Thursday, July 17, 2014

Follow What The Vatican Delegate Says

An anonymous poster commented on a thread under one of my "A  Couple Of Solutions" post found here.  According to the anonymous  poster,he stated: 
Pontifical Delegate stated not to pay any attention to Jungle Watch blog ( This is true, it came from the horses mouth) . He said is not Catholic Education info but a hate blog. He also said in Germany is far worst. We are all blessed we are not in El Salvador like what happen to Archbishop Oscar Romero. Thanks be to God.  

This anonymous poster heard it from Archbishop Krebs.  Therefore, brothers, I repeat once not engage with anything that is hostile to our Archbishop and to the Catholic Church.   The Pontifical Delegate has labeled Junglewatch a hate site.  I encourage you not to engage or participate in anything that is strongly opposed to the Catholic Church and to our Archbishop. Encourage and strengthen each other. And most importantly, pray for those who hate us, and trust that God will take care of the rest.   

Whoever leaked out information from a closed meeting is not after unity, but out to destroy or undermine any kind of reconciliation.  What other reason would this person have in leaking out information to a blog owner who obviously opposed the Archbishop?  Yes, the Archbishop ordered that the meeting be closed and nothing should leave the door, and the Pontifical Delegate AGREED with Archbishop Apuron.  By deliberately leaking out information, the person responsible have already made up his mind not to reconcile.  As Catholics, we should follow what the Vatican Delegate says.  He says not to pay attention to the jungle. Therefore, pray for those who hate us.   Only God can convert the hearts of men.    


  1. Diane, Tim has the minutes of the clergy meeting on his blog. And guess what! In the end, the Archbishop won! Krebs said that it's the Archbishop to decide! Hooray!!! That's the way it should be. The archbishop is the one who decides to have open discussions. The rest should follow.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:32 am,

      Did you read my post above? It says that the Vatican delegate has branded Junglewatch a hate blog and not to pay attention to it. It is so hateful that it even stole the minutes of the meeting and have it published so he can ridiculed the Archbishop. That is his only reason for publishing the minutes. Tim Rohr is already disappointed and most likely insanely mad that the Vatican delegate supports the Archbishop. His goal is not to show that Archbishop Krebs supports Archbishop Apuron, but to belittle Archbishop of Guam in the clergy minutes.

      By the way, to the anonymous poster who made the following statement about Archbishop Krebs saying that Junglewatch is a hate blog, would you please explain the circumstances on how you came to hear this. Some people made comments in this blog (which I have not published) that this statement from Krebs was leaked out, which I doubt. I do not think that the Vatican delegate would be discussing about Junglewatch during a meeting. Junglewatch is not worth being on an agenda of any meeting. That part is obvious.

    2. Yep, looks like someone from the clergy is leaking stuff to Tim. There's a rogue priest in the midst. Anyone reading the minutes can see there isn't any climate of fear. Your right Diana. Whoever that rogue priest is, he doesn't want reconciliation. He's out to humiliate and destroy the archbishop.

  2. Are you so afraid, Diana, that you won't post my comment?

    You quote someone who heard something from the "horse's mouth" ie Archbishop Krebs, allegedly at the meeting. But then you go on to say that "Whoever leaked out information from a closed meeting is not after unity, but out to destroy or undermine any kind of reconciliation" and "By deliberately leaking out information, the person responsible have already made up his mind not to reconcile"

    Are you saying this about the person who made the statement you quote? Your entire post is the very definition of hypocrisy.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:22 p.m.,

      The priest who leaked out the information from a closed meeting only to give it to Tim Rohr is not concern about reconciliation or unity, but out to destroy the Archbishop.

      As for Archbishop Krebs saying that Junglewatch was a hate blog, this was not said at the closed meeting. It was said during a conversation over lunch, so there was no leak. Anonymous at 5:40 p.m. finally confirmed it.

      As I said earlier, it is obvious that this could not come from that closed meeting. Junglewatch is a sewer site and is not worth to be put on any meeting agenda.

  3. This occur during a conversation at lunch.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 5:40 p.m.,

      Thank you for responding to my question. So, now we know that Archbishop said that Junglewatch is a hate blog, and this did not occur during any closed meeting, but in a conversation at lunch. Now, I can publish the comment that was made to me.

  4. I read this stuff over there at Jungle blog. Well, what can be said? This thing is the product of obvious compulsive behavior. Not healthy at all, but a sick state of mind that tries to destroy everything around,especially one's own family. I am talking about the illegal publishing of the minutes of the Guam clergy's meeting with Archbishop Krebs.

    Of course, this thing happened at Jungle blog again.This sick minded obsession with other people's business is so characteristic of the owner of Jungle blog. Hello, the meeting was with the clergy and not with Jungle blog zealots! Got it? So why would Jungle blog owner and the gang on his payroll dwell in these minutes?! These very sensitive issues were none of their business!

    The compulsive-obsessive comments, highlighted by red fonts, that the Jungle blog owner made are totally uncalled for. These comments tell a lot more about the mind of this person than anything else. He is justifying the neglect of his own family and his own kids by saying that it i serious business". But it is not! It is not even his business, so he does not need to interfere at all! Why does he do so?

    Well, I am not an expert on compulsive-obsessive behavior, but I know for sure that these people need professional help, before they make complete fools of themselves. The sooner the better. There is no other way to save their relation to reality, fist of all to their own family, spouses and kids, who are the number one victims of this obsession. We have a lot of praying to do for them.

    "4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
    Lest you also be like him.
    5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
    Lest he be wise in his own eyes.
    6 He who sends a message by the hand of a fool
    Cuts off his own feet and drinks violence.
    7 Like the legs of the lame that hang limp
    Is a proverb in the mouth of fools."
    (Proverbs 26)


  5. Diana,

    Evil protects evil, you Diana and all the others like you attempt to protect the evil acts of the Archbishop and the NCW leaders by his side. You attempt to hide the lies and deception behind a veil of obedience and duty, all for special interest of those you favor. May God have mercy on your soul.
    And if you claim otherwise, then why do you not address the valid concerns of the laity. Almost never have you acknowledged the facts or possibilities of wrong doing on the part of the Archbishop or your Kikos, instead you resort to personal attacks, demands for silence and obedience, and reference scripture and canon law taken out of context. I pray that God will touch your heart and mind.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:29 a.m.,

      The Archbishop and even the NCW leaders are not perfect. We are all sinners, so who are we to throw stones? What makes you think that the entire laity is on your side?

      You say that there is a climate of fear among the clergy. According to that transcript posted on Tim's blog, what climate of fear are you speaking about when there are priests speaking out against the Archbishop? First, they say there's a climate of fear....and then you hear them telling the Nuncio that they were being FORCED to walk in the Way? If there was really a climate of fear, they would not be able to say anything negative about the Archbishop, but they contradicted themselves.

      You say that the Archbishop lied about imposing the NCW on parish priests? What imposition? I read the letter that the Archbishop wrote to those three priests. The Archbishop gave them a choice to either open their parish to the NCW or have only one year on Guam. All they needed to do is choose. The Archbishop has a right to tell a priest to open his parish to the NCW. He is not breaking any laws by doing so. The Archbishop is the chief pastor and has every right to tell a priest to open the NCW in his parish. The priests who disobey and rebels is what caused the division. Disobedience caused the separation between God and Adam and Eve. That is a lesson every priest should have learned. And the disobedience of the priests to the Archbishop is what caused this division in the Church.

      The Archbishop is correct in not responding to Tim Rohr's questions. When Tim wanted answers whether our liturgy is approved by Rome, he was met with silence. Yet, recently, the Archbishop did come out and say that we are not in violation in any of our celebrations, and what was Tim's response? He called the Archbishop a liar? So, even when Tim got his answer, he still insulted the Archbishop by calling him a liar. So, it would not matter what the Archbishop does or say.

    2. Dear anon 6:29, this is very simple. You will never ever be able to prove that you love God and the Lord Jesus more than we do. Because we prove our love in our communities every day, with burning heart and prayer.

    3. Careful with that pride comes before a fall

  6. Tim Rohr is a "whistle-blower" now, because he plays dirty vengeance and which-hunt against Fr. Wadeson, who called them on to follow the request of the Nuncio. What a pitiable hypocrite Tim is...!

    1. Um, he is an accused abuser. Even in LA he is banned!

    2. Dear Anonymous at 7:40 a.m.,

      Tim Rohr is not the only one who is responsible. The priest who leaked out the information to Tim Rohr is also responsible for the events that took place afterwards. Because there is a rogue priest in the clergy, how can the clergy trust each other that their emails and letters will not be leaked out just as Father John's email was leaked to Tim Rohr? Father John expressed to his brother priests his disappointment that information in a closed door meeting was leaked out to Tim's blog, and then suddenly, his email is found in the hands of Tim Rohr and published on his blog without permission from Father John.

      Through the NCW, the Archbishop has learned humility in the face of adversity and persecution. However, he is also the Archbishop of Guam who can exercise authority.....authority that was given to him by God and His Church. And right now, it appears that disciplinary action is needed.

    3. Dear Anonymous at 8:53 a.m.,

      We do not live in China where a person is guilty until proven innocent in a court of law. Guam is part of the United States. How do you know that Father John was not told to look for a benevolent bishop to take him in after he was released from the Archdiocese of L.A.?

      Do you honestly think that what Tim is out for justice? Tim Rohr knew the information about Father John all along, but kept it to himself. He only used the information on his own time, when it best suited him. This is not justice, but revenge. According to Tim Rohr in his own words, which he printed in his blog:

      "And YOU Wadeson! And to think that just recently on this blog I stood up for you. To think that I have been filtering out comments on this blog for nearly a year about the mysterious circumstances surrounding your sudden incardination and about your name being on a certain list. And you are going to call us, and ME in particular, SATAN?"

      As anyone can see, Tim Rohr admitted that he knew this information for nearly a year, but he withheld it and only used it when it best suited him. Do you honestly think this is justice? This is revenge.

    4. Catholics UnitedJuly 19, 2014 at 1:08 PM

      "...Through the NCW, the Archbishop has learned humility in the face of adversity and persecution"


      It is only because of the NCW that the Archbishop been faced with adversity and persecution. When you subtract the NCW you will glean that the Archbishop has had a largely clean slate.

    5. Dear Catholics United,

      That makes no sense at all.

    6. Catholics UnitedJuly 19, 2014 at 2:10 PM

      NCW = One Troubled ABAA

      No NCW = Happy ABAA & Happy Archdiocese of Agana

      Or we could also solve for happiness this way:

      No ABAA = No NCW = Happy Archdiocese of Agana

    7. Dear Catholics United,

      This comment only goes to show that your REAL purpose is not unity or reconciliation with the NCW, but to destroy the NCW. I rest my case.

      Please change your name from Catholics United to Catholics Destroy NCW.

  7. What then of the Archbishop who knew all along? Why weren't the people of this Archdiocese made aware of his presence. In LA it is enough grounds to ban Fr. Wadeson.

    This needs to be addressed as Fr Wadeson is in a position of power.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:57 a.m.,

      If you had seen the website that Tim Rohr provided on Father John, this is what the website stated:

      "The Database of Publicly Accused Priests does not state or imply that individuals facing allegations are guilty of a crime or liable for civil claims. The reports contained in the database are merely allegations.The U.S. legal system presumes that a person accused of or charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty."

      Father John was never convicted of any crime. Those were allegations against him, but the people in the jungle have already convicted him. I do not know the reason why LA banned him. Who knows?? LA probably got pressured by SNAPP into banning all priests including priests who have not been convicted. Have you not noticed that SNAP also did not have any problem taking out a man in Dededo who already did his time more than 30 years ago?

