New SOLT Statement re: Father Corapi

[JVSantos]

“He joined the United States Army, taking the oath on April 16, 1967 with the intention of becoming a Green Beret, but suffered a shoulder injury during the Special Forces Qualification Course, medically disqualifing him. He later recounted how his entire team was sent over to Vietnam and later all killed in combat operations.[3][4] He served the army in Heidelberg, Germany as a clerk and typist during that same era.”

this is from his bio, very interesting how it’s sugar coated.

 

[whm]

Now we are pretty much completely in the realm of speculation.

I think it is extremely unlikely that he buys his own company, his own website, his own real estate, pays all his expenses except his phone and email.

 

[Teelynn]

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.

This being true, I was almost offended that SOLT published the fact that this so called live in of Fr’s was a former Prostitute. Not only is his reputation being aired in public (and maybe rightfully so but, ???) but this woman (and I’m sure if you wanted to you could find out who this woman is) has been on public display for her indiscretions, made public by SOLT. MHO? That should NEVER have happened. It wasn’t at all necessary to get the point across. VERY TACKY and JUST PLAIN WRONG.

 

[catharina]

Well the actions are objectively sins. Whether he met the requirements of culpability is what I think you are getting at. In his case the unknown criteria would be consent of the will.

What I’m “getting at” is that a poster claimed that
SOLT has determined Fr. C “is guilty of specific sins.”

Such a thing NEVER happened. Pretending or
assuming that it happened does not make it so.

 

[Denise1957]

Thank you, jwinch2, for posting the post by SOLT webmaster Fr. Sam Medley. It puts the situation into a better perspective, at least for me. What he wrote seemed quite honest, sincere, and humbling.

 

[jwinch2]

Thank you, jwinch2, for posting the post by SOLT webmaster Fr. Sam Medley. It puts the situation into a better perspective, at least for me. What he wrote seemed quite honest, sincere, and humbling.

You’re quite welcome and I have to agree with your analysis. I could almost feel his pain and that of his brothers in that blog post. Very sad all around.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Good Point.

I surprised all the wrangling and accusations have been made public at all.
Usually; these things are keep private within the Church so as not create scandal.

The cats certainly out of the bag now! A total embarrassment to the Church no matter who’s right or wrong. It should have never been placed before public scrutiny.

One possibility I’ve been kicking around…

Maybe SOLT felt it had to issue a statement stating that Fr. Corapi is no longer a priest in good standing, and release some of it’s preliminary findings. This makes sense in a way since Fr. Corapi went public awhile ago, and has a large following of people. SOLT felt that it needed to re-iterate that Fr. Corapi is not in good standing. One could argue that SOLT has a moral obligation to inform the general public.

Whether or not the processes were followed or whether they are good or not is a different story. I think both sides may have made errors, but I will reserve my judgement until we get all the facts.

 

[Teelynn]

I think it is extremely unlikely that he buys his own company, his own website, his own real estate, pays all his expenses except his phone and email.

I am also confused on this issue…I did not think he had taken a vow of “poverty”. SOLT repeated that as well, that he had broken his vow of poverty. I realize that yes indeed some orders do take that vow, but somehow he did not? I know that I read that previously. Not all take the vow of poverty…anyone?

 

[catharina]

This being true, I was almost offended that SOLT published the fact that this so called live in of Fr’s was a former Prostitute. Not only is his reputation being aired in public (and maybe rightfully so but, ???) but this woman (and I’m sure if you wanted to you could find out who this woman is) has been on public display for her indiscretions, made public by SOLT. MHO? That should NEVER have happened. It wasn’t at all necessary to get the point across. VERY TACKY and JUST PLAIN WRONG.

None of this should ever have happened.

That’s the central point.
For Father C to attack the reputations of
bishops, to state that his accuser is an
alcoholic is far removed from helpful info.

If SOLT chose to give a strong public warning
re the seriousness of the matter, it has now done so.

I’m grateful that SOLT has spoken up now.

 

[MarcoPolo]

What would be an acceptable time frame for you?

16 days could be fine if they were at the tail end of an investigation that had been ongoing for 90 days. SOLT gave no such indication on June 20. But the problem is, SOLT indicated the investigation had been compromised because of Fr. Corapi’s civil suit. So either the June 20 statement that they had not come to a conclusion is false. Or the idea that the investigation was truly hindered is misleading.

 

[catharina]

16 days could be fine if they were at the tail end of an investigation that had been ongoing for 90 days. SOLT gave no such indication on June 20. But the problem is, SOLT indicated the investigation had been compromised because of Fr. Corapi’s civil suit. So either the June 20 statement that they had not come to a conclusion is false. Or the idea that the investigation was truly hindered is misleading.

???

Or the investigation was hindered, as stated on June 20th.
Or Fr. C’s own actions since the 20th were added proof of his instability.

