Reactions to Father Corapi's Decision Require Time and Personal Holiness

[Note: I will continue to call Father Corapi in this article as Father Corapi as I'm not certain if it is inappropriate at this time to do so.]

As I mentioned in my previous post, I was informed this evening with the news that Father John Corapi has left his public ministry as a priest and is starting a new venture entitled, "The Black Sheep Dog." As many people I know are commenting on this and have many differing opinions, I'd like to comment on this news from 10 differing perspectives I've read tonight.

1. Father Corapi is no longer a priest

Father Corapi is and always will be a priest. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches:

CCC 1121 The three sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders confer, in addition to grace, a sacramental character or "seal" by which the Christian shares in Christ's priesthood and is made a member of the Church according to different states and functions. This configuration to Christ and to the Church, brought about by the Spirit, is indelible, it remains for ever in the Christian as a positive disposition for grace, a promise and guarantee of divine protection, and as a vocation to divine worship and to the service of the Church. Therefore these sacraments can never be repeated.

There is however, the ability that Church authorities have to remove the faculties of a priest. So while a priest may be a priest, he may not necessarily receive permission from the Diocesan bishop to function in public ministry (aka celebrating the sacraments) in that Bishop's diocese. Appearing on EWTN (unless at Mass) or at a conference in Omaha, Nebraska is not in itself priestly public ministry because in this mission the Sacraments are not being celebrated. It is the celebration of the sacraments, not teaching and preaching (homilies excluded), which separates the ministerial priesthood of Priests and Bishops from that of the Royal Priesthood of all believers. Father Corapi is a priest regardless of whether or not his facilities (his permission to perform priestly public ministry) are removed.

2. Father Corapi has left the Catholic Church

Father Corapi has said or posted nothing which denotes a break in the belief in faith and morals of all that the Catholic Church proposes for belief. He has posted this quote to a twitter feed:

Please love the Church. You follow the Church. I am not against the Church, I am still a priest, just not ministering publicly.

Father Corapi's Catholicity is not a iffy issue. It's amazingly simple. What makes someone Catholic is that they believe everything that Holy Mother Church proposes for belief in matters of faith and morals. This is what makes Father Corapi Catholic, but Nancy Pelosi and some religious sisters, and even some priests, not Catholic.

Now in fairness, part of being Catholic is an obedience to the church and church authorities in matters where the church has authority. I am not aware of the vows that Father Corapi may have pledged as a member of the SOLT community or any other possible rejection of valid church authority. If he has violated valid church authority, then he would be wrong. If he has not, then he has not. And simply disagreeing with an act of a particular bishop does not necessarily contradict Catholic teaching.

For example I may disagree with Pope Benedict that priests in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church should be allowed to marry (I don't disagree with this, by the way), and I may even make it known that I have a different opinion on this topic (which is acceptable because the matter of priestly celibacy is not a matter of faith and morals but rather of church discipline). However, it would be wrong of me if I actively supported the ordination of married priests in the Roman Rite or if I attempted to teach the faithful that Pope Benedict had no authority to prescribe disciplines such as clerical celibacy on the church. [This would be a break with the Catholic Church in faith and morals because, while the issue of clerical celibacy is a church discipline and not a matter of faith and morals, it is a doctrine of the faith that the church has the authority to impose such disciplines.]

3. EWTN was wrong to remove Father Corapi's Programming from EWTN.

I can see this argument since, Father Corapi is still a priest, but when a priests faculties are removed by a particular bishop or religious community, it would be very confusing to the faithful to show him on TV and radio in full habit (his priestly attire) and being described and introduced as a priest (the assumption being that he has faculties).

Also, EWTN has a right to air whatever programs they wish to air, as long as that programming is faithful to what the church teaches. We as faithful Catholics should not withhold our prayerful and financial support to the world largest Catholic Television and Radio Network. That network is responsible almost entirely to my personal conversion to Christ and His Church, and I am not alone. The importance of EWTN goes far beyond not having one single person on its programming. If we as Catholics choose not to support EWTN because of this decision, we should question not EWTN but what our Catholic faith actually means, and how much we truly desire a world who does not know our beloved Jesus to be evangelized.

4. Father Corapi turned his back on the church by making this decision.

I'm curious about a parallel here. There was a time, well documented by Raymond Arroyo in the book the Mother Angelica: The Remarkable Story of a Nun, Her Nerve and a Network of Miracles, where Mother feared that EWTN might be taken over by Church authorities because it was inconclusive whether the Network was an entity of Mother's monastery, Our Lady of the Angels Monastery. If EWTN was operated under the control of the monastery, then EWTN would possibly be under the authority of other church authorities (possibly the Diocese of Birmingham or the USCCB). Mother made the decision, as I remember it, literally from a hospital bed to resign as Director of the Network and handed over all authority of the Network to the laity so that church authorities would not be able to seize the network or determine its programming. She did this against the advice of two US bishops who were on the phone with her when it happened. (Again this is all found in the book. If I have mischaraterized what transpired it was only because I didn't go back to read that portion of the book for this post)

Now in theory, isn't this precisely what Father Corapi is choosing to do? From what I gather from his statements, he has determined that his message is being stifled by injustice, in part at the hands of church authorities, and the best way to ensure that he can continue to spread his message is by him no longer having public faculties to conduct priestly ministry.

So both Mother Angelica and Father Corapi had a vision that was higher than themselves (the Network, Father's teaching apostlate) which they feel is better served by removing the possible limitations to that same thing by church authorities. I don't really see many dissimilarities here. It's easy to say in hindsight that Mother made the right decision, but there were no guarantees at the time that handing over control of the Network to the laity would ensure the Network's faithfulness to the Magisterium of the Church. Which leads us to the next two points.

5. Father Corapi only has two options 1) to die or 2) to go on.

In fairness none of us has even some, let alone most or all of the details of what has transpired. However, Father Corapi has failed to acknowledge the obvious third option which would be to adhere to the process of the church's investigation and lead of a life of faithful obedience to the church and its authorities even if doing so destroyed his teaching apostolate. This would certainly be a difficult option, but the witnesses of many Christians saints throughout history have been to be faithful to the church's authorities even when those same authorities have persecuted them. Bob Rice details this option well here. (I don't agree with the entirety of Bob's blog post, but his detailing of the third option is good.)

It is Father Corapi who has claimed he was 'forced' into this position. It is only himself who claimed he only had two options. It is right for the laity to question, why not option 3. Father Corapi may be wise to respond to this. However...

6. Father Corapi has more than two options.

I know I'll be back tracking here a bit, but it is actually very simple. We have no idea what God has or has not revealed to Father Corapi during his personal prayer during this difficult time. I have no doubt that he's being attacked by evil forces, and I also know that he is very aware of it. After all, he called his new initiative, the Black Sheep Dog. However, it may very well be that Father Corapi is faithfully following God's will in this endeavor. Maybe he really does only have two choices because that is what God revealed to him in prayer.

7. What might the will of God in this be?

It should be well noted that whenever we think we know God's will either 1) we were grossly wrong or 2) we greatly underestimated what God's will actually was. He always has bigger and better plans than we do. However, for those who are claiming that it is never God's will for a priest to do something like this, I would suggest that we never limit what God can do with things that seemingly don't seem to match with His other plans. I'm reminded of a particular cloistered nun who began the world's largest Catholic television and radio network which was the primary source for my personal conversion. If you are not awed by what God can do, read that sentence again. If that doesn't work try this link and tell me if you had ever known Mother Angelica to shut up?

Is it not possible that God chose to use this particular attack on one of His most faithful sheepdogs to encourage the church to review it's investigative policies on matters pertaining to accusations against priests and church workers?

Let's think about this in non-religious terms and see if we can cut through some of the confusion. It is the policy of the United States government to never negotiate with terrorists. This is highly documented in many TV programs and Hollywood movies. The reason is simple. We don't want to embolden terrorists to commit terrorist acts. If a person or group hijacks a plane and asks for a million dollars it will only encourage other people to attempt to hijack planes and ask for the same or even more money.

[I'm not suggesting that people who make accusations against priests are terrorists. This is the nature of an analogy, there is a similarity, but there is always a greater dissimilarity. Thus the reason they call it an analogy in the first place.]

Now let's apply this same principle to the church. Make no mistake about it, the church has been tainted by the sexual abuse scandals. However, it was also tainted by improper reporting and media sensationalization. A detailed account of this can be found here.

I also don't claim to be an expert on decisions that were made when settlements were offered to the victims of abuse. I also don't claim to know whether or not settlements were offered and made to people who had made false accusations against priests. But I do know this. False accusations have been made against priests and at least some of the motivation for these false accusations have been to make money. This is irrefutable fact.

Here's a quote from a hyperlinked article also produced by the Catholic League:

In 2010, Father Murphy was sued by a man who alleged that he was fondled 40 years ago. The accuser, it turns out, was deep in debt and had his credibility questioned even by his family members. Father Murphy was exonerated after an archdiocesan review board took six months to examine the charges.

According to the press release from the Catholic League, it sure seems like this case was fraudulent considering that even his family members questioned the credibility of the accuser. Three points to consider here:

1) The accuser was motivated for financial purposes. Much like the US government's policy against negotiating with terrorists so as to not embolden them, accusers of sexual abuse of clergy have been encouraged to make false claims against them. Which leads to point #2.

2) The accuser is protected from defamation from bringing up false accusations. Their identity is not released and their is seemingly not civil or church repercussions. This, as Father Corapi has noted, is not true in the case of the accused. Father Corapi was removed from his ministry as the result of an accusation, not proof of guilt. Our national laws claim innocence until proven guilty, but Father Corapi makes a great point about this not being true in the case of accusations against priest in the church. Is he not right to suggest that this policy is worthy of review by church authorities?

3) It took six months for the Archdiocese to review the charges of a seemingly, sketchy at best accusation. How many similar reviews are occurring in the Universal Church? The culture needs Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church now as much as any time in history. Every accusation, false or true, is a battle won for the evil one. Every accusation is time and effort taken away from Evangelizing the culture and presenting them with the fullness of the Gospel.

Is it not possible that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are possibly saying, enough is enough? Is it not possible that it took an action against a Sheepdog like Father Corapi to bring this issue to light so that the church authorities can say, "is what we are doing here fair to the accuser, the accused, and to Christ and His Church?" I'm not in a position to say it is or is not. I'm merely attempting to demonstrate that Father Corapi has made excellent points about the nature of the process he has participated in, that the church should take those issues seriously. And it just might be that these events are the will of God to bring such issues to light.

8. We know Father Corapi by the fruits of his works. He is Holy and shouldn't be questioned.

You better believe it Father Corapi should be questioned. He is a sinner. As a matter of fact some things rightfully should be questioned.

According to this article:

“When she [the accuser] left the company, she signed a contract that she would not reveal anything that happened to her while she was at Santa Cruz Media. Father Corapi paid her for this. Father was suing her for a breach of contract,” said Father Sheehan, though he did not specify why Father Corapi had initiated the non-disclosure agreement..."There were other witnesses that also had signed non-disclosure agreements."

I cannot even describe to you how extremely unusual this seems to me. 1) If you aren't doing anything wrong, why the need to have multiple employees sign non-disclosure agreements? Governments and private companies have employees sign such agreements when they don't want employees to release company or government secrets. What secrets would Father Corapi have at Santa Cruz Media that his employees would need to sign such agreements? Not only this, but according to Father Sheehan (Father Corapi's religious superior of SOLT, Father Corapi's religious order), the accuser was paid to sign the agreement. What is not specified is whether or not she was paid to sign the non-disclosure agreement after her employment had ended (the way I interpret Father Sheehan's statement) or was a condition of her employment at the beginning. Fortune 500 company's don't make you sign non-disclosure agreements after you quit or are fired, they do it as a condition of employment. At face value Father Corapi has some explaining to do.

2) While #1 seems to seriously implicate Father Corapi, even more remarkable is that Father Corapi sued her in civilian court for breach of contract! People who have something to hide rarely ever attempt to shed light on their impropriety, especially by taking a matter to civilian court. It would seem to me either Father 1) truly has something to hide by the presence of the non-disclosure agreements or 2) truly has nothing to hide because if he did bringing it to light by the suing the accuser would only bring his own improprieties to light. Which is it? I don't see room for middle ground here. I think Father Corapi, if he is going to continue public work, should comment on this puzzling issue and attempt to put this issue to rest.

This is entirely confusing on more than one level. Is Father Sheehan reporting accurately on this issue of the non-disclosure agreements? Is he attempting to 'spin' the issue more favorably towards his own religious order or the Bishop of Corpus Christi? Certainly this would be warranted in order to defend the Bishop's authority to make decisions that he did. As laity would should ensure that Father Corapi's actions to not undermine the authority of the Successor's of the Apostles in the minds and hearts of the faithful. Father Sheehan did comment that Father Corapi was outside the constitution of the SOLT due to Father Corapi's agreement occurring before the new SOLT Constitution was drafted. Why was this deemed important enough to be mentioned by Father Sheehan? Was this something that caused issues in SOLT? I don't doubt Father Sheehan's sincerity in the least. What I am attempting to suggest is that it is possible, that from his perspective, there were issues with Father Corapi's ministry that may not have been entirely positive for his order? I do not envy any person who would have been in Father Sheehan's position during this time. He, like all involved, are in need of our prayers as well.

9. Father Corapi is a hypocrite because he says bishops have the authority to do what was done, but then says he is going to stop being a priest in defiance of those same bishops.

As mentioned before, the issue is not one of Father Corapi being a priest or not. The issue is of authority which the bishops have and what Father Corapi is bound to do because of that authority.

