New SOLT Statement re: Father Corapi

[whm]

When was the last time the Church or a religious order made these sort of comments about a priest and they were not true?

I’m not convicting him on anything (yes, I realize it’s not a civil case, just a figure of speach) but the Church generally does not comment at all on these things unless there is very good source info.

SOLT is not the Church though.

Also why did SOLT need to call this woman involved a former prostitute? She is not at issue here, they released the statement to counter Fr. Corapi’s current activities, there was no need to reveal the woman’s past sins Calling somebody a prostitute is very damaging to their reputation, she will be treated like a leper. Her name will eventually be known. What if her parents didn’t know? The Church is usually very careful about revealing a persons sins without good reason. I don’t get it.

 

[catharina]

Very good point. In my early sobriety I was helped very much by an “old-timer” who gave me some great advice and helped me get through those tough early months. . He later slipped, left the program and finished life as a derelict alcoholic. The last time I saw him he apologized for throwing away his sobriety I told him he didn’t throw away all of his sobriety away because part of it still lived in me. His message helped keep me sober and many others, regardless of the fact that he succumbed to his illness in the end.

As we look at Fr Coarapi we should feel great sadness but that does not undo the great good he has done- unless we allow it to.

Beautiful post, Bob.
Thank you.

 

[joanofarc2008]

SOLT is not the Church though

JREducation’s post has a beautiful explanation of how this works - but yes they are representatives of the Church and therefore the Magisterium.

 

[catharina]

SOLT is not the Church though.

Also why did SOLT need to call this woman involved a former prostitute? She is not at issue here, they released the statement to counter Fr. Corapi’s current activities, there was no need to reveal the woman’s past sins Calling somebody a prostitute is very damaging to their reputation, she will be treated like a leper. Her name will eventually be known. What if her parents didn’t know? The Church is usually very careful about revealing a persons sins without good reason. I don’t get it.

Pehaps I’m mistaken but my impression was that SOLT
alluded to a number of women, one of whom was a former prostitute.

 

[Kardinal]

Also why did SOLT need to call this woman involved a former prostitute? She is not at issue here, they released the statement to counter Fr. Corapi’s current activities, there was no need to reveal the woman’s past sins Calling somebody a prostitute is very damaging to their reputation, she will be treated like a leper.

This is a good question to which I do not have an answer. It does not seem important that she was a prostitute. I, too, am confused on this issue.

Her name will eventually be known. What if her parents didn’t know? The Church is usually very careful about revealing a persons sins without good reason. I don’t get it.

Her name is already known to anyone who seeks to know it. I don’t, because it is irrelevant to me. But a public act such as a lawsuit must name a defendant, and Father Corapi effectively released her name to the public when he filed said suit.

 

[Orogeny]

Her name is already known to anyone who seeks to know it. I don’t, because it is irrelevant to me. But a public act such as a lawsuit must name a defendant, and Father Corapi effectively released her name to the public when he filed said suit.

You are assuming that the person being sued and the one referenced in the SOLT statement are the same.

Peace

Tim

 

[Kardinal]

You are assuming that the person being sued and the one referenced in the SOLT statement are the same.

Peace

Tim

That was based on aforementioned interview of Jimmy Akin on Kresta yesterday. He drew that conclusion based on his research. So that’s my reference.

 

[whm]

Further, an excellent point was made by Jimmy Akin on Kresta yesterday. By publicly publishing that they have seen evidence that leads them to believe that Father Corapi did the acts described in the statement yesterday morning, SOLT enters into a civil, legal arena; that of libel. If the accusations against Father Corapi are indeed false, SOLT just opened themselves up to an ENORMOUS libel lawsuit. Demonstrating damages will not be difficult; SOLT’s statement will result in a precipitous drop in Santa Cruz Media revenues. That kind of risk is not undertaken by anyone without serious consultation with lawyers who would have to review the evidence themselves. I think this lends significant credibility to their statement regarding Father Corapi’s conduct.

I agree they really put themselves out there by doing it. I think they are also open to investigation by the Church, for lack of controls. I don’t know if I would make the leap that because the consequences of being wrong are really bad, that somebody would necessarily dot all the i and cross all the t’s. Legally, I think they are at risk even if their accusations are 100% correct, they could be in possession of illegally obtained emails and texts(they might not know it), all sorts of issues when you get into civil court and have to deal with rules of evidence. It is also unclear if they finished the diocese’s process before releasing this information. Having set of rules/policies and not following them, can be very damaging in court, worse even then not having rule/policy in the first place.

This whole thing is like a slow motion train wreck.

 

[Young_Thinker]

SOLT’s fact-finding team has acquired information from Father Corapi’s emails, various witnesses and public sources that, together, state that, during his years of public ministry:
— He did have sexual relations and years of cohabitation (in California and Montana) with a woman known to him, when the relationship began, as a prostitute.

— He repeatedly abused alcohol and drugs.

— He has recently engaged in “sexting” activity with one or more women in Montana.

— He holds legal title to over $1 million in real estate, numerous luxury vehicles, motorcycles, an ATV, a boat dock, and several motor boats, which is a serious violation of his promise of poverty as a perpetually professed member of the society

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/father-john-corapi-resigns-from-solt/#ixzz1RFVzmVx9[/INDENT]

Wow! If this is all true, then I am really shocked. I had always had thought of him as a real Augustine (a previously immoral yet brilliant man who managed to turn his life around and start on the road to holiness). I am surprised that all of this did not come out sooner (for one thing, is not having a live-in mistress grounds for forced laicization?).

 

[whm]

Pehaps I’m mistaken but my impression was that SOLT
alluded to a number of women, one of whom was a former prostitute.

I believe it was the one they claimed was living with him for years.

 

[surfinpure]

I agree they really put themselves out there by doing it. I think they are also open to investigation by the Church, for lack of controls. I don’t know if I would make the leap that because the consequences of being wrong are really bad, that somebody would necessarily dot all the i and cross all the t’s. Legally, I think they are at risk even if their accusations are 100% correct, they could be in possession of illegally obtained emails and texts(they might not know it), all sorts of issues when you get into civil court and have to deal with rules of evidence. It is also unclear if they finished the diocese’s process before releasing this information. Having set of rules/policies and not following them, can be very damaging in court, worse even then not having rule/policy in the first place.

This whole thing is like a slow motion train wreck.

I don’t know about legal ramifications - that’s not my field - but I do believe they did what they had to do. So many were being misled, as they stated. I, for one, am grateful for their courage to speak out and give us clarity.

 

[Kardinal]

I agree they really put themselves out there by doing it. I think they are also open to investigation by the Church, for lack of controls. I don’t know if I would make the leap that because the consequences of being wrong are really bad, that somebody would necessarily dot all the i and cross all the t’s.

The weight of the consequences of their statement lends their significant credibility to their statement. It makes it more likely that they have considered the gravity of the statement and its implication. It does not guarantee they are have done everything correctly; it only indicates they probably have.

Legally, I think they are at risk even if their accusations are 100% correct, they could be in possession of illegally obtained emails and texts(they might not know it), all sorts of issues when you get into civil court and have to deal with rules of evidence

That is not relevant here. They cannot be sued for making a statement based on evidence they obtained illegally, as they are not law enforcement and thus are not subject to rules of evidence. Any tort would not be a criminal proceeding, and thus “how they obtained the evidence” is not relevant. They may be sued or brought up on criminal charges for stealing the information itself, but again, the gravity of such risk makes it very unlikely they have done so. Not impossible, simply very unlikely.

 

[whm]

I don’t know about legal ramifications - that’s not my field - but I do believe they did what they had to do. So many were being misled, as they stated. I, for one, am grateful for their courage to speak out and give us clarity.

I agree that something needed to be done to avoid people being misled, I don’t however think that their statement was perfect. I am worried what might happen next.

 

[Teelynn]

You are correct.
SOLT could be misleading us.

Of course, if that is the case Corapi will have a clear case and could have them effectively shut down with a civil judgement.

So one has to ask…why? What have they to gain?

I do not believe we are being misled by the SOLT.

Ugh!!! I really don’t know what to believe!

