Officially there has been no word. That's not a good thing for the archbishop. According to the last news report on Fr. Nino, he was in the custody of the archbishop and living in the archbishop's residence.
Any investigation of an alleged abuse by a Guam based Catholic priest will only serve to revive memories of the abuses of Apuron and his cronies. And cause more doubts among the Church's supporters. Even if the alleged abuser is found Not Guilty. Against that backdrop, For the good of the CathoIic Church, I personally cannot describe Fr. Caminiti's passing, sad to say, as untimely.
I understand your concern, however, I believe the "memories of the abuses of Apuron and his cronies" should never be forgotten regardless of causing more doubts. The "church" has said it wants to come clean, be transparent, and all that. Well then, now is the opportunity. Meanwhile, though, there doesn't seem to be much need for more investigation. The archbishop's letter regarding the matter essentially "convicted" him by functionally placing him under house arrest (living with the archbishop) until he was to be shipped off to an "intensive priestly renewal program."
Unfortunately this is a growing speculation. What we do know is that he was accused of a "boundary violation of an adult female," that he was removed from ministry by the archbishop, that he was functionally put under "house arrest" by the archbishop in the archbishop's own house, that he was going to be sent to a Priestly Renewal Program, that - in the archbishop's own words - the archbishop was "concerned about his well-being" and that he (the archbishop) would need to "accompany him during this trying time as a father would do," and that he died - presumably while still under the archbishop's care. What we also know is that the archbishop has made no mention of cause of death when it would have been so simple and so understandable to say that he died of a stroke or a heart attack. But nothing was said, and to my knowledge, nothing has been said. However, we do know that whatever the cause of death it was sudden and unexpected. And we do know one more thing: that the archbishop promised transparency at the outset of the announcement about the allegation and that the archbishop is suddenly un-transparent when it comes to how he died.
So what would be of the pending investigation and acceptance to some "rigourous priestly renewal program?"
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, requiescat in pace.
There may still be an investigation. I think there needs to be. One way or the other.
DeleteCause of death?
ReplyDeleteOfficially there has been no word. That's not a good thing for the archbishop. According to the last news report on Fr. Nino, he was in the custody of the archbishop and living in the archbishop's residence.
DeleteAny investigation of an alleged abuse by a Guam based Catholic priest will only serve to revive memories of the abuses of Apuron and his cronies. And cause more doubts among the Church's supporters.
DeleteEven if the alleged abuser is found Not Guilty. Against that backdrop,
For the good of the CathoIic Church, I personally cannot describe Fr. Caminiti's passing, sad to say, as untimely.
I understand your concern, however, I believe the "memories of the abuses of Apuron and his cronies" should never be forgotten regardless of causing more doubts. The "church" has said it wants to come clean, be transparent, and all that. Well then, now is the opportunity. Meanwhile, though, there doesn't seem to be much need for more investigation. The archbishop's letter regarding the matter essentially "convicted" him by functionally placing him under house arrest (living with the archbishop) until he was to be shipped off to an "intensive priestly renewal program."
DeleteI'll accept your point of view. And, for Fr. Caminiti, no matter what
Deletehe has done, or failed to do, may he rest in peace!
Yes. May he rest in peace. Some of us have done far worse and haven't repented.
DeleteMay the Lord have mercy on his soul and may he rest in peace.
ReplyDeleteSounds like suicide. The reason he brought him in to archbishop residence was because he was going through a hard time
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately this is a growing speculation. What we do know is that he was accused of a "boundary violation of an adult female," that he was removed from ministry by the archbishop, that he was functionally put under "house arrest" by the archbishop in the archbishop's own house, that he was going to be sent to a Priestly Renewal Program, that - in the archbishop's own words - the archbishop was "concerned about his well-being" and that he (the archbishop) would need to "accompany him during this trying time as a father would do," and that he died - presumably while still under the archbishop's care. What we also know is that the archbishop has made no mention of cause of death when it would have been so simple and so understandable to say that he died of a stroke or a heart attack. But nothing was said, and to my knowledge, nothing has been said. However, we do know that whatever the cause of death it was sudden and unexpected. And we do know one more thing: that the archbishop promised transparency at the outset of the announcement about the allegation and that the archbishop is suddenly un-transparent when it comes to how he died.
Delete