More From Father Gordon MacRae

The following article came from Father Gordon MacRae, author of "These Stone Walls, which is found here.

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

Cardinal George Pell and Other Martyrs for a Nefarious Cause

Father George David Byers and I were both recipients of unexpected recognition for our respective writings this summer. Father Byers, whose status as a Missionary of Mercy has been extended by Pope Francis, received a First Place citation by the Catholic Press Association for his articles in Catholic media about the Year of Mercy. Father Byers tried to play it down, but it’s a bigger deal than he lets on. [See: Missionaries of Mercy: “New Phase” from the Holy See (Amoris laetitia internal/external forum guidelines?)]

I, on the other hand, should shout from the rooftops the most unexpected recognition ever bestowed upon These Stone Walls. TSW has been cited by an organization to which I have never aspired. The site, Today’s Martyrs Resources for Understanding Current Christian Witness and Martyrdom, published a short list commending “organizations engaged in original reporting, evangelical witness, political advocacy, refugee services and other activities, led by people who have experienced some degree of persecution firsthand.”

The page of commendations at Today’s Martyrs includes Aid to the Church in Need International, Open Doors International, Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East, Issues of Rights and Justice, Revival Chinese Ministries International, China Aid, and (Who would have thought) These Stone Walls.

When I was notified of this recognition, I at first thought it was due to my posts, “Criminal Aliens: The ICE Deportation of Augie Reyes,” and “Dreamers of Home The ICE Deportation of Kewei Chen.” It made sense that articles about the treatment of our fellow humans during deportation proceedings caught the attention of this international Christian human rights forum.

But I was wrong in that assumption. My writing about my friends, Augie and Chen, may have caught the eyes of some social justice concerns, but the persecuted people that the Today’s Martyrs site recognizes as the subjects of TSW’s “original reporting and evangelical witness on contemporary Christian martyrdom” are Catholic priests. Let it sink in for a moment, please, that this concern for the persecution and suppression of fundamental rights for priests comes not from a Catholic human rights forum, but from an Evangelical Christian one.

At first, this had a sense of the surreal for me. Revelations of great irony often do. Aspiring to martyrdom has never been on my personal list of career milestones. Some readers suggest that there may be elements of a sort of “white martyrdom” in my story, but I have never seen myself in that light.

The irony is that the other organizations on this list are in the trenches taking steps to counter persecution and martyrdom around the world. In the eleventh hour, the organizers of Today’s Martyrs included These Stone Walls on that list. At first it seemed a great honor. And then a great responsibility. I wondered where the heroic Catholic voices are in this recognition, but then I found some. They were loud and clear. I’ll name them in a moment.

FALSE WITNESS FOR PROFIT ON THE ISLAND OF GUAM

As June turned to July this year, a time when most Catholic blogs experience their annual summer readership slump, These Stone Walls had a huge and unexpected surge in readers, doubling, at times even tripling, our usual summer readership. Of the five most read posts in the first half of 2017, three of them were in June.

I ended last month with two “heavy” posts that brought lots of heat – and I hope some light – to two tough subjects. The first post, on June 21, was “On the Island of Guam, Is the Eighth Commandment Discarded?” The day after it was posted, it became the feature article for the National Catholic Register’s The Big Pulpit which chooses the best in Catholic media daily.

It was also featured on Pewsitter. Both sites courageously stepped up to promote an uncomfortable topic among Catholics: the recognition that the sex abuse scandal in the priesthood has taken on elements of a classic moral panic resulting in the unjust persecution of Catholic priests and open suppression of their rights under both Church and civil law. As a result of their coverage of that post, TSW reader Dorothy Stein – one of over 1,000 who came to it via a link at The Big Pulpit, published this very incisive comment:

“Your account of the origins of the Commandment against false witness is most compelling. So is this entire article. I have been following its many threads and it is clear to me that there are agendas behind this story on the Island of Guam that are just as dark as sexual abuse itself. The first victory of those agendas is to convince people that child abuse is as dark as it gets. That usually lights the match for moral panic.

“The problem [in Guam] is that those who incite the moral panic also profit from it. Young people must be protected and guided, and a community that preserves its cultural and spiritual heritage will see to that. What appears to be happening in Guam is just the opposite. The cultural and religious heritage of a people is being squandered by the greed and hidden agendas of a few and the apathy of a few too many. Let us hope for the good people of Guam that this … will serve as a wake-up call. Your effort has lifted this story from Guam and put a floodlight on it around the world.”

It’s that floodlight that seems to be a problem for those in Guam who plotted to bring down Archbishop Anthony Apuron for apparent agendas of finance and property control having nothing to do with protecting young people from abuse. These same people collaborated with SNAP early on to develop tactics that would serve their cause. Sexual abuse claims against the Archbishop formed within a context of those other agendas, and appear to have been used, under the guidance of SNAP, as a weapon of mass destruction to get rid of some priests, the Archbishop included.

With typical and shameless “island mentality,” the problem that some of the Guam antagonists had with my post was that “outsiders” are now looking in. “Diana,” in her Neocatechumenal Way blog, followed up my June 21 post with a defense of it entitled, “The Cost of Appeasement” (June 23, 2017). It’s worth a read!

PROSECUTOR SETH WILLIAMS TAKES A PLEA DEAL

Don’t let that subheading fool you. The plea deal worked out by Philadelphia prosecutor Seth Williams was not for Msgr. William Lynn. It was for himself. Just one day after I posted “Will Fr Charles Engelhardt’s Prosecutor Take a Plea Deal?” the question was answered. My post revealed that Mr. Williams faced a 23-count federal indictment for fraud, bribery, and corruption.

At some point in the early stages of his trial, the charges were increased to 29 felony counts. Then, a day after I published my post, Seth Williams took a deal to plead guilty in exchange for a five-year prison sentence. He also resigned from his office that same day.

According to the terms of the deal, the former state prosecutor admitted to the truth of all 29 counts, but was allowed to plead guilty to only one corruption charge, thus limiting his deal to a five-year term in federal prison. U.S. District Court Judge Paul Diamond ordered him detained until his October 24 sentencing. The statement of federal prosecutor Robert Zausmer served as a stunning summation of the case:

“Today Mr. Williams admitted that he sold his office in exchange for a corrupt series of payments.. [This is] a great victory in the battle against corrupt conduct by public officials.”

This story brings to the fore once again an important distinction that Catholic writer Ryan MacDonald once made in “The Post-Trial Extortion of Father Gordon MacRae.” “Plea deals work well for the guilty, but for the innocent, not so much.” For Seth Williams and other guilty defendants, a plea deal is a way to keep a light glowing at the end of a tunnel. An innocent defendant who cannot fathom freely taking such a deal will end up spending far more time in prison than one who is actually guilty. The late Father Charles Engelhardt got a longer prison sentence than his guilty prosecutor, and died there, an innocent man chained to a gurney.

I wrote “Will Fr Charles Engelhardt’s Prosecutor Take a Plea Deal?” because it was a small way to bring a bit of justice to the stories of the late Father Engelhardt and Monsignor William Lynn. The outcome of the Seth Williams case is another nail in the coffins of their unjust prosecutions and the integrity of the Philadelphia justice system that allowed them.

Once again, a number of brave Catholic voices took up my post about this story and promoted it. Both Pewsitter and the National Catholic Register’s The Big Pulpit featured it prominently. Father George David Byers made it a headline on his Arise! Let us be going! blog, and so did Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Cristi at his Abyssus Abyssum Invocat blog.

And with the force of conviction, Father John Zuhlsdorf promoted that post at his celebrated and popular “Father Z’s Blog” drawing readers to my post by the thousands. Father Z introduced it:

“Please run, don’t walk, to These Stone Walls, the blog of Fr. Gordon MacRae, unjustly jailed and innocent of crimes against minors. Its a long read, and lurid in many ways, but it reveals the slimy underside of the Accuse-a-Priest industry. It seems that fraud is catching up with some of the frauds who made false accusations. The question is, will there eventually be justice?”

Father Z asks a question that haunts this story, but he has already helped bring a little justice to it. His effort, combined with those of Father Byers, Bishop Gracida, Tito Edwards at The Big Pulpit, PewSitter, and others made my post, “Will Fr Charles Engelhardt’s Prosecutor Take a Plea Deal?” one of the most widely read posts of the year thus far.

From where I write, there is not very much justice to be had, but these brave voices helped me bring some to the name of Father Charles Engelhardt, martyred in prison for the cause of nothing more redemptive than money and some corrupt prosecutor’s career path.

CARDINAL GEORGE PELL: JUSTICE DESCENDS DOWN UNDER

This corrupt moral panic began in America and spread its tentacles around the world. In its latest chapter, Australian Cardinal George Pell has had to take a leave from his Vatican post to return to Australia to face forty-year-old charges of sexual abuse. This insanity has run amok.

David Pierre at The Media Report has published an alarming review of the source for these unjust charges. What makes them most unjust is the fact that they have been coached, rehearsed, and ritualized over the course of years. Australia’s Royal Commission on child abuse and the Church all but issued an open invitation to accuse Cardinal Pell. If the Commission learned anything at all from America it is how easily the media becomes an all-too-willing tool for moral panic. The Commission targeted Cardinal Pell for a display of “trophy justice” through what one observer calls “a vile harvest of lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Cardinal Pell’s good name has been the bull’s eye all along, and this is not at all new. I wrote in 2015 of the rumors, innuendo, and other attacks aimed at him in “Peter Saunders and Cardinal Pell: A Trial by Media,” and again in “Mother Angelica and Gerard Henderson on Spin Down Under.”

At a more sane time in a just society, this case would not have proceeded to formal charges. This is a case in which Cardinal Pell became the target of a criminal probe, and then a frantic and agenda-driven search was set in motion to find something, anything to even vaguely support bringing the charge. The result is these forty-year old claims for which this prelate must now offer some miraculous defense to “clear his name.”

The truth is, that can never be done. Once so besmirched and tainted by a Royal Commission, any form of mud could stick in what passes for justice and due process in this story. The world’s 1.2 billion Catholics owe to Cardinal Pell a strong and insistent presumption of innocence.

It is beyond ridiculous that any citizen of a just society should have to defend his reputation and good name against anything less than clear and compelling evidence of guilt when forty years pass before a charge is brought. Catholics must demand that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and not just assumed. Anything less leaves a cloud of doubt over Australia and its justice system. This should be made clear by Catholic voices on a global scale.

Having lived through this, and living through it still, I can attest to what should be a terminating fatal flaw in these charges. No such evidence exists or ever existed. The real goal is not to take Cardinal Pell’s life or freedom, but his moral voice and his agenda for Vatican financial reform. There are those who are quite happy to have him out of the way.

Mine is not a call to passively seek justice and move on. It is a call to revolution. This nonsense continues because of the clamor of a few and the silence of many. The sexual abuse story in the Catholic Church ended many years ago. All that exists now is vengeance, and the nefarious agendas – like those of SNAP recently exposed – that seek to harness vengeance to satisfy their own ends.

The good people of Australia would do well to remember that your government serves your interests, not the other way around. A point was made in my post, “On the Island of Guam, Is the Eighth Commandment Discarded?” The Eighth Commandment against false witness is at the very heart of God’s justice. False witness for profit – “what is evil in the sight of God” (1 Kings 19:15-21) is the most vile injustice of all.

Note to readers from Father Gordon MacRae: I would be remiss if I excluded The Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights from my list of loud and clear Catholic, voices concerned for the rights of priests. The Catholic League could not have been more vocal in its concern for me as expressed in Bill Donohue’s “Travesty of Justice: The Ordeal of Father MacRae” and a number of other postings. You would serve the cause of justice well through a membership in the Catholic League.

Myths Vs Facts

Listening is part of effective communication.  With effective and proper communication comes the resolution of conflicts and a better understanding of the other person.  It also leads to peace and the truth.  This does not mean that all will come to an agreement, but it often leads to a peaceful co-existence. Accusations and judgments NEVER lead to peace or truth.  If you are here only to make an accusation, then you were never interested in hearing our side of the story.  You have already made up your mind.  An example of a closed mind is the anonymous person who made this comment, which I did not publish:  

1. Your way of administering the holy Sacrament of Penance is suspect. You kinda try to sing over the public confession you enforce on your followers, but anyone with a good ear can hear the words of every single confession. This is against the required confidentiality of the sacrament as instituted by the Catholic Church. 

Clearly, this person has already made up his/her mind and is not interested in hearing what we have to say.  This is simply an accusation.  No one can hear over the confession, and each person is not forced to confess.  

There are always two sides to every story.  Listening to only one side is not going to get anyone to determine the truth. Jokes Wild has opened up an excellent dialogue to dispel the myths or rumors about the Way.  According to Jokers Wild: 

AnonymousJuly 17, 2017 at 3:58 PM

What is more bothersome than the twisting of words and half truths if the jungle blog is that there are many people who believe it.
Ive met a whole lot of people who have judgments of the church and especially the NCW and most of the time their views are based on things that originated in the jungle blog. When I realize this I then take the time to sit down with them and tell them the entire truth, I clear the record. Most of the people share that it now all makes sense to them. Id like to share some common questions that I have received about the NCW.

1. Why do you do Public Confessions?
Answer: We dont do public confessions. Your confession is reserved to be heard by a priest. What does happen is that sometimes when we are given a WORD from scripture it brings us to our daily reality, our struggles, sin, mistakes. Many times though these things are shared because the WORD helps us through them. Theres a difference between a response/reflection/experience/testimony in light of a WORD from scripture and the sacrament of Confession.

2. Why do you sit and pass around the Body and Blood of Christ?
Answer: We dont. With special permission though, instead of forming a line, the priest approaches the communicant.

3. Why do you dance at your Mass?
Answer: We dont dance during the mass. After the Priest has exited the main sanctuary we form a circle and reverently celebrate what has just took place. Even though the Mass has ended, the celebration must continue because it is joyous to celebrate the resurrection, the passover. Many may have entered into the Mass(Eucharist) dead and grumbling and are now experiencing life because of the saving power of God working through the WORD and EUCHARIST. Those who dont want to dance usually join in by just clapping along with the music or playing their instruments.

3. Why do you abandon your family for community? Didnt they just have a party and you chose to go to community instead?
Answer: The community doesnt come first. GOD comes first before anything else. With that as a priority it is also better for me to work on my relationship with Christ rather than on social gatherings. I am only with my community 2-3 times a week, I still have the other 4-5 days to spend with my family.

4. Is it true that you are going to have to give all your property to the Neos?
Answer: NO! I dont have to give anything that I am not happy to give away. I also cant give the NCW any property because by their regulations they cannot own any real property. I have never been forced to give anything unwillingly.

5. Is KIKO your prophet?
Answer: In the context of biblical prophets, No! Kiko, the initiator of the NCW is just that, the initiator. I will admit though, when you have someone who constantly is helping you with good words of encouragement, courage, perseverance, you then have a tendency to rely on them for a word. I know that Kiko is only an instrument that God uses. Ultimately it is God doing all the miracles. We are always reminded to stay away from Kikoism. Kiko to me is the same as you having a priest whom you really learn from their homilies and actions. I also have certain priests whom always seem to hit the spot.

6. Why are the Neos forcing everyone to join? I am Catholic, I dont want to change.
Answer: Are you in a Neo community? No right? So I guess there wasnt any force. Im still Catholic, the NCW is just a gathering of Catholics who want to try and gain more faith. Joining the NCW does not change your religious affiliation. The NCW is approved by Rome to be valid for todays society.

More to come...

Sorry Diana but I just had to and maybe it would be good to publish a post on CLEARING THE RECORD or MYTHS vs FACTS.

Pas!

-Jokers Wild   

Twisting Of Words

The jungle is well known for twisting words out of context.  For example, let us take a look at this anonymous poster's comment (the bold underline is mine):

AnonymousJuly 16, 2017 at 8:22 PM

No surprise that you focused on the comparison of Rohr to St. Catherine, Diana @ 3:27 PM and judged him as being closer to Luther than to a saint.
No surprise that you ignored the first part of the comment made by Anonymous @1:20 PM about why Apuron could be excused for his homosexual activity.