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

I cannot keep up with the pace of this thread, so I apologize if someone has already posted this, but Patrick Madrid had the following on this blog:

All who are distressed & unsettled by the Fr. Corapi situation should ponder these words:
Let nothing disturb you. Let nothing dismay you. All thing are passing. God never changes. Patience attains all that it strives for. He who has God finds he lacks nothing. God alone suffices. — St. Teresa of Avila

Patrick Madrid’s Blog

 

[Teelynn]

Not sure if someone has brought out this point, I have to admit I have not read through the entire thread but, if this is all true, WHY would SOLT put so much detail in this statement? I mean, could one not get the point across without all the juicy details? Just sayin…

 

[estesbob]

I’ve said this before, on other threads and other fora, but it bears repeating:

I am getting MORE than tired of speculation, gossip, and hanging Father Corapi in absentia, without benefit of trial, judge, jury.

What his order did was beyond strange. This whole case is beyond strange.

Father Corapi could be utterly innocent. He could be guilty of all he is accused of and more. It could be anything in between.

But tongues are wagging.

This is shameful. I repeat:

Utterly and completely shameful and without a shred of charity.

And I am also sick of people claiming to know what is in his heart or that he has shown pride WITHOUT knowing one iota of the facts.

I believe what is the truth about this case will not emerge for years. So I hope God judges many of you with more mercy than you are showing Father here.

I will be honest-I know absolutely nothing about Father Corapi. . I have never heard him speak, I have never read anything he has written and I wouldn’t know know the man. If I met him on the street. From my perspective the problem here is that Father Corapi decided to go public in great detail about his problems with SOLT and they they decided respond in great detail. . It would have been better for all involved. If this had been handled in private.

Both sides having gone public has led to both his supporters and detractors often lashing out angrily at each other and a sense of betrayal by many whose lives he touched. . I think all of us need to sit back, pray for all involved and especially pray for those whose faith may have been shaken by this, whether it is true or not. . We do not accomplish anything that lashing out at each other, at SOLT , Fr Corapi, or each other. . All that does is make a bad situation worse

 

[Teelynn]

I’ve said this before, on other threads and other fora, but it bears repeating:

I am getting MORE than tired of speculation, gossip, and hanging Father Corapi in absentia, without benefit of trial, judge, jury.

What his order did was beyond strange. This whole case is beyond strange.

Father Corapi could be utterly innocent. He could be guilty of all he is accused of and more. It could be anything in between.

But tongues are wagging.

This is shameful. I repeat:

Utterly and completely shameful and without a shred of charity.

And I am also sick of people claiming to know what is in his heart or that he has shown pride WITHOUT knowing one iota of the facts.

I believe what is the truth about this case will not emerge for years. So I hope God judges many of you with more mercy than you are showing Father here.

I am with you Sailor K…especially about the strangeness of this statement from SOLT…I find it highly irregular, but at the same time, who really knows what is really going on? All I really can say for sure is that the Devil is dancin over this whole bizzare situation.

 

[whm]

The weight of the consequences of their statement lends their significant credibility to their statement. It makes it more likely that they have considered the gravity of the statement and its implication. It does not guarantee they are have done everything correctly; it only indicates they probably have.

I don’t know though, the statement did not read like it went through a legal review before it was released. Perhaps it has, perhaps the bishop of Corpus Cristi has reviewed it etc.

 

[Eliza10]

Being a journalist myself, I can assure you that in the case of a public figure it is very hard to win a libel/slander case. New York Times v. Sullivan essentially created two different tiers for libel/slander:

1. Private persons (you, me, your local Monsignor, your dentist, etc.) – Here all the plaintiff has to do is prove the facts of libel/slander: Was it false, and bad enough to appreciably damage the person’s reputation? Was it disseminated to at least one other person?
2. Public figures (Celebrities, figures of state, people who put themselves in the public eye through their own effort) – there, they have to prove what is known as “actual malice”. In other words, Not only do the facts of the case have to be there, but the plaintiff has to prove that the libel/slander was published/uttered not merely out of simple carelessness or repetition of others’ words, but that the publisher/speaker knew before hand that it was false and liable to damage the person’s reputation, and did it anyway. (A bit like mortal/venial sin, when you think of it… ) The only libel suit I can remember where a public figure won was a case in which Carol Burnett sued the National Enquirer for falsely claiming she was an alcoholic.

If Corapi sues, he will be opening up a can of worms, because he will then have to answer the veracity of the charges in open court and prove them false. And then try to make a case that SOLT deliberately published this knowingly to destroy his reputation. The chance of that? Well, I’d be more likely to see you-know-who open up a Baskin-Robbins franchise you-know-where first

This is informative, useful information, Pat. Thank you!