Talk:John Corapi

message: "He refuses to have his hands tied as to what he can preach and the manner in which he presents his message." ???????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.229.207 (talk) 
:In the last analysis, it doesn't matter. What counts is that WP:BLP is crystal clear: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It therefore must be, and now is,
:Removed. 
:- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who wrote this, and why? 

message: "He then lived with his mother for some time, coming to God on June 24, 1984." What does this sentence mean? It seems to be from the viewpoint of a believer in the Judeo-Christian mythology. I don't ask this with any desire to get into an argument argument, and will leave the discussion if it threatens to become one, but can someone explain how it is NPOV to use of metaphor referring to an entity whose existence is presumed as an article of faith only, as though its existence was fact?
I would have corrected it, but, as said, I don't understand what the metaphor "coming to God" actually means. A better phrase would be a factual description of whatever he actually did: "declaring his belief in God", "becoming a priest", "taking communion", "renouncing his former life", etc.
Additionally, the source for this statement is a YouTube video of Corapi himself speaking, which doesn't necessarily make it true. (I think. Are a person's statements about themselves considered authoritative?) And since whoever inserted it put it there after hearing it spoken by Corapi himself, isn't that original research? SteubenGlass (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the phrasing is rather pious. I would change it, not just to adhere to NPOV, but really more for the reason that there are many people who won't know precisely what it means. Maybe the sentence in question could be something like, "He then lived with his mother for some time, declaring a conversion on June 24, 1984," but to be honest I'm not entirely sure what the metaphor means either. (Maybe best simply to be more vague, saying something like, "eventually declaring a conversion from his previous lifestyle.") As for the source question, I would take a person's own statements about themselves as being authoritative. Most people do not have, for example, critical autobiographers to investigate the statements they make about themselves. I see no reason to distrust someone's own statements about their life unless there is manifest reason to do so. (See WP:ABOUTSELF for the policy.) And so if we can trust a person's autobiographical statements as being reliable sources, then I don't think it would could as original research. — AlekJDS talk 21:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: There statements in this article that say he was ordained by someone and also that he was ordained by John Paul II. The only "evidence" given for either of these "facts" are his own blog. He is a member of an organization which is not recognized a religious order by the RC, but as a type of sodality or voluntary association of lay religious very loosely regulated if at all by the Catholic heirarchy. I think the only requirement is that the cardinal in the diocese has to okay the foundation of the sodality. Because SOTL is not a religious order capable of ordaining anyone, how can he claim to be a Roman Catholic priest? Can someone prove his ordination, especially his ordination by a Pope. If there is evidence other than his own CV I think it should be inserted into this article. 75.243.138.208 (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: These are nothing more than conspiracy theories. Also, you need to carefully reread the article. He was ordained a deacon by Bishop Gracida, and then a priest by the pope in 1991. (Though it would be nice to have a third-party source for some of the biographical info, I think that would be pretty difficult to find for most people. See the discussion above.) I would be interested in knowing on what basis you claim the SOLT to be "loosely regulated if at all by the Catholic heirarchy". Talk about claims that need citation. Finally, a priest can definitely be an ordained Roman Catholic priest without being a member of a religious order. It's called being a diocesan priest. — AlekJDS talk 22:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: SOLT is a society of apostolic life; this is a type of institute, recognized in canon law, for members dedicated to a particular mission.  Members make a promise of obedience, but they do not take a vow of poverty. Like most new communities, SOLT was founded under the supervision of a particular diocesan bishop rather than under direct papal supervision.  The supervising bishop is that of Corpus Christi, Texas.  Since SOLT's superior has made statements on Corapi's status after the accusation in March 2011,, that is sufficient to confirm his membership.  In addition, there's a witness to the ordination.  Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (blogger; former staffer for the Vatican's "Ecclesia Dei" office; columnist for The Wanderer newspaper; priest of the diocese of Velletri-Segni (Italy)) says that he and Corapi were ordained in the same ceremony by Pope John Paul II. I hope this helps.   It is certainly worth checking out reported details in Corapi's background, as this veteran's group did:  --Chonak (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: SOLT's press release asserts that he made a promise (although not a vow) of poverty. Elizium23 (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What IS he? He can't be an ordained RC priest as he is not a member of any religious order 

message: I have now made a couple reverts due to the recent release from SOLT.  The first revert was obvious.  The entire news release has no place on WP.  The 2nd two reverts were due to the fact that this isn't the news.  The sentence as written still violates WP:BLP. Extreme care must be taken in the exact wording of what is being said, how it is being said and the reliability of the source.  This isn't censorship or anything like that, the scandel is already mentioned.  Give it a day or two to flush out, or make sure the sentence added is extremly well worded for BLP reasons. Marauder40 (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reverting it back. This has been released by his order, whcih seems like a relaible source. Rockules318 (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually concur with Marauder40, but I am loath to revert yet again. I have cleaned up the citation and worded the sentence more carefully. — AJDS talk 21:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Additions due to SOLT release 

message: Please do not use the term "former" or "defrocked" in the article. For one thing, Corapi's status as of July 5, 2011 is 'suspended from ministry', that is, he is still a priest but he is prohibited from celebrating the sacraments. If and when he goes through the process of laicization, a mention can of course be made of that. But Roman Catholic priests are priests forever, due to the ontological effect of ordination on the human soul. So it is inaccurate to say that anyone is a "former" priest, even after laicization: a laicized Roman Catholic priest can still exercise his ministry in situations of dire emergency. Elizium23 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources? The news articles I see use a variety of terms. One says he has "resigned from public ministry", another says that he "resigned from the priesthood", and a third says he has "announced his departure from the Catholic Church". He has apparently been ordered by his superior not to perform the sacraments. I haven't seen "defrocked" used in any articles. However it looks like "former priest" may be accurate for all practical purposes. As to effects of ordination on his soul, that may be beyond the scope of this article.   Will Beback  talk   21:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not exactly sure what it means that he "resigned from the priesthood" unless he submitted a request for laicization to the Holy See. They have certainly not granted any such request yet, so he remains a priest as of this writing. The only disciplinary action that has verifiably taken place at this point is his suspension from ministry, and that is a routine action taken in every allegation of sexual abuse. Elizium23 (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are laicization requests public?   Will Beback  talk   21:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Such requests are sometimes public but not always.   In this case, Corapi's statements to date are not specific enough for the public to determine whether he has submitted a request for laicization, or a request to be released from membership in SOLT (and the attendant obligations), or neither; he may have attempted to declare his own resignation (from SOLT or from priestly ministry) without regard to canonical procedure. The following are known: SOLT has forbidden him to engage in preaching, teaching, or public ministry of the sacraments; has ordered him to return to community life, and has forbidden him to use the title "Father" for himself.  Such actions do not constitute laicization. Unless and until there is new information on the question, this WP article should not assume a change in his status as a member of the Catholic clergy.--Chonak (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to come up a lot on here about whether Father Corapi is no longer a priest or not. The following was posted by a person very good at this type of stuff on a Catholic forum and explains what "usually" happens. Note that the person has no knowledge about the case itself except what is in the media.In Father Corapi's case, there are two dispensations to be had. He must be dispensed from the SOLT and from the priesthood. The Holy See can grant one and not the other. ... Father has been suspended. The usual waiting period is about five-years [except in cases of child-abuse.] If the person does not do something pro-active during that time, the superior has the right to request that the person be dismissed. Remember, I said the usual waiting period is about five -years. The superior does not have to wait five-years, nor does any bishop. This is just a custom, not a law. The difference between dismissal and dispensation is the same as an honorable discharge and a dishonorable discharge. The effects are the same. You return to life as a lay person. You can receive the sacraments and you're even allowed to marry in the Church, if you find the right person. However, if you are dismissed, as I said above, you may not exercise any ministry. You can't even serve mass. If you ask for a dispensation and it is granted, things are different.Marauder40 (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks M40, that's a good point.  However, I have a question.  Corapi is claiming that he has "resigned".  Elizium chooses to word this as "stated his intention to resign" which has a connotation of something that will be done in the future, when you read or listen to Corapi, he says it as if he did it already(which according to him was June 17).  I think we have two points of view here.  There is the Church's view, which is what you're accurately stating; but there is the secular view...he can't marry, say Mass, or carry on any Catholic ministry.  I use the analogy of a couple married in the Church and later obtaining a civil divorce without a tribunal/annulment/etc.  Should articles about those people be edited to say, "but in the eyes of the Church, they're still married"?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have to use "stated his intention to resign" because a) there is nothing wrong in that statement as written b) because it has to be officially accepted c) there are two organizations to resign from here, both SOLT and the priesthood are seperate, he never said specifically which he was resigning from.  He only said he was resigning.  I know some people will say he never stops being a priest because of indelable marks and things like that, but no matter what his resignation/dispensation as a priest is not accepted until the Holy See says so.  The Holy See could make a specific request of him to a) go back to SOLT b) appear in Rome, etc.  They have done that before with bishops that "resigned" and the person renounced their decision.  This is very similar to in the secular world where someone says "your fired" and the employee says "no I resign."  It takes someone higher up to determine which actually happened, but it can take awhile in the slow moving world of the Church.Marauder40 (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with that.  That makes sense.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

text: His resignation from the priesthood should be sufficient for calling him a "former priest". Implying that he is still an active priest is both inaccurate and dishonest.  Some better wording could solve the problem. Anglicanus (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now reworded the introduction in a factual and neutral way that leaves these issues open. Anglicanus (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Former Catholic priest

message: Isn't he best known as Fr. John Corapi? I think that moving the article to "Fr John Corapi" is more in keeping with WP:Commonname.  He may not be a priest anymore (or maybe he is) but people know him and talk about him as "Fr John Corapi".  That is his common name. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Corapi or Fr. John Corapi 

message: A recent editor added a statement that said there was an official resignation on June 17, 2013.  A 2013 statement is not in the article or linked to in the article.  Please provide the RS for this statement before putting it back in the article.  Also, as previously been argued several times on this page, a resignation has to be accepted by all parties (SOLT, the Vatican, and the priest) until that has been definitive, statements about him being a former priest shouldn't be in the article.  Many times in the past priests have requested resignation and after talking things over with people they decide to return.  Baring a new statement from either the Vatican or Father Corapi, the status quo should remain in the article. I did some searching for a 2013 statement from him and have yet to find anything. There is a statement dated June 17, 2011 but that is old news that has already been addressed in the article.  Please provide a newer statement to support the changes.Marauder40 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While your comments about the canonical status of his resignation are technically correct it is misleading for the intro of the article to suggest that he is still an active priest and a member of the order when all the evidence indicates that he isn't and never will be again.  So unless there is some good argument not to then the fact of him being currently inactive needs to be clearly mentioned in the intro. Anglicanus (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What wording would you suggest to represent that he is an inactive priest? And why does it have to be in the lede sentence when it can be explained later in the section? Elizium23 (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Intros should state a person's current circumstances. To imply that he is currently an active priest when he apparently isn't is factually misleading even if he hasn't received a dispensation from the clerical state. To do so is to elevate legalism over how such things are commonly understood and treated. It is like saying that a priest who leaves active ministry and then marries without being dispensed from the clerical state is not actually married.  While this may be the official attitude of the church we wouldn't ~ or at least shouldn't ~ take that kind of attitude to people in a secular encyclopedia.  As for wording, there are various ways this can be done without much difficulty ~ but I suspect that an editor fixated on the fine points of legalism would still object. Anglicanus (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So what has changed between when you commented in 2012 above about the fact that you "now reworded the introduction in a factual and neutral way that leaves these issues open."  The issue is still open.  It isn't just in the religious world that a resignation has to be accepted.  In the secular world you can get into arguments all the time about whether someone resigned or was fired and things like that.  The big difference is that in the world of the Vatican things move a lot slower (except now in the cases of sexual abuse.)  Usually things take about 5 years to work themselves out within the Catholic church between a resignation and its full acceptance.  If you really want to change it to reflect the actual status you can change it to something like "is an inactive Catholic priest" or "in 2011 announced his resignation." As far as I know the official current status of the "case" is that he has gone totally incommunicado.  Whether that is because he just doesn't want the publicity or because he is on extended retreat trying to determine what he wants to do or whatever, nobody knows.  Until there is an formal deceleration from either him or the Vatican, we cannot change anything.  Also unless someone provides a new statement, there definitely shouldn't be a statement about him resigning in 2013.Marauder40 (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: One accurate way to describe his situation is to say that he "resigned from priestly ministry". The  issues that make other formulations debatable don't apply to this one.  It makes no claim about his canonical status or  his sacramental status, and it is clear about his intention.  -- Bistropha (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed ~ as far as I can tell he has already made a formal declaration of his position and this fact should have greater weight than his official canonical status. Anglicanus (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that "he has submitted his resignation" to the appropriate authority, because the suggestion by Bistropha is vague on the detail that it has not yet been accepted. Or better yet, if we do not know to whom he has submitted the resignation, that "he has published a letter of resignation". Elizium23 (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "resignation" is a tricky point.  Some resignations must be accepted, some need not be.  Let's use a different word to get around the unclarity. Corapi announced that he was leaving priestly ministry permanently. Bistropha (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there new evidence that his resignation has been accepted? Because someone is changing "is" to "was" - nevermind that that is a violation of the guideline that says you need to use present tense for living people, and "was" is for a dead person" - I have seen no source cited which asserts his resignation is accepted or final. Elizium23 (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 17th resignation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on John Corapi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110623003549/http://theblacksheepdog.wordpress.com:80/2011/06/17/ to http://theblacksheepdog.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A reminder: blogs, forums, and other sites of user-generated content are not suitable sources for Wikipedia, except in the case of material published by the subject of the article. (See the style guide.) Therefore part of the "post-ministry" information is not adequately documented.  Bistropha (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs are not suitable sources 

