AnonymousNovember 30, 2014 at 6:56 AM
Diana, I read your response about John Toves that he should take the matter to the church, not to the media. Someone wrote about that in the PDN and Tim posted this on his blog:
"You chastise Mr. Toves for “casting stones in a public forum” and accuse him of taking a detour. How do you know that Mr. Toves did not confront Apuron privately? You don’t, do you? You don’t know because he did confront Apuron privately. But as usual, Apuron did not respond."
"You chastise Mr. Toves for “casting stones in a public forum” and accuse him of taking a detour. How do you know that Mr. Toves did not confront Apuron privately? You don’t, do you? You don’t know because he did confront Apuron privately. But as usual, Apuron did not respond."
So, according to Tim Rohr: "You don’t know because he did confront Apuron privately. But as usual, Apuron did not respond."
I would like to know how John C. "The Typhoon" Toves managed to confront the Archbishop PRIVATELY when John Toves was in California and the Archbishop was in Rome? His interview with the media while he was still in California made it here first.
The first time the public heard about the allegation of sexual abuse by John Toves was on KUAM on November 17th. The interview on KUAM revealed that he was calling from San Francisco, California. In his interview, John Toves stated that he plans to expose the Archbishop AND Father Adrian. So, what PRIVATE confrontation did he have with the Archbishop BEFORE this interview with the media while he was in California? Or perhaps, Mr. Toves was referring to his PUBLIC recording to the Archbishop and to Father Adrian, which was published on YouTube on November 13th. Was this PUBLIC recording on YouTube supposed to be the PRIVATE confrontation between him and the Archbishop?
The above weblink was a public message to BOTH the Archbishop and Father Adrian. In no way can this be viewed as a "PRIVATE" conversation between him and the Archbishop. In both this YouTube message and the interview with KUAM, he mentioned exposing BOTH Archbishop Apuron and Father Adrian. Furthermore, in regards to Father Adrian, the comment below came from Tim Rohr (the bold is my emphasis):
TimNovember 7, 2014 at 10:33 AM
Fr. Adrian's errors are just as documented as AAA's. So we'll probably get an outside administrator. I think Rome is waiting until Apuron is gone in order to clean up the whole mess in this region which is why they haven't assigned a bishop to Saipan after 4 years...and also why they immediately accepted Camacho's resignation (though they'll say it was illness related.) But even if we get Adrian, we have a back up plan. His name is John Toves.
Fr. Adrian's errors are just as documented as AAA's. So we'll probably get an outside administrator. I think Rome is waiting until Apuron is gone in order to clean up the whole mess in this region which is why they haven't assigned a bishop to Saipan after 4 years...and also why they immediately accepted Camacho's resignation (though they'll say it was illness related.) But even if we get Adrian, we have a back up plan. His name is John Toves.
Apparently, John Toves also has some allegation on Father Adrian, which we have not heard yet. So, when is he planning to reveal that information? In todays PDN, Reuel Drilon stated: First, on the matter of timing, I have read a number of comments of those pondering why it has taken over 30 years for such accusations to come to light. John Toves already came out with these allegations against the Archbishop after 30 years. Now, the question is.....when is he going to come out with allegations against Father Adrian. Perhaps, he is going to wait until Father Adrian takes charge as Tim Rohr indicated? Would that be the right timing?
Why this fear on the part of Tim Horror and company at the legal action that Archbishop took to defend the Church? I suppose the reason is that the people behind Tim Rohr live in glass houses. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Is it the fear that their ‘sins’ may be exposed in the process?
ReplyDelete‘They” are claiming that Archbishop made a mistake in making a defamation suit. If the professed enemies of Archbishop are claiming that this is an error, then it must be the right thing to do. Their claim validates more than anything else this line of action of Archbishop.
ReplyDeleteIgnatius of Antioch is one of the eminent Saints of the early Church. He met his martyrdom by being fed to wild beasts. This is what he wrote “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, anything is done will be safe and valid.” — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8. So all those who are attacking nastily Archbishop, are not ‘Catholic’. Simple as that.
ReplyDeleteMr. Rohr is an American. He had every chance and right to live here. Yes, Chamorro; but AMERICAN FIRST. If all the "foreigners" left you would have a rather large problem. To include, of course, the RMS seminarians.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:27 pm,
DeleteMr. Rohr is not a Chamorro. He is a Guamanian. The Chamorros are the NATIVES of the island.
Tim Rohr is suggesting that we may get an administrator from outside the island if Apuron goes away. Is this what this foreigner-to-our island wants? Does he think our priests are not good enough simply because they are Chamorro? This man despises Guam.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 10:59 am,
DeleteActually, Tim has also criticize the foreign priests on this island.
please correct me if I am wrong.
ReplyDelete1. Mr. Rohr says that faithful Catholics should revolt against the bishop appointed by the pope.
2. If Fr. Adrian is made AAA's successor, Mr. Rohr says that faithful Catholics should revolt against the next bishop appointed by the pope.
Who should faithful Catholics NOT revolt against? Is Mr. Rohr going to appoint an acceptable bishop? Is he saying that faithful Catholics should only accept a candidate that he approves?
I am confused. Isn't the pope the one who appoints bishop? If Mr. Rohr is claiming the position of the one who tells faithful Catholics who they should follow, what does that make him? Is there a title for him? Does he have canonical status? Timothy Rohr pontifex maximus?