MORE NOTES FOR LUCIO

Deacon Steve Martinez responds to Lucio.  (The hyperlinks have been added)

Tim,

Your post (NOTES FOR LUCIO) is very well laid out. But there is also a key letter from the Archdiocese that you failed to cite, the press release dated 05/07/2024. I am familiar with the circumstances to a limited degree. But I worry that in an effort to support his beloved bishop, Lucio just might try to say that there was a previous ruling, but the case was only forced to be reopened at the insistence of Fr Luis’ accuser (me), or by those who are trying to persecute the NCW. Believe me when I say, I have heard this from some people on Guam, more than I expected.

Most people probably don’t know I am related to Fr Luis. I was very proud to participate in his ordination mass, and I fully supported his ministry for Guam. He was the first Chamorro priest ordained from the Guam seminary. That’s why, on March 17, 2015, when I was made aware of Fr Luis’ arrest and the circumstances that were relayed to me, I faced a huge decision. Do I ignore the information given to me? Or do I take my legal requirement to report what I was told, and file a report with CPS and the Archdiocese? I’d like to say it was a tough decision, but it really wasn’t. Since, by law, I am a mandated reporter, it was a law that had to be followed. So I filed my report before 8am the next day. The hard part was living with the consequences, because that part of my family now refuses to speak with me and my wife. I was really hoping that an investigation would exonerate him, but my job was not to judge or investigate. My only job was to file a report and participate in the investigation if asked.

So, Lucio, save your time. And for all those who thought I was fabricating stories to get to Fr Luis, or make the NCW look bad, that just is not true.

Now to add one more bit of proof that Bishop Ballin’s letter was not just misleading, but completely false, I also refer you to a press release from the Chancery Office in Guam dated May 7, 2024, at the time when Fr Luis reappeared after a nine-year absence.

The fourth paragraph from the Chancery states:

“Rome opened a canonical investigation on Father Luis following the incident in 2015. Though the Vatican has not been able to make a canonical ruling due to insufficient evidence, the case is not closed. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith informed then Archbishop Michael Byrnes on Nov. 18, 2022 that the case is filed in the archives at this time as it is not possible to proceed with any canonical action.”

The truth is Rome did initiate an investigation on a timely basis. The charges were indeed very serious. But Rome was never able to reach a conclusion because the main witness (the accused) fled Guam, and the government agencies absolutely refused to provide a copy of the arrest report to the Church.”

So, the June 25, 2016, statement by Bishop Ballin is a proven bold but false statement. Recall what he said in that notice on his letterhead with his official seal attached:

“The subsequent deep and thorough investigation has reached the absolute certainty that “there is not a semblance of truth (fumus veri facti) to the accusation” made against Fr. Luis.”

The actual truth is the investigation languished for lack of evidence. Thank goodness the Vatican archived the information it had just in case the investigation should ever be renewed. And then in 2024/2025 that’s exactly what happened. And a finding of fact was finally reached; an independent penal process in Australia was concluded; and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith fielded an appeal by Fr Luis, and then reconfirmed the original finding of fact and the penalty.

So Lucio, do you still place credence in Bishop Ballin’s letter of 06/25/2016? I do not wish to cast aspersions on anyone, especially those who have died, but I feel compelled to make sure the truth is heard, and not bent or manipulated.

Deacon Steve Martinez