Monday, December 12, 2016

THE PRIEST AS PUBLIC PERSON

Posted by Tim
Priests, who in the capacity of their ministry, serve publicly, such as bishops, pastors, teachers, chaplains, rectors, chancery or curial officials, are not private persons. Like their lay counterparts, especially in the matter of governance, they wield considerable authority and influence over the lives of the people who are entrusted to them and can and should be held publicly accountable when they violate that trust. 

When a government official, let's say a mayor, is legitimately removed from his position and he absconds for several days with the office vehicle, he doesn't just get to show up at the governor's house and work out a deal where there will be no public consequence for his actions. The governor might "forgive" him but the mayor's action was a crime against the people, not the governor. Thus, there are public consequences. 


Sadly, it is this sense of immunity by wayward clerics from public consequences, which has led to decades of horror and abuse in our sacred places. There is little doubt that monsters like Apuron, Brouillard, and the late Antonio Cruz (and I believe we are at just the beginning) did what they did because there was nothing there to stop them. 

The rest of us who live in the real world do not have layers of bureaucracy and the church's bank account, not to mention fear of the clergy, to protect us. In the real world, a person who commits a crime, or even is alleged of a crime, becomes a public person. His face appears in the paper, his record is made known, and his name becomes public property. 

For many, this sort of public exposure acts as a significant deterrent. However, in the Church, at least until recently, crimes against the faithful were hidden, the offenders shuffled around, and victims paid off or threatened into silence. And even when victims dare to come forward, without protection of the law and expensive attorneys, they can be humiliated and sued by the powerful and wealthy Church into poverty. 

Currently, we have before us four clerics with demonstrable offenses against the faithful: Apuron, David C. Quitugua, Adrian Cristobal, and Edivaldo da Silva Oliviera (Pius is not a priest of the Archdiocese of Agana and his status needs to be dealt with separately.)

In the case of Apuron, we do not even need to bring up the sex abuse cases or even the Yona property issue. His turning over his episcopal authority to others is the crime. While Pius' and Adrian's involvement are well known, Apuron's real crime is ordaining men at the instruction of his Neocatechumenal superiors and even against his own judgement. 

David C. Quitugua, amongst a multitude of other offenses, can and will be held liable for trafficking in bogus government documents with the intent to deceive the public. And that's just the beginning. 

Adrian Cristobal and Edivaldo's offenses were clearly laid out in my last two posts, but their most public offense is their refusal to accept their ministerial assignments from Archbishop Hon. Their assignment was a public act, an Aviso, and their rejection of the assignment was just as public. 

Something just doesn't get to be "worked out" behind the scenes at this point. 

While their offense was disobedience to a religious superior, their disobedience was also an offense against the faithful. And not to publicly address it perpetuates the sense of clerical immunity which has left a 50 year old pile of damaged and dead children and brought our own diocese to the brink of collapse.

I understand that our call to STOP THE MONEY several months ago has had a severe impact on the finances of this diocese. Now that Archbishop Byrnes is here we would like to start a campaign to START THE MONEY. However, there still remains the lingering question about Apuron's fate. We recognize that this is something Archbishop Byrnes has no control over. 

The other three are another matter. 

36 comments:

  1. Then, until Archbishop Byrnes exercises his control over the three wayward priests (Adrian, David VG and Eduvaldo), I suggest we should continue to STOP THE MONEY. That's something WE have control over.
    Starting the money is an easy step once we are sure Archbishop Byrnes shows he is in control of the Archdiocese of Agana. BTW, can he not also exercise control over apuron and make him report his whereabouts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. He has no authority over Apuron, and he's probably having enough trouble tracking down all the guys Apuron ordained or incardinated and are flitting about the world.

      BTW, my intent is not to put pressure on Byrnes or even hold him responsible. His learning curve is steep. I'm hoping those who advise him will let him know just how toxic things are with these 3.

      Delete
    2. NO MONEY-apuron OUT.. NO MONEY-apuron OUT.. NO MONEY-apuron OUT..

      Maybe, when I feel secure with the leadership of this diocese, with Byrnes its still to early to get a sense of which direction he is heading...
      I felt good when I heard he found the Dededo Church on his own, I take that as a sign of independence and a person of his own accord...

      Till the fate of apuron is written and set in stone...

      Till adrian, david, eduvaldo, and on my naughty list, larry for sure for sure, are treated in the SAME way, they treated others...
      My wallet stays at home, when I'm at Church...

