Posted on 04/04/2011 7:45:22 AM PDT by Mary Kochan
Unlike many cases of accused Catholic priests, accusations against Father John Corapi have focused a spotlight on due process in the Catholic Church.
"A zero-tolerance policy without due process that de facto impugns the reputations of the accused is immoral. The Church has a duty to protect the innocent, even if the innocent is a priest. Of course, the Church has a moral duty to make sure that the scandal of abuse and cover-up is never repeated, but it cannot willfully sacrifice the reputations of the innocent . . . The end does not justify the means. I do not know that any of this applies to the Father Corapi case, but we have seen this happen in other cases too and it is wrong" – Pat Archbold, March 20, 2011 at www.NCRegister.com/blog
Those are some of the sanest words I have read about the matter of Father John Corapi, a gifted priest who, at this writing, has been sidelined by accusations of sex and drug abuse brought by an unidentified adult woman.
Before I write further, I should point out that unlike many of those writing on this topic in the Catholic on-line world, I am not a follower of Father Corapi. I don’t dislike him either. His preaching style and message just haven’t touched me the way they seem to have touched many others. I simply mean to say that I am not a disgruntled fan driven to champion the cause of a spiritual icon whose good name has been cast into the abyss. If Father Corapi never preached in public again, that fact alone would elicit no emotional response from me beyond my concern for justice.
Yet I am deeply troubled, by a zero tolerance policy that treats accused priests as if they were guilty...
(Excerpt) Read more at catholiclane.com ...
” Where evil is defined as an act which is contrary to the moral code which is the embodied in the commandments. “ ========
How about this. Sexual liasons between a priest and a woman/women is a lesser evil than the same act turned vile with young boys who are under the charge of the priest. The Church’s zero tolerance and immediate administrative leave in this case is cheered, by both laity and public alike.
Now comes some innocent priest who is caught up in the same rule of course where the same application is grossly unfair. Simply put, it probably is a high price for the innocent to pay, but given the alternative, would you prefer the boy chasers be caught up in milder rules??
Question: for all the grumbling, who the heck has a better idea for an answer, that’s all I want to know????? What is the answer? Any bright ideas out there?
If someone is actually formally accused by the ordinary of a grave crime, then the accused definitely has a right to a canonical proceeding. But mere suspension and investigation are not an accusation. Corapi has not been formally accused of anything, to our knowledge.
His ordinary is entitled to suspend him while an investigation proceeds.
Spunkets talks of such a suspension as being the moral equivalent of "bearing false witness", which is extremely tendentious. An ordinary exercising prudence in a very serious investigation - a situation where he has to weigh the good of all the faithful entrusted to his care and not just the lucrative touring schedule of one priest - is hardly bearing "false witness" when he pursues a policy of "better safe than sorry."
RitaOK makes a very important point: what is the alternative policy to a zero tolarance policy? Should the standard be that the more popular a priest is, the more leeway should be accorded to him during an investigation? As they say, "the streets are watching" - the appearance of partiality toward individuals is, first of all, procedurally unsustainable and further, it reeks of "old boys' club" double standards and business-as-usual attitudes.
” If someone is actually formally accused by the ordinary of a grave crime, then the accused definitely has a right to a canonical proceeding. But mere suspension and investigation are not an accusation. Corapi has not been formally accused of anything, to our knowledge. His ordinary is entitled to suspend him while an investigation proceeds. “ ============
Sadly, the terminology in the language of the process may be the culprit here.
“Suspension” and “investigation” and “allegation” are terrible words. These words instantly finger the accused in a deeply negative manner, but may give some weight to the accuser....you know how it goes...”poor her”, or, “how brave “, while a huge question mark is instantly placed on the forehead of the priest, in the “eye of the street”, so to speak. ;)
My point is we may need to look at the terminology here.
We need new terminology that measures the length of the hanging rope equally for both the accuser and the accused.
Until the evidence is gathered and the facts unfold, we need terminology that more equally hangs the quest for truth over both partys equally, proportioned against the accuser as well as the accused to the same degree.
I don't know if Father Corapi is indeed guilty of the sins that he is being accused of committing against his Vocation and the Church, however, if he is innocent and it is proven, he will always have a stigma attached to him anyway. But than again, what choice do the Bishop's have. They have to relieve him of his duties until he can be proven innocent.
In this day and age, you have to have a zero tolerance policy because there will always be a hater that simply cannot wait to tattle on the big bad Church! Heaven forbid you take a breath and give it a small amount of time before suspending a priest from his order. Because if you are wrong, there really will be hell to pay!
Well, it’s unfortunate that Fr. Euteneuer’s case was not handled with “zero tolerance” when the victim first came to HLI and the diocese to proclaim the abuse she had endured at the hands of FTE, instead of HLI allowing Father to resign and to spew all sorts of half-truths and some outright lies to the public in that regard.
Hopefully, Fr. Corapi is innocent. I pray so hard he is, but the continuance of the statements that come out (and that he publishes on his site), shows he is being disrespectful of his superiors, and although that does not mean he’s guilty, it just doesn’t look so great. Prayers for our priests (maybe we should start with the seminarians?!) and our Church.
I think that all speculation about Fr. Corapi should be withheld until this has all been properly resolved by the parties responsible for taking charge of it.
I’ll leave that to his superiors.
As for Father Corapi, I do see your point. You are supposed to be perfectly obedient and lead by example. But, he may be trying to make a point to protect other Priests in the future. He is also a Sicilian, and let me tell you( I am half Sicilian) it is really hard for us to sit on our laurels when we feel that someone is being unjust in regards to our being!
I do think that he is kind of being unfair on the other hand because he knows how the atmosphere is now! The Church and religious institutions have to take everything seriously because of what happened in the past! If they don't and the charges are unfounded, the Church will lose even more credibility. We have been harmed enough!
I think that people need to back off of EWTN as well. I don't blame them for at least being cautious and being obedient.
Whether he is innocent or guilty, we will find out! People need to relax! It doesn't help to fight. To Father Corapi I say just turn the other cheek and let them slap that one. If you are truly guided by God and are in him, than you will always be victorious! Padre Pio was the proof of that!
My FR name was all Mr. Frogjerks idea!
I think that it sounds like Father E. is having some pride issues! Once he works that out, I think he will be okay. I pray for him all the time too! It’s a sad situation all around!
Ahhhhhhhh, blame it on the Mr.! LOL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.