Statement of Santa Cruz-Fr John Corapi

[Elizabeth502]

I think what is interesting is that most, if not all, of the posters don’t know Father Corapi, the former employee, the SCM manger, or the Bishop of Corpus Cristi personally. So, to defend someone based on their public persona, even if that involves personal revelation, doesn’t make sense. You simply don’t know.

You hope a certain set of facts are the truth, but you don’t know.

One doesn’t have to know someone personally to be observant about certain traits, however – traits that are apparent and not subject to effective disguise as you might presume. I’m speaking of publicly accessible traits (when I made my last post). And my post further argued beyond knowable or known personal traits to the larger realities regarding things like commitments, drive, identity, career, risks – and the relationship between those combined factors and the likelihood of high-risk behavior relative to predictable outcome for such behavior.

Lots of things in life are possible (until we know the facts about those situations). But hardly everything is also probable.

 

[wild_thing]

The allegation? Weird. Father Corapi’s new look? Weird. This new letter from Santa Cruz Media? Weird. The whole situation screams WEIRD. I agree with 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.

We simply don’t have enough information. I do believe that the Church does know more about the allegation that they are not telling the public. I don’t think they would just pull Father Corapi out of his public ministry without a pretty credible reason. I am simply going to pray as I have been doing for all those involved in this mess.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This might sound like a naive statement, but after hearing all this talk of Corapi being a millionaire, I got to thinking…

Even though he might have millions, can he really use it? I mean, he has to l live in a Catholic environment, like at a parish church, doesn’t he? He doesn’t own his own private residence, does he? He’s not going to drive around in a Ferrari and I don’t think Catholic priests can invest their $$$ on the market, etc. can they? I always thought priests weren’t free agents, but rather servants of the bishop who can be moved and directed at will. Though they don’t take an oath of poverty, in some ways the lifestyle of being a priest living in bad parts of town (in many cases) and having to live on the site of parish churches negates any $$$ they have. He can’t live in his own private home I don’t think? So what good does the dough do? I would guess Father has given plenty of bread to charity…

I don’t know much about this. I’d love to learn…

 

[Teelynn]

I would go as far as to say he has many enemies even inside the Catholic Church. If he didn’t, I’d be concerned. This whole thing will pass and there will still be two kinds of people; those who care and those who don’t.

You got that right!! He has many enemies BOTH inside AND outside the Church.
I would go as far as to say…he is a target for a number of people. That doesn’t mean however, he is innocent of the allegations…just sayin…he is definitely a target.

The allegation? Weird. Father Corapi’s new look? Weird. This new letter from Santa Cruz Media? Weird. The whole situation screams WEIRD. I agree with puzzleannie:

We simply don’t have enough information. I do believe that the Church does know more about the allegation that they are not telling the public. I don’t think they would just pull Father Corapi out of his public ministry without a pretty credible reason. I am simply going to pray as I have been doing for all those involved in this mess.

Yes, pray indeed. I do think as well, since the priest scandal the Bishops have swung from one end of the pendulum to the other. This is not only in Fr. Corapi’s case but in many others I have heard about on EWTN from Raymond Arroyo. They seem to be going overboard before they have enough credible information…it’s their new “ZERO TOLERANCE” policy. They are insinuating they’re guilty until proven innocent. Throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

“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?

One is only supported by the Church when one works for the Church. Fr Corapi with his preaching ministry is not working for the Church.

For example, I am a member of a religious Order. The Church does not pay me. I work within one of the ministries of the Order. The ministry pays for my work and the Order takes care of me because of the vow of poverty. Fr Corapi does not have the vow of poverty, he is a secular priest who is a member on apostolic society. He, like any secular priest, has the right to own property and to invest and take care of himself. As he is not working for a bishop or within a ministry of his community he must make money for himself.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I would go as far as to say he has many enemies even inside the Catholic Church. If he didn’t, I’d be concerned. This whole thing will pass and there will still be two kinds of people; those who care and those who don’t.

Yes, of course, you are correct. I’m sure that many liberal Catholic priests, bishops and lay people disagree with Fr. Corapi’s traditional views on many things. I’m quite sure he has enemies within the Church and in the secular world.

 

[PaulinVA]

One doesn’t have to know someone personally to be observant about certain traits, however – traits that are apparent and not subject to effective disguise as you might presume. I’m speaking of publicly accessible traits (when I made my last post). And my post further argued beyond knowable or known personal traits to the larger realities regarding things like commitments, drive, identity, career, risks – and the relationship between those combined factors and the likelihood of high-risk behavior relative to predictable outcome for such behavior.

Lots of things in life are possible (until we know the facts about those situations). But hardly everything is also probable.

There are men who function at a high level and seem to be driven by pure motives that are taken down by sex scandals regularly. Just like the priest who married my wife and me - he was married at the time!

Men are stupid when it comes to risking everything for a woman (or a man). It doesn’t make sense, but they do it.

By watching John Edwards, did you know he was having an affair while his wife died of cancer? No, probably not.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This might sound like a naive statement, but after hearing all this talk of Corapi being a millionaire, I got to thinking…

Even though he might have millions, can he really use it? I mean, he has to l live in a Catholic environment, like at a parish church, doesn’t he? He doesn’t own his own private residence, does he? He’s not going to drive around in a Ferrari and I don’t think Catholic priests can invest their $$$ on the market, etc. can they? I always thought priests weren’t free agents, but rather servants of the bishop who can be moved and directed at will. Though they don’t take an oath of poverty, in some ways the lifestyle of being a priest living in bad parts of town (in many cases) and having to live on the site of parish churches negates any $$$ they have. He can’t live in his own private home I don’t think? So what good does the dough do? I would guess Father has given plenty of bread to charity…

I don’t know much about this. I’d love to learn…

No he does not have to live in a parish. He is a secular priest, he may own property, he did not take any vows so there is no vow of poverty.

A priest who is a member of a diocese works for the bishop and goes where he is assigned, a secular priest who is part of an apostolic society, as Fr Corapi is, is more of a “free agent” as you state. He would need approval of a bishop to work within that bishop’s diocese but his private talks most likely would not have to have such an approval.

I know many secular priests who own their own homes and vehicles.

 

[Elizabeth502]

There are men who function at a high level and seem to be driven by pure motives that are taken down by sex scandals regularly. Just like the priest who married my wife and me - he was married at the time!

Men are stupid when it comes to risking everything for a woman (or a man). It doesn’t make sense, but they do it.

By watching John Edwards, did you know he was having an affair while his wife died of cancer? No, probably not.

Your reply is still non-responsive, i.m.o., not addressing what I addressed.

(1) I maintain that I know, and most people know, far less about John Edwards than is apparent and verifiable about Fr. John Corapi. (Today and yesterday.)
(2) John Edwards did not come from the same past (same learning experience, learning curve) that Fr. John Corapi comes from.
(3) I have never said that it is not possible that every man, and every priest, is capable of falling. This is a straw man argument on your part.
(4) Possibility =/= probability.

Thus, I repeat, and will continue to repeat it until you get, and others get, the point that I did make (as opposed to points I did not try to make): Everything within the operating laws of the universe is possible. Much less is probable. In that vein, knowing what is apparent and visible about the man in question – not about some politician who is not a member of the Roman Catholic clergy – I state that while the allegations are “possible,” they are, given known facts and know traits, highly improbable.

You, and all the other posters and the rest of the universe, are free to equate possibility with probability (on the theory and reality that other men have fallen despite high position). I, OTOH, am a woman of logic. I will note that Fr. John Corapi is also a man of logic.

It’s possible that the entire state of California will be destroyed by waves of tsunamis and earthquakes tonight. It is, however, improbable.

Have a nice day.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks, Byz. As Johnny Carson would say “I did not know that”

No he does not have to live in a parish. He is a secular priest, he may own property, he did not take any vows so there is no vow of poverty.

A priest who is a member of a diocese works for the bishop and goes where he is assigned, a secular priest who is part of an apostolic society, as Fr Corapi is, is more of a “free agent” as you state. He would need approval of a bishop to work within that bishop’s diocese but his private talks most likely would not have to have such an approval.

I know many secular priests who own their own homes and vehicles.

 

[KaneKatholic]

Agreed!

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.

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.

:I TOTALLY DISAGREE:

WHAT PART OF SUSPENDED DO SOME NOT UNDERSTAND?!?!?!?
(I apologize for the bluntness but we must understand what that means)
To claim that Fr. Corapi had knowledge of this statement and let it loose purposley is jumping the gun, its going to far
He is cut off right now! SUSPENDED meaning that he is not to say anything
HE is suposed to be silent and kept that way
also SC could release anything they want to
but Iam amazed at some of the people of CAF who seem todoubt Fr. John as soon as he is acused of something this attrocious

but to pick apart a statement from a confused and frustrated person and then to DEMONIZE father Corapi and his company WHEN HE WAS TRYING TO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF DIVINE MERCY
based on an acusation of some PSYCHO WOMAN who got fired and now wants to tear the reputation of that Good Man
is beyond me
(and this isnt direct towards you Miserissima)
She should have been cast aside and committed the moment she wrote those words against Fr. John if you ask me
but my point is we should just wait this out and leave statements alone
at this point, in my opinion, The people at SC know bothe Father Corapi and the psycho acuser
And this statement in light of reality seems to point to his innocence
the reason why that is , si because father corapi is a good man and simple not vindictive(if youve listened to him you know this) its out of character that he would do something this tabloid-ish
he may have been aware of this but he probably couldnt do anything
the people at SC are probably frustrated and dont understand why Fr. John must be so obiediant
father corapi just wouldnt do that im sorry theres no way
but this will all blow over soon and the psycho woman would be put in her place (hopefull she repents of such slander thats if she knows what shes doing is wrong remeber she pledged to destroy fr. john because her psycho-self got fired
so NO I DISAGREE AND I DONT LIKE THE INDIFERENCE AND ATTACK AGAINST FR JOHN ON THESE FORUMS
this thread should be closed

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What attacks on Father? I see way more support and good feelings for him than attacks?

:I TOTALLY DISAGREE:

WHAT PART OF SUSPENDED DO SOME NOT UNDERSTAND?!?!?!?
(I apologize for the bluntness but we must understand what that means)
To claim that Fr. Corapi had knowledge of this statement and let it loose purposley is jumping the gun, its going to far
He is cut off right now! SUSPENDED meaning that he is not to say anything
HE is suposed to be silent and kept that way
also SC could release anything they want to
but Iam amazed at some of the people of CAF who seem todoubt Fr. John as soon as he is acused of something this attrocious

but to pick apart a statement from a confused and frustrated person and then to DEMONIZE father Corapi and his company WHEN HE WAS TRYING TO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF DIVINE MERCY
based on an acusation of some PSYCHO WOMAN who got fired and now wants to tear the reputation of that Good Man
is beyond me
(and this isnt direct towards you Miserissima)
She should have been cast aside and committed the moment she wrote those words against Fr. John if you ask me
but my point is we should just wait this out and leave statements alone
at this point, in my opinion, The people at SC know bothe Father Corapi and the psycho acuser
And this statement in light of reality seems to point to his innocence
the reason why that is , si because father corapi is a good man and simple not vindictive(if youve listened to him you know this) its out of character that he would do something this tabloid-ish
he may have been aware of this but he probably couldnt do anything
the people at SC are probably frustrated and dont understand why Fr. John must be so obiediant
father corapi just wouldnt do that im sorry theres no way
but this will all blow over soon and the psycho woman would be put in her place (hopefull she repents of such slander thats if she knows what shes doing is wrong remeber she pledged to destroy fr. john because her psycho-self got fired
so NO I DISAGREE AND I DONT LIKE THE INDIFERENCE AND ATTACK AGAINST FR JOHN ON THESE FORUMS
this thread should be closed

 

[Lujack]

Again, presumption of innocence means charity to all concerned. It is wrong to try and imply that there are those within the Church who would try and frame Father Corapi. It is wrong to imply his guilt. It is wrong to suggest that his accuser is motivated by base motives or that she is unstable and assaulted people, just like it is wrong to assume that Santa Cruz Media is a tabloid mouthpiece for Father Corapi.

The proper thing to do is trust the investigating process of the Catholic Church and recognize that our speculation will not lead us anywhere right now.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What he said!

Again, presumption of innocence means charity to all concerned. It is wrong to try and imply that there are those within the Church who would try and frame Father Corapi. It is wrong to imply his guilt. It is wrong to suggest that his accuser is motivated by base motives or that she is unstable and assaulted people, just like it is wrong to assume that Santa Cruz Media is a tabloid mouthpiece for Father Corapi.

The proper thing to do is trust the investigating process of the Catholic Church and recognize that our speculation will not lead us anywhere right now.

 

[KaneKatholic]

What attacks on Father? I see way more support and good feelings for him than attacks?

I wouldnt say attacks but rather indifference and there is alot of it though I guess the negative sticks out more than the positive but in the earlier posts I think thats the case
also (off topic)
why Iron man?

 

[KaneKatholic]

On Ash Wednesday I learned that a former employee sent a three-page letter to several bishops accusing me of everything from drug addiction to multiple sexual exploits with her and several other adult women. There seems to no longer be the need for a complaint to be deemed “credible” in order for Church authorities to pull the trigger on the Church’s procedure, which was in recent years crafted to respond to cases of the sexual abuse of minors. I am not accused of that, but it seems, once again, that they now don’t have to deem the complaint to be credible or not, and it is being applied broadly to respond to all complaints. I have been placed on “administrative leave” as the result of this.

I’ll certainly cooperate with the process, but personally believe that it is seriously flawed, and is tantamount to treating the priest as guilty “just in case”, then through the process determining if he is innocent. The resultant damage to the accused is immediate, irreparable, and serious, especially for someone like myself, since I am so well known. I am not alone in this assessment, as multiple canon lawyers and civil and criminal attorneys have stated publicly that the procedure does grave damage to the accused from the outset, regardless of rhetoric denying this, and has little regard for any form of meaningful due process.

All of the allegations in the complaint are false, and I ask you to pray for all concerned

This is the last thing that Father HIMSELF has said and I think it speaks volumes
The bishops have jumped the gun based on a phsyco woman’s claims
however the damage to his name has already begun
the church in america is so flawed though
if a bishop isnt supporting a liberal politician that supports abortion (directly or indirectly)
he is usually involved in some scandal or keeping quiet
The church in america seems to be suffering right now so Im not suprised that they went TOO FAR in the suspension of Fr. John, based on a non-credible phsyco woman’s vengful claim.
the guilty-just-in-case routine is very damaging

 

[dfp42]

:I TOTALLY DISAGREE:

WHAT PART OF SUSPENDED DO SOME NOT UNDERSTAND?!?!?!?
(I apologize for the bluntness but we must understand what that means)
To claim that Fr. Corapi had knowledge of this statement and let it loose purposley is jumping the gun, its going to far
He is cut off right now! SUSPENDED meaning that he is not to say anything
HE is suposed to be silent and kept that way
also SC could release anything they want to
but Iam amazed at some of the people of CAF who seem todoubt Fr. John as soon as he is acused of something this attrocious

but to pick apart a statement from a confused and frustrated person and then to DEMONIZE father Corapi and his company WHEN HE WAS TRYING TO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF DIVINE MERCY
based on an acusation of some PSYCHO WOMAN who got fired and now wants to tear the reputation of that Good Man
is beyond me
(and this isnt direct towards you Miserissima)
She should have been cast aside and committed the moment she wrote those words against Fr. John if you ask me
but my point is we should just wait this out and leave statements alone
at this point, in my opinion, The people at SC know bothe Father Corapi and the psycho acuser
And this statement in light of reality seems to point to his innocence
the reason why that is , si because father corapi is a good man and simple not vindictive(if youve listened to him you know this) its out of character that he would do something this tabloid-ish
he may have been aware of this but he probably couldnt do anything
the people at SC are probably frustrated and dont understand why Fr. John must be so obiediant
father corapi just wouldnt do that im sorry theres no way
but this will all blow over soon and the psycho woman would be put in her place (hopefull she repents of such slander thats if she knows what shes doing is wrong remeber she pledged to destroy fr. john because her psycho-self got fired
so NO I DISAGREE AND I DONT LIKE THE INDIFERENCE AND ATTACK AGAINST FR JOHN ON THESE FORUMS
this thread should be closed

I kinda agree with you. Before all of this happened people either didn’t care about Fr. Corapi and what he did or they thought he was a good, ok man preaching the Gospel for the Catholic Church. Now because of this whole ordeal some people think that he is up to something screwy and somehow could be living a double life. Some people now are questioning his ministry and his finances and if he should be getting money since he is a priest etc. After nearly 20 years of him being in the priesthood all all the work he has done within the Catholic Church it’s as if some want to finish him off by saying good he deserves this. It’s easy to say criminals deserve punishment, but is that to say you don’t love and pray for them in prison? It’s easy to get carried away and to want to finish off anyone who’s done wrong. I don’t think that’s the Catholic attitude to have.

I think most bishops and perhaps even the pope know very well who Fr. John Corapi is and what he does, including the events he did and selling of his materials. Why to say after 20 years somehow it’s wrong what he does for the Church. Perhaps if we had more outspoken preachers in the Church all the focus wouldn’t be on him.

 

[dfp42]

I wouldnt say attacks but rather indifference and there is alot of it though I guess the negative sticks out more than the positive but in the earlier posts I think thats the case

Which is probably why we’ve had 3 threads either locked down or removed by the moderators of CAF since the story broke about Corapi.

 

[porthos11]

Legal expenses? Fr.Corapi has not been charged with any crimes, nor is he being civilly sued, yet the sales pitch near the end of the statement suggests that a defense fund of sorts is needed. Confusing.

It is enlightening, however, that they claim the source of all of this consternation is a disgruntled ex-employee who alledgedly assaulted staff of Santa Cruz, and (this is the key statement) threatened, before witnesses, that she would bring Fr. Corapi down.

Clarification needs to be provided regarding any legal proceedings stemming from this matter, because in their absence there is certainly no need to raise funds to cover legal expenses. Again, perplexing.

Father Corapi has already been suspended, which means a canonical process is in progress. He needs canonical legal assistance. For clergy there is more than one type of legal.

 

[Lujack]

This is the last thing that Father HIMSELF has said and I think it speaks volumes
The bishops have jumped the gun based on a phsyco woman’s claims
however the damage to his name has already begun
the church in america is so flawed though
if a bishop isnt supporting a liberal politician that supports abortion (directly or indirectly)
he is usually involved in some scandal or keeping quiet
The church in america seems to be suffering right now so Im not suprised that they went TOO FAR in the suspension of Fr. John, based on a non-credible phsyco woman’s vengful claim.
the guilty-just-in-case routine is very damaging

Is it fair, just, or moral to call a woman about whom you know nothing a psycho? You’re committing the same wrong that someone passing judgment on Father Corapi would be.