By Tim Rohr
A commenter, Rodney, recently shared a link to a post by Fr. Gordon MacRae titled "The Eighth Commandment Has a Day of Reckoning on the Island of Guam."
First, I feel bad for Fr. MacRae. He has been in prison since 1994 for "raping a boy ten years prior, and pleaded guilty to having assaulted three other boys in 1983." [SOURCE] I say I feel bad for him because he believes he is falsely accused, and may very well be.
I have personal experience with false accusations. A close friend of mine was falsely accused of rape. There were six witnesses who testified that there was no rape. The police rape kit came back negative. However, my friend was doomed by his own lawyer and was sentenced to prison for four years.
I was also doomed by my own lawyer after I was accused of sexual abuse. My lawyer did not allow me to defend myself. I trusted my lawyer. I lost my children. I eventually got rid of that lawyer and won my case on my own, but the harm to my children is irreparable.
So, I understand the harm of false accusations. But back to MacRae, the fact that he pled guilty doesn't help much. Nevertheless, I wish him the best.
Meanwhile, though, MacRae isn't doing himself any favors by backing Apuron, especially since it appears his sole source of information is DIANA, the neocat blogger, who, if anyone can be credited for bringing down the Reign of Apuron, it's DIANA.
DIANA singlehandedly kept the animosity going in this archdiocese long after the Fr. Paul thing had faded. Without DIANA, I would have had nothing to blog about for quite a while. Eventually, it was the back-and-forth between JungleWatch and DIANA that sparked the lay movement that ultimately organized and forced the Vatican to pay attention. And it was the Vatican that took out Apuron, not the media or the justice system or even "Tim Rohr and his associates," as Apuron's bunglers tried to frame me.
In his post, MacRae republishes a piece he wrote about Apuron in 2017. The post is full of errors, but then again, he had DIANA as his source. One of those errors is the following statement:
Cardinal Raymond Burke was sent by the Vatican to investigate the case, but reportedly some of the accusers had declined to answer any questions while waiting for the Church’s ATM to open.
The reference to "the Church's ATM" is MacRae's sarcastic characterization of the law (P.L. 33-187) lifting the civil statute of limitations on sex crimes against minors, which opened the door for the many lawsuits that ensued. MacRae implies that some of the accusers refused to talk to Burke because they were only interested in money.
However, the Burke investigation commenced in February 2017. The aforesaid law was enacted in September 2016. So, the so-called ATM was already open. In fact, it was the uproar around this legislation that forced Rome to pay attention and finally send Burke to Guam.
MacRae is also wrong about the accusers declining to answer questions.
First, let's define "accusers." At the time, only three were publicly known: Roy Quintanilla, Walter Denton, and Roland Sondia. All three were represented by Attorney David Lujan. Lujan did not want to compromise his civil case by allowing his clients to speak with Burke. It's called "client control." And from Lujan's civil suit perspective, Burke was an outside lawyer intruding on Lujan's business.
However, in the end, all three spoke with Burke and answered his questions. I know this because, unlike MacRae, who can only claim knowledge of these events "reportedly," I was the one who went to Lujan and told him why he had to let his clients speak with Burke.
I implored Lujan to do so on the grounds that the most he, Lujan, could do was sue Apuron for money. He couldn't prove him guilty (liable and guilty are not the same thing), and he couldn't get him removed as archbishop. Only the Vatican could do that, and Burke was the Vatican.
Lujan didn't tell me his decision, but I later heard from the accusers themselves that they had met with Burke and answered his questions. By the way, it wasn't just Burke at these interviews. Apuron's canonical counsel was also present and asked his own questions.
MacRae, by stating that some of the accusers declined to answer Burke's questions, implies that Burke presented insufficient evidence to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is the Vatican body that tried Apuron and found him guilty. By implying this, MacRae is implying that both Burke and the CDF were either negligent or malicious.
