Saturday, April 18, 2015

The Truth About RMS Property

The following was taken from today's Umatuna:

Archdoicese of Agana Statement

To dispel groundless rumors and in the service to the truth to the Catholic faithful of Guam, the Archdiocese of Agana has diligently taken steps to clarify the canonical and civil status of the property housing the Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary Redemptoris Mater and the Blessed Diego Luis de San Vitores Theological Institute for Oceania.  Therefore, three reports related to the property on which both archdiocesan entities stand are available to the public by contacting the Chancery office in Hagatna (San Ramon Hill). 

First the Ownership Report - An ownership and encumbrance report was completed in 2014 by Pacific American Title, which confirms that the lots on which the seminary sits, identifies the owner as the Archbishop of Agana.  Therefore, contrary to rumors, the title deed has always remained in the hands of the Archdiocese [1]. 

Second, the Civil Law Report - The law firm of Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP in Denver, Colorado, who is the most prominent firm specialized in establishing corporations sole in many Catholic dioceses in the U.S. and in civil-religious issues related to corporation soles, was asked a legal opinion on the Archbishop's powers, as sole member of the seminary [2].  The opinion concluded the following: 

(a) Regarding the relationship between the Archbishop and the Board of Guarantors: "The corporate governance structure of Redemptoris Mater shows...that the Archbishop of Agana retains substantial authority over Redemptoris Mater, as the Archbishop is the sole member of the entity under civil incorporation laws, presides over the governing boads, has the power to appoint the governing boards, the power to amend the civil governing documents and is the Ordinary under canon law with specific authority over the entity as prescribed in the Canonical Statutes and under canon law." 

(b) Regarding the designation of the title deed for use by the Seminary and the Theological Institute: "The authority of the Archbishop over the entity, particularly with respect to the administration of real property, is a fundamental aspect of the canon law relationship between the Archbishop and Redemptoris Mater.  The method used by the Archbishop under civil law of conveying beneficial use of the Property to Redemptoris Mater while retaining legal title to the Property within the Archdiocese of Agana is consistent with canon law prescribed structures; is consistent with civil law methods widely used by numerous Catholic dioceses in the United States both historically and currently; and is a necessary civil law structure to reflect and enforce the Archbishop's powers of jurisdiction over Redemptoris Mater under the Code of Canon Law.  Absent the express approval of the Archbishop of Agana, neither Redemptoris Mater nor any governing board or other person affiliated with such entity has the civil power or authority to cause the transfer or sale of the property."  

(c) Conclusion:  "For those lawyers who regularly practice this specialized area of religious Institutions law, including the intersection of canon and secular law, the conclusion reached here that the Archbishop is in control of the property would not be at all controversial."  

Third, the Canon Law Report - The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, which his the highest authority in the Catholic Church for interpreting the laws of the Church, was asked to provide a ruling on the land, building and title of the present Redemptoris Mater Seminary.  

The Pontifical Council concluded that there was no alienation of the property even if the Archbishop transferred the title of the property to the RMS Corporation because "based on what has been said, it seems...devoid of truth to speak of sale or alienation of a diocesan patrimony in this is also clear that the present assignment of this patrimony to the Seminary does not make it a real" alienation because the owner remains the same, namely the diocese or the Archbishop." [3]

Conclusion:  What has been aforementioned demonstrates clearly that all rumors, opinions and writings contrary to the aforesaid documents are showing only slanderous intentions aiming to disturb the communion of the People of God with grave moral responsibility of the authors. 


  1. Again, truth wins! And truth is in favor of Archbishop....

  2. Why is it that PDN hardly ever publishes the articles in favor of Archbishop that are sent to her and immediately publishes all articles (even foolish ones) that are against Archbishop? Why? Why?

    1. PDN if not in the business of truth; the finding of truth; motivated by truth or has the responsibility to publish the truth.

      One has to work hard to find the truth; when you find it, one needs the courage to tell the truth.

      In respect to the issues of the Church; PDN as shown little if any commitment to ethical and responsible reporting.

    2. If PDN is not in the business of the truth, what about last week's Sunday Variety? Was THAT the truth?

  3. Amazing you rely on "documents" as proof and truth but when it comes to the documents, statutes and papers everyone else has been asking - "it's all verbal" and the "pope told kiko" and they don't exist. You see the err in your ways and logic? Provide the over documents! Speaker Tanaka has been waiting. Your documents won't hold up in local court and law and our definitions. No one believed the Umatuna cause you al add words that didn't exist to support your cause. A team will go to chancery to get copies and see verbatim. See you in court. Oh and Aproun for the good of mother church - resign!

    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:38 am,

      If you do not believe the Umatuna, then I am sure that Tim Rohr can get his spy at the Chancery to copy the documents to be published on his blog. Better yet.....why don't CCOG go ahead with their lawsuit to get the property of RMS be converted back to the Archdiocese of Agana, since (like you) they believe the property is not under the Archdiocese of Agana?

    2. Anonymous April 19, 2015 at 7:38 AM

      What is truly amazing is your total disregard for the truth. It was God's will for the RMS to exist.


      It was also God's will for exist for us to exist....for you to exist. No lies here unless of course you have chosen to follow another God.

      I will be praying for you and Speaker Tanaka in God's court.


    3. Yes, go and have a look at the documents. They are available at the Chancery. This is what Umatuna said. And Umatuna always says the truth.

      You will be shocked how wrong the Anti-Archbishop clan are. But they will never change their accusations. Blind people do NOT see. Period.

    4. So what are these documents, something in a museum? Print them already.

    5. Dear Anonymous at 5:21 pm,

      The documents are in the Chancery. For goodness sake, just go over there and get them? Stop being lazy! If you can drive to your protest prayer in front of the Cathedral, you should be able to drive up to the Chancery. :-)

  4. There was another article against Archbishop in the PDN, Sunday edition. Regrettably this paper PDN has increasingly took it upon itself to disparage Archbishop Apuron, by publishing prominently all and every single bit of news against Archbishop and neglecting all positive information.

    Taking advantage of Pale’ Camacho lack of discretion, Greg Perez (who is a contractor by profession) viciously attacked the seminary and Archbishop. He claimed that the Seminary RM is inadequate because Father Luis did what he did. He concluded that Archbishop is incompetent because he should have been able to prevent this.

    Warped logic.

    Just one example suffices. Most of our local priests were formed at Saint Patrick Seminary in Menlo Park, California. The Archdiocese invested thousand and thousand of dollars of the people’s money in their formation.

    In 2000, a police sting operation caught the academic dean of St. Patrick’s Seminary, Fr. Carl A. Schipper, soliciting online for sex. Fr. Schipper was arrested on March 2, 2000.

    Does this make Saint Patrick Seminary bad? If we follow the argument of Mr. Perez (probably an alias for Deacon Stephen Martinez), yes.

    However one mistake by one individual does not demolish a whole institution.

    On the contrary, it validates even more the kind of formation the seminarians of the Redemptoris Mater are given, because it means that our seminarians are being formed and not brainwashed. Amen.

  5. Why are the documents only available at the chancery? There are people in the mainland who would probably like to see these documents but won't be able to do so not out of laziness, Diana, but because they do not live on island! Why won't the archbishop just post the documents on the archdiocese of Agana website for ALL to see?

    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:39 pm,

      Why don't Tim Rohr publish it on his blog?

    2. Dear Diana, you asked, "Why don't Tim Rohr publish it on his blog?" The reason is simple. Tim is not interested in the truth. He is just interested in demolishing Archbishop.

  6. Their latest tactic is to starve Archdiocese.

    If they succeed the only ones who are going to suffer are the people of Guam. Less service at the hospitals. Less future priests. It is not by chance that the most vociferous of these people who constantly criticize Archbishop are all foreigners, gilagu... They do not have our blood running through their veins

    1. @11:17 Father Pius and RMS presbyters do not have your blood in their veins either.

  7. From JungleWatch below...and if it's true then what now Diana. Lies..lies...lies, that's all your good for.

    AnonymousApril 19, 2015 at 9:49 PM
    Letter drafted by apuron which coerces and dictates the American donor of Yona property to change her intent in order to save his ass. He wanted her to change from the seminary benefitting "Diocesan" seminarians to benefitting "rms" seminarians. This is old news but for the sake of many who might not know, it has to be mentioned. This is horrendously unethical, and not only makes him a liar but makes him guilty of effective interference in the growth of Diocesan clergy and vocations. This is an outrage that people ought to be alarmed and inflamed about.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:49 pm,

      Do you not know that we have TWO diocesan seminaries on Guam??? Surely, you are not going to call those in the John Paul II Seminary "RMS" seminarians when we know that they are not in the Redemptoris Mater Seminary?????? After all, did not the American donor's money went to the RMS seminary in Yona???? Surely, you knew that the donor's money NEVER went to the John Paul II seminary??????

    2. But Diana, I heard that the seminarians in the John Paul II Seminary are just in Malojloj as their dormitory and that they still attend classes at RMS in Yona? Are their classes in Malojloj or in Yona?

    3. Dear Anonymous at 11:30 am,

      Even if they attend classes in the RM seminary, that does not make them RMS seminarians. The RMS seminarians are being trained for worldwide missions. The John Paul II Seminarians are not being trained for local missions.

    4. There are at present two three kinds of priests on Guam Jesuit, Capuchin, and Diocesan. There is no such thing as an RMS priest.

    5. Dear Anonymous at 9:51 pm,

      There are only two types of priests - Diocesan and Religious. The RMS priests are diocesan priests. The Jesuits, Domincans, Capuchins, Franciscans belong to a religious order.

    6. There are two kinds of priests.
      Diocesan priests and non-Diocesan priests.
      They differ in the authority that they are called to obey and in the vows that they make.

      The Diocesan priest is under the supervision of the Diocesan Bishop
      The non-Diocesan priests belong to a Religious Order such as the Franciscans, the Jesuits, the Dominicans, the Oblats, the Redemptorists, etc...
      They make the vows of obedience, chastity and poverty.
      They do not own anything.
      What they use, it belongs to the religious community.
      If they receive earnings for work performed, the cheque goes to the Religious Order that provides all of their daily needs.
      They answer to their superior who answers to the "Provincial" (the District authority).

      These priests are appointed to a Church/Parish by their Provincial.

    7. Anonymous 6:11AM is that you Tim ? calling everbody Lies....Lies...Lies....

    8. Diana @ 3:12.."The John Paul II Seminarians are not being trained for local missions"

      Diana @ 10:17..."The RMS priests are diocesan priests"...that's the problem.

  8. Words of wisdom

    "The past three decades have been a crucible for the Church,... Now that can do one of two things. That can kind of quiet the Church and make her shut up and become very timid and climb under a rock. Throughout history the opposite has happened. The tougher the Church has had it, the stronger it usually is, you see."

    These words coming from the former Rector of the American College in Rome, Reverend Timothy Dolan, now Archbishop of New York, encourage us to continue this fight against the Archbishop-Haters.

  9. From Junglewatch:

    It seems Luis was ordered to be removed from Guam by Pius upon the orders of the New Jersey couple. This is the reason why Apuron cannot say when he will return. Pius was a angry with the statements that Luis wanted to even return to Guam. It seems Pius is the one wanting Luis to go away and be forgotten.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:36 am,

      Does Tim Rohr have a tape recording to back this up???? Of course not. This is just another fictional story. Perhaps, Tim Rohr is getting delusional from jungle fever??? :-)

    2. This man TR just dreams things and then present them as facts! Ha ha ha ha

    3. My dearest Diana, the sexual relationship of Fr. Luis has been ongoing for months which is a crime. In the rectory, at the beaches, mostly in his car. The family and the girl CHOOSE not to drag it out for their own reasons. Her classmates know, her cousins know, and soon Guam will know. I wonder Why the Arch didn't get him a lawyer to defend him and chose to hide him and send him to deepest darkest Africa. Of cause then it becomes a legal battles that the diocese can't afford and didn't want. It is being investigated and will all come out. The question is will Arch face the music? Shame shame shame!

