Monday, June 1, 2015

My Response

Below is what an anonymous comment was made under this blog, which can be found here. 

Diana, in your great wisdom, can you please say how Mr. roar has refuted all that Mari Flor Herrero wrote in the PDN? Thank you.
 
Tim Rohr wrote the following opinion in today's PDN.  Tim's comments  are in black and my comments are in red.  The blue are quotes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
"It is hard to know where to start in response to Mari Flor Herrero's recent opinion piece ("Bashers falsely accused Apuron, May 16, Pacific Daily News). First she criticizes the Concerned Catholics of Guam Inc., or CCOG, for not showing concern about same-sex unions and a host of other social issues, when the stated objective of the CCOG is to call the archbishop to financial accountability and transparency — something Pope Francis has already called on all bishops to do (and something Apuron obviously has trouble doing on his own)." 
 
Mari Flor Herrero criticized CCOG for not showing concern for same-sex unions because one of their missions is to promote the Catholic faith on Guam. According to CCOG's mission statements:
 
"To engage in activities that promotes the Catholic Faith in Guam in accordance with sacred traditions, Scripture and the Magisterium of The Roman Catholic Church."
 
Therefore, Mari Flor Herrero was correct.  CCOG is more concern about money than about promoting the Catholic faith, which they list as one of their missions.  CCOG was never concern about Catholicism or the people.  It is only about the money.
 
"She then accuses the group of "archbishop-bashing," of spreading rumors and, incredibly, of having designs on the former Accion Hotel property for a casino. Herrero then offers a long apologetic as to the status of the property, referencing a recent legal opinion by a Denver law firm on Apuron's deeding control of the property to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, or RMS."

The casino thing and the CCOG's responsibility to address same-sex unions, etc., are too ridiculous to respond to, but Herrero's claims about the Denver opinion and the status of the "seminary property" cannot go unchecked.

Herrero tells us that "Redemptoris Mater belongs to the archdiocese." Actually, it does not. RMS is a legally constituted entity, a nonprofit corporation, incorporated under Guam law, wholly separate from the Archdiocese of Agana, which itself is a corporation (corporate sole).

Like any Guam corporation, RMS is wholly under the control of its board of directors. Apuron, as the sole incorporator and member, can replace the board, but the board could sell the property tomorrow without Apuron's authorization or even his knowledge."

Tim Rohr acknowledges that Anthony Apuron can replace the board.  The Archbishop is the one who chooses the board and can even replace the board; yet, he believes that the board can sell the property without the Archbishops authorization or knowledge.  Apparently, Tim Rohr forgot that the power lies in the person who chooses and can remove the board. This is the same concept used in every democratic government.  Who is really in power......the Governor or the people who elected him?  The Archbishop would place people on the board who agrees with him in the same way the majority of people would place in government the person whose ideals and policies they agree with.  The board cannot sell the property without the Archbishop's authorization or knowledge because the Archbishop puts in place those who have no desire to sell the property.  The fact that the Archbishop removed the former finance council who wanted to sell the seminary to pay off the debts in the Archdiocese proves that.
 
"Herrero says the CCOG is spreading a "silly lie" that the archbishop handed the seminary to the Neocatechumenal Way, or NCW, and that such an accusation is "silly" because the statute of the NCW prohibits the NCW from owning property.
Herrero apparently has no knowledge of Article 4 Section 2 of the NCW statute which permits the bishop to erect an NCW autonomous diocesan foundation, with juridical personality, regulated by its own statutes, recognized by civil authorities, and through which money and property may be channelled."

Apparently, Tim Rohr has no knowledge of Article IV, Section I, which states: 

§ 1. The Neocatechumenal Way, being an itinerary of Catholic formation that is implemented in the dioceses through services freely given, has no material goods of its own.

So, why did he leave this information out?  The NCW cannot own any material goods.  Tim Rohr focused on Article IV section 2, which stated (bold is mine): 

§ 2. When in a diocese it is considered useful to financially support initiatives and activities for the evangelization realized through the Neocatechumenal Way, the diocesan bishop, at the request of the International Responsible Team of the Way, will consider the suitability of erecting an autonomous diocesan foundation, with juridical personality, regulated by its own statutes, which will also be recognized by the civil authorities. This may also be supported by  oblatory donations made by participants in the Neocatechumenal Way, as well as by foundations and other individuals.

It is not the NCW who will erect an autonomous diocesan foundation.  According to the Statutes, it is the diocesan bishop who will erect it.  The NCW will simply put in their donations from their own pockets.  But nowhere does it say that the NCW is to erect it or own it.   

"However, the CCOG is making no claim that Apuron gave the property to the NCW. Its only claim and concern is that Apuron deeded control of the property "for perpetual use" to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, a corporation separate from the Archdiocese of Agana, which has as its sole stated purpose the preparation of men for the priesthood "following the life and practice of the Neocatechumenal Way."

In addition, RMS's articles of incorporation and bylaws establish a board of guarantors which reserves for itself complete veto and approval power over the "most important affairs of the corporation" and requires that the board of guarantors always include the "Neocatechumenal Responsible Team for the United States." In short, the Neocatechumenal Way Responsible Team (currently Giuseppe and Claudia Gennarini and Fr. Angelo Poschetti) forever control RMS and RMS — as per Apuron's deed — forever controls the former Accion Hotel property (valued at $40 million-plus)." 

If the board of guarantors include the Responsible team of the NCW in the U.S., then why is Tim Rohr worried that the property would be sold? Gone are his worries of the property being sold.  What could be more important to the Neocatechumenal Responsible Team than forming priests in the new evangelization that "follows the life and practice of the NCW?" 

It appears that Tim Rohr is REALLY not concern about the board selling the RMS property as he claimed a short while ago.  So, what is his real complaint?  Could it be that what Mari Flor Herrero's said about building a casino is not that far off?

"To understand why Apuron hired a Denver law firm to prove that he did not alienate the property when he clandestinely deeded control of it to RMS back in 2011, one must understand that church law requires Vatican approval for the alienation of property over a certain value and the subject property certainly exceeds that value. The law is in place to protect the patrimony of the Catholic faithful from being seriously harmed by rogue bishops.

Not only did Apuron not seek the approval of the Vatican before he deeded control of the property in perpetuity to RMS, he also bypassed the approval of other requisite diocesan bodies. Should it be proved that Apuron in fact alienated the property, he would be answerable directly to the pope, who would then have grounds for severe disciplinary action, including removal."

Does Tim Rohr have evidence showing that the Archbishop did not seek the approval of the Vatican before he deeded the property in "perpetual use?"  Where is this evidence?  What does Tim Rohr have to say about the Canon Law report, which was the third report mentioned?  Why did he leave that information out?  If the Archbishop did not seek the approval of the Vatican, then why didn't the Canon Law Report state that?  According to the Canon Law report: 

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 context...it 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."

http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-truth-about-rms-property.html

"Amazingly, Apuron sought the opinion of a law firm not licensed to practice law on Guam. But aside from a possible ethics violation, we can be sure that the Denver firm's opinion did not exonerate Apuron because if it did, Apuron would have made sure the opinion was posted on the archdiocesan website for all to see.

It was not. Instead, we were told that if we wanted to see it, we would have to go to the chancery.

The CCOG sent its attorney to take a look. Not only was the attorney not permitted to make copies, take pictures or even take notes, he was made to stand at the counter and read the entire 20 page opinion under the supervision of chancery staff, and the next day the document was completely withdrawn from public inspection.

Now do you see why there is a need for an organization publicly calling Archbishop Apuron to transparency and accountability?"

First of all, the Denver law firm is a very prestigious law firm that it would be difficult to dispute their findings.  And why does Tim Rohr say that they are not license to practice on Guam.  Does he know this for a fact?  Did he see their license? 

Secondly, the law firm did exonerate Apuron otherwise CCOG's attorney would already be taking the Archbishop to court.  The Archbishop made a wise choice not to post the full report in the Archdiocesan website otherwise the information could be twisted around and misconstrued.  We already see how information that was leaked out into the jungle was twisted around. 

If CCOG's attorney actually believes that the RMS property does not belong to the Archdiocese of Agana, he can take the Archbishop to court.  I am sure the Archbishop has his lawyers and documents ready to show that the RMS property does belong to the Archdiocese of Agana.  CCOG's attorney, on the other hand, is going to have to show his documents (whatever that is).  We have not seen any documents showing that the RMS property does not belong to the Archdiocese of Agana. 
 

78 comments:

  1. Diana, with the Archdiocese income down, how can we afford prestigious law firm ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:40 pm,

      God provides. :-)

      Delete
    2. Here we go again.....money....money...money

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 6:03 pm,

      I agree. It has always been about the money. It was never about the people. Two women came out in public suing Guam's government for refusing to allow same sex marriage. This hit front page in the PDN, and where was CCOG?????? Their mission statement said that they will engage in activities that promotes the Catholic Faith in Guam. Yet, not a single comment came from them regarding same sex marriage. They blame the Archbishop for lack of accountability and transparency; yet, they failed to meet one of their own mission goals. Everything that CCOG talks about only concerns money.

      Delete
  2. Tim says that this Denver law firm is not licensed to practice in Guam, so this is a violation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:07 pm,

      Did Tim see the license of this law firm? He says that this law firm is not license to practice on Guam. How did he come to that conclusion? Where is his evidence? According to the Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP website:

      " The firm's attorneys serve a diverse base of local, regional, national and international clients, including some of the world's largest corporations, in key industries including real estate and construction, financial services, technology, hospitality and gaming, energy and utilities, aviation, manufacturing, consumer goods, retail, education, healthcare, government and regulatory, and religious institutions."

      http://web.uslaw.org/firm-details/?firm_id=45

      So, it appears that the Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP serves not only national clients but even INTERNATIONAL clients. That is a very impressive license. So, how do you know for certain that Guam is not included in there? The law firm represents religious institution worldwide. Why don't you ask Tim Rohr to post the license of Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP???

      Delete
    2. A list of all lawyers licensed to practice on Guam is available online.

      http://guambar.org/category/active

      Delete
    3. Dear CNMI Lawyer,

      Thank you for the website, but I also learned that the Ninth Circuit is the largest of the 13 federal circuits and includes all federal courts in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are lawyers in the Ninth Circuit that represent the law firm Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP.

      Delete
    4. I am admitted to practice before the Ninth Circuit, but that does not authorize me to appear before each of the federal district courts thereunder, including the District Court of Guam, without a separate permanent or pro hac vice (temporary) admission to that district court.

      Likewise, giving legal advice about Guam law to clients based on Guam requires admission by the Guam Supreme Court to the Guam Bar Association.

      Failure to comply raises the very real possibility of disciplinary sanctions for unauthorized practice of law, with significant malpractice insurance liability exposure on behalf of third parties foreseeably harmed by erroneous advice and opinions.

      Delete
    5. Dear CNMI Lawyer,

      Thank you for this information. I doubt that any large and prestigious law firm would risk disciplinary sanctions for unauthorized practice of law.

      Delete
    6. LARGE AND PRESTIGIOUS, WOOOWWWW. AND EXPENSIVE. we know the source, Diana and Team .

      Delete
    7. Dear Anonymous at 11:25 am,

      Tim Rohr accused the Denver law firm of doing something illegal......something which can cause disciplinary sanctions on them (according to CNMI lawyer). So, since Tim made this accusation against the law firm, he needs to show some documentation to back up what he said. Where is this evidence, Anonymous?

      Delete
    8. "Tim Rohr accused the Denver law firm of doing something illegal......something which can cause disciplinary sanctions on them"

      I don't think he did, actually. I think he suggested that the Archbishop did something wrong by seeking to rely on the advice of the Denver firm, and not being clear as to whether the Denver firm made any qualifications or reservations on that advice, particularly in relation to how it ought to be taken in regard to Guam law?

      Delete
    9. Dear Anonymous at 4:09 pm,

      This is what Tim Rohr wrote on his blog, dated April 19, 2015. It is clear from the statement below that he was referring to the Denver law firm.

      "So a Denver law firm is practicing law on Guam. That's illegal"

      http://www.junglewatch.info/2015/04/do-you-want-to-tell-people-rest-of.html

      Delete
    10. While the law firm gives the opinion, the firm acts through individual lawyers, and it is the knowledge of these individuals that is used to actually prepare the opinion letter, not the knowledge being imputed from every lawyer in the office.

      The preparer is not required to go through firm files or consult with everyone in the office (Paragraph 3A and 3B of the Principles).

      Certain opinions, (e.g., "no breach" or "no litigation"), are really law firm statements of fact, and law firms frequently try to limit the scope of the opinion by adding the phrase "to our knowledge."

      Additional language, such as "without investigation" is needed to signal to the recipient that the opinion giver has not exercised customary diligence under the circumstances and has relied precisely on his or her personal knowledge and has gone no further.

      Even where such limiting language is used, however, the opinion giver is still required to have at least talked to the client and the people who worked on the transaction at issue.

      Thus, this situation provides a classic example of words in an opinion not having the same meaning as would be found in a dictionary.

      Delete
    11. The "no violation of law" opinion

      This opinion is a supplement to the remedies opinion, telling the recipient that even though it may be getting what it has bargained for, the transaction may none-the-less subject the company to a fine or penalty for entering into the transaction.

      Law of the opinion giver’s state and maybe federal law reasonably recognized as being applicable are covered, but law the opinion letter excludes is not.

      Certain laws (above) are understood as a matter of customary practice not to be covered (local law, as well as Securities law, Antitrust, etc.).

      In the areas of uncertainty it is understood the opinion recipient should ask for a specific opinion.
      It is not necessary that every exception taken to the remedies opinion also be an exception to the no violation of law opinion.

      Delete
    12. Dear Anonymous at 6:22 am,

      The name of the law firm was used in the report. And what has this have to do with Tim accusing the law firm of doing something illegal?

      Delete
  3. it is about money, it's stated right on the u.s.bill "in god we trust" thus he will provide

    ReplyDelete
  4. Where did Tim say that the NCW could erect the foundation? Didn't he say himself that it was the Bishop who did that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well thats frine, except that it is written in the statutes of the NCW. If the foundation has nothing to do with the NCW, why is it in the Statutes? Its quite clear that the foundation is a device to get around the previous restriction on owning assets. And this is exactly what happens of course, as you know. The foundations are erected so that for all intents and purposes, the NCW can own assets. Its a rort. A smokescreen. Its the same as the seminary. It is held ostensibly in the Bishop's name but controlled by the NCW masters. You know it and we know it. Its quite clever actually and goes to show just how prepared Kiko et al are to be stealthy, underhanded and deceptive.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 11:45 pm,

      Prove it. Show us the document that says that the RM Seminary is NOT owned by the Archdiocese of Agana and owned by the NCW. Prove it by showing your document.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 8:25 pm,

      It was when he contradicted Mrs. Herero for saying that the NCW cannot own any material goods. Just because the Archbishop has the authority to erect the foundation does not mean that the NCW owns the foundation. As Mrs. Herero, the NCW cannot own any materials goods. Tim Rohr contradicted this statement and cited Article IV, Section 2 of the Statutes, which does not say anything about the NCW owning the foundation. In other words, he misinterpreted Article IV, Section. He read it and wrote it correctly, but interpreted it incorrectly.

      Delete
  5. You prove it. Prove everything Tim has brought forth in a document as a lie. Where are your documents? Oh that's right; you have none but your sorry rhetoric!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:46 am,

      We already proved it. Do you not remember? The Archbishop has the title AND according to the first 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. "

      So, now where is your proof that the RMS property is owned by the NCW????

      Delete
    2. Who said the RMS property is owned by the NCW? We said that the RMS property is controlled by the NCW, and due to a restriction on its use, in perpetuity, the NCW gets to use it indefinitely and according to their own whims. It is therefore alienated from the people of the Archdiocese, and restricted to the use by a group who is not able to own assets. Amazing isn't it?

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 4:13 pm,

      You stated: "Who said the RMS property is owned by the NCW? We said that the RMS property is controlled by the NCW,....."

      It was the jungle who said that the RMS property is own by the NCW. According to Junglewatch dated January 29, 2014:

      "WHO OWNS REDEMPTORIS MATER? PART 4: "THE BIGWIGS"
      In our last post on this story, we spoke of the Neocat "bigwigs" visiting an ill Archbishop Apuron effectively ordering him to turn over the seminary property before he kicks the bucket, so they, as sole owners, can do an "in your face" to the people of Guam and any new bishop that came along who didn't like them."

      http://www.junglewatch.info/2014/01/who-owns-redemptoris-mater-part-4.html

      According to Tim Rohr, the "bigwigs" who supposedly owned the RMS property is the NCW. When the jungle learned about the "perpetual use" deed, they changed their song and dance. They started using the word "control" rather than the word "own." According to the three reports, the RMS property is OWNED and CONTROLLED by the Archdiocese of Agana.

      Delete
    4. Owned and controlled as NCW until eternity.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 12:42 am,

      Correction......owned and controlled by the Archdiocese of Agana to be an RM seminary until Christ's second coming.

      Delete
  6. AnonymousJune 2, 2015 at 4:13 PM

    Who said the RMS property is owned by the NCW?

    I am amazed how many times this issue is raised and can only come to this conclusion....

    43 Why do you not understand what I say? Because you cannot bear to listen to my words.

    44 You are from your father, the devil, and you prefer to do what your father wants. He was a murderer from the start; he was never grounded in the truth; there is no truth in him at all. When he lies he is speaking true to his nature, because he is a liar, and the father of lies.

    45 But it is because I speak the truth that you do not believe me.

    46 Can any of you convict me of sin? If I speak the truth, why do you not believe me?

    47 Whoever comes from God listens to the words of God; the reason why you do not listen is that you are not from God.

    truth can be found in scriptures......never in jw.



    ReplyDelete
  7. Diana, many times I wrote to you about money and you never publish my question on money. I want to know why you and the group NCW members want to take our money off island. I have no Pronlem with you or your club but I am concerned about our money. Money is very precious to us and we mustn't keep all the money we can. As for me I hide money in my pillow cases, under the bad, and I even duh a hole in floor to hide money. I really do believe in keeping money safe secure. So when I learnt you take money out of island that means less for us. Not sure if you understand what I say. I just believe in keeping all money here in our account. Before NCW we had more money to play with now hi take our money which is unfair to us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:21 am,

      First of all, where did you hear this false rumor that we take your money off-island? Do you have documentations proving that your money is going off-island????

      Secondly, if money is so precious to you then keep your money and stop going to church. It would not be fair that you utilize the church building and other services from the church if you have doubts about contributing to the church.

      Lastly, if you really want to know where your precious money is going (that is if you contribute to your church) then make sure you pick up a copy of your church bulletin. The church bulletin publishes how much the parish collects every month and how much is being spent on utilities and other church use. You will also see the amount that the Neocatechumenal Way is giving to the parish.

      Delete
    2. 1:21am is a bogus comment designed to get a rouse. Idiotic statement altogether.

      Delete
  8. Diana, Junglewatch is mocking you.
    AnonymousJune 2, 2015 at 3:40 PM
    And....(wait for it) ....Tim spells ALTAR correctly. Diana, the expert on all things known to mankind spells it ALTER. Consistently ...poor Diana the Ditz. Let us help you, please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:55 am,

      Is that all????? You mean all they talk about are my grammatical errors, and nothing of importance and substance??? :-)

      Delete
  9. I continue to be amazed at people who reference junkle watch comments in topic's of serious discussions to be found in this site.

    Serious because we can see the influences of a hate web site has on people who do not know or cannot differentiate fact from half truths and outright lies.

    Sad also because their opinions clearly indicate the lack of Jesus Christ or his Church in their lives. Rather than be the seekers of truth; they are the followers of the blind.

    the blind leading the blind. I give thanks to merciful God.

    JSB

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Diana,
    The donation made for a seminary located on Guam was to provide diocesan priests for Guam. The problem is that the archbishop gave control of the seminary to the NCW for the sole purpose of training priests in the practices of the NCW. For NCW Members this is a good thing. For non-NCW members this is not a good thing. For men who discern a calling to the priesthood but do not wish to join the NCW this is not a good thing. I am still thinking of exploring the NCW for myself, but I do see how a seminary for the sole purpose of forming priests in the practices of the NCW would be a problem for those who feel the NCW is not for them.
    Eleanor Aguon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Eleanor Aguon,

      Can you explain how it is not good for non-Neo members?

      Delete
    2. Dear Diana...because that would be imposing the NCW on those who do not want it.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at3:23 pm,

      How is it an imposition? There are 2 seminaries on Guam. There are 5 seminarians in the John Paul II seminary, which does not follow the life and practice of the NCW. Those who do not want to join the RMS can join the other seminary. So, how is it an imposition when those who do not want to evangelize worldwide can join the other seminary?

      Delete
    4. Yes and we will see how many of the 5 seminarians at JPII will be assigned as pastors for our local churches. We can already see that the archbishop is slowly but surely placing his RMS ones first...Father Mike Crisostomo at Toto next on the list to be replaced. This is how it is an imposition Diana! Our beloved local priests are being replaced by so-called priests who can barely be understood. Parishioners are going elsewhere where they can get the fullness of the holy mass because they are just not getting it with the RMS priests.

      Delete
    5. "those who do not want to evangelize worldwide"

      patronizing and wrong

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous at 5:29 pm,

      When Father Paul was removed, was an RMS priest put into the Dededo parish? I will also remind you that Pope Francis has ordained RMS priests; therefore, they are valid and legitimate priests. In time, I learned to understand priests from other countries despite their accents. If we can tolerate the Japanese, South Korean, and Russian tourists who do not even speak English, why then is it difficult to tolerate priests from foreign countries trying to master the English language? In the tourist industry, we are hospitable to our tourists by accommodating them using signs in Japanese in many places especially Tumon. In fact, Tumon has become more like "Little Tokyo". We should also be hospitable to foreign priests by helping them improve their English.

      Delete
    7. Dear Anonymousat 5:46 pm,

      The jungle consistently say that they want their local priests serving them only on Guam. This is what the John Paul II Seminary was set up to do. That is not patronizing and wrong. The jungle got what they wanted.

      Delete

  11. What about millions of USD you send off island to New Jersey. That is,our,money belongs to people f Guam.

    ReplyDelete

  12. Diana the NCW stolen money from the church the people of Guam. We will not give money to him to steal and send off island.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies



    1. AnonymousJune 4, 2015 at 5:33 PM

      AnonymousJune 4, 2015 at 5:59 PM


      I believe you are the same person so I would ask this simple question to clarify your accusations.

      1. Why is it that people on this island, you in particular can make these accusations without any substantial proof or semblance of truth? I find this in junk watch all the time. Let us accuse; make stories and people will follow.

      2. Do you have the credible character to question or demean the Rector of the RMS or Arch Bishop?

      3. Do you know what you are talking about? The US parishes are in better financial state then we are. Can you produce a check or documents transferring funds from Guam to NJ?

      4. Are you Catholic?

      5. Are you Catholic Lite?

      Going back to question one...

      6. Have you talked to the Arch Bishop or the Rector of RMS about your concern? If this is bothering you to the point where you are accusing the Church; really bothering you....COURAGE BROTHER....BE A MAN....GO SEEK ...GO FIND THE TRUTH...TALK TO THE ARCH
      BISHOP....TALK TO FATHER PABLO.

      Take niinny guy with you...share the experience with junk watch

      Delete
  13. Islanders are notoriously welcoming people. There have been many off-islanders adopted into families because they made the effort to learn the culture and customs. Just as there have been visiting priests who have earned the hearts and admiration of the parishes they served. English may have been a second language, but they had no difficulty conveying their messages. The beauty was in the simplicity and especially, sincerity, these men of GOD projected. This is what our manamko respect and are accustomed to. This is what the Yona seminarians lack. Too many of our Sai'na have heard these seminarians belittle our island and its people. The only families the seminarians know are NEO. Many of whom are not from this region. More and more of our elders are growing unhappy. It is very easy to understand their angst in English or Chamorro. It's not just about the accent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJune 4, 2015 at 10:30 PM

      the contents of your comments are a model of contradiction

      1. you cannot speak for every notoriously welcoming people if you saying; only if they show us respect; only if they glorify our culture, our island; admiration. They bring JESUS CHRIST who wasn't really a popular guy.

      Do you really think that this the mission of the seminarians...to be liked.....popular? Many of them will die for the people of this island. They are here to serve.