message: (Note: I removed this content from the article for the following reasons: 
* The Sacerdotus material is anonymous.
* The Sacerdotus material is sourced to a blog, and blogs are excluded by WP guidelines on sourcing.
* The Matt Abbott material is vague: "remains in the priesthood" could mean anything or nothing.  Same for "is re-establishing his spiritual life."
* The Matt Abbott material is based on an anonymous source. 
* The Matt Abbott material is a column on an opinion site; it is not clear that the site qualifies as a journalistic organization with any verification of reporting.
Here is the content removed:
(start of quote)
 According to a Catholic news source, Corapi "remains in the priesthood and is re-establishing his spiritual life." There is no indication whether or not he'll be returning to public ministry anytime in the future. Former atheist blogger, seminarian, podcaster and author Sacerdotus has investigated the claims made by Matt Abbott and have found them to be false. He found Corapi's LinkedIn profile and saw that Corapi is giving talks and is in no way returning to the priesthood.  Sacerdotus has even provided recent photos of Corapi showing a more secular looking version of the former charismatic priest. http://www.sacerdotus.com/2015/11/john-corapi-is-back-returned-to-faith.html
(end of quote)
-- Bistropha (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-added the above content. First of all, Church Militant is a media outlet, regardless of whether people like it or agree with its views.  Second, Matt Abbott has just reposted on Renew America substantively the same information as of May 5, 2021, now attributing it via quote to Jesse Romero, who is a reliable Catholic source and has also been propagating this info in his various talks for several years now. If it were somehow wrong info, one would expect either Corapi or SOLT to have disavowed it by now due to Romero's visibility within Catholic circles. If we're going to allow a LinkedIn page as a source, which doesn't seem to have been updated in years (nor have there been any documented recent appearances in the last several years from Corapi as a writer, speaker etc), then it seems reasonable to also include the information that has been published in Church Militant and propagated by highly visible apologist Romero as to Corapi supposedly living a life of prayer and penance out of the public eye with SOLT.TheBlinkster (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed thinly sourced content section: "Post ministry"