--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If laws don't lead people to Jesus, they are obsolete, pope says
In what appears to be a rebuke to legalism within the church, Pope Francis declared in his morning homily that if laws do not lead people to Christ then they are obsolete.
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — God’s laws are meant to lead all people to Christ and his glory, and if they do not, then they are obsolete, Pope Francis said in a morning homily.
In fact, the scholars of the law in Jesus’ day were so wrapped up in doctrine as an end in itself, they were unable to see that Jesus was leading people down a new and surprising path toward his glory, the pope said Oct. 13 during his morning Mass in the Domus Sanctae Marthae, where he lives.
Jesus did “strange things,” like “walk with sinners, eat with tax collectors” — things the scholars of the law “did not like; doctrine was in danger, that doctrine of the law” that they and the “theologians had created over the centuries,” he said, according to Vatican Radio.
The scholars were safeguarding the law “out of love, to be faithful to God,” the pope said, but “they were closed up right there,” and forgot all the ways God has acted in history.
“They forgot that God is the God of the law, but is also the God of surprises,” he said.
“God is always new; he never denies himself, he never says that what he had said is wrong, but he always surprises us,” the pope said.
The scholars of the law had forgotten how many times God surprised his people, like when he freed them from slavery in Egypt, he said. They were too wrapped up in their perfect system of laws — “a masterpiece” where everyone knew exactly what he or she was supposed to do; “it was all settled. And they felt very secure there,” he said.
They couldn’t see beyond “this system made with lots of good will,” and they could not read the “signs of the times,” the pope said.
They couldn’t see that what Jesus was doing was a sign indicating “that the time was ripe,” he said. This is why in the day’s Gospel reading (Lk 11:29-32) Jesus said, “This generation is an evil generation,” because it sought the wrong kind of sign, the pope said.
The scholars of the law also forgot that the people of God are a people on a journey, “and when you journey, you always find new things, things you never knew before,” he said. But the journey, like the law, is not an end in itself; they are a path, “a pedagogy,” toward “the ultimate manifestation of the Lord. Life is a journey toward the fullness of Jesus Christ, when he will come again.”
The law teaches the way to Christ, and “if the law does not lead to Jesus Christ,” he said, “and if it doesn’t get us closer to Jesus Christ, it is dead.”
Pope Francis asked people to reflect, “Am I attached to my things, my ideas. Am I closed?”
“Am I at a standstill or am I a person on a journey? Do I believe in Jesus Christ, in what Jesus did,” dying for humanity’s sins and rising again? he asked.
“Am I able to understand the signs of the times and be faithful to the voice of the Lord that is manifested in them?” he asked.
Pope Francis urged people to pray to be able to walk “toward maturity, toward the manifestation of the glory of the Lord” and to have a heart “that loves the law, because the law is God’s.”
But may people also be able to “love God’s surprises and to know that this holy law is not an end in itself,” he said.
Dear Diana,
ReplyDeleteRE: *Pope Francis urged people to pray to be able to walk “toward maturity, toward the manifestation of the glory of the Lord” and to have a heart “that loves the law, because the law is God’s.”
But may people also be able to “love God’s surprises and to know that this holy law is not an end in itself,” he said.*
I look forward to Pope Francis' direction on Communion for Divorced Catholics, the acceptance of Homosexuals and Transgenders in our Church, etc. etc. (I know there are certain teachings that CANNOT be changed - so this will be interesting to say the least. He's certainly stirring up the pot, and lifting that which has been burnt on the bottom, and mixing it with the "so called good." May we all be ONE.
"this holy law is not an end in itself" - when one better understands the holy law, the church changes to reflect that better understanding. May the Holy Spirit guide us all to be open to the proper changes.
Hey Diana I think I know who reported fr.luis in because he is publishing a report with CPs he should have been released from the deaconship on the day he was given time to think if he wants to be a deacon or be part of the group that wants to be geting rid of the archbishop
ReplyDeleteDear Anon @10:18,
DeleteAnd you would have preferred hiding the fact that a priest was caught alone with a 17 yr old girl in a car at a secluded beach? (Inappropriate behavior no matter how you look at it.) You would dismiss a deacon who has served the diocese honourably for many years just because he did what he and all other clergy are REQUIRED to do....
As someone who has worked with young people dealing with abuse issues, I'm appalled that you think this is even an issue!
Dear Anonymous at 11:42 am,
DeleteNo one was hiding the fact. He was caught by police. But the deacon should not be interfering in the investigation. It is against the law to interfere in police investigation; therefore, it is also inappropriate to interfere in the internal investigations of the Church.
Oh, you are an immoral woman Diana. Are you at all familiar with the Archdiocese policy on sexual misconduct? This document mandates that anyone who is aware of the possibility of child abuse is required to report it. This deacon did what was required of him. In fact, to not do so would have been disobedient to the Archbishop! Are you truly recommending that he should have been disobedient?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:01 pm,
DeleteHow am I being immoral? I already said that he was caught by the police and they are investigating it. It is immoral and illegal to interfere in police investigation. Furthermore, the fact that Tim Rohr is in possession of this letter of complaint should also be investigated.
You are immoral because you say this:
Delete"But the deacon should not be interfering in the investigation.....therefore, it is also inappropriate to interfere in the internal investigations of the Church"
.....as though the Deacon was wrong to report the matter. He was right to do so, as mandated by the Archbishop's own instructions, and you should say he was right to do so.
Dear Anonymous at 1:27 pm,
DeleteEveryone knows that the reporting person must be either a witness of the alleged act, the person herself, or the person whom the child had confided in. How did the deacon get the information? If he was investigating the incident, he had no right to do so. He is not the SARC, the parent of the girl, nor a witness. There is already an investigation going on. There should be no interference in the police investigation. It is illegal.
Furthermore, what is also illegal is Tim Rohr having a letter of complaint with the minor's NAME on it.
Delete"Everyone knows that the reporting person must be either a witness of the alleged act, the person herself, or the person whom the child had confided in"
DeleteNo, that is wrong again. You have evidently not read the policy or have not understood it. Once again, I call on you to state that the Deacon was correct to do as he did. The police investigation has no bearing on this question. Nor does the Deacon's letter to the Archbishop in any way impinge or otherwise interfere with the police investigation.
"Tim Rohr having a letter of complaint with the minor's NAME on it"
DeleteYou seem to think that this is worse than the actual offense!!
Dear Anonymous at 1:45 pm and 1:56 pm,
DeleteI do not think you understand the consequences the jungle is now in. Tim Rohr has a document signed by Deacon Steve Martinez, which is supposed to be a complaint to SARC regarding a minor. The minor's NAME appears on that report to SARC. The fact that Tim has this illegal document signed by Deacon Steve Martinez (the former SARC) can be construed as a "set up" by the jungle to remove the Archbishop and discredit the Way and interference into a police investigation.
Every complaint that goes through and is filed by SARC in the Archdiocese should be held in trust and strict confidentiality due to the nature of the offense. The fact that Tim Rohr now has in his possession a document with the minor's NAME on it is illegal simply because Rohr has nothing to do with the case. He is not a police officer investigating the case nor the canonical investigator. He is not the SARC nor an employee of Child Protective Services investigating the case. The minor's NAME should always be protected. The fact that her name is now in the possession of an outside person is something the police should investigate. It is a letter that is not supposed to be leaked out since it was filed under SARC. No documents under SARC should be leaked out due to the nature of the offense. Now, if it was Deacon Steve Martinez who gave this document to Tim Rohr to be published in his blog, we now have to wonder about the deacon's motive.....especially since the minor's name was on that document.
Once again Diana, you still appear to believe that this letter is a worse offence than the actual child abuse! You still appear to believe that the Deacon was wrong to have sent this letter to the Archbishop - at least you have not cared to clear that perception up.
DeleteTim Rohr has not published any name, so I can't imagine why you think this causes a problem. The letter is important, albeit with the name hidden or removed, because the SARC had indicated that he was taking no action on the matter - which seems to fly in the face of the Archbishops own policy.
In any case, each one of us can only respond personally to this situation. So far, your response has been abysmal and immoral.
Dear Anonymous at 3:07 pm,
DeleteIn the first place, I never said anything about the "child abuse." Where did this story of child abuse come from??? The police report??? Nothing in the police report mentions child abuse. So, where did this story FIRST appear? It first appeared in the jungle. Deacon Steve supports the jungle.
