Something To Reflect On

In my post More Will Be Coming, I wrote that there will be more sexual allegations coming forward.  I wrote that post on August 22, 2018.  Yesterday, on September 18th, another lawsuit was filed.  The story is reported in the Pacific Daily News.  The lawsuit named Father Louis Brouillard (who is in isolation) and Father Antonio Cruz (who is deceased) as the accused.  The alleged victim (J.W. who is 68 years old) is suing for 5 million dollars.  J.W. will not be the last alleged victim. More will be coming out to sue the Church.  

When Bill 326-33 was introduced into the Guam Legislature, the JungleWatch Nation worked for the passage of this bill.  In fact, Tim Rohr took it upon himself to apologize to the senators on behalf of the Catholic Church when the Church opposed the bill.  Yes, it is interesting to see that Rohr put himself as the spokesperson for the Church despite the fact that the Church never gave him that title.  Nevertheless, you can read his letter here.  According to Rohr's letter dated September 19, 2016: 

In this "script," Fr. Jeff San Nicolas clarifies that is is not we, the laity, who did not understand the consequences of the bill, but YOU, the Legislature. Fr. San Nicolas writes:

"We believe that the legislators in passing the bill...did not understand that the bill threatens the very existence of our parishes, schools and social agencies..."I

Aside from the fact that there is no evidence from the almost 20 years of seeing the effect of similar legislation in many stateside dioceses to support this claim, and aside from the fact that the social agencies (Catholic Social Services and Kamalin Karidat) are incorporated separately from the Archdiocese of Agana, I, and many other are simply staggered that Fr. San Nicolas believes that you did not UNDERSTAND what you were doing and why you were doing it when you voted to pass Bill 326-33. 

Notice that Rohr contradicted Father Jeff's statement.  Rohr stated that there is no evidence that the lifting of the statutes of limitations would threaten the existence of our parishes, school, and social agencies.  However, this is what Tim Rohr wrote on May 12, 2010 regarding a similar law that would lift the statutes of limitations.  You can find his letter here (the bold is mine):

Bills Could Cripple Church in Guam

By Tim Rohr
Tim Rohr
May 12, 2010

http://www.guampdn.com/article/20100512/OPINION02/5120330/1014/OPINION/Bills-could-cripple-Church-in-Guam

Let's be clear. We Catholics in the pews have no interest in defending clerical wrongdoing nor any attempt to hide it. We have been hit from both sides by the news of scandal among our clergy.

First, we are hurt by the news that any child would feel when a child hears bad news about one's own parent. Second, we are hurt by the slander hurled at the Church we consider to be our Mother.

It's difficult to know how to respond. We want to see the wrongs in our Church righted. Most of us are extremely saddened by news of these affairs, but we are also offended by the vicious self-righteousness of outsiders.

We will deal with it and move on, but in the meanwhile, there are some possible consequences all the people of Guam, not just Catholics, need to consider.

Should Bills 334 and 372 pass into law, and should moral entrepreneurs like SNAP, working in concert with local lawmakers hostile to the Church, get their way, the Church on Guam, even if it is innocent, may be forced (as per stateside precedent) to cough up millions of dollars to defend itself. The Archdiocese of Agana does not have millions of dollars, and even with insurance payments, could be forced to sell its properties, as several stateside dioceses have had to do.

The Boston Archdiocese, for example, was forced to close more than 65 churches and sell many other properties to pay for the settlements levied upon it in 2003. Should SNAP and Vice Speaker Benjamin Cruz prevail, a few may benefit from punishing the Church, but almost all will pay. Here's why.

Currently, archdiocesan agencies are feeding, clothing and housing hundreds of homeless, helpless and aged. Catholic schools are educating 5,000 students per year at a saving to the taxpayer of $6,000 per student. Many hundreds of people are employed within the archdiocese and their paychecks represent income tax revenue to GovGuam. Lay members of the Church also provide countless volunteer hours of charitable works through its many organizations.

Should the Church become crippled by lawsuits and forced to begin shutting down its services and schools, GovGuam would need to pick up the tab.

But any negative reaction to these fiscal consequences will probably pale in comparison to what will happen once "Catholics in the pew" realize that their village church, and perhaps their alma mater, will have to be sold to pay for the costs inflicted upon the Church by the likes of SNAP as a result of Cruz's legislation.

Those churches and schools were built at great personal cost and sacrifice to the people in the pews and their ancestors. They are not likely to give them up without a fight -- a big one.

This is not alarm-ism. This is not exaggeration. This is a pattern. Moral entrepreneurs like SNAP, under the guise of protecting children, attack a diocese with allegations knowing that, even if they are unfounded, the seriousness of the allegations will precipitate a "hanging before the trial." Lawmakers cave to the manufactured moral panic and pass legislation to lift the statute of limitations. Decades-old cases are resurrected. Lawsuits follow, churches and schools are forced to close and services are curtailed.

I am all for exposing the wrongdoing in the Church. I experienced clerical sexual "abuse" as a teenager in Los Angeles. ("Abuse" is in quotes because I didn't stick around for the molestation part. I ran.)

Where there is wrongdoing in our Church, let's have it out. And let's not stop there.

The abuse of children is criminal wherever it occurs. Guam Child Protective Services reports an average of 250 child sex abuse cases per year, and experts tell us that the figure probably represents only 10 percent of the actual cases. Guess where most of that abuse occurs.

