Sunday, 18 March 2018

ARCHBISHOP SENTENCED FOR ABUSE

Joshua McElwer National Catholic Reporter. 16.3.18.

A Vatican tribunal has found Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron, who had been accused of sexually abusing young men decades ago, "guilty of certain of the accusations," imposing a penalty of removal from office and a prohibition from living on the U.S. island territory.

A five-judge apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith announced its verdict in Apuron's canonical case March 16 with a brief press release. The release did not specify of which exact acts the archbishop had been found guilty.

"The canonical trial in the matter of accusations, including accusations of sexual abuse of minors ... has been concluded," states the release. "The Apostolic Tribunal ... has issued its sentence of first instance, finding the accused guilty of certain of the accusations and imposing upon the accused the penalties of privation of office and prohibition of residence in the Archdiocese of Guam."

Apuron, a Guam native who had led the island's only diocese since 1986, was placed on leave by Pope Francis in June 2016 after a series of accusations about abuse of young men in the 1960s and 70s were made public.

Francis named an apostolic administrator to run the archdiocese for several months and then named Coadjutor Archbishop Michael Byrnes, a former auxiliary bishop of Detroit, to take over.

As coadjutor, Byrnes would automatically become full archbishop of the archdiocese with Apuron's removal from office. But the doctrinal congregation's statement made clear that Apuron still has the right to appeal the ruling, and that during such an appeal the penalties against the archbishop are suspended.

U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke, a noted canon lawyer, has served as the presiding judge in the Vatican's canonical trial.

Support Catholic journalism. Join our new membership program for as little as $5 a month.

Apuron, 72, has been accused of having inappropriate physical contact with at least five young boys. The allegations emerged in May 2016 when one of the boys, now in his 50s, came forward, prompting others to do the same.

Apuron has denied the allegations against him, and Guam civil authorities have not charged him with any crimes. He is however the subject of multiple civil lawsuits.

The Guam archbishop was spotted in Rome in February, when he was seen in a wheelchair during a weekly Wednesday audience with Francis. Several outlets reported at the time that Apuron greeted the pope and told him: "Holy Father, I wanted to see you before I die."

Announcement of the verdict in Apuron's case had been expected for months. Byrnes, the coadjutor archbishop, announced in October 2017 that the judges had come to a decision.

PAY SAYS:

Is is good to see the Vatican taking action against an abusing ARCHBISHOP.

This would not have happened up to a short time ago.

For instance, Cardinal Keith O'Brien of Scotland suffered very little Vatican punishment.

The only way for the RC Church to regain any credibility on this issue is to deal firmly with offenders.

It is also vital that the Vatican cooperates fully with civil authorities in these matters and hands over all its records and files to police and civil prosecutors.

Has this happened in Guam?

I hope so.

58 comments:

  1. It is WAY too late, Bishop P, for the Roman Catholic ***** to gain any credibility ANYwhere. Way too late.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's never too late - - if it saves even one new potential victim. I think when you acknowledge and welcome improvements, you get more of them. That's how it works in life.

      Delete
  2. MourneManMichael18 March 2018 at 01:17

    What happened to O' Brien? Where is he now?
    Is he still, in any way, being "supported" by the RC church?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doubtless he is still being financially supported by the Church, in other words, 'by the laity'.

      Delete
    2. According to the Times he has been given the last rites and is now in the Little Sisters of the Poor in Newcastle.

      Delete
  3. He should now face and deal with the civil allegations. Leaving the territory is a cop out. Vatican should share their findings with civil authorities and let the law take it's course

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree! However O’Brien should not be referred to in an article about a predatory child abuser, he wasn’t. His crime was to have consensual gay sex with clergy and a small number came together to speak up (apart from one whom is now a Scottish Bishop in a far away Diocese, out of sight out of mind). O’Brien lives in retirement and does not say Mass in public and for the last few years was ordered not to live in Scotland amywhere near his family or friends. In recent weeks he has moved to a care home where he begins the final phase of his earthly life. Archbishop Leonora Cushley (as he is affectionately known) would not allow O’Brien to enter his preferred care home here in Scotland, so he remains in the North East of England. Punishment enough I would say. Note that 3 of the Clergy who
    complained about O’Brien are still active Priests who continue to Minister. Double standards. One of them serves in a neighbouring Parish and the word is that he has a boyfriend who is also a Priest in our Archdiocese.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Word is...', 07:27? You mean 'hearsay'.

      Delete
    2. Hello Magna. What bit do you think is hearsay and I will be glad to elaborate

      Delete
    3. A very selective reading of the evidence, 07.27. O’Brien’s actions revolved around the issue of breaching boundaries and the use of power. He hasn’t been charged with any crime.

      Delete
    4. And of course the whole thing was exacerbated by his hypocritical denouncements. I’d be wary of any clergyman denigrating gay people at Mass.

      Delete
    5. Yes agreed but that is unusual and O’Brien would have sworn an oath to preach the hard line on this matter when created Cardinal. The others never mention it, particularly the actively gay and there are plenty of them.

      Delete
    6. 10:34, from whom did you hear this? From someone who heard someone else say that he heard from... Hopefully, you've got the picture by now.

      Of course, you could always 'elaborate'.

      Delete
    7. If you are so sure of your facts send them to the Papal Nuncio.
      Strangely enough I notice the Diocesan wiz Kid on I.T. who has live stream, face book and so has yet to mention the Cardinal yet mentions everything else on his face book.

      Delete
  5. I have heard in recent days that O’Brien is in hospital. Who is the bishop in the far distant diocese?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was but is back in care home. The Bishop knows who he is and despite the fact that O’Brien supported him for years, the Scottish hierarchy are not in contact with O’Brien any longer and aren’t prepared to forgive him.

      Delete
  6. The former PP of prestwick in Scotland has just been found guilty of child abuse. It’s getting to be like a bloody conveyor belt now!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes you are right but the fact is that one is 70% more likely to be abused by a Plumber than a Priest.

      Delete
    2. That's a good sign @ 8.49 though that people ARE speaking up and being listened to...

      Delete
    3. 10:45 I honestly have to say that I have never come across a case of a plumber involved in child abuse. But hardly a week goes by that one is not made aware of a new child abuse accusation involving a priest. Who invents these bogus comparisons?

      Delete
    4. I think 1045 is right. Difference is that a plumber touching up his apprentice never hits the papers sadly.

      Delete
    5. 14.38: The point being made by 10.45 is that statistically abuse is carried out by people closest to children - family member, relative, stranger - but whoever is the abuser, the abuse is horrendous and reprehensible. We read stories frequently in papers about child abuse not involving clergy, but abuse is terryfying. I KNOW - as one who experienced abuse - not by a cleric. The same rigorous judgment and moral outrage should be expressed irrespective of the profession of the abuser. Our primary concern and care MUST be for survivors.

      Delete
    6. 17:53, it never hits the papers because what does not happen cannot be reported.

      Delete
  7. Sorry, 07:27, I think you are wrong about O'Brien's encounters with seminarians and young priests as consensual ! They may not fall in to the child abuse category, but they were abusive on the part of O'Brien in that he was in a position of considerable power and was able to exert influence and his predatory will over these young men. Whether these men are gay, or currently in relationships, has no bearing on the gravity of what O'Brien did. I suspect that O'Brien was acting out unresolved issues with this own sexuality, and there was lots of repression going on in his life, and denial; I'm sure that drink was part of the cocktail that allowed him to express himself in this predatory way. But no matter which way you spin it, O'Brien's actions in respect of these men was predatory and damaging. It is right that eventually he has had to answer for his behaviour. I do not wish any harm to him, and I hope that his last years of life will be tolerable and that he has people who are supporting him and loving him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9.44. You make a very important point indeed.
      An authority figure has a special responsibility to act with integrity towards his subordinates as there is usually an unspoken, subtle expectation on the junior clergy to comply. The subordinates are vulnerable for that reason (even if they are persons over 18 yrs i.e. adults)

      Delete
  8. 07:27 - what is 'double standards' about three clergy who continue to minister after having been the objects of Cardinal O'Brien's predatory behaviour ? The wrong doing was not theirs, but the Cardinals. If there were double standards, it is on the part of the Cardinal that the accusation should be levelled, not at the priests / seminarians who suffered at his hands. You seem to have this the wrong way round ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not disputing that his behaviour was wholly acceptable, but you appear to saying that just because he had sex with them, it is fine for them to have sex with others despite the fact that are celibate Priests. The Catholic Church is Scotland is in meltdown and that’s not all O’Brien’s fault. He never slept with them all.

      Delete
    2. Sorry my typing error. UNACCEPTABLE

      Delete
    3. No, O'Brien "never slept with them all" as you say, but he grossly neglected his duty to set the headline standard and good example of the standards expected of all his diocesan clergy.
      That was no small matter.
      If the "salt loses its flavour.." it makes it so difficult for everyone else to do the right thing.

      Delete
  9. In the case of the soon to be ex-Archbishop of Guam, I think you may find that in Guam, which is in some respects part of the US, the statute of limitations has passed on the alleged crimes that he committed against young men / boys. This is quite common in some countries, namely that if the alleged crime is not reported within a certain time frame, then it runs out of time for being acted upon by the legal / criminal authorities. I think you may well find that this is what is happening in Guam, with the result that the Archbishop will avoid any criminal charges. Civl suits could, I imagine, still be brought against him by his alleged victims. At least canon law seems to have no statue of limitations, and so the process that is going on now is one of canon law, which of course does not have the same penalties as criminal law. So the Archbishop will end up being ex, perhaps even being laicised, but he will not go to prison, I suspect. I'm sure the police in Guam know all about these accusations, and the Church authorities will have already reported them to the police, but the police are not able to take them forward and act on them because of the statute of limitations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, poster 9.53. Not every country has the same fine print and sub-rules in their law books.e g. How long does a victim get before the crime "dies" if it hasn't been reported? - - - That can vary ...

      Delete
  10. 1031: WTF are you trying to say ? O'Brien's behaviour 'was wholly acceptable' ? Really ? Or are your typing skills somewhat lacking ? Surely you mean UNACCEPTABLE?

    And then you seem to be suggesting that the priests / seminarians who were abused by O'Brien are sexually active, some of them who are still priests ? How do you know this ? Or, like so many priests, do you imagine sex everywhere, simply because you are not getting it (aka being a celibate), but obsessed with everybody else and what they are doing, viewing everything and everyone by their crotches ! i suspect that is the case with you, as it is with so many clergy that I know.

    O'Brien was damaged. He did abusive stuff to others. He was hypocritical in his statements. Simple ! Make no excuses for him. And don't try to minimise his failings by going after those that he abused by throwing dirt around which you probably don't have any evidence for and which is the result of your own issues and frustrations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry typing error. UNACCEPTABLE. My apologies. I must go to Specsavers.

      Delete
    2. Specsavers are closed tomorrow as far as eye knows....

      Delete
  11. 07.27. Who is the bishop in the far away Scottish diocese who was allegedly abused by Keith Patrick?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Controlled and not abused!

      Delete
  12. Afternoon Girls. Just remeber the Gospel of St. Matthew records this teaching of our Lord:

    7:1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 7:2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 7:3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 7:4 Or how can you say to your brother, —Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? 7:5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

    Sure you’s are all perfect. Only massive xxx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ".. Sure you are all perfect..."

      Delete
  13. Is the Guam archbishop still regarded as a priest? and has he still not acknowledged any of his crimes?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Guam story, for me, is worrying for two reasons. The story did not come to light recently. It was well known to many prelates in many dioceses for many years as this sort of news travels so fast in catholic circles. But it was conveniently buried until recently. Secondly, why hasn't the archbishop been excommunicated?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Did I read correctly the other day that Vin Nichols demands that his priests all go on the diocesan retreat and, if not, they must write to him and tell him why not and their alternative arrangements?

    If this is true of priests in Westminster, if they allow the Cardinal to exercise that type of control, then they have only themselves to blame.

    Men like they have that kind of Power because they are given it. Tell him to f*** off and mind his own damned business.

    What’s he going to do? Send for the “rebels” and get them to “assume the position” in his office??? Cane them on the bare bottoms? For crying out loud!

    You idiots deserve the pompous prat, Nichols.
    Oh he’s glad that Cormac isn’t looking over his shoulder anymore is he?

    In two shakes of a lamb’s tail, his rancid old carcass will also be lying under a slab in Westminster Cathedral not too far from CMO’C’s dead old ass.

    Tell Vin to f*** away off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I just love muscular Christianity. The spirit of that old Protty Bishop Lawrence lives on as does his pension plan.

      Seraphim+

      Delete
    2. Jesus was quite butch-looking...going by the image on the Turin Shroud.

      Delete
    3. Well said 16.21!

      Delete
    4. Magna @ 19.49.....But not as butch as you, unless you've changed since being thrown out of the Seminary!!!

      Delete
    5. Rubbish. He doesn't force priests on the diocesan retreat. Just another false accusation to have a go at +Vincent.

      Delete
  16. Keith O’Brien gave a retreat to the priests of D&C at Garron Tower in 2000. He talked about having fallen in love (with a woman) in his younger priesthood. I knew even then the aul bastard was lying through his teeth.

    He’s a dirty old man who preyed upon young men by using his power, position and influence. He was a hypocrite.

    Hopefully now, in the last phase of his earthly life, he will prepare properly and honestly, by sincere repentance, to meet his God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 16:28 The double life must have taken its toll eventually.

      Delete
  17. Have a bit of compassion the man is lying on his death bed a Archbishop Cushley has given him the Last Rites of Holy Mother Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dont worry about human compassion here. People will get from God the same mercy they treated their victims with all their lives.

      Delete
    2. I would imagine many victims of clerical ill treatment never get the Last Rites of Holy Mother Church because of the damage done to them.

      Delete
    3. Cushley only wants the positive publicity having ignored the Cardinal for 5 years.

      Delete
  18. There are only - is it nine? - dioceses in Scotland. Put together how far away and the bishop's seminary training and O'Brien's your aunty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could you translate @ 17.26 please . (Clear as mud)

      Delete
  19. It will be interesting to see where and how big O’Brien’s funeral is when that time comes. I’m sure it has all been planned and the whole pr spin for the Scottish media is all ready.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 17.26 very cryptic indeed lol

    ReplyDelete