Blog Song

Monday, February 10, 2020

Intentions of the Heart

Dr. Rick Eusebio once wrote: 
In a dark alley behind the Church, a priest is seen giving a known prostitute money. Is this a picture of a priest giving a prostitute money for services rendered or a priest helping a poor soul get by this month to feed her starving child? What is the truth? There lies the problem with transparency, for it is not the facts that muddy the picture but the conclusion to the facts. The public, media and politicians cry aloud and demand transparency claiming that only through the exposition of information can one possibly learn the “truth”. It is critical to keep in mind however, whose truth and whose agenda? Thus it may be an error to believe what you read at face value and arrive at a false conclusion from a perceived true fact. As illustrated in my example, it is not unusual for two persons witnessing the same event to arrive at two diametrically opposed conclusions, SIN or CHARITY! 
There are always two sides to every story.  To learn the truth of the above scenerio, it would always be best to ask the priest himself as to why he gave the money to the prostitute.  Unfortunately, as shown in my previous posts, some of the media in Guam have an agenda to mislead and destroy.  Take for example the photo published in the Pacific Daily News, which the jungle have often used to promote their agenda: 



The PDN mentioned that Archbishop Byrnes briefly joined the picket line.  The photo they captured of him can indeed be interpreted as though he had joined the protest before entering the Church.  So, what is the truth?  In a news interview with Archbishop Byrnes, he said that he came out to say hello and greet the people with the signs and then he went inside.  He said that he was not there to walk with them nor to protest with them, but to greet them and get to know them. That was his intention.  

The photo above can easily put the Archbishop in a negative light if a person did not hear his interview.  I had just posted two articles about a priest's right of due process.  The signs carried by those protesters had nothing to do with justice.  It was an injustice to demand the removal of an archbishop before his canonical trial even started.  In our country, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Today, both Tim Rohr and J.R. San Agustin stands accused of child sexual abuse. J.R. San Agustin was well-known to write in the jungle blog and protest in the picket line.  Like Apuron, both claimed their innocence.  Should their rights of due process be taken away?  One never think of these things until they find themselves in the same shoes of the person they accused.  The photo above taken by the PDN of Archbishop Brynes is often used by the jungle to promote their personal agenda.  The photo shows the Archbishop walking behind and in front of protesters holding up picket signs denying Apuron's right to due process.  They demanded his removal BEFORE the canonical trial even began.  

However, the intentions of Archbishop Byrnes was not to take part in a public demonstration whose goal is to deny Apuron's right of due process.  His intention was as he had stated in his interview....to say hello and then enter the Church.  In fact, he never picked up a picket sign.  Therefore, the intention of Archbishop Byrnes was charity. 

By the same token, the photo below was also posted in the jungle.  

                          Image result for Father Julius, Guam spray bottle 

What was the intention of the jungle?  What was the intention of Father Julius? Praise God that the people present in that event knew the truth.  The intention of Father Julius was also charity.     

10 comments:

  1. True that. Photos can be misconstrued. Even worse is taking the person's words out of context. AB Byrnes made it clear that Apuron was going through a canonical trial, and he's not the one to determine the verdict.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The only beef I have against Byrnes is he listens too much to CCOG. Remember it was CCOG who introduced legislation to lift the statutes of limitations so the church can be sued. Werent they the ones who said that Brouillard has nothing but a measly stipend, so they can't go after him, but the church has millions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:58 am,

      I think it was Tim Rohr who made that implication in his blog. The bill that was passed by the Guam Legislature indicated that institutions (like the Church) are to be sued. After the bill was passed by the Guam Legislature, the Church circulated a petition to persuade Governor Calvo to veto the bill and instead introduce legislation to sue only the abusers. This is what Tim Rohr had to say about suing only the abusers:

      "From the KUAM news story:

      Church goers are asked to sign a petition at the end of mass in hopes of swaying Governor Eddie Calvo to veto the bill, but introduce legislation that would only hold abusers accountable, not institutions.

      Really, Hon? How does one hold the now dead Antonio Cruz accountable? Where do all of his victims go? To his grave to piss on it?

      How does one seek justice from a 95 year old Luis Brouillard who abused more boys than he can remember. He can hardly leave his couch and has no assets other than a monthly stipend from the Archdiocese of Agana. What the hell, Hon? What the hell!

      You're full of it, Hon. You're full of it. Screw you. Let's sign that bill and get those law suits ready. And sue Hon first."

      http://www.junglewatch.info/2016/09/sue-hon-first.html

      Delete
    2. By the way, the only thing I can say regarding Rohr's comment is this:

      If the deceased Father Antonio Cruz is guilty of child sexual abuse, then justice has already been served. God is the one who gives justice, and should not the alleged victim be satisfied with God's justice? Is not God's justice enough if Father Antonio Cruz was guilty of the allegation?

      As for Father Brouillard, he has been serving penance toward the end of his life. He has also asked his victims to forgive him. If his victims did not forgive him, that is not the problem of Father Brouillard. It becomes the problem of the victim. With repentance and forgiveness comes healing. If the victim did not forgive him, then neither will God our Father in Heaven forgive him (Matthew 6:14-15). This is why Jesus tells us to pray and forgive our persecutors and all those who have wronged us. Forgiveness is not for the other person. It's for our salvation and healing. Also, it was clear from his interview before he passed away that Father Brouillard has repented......and so all the heavens will rejoice at the repentance of one sinner (Luke 15:7).

      Delete
    3. So what about brother Adrian Cristobal? He’s been running from his accusers and doing his own thing while hiding behind a sacred collar.

      Another thing, this island was given the opportunity to speak out against the law to lift the statues of limitations and none came out except for brother Zoltan. It’s funny how till this day you all still can’t except the will of the people.

      Delete
    4. Diana pray for father adrian he needs it because I just saw the pdn he is still being persecuted

      Delete
    5. Dear There is one God,

      He is in my prayers.

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous at 3:34 pm,

      You stated: "It's funny how till this day you all still can't except (spelling error) the will of the people."

      Have you forgotten your history? You introduced legislation to lift the statutes of limitations and submitted a petition of 3000 signatures. We, on the other hand, submitted more than 5000 signatures to then Governor Calvo, trying to convince him to veto the bill. The will of the people was for the Governor to veto the bill.

      You are correct that only Zoltan spoke up against the bill. Do you not remember why? Because you said that those who oppose the bill support child abusers.

      Nevertheless, the man who wrote the bill was Frank Blas Jr. Did you not remember what happened to him in the next election? The author of the bill was ousted by the people of Guam. And so....there was the will of the people. They removed the person who authored the bill lifting the statutes of limitation.

      Delete
  3. I know J. R. San Agustin. You’re right that he would write on JungleWatch. He used sit in his wheelchair to join the Rosaries across the street from the Cathedral BEFORE the picketing began. He didn’t picket. His frail body couldn’t stand being pushed in his wheelchair in the picket line. Others in wheelchairs picketed but not J. R. San Agustin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:40 am,

      See my response in the following weblink:

      http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2020/02/my-response.html

      Delete