The National Catholic Register’s Joan Frawley Desmond has fascinating new information on the Corapi story.
The main take-aways are that the investigation by SOLT into the allegations against Corapi was complicated by a civil lawsuit filed by Father Corapi for violation of a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). Further, many of the witnesses are bound by NDAs as well.
However, Father Gerard Sheehan, regional priest-servant of SOLT and Father Corapi’s religious superior in the U.S., confirmed June 19 that the order’s investigation faced complications created by a civil suit filed by Father Corapi against the former employee who had accused him of sexual misconduct.
“When she left the company, she signed a contract that she would not reveal anything that happened to her while she was at Santa Cruz Media. Father Corapi paid her for this. Father was suing her for a breach of contract,” said Father Sheehan, though he did not specify why Father Corapi had initiated the non-disclosure agreement.
The civil suit against the former employee created a problem for SOLT investigators.
“In canon law, there can’t be any pressure on witnesses; they have to be completely free to speak. The investigation was compromised because of the pressure on the witnesses. There were other witnesses that also had signed non-disclosure agreements,” said Father Sheehan.
“The canon lawyers were in a difficult situation, and Father does have his civil rights and he decided to follow his legal counsel, which he had a right to do,” he said. “We tried to continue the investigation without speaking to the principal witnesses.”
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.
Kudos to the Register for getting real information is a situation dominated by accusations and innuendo.
While Corapi certainly has civil rights, it seems illogical or even disingenuous on his part after just three months to claim that he cannot get a fair investigation when his own actions, even if legal and reasonable, are preventing such a fair investigation.
In the search for answers for why Corapi chose this course of action, the Register article may provide a clue. It seems that SOLT, the order to which Corapi belonged, wanted him to leave his Montana home and come and live in community with the other members of SOLT. It seems as if SOLT wanted to regularize Corapi’s situation with the society, perhaps even bringing him into line regarding their constitution which all money earned is turned over to the Society.
“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,” noted Father Sheehan at that time. “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.”
During that interview, Father Sheehan confirmed that SOLT had “begun to address the issues of members who joined the society before the new constitution. The society is moving to a more organized structural phase of its existence, with all the Church discipline that entails.” The implication of his remarks was that Father Corapi had not accommodated the discipline imposed by the new constitution.
He resigned soon after the request to join the community. You do the math, it seems Corapi probably did.
June 20, 2011 at 5:12 am
Shoes will so continue to drop in the next few weeks that it will feel like an Imelda Marcos storm.
New converts….ignore personalties other than the Three in the Trinity….even avoid the papal flattery always rampant in our press. Your peace is in God and in the deeper timeless aspects of the Church. Period. Did you ever see those geodes that have an ordinary outer crust but are gorgeous within as to colorful milky arrangements of mineral deposits. That's the Church. Look to the inner layers.
June 20, 2011 at 5:42 am
"While Corapi certainly has civil rights, it seems illogical or even disingenuous on his part after just three months to claim that he cannot get a fair investigation when his own actions, even if legal and reasonable, are preventing such a fair investigation."
Umm…he was frantically trying to protect his secrets?
Look – just LOOK at the reaction of his "fans" on his Facebook pages and in the comments sections of the blogs covering this. He KNOWS that he can play these people for a very very long time. And so he keeps trying.
June 20, 2011 at 12:21 pm
all corporations have employees sign Non Disclosure Agreements, and also, every invention discovered while in employment belongs to the employer. Is it fair? I do not know. If the complaintant had no affiliation with Fr. Corapi or was a volunteer, but not an employee, different rules might apply. I do not know the extent to which Father Corapi or his work is at risk or what kind of risk. If the complaintant can do to Father Corapi what some complaintants have done to the Dioceses of the Catholic Church in America which has been devastated, destroyed and held in contempt because of the complaintants, I, too, would fight back with the same civil laws.
Would I render unto the society all money and copyrights not expecting any recompense? This would not save from civil lawsuit anything. Look at what has been done to our Church.
Mary De Voe
June 20, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Non disclosure agreements are USUALLY regarding things like research and development, information which can effect investors and share prices, and intellectual property.
It seems odd to me that the current & former employees of Santa Cruz Media are under such a wide ranging agreement that it would impinge upon a canon lawyers ability to do his job.
Pray for everyone involved in this mess.
June 20, 2011 at 2:22 pm
I have no information concerning Fr. Corapi, I do know of priests who have reported abuse and abusers who have disappeared. Would I entrust my life and all my worldly goods to such people? Maybe it is not greed alone moving Fr. Corapi. http://whereisfrhaley.blogspot.com/
Fr. Maciel was allowed to operate by the Vatican despite credible and repeated abuse reports.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcial_Maciel
Perhaps Fr. Corapi was not sharing the wealth and preaching tolerance of the right people.
June 20, 2011 at 3:25 pm
This makes me physically sick. The whole messy thing. What a devastating blow in so many ways.
1. Did Fr. take a vow of poverty? I don't think so. Having been a millionaire and an accomplished businessman, I believe that he probably saw profits as a good thing, and only agreed to SOLT rules based on those rules allowing him to live his life a certain way, as an itinerant preacher, with his own home and business that allowed him to combine his business and preaching skills together.
2. It seems this money and authority are/were at the root of the conflict between Fr. Corapi and his order. I see both sides: The Order probably wanted to capture his cash and use it – for the good of the Order. Fr Corapi, on the other hand, never signed up with the notion he would have to do that.
3. Something tells me that there is "something" to the accusations of the accuser. But if I'm wrong, we'll never know. Using the NDA allows Fr. (or is it "Mr." yet?) Corapi to silence her, accuse her of lies while never naming her, and ensure that The Church CAN NOT give him a fair hearing. If he dropped the civil suit, then he ALSO might not get a fair hearing under the Dallas rules. Or, at least he wants us to think that. Those who would believe that Fr. Corapi was/is incapable of sexual sin are out of their minds. Even the most saintly people still have temptations, and for those of us who let lives of sin in the past, the temptations may be greater.
4. I don't know if Fr. is making a mistake in leaving the priesthood or not. As some have pointed out, his spray tan and make up, money and rock star status may underlie a massive regression to his previous lifestyle. It may be that he has fallen to serious sins, and has become vain, prideful and so on and that this has caused him to go against God's plan for him to be an obedient priest subject to the rules of an order.
But on the other hand, it may also be true that God was and is calling him to do something else. Whether these accusations against him are true or false. As a priest Fr. Corapi has brought many to conversion and increased the faith of countless people. I, personally, learned a huge amount from him. However, there are many other Catholics who preach and teach the faith as laymen and it is possible that that really is his true vocation.
What is most sickening and saddening is that the mystery that will always surround him is a massive distraction for those who wish to grow in faith and be faithful servants.
The questions: Was he right? Was he wrong? Should I ever believe what he says? Are the bishops wrong? Is the Church unfair? Is Fr. Corapi a sociopath or something? Is he just suffering a massive injustice?
All these questions distract us from God. Heck – If I wasn't so distracted by all this I wouldn't be wasting my, and everyone else's time with this post.
Last: "All things are possible with God" Let us pray for him, for the Church, for ALL who have or do follow him, and for CLARITY in this situation. Will anyone pray with me?
Then maybe we should all move on and focus on what we know to be the Truth. Just a thought.
June 20, 2011 at 3:59 pm
And to add extra ick to the mix, don't forget he was awarded millions in a medical fraud lawsuit, where he almost had unnecessary heart surgery. He didn't turn that money over to SOLT by his own admission, since he paid his own expenses, having joined the society before they established their salary policies.
I saw him speak once: he has a textbook grandiose personality. Doesn't mean he hasn't striven after holiness, but if he was just a guy who quits his job impulsively after a petty argument with his boss, and stomps all over and collars everybody to hear his self-defense, we'd never have heard of him. But public ministry makes this publicly ugly.
June 20, 2011 at 5:04 pm
So what's up with the Register web site being down?
Is it a denial of service attack from Corapi followers?
Or has the Register decided to ban anymore mention of Corpai and is busy taking everything down?
What would this mean for CMR?!
June 20, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Sounds like a catch 22 to me– although it does explain why Father seems to know who accused him, even though he isn't allowed to be told. Love to see the text of the civil lawsuit.
The suggestion that this would all be about pulling him into the order, even though his ministry was set up before the new charter and under the founder, isn't new. (Trying to phrase it as neutrally as possible– usually it's phrased as "Corapi is a money grabbing blanker" or "those greedy Society guys think they need a bigger piece of the pie" or "the Society wants better control of Corapi." Probably more variations.)
Raising more questions than it answered, the message did not state the precise reason why Father Corapi chose to resign from the priesthood, rather than waiting for the outcome of SOLT’s investigation of the alleged misconduct.
*headdesk* Did they even read the announcement?
Quotes:
1: I cannot give a lengthy explanation of what has transpired, but I can tell you that the most likely outcome is that they leave me suspended indefinitely and just let me fade away. They can’t prove I’m guilty of the things alleged because I’m not, and they can’t prove I’m innocent because that is simply illogical and impossible.
2:My canon lawyer and my civil lawyers have concluded that I cannot receive a fair and just hearing under the Church’s present process. The Church will conclude that I am not cooperating with the process because I refuse to give up all of my civil and human rights in order to hold harmless anyone who chooses to say defamatory and actionable things against me with no downside to them.
It's like reading the NYT or something….
Therese Z-
do you have a citation for the claim he didn't turn over the lawsuit cash to the order?
We know that the company was set up to be a for-profit, to avoid the attacks on non-profit statuses, and that Corapi made donations to his order from that.
June 20, 2011 at 5:26 pm
The Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, who established SOLT has some great insight to the Society, not Order, the Father belonged to. Posted in
A FEW THOUGHTS ON FATHER CORAPI’S ANNOUNCEMENT YESTERDAY
http://abyssum.wordpress.com/
June 20, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Also, Ryan MacDonald has some insight into the process that is involved in this situation and accusations like it. Here: http://abyssum.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/ryan-macdonald-has-some-valuable-insights-into-father-john-corapis-case/
June 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Just for Men and just for money.
June 20, 2011 at 5:51 pm
An NDA makes perfect sense when you remember Corapi's response to someone threatening his ministry's tax status to get him to shut up: can't lose what you don't have, stops claiming non-profit tax status. Worried about someone coming in and doing a "tell all" book that should go in the fiction isle? Have everyone sign NDAs.
In this frame, the accusation also makes perfect sense: want to get out of an NDA? Make an accusation that the person who has the right to the NDA has been improper with several female employees, so he'll be told he must drop his rights to the NDA agreement. Entirely. The accuser can't lose if that agreement is dropped– accusation gets dismissed, can still write a book. Accusation isn't dismissed, write a book and have a lawsuit.
June 20, 2011 at 6:15 pm
yeah, but, Foxfier, if the NDA is his, couldn't he (and/or Santa Cruz Media – same thing) offer a WAIVER to the accuser, drawn up in precise detail, to allow her to testify about particular days, times, when this alleged activity took place and so long as she is still bound to not discuss business practices, how much he makes, what he brand of beard coloring he uses, etc.?
I do not mean to disparage the guy, I'm just trying to figure out what the NDA was for. Surely she could be allowed to testify about what he supposedly did "to her" but without mentioning XYZ that the NDA is there to protect.
Otherwise – what IS he protecting then? One wonders. And that's too bad. We (I) shouldn't be thinking about/wondering about this stuff.
I am SO saddened that time may not bring clarity to this.
In his statement he said that the Church could be JUSTIFIED in kicking him out of the priesthood. Um, ok. Then, if that is so, then what the heck are you waiting for? If he is saying the Church kicking him out would be a just thing, then why did he even wait this long to leave?
Spirit Daily had a headline (which I couldn't link to) that said he had trademarked Black Sheepdog more than a year ago, so he knew this was going to go down for a LONG time. Same with his "soon to be released" autobiography.
I remember getting an Email (mailing list) from him a long time ago – couple years ago maybe? In it he was sad and clearly upset at the departure of an employee – a woman. His tone was desperate. I wondered at the time, "uh oh" what happened there? It didn't seem kosher.
But he also mentions in his statement that this person was someone he tried more to help than anyone in his whole life. He also complains about the lack of statute of limitations. It all seems to me that he knew this was coming down the pike for a long time.
I don't know. It all just sucks really.
June 20, 2011 at 7:11 pm
use to post-
I'm not a lawyer. I'm pretty sure, though, that simply having the NDA would be considered too much of an influence on the witness.
Spirit Daily had a headline (which I couldn't link to) that said he had trademarked Black Sheepdog more than a year ago, so he knew this was going to go down for a LONG time.
Or, since he's used the "black sheep" metaphor for himself before, and the "sheep dog" thing is pretty obvious, he was planning to use it to talk about his past. The same way he does in most of the radio shows I've heard him on? The whole redemption thing, kinda a big deal?
For the timing of his book– Wow, yeah, it's not like anybody would think "Hm. 20th anniversary. That's a good time to put out a book!" /sarc
Otherwise – what IS he protecting then? One wonders. And that's too bad. We (I) shouldn't be thinking about/wondering about this stuff.
If that's what you believe, why do you go on for several paragraphs?
I've seen several folks say that every media company they've been in has NDAs. I pointed out a very simple reason for an NDA. I'm sure a decent lawyer could come up with more. The lack of information on the specifics of the civil case makes me suspicious that someone's being spun.
June 20, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Oh, and it's possible that NDAs can't be modified. I know that the agreement I signed with the Navy about not reading classified information on a non-classified system means that I've had to be very careful to avoid the Wikileaks stuff. There's actually a lot of worry that the way that the wikileaks stuff was spread out so far will mean that they have to come down like a ton of bricks on those who violate their agreement and read it, or they'll lose their right to do so via non-enforcement.
June 20, 2011 at 8:06 pm
@foxfire:
"Otherwise – what IS he protecting then? One wonders. And that's too bad. We (I) shouldn't be thinking about/wondering about this stuff.
If that's what you believe, why do you go on for several paragraphs?"
Does the answer to your question mean that maybe I SHOULD be wondering about it? Just because I do something I should not do, doesn't mean that I should do it – does it? Anyway to answer your question: Curiosity. For a start. And my point is that this is a distraction, and I am distracted by it as are others.
I am with you on the NDA maybe being unmodifiable, but generally two parties can amend a contract.
You actually did not give a simple reason for an NDA. Unless you meant because other media companies do it? But I do agree with your point that there could be lots of reasons to have one, but I just can't really think of any compelling BUSINESS reasons (which are the primary reason for NDA's) that could not be circumvented easily enough with a modified clause. Remember – this is to CLEAN HIS NAME, right? So why not try to go down that road?
You are probably right about the autobiography, but wrong about the black sheepdog thing. Heck, maybe you may start your auto-bio at age 20 just in case, but I am just not buying the trademarking Black Sheepdog if you are still planning to remain a priest. He already had the name "Fr. John Corapi, SOLT" Why would he need to trademark a sort of nom de guerre? he didn't.
Here's my real concern: If he has done some wrong to cause all this and forms some new ministry, I worry what might happen if he brings his followers with him – to something that could become truly black, while under the guise of something good. The evil one is not called a deceiver for nothing. Now here we are, with thousands of people all over the place wondering: Is the Church wrong? Are the Bishops wrong? Or is he wrong?
God help us. He has the charisma to really attract a lot of people so I pray that it will be on the up and up.
June 21, 2011 at 1:53 am
He never was bound by a vow of poverty.
Per Fr. Gerry Sheehan, SOLT receives no money from him.
He has declared no charitable contributions other than political contributions.
He has sued every former employee who might possibly claim entitlement to a share of his empire because they contributed the media skills he does not possess. Past suits were dismissed as frivolous and without merit.
He has apparently never held faculties, but that doesn't matter because "90% of what I do" has nothing to do with that Mass-and-sacraments stuff anyway, so who needs it.
He and Sarah Palin will make a great Tea Party slate. Can't wait to see who SNL gets to play him.
June 21, 2011 at 2:34 am
Per Fr. Gerry Sheehan, SOLT receives no money from him.
False. The father said SPECIFICALLY that Corapi gave them money, when he said that the for profit company was not connected with the SOLT.
Frankly, I don't know if a single thing you just posted isn't a flat out lie. No wonder you don't have a sign-in….
June 21, 2011 at 2:43 am
Jimmy Akin has the most objective analysis of this situation.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/new-information-on-the-fr.-corapi-situation/