BTW: Even Pope Emeritus Benedict said that the Church seems to be on the verge of capsizing these days so Tim Rohr's POV is not so unusual. We have a Pope who says a lot of things that people find confusing (like cohabiting couples have more sacred unions than those who marry in Church) so people aren't sure what to believe anymore.

In the words of St. John Chrysostom: “I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish.” -Extract from St. John Chrysostom, Homily III on Acts 1:12. 

I asked the person to provide me a weblink as to where it says that Pope Francs says that cohabiting couples have more sacred unions than those who marry in Church.  And this is the weblink he/she provided, which is found here.  

Nowhere in that weblink did the Pope say that cohabiting couples have more sacred unions than those who marry in Church.  This is what the Pope stated (the bold is mine):

“I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity,” he said. 

The words were twisted out of context.  What the Pope is actually saying is that some cohabitating couples have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity.  Couples who are married in Church but later divorce after three or five years did not have the grace of a real marriage.  Rather, they have made a mockery of the sacrament of marriage.  

Perhaps, if the anonymous poster had read the entire article rather than taking one or two sentence out of context, he/she would have understood what the Pope was saying.  In no way is the Pope saying that couples who cohabitate should receive Holy Communion.  In fact, Holy Communion was not even mention in the article.  The Pope is actually saying that cohabitating couples who live together or are married in civil court for more than 10 years have the grace of a real marriage due to their fidelity while the couple who married in Church and divorced after five years has made their marriage null.  

The Pope's suggestion is to help these cohabitating couples to become more mature and secure so that they could take the step into the sacrament of marriage.  By the same token, couples who are married in Church also need help in their struggle for fidelity to their marriage vows. Cohabitating couples who have lived together for more than 10 or 20 years apparently have the GRACE to remain loyal to each other and eventually can enter the sacrament of marriage.  Couples who are married in Church also need this same grace constantly in their marriage so that they can stay together through good and bad times.     

Another comment came through my blog, which I have not published due to the derogatory words.  Nevertheless, I will respond to that as well.  The following comments came from the jungle:

AnonymousJuly 14, 2017 at 11:46 PM

I said months ago that Blockley is a loose cannon who was kicked out of a US diocese by the bishop for working there without faculties.

I got slammed for telling the documented truth. He caused a mainstream media shitstorm in New York. Now you're finding out just how disreputable he really is.

1. 
   TimJuly 15, 2017 at 4:48 AM

   Wrong. I knew all along. He was useful at the time.
2. AnonymousJuly 15, 2017 at 10:33 AM

   You lied about rotten Blockley's sterling character and went totally off on me when I exposed his NY transgressions here. You are as deceitful as the Neos.

Anonymous 10:33 am was correct to some extent. Tim Rohr did not know all along. In fact, he changed his story. The following comment was made by Tim Rohr on August 5, 2014 regarding Father Blockley being AWOL. Tim Rohr stated:

Fr. Blockley was AWOL for a very good reason. In fact, if it had happened to you, you'd go AWOL too.

Today, his song and dance changed.  This is what Rohr stated recently (excuse the vulgar language):

You can have the AWOL piece of shit.  

As anyone can plainly see, gone is the excuse of Father Blockley being AWOL.  The stories in the jungle never stays consistent. Therefore, Anonymous at 10:33 am was correct about Rohr.  However, he was incorrect about the NCW.  I never change my stories.  

Cardinal Pell Acquires Top Lawyer

The following article was brought to my attention by one of the anonymous posters.  In a democratic society, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. We do not live in a communist society in which the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent.  What is sad that there are some people who believe that the Church should not defend itself.  Some even believe that any clergy who was accused does not deserve to get top lawyers.  This is a rule that the Catholic Church should bear in mind and follow: “Remember that what will always be of service to the Church is the truth. Pursue the whole truth, and you are pursuing what is best for the Church.” (Bill Donohue). You can find the article here.  

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest round of attacks on Cardinal George Pell:

Cardinal George Pell has acquired the services of one of the most respected lawyers in Australia, Robert “The Red Baron” Richter. One prominent lawyer from Melbourne called him “the Rolls Royce of criminal defense lawyers.” We are delighted to learn of this development, though many others are clearly chagrined.

From reading the accounts of various professional victims’ attorneys, it is clear that some believe Pell is guilty until proven innocent. Others think he does not deserve first-class defense lawyers, while others question the motive of Church officials who are coming to his defense, including Pope Francis.

Due process and basic civil liberties are at stake, but given the hysteria in some quarters of the media, it is not surprising that Pell is being treated unfairly, to say the least. Moreover, some are using his case to make a larger point: The institutional Church is guilty as charged.

Among the worst is Marci Hamilton, a professional victims’ advocate who specializes in attacking the Catholic Church. She is busy lecturing the pope to “publicly discipline the cardinals and bishops who relentlessly take church funds and use them to pay lobbyists to continue the cover-up by fighting such reform.”

In other words, the Church—unlike all other institutions, religious and secular—should not defend itself. It should just lie down and allow rapacious lawyers to cannibalize it.

Let me be very clear about this: Any bishop or cardinal who does not use Church funds to pay for top notch public relations firms, and blue chip defense lawyers, is doing a disservice to priests and the faithful. There is no cover-up involved when such services are acquired. On the contrary, the scandal is not buying the best that can be afforded.

Cardinal Pell is being accused by ex-cons—both of whom have been arrested for violence—and who now claim that he inappropriately touched them while horsing around in a swimming pool. When did this happen? When John Travolta was rocking out to “Saturday Night Fever.”

Cardinal Pell deserves better and is entitled to the best defense in the land.

My Response

An anonymous poster wrote the following comment, which can be found here.  The poster's comment are in red while mine are in black.  

AnonymousJuly 10, 2017 at 10:34 PM

Diana, your "reality" is a pagan reality. Pagan people face those sins and vices. We Catholics don't. 

Anonymous, your reality is a fantasy world that does not exist. The reality in Guam is that there is a high divorce and suicide rate. It is also a reality that those who are committing divorce and suicide include Catholics. It is a reality that women in Guam are committing abortions. A majority of these women are Chamorros and also Catholic. It is a reality that there are many couples living together outside the boundary of marriage. And many of these people are Catholics. To say that only pagans face sins and vices is a delusion and prejudice.

Furthermore, if Catholics do not face sin and vices (as you claimed) then why did Christ institute the Sacrament of Reconciliation?  What was the purpose of confession if Catholics do not face sin and vices?   

This is a moral issue running very deep in our soul and faith life. When we misstep, we go to the confessional. We don't dwell in those sins and vices but repent and overcome. You, however, tell people who dwell in these sins and vices that they are okay 

I find it interesting that instead of "sin", you say "misstep." Let us stay away from political correctness and call it for what it really is.....a SIN.  Adultery is not a misstep.  It is a SIN.  Lustful thoughts and a wandering eye away from your spouse is not a misstep.  It is a SIN.  And the fact that you go to confession indicates that you sin. 

The NCW never told those people who dwell in sin and vices that they are okay. We tell them that like all of us they are sinners and in need of repentance. 

You at the NCW tell them that we are all sinners, so they don't need to repent. 

See my last response above.  The NCW teaches that we are all sinners and in need of repentance.  Our statutes even mention confession and penance and the Sacrament of Reconciliation (See Article 14 in the Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way).  

This is moral relativism that you infuse as "Catholic" teaching.  But is it Catholic?

Moral relativisim is defined as "the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it." This is very far from what the NCW teaches. 

If you don't go to confession at least once a year then you are no Catholic. If you don't repent your sin at the confessional, then you commit sacrilege and your absolution is invalid. Then you are even less Catholic. Then you are a sinner. This is how it works in our Catholic faith. How does it work at your NCW?

In the NCW, we hold confessions four to six times a year. Confession becomes six times a year when we include the annual convivience held in October and the annual transmittal.  Our catechists also told us that we should immediately go to confession if we commit a mortal sin.  We cannot receive the Body and Blood of Christ if we are in a state of mortal sin.  

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church , all Catholics must acknowledge that they are sinners. However, you claimed that you do not face any sins.  So, based on your standard, how are you Catholic if you do not acknowledge that you are a sinner?   

CCC 827 .......All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners.......

As a matter of fact, even the saints acknowledged that they are sinners. St. Mother Teresa admitted that she is a sinner.  According to Mother Teresa:

"I, Mother Teresa, am a sinner.  We are all sinners. And we all need God's mercy."

The Other Side Of The Story

An anonymous poster asked a good question.  Because it was off-topic from the OP, I decided to post his/her question here.  According to the Anonymous poster: 

AnonymousJuly 9, 2017 at 2:42 PM

Sorry for not sticking to OP, but why did CoAB Byrnes appointment Deacon Steve as delegate to NCW who is a CCOG member and one who has spoken out publicly against AB Apuron?

"God is one" pointed out under the same thread that Tim Rohr had made an appointment to see Archbishop Brynes:  

God is oneJuly 7, 2017 at 10:14 PM

No he's not because a few weeks ago he had a meeting with him so stop your lies and tell Timmy to stay out of the churches business

One then has to wonder whether Archbishop Brynes actually listened to both sides of the story. Deacon Steve Martinez was a member of CCOG and has spoken out against Archbishop Apuron.    

Furthermore, Deacon Steve has harbored some grudge against the NCW even after he was ordained a deacon by Archbishop Apuron.  Deacon Steve wrote the following in the jungle on September 9, 2014. According to Deacon Steve Martinez: 

Deacon Steve MartinezSeptember 9, 2014 at 11:56 PM 

Anonymous September 9, 2014 at 10:19 PM perpetuates a lie when he says: "Tim, nobody is forced to join the NCW." This is just plain not true. No matter how many times we hear this, it still doesn't make it true. 

As was pointed out by myself and several other men in our meeting with the Nuncio back in July, we were forced to join the NCW by the Archbishop and Fr Adrian. We had been studying for 3.5 years and were told 5 months before our scheduled ordination that unless we joined a community and walked we would not be ordained. Our primary formator, Fr Tony Perez, was furious when he found out that this was being forced upon us. He met with the Archbishop, but the Archbishop refused to rescind the order. \ 

So, Anon 10:19 please stop parroting what you have been told when you do not know the facts. Some people have heard this so often they begin to think it is true, but the reality is that people have been forced to join. Also ask the three priests who wanted to be incardinated to our Archdiocese but were told they had to join the NCW or find a new home/new bishop. 

Deacon Steve Martinez 

Below is a screen shot of that comment above: 

If Archbishop Brynes had gotten the other side of the story, he would have learned that there was a misunderstanding or misconception between Deacon Steve and the Archbishop. Under that same thread, Deacon Steven admitted that Father Adrian, Monsignor David, and Archbishop Apuron apologized to Deacon Steve for this misunderstanding between them.  And this was Deacon Steve's response:

Yes, it is true that Fr Adrian, Msgr David, and the Archbishop all apologized for the "misunderstanding at the time". This is not an apology that I can accept since they have denied the fact that we were forced to join. They have apologized for the wrong act, so how can I accept that apology?

Does this sound like the right person to be the delegate of the NCW?  Not only did he hold a grudge against Archbishop Apuron and the NCW, but surprisingly, he cannot forgive.  What was it that Jesus said to the Apostle Peter when he asked Christ how many times he should forgive a person?  And here we have a deacon who openly admitted that he can not accept the apology simply because it was not to his liking.   

NOW THIS IS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY: 

About fifteen years ago, Archbishop Apuron suggested/mandated/recommended (it depends to which person you speak) the deacon class of 2003 to go and listen to the catechesis of the Neocatechumenal way. Some deacons claim that Father Adrian ‘threatened’ them that Archbishop will not ordain them deacons if they do not follow this directive.

These catechesis are a fifteen talks-and-celebrations package, that may give way to the birth of a small Neocatechumenal community in a parish. At the end everyone is asked whether he wants to continue or not.

All of them, I believe, went to listen to the initial catechesis. Some opted to continue and are still in the Way. Others selected to continue but desisted after some months or years. Others decided it was not their soup and after the initial convivence, never bothered to stay.  All these thirteen men were ordained deacons.

These are the simple facts.

THE AFTERMATH

Some of these deacons are very grateful that the Archbishop insisted that they go and listen to the catechesis. I know, to give one example, that Deacon Ed Borja found the Neocatechumenal community a tremendous help in his battle against the terminal sickness that eventually ended his life.

Other deacons never forgave the Archbishop for this unspeakable sin. ‘What?! Forcing us to go and listen to a catechesis!! Making this a condition for diaconal ordination. Unheard of. Canonically unjust. Archbishop is overstepping his authority… ‘

And they are still harping on this after MMMMAAAANNNNYYYY long years!! When Archbishop Krebs came, apparently they strongly brought it to his attention. Again.

Why did the Archbishop do this? I do not know. I am not the Archbishop.  I know however that he loves his people and he knows that the Neocatechumenal Way can help certain people who are suffering. So I guess he saw in the Neocatechumenal Way a good pastoral tool to help the people discover their faith in a deeper way. He also saw this Way as s good instrument to help former Catholics come back to the Church. This Way was/is producing results. And so Archbishop thought that it is good for these deacons in formation to taste this pastoral instrument.

He also believed that it could help them in their personal life. A deacon (or a priest) is a normal man who needs conversion, who needs a place that can help him face his issues under the light of the Word of God. Obviously the Neocatechumenal Way is not the only place where one can grow in faith, but it is also one valid place. Confirmed by the magisterium of the Church with a good tracking record of many years here in Guam.

‘He had no right to impose it or make it a condition for diaconal ordination’, one may argue. I am not a canonist and so I cannot really answer this objection. However the facts are that he ordained both those who went and continued in the Neo-catechumenal Way and those who did not continue.  

One needs to ask oneself whether the archbishop can and should determine certain aspects of the spiritual, academic and personal formation of the candidates, like their willingness to respect and obey the authority of the Church.  Ordination is not a right or a privilege.

I believe this was more a pastoral decision than anything else. A friend priest of mine always tells me that the Church is a mother and that the administration of justice in the Church has no other purpose than the salus animarum, the salvation of souls, as laid down in the last canon, 1752, of the Code of Canon Law. Perhaps this is what motivated Archbishop.

What I fail to understand is why some deacons are still harping on this after so many years. Can’t they forget and let go? Let us say, for the sake of the argument, he made a mistake, can’t they excuse him? Do the Gospel values like forgiveness and lenience have any worth today?

My Response

The following is in response to an anonymous poster, whose full comment can be found here.  I am responding to the last paragraph of his/her comment, which are in red.  

Isn't it time for you to let go and see that Archbishop Byrnes is trying to restore that link?   

How?  By criticizing and judging a brother Bishop?  Is that how unity is supposed to be restored?  Since when has judgments ever restored unity? Father Pius, Father Adrian, Father Edivaldo, Monsignor David, and the entire NCW including its founder were called "liars." Did that restore unity?  The seminary was accused of money laundering. Did that restore unity?  So, explain how a Bishop who publicly goes on air to criticize a brother Bishop as being a "disaster" without hearing his side of the story supposed to restore unity?  

You came to my blog and tell me that I should let go; yet, you do not even go to the jungle blog and tell them to let go. Now, why is that?  May I remind you that it was the jungle blog who has been having a field day with the word "Disaster" ever since July 6th right after the press conference of Archbishop Byrnes. My post, on the other hand, was not posted until July 7th, the DAY AFTER THE PRESS CONFERENCE.  So, why come to my blog and tell me to let go, but do not go to the jungle and tell them the same thing?

You publicly pointing out Archbishop Byrnes' fault does nothing to help the situation. You did exactly what those 2 priests did a few years ago. Instead of taking your problem to the bishop yourself, you went straight to the public sphere with this blog post.  

On the contrary, I did take the problem to Archbishop Byrnes FIRST.  Before I posted on my blog, I emailed Archbishop Byrnes and corrected him, which I hope he will take into consideration.  My post was ALSO a correction.  It is a message of correction, telling everyone that judgments does not bring reparation.  It does not bring reconciliation.  That was the main message in my post.  Now explain to me, what message do you think Rohr was sending out when he wrote the following in his comments:

AnonymousJuly 7, 2017 at 12:37 AM

All is not well yet-Archbishop Byrnes still needs to REMOVE RMS and heretcal presbyters.

1. 
   TimJuly 7, 2017 at 6:28 AM

   No, we'll do that ourselves, just like everything else.

The Year Of Reparation

The year of reparation opened on July 6th with a Mass at the Agana Cathedral. Unfortunately, it went off with a very bad start.  Criticizing and judging another Bishop is not the way to start a year of reparation.  

Judging others is something we are all guilty of. However, the important thing is reconciliation.  Christ favored reconciliation above all else that he told his disciples to leave their gifts at the altar and go first to reconcile with their brothers (Matthew 5:23-24).  Christ instituted the sacrament of reconciliation because He knew that we would fall into sin.  The first step to reconciliation is to recognize our sins.  As we continue our walk, it gets easier to recognize when we have judged others. Before, we could not differentiate the difference between our personal opinions and an unfair judgement against a person.  

Let us take, for example, some of the people who run late for the celebration of the Word and preparation in the NCW communities.  Speaking from experience, even a small thing as tardiness can get some impatient people so frustrated to the point of making judgments against them.  Of course, these are small judgments....... but personal judgments, nonetheless.   
   
A personal opinion would be "there is no excuse for anyone being late for preparation."  This is a personal opinion. It is definitely not a factual statement because some can cite valid excuses for being late.  Also, the statement does not specifically target the latecomers by name because it is addressed to everyone.  

An unfair judgment against a person would be "Jane does not care that she is always late.  If she did care about us, she would be on time."  This is a judgment against Jane because the person is saying that Jane is inconsiderate and uncaring. The statement attacks the person's character rather than the tardiness. When we unfairly judge a brother or sister, we personally ask his/her forgiveness so that we can be reconciled with them. This is the Christian thing to do. 

Both the picketers and Archbishop Hon made the mistake of judging Archbishop Apuron without due process of the law. What would Christ have done as the Good Shepherd?  He would teach the picketers and Archbishop Hon not to judge others.  How do we know that He would do this?  Because that is what He taught His disciples (Matthew 7:1-2).  

Unfortunately, rather than teaching the sheep not to judge, Archbishop Hon followed in their footsteps as he went to Rome to convince the Pope to remove Archbishop Apuron's title and appoint someone else to take his place. Archbishop Hon was so focused on removing Archbishop Apuron that he was blind to see what the jungle was actually doing behind his back as they worked to lift the statutes of limitations in the Guam Legislature.  Apparently, he only learned about the bill when he was in Rome. And it was already too late when he issued a message from Rome to the Guam clergy to oppose the legislation. The bill had already passed.     

Pope Francis, on the other hand, taught that we are to pray for others instead of judging them.  According to Vatican Radio:

Pray for others instead of judging them

 We see that the Lord gets "a little 'get angry here," said the Pope.  He calls us hypocrites when we put ourselves "in God's place."  This, he added, is what the serpent persuaded Adam and Eve to do: "If you eat this, you'll be like Him." They, he stressed, "wanted to take the place of God.":

"For this, being judgmental is very ugly.  Judgment belongs only to God, to Him alone!" the Pope exclaimed.  It is for us to "love," to "understand, to pray for others when we see things that are not good" said the Pope, inviting us to talk kindly to others so that they may learn from their mistakes: "But never judge.  Never. And this is hypocrisy, if we judge." 

Why is it hypocrisy?  Because we have all made judgments against others. All have sinned.  Priests and bishops are not immune to judging others.  According to the Pacific Daily News: 

Archbishop Michael Jude Byrnes said Thursday he doesn't think Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron will ever be able to successfully return to Guam as the leader of the church.

"I think it would be a disaster if Archbishop Apuron were to return as bishop of record," Byrnes said during a news conference Thursday.

"That's my opinion, my estimation.  It's based on nothing that I heard of from Rome but sincerely from my own experience," Byrnes said.    

The above is not a personal opinion.  It was a judgment by a Bishop against a brother Bishop. There was a time when I had also judged the Apostle Peter of being an unfit leader (see my post here).  If I had a choice, I would have picked the Apostle John to be the leader. Why? Because Peter denied Christ three times and John was at the foot of the cross when Christ was dying.  John was there beside Christ as He died and Peter was nowhere.  However, it was Peter whom God chose to be the Vicar of Christ.  It was God who saw that Peter was fit enough to be the leader of the Church, and who am I to question God's judgment and choice?    

Archbishop Apuron has family, friends, relatives, and many supporters on Guam. This judgment does not sit well with his family, friends, relatives and supporters. The year of reparation started out with a judgement, and judgments do not bring healing and reparation to the Church.  It does not bring reconciliation.

The Accusers Of Cardinal Pell

It is not everyday when the media would do some investigative reporting to find out certain facts.  However, the Media Report was able to dig up some facts about those accusing Cardinal Pell.  They have found that the accusers Damian Dignan and Lyndon Monumen were known criminals and involved in drugs. What easy way to get money than to accuse a priest so that the Church can settle out of court without investigating any of them.  According to the Media Report:

The media is having a field day reporting that Australia's Cardinal George Pell has been accused of child abuse. From the way the media is telling it, one would think that this abuse was something that happened somewhat recently, and the acts of abuse have been well established.  

But here are the facts the media is burying and as we know them so far: 

1. The accusations date back four decades ago, to the late 1970s.

2. The alleged "abuse" so far does not maintain any explicit sexual acts. After an investigation that went on for nearly two years, two men so far accuse Cardinal Pell of touching them "inappropriately" while splashing and playing games in a swimming pool 40 years ago. 

3. One of the accusers, Lyndon Monument, is an admitted drug addict and has served almost a year in prison for violently assaulting a man and a woman over a drug debt. Monument has also accused a boyhood teacher of forcing him to perform sex acts. What an unlucky guy.

4. The other accuser, Damian Dignan, also has a criminal history for assault and drunk driving. He has also accused a female teacher of beating him during class when he was a youth. He says he lives alone, suffers from leukemia, and has "lost everything" due to alcohol abuse. In other words, this dude has nothing to lose at all. 

5. Back in 2002, Cardinal Pell faced an abuse accusation dating back to 1962. The accuser was "a career criminal. He had been convicted of drug dealing and involved in illegal gambling, tax evasion and organized crime in a labor union." He also had an impressive 39 court convictions under his belt at the time. A real winner, indeed. A judge cleared Pell after an inquiry. 

It is very likely – in fact, it is almost certain – that other shifty blokes will climb out of the gutter to "substantiate" the ridiculous accusations against Pell and accuse him of other salacious acts. 

We're not buying any of this. We pray that justice will be served, but we doubt it. TheMediaReport.com has been observing the climate against the Catholic Church in Australia for some time now, and we have never seen anything like it. Imagine the hatred against the Church of the Boston Globe and the New York Times combined and spread out over an entire country. The climate is truly insane. 

Australian law enforcement is claiming that Pell's case is being treated like any other historical offense. No, it isn't. Police do not give a rip about someone coming forward to claim someone touched them over their bathing suit 40 years ago. But this is a Catholic priest, and a high-ranking one at that. This is a big fish in the eyes of law enforcement. 

Will another innocent cleric be dragged off to prison for crimes he never committed? We believe so, but we hope we're wrong. 

The only thing for certain is that the haters of the Church will enjoy every moment of this.

The Rule Of Law Vs. Mob Justice

Over 200 years ago, George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and other framers of the U.S. Constitution dedicated themselves to constructing a just government for the American people.  Americans had just overthrown what they deemed a tyrannous British government and set out to create a national government free of tyranny.  They established a government by the rule of law.    

According to the English-Oxford Dictionary, "Mob rule" is defined as "Control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation."  Mob justice is also an abuse of democracy in that the mob metes out justice without a trial by jury.  Without a trial in an official court of law, it becomes easy to hurt or persecute a person without proof of their guilt. 

The 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution protect us from the public's "opinions" and force us to rely upon actual facts, substantial evidence, testimony, and documentations as well as lawful procedures.  We are entitled to think whatever we want, no matter how misinformed, but we cannot "convict" "lock up" or "persecute" anyone just because we do not like them.  Demanding that a bishop be defrocked based on your opinion and without due process is mob rule.  

Archbishop Apuron is already going through a canonical trial.  In time, we will know the results of that trial. If found guilty, his title as Archbishop of Agana will be removed and Coadjutor Archbishop Michael Byrnes will automatically assume the role of Archbishop of Agana. On the other hand, if found not guilty, Archbishop Apuron can return as Archbishop of Agana because his title was never taken away from him.  It will be the Pope to decide, not the jungle.   

There has been no ruling from the canonical trial yet.  Nevertheless, the jungle already made plans to go against the ruling of the canonical trial if the ruling is not in their favor.  You would think that the jungle would at least be curious to know what the Vatican discovered to exonerate him.  

Rohr's post gives a hint of intimidation or threat.  It is already known that the Archbishop's tires had been slashed twice by an unknown person/persons before the sexual allegations emerged in 2016.  The person/persons responsible for slashing the tires of Archbishop Apuron's car was never caught. So, one wonders what does Tim meant when he stated: "...and see what Apuron gets when he gets back here."  One wonders, what exactly would that be? Another tire slashing? According to Tim Rohr (the bold is mine): 

In any event, what we MUST be prepared for is OUR responsibility, not Rome's. If anything, this whole drama has forced at least some of us to grow up and stop looking to outsiders to solve our problems. Nothing has made me angrier than hearing people ask "when is Rome going to do something?" It makes me angry because all of this came about NOT because Rome did anything, but because a few people DID decide to do something and then they did it.  

We CANNOT lose sight of that. A worst case scenario would be Apuron being exonerated and sent back to run the Archdiocese of Agana. Our attitude should be "go ahead...and see what Apuron gets when he gets back here."  

Not even the pope gets to decide what is good for you and your family. The pope's only absolute competence - by virtue of his office - is limited to the absolutes of faith and morals. And he loses even that competence should he ever venture to officially depart from what has been handed down from the apostles.  

His Apuron decision is an administrative one, and completely fallible. He does NOT get to decide what is good for you and your family. Our first duty is to the children God has entrusted to us, and we have already seen what happens when we neglect that duty and entrust them to the likes of Apuron.   

In the 1950s,  when the federal courts began striking down the Jim Crow laws in the South, one of the rising demands across the country was that the discriminators and segregationists obey "the law of the land."  But somewhere along the way, the idea also arose and spread that not everyone was supposed to obey the "law of the land".  Thus, began the issue of settling things on the streets rather than in the courts.

As Catholics, we are taught to always follow the Pope.  Yet, along the way, comes the jungle telling the junglefolks that they do not need to follow Rome. Jesus established that the Apostle Peter and his successors be the Vicar of Christ, God's representative (CCC 936).   All should be in communion with the Pope.  All should follow and be in communion with Rome.  This is the "rule of law" set down by God Himself through His Church (CCC 834).