To put it mildly, I find it shocking that a man who has served faithfully the island community for more than twenty-five years with zeal and fatherly care should be slandered so viciously by the media. It is true that the main vilifier is not from our island. But still it is startling to see our Archbishop maligned so cruelly.
What crimes did he commit? Well, he served his Church loyally and diligently for many many years. He tried to help those in need. He defended those who could not defend themselves. He made himself available to all and sundry. He prays unceasingly for his flock; they say he gets up at 3:00 a.m. every day to pray. Despite his precarious health, he has no qualms in joining the faithful in the island’s events and in fact he spends most Saturdays of the years going from parish to parish celebrating their fiestas. He is very active in leading his people. He is a true shepherd.Yes, I was surprised … until I came across a 1050-word article published on Vanity Fair on Mother Teresa of Calcutta. The author is Christopher Hitchens, an outspoken critic of basically everything orthodox. I used to think that Mother Teresa is beyond reproach and above sordid criticism. But no, even she is censured! Look at what he writes, “She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich … Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit.” (Money, again, my comment.)
And the conclusion of this article is just awful. “She (Mother Teresa) was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions.”
So, I said to myself, why be surprised if such a good man as our Archbishop is being badmouthed? It seems to be the lot of the (good) prophets.
I am not NCW; but, I am Catholic and I support Arch Bishop Apuron. The Jungle blog and the hurtful comments made there make it easy for me to support the Arch Bishop.
ReplyDelete"The People's Bishop", really? At least try to be original. What kind of man is Apuron in the presence of Msgr. James? Apuron is nowhere near as Christ-like and as loved by the faithful as Msgr. James. It is important for a priest to be loved by the faithful he leads to heaven. It shows how they radiate Christ and how Christ works through them.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 1:01 a.m.,
DeleteThe Archbishop has done many good things for the island. He stood up against gambling many times. Even after its defeat, advocates of gambling still try to get it passed, and the Archbishop have always spoken against it. When same sex marriage was introduced, he also stood up against it. He educated people on the harmful effects if this bill was passed and even started a petition against it. He established two seminaries on Guam. As a result, Guam has produced not only priests for its own local churches but priests to go out to evangelize.
The Archbishop is loved and also hated. Mother Teresa was the same way. Not everyone loved her. Christopher Hitchens did not like Mother Teresa, and he was always demanding that she publish the audit report. He accused her of many things, and most of it had to do with money.
really anonymous 1:01, are you making the comparison between Benavente's and Apuron based on popularity? Are you serious?
DeleteIt is important for a priest to be loved by the fairhful he leads to heaven? Are you saying that your favorite priest will lead you into heaven? Please tell your favorite priest to tell Jesus Christ to take a break,, your favorite priest has everything under control. Praying for both of you anonymous 1:01
DeleteApuron is two faced. I worked with the BASTA and Linala sin casino group and he gladly acceptd money from other gambling groups to combat the gambling issue. From bingo, raffles, gaming machine owners etc. so a defeneder he is not- he just didn't want the competition that would take away his pool of money. Notice he doesn't shut them down? Where is his "calls to action". Why does he leave it to a few lay people?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:37 a.m.,
DeleteThe Church cannot shut down any businesses. They do not have that authority. That authority belongs to the government. They can only preach against those businesses, which is what the Church has always been doing.
Apuron has never preached about those businesses. The massage parlors, gambling rooms, etc. I fact they've grown under his watch. Great shepherding there! Only on Guam is bingo and raffle a "sin". All other places and churches do it. But Apuron didn't want to appear a hypocrite so he stopped the church from doing it but gets around by calling it an auction or door prize.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:19 a.m.,
DeleteCorrection on my part. He preached against gambling (which is what those businesses consist of). Those businesses did not grow under the Archbishop's watch. He is not even one giving business license to those businesses. Don't you mean they grew under the government's watch (whether Democrat or Republican).
" I find it shocking that a man who has served faithfully the island community for more than twenty-five years with zeal and fatherly care should be slandered so viciously by the media."
