One of my friends is a priest who was falsely accused of “improper conduct”. His father is also a good friend of mine.
The priest-friend had to sit around his parents’ house, going crazy with worry? … with uncertainty? … with absolutely no news, no information, no communication with the chancery office.
They all knew the accusations were false. They were not only false and from a location where he had never been, but they were anonymous accusations, as well. Anti-catholic lawyers even said the accusations were false.
Anyway, after hanging by his thumbs and twisting in the wind, he got a simple phone call to go back to work.
No explanations. Nothing. No trial. No hearings. No questions. No insight into the investigation.
Just, “go back to work”.
How long was he just sitting doing nothing?
Two years.
That’s what we agree to abide by when we either enter a seminary and become deacons or priests or when we enter a religious order and make vows. Our lives are not our own.
The way I look at it, there are saints (big S or small s) are called to challenge and others do not. It all depends on what God wants from them. And how can one question that? St Francis challenged not even a priest who was having an affair, yet, we have st catherine of siena who challenged a pope…and everything else in between…God’s ways are not our ways.
Don’t be fooled by what people say about St. Catherine. Those who need an excuse to challenge the Church at every turn have conveniently inflated that story and the story of Paul and Peter.
Let’s look at the real facts. First, Catherine physically punished any member of her community who dared speak against a cleric or a religious. It was not allowed, because Dominic did not allow it. It’s against Dominican statutes.
Second, it is true that Catherine wrote letters to the pope and to other religious leaders. However, those letters were confidential. No one was not know what they said, except the recipient. We know about them, because they were published after her death. During her lifetime, no one knew about these ongoing dialogues between her and Church authorities. She did not make her concerns public. The only people who knew were her Dominican superior and her scribe, because Catherine didn’t learn to write until very late in life.
Third, Catherine closes every letter with a promise of fidelity and obedience. She tells her reader that if she is wrong, she willingly submits to his authority. She does not claim to be right. She is encouraging, not challenging in her letters. Read them.
Let’s look at Paul. If Paul had believed that he had the right to rule on the case of the Gentiles, he would have done so and not bothered to go back to Jerusalem to the Council. If the other Apostles had felt that they could run the Church as they saw fit, they would not have gone back to Jerusalem. Paul and the others knew the danger of going back to Jerusalem. The Romans were still in control and being a Christian was a capital offense. They went to Jerusalem because Peter was there. It was very important to them to plead the case of the Gentiles before Peter, to get his verdict on the matter.
Peter concedes the point, because circumcision is not a moral law. It was a custom. The Jewish customs were no longer necessary. The moral laws were. That’s why they kept the OT and the Commandments. Paul manages to persuade Peter. He does not question is authority. If Peter had ruled against Paul, he would have submitted. This is very visible in the way that Paul addresses him. He never calls him by his name, Simon. He calls him Cephas (Rock). Titles were very important to Jews. No Jew would ever call another man Rock, but Paul does.
There is a lot of misrepresentation of these great saints and their obedience to the Church. They were persuasive, but they were also submissive.
The problem with Father Corapi’s case is that many people feel that they have a right to know. This is not true. Canon Law does not guarantee us the right to know. In fact, Canon Law protects the privacy of the accused and the accuser. There is no moral right to know what happens in the private life of another person. It is up to the person to reveal whatever they choose to reveal.
Church authorities do not have an obligation to reveal anything about this case. There is no crime. If there were, the Church would only be obliged to reveal whatever the DA’s office needs to know and they only need to reveal it to the DA’s office and the police, not to the world. Since there is no crime here, there is nothing that needs to be revealed. The most charitable thing to do is to let Father and the Church figure out what he’s doing next and stop giving too many opinions. Too many opinions can often lead to speculation and gossip. We don’t want to go there.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I wonder if I could find the text to this for my personal use?