It does not matter that Tim Rohr did not publish the girl's name. The fact is....an outside agent (Tim Rohr) has the name of this girl.....information which he is not privy to. Who did Tim Rohr reveal the name of the girl to.....his wife, his close friends?? This is a serious problem. How can a minor be protected if her name can easily be leaked out.
"This is a serious problem. How can a minor be protected if her name can easily be leaked out."
DeleteSorry? What? This "minor" needs to be protected from what exactly? From a predatory priest? Or from a letter that doesn't reveal her name? This is so weird. At no stage have you condemned the action of this priest. It all seems to be fine by you. But you get worked up about a letter asking the SARC to do his job, and the Archbishop to be true to his word - as though that's the crime here!
Do you think this girl's identity is unknown to her community? Or to the school? Why would you think that the violation against her is this letter? How obscene!
Dear Anonymous at 3:46 pm,
DeleteThe public law says that a minor's name should always be protected. Any documents filed in SARC should never be leaked out due to the nature of the offense or allegations. These reports should always be held in strict confidentiality due to the nature of the offense or allegations.
If you have read the comments in my blog, you would have already known that I am not in favor of what Father Luis did. As I told one commenter, I would be upset and disappointed if this had happened to my teenage daughter. I would be upset and disappointed with BOTH of them for putting themselves in a compromising position.
Dear Diana @ 11:42 and 1:39,
DeleteDeacon Steve Martinez did the right thing. You say he shouldn't be interfering with a police investigation...well, doesn't seem like one (police investigation) is happening because the girl is not a minor. You ask how he got the information...maybe a concerned person who was aware of the incident was bothered and had to speak with someone and trusted him to do what was right.
The good Deacon only did what he is required to do, and yet you defend anonymous @10:18's comment as if in agreement?
Dear Anonymous at 4:06 pm,
DeleteFirst of all, the girl is a minor. 17 years old is a minor.
Secondly, "child abuse" IS a crime. If it was "child abuse" the police WOULD investigate. Child abuse is a serious offense; however, the police report never mention "child abuse." So, where did this story come from?
You stated, "You ask how he got the information...maybe a concerned person who was aware of the incident was bothered and had to speak with someone and trusted him to do what was right."
Is this going to be another third person party like John Toves?? If the minor was abused by Father Luis, she can report it or her parents can report it to the police.
"The public law says that a minor's name should always be protected"
DeleteWhat is more important? The minor's name? Or the minor herself? The public law states that one should not sexually abuse a minor. WHy didn't you say that?
"If it was "child abuse" the police WOULD investigate. Child abuse is a serious offense; however, the police report never mention "child abuse." So, where did this story come from? "
The age of consent is 16 on Guam, which means that sexual relations between a 17 yr old and a priest is not a criminal matter from the point of view of the state. But the Church defines "child" as anyone under 18, in which case this sexual contact is child sexual abuse. That's where "this story came from". Do you understand now, Diana?
Dear Anonymous at 4:20 pm,
DeleteBoth laws are important. If the child's name was revealed, it would stigmatized the child, which can be so traumatizing and lead to suicidal thoughts. If the age of consent is 16 and she consented....then it would NOT be labeled as "child abuse". Defining a person as a minor is not the same thing as defining child abuse. This story did not come from the Church, Anonymous. It came from speculations from the jungle. It did not come from the Church or the police report.
Did you even pay attention to the previous post, Diana. For the Church, a child is defined as anyone under 18. So, while the secular world may not label it "Child abuse", the Church must treat it that way, if indeed sexual behaviour occurred.
DeleteSeriously, do you think the child's identity is unknown? You can blame the priest and the community that formed him for that.
Dear Anonymous at 4:45'pm,
DeleteAnd at what age does the Church say is the age of consent? Furthermore, I am not referring to the girl's classmates, friends, or people she may have told. There is a reason we have that law. I do not know the girl's identity along with the vast majority of people. There is a reason why we have that law.
Dear Diana, please read the Archdiocesan policy on sexual abuse:
Delete"Child means any person under 18 years of age"
Dear Anonymous at 8:49 pm,
DeleteIf it was that simple, the canonical investigation does not need to look into any canon law, and the police would have booked and confined him because Guam 's law also defined a minor in the same way. A crime is a crime. Apparently, there is more to the definition of child abuse than what was mentioned in the deacon's letter.
I find it suspect that Deacon Steve was able to obtain information just the next day Luis was arrested. I find it even more suspect that Rohr was in possession of a letter that was filed to SARC and use it to threaten the Archbishop. Financial transparency......I understand. But this kind of transparency only fuels the appetites of gossips.
Dear Diana @8:49--
DeleteMy sources at GPD say no charges have been filed...no civil litigation taking place so far as the female was at age of consent.
As far as Canonical, well, that may very well be the reason Deacon Steve was informed and someone leaked the letter out. There are some in the NCW that are not as confident as you are with our members of the Canonical Investigation team!
You say it is to threaten the Archbishop--if he has done nothing wrong then he has nothing to worry about.
Dear Diana @4:15--
Delete"Is this going to be another third person party like John Toves?? If the minor was abused by Father Luis, she can report it or her parents can report it to the police."
I doubt the girl is claiming she was abused.....I was actually offering as a possibility that another person who knew of the relationship between the girl and the priest was the one who sought out Deacon Steve. (It was not a very well kept secret down south, Diana.)
Dear Anonymous at 9:28 am,
DeleteThen we should allow the canonical investigation to do their work and wait until they are finished. Since Child Protective Services was already informed by Deacon Steve Martinez, they will also do their own investigation, and may even inform the Archdiocese of their findings.
The Archbishop has nothing to worry about because he was not the one in the car with the girl. Unfortunately, the jungle treats it as though it is the Archbishop who was in the car with the girl. They even blame the seminary, which I find insane!! Whatever sins a person commits is that person's sin.
Dear Anonymous at 9:37 am,
DeleteThen allow the investigation to continue. If Father Luis broke his vow of celibacy, the Church will deal with it. The Archbishop will make the decision after the investigation is over.
Ms Diana fails to understand the issue here. Issue is not Luis camacho. The issue is Archbishop Apuron is no o position to investigate this matter.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:14 pm,
DeleteFather Luis is a priest under the Archbishop. You are correct that the Archbishop cannot investigate the way the police does. He is not trained for such things. However, the Archbishop needs to decide what to do with Father Lius; therefore, he would need to need to cooperate with the civil authorities in any investigations they have regarding the case. Then he can make his decision.
Please Diana,
ReplyDeletehow would you know whether the name was redacted before it went to the media?
And a big YES. You are correct. Deacon Steve is not the current SARC. BUT he is an ordained Deacon and it looks like he is concerned and trying to uphold the MORAL CONSCIENCE of this Diocese.
He does not have to be the SARC to report an alleged activity. And he did not have to WITNESS it himself. Anyone with information about an alleged abuse of a sexual nature CAN AND SHOULD report as per Section IV of the Policy which i have provided the URL.
http://www.aganaarch.org/wp-content/uploads/AOAS_April_24_2002_Policy.pdf
~NCW MEMBER FROM TAMUNING~
Dear 2:38 pm, NCW in Tamuning,
DeleteThe newspapers and media has always identified her as a 17 year old girl. Her name was never revealed. A minor's name is always protected by law. The question is.....what is Tim doing with a document that was filed under SARC with the minor's on it? Despite that he blacked out the name of the minor and her parents is irrelevant. By what authority does Tim have to be in possession of a document that was reported to SARC in the Archdiocese?
NCW in Tamuning, when John Toves reported an alleged child abuse, SNAP did not entertain it mainly because he was a third party. He never got the information from his cousin, but from someone else. So, if SNAP found it a waste of time to entertain such a case, why would you expect SARC to entertain it. Was Deacon Steve a third party like John Toves or not? The police and the Church is already doing its own investigation. Any interference in the investigation only compromises it.
"So, if SNAP found it a waste of time to entertain such a case, why would you expect SARC to entertain it."
DeleteThe reason the SARC should "entertain it", as you put it, is because there has been a suggestion of sexual abuse of a minor. That is enough. A suggestion that a member of the clergy has committed sexual abuse of a minor is enough under the Archdiocesan policy for an investigation.
Dear Anonymous at 3:48 pm,
DeleteAnd what do you think SNAP was created for in the first place? Was it not for the same reason?? It was already known that John Toves never got the information from his cousin. He admitted it. He was a third party. It is always best to have the victim come forward himself.
