Friday, August 15, 2014

Responding to Anonymous Poster From Last Post

An anonymous poster wrote the following in my last post found here.  According to the Anonymous Poster, he stated: 

When I read about the Archbishop threatening priests in letters and documents (and in action), I tend to interpret it as the Archbishop threatening priests.

Anonymous poster, I am going to focus on only this one statement that you said rather than address everything.  I will show you another interpretation of the Archbishop's letter to the priests, which Tim Rohr did not show you.  The Archbishop's letter to the priests can be found here.  The bold is my emphasis, and all words in black are my responses.

Hafa Ada Pale........

As you know the Eighth Community of the Neo-Catechumenall Way for the Dulce Nombre de Maria Cathedral Basilica was born just before Holy Week of this year.

We had approached you much earlier at the beginning of the Catechesis with Joe and Jacque Terlaje to ask you to accompany this community in the catechesis and I believe you said you will not promise but will try to see if you can be of help.  You did help in visiting with the group during the questionnaire and was in the group of Matthew, one of our severs of the Cathedral-Basilica, who end up reporting to their whole group their discussion, and later our Team felt that you had been of some influence in answering their questions and we were very impressed with Matthew's reporting.   

Okay...let us stop here before continuing any further.  Do you see what I placed in bold, Anonymous?  The word "ASK" has nothing to do with threats or forcing anyone.  The Archbishop even praised the priest by saying that he along with others were very impressed with his work in the group. Now let us continue on with the letter.  

I am now asking you as the Pastor of the Cathedral-Basilica Parish and as Archbishop of Agana, to accompany this Eighth Community as their presbyter for their celebration of the Eucharist every Saturday evening at 7:30 pm. 

Okay....let us stop here again.  Do you see the word "Asking" which I placed in bold, Anonymous?  How do you interpret the word "asking?"  If someone ASKS you to do something, do you see that as a threat or as forcing you to do something???  Let us continue the letter. 

Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI has approved the Statutes of the Neo-Catechumenal Way definitely and is only awaiting the letters of concurrence by the Heads of the Roman Dicasteries in order to promulgate it to the whole Universal Church.  And this will happen anytime soon. let us stop here again.  How do you interpret this, Anonymous?  I interpret this as the Archbishop assuring the priest of any doubts.  It is the Archbishop who travels to Rome and is in dialogue with the Vatican.  Today, we now know that the Statutes were indeed approved.  Okay, now the last part in the Archbishop letter.

I ask that you help me in my pastoral mission by assisting this community in their celebrations.  I assure you that you will benefit spiritually for them as they will from you. 

If you decide you will not serve, I will have to let you know now that your time in this Archdiocese will be for only one year from the above date. 

Okay....let us stop here.  Anonymous, you spoke about CONTEXT. In the context of this entire letter the word "ask" was used three times.  In the context of the entire letter, the Archbishop praised this priest by telling him how impressed he was during his participation in the group with the Eighth community.  He assures the priest that the Statutes is approved and that he will also benefit from participating in the community. These praises and assurances he gives the priest is done in the hopes that the priest would decide to participate in walking in the Way. The word "decide" which I placed in bold showed that the priest indeed had a choice, and the Archbishop was honest and forthright to this decision. 

Tim Rohr highlighted ONLY the last sentence of the Archbishop's letter and simply told his followers that this letter threatened and forced the priests to walk in the Way.  As I said in my last post of "Human interpretation," if one sentence can be interpreted five different ways, how much more a letter or a document? 


  1. Let's talk about the other letters to the three priests. Justify the interpretation there

    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:34 p.m.,

      Tim Rohr was able to brainwash his followers using HIS own interpretation. It is already shown here. He already misled you with this one. And all he had to do was highlight the part in the letter he wanted you to focus on. As I said, Tim Rohr has an agenda.

    2. I am not misled. Not actually speaking out I order not to embarrass family members in the community. So Don't take it a notch higher. These family members are so well known within the community, so if you want to continue saying that I am misled do so. My story will go in the jungle!

  2. Diana,

    So what was the consequence of the priest choosing not to walk? Sure he had a choice, but there was a consequence of only remaining in the archdiocese for only a year. That is a threat. Address that last part will you. You blatantly insult our intelligence.

    So I can ask you to choose to give me your car, or I can ask you to choose to steal from your parents , or I can ask you to harm an innocent child; it's your choice of course. But just to let you know, if you choose not to do these things, your time on Earth will end one year from now.

    Oh now I get it, thanks Diana.

    1. Dear anonymous at 12:57 pm,

      Please be realistic. Is going back to your home country really that bad?

    2. AnonymousAugust 15, 2014 at 12:57 PM Can you come up something logical and intelligent. Your running out of things to say. It's exhausting isn't it when you fight against God's work?

    3. @AnonymousAugust 15, 2014 at 12:57 PM
      In what way is a priest incarndinated in another diocese or religious order threatened by being told he can be a free lancer for an entire year in Guam?
      Please explain this to me.
      A priest who goes around diocese-shopping should very well expect that he may or MAY NOT be received in a random diocese of his choosing. Especially if he refuses to do what the ordinary asks him...
      Get it?

  3. This should be publish in the NEWS PAPER.

  4. Diana thanks, evil spirit is good on deceiving the truth.

  5. I have read it myself and I don't need an interpretation. Archbishop asks priest to join the Neo way if he does not then he will be removed. Simple. Diana just because it is passive aggressive does not make it any less of a threat. Smarten up kiddo brasilio. Engaged to God? Yeah right

    1. Dear Anonymous at 2:02 pm,

      The fact that you now say that the Archbishop ASK the priest instead of "forced" is now a tremendous progress for you. :). You just need to work on realizing that there is no such thing as a passive aggression.

    2. If your boss requested that you do a specific tasks that involves moving forward with the company's vision/mission and you refused, what would happen?

      Just a little something to ponder on.

    3. Anon 2:01 PM you are not the Archbishop and you have no credibility even though your the Queen of England.

  6. His agenda is to protect the Catholic Church.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 2:14 p.m.,

      How is he protecting the Catholic Church. It was God who put Anthony Apuron as Archbishop. Tim is trying to oust him out. Does Tim think that God made a mistake?

    2. Sure Archbishop Apuron was put to Shepherd! The mistake he made now was he signed the petition for Pius. As a Shepherd he should have stayed neutral!

      The front page of the Umatuna that was recalled showed how vindictive he is. He cannot seem to face the reality that he made a mistake. He has made too many mistakes in the way he Shepherds his flock....he only tends to the flock of the Israelites who are in bondage...the NCW!

    3. Dear Anonymous at 9:33 p.m.,

      The right of petition is part of a person's constitutional right to free expression. The right of petition is included in the First Amendment. Every citizen has the right to free expression including the Archbishop. No one can deny a person this fundamental right.

  7. I hate to bring this up again but what really matters is how these priests came to Guam in the first place, and why they were brought to Guam.

    I wont refer to them as Filipino Contract Priests but if you really look at it they were. They were Filipino, they were on Contract, and they are Priests.

    These men were brought to Guam at a time when the local church was weak in vocations. There just wasnt enough priests to handle all the Parishes.


    The Archbishop left them with their parishes and he rarely transferred these priests around. In a sense they became too comfortable and when faced with a request from their "boss" they decided that its time to be disobedient.

    In the end, They had a Contract and what happens when you go against your contract, the agreement becomes questionable. What happens when you do not listen to your boss? You face the risk of loosing your job.

    Even though the Archbishop warned them of the consequences of their disobedience they decided to make matters worse. As we saw these letters being dispersed in the parishes. Emails were sent out. People were told that its the Neos again, the neo is a bad group. This built up even more negative resistance to the NCW.

    In the end all we had was a boss telling his employees what to do. It was not a matter of being forced into the NCW.

    This is the sad part of the story. Priests are now deciding for themselves what is good and what is bad. What they want to say is catholic and what isnt. All that matters is to know that the NCW does not exist without the approval of Rome. So now we have priests saying, "I dont care what Rome said".

    In this case then, people should not be alarmed if a priest denies the Christian Mothers meeting in his parish. The Knights cannot be pissed if Father says, "I dont agree" with your mission. This is what exactly can happen but it wont, and why? Because we do have priests that are more than good, they are holy.

    It saddens me to know that there are priests at this moment calling and meeting with parishioners and telling them to resist the NCW. Sad!

  8. Thanks for highlighting my post. Let's dive in.

    Apuron wrote: "If you decide you will not serve, I will have to let you know now that your time in this Archdiocese will be for only one year from the above date."

    "If you decide you will not serve"
    Translation: If you don't do as I say.

    "I will have to let you know now that your time in this Archdiocese will be for only one year from the above date."
    Translation: I will fire you.

    The Archbishop spelled it out plain as day and gave the context for which that priest was to proceed all in that one sentence.

    >Diana wrote: "The word "decide" which I placed in bold showed that the priest indeed had a choice, and the Archbishop was honest and forthright to this decision."

    This type of choice is called an ULTIMATUM.

    ul·ti·ma·tum: noun. a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations.

    You're absolutely correct. The Archbishop was plain as day (as I stated above) with what his final demand was and what the retaliation would be.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:02 p.m.

      This is exactly what I mean by "human interpretation." Some people will actually go so far as to translate the English version into their own English version. This is why there are over 20,000 Protestant sects. What you did here is what many Protestants did with the Holy Bible. In fact, they even changed the words in the Holy Bible just as the Jehovah Witnesses did. All you did was change the Archbishop's letter into your own English version just as the Jehovah Witnesses did with the Holy Bible.

      It is clear from the Archbishop's letter that the priest was given a choice, NOT an ultimatum.

  9. Oh I see Jennifer Dulla and father eldivio don't want to print any comments with your names in it

    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:38 p.m.,

      I am not Jennifer Dulla or Father Edivaldo. If you do not believe me, that is not my problem.