Sunday, August 23, 2015

TODAY'S BULL...AND A NEW NAME FOR THE DEACON

Dear Archbishop,

Today you will have read from every pulpit an officious sounding "bull" condemning "gender theory," same-sex marriage, and legislation which promotes and protects both. 




It is "officious sounding bull" because on June 25, when you really could have done something to impact this legislation, the best you could do was send out Deacon For Sure For Sure to represent the Catholic Church at the public hearing. 

The Deacon is a good neo foot soldier, so he did your bidding, but now you want us to take you seriously with this condemnation from the pulpit that you didn't even write?

You know archbishop, if it had been gambling legislation on the table, you would have mobilized every resource to knock it down before the bill ever got to the floor. There would have been signs hung on churches saying "Vote No." We would have endured, week after week, condemnations of gambling from the pulpit. You, yourself, would have shown up in all your "broad phylacteries" at the public hearing and glared at the senators, making sure you were in position for a good news camera angle.

But the best you can do is send out the Poster Boy for archdiocesan cover ups, for sure, for sure? And now you want us to sit through today's "bull"?

Did you read Vice Speaker Cruz' grilling of For Sure For Sure after he read his joke of a testimony? You didn't? You should. And it should be a warning shot. Cruz knows. And he uses For Sure For Sure...to go after you. Unfortunately For Sure For Sure doesn't even know he's being played. 

Chairman Aguon:
Thank you very much Deacon Claros. Any questions or comments senators?

Vice Speaker Cruz:
I wasn’t going to, but I will. I must compliment you on a very well researched piece that you put together. Have you or anybody in the archdiocese done any research as to the effect on society and the effect to all those of us throughout the country who were subjected to pedophilia by priests and the impact that has had on the moral fiber of society?

[LOL. Cruz ignores everything For Sure For Sure just said about the bill and goes straight for a completely unrelated topic: pedophilia by priests. Ahem. Now, here we go. For Sure For Sure takes the bait. He steps right into the trap Cruz laid for him. For Sure For Sure should have said: "I'm sorry, Vice Speaker, but did you have a question for me about the testimony I just read or did you want to address something outside the scope of this public hearing?" But For Sure For Sure can't help his megalomaniac self. He steps in it. And as a Deacon, representing our Church, he takes all of us down the toilet with him.]

Deacon Claros:
One has been done for the nation and probably for some countries in the world, but not exactly here onGuam, but I will say this senator that we are all human, and whether priest, bishop, whether senators, whether mothers or fathers, we all make mistakes in our decisions in life. The thing is now we’re all in a situation to go ahead and make decisions for the future, and sometimes, sometimes in our, if you’ll forgive me for this word, selfishness, that we try to put our own agenda forward not thinking of others, they I think we destroy society little by little, and we have since history started. Since man started on this earth, we have, but we have also done many good. Many good. I remember my life here on Guam and living off island for a few years and coming home and just looking at our society evolving, changing for the good, for the bad, but somehow we all survive, but there is one thing we need to understand that in the mistakes we make, there also must be forgiveness so we can move forward. This is something the human person sometimes fails to put into their hearts.

[O - M - G!!! That's all I have to say. O - M - G!!! But now, watch Cruz. Pay attention, Archbishop. Pay attention. He ignores For Sure For Sure's garrulous "tower of babel" and stays on topic, handing For Sure For Sure more rope to hang himself, which For Sure For Sure gladly takes - actually thinking that he is being taken seriously when he isn't even being asked about what he came to testify about!]

Vice Speaker Cruz:
Can I just ask what that study is? I’d like to read that study because you quoted at least two dozen treatises in this.

Deacon Claros:
Yes, and from that document…

Vice Speaker Cruz:
So I’m just wondering whether or not you’ve done a similar study on the impact. Because you cited Massachusetts continuously…

Deacon Claros:
Of course. Of course.

[LOL! For sure. For sure. Of course. Of course. I believe we have a new name for the Deacon.]

Vice Speaker Cruz:
And Cardinal Law had to resign because of the huge number of pedophile cases that were throughout the archdiocese of Boston, and I’m just wondering, have you guys done any studies to determine, or have you read any studies about the impact and effect that is had on society , and if you could share that with me, I would love to…

Deacon Claros:
No, not for our local archdiocese, but we relied really on the United States and of course that’s a bigger body, so therefore, our small community on Guam, if we can just merge that into its part.

