Blog Song

Thursday, April 5, 2018

We Have Been Telling You...

When I published my post Changing Stories, I stated that Tim Rohr believed that there was no canonical trial despite that Archbishop Apuron said that there was. Tim Rohr made the following response in his blog: 
[The first mention of a Vatican trial wasn't until late January 2017. And the Vatican was under no obligation to let us know that it had commenced. What the Vatican did say was that it "cannot release information until the trial is over":
"The Holy See Press Office at the Vatican confirmed that Apuron’s canonical trial is ongoing. However, the office said it cannot release other information until after the trial is over, and referred further questions about the trial to the local archdiocese, the Archdiocese of Agana."]
Once again, he has changed his story.  He could never get his stories straight.  Ever wonder why that is?  He claimed that the FIRST mention of a Vatican trial was until late January 2017.  The truth is.....Rohr did not believe there was a canonical trial until Archbishop Byrnes came out and said there was a canonical trial, which was on December 2016.  According to news report dated December 2, 2016:
The canonical trial of Archbishop Anthony Apuron started.
“It’s been initiated, I know that much. The argument has been exchanged and now it’s kind of like in the second phase of investigation, examination,” said Archbishop Michael Byrnes, the newly appointed coadjutor bishop of Hagåtña (Guam) at a press conference on Monday afternoon.  
Tim Rohr did not wait for any publication from the Vatican to start believing that there was indeed a canonical trial.  He simply believed another Archbishop. Nevermind the fact that Archbshop Byrnes only confirmed what Archbishop Apuron had been telling him all along.  

Take note that it was on December 2, 2016 when Archbishop Byrnes mentioned the canonical trial of Archbishop Apuron.  Then on December 11, 2016 (only nine days later), Rohr made the following statement in his blog:
And while Francis could have simply removed Apuron at that point, he decided to punish the narcissistic pedophile and sentenced him to a trial where he would be made an example of for the whole world to see.  
Suddenly, Rohr believes there was a canonical trial????  And we have been telling you......  

Today, Rohr is trying to convince people that there is no appeal until it is made public through the Vatican.  However, the Vatican never made the canonical trial public; therefore, Rohr is incorrect when he said the Vatican will make the appeal public.  He simply wants the Coadjutor Archbishop to take the title of Archbishop of Agana immediately.  According to Pacific News Center (the bold is mine):
Once a judgment is made and a penalty announced, the guilty has 15 days to file an appeal. Archbishop Apuron announced immediately after the results were published on the Vatican’s website that he made an official challenge to the ruling. But much like the charges filed against Apuron, the appeal documents are not subject to public disclosure. It would be up to the tribunal to make that decision. 
As I stated in my previous post, Archbishop Apuron had 15 days to make an appeal.  Archbishop Apuron announced immediately that he was appealing the verdict. An appeal was already announced and made before the 15 days was up. In fact, not a day had gone by and the appeal was already made and announced by Archbishop Apuron.  In accordance with canon law, the appeal suspends the sentence.  This means that Archbishop Apuron still holds the title of Archbishop of Agana pending the resolution of the Appeals trial.  

Can. law 1638 An appeal suspends the execution of the sentence.

Can. law 409 §1. When the episcopal see is vacant, the coadjutor bishop immediately becomes the bishop of the diocese for which he had been appointed provided that he has legitimately taken possession of it.


Canon law 1638 did not leave the episcopal see vacant.   


Rohr is also trying to convince people that the sentence Archbishop Apuron received is a just sentence for a bishop found guilty of child sexual abuse.  He does not want Archbishop Apuron to be defrocked.  Now, why is that?  Could that be his conscience speaking?  His reason for not wanting laicization does not make any sense at all.  It is a well-known fact that lay people face far more severe penalties when found guilty of child sexual abuse.  They faced the arm of the law and will be placed behind bars once accused.  They do not have the freedom to travel around once they were accused. Just look at what happened to the detainee who was beaten to death at DOC.  The detainee was charged with raping a woman with Downs Syndrome.  He did not even go to trial yet, and already he was beaten to death.     

The most proper penalty given to a priest or bishop found guilty of child sexual abuse should have been "a life of penance and prayer."  This sentence would have kept the priest or bishop secluded and away from children.  The sentence given to Archbishop Apuron does not keep him away from children at all.  In fact, he can still baptize children and even give them the sacrament of confirmation.  His sentence also did not completely ban him from Guam.  He was prohibited from RESIDING in Guam. The sentence says that he cannot reside in Guam. Nowhere did the sentence say he cannot travel to Guam and visit his family and relatives here. 

Today, Rohr stated in his blog:
While the Vatican might be bound by a certain secrecy, Apuron is not. And you can bet that if he was not found guilty of sex abuse he would have already made sure that we knew it.  
But he hasn't. 
We have been telling you all along that the Vatican never said what he was found guilty of.  It was the jungle who claimed that he was guilty of child sexual abuse when the Vatican never said that.  We have been telling you all along that if he was found guilty of child sexual abuse, the sentence does not match the criminal offense.  The expert canon lawyers who came out only confirmed what we have been telling you.  
  

21 comments:

  1. Can. law 409 §1. When the episcopal see is vacant, the coadjutor bishop immediately becomes the bishop of the diocese for which he had been appointed provided that he has legitimately taken possession of it.

    This canon law also puts into question as to whether Byrnes took the title legitimately especially since he knew that Apuron had officially filed an appeal immediately once he learned of the verdict.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does the officially recorded time stamp of the appeal at the Vatican paperwork?

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 12:32 pm,

      Just as the Vatican never disclosed the start of the canonical trial, it will not disclose the start of the Appeals trial. The Appeals was officially announced the same day as the Vatican Press Release was published and and filed at the moment Archbishop Apuron learned of the verdict.

      Delete
  2. Diana, Timmy is citing the canon law saying Pope Francis rendered the Apuron decision through the five judges in the CDF.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:47 am,

      It does not matter. Even Pope Francis is not going to violate the canon law, which stated very clearly that the accused has the right to appeal the case within 15 days and that during the appeal, the sentence is suspended. It is on record that Archbishop Apuron officially filed an appeal the moment he knew the sentence. The appeal was made known on the same day the Vatican Press Release came out. And the Vatican Press Release also stated than an appeal suspends the sentence.

      Delete
  3. Sad to say; they (CCOG) are so quick to deliver the mud to Archbishop Anthony Apuron. But when they made a mistake, the story tone changes. Such as why ask the Archbishop Anthony or his lawyer. The point is.... why go to the media when you can't get your story straight so you wont look like a mule!

    Gino - Sinajana

    ReplyDelete
  4. Diana Timmy is acting like the congregation of the doctorine of faith is the pope when it’s not like how he said that hon the terrible was the pope also when he is not

    ReplyDelete
  5. And Diana look at how this question was answered Q: Does the Pope become involved in the consideration of how best to proceed with addressing an allegation? And the answer is A: No. The CDF handles these cases. The Pope does not supervise the daily activities of the Congregation nor become involved in particular cases as they are being processed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Diana, Rohr is an amateur. Whatever he say does not count much. The troubles of the local church were not caused by Rohr. The troubles were caused by a well organized plan masterminded by those who want to divide and break down an 85% Catholic population on Guam.

    85% is very high! Nowhere on the mainland can you see this high % support for any single religion or religious denomination. This incites envy and rivalry of the underdogs for influence and power. Rohr only did the dirty job for these underdog forces who wanted to break in, undermine and blow up Catholic unity on Guam.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Christ is Risen!

    How can we have a fresh start to dialog with Bishop Byrnes? To try to put aside our biases. For the Bishop to understand our Neocatechumenal Way charism on Guam. And for the brothers to hear what he has to say. Can we try again to open up a discussion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Chelu Peskadot, I agree with you. Archbishop Byrnes is not following CCOG. He is his own man, doing what he thinks is best for the archdiocese and the parishes! I see genuine interest in him to reconcile differing church groups with each other. He is doing what is humanly possible. We need to talk to him, because he is a respected man per his office. People in the villages look up to him for leadership and want him to direct the church to new pastures.

      Delete
    2. Hoping that our catechists can reach out and meet with Bishop Byrnes regarding the communities do and what the Way has always offered to the parish and the diocese. Don't know what Deacon Steve Martinez does as the Vicar for Neocatechumenal Way.

      Delete
    3. @ Chelu - attempted but ignored. How bout that.


      Luis L. Carino ======> Espana

      Delete
    4. Hey, Luis, don't give it up so easily! You have to try it over and over again. Bishops are good men, they'll listen to you if you talk with respect and humility. Don't forget, whatever transpires, in the end of the day it is still Archbishop Byrnes, who wears the red cap.

      Delete
  8. Tim Rohr is on Facebook Live with Fred Rodriguez and Jose Martinez right now on Why Do Catholics Do That. Now is the time to call in and tell him that he’s wrong. And you don’t even have to give your name. You can remain Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Diana, Joanne says you got offended by her blog and you do not publish her comments anymore. Is this true? She says she is praying to the Holy Virgin to bring peace to your heart, to Tim Rohr's heart and to the hearts of all the faithful on Guam. Diana, we need a peaceful time of pulling ourselves together as Catholic and start to build on common trust. We need to rebuild our faith life from the shocks and pains. Otherwise the Catholic Church, as we know it on this island, will be heading to doom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Grow up,

      I have been to Joanne's blog. I do not publish comments that promotes the Jungle' s agenda. She can make comments so long as she sticks to the OP. Also, there are a few comments made by members of the NCW that I also did not publish due to unacceptable language.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, I meant to say that I have never been to Joanne's blog.

      Delete
    3. Diana, if you would go there, you would see that Joanne does not promote anything from the Jungle's agenda. She has her own little world of prayer and devotion. Her view could be polarized by experience, but this is true for everybody. I don't think she should be on your list. But, of course, this is your blog, you call the rules.

      Delete
  10. Dear Diana, you have convinced me 100% by your OP. Yes, all my doubts are gone. I can say I have a very clear picture now about this controversy.

    Everybody should realize how thoroughly you research each topic before posting. The distraction, of course, is coming from other people who try to confuse you and me and all others! It is annoying as you have already made these things clear. Who are those who still cannot see?

    I would consider to close the comment section altogether! Here and now! Whoever wants to have a clear picture, it is already there in your posts. Everything else is, truly speaking, distraction and nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 4:50 pm, 

      I value freedom of expression. We learn from each other. With free expression, we have learned that Archbishop Byrnes rejected four local seminarians and that many Filipino priests do not want to renew their contract and will to return to the Philippines.

      Delete