Intentions of the Heart

Dr. Rick Eusebio once wrote: 

In a dark alley behind the Church, a priest is seen giving a known prostitute money. Is this a picture of a priest giving a prostitute money for services rendered or a priest helping a poor soul get by this month to feed her starving child? What is the truth? There lies the problem with transparency, for it is not the facts that muddy the picture but the conclusion to the facts. The public, media and politicians cry aloud and demand transparency claiming that only through the exposition of information can one possibly learn the “truth”. It is critical to keep in mind however, whose truth and whose agenda? Thus it may be an error to believe what you read at face value and arrive at a false conclusion from a perceived true fact. As illustrated in my example, it is not unusual for two persons witnessing the same event to arrive at two diametrically opposed conclusions, SIN or CHARITY! 

There are always two sides to every story.  To learn the truth of the above scenerio, it would always be best to ask the priest himself as to why he gave the money to the prostitute.  Unfortunately, as shown in my previous posts, some of the media in Guam have an agenda to mislead and destroy.  Take for example the photo published in the Pacific Daily News, which the jungle have often used to promote their agenda: 



The PDN mentioned that Archbishop Byrnes briefly joined the picket line.  The photo they captured of him can indeed be interpreted as though he had joined the protest before entering the Church.  So, what is the truth?  In a news interview with Archbishop Byrnes, he said that he came out to say hello and greet the people with the signs and then he went inside.  He said that he was not there to walk with them nor to protest with them, but to greet them and get to know them. That was his intention.  

The photo above can easily put the Archbishop in a negative light if a person did not hear his interview.  I had just posted two articles about a priest's right of due process.  The signs carried by those protesters had nothing to do with justice.  It was an injustice to demand the removal of an archbishop before his canonical trial even started.  In our country, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Today, both Tim Rohr and J.R. San Agustin stands accused of child sexual abuse. J.R. San Agustin was well-known to write in the jungle blog and protest in the picket line.  Like Apuron, both claimed their innocence.  Should their rights of due process be taken away?  One never think of these things until they find themselves in the same shoes of the person they accused.  The photo above taken by the PDN of Archbishop Brynes is often used by the jungle to promote their personal agenda.  The photo shows the Archbishop walking behind and in front of protesters holding up picket signs denying Apuron's right to due process.  They demanded his removal BEFORE the canonical trial even began.  

However, the intentions of Archbishop Byrnes was not to take part in a public demonstration whose goal is to deny Apuron's right of due process.  His intention was as he had stated in his interview....to say hello and then enter the Church.  In fact, he never picked up a picket sign.  Therefore, the intention of Archbishop Byrnes was charity. 

By the same token, the photo below was also posted in the jungle.  

                           

What was the intention of the jungle?  What was the intention of Father Julius? Praise God that the people present in that event knew the truth.  The intention of Father Julius was also charity.