Statement of Santa Cruz-Fr John Corapi

[Miserissima]

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

I think we’re seeing the same coin from different sides. I want to ask Father Corapi’s staff the same thing you wrote: What part of suspended don’t they understand?

Since he’s both the president and vice president of SCM, he should be aware of the mass e-mailings and what gets posted on his site by his own staff.

I also didn’t mean to sound as if I’m attacking Father Corapi, but SCM seems to be acting with his permission (which is the end-run I was talking about earlier).

Let me try ot make an analogy (which falls shortm but you’ll get my idea): imagine that Karl Keating was a diocesan priest and he was suspended. Would you expect the Catholic Answers staff to start sending vague E-mails with “their side” and “details” that should be reserved for the investigators, not the public?

(and this isnt direct towards you Miserissima)

Kane, I never took it that way. It’s “all good.” I didn’t mean to incite you – or anyone here.

We can remain calm during this period of time. We are all adult, spiritual people. I would like to see this thread remain open as it will help all of us to keep in touch with the subject.

 

[dfp42]

I think we’re seeing the same coin from different sides. I want to ask Father Corapi’s staff the same thing you wrote: What part of suspended don’t they understand?

Since he’s both the president and vice president of SCM, he should be aware of the mass e-mailings and what gets posted on his site by his own staff.

I also didn’t mean to sound as if I’m attacking Father Corapi, but SCM seems to be acting with his permission (which is the end-run I was talking about earlier).

Let me try ot make an analogy (which falls shortm but you’ll get my idea): imagine that Karl Keating was a diocesan priest and he was suspended. Would you expect the Catholic Answers staff to start sending vague E-mails with “their side” and “details” that should be reserved for the investigators, not the public?

Kane, I never took it that way. It’s “all good.” I didn’t mean to incite you – or anyone here.

When you get to heaven you can ask why.

 

[SwizzleStick]

This was posted about 2 hours ago on NCR.

"Corapi’s leave violates canon law, says company

Mar. 29, 2011
By Dennis Sadowski, Catholic News Service

PDF versionWASHINGTON – A representative of the media company owned by Fr. John Corapi challenged the action to place the popular speaker on administrative leave from priestly ministry, saying that it was illicit under “several points of canon law.”…

Entire article: ncronline.org/news/corapis-leave-violates-canon-law-says-company

 

[whm]

I think we’re seeing the same coin from different sides. I want to ask Father Corapi’s staff the same thing you wrote: What part of suspended don’t they understand?

Since he’s both the president and vice president of SCM, he should be aware of the mass e-mailings and what gets posted on his site by his own staff.

I also didn’t mean to sound as if I’m attacking Father Corapi, but SCM seems to be acting with his permission (which is the end-run I was talking about earlier).

Or he is following orders and Santa Cruz is operating without any (name removed by moderator)ut or review from him. His original statement from the 18th is much more carefully worded. The later release doesn’t appear to be reviewed by him. He could be unhappy with the later release, but bound from communicating with Santa Cruz about removing it. This other person may be in charge while he is on leave.

This result could be due to him 100% obeying the leave. Your conclusion is based on him being partially on “leave” and still performing duties at Santa Cruz. We don’t know what the case is, all I can say is it doesn’t appear to me that he was involved in writing or reviewing the second release based on the apparent factual inconsistencies in the second statement (who ordered the leave of absence) and the professionalism of the writing.

 

[qui_est_ce]

This was posted about 2 hours ago on NCR.

"Corapi’s leave violates canon law, says company

Mar. 29, 2011
By Dennis Sadowski, Catholic News Service

PDF versionWASHINGTON – A representative of the media company owned by Fr. John Corapi challenged the action to place the popular speaker on administrative leave from priestly ministry, saying that it was illicit under “several points of canon law.”…

Entire article: ncronline.org/news/corapis-leave-violates-canon-law-says-company

Don’t they realize they are doing Fr. Corapi more harm than good?

 

[Marie5890]

Or he is following orders and Santa Cruz is operating without any (name removed by moderator)ut or review from him. His original statement from the 18th is much more carefully worded. The later release doesn’t appear to be reviewed by him. He could be unhappy with the later release, but bound from communicating with Santa Cruz about removing it. This other person may be in charge while he is on leave.

This result could be due to him 100% obeying the leave. Your conclusion is based on him being partially on “leave” and still performing duties at Santa Cruz. We don’t know what the case is, all I can say is it doesn’t appear to me that he was involved in writing or reviewing the second release based on the apparent factual inconsistencies in the second statement (who ordered the leave of absence) and the professionalism of the writing.

“Online records with the Montana secretary of state list John Corapi as the registered agent for the company. A company with the same name also is registered in Nevada and online records in the secretary of state’s office there indicated John A. Corapi holds the office of president, treasurer, secretary and director.”

ncronline.org/news/corapis-leave-violates-canon-law-says-company

(I find it hard to believe or accept he is unaware of Bobbi’s response, since, according to the above article, he pretty much is the entire board of Santa Cruz Media. He doesn’t work for this company, he IS this company)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This was posted about 2 hours ago on NCR.

"Corapi’s leave violates canon law, says company

Mar. 29, 2011
By Dennis Sadowski, Catholic News Service

PDF versionWASHINGTON – A representative of the media company owned by Fr. John Corapi challenged the action to place the popular speaker on administrative leave from priestly ministry, saying that it was illicit under “several points of canon law.”…

Entire article: ncronline.org/news/corapis-leave-violates-canon-law-says-company

Again, while it might be in violation of Canon Law (this is an opinion by Canon Lawyers and would need to be evaluated by an Ecclesiastical Court to find if this opinion has merit) it might not be a violation of the SOLT (his religious communities) Constitutions/Statues.

 

[Miserissima]

Or he is following orders and Santa Cruz is operating without any (name removed by moderator)ut or review from him. His original statement from the 18th is much more carefully worded. The later release doesn’t appear to be reviewed by him. He could be unhappy with the later release, but bound from communicating with Santa Cruz about removing it. This other person may be in charge while he is on leave.

This result could be due to him 100% obeying the leave. Your conclusion is based on him being partially on “leave” and still performing duties at Santa Cruz. We don’t know what the case is, all I can say is it doesn’t appear to me that he was involved in writing or reviewing the second release based on the apparent factual inconsistencies in the second statement (who ordered the leave of absence) and the professionalism of the writing.

Thoughtful post, WHM. I did recognize now that SCM may have (and now I feel that Bobbi probably did) make the E-mail statement and posted it to his website without running it by him. It did more harm than good: Fr. Corapi appeared to be looking for a loophole and the whole case became tabloid fodder.

No good came from her knee-jerk public reaction, which is sad because it added to the appearance of scandal to a priest who is already going through the wringer.

 

[whm]

“Online records with the Montana secretary of state list John Corapi as the registered agent for the company. A company with the same name also is registered in Nevada and online records in the secretary of state’s office there indicated John A. Corapi holds the office of president, treasurer, secretary and director.”

ncronline.org/news/corapis-leave-violates-canon-law-says-company

(I find it hard to believe or accept he is unaware of Bobbi’s response, since, according to the above article, he pretty much is the entire board of Santa Cruz Media. He doesn’t work for this company, he IS this company)

Well those filings were made prior to the leave of absence. What you state above is your judgment of the situation.

He may be legally “responsible” for his employees actions (as president of the company), but if he has no (zero) communication with them he can not control what they are doing now. He may have cut off all communication with them by choice or by command of his superior. We do not know these specifics.

 

[Marie5890]

Well those filings were made prior to the leave of absence. What you state above is your judgment of the situation.

He may be legally “responsible” for his employees actions (as president of the company), but if he has no (zero) communication with them he can not control what they are doing now. He may have cut off all communication with them by choice or by command of his superior. We do not know these specifics.

You are right. He may or may not be aware.

None of know if he did or did not cut off contact. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t.
We are left with only what possibly did happen or what possibly didn’t happen

 

[rmartensjr]

Father Francis (Rocky) Hoffman, a canon lawyer and Executive Director of Relevant Radio, issued the following statement. IN ADDITION, he expounded on the statement during a one-hour interview this morning, which is currently being replayed. His interview is available on the Relevant Radio NETWORK home page, relevantradio.com/Page.aspx?pid=3407

March 24, 2011
Statement Regarding the Means of Social Communication and Administrative Leave:
the Pertinent Canons In the wake of Fr. Corapi’s announcement on his website and the subsequent statement by his superior, there is confusion among the faithful about the due process of law, the rights of the faithful in general, and the rights of clerics in particular. It is important to both clarify the situation and work in unison with the proper ecclesiastical authorities. I hope the following points might be useful.

1. No cleric carries out the sacred ministry in his own name. He ministers at the will of
   his proper ecclesiastical authority, the bishop or religious superior as the case may be.
   The mission of the priest is to assist the Bishop in teaching, sanctifying, and
   governing. He has no right to do this on his own.
2. The Code of Canon Law provides the Bishop/Superior recourse to a “leave of
   absence” as stated in Canon 1722:
   a. “At any stage of the process, in order to prevent scandal, protect the freedom of
   the witnesses and safeguard the course of justice, the Ordinary can, after
   consulting the promoter of justice and summoning the accused person to appear,
   prohibit the accused from the exercise of the sacred ministry or of some
   ecclesiastical office and position, or impose or forbid residence in a certain place
   or territory, or even prohibit public participation in the Holy Eucharist. If,
   however, the reason ceases, all these restrictions are to be revoked; they cease by
   virtue of the law itself as soon as the penal process ceases.”
3. A commentary (Navarre) on that canon states:
   a. This measure – called “administrative leave” in the civil service of English
   speaking countries – is not penal but preventive and prudential.
4. This distinction – “not penal, but preventive and prudential” – is very important for
   the current discussion about this issue. Many consider this “administrative leave” to
   be a declaration of guilt without investigation, and to be penal in nature.
5. While the principle “innocent until proven guilty” still holds in canon law, it would
   be a mistake to hold that any cleric ever has a right to exercise the public ministry
   without his Bishop/Superior’s express permission, which can be withdrawn for
   prudential reasons.
6. What the Bishop/Superior can not do without proof of guilt is to prohibit the cleric
   from receiving the sacraments, nor can he withhold adequate financial support. Such
   actions would be unjust penalties.
7. Canon 822 §3 addresses the special duty of those involved with the media in this
   regard:
   a. “All Christ’s faithful, especially those who in any way take part in the
   management or use of the media, are to be diligent in assisting pastoral action, so
   that the Church can more effectively exercise its office through these means.”
8. “To assist in pastoral action” means to cooperate with the proper ecclesiastical
   authorities.
9. In the case of Fr. Corapi, Catholic media outlets will assist the process by supporting
   the indications and intentions of his superiors with respect to his temporary
   suspension from the public ministry of teaching, sanctifying, and governing.
10. By continuing to air his programs claiming that he is “innocent until proven guilty”, a
    Catholic media outlet may unintentionally undermine the authority of his superior by
    leading the faithful to conclude that the superior unjustly put him on “administrative
    leave” because the allegations were not credible. It is entirely up to the proper
    ecclesiastical authority (bishop/superior) to determine if the complaint has merit, or
    the allegations are credible. Any dereliction in this duty would either harm the
    community or the defendant.
11. When there is a doubt in the matter, Christ’s faithful should give the benefit of the
    doubt to the proper ecclesiastical authorities (bishop/superior) and in that way
    contribute to the unity of the apostolate.
12. In all cases, it is best to consult with the local Ordinary for guidance on such issues.
    With prayers and best wishes,
    Rev. Francis J. Hoffman, JCD
    Executive Director

 

[qui_est_ce]

Father Francis (Rocky) Hoffman, a canon lawyer and Executive Director of Relevant Radio, issued the following statement. IN ADDITION, he expounded on the statement during a one-hour interview this morning, which is currently being replayed. His interview is available on the Relevant Radio NETWORK home page, relevantradio.com/Page.aspx?pid=3407

March 24, 2011
Statement Regarding the Means of Social Communication and Administrative Leave:
the Pertinent Canons In the wake of Fr. Corapi’s announcement on his website and the subsequent statement by his superior, there is confusion among the faithful about the due process of law, the rights of the faithful in general, and the rights of clerics in particular. It is important to both clarify the situation and work in unison with the proper ecclesiastical authorities. I hope the following points might be useful.

1. No cleric carries out the sacred ministry in his own name. He ministers at the will of
   his proper ecclesiastical authority, the bishop or religious superior as the case may be.
   The mission of the priest is to assist the Bishop in teaching, sanctifying, and
   governing. He has no right to do this on his own.
   {SNIP}

Thank you so much for taking the time to post this.

I’ve been greatly concerned at the number of Catholics today who feel free to dismiss the authority of the bishop.

 

[Teelynn]

You are right. He may or may not be aware.

None of know if he did or did not cut off contact. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t.
We are left with only what possibly did happen or what possibly didn’t happen

If you listen to Fr. Rocky from Relevant Radio, he states that Fr. is actually required to do or not to do whatever his superior decides. I might assume that because his accuser was a former employee, it might make sense to bar him from contact with the rest of his employees ( a former employee had to work with these people) because of obvious reasons…therefore it would make perfect sense to me that Fr. has literally no control at this point what his employees can or cannot, should or should not do. This is just a guess, mind you, but to me it’s pretty logical. They have to stop everything in it’s tracks so to speak so that they are able to proceed with an investigation that is legitimate. The investigation is more or less similar to a civil inquest. It may or may not go further than this depending. But they want to obtain as accurate information without anyone conspiring with each other, as possible.

This all being said…it is still unfortunate that Bobbie came out with this…I don’t think she realizes the damage it may do further to him. You can bet that this wasn’t her intent…you can also bet that emotions are running rampant about this right about now. …it would be nice if someone were able to point out to her the negatives on this, and suggest she “cool it” for a while as hard as that might be for her to do.

 

[Shoshana]

If you listen to Fr. Rocky from Relevant Radio, he states that Fr. is actually required to do or not to do whatever his superior decides. I might assume that because his accuser was a former employee, it might make sense to bar him from contact with the rest of his employees ( a former employee had to work with these people) because of obvious reasons…therefore it would make perfect sense to me that Fr. has literally no control at this point what his employees can or cannot, should or should not do. This is just a guess, mind you, but to me it’s pretty logical. They have to stop everything in it’s tracks so to speak so that they are able to proceed with an investigation that is legitimate. The investigation is more or less similar to a civil inquest. It may or may not go further than this depending. But they want to obtain as accurate information without anyone conspiring with each other, as possible.

This all being said…it is still unfortunate that Bobbie came out with this…I don’t think she realizes the damage it may do further to him. You can bet that this wasn’t her intent…you can also bet that emotions are running rampant about this right about now. …it would be nice if someone were able to point out to her the negatives on this, and suggest she “cool it” for a while as hard as that might be for her to do.

Beautiful and a thoroughly well-thought out post! God bless…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If you listen to Fr. Rocky from Relevant Radio, he states that Fr. is actually required to do or not to do whatever his superior decides. I might assume that because his accuser was a former employee, it might make sense to bar him from contact with the rest of his employees ( a former employee had to work with these people) because of obvious reasons…therefore it would make perfect sense to me that Fr. has literally no control at this point what his employees can or cannot, should or should not do. This is just a guess, mind you, but to me it’s pretty logical.

I agree with you that this is an assumption and while I see how you could come to it I do not agree with you that it is logical in nature.

As was stated in the article posted/linked;
6. What the Bishop/Superior can not do without proof of guilt is to prohibit the cleric from receiving the sacraments, nor can he withhold adequate financial support. Such actions would be unjust penalties.
If the religious community is not supplying financial support to Fr Corapi then it could not order him to cut ties with how he is supporting himself.

 

[deaconmike113]

I think we make a mistake when we give someone like Fr. Corapi, or anyone for that matter, “rock star” status within the Church. When they become the attraction, we’re heading down a dangerous path.
I must admit I am not a fan of Fr. Corapi’s fire and brimstone message and approach. It has never seemed very pastoral to me. I’ve always felt he’s very selective in the truth that he teaches and I don’t believe it’s a healthy picture of our Lord or our Church. Of course, people who disagree with me will say that the truth hurts and I need to deal with it. I imagine that would be Fr. Corapi’s response, though I could be wrong.
With that caveat, I do have some questions that trouble me greatly. Certainly the money aspect of Fr. Corapi’s message. He must generate a great deal of income, and his appearances on radio and tv only fuel that…the more people who hear him on radio will buy his stuff, the more money he brings in. I think it’s perfectly legitimate to ask where it goes. I assumed as a SOLT priest he took a vow of poverty, so it should go entirely to his order. I also am uncomfortable that when you go to his website, EVERYTHING is for sale.
Secondly, what happened to obedience to the Church, which he constantly preaches? While he has obeyed the Church (he really has no choice), he and his company have made some fairly snide remarks. I find this hypocritical and disturbing.

 

[Shoshana]

I think we make a mistake when we give someone like Fr. Corapi, or anyone for that matter, “rock star” status within the Church. When they become the attraction, we’re heading down a dangerous path.
I must admit I am not a fan of Fr. Corapi’s fire and brimstone message and approach. It has never seemed very pastoral to me. I’ve always felt he’s very selective in the truth that he teaches and I don’t believe it’s a healthy picture of our Lord or our Church. Of course, people who disagree with me will say that the truth hurts and I need to deal with it. I imagine that would be Fr. Corapi’s response, though I could be wrong.
With that caveat, I do have some questions that trouble me greatly. Certainly the money aspect of Fr. Corapi’s message. He must generate a great deal of income, and his appearances on radio and tv only fuel that…the more people who hear him on radio will buy his stuff, the more money he brings in. I think it’s perfectly legitimate to ask where it goes. I assumed as a SOLT priest he took a vow of poverty, so it should go entirely to his order. I also am uncomfortable that when you go to his website, EVERYTHING is for sale.
Secondly, what happened to obedience to the Church, which he constantly preaches? While he has obeyed the Church (he really has no choice), he and his company have made some fairly snide remarks. I find this hypocritical and disturbing.

Hi has obeyed the Church…and said he would…so where is the problem with obedience…and yes, he has a choice, and free will…

If you had the other posts you would possibly surmise that he may have absolutely no contact with ‘his’ company at this point and could be very much unaware of what is being issued. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt…it would be the charitable thing to do…

 

[Shoshana]

He has also been told he had the gift of apostolic preaching…which he has admitted is different from parish preaching. If I know this, why don’t you?

 

[TMC]

He has also been told he had the gift of apostolic preaching…which he has admitted is different from parish preaching. If I know this, why don’t you?

What does this mean?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

. I assumed as a SOLT priest he took a vow of poverty, so it should go entirely to his order.

SOLT is not a Religious Order, it is a Society of Apostolic Life, the priests in it are secular priests and not consecrated religious so they do not take vows. They make the promises of Obedience to their superior and Celibacy.

They retain the right to own property and I assume that they have to cover their retirement and healthcare costs like most secular priests.