New SOLT Statement re: Father Corapi

[Mrs_Sally]

But what religious order has experience with someone who wants to do his or her own thing, while still promoting his membership in the order? I mean to say, the presumption is that when one takes religious vows, it is with the goal of SUBMISSION in mind, not rebellion. Why should SOLT have had to force Fr. Corapi to do or stop doing anything at all? They have their own mission and focus, and it’s not as an investigative body. I’m sure his superiors trusted him until he was proven to be untrustworthy.

People say SOLT is not free from responsibility, but what religious order is really prepared to deal with such problems?

This is a great point. Since the order had originally allowed members to run their own ministries, they obviously didn’t set out to have strict control over everything. Even after the constitution changed in 1994, they may not have set up a strict system to bring everyone back right away. Anyway, it probably wasn’t until the medical lawsuit in 2002 (?) when he got so much money, that there would even have been a worry about him. Then within a couple of years of that, he said he was ill and stopped speaking publicly (2005-07?). So it really hasn’t been until the past few years that there has been an obvious issue that would lead SOLT to insist that he come back to community. From comments here on these threads, I gather that this time line coincides with him beginning to speak more about his “man toys” and personal trainer, etc in his talks.

Someone who knows more about his history will have to corroborate this.

 

[Shoshana]

This is sad. I did not realize his conferences did not include that. I can see if it is set up as just one speech, but you are right, every Catholic conference I have been to includes confession time and Mass (or at least a prayer services or adoration).

I was also suprised by the news that he didn’t celebrate Mass often --for example on EWTN, or even in the dioceses where he lived. so sad.

This is not the case of the 5 conferences I attended of his. He said Mass and there were tons of priests hearing confessions (one of them was my own spiritual director.) There was exposition of the sacrament at all 5 conferences also.

The last one I went to was in Buffalo at HSBC…and there were over 70 priests concelebrating with the Bishop Kmick. There was exposition…you could hear a pin drop! There was over 10,000 people attending…

 

[brumano]

It was Fr. Corapi’s civil suits that prevented the investigation from going forward (this was mentioned in previous press releases). The claims can’t be substantiated, nor disproven, because Fr. Corapi will not allow them to be. It is very disturbing to me that Fr. Corapi does not want the investigation to proceed.

Prayers for all involved, especially Fr. Corapi.

You’re probably right that the accusations can’t be either proven or disproven but I doubt that it’s the fault of Fr. Corapi and not simply the fact that it is a matter of his word against her’s. You may be right that Fr.Corapi does not want the investigation to proceed but even if that is so that would be irrelevant to the issue of guilt because he may have perfectly valid and good reasons for not wanting it to continue; one that immediately springs to mind would be that there was already ample time for his superiors in his order to look into the accusations, question the parties, decide how much more pertinent evidence might be added and in fairness to all conclude the matter. They did not do so. As I say that is only one possible reason that he would not want the investigation to continue, I could give you more but the point is it really has nothing to do with whether he is guilty or not.
You seem to believe that Fr. Corapi has such tremendous power over the entire process, and that he can stop his order's activities into investigating him and so forth, well, why did he allow all of the unfounded accusations on the op to somehow come to light ?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

This is not the case of the 5 conferences I attended of his. He said Mass and there were tons of priests hearing confessions (one of them was my own spiritual director.) There was exposition of the sacrament at all 5 conferences also.

The last one I went to was in Buffalo at HSBC…and there were over 70 priests concelebrating with the Bishop Kmick. There was exposition…you could hear a pin drop! There was over 10,000 people attending…

Wonderful! That is more along the lines of what I was expecting. Hopefully those 10,000 people and 70 priests are all praying for him and for everyone involved in this mess!

 

[nancymarie]

As a sinner myself, I can’t judge Father Corapi or his accuser, or the Bishops in charge.

I do know people who will use this incident as reason to leave the Church, or begin investigating other religions. Others I know will stop going to Confession.

As for myself, I will be Catholic to the end. It’s just sad this had to happen at a time when so many are using the priest scandals as a reason to leave.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Fr. Corapi once stated that there was a great freedom in the vow of obedience, because he didn’t have to struggle to discern the will of God. He knew that the will of his superiors was the will of God.

Reading that makes me so sad. At some point, he obviously stopped believing that…

 

[Teelynn]

I have no specifics as to his ongoing medical issues.
Yet I clearly know, as others have stated that a history of
drug addiction and drug abuse has longstanding consequences
for any who have been involved in that type of life.

Chief among the consequences are brain damages that
can appear in one’s later years. It’s a fact of that lifestyle,
even long after drug use has ceased.

Wow, I wasn’t aware that the effects of drugs could appear long after ceasing use. Something else to ponder. It truly looks like he has gone off the deep end, but there again ??? I am still holding out my opinion one way or the other. Only God knows what truly has transpired. Even if the Vatican were to investigate, (if Fr. C would request it) I trust no one but Jesus. Call me a cynic, but I have seen enough 1st hand to know “believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.”

 

[dfp42]

This is not the case of the 5 conferences I attended of his. He said Mass and there were tons of priests hearing confessions (one of them was my own spiritual director.) There was exposition of the sacrament at all 5 conferences also.

The last one I went to was in Buffalo at HSBC…and there were over 70 priests concelebrating with the Bishop Kmick. There was exposition…you could hear a pin drop! There was over 10,000 people attending…

 

[whm]

But what religious order has experience with someone who wants to do his or her own thing, while still promoting his membership in the order? I mean to say, the presumption is that when one takes religious vows, it is with the goal of SUBMISSION in mind, not rebellion. Why should SOLT have had to force Fr. Corapi to do or stop doing anything at all? They have their own mission and focus, and it’s not as an investigative body. I’m sure his superiors trusted him until he was proven to be untrustworthy.

People say SOLT is not free from responsibility, but what religious order is really prepared to deal with such problems?

They are his superiors, he is part of their responsibility. As a member of the order he shares their mission.

As for the bolded part. Submission is part of the deal and being looked after is the other part. He may not have wanted to be looked after, but then neither do teenagers to use a parent child relationship as an example (which the superior is father or mother for their order). It also assumes the individual is behaving with a rational mind. Given the facts I have I can not rule out that Fr. Corapi might have some other struggles.

You do have a point this is a very unique situation in that he was not required to live in community. Parish priests these days often live alone (if they are the only priest), but they live near or on the parish campus and have parishioners around them all the time. They also usually do not have a lot of money or free time. The bishop or a vicar visit the church from time to time. He truly was all by himself with little or no supervision.

I am frustrated cause it all seems kind of avoidable, if better decisions were made 20 years ago.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

As a sinner myself, I can’t judge Father Corapi or his accuser, or the Bishops in charge.

I do know people who will use this incident as reason to leave the Church, or begin investigating other religions. Others I know will stop going to Confession.

As for myself, I will be Catholic to the end. It’s just sad this had to happen at a time when so many are using the priest scandals as a reason to leave.

I cannot imagine why someone would use this scandal as a reason to stop going to confession. What does this have to do with one of our precious sacraments? Would people stop taking the Eucharist because of one priest? It is the Lord’s Body and Blood, not dependent upon any one priest. Just as confession is not the priest but Jesus hearing and absolving our sins.

I have been a Catholic all my life, and had never heard of Fr. Corapi until I came to this forum. His followers are still a small subset of Catholics, and his dedicated “fans” are a small subset of that small number. Let’s not make this into a crisis for the Church. I do not believe that it is. As charismatic as Fr. Corapi has been, he’s not critical to the future of the Church.

 

[Kardinal]

You may be right that Fr.Corapi does not want the investigation to proceed but even if that is so that would be irrelevant to the issue of guilt because he may have perfectly valid and good reasons for not wanting it to continue;

Perhaps so. But he has no perfectly valid reason for publicly accusing a sitting Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church of lying, libel, and blackmail. He also has no perfectly valid reason for disobeying the lawful orders of his religious superior to drop the lawsuit. He also has no perfectly valid reason for disobeying the lawful orders of his religious superior to return to community life. He also has no perfectly valid reason for disobeying the lawful orders of his religious superior to cooperate with the investigation. All of thes are things that he has admitted to doing.

one that immediately springs to mind would be that there was already ample time for his superiors in his order to look into the accusations, question the parties, decide how much more pertinent evidence might be added and in fairness to all conclude the matter. They did not do so.

That reason holds absoultely no water whatsoever.

You seem to believe that Fr. Corapi has such tremendous power over the entire process

No. He has the power to stop the lawsuit, which, despite a lawful order from his religious superior to do so, he has not done. That is disobedience, it is public, it is manifest, it is obvious, and it should be rightly condemned.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

They are his superiors, he is part of their responsibility. As a member of the order he shares their mission.

As for the bolded part. Submission is part of the deal and being looked after is the other part. He may not have wanted to be looked after, but then neither do teenagers to use a parent child relationship as an example (which the superior is father or mother for their order). It also assumes the individual is behaving with a rational mind. Given the facts I have I can not rule out that Fr. Corapi might have some other struggles.

You do have a point this is a very unique situation in that he was not required to live in community. Parish priests these days often live alone (if they are the only priest), but they live near or on the parish campus and have parishioners around them all the time. They also usually do not have a lot of money or free time. The bishop or a vicar visit the church from time to time. ** He truly was all by himself with little or no supervision.
**
I am frustrated cause it all seems kind of avoidable, if better decisions were made 20 years ago.

With a lot of money, a history of addiction, and sinners all around him. And dare I say it - the Devil breathing down his neck.

Better decisions by whom? Corapi, or the order? The better decisions by him might have meant that he didn’t let his ego take hold of him, that he stayed in the community, and remembered that as an addict, he would be susceptible for the rest of his life to that temptation. The order did not have the responsibility to force him to stay in residence.

 

[Shoshana]

http://70998.stablerack.com/images/Buffalo_group.png

http://70998.stablerack.com/images/Corapi_buffalo1.png

wn.com/fr_corapi_conference_preaching

Something happened between this time and now…August 2009-July 2011

 

[anthony022071]

Respectfully, “utterly innocent” is very unlikely. As far as I can tell, at least in its public statements, the Assocation (not order; the distinction is crucial) has acted appropriately and forthrightly. It did not make the proceedings, accusations, or any other information public; Father Corapi did that. It made no accusations of any kind toward anyone;

Father Sheehan gave a press release on March 18,saying that Father Corapai had been placed on administrative leave from public ministry because of allegations of misconduct. He gave an interview with the National Catholic Register on March 19 in which he mentioned the non-diclosure agreements and civil suit.

Father Corapi publicly accused a sitting Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church and his religious superior (as SOLT is a diocesan Association, the ultimate superior is the Archbishop of that diocese) of lying, slander, and blackmail. Only after the conclusion of the fact-finding task did SOLT publish its findings, after Father Corapi made this a public matter, accusing SOLT of attempting to railroad him.

Father Sheehan said in the interview,“We will continue to move pastorally and charitably,taking steps to protect his good name”.

They have not done that.

 

[MarcoPolo]

No. I do not. … I am more concerned that the actions of Corapi directly hindered the investigation.

That may be the case, but why is it impossible that SOLT’s June 20th statement did not let on as much as they knew? I don’t see why it should de facto be ruled out. They could have felt it was a good PR move, or their attorneys advised them one way on the 20th and another way on the 5th, I don’t know. I’m not even saying you have to think it’s the more likely scenario, but I don’t understand why we must believe SOLT to be immaculate in their pastoral actions.

After all, the former Bishop of Corpus Christi, Rene Henry Gracida, said the following yesterday on his blog: “*t seems to me that the issuing of the [July 5 SOLT] statement is an effort by the SOLT leadership to justify their own mishandling of his case from the beginning.”

.*

 

[rayne89]

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…

In my opinion I think they felt they needed to open the eyes of those who are still loyally following John Corapi. If they had been vague I think it would have led to even more speculation, confusion and denial. I think they felt in order to protect the flock they had to give them the reality of the situation, that continuing to follow this man is dangerous. Even with the cold, hard facts there are still some who will not even believe a group of religious whom have nothing to gain by distorting the facts or spreading lies. In fact SOLT know John Corapi is not afraid of litigation and would no doubt sue them for libel if they said one thing damaging to his reputation that is not true. Sadly there are still some that continue to hang on to a man whose behavior just in the last few weeks alone had red flags all over it. There are none so blind as those that simply refuse to see.
I think the details were meant to be dose of hard medicine. This is the reality, this is where this man really is. “Take the blinders off and see what is in front of you” hard reality. I’m sure it was not an easy decision -but I believe it was done in the interest in protecting the flock.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

That may be the case, but why is it impossible that SOLT’s June 20th statement did not let on as much as they knew? I don’t see why it should de facto be ruled out. They could have felt it was a good PR move, or their attorneys advised them one way on the 20th and another way on the 5th, I don’t know. I’m not even saying you have to think it’s the more likely scenario, but I don’t understand why we must believe SOLT to be immaculate in their pastoral actions.

After all, the former Bishop of Corpus Christi, Rene Henry Gracida, said the following yesterday on his blog: “t seems to me that the issuing of the [July 5 SOLT] statement is an effort by the SOLT leadership to justify their own mishandling of his case from the beginning.”

.

And the Bishop Emeritus is WRONG to get involved in this matter.

 

[whm]

With a lot of money, a history of addiction, and sinners all around him. And dare I say it - the Devil breathing down his neck.

Better decisions by whom? Corapi, or the order? The better decisions by him might have meant that he didn’t let his ego take hold of him, that he stayed in the community, and remembered that as an addict, he would be susceptible for the rest of his life to that temptation.

Both.

The order did not have the responsibility to force him to stay in residence.

Well they just asked him to do that very thing. They could have ordered him under obedience. They do have a responsibility for him as a member of their order. This is a very young and relatively small order. When they started to grow they changed their rule and never required him to comply. They are not responsible for his sins. They are responsible for his spiritual formation and well being. It is not clear how they were monitoring that if they didn’t realize he wasn’t living according to a promise of poverty. It was very well know that he had a lot of money. Besides all his book/cd/dvd sales, he won a $2.7 million whistle blower award in 2002. It sounds like they basically let him do his thing.

On a positive note they are addressing these very issues right now at their meeting.

 

[larsenl1]

I was right about mass not celebrated and confession. I was wrong about prayer/eucharistic adoration. I think my friend and I missed the morning chant as we drove in from miles away. I don’t know why I don’t remember the adoration.

At no time did Father Corapi wear vestments as I saw in the photos posted. He wore a nicely tailored suit and looked every bit a businessman, with dignity and decorum, but no collar. :\

FR. CORAPI BOOKSIGNING & VIP DINNER

Friday, September 10, 2010 at the Hilton Omaha

(Hilton Omaha is located at 455 N. 10th St., Omaha, NE 68102)

9 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Fr. Corapi Book Signing at the Hilton Omaha - open to the public

6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. VIP Guest Dinner*

SPIRITUAL WARFARE WITH FATHER JOHN CORAPI

Saturday, September 11, 2010 at the Qwest Center Omaha

(The Qwest Center Omaha is located at 455 S. 10th St., Omaha, NE 68102-1151)

8 a.m. Doors Open

9 a.m. Chanted Morning Prayer with His Excellency George J. Lucas, Archbishop of Omaha, NE

9:30 a.m. Welcome

9:45 a.m. Fr. Corapi Talk 1

10:45 a.m. Break

11:15 a.m. Fr. Corapi Talk 2

12:15 p.m. Lunch Break

*VIP Guest Luncheon will be held at the Hilton Omaha, adjacent to the Qwest Center Omaha

2:00 p.m. Fr. Corapi Talk 3

3 P.M. Break

3:30 p.m. Eucharistic Exposition & Fr. Corapi Talk 4

4:45 p.m. Chanted Evening Prayer

5:15 p.m. Final Announcements

5:20 p.m. Benediction

5:30 p.m. Conclusion

 

[Kardinal]

Father Sheehan gave a press release on March 18,saying that Father Corapai had been placed on administrative leave from public ministry because of allegations of misconduct.

Totally appropriate move.

He gave an interview with the National Catholic Register on March 19 in which he mentioned the non-diclosure agreements and civil suit.

Was that inappropriate? And what did Father Corapi do in the meantime? I believe he was the first to discuss the nature of the allegations, which places SOLT in the position of responding to them.

Father Sheehan said in the interview,“We will continue to move pastorally and charitably,taking steps to protect his good name”.

They have not done that.

Quite the contrary, they have done so. They have made very few statements and those with great charity toward Father Corapi and his good name.

Unfortunately, Father Corapi has not done the same. His accusations against his Archbishop are nothing short of scandalous. His disobedience is unacceptable as well.

The promise of obedience to the bishop is as binding as the promise of celibacy.