Let's have some more fun with Adrian, or more specifically, Adrian's LIES. Actually, it's hard to know if he's even smart enough to lie. He really could be just that stupid.
We have already noted that in his April 13
statement to the press, Adrian pulls a real boner telling us that
Louie the Linguist was not accused of "
sexual misconduct with a minor," but then goes on to say that an investigation was "
begun...according to the zero tolerance guidelines," which are specifically employed in cases of...guess what? Sexual misconduct ESPECIALLY with a minor!
Because of the horrible revelations of sexual misconduct with minors which began surfacing in the 90's, and which cost the Church BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars, not to mention countless souls, the U.S. Bishops, in 2002, instituted a "Zero Tolerance Policy" in order to at least look like they were taking the matter seriously.
Only sexual misconduct rises to the level of Zero Tolerance, all other misbehavior or suspected misbehavior must be subject to the PENAL PROCESS as outlined in Church law (Cann. 1717 - 1731).
This is important to know, for several reasons, so let's take some time and read through this canon by canon:
BOOK VII PROCESSES
PART IV.
THE PENAL PROCESS (Cann. 1717 - 1731)
CHAPTER I.
The Preliminary Investigation
Can. 1717 §1. Whenever an ordinary has knowledge, which at least seems true, of a delict, he is carefully to inquire personally or through another suitable person about the facts, circumstances, and imputability, unless such an inquiry seems entirely superfluous.
§2. Care must be taken so that the good name of anyone is not endangered from this investigation.
§3. The person who conducts the investigation has the same powers and obligations as an auditor in the process; the same person cannot act as a judge in the matter if a judicial process is initiated later.
Can. 1718 §1. When it seems that sufficient evidence has been collected, the ordinary is to decide:
1/ whether a process to inflict or declare a penalty can be initiated;
2/ whether, attentive to ⇒ can. 1341, this is expedient;
3/ whether a judicial process must be used or, unless the law forbids it, whether the matter must proceed by way of extrajudicial decree.
§2. The ordinary is to revoke or change the decree mentioned in §1 whenever new evidence indicates to him that another decision is necessary.
§3. In issuing the decrees mentioned in §§1 and 2, the ordinary is to hear two judges or other experts of the law if he considers it prudent.
§4. Before he makes a decision according to the norm of §1 and in order to avoid useless trials, the ordinary is to examine carefully whether it is expedient for him or the investigator, with the consent of the parties, to resolve equitably the question of damages.
Can. 1719 The acts of the investigation, the decrees of the ordinary which initiated and concluded the investigation, and everything which preceded the investigation are to be kept in the secret archive of the curia if they are not necessary for the penal process.
CHAPTER II.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROCESS
Can. 1720 If the ordinary thinks that the matter must proceed by way of extrajudicial decree:
1/ he is to inform the accused of the accusation and the proofs, giving an opportunity for self-defense, unless the accused neglected to appear after being properly summoned;
2/ he is to weigh carefully all the proofs and arguments with two assessors;
3/ if the delict is certainly established and a criminal action is not extinguished, he is to issue a decree according to the norm of ⇒ cann. 1342-1350, setting forth the reasons in law and in fact at least briefly.
Can. 1721 §1. If the ordinary has decreed that a judicial penal process must be initiated, he is to hand over the acts of the investigation to the promoter of justice who is to present a libellus of accusation to the judge according to the norm of cann. ⇒ 1502 and ⇒ 1504.
§2. The promoter of justice appointed to the higher tribunal acts as the petitioner before that tribunal.
Can. 1722 To prevent scandals, to protect the freedom of witnesses, and to guard the course of justice, the ordinary, after having heard the promoter of justice and cited the accused, at any stage of the process can exclude the accused from the sacred ministry or from some office and ecclesiastical function, can impose or forbid residence in some place or territory, or even can prohibit public participation in the Most Holy Eucharist. Once the cause ceases, all these measures must be revoked; they also end by the law itself when the penal process ceases.
Can. 1723 §1. The judge who cites the accused must invite the accused to appoint an advocate according to the norm of ⇒ can. 1481, §1 within the time limit set by the judge.
§2. If the accused does not make provision, the judge is to appoint an advocate before the joinder of the issue; this advocate will remain in this function as long as the accused does not appoint an advocate personally.
Can. 1724 §1. At any grade of the trial the promoter of justice can renounce the trial at the command of or with the consent of the ordinary whose deliberation initiated the process.
§2. For validity the accused must accept the renunciation unless the accused was declared absent from the trial.
Can. 1725 In the discussion of the case, whether done in written or oral form, the accused, either personally or through the advocate or procurator, always has the right to write or speak last.
Can. 1726 If at any grade and stage of the penal trial it is evidently established that the accused did not commit the delict, the judge must declare this in a sentence and absolve the accused even if it is also established that criminal action has been extinguished.
Can. 1727 §1. The accused can propose an appeal even if the sentence dismissed the accused only because the penalty was facultative or because the judge used the power mentioned in cann. ⇒ 1344 and ⇒ 1345.
§2. The promoter of justice can appeal whenever the promoter judges that the repair of scandal or the restoration of justice has not been provided for sufficiently.
Can. 1728 §1. Without prejudice to the prescripts of the canons of this title and unless the nature of the matter precludes it, the canons on trials in general and on the ordinary contentious trial must be applied in a penal trial; the special norms for cases which pertain to the public good are also to be observed.
§2. The accused is not bound to confess the delict nor can an oath be administered to the accused.
CHAPTER III.
ACTION TO REPAIR DAMAGES
Can. 1729 §1. In the penal trial itself an injured party can bring a contentious action to repair damages incurred personally from the delict, according to the norm of ⇒ can. 1596.
§2. The intervention of the injured party mentioned in §1 is not admitted later if it was not made in the first grade of the penal trial.
§3. The appeal in a case for damages is made according to the norm of ⇒ cann. 1628-1640 even if an appeal cannot be made in the penal trial; if both appeals are proposed, although by different parties, there is to be a single appellate trial, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1730.
Can. 1730 §1. To avoid excessive delays in the penal trial the judge can defer the judgment for damages until he has rendered the definitive sentence in the penal trial.
§2. After rendering the sentence in the penal trial, the judge who does this must adjudicate for damages even if the penal trial still is pending because of a proposed challenge or the accused has been absolved for a cause which does not remove the obligation to repair damages.
Can. 1731 Even if the sentence rendered in a penal trial has become a res iudicata, it in no way establishes the right of the injured party unless this party has intervened according to the norm of ⇒ can. 1729.
Now, let's take a look at the rest of what Adrian the Pathetic said:
"Following the accusation, a canonical investigation was begun into the matter and according to the zero tolerance guidelines, the Archbishop applied the precautionary measures according to canon 1722 of the Code of Canon Law, upon opening a preliminary investigation."
Once again, Adrian is counting on us "regular Catholics" to be too stupid to question what the hell he's talking about. I suppose he's used to his neocat community bootlickers. But we're not stupid and we're not bootlickers, so let's check this out.
Adrian says that "the Archbishop applied...canon 1722."
Excuse me?
Canon 1722 does not stand alone. It is part of a lengthy penal process as you can see from the above.
Before the bishop can apply Canon 1722...
- He is to inquire about the facts, circumstances, and imputability. Can. 1717 §1
- He is to appoint a person to conduct the investigation. Can. 1717 §3
- He is to see to it that sufficient evidence has been collected. Can. 1718 §1
- He is to decide
- whether a process to inflict or declare a penalty can be initiated;
- whether this is expedient;
- whether a judicial process must be used; and
- whether the matter must proceed by way of extrajudicial decree. Can. 1717 §1 1/2/3/
- He is to hear two judges or other experts. Can. 1717 §3
- He is to examine carefully whether it is expedient for him or the investigator, with the consent of the parties, to resolve equitably the question of damages. Can. 1717 §4
- If he thinks that the matter must proceed by way of extrajudicial decree, then he is to
- inform the accused of the accusation and the proofs, giving an opportunity for self-defense,
- weigh carefully all the proofs and arguments with two assessors; and
- if the delict is certainly established and a criminal action is not extinguished,
- he is to issue a decree according to the norm of ⇒ cann. 1342-1350, setting forth the reasons in law and in fact at least briefly. Can. 1720
- If he has decreed that a judicial penal process must be initiated,
- he is to hand over the acts of the investigation to the promoter of justice who is to present a libellus of accusation to the judge,
- and the promoter of justice then acts as the petitioner before the tribunal. Can. 1721
Only then do we come to Canon 1722, which Adrian says the Archbishop applied. However, in saying this, Adrian is implicating Apuron for bypassing cann. 1717 to 1721.
Apuron's
statement to the press of March 18, 2015, the day after
Lickin' Louie was arrested, stated that:
- Louie had been removed as pastor,
- Louie's faculties had been restricted, and
- A canonical investigation had begun.
Other than for sex crimes which merits "zero tolerance," meaning a priest can be immediately suspended or disciplined, Apuron was required to proceed according to the Penal Process as provided for in Canon Law.
And Adrian wants us to believe that within 24 hours of Lickin' Louie's arrest Apuron supposedly completed all of the above yet we are also to believe that a year later, the investigation is still ongoing. Too funny!
We know that Apuron took none of the steps outlined in the Penal Process because within hours, Louie was stripped of his position, stripped of his faculties, and hauled off and hidden away until he surfaced in Qatar a year later.
Thus, Adrian, either you are implicating Apuron for violating Church law or you are admitting that Louie's arrest involved sex.
Checkmate, Adrian. LOL.
You know, it's really hard for me to believe that anyone can be this brazen of a liar, so let's just chalk this up to STUPID!
P.S. By the way, the above Penal Process is a wonderful example of how the Church cares for its priests and safeguards them from unjust bishops. Before Apuron could act against Father Paul and Msgr. James the way he did, he was REQUIRED to follow the above norms. He DID NOT.
And very soon, Tony, VERY SOON. You will wish to God you had...if you even believe in Him.
