Deacon Steve MartinezSeptember 10, 2014 at 5:36 PM
Dear Diana:
Please correct your posting about my comments. This is the first time I have visited your site, and I have never posted here before, nor will I post here in the future. I am not Anonymous September 10, 2014 at 8:40 AM. Someone else has posted this entry using my name at the bottom. However, everything except the first paragraph was posted by me on JungleWatch. It is true that I was forced to join the NCW, along with 12 other men.
Although your comments seem to indicate to the contrary, it is a fact that I was obedient to the Archbishop and did join the NCW, Barrigada Community #8, in April 2003. As mandated by His Excellency, I joined the Way, even though I had been in the NCW previously (in 1999). I continue to believe that such a mandate was a violation of Canon Law and that participation in any movement cannot be required as a condition of ordination. Be that as it may, along with Deacon Jeff Barcinas and Deacon Peter Kaai we were the first three in our class to go to catechesis. The other men joined a later community at the Agana Cathedral. After our ordination, the Archbishop allowed us to leave the NCW if we so chose, and I chose to do so.
So please stop posting that we were disobedient, we were not. My comment was intended to clarify an Anonymous poster in JungleWatch saying that no one is forced to join the NCW. I hope this clears up the fact that the Deacon Class of 2003 was and remains obedient to our Archbishop. More importantly, I hope it clears up the misstatements often made by members of the NCW that no one is forced to join the Way. I was forced to join, and others have been as well.
One last clarification. I am not studying to become a priest. I am a permanent deacon, and my wife would have something to say about my change in status to become a priest.
Thank you for posting this clarification, and God bless.
Please correct your posting about my comments. This is the first time I have visited your site, and I have never posted here before, nor will I post here in the future. I am not Anonymous September 10, 2014 at 8:40 AM. Someone else has posted this entry using my name at the bottom. However, everything except the first paragraph was posted by me on JungleWatch. It is true that I was forced to join the NCW, along with 12 other men.
Although your comments seem to indicate to the contrary, it is a fact that I was obedient to the Archbishop and did join the NCW, Barrigada Community #8, in April 2003. As mandated by His Excellency, I joined the Way, even though I had been in the NCW previously (in 1999). I continue to believe that such a mandate was a violation of Canon Law and that participation in any movement cannot be required as a condition of ordination. Be that as it may, along with Deacon Jeff Barcinas and Deacon Peter Kaai we were the first three in our class to go to catechesis. The other men joined a later community at the Agana Cathedral. After our ordination, the Archbishop allowed us to leave the NCW if we so chose, and I chose to do so.
So please stop posting that we were disobedient, we were not. My comment was intended to clarify an Anonymous poster in JungleWatch saying that no one is forced to join the NCW. I hope this clears up the fact that the Deacon Class of 2003 was and remains obedient to our Archbishop. More importantly, I hope it clears up the misstatements often made by members of the NCW that no one is forced to join the Way. I was forced to join, and others have been as well.
One last clarification. I am not studying to become a priest. I am a permanent deacon, and my wife would have something to say about my change in status to become a priest.
Thank you for posting this clarification, and God bless.
The following is my response:
Dear Deacon Steve Martinez,
I cannot edit any comments. I can only publish or delete comments. I apologize that an anonymous poster had used your name to post a comment under one of my posts. Therefore, it is a good thing that you came out and made this clarification.
I apologize that I did not know the entire story. So, you were obedient to the Archbishop when he asked you to join the Way?? If so, I applaud your obedience. And when he allowed you the option to leave, you took that option.
However, the anonymous poster who posted in the jungle was correct. No one was forced to join the Way. On the other hand, deacons and priests are different, and the Archbishop has the authority to even test whether you are worthy of the diaconate or priesthood. The possibility exists that God has tested you to see if you were obedient to the Archbishop. You were found to be obedient. As a result, you were not only ordained as a deacon, but even given the choice to leave the NCW.