    4. I believe the root cause of rohrs never ending attacks on the Church is money. Without the friends of the previous members of the Finance Committee or priests that were removed by the Arch Bishop; mr. real estate rohrs personal profit potential became unachievable.

      He is not a theologian so his comments about Church doctrine of history is mute. He is not a scholar of the Catholic Church so his views and comments of Catholic history and tradition are personal.

      He is however a business man. I believe his motivations are more business oriented and focused.

      I am not calling him a liar but he has certainly shown the attributes of being one


      [ ˈlīər ] NOUN: a person who tells lies.

      synonyms: deceiver · fibber · perjurer · false witness · fabricator · equivocator · fabulist · storyteller

    5. you must be blind to the documented facts, or an idiot, or worse guilty by association.

    6. Dear Anonymous at 10:27 am,

      What sexual relations? I only heard that he was arrested for custodial interference.

    7. "I only heard that he was arrested for custodial interference."

      You may have heard that he was arrested for custodial interference, but that is not all you heard. Are you really going to lie about this "Diana"?

    8. Whose documented facts anonymous April 20 1:18

      lets start with auditor Deloitte & Touche report. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this report is support by facts. Is there a report from the former members or the finance committee?

      Name your documented facts one by one; line by line and we will see who is blind.

    9. Dear Anonymous at 5:07 pm,

      I am going by what the police reported to the media. Why? Because the arresting officer was there.

    10. Really, Diana @ 8:41 AM, you ask "Does Tim Rohr have a tape recording to back this up???? Of course not. This is just another fictional story. Perhaps, Tim Rohr is getting delusional from jungle fever??? :-)"

      When Tim Rohr produced the recording of the archbishop implying that Fr. Gofigan was carrying on a homosexual affair with Mr. Lastimoza and even lied about Fr. Gofigan having a stairway built to his bedroom (a stairway that existed before Fr. Gofigan was ordained) so that they could drink beer and do "whatever," you and your followers denied it was the archbishop speaking.

      And NOW you want Tim Rohr to back up what he says with a recording? You're so funny. Thanks so much for tonight's LOL.

    11. Dear Anonymous at 11:08 pm,

      Nowhere on my blog will you find me denying what the Archbishop said about Father Paul. In fact, you will find the opposite. The Archbishop also recognized what he said and apologized to Father Paul. It is so sad that you forgot about the Archbishop's apology to Father Paul.

      And now......since the jungle is always so much into evidence, where is the recording of Father Pius demanding that Father Luis leave Guam??? :-)

    12. @5:48,

      "What documented facts", really? Many, many at JungleWatch...with signatures. They are all free, just need internet access and a free mind.


    13. Luis is a very small item in the light of more lies to be exposed in the next few days.

    14. finding facts on junkle watch anonymous April 21 12:18??

      that is your first lie

    15. Fr. Paul asked for apology in writing. He did not do it. Archbishop, do you have time for that today?

    16. Dear Anonymous at 6:49 am,

      The Archbishop apologized in person because that is more humbling than writing a letter. Why? Because you get to see the person you hurt face to face. It is unfortunate that Father Paul could not forgive.

    17. Ok 5:13...your a waste of time.

    18. 12.18am. What are you talking about?

    19. Diana @ 7:20... The problem was that it was a sincere apology. And before you ask how do I know, where you there; i ask u the same, how do u know it was sincere? Where you there?

    20. Dear Anonymous at 1:53 pm,

      It does not matter if one is there or not. A person cannot see into another person's heart. Only God can see if the person is sincere or not. How would anyone know if a person is sincere or not?

    21. Diana only God knows the secret things of a human heart. May be archbishop is sincere we really don't know. however, sincerity should be followed by actions that manifest sincerity. We have seen so little to show our island that he is sincere. Today's adds in PDN and variety confirm the lack of sincerity in our bishop making it nearly impossible to give him our confidence. I am not for or against you. I believe in harmony, unity, trust, respect. Above all we want peace. It is now a war zone .

    22. Because the person who was offended could feel it. Fr. Did not feel it, and he was publicly trashed by AAA. IT TAKES PUBLIC APOLOGY TO MAKE IT RIGHT.

    23. AnonymousApril 21, 2015 at 11:17 AM

      Ok 5:13...your a waste of time.

      I believe you meant to say you are; you're a waste of time. I sense the passion in defending rohr which I will assume that you are either very close to rohr or rohr himself. Are you a business partner?

    24. Dear Anonymous at 4:17 pm,

      You stated: "Because the person who was offended could feel it. Fr. Did not feel it, and he was publicly trashed by AAA. IT TAKES PUBLIC APOLOGY TO MAKE IT RIGHT."

      The ONLY reason Father Paul did not feel any sincerity was simply because he did not want to forgive.....plain and simple. A true Christian always forgive.

  10. Diana. Could you tell me if it is God who sends a soul to purgatory , or is it the soul himself who decides to go there? Do the souls in purgatory experience Joy and hope in their sufferings? At the moment of death does one see God in full light or Obsure manner? What particular sin could lead a soul to purgatory? Reference on this blog was made by a commenter who said they knew they were going direct to heaven on a first class ticket. Are there people who do know they are going to heaven prior to death? Who are those who have greater responsibility to go to heaven? Sorry for so many questions.

  11. Only God knows what happen with Luis Camacho. Let the police do their job if they are still investigating. Luis himself should come clean about the situation. We are a very forgiving People. We also have to pray for the young lady and her family. They must be taking it hard.
    Joseph Pablo

    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:53 am,

      If one is truly forgiving, they do not need to wait for the other person to come clean or to ask forgiveness. At the cross, Jesus forgave the Roman soldiers who nailed Him to the cross and gambled for His garments despite that they never asked for forgiveness.

    2. Actually, Jesus asked the Father to forgive them. The Father knows their sin, and evidently Jesus understood their sin as an offence against the God the Father. Something that Kiko teaches can't possibly be!

    3. Dear Anonymous at 4:56 pm,

      Are you saying that Jesus is NOT God?????? Kiko teaches that Jesus is God, something you did not learn in Catholicism. The Son, Father, and Holy Spirit are ONE God.

      John 14:9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

    4. Dear Diana at 4.56. You are an idiot. Where did I deny that Jesus is God?

      You said: "At the cross, Jesus forgave the Roman soldiers who nailed Him to the cross and gambled for His garments despite that they never asked for forgiveness. "

      And I merely pointed out that Jesus' words were not - "I forgive you" but " Father, forgive them".

      There is a reason for this, you know.

      So you are an idiot, Diana. But I forgive you.

    5. Dear Anonymous at 10:47 am,

      What you are pointing out is very petty because Jesus is God who ALSO forgave them. Can you show me that Jesus does not forgive especially when He taught His disciples to forgive their enemies?????? So, who is the idiot now?????

    6. You're not great with subtlety, are you dear?

      The reason it matters is that Kiko teaches that God cannot be offended, and that sin is horizontal, communitarian, not vertical and personal.

      The scene you invoked of Jesus on the cross is important as it shows that even Jesus raised his prayer of forgiveness to God the Father and asked him to forgive the soldiers and elders. So why would he do that if God "cannot be offended" as Kiko teaches?

      And, you are, by the way. You demonstrate it over and over again - but that's ok. Some of my best friends are idiots.

    7. Dear Anonymous at 4:57 pm,

      It was not too long ago in this blog that some of you accuse the NCW of being heretics like Arius who questioned Christ's divinity. Now, when I say that Jesus forgave the soldiers' sins of crucifying him at the cross, you find that a problem because YOU separate Jesus from God.