      2. This is what our manamko are accustomed to...simplicity; sincerity?? You make is sound like the first priority of these seminarians is to kiss our royal behinds before they save our souls.

      3. Seminarians belittle our island?? Wake up AnonymousJune 4, 2015 at 10:30 PM!!! People like rohr; concern chatolic's of Guam and others have the gall to demean the Church; accuse the Church; want accountability from the Church without meeting face to face with the Church. And we say we are a CATHOLIC Island...a CATHOLIC culture...pllleeeaaassseee. 3 suicides in 8 days last month. Maybe we should call ourselves CATHOLIC LITE.

      4. This is what the Yona seminarians lack??? They may lack a lot of things but they are filled with the real LOVE of JESUS CHRIST. Why in Gods green earth will I leave my country to a dot in the Pacific to SERVE the people of Guam? Their presence....with all their faults is God's affirmation of love to us.

      5. More and more of our elders are growing unhappy???? I would be too because if we ARE SHOWN the truth that we do not live in spirit with JESUS CHRIST, many of us CANNOT accept this reality.

      6. Easy to understand the English / Chamorro language??? MAY IT IS US WHO SHOULD BE LEARNING THE LANGUAGE OF JESUS CHRIST.Why is it so HARD for us to know the LANGUAGE OF JESUS CHRIST?

      7. It's not just about the accent????? If you don't understand the PRIEST because of his accent; maybe we are not accustomed to LISTENING TO THE WORD OF GOD. Maybe just maybe, we DONT LIKE WHAT WE HEAR.

      8. NORTORIOUSLY WELCOMING PEOPLE?? The village churches will be filled to standing room only if this statement was fact. How many of our immediate family members do we invite to our homes or invite them to go to MASS with us?

      Want respect Anonymous June 4, 2015 at 10:30 PM??? Show some respect to the MAN on the CROSS and his work on Guam.

      JSB






      Delete
    2. Quite simply, JSB, even the best and most sincerest of messages of God's Word is not effective if it cannot be understood.
      Your entire post is defensive, wreaks of superiority, and smacks of disrespect to our Saina! How dare you question their belief!! Just because they can't understand what you say, you attribute that to "not accustomed to listening to the Word of God?? and "not liking what they hear"??
      I didn't before, but now I see very clearly that you are not from here: "Why in Gods green earth will I leave my country to a dot in the Pacific"... And, worst of all, you come with an attitude that you are saving us, because we know no better. That, sir, is the problem!!
      Now that I know your perspective, I see clearly how you use the Word of God to bully people.
      That brand of evangelizing (bullying) our Lord can do without.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 7:36 am,

      Perhaps, your Saina needs the help of the younger people and its youths. The NCW and the RMS priests appear to attract the younger generation, who understand them very well.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJune 6, 2015 at 7:36 AM

      the WORK OF GOD comes through many way....many messengers. It is not us who chose Jesus Christ; he is the one that choses.

      We can say we are blessed; we follow the Church Anonymous June 6, 2015 at 7:36 AM but you sound like a person who only follows when it suits the situation. Catholic LITE

      Delete
    5. Anonymous June 6, 2015 at 7:36 AM

      do you sincerely think that going to Church once a week; confession once or twice a year makes one HOLY? Your Saina; manamko comments reeks of a person who comes to God at his pleasure; when he is comfortable; when it is convenient.

      I really cannot understand why or what makes you think you are a spokesperson for the Manamko?

      JSB

      Delete
  14. Dear Anonymous at 10:30 pm,

    It has been pointed out under this thread that many people do not understand the RMS priest due to their poor English and therefore are leaving the parishes. Now you are saying that some of our elderly heard the seminarians belittle our island and it's people. So, how did these elderly people come to hear this especially when you already pointed out that the seminarians only associate with NCW members? Are the elderly folks NCW members??? A large majority of the NCW members are not elderly. So where and how did these non-Neo elderly folks hear the seminarians (whom you claim only associate with the NCW members) speak ill about Guam?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since there are Neo presbyters assigned to many of our parishes, just going to funerals, baptisms, and other celebrations gives one the opportunity. Most recently I have attended Mass at Barrigada, Asan, and Chalan Pago for different reasons, only to be frustrated because I couldn't understand the homilies. Can't blame people for complaining about that, can you?
      There are moments of clarity in and out and it takes a lot to try and understand the message....but once you do they've already moved on. And yes, I have heard in these moments of clarity comments relative to the cultural practices that have left me puzzled....but, I've just told myself that perhaps it was a misunderstanding on my part due to the language barrier.
      Can you tell us what they are doing to remedy this one obstacle? Instead of being defensive and putting the blame back on the people (such as what jsb did in the above comment), I wish someone would acknowledge the problem and then tell us that they are working on it.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 6:54 am,

      I have heard many RMS priests speak, and I can understand them very well. They may stumble upon a word or two, but their English is sufficient that anyone can understand them. The only thing I have heard an RMS priest speak about that is related to Guam's culture is the matrilineal society.

      Guam is a matrilineal society in which women control the home as head of house. The Catholic Church teaches that it is the man who is the head of the home. In Guam, the woman usually speaks for the household including for her husband.

      Delete
    3. So that's why they sent the NCW to Guam! To change our culture of the matrilineal society!

      Delete
    4. Diana @ 7:04am,
      ....."sufficient that anyone can understand them"
      And so just because you can understand them, the problem is me/the rest of us? For your information, there are MANY of us who don't understand!! Which means there are many left feeling unfulfilled after Mass.
      But if you deny there is a language barrier, then that's the beginning of the problem! :(
      Thanks for your time anyway.....

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 7:31 am,

      They came to Guam to teach you true Catholicism......that the man is the head of the house (not the woman). If you wish to continue to have the woman become the head of the house, go ahead.....but just remember, it is NOT Catholic.

      Also, one more thing. I remember hearing another RMS priest speak about the Taotaomonas. We do not need to ask the taotaomonas' permission to enter or pass through the jungles. One priest said that the taotaomonas are the" spirits of our ancestors." The belief of the Church is that when a person dies, his/her spirit either goes to one of three places: Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell. They do not remain on the earth. If you believe that the spirits of your ancestors are on the Earth.....that is NOT Catholic. So you have a choice. Either become a Catholic or not. It is bad enough that we have so-called Catholics favoring same-sex marriage, which is more complicated than the taotaomonas living on earth! If you cannot understand the simple Catholic teaching that the spirit of a person does not live on the earth, then it is no wonder why Catholics on Guam support things that the Catholic Church opposes.

      By the way, the taotaomonas are not in Hell. Why? Because they never rejected Christ. In order to reject Christ, one must first hear of Him.

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous at 7:58 am,

      I believe that the problem is your prejudice against the RMS priest. Ask yourself why is it that our Chamorro youths can understand them and you cannot.

      Delete
    7. And so you play the prejudice card.....Diana, I and many others just want to go to Mass and experience all that the services offer. I have recently begun to re-discover the Catholic Mass and all the meanings of each part of the Mass, and that's it. No prejudices....just trying to get it all. I'm not sure why the the youths can understand what they are saying and I cannot. Perhaps I'll seek out some of them and ask them how they do it. (By the way, I'd have the same complaint should the priest speak with a HEAVY Tagalog, Vietnamese, French, or any other accent that makes it difficult to understand which lessens the experience.)

      Delete
    8. Dear Anonymous at 9:39 am,

      The Apostles who spread the Gospel to the Gentile world were Jews, whom I am sure also have an accent. Despite that they were from a foreign country, Christianity managed to spread. As I said, I have heard the RMS priests from Poland, Brazil, Spain, Eucador, and even from Columbia speak and I was able to understand their English. They may have stumbled over a word or two, but their sentence structure was fine.

      Delete
    9. Head of household..man is to protect and support..not to dominate woman...is this why father Walsh insists the a husband's worst enemy is his wife?

      I really don't know where you people are coming from..you try so hard to interpret the Bible literally!

      Delete
    10. Diana, I and many others just want to go to Mass and experience all that the services offer.

      Catholic LITE.....just let me do the weekly obligation and we will be fine.

      Never mind that the Mass has distinct parts but this is not important

      Delete
    11. "If you wish to continue to have the woman become the head of the house, go ahead.....but just remember, it is NOT Catholic."

      Who said that? The woman has the same right to be the head of the family as the man. It is strange to read male chauvinism from a well educated woman. Who taught you? You want to undo 100 years of liberation that was achieved through great sacrificed by enlightened ladies in the movement of the brave. How do you dare...? For some folks religion is used to make them unfree. Is this not sad, Diana?

      Our mother the Virgin Mary was the head of the family for Jesus when St Joseph died. This is what I read in the Bible. Is this not so? She asked Jesus at the Cana wedding to produce wine for the guests and Jesus complied. A good boy complies to the request of his mother. A modern woman can replace a man any time in need. She could do a better job because she has a heart of tender feelings unlike most men. Please, do not use religion to reduce the pride of women for all the progress we had made in 100 years.

      Delete
    12. Dear Anonymous at 5:14 pm,

      I never said that a man should dominate a woman. I said he is the head of the house. That is the title given to him by God.

      Delete
    13. So apparently the injuction "not to judge" is an optional one for the NCW?

      "Those who join the NCW are formed to become true Christians in which God will be put first."

      Which inclused within it the judgement that non-NCW Christians are not "true Christians", and don't "put God first"

      "In the NCW, we teach people how to sacrifice for Christ"

      which includes the jdugement on those that are not in the NCW as being people who do not "sacrifice for Christ"

      And again:

      "In the Way, people learn about sacrifice.....giving up what they want and putting God first"

      Obviously those outside of the way do not sacrifice or put God first.

      "Now, how does the parish teach the people about sacrifice? They don't."

      Who said the NCW understand the sacrifice of the Mass? They don't.

      And to top it all off:

      "They came to Guam to teach you true Catholicism"

      Again, making the judgement that those of us outside the NCW practice a "false" Catholicism.

      Delete
    14. Dear Anonymous at 5"28 am,

      The Blessed Virgin Mary was not the head of the house when she married Joseph. Have you not noticed that the Angel Gabriel spoke to Mary when she was single? AFTER she married Joseph, the angel NEVER spoke to her again. Instead, he spoke to Joseph. It was the same throughout the Bible. The Angel also spoke to Zechariah and told him that his wife Elizabeth will have a child. He never spoke to Elizabeth about it because Elizabeth was never the head of the home. God also spoke to Abraham. He never spoke to Sarah.

      In the Garden of Eden, who did the Devil spoke to???? He spoke to Eve. He bypassed Adam and spoke to Eve as though she was the head of the house. God spoke to Adam. He spoke to Eve AFTER He spoke to Adam. So, Heaven and all the angels recognized that a married man is the head of the home.

      Being head of the home does not mean that the man must dominate the woman. Men and women are created equal but DIFFERENT. Being different does not mean they are not equal. But the secular world teaches that being different means equality, so they say that man and woman are both heads of the home, and that is not Catholic. The husband is the head of the house, which is the reason women cannot be ordained as priests. Jesus chose only men to head the Church (His body). In the same with the human family, the husband is also head of the home, and the woman is the heart of the home. Each have their own roles. Husbands and wives are one and they assist each other. But each also have their own title. The man's tile has always been the head of the house, and he becomes responsible for his wife and family. According to the Bible, the husband must love his wife just as Christ loved the Church. How did Christ love the Church? He loved her by giving up his life for her. Therefore, as head of the house, husbands are called to love their wives in the same way. They are to give up their lives for their wives.

      Thus, when a burglar enters the home, it is the husband who must risk his life for his wife fighting off the intruder. The wife, on the other hand, assists her husband when he is weakened so that he can continue doing his duty in protecting her.

      It is NOT the woman who is going to take the baseball bat and say "Don't worry, dear husband, you go back to sleep, and I will take care of the intruder."

      This is what the Catholic Church have taught.

      Delete
    15. Dear Anonymous at 3:22 pm,

      That is not intended to be a judgment. That is the truth, and the truth hurts.

      Delete
    16. Anonymous:
      ""They came to Guam to teach you true Catholicism"
      Again, making the judgement that those of us outside the NCW practice a "false" Catholicism."

      "Dear Anonymous at 3:22 pm,
      That is not intended to be a judgment. That is the truth, and the truth hurts. "

      So the truth is that NCW are true Catholics and some parts of the catholic Church are not.

      Secondly, lies hurt."truth hurts" is an excuse to judge other people and make up lies about them.

      Delete
    17. Dear Anonymous at 10:56 pm,

      My comment was meant for Anonymous a 7:31 who believe in the matrilineal society....that women are the head of the house......a teaching opposed by the Church.

      Delete
  15. Sorry, but I disagree. To be head of household means, to honor, support and protect. If a man cannot do this , then the woman takes over and indeed becomes the head of household.

    ReplyDelete
  16. yea....yea....yea.....but what does the Jesus say about the roles of a man and wife in the sacrament of marriage?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:04 pm,

      Christ chose only men to be His Apostles. He never chose any woman to become an Apostle. These men became the head of God's family (the Church) with Peter at the top to lead. In God's family, only men are the head. It is the same in the human family. The husband is the head of the house while the woman is the heart of the home. Both husbands and wives assist each other in their roles in the sacrament of marriage.

      Delete
    2. IF THE MAN IS INCAPABLE OF DOING HIS ROLE, THEN I AM HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD. SO SAYS MY TAX RETURN!

      8:04PM, so if the husband is an invalid or bedridden, then the wife is head of household.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 8:48 am,

      Your tax return is of this world. It has nothing to do with God. God gave the title "head of the house" to the husband. The wife should not take advantage of her husband's disability. He is still her husband and should be respected as "head of the home" regardless of whether he is ill or not. So, even if he is disabled, he is entitled to be informed and be part of the decision-making process in the home (unless he is mentally incapacitated). If he is not of sound mind, the wife may make the decisions without his input; however, his title remains as "head of the house."

      The wife's role is not to steal her husband's title, but to help and take care of her husband in the event that he does become disable. The wife already has her own title. She is the heart of the home. And if it is the wife who is disabled, the husband should be there to help and support her. He is not there to steal his wife's title.

      Delete

  17. Me and women are an equal partnership. Power is shared. Different roles but shared power. Male creates the home the woman breathes dignity, love, culture into the home. Partnership.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:48 am,

      I agree with you in that men and women have an equal partnership in a marriage. The woman is not a servant to her husband, but a wife, lover, friend, and partner. Each have different roles with different titles given to them by God, but equal as human beings with the same dignity.

      Delete

  18. Thank you Diana I am happy we agree on this one. I use the image of a head and a heart house and home. The man will build the house and the woman will breath the soul into the house. The man will build a house and the woman will make it a home . How do you make a home by breathing love into the home. What is love? God made real. Thank you Diana for posting my message and confirming my message.

    ReplyDelete