That's absolutely false. In fact, at the time, the Vatican did not have a procedure for prosecuting bishops for sex crimes, only priests. The Apuron case posed a challenge for the CDF and for Pope Francis, who would ultimately deny Apuron his appeal. It was a case that the Vatican did not want; and, but for the pictures in the news of those pesky lay people picketing in front of the Cathedral in Agana every Sunday morning for over a year, they might very well have let it go.
The Vatican had to construct the procedures to try a bishop for the sex abuse of minors. In fact, you might say that the Apuron case not only made history, but it also created a new section in canon law: the judicial procedures used by the Vatican to prosecute Apuron (and find him guilty) were eventually codified by Pope Francis in the document “VOS ESTIS LUX MUNDI," which was promulgated in May 2019, one month after Apuron's appeal was formally denied and the verdict declared as "final."
MacRae needs to be reminded that 1) Cardinal Raymond Burke was the top lawyer in the Vatican at the time, which is why Pope Francis assigned him to investigate; 2) that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the body which found Apuron guilty, is the Church's most powerful Congregation; and 3) that after Apuron appealed the initial guilty verdict, Pope Francis himself oversaw the appeal and upheld the guilty verdict.
So does MacRae want to rely on DIANA instead of Cardinal Burke, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Pope himself? Apparently, he does, because he attached an addendum to his 2017 statement, arguing for Apuron's innocence based on the dismissal of the cases on May 7, 2025:
"Nine civil cases in the U.S. District Court of Guam were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice via stipulations filed by the plaintiffs’ attorneys...This is a significant legal development in the civil realm for Apuron. After nearly a decade of litigation involving serious allegations, the plaintiffs (through counsel) chose to drop all nine cases permanently without extracting any payment or concession. That outcome is unusual in high-profile clergy abuse litigation and lends weight to Apuron’s (and his supporters’) narrative that the claims lacked sufficient merit to proceed to judgment or settlement on plaintiffs’ terms."
As already set out at the time, the plaintiffs dropped their cases because Apuron had no assets to sue for. This was never a criminal case, like MacRae's. It was always and only about civil liability. Additionally, Lujan had taken the cases on contingency, meaning payment for legal services would be a percentage of the awarded amount. And since, by 2025, Apuron had no assets to sue for, meaning there would be no "awarded amount," Lujan, like any lawyer who is not going to get paid, dropped the cases.
The smoking gun, i.e., the real argument against Apuron's innocence, is not the Vatican verdict, but that Apuron himself and his civil attorney never pursued his "day in court." From the outset, Apuron claimed innocence and that he would prove it when he had his "day in court."
"Attorney: Apuron wants his ‘day in court,'" the headlines of the Guam Daily Post read on August 8, 2017.
However, Apuron never had his day in court. Why? Because HE DID NOT WANT his day in court.
After the Vatican found Apuron guilty, denied his appeal, and declared the verdict final, the only path for Apuron to prove his innocence was a civil trial, i.e., "his day in court." Additionally, Apuron had (and still has) one of the best lawyers in Guam, who appears to have been pro bono for the last ten years. Everything was in Apuron's favor.
Apuron's "day in court" could have been a slam-dunk. The allegations against Apuron were more than forty years old, and there were no witnesses. His high-powered lawyer could have taken these guys apart on the stand. Apuron would have remained archbishop; the archdiocese would never have had to suffer bankruptcy, and the Neocatechumenal Way would be running Guam - everything Apuron and his lawyer wanted.
But they didn't even try. Instead, ten years of stalling, stalling, and stalling.
Sorry, Fr. MacRae, but you're wrong. If "the claims lacked sufficient merit to proceed to judgment or settlement," as you say, then for ten long years, Apuron had his chance to prove his innocence and even countersue. He had ten years to have his "day in court." He never tried. In fact, he avoided it. There was a reason. There still is.
P.S. I hope you prove your innocence and get out of prison. But here's a tip: don't count on DIANA.
Courage!
No comments:
Post a Comment