AnonymousNovember 18, 2015 at 8:55 AM
Tim Rohr is the most shameless person I have ever known. Here is the latest of his rants about raising money to sue the Archdiocese and the local Catholic Church, an obvious farce exposing his true motives:
"First, we give the money to the church and they use it. Now we have to raise our own money again to be able to get it back." http://mvguam.com/local/news/43129-apuron-lawsuit-mulled.html
First, he is not even giving money to the church, on the contrary, he is calling everyone to hold back all donations and contributions to the expenses of parishes. That is how greedy he is.
Second, he obviously wants monetary gain and enriching himself by the fundraising for a lost cause. To be sure: all the money they are collecting and spending on lawyers will be 100% wasted! Don't make mistake about it: the Church did not do anything wrong and the Archdiocese will be exonerated! They'll only make their lawyers rich by keeping them busy. Lol.
Third, by keeping their hands on the funds raised, Tim and his gang will use the leftover money for their own purposes. They will have their laugh on the misery of people who gave their money to them and trusted them to use it wisely. What a huge mistake! Spending money on a lawsuit against their own Church is not wise at all! It is a complete waste of trust and resources. Keeping their own share from the donations is the purpose of this whole scam. This is how criminal these people are!
It is true that Tim Rohr and the junglefolks have not contributed anything to the Archdiocese of Agana and have encouraged everyone to withhold their contributions.
It has always been about the money. They do not contribute anything to the Archdiocese of Agana; yet, they make these kinds of statements in the Guam Daily Post:
- The Catholic group said if Apuron signs the documents and returns the property to the archdiocese, the archdiocese can gain an asset which may improve the archdiocese's debt situation.
- "The CCOG is in the process of doing that fundraising now. It's kind of a shame. First, we give the money to the church and they use it. Now we have to raise our own money again to be able to get it back," he (Rohr) said.
As I pointed out in my previous entry post: One wonders what CCOG meant when they made this statement. How exactly is the RMS supposed to improve the Archdiocese's debt situation? What are they planning? To sell the property and pay off the debts of the Archdiocese? The RMS property is worth more than the debts of the Archdiocese. Where is the rest of the money going, and who is going to profit from this sale?
The anonymous commenter also raised an interesting point. Rohr stated in the Guam Daily Post that they gave money to the church, which we already know is false. See the weblink below:
Its all about the fruit Diana, the fruit. In regards to the fruit that this guy produces I saw on facebook the other day fr. eric sharing how he was asked to reschedule a wedding Mass, get this A MASS, til later in the day because the photographer said it would be better for photos ops. Lets just say, the bride to be is the daughter of the owner of the famous anti-catholic blog, the jungle.
ReplyDeleteI was bothered by this, I expected so much better. Fr. Eric didnt have a problem with it and that even bothered me further.
It may seem as though I am dragging his daughter into this but for goodness sake, everyone thinks this guy is so perfect and little do they know.
By the way maybe this is the opportune time since I know that if you post this up, he will surely get the 411 from either Eileen or Janet, who knows maybe that Jose guy too. Well, anyways, I was looking for a follow-up to his flip flop on the origin of the $1 fee at the Cathedral and also he shared awhile back that he sent a FOIA request to GPD on the Father Luiis case and I havnt seen any report since then, did he find anything?
-Jokers Wild
Dear Jokers Wild,
DeleteTim Rohr did spin a story about the $1.00. He contradicted himself when he said it was not the policy he was opposed but the idea for the restroom not being available for the tourist. Then he re-wrote. I am actually waiting for him to tell about the scam regarding the repairs. The Cathedral was under repairs, and he said it was a scam and he will tell more about it. But it never came.
What's wrong with rescheduling the mass? A wedding mass can be scheduled during any time of the day, so what's the problem?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:52 am,
DeleteIt is unheard of. It is common to reschedule the wedding, but never the Mass.
Nothing wrong rescheduling wedding. It's ok to re sched wedding many times if candidates want this.
DeleteWhere does it say wedding masses can't be rescheduled?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:50 am,
DeleteThe norm is that the wedding can take place at any date, but if they want a Mass with their wedding, they follow the Mass time that is scheduled on that day, which is already set. See the weblink below.
catholic-digest-wedding-guide---more-frequently-asked-questions
So then if the only mass on a Saturday is 6am or 6pm then a wedding mass should be scheduled for either of those times? The link you provided is just an opinion and not a church policy.
DeleteTo jokers wild and Diana,
DeleteIt's a couples wedding and IF the priest has no other masses on that day, then the priest CAN reschedule the mass till later. In the link Diana provided, it DOES SAY that MOST churches have schedules but not all.
So again, there was nothing wrong that Fr. Eric was able to RESCHEDULE the only mass that day. It didn't conflict with the morning or evening SCHEDULED masses.
So again, what's the unheard of problem?
Dear Anonymous at 11:31 am,
DeleteThis is what the website stated:
"It is your wedding and you should be able to get married whenever you want. But you’re trying to schedule your wedding at a time when the church isn’t available. Most, if not all churches in the United States have a schedule that accommodates one or more Saturday Vigil masses that starts with confessions around mid afternoon and ends after the last mass in the evening. When a wedding is scheduled for a Saturday, it must be taken into consideration that the ceremony will often begin late and will continue beyond the conclusion through the time it takes the photographer to finish the portrait shots. If a wedding is scheduled to begin later in the afternoon, it could easily overlap the time slots allotted for the run-up to the Saturday Vigil. If the priest is the only priest in the parish, which is often the case, the difficulty is compounded. So you understand why a Saturday wedding has to start earlier. You might consider having a Friday evening wedding. Lots of people do and you can light the church with candles and it’s lovely."
Notice that it says that it is YOU who have to take into consideration why a Saturday wedding has to start early. It did NOT say that the Church has to take it into consideration. It specifically says that the Saturday has to start early so as not to conflict with the vigil.
A couple who marries in a Church is a good thing because they are placing God in the center of their marriage. With that said, do you not think it would then be good practice to follow the Church in their set schedule rather than have the Church follow their schedule? This is why I said it is unheard of.
Dear Anonymous at 11:19 am,
DeleteThis is why I said it is unheard of. Catholics are called to follow God and His Church. It is unheard of for God and His Church to follow the schedule of individuals.
Doesn't the priest set the schedule? Shouldn't HE be the one to ultimately decide on what happens that day? What is the big deal if the priest was ok with it if he didn't have anything else scheduled for that day?
DeleteThis should not be a problem on Guam since we have many priests on island due to the miracle of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. If there is only one priest in a parish, I can see the difficulty in scheduling a wedding Mass.
DeleteThat said, if the officiating priest has no objections to a change in the scheduling of the nuptials it's nobody's business to object. We have so many priests on Guam thanks to the archbishop's work in getting a seminary for our archdiocese. We are truly blessed to have the archbishop serving us and our archdiocese.
I recently was granted my annulment and my parish priest will marry us in church with a Mass on a weekday morning next month. We chose the day and time (10 a.m.) on a Wednesday as we met on a Wednesday. Of course, we will be giving our priest a stipend for accommodating us. We think $200 is adequate though some people I've consulted think it's not enough. I know our priest will use the stipend to benefit the parish as the archbishop does with the many envelopes he receives. The archbishop is an excellent roll model as to how to live as a disciple of Jesus Christ. He has been attacked repeatedly by his haters but he carries on. Imagine what a strain that must be on his perilous health given that he had that operation years ago. He has a hardy heart and generous soul and I don't think he'd like us arguing about weddings and such.
I can understand if Fr. Eric had a problem with the schedule but he didn't. If it conflicted with another schedule then I'm sure Fr. Eric would've made it known. But AGAIN, Fr. Eric didn't see a problem with it. So what's the big deal?
DeleteIt's not as if the rescheduling is a norm but the day scheduled WAS considered if the pastor was "asked" and not told or placed in a position where he had no choice. Fr. Eric is the pastor who has the final say on the day schedule. He also is the priest presiding over the mass. So what's the big deal??
Dear Anonymous at 12:58 pm,
DeleteIf it was not a problem with Father Eric, then why did Father Eric even mention it in Facebook? According to Jokers Wild he said that Father Eric shared in Facebook how he was asked to reschedule Mass because the photographer said it would be better for the photo ops.
Diana,
DeleteWho on Facebook DOESN'T share things online? Is that automatically seen as a "problem"? Assumptions are what creates issues and not solutions.
Dear Anonymous at 4:16 pm,
DeleteThe fact that so many people share their frustrations, gripes, complaints and everything else is what creates problems. Did you know that arguments and fights have occurred because of comments posted on Facebook?
And now Tim want's CCOG to raise money to get lawyer because he got a little'' Rattled'' you will not see him holding up no sign.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 3:59 am,
DeleteYou are correct. We never saw Tim at the protest holding up a sign. He only criticizes people for not joining the protest.
His blog is protest enough, don't you think?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:55 pm,
DeleteIf he is going to criticize some people for not joining the protest on the streets, then he should lead by example. It is hypocritical to put someone down for not standing in the protest, and he does not bother to do it himself. If all Martin Luther King Jr. did was write letters to the editor on segregation, he would not have gotten anywhere. And if the protest consisted of only a few people, it would have gotten nowhere as well.
Protest can come in different forms, Dian/Susana. Important thing it is effective.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 2:02 pm,
DeleteThe great practitioners of real social change, like Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, understood something very important.....history is most changed by social movements with a spiritual foundations. Martin Luther King Jr. sought a change in society where whites and blacks are treated equally without the walls of segregation. Mahatma Gandhi fought for the freedom and independence of an occupied India by the British. Their protests were based on a spiritual foundation, and they had many followers because theirs was a moral incentive in which something good came out of it.
Your protest, on the other hand, has no spiritual foundation because it does not foster any reconciliation or positive change. Rather, it seeks the destruction of a people and the shutting down of a seminary. Your protest has no moral incentives, which is why you only have very few followers. Nothing good can come out of your protests.
If the protesters are not doing God's will, then they will fail, and there is no need for you to oppose them. If they are doing God's will, then why would you pit yourself against God?
Delete2:02 pm, that you Tim
DeleteAnother way to say that, dear 3:12 PM, is that God won't act on your behalf unless you act on God's behalf! The trouble here is that Tim has admitted on his blog several times that there is no legal means to sue the Archdiocese in relation to the Accion Hotel property at civil court. Whatever happened, civil law is indifferent in this regard. So what is the big hoopla for now?
DeleteWhat I see is that the soup cooked up at the jungle has no meat in it. Lol! It is all the veggies and the noodles but no real content, no meat at all. You won't be able to satisfy your hunger with that one for sure. This lawsuit will be a public embarrassment for the jungle scammers. When the court dismisses their case as frivolous, it will come back haunting them for a life time.
What will they say to their disappointed donors? "Oops, my bad" won't be enough.