Thursday, March 19, 2015

NOT THIS TIME ARCHBISHOP! NOT THIS TIME!




How "fitting" (sadly), that this "incident" occurred on the very day the Redemptoris Mater Seminary celebrates its patron: St. Patrick.

In fact, since the incident occurred earlier in the day, Archbishop Apuron had to be aware of it when he celebrated the feast at the seminary that evening.


But rather than addressing the issue forthrightly, as he should have, he said this:
"...the people who criticize us don' t realize that the (priests of) Redemptoris Mater Seminary is like  St Patrick, going out on missions to evangelize the world."
This is extremely pathetic. Comparing the priests of RMS to St. Patrick. Wow. 

First, let's get this straight. Whereas St. Patrick faced brutal hardships and constant danger, your RMS boys are sent into comfortable Catholic parishes where they assist in the deconstruction of existing parishes from within while being wined and dined and feted by their neo-communities (and apparently offered their subjects' daughters as a bonus). 

But let's get back to your statement to the press.

You have "accepted" the resignation of Fr. Luis Camacho? Really? What a stupid thing for your vice-chancellor to say. Who is in control here? You or him? What if he didn't submit his resignation? What about your job? What about simply and immediately removing him - since you knew what he really did! 

Don't give us that canonical investigation stuff. Never mind that it was "consensual". That has nothing to do with your duty as bishop to act immediately in this case. But you didn't. In fact, it appears you did NOTHING until the media started pounding on your door a day after the incident, just like you did with the incident at St. Thomas. In both cases, the perpetrators were your beloved neo's. 

You mean to tell us that you didn't know about this? That's even worse. You are the bishop, the father of these priests, the religious superior of the diocese. And you didn't know that one of your "sons" had been arrested? 

You did know. And you knew when you celebrated the very institution which produced him that night. Yet you used the occasion to criticize us!

And "faculties....restricted"?

Do you really think we are too stupid to know what that means? That means he will go underground into your neo-network where you can hide him but will be permitted to celebrate the sacraments in your little closed communities JUST LIKE WADESON. Meanwhile, you were all so ready to kick good priests like Fr. Paul and Msgr. James completely out of the diocese. 

What a farce!

And how long are you going to hide behind the police report WHEN YOU KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. Those words "canonical investigation" mean "it's none of your business". That's what that means. That means its an internal affair so go away. 

Not this time, archbishop. Not this time!

You were in such a hurry to validate your seminary by having it produce a Chamorro priest, any Chamorro priest, ready or not, just so you could keep up the farce that RMS was a seminary "for Guam". So you pumped out Fr. Luis and then almost immediately made him a pastor, putting him down there in the south all by himself. And now you are going to send another RMS product down there who is even greener behind the ears than Baby Louie? 

What a disaster!

Archbishop, take your RMS children and go play someplace else in Kiko-land. Holy Father, send us a real bishop who has enough sense not to make children pastors...and who don't help themselves to ours.

KUAM. Priest arrested after being found with teen
KUAM. Priest resigns from archdiocese following arrest
PDN. Priest arrested, resigns: Umatac, Merizo pastor accused of 'custodial interference'
MVGUAM. Police find priest with teenage girl
PNC. Pastor Arrested for Taking Minor without Consent

39 comments:

  1. I'm guessing they didn't change the locks of the parishes down south? And I'm also guessing they won't be publishing scathing letters regarding him in the Catholic newspaper? No that would not be appropriate for a NEO priest.

    ReplyDelete
  2. DIANA QUOTE...."DianaMarch 18, 2015 at 11:13 PM
    Dear Anonymous at 7:19 pm,

    A person always has a choice. He chose to step down rather than to fight to keep his position."
    GOOD PIONT Diana. NOT LIKE THE ARCHBISHOP who is fighting for his position. Resign Archbishop. NOW.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr. Paul was not afforded a choice to which he was canonically entitled. Be honest now, had this been a non-neo priest, Apuron would have put the full resources of the archdiocese behind demonizing him publicly. Apuron only acts in his own best interest and the interest of his master Kiko. Always and without fail. The chancery continues to demonstrate that it holds itself accountable to nobody.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator Deacon Larry Claros told Variety yesterday that he would not be involved in the incident." - Marianas Variety, Thursday March 19, 2015

    This is very concerning. Why is this not an incident of sexual abuse? Who made this decision? Why was this decision made prior to the conclusion of the archdiocese investigation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jose M., it is very concerning. Regardless if this incident were a sexual abuse case, it clearly has the tone to it. Larry is the Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator, therefore, even an "allegation" of sexual abuse within the rank and file of the clergy, NEEDS to be investigated fully....no stones unturned. To be "not involved", seems to indicate the unwillingness to effectively do your job.

      Delete
    2. Mary Lou Garcia-PeredaMarch 19, 2015 at 1:39 PM

      I've been informed that because the presbyter in question was arrested on the charge of Custodial Interference and not for sexual misconduct — despite all the Anonymous comments that allege sexual behavior had occurred — the Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator would not be involved in the investigation because no sexual abuse allegations have been officially made.

      On the other hand, IF — and that is a BIG IF — the archdiocese actually conducts a comprehensive AND complete "canonical investigation" and is able to determine that sexual misconduct as defined in the Archdiocese of Agaña's Policies on Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment did occur then I think the SARC — and the Sexual Abuse Response Board — will have to be brought into the picture.

      Delete
    3. The reason Fr. Camacho's incident with a 17 year-old female will not be handled by the Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator is because no allegation or charge of sexual misconduct has been filed against him. At this point, the only charge against Fr. Camacho is "Custodial Interference. which is not a sexual crime. Also, because the female in question is at the age of consent, her consensual sexual involvement with Fr. Camacho is not a crime and, therefore, he cannot be charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct. There has been a lot of speculation about what occurred between Camacho and this 17 year-old female but unless she reports that she was forced to have sex against her will, there is no crime and no sexual abuse.

      Delete
    4. An investigation per the Policy on Sexual Misconduct is not a criminal investigation. The results can and may be forwarded to proper authorities, but we are not talking about the criminality of the situation. Don't confuse the two as the Archbishop seems to be doing.

      For context, here is the beginning of the Policy on Sexual Misconduct found at www.aganaarch.org/wp-content/uploads/AOAS_April_24_2002_Policy.pdf

      Their emphasis:

      Policy on Sexual Misconduct

      I. Policy Statement
      The Archdiocese of Agana is opposed to, will not tolerate, and will diligently strive to prevent all forms of sexual misconduct.

      II. Definitions
      Sexual Misconduct -- as used in this document includes:
      1. The intentional sexual contact between a priest or deacon and a minor, usually called sexual abuse;
      2. The intentional sexual contact between a priest or deacon and an adult to whom the priest is providing counseling or pastoral care, usually called sexual exploitation;

      Child means any person under 18 years of age



      How is it that any Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator can choose not to investigate the current situation is beyond belief. Just on the definition of a child according to this policy is cause for scrutiny.

      And it does not matter if it was consensual, sexual exploitation, according to the definition of sexual misconduct provided in the policy, is the intentional sexual contact between a priest or deacon and an adult to whom the priest is providing counseling or pastoral care.

      We can intelligently assume that there was sexual contact per the explanation of the “custodial” misdemeanor charge to which a criminal charge could not be levied as the female “victim” was over the age of consent. (What else would she be consenting to?) However, the policy of the Archdiocese is very clear on what sexual misconduct is, regardless of the age of consent. We’re talking about exploitation at the hands of someone with authority. Yes, it would seem that the Archbishop is hiding behind the police report and ignoring or dismissing this very clear policy of the Archdiocese.

      Remember, this is not solely about Fr. Luis; this is about the cover up and diminishing of a serious charge; a manipulation that is occurring right in front of us, and with gall.

      An investigation of sexual misconduct is certainly in order; an investigation that most certainly requires the involvement of the Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator. Why this is even an issue, to investigate or not, is gravely concerning.

      Delete
  5. ANDERW J ZAWALINSKIMarch 19, 2015 at 8:26 AM

    How longer will the people of Guam tolerate the injustice perpetrate by the head of the neo- way? Archbishop, when will you take care of the people Guam as you swore to do when you were appointed to your sacred post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator Deacon Larry Claros told Variety yesterday that he would not be involved in the incident." How can he not be involved?
    Read the arch's policy definitions on page 6/7 for Sexual Misconduct and definition of a Child= person under age 18
    http://www.aganaarch.org/wp-content/uploads/AOAS_April_24_2002_Policy.pdf
    That is his job to be involved as SARC???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. It may not be abuse as both are over 16. however raises serious questions about his capacity to live as a catholic priest as required at his ordination. This guy is not even two years ordained. Is this how he was taught to live priesthood. Shame on NCW.

      Delete
  7. I was hesitant to comment but at the same time I am concerned about everyone's reaction to this story. At this time we don't know the whole story and should wait to hear what really transpired between Father Luis and the 17 year old minor. Was she a relative? a Friend?, a possible suicidal? or something else. Whatever transpired, the best we should do is wait until we learn the whole story. We need to afford Father Luis and this 17 year old minor the same courtesy we had wished the Archbishop should have done to Father Paul and Monsignor James. If we don't, then we are no better than the Archbishop on his treatment of Father Paul and Monsignor James.

    Father Luis will be properly held accountable by the civil authorities. The 17 year old minor will hopefully be counseled so that she does not feel that this was all her fault. She is the minor and we don't want to make her a further victim by our reaction.

    Let us not blacken our souls and say mean and angry things. The CCOG has been doing a great job of presenting the facts and making this a clean fight. This incident is not related to the problem and we shouldn't be distracted by it or become our own worst enemies.

    Please, we should always pray for our Priest, all Priest including Father Luis. I am hoping this is all just a misunderstanding.

    Thank you for listening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately none of this is a misunderstanding. They were caught having sex and this is not the first time. And if we give Fr. Luis all the benefit of the doubt in the world, why on earth would he tale a minor girl to a remote Agat beach area? Goodness gracious! He didn't do it for a nice chat! And to take her out of school? OMG. This sounds like a predator, not a counselor! And the fact that the minor girl and the parents are all in the neo makes it worse because that means that Fr. Luis, a neo priest, was in an extra position of confidence with them. He was in a pposition of enormous influence over this minor girl. This is just plain bad all around.

      Delete
    2. Why would a priest resign over a simple misunderstanding? When the situationew is not a simple misunderstanding. Yes, charity must be rendered, but justice should prevail.

      Delete
    3. This is why from the outset of this I put the focus on Archbishop Apuron. Wrangling about the nature of the offense is a sideshow. The real show is whether or not Archbishop Apuron will be forthcoming. We know he won't, but that should not lessen our resolve to continue to call him out. Let's direct our energies at the Archbishop. If this did not involve sex then that's all the Archbishop has to say. If it did, then that's all the Archbishop has to say. His silence, once again, is THE SCANDAL. The commenters here cannot be blamed for speculating. They have been lied to over and over by the archbishop and his cronies. Short of taking to the streets, this is the only place to express outrage over this archbishop's destruction of our Church.

      Delete
    4. Sharon, I commend your compassion and kind heart on this matter, however, when will we as Guam Catholics stand up against these types of behavior? I believe it is this same attitude that the NEOs are hoping for in our people......that kind, considerate and forgiving attitude so that they can continue covering our eyes with more misdirection and lies.

      This is but one incident....and a reported one at that. How many other incidents have occurred where the NEOs may have coerced a family in not reporting it to authorities? As Jose M. states, Justice Should Prevail.

      Delete

    5. Archbishop Apuron tell us the truth. Were they having sex in the car? yes or no? Very simple question.

      Delete
    6. Mary Lou Garcia-PeredaMarch 19, 2015 at 2:08 PM

      Raymond (March 19, 2015 at 10:40 AM), I believe your statement — This is but one incident…and a reported one at that — is quite an astute observation. Your follow-up question How many other incidents have occurred where the NEOs may have coerced a family in not reporting it to authorities? is a valid one.

      I have heard and read that the number of rapes reported nationwide and on Guam are described as merely the "tip of the iceberg." I can't help wondering if the same tip of the iceberg description would apply in what goes on within the NCW communities between the presbyters and members: Have there been other occurrences that have gone unreported and which will be kept within the confines of the NCW only to be revealed in a general manner at their next round of Neo Commercials?

      Delete
  8. Luis should just take the necessary steps to leave the priesthood. To spend time with the teen and not with the RMS community for Eucharistic celebration on St. Patrick's Day is totally unbelievable!

    This incident doesn't seem to put a damper on the NCW members. Let us pray for out brother Luis, they say. People in the jungle are not Christian like for attacking brother Luis.

    Guess what, when the tables turn, you folks got bitten bad. You criticize Father Paul and Msgr James and plaster their names all over the Umatuna Si Yu'us and the Media, defaming their character. There is a problem and the problem needs to be resolved. Genarinni's has NO business interviewing these men before ordination. It will also be RMS seminarians fit for a KING! WRONG!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look at facts we know. Not important to our readers what went on in the car. Greater importance to us. (a). Seminary feast day of St.Patrick. Former seminarians should be focused on returning to their seminary for Mass and a dinner and gathering of brother priests. Luis was not. He was evidently more interested in hanging out in a remote ocean area of Guam. What does this say? Obviously no concern for the church to which he belongs. Luis is not even two years ordaine and acting without prudence. Indicates to me that similar situations were going on during formation process undetected by the rector and faculty of rms. many on this page indicated with reasonable intel that this guy was not ready for ordination. Very often it is the people outside a seminary who have a clearer picture of the character of a seminarian not always the faculty.
      At same time people of God have a right to make known to an ordinary prior to ordination if they have reason to doubt a seminarians intention. This way ordination can be halted. Some made known their doubts regarding Luis camacho. They were silenced. But in this case Archbishop Krebs was informed of Luis prior to his ordination that he was unsuitable. Many issues here which Rome will have to look at regarding Luis camacho.

      Delete

  9. Resignation offered by Luis was it forced or freely offered? If forced invalid.

    Archbishop made a private deal. Resign, and I will clear this case and send you off Guam. Already know what went on in the chancery .

    ReplyDelete
  10. The associated press has picked this up. It's on yahoo news.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Pics, are you moving the nuns in NJ to MALTA. Heard there was going to be a relocation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pics or PIUS. What's this about? NJ nuns.

      Delete
    2. PIUS...As for NJ nuns ask Pius what he is building in MALTA. Ask Giuseppe! Ask your Archbishop about this.

      Delete
    3. True Pius is building on Malta. Soon Pius will be forced out of Guam .He will live back on Malta in the Carmel convent.

      Delete
    4. Living with the nuns? In Malta? That's wrong.

      Delete
    5. Pius is building in Malta for the formation of his "NUNS" which will soon relocate there. Pius oversees the incoming young women to the NJ convent. Pius is there to present them to MOTHER DEAREST. When the time comes for clothing, Pius officiated and gives them their new name. He tells them that thru this new name begins a new life. So their country, family, and things in their past is of no value. Meaning everything in past is DEAD.

      The relocation is probably to secure that they are under lock and key. No where to escape. He needs to keep an eye on them. He recruits to build up his ego about the goodness of the NCW.

      Pius thinks of himself as "FATHER ABRAHAM". In and interview he says "these are my grandchildren, for their parents were the first that I catechized."

      Delete
  12. Sharon, I know that you mean well, but this is a time to purse our(women's) lips and let the men settle this issue. A man's job is to protect his wife and children and we must follow their judgement. Having said that, I strongly agree with any man or woman who says that it is highly inappropriate for ANY adult to be found in a vehicle parked at the beach with a female who is 17 yr old who should be at school. The adult should be punished.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Like St. Patrick? You mean, St. Patrick got caught with his pants down too?

    ReplyDelete

  14. International news already carrying story. Media outlets contacted individuals for comment on the camacho Apuron story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So did the abuse tracker which writes on Bishps' accountability...by Kathy Shaw

      Delete
  15. Janet B - MangilaoMarch 19, 2015 at 2:54 PM

    Does anyone else see the happy coincidence? It was on St Patrick's Day, the patron saint of that RMS seminary. Looks like St Patrick is finally starting to drive out all the snakes from Guam, and he is starting with the two legged ones first! Time for the kikos to slither away...shooo.
    Too funny...so sad.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Janet B - MangilaoMarch 19, 2015 at 3:15 PM

    Oh well. Looks like more front page news about the neo this week in the Umatuna. When will it ever end!
    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  17. Uncle Tony needs to be held more accountable. How can he just accept his resignation without first looking situation. Where's that dumb@$$ of a Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator, Deacon Larry Claros? No where to be found...scared out of his pants that he has an actual case before him. What an amateur move to actually provide a comment before knowing the facts. Obviously Fr. Alberto and Uncle Tony knew what the heck really went down (and I guess figuratively as well). lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Claros definitely not qualified to be the SARC. He didn't like the hard questions the media was asking him so he proceeded to curse them out. News article to follow on this incident. Another embarrassment for the Chancery.

      Delete
  18. Fr. Luis' picture better be front and center of the UMATUNA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Foto San Jose Fiests front and center. Betcha. Online UNDER MAINTENANCE...sorry...Editor Sr. Arroyo whassup with that?

      Delete
  19. Luis' faculties have been restricted for far longer than this letter. His faculties of reason and self control are that of a pubescent little boy. Lock him down long enough at RMS and he'll probably start playing swords with the other fellas. What an f'n joke this guy turned out to be.

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch