THEY RAN

By Tim Rohr

In a recent post by Frenchie, some details came up relative to accusations against Msgr. James Benavente:

...the Status of Msg James as Pastor of the Cathedral, rather than the Archbishop was becoming challenging. It became even more difficult when a series of very specific complaints were unearthed, which led to an inquiry being launched which normally would lead to a leave of absence for the person investigated. Msg James lawyered up and decided to fight the complaints, which has led to a temporary situation where he is only authorized to celebrate mass, but is restricted in almost all activities. Ergo his odd assignment at the Santa Barbara Parish which is located close to his family roots.

In the comments, Frenchie later notes:

Msg James has rights while going through the process of being investigates. At least he has not ran away like Cristobal.

And I would add, also like Apuron. Functionally, both Apuron's and Cristobal's disappearing act at the first mention of an accusation was an immediate admission of guilt. Both of them had the resources to fight the allegations. But they chose to run instead. 

Msgr. James has chosen to stay and fight. And in fact, this is something I wish other priests would have done - if they were innocent of course. And I don't mean just the priests accused in the clergy sex abuse scandal which bankrupted the archdiocese, but the priests since then, including the now-deceased Fr. Nino and apparently Fr. Dan Trajano. 

BTW, other "runaways" are Fr. Luis Camacho (2015) and Fr. John Wadeson (2014). And, due to chancery silence, we are not sure as to whether other missing priests aren't actually runaways as well (all neo's by the way):

• Rev. Fr. Julius Akinyemi (Leave of absence [no reason given]), 
• Rev. Fr. Francesco Asproni (Priest off-island [no reason given]), 
• Rev. Fr. Edivaldo Oliveira (Priest off-island [no reason given])
• Rev. Fr. Aurelius Stoia (Priest off-island [no reason given]), 
• Rev. Fr. Krzysztof Szafarski (On study leave [studying what or why? we don't know])

Even though I was at the forefront of exposing the clergy sex abuse scandal in this diocese, I was disturbed at how weakly the archdiocese defended itself. I wanted the archdiocese (specifically the apostolic administrators, Archbishop Byrnes, and the lawyers) to defend our church and our innocent priests. And I wanted this because I knew that a rigorous defense would out the true perpetrators. 

Instead, the church threw in the towel, both when Archbishop Byrnes decided to cease vetting accusers, and at the trial when the lawyers seemed to just roll over and let the other side shoot at will. Byrnes' decision to cease vetting accusers opened the door for the new abusers: false claimants with greedy attorneys. 

Without any vetting or any attempt by church officials and their attorneys to put up a fight for the innocent among them, the whole process became tainted, causing the public to question the validity of any claim, which effectually played into Apuron and the Neocats' hands - whose only defense was that everyone was lying.

I was further disturbed by the fact that I had gone to war against the clerical sex monsters on behalf of the men who I had met, spoke with, looked in their eyes, and verified, to my satisfaction, that they were telling the truth and were willing to stand up and call Apuron out long before there was any law to protect them or the ability to sue.

Byrnes' dropping the defense and his near-sobbing "I'm sorry" at trial may have seemed like the "Christian" thing to do, but it ended up being the most un-Christian thing to do in that it not only let the robber barons in, it compromised the gut-wrenching work Apuron's initial accusers had to endure to come forward, not to mention handing Apuron and the Neocats the aforesaid talking point if not an outright victory, a victory Apuron recently tried to cash in when the initial accusers were forced to drop their complaints by their lawyers because there was no money anymore in suing Apuron.

There was no reason to be a door mat, but Byrnes - probably because of his advisors - chose to be one, and in effect, made all of us the door mat since we pay the bills. Why he chose this, I don't know. Even though I knew him personally and liked him very much, I always felt that there was a "deal" behind the scenes: that he knew this assignment was temporary, and that if he would just last it out, that there would be a happier home for him back in Michigan. 

When his health began to fail, I wasn't surprised. As the years went by, I could see the stress in his face and his frame, and hear it in his voice. It was most evident when he took the stand at the federal trial in 2022. He was hunched over in grief and could barely speak. Watching him on TV, I remembered my early meetings with him when I warned him about what the "presbyters" would do - to him. 

Byrnes thought he could make peace. He thought "can't we all get along" might work. It didn't. Byrnes, even though he knew his appointment here was primarily influenced by the Neocat generals (most specifically Cardinal Filoni), did not understand or appreciate their willingness to crush him, and when he closed the seminary, that's exactly what they did.

Now, back to Msgr. James. 

Msgr. James has seen what has become of the "door mats." Not one priest has yet stood up for himself or our church, not publicly anyway. Some may think Fr. Paul stood up, and in a way, he did. However, in 2013, Fr. Paul was on his way out, and for good. A canon lawyer was provided for him by someone else who was willing to pay the bill. And here on JungleWatch, we waged the war that ultimately turned the tables in Fr. Paul's favor - and at great cost to some of us. 

In fact, I wrote an entire book (TARGET = PRIEST) about the Apuron v Gofigan affair. A supporter paid for the publication of hundreds of copies, and at the height of the drama, volunteers stood at church doors around the island and passed them out for free.

Without JW, and the benefices of a donor who paid for the canon lawyer (and the books), Fr. Paul's war against Apuron would have remained a few discarded letters in a chancery trash can. Still, Kudos to Fr. Paul for being willing to stay in the fight and not run. 

And apparently Msgr. James has no reason to run either, or else he would have, like so many others before him (or quietly go on "sabbatical" or just "off island" like these other guys). 

I have no idea what the accusations are and I don't care. In all my years of dealing with Msgr. James on a personal level, a business level, and a pastoral level, I have never seen anything, and after all my years in the trenches with several of these bad guys, I'm pretty good at sniffing things out. 

What I do know is that he has his haters, one in particular. In 2014 he came to me with a long list of "dirt" he supposedly had on Msgr. James. However, I knew the backstory. I knew why he wanted me to take Msgr. James down. I told him I wasn't interested and to do it himself. He has been trying ever since.

I'm going to let Msgr. James defend himself. I don't need to do that. However, as one who was publicly abused by false allegations of the most horrendous type (sexually molesting my own daughters), and as one who did not run but turned and faced the demons through multiple lawyers, judges, court battles, and the covid-shutdown of the courts, I will support anyone who is willing to do the same. It's simply too easy to take out someone with false allegations, especially men, and especially clergy. 

Some credit me for actually taking down the likes of Apuron and Cristobal. But I didn't have to take them down. They ran.