Kiko Meets Pope Leo XIV

 

The Election of Pope Leo XIV

 The following article can be found here.

It is with great joy that the Neocatechumenal Way has received the news of the election of Cardinal Robert Prevost as Successor of Peter. His first words have filled us with joy, placing at the center the Risen Christ, who offers us his peace, and evangelization that springs from a missionary heart.

A particular echo in the hearts of all the brothers and sisters of the Way—and particularly in mine—has been that the election took place on the day of the Supplication to Our Lady of Pompeii, because Our Lady of Pompeii has had a special meaning and presence in the history of the Neocatechumenal Way. In 1968, when the Servant of God Carmen Hernández and I arrived in Rome, we were taken by Don Dino Torreggiani, founder of the “Servants of the Church,” to place at the feet of Our Lady of Pompeii the mission that had begun among the shanties of Palomera Altas, on the outskirts of Madrid. Since then, there have been several events that have significantly accompanied the Way on May 8.

During his episcopal ministry in Peru, he also had the opportunity to meet the team responsible for the Way and to accompany them, as well as to preside over a vocational meeting where he encouraged young people to become missionaries of Christ.

The name he has taken as Successor of Peter, Pope Leo XIV, reminds us that his predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, had to govern the Church in truly difficult times, in defense of Christian identity.

The Way is above all a charism that prioritizes mission through Christian Initiation offered to dioceses and parishes. Concrete signs of this are the thousands of families on mission in the most de-Christianized places, the Redemptoris Mater seminaries, where priests are formed for the New Evangelization and all family and youth ministry. We are happy to be able to continue, with His Holiness, putting all these gifts of the Lord at the service of the Church for the good of humanity, and especially of those “many baptized who end up living… in a de facto atheism,” as Pope Leo XIV recalled in his first homily in the Sistine Chapel.

We assure the Holy Father of our prayers and those of all our brothers so that his ministry may bear all the fruit that people today need.

Kiko Argüello

May 8th, Virgin of Pompeii

Action Speaks Louder Than Words

 The former Archbishop Anthony Apuron has a point. All the bishops and priests who were found guilty of child sexual abuse were defrocked. He was the only exception. He still retained his title of Bishop. The only thing he lost was the Archdiocese. There is no doubt that certain people want to see Apuron step down even BEFORE the sex abuse Scandal broke out. At any rate, Tim Rohr even agreed that the only way to defrock Apuron is through child sexual abuse. According to Rohr (the bold is mine):

TimFebruary 23, 2017 at 4:09 AM

There is no doubt that all of this could have been avoided had the Vatican guys did a bit more homework. Even the noticing of the witnesses was very much slipshod. True, Attorney Lujan also could have done more on his end, but we don't know that he didn't. Maybe he did and he saw that there was nothing to gain by cooperating with Rome. He certainly has every right to distrust the institutional Church.

However, the consequences of a stalemate are exactly as the title states. While Apuron could be reprimanded for his financial misdeeds and his abuse of priests, just to name a few items on a very long list, the only way he could become a candidate for defrocking (laicized), would be through the sex abuse allegations. At 40 years distance, it still is a "he said-he said" situation, no matter how powerful the alleged victims' testimonies may be on paper.

Someone who was with Apuron at that time said that the verdict was a political one. At that time, Theodore McCarrick was found guilty of child sexual abuse and defrocked. That was in February 2019. It was also in February, 2019 just a few days after McCarrick that Apuron was found guilty of the same offense. At that time, the Pope was under tremendous pressure to do something about the clergy sex abuse scandal. Therefore, the verdict may likely have been political, which had nothing to do with justice. 

Unlike Theodore McCarrick, Apuron was not defrocked. Also, McCarrick was never exiled from his home country, but Apuron was exiled. Why do you think that is? Could it be because Apuron's life was threatened, and Pope Francis exiled him for his protection?

There was indeed a climate of fear in Guam.The tires of the former Archbishop were slashed at the Chancery. He was stalked by the people who hated him. They wrote letters to the Vatican, urging them to find him guilty NOW without a canonical trial.

As for the plaintiffs who voluntarily dismissed their case, what was the main reason for the dismissal? One of the primary reasons for dismissing a case is lack of sufficient evidence. One reason that was given was because Apuron had no money or assets to give. This reminded me of the time when Cardinal Burke came to Guam to interview the alleged victims. None of them wanted to speak to Burke. However, when they heard that the Church's ATM was opened, they decided to take the interview. See the story here. Action speaks louder than words.

