Fr. John Corapi - Page 5

vz71 · #61 Sep 15, '11, 6:28 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoshana

I told everything that happened. It is a free world, Tamra threatened me and the site was closed. Believe what you want. I am done explaining. I have been here for a very long time. When peoples' minds are made, they're made up....sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and sometimes a bit of both. But also much speculation.

Have a blessed day with Our Lady...

If it was this threat that closed the page, then why didn't all of the other threats from people on that page do anything?
I myself was subject to several of those posters sending threatening messages.
And that was several weeks ago.

Best case would be if Corapi simply admitted never reading the page.
For if he did, then he is a witness to the ugliness, was able to do something and did nothing instead.
For some, that confirms the worst speculation of the man.

**Shoshana** · #62 Sep 15, '11, 7:46 am

Yes, and there has always been always way too much speculating going on....

chain · #63 Sep 15, '11, 7:51 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmcrae

Perhaps he imagines that the faithful Catholics who listened to him preach about obedience to the Church are suddenly going to disobey the Church and follow him, instead.

As far as I know and can remember, he has never asked anyone to do anything that was not inline with church teaching or obedience. The issue is more that his actions may not have been in line with his teaching - and actions can often speak louder than words.

vz71 · #64 Sep 15, '11, 9:30 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by chain

. The issue is more that his actions may not have been in line with his teaching - and actions can often speak louder than words.

Agreed.
He is clearly in violation of his promise to poverty and his vow of obedience.

J_Katherine · #65 Sep 16, '11, 9:07 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoshana

Corapi...

Actually, not.

They are the words of whoever is moderating the page. From the tone and grammar, it is the same Santa Cruz employee who has been posting and tweeting as John Corapi for the last month or so, and has now stepped up the moderation because so many people reported the abusive speech against Tamra.

And conveniently, the flag-desecrating icon was removed from the BSD website at the same time that the old FB page was taken down. That page is back today, but only temporarily, in order to inform the thousands of fans where to go now. (The email that the moderator attempted to post to that effect went haywire, with all 2,000+ messages ending up in one follower's FB message box. They're not particularly savvy over there.)

At least the moderator is now speaking in third person and not pretending to be John, who is clearly uninterested in anything that goes on online unless there are sales attached to it--or, as in the case of the flag graphic and the Iwo Jima portrait before it, he is threatened with legal action.

However, that's not stopping everyone from addressing the moderator as though he/she were "Father Corapi."

**jmcrae** · #66 Sep 16, '11, 9:28 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by chain

As far as I know and can remember, he has never asked anyone to do anything that was not inline with church teaching or obedience. The issue is more that his actions may not have been in line with his teaching - and actions can often speak louder than words.

Right. The Church, however, has already commanded us not to partake in any way in his new ministry, since he has already been forbidden to preach or to teach in any manner whatsoever. Faithful Catholics will obey the Church.

Mary Gail 36 · #67 Sep 16, '11, 10:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_Katherine

Actually, not.

They are the words of whoever is moderating the page. From the tone and grammar, it is the same Santa Cruz employee who has been posting and tweeting as John Corapi for the last month or so, and has now stepped up the moderation because so many people reported the abusive speech against Tamra.

And conveniently, the flag-desecrating icon was removed from the BSD website at the same time that the old FB page was taken down. That page is back today, but only temporarily, in order to inform the thousands of fans where to go now. (The email that the moderator attempted to post to that effect went haywire, with all 2,000+ messages ending up in one follower's FB message box. They're not particularly savvy over there.)

At least the moderator is now speaking in third person and not pretending to be John, who is clearly uninterested in anything that goes on online unless there are sales attached to it--or, as in the case of the flag graphic and the Iwo Jima portrait before it, he is threatened with legal action.

However, that's not stopping everyone from addressing the moderator as though he/she were "Father Corapi."

Quote:

Flag desecration (or flag abuse) is a term applied to various acts that intentionally destroy, damage or mutilate a flag in public, most often a national flag. Often, such action is intended to make a political point against a country or its policies. Some countries have laws forbidding methods of destruction (such as burning in public) or forbidding particular uses (such as for commercial purposes); such laws may distinguish between desecration of the country's own national flag and flags of other countries. Some countries have laws protecting the right to burn a flag as free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_de...#United_States
I'm not sure he desecrated the flag. That term is a bit loaded, no?

vz71 · #68 Sep 16, '11, 11:21 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mary Gail 36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_de...#United_States
I'm not sure he desecrated the flag. That term is a bit loaded, no?

Desecration may be a harsher tem then should be used.
But what he has done with the flag was in violation of law and would make him susceptible to a fine or jail time.

J_Katherine · #69 Sep 16, '11, 12:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vz71

Desecration may be a harsher tem then should be used.
But what he has done with the flag was in violation of law and would make him susceptible to a fine or jail time.

Yes, I overstepped with desecration. I should have said "prohibited use of the flag to promote a commercial venture; prohibited distortion of the flag's image; prohibited superimposition of type and other images on the flag; and (worst of all) one more cynical attempt to appropriate the symbols of American patriotism by a man who has inflated his past military career for similar commercial purposes."

The flag, btw, was the replacement for the copyright-violating use of the Iwo Jima flagraising photo.

I don't believe the new image violates anything but common sense, as Montana does not require motorcyclists over the age of 18 to wear helmets.

vz71 · #70 Sep 16, '11, 12:18 pm

Quote:

Friends please accept our apology for the confusion and the disappearance over The Black SheepDog fan page. Due to the integrity of the page being compromised, the page was temporarily taken down by the staff at Santa Cruz Media, Inc. We will be posting all updates on the NEW official page monitored by the staff at Santa Cruz Media, Inc. Click on this link https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Black-SheepDog/264369273580743 to stay up to date on The Black SheepDog - John Corapi

Anyone else think this word usage:
" Due to the integrity of the page being compromised"
Is implying some kind of conspiracy?

Just wondering. I read this of the BSD page and several alarms went off.
Maybe I am just paranoid, but this looks odd.

**Shoshana** · #71 Sep 16, '11, 12:43 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_Katherine

Actually, not.

They are the words of whoever is moderating the page. From the tone and grammar, it is the same Santa Cruz employee who has been posting and tweeting as John Corapi for the last month or so, and has now stepped up the moderation because so many people reported the abusive speech against Tamra.

This s wrong....here is the truth....I assure you that the reason the site came down "temporarily" is because Fr. did not want to feel responsible for causing anyone to sin or be distressed from his page. I watched "the accuser" post for days and she became more and more antagonistic and it seemed to be escalating. We have just allowed free speech to and common decency to prevail in the comments that were being posted but clearly it has gotten out of hand and very counter productive. I communicated the goings on to FC today and the fact that Sue (me) was leaving due to stress and he said take it down. We are discussing and in prayer on how to proceed. That is the reason and not what the CFC people declare about that "alleged" letter from Bobbi to Tamra.

THAT is the reason.. I will not repeat. This is why there is so much GOSSIP on these pages. But you are right...it is someone speaking on Corapi's behalf....

And conveniently, the flag-desecrating icon was removed from the BSD website at the same time that the old FB page was taken down. That page is back today, but only temporarily, in order to inform the thousands of fans where to go now. (The email that the moderator attempted to post to that effect went haywire, with all 2,000+ messages ending up in one follower's FB message box. They're not particularly savvy over there.)

At least the moderator is now speaking in third person and not pretending to be John, who is clearly uninterested in anything that goes on online unless there are sales attached to it--or, as in the case of the flag graphic and the Iwo Jima portrait before it, he is threatened with legal action.
Again...real real bad specualtion...you will have to answer for that.

However, that's not stopping everyone from addressing the moderator as though he/she were "Father Corapi."

This is the integrity of catholic.com. Nothing to brag about I say. Maybe I should send these threads to Mother Angelica. We would see what she would say about all of this gossip, speculating and tearing of not only one priest apart but two....God bless you all and good bye...criticizing a priest is criticizing Christ. How many times have I said this? Many of the posts look commonsensical in the minds of the people writing them. Morally, it is wrong. And highly speucaltive....but it is your opinions, cherish them..

I will be writing an e-mail to this site and thanking them for this site....for all the good it has brought....but the latest posts are wrong and nobody wants to listen...so, listen to yourselves. I will continue to pray, as I always have.

I will be leaving both sites, they are not what they used ot be...anything goes....

**Shoshana** · #72 Sep 16, '11, 12:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vz71

Anyone else think this word usage:
" Due to the integrity of the page being compromised"
Is implying some kind of conspiracy?

Just wondering. I read this of the BSD page and several alarms went off.
Maybe I am just paranoid, but this looks odd.

No more odd than your speculation....reason is above...

Mary Gail 36 · #73 Sep 16, '11, 12:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vz71

Desecration may be a harsher tem then should be used.
But what he has done with the flag was in violation of law and would make him susceptible to a fine or jail time.

Quote:

This code is the guide for all handling and display of the Stars and Stripes. It does not impose penalties for misuse of the United States Flag. That is left to the states and to the federal government for the District of Columbia. Each state has its own flag law.

Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.

While the Code empowers the President of the United States to alter, modify, repeal or prescribe additional rules regarding the Flag, no federal agency has the authority to issue 'official' rulings legally binding on civilians or civilian groups. Consequently, different interpretations of various provisions of the Code may continue to be made. The Flag Code may be fairly tested: 'No disrespect should be shown to the Flag of the United States of America.' Therefore, actions not specifically included in the Code may be deemed acceptable as long as proper respect is shown.

http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html#171

J_Katherine · #74 Sep 16, '11, 1:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoshana

This is the integrity of catholic.com. Nothing to brag about I say. Maybe I should send these threads to Mother Angelica. We would see what she would say about all of this gossip, speculating and tearing of not only one priest apart but two....God bless you all and good bye...criticizing a priest is criticizing Christ. How many times have I said this? Many of the posts look commonsensical in the minds of the people writing them. Morally, it is wrong. And highly speucaltive....but it is your opinions, cherish them..

I will be writing an e-mail to this site and thanking them for this site....for all the good it has brought....but the latest posts are wrong and nobody wants to listen...so, listen to yourselves. I will continue to pray, as I always have.

I will be leaving both sites, they are not what they used ot be...anything goes....

Shoshana, I'm not sure what has upset you so much. I was pointing out that you were inaccurate in attributing the message you say you received to John Corapi, when it was from the page moderator, as you acknowledge. If you wish to believe that the page was taken down due to a threat you claim was made to you offline (no such threats appeared on the page), that is your right, but I do not have to share that belief.

And it is not speculation to say that Dr Corapi (he has asked not to be called Fr, and has requested to leave the SOLT, so I don't believe this is a case of disrespect to a priest or religious) has not communicated publicly on his Facebook page other than to promote materials for sale. He has not responded to requests for private prayer (something he is not prohibited under the suspension, even if he were honoring that--which his latest video does not, as it represents him in clerical dress preaching publicly) or otherwise expressed concern for the spiritual confusion his followers find themselves in. If you can show me where I've missed that, or point to any communications that aren't promoting products, I'd be happy to see them.

J_Katherine · #75 Sep 16, '11, 1:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mary Gail 36

http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html#171

Federal law leaves to the states the right to set individual flag legislation for both the US and State flags. Both Montana (where the FB page is located) and Nevada (where Santa Cruz Media is registered) state law prohibit the use of the US flag for commercial purposes or its alteration by the superimposition of other messages or images, and, as provided under federal law, both levy penalties in the form of fines and/or imprisonment for violation of these laws.

I applaud the page monitor for removing the offending image when notified of the implications--as was done with the Iwo Jima image, which the page moderator did not know was subject to copyright restrictions.