ReplyDeleteSlander doesn't mean what you think it means --- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slander
slan·der transitive verb \ˈslan-dər\
: to make a false spoken statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone
Apuron's actions were public. His words were put to paper in his own name and signature. He has publicly harassed and maligned priests under his dominion. He has traded in his the larger community of the church to favor a small community of separatists. He turned his back on non-NCW priests, even leaving one to fend for himself while he was mortally ill. He continues to defy the Pope and Nuncio, yet allows anonymous mouthpieces like you to slander the Mother Church, the people of Guam, the priests of Guam, the culture of Guam, all while redirecting Mother Church resources to pay for NCW agendas.
These are DOCUMENTED. The words and actions came straight from APURON - from the man himself!
What I find shocking is how delusional you are.
If not that, then it's more a case of how appalling someone who claims to be spiritually lifted can be so deceitful. That's often the case with someone claiming to follow a prophet. A false one. A (bad) one.
Dear Anonymous at 5:27 a.m.,
DeleteI saw the letters that the Archbishop gave to the priests. He ASKED them to join the NCW and also gave them a choice. That is not harassment. He has not traded anything. He established two seminaries on Guam, and even told Aaron Quitugua that he can go to either one of them. If Aaron was not in favor of the Way, he could have joined the John Paul II seminary. Instead, he prefer his own way......a seminary of his own choosing after doing his research on which seminary would take in all his college credits.
And he did not turn his back on Father Efren. If Monsignor James did not know about Father Efren not having any health coverage, then most likely the Archbishop also did not know. Furthermore, Father Efren received health coverage from the Archdiocese of Agana, which got it's signature of approval from the Archbishop.
The Archbishop does not defy the Pope or the Nuncio. He is obedient to them, and they support him. There are already five people under this blog who personally heard the Nuncio say that Junglewatch is a hate blog. And I never slander the Catholic Church. I use her doctrines to show that you really do not know anything about the Catholic Church. The NCW does not take away from the Church, but give to the Church and even build her up using our own resources. And I do not slander any priests. I remind them of their duty to act more like priests.
Finally, I follow Christ just like all the members of the NCW and its leaders. We have never claimed not to follow Christ. The only ones making this false claim about us are those who are against the Way.
Well said Diana, 5:27 AM stays anonymous because he could not decide whether he/she is for the Archbishop or with Rohr. Again and again this is the disobedience. Priest are not meant to be put on the pedestal like Msgnr James, the Priest are not affiliated to the missionary are called to go out and preached the Gospel. I respect all non RMS priest despite their diobedience but per Pope Francis to go out there and announce the Kingdom of God is at hand. Not mediocricy. Loved by people, people won't understand this but this another kind of shade of idolatry. If you don this you'll lose it.
DeleteFr. Edi. The delegate and I communicate regularly and he never said that it is hate blog. Stop spreading them lies of yours to build support. He is coming back and if you want I can arrange a meeting so you can ask him. He is very interested in what is going on and asks for copies, news clippings, emails, recordings, letter, documents and photos. He is a very good cannon lawyer.
DeleteWe all saw the letters. They were ultimatums.
DeleteDuring the meeting with the Nuncio, this was brought up and Apuron(NCW) and Cristobal(NCW) both tried to backtrack after having been caught giving priests and seminarians the ultimatum to join the NCW or face retaliation. In the presence of the Nuncio, Archbishop had to withdraw his guns. When the Nuncio left, he came out blazing.
Spin that!
---
"Furthermore, Father Efren received health coverage from the Archdiocese of Agana, which got it's signature of approval from the Archbishop. "
Yep. Right after Msgr. James forced the issue with a simple phone call. All this made possible because Cristobal, Kim, and Apuron refused one of their fellow priests and left the guy there to die.
Your spin in this is that the insurance and help pushed through by Msgr. James "got it's signature of approval from the Archbishop."
Oh the shame!!!
---
"The Archbishop does not defy the Pope or the Nuncio."
The Archbishop defies the Pope and the Nuncio. It has been documented!
"The only ones making this false claim about us are those who are against the Way."
By your thoughts and actions, you believe Apuron and his NCW masters to be prophets. You believe them to be directly sanctioned by God and to be untouchable by and unanswerable to reason, logic, and justice.
You've taken the stance that God is on your side, implying that we are against God if we insist on justice.
Dear Anonymous at 7:50 a.m.,
DeleteFirst of all, I am not Father Edivaldo. Since the very beginning, I have been saying that I am not a priest. I am also not Holly or Jessica.
Secondly, there are already five people who personally heard him say that it is a hate blog. One of those people is Dr. Eusebio and his wife. Father Pius also admitted that he heard the Nuncio say it. And I heard this from Father Pius when he came to visit our community.
You can include me also Diana, I heard it from the HORSE's mouth.
DeleteManuel Ayuyu
When did the delegate meet with the Eusebio family or Pius? His schedule was pretty packed and I drove him around and not once was the Eusebios or Pius even there. Pius wasn't even on island.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:01 a.m.,
DeleteYes, you saw the letters and misinterpret them as ultimatums. Anyone can read the letters and see the words "ASK" in there several times. How you misinterpret the word "ask" to mean "force" is beyond me.
If the Archbishop really did not want to give health coverage to Father Efren, he would simply said no to Monsignor James and not even sign the papers giving any approval.
I'd like for the Nuncio to read both blogs and see for himself who makes the most sense. Almost can guarantee it's Jungle Watch!!
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:40 a.m.,
DeleteJunglwatch is full of misinterpretations. And there are many four-letter vulgar language words in it By the way, I am still waiting for the confirmation flight for Father John. The jungle made the accusation that we were hiding Father John in the seminary. So, where is the evidence of this? And where is the evidence showing that the Archbishop is being controlled by Father Pius? Where is the evidence showing that money laundering is taking place in the seminary?
If the Archbishop is not being controlled by Father Pius, then I don't see why he can't gracefully excuse himself from the NCW and just be an overseer like he is for all the other Catholic movements on Guam. This would remove all perception that the Archbishop is favoring one group over another. I would think Father Pius should understand that. Wouldn't you Diana?
DeleteTo Diana, Sep 7 @ 8:04 a.m.,
DeleteThis is similar to what happened with the supposed-invitation from Cardinal Tagle for the neos to come to the PI. You all believed what your catechists were telling you and then what happened? It wasn't true.
I suppose another letter like Cardinal Tagle's, but this time from the Nuncio, is what you'd need to set the record straight to prove once and for all that this is what he said. Absent any proof and based on your catechists' history, we are inclined to think the Nuncio didn't say it.
Dear Anonymous at 12:41 p.m.,
DeleteIs that your proposal to remove your perception that the Archbishop is favoring one group over another? Here is my suggestion. Why don't the Archbishop have lunch with the non-RMS priests every week. Would that help?
Dear Anonymous at 2:28 pm,
DeleteMistakes happen. A mistake or a mix-up in communication is not a lie.
If the mix-up in communication was not exposed, the story would have remained that way. Can't you see what the NCW leaders are doing to the innocent folks in the Way? They'll lie and then when caught, they say it was miscommunication. Just like how Archbishop Apuron was put in a spot with Archbishop Krebs in regards to the "choice" he gave to the Filipino priests. He said it was due to miscommunication......even though there were letters to prove otherwise. That is just so sad. Can you explain this?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:06 a.m.,
DeleteHow can you judge that it was a deliberate lie and not a simple miscommunication? Let us say for example that my boss announced to everyone in my department about a new policy will be implemented according to the higher up (his boss). Later, we learned that this new policy that he mentioned does not even exist. We find out that what he meant was a change in work schedule rather than a new policy. Was he lying or was there miscommunication between him and his boss? Should I and my department brand him a liar??
First of all, if my boss announced that a new policy was going to be implemented, I'd ask to see the policy just to ensure we were on the same page. And if he were a good boss, he would provide it and not tell us just to believe him. Do you see where I'm going with this Diana? The analogy you provided is exactly how we see the NCW....that you just listen and don't question and believe whatever your leader says. And you saw where that got you?
DeleteYou ask how can I judge that it was a deliberate lie and not just due to miscommunication? Archbishop Apuron said in front of Archbishop Krebs that the forcing of the Filipino priests to join the Was was a miscommunication. I guess he forgot about the letters he sent to these priests, signed with his very own signature, which are available for all to see that it wasn't miscommunication. Now do you still believe that your leaders are telling you the truth?
Dear Anonymous at 12:18 a.m.,
DeleteIn a job site, a higher boss can speak to another boss verbally, and still there is miscommunication. I noticed in Tim's blog, when he made a mistake without double checking, you call it a mistake. He just took the person's word for it. When it is the NCW who took the person's word, you called it a lie???
I have seen the letters, and it was a misinterpretation on the Filipino priests. I have already spoken about this in one of my posts. Below is my explanation of why they misinterpret it.
http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2014/08/responding-to-anonymous-poster-from.html
So you equate Tim Rohr to Father Pius. Interesting.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 5:01 a.m.
DeleteWhere in any of my comments did I even implied that????
Dear Diana @ 6:44 AM: The implication was when you pointed out that Tim made a mistake without double checking and comparing it to the mistake your boss Father Pius made without double checking.
DeleteYour implication is wrong though in that we don't have to listen to Tim if we don't want to as opposed to Father Pius whom all neos are told to listen to .
Dear Anonymous at 8:12 a.m.,
DeleteWe listen to the Archbishop and the Pope even if they do make a mistake because they are human and can make a mistake. However, that does not mean that we should not listen to them at all. They are our Church leaders, so we listen to all Church leaders. We do not need to listen to Tim Rohr because he is not the Archbishop nor is he a Pope. In fact, he is not even a priest.
AND WHAT IS KIKO?????
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:31 a.m.,
DeleteKiko Arguello is the Consultor of the Pontifical Council APPOINTED by Pope Francis.
"We do not need to listen to Tim Rohr because he is not the Archbishop nor is he a Pope. In fact, he is not even a priest."
DeleteIn the same token, Kiko is also not the Pope, nor an Archbishop and if fact, he is not even a priest, so why do the neos listen to him and bow to him like he is their god?
Dear Anonymous at 10:02 p.m.,
DeleteWe do not bow to Kiko. On the other hand, we bow and even kiss the ring of the Pope. Does this mean that we worship the Pope. Definitely not......no more than your bowing to the statutes of Mary. Please do not act like the Protestants who accuse Catholics of being idol worshippers because YOU bow to a statue of Mary.
Pope Francis appointed Kiko Arguello to be consultor of the Pontifical Council.......a council that is part of the Vatican.
How do you know for sure that Hitchens is wrong? He dead, so you won't be speaking to him soon.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 6:27 a.m.,
DeleteHitchen accused Mother Teresa of many things such as stealing the funds for herself. Yet, he never went to the police with any of his accusations. Instead, he wrote a book, which made him famous and made many TV appearances.
History has proven Hitchens wrong anonymous 6:27. I know 6:27 comes early in the morning but please have a cup of coffee, wake up before contributing to a meaningful discussion.
DeleteI love mother Teresa and love her Eqquis, her speaking ill of other religious, her heretic teachings, and her house and stashes of cash. Wait that is Apuron. HOW DARE you even compare the two let alone reference her. You know nothing. I had an opportunity to meet her in Colorado and she would scold Apuron for his unchristian like behavior. She was real like that. She helped the poor. She comforted the sick and dying. I've NEVER seen Apuron talk or even touch a poor man or even offer a ride.
ReplyDeleteAnon 7:43 AM I witness Archbishop went out on his comfort zone and went door to door and annonce the Gospel. People were surprise..So don't assume.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:43 a.m.,
DeleteWhat Mother Teresa went through with Hitchens is what the Archbishop is going through with Tim Rohr. Hitchens accused her of stealing, corruption, and fraud and he demanded that she published the audit - all dealing with money. He never went to the police for any of his accusations. Instead, he wrote a book entitled "God Is Not Great", and made many TV show appearances.
Today, the Archbishop is being accused of taking money for himself from the NCW, money laundering in the seminary, and is being demanded that he publish the financial report - all dealing with money. Tim Rohr never went to the police for any of his accusations. Instead, he wrote a book entitled "Target" and made many TV appearances.
What Apuron does with the money isn't illegal- but it doesn't make it right. Private homes, property, giving away the seminary, accepting gifts and trips, money to ghost employees. He is the sole corp. and hides behind it every time. He refuses to be transparent and he knows it. He lives in a lie.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:01 am,
DeleteMoney laundering is illegal according to the law, and Tim Rohr has alleged that money laundering was taking place in the Seminary. If he actually has substantial evidence of this illegal activity, he has not gone to the police. Instead, he wrote a book and appeared in TV interviews many times.
Wow you must have great access this isn't even an official public photo. The messy back drop is a clear sign this is one of the many studio shots that Apuron gets to pick from. It comes in a cd and you get 100 shots. Hello archbishop :-). I wonder if you remember our conversation in September last year. I am sure you miss fr. Tony and deacon Jeff- when they passed away you fell into a personal depression and flew right into the arms of NCW. What would they think of your actions today?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 7:57 a.m.,
DeleteI got the photo off the Internet. Just type in "Archbishop Anthony Apuron, images" in googles or searchalot, and it will take you to many photos of him. This one is among those many photos.
Anon @7:57
DeleteWhy dont you ask Msgr Benevente why he told the family of Deacon Jeff that he would cover the expenses of the funeral and then only to reverse his offer after the Deacons burial.
anonymous 7:43, you say that Mother Theresa "would" scold Arch Bishop Auoron? Did you have a conversation with a Saint? You need to reread what you are writing because if you imply a false statement or opinion, it renders your arguements completely false. Talk about what you know, not what you assume to think you know.
ReplyDeleteDear Anon 8:10. See my post below. English is my second language. I meant to say if she knew what he was up to she would scold him.
DeleteThank you anonymous 12:52 for the clarification and please also forgive me but we cannot speak for those who have passed in issues pertaining to the living. They say though and I truly hope that is true; those who have passed before us are with angel's; together waiting in eagerness for us to pray and when we do pray, they are filled with happiness and rejoicing. Just between you and I believe that you fully understood what you wrote. Last words..time spent praying is less time available for sinning.
DeleteMaybe he WAS the people's bishop in the past, but can you honestly explain why MANY now are not happy with his actions as of late, not to mention after he joined the NCW? And please don't say it's because of Tim Rohr, because that's an insult to our intelligence by insinuating that we can't make reasonable judgments on our own.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 9:02 a.m.,
DeleteWhat do you mean "many?" There were only a about a hundred people in your prayer protest at the Cathedral.
Reasonable judgements anonymous? Fair enough...so what is wrong with reasonable judgements that contradicts your reasonable judgements? No insinuation about your intelligence just your unbalanced sense of open discussions and fairness..sort of my way or the highway kind of attitude.
DeleteI did speak with her. But not about Apuron. I'm not originally for here. I moved here in the late 90s. I was working for then Monsignor Dale Fushek in Mesa, Arizona who coordinated a portion of her visit to Phoenix as she traveled in the U.S. She flew on a private helicopter which we helped arranged. I will treasure my wonderful memories of her.
ReplyDeleteAhhhh and tell me Diana what does it mean when you say they are not even from our island? I'm from here although not born here but this is my home. Don't like that? Well at least I have proper grammar
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 9:35 a.m.,
DeleteThe person I was referring to was neither from Guam nor born on Guam.