    2. So Fr. John Wadeson would be a safe and prudent choice to celebrate the next upcoming first Holy Communion mass on Guam?

      Put your approval on it Diana. Tell us it would be ok.

  8. I don't care what Tim has to say or do with the matter! It doesn't change the facts about Fr Wadeson. I care what the Archbishop says and what he is doing to protect children from abusers - both accused and convicted.

    He has a duty to stand up and clear this up. What is the Archdiocese position on this? What is he doing to ensure children are safe?

    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:02 a.m.,

      This is a very hypocritical comment. Isn't Tim Rohr the one always saying that he's standing up for justice while the Archbishop is a liar and not to be trusted??? Yet, he managed to keep this information from you. The fact that he kept this information to himself for almost a year showed that he lied to you.

      Tim Rohr who rebuked the Archbishop for lying by withholding information is found to be doing exactly the same thing. What do you make of your leader Tim Rohr now? The guy who always say that he stands up for justice has now been found to be withholding information about Wadeson for nearly a year. Apparently, Tim Rohr had no problem endangering the lives of children during those time he withheld that information from you.

    2. Tim May have known but so did the person who incardinated Fr. Wadeson. So what is the Archbishop going to do?

    3. So are you saying that there was no need to verify the background of Fr. John? I hope I'm behind you in line when judgment day comes, cause I want to see your face when God sends you to Hell.

    4. Dear Anonymous at 1:24 p.m.,

      Christ told us not to judge because in the first place we are in no position to judge due to the fact that we are all sinners. You must be so perfect to judge me to Hell.

      You already know that Father John was not convicted of any crime. The only person who convicted him was you just as you already condemned me to Hell.

    5. In my comment God is judging's my bet that your going to Hell

    6. Dear Anonymous at 1:50 p.m.,

      The fact that you are willing to bet that I would be in Hell already shows what your desire for me is in your heart. What is in your heart is a judgment of me.

    7. I only bet on Hell as your destination based on your actions and words. It is not my desire, it doesn't matter to me if you go to hell or heaven, but there are consequences for your actions. Don't try to put emotion behind my comments because there is none. My comments only refer to your actions and your support of evil actions committed by others.

      There is nothing wrong with wanting to see what God would say to you on judgement day. And there is nothing wrong with an opinion that He would send you to Hell for siding with those who intentionally harm others. My opinion is based on my faith.

    8. Also Diana,

      Smart people don't bet on their desire, they bet on the most likely outcome.

    9. So Diana, would you let Fr. John watch your kids?

    10. Dear Anonymous at 5:20 and 5:21 p.m., since you are obviously the same person,

      A person can bet on a horse race or a dog race. They can bet on a car race and any other similar thing. But to bet on the SOUL of a person is plain vindictive and judgmental.

      The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that God desires no one to go to Hell and here you are thinking and betting that God would send me to Hell.

      CCC 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":

      Please EDUCATE yourself on the teachings of the Catholic Church so you can know God better.

    11. Dear Anonymous at 5:26 p.m.,

      Yes, I would allow Father John to watch my kids. After all, Tim Rohr kept that information about Father John for nearly a year.. Now, he finally released that information, and it has nothing to do with the endangerment of kids, but to get revenge.

    12. CCC 1037 irrelevant to my comment, your salvation is between you and God. I on the other hand am not judging your heart, just your actions, but actions usually reveal the heart. There is nothing wrong with believing in a certain consequence for specific actions.

      I also think it is sad that you would expose your kids to a possible predator based on Tim with holding information; that is truly sad. Tim did not make up Fr. John's past, he only reported it. So you think LA Arch is wrong then.

    13. Dear anon 1:24, what are you but one hell of an angry man?! You're all frustrated because the Nuncio did not hop as you whistled him... How bad for you! Now you mob out on Fr Wadeson because he dared to tell you a few things. Actually, he was all right. You know he is right and you are at the losers' end. So please try to cope with it!

      Your profile of excessive emotion and uncontrollable anger betrays who you are. We recognize you no matter how you try to disguise yourself. Never forget that! ;)

    14. Dear anon 5:20, you are one one mad thug belching out his malcontent!

    15. Dear Anonymous at 6:06 pm

      The Chuch teaches that those with unrepentant mortal sin will be in Hell. Again, please EDUCATE yourself in the tru teachings of the Catholic Church. You judged me as being unrepentant and condemn me to Hell.

  9. What is hypocritical? Tim is not the leader of the Catholic faithful here. Nor is he my leader! What he says or you say, whoever you are, has no bearing.

    Speaking of the man in Dededo, he is a convicted criminal and the whole fisaso was about the protection of children, so what is the Archdiocese's position - to ban all convicted sex offenders but accusations are ok?

    However the facts came out about Fr. Wadeson, they are out and now that it is known, what is the Archbishop to say or do? He has a duty to his flock here on Guam. The buck stops at him and him alone. The Archbishop is the pilot of this ship so HE should answer.

    I have young children and would like to know what the process is. I have called and called but to no avail. If someone accuses a priest, is he allowed to remain in his position? Is an investigation conducted? What is in place to assure no one is hurt? These are questions I have.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:56 p.m.,

      It does not matter whether Tim was the leader of the Catholic Church or not???? Have you forgotten what Tim Rohr stated in his blog??? Below is what he wrote:

      "You may call the Chancery Office at 562-0000 to obtain a copy or you may also contact Deacon Steve Martinez, who is the Sex Abuse Response Coordinator for the Archdiocese. His personal contact number is 486-9032. I urge you to contact him for assistance in your situation.

      If for some reason you do not want to pursue this course of action then you will need to work with me directly if you want your case known."

      Here, you have a man (Tim Rohr) who tells people to report directly to him if they do not want to call the Chancery or the Sex Abuse Response Coordinator for the Archdiocese. And this is the same man who lied to you by withholding this information for nearly a year. Therefore, if Tim Rohr (whom you trust more than the Archbishop) has no problem endangering children for nearly a year, by withholding that information, then why do have a problem with it?

      The same man who always say he stands for truth and justice lied to you. The same man who publicly stated to come directly to him for any clerical abuse case lied to you by withholding that information. And for your information, the law states that EVERYONE has a duty to report any child abuse. So, in regards to child abuse, the responsibility rests on everyone with knowledge of it.

      And now here you are concern over your children. Apparently, Tim Rohr was not concern for any child all during that time that he withheld that information. And why is that? Perhaps, because he knows that there is really nothing to be concern about. So, do you honestly think that Tim Rohr is now bringing up all this because of concern for the little children?????

    2. Diana - allow me to write something if I may. If the following folks here are against the Archbishop, would this define a minor set of Excommunication? Minor or Major, but unfortunately everyone here are anonymous including United.And here I go and my take below, since everyone in the other side is spew of vomit of hate. Mentioning also that they wish for Archbishop Apuron to resign, fall ill and die.

      Violation#1 Schism: The rejection of the authority and jurisdiction of the pope as head of the Church.
      Remind you; people of Guam who are baptized under the Catholic Church, you are under his spiritual authority and YES the Archbishop is the Pope of Guam. Local Priest and contract visiting Priest; you made an oath of obedience. Who ever leaked the information to infamous Tim Rohr is consider himself not respecting the Bishops authority and opt to destroy the Catholic Church.

      Obviously they refuse communion which they would equate to excommunicating yourself. Major penalty not to receive any holy sacraments and even refusal of Christian Burial.
      My message to you all who HATE the Archbishop Apuron and the Neocathecumenal Way and also former COMMUNITY BROTHERS who refuse to OBEY. A letter to Magnessians by St.Ignatius of Antioch, bishop and martyr
      The just man is his own accuser , Take care,then,to be firmly grounded in the teachings of the Lord and his apostles so that you may prosper in all your doings both in body and in soul., in faith and in love,in the Son and in the Father and in Spiri, in the beginning and in end, along with your most worthy bishop and his spiritual crown, your PRESBYTHERS and with the Deacons, Who are men of God, BE obedient to bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was in the Flesh to the Father, and the apostles to Christ and to the Father and to the Spirit . so that there may be UNITY in Flesh and in Spirit.


      Penalties for Excommunication;

      Suspension: The Church forbids a suspended cleric (priest, deacon, or bishop) to exercise his ordained ministry and to wear clerical garb. However, suspension doesn’t deprive the cleric of receiving the sacraments.

      Interdict: This is a temporary penalty that can be applied to one or more persons — or even a whole town or area. Under this punishment, the persons named can’t receive the sacraments, but they aren’t excommunicated, so they still can receive income from a diocese or parish, hold office, and so on. It is lifted when the person repents and seeks reconciliation.

    3. Dear Anonymous at 3:40 p.m.,

      The damage done is so great that it undermines the trust that every priest have for each other. How can reconciliation even begin when each priest looks at each other with mistrust and worry about whether every letter they write or word they speak would be recorded and published in the jungle? Because of the severity of the damage, it warrants some disciplinary action.

      In my opinion, Tim Rohr should receive the penalty of Interdict, and he should be removed as a member of the Equestrian Order of the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem. On November, 2013, Mr. Rohr was already warned by Edwin Cardinal O'Brien to cease all scandalous activities against the Archbishop. To this day, Mr. Rohr has not been in compliance and therefore should be removed from their membership. You do not need to excommunicate the rest of Tim's followers. Making an example of Tim Rohr should be enough to send a message to his followers to correct their gross and disobedient misbehavior. To correct Mr. Rohr's behavior, he should not be allowed to receive the sacraments. An interdict would be fine for him until he repents and reconciles with the Archbishop.

      An investigation should also be conducted to determine who the offending priest is who leaked the information of the closed meeting to Mr. Rohr. However, the priest who was responsible for this damage cannot be dealt with in the same way as Tim Rohr. His action is far more serious due to his status as a ministering priest and can even warrant an excommunication. Because the offending priest is subject under the authority of the Archbishop, I leave it to him to decide how he should correct him.

    4. Yeah um, who are you to call these out? Unlike Tim Rohr and some clergy who have put their name on the line, you don't. A man should face his accuser at least on this planet.

      Put your name behind your calls to action. Otherwise this is just more writing on the wall.

    5. Dear Catholics United,

      You do not even use your real name. And again, please change your name to "Catholics destroy NCW" because your purpose has nothing to do with unity but destruction.

      I find it amazing that suddenly people are concern about their children. The information has been on the Internet; yet, they only became aware of it when Tim Rohr spoke out in emotional vengeance.

    6. United your a hypocrit. Please do not receive communion if your going to mass. Respect the mass. You need to repent.

    7. United - Tim Rohr and Mike Crisostomo? Who else???? A lazy visiting Priest who hide himself in a room after mass who hide also that ride the penny of devote parishioner. That Priest is under our dime also. Did we persecute them? No.
      Manuel Ayuyu

  10. I think you won't post my comment about you having beef with Tim because you know I speak the truth. I am the one who reminded you about the use of copyright photos. The same who reminded you about posting or commenting when people have made up their minds. Though anonymous, you know which one I am

    It seems your anger towards Tim has clouded your reason. I never once mentioned Tim in any of my commentary, yet you fired Tim at me everytime? Is that because you disagreed with me? You even relegated me a follower of Tim when I am no such thing! All my comments on this post were directed at the Archbishop and his management of sex abuse accusations and convictions. Fr. Wadeson is not on trial here, but this Archdiocese will soon be without some type of policy in place. Are you blind to the gobal abuse cases that brought the Church to its knees? The Church still has not recovered from that and may never. What it comes down to is that the Church failed to protect the most helpless among us. I don't want to see that for my Church on Guam, but mostly, i dont want any child harmed by a predator. I honestly don't care how the information came to light about Fr Wadeson being accused, that is not the point and now that many people are aware, we need to know the gameplan from the Archdiocese so we are all on the same page. How do we handle an accused individual? A convicted one like the man in Dededo? What are we to do? Why doesn't Bishop Tony say something to ease his flock.

    I am adamant about this because as a child I was abused - not by clergy, but I know the pain of being violated and losing my innocence. I carry that pain and shame with me forever - it is a nightmare I can never wake from. Unfortunately, I also have the burden of knowing someone who was abused by a clergy member. No details as it is not my story to tell, but I don't want that to happen again to any child.

    Diana or whoever you are, your clouded mind may never understand the need for Bishop Tony to stand up for his flock and explain and guide us. All you see is Tim and smiting him. How terribly sad for you and all the others that do not see that having a policy protects the Archbishop and all Catholic youth.

    Reminding you again, this time to open your mind. Asking for assurance and a policy is not disrespect - it is one of deep concern.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:14 a.m.,

      First of all, I am sorry that you were abused as a child.

      Secondly, you asked how do we handle an accused individual. I think the law is pretty clear. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Father John was accused in 2004, which is about 10 years ago. He has not been convicted nor gone through a trial that I know of. And there has been no other reported case of child abuse by Father John after 2004. Therefore, those accusations 10 years ago still remains as allegations.

      In the third place, the sexual abuse scandal did not bring the Catholic Church to its knees. Surprisingly, the statistics point that the number of Catholics in the United States have remained steady at 23% regardless of the child abuse scandal. The number of Protestants, on the other hand, decreased. In fact, the US remains as one of the top 10 Catholic countries in the world. In addition, Catholicism has actually increased worldwide especially in the continents of Asia and Africa despite those child abuse scandals. So, when Christ said that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church, He meant just that.

      Finally, the policy of child abuse is very simple. If there is any evidence or suspected child abuse, the civil authorities should be contacted. You either contact the police or Child Protective Services. That is the policy that Guam follows. It is in the law books. So even if the Archdiocese does not have any policy on child abuse, common sense should tell you to follow the one that already exists in the law books of the Territory of Guam.

      Forgive me if you think that I am being unreasonable.

    2. Dear Anonymous commenter, you see Diana posted your comment despite your assumption. So please, thank him. If I would have been her, I would not have treated you this nicely. Why? Because you are not led by good faith as your style gives you away. You call the Archbishop "Tony"? What qualifies you? Please, show RESPECT! I wonder if you two, perhaps, have ever tended the geese together? Lol!

      Next, you show concern about kids following the current Jungle blog theme. Why did this become so important for you RIGHT AFTER the visit of Archbishop Krebs on Guam? Can you explain it to me, please, why? The fact is it would be much more important what the Nuncio actually said to us, because it is what he said will set our direction right for the future of the Catholic Church on Guam to move on. Don't you care about it?

      Finally, you call Fr John a "predator". How dare you? Everyone knows that the liberal media waged a vicious campaign against the Catholic Church about 10 years ago, when some abusers were caught in California. Nobody wants to erase the facts, it was shame on the church. However, in the settlement the church was forced to name ALL priests who had ever been accused, rightly or falsely. The logic was that evidence will come about in subsequent years if the charges were true. This is how Fr John was included in the list in 2004. But for 10 years no evidence have ever surfaced against him. So please tell me, if he was rightly or falsely accused! It is very clear in my mind that in lack of evidence he is innocent and his name should be cleared.

      You did not show any self restraint by calling him a "predator". You did so because he made a statement about Archbishop Krebs' visit on Guam! Now you see why I would not trust you any bit and cannot assume any shred of benevolence on your part, dear Anonymous.

      "2 A fool has no delight in understanding,
      But in expressing his own heart.
      6 A fool’s lips enter into contention,
      And his mouth calls for blows.
      7 A fool’s mouth is his destruction,
      And his lips are the snare of his soul."
      (Proverbs 18)


  11. Dear Bernie,

    You do not know me but assume much with your above comment.

    1) I have known the Archbishop for a long time and he prefers Archbishop Tony. In fact when he visited my parish he asked to be announced as such and to please call him Archbishop Tony. I take no liberties as you assume I do.

    2) My previous comment Diana did not post. He/she left it out and you mixed the pronouns in your statement which is why I mentioned both here and which is why I started off with that reference in my above comment.

    3) I don't care about Jungle Watch and the Archbishop Krebs visit. It really means nothing because Archbishop Tony is our leader and however he sees fit to handle the problems of his flock on Guam then he is answerable to God for that.

    4) I have always been concerned about sexual abuse in the church. The facts of this accused priest were brought to light recently. It is the first time an active priest has been accused to my knowledge. How and why the accusation was made known are not my concern, but I have already stated why I am concerned.

    5) Please do not claim things I did not even write. I never stated Fr. Wadeson is a predator - reread my comment and understand the context. You make assumptions here.

    6) Your mind or thoughts do not matter here on the issue of Fr Wadeson - only the Archbishop's matters which is why he needs to speak. The Archdiocese has a duty to protect the faithful and make known their plans for these situations- accused and/or convicted. Are the faithful left to suspect each priest and google them for their past and then go announcing to the the media? No, that makes for bad spiritual relations and makes the Archdiocese look very bad as well. This is why the Archdiocese must be honest and forthcoming so we know that the situation is being handle with utmost care.

    The Catholic Church on Guam is changing so much. It is not the Church of my grandmother or even my parents for that matter. There were always issues, but the people where always faithful. There would never be a thought to sue the Church, but with all the issues that have surfaced in the last 15 years, that philosophy may not hold true today. No one ever thought that abuses existed in the Catholic but the floodgates opened and now we know better that we need to protect children. This is why a policy must be in place and every member of the Catholic Church on Guam must be made aware of it.

    I have said my piece so now you can further assume your worst Bernie. Call me insincere, a magot, and whatever vileness is in your heart for me, a woman you do not even know. But all you really need to know is that I am a sinner and a follower of Christ and He alone is my judge.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:28 a.m.,

      During the last liturgical conference, the Archbishop invited Alicia Limtiaco to address the issue of child abuse and the law regarding child abuse. I was there at that conference. This public law has been made known throughout the public community especially in the schools, day care centers, and other institutions dealing with children. If the Archdiocese have not yet implemented a child abuse policy, then whatever policy they create should reflect the public law that is already in place and not contradict it. Furthermore, Pope Benedict XVI also told the faithful that all suspected child abuse should always be reported to the civil authorities because they are more equipped to handle these cases.

  12. Dear Anonymous, no, you did not convince me at all.

    1. You still called the Archbishop "Bishop Tony" which was blatantly disrespectful.
    2. Diana is she, sorry for my typo. She published your comment, even if it is full of malice.
    3. Archbishop Kreb's visit was the single most important event for Guam Catholics in the last month.
    4. Keep your concern alive then, but never use it as weapon against Church authorities.
    5. You wrote down the label "predator" in the given context. Don't try to hide it, please.

    6. If you wish to google up any or all priests you know in relation to sexual abuse records, you are free to do it. If this is your hobby why not satisfy your curiosity? If you find alarming information, your conscience should dictate what to do. If you turn to media, it is also your decision. However, if you hold back information and then use it later as a weapon for personal gain at a time of your own choosing, then it is obviously hypocritical! You are free to join the Jungle blog's owner fire and brimstone campaign against Fr John, even if it is clearly motivated by hatred and revenge. However, then you should not be surprised as being viewed as a tool in his hand to sow discord.

    "18-19 Anyone who would trick someone
    and then say, “I was only joking”
    is like a fool who shoots flaming arrows into the air
    and accidentally kills someone."
    (Proverbs 26)