Misconceptions Of The Appeals Trial

A canon law expert was interviewed by the Pacific News Center.  His name is Monsignor Frederick Easton, a judical vicar with the Archdiocese of Indianapolis and former president of the U.S. Canon Law Society.  According to Pacific News Center dated April 4, 2018 (the bold is mine): 

A canon law expert says the potential reversal could result from a process the Vatican refers to as “second instance,” in which the very merits of the case can be re-examined. This contradicts what most believed: that only the procedure of the canonical trial can be appealed.

Even before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reached a judgment in the canonical trial of former Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron, most experts said the penalty or judgment is not appealable and that only the process can be challenged.

It’s what Archbishop Michael Byrnes said, in a previous press conference, that he understood as well. 

So, where did this misconception come from that only the procedure of the canonical trial can be appealed?  It came directly from Tim Rohr's blog.  While it is true that Archbishop Byrnes also made that same misconception, his statement came on March 27, 2018 (See the news report here).  

However, someone else was spreading that misconception much earlier than Archbishop Byrnes.  According to Tim Rohr, he stated the following on March 17, 2018 (just the next day after the Vatican Press Release): 

However, an appeal can only review the proceedings of the trial. New evidence cannot be introduced.............And, by the way, Apuron can file an appeal, but that doesn't mean there is one. It will have to meet several conditions first before the Vatican will entertain it, and it will be the same five judges who have already found him GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY. 

Below is a screenshot of the above statement: 

Imagine that!  On March 16th, Rohr told news reporters that Archbishop Apuron was still the Archbishop of Agana because of the appeals.  And then suddenly, just the next day, he stated in his blog that even if Apuron filed an appeal, that does not mean there is one.  Then on March 19th, the Coadjutor Archbishop claimed the title for himself or was that a coincidence?

It was Rohr who made that first misconception, and he made more than one misconception about the appeals trial. Other misconceptions he made was that new evidence cannot be introduced in the appeals trial.  Canon Law 1639 Section 2 says that it can. He also stated that it would be the SAME five judges who will hear the appeals.  However, expert canon lawyers stated that it will not be the same five judges.  According to news report:

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.

Isn't that very interesting to find that Rohr was the first person to make that misconception about the appeals trial? Then we find Archbishop Byrnes making the same misconception to the media 10 days later or is that a coincidence?  Today, Rohr went on air in K57 pretending to know more that the expert canon lawyers.  The procedures of the Tribunal of Second Instance is listed in the Code of Canon Law, which you can find here.

All five expert canon lawyers agree that the guilty verdict was most likely not child sexual abuse due to the lax penalty. Rohr is the only one who disagree with ALL the expert canon lawyers.   

So, who should you believe?  The five expert canon lawyers who all agree that the guilty verdict was most likely not child sexual abuse.....or Tim Rohr, a real estate developer with no degree or experience in canon law?