Let's make this very clear. An appeal is not an appeal when it is filed. An appeal is an appeal when the appellate court agrees to hear it. Said court may also refuse to hear it. In either case, just as with the sentence, the Vatican will announce it via the same sort of Bulletin.First of all, this is the same man who manipulated people into believing that there was no canonical trial. In his blog, Rohr wrote:
He's in the area. I have "hard copy" evidence. He's not in Rome defending himself at his canonical trial because there's isn't one.The only who said that there was a canonical trial was Archbishop Apuron. Today, Rohr is saying that there is no appeal. He believes that the Vatican must publish that there is an appeal. Did the Vatican ever publish that there was a canonical trial? Today, we know for a FACT that there was a canonical trial. Today, we know for a FACT that Rohr was incorrect when he said there was no canonical trial. The evidence and facts presented speaks for itself.
Today, Rohr says that there is no appeal because the CDF did not accept it; yet, he showed absolutely no evidence that the CDF did not accept it. It is the same with the canonical trial. He said there was no canonical trial; yet, he showed no evidence that there was no canonical trial. Rather, he called Archbishop Apuron a liar. Today, we now know that there was a canonical trial, and this truth came from Archbishop Apuron. While Rohr continues to say that there is no appeal, this is what the CDF stated according to Catholic News Agency:
Until appeals are resolved, “the imposed penalties are suspended until the final resolution” of the trial, according to the CDF.Until appeals are resolved, the imposed penalties are suspended....ACCORDING TO THE CDF. The CDF says the sentence is suspended and Rohr says that it is not suspended. So, who should you believe???? The answer should have been obvious. Again the truth was found with Archbishop Apuron who stated that he had already filed an appeal.
This news report came in on Friday, March 16th. Coadjutor Archbishop Byrnes addressed the media on Monday, March 19th and declared himself Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Agana three days after the CDF already stated that the imposed penalties are suspended until the final resolution of the trial. Again, the evidence and facts presented speaks for itself.
Furthermore, Rohr stated in his blog (Capitalization and bold is mine):
"The canonical process in relation to the accusations, INCLUDING those of child sexual abuse, charged against the Reverend Anthony Sablan Apuron, OFM Cap., Archbishop of Agaña, Guam, has concluded." The Italian translation leaves no question as to what Apuron was tried for and found guilty of.]Rohr deliberately misinterpreted the translation. The word "including" is used to include the child sexual abuse charges. This means that there were other charges. "The canonical process in relation to the accusations, INCLUDING those of child abuse...." The Vatican never stated what the charges were that Archbishop Apuron was found guilty of and of which he is now in appeals.
If the guilty charges were child sexual abuse, then why didn't the Vatican tell Archbishop Apuron to stay away from children?????? Why a much lesser sentence? As the article pointed out, if the guilty charge was child sexual abuse, it did not match the sentence.
And Coadjutor Archbishop Michael Byrnes judged Archbishop Apuron guilty of child sex abuse without actually knowing what he was found guilty of. Because the Vatican never publicized the charges he was found guilty of, the Coadjutor Bishop should have refrained from judging a brother bishop. Instead, he should have turned to Jesus Christ who said, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged."