Monday, June 20, 2011

I Will Not Defend Fr. Corapi. I Will Defend Bishop Mulvey.

Here is a very quick summation about the Fr. Corapi affair:

-Fr. Corapi was suspended by order of Bishop Mulvey, of Corpus Christi, because of allegations by a former employee of his apostolate. We do not know if the allegations are true.
-Fr. Corapi has been suspended all of 4 months when he announced he is leaving the priesthood and his order so that he can continue his ministry. In doing so, he threw the following under the bus:
  1. The Catholic Church's investigative process.
  2. His accuser.
  3. Bishop Mulvey.
As to #1 - I am not a fan of certain parts of the process, and because it isn't a perfect process, I believe some criticisms are very valid. That does NOT mean that Corapi is being unjustly treated - we just don't know enough to make support the claims one way or the other.

As to #2 - we don't know enough, so no comment.

As to #3 - I know Bishop Mulvey and can say this. He does not deserve the treatment he is getting from Corapi. You see, Bishop Mulvey is the kind of man who will not come out with both guns blazing in order to defend himself. In other words, he isn't like me. He is a humble servant of God and a very good priest and Bishop.

He didn't go looking for a fight with Corapi, but was dragged into it because of an accusation that was brought to his attention. What was he to do? He had to launch an investigation and the most prudent thing was to pull Corapi from active ministry until the investigation could go forward.

We still don't know if the accusations against Corapi are true or not and we may never know. But, here is what we do know:
  1. The legal processes, both in the courts and the Church, are flawed.
  2. Fr. Corapi needs our prayers.
  3. Bishop Mulvey needs our prayers.
  4. The accuser needs our prayers.
  5. The Church needs our prayers.
  6. Fr. Corapi was asked to stop living by himself, on a ranch in Montana, and join his congregation.
  7. Fr. Corapi was a priest of the Diocese of Corpus Christi and took a vow of obedience to his superiors. This vow has been broken.
  8. This scandal is dealt with by Canon Law, not the Dallas Charter for the protection of children.
  9. Because Corapi is walking away from the priesthood, the Church's investigation is over. The legal courts will now deal with it alone.
  10. God is a Provident Father and can bring good out of any situation.

If Corapi "quit" because of an unjust situation, then he probably still made the wrong decision. It seems the decision to re-brand himself outside of the priesthood must have been made a while ago. Which means he only gave the process a few short months, at best. What would we think of St. Padre Pio if he quit in the face of injustice? What about Jesus quitting his vocation in the face of injustice?

At best, we have a wounded man who feels pushed out of the priesthood, because he sees no other way to continue to do what he feels called to do. This has created a huge scandal with many unanswered questions. It has also sullied the names of many others, including Bishop Mulvey, which I believe is an injustice.

At worst, Corapi is guilty of what he is accused and is now throwing others who oppose him under the bus in order to keep his reputation and increase his bank account.

Either way it is a terrible scandal, which is magnified because of Corapi's decision.

We may never know the details, but God does.

So, what do we do now? We pray. We believe. We have hope. We love.
Even in the face of scandal.

I will turn comments on for this post, but no attacks on anyone will be tolerated.

Corapi Issues a Second Statement...this one is quite sad. Here is a summation of it:
  • He says he had "no choice" because he would never be reinstated to public ministry.
  • He goes on to say it doesn't matter if he can't celebrate the Sacraments. He goes on to say he never did much Sacramental ministry anyway.
  • He continues to vehemently defend himself and says the accusations are false. He says the leadership of the Church is killing and attacking him.
  • So, why did he resign? Because his lawyers concluded "it would be next to impossible to receive a fair and just outcome." Then he defends his civil lawsuit and continues to defame the accuser as an alcoholic and "emotional erratic behavior", who is trying to extort money from him.
  • He even tells someone who accuses him of using cocaine (which is a pitiful accusation) to "put up or shut up".) He even says he will pay him $100,000 in one day if it is proven correct. I guess he has some serious cash.
  • He says "I didn't start this" and that "a very very sick woman" did. Then, the authorities through him under the bus like "yesterday's garbage" and yet he is "not bitter about it". 
Ug. This really doesn't help, but makes the whole thing uglier.

Listen to the statement here.

**I stand by this statement:
At best, we have a wounded man who feels pushed out of the priesthood, because he sees no other way to continue to do what he feels called to do. This has created a huge scandal with many unanswered questions. It has also sullied the names of many others, including Bishop Mulvey, which I believe is an injustice.

At worst, Corapi is guilty of what he is accused and is now throwing others who oppose him under the bus in order to keep his reputation and increase his bank account.
SOLT, Corapi's community, has released a statement:
Official SOLT Statement Regarding Fr John Corapi
As the Regional Priest Servant of the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity (SOLT), I issue the following statement on behalf of the Society.

On 16 March 2011, the Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas, and the SOLT received a complaint against Fr. John Corapi, SOLT. As is normal procedure and due to the gravity of the accusation alleging conduct not in concert with the priestly state or his promises as a member of an society of apostolic of diocesan right, Fr. Corapi was suspended from active ministry (put on administrative leave) until such a time that the complaint could be fully investigated and due process given to Fr. Corapi. In the midst of the investigation, the SOLT received a letter from Fr. Corapi, dated June 3, 2011, indicating that, because of the physical, emotional and spiritual distress he has endured over the past few years, he could no longer continue to function as a priest or a member of the SOLT. Although the investigation was in progress, the SOLT had not arrived at any conclusion as to the credibility of the allegations under investigation.

At the onset, the Bishop of Corpus Christi advised the SOLT to not only proceed with the policies outlined in their own constitution, but also with the proper canonical procedures to determine the credibility of the allegations against Fr. Corapi. We reiterate that Fr. Corapi had not been determined guilty of any canonical or civil crimes. If the allegations had been found to be credible, the proper canonical due process would have been offered to Fr. Corapi, including his right to defense, to know his accuser and the complaint lodged, and a fair canonical trial with the right of recourse to the Holy See. On June 17, 2011, Fr. John Corapi issued a public statement indicating that he has chosen to cease functioning as a priest and a member of the SOLT.

The SOLT is deeply saddened that Fr. Corapi is suffering distress. The SOLT is further saddened by Fr. Corapi’s response to these allegations. The SOLT will do all within its power to assist Fr. Corapi if he desires to seek a dispensation from his rights and obligations as a priest and as a professed member of the SOLT. We request your prayers and the intercession of the Blessed Mother for the healing of Fr. Corapi and for any who have been negatively affected by Fr. Corapi’s decision to end his ministry as a priest and a member of the SOLT.

Fr Gerrard Sheehan, SOLT
Regional Priest Servant


Christina said...

Thank you, every other post on this was so angry I couldn't figure out what he had done wrong. So, from what I understand, the terms are as follows:

suspension = still a priest under authority of the bishop but unable to administer the sacraments

leaving the priesthood = separating oneself from the authority of the bishop.

Is this correct?

Marcel said...

Christina - you are correct. Corapi's decision was to separate himself.

Ed said...

I'm a bit confused by the wording or Corapi leaving the priesthood or is he just continuing to do things in public without identifying himself as a priest, thus skirting the not practicing in public that he's been asked to do?

Either way, this is an odd situation where only the players know all the details.

Ed said...

Is he separating himself or is he simply going to continue public work without identifying himself as a priest? He does not renounce his Ordination,but does seem to be skirting the ban on public ministry.

Muhayerboy said...

This entire situation is so sad for all parties involved. Now we will probably never know the truths in this matter. Prayers are needed for all parties

Michael said...

In case you have not seen this, it looks a little more complicated:

Marcel said...

ED - He is leaving the priesthood. If he stayed, he would have to continue to be obedient to his superiors, continue in the investigation, etc.

Chris Duffel said...

Just out of curiosity, if Corapi comes to realize his error in the situation and decides to make amends with the Church, what could happen? Could he be reinstated with all of his priestly faculties? Or would be only be able to return in good faith as a layperson.

(I'm wondering about a best case scenario here.)

David said...

As I've posted on other blogs, former-Fr. Corapi has the potential to do great spiritual harm to himself, the Catholic faithful, and the Catholic Church as a whole. I have started a Novena to St. John Vianney for him, and I encourage others who care about him and the Church to do the same.

Phil Onochie said...

I do think we have history to inform us. We know good and holy priests have been persecuted injustly. To name a few, St. Gabriel Majella, St. Theresa Avila, St. Joseph Cuppertino,Mary MacKollop(sp) and a host of others...the most popular being Padre Pio.

We know that these saints could have said many things, and done many things in their defence.

We also know that they did not, because they recognized Church authority, no matter how banal it may have been.

Silence in the time of scandal is a virtue.

In all the cases of priests and nuns being accused of being frauds, to the point of being laicized or suspended, none of them took it upon themselves to remove the burden by taking off their habits and walking away from their vocations.

In the end, even centuries after their deaths, they are always vindicated.

I have a lesson to learn from this. The lesson is that I have to pray everyday to do God's will even in trials and tribulations- To bear wrong doing well, where I do not end up embarrassing the Church or her Bishops.

It is even harder now, to look at this whole situation, even without knowing all the facts, without being slanted to stand up for official Church authorities.

Holy Church is our Mother, and for her, I am grateful.


Marcel said...

Chris - Unless he were to ask for a legal process to have his ordination examined (and it were proven his ordination was invalid), the Church considers his ordination true and he is still a priest.

The question of the investigation would still be in place even if he came back on his knees. I am guessing (and am open to correction here) he would still be on administrative leave, pending the outcome of the investigation. He would then have to repent of abandoning his vows and the prudential judgment of his superiors would then be the determining factor of whether he would ever exercise a public ministry again.

Marcel said...

I might also point out that in the current "limbo" of his still being a priest, but leaving the active ministry, he cannot administer any Sacraments, give talks in any Catholic facility, etc.

My guess is he will never again function as a Catholic priest.

Baron Korf said...

Apparently my last comment got caught in moderation, so this time I'll be nice.

I will say that it is disappointing that you and so many other good bloggers are expounding on theories and speculation rather than sticking to the facts. (i.e. gossip mongering)

We know he will no longer be participating in active ministry as a priest. We do not know if he is pursuing laicization, or simply continuing within the bounds of his suspended faculties.

We know that he submitted a letter of resignation to SOLT, they have responded, but haven't heard back yet. As such we do not know if he will submit if they refuse his resignation.

We know the investigation was on indefinite hold until Fr. Corapi dropped the civil suit against his accuser.

We know he was asked to move into community, we do not know if he was compelled to. SOLT admitted that the situation with Fr. Corapi had been awkward for some time since the rules changed since he was given permission to set up shop there.

Marcel said...

I have stuck to the facts. They may not be presented in the way Corapi wants them framed, but they are facts, nonetheless.

Baron Korf said...

No, you haven't.

You accuse him of disobedience, but you don't know if he left with or without permission. You might make a reasonable guess, but you don't know.

Likewise you assert that the Bishop is blameless based on your relationship with him. Perhaps a fair assumption, but without evidence it is not a fact.

Marcel said...

The issue is quite clear - - and I quote:
"The investigation was halted after 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."

He has resigned (walked away). They can't "refuse it". He is gone. He is disobedient.

I didn't say the Bishop was blameless, I said he doesn't deserve the treatment (read it as disrespect from someone who has taken a vow of obedience) that Corapi is giving him.

You are looking for something here that isn't here. You might find it on other blogs, but you won't here.

Baron Korf said...

It is my understanding a letter of resignation has to be accepted, otherwise it is called quitting. (e.g. Bishops are required to tender their resignation at a given age, but the Pope is not required to accept it. D. Rumsfeld tendered his resignation twice, and was turned down.) Fr. Sheehan did not give a timeline on when he received the letter or when he responded. Also the two people who have the right and authority to denouce him for disobedience (his bishop and his superior) have not done so. So it is a matter of speculation if he is acting outside of the legal bounds of his position.

There is worse elsewhere, you just have the unfortunate honor of being someone I respect who also ended up being the straw the broke the camel's back.

Marcel said...

This is not the same kind of resignation and isn't governed by the same laws.

In other words, he quit.

Baron Korf said...

You know that?

Marcel said...

Yes. Basically he has "laicized" himself. This means that he will outwardly function as a lay person, while still being considered a priest. In canon law this is called "loss of the clerical state".

Unless something else happens, he is still a Catholic in good standing.

Michael said...

How heartbreaking. His defensive response seems the all-too-common deep denial of egotistical celebrities. Is leaving the priesthood his version of "Winning!" Lord have mercy.

C said...

Thank you for posting a clear and fair summary of what is going on, and for sharing appropriate links and updates. It is a sad situation all around. I believe we're being called to respond with prayer for all involved. May God's will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.

Simon said...

I don't buy it. It's not correct that Bp. Mulvey was "dragged into it." There was no need for him to involve himself at all. He could have said "he's not a priest in my diocese, so it's up to SOLT." Nor is it correct that "the most prudent thing was to pull Corapi from active ministry until the investigation could go forward." That would only be true in a case where the allegations suggested the possibility for further harm absent suspension (e.g. the classic abuse case where a parish priest is accused of serial actions against minors); here, suspension accomplished absolutely nothing except fueling Corapi's (not unreasonable) sense of injustice at his treatment.

I do think that your summation of the situation (seen from a charitable perspective to Corapi) is apt: "At best, we have a wounded man who feels pushed out of the priesthood, because he sees no other way to continue to do what he feels called to do. This has created a huge scandal with many unanswered questions. It has also sullied the names of many others, including Bishop Mulvey." It has not sullied the name of Corapi's accuser, of course, which is part of the problem. (I also agree that we have to constantly keep in mind the possibility that the man may be guilty—a possibility that his most ardent supporters are frustratingly unwilling to deal with. But that doesn't ameliorate the procedural injustice done to Corapi by SOLT and, we are told, Bp. Mulvey.)

Lastly, if his excellency feels that Corapi has placed him in a situation where allegations have been made against him without any real opportunity to clear his name, well, he surely sees the irony. I think a reasonable person would have to say that turnabout is fair play.

Simon said...

I missed one. I agree that "[i]f Corapi 'quit' because of an unjust situation, then he probably still made the wrong decision." I think that's right; three months isn't that long. (Although, I must say, it may have become clear during that three months that the situation couldn't be resolved, not that it was going to take some time. What we've learned today from SOLT points toward the former.) But I have no idea where you get the notion that "[i]t seems the decision to re-brand himself outside of the priesthood must have been made a while ago." I see not a shred of evidence for that proposition. We learned today, among other things, that he registered the trademark "the black sheep dog" a year ago because he was writing a book of that title. All we can infer from the evidence is that this situation blew up while he was working on the book and that he has repurposed it. Wordpress can be installed in five minutes, and to release a ten minute audio file on youtube is the work of an hour. It's simply unreasonable to draw the inference you did.

Brad said...

The Sacraments certainly do "matter", Father. We are all already dead men walking without them.

They equate to the bore hole for those trapped Chilean miners. We are those miners.

We must pray for any soul, especially priests innocent or guilty! Our Lady has requested it of us and she shall have it. No one deserves to go hang himself in despair -- what the faithful used to properly comprehend as acedia -- alone, not even Judas. Certainly no priest.

Robert Robbins said...

Being that I am a Catholic convert, I am subsequently naive to the ways of the Catholic Church. Still, I think it a grave scandal that a priest should be a millionaire. "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other: or he will hold the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

Patrick Sweeney said...

For argument's sake, if the process for accused priests were as Corapi described it, would it be a fair process?

Jeff Thompson said...

Seeing the way the Bishop Mulvey has been villafied by some of Corapi's supporters has made me to make a support page for Bishop Mulvey on Facebook , if any would like to join here is the link!/pages/I-support-Bishop-Mulvey/131816683565868

paul said...

I appreciate the post and I am struggling with this situation internally. One thing you mentioned though..
"Fr. Corapi was a priest of the Diocese of Corpus Christi and took a vow of obedience to his superiors. This vow has been broken."

This is not true. Father Corapi was not a priest of the Diocese of Corpus Christi. From my understanding, the order was founded by the former bishop but was never under the authority of the bishop himself. It appears that the superiors of the SOLT were pressured by the bishop to take this action. I'm not saying it was the wrong action, but the situation is slightly less clear than strict disobedience of the bishop by a diocesesan priest.

I'm personally struggling with this because I know a good priest who made some enemies in my parish for preaching the truth with great conviction. I myself got mad at him at first until I realized he was right and I was mad because he revealed my own weaknesses to me. Unfortunately he made the wrong people mad and was put on temporary suspension in the diocese. That was a little less than 15 years ago and he has yet to officially hear from our bishop (who, from what I can tell, is a good man) on his status. If this happened in my own parish, I would imagine that it is much more common than many people realize. Whether Father Corapi is going through something like this, I don't know. I just bring it up as an example.

When all is said and done, I still think Father Corapi should have obeyed. He's done a lot of work to save souls. I don't think anyone would blame him if he allowed himself to quietly fade away and concentrate on allowing Christ to save his soul now.

Richard W Comerford said...

