Daily Archives: April 3, 2011
This is the text to be found on Father Corapi’s website. it comes from the former Bishop of Corpus Christi, Rene’ Gracida.
The text deserves to be read in its entirety:
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.
The Bishop does not intervene to say that Corapi is innocent, and rightly so. He points out, though, to the absurdity of the current praxis: priest exposed, accused protected in his anonimity (we still don’t know the name of the lady; but we all know that Father Corapi is suspended), great danger of permanent reputation damage and all this, in a case where minors are not involved.
It is refreshing to see a former Bishop intervene in favour of common sense. Bishop Gracida goes so far as to suggest that even the fact that an investigation has taken place should only be divulged after (and if) the priest in question has been found guilty. We are not talking of matters involving the police or the criminal courts here anyway.
Yup, makes sense to me.
After Jones’ burning exercise, UN workers have been attacked and several of them killed in Mazar-i-Sharif, a city in northern Afghanistan.
There are several considerations to be made here:
1) The freedom of Terry Jones to burn however many Korans he wants to burn must not be put into question: I have already made this point in the previous message, but repetita iuvant.
2) The cause of the killings is very obviously – though I am sure people of slow intelligence will not get this – not Terry Jones burning the Koran, but the existence of fanatical muslims ready to take every excuse to kill people.
3) What has happened in Mazar-i-Sharif not only cannot be blamed on Jones, but makes his point in the most impressive manner.
Please listen to this interview with ABC. The rather cretinous journalist continues to pose suggestive questions to Jones, all the whilst exhibiting the most sanctimonious of tones. Jones answers to them simply like one who has nothing to do with the killings, and condemns these animals. When the sanctimonious lady throws the mask and poses the question openly (whining tone, oh so virtuous): “do you fe-eel res-po-on-si-ble?” he clearly answers that he isn’t; when she asks “how wou-ou-ld you fe-el” if someone burned a bible he gives her a lesson in democracy and civilisation; when she says to him that he “en-c-couraged” the killing (an astonishing affirmation, this, not only factually wrong but showing a breathtaking illiberal bias) Jones again keeps calm (kudos to him; I could never have achieved that) and repeats his “Islam is dangerous, see events in Afghanistan” point.
And in fact, the man is perfectly right in this: that the koran burning exercise is juts the last excuse for something fanatics want to do in the first place. You want proof?
1) Even the most moronic islamic fanatic can go on youtube and delight himself with Koran burning galore. I have already pointed out in the past to the fact that on Youtube, “every day is burn a Koran day”. Why do the chaps wake up only today? Where have they been all the time? The videos have been on youtube for years and there are many more where they come from……
2) I am not aware of any islamic fanatic ever being short or reasons why he should behave like a fanatic. If it’s not the burning of Koran it is the threat to burn Korans; if it’s not the threat to burn Korans it is a cartoon about their most famous child rapist, Mohammed; if it’s not Mohammed, the child rapist it’s the invasion of Iraq (supported by a couple of dozens Arab countries); if it’s not the invasion of Iraq it’s the presence of American boots on Saudi soil, & Co, & Co. Still, the slow of intellect will, no doubt, have problems in getting the point.
3) Even within the very liberal, champagne-sipping walls of the ABC the simple principle of responsibility of one’s actions should find application. To ask terry Jones whether he feels responsible for what fanatical asses have done in Afghanistan is not only a betrayal of common sense, but a blatant disregard of that principle.
4) As already said, the events in Kabul prove Terry Jones’ case. The more the idiots react with such fanaticism to him, the more they prove that the problem is their fanaticism, and the religion fuelling it.
Terry Jones is not a genius, but he certainly has a point.