Statement of Santa Cruz-Fr John Corapi

[qui_est_ce]

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.

Everybody has their niche I find his story a compelling part of his preaching. And yes, I find him a good salesman of sound Catholic teaching.

We’ve had some really poor preaching in my parish. That never diminished the fact that the priest in question was a good and humble witness to God’s love and mercy.

 

[Shoshana]

Father Corapi’s style is not for everybody. He totally reminds of St Paul who continually speaks about himself of his past and how he considered himself the greatest sinner.

He also has the same style as St Paul…no mincing words. It always astounds me that St Paul even challenged St Peter, the vicar of Christ. And St Paul is not for everyone also. Some like him, others like St John, etc etc I have been blessed to like them all.

 

[dfp42]

fathercorapi.com/Default.aspxBishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Rene Gracida, comments on injustice suffered by accused priests from bishops and religious superiors

IT IS A MATTER OF JUSTICE, THE DISCIPLINING OF PRIESTS ACCUSED OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH AN ADULT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY GRAVE INJUSTICE IS FREQUENTLY DONE TO INDIVIDUAL PRIESTS AND TO THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD BY INDIVIDUAL BISHOPS AND RELIGIOUS SUPERIORS.

The public controversy over the announcement of the accusations against Father John Corapi, SOLT, and his suspension from exercising his priestly ministry offers an opportunity to reflect on the flawed procedure apparently being followed in too many dioceses of the United States these days in the case of a priest accused of sexual misconduct not involving minors. The procedure is flawed because it inflicts grave injustice on the priest and serves as a deterrent to young men thinking of offering themselves as candidates for the priesthood.

The procedure operates something like this. A person accuses a priest of sexual misconduct (again, not involving a minor). The priest is immediately suspended from active exercise of his priestly ministry while an investigation is launched into the truth or falsity of the accusations.

There is no need for a public announcement to be made that gives the name of the priest and the fact of the accusation and the suspension, and yet, all to often such a public announcement is made. Such public announcement by a diocese almost always results in media exploitation of the news in a sensational manner to the detriment of the Catholic Church and its priesthood. It seems that rarely, if ever, is mention is made in the announcement of the name of the accuser.

The investigation may take days or months or years to complete. In the meantime the priest’s reputation is effectively destroyed and perhaps he is ‘thrown out on the street’ with no means of support. The accuser, on the other hand, enjoys anonymity and suffers no loss of reputation or negative material consequences and in the case of an accusation later proven to have been false the injustice to priest is great.

In cases where the priest is accused of having used force (rape or some other form of involuntary abuse) there is some justification for not publishing the name of the accuser. But, where there is reason to believe that the alleged sexual misconduct was effected through mutual consent there is no justification for not publishing the name of the accuser. Under the present procedure it is too easy for a person to allege sexual misconduct (again not involving minors) for a variety of possible unworthy motives: revenge, hope for monetary gain, hostility to the Catholic Faith, etc. Such is reported to have been the case of the accusation against Father Corapi. The only safe way to guard against damaging the reputation of individual priests and the Catholic priesthood in general is to not publish the name of an accused priest until an investigation has proved beyond doubt the guilt of the priest.

 

[dfp42]

It seems as if this Bishop is leaning more towards the side of Corapi’s innocence with the line that states:

“Such is reported to have been the case of the accusation against Father Corapi.”

Take it for what it’s worth, I just wish this wouldn’t have been made into a big deal to the public looking back on this. I bet this Bishop knows way more about the actually story then any of us do on CAF or Facebook etc. Which could be why he felt needed to make this statement.

 

[dfp42]

ncregister.com/daily-news/solt-and-father-john-corapi/Superior offers a look into the society’s relationship with the charismatic priest.

The Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity is in the spotlight, following the allegations of misconduct against one of its members, Father John Corapi. The Register spoke with Father Gerard Sheehan, regional priest servant, based in the Diocese of Corpus Christi, Texas, to learn more about the charism of the order and its rules for members.

What are the distinctive elements of the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Blessed Trinity?
The Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Holy Trinity (SOLT) is a society of apostolic life. We were founded in 1958, and now have 160 priests working in 20 countries. We are a society of apostolic life of diocesan right. [A society of “diocesan right” is overseen by one local bishop on behalf of the Church, whereas those of “pontifical right,” like Maryknoll missionaries and the Sulpicians, are directly overseen by the Vatican.] We are a community of priests, sisters and laity, working in ecclesial teams in areas of greatest apostolic need. Father Rogel Rosalinas is the general priest servant; he will have ultimate authority regarding any decision related to the allegations involving Father Corapi.

How did Father Corapi become involved in the ministry that has made him a famous evangelist?
Father James Flanagan, the founder of SOLT, believed that the society would identify people’s gifts and then allow them a degree of freedom to conduct their apostolic work.
While Father Corapi was still in the seminary, Father Flanagan discerned that he had a gift for apostolic preaching. The founder felt that Father Corapi needed a lot of freedom and prayer to offer that gift for the Church.
Initially, Father Corapi was allowed to live an eremitic life in a cottage on a compound with a community of sisters. Father Corapi stayed there for some time, conducting parish missions. Ultimately, he moved into his own home.
His preaching had tremendous results and many people were converted to the faith, while others came back to the Church. Many vocations came from his preaching. Subsequently, he began producing tapes that showcased his presentation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the subject of his doctoral dissertation.
He made Santa Cruz Media a for-profit company, he told his superiors, in order to have the proper freedom to proclaim the Gospel without any fear of raising issues that might threaten the company’s tax-exempt status.
He said he would pay his taxes and proclaim the Gospel fearlessly. Father Flanagan allowed him to manage his own funds. No one knew it would become so big.

In a recent public statement, the vice president of operations of Santa Cruz Media, Inc. described the for-profit production company as a “secular corporation and not affiliated with the Catholic Church in any way. As such, we are not under the jurisdiction of any bishop or other official in the Catholic Church.” Would you explain?
You would have to ask Santa Cruz Media what they mean by that.

What is the relationship between Santa Cruz Media and SOLT?
Santa Cruz Media remains completely independent of SOLT. We don’t receive any money, though Father Corapi has made personal donations to the community.

Has SOLT evolved since Father Corapi became a member of the society?
In 1994, our new constitution made SOLT a society of apostolic life. The founder’s arrangement with Father Corapi was established before that time, when Father Flanagan believed that every mission should take care of its own needs.
Now, according to our constitution, a different way of life has been established for members. All the money we make is turned over to the society, which gives us an allowance.
We have begun to address the issues of members who joined the society before the new constitution. The society is moving to a more organized structural phase of its existence, with all the Church discipline that entails.
Register Senior Writer Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase,Maryland.

 

[deaconmike113]

It seems as if this Bishop is leaning more towards the side of Corapi’s innocence with the line that states:

“Such is reported to have been the case of the accusation against Father Corapi.”

Take it for what it’s worth, I just wish this wouldn’t have been made into a big deal to the public looking back on this. I bet this Bishop knows way more about the actually story then any of us do on CAF or Facebook etc. Which could be why he felt needed to make this statement.

I think the Bishop’s statement does more harm than good. As a retired Bishop from a diocese which is not involved, I imagine he’s no more aware of what’s going on than anyone else. The line from the Bishop cited above is based on reports of a “disgruntled employee” referred to in a press release from Santa Cruz Media, a company controlled by Fr. Corapi. Not a very unbiased source.

Attacking the accuser is a tactic that has been discredited, I would hope. The Legionaires of Christ found it was not a particularly successful tactic when it came to their founder. This is not something Fr. Corapi should let his company attach it’s name to. I’d prefer he act as Cardinal Bernadin did when he was falsely accused of sexual misconduct 20 years ago, with a peaceful trust in God and a forgiving hand reached out to his accuser.

