Monday, November 24, 2014


I originally posted the following as a reply to a comment. I am reposting here with some additional information:


The archdiocese's sex abuse policy makes the archbishop the center of justice. However, in this case, he is the one who stands accused. Thus the policy is of no use. 

Justice and neutrality demand that Deacon Claros (the sex abuse response coordinator) refer the matter to the Nuncio. The Nuncio has only to ask the Archbishop if the accusation is true or not. The Archbishop has only to tell the truth, and the Nuncio has only to vouch for the Archbishop. Barring a victim coming forward, this would be the end of it. 

Will Deacon Claros refer the matter to the Nuncio is the question.

Meanwhile, on the legal front. The crime, if there was one, has exceeded the statute of limitations, so there is no going to the civil authorities. The bill introduced by Senator Cruz and signed into law which lifted the statute of limitations on sex abuse crimes in 2011 only lifted the statute of limitations for two years. The window closed in 2013. 

It is in the best interest of the victim, if there is one...or if there are more than one, for him/her/them to send an account of the alleged molestation to the Nuncio and also copy the Roman congregations listed under the Contact Nuncio tab. Rome would take it from there. 

We cannot be sure that Rome will act, but the alleged victims will have done what they could and will have protected their privacy. 

This is important. 

In crimes of sex abuse (as we have seen with rape), the victim is most often too ashamed or personally wounded to come forward about it. So just to say that "no victim has come forward" and dismiss it all on that count is a gross lack of understanding of the type of crime this is. 

In civil society, we spend great amounts of time, money, and energy trying to create a safe environment for rape victims to feel safe enough to talk. We don't just sit back and say "well there is no victim." We do our best to find them and create that supportive environment necessary for them to come forward without fear. 

However, it seems that because we are talking about the Archbishop here, everyone is suddenly forgetting all of this and running for cover. 

Go ahead. 


  1. My simple question is similar: will Deacon Claros and the members of the sex abuse committee of the Catholic Archdiocese (which is led by Deacon Claros) do their legal duty and responsibility to act accordingly on this major and serious accusation?

    Deacon and sex abuse committee members: for the sake of the victims of this physical and mental abuse, and for the sake of your own consciences, do the righteous thing.

  2. Dear anon at 12.13. I am afraid that Deacon Claros will do nothing to rock the boat. This is why he was chosen by Apuron in the first place.
    Deacon Claros is a good little soldier of the NCW, and a signatory to the "very strange" petition to support Fr Pius a couple of month ago.
    His interest is not that of the Archdiocese, but of the NCW, and he shall not do anything but protect their benefactor on the island.
    This is why his predecessor was removed, apparently he had started to take his job seriously.
    The Arch has received that letter a while before it was made public.
    Their usual tactic has been, and will continue to be: Deny, deny, deny. Deflect, deflect and deflect again, before the: attack, attack and attack.
    Actually if you start reading some of the commentaries on the local media, you can see the kikobots are already at work....

    1. Unfortunately, Frenchie, I believe you're right about Deacon Claros. What the faithful are hoping could happen is that, considering Claros' sluggishness in responding to the Archdiocese's policy of "zero tolerance," the committee members themselves, would dutifully and righteously raise the bar of integrity and ethicalness; dig down into their consciences and take to heart what a few of them were trained to do and respond as mental health professionals.

    2. Anonymous (November 25, 2014 at 2:13 PM), unfortunately the committee members — regardless of what their consciences may tell them — probably are unable to do anything unless they are called by NCW Deacon Claros. Maybe in an ideal world, one of them would be willing to be proactive and forgo that requirement in order to live up to their training as mental health professionals but even then it would be an uphill battle:
      • As previously stated, the Policy itself is flawed because it designates the Archbishop, who happens to be the alleged offender, as the Administrator of the Policy;
      • There are at least two members of the Sex Abuse Review Board who would be unwilling to act independently of Deacon Claros and/or the Archbishop — one is a member of the NCW and the other is a member of a religious order; and
      • The unavailability of the victim and/or unwillingness to provide testimony would thwart any action the Board might want to take, even if all the members were willing to do so.

  3. Its sо simple ɑs that!