This follows the thread from Father John Corapi and the State of Due Process for Accused Priests in Catholic Lane where the comments have been closed. There you will find a comment by K. M. Tierney that asked for my response. Here is Tierney’s comment and my response below. It seems to me that Mr. Tierney really wants John Corapi to be guilty but the way things are going either Corapi is innocent or he is the dumbest megalomaniac the Church has seen lately. I am inclined and I hope for the first.

kmtierney says:
June 20, 2011 at 11:10 AM
I base my contention something improper occured over the fact that the accuser was compensated financially as a result of the NDA. That makes it a big difference. The military didn’t pay you to keep quiet about classified material. (or did they? Ultimate Catch 22 lol!)
In response to Carlos, the NDA happened after the employee left Santa Cruz Media. These things had already taken place when the allegations were made.
So let’s hear the answer to that question. What purpose was the accuser paid for (the accuser Fr. Corapi said he had no clue who it was) to sign an NDA, if there was nothing improper about the NDA?
I find it troubling the double standard Mr. Rosendi and others have. On the one hand, Fr. Corapi is part of an anonymous smear campaign of people who make judgements before knowing the facts.
Now Mr. Rosendi uses statements such as “sue the liar” and the like. If she was lying, Fr. Corapi would sue her for liberal/defamation of character. He isn’t. He is suing her for “breach of contract.” It would appear the truth of her allegations are conceded.
Jflare may find the distinction between civil and canonical cases “not credible”, but I’m simply describing the basics of it as it exists. If you want a more technical answer, consult a canonist. In order to protect the integrity of both civilian and canonical proceedings, they do their best to keep them seperate. If Fr. Corapi wanted an expedetious resolution to his canonical trial, he should have just dropped or delayed the civil suit. That simple.


Yes it is that simple if you use common sense Mr. Tierney. By the way my last name is Caso-Rosendi not “Rosendi” I don’t think you’ll appreciate being called “Ney” so don’t chop my last name. If it is too much typing you can always cut and paste.

Let me explain. Once I received a severance pay and had to sign a non-disclosure document obviously after the the severance was agreed upon. A common clause in NDA’s is something to the effect of “this is agreed to be total and final compensation for severance…” etc.

I’d like to add that severance may be a sign of actual mercy on the justly fired employee so that she will have some means to survive while she looks for a job. Her original contract may have had a severance clause. Paying severance is not an admission of guilt either. Some NDA’s contain non-disparaging clauses where the parts agree to be civil and positive when referring to each other in the future.

I repeat: none of those are admissions of guilt.

Yet there are some NDA’s that are really devised to protect an employer from exposure to litigation BECAUSE a mistake has been made. They are not very useful really because two people cannot ask the protection of the law over a contract designed to conceal an illegal act. As soon as the cat is out of the bag the agreement becomes a proof that the illegal act was committed and it may become proof of further crimes if it s found that one part signed it under duress.

Some employers are dishonorable and try to bully their ex-employees with things like NDA’s but those who use NDA’s in the hope to cover their wrongdoing surely will be the last to go to court and further expose themselves to an adverse judgment.

In my personal analysis I think Fr. Corapi appears to be the innocent victim of slander who decided that the only way to clear his name–and protect the employment of those working at Santa Cruz Media–was to resort to civil litigation.

This does not violate St. Paul’s commandment not to take the brethren before the pagan courts. Since the times of Paul Christianity has expanded and we are an active part of society–In court we swear to tell the truth on a Bible, don’t we?

Besides this is not a religious disagreement outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts: it is a clear attempt to destroy a person’s reputation and livelihood using the Church as a platform to hurl the slanderous statement. The judge won’t have to rule over a religious issue but over something that also concerns U.S. law.

If Corapi is guilty of having any kind of sexual relationship with his accuser he would be rather foolish to bring the whole thing to court where intimate details of the alleged relationship will be material to determine the charge of slander.

Padre Pio was accused by a fellow priest who was actually having a sexual relationship with a woman. The accusing priest sent his paramour to the Church authorities to lie saying she had a sexual relationship with Pio. The superiors asked her to describe Padre Pio’s room and she obviously failed to do so. Padre Pio was exonerated and the woman later was found to be quite insane. I bet dollars to donuts that will be the case here.

If the accuser gets an adverse ruling or publicly admits guilt, a precedent will be set. Those who have been using the Church to profit from false accusations will know that they run the risk of incarceration and hefty fines. That will make them think twice before falsely accusing anyone.

Then the great accuser of our brothers who accuses them day and night before the throne of God will have his latest weapon turned on himself.

Published  21 June 2011.