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

[surfinpure]

We are all called to strive to be holy and leave the judging up to God.

We are also called to correct a brother when he is in sin. This is not judging a person’s soul. Whatever we don’t know about the case, we do know that Fr. Corapi has spoken ill of the bishops and of his accuser, and that doesn’t stand up to the test of holiness given in Scripture. We are not judging him when we acknowledge this; we are stating what we know. The only reason it’s necessary to state it is that many of this man’s “fans” or “followers” are choosing him over obedience to the Church, and I don’t believe in sitting idly by while others are led into schism (even if that is not what Fr. Corapi intended).

 

[surfinpure]

How do you know that “suing is not charitable”? An extortionist should be stopped should she not? What other way does he have to stop her?

Let’s not muddy the waters even further by speculating and suggesting things that have not been revealed.

So far as we’ve been told (and, indeed, Fr. Corapi has made sure we knew lots of gritty details about the case), she is not an extortionist, merely a bitter ex-employee. I’ve heard nothing of her trying to get money out of him or the Church. She, in fact, has not sued the Church, but made a complaint to the Bishop. It is he who has sued her for money, as a matter of fact.

 

[surfinpure]

Through all of this I have wondered how Catholics reconcile the actions of John Corapi with 1 Corinthians 6:1-8–which basically says it’s better to be defrauded than to take another Christian to civil court over a dispute. Or how a bishop could advise someone to take this course of action. I’ve been surprised that this has not come up in the discussions, at least that I have seen. How do Catholics view these verses? This is an honest question.

It is a good question, indeed, Dave. I’ve personally sought advice about filing suit against a doctor who harmed my baby. In that case, my priest and spiritual adviser determined that since there is an actual need (medical, therapeutic, long-term care) created by this doctor’s malpractice, it is a legitimate case in which to sue. However, should I be suing merely to punish someone or gain from them financially, it would be morally wrong.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Doesn’t St. Paul tell us in the scriptures not to sue one another?

Is Father Corapi obeying St. Paul?

For that matter–when is it OK for Catholics to sue other Catholics in civil court?

Do we not listen to St. Paul anymore?

I love Father Corapi.

I don’t know what he should do or not do in his current situation because I do not know all the facts.

The whole thing just doesn’t look good.

The Catholic Church has to investigate accusations.

I do think they need to be fairer to those accused and I think they should be much swifter in trying to get to the bottom of things.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

It is a good question, indeed, Dave. I’ve personally sought advice about filing suit against a doctor who harmed my baby. In that case, my priest and spiritual adviser determined that since there is an actual need (medical, therapeutic, long-term care) created by this doctor’s malpractice, it is a legitimate case in which to sue. However, should I be suing merely to punish someone or gain from them financially, it would be morally wrong.

That’s an interesting way to look at it, since you will not “gain” per se from a settlement. But rather it’s more along the lines of being reimbursed for a true out-of-pocket cost that you’ve incurred because of someone else’s negligence. So then something like punitive damages would be out?

 

[mlund]

I tried to look at this situation divorced from the individual identities of the people involved and actually worries me a lot. I considered if this situation could exist if priest, bishop, and cannon lawyers are all acting in good faith and obedience to the best of their ability. To the best of my knowledge it can.

The bishop can be acting in accord with policies set down for handling complaints. One of the policies might not allow the investigation to go forward with a civil lawsuit against the complaining party by the defending party. One of the other policies requires may require removing the accused priest from active ministry. Still another matter of discipline may make it illicit for the bishop to order the accused priest to drop his civil lawsuit.

Where does that leave them?

The bishop has his hands tied. Meanwhile, the priest is extremely vulnerable. If nothing changes there is a vicious cycle at work:

1.) Someone outside church discipline commits defamation and makes a complaint to the bishop.

2.) The accused is suspended pending investigation.

3.) The investigation forces the civil defamation charges to be dropped.

Then either:

4a.) The accused is exonerated after great suffering and the false accuser walks scot-free because the bishop has no faculties to punish them and the accused surrendered his rights in the civil courts that could punish them.

4b.) The accused in convicted and punished.

In the end, you have a win-win scenario for any malicious liar and a lose-lose scenario for the faithful. Given this, there is no reason for those with hearts filled with malice not to continually attack good and faithful priests when they provoke their ire.

The severity of the situation and its implications go far, far beyond John Corapi.

If a priest is innocent but bows to the vicious cycle then his ministry is over, his preaching silenced, and the machinations of evil will move onto assault the next priest, and the next, and the next after that. It is a recipe for the extermination of our Catholic clergy.

With that in mind, I think it would be most charitable not to vilify John Corapi or the bishop, to refrain from questioning their motives and holiness, and to refrain from telling them what to do. I pray that the system itself is either misunderstood or subject to review and reformation so that our clergy are not at the mercy of lose-lose vicious cycle.

• Marty Lund

 

[Nordar]

Father Corapi needs all our prayers!

 

[surfinpure]

That’s an interesting way to look at it, since you will not “gain” per se from a settlement. But rather it’s more along the lines of being reimbursed for a true out-of-pocket cost that you’ve incurred because of someone else’s negligence. So then something like punitive damages would be out?

To the best of my (admittedly limited) understanding, yes.

 

[surfinpure]

Fr. Corapi (the other title leaves a bad taste in my mouth) posted a new blog yesterday at theblacksheepdog.us. I find these excerpts particularly disturbing:

“In twenty years of preaching and teaching in the Catholic Church I ran into many who should know better that did not believe that wolves existed and that there was no need for sheepdogs. They scoffed at the idea of either. **They are not leaders, they are delusional oxygen thieves—taking up the space and breathing the air that a real leader should occupy fill **[sic].”

Those are harsh words, and I certainly hope he’s not referring to the bishops of Christ’s Church. But if not them, who?

Be watchful that your country, your state, your church, and your friends and family don’t get eaten by wolves—who very often come clothed as sheep.

1. Is he really suggesting the Church could be eaten (destroyed) by “wolves?”
2. Again, with a stone in the pit of my stomach, I sincerely hope he is not talking about our bishops. Much less suggesting that the bishops could destroy the Church founded on the Rock!

Unfortunately, as with all of his previous messages, he has left these exhortations very vague and ambiguous. I fear many will interpret them as hostile toward the Church, whether he intends them to be so or not.

I’m trying really hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. Libera nos a malo.

 

[mlund]

I’d hesitate to interpret St. Paul’s writings to say Catholics can’t sue others unless I saw instruction to that point in the Catechism. Taking someone before the magistrate in St. Paul’s time is not the same as it is today, though there can be similar situations.The distinction in how the European Union or the United States divides offenses between Criminal and Civil law are quite different from how the Jews and Romans did it in the day.

Yes, there are moral principles in common we can use, but the current legal systems would not sustain an orderly and just society if no one ever went to court except for criminal charges. Modern societies depend on tort law judgments as a deterrent to all manner of evils that, if undeterred, would make society unlivable. Libel, slander, contract law, and even the majority of harassment and negligence cases fall into this category. Only the most egregious are elevated to criminal complaints - usually those that warrant felony charges and imprisonment.

It is noble to forgive injustice done to us, but it is ignoble to practice forgiveness in such a way that it emboldens the offender or others like him to strike out against your neighbors. It is one thing to turn the other cheek to your attack, and quite other to turn a blind eye to the plight of your neighbor.

I’m just as happy to live in a society where we keep order with tort law instead of an overbearing sheriff routinely whipping people in the public square.

• Marty Lund

 

[Lujack]

It is possible that Father Corapi’s accuser is telling the truth. I don’t know that, you don’t know that, and I’m certainly not presuming Father Corapi guilty. But neither will I presume that his accuser is a lying extortionist or something along those lines-presumption of innocence does not mean presumption that the accuser is a scoundrel.

And in her defense, she has made no public statements other than a letter to the bishop. I think the fevered denunciations of her on this thread and on other threads are as unjust as fevered denunciations of Father Corapi would be.

 

[mlund]

1. Is he really suggesting the Church could be eaten (destroyed) by “wolves?”

The Catholic Church? No. Your church? Certainly. History has seen plenty of parishes and diocese destroyed by the forces of evil, within and without. The wolves have taken many pounds of flesh from the flanks of Christendom over the years.

