This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Corapi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on January 16, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on July 11, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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)
"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)
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)
While searching other issues I came across this text from a news article (Sacramento was the location of his home parish at the time):
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)
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)
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)
Marauder40 ( talk) 18:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)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.
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)
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)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
(Note: I removed this content from the article for the following reasons:
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." [1] There is no indication whether or not he'll be returning to public ministry anytime in the future. [2] 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)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Corapi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on January 16, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on July 11, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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)
"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)
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)
While searching other issues I came across this text from a news article (Sacramento was the location of his home parish at the time):
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)
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)
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)
Marauder40 ( talk) 18:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)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.
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)
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)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
(Note: I removed this content from the article for the following reasons:
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." [1] There is no indication whether or not he'll be returning to public ministry anytime in the future. [2] 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)
References