Sunday, September 18, 2016

DEAR CATHOLIC CLERGY: WILL YOU BE SERVING GOD OR MAMMON?

Posted by Webster.


Today, many in our clergy have heeded the call of Archbishop Hon and Father Jeff to sign a petition asking the governor to veto the bill that was unanimously passed by our senators, a bill designed to protect our children by making accountable, without time limits, the heinous crimes of sex abuse of minors and the institutions that harbor, protect, hide, and help these despicable sex abusers and predators.


Today's gospel just happens to be spot on. Or, was it by chance? God always has a way to put up sign posts whenever we start down the road that leads to sin and injustice, as our Church leaders and many priests are doing just that.

They have decided to serve MAMMON, not GOD, by asking the Catholic faithful at masses and schools to veto a bill that was designed to protect our children, our most precious and holiest asset.

Will our priests do the RIGHT THING and just say NO? Sadly, some are already kneeling before and worshipping the Altar of Mammon.

Blessed Mother of Jesus Christ, pray for us.

11 comments:

  1. let us compile a list of these priests who prefer to serve Mammon. Starting with Fr. Gofigan and Fr. Gus. Make that Gofigan and Gus. I will not refer to them as priests anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Add: Jeff San Nicolas to the list and post their names on the "Wall of Shame."

      Delete
    2. There are only two things not to like about Father Gofigan, his face.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Webster's definition of fidelity to God:'obedience to His Word!

    The irony is incredible, the very altar boys that were preyed upon by Apurun, Broullaird & Cruz, were used, again,to hand out petitions to the faithful to "block" the very Bill designed to protect them! Auwe! Insanity or just pure evil?

    The chafe is being sifted from the wheat. Some priest have "NOT" read the letter...(the wheat). Most have, (the chafe). As Webster ask, who is your master, God or mammon?

    Fr. Jeff your window of opportunity to stand for Justice is quickly closing!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Marilu Diaz MartinezSeptember 18, 2016 at 12:43 PM

    I find it very difficult to accept and believe that this religious "vow of obedience" that our clergy make is an absolute vow of "Blind Obedience" -- basically stifling and exempting the clergy from exercising and using our God-given intellect, conscience and reason to decipher right from wrong and recognize evil from good. Goodness, even the Angels and Archangels created with intellects much higher than man’s were allowed by God the freedom to choose “to serve and obey” or not to!

    Soley based on their “vow of obedience”, it appears, some of our parish priests have acquiesced to Archbishop Hon’s very late and desperate recourse to not only advice and take it upon themselves to make the suggestions for us, the faithful -- because the faithful don’t know enough to use our intellect and conscience to make our own decisions. As if that is not offensive enough to our faithful’s intelligence, Archbishop Hon and the kowtowing priests must have an assurance that the faithful are heeding their suggestions by then pushing and recording our decisions by acquiring the signatures of the faithful?

    But didn’t we already go thru the proper legislative process and procedure and even met the timeframe for the deadline to submit our pros and cons to our Senators who put so much research time, work and effort on Bill 326-33?
    Archbishop Hon and the follow-the-leader parish priests: you all are not just sending our Senators a message of disrespect for their legislative process, procedures and protocols but, you ignore and disregard our local governments’ legislative system!

    I, like the majority of our Guam voters concerned for the safety of all children in the hands of potential serial pedophiles on Guam, attended the set times and days of the legislative-scheduled hearings and provided my personal testimony and support for Bill 326-33. … and so have our Senators made their decisions in favor of this Bill and their vote of support has been recorded!

    So Archbishop Hon, why are you feeling that your input and petition -- extremely late and especially-uncooperative-with-our-local-legislative-process which was already completed -- now deserves a special and separate consideration?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Those that support the bill support it because:

    1. Some or many have been abused by members of the clergy.

    2. Such victims want to be compensated for the harm done to them.

    Question: Will money fill the pain & hurt of the past? Will it make the traumatic memories disappear? No & no.

    Only the Lord can truly & fully heal wounds, not lawsuits. Forgiveness from the heart is the key.

    Now the third argument in support of the bill is to protect minors from future abuse.

    Furthermore, supporters of the bill make non-supporters seem as if they're not interested in protecting minors. This is false.

    Those who are non-supporters of the bill know that it puts the Church into an awkward position, here I refer to institutional liability. However, non-supporters are petitioning for such a bill to be vetoed not because of this. Those that claim that non-supporters are petitioning for the veto say it's because assets/land/money etc., are involved. No. Non-supporters are just questioning what's the true motive for advocating for institutional liability.

    Restitution can be done in another way without damaging the Church physically and spiritually. The Church has not sued anyone, but some of it's members are suing her for the one who has actually admitted to sexually abusing others? This is the only evidence against one priest. If Archbishop Anthony is taken to court, what evidence can verify the allegations against him? Why after 30-50 years ago do accusations appear after an add is placed in a paper? Some true & some false stories? At the end, we answer to God, who knows the intentions of our heart; He cannot be deceived.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry. You have it wrong. The reason for institutional liability is directly for the protection of victims, especially minor victims.

      Legal proceedings are expensive. Victims normally do not have money to hire attorneys to represent them. And especially in the case of clergy, the accused usually will not have enough assets to make it worth the attorney’s while.

      Few attorneys will take up a case for free. Attorney’s costs money. The courts cost money. Everything costs money. The only hope a victim has of obtaining justice is an attorney who will take his or her case on a contingency.

      We have already seen that Apuron was wiling to use the full force and financial weight of “the Church” to defend himself against John Toves. What did Toves have? Nothing. So it was over before it started.

      What did we see when Roy Quintanilla come forward? Apuron again willing to use the full force and financial weight of the church to defend himself. The only difference is that I was able to arrange an attorney to stand by Roy’s side. And in order to do this I had to find the money.