[Ummmmmmm...smh, smh, smh: "just merge that into its part." Sigh.]

Vice Speaker Cruz:
I understand, but you didn’t cite anything on your four pages about Guam. You cited all the studies that were done in the states. So I’m asking if you could provide me with similar citations to studies that you looked at to determine the impact of the Church has had by allowing...and its pedophilia within the Church.

Deacon Claros:
As of this time senator, no I don’t have those studies.

[Actually there aren't any studies, not locally or nationally. The only national study was the 2002 John Jay College of Criminal Justice study entitled: The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010. As per the title, the study only reported on the "causes and context" of the abuse scandal NOT the impact which is what Cruz is asking for. 

Cruz knows there is no such study. He also knows that For Sure For Sure doesn't even know that there is no such study. He even knows that For Sure For Sure doesn't even know that he is being played. 

Unfortunately, the bill's sponsor, Nerissa Underwood, is not as smart as Cruz and is probably so wrapped up in her own moment of self-appointed glory that she doesn't realize that Cruz has just done her a big favor: eliminating the church as credible opposition to the rest of the homosexual agenda. 

Instead, she proves herself about as smart as For Sure For Sure by bringing the questioning back to her bill and actually giving For Sure For Sure a short chance to redeem his pathetic performance under Cruz' questioning. 

It's so boring and self-serving that I didn't bother typing it out. You can read it, as well as the above exchange between Cruz and For Sure For Sure on the Committee Report.]

This little exchange between For Sure For Sure and Cruz brought back fond memories of my months-long public war with Cruz over his Domestic Partnership bill. I say "my war" because Archbishop Apuron couldn't find anybody else to fight it. I also say "months-long" because that's what it took to beat the bill, not just some little show up at the public hearing for a "look at me I'm defending the church" moment. 

The public hearing was only a small fraction of the time and effort it took to beat the bill. I spent months giving talks in churches and schools, organizing symposiums, going on radio and TV, writing op-eds and letters to the editor, not to mention the personal cost of being drug through the media for months as the town homophobe.  And when it came time for the public hearing I made sure I put together a testimony that went for the jugular. You can read it here as well as on the committee report for that bill. 

Later I spent a similar amount of effort beating back two more bills by Cruz specifically aimed at Apuron, one which would have named him a mandated reporter - forcing him to disclose known instances of child sex abuse, and the other to lift the statute of limitations on sex crimes. Both of those bills eventually passed but in a much diluted form that let the archbishop personally off the hook and removed most of the financial motivations to press charges. 

I apologize for succeeding. 


17 comments:

  1. I agree that more should have been said BEFORE the gay thing was passed... probably if all US Clergy rallied together in Washington ...maybe just maybe we wouldn't be in this awful state...

    ReplyDelete
  2. The sad reality is that there are over 1 billion people in the world who professed to be Catholic, a few hundred million more who claim to be from other Christian denominations, It seems like quite a big number, can you imagine if most of these professed Christians really practiced their faith? The moral laws of God would never be put before a lawmaking body, or a judicial system to vote if we should obey God or not. We have really lost our collective minds as a nation, and the price we will pay for these choices are forthcoming...God Help us all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. thank you tim for fighting the good fight, at times being the lone fighter.

    yeah i read that committee report when you first shared the link. claros fell right into it.

    those public hearings are designed to make the senators look good, so anyone who testifies must be ready for any deflections, grandstanding, and sensationalizing. people who testify need to know their stuff well, need to be credible and not hypocritical (for sure!), and need to be aware of political play-by-play shenanigans. unfortunately, the neocat-controlled archdiocese today seems to lack any of that. they do seem to have access to mainland lawyers, though. ha.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hate to say it but today’s Umatuna is nothing short of grandstanding, and trying to make the Catholic Church look good. A day short, and a dollar shy! Don’t cry over spilled milk, Archbishop. You should have anticipated all this to happen - perhaps you did have anticipated it, and allowed it to happen.

