Monday, August 1, 2016

PASS THE BILL! BRING ON THE LAWSUITS!



rey d has left a new comment on your post "AND HON SMILES":

i'm just catching up on developments. so frs james and paul are satisfied with the moves that archbishop hon made regarding their status?

it's fine if they are satisfied as it relates to their own individual fates.

but it's not fine at all in the interest of truth and justice as it affects the rest of us. why not?
because, at least on one level, it signals that members of the hierarchy can continue to abuse their power and can still get away with it--even if only partially.

sadly, it's the two priests' attitude of willing acceptance that the men in power are counting on to continue to get away with the evils that are plaguing the Church.

yes, there are times when humility of accepting one's fate--even if unjust--is called for. that's governed by one's conscience.

but even if frs paul and james did accept their fates and individually are satisfied with this outcome, they should *not* call on the rest of us to go along and accept it with them. don't they understand that by expecting everyone else to do so, it leaves fertile ground for continuing abuse?

pass the bill! bring on the lawsuits!

7 comments:

  1. Those who support this bill will be seen as supporting child abuse. We will destroy them. We will remove any individual who supports perverts working in Guams catholic church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous at 9:51 AM, your statement "Those who support this bill will be seen as supporting child abuse" is not accurate. I think you meant to state that "Those who OPPOSE Bill 326-33 will be seen as supporting child abuse" as was demonstrated at this morning's Public Hearing by Zoltán Székely.

      Prior to Zoltán's testimony everyone else had expressed support for Bill 326-33 because it will provide survivors of child sexual abuse the chance to file civil litigation against their perpetrators and those who have enabled, aided, abetted them, including any institution and/or corporations sole.

      As one who supports and testified in favor of Bill 326-33, I can assure you — I DO NOT support child abuse.

      Delete
  2. Only fr Paul is satisfied with his current "restoration"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Msgr. James was not exonerated. Hon told him that he can now know what he's being accused of. He wasn't cleared of anything. He's just afforded "due process" whatever that means.

    Do not lump the two priests together. Only gofigan expressed his satisfaction on this matter. Do not abandon Msgr. James!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous at 11:40 AM, thank you for your very astute observations that (1) "Msgr. James was not exonerated"; and (2) "Only [G]ofigan expressed his satisfaction on this matter".

      A friend and I were just discussing how, unlike Fr. Paul Gofigan, Msgr. James Benavente has kept a low profile after the press conference, even though he — instead of the Archdiocesan Spokesperson Msgr. Brigido Arroyo — was tasked with opening the 27 July conference.
      In a document titled Response from Apostolic Delegate Regarding Msgr. James Benavente, we noticed that the Apostolic Administrator takes "exception to these statements (from the Archdiocese that have put a clout [sic] over his name) and have found it prudent and just to retract such press releases and statements that may have compromised his dignity and natural right to due process." Furthermore, it was stated that the actions of the Apostolic Administrator are "intended to clearly restore the dignity and allow him due process" He closes by stating, "… I look forward to his continued ministry in a genuine spirit of reconciliation and unity."

      Back in my days as a teacher — we had a saying "If it's not in writing, it doesn't exist." To date there has not been a written statement regarding any change in the status of Fr. Paul Gofigan from the Apostolic Administrator. All we have are the spoken words indicating that, per consultation with a Canon Lawyer, Fr. Gofigan did not engage in a "forma act of disobedience." Nor was there a revocation of Fr. Gofigan's November 2013 Decree of Removal.

      While Msgr. Benavente has a written document retracting press releases and statements from the Apuron Administration, Fr. Gofigan only has a written document from 2013 removing him from his status as pastor of SBCC.

      I haven't noticed via posts and/or comments in this blog that people have "lumped" the two priests together. Nor have I gotten the sense that anyone has "abandoned" Msgr. James.

      Delete
  4. i'm not abandoning either msgr james or fr paul. quite to the contrary. the right thing for hon to do should have been to restore both priests. as a matter of justice, neither priest should accept anything less than that.

    with regard to msgr james, isn't it the case that he was removed as pastor of the cathedral without due process? therefore, if there ought to be due process in removing him, shouldn't it start with him back as pastor of the cathedral, and not after the fact? that's because the violations of canon law includes his removal without due process. it was the first violation. should hon let that violation stand? careful how you answer that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One would think that AB Savio "should" know these things, right? Does he not have legal counsel advising him of what he "needs" to do? AB Savio stated he had the Power.....so I say unto you, AB, do something positive with that power. Make us believe that you are not a charlatan sent here to just throw bones. Do what is Right.

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch