By the way, those of you posting anonymously as "anonymous", please choose a username. The following news report can be found here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROME — A Vatican tribunal's guilty verdict last month against a Guam archbishop, hailed by some as the first instance of the Catholic Church successfully prosecuting a bishop accused of abusing minors, appears likely not to have been made in direct relation to allegations of sexual abuse by the prelate.
A number of prominent canon lawyers say the punishment announced for Agana Archbishop Anthony Apuron — removal from office and a prohibition from living on the U.S. island territory — simply seems too lax to indicate the bishop was found guilty of abuse.
The canonists, speaking in interviews since the March 16 announcement of the verdict from a five-judge apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the expected punishment for sexual abuse of a minor would usually be laicization, known formally as dismissal from the clerical state.
"It must be that he wasn't found directly guilty of sexual abuse," said Oblate Fr. Francis Morrisey, a former president of the Canadian Canon Law Society who has advised numerous Vatican offices and local bishops' conferences. "Otherwise, I think he would have been dismissed from the clerical state."
Msgr. Frederick Easton, a former president of the U.S. Canon Law Society, said the punishment for Apuron did not appear proportional to a finding of guilt in regards to sexual abuse.
"One would have thought ... if the bishop were found guilty of sexual abuse of minors, that could easily be a reason for dismissal from the clerical state for him," said Easton, who also served for 31 years as the judicial vicar for the Indianapolis archdiocese.
Easton, Morrisey and two other canon lawyers said it seemed more reasonable to assume Apuron was found guilty of a so-called "boundary violation," such as solicitation in the confessional.
A fifth canonist suggested reports that the 72-year-old is facing a decline in his physical condition might have mitigated the punishment imposed on him.
The Vatican tribunal did not say in its announcement of which exact acts the Guam archbishop had been found guilty, or even what specific charges had been brought against him. It simply stated that it had found the prelate "guilty of certain of the accusations."
Morrisey, who is a canon law professor at Saint Paul University in Ottawa, said the Vatican tribunal might have released so few details about its verdict against Apuron because the case involved material related to the confessional, which would be subject to pontifical secrecy.
U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke, a noted canonist, served as the presiding judge on the Vatican tribunal.
Apuron, a Guam native who had led the island's only diocese since 1986, was placed on leave by Pope Francis in June 2016 after a series of accusations about abuse of young men in the 1960s and 70s were made public.
According to the filing number of a request for testimony to the Vatican tribunal, obtained by NCR, the canonical case against Apuron was first opened in 2008.
In October 2016, Francis named Michael Byrnes, then an auxiliary bishop in Detroit, as Guam's coadjutor archbishop, granting him special faculties to run the archdiocese in Apuron's place.
As coadjutor, Byrnes would automatically become full archbishop with Apuron's removal from office. But Apuron has indicated he will appeal the ruling, and during such an appeal the penalties against the archbishop are suspended.
The allegations against Apuron are only a few of some 150 cases of clergy sexual abuse currently being brought forward against the Guam archdiocese, which announced March 27 that it will sell its chancery property to raise money to pay for expected settlements.
Patrick Wall, a canon lawyer and former Benedictine priest who is now a lead researcher for a civil law firm that specializes in representing clergy abuse victims, suggested the tribunal may have intentionally "backed off" any charges of direct sexual abuse against Apuron.
Wall, an advocate for Jeff Anderson & Associates, said the Vatican might have had motive to do that in order to limit the Guam archdiocese's liability in dozens of pending lawsuits about its alleged mismanagement of abusive clergy.
"I guess they ... proceeded on solicitation because it gets the same final result but also does not trigger civil liability back in the hundreds of cases in Guam," said Wall.
"If it can be proven using an internal church document that the CEO of a corporation knew that [child sexual abuse] was going on -- he himself was doing it -- then that is notice for a negligence case and the Archdiocese of Agana in Guam has major problems," he said.
Apuron had 15 days upon being notified of the verdict against him to indicate to the doctrinal congregation that he would be appealing the tribunal's decision in his case.
Assuming the archbishop has challenged the ruling, Easton and Morrisey said the appeal would likely be evaluated by the full cardinal and bishop membership of the congregation, or by a new tribunal formed of a number of the members.
According to the 2017 pontifical yearbook, there are currently 27 members of the congregation, including known figures such as: U.S. Cardinals Sean O'Malley and Donald Wuerl, and noted canonists Italian Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio and Maltese Archbishop Charles Scicluna.
Easton said that the ruling made on the appeal will be final and that there will be no possibility of a second challenge. The canonist said that the Vatican's prosecutor could also ask the appeal tribunal to impose a greater penalty on Apuron, such as laicization, should other circumstances or facts come to light.
Nodding to Apuron's chances of a successful challenge, Morrisey noted Burke's reputation as an exacting lawyer.
"With Cardinal Burke being the presiding judge in the first instance, he knows his law inside out," said the canonist. "If anyone knows the canons today, he's the one who knows them."
This is the perfect reason why a person should refrain from judging another person. In the case with AB Apuron, the Vatican never revealed what the guilty verdict was. But AB Byrnes was too presumptuous in his judgement without knowing the entire details. He owes AB Apuron an apology.
ReplyDeleteDear Jane, I would not rush with the demand for apology. The canon lawyer says there could be boundary violation of solicitation that gets the same final result. Whatever it means, the record cannot be cleaned.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:38 pm,
DeleteA boundary violation is not the same as child sexual abuse. If in the appeals, it is found that he is not guilty of the boundary violation, then the record is cleared.A
Also, Jane has a point. Archbishop Byrnes judged Archbishop Apuron as being guilty of child sexual abuse regardless. The canon lawyers are saying that the guilty verdict is most likely NOT child sexual abuse.
Diana, the canon lawyer also says the verdict can increase the penalty in case additional evidence is found.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:02 pm,
DeleteYes, it does. This only goes to show that Rohr was wrong when he stated that the Appeals was only to review the procedures. It appears that new evidence can be introduced into the Appeals Court, which is very different from the American Appeals Court system.
But this could become dangerous if Mark Apuron or someone else like him would register to the court to testify.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:17 pm,
DeleteDangerous? How? Mark Apuron claimed his uncle raped him and then walked back into a room crowded with people as though nothing happened. Nobody heard or saw anything out of the ordinary on that day. Mark can bring in his testimony if he wants. On the other hand, the secret meetings mentioned by Rohr in his blog can also be brought in as new evidence. Inquiring minds wants to know who else was involved in that secret meeting. Perhaps, those secret meetings has something to do with financial mismanagement as well.
Dar Diana, honestly, I don't see the relation between the appeal court and Rohr's meeting. Rohr is a very tiny point in this wrestling game. If he had a secret meeting, it does not prove anything except that he has things to share with other people at a secret meeting.
DeleteNo connection between Rohr and the abuse claims has ever been established. Rohr likes to brag that he brought all the troubles on the Archbishop, but how can he prove that?! He thinks of himself as bigger than real. Beyond the fact that he wants to be dirty famous, I don't see any other connection between him and the canonical trial.
The records show that victims came forward when the time was ripe. I believe it was the CCOG who encouraged them. CCOG is a distinct entity from Rohr and his jungle. CCOG has never collaborated with David Lujan and other Rohr friends whose only purpose is to squeeze as much money from the church as possible and destroy Catholicism wherever it exists.
Dear Anonymous at 7:22 pm,
DeleteThese victims never came out on their own. Do you not remember? It was Rohr who told who was supposed to go public first, second, and so on. That is on record. It was also Rohr who admitted that he obtained David Lujan to represent these victims. And it was also Rohr who introduced Greg Perez (the first President of CCOG) to David Sablan. That information was found in his blog.
Secret meetings are held for only one purpose....something illegal is being planned. That would explain why Rohr was told not to say who was present at the meeting. Furthermore, if there is nothing wrong with having secret meetings, why is David Sablan (President of CCOG) being charged in court for conspiracy and holding secret meetings?
@7:22 pm. Oh, so the blame is being pushed to CCOG now?
DeleteI believe Dave Sablan held secrets meeting of official function. He wanted to hide public information that could not be hidden by law and internal regulation. No such law or regulation exist in private meetings like you meet your family or friends. Rohr can held accountable for conducting secret meeting if he did in official function.
DeleteRohr likes to take credit for everything on earth, beneath or above the earth. It is his nature. People who know him also know that he is a braggart. Whatever he writes in his blog is always about himself, how great guy he is and how great things he did. But none of these are true. He is, in fact, a person who only compensates for his own low self-image, perhaps inferiority complex, and all he writes in his blog is just polishing his own self-damaged image.
No court on the wide earth would give any credence or any hoot for that matter to anything you read in the jungle blog.
Even in the small world of Rohr, he is grabbing attention from others to nourish his ego and low self-esteem. He is stealing the glory from others who do much ore than he does. Really, what is Rohr doing? Is there any significant thing that he ever achieved, that would not have happened without him? Nope! Maybe it would have happened later, under different circumstance but it would have happened, anyway.
DeleteRohr is not the game master by any means, he is just a puppet in the hands of those who are bigger than him. But they use him by his conceitedness and pride to do for them what they want him to do. His only output is rambling in his blog daily about two hours or so like crazy. Well, in fact, others do the really important job for him. He is only on the sides doing nothing but looking extremely busy.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:54 pm and 8:13 pm,
On the contrary. Rohr had always claimed that his blog is about the truth and not an opinion. In fact, he went on radio several times, explaining in detail his involvement with the alleged victims. Furthermore, it was Rohr who incited the hatred against Archbishop Apuron and the NCW.
Diana, if somebody says his personal opinion is not a personal opinion, it is still a personal opinion! What else could it be?
DeleteThis is something people should consider. If these canon lawyers are correct and that Archbishop Apuron was found not guilty of child sexual abuse, this can only mean that the four alleged victims are false accusers. And it was these four accusers who pushed for the bill to lift the statutes of limitations. This law lifting the statutes of limitations may have started out with false intentions.
ReplyDeleteDiana, all this seems to be speculation. The victims were not considered false accusers by the tribunal, because the canonical trial was initiated based on their complaints and the outcome or the trial was a guilty sentence. Don't forget that the return to Guam is prohibited and the judges imposed this penalty with a reason. Even if we don't know the exact reason, we have to acknowledge that this is not a light verdict.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:47 pm,
DeleteThe penalty is "prohibition to RESIDE." That means that Archbishop Apuron can visit Guam, but he cannot RESIDE here. The alleged victims were not the ones on trial. It was Archbishop Apuron who was on trial, and if what these canon lawyers are saying is true, then he is not guilty of child sexual abuse. This means that the Vatican Tribunal had found some evidence showing that the Archbishop was telling the truth all along.