      Back then – when things were in some state of normalcy – today’s writings in the Umatuna could have been hailed as some sort of genuinely credible admonitions, encouragement and hope, but with the level of confidence and respect that you have allowed your “flock” to look upon the leadership of this archdiocese, the impact of today’s writings is lost in the display of fancy words. The admonitions of today’s Umatuna are lost among the words and actions you have done to wreck havoc within the One, Holy. Catholic and Apostolic Church you referred to so often (perhaps apologetically), when you are the cause of the very division that has made our Catholic Church not one, but divided!

      If you really want our Catholic Church to be ONE, then do what you need to do. Address the division first (in all its many ramifications), then maybe we can all rally behind your words. “Joy” to you too! (as had been mentioned so many times in the Umatuna) – as if we dumb Laity haven’t the faintest idea what you are trying to imply – instead of “love, peace, and blessings”. Pax et amor Dei tecum! Si Yuus unbenendise! – jrsa.

      Delete

  4. Archbishop foolish to attack gay issues!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Especially since the archbishop is gay himself. It's like he's attacking himself. Sort of like an anti-Semitic Jew.

      Delete
    2. Well he is an anti Filipino Tagalo. He denies his heritage.

      Delete
    3. "Tagalo"??? Sounds like you have something against people from the Philippines. Just saying.

      Delete
  5. After reading Claros' testimony and his response to Sen. Cruz' question about the impact of pedophile priests, I got the impression that Claros was making excuses for these priests. I got the impression that he had knowledge of abuse by priests on Guam and was making excuses for them. Highly suspicious to me. He was explaining why the abuse happens without saying what can be done about it. His attitude was "Oh, you know, these things happen" like it's no big deal. I think he knows stuff about abuse by priests in Guam.
    Eileen Benavente-Blas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And he's the SARC and in his eyes, everyone accused is innocent, for sure, for sure.

      Delete
  6. I actually read up on the transcript in your previous post, and was going to suggest that we call him Deacon Of Course, Of Course. But I see you've picked up on it, Tim!

    As a commentator from a previous post asked, why the heck now? The bill's been passed, the White House went all rainbow-colored, why bring up the letter now?

    It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and you're right, Deacon Claros' comments actually makes the Church look like bigots. When he was called out by Cruz later in the transcript where the subject of children raised in homes where their parents are in a heterosexual relationship, they would more than likely seek a heterosexual relationship, I cringed while reading it. Like Apuron, he referenced material, but could not produce anything on the day of his testimony, which is odd (I'm referencing the whole "I'll find it" promise he made like months ago). I've worked in the Legislature as a staffer in the past, and these hearings are not scheduled on the day of - they are at least 2 weeks in advance. If he was our "line of defense" in order to cease this bill from passing, he could have at least brought in copies of his claims and studies in order to make his case stronger, or at least show he isn't completely lying that he had done said research. For anyone interested in that part of the transcript, pages 10 to 11.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Deacon for sure, for sure has all of the documents. He just forgot to take them out of the secret filing cabinet when he went to the legislature Someone once said that they're located in front of the approved NCW statutes that AAA's been looking to show us since ever since....lol!

    James T.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Claros is an incompetent fool who goes where he shouldn't - given his non-existent intellect. Does he not recognize that his severe scout loyalty to apuron is dragging the local church to the cleaners? It is exactly these kinds of half-hearted attempts that jeopardize church integrity. How low Guam archdiocese has sunk in the overall regard by the community! The archbishop does not command any respect anymore and does nothing about it. All the fancy words he forced for priests to spew out on unsuspecting captive audience fell on deaf ears. What a waste on everyone's time. Claros and apuron: like minion like puppet. Stop the charade, you neo-crazy clowns!

    ReplyDelete
  9. This incompetent wanna be dork was assigned to Toto for over a year. We had to tolerant this idiot. He should be assigned to Barrigada where he can be appreciated by the other deviates that want to take over our church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barrigada, Of Course Of Course!

      Delete
  10. The people from Sinajana don't even want him at Saint Jude. We miss Deacon Joseph Barcinas. No comparison.
    Tun Pedro Santos

    ReplyDelete
  11. Richard NochefrancaAugust 24, 2015 at 10:54 AM

    Claros is no Deacon. He is a half baked NEO/NCW Cult parasite that needs to be removed to include his brother minions.

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch