New SOLT Statement re: Father Corapi

[joanofarc2008]

I did not, of course, mean to imply that a Eucharistic abuse necessarily occured. Still, all the sacraments need to be treated with respect because of the One who instituted them.

Of course and agreed.

 

[Elizabeth502]

As for Corapi’s blind defenders,…

Whoa. Those who defend him are “blind”? No one is defending sin, sir. But you don’t know that he has “sinned.” You have a statement of an Order, a statement which relies on material we do not have corroboration of as to its accuracy, truth, validity. They are apparently content with their statement, but he has a right to present his side of the story as well, and he has not yet provided those particulars.

Some of us believe we have a Christian duty to suspend judgment of “sin” until a more complete airing of facts, from both sides, has been presented.

 

[Robertanthony]

I, for one, am greatly saddened, but not alltogether surprised. I really appreciated hearing a priest who “told it like it is” with great directness. However, when I first found out that his tapes, etc. were so expensive, much more expensive than similar material available from other R.C. oganizations, and that they were available only from a private company,I became a little suspicious. It is one thing for Catholic religious orders and organizations to benefit financially from the sale of religious tapes, discs, etc.,
but I feel quite strongly against any individual or lay organization profiting from Catholic evangelization.
I fully appreciate that we all are sinners to various extents, but I ask only one question: What happened to his vows of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience? Nobody twisted his arm or otherwise coerced him when he made them!
Needless to say, I will pray to the Holy Mother for him.

This has always bothered me, the “Get the talk that will change your life, deepen your relationship with the triune God, and make your damnation a near impossibility for only 39.99$”. “You have been given freely, therefore give freely”. A DVD costs next to nothing, it would have been possible to charge significantly less to barely cover the charges and make a marginal profit, thus obeying the command that I just referred to.

As a side-note, my understanding is that he didn’t take “vows” but made “promises”.

Another thing that bothered me when he related his life before his conversion and wanted to emphasize God’s grace, he qualified himself as being average or below average (referring to academic and intellectual potential among others). Now as someone who is truly average or below average (me) there is no way I could have achieved (worldly success-wise) one tenth of what he had achieved, especially given the little time it took him to get to the top of the ladder.

Thirdly, his drastic change of appearance gave me an uneasy feeling, as in “there’s something wrong going on”. The fact that he looks strikingly like Anton Lavey contributed to that uneasy feeling.

At this point, I’m simply hoping he started out his priesthood with a right heart and got distracted along the road. In either case, God have mercy on this man’s soul.

When I said “The devil won this one”, I wasn’t referring to Fr. Corapi’s soul. I was referring to the battle of good against evil, i.e., the powerfully effective preaching of Fr. Corapi has been essentially silenced. I not sure even his Black Sheep Dog effort can (or should) survive this tragic debacle.

I knew right away you were referring to the whole situation, and not to his particular soul. Your words ring true.

 

[mdstanzel]

Yep. My understanding is that he went back to his order and obeyed his superior.

Exactly my point.

 

[mdstanzel]

Whoa. Those who defend him are “blind”? No one is defending sin, sir. But you don’t know that he has “sinned.” You have a statement of an Order, a statement which relies on material we do not have corroboration of as to its accuracy, truth, validity. They are apparently content with their statement, but he has a right to present his side of the story as well, and he has not yet provided those particulars.

Some of us believe we have a Christian duty to suspend judgment of “sin” until a more complete airing of facts, from both sides, has been presented.

I believe you’re over interpreting, maa’m.

 

[JReducation]

If this is true,Its really sad to see a man who has done so much good for the faith, be guilty of these crimes. Prayers for you Father Corapi!

We must clarify. Father Corapi is not guilty of any crime, because he is not charged with any crimes.

My husband won’t take this too lightly. My husband, who is a veteran really looked up to Fr. Corapi and would watch him a lot during his conversion this past year. We will keep him in our prayers, very very sad indeed. And the worst thing is, I can’t imagine how many people might follow him and leave the church due to being deceived. :bighanky: The ironic thing is, however, is that we need to practice our tactics of spiritual warfare against being mislead (this is something he preached on alot) :knight2:

http://www.marypages.com/StMichael.jpg

Whatever happened in his personal life, everything he taught and wrote was consistent with the faith and has not lost its value. You can encourage your husband to follow the good teachings of Fr. Corapi.

Oh, I did not realize that a trial and condemnation and sentencing had taken place.

Until then, it remains all speculation, confusion and misrepresentation.

A General Superior has a canonical right to bring an investigation to a close and to promulgate his own conclusions. This right is given to him through Apostolic Succession, since all General Superiors of men are Ordinaries, even if they are not bishops. An Ordinary has the authority to judge, convict and discipline and his conclusion can only be reveresd by the pope. The rest of us are bound to abide by his decision. We don’t have to like it, but we may not fight it.

This is a bombshell. How do I explain this to my 10 year old son who was greatly inspired by Fr. Corapi?

I would tell him all the good things that Father did and said. Then I would tell him, that like him and you, Father also makes mistakes. Even when he (your son) makes mistakes, you still love him and you still keep his artwork on your fridge, because it’s great art.

If he is to resign, he is no longer allowed to utilize the title ‘Father’

A priest, brother or sister can resign from ministry. He or she cannot resign from his state in life. You must apply for a dispensation and wait to see if it’s granted. Until it is granted, you remain Father, Brother or Sister. Your obligations to your state in life do not cease to exist.

The devil won this one.

The devil only wins if you die away from God.

You’ll excuse me for remaining skeptical. I am neutral on his innocence/guilt. I respect civil law enforcement teams and professional investigations much more than I place trust in “ecclesiastical processes.” He very well could have done all this, but I question the professional expertise of the “three-person fact-finding team.” Lawyers, priest-canonists, and psychiatrists are not professional investigators. And canonical norms are different from civil norms which are more closely geared to prosecutable guilt & innocence. (They have to be.)

I would prefer to see a full, civil investigation, with also a simultaneous investigation of his accuser by a neutral party. Again, I’m not saying that it can’t be true, but I remain unconvinced with this SOLT “finding.”

Civil authority has no jurisdiction here, because Father has not been charged with a civil crime. We must respect the authority and power of Superiors General. They are ecclesiastical authorities. If the subject believes that the outcome is unjust, he can appeal it. The Superior General has the right and authority to draw his conclusion and to promulgate it. He also has to write the individual with his conclusions and advise him of his right to appeal and even offer to finance the appeal. As long as he does that, he has fulfilled what the Church expects of him.

I also caution readers that plenty of observably holy priests have been guilty of materialism and of breaking their vows of celibacy, and of alcoholism. Historically, alcoholism has been a problem in the priesthood. If he has done this, naturally – like others – I would not excuse it any more than in any other priest, but it does happen. And plenty of these priests continue on in their priesthood with the vast majority of the flock being unaware that there has ever been a problem of this kind – or with materialism, or with celibacy.

This is true. The human condition does not annul the good that one does.

Bishop Gracida’s take on the Father Corapi situation:
abyssum.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/my-final-comment-hopefully-on-the-case-of-father-john-corapi/

Interesting read…

There are two problems with the Bishop’s response. First, the bishop is doing something that is not allowed. Bishops may not comment or involve themselves in the affairs of societies of apostolic life or religious orders, unless the community in question is a community of diocesan right and it is based in his diocese.

Second, the bishop fails to recall that when we waited until questions were answered and people moved to investigate the truth about an allegation, children were hurt. A suspension is not a punishment. It is a precautionary measure, albeit a very unpleasant one for the individual.

I do agree with him that there has been a lot of pain caused to the faithful. I’m not sure if there is another way of doing this.

 

[JReducation]

I have only recently found out about Father Corapi and watched a couple of videos on Youtube.

I haven’t read all the posts. Is it PROVEN that he had sexual relations to women and was taking drugs and alcohol? Or are they still investigating?
I’m asking because I’m reading a lot about Padre Pio at the moment and even HE was accused of inducing his stigmata with acid, he was also alleged to have misused funds and to have had sex with female parishioners.