      Kiko teaches that God cannot be offended? Sin offends God. The fact that I say that Jesus forgave those soldiers has nothing to do with teaching that sins does not offend God. I say that Jesus forgave those soldiers because He is God who also forgave them. After all, was it not Christ who taught us the Lord's prayer......."forgive us our trespass as we forgive those who trespass against us." Do you believe that Christ did not forgive those soldiers who crucified Him? Why do maliciously look at every little thing and complain about it??? When I say that Jesus is God. You complain and say that that is not what Kiko teaches. When I say that Jesus forgave the soldiers who crucified Him at the cross, you complain and say that He did not forgive them, but asked His Father to forgive them and then say that Kiko teach that God cannot be offended.

      Christ forgave the soldiers because the offense was not only against God but also against Jesus. It was Jesus who was persecuted and crucified, and it was Jesus the Son who died on the cross. Those soldiers needed to reconcile with God the Father whom they offend and also with Jesus whom they nailed to the cross.

      When we sinned against a person, it is not only God we offend, but also the person we sinned against. For example, when a husband commits adultery, he needs to reconcile not only with God who find his sin offensive, but he also needs to reconcile with his wife who he offended as well. So, when I say that Jesus forgave the sins of the soldiers who crucified Him on the cross, there is nothing false about what I say for He is also God who forgives.

      Why is this concept so difficult for you to comprehend that you judge every little thing with such pettiness????? When I say Jesus is God, you complain and tell me that is not what Kiko teaches. When I say that Jesus forgave the soldiers who nail Him to the cross because I recognize Him as God who forgives, you still complain

    8. AnonymousApril 22, 2015 at 4:57 PM

      Sad when we consider friends idiots. You must be a king amongst people you know more worthy of respect, honor and glory.

      Consider yourself lucky for having friends that put up with your kingly attitude.


    9. "Kiko teaches that God cannot be offended?"

      Yes. I would like to show you where, as you seem to be excluded from those privileged few who can read the first volume of the catechesis. First of all remember the following from the Psalm:

      "Have mercy on me, God, in your kindness. In your compassion blot out my offense. O wash me more and more from my guilt and cleanse me from my sin. My offenses truly I know them; my sin is always before me. Against you, you alone, have I sinned; what is evil in your sight I have done. "

      Now listen to Kiko:

      "First question: Can you offend God without at the same time offending your neighbour and yourself?

      Some people will say that you cannot offend God alone because we are the Mystical Body and so the sin of one person has repercussions on others. But the question has a trick in it. It asks if we can only offend God. The question is put in this way to make us understand that we have a concept of sin that is only vertical and individualistic, as if sin were only about the relationship between God and me and consisted of an offense against God in himself, taking something away from what God is. Basically, we think we can harm God in himself.

      The first thing that we must understand is that we cannot harm God. You cannot offend God in the sense of harming his nature because then God would be vulnerable, he would not be God. God is invulnerable. Scripture says this: Those that draw their bows against the heavens they think they can reach me? Don't they know that the arrow falls back on them?

      This is something which surprises people a lot because when we were little we were told that when we are bad and naughty we make Baby Jesus suffer. And we still have these very infantile and sentimental ideas about sin making Jesus cry.

      In what sense can we talk about an offense against God? In the sense that sin breaks God’s plan for us.”

      It is interesting to note that at this point the Holy See has inserted a reference to the CCC as a footnote, which one can only assume is intended to correct Kiko’s words above. One wonders why Kiko could not have merely taught what the Church teaches on this matter:

      "CCC1850: Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight." Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods," knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God." In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation."

    10. My apologies. In my previous comment I neglected to reference the words of Kiko in relation to offending God. These are taken verbatim from the Catechetical Directory Volume 1 (2012) pp 193-194; 9th Day Catechesis on the Sacrament of Penance.

