Saturday, April 02, 2011

Book 'em, bishop; is Fr. Corapi santa cruz-in' for a bruisin'?

Reprinted on Spero News and RenewAmerica.
Statement of Santa Cruz Media, Inc. Relative to Fr. Corapi’s Suspension [email newsletter, 3-25-11 (and currently posted on]

Santa Cruz Media, Inc. is the owner of all of Fr. John Corapi’s intellectual property and the DVDs, CDs, and books that flow from it. We are a secular corporation and not affiliated with the Catholic Church in any way. As such, we are not under the jurisdiction of any bishop or other official in the Catholic Church, although we have the utmost respect for Church authority.

We fully support Rev. John Corapi in this terrible trial, not surprisingly having begun on Ash Wednesday...

We have consulted with a number of canon lawyers. They have assured us that the actions of the Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas are, on several points of canon law, illicit...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. We all continue to pray for this person, and we ask you to do the same...The Church provides no financial support to Fr. Corapi. He has to pay for his own legal representation, medical costs, food, housing, etc. We have never accepted donations or charitable contributions of any kind. We are supporting Father’s efforts to defend himself. Your purchase of products from Santa Cruz Media helps provide the funding for Father's continued work as well as the legal expenses he continues to incur as a result of these malicious allegations.

Father Corapi and all of us here at Santa Cruz Media, Inc. greatly appreciate your kindness, support, and prayers. Please continue to pray for Father Corapi and his accuser, as well as all priests who find themselves in this unfortunate situation.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Bobbi Ruffatto
Vice President of Operations
Santa Cruz Media, Inc.
Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Rene Gracida, comments on injustice suffered by accused priests from bishops and religious superiors [posted on Gracida's site, 3-26-11 (and currently posted on]

The public controversy over the announcement of the accusations against Father John Corapi, SOLT, and his suspension from exercising his priestly ministry offers an opportunity to reflect on the flawed procedure apparently being followed in too many dioceses of the United States these days in the case of a priest accused of sexual misconduct not involving minors...

The procedure operates something like this. A person accuses a priest of sexual misconduct (again, not involving a minor). The priest is immediately suspended from active exercise of his priestly ministry while an investigation is launched into the truth or falsity of the accusations...The investigation may take days or months or years to complete. In the meantime the priest’s reputation is effectively destroyed and perhaps he is ‘thrown out on the street’ with no means of support. The accuser, on the other hand, enjoys anonymity and suffers no loss of reputation or negative material consequences and in the case of an accusation later proven to have been false the injustice to priest is great.

In cases where the priest is accused of having used force (rape or some other form of involuntary abuse) there is some justification for not publishing the name of the accuser. But, where there is reason to believe that the alleged sexual misconduct was effected through mutual consent there is no justification for not publishing the name of the accuser...Such is reported to have been the case of the accusation against Father Corapi. The only safe way to guard against damaging the reputation of individual priests and the Catholic priesthood in general is to not publish the name of an accused priest until an investigation has proved beyond doubt the guilt of the priest.
Fr. John Corapi
After reading my first take on the Corapi suspension, many wrote back to say that I was too hard on the awe-inspiring preacher-priest. Although Corapi's statement was a tad angry, and his attitude perhaps a trifle disrespectful, especially to the bishops in charge, I was told to give Black-Beard a break, in deference to the great good his talks (and tapes and books) have done for the Church as a whole. A noble opinion no doubt, but after two subsequent statements, one written by Santa Cruz Media (of which Corapi is the president and CEO), and the other by a hand-picked Corapi bishop, it's clear that rather than seeking a conciliatory tone, Corapi and company is ratcheting up the rhetoric, demanding that he be set free for homilies, while this bogus consenting adult (repeat: I'm NOT accused of sex with a minor!) charge is being investigated. And whether you are friend or foe, it doesn't take a canon lawyer to know that Corapi's cannon shots are not heading the Tan-Man in the right direction.

