No, EWTN is not airing Fr. Corapi – UPDATED


Via

For reasons I will never understand, when it comes to this ongoing issue with Father John Corapi, my encouraging a “wait and see” attitude has translated (for some) as meaning “Mean Lizzie hates Fr. Corapi and cannot wait to see him destroyed, bwwwaaaahahahaha!”

Which, as I have said before, is crap. But people believe what they want, and that’s human nature, I guess.

So, a couple of hours ago, I get one of those “you hate Fr. Corapi” emails out of the blue, this one from a woman named Gloria: “Anchoress, EWTN is airing Father Corapi again, what do you think of that? I wonder if you’ll be so quick to put that up on your blog and admit you’ve been wrong…”

That was the nice part of the email. The rest of is was an odd combination of nasty suspicion, weird smugness and proclamations of love for some, and hopes for vengeance upon others.

I confess, “Sinner, fry in hell” rhetoric sometimes comes my way from Protestant visitors — I always take the time to look up the chapters and verses they cite in their condemnations too, because I like to learn things — but I’m not used to seeing it from Catholics; there have been more than a few of those sorts of missives this year, so that’s an interesting development in Ecumenism, perhaps.

We are living in very anxious times politically, spiritually, materially, and the world seems upside down — I almost dare to call it “diabolical disorientation” — and I think it has contributed to what has been a challenging and distressing Lent for all of us. I’m going to assume that’s why the emails are so umm . . . frothy! :-)

Which reminds me, for some reason, of a scene from one of the Marx Brothers films, where Zeppo (playing Groucho’s secretary) comes into the office exclaiming, “Sir, Mr. Jennings has been waiting to see you for an hour, and is waxing wroth!”

To which Groucho responded, “Well, let Roth wax Jennings for a while.”

Oh, laugh, for crying out loud; life is short.

Anyhow, I then noticed folks on Facebook saying that EWTN is “back to airing” Corapi, along with some speculation about it. Knowing that EWTN does not mandate what its affiliates air — it simply provides them with free content — I suspected this was about individual affiliate programming, more than anything.

Information is better than speculation (and it seems like the Corapi story has had aspects of opaqueness and obfuscation from the start) so I wrote to EWTN for clarification.

EWTN’s Director of Communications, Michelle Johnson was kind enough to respond:

“EWTN is not airing Father’s programs. If local EWTN radio affiliates wish to air programs to which they have the rights, they certainly may.”

For those who are still stymied about why EWTN or other outlets may not be airing Corapi’s work, this statement from Relevant Radio is really very helpful – here is an excerpt:

1) No cleric carries out the sacred ministry in his own name. He ministers at the will of his proper ecclesiastical authority, the bishop or religious superior as the case may be. The mission of the priest is to assist in teaching, sanctifying and governing. He has no right to do this on his own.

While the principle “innocent until proven guilty” still holds in canon law, it would be a mistake to hold that any cleric ever has a right to exercise the public ministry without his Bishop/Superior’s express permission, which can be withdrawn for prudential reasons.
Canon 822 §3 addresses the special duty of those involved with the media in this regard:
a. “All Christ’s faithful, especially those who in any way take part in the management or use of the media, are to be diligent in assisting pastoral action, so that the Church can more effectively exercise its office through these means.”
“To assist in pastoral action” means to cooperate with the proper ecclesiastical authorities. In the case of Fr. Corapi, Catholic media outlets will assist the process by supporting the indications and intentions of his superiors with respect to his temporary suspension from the public ministry of teaching, sanctifying, and governing. By continuing to air his programs claiming that he is “innocent until proven guilty,” a Catholic media outlet may unintentionally undermine the authority of [Fr. Corapi's] superior by leading the faithful to conclude that the superior unjustly put him on “administrative leave” because the allegations were not credible. It is entirely up to the proper ecclesiastical authority (bishop/superior) to determine if the complaint has merit, or the allegations are credible. Any dereliction in this duty would either harm the community or the defendant.

I get the sense, from my email, and from comments left here, at facebook and elsewhere, that EWTN, Relevant Radio and other outlets are taking a financial hit for being obedient to the process, and consistent in their response to these sorts of investigations.

It seems very odd to me that people who have always appreciated and supported Catholic media that has demonstrated fidelity to orthodoxy and ecclesiastic authority are suddenly deciding to close their wallets on the issue of this one priest. If you are one of those folks, ask yourself this: what happens when Catholic media outlets have to close their doors and shut down operations because you’ve stopped donating to them, in a fit of pique? Where do you go, then, for your orthodox and faithful programming?

Catholic media has an obligation to help the church be clear and credible, and its consumers need to be able to rely on Catholic broadcasters — to know that when they flip the dial to their station or their channel that they’re getting the truth delivered by priests, sisters and layfolk who are in “good standing” within the scope of their offices. It is not really reasonable to expect them to broadcasts priests who are currently without faculties or embroiled in controversies as priest-in-good-standing and authoritative — or for that matter, nuns who are outside of their vows as “sisters” in good standing.

Would you really, for instance, want to turn on EWTN and find them replaying old tapes of Fr. Francis Mary, who has since left the order? He spoke the truth, that’s true. But since he is no longer a Franciscan priest, don’t you think that would be confusing to viewers, and a misrepresentation of who he is?

I expect I’ll be accused of malice and hate, some more, but this all just seems reasonable to me

Let this investigation come to its conclusion; if all is well, Corapi will be back. If all is not well, well…that bridge gets crossed if it is encountered, and it may never get that far, but for heavens sake, don’t deprive the Catholic media outlets you love — and that you know bring you the reliability you crave — because you don’t like the fact that a favorite priest is undergoing investigation. That seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face.

And again, it seems to me the devil is having a great old time turning Catholics against each other. So much more fun and effective than just turning the press against the pope.

UPDATED: I see this is in comments already but as Deacon Greg notes it’s Friday, and every Friday brings further heat but no more light. I think I will resist answering this particular pavlovian bell.

For those of you in need of a Fr. Corapi fix, got this from his website:

YouTube Preview Image

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Rainey

    Carol,

    I doubt many of us would advocate arresting people “just in case”, but I think a whole lot of us would probably advocate suspension of privileges until the accusations have been investigated and sorted out. If a doctor or therapist or other trusted person serving the community has such an accusation made against him or her to his superiors and they suspend him or her until an investigation is completed, would we all be up in arms?

    To my knowledge, Fr. Corapi has not been thrown in the slammer.

    That said, these investigations shouldn’t have to take a decade. That seems like gross injustice for all parties involved.

  • Brandy M Miller

    The Catholic Church is not a cult of personality, and Father Corapi is not Jesus. I do not know if he is guilty, but it is wise for the Church to put him on leave while the investigation continues. To do otherwise would be to invite scandal. I love Father Corapi’s preaching, but he would not be the first good man in history to succumb to temptation. Everyone would do well to remember that we are all fallen, that the closer to Christ we grow the bigger the temptations that Satan throws your way, and that we should never be putting the weight of our faith on the shoulders of any human being. To do so is idolatry, plain and simple.

  • Brother Jeff

    Did someone say “idolatry” and “cult of personality” again? Lol.

  • http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/ Teresa

    I can understand why EWTN wouldn’t air new programs. That makes sense but it doesn’t make sense for EWTN to refuse to air old Fr. Corapi programs. Are his old programs in line with the Magisterium? I would guess yes, since EWTN aired the programs in the first place. I think EWTN’s refusal to air his old programs hurts the faithful moreso than if they had decided to air his programs while this investigation is going on. Those hurtful things being said to you is horrible. There is absolutely no reason for people express such harsh words to you. We should follow the rule of charity when engaging others we disagree with, as hard as that may be sometimes.

  • Kate

    No, Jeff, no one forced me to watch him. But, having never seen or heard him before, I thought that I ought to be fair and give him a chance. So I did. But he really is awful.

  • Richard W Comerford

    Mr. Rainey:

    “but I think a whole lot of us would probably advocate suspension of privileges until the accusations have been investigated and sorted out.”

    The Church requires that if the ordinary receives an accusation that he believes has some “truth” in it he is to launch a preliminary investigation wherein an investigator, advocate, promoter of justice and the “proofs’ appear as well a defense by the accused. Then and only then can the Ordinary exclude the accused priest in whole or part from his Sacred ministry.

    In the Corapi case the Ordinary, via SOLT, excluded Corapi from his Sacred ministry and then launched a preliminary
    investigation.

    “If a doctor or therapist or other trusted person serving the community has such an accusation made against him or her to his superiors and they suspend him or her until an investigation is completed, would we all be up in arms?”

    If a suspension if mandated without due process and simple justice then yes I would hope so

    “To my knowledge, Fr. Corapi has not been thrown in the slammer.”

    The mere fact that a second injustice has not yet taken place does not forgive the original injustice (Exclusion from sacred ministry without due process).

    The Corapi case in of itself is not significant. What is significant is that almost 50-years into the great scandal our Church bureaucracy still cannot handle these cases with simple justice and with all due process as laid out in Canon Law.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Lauretta

    If a person is truly holy, being banned from public ministry should not ultimately affect his reputation. Look at all of the saints who were silenced for a time. We honor and respect them now even though they had accusations made against them while they were alive.

    I think all of this agonizing over these media priests losing their credibility is very unnecessary–if they are truly holy. If they aren’t holy, then the only negative is that they are losing some income.

  • Brother Jeff

    “Really awful,” so nice of you. I guess he has a new critic. That particular video hardly shows him at his best, as anyone who has seen him over time knows.

    His accent takes some getting used to, as do the quirks of everyone else.

  • Catawaller

    It’s not his accent that bothers me. It’s the way he says the most obvious thing that every fifth grader knows and then says “this is important” over and over again. As if by speaking slowly and putting lots of emphasis on words one is being profound, when really there’s nothing new or interesting being said. “Lent is about preparing for Easter -this is important!” Wow, such insight. “He gave us the 10 Commandments…. not the 10 suggestions. Now, this is important.” Ok, but what if we already know that?

    I have heard many of his talks (long drives with Catholic radio) and I believe my comments are a fair analysis of a shortcoming in his preaching style. But apparently we are not allowed to have any negative assessment of this guy’s preaching or we are mean, cruel, evil people.

    Nonetheless, I do sincerely wish him well and hope this all gets cleared up quickly. And I also do feel awful for all the people who seem to suffering over this whole mess – I’m sure that it’s a blow to many people who feel they have very few champions left, and that is sad.

  • http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/ terryn

    I noticed a post that Fr. C was back on EWTN – I believe the mistake originated because of their program schedule mail out. I’m geudding it was most likely already in print and scheduled to be mailed before the accusations.

    It’s unfortunate you are getting the ‘bad Catholic’ rap. You are covering this whole thing objectively and with sensitivity – don’t be discouraged.

  • http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/ terryn

    I noticed a post that Fr. C was back on EWTN – I believe the mistake originated because of their program schedule mail out. I’m guessing it was most likely already in print and scheduled to be mailed before the accusations were made public.

    It’s unfortunate you are getting the ‘bad Catholic’ rap. You are covering this whole thing objectively and with sensitivity – don’t be discouraged.

  • Lucy

    #40, JennyZ has the resolution. A large “BINGO” prize is due. Anything less begins to look more like milking for traffic.

    Father Corapi will likely be fine, even to the primal chagrin of a few. If he is not exhonorated, it still makes no one here look like a genius.

  • Mark P. Shea
  • Charles
  • mrd

    A lot of this covers the same ground, but there are facts that are getting ignored and need to be be considered. The Fr. Corapri case is fundamentally different from the accusations against both Maciel and Euteneuer. Both of them were accused of things in which there was a “victim” That is there was some non consensual sexual activity. In Maciels case there was a collection of other illicit and perhaps even criminal activity. This is no the case with Fr. Corapri. At least this is what is out publicly. Fr. Sheehan who is a “regional servant of SOLT, makes the point that the accusations are not criminal “It is equally important to know that, based on the information we have received thus far,”…, “the claim of misconduct does not involve minors and does not arise to the (level) of criminal conduct.” This is important. At this point they are of a fundamental different nature than those levied against the other two. Therefore He should be treated differently. It is not entirely clear if there are accusations even of sexual activity per se, although Fr. Corapri seems to suggest there was. I am not sure why he is being lumped in with people who were guilty of very different behavior.

    Another point that seems to come up periodically is the celebrity priest status of Fr Corapri is off putting. As if this bears on his guilt or innocense. Hell if you dont like him, dont buy his stuff. Granted he comes across as… shall we say… not conventionally pious. Particualrly irritating to some is the fact which mutiple blogs often point , that he runs a company that sells his material and he has done pretty well for himself, and he has used this company to defend himself. ( My God an effort at self defense!! By of all things a Priest!! Apparently this gives some folks the vapors…
    I am not sure why this is so scandlous. I find it rather appealing! I am glad he has the guts to defend himself! Who knows some might consider a vigorous and outraged denial evidence of innocense. I agree with those who have said if someone accused me of something I did not do I would not only deny it, I would make it a life project to expose them as lying scum. Maybe that is not particularly holy.. mea culpa, In any case from my view point Fr. Corapri has been restrained. As for keeping the money he earns.. More pwer to him After all he has taken no vow of poverty. Some people who said preachers are entitled to keep the money they make from preaching. This seemed to be ok with St Paul see 1- Corinthians 9:13-14
    “Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. “… But I digress, the point is Fr. Corapri has not made a secret of any of this, The reasons he keeps the money, his opinons right to do so etc are all outlined by Stephen Klaidman in “Coronary a true story of medicine gone awry” written 4 years ago. I think his words about what can happen to an American Priest in the current climate as mentioned in that book have proven accurate.

    At the of the day the central point is not whether we should wait and see what the investigation shows! This has is way off the mark. The problem with this whole spectacle woould remain even if Fr,. Corapri has lapsed back into drug abuse and is guilty of some sort of sexual conduct “unbecomming a Catholic Priest”. The point being ignored is made perfectly by retired Bishop Gracida, If there is an accusation made against a Priest of misconduct that does not place innocent people in danger ( so the misconduct does not involve a minor, and does not involve some sort of criminal behavior like sexual assault) Then it is not necessary to immediately remove the Priest from ministry, and to do so harms the priests reputation perhaps irreversibly. It is not a question of quoting “Canon Law” (Good Grief The people who mention this are truly living in an alternate universe! Who is taking Canon Law seriously these days? ) I am rather Suprised Fr. Corapri would mention it. He should know better! As I am sure he would agree, The Bishops have been ignoring select Canons for ages, Canon 915 is evidently defunct (Otherwise we would not have the notorious pro-abortion Govenor of NY who has a mistress to boot getting Communion. ) Not that I begrudge Mr. Coumo his mistress! I merely make the point that Canon Law is an irrelevancy. it will be interpreted by many Bishops pretty much anyway they please, so it matters little what it actually says. The folks blogging about Canon law are surely deusional, Those who care about the rules have no power to enforce them, and those who have the power to enforce Canon Law by and large apparently often don’t care about the precise rules…. so Regardless of what is or is not stipulated in canon law, the Bishops clearly have the power to suspend Corapri. It is whether such a suspension is wise. I would stipulate if we are going to wink and nod and allow openly lunatic and vaguely heretical people like Fr. Michael Pfleger to continue to minister, (for those unfamilar with him, Google his name and you will get the point…. ) It would be reasonable to hold the fire before pulling the trigger on someone who publicly at least, is a pretty fierce defender of the Church. It would be different if Fr. Corapri was accused of abuse and there was a need to protect say.. children, etc… then you do what is necessary to protect the innocent, This is not the case here! The fact that the institutional Church is so quick to throw Corapri under the bus, but so infinitely tolerant of outrageous abuses on the left ( Why is Pfleger not excommunicated??) tells you all you need to know about the leadership!
    The anger towards the defenders of the Corapri suspension is over the top. Still what grates, is the fact that there seems to be no interest in a little due process for someone who has been a public force on our side, and there is near obsequious deferrence to these kind of administrative decisions ( as opposed to the magisterial teaching) when the Institutional Leadership of the Bishops was and to some extent continues to be almost completely ineffective.

  • Brother Jeff

    The vapors…. hilarious. Brilliantly stated MRD .

  • John

    If Corapi is innocent the best defense is public examination of his case. We can no longer trust our Church bureaucrats to act with justice? Well in that case, Perhaps Father Corapi felt the same way, and maybe EWTN should take your advice and not listen to the Church bureaucrats. I personally believe that this is a smear campaign, and he will be cleared. I like his programs they are informative. As far as anything else it is better to stop gossiping so much about a guy you never met.

  • Lauretta

    MRD, what you are not taking into account is the fact that the person making the charges against Fr. Corapi was an employee of his–he is the President of his corporation. That puts him in a position of authority over an employee which somewhat negates the consensual nature of an affair. Until quite recently that was cause for the firing of the person in authority in the secular world. If the secular world sees this as quite inappropriate, how much more so should we as Christians?

    I have not even mentioned the fact that he is a priest and for many laity, that puts him in a position of authority over them. If this woman is a Catholic, then Fr. Corapi has abused his position of power in two ways–if in fact the charges are true. For some reason we keep forgetting these facts when looking at the Corapi situation.

  • Brother Jeff

    Anchoress, breaking news…. this is a new statement. It seems to say EWTN’s removal of his programs was not in accord with canon law:

    “Father Corapi on Administrative Leave – Update from Rev. Michael Sullivan, J.C.L.

    Fr. John Corapi has been suspended from priestly functions because of an accusation against him from a former employee. There seems to be a great deal of speculation and confusion regarding what this entails.

    When an accusation arrives at the desk of a Religious Superior or a bishop, the procedure calls for a quick, confidential assessment as to the veracity of the accusation. With the advent of the Dallas Procedural Norms the necessary pieces of information required before imposing administrative leave varies from diocese to diocese and Order to Order. In most cases, if an accuser knows the name of the priest, the location at the time of the alleged incident and the year the priest was serving, the accusation is considered “credible.” The accused is supposed to be provided with the opportunity to respond to the accusations in a face-to-face meeting with his Superior prior to the imposition of suspension or administrative leave. In Father Corapi’s case, this never happened.

    When a priest is on administrative leave he is to refrain from any public actions as a priest, such as offering Mass or hearing confessions, or from dressing as a priest in any public forum. The decree from his superiors clearly spells out limitations upon Fr. Corapi, but does not preclude him from speaking publicly provided he does not dress as a cleric and does not offer Mass publicly. Fr. John Corapi has observed these directives. Church bodies are to observe these limitations, though the order does not apply to lay organizations or Church organizations beyond the scope of what has been decreed.

    Several Catholic media sources have removed Fr. Corapi from their outlets. This is over and above what is required by canon law and the Dallas Norms. Nothing in the order placing Father Corapi on administrative leave precludes distribution of previously recorded materials. Santa Cruz Media is in full compliance with Canon Law and the administrative leave under which Fr. Corapi is functioning.

    Fr. Corapi is doing all in his power to cooperate and work with his Religious Society to see that this allegation is quickly cleared up and he is allowed to return to full ministry. The length of this administrative leave is strictly up to the Society and their process of inquiry before a decision is rendered.

    We continue to ask everyone to pray for Fr. Corapi, for the accuser and for a quick resolution to this matter.

    God bless you,

    Rev. Michael Sullivan, J.C.L.

  • cathyf

    (Brother) Jeff, I have a question for you…

    If someone says nasty things about Fr. Corapi, are these nasty things

    a) calumny (slander) or detraction or some combination of the two;

    or are these nasty things

    b) blasphemy (or BLASPHEMY!!111! as the case may be…)

    ?

    Simple question — A or B?

  • Ed

    I hate to break it to you but ETWN is an independent entity – not bound by canon law or anyone’s particular interpretation of it. They can put anyone they want on and decline anyone they want. The exist at under a bishop’s authority and must get permission from him in certain areas – how Mass is said and broadcast – but other than that they are their own Magisterium – which has been a problem in the past by the way.

    So Sr. Joan Chittister may be a religious sister living in accordance with the rules of her order (and no matter what you think of her ideas and convictions- that much is true.) but that doesn’t mean that EWTN is violating canon law in not giving her a show.

    You may recall the case of Deal Hudson. Hudson had an ETWN show – and then the revelations of his past behavior with undergrads at Fordham came out and he was pulled. As far as I know Hudson – despite exhibiting great sorrow for his sins of the past – has never appeared on EWTN again.

    (Not that I care – it’s just all of this weeping and gnashing of teeth about Corapi’s canonical rights to be on ETWN is garbage.)

    Okay now *when* can we talk about this Manning lunatic?

  • Richard W Comerford

    Ms. Lauretta

    RE: Can We Treat Holy People Unjustly

    “If a person is truly holy, being banned from public ministry should not ultimately affect his reputation.”

    Holy or not (and only God knows) we the faithful, and even the Church bureaucrats must treat all people justly – to include celebrity priests.

    “If they aren’t holy, then the only negative is that they are losing some income.”

    Even people who are not holy deserve their good names and reputation which, btw, are protected under Canon Law.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • jkm

    Brother Jeff, re your new news: the Anchoress’s earlier observation appears to be borne out. If It’s Friday, There Must Be a New (Utterly Irrelevant But Merrily Chatter-Generating) Anti-Dallas-Charter “Update” Posted at the Santa Cruz Website! The Fr. Corapi faithful on Facebook are drooling over this new “official vindication” of Fr. John and corresponding “official condemnation” of EWTN. Truth is, Fr. Michael Sullivan is no more authoritative in this situation than anyone else who isn’t involved in the official investigation. What he IS is a canon lawyer on long record as opposing the Dallas Charter as depriving accused priests of due process, which we have all said before is certainly an opinion deserving of consideration, but not one that has anything to do with Fr. Corapi’s case. I remain puzzled that Santa Cruz posts these unrelated screeds every week, but does not post the measured, prayerful, and considerate official updates provided by Fr. Corapi’s superiors at SOLT. And Ed, I actually know “the Manning lunatic,” and like the guy from Oz he’s not a bad man, just a very poor wizard. A sinner self-confessed, as are we all, and every bit as naive and goofy as he comes across, but not a lunatic. I always thought his biggest nutcase move was championing the release of Manson gang member Leslie Van Houten, but who knew. Ah well. I’ve been waiting for the Friday Corapi shoe to fall all day, so now I can get back to Lent.

  • Brother Jeff

    It is at least as newsworthy as the other statements which were blared all over the place. “utterly irrelevant”? lol. yeah, it has nothing, nothing to do with the situation. Sure his name is in the statement, but pay no attention to that.

    I guess you like the Dallas Charter, which is fine I guess, but to call this is a “screed” is bizarre.

  • Brother Jeff

    Ed, I agree re EWTN having the right not to air him (unless they are under contract to do so), and the statement does not claim that it was a violation of his canon law rights to have his programs removed. It merely states that canon law did not REQUIRE it. There is all the difference between the two of course. EWTN operates very much like Santa Cruz Media in that respect.

  • jkm

    Whether I like the Dallas Charter or not is irrelevant to Father Corapi’s situation, because the Dallas Charter does not apply to his situation. (Since you speculate, I think Charter is a well-meaning but flawed response.) I just don’t get why every Friday is “Attach the Corapi name to a criticism of the Dallas Charter” day. And with regard to EWTN’s decision, they are not citing the canons concerning the rights of a priest accused of misconduct, but (quite properly) the canons prohibiting a priest whose faculties have been suspended, as Fr. Corapi’s have, from conducting public ministry (which includes the ministry of the Word). While those canons operate on the priest himself, and are not legally binding on others, EWTN is prudently refusing to give the impression that they are cooperating in a priest’s flauting of the revocation of faculties by his canonical superior.

  • Common Catholic Man

    I completely agree with your position on this issue. I hope and pray that Fr. Corapi is cleared of these moral and spiritual charges against him. But, let the investigation take its course before we canonize him – again.

    I am sorry, but I have a problem with a priest – ANY priest – getting a face lift, coloring his gray beard black and getting his teeth capped. My problem isn’t that the devil has influenced me to “hate” or even dislike Fr. Caropi. The issue is one of modesty. I saw another priest on EWTN who commented in passing that he doesn’t wear cologne because it would be immodest for a priest to do so. OK, that’s his opinion and I wouldn’t think twice about a priest wearing cologne. But a face lift, hair color and new teeth seem to have crossed the immodest line.

    These allegations come after the new look, which made my radar start chirping. But even if F. Corapi is cleared, I still have a problem with the new look.

    Before everyone beats me up on this, let me ask you a question. How would you feel if Pope Benedict came out next week with jet black hair? I would think it very, very strange and yes, I would have a problem with that too.

  • brother jeff

    Yea but jkm if he released statements on tuesday would it make any difference. I assume that is his schedule. It’s not like a termination notice.

  • Daniel T

    When a religious is living in community, it’s pretty easy for his superior to track him down for a meeting. If the superior is unable to find them, it seems posting a notice at the community house that he was last assigned to counts as sufficient notice. Father Corapi is a different case of course, as he lives in a private residence rather than in community. Did Father head on down to Robstown to have the opportunity for a face-to-face? It does seem he had some time prior to breaking the news himself. Is it being claimed that the superior did not travel up to White Fish so that Father could have a face-to-face with him? Perhaps Father did go down to SOLT HQ as soon as he was notified of the letter, but if he did not then it doesn’t seem there should be an assertion that he was not given the opportunity for a face-to-face prior to announcing his own suspension forcing the cancellation of a still future event.

    [Once again, the Friday document dump has included "information" put out by "someone" whose background is not provided, and that clears up nothing and encourages exactly this kind of speculative back-and-forth of "maybes" that no one can possibly know, and encourages discord, distrust and the pssst, psst of gossip. And I mean real gossip, not someone-asks-EWTN-for-straight-poop-statement-info
    that gets called gossip, but real gossip. Real discord, real disharmony, a real distraction from where we should be at this point in Lent. Look at what this little "update" has already generated: "maybe this happened, maybe that didn't happen, maybe, maybe, maybe..."

    It just underscores what I said from the start: we do not know anything. It is not in any soul's best interest to bounce around on this, but prayer might be in everyone's best interest. I'm going to spend the weekend reclaiming my Lent. I really, whole-heartedly, hope everyone will. To that end, I may even turn off comments. -admin]

  • brother jeff

    Im with you. But ‘document dump’…. ahhhhhhhhh the unnecessary edge….

    [It's not an unnecessary edge. It's calling it what it is. And you've just convinced me to close comments for the weekend. That's enough. -admin]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X