Father Corapi’s Superior’s News, Corpus Christi Diocese, And The Matter With The Money

In need of our prayers: Father Corapi

There are further news in the Corapi affair; they merit, in my eyes, some consideration.


Father Gerhard Sheehan of the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity (SOLT), and Father Corapi’s superior, has released some information about the Corapi Matter.

The new information is as follows:

1) Pending the investigation, Father Corapi sued the employee accusing him because of breach of the non-disclosure agreement the latter had signed. This is, as Father Sheehan points out, perfectly legal and it is in the full right of Father Corapi to do so, civilly as well as canonically.

2) Father Corapi’s civil legal action greatly complicated the canonical enquiry, as the possibility of the accuser talking without pressure was now compromised.

3) This led to a situation whereby the canonical enquiry would continue to go on, but would become much slower as a consequence of the legal civil action. Thus, the expectation of a long-drawn procedure. Thus, Corapi’s decision to quit.

This points out, in my eyes, to the following:

a) Father Corapi doesn’t seem to have much to be ashamed about, or to be afraid of. This speaks, in my eyes, for his innocence; a priest in a vulnerable position wouldn’t counter-attack his attacker in such a determined way. The man is, undoubtedly, a resolute one and the reaction is, I would dare to say, the reaction of a person who feels very badly wronged. I might be wrong on this, of course.

b) Father Corapi was not disobedient in starting the civil proceedings. Still, he was disingenuous in not telling in his message that it was his civil action which created the concrete prospective of a long-drawn procedure in the first place. As I have said in my previous message, his “pardoning” her is not to be seen in a legal context. I don’t blame him for that, mind, but I don’t think it was all right not to tell that it was his decision to start civil proceedings to complicate matters.

c) In my eyes, the real problem of this situation is that Corapi was put on administrative leave in the first place. If this had not happened, the civil action would have taken its course, the canonical action would have taken his, and how long does it take for both wouldn’t have been really relevant.

d) If you ask me, this “zero-intelligence” policy must stop at once.

Please also note that Father Sheehan is, once again, supportive of Corapi. Not only did he release a statement stressing his innocent until proved guilty, but he now points out that the order will “take steps to protect his good name”. This seems to me to be – particularly in the present juncture – more than words of circumstance.


The Diocese of Corpus Christ has – astonishingly – released a statement saying that Corapi’s case is outside of the Diocese’s jurisdiction and that SOLT authorities had initiated the action to temporarily remove him from active ministry. This is more than odd, as Corapi never says a word against Sheehan but heavily criticises Bishop William Mulvey of Corpus Christi.

One can only conjecture that Corapi thinks that pressure from the Bishop has forced the Order to start the proceedings, which case seems rather likely to me. If the Bishop thinks that he is not competent, he could simply release a statement expressing the thought that in his eyes the administrative leave was not the thing to do, thus freeing the way for its removal. The SOLT does not seem to have any “papal privilege”, and the Diocese of Corpus Christi appears to be responsible for them.

Father Sheehan has also made public that the order was taking steps to align those members who had entered the order before 1994 (including Corapi) to those who have entered the order after 1994. The latter must put all their income in a common pot (not unlike the Oratorians, say) and they receive an allowance from the Order. Besides – and very relevantly – it was planned to ask Father Corapi to relinquish the exception granted to him by Sheehan’s predecessor and to demand that he lives together with the other members of the orders instead of living separately in Montana, as he was doing.

It seems clear here once again that money does play a role in this matter. It must have been clear to Corapi that in the long-term he would have to either give away the proceeds of his activity or, if such a possibility exists, ask to be moved to a different order (a rare occurrence, but certainly not unheard of) with rules more similar to his old regime. Also, the adherence to the “new” code of discipline of 1994 would have meant the end of that freedom of movement and ability to live as a “lone wolf” that has been a mark of his activity.

If I may, my closing reflections are as follows:

As to A)

This newer praxis of automatic suspension pending canonical investigation is so stupid as to be totally indefensible. Again, “zero intelligence” describes it best. I truly, truly hope that someone in Rome will see the light and start doing things in a sensible way. This didn’t involve any accusation of child abuse. This didn’t even involve any accusation of criminal offence. The great Franz Kafka would have liked this story and if you read his beautiful “The Trial”, you’ll find more than some similarities.

As to B)

The diocese of Corpus Christi should, in my eyes, tell very clearly whether they stay behind the current praxis of immediate suspension, and whether they were – even if not directly competent – indirectly responsible for Father Corapi’s suspension.

As to C)

Frankly I cannot imagine that, together with a certainly cherished freedom of action, the purely economic aspect of the business (bluntly: the dough) doesn’t play a role in this. Of course, Father Corapi has been all this time in compliance with the order’s rules and of course, he is perfectly free not to like the new rules. But I can’t see how this could even remotely justify his leaving the clerical garb. The lure of money has already seriously damaged the good man once, and I see here the clear possibility that it might have done so a second time. Too “entrepreneurial” is Corapi, too “marketing oriented” his activity, too aggressive his selling endeavours to imagine that this is merely a secondary matter, to be immediately discarded if his order so requires.

The order will soon release a statement and I will comment on it as soon as it happens.

To conclude, let me remind you of how necessary it is that we keep Father Corapi in our prayers but at the same time, that we never lose sight of the Church and of the importance of Holy Orders.

I have endeavoured to give a balanced reporting on matters which interest all of us as faithful, and impinge on the reputation and prestige of the Church. At the same time, I do not think that a scandal like this (because this it is, without every possibility of downplaying it, when a priest decides to throw away his clerical garb) should be covered under a blanket of silence.

He needs our prayers, and the Church needs that we don’t make of him a cult, or a church, or an occasion of sin.

I think that he is a man of strong character, and rather strong-headed, who feels badly wronged and reacts inordinately. I also think that his love of success, popularity, and money is so closely intertwined with his sincere Christian heart as to make him think that the unacceptable – leaving the priesthood – be a justifiable move.

I believe in his good heart and sincere intention; but make no mistake, this is no Padre Pio.


Posted on June 20, 2011, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. In this video Corapi gives a fine talk on Lent and recommends that his viewers study the Church’s catechism in order to know their faith better – which is fine – but also peppers it with the suggestion that they buy his DVD boxset ($299).

    This is my problem with his whole approach.

    I have a big problem with the idea of priests making money out of things spiritual, so I’m relieved in a way that he’s gone.

    One sees all the time on the internet priests soliciting donations or charging for sermons. It bothers me and is reminscient of the selling of indulgences in pre-reformation times. It no doubt causes scandal to potential believers.

    The Vatican needs to clamp down on this.

    • Shane,

      I think that – in this as in everything else – est modus in rebus.

      I don’t have anything against a priest starting a subscription to buy him a new computer, or posting a list of favourite books the readers can buy to him as a sign of gratitude. I am also aware that for centuries, some religious have lived selling rather profane goods: beer, mainly, or chocolate; and now coffee, or the like.

      But like you, I doo see a problem when the marketing effort becomes an aggressive one; when it gets before the Christian message of the priest.

      If a religious and priest puts his sermons on, say, youtube, I can’t see a problem if he – provided he is authorised to do so by the rules of his order – also sells the High Definition, Super-Audio DVD version to the masses. By doing so, he shows that the care of the souls is paramount, and the marketing activity a pleasant plus bringing some money, as the monk sells the beer. But not if the buying the DVD is the way to get to the message, I’d feel uncomfortable in that case.

      Anyway, there are religious of all sorts, and not all have vows of poverty. I respect that.


%d bloggers like this: