Wednesday, November 29, 2017

SNAP Apologizes To Father Jiang

Image result for Father JiangFor the first time in history, SNAP, has apologized to falsely accused priest Father Jiang. SNAP's apology reads as follows: 
The SNAP defendants never want to see anyone falsely accused of a crime. Admittedly, false reports of clergy sexual abuse do occur. The SNAP defendants have no personal knowledge as to the complaints against Fr. Joseph Jiang and acknowledge that all matters and claims against Fr. Jiang have either been dismissed or adjudicated in favor of Fr. Jiang. SNAP acknowledges that false claims of clergy sexual abuse injure those clerics falsely accused and the Roman Catholic Church. SNAP apologizes for any false or inaccurate statements related to the complaints against Fr. Joseph Jiang that it or its representatives made which in any way disparaged Fr. Joseph Jiang, Archbishop Robert J. Carlson, Monsignor Joseph D. Pins and the Archdiocese of St. Louis.
You can find the apology in the news report here.  Criminal charges filed against Father Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang were dismissed in 2015.  Father Jiang also passed a polygraph test, during which he denied that he had ever abused a minor.  When Father Jiang was accused of sexual abuse, SNAP labeled him guilty without due process of a trial.  After he was found not guilty, Father Jiang fought back and sued for defamation to restore his reputation.  Father Jiang won the defamation lawsuit and SNAP was ordered to reimburse Father Jiang's legal fees, which totaled $25,100.  Another judge also ordered the false accusers to pay the legal expenses of both Father Jiang and the Archdiocese of St. Louis, totaling $48,516.84. 

Indeed, a big kudos to Father Jiang for fighting the good fight for truth and justice.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

NCW in Australia

While the NCW in Australia celebrates its 40th year anniversary, the NCW in Rome will be celebrating their 50th year anniversary next year.  We are all looking forward to celebrating the 50th anniversary in Rome next year.  The article below dated July 4, 2017 can be found here.  


The Archbishop of Brisbane, Archbishop Mark Coleridge celebrated Mass with the Neocatechumenal Way on 10 June (right), as part of their 40 year anniversary elebrations in Melbourne.
It was almost a convoy that travelled from Sydney to Melbourne on 9 June to help celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Neocatechumenal Way in Australia. For the occasion, Archbishop Denis Hart welcomed Neocatechumenal communities and representatives from around the country in St Patrick’s Cathedral.
The Neocatechumenal Way is one of the numerous new ways or movements in the Church, which focuses on giving Catholics an adult – as opposed to a merely nominal – faith.
It forms communities in parishes focused on Scripture, prayer and praise of God and which engage in a long-term program of catechesis in the Christian faith.
“I thank you … for allowing the Word of God to touch and burn in your hearts, so that the privilege of bringing God’s living word to people shines from you beautifully and humbly, and brings life to the world,” Archbishop Hart told the 600 or so people in attendance. It was a moment of joy and gratitude to God: his Word proclaimed and made flesh by a small team of catechists has borne fruit in the 80 Neocatechumenal communities around Australia.
It is only 50 years since God entrusted to Spanish layman Kiko Arguello and his collaborator, Carmen Hernandez, a charism which has grown like a tree to reach all peoples. It has brought to a world where faith was disappearing the chance to discover again the wealth and riches of our baptism.
What began among the poorest of the poor in the slums of Madrid has proved to be a life-saver for people from every background.
“What I know of the Way is the wonderful relationships, the wonderful love, the challenges of family and fraternity,” Archbishop Hart said.
“It is an opportunity to find rich meaning in our daily lives, to rediscover the Sacraments and conversion, and to rediscover and live the meaning of our baptism.”
This process or, as it is sometimes called by members of Neocatechumenal communities, an itinerary, has reached some 40 Australian parishes over the last four decades.
In recent years we have seen the crisis of vocations, the breaking down of the family structure, and the underlying lack of faith formation necessary for the Church to bear fruit.
The 40 years of the Neocatechumenal Way in Australia represent a significant proportion of the Church’s history in Australia, focusing as it does on bringing the power of the Risen Christ to ordinary people in parishes.
But the proclamation of the kerygma – the Good News – can bring people out of impossible situations, such as the traps of vice and slavery to sin and restore them to their baptismal life.
Experience shows that this bold proclamation brings a radical response in both young and old.
“The thing that I have always thought powerful and remarkable about the Neocatechumenal Way is the ability of God’s word to inflame our hearts so that we proclaim it always and everywhere,” Archbishop Hart said.
Like the early Church we give free what we have received gratis. Today this is still our strength. The Redemptoris Mater Seminaries in Perth and Sydney, a fruit of the Way, live entirely on Providence, on God who provides.
The teams of catechists who evangelise in the parishes are not paid. We live in the same precariousness as Christ, who assured our salvation by his Blood freely shed for us – which makes any thought of remuneration for the Gospel totally out of place.
“The work is not complete,” Archbishop Hart concluded, “because [the Lord] invites you and me to further conversion and to present the riches of the Gospel to the people of our time.”
We look forward to the next 40 years of adventure which the Lord has prepared for us.
Fr Anthony Trafford is one of the national ‘Responsibles’ for the Neocatechumenal Way in Australia

Friday, November 24, 2017

Christ Is King Even In Darkness

The following article was written by Father Gordon, which can be found here.  I was very impressed with the photo of the Pope who held reconciliation outside in the public square.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Harvest Moon Before Christ the King

It was never intended this way, but the Solemnity of Christ the King occurs on the Sunday after Thanksgiving in the United States. And it’s the Sunday before Advent begins so there are many other distractions. In a world in constant crisis, we cling to the celebration of family and tradition that Thanksgiving has become.
Some time ago, I wrote an account of what really happened in the Plymouth Colony of 1620. It became one of the most widely read posts on These Stone Walls and ended up being cited in the footnotes of a couple of history books. “The True Story of Thanksgiving: Squanto, the Pilgrims and the Pope,” tells the story of Squanto whose odyssey left him alienated and homeless. But without him, our Thanksgiving could not have taken place.
Reading that story might be good spiritual preparation, not only for Thanksgiving but for the Solemnity of Christ the King. It embodies what the Gospel proclamation calls for at Mass on that day. It’s a familiar passage, but like much of the Gospel, it has some deeper meaning to uncover. The Gospel for Christ the King, from Matthew 25:31-46, is called “The Judgment of the Nations.”
Why this is such a beloved passage seems a mystery to me. For some, it should also be one of the most conscience-shaking. It lists in the most direct terms the requirements of discipleship and what failure to observe them will mean. The words of the Messiah in the passage end with a dismal foreboding:
“And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:46)
THE BLESSING OR THE CURSE

All four Gospels focus more attention on the final days of Jesus than on his earthly ministry. The Gospel for Christ the King enters those final days by delivering the key to heaven that the mission of Christ imparts to us. The passage for Christ the King is followed immediately in Matthew by the conspiracy to kill Jesus, then the Passion Narrative commences with the betrayal by Judas, the arrest, the denial of Peter, the Way of the Cross, the Resurrection.
You may have read recently about the 500 year anniversary of Martin Luther’s “99 Theses” affixed to the Wittenberg Cathedral sparking the Protestant Reformation in 1517. One of the theological sticking points it launched was a debate over whether we are saved by faith alone or by faith that is manifested in action.
There can be no debate when you consider what Jesus imparted to us in the Gospel for Christ the King. The passage opens with a declaration of the establishment of His Kingship and our fate:
“When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates sheep from goats.” (Matthew 25: 31-32)
This Gospel passage forms the basis for the Corporal Works of Mercy, our encounter with the world’s poor and alienated. In his book ‘You Did It to Me’ (Marian Press, 2014) Father Michael Gaitley opens with the mandate this Gospel presents:
“You did it to me… You did not do it to me.” One day, one great and terrible day, one of these two sentences will be for each of us heaven or hell. They will ring in our ears for eternity either as a blessing or a curse. They will lead us either to praise, glory, and honor or to horror, regret, and everlasting despair.” (‘You Did It to Me,’ p. 15)
Father Gaitley’s book is about getting the blessing and avoiding the curse. The course of action it prescribes is not so very difficult, and if you are reading this post you are already accomplishing one of the requirements for the blessing. I am, after all, in prison, and you are here at this moment with me. In fact, we are a part of this book. A photo of our friend, Pornchai Moontri, appears halfway through it.
It’s fascinating that this passage about mercy in action is the Gospel for the Solemnity of Christ the King. The judgment of the nations – the judgment of all peoples – is not in the category of a parable, but rather an apocalyptic revelation. It presents our moral responsibility and the fact that God takes note of it. The big test of this life is not justification by faith alone, but our capacity for mercy and the humility to fulfill it.
“Humility” might seem a strange word in this context, but it fits, and I’ll explain why in a moment. I encountered its challenge even while writing this post. But first, some of the deeper background in this Gospel passage.
What is the “It” referred to in ‘You Did It to Me’? The Gospel breaks it down to simple statements about the requirements of discipleship and salvation:
“I was hungry, and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me. I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick and you comforted me. I was in prison, and you came to me.” (Matthew 25:35-36)
This Gospel passage illuminates justification, the King’s discernment of the righteous from the unrighteous. “When did we see you in prison, Lord?” His answer identifies service to those in need with the love of Christ.: “Whenever you did it to the least of these, you did it to me.”
The meaning of “the least of these” has long been debated since the Protestant Reformation. Our mandate for mercy has at times been wrongly seen as referring only to members of the Christian community. In that interpretation, the mandate to service excludes everyone else. The “least of these” is also sometimes translated as “brethren,” lending itself to an exclusionary meaning.
However, the original Greek of the Gospel for this phrase is “adelphos” which has a broader sense that includes any person in need. This is reflected in Saint Paul’s theology as well:
“In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no slave or free, no male
or female, for all of you are one in Christ.” (Galatians 3:28)
The sin of exclusion is also expressed in another post of mine, “On the Road to Jericho: A Parable for the Year of Mercy.” It’s the familiar parable of “The Good Samaritan” (Luke 10: 25-37) with a surprising outcome. The one who attains justification in the parable is not the religious “insider” concerned only for the rituals of faith, but the “outsider” who tends to the needs of a wounded man.
The tenets, “I was sick and you comforted me,” and “I was in prison and you came to me” are also weak translations. The original Greek translated as “comforted,” and sometimes “visited,” or “came to,” is “episkeptomai.” Its fuller meaning is to “look after” or “tend to.”
This is what justifies the Samaritan in the Parable of Saint Luke’s Gospel cited above. He does not just comfort the wounded man on the Road to Jericho, but tends to his needs and looks after him.
The last tenet on the list of requirements – “When I was in prison, you came to me” – should be easy for someone like me. I am already in prison. Coming to others in prison should not be such a challenge, but, to be honest, the need for humility has been a stumbling block.
THE PRODIGAL SON AND THE PRODIGAL PRIEST

One of the more difficult tenets of the Gospel is perhaps a greater challenge in prison than it is anywhere else: “I was a stranger, and you welcomed me.” Strangers come to prison every day. There is probably no one more in need of welcome and inclusion than someone arriving here for the first time in his life. But what actually happens is often the opposite.
When a new prisoner shows up where I live, he is a stranger and an alien in the strangest of lands. Other prisoners typically distrust and shun “new guys,” and the unspoken peer pressure to avoid them is like another prison wall. Getting over it takes autonomy, courage, and humility. Why humility? The story of my friend, Jeff, will make it clearer.
You might remember a post I wrote as 2017 began: “Hebrews 13:3: Writing Just this Side of the Gates of Hell.” It turned out to be one of our most popular posts because it was carried at, of all places, SpiritDaily.com where readers came to it by the thousands.
But it is also gruesome reading. It presents a vivid snapshot of what day to day life in prison can be like. It describes the drug traffic, the violence, the cruel exploitation, the distrust and the overcrowded chaos into which we had been thrown for a year.
One young man who also lived in that awful place was Jeff, a 21 year-old in his first year in prison. I did not know Jeff very well then, and to be honest with you, I accepted without question the judgments of others and avoided him.
Jeff was drawn deeply into the prison drug culture, and all that it entails. Then he became associated with an exploitive sociopath whom, from all appearances, Jeff chose to follow.
The drug culture, combined with that man’s history of exploiting vulnerable people, drew Jeff into the darker realities of prison. While using drugs, Jeff was amassing debts that he could not pay. So he ended up paying in ways that only further demeaned himself. Then Jeff descended to the lowest depths of the bizarre social strata of prison. He had to be placed in protective custody.
Now, it’s easy to say that 21-year-old Jeff is an adult who should be held responsible for his choices, and that would be the truth. But truth stripped of all context often ends up not being the truth at all. The story of Jeff seen in context left me concerned, not only for him but for my attitude toward him.
When Jeff emerged from protective custody, he was sent to the place in which I now live. However, the reputation he amassed also followed him here. Many prisoners shunned him, and some of those who didn’t were men who would continue the same pattern of manipulation and exploitation that had already been Jeff’s ruin. He was on a path from which he could not escape on his own.
One night in October 2017, Jeff was standing alone in the dark on the top floor walkway near the place where I live. I had stepped outside to descend down to the lower area to walk. As I passed, Jeff said, “Can I talk to you?” I stopped. “I heard you’re a priest,” said Jeff. “I was Catholic for a while.”
Jeff was nervous, fearing rejection, and my spontaneous instinct was to close my mind and not let him in. My heart, however, just can’t be that jaded. I gave Jeff a chance, and that’s when I learned that humility is needed for the Corporal Works of Mercy. After my first conversation with Jeff, some of my friends protested. “Why would you even talk to that loser?”
The easiest path would have been to abandon Jeff to their harsh and unmoving judgments. But on the next night, Jeff was there again, and we spoke for several hours. A story emerged that became the missing context for a man I judged wrongly. I challenged him to trust me, and he did. All of what had been his undoing was laid bare before me, and left me feeling ashamed for my failure to be who I am for this broken and alienated man.
Jeff grew up with an alcoholic father and drug-addicted mother. They were never married, and Jeff was shuffled between the two for much of his childhood. As a teen, he moved in with his grandfather who was a devout Catholic. For a short time, Jeff was drawn into the life of the Church, but his loneliness and emotional isolation went largely unaddressed.
At age 17, Jeff had a brief relationship which resulted in his fathering a child. In response, his grandfather withdrew his support of Jeff and their relationship evaporated. Jeff was the Gospel’s prodigal son. On his own at 17, he left school and tried to work to support his own son. But having never had a father, Jeff was without a compass for how to be one.
He became alienated from his child’s mother and lost contact with his son who is now five years old. Jeff descended down a long descent that would lead to prison. He medicated his sorrow in drugs, first Percocet, then methamphetamine, then heroin.
Addicted, Jeff submerged fully into the drug culture of the streets. He could have easily ended up on the prison “Wall of Death” that I described recently in “Cry Freedom! A Prisoner Unlocks Doors from the Inside.”
Jeff could not support his growing addiction any more than he could support his son. He was recruited to sell drugs on one occasion at age 19 but was caught, charged, and sentenced to prison. Jeff saw this as his wake-up call. He entered rehab and emerged clean and sober to begin to pay his debt to society.
Like many of the isolated young men who land in prison, Jeff was vulnerable to the nefarious agendas that are rampant here. This is what happens when the right people treat strangers and aliens as strangers and aliens. They fall prey to the wrong people. With no one to protect him, Jeff was targeted by a sociopath who rekindled his addiction, drew him into debt, and exploited him.
This was the state Jeff was in when I first met him – when I accepted without question the judgments of others that Jeff did all this to himself. I could have tried to get him away from the man who enslaved him, but my failure was based on one factor: “What will others think of me if I stand with a leper?”
It was not easy getting the context for this story out of Jeff. He learned the hard way not to trust anyone in prison, and he took a risk to trust me. The night we first spoke, after seeing more clearly the weight of Jeff’s loneliness and despair, I knew that I must also try to liberate him from his life as a social pariah that broke his heart and silenced his spirit.
One October night as we spoke – when Jeff’s slow release from the inner prison of sin was exhausted – he suddenly pointed to the horizon. “What’s that?” he asked. From the top floor walkway where we stood, there appeared a strange glow beyond the distant hills. The glow became an arc of bright light, and then I realized what it was.
We watched, mesmerized, as a full harvest moon rose before our eyes to pierce the darkness. Magnified by the heat released from the Earth, it seemed huge and magical as we stared in long silence. It was, for Jeff, the illumination of his dark night of the soul, but it illuminated something for me as well. After a time I put my hand on Jeff’s shoulder and said, “We’ll talk more tomorrow.” The smile that returned was that of Christ.
My friends talk to Jeff now. They do it because I do it. And because we gave him the gift of inclusion, the serpents that whispered to him have moved on. Jeff just tested “clean” for his fifth consecutive weekly drug test. His prison debts – which were mostly just a manipulative con game – have vanished. Under that harvest moon, Jeff took the first step into the light on a road to freedom.
But this is not Jeff’s confession. It is mine. I’m sorry I was late. “Whatsoever you do to the least of these, you do to me.”

Note from Father Gordon MacRae: Please share this post. If you like it then please read & share these others in a spirit of Thanksgiving: 

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Announcement

Dear Junglefolks, 

The reason your comments are not published is because you are bashing the Way and Kiko Arguello.  If you wish to bash the NCW, please go to your blog, JungleWatch, and make your comments there.  This blog was not created for you to bash the NCW and degrade the RMS seminarians.  Thank you for your understanding.

Diana

Reader: The Elephant in the Room

The following article can be found here.



Hans Christian Anderson wrote a tale about an emperor who was deceived by two weavers claiming they could weave clothes of magical quality. They become invisible to anyone stupid. When the fake robes were ready, the townspeople and ministers were afraid to say that the emperor was naked, including the emperor himself, for fear of being called stupid. One child exclaimed, “The emperor is naked!”, breaking the spell.

This is apropos to our situation in Guam today where we are dealing with perceptions instead of facts. A bishop has been accused and deemed guilty without a trial. Anything associated to him (Neocatechumenal Way, seminary, Kamalen Karitat, Theological Institute) is guilty by default. Whoever questions this narrative is stupid.

What is the truth?

The Neocatechumenal Way is an itinerary of faith supported by five popes, who said, “it’s a gift of the Holy Spirit” — healing marriages, transmitting faith to youth and raising vocations.

The Redemptoris Mater Seminary has ordained 17 priests: four are pastors and three are vicars in three parishes, including one serving in Saipan for Bishop Ryan. All are valued greatly and deemed assets. Guam imports priests from the Philippines because priestly vocations are scarce. Priests formed under RMS possess a missionary spirit but fall under the jurisdiction of the archbishop, who alone decides where they serve. In 2009 on the 10th anniversary of the RMS, the Legislature passed resolution 259-30, expressing gratitude “for their continuous contribution towards the improvement and betterment of the quality of life for our Island community and its people.”

The Theological Institute solved the problem of a requisite educational institution of higher learning for the formation of priests in the Pacific, an area severely lacking priests. Thirty-one bishops supported the erection of the Institute in Guam, achieving affiliation with the Lateran University, the Pope’s university. Seminarians graduating from the Institute receive a bachelor’s degree from the Lateran University. Prior to the establishment of the Theological Institute, only Fiji and San Francisco were options.

After the dismissal of the Sulpicians (who followed a very liberal education), Saint Patrick seminary was in disarray. Attempting to rebuild the faculty with a traditionalist agenda (utilizing Latin and cassocks), most dioceses withdrew their seminarians. Of 110 seminarians, only 35 remain, of which 16 are for San Francisco despite a minimum survival number of 70. Over the next two years, there will be no ordinations and perhaps in 2020 an ordination will occur, assuming it survives.

From a financial perspective, the cost to form a seminarian/year in San Francisco is $44,000-$10,000 a year at RMS. The archdiocese contributes only 5 percent to this amount for RMS, or $500 a year. Therefore a 10-year formation for one RMS formed priest costs the archdiocese only $5,000 and for $44,000 a year could basically finance for almost nine priests! The complete formation of one seminarian in San Francisco will cost the archdiocese $440,000.

Perhaps this should be considered before selling archdiocesan assets. If the issue is to sell off the Yona property to pay for the sexual abuses, the RMS formators informed the archbishop that they could move elsewhere. Archbishop Byrnes declined however, and proceeded to close the RMS seminary. A year ago, there were 44 men in formation but Byrnes sent most of them away. Last week he informed the remaining 10 to “look for another diocese” by Christmas, which includes four local Chamorros formed in Guam, ready to be ordained.

Why destroy institutions that were praised to be beneficial to the community? In 1944, Guam experienced a deluge of bombs to be liberated from their Japanese captors. Today, another horrific spiritual bombardment is supposed to liberate us from a seminary and a theological institute? Will Guam prosper now that they have been decimated?

This academic discussion will now forever lie in the ruins of history’s heap. Ultimately those responsible for this massacre will answer to a higher judge. Nonetheless, we have to ask our shepherd why this terrible hatred toward everything associated with Apuron?

How can such a biased, one-sided policy promote reconciliation? Why so many poor decisions against diocesan interests despite instructions from Cardinal Filoni? Who sold you this magic garment?

Ricardo B. Eusebio, M.D., FACS, is a resident of Sinajana.

Monday, November 20, 2017

A Mob Mentality

The following article can be found here.

Hans Christian Anderson wrote a famous allegorical tale about a vain emperor who was deceived by two weavers claiming they could weave clothes possessing a magical quality: They became invisible to anyone stupid or unfit for their job. Realizing the obvious benefit this could yield him, the king commissioned these magical clothes to be made. The swindlers pretended to weave using an empty loom while stashing all the fine materials they were given. Everyone, including the emperor himself, acted as if the beautiful robes had indeed been woven, out of fear of appearing to be fools and losing their jobs. The naked emperor paraded through town with his invisible robe until an innocent child bravely pointed out that the emperor was indeed naked, exposing the deceptive spell the swindlers had cast on the people.

This tale seems particularly apropos to the situation of the Catholic Church on Guam. We have a bishop accused of child abuse but still awaiting the opportunity to clear his name. Meanwhile, anything even remotely connected to this bishop, from the Neocatechumenal Way to Kamalen Karitat to the Redemptoris Mater seminary and the San Luis de Vitores Theological Institute, seems to have been already declared guilty by association.

Biased media coverage
This witch hunt is leading our island down a troubling path. A recently passed change in the statute of limitations for sex abuse allegations has led to more than 100 lawsuits against the church demanding financial compensation. Certainly, no one wants to question the validity of each of these claims and be accused of callousness towards the abuse victims — this would mean public and political suicide. Certainly, at least not the Catholic Church, which is rushing to settle these claims with millions in church property ready to be sold. Fueled by biased and often shallow media coverage, a mob mentality has taken over our island, coloring the truth to fit the dubious scenarios promoted by trumpeters who want to be rid of the bishop and any trace of his legacy on Guam, while failing to subject these serious allegations to the equally serious scrutiny they deserve.
What is the truth? The bishop is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. While we await the decision from a Vatican canonical tribunal, we should be a reminded of a few things.
During his time as archbishop, he has fought staunchly against gambling, same-sex marriage, abortion, and other threats to our island’s moral fabric which the church continues to oppose.
New Evangelization
Sensing the urgent need to defend this moral fabric here on Guam, Archbishop Apuron has sought ways to implement the New Evangelization proposed by Saint John Paul II. One of the instruments for evangelizing those near and far from the church is the Neocatechumenal Way, a post-baptismal itinerary of faith embraced by the last five popes. The fruits of this itinerary here on Guam have mirrored those seen in countries throughout the world: countless marriages healed and rebuilt, an increase in vocations to the priesthood and religious life, and the formation of parish-based communities ready to bear witness to the gospel with their lives to those on the margins of society.
The fruits of the Redemptoris Mater seminary and the San Luis de Vitores Theological Institute will not soon be forgotten, both on Guam and across the Pacific: 17 diocesan priests have been ordained, serving today as pastors, parochial vicars, formators and missionary catechists. The institute’s affiliation with the Lateran University has provided premier higher learning for these priests and made Guam a preferential option for priestly formation from dioceses around the Pacific. The institute meant many bishops didn’t have to send their seminarians to St. Patrick’s Seminary in California at a cost of over $40,000 per year, when the total cost for one seminarian was only $10,000 per year in Guam. It is no wonder that 31 bishops in the insular Pacific supported the institute’s erection and have since sent numerous vocations there.
When did this institution, recognized in 2009 by the Guam Legislature for its “continuous contribution towards the improvement and betterment of the quality of life for our island community and its people,” become such an inconvenience for this island? How does closing both the seminary and the institute promote reconciliation in our church? Truly the illusion is that anyone and anything affiliated with Archbishop Apuron (including vocations) is tainted fruit. The key is to maintain this illusion as an established belief, regardless of whether he is found innocent. Who will be the child that breaks this spell?

Dr. R.B. Eusebio is a resident of Sinajana.

Evangelizing In Two By Twos and the Public Squares

The Neocatechumenal Way evangelized on foot, which is what the Apostles and the Early Christians did.  After all, there were no internet in those days.  The Apostles went door to door preaching the word of God.  They also preached in the public squares.  

Mark 6:7-12   Calling the Twelve to him, he began to send them out two by two and gave them authority over impure spirits. These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra shirt. Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” They went out and preached that people should repent.

Interestingly enough, the NCW have evangelized in two by twos, taking nothing with them except their bible.  This is taking it to the extreme.  Even the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons do not do this in their two by twos.  Nevertheless, evangelizing on foot or in the public squares is still one of the best forms of evangelization because there is interaction between people.   

The Apostles and Early Christians also evangelized in the public squares.  In 2015, the NCW went out in the Great Mission.  A community from the Great Mission was also born.  The Great Mission of the NCW took place in 10,000 public squares in 120 countries. As a result of the Great Mission, about 25,000 people returned to the parishes. In the United States, the Great Mission took place in 200 public squares, and 1500 people returned to the parishes. 

I had posted this video in my blog previously and decided to re-post it again.  According to Church Universal, "the Neocatechumenal Way works to evangelize and instruct adults on the truths of the Catholic faith. Fr. Joseph Mary Wolfe is joined by members of the Way who demonstrate the impact it has had on their lives and taught them to depend on God for happiness, not the material world."  If you cannot see the video below, it is found in the following weblink: 

https://youtu.be/mFn1bOppBYE 

Friday, November 17, 2017

Bring All To God

I was reading in the PDN a few days ago something about what Archbishop Byrnes said.  I could not find the article I read, but I found it in USA Today, which was copied off PDN.  According to USA Today.
All these critical missions aside, Byrnes, 59, lives a simple life.
One can see him walking in his sandals in the parking lot of Pay-Less Supermarket at the Agana Shopping Center after grocery shopping. Or having lunch in the food court of the Micronesia Mall in Dededo with other clergy members. Or having his hair cut just like anyone else.
“I hope that people will remember that I am approachable,” he said. “In places like Detroit, I could go incognito. I really can’t here.”
Guam is a very small island that where the Archbishop goes, everyone recognizes and acknowledges him.  It is true what Archbishop Byrnes say.  In places like Detroit, he can easily go incognito, but not in a small island like Guam. If he is seen swimming at Ipao Beach, you can be sure that news of that will spread by word of mouth throughout the entire island.  People here tend to talk a lot.  Because he is recognized everywhere here, this is where he needs to be careful.  People who receive a lot of attention and recognition can easily fall into the sin of pride.  This is not about him.  This is about God. 

Pope Francis had to remind himself everyday that it is not about him.  It is about God.  This keeps himself in check otherwise the sin of pride can easily crawl into his heart.  The role of the shepherds (bishops and priests) is to bring all people to Christ, not to themselves.  Unfortunately, there are some priests who have brought people to themselves rather than to Christ.  We see this whenever a priest is assigned to another parish. When he leaves, the parishioners of his previous parish follow him to the new parish he is assigned to.  


If a parishioner only comes to Church because they like the priest or because they like the music, they are coming to Church for the wrong reason.  Likewise, if a priest enjoys the attention he is receiving and is flattered that his former parishioners attend the church he is assigned to,  then he has failed to do his duty as a pastor, which is to lead the faithful to Christ rather than to himself. The priest would do well to remind his former parishioners to follow Christ, return to their parish, and welcome the new priest assign to their parish.


The Apostle Paul had the same problem when some people look up to him rather than to Christ. 


1 Corinthians 1:11-13  My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[fn]”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?  


St. Paul did not like that some people were saying that they follow him when they should be following Christ.  


Missionaries also remind themselves that this mission is not about them.  This is about God. We are only His instruments. Before Archbishop Byrnes became the Coadjutor Bishop in Guam, we have gone on the two by two mission, announcing the Good News on foot from door to door here in Guam.  During the two by two, we tell people that we are from the parish of so and so. Our goal is to bring them to God and His Church.  This is not about us.  This is about God.  We remind ourselves that we are only His instruments doing His will on earth.  We are His hands and feet, doing works of charity, and announcing the Gospel to everyone so that all may come to know Christ.         

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Vocations In The NCW

Image result for Vocations

A vocation is a calling from God.  It is a calling to holiness regardless of whether one is married, single, living a consecrated life, or ordained into the priesthood.  We all have a vocation.  We all have a calling from God.  And we are all called to live a life of holiness.  God said, "Be holy for I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16).  

There are four vocations in the Catholic Church: a married life, a single life, a consecrated life, and the life of an ordained priest. 

Married couples are to live a Christian marriage and open to life.  They are to put Christ in the center of their marriage and live a life of faithful vow to their spouse. Husbands and wives share a self-giving, love-giving, and life-giving relationship with each other and are committed to helping their spouse grow into Christian maturity.  They are also open to life.  

Those who are single are also called by God to holiness.  A single person comes to believe that remaining single is the true and right way to faithfully live his or her baptismal call by embracing the gift of celibacy while living alone, with family members or with others who are also single.  They are able to devote more time and energy in service of the Church in various ways.  In the Way, some of these single folks become itinerants, spreading the Good News throughout the world.  

Some have been called to live a consecrated life. Religious priests, brothers and sisters (nuns) are called to serve in areas such as education, health care, parish, youth ministry, aged care, pastoral ministry, social work, or even missionaries.

Those who are called by God to be ordained priests are also called to live a life of holiness. These are the vocations in the Catholic Church. Each vocation is a calling from God to live a life of holiness.       

All members of the Way have a Catechist, who act as their spiritual director. It is in our walk that we strive to answer God's call to holiness.  It is in our spiritual walk in the Way that we strive to live out the vocation that we all have been called for by God.  To live a life of holiness so that we truly become sons and daughters of God.  In each vocation, the person lives a life of faith and prayer to continually grow closer in a relationship with God.  Each vocation is equal in the sense that no vocation is better or less than any other.  Because God calls you to a particular vocation - whether marriage, priesthood, religious life, or single life - that vocation is the best one for you.   

The Neocatechumenal Way has inspired many vocations.  Some have chosen marriage and a family.  However, some of these married couples have also chosen to become mission families, serving the church as a family in mission.  Some girls in our communities have also been inspired to join the monastery while young boys were inspired to become priests.  Some of the single members have also chosen to live a life as an itinerant, doing mission work.   

Sunday, November 12, 2017

Message to Anonymous Poster

This is a message to the anonymous poster who did not want his/her comment published:  

Dear Anonymous poster, 

Your comment was not published as you requested.  In my blog, I do not always publish comments I agree with.  Disagreements are common even in the community.  Reconciliation is what Christ favors, but you cannot have reconciliation if you cut off communication. Communication is important to help foster understanding and reconciliation with the brothers and sisters.  One should at least try to communicate to help them and bring them back to the Church.  You only leave it up to God when the person continues to be obstinate, as in the case with the junglefolks.  In the past, I have tried to communicate with the junglefolks. Why?  Because they are our brothers and sisters too. But their hatred made them so blind that there was nothing else that can be done except to pray for them.  So, I left it in God's hands. 

If there is anything to be learned....it is that we can disagree and still be civil and love one another.       

Thursday, November 9, 2017

When The Church Defames Her Priests

Father MacRae wrote many articles with many links to other articles.  This is one of the links I found in his articles, which deserves to be read.  According to the Pacific Daily News:
The Archdiocese of Agana will compile a list of clergy with credible allegations of child sexual abuse against them, according to Archbishop Michael Jude Byrnes. 
A list can be complied, but the question is...should the names be made public? it is very important to read the following article.  The article is something that all bishops should discern about.  The article can be found here.  The bold red is mine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       When the Church Defames Her Priests


Over the last two decades, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States has reeled under claims of clerical sexual abuse. The claims resulted in extraordinary liability and wide-spread publicity. When bad things happen in any organization, the counter-policies imposed to fix those problems often overreach. This is precisely what is happening with the decision of some dioceses to publicize lists of names of former clerics who have had claims of sexual abuse made against them. The rationale is that publication of these names serves an interest in “accountability.” The motivation to publish the names is not based on any civil law, court order, or other legal mandate, but simply on internal diocesan policy.
While the motivation may be understandable, many bad policies are the fruit of very good intentions. In the wake of the sexual abuse scandal, bishops have faced intense scrutiny over their knowledge and responsibility for acts of abuse that occurred under their watch or under their predecessor’s watch. No bishop, anywhere, wishes to be perceived as having failed to address a known problem. Conversely, every bishop, everywhere, wishes to be perceived as having taken strong action to fix a problem previously unknown and to prevent it from happening again. Surely, as a general goal, every bishop should do so in response to the sexual abuse crisis. Who could object to transparency and accountability?
So, who can object to publishing the names of former clerics who have had “credible claims” of sexual abuse made against them? To date, some two dozen dioceses and archdioceses have decided to publish lists naming names of those accused of sexual abuse. Some, like the Diocese of Gallup, publish a list of clergy identified by the diocese “as having credible allegations of sexual misconduct made against them.” Others, like the Archdiocese of Baltimore, publish a list of clerics who have been “accused of child sexual abuse during their lifetimes,” and for individuals accused after 2002 “information from the public disclosures that were made.” Still others, like the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, publish such lists under a page for “Status of Clergy,” that includes those whose ministry has been restricted and faculties withdrawn due to credible allegations of child sexual abuse, along with lists of those laicized or deceased who have also had credible allegations made against them, too. Some offer a rationale for publishing the lists; some do not. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops keeps statistics on those accused, but it does not publish any list identifying the individuals so accused.
Opus Bono Sacerdotii has assisted some 10,000 clerics over the past fifteen years who have been accused of misconduct. The organization has received the respect and accolades of many members of the hierarchy and at the highest levels of the Church, because of the organization’s dedication to offering unconditional love to those ordained in persona Christi, irrespective of the charges made against them. Some may have been credibly accused of misconduct; some not. All deserve to know the love of Christ. But we take special issue with those dioceses who think that publishing a list of names of clerics who have been “credibly” accused of sexual misconduct is warranted. We disagree for many reasons—canonical, theological, pastoral, and legal. It is this latter reason we wish to address here.
The Problem: Naming The Mere Accused
As a threshold matter, it is far from clear how a bishop’s publication of names serves an interest in “accountability.” If a diocese does not publish the names of those accused, does that indicate the diocese is hiding something? Is disclosure a kind of public confession, an acknowledgement that claims have been made against diocesan clerics and that the diocese is sorry such claims have been made? Will publication of names deter other clerics from engaging in misconduct? Will publication of names please all who made the claims? Why publish only names? Why not publish all details of the claims, too?
One sign that publication of names (or details of claims) does not serve any interest in accountability is that such a practice is entirely unheard of in the American employment experience. We are aware of no employer (large or small), no government entity (Federal, state, or local), that undertakes to publish as a matter of institutional policy the names of all individuals employed by that organization for whom “credible” accusations of misconduct have been made. That such a complete absence of practice exists is remarkable, as we live in an age in which employers of all kinds are subject to an extraordinary array of laws, the vast majority of which are designed to protect employees and to foster employer accountability in the workplace. Try to recall the last time General Motors published a list of all supervisors for whom credible claims of sexual harassment have been made over the last twenty years. It has not happened; it will not happen in the foreseeable future. And there are many reasons why it has not happened that have nothing to do with accountability.
One such reason begins with the class of individuals whose names are being published. The dioceses do not purport to publish the names of those individuals who have been criminally convicted of having sexually abused a minor. There is little to be achieved in publication of those names, as these identities have already been well-publicized through very public criminal proceedings. The same is true for civil court proceedings. Re-publication of their identities is both unnecessary and belated. Moreover, one should wonder why it would be appropriate to remind the public of those individuals whose names were in the public for having been charged with crimes, but who were ultimately acquitted of them or who successfully defended against any civil suit. Charges against those individuals may have been “credible,” but no interest is served if, after their day in court, they prevailed against those charges.
Rather, dioceses are proposing to publish the names of those who merely had “credible” charges against them. This is a very different class of individuals and may, or may not, include those who have been found guilty of criminal charges or who lost civil judgments against them. It could include a variety of other individuals, including those who settled cases out of court and who, like the vast majority of all civil defendants, agreed to settle on condition that they admit no wrongdoing. Some might object that settlement with no admission of liability undermines the truth of what happened, but that objection applies to every civil settlement everywhere and it is undeniable such a ubiquitous practice serves the interests of both the plaintiff and the defendant, which is exactly why settlements occur.
But there are plenty of other clerics against whom “credible” accusations have been made who, in fairness, deserve no publicity for those accusations. Clerics often cite a host of reasons why they will refuse to contest accusations made against them—they have reached a crisis of faith and decided that the accusations are a good excuse to leave the ministry; they do not believe they will be properly defended; they wish to acquiesce to the charges for the sake of spiritual goods; they have psychological or emotional problems unrelated to the claims made against them; they do not wish to contest the accuser for pastoral reasons; they fear they will lose their pension or health insurance; they fear the bishop to whom they have taken vows of obedience and have come to regard as the figure of God. Under all such scenarios, clerics deny the claims made, but decline to challenge them.
Then, again, there are scenarios where clerics will also refuse to challenge the claims made, not because they believe the claims are false, but because they only believe they are exaggerated. Lastly, there are those who simply admit guilt, because they did, in fact, engage in the complained about conduct. But in sum, the class of individuals against whom “credible” claims have been made includes individuals who both did. and did not, engage in the complained conduct.
Who Decides What?
And herein lies the problem, which explains why every other employer will refrain from publishing a list of names of employees it reasonably believes have engaged in misconduct: Who decides whether the claims of sexual abuse are “credible” or “substantiated?” The Bishop? His Chancellor or other delegate? A committee? Some law firm? What standards do any one, or more, of these individuals use to determine whether the claims are “credible” or “substantiated?” Standards of civil law? Canon law? Internal policies? Can we be sure the bishop made such findings impartially, or did he do so to protect himself? What conflicts of interest existed that were taken into account? What procedures were employed in the determination? Did the accused represent himself? Was he given the opportunity to be represented by counsel? Did he have the opportunity to confront his accuser? Was he even told the identity of his accuser? Did he acquiesce to charges irrespective of culpability for any of the reasons mentioned above—tired of the ministry and looking for a way out, or “offering up” the charges made against him? Did he have other undesirable “baggage” that colored the investigation against him? Were the standards employed twenty or thirty years ago the same standards applied today? Were outside professionals–psychiatrists, forensic examiners, detectives—employed? Were they not employed when they should have been employed? Were they screened for suitability and bias?
These are important questions for both sides—priest and bishop. And that these questions can be raised therefore highlights the crucial difference between informal and formal claims. By informal, we mean those outside the conventional legal process, where determinations are made apart from civil or criminal proceedings, and irrespective of whether some one person, or others, determines that the accusations are “credible.” By formal claims, we mean those that arise through the judicial process—the civil and criminal courts. Those courts, however imperfect, are the tribunals we trust to make proper findings of fact, and conclusions of law. Decision-making apart from the courts may well be superior—and even controlled by clear provisions of Canon Law—but that is of no consequence, because courts of law necessarily trump all other forms of decision-making. Truth is the goal of any investigation; legal process is merely the recognized means of determining it. And it matters not when a bishop rightly determines that a cleric should be removed from ministry due to “credible” claims of sexual abuse, or when General Motors determines that a supervisor should be fired due to “credible” claims of sexual harassment. The issue is whether the bishop is right to publish the names of those so accused.
But neither the bishop, nor any private employer, is a recognized surrogate for the American civil and criminal court system. In fact, some diocesan statements candidly admit they assume no such surrogacy and note, by way of disclaimer, that just because someone’s name appears on the list, does not mean “a presumption of guilt” exists. This admission is extraordinary. The bishop is publishing a list, ostensibly to let the public know which of his former clerics has been accused of sexual abuse, but he is cautioning the public to know that such individuals might be innocent of those charges. One would expect that caution would tip in favor of non-disclosure, not disclosure. It does not work to say, in effect, that: “I have reason to think you are a sexual abuser, but I don’t know for sure if you are.” A published list is tantamount to a bishop’s “Megan’s List,” without any of Megan’s Law behind it. Ironically, clerics who have been adjudicated of sex abuse crimes will already be on a “Megan’s List.” What is worse (for accused clerics): Individuals on Megan’s List can get their names removed; the bishop offers no such allowance for those on his list.
And that is precisely what is at stake here when a bishop decides to publish the names of those whom he thinks have had “credible” accusations made against them. Those whose names are so published therefore have potential claims for defamation, and other civil claims, which the civil courts will review, to determine the truth of those accusations, not whether they were “credible.” If the accusations are untrue, then whether the bishop believes they were “credible” is irrelevant; he has published defamatory information.
Claims Against The Bishop
Because a bishop stands before his priests in the same role that an employer does for his employees, it is worth considering the kinds of civil claims a former cleric may make against his bishop for having published his name on a list of those whom the bishop believes that credible accusations of sexual abuse exist. First, there is defamation—known as “slander” where oral communications are concerned, and “libel” when communications are in writing. Defamation is simple in concept: a plaintiff must prove (1) the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; (2) the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) the publisher acted, at least negligently, in publishing the communication; (4) special damages, at least in some cases.
The first element—whether a communication is defamatory—is established if the communication “tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community, or to deter third persons from associating with him,” (as the Restatement on the Law so states). As the law readily finds defamatory communications to exist when they indicate that the plaintiff was involved in a serious crime involving moral turpitude or a felony, a bishop’s indication that a former cleric may have committed sexual abuse surely meets this standard. It matters not whether the bishop believes the allegations are true, and is simply, for the sake of accountability, publicizing allegations made by others. A claim for defamation is sufficient when it impugns the cleric’s good name or reputation, which, of course, would happen here, given the explosive nature of the charges made. If the bishop were to simply pass on allegations made by others, the bishop can be held liable for defamation by neglect.
The bishop would be on untested grounds to argue the second prong of a defamation: that he had a “privilege” to publish this information to third parties. A bishop’s decision to reveal accusations to an inquiring employer may be, but is not always, permitted. In such cases (often recognized by a specific state statute), the bishop may enjoy a privilege to communicate such information. But we are unaware of any court that has allowed a bishop (or for that matter, any private employer) to make a gratuitous public disclosure of such information as a matter of “privilege.” In short, if a bishop aims to publish the names of accused clerics, the bishop should be prepared to defend the truth of every one of those allegations, or suffer the consequences for having defamed them.
Another likely claim a former cleric could raise against the bishop would be a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Such claims are established when the plaintiff shows a defendant has engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, and that such conduct has caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional trauma. What conduct is extreme and outrageous? Courts vary on this. But to our knowledge, they have not sanctioned publication of lists of names of employees merely accused of misconduct. Solid arguments can be advanced that a bishop’s publication of names of individuals, who are presumed innocent as a matter of law, is both extreme and outrageous, especially as it conflicts with every known employment practice in the United States. The presumption of innocence lies at the core of the American judicial system. Even those individuals charged with despicable crimes, like child abuse, enjoy that same privilege: that they are innocent until proven guilty. A bishop would rob them of that privilege by letting them be tried in the court of public opinion, which is hostile to the point of being judged “lethal,” murder and suicide both included.
And the anguish former clerics could suffer is both real and extreme. What families could be broken up, what friendships could be destroyed, what jobs could be lost, what contracts could be terminated, simply because one’s name appears on a list of former clerics for whom “credible” accusations of sexual abuse existed? What physical attacks, what emotional outbursts, what suicides will occur because one’s name is on a list? Whatever such damages may occur, the bishop could well be liable for them all. How ironic that a bishop, who aims to demonstrate his concern for one victim of abuse, will thereby create another victim of abuse—and end up paying large amounts of damages to each in the process. How doubly ironic that a bishop who initiates such a policy may someday find himself on the list.
Two other similar common law claims may lay within the former cleric’s domain: invasion of privacy, and interference with a contract. A former cleric who proves a bishop has made public a false reference, or disciplinary matter about him, could make a claim for invasion of privacy. In addition, a former cleric who proves the bishop gave false or misleading information to others that led to the termination of a contract (employment or otherwise) could make a claim for intentional, or negligent, interference with contractual relations. Current employment contracts of these individuals would certainly fall within this scope. Would a bishop really wish to accept liability for all former clerics who lose their current jobs because of his publication of their names?
Attracting The Media Hurricane
One unintended consequence of publishing names of accused clerics is the media interest that may arise because of it. Those who are hostile to Church interests do not praise a bishop for his openness; instead, they question his motives for doing so. Rightly or wrongly, questions may arise over why the bishop is releasing these names. Is he doing so to deflect scrutiny over his past conduct? Does he think this will avail him of support when later questionable actions of his come to light? Nothing in the history of modern media relations indicates either of these scenarios would work to his advantage. Nor will he have any control over which way the hurricane will blow when a media frenzy occurs. Nor will he have any control over the media leaks that will occur from those in his own bureaucracy, who have less than pure designs. If the threat of civil liability does not deter a bishop from publishing names of accused individuals, the prospect of a media hurricane should. Far from receiving credit for publishing those names, the bishop may well receive opprobrium, and for reasons unconnected to the particular publication.
And then there are those victims who themselves have moved on with their lives. How they will be shielded from media attention remains to be seen if, and when, disclosure of their identities arises by naming names of the accused. And for those who truly are victims, it is far from clear how a ten-second clip on the evening news, or a quote on the front-page daily, will better their lives, as they relive details they have tried to leave behind. Arguably, the bishop advances his claimed interest in accountability, but at the expense of the victim whose past is now dredged up again for further review.
One reason (among many) why private companies refuse to publish names of accused offenders is the effect such publication would have on morale. As most employees would say, “My colleague’s name published today; my name, tomorrow.” What priest will not wonder whether his name will be publicized, and forever connected to heinous misdeeds, if some allegation is made against him, and if he finds himself twisting in the wind unable to counter it, and if his bishop (or his delegate) finds the claim “credible?” One need not have a fertile imagination to think of the myriad of ways in the past several years that priests have been thrown into the diocesan buzz saw, and been cut to pieces, their lives ruined, as fear-mongering has led to a spiritual “Reign of Terror,” where the loss of one’s collar feels like the loss of one’s head. At a time in history when priests are most in need of support, comes a millstone in place of a life-ring.
If a bishop were truly interested in “accountability,” why not poll the priests who serve under him, and see if they think such a policy serves that interest? What percentage would it take to convince him the action is inappropriate and unwarranted—70, 80, 90 percent? Is it hard to imagine that nine out of ten priests would oppose such an initiative? We don’t think so, based on our limited queries. Is any administrative decision worth acting upon when ninety percent of your rank and file are opposed to it? Cannot the Holy Spirit be discerned through consensus?
While to our knowledge, no former cleric has yet sued a bishop for landing on a “credibly accused” list, we suspect that the time is at hand for such lawsuits. A great many priests have felt betrayed and mistreated by accusations made against them, and their stories are legion. If they have declined legal action to date, it is for many reasons, fear being chiefly among them—fear of media attention, fear of retaliation (such as loss of pension or health benefits on which they critically rely), fear of challenging their spiritual leader. But fear will eventually give way to indignation, and indignation to civil suits; the bishops should not be surprised if and when a counter-offensive occurs. The bishops have enjoyed a de facto immunity from such suits to date; they will face a difficult task in finding de jure immunity when those suits eventually occur.
WWJD? What is the Imitatio Christi in such situations?
Finally, we are left to ponder what we should have considered first: What would Jesus do? Would Jesus publish the names of individuals for whom only reasonable grounds of guilt exist, when those individuals are presumed innocent as a matter of law? We are unsure he would even publish the names of individuals who are found guilty in criminal proceedings—“Let the dead bury the dead” (Lk 9:60). We are not suggesting Jesus would take no corrective action or discipline. Far from it. But corrective action or discipline is not at issue. What is at issue is the mere voluntary publication of names, and we see no Gospel interest advanced in doing so. To the contrary, we see an initiative designed to protect the bishop, and his quest for transparency, that may benefit him, but will harm others.
In sum, we see no good reasons why bishops in the United States should depart from the path that every other employer observes who is subject to the same legal system. They should let the legal system control the truth-finding process of guilt or liability for sexual abuse claims, and not substitute it for their own judgment, however well-intentioned. Such a practice not only exposes them to significant legal liability, unwarranted media attention, and bad morale; it is not even the Christian thing to do.