Thursday, July 20, 2017

My Take On The Article

This is my opinion on the previous article I had just posted written by Father MacRae.  According to Father MacRae (the bold is mine): 
It’s that floodlight that seems to be a problem for those in Guam who plotted to bring down Archbishop Anthony Apuron for apparent agendas of finance and property control having nothing to do with protecting young people from abuse. These same people collaborated with SNAP early on to develop tactics that would serve their cause. 
It is interesting to see this coming from someone on the outside looking in. Father MacRae has a point.  First of all, we already know that the jungle was in collaboration with SNAP early on. Secondly, this four year controversy did not start with the sexual abuse.  It actually started with the removal of two priests: Father Paul Gofigan and Monsignor James Benavente.  Father Paul was removed for disobedience in July, 2013.  He was instructed to remove a known sex offender and murderer from the parish. Although Father Paul terminated the employee, he continued to work as a volunteer doing the same job when he was employed. In other words, only his paycheck was removed, but his title as Director of Facilities Management remained.  See the screenshot below, which was updated April 2, 2013 (two months before Father Paul's removal): 


Monsignor James, on the other hand, was removed for financial mismanagement the following year in 2014. While the Archdiocese work for improvement and change as stated in the Umatuna, what Archbishop Byrnes is unaware of is that many of the people with him are the same people who already knew about the financial problems of the Archdiocese in 2011. In fact, even Tim Rohr (who was not a member of the Archdiocese Finance Council) was also aware of it.  According to Tim Rohr:
"The Archdiocese is 20 Million dollars in debt which means that even if Apuron can blame 7 million dollars of that debt on Msgr. James, the remaining 13 Million is all on Apuron. The truth is of course that even the 7 million dollars that Msgr. James was tasked with paying back was actually Apuron's loan, not Msgr. James', for the simple reason that Msgr. James has no authority to sign for a loan." 
The reason the Archbishop placed people in certain position was because he trusted them to do the right thing. In other words, if the person knew that the Archdiocese could not pay for the project he had in mind, then he should not have entertain the thought of getting a loan nor mislead anyone into thinking that the Archdiocese can pay for the project.  From what I understand, Monsignor James had a lot of projects done. 

Since the removal of Monsignor James, the controversy centered mainly on the RM Seminary and the Archdiocesan finances.  It wasn't until November, 2014 when John Toves appeared, accusing Archbishop Apuron of sexually molesting his cousin.  John Toves was actually the first person to bring up a sexual molestation allegation against the Archbishop (See the historical timeline).  

Interestingly enough, Tim Rohr kept a file entitled "Apuron's crimes" on his blog, which you can find here.  This list covered alleged crimes of Archbishop Apuron from 2002 to November, 2015.  Interestingly enough, the 2002 alleged crime has to do with acquiring the RM Seminary.  It goes all the way back to the Seminary, a property valued at 75 million dollars, which the media consistently emphasized in their report. Also, of all the alleged crimes he listed on that page, there were no sexual abuse or molestation charges against the Archbishop.

John Toves accused Archbishop Apuron of molesting his cousin in November, 2014.  That is not on Rohr's list.  Mae Ada came on the radio talk show of Patti Arroyo on August 19, 2015 and reported that she heard from someone who was allegedly molested by Archbishop Apuron.  That man was later identified as Walter Denton.  Rohr claimed to have met Denton in August-September, 2015. Yet, Rohr did not indicate any sexual abuse allegations against Archbishop Apuron on that list.  

14 comments:

  1. I had high hopes for Byrnes. Now I'm not too sure. When he came to Guam, he said he would listen to both sides, but he's either listening to only one side or CCOG is the one in control of the Archdiocese. Timmy bragged that the hope and healing was his idea. Timmy also said that the year of reparation was the idea of CCOG, so where is Byrnes in all this? CCOG wanted Mon. David Quitugua out so Byrnes asked him to resign. And what was Byrnes' reason for asking Mon. David to resign? In light of the current climate in the church he says. When is Byrnes going to stand up like a shepherd and teach the laity not to judge?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous at 9:45 AM: You're starting to sound like those in the jungle. You're complaining just because of SOME of Archbishop Byrnes's actions.

      Remember that Archbishop Byrnes made the jungle mad when he said that RMS had produced "good fruit, good priests, not only for Guam but other diocese in the Oceana region." Then he said "I have at this point every intention to continue its service, and I certainly want to continue supporting the institute."
      They expected him to shut down RMS when he signed the papers for the property but he didn't. Even though the headlines now say that RMS is up for sale, it's really the Yona Property where RMS is but NOT the seminary. A friend pointed out to me that the Seminary can be housed in another building. It doesn't have to be at Yona. So Archbishop Byrnes is doing what he said he would do: Archbishop Byrnes is supporting the institute that is RMS even though he gave the OK for the PROPERTY to be sold.

      Archbishop Byrnes ALSO said "I know the NCW. It’s highly respected" and I think he still believes that. Remember that he sent Fr. Adrian off to complete his studies in canon law and that made the jungle mad again. Archbishop Byrnes is doing what needs to be done to heal the Archdiocese.

      Archbishop Byrnes promised to listen to BOTH sides. He spent a lot of time listening to the NCW and supporters. He even said that when he was in Rome he met with Cardinal Filoni and that made the jungle mad too. I'm sure CCOG had a hand in Archbishop Byrnes's decision to remove Msgr. David Quitugua because they proved to Byrnes that Quitugua was involved in the fake documents at DLM about RMS.

      Archbishop Byrnes is an intelligent man and pretty soon the jungle will be mad at him (again) when he does something that looks like he's being influenced by the NCW. He will listen to BOTH the NCW and the jungle. He will do what is BEST for the archdiocese and not favor one over the other. He is being a shepherd to BOTH the NCW and the jungle. There's nothing wrong with that.

      BTW: Just because we don't like Tim Rohr SAYS that Hope & Healing was his idea doesn't mean it's a bad one. It might be his idea or it might be the idea of someone else who doesn't want to be in the public eye. Whoever came up with the idea, Hope & Healing can do good for survivors of sexual abuse.

      Delete
    2. At issue is the abuse of power during Apuron to benefit fringe groups.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 9:52 am,

      The NCW had always been building up the Church through their voluntary work in the parish and through evangelization.

      Delete
  2. Even pope Francis says it as it is this past Angelus address he said pull out the thorns and not to listen to the worldly possessions and make a icon

    ReplyDelete
  3. The sex abuse was not on Rohr's list cuz AB Apuron is innocent and Tim knows it. They couldn't get rid of AB Apuron for financial mismanagement or for giving the Seminary away, so they played the sex abuse card.

    AB Apuron was trying to clean up the financial mess started by Mon. James, which didn't sit well with some people. They wanted to sell the seminary to pay off the debts of the Archdiocese and AB Apuron refused to sell it. JW only made things worse for the Archdiocese when they encouraged their disciples not to contribute any money to the church. It had always been about money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 2:20 pm,

      It should be noted that Archbishop Apuron never gave the seminary away. It was always under the Archdiocese of Agana.

      Money was raised by CCOG to bring the Archbishop to court because they believed that he gave away the seminary to the NCW or to RMS. However, CCOG never went to court. Instead, they paid thousands of dollars to put a sex abuse ad in the newspapers targeting Archbishop Apuron.

      Delete
    2. @Anon. 2:20. Yea. I agree. It's 2017 and Timmy never added sex abuse on that list of Apuron's crimes. Goes to show that he orchestrated everything just to get AB Apuron out.

      Delete
    3. The charges did not come from Rohr or the jungle. The charges came from 4 abused complainants who held press conference about a year ago.

      Delete
  4. If God permitted for the Pope to come to Guam with Archbishop Anthony to clear him. And the process of cutting of branches. This island will be shaken. The Pope must come to Guam not a appointed Bishop as a filler. What if it does happen. God only knows it may come.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Pope Francis would be willing to stand next to Archbishop Apuron on Guam.

      Delete
  5. Diana did you ever watched byrnes news conference when he is asked about the sex-abuse issue he said that he knows that more are going to come out like he knows and when the protesters had their last picket because he knows The truth what's going on and with Monsignor James he just doing to see who are his allies are if they are with Timmy or with archbishop Anthony apuron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Archbishop Byrnes does not take sides. He is on the side of the Catholic Mother Church.

      Delete
  6. Prayers requested.

    ReplyDelete