Saturday, August 16, 2014

Christian Values??

Under the thread of my post "Exodus From Cathedral", El Camino brought to my attention a very disturbing thing.  This is what El Camino said, whose comments can be found here. The comments in red is what Tim Rohr said in the jungle: 


I could not stomach Tim and his blog, he is not consider Catholic nor Christian. Growing up I was taught evil on someone despite the cause injustice.

Here what he stated on his blog: We can only hope, if we are to give charity a chance, that Archbishop Apuron is severely ill and must be immediately removed. Because if this is not the case, then we have a bishop who is evil incarnate, and he wouldn't be the first one. Link:
A supporter of Tim Rohr then wrote about this comment, trying to explain it: 
You and El Camino don't get it, do you? Read the WHOLE statement again (to the very end):

"We can only hope, if we are to give charity a chance, that Archbishop Apuron is severely ill and must be immediately removed. Because if this is not the case, then we have a bishop who is evil incarnate, and he wouldn't be the first one."

Tim Rohr is stating 2 options: the Archbishop is either (1) severely ill OR (2) evil incarnate.

Tim would prefer that the Archbishop be severely ill than to be EVIL INCARNATE simply because being severely ill is a matter of being the LESSER of two evils at this point.
This was my response to Anonymous at 4:22 p.m., who obviously is a follower of Junglewatch: 
Dear Anonymous at 4:22 p.m.,

I Tim prefer that the Archbishop be severely ill. Christ told us to love our enemies. He never said to wish anything evil of them.....even hope that they fall severely ill. I would be extremely careful of uttering words like that. Sometimes, the bad things a person hopes will befall on another will befall on that person instead.

Do you not see Tim's hatred for the Archbishop?? He hopes that the Archbishop would fall severely ill. How severely ill is Tim thinking???
The follower of Junglewatch tries to explain even further.  Look at what he/she says: 
Of the TWO options presented (1) being severely ill OR (2) being evil incarnate Tim would prefer the Archbishop to be severely ill INSTEAD OF being "EVIL INCARNATE."

Would YOU prefer that the Archbishop be "EVIL INCARNATE," Diana? Tim wouldn't and neither would I nor most people I know.
Based on this dialogue, it appears that Tim Rohr and this anonymous poster does not pray for the Archbishop.  Both have already admitted that they hoped the Archbishop would fall severely ill.  Is this Christian values?  I would like to know exactly how the Archbishop has personally affected him in such a way that he hopes the Archbishop would fall severely ill?  This was my response to Anonymous at 4:55 p.m.,
Dear Anonymous at 4:55 p.m.,

I prefer none of those. I do not wish anyone severely ill nor anyone to be evil incarnate. Instead, I will follow what Christ said: Love your enemies and pray for them always so that you may become children of God.



  1. Unfortunately, their minds and hearts are so narrow that only two options exist sofar as the archbishop is concerned: 1) severe illness or 2) evil incarnate. They prefer severe illness. Why? Like you said, Diana, there could be many interpretations. Based on their unwillingness to consider any other Christian reason for the archbishop's decisions, they probably believe it would be easier to get rid of someone who is weakened by illness.

  2. Evil how you twist Tim's words.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:41 p.m.,

      In the first place, the anonymous poster interpreted it the same way as I and El Camino did. After all, he ask me which of the two options would I choose - for the Archbishop to fall severely ill or evil incarnate.

  3. i interpreted tim's comment differently. it's not that he wishes ill-will toward the archbishop. rather, he is seeking a logical explanation for archbishop apuron’s behavior and actions—he listed those particular actions immediately above the paragraph that you quoted.

    the question that tim brings up is a valid one, and it’s simply this: how do we explain the series of actions that archbishop apuron has taken?

    wouldn’t you agree that those series of actions are not in line with the demands of charity, of respect for the individual person, and of due process?

    if you see nothing wrong with any of the archbishop’s actions, then tim’s comment will indeed sound outrageous to you. but you must then also explain and defend why you believe those actions were indeed just, charitable, and correct.

    so far, only tim's arguments have made sense, especially since he backs up his claims with documentation. the public outrage over fr james’s ousting is a reflection of the fact that we in the public see it as an obvious injustice, and one that the archbishop has not yet explained to the public’s satisfaction.

    now, if you agree like the rest of us that the archbishop’s actions were not charitable or just, but instead were mean-spirited and unjust, then that leaves you, as tim points out, with only two possible explanations:

    1) that archbishop apuron’s condition (mental or physical) has made him unfit to govern the archdiocese;


    2) that archbishop apuron is healthy (mental and physical) and knew exactly what he was doing.

    explanation 1 is what i think tim meant when he said, “if we are to give charity a chance, that Archbishop Apuron is severely ill.” that’s because a reasonable, just person would not have done those things that tim listed.

    otherwise, that would leave us with explanation 2, which—again, if you agreed that his actions were mean-spirited and unjust—would lead only to the conclusion that the archbishop’s actions were evil. to describe someone as “evil incarnate” is to point out that that person is intentionally committing evil acts.

    1. Dear Rey d,

      Thank you for contributing your insight. It appears to be a valid one. I disagree with you, however, when you say that Tim's argument makes sense simply because he has those documents. It is those documents that Tim misinterprets just as I have shown in one of my posts.

      Have you noticed that whenever there were articles AGAINST the Neocatechumenal Way on the PDN, the first one to comment was ALWAYS Tim Rohr. In this way he angles the conversation to his tune. Have you also noticed that Tim managed to get the minutes of the closed clergy meeting and is the first to comment? Again, in this way he angles everything to his tune.

      For example, look at the first for things on the list that Tim Rohr enumerated:

      •What sort of a bishop would be "coming out" at all?
      •What sort of a bishop would be "coming out" with evidence of mismanagement in order to publicly incriminate one of his priests?
      •What sort of a bishop takes internal problems public without a single attempt to address those problems with the privacy that charity demands?
      •What sort of a bishop persistently goes to the media (once to the secular media and twice now to the U Matuna) about a problem with a priest that even the manager of the smallest company would not even think of doing?

      Let us be honest here. Who came out FIRST and said that Monsignor James was fired because of financial management? Where did the public FIRST learned that it was financial management? It was in Junglewatch. By that time, the public was already demanding the Archbishop to come public and show the evidence that Monsignor James committed financial management.

    2. rey d at 2:52AM: I thought of directing Diana's attention to the question Tim asked, leading up to the quote in question, as you did. But you can see how her response to your comment became another attack on Tim Rohr. I didn't want to go down that road. Thanks for trying.

      Anyway I decided to stick with the truncated quote from El Camino. I tried to use the "lesser of two evils" to explain why Tim wrote what he did. It's not because he wants the Archbishop to be severely ill. It's not because he wants the Archbishop to be evil incarnate. Tim Rohr was just looking for an explanation for the Archbishop's actions.

      Maybe Diana hoped that Tim would say that the Archbishop has been doing these things by "reason of mental illness" but he didn't. We know of Archbishop's heart condition and his diabetes so maybe his meds have clouded his judgement.

      I hadn't planned on posting anymore comments but after reading yours, I just wanted to acknowledge that you gave it your best shot. And Diana responds as Diana always responds: Launch another attack on Tim Rohr.

      I don't know if you will get to read this, rey d, but if you do I'd be amazed if Diana lets this comment through without a response. LOL.

    3. Dear Anonymous at 9:55 am,

      You asked me to choose between the Archbishop being severely ill or evil incarnate. I chose none of those. Also, I was not attacking Tim Rohr. I was pointing out the fact that it had always been Tim who made everything public before the Archbishop ever had a chance to. How is that an attack?? Furthermore, look at what was listed. Do those things on the list actually warrant "evil incarnate"? When I imagine something that is "evil incarnate", I imagine someone who has murdered millions of people and have no remorse. Who did the Archbishop murder?

    4. actually, to me, the phrase “evil incarnate” goes too far. as difficult as it is to accept sometimes—especially in light of the atrocities being committed by extremists in iraq and nigeria right now—all of us human beings are created in the image and likeness of God and loved by Him, no matter how evil our actions may be.

      however, as an ordinary lay member of the public, i can't find an explanation for the archbishop’s actions other than that they were uncharitable, unkind, unjust, and—i agree with tim rohr’s findings on this one—illegal under canon law.

      i myself don’t believe that archbishop apuron is unfit to govern the archdiocese. however, taking that position leaves me with i earlier described as explanation #2, which means that i have to accept the fact that the archbishop knew exactly what he was doing when he took those actions.

      even if i do believe explanation #2, i wouldn’t go as far as calling for the archbishop’s resignation, as some folks have done. i’m still holding on to the hope that all of us Catholic faithful—neocatechumenal or not—will be able to reconcile and restore unity, and that archbishop apuron will own up to his mistakes.

      however, that said, explanation #2 must still be addressed; we cannot ignore the injustice that has already been done. the archbishop’s actions were unkind and unjust and illegal. justice requires an answer. therefore, at minimum, they require apologies, retractions, and remedies.

      and to me, the only acceptable remedy is to restore fr james and fr paul to their prior assignments. our ordinary sense of justice demands nothing short of that.

    5. Dear Rey,

      It has come to my understanding that there are more discrepancies in the Catholic cemeteries and other areas that were once controlled by Monsignor James. The Archdiocese is still working on gathering these together in order to make a full financial report.

      As for Father Paul, that case has been taken to Rome. We will simply have to wait until we hear from Rome.

  4. Rey Dalisay,

    No matter what angle you look at it, is not Christian at all. Is vengeance and evil wishful on another human being. This is an attitude of a person with a vengeful heart. Atheist don't even think this way.

    1. Read again pls. He is attributing the Archbishpp's decisions to an illness. He is not saying he wishes that the Archbishop gets sick.

  5. The devil (not referring that Mr. Rhor is the devil) wants people to the angry, full of hate, not seek reconciliation, seek vengeance, etc. Having the spirit of God, the spirit of Jesus Christ means accepting your suffering (you don't have to like it, but accept it), being obedient even if you don't understand, to love, and to forgive.

    Jesus Christ didn't say, "Hey, don't crucify me." He embraced His cross and carried it to His death.

    May God give us all the courage to love and forgive just as Jesus Christ did.

  6. Anon9:14 AM thanks for sharing, what knotted my stomach more a Priest called all parishioner of Umatac and Melleso not to join the way. I only have confidence of the Holy Spirit. Tim Rohr is modern day Choco. Many of us in the Way might be Martyr. = ) God willing.

  7. Actually, this is the more interesting part of the quote:

    "I could not stomach Tim and his blog, he is not consider Catholic nor Christian. Growing up I was taught evil on someone despite the cause injustice"

    So who is deciding that Tim is not Catholic or Christian, now? And what on earth does the second sentence mean? "I was taught evil on someone"??? "Despite the cause injustice"??? Seriously?

    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:24 p.m.,

      I think he meant that no matter how evil the person is, we should not hope that any severe illness befall on him. The fact that Tim hates the Archbishop is an indication that he is not a Christian or Catholic.

    2. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

  8. First of all, I do not believe that Tim hates the Archbishop. I do believe that he hates the actions of the Archbishop. Only God knows what's in a person's heart; so you should be careful not to judge a person's heart. What we can judge is actions. Actions are what man uses here on Earth to judge others; for purposes of law and order. Tim and many others have observed the actions of the NCW leaders and the Arch, and many intelligent people have come to an understanding that many things are not right under the leadership of the can spin it all you want, but ultimately, your are the one people are pointing to as the person who is crying wolf.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 5:51 am,

      His actions show that he hates the Archbishop.

  9. There's so much "do not judge" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" going around....


    Just watch, someone is gonna judge this post. haha