A hindered and fumbling investigation might still lead to valid conclusions
in a period of two-plus weeks, esp considering Fr. C's own very public (name removed by moderator)ut.

There is no doubt that Fr. C's actions have interfered with the investigation.
Nonetheless, conclusions can be drawn, (related even to Fr. C's interference).

 

[catharina]

16 days could be fine if they were at the tail end of an investigation that had been ongoing for 90 days. SOLT gave no such indication on June 20. But the problem is, SOLT indicated the investigation had been compromised because of Fr. Corapi’s civil suit. So either the June 20 statement that they had not come to a conclusion is false. Or the idea that the investigation was truly hindered is misleading.

Recall, please, that in Post # 265, you stated:
“They give quite a bit of detail with confidence that Fr. Corapi is guilty of specific sins.”

This was and is untrue. I’m disinclined to trust your conclusions.

 

[vz71]

16 days could be fine if they were at the tail end of an investigation that had been ongoing for 90 days. SOLT gave no such indication on June 20. But the problem is, SOLT indicated the investigation had been compromised because of Fr. Corapi’s civil suit. So either the June 20 statement that they had not come to a conclusion is false. Or the idea that the investigation was truly hindered is misleading.

This investigation would not be the first example I have ever seen of a project that appears to have little if any progress until the final stages.

The SOLT may well have believed their investigation hindered, and then stumbled upon plenty of evidence.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

This investigation would not be the first example I have ever seen of a project that appears to have little if any progress until the final stages.

The SOLT may well have believed their investigation hindered, and then stumbled upon plenty of evidence.

I agree.

We don’t know what has fully transpired, especially behind closed doors.

 

[anthony022071]

Recall, please, that in Post # 265, you stated:
“They give quite a bit of detail with confidence that Fr. Corapi is guilty of specific sins.”

This was and is untrue. I’m disinclined to trust your conclusions.

SOLT claims he was fornicating with a woman and abusing drugs and alcohol. You don’t think they are claiming he is guilty of sins?

 

[TempleofTheSoul]

None of this should ever have happened.

That’s the central point.
For Father C to attack the reputations of
bishops, to state that his accuser is an
alcoholic is far removed from helpful info.

If SOLT chose to give a strong public warning
re the seriousness of the matter, it has now done so.

I’m grateful that SOLT has spoken up now.

I´d have to concur that SOLT did the right thing in speaking up now. SOLT gains nothing by warning others as to the activities of Corapi. They are looking out for Catholic´s who may blindly follow Corapi.

It is common sense that SOLT would not risk having Corapi file yet **ANOTHER lawsuit ** aimed at them if they allegations as to his behavior were not true. They are looking out for naive Catholic´s that have been taken in by Corapi´s words and don´t want to see more faithful Catholic´s hurt and divided by this matter.

Like I said before…it is never good to put a human being on a higher pedestal than God’s.

God bless

 

[catharina]

SOLT claims he was fornicating with a woman and abusing drugs and alcohol. You don’t think they are claiming he is guilty of sins?

One can report on actions that are sins (sinful).
One can NOT claim another is GUILTY of those sins.

Please recognize the difference.
The difference is fundamental to our faith.

 

[catharina]

I´d have to concur that SOLT did the right thing in speaking up now. SOLT gains nothing by warning others as to the activities of Corapi. They are looking out for Catholic´s who may blindly follow Corapi.

It is common sense that SOLT would not risk having Corapi file yet **ANOTHER lawsuit ** aimed at them if they allegations as to his behavior were not true. They are looking out for naive Catholic´s that have been taken in by Corapi´s words and don´t want to see more faithful Catholic´s hurt and divided by this matter.

Like I said before…it is never good to put a human being on a higher pedestal than God’s.

God bless

Yes, most certainly.

As we know:
Psalm 146:

2 Praise the LORD, my soul; I shall praise the LORD all my life, sing praise to my God while I live.
3 I Put no trust in princes, in mere mortals powerless to save.
4 When they breathe their last, they return to the earth; that day all their planning comes to nothing.
5 Happy those whose help is Jacob’s God, whose hope is in the LORD, their God,
6 The maker of heaven and earth, the seas and all that is in them, Who keeps faith forever,

Older Catholics can remember this as
“Put not your trust in men or princes … .”

 

[anthony022071]

One can report on actions that are sins (sinful).
One can NOT claim another is GUILTY of those sins.

Please recognize the difference.
The difference is fundamental to our faith.

To commit a sin is to be guilty of sin.
If you claim that someone is commiting sins,you are also claiming that he is guilty of those sins.

 

[vz71]

Now the facebook page has a petition circulating:

The Petition
WE THE UNDERSIGNED REQUEST YOUR HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVl TO INVESTIGATE THE CASE OF FR JOHN CORAPI AND FULLY EXONERATE HIM.

When was the last time people within the church built a petition to directly sway the pope and to tell him exactly what he should find.

Apparently those that are following Corapi have taken to dictating terms to the Pope.