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

[surfinpure]

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.

As Jimmy Akin put it back in March, to wish for the innocence of the accused means to wish for the guilt or sickness (if she is not in her right mind) of the accuser. And there can be no good in wishing either for grave moral evil (if she is lying) or physical evil (if she is psychologically disturbed). Therefore, the only things we might hope and pray for are God’s truth, justice, and mercy.

 

[catharina]

as jimmy akin put it back in march, to wish for the innocence of the accused means to wish for the guilt or sickness (if she is not in her right mind) of the accuser. And there can be no good in wishing either for grave moral evil (if she is lying) or physical evil (if she is psychologically disturbed). Therefore, the only things we might hope and pray for are god’s truth, justice, and mercy.

Amen to that.

 

[luvmykids]

As Jimmy Akin put it back in March, to wish for the innocence of the accused means to wish for the guilt or sickness (if she is not in her right mind) of the accuser. And there can be no good in wishing either for grave moral evil (if she is lying) or physical evil (if she is psychologically disturbed). Therefore, the only things we might hope and pray for are God’s truth, justice, and mercy.

I don’t wish for the guilt of the accuser, nor do I wish for the guilt of Father Corapi. I think the whole thing is sad.

 

[debraran]

Sad it is, but there is a lot of good things out there, lots of holy men and women doing great things everyday…I got another newsletter today from an active order, the other day from a cloistered one, so many vocations, who is feeding the poor, praying for us, helping young women and babies…maybe time to leave the drama and pending autobiographies and look for other jewels we have.I know I will for now, I need too.

 

[timmo]

Sad it is, but there is a lot of good things out there, lots of holy men and women doing great things everyday…I got another newsletter today from an active order, the other day from a cloistered one, so many vocations, who is feeding the poor, praying for us, helping young women and babies…maybe time to leave the drama and pending autobiographies and look for other jewels we have.I know I will for now, I need too

.

If your best jewels can be removed by anyone who decides to just make an allegation - then you’re unlikely to have much of value left in your jewel box.

 

[debraran]

I just don’t believe that would happen and if it did, if they were innocent, they would stand tall and stay.
I have watched many priests and nuns and brothers over the years, known some personally, and like most, wont be touched by scandal. They live lives where it would be hard to do that, but I know they wouldn’t run away or make a website for “fans”, they are inspirations, far from perfect, but inspirations.

You can’t live worried about that, you guard yourself, you pray and take it one day at at time.

When some let awful people stay and stay and stay, the pendulum swung too far in one direction and will even out. You don’t know what was mentioned in the letter, no one does, but I trust they were trying to avoid scandal again, whether you agree with how or not.

I just like bookmarking good sites and looking at them daily and being more involved with my church, it balances things.

 

[John2007]

I’m on the outside looking in as an Eastern Orthodox, however, both sides of this issue seem a bit surreal to me.

On one side a Priest claims there is no justice within the Church because a sticky matter isn’t resolved in three months…really, has he looked at how quickly the legal system works in this country? I was one of many physicians involved in a case of malpractice against an E.R. Doctor. I thought the case was straight foreword and should have been quickly settled out of court in favor of the family of the deceased. It took ten years!

On the other side many seem to imply Catholic Church is derelict in protecting the rights of their Priests, Really, is this the same church that was so recently guilty of over protecting the rights of the Priests?

Running afoul of the world in persuit of righteousness is a Christian hazard.

“Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven.”

A servant in Christ,
John.

 

[guanophore]

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?

If he is innocent of the charges, and she is just making good on her threat to 'ruin" him and using this as a method of extortion, then yes, some intervention needs to take place.

One has to wonder where HER pastor is, and what kind of spiritual assistance can be afforded to a person in such a state of darkness.

 

[catharina]

If he is innocent of the charges, and she is just making good on her threat to 'ruin" him and using this as a method of extortion, then yes, some intervention needs to take place.

One has to wonder where HER pastor is, and what kind of spiritual assistance can be afforded to a person in such a state of darkness.

One poster calling the woman an extortionist and another poster stating that the woman abides in a state of darkness - that seems to me to be beyond the pale (meaning quite out of line). Simply, we do not have the available facts to make such judgments. IMO.

 

[guanophore]

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?

I think that has been made clear. The procedures are flawed, and the truth cannot, and does not come out. He has repeatedly witnessed miscarriages of justice toward many of his “brother priests” as he calls them. It is not a lack of trust in God, but a lack of trust in the procedures (which are man made, and man operated).

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).

What disobedience has been done?

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.

Yes, I agree. It may be years before the procedures are corrected. If he is innocent, and the officials can realize that their procedures are causing the loss of innocent, needed, gifted priests, then they might be motivated to change them. Is there any reason he cannot wait until the reasonable questions posed by his attorneys have been answered?

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.

Let us pray that he continues to do so with all diligence.

 

[guanophore]

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

I dont’ think we can assume this. For all we know, he is only asking for $1, but he has to ask for something so the court will hear the case.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I am praying he will do this too. He has often said that God made him a preacher because he needed to hear himself preaching to stay on track. Now would be a dandy time to go back and be blessed by the many great messages that he has given to the Church on these matters.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, I have been struggling with that one also. Since we don’t have all the information, it is difficult to determine. Paul was writing to a community that should have been functioning to solve it’s own problems, just like we have now. The process is reportedly flawed, so he is not cooperating with it.

1 Cor 6:1-8
When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life! 4 If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?

7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren.

The real tragedy here is that the “saints” to which the aggrieved are to go for justice apparently are not in a position to give any. If the situation is so flawed that the accused cannot know the identity and nature of the accusation, it would seem difficulty to prepare a defense for oneself.

Can it be that there are no men among us wise enough to decide? Can it be that the process is so flawed that even a wise man cannot use it?

Clearly Corapi is suffering wrong. Without all the information, we cannot know that his decision to use civil avenues may not be the most expedient and ultimately helpful to his accuser, if indeed the allegations are untrue.

 

[surfinpure]

Clearly Corapi is suffering wrong. Without all the information, we cannot know that his decision to use civil avenues may not be the most expedient and ultimately helpful to his accuser, if indeed the allegations are untrue.

Regrettably, that is not clear to me at all. Clearly he is suffering. But which party is the one on suffering *wrong *is more a question in my mind now than it was in the beginning. Many of us, I believe, would have found it much easier to presume his innocence (though, indeed, we ought to) if he had not chosen to try this case in the court of public opinion.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think he made some remarks about his accuser that would have been better left unsaid. What did he say about bishops?

I listened to one of his messages that urged the faithful to obey and follow the Bishops.

Some bishops are corrupt in faith and practice. Why should someone not speak out about it?

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,

I am mystified by this statement. How has anyone chosen Corapie “over obedience to the Church”? Where and when has anyone been disobedient 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).

I agree, none of us should encourage or stand idly by in such a case. I guess I am missing it though. Where is the schism? In schism, there are legitimate authorities on both sides that separate over doctrine or practice. Corapi is not in a position of authority, so I don’t see how he can create a schism.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Other persons present at the work site who were physically assaulted by her reported that she promised to ruin him and bring him “down”. She apparently absconded with the website that he got to go with his autobiography, and is now selling it on ebay for $10,000.

Yes, it is a matter of fact, but how much $? Perhaps he just wants to get back what he paid her in the severance agreement, during which she signed the non-disclosure agreement?

He has plenty of money, by all accounts, and does not need hers - if indeed she has any!

Asking for a financial judgement is required in order to file the suit. If she never pays a penny, and least he can bring the matter to justice.

 

[Maria_Aurea]

Is he allowed to do what? Leave the priesthood? Yeah. His “fans” on Facebook are going crazy, btw. There are people calling the bishops of the Church “wolves” that Father must protest us from and saying that they will follow him out of the Church if it comes to that. This is the most disturbing part of it all for me. I wish he would make a statement to those people on his Facebook page.

I have just finished listening to Fr. Corapi’s DVD on You Tube and the way I interpret it is that he never and will never leave tha catholic church. He also acknowledge the fact that once ordained, you will remain ordained. What he is saying is that he is leaving the public ministry ie: saying mass and performing the sacraments.

God called him to be a preacher which on his own admission is what he has been doing mostly in the past 20 years of his ordination and this is what he chose to continue doing which he will never be able to do if he lives in the community. I do believe that God works in mysterious ways and maybe Fr. Corapi’s work is not yet finished in evangelising people about the catholic faith. With what he did, he will be able able to do exactly just that and at the same time, he will not disobeying the church because now he is just like anyone of us, a member of the body of Christ who has the responsibility of helping to bring the sheeps under one fold and under one shepherd.

