Thursday, July 24, 2014

Playing A Different Song And Dance


Tim Rohr is playing a different song and dance now that Father John is being followed by SNAP.  Under my July 17th post "Follow What The Vatican Delegate Says,"  I copied and pasted the following from Junglewatch on July 19, 2014 at 10:18 a.m. into my blog, which can be found here:

"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 you can see, Tim Rohr knew about Father John's circumstances for nearly a year.  Now below is the weblink showing the database of Father John, which is now completed by SNAP.  Junglewatch is on that database: 

http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbylastName-W.html

If you click on the name "Junglewatch" in that database, it will bring you to bishopaccountability.org who copied and pasted Tim's Junglewatch blog regarding his knowledgeable circumstances of Father John., which he kept secret for nearly a year.  However, look at the difference.  This is the change that Tim Rohr made on his blog: 

"I kept quiet about it because I didn't know all the details but I was shocked to hear the Archbishop bragging about SNAP supporting his decision against Fr. Paul when I had been used as cannon fodder to protect him only a couple of years earlier. Well, Archbishop, now it's your turn to protect yourself. Don't call me."

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2014/07_08/2014_07_19_JungleWatch_DontCall.htm

As you can see, he took out the part where he said he knew about Father John's circumstances for nearly a year.  He is now making the claim that he kept quiet about it because he did not know all the details.  And this is the Tim Rohr who always brags about knowing the truth and being the one to get it out to the public first.  Tim Rohr is now covering himself because SNAP will be the one to ask him why he kept it a secret for nearly a year.  So, he took out that part in his blog and changed it.  

For those of you who want to go into the jungle and verify it, you can do so.  What Bishopaccountability.org copied and pasted from Tim's blog is good enough for me.     



32 comments:

  1. Diana
    It doesn't matter if Tim knew about these allegations for a year. SNAP could care less about Tim. It's e Archbishop that will have to do all the explaining because he is the leader of our church. The chancellor himself admitted that he was aware of these allegations. Do you think SNAP will go after him. I highly doubt it. It is the leader that usually takes the fall not the regular average joe (Tim).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 2:52 pm,

      Then you have an explanation as to why Mr. Rohr suddenly decided to change his story?? I would like to hear it.

      Delete
    2. By the way, Tim Rohr actually said that he has been filtering out comments about Wadeson for nearly a year. So how long did he actually knew about Father John's circumstances BEFORE filtering out those comments for nearly a year? Is it safe to assume that he actually knew about it all along at the same time the Archbishop knew????

      Delete
    3. Why are you misdirecting the issue to Mr. Rohr. I find your post very tasteless that you choose to write about Mr. Rohr after all that has happened. I don't see any changes in his story other then phrasing differences. Anyone with basic English skills can figure that out. Your Blog is heavily bias towards the archbishop. Yes, we as sheep must follow our Sheppard. It is a beautiful metaphor. But it is only a metaphor and although the archbishop is our leader he is still a man. Men make mistakes. If you want anyone who is not involved with the NCW to take your blog serious then stop pointing fingers and encourage solutions. I hope you post this as i don't see any reason why you wouldn't.
      Respectfully, Anon

      Delete
    4. Well Tim might have known about Fr. John's past and so did many others who left the comments in his blog. Fr. Johns history is a public record. The point is that the Archbishop was responsible for hiring him. It didn't help that the chancery admitted that they were aware of the allegations and sent packing him packing rather than defend him.

      Delete
    5. Mr. Rohr has made many a mention for posters to provide proof of abuse, to contact him personally, or to go straight to SNAP. That is no secret. He did everything right in confronting this situation from his stand point. The same can not be said about the archbishop. He is losing the peoples trust and respect and if anyone thinks otherwise you really need to wake up.

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous at 3:36 p.m.,

      What you fail to understand is that the safety of every child falls on every responsible adult, not just one person. So, why did Mr. Rohr suddenly change his story???? Why does he not want SNAP to know how long he knew about Father John's circumstances. Now those are questions that inquiring minds want to know. Why the change in story??

      Delete
    7. Tim Rohr, are you afraid of something that you write here as an Anon and try to defend what cannot be defended??

      Delete
    8. Dear Anonymous at 3:56 p.m.,

      Actually, it was Tim Rohr who made everyone in his blog site aware of those allegations of Father John. The letter of Father John that was leaked out was what triggered Tim Rohr's revenge.

      I also think that what everyone here is forgetting is that Tim Rohr, the Archbishop, and the Chancery had no problems with Father John being hired in the first place was because they knew that Father John was innocent all along. Did not Tim Rohr even state publicly that Father John was innocent??? I'm pretty sure they were all aware of the incident in California regarding those child abuse cases in 2004.

      But the Archbishop did not change his story. Tim Rohr, on the other hand, changed his story.

      Delete
    9. Dear Anonymous at 4:00 p.m.,

      You said: " Mr. Rohr has made many a mention for posters to provide proof of abuse, to contact him personally, or to go straight to SNAP"

      I guess you did not read my post on "SNAP Exposed" - a liberal organization whose goal is to destroy the entire Catholic Church, and this is the organization that Tim Rohr supports. From what I recall, Pope Benedict XVI told the Catholic faithful to report all child abuse to the civil authorities.

      Delete
    10. Like i said before, i dont see any change in story other than phrasing it differently. I do recall Mr. Rohr posting on more then one occasion that whoever is posting about abuse that they call or email him personally and provide any evidence of abuse, or to contact snap directly. These are important steps to take. He would be a fool not to filter the truth from lies or misconceptions. Although there is no argument about Mr. Rohrs feelings towards the NCW, he still didn't use serious allegations about abuse just to discredit the NCW or there priests in that manner unless proven. I personally think he took correct measures from his stand point and thus we have results.
      Respectfully, Anon

      Delete
    11. Dear Anonymous at 4:49 p.m.,

      According to Tim's original post before he changed it, he was filtering out comments about the accusations of Father John from his blog for nearly one year. But he only let it out in his own time when it best suited him.

      Delete
    12. Dear Anon 4:49, dear Tim Rohr, it would be much better if you didn't fool here around disguised as Anon, but accept who you are. Your style and profile of vocabulary gives you away, anyway. Are you ashamed of yourself because of what you did??

      Delete
    13. To Anon 4:59, i am not Tim nor do i speak for him. I am a concerned Catholic who is not associated with any sides. These are my first posts here and this is my last. I thought i can have open discussion here and find objective reasoning about the on goings of our Holy Church on island but it seems very one sided here with no concrete facts to support any of your accusations. I cam here to be educated from another point of view but found a dead end.
      Respectfuly, Anon.
      (Not Tim. I believe he actually uses his profile when he writes)

      Delete
    14. Why would Tim hide now? He puts his name out there and is even interviewed by the media! I don't think he is ashamed about anything.

      We are all anonymous here for whatever reason. Even the host uses a pseudonym and not his/her real name.

      Delete
    15. To Anon 4:59, i am not Tim nor do i speak for him. I am a concerned Catholic who is not associated with any sides. These are my first posts here and this is my last. I thought i can have open discussion here and find objective reasoning about the on goings of our Holy Church on island but it seems very one sided here with no concrete facts to support any of your accusations. I cam here to be educated from another point of view but found a dead end.
      Respectfully, Anon.
      (Not Tim. I believe he actually uses his profile when he writes)

      *This is my second attempt at responding to anon 4:59

      Delete
    16. 4:49,

      Tim Is not the only one capable of submitting an intelligent comment, but one thing for sure is that it did not come from the neo camp.

      Delete
  2. Snap knows but they also know who is the responsible person - Archbishop Apuron.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are not Catholics! SNAP is your religion. Lol!

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

      SNAP does not even care if the person is innocent. To this date, there were no lawsuits against Father John, there were no arrest and/or conviction, and there were no other reported records of sex abuse by Father John after 1977, which was approximately 41 years ago. There has been no evidence that has surfaced for these past 41 years.

      Delete
    3. SNAP is a liberal organization trying to mimic Jewish Holocaust survivor's networks. But while Jewish organizations would identify perpetrators and hand them over to legal authorities, SNAP is persecuting even those against whom no legal charges have ever been made. So in the case of Holocaust survivor's networks it works like this:

      potential culprit listed, spotted --> legal charges are made --> authorities investigate --> court makes decision --> guilty persons are condemned + innocent persons are exonerated

      This is a well justified process. However, SNAP works like this:

      potential culprit listed, spotted --> legal charges are made or not made --> authorities investigate those cases where legal charges were made --> court makes decision on legal charges --> guilty persons are condemned + innocent persons are exonerated only for court cases --> SNAP keeps persecuting those who were not legally charged

      Now this is something absolutely unjustified! You see the clear difference: SNAP has the extra juridical means of persecuting those who have never been charged in the court of law by any wrongdoing. Wow, wow and wow! Why is that? Because they forced their will on the Catholic Church via obnoxious lawyers and ugly out of court settlements.

      So SNAP is mimicking Holocaust survivor's networks in the wrong way. While those are well justified supporters of law and order, SNAP gets its power beyond and outside of the legal system and the courts. It was designed that way. This is the point when SNAP becomes a parasite organization feeding on ignorance and extra-juridical powers attained by media support and monetary blackmail: a typical poster organization of anti-religious, extreme left-wing liberals.

      Delete
    4. What is your thoughts on Fr. Gofigan's situation in relation to what you just posted about Fr.John? Am i wrong to believe that Archbishop's relationship with SNAP during the termination of Fr. Gofigan was filled with praise? Now you are projecting SNAP as an unaccredited group? Why do you turn so quickly?
      Respectfully, Anon

      Delete
    5. That is true, the Archbishop was quoted as saying that he was commended by SNAP for Fr. Paul's firing and not a one of the NCW stood up to say otherwise. Now the tables have turned and SNAP is now evil and the enemy.

      Delete
    6. SNAP played no role in Fr. Gofigan's case. He worked with a sexual predator and convicted criminal without informing the laity. He also tried to fool the Archbishop in relation to working with this convicted felon on church property. This is the most accurate information we know. The Archbishop had no power of contemplating this situation, he had to make his move based on effective Church policy!

      Delete
    7. Dear Anonymous at July 24, 2014 at 6:12 p.m.,

      First of all, I never supported SNAP. When anonymous posters asked me about child abuse, my response was always to call the civil authorities. No where in my post or comments will you ever find me telling a poster to report it to SNAP or even to go to SNAP. According to one anonymous poster under this same thread, it was Tim Rohr who told posters to report any child abuse to him or SNAP. Why Tim would ever tell anyone to refer child abuse cases to him is beyond me. He is not even a police officer. I had always been supporting the Archbishop. In many of my posts and comments, you will find me supporting the Archbishop. I never supported SNAP. In one of my posts, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights have exposed SNAP to be an organization out to destroy the Catholic Church. The weblink is here.

      http://www.catholicleague.org/snap-exposed-unmasking-the-survivors-network-of-those-abused-by-priests/

      Regarding the Gofigan case, how did SNAP know about Father Paul? Who called them? I doubt that it was the Archbishop who called them. Did it ever occur to you that SNAP has been monitoring Junglewatch, now that it has turned into an anti-Catholic blog?

      At any rate, the Archbishop removed Father Paul because he believed that Father Paul disobeyed his directive in removing a sex offender from employment. The fact that the worker was still seen on church grounds led the Archbishop to believe that his directive was ignored. The fact that he was still on church grounds doing the same kind of work as he had been doing when he was employed was Father Paul's mistake. Why? Because "appearances" do matter. Try putting a priest in front of a strip bar. The priest does not have to enter the strip bar. The fact that he was seen in front of it was already enough to cause a scandal. This was the same thing that happened with Father Paul and the voluntary worker. Do you think SNAP cared that the sex offender in this case already paid his dues to society and has not committed any sex offense in over 30 years? No. Archbishop Apuron removed Father Paul, and SNAP praised the Archbishop for it. The Archbishop did not praise SNAP. It was the other way around.

      Then the incident with Father John came up. Who called SNAP, and how was SNAP able to get wind of the story so quickly when it did not even appear in any of the local newspapers?? So, how did they know about Father John?? The only story it appeared on was in Junglewatch. Again, it appears that SNAP has been monitoring Junglewatch. SNAP has now completed Father John's profile in the database with Junglewatch proudly displayed with it. SNAP demanded that the Archbishop remove Father John. Did it matter to SNAP that Father John was never arrested or convicted after 41 years? No, of course not. They only went by the L. A Archdiocese banning Father John as reason enough to remove him. Nevermind the fact that it was SNAP who pressured the L.A. Archdiocese in 2004 to submit the names of all accused priests regardless of whether they were falsely accused or not in the first place. So, the Archbishop removed Father John. According to todays PDN:


      The San Francisco Archdiocese' provincial superior, Father Thomas Ascheman, wrote that "the allegation was never substantiated, no formal accusation was ever made, and no settlement was offered or made."

      Did SNAP do its homework to ensure if Father John was actually guilty or not? No of course not. What matters to them is destroying the Catholic Church by bringing down all the Church leaders, innocent or guilty.

      Delete
    8. Dear Anonymous at July 24 at 6:59 p.m.,

      SNAP had always been the enemy at least until 2002 when controversies starting surfacing about them. Where in any of my posts or comments did I ever support SNAP? Under this thread, an anonymous poster said that Tim Rohr stated in his blog that if anyone suspected child abuse they can either go to him or SNAP. In my blog, I had always said that any suspected child abuse should always be reported to either the police or Child Protective Services as required by Guam law.

      Delete
    9. Dear Anonymous at July 24 at 7:07 p.m.,

      SNAP was there. They found out about Father Paul through Junglewatch and the local media. They commended the Archbishop and even urged him not to back down his decision when Father Paul decided to take his case to Rome.

      I wonder what would happen if Father Paul won his case in Rome. Would they go after the Pope and other Vatican officials? Then again, they are already doing that.

      Delete
    10. I might be mistaken about Mr.Rohr's instruction to contact SNAP. Please do not quote me on what organization of help he had mentioned as i might need to dig through old posts. My point was that Mr. Rohr took precautions with alleged abuse allegations without proper proof. Thats it. I don't speak for Mr. Rohr but thought my recollection proved a good point. You make it sound like im saying Mr. Rohr took the situation in his own hands but i believe he opened up outlets for help if help is needed with any concerns of abuse. These are my opinions but i maybe mistaken with what i might have posted yesterday and i apologize for the confusion. I just wanted my point across.
      Respectfully, Anon

      Delete
    11. AnonymousJuly 24, 2014 at 5:48 PM made a very good point so when the CIVIL RIGHTS kicks in? Do you see any violation, something ponder about. This organization is capable of destroying the innocent. You have to remember maybe the lawyers are PROTESTANT themselves. hmmmmm

      Delete
  3. "And YOU Wadeson! ..." Excellent choice of quote, Diana!

    Well, this quote became a Junglewatch classic by now, exposing exactly who Tim Rohr is. He unmasked himself, showing his inner motives and true himself made up of pride, sheer hatred and vengeance. This is the guy whom we see now clearly as he is...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here's ine good pointer, Wadeson is been her for a decade and why all of a sudden. Another plot! Tim Rohr don't give a damn. Careful he will expose you publicly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To Those who wrote comments and have not seen it published yet.......I will get back to you tomorrow. About 12 comments have been submitted and I have not read them yet. I have just submitted a very long post in response to one of the comments, and it's time for a break!!!!! I'm going out to the movies.

    ReplyDelete