Letter from Archbishop Ryan

The Archbishop's letter can be found in the Archdiocesan Website:

According to Archbishop Ryan: 

As your bishop, I warmly invite the Neo-Catechumenal Way to deepen its collaboration with our parishes and diocesan ministries by sharing more fully the rich gifts of its charism. In this way, the entire Archdiocese may benefit from its emphasis on evangelization, family life, missionary outreach, and the active participation of the faithful. At the same time, I encourage the members of the Way, while faithfully preserving their distinctive charism, to continue discerning how it may be expressed in ever greater communion with the liturgical and pastoral life of our parishes. We need to seek ways of walking together in our Synodal journey as one people of God. 

Many members walking in the Way have been serving in the parishes together. Some of us decided to help the CCD program by being teachers and coordinators. Some of us serve as Lectors and Eucharistic Ministers in our parishes. Some were nominated to be part of the Parish and Finance Council of the parish. Some join the parish choir during Mass. Some teach the baptismal classes and RCIA classes in the parish. Some of them work in the Pastoral Office of their parishes. Some join the Ministry of the Sick of their parish, giving holy communion to the bedridden. 

The main issue that the jungle has brought up is the money situation. It is always about the money. They complain that the NCW is not financially contributing to the parish. This is false. Some of us attend the parish Mass as well as the NCW Mass held on Saturday evening. When we have our Reconciliation in the parish, a serious collection is given to the Parish for the use of the facilities. When we hold our Eucharistic celebration in the Parish, every member is asked to put money in the collection for the Parish. Therefore, the Parish also receives money from the NCW every week when they have their Eucharist in the Parish. I also know that some of the communities contributed flowers to be placed on the altar every month. The NCW have also upgraded some of the Parishes without any cost to the parish. 

It has always been about the money. You can read Rohr's complaints here. Contrary to what JungleWatch says, the NCW has been contributing to the parish. If we use the hotels for our retreats, the parish doesn't pay for it. The members of the NCW pays. Afterall, it was the NCW who used the hotel. When we use the parish for our Eucharistic celebration, the members also pay the parish. We contribute to the parish in many ways. 

A Re-post

 I am reposting the following post, which was published on April 16, 2016. You can find it here. According to news report: "Deacon Steve alleges that, based on his understanding, Father Luis and the student engaged in oral sex."

Deacon Steve was not present at the scene when Father Luis was arrested. If someone had told the Deacon that he was a witness who saw the whole thing, then why didn't that person report it to CPS? 

----‐------‐------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the thread of my last post, it was made clear that it was the jungle who created the sex abuse allegation.  This allegation never came from the police or the Archdiocese of Agana. However, the jungle is trying to blame the Archbishop for something they are responsible for.  According to Tim Rohr (the bold is mine): 

It is not we who have incriminated Father Luis, it is the Archbishop of Agana. And here's why:........... 

On March 18, 2015, the Archbishop of Agana announced that he had "initiated a canonical investigation" into the matter which led to the arrest of Fr. Luis Camacho. In doing so, the Archbishop implicitly admits that there was "suspected sexual misconduct."

Junglewatch

 The following is what the Archbishop ACTUALLY stated in his letter:

The archdiocese has initiated a canonical investigation and is cooperating fully with civil authorities.

The phrase "into the matter which led to the arrest of Fr. Luis Camacho" was put in by Tim Rohr himself.  The police made the Archdiocese aware of Father Luis' arrest, which was "custodial interference." No mention or implication were ever made of any type of sexual activity by the police or the Archdiocese.  A canonical investigation was conducted because ANY ARREST of a pastor is a scandal.  For example, if a pastor was found inside a strip bar, that is a scandal which can lead to disciplinary measures.   

 The FIRST time any implication of sex was mentioned between the girl and Father Luis was in the jungle.  On March 18, 2015 (the day after Father Luis was arrested), Tim Rohr wrote in his blog (the bold is mine):

Archbishop Apuron, 

You have a responsibility to confirm or deny the veracity of this incident. Because the girl was of the age of consent, there is no crime (if in fact she consented), and no way for the public to verify the truth or falsity of this incident.............I can tell you exactly how the chancery is going to spin this.

There's no getting around the truth of the matter. So they are going to say that they are taking this very seriously, that they have a policy of zero tolerance, that they will investigate the incident, blah, blah, blah....and then he'll disappear like Wadeson.

Junglewatch

As anyone can clearly see, the very FIRST implication of sex between Father Luis and the girl was made in the jungle on exactly SAME DAY that Deacon Steve Martinez submitted a child abuse report against Father Luis to the Archdiocese and to CPS.  These allegations came from the jungle, and these allegations were made without any investigations on their part.  

Therefore, Tim Rohr lied when he blamed the Archbishop for implying sexual abuse.  It was Tim Rohr who perpetrated a horrific injustice on Father Luis by creating this scandal of sexual activity and finding him guilty without the due process of a trial.  In fact, they even identified the sexual ACT!!!  Imagine that!!!  It was Deacon Steve who actually identified the sexual ACT.  According to Pacific News Center (the Bold is mine):

 Deacon Steve alleges that, based on his understanding, Father Luis and the student engaged in oral sex.    

BASED ON HIS UNDERSTANDING?????  In other words, the jungle conducted no investigation nor did they witness any sexual activity.  The Deacon's  "understanding" was enough to incriminate Father Luis of a sexual act. 

Furthermore, this comment made by Joker's Wild says it all.  His whole comment can be found here: 

Readers need to be reminded that the scandal of sexual activity was created by the jungle. GPD never said that Fr. Luis was caught in the act. It was the popular commenters over at the jungle who started that rumor. They should all be ashamed of themselves. Its understood when silence brings reason for scandal but to place scandal because of outward motives is scandalous in itself. They are responsible for that and should take ownership of the scandal they created. Instantly, the archdiocese released a statement on the matter but they( jungle people) decided they were not satisfied with it as in all things and took the matter into their own hands. So the Archdiocese did their part and have no fault in the rumors that are being passed around.

From Bishop Anthony Apuron

 

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. 

Guam Clergy Sexual Abuse Part 2

 The Guam Clergy sexual abuse started with John Toves who accused former Archbishop Anthony Apuron of sexually abusing his relative....a relative whom he never spoke to. According to KUAM news:

Toves is accusing the archbishop of sexually abusing his relative over thirty years ago. Despite these allegations however Toves admits that he had never spoken personally to his relative about the alleged abuse.  According to Toves he obtained the information through fellow seminarians when he was in the seminary.  At this point no victim has stepped forward.

 The Guam Clergy sexual abuse never started with Roy Quintanilla. Nevertheless, Roy Quintanilla came out in 2016, accusing Apuron of sexually abusing him. According to Tim Rohr:

I have shared this many times, but it needs to be continually shared. These four did not demand compensation, they demanded an apology - only an apology. At that point, Apuron could have put out a statement saying "I'm sorry, but I did not abuse you" and it probably would have all been over. 

But he didn't. While he did state that he did not abuse them, he also threatened to sue them for saying so.

This is false. The lawwsuit was for those who put out an ad targeting the former Archbishop.  According to news report (the bold is mine):

On Friday, the archdiocese announced plans to file lawsuits against those who had been spreading “malicious lies” about the local Roman Catholic Church, addressing a full-page advertisement published locally the previous weekend that asked victims of sexual abuse to come forward.

In his video statement, Apuron referred to what he called “malicious ads.” Concerned Catholics of Guam, a group that has been critical of the archbishop, paid for the ads.

The video clearly showed the former Archbishop saying, "malicious ads." You can see the video here. The video and news report came out after Roy accused Apuron of sexually abusing him. After that video, Roy Quintanilla called Apuron a liar. 

The first four accusers of Apuron after John Toves were all from Agat and knew each other. They were Roy Quintanilla, Roland Sondia, Walter Denton, and Doris Concepcion who claimed her deceased son was sexually abused. However, there were only two people who came forward, stating  that they reported their sexual abuse to Father Jack Niland ( who was deceased). Those two were Roy Quintanilla and Walter Denton. Both claimed that Father Jack brushed off their plea for help. However, Deacon Tenorio came out, stating that there were no reports of sexual abuse filed by Father Jack Niland. 

So, Frances Chargulaf, who is also a friend of Roy Quintanilla and lives in the same state as Walter Denton, came forward and accused Father Jack Niland of sexually abusing him. With that allegation, everyone would probably conclude the reason why no reports were filed by Father Jack. 

Nevertheless, Roy Quintanilla had positive things to say about Father Jack after he passed away. According to Roy Quintanilla:

Roy Quintanilla

August 17, 2009

My Dear Friend Fr. Jack, taught me the meaning of true friendship. He was not only my best friend, mentor, and confidant he was someone I really enjoyed spending time with. No matter what we were doing, whether we were together or talking from a distance life felt like it had a purpose. He had a way of balancing life's ups and downs and inspite of everything, made us aware that life is a precious gift to be cherished and that we should all be greatful for everything life bestows on us. Thank you my Friend for always looking out for me and my family when you were here and I know you're looking out for us from Heaven. I miss you and I wish you were still with us, but like you said, God has plans for all of us and we are all were we should be. I will remember you for as long as I can because I know that "Death is not in passing but in the forgetfulness."

Furthermore, if Father Jack was a sexual predator, the most likely person he would sexually abused would be Roland Sondia for he was very close to him and his family. See the information here. Below are photos of Roland Sondia and Father Jack before he passed away.

With this information, you decide whether there was indeed a conspiracy to remove Apuron and an attempt to destroy the Catholic Church by introducing a law removing the statutes of limitations. Also, remember that the Vatican never specified what offense Apuron was guilty of. It was only the media who named the offense. Furthermore, Apuron was never removed of his status as Bishop while other priests and bishops were laicized and stripped of their faculties when found guilty of child sexual abuse.

The Guam Clergy Sex Scandal

 The Guam Clergy Sex Scandal started with John Toves, who is now deceased after struggling with cancer. Je accused then Archbishop Anthony Apuron of sexually molesting his relative, whom he has never spoken to. After John admitted that he never spoke to his relative. His relative never even came out to support John's allegations. So, no one believed John Toves. 

Then four other people came out in public to accuse then Archbishop Anthony Apuron again. According to Tim Rohr:

Had Apuron admitted his crimes or even met privately to apologize to his initial accusers, the archdiocese might have been spared the loss of millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and properties, most of which had been given to the Church by common, hard-working Catholics who sacrificed their own comfort and family security to help the Church they loved. 

This is my response: 

SERIOUSLY!!! They came out in PUBLIC, accusing  Apuron of sexual abuse, and you want him to meet them in PRIVATE! SERIOUSLY!!! You also want him to admit to the crimes.Then Rohr said this (the bold is mine):

In fact, Apuron, if he really did not do what he was accused of, would not have even had to apologize. He could have just met with those initial accusers and heard them out. I was involved with those initial accusers and I can state for a fact that all they wanted to do was confront the man they believed who had hurt them in their childhood. They did not want to sue - there was no way for them to do that in the beginning anyway, they did not want to hurt the Church, they did not want to do anything other than to assuage their childhood pain.

