New SOLT Statement re: Father Corapi

[pnewton]

If they consider “proof” to be the hearsay of someone with an axe to grind, with no corroborating witnesses or independent verification, and no professional, neutral investigative credentials, then I remain suspicious. Recall who composes the ‘3-member panel.’

The article said nothing about hearsay and stated the evidence that they had. I do not think they called it “proof”.

Why would these three people on the panel have any more reason to be considered less (or more) holy and reliable than Fr. Corapi?

 

[Shoshana]

I thought that this process could not continue unless Fr Corapi dropped the civil suit?

 

[trials]

And this would strongly suggest that they believe they have solid evidence, else they are wildly imprudent to make this public. Because if you were to make such claims without solid evidence to back them up, it would be begging for a countersuit. So, as others have said here, now it’s up to John Corapi to make the next move.

Yes, I posted on the other thread about this, it’s highly unusual for a Church authority to make such detailed and quite horrifying claima in a statement so I would take this as a move to save souls - those who were intent on blindly following Fr. Corapi’s new direction without question, and Fr. Corapi’s soul too. As you say, the ball is now in his court to respond to this statement - maybe the SOLT feel that by shining the light on the truth of the situation, they will bring him out of the darkness, literally. His superiors have publicly identified his sins, he has now almost been forced to act - by either continuing along the same path or returning to the Truth.

God please give him the strength to rise from his sins, and walk in the light of Christ.

 

[vz71]

I thought that this process could not continue unless Fr Corapi dropped the civil suit?

No, all the civil suit did was prevent key witnesses from being able to speak to the investigators.

They could still continue with other witnesses.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The article said nothing about hearsay and stated the evidence that they had. I do not think they called it “proof”.

Why would these three people on the panel have any more reason to be considered less (or more) holy and reliable than Fr. Corapi?

You are the one comparing. I am not. Unlike “these three” [non-professional investigators], and unlike most of the posters here, I would prefer to wait for the civil process to play out before rendering any kind of a personal judgment. “Holiness” has nothing to do with it. Reliability has everything to do with it.

My comment about “proof” responded directly to the comments from Sailor Kenshin, who used that word. Please re-read my post. Thank you.

 

[Shoshana]

No, all the civil suit did was prevent key witnesses from being able to speak to the investigators.

They could still continue with other witnesses.

Thank you…

 

[pnewton]

You are the one comparing. I am not. Unlike “these three” [non-professional investigators], and unlike most of the posters here, I would prefer to wait for the civil process to play out before rendering any kind of a personal judgment.

I am not going to render any personal judgement at all. It was the job of this panel to render a judgement, and they are not non-professionals. One is a canon lawyer and this was an exercise of canon law. However, I am curious as to what civil process you are referring to. Is it the one that Fr. Corapi initiated? Because the issue there is breach of contract, not whether he used drugs or had sex. I can see no further hearing on that issue.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Something to keep in mind about religious institutes. They do not require “proof”. Once such an accusation is made it is investigated then the institute ,though one of many different methods chosen by the institute, decides if the accusation is credible. If it is credible they rule that the individual is “not fit for ministry”.

In the case of something illegal the individual might face a criminal trial. For something civil they may face a civil trial.

The institute’s ruling as to the credibility of the charges has nothing to do with those cases.

An individual may be found not-guilty in a criminal case or may win the civil case an the institute may still find the charges to be credible. It can also work the other way around.

It might not be seen as being “fair” but then “fair” really has nothing to do with justice.

It is also important to remember that no one has a right to ministry. No one has a right to act as a priest.

Also for those who think that Fr Corapi’s ministry is necessary for his well-being and life, you are mistaken. As a member of a religious institute that makes a perpetual promise of poverty, the institute will take care of his needs whether or not he is publicly ministering. It may not be at the level he is accustomed to, but it will see to it.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

If they consider “proof” to be the hearsay of someone with an axe to grind, with no corroborating witnesses or independent verification, and no professional, neutral investigative credentials, then I remain suspicious. Recall who composes the ‘3-member panel.’

Separately, “amassing” material goods is the fault of the SOLT. Hmmm. How come I know that he had material possessions for all these years in the Order – because – gee, could it have been that he mentioned some of these in his lectures? Not by amounts, not in detail, but it was clear that he had some separate possessions. How come I can understand public disclosures and the superiors in his Order cannot? (Or chose to evade their responsibility to supervise him, that they are now claiming is his fault.) The fact that he said at least once that he “didn’t need to take any money from his Order,” or from The Church (I think he put it) makes it obvious that he has other sources of income. He was not duplicitous about having private funds.

Such negligence on the Order’s part – that they are just now complaining of – would NEVER stand up in a civil court, against Fr. Corapi. There’s a principle in law – I forget the name of it – that says that if one party knows the other party is violating the terms of an agreement but tolerates it for any signficant period of time, that amounts to excusing that violation and making delayed prosecution of that violation unsupportable.

I find it fishy that they supposedly needed (originally) to delay & delay in their “findings” of guilt or innocence, yet suddenly shoftly after he leaves, the entire thing is speedily “adjudicated” swifly – after they realize that his departure carries with it a lot of controversy about the investigation.

I’d like a civil process, not a canonical/ecclesial one. And I assume he’s going ahead with his civil lawsuit, in which he will have to demonstrate Preponderance of the Evidence in front of a jury, which will require him to provide more than hearsay in his own defense. Until that evolves & is resolved, I remain unconvinced by miraculously timed conclusions of ‘investigations.’

Elizabeth, to my understanding the civil courts have no juristiction over canonical matters. A civil cout cannot order SOLT to treat Corapi in any specific way.

As for Corapi’s lawsuit against the woman, he has to prove slander and breech of contract. Slander is normally hard to prove, remember years ago Carol Burnett sued a tabloid that said she was an alcoholic?

Breech of contract might be easier…but what is confusing me is why sue for breech of contract?

She, according to him, made the whole thing up because she is an alcoholic. What then is the breech?

 

[Elizabeth502]

It was the job of this panel to render a judgement, and they are not non-professionals. One is a canon lawyer and this was an exercise of canon law.

The other two are a psychiatrist and a lawyer. In any case, none of them is a professional investigator.

I am curious as to what civil process you are referring to.

He filed a civil libel lawsuit, I believe. Thus, if he cannot prove with a Preponderance of the Evidence that his accuser and her husband lied about him, and instead SOLT has more compelling evidence which materially corroborates the accuser’s words as to violations, guilt, etc., then the latter investigation should prevail. They have not yet demonstrated that, i.m.o.

Again, however, if his order has been so negligent as to conveniently not “notice” for so many years what would be patently obvious to any lay person hearing his public talks, then frankly I don’t think much of them for suddenly shifting responsibility from themselves to him.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Apparently I am not alone in my skepticism. This from the Facebook page today:

So the head of SOLT has provided us with the comprehensive conclusion of an investigation they told us could not go forward two weeks ago?

My point exactly.

 

[Sheeniac]

If SOLT never said anything, we would assume that Fr. Corapi was correct. If they say something, then they are lambasted for replying.

No one wins in this, do they…

 

[pnewton]

Again, however, if his order has been so negligent as to conveniently not “notice” for so many years what would be patently obvious to any lay person hearing his public talks, then frankly I don’t think much of them for suddenly shifting responsibility from themselves to him.

Patently obvious hearing his public talks? What on earth are you talking about? There was no evidence in his public speaking about these events.

 

[manualman]

A religious is subordinate to his superiors. And SOLT is not exactly known for being a haven for dissenters and theology of rebellion. I see no reason that we laity should trust one priest’s word over the word of his superiors until and unless he can prove otherwise.

THE lesson of the Fr. Marcel Maciel / Legionaries debacle was that you can’t judge a man’s holiness by what he says or by what his followers say or do. The measure of a man is what he does in life. No living individual can totally manifest Christ. No mere man should be our hero (unless he’s safely dead and thus beyond temptation!). Even popes can only be totally trusted in the function of their office, not their personal conduct. Our celebrity culture wants superheros, but they are not and will not be found.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Patently obvious hearing his public talks? What on earth are you talking about? There was no evidence in his public speaking about these events.

I think she might mean about his assets.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If SOLT never said anything, we would assume that Fr. Corapi was correct. If they say something, then they are lambasted for replying.

Who’s “lambasting” them? I am merely holding them to the standard of truth, which, as a religious Order, they darn well better stand for. They have not convinced me, given the circumstances & personnel of the so-called ‘investigation,’ given their supposed surprise about material facts which were evident to those of us outside their Order, and given the timing of this statement vs. the indefinite previous timing of this very same investigation.

They don’t get a pass because they’re a religious Order. Nor does he get a pass for being a priest. Let the facts play out in a courtroom when his civil suit proceeds.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think she might mean about his assets.

I do mean that Mary Gail, and thanks for reading carefully my clearly phrased post.

 

[joanofarc2008]

This is a very sincere question on my part…why would they line up the sins publicly? Is it because Fr John went public himself? I do not understand…but will continue to pray…

This was the exact quote from the NCR article listed above in another post:

Father Gerard Sheehan, regional priest servant of SOLT, said in a press release dated July 5 that the popular priest and speaker has inspired countless thousands of Catholics, “many of whom continue to express their support of him.”

However, Father Sheehan added, “SOLT also recognizes that Father Corapi is now misleading these individuals through his false statements and characterizations. It is for these Catholics that SOLT, by means of this announcement, seeks to set the record straight.”

Read more: ncregister.com/father-john-corapi-resigns-from-solt.html#ixzz1RGo0Kecz

 

[qui_est_ce]

Patently obvious hearing his public talks? What on earth are you talking about? There was no evidence in his public speaking about these events.

The first time I heard about his living in Montana was at his talk in St. Louis last May, when he appeared with a dyed beard and waxed head. He talked about owning guns and having bodyguards. He had a bodyguard at the talk. He also talked a lot about politics.

I was so disturbed by his appearance. Looking back, I think I was mbarrassed to see this “holy man of God” looking like a male model in an expensive suit.

I now feel so betrayed.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’m not sure, libel seems to be a pretty difficult charge to prove or disprove…especially for public figures.

Maybe the breach of contract suit, but all that needs to be proven is that the contract was breached, not if the allegations are true.