    11. Dear Anonymous at 12:54 pm,

      Kiko explained what he meant when he said we cannot offend God in that we can harm him. According to your quote (Capitalization is mine):

      The first thing that we must understand is that we cannot harm God. YOU CANNOT OFFEND GOD IN THE SENSE OF HARMING HIS NATURE BECAUSE THEN GOD WOULD BE VULNERABLE.. God is invulnerable. Scripture says this: Those that draw their bows against the heavens they think they can reach me? Don't they know that the arrow falls back on them?

      Our sins offends God, but not in the way it harms Him, making Him vulnerable. Sin offends us, but unlike God it harms us, making us vulnerable. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Every sin can harm humans, but it cannot harm God. Rather, it harms our relationship with God. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

      1459 ......... But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor.........

      In other words, all sins are offensive to God and humans, but all sins can injure ONLY humans, but not God. You took Kiko's words out of context.

    12. "You took Kiko's words out of context"

      How can you possibly say this, when you don't have the context, and I do? There is more than simply this passage. Kiko has a habit of constructing straw man arguments - can you spot them in the words above? He does this also in relation to what is to be understood about Christ's sacrifice - a point which has direct bearing on our conversation here. One of these days, you might think about reading the book before you dig your own hole any deeper.

      IN any case, it is not just me that thinks Kiko is wrong about this point. It has been discussed over and over again, and is reflected in his broader theology of sin, particularly his obsession with the horizontal aspect of sin, and the minimisation of the vertical. "What does "against you, you alone have I sinned" mean?

    13. Dear Anonymous at 3:18 pm,

      You quoted Kiko's words from the context. This is what he stated, which you quoted from the Directory:

      "You cannot offend God in the sense of harming his nature because then God would be vulnerable, he would not be God. God is invulnerable."

      The question was (capitalization is mine): "Can you offend God WITHOUT at the same time offending your neighbour and yourself?"

      The question is asking whether you can offend God WITHOUT offending a human being. In other words, the question is asking if we can offend ONLY God. The answer is no. All sins offends BOTH God and everyone else. Kiko explains this. He stated (capitalization is mine):

      "It asks if we can ONLY offend God. The question is put in this way to make us understand that we have a concept of sin that is only vertical and individualistic, as if sin were only about the relationship between God and me and consisted of an offense against God in himself, taking something away from what God is. Basically, we think we can harm God in himself."

      What Kiko is saying is that when I sin against someone, I offend both God and that person. It is not an offense between me and God ALONE, but an offense between me, God, and the person whom I offend. When I sin against the person, naturally the person would be harmed by my sin. However, in God's case, He cannot be harmed by my sin. That is what Kiko is saying.

      You and many anti-Neo websites either take Kiko's words out of context or do not understand the catechesis.

    14. "What Kiko is saying is that when I sin against someone, I offend both God and that person. It is not an offense between me and God ALONE"

      Interesting isn't it that the Holy See should choose to footnote to this teaching of Kiko the phrase "Against you, you alone have I sinned".?

      Can you give me the context for the bit prior to this Diana? What is Kiko teaching immediately prior to the passage I quoted? Do you know?

      "You alone". Hmmm

    15. Dear Anonymous at 9:47 pm,

      Don't you know that Christ and His Church are one????? Hmmmmm..... You cannot separate the Body of Christ from her Head. They are one. Don't you know what Christ said to Saul when he was persecuting Christians???? Christ said to Saul, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting ME?" Didn't you know that any persecution on the Body of Christ (the Church) is also a persecution on Christ??? Hmmmm.......

      According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Capitalization is mine):

      1440 Sin is before all else an offense against God, a rupture of communion with him. AT THE SAME TIME it damages communion with the Church. For this reason conversion entails BOTH God's forgiveness and reconciliation with the Church, which are expressed and accomplished liturgically by the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.

      Now, let us take a look at Kiko's trick question again, which states (capitalization is mine): "Can you offend God WITHOUT AT THE SAME TIME offending your neighbour and yourself?"

