More Deception.

The jungle writes more deception because they could not take the responsibility of their own sin.  According to Tim Rohr (the bold is mine): 

Never mind the reference to Canon Law, that's just a ruse and I'm going to address that separately. It's what Adrian says right before that which confirms that Luis was arrested for "sexual activity": 

Junglewatch

So, how did the jungle come to this final conclusion that Father Luis was arrested for sexual activity.  Did he show any document?  NOOOOOO!!!  Did he show the police report?  NOOOOOO!!!!  All he did was twist Father Adrian's statements to make it look like it was the Archdiocese who created the scandal of sexual activity.  

The first thing he did was tell his readers to forget Canon Law 1722, which Father Adrian cited.  He stated that he will address that later.  Actually, that is Tim's way of saying that he needs more time to invent a fairytale about Canon Law 1722, which stated (the bold is mine):

Can.  1722 To prevent scandals, to protect the freedom of witnesses, and to guard the course of justice, the ordinary, after having heard the promoter of justice and cited the accused, at any stage of the process can exclude the accused from the sacred ministry or from some office and ecclesiastical function, can impose or forbid residence in some place or territory, or even can prohibit public participation in the Most Holy Eucharist. Once the cause ceases, all these measures must be revoked; they also end by the law itself when the penal process ceases.

Canon Law 1722

Canon Law 1722 refers to scandals, which can come in any form.  As I said in my previous post, ANY ARREST of a priest is already a scandal even if there was no sexual misconduct. Canon law gives the Bishops the authority to forbid the accused to reside in some place or territory.  So, the Archbishop did not violate canon law by telling Father Luis to reside in the Holy Land.  

Tim Rohr takes Father Adrian's statement and manipulated his readers to focus ONLY on the words "Zero Tolerance". So, why did Father Adrian mention "zero tolerance" in his statement?  His statement was in response to the concerned raised by the jungle once they learned that Father Luis was holding a youth retreat and accusing the Archdiocese of violating its own sexual abuse policy(See the weblink below):

KUAM News

As anyone can see in the news report above, Father Adrian's statements were made in that context.  After twisting his statements and taking it out of context, Tim Rohr has now concluded that Father Luis was ARRESTED for "sexual activity."  However, news report on March 18, 2015 stated (the bold is mine):

The pastor of the San Dimas and San Dionisio churches down south, Father Luis Camacho, is facing charges of custodial interference after he was found inside of a car with a minor sometime Tuesday.

Guam police Spokesman officer AJ Balajadia confirms that Luis Camacho was arrested for being with a 17-year-old female who was supposed to be at school. Balajadia says Camacho and the minor were found inside of a car parked at a beach in Agat. Father Luis Camacho was booked and released.

The reason why I had "Guam police spokesman officer AJ Balajadia" in bold is simply because Tim Rohr has now concluded that he is a "liar."  It was the POLICE WHO CONFIRMED that Father Luis was arrested for custodial interference.  So now, Tim Rohr has determined officer AJ Balajadia a liar.....and all because he cannot accept the responsibility of creating the scandal of sexual misconduct and implicating Father Luis guilty of a crime he has not been charged with and without due process of a trial. 

Deacon Steve (who is also part of the jungle) was the FIRST one to mention the sexual ACT between Father Luis and the girl on March 25, 2015 (8 days after Father's Luis' arrest).  You can read about it in the weblink below.  According to the news report: 

It’s the second letter Deacon Steve Martinez has written to Archbishop Anthony Apuron over Father Luis Camacho’s sex scandal involving a 17-year-old female student. Deacon Steve alleges that, based on his understanding, Father Luis and the student engaged in oral sex.

“This is a grave abuse of trust and a tendency which a proper psychological examination may have disclosed,” writes Deacon Steve. 

He points out the irony in Father Luis’ case. He says Father Luis was a product of the teachings of the neocatechumenal way led by Father Edivaldo--teachings Deacon Steve says should be investigated. 

For instance, he says on one occasion, Father Edivaldo warned young girls about boys, saying boys will treat girls like oranges, “sucking the sweet juice from them and when they are all dried up the boys will spit them out.” Other examples include public confessions in which seminarians would disclose personal struggles that include "excessive masturbation."  

News Report

Where do you think Deacon Steve obtained this misconception regarding Father Edivaldo's teaching?  He got it from Tim Rohr.  In other words, Deacon Steve did not come up with this idea on his own using any of the investigative skills he was supposed to have acquired when he was a SARC.  He simply swallowed what the jungle fed him. It was on December 7, 2013 (two years BEFORE Father Luis' arrest) that Tim wrote about Father Edivaldo's preaching.  See the weblink below:

Junglewatch