So, Bishop Anthony Apuron has a point. The fact that he was NOT defrocked and treated differently than the rest of the priests and bishops who were defrocked for the same offense speaks volumes. Unlike Brouillard who was accused of the same offense and defrocked, Apuron was not secluded. He was never told to stay away from children. He was simply told to stay away from Guam. Action speaks louder than words.

Excerpts From PDN

 These are some excerpts taken from the Pacific Daily News:

He issued a video message after plaintiffs initiated proceedings that sought dismissal of cases, according to his attorney. Apuron is required to agree to the dismissal, his counsel said.

He did, and the parties filed a motion that dismisses with prejudice eight clergy sex abuse cases and one defamation case against him. 

 It was the accusers who initiated the dismissal, which is something the jungle chose to ignore. The plaintiffs' attorney said that there's nothing to take from him because he has nothing. Bishop Anthony sold all his assets. But wait!!! 

I was so sure that the accusers were not interested in money, only an apology. Yeah right! If you recall, the moment the former Archbishop declared his innocence, the accusers called him a liar and proceeded to sue him for 2 million dollars. So much for not being interested in money. 🙄 It was the money all along, including their hatred of the former Archbishop and the Neocatechumenal Way. 

The nine cases that were dismissed "included eight allegations of sexual abuse dating back to the 1970s, mostly from former Hågat alter boys and one defamation case."

They backed down. They ran away. Could it be because going through a trial would expose the truth? For example, Roy Quintanilla and Walter Denton both admitted in public media that they thought they were alone. They thought no one knew. But later they admitted that they spoke to Father Jack Niland about the abuse. One of them admitted that another boy was with him. So, their stories changed. They were not alone. Furthermore, Roland Sondia and his family were very close to Father Jack. If Father Jack was truly a child molester, Roland Sondia would also be his victim. However, there are photos showing Sondia visiting Father Jack at the hospital before he passed away. Roy Quintanilla even left a positive comment on Father Jack's obituary.  You can read about it here. 

Roy Quintanilla, Walter Denton, and Roland Sondia claimed they were sexually abused by the former Archbishop Anthony Apuron when he was a priest. Two of them changed their story and said they told Father Jack about the abuse, but there was no record of Father Jack reporting a child sexual abuse.Imagine if all that came out in court.

From Bishop Anthony Apuron

 

Nine Cases Dismissed

 The following can be found here.

NEWS

Nine dismissals with prejudice filed in cases naming former Guam Archbishop Apuron

Wednesday, May 7th 2025, 5:33 PM ChST

By Joan Aguon Charfauros

Nearly a decade of legal battles has come to an end for Guam’s former Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron.

Today, nine civil cases in federal court, eight of them involving allegations of sexual abuse dating back to the 1970s, were dismissed with prejudice, meaning the claims can’t be filed again. 

The dismissal comes without any settlement, money, or other consideration, according to Apuron's attorney, Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, the legal team emphasized the archbishop's consistent denial of the accusations and stated that the dismissals were based solely on voluntary stipulations from the plaintiffs.

In a press release, attached was a message from Apuron, reading, “Over the past decade, I have been unjustly condemned by the media and public opinion because of certain false accusations made against me. In silence, I have accepted this in justice out of love for Jesus Christ, praying for those who are doing evil against me. Today, the claims made against me in 9 cases have been dismissed permanently.”

“Contrary to false recent media reports, I have never entered into any settled agreement, and I’ve always refused to do so. I also never paid any sum of money to my accusers. Today’s dismissals come from the plaintiffs and are further evidence of my innocence.”

“Today, I can also speak freely about the canonical process. The canonical process did not result in my layatization. No priest found guilty of these crimes laicization no priest or bishop found guilty of these crimes has remained a priest or bishop as I have. This indicates my innocence.”

Apuron, who has lived in seclusion for several years, maintains his innocence and says he continues to pray for the church of Guam, his accusers, and all victims of abuse. 

Going Down Memory Lane

 You can find the following article here:

_______________________________________

Vatican verdict against Guam archbishop likely not for sexual abuse, say canon lawyers

AVatican tribunal's guilty verdict last month against a Guam archbishop, hailed by some as the first instance of the Catholic Church successfully prosecuting a bishop accused of abusing minors, appears likely not to have been made in direct relation to allegations of sexual abuse by the prelate.

A number of prominent canon lawyers say the punishment announced for Agana Archbishop Anthony Apuron — removal from office and a prohibition from living on the U.S. island territory — simply seems too lax to indicate the bishop was found guilty of abuse.

The canonists, speaking in interviews since the March 16 announcement of the verdict from a five-judge apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the expected punishment for sexual abuse of a minor would usually be laicization, known formally as dismissal from the clerical state.

