Did you miss Mother Angelica Live Classics this week? If you did, you missed a great episode, but thankfully EWTN shares it's programming on Youtube now.
I just love Mother Angelica. She's a wonderful teacher and inspiration to me.
God bless you Mother Angelica!!
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
I trusted you Fr. Corapi...
I've avoided this topic long enough. My intention was not to shove it in a closet and pretend it wasn't happening, but rather to wait and see.
I didn't want to believe it and I didn't want to slander a priest whom I have loved, trusted and respected for so many years. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to believe this was some horrible attack by the enemy to bring down a good priest and great defender of the Faith. I wanted to know that the trust I put into this priest was well placed. I wanted to believe that he was a victim because to believe he was guilty was just too devastating. It made me question my ability to discern the truth from lies. Who could I trust if someone I looked up to like Father Corapi was lying and leading a double life, preaching one thing and doing another? How could I fall for such deceit? Who should I trust if not a priest who preaches so well on the faith?
I'm a convert. I don't know that I would actually be Catholic today if not for Father Corapi's teaching on EWTN and Youtube. Eventually probably, but Father Corapi's teaching fast tracked me to becoming Catholic. I had so many questions about the Catholic faith and like many others before me, found them answered on EWTN (God bless you Mother Angelica). While Father Corapi certainly was not the only one teaching me the Catholic faith on EWTN, he was one of my favorites (as you may already know if you've read my conversion story on this blog).
Father Corapi not only taught the Catholic faith well, he defended it. He inspired others to defend it with knowledge. He inspired a love of the Catholic faith and a love for learning the Catholic faith. He was a great speaker. He was also a great deceiver.
As I said earlier, I didn't want to jump to any quick judgements when the "Corapi Controversy" first began hitting the media. I wanted to give it some time and see what actually came to light. Before the rumors began, I noticed a different looking Corapi. He had shaved his head, dyed his goatee and gotten an orange tan. I wondered what that was all about. It was strange to me and others I talked with. We couldn't figure out why he would do that to himself- we still can't figure that out. It's bizarre. Was Father Corapi having a mid-life crisis or something?
Like so many others, I was shocked and outraged on behalf of Father Corapi when he was suspended back in March. I was so full of absolute trust in this priest that I could not believe for a moment the rumors of him acting in anyway unprofessional as a priest. I thought "the enemy is attacking a great Catholic priest" and I stood by that belief for months.
Then the bizarre "Black Sheep Dog" story came out along with his statement that he was no longer going to be called "father", but simply "The Black Sheep Dog". Well, pardon my language here but "Just what the hell was that?" Now my shock was over-run with my anger. I shouted "Hypocrite" at his blog. He had preached and taught for YEARS about "offering it up" and "carry your cross" when we suffered, he NEVER preached about giving up and walking away! Who was THIS man and where was the Father Corapi I had come to know??
Ahh... and there lies the problem. I didn't know Father Corapi, I never had. The Father Corapi I thought I knew was a fraud. He was made up. The real Corapi was busy with prostitutes, sexting and living away from his order collecting millions from his media company. In other words he was the SAME John Corapi as he was BEFORE his conversion "back to the Church" (from his conversion story video). All the ways he described himself prior to becoming a priest are exactly what has come out now. He's the same old John Corapi he was in his youth, drinking, drugs, women, lying...boldly living in sin without thought for morality. There was no conversion. It was all a lie, a deceitful lie to sucker people in.
That is devastating to so many of us who trusted him, respected him, looked up to him and believed in him. And what of his poor mother? She must be even more devastated then the rest of us. He has spoken of his parents lovingly during his speeches, how proud they were when he "changed" his life and became a priest. What must she think of him now? I believe his father has already passed away- at least he was spared seeing his son fall so low.
This week's statement by SOLT's (the order Corapi belonged to) naming the allegations and 'proof' found are just too much to ignore any longer.
Source: http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=114254
You lied to us "Father" Corapi. It's not just that you did these things, it's that you continue to deny it and call yourself innocent when the proof has already been found. Admit it!! Stop telling everyone you are innocent and face up to what you've done. You need to confess, repent, do penance AND apologize to everyone. It's not that I thought the man sinless or that he could do no wrong, I'm not that naive. It's that I didn't think he would flat out lie to everyone or be the fraud he has been proven to be. To say I am disappointed doesn't begin to cover it.
Christ was betrayed by a kiss, those who believed in Father Corapi were betrayed by his lying lips. You continue to say you are innocent when the evidence is overwhelming against you. Judas gained 30 silver coins for betraying Christ, Corapi gained boats, ATV's, luxury vehicles and more for betraying those who believed in him and trusted him. Was it worth it John?
You've taught me your last lesson John Corapi... never completely trust anyone, even a priest. I'll pray for you, but I'll never trust you again.
I didn't want to believe it and I didn't want to slander a priest whom I have loved, trusted and respected for so many years. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to believe this was some horrible attack by the enemy to bring down a good priest and great defender of the Faith. I wanted to know that the trust I put into this priest was well placed. I wanted to believe that he was a victim because to believe he was guilty was just too devastating. It made me question my ability to discern the truth from lies. Who could I trust if someone I looked up to like Father Corapi was lying and leading a double life, preaching one thing and doing another? How could I fall for such deceit? Who should I trust if not a priest who preaches so well on the faith?
I'm a convert. I don't know that I would actually be Catholic today if not for Father Corapi's teaching on EWTN and Youtube. Eventually probably, but Father Corapi's teaching fast tracked me to becoming Catholic. I had so many questions about the Catholic faith and like many others before me, found them answered on EWTN (God bless you Mother Angelica). While Father Corapi certainly was not the only one teaching me the Catholic faith on EWTN, he was one of my favorites (as you may already know if you've read my conversion story on this blog).
Father Corapi not only taught the Catholic faith well, he defended it. He inspired others to defend it with knowledge. He inspired a love of the Catholic faith and a love for learning the Catholic faith. He was a great speaker. He was also a great deceiver.
As I said earlier, I didn't want to jump to any quick judgements when the "Corapi Controversy" first began hitting the media. I wanted to give it some time and see what actually came to light. Before the rumors began, I noticed a different looking Corapi. He had shaved his head, dyed his goatee and gotten an orange tan. I wondered what that was all about. It was strange to me and others I talked with. We couldn't figure out why he would do that to himself- we still can't figure that out. It's bizarre. Was Father Corapi having a mid-life crisis or something?
Like so many others, I was shocked and outraged on behalf of Father Corapi when he was suspended back in March. I was so full of absolute trust in this priest that I could not believe for a moment the rumors of him acting in anyway unprofessional as a priest. I thought "the enemy is attacking a great Catholic priest" and I stood by that belief for months.
Then the bizarre "Black Sheep Dog" story came out along with his statement that he was no longer going to be called "father", but simply "The Black Sheep Dog". Well, pardon my language here but "Just what the hell was that?" Now my shock was over-run with my anger. I shouted "Hypocrite" at his blog. He had preached and taught for YEARS about "offering it up" and "carry your cross" when we suffered, he NEVER preached about giving up and walking away! Who was THIS man and where was the Father Corapi I had come to know??
Ahh... and there lies the problem. I didn't know Father Corapi, I never had. The Father Corapi I thought I knew was a fraud. He was made up. The real Corapi was busy with prostitutes, sexting and living away from his order collecting millions from his media company. In other words he was the SAME John Corapi as he was BEFORE his conversion "back to the Church" (from his conversion story video). All the ways he described himself prior to becoming a priest are exactly what has come out now. He's the same old John Corapi he was in his youth, drinking, drugs, women, lying...boldly living in sin without thought for morality. There was no conversion. It was all a lie, a deceitful lie to sucker people in.
That is devastating to so many of us who trusted him, respected him, looked up to him and believed in him. And what of his poor mother? She must be even more devastated then the rest of us. He has spoken of his parents lovingly during his speeches, how proud they were when he "changed" his life and became a priest. What must she think of him now? I believe his father has already passed away- at least he was spared seeing his son fall so low.
This week's statement by SOLT's (the order Corapi belonged to) naming the allegations and 'proof' found are just too much to ignore any longer.
Fr. Corapi's Order Finds Him Guilty
ROBSTOWN, TEXAS, July 5 (CNA/EWTN News) - Father John Corapi's religious order has found him guilty of substance abuse, sexual activity and violating his promise of poverty.
A July 5 press release from the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity (SOLT) said that while Fr. Corapi was involved in public ministry he had "sexual relations and years of cohabitation with a woman known to him, when the relationship began, as a prostitute."
The investigative team also found that he "repeatedly abused alcohol and drugs," "recently engaged in 'sexting' activity with one or more women in Montana," and holds legal title "to over $1 million in real estate, numerous luxury vehicles, motorcycles, an ATV, a boat dock, and several motor boats."
His religious order said it is concerned "Fr. Corapi is now misleading (many) individuals through his false statements and characterizations."
"It is for these Catholics that SOLT, by means of this announcement, seeks to set the record straight."
Source: http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=114254
You lied to us "Father" Corapi. It's not just that you did these things, it's that you continue to deny it and call yourself innocent when the proof has already been found. Admit it!! Stop telling everyone you are innocent and face up to what you've done. You need to confess, repent, do penance AND apologize to everyone. It's not that I thought the man sinless or that he could do no wrong, I'm not that naive. It's that I didn't think he would flat out lie to everyone or be the fraud he has been proven to be. To say I am disappointed doesn't begin to cover it.
Christ was betrayed by a kiss, those who believed in Father Corapi were betrayed by his lying lips. You continue to say you are innocent when the evidence is overwhelming against you. Judas gained 30 silver coins for betraying Christ, Corapi gained boats, ATV's, luxury vehicles and more for betraying those who believed in him and trusted him. Was it worth it John?
You've taught me your last lesson John Corapi... never completely trust anyone, even a priest. I'll pray for you, but I'll never trust you again.
Is.2:22 'Stop trusting in mere humans,
who have but a breath in their nostrils.
Why hold them in esteem?'
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
A "Living, Breathing Document?" Try Reading It!
by Contributor Tim Siggia
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -- Patrick Henry
As we celebrate another Fourth of July, it seems only fitting that we pay at least a passing tribute to the most important of our founding documents, the Constitution of the United States. Some may argue that it was the Declaration of Independence that was officially proclaimed on July 4, 1776, and that the Constitution was not adopted until 11 years later, on Sept. 17, 1787, and they would be right. However, the 11-year hiatus between our nation having declared its independence from the British Crown and adopted the Constitution which would be the bulwark of its existence stands as proof that the Constitution was not drafted overnight, and neither was it lightly considered by those who put it together. It was written, and fully intended by those who wrote it, to stand for time.
What the liberals among us regard as axiomatic, unquestionable truth concerning the Constitution is recognized by conservatives as the Biggest Lie Ever Told. On the evening of June 30, 2011, Democrat strategist Chris Hahn, a former campaign worker for Sen. Chuck Shumer (D-N.Y.), repeated the lie once again: that our Constitution is "a living, breathing document that evolves over time." Oh really? To those who not only perpetuate this lie but believe it themselves, may I put forth a question: Have you ever tried reading that living, breathing document? Do you even know how many articles it contains, and how many amendments? (There are seven of the first, and 27 of the second.)
Let me suggest an analogy here, one to which any homeowner -- or, for that matter, any responsible tenant -- can readily relate: Consider the foundation upon which your home is built. Is it a "living, breathing" structure that evolves over time and shifts with the prevailing winds and sands? Of course it isn't! If it were, it would not support your home, and you know it! Well, the Constitution of the United States is the foundation of our representative republic, and the Founding Fathers intended for it to be just that: a firm, rock-solid foundation, not a "living, breathing" anything.
