Friday, June 27, 2014

Revenge Vs. Justice


Revenge can masquerade as justice, but it often ends up perverting it.  The differences between revenge and justice enumerated below generally holds true; yet, they are generalizations, so the possibility exists that some of you may be able to think of some exceptions. Nevertheless, here are two quotes that distinguishes between the two: 

"Do not seek revenge and call it justice."  - Cassandra Clare

"It is essential that justice be done; it is equally vital that justice not be confused with revenge, for the two are wholly different." - Oscar Arias

These 5 differences was taken from an article I read in "Psychology Today."

1.  Revenge is predominantly emotional; justice primarily rational.  Revenge is mostly about "acting out" negative emotions.  As its worse, it expresses an overwhelming desire for bloodshed.  As perverse as it may seem, there is actual pleasure experienced in causing others to suffer for the hurt they have caused. 

Justice, on the other hand, is not about "getting even" or experiencing a spiteful joy in retaliation.  Instead, it is about righting a wrong that most members of society would agree is morally culpable.  And the unbiased unemotional moral rightness of such justice is based on cultural or community standards of fairness and equity.  Whereas revenge has a certain selfish quality to it.  As St. Paul John Paul II stated:  "Social justice cannot be attained by violence.  Violence kills what it intends to create."  In other words, a person who uses violence, theft, or anything illegal to obtain justice is really seeking revenge. 

2.  Revenge is personal; justice is impersonal, impartial, and both a social and legal phenomenon.  The driving impetus behind revenge is to get even, to carry out a private vendetta, or to achieve what is described as personal justice.  If successful, the person experiences personal gratification that their retaliatory goal has been accomplished....the other side vanquished or brought to his knees.  Just or not, the avenger feels justified. 

Social justice, on the other hand, is impersonal.  It revolves around moral correction in situations where certain ethical principles have been violated.  When justice is successfully meted out, the particular retribution benefits or protects both the individual and society, which can operate effectively when certain acceptable behavioral guidelines are followed.    

"Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

3.  Revenge is an act of vindictiveness; justice, of vindication.  The effort to avenge oneself or others can become corrupting, morally reducing the avenger's status to that of the perpetrator.  Two wrongs do not make a right and never can.  Degrading another only ends up further degrading oneself.  There is nothing admirable in retaliating against a wrong by committing a wrong that is the same.  In other words, degrading and belittling the other because the other also degraded and belittle you does not make you a better man.

Justice, on the other hand, is grounded in honor, fairness, and virtue.  It's purpose is not vindictive in which blood thirstiness has no part.  It is based on established law, and its proceedings are designed to dispense to individuals precisely what the individual deserved.....nothing more and nothing less. As James Mace (a famous historian) once stated: "Only remember this: to seek justice is a good and noble thing, to seek revenge out of hatred is something that will devour your very soul." 

4 Revenge is about cycles; justice about closure.  Revenge has a way of relentlessly repeating itself.  Revenge begets more revenge.  The cycle is continuous, and it gets no satisfaction.  There is no resolution and no compromise.  It is like Israel and Palestine with its own agenda amd its own sense of right and wrong.  Tit-for-Tat, and the cycle goes on.  In the case of Israel and the Palestinians who have been fighting for over 50 years.,one has to wonder if those fighting in the war even remember the real reason for the conflict that started it in the first place. 

Justice, by contrast, is designed to offer a resolution, which eventually leads to closure.  When justice is done, so is the conflict that led up to it.

5.  Revenge is about retaliation; justice is about restoring balance.  The motive of revenge has mostly to do with expressing rage, anger, hatred, or spite.  It's a protest or payback, and its intent is to harm. 

Justice, on the other hand, is concerned with dispassionately restoring balance through bringing about equality or equity.  It centers on proportion as it equates to fairness and is not driven by emotion, but seeks to be as objective and evenhanded as possible.

“Someone wrongs us, we rarely (if ever) want to do the same thing back. Why? Because we want to do something more harmful. Likewise, when someone insults us, our instinct is to search for words that will be more insulting. Revenge always escalates.” - Rob Bell

72 comments:

  1. Diana nice write up and reminder. I ask Tim about the audio he reveals. I remember he said the next day after the show the audio disappear. The question is why is he looking for it the following day after the show? Secondly, why does he have it on his blog. Is not a mystery, he was planting to black-mail the Archbishop in the future. Tim Rohr in the mid 1990's did not like the Way from the Get Go. He was plotting it along with a priest who dislike the way. This is Jealousy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:42 a.m.,

      Tim Rohr wrote on my blogsite in March when he invited to meet with him. From his comment, I see a lot of emotion in it. From his comment, I also see that it has more to do with the Archbishop than it does about the Way.

      http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2014/03/controversy-and-reconciliation_11.html#comment-form

      As for the priest, he is supposed to be obedient to the Archbishop. He took a vow of obedience. This means that if the Bishop tells the priest to open his parish for the Way, the priest should obey the Bishop.

      Delete
    2. Good point Diana. Exactly. Great insider view.

      Delete
    3. Anon @ 8:42AM, I don't think the audio "disappeared" right away. That came later. The audio was not replayed as it was supposed to be. An older episode was played and people were calling KOLG asking where the episode was. Tim Rohr was not "looking for it" the day after the show. Besides, if, as your folks claim, the Archbishop did nothing wrong, why should he be worried about Tim "PLANTING" (your word) to black-mail him? Only people with things to hide worry about being blackmailed.

      BTW: Diana, I thought the "obedience" issue about Fr. Paul had nothing to do with opening his parish for the Way but because he supposedly did not fire an employee as directed? (He actually did, but that's another matter) Did you just reveal the REAL reason for Fr. Paul's removal from Sta. Barbara? Thanks for that Insider's View!!!

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 1:13 p.m.,

      The case has already been taken to Rome, so I would let Rome be the one to take care of it.

      Delete
    5. Diana, some people have reasons for even maybe feeling revengeful. Believe me. Some people really, really do. It is a feeling. No one has acted on it. Take it easy, You don't have to office to preach, so quit preaching. It does not become you.

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous at 7:50 p.m.,

      One does not need to be a priest to preach that revenge is wrong. Even parents can teach this to their children. The feelings of vengeance is a terrible feeling, and the only cure is forgiveness. As parents, we teach our kids to forgive rather than to get even. As parents, it is our responsibility to raise our children as good Christians.

      Delete
  2. The pastors have a right to present their reasons for resisting; and to be well heard. Dialogue is part of obedience. the obedience comes at the end of the dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:52 a.m.,

      When the Archbishop expressed his disagreement over Arinze's letter, you call it" disobedience". Now, you are saying that pastors have a right to present their reasons for RESISTING??? And you do not call that "disobedience." This is a double standard.

      If the Bishop tells a priest to open his parish for the Way, I would expect the priest to open his parish to the Way due to his vow of obedience. The REAL problem we have in Guam is that you want to strip the Archbishop of his authority and give that authority to the priests so they do not have to obey the Archbishop.

      Delete
    2. I would expect a conversation and after I have represented the posititon of my parishioners and the Ordinary insisted; then I would obey. This is not martial law. It is the Post Vatican II Church. YES, SIR! We are not INTO blind obedience now and the NEO should not be either. What IS this?

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 7:45 p.m.,

      Where did you get the idea that the Catholic Church is a democracy? God never established a democracy in His Church. Even the Pope is not elected by the people.

      Delete
    4. Who said anything about democracy?? Doesn't the pope have conversations? Does he issue orders left and right? Did the motley crew of Apostles give Jesus a snappy salute, click their heels and march....noooo.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 1:46 a.m.,

      When God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, he did not question God. He did not even have a conversation with God about it (See Genesis 22). When the Angel Gabriel told Mary that she will be with child, Mary's response was "Let thy will be done." (See Luke 1:26-38). These are examples we need to follow because these people had faith.

      If a person has faith, they would follow the command because they understood that God is the one who leads them. However because of our little faith, a priest can voice his disagreement all he wants, but in the end he should and must obey the Archbishop's command because he took a vow of obedience to the Archbishop.

      Delete
  3. Catholics UnitedJune 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM

    Diana,

    That's the crux of the problem here. According to NCW statutes, is supposed to be AT THE service of the Bishop. However the Archbishop is at the service of the NCW. The Archbishop imposes on the pastor, "you must have this program." Of course the Parish priest must agree out of obedience, yes?

    However this program in particular has a cloud over it. Tell me i'm wrong and i'm just a detractor of the NCW. But it's true, you cannot hide the public opinion of the NCW. It has doctrinal errors, it's secretive, steps to understanding(very masonic), and there's an unaccounted for revenue stream.

    Should a Pastor in good faithful conscience just for go all of those concerns and say yes to the Archbishop in this particular example? The Archbishop has a responsibility of being impartial to all those concerns in his diocese.

    It is also very obvious that the Archbishop is ordaining men who are not ready to be priests. It's painful to listen to a homily in most parishes the new RMS priests are in. And it's very obvious why he is doing this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Catholics United,

      It is NOT your place to determine whether the NCW has doctrinal errors or not because you are not the expert in Theology. That role belongs to Rome. It is also NOT your place to determine whether a seminarian is ready for the priesthood or not. Your place as a Catholic is to be obedient to your Church leader. You are mistaken to think that the Archbishop is at the service of the NCW. The NCW has always been obedient to the Archbishop. Do you not see that the NCW defends the Archbishop and that the RMS priests are obedient to him?? The ones who oppose him and disobedient is the jungle.

      When the Archbishop tells a parish priest to open his parish to the NCW, the role of the parish priest is to obey the Archbishop. There is no such thing as the Archbishop imposing on the parish priest because the Archbishop has authority over the parish priest.

      Delete
    2. Dear United, your arguments are circumstantial, so far away from reality that one has to ask what is exactly your point, please?! The Way is rooted in our own reality as sinners on this aarth. We come together to walk with the Lord, to celebrate Him in his words and in his deeds. The same joyful Spirit leads us around the world in all Neocatechumenal communities. We are not bound to Guam or to any particular circumstances. You are so misguided when you link the Way to the Archbishop. We have a faith life in the Way that is so beautiful and rich that you should experience it before you say anything...

      The Pharisees and the Jews followed Jesus in order to question him and trap him, so that they may accuse him and make him convicted at the high priest. This is what we read in John's Gospel. Why did they do this? Well, because they could not understand his teaching. They could not grasp his reality, where He came from and who He was. Be careful not to fall into the same mistake.

      Delete
    3. Oh, its quite certain that the NCW is doctrinally suspect. That is why so many corrections were made to the catechetical texts - the same texts that are not used by the catechists! In any case, many excellent theologians have detailed carefully the errors in the NCW. Of course, the structure and nature of the NCW, its alternative hierarchy and cult of personality make it very difficult for the average NCW member to even know they are being led astray. Even more so the priests, seminarians, and mission families who have invested everything they have in the NCW. There is absolutely no way these people could extract themselves from the NCW, even if they could suddenly see clearly and realize just what is being taught. I feel very sorry for them - mostly very good, humble people.

      The fact remains that the NCW teaches a different faith than the faith of our fathers; the faith handed down to us. This is why the NCW is always carrying on about the "early Church", and why they speak about the "juridical" Church that allegedly emerged through Constantine. If you listen closely, the NCW actually claims to be a different Church.

      I feel sorry for you too Diana. I am led to believe that you are a priest or at least involve some input from a priest. This is very sad. Most of what you write here doesn't resemble the Catholic faith lived by the saints through the ages. One example, evident in the Archbishop's radio appearance, is the lack of understanding of the Catholic position that the sacrifice of the Mass is not identical with Holy Communion. Another, the equivalence given to the presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, the Scriptures, and the community. Yet another, the lack of any attention given to the reality of the "state of grace". The NCW treatment of these important issues reveal a deep theological divide with the Church of the Ages.

