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

[jello7654]

In light of the vile attacks against our Bishops , esp. Bishop Mulvey I have created a page on facebook to show our support for him. As a former baptist minister to see the absolute hatred towards those God has appointed to shepherd us realy saddens me and reminds me way to much of the protestant mindset
if any are interested in joing here is the link

facebook.com/pages/I-support-Bishop-Mulvey/131816683565868

 

[guanophore]

St Francis is quoted as saying "Preach the Gospel at all times. Where necessary, use words."

I find this turn of events troubling. I’m I the only one who feels he is walking away and breaking with the Magisterium? That is he turning his back on so much that he has preached and encouraged us to do?

It is very troubling for me too, as an avid fan. I would have preferred that he return to SOLT, and give up all his worldly goods and status. That is a big sacrifice to ask, but maybe his soul needs it. It is not for me to say.

He has not walked away from anything, though. Nor has he “broken with the Magesterium”. In fact, I listened to his announcement again this morning, and it is very clear that he affirms the authority of the Magesterium to do whatever they feel is right. They no longer want him in public ministry as a priest under their jurisdiction, so he is yielding to their wishes.

I have several of this DVS's I love the one on the Triduum. But now I know that if I were to   watch that during Lent my thoughts are going to be "he walked away. he abandoned all that he taught from the pulpit".

I have listened to many hours of recordings and have never found any element of what he taught against the Church. I don’t see how he has walked away from his faith or his teaching at all. He has been forbidden to minister as a priest, and he will comply. That does not mean anything of what he believes and teaches has changed, or his adherance to it. It just means that he is not going to force himself where he is not wanted. It seems a lot like shaking off the dust of one’s shoes to me.

I pray for him and for all that have been touched by his message thru the years. I can only speak for me, but now I feel that the authentic credibility I felt he had, he has tossed aside as he walks away.

It is not right for him to continue preaching in the role he had if he is not supported by his superiors in that role. We may want for him to take on the new role as a cloistered contemplative, but every man is obligated to respond to what they believe God is calling them to do, even if it goes against the majority opinion. Maybe, like Paul, he feels compelled to preach,and, like Paul, says “woe to me, if I preach not the gospel”.

Authentic credibility means something to me. It actually means a lot to me infact.

I pray for Mother Angelica. I can’t help but wonder of the wounds this may cause her.

Yes. I am sure she is in prayer for him too.

 

[kitkatty]

The comment thread on that posting is filled with people just begging him not to disclose those phone messages, and how poor a decision that would be. I can only hope that he is moved by their pleading for him to take up his cross

It appears that this threat has even his diehard supporters in dismay. If he reads those posts and really listens to what the flock is imploring, he will reverse course. They are truly heartfelt pleadings. I pray that he will be filled with super-abundant grace and return to his priestly office.

Amen, that prayer is what`s needed.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

In fairness to the bishop emeritus, his post hit before some of the facts were out. Mark Shea’s take on it is quite gracious towards the bishop (but not so nice to Corapi):

One final point: a number of people ask me what I make of Bp. Gracida’s gracious remarks in response to Dog’s abandonment of his vocation as priest and his transmogrification of his flock into “fans”. Briefly, I think it is a gracious, pastoral and merciful attempt to strengthen what remains of the ruins of Dog’s priesthood while passing over in silence the matters discussed above. I also think it makes clear that Bp. Gracida intuits pretty clearly the same message I thought Dog was sending–that he is abandoning the priesthood so that he can pursue a career as a member of the Right Wing Noise Machine and get more political in his new (and exceedingly strange and creepy) persona as The Black Sheepdog:

Now, until his suspension is lifted, he is free from the Church’s prohibition on clerics participating in the political life of the nation. Given his past outspoken criticism of the current slide of our government to become more and more like the socialist governments of Europe, I think that we can expect to hear The Black Sheep Dog speak out more openly on the burning issues we will face in the election year of 2012.

Bp. Gracida is entitled to his opinion and I can’t fault his desire to keep holding out the hand of mercy to a teller of proven falsehood, a traitor to his vocation and his flock, an unsubstantiated accuser of his bishop, and a fomenter of rebellion against Holy Church. That’s what the Father of the Prodigal Son does and Bp. Gracida is a father. In addition, he wrote before we knew many of the facts mentioned above. So I, for one, commend him on his gracious and irenic attempt to bring back this straying sheepdog.​

I am curious what you think about (former) Bp. Gracida’s request that people to write to the papal nuncio about the actions of (current) Bp. Mulvey: abyssum.wordpress.com/ and the disclosure that Bp. Gracida has been advising Fr. Corapi all along–and was the one that suggested the civil lawsuit, which effectively stopped the investigation.

 

[TMC]

It was not his choice to leave active ministry, though. He was suspended indefinitely. Therefore, since he is obedient, he no longer has the authority to minister as a priest. That does not make him less of a priest, just forbids him to minister as one.

That is not correct. He was put on administrative leave from his public ministry, which is not the same as being suspended indefinitely. He remained a priest and a member of his order during that suspension. While not an every day occurence, those kinds of administrative suspensions happen from time to time because of an investigation or for other reasons. He then told his superior that he was leaving the order and leaving the priesthood. That was his own action, and it was a completely different kind of action then the administrative suspension - and it was action he took upon himself, not something he did out of obedience to authority.

 

[guanophore]

I find it very disturbing that, according to the article in the OP, Corapi blocked his order from investigating the charges against him by threatening to sue any of his employees that spoke to investigators.

I am surprised to read this response, because when I read the article, it seemed to me that he only asked for this from the one disgruntled employee that left. In fact, I read the opposite, that they did talk to others who were not accusers. I have also been wondering about the comments on the statutes of limitations. It seems strange that this would come up if the allegations were about anything recent. If he was accused of being sexually profligate and drug addicted, this is certainly not any protected news, as he has testified about it himself during many of his talks. He is not proud of it, but he has never made any effort to sugar coat it either.

Is it right for him to allow someone to defame his character? I am pondering this today. Paul writes “is it not be wronged?” when he is speaking about Christians suing one another in secular court.

He said in the beginning that he wanted swift justice and for the truth to come out. His actions seem inconsistent with his stated goal.

I think this might be true if canon law functioned like civil law, but it does not. He does not even have the right to know who his accuser is, much less respond to the charges made. He can only guess as to who made the allegation, and the contents of it. It may be related to something that happened before he even became a priest.

And he apparently expects (or at least hopes) that some Catholics will continue to follow him even as he walks away from the Church. Very troubling.

This part is confusing to me. What makes people think, just because he has accepted the injuction that he no longer minister as a priest, that he is walking away from the Church?

I seem to remember one Saint who was barred from becoming a priest, and was sent to work in the kitchen…

The faithful came to the back door so he could pray with them.

 

[qui_est_ce]

1. And finally, the graphics on his video and blog creep me out. Not that that matters, but still…

Me too.

And his last sentence, “Formerly known as Father, now known as Blacksheepdog.”

Nothing pastoral about the video or the blog.

Former fan whose faith has been very positively influenced by his talks.

 

[Abba]

I am curious what you think about (former) Bp. Gracida’s request that people to write to the papal nuncio about the actions of (current) Bp. Mulvey: abyssum.wordpress.com/ and the disclosure that Bp. Gracida has been advising Fr. Corapi all along–and was the one that suggested the civil lawsuit, which effectively stopped the investigation.

Amazing!!!

Bishop Gracida is taking this like a John Wayne and in a totally secular fashion. If ‘voices need to be raised’ to the Vatican it is to object to his interference and advising and encouraging Father Corapi wrongly.

 

[ChadS]

This part is confusing to me. What makes people think, just because he has accepted the injuction that he no longer minister as a priest, that he is walking away from the Church?

I seem to remember one Saint who was barred from becoming a priest, and was sent to work in the kitchen…

The faithful came to the back door so he could pray with them.

Perhaps he isn’t walking away from the Church, as you said, but there’s something in the tone of his messages that seems hostile. He has a whole list of times and circumstances where nobody in “the Church” lifted a finger to help him. He blames Bishops for wanting him out and in some ways conspiring against him. He talks about how he has supported himself for decades without a penny of assistance from “the Church.”

These don’t strike me as the words of a person parting amicably. Perhaps it’s a case of this all still being very fresh that there is some hostility, so I guess we’ll have to wait and see how this plays out.

ChadS

 

[tm30]

I am curious what you think about (former) Bp. Gracida’s request that people to write to the papal nuncio about the actions of (current) Bp. Mulvey: abyssum.wordpress.com/ and the disclosure that Bp. Gracida has been advising Fr. Corapi all along–and was the one that suggested the civil lawsuit, which effectively stopped the investigation.

I really don’t want to go off on a tangent, but this kind of activity behind the scenes reminds me strikingly of the unjust revolt against a certain bishop in a certain town in Bosnia Herzegovina, regarding his injunctions against certain visionaries and their priests.

 

[Jenny_Z]

I believe these are voice mails, not phone conversations. Recording phone conversations without consent is illegal, so I highly doubt he would publish that. Voice mails are fair game since, by definition, your purpose is to be recorded.

Either way, posting them is wrong. It doesn’t serve any purpose other than to defame the woman in public, which I don’t think is a very Christian thing to do, and it’s completely unnecessary. He should deal with this in private, and leave the recordings for the courtroom. He’s scandalizing a lot of people with this.

 

[tm30]

Either way, posting them is wrong. It doesn’t serve any purpose other than to defame the woman in public, which I don’t think is a very Christian thing to do, and it’s completely unnecessary. He should deal with this in private, and leave the recordings for the courtroom. He’s scandalizing a lot of people with this.

I agree. My meaning was that, legally, they are fair game.

 

[trials]

I’ve just read his latest announcement, unfortunately it feels like we are watching car crash tv or something. But there is hope.

Firstly, prayer - pray as you read this that Fr. Corapi, who has clearly been wounded in the battlefield , will be picked up and brought to the safety of the Church. Blessed Mother, St. John Vianney, Blessed Pope John Paul II, intercede for us and heal this wounded man.

Secondly, I’ve browsed through the comments following his latest announcement and if he is reading them, a good 80% of them are pleading with him to return to humility, obedience and prayer, in a very charitable way. Since he’s been responding to some of the comments in his audio updates, there is hope that he will realise this deluge of opposition to his new direction is justified.

 

[mckoski]

There is a reason I’m wondering about the church’s approval of catholics continuing to follow Fr. Corapi. When the original statement was released in March, EWTN stopped broadcasting all his programs. They said their policy was not to air anyone who had even been accused until he was proven innocent. This went for his old programs as well as anything new. I am wondering where I can go, preferably online, to find a definitive statement from a catholic church authority, someone acknowledged with the authority to speak for the pope, not just give an opinion. I have greatly admired Fr. Corapi from the beginning of his public career but just want to hear from the church a definite response.

 

[MAGDALENE27]

All we can do is pray. My heart is broken.

 

[ringil]

Father Jack didn’t claim that he did or didn’t. I think Father Jack has a point there is a lot of uncharitable and totally speculative posts in every direction on this thread. I think we should be careful to respect the clergy that post of CAF.

Two post before this one is comparing Fr. Corapi to unleased rabid devil dog. I hope they close this tread.

Well when Father Pfleger was going through his scandal- and certainly making less-than- ideal decisions, he was called all kinds of names.

I think we should be charitable to ALL priests but why, with Fr. Corapi, is there more emphasis on putting on the kiddie gloves?

Again, I think we should be gentle with all priests. I’m just pointing out the inconsistency.

 

[Marie5890]

When the original statement was released in March, EWTN stopped broadcasting all his programs. They said their policy was not to air anyone who had even been accused until he was proven innocent.

I just wanted to clarify what the policy of EWTN according to their own statement of March 23, 2011,

My reading is because he was on administrative leave w/ his preistly faculties removed.

“The fact is that Father John’s own religious community has placed him on administrative leave and his capacity to function publicly as a priest has been suspended during the investigation of the charges against him. This was officially communicated to all of the bishops of the country in a statement saying that, “…Fr. Corapi has been placed on administrative leave and has had all of his priestly faculties removed.”
In EWTN’s thirty years of existence, the Network has never knowingly aired programming featuring any priest whose priestly faculties have been suspended. The Network has always responded consistently and immediately in such situations by removing such programs from the air. We are obliged to do so in obedience to the discipline of the Church.”
onlinecatholicnetwork.com

 

[ringil]

I did not intend to suggest that such a thing was a fete accompli. I merely suggested that IF it was revealed to him in the confessional, it would be breaking the seal. Moreover, I would submit that it’s evil enough for a priest to publicly announce the scandalous addiction of another person and excoriate them in a one-way forum. In an ecclesial court, he has every right to defend himself and accuse his accuser. But not in public, and without means of rebuttal. So it doesn’t seem to me that he’s defending himself so much as he is enticing the accuser to "out’ herself and justify the accusation publicly, as well. This would be a very VERY bad precedent - especially in cases where there is a legitimate predator who doesn’t care about the outcome and simply wants to publicly humiliate his accuser.

Granted, I see the irony, in that Father Corapi could not defend himself openly against the accusations, and now the accuser is in the same position – but without seeing the process thrrough - without having BOTH sides on the record, there is no way to conclude whether the accusations were true or false. All we, as lay people, can go on, is his actions. And his actions make it more difficult to give the benefit of the doubt. I don’t believe one way or another at this point because the process has been derailed and it’s going to be left in limbo. It wouldn’t surprise me if he is completely innocent, but the public grandstanding has made the issue his priesthood, instead of whatever the truth is behind the original accusations. And that, I believe, is causing more consternation than the charges he is denying in the first place.

OK, sorry for misunderstanding. I just get a bit “perked up” when the seal of the confessional is brought up.

God Bless

 

[debraran]

Jimmy Akin has a nice list of the Corapi events:

ncregister.com/new-information-on-the-fr.-corapi-situation.html

I just don’t undertand paying an employee not to talk and having them sign something when you are a good priest and running a honest company.

 

[TMC]

I am surprised to read this response, because when I read the article, it seemed to me that he only asked for this from the one disgruntled employee that left. In fact, I read the opposite, that they did talk to others who were not accusers. I have also been wondering about the comments on the statutes of limitations. It seems strange that this would come up if the allegations were about anything recent. If he was accused of being sexually profligate and drug addicted, this is certainly not any protected news, as he has testified about it himself during many of his talks. He is not proud of it, but he has never made any effort to sugar coat it either.

Is it right for him to allow someone to defame his character? I am pondering this today. Paul writes “is it not be wronged?” when he is speaking about Christians suing one another in secular court.

I think this might be true if canon law functioned like civil law, but it does not. He does not even have the right to know who his accuser is, much less respond to the charges made. He can only guess as to who made the allegation, and the contents of it. It may be related to something that happened before he even became a priest.

This part is confusing to me. What makes people think, just because he has accepted the injuction that he no longer minister as a priest, that he is walking away from the Church?

I seem to remember one Saint who was barred from becoming a priest, and was sent to work in the kitchen…

The faithful came to the back door so he could pray with them.

You continue to state that he is no longer acting as a priest based on his acceptance of the command of his superiors. That is simply untrue. No Church authority asked or ordered him to leave the priesthood. That was his decision. His superior has said he wanted to keep him in the order, but Corapi decided to leave and pursue a lay life. Since my post that you quote, he has clarified that he is not walking away from the Church. But he is certainly walking away from the priesthood and from his vows to his order.

As to the facts I posted that you questioned, everything I said is based on statements by Corapi or by SOLT. He has sued one former employee and he has obtained non-disclosure statements from others. I don’t know what you are talking about with the statute of limitations issues - my understanding is that the allegations presented were based on alleged recent events. As to whether he knows the identity of his accuser - obviously he does because he is now bashing her character on his website.