Padre Pio and Fr. Corapi were in very different situations. Padre Pio was never suspended. The Provincial Superior took him out of public ministry. His faculties were never suspended. He celebrated mass and heard confessions for the friars and he participated in fraternal life in the community. People keep saying that he was suspended. This is not true. It never happened. The laity got into a fight with the superior. They demanded to have Padre Pio hear their confessions and celebrate mass for them. The superior responded that as the canonical successor of St. Francis he had the right to pull any friar from active ministry, to deny any friar permission to celebrate mass or hear confessions and acccording to the rule of St. Francis, he did not need a reason to do so, because the Franciscan order is not an order of priests. It’s an order of brothers. It became a power struggle. It could have been handled better, but it wasn’t.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[turtle18]

Look everyone, as disheartening as this situation is, let’s pray for God’s justice and salvation to work in this matter. Remember, Fr. Corapi was ordained by Pope John Paul II, now Blessed John Paul II, so let’s pray through his intercession for truth and justice to be brought to this situation.

If for any possible reason, no matter how unlikely, that these allegtions are false and that Fr. Corapi is somehow undergoing a trial and is innocent, that the truth will be brought to light.

And if SOLT is indeed correct, let us ask for his intercession, for the repentance, conversion and salvation of Fr. Corapi’s soul.

Amen.

 

[sojo]

Thank you JReducation for providing some clarity to the situation.

I’m still praying for all involved, and especially the members of SOLT and for the souls of those are are so desperately trying to cling to Father’s innocence to the point of disparaging Fr. Sheehan and SOLT. Fr. Corapi has had so many red flags for me for some time, but SOLT has not - perhaps they could have handled it better, especially ordering Fr. Corapi back to community under obedience a long time ago… but no religious order or society is perfect. I just sincerely doubt they would issue such a shocking statement without a heck of a lot of proof. In short - I believe SOLT, and I don’t believe Fr. Corapi nor support him in what he is doing.

I’m especially sorry that Bishop Gracida decided to come in and stir the pot - especially in light of his own admission that he hadn’t really been in contact with Fr. Corapi for years.

Finally - I’m still confused about whether to keep calling Fr. Corapi by his priestly title. It was stated that this is correct until or if he becomes laicized. But on the other hand, Fr. himself asked us to stop calling him Father, didn’t he? I know one poster here was upset that some of us have referred to him as “Corapi” and I’m sure I have as I’ve been confused, and I felt it was just wrong to call him a Dog, or Black Sheepdog, or just “dog” as some of his own followers/fans have been doing. I certainly didn’t mean to offend anyone on this board, and apologize if it did so.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I believe you’re over interpreting, maa’m.

No, I am not “over interpreting,” and there’s no need to address me personally, since my reply was to someone else.

I am responding directly to the poster’s statements, and to nothing else. That is not “over” interpreting.

 

[Elizabeth502]

We must clarify. Father Corapi is not guilty of any crime, because he is not charged with any crimes.

Amen, Brother.

Whatever happened in his personal life, everything he taught and wrote was consistent with the faith and has not lost its value.

Double Amen.

Civil authority has no jurisdiction here, because Father has not been charged with a civil crime.

Nevertheless, if someone accused has compelling evidence to contradict facts (not “jurisdiction”), and he is allowed to do so in a civil court (a different jurisdiction), the facts can be presented, and reasonable people are allowed with the help of their intellect to come to a different conclusion if different facts presented contradict the first set of facts. (Such as lying, perjury, previously incomplete information, etc.) I’m not speaking of a ruling or a technical decision. I’m speaking of complete uncovering of the facts. Unlike some others, I have not made a decision as to his culpability, because he has not yet presented his case, in any jurisdiction.

 

[beckers]

Bishop Gracida’s take on the Father Corapi situation:
abyssum.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/my-final-comment-hopefully-on-the-case-of-father-john-corapi/

Interesting read…

Sorry i am not buying into the bishops statment.

1.) “thousands of innocent people who have been brought into a closer relationship with Our Lord, Jesus Christ, through the TEACHING of Father Corapi.” It wasn’t Father Corapis teachings that led people back to the faith. It was the truth of the Word. Father Corapi was yes a messanger but not the Word nor the foundation of the Truth. Nor is he the only one who can be a teacher. You can’t demand your vocation. You don’t have a right to be a priest.

2.) He blames SOLT a lot on what they should have done but what about Father Corapi? Didn’t he have a responsibility to the thousands of people he was being a “shepard” too? The bishop seems to believe that because it wasn’t a crime against a child that it wasn’t worth the public suspension. Well excuse me but that is not the standard which we should be holding priest up against.

3.) Rush to judgment? Wasn’t it father copari who brought it forth first? Didn’t he make the first public statements so who is ruining whose good name? Does it sound like SOLT needs better managment…sure does but to run their name and their work into the ground hurts not only the church but his fellow priest and members of the order. Did he every think of them or only himself and his works?

4.) Investigations take a long time. Its not like “Law and Order” things aren’t wrapped up in a matter of days but months and years. The Discover process in a civil case is lots and lots of documentation and going back and forth and you have statute time periods for replying and answer all request. If he has hinder the process at all then he shouldn’t be complaining about the length. And i don’t see the problem with the committee. If he knew that was the process of the order then he should go through it and of course protect his rights but you can do both. Lots of people go through internal investigations at work, how is his different?

5.) Smell Test-- If Father Corapi really does have contracts with people to not talk then i am sorry but it doesn’t pass the smell test. Why would you want to keep people from speaking out unless there is something more going on. To protect his name…well from what? If the accusations aren’t true then why aren’t you allowing people to talk and clear your name before trial, or at the summary judgment? Why waste all the time on discovery and trial cost? Why drag this all out? It doesn’t make sense from a publicity or finanical stand point.

6.) I am confused by his motives. As they just don’t make sense to me. I wish the could get together with a meditor and figure it all out … This public fight is causing lots of internal bleeding within the Church and of all times its now that we need to be one. I wish that this fight would have stayed private and not going public. I prayer for all parties and hope for healing.

ps sorry for the multiple edits. My computer seems to think it knows more about when i should end a post then i do.

 

[jpjd]

The devil only wins if you die away from God.

Exactly. The devil wins if no souls are converted to God; and converting souls and making souls on fire for God through his preaching is what Fr. Corapi is gifted at. And that preaching has been silenced.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that it’s unfortunate that this has been brought to the “court of public opinion” because it’s really an internal matter between a priest and his community. I believe that if he had not made public the initial accusation and suspension, the press will have done so. This is a very public figure. He may have been trying to beat the press. I don’t know. I’m not him.

I do know that he does have a right to present his side in an appeal to the Holy See. I also know that if he does appeal, we are not entitled to know the content of the discussion. If he, the Holy See or the Society share with us, it is an act of courtesy, not a duty. We Americans are enamored of transparency to the point that we have forgotten the right to discretion and reserve.

I believe that had Father not made comments, nor the good bishop, the Superior General would not have shared his conclusion with us. He almost says as much in his statement. He mentions that Father has misled people with his statements.

Maybe, if the allegations had been leaked by the press rather than by Father, the Superior General would not have made a statement to the public. According to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, General Superiors who have Ordinary authority are protected by the Church. They can hand down verdict, decisions and conclusions regarding legal persons under their jurisdiction without having to explain themselves to anyone except to the Sacred Congregation. They don’t have to explain themselves to the individual unless there is an appeal and the case goes to trial. In that case, the superior has to respond to the tribunal, not to the individual, just like in any other trial. You don’t speak to the accused. You speak to the lawyer. The superior has to communicate the allegations and the decision to the individual. He does not have to divulge his sources. He has a canonical duty to protect everyone involved. As to how the matter is investigated, that will depend on the constitutions of the institute.

I disagree with those who say that the leadership of the SOLT is weak. As a religious and a former superior, I can’t find fault with anything that the superior has done. He had communicated to Father Corapi that he wanted a meeting. Father never responded. He had communicated to Father that he was suspended. Father responded through the internet. The superior said that he never received a written or direct communication from Father. A suspension is a canonical document. You must sign that you received it and return a copy to the sender. This does not mean that you agree with it. He has ordered Father to move to TX and to live with the community. Father has not responded. He said that if Father wanted to seek dispensation from the priesthood and his promise of obedience to the Society, he would help him. Father has never said that he wants to ask for a dispensation. He said he was resigning. It’s not the same thing. He ordered Father to drop the lawsuit. Father did say that he acted on the advice of two lawyers (civil and canon) and of a bishop. That’s a slippery slope. Your superior has more authority than your lawyer and your friend the bishop. You don’t owe them obedience. You cannot disobey your superior unless he commands you to sin. A better argument would be “my superior has commanded me to do something that is not good for me.” The Church would be kinder to that response.

If I were in such a situation and I really wanted to stay, I would return to the Motherhouse and I would ask for an ecclesiastical trial. Once I win the trial, the law of the Church does not prohibit a law suit against the person who did damage to you. All of those assets, I would hand over to a relative or a lawyer or someone whom I trust to administer them. The SOLT does not make a vow of poverty. They can own property. They have what is called a “Common Table.” This means that they share everything. Whatever, you’re not allowed to have in your possession remains your property. Someone else has to administer it for you and you appoint a beneficiary. Religious in solemn vows cannot own anything. Even religious in simple vows can own property. They just can’t use it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Pork_Roll]

Wow! He went out in true Fr. Corapi style… with a prostitute none the less. I owe EWTN an apology. I will begin to make EWTN contributions immediately. I guess I was entirely wrong–my bad. Fr. Corapi was a piece of work. At least he fornicated with women–could be worse.

 

[7_Sorrows]

wow, i had a feeling another bombshell would fall after the 4th of july holiday. so i got on the computer tonight to check CAF and found this thread. perhaps i am naive, but i have no reason at this point NOT to believe SOLT. if father corapi had drug and alcohol problems before and they were not resolved, i can understand how they could have resurfaced. i have only known of father corapi the past 3 or 4 years, and i have to be honest, that i feel i have been deceived. i received his e-mails that advertised his dvd’s,
books, etc. it made me feel uneasy because i thought they were priced high and i thought it strange that it was more of a business than a ministry. i always thought that to be ordained a priest you had to go through a series of tests - psychological - before being ordained. i am surprised that father corapi was able to have this lifestyle for so long without raising any suspicions previously. were people close to him looking the other way? there are 1,000 questions and i wonder when i will have the answers i NEED.

 

[mdstanzel]

No, I am not “over interpreting,” and there’s no need to address me personally, since my reply was to someone else.

I am responding directly to the poster’s statements, and to nothing else. That is not “over” interpreting.

Personal? This isn’t the first time I’ve seen you confrontational with people. You seem to have a knack for it. I was merely trying to help and support. I’m sorry you take things so personally. You might want to consider backing of the forums for a while. They do tend to make people cranky.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Personal? This isn’t the first time I’ve seen you confrontational with people. You seem to have a knack for it. I was merely trying to help and support. I’m sorry you take things so personally. You might want to consider backing of the forums for a while. They do tend to make people cranky.

You are the one who became confrontational with me, without provocation. I think you are the one who needs to “back off,” as you say. What you did was entirely unnecessary and condescending. If you have an issue with me, take it to a PM. The others here want to have a discussion, not to engage in a gratuitous ego-battle. Thanks.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I believe that it’s unfortunate that this has been brought to the “court of public opinion” because it’s really an internal matter between a priest and his community. I believe that if he had not made public the initial accusation and suspension, the press will have done so. This is a very public figure. He may have been trying to beat the press. I don’t know. I’m not him.

I do know that he does have a right to present his side in an appeal to the Holy See. I also know that if he does appeal, we are not entitled to know the content of the discussion. If he, the Holy See or the Society share with us, it is an act of courtesy, not a duty. We Americans are enamored of transparency to the point that we have forgotten the right to discretion and reserve.

I believe that had Father not made comments, nor the good bishop, the Superior General would not have shared his conclusion with us. He almost says as much in his statement. He mentions that Father has misled people with his statements.

Maybe, if the allegations had been leaked by the press rather than by Father, the Superior General would not have made a statement to the public. According to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, General Superiors who have Ordinary authority are protected by the Church. They can hand down verdict, decisions and conclusions regarding legal persons under their jurisdiction without having to explain themselves to anyone except to the Sacred Congregation. They don’t have to explain themselves to the individual unless there is an appeal and the case goes to trial. In that case, the superior has to respond to the tribunal, not to the individual, just like in any other trial. You don’t speak to the accused. You speak to the lawyer. The superior has to communicate the allegations and the decision to the individual. He does not have to divulge his sources. He has a canonical duty to protect everyone involved. As to how the matter is investigated, that will depend on the constitutions of the institute.

IIf I were in such a situation and I really wanted to stay, I would return to the Motherhouse and I would ask for an ecclesiastical trial. Once I win the trial, the law of the Church does not prohibit a law suit against the person who did damage to you.

Thanks for your insights, Brother. I liked some of the way you framed this. I want to focus on a couple of things. One is the part about:

I’m not him.

and the other

IIf I were in such a situation and I really wanted to stay, I would return to the Motherhouse and I would ask for an ecclesiastical trial.

And you may be right, and I have no reason not to take your word for it. I think, though, that people in general tend to have difficulty ‘walking in someone else’s shoes,’ and nowhere is this more true than when one believes oneself to be unjustly accused. Thus, I cannot say what I (or anyone else) “would have done differently” in such a position to make the kind of choices you list. When people are under conflicting pressure from various sources, what seems evident to others, or logical to others, may not be options for them, or be viewed as options for them. And of course that includes both for the guilty accused and the innocent accused. (Obviously it wouldn’t be “I,” literally, but you get my drift, I’m sure.)

I’m not weighing in on whether his decision was right or wrong, but giving that he is indeed not you but himself, his decision actually seems logical (at least to me), and particularly given what he has said about advice from others – be that good advice or bad advice, as you note. Also the fact that he “went public,” as you say – and the inherent dangers/consequences of that; that seems also to me to be in line with his temperament. I also agree with your observation about the American assumption of transparency (and information). Your explanation of the dynamics and sequence of some of the jurisdictional stuff was really helpful as well. Thanks for that.
Peace,
Elizabeth

 

[Veridical16]

There were heart pangs reading SOLT’s statement…

Can you imagine, meditating on the words *“And Jesus wept.” *

Let this Scandal, be a moment to pray for those of us to pray for our loved ones, the church militant and those we are grateful to God for, whom we admire for their works and we love in our hearts, that they may stay on the path of righteousness and shielded from worldly temptations and delivered, that the blessed Mother will continue to advocate for them, and our priests that they may persevere…and that St. Michael and their guardian angels will protect the little ones, and the children of God.

As for this development, too many fingerprints and too much corruption from pride.
May Christ rebuke Satan;

“The Devil Has No Power Over Us”

youtube.com/watch?v=9RjXzFbNXwk

• Fr. Ignatius Manfredonia

It requires as our Lord says in other places in the gospel, a dying to oneself, a death to sin, a death to our own preferences and our own opinions, and living only for God. Living for God in obedience to his will. And that’s the tough part. But that’s the part that determines WHO belongs to the sheepfold of Christ. And then our Lord gives us these consoling words, for those who have heard his voice and are willing to follow him, he says, “And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and NO ONE shall snatch them out of my hand” Once we accept our Lord in his teaching and are willing to put it into practice – NO ONE can snatch us out of his hand.

This scandal is designed to discourage. Trust in Jesus.

“Because my Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all”

So let us keep good will, and we shall fear nothing!
Let us lay people make offers and sacrifices and penances, visit the Sacrament and offer masses and use this opportunity to bring about more goodness…Christ can order, from this current disorder that we are seeing…

I understand SOLT doing this, they had to cut things off before Fr. Corapi could do more damage and scandalize others…I believe them, when the response to Fr. Corapi’s public announcements were troubling…AGAIN, No one MAN is responsible for bringing others to Christ, but by the Holy Spirit and his cooperation and good will, and the quickening of our Lady & the saints…too much attribution of the man for me which is a little bit bothersome.

*For while one saith, I indeed am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollo; are you not men ? What then is Apollo, and what is Paul? *

If SOLT was falsely accusing, without certain evidence they would not release such a statement.

I am beginning to wonder if Fr. Corapi may have never been with us.
But he still has time to repent, pray for him, I can imagine he is humbled by the prudent actions of SOLT…My heart goes out to those who liked him.