish to make. Fr Corapi must bear in mind that perception is as important as truth and one must be careful not to create a perception that people interpret as truth.

This part ^ is fair, i.m.o. It may be helpful, then, to contribute to his blog to ask him to answer that challenge adequately, given the awkwardness that some feel about his manner of handling this.

What’s below is not fair, to me:

I believe many people are so shocked by Fr Corapi’s announcement that he is leaving the priesthood as it nullifies what he has said and taught in the past. They are in a panic as they consider him a mentor. He has led many to the Faith. And now? We have to sympathise with them.

Why do we have to sympathize with them? Why should they be “panicked”? That’s the sign of a morbidly dependent person, who is not assimilating the message of the mentor, but rather the persona of the mentor, who perhaps has been turned into a cult figure by others, not by the person in question.

For me the big thing is, if he is giving up the priesthood, he is giving up the power to consecrate the Body and Blood of Jesus - the most precious gift given to him as priest.

Again, it is apparent to me that I seem to have known more priests, closely, so far in my lifetime than many people here. I have known priests who have felt extremely torn to leave the priesthood; it practically destroyed them, and why wouldn’t it? They sobbed for weeks. I’m not going to go into various reasons a priest might leave, but it is totally unfair to reject or demonize a man for leaving the priesthood. That’s a reaction of the lay person who feels he or she ‘owns’ the priest or something resembling ownership or responsibility. Have you no idea how he must be torn up inside? All of you seem to believe that he is shrugging his shoulders about this. Nothing he has spoken or written so far conforms to that impression.

What about the Beatitudes? Fr should reflect on them… especially:

“Blessed are they who suffer Persecution for Justice Sake.”

Fr. must definitely consider obedience and humility. He has preached on these things.

Respectfully, I think this is out of line, Cinette. Not more out of line than what others have written, but it is not up to us to preach to a priest, whose situation we have incomplete knowledge of, as to which Beatitudes he should follow.

 

[Cinette]

This part ^ is fair, i.m.o. It may be helpful, then, to contribute to his blog to ask him to answer that challenge adequately, given the awkwardness that some feel about his manner of handling this.

What’s below is not fair, to me:

Why do we have to sympathize with them? Why should they be “panicked”? That’s the sign of a morbidly dependent person, who is not assimilating the message of the mentor, but rather the persona of the mentor, who perhaps has been turned into a cult figure by others, not by the person in question.

Again, it is apparent to me that I seem to have known more priests, closely, so far in my lifetime than many people here. I have known priests who have felt extremely torn to leave the priesthood; it practically destroyed them, and why wouldn’t it? They sobbed for weeks. I’m not going to go into various reasons a priest might leave, but it is totally unfair to reject or demonize a man for leaving the priesthood. That’s a reaction of the lay person who feels he or she ‘owns’ the priest or something resembling ownership or responsibility. Have you no idea how he must be torn up inside? All of you seem to believe that he is shrugging his shoulders about this. Nothing he has spoken or written so far conforms to that impression.

Respectfully, I think this is out of line, Cinette. Not more out of line than what others have written, but it is not up to us to preach to a priest, whose situation we have incomplete knowledge of, as to which Beatitudes he should follow.

*You are right of course, it is not my place to “preach to a priest”.

You have made so many valuable observations above on which we should reflect.

Will continue to pray for Fr Corapi.

God bless all
Cinette*

 

[Elizabeth502]

*You are right of course, it is not my place to “preach to a priest”.

You have made so many valuable observations above on which we should reflect.

Will continue to pray for Fr Corapi.

God bless all
Cinette*

You make valuable observations, too! Let’s all just refrain from categorically rejecting him. Remember that I’m disappointed, too, but probably for different reasons.