1. Again, with a stone in the pit of my stomach, I sincerely hope he is not talking about our bishops. Much less suggesting that the bishops could destroy the Church founded on the Rock!

No, but a flawed men (which all our bishops, priests, and laity are - John Corapi included) can and have destroyed local churches before. We have a long and sorrowful history of corruption, heresy, and schism to look back upon and learn from.

Lujack:

presumption of innocence does not mean presumption that the accuser is a scoundrel

No, but I think it does usually demand a presumption that the accuser is incorrect until proof is found otherwise. This could be from ignorance, confusion, misunderstanding, malice, or mental illness - we don’t need to speculate. What we can observe, however, are the consequences of this action which we are to presume is wrong. Those consequences, in the light of a presumption of innocence for the accused, are a great evil. They are the kind of outcomes that those who hate the Church will seek to cause over and over again given the means.

That makes this situation important, even divorced from the individual identities of the parties involved, because whether the accuser is right or wrong the process as it stands could become the means of great evil for those who are genuine malefactors.

• Marty Lund

 

[luvmykids]

It is possible that Father Corapi’s accuser is telling the truth. I don’t know that, you don’t know that, and I’m certainly not presuming Father Corapi guilty. But neither will I presume that his accuser is a lying extortionist or something along those lines-presumption of innocence does not mean presumption that the accuser is a scoundrel.

And in her defense, she has made no public statements other than a letter to the bishop. I think the fevered denunciations of her on this thread and on other threads are as unjust as fevered denunciations of Father Corapi would be.

She doesn’t need to make any public statements. The damage is done. Now the burden lies on the person she has accused. No one knows her. Fr. Corapi is very well known and he has been stripped of the ability to minister as a priest, and is suffering greatly right now, because of an accusation. This has also affected a lot of others who have been brought to the faith through him, and even those who haven’t been brought to the faith, but could have been. His life will probably never be the same. What she has done is cause scandal. Even if he did have some sort of relationship with her, there is nothing in the statement that says it was against her will. She is an adult. Exposing other’s sins in an attempt to hurt them is wrong. What other reason could there be if it wasn’t rape? She really had nothing to lose.

 

[Eliza10]

We are all called to strive to be holy and leave the judging up to God.

“Whm”: We must judge actions. We have brains to judge actions with, and we are to use them. Pretending not to see something amiss when a priest sues for punitive damages is wrong. Silence means consent.

Consenting that evil is good would not be holy. I want to strive to be holy!

Speaking of judging, I see quite a bit of judging of motives-of-the-heart going on in this thread by Corapi Fans.

By the way, does the Word say, “Judge not”? Or “Judge-negatively-not”? The latter implies its okay to judge positively. I see Corapi fans on this thread doing just that, filling in the blanks for us on Corapi’s motives with “positive judgments”, as if they can judge the inner motives of his heart. To think these motives to be positive is certainly charitable. But, its judging, isn’t it? Only God can judge.

Of course, when we say all of Corapi’s motives of the heart, which drive the actions we see, are positive and motivated by God’s intentions, then we judge his accuser of negative, malicious intent of heart. Also the Catholic “bishops”, his Bishop, his order…

That’s judging too. And not very nicely!

Maybe we better not judge intents-of-heart at all, and just look at actions.

 

[catharina]

… What she has done is cause scandal. Even if he did have some sort of relationship with her, there is nothing in the statement that says it was against her will. She is an adult. Exposing other’s sins in an attempt to hurt them is wrong. What other reason could there be if it wasn’t rape? She really had nothing to lose.

No. What she has done is report an unlawful sexual relationship. Her report is either true or false. In fact, however, within the corporate world, within or outside the Church, a sexual contact between a higher-up and an employee is ALWAYS illicit since the matter of “abuse of power” enters into it. I’m certain your remarks are well-intentioned but if a sexual encounter took place, then the notion of “both were consenting adults” can not be applied. When one holds all the power (employer) and the other hold no equal power (employee), their status is unequal. The civil law supports that fact and the Church does so as well.

Any scandal can not be ascribed to one who reports such an issue. If the report happens to be factual, then she should have reported it. In that case, she cannot be blamed.

 

[debraran]

If the woman lied (and she said there were others, not just her involved) that is slander but he had months to gather evidence, he had calls, letters probably, witness’s, this isn’t a hard case. If there was some truth and his ego and pride didn’t want this woman, whom he felt he helped, hurting him, he might be feeling angry and bitter, but that is all conjecture.
I don’t like how one side can only see one thing and another side, something completely different. There is probably a lot of grey, there usually is in most cases.

 

[whm]

Of course, when we say all of Corapi’s motives of the heart, which drive the actions we see, are positive and motivated by God’s intentions, then we judge his accuser of negative, malicious intent of heart. Also the Catholic “bishops”, his Bishop, his order…

I have stated that I will not speculate on Fr, the bishop, SOLT or the accuser. There is not enough information to come to an informed opinion. Any speculative opinion leads to an unfair judgment of one or more of the parties involved.

You may assume I am a blind Corapi supporter. I will tell you that I will not follow any blacksheepdog preaching. I believe it is objectively wrong for a priest without faculties to preach (whether he is fairly or unfairly suspended).

I don’t think it is right for him or others to leak info regarding the accuser. That doesn’t give me a right to speculate about him. If someone where to re-post that kind of stuff I would react to them.

Just in the last page or 2 of this thread people have speculated that he is materialistic, paranoid, unholy, not up to snuff with half a dozen saints etc.

 

[luvmykids]

No. What she has done is report an unlawful sexual relationship. Her report is either true or false. In fact, however, within the corporate world, within or outside the Church, a sexual contact between a higher-up and an employee is ALWAYS illicit since the matter of “abuse of power” enters into it. I’m certain your remarks are well-intentioned but if a sexual encounter took place, then the notion of “both were consenting adults” can not be applied. When one holds all the power (employer) and the other hold no equal power (employee), their status is unequal. The civil law supports that fact and the Church does so as well.

Any scandal can not be ascribed to one who reports such an issue. If the report happens to be factual, then she should have reported it. In that case, she cannot be blamed.

I really don’t know much about the laws regarding sexual relationships, especially since it appears as if lately anything goes, but whether or not he was her boss, it was HER decision to have a relationship with him if that is what happened. Why can’t anyone take responsibility for their choices now a days and stop blaming everyone else. Are you saying that if it did happen, what she did is not sinful, because it was her boss? I don’t really care about what the law says. I care about what this is doing to the Church.

I feel like WHM’s post above, and feel like everyone is judging this man without knowing all the details of what he is going through, and it’s very sad.

 

[catharina]

I really don’t know much about the laws regarding sexual relationships, especially since it appears as if lately anything goes, but whether or not he was her boss, it was HER decision to have a relationship with him if that is what happened. Why can’t anyone take responsibility for their choices now a days and stop blaming everyone else. Are you saying that if it did happen, what she did is not sinful, because it was her boss? I don’t really care about what the law says. I care about what this is doing to the Church.

I feel like WHM’s post above, and feel like everyone is judging this man without knowing all the details of what he is going through, and it’s very sad.

I will not discuss the possible sins of another with anyone (including you). I’m saying that in a situation where one person has defined power over another (as in boss-employee) even civil laws recognize a lessened culpability for the individual who has less power. That is the very essence of law that governs “abuse of power.” It’s not a hypothetical, it’s a legal standard. I have no idea it the woman is being truthful - nor do you. So to accuse her of “causing scandal” is insupportable in present circumstances. It is as outrageous to accuse her as it is to accuse him. It’s sad for all. That’s my point.

 

[catharina]

I have stated that I will not speculate on Fr, the bishop, SOLT or the accuser. There is not enough information to come to an informed opinion. Any speculative opinion leads to an unfair judgment of one or more of the parties involved.

**Amen to that! **

You may assume I am a blind Corapi supporter. I will tell you that I will not follow any blacksheepdog preaching. I believe it is objectively wrong for a priest without faculties to preach (whether he is fairly or unfairly suspended).

I don’t think it is right for him or others to leak info regarding the accuser. That doesn’t give me a right to speculate about him. If someone where to re-post that kind of stuff I would react to them.

Just in the last page or 2 of this thread people have speculated that he is materialistic, paranoid, unholy, not up to snuff with half a dozen saints etc.