Wednesday, March 15, 2017

GRAB A SIGN - APURON OUT!

Posted by Tim

There have been many calls for Byrnes to defrock Apuron or to at least get rid of his name from the Eucharistic prayer. Believe me, if there is anyone on this island who wants both of those things it is ME! 

However, we must keep our heads on. Archbishop Byrnes does NOT have the authority to do either. Only the pope can do that. This is why it is critical to keep up the public protests. That's what gets into the press, and that's what Rome and Pope Francis sees.



I knew from the outset that the only thing that would motivate Rome would be public shame. If there is anything that moves those guys, even more than money, it's the embarrassment of a public scandal. They want that stuff to go away immediately and they have a long history of making that happen. 


This why on his very first Sunday after being installed as the temporary Apostolic Administrator, Archbishop Hon Tai Fai, excitedly took to the pulpit and told the congregation in the Cathedral that the protestors in front of the Cathedral would be "gone in two weeks." Hon said that because those were his orders from Filoni Baloney

Filoni (Kiko's pope) knew that if the public protests continued, it would soon catch the attention of the pope, and the pope would soon start snooping around in an effort to get it off the media radar. Filoni Baloney knew that if Franics started sniffing, it would be hard to miss the stench of The Stinking Monk and the whole pile of rotting Kiko-excrement piling up in Filoni Baloney's office. 

And then it wouldn't be long before one thing would lead to another and the black trash bag financed Kiko-Filoni-underground railroad for priest-perverts and renegade presbyters would be uncovered and exposed. 

(Speaking of which, March 17, this Friday, and the feastday of St. Patrick who is supposedly the "patron" of the local RMS, is the two-year anniversary of the arrest of Lickin' Louie at Apaka Beach in Agat. I was thinking of doing a car rally down to the beach where we would all park our cars and cover our windows with towels. LOL. I was even thinking of doing a re-enactment, kind of like the Magellan thing they do in Umatac, but I couldn't think of anyone who would volunteer as the actors. More LOL!)

But back to the protests. Wow. If everyone calling for Apuron's "defrockment" on this blog and demanding action from Byrnes actually demanded action from themselves and got down to the Cathedral on Sunday morning, picked up a sign, and walked for 45 minutes, we might have had this done long ago.

You want Apuron defrocked? You want to rid your Sunday morning of his offensive name in the Eucharistic prayer? Then stop with the anonymous demands on the blog and get down there on Sunday. That's how we are going to do it. 

And the whole world is watching. Never before, at least in the recent history of the church, has the laity ever succeeded in getting a bad bishop defrocked. Nobody thinks we can do this. Well we can. Be a part of history. We are so near the finish line. Grab a sign, hold it high! APURON OUT! APURON OUT! APURON OUT!




23 comments:

  1. Loads of people worldwide support you 100% and keep your intentions in our prayers. Unfortunately, we don't live on Guam and can't physically join your protests. If we could, we would.

    ReplyDelete
  2. LOL, Rude-ee. Your comment ended up in the spam folder. Right where it belongs. I left it there. Wipe your drool off your filthy mouth and go back to your room.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I attended Holy Mass Sunday with the intentions of being a full participant. Until Pale' mentioned Archbishop Apuron's name a Shepherd that's shepherdless. Lord forgive me!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. That Rudeee is another one that needs attention....or a kick in the ..... Opps.....must remember we are in Lent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why isn't Byrnes doing anything about Rudeee and the other priests who have mistresses?

      Delete
    2. Agreed. Byrnes doesn't have the authority to defrock these rogue priests, but he can revoke their faculties and put them on unpaid Administrative Leave while petitioning Rome to laicize them. I think the CDF is in charge of that.

      Delete
    3. Laicize and caponize Rudeee! I find the thought of him reproducing repulsive.

      Delete
  5. Archbishop Byrnes may not have the authority to laicize nor remove Apuron's name from the Eucharistic prayer at Mass but, couldn’t he send (on behalf of the faithful of Guam who are scandalized) a request and plea to Rome to expedite the laicization and to remove Apuron’s name from the Eucharistic prayer?

    Of course we’re called to pray for lost souls and we continue to pray for Apuron’s soul, but I think there is a difference between our prayers and the Eucharistic prayer at Mass acknowledging and identifying our spiritual “Shepherd”. Pedophilic acts are not only a crime but a grave sin. The very fact that Apuron still holds his title and is continually identified and acknowledged (in Mass and publicly) as Guam’s “Archbishop” causes grave scandal not only to the faithful of our island but also to the general public!

    I would think that such level of scandal in our local Church -- most especially one which continually occurs at every celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass -- necessitates immediate address and correction! The Church’s teaching on scandals is shown in CCC paragraphs 2284/85/86/87. Because of these scandals, how many of the faithful were tempted or led to leave the Church? How many were tempted or led to stop attending Sunday Mass?

    Culpability for ignoring this grave Church and public scandal in our Archdiocese -- most likely -- falls on Rome. I would think then, addressing and sending to Rome the request and plea on behalf of the scandalized faithful and public of Guam guarantees Archbishop Byrnes’ exemption from the culpability that would weigh heavily on those in Rome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is that Apuron has only been accused and continues to maintain his innocence. And unless the persons accusing him testify before the canonical court, Francis cannot convict him if anything except for maybe mismanagement which is not an offense serious enough to have him laicized or even removed. Right now probably the only thing keeping Apuron from being acquitted is Rome's fear of what could happen publicly given the continued and adamant presence and demands of the protesters. Pray that the stalemate between Burke and Lujan is resolved.

