Let Us Not Forget

Every now and then someone would call my attention to what Tim Rohr wrote in his blog.  This post is the "other side of the story" in what was written about the former Archbishop Anthony Apuron in his January 10, 2023 post.    

Let us not forget that it all started with the removal of Father Paul Gofigan for disobedience. Father Paul was told to dismiss Joseph Lastimoza from employment in 2011.  Investigations showed that Joseph Lastimoza was not dismissed, and Father Paul was removed from the Dededo parish in July 17, 2013.  Father Paul wrote in his letter to the Archdiocese: 

I also request any and all evidence, oral or written, supporting the reason for the removal, including but not limited to, the written reports and notes of any and all investigations on Mr. Joseph Lastimoza and on this case....I likewise request copies of all policies or directives adopted by the Archdiocese on registered sex offenders, .....

This request is not needed if, in fact, Father Paul terminated Lastimoza. Rather, evidence of employment termination is needed. Joseph Lastimoza was found guilty of the rape and murder of 26-year-old Christine Rudnicki in 1981. He was also connected to other sexual crimes prior to 1981, and he was registered as a sex offender. Some of the parishioners in Dededo brought this to the attention of Archbishop Apuron, who then instructed Father Paul to dismiss Lastimoza from church employment.  

Let us not forget that the first person who accused former Archbishop Anthony was the late John Toves. He accused the Archbishop of sexually abusing his relative...a relative who never came forward. And let us not forget that on December 1, 2014 in an interview with Jesse Lujan, John Toves admitted that he never spoke to his relative. He admitted that his relative never told him that he was sexually abused by Apuron. Rather, Toves admitted on radio that he obtained that information from someone else, but did not specify who. After that revelation, the media never bothered with John Toves again.  

Let us not forget that the second person to come out, accusing Bishop Anthony of child sexual abuse was Roy Quintanilla who was from Agat. Shortly after that, three others from Agat came out making the same allegations. One of them was a mother who claimed her son (who was deceased) was sexually abused by Bishop Apuron.  Let us not forget that during the course of Bishop Anthony's tribunal, many former altar servers from Agat also came out to testify to Cardinal Burke in defense of Archbishop Apuron.  According to the Vatican Insider (the bold is mine): 

After a few days, four people came forward, among them Roy Taitague Quintanilla, who alleged having been abused forty years earlier when, at the age of 12, he was an altar boy for Father Apuron who, according to his allegations, had taken him by night in his own home to rape him. However, Vatican Insider has learned that statements were made by multiple former altar boys to the tribunal who maintain that they had never seen Quintanilla in the parish and that the parish activities were always carried out in groups and never alone. 

Many former altar boys testified to the tribunal that they have never seen Roy Quintanilla in the parish and that the parish activities were always carried out in groups and never alone. 

Furthermore, Roland Sondia, another Apuron accuser, had nothing negative to say about Bishop Anthony in 2009.  According to the Article (the bold is mine):

Sondia was just a boy when he first met Fr. Jack. He and his family would develop lifelong friendships. 

"I started as an altar boy that year when Fr. Jack came," said Sondia. I've known him ever since." "Fr. Jack was more -- he was like a mentor to most of us," he said. "He was like a father to a lot of us that were down there, just like the bishop was....." 

The "Bishop" whom Roland was referring to here in 2009 was "Anthony Apuron" who was Archbishop of Agana during that time when Father Jack Niland passed away.  Father Jack Niland, by the way, was also one of the deceased priests who was named in the child sexual abuse lawsuit despite the many praises coming from Roland Sondia and other altar servers.  About seven years later, Sondia went on to accuse Bishop Anthony of sexually abusing him when he was an altar server in the Agat parish where Bishop Anthony was the pastor and Father Jack was the associate pastor.   

Let us also not forget that Bishop Anthony Apuron's right to "due process" was violated by public opinion, by some of his Guam fellow clergy and by Archbishop Hon. In their eyes, he was guilty without the due process of a trial.  Before the trial even began, Archbishop Hon together with the Presbyterial Council of Hagatna requested the former Archbishop to resign. When he refused to resign, Archbishop Hon traveled to Rome to request the Pope to remove Archbishop Apuron. Archbishop Hon was so focused on that goal that he did not notice that the JungleWatch Nation worked on getting an unjust bill passed in the Guam Legislature. He learned of it while he was in Rome, trying to remove Archbishop Apuron, but it was too late. 

When Archbishop Hon learned about the passage of Bill 326, he sent a desperate message from Rome to the Guam clergy to read his letter and persuade the Catholic faithful to sign a petition to oppose the bill from being signed into law by the Governor. Two or three priests disobeyed Archbishop Hon by not reading his letter and endorsed Bill 326, which would lift the statutes of limitations and allow anyone to file a lawsuit against the Archdiocese.  The main push for the bill to become law was to allow Apuron's accusers to file a lawsuit against him and the Archdiocese that some dubbed it the "Apuron bill." They did not expect that almost 300 alleged victims would come forward and file a lawsuit against the Archdiocese for being sexually abused by a priest, MOST of whom are dead.  And most of those alleged victims chose to remain anonymous. 

On April, 2018 Bishop Anthony Apuron was found guilty by the Congregation for Doctrine of Faith, but the CDF never stated the charges for which the Archbishop was found guilty.  According to the final verdict by the Vatican (the bold is mine): 

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE APOSTOLIC TRIBUNAL OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH 

The canonical trial in the matter of accusations, including accusations of sexual abuse of minors, brought against the Most Reverend Anthony Sablan APURON, O.F.M.Cap., Archbishop of Agaña, Guam, has been concluded. 

The Apostolic Tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, composed of five judges, has issued its sentence of first instance, finding the accused guilty of certain of the accusations and imposing upon the accused the penalties of privation of office and prohibition of residence in the Archdiocese of Guam. The sentence remains subject to possible appeal. In the absence of an appeal, the sentence becomes final and effective. In the case of an appeal, the imposed penalties are suspended until final resolution. 

This was the final verdict from the Holy See.  Child sexual abuse is a very serious crime, and even the Vatican would not downplay it as "guilty of certain of the accusations." Furthermore, many canon lawyers publicly came out, saying that whatever the verdict, it was NOT "child sexual abuse."  According to The National Catholic Reporter :

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....

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."

From this, I conclude that Bishop Anthony was found not guilty of child sexual abuse otherwise he would have been laicized just like Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. We do not know what the guilty charges were because the Vatican never stated it.  Because these guilty charges were never stated, one has to wonder whether the guilty verdict was a true verdict or simply a political move from the Vatican to appease the persecutors who threatened to harm Bishop Anthony should he be found not guilty and returned to Guam.

Nevertheless, the unjust bill allowing alleged victims to file a lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Agana was proposed and signed into law BECAUSE some people including our lawmakers and governor at that time assumed Apuron guilty without the due process of a trial. They did not wait until the conclusion of his trial. Nevertheless, Anthony Apuron still retains his status and rank as Bishop.    

Priests in Crisis: The Catholic University of America Study

Father Gordon MacRae wrote another fantastic article in his blog, which can be found here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Priests in Crisis: The Catholic University of America Study

While some high-profile priests are maligned from both in and beyond the Church, The Catholic University of America published its National Study of Catholic Priests.

“You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?”

— Matthew 7:16

January 11, 2023 by Fr. Gordon MacRae

In 2005, Catholic League President Bill Donohue was interviewed on the NBC Today show about accusations of sexual abuse by Catholic priests — some sadly true, but some also sadly false. Citing the case against me as an example, he said, “There is no segment of the American population with less civil liberties protection than the average American Catholic priest.”

Catholic priests in the United States have long been under assault from the news media, from activist groups, and at times even from within the Church. As most readers know, I have been the subject of many published articles, but not because I have been accused. It is because I strenuously refute the accusations as false. Much evidence has amassed in support of that. For some reason, this poses a threat to some nefarious agendas built around the sex abuse crisis in the Church.

When accused priests defend themselves in online media, seeding articles with vile comments using fake screen names had long been a tactic of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, an organization that sought not so much to support legitimate victims, but to maximize monetary awards and media condemnation. Its representatives terrorized Church officials with media manipulation whenever any accused priest is defended in the court of public opinion.

Despite all that, some standout news media have bravely produced articles and commentary against the tide of public vitriol about accused priests. The Wall Street Journal recently published its fourth such article about the case against me. The most recent was by Boston Attorney Harvey Silverglate entitled “Justice Delayed for Father MacRae.” This generated some excellent analysis by David F. Pierre, Jr. moderator of The Media Report. Those and other articles appear in our featured section, The Wall Street Journal.

I have much gratitude for Dorothy Rabinowitz, Harvey Silverglate, Ryan MacDonald, Bill Donohue, and David F. Pierre, Jr. for their valiant efforts to correct the public record. Without their truthful courage, I was at the mercy of nefarious means driven mostly by progressive political agendas and litigious greed. Most recently, however, even some bold Catholic writers have taken up the subject of Catholic Priests Falsely Accused.

The National Study of Catholic Priests

When I was first accused, my bishop and diocese published a press release declaring, without evidence, that I victimized not only my accusers, but the entire Catholic Church. That bishop’s successor later went on record to state his informed belief that I am innocent and should never have been in prison. Then his successor chose only to shun me, and to release my name on a public list of the “credibly” accused. He did this, he stated, for “transparency,” but that transparency has been highly selective.

My own experience leaves me with no trust at all that my bishop could, or would even try, to discern guilt from false witness in defense of me or any accused priest. Trust and distrust as the fallout from the scandal are now central issues in a recently published survey of 10,000 U.S. priests sponsored by The Catholic Project at The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. I highly recommend reviewing a report on the study results entitled, “The National Study of Catholic Priests: A Time of Crisis.” It was the largest study on the state of the priesthood in fifty years. Here is an overview of its parameters:

“Over the last two decades, the clergy sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church has significantly eroded the trust between laity and clergy... Since the earliest days of the Dallas Charter there have been concerns that the bishops’ understandable eagerness to crack down on abusive priests was coming at the expense of due process protections for the accused: a de facto policy of ‘guilty until proven innocent.’ These concerns have been exacerbated by an expansion in the scope of the Church’s anti-abuse policies coupled with a perceived double standard in the way allegations against bishops have been handled in comparison to priests.”

Father Roger Landry, a columnist for the National Catholic Register, has an excellent analysis of The Catholic University of America study entitled, “Repairing the Relationship Between Priests and Bishops.”

The findings of the study are based on the responses of the thousands of U.S. priests who participated and submitted completed surveys. Given the difficult period of the last 20 years since the U.S. Bishops’ Dallas Charter was enacted, some of these responses are surprising, and point to the depth of commitment, spiritual life, optimism and resiliency of most priests. Most priests reported a high level of satisfaction in their ministry. A stunning 77% of priests self-reported that they are flourishing in their vocation.

Among the results, however, are some big red flags: 82% of priests report living with a fear of being falsely accused and left with no defense; 45% of priests report that they experience at least one symptom of ministry burnout, while 9% described their level of burnout as severe, and characterized by high levels of stress and emotional and physical exhaustion. Reports of high stress came particularly from younger priests. (I will get back to this later) .

The biggest concern among priests is related to the toll and fallout of the U.S. Bishops’ collective response to the sex abuse crisis in the Church. The sense of vulnerability among priests and their trust level for their bishops are the two most significant areas of negative fallout from the crisis.

In his NC Register column linked above, Father Roger Landry points to what I have called a disaster in the relationship between bishops and priests: the drafting and enactment of the 2002 “Dallas Charter” which imposed a draconian standard of “zero tolerance” and one-strike-and-you’re-out in response to any “credible” accusation against a priest. For an analysis of this standard of evidence, see my post, “The Credibility of Bishops on Credibly Accused Priests.”

