More from Corapi

And more of the same. He not the enemy of the Church, certain shadowy bishops are. You must (cue Marc Antony) obey and honor them (for they are all, all honorable men). But, as we all well know, they “wanted him gone” and so you know (wink, wink) just who his enemy is. As I thought, the Black Sheepdog is going to encourage rebellion with maximum passive-aggression.

He reminds us that “they” can take away his faculties, but not the priestly character of his ordination. Very true. Only “they* never wanted to do that. He ditched his vocation and blindsided his superiors with his abandonment of his vows.

He points out that he barely functioned as a priest and that most of his time was spent doing non-priestly stuff. True. And his “fans” think this is great why exactly? With any other priest, that would have klaxons and red lights flashing. But, in accord with the Ox Gore Principle, what is a grim warning sign for, say, Pfleger, Cutie or Fushek is just more proof of the vital need for this great hero to keep on keeping on in his “calling” to “minister” to a wider audience without ecclesial oversigh as a loose cannon in rebellion against the Church.

Bottom line: he’s ditching his vow to speak on “wider topics” (meaning, I think, pursuing a career as a member of the Right Wing Noise Machine). If the bishops get in the way of that, he will just play the Persecuted Martyr Card (on full display a little later in the podcast) and continue to build the new brand.

He “accepts what has happened”–and his accuser is an erratic lying alcoholic traitor who he tried to help for years. (He apparently forgot that we were all supposed to believe that his shadowy accuser and her mysterious charges were not even known to him due to the grossly unjust system). She is an extorting grifter who wrote a vicious letter in the pursuit of filthy lucre. Several bishops, “panicked, shot me in the head and watched me bleed to death”.

Our evidence for all this: the word of John Corapi, who “accepts what has happened” and wants you to obey your bishops who are (cue Marc Antony again) “honorable men. So are they all, all honorable men.” For his part, he remains the brave and humble man he always was. And if he has to publish abroad that the woman and her husband he has ministered to are dangerous alcoholic nuts who are after his $3 million dollars, well what else can a loving shepherd of souls do but expose them and demand you take his word for it?

Dog is also careful to note to his “fans”, by the way, that there’s a police report on record which he invites us to peruse, so Dog’s fanbase can go out there and find the name of his accuser and rake her over the coals publicly, hint, hint. Go to it, Team Corapi. Connect the dots, my fanbase! Let the Flying Monkeys be released and destroy my enemies now that I am no longer bound by the Church’s investigation due to my abandonment of my vows. Yep. The Sheepdog with a Shepherd’s heart.

(By the way, a question which occurs to me is this: Given his declaration that he worked so very hard and so very long to help this person, it is reasonable to wonder if he ever heard her confession about all the issues he says he labored to help her deal with. And if this person is the chronic alcoholic he paints her as, has he violated the Seal of the Confessional should his flying monkeys take the hint and expose her to public humiliation? If he doesn’t name the person, but still makes it easy to figure out who she is, and he exposes sins she confessed, and the Church concludes that he has done so, that means he is excommunicated instantly and said excommunication can only be lifted by the Holy Father. Mind you, I don’t know the answer to that question, but I think it a huge question in light of his scandalous behavior. Who knows who all that is worked out canonically.)

Meanwhile, the people he (again) guts publicly (again) remain silent. One might almost say “like sheep before their shearers, they do not open their mouths”. Do I therefore know they are innocent? Of course not. I only know that Dog has chosen to commit, if not calumny, then most assuredly detraction. And when you point that fact out, his “fans” form a phalanx and shout that you are tearing down an innocent man. No. I am simply pointing out the public behavior of that man and noting that I, for one, see no more reason to accept his word than that of his accuser–and that he is the only one publicly tearing down anybody.

He then says that the Church has never given him any help–ever but has “thrown him under bus, threw me out like yesterday’s garbage” and adds he’s not bitter (in a tone that reminds me of nothing so much as this):

He mentions various bills he’s had to pay, but not the $3 million he is worth, the absence of a vow of poverty, and the fact that he is under no obligation at all to share any of his considerable earnings with his order. This rather puts things in perspective given the typically cash-strapped nature of Catholic organizations. It’s rather hard for me to feel moved with pity for a multi-millionaire when he moans that the Church won’t divert funds from the poor to himself.

Finally, in standard Talk Radio form, he signs off with defiance and tells us he will be a promoter of truth, justice, and hope. Jesus Christ, Mary, the saints, the Eucharist and all the rest of the Catholic baggage are firmly in the closet cuz they aren’t gonna fit in with the new rebranding. He’s not going act as a priest anymore. He’s shooting to be Sean Hannity with a deeper voice.

"I can't take it any more. It's Betty-lou Who, not Betty-lou. I don't know much ..."

How I spent the an afternoon ..."
"The parents didn't make the threats. The uninformed social media voyeurs did."

How I spent the an afternoon ..."
"Who knows what you would say or do if the police refused to let you ..."

How I spent the an afternoon ..."
"Mark: I don't want you to ask me about XBetsy-Lou-Who: Asks Mark about X*Mark doesn't ..."

How I spent the an afternoon ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment