Statement of Santa Cruz-Fr John Corapi

[dfp42]

Santa Cruz Media is a secular organization. Since it is not under church authority, they are not end-running a bishop.

Isn’t EWTN also a secular organization now since Mother Angelica sold it to lay people? I read…

"In 1999, Bishop David Foley of the Archdiocese of Birmingham, Alabama issued a decree prohibiting priests in his diocese from celebrating Mass in the ad orientem (“to the east”) style, with people and priest facing in the same direction under most circumstances.[13] Although the decree did not specifically mention EWTN, due to the phrasing of the decree, which stated: “…any Mass that is or will be televised for broadcast or videotaped for public dissemination”. supporters and critics alike generally agreed that the decree was written with EWTN in mind. Bishop Foley stated that the practice of having the priest’s back to the people “amounts to making a political statement and is dividing the people.”[13] The network eventually complied with Bishop Foley’s order.[14] As a result of this incident, the Holy See appointed an Apostolic Visitor, Archbishop Roberto González Nieves of San Juan, Puerto Rico, to investigate. Archbishop Gonzalez Nieves saw three distinct problems: the ownership of the network, the monastery’s right to give property to EWTN, and, since she had never been elected, the legitimacy of Mother Angelica’s authority.[15] To prevent the Holy See from making changes, Mother Angelica resigned her positions on the EWTN board and turned it completely over to lay people, which severed official connection with her monastery and assured that the management of EWTN were not directly dependent on the bishops or the Holy See."%between%%between%

 

[Havard]

It is important to remember that Canon Lawyers, like all Lawyers, are not the arbitrator of the law, thus their statements on the application of the Law is their legal opinion. While it may be more informed than our opinions it does not make it the truth.

Usually when you hire a Lawyer you are going to get what you pay for, that is an opinion that matches what you want. Later in a court hearing is where the law is upheld and you find if your Lawyer’s opinion was correct.

As for the character assassination of the accuser, I will just chalk that up to hearsay and leave it at that.

I will continue to pray for all involved.

Sure people shop for lawyers who will agree with them, however, the statement didn’t say “the canon lawyer we’ve retained said…”, it said “we consulted with a number of canon lawyers, and they have said…” So it seems to me that either 1) there was a uniformity of opinion among the canon lawyers consulted, or 2) Santa Cruz Media, Inc. is misrepresenting/overstating the uniformity of character of the consultations.

 

[Miserissima]

Several issues have come up in this discussion. I’m not saying that Father Corapi shouldn’t have funding for his defense now that his ministry has been suspended – just consulting canon lawyers must cost something, too – but that SCM could have made an appeal for purchases/funds without claiming that Father Corapi doesn’t get paid, without mud-slinging the accuser, or publicly disagreeing with the bishop. Each of these points is very, very bad form.

1. Finances: I do not believe that Fr. Corapi is a member of an order, but that he is a diocesan priest. The “rules” regarding are significantly different for both.

From the LA Diocese page:

Do priests get paid? Since a diocesan priest does not take a vow of poverty, he receives a personal salary commensurate with the local standard of living. This salary enables him to pay for certain personal expenses such as medical expenses, life insurance, books, entertainment, vacation, and charitable contributions. Basic necessities are provided by the parish which he serves. To focus more easily on Jesus and service to His people, priests choose to live simply, without accumulating a lot of material possessions.

According to his resume, Father Corapi not a priest in a religious order, but a “Perpetually professed priest in good standing with the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity, a society of apostolic life of the diocesan rite with headquarters in Robstown, Texas.”

This is a really good link explaining what diocesan priests earn:
wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_salary_of_a_Catholic_priest From that site:

Diocesan priests who live “in the world” and generally are responsible for taking care of parish churches receive a salary from their parish to keep for personal use (savings, retirement, automobile, vacations, charity, etc.). The diocese will set this salary and usually there will be a multiplier or other incentives for years served, the size of the parish, the oversight of a Catholic school, or other factors.

The article also explains that diocesan priests do not make a vow of poverty, but receive very little income a year (including stipends). **This is different from saying that a priest does not get paid at all: **SCM’s E-letter touts that, “The Church provides no financial support to Fr. Corapi.” SCM is misrepresenting something here.

2. SCM and the Accuser: What SCM has to say about the character of the accuser belongs in court. Essentially, they just “tabloided” themselves and added more sordidness to this event. They went after the cahracter of the accuser

3. SCM and its response to the Bishop: Attacking a bishop questioning the bishop are two different things. Questioning is consulting with canon lawyers and bringing their findings to the bishop’s attention. Attacking is when you take those findings and air the dirty laundry by whining in public. Announcing that the Bishop’s “actions…are, on several points of canon law, illicit,” is just bad form: like airing dirty laundry. There has to be a better, more dignified way to handle it than to send out a mass E-mail.

4. Father Corapi’s involvement with SCM: I re-read the SCM letter as if Father Corapi knew that Santa Cruz would release it…which I believe he did, since he’s part of its “board.” He allowed SCM to go forward with an appeal for us to buy these things to contribute to his defense fund. To wit, “Your purchase of products from Santa Cruz Media helps provide the funding for Father’s continued work as well as the legal expenses he continues to incur as a result of these malicious allegations.” This could be construed as SCM being Father Corapi’s mouthpiece – where Fr. Corapi isn’t allowed to speak for himself, he’s doing it through SCM. That is another end-run around the Bishop, if he was directed not to discuss particulars.
If SCM acted without Father Corapi’s knowledge, they did not do any favors for him.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Several issues have come up in this discussion. I’m not saying that Father Corapi shouldn’t have funding for his defense now that his ministry has been suspended – just consulting canon lawyers must cost something, too – but that SCM could have made an appeal for purchases/funds without claiming that Father Corapi doesn’t get paid, without mud-slinging the accuser, or publicly disagreeing with the bishop. Each of these points is very, very bad form.

1. Finances: I do not believe that Fr. Corapi is a member of an order, but that he is a diocesan priest. The “rules” regarding are significantly different for both.

From the LA Diocese page:
According to his resume, Father Corapi not a priest in a religious order, but a “Perpetually professed priest in good standing with the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity, a society of apostolic life of the diocesan rite with headquarters in Robstown, Texas.”

This is a really good link explaining what diocesan priests earn:
wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_salary_of_a_Catholic_priest From that site:

The article also explains that diocesan priests do not make a vow of poverty, but receive very little income a year (including stipends). **This is different from saying that a priest does not get paid at all: **SCM’s E-letter touts that, “The Church provides no financial support to Fr. Corapi.” SCM is misrepresenting something here.

2. SCM and the Accuser: What SCM has to say about the character of the accuser belongs in court. Essentially, they just “tabloided” themselves and added more sordidness to this event. They went after the cahracter of the accuser

3. SCM and its response to the Bishop: Attacking a bishop questioning the bishop are two different things. Questioning is consulting with canon lawyers and bringing their findings to the bishop’s attention. Attacking is when you take those findings and air the dirty laundry by whining in public. Announcing that the Bishop’s “actions…are, on several points of canon law, illicit,” is just bad form: like airing dirty laundry. There has to be a better, more dignified way to handle it than to send out a mass E-mail.

4. Father Corapi’s involvement with SCM: I re-read the SCM letter as if Father Corapi knew that Santa Cruz would release it…which I believe he did, since he’s part of its “board.” He allowed SCM to go forward with an appeal for us to buy these things to contribute to his defense fund. To wit, “Your purchase of products from Santa Cruz Media helps provide the funding for Father’s continued work as well as the legal expenses he continues to incur as a result of these malicious allegations.” This could be construed as SCM being Father Corapi’s mouthpiece – where Fr. Corapi isn’t allowed to speak for himself, he’s doing it through SCM. That is another end-run around the Bishop, if he was directed not to discuss particulars.
If SCM acted without Father Corapi’s knowledge, they did not do any favors for him.

Great post. Thanks for all the research.

 

[steve711]

Several issues have come up in this discussion. I’m not saying that Father Corapi shouldn’t have funding for his defense now that his ministry has been suspended – just consulting canon lawyers must cost something, too – but that SCM could have made an appeal for purchases/funds without claiming that Father Corapi doesn’t get paid, without mud-slinging the accuser, or publicly disagreeing with the bishop. Each of these points is very, very bad form.

1. Finances: I do not believe that Fr. Corapi is a member of an order, but that he is a diocesan priest. The “rules” regarding are significantly different for both.

From the LA Diocese page:
According to his resume, Father Corapi not a priest in a religious order, but a “Perpetually professed priest in good standing with the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity, a society of apostolic life of the diocesan rite with headquarters in Robstown, Texas.”

This is a really good link explaining what diocesan priests earn:
wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_salary_of_a_Catholic_priest From that site:

The article also explains that diocesan priests do not make a vow of poverty, but receive very little income a year (including stipends). **This is different from saying that a priest does not get paid at all: **SCM’s E-letter touts that, “The Church provides no financial support to Fr. Corapi.” SCM is misrepresenting something here.

2. SCM and the Accuser: What SCM has to say about the character of the accuser belongs in court. Essentially, they just “tabloided” themselves and added more sordidness to this event. They went after the cahracter of the accuser

3. SCM and its response to the Bishop: Attacking a bishop questioning the bishop are two different things. Questioning is consulting with canon lawyers and bringing their findings to the bishop’s attention. Attacking is when you take those findings and air the dirty laundry by whining in public. Announcing that the Bishop’s “actions…are, on several points of canon law, illicit,” is just bad form: like airing dirty laundry. There has to be a better, more dignified way to handle it than to send out a mass E-mail.

4. Father Corapi’s involvement with SCM: I re-read the SCM letter as if Father Corapi knew that Santa Cruz would release it…which I believe he did, since he’s part of its “board.” He allowed SCM to go forward with an appeal for us to buy these things to contribute to his defense fund. To wit, “Your purchase of products from Santa Cruz Media helps provide the funding for Father’s continued work as well as the legal expenses he continues to incur as a result of these malicious allegations.” This could be construed as SCM being Father Corapi’s mouthpiece – where Fr. Corapi isn’t allowed to speak for himself, he’s doing it through SCM. That is another end-run around the Bishop, if he was directed not to discuss particulars.
If SCM acted without Father Corapi’s knowledge, they did not do any favors for him.

This is a great post, but there are several things that could have happen that we do not know or have not been revealed as of yet. It is possible that these employees at SCM were the ones mentioned in the letter to the Bishop and thus they are also defending them selves and Father Corapi. It was also stated that they were assaulted by this individual when she was terminated. Now, again we do not know the facts, but this could be a reason for the e-letters.

Also, we must remember that the Bishops are very quick to pull the trigger on these type of accusations today, much of it do to inaction by them in the past.

We must pray for all in this situation.

Go with Gods Grace!!!

 

[fred_conty]

I find this statement disturbing. Calling the bishop of Corpus Christi’s actions “illicit?” Wow. And then ending with an advertising pitch to buy more stuff? Wow. My understanding is that Fr. Corapi is a multi-millionaire, and I am sure he will be just fine without my financial support. I sincerely hope that this release was a bone-head move by someone with more enthusiam than judgment, and not something approved by Fr. Corapi. He should ask them to retract it.

What was that you said about not judging someone else? Was that you TCM? Should you be making a remark like that on CAF?

 

[Shoshana]

It is not unusual for an employee who is let go to go ballistic and threaten other employees and to send out threating letters of all sorts. this happens all the time.

People like this should be prayed for and also be recommended to get some anger management counseling. People should put their faith in the Lord not in their employer.

Go with Gods Grace!!!

I fully concur… And I believe we have all experience or heard of such a thing in our lives…let alone the media. Prayers going up…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Sure people shop for lawyers who will agree with them, however, the statement didn’t say “the canon lawyer we’ve retained said…”, it said “we consulted with a number of canon lawyers, and they have said…” So it seems to me that either 1) there was a uniformity of opinion among the canon lawyers consulted, or 2) Santa Cruz Media, Inc. is misrepresenting/overstating the uniformity of character of the consultations.

Yes they said that they “consulted a number of canon lawyers”, can you tell me what number “a number” is? Surely it is more than one, but how many more? Did every single canon lawyer they consulted agree with this? Or just “a number” of them?

I would not phrase it into the two options you have. Just because “a number” had a certain opinion does not mean that there was necessarily a “uniformity of opinion”.

 

[puzzleannie]

as yet I see no statement of any kind on the Diocese of Corpus Christi website nor on that of SOLT. Until I see it, I have no information of any kind about any allegations against Fr. Corapi other than his own statement on his own website. The SCM message is basically one of support and adds no new details. I will reserve judgment on the entire matter until I do see some real information and I suggest for peace of mind we find something else to talk about.

 

[steve711]

None of us know the truth about what happened. But if this business is Father Corapi’s only source of income other than public speaking, then I understand how they would want to keep some sort of revenue coming in.

I also understand the churches tenuous situation today, and remember much of this situation is directly related to the Bishops failing to act in a timely manner, so now they are in effect being extremely careful when any allegation is brought up to them.

It could also be that the employees of Santa Cruz Media did witness this and feel obliged to speak out on Father Corapi’s behalf, seeing that he has been suspended by the church authorities.

Go with Gods Grace!!!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Is it fair to take what Santa Cruz Media says as gospel? Real charity and the presumption of innocence would require people to refrain from casting insinuations on both Father Corapi and his accuser.

Statement of an Eyewitness/Victim:

There is no evidence at this time that Fr. Corapi did anything wrong, only the unsubstantiated rant of a former employee, who, after losing her job with this office, physically assaulted me and another employee and promised to “destroy” Father Corapi.

Now, one could say that the statement of Bobbi Ruffato amounts to detraction (i.e.,opposes “real charity,” above). The author of the statement will have to assess whether that statement was necessary to publicize. However, I would hardly call it “casting insinuations on Fr. Corapi and his accuser,” because it was offered as an eyewitness account, the truth of which will probably be determined during the investigation and after consulting with possibly other witnesses. Nor, if relying on the statement, are posters “casting insinuations” if their statements do not go beyond this report.

However, charity might require us to refrain from making affirmative or negative judgments about this hearsay, until it is substantiated.

 

[steve711]

There is also the outside possibility that Bobbi is not only defending Father Corapi but herself and other SCM employees. As I do not know the truth or the circumstances, it is possible she could have been one of the persons named in the so called letter to the Bishop, and wants all that know her to know the truth.

Go with Gods Grace!!!

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This whole situation is getting stranger and stranger. If the statement from Santa Cruz Media is accurate, then you’d think the only public statements they’d be issuing would first be run by their lawyer. And I gotta say, that email/statement didn’t look like anything I’ve ever seen approved by a law office…

 

[qui_est_ce]

This whole situation is getting stranger and stranger. If the statement from Santa Cruz Media is accurate, then you’d think the only public statements they’d be issuing would first be run by their lawyer. And I gotta say, that email/statement didn’t look like anything I’ve ever seen approved by a law office…

Hi NewEnglandPries-
I feel horrible for all the good priests who might be affected by the past and present scandals.

I hoped you might address the issue of permanent sanctifying grace brought up by a poster on the closed thread about Fr. Corapi.

[SIGN]Pray for our good and holy priests and seminarians[/SIGN]

 

[Marie5890]

If the statement from Santa Cruz Media is accurate, then you’d think the only public statements they’d be issuing would first be run by their lawyer. And I gotta say, that email/statement didn’t look like anything I’ve ever seen approved by a law office…

That was my thought. A very bizarre statement. Very bizarre. Completely UNprofessional.Completely.

And I work in a small corporation.

 

[Shoshana]

Hi NewEnglandPries-
I feel horrible for all the good priests who might be affected by the past and present scandals.

I hoped you might address the issue of permanent sanctifying grace brought up by a poster on the closed thread about Fr. Corapi.

[sign]Pray for our good and holy priests and seminarians[/sign]

Please let us remain on track. Another thread can be started if needed.

Just a reminder, there has already been a threadf closed because of lack of charity. Let us keep in mind what the Faith teaches…As St Faustina has said…mercy at our lips and in our prayers…

 

[Marie5890]

No matter what, regardless of our personal biases and loyalties (and our loyalties should be with Him and Him alone, not even His servants), God, Himself, knows the truth, and will take needed steps to protect His Bride, even when She is under attack.

Salvation of souls, based on the moral law, will be what He Himself upholds.

He Will wade thru deceit and deception, for the love of His children, no matter who is the author of that very deceit and deception.

You may fool His children, but you will never fool Him. Ever.

 

[Abba]

I don’t know if the judgment of this person is right or wrong, but I know it is wrong for Catholics to react to the situation by attacking the bishop charged with investigating the charges.

Agreed**.** It does not demonstrate obedience to the Bishop to attack and defend himself in the media and request support from his ‘fans’. I would think that obedience would be demonstrated by remaining silent and truly awaiting the decision. Period. That letter did more harm than good.

I was doing some research today on the ‘participation’ of the faithfuls in televised Mass and the results so far are very interesting. One of the things that I have learned is that the matter is on the table in Rome and they are being intentionally general with what they express and so stated. Another is that in Columbia one of the problems of evangelizing via television has been that the faithful start admiring certain personalities which places them once removed, if you will from the real reason of their faith - Our Lord Jesus Christ. The foundation of their faith must be Our Lord Jesus not a personality, not Father Corapi nor Hahn nor etc… Because, exactly, when there are scandals the faithfuls are misguided etc…

My father is living his last days, right here next to me, he is paralyzed and suffers from many ailments. He is a fanatic of Father Corapi and every once in a while he asks me to put some of his videos on. I have decided not to inform him of the current situation as I do not want to disturb him. But, you see, why should he be so disturbed as he would be? This is not correct. It is a problem the Church is aware of with the use of the media.

Father Corapi has an added responsibility to demonstrate obedience to his superiors and not rebellion, exactly because of his fame. This is stated in one of those Vatican documents I was reading today about the media, television, radio, etc… Where it is written that the priests that would participate should be wisely selected and must always be aware of their added responsibility and take care with what they say as they are speaking with a wide audience etc…

I am very disappointed with this letter.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This whole situation is getting stranger and stranger. If the statement from Santa Cruz Media is accurate, then you’d think the only public statements they’d be issuing would first be run by their lawyer. And I gotta say, that email/statement didn’t look like anything I’ve ever seen approved by a law office…

These were also my thoughts exactly when I first read this: How did it get by the lawyers?

 

[Shoshana]

Agreed**.** It does not demonstrate obedience to the Bishop to attack and defend himself in the media and request support from his ‘fans’. I would think that obedience would be demonstrated by remaining silent and truly awaiting the decision. Period. That letter did more harm than good.

This is not Fr John that is attacking the bishop…please od not imply that. It has been stated that SC is a secular corporation. They can truly say what they want…the media does just as well. SC has not said anything wrong about the bishop in question. Obedience does not take away the fact that discussions can be had. i have been in direction for over 25 years and I know obedience…it is a process. Nothing stops me from discussing the reasons why my director is wanting me to do this or that. I obey…but I can also deliberate. The Lord wants us to be mature adults in the faith. Discussiing this charitably is not wrong. Fr Corapi has also stated tat he wioll obey his superior…no question about that. But nothing would stop him from sitting down to find out what this all entails. Read some of the saints and you will that they deliberated…especially with our Lord in those who have had visions.

But, you see, why should he be so disturbed as he would be? This is not correct. It is a problem the Church is aware of with the use of the media.

I am sorry to hear about your dad. But I know I am just as disturbed with any attack on any priest…here or abroad.I am a little emotially attached somewhat to Fr John but he has been instrumental so much in my life. But if my director was accused (and he alsmost was) or any other priest, yes, I would be disturbed. Corapi just has a very magnaminous personality. He may be a small man but his spirit encompasses the whole arena when he talks. The devil hates him so much. The devil also hates other priests but Corapi is more in the battle zone because he has no fear of the TRUTH!
Father Corapi has an added responsibility to demonstrate obedience to his superiors and not rebellion, exactly because of his fame.

He is obeying…what you are implying is the opposite…

quote]