Re: A few Points

Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Corpus Christi, and Bishop Mulvey's predecessor is enthusiastically defending Corapi. See

Corapi is not a religious. He has taken no vows. Corapi has accepted his suspension from the active ministry. He has not questioned Catholic faith or morals.

There is no prohibition in Canon Law preventing a priest from initiating a Civil Action. At the same time there is no leave granted in Canon Law for a Bishop or Superior to stop a Canonical investigation based on the initiation of a Civil Action by the accused.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

RJ said...

@Richard W Comerford I second your thoughts 100%. Thank you. For anyone making such a scurrious title on a blog as this does not deserve dignification with anymore staement from myself other than this: As a seminarian, you are told "The Church stands behind you".. how so if the guilt is a presumed one vs determined, first? 2nd, doesn't a Bishop have the obligation to confront the accuser and call for civil action first to make a determination if this is not a crank?

I have nothing else to add.

In Christ,
Robert Sledz
Chicago Catholic Archdiocese

Kevin said...


It is more the nature of the civil suit makes it near impossible to proceed without tainting both the civil and the ecclesiastical case.

Add that to the fact that these accusers were paid money to sign NDA's, it really clouds the process.

The reason the investigation is now ending is because Fr. Corapi is choosing to leave the priesthood.

When we say he is exhibiting a "disobedient" attitude, we mean it in the sense that rather than accepting the alleged injustice, he seeks to quit the priesthood, goes to the airwaves and tars and feathers his accusers, making accusations that are incredibly prejudicial (making it all but certain his accuser, whom he claimed not to know, will be identified, saying the case is more about her being a mentally disturbed drunk, etc.)

As a member of SOLT, he was subject to his superior. That much must be remembered.

Muhayerboy said...

On Obedience---Only if SOLT continued to require him to live with the community in Texas; a requirement that may not apply to all the Priests that had been allowed by the SOLT founder to live elsewhere.

He has only left his role as an active priest! Has your connection to the Bishop created a bias toward Corapi?

Richard W Comerford said...


"It is more the nature of the civil suit makes it near impossible to proceed without tainting both the civil and the ecclesiastical case."

In this age almost everything we do leaves an electronic trail that is easily followed. If Corapi's SOLT superior had merely complied with Canon Law, prior to suspending Corapi, and had clarified the accusations (who, what, when, where, why) reduced them to simple English on paper then any competent PI (employed by either SOLT or Corapi) could have verified the accusations. ( For example sordid relationships with multiple adult women usually involve phone calls, e-mails, flowers, gifts, travel arrangements, dinners, motel rooms etc.) This gum shoeing still and should be done by SOLT.

"The reason the investigation is now ending is because Fr. Corapi is choosing to leave the priesthood."

There is no allowance under Canon Law for ending a Canonical investigation simply because the subject has requested to change his status.

"When we say he is exhibiting a "disobedient" attitude"

Corapi has not yet disobeyed any orders from his lawful superiors.

"As a member of SOLT, he was subject to his superior."

Corapi has obediently accepted the suspension of his priestly ministry imposed upon him by his Superior.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Love Ya said...

I agree with your analysis! We who are from Diocese of Austin know Bishop Mulvey, because he was our Administrator after Bishop Aymond left. Bishop Mulvey is not the vindictive, dirty playing, Truth hater that Corapi paints him to be. He is a gentle man who, I'm sure, showed Corapi all the kindness he could during such a difficult time. My impression (I have worked in the Church for several years now) is that NO ONE in the Church hierarchy enjoys this process, or God forbid, uses an accusation to "go after" a priest. It was really low to put Bishop Mulvey in front of a firing squad. I hate to say it, but while Corapi may be able to talk the talk, he sure can't walk the walk!

Love Ya said...

Further point: The cases I have seen, even ones that seemed "unresolvable," have all been put to rest after about 6 months, one year at most. At that point, if the priest has been found innocent or rehabilitated, the priest is restored to public leadership. Don't forget that private mass can be celebrated throughout the whole time. I certainly understand that the process is heartbreaking and humiliating, but it DOES end. It takes incredible patience and fortitude to make it through such a trial. I don't fault Corapi too much for flipping out; I probably would do the same thing myself. I just feel for all the people who admired him and, based on the reputation he's so painstakingly built for himself as so "orthodox," rightly expected him to act with a little more heroic virtue.

MikeL said...

Im with Comerford on this.

Where is the disobedience?

Kraft said...