"It must be that he wasn't found directly guilty of sexual abuse," said Oblate Fr. Francis Morrisey, a former president of the Canadian Canon Law Society who has advised numerous Vatican offices and local bishops' conferences. "Otherwise, I think he would have been dismissed from the clerical state."

Msgr. Frederick Easton, a former president of the U.S. Canon Law Society, said the punishment for Apuron did not appear proportional to a finding of guilt in regards to sexual abuse.

"One would have thought ... if the bishop were found guilty of sexual abuse of minors, that could easily be a reason for dismissal from the clerical state for him," said Easton, who also served for 31 years as the judicial vicar for the Indianapolis archdiocese.

Easton, Morrisey and two other canon lawyers said it seemed more reasonable to assume Apuron was found guilty of a so-called "boundary violation," such as solicitation in the confessional.

A fifth canonist suggested reports that the 72-year-old is facing a decline in his physical condition might have mitigated the punishment imposed on him.

The Vatican tribunal did not say in its announcement of which exact acts the Guam archbishop had been found guilty, or even what specific charges had been brought against him. It simply stated that it had found the prelate "guilty of certain of the accusations."

Morrisey, who is a canon law professor at Saint Paul University in Ottawa, said the Vatican tribunal might have released so few details about its verdict against Apuron because the case involved material related to the confessional, which would be subject to pontifical secrecy.

U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke, a noted canonist, served as the presiding judge on the Vatican tribunal.

Apuron, a Guam native who had led the island's only diocese since 1986, was placed on leave by Pope Francis in June 2016 after a series of accusations about abuse of young men in the 1960s and 70s were made public.

According to the filing number of a request for testimony to the Vatican tribunal, obtained by NCR, the canonical case against Apuron was first opened in 2008.

In October 2016, Francis named Michael Byrnes, then an auxiliary bishop in Detroit, as Guam's coadjutor archbishop, granting him special faculties to run the archdiocese in Apuron's place.

In October 2016, Francis named Michael Byrnes, then an auxiliary bishop in Detroit, as Guam’s coadjutor archbishop, granting him special faculties to run the archdiocese in Apuron’s place.

As coadjutor, Byrnes would automatically become full archbishop with Apuron’s removal from office. But Apuron has indicated he will appeal the ruling, and during such an appeal the penalties against the archbishop are suspended.

The allegations against Apuron are only a few of some 150 cases of clergy sexual abuse currently being brought forward against the Guam archdiocese, which announced March 27 that it will sell its chancery property to raise money to pay for expected settlements.

Patrick Wall, a canon lawyer and former Benedictine priest who is now a lead researcher for a civil law firm that specializes in representing clergy abuse victims, suggested the tribunal may have intentionally “backed off” any charges of direct sexual abuse against Apuron.

Wall, an advocate for Jeff Anderson & Associates, said the Vatican might have had motive to do that in order to limit the Guam archdiocese’s liability in dozens of pending lawsuits about its alleged mismanagement of abusive clergy.

“I guess they ... proceeded on solicitation because it gets the same final result but also does not trigger civil liability back in the hundreds of cases in Guam,” said Wall.

“If it can be proven using an internal church document that the CEO of a corporation knew that [child sexual abuse] was going on -- he himself was doing it -- then that is notice for a negligence case and the Archdiocese of Agana in Guam has major problems,” he said.

Apuron had 15 days upon being notified of the verdict against him to indicate to the doctrinal congregation that he would be appealing the tribunal’s decision in his case.

Assuming the archbishop has challenged the ruling, Easton and Morrisey said the appeal would likely be evaluated by the full cardinal and bishop membership of the congregation, or by a new tribunal formed of a number of the members.

According to the 2017 pontifical yearbook, there are currently 27 members of the congregation, including known figures such as: U.S. Cardinals Sean O’Malley and Donald Wuerl, and noted canonists Italian Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio and Maltese Archbishop Charles Scicluna.

Easton said that the ruling made on the appeal will be final and that there will be no possibility of a second challenge. The canonist said that the Vatican’s prosecutor could also ask the appeal tribunal to impose a greater penalty on Apuron, such as laicization, should other circumstances or facts come to light.

Nodding to Apuron’s chances of a successful challenge, Morrisey noted Burke’s reputation as an exacting lawyer. “With Cardinal Burke being the presiding judge in the first instance, he knows his law inside out,” said the canonist. “If anyone knows the canons today, he’s the one who knows them.”

_____________________________________________

Bishop Apuron filed for an appeal, which he had a right to do. However, his appeal was never heard. It was rejected. You can read the story here. 

In my opinion, I think the Vatican rejected his appeal because they feared Apuron's life may be in danger if he were to return to the island. There was a climate of fear and intimidation, pressuring the Vatican to find him guilty regardless of the evidence. Apuron admitted in news report that some people came forward revealing to him that they were asked to make false accusations against him. 

Responding to Anonymous

 This is in response to an Anonymous poster, who states:

AnonymousJanuary 17, 2025 at 1:54 M

In the Archdiocese's Ecclesial Disclosure Statement, it states that Apuron was "Found guilty of delicts against the Sixth Commandment with minors". The statement can be found here https://files.ecatholic.com/16576/documents/2024/12/Ecclesial%20Disclosure%20Statment%20re%20Decisions%20by%20DDF.Final%20Signed.pdf?t=1733452417000

Your information came from the Archdiocese of Agana, which probably obtained the information outside the Vatican. The information below came directly from the Vatican press release. It was the Vatican who found Apuron guilty and gave its final verdict. You can find the Vatican press release here.

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE APOSTOLIC TRIBUNAL OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

The canonical trial in the matter of accusations, including accusations of sexual abuse of minors, brought against the Most Reverend Anthony Sablan APURON, O.F.M.Cap., Archbishop of Agaña, Guam, has been concluded.

The Apostolic Tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, composed of five judges, has issued its sentence of first instance, finding the accused guilty of certain of the accusations and imposing upon the accused the penalties of privation of office and prohibition of residence in the Archdiocese of Guam. The sentence remains subject to possible appeal. In the absence of an appeal, the sentence becomes final and effective. In the case of an appeal, the imposed penalties are suspended until final resolution.

This is the verdict we rely on because it was the press release that came from the Vatican. The Vatican never specified the offense Apuron was found guilty of. 

It is clear from the press release that Apuron was accused of other offenses, INCLUDING child sexual abuse. But the Vatcan press release never listed those "other accusations" nor did they specified what offenses they found him guilty of. As many canon lawyers pointed out, the offense could not be child sexual abuse because Apuron still retained his title as Bishop. Other bishops, such as Cardinal McCarrick, who was found guilty of child sexual abuse, were laicized.

March for Life

 Tomorrow is the March for Life at the Cathedral. Come out and support our Archdiocese, our Archbishop Ryan, and Father Harold, who will be the main speaker. As most people know, Father Harold has the zeal of the Holy Spirit, making him an excellent speaker.

The Neocatechumenal Way is well-known for having large families because we are open to life. We carry life in us as we bear fruits. We carry the life of the Gospel as we evangelize. We carry life as we produce vocations and large families. 

The Truth About CCOG

 As I have pointed out in my previous post, the former Archbishop of Agana, Anthony Apuron, was a target for a witchhunt. The purpose of the witchhunt was to remove him from office. The Concerned Catholics of Guam (CCOG) went on a witchhunt to remove Apuron. In 2015, CCOG paid for an ad targeting Apuron. The ad was given to SNAP and published in the jungle. Below was the ad paid by CCOG. Notice the dates and places shown on their ad.

This ad specifically targeted Apuron and no other priest in Guam. CCOG and SNAP worked together to bring down Apuron, who still remains a bishop to this day. The Vatican never said he was guilty of child sexual abuse. The Vatican never gave a specific offense. Only the media and public opinion named the offense. Nevertheless, CCOG and SNAP worked together. According to the Guam Daily Post:

Rohr said the CCOG has been in contact with Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. The SNAP organization helps heal those who have been sexually victimized.

However, SNAP does not help victims of sexual abuse. They exploit them and use them to bring down the Catholic Church (see the information here). According to news report: 

The lawsuit by Gretchen Rachel Hammond names Clohessy and other SNAP leaders as defendants and alleges that "SNAP does not focus on protecting or helping survivors — it exploits them."

The group, which more than any other is responsible for revealing the scandals that have continued to rock Catholicism in the U.S. and around the world, "routinely accepts financial kickbacks from attorneys in the form of 'donations,' " Hammond alleges.

In exchange for the kickbacks, SNAP refers survivors as potential clients to attorneys, who then file lawsuits on behalf of the survivors against the Catholic Church. These cases often settle, to the financial benefit of the attorneys and, at times, to the financial benefit of SNAP, which has received direct payments from survivors' settlements."

Hammond, who worked on fundraising for SNAP from 2011 until 2013, said she feared reprisals from SNAP leaders over her objections to the lawyers' payments and suffered serious health problems as a result. She said she was fired in 2013, allegedly because she confronted her bosses over their practices with victims' attorneys and that the dismissal has hurt her career. 

The lawsuit was first reported by National Catholic Reporter.

Furthermore, CCOG does not represent Catholics. They only represent themselves.