Jesus teaches the disciples how to serve

Click image for magnified view.

A question raised by the timeline of the Corapi saga

With an emphasis mostly on SOLT's statements regarding the John Corapi saga, I feel there is an unresolved question in this matter.

March 18, 2011

The Regional Priest Servant of the Society of Our Lady of the Trinity (SOLT), Fr. Gerrard Sheehan, announces that Fr. John Corapi had been placed on administrative leave based on an "allegation that Fr. Corapi has behaved in a manner unbecoming of a priest."

June 17, 2011

Fr. Corapi publicly announces he is leaving the public ministry of the priesthood because of a flawed canonical process in the Church. He writes: "My canon lawyer and my civil lawyers have concluded that I cannot receive a fair and just hearing under the Church’s present process." He signs off as "John Corapi."

June 20, 2011

Fr. Sheehan responds to John Corapi's June 17 statement which includes the following excerpt (emphasis mine):

Although the investigation was in progress, the SOLT had not arrived at any conclusion as to the credibility of the allegations under investigation. At the onset, the Bishop of Corpus Christi advised the SOLT to not only proceed with the policies outlined in their own constitutions, but also with the proper canonical procedures to determine the credibility of the allegations against Fr. Corapi. We reiterate that Fr. Corapi had not been determined guilty of any canonical or civil crimes.

July 5, 2011

Fr. Sheehan issues a "press release" on behalf of SOLT, an admittedly unusual move done because SOLT asserts that John Corapi is "misleading...individuals through his false statements and characterizations." A detailed description of accusations is included:

SOLT's fact-finding team has acquired information from Fr. Corapi's e-mails, various witnesses, and public sources that, together, state that, during his years of public ministry: He did have sexual relations and years of cohabitation (in California and Montana) with a woman known to him, when the relationship began, as a prostitute; He repeatedly abused alcohol and drugs; He has recently engaged in sexting activity with one or more women in Montana; He holds legal title to over $1 million in real estate, numerous luxury vehicles, motorcycles, an ATV, a boat dock, and several motor boats, which is a serious violation of his promise of poverty as a perpetually professed member of the Society.

July 6, 2011

Fr. Sam Medley, webmaster for SOLT, writes on his blog (emphasis mine):

We had way too much info to be able to suspend [Corapi] in the first place that ought to have humbled him, but because people see him as gifted they are not permitted to see his faults. ... Please do not listen to him trying to turn you against the Church authorities that have been trying to bring him in for years.

[EDIT: July 28, 2011 - It appears that the comment section for Fr. Medley's blog post has been removed. The above quote was one of his own comments to his post and no longer appears available on that site.]

>>>>end of timeline

My greatest question when pondering the comments in this timeline revolve around the last three entries:

Why did Fr. Sheehan stress on June 20 that SOLT had not even yet determined if the allegations against Corapi were credible, and then on July 5 give graphic details of his guilty behavior?

Some folks I've chatted with about this discrepancy have posited that SOLT came across new incriminating information in the 16 days between June 20 and July 5. But according to Fr. Medley, they had "way too much info" on Corapi "in the first place" and that Church authorities had "been trying to bring him in for years."

Whether or not Fr. Corapi is guilty on all counts or whether he is completely innocent is not a factor in this discrepancy. Not all believe SOLT has handled the case well, even if Corapi is guilty. Former Bishop of Corpus Christi Rene Henry Gracida wrote on July 5 in response to SOLT's press release: "[I]t seems to me that the issuing of the statement is an effort by the SOLT leadership to justify their own mishandling of his case from the beginning."

In either case the question remains:

Why did Fr. Sheehan stress on June 20 that SOLT had not even yet determined if the allegations against Corapi were credible, and then on July 5 give graphic details of his guilty behavior?

Perhaps there is a simple answer. I am willing to accept it. But I would like to hear it.

How the cherubim witness to Mary's Immaculate Conception

The Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception refers to the Virgin Mary conceived without the stain of original sin. This is the defining text from the papal encyclical Ineffabilis Deus from 1854:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

While the definition was pronounced in 1854, the teaching is firmly rooted in divine revelation, both in Scripture and Tradition in the early Church through today. In this particular article, I do not intend on giving a full apologetic on the validity of this dogma. For a fuller Biblical and Traditional treatment of the dogma, I recommend reading the full encyclical Ineffabilis Deus or good Catholic books on Mary, such as Luigi Gambero's Mary and the Fathers of the Church. Other good web resources on the Immaculate Conception include ScriptureCatholic.com or various articles at PhilVaz.com.

The specific defense of the Immaculate Conception I intend to give here is the witness of the cherubim in Scripture. I find it to be a strong signpost pointing to Mary's incompatibility with sin. And since I have not seen this angle presented explicitly, I've elected to review it here.

First, I will briefly explain the concept of typology in Scripture. A type (or figure) in the Old Testament that has its fulfillment in a New Testament counterpart is said to be the NT's antetype. An example may help. Romans 5:14 tells us of "Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." Romans 5:18 continues the idea: "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."

A characteristic about typology is that the NT type is always the superior, fulfilled version of the OT antetype. We see this explained elsewhere in Scripture. Examples include Haggai 2:9 which says: "Greater will be the future glory of this house than the former, says the Lord of hosts." Or 2 Corinthians 3:11 For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor."

You see the parallel between the two characters, Adam and Jesus, one who brought death and One Who brought life. Jesus and Adam are the first of their kind, yet Jesus is the superior. Jesus Himself gives a clear example of typology in John 6:49-50 when He says: "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die." The manna in the OT could only sustain physical life for a time. Jesus, the Bread of Life–the NT type of the manna–sustains eternal spiritual life and is thus the superior type.

With that in mind, and before I proceed to the witness of the cherubim, recall that Mary is the type of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark contained manna, Aaron the priest's rod, and the ten commandments. Mary contained the new manna, Jesus, Who is also the true High Priest and the Word made flesh. In 2 Sam 6:9, David exclaimed: ""How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" This parallels the words of Elizabeth in Luke 1:43 when she exclaimed: "[W]hy is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" There are at least a dozen strong parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. A good chart depicting this can be seen at www.agapebiblestudy.com. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly confirms the teaching that Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant (CCC#2676).

What is important to know about the Ark in my apologetic, is that God commanded Moses to build the Ark and include figures of two cherubim:

Exodus 25:18,22 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat... There I will meet with you ... from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony.

Notice how the cherubim flank both sides of the place God dwells. And Scripture tells us that the high priest could not even approach the Ark unless he first be purified from sin (cf. Lv 16:2-11; Hb 9:3-7). Keep that in mind a moment.

Another antetype of Mary, less-common in apologetics for her Immaculate Conception, is the Garden of Eden, another "dwelling place" of God. Here are two Early Church Fathers supporting Mary as type of the Garden:

O virgin who surpasses Eden's garden of delights!

St. Theodotus of Ancyra, On the Nativity of Our Savior, 2¹

God’s Eden is Mary; in her there is no serpent that harms...., no Eve that kills, but from her springs the Tree of Life that restores the exiles of Eden.

St. Ephraim, On the Annunciation of the Mother of God, hymn 3:30²

Ineffabilis Deus makes reference to Mary as the type of "that garden enclosed on all sides, which cannot be violated or corrupted by any deceitful plots." The encyclical refers to Song of Songs 4:12 which speaks of a "bride" who is "a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed" as well as other references to this bride as a "garden" throughout the chapter. That particular verse is also a testimony to Mary's perpetual virginity and has been understood as such by the Church.³ Mary is also a "bride" to the Holy Spirit because their union brought forth the child Jesus.⁴ But I bring this up to further support the image of "garden" with Mary.

Now remember, Mary whom God chose as His dwelling place, is the superior type of her OT counterparts.

Draw your attention to the Genesis 3 account of the Fall. Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit. Adam is punished for this and they are exiled from the Garden:

Genesis 3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden.

The very next verse reads:

Genesis 3:24 He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

Notice once again, how the cherubim are assigned to guard the dwelling place of God–the Garden of Eden. And more importantly, notice how when Adam and Eve exhibited sin, they were vanquished from the Garden.⁵

It's also important to note another parallel between the temple in which was the Ark and the Garden. The cherubim guarded the east gate of the Garden. And the east gate is also the entrance to the temple (Ez 43:1-5, 1 Kg 6:22-35).

Father Pascale Parente described the origin of the word cherubim, which is derived from the singular word "KeRUBH." Fr. Parente wrote:

Scholars differ widely on the meaning and the origin of this word. It seems that this was originally an Assyrian word which was later given a definite meaning by the Hebrews. Assyrians, Persians and Egyptians paid great honor to protective deities... These protective deities were the common guardians of temples and tombs, where some such statues can still be seen. ... In Sacred Scripture, the Cherubim appear as heavenly custodians and protectors of holy places and holy things.⁶

Essentially, this confirms what the testimony of Scripture already suggests–the cherubim protect the holy.

With that in mind, return to Mary as the Ark–the Ark which was flanked by two cherubim. And then return to the other "dwelling place of God" which is the Garden, also guarded by cherubim. Both localities are guarded from the presence of sin. The priest had to purify himself from sin before approaching the Ark. The Garden was kept free from sin and guarded in the same way as the Ark–by the cherubim.

Therefore, we see the powerful witness of the cherubim–that Mary is without any stain of sin, including original sin, since God tells us in divine revelation that she is the untainted Ark and Garden, both guarded from sin by the cherubim. And Mary, as the NT type of these protected OT places, is protected from sin in an even more splendorous way.

[EDIT: I originally posted this briefly for part of a day back in December, but removed it because I tried to get it published. I had some nice comments from a couple publications, but they were interested in other things at this time.]

¹Quoted in Malty, Fr. Tadros Y Malaty, St. Mary in the Orthodox Concept, 1975, p. 28

²Quoted in Ibid, p. 58

³The teaching in Ineffabilis Deus linking Sg 4:12 is by no means a novel idea. For example, St. Jerome (d. 420) explicitly says Sg 4:12 refers to Mary (Letter to Pammachius). There is also the interpretation of St. Peter Chrysologus (d. 450) (Sermon 145).

⁴See Pope Paul VI's Gaudete in Domino for a magisterial example teaching Mary's espousal to the Holy Spirit.

⁵One may ask how, if sin is incompatible with the Garden, was the serpent there? Certainly the devil, whom tradition says is represented in the figure of the snake, was not in the Garden in a residential sense as were Adam and Eve. The devil, as pure spirit, certainly did not have the same presence with God in the Garden that pre-Fall Adam and Eve did. The passage should be understood such that the devil's wiles had a certain influence of Adam and Eve, as represented by the suggestion of the snake, but we should not conclude he communed with God in the Garden as did God's children. To support this, consider the devil tempting Jesus in the desert (eg. Lk 4:1-13). In that scene, the devil in a proximate sense is "in the presence of God," but in the spiritual sense he remains eternally distant.

⁶Parente, Fr. Pascale, The Angels in Catholic Teaching and Tradition, Tan Books, Charlotte, NC, 1973, p. 52-52

Bishop defends Father Corapi

Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Corpus Christi, TX, retired since 1997 came out on June 18 in support of Father John Corapi's decision to leave the public ministry of the priesthood. Bishop Gracida wrote on his blog Abyssum Abyssum Invocat the following:

I believe that he is justified in not seeking to clear his name through a canonical process; at the present time such processes are very flawed in most dioceses. Rather I would like to believe that he intends to try to clear his name through the civil courts. Since I believe that his accuser is a former manager of his media company who he terminated with some kind termination agreement, and since she has evidently sought revenge for her termination by writing to the Bishop of Corpus Christi denouncing Father John, I believe that it is possible for him to do so and I wish him every success in such an endeavor. The basis for his lawsuit would probably be defamation of character, libel, extortion, breech of contract, or whatever.

His post was longer, but that statement was the nut graph in my opinion. As I conjected Sunday (see Things to consider on Father Corapi leaving the priesthood), in light of Father Corapi's new ministry after leaving the public ministry, "perhaps he would be the Church's ally if he were to help purge impurities within Her walls."

Even though the bishop's statement above was made a day before my Sunday blog post, I didn't read it until today. So let me dovetail from my "Possibilities if Father Corapi is right" scenario from Sunday. If Father Corapi was right to step back from his public ministry, might one of the "consequences" of that action be to draw attention to a canonical system drastically flawed? Would Bishop Gracida have ever made such comments about a "very flawed" "canonical process" in "most dioceses"? In a best-case-scenario for Father Corapi, did his action set in motion a much-needed fix in canonical processes? Whether or not he anticipated this deliberately or whether he hoped something like this would happen I can't say for sure. But if the Church's processes wind up corrected as a result of Father Corapi's action, might that be considered a good fruit of his action? ( Granted, God in His sovereignty can work with good or bad actions that good fruit might be the result.)

One other thing I will cite here is Father Corapi's reaction to some of the accusations he's had in the last few days that he's out to get rich by selling his stuff and going off on his own. The bishop made a brief defense of that speculation by stating: "As a member of that Society (The Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity) Father John is not bound by a vow of poverty." And Father Corapi's own defense read on his blog earlier today (at The Black Sheep Dog):

Concerning money, most people know me through radio and television. My broadcasts for 17 years on both radio and television were absolutely free to the public. I was never paid for them by EWTN or any radio station, nor did EWTN or any radio station ever charge anyone to view them. The past several years I never charged a fee to speak at events either. Furthermore, I have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to various Catholic organizations, and directed millions more from benefactors that wanted to give it to me. I did not accept charitable contributions, although I could have received millions.

So that is his side of that issue.

One thing I find unspoken in this ordeal is back to what if Father Corapi is guilty of some ill behavior, and we consider the "Bishop was right" to suspend him scenario? Father Corapi would be guilty, his critics vindicated, and the powers that be would appear right to have identified a credible accusation. Would that absolve a canonical process that is still flawed in the minds of Father Corapi's supporters, such as Bishop Gracida? And would that absolve a canonical process that is flawed even according to those who are troubled by Father Corapi's decision, such as Catholic radio talk show host Al Kresta who wrote today:

I personally know 6 priests who have either been removed permanently or are awaiting disposition or have been looked at and left in ministry. All of them have complained about the process including the one that has been left in ministry. Obviously there is a problem.

Finally, I have seen a number of Father Corapi's critics defending Father Corapi's suspension, but I have not seen much in the way of why the accusation was seen as credible. Some of my comments appear first in the Al Kresta link above. The Society in which Father Corapi was a member (SOLT) made the following statements on Monday: "due to the gravity of the accusation...Fr. Corapi was suspended from active ministry" and also "If the allegations had been found to be credible, the proper canonical due process would have been offered to Fr. Corapi..." Neither of these statements sound like the accusation was deemed credible before the suspension began. I'm willing to hear the credibility of the accusation, but I have not seen the reasons yet.

Things to consider on Fr. Corapi leaving the (public) priesthood

So in case you didn't hear, this week Fr. Corapi withdrew from the priesthood indefinitely. Here is the video and transcript of his announcement.

A number of Catholics, including at least one of my favorite apologists, Jimmy Akin, have been very critical of him for making this decision.

The purpose of my post here is to help curb wild speculation and uncharitable comments that have prompted even the good folks over at Catholic Answers Forums to impose a temporary ban on Fr. Corapi threads, perhaps wisely.

Without getting into wild and uncharitable wild speculation myself, I think there may be more to this whole story than meets the eye.

On March 19, 2011, Father Corapi's website had the following statement:

On Ash Wednesday I learned that a former employee sent a three-page letter to several bishops accusing me of everything from drug addiction to multiple sexual exploits with her and several other adult women. There seems to no longer be the need for a complaint to be deemed “credible” in order for Church authorities to pull the trigger on the Church’s procedure, which was in recent years crafted to respond to cases of the sexual abuse of minors. I am not accused of that, but it seems, once again, that they now don’t have to deem the complaint to be credible or not, and it is being applied broadly to respond to all complaints. I have been placed on “administrative leave” as the result of this.

I’ll certainly cooperate with the process, but personally believe that it is seriously flawed, and is tantamount to treating the priest as guilty “just in case”, then through the process determining if he is innocent. The resultant damage to the accused is immediate, irreparable, and serious, especially for someone like myself, since I am so well known. I am not alone in this assessment, as multiple canon lawyers and civil and criminal attorneys have stated publicly that the procedure does grave damage to the accused from the outset, regardless of rhetoric denying this, and has little regard for any form of meaningful due process.

All of the allegations in the complaint are false, and I ask you to pray for all concerned.

As a previous purchaser from his website, I was privy to a March 25, 2011 email sent by Bobbi Ruffatto, vice president of operations at Santa Cruz Media which distributes Fr. Corapi's CDs. She wrote:

There is no evidence at this time that Fr. Corapi did anything wrong, only the unsubstantiated rant of a former employee, who, after losing her job with this office, physically assaulted me and another employee and promised to "destroy" Father Corapi.

Of course, her statement does not prove Fr. Corapi's innocence, but it certainly adds fodder to the intrigue.

On June 17, Fr. Corapi's statement (linked above in the opening paragraph) includes this:

I did not start this process, the Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas ordered my superiors, against their will and better judgment, to do it. He in fact threatened to release a reprehensible and libelous letter to all of the bishops if they did not suspend me. He has a perfect right to do so, and I defend that right. Bishops aren’t bound by civil laws and procedures in internal Church matters. I agree with that, and would defend to the death the Church’s right to proceed as they see fit. He is the bishop and he has the right to govern as he sees fit. It isn’t an easy task. Many forces besiege him, including pressure from other bishops. ...

There is a general unwillingness or outright refusal by certain of the bishops to abide by applicable statutes of limitations, both in canon and civil law. There are good reasons for these statutes. Time has a way of clouding memories and distorting perceptions.

By the way, Canon Law does not dictate this. They choose to selectively ignore or violate both Canon Law and Civil Law, as they deem appropriate and or expeditious. Once again, they apparently have the discretionary power to do this, and if that’s the way it is I have to accept that as reality.

The bottom line is that the only way a just outcome is likely, in my view and that of my counsel, both civil and canon lawyers, is by accident, rather than as a result of the process.

I will not try to fight this irrational and unjust situation for the simple reason that I don’t want to be placed in an adversarial posture against the Church.

Now, we have a fair amount of contribution to this story from Fr. Corapi's side. We do not have much from the bishops or the female accuser in question which makes it difficult to compare the details. So I'll proceed as follows:

POSSIBILITIES IF THE BISHOP IS RIGHT

In this scenario, let's assume that the bishop (or bishops) is not the defiant character described in Fr. Corapi's statements. Let's assume that the accusations of sexual misconduct, whatever they may be, are true. And let's assume the bishop(s) overseeing this case have just cause to keep Fr. Corapi on administrative leave and unable to speak about the case.

In this scenario, Fr. Corapi would be guilty of lying since on March 19 he said, "All of the allegations in the complaint are false," and on June 17, he said, "They can’t prove I’m guilty of the things alleged because I’m not." He would be guilty of dishonesty and proneness to sensationalism such as with regard to the bishops.

The other factor against Fr. Corapi in this scenario is the sexual misconduct. Anyone who knows the story of his life knows that for 20 years before returning to the Church he lived as a "pagan," indulging in wine, women, and song with an addiction to cocaine to boot. Neither sexual nor drug addictions are easy grips to escape. And it would by no means be unprecedented for someone as entrenched in that lifestyle to have relapsed.

The Ruffatto statement above that says she was physically attacked by Fr. Corapi's accuser and that the accuser promised to "destroy" Fr. Corapi could still be true even under this "Bishop is Right" scenario.

POSSIBILITIES IF FATHER CORAPI IS RIGHT

My comments from this perspective will be longer because of my familiarity with Fr. Corapi and the amount of information coming from his side.

In Fr. Corapi's statement on leaving the priesthood, he said that it was proving very difficult to get a fair shake in light of bishops abusing the power they have the right to exercise. He said his decision was made in light of counsel from canon lawyers. So what advantage might Fr. Corapi have to leave the priesthood over this matter instead of fighting it out?

One possible motive would be his ability to speak freely about the case now rather than later (or ever). He is now 64 years old. Even if there were canonical options all the way to Rome, is it possible that his canon lawyers advised him that may take years? We also know Fr. Corapi's health has been in recent years the subject of discussion. Could that be a factor in him not even wanting to bother proving his innocence? Might he rather move forward with the projects he'd like to finish in his life and leave conjecture for speculators? And might living out the priesthood on administrative leave have prevented that work from getting done? We do not know, but these questions may shed light on a possibly wise reason for him to leave the priesthood at this time and bear the pains associated with that as a cross.

Another potentially reasonable cause for him to leave the priesthood is that he would not set a precedent for a priest to defy his bishop if he should choose to expose abuses in the Church from his new position in the laity. His statement does say he does not want to be placed in an adversarial position against the Church. But depending on what projects and information we receive from him in the future, perhaps he would be the Church's ally if he were to help purge impurities within Her walls.

Another factor in this scenario is then the culpability of the accuser. If Ruffatto's statement is true, the accuser may be mentally unstable and have conspired to "destroy" Fr. Corapi with false allegations. And compounding the vice of the accuser in this scenario is the complicity and motive of the bishop(s) in question.

I own a lot of Fr. Corapi CDs. And with the help of radio replays, I might venture to say I've heard most of Fr. Corapi's talks. Those who have heard him speak much know that he is not afraid to criticize bishops for behaving as "wolves in sheep's clothing." I remembered a particular comment he made about what some bishops said in a meeting at which he was present. I found the comments in his talk Apocalypse Now (Disc #2) from 1994. And let me add that was the first talk of his among at least 129 that I own that I reviewed to find the quote––so perhaps my memory is way better than it usually is, or God didn't want me to waste time looking! Anyway, in that talk, Fr. Corapi said:

I sat in a meeting not that long ago with a number of bishops and theologians. I sat between two bishops.

The one on my left said, "Well, we're wasting our time in this meeting."

It was on moral theology. I said, "Why's that bishop?"

He said, "Well, until we come out and publicly denounce Pope Paul VI and Humanae Vitae, we're wasting our time."

Yeah, the bishop said that. To my face. I didn't read it on the front page of The Wanderer. He said it. My hearing was fine. I made him repeat it three times to make sure.

The one on the right said, "I don't think we can talk much about formation of conscience, you know, it's in the Catechism. But you know we have to tell our people they have to form their conscience to the world around them."

"What? What do you mean by that?"

"Well, we're not the only ones with a good idea. We have to be up to date with people of our times."

I said, "Well, what do you mean that if the culture says that it's all right to commit mortal sin, we should form our conscience in accordance with that?"

He said, "Oh, mortal sin, I doubt there is such a thing."

Now if you would ever confront one of them with this, they'd deny it to your face. We tolerate evil men! And watch out, the consequences are about to come home to roost.

If this "Fr. Corapi is Right" scenario is true, are these words prophetic? The above statement may not refer to any of the bishops involved in his suspension. But it does show that he is capable of making comments that might not sit well with bishops fitting the description. Has Fr. Corapi irritated enough bishops who feel the sting of his words? And do they find it advantageous to shut him up?

A DOCTRINAL CLARIFICATION

One thought from a doctrinal perspective is also in order here. Some folks, Catholic and otherwise, do not always understand the charism of "infallibility" associated with the Catholic Church. As we saw in reactions to the pedophilia scandal of the Church in recent years, many people think the trueness of Catholicism as Christ's Church is ultimately debunked by the widespread sin by priests and bishops alike in that saga. But the protection of infallibility is something that pertains to the teaching office of the Church, not the personal impeccability of individual priests or bishops. The Church believes that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from ever proclaiming an untrue dogma. The Church believes all matters of faith or morals definitively taught by the Magisterium as a whole are preserved from error by the Holy Spirit (CCC#890ff). So in this incident with Fr. Corapi, if there are bishops who have committed pastoral sins, this would not discredit the Church anymore than did the sin of Judas or the hypocrisy of Peter (Gal: 2:11-14).

FINAL THOUGHTS....FOR NOW

I hope and pray both the bishops and Fr. Corapi do that which is just. Fr. Corapi's autobiography is scheduled to come out August 5, 2011. Perhaps comments on this incident will be included. Will the Bishop scenario prove right? Fr. Corapi's scenario? A combination? Neither? Ultimately, I think time will tell us more about this incident and quell much of the wild speculation.

EDIT 6/21/2011: Technically Fr. Corapi didn't "leave the priesthood," but rather the public ministry of the priesthood. He can still celebrate the sacraments in private or in emergencies as I understand. EDIT 6/25/2011: Added "(public)" to title.

Substances: Comparing the Catholic and Lutheran Eucharist

On the Eucharist, the Council of Trent reads:

[B]y the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

This tidy statement is the basic Catholic understanding that after consecration, the bread and wine during the Liturgy become Christ's body and blood in essence.

Lutherans are often described as believing in "consubstantiation" for their belief that Christ's body and blood are present "in, with, and under" common bread in a "sacramental union." Following are a variety of older and more modern quotes by Lutherans pertinent to this essay:

As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10, 16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11, 28: Let him so eat of that bread. (Luther's Smalcald Articles, 1537, 6.5)

[An uncircumscribed presence] was the mode in which the body of Christ was present when he came out of the closed grave, and came to the disciples through a closed door, as the gospels show. There was no measuring or defining of the space his head or foot occupied when he passed through the stone, yet he certainly had to pass through it. He took up no space, and the stone yielded him no space, but the stone remained stone, as entire and firm as before, and his body remained as large and thick as it was before. But he also was able, when he wished, to let himself be seen circumscribed in given places where he occupied space and his size could be measured. Just so, Christ can be and is in the bread, even though he can also show himself in circumscribed and visible form wherever he wills. For as the sealed stone and the closed door remain unaltered and unchanged, though his body at the same time was in the space entirely occupied by stone and wood, so he is also at the same time in the sacrament and where the bread and wine are, though the bread and wine in themselves remain unaltered and unchanged. (Martin Luther, Confession Concerning Christ's Supper, 1528)

And why could not Christ include his body in the substance of the bread just as well as in the accidents? In red-hot iron, for instance, the two substances, fire and iron, are so mingled that every part is both iron and fire. Why is it not even more possible that the body of Christ be contained in every part of the substance of the bread. What will they [Catholics] reply? Christ is believed to have been born from the inviolate womb of his mother. Let them say here too that the flesh of the Virgin was meanwhile annihilated, or as they would more aptly say, transubstantiated, so that Christ, after being enfolded in its accidents, finally came forth through the accidents! The same thing will have to be said of the shut door [John 20:19, 26] and of the closed mouth of the sepulcher, through which he went in and out without disturbing them. (Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 2.29-30)

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. (Luther's Large Catechism: The Sacrament of the Altar, 8)

Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, "This is my body," even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word "this" indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a "sacramental union," because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union. (Martin Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, Luther’s Works 37 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961], p. 300)

[W]e defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially [substantialiter] present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. (Phillip Melanchthon, friend and contemporary of Martin Luther quoted in his Defense of the Augusburg Confession, Article X)

For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated. (Formula of Concord Solid Declaration, VII.35, written by Luther's successors in 1580)

The bread and wine in the Sacrament are Christ’s body and blood by sacramental union. By the power of His word, Christ gives His body and blood in, with, and under the consecrated (blessed) bread and wine. (Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation, #291, 1998)

Q. What does the LCMS [Lutheran Church Missouri Synod] mean by "in, with and under the forms" of bread and wine? A. Perhaps the most succinct formulation of the Lutheran position on the Real Presence is that found in Article VII of the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration: "In addition to the words of Christ and of St. Paul (the bread in the Lord's Supper 'is true body of Christ' or 'a participation in the body of Christ'), we at times also use the formulas 'under the bread, with the bread, in the bread.' We do this to reject papistic transubstantiation and to indicate the sacramental union...between the untransformed substance of the bread and the body of Christ.....so in the Holy Supper the two essences, the natural bread and the true, natural body of Christ, are present together here on earth in the ordered action of the sacrament... (The Immanuel Record, a Lutheran newsletter, Oct/Nov 2008, issue 143)

By the way, in this ecumenical forum, let it be known that Lutherans, according to their official statements of faith, reject “consubstantiation.” We do not believe that the body and the bread, the blood and the wine, constitute a new and unique substance. We reject all such philosophical attempts to parse this miracle, insisting that we must simply accept the biblical language without interpretation, that the bread and wine are still bread and wine and also the body and blood of Jesus. (Dr. Gene Edward Veith, Lutheran Provost at Patrick Henry College and the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, quoted in Tabletalk Magazine, Nov. 1, 2006)

The Church of the Reformation laid great emphasis on learning and skillful reasoning in service of the service of Word and Sacrament. And it also had a proper sensitivity to the burdens placed on consciences in unwittingly requiring people to hold as binding doctrine what is only a matter of theological opinion. It regarded the latter as spiritual tyranny. A famous example of the latter is 'transubstantiation' as an explanation of the mystery of the Lord's bodily presence in the Sacrament of the Altar. Our reformers too affirmed this mystery as integral to the gospel, so that reception would gift, not reward, but regarded transubstantiation as a particular theological theory explaining the Presence-- and not without its difficulties (i.e. the supposed annihilation of the substance of bread). (Dr. Paul Hinlicky, Tise Professor in Lutheran Studies at Roanoke College in Salem, VA. Quote from April 1, 2009 comment posted at lutheranforum.org)¹

From quotations like these, I'd like to address several things:

1. Does "consubstantiation" describe the Lutheran position?
2. The assertion that transubstantiation is an "explanation" of what is really a "mystery" of Christ's bodily presence in the Eucharist, yet the Lutheran position is not.
3. The use of the term "bread" in Scripture.

Defining the term

Luther and other Lutherans often provide definitions of the Eucharist by including a rejection of transubstantiation. So it is fitting to clarify what the Catholic Church means by the term transubstantiation. In philosophy, the term "substance" (which constitutes the root of the latter half of transubstantiation), basically refers to what a thing is.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the term substance is expounded thusly with regard to the Trinity: "The Church uses the term 'substance' (rendered also at times by 'essence' or 'nature') to designate the divine being in its unity..." (CCC#252)

In the article Thomas Aquinas on Transubstantiation, Dr. Byard Bennett describes substance as "which is what the thing really, truly, fundamentally, actually is." The ancient philosopher Aristotle wrote in his work Metaphysics: "[T]hat which 'is' primarily is the 'what', which indicates the substance of the thing." (7.1a); and "that which underlies a thing primarily is thought to be in the truest sense its substance." (7.3b)

The first half of the term transubstantiation, trans, etymologically signifies a crossing, or to go beyond. When we say we are in "transit," we mean we are crossing from point A to point B. Or if we say we "transplant" a flower, we are moving it from position A to position B. At the heart of this Latin prefix, is a condition A giving way to a condition B.

So in transubstantiation, we see the Catholic understanding that "what the thing is," bread, crosses over to a new condition, Christ's body. What the thing is is now Christ's body. The term does not define how this occurs. It simply means that the bread changes into Christ's body when it is consecrated, even if the outward appearances still look like bread. Hence, the change takes place at the substantial level described above.

Should Lutherans be opposed to the term consubstantiation?

So why are Lutherans often averse to the term consubstantiation to describe what they believe about the Eucharist. Due to the frequent comparison to transubstantiation in Lutheran definitions of the Eucharist, it is possible that the term consubstantiation is too close a resemblance to transubstantiation which they oppose.

Etymologically, the Latin prefix con refers to being "with" or "together." Lewis and Short's Latin dictionary says the term con, when used as a prefix denotes "A being or bringing together of several objects..." And, since substance simply refers to "what a thing is," the term consubstantiation can refer to the occurrence of things brought together.

Consider again how the Lutheran descriptions quoted above consistently describe the Eucharist as a presence where Christ is "in, with, and under"² the unchanged bread and wine. All of the above, Luther, Melanchthon, and even modern Lutherans willingly use the term "substance" to refer to Christ and/or the bread and wine.

So should modern Lutherans, such as Dr. Veith, reject the term consubstantiation?

Here is where it might get a little tricky. At the first council of Nicea in 325 A.D., the Church faced the Arian heresy, which taught that Christ the Son was not of the same substance as the Father. Arian argued that Christ was of a "similar" substance or essence (homoiousion in Greek) as God. The Church proclaimed that Christ was of the "same" substance or essence (homoousion) as God. The etymology of the Greek words there has "ousion" as substance, and the prefixes meaning similar or same, respectively.

The difficulty comes in translating the term homoousion to Latin. Traditionally, the word the Church has used to describe the "same substance" of the Trinity in Latin is consubstantialem. In that instance, the prefix "con" means "with" in the sense of "same." Christ is with God in that they are of the same essence.

However, if one reads consubstantiation to describe the Lutheran position, one should not understand them to believe the substances of Christ and the bread are the "same." The Lutheran notion regards "with" not as "same" but as a union of two different substances. You can see this in Luther's teaching (quoted at beginning of article) where he insists each substance, Christ and bread, remains its own essence. They are comingled like "fire and iron" or as he said of Christ passing through the "shut door." (cf. John 20:19)

I surveyed some of my colleagues over at the Catholic Forums on the etymology of the term, and it seems that consubstantialem originated as the translation of homoousios (same substance).

Now, Dr. Veith rejects the term consubstantiation on the grounds that it suggests a new substance is created. If one were to read the term as it is used to describe the Trinity, then his objection has some merit. However, if one renders the prefix of the term as "with but not same," then I think the term may be as good as any to summate the Lutheran understanding. The weakness of the term consubstantiation is that it can have a different connotation depending on context. As well, the historical Lutheran description of "in, with, and under" obviously includes more prepositions than just "with" (con). However, using Lewis and Short's definition of the prefix con as "things brought together," then the term consubstantiation seems to fit the Lutheran understanding.

The conclusion of Protestant historian Philip Schaff is similar. The term is accurate insofar as the context of what is meant is made clear:

The Lutheran Church ... teaches consubstantiation in the sense of a sacramental conjunction of the two substances effected by the consecration, or a real presence of Christ's very body and blood in, with, and under (in, cum, et sub) bread and wine. The word consubstantiation, however, is not found in the Lutheran symbols, and is rejected by Lutheran theologians if used in the sense of impanation. (Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 6.2 The Augsburg Confession)

What takes away the "mystery" of the sacrament?

As I said earlier, the term transubstantiation does not signify how Christ's body becomes bread and wine. The term merely asserts that what were once common bread and wine are now truly Christ's body and blood, substantially, in essence.

Of note on this point is the 1672 Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem (aka The Confession of Dositheus), a synod of the Orthodox Church, which defends the term transubstantiation as follows:

So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present ... being changed and transubstantiated, becometh, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. (6.17e)

Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord. (6.17h)

I would contend that the above text accurately frames and defends the term transubstantiation. The incomprehensibility and the mystery of the sacrament are not lost or threatened by use of the term transubstantiation as Dr. Hinlicky asserts in (quoted at beginning of article).

It is also worth mentioning the following. If it were true that Catholics threatened the mysterious pedigree of the Eucharist if it is described as changing into the body of Christ, then why would not the Lutheran description of "sacramental union" or "in, with, and under" not do the same? After all, Luther wrote, " the bread and wine in themselves remain unaltered and unchanged" and "out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place." I submit that these descriptions are no more or less an "explanation" of the Eucharist or a threat to the mystery of the Eucharist than transubstantiation.

If anything, some of the deduction Luther posed to defend his notion of "sacramental union" included conjecture such as: "[Jesus] took up no space, and the stone yielded him no space, but the stone remained stone, as entire and firm as before, and his body remained as large and thick as it was before." None of the physics of the matter are provided in the Biblical text, yet Luther describes as fact physical characteristics of the scene not specified.

But my point is, if the Lutheran positions of "sacramental union" or "in, with, and under" are not explanations of a mystery, than neither can be transubstantiation.

A final thought on the term "bread" in Scripture

Luther more than once defended the idea that the substance of bread "remains" in the Eucharist by citing 1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 11:28. The passages read:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16)

Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. (1 Cor. 11:28)

So the rule Luther posits is this: If after consecration the term bread is used to describe what is in question, then common bread therefore remains present.

First, I think it is worth reading on to the next verse in chapter 11:

For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. (1 Cor. 11:29)

So the distinction is made by Paul. What he is calling bread is to be "discerned" as Christ's "body." I submit that although Luther claimed to take Scripture at face value,³ Paul only tells us to identify what is labeled bread as "his body"--not "his body in and under the bread." In fact, Christ Himself used the term "bread" synonomously with His "flesh":

I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." (John 6:51)

No one would argue from John 6:51 that because Christ said one had to eat "this bread" which He "shall give" that is "His flesh" that there must have been common bread scourged by Pilate and crucified with Christ.

In the same way, at the Last Supper, Christ held up the bread and said: "This is my body which is given for you." (e.g. Luke 22:19) So what did Christ give on the cross? His body. And likewise, no one argues from the Last Supper account that because the text uses the term "bread" and a moment later stated that it would be "given for you" that common bread was scourged by Pilate and crucified with Christ. Leading up to the 1 Cor. 11:28 verse, Paul references this very incident (v. 24).

In both 1 Cor. 10 and 11, Paul references the consecrated bread, not pre-consecrated common bread. What we can properly say is that the consecrated bread = Christ's body. By using the term bread in the first half of the equation, we are not meaning common bread. This is the context in which Paul uses the term bread. He makes a distinction when he says in 1 Cor. 10:16 of the "bread which we break." He is labeling the item as such, teaching a nuanced doctrine for which some of Jesus' disciples actually departed (John 6:58-66). And Paul said of this consecrated bread that it must be "discerned as His body" as opposed to "discerned as His body with or under common bread."

So I disagree with Luther that Catholics do violence to Scripture and that his interpretation leaves the Scripture inviolate.

Epilogue

Hopefully, I've clarified the use of some of the terms in the discussion and presented some reasons why Lutherans and Catholics espouse what they do regarding the Eucharist.

On an interesting note, I should point out that for all of Luther's polemics against the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, he considered Catholics to have an acceptable understanding of the Eucharist. Comparing transubstantiation to his own teaching, Luther wrote:

I therefore permit every man to hold either of these views, as he chooses. My one concern at present is to remove all scruples of conscience, so that no one may fear to become guilty of heresy if he should believe in the presence of real bread and real wine on the altar, and that every one may feel at liberty to ponder, hold and believe either one view or the other, without endangering his salvation. (Babylonian Captivity, 2.24)

He ends the section in the same way:

I permit other men to follow the other opinion [transubstantiation], which is laid down in the decree Firmiter. Only let them not press us to accept their opinions as articles of faith, as I said above. (2.36)

What makes this interesting is, in between, he writes sometimes scathingly of the Catholic notion of transubstantiation, calling it "a monstrous word for a monstrous idea" (2.27).

I do think it is an important issue, however, as Luther implies in his very act of vehement opposition to the Catholic teaching. Part of the importance lies in the notion of the Eucharist as "sacrifice." As I mentioned earlier, what is "given up"? Luther, contrary to Catholic teaching, did not consider the Liturgy to be a sacrifice (cf. Babylonian Captivity, 2.37ff, esp. 2.69-70). The question is, what would God have us understand in His revealing of Himself in the sacrament of the Eucharist? But that may be a discussion for another day.

EDIT 6/11/11: I was since referred to the following quote from Martin Luther in which, if this is an accurate translation, he uses the term "with" to describe Christ and the bread/wine in the Eucharist:

We proved above in our comments on Luke that these words, “This cup is the new testament in my blood,” cannot be a trope, because the expression “in my blood” has the same meaning as “through” or “with” my blood. For Christ’s blood cannot be such an insignificant thing that it yields only a sign of the new testament, as the calves’ blood did in Moses’ time. Neither can “blood” be a trope, for the cup cannot by virtue of a sign of the blood, or ordinary wine, become so important a thing, viz. the new testament.

Luther, Martin: Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan (Hrsg.) ; Oswald, Hilton C. (Hrsg.) ; Lehmann, Helmut T. (Hrsg.): Luther's Works, Vol. 37 : Word and Sacrament III. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1999, c1961 (Luther's Works 37), S. 37:III-336

¹Dr. Hinlicky is also in error to describe the Catholic understanding as an "annihilation of the substance of the bread." The defining texts of the Fourth Lateran Council or the Council of Trent do not address the matter. And St. Thomas Aquinas, a key figure in the early Catholic use of the term of transubstantiation, specifically rejected the notion that the bread and wine are annihilated, but rather converted. He writes:

"[I]n this sacrament, the substance of the bread or wine is not annihilated. ... since in this sacrament the whole substance is converted into the whole substance, on that account this conversion is properly termed transubstantiation." (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.75.3, 8)

²It should be noted that I was unable to find a quotation of Luther's using the phrase "in, with, and under." Though it may have been his understanding (his colleague Melanchthon used the phrase), I only found him using "in and under." The Lutheran tradition has historically used the longer "in, with, and under" verbiage.

³Luther wrote regarding his own interpretation of the Eucharist: "But there are good grounds for my view, and this above all - no violence is done to the word of God, whether by man or angel." (Babylonian Captivity, 2.25)

Pope misquoted by UK Telegraph

I recently came across an April 23, 2011 article in the UK Telegraph. The article reports how the Pope was televised last month answering questions sent in by lay Catholics. The headline from the Telegraph reads: "Pope admits 'no answer to suffering' in TV interview".

A video of the pertinent segment of the show accompanied the article. A seven-year-old girl from Japan asked why children had to suffer in natural disasters. The Pope, speaking Italian, said, "Non abbiamo le risposte, ma sappiamo che Gesù ha sofferto come voi, innocente, che il Dio vero che si mostra in Gesù sta dalla vostra parte." (quoted at Zenit.org Italian version)

The body of the Telegraph article translates the line fairly close: "We don't have the answers, but we know that Jesus suffered as innocent children suffer." The key portion of the translation that they got correct was "We don't have the answers." The Pope's words "Non abbiamo le risposte" means quite literally "We don't have the answers." And following that he explained that we do know that Jesus suffered like children like her, and if we don't have the answers, we can draw comfort in knowing that. He continued, saying, "One day you will even understand why this is so."

The headline of the article is factually wrong. Saying "We don't have the answers....one day you will understand" is a very different thought than what the Telegraph's headline says: "Pope admits 'no answer to suffering.'" It is very different to say there "is no answer" and "we don't have the answer at this time."

As well, by saying the Pope "admits," the headline makes it sound like he is granting some kind of reluctant confession. But worse, he absolutely did not say that there is "no answer to suffering" as the headline reads––with quotes around it no less. That is factually inaccurate and begs the question whether or not the Telegraph editor has an ulterior motive for readers to think the Pope believes no answer to suffering exists.

So what could be the motive? Shoddy editing? Shoddy journalism? An attempt to make the Church appear weak or unreliable? An attempt to discredit the notion of the "good God" the Pope represents by making it appear as if he's conceding that human suffering is pointless?

Whether the Telegraph is given the benefit of the doubt on an ulterior motive or not, the headline is unarguably wrong.

Related Catholic Voyager article: Should earthquakes shake faith in God?