Indeed, while Corapi's own March 18 statement in response to his active suspension by SOLT (The Society of Our Lady of The Most Holy Trinity), Fr. Corapi's religious order, seemed more than enough, apparently Bobbi Ruffatto didn't think so. Listed as the vice president of operations of Santa Cruz Media (more on them in a minute) she begins with a brief background of SCM, noting that "[while] not affiliated with the Catholic Church in any way...we have the utmost respect for Church authority." But then Bobbi almost immediately seems to contradict herself, saying "a number of canon lawyers...have assured us that the actions [regarding Corapi's suspension] of the Bishop of Corpus Christi...are...illicit."

This sentiment is almost identical to that of Fr. John Jenkins, the clown-prince president of Notre Dame, who opposed not only his local bishop but the statement of all the bishops in the United States by inviting Barack Obama to Notre Dame, then awarding "the abortion president" an honorary degree when he came. To justify himself, Jenkins then found a few liberal canon lawyers who said the ban on pro-abortion politicians at a Catholic university didn't apply to a Protestant (or perhaps Muslim) president. Corapi was vocal in his opposition of Jenkins back then, but now when the tables are turned, he uses his mouthpiece Ruffatto to salvage the opposition, who continues his attack with the salvo, "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. We all continue to pray for this person, and we ask you to do the same." This reminds me of the woman who writes me after any unfavorable article I author about a priest (no matter how despicable their actions) and says "YOU ARE GOING TO HELL! I will pray for your soul." I don't know if one can be condemning, commending, and condescending all at the same time, but these gals come pretty close.

Speaking of close, Ruffatto's curious closing, "The Church provides no financial support for Fr. Corapi...your purchase of products from Santa Cruz Media helps provide the funding for Father's continued work, as well as the legal expenses he continues to incur..." makes no sense on the surface, sounding more like the pitch of a Protestant televangelist than a priest from a Marian order. That is, it doesn't make sense until you discover that the lucrative SCM is a for-profit corporation "completely independent" of Corapi's order. Moreover, Corapi is both its president and CEO, so for those who wrote me to ask if the members of SOLT take a vow of poverty, the answer, at least in this case, is a resounding "no." "In 1994," explains SOLT spokesman Fr. Gerard Sheehan, "the society adopted a new constitution in which its member gave all their earnings back to the society, and from this fund were provided a stipend on which to live, but those who joined prior to that continued to independently run their own ministries." I suppose this explains the "Cruz-ers'" constant clatter for money, not to mention why Bobbi's statement is such a close (if louder) echo of Corapi's own. Still, although Corapi is clearly not hurting for funds at this time, I've never heard a case in the United States where "the accused thrown out into the street with no means of support," as Bishop Rene Gracida contends...a contention Corapi's superiors can only take as an "in-SOLT."

Indeed, while Ruffatto's almost parrot-like repetition of her boss' statement is understandable considering she works for Corapi and wants to keep her job, the orthodox Bishop Gracida's discourse (which is also so close to Corapi's you wonder if JC ghost wrote it), is a little bit harder to explain. Short of heresy, it is never good form for one bishop to question the actions of another bishop or superior (especially when it involves the emeritus bishop questioning the new one) but perhaps Corapi's unsurpassed preaching appeal was enough to secure Gracida's favor. On the other hand, I don't think the bishop's, "but where there is reason to believe the alleged sexual misconduct was effected through mutual consent..." phrase did Corapi any favors. I suppose you could say he was contrasting it with the sexual abuse of minors (which he mentioned thrice) or rape, but it seems strange to even bring up this "lesser sin" unless the old bishop made a Freudian slip. As for the accuser "not suffering a loss of reputation," one can only presume that the bishop did not read Ms. Ruffatto's blow-by-blow description of Corapi's accuser's exit.

Now for those who still think this written examination of priestly pitfalls (even by an orthodox Catholic writer) is scandalous in and of itself, I call your attention to the many e-mails I received on the scant few lines I wrote on Cardinal Bernardin in my Corapi-Euteneuer article. Many readers, knowing both my deep devotion to the Church as well as my continuous search for justice for the victims of clergy sexual abuse, wrote (some from first-hand knowledge) that Bernardin's sexual conduct wasn't as saintly as the Chicago press at the time portrayed it. While I haven't yet fully investigated all of these claims, it's safe to say I wouldn't have included the late Chicago cardinal in with the likes of Sts. Marcarius the Great or Padre Pio if I had known about these claims then. So rather than discredit orthodox Catholic blogs, these sincere e-mails seem to be the reason such blogs are necessary, for if they were around a few years ago when Bernardin lived, perhaps a truer tale of his reign (and the reign of many others) would have surfaced.