In 2010, Tim Rohr opposed the lifting of the statutes of limitations because he believed that the parishes, schools, and other services would be shut down.  Six years later, he changed his story.  He disagreed with Father Jeff who stated that the passage of the bill would threaten the existence of the parishes and school.  

So, to the junglefolks......who should you believe?  The Tim Rohr who claimed that lifting the statutes of limittions could shut down the parishes and schools or the same Tim Rohr who claimed that there is no evidence that the lifting of the statutes of limitations threatens the existence of the parishes and schools?  Is it not ironic that the person you follow changes according to his own agenda?  

The lawsuit filed against the Church yesterday will not be the last one.  More will be coming.  If anything, one should have paid more attention to what was happening in Boston.  According to the Boston Globe dated January 2017, hundreds of alleged victims from around the world still continue to come forward claiming they were sexually abused in the State of Massachusetts.  That is correct.  The sexual allegations continue to come even after FIFTEEN YEARS. 

An anonymous poster made the following comment below:  

AnonymousSeptember 18, 2018 at 2:05 PM 

Hope the lawyers have prepared their clients for the reality that they will not see a $5 million check. My guess after attorney's fees, each client may see a check of less than $10,000. Think about it. The Archdiocese does not the resources to pay big settlement checks.

From the PDN July 12, 2017:  

'On the topic of the church's current financial state, Duenas reported the archdiocese still owes more than $8 million for debt service and other payables. He said the church still owes $3.8 million for a bank loan taken out to pay for the Dulce Nombre de Maria Cathedral-Basilica, more than $2 million for the now-defunct St. Thomas Aquinas School and about $230,000 for the Epicure building in Hagåtña' 

The Archdiocese of Agana operating budget estimated revenue for FY 2018 is $2,561,377. Source http://umatuna.org/news/featured/what-is-the-current-financial-condition-of-the-archdiocese-of-agana/  

About 200 claims each seeking $5 million. 200 x $5 million is $1 billion. As of June 30, 2017, total amount of Archdiocese of Agana assets is $154,023,961. Go ahead and liquidate all assets. $154,023,961 for 200 claims. What do we have? About $770,120 per claim. And the loss of all Catholic Church properties. I guess we will have to celebrate Mass in homes as the early Christians did. Oh but, we can only celebrate the Mass on a consecrated altar!  

Alleged victims will be unhappy seeing just a fraction of the $5 million they each are seeking. Catholic faithful will be at a loss as to where has their Catholic Church gone. The only ones happy are all the lawyers involved who will reap hefty fees from settlements. Who will be the happiest for all this mess? Satan will smile and laugh at the destruction of the Catholic Church on Guam.        

Abused By SNAP

It should come as no surprise that SNAP who pretends to help victims of sexual abuse are abusers themselves especially when it comes to priests (such as Father Jiang) who were falsely accused.  SNAP is also anti-Catholic.  It is important to note that the Junglewatch Nation supported this anti-Catholic organization as they went on their witch hunt against Archbishop Apuron, labeling him already guilty without due process of a trial. 

The following article was written by Father Gordon MacRae (the bold red are mine).  Notice what I placed in red.     
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there exists a Catholic priest still in denial about the agenda of SNAP, it’s because he has lived with his head in the sand blind to the threat lying in wait for him.

In 2009, at the same time I began writing for These Stone Walls, Catholic League President Bill Donohue invited me to write a feature article for the Catholic League Journal, Catalyst. My article, “Due Process for Accused Priests,” began by describing an important phenomenon.

In 2002, just as the national story of Catholic priests and sexual abuse emerged out of Boston to sweep the country, psychologist Daniel Kahneman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on a phenomenon called “availability bias.” It revealed the power of the media to not just report the news, but to reshape it to fit media bias, to cultivate it, to take a story’s small microphone and turn it into a megaphone.

Activist organizations have trained people to harness this force to sway what others adopt as a bias. It is not new, just newly analyzed. One of the most potent deployments of “availability bias” is one I have quoted before in these pages. It comes from Mein Kampf, the 1926 book by Adolf Hitler that gave rise to the Nazi party in Germany:

“The great mass of people will more easily fall prey to a big lie than to a small one.”

After my 2009 Catalyst article was published, I was subjected to an open assault by David Clohessy, Executive Director of the activist organization, SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Matt Abbott at Renew America forwarded my article to Mr. Clohessy and invited a response posted at Renew America entitled, “Imprisoned Priest, Sex Abuse Victim Clash.”

David Clohessy was obviously perturbed by what I exposed about the law suit settlement process and how it is advanced and cultivated by “self-serving contingency lawyers and various agenda driven groups using scandal for their own ends.” Mr. Clohessy had long derided Church officials for entering into secrecy agreements to keep settlement amounts from public view.

On January 17, 2017, former SNAP employee Gretchen Rachel Hammond filed a lawsuit against SNAP in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Ms. Hammond had been SNAP’s Director of Development before leaving the organization and filing her lawsuit. The named parties in the suit included David Clohessy, SNAP’s Executive Director, and Barbara Blaine, SNAP’s founder and president, and a member of SNAP’s board of directors.