And let’s think about how, if the Church at large appears to be condemning him, that will affect men considering the priesthood themselves. Who wants to voluntarily enter a way of life which is perceived not to offer support from the very institution to which you will belong, including its lay people? This is why I meant it seriously and not in any patronizing way that you, Cinette, contribute to the blog which I’m sure he reads. He knows what a challenge it already is for men contemplating the seminary, because of the aura of guilt (apart from Corapi’s situation) that tends to surround the Catholic priesthood in general these days. Many of those men do not want to wear a collar, if a collar is associated with clerical sexual abuse. Corapi himself has spoken of this.

Many men also have expressed that they are wary of the way the Catholic Church handles its priests who are accused without justification – the “process,” as GraceSofia just referred to above, and what Corapi has referred to publicly for many years. It might be helpful if Fr. Corapi feels he has something positive to say to those considering a vocation. I think it’s fair to challenge him on this. That is, perhaps he could explain that his own decision to leave is not necessarily what others should do, or need to do, if presented with the same situation, but for unique or unusual reasons he felt he did need to do. Perhaps he’s still too close to this to have such perspective, but I see nothing wrong with expressing your concerns about the problem of perception, which you brought up.

 

[JM3]

A comment, to the post of June 23, 2011, left on the blacksheepdog blog site you might want to consider.

“Fr. Corapi is not in disobedience, the Bishop is not evil, the case has been mishandled”
“IF” Father Corapi has left his religious community it would be to protect them from the insanity of this case which his poor bishop should have never let advance to this point in the first place. Perhaps the superior of Father Corapi’s religious community could have requested the Vatican to step in? In such a case the person who is the accuser will have their claims investigated first by the superior of a religious priest. Credible evidence to substantiate their claim and warrant “administrative leave” must then be presented. In Father Corapi’s present situation, this due-process did NOT happen. His religious superiors were pressed by the bishop to put Father on immediate administrative leave without concluding their “initial” investigation. This put Fr. Corapi immediately on the “suspect list” in the eyes of all the Cannon Lawyers in the US. The normative process was not followed. This process is very important, not only for all priests involved, but for the accuser’s own protection as well. For in that initial investigation, it is sometimes found that the person is unstable, very wounded and in real need of psychological help. In this case, it is my opinion that the person accusing Fr. Corapi would have benefitted greatly from proper spiritual/emotional counsel and healing through the Church. Instead, the mishandling by those in authority has opened the accuser, Father John, his religious community and all of the rest of us up to a vitriolic outpouring of hatred and a scandal that has taken on outrageous proportions due primary to the confusion involved. I am sure that Father at least was aware that this was bound to be the result and took steps to ensure that this scandal and confusion was not directed at his religious community. Perhaps we could see him recusing himself in that light instead of the tremendously judgmental perspectives that are being thrown around now?

How could anyone believe Fr. John would ever move in disobedience to his spiritual director? In the Church there are similar situations with religious that has occured. I’ve heard the comparisons with St. Padre Pio. What about comparing this situation a bit with St.Teresa of Avila who was in obedience to her spiritual director and in disobedience to the “Church leaders/superiors” of her time. (Not to demonize in any way the religious community involved here.) Her spiritual director (St. John of the Cross) was locked up in solitary confinement in a dungeon by his own religious order because they were convinced of his disobedience to “them” – but St. John and St. Teresa persevered. Look where the two of them are in the eyes of the Church today?..

It is not about the money for him or his community. He gave generous funds to this religous community and would continue to do so. It is not about “obeying” the Church.
Fr. Corapi is in obedience right now to the bishop who told his superiors to put him on administrative leave. He is in obedience to the Church. He would have waited for the canonical process to conclude if he thought it would produce the truth in a reasonble manner. He is cooperating fully with being on administrative leave from public priestly ministry. By removing himself from his community he is protecting them from potential law suits. By proceeding with a civil trial he knew he would delay the Church’s canonical proceedings; but in doing so, he is also getting to the heart of the injustice and pursuing justice swiftly. If he was a fraud and scoundrel, the civil courts would find that out. Hasn’t anyone asked this obvious question: Why go to court at all? If he is so rich and leads (and wants to continue to lead) such a lavish, sinful life (as he has been accused of doing), why wouldn’t he just “take the money and run?” Fr. Corapi is too smart and too holy to do what he is being portrayed as having basically done already.

“Back to the Future”

How many priests are suffering/languishing in a limbo-land of “administrative leave” due to an unjust accusation? Fr. Corapi has spoken of this time and time again. Honestly, I would not have even been made aware of this problem if not for Fr. Corapi’s present situation. We leave the priests of the Catholic Church open and vulnerable to false accusations due to our own fears. We are living in a type of witch hunt situation that could explode and in fact is now exploding in our face. How are we to know that Father will not submit to canonical proceedings in time? His behavior now does not mean that once the civil trial is over he would not then submit to canonical proceedings with the one goal in mind – to serve the People of God through public ministry as a priest. To serve…

Father has the combination of faith and reason; and the gift of apostolic preaching to forcefully win many battles for and in service of the Church. He will do what is necessary for the Church to accomplish justice on this issue which will help others including himself…

God bless you Father Corapi for even tolerating this feedback/comments string written here. I wouldn’t be surprised if you disabled it for a while. But, at least in this comment section, we are able to CLEARLY see who your enemies are and how twisted their thinking truly is. I’m not worried about your soul; I’m praying specifically for them…

I am not a cult member. I am not a “fan”. I am a member of the Church who listens to the voice of the the Incarnate Word through the Church. Fr. Corapi has echoed the teachings of Jesus Christ as a priestly preacher now for two generations. We pray may he will continue … God’s speed to him in his work ahead.

(bold is mine)

The complete comment can be read at theblacksheepdog.us/ under ‘Dog Mugwump June 24, 2011 at 3:34am’

 

[Zooey]

I absolutely promised myslef that I was not going to say a single word…and then I saw this VERY WISE post.
Thank you!!!

So many posters who ‘know what Father needs’ or ‘should’ be doing.

It all comes down to: “He’s not doing this MY way! And I don’t like it!”

May you be judged with more charity should the need ever arise.

And,then, because I never know when to shut up, I want to add an old saying of my grandmother’s: “I will never understand why Christian people so often choose to shoot our wounded!”
I may be just an Old Fashioned Methodist like she was (though far less holy, I fear), but I have to say, I am really, really shocked by the number of people around the web who have taken it upon themselves to “shoot” Fr Corapi, albeit with words. Shame on them!! We need more :byzsoc: & less :banghead:.

:twocents: (from one who has never so much as clapped eyes on Fr Corapi once).

 

[Cinette]

1. PER FATHER CORAPI: HE IS NOT LEAVING THE PRIESTHOOD.
   His website, today: theblacksheepdog.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/please-understand-this-i-have-not-left-the-church/

"I think it’s a bit too easy to arrive at an erroneous conclusion when you base it on a fallacious presupposition. For instance, some very kind and fine people assume that I have “left the Church.” Please, understand this, I have not left the Church. I love the Catholic Church and would not “leave the Church.” I have resigned from public ministry, which is rather anticlimactic to be sure since I was out of it anyhow due to the suspension or “administrative leave,” which is tantamount to suspension. There are elements of this that you don’t know about, and that’s not your fault.

Once a man is ordained a priest he remains a priest for all eternity. Holy Orders is one of the three sacraments that imprints an indelible mark on the soul.
…

A priest is ordained primarily to confect the Eucharist. A validly ordained priest can do this in the normal setting of a parish or community celebration of the holy Eucharist, or in private, as I have done for twenty years.
…

I was ordained in 1991. He said it would be a huge mistake for me to ever be constrained by a parish or conventional way of life in one place. I did not take this upon myself. It was given to me by the Church and I was sent. Please don’t think I don’t value the sacraments. I do. However, the public administration of the sacraments was never what the Church told me to do. They sent me to preach. The two are not mutually exclusive. They are complimentary. Not all of the members of the Body of Christ are the same, but they are all necessary, noble, and holy."

1. The website about the two dogs is either National Catholic Register or Creative Minority. Matt & Pat Archbold. “We Are God’s Chihuahua’s”. It could have been worse…it’s not Matt’s funniest, though.
2. IT IS NOT, NOT, NOT, Father Corapi vs. the Church. Father Corapi is still part of the Church. Do not pit Father against the Church; he is not doing that, please don’t do that. It is, if anything, now, Father Corapi vs. the system, Father Corapi vs. his accusers, and/or Father Corapi vs. the Professional Catholic Bloggers.

I have no respect for most of those who blogged about this situation because they were falling overthemselves to cast the first stone. These were the same people who, three months ago, took the, “We need to wait and see,” approach instead of defending Father Corapi. WHY didn’t they want to take a stand?!! They wanted to distance themselves from this priest, though, they didn’t have a bad word to say about Mel Gibson during his infidelity. WHY?!! Why drag this priest through the mud? Why throw him under the bus? The same people, who took the, “we need to wait and see,” stand, “because we don’t know all the facts,” are the same, THE VERY SAME, who STILL do not have all the facts and yet took what very little they do have and put the blame on the victim, a victim who stands in as THE Victim. “Whatever you do to the least of these…” Disgraceful!

*Although I was never a “fan” of Fr Corapi, my first reaction when the news broke was to defend him. I felt that it was impossible that she should be guilty. But does one have to become a priest in order to preach? We see all the Apologists who give “talks” - is that not the same thing?

You see I feel so sore about Fr Corapi leaving the Priesthood. He is the one person I thought would fight back. When I heard he was leaving the Priesthood my first thought was “Then he must be guilty after all”.

I also feel strongly that a priest should wear the collar always. There are many good reasons for this.

I keep thinking that I will soon wake up from this nightmare.

God bless
Cinette

 

[PbloPicasso]

I have some inside information that in light of everything I know now about the case I might see what Fr. Corapi is up to. I read a blog from a bishop I believe that made some interesting remarks about Fr. John’s situation. It sounds to me that some have recommended this action and it may be a ploy to take care of legal matters as a layman and return one day. Canon law prevents him from defending himself the way civil law can.

I know that by what I have experienced with one particular person on Facebook, I’m convinced that the accuser is very unreliable and unstable. The lack of 'humility" people are speaking about is fantasy to me and not for the best. I see Fr. Corapi as a defender of not only the faith but also the priesthood. His actions, I believe, may be to pave the way for a more sain approach to accusations made against priests. There are no foundations for the accusations…no proof… The Jews had it correct when the law required two eye witnesses when accusing someone of such a severe crime. The evidence suggests that the accuser is out to “get him”. Canon law protects the “victim” or accuser in this situation all the way through the process. Civil law will allow him to take the accuser down to the level they deserve for such an evil action, assuming innocence. That is my understanding of what is taking place as we speak.

Whether Fr. John’s actions are humble or whatever is irrelevant to me if he is in fact trying to help redefine the process of what happens to innocent priests with false accusers. Pray, pray pray. That’s all we can do. Somehow, I doubt that he will leave the Church and drag people down with him. If he does, then he redefines himself. I’m praying for him and having to explain to my sons what’s happening as it occurs. it’s really challenging them.

 

[Cinette]

A comment, to the post of June 23, 2011, left on the blacksheepdog blog site you might want to consider.

(bold is mine)

The complete comment can be read at theblacksheepdog.us/ under ‘Dog Mugwump June 24, 2011 at 3:34am’

This is excellent and very clarifying. Everybody should read it. We need to continue to pray.

 

[Ceil-1]

Thank you, Elizabeth 502 for your insight and wisdom.

 

[whm]

There has been a lot of talk about submitting to the “process” and not “speaking out” - using private church channels…I think it is worth pointing out that this combination did not work so well the past couple of decades. Not making a judgement on this case, but just pointing out that there are instances where one has to take a stand against the system if a clear injustice is occurring.