Blog Song

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Our Justice System

One would think that as we advanced into the 21st century, there would be an increase of knowledge as well as common sense.  But the opposite seems to take place.  Common sense is sorely lacking in the modern world.  Public Law 33-187 is an unjust law in that it violates the due process of the accused.  Statutes of limitations exist so that the truth can be determined and justice can prevail.  There is no justice when persons can even come out and bring lawsuits against the dead.  There is no justice when the law opens a door for scammers to defraud the Church for millions of dollars.  Archbishop Apuron never had immunity.  Only diplomats and politicians in Congress have immunity.  The lawsuits could have been brought against Archbishop Apuron in 2011 or at any time, but they chose to come out at a time when there was a controversy over the removal of two priests.  

Below is an interesting article written by Father Gordon MacRae, showing the lack of common sense in our judicial system.  You can find the article here. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Plea Deals or a Life Sentence in the Live Free or Die State

Image result for Justice system
New Hampshire Judge Arthur Brennan sentenced this falsely accused Catholic priest to more than 30 times the plea deal he would have taken had he in fact been guilty.
In January, 2016, I wrote a post for These Stone Walls entitled, “American Crime Story: The People vs O.J. Simpson.” You can go read it if you want some deeper background, but to make a long story shorter, O.J. Simpson’s trial and mine were parallel dramas back in 1994.
O.J.’s trial extended a full year beyond mine and presented what Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti described as “a mountain of evidence” against O.J. Simpson charged with the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. After eleven full days of jury deliberation, Simpson was acquitted.
In contrast, my trial lasted one week and presented no evidence at all. It did not help that my bishop, and diocese, already deep into the settlement process, published a pre-trial press release that declared me guilty before I even set foot in any court. There was little left for a jury to do. I was convicted of all charges on September 23, 1994, after a jury deliberated for all of ninety minutes in a case brought twelve years after the fictitious crimes supposedly took place.
But what most TSW readers found surprising about parallels between these two trials was something that happened much later. Three years after the O.J. Simpson trial concluded, his chief prosecutor, former L.A. Assistant District Attorney Marcia Clark, tried to come to my defense. In late 1998, Ms. Clark wanted to profile my trial for an investigative report on wrongful convictions sponsored by FOX News. The production company, Mark Phillips Films & Television, wanted to interview me on camera at the New Hampshire State Prison.
The interviews were to culminate in a polygraph examination administered by a polygraph expert on national television. Having taken and conclusively passed two polygraph tests before my trial, I agreed to the proposal without hesitation. In 1998 Fox News proceeded to seek the necessary permissions for the interviews to take place. I requested that my accuser at trial also be asked to submit to the polygraph, but neither he nor his contingency lawyer would respond.
In the end, prison officials refused to allow these interviews. An attempt by FOX News to seek intervention from higher up the political ladder met with this reply from then Governor (now U.S. Senator D-NH) Jeanne Shaheen:
“I understand your company’s interest in an on-camera interview with Gordon MacRae, an inmate in the New Hampshire State Prison, but I will not interfere with the decision not to allow media access to Mr. MacRae.”
That was 1998. So why is this all coming up again now? Several years after his acquittal in the murder case, O.J. Simpson was charged and convicted in an unrelated case of armed robbery. After serving a prison sentence, O.J. was quietly granted parole in September 2017, and is now free.
But our stories seem destined to remain parallel dramas. On the same day that O.J. was paroled from prison, I had to do something that most readers of These Stone Walls will find to be perplexing, and maybe even appalling. It’s a complex matter that requires explanation before it will make any sense at all. I received notice from the New Hampshire Parole Board that I was scheduled for a parole hearing on September 21, 2017 – twenty-three years into my imprisonment – and I refused it.
THE EXTORTION OF PLEA DEAL JUSTICE


Here is what happened and why: As most readers know from our “ABOUT” page, I was sent to prison on September 23, 1994, after a trial with no evidence at all beyond the testimony of one man, Thomas Grover, with a long criminal record. Both his criminal record and the fact that he stood to gain $200,000 in settlement from the Diocese of Manchester were kept from the jury by Judge Arthur Brennan.
Having no evidence to review beyond the accusations themselves, the jury arrived at its verdict in ninety minutes after Judge Brennan instructed them that state law (NH RSA 632-A:6) requires no evidence or corroboration for a conviction in a case of rape or sexual abuse. The accusation is evidence enough to convict in a case that rests entirely on credibility. He also instructed the jury to “disregard inconsistencies in Mr. Grover’s testimony.” As Dorothy Rabinowitz later wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “they had much to disregard.”
It was also kept from the jury that on three occasions – twice before my trial and once during trial just after Grover’s testimony – I was presented with plea bargain offers by the two prosecutors in the case. Right up to the moment the jury began deliberation, I could have stopped the trial and entered a plea of guilty in exchange for one year in prison. A good deal if I were guilty, but if innocent, not so much.
I refused these plea bargain offers three times in succession. Each time it felt as though the weight of false witness was crushing me. In ‘The Trials of Father MacRae,” Dorothy Rabinowitz laid out pointedly the nature of this case and the perversion of justice I would have been admitting to had I accepted the plea bargain offers.
Thomas Grover testified that he came to me five times for counseling for his drug addiction in the months preceding his 16th birthday in 1983. He described being verbally assaulted, made to cry, and then forcibly raped in my highly visible rectory office during each of these sessions. He testified that each week he “repressed” the memory of these vicious assaults so that he returned from week to week not remembering that he was raped the week before.
Grover spoke vaguely of having out-of-body experiences that suppressed his memory of the assaults. Ryan MacDonald covered the scene of these fictitious crimes with photos in an article that had most readers shaking their heads in disbelief entitled, “Justice and a Priest’s Right of Defense in the Diocese of Manchester.”
Most Americans simply do not understand the injustice of this aspect of American justice. Over 90 percent of criminal cases end with plea bargains instead of trials. A guilty defendant would leap upon a plea deal like the ones presented to me, but an innocent defendant falsely accused of rape or sexual abuse just cannot fathom standing before a judge and saying that word – “guilty” – even if just one year later it will let him off the hook entirely.
Most people just don’t get it that plea bargains can result in the truly guilty spending far less time in prison than the truly innocent for the same charge.
WHY I HAD TO REFUSE PAROLE

Faced with these deals then, as now, the image that kept playing in my mind was that of Violet Amirault of Massachusetts. She and her adult son and daughter were the now notorious defendants in the infamous Fells Acres Day Care case. In what was later exposed as a classic Massachusetts witch hunt by Dorothy Rabinowitz and The Wall Street Journal, Violet, Gerald, and Cheryl Amirault were tried and convicted in a media-fueled early 1980s climate of hysteria over child sexual abuse.
This case was at the core of Dorothy Rabinowitz’s courageous, compelling, but truly haunting book, No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusation, False Witness, and Other Terrors of Our Time. I will never be able to forget that one shattering news footage scene of the elderly Violet Amirault, distraught and overcome as she was led to prison in chains. When asked by a reporter if the charges were true she sobbed loudly, “I NEVER did this’ I NEVER did this’ I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER did this!”
I believed her. I believe that every thinking, feeling, rational human being in Massachusetts who witnessed that scene believed her. Violet died of cancer in prison, eaten away from the inside because the Salem Witch Trials had found their ugly way back into a New England court of law. In response to the growing public realization that the Amirault trials were a travesty, politician-prosecutors like Martha Coakley and Scott Harshbarger doubled down on their efforts to silence the Amiraults and keep them in prison.
I thought of Violet Amirault and that scene – in fact, I thought of little else – when I refused the one-year plea deal during trial in 1994. I thought of her again 23 years later when I refused a parole hearing that required an inference that I did what I never, never, never did.
The parole hearing offered to me was meaningless, and simple math will explain why. After reprimanding me for refusing plea bargains and insisting upon a trial in 1994, Superior Court Judge Arthur Brennan imposed the maximum possible sentence and declared he would have imposed more if the law permitted it. He ridiculed the one priest who spoke out, stating his informed belief that the charges were false. “He tried to deceive this court,” Judge Brennan said.
Then the judge imposed one prison term of three-and-one-half to seven years to be followed by four prison terms of seven-and-one-half to fifteen years, all to be served consecutively. This was an aggregate total of 33 ½ to 67 years in prison.
This means that every seven-and-one-half years I am invited to appear before the New Hampshire Parole Board and present an inference that I am guilty, that I am remorseful, and that I will, when the time comes, enroll myself in a prison-based sexual offender program which requires an open admission of guilt and the cessation of any effort to challenge a conviction or sentence. I could have done this 23 years ago when it would have had me released after just one year. But I am not guilty, and I cannot do this. Not now! Not ever!
As for the prison sex offender treatment requirement, I would not even be eligible for it until two years before the end of my last aggregate sentence in the year 2032. I would be 79 years of age recalling and addressing the lurid details of offenses claimed to have happened when I was 29, but in reality never happened at all. Does any of this make any sense to anyone?
In November 2017, Thomas Grover, the sole accuser at my 1994 trial, will be 50 years old. This man and three of his brothers who also accused me and obtained settlements were victims of nothing more than their own greed. They perpetrated the crime of fraud and the sin of false witness from behind the shield of a Catholic sex abuse moral panic.
PROSECUTORIAL JUDGES
What Judge Arthur Brennan and prosecutors did to me, however, is what advocates for a more sane and just criminal justice system call a “trial penalty.” To entice the guilty into lenient plea deals that bolster conviction records, the justice system threatens astronomical sentences if a defendant balks at the deal.
Judges have some discretion, however, for defendants with no prior felony record. Judges can impose harsh sentences concurrently instead of consecutively. Judge Brennan had that option, but ignored it. Had he opted for a concurrent sentence, I would have left prison without having to admit guilt after fifteen years. If his sentence stands, I will be 108 years old upon completion at a cost to the taxpayers of New Hampshire in excess of $2.4 million.
The entire justice system has grown oblivious to the fact that innocent defendants do exist and often cannot fathom accepting a plea bargain. The guilty readily can, but many prosecutors and judges never even consider that there is such a thing as an innocent defendant falsely accused.
In 2015, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed column by Lucian E. Dervan entitled, “The Injustice of the Plea Bargain System” (Dec 4, 2015). The author wrote, “It is common for sentences after trial to be far more severe than those offered to induce guilty pleas.” The author called this the “trial penalty,” a grave injustice when inflicted on innocent defendants.
In the WSJ “Letters to the Editor” column (Dec 16, 2015), the op-ed drew some sharp criticism from prosecutors and judges Spenser Lawton, Jr. of Savannah, Georgia identified himself as a “retired career prosecutor.” His published letter defended the practice and effectiveness of plea bargains:
“The whole idea is that the sentence on a plea deal will be less severe than the one risked at trial. That’s called an incentive without which the option would be meaningless. What Mr. Dervan calls the ‘trial penalty’ might better be called the ‘plea benefit’.”
It is distressing that this former prosecutor’s defense of the plea bargain system seems to reveal no awareness that a defendant might actually be innocent. However, the far more disturbing rebuttal was this one from Larry Stirling of San Diego, a retired California Superior Court judge:
“The high conviction rate via plea bargaining results from the fact that the offer is a good deal for the defendants or they wouldn’t take them. They might be criminals, but they aren’t all dumb.”
This former judge evidences a cynical denial that a defendant standing before his court might be innocent. Instead of facing a prosecutor and a judge, defendants before Judge Larry Stirling seem to have been facing two prosecutors.
Former prosecutors are far too highly represented among the ranks of criminal court judges. In fact, a judicial nominee in New Hampshire was denied confirmation two years ago for the stated reason that he once served as a public defender. The judge who denied my last appeal while refusing any hearing on evidence or testimony was a career federal prosecutor.
With all due respect to Judge Larry Stirling, I am not a criminal and I am certainly not ‘dumb.” But the plea bargain presented to me 23 years ago was not a good deal at all. There was just one problem with it, and I owe a debt to the memory of Mrs. Violet Amirault, a martyr for truth, who voiced it for me:
“I NEVER did this! I NEVER did this!
I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER did this!”
Editor’s Note: Arm yourself with the whole truth of this story with these posts by Ryan A. MacDonald.

69 comments:

  1. I receive my therapeutic by faith in God's Word.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Diana, I just heard disturbing news about Tim Rohr. His wife apparently sent him divorce papers from Saint Croix, US Virgin Islands. Is this true? Any broken marriage is sad...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sad, that you are gossiping about it, 7:25. Really sad.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 7:25 am,

      I heard the same news, but I do not know if it is true. For all we know, it could be just a rumor.

      Delete
  3. The new evangelization starts in the family.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Diana, this is Tim's message to you. What say ye?

    TimOctober 30, 2017 at 12:14 PM

    Dear Diana, thank you for the compliment. I'm flattered that you think the Jungle has so much influence over everyday Catholics. Unfortunately, it is not true. Yesterday, I was speaking with someone who doesn't have a clue about my blog. He expressed why he left his neo-presbyter run parish. The only way he could explain it is that "they do things different." The person and his family have been long time members of the parish in question and he was very careful not to show any disrespect to the priests. He and his wife made the decision because they did not want their children to grow up in a parish which did things differently than what they knew. He specifically mentioned that the order of the Mass was different and that the homilies were disturbing. His wife said that she did not want their children to be hearing homilies about masturbation. 

    That's not hate, Diana. That's love. A parents' love for their children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 2:29 pm, 

      Go back and tell him this:

      Dear Tim Rohr, 

      The reason for your influence is because you recruited the assistance of SNAP, who is more famous than you.

      Look at the modern youth today. They know a lot about sex. And this knowledge did not come from parents like you who saw it a taboo to sit down with their kids and talk about sex. So, where did the modern youth learn about sex? From the movies and the secular world. 

      Thank goodness that the NCW is teaching the youth the truth about human sexuality. Thank goodness that the NCW is empowering parents to communicate with their kids through the morning prayers. Thank goodness that parents are allowing their kids to learn about family and sexuality through the doctrines of the Church rather than through the movies and public education.

      If more parents has learned to communicate with their kids about human sexuality rather than treat as taboo, the kids today would have learned the truth about the many gender identities invented by secular man. And arming them with the truth is what I call love.

      Delete
    2. What is wrong with Neocatechumenal way doing things differently? Have you considered how dead boaring parishes have become.People leave parishes as they are dead. Neocatechumenal way offers an alternative to dead parish communties. Have you considered this Tim Rohr?

      Delete
    3. Dear anon, I would like to share with you that in South Carolina, where I had spent many years, there is a vibrant and very much alive Catholic life. It is despite the fact that the NCW, as in most of the mainland states, is not present!

      It is good to see that many Catholics who arrive from Latin-America or Asia find their spiritual home and identity in these mainland churches often becoming very active and getting leadership position in parish life. I vividly remember when a lady from the Philippines was joyfully welcomed and greeted in my church. Next week, she had already read the the Scripture for the mass. She also became active in Bible studies. You cannot say this parish or parishes in general in the mainland are "dead". It is not only untrue, it is also very arrogant.

      Delete
    4. Dear Diana, I can understand parents who would like to see in advance the sexual education material their children are exposed to. I find nothing wrong with that.

      Delete
    5. Dear Zoltan,

      The public schools today teach that same sex marriage is ok. They teach the little children in elementary schools that they can choose their gender. In other words, if they are a boy but feel like a girl, it is okay for him to wear a dress to school. The parents have no say in the sex education curriculum.

      Delete
    6. There is nothing arrogant in writing truth Zoltan.Regular parish communties are dead lifeless boaring.Today people expect choices for sunday eucharist.NCW offers the alternative for scripture prayer fellowship community eucharist.

      Delete
    7. "Regular parish communties are dead lifeless boaring"

      Well, if the NCW isn't forming new communities with non-NCW parishes, then maybe you can figure out a way to make it more engaging. Perhaps people will be more inclined to stay if they feel a sense of community and fellowship and are able to actively participate in parish roles and events.

      The NCW isn't the only way.

      Delete
    8. NCW isn't the only way.
      NCW offers purpose hope community.NCW welcomes all to the table of the Lord.

      Delete
    9. Give people a choice.
      1. Attend parish mass.
      2. Attend NCW Community mass.

      Delete
    10. There are many different Catholic organizations out there. The NCW is only one of them. The reason for the variety of organizations is because the parish-life alone cannot reach all people. For some, the parish is good enough. For others, it is not, which explains why some left to join other Christian denominations. The goal of these different Catholic organizations is to bring back our brothers home to Christ and His Church. It is also a means to bring non-Christians to Christ as well.

      Delete
    11. Diana, many people leave the Catholic faith because of the feud, animosity, scandals and division. They leave the church because of the disrespect some pay to their appointed Bishop who is the Vicar of Christ in the diocese.

      We should have one bread, one body, one Lord of all!

      Delete
    12. Dear anon at 7:31, I wanted to ask you what you mean saying that parishes are "boaring"? Where does this word coming from? Do you mean boars are roaming around or what? I have never experienced anything like that in our parishes.

      Arrogance is the assumption that you own the truth. How can you own the truth, I pray. There is only one Truth, Jesus Christ.

      If you would know the geography of the Catholic religion, you would see that there is a vibrant, very much alive Catholic life around the globe. NCW grew out of this fertile soil which is the Body of Christ, so we should have some respect in this regard. Thanks!

      Delete
    13. Dear Zoltan,

      Even before the feud, scandals, and division, people were leaving the Church. Guam used to be an island that was 98% Catholic. That percentage of Catholics today is 85. There are many reasons why the left the Church. As someone pointed out, some found the parish boring. Some left because their faith was weak and they were enticed to join other Christian denominations. Others left because they found other things more important than Mass. And of those who come to Church every Sunday, most come out of obligation rather than love for God. There are only a few parishioners who attend Mass because they have a burning desire to come and not because of obligation.

      Delete
    14. Yes...so much love for their children that it is not good for them to hear it in church... but yet its ok for them to have cell phones or tablets with internet access....
      I don"t know about this one??...

      Delete
    15. Dear Diana, according to the Bible evangelization means going out baptizing the pagans. Make them disciples, says the Lord.

      Perhaps you are not aware of this, but Guam with its 85% Catholic population is in a blissful state regarding Catholic faith! In Europe, for instance, in my home country Hungary, a traditionally Catholic country, only 60% of the population is Catholic today and about 10% of them are attending Sunday mass regularly. Out of a population of 10 million people, this gives you only 600 thousand who attend church!

      On Guam, the % of Catholics will go even lower once the bitter financial crunch caused by abuse settlements will kick in. People will ask what went wrong that facilities will close and services will be halted. It'll be hard to accept that they did not do anything wrong, but the division and disunity inside the diocese cause great financial loss that parishioners have to shoulder up.

      It is crucial and morally imperative to maintain faith in the parishes and to show loyalty toward the Pastor who works hard in mitigating the situation all possible ways. Currently, our Pastor of record is Archbishop Byrnes, therefore we have to trust him and obey his decisions.

      Delete
    16. Dear Zoltan,

      How can you say that Gusm'a Catholics are in a blissful state? Just because we are 85% Catholic does not mean that we are true "Catholics" following the faith. Do you know how many Catholics are using contraceptives, which goes against the Catholic Church? Is that what it means to be Catholic. Do you know how many Catholics on Guam support same sex marriage and see nothing wrong with homosexuality? Do you know how many Catholics are living together out of wedlock? Is that what it means to be "Catholic"? There are many Catholics who do not follow Church doctrine.

      As always, the NCW have been praying for Archbishop Byrnes. I do not agree with everything he did. I certainly did not agree when he cave in to CCOG rather than standing up for his priest. I also do not agree with him bad-mouthing Archbishop Apuron (a brother bishop) in the public news. When a bishop or priest does something that is wrong, we can correct him. After all, a bishop is human and can make mistakes.

      With that said, there are also somethings I agree with him. I do agree that victims of abuse do need counseling. That is the first thing they need, and I am glad that the Hope and Healing Program is providing counseling. I am also pleased to hear in the news that he told CCOG to move forward. CCOG's main agenda has nothing to do with Kamalen Karidat. Their main agenda is to destroy Deacon Tenoria. They are only going after those who supported Archbishop Apuron.

      Delete
    17. Dear Diana, if you would see, know and experience the impact of full scale secularization in Europe, you would feel blessed as a Catholic living on Guam.

      If you feel Archbishop Byrnes did something wrong, according to your view, then why don't you talk to him in person asking his reason? If you feel you want to correct someone, why don't you talk to him? How can you correct someone without talking to this person?

      The real question is not how you view one or other decision. The real question is if you trust your bishop of record that he is doing the best for all Catholics on Guam?

      Delete
    18. Dear Zoltan,

      I have contacted him, and I have corrected him.

      Delete
    19. Dear Zoltan,

      You seem to defend Byrnes regardless of his actions. I 'publicly' accuse Bishop Byrnes because of his 'public' actions. Explain, why would a Bishop (that just arrived at a diocese whose history and complexity he evidently doesn't know, and coming from a place so remote and foreign to Guam as is Detroit) pass judgement so hastily on the return of an accused fellow bishop facing 'allegations' (that could be legitimate or fabrications), knowing very well that the Vatican has 'publicly' appointed a qualified delegation (that does not include him) to issue a verdict on the subject?

      Smells like foul play to me. Just as you do not want anyone to judge Byrnes, it is self evident that no 'prudent' bishop would behave in such a thoughtless, borderline-reckless way. Are we to let Byrnes 'publicly judge Apuron' negatively and stay quiet because he wishes us well? Why we ought to be quiet and Byrnes gets a pass? Why the double standard?

      Islands are notorious for having a ring of 'families' that monopolize the internal politics and power; if by any chance anyone, including a servant bishop, crosses them, the likely outcome is a persecution and defamation that knows no moral boundary. Apuron's persecution is self-evident.

      Bishop Byrnes must be well aware of this and his actions speak louder than words. He better pray for a guilty verdict of Apuron. Explain to me why silence and prudence were not an option to Byrnes? Why won't you call him to stay quiet on Apuron? Why he deserves a pass? Isn't he still just a coadjutor? Isn't Apuron still the ordinary until a formal dismissal?

      Whatever it was that 'compelled Byrnes', it doesn't sit well with right judgement, due process and the moral obligations that the vocation of co-adjutor Bishop demands from Byrnes. This criticism of Byrnes is factual, not an opinion, it is clearly evident and no matter how good his intentions, if I can't judge Byrnes, why would I let Him judge Apuron? Shouldn't we BOTH wait for OUR leader in the faith, PETER, to enlighten the situation?

      Delete
    20. Dear Anonymous, you must be forgetting something. What I wrote about Archbishop Byrnes, I wrote based on his actions !

      What is more, I am afraid you cannot accuse 'publicly' anyone while remaining anonymous. I hope this helped. Thanks.

      Delete
    21. Dear Zoltan,

      Apparently, even those who accused some priests of sexual abuse have remained anonymous using only their initials. Being anonymous is not an issue on this blog. The content of what Anonymous 4:22 am wrote is the topic of discussion.

      The negative judgment that Archbishop Byrnes made of Archbishop Apuron's return to the media is uncalled for. Archbishop Apuron is still the Archbishop of Agana. If he had a judgment against a brother bishop, he should take it up with him rather than talk negatively about him to the media behind his back.

      Delete
    22. Dear Diana, my point is that the ultimate authority in a Catholic diocese belongs to the local bishop. That is how our church was built by the Fathers. If you don't want to respect that authority, that is your personal decision to make based on your free choice that you are entitled of.

      However, Catholic life has been always managed by local bishop for 2 thousands years. This is a fact of Catholic faith. There has never been outside intervention without grave reason. Even the Pope would be restrained in micromanaging the affairs of the church. We should never forget that.

      If you have an issue with Archbishop Byrnes' opinion, you should see him face to face and tell him what your issue is. Please, give a chance to meaningful discourse. At least this is how I would proceed because these are delicate matters that should be guided by Catholic tradition. Archbishop Byrnes is working his heart out to mitigate the damages inflicted by SNAP and its hired cohorts upon the local church. If anyone chooses to vilify the local church authority in the name of a whole group, especially in time of spiritual battles and an extreme monetary crunch, that might not pay off very well for anyone. What is the purpose?

      If we stick to things that are neither smart nor useful in the light of church tradition, then we only demonstrate excess stubbornness that is uncalled for. This is exactly what the jungle and CCoG groups did during the last few years. For what end? I might be wrong in trying to move into the direction of peace and reconciliation as outline by our Archbishop, but this is what I can believe in as a Catholic person living on Guam. Thanks.

      Delete
    23. Dear Zoltan,

      Archbishop Byrnes has my respect. However, that does not mean that I am not allowed to correct him. He is human like all of us. He is not perfect, and can make mistakes. We are allowed to correct our bishops with charity. There is nothing disrespectful about that. Correcting him is also not going against him. I have contacted him and corrected him.

      Delete
    24. Diana, please, try to be considerate. Repeating one opinion in this matter over and over again looks neither correction nor respectful. What for? We have already heard you. We also have our own opinion. That is more than enough.

      Archbishop Byrnes said what he said only once. Why to "correct" him for your blog's audience such an unlimited number of times? It makes the impression more like a hostile propaganda rather than a benevolent search for the whole truth of the story.

      This story is about the financial mismanagement of the archdiocese in the past that made it impossible to come up with an audit. It was a major problem at the root of many troubles. Did you know about the missing audit? Here, the Benavente fiasco most probably is the tip of the iceberg only. More complex troubles might have left their imprints in the archives of the Chancery. Only the Archbishop knows. The diocese should not really go back to that kind of business when an audit of its finances was impossible to make, whoever is responsible for that.

      What do you think, dear Diana? Based on the evidence, could Archbishop Byrnes have made a valid point here?

      Delete
    25. Dear Zoltan, 

      Archbishop Byrnes said it TWICE to the media. I contacted him privately the first time he judged Archbishop Apuron to kindly correct him. Apparently, he continues to think that as "Coadjutor", it was okay to criticize the Archbishop Apuron, who still holds the title "Archbishop of Agana. When he was interviewed by the media, he again judged Archbishop Apuron.

      Zoltan, the Archdiocese is going back to the same kind of business because Archbishop Byrnes placed Monsignor James in charge of the church's assets. The people whom Archbishop Apuron removed were placed back in charge.....so essentially, we are going back to where things were before.

      Delete
    26. Diana, I mentioned financial mismanagement of the affairs of the archdiocese in the past for many-many years leading to such a big mess that an audit was impossible to make. This failure was well documented in the official papers of the chancery. I don't see the same happening now. Do you?

      What I see is an approaching financial crunch, caused by irresponsible politicizing of the Catholic faith, that will take over the future of the Catholic church on Guam for decades. Who else has a viable plan to handle this overwhelming challenge beyond Archbishop Byrnes?

      Delete
    27. Dear Zoltan,

      It is true that Byrnes is facing a very difficult situation. It is true that he has a big problem in his hands and that he deserves all our prayers and support at this time. I certainly do not envy his position. Who envies to be a John the Baptist? or Christ himself? Who, nowadays, wants to be a martyr anymore? However, therein lies the problem.

      What you call criticism, because of the volume (“unlimited number of times”) of so-called 'complaints', may come across ‘publicly’ as hostile propaganda. But I beg you to reconsider. Propaganda is to promote lies. I do not believe that I am lying about what the Bishop has done. What you perceive as hostility may also be encouragement or constructive criticism, even love. For Byrnes to forget that Apuron is the ordinary, that his trial’s verdict (by the Holy See) is still unkown, that Apuron is suffering, that NCW member are suffering, that Seminarians (guys who have given up EVERYTHING) are suffering and to side with the blowhard activists that can certainly be accused of maliciously and consciously distort facts while at the same time throw Apuron under the bus is not a small offense that should easily be overlooked.

      Clericalism has been condemned by our ultimate leaders in the faith... the Popes. St. Catherine of Sienna 'corrected', not a Bishop, not a priest, but the Pope himself and told him to go back to Rome and act like a Pope.

      So you may ask, what do I want? Ask Martin Luther King Jr. what he wanted when he wrote 1) The Letter from Birmingham Jail and 2) The Negro (Bishop) Is Your Brother? It is, if you will, a nonviolent resistance to the injustice of how Apuron and the diocese of Guam has been treated, not only by those who hate him, but also by his brother bishop - Byrnes. Byrnes should issue an apology to Apuron, retract his statement or at least stop from doing further injustice to those who are suffering with the excuse of trying to alleviate the sufferings of others. The fact that we know he wants the best for the Church in Guam is no excuse for bad acts... even if he is the Pope.

      Delete
    28. Dear Anonymous, propaganda is not necessarily lie. Propaganda is promoting your own views beyond measure on the expense of other views. Politicians do this all the time to get elected. Some of their propaganda is always true and they will, hopefully, deliver on their promises when winning the election.

      You list that Archbishop Byrnes forgets about many things like that
      1. Apuron is the ordinary
      2. the verdict of the Vatican tribunal is unknown
      3. Apuron is suffering
      4. NCW members are suffering
      5. seminarians are suffering
      6. he sides with CCoG activists
      7. he throws Apuron under the bus.

      Well, I don't see anything on your list justified. Archbishop Byrnes does not forget about and does not do these things you list. He is protecting the best interest of the Archdiocese at a time of deep financial and spiritual crisis. The only thing you complain about is Archbishop Byrnes' personal opinion that he expressed to the media in relation of the financial mismanagement of church affairs in the past. But an archbishop is surely entitled to share his personal opinion with the public.

      1. Byrnes knows very well that he is the Coadjutor Archbishop of Agana that is the archbishop of record in Vatican
      2. He has repeated more than once that he has no information on the outcome of the tribunal.
      3. Suffering is something we all do due to the current hostility and division in our archdiocese.
      4. I don't see NCW members suffering because of the new conditions. I see that people understand the situation pretty well.
      5. Seminarians will go to Rome to study. It is not necessarily a bad thing.
      6. CCoG has a political agenda, the Archbishop has a pastoral agenda and the NCW has a missionary agenda. There could be overlaps here or there. This is natural.
      7. I don't know who is throwing Apuron "under the bus", an expression popularized by Rohr. Nobody on Guam has a say in the verdict of the canonical tribunal. The Holy See often works in a mysterious way. When cleared of wrongdoing Archbishop Apuron may return vindicated very soon.

      Delete
    29. Vindication soon.

      Delete
    30. Dear Zoltan,

      FYI: Propaganda has an evil element as half-truths are spin or pushed, turning the message into an act of injustice... a deliberate evil act, convinced that repeating a lie becomes truth. It is my conviction that what I have said before are not half-truths. You believe the contrary. That is clear. However, saying its propaganda imputes evil in the intentions.

      Byrnes made a mistake, an unfortunate (piously intended or not) injustice. It is clear that, what you 'don't see', I call lack of empathy or discernment.

      "Suffering is something we all do" but there are sufferings that are caused by one's own sin, others that are due to persecution, being innocent, a clear injustice. You don't seem to 'see' or note a difference. The fact that you don't understand, explains the "numerous times that it has to be repeated" which you then call propaganda. A Vicious circle? perhaps you also believe that Apuron is reaping what he sowed?

      #7 is where you most exhibit a lack of discernment as you seem to believe that public opinion has no weight in pastoral decisions. Even if Apuron is found innocent, because of what you mentioned in #3 "hostile and divisive" environment created by injustices, the Holy See (IMHO I wouldn't be surprised) and Byrnes himself (already does) will sacrifice Apuron in order to keep peace. Just as Judas may have believed that by betraying Jesus he would hasten the kingdom of God. Now, one thing is Christ, who we know is the Son of God, able to take injustices; another is Apuron, who on his own, still is fighting for justice, only to fall on deaf ears. Now, if Christ gives Apuron his spirit and Apuron, by himself not coerced, desires to unite his sufferings to Christ by the way of the cross, to bear injustices for love of the enemy, then I would stop immediately what you call 'propaganda'. In the meantime, he is a human person, with equal dignity, and he does not deserve to be manipulated by those in authority as a piece that is useful to keep the peace in the island (utilitarianism). To DEMAND divine virtue of man or that anyone act like Christ is called moralism or legalism, an injustice. To demand justice for Apuron is humanly attainable, it is not a moralism.

      Zoltan, this could go on for ever, we will just have to do what this generation does best. Moral relativism.

      Delete
    31. Bishop Byrnes' opinion is not just his personal opinion. He holds the office of a 'public moral authority'... otherwise no one would interview or ask for his opinion. You are being naive to say that when he voices his personal opinions he deserves a pass, no matter how unjust it is.

      What comes through in all your posts is that you agree with Byrnes that Apuron mismanaged the diocese, which explains why you don't see any injustice in his statement. Why you lack empathy towards Apuron and why you don't see him as 'the' authority which Byrnes is doing an injustice. Instead you speak of Byrnes as 'the' authority as if Apuron doesn't exists. Talk about public opinion not having an impact on the faithful in Guam, you are clearly one that has fallen for the 'propaganda' of the Jungle.

      Delete
    32. Dear anon, I have been talking about Archbishop Byrnes as the bishop of record, because, by the decision of the Holy See, currently the coadjutor is in charge. You still have to point out what do you perceive as "injustice" in his pastoral agenda. Please, be factual, specific and justify your statements. Archbishop Byrnes is responsible for the finances of the whole archdiocese, therefore he has to talk about the situation with this responsibility in mind.

      I did not say public opinion did not count, I said the verdict of the tribunal cannot be influenced from outside. The canonical trial has completed collecting the facts a long time ago and the verdict had been reached by internal deliberation. If everything is clear, Archbishop Apuron will be back on island vindicated very soon.

      Please, look up the meaning of words. Propaganda is not necessarily evil although it can be. The Vatican Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples used to be called Congregatio de Propaganda Fide. There is nothing evil in that.

      Delete
    33. Dear Zoltan,

      Propaganda has two definitions. One of the definition means evil while the other means school or congregation. The definition that Anonymous 2:22 pm was referring to is the one has has to do with evil intent. Because he/she was referring to that particular definition, then the discussion should be focused on that context and not on another definition or context.

      Archbishop Byrnes’ did much more than speak about the finances of the Archdiocese. He publicly judged of Archbishop Apuron’s return to be a disaster. How would he know? Can he predict the future?

      Delete
    34. Diana, please, could you refer me to the definition of propaganda as evil? Propaganda that is propagating ideas or view points can be used both for good and evil, but propaganda per se is not intrinsically evil.

      Please tell me what else Archbishop Byrnes did that you have to complain about. He judged the prospect of returning to old business by Archbishop Apuron's return, but not Apuron himself. Why do you feel Archbishop Apuron was judged? Why is this so important? Amidst an avalanche of lawsuits and the threat of financial collapse, is this really the biggest issue the archdiocese has to face right now?

      Delete
    35. Dear Zoltan,

      According to Wikipedia:

      "Propaganda is a form of communication to distribute information. It is always biased. The information is designed to make people feel a certain way or to believe a certain thing. The information is often political.

      It is hard to tell whether the information is true or false. Very often, the information is confusing and unfair. Propaganda does tend to make disputes last longer, and be more difficult to resolve. It can take the form of posters, TV advertisements, and radio announcements."

      According to Anonymous 12:07 am, " Propaganda is to promote lies." The propaganda the jungle promote about the NCW are lies. These kinds of lies are evil.

      Archbishop Byrnes did not say anything about returning to old business. He stated that Archbishop Apuron's return would be a disaster. He was referring to Apuron's return as a leader. 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."

      http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2017/07/06/byrnes-disaster-if-apuron-were-return/454312001/

      Delete
    36. So what is your problem with that? The return is judged but not the person. It is a thing that might depend on interpretation. You promote your interpretation about Archbishop Byrnes to make people feel your way and to believe your thing. It makes communication with him more difficult to resolve in the future. I cannot agree with your interpretation. We should humbly accept criticism when it was driven by good intention.

      Delete
    37. Dear Zoltan, 

      The problem is that Archbishop Byrnes said that in public through the media on the very first day of the year of reconciliation. If a brother has a judgment or even a criticism, then he should go to the brother and say it to him face to face rather than to the public behind his back. 

      Put yourself in Archbishop Apuron's shoes. Do you think it is fair if a colleague of yours would go public to the news media without even speaking to you and say that Dr. Zoltan's return to the university would be a disaster? Would you call that fair and just? Would you consider that proper for a colleague to do? Or do you think the colleague should have at least spoken to you about it rather than announcing it to everyone. What do you think was the intention of a colleague to make such a public criticism behind your back? Do you think it was driven with good intention?

      Delete
    38. Dear Zoltan,

      You used the word propaganda to describe our actions, when we voice our disagreement with Byrnes, and because you don't sound to please about it, it is CLEAR that you mean it not in the positive sense. c'mon stop playing antics with semantics...

      1. You never answer my question to you: Do you 'believe' Apuron made a mess of the diocese? It is my 'opinion' that I thing you do. Because any action of Byrnes, even his negative comment of Apuron, gets a pass, you don't even agree with us that it was inappropriate.

      2. There 'root' of the problem in Guam stems from two totally different viewpoints of what CAUSED it. a) Was it that Apuron got in the way of some influential families of the Island or b) He mismanaged the archdiocese. Those are the two narratives. The families of the island via the folks at the Jungle, are supporting b) and they want to hang the whole problem on Apuron's neck, they are doing (negative = evil) propaganda on Apuron -because they accuse him of pedophilia without evidence, only based on allegations- and they want to hang the RMS on his neck as well, as he goes down in order to pay for the problem (documented by Deloitte & Touche) that they caused.

      Accordingly, Byrnes action of carelessly speaking negatively about Apuron, helps narrative b) and can be judged as cooperation with evil. Not only that, all the comments that he has made, are evidence that HE BELIEVES that narrative. I wonder if he does so because he fears the influence of the families more than he fears a 'publicly' disgraced Bishop... the truth, however, is not a factor here.

      Narrative a) or what common sense demands, is justice, I do not want Apuron free if he is indeed guilty of any crime. But you and I know that until the verdict from ROME it is not fair to base judgement as IF HE IS GUILTY. That is a clear INJUSTICE.

      WHAT I JUST SAID IS NOT "AN INTERPRETATION" (as in relativism - how you feel about it) OF EVENTS... IT IS FACTUAL.

      My last argument is that you seem to care more about money (financial collapse of the diocese and the lawsuits) and Apuron is just negligible, a non-relevant character that, IMHO, you believe is responsible for all that is happening... perhaps you even believe that he deserves what he is going through. I want to remind you that Apuron IS the 'Ordinary' and Byrnes is just the 'Co-Adjutor'. The fact that you have to administer a difficult situation doesn't give you the right to shift the blame to Apuron just because 'it is easier' and you can 'worry about the --real-- problems facing the diocese' as you put it.

      Be careful to put money above people Zoltan. The Church can survive bankruptcy, many diocese have already gone through that, but the will of God for Guam passes from the Pope -> Apuron -> Byrnes -> faithful... it is not Pope -> Byrnes... check it out. If Byrnes undermines the Pope, I will also critizice him as well... I you would too, wouldn't you? No matter if he is my Bishop or not.

      Delete
    39. Dear Diana, if I would have been the head of a unit that has to face grave financial situation, then I would have to listen to the criticism. Why? Because under my leadership financial troubles were created. A new head rightly would have reservation about my command and control, or the lack of it, that resulted in financial trouble. By the way, the university would be severely punished if it would not be able to produce audit for an extended period of time.

      The same holds within the church. A new leader of the archdiocese might justifiably have grave reservation in a similar situation. We don't have credible explanation for the missing audit. It has not been cleared up why the audit could not have been produced. Msgr. Benavente's irresponsible act would not be sufficient to cause this magnitude of trouble. So what is the truth here?

      Diana, you keep repeating what you would have done. We heard you, probably many of us would have done as you suggest. But Archbishop Byrnes chose to proceed on his own way, going public with his reservation. Is this really such a big deal? Cannot we just move on? When Archbishop Apuron is cleared at the Vatican and returns to Guam then he would have the opportunity to prove that Archbishops Hon and Byrnes were not right about his return.

      Delete
    40. Dear anon, your approach of a) and b) strengthens the split into "we" and "them" in church matters. However, an approach of "all of us" represented by the Archbishop could be more fruitful.

      I have to ask you, please, do not put words in my mouth that I have never said. Follow the proper English meaning of the vocabulary you employ in expressing your view. Thanks.

      Delete
    41. Dear Zoltan,

      So, you do believe that the financial mismanagement was Archbishop Apuron's fault despite the fact that records show that it was Monsignor James who took $13,000 and used it for his anniversary party and gave away free cemetery plots to his friends and families without the Bishops knowledge. This stand you take is not fair. When Monsignor James was placed in charge of Catholics Cemeteries, it is expected that he will take his duties seriously and in a manner that is trustworthy. If Monsignor James used his position to steal, he should be held liable for it.

      Furthermore, the University would inform you of the financial mismanagement. It certainly would not go behind your back. The university would inform you and then notify the police. In other words, you would be informed first before the media.

      Archbishop Byrnes never informed Archbishop Apuron. He went straight to the media. Imagine Apuron's surprise. He had no idea that Byrnes accused him of incompetence. He found out about it only through the media.

      The university, on the other hand, would never have done that. In fact, no government agency has ever done that to its employees. The employee is always given notice first.

      Delete
    42. Dear Zoltan,

      … about the word propaganda…
      1.“The OED defines propaganda as “any association, systematic scheme, or concerted movement for the propagation of a particular doctrine or practice”. Moreover, it adds that the propagation of information is carried out “by an interested party, esp. in a tendentious way in order to encourage or instill a particular attitude or response” (OED). The term propaganda thus currently carries a negative meaning, evoking the idea of an agent deliberately manipulating the way a recipient absorbs and interprets information."
      For more info… check http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/propaganda.htm

      2. “It makes the impression more like a hostile propaganda rather than a benevolent search for the whole truth of the story.” (your own words) It is your impression, I give you that, however, I don’t think that in your context ‘hostile’ has a positive meaning.

      …about me putting words in your mouth…
      How could I be putting words in your mouth when I precede my arguments with…”you seem to…”, “IMHO, you believe…”, “perhaps you even believe that…” AND when I beg you to please clarify your position?

      …about the approach…
      IMHO, the approach of Byrnes, has been to find out which way the wind is blowing and neglect justice and the truth in the name of ‘peace’. Does Byrnes care that there are powerful propellers, namely PDN, Junglewatch, CCoG, SNAP, etc. disfiguring the truth, the character of Apuron and the narrative of the events? Does he sees that Apuron do not have the same access to those powerful megaphones to present his side of the story?… it took a foreign newspaper (Vatican Insider) to balance the injustice and it didn’t even made a dent in Guam… nor in Byrnes opinion… it seems.

      Can we discern here a hint of John Stuart Mills 'utilitarianism' which has been condemned to be unjust because it follows the fallacy of equivocation, to move from the fact that (1) something is desirable, i.e. is capable of being desired (peace), to the claim that (2) it is desirable, i.e. that it ought to be desired; and the fallacy of composition, because the fact that Byrnes desires his own happiness (peace in Guam and his image, capable to handle a difficult situation) does not imply that the aggregate of all persons ought to desire his happiness. What people are thirsting is for the TRUTH.

      IF you ‘seem to be saying’ that whatever the public opinion is, it’s the truth… I certainly do not agree. But please you have the floor and explain.

      Delete
    43. Dear Diana, financial mismanagement is a complex problem. Usually it cannot be blamed on one or other single person. The Archdiocesan Financial Council and the Archbishop have the facts about the missing audit. The inability to produce an audit in the past was already a clear evidence of serious troubles. The problems, if not prevented, tend to become systemic creeping into the whole organization. Let me refer to an article from the Umatuna that was written on the occasion of introducing a new finance management platform to the archdiocese's all existing units:

      "Archdiocese launching Cathonet system to strengthen financial management

      Archbishop Michael Byrnes and Josie Villanueva, Finance Officer for the archdiocese unveiled the financial management platform called “Cathonet”. “Just the fact that you came here today is already a sign of improvement,” Archbishop Byrnes told the assemblage.

      Cathonet is a financial and accounting platform that is used by many other Catholic dioceses across the country that builds better
      - management,
      - accountability,
      - efficiency and
      - transparency
      in financial operations. Under Cathonet, parishes and schools work together more easily with their diocese for improved communication, oversight and control.

      “This instrument will help us gain the transparency,” Villanueva told the group. “We have to rebuild together and we have to strengthen the foundation as we move forward,” she said. The archdiocese can now “get going” with this vision to strengthen our financial management in this way thanks to the dedication and innovation of the Archdiocesan Finance Council.

      In her overview, Villanueva discussed some of the fiscal challenges that our archdiocese is facing, such as
      - declining attendance and donations at the Masses,
      - the threat of closure or consolidation of parishes and schools
      - due to the lack of funding and financial oversight, and
      - delays in reporting of time-sensitive financial information.

      She also mentioned that “best practices” in financial management and technology are not utilized consistently across our archdiocese and urged the shedding of an “It’s always been done this way” mentality when it comes to embracing the challenges of employing 21st century tools now at our disposal."

      http://umatuna.org/news/featured/archdiocese-launching-cathonet-system-to-strengthen-financial-management/

      You see, dear Diana, the roots of the problems go very deep. You need serious effort to streamline the management and make it transparent, otherwise the problems re-create themselves in different form. Because of the complexity of these systemic changes it is inevitable that a strong and determined leader takes command who can dedicate himself 100% to making improvements. You need a shaker and mover who is ready for big changes! At this moment, this person is Archbishop Byrnes who took on the helmet to face the challenges.

      Delete
    44. Dear Zoltan,

      I will remind you that some of the members in that present Archdiocesan Finance Council were the same people who caused the financial problems. Archbishop Byrnes has been here for only one year, so we have yet to see an improvement. The Archdiocese is still in a lot if debt. That has not changed. We have to wait another year or two to see the results of Byrne's implementation.

      Delete
    45. Dear Diana, you say: "Some of the members in that present Archdiocesan Finance Council were the same people who caused the financial problems."

      You should tell who you are talking about. Who caused the financial problems? We need clarification because we might not talk about the same thing. The financial problem was that no audit could be produced by a professional accounting firm a couple years ago, in 2013 or 2014. This was a sign and evidence of deep troubles that everybody should have understood immediately.

      I don't know about anyone who took responsibility for this failure of producing the audit. I don't know the exact reason either. I have never seen the document that came out of the accounting firm. If you know who caused the troubles, it would be useful for everyone to learn about the facts.

      I agree with you that we have to be cautious in making predictions of what is going to happen in the archdiocese.

      Delete
    46. Diana, the Archdiocese has two financial reviews from the Deloitte accounting firm, one for 2012 and the other for 2014. There is no audit available, though. Why? Deloitte states: "A review is substantially less in scope than an audit." That is why an audit is of high worth.

      https://aganaarch.org/documents/2017/10/AOA-Financial-Statements-and-Independent-Accountants-Review.pdf

      https://aganaarch.org/documents/2017/10/FINANCIAL-REVIEW-REPORT-JUNE-30-2014-FOR-ARCHDIOCESE-OF-AGANA.pdf

      So the roots of the troubles might go back well before 2014, perhaps even before 2012. One may conclude that the financial oversight did not work properly for a long period of time. In contrast, under Archbishop Byrnes the oversight is visible and results are transparent. Everybody should see the benefits of these improvements. This gives us one more reason to seek unity among us and trust those who work hard for all Catholics on Guam to produce good results.

      Delete
  5. Thank goodness the way is teaching children to become true disciples of Our Lord. They teach true love and respect for others.We are now learning truth about the way. The priests are very kind. We need their presence in community. This Island will suffer spiritual death without NCW. Island will be placed in darkness as it was pre 1995.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Zoltan you have to verify what it is you're saying. It can't be your announcement as if it were true.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Parish community is the norm.
    Not crucial nor morally imperative to maintain faith in a parish community. Allow others to have an alternative faith community. NCW is an alternative faith community accepted by the church. Give people alternatives to discern their spiritual path. Give alternatives to attend mass in a parish or small group community. Look beyond parish which is already a limited concept or outdated. Small faith communties are an alternative. Open mind search new ways to lead others to the Lord. Scripture eucharistic based groups basic communties fellowship support catholic life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear anon, why would a parish be an outdated concept? I cannot agree with you. The center of Catholic life is the parish. Can you have a better concept? The Statutes of NCW says a parish is a community of communities. Is not your local NCW community one of these communities?

      Delete
    2. Zoltan,

      I know you mean well, but communities are not the center of our catholic life. Otherwise any community could be catholic. The center of our catholic life is the Eucharist, Jesus Christ's real presence in our lives.

      From the Catechism of the Catholic church:

      1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."136

      Delete
    3. Anon @ 10:27am,

      Can you explain what you mean when you say, "Not crucial nor morally imperative to maintain faith in a parish community"? What is your concept of parish as the Catechism of the Catholic church states:

      2179 "A parish is a definite community of the Christian faithful established on a stable basis within a particular church; the pastoral care of the parish is entrusted to a pastor as its own shepherd under the authority of the diocesan bishop."115 It is the place where all the faithful can be gathered together for the Sunday celebration of the Eucharist. The parish initiates the Christian people into the ordinary expression of the liturgical life: it gathers them together in this celebration; it teaches Christ's saving doctrine; it practices the charity of the Lord in good works and brotherly love:

      You cannot pray at home as at church, where there is a great multitude, where exclamations are cried out to God as from one great heart, and where there is something more: the union of minds, the accord of souls, the bond of charity, the prayers of the priests.116

      Delete
  8. Eucharist is prayed in community. Community is a gathering of people to pray to study scripture to pray Eucharist. Community can be parish, a convent, a prison a hospital a NCW community, a chapel. Think beyond parish. You restrict work of Holy Spirit. Think beyond a diocese church is universial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did Jesus drag people to communities? Did he put them on guilt trips in order to force them into a community? If so, he seems like a God who treats his creation as objects to serve him rather than children he loves and gives a choice.

      Furthermore, is the reason He involves himself in every aspect of their lives meant to FORCE THEM to love him?

      Seeing God like that makes me feel like just another kid on the street to be cleaned up and brainwashed than a child whose life he actually cared about.

      It is MY choice to be a part of a "community" or not.

      To those who want to FORCE JESUS ON OTHERS, please stop being involved in every aspect of our lives without our permission. That is like having Jesus rape us and then afterwards tell us He did so out of LOVE.

      Call me crazy, but I honestly can't shake the feeling that there are individuals out there who are doing that and believe that it's ok.

      Delete
    2. Dear Jessica at 6:41pm,

      Could you give some examples from your experience of how some people have forced Jesus on you? I think of those on street corners with a microphone and speaker system shouting about Jesus.

      Maybe such people are a wakeup call for you and me to really think of Jesus in our lives, even though we may not like their method.

      Delete
    3. "That is like having Jesus rape us..."
      1. Exaggerated analogy
      2. Shocking image (reflects more how you feel)

      No one is dragging anyone into communities... one is FREE to stay or leave... otherwise GUAM-PD would be criminally prosecuting the NCW... is it uncomfortable? that is directly dependent on you.

      Looking at Christ on a Cross, do you see a scandal? do you see love? do you see a father that loves his son? or do you see a monster that allows his son to be crucified, indifferent to his suffering, not bothering to interfere?

      The word of the Cross is a fundamental doctrinal aspect of Christianity that you either get it or you don't (see 1 Corinthians 1:18-25). In front of the Cross you can't remain indifferent... it FORCES YOU TO CHOOSE... Christianity ought to FORCE YOU TO CHOOSE because "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Mt 6:24) Does that mean that either you enter into the community or you will never understand it? Absolutely not, you are free to ignore a way that invites you to deepen your Christian faith or wait for God to help you in another way. However you can't say that God has not invited you to do so through the community, or however many other ways he has tried. The question that remains is: are you doing something about it or are you happy to stay ignorant of your faith? perhaps you already know everything... in that case, sure, you don't need the help of the NCW... or perhaps you are so busy these questions are not that important to you now. Fine... however, the fact that you don't care, or you don't need it, doesn't mean that it is not important for the Church to urge others to deepen their faith because the Church believe that IT IS VERY IMPORTANT to do so. Not only for one's salvation, but also so that you don't suffer in this life.

      A better analogy of this aspect of Christianity is the Matrix movie. You want to stay plugged to the machine and believe that the Matrix is reality, fine... but don't criticize those who are looking for those who want to live in reality, not just some dream world. You already are unplugged, you don't need help, fine, but don't attack the ones that are trying to help others.

      Delete
    4. "Could you give some examples from your experience of how some people have forced Jesus on you?"

      You see it as a wake up call. I can understand that.

      What I don't understand is how someone can insert themselves into the very fabric of my life and herd me into a community I don't know or understand. Is being in a community good? Yes.

      My problem is when the community takes peeping tom glances into my private life in order to find something that can be used as a neon sign to point to someone or even Jesus himself so that I am forced to make the choice to be open about my life or remain closed to the people around me, to be open to my "community" or remain closed to them.

      Call me "scrupulous" if you want, but I don't appreciate my private life being hacked in order to get me to open up about my life. Don't go beating around the bush trying to connect with me by sharing things uncovered about my past and what I've read about, done, or thought and wrote about recently without me "publicly" sharing those things. Don't manipulate the people around me with the knowledge gained about me "in secret". I don't appreciate my private life being whored around and dragged through the streets. I have no idea why there is a need to do that when I can be approached and choose to share or not share those things.

      I know I am a sinner. I know I don't know much about Jesus. I know I don't understand the Cross, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. I know I don't know what it means to love God and my neighbor. And perhaps the intention of going behind my back in secret is to reach out to me to get me to think about these things with others and grow with them, but it is "uncomfortable". Because it feels like my private life is being treated as a means to an end. Why is my private life being shared with "my community" without permission? I want to be the one who chooses to share those things instead of them being stripped from me. Because I feel like an object when I am treated that way.

      I can't stop anyone from continuing to do this, but every time even a hint of my private life gets touched without my permission and I realize it, my reaction is going to be seeing it as being treated like an object because I never gave permission to be "touched" there.

      Maybe no one is doing this and it's me being scrupulous, but I can no longer tell because it's happened too many times for me to believe every single one of them was a coincidence.

      Delete
    5. "The question that remains is: are you doing something about it or are you happy to stay ignorant of your faith? perhaps you already know everything... in that case, sure, you don't need the help of the NCW... or perhaps you are so busy these questions are not that important to you now. Fine... however, the fact that you don't care, or you don't need it, doesn't mean that it is not important for the Church to urge others to deepen their faith because the Church believe that IT IS VERY IMPORTANT to do so. Not only for one's salvation, but also so that you don't suffer in this life."

      I respect the intention of the NCW. I have never spoken out against its intentions or reasons for existence in the church. I have NEVER said I don't care about deepening my faith. I have NEVER said that it's not important for others to do so. Why do you think I don't care about my faith? Do you know me enough to be able to say that about me?

      "You want to stay plugged to the machine and believe that the Matrix is reality, fine... don't criticize those who are looking for those who want to live in reality, not just some dream world. You already are unplugged, you don't need help, fine, but don't attack the ones that are trying to help others."

      It honestly seems that you completely ignore that the people you are trying to help are real people with real lives. From my own personal experience it seems some are desperate and impatient to bring them face to face with God, and end up invading their private lives without their permission. From there they commercialize it to their advantage and disregard or have no idea of the damage inflicted on the unsuspecting victim's psyche after uncovering the plot. Whatever change that occurred out of "ignorance" of the plot to use such information transforms into doubting the sincerity of every single action "meant" to help. How are you sincerely helping me by going behind my back and making decisions about what's best for me without even taking into consideration what I want? Does my choice not matter?

      Delete
    6. Jessica, Life, whether you like it or not Jessica, 'forces Jesus on you'. Just as the need to subsist ‘forces’ parents to force children into schools. Children have no choice. Likewise there are questions in life that the Church, with the love of a mother, seeks their Children be prepared to answer ‘properly’, by sharing with them all the experience and the revealed gifts that she has received from the Lord.
      What questions? Who am I? (which is what you seem to be scrupulous and would like to keep that private) Who is God? (perhaps you are afraid to know that your God may not be the God of revelation) and What are you living for? (perhaps you want to keep this also private as many people, like the rich young man, are saddened when confronted with the answer in choosing between God and Mammon).
      Regardless of your answers and how embarrassing they may be for you. The question will be put to you by life and with your life you will give an answer. There is no opting out of this and it is between you and God. In other words, Life is meant to force all of us ask ourselves: Who is God? etc. Some chose to 'go with the flow', ‘why bother?’, 'don't rock my boat', etc. The Church knows that the sooner you figure the answer, the better you can live your life and avoid sufferings that, by experience, will happen to you if you opt to neglect the answers. We are beings that live in time, and in time, experience is a collection of knowledge that we can either ignore or learn from them. To say that it is immature to neglect history or, what could be learn from it, is appropriate.
      The facts is that there are MILLIONS of way of looking at the same data or experience. Some will come up with philosophies of life (Gnosticism, Agnosticism, Atheism, Hedonism, Dianetics, etc.), others with religions (Hinduism, Islam, Janism, Chintoism, etc.) The Catholic Church, which means the Universal Church, claims to have the only 'valid' way to interpret history, not because of arrogance or that they believe they know-it-all, but by decree and with the full authority given to the Church by Jesus. Here is another statement of our faith that is difficult to grasp, obedience. Having said that, you have to answer in all sincerity and honesty, Do you have the answers to those questions? Do you know what the Church thinks of your answers? Do you want to know? (careful, because this is a double edge sword question) If you want to know, you have to reveal what you know and let the Church shed light in what could be mistakes. Now exposing your knowledge in public and risking to be seen as ignorant, surely is a suffering as the pride gets hurt (humiliation), but it is a ‘medicinal’ or ‘good’ suffering (becoming humble).
      The adult (emphasis on adult) Christian is the one whose life is an open book. Even his most dark secrets are public information, but guess what?, it does not kill (humiliate) him/her anymore, furthermore, St. Paul will say that 'God's strength is made perfect in weakness':
      "Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong." 2 Corinthians 12:8-10

      Delete
    7. It is through your weakness that God will manifest his resurrection in your life. Each person has his 'weakness' to manifest so it is not unfair to ask someone about their weakness. WE ALL understand how difficult it is to speak about it, but we ALL have them. Just read the lives of Saints: St. Peter (coward & traitor), Abraham (old-age & childless, barren), King David (adulterer and murderer), St. Paul (persecutor and accomplice in the death of St. Stephen), read St. Augustine Confessions, the life of Mother Theresa of Calcuta, St. Therese of Lisieux's autobiography, St. Catherine of Sienna's temprations, etc.
      The more you read, the more you realize that what makes you scrupulous is not healthy because we are all made of the same material. Now, you can ONLY discover this truth in community, not by yourself. You don’t want to share your personal weaknesses, fine, the community will not demand that you do, just stay quiet until others, less scrupulous, share their weaknesses until you discover that we are all the same, at that moment your scrupulosity will vanish and you will understand THEN (and only then) that it is good, VERY GOOD INDEED, to be forced in whatever form it is done to share this insights. Remember that everything that is exposed by the light becomes light.
      “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret; but when anything is exposed by the light it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore, it is said,
      “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.”
      Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil.“ Ephesians 5:11-16
      It is true that it is shameful or embarrasing or humiliating to talk about the works of darkness. But it is not so for one that his/her intention is to leave them behind, on the contrary, it is a GREAT sign of the immense power that God has.
      Your last point on being careful and sensitive to people's feelings and making sure that no one is hurt. Or allegations that people are speaking behind your back...

      Jessica, every community is different. Every catechist is different. It is unreasonable to expect that no one gets hurt in a community made up of sinners. On the contrary, it is reasonable to predict that egos will be hurt, things will be taken out of context, misunderstood, lies, etc. because it is a community made up of people like you and me... sinners... and guess what? THAT IS EXACTLY WHY A COMMUNITY IS MEDICINAL FOR ANYONE, because you will learn: 1) to be genuine and sincere with your virtues and weaknesses (the world FORCES YOU to wear masks and psychologically drives you to scruples & anxieties because you become a slave of 'what people think of you'.) 2) You will learn to bear with the sins of one another (Yeah you can live in a bubble where no one bothers you... surround yourself with friends that adore you, or at least that do not 'bother' you, and you can repeat to yourself "I am a Christian" all you want, but if you don't love the one who 'bothers you', Christ will say:
      "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:46-48
      and St. John says
      "He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still. He who loves his brother abides in the light, and in it there is no cause for stumbling. But he who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes." 1 John 2:9-11

      Delete
    8. If the Church is a mother, she seeks those wandering in darkness, blind, and her job is to lead them to the light... which will expose their darkness but will help them to live in the light.
      "You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." ―Morpheus to Neo
      A blue-pill refers to a human that is not aware of reality and is happy being ignorant of the truth... see Plato's cave allegory... for most 'ignorance is bliss'
      Hope this helps to explain the method behind the'madness'.

      Delete

  9. Zoltan center catholic life is eucharist. Eucharist is not only reserved to a parish.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Catholic Herald
    Irish group offers threapy for
    priests falsely accused of abuse

    ReplyDelete