Sunday, August 13, 2017


There's been something bugging me about the canonical trial. And it's this:
"However, Byrnes added there is no way of knowing how long these next steps will take or what the exact penalties could be. He said that he and canon lawyers he has consulted with are in uncharted waters, given that this is the first time in history that a canonical trial of this nature has been called for concerning a bishop." GUAM DAILY POST, July 6, 2017
It's the word "uncharted." The presumption is that this is "uncharted" because "this is the first time in history that a canonical trial of this nature has been called for concerning a bishop."

That's true, but that's what bothers me. Why should a legal process be "uncharted" just because the defendant is a bishop?" Sure there is the expectation of Vatican corruption and the good ol' boy network amongst bishops having each others backs as is commonly alleged, but those possibilities do not explain the word "uncharted."

Because few of us understand the canonical system (and per Byrnes' statement, apparently even many bishops don't), by default we compare it to our civil system where "no man (supposedly) is above the law." So regardless of the status of the defendant, the crime is the crime and there is nothing "uncharted" about it. 

So what is "uncharted" about the trial of a bishop? Why would the legal processes within Church law not be the same for everyone regardless of the status of the accused? 

I believe it's important for us to start thinking about this because while Apuron's guilt will probably be well established, the Roman Curia, and even the pope, may not have the authority to punish him. I will explain. 

I have long been intrigued by Apuron's sinister exclamation: "No one can get me." At first I thought he was only referring to his power to crush anyone who spoke out against him. But as his canonical trial has drug on, with snippets of verbiage like "uncharted" falling out into the media here and there, I began to suspect something else. 

First we must understand who Apuron is to the Neocatechumenal Way. Well, he's nothing to them and they would gladly dump him...except for the fact that his demise, thanks to the worldwide audience of this blog, is now inextricably linked to the corruption and thievery perpetrated by the NCW leadership in this diocese. 

If Apuron goes down, it is quite possible it will cause a domino effect in dioceses around the world, where bishops are just waiting for a reason to rid themselves and their dioceses of these festering pests. Thus the neocats must prop up the cancerous wretch at all costs. But how to do that? That brings us to the second thing to understand:

The NCW is an immensely wealthy and powerful organization. It is not run by Kiko, who is little more than a mascot, a clown, a front for the filthy power brokers in Rome to take pictures with. No, the NCW is run by its own band of filthy power brokers, who have at their disposal money, money, and more money, as well as a whole platoon of lawyers, who we can be sure, have been deployed to get Apuron out of his mess. And if not for Bulldog Burke (pictured), he might have already been. 

So how are they going to do this? The word "uncharted" is helpful here. I believe the reason the Vatican is in "uncharted" waters is not because this is the first bishop to be tried, but because of the reason no bishop has ever been tried, at least not like the trial Apuron is undergoing. 

And what is that reason? I am fairly sure that this is the Neocat's nuclear option. 

Vatican II, specifically the document Lumen Gentium, gave unprecedented authority to individual bishops. Historically, a bishop's authority was divided thus:

However, Lumen Gentium, while not denying the special authority of the Chair of Peter, introduced something new:
"The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church." - Lumen Gentium, 22
On its face, the statement takes away the jurisdictional authority of the pope, or more to the point, removes the "Keys" as the source of Peter's authority and roots it in his headship over the Apostolic college, i.e. the bishops. 

In short, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, effectively did this:

I realize this is super complicated, and if you want to learn more, I would recommend the article from which I borrowed the above two graphics. (You can view my highlighted version here.) The question that such a transfer of authority proposes is this: 

Do the bishops, being equals, and in possession of the "supreme and full power over the universal Church," even have the authority to sit in judgement on one another? 

We certainly are in "uncharted" waters. But one thing that is NOT "uncharted" is the resolve of the people of the Archdiocese of Agana to NEVER permit Anthony S. Apuron to run this diocese ever again. We may not be able to stop what Rome does or doesn't do. But we are committed to FINANCIALLY BREAKING THIS DIOCESE should he ever show his face on Guam except in court...where one Walter G. Denton can at last look him straight in the eye. 

Recommendations by JungleWatch