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

[NeedImprovement]

How I love that first letter of St. Paul to Timothy .

There is a part of it which sometimes reminds me of Father Corapi’s conversion story - of how he became a multi-millionaire selling real estate to movie stars and rock stars … how he lost it all on cocaine … how he ended up a homeless person sleeping on park benches and being despised and spit upon …

Timothy 1:15-16 [NAB]

This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. Of these I am the foremost.

But for that reason I was mercifully treated, so that in me, as the foremost, Christ Jesus might display all his patience as an example for those who would come to believe in him for everlasting life.

 

[NeedImprovement]

As pointed out on the thread several times, all the information isn’t in (and it may never be in) . A potential misconception appears to have been suggested that due course of Canon law is being followed in Father Corapi’s case .If anything, it is the opposite which has been expressed in his statement on the video. It’s easier to see in the written transcripts. They’re picked up at the 58th second and brought as far as 6:22 so that they continue in the transcripts rendered in post # 40
Transcripts rendered from video statement linked in OP; John Corapi: Special Announcement. June 17:

0:58: “ So I have to tell you about a major change in my life : I am not going to be involved in public ministry as a priest any longer. There are certain persons in authority in the Church that want me gone – and so – I shall be gone .

I have been guilty of many things in the course of my life and could easily and justifiably be considered unfit to engage in public ministry as a priest. The present complaint that you’ve heard about is, as far as I know, from the one person that I can honestly say, I did more to help and support than any human being in my entire life. Well I forgive her and I hope only good things for her. I’m not going to get into an argument or back and forth with the Church or anyone else over this matter.

Suffice it to say that I love the Catholic Church and I do accept what has transpired. Now unfortunately the process used is inherently and fatally flawed . but the bishops have the power apparently to operate any way they see fit. I cannot give a lengthy explanation of what has transpired , but I can tell you that the most likely outcome is that they leave me suspended indefinitely and hope I just fade away. They can’t prove I’m guilty of the things alleged, because I’m not ! And they can’t prove I’m innocent because that is simply illogical and impossible. All civilized societies know that ; certain leaders in the Catholic Church, apparently do not .

Well I accept moving on, but I’m not ready to be altogether extinguished just yet . In the final analysis , I have only one of two viable choices:

1. I can quietly lie down and die or
2. I can go on in ways I am able to go on.

I didn’t start this process . the bishop of Corpus Christi Texas ordered my Superiors against their will and better judgment to do it . He in fact threatened to release a reprehensible and libelous letter to all of the bishops, if they did not suspend me.
He has a perfect right to do so, and I defend that right . Bishops aren’t bound by civil laws and procedures in internal Church matters – I agree with that, and I would defend to the death the Church’s right to proceed as they see fit. He is the Bishop, and he has the right to govern as he sees fit. It isn’t an easy task; many forces besiege him, including pressure from other bishops.

My canon lawyer and my civil lawyers have concluded that I cannot receive a fair and just hearing under the Church’s present process : The Church will undoubtedly conclude that I am not cooperating with the process because I refuse to give up all my civil and human rights, in order to hold harmless anyone who chooses to say defamatory and actionable things against me, with no downside to them .

The case may be on ‘hold’ indefinitely – but my life cannot be.” (continued…)

 

[NeedImprovement]

Transcripts rendered from video statement linked in OP; John Corapi: Special Announcement. June 17:

“Some of the things that might surprise you about the way some of the bishops treat accused priests are as follows:

Number one, the identity of the accuser is not revealed. Oh, you can guess, but you don’t actually know. Nor are the exact allegations made known to you.

Hence you have an interesting situation of having to respond to an unknown accuser, making unknown accusations … unknown to the accused and his counsel, that is .

Secondly, the persons chosen to investigate the allegations normally have no qualification to do so. They certainly didn’t graduate from the FBI academy, nor do they have any other background to qualify them to interrogate or otherwise interview witnesses.

Third, there are no set rules of evidence , or norms of procedure .