      Without an attorney, Apuron would have ripped Roy to shreds and sued him into poverty. And Apuron would have used church funds to do it.

      There is also the matter of seeking damages against now dead clerics.

      The fact is that our local church hierarchy knew of these abominations and aided and abetted the perpetrators for many years.

      BTW, the allegations did NOT appear after an ad was placed in the paper. We already had the allegations on paper from Roy, Walter, and Roland. I placed that ad to bait Eddy the Waldo into saying something stupid I could sue him for. And he obliged. Adrian too.

      Delete
    2. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)September 18, 2016 at 3:55 PM

      “Those that support the bill support it because: (1) Some or many have been abused by members of the clergy. (2) Such victims want to be compensated for the harm done to them.”

      As to #2 – it is not wrong of the victims to want to be compensated. The victims deserve non-monetary compensation as in an apology and moral support. The victims also deserve financial compensation, not so much that they want to get rich. It’s because when perpetrators get hit in the pocket book, is usually the only way they (and those who cover up form them) will get the message.

      “Question: Will money fill the pain & hurt of the past? Will it make the traumatic memories disappear? No & no.”

      You miss the point here about financial compensation. It is not to numb the pain and erase the past. It’s, as I wrote above, because hitting perpetrators in the pocket book, is usually the only way they (and those who cover up form them) will get the message!

      "What's the true motive for advocating for institutional liability?"

      The obvious motive for institutional liability is that the institutions and organizations are the defendants who usually possess the financial resources to pay for the damages. Moving forward, knowing that there is a law that holds institutions and organizations liable for child sexual abuse serves as a deterrent to predatory acts against minors. One way is that predators within an institution may be required to seek professional help to assist them dealing with this predatory compulsion lest they and their institution or organization be subjects of a lawsuit. Institutions and organizations will be forced to design and implement ways to bring about awareness and prevention of childhood sexual abuse. Institutions such as churches, schools, businesses that work with minors will have to implement policies and provide training for the prevention of and response to childhood sexual abuse so that to prevent childhood sexual abuse and cover-up within their organizations and within their facilities. Being forced by such a law into awareness, prevention, and being responsive to childhood sexual abuse will make for a healthy island community.

      “Restitution can be done in another way without damaging the Church physically and spiritually.”

      The local Church has already been spiritually damaged by Fr. Apuron and others in leadership and those who covered up for them [therein lies “institutional”]. The physical damage to the Church can be recovered in time.

      “The Church has not sued anyone, but some of it’s members are suing her for the one who has actually admitted to sexually abusing others?”

      The Church is sued because the Church has the financial resources to pay for the damages that her clergy caused by sexually abusing minors, and (2) because others in the church covered up or didn’t speak out against the childhood sexual abuses; this collective “cover-up” practiced over decades made the sexual abuses “institutional” [in an institution].

      “Why after 30-50 years ago do accusations appear after an add is placed in a paper?”

      You appear to have very little understanding of the effects of childhood sexual abuse, so here are a few high notes about it. The trauma of sexual abuse experienced by minors takes decades and decades to come to the surface, if at all. Childhood sexual abuse is a traumatic experience for the victim causing long-lasting damage. Survivors may be unable to understand or make the connection between childhood sexual abuse and emotional harm or damage until many years after the abuse occurs. Survivors may repress the memory of the abuse or be unable to connect the abuse to any injury until after the statute of limitations has run. These are the features that make this crime against minors one with a special nature. The latency of its effects prevents it from being lumped in with other crimes to which a statute of limitations is applied.

      “At the end, we answer to God, who knows the intentions of our heart; He cannot be deceived.”

      I agree.

      Delete
    3. If you had these allegations on paper prior to the ad published in the paper, why didn't these victims speak out then? Why did they wait until after the ad was published in the papers? Mr. Rohr, there's a missing piece to this puzzle, and if you placed the ad in the paper with a malicious intent (i.e. to bait "Eddy" and Adrian in order to sue them for "saying something stupid"), then it seems to me that you and your cronies were involved in some kind of plan. And the ones targeted on your blog are Archbishop Apuron, Fr. Pius, Msgr. David, Fr. Adrian and Fr. Edivaldo....hmmm? So how to get rid of them may have been the plan, right? So, you and your cronies did and continue to find ways to make the masses see these men as evil, monstrous, and heretics. You found people who allege Apuron abused them, but there's no substantial evidence to prove that the Archbishop is guilty. Then, one out the the rest of the victims is the only one who's claims can possibly be valid though that priest doesn't remember the name of his victims.

      Bottom line is this, someone is lying. One side? Both sides? This group, that group? Twisted account of events? Concealed information? What is it??? If this can be answered, then we'll know what's the problem and resolve it. This is what Rome is also looking into, and for this, we must all be patient and wait for their response. Let me remind everyone that ALL of us will have to give an account to God of what we have said, done, and failed to do. He cannot be deceived for He knows the intentions of our hearts.

      Delete
    4. LOL. I have documented everything. So who's lying. LOL. Adrian and the Waldo had already threatened to sue me. All I did was place an ad in the paper. I didn't tell them to say anything stupid. But then stupid is as stupid does. LOL. BTW, all of this is thoroughly detailed and narrated in my series entitled ORCHESTRATED (see the tab above). Yes, I orchestrated all of it and I'm rather proud of that. But you are too dense to see why I am "admitting" that publicly. LOL. It was very easy to orchestrate when every piece of the story is true. IF it wasn't true, I wouldn't be telling everything publicly now, would I. Oh, and I have a lot more to tell. Wait till you hear about the blue Chevelle. LOL.

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch