Thursday, September 28, 2017


I received several inquiries about responding to your article regarding your defense of the on-the-run-and-in-hiding Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron.

Actually, my only quibble with your piece is that it didn't begin with "Once upon a time..." In fact, you could have continued with "in a land far, far, away."

Oh, and one other small quibble: In Vatican Insider, the article appears under a section called "Inquiries and Interviews," but there is no reference to anybody "inquired of" or "interviewed" except for an anonymous canon lawyer and a couple of public records. 

But the short of it is: There really is no need for me to respond to you.

Tony already has. Here it is:
"Through his attorney, Jacqueline Terlaje, Apuron filed a motion asking the federal court to dismiss the lawsuits against him, claiming that the allegations are barred by a previous statute of limitations and that they infringe upon rights that the Organic Act of Guam guarantees."

You see, La Stampa, if the story you were handed was true, Tony would be demanding his day in court to prove everything you reported in your story, and in particular, the grand conspiracy to manufacture sex abuse victims. Instead, he is demanding that he NOT have "his day in court," and that the cases against him be DISMISSED!

Doesn't that strike you as odd, La Stampa? Finally, an opportunity to get in front of the whole world and expose this evil conspiracy against him - from the alleged collusion between a Chinese casino interest and a supposed opportunistic real estate salesman, to the alleged manufacture of 40 year old sex abuse claims - and what does Tony do?

He screams: NO, NO NO!

That should tell the whole world what we already know.

Bonus article: Archbishop Anthony Apuron of Guam - A pervert in priests' clothing?

Recommendations by JungleWatch