On the other hand, it is important to not become so cynical by scandals as to throw the baby (the Christ Child) out with the bathwater. For example, while I think Bilgrimage's take on the Corapi and Euteneuer tales is (wickedly) right on, he then makes the faulty (and fatal) leap that all "rock star" priests, including John Paul II are bad. Similarly, although I share many (if not most) of the views of my esteemed colleague Matt C. Abbott, unlike Matt, I am excited, even "rock-star excited" about the impending beatification of JPII. Although Matt's arguments, and that of "The Remnant," should be taken seriously, in the end I believe it is cynicism that prevents them from seeing that their main argument against John Paul (who they admit led a personally virtuous life), that he didn't markedly heal the grave ills that affect the Church during his lifetime, could realistically be leveled at any of his saintly predecessors, and is thus not a real argument at all.

But back to Corapi. I hope he is innocent of these sexual indiscretions, but the verbal indiscretions committed by him and his cohorts surely aren't helping his cause any. If anything, they prove the need for his SOLT superiors to rein the independent Corapi in before his disobedience becomes a permanent riff. Unlike the Euteneuer case, I believe it is a positive that Corapi's superiors didn't wait five months to speak out, but one can only hope that this discipline will be enough. Because if Fr. John and friends keep issuing statements like the three we've seen, in the future Corapi won't be touring with Euteneuer but Charlie Sheen.


donalmahoney said...


I appreciate your concern about Frs. Corapi and Euteneuer but the two strike me as two very different cases. The latter has admitted to wrongdoing of some kind and the latter has denied all wrong-doing. It is my hope that Euteneuer will be allowed to function as a priest at some level with proper supervision since the temptations that he succumbed to never go away. Regarding Corapi, he is either guilty or his accuser is a liar. If she is a liar I hope there is some way to prosecute her for all the harm she has caused. If she is telling the truth, then I hope Fr. Corapi, assuming he has gone to confession, will also be allowed to function as a priest at some lesser level, again with proper supervision since, as indicated above, sexual temptation never goes away. I was not reading you unfortunately when Obama visited Notre Dame and you took the president of the school to task. I'm sorry I missed your comments but I glory in the fact that Navy has defeated Notre Dame twice or thrice since Obama littered the campus with his presence. Charge on--but remember Corapi could be innocent.

Donal Mahoney

drwho49 said...

I believe that IF he did commit CONSENSUAL sexual indiscretions with adult women, that could have been handled by all parties in Confession.

Now that it has gone public (if true) the Jimmy Swaggart approach might work; "I have sinned against You, my Lord, and I would ask that Your precious blood would wash and cleanse every stain until it is in the seas of God's forgiveness."

I think that might do it, putting him back in good standing with most of his followers, especially with many of the men. His stock could actually go up!

However, if he lied, as he was developing his press releases, all bets are off. It will be interesting to watch this unfold.

Tom O'Toole said...

@Donal -- Thanks for your compliments. I never said Father Corapi was guilty of what he was accused of, only of spouting off a bit too much. And you're welcome to read my Saving Notre Dame (i.e. anti-Obama-Jenkins) articles, one of which is here. I enjoy the feedback.

However, as far as the Fightin' Irish go, I and most of the die-hard ND Catholics still want them to win. Sports and the Catholic Fan and the Suffering Irish explain this somewhat, but even when they don't have a particularly Catholic coach, I believe that Mary, Notre Dame, is still their #1 fan. It's just that the team tends to do a lot better when they realize this.

Tom O'Toole said...

@drwho49 -- Thanks for the comment! As I said, Father Corapi is innocent of the sex (and drug!) charge(s) until proven otherwise, but it is interesting Bishop Rene Gracida even mentioned consensual sex (why bring it up?) in his statement.

Of course, since a priest (like a therapist) is in a position of authority, there isn't really such a thing as "consensual sex" with a Catholic clergyman.

Ann said...

Of course, since a priest (like a therapist) is in a position of authority, there isn't really such a thing as "consensual sex" with a Catholic clergyman.-Tom O'Tolle


I believe Fr. Corapi's employee and spiritual daughter could make a very strong case against any sex with him being consensual. I don't know who is lying, but hope the liar pays for what appears actionable, not just an indiscretion or misunderstanding.

ginger said...

Can sex between a priest and a member of his flock ever be truly "consensual"? I think it is rare, because most women are swayed in one way or another by the spiritual authority they have given to the man as priest. This is why it is considered so egregious when a doctor or therapist or boss or person in any sort of authority has sex with a patient/subordinate, etc.

Any time a preacher, priest, rabbi, etc, has sex with a person who has trusted him to be her spiritual pastor and guide, the sin is much more than a sexual sin: it is also sin of abuse of power. And because of this, it should not be treated as it if were sex between people on even playing ground. Doctors and therapists lose their licenses over such behavior. I would expect priests who have done the same to lose their faculties as well, if not permanently, at least for quite some time. I would not trust a man with a history of abuse of power to be in charge of a spiritual flock again.

Lauretta said...

In many companies, at least in the past, if a boss had an affair with someone under him, it was not looked upon well by the company, especially if there was adultery going on. Which in a sense would be the case with a priest--he is married to the Church.

I appreciate your position on this, Tom. It is not merely a case of consensual sex when someone has authority over another.

I sense a similar attitude in some comments about this that some fathers have when they hear about their son's sexual exploits. Almost a pride in the fact that, yeah, he's a real man. The whole thing is very sad.

Tom O'Toole said...

@Ann and ginger -- Good points! And furthermore, not only did the bishop mention Corapi/consensual together (coincidence?), but he didn't realize (even as a bishop!) that sex between a priest and his flock (or employee) CANNOT be consensual, unless perhaps the priest has already been laicized. Thanks for commenting.

Bill Foley said...

From Bill Foley:

Please refrain from negative comments re Bishop Gracida. First of all, his statement about the procedures regarding the disposition of priests whenever an accusation is made is accurate. He is not judging Fr. Corapi's innocence or guilt.

Bishop Gracida is a true papist, i.e., totally faithful to the Pope. I have two articles by him, which I would be most happy to E-mail you. One is "Arian Heresy Revisited," and the other gives reasons why pro-abortion, Catholic politicians should not be given Holy Communion.

I am neutral re Fr. Corapi. Let the chips fall where they may. I hope he is innocent because our Church has had enough scandals.

I recommend the reading of chapter 8, "The Sin of Scandal" in the Dignity and Duties of the Priest by St. Alphonsus.

Fr. Dismas said...

Setting aside Fr. Corapi's statements, the accusation, the playing out in the media, I would like to address one detail.

You refer to him as "blackbeard" and "Tan Man." I believe these to be related to some health struggles he's been undergoing recently. A few patients with chemo have odd changes in their hair (e.g., curly to straight or grey to black). As to the "Tan Man" label, he also said before that part of the problem was a misdiagnosis. He had severe nutritional deficiencies, including Vitamin D. Best way to get Vitamin D? Sunlight. I need extra Vitamin D, and an hour of sunlight does more for me than 3000 IUs. You can't beat sunlight. Except everyone thinks that I've been out skiing or vacationing, when I've been outside in the garden, or witnessing for 40 Days.

P said...

Your reference 'blackbeard' / 'Tan Man' and the way you injected it into this piece is a bit curious. I think you have an opinion already. Fr. Corapi goes on many speaking tours and if his medical issues have taken a toll on him what better way to mask it. Over correcting? Maybe. But that is what one does to take the focus off their sickly appearance.

Fr. Corapi is huge. He just is. Is that a good thing? Until this and all that he has done (by their fruits) - it was. Now? How does one return to what they were doing after something this devastating (providing he is innocent - I hate that I even say this)? He says he is a hermit and all money goes to charity / church. All this money he makes how is he hiding it? Was he planning on leaving once he became a billionaire? Silly questions, I just don't know where to go with this.

Fr. Corapi is the reason I went (and continue to go) to confession after 20yr absence.

Fr. Corapi is the reason I am no longer church hopping. I've learned to deal with the liberalism in my church by staying put and let examples do the speaking.

I'm not elevating Fr. C over Christ. Fr. C gives me strength to deal with the earthly elements like no other in my parish, diocese, USCCB.

If Fr. C says one thing, being VERY orthodox about it, now this ! ? . . .

Who am I if the great deceiver,
(s)atan can do this?

I am crushed no matter which way this goes.

Anonymous said...

I am agreeing whole heartedly with Fr. Dismas here. I found the references to Fr. Corapi as "Black Beard" and "Tan Man" to be highly condescending in tone. I had to look twice to make sure I was on a Catholic site. You aren't doing much to try and salvage a priest's reputation here, before we even find out all the facts on this. Fr. Corapi has had some health problems and I believe you will note this upon comparing pictures and videos of him in the recent past compared to prior. He is thin and drawn and yes tan from Vitamin D therapy, and we don't know about the color of his beard, but medication can altar hair color. Truly insensitive, uncharitable, and not very Christian in tone, and I don't believe I will be visiting the site again any time soon.

Anonymous said...

Please show at least some respect to Fr. Corapi. I look forward to your article after he is proven innocent.

Tom O'Toole said...

@Anon 11:49 -- I do too.

Tom O'Toole said...

@P -- All I said Corapi is guilty of is a bit of vanity and a little too much protesting. But, remember, even if he is guilty of something more (and people seem to miss this in my article), we still not only have Christ, but also the saints including recent ones such as St. Pio, and soon Mother Teresa and JPII. Fr. Corapi certainly did preach some good orthodox sermons, but even if his actions don't match his rhetoric, there are those who have already proved it is possible to talk the Spirit's talk and walk the Lord's walk.

John said...

You know, Tom, I suppose your commentary bears more credibility than some I've read, but you still seem to me VERY eager to make a ruling without much fact.

In particular, I'm bothered by your assertions regarding Fr's possible vows of poverty vs Santa Cruz Media's facilities.
I'm not declaring all of Fr's actions are clearly honest, but your comments seem to me to insinuate MUCH suspicion, but little fact to confirm.

Can anyone demonstrate for certain that Fr Corapi took vows of poverty upon ordination? Or at any other time?
Can anyone prove that he's violating said vows via Santa Cruz Media's facilities?

Until I see much more adjudication from appropriate authorities, it seems to me we'd all be well advised to either do a LOT more factual research, then report on same, or else find something else to talk about.
I think it noteworthy that I haven't seen any more material from Santa Cruz Media, Fr Corapi himself, or anyone else relevant to the matter.

Maybe we should take a hint and let them sort it out?

Tom O'Toole said...

From our email, 4-4-11:

Dear Tom O'Toole,

Your April 2 article about Fr. Corapi and Santa Cruz Media, shows you to be a close-minded person who has already passed judgment against Corapi without the benefit of hearing any of the evidence. Where is your Catholic charity? The tone of your article is that Corapi is guilty until he can prove himself innocent... Shame on you! It seems that you stumble over your own journalistic ego!

P.S. I don't like Notre Dame either, because they are being administered by a group that does not hold to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, or to the directions of the USCCB!

Sincerely yours,
Walter J Seibert

Anonymous said...

Fr. Corapi put up a statement today that was basically a piece by Avery Dulles written in 2004 about the injustice of the Dallas charter. It seems like a deliberate obfuscation to me - whenever the story dies down, he puts something up on his blog that just adds to the confusion and inflames his base. This makes me think worse of him than anything else - that he seems to want to deliberately confuse the issues. Holy People do not sow confusion. He needs to take down his website or stop posting meaningless red meat up on it. He's handling this with no grace at all.

Tom O'Toole said...

@Anon 8:02 PM -- And people thought I was rough on the guy. But if the greatest grace-lessness is the endless statements, the greatest irony of the statements he posts by Bishop Gracida and now Cardinal Dulles, is that they refer to GUILTY priests, "consenting adults, one-time offenders," etc., but still guilty priests. Why does he keep talking about the guilty if he says he is innocent?

John said...

Putting it mildly, I find it very disturbing that, if Father Corapi says anything at all on his own site that's even remotely related to the investigation he's under, that some seem to automatically assume he's guilty of something.

Let's not forget, he's facing some VERY serious charges. There's been a great deal of interest, both from his supporters AND his detractors, to know where the case stands. I would be much more concerned, really, if he HAD put out numerous statements.
He hasn't. So far as I know, he has

I don't know what Card Dulles' comments being placed on his site means. Neither do you.

Maybe we should wait for further comment until we see something or hear something that's genuinely worth concern.

Jeanette O'Toole said...

@John -- Don't you think the statement from SCM went through Father first before being published? He IS the president and CEO of Santa Cruz Media. And charges against FJC aren't *that* serious to warrant a VERY in front of them, are they? If he's guilty, he can repent and move on. If he's innocent, he can become a more humble priest through all of this, and continue on working for the King (and His mother) like he was doing ...

P.S. There's a new site that's been created called which is currently password protected, but one of its password holders, is from Kalispell, Montana, and has linked to this site. So keep a lookout for "CorapiTruth" if you like; maybe it will be opened to the public soon.

John said...

In all seriousness, when I read comments like these, I wonder if people realize just what kind of trouble Father Corapi likely has to contend against right now.
Yes, I do believe that VERY serious provides appropriate description of the situation. Father's ministry could easily be demolished by the scandal, even if he's proven guilty.

And yes, I can almost guarantee that Father, himself, reviewed and approved the SCM statement. Considering that he can't offer any ministries right now, I suspect he's staring some hefty bills in the face and wondering how he'll pay them.
Very likely, the Church won't foot the bill.

Father Corapi isn't in the same kind of spot as the average parish priest. His Order's leader very likely can't simply reassign him to something out of the way. Almost everything the Order does most likely involves something that could easily further the risk of scandal to both Father, himself, and to the Order.

Anne-Marie said...

I cried the first time I saw Father Corapi celebrating Mass at St. Joseph Church in Orlando, Florida. I was so touched by the reverence I hadn't seen in years since my girlhood days on the southside of Chicago.
Father Corapi has done so much for the Holy Catholic Church. I will continue to listen to his talks and pray for Father Corapi. Pray for this suffering servant and wait for the facts.

Meri said...

Say this woman accusing Father Corapi did indeed have sex with him. Why shouldn't she be held responsible for any of it? She knew that he was an ordained priest. Isn't it sinful on her part to willfully engage in a sexual act with a priest? Why does it seem to me that she is being absolved of any guilt regarding this simply because Father Corapi is a priest.

It is wrong for any woman to entice a clergyman into sin. I see these women and girls walking into Church all the time wearing ultra tight jeans, midriff baring shirts, sweats that leave nothing to the imagination, cleavage spilling out, etc. Is that not wrong?

Some women are attracted to men in positions of authority. Just ask any cop or fireman and see what they have to say about that. I don't see how a Priest should take "all" of the blame if they give in to temptation and engage with a woman in a sexual act. What about the woman? Should she not bare some blame for enticing a man into sex that she knows full well is an ordained priest?

John said...

While I appreciate your sentiments, there are a few little problems you might not have accounted for:
- While the Church classifies pre-marital/non-marital sex as mortal sin, requiring confession, I don't believe canon law addresses fornication between two adults per se. If Corapi DID have sex after ordination, he'd be subject to canon law on grounds of violating his vow of chastity. His, er, partner, on the other hand, would not be subject to such concerns, unless she had made similar vows or had some other cause for being accountable to canon law. Yes, in this case, the woman gets off "scot free", at least in terms of what human beings can do for punishment.

- Civil or criminal law MIGHT be able to hold her to account on grounds of prostitution, but doing so likely would require proof that she offered "sex services" to him in exchange for money. Beings that such a transaction likely would've been in cash, not a check, debit card, or other form of trackable payment, it would come down to a prosecutor's word against her's in a court of law. All she would need to do would be to declare that sex was consensual, but involved no money, and she'd be free as a bird.
..And, of course, if she REALLY wanted to stir the pot, she could always claim rape, harassment, or whatever and REALLY add some fuel to this little blaze. 'Course if she couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, she'd be wisest to leave it be; Corapi could sue HER for defamation of character and destroy her reputation. ..Assuming she has/had one....

Lovely mess, huh?

John said...

PS. For what I hear, Corapi had not even contemplated the seminary when he and the woman he's supposed to have liased with first met.
She's supposed to have been a prostitute, he a real estate investor.