There will always be disputes within the Catholic Church. History shows that sometimes a council or synod is needed to resolve the disputes. Other times, one would simply turn to the priest or the Holy See to resolve the issue.
There are times when misunderstandings, arguments, and disputes arise between brothers inside the Catholic Church. We are all human, and we all make mistakes. We all sin, and our sin not only offends God, but negatively affects other people. Sometimes, a brother commits a sin against another brother. Those who walk in the Neocatechumenal Way understands this very well. There are times, a person has irked or angered us because of an injustice that was done on us. The Holy Bible tells us how to resolve these kinds of issues:
Matthew 18:15-17 "If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If they refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Simple arguments can be resolved if they follow what is written in the Holy Bible. "Taking it to the Church" means one is to take the problem to the priest or to the Vatican to have the issue resolved so that the brothers and sisters can be reconciled. Reconciliation is the goal. Taking your argument to the media only causes division within the Church and ridicule the other person. How can the media reconcile two parties?
Furthermore, the Holy Bible says that if the person refuses to listen even to the Church, one is to treat that person as you would a pagan or a tax collector. And how did Christ treat the pagans and tax collectors?? He treated them with love. Both Matthew and Zecchaeus were cheating tax collectors. Jesus chose Matthew as His Apostle and He chose to dine in Zacchaeus' home. Christ also showed kindness to the pagans and even forgave the pagan Roman soldiers who nailed Him to the cross.
We look to the Pope to teach us how to walk the right path. St. John Paul II once told the Christians in the Middle East not to side with Israel or with the Palestinians. As Christians, we are to work for peace and reconciliation between the two.
In the same way, unity and reconciliation has always been the goal of the Catholic Church. I pray for both the Archbishop and for Father Paul. I pray for reconciliation between the two Catholic brothers.
Tim Rohr and the JungeWatch people drag out this internal disagreement among Catholics to the public, because they don't have any concern about the well being of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church serves as our connection to God, our beautiful relation to everything about the Lord Jesus and a fiery, soul lifting media of the Holy Spirit. Without this the Catholic faithful would be robbed and abandoned to demise.
ReplyDeleteThat is why they aim to undermine church authority causing people to get confused about the institutions of the Lord. Then, as they hope, people losing direction may turn away from the decent teaching of the Church and turn towards those extremist views Tim Rohr and his foot soldiers at JungleWatch promote. This would be much joy and glory for them, but the price we all will have to pay for their lowliness will be horrible!
Resolution, reconciliation, peace are the only way to go, exactly as you say, dear Diana. But these are the very words also they hate the most. Perhaps all the more we should go for these things with resolute hearts and clean conscience.
....."Tim Rohr and the JungeWatch people drag out this internal disagreement among Catholics to the public"...
DeleteActually both parties, Fr. Paul and the Archbishop, took their disagreements out to the public on their own accord. Out their offices in their official capacitys. Tim Rohr didn't drag anything out. Please refer to readily obtainable FACTS, as the responsible during 2nd scrutiny will ask you.
If anything, Tim Rohr's site brings clarity as to what is going on with this matter in our Archdiocese.
Dear Peter Palomo,
DeleteIt was Father Paul whom I always saw on the media. He spoke with Patty Aryoyo and was even in the news. When the media tried to contact the Archbishop, he made himself unavailable.
Wrong Peter this is an internal thing but Gofigan filtered to Tim and the media. What you stated is not true. He did not know who turn to and exploit it to the media cause he got hurt. He was told to terminate a child molester but he refuse to listen. That is the bottom line.
DeleteThe person in question IS NOT a child molester. That you would post such inflammatory lies is indicative of your intent to malign Fr. Gofigan, Diana. Shame on you!
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:13 a.m. May 4th,
DeleteWhere in my post or comment did I accuse the person in question of being a child molester???? In my last comment posted at the very bottom, I said that the person in question was labeled a SEX OFFENDER. That is not a lie. Even Father Paul admitted that the person in question had committed a sexual offense 30 years ago and has repented. Shame on you for falsely accusing me of lying.
It's plainly obvious that 11:13 is referring to the comment above theirs that you allowed to be posted.
DeleteDear Anonymous on May 5th at 12:15 a.m.,
DeleteThen he/she should address Anonymous at 12:29 rather than me. I publish some comments in which the person called me a "liar" and I addressed it. Other posters also addressed other people's comments on this thread if they disagree with it. The fact that I already made a comment below stating that the person in question is labeled a sex offender is sufficient.
Dear Diana,
DeleteIn your reply to Peter Palomo on May 3 at 6:23PM you mentioned that when the media tried to contact the Archbishop, "he made himself unavailable."
Actually if you think back over the years, when has the Archbishop ever made himself "available" to the media? When Church matters were involved, it has usually been a Deacon to speak on his behalf, the late Deacon Barcinas and Deacon Martinez come to mind. In the political arena the Archbishop had Tim Rohr fighting his battles for him for many years.
The Archbishop’s action in making himself unavailable to the media is really nothing new. In the months since this controversy began, the Chancellor used to make himself available for comment. His final comment was to KUAM in January (http://www.kuam.com/global/story.asp?s=24452131) but since then he has been silent.
What is troubling to many is his refusal to meet with non-NCW members. I know of at least 2 people who have tried unsuccessfully for months to get an appointment to see him. Several people I know have written him letters but they have not been acknowledged.
Dear Cathy,
DeleteI agree with you. I am assuming that he probably finds it better to remain silent because whatever answers he makes will be twisted around
Dear Zoltan,
ReplyDeleteNo matter how much anyone has tried to undermine the Church, it cannot happen. Trust in Christ. He promised that He would always be with His Church and that the gates of Hell will not prevail over her. Christ will not break His promise. He never breaks His promise.
Dear Diana:
DeleteDon't just pray for the archbishop and Fr. Paul to reconcile. Do something. Push the archbishop. I have it on good authority that Fr. Paul has been praying for reconciliation, and has asked for reconciliation, but the archbishop is not backing off. Thank you.
Dear Anonymous,
DeleteDidn't the Archbishop apologize to Father Paul?
That is exactly correct Zoltan! No matter now much the NCW is trying to undermine the Church, it cannot happen. We trust in Christ that he will always be with his Church and the NCW will not prevail over her. This is the mission of Jungle Watch.....to be watchers of those trying to undermine the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:52 a.m.,
DeleteThe NCW is part of the Catholic Church so you do not even have to worry about a take-over. Besides, over the years, there have been many Catholics who stopped going to Church or who have joined other Christian churches. The goal of the NCW is to bring these Catholics back home to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, while Junglewatchers have done nothing for years in bringing them back home.
I know you asked us not to carry over Junglewatch stuff but heres a little interesting turn of events....After I commented on jw about the facebook junglewatch group which is not a closed group and was in fact profiled as an "open" group, I exposed the membership of a few of our very own ordained ministers more specifically Fr. Paul and Deacon Len Stohr and the Mayor of Sinajana and his Vice mayor. Suddenly the fb group is no longer available and seems to have been blocked. I wonder why Tim posted up only an edited version of my findings.
ReplyDeleteI am frustrated at how they constantly accuse the NCW of causing division within the church when I saw the division for myself at the past few ordinations. It was sad that when there were ordinations of those from the RMS the other local diocesans were nowhere to be found then when Fr. Richard was ordained they were there and I couldnt help but thank God that all our "neo" priests were present also. It seemed so sad but I gave them the benefit of doubt that they were unable to attend.
When it comes to the formation of these priests I truly see the difference. I see Good Priests and I see Holy Priests, the later is what I know we need. I honestly admire all our priests, many of whom I rely on for words of encouragement and spiritual growth but I have noticed something sad on the contrary too. The humility shines through in our RMS formed priests. When I speak of humility, I mean overall, in all aspects. I guess this is the fruit of RMS priests not placing themselves or even allowing others to place them on a pedestal.
