M
Marie5890
Guest
Your way of articulating your concerns is very charitable indeed.
Your articulate your perception without harshness and a great deal of love and concern for his well-being.
Fr John Corapi has Announced in a Video Message that he is Leaving the Priesthood
- Status
Your articulate your perception without harshness and a great deal of love and concern for his well-being.
S
sojo
Guest
I am concerned about the loophole (I can’t think of a better word) whereby a priest can claim he is not seeking laicization, and understands that he is forever and always a priest… but then he can simply tell his followers that he is no longer to be called “father,” is withdrawing from his religious society, and therefore he is now free to preach under his regular name and/or an alias. Is that all it takes?
If he isn’t in a Society or Religious order, and he is not an official member of any diocese (is the word incardination??), then does the Church just let him go around and doing his thing forever with no formal good-bye? This is so strange. I had no idea this could be done.
The other loophole is the one his company Santa Cruz Media claims in that they are a secular company (owned by a priest and that only sells a priest’s materials) and therefore exempt from the canon law requirement to cease selling and distributing Father’s stuff. It may be following the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit of the law. As CEO of this company, doesn’t Father feel a bit uncomfortable about this?
One could also say that holding his employees to their gag agreements thus derailing the Church’s investigative process is also a sort of loophole.
I wish we had more direction from the Church authority on all this.
However, it appears the interest in Fr. Corapi has significantly died down, and with the exception of his loyal following (I just hate them being called fans), most people have become bored with the whole deal.
For the record, I never did get too involved with Father’s ministry - I watched the free stuff on EWTN but when I went to buy some of his materials, I found them too expensive and had to pass - just couldn’t afford them.
If he isn’t in a Society or Religious order, and he is not an official member of any diocese (is the word incardination??), then does the Church just let him go around and doing his thing forever with no formal good-bye? This is so strange. I had no idea this could be done.
The other loophole is the one his company Santa Cruz Media claims in that they are a secular company (owned by a priest and that only sells a priest’s materials) and therefore exempt from the canon law requirement to cease selling and distributing Father’s stuff. It may be following the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit of the law. As CEO of this company, doesn’t Father feel a bit uncomfortable about this?
One could also say that holding his employees to their gag agreements thus derailing the Church’s investigative process is also a sort of loophole.
I wish we had more direction from the Church authority on all this.
However, it appears the interest in Fr. Corapi has significantly died down, and with the exception of his loyal following (I just hate them being called fans), most people have become bored with the whole deal.
For the record, I never did get too involved with Father’s ministry - I watched the free stuff on EWTN but when I went to buy some of his materials, I found them too expensive and had to pass - just couldn’t afford them.
C
CreedalCatholic
Guest
I think comparing saints can lead to an error of expecting a result or outcome due to a sort of one-size-fits-all and how-to-method of sainthood (of doing such and such thing as a saint did when he or she was faced with the same temptations.) That is, each saint is unique and has his or her disposition to grace (Saint Theresa of Liseaux dealt with nuns banging rosaries in prayer, Saint Theresa of Avila dealt with lustful soap-opera publications, St. Francis of Assisi dealt with a worldy obsession, St. Augustine had been uner the influences of a heretical movement of manicheeists, Saint Peter was often disposed to anger and was persuaded to the accomodation of old Jewish traditions being necessary for baptism, and Saint Paul was a very active Pharisee.)
Who would even think of the possible outcome of sainthood for Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the worst types of people in history if those people had been taken full faith, hope, and trust in God through humility (in the Socratic sense of “knowing one’s self.”) But, the comparison of saints wouldn’t make sense to people who do not have faith (a certain necessary disposition to grace) in an all loving God (which I’m not saying a saints’ life and example doesn’t make present the possibility of sainthood through God’s fidelity to our fidelity with him.) A saints’ life is surely a sign hope for all (especially Father) and would at least be the example and expression of the saint having put his or her full faith, love, and trust in God (and thus through the participation of grace through and by His Church.)
As for Father’s brandishing, I re-call he had mentioned (on the subject of guardian angels) an upset parishoner (amid the scandal’s) who came up to his residence and was going to injure Father (the parishoner was brandishing a weapon.) So, he was thankful for his guardian angel (please do not take this to mean guardian angels are trying to encrouage people to carry weapons) to have at least the means to warn off the trespasser and safeguard his own life.
In regard to giving up his priesthood, the Bride and Sacramental organism (by Christ’s institution with and through and by Peter and all the Apostle’s and the Apostolic legacy of bishops) can only take one’s priesthood away upon the merit the Sacrament was invalid (it didn’t happen.) And even if someone were to say such and such person’s Sacrament of Holy Order’s ought to be taken away, my only objection is no one can take away Baptism nor any other Sacrament for that matter. However, the Sacrament can only be looked at from the perspective of validity (i.e. if it did or didn’t happen.) Remember, the Church does not have arbitrary authority to say how she feels about taking away a Sacrament. Because, her obedience is to Christ and to God and not to man. The Church, on the other hand, can judge the merit of reception of the Sacrament and what obediences are required to the extent and state of one’s soul receiving those Sacraments. So, in Father’s case, he must abide with the Church’s authority and follow her remedy in the given situation.
When looking at someone who is paranoid, the devil works by paranoia and fear (whether the fear is reasonable or not.) And the devil will work between (hence the devil is an angel; a messenger, though fallen) Church authority, Father, and all people involved. Because, the devil works at convincing as he did in the Garden when he said, “You shall not die!”
God Bless
C
CreedalCatholic
Guest
Actually, there is some truth to no longer being called Father and continuing to remain in the Sacrament of Holy Order’s. For instance, suppose someone is in mortal sin. The state of mortal sin does not necessarily make him or her no longer a baptized Catholic. Though he or she cannot receive Communion, the allowance of baptism gives the person both the merit and grace of Christ for which hope is always there for his or her return (the paternal love and care of the Father towards the prodigal son.) Hence, Baptism is not taken away from the person. However, a certain disposition to the grace of baptism can lose the merits of Christ’s redemptive suffering through mortal sin (look at Samson when he exposed how he could lose his strength by the lust he had towards a woman.) So, Father Corapi may reasonably (because of the Church’s announcement of putting him on administrative and ministerial leave) be called John Corapi.
But, what doesn’t make sense is following the Church on one hand and denying the Church on the other hand. Except by one thing, he will observe the Sacramental authority of the Church (dropping the public exhibition of Father by announcement) and not the authority in regard to his Apostolate because there hasn’t been founded any credible accusation (his religious superiors have even stated there hasn’t been found the necessary credible evidence to disclose the accuser and give Father Corapi the abilty to testify to his defense.) Though, I don’t think he is being really prudent by rejecting obedience in regard to his Apostolate; however, he is abiding by authority and dropping the public announcement of his title as Father and continuing to speak to a broader audience (thus not necessarily the baptized.) In other words, he is trying to carry on his own pursuance of preaching without declaring the ministry under the title of Father.
R
Roy5
Guest
Yes, I know. This is a time for charity. But I hope I can say this.
Code:
Fr. Corapi had a great gift for public speaking. He appeared to be a man well-versed, as well as deeply committed to Christ and the church.
At the same time, I was troubled by what came across - at least to me - as a very judgmental attitude. He seemed to delight in giving 'hell fire' type lectures filled with direct or implicit threats, often sharply critical of other segments and sentiments within the church. I found very little compassion in his messages. 'My way or the highway' is a slogan that he seemed to echo in his talks. He professed humility, but I wondered....
What troubled me even more was the way his attitude seemed to permeate those who were listeners. They appeared to cheer on his attack mode. I was deeply saddened by it. I believe he misused his enormous talent.
But he will be in my prayers, as we all fall short.
G
guanophore
Guest
We don’t know how many death threats he has received. He travels in very dangerous areas at times. We don’t need to tolerate and forgive evil.
**
I am curious about this. It seems that, though he is very hurt about the bishops actions, he has reinforced his authority as bishop, and his freedom to act as he has. He has accepted the sentence (suspension without just cause) and has decided not to be adversarial with the bishop. As he put it “they want me gone, I shall be gone”. This seems to me like he is reconciling himself that he is not wanted where he is. I do agree with you also about the bishop having care for the larger community. He cannot spend all of his waking hours dealing with the flap caused by this outspoken priest. No doubt it will lighten his load immensely for Corapi to be elsewhere!
- His reaction to the Bishop seems to lack humility. The Bishop has not only Fr. Corapi to worry about, but a larger Catholic community to protect from scandal.**
leonie:
Did something happen that made you think this occurred?
SOLT is not an “order”.
Yes, he needs our prayers and support, and lots of grace and healing.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, this is an excellent meditation for us all.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, it is similar.
Society of Apostolic Life
There was a thread on this here a while back.
In their ignorance, many have criticized Corapi for not keeping “vows” he never made!
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
New development:
Former Sacramento priest files suit against his accuser
Read more: sacbee.com/2011/06/30/3737877/former-sacramento-priest-files.html#ixzz1Qp1ORzDg
Former Sacramento priest files suit against his accuser
Read more: sacbee.com/2011/06/30/3737877/former-sacramento-priest-files.html#ixzz1Qp1ORzDg
G
guanophore
Guest
For a member of the Church to function as a priest, two things are needed. One is valid Holy Orders. Corapi received his ordination from JPII.
He also needs faculties, which is the permission to exercise ministry under a given jurisdiction. When he joined SOLT, he fell under the jurisdiction of the home residence of the Society, which is under the Bishop of the diocese in which the house is located. The Bishop ordered that his faculties be suspended, and SOLT complied. Therefore, he no longer has permission to function as a priest. It does not make him less of a priest, as his Holy Orders are still valid, but he cannot put himself forth to the public as such, and does not have permission to minister any sacraments.
I too am puzzled why the websites referring to him as Father, with the materials for sale are still functioning. Maybe there is some sort of formal process that has not been completed yet? His Society does not want to accept resignation, that is clear.
Is he allowed to have his faculties returned by without this issue being settled? I am not sure. I know that many accused priests have been moved and continued working as priests.
Any Catholic can speak in public as a layperson. One need not seek any special permission of one’s bishop or pastor to do this. One might seek support, but it is not required. By virtue of our baptism, we are all called to preach the gospel. He is automatically a member of the diocese in which he resides.
What do you mean by “loophole”? What is he getting around?
It is strange. I realize that we here in America have a very concrete idea about priests and how they should function. I am sure there are many other “unusual” cases like this one, where itinerant preachers go from one area to another.
This is very curious to me too. I recently visited the site, and there is a message that the materials may not be available much longer. I wonder if this is being worked on by his lawyers too? A priest is still a citizen, and if he does something like own a business, or file a copyright that is not done in his official capacity of representing the Church, is it not still allowed?
It is a very interesting course of action. Presumably, there are employees that would defend his innocence, and these are silenced too? Is this part of trying to make a point that the prosess is not fair?
I am not sure they have any more experience with this unusual situation either!
I don’t like that term either. It is just to secular for my taste. I do consider myself a “supporter”, just like I am a “supporter” of the CAF apostolate. But for me, it has to do with the ministry in both cases.
This was my experience also.
M
mistfall
Guest
Wow. After this post and the one it was quoting, I had to duck for cover froml the stones being cast.
Sounds like the bottom line, gentlemen, is that you accuse the man of Not Being a Saint. In fact of being… (the faint of heart may want to sit down )… a SINNER!
I suspect Father (Mister?) Corapi would be the first one to answer that charge with a “guilty” plea.
Are we all emulating the humility of the Saints so perfectly that we are entitled to shake our heads in righteous horror at someone’s (perceived) failure to behave as humbly as (we believe) he ought to? When we’re unjustly (in our eyes) accused at work, we never fume at the boss? Never feel unappreciated and ill-used? Never speak up in our own defense, because that isn’t what St. So-and-So would do? Honestly?
Have we been so immune to the lures of vanity that we’ve never covered a gray hair, bought an article of clothing that was finer than we needed, or basked a bit in the spotlight when we had it turned on us?
Sure, we’re not under vows and Fr. Corapi was. But so what? As far as I know, there’s not some special category of sins that are forbidden to clergy but that we laypeople get a pass on.
Maybe instead of primly pursing our lips and “tsk, tsk, tsk”-ing , we could consider it an opportunity to examine our own consciences.
Maybe the next time at work that I’m accused of something, I should keep my mouth shut, and meekly accept whatever discipline my boss accords me, just as Padre Pio would have done. Maybe the next time I’m tempted to reach for the curling iron or the mascara while dressing for a presentation, I should ask myself if a saint would care what people thought of her appearance.
Don’t we have enough sins of our own to confess, that we need to confess Father Corapi’s?
S
Shiphrae
Guest
People who know better than Fr. Corapi about how he should deal with being treated as he has been (a bishop has suspended him from his priestly ministry) would do well to listen to his side of the story before making comments.
And YES…there are bishops who are not working IN UNION with the Pope. These bishops are not part of the Magisterium. What do you call the bishops who voted against the encyclical of Pope Paul VI? In the Winnipeg agreement of 1968, 98% of the Canadian bishops voted against Humanae Vitae. In the US it was not much better many bishops were advising the lay people to act “according to your own consciences”. So we NEED priests such as Fr. Corapi to work at weeding
out such ugly stuff. If he can do it better as a lay person, then maybe it is God’s will.
And YES…there are bishops who are not working IN UNION with the Pope. These bishops are not part of the Magisterium. What do you call the bishops who voted against the encyclical of Pope Paul VI? In the Winnipeg agreement of 1968, 98% of the Canadian bishops voted against Humanae Vitae. In the US it was not much better many bishops were advising the lay people to act “according to your own consciences”. So we NEED priests such as Fr. Corapi to work at weeding
out such ugly stuff. If he can do it better as a lay person, then maybe it is God’s will.
S
Shoshana
Guest
Thank you…I have said this myself on this thread also (not so well though:blush
…how many times have I heard on Catholic Radio that birth control is intrisically evil? And yet we have this?I truly believe Fr Corapi had a battle on his hands
PS When I went to Buffalo, i was told by a reliable staff of Corapi, that he had had 5 death threats at this conference alone…wow…makes one think that there is such evil out there.
J
JaMc
Guest
The sad part about this whole thing is, Fr. Corapi, in his televised commentaries, realized that Satan’s plan of attack against the Church is to attack the Priesthood, since, without the Priesthood, there are no sacraments. Now he is “doing his part” in the execution of this plan by abandoning the Priesthood himself.
I pray his eyes are opened, that he recognizes the role he is playing in this diabolical attack upon the Church, and reconsiders his decision. Priests we need. We have enough “black sheep dogs.”
I pray his eyes are opened, that he recognizes the role he is playing in this diabolical attack upon the Church, and reconsiders his decision. Priests we need. We have enough “black sheep dogs.”
D
debraran
Guest
Raymond Arroyo was saying they all get threats and things written about them that aren’t nice, but Father didn’t say anything different than Mother Angelica or Fr. Groechel, or any of the people on EWTN. They traveled some too, maybe it was in part because of his delivery or maybe it was his overall persona, the way he lived. Many holy men and women have lived in bad areas, had me cringe at what they did or had to listen to all night, but they were left alone. You can’t change who you are, but it’s not the message, many preach the same words, quite firmly, but aren’t afraid.
I also wondered why he didn’t lift the contract off the employees that would have backed up his statements about the “bad” employee. They can talk anonymously on sites, but not to his superiors. They said, our hands are tied without them. I know, being married to a detective and having lawyers in the family for 25 years, makes me think about things differently than most, but the bottom line was what he is doing now is more important to him than the title “Father” and he has the last word. May his next chapter be worth it.
I also wondered why he didn’t lift the contract off the employees that would have backed up his statements about the “bad” employee. They can talk anonymously on sites, but not to his superiors. They said, our hands are tied without them. I know, being married to a detective and having lawyers in the family for 25 years, makes me think about things differently than most, but the bottom line was what he is doing now is more important to him than the title “Father” and he has the last word. May his next chapter be worth it.
C
CatholicFireman
Guest
From the article:
Now who’s only looking for money? (And I know he is not involved in the lawsuit…)
Already guilty until innocent I see. Oh yeah, Mr. Clohessy’s true colors are showing. A real “champion for justice”.
Now who’s only looking for money? (And I know he is not involved in the lawsuit…)
S
sojo
Guest
Thank you for this update. But oh no, I really have to find the strength to stop obsessing on all of this. I’m just a pit bull (oh yuck, no pun intended) when it comes to a mystery, and this whole affair has so many mysteries.
I think the Father has more in store for the Church, and folks, its going to be a bumpy ride.
T
trials
Guest
New post up now on www.blacksheepdog.us , a reflection on freedom given that we are approaching July 4th, extract below
Although the above is a religious section, most of the post appears to be looking at freedom in a broader sense. Perhaps this is what he meant when he said he would be looking at broader issues.
Personal opinion - and I know I should maybe give him the benefit of the doubt, but no, I still feel he has chosen the wrong path, and suing the accuser - no, it’s not charitable. I’m thinking of Pope John Paul II visiting the man who shot him in prison. No bitterness. I was wronged before in a work situation when I was pregnant, I could have claimed huge damages, I didn’t in the end because even though the right and wrong of the situation was crystal clear, the path of suing them just didn’t sit well with my faith. Again, not applicable to every circumstance I know, but simply my personal opinion.
(Bold mine - not one to mince his words as always)
Although the above is a religious section, most of the post appears to be looking at freedom in a broader sense. Perhaps this is what he meant when he said he would be looking at broader issues.
Personal opinion - and I know I should maybe give him the benefit of the doubt, but no, I still feel he has chosen the wrong path, and suing the accuser - no, it’s not charitable. I’m thinking of Pope John Paul II visiting the man who shot him in prison. No bitterness. I was wronged before in a work situation when I was pregnant, I could have claimed huge damages, I didn’t in the end because even though the right and wrong of the situation was crystal clear, the path of suing them just didn’t sit well with my faith. Again, not applicable to every circumstance I know, but simply my personal opinion.
L
luvmykids
Guest
Is he maybe suing not for money, but to clear his name? And is he trying to clear his name, not for himself, but for the salvation of souls and the greater good? If he wasn’t such a “celebrity” priest, maybe he would not feel so strongly about clearing his name. There is more at stake here than just his good name.
G
guanophore
Guest
I have heard him say this too, many times.
What confuses me, however, is where the idea comes from that he is “abandoning the priesthood”. His priestly facutlies have been removed from him against his wil, since Ash Wed. What he has done is accepted this fate. He is pursuaded that they will not be restored to him, and is trying to move forward with what God has called him to do. He is not permitted to function as a priest. This was not his choice.
- Status