Ms. Hammond’s lawsuit alleged that she was a victim of retaliatory discharge for questioning the allegedly corrupt practices of this organization. These included claims that SNAP and its leaders received substantial kickbacks in the form of “donations” from attorneys to whom SNAP officials referred clients or potential clients.

The lawsuit exposed that lawyers in California, Chicago, Seattle, and Delaware made major “donations,” some of them in six-figure amounts, and that SNAP leaders “concocted a scheme to have other attorneys make donations to a front foundation” to mask “attorneys’ kickbacks” to the organization.

The lawsuit also alleged a pattern of collusion between SNAP officials and plaintiff lawyers to maximize publicity for the purpose of fueling bigger payouts. It accused SNAP officials of callous disregard for the real interests of real sexual abuse survivors. Among the lawsuit’s other allegations were these:

• SNAP engaged in a commercial enterprise motivated by its directors’ and officers’ personal and ideological animus against the Catholic Church.
• SNAP conducted business premised on farming out abuse survivors as clients for specific attorneys who file lawsuits and collect settlements from the Catholic Church.
• Attorneys routinely gave SNAP confidential plaintiff claims and other privileged information in order for SNAP to maximize payouts with sensational press releases.
• SNAP claimed that it existed to provide support for survivors of clergy sexual abuse, however at all relevant times, SNAP did not have a single grief counselor or rape counselor on its payroll. SNAP would ignore survivors who reached out to SNAP for legitimate counseling.
• Ms. Hammond alleged that she was told by SNAP official Barbara Dorris to ignore calls from survivors who were seeking only counseling.
• Despite accepting funds for counseling and aiding survivors of sexual abuse, SNAP squandered those funds to advance its own interests and those of its leadership.
• SNAP set out to deliberately jeopardize the ability of accused priests to receive due process and fair trials.
• In 2011, SNAP oversaw fundraising for a charge brought against Pope Benedict XVI at the International Court at The Hague; however SNAP used the funds to pay for lavish hotels and other extravagant travel expenses for its leadership.

THE FALLOUT

When the lawsuit became public, David Clohessy resigned as Executive Director, and SNAP founder and president, Barbara Blaine also resigned. They have since settled the lawsuit by a secrecy clause just like the ones for which Mr. Clohessy had railed against Catholic bishops over the last two decades.

After the settlement, others among SNAP’s more notorious leaders also resigned as reported by David F. Pierre, Jr. at The Media Report in “SNAP R.I.P.” Barbara Dorris, who replaced David Clohessy as Executive Director, and Regional Director Joelle Casteix both resigned. Among the revelations uncovered by David Pierre was that SNAP published the email addresses and personal phone numbers of accused, priests to generate harassment.

Ms. Hammond’s lawsuit was only one of several brought against SNAP, but it was the one that appeared to finally expose what had long been suspected of SNAP and its leaders. Simultaneously in 2017, Father Joseph Jiang, a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, filed a defamation lawsuit against SNAP.

Charges brought against Father Jiang were heavily promoted by SNAP leaders who, as they do whenever a priest is accused, issued a public call for anyone else who wants to accuse the priest. When Father Jiang passed a polygraph test [I did, too, by the way, twice] the charges were dismissed in 2015.

In 2016 a federal judge ruled that SNAP made false statements against Father Jiang “negligently and with reckless disregard for the truth.” SNAP and the parents of the minor who had falsely accused him settled the lawsuit.

As part of its settlement, SNAP issued a public apology, but the ever complicit news media failed to mention that SNAP was forced to do so in the wake of a false claim and lawsuit SNAP’s apology, written by its legal counsel, included this statement:

“The SNAP defendants never want to see anyone falsely accused of a crime Admittedly, false reports of clergy sexual abuse do occur. SNAP apologizes for false or inaccurate statements… its representatives made which in any way disparaged Father Joseph Jiang.”

In reporting this story, some Catholic media outlets continued to refer to SNAP as “a victims’ support group” or “a victim advocacy group.” It’s a bad habit that blindly gives legitimacy of purpose to SNAP which it does not have, and has never had.

POPE BENEDICT’S “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY”

The most important and visible source exposing SNAP’s corruption and reckless disregard for truth is a document by Catholic League President Bill Donohue entitled, “SNAP Implodes.” It provides a comprehensive and compelling account of the path of destruction SNAP and its leaders have left in the Church and priesthood under the false guise of advocating for real victims.

Among the most manipulative of David Clohessy’s “advocacy” was an instruction to accusers to attend SNAP press conferences. To play on the emotions of reporters, Clohessy urged those awaiting settlements to “display holy childhood photos” before the news cameras, and… if you don’t have compelling holy childhood photos we can provide you with photos of other kids that can be held up for the cameras.”

If that doesn’t infuriate Catholics who have any regard left for truth, then what would? SNAP had a much worse perversion of justice that was first hyped, and then covered up, by the news media. It was the most destructive publicity stunt SNAP and its leaders have devised or condoned to date.

Both Bill Donohue and the Hammond lawsuit cited this one (see the final bullet point in Ms. Hammond’s lawsuit above). What they do not reveal is that SNAP used the false case against me to help bring it about.

I first wrote of this story in October 2011 in “SNAP’S Last Gasp! The Pope’s Crimes Against Humanity.” That was before I even knew that I was a part of this story. In 2011, SNAP and the Center for Constitutional Rights – located at 666 Broadway in Manhattan – jointly filed a “crimes against humanity” charge against Pope Benedict XVI at the International Criminal Court.

The ICC is an independent judicial institution with the power to hold trials and impose sentences for the most serious crimes of international concern: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The ICC was approved by international treaty in 1998 and officially came into being on July 1, 2002, after 60 countries ratified the treaty.

The court is headquartered in The Hague, The Netherlands. Of interest, in May of 2002, President George Bush declined to sign the treaty and refused to allow the ICC to have jurisdiction over United States cases. So SNAP’s target was not U.S. Catholic priests and bishops, but the Pope himself.

SNAP duped the left-leaning Center for Constitutional Rights to compose and file the briefs with information provided by SNAP in collaboration with plaintiff lawyers hoping for a precedent to tap Vatican assets in their never-ending quest for big bucks. I first learned of my involvement in this story from an article by journalist JoAnn Wypijewski, in “Spotlight Oscar Hangover: Why ‘Spotlight’ Is a Terrible Film.” Here is an excerpt:

“The Center for Constitutional Rights [CCR] . . . joined with SNAP to file a grotesque brief to the International Criminal Court demanding ‘investigation and prosecution’ of the Vatican for crimes against humanity… To CCR’s shame, Father [Gordon] MacRae is specifically mentioned in that brief with respect to allegations… which prosecutors threw in at sentencing but for which there is no evidence according to the lead detective in the case [as] cited by [Dorothy] Rabinowitz.”

SNAP, apparently in retaliation for my Catalyst articles calling for independent investigation of dubious claims, fed information to the Center for Constitutional Rights that would fuel a case against the Vatican. They made no attempt to contact me or my defense, nor did they contact Dorothy Rabinowitz at The Wall Street Journal who researched and published extensively on the same story, but with a polar opposite conclusion.

And SNAP did this without attempting to contact James Abbott, the former FBI Special Agent who spent three years investigating this case before dismissing it as a fraud. (Agent Abbott’s affidavit is cited at the end of Ryan MacDonald’s recent post, “#MeToo & #HimToo: Jonathan Grover & Father Gordon MacRae” which also lays out the fraud behind this story).

In the end, to its great credit, the International Criminal Court declined to accept jurisdiction or the crimes against humanity charge against Pope Benedict XVI, but that was no surprise. Everyone involved knew that this fiasco would go nowhere, and it was never really SNAP’s goal. It was merely a publicity stunt for David Clohessy and SNAP to heighten pressure for quick and lucrative financial settlements.

The people who terrorized American Catholic priests for the last quarter century are gone now. Their fraud is exposed. Their coffers are empty. Their leaders have fled. In “SNAP Implodes,” Catholic League President Bill Donohue summed up what I had come to know at a very personal level in this moral panic that SNAP promoted and extorted for profit over the last 25 years:

“SNAP officials function as borderline gangsters out to destroy innocent persons. It is motivated by hate and exploits the very people it claims to serve Justice demands that it be shut down by the authorities before it does any more harm.”

Note from Father Gordon MacRae: Once again, you would serve the cause of truth and justice if you share this post and ask your contacts to do the same. Eyes may also be opened by these related posts from These Stone Walls:

SNAP Apologizes To Father Jiang

For the first time in history, SNAP, has apologized to falsely accused priest Father Jiang. SNAP's apology reads as follows: 

The SNAP defendants never want to see anyone falsely accused of a crime. Admittedly, false reports of clergy sexual abuse do occur. The SNAP defendants have no personal knowledge as to the complaints against Fr. Joseph Jiang and acknowledge that all matters and claims against Fr. Jiang have either been dismissed or adjudicated in favor of Fr. Jiang. SNAP acknowledges that false claims of clergy sexual abuse injure those clerics falsely accused and the Roman Catholic Church. SNAP apologizes for any false or inaccurate statements related to the complaints against Fr. Joseph Jiang that it or its representatives made which in any way disparaged Fr. Joseph Jiang, Archbishop Robert J. Carlson, Monsignor Joseph D. Pins and the Archdiocese of St. Louis.

You can find the apology in the news report here.  Criminal charges filed against Father Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang were dismissed in 2015.  Father Jiang also passed a polygraph test, during which he denied that he had ever abused a minor.  When Father Jiang was accused of sexual abuse, SNAP labeled him guilty without due process of a trial.  After he was found not guilty, Father Jiang fought back and sued for defamation to restore his reputation.  Father Jiang won the defamation lawsuit and SNAP was ordered to reimburse Father Jiang's legal fees, which totaled $25,100.  Another judge also ordered the false accusers to pay the legal expenses of both Father Jiang and the Archdiocese of St. Louis, totaling $48,516.84. 

Indeed, a big kudos to Father Jiang for fighting the good fight for truth and justice.

The Tactics of SNAP

These are some interesting tidbits that the Catholic League discovered about the tactics and strategies SNAP used to exploit the media.  Do you see a similarity with the jungle's methods?  According to Catholic League (the bold is mine):

 At the conference, Clohessy gave some tips on how to sucker the media and stick it to the Church. Attendees were instructed that the best way to get the media’s attention is to hold press conferences outside a chancery. That way when the event is over, reporters can quickly seek an interview with some diocesan PR person.

What really works, the gathering was told, is to play on the emotions of reporters. “Display holy childhood photos!” What if no photos are available? “If you don’t have compelling holy childhood photos,” Clohessy said, “we can provide you with photos of other kids that can be held up for the camera.” It doesn’t matter whose kids are in the photo–what counts is that the media be seduced.

Clohessy also instructed attorneys to conduct interviews in front of the parish where the priest was assigned. Why? This is a good way to get clients and entice whistleblowers to come forward when they see the interview on TV.

It is important, Clohessy said, to use “feeling words.” He offered some suggestions. “I was scared. I was suicidal.” He counseled that it is better to come across as sad, not mad; doing so facilitates making an emotional connection with the audience. It was also critical to use the word “kids” as often as possible. That pulls at everyone’s heart strings. 

Three of Archbishop Apuron's accusers read their written testimony in front of the chancery or church. There were lots of emotions displayed in front of the media, who was present there. The only one who did not stood in front of the chancery was Doris Concepcion because she was in Arizona.  Nevertheless, she displayed a lot of emotion on camera. The other three accusers were able to get in front of the chancery or church with the media surrounding them because one was residing in Guam, and the other two came to Guam. 

Also, notice that interviews with the media were also conducted at the Agat Parish.....just as David Clohessy instructed. It appears that the jungle was following the same tactics and strategies that David Clohessy had outlined in that 2011 conference.  Below is a photo of Walter Denton and Doris Concepcion outside the building where Archbishop Apuron was said to allegedly molest Denton and Quinata. The media was there to take photos and interviews.  Was this a coincidence or staged? 

Walter Denton, left, comforts Doris Concepcion during a prayer vigil outside the administration building of Mount Carmel School in Agat yesterday, June 9. The building was formerly the Mount Carmel Church rectory where Archbishop Anthony Apuron is alleged to have sexually abused Denton and Joseph Quinata, Concepcion's son nearly 40 years ago when he was a parish priest.

The media was brought to the place where the alleged victims say they were molested.  Protests were also conducted at the Cathedral and during the time the Archbishop said Mass.  

Childhood photos (called "holy childhood photos" by SNAP) were also put on public display in both the media and the jungle.  The tactics of the jungle is exactly the same as SNAP because they were together with SNAP.  The jungle have been working together with SNAP since the beginning.  According to Tim Rohr:

If you or someone you know was the victim of sexual abuse during these periods and at these locations, you no longer have to remain silent. In addition to the Vatican office of the Promoter of Justice (linked in the sidebar) we are in touch with SNAP and attorneys willing to assist you confidentially.

You can contact me directly at timrohr.guam@gmail.com or you can have a third party get in touch with me and I will put you in touch with our legal people.......... 

Regarding the case with Father Jiang, who was falsely accused of sexual abuse, Catholic League reported:

The court declared that “it has been established that the SNAP defendants conspired with one another and others to obtain plaintiff’s conviction on sexual abuse charges and that they entered into this conspiracy due to discriminatory animus against plaintiff based on his religion, religious vocation, race and national origin.” Moreover, the court ruled that “the SNAP defendants’ public statements about plaintiff were false and that they did not conduct any inquiry into the truth or falsity of these public statements, but instead made these statements negligently and with reckless disregard for the truth.” 

Response From Jacque Terlaje

In response to the reports regarding Fr. Wachs and SNAP's demand for apology from Archbishop Byrnes, the following was made by Jacque Terlaje:

 As I understand the role of Fr. Justin Wachs, he is a notary.  A notary has no role in the decision making process of the canonical trials, but simply attests to the identity of the person, receives that person’s sworn statement to tell the truth, and acts as a recorder.  Have we sunk to such dismal levels on this island that every person accused of any wrongdoing is automatically a piranha in our island society? Attorney David Lujan’s attack on the integrity of a notary is appalling.  How can one judge Fr. Wachs’ “virtue and character” based on a news report of allegations made against him?  With a little due diligence, one would discover that Fr. Wach’s denied the allegations.  

This rush to judgment simply fits the consistent Modus Operandi I have been witness to on this island for the last year; demand beheading, rather than seek the truth through the judicial process.  This is yet another tactic to undermine the intensive and rigorous efforts that the Vatican has undertaken to determine the truth.  

Additionally, I am  not surprised that the anti-Catholic group, SNAP is demanding that Coadjutor Archbishop Byrnes issue an apology.  SNAP’s disdain for “a man with such a history” is an irrational assault on the Catholic Church, and immediately calls to mind the gospel of John 8:7, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”  From the behavior I have seen in the demands for public lynching, I am lead to the improbable and absurd conclusion that Guam is sin free!

SNAP And The Junglewatch Nation

Joelle Casteix, the western regional Director of SNAP visited Guam in 2010. While she was here, she claimed to have heard and spoken to victims of sexual abuse.  However, she also stated that none of the victims accused Archbishop Apuron of sexual abuse of any form.  According to PNC news:

Casteix visited Guam in 2010. While here, she heard from many sexual abuse victims. Many of them accused priests on Guam of molesting them. But none of those victims ever accused Archbishop Anthony Apuron of any form of sexual abuse. 

"We have never been able to speak to an alleged victim of the Archbishop," Casteix says. 

