On Tuesday, May 17, 2016, Roy Quintanilla, made known that he was sexually molested by Anthony S. Apuron, currently the Archbishop of Agana, approximately 40 years ago when he was a twelve year old altar boy in the parish of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in Agat, Guam.
Within a few hours, the Archdiocese released a statement stating the following:
On the introductory page to the "policy," we read:
NO. 1. Despite the first principle of the policy being "the victim is not responsible for the abuse," within only a couple hours of the release of this statement, the Archbishop, the person ultimately responsible for seeing to it that "the victim is not responsible for the abuse," personally attacked the victim.
NO. 2. Despite the second principle of the policy being "the healing of the victim should be primary concern," within only a couple hours of the release of this statement, the Archbishop, the person ultimately responsible for seeing to "the healing of the victim as the primary concern," personally attacked the victim.
NO. 3. Despite the third principle of the policy being "all allegations of sexual misconduct are to be taken seriously," within only a couple hours of the release of this statement, the Archbishop, the person ultimately responsible for seeing to it that "all allegations of sexual misconduct are to be taken seriously," personally attacked the victim.
And within 24 hours of his own attack on the victim, Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron had both Deacon Frank Tenorio and his personal secretary, Fr. Edivaldo Da Silva Oliveira, personally attack the same victim in the same way.
Having immediately violated the first principles of his own policy, Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron proceeded to violate the policy itself:
Item 2c. requires the Archbishop to "direct an Investigator to do a complete investigation."
There will be no Investigator and there will be no investigation. Per the Pacific Daily News (May 20, 2016), Archbishop Apuron's personal secretary and Archdiocesan spokesman, Fr. Edivaldo Da Silva Oliveira, declared: "it never happened."
Rev. Edivaldo da Silva Oliveira, who identified himself as a personal secretary for the archbishop, spoke on behalf of Apuron on Friday.When asked if Rev. Niland told Apuron what Quintanilla told Niland, Oliveira said, “(Niland) never reported because it never happened.”http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/05/20/deacon-defends-archbishop-accused-molestation/84640378/
However, in doing all this, attacking the victim - first personally and then with Tenorio and Edivaldo, Apuron has completely admitted his guilt. If Apuron was innocent, it not only would have been easy for him to extend an invitation to Mr. Quintanilla to further discuss the matter, it would have been the right thing for a bishop to do. At the very least he could have done what Cardinal Pell had done when similarly accused. Pell stepped aside and permitted a third party investigation. When exonerated he returned to his job.
Obviously Apuron has done none of these things. Instead he has immediately and viciously attacked the victim.
Now, this brings us to why Apuron and the Waldo (aka Fr. Edivaldo Da Silva Oliveira) suddenly up and departed to Manila yesterday morning.
For now, it is Apuron's word against Mr. Quintanilla's. Apuron knows that so long as he can keep this one on one, he can continue to deny the charges. However, two on one, three on one, and more... will change the matter very quickly. He must keep other victims from coming forward.
Fr. Matthew Blockley was invited to be incardinated in this diocese by Apuron in the early 90's. However, Blockley saw something that made him split to Saipan after only a couple of years in Agana and before he was ordained.
Blockley was ordained in Saipan but ran afoul of Bishop Camacho when Apuron and Pius tried to insert the Neocatechumenal Way into Saipan in the late 90's. According to Blockley, he also stumbled across some grave financial improprieties. Blockley - per his account - was severely beaten one night by a group of thugs (who he believed to be Bishop Camacho's) and fled to the states where he hid for several years for fear of his life.
Upon his retirement, Camacho released an all points bulletin to all the U.S. bishops to flush out Blockley and force him back to Saipan (though according to Blockley, Camacho knew where he was). The priest in the states who had given Blockley shelter for several years could no longer do so. Still fearing for his life, Blockley fled to Manila, where (again according to Blockley) he is living privately under the protection of Cardinal Tagle.
What did Blockley see in the early 90's that made him flee Agana? Apuron knows. The only question is what will it take to buy Blockley's silence?
That's all I can say for now.
For all posts related to Fr. Blockley go here.
For all posts related to Fr. Blockley go here.