Fr. Corapi and A tale of two Evangelists

Back in the 1980s, Jimmy Swaggart famously pounced when the Jim Bakker scandal exploded on the national airwaves.  Faster than you can take a splinter out of someone's eye, Swaggart was there, oblivious to the logs in his own eye, stetting himself up for the inevitable fall.  Because of the 'comeuppance' nature of Swaggart's fall, the press was eager to seek out other would-be inquisitors who would also jump in and cast their stones at the glass house of the televangelists scandals.  Who better, they supposed, than the Reverend Billy Graham himself.  What did he think of all these disgraces to the Gospel ministry?

I can't remember his exact words, but his point was obvious.  There was no way Dr. Graham was going to throw in with this mess, nor was he going to point fingers needlessly.  He'd offer prayers, and best wishes and all that.  But no condemnations.  No 'serves them right.'  And you know what?  He came out looking all the better because of it.

All this came to my mind as I read through the comments over at Mark Shea's CAEI.  The post was about the whole Fr. Corapi saga.  As a disclaimer, I know nothing about Fr. Corapi.  Some parishioners at another parish gave me a couple DVDs once.  I noted that most of his talk was about him, but then it might have been a testimonial.  Quite a life he had.  Beyond that, I don't know anything about him, what he's been accused of doing, whether it was horrible or not, whether his supporters were horrible or not, or whatever.  His supporter have been accused of being over the mark, but then some who have made the accusations are known to accuse massive swaths of humanity of being over the mark.

Still, I noticed two approaches from several religious who were commenting and that struck me.  One approach was rather shocking to see from notable priests:

Any priest dumb enough to let himself be adored deserves what he gets. 

Wow. And this little lesson in Thomistic approaches to fallen brethren 

To paraphrase St Thomas Aquinas, if a person is in error we have an obligation to correct him, even if he be the Pope. Criticism,as long as it doesn't have the additional character of malice, is a form of legitimate correction, especially of a public person. 

And yet, there was this little gem:

I maintain hope that his current silence and lack of visibility is a sign of prayer & penance after having returned in obedience to his community. Regardless of whether that is true, prayers are certainly appropriate.

Much better, IMHO.

Again, I don't know if Fr. Corapi is guilty as sin or not, if he's really some celebrity priest awash with hubris and messianic illusions or not.  I don't know.  I just remember what several of my non-religious compatriots back in the 1980s said when they agreed with me.  It wasn't that Bakker or Swaggart were horrible for trying to make time with some pretty agreeable young ladies. That's human.  Stupid, but human.  But what struck us was the number of Christians ready and, to be honest, quite eager to jump on a fellow believer and rend him alive.  It went a long way toward keeping me from considering religious alternatives to the world for the next couple years.

I wonder what the whole Bakker/Swaggart scandals would have looked like if they were in the Internet age?  I wonder what the response of the religious community would be?  I know as a former pastor, an initial response to such scandals was often 'ha! serves him right', until prudence and common sense set in and you realized 'gee, that could be me someday, perhaps some 'do unto others' might be the better track.'  So just kicking it around, noticing things and reflecting on life in the religious world of the digital Internet era. No matter what, Fr. Corapi and those whose lives he touched has my prayers, no matter what it is they need prayers for.