Sunday, March 12, 2017

ARCHDIOCESE TO CHALLENGE LEGALITY OF CHILD SEX ABUSE LAW

26 comments:

  1. Is Byrnes a closet pedophile? That sure makes him look like one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Playing devil's advocate again:

    How dare you lift a perfectly good statute of limitations! Our priests legitimately got away with their crimes and you had to go and spoil a perfect situation. They were immune from criminal and civil prosecution and the church could not be held liable. How great was that???!!! But NO!!! You had to dig up the past, lift the statute of limitations and and hold us accountable!!! HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Funny how the church is looking into the legality of the child sex abuse law rather than just opening their secret books. The church has always known about the abuse priests have inflicted onto its victims and instead of correcting the wrong, the church would rather search for a way to weasel it's way out. All these pedophile priests have hidden themselves behind the cloth and have taken advantage of such innocent children. Robbing them of ever having a life as a child. I can't even imagine what they've gone through these past 40+yrs. no child should ever be robbed of their childhood life.

    Money can't even bring back what's lost but hopefully it could at least help each and every victim that's been abused.

    ReplyDelete
  4. so who is paying lawyers to challenge law 326? Is church money being used to pay to kill a law which protects children. 326 helped expose child abuse by priests and now Archdiocese challenges law to protect abusers. Disgusting Archbishop Byrnes shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any money the church uses is from all the faithful. The church started with nothing and the faithful has consistently given to the church and the church will use the faithful's donations to defend itself. So as long as it's parishioners (worldwide as well) continue to donate, then we are just as guilty for funding its secrets.

      Delete
  5. Two strikes against Byrnes:
    1) Pandering to perverts who oppose child protection laws.
    2) Pandering to Neocats who desecrate your churches.
    What further insult is he planning for Strike 3?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Since I am donating to the church i do not wish any of my donations going to challenge the lifting of the statue of limitation for sex abuse. Get the funding from somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Up to a few weeks ago, I would have said I feel the same. Now I am not so sure. Since David Lujan is refusing to let Apuron's accusers testify in front of the canonical court, Apuron will assuredly escape any guilty verdict on that front. It stands to reason that the bait of 5 million bucks is being used to keep Apuron's accusers "in line." I hope this is not true, but if it is, then this law is working against us. While I am on the record as being critical of the way the canonical court handled this to begin with, it really doesn't matter at this point who is at fault if Apuron cannot be convicted by the canonical court. And they CANNOT do that with written testimony alone. They need to look those guys in the eyes and know that they are telling the truth. Francis has already hinted that he believes "terrible things" have happened in Guam. He just needs the ammo now to take Apuron down - which is what Apuron's accusers wanted in the first place.

      Delete
    2. David Lujan until recently kept a pretty straight forward strategy. This kind of came crashing down with his refusal to have his "clients" testify in any way, shape or form for the canonical investigation.
      This I could and did understand in view of the missteps by some in the tribunal. (intentional?? we shall never know).
      What really had me question Mr Lujan's intentions and strategy, was his off color, racist and ill informed comments in the local press several days later, regarding Dr Haselberger and her qualifications and experience.
      Mr Lujan surely missed an occasion to stay silent.
      I personally believe it did not serve the best interest of his clients.
      This was more in line with what some of his detractors had claimed for several years now, regarding his character and modus operandi.

      As far as the legality of the law. In view of the numerous legislatures that did take the same actions than Guam, I am not too worried about the challenge. Yet at the same time, I am a little disturbed that Archbishop Byrnes authorized his lawyer to go down that way.
      It might make some sense as far as taking all the steps necessary to protect the Church of liability, but it sends all the wrong messages to the victims, as well as the faithful of this Archdiocese. It could have long term negative effects.

      Delete
    3. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)March 13, 2017 at 2:42 AM

      Frenchie, I understand your view on the Church as a litigant and I’m going to present another view for you to consider. The norm is to expect the Church to be gentle in a litigation because it is the Church. In litigation, just like any party in litigation, even the Church has to litigate to the best of its abilities. To most there is an expectation for the Church as a litigant to “go soft” while in litigation. That’s not how it works in litigation. Having said that, the Church does take into consideration how aggressively (and therefore, callous and not-Churchlike) it may come across when it litigates as normally as other litigants do. Its legal movements in court are propelled by the norms and strategies of civil litigation. Yes, I know we all expect the Church to “play nice” in litigation, but when in litigation, the Church will take the steps the way any other corporation defends itself in litigation. The conundrum for the Church is that behind the scenes, in every step of the litigation when faced with multiple options, they may take an option(s) that don’t make it appear too cold and aggressive. The Church takes that into consideration unlike non-religious corporations with the freedom to fight, fight, fight without having to demonstrate some level of compassion. On the whole, expect the Church to litigate to the best of its abilities. And one of things it will (and should) do is attack the validity and constitutionality of the PL 33-187.

      Delete
    4. Rose, This is not a genteel situation. Screw all misplaced sympathy for the abuse-enabling Church!

      Satanic Apuron and his pedophile cabal were certainly "cold and aggressive" when they brutally raped terrified altar boys who were left bleeding on the floor! The Church deserves absolutely no "level of compassion". Roll out the millstones!

      Delete
    5. To Anon (03/12@2:55 p.m.), STOP your donations until you know exactly it is going for purposes of which you approve.

      Delete
    6. I wouldn't feel mixed emotions about the Church's strategy of challenging PL 33-187 if the Church first defrocks apuron, thus showing its first consideration is to the victims of sex abuse before its concern for financial liabilities.

      Delete
    7. It's unfortunate, and I can't expose details yet, but Byrnes is not in control of what is going on legally. Someone else is. Byrnes walked into what Hon had already permitted. It won't take too much to see what's really going on once you know some of the names. However, for now, I see progress with Byrnes. You shall see.

      Delete
    8. Exclusive article at National Catholic Reporter: www.ncronline.org. Marie Collins responds to Cardinal Muller's allegations about the abuse commission.

      Marie was the child abuse Commission's sole remaining abuse victim-member. She resigned from it recently due to lack of support. Other victim-members resigned for the same reason last year. The Vatican has maliciously tried to discredit all of them, despite the fact all were Papally appointed by Francis.

      Delete
    9. Tim....so if Byrnes is not in control of what is going on legally, one has to wonder who the heck is running this? Curious minds want to know.

      Delete
    10. Byrnes inherited an apparatus that was already in place under Hon. I'll have more to say soon. Can't say more now. Trust me.

      Delete
    11. I await the news. Need to get more popcorn.

      Delete
  7. Byrnes is a disgraceful shepherd, challenging laws that protect the defenseless lambs in his flock. It's Judas priests like him who make people hate the Catholic Church. I hope Apuron's victims sue the hell out of him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to defend Byrnes in this regard. He inherited a legal process already begun under Hon. I wish I could say more about this but I can't right now. I will see what can be done to straighten this out.

      Delete
    2. Tim, your defense of Byrnes in this case is totally skewed. Hon has absolutely no control over Byrnes' conscience.

      No normal human being would deliberately oppose child protection laws, espcially when they're faced with 32 of pedophile Apuron's suffering victims!

      Delete
    3. I know stuff you don't know and which I cannot publicly say yet. Lawyers got their mitts into this before Byrnes arrived. If I told you the names it wouldn't be hard to put 2 and 2 together, but I can't go there yet. Just know that it isn't Byrnes' idea to challenge the law. I was critical of Byrnes at the outset when this first made news, even though I knew he wasn't behind it. I had to be critical of him in order to put the squeeze on the real actors. The squeeze is on and a change should be reported soon.

      Delete
    4. Tim, what you just confirmed is that Byrnes is a spineless puppet. If he won't support Christ's explicit condemnation of child abusers, he's totally worthless as a Catholic bishop.

      There are no excuses for his challenging the legality of Guam's child protection laws. Sounds to me like Apuron is returning to the island and he needs a legislated escape from pending civil litigation.


      Delete
    5. Why don't you grow a spine and put your name on your comments.

      Delete
    6. Names mean nothing. Why don't you grow a pair and face facts? There are some real fears that Apuron will return to Guam, exonerated by Rome.

      Delete
    7. LOL Both a coward and a shithead. You don't think I know that? I haven't come this far to lose. Find another place to pretend you're someone.

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch