Browse By

Testing the Corapi Destruction Abortion Prediction Internationally

Yesterday I tested Catholic priest and radio personality John Corapi’s prediction that…

If we do not soon stop the genocide of abortion in the United States, we shall run the course of all those that prove by their actions that they are enemies of God—total collapse, economic, social, and national.

… with reference to actual data on relative social and economic collapse regarding the American states. The patterns in the actual data didn’t match Corapi’s description of “the course of all…”. In response the “Father Corapi rocks” contingent suggested that the reason I didn’t find bedrock confirmation of Corapi’s way of depicting different societies was that a) I cooked the books, and b) I tested variation between states, and really Corapi was talking about differences between countries.

In response to objection a), all I can say is that I’ve directly cited my sources of data, so you can find out for yourself whether I’m lying.

In response to objection b), fine, let’s look cross-nationally. Here’s a BBC map generated from a United Nations report characterizing abortion laws in Europe:

Abortion Laws Across Europe, BBC, 2007

LOLCATS ME UZE DE OECD BUT ME IZ NO PINKOWorking from this data, and data from Eurostat, the OECD, the OECD again and the UK home office, I’m happy to stick up some comparisons. As with the interstate comparisons, I’ve picked my variables before looking at the data; if you think I’m lying about that, too, go ahead and pick some variables of your own to see what comes up.

I’ve organized the countries into two groups: the European countries that place some form of ban on abortion (Cyprus, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Finland, and the UK) and the European countries that allow abortion on demand. Taking the most lenient abortion-banners, Finland and the UK, out of this first group does not substantially change results. You can check out this Excel spreadsheet to see the averages for these two groups yourself, and to see from what nations data is missing for various of the variables (it must be hell to be a demographer on Malta or Cyprus).

Here are the results of my data dredge:

Divorce Rate per 1,000 (2005-2007 as available)
Abortion-banning European countries: 2.01
Abortion-on-demand European countries: 2.28

Homicide Rate per 100,000 (2000/2001 as available)
(note: I do not trust this data because it is relatively old and as the UK home office notes it comes from all sorts of places with different standards of criminality and measurement. I’m just including it to be parallel with yesterday’s post.)
Abortion-banning European countries: 1.68
Abortion-on-demand European countries: 3.02

National Income Per Capita, 2005/2006 (as available, in US $)
Abortion-banning European countries: $27,261
Abortion-on-demand European countries: $30,919

Unemployment Rate (% of civilian labor force)
Abortion-banning European countries: 7.9
Abortion-on-demand European countries: 7.2

In three of the four indicators, I don’t see such a huge difference between the two types of countries, of the sort where you could say, “Wow! These societies are in social or economic collapse and those ones aren’t!” They’re small differences — and two out of those three small differences are in the opposite direction from what Father Corapi contends. In the two indicators of economic collapse, if there is any difference it’s that countries banning abortion are a bit closer to economic collapse than countries.

One indicator of social collapse — the homicide rate per 100,000 — does show a pretty big difference, and in the direction John Corapi predicts. Countries banning abortion have nearly half the homicide rate of countries of countries allowing them on demand. As I noted above, these are the statistics in which I have the least confidence for consistency in collection… but let’s not quibble. Let’s give Father Corapi this one.

So is a religious prediction of “the course of all those that prove by their actions that they are enemies of God — total collapse, economic, social, and national” a prediction that’s on target when it scores one out of four? Does that indicate you should be listening to other empirical claims he makes about the way the world works? Or is some criterion other than his empirical accuracy paramount to you?

20 thoughts on “Testing the Corapi Destruction Abortion Prediction Internationally”

  1. lepelerin says:

    When Fr. Corapi says soon, I wonder what soon means: 1 year, 20 years, 50 years? Russia was the first to allow abortion on demand, that was in 1917. Their country seems to be on the precipice. To replace population, you need 2.1 children per couple. Russia now has less then 1. Their abortion rate is sky high. Demographers predict an implosion of that country soon. Maybe that will be us in 50 years if we lose our compass.

    Anyway, interesting data you dug up.

    My question is: Why are you signaling out this priest? He’s just a little old guy who goes around preaching. He has a great story to tell, being a millionaire from Hollywood who gave it all up. If he were well known, I could understand, but most people have never heard of the guy. So why do you care?

    1. Jim says:

      It is the sign of a closed mind to switch criteria in order to maintain a conclusion. You said testing the Corapi hypothesis with international data would be the way to go, so I tested it with international data. And now you’re saying something else. Nothing will change your mind.

      By the way, Russia is swimming in oil wealth these days. Even by your new interpretation, your example would make no sense because Russians have a higher standard of living now than they did in 1917, the year you cite as the turning point.

      And John Corapi is NOT “just a little old guy.” He is a well-known media figure in Catholic circles who people follow and who is using his voice on the airwaves to push for the revocation of the freedoms of women and gay people. He’s doing it while saying things about the way the world works that are demonstrably untrue.

      If John Corapi wants to stop using his media influence to trample on others’ freedoms, then I will stop pointing out that what he says to justify his stance is untrue. Until then, his statements are not immune from empirical evaluation because he puts the title “Father” in front of his name.

      1. lepelerin says:

        Jim, You are a debater. I am not. I am a reader/commenter/thinker.

        I still contend you give Fr.Corapi too much influence.

        “John Corapi” has a right to his opinion on moral matters as anyone else. He hasn’t given a recent homily in months. Even if you hear him or of him, he is a hermit who rarely surfaces. You make think his speeches scandalous but he’s not inventing anything when it comes to traditional faith and morals. Where is he trampling on peoples freedom? He’s saying that freedom without restraint is tyranny and licenciousness.

        1. Bloop says:

          Licensiousness? Define that term, lepelerin. Licensiousness sounds like just an insult against people having the license to do something – in other words, freedom.

          Could you explain to me how freedom of the press without restraint is tyranny? How about freedom from illegal search and seizure? How is that, without restraint, tyranny?

          Thinker, huh?

          1. lepelerin says:

            We have laws to keep our freedoms in check. Some laws or bad. If we were free to do anything we wanted, that would be licensiousness. Tryanny, would be freedom of the powerful to do whatever they wanted like exloiting the weak, i.e. slave owners to slaves, the strong stealing from the weak…

            Freedom of the press has boundries. You can’t burn down someones’ newspaper business so that you’re the only voice in town. Unlimited personal freedom can become tyranny.

            The same goes with illegal search and seizure. The natural law gives us freedoms. If the government could break into someone’s house because the’re free, that’s tyranny.

            If a person kills their child because their child is inconvenient to have, even if the law says it’s ok, that would be misusing our freedoms and become tyranny.

          2. Bloop says:


            Your example of the need to check freedom of the press is inapt. Burning down a newspaper business is NOT an expression of freedom of the press. It’s an attempt to suppress that freedom. What do you call that? Freedom of destruction?!?

            Your example with freedom from unreasonable search and seizure merely restates the point that freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is a good thing that shouldn’t be messed with. Once again, it doesn’t support your point.

            In both instances, you’ve failed completely to state how freedom without restraint is tyranny. In fact, you’ve argued, perhaps accidentally, that freedom should not be restrained by tyranny.

            Have you actually read the Bill of Rights, lepelerin? I’d suggest it before you go any further.

            There is no mention of “natural law” in the Constitution. It doesn’t exist anywhere except in human imagination… which makes it human law, and not natural. Get it?

            I’ll take that back if you can show me exactly where nature has written down natural law. On a granite cliff, perhaps? On a coconut shell?

          3. lepelerin says:

            Bloop, OK so my examples are lousy. However I believe you get gist of what I’m saying. You are not invinceably ignorant. You just like to play the role!

          4. Gandhi says:

            i dont think the unreasonable searching is such a bad thing. Cops should have more power then they do, if they could just shake down people they think may have drugs or weapons then theyd make alot more arrests.

          5. J. Clifford says:

            If it’s not a bad thing, Gandhi, what makes it unreasonable?

            You are arguing against the Bill of Rights, against the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. If that’s the tack you take, the most honest route would be to campaign to repeal the Fourth Amendment, rather than simply ignoring it and giving police more power unconstitutionally.

        2. Jim says:

          I’m not debating for the sake of debate. I’m disagreeing with you, and you’re changing your standards in order to maintain your conclusion.

          Corapi’s all over the radio in my city and other major cities, and if his speeches are months old that makes his “soon” prediction even more off-base.

          I agree John Corapi has a right to his opinion, and a right to voice it. I have a right to point out that his depiction of reality doesn’t match reality.

          “Freedom without restraint is tyranny”. I’ll have to remember that one. It’s a good one. It kind of rolls around on the tongue.

  2. Bloop says:

    God takes 50 years to wreak vengeance? That’s hardly omnipotence. Seems like God needs Viagra.

  3. Jon says:

    “If John Corapi wants to stop using his media influence to trample on others’ freedoms, then I will stop pointing out that what he says to justify his stance is untrue”

    Interesting thought, the Freedom to Kill your unborn child. Let’s call it what it is most of the time. I am not referring to children that are the product of rape, incest, or some other misfortune. I am referring to a majority of abortions that are the result of piss poor prior planning. The liberal left has clouded the argument in bullsh** verbiage. But really “a Woman’s Right” is really about infanticide.

    Not much different than the Spartans. Only none of the discipline.

    1. Bloop says:

      Ah, but John Corapi IS referring to the products of rape and incest and other misfortunes. Corapi is talking about protecting single-celled fertilized eggs. He also talks about the evils of contraception.

      Don’t try to uncloud the very clouded argument that Corapi is making.

  4. Jon says:


    “Where is he trampling on peoples freedom? He’s saying that freedom without restraint is tyranny and licenciousness.”

    BRAVO and well said! But you know what they say about “Pearls”!

  5. Jon says:

    “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
    I would be willing to hazard a guess the the Founding Fathers believed in the Laws of Nature and Natures God.

    And Bloop…I have no decent respect for your opinion! Anyone dumb enough to not understand that freedom has restraints, should have there computer privileges taken away by mom or dad.

    1. Bloop says:


      That was a press release, not a legal document. The Declaration of Independence has no more legal standing than Ben Franklin’s almanacs or Thomas Paine’s leaflets.

      Quote the Constitution. That’s law. The Declaration of Independence is not. Anyone who doesn’t understand the difference should go back to high school.

      What restraint do you propose then, for freedom of speech, and for freedom of religion, and for freedom of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble? Go on, Jon. Tell me more how you want to restrain Americans’ freedom. Funny, isn’t it, how you get rather vague on the specifics.

  6. Bloop says:

    No, I really don’t get the gist. I don’t think there is a gist.

    If you can’t come up with a reasonable example of the application a general principle, you ought to consider the possibly that it’s the general principle, and not the examples, that’s lousy.

  7. Malby says:

    I wonder a lot about Corapi. He has a financial empire (is there anything he doesn’t charge for?), he reportedly has traveled and lived with or near a female “assistant” for a long time (see the book Coronary),and his credentials and conversion story always seemed a bit odd.

  8. femail says:

    The female in Coronary is his God daughter and best friend, also his Event Coordinator.
    Get your mind out of the gutter and get off of the blog and live your own life.
    Funny how Father hits some nerves.
    Live a moral upright life and you would not need to attack innocent lives.

  9. femail says:

    How many people live near or with a female? You wouldn’t be here without a female. Why is it that a Priest can’t be around a woman, a man or a child. (Father Corapi has commented on this before) See his tape called “Scandals!” where he confronts this. If a priest has a woman secretary, he must be committing a sin by sleeping with her. If his secretary is a man, he must be a homosexual. If he hears a confession from a kid, he might be molesting him or her……..
    How about men now-adays? If a man is around a female child, he is open to accusation from others about sexual abuse…..
    WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU? You are bored, and obviously don’t have a life – or if you do, maybe you should focus on your own problems, instead of accusing others of things you don’t have any clue about.
    You can now claim the whole “you are too defensive” thing – so somebody must be guilty. BULL!
    I know a few things about Fr. Corapi. One is this….
    He has saved thousands if not millions of peoples marriages, lives, and childrens families. Who cares if you are Catholic or even Christian. But he has personally saved so many peoples lives (including children – most out of the womb, and many still in the womb that he changed the mind of the mom….).
    Once you can say you saved so many lives and created a better world – you can diss Fr. Corapi.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!