Fourth, you are, for all practical purposes, assumed you are guilty unless you can prove that you are innocent. Now that one is truly baffling . No civilized society operates that way. If you are accused of something you are considered innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case and in most of the cases within the Church , the accused and his counsel have no right to obtain and review any of the evidence against him. The accused and his counsel are not provided the names of witnesses, nor are they permitted to cross-examine them. There is a general unwillingness or outright refusal by certain of the bishops to abide by applicable statutes of limitations – both in Canon law and in civil law. There are good reasons for these statutes : Time has a way of clouding memories and distorting perceptions. And by the way, Canon law does not dictate this . They have chosen to selectively ignore or violate both canon law and civil law . They do this as they deem appropriate or expeditious. Once again, they apparently do have the discretionary power to do that. And if that’s the way it is, I just have to accept that as reality. The bottom line …” 6:22…

Perhaps after reading the above, someone could define “stay” and “fight” for us on this thread as in Fr. Corapi should “stay” and “fight” ? He has no weapons, he has no voice, he has no protection from the existing law …and he’s saying they could keep it that way until he dies. We need to be able to read between the lines and understand that as unfair as Father Corapi says his predicament is, he still doesn’t want to disobey his bishop. He is obedient.

 

[jmcrae]

Question: So Fr. Corapi’s superior told him to return to the SOLT mother house, under obedience, as opposed to merely asking or inviting Fr. Corapi to return to the mother house?

I’m not completely clear on whether it was just a suggestion, or whether it was a command - nevertheless, if one is under obedience, suggestions are just as good as commands, are they not?

Why should they have to strong-arm him into submission? Why can’t he just freely do what they want him to do? It seems to make sense - get out of the limelight, and focus on the work at hand, until it becomes possible to resolve the situation.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

His Superior told him to return to the mother house and take up the life of the house. He would have continued to act as a priest, but only within the house - not as a public figure. Instead, he is launching his new “Black Sheep Dog” web site and speaking tours.

Actually, if he obeys his superior, he will continue in his priesthood, but not his TV ministry or his web site.

If the SOLT had been inviting him since it’s constitution changed in 1994, I don’t think there is any reason to believe that he would not have continued with public preaching. However, what would have changed for him is that he could not do what he wanted, when he wanted, and how he wanted. (In my post, I used the example of the Fathers of Mercy who are found at speaking events, and the Dominicans). It would have also meant giving up many material comforts, from life on the ranch, driving sports cars, carrying a gun in his glove compartment, female personal trainer (things he later spoke about, most especially in his later talks)

Next to giving up one’s physical life, is to give up one’s will. This is at the very heart of religious life (Fr. Brian Mullady, OP, in the recent article, The Trials of Religious Life, explains some of this without referring to the Corapi case, though it’s release was very timely).

In fairness to Corapi, if the SOLT constitution changed so radically, for example, to include a vow of poverty that was not there when he signed on and a requirement to live in community, and then he should be given the opportunity to find another community or enter the diocesan priesthood. If these did not work out for him, then being dispensed from the promises he made would likely flow easier through the Holy See than most cases.

However, in fairness to the SOLT and to the promises he made when he put his hands into the hands of Pope John Paul II 20 years ago, he needed to be honest if he could not accept those changes, and take the necessary steps in a calm and reasonable fashion.

Make no mistake. It does not matter what the founder promised him or told him. He must respect the wishes of his current superiors, who had invited him to live back in community.

I would ask the simple question: Did Fr. Corapi make his religious life, and more importantly, his priesthood conditional on his freedom to preach, and his freedom to live on his own, as he wanted?

I can’t answer that, no one here can answer it. He may not eve know the answer to the question himself. But, God does know.

I offer one more very good generic read which came out recently at the New Theological Movement blog: To be “humble of heart”, The 12 degrees of humility according to St. Benedict and St. Thomas Aquinas.

This kind of formation in one’s spiritual life is much like learning and practicing scales on the piano. Even professional pianists will run the scales. In the beginning it takes longer to build the skill and discipline to do it smoothly, and to know each one. Later, when they become habit, it is a matter of routine.

 

[guanophore]

Just out of curiosity, if your central encounter with Corapi was his voluminous Catechism series, how do you evaluate the orthodoxy of a man’s teachings when you learned the Catechism (i.e., orthodoxy) from him?

Did you think I learned nothing from the Catechism elsewhere? I agree, if I had not,then I would not have an standard of evaluation.

His Superior told him to return to the mother house and take up the life of the house. He would have continued to act as a priest, but only within the house - not as a public figure. Instead, he is launching his new “Black Sheep Dog” web site and speaking tours.

Actually, if he obeys his superior, he will continue in his priesthood, but not his TV ministry or his web site.

