Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Petitions Contain Over 4,500 Signatures

The petition asking the Governor to veto Bill 326 has over 4,500 signatures.  In the Neocatechumenal Way, the petitions were being signed after the Eucharist and the Word Celebration.  I hope that the Governor and Senators would listen to the people and revise the bill to include not only the Church, but also government institutions. After all, victims of sexual abuse are NOT only alter servers.  Sexual abuse is actually much more prevalent outside the Church.  See weblink here.   Senators, if you are for assisting ALL sexual abuse victims, then include those who have also been sexually abused under your institutions.  Bill 326 is discriminatory because it only holds certain institutions accountable while others remain immune.  According to KUAM news:  

A petition circulated by the Archdiocese of Agana to veto Bill 326 is officially in the hands of the governor. According to a release from the church, the petition contained over 4,500 signatures that were collected in the last four days.  
Bill 326 passed on session floor earlier this month. The legislation lifts the civil statute of limitations for child sex abuse cases, which the church predicts could result in bankruptcy and put an end to other church community services as well as force closure of Catholic schools.
Governor Eddie Calvo has until Friday to take action.
The bill, meanwhile, is with his legal team for review.

22 comments:

  1. Just because most of those giving testimony were from the church doesn't mean that only the church is targeted. The only way the institution can be held liable is if it can be proven that the higher ups knew about the abuse but ignored and didn't do anything. Why is the church so scared? It's like the church is admitting that the leaders did nothing while this was all going in. If Apuron is innocent then why are we assuming the church will be bankrupt?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:23 pm,

      This bill targeted only Archbishop Apuron and the Church. The alleged victims said that once this bill becomes law, they will go after Archbishop Apuron and the Church.

      As a matter of fact, all four alleged victims filed a libel lawsuit against Archbishop Apuron and the Church. And of those four alleged victims, the last two was NEVER mentioned by him because we never heard from Archbishop Apuron when Denton and Sandia went public. So,why is Denton and Sandia filing a libel lawsuit?

      Delete
    2. 4,500 out of 157.00 Catholics signed the petition. Therefore 152,500 Catholics did not sign in opposition to the bill. Only 3%.

      Delete
    3. The bill was proposed by "Silent No More" who is part of JungleWatch Nation. You will see this group together protesting with CCOG and LFM. Therefore, this bill was meant only to go after archbishop Apuron and to destroy the church.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 2:29 am,

      "Silent No More" submitted only 3000 signatures to the Guam Legislation, and that is even less. At this point in time, the senators are more interested in the numbers because it is election year. Over 4,500 is a higher number than what you put in.

      Delete
    5. I wouldn't be so proud of the "4500 signatures" Diana. Patti on the radio read a message that pointed out the petition got 4500 signatures because the petitions were at every church AND the priests encouraged people to sign it.
      Silent No More managed to get 3000 signatures WITHOUT the support of the priests and school officials OR having the petitions at every church. So I'd say that Silent No More didn't do as badly as you would like to think.
      Imagine what the numbers could have been if the Silent No More petition was supported by the church!
      Oh no I forgot that you don't want to go there.

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous at 10:04 am,

      From I heard in the jungle, not all priests gave out the petitions. Father Mike Crisostomo admitted in the Patti Arroyo talk show that he did not provide the petitions. He was not the only priest who did not give the petitions.

      Furthermore, the fact that there are more than 4500 signatures shows that many of the parishioners who are not walking in the Way are standing against those who want to destroy the Catholic Church and shut,down some of the parishes.

      Delete
    7. 4500 signatures is and amazing and wonderful success! It is surely sufficient to decide the election/ reelection of those senators who voted on Bill 326-33!

      Please, vote against the bastards!

      Delete
    8. Dear Anonymous at 1:14 pm,

      I allowed your comment to be publish because you are expressing your opinion, but could you please refrain from using such language in your last sentence!

      Delete
  2. Diana the bill is not intended for apuron or the church. It is intended for every person living in a free democratic world. To respect freedom justice truth and democracy means to
    honor 326.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those who concocted Bill 326-33 want to dismantle everything we have by hearsay and made-up stories from as far as 40 years and beyond that cannot be verified or disproved in the law of court.

      These people act on order from mainland anti-church diversion groups who hate everything that is Catholic, want to destroy it and keep Guam and its people in a helpless, subservient colonial status.

      These mastermind of Bill 326-33 are the butchers of the Catholic Church. None of them should be reelected!

      Delete
    2. Never mind the crazy assertion that they "are on order from mainland anti-church diversion groups"; or even the ridiculous "hate everything that is Catholic, want to destroy it". It's this that gets me: ..."keep Guam and its people in a helpless, subservient colonial status".
      Just where do you guys come up with this? And how do you figure colonial mentality in all this?

      Delete
    3. This is exactly what you guys at the jungle do. No more pretenses! Rabid dogs bark day and night and maul people for no reason because it is coded in them inside, it is their innate nature!

      Delete
    4. Glaucon explains his alliance with the anti-Catholic political group SNAP:

      Glaucon JrSeptember 23, 2016 at 7:17 AM

      I will admit that I was long and opponent of SNAP. I always felt like this was some sort of attack against the Church and as a Catholic I defend the church. But it's only when it happens in your backyard that you see this has nothing to do with the church; it has everything to do with men.

      Wow! Is this true, dear Glaucon? You say the abuse, if committed, has nothing to do with the church, but everything to do with men! Then why do you follow SNAP in accusing your church as an institution? Why do you support Bill 326-33? I tell you why: the millions and millions of dollars you want to extort from our beloved church, that is your reason, my friend!

      Delete
  3. Here lies the problem. Please, savor every word of Bill 326-33 long enough, until you fully understand the real intention behind the facade:

    "§ 11301.1. No Limit for Child Sexual Abuse.

    (a) Any claim arising from an incident of child sexual abuse may be commenced against a person, a legal entity, abusers, their enablers, their aiders or abettors, those acting in concert with them and their institutions at any time.
    (b) Any claim arising from an incident of child sexual abuse that occurred on Guam which has been barred by virtue of the expiration of the previous civil statute of limitations shall be permitted to be filed in any court of competent jurisdiction."

    http://www.guamlegislature.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:02 pm,

      The bill that was passed also stated:

      Section 3. Subsections (b) and (c) of§ 11306 of Article 3, Chapter 11, Title
      16 7, Guam Code Annotated, are hereby repealed.
      17 Section 4. § 11306.1 of Article 3, Chapter 11, Title 7, Guam Code
      18 Annotated, is hereby repealed.

      There were some sections that were not repealed. Whoever looked into it most likely saw that the government gave themselves immunity.

      Delete
    2. Dear Diana, I have a few problems with Bill 326-33.

      1. Who is an enabler? Are the parents of a child enablers when they allow a child to stay out for the night without parental supervision? Just think about it hard and long. Are you a reliable and caring parent if you do this to your child? Or are you an enabler, a willing accomplice of committing abuse?

      2. If your child is coming home smelling awful of semen, what do you do about it? Do you ask anything? If you don't ask anything and don't look for the perpetrator, then aren't you an aider and abettor? Aren't you covering up sexual abuse by neglect? Then should not you be tried by the same law as aiders and abettors?

      3. What does it mean to act in concert with an abuser? Does it mean to help covering up the crime and making it hard to make charges against the abuser? Is this not exactly what the Senators did when they loaded their bill with hurdles back in 2011? Did the Legislature of Guam act in concert with abusers when they did so? It is strange to look at the same senators now trying to distance themselves from what they did just 5 years ago. Should not they be tried for acting in concert with abusers?

      4. How can you commence any claim of child sexual abuse against a legal entity? Can a legal entity commit abuse? The relation among persons, legal entities and abusers is not clarified in what you read in the bill. Is it written in English or in some other obscure language? I really cannot decide.

      Ouch, the headache I am having right now... How could sane people in their right mind propose and vote on this incomprehensible and callous text to make it a bill of the Legislature?

      Delete
    3. Actually, the Guam Legislature website doesn't have it online. I checked. The only place I was able to find reference to the bill with the wording: "Any claim arising from an incident of child sexual abuse may be commenced against a person, a legal entity, abusers, their enablers, their aiders or abettors, those acting in concert with them and their institutions at any time," was from what was mentioned here and in the media.

      The wording is much different from the bill BJ Cruz wrote back in 2011 that specifically mentioned "neglect" on the part of the institution. With this bill, there is no clear definition of enabler leaving wide open the door for anyone to be sued with a connection to the accused. An enabler could mean family, neighbors, community/religious organizations, leaders of such organizations, etc. The list seems endless. This bill not only isolates the accused from everyone that he may rely on for support if found guilty by the court but destroys those same people/organizations/institutions along the way.

      This bill should not be passed. It's not the monetary value of the church's assets that is being protected. It's the innocent that had nothing to do with crime except an "affiliation" with the accused.

      Delete
    4. It is in the passed bills section:
      http://www.guamlegislature.com/Bills_Passed_33rd/Bill%20No.%20B326-33%20(COR)%20PASSED.pdf

      Delete
    5. "No Limit for Child Sexual Abuse."

      This sounds funny! Is this what the senators voted on unanimously? Lol!

      Delete
  4. So...how about all the other institutions, aside from the church, that may have covered up any child sexually abuse? In Mr. Tudela's testimony, he indicated that he was also sexually abused by a high ranking boys scouts member. Should institutions like the boys scouts not be held accountable for the cover up? If an employee is being discriminated against, does that employee not file a grievance against the company?

    Please help me understand. To some, it may seem like the bill is targeted just at the church. I can understand why some would view it that way. It's because NO ONE else outside of the church stood up in favor of it. Furthermore, NO ONE outside of the church testified against it.

    Please explain to me how this bill should not hold ANY institution liable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:56 pm,

      One person stood up against the bill. The PERSON who sexually abused should be held accountable. The PERSON who covered up should also be held accountable. An institution is not a person. It is an organization, which make up and consist of many different people.

      Delete