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
I am truly shocked by the imprudence of a priest like Don Martinez in the press. I remind him that he is subject to the prohibition of stirring up discord (Canon 1373). Having said that, you are truly incredible. When Don Camillo sent that pastoral letter, he clearly did so because that was the canonical situation of this Don Luis. The situation you have in Guam is quite clear. This is also confirmed by the constant reference to the statements of Bishop Schneider (a Kazakh-Uzbek bishop) very close to the Lefebvrians and the excommunicated Bishop ViganĂ². This is confirmed by the proximity to a certain unhealthy traditionalism, defined by Pope Francis as Pelagian and which Pope Leo recently pointed out to the Spanish bishops (North American Catholic Traditionalism, TLM) as a serious current problem of communion and doctrinal and liturgical correctness, in addition to the related political insinuations.
ReplyDeleteLOL
DeleteKeep them coming, Lucio.
DeleteI take this opportunity to confirm that Don Camillo had every (canonical) right to call him "his priest" (fidei donum). Furthermore, the one I called bishop emeritus was obviously not emeritus at the time of the decision. By the way, do you have any idea what an episcopus emeritus is?
ReplyDeleteMore LOL. Apuron was never an Emeritus anything. He was personally deposed by Pope Francis and banned from Guam.
DeleteHe was deposed by a sentence of the Signature. But he did not receive the penalty of removal from the sacrament of the Order of Bishops. Therefore, he is the Bishop Emeritus of Guam.
DeleteđŸ¤£
DeleteUmmm, show us where Apuron has that title. Amazing. But we're used to idiots. We had a lot of practice with Diana. Keep it coming though. Page views are soaring :)
DeleteYou confirm that you pose as a scholar, but you are not. This Apurun was stripped of his bishopric and insignia, but he was not reduced to the lay state, nor even to the episcopal order. For the rest, your offensive tone qualifies you.
ReplyDeleteThat's funny. A scholar. Well, compared to you, I guess I am. Apparently, you don't even know what a Bishop Emeritus is.
DeleteCan. 402 §1. A bishop whose resignation from office has been accepted retains the title of emeritus of his diocese and can retain a place of residence in that diocese if he so desires, unless in certain cases the Apostolic See provides otherwise because of special circumstances.
Apuron did not resign or retire. He was forced out. He is also not allowed to retain any title related to this archdiocese. That would be really funny if he held himself out as Bishop Emeritus of the Archdiocese of Agana, even though there is an order from the pope himself prohibiting him from ever setting foot on Guam again.
But what's funnier is that you've gone from advocating for Luis to advocating for Apuron. It appears you've lost interest in Luis. I've seen this before. Sometimes I wonder if "Lucio" isn't actually Apuron, or maybe Maruxa.
Or another one of the several clerical clowns that left Guam in the wake of the Apuron fiasco.
ReplyDeleteYep. Lucio certainly seems to know a lot about Guam and does not seem to be some bored Italian dude who stumbled on to this blog.
DeleteSei spassoso mr. Tim, tipico tradizionalista con la cultura ecclesiastica di un bradipo e la saccenza di un "illuminato" pentecostale
ReplyDeleteDear Lucio
ReplyDeleteThe post “More Notes for Lucio” is my post. It was in response to statements that Fr Luis is innocent based on Bishop Ballin’s letter to the faithful of Qatar. That is incredibly wrong, and my primary goal was to show that Fr Luis was never exonerated, contrary to what Bishop Ballin stated in 2016.
I think the facts laid out by Tim, and my additional citing of the DDF letter to Archbishop Byrnes verifies that the only decision in the sex abuse allegations against Fr Luis were made in 2024 and 2025.
Your response is all over the place. So first let me address your claim that I am stirring up discord. As I see it, my response is a fully truthful effort at setting the record straight. If telling the truth is stirring up discord, I’d like you to explain how that is the case. As an ordained minister, I am called to speak the truth…even if it is hard for some to hear. I always try to do so in a compassionate way, but sometimes I know the truth may hurt, or not be comfortable. The important thing for me is to explain why the Church teaches what it does. Then it is up to them to accept that teaching or not. My comment is not discord. I am shocked myself that you see it as that.
And then you state: “When Don Camillo sent that pastoral letter, he clearly did so because that was the canonical situation of this Don Luis.” I have shown to the world that he was never exonerated, yet you continue to claim he was. He was accused of a very grave offense. His bishop, because he still belonged to the Archbishop of Agana, removed his faculties pending an outcome of an investigation. And those faculties to function as a priest were never restored. Yet he did so in Qatar in complete disobedience for 9 years. Lucio, are you okay with that?
I am curious Lucio, why you didn’t answer the question at the end of my post “…Do you still place credence in Bishop Ballin’s letter of 06/25/2016?” I have heard this same remark from quite a few people here on Guam. They justify Fr Luis’ innocence based on his letter and criticize me. So now it’s time to be honest, can you now admit that Fr Luis was never found not guilty by any Church canonical trial? Be clear so others will know what you think.
The rest of your response on April 12 at 5:01pm are disjointed ramblings having nothing to do with my post “More Notes for Lucio”. Since you couldn’t respond to my final question, was it your intention to throw in as much dirt as possible to deflect the reality of my post?
Deacon Steve
(To be continued)
(Continued from part 1)
ReplyDeleteI’m old enough to remember the beauty of the Latin Mass until I was about 13, when suddenly things at Church changed. But I am not a Traditionalist, as you say. In my 42 years on Guam I have attended Latin Mass about 3-4 times when they were for special occasions, so I don’t consider myself a traditionalist.
But tell me this Lucio, what is wrong with being a traditionalist? I’ll tell you a short story about how some in the NCW think their form of the Mass is superior to all others.
At our final catechesis, when our community was being born at our first convevince, my wife and I went to an optional workshop to learn how to make the bread. We prayed, we learned how to mix the flour and water, and we learned how to make the stencils. The lady conducting the workshop was very excited to teach how to do this. At one point she looked straight at me across the kitchen nook and asked, “So, is this your first Eucharist?” My response was a simple, “No, I’ve been to 2,000-3,000 before.” She had no comment and ignored me the rest of our session. The Eucharist you eat on Saturday evening is the very same Eucharist I eat on Sunday morning.
I’m probably now guilty myself of wandering off subject. But your ramblings are not unfamiliar, “Outside the community there is gnashing of teeth”. But again, the TRUTH is… there are many ways to build and strengthen our relationship with Christ. No one movement or charism is for everyone. But being a member of the NCW myself, I have seen firsthand how an air of superiority is fostered in the communities. I find it unhealthy when that happens.
I pray you have a blessed Easter season.
Deacon Steve Martinez