      The NCW like to remind us that if it is not of the Holy Spirit, it will perish. I agree. It will perish, but in the meantime it does enormous damage in its present form. Unless the average NCW member starts to show some of that fabled "courage", brothers, and insists on these errors being addressed, the NCW is destined to wither like the flowers of the field, and be burned away by fire. Alleluia.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 11:29 p.m.,

      You were led to believe that I was a priest by the jungle, so blame it on the jungle. Nowhere in my blogsite did I ever claim to be a priest. And for your information, many of the things I write are from the Catholic faith. Anyone can see that clearly. Do you know why? Because I cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church to support what I say. For example, when I say that a Catholic's responsibility is to obey their Church leaders, I cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1269 and the Canon Law of the Catholic Church # 212. One of the things that the jungle criticize me for is because I copy and paste. Well, I copy and paste the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Canon Law, the speech of the Pope, and other articles from Catholic websites. Therefore, you are incorrect when you say that we teach a different faith.

      Furthermore, the Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way, which was approved by the Vatican, states that in preparing the celebration of the word, we are to study the Scriptures with the mind and heart of the Church, read the writings of the Church Fathers, the documents of the Magisterium and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Chapter III Section 1 Article 11). Also, nowhere in my blogsite did I ever deny the sacrifice of the mass. You will only hear that from posters in the jungle and those who hate the Way. All the information you are getting are from the jungle and other anti-Way websites.

      Delete
    5. United - you have no grasp on how the seminarian ordination process. It takes the a decade before they get ordain also includes academics and parish work. Again many of them are deeply scrutinize and not just cast by a wand. The non-RMS priest were ordained less than eight years from Menlo Park CA Seminary. The money came from the Archdiocese and some of em walked out! Regards to secrecy of the way; again can you digest 20,000 pages Cathechisist? Again, it's impossible! Continue to speculate on the sideline cus is not going to do you any good unless you experience it. The seminarian, the community and mission family are sent and taught thru the providence of God. Hard to believe; it's true. I witness them die happy believe it or not.

      Delete
    6. Actually, I get my information first hand, from my own witness of the communities and from those fortunate enough to have escaped the NCW - not without great difficulty though. But I concur with much of the Junglewatch content, because it is the truth - I see it for myself. These are serious matters, and I do not intend to be told by anyone what to believe, but rather to find out the truth for myself. I urge you to do the same.

      By the way (no pun intended), in my previous post, I didn't claim that you deny the sacrifice of the Mass (although that is quite possibly the case), rather I said that the NCW make an identity between the sacrifice of the Mass and holy communion. This is the foundation of a great error and the basis for much of the variation in the liturgy that we see in the NCW. This is why you sit, why the priest sits, why you do not give adoration to the Sacrament, why you speak less of the sacrifice, why you constantly harp on about the "meal" aspect of the Eucharist. Why the Archbishop said that silly thing about whether Jesus was standing (which I believe is actually much more likely than not). The Eucharist was instituted on Holy Thursday at the Last Supper - but there is more than that, because the sacrifice was made at Calvary. Obviously Jesus could not conduct the first Mass from the cross, but as Fulton Sheen has said, the shadow of the cross falls back in history, and in this case, only the cross can make sense of the institution of the Mass. I wish you well in developing your understanding on this.

      Delete
    7. Dear Anonymous at 2:12 p.m.,

      The NCW does not deny the sacrifice of the Mass. We receive the Body of Christ standing, and then we sit. When everyone received the Body of Christ, then we consume it after the priest says "Behold, behold, the lamb of God.......etc."

      The NCW have always said that we celebrate Mass in small communities as the Early Christians did. And the Early Christians sat during their Eucharist. There are fresco paintings in the catacombs of Rome showing the first Christians celebrated their mass. It was sitting down, and I was inside the homes of people with altar being a dining table. That was how the Early Church conducted their mass. Of course, it is different today because the Church is also different. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the way the Early Christians celebrated mass was wrong. Who are you to say that you know more than the Early Church of the first century?

      The Catholic Church started out as a very small mustard seed. Today, that mustard seed has grown into a huge tree that no one can recognized that it was once that small mustard seed. Today, that huge tree no longer looks the same as that small mustard that it once was. But that huge tree did come from that small seed and was once that small seed. People do not recognize it as the same small mustard seed simply because it has grown into a huge tree. If the Catholic Church today still looked the same as that small mustard seed, it would be a dead seed.

      Delete
    8. Yeah yeah, mustard seed... etc. etc.

      "If the Catholic Church today still looked the same as that small mustard seed, it would be a dead seed. "

      Then why do you think it is better to go back to that "small mustard seed"?. You continue to argue that it is legitimate to imitate these early practises of Christians when the Church was a "small mustard seed". You do realise that these Christians celebrated a combined agape/eucharist? If you are so keen to do as they did, why does the NCW not also combine the Eucharist with the actual meal (agape)? Incidentally, it didn't last that long either. The agape fell away, because of the tendency for the "feast" to profane the "sacrifice".

      Delete
    9. Dear Anonymous at 12:07 p.m.,

      We go back to that small mustard seed to experience the growth of our baptism. And for your information, we do have agapes after the Eucharist during special occasions. The agape did not fell away because it profaned the sacrifice. Below is information on the agape feast.

      http://www.earlychurch.com/LoveFeast.html

      Delete
    10. And your point is? This article speaks about the "abuses". What do you think that means exactly? In any case the agape was separate from the Eucharist well before the time of Constantine.

      Also, if you wanted to celebrate the way the "early Church" did, according to this article, the agape should immediately precede the Eucharist.

      Delete
    11. Dear Anonymous at 3:48 p.m.,

      You were the one who brought up the agape, not me. You were the one who did not know that the NCW also have an agape.

      Delete
    12. "You were the one who did not know that the NCW also have an agape. "

      Really? How do you figure that? Of course I knew the NCW have the agape. I was clearly speaking about the "combined" agape/Eucharist.

      Delete
    13. Dear Anonymous at 4:29 p.m.,

      I figured that you were unaware that we have an agape because of this statement you made at 12:07 p.m.

      " If you are so keen to do as they did, why does the NCW not also combine the Eucharist with the actual meal (agape)?"

      I informed that we do have an agape after the Eucharist during special occasions. If you were aware that we have had agapes in the NCW, why did you ask?

      Delete
  4. Thanks to Diana, more and more folks realize the truth and the dishonesty of Jungle blog. There is already a serious crack in their support base that they try to cover up by arrogance. We see this here in the single minded approach of Catholics United. The crack at Jungle blog was caused by our exposure of their morally depraved tactics they employ shamelessly. Janet B tried to impersonate Deacon Harold and then jump on him as if Deacon Harold made those comments. Well, he did not! Janet B says denying that he made those comments would prove the opposite. But she is in obvious logical fallacy when she tries to cover up the traces of her misdeeds,

    Fake comments became so widespread and obvious at Jungle blog that its owner is trying now to distance himself from those who make them. The only thing he forgets is that it was he himself who allowed and established the system of faking things at Jungle blog. Other moral low points were his way of handling Cardinal Tagle's letter and manipulating illegally obtained documents. His latest fiasco is his publishing of a KOLG tape that shows evidence of a prearranged plot against the Archbishop in order to embarrass him in the public.

    So there is a serious reason over there at Jungle blog to change the topic erratically. Diana's blog exposes the faults of their approach and every move. They became desperate because of the split among their own ranks. Some sensible Catholic sisters and brothers have simply realized the moral dangers they are trapped into at Jungle blog and they want clarification. But Jungle blog will never ever clarify anything as the very reason of its existence is creating murkiness and moral relativism.

    "4 Those who have clean hands and pure hearts,
    who do not lift up their souls to what is false,
    and do not swear deceitfully.
    5 They will receive blessing from the Lord,
    and vindication from the God of their salvation."
    (Psalm 24)

    Bernie

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Diana, when the parishioners of the parish say NCW stay out, you stay out! We will run you out!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:33 p.m.,

      There is a hierarchy in the Catholic Church. The layperson is at the bottom of that hierarchy. Those who disobey the Archbishop has put themselves outside the Catholic Church. Oh ye of little faith. For over 2000 years the Catholic Church have stood, and now you feel that the Church will fall because of the NCW??

      Delete
    2. We are not outside the church, we just don't believe in what the NCW does. PERIOD!

      Delete
    3. Diana, does the Archbishop know you are announcing Catholics have taken themselves outside of the Church? Bet he would not like it. Risky business.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 1:24 a.m.,

      You are outside the Church when you refuse to obey and respect the Archbishop, and you refuse to accept and endorse what the Pope has already accepted as Catholic. To obey and respect the Bishop, and to support what the Pope supports is Catholic doctrine. Because you do not follow Catholic doctrine, you put yourself outside the Church....plain and simple.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 1:55 a.m.,

      What I announced is something I took from the Pope's speech about "Half-Hearted" Catholics. It was the Pope who said that these Catholics are really not Catholics because they have one foot in the door and the other foot outside the Catholic Church.

      Delete
    6. So we should obey an Archbishop who is outside the Church?

      Delete
    7. Dear Anonymous at 9:39 a.m.,

      Who says that the Archbishop is outside the Church? The Archbishop is within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. To what lengths are you willing to go to just to follow your own will rather than the will of God?

      Delete
    8. My guess is you're going to hell if you don't' stop you're heresy and repent.

      Delete
    9. Your comments put the Archbishop outside the Church, but I'm sure you will change what you say again to fit your agenda. You're like a leaf in the wind...no true direction, just where the wind blows.

      Delete
    10. Dear Anonymous at 7:36 a.m.,

      Which comment is that? Your comment is very vague. Could you be more specific?

      Delete
    11. Dear Anonymous at 7:33 a.m.,

      Which heresy is that??? Your comment is also very vague. Could you be more specific?

      Delete
  6. Diana this describe the jungle and the rest of AntiWay blog ; CCC1774 Emotions and feelings can be taken up in the virtues or perverted by the vices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:42 a.m.,

      The Catechism of the Catholic Church also has this to say about revenge and justice:

      CCC 2302 ..................Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice." If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."

      Delete
  7. Tim Rohr just does not listen. He is unstoppable on his road all way down to his fate. Yes, dear Diana, you are right, Tim is completely unable to resist his obsession with your identity. He would claim you are this or that person then he would address you as if you would be that person in real. But you are not…! It does not matter what you say, he just does not listen. Is this not crazy?

    He is not obsessed with your identity only he is also obsessed with the Archbishop. Maybe his compulsive-obsessive behavior has some serious reason in his past causing him to act weird... we cannot know for sure what this might be. Now, he is citing a Polish bishop who was defrocked because of sexual misconduct. His conclusion is that the Catholic faithful should NOT obey bishops, including the Archbishop, because all these high ranking church officials are potential sexual predators! I just can't believe he has the gut to put this insanity forward at his blog. Has he gone completely crazy?

    These charges against Catholic clergy is exactly the false view anti-Catholic liberal media tries to drum up and propagate. Tim Rohr seems to be their best ally in trying to inflict harm on the reputation of the Catholic Church by spreading unfounded allegations. What a shame! Whose interest does he follow here? Who tells him to do these ugly things to Guamanian Catholics? Why would not he listen to his sisters and brothers who honestly worry about his state of mind?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:44 a.m.,

      I am not surprise that Tim Rohr would twist everything I say. Obviously, Tim Rohr does not know the Catholic faith as some people thought. Catholic teaching does say that we are to obey and respect our Church leaders. But Catholic teaching also says that we are not to go against the moral order.....meaning that if a priest tells us to kill someone, we can disobey the priest. How convenient for Tim Rohr to leave this Catholic teaching out. Instead, he uses the sexual abuse of a priest to brainwash his followers into disobeying all Church leaders and into following him.

