The former Archbishop Anthony Apuron has a point. All the bishops and priests who were found guilty of child sexual abuse were defrocked. He was the only exception. He still retained his title of Bishop. The only thing he lost was the Archdiocese. There is no doubt that certain people want to see Apuron step down even BEFORE the sex abuse Scandal broke out. At any rate, Tim Rohr even agreed that the only way to defrock Apuron is through child sexual abuse. According to Rohr (the bold is mine):
There is no doubt that all of this could have been avoided had the Vatican guys did a bit more homework. Even the noticing of the witnesses was very much slipshod. True, Attorney Lujan also could have done more on his end, but we don't know that he didn't. Maybe he did and he saw that there was nothing to gain by cooperating with Rome. He certainly has every right to distrust the institutional Church.
However, the consequences of a stalemate are exactly as the title states. While Apuron could be reprimanded for his financial misdeeds and his abuse of priests, just to name a few items on a very long list, the only way he could become a candidate for defrocking (laicized), would be through the sex abuse allegations. At 40 years distance, it still is a "he said-he said" situation, no matter how powerful the alleged victims' testimonies may be on paper.
Someone who was with Apuron at that time said that the verdict was a political one. At that time, Theodore McCarrick was found guilty of child sexual abuse and defrocked. That was in February 2019. It was also in February, 2019 just a few days after McCarrick that Apuron was found guilty of the same offense. At that time, the Pope was under tremendous pressure to do something about the clergy sex abuse scandal. Therefore, the verdict may likely have been political, which had nothing to do with justice.
Unlike Theodore McCarrick, Apuron was not defrocked. Also, McCarrick was never exiled from his home country, but Apuron was exiled. Why do you think that is? Could it be because Apuron's life was threatened, and Pope Francis exiled him for his protection?
There was indeed a climate of fear in Guam.The tires of the former Archbishop were slashed at the Chancery. He was stalked by the people who hated him. They wrote letters to the Vatican, urging them to find him guilty NOW without a canonical trial.
As for the plaintiffs who voluntarily dismissed their case, what was the main reason for the dismissal? One of the primary reasons for dismissing a case is lack of sufficient evidence. One reason that was given was because Apuron had no money or assets to give. This reminded me of the time when Cardinal Burke came to Guam to interview the alleged victims. None of them wanted to speak to Burke. However, when they heard that the Church's ATM was opened, they decided to take the interview. See the story here. Action speaks louder than words.
So, Bishop Anthony Apuron has a point. The fact that he was NOT defrocked and treated differently than the rest of the priests and bishops who were defrocked for the same offense speaks volumes. Unlike Brouillard who was accused of the same offense and defrocked, Apuron was not secluded. He was never told to stay away from children. He was simply told to stay away from Guam. Action speaks louder than words.
Of course you and I know why Apuron wasn't defrocked like most predator priests. The one whom you all blindly glaze as innocent was spared the full punishment because of your cult's widespread influence within Vatican walls. Defending one who is guilty of such atrocities is only but a lost cause at this point. As they say, "birds of a feather stick together," eh?
ReplyDeleteDear Steve,
DeleteIf the NCW really had that kind of power, Apuron would not have gone through any canonical trial in the first place. 🙄 Wake up and smell the coffee.
Hey Steve. Apuron went to Rome himself and asked for a canonical trial while Rohr tried to brainwash people into believing that there was no canonical trial. Get real, buddy!
DeleteHi deacon Steve not done corrupting archbishop Ryan like you and cronies Monsignor James father Paul and father Mike Crisostomo
DeleteDiana: But Apuron still underwent the canonical trial, didn't he? The fact that he was still found guilty of "delicts against the Sixth Commandment with minors" by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith despite a later appeal cannot be changed. This is something that you have continued to deny, claiming that this was all through the Jungle's doing, not by the tribunal's ruling (in your words, "the Vatican never specified the offense Apuron was found guilty of.").
DeleteAnonymous (May 10, 2025 at 6:07 PM): How so? Second, what you actually mean is that Apuron fled for cover and never returned, after just ONE accusation by Roy Quintanilla. It wasn't Apuron who requested for the trial; rather, it was the Catholic laypeople who picketed for a year outside the Cathedral, demanding a fair trial and laicization for his actions (the latter of which obviously never happened due to his lapdog association with the Neo-affiliated higher ups in the Vatican). Get your facts straight, buddy!
Dear Steve,
DeleteRead what I wrote. Apuron went to Rome to ask for a canonical trial. If a person was truly guilty, he would not go to Rome to request for a canonical trial. That is just plain common sense.
Rohr was the one who tried to brainwash people into thinking that there was no canonical trial and that Apuron simply ran away. See the story below:
https://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2017/08/archbishop-apuron-did-not-run-nor-hide.html?m=1
On December 26, 2016, Rohr clearly stated that there was NO canonical trial despite that Apuron said about two times that he went to Rome to request for a canonical trial. So, who was lying then?
Furthermore, Rohr made it very clear in his blog that even if Rome found Apuron innocent, Rohr was inciting people to go against Apuron. With that said, it is not surprising that the Pope exiled Apuron for his own safety. See the story below:
https://www.junglewatch.info/2017/07/what-we-must-be-prepared-for.html?m=1
Of course, that makes sense. Tim would prefer to say that Apuron ran awa. It wouldn't fit Tim's narrative to say that Apuron went to Rome asking for a canonical trial. Even a guilty person knows a trial is risky. Rather, they would avoid a trial and go for a settlement like what Michael Jackson did. He settled out of court.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:19 am,
DeleteExactly. Apuron left to Rome, asking for a canonical trial. He said that 3 times in the media. Tim called him a liar and said there was no canonical trial.
Now that we have a new Pope, it is possible that he can ask the new Pope to review his case. He can do this because he was never defrocked.