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.