      He also misinterpret the intention of Vatican II. Vatican II empowered the people to participate more in Church, but that does not take away their status. In other words, the Head of the house is still the head of the house. Our status as the common priesthood already has a spiritual dignity. The problem with pre-Vatican II was that a vast majority of people did not participate in the Mass despite that they were there. While Mass was going on, people was praying their own devotion because they could not understand Latin. So, changes were made, and one of those changes was to conduct the mass in the vernacular. The other was to empower the faithful to get out of the pews and get more involve in their parish in the hopes to create more vocations and to evangelize.

      Delete
  8. Anon 7:44 AM this is very deep. Who's interest does he follow? Rev M.Crisostomo who is against the Way. Some employees in the Archdiocese. How in the world he got the letter from Cardinal Luis Tagle? There is a Judas in the chancery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear 8:31 AM, I see your point. It is very suspicious how much Tim Rohr wanted to make the impression he had received the Tagle letter from Manila... But this must be a lie! Cardinal Tagle would never ever associate himself with Junglewatch, an unknown monomaniac blog in Guam maintained by obsessed half-hearted "Catholics". You are almost certainly right! The leak must be local, those who stole the letter are from Guam and Tim Rohr's job is to cover up their traces.

      Delete
  9. Diana,

    if you're not a priest please say so. When you lie to me you lie to Jesus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:40 a.m.,

      I am NOT a priest. I have already said that many times. The only ones accusing me of being a priest is the jungle.

      Delete
    2. Ann 8:40AM this is a mockery not a.question to Diana. She already said she is not a PRIEST.

      Delete
  10. Is an obsession for him to remove the Archbishop, this is because of Gofigan. People can't just accept the Archbishop's job to take action. When Gofigan was ordained, he made an oath of obedience to Archbishop. He failed ; now Tim think he is being a HERO but no!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Catholics UnitedJune 29, 2014 at 9:12 AM

    Diana, Bernie, Zoltan, et al...please come back to the Catholic Church my brothers and sisters. We welcome you prodigal sons. Cast out this foreign agent which makes all things Spanish. Come back to Rome!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Catholics United,

      The fact that we support and respect the Archbishop and everything that the Pope endorses shows that we are in the Catholic Church.

      Delete
    2. Dear CU, we are expecting you to answer some very serious questions about the low morality of Jungle blog! Why do you guys try to defame the Archbishop? How dare you to associate him with a child molester Polish Archbishop? Are you completely insane their at Jungle blog?! Did you lose your moral sense altogether? Whatever sour childhood experience someone at Jungle blog had, it would not make it right to make vicious allegations about our Archbishop! Do you understand this, dear CU?! Or do you conform to the moral depravity of Jungle blog?

      Why do you call us to come "back" to Rome? You are so hilarious! The country where the Neocatechumenal Way is the strongest is Italy and the city of our highest influence is Rome! So please, open your mind to the Lord's grace and YOU come to Rome with us. :)

      "2 Those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right,
      and speak the truth from their heart;
      3 who do not slander with their tongue,
      and do no evil to their friends,
      nor take up a reproach against their neighbors;

      Those who do these things shall never be moved."
      (Psalm 15)

      Bernie

      Delete
    3. Well United, answer Bernie's question.

      Delete
  12. Diana,
    You forum has already been stolen. Tim continue to be obsess if your Father Adrian. I laugh when he continues to insist your a priest. He uses you to keep his blog from being dull.

    Mangilao Guy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Mangilao Guy,

      Obviously, they are still thinking I am a priest. One anonymous poster is wondering why I do not mention my family. I already stated in one of my posts that they have no business knowing where I live, where I work, what my real name is, or even how many children I have. That is none of their business. I made that statement on May 5, 2014 in this post below:

      http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/search?q=wanting+to+know+my+identity

      Delete
    2. Diana, don't worry about their obsession. They will continue guessing who you are, exactly because they are obsessed with this thought. If they were able to accept what you say, they would stop guessing and would stop being obsessed. Why is this completely impossible for them? Why is their obsession taking over their minds? Here is a good link to learn about this mental condition: http://cognitive-behavior-therapy.com/cognitive-behavior-therapy-for-obsessive-thinking-worry-rumination/

      I quote what I found here:
      "Obsessive thinking is an inability to gain control over recurrent, distressing thoughts, images. These thoughts and images are embedded in a complex network of feelings, sensations, and at times, behavioral rituals and routines. Brain imaging studies indicate that obsessive thinking is associated with a neurological dysfunction of unknown cause that forces thoughts into repetitive loops. Obsessive thinking is like a hamster wheel in your brain, with a parade of different animals entering and exiting over time." Hamster wheel?! Wow, what a vivid image! Now I understand their problem is deep and extremely serious...! I wish my prayer could heal them!

      Delete
  13. Catholics UnitedJune 29, 2014 at 2:45 PM

    Madrid is not Rome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Catholics United,

      We know that Madrid is not Rome. In fact, even Kiko knows it as well. Have you not notice the photos of Kiko and the Pope together in Rome?

      Delete
  14. It is the end of Jungle Watch. Its comment counters are not moving anymore. The blog got stuck and frozen. Nobody wants to make comments or be associated to Tim Rohr in any possible way. Tim, you got what you have worked for so hard. It is too late to pick on other topics or change the conversation away from your moral failures and faults. Your blog ended the same manner all other anti-Neocatechumenal sites end around the world: in total disinterest in your irrelevant rants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the calm before the storm actually. folks have no idea, this archdiocese will make headlines just like Japan and the Philippines.

      Delete
  15. ....."He also misinterpret the intention of Vatican II. Vatican II empowered the people to participate more in Church, but that does not take away their status. In other words, the Head of the house is still the head of the house. Our status as the common priesthood already has a spiritual dignity."

    I'll be writing the Nuncio tomorrow that there is a man of the cloth on Guam posing as a woman online erstwhile promoting the NCW, a movement, though sactioned by the Church, one however that is positively identified by an impartial survey of those ordained priests on Guam as the main driving factor of division in this Archdiocese affecting it's parishioners and ordained.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous t 8:54 p.m.

      As I said, it is only in the jungle where I am accused of being a priest. You can go ahead and write to the Nuncio. You are still not going to hear from them because the only thing you have is your accusation.

      Delete
  16. Why did you not respond to Tim's comment in March?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:41 a.m.,

      What makes you think I did not?? Tim was the one who first accused me of being a priest. I told him that I was not a priest. To this day, he still accuses me of being a priest. The only reason Tim Rohr has continued to accuse me of being a priest is because he wants me to prove I am not a priest by revealing my identity. He is obsessed with trying to figure out who I am.

      Delete
    2. That is still not a response to his comment on your blog.

      Delete
    3. Diana, is this blog entirely and solely your work? Or are there others that assist you and contribute to the posts and replies made here? I'm sure you will be honest in your reply. Thanks

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 2:43 p.m.,

      I responded to Tim's accusation on February 10, 2014 at 6:28 a.m. in HIS blogsite. This is what I stated on his blogsite, which can be found on the following weblink:




      DianaFebruary 10, 2014 at 6:28 AM

      Where did you receive this false information? I assure you, I am not a priest. I am a female, and as a female I cannot be ordained as a priest. I have been walking in the Way for 7 years and I am a Co-Responsible in the Way. I assure you, I am a female member in the Way.

      http://www.junglewatch.info/2014/02/so-diana-is-fr-diana.html

      Tim never asked me if I was a priest or not. He simply made an accusation. I responded in HIS blogsite when that first accusation was made. To this day, he continues to make the same accusation. Consequently, I never made any more comments to his blogsite.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 3:51 p.m.,

      This blogsite is my own. No one else contributes to the posts I make, and all replies are from me.

      Delete
    6. The question is " why did you not respond to his March invitation?". Obviously your February comment on his blog was before his March invitation.

      Delete
    7. Dear Anonymous at 8:21 p.m.,

      Oh, I see. You are asking why I chose not to meet Tim Rohr in person. I did respond. My response is found on His blogsite that he posted:

      http://www.junglewatch.info/2014/03/diana-says-no.html

      Delete
    8. Dear Anon 2:43, it is none of your business to harass Diana at her own blog! Diana is not required to answer any question from Tim Rohr and his morally depraved Jungle Watch.

      Delete