I find it sad that what you saw as "force" may actually have been a test of obedience by God. Did it ever occur to you that the Archbishop may have been correct when he said that you misinterpret his intention? If he was really forcing you to be in the Way, he would never have given you the option to leave. The fact that he gave you that option to leave the Way after your ordination showed that "force' was most likely never his intention.
Sometimes, it is best to give the other person the benefit of the doubt and ask him what his intention was rather than judging him. I also find it sad that you support a blog that has expressed its desire to see the Archbishop severely ill even to the point of death as long as he is removed.
I cannot edit any comments. I can only publish or delete comments. I apologize that an anonymous poster had used your name to post a comment under one of my posts. Therefore, it is a good thing that you came out and made this clarification.
I apologize that I did not know the entire story. So, you were obedient to the Archbishop when he asked you to join the Way?? If so, I applaud your obedience. And when he allowed you the option to leave, you took that option.
However, the anonymous poster who posted in the jungle was correct. No one was forced to join the Way. On the other hand, deacons and priests are different, and the Archbishop has the authority to even test whether you are worthy of the diaconate or priesthood. The possibility exists that God has tested you to see if you were obedient to the Archbishop. You were found to be obedient. As a result, you were not only ordained as a deacon, but even given the choice to leave the NCW.
I find it sad that what you saw as "force" may actually have been a test of obedience by God. Did it ever occur to you that the Archbishop may have been correct when he said that you misinterpret his intention? If he was really forcing you to be in the Way, he would never have given you the option to leave. The fact that he gave you that option to leave the Way after your ordination showed that "force' was most likely never his intention.
Sometimes, it is best to give the other person the benefit of the doubt and ask him what his intention was rather than judging him. I also find it sad that you support a blog that has expressed its desire to see the Archbishop severely ill even to the point of death as long as he is removed.
Thank you for clarifying Deacon Steve.
ReplyDeleteGood response Diana.
Deacon Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhat are you doing in the JungleWatch?
This is so wrong, Diana, even if you don't understand. Forcing anyone to the Way, be it laity or priest, is a violation of one's spiritual well-being. A priest cannot identify with the Way if he is forced by "obedience", despite his particular form of commitment to Christ. This is simply immoral, a sin against one's conscience, even if the Archbishop has commandeering privilege above the clergy.
ReplyDeleteAny Archbishop of the Church has an obligation to use his authority as Christ demanded from him, for the benefit and not for the destruction of souls! Do you want your "presbyter" sitting in front of you at your weekly seances smiling on you, but secretly hating you guys to the guts because he was forced to serve your causes against his own conscience?! Do you really want that, Diana? I am so disappointed in you!
Dear voice of faith,
DeleteWhere is your voice of reason? Did you not read my response to Deacon Steve? Have you not read that God even commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac to test his loyalty?? Is it not possible that the Archbishop was also testing the obedience of his deacons and priests? After all, if the Archbishop real intention was "force" he would not have given Deacon Steve the option to leave the Way after his ordination.
Diana, what are you talking about? Are you equating a bishop with God?! Are you out of your mind?! God tested Job and Job remained faithful to God. God did not give any particular command to Job to follow, He still tested Job. Job did not follow any particular command, only stayed firm in his faith and trusted God. That is true obedience! That is what we owe to God and to God alone! I dare to say that your theological underpinning might not be sufficient to lecture us about the proper context of Catholic obedience.
DeleteYou are in the false belief that it is only Tim who questions your practices. Tim is actually getting tired of the same useless arguments you are only capable to provide to him. So he is not patient with you guys anymore... But there are many other people who question what you do on Guam and we are still patiently waiting for acceptable explanation. Please, do not think for any moment that you are arguing with Tim here. His arguments are in Jungle Watch. But we are here, who bring our questions and reasoning to this blog, we are not Tim Rohr.
Your reasoning about Abraham is also all wrong and your interpretation is not supported by Scripture. Jewish scholars argue that Abraham wanted to sacrifice Isaac following Ancient pagan traditions in the region where Abraham lived. There is evidence that the Canaanites, the predecessors of current Palestinians, had this pagan custom.
When God told Abraham to offer sacrifice to Him, God tested Abraham if he would sacrifice Isaac, his only son whom He, God himself gave to Abraham in promise. When God saw that Abraham is following the pagan tradition and wanted to sacrifice Isaac, God intervened. He sent His angel to stop Abraham from murdering his son. The angel rather gave Abraham a ram to kill and sacrifice. This was when God separated Abraham and his descendants from the pagans by switching to animals sacrifices, rather than the killing of the first born son.
You see that your interpretation of Biblical texts is lacking in depth. We may at least say that you cannot take into consideration those theological fact you are not familiar with. So you should be at least humble when you talk about Scripture. Even more, you should refrain from preaching obedience to your audience when you are not familiar with the proper commanding relations among Church authorities. A good bishop is like a good father. He cannot give a command that would hurt his son. This would be abuse. Even if the bishop has the authority to rule over the clergy.
Your view of Church authority is deficient, because you oversimplify it. It is not like commands are traveling from the top down and blind obedience is granted from the bottom up. Not even a military chain of command is that simple. But here we are talking about the Catholic Church, which is led by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, a loving spirit, not an oppressive and abusive spirit. Your problem might be that you guys switch true Church authority with a different kind of authority. You replace it by a chain of command through your "catechists" who are plain, unknown and uneducated folks hiding in the parishes. Your chain of command intersects true Church authority and cuts it apart. This is the reason you guys in the "communities" have a false sense of authority and command because you place yourselves outside of true Catholic authority.
Please, open up your mind, Diana. We might tell you something right sometimes. We may increase your faith if you just listen to us and don't follow empty clichés. Try not to bludgeon us poor beings and our questions with your assumed superiority, when we see how much your knowledge of basic facts about our faith is lacking.
Dear voice of faith,
DeleteI said that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Are you telling me that this is false??? The Holy Bible does say that God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. When I say that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and you disagree with it, then you need to show me where God did NOT command Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
CCC 862 .........Hence the Church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ."
The doctrine of the Catholic Church says that if you listen to the Bishops, then you listen to Christ. If you despise the Bishop, then you despise Christ and God the Father who sent Christ.
Diana, Genesis 22:2 says "Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love -- Isaac -- and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” " It is arguable who the word "him" applies to. Isaac was not Abraham's only son, he had another son Ishmael. The confusion of wording shows the original text written down by Moses centuries later may have been changed or edited. Maybe "him" originally meant "something". God wanted to teach Abraham that sacrificing "something" is okay but human sacrifice is not acceptable. So He, God himself replaced the human sacrifice Isaac, whom Abraham wanted to kill, by a ram, an animal! This is the story all about: the institution of animal sacrifice.
DeleteAs I told you, Jewish scholars who read the text in original Hebrew, said what I said above the meaning of Abraham's story. I quote it for you from the JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY, SACRIFICING ISAAC, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2007. The scholar, Zoltan Fisher (I assume it is not the NeoCat Zoltan) claims:
"God would find blind obedience a disappointing performance, far below the potential for making ethical decisions that was the reason for Abraham's selection in the first place. The test was
whether the request would open Abraham's thinking to new questions, new possibilities, a re-examination of his mission, and a better understanding of his and our God. Simply put, God did not want Abraham to be all-that-willing to sacrifice Isaac. God wanted to hear an argument put forth from Abraham's ethical nature, that side of him that had many problems with human sacrifice. God also wanted to make the statement once and for all that He does not want human sacrifice."
Who are you arguing with, Diana? I am not Tim Rohr. If Tim despises the bishop, he might have his reasons as he expounded on it in Jungle Watch. I read Jungle Watch and agree with many things written there. I do not agree with everything. In particular, I try to remain rational and not becoming emotional, angry, etc. as I see some people become. I think Tim would do better to separate his points about the Archbishop from his points about the NeoCat, but it is only my personal view.
DeleteIn particular, I do not despise the Archbishop. I respect him and would like understand why would he do what he does. I listen to him as a spiritual guide. However, listening to him does not mean blind obedience for me. Not at all! I respect his choice of becoming a NeoCat walker. I respect but do not support it. He did not need to do that. As I said, I try to understand his reasons. It is disappointing that you don't help in this at all!
Dear voice of faith,
DeleteAbraham may have only two sons at the time, but the Bible is very clear as to which of the two God wants to be sacrificed. Genesis 22:2 says it was Isaac who was to be sacrificed, not Ishmael. Perhaps, the reason the Bible named Isaac as the "only" son was he was the one promised by God. At any rate, I am not here to argue about the wording of the Bible.
In the first place, the Catholic Church never taught that blind obedience was good. It has always taught to always obey your church leaders even when his commands do not make much sense. The only thing allowable for disobedience is when it goes against the moral code of God. In other words, if the Archbishop says to open your parish to the NCW, then the priest SHOULD obey. On the other hand, if the Archbishop says to kill someone, then the parish priest can and should disobey. That is NOT blind obedience.
Dear voice of faith,
DeleteIf you want to understand why the Archbishop did as he did, then go and ask him. I am not the Archbishop.
"the Catholic Church never taught that blind obedience was good. It has always taught to always obey your church leaders even when his commands do not make much sense."
DeleteDiana, you just contradicted yourself. To obey even when commands don't make sense, that is blind obedience.
Dear Anonymous at 11:09 p.m,
DeleteBlind obedience is when one obeys EVERYTHING including those that go against the moral code. We are not in blind obedience because we obey except when it goes against the moral code.
Hi Diana -- Can you show where Tim Rohr said he wishes the Archbishop severely ill even to the point of death? I'm sure many of your readers would like to see that.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 4:43 a.m.,
DeleteAccording to Tim Rohr:
"We can only hope, if we are to give charity a chance, that Archbishop Apuron is severely ill and must be immediately removed."
http://www.junglewatch.info/2014/08/what-sort-of-bishop.html#comment-form
Anon 4:43 AM would you like to see anymore? Is that a leader you would like to follow? To speak ill on the Archbishop? Put 500.00 on Diana's head?
DeleteHmmmm... reading what you quoted Diana, i don't see anyone wishing anyone an illness.
DeleteRead and Re-reread what is quoted. How i read this sentence is that JW is hoping that these decisions that ABAA made were because ABAA is sick or ill and he isn't himself 100% mentally or physically...
that is not lost on you is it?
Dear Anonymous at 12:10 pm,
DeleteAnd why would anyone even hope for that?????? The statement in Junglewatch goes on to say that if he is not severely ill, then they claim him to be evil incarnate. Why would anyone hope that he is severely ill?
Actually if you read it starts with ”here is” this nuance in grammar introduces an exhibit.
ReplyDeleteYeah Deacon Steve, what sort of Deacon told by Archbishop not to go to Jungle Watch? This is not disobedience anymore but betrayal!
ReplyDeleteArchbishop Apuron never said "Don't go to Jungle Watch".
DeleteI am sorry, but you keep on inferring that "it may actually have been a test of obedience by God" I find it troubling that you infer that God speaks directly through the Bishop to our Deacons or Priests. I am very troubled by that thought, I think further clarification needs to be made.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 10:51 a.m.,
DeleteThe Holy Spirit always speaks through the Head of the house. And in God's family, the heads of the home are the Pope, Bishops, and Priests. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
CCC 862 .........Hence the Church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ."
That's right Diana, the bishops are like the apostles and not GOD which Archbishop Apuron thinks he is.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:18 pm,
DeleteHow do you know what the Archbishop thinks? Can you read his mind? I do not think so.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2014 at 11:18 PM
ReplyDeleteby insinuating that you know what the Arch Bishop thinks of himself implies that you are also some kind of god. If you are Catholic, you should know that only God judges....only God judges. Not even Jesus Christ claims to judge.