The following comment was made by anonymous poster under my last post. I agree that no one here was rejoicing or celebrating over David Mills' letter published in the PDN. I copied and pasted Mr. Mills' letter from the Pacific Daily News and simply said that it was published in today's newspapers. The first one who went to the media was Father Paul. Before the Archbishop could explain his actions, the jungle had already spread the false rumor that Father Paul was removed because of the NCW.
AnonymousOctober 14, 2014 at 10:55 PM
Many times it makes sense to go back to the origins of a story.
I was in Guam last year when the issue about Father Paul Gofigan came to light in the media. And I still remember that it was not the Chancery or Archbishop who made the issue public but Father Paul Gofigan. And I still remember that the media, in particular the radio talk show of Patty Arroyo immediately and gratuitously jumped to the conclusion that the real reason of Father Paul’s dismissal was his apparent refusal to start the Neocatechumenal Way in his parish. Tim Rohr soon jumped on the wagon decrying and blasting the Archbishop for this evil that he had allegedly done. The rest is history.
Now that this David Mills, whoever he is, has put the whole issue back to perspective, there is the predictable racket. What did Mills do? He just clarified in detail what were the accusations against this Lastimoza. Simply by speaking the truth, he vindicated the actions of Archbishop.
No one is so sick as to gloat over a rape and a murder. But the truth needed to be reaffirmed since falsehood had taken control of this story.
I was in Guam last year when the issue about Father Paul Gofigan came to light in the media. And I still remember that it was not the Chancery or Archbishop who made the issue public but Father Paul Gofigan. And I still remember that the media, in particular the radio talk show of Patty Arroyo immediately and gratuitously jumped to the conclusion that the real reason of Father Paul’s dismissal was his apparent refusal to start the Neocatechumenal Way in his parish. Tim Rohr soon jumped on the wagon decrying and blasting the Archbishop for this evil that he had allegedly done. The rest is history.
Now that this David Mills, whoever he is, has put the whole issue back to perspective, there is the predictable racket. What did Mills do? He just clarified in detail what were the accusations against this Lastimoza. Simply by speaking the truth, he vindicated the actions of Archbishop.
No one is so sick as to gloat over a rape and a murder. But the truth needed to be reaffirmed since falsehood had taken control of this story.
Diana you claim that there has not been a NeoCat takeover of the Dededo Church -- yet. Well, if you would not know, there is reason for that. Tim's blog is the single reason the Archbishop has not dared (yet?) to appoint a NeoCat priest to lead the St Barbara parish. Do you think we are not aware of that?
ReplyDeleteDear voice of faith,
DeleteWhat makes you think that Tim's blog has any influence on the Archbishop? The Archbishop is not dictated by Tim Rohr or anyone else. If he really wanted to bring the NCW into the Dededo Parish, he can because he is the Archbishop. Did you not know that the Archbishop also removed Monsignor James despite Tim's protests? Did Tim's protest and petition able to get Monsignor James position back? No, of course not.
Diana, I am lost what you are talking about. The Archbishop cannot go against public uproar. This would be a scandal. Nobody said it is Tim Rohr who dictates. It is publicity. Those things the Archbishop wanted to do in the dark of the night when nobody knew about it cannot be done in the bright of the sunlight during the day when everybody is watching. This is very simple. A NeoCat takeover at Santa Barbara now would be so obvious like a public harakiri. A death sentence. No diocese leader can afford it. I don't understand the rest of what you said. I have no idea why would you implicate Fr James in the business of Santa Barbara... Any clue, please?
DeleteDear voice of faith,
DeleteThe people of Dededo can protest like just like they did when Monsignor James was removed for financial mismanagement. The Archbishop still did not reinstate Monsignor's James position. The people can have a petition, but again......the Catholic Church is not a democracy. The people did not elect the Archbishop. He was appointed by the Pope.
If that is how picture the Archbishop, then he is indeed a BULLY
DeleteDear Isaias,
DeleteAs I said, the Catholic Church is not a democracy. I'm sure that a majority of Catholics would like to change the Catholic Church's stand on contraceptives and same sex marriage......but this is not a democracy. Just because the Church refuse to bend their moral doctrines does not make her a bully. If the Archbishop feels that removing a priest for disobedience or for financial mismanagement is in the best interest of the Church, that is not being a bully.
It will change....just watch and pray, still the way you picture the Archbishop speaks about someone who is a bully on the playground. And by the way neither is the church a dictatorship. It is first the People of God, then a hierarchy, read Vatican 2 documents
DeleteDear vof,
DeleteWhat dark things did the archbishop want to do in the night? Please give proof or stop mud slinging.
Dear isaias, pope is the servant of the servants of God. He serves by leading. Nothing new in that. It's been like this for 2000 years. A leader needs to be followed. I understand that authority is very hard concept for you to accept. To equate authority with bullying is infantile.
Question 9:38: How does the Archbishop lead? in this context of so many people wanting change?
DeleteBullying is not only the big kid punching the little kid in the playground. But the truth is, bullying is a mindset which creates a dangerous environment that, all too often, the entire community participates in. It is the endorsement of a wider outlook on the world that believes that some belong and others do not.(read last Sunday's gospel)
The archbishop should lead, yes, by first being a servant. You have pictured him in your post as a dictator/bully as if he can do anything he wants ( only the Pope can replace him). Pope Francis even asks opinions of bishops and the laity. The Pope is a Servant leader who listens to his people.
Does the Archbishop listen. Ask him later in the Convivence or Pius?
So your answer to the fact that the archbishop is the head of the local church is that "so many people wanting change" should dictate who leads the church and how. And how is that not bullying? It seems to me that the bully in your picture is the mob. The mob has been known to do terrible things. 2 examples come to my mind, the mob who beheaded Louis xvi and the mob who beheaded Charles I. Or the Salem witch trials. The more I think about the wisdom of the mob the more examples come to my mind. Lyching during segregation. Again your question is leading. The mob believes many things I don't agree with, abortion gay marriage divorce ordination of women...
DeleteThe servant leader who listens to his people is your interpretation. Many of the church fathers had to flee their diocese during the Arian and donatist controversies because they did not listen. Most of them are saints.
The way the Archbishop treated Fr Paul is the evidence of the Archbishop's dark intentions. Diana keeps saying that the Archbishop represents Jesus' authority on island. This is so not true. He might for the NeoCat and for those who prefer earthly power, but surely not for the majority of good Catholics of Guam.
DeleteBy the way, Diana, you erased my comment about Pope Francis. What is the reason? His most recent announcements about reviewing the teaching of the Church on family issues is a must to read for every Catholics! Even for NeoCats, We are talking about contraception, cohabitation, gays rights, etc. This might be inconvenient for NeoCats who must conform with the directions of Arguello. But very much exciting for the Catholic faithful who follow closely the new brave ideas injected into the Church by Pope Francis.
Dear voice of faith,
DeleteI erased it because you are derailing thread. This post is not about gay rights, contraception, or cohabitation. I only allowed this comment through so I can tell you to stick to the post and not derail the thread.
"The way arch treated fr. Paul is evidence of his dark intentions" wow. I am almost speechless by the malice contained in that sentence. You do not only judge future actions of a person based on what he does in the past, you condemn his intentions based on actions which you do not agree with. And we are not talking about AAA committing a serious sin here like murder or rape, we are talking about his removal of an individual who put the diocese in a position of legal liability with his actions. (Notice I am only addressing fr. Paul and the legal issue he created not the moral one with mr. Lastimoza. That topic has been covered in another post)
DeleteCareful that you are not judged yourself by that same standard.
Diana,
ReplyDeleteTim was interviewed by Patty Arroyo and he said he needs to make alot of noise to get notice. Last night jubilles mass shows that there is no unity. Msgnr James and Father Paul was absent.
El Camino, so what if they where not there! How many NEO priest were there to help Father Pat celebrate his anniversary? Shows unity eh, ?
DeleteWhere did he celebrate? He did not invite. Come on, you know for a fact he has grudge.
DeleteMsgnr James and Fr Paul not being there does not mean unity was not present. Look at the number of priests that WERE there. To say that there is no unity in the church because TWO priests did not come would be to disregard the communion and unity shared between the archbishop and all those priests that WERE there. I was at the mass last night, and i thought it was a beautiful celebration.
DeleteAnon 1:14 PM Archbishop was at Fiji at conference the time Father Pat celebrating his 25th. Secondly he was never there in any occasion unless he is obliged to go. Common sense is A Jubillee with Vatican honor. So tell me who has more envy? You and part stir this mud not the Archdiocese.
DeleteNo,no,no...I doubt you are from here, El Camino...the Archbishop was here for Father Pat's annivesary. You are misinterpreting me statement. How many RMS priest were ther to help Father Pat celebrate..two, three? Apparently they all flocked to Father Adrian's ceremony! Where is the unity...NEO priest support Neo preist...all others not walking the way can....never mind..Hope you get the picture?
DeleteReally how bout leaking information, a rogue priest leaked Fr.Wadeson's email? A non RMS priest calling everyone down south not to go to the Cathechisist? Who is the seperatist.The Archbishop just came in earlier this week, again speculation. Envy is a grave sin.
DeleteActually, the Umatuna was the first public assertion of Fr. Gofigan's removal followed by the Archdiocese press release the following Monday. Fr. Gofigan went on the air with Patti Arroyo on Tuesday, in response to the press release. The Neo was not brought up until after the Archdiocese press release, and not on JungleWatch but rather on K57 in a separate forum with Patti, Ray Gibson and Travis Coffman, the Friday after the Archdiocese press release.
ReplyDeleteIn the interest of truth, as stated by AnonymousOctober 14, 2014 at 10:55 PM, don't be in remiss by not publishing this.
Dear Anonymous at 12:39 pm,
DeleteI disagree. It was Father Paul who went public first. He gave a copy of the Archbishop's letter to his parishioners and then went to the media on July 22, 2013. PDN published the news on the Internet on July 22nd at 10:15 a.m. Also, by going to the parishioners, Father Paul made it a public affair. See the weblink below:
http://www.guampdn.com/article/20130723/NEWS01/307230007
The Umatuna came out the next day, July 23, 2013. See the weblink below:
http://www.aganaarch.org/2771/archdiocese-statement-regarding-father-paul-gofigan/
You are completely wrong with the timeline and you know it.
DeleteThe Umatuna was published late Thursday and is distributed early Friday July 19. The Adviso stated the change in that issue.
Fr. Gofigan's letter, dated July 20, was a pastoral one to his parishioners and rightfully so. Having been told he was not allowed to say mass that weekend, he never had a chance to address his congregation in his parish (He did not give any letter written by the Archbishop to anyone. You assume too much.) His letter to his parishioners was not a press release or "made public" as you have mis-characterized. Fr. Gofigan's letter was made known by some of those he works with in the Church. If this is what you mean by going public, then you play loosely with definitions and context.
The Archdiocese went public in a press release that they sent out around 5am Monday, July 22. I know, I received it directly from them via email. No, I am not press.
Opine all you want, its your blog, but you don't have a right to change the facts of the sequence of events.
Dear Anonymous at 4:14 pm,
DeleteThis is what the Umatuna dated July 23, 2013 stated:
"However, in light of specific assertions made by Father Paul in a letter he widely disseminated publicly July 20, the Archdiocese is compelled to respond to set the record straight. Here are the facts :"
http://www.aganaarch.org/2771/archdiocese-statement-regarding-father-paul-gofigan/
Father Paul gave out his letter to the parishioners on July 20th. If the Umatuna was printed on July 19th, how would they have known about the letter that would be distributed to the parishioners? This can only mean that the letters that Father Paul gave out to the parishioners came first. The letters to the parishioners was made public because he did not keep the matter between him and the Archbishop a private matter. The letter not only went to parishioners, but also to KUAM news.
You keep making up the timeline. The first printed notion that Fr. Gofigan was removed was an Aviso printed on July 18 and distributed on July 19th. The first public press release was offered by the Archdiocese as damage control to Fr. Gofigan's letter to his parishioners. You are attempting to manipulate Fr. Gofigan's letter to his parishioners as some sort of press release when it was not.
DeleteBe honest. Stop trying to contort the context to fit your narrative. This is my last reply. The facts just do not point to the timeline you are asserting in your original post above, and in the way you manufacture the sequence of events thereafter.
Ultimately, the Archbishop did not allow Fr. Gofigan due process and that is the reason the Vatican has agreed to hear his case. They don't care who went to the media first. It's irrelevant. What is relevant is exposing your continued mission to manipulate your readers by rewriting history.
Spin any answer all you want, but you are not going to fool smarter persons any longer. Good luck and God bless.
Dear Anonymous at 10:40 pm,
DeleteWe are not discussing the change at the Dededo parish. The Aviso never made it public the REASON for the change, which is the issue we were discussing about. With the Aviso, anyone can speculate that the Archbishop has decided to transfer Father Paul to another parish as is sometimes done with priests. Nowhere in that Aviso did it make it public that Father Paul was removed for not removing a sex offender from his duties, which is the ISSUE we are discussing.
And the person who made this issue publicly known was Father Paul. And the NCW was brought up in a talk show with Father Paul who instead chose to use the NCW as the reason for his removal rather than the sex offender. By using the NCW as scapegoat, the talk show did not focus on Joseph Lastimoza. If it did, questions would arise as to the crimes he committed.
This is no spin. This is the truth. The fact that David Mills brought up Mr. Lastimoza's past only brought things back into perspective. The Gofigan affair was brought up by Father Paul. He went public with it because he wanted the public support. He brought up the NCW in the talk show so everyone would focus on the NCW rather than on Mr. Lastimoza whom the Archbishop named as the reason for his removal. And this explains all the noisy racket coming from the jungle when the PDN published David Mills' letter.
It doesn't matter who went public first; what matters is our Holy Catholic Church is divided. Who is going to make the first Christian move w/forgiveness and acceptance? It looks like both sides of the fence are not willing to budge. Ai adai. Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous October 15, 2014 at 2:19 PM
ReplyDeletethe church has always been divided throughout its history......only the spirit of Jesus Christ sustains. I does matter who went public first; who drove that spear into our Lord. And what did Christ do? He didn't defend himself. Who throughout this sad affair never defended himself? It does matter anonymous......if anyone had his hands on that spear.....it matters a lot.
Jesus did not defend himself but he asked Why do you strike me?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:05 am,
DeleteJesus also called the Pharisees "broods of vipers and hypocrites." I do not understand what you are trying to say in the context of this post. Can you clarify?
It is not true that both sides of the fence are not willing to budge. Diana posted a blog a little while ago asking rohr to unite against the real workings of the devil (abortion gambling etc) all she got was insults and laughter. Fr. Pius asked for unity in his interview in the pdn. There is no malice from any one in the NCW towards mr. Rohr, fr. Gofigan or msgnr Benavente. Maybe the tone if the discussion has gotten heated at time and people in exasperation tend to say things they later regret. However There is only one point of contention: obedience to the archbishop. I don't think anyone would say he is a perfect man but his investiture demands loyalty. That is why it is important to expose the reasons for his actions and establish the truth about the finances and mr. Lastimoza.
ReplyDeleteIn the past mr. Rohr has blogged very well on issues that affect Christians and Catholics in particular the world over. However he is wrong he is sinfully wrong to lambast the neocatecumenal way kiko gennarini and the seminary. While he continues to campaign for the destruction of the NCW my reaction cannot be anything but disagreement. I do not wish him ill, but I cannot be party to his evil intentions or actions. At this point I think we can only pray for each other and hope that the Holy Spirit will come to erase divisions.
As I stated earlier, neither side is willing to budge and both sides feel they are "right" or "justified" in continuing to be stubborn. Read your responses above!!! It's enough to make Catholics on Guam seek another denomination for worship services (or was that the original intent?). Sigh, Pride goes before a fall and the Church is falling.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 1:47 am,
DeletePart of the reason is because neither side can trust the other. Regardless of what the Archbishop does, he is damned if he does and damned if he don't. He was condemned for not publishing the financial report. When he finally published it, he was condemned for it. He was condemned when he was silent. When he spoke up, he was condemned that he spoke.
If the Archbishop were to make the first move to reconcile, can you guarantee that the other side is not going to be recording his every words of reconciliation only to give it to the jungle so it can be published and mocked???? And would that be their way of showing their reconciliation to him?
If by budging you mean let the NCW be destroyed then yes I am not willing to budge until the pope tells me so. It may happen. The Jesuits were disbanded at one point in history and god acted through that. Should that ever happen I will say I obey, but until the pope says so I will continue to consider the NCW as a gift of God to the church and as such to defend it.
DeleteDear Diana at 5:39.
Delete"If the Archbishop were to make the first move to reconcile, can you guarantee that the other side is not going to be recording his every words of reconciliation only to give it to the jungle so it can be published and mocked"
What happened to "love in the dimension of the cross"? Where is the supernatural virtue to love the other to death? Surely the Archbishop should know this as one who walks? Your catechists would say that maybe the others don't know this love, but doesn't the community claim to be a sign of this very thing?
If the NCW is what is claims, wouldn't the Archbishop willingly accept the risk of mockery and suffering for Christ's sake and for the sake of love and truth?
Dear Anonymous at 4:32 pm,
DeleteDo you want unity or division? Which one is it? The Archbishop has already been mocked, and he remain silent. We want unity. Mockery only brings division. So, what do you want? If the other is serious about reconciliation and unity, mockery should not even be in their mind.
Actually, you brought up "mockery", Diana
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:15 pm,
DeleteYes, and instead of assuring me that the Archbishop's words of reconciliation would NOT be mocked, you think that he should take the mockery. And we were speaking of unity.
Anonymous October 16, 2014 at 7:03 AM
ReplyDeleteYour comment doesn't make sense........something has to die before you act. The same as saying; I'll wait for my children to commit suicide before I can begin being a loving father. You cannot accept that four Popes have supported the Way. I don't believe you are sincere even if Pope Frances were to personally invite you to accept the Way. Follow me....Anonymous October 16, 2014 at 7:03 AM...follow me. Yes or no
You need to reread the comment because obviously you didn't understand it. It states exactly the opposite of what you read
DeleteAnon@2:53PM You are so over the top. That must be what all the fuss is about; taking something so simple and making it complicated. Trust in Jesus is just that...trust. It allows all this madness to swirl all around you and yet you remain @ peace. Try it. Don't worry about others' salvation; work on your own. Peace.
ReplyDeleteThat's the whole thing, Pope Francis will make no such invitation.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous October 16, 2014 at 4:00 PM
ReplyDelete...don't worry about other's salvation?...work on your own? Yeah sure.....I bet Jesus Christ went to the cross to save himself huh?
Anon@10:15PM: I hate to break it to ya' but ANON@4PM was quoting Philippians 2:12; St. Paul said "with fear and trembling, work out YOUR OWN salvation"...what part don't you understand? All ANON@4PM said was to stop reacting and YOU brought up "I bet Jesus Christ went to the cross to save himself huh? Your comment does not make any kind of sense....was it supposed to criticize ANON@4PM? Go read Philippians 2:12 before you make a comment. I hope you're not a resp./co-resp. because it would show you haven't been reading/understanding the word. Peace.
DeleteAnonymous October 20, 2014 at 2:28 AM
Deletekeeping on walking if you are actually in the Way
In the Way we are not taught to memorize the scripture but live it. Our Salvation is judge by our good works.
DeleteAnonymous October 16, 2014 at 6:49 PM
ReplyDeleteOf course he has....perhaps you are not listening