Hello Diana, great topics and just wanted to thank you for the opportunity to comment, add and ask questions. I find it difficult though to stay focused on each topic as some of your commenters are generalizing their opinions. Before writing this morning about the Arch Bishop, I read about St. Gregory; the great Pope and was surprised to see how our own Arch Bishop closely follows Gregory's passion. This of course is only my opinion and I hope not to offend anyone. Thanks again and God blessing to all
ReplyDeleteIn many conversations with people and in reading what many are saying about Archbishop Apuron not being a nice person, I think the only way to earn the respect he deserves is for him to strip off all his pride, be humble and simply say "I am sorry" to the whole Catholic Church, non-neo & neo. He would have to mean it though and show it in his actions because people can sense when a person is being phony. I believe that he should also relieve himself of the neo to show that he is the shepherd for ALL of us. I pray that he will do this for the good of the whole Catholic Church so we can finally end this so-called "war" and he can finally get the respect he so deserves. After all, we are Catholics and we will forgive. Let us start anew.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 9:27 p.m.,
DeleteIf I recall, the Archbishop called Father Paul privately and spoke to him. He told Father Paul that he was sorry about slandering his name in front of a clergy meeting in Manila. Father Paul, on the other hand, said that the Archbishop's apology was not good enough and he wanted it in writing.
So, I think forgiveness goes both ways. Tolerance is needed. Asking the Archbishop to separate from the Way rather than learning to accept him in the Way is intolerant. There are many priests.....Capuchins, Dominicans, Franciscans, Opus Dei, and RMS....all must learn to get along with each other rather than separate from each other.
Diana -- I am disappointed. This was a suggestion I thought you would agree with. As the leader of the church, I would think that the Archbishop would take the first step in the healing process. There are far too many outcries from the flock. Apparently, the tolerance you suggest is not working. Any other suggestions?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 5:50 a.m.
DeleteIt takes two people to work things out, not one. Even if the Archbishop apologized, what good would it be when the other side does not want to forgive? Even if the Archbishop came out in the media to answer questions just as he did, what good would it be when the other side still called him a liar?
I have given examples. The Archbishop did apologized to Father Paul in private about the wrong he had done in the clergy meeting in Manila. And what did Father Paul do? He went to the media and said that his apology was not good enough and he wants it in writing.
Another example was when five priests wrote him a letter asking the Archbishop to clarify something they did not understand in his statement. At their meeting with him, nothing was brought up about firing Father Paul. Only the financial problem was brought up at the meeting. The Archbishop came out to explain, and the jungle called him a liar. It takes two people to work things out. In other words, both sides must want to resolve the problem.
>" He went to the media and said that his apology was not good enough and he wants it in writing."
DeleteThe persecution was public. The slander was public.
A penitent man, with the goals of being just and righteous, would happily correct that persecution and slander in the manner in which it was committed - in PUBLIC.
Dear Anonymous at 11:14 a.m.,
DeleteYes the slander was in public. But what is your reason for wanting the apology in public? Humiliation? Justification? Satisfaction? Sometimes doing the simplest things can create greater things. If Father Paul had forgiven the Archbishop, the good relations between the two (as a result of true forgiveness) will show all the clergy that all is well and forgiven. And everyone can move forward. Humility is better if one wants to move forward and bring unity. Revenge does not and never brought peace.
When you say something bad about someone in public and subsequently believed that what you did was wrong, your conscience should tell you that the proper way would be to apologize in public in order to restore that person's reputation. This is humility.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:12 p.m.,
DeleteWe are all called to holiness, and it starts with us. I cannot make another person holy. But with God's grace, I hope to make myself holy to be a light to everyone. When others see the light of Christ in me, then the person who has wronged me can apologize in public. But it starts with us first.
There was a time when I was publicly humiliated by a brother in the community. The person later apologized to me in private and I accepted the person's apology. Later, she made the apology public in a convivence. That was about six months later.
Was my reputation damaged because of what the person had done? No. My community respected me even more because I chose to accept her forgiveness and move on without demanding anything from the person. It was the other person who they looked down on because the person publically scandalized me......just like you looked down on the Archbishop because he did not apologize publically. But in time (about six months later) the person made a public apology in front of everyone including me. Love always conquers darkness.
Yes we are all called to holiness, but more importantly is Archbishop Apuron. In his position, he is held to a higher standard. In his holiness, he shouldn't have to first wait for the holy light to be illuminated from those he has hurt in order to make an apology. In his holiness, he should always see goodness. In his holiness, he should show that love conquers darkness. Wouldn't you agree?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 3:01 am,
DeleteThe Archbishop is human like all of us. He is a sinner like all of us. And God calls all of us to holiness. The Apostles Whom Christ chose were actually worse than all his disciples. Remember, St. Peter denied Christ three times.
Diana, do you believe that it is just to slander someone publicly and later apologize privately?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:44 p.m.,
DeleteThe only reason that you feel that the apology should be done publicly is to further humiliate the person. Revenge never brings peace. Forgiveness brings peace.
Open your mind a little. The world is bigger than your pro-NCW view affords you.
DeleteThere is more than *one* reason for a public apology.
A public slander may damage a person's reputation and livelihood. These still remain damaged with the Archbishop's private apology. Since the slander was public, it's as if the private apology never existed.
Like I said, there's more to the world than being a NCW apologist.
Dear Anonymous at 6:46 a.m.,
DeleteSt. John Paul II (the former Pope) apologized to the world for the Church's involvement in the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the past wrongs that the members have committed in the name of the Church, and the world STILL blames the Catholic Church for those wrongs.
Revenge does not bring any peace. Forgiveness brings peace.
An apology doesn't mean that something didn't happen.
DeleteYour claim that public apologies only serve to humiliate the guilty party is extremely short-sighted. By showing that, I didn't mean for you to way off base into that strange tangent you seem to rely on.
The Crusades? The Inquisition? The world blaming the Catholic Church for committing the atrocities it committed?
You went there to prove your assertion that public apologies are unfair to the perpetrators?!
It was Archbishop Krebs, the Nuncio, who said that bridges aren't built by ignoring injustice. He didn't say that apologies are revenge or that apologies were the enemy of peace.
I'd like to know this, is it your personal belief that apologies are unnecessary and humiliating or is this an NCW credo.
Dear Anonymous at 11:11 a.m.,
DeleteI never sad that apologies are unnecessary. They are actually necessary when one commits a wrong. It is part of repentance. Building bridges is also not based on getting satisfaction from the other, getting even, or getting revenge. It is not about humiliating the enemy because you were humiliated yourself. It is not about an eye for an eye. The best bridges to build is one based on true forgiveness. Forgiveness is linked with humility. Forgiveness is needed for both sides. The Archbishop was willing to ask for forgiveness even if it was in private. That is a start......a start to build a bridge. Tearing the bridge down is demanding an apology in public because you are not satisfied with a private apology and want the other to feel the humiliation he felt when he committed the slander against him.
anonymous 9:27, we are at war. Take a look at how many Arch Bishop's; Bishop's and priest are under attack throughout the Catholic church. You will also find Pope Benedict being slandered. Do you really think that we as Catholics on Guam are immuned from being attacked and destroyed by the evil one? We don't have to look too hard to see how our families are being broken.
ReplyDeleteRohr writes about our problems starting 20 years ago when Father Pius came to Guam to evangelize. Short sighted in my opinion because the problems really started in 33 ad when they crucified our Lord. Rohr blames the Neocatechumenal Way for causing divisions within our parishes. Another shallow arguement because Catholic scholars argue that Emperor Constantine who made Christianity his kingdom's religion. Shallow because the purity and spirit of the early church were lost as the different people in Constantine's kingdom tried to interpret the Word into their different cultures.
All this does not excuse the Arch Bishop's faults. I would only ask you to judge according to the fruits of his labor. Before passing judgements thought, please read about the struggles of St. Gregory, the Great Pope. Maybe you will understand what our own Arch Bishop is faithfully striving to follow.
Dear Anonymous at 12:49 a.m.,
DeleteThis is my opinion. In Guam, I would say that the problem started in 2013 with he Gofigan case. Before that, you do not see Tim Rohr saying anything about the Archbishop or the NCW. However, I think something happened sometime in 2012 between Tim and the Archbishop and he kept it boiling inside. The Gofigan case only triggered whatever what has been boiling inside him. This is a personal vendetta that Rohr has, but he has involved other people in it.
If it was a personal vendetta for Rohr, many would have seen it as just that and not even entertain the issue. Obviously, many do not see it that way. Tim substantiates his comments with believable facts and by not hiding behind a pseudonym, many will believe what he has to say.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:37 a.m.,
DeleteLook at Tim Rohr's blog. In 2012, he did not say anything about the Archbishop or the NCW. However, sometime in 2012, he was no longer writing for the Umatuna. He was ousted from there. He left a Thank you letter in the Umatuna before he left. That was taken out, and I cannot find it anywhere. It was not until the Gofigan case came out that you see his rage against the Archbishop. He may have been harboring this rage inside for a long time, and the Gofigan case triggered it to come out in an explosive way.
Tim has not substantiate his comments with believable facts. Where is the evidence showing that the Archbishop is actually being controlled by Father Pius. I do not see facts there...only speculation. Where is the evidence showing that we were hiding Father John in the seminary? Where is the evidence showing money laundering in the seminary. He says that he has facts showing that the seminary was going to be sold? He only has the testimony of certain people, so it is word against word. Where is the documentation that there was even an attempt to sell the seminary? Where is the title showing who owns the seminary?
Dear Anonymous at 12:49 a.m.,
DeleteThe problem Tim Rohr refers to as starting 20 years ago is here on Guam. There were questions about the neo having their separate masses away from the main parish, therefore they were being labeled as separatists. Many in The Way also gave off the air that they were better Catholics than the rest. But mind you, it was tolerated. It only became a bigger problem when the Archbishop joined The Way and people started to notice the difference. When he came on the radio and publicly questioned the "credentials" of a certain bishop who wasn't "for The Way", that started the commotion. This was followed by ultimatum letters to priests who did not follow his way,The Way. So please understand that our judgments are based on facts. If you'd like, we can post the radio commentary in which the Archbishop made that statement and also post the letters to the priests showing the ultimatums. Others can then judge for themselves what this "war" in Guam is all about.
Sorry 12:49 a.m., I did read about St. Gregory and can't see the comparison between Archbishop Apuron and St. Gregory who was chosen Pope by the unanimous consent of priests and people.
Deleteanonymous 8:13, I wrote at 1 am and at 8 am, you are already commenting on St Gregory. Not to be critical or offensive but please spend a little more time and effort to be enlightened. St. Gregory was not afraid to make changes that probably made alot of comfortable people mad. St Gregory evangelized and most importantly, he lived in spirit of humility. Much, much more
ReplyDeleteOkay 12:36. Meanwhile, I'd prefer to wait until Archbishop Apuron becomes a saint.
DeleteSt. Gregory lived in spirit of humility......That's a very good comparison to Archbishop Apuron.
DeleteAnonymous 8:05, there are many churches and rites...ways of worshipping that constitutes one Holy Catholic Church. As with the Neocatechumenal Way, they are also recognized and approved by the Vatican. Four Popes embrace the Way, two of the Popes are Saint's. Are those who criticize more Catholic than these four Popes? Who are we to criticize how a person worships?
ReplyDelete@Diana "This is my opinion. In Guam, I would say that the problem started in 2013 with he Gofigan case."
ReplyDeleteAnd so how do you characterise the Cara report of December 2010? All sweetness and roses, wasn't it. No problems identified in relation to the NCW and the Archbishop?
Dear Anonymous at 1:07 p.m.,
DeleteI was referring to Tim Rohr's behavior toward the Archbishop, not the Cara report.