K
Kardinal
Guest
Indeed, Pat. Thank you for sharing that. I wish I had seen it earlier.
- Status
G
garygodin
Guest
What can I say… I had hoped, prayed and still pray for the truth to come out. I AM SHOCKED, But isn’t it written, Put no trust in Princes, only in God.
C
Carolus_Martell
Guest
Well now that the proverbial ‘fat lady has sung’ SOLT announcement has sunk in. I just want to say to Father that sinning by anyone is understandable and forgivable.
I guess it’s all the denial and counter punching your former assistant that is the issue for a lot of us.
It seems like you were trying to protect your empire from scandalous disclosures…that’s something I might do. But I’m just Joe Jerk the rag man, with your past you should have known better that a cover up campaign would never hold up.
Just another illustration for all of us on Matthew’s divine observation that … “you can not serve both God and Mammon”.
…and thanks to tptb at SOLT for the courage to make this announcement.
I guess it’s all the denial and counter punching your former assistant that is the issue for a lot of us.
It seems like you were trying to protect your empire from scandalous disclosures…that’s something I might do. But I’m just Joe Jerk the rag man, with your past you should have known better that a cover up campaign would never hold up.
Just another illustration for all of us on Matthew’s divine observation that … “you can not serve both God and Mammon”.
…and thanks to tptb at SOLT for the courage to make this announcement.
W
whm
Guest
Perhaps she is the accuser in the lawsuit (I thought she was married to his computer programmer though?), but this is the first time I read of anyone calling her a prostitute and adds no relevance to the situation. Is it worse that may have lived with a former prostitute vs. living with a non prostitute? It is more damaging in the public eye for sure. It adds a lot of drama to the statement for the public. I just find it odd to include because of all the negativity the term places on this woman who is not Fr. Corapi. I don’t think a peer reviewer would let that pass.
C
centurionguard
Guest
…
Maybe you should look again what I wrote again. You were the one who so scruplulously edited my words when you quoted my post. Based on your convictions you make yourself out to be Judge, Jury and Executioner.
Father Corapi hasn’t been brought before an Ecclesiastical Tribunal.
J
jwinch2
Guest
You should go back and read BrotherJR’s post about this issue. The superior of his order is entirely within his right to act as judge and jury. If Father Corapi believes that he is being treated unfairly, he is entirely within his right to appeal his superior’s decision to Rome. The superior of the SOLT represents a legitimate Church authority upon who’s information and decisions one can draw reasonable conclusions. Its not like it is some random guy throwing this stuff out there. It is the legitimate authority who has responsibility for the dispensation of the situation.
As for the rest of your statement, I cannot disagree with you. There is no way for us to know what is in Father Corapi’s heart. That is true. I think it would be wise for all concerned to keep their discussion to the facts of the situation as expressed by the public statements which have been made by the parties concerned.
D
Denise1957
Guest
As has been already mentioned, SOLT needs to make the situation clear so that Fr. Corapi’s supporters are not misled. SOLT believes that Father is not fit for ministry. They would (I think) be lax in their duty if they allowed his supporters to believe that he is innocent. Later on down the road, it might come back to haunt them if it is discovered that their investigation showed that the allegations were true, and they didn’t do anything about it. They may also be worried that Father is going rogue. Being suspended, I don’t think that he can be allowed to have an online ministry, even if he doesn’t use his real name. Perhaps someone can correct me if I’m wrong about this (which I could be).
G
GraceSofia
Guest
Several hours ago, Father Corapi tweeted “Very special announcement coming Thursday.”
(Sorry if this has already been posted-- the 2 threads are so long that I lose track of what has and hasn’t been said).
(Sorry if this has already been posted-- the 2 threads are so long that I lose track of what has and hasn’t been said).
T
Teelynn
Guest
You know, I am about as disheartened with SOLT as I am with Fr. Corapi. The more I think about it, the more upset I become with all the sorid details of their statement. I KNOW they could have put something out that was less scandalizing to all involved. If you think about it, it could almost be called sinful.
J
joanofarc2008
Guest
May we all learn from this not to put any man but Christ upon the Cross.
W
whm
Guest
I didn’t say that they shouldn’t have said something, only that their statement seemed perhaps hastily released.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
What bothers me about the SOLT statement (other than it being on the eve of Fr. Sheehan and other priests there going on leave) yesterday is this:
They give quite a bit of detail with confidence that Fr. Corapi is guilty of specific sins. Fine. Maybe they are right. But yesterday was July 5. On June 20––only 16 days earlier––Fr. Sheehan said: “although the investigation was in progress, the SOLT had not arrived at any conclusion as to the credibility of the allegations under investigation. … due to the gravity of the accusation…Fr. Corapi was suspended from active ministry” and also “If the allegations had been found to be credible, the proper canonical due process would have been offered to Fr. Corapi…”
So on June 20, according to Fr. Sheehan, SOLT didn’t even know if the allegations were credible, much less true. 16 days later, even though the investigation had supposedly stalled, Fr. Sheehan gives detailed allegations of sins in a public press release.
The two SOLT statements seem contradictory. That is what bothers me about the whole thing.
They give quite a bit of detail with confidence that Fr. Corapi is guilty of specific sins. Fine. Maybe they are right. But yesterday was July 5. On June 20––only 16 days earlier––Fr. Sheehan said: “although the investigation was in progress, the SOLT had not arrived at any conclusion as to the credibility of the allegations under investigation. … due to the gravity of the accusation…Fr. Corapi was suspended from active ministry” and also “If the allegations had been found to be credible, the proper canonical due process would have been offered to Fr. Corapi…”
So on June 20, according to Fr. Sheehan, SOLT didn’t even know if the allegations were credible, much less true. 16 days later, even though the investigation had supposedly stalled, Fr. Sheehan gives detailed allegations of sins in a public press release.
The two SOLT statements seem contradictory. That is what bothers me about the whole thing.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
I was actually going to include the Carol Burnett case in my post…but I didn’t remember the particulars.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:
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
- 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?
- 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.
Would writing letters to a few bishops be libelous? We wouldn’t have known about them except from John Corapi.
Although a different case, we didn’t know anything about Father Eutenhaur (sp), until after the fact.
S
surfinpure
Guest
I didn’t edit your words. I replied to the portion I disagreed with.…
Maybe you should look again what I wrote again. You were the one who so scruplulously edited my words when you quoted my post. Based on your convictions you make yourself out to be Judge, Jury and Executioner.
Father Corapi hasn’t been brought before an Ecclesiastical Tribunal.
Please refrain from telling me how I view myself. That’s presumptuous and rude.
Fr. Corapi is the only thing standing in the way of his own canonical hearing. His superior, however, has every authority to determine his guilt insofar as it pertains to their own dealings with him. They have. And they’ve asked him to come back to community immediately and cease all public ministry. How anyone could be upset by this is a huge puzzlement to me.
J
jwinch2
Guest
The superior of his order is completely within bounds to act as judge and jury in such a situation. Father is within his right to appeal such a decision to Rome if he feels he is being treated unfairly or has been adjudicated improperly.
To me, (and I want to stress that this is only my opinion), whether or not he does appeal will be quite interesting to see and will go part of the way towards establishing the veracity of the claims being made, both from him and from the SOLT.
C
catharina
Guest
There is way too much speculation as to what
might or might not be “sinful.” It’s as easy for me to
state that SOLT was very limited in its scope of comments,
while clearly warning all that Fr. C seems to be living in instability.
It was Fr. C who first brought this to the public arena.
If SOLT feels a responsibility to those who might be
(or might have been) misled by Fr. C’s words, then so be it.
D
Denise1957
Guest
I agree about that the details are sordid. It is a very idifficult thing for any of us read and deal with. Given the previous reticence of SOLT on the matter, I think that they had a good reason for taking this line of action. One thing I wish they would have done, though, is to explain how they could have allowed Father to accumulate so much wealth over the years. I somehow recall that SOLT did try rein Father in a few years ago, by changing something in their charter regarding personal income, but I’m fuzzy on the details.
J
jwinch2
Guest
I had not heard that. Interesting and thanks for sharing. These threads do get long and it is hard to keep track of what is there or not…
Peace,
Jason
C
catharina
Guest
I saw not a single word that accused Fr. C of any sin.
On the contrary, SOLT’s staement made clear SOLT’s conclusion
that Fr. C is now living in a state of grave instability.
That’s a huge distinction.
- Status