But what about the amendments to the Constitution, I can hear the liberals protesting now? Aren't they evidence of the Constitution being a "living, breathing" entity? Once again, I offer the analogy of a house's foundation. Even the firmest of structures will eventually show signs of decay, and so it is with our Constitution. But note here that as the Constitution itself was not lightly drafted, so the amendment process is not likely taken. In order for the Constitution to be amended, or to have an amendment repealed, the following process must be undertaken. The amendment must be proposed in Congress, and passed by a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate -- which means that unless one party totally dominates both houses of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans must be in fundamental agreement with it. Next it must be signed by the president. Even then the process is not over, for the measure must then be ratified by the individual states before it becomes part of our Constitution. It is a most cumbersome process, and intentionally made so by our Founding Fathers for the specific purpose of preventing our most important founding document from becoming the very thing liberals now claim it to be: a living, breathing document that shifts with the prevailing sands of time.
So why, in the face of all this, do liberals still adamantly aver our Constitution to be a "living, breathing document"? May I suggest a translation here from politico-speak to plain, simple English? What they are really saying here is that our Constitution says whatever they want it to say, and means whatever they want it to mean. Two glaring examples of this prevail to this day. The first example is the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973, in which a liberal-dominated Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a woman has a "constitutional" right to have her unborn child aborted. Yet where in the Constitution is this matter addressed, or, for that matter, even suggested? I have read the Constitution -- more than once -- and I can unequivocally state for the record that it IS NOT THERE! Yet because five liberal Supreme Court justices agreed that it OUGHT to be there, even if it isn't, it was therefore made "constitutional" by judicial fiat. To this day, Democrats and other liberals still glowing cite "a woman's constitutional right to a safe, legal abortion," though their claim has absolutely no basis in fact.
The second is a deliberate misreading of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which supposedly establishes the separation of Church and State. The Establishment Clause simply reads, "The Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion." What it means, and was fully intended to mean, is that there would be no establishment of any one religion to be the national religion in exclusion of all others. There is nothing here about any supposed separation of Church and State, though liberals continually read this into the Establishment Clause. What follows the Establishment Clause -- and about what we never hear a peep out of from liberals -- is the Exercise Clause, which states, "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is the Exercise Clause, in fact, that liberals have DELIBERATELY ignored, resulting in federal regulations prohibiting school prayer, praying in public places, and displays of the Ten Commandments and other things pertaining to religion.
So where does the phrase, "separation of Church and State," originally appear? Not in the Constitution, nor in any of our other founding documents, but rather, in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut -- a private letter whose contents were never intended to become legislation.
For those who do not have pocket Constitutions (which are available upon request from the Heritage Foundation at www.heritage.org), the Constitution may be found online. May I suggest to my liberal friends, as well as anyone else who may be interested in going to the source for the truth, a reading of this wonderful document? May I especially suggest a perusal of Amendments 1-10, known to every school child as the Bill of Rights, to see what every one of these amendments has in common regarding the role of government in our lives, and then compare it to what we hear from the White House today? It all just might result in a most profound education.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -- Patrick Henry
As we celebrate another Fourth of July, it seems only fitting that we pay at least a passing tribute to the most important of our founding documents, the Constitution of the United States. Some may argue that it was the Declaration of Independence that was officially proclaimed on July 4, 1776, and that the Constitution was not adopted until 11 years later, on Sept. 17, 1787, and they would be right. However, the 11-year hiatus between our nation having declared its independence from the British Crown and adopted the Constitution which would be the bulwark of its existence stands as proof that the Constitution was not drafted overnight, and neither was it lightly considered by those who put it together. It was written, and fully intended by those who wrote it, to stand for time.
What the liberals among us regard as axiomatic, unquestionable truth concerning the Constitution is recognized by conservatives as the Biggest Lie Ever Told. On the evening of June 30, 2011, Democrat strategist Chris Hahn, a former campaign worker for Sen. Chuck Shumer (D-N.Y.), repeated the lie once again: that our Constitution is "a living, breathing document that evolves over time." Oh really? To those who not only perpetuate this lie but believe it themselves, may I put forth a question: Have you ever tried reading that living, breathing document? Do you even know how many articles it contains, and how many amendments? (There are seven of the first, and 27 of the second.)
Let me suggest an analogy here, one to which any homeowner -- or, for that matter, any responsible tenant -- can readily relate: Consider the foundation upon which your home is built. Is it a "living, breathing" structure that evolves over time and shifts with the prevailing winds and sands? Of course it isn't! If it were, it would not support your home, and you know it! Well, the Constitution of the United States is the foundation of our representative republic, and the Founding Fathers intended for it to be just that: a firm, rock-solid foundation, not a "living, breathing" anything.
But what about the amendments to the Constitution, I can hear the liberals protesting now? Aren't they evidence of the Constitution being a "living, breathing" entity? Once again, I offer the analogy of a house's foundation. Even the firmest of structures will eventually show signs of decay, and so it is with our Constitution. But note here that as the Constitution itself was not lightly drafted, so the amendment process is not likely taken. In order for the Constitution to be amended, or to have an amendment repealed, the following process must be undertaken. The amendment must be proposed in Congress, and passed by a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate -- which means that unless one party totally dominates both houses of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans must be in fundamental agreement with it. Next it must be signed by the president. Even then the process is not over, for the measure must then be ratified by the individual states before it becomes part of our Constitution. It is a most cumbersome process, and intentionally made so by our Founding Fathers for the specific purpose of preventing our most important founding document from becoming the very thing liberals now claim it to be: a living, breathing document that shifts with the prevailing sands of time.
So why, in the face of all this, do liberals still adamantly aver our Constitution to be a "living, breathing document"? May I suggest a translation here from politico-speak to plain, simple English? What they are really saying here is that our Constitution says whatever they want it to say, and means whatever they want it to mean. Two glaring examples of this prevail to this day. The first example is the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973, in which a liberal-dominated Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a woman has a "constitutional" right to have her unborn child aborted. Yet where in the Constitution is this matter addressed, or, for that matter, even suggested? I have read the Constitution -- more than once -- and I can unequivocally state for the record that it IS NOT THERE! Yet because five liberal Supreme Court justices agreed that it OUGHT to be there, even if it isn't, it was therefore made "constitutional" by judicial fiat. To this day, Democrats and other liberals still glowing cite "a woman's constitutional right to a safe, legal abortion," though their claim has absolutely no basis in fact.
The second is a deliberate misreading of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which supposedly establishes the separation of Church and State. The Establishment Clause simply reads, "The Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion." What it means, and was fully intended to mean, is that there would be no establishment of any one religion to be the national religion in exclusion of all others. There is nothing here about any supposed separation of Church and State, though liberals continually read this into the Establishment Clause. What follows the Establishment Clause -- and about what we never hear a peep out of from liberals -- is the Exercise Clause, which states, "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is the Exercise Clause, in fact, that liberals have DELIBERATELY ignored, resulting in federal regulations prohibiting school prayer, praying in public places, and displays of the Ten Commandments and other things pertaining to religion.
So where does the phrase, "separation of Church and State," originally appear? Not in the Constitution, nor in any of our other founding documents, but rather, in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut -- a private letter whose contents were never intended to become legislation.
For those who do not have pocket Constitutions (which are available upon request from the Heritage Foundation at www.heritage.org), the Constitution may be found online. May I suggest to my liberal friends, as well as anyone else who may be interested in going to the source for the truth, a reading of this wonderful document? May I especially suggest a perusal of Amendments 1-10, known to every school child as the Bill of Rights, to see what every one of these amendments has in common regarding the role of government in our lives, and then compare it to what we hear from the White House today? It all just might result in a most profound education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