      Now, let us go back and look at CCC 1850, which states that ""Against you, you alone, have I sinned,...." Anonymous did you happen to look at CCC 1849??????? Hmmmm........This is what CCC 1849 states (Capitalization is mine):

      1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for GOD AND NEIGHBOR caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

      Did you see that, Anonymous???? Right before CCC 1850, CCC 1849 specifically states that sin is a failure in genuine love for God AND neighbor. Then after that you have CCC 1850, which states "against you, you alone have I sinned." Catholic teaching is that Christ and His Church are one. Any sins against God is also a sin against His Church. Any sin against His Church is a sin against God. Do you understand this Catholic teaching?????

    16. Remember what Christ said to His Apostles, Anonymous at 9:47 pm. Christ said to His Apostles, "Those who reject you reject ME". What does that tell you about Christ and His Church being ONE???? Hmmm........ Kiko's catechesis was already approved by the Vatican. If you reject what the Vatican approves, then you reject the teachings of the Vatican.

    17. The Holy See did not footnote anything. KIKO carmen and a team of theologians canon lawyers and itinerants footnoted the directories. I assume that you have equal the knowledge of 2 theologians 2 canon lawyers a doctor of church history a liturgist and the initiators of the way in order to argue your points. And then you also have the wisdom and discernment of the holy father (fathers as 6 popes have supported the way) and the erudition of all the dicasteries in tha Vatican including faith evangelization clergy. And of course you have the authority of bishops and cardinals who not only accept the way but champion it. My question to you is, since you are the equal of all the above mentioned put together, if they have approved supported accepted and championed the way, why don't you?

    18. I do think I offend Christ when I sin. This is a powerful motivation to keep me away from sin. Yes, we can hurt our Jesus when we turn against him by sinning. His sacrifice was redemption from the power of sins. Reality is not coming from doctrines. My reality is created in my community. When I belong to my community, I belong to Christ even more and this has nothing to do with doctrines. Those who dwell on doctrines only have no reality of Christ in their lives.

  12. Diana, how do you know the Archbishop apologized? Do you have a tape?

    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:06 am.

      Father Paul admitted that the Archbishop apologized to him personally in the news, but he said it was not enough. He wanted the apology in writing.

    2. How do you know it was enough?

    3. Dear Anonymous at 10:96 pm,

      That is why Father Paul did not forgive. He said it was not enough. A TRUE Christian would always forgive. The TRUE Christian does not measure apologies.

  13. Every apology must be given by letter headed note paper to the offended victim. Personal apology follows the written apology. Demamd Archbishop wrote a personal letter of apology to every person he has offended In 30 years.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:58 pm,

      "Every apology must be given by letter"?????? Where are you getting this information from???? If I offend my husband, I do not need to write him an apology. I would apologize to him face to face.


  14. 1.39pm. Repeating what is catholic. After offending anyone offender must immediately write a personal letter on his/her headed note paper to the offended. After the letter has been sent only then is it possible for a private meeting to affirm the sent letter.

  15. AnonymousApril 21, 2015 at 1:56 PM

    Repeating what is catholic?

    You are not Catholic because if you were; a Catholic forgives regardless of any formal or informal protocols or methods of apology.

    Repeating........A CATHOLIC FORGIVES....

  16. If one is truly forgiving, they do not need to wait for the other person to come clean or to ask forgiveness. At the cross, Jesus forgave the Roman soldiers who nailed Him to the cross and gambled for His garments despite that they never asked for forgiveness.
    According to your definition Fr. Paul is not yet Christian...only a christian can forgive. You cannot forgive yet because you have not finish the Way.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:30 am,

      Finishing the Way does not make one a Christian no more than the one who attends Mass every Sunday. A TRUE Christian follows in the footsteps of Christ. Not many of us follow in His footsteps. Just look at how many Catholics support same-sex marriages as an example.

  17. Yes, it does Diana, it all makes the difference other wise why go through the Initiation if you can make no difference at all.
    Ad look how the Roman church supported slavery and racial discrimination against African-American, and against women to vote.