By Tim Rohr
In a recent post (BLOGGER ACCUSED BY WIFE), I wrote:
This was May 2018. Apuron had just been found guilty by the Vatican, and I was the main mover in outing him. Apuron planned to appeal and demonstrate that he had been framed by "Tim Rohr and his associates," and that I was colluding with a Chinese gambling interest to steal the "Yona Property" (the old RMS seminary) from the Neocats to install a casino there.
Amazing, but true. Not true that there was an alliance between me and a gambling interest. But true that this is what Apuron and the Neocats accused me of. And, at the time, it was in the news.
Today, while researching for the book I am writing about the horrifying mess that was (and still is) the Archdiocese of Agana, I came across a letter written by Apuron to Cardinal Filoni dated July 23, 2016.
In the letter, Apuron demands that Filoni take action against Archbishop Hon, who was the Vatican-appointed Apostolic Administrator to this diocese after Apuron fled in May 2016.
The letter is quite entertaining, and reeks of Apuron - if you know what I mean. His protestations of innocence are laughable (if not sickening) given what the Vatican itself officially found him guilty of, a finding upheld by Pope Francis himself after Apuron appealed his verdict directly to the pope.
Of particular interest to me, though, was Apuron's accusation about the plot to turn the seminary into a casino, which you will see towards the end of the letter.
Apuron swears to Filoni that he has "amassed a substantial body of proof" connecting this "plot" against him as being mixed up with a "gambling syndicate."
That's funny. He's had ten years now to show that "substantial body of proof." He never did. And he never did because he was lying. And he is lying still.
A copy of the full letter and the attachments can be accessed here. The following is copied from the letter for easy reading.
+++++
Note: There are many spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors in this letter. I left them as they are. All underlines and bold are Apuron's.
July 23st, 2016
Prefect of Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples
Piazza di Spagna
48 - 00187 Roma
Your Eminence,
It is with great regret that I am obliged present you with this act of canonical recourse against Archbishop Savio HON TAI-FAI, S.D.B. in his role as Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese of Agana sede plena.
As you know, I requested that the Holy Father authorize such a provision for the Archdiocese while I dedicated myself to disproving the false, malicious, and calculated allegations of sexual abuse made against me by some parties on the island. This seemed to me to be the most prudent course of action, both to allow me to fight the allegations in the most direct way possible, and also for the good of the souls of my archdiocese, who were suffering greatly because of the concerted media campaign against me.
While I still believe that Archbishop HON arrived in Guam with a sincere desire to help our Church, which has been so sadly rocked by the orchestrated sedition and malice of a very few, it has become increasingly apparent to me that his administration is doing gravest harm: to the very fabric of the Archdiocese; to the spiritual well-being of the people and clergy of Agana; and to my own person.
I wish to reassure you of my personal support for the role of an Apostolic Administrator sede plena. Following Archbishop HON's appointment, as I believe was both canonically and pastorally appropriate, I issued a statement welcoming his impending arrival and, since then, I have refrained from commenting, either publicly or privately, on any aspect of his work in the Archdiocese. I am aware how important it is that I respect the scope of any Administrator ability to govern the Archdiocese during this time of my impediment, since it is their work which will, and must, make possible my eventual return to my See when the accusations against me have been disproven.
While reiterating my respect for Archbishop HON's office, and while I have done everything required by the law to respect its powers and preserve its dignity, I must bring to your attention the seriously damaging actions which he has undertaken in its exercise, and the flawed canonical understanding which seems to underpin his behavior.
As Your Eminence is no doubt aware, the position of Apostolic Administrator sede plena is no longer officially defined in the Code of Canon Law. The canon pertaining to its definition and powers were removed during the process of canonical reform. Of course, the Holy Father has remained free to continue to make use of this position as and when he has considered it prudent, and, through this continuing exercise of pontifical discretion, the role continues according to the norm of law.
Because the position of Apostolic Administrator sede plena is no longer codified for the Latin Church, its application and understanding in Latin dioceses is subject to the ordinary and proper methods of canonical interpretation. In this case, the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches preserves the role of Apostolic Administrator sede plena but provides that the "rights, obligations, and privileges are drawn from the letter of appointment" (CCEO 234 §2); thus, that which is not contained in the letter of appointment cannot be considered within the Administrator's scope.
Of course, the role of Apostolic Administrator sede plena is not an informal or ad hoc arrangement, its definition and praxis is long established in the law and practice of the Church.
In recognition that the defining characteristic of the office and its exercise is that there is and remains a bishop of the diocese during the administration, and that neither the administrator nor the bishop is subject to the other, the firm canonical principle has always been that an Apostolic Administrator sede plena must not interfere in any matter which concerns the Bishop: non debet tamen se immiscere causis Episcopum ipsum spectantibus (c. 316 §2, CIC 1917). Such an action by an Administrator would be gravely prejudicial to the rights of the Bishop and present a clear conflict of interest and competence by the Administrador.
In addition to this, there is the longstanding, indeed immemorial canonical principle that during the time of an Administrator nihil innovatur.
This understanding of Archbishop HON's office has been confirmed for me by a number of canonical experts, but far more importantly, you yourself assured me when we met, on two separate occasions before Archbishop Hon arrived in Guam, that the Apostolic Administrator's powers would concern only the pastoral duties of the Archdiocese while the process of verifying the credibility of the accusations against me was proceeding. This assurance of yours gave me the necessary peace of mind to remain in Rome to face the allegations.
It is my most urgent concern that Archbishop HON has, on multiple occasions, violated this assurance, and the most basic principles of his office, causing real, grave, and immediate: damage to my good name; prejudice to my ability to defend myself against the malicious accusations to which I have been subjected; and impediment to my ability to resume stable governance of my archdiocese when this process ends.
He has done this through the following:
On June 15th, 2016, by Decree, he rescinded a penal precept and a general decree legitimately placed by me against Deacon Martinez and Concerned Catholics of Guam - parties who have publicly, intentionally and maliciously made false allegations, of the most serious kind, against me and, though warned several times, have not retracted them. By this act he has effectively given credence to their unfounded slanders, further prejudicing my ability to defend myself [Cf. attachment 1 and 2].
On June 17th, 2016, he requested the resignation of all the officials, pastors and vicars of the Archdiocese. This action not only sought to compel an act that can only be voluntary and severely compromises the ordered functioning of the archdiocese, depriving it of all its appointed officials, but this action gravely and directly injured my good name by suggesting that all the appointments made by me were somehow tainted, either by poor judgment or even corruption. This action has created a grave disturbance among the clergy, and terrible confusion among the faithful, and it gravely jeopardizes my ability to defend myself and resume the stable governance of the diocese [Attachment 3].
On June 17th, 2016, Archbishop HON enjoined the Presbyteral Council, with the authority of his office, to write to me demanding my resignation as Archbishop of the diocese. And further, to petition the Holy Father to request the same from me. This is an extraordinarily prejudicial act against my person. It is in stark violation of all canonical principles of his office and far exceeds the scope of his authority.
On June 23rd, 2016, he informed the Presbyteral Council that he had delegated the same above-mentioned Deacon Stephen MARTINEZ, a man against whom I previously had issued a canonical precept for clerical disobedience to me and for public slander against me, to collect testimonies relating to the unfounded allegations of sexual abuse of minors made against me. By instructing MARTINEZ, he has appointed my accusers to be my investigators. By interfering in this matter at all he has involved himself in a matter which is the proper and exclusive competence of the Congregation from the Doctrine of the Faith, to whom the matter had already been presented.
By this one action, Archbishop HON has completely prejudiced the process of justice against me, interfered in an ongoing investigation by the CDF in which Archbishop HON is absolutely incompetent to act, and discredited the entire investigative process.
Given the severity of these actions, I had no alternative but to write to Archbishop HON, asking him:
To immediately revisit these decisions which have so gravely disturbed the Archdiocese, exceeded his scope of authority, and been so prejudicial to my person;
To refrain from any further such actions which would similarly disturb the good of souls in the Archdiocese and cause me personal injury;
Immediately present me with a copy of his decree of appointment and all the instructions from your Congregation which accompanied it directing the exercise of his office.
This was done on 1 July, 2016 [Cf. Attachment 4]. Unfortunately, I received a response, by means of an informal email [Cf. Attachment 5], from Archbishop Hon on 9 July, 2016, in which he rejected the canonical definition and authority of his office, assuring me that my understanding of his role was “by no means applicable to [him].” He insisted his actions in the diocese and against me were justified and within his scope of authority. He stated that he would immediately send scanned copies of the documents which I requested, but he has failed to do so.
Since his response, he has proceeded to further and graver actions against me, engaging a civil law firm to treat with my accusers on behalf of the Archdiocese. In his negotiations with this law firm, and in all his contact with me, he has continued to demand my resignation.
No comments:
Post a Comment