Apuron DID say that he did not do what they accused him of. He claimed to be innocent to this day. And what did the four accusers do? They proceeded to sue him and the Archdiocese for 2 million dollars. According to news report:

Four people who publicly accused Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron of sexually abusing altar boys in Agat in the 1970s filed a libel and slander lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Agana, Apuron and up to 50 other unnamed defendants for calling them liars and for accusing them of “instilling hatred, ignorance and violence in the people.”

The plaintiffs in the suit are Doris Y. Concepcion, Roy T. Quintanilla, Walter G. Denton and Roland Paul L. Sondia. Through their attorney, David Lujan, they filed the lawsuit in the Superior Court Friday morning. The plaintiffs are seeking no less than $500,000 each for all general damages, for a total of at least $2 million

Well, so much for not being interested in money. Even before the sexual allegations came out against Apuron, Rohr wanted Apuron to step down as Archbishop of Guam. According to KUAM news

In Tumon, local blogger Tim Rohr spoke before island Rotarians. Rohr writes Jungle Watch, a blog that covers issues involving the island's Catholic community. Even prior to the removal of Monsignor James Benavente Rohr has been highly critical of Archbishop Anthony Apuron for his controversial removal of Father Paul Gofigan last year from the Santa Barbara Church.

Rohr said, "My only hope is that the archbishop for his own health resigns ASAP."

One Rotarian questioned, "There seems to be a lot of conviction on your part on the archbishop's part - do you see any amicable meeting or meeting or meeting of the minds or compromise?", to which Rohr replied, "Absolutely not." He then reaffirmed his belief that the archbishop needs to resign.

Rohr announced this in 2014, two years BEFORE Roy Quintanilla publicly came out to accuse Apuron of child sexual abuse. 

At any rate, although they claimed that they were not doing it for the money, they went ahead and pushed forward a bill that would give the four accusers to bring a lawsuit against the Archdiocese for 5 million dollars. Again, so much for not being interested in the money. 

Then others came out of the woodworks also seeking 5 million dollars from the Archdiocese. Many of these accusers couldn't be identified because they only used their initials, and many of them accused dead priests. No investigation was done to verify their stories. Some of these accusers came from: 

1.  A Protestant who claimed to be an altar server in a Catholic Church.

2.  A person who claimed to be a "back-up" altar server.

3.  A female who claimed to be raped by Father Brouillard during a "Boy Scouts" event.

4.  A person who claimed to be raped during a fiesta where hundreds of people were present 

5. A person who claimed to be sexually abused by Fr. George Maddock just a few days after his death and while other youth praised the priest. 

Are there any real victims out there? I'm sure there were, but their numbers have been overshadowed by the numerous false claims.

At the End of the Day

 In his post, Tim Rohr wrote that Father Harold of ten years ago is not the same Father Harold today. More than 10 years ago, Rohr had only good things to say about the Way. In 2008, Tim Rohr wrote positive words about the Way and the priests walking in the Way. According to Rohr’s letter (the bold is mine):

4. The NCW is producing vocations. And I know that the seminarians are learning Latin and Gregorian Chant in conformity with the true wishes of Vatican II. I don’t see that happening anywhere else.

5. I see NCW priests wearing their clerics. They are visible to the community. God Bless them for that.

6. I was sitting with Fr. Ivan and Fr. Eric Forbes when Fr. Ivan asked Fr. Eric if he would teach the seminarians how to say the Traditional Latin Mass. Fr. Eric responded positively and also offered to teach them the theology of this beautiful Mass. This is in conformity with the wishes (if not command) of the Pope in his recent Moto Proprio. I don’t see anyone else rushing to embrace the Pope’s desires in this regard.

7. The NCW is teaching people to study their faith. They are studying the Scriptures, the Catechism, and the Early Fathers. It’s wonderful to see.

8. I understand that the NCW is also active in the prison. I used to teach in the prison for GCC and saw how active non-Catholic groups were with the prisoners. The majority of the prisoners are Catholic. Where is the Catholic ministry? The NCW is now there.

9. I see the NCW going out 2 by 2, knocking on doors and inviting people back to the Church, in other words, doing exactly what Christ commanded. The only other group that I know that does this is the Legion of Mary, so good for them too.

10. Most of all I am moved by the politeness, the kindness, the general charity of those I know in the NCW, especially the priests and seminarians, but essentially most everybody I know personally who is connected with it.

Rohr wrote this about 16 years ago. Today, Troy wrote:

My dad was part of the Way, and I never knew him to be a happier person prior to his membership in the community where he belonged. In fact, every person I know and I have met who has been in the Way is a joyful, excited Catholic.

 So, Rohr had positive things to say about the NCW and the priests walking in the Way more than 10 years ago. TODAY, Troy said positive things about Father Harold and some people walking in the Way. Therefore, it was not the priests, seminarians, or those walking in the Way who has changed. It was Tim Rohr who changed. 

Jungle Fabrication

 It was brought to my attention that Rohr was attacking Father Romy, our Apostolic Administrator. According to JungleWatch:

In the above press release, Fr. Convocar states the following:

According to archdiocesan records, Father Luis was arrested on March 17, 2015 on Guam for custodial interference. He resigned as Pastor of San Dimas, Malesso and San Dionisio, Umatac. He was prohibited from hearing confession and restricted from celebrating Mass publicly. He may celebrate Mass only privately. Those restrictions of his faculties have not been lifted. Former Archbishop Anthony Apuron sent the priest off-island to a priestly renewal program after the incident in 2015.

Other than the fact that Camacho was arrested on March 17, 2015, none of the rest is true. 

1. There was no restriction of Camacho’s faculties....

 The truth is Father Luis was placed on restriction back in 2015. According to the Guam Daily Post dated March 19, 2015 (the bold is mine):

The archdiocese issued a short statement Wednesday evening regarding Camacho’s arrest.

“The Archdiocese of Agana was made aware that Father Luis was booked and released yesterday, March 17, 2015. The alleged offense is custodial interference, according to information provided by the Guam Police Department. The archdiocese has initiated a canonical investigation and is cooperating fully with civil authorities. In the meantime, Father Luis’ faculties have been restricted,” said the statement by Vice Chancellor Rev. Jose Alberto Rodriguez.

If Rohr can get this simple fact wrong, one then has to wonder what else are in error as a result of hatred for the Way. 

 

Rome has spoken!

 According to the Guam Daily Post, Father Luis Camacho has returned to Guam. A statement was released from Father Romy, the Apostolic Administrator. You can also find that statement in the Guam Daily Post. Nevertheless, the most important thing to remember in regards to Father Luis Camacho is that Rome has already spoken. 

Rome opened a canonical investigation on Father Luis following the incident in 2015. Though the Vatican has not been able to make a canonical ruling due to insufficient evidence, the case is not closed. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith informed then Archbishop Byrnes on November 18, 2022 that the case is filed in the archives at this time as it is not possible to proceed with any canonical action.

 Rome has spoken! 

My Answer

 I said I would respond to the anonymous commenter in a post. The person wrote the following:

Anonymous January 28, 2024 at 3:47 PM

Diana, was Dr. Eusebio telling the truth when he came publicly and said that Apuron only dealt with the St. Louis nuns rather than Mother Dawn regarding the 2 million dollars? Asking for a friend

I apologize for the late reply. Yes, Dr. Eusebio spoke the truth, and he had the emails between Archbishop Anthony and Mother Stella. However, I do agree with an anonymous commenter who wrote that Dr. Eusebio should have focused on the allegation that Mother Dawn made of Archbishop Anthony revealing the identity of the donor. Once people learn that it was Mother Dawn who revealed the donor’s identity to Tim Rohr who then published it on his blog for the entire world to see, her credibility will be gone. And whatever she had to say about RMS and the Archbishop’s letter will be ignored. The media would not listen to her.

It would be like the John Toves scenario. People and the media listened to John Toves when he accused Archbishop Anthony of sexually abusing Toves’ relative. However, once he admitted that he never spoke to his relative, the people and the media stopped listening to him. His credibility was gone. 

As for CCOG’s report on Guam’s RMS, did anyone listened to what Andrew Camacho said when he started his press release?  Listen carefully to what he said in the video below. The very first thing that Andrew Camacho said was “In my OPINION, the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Yona is a sham.” Then he goes on to read why he believes it was sham. There were absolutely no facts or data in the report he read. There were absolutely no documents to back it up because it was only CCOG’s OPINIONS. The Vice President of CCOG admitted it in his press conference.  The reliable source whom Andrew Camacho would not name was Frenchie who never visited Guam RMS (See the weblink here.) All someone had to do was point out what he said, and it would put the credibility of CCOG into question. All this was a witch hunt against the Neocatechumenal Way, the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, and Bishop Anthony Apuron. 

The Complete Timeline

Those who have been reading my blog for a long time are aware of the circumstances surrounding Mother Dawn, the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Guam, and Archbishop Anthony Apuron. On November 15, 2016, Mother Dawn came out publicly and revealed the donor of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and accused then Archbishop Apuron of not respecting the donor's wish to remain anonymous. According to KUAM news (the bold is mine):

In a rare press conference, Mother Dawn talked to local media to share her side of the story relating to the RMS property in Yona. You see, after years of speculation about who was the mystery $2 million benefactor that allowed for the archdiocese's acquisition of the RMS property.

he finally came out, saying all it took was a phone call to her Carmelite sisters in the US mainland. "There was no he, it was a she - and it was me," she said. "So the truth of where the money came from is as easy as that."

According to the mother superior, her wish to remain anonymous was not respected. 

The JungleWatch blog also had its own timeline regarding Mother Dawn, which you can find here. However, that timeline is incomplete. According to Rohr's post:

JAN 02, 2003: The Carmelite community in St. Louis, MO, agrees to lend Archdiocese of Agana the money to pay off the approximate 2 Million dollar mortgage note, interest free. (The offer of a loan eventually became a free and clear gift).

DEC 17, 2014: Mother Dawn Marie, on business for her Carmelite order, is in the office of the St. Louis Carmelite community when an email from Archbishop Apuron arrives addressed to the Prioress of the St. Louis community. In the email Apuron asks the St. Louis Prioress to sign a pre-written letter stating that the original intent of the 2003 donation was for the "purchase of the Accion Hotel for the Archdiocese of Agana for the purpose of housing the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and the Theological Institute for the formation of priests."

These are the facts: 

January 2, 2003: The Carmelite community in St. Louis, MO agrees to give the Archdiocese of Agana 2 million dollars to acquire the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. 

August 6, 2014: Mother Dawn contacted Tim Rohr and told him who the donor was. Tim published it in his blog, which you can see here. According to Tim Rohr dated August 6, 2014 (the bold is mine): 

The 2 million dollar gift to purchase the Yona property did not fall from heaven. Mother Dawn, because she is devoted to our Catholic Church, spearheaded the effort to find a donor through her order and specifically through her fellow Carmelites in St. Louis, Missouri. 

August 7, 2014: Patty Arroyo spoke with Mother Dawn. Mother Dawn also revealed who the donor was to Patty Arroyo. So, the news media already knew. Patty Arroyo made a comment in the jungle about her interview with Mother Dawn. According to her comment:

Patti ArroyoAugust 7, 2014 at 7:29 AM

I have spoken personally with Mother Dawn Marie on this. All reported above on the "deal" for Redemptoris Mater Seminary is true, especially the part about the notion that the Carmelites had an extra 2 million laying around. Because the conditions of the "gift", not loan were violated people think the Carmelites don't need help. In fact, they live on $30 each a day and Mother Dawn Marie is currently scouring the country for financial support. If anyone is interested in a solution...help the Carmelites. It's the most productive, personal effort you can make to help fix an otherwise out of control holy war.

December 17, 2014 (taken from Tim's own blog): Mother Dawn Marie, on business for her Carmelite order, is in the office of the St. Louis Carmelite community when an email from Archbishop Apuron arrives addressed to the Prioress of the St. Louis community. In the email Apuron asks the St. Louis Prioress to sign a pre-written letter stating that the original intent of the 2003 donation was for the "purchase of the Accion Hotel for the Archdiocese of Agana for the purpose of housing the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and the Theological Institute for the formation of priests."

November 15, 2016: Mother Dawn comes out publicly to blame Archbishop Apuron that the donor's wish to remain anonymous was not respected (See KUAM news.)

So, you see, it was never Bishop Apuron who revealed the donor's identity. It was Mother Dawn herself. She first revealed it to Tim Rohr who published it in his blog in August 6, 2014, two years before she came out public. The donor's identity was already published in a blog for the entire world to see before Bishop Apuron even sent his email. 

Why did I bring this up? Canon lawyers suspected that the guilty verdict of Bishop Apuron had nothing to do with child sexual abuse. In fact, many canon lawyers concluded that the guilty verdict must be something else. However, the Vatican never said what Apuron was guilty of nor did they mention what charges were brought against him. See the news report here. 

What I do know is that Bishop Apuron appealed the verdict against him after he was found guilty. Right after that, I received an email from Father Pius, asking me to email him the evidence that Mother Dawn revealed the donor's identity to Tim Rohr and that Rohr published it in his blog. Unfortunately, the verdict was upheld by the Vatican without even reviewing the evidence. So, the evidence was never presented.  

It is also possible that Rohr knew the identity of the donor since 2013 because of what he published in his blog. According to Rohr's post dated November 26, 2013 (the bold and underline is mine): 

However, even the extremely low price was still a lot of money for the archdiocese. Arrangements were made to purchase the property on terms, but the completion of the purchase was accelerated when the archdiocese received a large gift to assist in the purchase of the property through a religious order based in the states. 

The gift had the condition that the source remain absolutely anonymous. The condition of anonymity was critical because the donor did not want to hurt the religious order through which it came, and of which, there is a branch on Guam.

 So, the bottom line is that Bishop Apuron never revealed the identity of the donor as shown in my timeline. The donor was already revealed when it was published through the JungleWatch blog for the entire world to see.  

Correcting the Jungle Again

 From Rohr’s title in his post, So There Are Two Chosen People, he must believe that the Jews were replaced by the Christians as God’s chosen people. This belief is called “The Replacement Theory,” which was rejected by the Catholic Church (See the article on Catholic Answers, written by Jimmy Akin.)

Yes, there is a New Israel. And if there is a New Israel, that means there is also an Old Israel. There is a New Testament and an Old Testament. There is a New Covenant and an Old Covenant. There is a first Adam, and there is a second Adam. There is a first Eve and a New Eve. So, it only takes common sense that if there is a New Israel, there is also an Old Israel. The Jews are the Old Israel. However, the question is are the Jews still the chosen people of God? According to the Catholic Church, the answer is YES. So, who should you believe.. Rohr or the Catholic Church? According to an article in Catholic Answers, written by Jimmy Akin (the bold is mine):

The Church rejects the idea that the covenant with Israel has been nullified or revoked.

The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked. (Catechism, 121)

While the role of preparing the world for the arrival of the messiah has been fulfilled by the Jewish people, they still are God’s chosen people whose fidelity to God remains a light to the nations. The Jewish people were called to a unique and special relationship to God that included preparing for the messiah but was not limited to that one role.

In addition, when asked if the Jews are still God's chosen people Cardinal Ratzinger responded: 

God has not, then, retracted his word that Israel is the chosen people?

No, because he is faithful. Of course, we can see that Israel still has some way to go. As Christians, we believe that they will in the end be together with us in Christ. But they are not simply done with and left out of God's plans; rather they still stand within the faithful covenant of God.

So, yes, the Jews are still God's chosen people, and this is what the Catholic Church teaches. Rohr's teaching is not Catholic. Jesus did not come down to invent a new religion. His purpose was to bring redemption to mankind. God remains faithful to Israel...to both the New Israel and the Old Israel, for both are His chosen people.  God is "the Judeo-Christian God" because the Jews and Christians are His chosen people who know His real name.

According to Tim Rohr: 

The DIANA, who claims to only speak for herself and not The Neocatechumenal Way (NCW) - which she constantly speaks for - says - within the current context of the Israel v Hamas conflict - that she "stands with Israel." 

Is Rohr calling me a liar when I stated the following? 

Although I walk in the Neocatechumenal Way, this is my blog and does not express the views of other members walking in the Way. Neocatechumenal Way, Insider's View is the view of only one person walking in the Way. My political views may be different from the others walking in the Way. Nevertheless, they are my political views and mine alone. 

The title of my blog is "Neocatechumenal Way - An Insider's View."  "An Insider's View" means exactly that, and it was written in the singular tense It is NOT The Insiders' Views (plural). It is the view or viewpoint of one person walking in the Way for several years. So, as one person asked me in my blog earler whether Spanish is being recited in our Eucharist, I answered that as far as I know, it is not. So, what part of "An Insider's View" does Rohr not understand?  

As for the Palestinians, have you ever wondered why the Arab neighbors closed their borders to the Palestinian refugees? When Russia attacked Ukraine, their European neighbors took in the Ukrainian refugees, which consist mostly of women, children and the elderly. But the Arab world closed their borders to the Palestinian refugees. The Arab world are aware that the majority of Palestinians elected Hamas whose goal is to murder all Jews and destroy the State of Israel and make it into an Islamic state.  This is a fact that many in the West chose to ignore. And today we see the reason why as antisemitism finally reared its ugly head in the western world. 

Another Jungle Falsehood

 Tim Rohr has never been to any of our Easter Vigils even when Bishop Apuron was Archbishop of Agana. This is why one should never listen to Rohr. According to Rohr:

As noted in my initial post, while the NCW has "been saying all along that we are allowed to celebrate the Easter Vigil in small groups," the fact is that it - the NCW in Guam - doesn't. And it didn't even before Fr. Romy's recent directive. Instead, the NCW in Guam has historically gathered all the communities together for a single "large-group" celebration of the Paschal Vigil, albeit in their own unconsecrated space. 

During Apuron’s time, we did celebrate the Easter Vigil in small groups. The Barrigada communities celebrated the Easter Vigil together on their own. Chalan Pago Communities celebrated the Easter Vigil on its own. The Agana communities and Tamuning communities also held their own celebrations. We were not together as one single large group. At that time, there were enough RMS priests to celebrate the Easter Vigil in small groups.

It was during Archbishop Byrnes’ time that the NCW celebrated the Easter Vigil as one single large group. Why? Because at that time, we no longer had enough RMS priests to hold small group celebrations. Why? Because Archbishop Michael claimed that Guam does not need RMS priests, so many of them were rejected, and they found new Bishops who took them in. According to the Pacific Daily News:

"The main reason for closing the seminary is that it is just not a sustainable model for the Archdiocese of Agana," he said, adding that the RMS model envisions a type and formation of priesthood that works in a place like Denver or Miami, for example, where there are millions of Catholics.

 The reason this blog is called, “Neocatechumenal Way, Insider’s View” is because this blog belongs to a member of the NCW who has been walking since 2007. I am that member. As a member, I can blog about my own experiences in the Way. Rohr, on the other hand, cannot. Therefore, when Rohr said that the NCW in Guam has historically celebrated the Easter Vigil as one large group with all the communities present, this is false. It is a false and incorrect statement from Rohr. I was walking since 2007. I was there when we celebrated in small groups. 

Furthermore, Rohr stated:

So The Diana says that because the Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not found explicitly in Scripture then neither do the practices of the NCW have to be found explicitly in its Statutes. (Note: See how The Diana equates the NCW Statute with Dogma, the Dogma of the Assumption!)

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary officially became a dogma in 1950 by Pope Pius XII. Before 1950, the Assumption of our Blessed Mother was a TRADITION…. Yes, that is correct….a TRADITION practiced and passed down by Catholics throughout the generations. The Catholic Church has always followed the Apostolic Traditions (which were practices passed on), Sacred Scripture, and the teaching Magisterium of the Church. 

Likewise, the NCW continued to practice its TRADITION before the approval of the Statutes. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were fully aware of these practices because they also participated in those traditional practices. See the story here. 

There were only a few minor changes made to the NCW traditional practices AFTER the Statutes were approved. For example, one of those changes made was the way we were to receive Holy Communion. Previously, the members would receive the Body of Christ sitting down. After the approval of the Statutes, we started receiving the Body of Christ standing. Everything else that were NOT mentioned in the Statutes remained the same and continued to be traditionally practiced. 

Scott Hahn once said that if you want to find the truth, go straight to the horse’s mouth to find it. Scott Hahn became a Catholic because he found out the truth by going through the written works of the Church Fathers and Early Christians, who were all Catholics. He did not turn to any anti-Catholic website. In the same way, if one wants to learn the truth of the NCW, then speak to the members who are currently walking in the Way. That is plain simple common sense.

 

A Matter of Interpretation

It was brought to my attention that Tim Rohr was using my posts to mislead people. According to  Rohr (the bold is mine):

Diana goes on to copy a portion of an article from Crux and emphasizes the following:

An exception exists for “national churches,” like the U.S. Catholic community at St. Patrick Church in Rome, and for members of the Neocatechumenal Way, whose Vatican-approved statutes allow for small-group celebrations of the Easter vigil.

Sounds pretty authoritative, coming from Rome and all. However, the excerpt is from a document distributed by the "episcopal council of the Rome diocese" to the Rome diocese, which is why "the U.S. Catholic Community...in Rome" is mentioned.

Rohr misleads people by focusing that the letter was to the Rome Diocese. However, what I placed in bold clearly showed that the Statutes of the Neocatecumenal Way allowed for small-group celebrations of the Easter Vigil. Does Tim Rohr think that the NCW in Rome have a DIFFERENT approved Statutes? Rome was referring to the Statutes that all NCW worldwide have.  Rohr goes on to say: 

Meanwhile, the episcopal council of Rome appears not to have read the NCW Statutes which say nothing about "small-group celebrations of the Easter vigil." 

 So what? Nowhere in Scripture does it mention the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, where did we get this teaching? Well, certainly not from Tim Rohr. We got this from the Holy See...the Vatican. Tim Rohr is simply taking a stance that all Protestants use against the Catholic Church. Who is Tim Rohr to dictate what should be and should not be in the approved Statutes?

In the same way, just because one does not see "small-group celebrations of the Easter Vigil" in the Statutes does not mean that we should not celebrate it in small groups. The NCW have been saying all along that we are allowed to celebrate the Easter Vigil in small groups, and it was that document from the Episcopal Council of the Rome Diocese who interpreted the approved Statutes in that way. So, why should one listen to Tim Rohr? The NCW received its instruction and interpretation from the Holy See since the approval of its Statutes. And the NCW recognize only Pope Francis...not pope Tim.

Archbishop Byrnes' 2015 Letter

 You can find Archbishop Byrnes original letter written on March 15, 2017 here. Below is what I want every reader of this blog to pay attention to. According to the Original letter by Archbishop Byrnes dated March 15, 2017, he spelled out the directives specifically (the bold is mine): 

First of all, I have asked the lead catechists here in Guam to put a "pause" on the formation of communities for a period of about a year.

Is there anyone in the Chancery who does not know how long is a year? Did anyone invent a new definition for the word "year?" Am I supposed to believe that a year is MORE than 12 months? Therefore, the NCW in Guam did not violate this directive given in 2017. The 2017 directive given by Archbishop Byrnes gave a specific time frame for the "pause." And it is now 6 years past.

Let Us Not Forget #2

Let us not forget that the ones who brought up the sale of the seminary was Richard Untalan and the former Finance Council. In a 2012 letter sent to then Archbishop Anthony Apuron Untalan wrote:

"Selling the property, then valued at $75 million, could eliminate the archdiocesan debt."

The former Archdiocesan Finance Council were dismissed in January 2012. Let us not forget that the JungleWatch Nation believed that the seminary was given away by Bishop Anthony. However, there were no Deed of Gift nor any Deed of Sale. Instead, there was a Declaration of Deed Restriction. A Deed Restriction is a private agreement that restricts the use of the property. The ownership remains the same. Nevertheless, the Jungle tried to convince people that the property was given away and no longer belongs to the Archdiocese. Let us not forget that the title of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary listed the Archdiocese of Agana as the owner.  Even Archbishop Hon publicly stated that the Archdiocese of Agana owns RMS. According to KUAM news:

It's a multimillion dollar question: who owns the Redemptoris Mater Seminary? According to the Vatican-appointed apostolic administrator, the Yona property is owned by the Archdiocese of Agana. "The archdiocese owns that property. No doubt of it....

Let us not forget that Archbishop Hon was called a "liar" for saying that the seminary was owned by the Archdiocese of Agana. One would think the jungle would be happy and relieved to hear Archbishop ensure that the seminary belonged to the Archdiocese, but they were not happy nor relieved and called him a liar. Let us also not forget these four facts: 

1.  Report from the Pacific American Title confirming that the lots on which the RM seminary sits identified the owner as the Archbishop of Agana.

2.  Report from the law firm of Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP in Denver, Colorado showed that the Archbishop of Agana retains substantial authority over the RM seminary. 

3.  Document of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, which has the highest authority in the Catholic Church for interpreting the laws of the Church concluded that there was no alienation of the property

4.  The Certificate of title from the Department of Land Management listed the Archdiocese of Agana as the owner of RMS.

With these four facts, you would think that the Jungle would be thrilled and jumping with joy that the seminary still belonged to the Archdiocese of Agana, but they were not. In fact, they wanted Land Management to remove the Archdiocese of Agana as the owner in the Title because it did not fit their narrative. Official documents exist showing the ownership of the seminary to be the Archdiocese. 

They were so angry that CCOG demanded the removal of five priests because they believe that the Certificate of Title showing the Archdiocese of Agana as the owner of RMS was a fake document (see news report here).  Nevermind the rest of the facts. Nevermind the fact that it is an official document from Land Management. Then comes along Archbishop Michael Byrnes. For some reason, he was misled into believing the jungle rumors, thinking that the Archdiocese of Agana does not own the seminary. All he did was used his authority to rescind the Deed of Restriction, which he alone is capable of doing simply because he WAS the owner to begin with (see news report here). No one in RMS or in the NCW signed any documents giving the seminary to Archbishop Michael BECAUSE the Archbishop was the owner. It would be ridiculous to sign a document handing over something that already belongs to you. Archbishop Michael believed the jungle rumors so much that he went so far as to file a lawsuit against HIMSELF....yes, that is correct...a lawsuit against himself. According to the Pacific Daily News (the bold is mine):

Archbishop Michael Jude Byrnes is seeking a court order, affirming the church's control over the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Yona, according to a lawsuit filed in Surperior Court of Guam.

A hearing in the case Wednesday morning was pushed back until May 3 because none of the defendants have received the lawsuit. 

Exactly, who were the defendants? Of course, no one received the lawsuits because there is no document showing anyone to be the owner of RMS except the Archbishop himself. And all Archbishop Michael had to do was read the Certificate of Title, which clearly stated that the Archdiocese of Agana was the owner. In fact, he can even refer to the report of the Pacific American Title.

Furthermore, the jungle have always accused the seminary of human trafficking and money laundering. Human Trafficking and money laundering are criminal acts; yet, none of the accusers ever went to the police to report such crimes. Why? Because the accusations are all false. They never had any evidence, just unfounded accusations. They never had any evidence of their accusations.

 

Let Us Not Forget

Every now and then someone would call my attention to what Tim Rohr wrote in his blog.  This post is the "other side of the story" in what was written about the former Archbishop Anthony Apuron in his January 10, 2023 post.    

Let us not forget that it all started with the removal of Father Paul Gofigan for disobedience. Father Paul was told to dismiss Joseph Lastimoza from employment in 2011.  Investigations showed that Joseph Lastimoza was not dismissed, and Father Paul was removed from the Dededo parish in July 17, 2013.  Father Paul wrote in his letter to the Archdiocese: 

I also request any and all evidence, oral or written, supporting the reason for the removal, including but not limited to, the written reports and notes of any and all investigations on Mr. Joseph Lastimoza and on this case....I likewise request copies of all policies or directives adopted by the Archdiocese on registered sex offenders, .....

This request is not needed if, in fact, Father Paul terminated Lastimoza. Rather, evidence of employment termination is needed. Joseph Lastimoza was found guilty of the rape and murder of 26-year-old Christine Rudnicki in 1981. He was also connected to other sexual crimes prior to 1981, and he was registered as a sex offender. Some of the parishioners in Dededo brought this to the attention of Archbishop Apuron, who then instructed Father Paul to dismiss Lastimoza from church employment.  

Let us not forget that the first person who accused former Archbishop Anthony was the late John Toves. He accused the Archbishop of sexually abusing his relative...a relative who never came forward. And let us not forget that on December 1, 2014 in an interview with Jesse Lujan, John Toves admitted that he never spoke to his relative. He admitted that his relative never told him that he was sexually abused by Apuron. Rather, Toves admitted on radio that he obtained that information from someone else, but did not specify who. After that revelation, the media never bothered with John Toves again.  

Let us not forget that the second person to come out, accusing Bishop Anthony of child sexual abuse was Roy Quintanilla who was from Agat. Shortly after that, three others from Agat came out making the same allegations. One of them was a mother who claimed her son (who was deceased) was sexually abused by Bishop Apuron.  Let us not forget that during the course of Bishop Anthony's tribunal, many former altar servers from Agat also came out to testify to Cardinal Burke in defense of Archbishop Apuron.  According to the Vatican Insider (the bold is mine): 

After a few days, four people came forward, among them Roy Taitague Quintanilla, who alleged having been abused forty years earlier when, at the age of 12, he was an altar boy for Father Apuron who, according to his allegations, had taken him by night in his own home to rape him. However, Vatican Insider has learned that statements were made by multiple former altar boys to the tribunal who maintain that they had never seen Quintanilla in the parish and that the parish activities were always carried out in groups and never alone. 

Many former altar boys testified to the tribunal that they have never seen Roy Quintanilla in the parish and that the parish activities were always carried out in groups and never alone. 

Furthermore, Roland Sondia, another Apuron accuser, had nothing negative to say about Bishop Anthony in 2009.  According to the Article (the bold is mine):

Sondia was just a boy when he first met Fr. Jack. He and his family would develop lifelong friendships. 

"I started as an altar boy that year when Fr. Jack came," said Sondia. I've known him ever since." "Fr. Jack was more -- he was like a mentor to most of us," he said. "He was like a father to a lot of us that were down there, just like the bishop was....." 

The "Bishop" whom Roland was referring to here in 2009 was "Anthony Apuron" who was Archbishop of Agana during that time when Father Jack Niland passed away.  Father Jack Niland, by the way, was also one of the deceased priests who was named in the child sexual abuse lawsuit despite the many praises coming from Roland Sondia and other altar servers.  About seven years later, Sondia went on to accuse Bishop Anthony of sexually abusing him when he was an altar server in the Agat parish where Bishop Anthony was the pastor and Father Jack was the associate pastor.   

Let us also not forget that Bishop Anthony Apuron's right to "due process" was violated by public opinion, by some of his Guam fellow clergy and by Archbishop Hon. In their eyes, he was guilty without the due process of a trial.  Before the trial even began, Archbishop Hon together with the Presbyterial Council of Hagatna requested the former Archbishop to resign. When he refused to resign, Archbishop Hon traveled to Rome to request the Pope to remove Archbishop Apuron. Archbishop Hon was so focused on that goal that he did not notice that the JungleWatch Nation worked on getting an unjust bill passed in the Guam Legislature. He learned of it while he was in Rome, trying to remove Archbishop Apuron, but it was too late. 

When Archbishop Hon learned about the passage of Bill 326, he sent a desperate message from Rome to the Guam clergy to read his letter and persuade the Catholic faithful to sign a petition to oppose the bill from being signed into law by the Governor. Two or three priests disobeyed Archbishop Hon by not reading his letter and endorsed Bill 326, which would lift the statutes of limitations and allow anyone to file a lawsuit against the Archdiocese.  The main push for the bill to become law was to allow Apuron's accusers to file a lawsuit against him and the Archdiocese that some dubbed it the "Apuron bill." They did not expect that almost 300 alleged victims would come forward and file a lawsuit against the Archdiocese for being sexually abused by a priest, MOST of whom are dead.  And most of those alleged victims chose to remain anonymous. 

On April, 2018 Bishop Anthony Apuron was found guilty by the Congregation for Doctrine of Faith, but the CDF never stated the charges for which the Archbishop was found guilty.  According to the final verdict by the Vatican (the bold is mine): 

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 was the final verdict from the Holy See.  Child sexual abuse is a very serious crime, and even the Vatican would not downplay it as "guilty of certain of the accusations." Furthermore, many canon lawyers publicly came out, saying that whatever the verdict, it was NOT "child sexual abuse."  According to The National Catholic Reporter :

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....

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."

From this, I conclude that Bishop Anthony was found not guilty of child sexual abuse otherwise he would have been laicized just like Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. We do not know what the guilty charges were because the Vatican never stated it.  Because these guilty charges were never stated, one has to wonder whether the guilty verdict was a true verdict or simply a political move from the Vatican to appease the persecutors who threatened to harm Bishop Anthony should he be found not guilty and returned to Guam.

Nevertheless, the unjust bill allowing alleged victims to file a lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Agana was proposed and signed into law BECAUSE some people including our lawmakers and governor at that time assumed Apuron guilty without the due process of a trial. They did not wait until the conclusion of his trial. Nevertheless, Anthony Apuron still retains his status and rank as Bishop.