By Tim Rohr
In a comment on THEY RAN, Anonymous at August 30, 2025 at 9:53 PM says:
On August 27th, Frenchie wrote "...a series of specific complaints were unearthed..." regarding Msgr. Benavente. On August 29th, in response to a question, Frenchie was less dramatic, admitting, "A complaint was filed by an alleged victim..." It irresponsible of Frenchie to initially exaggerate the situation. There is a life and reputation at stake.
Anonymous at August 31, 2025 at 6:53 AM responded:
Not if the complaint was "buried" for a long while.
Here is my response:
It’s hard to believe that anything with any credence detrimental to Msgr. James could be "buried." As you may remember, Msgr. James has been hounded since 2014 when Apuron and the two evil stepsisters (David the Tall and The Adrian) ganged up on him, first kicking Msgr. out of the Cathedral, then attacking him for several weeks if not months in a very public way over alleged financial mismanagement and anything and everything their fried brains could think of. If there was anything "buried," you can bet that these evil twins and their neo-hounds would have dug it up.
The pogrom against Msgr. James actually goes back further than 2014: to the 1990’s when Msgr. Was made a Msgr. and The Adrian was passed over. Adrian went on an off-island pouting sabbatical for several years and returned in 1995 with the Neocats in tow. They had one objective: make Adrian the next bishop and get rid of Msgr. James.
So we’re looking at at least 30 years of “James-hate” by the people who ran this diocese for at least the next 20. And then there was Byrnes and Convocar for the last 10 years, who, because of the crushing scrutiny brought by all the law suits, could be said to have been hyper-attentive to anything that hinted in the least at clergy misbehavior. On top of that, our diocese had been under a judicial microscope for most of those 10 years with the lawyers for hundreds of claimants gnashing their teeth at the mere smell of scandal.
So here's the deal.
Let's be done with this. One way or another. Let's out the whole damn thing. If Jimenez wants to make something of this, then good. Let him put everything on the table - INCLUDING THE NAME AND THE FACE OF THE ACCUSER. No more of this FACELESS INITIALS crap. And everybody and anybody who has the slightest fingerprint on this needs to be subpoenaed, including the archbishop, put on the stand, placed under oath, and made to tell the truth or go to jail.
Jimenez may have believed this would remain an internal matter, or at most, a canonical matter. But it's out of the box now, and Jimenez has invited civil action.
As I shared in THEY RAN, because of my own history, I want to see people who believe they have been falsely accused fight back. I'm sick of accusers who think they can just throw stones, run away, and hide behind their initials or fake names like "Diana." NOPE. Put every last one of them on the stand, starting with the archbishop.
I'll watch.
I have to agree with Mr. Rohr. How could an allegation be "unearthed" after being "buried" for so many years? As Mr. Rohr pointed out, the triad of Apuron, David, and Adrian (the archbishop, vicar general, and chancellor respectively) fired and removed Monsignor with false allegations. They would have never "buried" an allegation that will help their cause; on the contrary, it would have been headline news! Apuron's successors--Hon, Byrnes, and Convocar--did not take action on this so-called accusation against Monsignor. By not taking action, that speaks volumes in itself, as they likely found it lacking credibility and unworthy of further investigation. Wasn't it Hon and Byrnes who exonerated Monsignor of Apuron's accusations and reinstated him back to the Cathedral? Would they have done so if this so-called allegation was hanging over Monsignor? Of course not. Further, if the so-called accuser was seeking justice and the truth, why did he not just go to Attorney David Lujan under cover of anonymity and join the bandwagon of other accusers and victims? This so-called accuser could have easily done so, at no costs, and with so much to gain. By not doing so, one can logically conclude that justice and the truth was not his primary motive. Finally, doesn't the Church require that any allegation be kept under the strictest confidence until it is vetted, fully investigated, and adjudged, to protect both the accused and accuser from public shaming, gossiping, and scurrilous attacks? So, how did Frenchie come about knowing this so-called allegation, including details of "restrictions" on Monsignor? If there was a leak, and obviously there has been one, it had to come from the highest echelons of the Church in Guam. Something dark, sinister, and malicious is going on here. God help our Church in Guam.
ReplyDelete