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. 


Recommendations by JungleWatch