Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
:bounce::bounce:
Thanks for posting this!
- Status
Thanks for posting this!
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Reagarding 10…the Bronx Zoo should have called him last week.
S
Shoshana
Guest
Code:
S
Shoshana
Guest
A
ANNE_2
Guest
RASH Judgment - since none of us were eye-witnesses to anything, and have never seen Fr. Corapi’s bank account and some other personal statements that are being made on this thread,- - - - - it is just best that we follow Fr. Corapi’s request and pray for all involved, and that the answers are quickly found.
CCC - "2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
CCC - "2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them."
H
Havard
Guest
Wow, Father Corapi and Chuck Norris have a lot in common!
U
unafraid
Guest
What we are seeing here is a manifestation of the cynicism imprinted upon us all as a result of the clerical abuse scandals. Like a pathogen it has infected us with an unwelcome sense of foreboding in matters such as this, as we are now more prone to doubt and suspicion than we were in more innocent times. The stain has changed us.
In a manner similar to the political cynicism wrought in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, the Roman Catholic Church is in the throes of its own post-traumatic stress experience. We want back the purity we all grew up with; we want back the holiness, the trust…the assurance. But, we are all forced to face harsh and bitter reality, and to wait for the sweeping purification we believe will ultimately come to cleanse the church. Sadly, the shadow of doubt looms until that day.
All I know about Father Corapi is from his preaching on EWTN, sitting on the couch with my wife, kids in bed, sharing a spiritual experience, and being inspired and motivated to try harder to live out our faith more completely. For that we are grateful. Now, we just have to pray, and hope as best we can, that this thing resolves swiftly and righteously.
But, this is a Holy season, and we all have the example of Jesus Christ to embrace, without fear or cynicism. He truly is a “Superstar”, but he chose to become a sacrificial lamb instead. Jesus Christ is the only “Hero” I will ever have, or ever need.
In a manner similar to the political cynicism wrought in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, the Roman Catholic Church is in the throes of its own post-traumatic stress experience. We want back the purity we all grew up with; we want back the holiness, the trust…the assurance. But, we are all forced to face harsh and bitter reality, and to wait for the sweeping purification we believe will ultimately come to cleanse the church. Sadly, the shadow of doubt looms until that day.
All I know about Father Corapi is from his preaching on EWTN, sitting on the couch with my wife, kids in bed, sharing a spiritual experience, and being inspired and motivated to try harder to live out our faith more completely. For that we are grateful. Now, we just have to pray, and hope as best we can, that this thing resolves swiftly and righteously.
But, this is a Holy season, and we all have the example of Jesus Christ to embrace, without fear or cynicism. He truly is a “Superstar”, but he chose to become a sacrificial lamb instead. Jesus Christ is the only “Hero” I will ever have, or ever need.
D
deaconmike113
Guest
I think one thing many people can agree on, as this forum certainly demonstrates, is that Fr. Corapi can be a polarizing figure. Perhaps some people like this because they feel the Cworld needs to be “shook up”. I’ve always had issues with Fr. Corapi because he can be so divisive, though maybe it’s my interpretation and not his fault. However, and this is totally my opinion, I find his approach leads to people choosing sides, putting some on the inside (as part of the team, so to speak), while others are on the outside. This cannot help the Church, it cannot build the Kingdom; in my opinion, it only damages it. I realize it’s my preference, but I prefer someone who brings us together…the John Paul II’s and Mother Teresa’s of the world, who by living lives of peace and healing make all of us, no matter our faith traditions, brothers and sisters all loved by a merciful and compassionate God.
And PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE…don’t say Jesus was also divisive; in other words, comparing what Jesus did to what Fr. Corapi does. If we walk down that path, I would point out that Jesus aggravated the religious authority of His place and time, challenging them and upsetting them. He was always hanging out with sinners…and not “good” sinners, but real and nasty sinners…the abortionists of his time, the proponents of whatever we find hateful and sinful. But through His loving word and presence, He transformed them. I rarely, if ever, find him calling down the thunder on these sinners. He reserves that for the Pharisees, Sadducces, and Scribes…in other words, the religious establishment. Fr. Corapi, in his preaching, has ALWAYS aligned himself with Church authority (which is in no way a bad thing, but which is also why his aggrieved response to the Church’s investigation of him seems so disquieting.)
And PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE…don’t say Jesus was also divisive; in other words, comparing what Jesus did to what Fr. Corapi does. If we walk down that path, I would point out that Jesus aggravated the religious authority of His place and time, challenging them and upsetting them. He was always hanging out with sinners…and not “good” sinners, but real and nasty sinners…the abortionists of his time, the proponents of whatever we find hateful and sinful. But through His loving word and presence, He transformed them. I rarely, if ever, find him calling down the thunder on these sinners. He reserves that for the Pharisees, Sadducces, and Scribes…in other words, the religious establishment. Fr. Corapi, in his preaching, has ALWAYS aligned himself with Church authority (which is in no way a bad thing, but which is also why his aggrieved response to the Church’s investigation of him seems so disquieting.)
S
Shoshana
Guest
Code:
N
Norminha
Guest
So, after keeping your “financial support” are you still faithfully praying for the “multi-millionaire” and his accuser? Remember we are liven the most holy of holiest times -LENTEN season, time to refrain our thoughts, words and deeds.
And at the end, Fr. Corapi works for God, who sent him and I believe God did not ordered him to amass millions at his ordination, for Catholic priests must make vows of poverty.
D
debraran
Guest
I admit for many it’s hard not to put the armour up. Times really weren’t more pure when we were young (at least the 40-up crowd) they just seemed it. I thought I grew up in “Mayberry” but many years later, found out the soap operas going on in my neighborhood and hidden abuses. Priests in my state from back then have been accused or arrested…things were just kept quiet, which I admit, in some ways is easier to digest.
I really do think that some of the “worst case scenerios” is a buffer, especially for some that believed the last few priests in the news were victims of lies and later found out they weren’t.
I hope this case shows that sometimes that isn’t the case and gives a big “rush of holy grace” to all involved.
To assume is wrong, but I can understand the tiredness that this type of news brings. I actually was relieved that it wasn’t worse and I know, although some wont admit it, they were also. And I hope, if it is true, the same support and prayers will be there, not just when he was thought innocent, but because he is a "brother’ and imperfect and will need it even more.
I have not idea how a religious investigation will progress, what they do, but I hope they do it well for his sake.
I really do think that some of the “worst case scenerios” is a buffer, especially for some that believed the last few priests in the news were victims of lies and later found out they weren’t.
I hope this case shows that sometimes that isn’t the case and gives a big “rush of holy grace” to all involved.
To assume is wrong, but I can understand the tiredness that this type of news brings. I actually was relieved that it wasn’t worse and I know, although some wont admit it, they were also. And I hope, if it is true, the same support and prayers will be there, not just when he was thought innocent, but because he is a "brother’ and imperfect and will need it even more.
I have not idea how a religious investigation will progress, what they do, but I hope they do it well for his sake.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Not true for seculatr priests
J
JReducation
Guest
The answer is affirmative. The founder of an institute, be it a congregation, an order or a society of apostolic life, remains its spiritual father or mother, even after his or her death until the Church rescinds his rights. Therefore, whatever the founder established is binding on the institute until the Church unbinds it. There are times when a founder will set up certain situations, but will leave a ruling that those who follow after his death have the authority to change it and the members have the moral duty to abide by the authority of those in charge at the time. Not all founders impose this on their foundations or their followers. I’ll give you a simple example.
St. Francis of Assisi wrote that he was bound to obey the pope. The brothers are bound to obey him (not the pope) and his canonically elected successors. There is a play on words here. Francis vowed to obey the pope. His canonically elected successors are therefore bound to obey the pope as well or they forfeit their election. Everyone else is bound to obey them. In other words, obedience follows a chain of command.
There is no mention of the constitutions. Francis’ will is made known through The Rule, not the constitutions. The constitutions were written to fill in the blanks. They respond to concerns and situations that Francis did not mention in the The Rule. As a result, 800 years later, we have four Franciscan Rules, written by St. Francis for the different orders that he founded. However, we have over 100 constitutions and the Franciscan family has over 100 obediences (groups bound to obey different constitutions). Nonetheless, these groups are all equally Franciscan, because there is only one law-giver, Francis. The Church accepts all of these constitutions as valid expressions of the Franciscan charism, because the founder made no provisions that bound the order to any constitution, only to him and to the rules that he wrote for the four orders. Therefore, there can be unity in diversity, which sounds like the original arrangement with the SOLT.
Because the SOLT does not have a rule of life, it is governed by its constitutions. This is the case with most orders, with all congregations and with all societies. Only a few orders have a rule of life, even though the word “rule” has been used interchangeably with actual Rules and statutes, which are not the same. The former cannot be changed and the latter can be changed.
The way that I’m understanding the explanation given by the SOLTs is that the constitutions were written and voted on by the membership and approved by the Church. The SOLT is not saying that the canonical successor of the founder ever ordered Father Corapi to submit to these constitutions. My take is that he is simply stating facts.
Fact #1: “This was the agreement between Father Corapi and Father Founder.”
Fact # 2: “These are our constitutions today.”
If there is no mandate to submit to these new constitutions or the authority to make such a mandate, then Father Corapi is not out of compliance.
I’m not a member of the SOLT. I have never read its constitutions. I have no idea of there is such an authority built into it. Does anyone here really know?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe there is a mistaken understanding here. No deacon, priest or bishop makes vows of any kind.
Vow are proper to the consecrated life. Consecrated men and women are those who are: married, consecrated virgins, hermits and then there are those that belong to abbeys, religious orders, religious congregations, some secular orders, and secular institutes.
When a secular man is ordained a deacon he PROMISES not vows, obedience to the bishop and celibacy if he is not married. If he is married, he promises to remain celibate after the death of his wife. This is true for the 23 Catholic Churches.
If a man is a consecrated religious or a member of a society or secular institute that has made vows, this part of the ritual is skipped and the ceremony proceeds to the actual ordination.
As you can see, the vow of poverty is not part of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Therefore, a deacon, priest or bishop who is not a consecrated man (religious or other), but is strictly a secular man, can retain ownership of his assets and acquire more assets.
If Donald Trump’s son were to be ordained a priest and he inherits his father’s fortune, it is legally and justly his to keep and do with as he pleases.
If Donald Trump’s son is a consecrated religious (ordained or not), the rules of that institute apply.
If you belong to a religious order, you may not inherit your father’s fortune or keep what you had before entering. You must give it away before making perpetual vows and you must legally renounce your right to inherit.
If you belong to a religious congregation, you may inherit your father’s fortune and keep what you had before you entered, but you may not make use of it. You can put it aside for your identified heir after your death or you can give it to charity.
If you belong to a secular society, such as the SOLT, you can inherit, you can keep and you can use according to the constitutions of that society. Why? Because you are not a consecrated man. You are a secular person, unless the statutes of the society say that you must do X, Y or Z or the founder said that you must do X, Y or Z.
Poverty has nothing to do with the priesthood. It is part of the consecrated life (excluding marriage which is also a vowed life). While many priests are consecrated religious, not all of them are. Our current pope is a secular man. He owns property and has money of his own. I have no idea if he’s a wealthy man or not. I know that he and his brother own a home in Bavaria, that he was a professor who was paid a salary, a writer who was paid royalties, and the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith who is paid a salary and benefits like any other Church employee. For all I know, he may have given it all away or it may all be in a bank account in his cat’s name. That’s his business.
We need to stay out of the financial affairs of our religious and clergy, just as we don’t want them in our financial affairs, unless we work for the IRS.
The only law that the Church imposes on the ordained is that they live a simple life, not a poor life. A simple life is a very broad term. What is luxury in one context can be very simple in another. Compare a $200,000.00 home in New York City to one in Omaha.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
Shoshana
Guest
I believe there is a mistaken understanding here. No deacon, priest or bishop makes vows of any kind.
Vow are proper to the consecrated life. Consecrated men and women are those who are: married, consecrated virgins, hermits and then there are those that belong to abbeys, religious orders, religious congregations, some secular orders, and secular institutes.
When a secular man is ordained a deacon he PROMISES not vows, obedience to the bishop and celibacy if he is not married. If he is married, he promises to remain celibate after the death of his wife. This is true for the 23 Catholic Churches.
If a man is a consecrated religious or a member of a society or secular institute that has made vows, this part of the ritual is skipped and the ceremony proceeds to the actual ordination.
As you can see, the vow of poverty is not part of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Therefore, a deacon, priest or bishop who is not a consecrated man (religious or other), but is strictly a secular man, can retain ownership of his assets and acquire more assets.
If Donald Trump’s son were to be ordained a priest and he inherits his father’s fortune, it is legally and justly his to keep and do with as he pleases.
If Donald Trump’s son is a consecrated religious (ordained or not), the rules of that institute apply.
If you belong to a religious order, you may not inherit your father’s fortune or keep what you had before entering. You must give it away before making perpetual vows and you must legally renounce your right to inherit.
If you belong to a religious congregation, you may inherit your father’s fortune and keep what you had before you entered, but you may not make use of it. You can put it aside for your identified heir after your death or you can give it to charity.
If you belong to a secular society, such as the SOLT, you can inherit, you can keep and you can use according to the constitutions of that society. Why? Because you are not a consecrated man. You are a secular person, unless the statutes of the society say that you must do X, Y or Z or the founder said that you must do X, Y or Z.
Poverty has nothing to do with the priesthood. It is part of the consecrated life (excluding marriage which is also a vowed life). While many priests are consecrated religious, not all of them are. Our current pope is a secular man. He owns property and has money of his own. I have no idea if he’s a wealthy man or not. I know that he and his brother own a home in Bavaria, that he was a professor who was paid a salary, a writer who was paid royalties, and the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith who is paid a salary and benefits like any other Church employee. For all I know, he may have given it all away or it may all be in a bank account in his cat’s name. That’s his business.
We need to stay out of the financial affairs of our religious and clergy, just as we don’t want them in our financial affairs, unless we work for the IRS.
The only law that the Church imposes on the ordained is that they live a simple life, not a poor life. A simple life is a very broad term. What is luxury in one context can be very simple in another. Compare a $200,000.00 home in New York City to one in Omaha.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Code:
D
deaconmike113
Guest
I much prefer these comparisons, though they would NEVER allow themselves to be compared to Jesus! However, I think even these are a bit of a stretch if we’re comparing these saints to Fr. Corapi. Yes, St. Francis was much like our Lord. However, St. Francis, a man of incredible humility and personal ascetism (like Jesus), is not one I would compare easily to Fr. Corapi. Francis looked to “build the Church”, and did so through the example of his life and the lives of his brother friars. As he also said…“Preach always; when necessary, use words.” So I’m not sure about a comparison to Fr. Corapi. I don’t know as much about Padre Pio…however, his supernatural gifts of stigmatism, healing, and bi-location, as well as his personal humility and ascetism as he lived in the Friary, among other things, put him in a different category than Fr. Corapi as well.
As far as my divisive comments, as I said, I think from the comments in this forum that we can see that he tends to cause people to separate into different “camps”. I would imagine that most people on this forum take their faith seriously…yet there are huge differences of opinion about Fr. Corapi. Do the “orthodox” Catholics love him and the “liberals” hate him? Who are the “rael” Catholics? Do some Catholics want to hear the truth, while others do not? I believe this is destructive…if you, or I, believe we’re closer to the truth than our Catholic brothers and sisters, and we think “they” (whoever “they” may be) need to hear about it and get in line, I find that terribly divisive and counter-productive. As I’ve said before, I think he brings this out in us. I’m just as guilty in this.
I think it’s how he preaches and his personality that I find particularly divisive. I believe in the basic message that Fr. Corapi preaches, but I do not find it to be based in the merciful and compassionate way of Our Lord. What I mean by that is, IN MY OPINION, and I realize it’s my opinion, he appeals to fear, not love. “In the end, your either in heaven, or in hell. Forever.” Well, that is of course true, but is that selfish, self-centered reason suppose to be our motivation in living and learning our faith? He seems extraordinarily disdainful and condescending to those who may honestly struggle in ways of living out their faith. It’s his way (which he sees as the Church’s way) or the highway. For those who don’t live the faith in the way he interprets it (and for instance, St. Ignatius and St. Francis would probably propose living out their faiths in very different ways), for anyone who may express honest confusion or even disagreement with the Church, he basically says there is no room for them…get back in line, or get out. He also implies, time after time, that those who are don’t go along with him and how he sees the Church, are the reasons the Church has suffered in vocations, attendance, scandal, etc. He apparently has it all figured out. My gosh…such arrogance. He will, of course, speak about his own fall and rise to success, giving all glory to God, but that’s easy to do when you’re on top. People admire you for it and say what a great guy you are and buy all of your books and CD’s.
Finally, just because other saints of the past may have been abrasive doesn’t necessarily put Fr. Corapi among them as well. There was usually so much more to them than that. So before we nominate or look to Fr. Corapi as a modern day saint, it’s why I do think it is SO important to look at how he personally lives out his life and mission, away from the pulpit. It’s why I think it’s legitimate to ask about what happens with all of that money he makes. It’s why I think it’s so important to see how he reacts to this accusation, even if it is a grave injustice. Does he ask us all to calm down, to trust the Church? Or does he speak out about perceived injustices and illicit actions by the Bishops, or does he allow press releases that put his accuser in a negative light? Is this what Francis would do? Is this what Jesus would do? I think these things are disturbing and are important to consider when we look at Fr. Corapi and try to figure out who he really is and his place in our Church.
Thanks for listening.
S
Shoshana
Guest
A
ANNE_2
Guest
People who wish to detract from Father Corapi’s messages revert to the name calling and downgrading people who enjoy his preaching. He has brought many people back to the Church.
These same people do not like the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” because they can not teach falsehoods when people know their “stuff”. Fr. Corapi did a great series on the CCC.
No responsible AUTHORITY has ever insinuated or called him a “rock star” or those who appreciate his preaching/teaching “rock star groupies”. This is rediculas, and just another way of slander.
These same people do not like the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” because they can not teach falsehoods when people know their “stuff”. Fr. Corapi did a great series on the CCC.
No responsible AUTHORITY has ever insinuated or called him a “rock star” or those who appreciate his preaching/teaching “rock star groupies”. This is rediculas, and just another way of slander.
D
dfp42
Guest
Deacon Mike,
If you don’t mind me asking where are you a deacon at and how long have you been one?
If you don’t mind me asking where are you a deacon at and how long have you been one?
- Status