Statement of Santa Cruz-Fr John Corapi

[Marie5890]

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.

Abba,

First of all, prayers for your father.

Second, no one, no one, including Fr Corapi, should be exhaulted. No one.

Only Our Lord, and His mother. Only. Period. End of discussion.

NO priest should be a rock star. NO PRIEST.

Any credible and humble priest, and my pastor is one of them, knows he is only an instrument. But he is not the music, he is not the conductor, he is not the writer. He is an instrument only. And will never deceive or dupe, or manipulate the followers. Even for money. Our Lord despised that. People who manipulate for $$$$$ are slaves to the evil one. Pure and simple. $$$$$$$$$$ is their god. And they will fight and defend it all to keep the $$$$$$ flowing

Money be damned to hell.

Open the Bible. Our Lord will teach you.

And in this Lenten season, I respect Bishop Fulton Sheen more and more. He was a very authentic disciple of Our Lord. Even with his human weaknesses and foibles. He loved Our Lady. Loved Our Lord. Bishop Sheen wasn’t never out to deceive even in his real human weaknesses and frailties.

I am beginning to question Fr Corapi. In all human honesty and from someone who has been duped before, I am sincerely and as someone who want to be and follow Our Lord more than anything, I have been given reason to pause, and wonder, just how deep does commitment to OUR LORD, to HIS LAWS, and AUTHENTIC and clear cut CREDIBLE discipleship mean to Fr Corapi.

All that said, I come from a family that knows how painful and pervasive drug addition can be. I have lived that in my own family. Its profoundly painful.

Is Fr Corapi struggling against the slavery of addiction? I have no idea but not beyond the realm of possibility. And I say that as someone who has more than one family member who struggles with addiction. Its painful.Its painfilled. And its very real.

If Fr Corapi is free, sincerely free, from all of that painfilled reality, God bless him. If not, God bless him.

Substance abuse is slavery no way around that truth. I know that Fr Corapi has mention that this is legitmately part of his past. Which means, its and everyday, ** EVERYDAY** reality for him.

God bless him in that battle, cause it IS a battle.

Anyone who thinks that a human being who has become a slave to addiction, is somehow protected from ever being it’s slave again is extra-ordinarily naive

Fr Corapi, if he is an honest man, knows he is forever weakened to slavery to drug, due to his past.

Substance abuse is a *****. Even to those who are dedicated to Our Lord. If they are not ever mindful, the master of drugs will over take.

God Bless you, Fr Corapi.

The monkey on your back is ever present. Ask my own personal human father. I know. I have seen him struggle.

But please, please, never blame other for what is your own human brokeness and weakness. Never defame another.

There is never, ever, any healing or hope in that.

God Bless you Fr Corapi. I know you love Our Lord.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

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!!!

Wow, good point! Of course it’s a speculation because we don’t know what’s contained in the 3-page letter this former employee sent to several bishops. But her allegations that Fr. Corapi had sex with several female employees, could directly threaten the good name of all female employees at that company, especially if it’s a small operation. Let’s imagine you are a woman working for a small company with only 3 or 4 female employees, and then someone comes along and tells the bishops that a priest had sex with several female employees at your company. Well, the word “several” implies “at least 3”, which wouldn’t put you in the spotlight if there were ten thousand female employees to choose from. But if the number of employees is less than 10, and you are one of those employees, I can very well see why you would feel offended, threatened, and compelled to protect your own reputation and the reputation of your female colleagues.

Especially when the accuser has already assaulted both you and another female colleague, as Ms. Ruffino alleges in SCM’s statement.

 

[TMC]

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.

I agree. My prayers are with you and with your father. Keep the faith, brother.

 

[TMC]

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.

I am not sure there is a difference between Santa Cruz Media and Fr. Corapi. It appears to me that SCM is likely completely controlled by Fr. Corapi, so comments by SCM are effectively the same as comments by Fr. Corapi. I had hoped he would direct that the comments be withdrawn, but he has not so I assume he approved or supports the comments.

 

[Miserissima]

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.

Agreed!

And I gotta say, that email/statement didn’t look like anything I’ve ever seen approved by a law office…

Ot a canon lawyer.

It’s tabloid-ish mud-slinging, in my book. Even Father Euteneur (sp?) who was guilty of his indiscretions, remained silent under the direction of the Bishop until his case was closed.

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

Since Father Corapi is the head of this ‘secular organization,’ not remaining silent (or directing his staff to be silent) is end-running. Father himself may be officially silent, but allowing his staff to leak sensitive information about an ongoing church invesitgation is tactless, unethical, and childish. I do believe that Father Corapi was well aware of the E-mail that went out, and approved its use to express his indignation. That is not full obedience, and/or poor judgement, and not acting much better than the accuser.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

“The Church provides no financial support to Fr. Corapi. He has to pay for his own legal representation, medical costs, food, housing, etc. We have never accepted donations or charitable contributions of any kind. We are supporting Father’s efforts to defend himself. 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.”

I’m not sure I understand the part about the Church not supporting Fr. Corapi, financially. Does it mean he never received a salary from the Church? Or maybe he had a salary before, but now he was placed on unpaid administrative leave?

At any rate, if he is without a salary now, and if the Church won’t pay for his legal defense against the former employee who accuses him, then he has been left to his own devices.

I, for one, don’t accuse him and SCM for trying to keep the revenue generating operations going, while the investigation is in progress. I imagine the whole company (Santa Cruz Media) would go bankrupt and employees would lose their jobs if they stopped selling Fr. Corapi’s material.

I’m not a fan of Fr. Corapi, because I don’t know him. I have never seen him on EWTN, never heard him on radio, never read any of his books or articles. My focus is not on this particular person named Fr. John Corapi. What fascinates me is the situation where someone finds himself accused and suspended, what can he do to protect himself if he is convinced of his own innocence, and how can he survive morally and financially in such a situation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m not sure I understand the part about the Church not supporting Fr. Corapi, financially. Does it mean he never received a salary from the Church? Or maybe he had a salary before, but now he was placed on unpaid administrative leave?

He has said in some of his talks that he does not take a salary from “the Church,” and I take that to mean any ecclesial body (religious Order, diocese, etc.)

I don’t know more details than that, but I do remember his being very clear about the fact that he is not funded by the Church.

 

[Miserissima]

I’m not sure I understand the part about the Church not supporting Fr. Corapi, financially. Does it mean he never received a salary from the Church? Or maybe he had a salary before, but now he was placed on unpaid administrative leave?

Father is a member of SOLT – a Society of Apostolic Life. It is possible that this society follows Canon 741.2, “members are also capable of acquiring, possessing, administering, and disposing of temporal goods, but whatever comes to them on behalf of the society is acquired by the society.”

However…SOLT Media initially distributed Fr. Corapi’s “intellectual property,” but now, Santa Cruz Media Inc. (a for-profit organization) currently does it. (I don’t know when that switch happened.) All of the money that goes to Father Corapi as the head of Santa Cruz Media goes to him and to overhead – without having to go to SOLT. This keeps Father Corapi’s money as his own, because diocesan priests do not take a vow of poverty.

And don’t forget the 2.7million Father was awarded in 2005. I’m pretty sure that he didn’t get paid in a lump sum, though. Father Corapi, as a diocesan priest, may have not been eligable to receive a cost-of-living salary which is very low (as for any diocesan priest), as little as 15k/year – not including stipends – and all of it taxable.
I can only speculate that if he Father has an independent income, then the diocese wouldn’t pay him. I would need to ask a parish priest what the possible arrangements could be.

I have a question about Santa Cruz Media: the California Secretary of State’s Business Search noted that SCM has a “Suspended” business status. Does anyone here know what that means? I don’t.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

It’s tabloid-ish mud-slinging, in my book. Even Father Euteneur (sp?) who was guilty of his indiscretions, remained silent under the direction of the Bishop until his case was closed.

I tell you what. If my name was Bobbi Ruffatto, I would raise hell just like she did and even more.

If I was working for a small operation, and a former employee who physically assaulted me and another female colleague, also alleged that several female employees at my small company had sex with a priest, I would come out swinging to defend my company and the female employees whom I regarded as innocent. I would mount an aggressive defense, which would include lawyers, canon lawyers, public releases, basically whatever it took to defend those whom I regarded innocent and slandered/calumniated.

Plus, if I was a layperson who never vowed obedience to my bishop, why would I let a slanderer’s accusations go unanswered? Will the bishop pay my bills, put food on the table for my family and for my children, if my company goes bankrupt? If I faced false accusations that threatened to bankrupt my company, leave me jobless, and tarnish the good name of female employees including myself, thank you, I would defend myself and my company.

 

[Miserissima]

If I was working for a small operation, and a former employee who physically assaulted me and another female colleague,

I hope for Bobbi’s sake (and for Father Corapi’s, too) that there os documentation – preferably a police report. Other than that, it’s all ‘he-said she-said.’

Plus, if I was a layperson who never vowed obedience to my bishop, why would I let a slanderer’s accusations go unanswered?

You would answer them, just in a more ethical and well-advised fashion. Off-the-cuff slandering of the accuser (also known as “alleged victim” in the public arena) never, ever comes off well.

It may not be right, but it’s certainly true: perception is key.

Back to your question: a person working for Father Corapi, who is under the Bishop, would be obedient to the religious hierarchical structure and secular advisors during an ongoing investigation. As the priest under investigation, I would have a direct vested interest that my employees do not make a negative impression to my bishop or to the public regarding the investigation.

Because Fr. Corapi is Bobbi’s boss, it makes her look like his mouthpiece/puppet – when in this arena, perception is key…not truth.

A person working for Fr. Corapi would do his or her best to help: which would mean that if a lawyer (secular or canon) advises a person should not sling mud to the public because it gives the impression – true or not – that “the lady doth protest too much,” then one should not write details about an ongoing investigation in a public arena.

An E-mail is not a press conference, at which all statements would be vetted through the lawyers/canon lawyers you cited.

Also, because of the “scandal” already defined/noted above.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I hope for Bobbi’s sake (and for Father Corapi’s, too) that there os documentation – preferably a police report. Other than that, it’s all ‘he-said she-said.’

Unless there were also witnesses to any of the behaviors.

 

[dfp42]

Father is a member of SOLT – a Society of Apostolic Life. It is possible that this society follows Canon 741.2, “members are also capable of acquiring, possessing, administering, and disposing of temporal goods, but whatever comes to them on behalf of the society is acquired by the society.”

However…SOLT Media initially distributed Fr. Corapi’s “intellectual property,” but now, Santa Cruz Media Inc. (a for-profit organization) currently does it. (I don’t know when that switch happened.) All of the money that goes to Father Corapi as the head of Santa Cruz Media goes to him and to overhead – without having to go to SOLT. This keeps Father Corapi’s money as his own, because diocesan priests do not take a vow of poverty.

And don’t forget the 2.7million Father was awarded in 2005. I’m pretty sure that he didn’t get paid in a lump sum, though. Father Corapi, as a diocesan priest, may have not been eligable to receive a cost-of-living salary which is very low (as for any diocesan priest), as little as 15k/year – not including stipends – and all of it taxable.
I can only speculate that if he Father has an independent income, then the diocese wouldn’t pay him. I would need to ask a parish priest what the possible arrangements could be.

I have a question about Santa Cruz Media: the California Secretary of State’s Business Search noted that SCM has a “Suspended” business status. Does anyone here know what that means? I don’t.

How is it you seem to know all this information? I find it funny that after all these years we are now questioning if Fr. Corapi was doing something immoral and illegal this whole time by selling dvd’s through Santa Cruz Media Inc. What about EWTN? It was said Mother Angelica gave up ownership to the laity because she didn’t want the Holy See or Bishops to run the network (disobedient?). But should they? We would never ever have to worry about lawsuits or questioning if we are getting good material. Perhaps the Holy See should run anything that is Catholic Media and we would never have an issue with employees who are secular and can sin.

 

[Shoshana]

Abba,

And in this Lenten season, I respect Bishop Fulton Sheen more and more. He was a very authentic disciple of Our Lord. Even with his human weaknesses and foibles. He loved Our Lady. Loved Our Lord. Bishop Sheen wasn’t never out to deceive even in his real human weaknesses and frailties.

I am beginning to question Fr Corapi. In all human honesty and from someone who has been duped before, I am sincerely and as someone who want to be and follow Our Lord more than anything, I have been given reason to pause, and wonder, just how deep does commitment to OUR LORD, to HIS LAWS, and AUTHENTIC and clear cut CREDIBLE discipleship mean to Fr Corapi.

.

This is another finger pointing at Fr Corapi…I just wonder how I could question whether Corapi is committed to God, His laws and being authentic and whether he has a credible clear-cut discipleship mean to him or not? Do you know his soul? Do you know yours?

Bishop Sheen was an excellent speaker…well-dressed to the nigh also. I agree. I love him. but who am I to compare one soul with another. In Bishop;'s time, sexual scandal was not rampantly known to society about our priests. No lay person would even think that ANY PRIEST COULD DO SUCH A THING. Let alone accusing falsely any priest for sexual exploits. We do not know about Corapi yet, but there has been enough priests who have been accused wrongly of such a thing. in these times…it is a money-grabbing thing. Comparing one great speaker from an era when all sexual exploits were swept under the rug to another speaker that lives in an era where anything goes and suing is second hand nature in a society bloodthirsty for revenge and hate to anything catholic. Catholicism was not attacked in Sheen’s time…

 

[Lainey63]

Just an f/y/i…an Registered Agent is a representative who makes sure the business entity receives all legal documents. The Registered Agent at least here in FL cannot be sued in lieu of the entity as part of the entity. I work for a CPA firm and my boss is Registered Agent for several businesses he can’t be sued as being part of that business-but he does get served any legal papers if someone is getting sued for example and we have to make sure the proper person gets those papers. That is the role of the RA

Also, the business entity may be suspended because the fees to the state have not been paid yet or the business entity is being changed to another entity…ie from a corporation to an LLC. I don’t know of any other reason other than that, but then again there’s alot I don’t know

 

[Philotheatoo]

And who are we to pass judgment? Those of us who feel compelled to write something negative here about either Fr. Corapi or the church may just be exhibiting the bitterness in our souls left over from some silly disappointment in our own life. We would be wise to remember we could easily find ourselves in Father Corapi’s shoes someday - if we haven’t already. For Father Corapi and the Roman Catholic Church: Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners; now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

 

[PPeterson]

One thing that I can’t relate to is becoming emotionally attracted to public figures who’s bread and butter is “telling like it is” at length day in and day out. Generally, the uber-confident-always-right are people whose presence I want less of in my life, not more. I’m with-holding judgement, and hopeful that this is some sort of misunderstanding. That said, for the above reason I can’t relate to getting wrapped up in the affairs of celebrities.

 

[PaulinVA]

Well, most men accused of indiscretions initially deny the charges, so there’s nothing special to a denial.

As for the small business Payton Place that SCM seems to be, it’s sole purpose is to sell Fr. Corapi’s stuff for profit. That’s why they don’t accept donations - they have a commercial product to sell. They MAKE money. Totally unprofessional and potentially libelous to say that a former employee assaulted you. The correct way, I would imagine, is to say that some employees are pursuing assault charges against the former employee.

The rest of the statement is just plain sad. The Church has put safeguards in place because of the deplorable way the Bishops handled the sex abuse accusations for decades. They apply to all, even to someone who thinks they are above canon law. His statement on www.fathercorapi.com is combative and disappointing.

Where is this playing out? Who is doing the Church’s investigation? Diocese of Corpus Cristi? A diocese in Montana? Father’s society?

 

[Teelynn]

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 am not taking the statement from Santa Cruz as gospel, however, this was the very first thing that came to mind when I read Fr’s original statement on his site. A former employee? One that has an ax to grind? Anyone who did not think of this right off the bat hasn’t been living in the world for very long… or has blinders on…first thing my H said to me was…“yeah right…a former employee who was probably let go and is out for revenge.” Comes to mind right away if you are observant of how a lot of former employees “pay back” for their perceived injustices. (some of them actually have mass murder on their minds)

This all being said, there is no way I am going jump the gun and say that she is not justified in her accusations. Who has any way of knowing until they investigate fully to find out the facts? And again, I will not take Santa Cruz’s statement as gospel. This situation unfortunately is going to take some time to unravel…we need to pray that the TRUTH comes out, and all involved in the investigation act righteously and fairly.

Pray for Fr and his accuser and everyone involved! Pray also for his Bishop as they are human and make mistakes as well!

 

[Lujack]

I tell you what. If my name was Bobbi Ruffatto, I would raise hell just like she did and even more.

If I was working for a small operation, and a former employee who physically assaulted me and another female colleague, also alleged that several female employees at my small company had sex with a priest, I would come out swinging to defend my company and the female employees whom I regarded as innocent. I would mount an aggressive defense, which would include lawyers, canon lawyers, public releases, basically whatever it took to defend those whom I regarded innocent and slandered/calumniated.

Plus, if I was a layperson who never vowed obedience to my bishop, why would I let a slanderer’s accusations go unanswered? Will the bishop pay my bills, put food on the table for my family and for my children, if my company goes bankrupt? If I faced false accusations that threatened to bankrupt my company, leave me jobless, and tarnish the good name of female employees including myself, thank you, I would defend myself and my company.

See, this is what I meant-you’ve already decided that the accuser is a slanderer, and have already taken the allegations made by Santa Cruz Media against her as fact. What SCM said is just as much an allegation as what the accuser has charged against Father Corapi, and she has the same right of presumption of innocence that Father Corapi does.

Presumption of innocence doesn’t mean that we presume the accuser is a scoundrel and a liar, it means we with-hold judgment on all parties, the accuser and the accused alike.

 

[Teelynn]

See, this is what I meant-you’ve already decided that the accuser is a slanderer, and have already taken the allegations made by Santa Cruz Media against her as fact. What SCM said is just as much an allegation as what the accuser has charged against Father Corapi, and she has the same right of presumption of innocence that Father Corapi does.

Presumption of innocence doesn’t mean that we presume the accuser is a scoundrel and a liar, it means we with-hold judgment on all parties, the accuser and the accused alike.

I would agree with this whole heartedly…and I would add, this would apply to a lot of posts on the subject **both pro and con. **“Judge not, lest ye be judged”. As far as being “dissappointed” in either Fr, SCM, or his Bishop, I will add another…“Let he that is without sin cast the first stone.”

It’s no wonder the mods shut down the first thread on the subject.