Corapi: Why were warning signs ignored?

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Jul 05, 2011

Have we really learned so little, over the past decade, about how we should respond to charges of priestly misconduct?  

The fact that so many good Catholics are willing to cling loyally to the belief that Father John Corapi is innocent of all wrongdoing, despite so many clear warning signs, suggests that we still have not learned the necessary painful lessons. Consider:

• Until today we did not even know what charges had been leveled against Father Corapi. SOLT, the apostolic society of which he is (or was) a member, had confirmed that he had been accused of misconduct. Other than that, every public statement about the accusations had come not from his accuser, nor from investigators, but from Corapi and his defenders. So one party to the dispute (the accuser) was following proper procedures, observing proper decorum, while the other (the accused) was seeking to try the charges in the court of public opinion. That in itself should have been enough to prompt suspicions that Father Corapi was unwilling to fight this battle on even ground.
• Since the public did not know the nature of the charges, it was impossible for any objective observer to say whether or not they were plausible. Was Corapi accused of sexual misconduct, as most people assumed? Or was he charged with financial irregularities, or improper administration of the sacraments, or drug and alcohol abuse? The answer, SOLT has now informed us, is “all of the above.” By refusing to specify the charges, while lashing out against the accuser, Corapi sent another signal that he was uncomfortable discussing the facts.
• Corapi announced that his accuser is a destructive alcoholic. Maybe she is; we don’t know. But his willingness to impugn the integrity of his accuser—who does not have the public stature necessary to defend herself—was churlish. How often have we seen the same pattern: the rush to attack the accuser rather than to weigh the substance of the charges? Corapi said that he had been accused unfairly, and his reputation smeared; now his accuser might say the same. And if he is truly guilty of abusive behavior, the public attacks on her constitute a second form of abuse.
• Thoughtful Catholics are troubled by the realization that many priests have no doubt been accused falsely of molesting children, and are now suffering through the nightmarish procedures of the Dallas Charter. Father Corapi has skillfully tapped into those fears, claiming that he, too, is unable to receive a fair hearing. But he was never subject to the Dallas Charter process; by his own account, his accuser is an adult. Corapi was not suspended—as many other American priests have been suspended—because a single accusation triggered the implementation of the Dallas protocols. So when he was suspended, the only logical conclusion was that SOLT had found credible evidence of misconduct.
• And why had SOLT found that credible evidence? Two explanations are possible. Either the evidence was there, ready to be found, or SOLT was part of a grand conspiracy. The public statements from Father Corapi pointed to the latter explanation—which is, needless to say, less probable. Yet he told his faithful followers that SOLT was not really the problem. The investigation had been launched on orders from Bishop Willam Mulvey of Corpus Christi. Yet Bishop Mulvey wasn’t really the problem, either, he said. In a transparent bid for the sympathy of conspiracy theorists, he said: “There are certain persons in authority in the Church that want me gone.” Sorry, but that’s not good enough. Father Corapi had stoked his own reputation as a fearless preacher—as someone who would tell the truth regardless of the personal consequences. Why was he now so coy about naming the “certain persons” who were trying to destroy him?
• Corapi sued his accuser for breach of contract, because she had signed an agreement that she would not disclose anything about her work with his organization. Apparently other employees had signed similar documents. What sort of priest asks his employees and colleagues to sign non-disclosure agreements? What did he have to hide?
• After announcing that he was voluntarily leaving the priesthood—choosing not to fight to preserve his vocation—Corapi assured his faithful followers that this would not be a major change. He explained that 90% of what he had been doing over the past years was unrelated to his function as a minister of the sacraments. At that point, any sincere Catholic should have realized that something was profoundly wrong. A priest who thinks that his life will not be totally disrupted by suspension from priestly ministry? The life of a priest should be centered on the Eucharist. A priest who can divorce his preaching from his sacramental ministry is a priest with a major problem. He is showing a tendency to compartmentalize his life. Such a man just might be capable of private conduct that was completely at variance with his public preaching.

So there were several bright red flags raised when Father Corapi was suspended from ministry, and then again when he announced that he was leaving the priesthood. And yet a prudent observer might have seen the signs of trouble even earlier. The real question today is not why SOLT investigated his behavior, but why the investigation was delayed so long.

• His life story was dramatic, yet few of the spectacular items in his biography could be pinned down, and some claims seem to have been exaggerated—or corrected only after skeptics raised questions about them.
• He brought in a substantial income from this speaking appearances, and the sales of his books and tapes. There was no public accounting for those funds.
• He lived in isolation in Montana, surrounding by his colleagues (who, we now know, were pledged not to talk about what went on), not associated with any diocese, not under the regular supervision of any religious superior.

Like the late Father Marcial Maciel, the disgraced founder of the Legion of Christ, John Corapi has worked for years as a celebrity priest: encouraging a cult of personality, setting his own agenda, raising large sums of money that he spent at his own discretion, and—most dangerous of all—accountable to no one. It was a formula for disaster, and now the disaster has occurred. Again.