We Have Been Telling You...

When I published my post Changing Stories, I stated that Tim Rohr believed that there was no canonical trial despite that Archbishop Apuron said that there was. Tim Rohr made the following response in his blog: 

[The first mention of a Vatican trial wasn't until late January 2017. And the Vatican was under no obligation to let us know that it had commenced. What the Vatican did say was that it "cannot release information until the trial is over":

"The Holy See Press Office at the Vatican confirmed that Apuron’s canonical trial is ongoing. However, the office said it cannot release other information until after the trial is over, and referred further questions about the trial to the local archdiocese, the Archdiocese of Agana."]

Once again, he has changed his story.  He could never get his stories straight.  Ever wonder why that is?  He claimed that the FIRST mention of a Vatican trial was until late January 2017.  The truth is.....Rohr did not believe there was a canonical trial until Archbishop Byrnes came out and said there was a canonical trial, which was on December 2016.  According to news report dated December 2, 2016:

The canonical trial of Archbishop Anthony Apuron started.

“It’s been initiated, I know that much. The argument has been exchanged and now it’s kind of like in the second phase of investigation, examination,” said Archbishop Michael Byrnes, the newly appointed coadjutor bishop of Hagåtña (Guam) at a press conference on Monday afternoon.  

Tim Rohr did not wait for any publication from the Vatican to start believing that there was indeed a canonical trial.  He simply believed another Archbishop. Nevermind the fact that Archbshop Byrnes only confirmed what Archbishop Apuron had been telling him all along.  

Take note that it was on December 2, 2016 when Archbishop Byrnes mentioned the canonical trial of Archbishop Apuron.  Then on December 11, 2016 (only nine days later), Rohr made the following statement in his blog:

And while Francis could have simply removed Apuron at that point, he decided to punish the narcissistic pedophile and sentenced him to a trial where he would be made an example of for the whole world to see.  

Suddenly, Rohr believes there was a canonical trial????  And we have been telling you......  

Today, Rohr is trying to convince people that there is no appeal until it is made public through the Vatican.  However, the Vatican never made the canonical trial public; therefore, Rohr is incorrect when he said the Vatican will make the appeal public.  He simply wants the Coadjutor Archbishop to take the title of Archbishop of Agana immediately.  According to Pacific News Center (the bold is mine):

Once a judgment is made and a penalty announced, the guilty has 15 days to file an appeal. Archbishop Apuron announced immediately after the results were published on the Vatican’s website that he made an official challenge to the ruling. But much like the charges filed against Apuron, the appeal documents are not subject to public disclosure. It would be up to the tribunal to make that decision. 

As I stated in my previous post, Archbishop Apuron had 15 days to make an appeal.  Archbishop Apuron announced immediately that he was appealing the verdict. An appeal was already announced and made before the 15 days was up. In fact, not a day had gone by and the appeal was already made and announced by Archbishop Apuron.  In accordance with canon law, the appeal suspends the sentence.  This means that Archbishop Apuron still holds the title of Archbishop of Agana pending the resolution of the Appeals trial.  

Can. law 1638 An appeal suspends the execution of the sentence.

Can. law 409 §1. When the episcopal see is vacant, the coadjutor bishop immediately becomes the bishop of the diocese for which he had been appointed provided that he has legitimately taken possession of it.

Canon law 1638 did not leave the episcopal see vacant.   

Rohr is also trying to convince people that the sentence Archbishop Apuron received is a just sentence for a bishop found guilty of child sexual abuse.  He does not want Archbishop Apuron to be defrocked.  Now, why is that?  Could that be his conscience speaking?  His reason for not wanting laicization does not make any sense at all.  It is a well-known fact that lay people face far more severe penalties when found guilty of child sexual abuse.  They faced the arm of the law and will be placed behind bars once accused.  They do not have the freedom to travel around once they were accused. Just look at what happened to the detainee who was beaten to death at DOC.  The detainee was charged with raping a woman with Downs Syndrome.  He did not even go to trial yet, and already he was beaten to death.     

The most proper penalty given to a priest or bishop found guilty of child sexual abuse should have been "a life of penance and prayer."  This sentence would have kept the priest or bishop secluded and away from children.  The sentence given to Archbishop Apuron does not keep him away from children at all.  In fact, he can still baptize children and even give them the sacrament of confirmation.  His sentence also did not completely ban him from Guam.  He was prohibited from RESIDING in Guam. The sentence says that he cannot reside in Guam. Nowhere did the sentence say he cannot travel to Guam and visit his family and relatives here. 

Today, Rohr stated in his blog:

While the Vatican might be bound by a certain secrecy, Apuron is not. And you can bet that if he was not found guilty of sex abuse he would have already made sure that we knew it.  

But he hasn't. 

We have been telling you all along that the Vatican never said what he was found guilty of.  It was the jungle who claimed that he was guilty of child sexual abuse when the Vatican never said that.  We have been telling you all along that if he was found guilty of child sexual abuse, the sentence does not match the criminal offense.  The expert canon lawyers who came out only confirmed what we have been telling you.