D
deaconmike113
Guest
Please don’t equate Fr. Corapi’s situation, or anyone else’s, for that matter, with Jesus.
- Status
S
steve711
Guest
It seems very obvious that Father Corapi has many detractors on this thread. Many question his direct approach to preaching the Catholic Faith, his personal wealth, and the background he came from. This is what a forum is all about. But as for me, I am a supporter and hope all these accusations turn out to be false.
As for others thinking differently than I, that is fine with me, but having a different opinion does not make the opinion anything more than an opinion.
Go with Gods Grace!!!
As for others thinking differently than I, that is fine with me, but having a different opinion does not make the opinion anything more than an opinion.
Go with Gods Grace!!!
D
dfp42
Guest
This is Jesus
P
Pew47
Guest
The canon related to members of Societies of Apostolic Life having their own property is 741.2:
" According to the norm of proper law, 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."
It would seem to me that the portion after the “but” would apply to Father’s preaching. If he is not carrying out the duties assigned to him by S.O.L.T. than what work is he doing for S.O.L.T.? The original distribution company for his media was S.O.L.T. media, why is it now a for-profit corporation having no affiliation to the Catholic Church?
Some have pointed out that EWTN also has secular leadership. A big difference is that EWTN is a tax-exempt non-profit. Father indicates SCM is a for-profit so that the government can’t control his speech. The other difference being that a tax-exempt corporation like EWTN files a form 990 information return listing things like the 10 highest paid employees, officers, income statement, balance sheet, etc. This gets posted on the internet through various free services. I don’t expect Santa Cruz Media would care to post their financial statements online.
It seems some suggested that Father likely had nothing to do with SCM’s statement and that he might for the time being avoid communicating with Bobbi. If this were true, why is it that she seems to have sat in on meetings with lawyers regarding Father’s status? What did that meeting have to do with Operations? A possible explanation that has been offered is that she was named in the letter.
There was some discussion that the accuser has indicated that Father had sex with several women employees and so Santa Cruz was sticking up for their innocence by explaining this was a disgruntled former employee who “promised to destroy Father”. But Father never said that the accusation was that he had sex with anyone, only that he had been accused of "multiple sexual exploits with her (the accuser) and several other adult women. " Very ambiguous and many have interpreted this as that the accuser said she had sex with Father. An alternative could be that she was reporting Father for unwanted sexual advances towards hers and others. She might have even discovered that Father was having sex with someone. Now if that happened to be the case, who would want to continue working for Father. If she quit the job and indicated that she were going to report these “sexual exploits” to the bishop and Father’s superior, might Bobbi had warned her that it would “destroy” Father while the accuser promised that she still planned to go ahead and report him? This is speculation, but it seems much less wild than some of the other speculation of seen that have referred to the accuser as a psycho and serves to balance things out.
As far as comparing Father’s media with that of Scott Hahn or others, try to ask for Father’s talks at your local Catholic bookstore. There is very little that you could find there. EWTN has the rights to his Easter Triduum talk and so they have made that available. One or two very early talks might be available through the Mary Foundation or St. Joseph’s Communication’s Lighthouse Media. Anything else and you’ll have to go to Father’s website (that’s Father spelt out, Corapi.com). Father (or is it SCM?) keeps tight control and won’t distribute through bookstores. Scott Hahn would get a very small portion of the price you pay for his books at a bookstore.
If Father Corapi has had priestly faculties in the past few years while living in Montana, they would have been only those that S.O.L.T. extended to him. The bishop where he resides has indicated that Father did not have any faculties through his diocese, as did the bishop of Corpus Christi. The bishop of Helena indicated that Father was making his personal residence in the diocese, rather than suggesting that Father was living in a S.O.L.T. house. S.O.L.T. also does not indicate that they have an establishment in Montana. In other words it would seem that Father could not exercise any of his faculties in a public manner in Montana. It would seem that Father has not bothered obtaining permission from the bishop to have an oratory in his residence in order to be able to reserve the Blessed Sacrament. Outside of the S.O.L.T. community itself, it would seem that Father would have no priestly faculties unless he has obtained specific permission from the local bishop. This would prevent Father from hearing confessions, though I believe he has indicated that he does not hear confessions due to his own security concerns. You will find canon law related to members of Societies of Apostolic Life at vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2G.HTM .
" According to the norm of proper law, 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."
It would seem to me that the portion after the “but” would apply to Father’s preaching. If he is not carrying out the duties assigned to him by S.O.L.T. than what work is he doing for S.O.L.T.? The original distribution company for his media was S.O.L.T. media, why is it now a for-profit corporation having no affiliation to the Catholic Church?
Some have pointed out that EWTN also has secular leadership. A big difference is that EWTN is a tax-exempt non-profit. Father indicates SCM is a for-profit so that the government can’t control his speech. The other difference being that a tax-exempt corporation like EWTN files a form 990 information return listing things like the 10 highest paid employees, officers, income statement, balance sheet, etc. This gets posted on the internet through various free services. I don’t expect Santa Cruz Media would care to post their financial statements online.
It seems some suggested that Father likely had nothing to do with SCM’s statement and that he might for the time being avoid communicating with Bobbi. If this were true, why is it that she seems to have sat in on meetings with lawyers regarding Father’s status? What did that meeting have to do with Operations? A possible explanation that has been offered is that she was named in the letter.
There was some discussion that the accuser has indicated that Father had sex with several women employees and so Santa Cruz was sticking up for their innocence by explaining this was a disgruntled former employee who “promised to destroy Father”. But Father never said that the accusation was that he had sex with anyone, only that he had been accused of "multiple sexual exploits with her (the accuser) and several other adult women. " Very ambiguous and many have interpreted this as that the accuser said she had sex with Father. An alternative could be that she was reporting Father for unwanted sexual advances towards hers and others. She might have even discovered that Father was having sex with someone. Now if that happened to be the case, who would want to continue working for Father. If she quit the job and indicated that she were going to report these “sexual exploits” to the bishop and Father’s superior, might Bobbi had warned her that it would “destroy” Father while the accuser promised that she still planned to go ahead and report him? This is speculation, but it seems much less wild than some of the other speculation of seen that have referred to the accuser as a psycho and serves to balance things out.
As far as comparing Father’s media with that of Scott Hahn or others, try to ask for Father’s talks at your local Catholic bookstore. There is very little that you could find there. EWTN has the rights to his Easter Triduum talk and so they have made that available. One or two very early talks might be available through the Mary Foundation or St. Joseph’s Communication’s Lighthouse Media. Anything else and you’ll have to go to Father’s website (that’s Father spelt out, Corapi.com). Father (or is it SCM?) keeps tight control and won’t distribute through bookstores. Scott Hahn would get a very small portion of the price you pay for his books at a bookstore.
If Father Corapi has had priestly faculties in the past few years while living in Montana, they would have been only those that S.O.L.T. extended to him. The bishop where he resides has indicated that Father did not have any faculties through his diocese, as did the bishop of Corpus Christi. The bishop of Helena indicated that Father was making his personal residence in the diocese, rather than suggesting that Father was living in a S.O.L.T. house. S.O.L.T. also does not indicate that they have an establishment in Montana. In other words it would seem that Father could not exercise any of his faculties in a public manner in Montana. It would seem that Father has not bothered obtaining permission from the bishop to have an oratory in his residence in order to be able to reserve the Blessed Sacrament. Outside of the S.O.L.T. community itself, it would seem that Father would have no priestly faculties unless he has obtained specific permission from the local bishop. This would prevent Father from hearing confessions, though I believe he has indicated that he does not hear confessions due to his own security concerns. You will find canon law related to members of Societies of Apostolic Life at vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2G.HTM .
J
JReducation
Guest
There are still some people debating whether or not Fr. Corapi has millions. I’m wondering if some missed post #201.
Fr. Corapi belongs to a Society of Apostolic Life that makes a promise of poverty. ONLY member of religious orders can never own money or assets.
Member of religious congregations and societies of apostolic life can own money and property, if the constitutions allow it. However, they cannot make use of it. They can be millionaires. Look at St. Katherine Drexel. She was a millionaire. She could not touch a cent for her own benefit. She had a simple vow of poverty. Therefore, she spent her millions in building schools for black and Native American children.
If Fr. Corapi belongs to a society that makes a promise of poverty, he can have millions that he cannot use for his benefit. It either sits there waiting for him to die and then go to his heir, whomever he names in his will or he can give it away, as long as he does not give it to the society. The Church does not allow that, because it creates a conflict of interest.
The profit from the work that he does is split between the SOLT and the company for which he works.
Because a society of apostolic life CAN have more flexible rules than a congregation and an order, they may allow him an expense account. This way he does not have to ask for money to buy a plane ticket to visit his relatives like religious do.
Just because he may have millions, does not mean that he has access to that money. Once you join a congregation or society, you are bound by its constitutions.
How the Pope’s book ended up in this discussion, I’m a little confused about. The pope is diocesan priest. He does not belong to a society of any kind. He belongs to the Diocese of Rome. He can keep the money that he makes from the sale of his books and whatever other sources of income he has. In fact, he and his brother own a home in Bavaria. But that’s not the same case as Fr. Corapi. The pope has not made promises or vows of any kind. He is as free to make an honest profit from his work as any other scholar. Someone brought up Scott Hahn. The fact that Dr. Hahn has a wife and grandchildren has nothing to do with his earnings. He gets paid, because he’s a professor, writer and public speaker. In other words, he’s a scholar.
The only place that I know of that pays you a bonus for having children is Vatican City.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Fr. Corapi belongs to a Society of Apostolic Life that makes a promise of poverty. ONLY member of religious orders can never own money or assets.
Member of religious congregations and societies of apostolic life can own money and property, if the constitutions allow it. However, they cannot make use of it. They can be millionaires. Look at St. Katherine Drexel. She was a millionaire. She could not touch a cent for her own benefit. She had a simple vow of poverty. Therefore, she spent her millions in building schools for black and Native American children.
If Fr. Corapi belongs to a society that makes a promise of poverty, he can have millions that he cannot use for his benefit. It either sits there waiting for him to die and then go to his heir, whomever he names in his will or he can give it away, as long as he does not give it to the society. The Church does not allow that, because it creates a conflict of interest.
The profit from the work that he does is split between the SOLT and the company for which he works.
Because a society of apostolic life CAN have more flexible rules than a congregation and an order, they may allow him an expense account. This way he does not have to ask for money to buy a plane ticket to visit his relatives like religious do.
Just because he may have millions, does not mean that he has access to that money. Once you join a congregation or society, you are bound by its constitutions.
How the Pope’s book ended up in this discussion, I’m a little confused about. The pope is diocesan priest. He does not belong to a society of any kind. He belongs to the Diocese of Rome. He can keep the money that he makes from the sale of his books and whatever other sources of income he has. In fact, he and his brother own a home in Bavaria. But that’s not the same case as Fr. Corapi. The pope has not made promises or vows of any kind. He is as free to make an honest profit from his work as any other scholar. Someone brought up Scott Hahn. The fact that Dr. Hahn has a wife and grandchildren has nothing to do with his earnings. He gets paid, because he’s a professor, writer and public speaker. In other words, he’s a scholar.
The only place that I know of that pays you a bonus for having children is Vatican City.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
dfp42
Guest
Is he allowed to give money to charity etc? When I was at his conference last October in NJ he was going to match over a 100,000 dollars to (catholic radio i believe) if someone would step up first. Is that giving money to the society?There are still some people debating whether or not Fr. Corapi has millions. I’m wondering if some missed post #201.
Fr. Corapi belongs to a Society of Apostolic Life that makes a promise of poverty. ONLY member of religious orders can never own money or assets.
Member of religious congregations and societies of apostolic life can own money and property, if the constitutions allow it. However, they cannot make use of it. They can be millionaires. Look at St. Katherine Drexel. She was a millionaire. She could not touch a cent for her own benefit. She had a simple vow of poverty. Therefore, she spent her millions in building schools for black and Native American children.
If Fr. Corapi belongs to a society that makes a promise of poverty, he can have millions that he cannot use for his benefit. It either sits there waiting for him to die and then go to his heir, whomever he names in his will or he can give it away, as long as he does not give it to the society. The Church does not allow that, because it creates a conflict of interest.
The profit from the work that he does is split between the SOLT and the company for which he works.
Because a society of apostolic life CAN have more flexible rules than a congregation and an order, they may allow him an expense account. This way he does not have to ask for money to buy a plane ticket to visit his relatives like religious do.
Just because he may have millions, does not mean that he has access to that money. Once you join a congregation or society, you are bound by its constitutions.
How the Pope’s book ended up in this discussion, I’m a little confused about. The pope is diocesan priest. He does not belong to a society of any kind. He belongs to the Diocese of Rome. He can keep the money that he makes from the sale of his books and whatever other sources of income he has. In fact, he and his brother own a home in Bavaria. But that’s not the same case as Fr. Corapi. The pope has not made promises or vows of any kind. He is as free to make an honest profit from his work as any other scholar. Someone brought up Scott Hahn. The fact that Dr. Hahn has a wife and grandchildren has nothing to do with his earnings. He gets paid, because he’s a professor, writer and public speaker. In other words, he’s a scholar.
The only place that I know of that pays you a bonus for having children is Vatican City.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
Pew47
Guest
'There are still some people debating whether or not Fr. Corapi has millions. I’m wondering if some missed post #201…If Fr. Corapi belongs to a society that makes a promise of poverty, he can have millions that he cannot use for his benefit. "
If you were to do a google search on “Father Corapi property tax”, you’d find a number of posts linking to public property tax records showing John Corapi as the owner of various properties in White Fish Montanta. So the acquisition of these properties can be done without using funds for his benefit?
If you were to do a google search on “Father Corapi property tax”, you’d find a number of posts linking to public property tax records showing John Corapi as the owner of various properties in White Fish Montanta. So the acquisition of these properties can be done without using funds for his benefit?
J
JReducation
Guest
It all depends on the constitutions of your institute. The Church does not have any prohibition regarding members of Societies of Apostolic Life or religious who belong to congregations, not orders (they’re in a different category), having money.
The question is how do they use the money?
If you belong to a religious congregation, you may not use it for your benefit.
If you belong to a Society of Apostolic life, you may use it to your benefit, if that society does not make a promise or a vow of poverty. Since the SOLTs make a promise of poverty, the same rule applies to them as to religious. They cannot use it to their benefit.
Giving it to charity is not to their benefit.
As I said above, St. Katherine Drexel was a Franciscan Sister. Franciscan Sisters are not part of the Franciscan Order. They are a congregation, not an order. St. Katherine was able to retain ownership of her millions. She was not able to use it for her benefit. But she was able to use it for charity. The constitutions of the Franciscans Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament allowed her to do so. Had she been a Poor Clare, she would have been a member of the Franciscan Order. In that case, she would not have been able to own it. She would have had to dispose of the money before making solemn vows. But that was not her case. She made simple vows, not solemn vows.
A member of a society with a vow of poverty can administer his money any way in which the society allows him to do so as long as he does not benefit from it. Let’s use a hypothetical family. Let’s say that Father were a widower with children. He could use his money to purchase property, stocks, bonds, CDs and whatever for the benefit of his children.
Since he does not have children and I don’t know if he has parents or not, he can still use it for the benefit of a third party or organization such as his favorite charity.
Also, because he is not a consecrated religious, the SOLT does not have to apply the exercise of poverty as rigidly as religious communities do. I’m not an SOLT. Therefore, I’m not familiar with their constitution. Hypothetically, their constitution may allow them to have a car or a home in their name for their use. But their promise of poverty may require that they share what they have, especially with the poor.
One would have to read their constitutions to know for sure.
A wild-card question . . . why would anyone want to check out Fr. Corapi’s tax records?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
O
on_fire
Guest
just keep praying for him…
D
dfp42
Guest
Someone with perhaps an agenda? I think it’s safe to say regardless of the truth to this matter, he did a lot for the Catholic Church in regards to teaching the faith and charity from what I can see. He’s not perfect. Sure some people may not like his style of teaching etc but we don’t need to go off the deep end by questioning his finances and looking up his personal tax records. Just because it’s considered public information online, I think that is going a little too far. Personally we would be better off spending our time in prayer and focusing on what we need to do to get to heaven. I think too many people think he is guilty or (might be) of other things just because he’s on leave.It all depends on the constitutions of your institute. The Church does not have any prohibition regarding members of Societies of Apostolic Life or religious who belong to congregations, not orders (they’re in a different category), having money.
The question is how do they use the money?
If you belong to a religious congregation, you may not use it for your benefit.
If you belong to a Society of Apostolic life, you may use it to your benefit, if that society does not make a promise or a vow of poverty. Since the SOLTs make a promise of poverty, the same rule applies to them as to religious. They cannot use it to their benefit.
Giving it to charity is not to their benefit.
As I said above, St. Katherine Drexel was a Franciscan Sister. Franciscan Sisters are not part of the Franciscan Order. They are a congregation, not an order. St. Katherine was able to retain ownership of her millions. She was not able to use it for her benefit. But she was able to use it for charity. The constitutions of the Franciscans Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament allowed her to do so. Had she been a Poor Clare, she would have been a member of the Franciscan Order. In that case, she would not have been able to own it. She would have had to dispose of the money before making solemn vows. But that was not her case. She made simple vows, not solemn vows.
A member of a society with a vow of poverty can administer his money any way in which the society allows him to do so as long as he does not benefit from it. Let’s use a hypothetical family. Let’s say that Father were a widower with children. He could use his money to purchase property, stocks, bonds, CDs and whatever for the benefit of his children.
Since he does not have children and I don’t know if he has parents or not, he can still use it for the benefit of a third party or organization such as his favorite charity.
Also, because he is not a consecrated religious, the SOLT does not have to apply the exercise of poverty as rigidly as religious communities do. I’m not an SOLT. Therefore, I’m not familiar with their constitution. Hypothetically, their constitution may allow them to have a car or a home in their name for their use. But their promise of poverty may require that they share what they have, especially with the poor.
One would have to read their constitutions to know for sure.
A wild-card question . . . why would anyone want to check out Fr. Corapi’s tax records?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
pismopal
Guest
I don’t have the time or the inclination to read every post but I read yours and I responded to what you wrote and what you seemed to imply. If Father Corapi made a public statement about his bank account I have never heard it…you however said that you understood that he was wealthy without explaining where you received the understanding. You could take Father’s name out of the issue and I would have asked the same questions.
D
dfp42
Guest
Possible SOLT update:
This was posted from his facebook fan page as a response from SOLT by a user:
“God’s Blessings! We have just met with the bishop today and have begun the initial investigation. We are in the process of gathering information and will soon be choosing the two priests to continue the investigative process. The choice of priests is very important and we don’t want to choose just anyone, so please ask everyone to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in choosing these two holy and scholarly priests. Fr. Gerry”
This was posted from his facebook fan page as a response from SOLT by a user:
“God’s Blessings! We have just met with the bishop today and have begun the initial investigation. We are in the process of gathering information and will soon be choosing the two priests to continue the investigative process. The choice of priests is very important and we don’t want to choose just anyone, so please ask everyone to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in choosing these two holy and scholarly priests. Fr. Gerry”
J
JReducation
Guest
This takes me to an entire different area of spirituality. Just because you can, doesn’t mean that you should.
Tax, property and driving records are public for a very specific purpose. Satisfying curiosity is not one of them. If you’re going to write an estoppel letter for a sale, purchase a home from someone, or even hire a person and you want to verify that he or she is in good standing with the law, then I can see doing that kind of research. God gives us technology and intelligence to achieve a higher good. When that intelligence and technology is used to achieve a self-serving end, then there is a moral question that has to be answered. Is that end a good in itself?
I guess this answers the question “is he a diocesan priest?” If he belonged to a diocese it would be the diocese that would be selecting the investigating team, not an institute of apostolic life.
The thought just came to me to notice the wording in this mess. Father has been placed on administrative leave. It does not say that he has been suspended. It may sound synonimous, but it’s not.
If you are ordained and you’re on administrative leave, you still have your faculties. it would be disobedient to use them, but the celebration of the sacraments would be valid AND licit. In other words, if you’re not suspended, then you’re not under a canonical penalty.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
debraran
Guest
They still haven’t picked the investigators? They have to pick the “right ones” ? I hope that means without any sign of being biased. I know they didn’t mean for it to sound like that, but I smiled and in my pre-coffee state, thought, “Oh the less popular ones get anyone” : )
If they do it the way secular investigators start, I hope they talk to everyone they can, tape (with permission) all talks, keep copies of everything and do it expediately before people can talk more and get stories straight. The longer they wait, the worse it is for Father and I would be yelling if I were innocent…I wouldn’t want to miss Easter mass and live under a cloud. No alleged crime that isn’t personal I’m sure, just get it over with.
If they know what they will find, it will take a much longer time. I hope for quick for all involved.
If they do it the way secular investigators start, I hope they talk to everyone they can, tape (with permission) all talks, keep copies of everything and do it expediately before people can talk more and get stories straight. The longer they wait, the worse it is for Father and I would be yelling if I were innocent…I wouldn’t want to miss Easter mass and live under a cloud. No alleged crime that isn’t personal I’m sure, just get it over with.
If they know what they will find, it will take a much longer time. I hope for quick for all involved.
P
Pew47
Guest
Br. JR:
You perhaps missed the statement made by EWTN explaining why they are not currently airing Father’s programs:
"The fact is that Father John’s own religious community has placed him on administrative leave and his capacity to function publicly as a priest has been suspended during the investigation of the charges against him. This was officially communicated to all of the bishops of the country in a statement saying that, “…Fr. Corapi has been placed on administrative leave and has had all of his priestly faculties removed.”
You perhaps missed the statement made by EWTN explaining why they are not currently airing Father’s programs:
"The fact is that Father John’s own religious community has placed him on administrative leave and his capacity to function publicly as a priest has been suspended during the investigation of the charges against him. This was officially communicated to all of the bishops of the country in a statement saying that, “…Fr. Corapi has been placed on administrative leave and has had all of his priestly faculties removed.”
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Amen, and yet I wonder… All this backbiting, all this half-baked gossip. I think the Lord of the Flies is very happy now.
“If you’re not with me, you are against me.”
Oh—didn’t deaconmike say several times he was leaving the thread. I guess we owe him a welcome-back.
P
Pew47
Guest
Statements have indicated that S.O.L.T. had been advised by the Bishop of Corpus Christi that they should select two priests to investigate that were not members of S.O.L.T. nor members of the diocese (probably wouldn’t want members of the Helena diocese where Father Corapi lives as well). I believe that the Society’s canonical status comes through the Diocese of Corpus Christi rather than being Pontifical.
This is the second case involving S.O.L.T. priests this year, and I think the diocese still has a lawsuit against it for the first case. The other case also included the unusual use of a lot of money. If the particular ways they have used their money can be allowed according to their constitution, perhaps the bishop might want them to make some changes to the constitution that he (or more likely his predecessor) approved. Another option could be that the bishop decides to suppress the Society altogether as being too out of control for his liking. While he might see that there are several other members doing great things, he might decide that they can continue doing great things under the supervision of their local ordinary rather than his own. That would mainly affect those priest such as Father Corapi that do not have much to do with the bishop in the area where they reside.
This is the second case involving S.O.L.T. priests this year, and I think the diocese still has a lawsuit against it for the first case. The other case also included the unusual use of a lot of money. If the particular ways they have used their money can be allowed according to their constitution, perhaps the bishop might want them to make some changes to the constitution that he (or more likely his predecessor) approved. Another option could be that the bishop decides to suppress the Society altogether as being too out of control for his liking. While he might see that there are several other members doing great things, he might decide that they can continue doing great things under the supervision of their local ordinary rather than his own. That would mainly affect those priest such as Father Corapi that do not have much to do with the bishop in the area where they reside.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I brought it up because debraran accused Fr. Corapi of “hawking” his books and CD’s, yet seemingly excusing Scott Hahn’s doing same. She defined the difference between “hawking” and “selling” as follows:How the Pope’s book ended up in this discussion, I’m a little confused about. The pope is diocesan priest.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
“Hawking” is what Father Corapi does, because he does not have a family to support.
“Selling” is what Scott Hahn does because “he has a family to support” and “probably” doesn’t make much money as a professor at Franciscan University.
I asked what she thought of the Pope selling his books or CD’s. I haven’t gotten an answer yet.
P
Pew47
Guest
I personally haven’t had any problem with what Father Corapi has had to say when talking about Church teaching or the Gospel, nor with what his past background before his conversion may have been (though portions of that have seemed a bit unbelievable). At times when listening on my car radio, I’ve wished he would get to the Church teaching part a bit quicker rather than going on quite so much about himself. His background since his conversion is of some interest to me, as it goes to whether his motivation in preaching is fairly pure or does it have to do with pure salesmanship.
As an example, in one or more of his talks Father has referred to Fr. Jim Flanagan as the founder of S.O.L.T. as having been an All-American football player at Notre Dame that left to become a Navy Seal during WWII. This claim about Father Flanagan was reported as recently as 8/28/10 by an “investigative journalist” and lay member of S.O.L.T. here; southcoastreport.com/the-rosary-is-a-warrior-weapon-not-for-wimps-2 . Problem one is the Seals did not yet exist in WWII, though Father Flanagan may have done Seal type duties for the Navy (though in the story they are “imagined”). Problem 2 is that if you look up any All-American football listing, you won’t find a Jim Flanagan of Notre Dame during the '40’s (and Father Flanagan is neither the All-American Christie Flanagan nor the Jim Flanigan from the '90’s). It does seem to me that Father Flanagan did letter on the 1943 Notre Dame football team coached by Coach Frank Leahy that won the national title, and apparently Jim Flanagan left to join the Navy along with Coach Leahy. That would seem incredible enough in itself, why bother stretching things. Who knows who is at fault for getting the story just a bit wrong, but it seems someone would have straightened the story out after all this time.
I have an additional problem with statements by Father Corapi (and Santa Cruz Media) to the effect that Father Corapi that the Church provides no financial support to Father Corapi. The intent of the statement always seems to be to explain the need for Santa Cruz to make a profit. But is he saying that the Church won’t provide him with any financial support? They won’t allow him to live in a rectory? His community won’t allow him into any of their community houses (assuming they actually have one)? Does he need to have his own private residence to security threats against his life, or against his reputation? The for-profit status of Santa Cruz Media is for the purpose of not allowing the government control his speech, or to keep the government from disclosing its income as it would if it were a tax-exempt?
It seems to me that a number of Father Corapi supporters that buy his product are under the impression that he lives under some type of promise of poverty and therefore lives a very simple life. This is despite the fact that in some of Father 's conference talks he has indicated that he is a multi-millionaire (though he perhaps attributes that only to his lawsuit) who still has a fast car,Harley Davidson, a boat, loaded gun, Key West vacations, etc. None of that has anything to do whether he is guilty of any drug or sex allegations that Father has ambiguously alluded to. I’m not as clear as to how all of that might play into the charges of conduct unbecoming to a priest that those doing the investigation have referred to.
As an example, in one or more of his talks Father has referred to Fr. Jim Flanagan as the founder of S.O.L.T. as having been an All-American football player at Notre Dame that left to become a Navy Seal during WWII. This claim about Father Flanagan was reported as recently as 8/28/10 by an “investigative journalist” and lay member of S.O.L.T. here; southcoastreport.com/the-rosary-is-a-warrior-weapon-not-for-wimps-2 . Problem one is the Seals did not yet exist in WWII, though Father Flanagan may have done Seal type duties for the Navy (though in the story they are “imagined”). Problem 2 is that if you look up any All-American football listing, you won’t find a Jim Flanagan of Notre Dame during the '40’s (and Father Flanagan is neither the All-American Christie Flanagan nor the Jim Flanigan from the '90’s). It does seem to me that Father Flanagan did letter on the 1943 Notre Dame football team coached by Coach Frank Leahy that won the national title, and apparently Jim Flanagan left to join the Navy along with Coach Leahy. That would seem incredible enough in itself, why bother stretching things. Who knows who is at fault for getting the story just a bit wrong, but it seems someone would have straightened the story out after all this time.
I have an additional problem with statements by Father Corapi (and Santa Cruz Media) to the effect that Father Corapi that the Church provides no financial support to Father Corapi. The intent of the statement always seems to be to explain the need for Santa Cruz to make a profit. But is he saying that the Church won’t provide him with any financial support? They won’t allow him to live in a rectory? His community won’t allow him into any of their community houses (assuming they actually have one)? Does he need to have his own private residence to security threats against his life, or against his reputation? The for-profit status of Santa Cruz Media is for the purpose of not allowing the government control his speech, or to keep the government from disclosing its income as it would if it were a tax-exempt?
It seems to me that a number of Father Corapi supporters that buy his product are under the impression that he lives under some type of promise of poverty and therefore lives a very simple life. This is despite the fact that in some of Father 's conference talks he has indicated that he is a multi-millionaire (though he perhaps attributes that only to his lawsuit) who still has a fast car,Harley Davidson, a boat, loaded gun, Key West vacations, etc. None of that has anything to do whether he is guilty of any drug or sex allegations that Father has ambiguously alluded to. I’m not as clear as to how all of that might play into the charges of conduct unbecoming to a priest that those doing the investigation have referred to.
P
Pew47
Guest
All of the Pope’s proceeds go to a charity, not to the Pope. All of the sales of Father Corapi’s talks go to Santa Cruz Media, a for-profit corporation having no affiliation to the Catholic Church that is therefore not bound to obedience to any bishop or religious superior (or so they say).
- Status