Under my last entry post, I asked how the Archbishop has violated human rights. That question was then put back to me. I was challenged to show how the NCW was being persecuted, and I did. Now the commenter comes back only to defend his/her right to persecute the NCW. Those comments can be found here.
Then another commenter (or probably the same one) finally listed down what he/she thought were human rights violation done by the Archbishop. According to that commenter (the black are my responses):
Let's see if you'll post this list to start off Diana.
1. removing priests to make way for neo priests who are hard to understand/comprehend.
It is within the authority of the Archbishop to replace priests; therefore, this is not a persecution. Although many of these priests speak English as a second language, they can speak and read English. The rumor that one cannot understand them is just that - a rumor. I have heard them speak, and I can understand them. Even the teenagers in the NCW can understand them.
Furthermore, Father Paul was removed, but he was not replaced with a "neo" priest; therefore, this statement is false and misleading.
2. removing Fr. Paul who was so instrumental at the Dededo church.
It is within the authority of the Archbishop to remove any priest and transfer him to another parish; therefore, removing Father Paul for disobedience is within the Archbishop's right and authority and therefore not a persecution.
2. having the locks changed out at the Dededo church while having a meeting with Father Paul.
It is within the Archbishop's authority to remove the parish priest; therefore, this is not a persecution. There is no evidence of locks being changed other than the jungle's sayso. In fact, Father Paul never said that he was locked out of the parish in any of the media.
3. dragging the Lastimoza family out by insinuating he was a danger to children.
The Archbishop never said that the Lastimoza FAMILY was a danger to children. He said that Joseph Lastimoza was a danger to children. Joseph Lastimoza was a convicted criminal and is on the sex offender registry. It was unknown at the time that he raped and murdered an 18 year old. Therefore, he is perceived a danger to teenagers and adults. Therefore, to insinuate that he is a danger to the public is not an allegation because he is indeed a convicted sex offender and murderer. Despite Lastimoza's repentence, the rape and murder of a teenage girl is something he has to live with for the rest of his life because no matter what he does, he cannot bring back the life he took.
4. spreading gossip to other priests that Father Paul and Mr. Lastimoza were in a homosexual
The Archbishop recognized that what he did here was wrong and APOLOGIZED for it. When someone recognized their mistakes and apologized for it, that is NOT a persecution.
5. denying our local boys support/sponsorship to off-island seminaries since they didn't want to be formed at RMS.
Actually Aaron Quituga was given a choice of TWO seminaries: the RMS or the John Paul II seminary. To say that Aaron was denied sponsorship unless he attends the RM Seminary is false and misleading. Furthermore, it is within the Archbishop's authority to deny sponsorship; therefore, this is not a persecution.
6. making public charges against Msgr James without permitting him to see it.
It was FIRST made public in the jungle that Monsignor James was removed due to financial mismanagement without going to the Archbishop first to confirm it. Since the jungle had no problems making public the accusation of Monsignor James without going to the Archbishop first, then there should be no problem when the Archbishop made it transparent the charges against Monsignor James without going to him first. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
7. removing Msgr James, instrumental at the Cathedral and placing neo newbie Fr. Jucatan in his position.
It is within the authority of the Archbishop to remove any priest and transfer him to another parish; therefore, this is not a persecution. It is within the authority of the Archbishop to place a priest in a vacant position; therefore, this is not a persecution. While you bring up the fact that Monsignor James was placed by a "neo priest," why did you also not bring up the fact that Father Paul's position was placed by a "non-neo" priest????
8. removing Santa Guadalupe statue at Santa Rita church and saying she can be placed in the rectory instead.
The parishioners are supposed to worship God alone, not a statue of Santa Guadalupe. It was God who told Moses to build a bronze serpent to heal the people. But when God saw the people worshipping the bronze serpent, He had it destroyed.
9. assigning neo priests as parish pastors and all of a sudden, things start changing. Mass schedules are changed, rosaries for the dead at the church are restricted, parish councils are being abolished, no finance councils.
Below is a schedule of all the Mass on Guam. The schedule has not changed.
Rosaries are still being prayed in the Church. They are not restricted. As for the parish councils, they were not abolished. They simply chose to walk out just like those at the Cathedral when Monsignor James left.
10. keeping silent and not addressing his "whole" flock on the church's situation.
He has addressed the flock. The Archbishop already said he took out Father Paul for disobedience and Monsignor James for financial mismanagement. He already said that the NCW has the permission from the Pope to celebrate the Eucharist the way they do. It is already said that the RM seminary belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana, and the title of the property is under the Archbishop. How many times do you want to hear the same story?
11. lying that the RMS is for the formation of diocesan priests.
The RMS is for the formation of the diocesan priests. A priest can follow the life and itinerary of any religious order (including the Jesuits), but that does not mean that they are FOR the Jesuits. They are for the Church. Nothing in the RMS document says that the priests are being form FOR the NCW. It states that they are being formed FOR the priesthood FOR the evangelization, following the life and itinerary OF the NCW. There is a big difference between the words "FOR" and "OF." The fact that Pope Francis has ordained 9 priests from the RM Seminary is evidence enough to show that those in the RM Seminary are being formed as legitimate Catholic priests for the Church.
12. removing Deacon Steve as SARC and replacing him with Deacon Larry who doesn't handle the position very well....case in point, Fr. Luis Camacho.
It is within the Archbishop's authority to remove a deacon and replace him with another; therefore, that is not persecution. As for Father Luis, he has an ongoing case with the police. As you can see, the police department could not give any information to Tim Rohr regarding Father Luis' case due to the fact that it is still an ongoing case. Interfering in any police investigation would jeopardize the rights of the accused, which goes against Guam's law.
Furthermore, no victims came forward charging Father Luis with child abuse just as no victims came forward charging the Archbishop of child molestation. What you have is Deacon Steve who got the information from someone who was not even the victim. In the same way, John Toves got his information from someone other than the victim. Thus, all these stories are "third hand" information that has no validity or reliability. Until the victims themselves come forward, any investigation is a waste of time and money.
13. scandalizing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by allowing the NCW to "do their own thing".
The NCW has permission from the Pope to celebrate the Mass the way they do; therefore, this is not a persecution on anyone. How the NCW celebrates its Mass has no impact on anyone outside the NCW; therefore, it is not a persecution.
If you feel the NCW is in error in celebrating the Mass, then simply write to the Vatican and take it up with them.
to be continued....