Father Landry reports that the drafting of these policies in 2002 was done “hurriedly and under enormous pressure from the press, lawsuits and furious faithful.” Priests in the current study actually appreciated the efforts to respond to the crisis openly and with transparency. “But the priests surveyed gave stark testimony to the harms that have come from what the bishops in Dallas left out of balance.”

Guilty for Being Accused

The Vatican and Catholic hierarchy were unfairly maligned throughout publicity on “The Scandal.” At one point, SNAP partnered with the far-left, New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights to bring a crimes-against-humanity charge against Pope Benedict XVI at the International Criminal Court at the Hague. Some of the false claims against me were employed to shame Pope Benedict on a global scale. The scheme was nothing more than a publicity stunt to embarrass the Church into maximizing financial settlements. Many of its claims, including those against me were exposed as a fraud. Journalist Joann Wypijewski exposed this story in “Oscar Hangover Special: Why “Spotlight” Is a Terrible Film.”

Only in the Catholic Church is the highest echelon of governance blamed for the lowest level of misbehavior. Even in his later years, Benedict was demonized by German Catholics and others eager for any reason to blame him for the abuses of the past. Of interest, in the State of New Hampshire where I live more than 900 men between the ages of 20 and 50 have open lawsuits alleging systemic sexual abuse by State agents in the State’s juvenile detention facilities. Not one media outlet, not one victim group, not one of the victims themselves has blamed any of this on any present or former governor. This State carried out a witch-hunt in 2002 when the accused were Catholic priests. It is now confirmed that simultaneous to the witch-hunt was an active cover-up of the malfeasance of State agents.

As stated above, 82% of priests now report that they feel vulnerable to false accusations of sexual abuse that under existing policy will summarily end their ministry without due process. Compounding this fear, many report that they would be treated as guilty and left without support unless they could prove their innocence. Sixty-four percent said they would be left without support or resources to mount a defense, and almost half, 49%, think they would not be supported by their bishop. Father Landry added a sobering understanding of the reality:

“In most dioceses, when a priest is accused, he loses his home, his job, his good name — all within hours. He is removed immediately from his rectory and parish assignment, prevented from public ministry for the length of what is often an inexcusably glacial investigation, and required to dress like a layman. A press release is published in which the priest’s reputation is injured, if not ruined. He needs to exhaust his meager savings or beg and borrow money to hire a lawyer. Most excruciatingly, he has to linger for months or years under suspicion of being a sadistic pervert as well as a hypocrite to the faith for which he has given his life.”

Given the reality that most claims against priests are many years or decades old, establishing clear evidence is difficult if not impossible. So the bishops adopted what they called the “credible” standard. It means only that if a priest and an accuser lived in the same parish or community 20, 30, or 40 years ago, the accusation is “credible” on its face. No one in America but a Catholic priest could lose his livelihood, his reputation, sometimes even his freedom, under such a standard. I exposed one such case in “The Exile of Father Dominic Menna and Transparency at The Boston Globe.”

I am most appreciative to Father Roger Landry and the National Catholic Register for their bold and transparent analysis of what actually happens to an accused priest. By taking all the steps a diocese or bishop imposes above, such a priest is effectually silenced and unable to defend himself at all.

Stress along the fault lines between bishops and priests that these policies have caused is also clear in the survey. There is a wide disparity between how bishops view themselves and how they are viewed by their priests. Seventy-three percent of bishops reported viewing priests as their brothers. Only 28% of priests reported that their bishops treat them that way.

The disconnect revealed itself in several other ways as well: 70% of bishops reported that they are spiritual fathers to their priests while only 28% of priests thought the same. Father Landry reported that the biggest disconnect relates to a priest who is struggling. Ninety-percent of bishops reported that they would be present to and supportive of a struggling priest while only 36% of priests thought that this is true.

The Double Standard

Also evident in both the survey and Father Landry’s analysis of it is the double standard created when bishops failed to hold themselves accountable to the same standards imposed on their priests. In 2002, as the Charter was being debated during the U.S. Bishops Conference at Dallas, Cardinal Avery Dulles published a landmark article in America magazine entitled “The Rights of Accused Priests.”

The article was cheered by priests but largely ignored by bishops. Cardinal Dulles cited a 2000 pastoral initiative of the U.S. bishops entitled “Responsibility and Rehabilitation.” It criticized the U.S. justice system for the establishment of one-size-fits-all norms such as “zero tolerance” and “one strike and you’re out.” Then the same bishops, in a media panic, imposed those same standards on their priests.

But none of it ever applied to accusations against bishops, a reality that Father Landry described as “a double standard that profoundly affected their relationship [with priests].” While deliberating adoption of the Dallas Charter, the bishops removed the word “cleric,” which could have included bishops, and replaced it with “priests and deacons.” Now 51% of priests report that they do not have confidence in their bishop while 70% report a lack of confidence in bishops in general.

In a 2019 apostolic letter, Vos Estis Lux Mundi, Pope Francis addressed some of the disparities with mixed results. Father Landry points out that investigations of bishops, even in allegations of past sexual abuse, “seldom involve the draconian measures experienced by priests.”

I have written of a glaring example in my own diocese. Citing a desire for “transparency,” and with no one pressuring him to do so, my bishop proactively published in 2019 a list of the names and status of 73 priests of this diocese who had been “credibly” accused over fifty years. Most are deceased. Weeks later, a New Hampshire Superior Court judge barred publication of information from a grand jury investigation which was the source for most of the Bishop’s list. Ryan MacDonald wrote of the reasons for that in “Our Bishops Have Inflicted Grave Harm On the Priesthood.”

Months after publishing his list, my bishop was himself accused in a civil lawsuit in the Diocese of Rockville Center, New York. He was unjustly caught up in the political fallout of former New york Governor Andrew Cuomo who generated the claims when he signed into law an exemption window in which old time-barred accusations can be brought forward after the statute of limitations had run. I defended my bishop in a widely read post, “Bishop Peter A. Libasci Was Set Up by Governor Andrew Cuomo.”

Conservative Priests Face Greater Scrutiny

I mentioned above that I would revisit one finding of this report — that younger priests experience more stress than older priests. A separate research report on Catholic priests by the Austin Institute has documented that younger priests tend to be more conservative and traditional than older priests. That bears out from observations of our readers who find this distinction to be a positive development. Writing for The Wall Street Journal, Vatican Correspondent Francis X. Rocca reported on this in “Catholic Ideological Split Widens” (Dec.19, 2022):

“U.S. Catholic bishops elected conservative leaders last month, continuing to resist a push from Pope Francis to put issues such as climate change and poverty on par with the bishops’ declared priority of opposing abortion.”

The bishops appointed by Pope Francis tend to mirror his priorities. His recent elevation of San Diego Archbishop Robert McElroy, a leading liberal among U.S. bishops, to the College of Cardinals is an example. There is thus a growing disparity in liberal vs. conservative views as newly appointed bishops are more liberal while priests newly emerging from U.S. seminaries are more conservative and traditional.

Since the 1980s, successive annual ordinations have grown more conservative. Each successive 10-year grouping in the ordained priesthood supports Church teaching on moral and theological issues more strongly than the one before it. Those ordained after 2010, as a whole, are most conservative. When seminarians and younger priests do not have their views of the Church and Catholic practice affirmed, stress develops and increases. Younger U.S. priests represent a generation disillusioned with ideas of progress and religious pluralism, and the abandonment of the Church’s prolife charism in favor of topics like climate change.

This leaves a widening chasm between Pope Francis, his Episcopal appointments, and younger priests in the United States. The Catholic Project study also reveals that almost 80% of priests ordained before 1980 approve strongly of Pope Francis while only 20% of those ordained after 2010 share that view. Is their priestly interest in respect for tradition a plague upon the Church?

Or is it the whispering of the Holy Spirit?

Rest in Peace Cardinal George Pell

 I was just alerted by an anonymous poster that Cardinal George Pell had passed away at the age of 81.  Cardinal George Pell, is Australia's highest-ranking Catholic Church official.  He died of cardiac arrest following a hip replacement surgery.  May he rest in peace.

My Response to Anonymous Poster

 An anonymous poster made the following comment: 

AnonymousJanuary 9, 2023 at 2:38 AM

What about your opinions of the Pope? You don't strike me as being progressive like the pope but you support the pope?

First of all, I agree that Pope Francis is a progressive pope. Why God allowed a progressive person to become pope is something I cannot answer.  I can only place my trust in God's wisdom.  Nevertheless, Pope Francis is the legitimate pope of the Catholic Church, and priests and bishops owe their fidelity to him.  I have always stressed obedience to the Bishop.  The only time a priest can disobey a bishop is when the bishop tells the priest to do something that is clearly immoral or against Church teaching.  In this case, the bishop should be reported to the Holy See.  If the bishop commits a criminal act, it should be reported to civil authorities as well as the Holy See.  Pope Francis has not said anything contrary to Church teaching regarding abortion.  He stated many times that direct abortion is murder. 

Abortion is a moral issue, but it has been hi-jacked by politics in the guise of women's health care and equal rights.  The bishop's conference does not have the power to bar Joe Biden from receiving Holy Communion.  That power is reserved for local bishops who have autonomy in their dioceses, or the pope.  Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington has already said that he will not bar the President from receiving Holy Communion.  Bishop-elect William Koenig of Wilmington, Delaware, Biden's hometown has remained largely quiet on the issue.  And the pope warned bishops not to weaponize the Holy Eucharist, which I find to be an unclear statement.  The Church today is treading on precarious and challenging times.   

Since Governor Lou Leon Guerrero is given Holy Communion even after she was told by a priest not to present herself for Holy Communion, that may open the door for others who are not in Communion with Church teaching to also receive Holy Communion, thus desecrating the Body of Christ, endangering the souls of those who received His Body unworthily, and causing confusion to the Catholic faithful. So, what was the Governor's intention for disobeying the priest who told her not to present herself for Holy Communion? 

Furthermore, Pope Francis has a lot to say about "climate change."  Climate change has to do with science, and science (as well as history) has been hi-jacked by politics. Previously, the term "global warming" have been used.  In the late 1970s, the Earth cooled a few degrees; therefore, the left-wing radicals stopped using the term "global warming" because it no longer fit their narrative. Instead, they started using the term "climate change."  The Earth's climate will always change.  It will either fall or rise a few degrees up or down in the next 100 years and so forth.  Many liberals have often said that "97% of scientists agree on climate change," but that 97% figure is a fabrication (See the weblink here).  Politicians (not scientists) have been pushing for climate change for years.  But you do not see those same politicians pushing China and India to cut back on burning their fossil fuels.  In fact, China and India are not even on-board with the climate change bandwagon.  The Church today is treading on precarious and challenging times.

My Thoughts on the Previous Post

 I am not familiar with the case of Father Pavone, so I had to look him up on the Internet.  Apparently, he is a very strong and outspoken activist opposing direct abortion.  However, he was laicized for blasphemous communications on social media as well as persistent disobedience. Those allegations may actually be true. An investigation was launched against Father Frank Pavone after he placed an aborted fetus on an altar and posted a video of it online.  According to Catholic News Services:

The Diocese of Amarillo, Texas, said in a statement it is investigating the incident of a pro-life priest who placed “the body of an aborted fetus” on an altar and broadcast it on Facebook Live to get people to vote for Republican Donald J. Trump, causing “the desecration of the altar.” 

“We believe that no one who is pro-life can exploit a human body for any reason, especially the body of a fetus,” said Amarillo Bishop Patrick J. Zurek in a Nov. 8 statement. Its use for political purposes by one of the diocese’s priests was “against the dignity of human life,” he added. 

Pro-life supporters in the Catholic Church denounced activist Father Frank Pavone for what he said was an “emergency situation” on the eve of the U.S. presidential election. 

“What did he do?” wrote Ed Mechmann, a public policy director whose areas of concern include pro-life issues, in a blog for the Archdiocese of New York. “He used a dead aborted baby, laying naked and bloody on an altar, as a prop for his video.” 

But Father Pavone, no stranger to controversial situations, said he was trying to drive home, in a visual and impactful way, what it meant to choose one presidential candidate over the other on Election Day. Father Pavone, appealing for votes for Trump, said he was showing “the Democrats’ support of baby-killing.”

“I’m showing the reality,” he said in an interview on Election Day with Catholic News Service. Father Pavone is a member of Trump’s Catholic advisory group.

I am on the Bishop's side on this one, and I do not see any remorse from Father Pavone in his interview.  Speaking out against abortion is fine, but one does not need to do something so outrageous and sacrilege for the purpose of getting a message across.  From Father Gordon's blog, I assume that Father Pavone may have a similar character trait as Donald Trump.  According to Father Gordon's statement of Father Frank Pavone and Father James Altman: 

I have written of my belief that their message might be more effective with some toning down of their rhetoric.

I have said the same thing about Donald Trump.  His foreign policies were effective, but he needed to tone down his rhetoric. Nevertheless, even I must admit that Trump was successful in getting Kim Jong-Un to stop launching missiles in our area. In fact, Trump became the first sitting President to meet with Kim Jong-Un and to step inside North Korea. While those crass rhetoric earned him the respect of a dictator, it unfortunately created enemies among his own party.  So, Father Pavone may be culpable of those allegations.

Nevertheless, we do need bishops and priests to be courageous enough to speak the truth, but not bishops and priests who will go so far as to commit something outrageous as placing an aborted child on an altar. One such bishop who was strong and courageous to speak out against abortion and same-sex marriage was the former Archbishop of Agana, Anthony Apuron, now Bishop Anthony Apuron.  Bishop Anthony opposed abortion that he threatened to excommunicate any Catholic Senator who opposed the bill.  According to news report (the bold is mine):

Guam's 21-member unicameral Legislature unanimously approved the bill March 8 after Archbishop Anthony Apuron threatened in an interview with a television reporter to excommunicate any Roman Catholic senator who voted against it. All but one of the senators is Catholic, as is Ada. However, most of the senators said they were unaware of the threat.

So, even without knowing of the Archbishop's threat, they voted for the bill anyway.  Was it wrong for Bishop Anthony to threatened excommunication?  No, because under Canon law those who promote abortion would automatically be excommunicated anyway.  According to the article:

Those Catholics who promote abortion are automatically excommunicated for two reasons. First, they have fallen into the sin of heresy by believing that abortion is not always gravely immoral (canons 751 and 1364). Second, these Catholics are providing substantial assistance for women to obtain abortions by influencing public policy to make abortions legal, and to keep abortions legal, and to broaden access to abortion. Those who provide such substantial assistance commit a mortal sin and incur a sentence of automatic excommunication (canon 1398).

Under Apuron's leadership, the most restrictive ban on abortion was passed.  Bishop Anthony also opposed the legislation on same-sex marriage when it was introduced by Senator B.J. Cruz.  Bishop Anthony never attacked B.J. Cruz.  He had always attacked the bill, which would legalize same-sex marriage.  According to his letter dated August 27, 2015 (the bold is mine): 

Sisters and brothers: In the face of recent events undertaken by the U.S. District Court of Guam, the U.S. Supreme Court and the 33rd Guam Legislature in redefining marriage, the Church stands firm on her teaching that marriage is between one man, and one woman.

Disagreement is not discrimination. These recent laws force the people of Guam, and of the United States, to either agree with a particular political position or face ridicule and sanction for discrimination. These types of laws not only undermine the precepts of the United States Constitution to freedom of speech, but also undermine and attempt to eradicate the constitutional right to Freedom of Religion.

These times compel the Church to expose the intentions of those who have deceivingly disguised same-sex unions as an issue of equality and anti-discrimination. It is important to understand that the political pressure to push the agenda for same-sex “marriage” has never been about gay rights; the true intention behind this agenda has always been about the destruction of the family and the imposition of the totalitarian system. The approval of same-sex “marriage” has now thrown open the doors of Guam to implement in our community a very clever and systematic theory, which has as its aim the destruction of marriage and family through the annihilation of any sexual differences among persons. This theory is known as the “Theory of Gender.”

At the political level, in order to avoid “discrimination” among the genders, a principle of “radical equality” has been imposed upon society, demanding and forcing society to have a neutral response to gender. Any objection is considered not only discriminatory and intolerant, but bigotry.

The next step will be to implement this theory in the educational system of Guam. This means that our children, your children, will be forced to assimilate to this pattern of non-gender; that there is no such thing as “male” or “female” — they will be encouraged to explore their sexuality earlier, and parents will have no voice in the education of their children. These ideas are already part of an international agenda promoted especially by the United Nations. The laws just passed on our beautiful island, which were disguised to fight against discrimination, will now work to subvert our human sexuality from the most tender age with the goal to abolish the natural family and create new “models” of a family.

I truly believe we are being led astray like lambs to a slaughter. In my view, these recent laws are not a sign of human progress, but are dangerous steps toward annihilation of our fundamental religious beliefs. As shepherd of the local Church of Guam, I urge every person to be mindful that each of us is answerable to the supreme judge for what we do and do not do.

I invite all the faithful, including those in every branch of our local government, not to deny your faith, but to have the courage to be a witness to the truth: the truth about life, about man, about marriage and about family. Do not be afraid! Christ is the truth, and the truth will set us free.

Anthony SablanApuron, OFM Cap., D.D., is archbishop of Agana.

Under Apuron's leadership, the same-sex marriage bill was defeated in the 33rd Guam Legislature.  

Interestingly, what I placed in bold in his letter above is already happening in the United States with transgenderism.  Critical Race Theory is being implemented in America's schools, teaching very young children about "gender" and exploring their sexuality. Young children are being taught that there are over 100 genders. Reading, writing, science, and math are all out the window.  Also, when Bishop Anthony heard that B.J. Cruz was sexually abused as a boy by a priest in California, he was compassionate and sympathetic that he apologized to Senator Cruz for the sexual abuse done to him.  The Archbishop had never attacked B.J. Cruz as a person.  He attacked only the bill proposed by the Guam Legislature and authored by B.J. Cruz.   

So, bishops and priests are needed to stand by the truth.  Unfortunately, we have bishops who do not follow the truth.  This was the reason why the U.S. Bishops wanted to draft a policy, stating that politicians (such as Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, etc.) should not receive Holy Communion.  However, the bishops are divided on this issue.  Apparently, this policy has more to do with the Bishops coming together in agreement over something that is already in the books.     

Pope Francis, Fr. Frank Pavone, and the End of Roe v. Wade

The following article was written by Father Gordon MacRae in his blog, "Beyond These Stone Walls," which can be found here.  Tomorrow, I will write my own opinion regarding the same topic. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catholics were shocked by news that Pope Francis signed a decree dismissing Fr. Frank Pavone from the priesthood just months after the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

January 4, 2023 by Fr. Gordon MacRae

As most readers of this post already know, I write as a priest in prison where I have spent the last 29 years in unjust confinement. In more recent years, much evidence has surfaced that I was wrongfully convicted, and that evidence has been repeated covered by a secular global media venue, The Wall Street Journal.  Because I write for a blog with a global readership, others both here in my prison and beyond have come to see that faith is a better path to true freedom than any other. Priesthood, even in confinement, is meant to be lived in a state of sacrificial fatherhood. 

Now I wonder how my stubborn clinging to something under such public assault as Catholic priesthood might be seen in the light of recent revelations about Pope Francis and the ever-growing reality of "cancelled priests" to which he seems to have lent the power of his pen.  News of the dismissal from the priesthood of Father Frank Pavone, the most respected, outspoken, and visible prolife priest in North America, cast a good part of the Catholic prolife world back into the land of gloom just before Christmas.  That drama continues with lots of finger-pointing.

As I ponder this troubling development, my own finger keeps turning like a compass needle to a possible causal connection.  Midway through 2022 I wrote, "After Roe v. Wade, Hope for Life and a Nation's Soul."  The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights  sent that post to all its thousands of members asking them to read and share it.  The U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade cast much of this nation into political turmoil.  It generated on the political left waves of threatened reprisals against Catholic churches, prolife Catholics, and the entire prolife movement.  Did reprisals come from within the Church as well?  

My internal compass cannot help but notice that only five months later, the most visibly prolife Catholic priest in America was removed from the priesthood ostensibly for behaviors that ordinarily would not have resulted in such a penalty. Fr. Pavone and others with internal knowledge of this bombshell have insinuated that activist progressive bishops have brought pressure to bear.  If this is true, and evidence surfaces to support this claim, it would be a scandal of immense proportions for the prolife cause and for the Church.

There are some that would readily imagine political payback as the true heart of this decision.  Others see it as an unjust punishment imposed for reasons more secular and political than ecclesial.  In his homilyto priests on his apostolic visit to the United States in Philadelphia in 1979, Pope John Paul II articulated the indelible character of the priestly vocation: "It cannot be that God who gave the impulse to say 'yes' now wishes to hear 'no'." 

We are not owed explanations of the Pope's deliberations so we may never have an adequate explanation of this.  But I cannot forget the last words published by Father Richard John Neuhaus about my own situation.  The late Father Neuhaus was one of the premier theologians and observers of Catholic culture in the Church in North America.  In "A Kafkaesque Tale" in First Things magazine (August-September 2008) he wrote of my imprisonment:

"You may want to pray for Father MacRae and for a Church and a justice system that seem indifferent to justice."

We must now pray as well for Father Frank Pavone and all who were involved in bringing about his separation from priesthood.  The Church must not seem indifferent to justice.  The timing of this matter could not have been worse for prolife Catholics who sacrificed much over many years working toward a conscience-driven judicial reversal of Roe v. Wade even as many in the Catholic hierarchy set it aside in favor of other moral priorities such as climate change. 

Absent any other explanation for Father Pavone's dismissal, many are left to conclude something nefarious.  There is no shortage of demonic attack on the champions of the Catholic prolife movement.  I alluded to this in a paragraph in my recent post, "Joseph's Dream and the Birth of the Messiah." 

"Our culture's turning away from life is also a turning away from God.  The fact that many nominally Catholic politicians lend their voices and votes to that turning away is a betrayal of Biblical proportions.  In the Story of God and human beings, we have been here before.  Planned Parenthood is our culture's Temple to Baal." 

 Double Standards

I have, in the past, expressed concerns about the fervent witness of high-profile outspoken priests like Fr. Frank Pavone and Fr. James Altman.  I have written of my belief that their message might be more effective with some toning down of their rhetoric.  Some readers reminded me that Jesus Himself did not seem to think so when he drove the money-changers out of the Temple (Mark 11:15).  So, to borrow a phrase from Pope Francis himself, "Who am I to judge?" 

Still, I have witnessed Father Pavone react to this latest news with an aura of both written and verbal apparent disrespect for Church authority.  His anger is suspect, but the absence of any anger would be much more suspect.  Would priesthood mean so little to him that being discarded should be met with calm acquiescence?

I recently receved a letter from a priest in which he wrote, "I understand that you have a problem with Pope Francis. Perhaps you just don't under stand him."  I asked the priest what gave him that impression.  In response, he referred to a post of mine entitled, "Pope Francis in a Time of Heresy."  It is but one of many posts I have written about Pope Francis.  None were disrespectful. 

However, the priest who wrote to me had not read anything beyond the title before concluding that I have a problem with Pope Francis and therefore use this blog to rebel.  That could not be further from the truth.  The "heresy" described in that post was not that of Pope Francis at all.  It rather challenged the many self-described traditional and conservative Catholics who openly charged that any question of divorce, remarriage, and Communion cheapens the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and undermines it. 

True or not, those same Catholics had little or nothing to say when it was the Sacrament of Holy Orders that came under assault in 2002 and remains so.  The "heresy" post ended up holding the record for being shared on social media (over 25,000 times on Facebook alone) only because many who thought it accused Pope Francis of heresy never actually read it.  

After news of Father Pavone's dismissal from priesthood, one of our readers referred to Pope Francis in a comment as "the fake pope."  Like Elon Musk (but with none of his resources) I much prefer to let people speak their minds, but I asked to have the  word "fake" removed before posting that comment.  Francis is the legitimate successor of the Chair of Peter.  As priests, both Father Pavone and I owe allegiance and fidelity to his office.  Sometimes exercising that fidelity means also writing and speaking the truth.  I am committed to doing so without anger or insult.  

However, many readers of this blog have commented that a clear double standard exists in the discipline of priests.  It is widely believed that conservative and traditional priests are treated with more oversight and disdain from hierarchy than so-called progressive clerics.  Many cite Fr. James Martin who openly challenges and even disregards Catholic moral teaching on sexual and gender issues, and some of the German bishops who defied Pope Francis by the blessing of same-sex unions.

None have received any penalty, much less the nuclear bomb dropped on Father Pavone and Priests for Life.  The U.S. Bishops Conference had an opportunity, supported by many bishops, to address with pro-abortion Catholic politicians the dichotomy between what they profess as Catholics and what they practice in regard to the right to life.  A few bishops took a courageous stance.  Most voted against it, and the matter was left to dangle unaddressed.  I wrote of this double standard in "Biden and the Bishops: Communion and the Care of a Soul."

A Bombshell for So Many Catholics

 As I was preparing to write this post, a reader sent me a recording from the popular radio show, "Catholic Drive Time with Joe McClane."  The episode was devoted to news of Fr. Frank Pavone's dismissal, and Pavone himself was a call-in guest of the show.  Joe McClane referred to the dismissal as "a bombshell for so many Catholics."

Father Pavone was asked to respond to the matter, and said with some sarcasm, "What took them so long?"  I expect him to be angry and disappointed, but I do not think sarcasm serves his cause.  One concerned priest and canon lawyer observed this as well, and told me that Father Pavone may not be entirely innocent in all this.  I recall a similar discussion with a reader who defended former police officer Derek Chauvin who brought about the death of George Floyd in 2020.  He stated that Floyd tried to pass a fake $20 bill.  True or not, no one in America is executed over a fake $20 bill. 

Also appearing on the same show was Father Gerald Murray, JCD, a well-known canon lawyer in the Archdiocese of New York who appears frequently as part of "The Papal Posse" on EWTN's The World Over with Raymond Arroyo.  I have much respect for Father Murray and his canonical expertise.  He pointed out that the charges against Father Pavone are two-fold: blasphemy in INternet postings and persistent disobedience to his bishop.

The charges were adjudicated by the Vatican Congregation for Clergy at the behest of the Bishop of Amarillo, Texas, Father Pavone's bishop.  Father Pavone was then judged to be guilty of both offenses.  However, neither of those offenses, even if found to be true, generally result in a canonical dismissal from the clerical state according to Father Murray who added that punishment for those offenses went beyond what is prescribed in Canon Law.  Father Pavone's bishop may have requested removal.  Until a formal decree is issued, no one seems to know how this dismissal came about according to Father Murray. 

To his credit, Father Pavone went on to explain that he has laid out his defense against the charges on his person website, FrFrankPavone.com.  I am told that there is a lot there to read, and I encourage readers with concerns about this matter to peruse that site. 

In his Catholic Drive Time radio interview, Father Pavone concluded, "I urge everyone to respect authority in the Church, but I do not respect abuse of authority."  He did not place blame directly with Pope Francis for his dismissal, but with "certain bishops" who "lie, block and obstruct to control the kind of prolife message" the Church will hear."  He cited as an example of the abuse of process that he learned of his dismissal from Catholic News Agency instead of from his own bishop. 

Priests for Life

The high-profile case of Father Pavone has now resulted in a high-profile reaction, some of it marked by obvious anger.  The Coalition for Canceled Priests issued a statement from Sister Dede Byrne who found national prominence when she was invited to address the Republic National Convention before the 2020 presidential election where she advocated strongly for rights and protections for the unborn. Here is a segment of her public response to the laicization of Father Frank Pavone: 

"The most vocal prolife priest has been laicized!  What crime has he donce to warrant such a harsh punishment?  In the wake of this travesty, we still have the most pro-death, anti-nuclear family president in our nation's history who professes to be a Catholic in good standing...with no real guidance from our bishops or the Vatican...What appears to many Catholics who love our Church is selective mercy from the Pope of Mercy. I ask myself, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on Earth?" (Luke 18:7)

Sister Dede Byrne touched upon what should be a grave concern for every priest.  What happened to Father Pavone likely would not have happened just a decade ago.  Another canon lawyer explained to me that under a 21st-Century papal decree, bishops obtained the authority to seek a priest's removal from ministry and even formal dismissal from the clerical state without a penal process.  Some have come to see this as the Church's own version of capital punishment.  More frequent use of this development should cause concern for every priest and lay Catholic.  Such a process invites abuse and the application of bias against what a bishop might perceive as ideologically undesirable clergy. 

The message sent by Pope Francis is that he is on board with such a cause.  I wonder if he fully knows the deep sadness and disillusionment now thrusts upon priests, the faithful, and especially the prolife cause into his dichotomy. The pope who assumed the Chair of Peter and launched the Year of Mercy in his papacy appears to have abandoned all mercy for priests. 

I have not been dismissed from priesthood.  I hope and pray that such an injustice never befalls me.  Father Frank Pavone and I have only the grace of fortitude.  I never knew I had it until recently.  It is defined as "Strength of mind that allows one to endure pain or adversity with courage."  We could both simply abandon the Church and be free of all scrutiny and betrayal, but the grace of fortitude stands in the way.  I thank God for that. 

An appeal of this dismissal is not possible because the outcome already bears the signature of the highest authority in the Church.  In 2002, however, Saint John Paul II reminded bishops that they should not lose sight of the power of prayer and conversion in the life of a priest.  The Pope is also a priest and he can reconsider his own conclusions.  Pope Francis and Father Frank Pavone are both priests for life.  Please pray for them in these difficult days for the priesthood.  Above all, pray for justice.  The Church and priesthood are much diminished with it.   

Guam Clergy Christmas Concert

A friend brought up the Guam Clergy concert, which was published in the Archdiocese of Agana website.  Although we were unable to attend the concert, I understand that it was a huge success.  The Guam Clergy Christmas Concert was held on December 22nd and 23rd at the Hyatt Regency Guam Resort.  The purpose of the concert was to raise funds for the retirement of the clergy.  It is very sad that the Archdiocese has taken the retirement money of the clergy to be used for the bankruptcy case.  So, the priests today had no money to retire on.  At any rate, the concert was a success. All tickets for the function were sold out.  The tickets cost $100 per person, and raffle tickets were also sold that night. 

What was also brought to my attention was that some of the RMS clergy were there, singing along with their brother priests on stage.  It is fantastic that all priests, regardless of whether they are RMS priests or not, get along and helping each other in this important cause.

This idea that we do not need SUCH priests (in this case the RMS priests)  because Guam is a small island is discriminatory.  In fact, every priest whether they live in large country or small island should know something about missionary work. After all, is it not the duty of a priest to look for the lost sheep?  Did one think that the priest is supposed to remain in the sacristy all his life, expecting the lost sheep to come to him? In the story of the prodigal son, when the father saw his youngest son in the distance coming home to him, the father picked himself up and ran to meet his son.  He did not wait for his son to come to him.  Even he ran to meet his repentant son.  So, even this father did not stay at home, but went out to meet his lost son on the road. 

Many thanks to the following priests who took part in the success of the concert:

Rev. Fr. Romeo Convocar

Rev. Fr. Mike Crisostomo

Rev. Fr. Joel de los Reyes

Monsignor Ruben Espeno

Rev. Fr. Karl Vila

Monsignor Bibi Arroyo 

Rev. Fr. Fran Hezel

Rev. Fr. Vicenzo Acampora 

Rev. Fr. Gerry Hernandez 

Rev. Fr. Harold Prieto

Rev. Fr. Alberto Rodriguez

Rev. Fr. William Mamangun

Rev. Fr. Danny Ferrandiz 

Rev. Fr. Jun Trenchera 

Rev. Fr. Ron Pangan

Deacon Larry Claros

Rev. Fr. Junee Valencia 

Rev. Fr. Val Rodriguez

Rev. Fr. Jojo Anore 

Rev. Fr. Dan Trajano 

Rev. Fr. Jonathan  Alvarez 

Stand Firm in the Faith

The Vatican published the spiritual testament of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.  His spiritual testament was written on August 29,  2006.  Below is the translation of the full testament from Italian.  You can find it here.

My spiritual testament

If in this late hour of my life I look back at the decades I have been through, first I see how many reasons I have to give thanks. First and foremost I thank God himself, the giver of every good gift, who gave me life and guided me through various confusing times; always picking me up whenever I began to slip and always giving me again the light of his face. In retrospect I see and understand that even the dark and tiring stretches of this journey were for my salvation and that it was in them that He guided me well.

I thank my parents, who gave me life in a difficult time and who, at the cost of great sacrifice, with their love prepared for me a magnificent abode that, like clear light, illuminates all my days to this day. My father’s lucid faith taught us children to believe, and as a signpost it has always been steadfast in the midst of all my scientific acquisitions; the profound devotion and great goodness of my mother represent a legacy for which I can never give thanks enough. My sister has assisted me for decades selflessly and with affectionate care; my brother, with the lucidity of his judgments, his vigorous resolve and serenity of heart, has always paved the way for me; without this constant preceding and accompanying me I could not have found the right path.

From my heart I thank God for the many friends, men and women, whom He has always placed at my side; for the collaborators in all the stages of my journey; for the teachers and students He has given me. I gratefully entrust them all to His goodness. And I want to thank the Lord for my beautiful homeland in the foothills of the Bavarian Alps, in which I have always seen the splendor of the Creator Himself shining through. I thank the people of my homeland because in them I have been able again and again to experience the beauty of faith. I pray that our land remains a land of faith, and I beg you, dear countrymen: Do not let yourselves be turned away from the faith. And finally I thank God for all the beauty I have been able to experience at all the phases of my journey, especially, however, in Rome and in Italy, which has become my second homeland.

To all those whom I have wronged in any way, I heartily ask for forgiveness.

What I said before to my countrymen, I now say to all those in the Church who have been entrusted to my service: Stand firm in the faith! Do not let yourselves be confused! It often seems that science — the natural sciences on the one hand and historical research (especially exegesis of Sacred Scripture) on the other — are able to offer irrefutable results at odds with the Catholic faith. I have experienced the transformations of the natural sciences since long ago and have been able to see how, on the contrary, apparent certainties against the faith have vanished, proving to be not science, but philosophical interpretations only apparently pertaining to science; just as, on the other hand, it is in dialogue with the natural sciences that faith, too, has learned to understand better the limit of the scope of its claims, and thus its specificity. It is now sixty years that I have been accompanying the journey of Theology, particularly of the Biblical Sciences, and with the succession of different generations I have seen theses that seemed unshakable collapse, proving to be mere hypotheses: the liberal generation (Harnack, Jülicher etc.), the existentialist generation (Bultmann etc.), the Marxist generation. I saw and see how out of the tangle of assumptions the reasonableness of faith emerged and emerges again. Jesus Christ is truly the way, the truth and the life — and the Church, with all its insufficiencies, is truly His body.

Finally, I humbly ask: Pray for me, so that the Lord, despite all my sins and insufficiencies, welcomes me into the eternal dwellings. To all those entrusted to me, day by day, my heartfelt prayer goes out.