Why I Will Follow the Shepherds, not the “Sheepdog”

There’s been a lot of discussion today of the  “Black Sheepdog Who Once was John Corapi” issue.
On Thursday, I was one of his supporters, indebted for what his teaching has meant to me and always sharing his stories with others to encourage them.
On Friday, I was disconcerted by his announcement.  When Mark Shea, Elizabeth Scalia and others suggested he was on a very dangerous road to schism or cult or something, I thought they were engaging in a slippery slope, but I agreed with their critiques of the content of his message.
On Sunday, his superior, Fr. Gerry Sheehan, SOLT, has gave an interview with National Catholic Register which totally contradicts some of Corapi’s statements (which themselves, if you read them critically, are full of self contradictions).  Today, “the Black Sheepdog” issued another audio announcement, which his critics have denounced as even more narcissistic and riot-inciting, while his rioting supporters have used it as a rallying cry to fight for their unjustly persecuted hero.  He repeatedly says things like, “The Church never laid a finger or spent a penny to help me.”  He completely demonizes his accuser.  The man whose claim to fame is his alleged recovery from drug addiction and ministry to addicts has totally calumniated his accuser as an evil alcoholic.  Worst of all, the man who used to preach on the importance of the sacraments and how the sacraments are the lifeblood of the priesthood says he doesn’t mind giving up the priesthood “because the sacraments aren’t all that important!”  WT#?!!

I’m crying just thinking about it.  This man has completely gone over to the devil.  Whatever he did or did not do with this woman, and I’m inclined to believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, I have at this point come to agree 100% with his harshest critics, and his “supporters” or “fanbase” or whatever you want to call them–I call them cultish fanatics–are the main reason, but here are the reasons, laid out:

1.  I know Corapi has lied.  Both in March and over the past 4 days, his public statements on this matter have contradicted statements issued by his Order, Fr. Sheehan specifically and Bishop Mulvey/the Diocese of Corpus Christi.  As an English teacher, I teach my students about critical reading of sources, how to discern which source is more credible when you don’t have any third party verification.  One is to look at the agendas at stake.  Corapi’s supporters seem pretty content with their narrative that Fr. Sheehan and the SOLT want Corapi’s money and the Diocese of Corpus Christi is in the hands of the Devil.  This does not speak to Corapi’s own greed for his own money, the purported holiness of Bishop Mulvey, etc.    OTOH, we know Corapi is lying, or at least inveigling, becuase his own statements contradict themselves, and Fr. Sheehan has contradicted Corapi’s version of events.  And who in this situation has more reason to lie?

2.  Corapi has left the priesthood.  I’m enough of a traditionalist to say that’s a major black mark on any person’s record.  Some have compared him to Malachi Martin, but I’ve never been a particular admirer of Malachi Martin.   He announced his departure on the 20th anniversary of his ordination, even while having a “twentieth ordination anniversary sale” on his website!  Refer above to how unimportant the sacraments have suddenly become to him.  It’s shameful.  He stammers out that he’s “still a priest” on today’s statement, but Fr. Sheehan said in his interview that Corapi submitted a formal request for laicization.

3.  Fr. Corapi’s supporters are hypocrites.  They’re saying “Don’t criticize a priest” regarding Fr. Corapi then badmouthing Bishop Mulvey, Fr. Sheehan, the SOLT in general and the bishops in general.  They’re saying “don’t calumniate,” even as they calumniate Corapi’s accuser, based only on his word.  They’re saying “don’t judge” and “we don’t know all the facts” even while insisting on their judgements that Fr. Corapi speaks the TRUTH and that Fr. Corapi is “A Holy Priest.”  They reaffirm my old maxim that “judge not” works both ways.

There are a lot of similar themes in this discussion to the Medjugorje issue, and a lot of the same people on both sides.  One of those themes is “the corruption in the Church.”  As with Medjugorje, the only loose, much less substantial, charges of financial or sexual corruption are in Corapi’s court.

4.  Corapi’s supporters are proving everything that Shea, Scalia and others said on Friday, and that some of Corapi’s critics have said all along.  On Facebook, one of my FB friends who’s a Carmelite nun said in all charity that she didn’t think Fr. Corapi was cut out for religious life and might do better as a layman, after all, and Corapi’s fanatics attacked her, questioning whether she was even a nun, etc.!  I’ve seen priests and deacons maligned on their blogs and FB walls by these people, who are saying things like, “How can you malign another priest, you evil priest?!”

5.  Corapi has taught the wrong kind of spiritual warfare.  I’ve seen a whole list of people I admire fall down similar paths to Corapi: Bud Macfarlane (who did to his family what Corapi did to his priesthood); Fr. Euteneuer, and others.  One of the common threads is an overly militaristic view of spirituality, which sounds OK but after seeing so many people with that view going off their rockers, I wonder.  In any case, Corapi’s preaching blurred the line between authentic spiritual warfare–fighting the evil tendencies in ourselves while also trying to fight the ability of demons to tempt or torment ourselves and others–while a more Muslim view of it.  Over the years, many of Corapi’s critics have accused him of making too much of an “us-versus-them” attitude within the Church, and his supporters’ actions over the past few days have validated that concern about his preaching.  If you’re not totally 100% on Fr. Corapi’s side, they see you as an agent of the Devil.

I remember reading someone with a similar critique of Bud Macfarlane’s teachings on “spiritual warfare.”  Macfarlane popularized an idea called “E5 Men,” spun off Medjugorje’s extreme fasting requirements, whereby a man is expected to fast on bread and water every Wednesday for his wife, mother, etc.  Macfarlane referred to it as spiritual “special forces” and made an analogy about blasting the Devil with a heavy machine gun.  The priest who was critiquing Macfarlane’s metaphor said, “Is he talking about blasting the Devil with a machine gun, or his wife?”

Something similar was at work in Corapi’s teaching, and I’ve often read people suggesting it, but I thought they were misunderstanding him.  Now that I’ve seen the fruits of his teaching in people’s hearts, I see that his critics were right all along.

6. While simultaneously insisting on how Fr. Corapi is important because of all the good he’s done for the Church, and because he’s a voice for “the Truth,” his supporters are denouncing in his name many others who have done good for the Church: Bishop Mulvey, Fr. Sheehan, Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, Patrick Madrid, Al Kresta, various bloggers, including priests and nuns and deacons.  They’re even talking about trying to shut down EWTN to protests permanent cancellation of Corapi’s programming!  The Devil is certainly at work here, and it’s not among Fr. Corapi’s critics.

7. Speaking of “right all along,” there are a number of issues people have been concerned about and talked about since before this story broke in March.  One is Corapi’s mysterious alleged illness and disappearance from public view for a couple years.  Another is the fake suntan and dyed Goatee which he’s been sporting since his return to the public eye.  Another is the question of his finances.  None of these things indicate a man of humility and poverty.  Fr. Sheehan has said that on several occasions he’s tried to reach out to Fr. Corapi to get him to come back and live in community with the SOLT (which is not an order but still trying to achieve that status.  When Fr. Flanagan original set the order up, he gave the priests a lot of leeway and did not require a vow of poverty.  The society’s 1994 constitutions changed those terms).

Then there’s the question of his priestly faculties.  The Diocese of Corpus Christi claimed that Fr. Corapi never even had faculties in their diocese.  He lives in Kallispell, Montana, and yet has had no faculties granted to him by the Diocese of Helena.  This is most important, because a priest cannot administer sacraments in a diocese without the bishop’s approval.  It doesn’t matter where he’s incardinated.  Even if he’s incardinated in Corpus Christi, he can’t administer sacraments in Montana without the approval of the local bishop.  Ordinarily (no pun intended), this requirement is delegated to the local pastor.  A priest who’s just visiting town is really expected to check in with the local pastor and say, “Hi, I’m visiting!  Can I have faculties while I’m visiting your parish?”
But we’re talking about where he was *living*.  So, his whole day to day situation was thumbing its nose not only at the usual norms of religious life but at Canon Law itself.

Some who are more honest have said that the themes and tone of his conferences have changed in recent years.  Others say they don’t like the “Rock Star” persona he has developed.

8.  Speaking of being a bit too militaristic in his spirituality, I had recently come back to listening to him regularly for the last month or two before this whole ting started.  It had been a while, since I got to the point where I figured I had heard all he had to say.  Well, given how my own thought has gone over the past few years, I was extremely uncomfortable with the literal militarism of his talks–I was uncomfortable with that before, but more willing to give it a pass.

9.  The “Black Sheepdog” Metaphor, which has apparently been at work for quite some time, since it’s the title of his autobiography.  It’s kind of creepy, as many have said.  I understand his alleged reasoning, but the problem with a sheepdog is that the sheepdog needs a shepherd: otherwise, it will eat the sheep.  The graphic is creepy.  The metaphor is creepy.

10.  Ex-priests are not really supposed to write or speak.  There are things an ordinary layman can do that an ex priest cannot.  An ex-priest cannot do anything that falls under the ordinary duties of a priest.  He cannot serve as an EMC, lector, cantor or usher.  He cannot serve as a catechist or theology professor.  Exceptions are sometimes made where ex-priests are permitted to teach in Catholic institutions in places where they were not known as priests, so as not to cause scandal, but the general rule of thumb is that a priest is an ex-priest for a reason.  In Corapi’s case, he has already sown a lot of disobedience against the hierarchy by his speeches of 6/17 and 6/20.

So, in obedience to the Church, I will *not* be following the “Black Sheepdog,” at least not as a “fan” or “admirer.”  I strongly advise others to steer clear of his new “ministry.”  God, as I said yesterday, does not “need” another pundit or speaker.  God needs holy priests who are praying and administering sacraments, even if only in private.

This is a horrible tragedy.  Yes, Corapi deserves our prayers.  No, we should not “throw stones” at him.  However, we should also not enable him in his rebellion against the Church, a rebellion he engages in while protesting his loyalty to the Church.  I urge you, in charity, as a brother in Christ, to stay away from this man.  He may have the sugar-coating of apparent truth, but the substance of his message is poison to the soul.

http://www.thecatholicpost.com/post/PostArticle.aspx?ID=1968
http://www.ncregister.com/father-corapis-bombshell.html
http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/06/18/gentle-bishop-mulvey-of-corpus-christi/
http://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/father-corapi-priest-or-black-sheep-dog/
http://bloggerpriest.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/father-corapi-not-sheep-dog-but-black-wolf/comment-page-2/#comment-720
http://www.patheos.com/community/deaconsbench/2011/06/20/corapi-unleashed/
http://www.patheos.com/community/deaconsbench/2011/06/19/corapis-superior-we-wanted-him-to-come-back-to-the-community/
http://www.patheos.com/community/deaconsbench/2011/06/19/following-the-black-sheep-dog-down-the-rabbit-hole/
http://www.patheos.com/community/theanchoress/2011/06/20/dog-day-afternoon/
http://www.ncregister.com/fr.-corapi-has-lost-it.html
http://www.patheos.com/community/theanchoress/2011/06/19/the-corapi-investigation-what-it-is/
http://www.patheos.com/community/theanchoress/2011/06/20/ewtns-statement-on-corapi/
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2011/06/analysis-of-holes-in-fr-corapis-story.html
http://marysaggies.blogspot.com/2011/06/i-will-not-defend-fr-corapi-i-will.html

Advertisements

18 responses to “Why I Will Follow the Shepherds, not the “Sheepdog”

  1. I really appreciate this post. I learned some things I did not know, even though I have been following this situation pretty closely. Some people who had been following the Fr. Euteneur situation closely actually saw this coming. I was not one of those people at first, but now I see how right they were. God have mercy on us all.

  2. I’m still in a wait and see mode. The sale has been going on for a while, and indicated that something was happening under foot. In my wait and see mode, I will be faithful to the Church at all points. That’s forever. I chose my Catholic faith because I saw Truth. I cannot abandon it because of a struggle between church MEN. The Catechism Series is all I need, and it’s all I had. I miss him on EWTN. The militaristic tone came from the 9/11 tragedy. There are other great speaker priests out there. If John Corapi appears to be veering away from Catholic teaching, I will be veering away from him. Again, I’ll wait and see how this all plays out.

  3. My heart sank when I learned that Corapi withdrew his Priesthood(Capital P), no longer able to validly consecrate. I have been concerned for some time, especially when his site ‘sold’ homilies. I bought one once, then was not thrilled to discover that it basically talked about his good and true earlier talks about ‘chemistry’ between a man and a woman and how it could ‘blow up.’ I never bought another homily. It just doesn’t seem right, and it didn’t tie well to the days readings. I was also concerned when he started sporting a dyed goatee. I pray for him and will continue to do so.I believe he was attacked horribly by the worst and deadliest Pride. I could be wrong, he just doesn’t appear to be about humility and obedience at this time in his life and needs our prayers more so now than ever.

  4. This is my first time reading your blogs and I am thankful that I have. I know how important it is to investigate to get answers. I too like many have been a follower of Fr. Corapi, and did learn so much watching the Catechism Series. He did set me on fire for my Catholic faith once again and for that I am thankful. As all of this has been unfolding I began seeing that he starting to show signs of falsehood. I did not want to believe that a priest who preached about the church and Our Mother with such conviction as he has was guilty of what he is being accused of. After reading his Black Sheep Dog posts and reading other comments from blogs such as this one I am inclined to believe that Fr. Corapi is in dire straits. It is very sad to see a priest once again being accused of wrong doings. I like so many others will pray that he heals from whatever he is suffering from. May God keep watch over all of our priests.

    • Thanks, Cecelia, one of the many reasons I’m taking this so seriously is that I, too, have found great inspiration from Fr. Corapi’s talks. When this whole thing started in March, I just recently resumed watching him regularly. We got Dish Network last fall after years of no cable, and I put Fr. Corapi on DVR. I had come to rely on my weekly dose of Fr. Corapi’s teachings, and–as I did back when I used to listen to him regularly in Virginia–was taking a bit of advice from each week’s show and trying to implement it in my life that week. I would call my dad up and share some of the great things in that program. Even when they were shows I’d seen before, I still watched them all the way through to get new insights.
      It is precisely because I’m so familiar with Fr. Corapi, yet not fanatically loyal and also professionally trained in critical thinking, that I can look at the things he’s saying now and say, “This doesn’t even sound like the same person.”
      And while I occasionally deal with controversies such as this, I generally try to stick to apologetics, spirituality, culture and pro-life issues. I hope you will come back for more ordinary topics.

  5. I find Father’s withdrawal from the priesthood to be disturbing, as well. But it is equally disturbing how many people are building their “case” against him. and genorously entitling everyone to their opinion, when new facts are constantly emerging.

    I think patience and prayer in the absence of condemnation will serve us all in this bad situation that seems to have no good place to go for either “side”.

    • Soblessed,

      There are three separate issues involved:
      1) The accusations against him, which I am granting the benefit of the doubt on, even in spite of the fact that he has done everything he can to make himself look guilty.
      2) His departure from the priesthood. There was a time when *any* priest who left the priesthood would be anathema to a good Catholic. I know Malachi Martin changed that with some people, but I for one have never put much stock in Malachi Martin, either, and Martin’s work has done a great deal to cause division and dissent on the Right wing of the Church. His leaving the priesthood in these circumstances is scandalous alone, much less his assistance on continuing to be a public figure. How many people are frequenting the new “ministry” of Dave Stone, the former Fr. Francis Mary, FMVA? Is he still a “good and holy priest” even though he procured laicization, married a woman and started some kind of self-help “ministry”? What about Alberto Cutie? I don’t see how Corapi is different from any of these people.
      3) The question of whether he was properly representing the Society of Our Lady of the Trinity *before* all this: the question of his millions of dollars (or the fact that he engaged in a highly publicized lawsuit at all), the question of his rock star status, the question of how he surrounded himself with adoring females, and the question of his change in persona over the past few years. Fr. Sheehan has made clear that he’s been trying for some time to get Fr. Corapi to act more in community with his order. Of course, Corapi’s supporters say, “Sheehan just wants his money” and garbage like that.
      Even of Corapi is exonerated in #1, nothing will change #2. He has requested laicization: case closed. At this point, only a special decree from the Pope would restore him to the priesthood–if he ever even requests it.

      If Corapi had not made this public, no condemnation would be necessary. When I learned how Fr. Euteneuer was found guilty of the accusations against him, I avoided writing a blog post about that–after all, Fr. Euteneuer willingly accepted the Church’s censure. As long as Corapi continues to make these public statements, they will be fodder for public discussion, and I discern something in his public statements that I believe needs to be responded to, and I don’t see anyone else offering such response, then I will make such response.

  6. Rose, yes. I’ve been following the Fr. Euteneuer situation though I haven’t commented on it much. One of the things that bothers me is so many people still think Fr. E. was falsely accused and are speaking of him favorably, even though the verdict has come down against him from his diocese.

  7. Godsgadfly:

    I hear in your choice of words indignation over not just this scandal, but all of the persistent, battering, never-ceasing scandals that seem to be rocking our Church now. I understand how you feel and what you wrote.

    I don’t, however, share your need to condemn Corapi and in my admittedly very humble opinion, I think you are evidencing something of a lack of charity.

    For example, you wrote
    “the question of his rock star status”
    Corapi is a very talented speaker and writer and his style appeals to more than a few people. That there is an element within that group that elevates him to, as you say, “rock-star status” has absoloutely no bearing on what he is preaching. He has NEVER in my hearing encouraged anyone to regard him as anything other than a sinner who has unworthily been graced by God. In fact, I have heard him chastise people for calling him holy. Is he secretly “proud” of his status? Shrug. Beats me; that’s between him and his confessor. But I find it uncharitable to condemn him based on the excessive regard of others…..most of whom he has never met and doesn’t in the least know on even a superficial level.

    “surrounded himself with adoring females”
    First, I would ask you to be more specific. Exactly to whom are you referring? Which females? Where? When? I have seen him speak both on TV and in person and I cannot recall seeing even one female with him or working in anything other than a purely professional capacity with him. Your wording strongly implies he preyed upon and manipulated vulnerable women to his own advantage. A serious accusation and completely unsubstantiated as far as I have seen

    To address your itemized list:

    1. The accusations:

    In some ways, to me these are the least of the issue. Either he’s guilty and needs our prayers to correct this behavior or he’s innocent and needs our prayers just as much to remain strong in the face of adversity. He is human and sin WILL enter his life. The much bigger issue, IMO, is how he handles having sinned.

    2. The priesthood:

    As far as leaving the priesthood goes, I have already addressed that I personally find it disturbing, possibly even sinful. Leaving the priesthood, however, is a discernment just as entering the priesthood is a discernment. If the discernment to be a priest was not clear initially, then perhaps the call was to something different. In thiscase, truly following God’s will requires a painful change. Of course, I have no way of knowing if that is that case or not….hence my statement that it could be sinful. What is clearr, however, is that he has done this after a period of prayer and reflection (even if the time spent thus seems “too short” to us). Is it the “right” decision? I really don’t think so….in as much as I know of being a priest. But again, that is between him and the Lord. (BTW, leaving the priesthood might mean you can’t be a good and holy “priest” but it does not necessarily bar you from being a good and holy “person”). I think his leaving the priesthood may be a reactionary and impulsive act on the part of a man who clearly finds obedience to be difficult. But I don’t think it makes him a bad man or keeps him from potential holiness any more than my mistakes make me a bad woman or keep me from turning back to the Lord. And I don’t think it means it’s open season on his character because of it, either.

    3 SOLT

    At the time Corapi entered SOLT, he discerned that his call was not to living in community. SOLT respected that and allowed him to live seperately and under his own individual finances. He receives no room, board, stipend or allowance from the Church in accordane with their original agreement. Now, SOLT wants to change the “rules” and ask that he live in community, in direct opposition to what he has identified as his calling from the Lord. Whether or not priests should live in community is not the issue, The issue is that Corapi was operating in good faith under the terms of his agreement with SOLT….that he does not jump to change the rules in the middle of the game, as it were, does not necessarily reflect badly on him, IMO.

    As far as Corapi “making this public” goes, he had no choice. It was made public as soon as his order decided to place him on administrative leave.

    The point of my post wasn’t that I agree with Corapi’s decisions. It was about how disturbing I find it that many people react with assasination of the man’s character rather than sadness and an assurance of prayers.

    • So, let’s see, you say I’m wrong for reading into Fr. Corapi’s statements and supposedly being “judgemental” of his soul, yet you’re claiming to read into my words what I’m secretly feeling or thinking?
      It is a typically female thing to reduce everything to emotions. C. S. Lewis called that method of argumentation “Bulverism.”

      I will respond to one point you’ve made: when I talk about his “rock star” status, and being surrounded by “adoring females,” consider the blogosphere: when it comes to his critics, there seems to be a fair equality of genders, particularly since many of his critics are priests and deacons who find his abandonment of Holy Orders and criticisms of the hierarchy very distressing.

      On the other hand, most of his most vocal supporters are women. He used to even brag, and I’d laugh when he said it, at how men generally didn’t like his talks but women loved to listen to him. I’m not saying he necessarily engaged in any sins against chastity, or that he was manipulating vulnerable women. I’m saying that he enjoys their adulation a bit too much, period. I never went to one of his conferences, but my wife and I did go to a conference by Fr. Bing Arellano a few years ago, and it was the same thing: a room full of women, all hanging on his every word. It was all, “Fr. Bing’s a canon lawyer and an exorcist,” and that those two alleged titles made him *infallible* on *everything*, including off the wall conspiracy theories (most of the “spiritual retreat” consisted of his talking about various conspiracy theories and talking about how it’s almost impossible to go to Heaven if you’re a layperson; there was very little actual spirituality discussed, except of the most scrupulous and superstitious kind).