Mrs. Casteix made this comment in response to John Toves who claimed that his cousin was sexually molested by Archbishop Apuron.  We later learned that John Toves never even spoke to his cousin.  He claimed to obtain this information from someone else who heard it from someone else.  But the information never came from his cousin.  His cousin also never came forward with any sexual allegations.  

Then on September 13, 2015, Tim Rohr claimed that the Archdiocese wanted him to discredit SNAP.  According to Tim Rohr (the bold is mine):

In April of 2010, while Casteix was on-island, attempting to get victims to come forward, I was called to the chancery by the archbishop's legal counsel. I walked into the chancery conference room and there were several important people seated at the table along with the legal counsel. I knew them all and can name them if need be. 

I was given a letter by the legal counsel and asked to read it. It was a statement intended to discredit Casteix and get her to go away. Unbeknownst to me at the time, the archbishop's people were very much afraid of what would happen if the statute of limitations were lifted and Casteix was able to get someone to talk.

I was asked to take the letter to the media. 

After reading the letter I put it down and looked up at the others. I then asked a question that sent shock through the room:

WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? WHAT DO WE HAVE TO HIDE? LET'S CALL HER BLUFF AND TELL HER TO INVESTIGATE.

I still remember the open mouths at the table - mouths that started to stammer. One person (Sister Ana - she's dead now - and probably took a lot of secrets with her) sat quietly and looked at the table. Then another person said "What about...." and then a name was mentioned." 

I decided to call it quits right then and there. I didn't want to hear any more. I walked out of the meeting and never went back. I was done.

Nevertheless, in 2010 Mrs. Casteix was able to find victims abused by the clergy regardless of whether Rohr read the letter or not.  

Two days later on September 15, 2015, Tim Rohr corrected his own statement along with statements made by SNAP .  It was SNAP that he was supposedly told to discredit.  According to Tim Rohr (the bold is mine):

Technically it was a committee. The archbishop wasn't at the meeting. And I was not urged to "discredit an abuse victim" (since none came forward), I was urged to discredit SNAP and the bill introduced by Senator Cruz to lift the statute of limitations on sex crimes against minors.

Today, Tim Rohr claimed that the Archdiocese tried to get him to discredit SNAP and the bill introduced by Senator Cruz, and he even claimed to walk away from it.  However, one month later, Tim DID discredited SNAP and the bill introduced by Senator Cruz when he wrote to the Pacific Daily News.  On May 12, 2010 Tim Rohr discredited SNAP and the bills introduced by Senator BJ Cruz in The Pacific Daily News:

Bills Could Cripple Church in Guam

By Tim Rohr
Tim Rohr
May 12, 2010

http://www.guampdn.com/article/20100512/OPINION02/5120330/1014/OPINION/Bills-could-cripple-Church-in-Guam

Let's be clear. We Catholics in the pews have no interest in defending clerical wrongdoing nor any attempt to hide it. We have been hit from both sides by the news of scandal among our clergy.

First, we are hurt by the news that any child would feel when a child hears bad news about one's own parent. Second, we are hurt by the slander hurled at the Church we consider to be our Mother.

It's difficult to know how to respond. We want to see the wrongs in our Church righted. Most of us are extremely saddened by news of these affairs, but we are also offended by the vicious self-righteousness of outsiders.

We will deal with it and move on, but in the meanwhile, there are some possible consequences all the people of Guam, not just Catholics, need to consider.

Should Bills 334 and 372 pass into law, and should moral entrepreneurs like SNAP, working in concert with local lawmakers hostile to the Church, get their way, the Church on Guam, even if it is innocent, may be forced (as per stateside precedent) to cough up millions of dollars to defend itself. The Archdiocese of Agana does not have millions of dollars, and even with insurance payments, could be forced to sell its properties, as several stateside dioceses have had to do.

The Boston Archdiocese, for example, was forced to close more than 65 churches and sell many other properties to pay for the settlements levied upon it in 2003. Should SNAP and Vice Speaker Benjamin Cruz prevail, a few may benefit from punishing the Church, but almost all will pay. Here's why.

Currently, archdiocesan agencies are feeding, clothing and housing hundreds of homeless, helpless and aged. Catholic schools are educating 5,000 students per year at a saving to the taxpayer of $6,000 per student. Many hundreds of people are employed within the archdiocese and their paychecks represent income tax revenue to GovGuam. Lay members of the Church also provide countless volunteer hours of charitable works through its many organizations.

Should the Church become crippled by lawsuits and forced to begin shutting down its services and schools, GovGuam would need to pick up the tab.

But any negative reaction to these fiscal consequences will probably pale in comparison to what will happen once "Catholics in the pew" realize that their village church, and perhaps their alma mater, will have to be sold to pay for the costs inflicted upon the Church by the likes of SNAP as a result of Cruz's legislation.

Those churches and schools were built at great personal cost and sacrifice to the people in the pews and their ancestors. They are not likely to give them up without a fight -- a big one.

This is not alarm-ism. This is not exaggeration. This is a pattern. Moral entrepreneurs like SNAP, under the guise of protecting children, attack a diocese with allegations knowing that, even if they are unfounded, the seriousness of the allegations will precipitate a "hanging before the trial." Lawmakers cave to the manufactured moral panic and pass legislation to lift the statute of limitations. Decades-old cases are resurrected. Lawsuits follow, churches and schools are forced to close and services are curtailed.