I don’t think this is the case. I mean, I agree that he was urged to come and reside at the community, but the faculties of a priest member of the SOLT are under the bishop in which the house is located, if I understand correctly what I read. That means he cannot act as a priest within the diocese of Corpus Christi, where the SOLT house he joined is located. I am not sure if the suspension of his faculties applies everywhere throughout the Church. If another bishop invited him to come elsewhere and minister, would this be possible under the current circumstances? I don’t think so. Given that EWTN and the radio stations have taken him off, it seems that it is a plenary suspension.

I’m not sure if these are the same people who have ‘compelled’ Corapi to buy lethal weapons and apply for a permit to carry concealed weapons. Or the same people who allegedly threaten Corapi and obstruct his progress at every turn. However, nowhere has it been verified that anyone in any official capacity ‘wants Corapi gone.’

This is true, but given how many scrapes he has had with people in positions of authority, and how offensive his talks are for those who compromise the faith, it would not surprise me to learn that the poor Bishop of Corpus Christi has been getting many complaints for many years.

 

[guanophore]

If the SOLT had been inviting him since it's constitution changed in 1994, I don't think there is any reason to believe that he would not have continued with public preaching.

He could not, and should not. There are two things necessary for valid ministry as a priest. One is ordination, the other is faculties. Those faculties (permission to preach as a priest) were taken from him on Ash Wed. As a result, he can no longer hold himself out to the Church or the public as a priest. If he cannot minister as a member of the Church, then what is the point of being in the SOLT? It is a community of ministers!

However, what would have changed for him is that he could not do what he wanted, when he wanted, and how he wanted. ([In my post, I used the example of the Fathers of Mercy who are found at speaking events, and the Dominicans](http://te-deum.blogspot.com/2011/06/corapi-controversy-two-interviews-worth.html)). It would have also meant giving up many material comforts, from life on the ranch, driving sports cars, carrying a gun in his glove compartment, female personal trainer (things he later spoke about, most especially in his later talks)

Yes, I think this is true. If God is indeed calling him to do this, then he will need to do it, one way, or another. If he does not do it willingly, then God will take them, just like He did the last time. Our God is a jealous God.

Next to giving up one's physical life, is to give up one's will. This is at the very heart of religious life (Fr. Brian Mullady, OP, in the recent article, [*The Trials of Religious Life*](http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-trials-of-religious-life/), explains some of this without referring to the Corapi case, though it's release was very timely).

I agree, but the SOLT is not a religious community like the Father’s of Mercy or the Dominicans.

In fairness to Corapi, if the SOLT constitution changed so radically, for example, to include a vow of poverty that was not there when he signed on and a requirement to live in community, and then he should be given the opportunity to find another community or enter the diocesan priesthood.

I am sure he was. They gave him a dispensation (grandfathered him). He could have sought an alternative any time.

If these did not work out for him, then being dispensed from the promises he made would likely flow easier through the Holy See than most cases.

I think he like the arrangement the way it was. And I am not even sure that he would need any special procedures to be dispensed from his promises. The SOLT said they would help him, if he needed it.

However, in fairness to the SOLT and to the promises he made when he put his hands into the hands of Pope John Paul II 20 years ago, he needed to be honest if he could not accept those changes, and take the necessary steps in a calm and reasonable fashion.

Yes. If these accusations had not precipitated this, then maybe his relationship with the SOLT would have needed to change anyway.

Make no mistake. It does not matter what the founder promised him or told him. He must respect the wishes of his current superiors, who had invited him to live back in community.

I think he is respecting them. If he is not willing, he needs to leave, and that is what he told them in a letter he will do.

 I would ask the simple question: Did Fr. Corapi make his religious life, and more importantly, his priesthood conditional on his freedom to preach, and his freedom to live on his own, as he wanted?

He did not have a “religious life” like those who live in vowed communities. However, I think it is very likely he chose SOLT because as a member he had the freedom to live on his own, and respond freely to travel in response to requests, as well as have his own business. These aspects of his ministry used to be congruent with SOLT.

I’m not completely clear on whether it was just a suggestion, or whether it was a command - nevertheless, if one is under obedience, suggestions are just as good as commands, are they not?

Why should they have to strong-arm him into submission? Why can’t he just freely do what they want him to do? It seems to make sense - get out of the limelight, and focus on the work at hand, until it becomes possible to resolve the situation.

