Sunday, March 22, 2015


I don't have the police report nor do I have access to it as some commenters have assumed. However, the police report is not necessary for Deacon Claros to take action. Here's why:

IV. A. 1. As soon as any priest, deacons, employee or volunteer of the Archdiocese learns about suspected sexual misconduct, he or she shall report the information to the Archbishop and if required by the laws of the territory, to the appropriate civil authorities.
2. The Archbishop will promptly:

  • b. notify the sexual abuse response coordinator

On March 18, the Archbishop received such a report (which I will post on Monday if the chancery is not forthcoming). 

The policy requires the Archbishop to notify the SARC, Deacon Claros. However, according to the Marianas Variety on March 19, Deacon Claros has said he will not be involved in the "incident" (i.e. investigation of the incident).

So apparently Deacon Claros, was either not notified by the Archbishop as the policy requires, or he was "notified" that the case does not involve "sexual misconduct."

If either of these are the case, then once again we have another example of a completely useless sex abuse policy because the Archbishop can decide what is a "report" and what is not. And apparently he can also decide what is "sexual misconduct" and what is not. This makes the policy a sham and the SARC a stooge. (But then we know that.)

(Note: It doesn't matter what the police report says. What matters, as per the AOA policy, is what the letter the Archbishop has in his hands says. The Archbishop does not need a police report.)

Let's go over the facts as reported by the media:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 (Source: Marianas Variety, March 19, 2015)
  • According to A.J. Balajadia, Guam Police Department spokesman, Camacho was found with a 17-year-old girl in a vehicle at a beach in Agat on Tuesday morning.
  • Balajadia said Agat precinct police officers arrested Camacho at 11:45 a.m. that day.
  • The police charged him with custodial interference* for being with a female minor who was not in school at the time they were found parked at the beach, Balajadia said.
  • Camacho was booked and released. Police and the Archdiocese of Agana have not issued further details surrounding Camacho’s arrest.

On Wednesday, March 18, the Archdiocese releases a statement stating
  • that the Archbishop has accepted the resignation of Fr. Luis Camacho as Pastor of the two parishes in Malesso and Umatac
  • that the Archdiocese was made aware that Father Luis was booked and released the previous day
  • that the alleged offense was "custodial interference" according to Guam Police
  • that the archdiocese has initiated a canonical investigation and is cooperating with civil authorities
  • that Father Luis' faculties have been restricted

On Friday, March 20, the Pacific Daily News reports:

  • A case involving a former priest accused of custodial interference has been handed off to the Office of the Attorney General.

Note: The case going to the AG may sound serious but all arrest cases go to the AG. 


My prediction is that there will be no charge, no prosecution, no "day in court". Perhaps I will be able to tell you why in a few days. However the real tell-tale will be what the Archbishop does after the AG reviews the case and drops it because given the de facto denial that this has anything to do with sexual misconduct (as per the SARC not being involved), the Archbishop will have no reason not to restore Fr. Luis' faculties and return him to his post as pastor or at minimum to active ministry in the archdiocese. 

My further prediction: this will entirely disappear and we will hear no more of Fr. Luis...unless Fr. Luis decides to speak for himself. 

Note to Fr. Luis. You are incardinated in this archdiocese. You are here for life. The Archbishop is only here at most for another five years. Do you want to spend the rest of your life in hiding like Fr. Wadeson? There is no need. The people like you. The people will forgive you. The people will welcome you back. If that's what you want. 

(a) A person is guilty of custodial interference in the first degree if:
(1) not being a relative of the person, he knowingly takes or entices a person less than eighteen (18) years old from his lawful custodian, knowing that he has no right to do so...
(d) Custodial interference in the first degree is a felony of the second degree

Recommendations by JungleWatch