As far as him being a priest of Corpus Christi, he was a priest of SOLT, a society of apostolic life of diocesan right--which means that it is subject to the diocesan bishop who has the authority to request action (change of charism, way of life, habit, approve constitutional changes, etc).

This isn't like the local bishop demanding the Jesuits do something (as they are an order of pontifical right), since the local bishop's authority within a society of pontifical right is to dis-invite the order (or a particular priest) from his territory.

I don't know enough (nor honestly care) to comment on anything else, but Bp. Mulvey's role does seem to be in accord with the canonical status of SOLT.

In the end, this is a matter between a priest and the authorities of the church.

Muhayerboy said...

LoveYa has stated the issue simply and well

Richard W Comerford said...

Re: Perspective

Corapi who is neither a vowed religious nor a Diocesan priest, rather a member of a Diocesan Society of Apostolic Life (SOLT); has been accused, by a yet unknown to the public, woman of 1) sexual misconduct with adult women; 2) drug abuse. His SOLT Superior has since suspended Corapi. Corapi has accepted the suspension. Indeed Corapi now appears to desire to leave the active priesthood permanently. Corapi has further named his unknown to the public accuser as the defendant in a Civil Action. Finally Corapi's Superior has announced that there will be no Canonical investigation due to the aforementioned Civil Action.

In justice it should be pointed out that Corapi has violated no order from a lawful Superior. He has not denied any truth of the Faith nor challenged a point of doctrine. By all appearances he remains in full communion with the Bishop of Rome

So what makes Corapi's case so explosive? I suggest:

1. Corapi is of course a famous preacher.
2. His case comes on the tail of a 50-year Scandal wherein American Catholic Bishops not only failed to protect innocents from the lust of predatory priests but threw other innocent priest to the wolves.
3. All of the professional Catholics hosting sites in St. Blogdom have criticized Corapi, sometimes quite strongly (my hero Mark Shea used the word "evil")

I submit that there is something wrong here. And Corapi is not the disease but rather a symptom.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Ann said...

I am not sure John Corapi has been disobedient, but he has certainly done something wrong by publishing details of the accusation which should have remained private and calling his accuser and her husband names in public. That's wrong. I submit that there may be more than one disease here.

Richard W Comerford said...

Re: Civil Action

"he has certainly done something wrong by publishing details of the accusation which should have remained private and calling his accuser and her husband names in public"

Corapi has filed a Civil Action wherein he has named his accusers as defendants. HE could not have filed said action without identifying the defendants by their legal names. The procedural rules in the Civil Action may require Corapi to list all of the facts as he knows them.

"That's wrong. I submit that there may be more than one disease here

This is his right to file a Civil Action. There is no violation of Canon Law in so doing.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Ann said...

Ann: "That's wrong. I submit that there may be more than one disease here"

Richard W Comerford: "This is his right to file a Civil Action. There is no violation of Canon Law in so doing."

You misunderstood. "That's wrong" refers to calling a woman and her husband alcoholics on his website. It is NOT necessary to call people names on You Tube or a website in order to access one's civil or human rights. That is what the civil suit is for. I submit there is more than one disease here.

Richard W Comerford said...

RE: Name Calling

Corapi did not identify his accusers by name on his website. The credibility of his accusers rests in large part on their reputation for sobriety and reliability. If the counter accusation made by Corapi is true then he has the right to make it and make it publicly in that his suspension is public. , if his counter accusation is true it raises the question as to why Corapi was suspended without Canonical due process.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Ann said...

I thought it was one accuser whose accusations against John Corapi, made public by John Corapi, led to his suspension? Why would John Corapi have a right to publicly call a man an alcoholic because he is suing the man for violating a non-disclosure agreement?

As for calling the accuser (in the suspension case- another court entirely) an alcoholic because it affects her credibility and his suspension is public- the nature of the accusations are public because John Corapi made them so. He certainly shouldn't claim that because he told everyone, and now everyone knows, that he has a right to trash his accuser outside of the judicial process. That's sort of like the Menedez brothers asking for mercy from the court for killing their parents because they are orphans.

There something wrong with that.

Richard W Comerford said...


Corapi and his SOLT superior both made a public announcement regarding Corapi's suspension on the same day.

If Corapi has truthfully attacked his accuser's character (and in so doing defended his own good name) then Corapi is within his legal rights.

If Corapi has lied about his accuser's character then his accuser can counter sue Corapi for defamation.

God bless

Richard W Comerford