Finally, it should be noted the accuser in this case does not seem to have done anything to exploit the situation or profit from it. She wrote letters to Bishops, which seems to follow the proper channels, and did not publicize them. If she really wanted to “destroy” Fr. Corapi, you think we might have seen her in the very same news media which Fr. Corapi is always speaking against. She has kept her silence, which may not mean much, but should count in her favor, especially since she’s been slammed by the Santa Cruz Media press release.

 

[dfp42]

I think the Bishop’s statement does more harm than good. As a retired Bishop from a diocese which is not involved, I imagine he’s no more aware of what’s going on than anyone else. The line from the Bishop cited above is based on reports of a “disgruntled employee” referred to in a press release from Santa Cruz Media, a company controlled by Fr. Corapi. Not a very unbiased source.

Attacking the accuser is a tactic that has been discredited, I would hope. The Legionaires of Christ found it was not a particularly successful tactic when it came to their founder. This is not something Fr. Corapi should let his company attach it’s name to. I’d prefer he act as Cardinal Bernadin did when he was falsely accused of sexual misconduct 20 years ago, with a peaceful trust in God and a forgiving hand reached out to his accuser.

Finally, it should be noted the accuser in this case does not seem to have done anything to exploit the situation or profit from it. She wrote letters to Bishops, which seems to follow the proper channels, and did not publicize them. If she really wanted to “destroy” Fr. Corapi, you think we might have seen her in the very same news media which Fr. Corapi is always speaking against. She has kept her silence, which may not mean much, but should count in her favor, especially since she’s been slammed by the Santa Cruz Media press release.

Deacon perhaps you should email the Bishops and let them know how you feel about this? I’m sure if someone accused you perhaps falsely you’d remain silent? I guess it would be easy or better to remain silent if you aren’t well known, unfortunately he’s is. That’s why this situation is more high profile. It’s easy to talk but alot harder to live it. Jesus said you will be hated for his name. Some are hated more then others. I’m sure you are hated for too. Prayer and trust is what is needed in the end. God is bigger then this situation and he knows what is going to happen. We don’t.

 

[Marie5890]

fathercorapi.com/Default.aspxBishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Rene Gracida, comments on injustice suffered by accused priests from bishops and religious superiors

The procedure operates something like this. A person accuses a priest of sexual misconduct (again, not involving a minor). The priest is immediately suspended from active exercise of his priestly ministry while an investigation is launched into the truth or falsity of the accusations.

There is no need for a public announcement to be made that gives the name of the priest and the fact of the accusation and the suspension, and yet, all to often such a public announcement is made. Such public announcement by a diocese almost always results in media exploitation of the news in a sensational manner to the detriment of the Catholic Church and its priesthood. It seems that rarely, if ever, is mention is made in the announcement of the name of the accuser.

(just commenting on this part of the Bishop’s words)

Fact check: It was Fr Corapi himself that made this public. He made the public announcement. Not SOLT or the bishops.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

fathercorapi.com/Default.aspxBishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Rene Gracida, comments on injustice suffered by accused priests from bishops and religious superiors

IT IS A MATTER OF JUSTICE, THE DISCIPLINING OF PRIESTS ACCUSED OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH AN ADULT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY GRAVE INJUSTICE IS FREQUENTLY DONE TO INDIVIDUAL PRIESTS AND TO THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD BY INDIVIDUAL BISHOPS AND RELIGIOUS SUPERIORS.

The public controversy over the announcement of the accusations against Father John Corapi, SOLT, and his suspension from exercising his priestly ministry offers an opportunity to reflect on the flawed procedure apparently being followed in too many dioceses of the United States these days in the case of a priest accused of sexual misconduct not involving minors. The procedure is flawed because it inflicts grave injustice on the priest and serves as a deterrent to young men thinking of offering themselves as candidates for the priesthood.

The procedure operates something like this. A person accuses a priest of sexual misconduct (again, not involving a minor). The priest is immediately suspended from active exercise of his priestly ministry while an investigation is launched into the truth or falsity of the accusations.

There is no need for a public announcement to be made that gives the name of the priest and the fact of the accusation and the suspension, and yet, all to often such a public announcement is made. Such public announcement by a diocese almost always results in media exploitation of the news in a sensational manner to the detriment of the Catholic Church and its priesthood. It seems that rarely, if ever, is mention is made in the announcement of the name of the accuser.

The investigation may take days or months or years to complete. In the meantime the priest’s reputation is effectively destroyed and perhaps he is ‘thrown out on the street’ with no means of support. The accuser, on the other hand, enjoys anonymity and suffers no loss of reputation or negative material consequences and in the case of an accusation later proven to have been false the injustice to priest is great.

In cases where the priest is accused of having used force (rape or some other form of involuntary abuse) there is some justification for not publishing the name of the accuser. But, where there is reason to believe that the alleged sexual misconduct was effected through mutual consent there is no justification for not publishing the name of the accuser. Under the present procedure it is too easy for a person to allege sexual misconduct (again not involving minors) for a variety of possible unworthy motives: revenge, hope for monetary gain, hostility to the Catholic Faith, etc. Such is reported to have been the case of the accusation against Father Corapi. The only safe way to guard against damaging the reputation of individual priests and the Catholic priesthood in general is to not publish the name of an accused priest until an investigation has proved beyond doubt the guilt of the priest.

I find it interesting that Fr Corapi would post this to his website.

The bishop said, “There is no need for a public announcement to be made that gives the name of the priest and the fact of the accusation and the suspension, and yet, all to often such a public announcement is made.”

It was Fr Corapi that make this public announcement.

 

[deaconmike113]

Deacon perhaps you should email the Bishops and let them know how you feel about this? I’m sure if someone accused you perhaps falsely you’d remain silent? I guess it would be easy or better to remain silent if you aren’t well known, unfortunately he’s is. That’s why this situation is more high profile. It’s easy to talk but alot harder to live it. Jesus said you will be hated for his name. Some are hated more then others. I’m sure you are hated for too. Prayer and trust is what is needed in the end. God is bigger then this situation and he knows what is going to happen. We don’t.

I agree completely (though I won’t email the Bishops, since I have no idea of the facts of this case. None of us do.) It’s very hard to live and suffer in silence, especially if one is high profile and the accusation is false, which is why I cited the example of Cardinal Bernadin, who faced this very same thing. However,I also feel the Church did itself a grave disservice in the past when we all assumed the accusers were lying and spoke out against them (as Fr. Corapi’s company recently did.) We cannot allow this to happen again, even if it means we need to bite our tongues. In this case, we should all quietly allow the Church and SOLT to investigate. Because, as you say, only God knows, we don’t.

I understand why Fr. Corapi would want to speak out…I certainly would! However, that’s not the Fr. Corapi I hear on the radio. He’s still being carried on our local Catholic radio station (1260 AM), and just last night I heard him speak of the value of suffering, of configuring oneself to the crucified Christ. Christ, when he was falsely accused, remained silent, saying only “Father, forgive them.” Such a response takes great strength and faith, especially for someone in Fr. Corapi’s position. However, I think that should be our model for the moment.

 

[dfp42]

(just commenting on this part of the Bishop’s words)

Fact check: It was Fr Corapi himself that made this public. He made the public announcement. Not SOLT or the bishops.

Perhaps. But do we honestly know all the time frames of when this news was released first? If he would of never made an announcement, it would of probably been a lot worse speculation then it already is. It reminds me of what Jesus did when he foretold his death. Looking back on that was it wrong for him to remain silent? If he did would it of made any difference? Fr. Corapi said he was innocent and he has asked for prayers for all involved. Perhaps it’s too late even if he is cleared for people to trust him ever again in this world but it’s never too late to pray. Same thing with Jesus in a way. Some trust him, some don’t. It’s a matter of faith. Either way I wish for the best of all involved (heaven).

 

[Marie5890]

Perhaps. But do we honestly know all the time frames of when this news was released first? If he would of never made an announcement, it would of probably been a lot worse speculation then it already is. It reminds me of what Jesus did when he foretold his death. Looking back on that was it wrong for him to remain silent? If he did would it of made any difference? Fr. Corapi said he was innocent and he has asked for prayers for all involved. Perhaps it’s too late even if he is cleared for people to trust him ever again in this world but it’s never too late to pray. Same thing with Jesus in a way. Some trust him, some don’t. It’s a matter of faith. Either way I wish for the best of all involved (heaven).

dfp,

I do hear what you are saying. But to be fair, it itsn’t a “perhaps” Fr Corapi made the public announcement. He did. There is no “perhaps”

He could have chosen not to say anything, but he chose to do otherwise, for whatever reason. He may see it as the wisest course of action for him. And that may be true.

But in the end, it was his decision to be the one to make it public. It was not the decision of his superior or a Bishop.

The following comment of Bishop Rene Gracida’s comment doesn’t fit the specific situation of Fr Corapi in this instance. So it seems to be more of a general statement, IMO

"There is no need for a public announcement to be made that gives the name of the priest and the fact of the accusation and the suspension, and yet, all to often such a public announcement is made. Such public announcement by a diocese almost always results in media exploitation of the news in a sensational manner to the detriment of the Catholic Church and its priesthood. It seems that rarely, if ever, is mention is made in the announcement of the name of the accuser. "

 

[dfp42]

I agree completely (though I won’t email the Bishops, since I have no idea of the facts of this case. None of us do.) It’s very hard to live and suffer in silence, especially if one is high profile and the accusation is false, which is why I cited the example of Cardinal Bernadin, who faced this very same thing. However,I also feel the Church did itself a grave disservice in the past when we all assumed the accusers were lying and spoke out against them (as Fr. Corapi’s company recently did.) We cannot allow this to happen again, even if it means we need to bite our tongues. In this case, we should all quietly allow the Church and SOLT to investigate. Because, as you say, only God knows, we don’t.

It’s the members inside the Church are the sinners not the Church itself. If you never want sin or scandal to ever occur again, don’t ordain men. It’s sad I know and I agree we need to do all we can to prevent it but there will always be scandal no matter how much we try to stop it. Jesus left us Judas as a reminder. There is always a grave disservice in the done in the past, simply look at our own sins. We need not marvel at the past just move on and learn from it, trust in the holy spirit.

I understand why Fr. Corapi would want to speak out…I certainly would! However, that’s not the Fr. Corapi I hear on the radio. He’s still being carried on our local Catholic radio station (1260 AM), and just last night I heard him speak of the value of suffering, of configuring oneself to the crucified Christ. Christ, when he was falsely accused, remained silent, saying only “Father, forgive them.” Such a response takes great strength and faith, especially for someone in Fr. Corapi’s position. However, I think that should be our model for the moment.

We can’t make perfect assumptions based upon a few talks we hear on the radio about this mans life or relationship with God. If we analyze what you say above it in it’s content we are simply calling him a hypocrite in the end. We want Fr. Corapi to be silent but we ourselves are not. So far, Fr is being obedient and silent. He may not agree with certain things but he’s obeying. Same thing when our Holy Father speaks. We may not agree or lack understanding but we obey, seeking to understand. Lets just pray that God’s will be done and maybe learn a lesson from this ourselves.

 

[dfp42]

dfp,

I do hear what you are saying. But to be fair, it itsn’t a “perhaps” Fr Corapi made the public announcement. He did. There is no “perhaps”

He did and at the end he said he was innocent. Perhaps? Fair enough? He didn’t reveal to the public the details. So as of now we simply assume things.

He could have chosen not to say anything, but he chose to do otherwise, for whatever reason. He may see it as the wisest course of action for him. And that may be true.

Perhaps

But in the end, it was his decision to be the one to make it public. It was not the decision of his superior or a Bishop.

The following comment of Bishop Rene Gracida’s comment doesn’t fit the specific situation of Fr Corapi in this instance. So it seems to be more of a general statement, IMO

Agree, it doesn’t fit in right now because he is still considered “maybe” guilty. Until that “maybe” gets a truth it might fit in later on.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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.

This comes perilously close to gossip and scandal-mongering—if not diving in headlong.

I don’t like it.

 

[trials]

In reply to above comments querying Fr. Corapi’s statement, as in, he didn’t need to bring this out into the public, I was thinking - ok, he has been suspended from active ministry, this means several events in the coming weeks had to be cancelled at short notice. If he had said nothing, people would probably have started speculating about his health again, and his company would have been inundated with well-wishers wondering how he was, etc. The Bishops probably felt it was up to him whether to put this in the public domain or not, and considering how public a man he is, maybe he felt he owed it to his supporters to let them know the whole truth from day one. Then again, maybe, I’m just another speculator.

 

[JReducation]

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.”

I did not see EWTN’s statement. Thank you for sharing it. I had onlly read what was on Father’s site. It said “administrative leave.” Superiors do have the authority to suspend. It’s legal.

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.

The bold is mine.

Unless the rules have changed the norm is that once an institute, whatever kind: order, congregation, society of apostolic life or secular institute is canonically erect, not bishop has the authority to supress it. Only the Holy See can do that. It makes no difference if it’s a diocesan institute. The institute is attached to the diocese, not to the bishop. Bishops come and go. I have not seen anything come out of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life saying that bishops can supress a canonically erected institute, even if it’s a secular one or a secular order. Once the bishop puts in the papers and Rome approves, the institute acquires a life of its own. Diocesan Right means that the bishop of the home diocese is the highest ranking superior. It does not mean that the bishop can supress any more than a superior general of an institute of Pontifical Right can supress his institute.

As far as the legal issues, the diocesan bishop where an diocesan institute resides has the right to initiate an investigation and do whatever he has to do to fix a problem.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

In reply to above comments querying Fr. Corapi’s statement, as in, he didn’t need to bring this out into the public, I was thinking - ok, he has been suspended from active ministry, this means several events in the coming weeks had to be cancelled at short notice. If he had said nothing, people would probably have started speculating about his health again, and his company would have been inundated with well-wishers wondering how he was, etc. The Bishops probably felt it was up to him whether to put this in the public domain or not, and considering how public a man he is, maybe he felt he owed it to his supporters to let them know the whole truth from day one. Then again, maybe, I’m just another speculator.

We need to be precisie in our language when discussing things.

“The bishops” made no decisions at all and are in no way involved in this. Fr Corapi was placed on leave by his superior in SOLT. It was up to him, the superior, to decide whether or not to make this public. He, again the superior, did not chose to do so.

Fr Corapi chose to make it public. I am not say that was a bad thing, or a good thing. As you pointed out it may have been done to alert the public before his, Fr Corapi’s, appearances started to be canceled.

What I find in very bad taste is that Fr Corapi posted this message from a retired bishop that brings up the issue of bishops and superiors making these sort of things public when that is not what occurred in this case.

It is just a fact that Fr Corapi was the one to make this public. So to put up a comment that paints superiors and bishops in a bad light for doing something that was not done in this case is just plain ugly.

I do not care for Fr Corapi’s preaching. I am not one of his “adherents” but I will say that I do see a need for what he does and I know his style appeals to many.

Having said that, Fr Corapi’s action with the posting of these comments by the retired bishop have totally soured me on the man (Fr Corapi) and I will in no way endorse him or recommend him to others until such a time as I see repentance for this bad act.

To me this just seems like political spin to point the attention away from himself, Fr Corapi, on to others, bishops and superiors.

 

[Pew47]

It’s at times difficult to determine when repeating what Father Corapi has said himself at conferences, and correcting when a fact may not quite be right, amounts to gossip or detraction. Part of it comes down to, “what exactly is Father Corapi’s current reputation”? Is he still a poor religious, or a successful and wealthy businessman? From what I can tell it is the latter that he has been talking about lately, so it’s hard to see how somebody else mentioning his wealth amounts to more than enhancing his current reputation as a successful businessman.

As far as Bishop Emertius Gracida’s, I have a bit of a problem with him saying “but, where there is reason to believe that the alleged sexual misconduct was effected through mutual consent there is no justification for not publishing the name of the accuser.” Bringing them up seems to reinforce thinking that the charges have to do with consensual sex, rather than as Father Corapi had put it the more ambiguous “multiple sexual exploits”. Since the investigators know who the accuser is, publishing the name would seem to serve no purpose other than subject her to a lot of harassment and possibly death threats. What I don’t see on the blog of the former bishop is any suggestion that he feels that his successor may be acting illicitly, or that it is his successor even acting rather than S.O.L.T.

S.O.L.T.'s statement is very interesting. The way I read it, Father Corapi doesn’t really fit into their current constitution, and so far he had rather been “grandfathered” in as he was a member prior to the constitution. They do not seem to have quite figured out what to do about Father’s agreement with S.O.L.T. as it is earlier than the constitution, though they might simply decide that he must either abide by the current constitution or leave S.O.L.T. and hook up with the diocese where he resides, which he doesn’t seem to have made any effort to do to this point. It also seems like they have indicated that while Santa Cruz Media has no connection to S.O.L.T., that do expect under the arrangement that it is connected to Father Corapi, and may be surprised by the statement by Santa Cruz Media that it is not affiliated with the Catholic Church nor subject to any bishop or religious superior. It seems that they certainly thought that the arrangement was that it was subject to Father Corapi, and so like him would be subject to his religious superior. That is, if they understood Father Corapi as being subject to S.O.L.T.s religious superior and his priestly faculties as coming from them. I don’t feel that they made it entirely clear that Father Corapi has even been enjoying priestly faculties through them in recent years. It would seem that after 17 years with a new constitution, they are still asking themselves “How do you solve a problem like Father Corapi”?

 

[dfp42]

We need to be precisie in our language when discussing things.

“The bishops” made no decisions at all and are in no way involved in this. Fr Corapi was placed on leave by his superior in SOLT. It was up to him, the superior, to decide whether or not to make this public. He, again the superior, did not chose to do so.

Fr Corapi chose to make it public. I am not say that was a bad thing, or a good thing. As you pointed out it may have been done to alert the public before his, Fr Corapi’s, appearances started to be canceled.

What I find in very bad taste is that Fr Corapi posted this message from a retired bishop that brings up the issue of bishops and superiors making these sort of things public when that is not what occurred in this case.

It is just a fact that Fr Corapi was the one to make this public. So to put up a comment that paints superiors and bishops in a bad light for doing something that was not done in this case is just plain ugly.

I do not care for Fr Corapi’s preaching. I am not one of his “adherents” but I will say that I do see a need for what he does and I know his style appeals to many.

Having said that, Fr Corapi’s action with the posting of these comments by the retired bishop have totally soured me on the man (Fr Corapi) and I will in no way endorse him or recommend him to others until such a time as I see repentance for this bad act.

To me this just seems like political spin to point the attention away from himself, Fr Corapi, on to others, bishops and superiors.

Is this Fr. Corapi posting this stuff on www.fathercorpai.com or Santa Cruz employees? I personally thought it was Santa Cruz who posted the bit from the “retired bishop” and not Fr. Corapi himself.