Thanks to the Register, finally we have some answers about Fr. Corapi’s relationship to Santa Cruz Media and SOLT.
So much has been made of that Santa Cruz is a for profit business. The Register SOLT interview explains that.
Initially, Father Corapi was allowed to live an eremitic life in a cottage on a compound with a community of sisters. Father Corapi stayed there for some time, conducting parish missions. Ultimately, he moved into his own home.
His preaching had tremendous results and many people were converted to the faith, while others came back to the Church. Many vocations came from his preaching. Subsequently, he began producing tapes that showcased his presentation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the subject of his doctoral dissertation.
He made Santa Cruz Media a for-profit company, he told his superiors, in order to have the proper freedom to proclaim the Gospel without any fear of raising issues that might threaten the company’s tax-exempt status.
He said he would pay his taxes and proclaim the Gospel fearlessly. Father Flanagan allowed him to manage his own funds. No one knew it would become so big.
That doesn’t sound so nefarious.
And as to why Fr. Corpai has so much independence from a society of apostolic life?
Has SOLT evolved since Father Corapi became a member of the society?
In 1994, our new constitution made SOLT a society of apostolic life. The founder’s arrangement with Father Corapi was established before that time, when Father Flanagan believed that every mission should take care of its own needs.
Now, according to our constitution, a different way of life has been established for members. All the money we make is turned over to the society, which gives us an allowance.
These are important answers as the lack of clarity on some of these issues leads some people to speculate the worst. The National Catholic Register and Joan Frawley Desmond has done a good service by getting answers on these questions.
March 31, 2011 at 5:03 pm
"he told his superiors.."
There's definitely some distance being created in this interview. It's not a ringing defense. It's "this is why he told us he was doing this" and says nothing about present details.
March 31, 2011 at 5:46 pm
I think that is reading into it too much. Rather I think he phrases it that way because it all went down before his time.
March 31, 2011 at 6:03 pm
I could not care less that SCM is a for profit business. Fr. Corapi is entitle to make a living like the rest of us. What bugs me is the use of Santa Cruz Media as a sock puppet for making making unsubstantiated charges against his accuser and his investigators. People are treating Bobbi Ruffatto's denunciation of the accuser and the investigators as though it were some sort of evidence instead of what it is: the highly interested and unsubstantiated claims of somebody who stand to lose income should the charged be found to be true. I think Elizabeth Scalia is right: the bulletin instructing us all to believe that this woman is a liar bent on destroying Corapi and the investigators are being unjust to Corapi would have been better off left unsaid, much less published on Fr. Corapi's site (meaning "with his approval"). Whipping the fanbase into a frenzy of presuming guilt for the accuser and the process is poisoning the well. That, and not the mere existence of a for profit organization, is the problem.
March 31, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Father Corapi is still a sharp Businessman but now he sells a different product. He grew up wanting to be SOMEBODY and I think we can safetly say he is, and quite successful. As I have said in my other posts, he cannot be accused of meekness nor humility, nor will he become a desert hermit. He has lots of freedom.
So I doubt this setback will put himout to pasture.
Patt (not Anonymous)
March 31, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Yes, Mark, the presence of lay people making money from the work of clergy members is cancerous in the church. When the money making becomes important, it creates dependence of the worst sort. If anything threatens their livelihoods, the lay people are in a real problem. That may or may not be what motivated the accuser in the first place. We may never know, unless she comes forward. At the same time, those who are attacking the accuser are falling into the same trap.
Both are watering down the importance of the vow of obedience to stake their claim. Obedience is a hallmark of Catholic Identity, which sadly has been reduced to something like a fashion statement, rather than anything like faith. I have more at rantingcatholicmom.blogspot.com
I hate doing that in a combox, but I only have so much time to participate in these conversations. So I guess that's my default.
March 31, 2011 at 10:58 pm
If Fr. Corapi is innocent and I sincerely hope he is, I think that this time of persecution and subsequent "desert" time may prove to be beneficial to him as it was to people who have suffered unjustly before him. Those faithful have been told by Jesus that we would be hated and persecuted for our faith. It's almost a verification of moving in the right direction. God will cause good to come out of evil and God may use this time to prune our Fr. Carapi…
April 1, 2011 at 3:18 pm
His claim that he wanted a for-profit company in order to have a freedom to preach doesn't really make sense. All the other evangelizing organizations that I can think of are non-profits. They say what they want and their status is fine.
I would think a bigger reason for him to pick a for-profit entity is the privacy. If he was a non-profit everyone would know how much money he made as a company, as well as personally.
April 1, 2011 at 3:26 pm
They say what they want and their status is fine.
No, they can't. Every single year there's an election, there's a ton of threats, reports and actions against pro-life NFP groups.
Threatening a Catholic organization's not for profit status is a favorite tactic– how can you have not seen examples of that yet?
April 1, 2011 at 5:45 pm
To Mark Shea:
"the highly interested and unsubstantiated claims of somebody who stand to lose income should the charged be found to be true" Nice. Let's question the integrity of Santa Cruz Media.
'much less published on Fr. Corapi's site (meaning "with his approval")' Didn't the article state Fr. Corapi was being silenced by the Bishop, when in fact it was the superior of his Order? If your statement is true, wouldn't it mean that that Fr. Corapi did not correctly know who was silencing him?
April 5, 2011 at 1:10 am
I am sick and tired of all these lay bloggers finding fault with anything that points to the innocence of Fr Corapi. It is really sickening reading all these well known lay run blogs. They are not even trying to hide their bias.
Is this hidden jealousy?