I'LL BE READY FOR THAT

By Tim Rohr

Troy Torres at Kandit News has posted a piece titled "Priest in Guam 'dumped' here after sex scandal, archdiocese remains silent after report in The Times."

There is no reason for the archdiocese, or, specifically, Archbishop Jimenez, to remain "silent." Troy says he contacted Archbishop Jimenez on Sept. 7. The date of the article is Sept. 15. So it's been a week. 

I know Jimenez is new to the job, but given that it was the sex abuse scandal that ultimately led to his new job, Jimenez cannot be unaware of what he was getting into. At minimum, he should say "I don't know, I'll look into it." But according to Torres, he has said nothing. 

That's not good.

That said, let's take a look at the New York Times article itself. 

When we read "New York Times," it's easy to think "New York." And then why else would New York be paying attention to something so far away unless it was really, really big. However, as is the case with  most big media, they have lots of freelance people all around the world who write stuff for their publications, and this report is one of them. 

Here's the blurb on Pete McKenzie:

Pete McKenzie is a freelance reporter who covers power, politics and the environment in New Zealand and the Pacific. He is a graduate of Victoria University of Wellington and Columbia Journalism School, which he attended on a Fulbright scholarship.

When I first saw the story I didn't pay attention to it because for us in Guam this is old news, and we didn't need the media's help to do something about it. We did it ourselves. In fact, we are still doing it. David Sablan and the Concerned Catholics of Guam remain ever involved and vigilant, although more quietly these days. I decided to look into Troy's take on the NY Times story after several people sent me a link to a comment about me - which I'll get to later.

The only thing that could have made this "new" news would be if in fact there is an "itinerant priest" (the story calls him that) ministering here in Guam who was "dumped" here after being credibly accused or convicted of sexually abusing minors elsewhere. 

At the link to the aforesaid "blurb," McKenzie gives a video presentation of all the research he did behind his story. And given this, it is curious why he names no names since he obviously has them - or does he?

A deeper read of the NY Times story reveals that most of what McKenzie is reporting happened "over a period of decades," and thus probably decades ago. However, McKenzie writes in a way that makes the casual reader believe that it is happening now, and he outright states that one of these priests, a priest who moved here in the 1990's, "still serves as an itinerant priest in Guam."

Most moved to or served in 15 countries and territories in the region in the 1990s, but one still serves as an itinerant priest in Guam...

"Itinerant" is usually synonymous with priests formed in and for the Neocatechumenal Way. There are still several "neo" priests in Guam, but most or all of them were ordained here, and I don't know of any "itinerants" who came to Guam in the 1990's. So who is McKenzie referring to and why won't he tell us? 

I would encourage Troy to contact McKenzie. If there is a credibly accused priest hiding here in Guam and McKenzie knows who it is, Kandit could do us a big favor by pressing McKenzie on who it is, especially if Jimenez isn't talking.

Meanwhile, regarding how the article came to my attention: Troy posted a link to his story on Facebook and a certain "Patrick Iriarte" left this comment:

If he's "just joking," that sure is a long "joke." I checked out his profile and this Patrick guy doesn't appear to be using his real name, nor a real profile. And he sounds exactly like the Apuronites I've dealt with so often in the past when Cristobal and Edivaldo were accusing "Tim Rohr and Associates" of a "calumnious attack on the Archbishop and the Church" for the purposes of profiting via the sale of the RMS property to a Chinese gambling syndicate:

Everything began in 2002, when a group of Chinese entrepreneurs first laid eyes on the Accion Hotel in Yona... (La Stampa, "The Guam problem, a diocese rocked by financial and sexual scandal," Sep. 21, 2017)

Well that property has been long since sold and not a single penny can be traced to my name, and for the record, it has been converted to apartments, not a casino. 

"Iriarte" is also wrong about the media protecting the identities of the victims. The media not only published the names of the victims who publicly came forward but also plastered their faces all over the news for many weeks. Later, victims, perhaps at the recommendation of their lawyers, resorted to using only their initials to protect their privacy in their legal filings. 

I was against this and even tried to get compensation to those who hid behind their initials reduced with the lion's share going to those who were brave enough to go public and who had to endure the criticism and ridicule of the Apuronites - something I know well. 

While the case against the archdiocese has been settled, the case against Apuron by his individual accusers has not. I don't know when or if that will happen. If it does then I have no doubt that Apuron will attempt to do what he said he was going to do which is to prove that he was a victim of "Tim Rohr and Associates." 

I'll be ready for that.