      Now, Fr. Corapi’s teachings were much more solid than Fr. Bing’s, but there are definitely themes of his personal opinions that he let slip into his talks that people mixed in with “he’s 100% orthodox.” And there’s definitely a predominantly female persuasion to his fandom. This is not as true of many other “celebrity priests” and “professional lay Catholics” or whoever, whose audiences seem to be more gender-mixed.

      There are basic dictates of prudence and discretion which seem to go out the window where certain movements in the Church are concerned.

  8. “It is a typically female thing to reduce everything to emotions”

    And it’s a typically male thing to try and point out “bad” things about another male when jealous of said male’s popularity.

    I didn’t read anything into your comments….in fact several times I quoted your very words. Take ownership of what you write and how it may be perceived by others, even if it wasn’t your intention.

    Corapi’s style appealed to women more than to men and that is your basis for claiming he surrounded himself with “adoring females”? I really don’t buy it.

    “prudence and discretion”

    So, you’re saying what? That Corapi has to have an equal mix of male and female in order to be in compliance with your definition of “prudence and discretion?”.

    • Again, there you accuse me of being jealous of Corapi’s popularity, and you think I’m being judgemental, uncharitable, etc.?

      That’s the whole strategy of Corapi’s supporters, which is the only reason I’m fighting this battle so strongly: condemn anyone who criticizes him of everything in the book and then at the same time insist on “charity” and “nonjudgmentalism”–applied only to Corapi himself.

      Corapi can label his bishop a blackmailer and an agent of Satan, and that’s OK. Corapi can call Fr. Sheehan a liar, and that’s OK. Corapi can call into question the entirety of Canon Law, and that’s OK. Corapi can say, “The Church threw me under the bus,” and that’s OK, but anyone who criticizes how he has been conducting himself in general or how he’s been acting in the past week in particular is being “judgemental.”

      • Gadsfly:

        First, I wasn’t accusing you of being jealous as much as I was parroting your response. If you find it uncharitable, perhaps that is very telling.

        I have condemned you for nothing. I have pointed to what I perceive as a lack of charity in your characterizaion of Corapi’s motives for the actions he’s taken. You may agree or disagree with that…I am not your judge at all. If you feel I have been equally uncharitable in my responses to you, then that is my sin to repent of. If I was uncharitable in my response to you, then I apologize. I think, however, you already know that even if I have sinned in my response to you, it does not neutralize your own lack of charity in the first place. God forbid that one man’s sin is permissable because another has done it as well!

        If you perceive that some of Corapi’s supporters are excessive or illogical in their defense of him, then that is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. No matter the response of Corapi’s supporters, however, I still submit that to connect his actions (the facts) with your interpretation of his motives (assumptions) evidences a lack of charity. And we are called to charity by Christ Himself. In Mark 10, a man who, by description, is a faithful follower of God, walks away from Christ b/c he cannot bear to part with his worldly goods. How does Christ react? He makes a simple statement related to the man’s actions for the good of His disciples, but He does not in the least make any character judgements regarding the sinner…and if anyone were in a position to judge the rich man’s character, it would be Him. Yet, He doesn’t. He simply uses the incident to warn His disciples, in a general way, about stumbling blocks on the path to following Him.

        I get it that you don’t like the respons of some of Corapi’s supporters I really get it. And it’s fine if you think they are wrong. I’m just saying don’t let your indignation lead you into ascribing motives to the man’s actions that you have no way of knowing. It could lead yourself and others into a signifiant lack of charity.

        As an example, this statement:

        “Corapi can label his bishop a blackmailer and an agent of Satan…”.

        Nowhere did I hear Corapi make this statement at all. He has certainly pointed out that there are flaw in the current zero-tolerance policy and that there are bishops complicit in using this policy to further their personal agendas, but this statement you have made is a gross exaggeration, ascribing a specific slander to a general statement.

        I simply urge you for the sake of yourself and for those who read your comments to consider carefully if you are accurately representing a situation or if your indignation is carrying you into a very gray area..

  9. BTW, a very good commentary by Michael Voris that I find to say, in a far clearer and more concise way than I have, exactly what I mean when I point out the sin (lack of charity) of those so eager to point out the sin of Corapi.

    • I just love it when people start debating who’s *not* being “charitable” and when “charity” gets conflated with “niceness.”

  10. Seems like your deflecting the issue here. Whether you term it “niceness” or “charity” the fact of the matter is you are called by Christ to love Corapi as you love yourself. Have you done this? If you are satisfied that you have, then the issue of what you call it is simply semantic nonsense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s