Members of the SOLT are not part of a vowed religious community, and don’t make the same vows of obedience as those who are.

In principle, I agree with you. I think following that lead would be accepting, as is stated in the quote above from the transcript, “lie down and die”. Apparently the SOLT does not mind having him live with them in a “dead” situation where he cannot minister as a priest. This would not be a problem for them, as there are plenty of laypersons as members there. But if he feels he must continue speaking out, then returning to the community is not the right course.

He will not be able to focus on any “work at hand” if he goes to live there. He will not be able to engage in his vocation. I do agree with some that have made the point that this might be what God is calling him to do right now. I have certainly longed for him to remove himself from the public limelight and have quiet reflection and prayer. He did this Ash Wed to Father’s day, but it was not enough!

I don’t know what God has in store for the man, but I am certain that He is able to convince him of what that plan is.

 

[jmcrae]

Members of the SOLT are not part of a vowed religious community, and don’t make the same vows of obedience as those who are.

In principle, I agree with you. I think following that lead would be accepting, as is stated in the quote above from the transcript, “lie down and die”.

Sometimes you have to “die” before you can rise to new life. At least, that has been my personal experience.

 

[Shoshana]

Please correct me, but I have attended 5 of his conferences. I have heard many of his talks on EWTN, etc. Many times, he said that he did not like preaching. Many times he said that he suffered anxiety attacks before speaking (who could have ever guessed?). Has anyone else heard this?

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

guanophore, responding to each individual point is not practical for me given time constraints.

I will leave you with this to ponder based on a story… not about Saint Faustina, but about those who handled her works.

As Fr. Mitch Pacwa explained a few weeks ago when someone alleged that Faustina’s works had been put on the “Forbidden Index”, the works never needed to go on the Index for one simple reason.

Those involved with printing them, set them aside and ceased at the mere wish of Church authorities that it be so. In other words, they did not push the issue looking to exercise every “right” that they had. They acted with docility, a very important thing in the spiritual life, and evidence that the Holy Spirit is involved.

Later, when the Church learned that the problems found in Faustina’s works did not originate with her, but with another sister who tried to make the works more flowery, the floodgate opened and printing/promotion returned, with a bang. It took a long time.

One of the greatest problems I have with this whole affair, is what smacks of a narcissistic attitude towards all aspects from his relationship with the SOLT to what he is doing through his Black Sheep Dog website.

It’s me, me, me, and mine, mine, mine.

Setting aside the accusations, there is nothing Christ-like about what is transpiring through his website. It’s fueling division.

The 3D’s - Division, disorder, and disobedience (or lack of docility when there are no official “vows” per se) are very troubling signs, and they are not fruits of the Holy Spirit.

For me, I’m less concerned with all of the technicalities and more focused on the spiritual end. I believe a great injustice befell Fr. Corapi given all of his past addictions, to have so many freedoms early in his priestly life. He never learned to temper his will, or some of his appetites (and I’m referring to visible appetities for material possessions, assets, money, in addition to the ultimate appetite - power. Whether the sexual appetites, and appetites for drugs/alcohol were adequately tempered is something known only to him and God).

 

[MoreMoreMore]

One of Corapi’s claims is that he was a real estate agent, right?

It would be very interesting if someone who knows how to work the public records system, or whatever’s used to keep track of this information, could try to find a sale by John Corapi.

 

[Shoshana]

One of Corapi’s claims is that he was a real estate agent, right?

It would be very interesting if someone who knows how to work the public records system, or whatever’s used to keep track of this information, could try to find a sale by John Corapi.

Wow…it has come down to this! Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy on all of us…

 

[MoreMoreMore]

Wow…it has come down to this! Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy on all of us…

Uh, come to what exactly?
Is it a sin to be critical of public figures and to want an objectively verifiable account of a background upon which they rely heavily?

 

[jmcrae]

Uh, come to what exactly?
Is it a sin to be critical of public figures and to want an objectively verifiable account of a background upon which they rely heavily?

What - are they asking for real estate experience, now, for the priesthood?

Who cares whether he padded his resume or not? He has much bigger problems than that, right now.

 

[guanophore]

Please correct me, but I have attended 5 of his conferences. I have heard many of his talks on EWTN, etc. Many times, he said that he did not like preaching. Many times he said that he suffered anxiety attacks before speaking (who could have ever guessed?). Has anyone else heard this?

Yes. I have heard him say that all he ever wanted was a quiet life in contempletive prayer. This is why his refusal to go live at SOLT seemed strange.

 

[Robertanthony]

Uh, come to what exactly?
Is it a sin to be critical of public figures and to want an objectively verifiable account of a background upon which they rely heavily?

More More More, I agree with every post you made in this thread. I understand that given the way the whole situation has turned out, it,s quite natural to want to investigate some of the things that were said in the past, because what we are witnessing right now is partly at odds with what we’ve heard and come to expect from John Corapi. Earlier, someone mentionned that he hadn’t been part of the Green Beret as he had seemed to suggest he was, but I think quite simply the shoulder injury he sustained while in training kept him out of the GB, and I’m satisfied with that explanation and temporarily reassured concerning his integrity.

Respectfully, I’ll submit to you Guanophore that you appear to have been appointed as a moral police and that you seem to want to defend every move John Corapi makes, even at the expense of reality. Now I expect you to reply with some kind of defense, but I just wanted to let you know how I and (no doubt) some others perceive your interventions here.

 

[guanophore]

 Respectfully, I'll submit to you Guanophore that you appear to have been appointed as a moral police and that you seem to want to defend every move John Corapi makes, even at the expense of reality.

This is very interesting feedback to hear, since it seems to me that some of his actions are indefensible. I just read a post above that noted how his reaction does not demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit, and another that indicates he may never have finished dealing with his attachment to worldly goods/posessions. Clearly the fruit of the Spirit is miissing in some of his messages, and defninitely some who have posted on the blogs.

As far as attachment to posessions, and learning to live in community, I think these might be very valid issues.

I was thinking about a post I read earlier to day saying that it was cowardly not to “stay and fight”. I was out doing some chores, and found myself wondering, “stay where?” “Fight” what? If I were an itinerant preacher, would I want to be based in a diocese that didn’t want me? I realized that I don’t want to stay where I am not wanted, but that sometimes I have been called to do so. It is a basic human need to be wanted, and to have a sense of belonging. When it is torn from us, or we are separated, then we sometimes have a sense of hurt and betrayal. That is what I hear in some of the missives. Certainly not a “fruit of the Spirit”.

  Now I expect you to reply with some kind of defense, but I just wanted to let you know how I and (no doubt) some others perceive your interventions here.

Thank you. I appreciate the feedback.

 

[Cinette]

I hope Fr Corapi is reading these threads! If he is I hope that he takes in the criticism because they are certainly valid.

I have only ever watched one of his programmes.

If he does have the gift of preaching then he must also be a good example and a humble and gracious priest.

It would be great if he would post on this thread to inform us that he is paying attention to all that is being said about him.

God bless all
Cinette

 

[debraran]

Please correct me, but I have attended 5 of his conferences. I have heard many of his talks on EWTN, etc. Many times, he said that he did not like preaching. Many times he said that he suffered anxiety attacks before speaking (who could have ever guessed?). Has anyone else heard this?

I never heard anxiety attacks, but I read in “Coronary” the book about his law suit, he didn’t really like preaching, it wasn’t his idea, he mentioned the “kooks” that would show up, the crowds, but his group wanted him to give a talk on the catechism, that went very well, and when he saw how many people came, etc. the company started and DVD’s etc. You can read some of that book online at Amazon. If you put in certain words, it will bring you to that page. On 220 he talks of how he didn’t trust the bishops even back then and might have had a grudge for awhile. He said he didn’t need much but he did seem to buy more later. This was years ago.
He was living back then,like a hermit with the robes and with SOLT. I always felt as the company grew, and his talks, although not “evil” by any means, the moving to Montana, the homes,fast cars, boats, all the other things, made him change slowly. It was like some of his old world slowly crept back. He always missed his “things”, was depressed when he was back home before the seminary, he said after all he had, it was depressing to see the old neighborhood, and it s only human to think, you can have it all back and it wont change you, it does to some degree. I admit, some of my shock at all this was that I was still having him in the hermitage hunting with his dogs, then I read about the homes, toys, millions he made, and although everything had been that way for a while, the fast forward I had to do took my breath away.
I also heard his superiors say he suffered from migranes and early on you could see how he touched his beard a lot, had little nervous tics (have them myself) which seemed to ebb later. I didn’t see any anxiety in the later talks.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Wow…it has come down to this! Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy on all of us…

Amen .