Talk:John Corapi

Who wrote this, and why?

"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)

NPOV?

"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)

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)

What IS he? He can't be an ordained RC priest as he is not a member of any religious order

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)

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)

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,[1], 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)[2]) says that he and Corapi were ordained in the same ceremony by Pope John Paul II.[3] I hope this helps. It is certainly worth checking out reported details in Corapi's background, as this veteran's group did: [4] --Chonak (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

SOLT's press release asserts that he made a promise (although not a vow) of poverty. Elizium23 (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

While searching other issues I came across this text from a news article (Sacramento was the location of his home parish at the time):

• He preaches under obedience to superiors who tell him he has a gift. Corapi said he would abandon preaching for a contemplative existence if it were left up to him.
  • AFTER LIFE OF CASH AND COCAINE, PRIEST PREACHES MESSAGE OF FAITH; Bill Lindelof Bee Religion Writer. The Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, Calif.: Jan 18, 1996. pg. B.1

Basically, he was saying then that preached only because he was ordered to, while now he says that he'd rather leave the order than give up preaching.   Will Beback  talk  09:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent Additions due to SOLT release

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)

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)

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)

Former Catholic priest

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)

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)

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)

Are laicization requests public?   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm OK with that. That makes sense.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I see we still have issues about such assertions. As it stands in September 2012, Corapi has neither been released from the SOLT by his superior nor has he been laicized, so claiming that he is a former member of the Society or that he is a former priest will not work here. Corapi is entitled to canonical procedures before he can be released from the Society, from his promises, and from the priesthood, and we will receive sure notice of these steps as they are taken. It is not possible as an ordained man to "resign from the priesthood" unilaterally, so statements such as that are not sufficient for proof. His religious institute has removed him from public ministry, which is a canonically permitted step in the process, but it does not make him a former member and it certainly does not make him a former priest. Ontologically, as I mentioned above, he is a priest forever, but for the purposes of Wikipedia, it would be acceptable to use this term after his laicization, God forbid it should happen in the future. Elizium23 (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Coronary as a source

Coronary is fine for sourcing the case where Corapi got his $2 million settlement a few years ago or his alleged visions of the Virgin Mary or his claims of Mother Theresa at his ordination. However, it is not reliable with regard to anything else about his life. The lies he repeatedly told about his military service are in there, "training to be a green beret, helicopter crash in the canal zone, whole team killed in Vietnam, etc" despite what the official record says: "No orders to Panama, no training of any kind beyond that of a clerk/typist/stenographer, no green beanie, no helo crash, no SF Team getting wiped out in the Nam". If a man would lie so much about his service record in the military, there's a good chance he may have lied about his life in Las Vegas/Hollywood. The source is tainted.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for explaining your reason for tagging the paragraph. I have doubts about the claims too, but I think that putting five tags in the paragraph looks argumentative. That much disputation about sources belongs on the Talk page. I propose a neater approach: instead of all those tags, someone can just add a few words to the paragraph to attribute the claims to Corapi and Coronary. (Not to blame Klaidman or Coronary: there are probably other published works containing the same claims Corapi made to reporters.) --Chonak (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've obtained a copy of the book. The background on Corapi covers an entire 12-page chapter. While there is a short list of notes at the end of the book, that chapter has no footnotes nor any indications that the material was confirmed or obtained from independent sources. OTOH, it was written by a professional journalist, Stephen Klaidman, and published by a reputable publisher, so it clearly meets the Wikipedia standards for a reliable source. I'd suggest that any facts taken from it be attributed to the author.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Corapi's service record from the US Army debunks the mistruths stated by him later in life. I'd suggest ommitting the lies about SF training, his unit being wiped out in Vietnam and therefore no survivors to validate these statements, etc. Otherwise the article would become a battleground with the truth vs his minions once again. I'd say stick to the verifiable facts and not the fantasies.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Corapi's history of unverifiable stories is part of his bio, as is the expose from the veterans' group, which is already included in the article. Leaving this subject out would omit a significant part of the story. If we can document it with NPOV, let's keep it.-- Chonak (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Choosing my words with deference to the BLP policy which applies even to this page, I have to say that the chapter on Corapi contains a number of claims that I found highly dubious. I tried to find contact information for Klaidman, so that I could ask him about his research, but no luck.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Mike has boldly but without consensus removed the disputed Corapi claim and the counter-claim by POW Network completely. This is unhelpful, as it removes sourced information from the article and it hides an important aspect of the Corapi controversy -- the contradictions about his life story. Can we find a way to reintegrate this material in the article?

• 18:11, 7 August 2011 Mike Searson (talk | contribs) (16,693 bytes) (no record of corapi in a helicopter crash exists, no record of any type of SF training exists, leave the POW Network out for now unless faggotry resumes) (undo)

What the slur-word at the end of the edit summary means is not exactly clear. --Chonak (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not meant as a slur, sorry if it offended, just a word I've used since I was a kid describing "nonsense, bullshit, etc", I know, sorry.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the "reliable sources", and the fact the Green Beret claim appears (in one form or another) in his official bios, I think we do need to include it. But if we have good secondary sources we can add the other viewpoint, something like, "However his assertions about Special Forces training have been disputed by...."   Will Beback  talk  05:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's good enough unless you say "his military record shows otherwise", or if this goes in a controversy section as opposed to his bio. The only print source where that occurs is in Coronary, sure you can use the "wayback" machine and find out when he lied and had it on his website and the websites of people he lied to for speaking engagements. I have to give him credit, they covered it up real well when he was outed as a liar and a phony. His official military record shows none of the bullshit he claimed ever happened. I do not know if POW Network is considered a reliable source. I know one of the Catholic newspapers is running a piece about this in the near future, specifically about the years of deceitful claims.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What would be our best source for the counterclaims? POW Network is probably not suitable, especially considering that these are direct accusations of lying. A Catholic newspaper would probably be an excellent source, and we may have to wait for it. I found an old newspaper article from the 1990s, clearly based on his own official bio, which outright states he had been a Green Beret.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Dunno, Bendell's rhetoric could be toned down I suppose:"According to an analysis of Corapi's military records by retired Special Forces Officer Don Bendell, Corapi attended Basic Training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina in 1967; Administrative schools at Fort McClellan, Alabama and Fort Knox, Kentucky and went on to serve as a clerk-typist in west Germany. Corapi mustered out of the Army in January, 1970 as a Stenographer." Or wait to see if any mainstream news comments on this pigpile. I was contacted by a Catholic newspaper about this, but have not heard back in several weeks. Unfortunately, we may have to suck this one up to "wikipedia is not about truth" and corapi's minions get a win with his obvious false statements and forget about the whole "extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources". It is interesting that there are no Real Estate records in SoCal in his name as a realtor, either. It's sad when you have facts like Corapi's service record and cannot use it, but can use what he said to a writer covering an entirely different topic. Had he received even the most basic SF training (which he could not have as he was neither an Officer or NCO at the time of his alleged injury) his MOS would have carried a "P" suffix, which it does not. I guess I have to admit that even when using "reliable sources" Wikipedia cannot be considered "reliable".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I checked the Los Angeles Times archive, which includes real estate ads, and it has no mention of Corapi during his purported period as a high flying real estate agent in that area.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, but that's where we get into trouble with this. "We" can't write that because it would be original research. Some of the more formal/well-written Catholic blogs by Mark Shea and Jimmy Aikin have been commenting on the case, too. I wonder if those could be used?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Self-published blogs, no matter how good, cannot be used in biographies of living people.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Kind of what I figured, I'm going to start deleting them as I see them used as source material in the MMA articles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

MMA?   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Mixed Martial Arts, a separate topic, but seemingly rife with blogs as sources.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, editors in many specialized topics can get in the habit of using low quality sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, while I'm not comfortable with it, POW Network is used as a source on at least 20 other wikiarticles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I spot-checked a few and most seem to be to non-controversial assertions: officer biographies, cemeteries, etc.[5] Some links are to pages that reprint DoD press releases. For those types of things it's probably acceptable. However for the claim that a public figure is lying about his service record the bar is higher.   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I don't like it as a source and why I've been trying to steer clear of the fact that he has been making false claims about his service without a definitive reliable source stating such and it's the reason why I just wanted to say he was a Clerk Typist in Germany who served for 3 years. It is why I removed the section about "false claims", sourced by POW Network the other day as it was not written or sourced properly and I was under the impression that contentious information in BLP had to be removed immediately. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You acted correctly. This kind of thing has to be handled carefully. It's worth remembering that, despite the "wiki" title, this is a long-term project and we may have to wait a while before the whole story is available from sufficient sources. Suffice it to say that the subject is under a cloud now (unlike a year ago) and we can take our time in detailing the controversies surrounding him.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

References

"Resigned from the priesthood?"

His claim of resigning from the priesthood probably deserves some editorial comment. Aren't there sources which indicate that the church does not recognize a "resignation". Isn't this the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.171.88 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Catholic Church believes that ordination is a sacrament and therefore it cannot be undone, but that is definition that has specific meaning within Catholic beliefs. Using a more common, less technical definition, it would fair to say that a priest can and many do resign, just like any other worker in any other organization can resign.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand that but don't they remain a priest until laicized? That was my point.

John Corapi or Fr. John Corapi

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)

June 17th resignation

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi Elizium23 Thanks for the invitation to the discussion; I was unaware that so many words have been spilt over this one matter; also that me changing "is" to "was" is a violation of Wikipedia procedure. My apologies. However, I'm puzzled by your statement that the present tense must be used for the living e.g. Although George W Bush is still living, no article would say "George W. Bush is President". Perhaps a better introduction to the article on Corapi would be something along the lines of "Corapi is a former Catholic priest, having resigned..." or "Corapi is a non-functioning Catholic priest, having resigned..." Personally, I prefer the latter, as Catholicism teaches that ordination is leaves an indelible mark on the soul; the second wording would also remove any necessity of checking whether or not his resignation was accepted. What say you?Albanman (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Corapi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Blogs are not suitable sources

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)

Removed thinly sourced content section: "Post ministry"

(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)

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)

References