FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Fr. John Corapi
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(11-10-2012, 12:14 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-09-2012, 10:12 PM)Joshua Wrote: [ -> ]What in Heaven's name does then-Fr. Ratzinger's unfortunate choice to dress like a layman have anything to do with Fr. Corapi? I asked if Fr. Corapi has had his formal request for laicization approved by Rome (if there even is a formal request at all) in the same manner as Fr. Martin. And your response is what exactly? Are you now defending the practice of clerics foregoing clerical identity based on the example of left-wing clergy?

Hey, you are the one saying priests don't have the right to dress like a layman. 

That is correct. Priests do not have the "right" to abandon their clerical habits or functions without prior approval from Rome. And even in the instances where a Priest may dress in lay clothes (for sports, exercise, manual labor, etc.), it is always in fidelity to what the Church permits. Nothing arises from some kind of "inherent right" within each Priest. The duties, symbols and prerogatives of their Holy Orders are given by the Church and only she may remove them. Period. I refuse to believe that you honestly wish to argue this point and I hope you merely misunderstood me.

So, has Fr. Corapi submitted a formal request of laicization to Rome and , if so, has it been approved?
(11-10-2012, 01:27 PM)Joshua Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-10-2012, 12:14 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-09-2012, 10:12 PM)Joshua Wrote: [ -> ]What in Heaven's name does then-Fr. Ratzinger's unfortunate choice to dress like a layman have anything to do with Fr. Corapi? I asked if Fr. Corapi has had his formal request for laicization approved by Rome (if there even is a formal request at all) in the same manner as Fr. Martin. And your response is what exactly? Are you now defending the practice of clerics foregoing clerical identity based on the example of left-wing clergy?

Hey, you are the one saying priests don't have the right to dress like a layman. 

That is correct. Priests do not have the "right" to abandon their clerical habits or functions without prior approval from Rome. And even in the instances where a Priest may dress in lay clothes (for sports, exercise, manual labor, etc.), it is always in fidelity to what the Church permits. Nothing arises from some kind of "inherent right" within each Priest. The duties, symbols and prerogatives of their Holy Orders are given by the Church and only she may remove them. Period. I refuse to believe that you honestly wish to argue this point and I hope you merely misunderstood me.

So, has Fr. Corapi submitted a formal request of laicization to Rome and , if so, has it been approved?
such venom :O and hate!
(11-10-2012, 01:27 PM)Joshua Wrote: [ -> ]That is correct. Priests do not have the "right" to abandon their clerical habits or functions without prior approval from Rome. And even in the instances where a Priest may dress in lay clothes (for sports, exercise, manual labor, etc.), it is always in fidelity to what the Church permits. Nothing arises from some kind of "inherent right" within each Priest. The duties, symbols and prerogatives of their Holy Orders are given by the Church and only she may remove them. Period. I refuse to believe that you honestly wish to argue this point and I hope you merely misunderstood me.

So, has Fr. Corapi submitted a formal request of laicization to Rome and , if so, has it been approved?

The last public knowledge anyone had is that Fr. Sheehan was aiding in the transition out of the clerical state.  With the amount of venom piled onto Corapi by the very people that were stating they were "going to protect his good name."  I would think if Corapi left without the proper protocols, we would have had it trumpeted from the rooftops.  Corapi said they wanted him gone and he would be gone.  They haven't obviously wanted to tangle with him as long as he's gone. 

You see, what makes your argument pure crap is your use of weasel words to gloss over reality and avoid proving your assertions. 

What specific form does "Rome" take when they approve of a priest "abandoning" clerical functions or habits.  You talk about fidelity to what the "Church" permits, what are you specifically talking about?  Where are the rules specifically that you are referring to? 

Did then, Fr. Ratzinger and Fr. Rahner (his good buddy at the Council)  submit his requests for wearing secular attire at Vatican II? 

You clearly don't have enough specific knowledge of either Corapi's case in particular or the protocols and laws that pertain to the situation in order for you to make a persuasive persecution of him.

Gerard Wrote:What specific form does "Rome" take when they approve of a priest "abandoning" clerical functions or habits.

It's called laicization and it is either imposed directly by Rome for heresy, scandal or other grave reasons or it can be formally requested by a Priest for a sufficiently grave reason (as in the case of Fr. Martin). Until such a dispensation from the clerical state is granted by Rome, a Priest is morally obliged to fulfill his clerical functions and identity until such time. Since you brought up the case of Fr. Martin's formal laicization previously, then I can safely assume you're aware of all these procedures and I am thus confused as to why you are feigning ignorance of these matters. However, if you are indeed genuinely ignorant of such matters I direct you to Canon Law, Can. 284 and 290-293.
Gerard Wrote:Did then, Fr. Ratzinger and Fr. Rahner (his good buddy at the Council)  submit his requests for wearing secular attire at Vatican II?

I doubt it. It was wrong for them then, and it would be wrong for any other priest now. Clerics violated protocol then in public view just as they do today all over the world. Quite simple. What are you attempting to prove my insisting on this point? Are you suggesting Fr. Corapi use the likes of Fr. Rahner to justify his use of lay attire?
Gerard Wrote:You clearly don't have enough specific knowledge of either Corapi's case in particular or the protocols and laws that pertain to the situation

And neither do you, my friend. Which is why I've been asking the simple question as to the status of Father's laicization process. Neither you nor I possess all the details to this case and we probably never will. Both you and I agree as to the extreme likelihood of Father being the victim of corrupt superiors. However, the only issue I take with Father is his choice to cease identifying himself as a Priest in the absence of a formal dispensation from Rome. Such a simple query ought not to strike you (or any logical man) as a "hateful, venomous persecution". All I've been defending is that a Priest ought to identify himself as a Priest until a dispensation is formally granted by Rome to do otherwise. That is the law of the Church and no one is to be exempt from it. You fight with vigor and passion, Gerard, and I admire that. But you need to learn how to pick your battles and not go spearing windmills seeing them as giants.
(11-10-2012, 05:16 PM)Joshua Wrote: [ -> ]
Gerard Wrote:What specific form does "Rome" take when they approve of a priest "abandoning" clerical functions or habits.

It's called laicization and it is either imposed directly by Rome for heresy, scandal or other grave reasons or it can be formally requested by a Priest for a sufficiently grave reason (as in the case of Fr. Martin). Until such a dispensation from the clerical state is granted by Rome, a Priest is morally obliged to fulfill his clerical functions and identity until such time. Since you brought up the case of Fr. Martin's formal laicization previously, then I can safely assume you're aware of all these procedures and I am thus confused as to why you are feigning ignorance of these matters. However, if you are indeed genuinely ignorant of such matters I direct you to Canon Law, Can. 284 and 290-293.

No, no, no...you said when priests "abandon" their clerical functions.  Laicized priests are either forced to or granted permission to cease functions and fashions of clergy.  You specifically characterized it as "abandoning."  That's the assertion you're making. 

Quote:
Gerard Wrote:Did then, Fr. Ratzinger and Fr. Rahner (his good buddy at the Council)  submit his requests for wearing secular attire at Vatican II?

I doubt it. It was wrong for them then, and it would be wrong for any other priest now. Clerics violated protocol then in public view just as they do today all over the world. Quite simple. What are you attempting to prove my insisting on this point? Are you suggesting Fr. Corapi use the likes of Fr. Rahner to justify his use of lay attire?

No, not at all. I'm simply wondering why your outrage is so selective.  And why do you only refer to Fr. Rahner and not Fr. Ratzinger in your description of  character epitomized by the term "likes of" ? 

Quote:
Gerard Wrote:You clearly don't have enough specific knowledge of either Corapi's case in particular or the protocols and laws that pertain to the situation

And neither do you, my friend. Which is why I've been asking the simple question as to the status of Father's laicization process.

You've been more than asking a question. You've been falsely asserting something that you don't know to be true. 

Quote: Neither you nor I possess all the details to this case and we probably never will.

Then why do you accuse him of "self-laicization" when I've provided comments from his superiors that suggests otherwise? 

Quote: Both you and I agree as to the extreme likelihood of Father being the victim of corrupt superiors. However, the only issue I take with Father is his choice to cease identifying himself as a Priest in the absence of a formal dispensation from Rome.

How do you know that he wasn't forbidden from dressing as a priest or presenting himself as a priest due to his suspension and how do you know he wasn't legally released from the ministry of the priesthood?

Quote:  Such a simple query ought not to strike you (or any logical man) as a "hateful, venomous persecution". All I've been defending is that a Priest ought to identify himself as a Priest until a dispensation is formally granted by Rome to do otherwise.

Well you should suspend your judgements until you find out what the truth is.  Is he suspended, on administrative leave or is he laicized or going through laicization?  You seem to think he simply went renegade.  I haven't seen anything like that but instead Fr. Sheehan stated he was going to help him leave the ministry.  I don't think he meant help him pack, I think he meant he would help him with the process of laicization. 

If you've got some kind of proof that things broke down after that, by all means present it. 

Quote: That is the law of the Church and no one is to be exempt from it.

Except where exemptions are permitted.  if Corapi has broken the laws of the Church concerning his departure, where is the indictment from Church authorities? Where is the declaration putting under an interdict and forbidding him from presenting himself as a priest?  If he is still expected to present himself as a priest, then where is the indictment for him wearing jeans? 

Quote:  You fight with vigor and passion, Gerard, and I admire that. But you need to learn how to pick your battles and not go spearing windmills seeing them as giants.

There's nothing Quixotic about simply pointing out that alot of people run around condemning people when they don't have any proof.  As if because I haven't confessed that I've stopped beating my wife, I must somehow be still beating my wife.  A clever trick since I'm not married.  But still, it's true that I haven't said I've stopped beating my wife, so that must mean something to some people.
(11-10-2012, 01:27 PM)Joshua Wrote: [ -> ]That is correct. Priests do not have the "right" to abandon their clerical habits or functions without prior approval from Rome. And even in the instances where a Priest may dress in lay clothes (for sports, exercise, manual labor, etc.), it is always in fidelity to what the Church permits. Nothing arises from some kind of "inherent right" within each Priest. The duties, symbols and prerogatives of their Holy Orders are given by the Church and only she may remove them. Period.

Do you have the cite?  Not because I have any interest in this pi$$ing match...I just want to show it to our local priests who never wear clericals.
"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 Father Corapi. We reiterate that Father 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 Father 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, Father John Corapi issued a public statement indicating that he has chosen to cease functioning as a priest and a member of the SOLT." Father Gerard Sheehan

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/solts-superior-speaks#ixzz2BxFK2lla
Gerard Wrote:No, no, no...you said when priests "abandon" their clerical functions.

That is correct. If a Priest ceases to identify himself as a Priest without a dispensation from Rome, then he is indeed abandoning his clerical functions. That is why I repeat my humble question for the 100th time: Has Fr. Corapi submitted a formal request of laicization to Rome and , if so, has it been approved? If there is no formal request of if it hasn't been approved, then he ought to continue identifying himself as a Priest. Simple.

Gerard Wrote:No, not at all. I'm simply wondering why your outrage is so selective.


I have no outrage, Gerard, as can be evidenced by my posts. We have our disagreements, but there are far more pressing matters in my life at the moment that render this debate a passing breeze at best. And how exactly can I be accused of selective outrage when there has been only one subject being spoken of during this entire discussion? Neither Fr. Rahner or Fr. Ratzinger (who were brought up by you) have even the slightest relevance to this discussion, but I went ahead stated my equal disapproval anyway. Will my "outrage" be more consistent if I draft an exhaustive list of every cleric who has violated canon law in the history of Holy Mother Church?  ??? You're not making any sense, Gerard.

Gerard Wrote:Then why do you accuse him of "self-laicization" when I've provided comments from his superiors that suggests otherwise?

He was removed from active ministry, not laicized. There's a vast chasm of difference between the two. Your citations speak nothing of the issue at hand.

Gerard Wrote:How do you know that he wasn't forbidden from dressing as a priest or presenting himself as a priest due to his suspension and how do you know he wasn't legally released from the ministry of the priesthood?


Hey! Those sound an awful lot like the question I've been asking you this entire time! Uncanny. However, the only entity that can laicize a cleric (which is what both of your questions entail) is Rome herself and not any individual Bishop, superior, etc.

Gerard Wrote:Well you should suspend your judgements until you find out what the truth is

I have passed no judgment. What has been stated is that if he has not received a formal decree of laicization from Rome, then he has unlawfully abandoned his Priestly identity. If he has then all is well. This allllllll goes back to that simple little question I've been asking, doesn't it?

Gerard Wrote:if Corapi has broken the laws of the Church concerning his departure, where is the indictment from Church authorities?

Gee-golly, Gerard! You're right! Rome is a hawk of orthodoxy, and always moves like greased lightening nowadays in reprimanding those who violate her laws, right?!  :eyeroll:
(11-11-2012, 05:44 PM)Allan Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-10-2012, 01:27 PM)Joshua Wrote: [ -> ]That is correct. Priests do not have the "right" to abandon their clerical habits or functions without prior approval from Rome. And even in the instances where a Priest may dress in lay clothes (for sports, exercise, manual labor, etc.), it is always in fidelity to what the Church permits. Nothing arises from some kind of "inherent right" within each Priest. The duties, symbols and prerogatives of their Holy Orders are given by the Church and only she may remove them. Period.

Do you have the cite?  Not because I have any interest in this pi$$ing match...I just want to show it to our local priests who never wear clericals.

Canon 284 - Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PY.HTM
(11-11-2012, 06:34 PM)Joshua Wrote: [ -> ]
Gerard Wrote:No, no, no...you said when priests "abandon" their clerical functions.

That is correct. If a Priest ceases to identify himself as a Priest without a dispensation from Rome, then he is indeed abandoning his clerical functions. That is why I repeat my humble question for the 100th time: Has Fr. Corapi submitted a formal request of laicization to Rome and , if so, has it been approved? If there is no formal request of if it hasn't been approved, then he ought to continue identifying himself as a Priest. Simple.

Simply put, you have no right to accuse him of abandoning his priesthood if you don't have evidence that he did.  You keep asking questions but you've already expressed your conclusion.  You are now asking questions to validate your conclusions after the fact. 


Quote:
Gerard Wrote:No, not at all. I'm simply wondering why your outrage is so selective.


I have no outrage, Gerard, as can be evidenced by my posts. We have our disagreements, but there are far more pressing matters in my life at the moment that render this debate a passing breeze at best. And how exactly can I be accused of selective outrage when there has been only one subject being spoken of during this entire discussion? Neither Fr. Rahner or Fr. Ratzinger (who were brought up by you) have even the slightest relevance to this discussion, but I went ahead stated my equal disapproval anyway. Will my "outrage" be more consistent if I draft an exhaustive list of every cleric who has violated canon law in the history of Holy Mother Church?  ??? You're not making any sense, Gerard.

You certainly do express your outrage.  You make assertions about Corapi with no supporting evidence.  When you explain your reasoning,  similar circumstances are presented in which you have no relevant knowledge and you engage in splitting hairs. 

Your equal disapproval is exemplified by your habit of expressing conclusions based on no factual evidence, only your subjective reading of externals. 

Quote:
Gerard Wrote:Then why do you accuse him of "self-laicization" when I've provided comments from his superiors that suggests otherwise?

He was removed from active ministry, not laicized. There's a vast chasm of difference between the two. Your citations speak nothing of the issue at hand.

What exactlyl is the issue at hand?  Your unsupported conclusions based on your subjective reading of external factors?  If you have evidence that he was or wasn't laicized then present it. 

Quote:
Gerard Wrote:How do you know that he wasn't forbidden from dressing as a priest or presenting himself as a priest due to his suspension and how do you know he wasn't legally released from the ministry of the priesthood?


Hey! Those sound an awful lot like the question I've been asking you this entire time! Uncanny. However, the only entity that can laicize a cleric (which is what both of your questions entail) is Rome herself and not any individual Bishop, superior, etc.

I don't have any beef with your questions, it's your answers that are part of the smears that I'm addressing.  Simply put, morally you have no right to pass judgement on his status since you are not in a position to know. 

Quote:
Gerard Wrote:Well you should suspend your judgements until you find out what the truth is

I have passed no judgment. What has been stated is that if he has not received a formal decree of laicization from Rome, then he has unlawfully abandoned his Priestly identity. If he has then all is well. This allllllll goes back to that simple little question I've been asking, doesn't it?

No.  You have already admitted you are "troubled" and you stated unequivocally that laicization was not a stipulation of his dismissal.  My question is simply, how do you know this? What details do you know of his rescript? 

Quote:
Gerard Wrote:if Corapi has broken the laws of the Church concerning his departure, where is the indictment from Church authorities?

Gee-golly, Gerard! You're right! Rome is a hawk of orthodoxy, and always moves like greased lightening nowadays in reprimanding those who violate her laws, right?!  :eyeroll:

They are slow as molasses in January when it comes to liberals with the exception of female "ordinations."  When it comes to orthodox priests it is like lightning.  How long was it between the consecrations and the declarations against Archbishop LeFebvre? 

So, your whole argument is that Corapi is guilty of violating Church laws regarding his leaving the ministry of the priesthood and the only reason we haven't heard the indictment of this is because Rome is slow?  So, you'll go ahead and make the conclusion that he is guilty. 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13