As members of that one body, let us continue to pray for him and for one another especially our priests that we continue to have unity in the church under the guidance of the pope and with Jesus leading all all of us.

May God Bless each and everyone of us.

 

[surfinpure]

I think he made some remarks about his accuser that would have been better left unsaid. What did he say about bishops?

I’m referring here to the various remarks, such as, “Apparently the bishops have the power to act as they see fit” and, “I didn’t start this process; the Bishop of Corpus Christi threatened to calumniate me (paraphrasing) in a letter to other bishops if my superior didn’t start the investigation, against his better judgment.” And then, “There are those in the Church who want me gone” and “I was thrown out like yesterday’s garbage.” And of course there’s yesterday’s vague admonition to beware of “wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

Now, does all of this explicitly state that we ought not to trust our bishops? No. Does it lend itself to that inference? I’m afraid it does.

Some bishops are corrupt in faith and practice. Why should someone not speak out about it?

In his book, The Way, St. Josemaria Escriva admonishes us never to speak ill of a priest, even if what we know is true, because it will cause scandal. If this is true of priests, how much more of bishops?

Given what you might call a cultural “crisis of rebellion” and widespread distrust of authority, this could be a particularly bad time to lead the faithful to doubt the leadership of the Church. Should he speak out against corruption? Absolutely. But to the authorities who are in a position to do something about it, not to the people, who are easily swayed against authority.

I am mystified by this statement. How has anyone chosen Corapie “over obedience to the Church”? Where and when has anyone been disobedient to the Church?

I don’t claim that he has been disobedient, and I hope for everyone’s sake he has not. What I refer to is the extremism found among so many of his “fans” on facebook and his BSD website. These are some of the sentiments I can recall, and though I paraphrase, I do not exaggerate here:

“I’m not putting another dollar into a collection plate until the Church rectifies this situation.”

“This makes me ashamed to call myself Catholic.”

“I hope that bishop knows he’ll be accountable in judgment for what he’s done.”

"Satan is at work in these so-called ‘bishops.’ "

“I’m going to have to re-think being a Catholic after this.”

“Father Corapi, we will follow you wherever you go. We know that YOU are truly God’s shepherd and that the Holy Spirit is leading you.”

…Do all of these sentiments amount to formal schism? No, you’re right, and thanks be to God for that. Nonetheless, there is a very powerful undercurrent of rebellion that ties them together. If you haven’t already, to get an idea of what I’m talking about, read the comments after his first couple of announcements on his facebook page. They’re positively nauseating. I imagine that’s what prompted him to remind everyone to “follow the bishops.” I only wish he were giving the appearance of doing as he says.

 

[surfinpure]

Other persons present at the work site who were physically assaulted by her reported that she promised to ruin him and bring him “down”. She apparently absconded with the website that he got to go with his autobiography, and is now selling it on ebay for $10,000.

Perhaps I missed that part of the thread. I’ll have to go back and search. I do, however, have a problem with the statement Bobbi Ruffato made back in March, and I did at the time, as well: it was highly unprofessional and gave more detail than anyone not directly involved in the case needed to hear. I should think Father’s attorney would have discouraged her from making such a mud-slinging statement.

Asking for a financial judgement is required in order to file the suit. If she never pays a penny, and least he can bring the matter to justice.

Well, perhaps. But perhaps justice will not be served at all; as many have pointed out, our civil legal system leaves much to be desired, as well. But now that Pandora’s Box has been opened by the suit, let us pray that God uses it for His good, and that true justice results.

 

[guanophore]

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

Wolves can come at any level. We have even had some in the Papacy in the past. It is not the office of Bishop that sanctifies the person in it.

But there are other leaders in the church that behave wolfishly also. that whole crew that brought Obama to Notre Dame for an honorary doctoral degree come to mind. People pushing the ordination of women, people pushing the marriage of same sex couples, people defending abortion etc, etc. Catholic politicians that publicly defy the faith.

Acts 20:28-31
28 Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Paul is addressing the priests in this passage.

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

No. The Church is infallible and inviolable. Only the sheep get eaten.

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!

Wolves among the sheep scatter the flock, and endanger souls (as Paul states above). No amount of wolves can destroy His Holy Bride, but a lot of lives have been damaged by the departure from the Truth.

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.

The faithful need to be educated so that wolves can be recognized and avoided. They are real, and they are dangerous.