I am all for exposing the wrongdoing in the Church. I experienced clerical sexual "abuse" as a teenager in Los Angeles. ("Abuse" is in quotes because I didn't stick around for the molestation part. I ran.)

Where there is wrongdoing in our Church, let's have it out. And let's not stop there.

The abuse of children is criminal wherever it occurs. Guam Child Protective Services reports an average of 250 child sex abuse cases per year, and experts tell us that the figure probably represents only 10 percent of the actual cases. Guess where most of that abuse occurs.

Today, Tim Rohr claimed that the only reason he opposed Bills 334 and 372, which would lift the statutes of limitation, was because it was introduced as "revenge" against the Church by BJ Cruz.  However, the May 12, 2010 letter written by Rohr himself showed exactly the reasons he opposed the proposed legislation. According to Rohr in his own words: "Should Bills 334 and 372 pass into law, and should moral entrepreneurs like SNAP, working in concert with local lawmakers hostile to the Church, get their way, the Church on Guam, even if it is innocent, may be forced (as per stateside precedent) to cough up millions of dollars to defend itself."

Today, the Junglewatch Nation and SNAP are working together.

The End Of The Road For SNAP

According to The Catholic World Report

Years ago, a number of Catholic World Report articles argued the case that the group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) – whom the media has called upon repeatedly over the years as a reliable voice to bash the Catholic Church over its handling of the sex abuse crisis – was actually nothing more than a front group for contingency lawyers and was driven by a deep ideological animus against the Church.

Now, recent lawsuits against the organization, including one by SNAP’s own former director of development, have, if anything, revealed that those arguments were too modest in their estimation of SNAP’s inner workings.

And in the wake of these lawsuits, SNAP’s most high-profile leaders—its founder and president, Barbara Blaine, and the group’s national director, David Clohessy—have suddenly announced their resignations.

SNAP has now quickly dissolved from a group awash in money and international media admiration into an organization that is near-broke, mired in costly litigation, and on the brink of extinction. What happened?

Enter Gretchen Hammond

In the summer of 2011, SNAP hired Gretchen Hammond as its director of development. By the end of 2011, Hammond, who had a background in the nonprofit world, had already helped to increase contributions to SNAP by more than double.

However, as Hammond became more familiar with the inner workings of SNAP, the more she became concerned that SNAP was not simply an innocent "victim advocacy group." She was especially troubled by the group’s cozy relationships with Church-suing lawyers and the “donations” that poured in from them. 

But most notably, Hammond – an abuse victim herself – also noticed that SNAP was not only not serving the needs of victims, but actually ignoring them. Abuse victims were simply being used as props and tools to get funds from lawyers.

When Hammond finally took her concerns to SNAP leadership, that is when her relationship with the group soon deteriorated. SNAP fired Hammond in 2013, but before she left she gathered extensive internal documents from the group, which expose SNAP’s shifty relationships with lawyers and the group’s brazen disregard for actual victims.  

In February of this year, Hammond filed her lawsuit against SNAP for “retaliatory discharge,” meaning the group had fired her for reporting to leadership the acceptance of kickbacks from attorneys. 

While many lawsuits are often rife with mundane legal language and layered legal arguments, Hammond’s suit is an eye-opener. From the very first page, Hammond lays out a portrait of SNAP as a group of committed leftists who hate the Catholic Church and who have used sex abuse victims as pawns in a craven money-making scheme with plaintiffs’ lawyers to damage the Church. From Hammond’s suit:

• “SNAP does not focus on protecting or helping victims – it exploits them.”

• “SNAP routinely accepts financial kickbacks in the form of donations. 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.”

• “[A]ttorneys and SNAP work together in developing the legal theories and strategies of survivors’ lawsuits. Attorneys and SNAP base their strategy not on the best interests of the survivor, but on what will generate the most publicity and fundraising opportunities for SNAP.”

• “SNAP claims status as a tax-exempt organization … In reality, SNAP is a commercial operation motivated by its directors’ personal and ideological animus against the Catholic Church. 

• “SNAP callously disregards the real interests of survivors, using them instead as props and tools in furtherance of SNAP’s own commercial fundraising goals.”

The exodus begins 

Leaders at SNAP were surely hoping that news of Hammond’s lawsuit would not spread very far. But soon, a number of major news outlets, including the Chicago Tribune and theChicago Sun-Times, took notice.

However, less than a week after Hammond’s suit, on January 23, David Clohessy, the group’s long-time national director who was a favorite among journalists seeking punchy quotes for their articles bludgeoning the Catholic Church, announced his resignation.

Yet Clohessy insisted to various media outlets that Hammond’s lawsuit and the revelations that accompanied it somehow had nothing to do with his resignation. And some of Clohessy’s explanations for his departure bordered on the comical. In an interview with the New Jersey Star-Ledger, Clohessy actually cited “high cholesterol” as a contributing factor for his decision to resign.

Clohessy also gave conflicting statements to the media regarding the timing of his resignation, including saying that he had actually resigned back in October. But even as he claimed this, Clohessy’s name was still listed on SNAP’s web site as its director. 

Then, less than two weeks after Clohessy’s resignation, Barbara Blaine, SNAP’s founder, announced her own resignation. And just like Clohessy, Blaine claimed her resignation “had absolutely no bearing on my leaving” and that “the discussions and process of my departure has been ongoing.”  

SNAP now claims that the organization will continue as “99.9%” volunteers with Barbara Dorris, the group’s longtime “outreach director,” now taking the leadership role. 

The road to the end

There were, however, several signs that SNAP was in trouble even before Hammond’s lawsuit.

Back in 2012, major red flags were raised when a lawsuit against SNAP by a Missouri priest exposed that SNAP was closely collaborating with Church-suing attorneys. The suit uncovered that SNAP was actually publicizing lawsuits that had not even been filed in court yet.  

But a more serious blow to SNAP came in June of 2015, when a priest in St. Louis, Rev. Xiu Hui “Joseph” Jiang, sued SNAP in federal court for defamation, claiming that the group had conspired to falsely accuse him of child abuse. In news articles, media statements, and posts on its web site, SNAP branded Fr. Jiang as a “child molesting cleric” and a “cunning predator” even after law enforcement twice cleared Jiang of any wrongdoing. 

SNAP, however, refused the judge’s orders to turn over relevant documents in the case. Eventually, last August, the judgeentered a judgment against SNAP and also ordered SNAP to “pay the reasonable expenses, including plaintiff's attorney's fees, caused by their failure to comply with the Court's orders.” 

In retrospect, it should have been little surprise that SNAP’s aggressive, over-the-top approach to attacking the Catholic Church would eventually catch up with it. The ruthlessness and recklessness with which SNAP, especially its director David Clohessy, would attack the Church cannot be overstated. 

And if there were any doubt as to what motivated Clohessy in his attacks, a 2011 email exchange with an alleged victim – cited in Hammond’s lawsuit – should resolve the matter. Clohessy wrote:

“i sure hope you DO pursue the WI [Wisconsin] bankruptcy … Every nickle (sic) they don’t have is a nickle (sic) that they can’t spend on defense lawyers, PR staff, gay-bashing, women-hating, contraceptive-battling, etc.”

Such angry opposition to the Church and its teachings should not have been surprising to anyone. As we reported here at CWR back in 2012, SNAP dedicated itself to aligning with left-wing causes. SNAP President Blaine appeared as a featured guest at a charged conference called “Women Money Power,” hosted by the Feminist Majority Foundation, the very influential pro-abortion lobbying group. At the conference Blaine joined noted pro-abortion activists, including Eleanor Smeal, Sandra Fluke, Rev. Barry Lynn, and Dawn Laguens (a vice president at Planned Parenthood), for a panel discussion titled “Bishops, Politicians, and the War on Women’s Health.” 

And within months of the Feminist Majority get-together, SNAP invited Rev. Barry Lynn, the “progressive” president of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, to speak at its annual conference. And a year later, at the 2013 conference, Eleanor Smeal, the president of Feminist Majority, was SNAP’s keynote speaker.

Add to these episodes the fact that David Clohessy was once a local leader of the far-left activist group ACORN, and SNAP’s political agenda is established with little doubt. 

In pursuit of his left-wing campaign against the Church, Clohessy would make countless media appearances and press statements in which he would attack Church officials and accused priests with little regard for veracity. In a 2012 deposition, Clohessy even admitted under oath that he provided false information to the media. Yet even after making this embarrassing admission, Clohessy continued to let falsehoods fly. 

But it is Clohessy’s fearless mean-spiritedness over the years that cannot go without mention. Aside from his countless attacks on innocent priests and bishops, Clohessy has clearly made it his mission to torment priests, bishops, and the Catholic flock any way he can imagine.

Clohessy actually once led a court campaign to allow SNAP toharass and intimidate parishioners outside of Sunday Mass. He has also incited the harassment of accused Catholic priests by publishing the personal phone numbers and email addresses of them on the SNAP web site.  

The examples are legion. But the lowest of the low may have occurred in late January of 2012, when Clohessy actually suggested that Philadelphia Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua wasfaking his cancer and dementia to avoid appearing in court for an abuse case. Less than 36 hours after Clohessy made hiscruel remark, Bevilacqua passed away in his sleep at age 88. Clohessy never apologized.

Mixed media reaction

While nearly every significant news outlet in the country has excitedly cited at one time or another SNAP’s Clohessy and Blaine in attacking the Catholic Church, the media’s reaction to the pair’s sudden resignations has been muted. 

Newspaper and television outlets in Chicago reported on Hammond’s lawsuit and the resignations. The Kansas City Starand the Boston Globe, both of whom have covered clergy abuse cases extensively, also generated modest articles about Hammond’s lawsuit against SNAP.

The most notable silence, however, has come from the New York Times and its crack “National Religion Correspondent” Laurie Goodstein. Over the years, the Times and Goodstein have made reporting on the Catholic Church sex abuse story an obsession, and they have repeatedly quoted SNAP leaders. On March 13, 2012, the Times and Goodstein even ran a sympathetic page one story on SNAP when SNAP and David Clohessy were flouting court orders to turn over documents. 

The Times then followed the article with a crazy editorial the very next day, claiming that the Catholic Church was somehow “hurting victims’ advocates” by expecting SNAP to obey the law and follow a judge’s orders.

Yet even as the ship at SNAP has been quickly sinking, Laurie Goodstein and the Times have gone radio silent, not publishing a single syllable about the group’s demise.

And in this sense, nothing has changed.