And your point is? The fact remains that the SARC is obliged to investigate the alleged, suggested or implied sexual abuse of a minor by a member of the clergy. I certainly agree that it would be preferable if the victim came forward, of course, but that is unlikely to happen is it. Why do think that is, Diana?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 3:58 pm,
DeleteWhy are you asking me?? There are many victims who have come forward, but in this case, none came forward. As a matter of fact, SNAP even stated that they have heard of these same allegations, but no victims ever came forward even when they were there. Is it possible that no victims came forward because there were none to begin with????? Could that not be a possibility?????
I love how you speak with authority on such issues, but when countered with facts your response becomes, "why are you asking me?" I'll give you this much, your behavior is consistent throughout the issues over the last few months ... and I wouldn't be surprised if you don't publish this. that too will be consistent behavior for you ...
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:21 pm,
DeleteWhat facts did you present????? You asked me a question about why the victim did not come forward. ONLY the victim would know the answer to that question...........so, why are you asking me?????? :-)
Actually Diana, there are more than one anonymous commenting here. In any case, you were asked your opinion on why the victim did not come forward. You are ususally very free with your opinions
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:43 am,
DeleteAnd if you look closely at my response on March 24, 2015 at 4:08 pm. I stated my own opinion AFTER I said "Why ask me?". I brought up the fact that the possibility exists that the victim did not come forward because they were probably no victim in the first place.
"they were probably no victim in the first place."
DeleteI see. So, in your reckoning, its perfectly ok for the priest, in a position of authority, to enter into this relationship with the girl, who is not yet an adult? Even though she is subject to his authority? Even though she has been indoctrinated to defer to the authority and judgement of other, senior members of the Way?
Your response to this tragic situation has been disgusting, Diana. You have never categorically called for the priest to be disciplined. Nor for the girl to be treated as a victim and encouraged to come forward. You have never suggested that the Church ought to look closely as to whether this sort of thing is common in the NCW, or called for others to come forward. You appear to think that this is just fine, and perhaps the girl should be grateful for the attention of the priest? Or that it is only good and natural that the priest receive the attention of this girl.
You ought to be ashamed.
Dear Anonymous at 10:46 am,
DeleteYou ought to be ashamed. Do you even read the thread. I was not referring to Father Luis. I was referring to the John Toves fiasco when he was here on Guam. While on Guam, John Toves was urging other victims of abuse to come forward. No one came forward. This was what I stated above on March 24th at 3:54 pm,
DianaMarch 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM
Dear Anonymous at 3:48 pm,
And what do you think SNAP was created for in the first place? Was it not for the same reason?? It was already known that John Toves never got the information from his cousin. He admitted it. He was a third party. It is always best to have the victim come forward himself.
" God’s laws are meant to lead all people to Christ and his glory, and if they do not, then they are obsolete, Pope Francis said in a morning homily."
ReplyDeleteLaw/rules, by NCW, followed by a million members, deny people Jesus in Communion. (on tongue)
The laws/rules of the Catholic Church for the Roman rite state that no one is to be denied Jesus on the tongue.
Kiko meant well when he first initiated the NCW. His desire to proclaim the Word is remarkable; however, he was ill-advised by even some people of "rank" in the 1960's as to how the Mass should be celebrated.
The Mass has always evolved - As the Church better understood more of what the Sacrifice of the Mass was and the magnitude of Who is present in every fragment of the Body and every drop of the Blood, changes under the authority of the Pope came about.
One point that should be noted, is that when Communion in the hands became an Indult, the Pope that allowed it, didn't want to. Even in the Bible there are examples, where the people's hearts are hardened, so God "allows" certain things.
Neither Saint John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI Emeritus liked Communion in the hand, but allowed the Indult to stay.
Saint John Paul II commended the NCW for many things; however, the "additions and deletions" never got the recognitio (written permission). It was he that said in Redemptionis Sacramentum through Cardinal Arinze that this was a must.
Pope Benedict XVI Emeritus, too, commended the NCW for many things; however, he, too, did not give the NCW the Recognitio. This fact is highlighted during the NCW meeting with him in January 2012 when the NCW all expected this to happen - and it didn't.
Pope Francis, also, commends the NCW for many things. But, when he tries gently to correct them in issues, such as in their audience with him in 2014 ( one issue being culture), there is a "Why is this Pope who loves us saying these things" look on their faces. And, it must be noted, "The NCW did not get the Recognitio for "their additions and deletions" to the Mass during this audience.
Laws/rules of the NCW, that deny Communion on the tongue (the norm in the Roman rite), are NOT leading "all people to Christ and his glory." And, if this is so, should we not consider this law of the NCW "obsolete?"
Dear Anonymous at 12:06 am,
DeleteWhen a person dies, God is not going to ask him whether he received the Body of Christ by tongue or by hand. Christ said that those who eat my Body and drink my Blood will have eternal life. He never said HOW we should receive Him....whether by tongue or by Blood. Today, the Catholic Church teaches that it can either be by tongue or by hand.
We already said we have permission to celebrate the Eucharist the Way we do. And if you do not like it, take it up with the Vatican.
DeleteWhen we die Christ will simply ask us, In life were you good and kind to others? did you love others and bring peace to our world.?
"When a person dies, God is not going to ask him whether he received the Body of Christ by tongue or by hand."
DeleteThis is absurd. How do you know what God will ask when a person dies? That may be your preference but you have no reason to assume anything. In actual fact, if you are willing to turn a blind eye to the law and lawful direction of the Church, then you can't claim to be faithful.
"Today, the Catholic Church teaches that it can either be by tongue or by hand. "
You keep saying this. You do not, however, point out that the Church treats these two possibilities quite differently. One is the law, the other is the indult or exception. You ought to remember that when you speak of permissions.
Dear Anonymous at 1:20 pm,
DeleteRomans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Romans 6:14- For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
There is a difference between KNOWING God and knowing ABOUT God. God would not ask us how we receive His Body....whether by tongue or hand. What is important to Him is that we receive His Body.
Communion-in-the-hand is approved by the Holy See as an option for the United States, and for many other countries, including Italy. The following are the relevant parts of the documents governing this permission.
In the following documents the citations refer to:
Notitiae (Not.) - the official journal of the Congregation for Divine Worship (which now includes the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments)
Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) - the official record "Acts of the Apostolic See," in which authoritative teaching and legal decrees are published.
So you quote Romans to imply that "you are not under the law"? I see
DeleteThen you go on to state that the Church law allows communion in the hand. All the while ignoring that the Church treats communion on the tongue and communion in the hand differently. That one is a continual traditional practice and the other not; that one is the law, the other a permission to break the law.
And for good measure you see fit to give a lesson on the "difference between KNOWING God and knowing ABOUT God" as though anyone who questions you only knows ABOUT God.
You're a real piece of work Diana.
Dear Anonymous at 6:35 pm,
DeleteYou have eyes, but do not see. You have ears but cannot hear. You can read, but do not understand. And your comment is published under the topic "Pope says if laws don't lead people to Jesus, they are obsolete."
Shame on you, Deacon Martinez. In your desire to oust Archbishop, you are ready to sacrifice Father Luis. He may have made a mistake. Why do you want his blood? Why do you want to smear his fame? Shame on you. Let Archbishop deal with this.
ReplyDeleteShame on Deacon Martinez? How about shame on the NCW which people are now starting to see the effects of this cult. Father Luis is neo, the girl is neo, her parents are neo so they won't say anything....Archbishop will just sweep the incident under the rug. Very cultish indeed!!
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:01 am,
DeleteWhere did you get this false information that the girl is in the NCW????? Where did you get this false information that the girl's parents are in the NCW????? See the weblink below.
http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2015/03/some-clarifications.html
is this what a Deacon does go Against his bishop ?
Delete12.45am. Deacon Martinez like so many people have one intention. Intention is only to protect the children of Guam from sexual abuse. Our Children are more in danger now of sexual abuse than any previous time in the history of the Archdiocese. No one on Island has any desire to oust Archbishop Apuron.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Fr. Luis Camacho no one wants his blood. Luis requires psychological/spiritual help. Trying to help young priest get on right path in life. NCW led him on a false path away from God towards hell.
Dear Anonymous at 7:41 am,
DeleteFather Luis has not been charged with sexual abuse. All the stories of sexual abuse came from the opposition. It actually started with the opposition. The police report says he was charged with custodial interference. All this speculation came from one source. It did not come from the police report. It did not come from the girl whom Luis was with. It did not come from Father Luis as well. This speculation of child abuse started in the jungle without any evidence. Deacon Martinez did not even get the information from the girl.
Diana,
DeleteYou must know the details of the case. How did you know that Father Luis or the girl did not tell Deacon Martinez? Also, Deacon Martinez did his job by reporting a suspected violation. I do not recall the details of his letter but I don't think he mentioned that he wants the Archbishop to resign. If Deacon Martinez did mention it in any of his letters or speeches, then I stand corrected. If not, then you are just speculating that it is his intentions to have AAA resign just like Junglewatch is speculating of a sexual abuse violation with Fr. Luis.
Its so sad to know that members of the NCW would rather attack those calling for justice and to make things right; rather than address the truth/facts. That's why after 30 years, your numbers remain insignificant. Your cult isonly relevant because of AAA's greed. May God have mercy on your souls and most especially those who lead you all to HELL.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 9:04 am,
DeleteWhat truths and facts are you referring to??? The stories of child abuse are all speculations and allegations that first started in the jungle. The truth would be from the police report, the officers who were at the scene when they arrested Father Luis, and testimonies from Father Luis and the girl. That would be where the truth would come from.
LOL… "Our numbers are insignificant!" This is what Anonymous March 25 9.04am says. The Neocatechumenal Way alone has more members than all the other associations in Guam put together. Perhaps this is the real reason of all this envy.
DeleteThe Way has not been here 30 years, as Anonymous states. It has been here less than 20 years...
Please clarify the role of a canonical investigator. If the church is not going to do anything until law enforcement completes their investigation, then why have a canonical investigator? Personally, I hope Fr. Luis gets cleared with any criminal violation such as the consensual age issue. But I hope he gets chastise from AAA for his action as a priest just like he did to Benavente and Gofigan. I feel for the minor, but if she is 16 or 17 years old, the law of the land allows them to make their own decisions.
DeleteDiana you have no idea what you are talking about. Our daughters are now in danger of abuse by graduates of RMS. Archbishop Apuron endangered our daughers by allowing men like Camacho to run a mock on our island. What ever the use of language in police report our children are now in danger under the administration of this bishop.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:53 pm,
DeleteWhere did you get this idea that if one RMS priest made a mistake, then ALL RMS priests and seminarians will make the same mistake???? Who brainwashed you into this insane thinking, which does not make any sense??? Why is it that you believe that the mistake of one RMS priest is a mistake that ALL RMS priest will commit?
Do you not know that in the Catholic Church, there were also a few NON-RMS priests who were found guilty of sexually abusing young boys?? Does this mean that ALL Catholic priests are sexually abusive???? For goodness sake.....please use some common sense!
Dear Anonymous at 7:28 pm,
DeleteA canonical investigator is one who investigates what canon law was violated. It would be wise to wait for the police investigation because they are the ones most qualified to do the investigative work.
Yes, a 16 and 17 years old is capable of making their own decision. Father Luis should never have placed himself in that position. As for the girl, it would have helped if she did not get in the car.
ReplyDeleteDiana, you seem to be saying that Fr.Luis Camacho scandal did not even happen. Yet Factual reports indicate Fr. Camacho was the man identified inside the car with a teenage girl. why are you in denial,of this fact that is recorded? Defending this scandal means you support the scandal.
Dear Anonymous at 10:24 am,
DeleteWhere in any of my comments did I say that Father Luis was not in the car????? Please show it to me. I do not defend the scandal. I am saying that we should be level-headed about all this. Allow the investigators to do their work without interference. Stop judging because we have not heard anything from Father Luis or the girl. All we know from the police report is that he was arrested for custodial interference. Another thing we know is that Deacon Steve filed a child abuse report the very next day after Father Luis' arrest. Those are the facts. Let us not make speculations or invent stories.
Hang on, You believe the pope gave you "permission" because you were told. We believe there was sexual contact because we were told. Deacon Steve is a reliable person
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:01 am,
DeleteI tend to believe the police report more than a person who associates himself with a hate group who wishes to remove the Archbishop and destroy the NCW. The Pope, on the other hand, never expressed a desire to destroy the NCW.
"The Pope, on the other hand, never expressed a desire to destroy the NCW. "
DeleteThe Pope, from whom you claim the NCW received "verbal" (cough cough) permission, is the same Pope who sent the NCW for investigation to the Congregation for Divine Worship (questionable liturgical practices) and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (questionable teachings and beliefs). Go figure
Dear Anonymous at 3:08 pm,
DeleteThe Pope did that as a result of the many complaints coming in to the Vatican. Nothing ever came out of those investigations after about a year. When Pope Francis came in, he dismissed all investigations. Pope Francis is a man who appears to take his position seriously. After all, he got rid of all his finance council and has decided to get rid of the corruption in the curia. He would take the investigation of the NCW seriously as well, and he did. He had ceased all investigations into the Way.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens When a priest breaks a vow? Does the priest re make his vow after breaking vow?
Should the priest who breaks a vow g to confession?
What kind of penance would a priest give another priest for breaking a vow. Interested to know not about the case in particular but about general case.
What about celibacy? Will the pope change celibacy ? How can a 29 year old heterosexual control his urges.?
Trying to understand theology behind all this.
ReplyDeleteAnonymousMarch 25, 2015 at 9:04 AM
May God have mercy on your souls and most especially those who lead you all to HELL.
thanks be to God anonymous that he will be the judge of who goes to hell. You sound as one who has already has the authority......the spirit to condemn. We'll be praying for you nonetheless as there is a HELL on earth that many lives are comfortable with. Are you a Saint by the way?
Hawaii and Alaska were the only states not to have any known hate groups. Guam has one known hate group – Tim Rohr’s Anti-Archbishop group, alias known as Concerned Catholics.
Deleteyou got that right 3:05 AM !!!!!
DeleteFather Matthew Blockley continues to be rude .Today he told several people to " shutyourmouth"
ReplyDeleteEmailed nuncio to tell him how this priest speaks to people. In St. Luke's coffee shop we met him and he ask about many questions about archbishop NCW. Giving him answers that e not like he shouts shut your mouth.
Anything you tell him he does not like he shouts these words loud everyone hears him and looks. So rude .
is he a priest ? he doesn't shut his mouth on jungle watch maybe the pope needs investigate father ???Matthew Blockley going against his bishop
DeleteI am not turning a blind eye to the FACT that Fr. Luis was found alone with a 17yr old girl and that he was charged with Custodial Interference. However, there are a few things that I would like to point out that are false and or questionable in the Deacons letters.
ReplyDelete1. The statement that the girl and her parents are members of the community that Fr. Luis is presbyter to is FALSE. This implies that the girl and her parents are members of the Merizo Community. There are no couples in the Merizo Community who have a 17 year old daughter.
2. The details as to the exact span of events that led to the incident are QUESTIONABLE. To know exactly the course of events would mean that the informant had to have followed Fr. Luis from Merizo to Southern High, enter the school campus to witness the girl enter the car and hide, then follow them to Subway then follow them all the way to the beach and witness them in the act. Not to mention that this informant would have had to been looking in through the front windshield to clearly see the supposed act because the parish car has very dark tint. If this info did not come from the girl or her parents did it come from Fr. Luis? If it came from GPD then these details would have been in the report. It must have come from a private investigator, a stalker or a very creative mind.
Also, CPS may not have any role in this supposed incident since it did not happen at any home.
The FACT remains that Fr. Luis was charged with Custodial interference after being found with a 17 yr old alone in a parked car. This is the only scandal. Until the Archdiocese and or the Attorney General release any info, it remains just that. I understand that the silence may tempt one to begin speculating but dont deter from the FACTS.
Let us hope that whatever the reason may be that caused Fr. Luis to place himself in a compromise, let us hope that the reason was for the benefit of the girl. Let us stay clear from causing any unneeded speculations.
It is said, "all things shall pass." Let this be our prayer too. I pray that whatever may unfold in the investigations that all are able to accept the reality, heal and move on.
Dear Antoine,
DeleteThank you for making this clarification. I do not know where in the world the jungle got the idea that the girl and her family are members of the Way. It was the jungle who has been spreading this false story. They have also invented a sex abuse story. As I have been saying, this sex abuse story did not come from the police report. That story was FIRST started in the jungle. I will put your comment as an entry post.
They ARE members of the Way--not in the Merizo community, but in another community.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:20 am,
DeleteMore speculations? What makes you so certain that she is not just a parishioner?
So why did Luis resign so quickly and flee to Saipan? All the more reason to believe that there was sexual misconduct involved in this story.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:36 am,
DeleteFor a priest to be alone with a girl at the beach is already scandal enough even if there were no sexual relations involved.