Thursday, January 18, 2018

Archbishop Apuron Denies Sexual Abuse

As you know Tim Rohr is trying to convince people that Archbishop Apuron is guilty because he ran away.  Remember that this is the same man who fooled people into believing that there was no canonical trial.  Tim Rohr made the following comment on December 26, 2016 (the bold is mine).   
He's in the area. I have "hard copy" evidence. He's not in Rome defending himself at his canonical trial because there's isn't one.
Since the beginning, Archbishop Apuron claimed that he was going to seek a canonical trial.  Tim Rohr, on the other hand, stated that there was no canonical trial and that the Archbishop ran away. On May 13, 2016, Archbishop Apuron responded to a sex abuse ad that was placed in the newspaper by Tim Rohr and CCOG.  You can read the Archbishop's response here.  According to Archbishop Apuron: 
 .......the Archdiocese of Agana is in the process of taking canonical measures with the Sacra Rota - the competent canonical tribunal - and filing civil lawsuit against those perpetrating these malicious lies."
  1. The above statement was made BEFORE Archbishop Apuron left for Rome.  Therefore, he already told the people of Guam his intention of why he left the island.  In other words, he did not run away, but went to pursue a canonical trial in Rome.  On June 3, 2016, a press release from the Archdiocese of Agana also mentioned that Archbishop Apuron was taking steps to have a canonical trial and civil trial to clear his name.  
  2. On August 25, 2016, Archbishop Apuron came out in video and through the news media stated that Pope Francis has granted his request for a canonical trial.  So, since May 13, 2016, the Archbishop and the Archdiocese of Agana has made it clear to the public that Archbishop Apuron went to Rome to request a canonical trial to clear his name.  This was made public THREE TIMES!!!  It was made public on May 13th, June 3rd, and on August 25th that Archbishop Apuron intends to pursue a canonical trial in Rome to clear his name. 
  3. The truth is out.  Tim Rohr stated on December 2016 that there was no canonical trial. He was wrong.  Today, we know for a fact that there was a canonical trial contrary to what Rohr stated in December 2016. The Archbishop told the truth when he said he went to Rome to pursue a canonical trial.  Also remember that Tim Rohr has already admitted to participating in a secret meeting since 2013, involving the removal of Father Paul by the Archbishop.  This entire controversy started at that time with the removal of Father Paul.  
  4. According to The Guam Daily Post:
  1. Suspended Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron this morning issued a statement denying all allegations of sexual abuse, including the most recent made by his nephew, Mark Apuron. 
    In an email statement sent Dr. Ricardo Eusebio to distribute to media, Apuron stated, "As I lay sick after another surgery and I face the final judgment approaching evermore close, having lost interest in this world, God is my witness: I deny all allegations of sexual abuse made against me, including this last one."
    Apuron said the allegations of sexual abuse are helping him direct his hope toward the "only righteous judge" and expressed sadness by the timing of the latest accusation that he said "alleges an act which supposedly happened in incredible circumstances and surroundings."
    The former head of the island's Catholic Church contends the allegations of sexual abuse against him have been "mentored and promoted by the same source," but the statement does not specify if that source is Attorney David Lujan, who represents the five clients who filed lawsuits against Apuron. 
    Roy Quintanilla, Roland Sondia, Walter Denton, the late Joseph "Sonny" Quinata, and Mark Apuron have alleged they were sexually abused by Anthony Apuron. 
    The statement by Archbishop Apuron said the most recent case, filed by his nephew who alleges he was raped by his uncle who was already archbishop at the Chancery, "seems particularly timed to influence the verdict of the Vatican trial conducted by the Holy See, as a last resort out of fear that I may be exonerated."
    Archbishop Apuron said the Catholic Church on Guam is being destroyed by people "who only have their power agenda at heart" and said he hopes God will have mercy and save the Church from the powers of darkness. 
    He concluded, "I pray that the truth may prevail; I pray for my accusers: fill them with what they desire; as for me, when I awake, I will be satisfied with Your face, oh Lord."
    Apuron was last seen in Fairfield, California last year, near San Francisco.  
It was Rohr who convinced people that there was no canonical trial and that the Archbishop ran away.  Therefore, it would not be surprising to find if Rohr had something to do with convincing Archbishop Byrnes to exile his brother bishop by declaring his return a disaster.  After all, Rohr already admitted to participating in a secret meeting.  How many secret meetings were held?   

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Children Gain Faith Through Epiphany Play

In the Neocatechumenal Way, faith is transmitted to the children by the parents in the morning prayer.  The youth also gained faith in the monthly youth scrutacio and through their participation in the Tripod.  Below is an article showing how the children also gained faith through a simulation of the Epiphany.  You can find the article here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KOTA KINABALU: It is good to see Catholic traditions being maintained.

A group of young children from the Neocatechumenal Communities at Sacred Heart Cathedral (SHC) in Kota Kinabalu did precisely that on Epiphany Sunday, 7 Jan 2018.

Over 30 of them courageously stepped forward to become actors and singers for a 40-minute play staged with all necessary supporting props and impressive graphic backdrops at the main hall of the SHC parish centre.

A new born boy was found to take up the role of baby Jesus, a teenage couple played the central figures of Mary and Joseph; another girl as Mary’s cousin Elizabeth, and many boys and girls volunteered to act as angels and shepherd boys.

Their play was presented in five separate but well-integrated scenes with appropriate narration and backdrop icons to depict each segment – The Annunciation, Birth of Jesus, Visitation, Angels & Shepherds, Three Wise Men.

Grown-up children and some parents supported these young actors by taking up such roles as King Herod, the Three Wise Men, narrators, in stage design, management and production.

Great efforts were made all round to prepare the necessary stage props, including doors of inns where Mary and Joseph were told there was no room for baby Jesus to be born.

The children spent many sessions in practising their respective roles and in presenting all the songs for the play.

Suitable costumes and attires for all were designed and acquired for use for the occasion, adding to the outstanding display of talents by the players.

At the end of the show, Father Paul Lo, assistant Rector at SHC, told the children he was very impressed by their show of talents and presented to them special gifts on behalf of the parents.

Prior to the start of the show, Fr Lo had a brief dialogue with the young children thus helping them to know and understand the true meaning of the Feast of Epiphany and the manifestation of the light that comes with Jesus for all nations.

The Epiphany play has been consistently staged by communities of the Neocatechumenal Way in various parishes of the Archdiocese of Kota Kinabalu as one of the means to pass our Catholic faith to young children.

By taking an active part in such a play over a number of years, the children of the communities are given opportunities to gain knowledge and faith in the birth and mission of Jesus Christ in a personal and intimate way.

Image result for Epiphany

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Setting The Record Straight

Bob Klitzkie and the jungle had always claimed that Archbishop Apuron gave away the seminary to the NCW or RMS.  They believed that the Yona property did not belong to the Archdiocese of Agana.  Because they believed that the seminary is not under the Archdiocese, CCOG drafted a quitclaim deed to be signed by the RMS Board of Directors and Guarantors in order for the seminary to be transferred to the Archdiocese of Agana.  PNC news recorded Tim Rohr (the bold is mine):
The Concerned Catholics of Guam organization is challenging Archbishop Anthony Apuron to sign over ownership of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary back to the Archdiocese of Agana. But local Catholic observer Tim Rohr suspects the Archbishop will not be able to, not because he doesn’t want to but because, as Rohr explains, he doesn’t have the power to.
“Well the question is if he’s really in control of both then why deed it over in the first place. Well we know why he did that. He did that because he was told to do that. So basically the CCOG is calling his bluff and simply saying, ‘Well, okay, if you really are in control of both corporations then what reason would you have to deed it in the first place?'” says Rohr. 
In fact, Rohr believes the Archbishop will not only refuse to sign a quitclaim deed, he won’t be able to. He says this is because, based on the way the documents are written, “on paper the archbishop only controls 25 percent of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary,” he points out.
As you can see, Tim Rohr believed that Archbishop Apuron would not be able to sign a quitclaim deed because he thinks that the Archbishop only controls 25 percent of the seminary.  The NCW, on the other hand, have always said that the seminary is under the Archdiocese of Agana and only the Archbishop of Agana or his successor have full control and authority to rescind the deed restriction. In other words, the Archbishop (or his successor) has 100 percent control of the seminary. 

In the jungle, Bob Klitzkie is now asking what Archbishop Apuron knew when he drafted the Declaration of Deed Restriction.  Mr. Klitzkie is implying that Archbishop Apuron drafted the deed restriction to "shield" the property from being sold should the sexual abuse scandal be exposed. Shield the property in case of a sex abuse scandal????  

In the first place, it was Mr. Klitzkie, Tim Rohr, and the rest of the Junglewatch Nation who believed that Archbishop Apuron gave away the seminary BECAUSE he was told to give it away.  The only reason they are coming up with this implication of "foreshadow" and "shielding" is simply because they still cannot explain how the seminary was transferred back to the Archdiocese of Agana WITHOUT the signatures of anyone from RMS or the NCW.  Remember, Rohr said that the Archbishop only controls 25% of the seminary.  The NCW was the one who kept saying that the Archbishop controls 100% of the seminary.  So, now they have a new story to tell regarding the deed restriction.  Instead of saying that the Archbishop gave away the seminary through the deed restriction, they are now saying the deed restriction was drafted to protect the seminary from being sold in case of a sex abuse lawsuit.    


The NCW, on the other hand, have never changed its story. At the time that the deed restriction was drafted, it was to protect the property from being sold.  Archbishop Apuron made it clear that he was aware that certain people wanted to sell the property to pay off the debts of the archdiocese.   


According to Vatican Insider (the bold is mine):
Following the unsuccessful audit, Apuron summoned the six members of the Archdiocesan Finance Council, asking them for an explanation and solutions. Benavente—regarded as a “godson” of lawyer David Lujan—submitted a proposal to sell the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and use the proceeds to cover the financial holes and thus avoid public scandal. “Over my dead body,” Apuron replied, dismissing the plan from further consideration. Despite the decision of the archdiocese’s head, members of the council attempted to pass the plan. In response, Apuron dismissed the Council already out of term, ousting members such as Richard Untalan—whose presence on the council was expressly requested by Benavente—a lawyer disbarred in the late 1980s for “moral turpitude” after he was condemned by the Washington DC Court of Appeals for “criminal facilitation of a felony of second degree, theft by deception.” One of Apuron’s collaborators—present at the time of the events and a direct witness—reported that the archbishop, his vicar general and his chancellor received threats following this decision by Msgr. Benavente, who claimed to have important friendships within the FBI and powerful figures in the Vatican.  
Also, Archbishop Apuron has a letter written by Richard Untalan as it was mentioned in the news report.  According to the Mariana's Variety (The bold are mine): 
 The former finance council members had been sitting as council members for a combined 50-plus years, Untalan wrote.
Selling the property, then valued at $75 million, could eliminate the archdiocesan debt, Untalan wrote.

Cristobal said that the finance council at the time wanted to sell the property to cover the debt incurred by the Cathedral and the Catholic Cemeteries and said “to think to sell the property to cover a deficit is unthinkable and would be irresponsible for the archbishop to even harbor that idea.”

PNC news also recorded Archbishop Apuron: 
Apuron says he will not lift the deed restriction, saying, “Some people proposed to me the sale of the property as a way to solve some short-term financial issues.”
He says his response to that is “over my dead body, because it would be irresponsible for a father to forfeit the future of his children, that is to cash in on the property and destroy the possibility to form priests for the future.” 
Archbishop Apuron was well aware of people who were interested in selling the property.  The NCW had stated that the deed restriction was drafted to protect the property from being sold.  Our story have not changed.  The jungle have stated in the beginning that Archbishop Apuron gave away the property through the deed restriction.  Their story have changed because to this day, they have not been able to explain how the seminary was transferred back to the Archdiocese of Agana without any signatures from RMS or the NCW.  The documents all had Archbishop Byrnes' signature on it.  As we have been saying....only the Archbishop of Agana or his successor have full 100% (NOT 25% as Rohr stated) control and authority of RMS, that only the Archbishop of Agana or his successor can rescind the deed restriction, and that RMS has always been under the Archdiocese of Agana.  

In the past, the jungle have also claimed that the deed restriction was unnecessary because only the Archbishop has the authority to sell the seminary.  Well, we now know today that all it takes is for a group of people to get together in a secret meeting to plan some sort of conspiracy to remove the Archbishop as the Vatican Insider described. According to Tim Rohr: 

Fast forward to 2013. I was invited to a secret meeting. 
I was told no one was to know who was at the meeting. I was told that there never was a meeting. It was July, 2013. I was shown a letter from Apuron to Fr. Gofigan.  
Naturally, this entire controversy started with the removal of Father Paul and Monsignor James.  Nevertheless, what was the purpose of a secret meeting where one is told not to say who was present at the meeting?  Meetings are held in secret for only one purpose.....something immoral was being planned.  And now with the deed restriction rescinded, the people who had an interest in selling the property are mainly the same ones now in control of selling the property today.  

Thursday, January 11, 2018

The #MeToo Movement By TSW



 Before the #MeToo movement engulfed Hollywood and Washington with “Who’s Next?” a Catholic moral panic embraced its same flawed “credible” standard of [in] justice.
The USA Today “Money” section of October 27, 2017, carried this headline: “Weinstein Effect: Men Are Getting Outed, Fired – and It’s Spreading.” Since then, more than seventy high profile claims of sexual harassment or assault lodged against producer Harvey Weinstein triggered a wave that spread through Hollywood, then to Washington, DC and the corporate world.
In a front-page column in the November 2017 issue of Catalyst, the Journal of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Bill Donohue exposed “Weinstein’s Bigoted Legacy.”
That legacy includes the production of Catholic-bashing films such as “Priest” (1995) which slandered the priesthood and all priests.
In 1998, Weinstein brought us “The Butcher Boy” in which Irish actress, Sinead O’Connor played “a foul-mouthed Virgin Mary.” The examples go on and on right up to the present time, and the Catholic League exposed and challenged them all.
No one should be surprised that Hollywood, the news media, and other entertainment industries employ a double standard when it comes to sexual misconduct. Many in this industry have grasped at opportunities to disparage Catholicism by pointing to the scandal of priestly abuse.
For transparency, however, you should know that I have had more than one personal encounter with media duplicity. In a recent post – “Plea Deals or a Life Sentence in the Live Free or Die State” – I detailed the efforts of one defender of justice, former Los Angeles prosecutor Marcia Clark, to review my trial.

Ms. Clark used her media notoriety as lead prosecutor in the O.J. Simpson trial to try to leverage media support for an inquiry into what she became convinced was a case of wrongful conviction. For a former prosecutor to do this – especially one on the losing end of a very high profile trial – spoke volumes about her personal and professional integrity. But as that post describes, politics and politicians blocked it.  

KEVIN SPACEY

Others in the media have exploited the Catholic clergy scandal, seeing within it an endless source of anti-Catholic jokes, bias, and rhetoric. Now that Hollywood has an opportunity to apply some of the same standards of transparency and accountability that they demanded from Catholic institutions, only time will tell what happens next.
But so far, duplicity reigns. Over recent months, the wave of accusations has been given a Twitter hashtag – #MeToo – that quickly evolved into #HimToo. A list of outed celebrities, politicians, and CEOs has grown into the most asked question of the day: “Who’s next?” By year’s end, the blacklist of “The Accused” included dozens of the rich and famous in Hollywood, Washington, and corporate America. Many were forced to resign.

But some of the media coverage of #MeToo claims reveals a glaring double standard. By early November, for example, Oscar-winning actor Kevin Spacey was accused by a dozen men of sexual harassment, groping, or assault alleged to have spanned decades.
A former TV news anchor claimed that he assaulted her teenaged son in 2016. The son of actor Richard Dreyfuss also accused Spacey of assaulting him as a teen. Actor Anthony Rapp says that he was 14-years-old when Spacey sexually harassed him.
At least one jurisdiction has launched a criminal investigation of Kevin Spacey. This story has created a problem for the news media tasked with reporting it. No one in the media refers to Kevin Spacey as a “pedophile,” the witch-hunt-word so freely leveled at Catholic priests who faced identical accusations.
Just weeks ago, an op-ed writer in the local New Hampshire Concord Monitor wrote that we should all be wary of presuming that claims against politicians and celebrities are true. After all, “it isn’t like the pedophile priest scandal which, for all we know, is still ongoing.”

After the allegations against Spacey surfaced, he revealed publicly that he is “a gay man.” The left-leaning news media usually celebrates such announcements, but the Kevin Spacey story creates a paradox. The media has insisted that the last two decades of Catholic scandal – characterized primarily by claims of abuse of adolescent males – has been a problem of pedophilia, not homosexuality, even when the facts refute that.

WEINSTEIN AND SENATOR AL FRANKEN(STEIN)

The June 25, 2017 issue of Rolling Stone magazine carried an article by Mark Binelli entitled, “How Al Franken rediscovered his sense of humor in the U.S. Senate.” The Minnesota Democrat had become a celebrated icon of the far-left wing of Washington politics. In the article, Binelli wrote of Senator Franken’s recently published memoir, and his decision to attend the Presidential Inauguration of Donald Trump:
“Franken returned to the grim new reality of his day job. He attended Trump’s inauguration, which he describes in his admirably incautious new memoir, Al Franken, Giant of the Senate as ‘perhaps the most depressing moment I’ve had since entering politics, though that record has been repeatedly surpassed since January 20.’

I am certain that since then, Senator Franken has encountered some moments that have been far more depressing. Months after the Rolling Stone article went to print, a photograph surfaced from a few years prior to Franken’s senatorial election. The photo depicted him appearing to grope a woman on a plane while she slept. The same woman also accused him of other incidents including a sexual assault. Then the #MeToo floodgates opened.
Mr. Franken admitted to some accusations with a cautionary “I remember them differently.” He outright denied the truth of others. Nevertheless, he announced his decision to resign from the U.S. Senate after being pressured by other Democrats.
I doubt that Senator Al Franken stands for much that I agree with, but what just happened is troubling for democracy. He was elected by the people of Minnesota who now have no voice to assess the damage. Their votes were nullified by 30 politicians.
The agenda became clear when Mr. Franken used the moment to denounce President Donald Trump for alleged behaviors that long preceded his presidency, and that were known to voters before the election. Like many in this story, Al Franken declared Donald Trump to be unfit for the presidency while never even mentioning former president Bill Clinton whose sexual scandals took place not just before the White House, but in it.

#METOO CAN BE LUCRATIVE

On the day I write this, I am conscious of a sad anniversary. It was fifteen years ago that a New Hampshire priest, Father Richard Lower, took his own life during a winter’s walk on a deserted mountain path three days after Christmas in 2002. I wrote of that story in 2009, seven years after it happened. It was “The Dark Night of a Priestly Soul.
When the Catholic clergy sex abuse crisis reached its peak in New England and swept the country in 2002, Father Lower became one of many priests swept up in a wave of #MeToo claims. Three days after Christmas, he was summoned to the Chancery office and told of an allegation of misconduct claimed to have occurred 30 years earlier in 1972. He did not admit to the accusation.
Father Lower was accused only after many other priests had been accused – some 28 in all from this one diocese, and many of them were deceased. Since then, that number has risen into the 60s. The diocese was flooded with demands for settlements. A local newspaper described the outcome for accused and accusers: 
“[T]he diocese disclosed the names of all the [accused] priests… ‘None of these men will exercise any pastoral ministry in the Church ever again,’ said Rev. Edward J. Arsenault, delegate of the Bishop for Sexual Misconduct, in a news conference…
Manchester attorney Peter Hutchins, who represented 62 people, said no one will receive more than $500,000… At the request of Hutchins’ clients, the diocese will not disclose their names, the details of the abuse, or the amounts of individual settlements. During settlement negotiations, diocese officials did not press for details such as dates and allegations for every claim… ‘I’ve never seen anything like it,’ Hutchins said. (Mark Hayward, “NH Diocese Will Pay $5 Million to 62 Victims,” New Hampshire Union Leader, November 27, 2002)
One month after the above news report was published, Father Richard Lower was summoned to a Chancery office under siege by wave after wave of #MeToo claims. Bishops across the country had quickly embraced a protocol contrived by lawyers and insurance companies. Father Lower was instructed by Bishop’s Delegate, Rev. Edward Arsenault, to vacate his parish of twenty years by the end of the day. On the next day, December 28, 2002, Father Lower took his own life.
Please do not conclude from this that Father Lower was guilty as charged. He was never charged. The claim was deemed “credible,” meaning that there existed no proof that it didn’t happen. Beyond a lot of money changing hands, no facts were ever investigated. No guilt was ever established. Absent an admission by the accused priest, the absence of investigation and corroboration characterizes the vast majority of settled claims involving Catholic priests.
At the time I wrote “The Dark Night of a Priestly Soul,” one reader who responded by letter wrote that “it should be read by every priest and bishop in America.” Well, it wasn’t. Not even close. The post-Christmas winter can be depressing enough, but for those able to steel themselves against winter’s cold reality that post is a cautionary tale about the unseen tyranny of the #MeToo movement sweeping America.
That tyranny is nowhere more evident than in the aftermath of the priesthood’s own #MeToo nightmare. Late in 2004, two years after the death of Father Richard Lower, I was awaiting a medical appointment in this prison’s Health Services Center. The only empty seat in the crowded waiting room was next to another prisoner-priest who arrived here five years after I did. So I sat with him.
I only rarely saw this man, but on that day I noted that he seemed troubled and despondent. So I asked what was wrong. He told me that on the night before, he had received a letter from lawyers for our diocese informing him that two men had leveled additional accusations against him. They were two men whom, he said, he had never even met. 

Yet the claims they made were eerily similar to the claims that sent that priest to prison. This is not as eerie as it seems. Back in 2002, the activist organization, Bishop Accountability established a heavily traveled website for the unstated purpose of helping new accusers to frame their claims with details and dates drawn from other, already “settled” claims.
If the stories of the two new accusers sounded familiar to the priest, it’s because they were following a published script. Both men, by the way, were clients of the same attorney whose 2002 settlement is described above. He amassed multiple rounds of mediated settlements obtaining millions in contingency fees.
Just days after that priest told me he was accused by two accusers he had never met, I received a letter from the same attorney for my diocese. I, too, had been named in two new #MeToo claims by two men whose names I had never before even heard. But my #MeToo moment turned into #NeverAgain.
I sent the lawyer’s letter to The Wall Street Journal. This initiated a probe of this story in 2004 resulting in “A Priest’s Story [Part 1],” a set of April 2005 articles, the first of several by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Dorothy Rabinowitz. [see Part 2 and Followup] Her articles named most of the accusers who sought or obtained settlements with false accusations.
One lawyer – the one cited above – howled that his clients signed non-disclosure agreements with the diocese. But I was never a party to any such agreement. The newer accusers were among many brought forward by the same lawyer quoted in the news article above. According to a January 2017 article, he obtained 250 such settlements in claims against priests of this diocese, many following scripts that had been laid out on the Internet.
For an example of one of these overused scripts, see a brief but stunning article by Ryan MacDonald that demonstrates how my accusers and their lawyers “downloaded” a script from a November 1988 Geraldo Rivera show to frame their claims and monetary demands. Since then, the same script (it takes place in a YMCA hot tub!) has shown up in numerous claims against Catholic priests throughout the country.
The last word goes to Ryan MacDonald’s “A Touch of Déjà Vu.
Note from Father Gordon J. MacRae: Father Richard John Neuhaus left this world in God’s friendship on January 9, 2009, six months before These Stone Walls began. Here is his assessment of the U.S. Bishops’ Dallas Charter which was a response to the first #MeToo scare:
“Zero tolerance, one strike and you’re out, boot them out of ministry. Of course the victim activists are not satisfied and, sadly, may never be satisfied. The bishops have succeeded in scandalizing the faithful anew by adopting [in the Dallas Charter] a thoroughly unbiblical, untraditional, and un-Catholic approach to sin and grace… They ended up adopting a policy that was sans repentance, sans conversion, sans forbearance, sans prudential judgment, sans forgiveness, sans almost everything one might have hoped for from the bishops of the Church of Jesus Christ.” (Fr Richard John Neuhaus, Scandal Time.)

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

The New Accuser Of Archbishop Apuron

Cardinal Burke was here on February 2017, which was almost a year ago.  Today, we hear from a new accuser who happened to be a nephew of Archbishop Apuron.  His reason for coming out is because he thought he was alone.  However, the four accusers came out in May and June of 2016.  For two years he already knew that he was not alone in accusing Archbishop Apuron of sex abuse.  Why he did not come out at the time Cardinal Burke was here investigating the sexual allegations is beyond me.  However, many of the things he said are very familiar.  According to the Guam Daily Post:
"If you're scared of someone, you run from them. If you cower down from them it's because you did something. If you haven't done anything wrong, then stand your ground, you don't run away."
How many times have we heard this from the jungle?  I am even surprised he said this. Why question his uncle for not staying on island to face his accusers? News report have NEVER said that Archbishop Apuron ran away.  They have always reported that he was in a canonical trial in Rome.  The only one that has ever accused Archbishop Apuron of running away and hiding was the jungle. See the screenshot below: 



Even when he was located in California, KUAM never accused him of running away and hiding.  It was actually David Lujan (the lawyer whom Tim Rohr obtained for the alleged victims) who told KUAM:
"Well, let me ask you this...is it flight or hiding out, isn't that a sign of guilt? That's what I think you know," he said.
Now that Apuron has been located, Lujan suspects the people of Guam and Apuron's victims have been duped into believing there's a canonical trial ongoing in Rome. Lujan represents all 15 victims who have surfaced to date, many of whom have accused Apuron of child molestation decades ago.
"Because we found him in California, we do not believe there is any such thing as canonical trial going on in Rome," said Lujan. 

Well, today, we now know that there was a canonical trial.  Therefore, he was not running away and hiding out as David Lujan suspected.  Afterwards, David Lujan and Tim Rohr stopped saying there was no canonical trial. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that Mark Apuron made a similar remark about his uncle running away and hiding.  

However, the statement I found more interesting is when Mark Apuron stated that Archbishop Apuron was "untouchable."  Archbishop Apuron never said that no one can touch him.  There is only one person who have always stated that Archbishop Apuron is "untouchable".......Tim Rohr, and the evidence is found in his blog.  Before Mark Apuron came out, Tim was the only person who always said that Archbishop Apuron was untouchable.  The Guam Daily Post quoted Mark Apuron: 
"I believed he was the powerful, untouchable uncle."
– Mark Mafnas Apuron
On January 12, 2015 (two years before Mark Apuron came out), Tim Rohr made the following comments in his blog: 
Archbishop Apuron has always appeared to be untouchable, even by Rome. 
Below is a screenshot of that statement: 



Then in June 17, 2016, Tim Rohr wrote the following in his blog:
Apuron knew that his horrible past had to be known. But he counted on the same "no one will believe you" he used on those boys to keep adults quiet as well. So long as his evil acts remained only whispered, he could continue to prance and flutter about, pretending to be the pope of Guam, singing "No one can touch me, No one can touch me. Nah, nah nah, nah, nah, etc.!
Below is a screenshot of the above statement.  As you can see, it had always been Rohr who claimed that Archbishop Apuron was untouchable.  He was the first and only one who made that claim.  Such coincidence isn't it?



Mark Apuron claimed he was raped by Archbishop Apuron in 1990.  Well, DNA already existed at that time.  The evidence would be the semen sample obtained during his rape.  Instead, the Guam Daily Post reported (the bold is mine):
"He asked, 'What are you doing?'" Mark Apuron said. He said he froze, afraid of what trouble he was in, when his uncle allegedly pulled down his pants and pushed him onto the vanity. The teen thought he was going to get a whipping for smoking and drinking but instead, he said, his uncle raped him. He managed to shove the older relative off and get away, and stayed with his parents until they were ready to leave.
So, after he was allegedly raped by his uncle, he simply stayed with his parents until they were ready to leave.  After experiencing the trauma of rape, his parents did not notice anything different about him? 

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Propaganda From The Jungle

Alexander Chen wrote a comment in the Pacific Daily News.  According to Chen: 
1. Apuron was the Archbishop with absolute canonical power over his diocese. 
2. The advisory council's job is to offer advice, NOT to mandate or lead the diocese... that is the Archbishop's canonical job.
Then along comes Tim Rohr, saying that Alexander Chen is incorrect.  He cited a letter from the Apostolic Delegate to Archbishop Apuron to support his propaganda.  In that letter, Rohr underlined many things he wanted people to focus on.  Below is that same letter copied and pasted here.  This time, these are my highlighted parts that Tim did not want you to focus on.  
The establishment of a finance council, diocesan and parish, is required by the Code of Canon Law, according to Canons 492 and 537 respectively.  Canon 492 does not make reference to the vote of the finance council, however, the various canons which govern its functions distinguish occasions when it is to be heard, and hence has a consultative vote, and when it has to give its consent and hence has a deliberate vote.  Certain canons indicate that the diocesan bishop is to seek the advice of the finance council, which he is not legally bound to follow.  However, when the diocesan finance council is asked to give its consent, the diocesan bishop is to receive of an absolute majority of those present, and if he acts against this consent, he does so invalidly.  
Notice that I did not highlight as much as Rohr? What I highlighted above is what Rohr never underlined.  Why?  Because he did not want his readers to catch this phrase in the letter. He did not want his readers to know that the Diocesan bishop is not legally bound to follow the Finance Council. That is exactly what the letter of the Apostolic Delegate stated. 

The finance council is only an advisory board.  However, the Archbishop would need the approval of the Finance Council if he is going to sell a property. Canon law specifically says that a bishop must have the approval of the Finance Council, the approval of the College of Consultors, and the approval of the Holy See to alienate a property of the Archdiocese.  Archbishop Apuron did not need the approval of the Finance Council because he never gave away nor intended to give away the seminary as the jungle claimed.  Alexander Chen pointed out: 
The fact that the keys of the seminary and the possibility to sell it is in the hands of the Ordinary Archbishop contradicts any and all statements that hint that Apuron had a malicious-will in deeding the Yona seminary to the NCW, who never had total control of anything at any time, as drafted by Apuron.   
The jungle had always claimed that the seminary was given away and no longer owned by the Archdiocese; yet, not one of them have been able to explain how the seminary was transferred to the Archdiocese without any signature from the NCW or RMS.

The letter of the Apostolic Delegate mentioned Canon Law 537.  So, let us look at what Canon Law Made Easy had to say about Canon Law 537.  According to Canon Law Made Easy (the highlight and bold is mine):
The Code of Canon Law (537) mandates Parish Finance Councils in each parish. The role of the Parish Finance Council is to assist and advise the Pastor in overseeing and controlling the financial affairs of the parish, including any schools.  The Parish Finance Council is accountable to the pastor who has the responsibility for final decisions.  If the advice of the Parish Finance Council is unanimous on a given matter, the pastor will give serious consideration to the recommendation.

According to Canon Law 537, it is the the Pastor who makes the final decision.  This is also true with the Bishop who controls the Archdiocese, otherwise why did the Apostolic Delegate say in his letter, "Certain canons indicate that the diocesan bishop is to seek the advice of the finance council, which he is not legally bound to follow."  

Monday, January 8, 2018

Announcement To Commenters

Dear Junglefolks

Just because the Junglewatch blog is closed for comments does not mean that you can come here and make all your unfounded accusations against the Neocatechumenal Way.  I did not establish this blog for that. All your accusatory comments against the Way have been deleted. If you wish your accusations against the Way to be published, then please return to the Junglewatch blog and get it publish there.  All you need to do is provide Tim Rohr your real name, a photo of yourself, your email address, your phone number, and then wait for his call.

Dear Zoltan,

The comment you posted is a very good one, and I thank you for that.  However, to protect you, I have decided not to publish it because you made some personal comments in there about yourself that can even be used against you by Tim Rohr and the junglefolks. 

Nevertheless, I will say this to you.  Since you are not speaking about yourself but you speak because you feel that there are some members in your community whom you think have a deep Catholic faith for 30 or 40 years, then please allow them to speak for themselves.  Your community members are probably happier being where they are, taking each step in the Way slowly.    

I have heard that at a certain step in the Way, the community will be traveling to Jerusalem on a retreat.  That is what I heard.  My community is not in that step yet; nevertheless, I am not looking forward into taking that step.  Jerusalem has been a place of conflict between the Jews and Muslims for over 50 years.  Now that President Trump has announced that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, the conflict may increase.......who knows.      

Saturday, January 6, 2018

My Response To Zoltan

This is my response to Zoltan who made the following comment:  
Dear Diana, thank you very much for your concern. But I was not targeted because I write to your blog. Not at all. I was targeted because I stood up publicly and confronted the destructive intentions of a few in the newspapers.

What is more, I forgave Frenchie and and thing is between us, you have no business to make conclusions. Most of all, you should not construe this information as an excuse for giving safe haven to no-name, anonymous comments without any moral stature or depth.
Dear Zoltan, 

First of all, the main reason you were targeted was because you publicly defended the NCW.  Dr. Eusebio was also targeted for the same reason.  Deacon Tenorio, Monsignor David, Father Edivaldo, Father Pius, and Father Adrian were targeted because they publicly defended the Way or Archbishop Apuron. 

A person has every right to keep their name, phone number, and other personal information confidential especially in light of what the jungle is capable of doing.  For example, because you reveal your real name, this is the information that Tim Rohr published in his blog about you.  According to Tim Rohr:
In his reply to my comment on Zoltan's PDN letter bashing the CCOG and me, Zoltan said that "people deserved to know who you are." Well, Zoltan, perhaps people deserve to also know who you are. 

Before being hired by UOG in 2006, Zoltan spent 7 years teaching at Gallaudet University in Washington D.C. In addition to not being liked by most of his students (his teacher rating was only 2.6 out of a possible 5), it appears Zoltan had already developed his penchant for denigrating and belittling others. 


In the post below, while at Gallaudet, he mocks people with Aspergers Syndrome. He says that "they are completely unable to follow other people’s reasonings," and that "They also have and maintain and utter contempt toward anything different from their own."

Of course what Zoltan means - as we have seen here on Guam - is that "they are completely unable to follow HIS reasonings." And if anyone has and maintains "utter contempt toward anything different than (his) own, " it is Zoltan, who famously told three women who disagreed with him: I gave you a chance to grow beyond your unintelligible bullshit.” 

Zoltan, I happen to have a son with Aspergers Syndrome. 

Seriously Dr. Underwood, what sort of people to you permit to teach at our tax-payer funded University? 
As you can see, Zoltan, Tim Rohr went through a lot of trouble digging up information about you......and all because he knew your identity.  He found out that you taught at the Gallaudet University in Washington DC for 7 years.  He knew the year you were hired at the University of Guam, and he even knew your teacher rating score.  Rohr went through a lot of trouble looking through the Internet for any information about you.   

This is why many of us go anonymous.  We have a right to keep our name, address, phone numbers, and other personal information confidential.  We have every right to protect ourselves and our families especially in light of the fact that the jungle is even capable of getting the personal flight information of Archbishop Apuron and Mr. Gennarini. After they obtained the personal flight information of Mr. Gennarini, CCOG and LFM went to the airport to publicly harassed them.  It is you, Zoltan, who have no right to FORCE anyone to reveal themselves.  If anyone wishes to reveal their real name, then let it be his/her decision.