      NO MONEY-apuron OUT.. NO MONEY-apuron OUT.. NO MONEY-apuron OUT..
      NO MONEY-apuron OUT.. NO MONEY-apuron OUT.. NO MONEY-apuron OUT..

      Delete
  2. I understand that AB Byrnes during his visit to the RMS seminary, requested for a continued affiliation of the RMS seminary with the Lateran University in Rome. My question is, If the committee formed by Rome (AB Hon) to look into the state of affairs of the RMS seminary produced a report detailing that RMS is deficient in it formation program, and recommends closure of this institution, How does affiliation with the Lateran University fix the deficiency, and how does the Lateran University grant affiliation with an institution that is deficient in its formation? Has the RMS rector or vice rector produced proof of affiliation with the Lateran University? If this is indeed a seminary with no valid credentials, why is it still in operation? Why is the archdiocese not transferring these young men to institutions that will provide them with proper priestly formation? What happens to those presbyters who were ordained from this deficient seminary? I would expect that this would be of high priority in the Archdiocese.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shouldn't there be an assurance of transparency first before we start the money. At this point, we don't want any of the money to go to RMS.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Still a lot of questions to be answered before my money ever flows. Sorry, though I appreciate AB Byrnes being our new Archbishop, I'd like to know and see how he deals with these wayward priests and presbyters; what is he going to do with the seminarians at the RMS (send them back to their home diocese would be a good idea); what is he going to do with the building on the Yona Property (a minor seminary would fulfill the wishes of the donors); and how is he going to address changing out presbyters from the villages where they were appointed pastors by Apuron. Until we hear and see that these matters are being dealt with due justice and due diligence, I cannot give money yet. As in American politics, contributions--and how much of it, is the way I can express my support for a candidate. In this matter, my contribution is my way of showing my support for the policies of the new Archbishop. So far so good with the Yona Property. But not quite there yet with my highest level of trust and confidence. So, I will patiently wait and pray for the signs of good governance.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Money is the one reminder for the Church that the people want change.

    While we have a new Coadjutor, people still understand it means Apuron could be back at any time. Until Archbishop Byrnes has the "Coadjutor" removed from his title, my money also stays in my wallet. But, I am willing to reopen it once I know Apuron is gone for good. The seminary issue seems like folly to me. The ad hoc report made it pretty clear by our most respected priests that the Guam seminary is a sham. Can RMS do anything to fix it?
    It is possible, but for two things. First, kikos never want to change for the better, they merely want to follow their master kiko. so RMS will not change because of a toxic poison added to the KAKA kikos are forced to drink. Second, to add the permanent staff for the seminary will be so costly, it would be cheaper and better to have our men with a true calling to attend accredited seminaries. Guam simply is not big enough to have its own seminary.
    Can anyone show me a diocese with 150,000 catholics in total, and 50 priests, that can afford to operate its own seminary? NO! Small diocese like ours do the sensible thing and send men to seminaries run by the big boys. Sorry, but we are not there, and we never will be.
    But at least if we send our priests to real seminaries, we will get real priests back. Compare Fr Richard Kidd (a product of a real seminary, St Patrick's) to Fr Michael Jucutan (a product of Guam RMS). Sorry Fr Michael, but you were cheated out of a real seminary education by the toy palace they forced you to attend.
    Close RMS, send men with REAL vocations to real seminaries, and save a ton of money while you're at it. This is the easiest decision our new Archbishop has to make.
    If the NCW wants to continue the illusion of a fake seminary, then fine, let them fully fund it, plus find a new location out of Guam to do so. They have 100 other seminaries to send these guys to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most seminaries on the US mainland won't accept transfer students from RMS because it's nothing but a Neocat heretic factory.

      It has to be totally closed, reorganized and re-staffed in compliance with Vatican guidelines. Unless that's done, no one should even think of going there. It will destroy their reputation.

      Delete
  6. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)December 13, 2016 at 12:32 AM

    Since the comments are on the topic of money and Sunday donations to the Church, it has brought to my mind the NCW donations. My understanding from other commentaries and writings in this blog (there is an excellent piece authored by LaPaz this past summer) that in NCW services or meetings, monies are collected and places in trash bags. Then those trash bags of money are taken by an NCW leader to “wherever” (on Guam, it is likely brought to the RMS perhaps since that building seems to serve as the headquarters of the NCW on Guam …) and no one knows, except for the NCW leadership, what happens to those collections or where they go.

    There is something very wrong with this NCW “collection.” First, it is secretive. Second, monies collected from parishes and church related entities, organizations, groups in a diocese have to be known to a diocese via the Chancery. Third, the Chancery has every right to ask for even a one page annual report of any group authorized by the Chancery to collect money or do a fundraiser in the archdiocese; or ask for a document or testimonial to vet the legitimacy of any organization raising funds in the archdiocese. You can’t have bogus organizations coming into the archdiocese to appeal for funds. The Chancery has to guard against that because the Faithful assumes/trusts that when there is a financial appeal presented to them at mass or in their parish programs that the program is legitimate. If an organization is legitimate, then they shouldn’t have any problems producing documents that vouch for their legitimacy and that its financials reflect that their resources go toward their mission/causes. Have these materials been asked of the NCW? They claim to be a Catholic program (they hate this label, so I will use it) so the Chancery should have standing to ask for financial reports from them the way the local chapter of the Knights of Columbus, St. Vincent de Paul, Catholic Community Services, and even the CCOG can produce an annual report if the Chancery (or any donor) asks. Since the NCW and Abp Apuron and Msgr. Cristobal (former Chancellor) were all in cohoots in the prior archdiocesan administration, I doubt the Chancery ever asked the NCW for any financial report. That practice is yet another thing that needs to change! Demand a financial report from Guam's NCW. If they don't produce one, their fundraising efforts should not be allowed in the archdiocese. The trash bags of collection money likely go to an NCW off shore account in Turks and Caicos Islands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rose, thank you very much for your explanation. You are like my English mind, I wish I could speak my English properly to explain everything as well as you do! I send you a warm huge from Spain!

      Delete
    2. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)December 14, 2016 at 6:21 AM

      Thank you, Lapaz. A rainy hug to you from Seattle!

      Delete
  7. Off topic, but could someone answer the following. "Do pedophile priests and their enabling bishops go to hell?" I have asked this on Diana's blog twice now but she doesn't even post the question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody know for sure who goes to hell, but if one continues to pursue a path that is chock full of sin and separates themselves from God, then there is a great possibility that they will have landed themselves in a place that is absent of God's graces.

      That being said, repentance is always an option. The sinner needs only to acknowledge their sinful lives then initiate reconciliation. Christ made redemption available to everyone. It does not mean that everyone has accepted this.

      Delete
    2. I think pedophile priests should be sentenced to a place fr OJ so aptly described. Since the primate priest talks about monkeys masturbating on a daily basis, I think unrepentant pedophile priest should be sent to monkey hell with both arms tied behind their back. Maybe monkeys like variety, right Fr Edivaldo?

      Delete
    3. I distinctly remember that recording with Uduvaldo detailing a study of monkeys masturbating, and then asking a group of teens if they are monkeys? This clown who calls himself a priest should know better than to compare teenagers created in the image and likeness of God to monkeys? It really makes me wonder, where he gets his stupid ass ideas.

      Delete
  8. Did the "Annual RMS Christmas Concert" proceed as usual this year? It was advertised at PDN in an unobstrusive manner as if they were hiding this fundraising event from the public. It was supposed to have occurred last Sunday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the Christmas Concert proceeded. I can't say "as usual" because it was my first time. What concerned me was Pius's announcement that one of our local boys Ariolla who left to Florida to help open their RMS a couple of years back, is going to be ordained a deacon, then a priest in the coming year. Pius said the Archbishop there felt then need to "accelerate" his (and perhaps other seminarians there) ordination. Sound familiar? This shows once more that QUANTITY is more important than QUALITY priests for the RMS!!!

      Delete
    2. Thanks for confirming, Claire. So Pius is indeed on Guam. What role does he perform now? I thought he would have left the island by now? RMS ought to be closed for good, no worthwhile fruits of pretend play as seminary.

      Delete
    3. He still has boys there.

      Delete
  9. http://www.lifenews.com/2016/12/09/are-you-the-next-terri-schiavo-in-most-states-there-is-no-guarantee-youll-get-food-and-water/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Looking at these 4 picture reminds of not so long ago when they thought they controlled the Cathedral and the rest of the island. Good thing that I stuck to my parish of St. Jude throughout their whole duration and I just told my self in time things will play through and the fab-4 will go down. It's happening now and am hoping for the continued healing of our church which was divided by these 4, might as well add in Deacon Tenorio to the mix!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hard to give when our priest is NEO.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Please include pictures of Putrid Pius and Dakon Tenorio to the four
    (apuron, adrian, david the VG and eduvaldo) pictures on your "Wall of Shame". (Perhaps other readers have other suggestions, as well).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pius and Dakon Tenorio definitely worthy of the wall of shame. And while we're at it, add Deacon For Sure For Sure Claros and Deacon Kim who was in charge of the finances when all this started to unravel.

      And if you're going to make a real wall of shame, then by all means add the laity worthy of being despised. Tops is the Gennarinis'. Both husband and wife have soaked this island from countless millions, for real for real. Plus Giuseppi was the brain child of the scheme to steal the Yona property from the people of Guam. And he succeeded for almost 5 years.

      To the laity list, you've got to add the trained attorney Jackie Terlaje, who so ineptly tried to deceive the public, and only succeeded in deceiving the AG and DLM, LOL. Then there is the media hound/scoundrel, Dr Quackers Eusebio. And let's not forget the one liar who has been working the longest to mislead the public, Mae Llanes, aka Diana, that has tried as hard as possible to deceive the people of Guam. Unfortunately, she only succeeded in deceiving her own cult followers in the Way.

      I'm sure there are many more behind the scenes, like the Cemetery Board members, the RMS board members, Joe Terlaje the Responsible, and others. But if we add all the names our wall of shame would put the Great Wall of China to shame!

      Delete
  13. interested to know the verdict of Archbishop Byrnes on Adrian. will he move to Umatc? or is this an act of intended disobedience towards the authority invested in Archbishop Byrnes? or are there other concerns Archbishop Byrnes has regarding Adrian? Hope we have answers soons to the growing enigma surrounding this dubious priest's life ministry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what I have heard, Ab Hon was very upset with the dynamic duo of David and Adrian. He tried to work with them but they were almost completely useless. No surprise for those of us who know them, but it must have been quite a shock to the Apostolic Administrator, knowing that these two fools were the #2 and #3 for Apurun.

      They had none of the documentation Hon was looking for, refused to answer many questions they surely knew the answers to, and were generally hostile to any idea of a change in leadership. Little wonder, since they were able to manipulate the hapless bishop Apurun.

      I hope Ab Hon had a chance to document all this for Ab Byrnes. Certainly, Chancery officials involved since Hon got wise to the evil of the dynamic duo can corroborate.

      Ab Byrnes seems like a very intelligent person. He will see the risk of having these two anywhere. Either he is convinced there is something salvageable, or he will toss them overboard like an unwanted anchor.

      For the people of Umatac, consider it a silent blessing that you did not have to endure Adrian up to this point!

      Delete
  14. DITTO to 12/12 @3:15 pm.

    My other concern is our status as a "missionary". Tim has well documented that we are not eligible to apply for nor receive funds under its definition, but at the same time, we are in no position to be financing the education of our men as diocesan priests for our Archdiocese, only to lose them to an other country/diocese.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. St. Pats and Mt. Angel have both always understood our situation financially which is why they have (St. Pats) always accommodated our boys, regardless.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I heard from a Chancery staffer a few years ago that St Patrick's gave a scholarship of 50% tuition to the Archdiocese for Richard Kidd.

      Delete
  15. That scholarship that was given by St Patrick's to Richard Kidd was worth every cent. Couldn't ask for a better example of a loving caring priest. Maina is blessed to have him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon @7:47 PM - I totally agree with your posting. I met Father Kidd when I was home earlier this year and I was really impressed with him just like I am with Father Mike Crisostomo. They are both Awesome Priests and I Thank God That He Blessed Us with Them!

      Delete
  16. What is most disappointing and disheartening is that these people are called to be HOLY! Instead they lie, cheat, steal, bully, deceive, defraud, scandalize, rape, molest, defame, accuse wrongly, abet, covet, shame and scheme the flock they are meant to pastorally care for! Look what the NCW has done to them! Each of those men and women (Marian Arroyo included) should be cast out of this Archdiocese. They are far from Holy. They represent everything that is wrong with this Archdiocese. They possess no aptitude for Holiness! They do not bear the marks of Christ but of Satan. Defrock all of them!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mt. Angel in Oregon refused to accept a RMS transfer student a year or so ago. I don't remember his name.

    St. Patrick's in California finally ousted the extremely liberal Sulpicians whose priestly Society taught there for 118 years. They went off the rails after Vatican II, notably in support of gay marriage. An orthodox clerical faculty is being sought by the local archbishop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +Fr. Tony Perez was a Sulpician too, but he taught at St. Mary's seminary in Baltimore.

      Delete
  18. When they're ordained, the only promise diocesan priests make to temporal authority is obedience to their local bishop. If he's a psychopath like Apuron, the apples won't fall far from the tree.

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch