Father Corapi’s Message Is Out

Very late now, so yours truly will go to sleep and reflect on the message tomorrow.

Good night

Mundabor

Posted on June 18, 2011, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. I am in shock over it. It is obvious that he is in great pain, and thouroughly confused because he is not part of a just process. Nameless accusers, no disclosure of evidence, the presumption of guilt….. all of these injustices are supported by our own hierarchy because they have been intimidated by the secular authorities due to the abuse crisis. It is difficult to tell a man to wear the pain of injustice like a crown, but I still feel that is what he should have done. To leave the priesthood does not make sense. It leaves an indelible mark. I hope he reconsiders… He sounds like a broken man. I feel for him.

  2. I was so hoping and praying that this would end better. I miss Fr. John on Saturday nights on EWTN. I’ve learned so much form him. We must continue to pray!

  3. The ‘one strike out and your out’ rule is creates as many problems as it is solves. The Vatican, I suspect, were wary of it when it was first posited to them but caved into the Americans in order to get the latter off the hook with the American media.

    Two issues:

    1) The rule only works if the priest has been accused of illegal behaviour because the matter can them be investigated in both civil and canonical due process. Where does this leave a priest, however, when the accusation is of behaviour which is not illegal? The OSAYO rule results in identical treatment of the priest by the bishop for the purposes of internal investigation for accusations of both illegal and inappropriate behaviour. No distinction is drawn. In short, it would have been less problematic for Fr. Corapi if he had been accused of illegal actions and experience the benefit of civil authorities to protect his reputation.

    2) Bishops and religious superiors are using this made up and uncanonical OSAYO rule to continue to accept homosexuals (and other inappropriate individuals) into seminaries and the religious life. Safe in the knowledge that they can play the ‘OSAYO card’ if the guy has a slip or whatever. This policy continues to abuse canon law. Abuse of canon law being one of the better observations made by Dr. Murphy in respect of her Dublin report.

    • I fully agree with the first point, bmcp.

      Not sure about the second, though. I think it is more likely that he decided to go out because he sees himself at the mercy of a proceeding that might go on for years and doesn’t give him any guarantee. His superiors certainly do not want to get rid of him.

      M

  4. Mundabor ~ I have perhaps not explained my second point. Bishops have always had the power of veto over a priest or prospective candidate to the priesthood. In reality and for the last 40 years they rarely exercised this right other than if the individual was some some of “trad”. In this case, if the individual managed to get accepted into a seminary, his life was made impossible for him there by the authorities anyway.

    Now, we live in a post-scandal Church so what has changed? From what I can see very little (despite what some of the conservative bloggers are claiming) but there is one crucial difference. There are now local procedures in place (over and above canon law) to address the issue of abuse claims. The procedures In effect demand that the bishop show an immediate red card to a priest ACCUSED of sexual misbehaviour regardless of whether the misbehaviour is illegal or not. The same applies to a seminarian who will be asked to leave the seminary.

    It is my contention, that this new “power of veto 2.0” can be so readily used by the bishop, he can continue to accept high risk candidates into the seminary (homosexuals), safe in the knowledge that the red card can be issued immediately and efficiently when dealing with a case of scandal. In other words, the bishops are continuing to play with loaded guns even in the post-scandal Church. Nothing has changed nor is there any need for pro-active measure to root out the problems at source. Why would he bother when he has such a powerful card at his disposal which the latest procedures oblige him to play? He can simply sit back and wait for something to go wrong.

    • bmc,

      yes what I meant is that his order hasn’t said a word against him, and has even explicitly said that to them he is innocent until proved guilty, I don;t think that more could be asked of them and it seems to me that he has no grievances whatever against them.

      As to the bishop, I don’t think whatyou say would work for the following reasons:
      1. by admitting homos to the seminaries, a bishop runs the risk of being punished by Rome in the first place.
      2. after the ordination, the bishop will soon lose control of the priest if he is moved to another diocese or to a religious order with papal privilege (of which there are many).

      I don’t think that the bishop of Corpus Christi is being malevolent. I think that he is being weak in following the guidelines of the bishops’ conference without deciding (as he has the power to do as a bishop) that he will proceed in a way that doesn’t damage the accused priest.
      AFAIK, no bishop is subject to any authority than the Pope; guidelines and rules of conduct decided by the bishops’ conference (the usa ones are very harsh; I think they are now being extended to othe rcountries, which is another disgrace) do not bind him. This is the reason, I think, why Corapi is evidently peeved with him.

      M

  5. Irenaeus, I think you touch all the right points.

    Yes, he is the victim of injustice; and yes, it doesn’t make sense to leave the priesthood.

    I think that he has around him people whose counsel he shouldn’t listen to. For example, th epeople working for his publishing company, treating the matter like a matter of business and not seeing the implications of leaving the priesthood for the sake of the “ministry”.

    How on earth can one pretend to follow his “ministry” by …. leaving it!

    The press announcement of his publishing company was disgusting: “we are excited”, “extend the fan-base”, all the usual, shallow, promotional crap of a commercial enterprise.

    If these are the people whose counsel he follows, I see more trouble ahead.

    I also don’t like the entire “cut” given to the matter: the creepy dog looking more like a wolf with the lambs in his eyes, the rhetoric of the black sheep, the downplaying of a very grave decision, the half words and all the rest already said in my blog post. Something has gone seriously wrong here.

    We must pray for him, that he can see the error of his way and remedy as he can.

    Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: