Loading...

No Threat To Guam's Children

Loading...
No Threat To Guam's Children - Hallo friend SMART KIDS, In the article you read this time with the title No Threat To Guam's Children, we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article baby, Article care, Article education, Article recipes, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : No Threat To Guam's Children
link : No Threat To Guam's Children

see also


No Threat To Guam's Children

According to the CDF's press release (the bold is mine): 
The Apostolic Tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, composed of five judges, 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.
When news of the verdict came in, the first one to pounce on it was the jungle. They immediately set out to convince the Catholic faithful and Coadjutor Archbishop Byrnes that Archbishop Apuron was found guilty of child sexual abuse when in truth....the press release never said what he was found guilty of.  The Vatican did not reveal the charges of which Archbishop Apuron was found guilty of. 

It is also the jungle spreading the rumor that Archbishop Apuron was exiled from Guam.  According to Tim Rohr:
[Wow! "an unusually light sanction." Ummm. IT WAS BANISHMENT AND EXILE FOR LIFE, not to mention the first EVER archbishop to be removed from his diocese by a trial!]
Rohr also claimed that Archbishop Apuron cannot touch Guam's children due to this so-called exile.  See the weblink here.

However, as one astute poster pointed out, the sentence never exiled or banished Archbishop Apuron from Guam.  He was only banned from residing in Guam:  "prohibition of residence."  According to the Anonymous poster:

AnonymousMarch 24, 2018 at 6:32 AM 
From a literal reading of the CDF release, the sentence doesn't even prohibit him from returning to Guam. He is banned from RESIDING in Guam, but nothing explicitly prohibits him from stepping foot on the island. 
Again, this suggests that the tribunal either a) didn't find him guilty of sex abuse or b) isn't very convinced of his guilt. 
This sentence accomplishes what Apuron's political enemies wanted, but little more than that. 
The sentence only banned Archbishop Apuron from returning to his homeland as a resident.  But there is nothing in that sentence saying that he cannot travel to Guam as a visitor.  As I previously said, if he was guilty of child sexual abuse, the sentence did not ban him from contact with children, including Guam's children.  

Everything else that Rohr stated is simply a change in story.  He can claim all he wants that the first mention of a canonical trial was in January 2017.  We already know the truth.  History shows that the FIRST mention of a canonical trial came from Archbishop Apuron, not the Vatican.  The Archbishop mentioned a canonical trial three times (See the weblink here). 


thus Article No Threat To Guam's Children

that is all articles No Threat To Guam's Children This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article No Threat To Guam's Children with the link address https://onechildsmart.blogspot.com/2018/03/no-threat-to-guams-children.html

Subscribe to receive free email updates:

0 Response to "No Threat To Guam's Children"

Post a Comment

Loading...