Yesterday, I noted approvingly that Fr. Gerard Sheehan, Fr. John Corapi\u2019s SOLT superior, condemned Corapi in fairly plain English, rather than in the sort of obfuscatory Church-speak that once made John Allen, Jr. liken l\u2019Osservatore Romano<\/em> to Pravda.<\/em> It seems to be contagious. Today, Corapi issued his rebuttal.<\/strong><\/a> No longer is he talking in terms of cabals against his human rights, or of plans to feed entire worlds. Instead, he sticks to contracts and money.<\/p>\n Regarding my personal financial situation\u2014From the earliest days (more than twenty years ago) the Founder of the Society of Our Lady, Fr. James Flanagan, encouraged me to support myself and the Church as well. He said they could not afford to support my ministry and me personally because of the unique nature of the mission. At every step of the way, through the entire past twenty years, the Society of Our Lady\u2019s leadership knew of my financial independence. As Fr. Flanagan encouraged, I have supported SOLT and myself from \u2018day-one.\u2018 I have never relied on the Society for shelter, clothing, transportation, medical care, or legal counsel and instead, using my history of success in business, set up my mission as any savvy business man would, meanwhile continuing to support the Society and many other Catholic Charities.<\/p>\n Regarding the charge of sexual impropriety\u2014This song of greed has been sung many times before. I have never had any promiscuous or even inappropriate relations with her. Never. Regarding \u2018hush money\u2019\u2014I never paid anybody off to remain silent. On two occasions there were standard severance agreements executed with former employees and independent contractors. These agreements contained very common non-disclosure provisions. Any attorney who would not include such provisions in such agreements would rightly be guilty of negligent and actionable conduct. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n Granted, in the next and final paragraph, Corapi begins to air his inner Gloria Gaynor, as he insists he isn\u2019t extinguished and won\u2019t crawl under any rocks and die. But up till that point, he sounds like any businessman with a vested interest and a legal team to defend it. In that, he brings the whole matter back down to earth, which is where it\u2019s always belonged. <\/p>\n By itself, denial of the sex charges doesn\u2019t tell us anything. He\u2019d deny them if they were false (after the manner of Joseph, son of Jacob), and as well if they were true (in the manner of Bill Clinton, brother of Roger). I see no reason to doubt that the money paid the interested parties came as a formal part of a severance agreement. Corapi strikes me as far too smart a customer to cover his flanks with a roll of small bills and a handshake. (In any case, the words \u201chush money\u201d don\u2019t appear in Sheehan\u2019s statement.) <\/p>\n Corapi\u2019s claims about SOLT\u2019s investigative process are too vague to admit of easy interpretation. What rights of self-defense did he want but not get? And what can he mean about the \u201cevidence supplied by the accused\u201d? He IS the accused. Either this is a simple oversight or a sign he\u2019s anticipating filing his own civil suit. <\/p>\n But it\u2019s the first paragraph that I find most intriguing. His statement, that he set up his business \u201clike any savvy business man [sic] would\u201d suggests he sees ministry as a form of entrepreneurship. And though I won\u2019t say a business model is necessarily a bad one, I doubt many churchmen would make the equation quite so baldly. Cardinal Mundelein, who always knew the bottom line when he saw it, once joked that, for $10,000, he\u2019d spontaneously teach himself to speak Hebrew.<\/strong><\/a> But then, that sum probably wasn\u2019t going to end up in his pocket. <\/p>\n Corapi defines his worth to SOLT by pointing to the ledger: he made his money on his own, kicking some back to SOLT from time to time. Therefore, he\u2019s an asset. To treat him as anything else is a mark of the worst kind of ingratitude. Factually, he\u2019s probably right. Corapi\u2019s nothing if not a self-starter. SOLT\u2019s association with him must have won the society no end of publicity, and probably a few candidates for the priesthood. Corapi doesn\u2019t say what financial support he offered, but whatever it was, it must have been a lot more than nothing, which is what SOLT would have gotten had Corapi decided to transfer his vows to some diocese. <\/p>\n I can\u2019t comment on the canon-legal aspects of the deal Corapi says he made with Fr. Flanagan, the one according to which he got to live outside of SOLT\u2019s rules. To many observers, Corapi\u2019s refusal to live in community despite Sheehan\u2019s direction violates the spirit, if not the letter, of his obligation. Mark Shea<\/strong><\/a> admits wishing he\u2019d \u201cman up and humble himself.\u201d The Te Deum blogger<\/strong><\/a> lectures Corapi from afar on the virtue of docility. Right or wrong, they\u2019re missing Corapi\u2019s point. <\/p>\n In his own mind, Corapi\u2019s John Galt \u2014 the hyper-productive citizen who refuses to support a structure he sees as corrupt, effete, and worst of all, oppressive. He seems to want others to see him this way, too. He might not have cited his earning potential in the beginning, but when SOLT mentioned money and assets, it made up the meat of his retort <\/p>\n
\nRegarding the investigation\u2014As standard practice, my legal counsel advised me not to cooperate with the investigation until I was able to determine that the Commission\u2019s process was fair and I had adequate rights to defend myself. Questions that certainly qualify the validity of any legal case have never been answered by the so called \u201cfact finding team.\u201d They refuse to reveal, and therefore utilize, any of the so-called evidence perhaps because if \u2018the bad guy\u2019 were truly revealed it may be revealed that he is really not that bad. Clearly, as my legal counsel has portrayed, the evidence supplied by the accused (of which my counsel is not permitted access to) must not have any substance.<\/p>\n