Thanks for the post above. I actually encouraged that to Jungelwatch a long time ago but Tim refused.
Dear Anonymous,
DeleteIf Father Paul is a member of Junglewatch in Facebook, that is not a good sign. The fact that he went to the media has caused division in the Church. To be a member of Junglewatch's facebook is a clear indication that one is against the Archbishop and only deepens the division. If he is serious about reconciliation, he needs to withdraw his membership from Junglewatch.
I have no problems with Father Paul taking his case to the Vatican. That would be the proper thing to do because it follows what the Holy Bible says. Taking it to the media, on the other hand, becomes a problem. It caused division between the Catholic faithful. And becoming a member of Junglewatch's facebook only brings division between him and the Archbishop.
... "To be a member of Junglewatch's facebook is a clear indication that one is against the Archbishop and only deepens the division"..
Deletehow can you make this inference? Clearly Fr. Paul has a conflict with the Archbishop but to group
everyone who wears a Red Sox baseballcap a Boston Red Sox fan would be to make an incorrect assumption.
The page probably became closed because you are throwing the names around as if they are guilty of something. Shame on you! You have stalked Tim and now you are stalking associates of his? Do you not see the folly of your ways?
DeleteDear Peter Palomo,
DeleteWearing a Red Sox baseball cap is incomparable to adding one's name as membership to a club. One joins a club because they have and feel an affiliation to that club. In other words, wearing a Red Sox baseball cap has nothing to do with your name. But joining a club does because it involves putting your name in it as membership.
If Father Paul is serious about reconciliation, he would never have put his name on a club that is clearly opposed to the Archbishop.
Actually, the comparison still holds true. You can sign your name onto anything, it still doesn't effect an endorsement unless you specially sign on as an Endorser to effect a cause. It simply means you've entered by signing in. You've been there. You're in there. He has not entered into a public call or petition for action against the Archbishop.
DeleteAlso, In Fr. Paul's case, his grievances puts him in a light against the Archbishop's actions. His actions mind you as the Bishop, not the man himself.
I could start my next line by saying....."If the Bishop was serious about reconciliation he would have apologized and reinstated Fr. Paul."
Please let us not get into this. Clearly someone has been harmed and it would be in their interest of self preservation and worth to clear their good name.
You offer some views that are interesting. However in this forum where you have the possibility of altering the perception of these events and the perception/opinion of all affected parties, it does no credence to do it from using a pen name. If you want to speak about other people, you need to identify who you are. Or just stop it.
It is an editorial standard, before you can say or voice something, you need to be identified by the publisher. Since you are a self-publisher you may not hold to the same rule, but it is a universal truth to put your name behind what you publish. Unless this is all fiction and you are Samuel Clemens but his reasons for the using the pen name was different.
You should do well not to assume that Fr. Paul is the only clergy viewing Tim's page or the only clergy in agreement with what Tim has revealed.
DeleteHowever, to the anonymous person carelessly judging and naming innocent people plus calling out their alliance solely based on their viewing habits: better reign that in real quick! An examination of conscience will help point you in the better direction lest you find yourself deep in the sin of libel.
Dear Peter Palomo,
DeleteWhen I purchase or wear a dress, it doesn't have my name on it. Joining a club is placing your name on it.
Also, the Archbishop did apologize to Father Paul. You can see the weblink below:
http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41253:video-father-paul-say-archbishop-apologized-but-not-in-writing-so-he-will-move-forward-with-defamation-suit&catid=45:guam-news&Itemid=156
According to Father Paul, the Archbishop apologized to him, but it wasn't enough for Father Paul. After the Archbishop apologized to him, Father Paul went to the media saying that the apology is not good enough because he wants it in writing. One then wonders what does Father Paul need a written apology for?
In addition, Junglewatch's facebook is not simply attacking the Archbishop's actions. It is attacking the Archbishop himself because Tim Rohr called him a liar. Calling someone a liar is attacking the character of the person rather than the action or decision he made regarding Aaron Quituga's case. Therefore, Junglewatch is more of a "hate" group because it attacks the personal character and integrity of the Archbishop rather than his actions or decisions he makes as Archbishop. And this is the group that Father Paul associated himself with when he placed his name as a member.
The first time I posted in Junglewatch was to hold a dialogue with my brothers not walking in the Way. All that changed when suddenly they seemed more interested in trying to figure who I am. What I posted no longer mattered. Instead, I became the topic of discussion, accused as a priest and belittled. It became evident then that they were not interested in anything I had to say.
How can anyone sleep at night opposing the Archbishop. Can you imagine the hate that brew in their heart. Paul did not obey, he was told but continue.
ReplyDeleteTo assume that hate drives opposition says more about what brews in your heart. Many have opposed their erring bishops out of charity for their shepherd's souls. You might want to rethink what you are projecting here.
DeleteAnon 8:46 Wake up and smell the roses and see the infamous Tim White Tiger Rohr page? Picture and comments he had made that humiliate that are part of the way.
DeleteTo anonymous May3 at 4:54pm:
ReplyDeleteI am not throwing around names. These people placed themselves in that position. The keyword that matters on facebook is "join" you dont just become a member of a "group page" someone invites you, recommends you and then you are left with the choice. Its one thing to view the page but by "joining" it is obvious that you are supporting the views being shared. There was no need to join the group just to keep updated, it was an "open" group which "was" available to all, now it isnt and I wonder why. Whats there to hide? Whats the division for? Whats the secrecy?
I am not stalking anyone, by accusing me of "stalking" you are saying that even viewing this blog and other blogs like junglewatch, is considered stalking. I dont think so.
In fact when I saw that Fr. Paul and Len Stohr were members of that group, I thought the same thing, Shame on you!
Why do I say this? The fact remains that the NCW is a recognized charism of the Roman Catholic Church whether we agree or not. For this reason, pastors and those who hold positions of leadership within the church are not to be publicly biased on this issue. If a person approaches their pastor requesting that a recognized catholic group be formed within the Parish, it is the Pastoral Responsibility of the Priest to accept and support if the parish is able to. For mere reasons that the Priest does not like the group is not sufficient and is not a good reason to deny the formation of the group. For this reason it is not right for any Priest to be openly opposed to any group recognized by the church. It is like Fr. John Doe joining a group that is obviously anti Christian Mother or Anti Cursillo. This is why it was sad to see Fr. Paul as a member of the junglewatch facebook group. Lets be clear, there is a difference between tm Rohrs actual fb page and the junglewatch fb page, these are two different profiles.
I stood by Fr. Paul in the beginning of this ordeal because I believed that this was a personal/personnel issue between he and the Archbishop. My views changed when I began seeing Fr. Paul "like" and 'join" certain things on facebook, especially the anti-neo rhetoric.
I continue to pray for him and the Archbishop for reconciliation.
A priest desperate for affection and start to swim with the anti-Neo. This is morbid. Reason many left the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteWhat is so sad is that all this Apuron/Gogifan affair may have possibly have started out as a misunderstanding in the first place. The Archbishop told Father Paul to terminate an employee who was labeled a sex offender. Father Paul obeyed and did just that. He terminated the man as an employee. However, the man was still seen doing maintenance work around the Church. What was probably not known at the time was that he was doing it as a volunteer rather than as an employee. Therefore, it would appear that the man was still employed when actually he was terminated. This may have been the misunderstanding in the first place.
ReplyDeleteFrom there....everything just went downhill. When the Archbishop apologized to Father Paul, THAT was the time and opportunity for reconciliation....to work the problems out. One person already apologized, and the other should have forgiven him. From there, the problems should have been aired out and the two brothers reconciled. It would not even be needed to bring the case to the Vatican.
Unity and reconciliation is the goal of the Catholic Church. Part of reconciliation is to ask forgiveness to those whom one has wronged and to forgive those who wronged you.
Diana,
DeleteWhat would you do if someone in a position of authority and great influence dragged your name through the mud? Would a private, verbal apology suffice to fix the damage that was done to your reputation. Did the Archbishop reverse his actions taken prior to the apology. A private, verbal apology might have been accepted if the Archbishop reinstated Fr. G. Your logic is flawed.
Dear Anonymous at 5:45 p.m., ,
DeleteGod told us to forgive those who hurt us. He did not tell us to take vengeance. Revenge is not in the teachings of the Catholic Church. You feel for Father Paul and that is understandable. It is never easy to forgive those who hurt us. Many times, our first reaction is to seek revenge.
The Archbishop called a private meeting between himself and Father Paul because the person he hurt was Father Paul. The Bible does tell us to ask forgiveness to those whom we hurt. After that meeting, what did Father Paul do? Did he accept the Archbishop's apology and forgave him?. Apparently, he did not......because he went directly to the media and demanded a written apology? He told the media that because he did not receive that written apology, he intends to go forward with his case. What does Father Paul intend to do with the written apology if not to humiliate the Archbishop? Does he intend to humiliate the Archbishop the way he had been humiliated? And if so, how would that make him a better man or a better priest?
If you did something that was wrong and confessed to God asking for His forgiveness, do you think God is going to ask you for a WRITTEN apology??
The Archbishop probably would have reinstated him had he not gone directly to the media and made his demands, but instead communicated with him to obtain reconciliation. In Father Paul's situation, forgiveness takes time. It would certainly not come overnight, which is why we need to pray to God so He can help us forgive. God said that if you do not forgive, neither will you be forgiven. Reconciliation also takes time and patience. I still pray for the Archbishop and for Father Paul and that somehow God will bring them together to be reconciled.
My logic is aligned with Catholic teaching,
Diana, what you are publishing is hearsay and pure supposition. And to top it off you are doing so from the seat of an anonymous pen name. You've posited yourself as a second tier source of media and gossip, like the Enquirer, creating another spin on this incident.
DeleteWhat was the purpose of the essay/article anyway? Who does it glorify, Catholicism, the Lord? You?
This incident is a deep hole. Both parties are engaged in reconciling/resolving it through the proceedings of Canon Law of which they are held to.Forgiveness between will come later hopefully, yes.
Being in the NCW it is frowned upon to be party of a suit, unfortunately our Archbishop has.
Fr. Paul received his notices in writing from the Office of the Archbishop if an apology was forthcoming one would expect it in writing as well. A persons' signature has sincerity,and power, and is difficult to repudiate once it is conveyed on an article.
Diana,
DeleteWhere do you come up with this stuff? "My logic is aligned with Catholic teaching" and "The Archbishop probably would have reinstated him had he not gone directly to the media and made his demands, but instead communicated with him to obtain reconciliation." The first statement speaks for itself. The second, who are you to assume? Where you there? Was his apology sincere, insincere or condescending? Given the track record of the Archbishop, nothing is certain.
How can you be certain that revenge is his motivtion? You can only assume. You can also assume that he just wants to salvage his reputation.
The Catholic Church has allowed him to move forward with this case; logically this is aligned with Catholic teaching.
Suggestions:
1. Know the facts before you post, and stick to them, not what you assume.
2. Stop being so preachy; it comes across as self righteous and condescending.
3. "In Father Paul's situation, forgiveness takes time." You can only speak for yourself.
Dear Peter Palomo,
DeleteYou stated that what I published is heresy. Could you point out which statement in my post is heresy?
Is it the part where I said that "there has been disputes inside the Catholic Church and that history shows that?" Or is it the part where I quote the biblical verse Matthew 18:15-17? Or perhaps, the heresy is the part where I said that arguments can be resolved if we follow the Holy Bible? Or perhaps, the heresy is the part where I stated that unity and reconciliation is the goal of the Catholic Church?
If you are going to lay a charge of heresy on me, it would help if you identify exactly what that heresy is in my post.
Dear Anonymous at 9:45 p.m.
DeleteYou suggested that I look at the facts. These are the facts. According to Father Paul, the Archbishop apologized to him, and Father Paul admitted to the media that this verbal apology is not good enough for him. You can find Father Paul's statements in the media.
These are the facts. Father Paul chose to go directly to the media and make demands on the Archbishop. It was not the Church who allowed him to go to the media. That was Father Paul's choice. Today, he is now going forward with his case especially after receiving the letter from the Archbishop, removing him as Pastor of Santa Barbara Church.
I would also like to add that under this thread, it was brought to my attention that Father Paul joined Jungwatch's facebook. This was Father Paul's choice, and if reconciliation is his intention, joining Jungewatch's facebook is not the way to show it.
Delete"It was not the Church who allowed him to go to the media." Of course not! It was the Church that allowed him to proceed with his case withing the Church via Canon Law. Hugh!
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:14 p.m.,
DeleteWasn't this similar to what I said?? Was there something you did not understand in my last comment?
Mr. Palomo said hearsay and you read it as heresy. Can you see now why you have little credibility?
DeleteDear Anonymous on May 5 at 12:19 a.m.,
DeleteDo you even know what "credibility" means? I took it as "heresy" because Peter Palomo was referring to my POST which I wrote above using my pen name "Diana." He even asked about the purpose of my essay or article. I did not take it to mean "hearsay" because the information came from me rather than from another person, and whatever sources I cite is posted in either blue or red ink. Now, if I am mistaken, Peter Palomo can correct me in my error. I will accept the correction if my assumption was in error. I certainly would NOT call him a "liar."
Peter Palomo prefers that I post using my real name rather than a pen name like Samuel Clemens. My real name should not matter. After all, those in Junglewatch have already dismissed a priest with a Phd in Liturgy. Furthermore, those in Junglewatch once thought that I was a priest. And even then, they showed no respect even when they thought I was a priest.
Diana, in response to ur reply 11:07. The point is that you call Fr. G's decision to move forward with his case an act of revenge. How can you consider it reveng when the process is acceptable through cannon law. His case has been accepted and not dismissed.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:31 p.m.,
DeleteIt is not Father Paul's decision to move forward with his case to the Vatican that I see as an act of revenge. It is his going straight to the media. Father Paul can take his case to the Church as that is in accordance with what the Holy Bible says. Taking it to the media only causes division and belittles the other person whom one speaks about in the media.
.
AnonymousMay 5, 2014 at 6:31 PM
DeleteThe part you stated above to Diana : How can you consider it reveng when the process is acceptable through cannon law. His case has been accepted and not dismissed.
My question to you is HOW DO YOU KNOW? Did you get that feed from your one SOURCE Jungle WATCH???? Speculation I'm assuming. YOU ARE NOT A CANON LAWYER. DO NOT assume......
Blowing lot's of smoke.
Gino - Sinajana
Dear Peter, it became a standard on Tim Rohr's blog to spread gossip, hearsay and superstition. Tim's army of anonymous trolls sing the false songs all the time. You guys fight your own war with a church authority and make your unsubstantiated judgments all the time. Who are you to make judgement on everything and everyone who are not yourselves?! Who are you to assume authority for yourselves that you don't have?! Who are you to inflict damages on and trying to destroy our church?! Who do you think you are??
ReplyDeleteThis is a very anti-church and very anti-Catholic behavior that must stop. One way or the other.
Dear Zoltan,
DeleteHave you noticed that Peter Palomo has brought up my pen name more than once? He's not interested in anything that members of the Way have to say. He just wants to know who we are.
By any chance, has anyone in Junglewatch threatened your job? I simply ask this because you used your real name. I would like to know if anyone in Junglewatch has said anything regarding your job?
Yes, Diana, they did! They questioned and ridiculed my professional qualification and called on people not register to my courses. In legal terms this is called endangering my working conditions. Tim Rohr even claimed that I have to worry about my job. Well, this is him in action. He tries to erase the evidence, but I have everything captured.
Deletehttp://junglewatch2.blogspot.com/2014/04/more-fun-with-zoltan.html#comment-form
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/02/
DeleteHere is a link for responsible writing. Review it if you wish. By the way, i am in the Way. 2nd Community Tamuning. co-responsible.
I'm not interesting in knowing who you are, i am interested in keeping these good people both the Archbishop and Fr. Paul, out of the mire of gossip and hearsay.
If you want to write publicly, cite your source of information if you did not receive it first hand. Otherwise it is hearsay. You have facts, back it up and reference them. You may even do yourself a favor by citing your reference(s) to prevent someone serving you with a defamatory suit.
Even the most well wishing of whistleblowers have to face a jury...nothing is free of consequence. You cannot expect to be believed much less respected by anyone if you are anonymous.
Dear Peter Palomo,
DeleteIf you are not interested in knowing who I am, then why do you continue to complain about my pen name? Furthermore, I am not an "anonymous." I am known by my pen name - Diana. That is a reference.
In addition,my original post at the top never even said anything about the Archbishop and Father Paul. There is nothing hearsay about it because I never named these individuals in the first place. My post was about resolving simple disputs inside the Catholic Church, and I cited a biblical verse that would help people learn to resolve problems they have with their brothers in the Church. Therefore, you charge of hearsay is unfounded due to the fact that I never named the Archbishop or Father Paul in my original post.
The FIRST one who brought up the Archbishop and Father Paul's name was YOU!!! (See the evidence above). You brought it up on May 3, 2014 at 4:08 PM under this thread.
To Zoltan: Thank you for answering my question. I suspected as much.
Peter, it is preposterous! You threaten Diana with a lawsuit while you claim to be a co-responsible for the NCW. Wow... What a chutzpah!
ReplyDeleteDear Zoltan,
DeletePeter Palomo, the Co-Responsible of Second Community Tamuning was accusing me of hearsay because of my original post: Resolving Simple Disputes in the Catholic Church. I even asked him to identify where in my post does he considerate it a heresy? He corrected me and he actually meant "heresay." Nevertheless, I would like to know how my original post is heresay when I never mentioned the Archbishop or Father Paul.
He said that he was concern about the Archbishop's and Father Paul's name being dragged into hearsay, and he did not even noticed that the first person who dragged up their names was none other than himself
DianaMay 4, 2014 at 9:21 PM
Delete"Dear Anonymous at 5:45 p.m......"
this post is all hearsay, supposition, and assumption.
I'm actually helping you here but you're just not seeing it
To Diana,
ReplyDeleteFollowing from your article is YOUR first mention of the two:
"In the same way, unity and reconciliation has always been the goal of the Catholic Church. I pray for both the Archbishop and for Father Paul. I pray for reconciliation between the two Catholic brothers.."
This was not your opener for discussion? And if it wasn't then why have your article open for comments. Like i said earlier, to what purpose does this article serve?
To Zoltan,
Re-read my post or ask someone to interpret it for you. You can discern then between the conveyance of a threat and offering of advice. You are not picking up the correct nuances of the English Language.
Furthermore since English is not something you've likely mastered, you should probably knock it off with the exclamatory dramatics, just a suggestion that can be discarded or taken.
Diana,
You don't get it or you sideswipe. You write about other REAL people where the whole world can read behind anonymity, think on that. Is it proper, is it ethical? A man must be afforded to meet his accuser. By contrast, the commenter(s) are not held to the same standard, it is the author and the author alone who has to stand behind their work.
DeleteDear Peter Palomo,
Thank you for pointing that out in my post and thank your for making more clarifications. I concede to your point. My original post started out in the general direction and then ended in a more specific one.
Okay.....so it is not my original post that you are referring to, but my comment on May 4 at 9:21 p.m. And how is my comment heresay when I already provided you the weblink on May 3 at 10:27 a.m. and then later presented the facts to an anonymous poster on May 4 at 10:03 p.m?
Again, you ask about my identity. This is not a court room, Peter. I am not bringing the Archbishop or Father Paul to court. And I gave you the weblink where Father Paul went to the media, demanding for a written apology. Furthermore, this is a blogsite and the author of a blogsite does not need to use their real name. They can use a pen name, if they desire. Just look at the rest of the blogsites.
Peter, yes perhaps I don't even speak English after spending 20 something years on American territory. I still completely understood that you threatened Diana with a lawsuit unless she reveals her identity. But experiencing the incredible malice myself that is the defining feature of Tim Rohr's blog, I would not advice Diana to do so. I am greatly surprised that you take a common stand with Tim Rohr in this issue. Peace!
DeleteDear Zoltan,
DeleteApparently, Peter Palomo found something in my comment he feels is heresay. I misunderstood him when I thought he was referring to my original post and that he meant "heresy" rather than hearsay. He clarified what he meant in his last few comments. I do not see his comments as a threat. Rather, I see his comments more as a ploy in trying to get me to reveal my identity simply because he has mentioned my pen name about three times already. I just published a post to those like him regarding my pen name "Diana."
I Didn't threaten a suit, gave Diana advice, there is a NUANCE IN GRAMMAR that you miss Zoltan. However you did go and insult me that much is true. That much was simple to interpret.
ReplyDeleteFurther, my stand? my stand if you read the entirety is to ask for credibility through authorship. However the
author feels it is a ploy to get her/him to reveal their identity, it isn't but obviously both ends are served.
But yes, Diana is correct. This is just a blog and an anonymously authored one as well. Given as much, nothing in here should be taken seriously and given any credence as to it's contents or opinions.
Peter, I understand that the lawsuit you mentioned would not have come from you. But it is still a threat to talk about the possibility of a lawsuit brought about by anyone against this blog. Don't you agree? By the way, I did not insult you. But I am sorry if you feel that way.
DeleteDear Peter Palomo,
DeleteWhat did you think a blog site was in the first place? A blog site is an online journal in which the author expresses his/her opinions, experiences, and observations. If one wanted to do a scientific research, one NEVER goes to a blogsite. Tim Rohr's Junglewatch blog site is the same. Junglewatch is an online journal containing Tim Rohr's opinions, experiences, and observations. It does not matter who the author of the blog site is because blog sites are simply the author's opinions, experiences, and observations. There is a difference between an opinion and a fact.
What makes something a fact is when one cites an outside source. For example, when you stated that if the Archbishop wanted to be serious about reconciliation, he would apologize and reinstate Father Paul. I provided you the weblink showing the news report of Father Paul admitting that the Archbishop DID apologize to him, but felt it wasn't good enough and demanded a written apology. All you had to do was look up the weblink I provided you. That was the outside source.
To Anonymous whose comment I did not publish due to your comment being rude and uncalled for,
ReplyDeleteDictionary.com, defines "Blog" or blog site as.... "a website containing a writer's or group of writers' own experiences, observations, opinions, etc., and often having images and links to other websites."
How you came to your erroneous belief that a blog contains truth is beyond me. If you feel that this statement I just made is not credible, you can look up the definition in Dictionary.com. and determine the truth on your own. Peace be with you.
Diana,
ReplyDeleteSo what do you have to say about the way the Archbishop handled the situation with Fr. Paul? You blame Fr. Paul for demanding a letter of apology, but you say nothing about the way the Archbishop handled the case.
Dear Anonymous,
DeleteYou are correct, I don't say much about the way the Archbishop handled the case because I see very little from him that was reported from the media. The Archbishop stayed out of the media the vast majority of the time. The only statement that came directly from the Archdiocese of Agana to the media was a press release on July 22, 2013.
This press release spoke about an investigation that was conducted to determine whether Father Paul complied with the Archbishop's directive or not. This press release did not reveal the full investigation, but only a small part, and even that small part is very damaging to Father Paul. The fact that the person in question still had keys to Church facilities is something that Father Paul is going to have a difficult time explaining.
When a person is terminated from employment, that person is supposed to surrender his keys to the employer. Even if an employee resigns from his job, he still surrender his work keys to the employer. Other than this, I do not know what else is in that full investigative report because the Archbishop never went to the media. The way the Archbishop handled the situation with Father Paul is actually based on what is in that full investigative report, which was never made public.