I'm not a canon lawyer, but to me, this issue seems very simple at face value. While I agree there is many moving parts to this which of which we know only a few of the facts, Father Corapi agrees that the bishop can do what the bishop did, even though it is somewhat unclear to us what was done in the investigative process. We really only know that Father was suspended by the bishop. This publicly put the accused in the public eye and at least in part, sullied the reputation of the accused, while allowing the accuser to remain free of public scrutiny. Now Father Corapi has stated that this action was within the bishops authority. What I have not yet seen or heard is from either the bishop or Father Sheehan on whether what Father Corapi is doing now, is within his authority to do. It seems to me that Father Sheehan regrets Father Corapi's decision but is willing to move forward with Father Corapi's plan.

Father Corapi “sent us a letter resigning from active ministry and religious life. I have written him a letter asking him to confirm that decision. If so, we will help him with this process of leaving religious life,” said Father Sheehan.

Seems to me like this is a non-issue. Let me explain. My mother smokes cigarettes and has for many years. When she was diagnosed with lung cancer I went to the chemotherapy class with her. On the drive back home she asked me to stop so that she could have a cigarette. I couldn't believe it. Suffice it to say that I informed my mother that she will never smoke in my presence again. She, however, is a grown woman and can choose to do what she will. I know that she has not quit smoking and that she smokes in her home. She has the authority to do that. I acknowledge that. Likewise, I have the authority to ensure that she doesn't smoke at my house or in my vehicles. We are both demonstrating that we have authority over the same issue in different capacities.

Is this not exactly what Father Corapi, Father Sheehan, and the bishop of Corpus Christi are essentially all saying? Father Sheehan and the bishop of Corpus Christi have certain authority over Father Corapi. Father Corapi has the authority to remove that authority by renouncing his public priestly ministry. The way these things are being handled is certainly up for scrutiny, but I don't see how this makes Father Corapi a hypocrite at best or a dissenter at worst.

10. Father Corapi will lead people away from Christ. To Hell with Father Corapi.

This one veers its head in many ways. Some say people's faith in the Catholic Church will be shaken by Father Corapi's decision. I saw one blog which said that many people will follow Father Corapi out of the Catholic Church. I saw a comment on Facebook which said it is never the will of God to do something like Father Corapi did. I find it amazing that we generally don't discern the will of God very good in our own lives, but we sure do discern it very well in the lives of others.

The bottom line is, no Christian, and I'm sure Father Corapi would back me up on this, follows priests or pastors at the expense of Christ. The one who we follow is Jesus Christ and Him alone. Our Catholic faith is not shaken by the actions of sinful humans, be them pastors, priests, or even popes. Our faith stands on the rock of Christ and Him alone. So even if Father Corapi, left the church, and took many of the 'faithful' with him, those people wouldn't really be the 'faithful' because they would have demonstrated by their leaving the church, that they were really disciples of Father Corapi, not of Christ Jesus. Is it not possible that if this were to happen, that it would be God's way of saying, are you following this John Corapi guy or are you following me?

After I first became a Catholic Christian I met an old friend of mine who had told me that his Pastor had cheated on his wife with the church organist and eventually left his wife for her and it really shook my friend's faith. I was trying to be sympathetic but I fear the look on my face probably gave me away because my initial reaction was, why? All of us fail, all of us sin, so why do we question our faith based on the sinfulness of others? The answer is because we are all responsible to some degree for getting each other to Heaven. Whether we go to Hell or to Heaven, we will help get other people there as well. I don't doubt Father Corapi as thought about this as well.

I also don't agree with faithful well-known Catholics who seem to have pointed out that they are "done with Father Corapi" or who have made disparaging remarks about him. I also won't identify those persons here because the bottom line is that only serves Satan's purposes. When we as Catholics are attacking other Catholics, it makes Satan's work much easier. But let us not rush to judgment on any of these matters. Let not our faith be shaken. But it may be a good if this even stirs our faith a bit. We always run the risk of becoming lukewarm in our faith.

We as Catholics should be reminded that only by the grace of God do we have the faith to believe in Him and in the Church He established. I certainly would not have imagined that these events would have taken place. But one thing Father Corapi has taught me is to be humble. I don't always succeed, but it seems to me that those on the extremes of this issue, either for or against Father Corapi's decision, would be wise to remain humble. Let the facts present themselves and do everything you can to spread the fullness of the Gospel as taught by the Catholic Church. In the end, nothing else matters.

I implore all Catholics to allow this issue to draw you closer to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ. It is from this Heart, that all priests and Bishops should conform their Hearts too. If this event causes us as Catholics to take our faith more seriously and to recommit oursevles to be leaven to a world which is exceedingly becoming hostile to the Catholic Faith, then God would have been glorified by it. It will be interesting to see what Father Corapi's new ministry venture is going to be and whether it will continue to remain faithful to the Magisterium of the Church. My hunch is that it will. My prayer is that it will be for the greater glory of God. I hope your prayer is for the same.