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

[ThyKingdomCome]

I have quietly read this thread with only one comment. I have another one. It is true that while we all should strive to be saints, we shouldn’t harshly judge others who have not lived up to that standard. However, pointing out that all the saints who have faced persecution have acted differently is not necessarily the same as harshly judging them either. What else are we to do? Not look to the saints as guides to the right way to do things?

Of course, we can refuse to discuss the matter at all. But aside from that, we have to look to examples of people who might have been in a similar situation, how they handled it, and what the end result was. If we look inside the church, we don’t have a lot of examples other than the saints - at least not of the people for whom the end result was vindication. So here we are processing the information, thinking, “how should one react if they are in Fr. Corapi’s shoes, and if the truth is what he says it is?” Well, what do we do in every other difficult life situation? We look to the saints. Just because we see him coming up short (as we all probably do in at various times in our own trials), does not mean we are judging him for not being a saint. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t hope that he too, is attempting to follow the examples of the saints. And if he is going to continue to be a public figure, it certainly is reasonable to point out that the example that he is giving is NOT the one to follow for the rest of us. Otherwise, because of his celebrity, we might find hoardes of Catholics admiring and even emulating qualities that are actually not virtuous. The man has a large fan base - this is a real concern. But it is about judging his actions, (as we do in many cases as Catholics), and not making judgments about him personally.

I’m not saying some people aren’t doing that. But comparing to the saints is a natural Catholic way of making sense of a situation, not NECESSARILY unfair judgment.

Personally, I need to know if what he is doing is OK or not. The church isn’t speaking out on this matter, so I’m trying to find the answers myself. Looking back at past examples is helping me know if this is OK. If there are a lot of examples of the saints doing something similar to what he’s doing, then I will breathe a sigh of relief. If there are only examples of saints acting the opposite, then I’m going to be much less quick to be satisfied with his response to his situation. It matters to me, not because my knowledge of this will make a difference for his soul (either way I am praying for him), but because it will make a difference in how I perceive and respond to his future presence in the religious and secular world, and it will make a difference in how I explain his situation to my children.

 

[guanophore]

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 think we can change who we are, and that, by the grace of God, we are obligated to do so. That is what sanctification is all about! We are to cooperate with God’s grace in the renewing of our minds.

Rom 12:1-2
12:1 I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

I think it is a mistake, though, to assume that Corapi makes the choices he does out of fear. Whatever his status was as a soldier, he thinks of himself as a soldier, and perceives himself as being embroiled in a spiritual battle that takes place on a physical plane.

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,

Yes, this is very curious to me too. I am sure, though, that he did not arrive at this decision without consultation with his attorneys and his spiritual mentors. He came to the conclusion that it would feed into an unfair and unproductive process. We may never know the reasons behind that. I don’t have your experience with law, and even less with canon law. He is a smart guy, though, so if he came to this conclusion I think there are good reasons for it.

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 don’t think we can make this assumption, either. It seems to me that he is very wounded about having his faculties removed, despite his attempts in his message to minimize the impact upon himself. This was not his choice, and he is hurting and angry over it.

 

[guanophore]

I’m just a pit bull.

It doesn’t show in your little photo.

If you are obsessing, can you imagine what he is going through?

I think the Father has more in store for the Church, and folks, its going to be a bumpy ride.

It has always been a bumpy ride. He has been pissing people off since he got started!

I recall a story he told in one of his talks about getting thrown out of a community for “making a holy hour in the closet”. He was offended they “put Jesus in there, so I went in there to sit with him”. As I recall, it broke his heart also.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes. I think he wants to address himself to an audience outside the Church. He has been primarily “preaching to the choir” up to this point.

 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 don’t think we can assume this. I work with addicts every day, and I can assure you that legal intervention is sometimes the only way to make an impact upon them of how damaging their behavior is to themselves and others around them. If a person is out of control with chemicals, legal action is one of the most effective means to make and intervention.

I’m thinking of Pope John Paul II visiting the man who shot him in prison. No bitterness.

Yes, but note, the man was “in prison”. The legal intervention had already taken place.

It is very possible to take legal action without bitterness (though I will stipulate that some of his comments have sounded quite bitter). One can take legal action because one believes it is the most appropriate action, and do so with all meekness.

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.

Yes, I had a similar situation with an employer just last year. I had consulted an attorney and knew I had a good case, but decided it was not how God wanted me to spend my time and energy. I agreed to sign a form that I would not pursue legal action, that was five pages long! I knew they were very vulnerable, to produce such a document.

I had to pray and seek guidance about this decision, and I assume Corapi has done the same. The fact that he came to the opposite conclusion does not mean that he is not right in taking this course.

 

[guanophore]

Is he maybe suing not for money,

No, there is money involved. He paid her a tidy sum, according to his own report, to sign the non-disclosure and to depart from Santa Cruz Media. No doubt he wants his money back? There is also a claim for punitive damages, according to that link posted further up the thread.

but to clear his name?

I think that Catholics would not consider his name cleared unless and until he completed the canonical investigation and was restored to service.

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.

Yes. I wonder if he is throwing himself under the bus for the sake of all the priests who have been “thrown out with yesterday’s garbage” by means of this “flawed” procedure. He has always had a solidarity with his brother priests over this since they started coming to him with stories. He tells one of a 70 y.o. priest (I think) who is a cab driver. I think maybe he saw the handwriting on the wall for himself a long time ago. He has known he has been unappreciated by certain persons in positions of power ever since he started confronting the Truth.

 

[vz71]

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.

He resigned.

Yes, he was placed on suspension for the duration of the investigation.
But that suspension is temporary. It will be lifted once the investigation is concluded (assuming it finds in his favor).

His actions however have taken the possibility of concluding that investigation away.
His own decisions and actions have permanentely removed his priestly faculties.

 

[guanophore]

He resigned.

Yes, he was placed on suspension for the duration of the investigation.
But that suspension is temporary. It will be lifted once the investigation is concluded (assuming it finds in his favor).

I dont think we can assume this. He consulted with his attorneys, and was pursuaded tht he was not going to be restored, or if so, not because he was vindicated but "by accident’.

I just listened to a podcast tonight where it was reported that priests in the US are “almost never” restored in such circumstances. Now, I confess that I find this confusing, and that I don’t know much about canon law, but if his own canon lawyer is telling him he will not get his faculties back, then I trust he has good reasons.

His actions however have taken the possibility of concluding that investigation away.
His own decisions and actions have permanentely removed his priestly faculties.

I read that he is still waiting for the investigative sources to answer 10 legal/procedural questions posed by his attorneys, without which he has been advised not to continue with the process for his own protection. His page says he will post these at some point. It may be that they are perfectly reasonable requests? He did say that to continue would mean abdicating his civil rights. Why should this be necessary for any Catholic?

 

[Marie5890]

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.

Quoting from the article on the link to the Sacramento Bee…

“He is suing for punitive and unspecified compensatory damages.”

That means he is suing for money.

Read more: sacbee.com/2011/06/30/3737877/former-sacramento-priest-files.html#ixzz1QragAZYM

I do like one poster’s reminder of how John Paul II handled his would be assassin. He went and forgave him. He was full of charity. No bitterness. No animosity. I don’t know I could be that Christ-like. But he followed Christ to the cross and, like Christ, forgave those who caused him great harm.

I wish Fr Corapi had taken a page out of the play book that JPII used. Esp since JPII ordained him, too.

Perhaps JPII is far from Fr Corapi’s mind right now though? It’s all very sad.

 

[whm]

Perhaps JPII is far from Fr Corapi’s mind right now though? It’s all very sad.

We have no way of knowing this

 

[Marie5890]

We have no way of knowing this

Yes, that is why I deliberately chose the word “perhaps”.

 

[whm]

Yes, that is why I deliberately chose the word “perhaps”.

It still has the result of implying something negative on him.

 

[Marie5890]

It still has the result of implying something negative on him.

Not really, at least that wasn’t my intent. It was just a thought I had. I’m sorry if you took it as a negative. It wasn’t negative in my heart or mind. It was just a ponderous thought.

 

[Shiphrae]

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?

 

[trials]

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?

OK, we don’t know, but he is **personally **suing her, ignoring the fact that the Church investigation into her allegations was ongoing. If he trusted in God that the truth would out, why didn’t he wait for the Church process to be completed? However long that would mean and however flawed the process may or may not be. If you really trust in God that your name will be vindicated, you obey Church authorities. (St. Bernadette, for example).

St. Teresa of Avila says that even when wrongfully accused, the path to true humility is one of silence in the face of accusations, recalling the Gospel: “He opened not His mouth”. She says that if we trust in God in such situations, and if we need to be vindicated in a certain situation, then God will make sure that we eventually are, eg. St. Padre Pio. It’s about trusting in God rather than ourselves.

And by the way, I’m not suggesting that the above is easy - would I be able to remain silent in a similar situation? I don’t know. My human instinct would be to cry out for justice, but the better part of my soul would know that I should cry out for justice to God and not man.

 

[Maria_Aurea]

I believe that he is being scapegoated for others’ crimes and failings that were not prosecuted when those should have been addressed, prosecuted, etc. I think he probably believes so, too. I did appreciate the far more revelatory info provided by NCR than the portions of info & speculation provided elsewhere.

There’s a sequence here. And for those of you who have truly listened to him for a long period of time, the sequence is logical. This is a very independent man, a man of principle, and a man acquainted with the world. That doesn’t make him bad. It makes him a different kind of priest, but i.m.o. legitimately so. I appreciate completely, as one being thoroughly grounded in the tradition of religious orders, the comments below the article on his supposed “pride” et al. But independence is not necessarily sinful or faulty pride. I’m speaking now of his ‘apart’ lifestyle. He cannot be faulted for that. As the article and comments note, his decision to live outside of community occurred, and were approved, prior to the new SOLT Constitution. Now, as one who understands that by definition religious life is communal life, I also think that it was probably recognized by his superiors early on that the (previous) option to live apart was the best way, for this priest, to make his priesthood effective.

I don’t know about the whole ‘blacksheepdog’ thing. I don’t have a strong negative reaction to it, although I do understand why others would; I also don’t have a positive reaction to it. Again, though, picking up on his ‘persona’ through his many lectures, it is another logical development. He has somewhat presented himself, earlier on, as “rogue” or “renegade” or “singular” or “unusual” (my words, not his, and not the best words!) and not in a disobedient or dissenting way, but in an idiosyncratic way, and in a disapproving way when it comes to ignored scandal, ignored dissent, ignored lack of leadership within the Church.

I don’t think he’s being unfaithful. I think he is responding in his own way to his desire to be hyper-faithful as he understands that fidelity to all the core teachings of the Church, and, given his lack of opportunity to do that right now in the way that he has been able to do that optimally, has decided to leave. Again, judging from his personality, this is all logical, and he’s a logical guy. I think that if there’s an outcry from the faithful about this (in his support), it just may help to improve the investigative process for other priests, now & later, and perhaps that was one of his intentions in taking this action.

Again, I understand about community and religious life, but perhaps the Church might want to take a look at valid varieties of ministerial priesthood. His independence is a contra-indicator even for diocesan life. He has as much admitted that himself. (“I do not have a calling to parish ministry.”) It can also be argued that he has reached, and converted, and reverted, thousands more to Catholicism, as a lone preacher, than he ever would have in a parish or in communal religious life. As an itinerant preacher, he has done enormous good for the conversion of sinners and has done so in communion with the magisterium. There are itinerant preacher Orders (such as the Fathers of Mercy), yes, but I do think on the occasional and rare basis in which a Fr. John Corapi comes along, the Church might consider that there’s a third way other than community or diocesan lifestyle.

Unlike many others on CAF and elsewhere, I am not scandalized by his decision. I have not lost an ounce of respect for him. And I will keep him just as much in my prayers, probably more so.

I agree with you. Fr. Corapi has done a lot of good with his preaching and I do admire his honesty in being truthful in the way he preach and faithful in spreading the word of God.

As I understand, he is not turning his back from the catholic faith and he will still continue to preach the word of God. Maybe, this is what God has intended for him to do. I believe that things always happen for a reason and as catholics what we should do is to continue to pray for him that he will be able to bring more people to the catholic faith as a lay person which he decided to do and reach more people who does not have the priviledge of listening to his CD or watch his DVD to learn about God and what it meant to be a catholic and a member of the one true church that our Lord Jesus Christ founded.

I have listen to his talks through his CD’s and we even used his DVD’s on the sacraments to make our RCIA candidates understand the sacraments and I know that they helped a lot to bring these people to the full understanding of what they are receiving and what it meant to be catholic.

It is not for us to judge him but as catholics to continue to pray for him and for all our priests that they do not have to experience what Fr. Corapi had been through.

Judgement is for God alone but support and prayers should come from the members of His body to help each other.

 

[Eliza10]

Quoting from the article on the link to the Sacramento Bee…
“He is suing for punitive and unspecified compensatory damages.”…

Suing for punitive damages is not an action of a holy priest!

 

[whm]

OK, we don’t know, but he is **personally **suing her, ignoring the fact that the Church investigation into her allegations was ongoing. If he trusted in God that the truth would out, why didn’t he wait for the Church process to be completed? However long that would mean and however flawed the process may or may not be. If you really trust in God that your name will be vindicated, you obey Church authorities.

Blind trust in the fallible church processes and human church officials did not always work out that well during the abuse scandals. Fr. Corapi’s case falls under today’s version of the same fallible processes. Perhaps some times the right thing to do is stand up. I can’t make a judgment in this case. Just pointing out that it is not always black and white.

 

[whm]

Suing for punitive damages is not an action of a holy priest!

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

 

[debraran]

Maybe he wont sue her, but I thought he broke the cardinal rule about that…you don’t try it in the media. You don’t threaten to release audio tapes (that would go against HIM) especially since no one could say what was tampered with.
He said she defamed him, he called her names, other people (with or without his encouragement) said she was an addict, alcoholic, crazy, and she never uttered a word about him. He told what was in the letter, we believed him but you don’t know for sure.
When you think about it, the whole thing has been orchestrated by him. I haven’t seen such a one-sided thrashing in a while.
He might be angry, I battle with patience daily, but he gave talks on suffering, being humble, the cross, he has to listen to them and realize, knowing it and doing it are very different. It’s much harder livng it.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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

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.