      Delete
    2. Mary Lou Garcia-PeredaMarch 16, 2017 at 8:50 AM

      In addition to praying that the stalemate between Cardinal Burke and Attorney Lujan be resolved, I also pray that the survivors will remember that the initial reason for their revelations had nothing to do with money but rather for Apuron to acknowledge what he did to them and resign. During Summer 2016 I had testified in favor of Bill 326-33 (now PL 33-187) because I believed that since Apuron could no longer face criminal charges for what he did to the men accusing him, their only hope for justice was for him to be found civilly liable. Although I had been picketing and displaying a DEFROCK APURON sign since June 2016, I thought laicization was nothing but an Impossible Dream. But then Cardinal Burke came to Guam and there was a glimmer of hope which was immediately extinguished. I honestly believe that the men need to return to their original intention and do their part to support any effort to permanently remove Apuron as Archbishop. They must testify before the Canonical Court. One of the criticisms of the canonical process has been the secrecy, so it is highly unlikely that their testimonies could adversely affect their civil cases, per Attorney Lujan's concern. Actually, if their testimonies in the canonical trial result in the laicization of Apuron, I would think that would strengthen their civil cases.

      Cardinal Burke needs testimonies from those who have been sexually abused/assaulted by Anthony Sablan Apuron to recommend his laicization. To that end, I have also prayed that others who have survived sexual assaults by Apuron — and have not made their experiences public — will contact Cardinal Burke to testify. I have been praying for one person in particular — the cousin of John Toves — to testify voluntarily before Cardinal Burke.

      Like Marilu, I would prefer not to hear the words "Anthony our bishop" as part of the Liturgy of the Eucharist. So when a handful of priests pray for "Francis our Pope, Michael our Archbishop" (without the modifier "Coadjutor") at Mass I can't help smiling. To be clear: I do pray for Anthony Sablan Apuron — he needs our prayers — BUT I don't want to hear his name publicly mentioned as "our Bishop/Archbishop" during the Mass.


      St. Athanasius, pray for us!

      St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle …

      Delete
    3. As has been mentioned before- The Apuron file was opened ALL that time ago for reasons of mismanagement?- no, that beggars belief! Or does opening a file simply come about because a cleric needs to be "watched" for some reason known only to a few but obviously for serious reasons that would be assumed by many. NOTHING is as serious as sexual abuse - therefore I believe it is likely that there have indeed been past accusations of sexual abuse but THEY,again,have been successfully able to keep the lid on them to date- and that is not surprising given the embarassment and confusion arising from sustained sexual abuse . And critical to ALL of this is Tim and Junglewatch for this time around THEY are incapable of keeping the lid firmly shut. In closing the question remains , will non appearance at the canonical trial by victims ,coming forward at this point in time, be the death knell to defrocking Apuron? What of the initial file creating reasons- serious but nought to come of them for lack of appropriate testimony? God Bless all victims for there courage and God Bless Pope Francis but the matter is far from concluded.

      Delete
    4. Yes, Mary Lou, I too am praying for the victims who have chosen to remain silent to testify in front of Cardinal Burke. I can understand if they want to remain anonymous and not relive their ordeal in public. But this is the time to speak the truth and hold the abusers responsible for their actions. How horrible would it be if Apuron is let off the hook and returns as archbishop of Agana with all authority restored. "Hell on earth" wouldn't even begin to describe what this place would become.

      Delete
    5. Andrew, if the victims wanted to remain anonymous, they would not have told their gruelling stories publicly and in clinical detail. Why they won't give the same information to Cardinal Burke's investigators beats me.

      Because the victims refuse to testify against Apuron in the canonical cases, Civil Courts will probably think they're lying. So far, it looks like the canonical cases are working in Apuron's favor.

      Delete
    6. To: AnonymousMarch 18, 2017 at 12:14 PM,

      I was referring to the victims who have not stepped forward publicly yet. There are people who are still suffering in silence at this time. They might never want to reveal what happened years ago. That is their decision to make. I pray that they find the courage and strength to do something to hold the abusers accountable.

      Delete
    7. The person in the Sunday Post talking about "hush money" is an example of the people Cardinal Burke needs to interview.

      Delete
  6. Byrnes isn't allowed to delete Apuron's name from the Eucharistic Prayer, but he can allow the diabolic Neocats to desecrate reception of Holy Communion? Gimme a break! He's silently defending the filthy pervert!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not that he is "not allowed." He has no authority to do so. Only the pope has that authority. And all we need to have happen is for those three living victims of Apuron tell their story in front of the canonical court and Apuron is toast. As for your other concern, see my latest post.

      Delete
  7. Not a chessmaster, but… there are 2 ways (I know of) to end a chess game without a winner or a loser. (1)You’ve got your opponent in such a situation where he is not in “check”, and making the same move (over and over) to avoid a checkmate, and neither wishing to change strategy, thus resulting in “a draw” or stalemate. (2) A player is not in “check” but cannot make any legal move without risking putting himself in “check” situation by his opponent – resulting in “a draw” or stalemate. In both cases, the game is NOT ended. Is this where we are with this situation between Burke and Lujan? Reminds me of the question: “What happens when an irresistible force meets an impenetrable object?” Something’s gotta give, to find a middle ground! Let’s pray that Lujan and Burke find a way to resolve this stalemate! (jrsa: 3/16/17)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said earlier, Burke has Lujan over a barrel because Apuron's victims refuse to testify.

      Delete
    2. Apuron's accusers hired Atty. Lujan, not you nor I, so he rightfully follows their wishes and protects their interests and you and I have no say about it. It's up to these accusers to tell Atty. Lujan if they want to personally testify in front of Cardinal Burke. 'Nuff said.

      Delete
  8. Where is Apuron since the Fairfield CA sighting? Does anyone know for sure?

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch