Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Another Announcement

Dear readers and commenters, 
Please stop flooding comments from or about the jungle in my blog regarding the certificate of titles. I have been getting some comments about the jungle's claim on the certificate of titles.  Below is my comment, which I published under the St. Rita of Cascia thread.

Dear Anonymous at 11:42 am, 

Actually, it would make a difference in the story he would invent. Even if the Declaration of Deed Restriction were put in since the beginning, Tim Rohr would STILL say the certificates are a fake. Only this time, he would invent a story claiming that the NAME of the ownership stated in the certificates are wrong. He would claim the ownership to be the Redemptoris Mater Seminary since the Declaration of Deed Restriction was on the certificate of titles. Of course, his story of the NCW taking over DLM would remain the same. 
 As anyone can see, my comment was made two days ago. It never mattered if the Declaration of Deed Restriction was on the memorial or not.  The jungle would STILL say that the certificates were fake.  Why?  Because Tim Rohr has a personal agenda.  It was brought to my attention that the article on the Ownership of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in the Umatuna was removed.  I am sure that Tim Rohr will invent another story as to why it was removed.  It does not matter.  He can invent any fairy tale he wants.  You should know by now that the jungle will criticize every little thing the Archdiocese does.  There is nothing new about that.  

The Archdiocese told them many times that the RMS property belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana.  They made every effort to provide documents showing that, in the hopes of bringing unity and reconciliation.  But it really does not matter what document is provided because the agenda of the jungle is to remove the Archbishop, destroy the NCW, and sell the seminary.  CCOG and LFM constantly say that all of this will go away if the Archbishop would just sit down and discuss it with them, but that is false.  Things will not go away if the Archbishop meets with them because as I said, they have an agenda.  So, to those who have been bringing in the news from the jungle about the certificate of titles, I am sorry but your comments will not be published.  It should be clear by now that folks with an agenda are not interested in reconciliation.  There is nothing we or the Archbishop can do except to pray for them.  God will take care of the rest.  


  1. And what is the agenda of the NCW? Since you accuse the JW of having an agenda?

    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:30,

      The agenda of the NCW is to baptize all the nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

  2. It is a question of accountability, transparency and justice. Mons. David is accountable all the way to the Archbishop. He should correct himself by saying I made a mistake, I knew it was wrong but i still didi it.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:15 pm,

      As I mention in the OP, confessing a mistake would not matter because in the first place, you do not even see it as a mistake. Tim Rohr said the certificates were a fake because it did not have the Declaration of Deed Restriction. Now that it has the Deed Restriction, he is still saying the same thing. So, it really does not matter.

    2. Who made the mistake? I don't understand. Could you elaborate, please?

    3. Dear Anonymous at 6:10 pm,

      Everyone makes mistakes because as humans we are not perfect. Are you telling me that you have never made a mistake in your entire life?

    4. Diana, I asked Anonymous 12:15. He says Msgr. David made a mistake. I don't see the mistake. What was the mistake? Was the announcement made in the U'Matuna a hoax? How was it a hoax? As far as I can see it clarified that the seminary is in the possession of the archbishop. Is this not true? Do you agree with Anonymous in saying that Msgr. David should correct himself? Why?

    5. Dear Anonymous at 8:12 pm,

      The certificate of titles have already been corrected. According to the jungle, Mr. santos was instructed to make the correction possibly by Jackie Terlaje. So, the error was already caught in time and was already in the process of correction before Bob Klitzke asked for the documents. He was given the corrected documents, but the jungle was not surprise there.

      The certificates were not a hoax or a fake because the documents officially came from Land Management. By using the word "hoax", Box Klitzkie is using propaganda.

    6. I am sorry, Diana, I am lost. I don't read the "jungle". I don't understand anything. Could you give me the big picture? I don't know who is Mr. Santos. Why was he instructed by Jackie? What was the mistake that had to be corrected? Is this a serious matter? Did Mr. Klitzkie find out about the error? Why is he all over the media now? Who is responsible? Is there going to be any charge? Why are they attacking Msgr. David? Is he to be blamed? For what? What is the role of Rohr in all this? Thanks.

    7. Dear Anonymous at 9:36 pm,

      I am glad that you do not read the jungle. So far, the media has presented only one side mainly because Bob Klitzke was the only one who was interviewed. The media has not yet heard the side of the Archbishop, Monsignor David Quitugua, Jackie Terlaje, Mike Borja (the Director of Land Management), and Mr. Andrew Santos. It is always best to hear both sides of the story rather than one side before making a judgment.

  3. censorship at it's best. the truth will set you free!

    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:34 pm,

      When you have already determined that the truth is a lie, there is nothing we or the Archbishop can do to help you. You are in our prayers.

  4. Diana, I'm one of those made a comment about the Certificate of titles, which you didn't publish. I'm sorry about that, but I hope ou would this comment. I'm a parishioner at the Santa Rita parish. I'm 32 years old, and I see Father Kyzstof doing Mass the same way as other non-Neo parishes. I read both blogs, and I see your point.

    First off, I don't want our parish to turn into a latin Mass as Tim suggests. Tim said in his blog:

    "I have even gone further, urging a return to practices considered by the Universal Church to be the NORM even when an exception is permitted (such as communion in the hand, and even Saturday night Mass.)"

    Rome has given permission to take communion by either hand or tongue, but Tim wants everyone to take communion by tongue because he believes that to be the norm. I've only been to a Latin Mass once and decided that its not for me. I didn't grow up at the time when the Latin Mass was the usual practice. Although I haven't been to the Mass in the Neo, I prefer the Mass we have in the parish.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:49 pm,

      You stated: "Rome has given permission to take communion by either hand or tongue, but Tim wants everyone to take communion by tongue because he believes that to be the norm."

      You are correct. I hope now you and many others will understand why we refuse to give you the document showing that we were given permission to celebrate the Eucharist the way we do. Tim already dismissed the permissions granted by the Vatican to the faithful who wish to receive holy communion by hand.

      Furthermore, Tim Rohr is incorrect about the norms. According to the document Memoriale Domini, receiving the Body of Christ by hand came FIRST. It was later disallowed due to the many abuses taking place at that time. According to Memoriale Domini:

      "The pages of history show that the celebration and the receptions of the Eucharist have taken various forms. In our own day the rites for the celebration of the Eucharist have been changed in many and important ways, bringing them more into line with modern man's spiritual and psychological needs........

      ........At the same time in recent years a fuller sharing in the eucharistic celebration through sacramental communion has here and there evoked the desire to return to the ancient usage of depositing the eucharistic bread in the hand of the communicant, he himself then communicating, placing it in his mouth.

      As you can see, the document described receiving of the Body of Christ by hand as the ANCIENT usage that was RE-INTRODUCED. At that time, receiving the Body of Christ by hand was the norm. Norms change over time.

    2. These Latin mass people are mostly fundamentalists, who cannot trust modern times. They think every tiny change of past practices will destroy the church. They deplore guitar music during mass. Lol. Would they think Jesus Christ is running away scared if he hears the sounds of guitar music played in the church? It is so gibberish! Guitar music is beautiful.

      The Latin language is dead. Where are the people who talk Latin as their mother tongue? They are nowhere! A dead language fits well with fundamentalists who are spiritually dead inside.

      Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He is Lord forever. Who could take this away from Him? Only those who cannot trust Him run away scared from the modern times of a brave new world.

    3. Latin mass is an exceptional thing, for many it is just a nuisance. Those who attend like the exceptional feeling of being special. Parting from us, the "lowly crowd", tells them they are better than ordinary folks. Are they truly better? Are they truly special? Not at all. They sport two ears and two eyes just like everyone else. Lol!

      I always look at people with amazement who are adoring foreign languages they don't speak or understand. What is the point? Do you like to listen to words that have no meaning for you? It is so freakish!

      You don't need to read your "official" document for me when you use it against the faithful. I follow the living church of real people, not the church of the spiritually dead who bury themselves into dead papers. Lol! Jesus Christ came from the God of the living, who is his Father in heaven, and not from a god of corpses.

      Depending on the dry and dead letters printed on molding, age old yellowish papers and rotting books is against following the joy of the Good News! Why to be afraid of rejoicing in the Lord and rejoicing in the fellowship of my Catholic sisters and brothers?

      Don't be grumpy and selfish. Your Latin masses are for yourselves, serving as private entertainment for the mentally blueish. Surely it is not for the real people I know from my church, people with real flesh and real blood who don't need to study Latin in order to feel joyous about the love the Lord.

  5. Dear anon at 6.22. Have you heard of Vatican II? I thought you Neocats were fond of referring to it? Here's an excerptfrom the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy:

    "36. (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (2) But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives and in some prayers and chants. Regulations governing this will be given separately in subsequent chapters. "

    Evidently these Bishops that wrote that Constitution were "spiritually dead inside". I wonder where that sentiment puts you in relation to the Catholic Church?

    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:06 pm,

      Pope John Paul II banned the Latin Mass. The only reason it was restored by Pope Benedict XVI was so that the SSPX would hopefully be in communion with the Catholic Church. He thought that by lifting their excommunication and restoring the Traditional Latin Mass, the SSPX would come around and accept Vatican II. So far, they did not live up to that promise. They still oppose Vatican II. Thus far, the number of people who participate in the Traditional Latin Mass has declined. Part of the reason for the decline is due to the fact that they never evangelize.

    2. "Pope John Paul II banned the Latin Mass"

      Huh? Check your facts Diana. Pope john Paul II di not ban the Latin Mass. In fact it wasn't ever banned. It was restored in prominence by Pope Benedict. But here is what Pope John Paul had to say:

      In his 1980 letter to the Bishops on the Holy Eucharist, Pope John Paul II said: "There are also those people who, having been educated on the basis of the old liturgy in Latin, experience the lack of this 'one language', which in all the world was an expression of the unity of the Church and which, through its dignified character, elicited a profound sense of the Eucharistic mystery. It is therefore necessary to show, not only understanding, but also full respect towards these sentiments and desires. As far as possible, these sentiments and desires are to be accommodated."

      Then in 1988 the same pope wrote: “Respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.”

      In July of 2007, Pope Benedict XVI wrote: “It is permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.”

      You arrogant, hateful person. The reason you claim to be Catholic - the reason the Catholic Church persists, is because believers of every age have "avangelized". Before the liturgical reforms carried out after Vatican II, there was only "the Mass". Not an ordinary form or an extraordinary form. And it was those that attended as assisted at that Mass that evangelized the world!

      How revealing is your comment!

    3. Dear Anonymous at 10:16 pm,

      First of all, name calling is not the proper way to dialogue especially when all you had to say was that you disagree and explain why.

      Secondly, you say it was never banned, but restored. How can something be restored if it was never banned?????

      In the third place, I was mistaken about Pope John Paul II. He did not banned the Latin Mass. It was the Second Vatican Council that did that. However, Pope John Paul II authorized the LIMITATION of the Latin Mass. The information is found in the following weblink:

      As for Pope Benedict XVI, he restored the Latin Mass in the hopes of getting the SSPX to be in compliance with the Catholic Church. According to the weblink below:

      "In his accompanying letter, Pope Benedict explained that his action was aimed at broadly and generously providing for the rituals which nourished the faithful for centuries and at "coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church" with Traditionalist Catholics in disagreement with the Holy See, such as the members of the Society of St. Pius X. He stated that, while it had first been thought that interest in the Tridentine Mass would disappear with the older generation that had grown up with it, some young persons too have "felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the mystery of the Eucharist particularly suited to them." In view of fears expressed while the document was in preparation, he took pains to emphasize that his decision in no way detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council and that, not only for juridical reasons, but also because the requisite "degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language" are not found very often, the Mass of Paul VI remains the "normal" or "ordinary" form of the Roman Rite Eucharistic liturgy.[3]"

      Finally, "the Mass" has never been the Latin Mass since time memorial. The document Memoriale Domini revealed that the celebration and reception of the Eucharist had undergone many changes before it became what you call "the Mass."

      Furthermore, every believers of every age did NOT evangelize before Vatican II. Some Catholics did, but not everyone. Today that is still true. You do not see every Catholic evangelizing.

      I am a Catholic today because of Father Luis de San Vitores, who brought Catholicism to Guam. It is only because of this one foreign man that the majority of people on Guam are Roman Catholics TODAY. I certainly did not become Catholic due to YOUR evangelization, whatever that may be. My parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so on through the generations were Catholics as a result of one missionary foreign priest who came hundreds of years ago. It was certainly not because of you or anyone you think came before Vatican II.

    4. Dear Diana, you reveal yourself in your comments. Once again you are wrong. The Second Vatican Council did not ban the Latin Mass either. If you believe this to be the case, then please post some evidence. You will find you are mistaken yet again, and it is merely your prejudice that rules.

      As I said previously, Pope Benedict "restored to prominence" the Latin Mass. I did not simply say "restored" as you have quoted. Are you not able to read the entire comment?

      Finally, the heart of evangelization is the Mass. Anyone who attends, assists or participates in the Mass is already involved in evangelization.

      Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith in an interview conducted by Edward Pentin for Zenit:

      "People have misconceptions about evangelization as if it is something we ourselves, with human effort, can achieve. This is a basic misunderstanding. What the Lord wanted us to do was to join him and His mission. The mission is His mission. If we think we are the ones to be finding grandiose plans to achieve that, we are on the wrong track. The missionary life of the Church is the realization of our union with Him, and this union is achieved in the most tangible way through the liturgy. Therefore, the more the Church is united with the Lord in the celebration of the liturgy, the more fruitful the mission of the Church will become. That is why this is very important."

      Pope Benedict:

      "The second aspect that I propose for your reflection is the relationship between sacred song and the new evangelization. … [P]recisely in countries, such as Italy, where evangelization occurred centuries ago, sacred music―with its own great tradition, which is our Western culture―can and does have a relevant task of assisting in the rediscovery of God, a return to the Christian message and the mysteries of the faith."

      In October, 2012, the bishops at the Synod on the New Evangelization for the Transmission of the Christian Faith declared: “The worthy celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, God’s most treasured gift to us, is the source of the highest expression of our life in Christ (cf. Sacrosanctum concilium, 10). It is, therefore, the primary and most powerful expression of the new evangelization. God desires to manifest the incomparable beauty of his immeasurable unceasing love for us through the Sacred Liturgy, and we, for our part, desire to employ what is most beautiful in our worship of God in response to his gift. In the marvelous exchange of the Sacred Liturgy, by which heaven descends to earth, salvation is at hand, calling forth repentance and conversion of heart (cf. Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:15.)”

      And one of your favourite websites (Our Sunday Visitor) has an article with similar sentiment:

      Please educate yourself, or you run the risk of highlighting your ignorance.


      "It was certainly not because of you or anyone you think came before Vatican II."

      Huh? Didn't you just claim that you were Catholic because of Father Luis de San Vitores? Wasn't he around well before Vatican II?

    5. Dear Anonymous at 11:22 am,

      I gave the evidence in my previous comment. I provided the weblink, which was the New York Times. However, I decided to look deeper and realized that I was wrong. The New York Times gave an incorrect information. You are correct, and I stand corrected. The Latin Mass was not banned. It was restricted. I apologize for the error in saying that it was banned. It was actually restricted and limited, but not banned.

      The Mass is not the heart of evangelization. It is the heart of the Catholic Church in which the faithful become one with Christ. The Mass serves as a conversion process. Christ told us to go out and baptize all nations. That does not mean to attend Mass. Evangelization means to spread the Gospel to all people. Mass is a place where the assembly gathers together to worship and praise God.

      I was referring to recent years before Vatican II. Catholicism was brought to Guam by Father San Vitores. As a result of him, a majority of people on Guam became Catholic, which was transmitted to future generations.

    6. "The Mass serves as a conversion process."

      Wow, are you serious Diana? Mass as a conversion process? This is new for me! I thought conversion is a radical change from one thing to another. What is your conversion? From what and to what?

    7. @ Anon. 10:16 p.m. I've been reading the discussions between you and Diana. I must admit something and hope that you see what I see in the comments above. Diana never called you any negative names. And in the end, Dana was able to admit her mistake. I don't see a person who is arrogant and hateful. I see a person who has the courage and integrity to admit she was wrong when she recognize that she was wrong. I applaud Diana for being a great example on conducting an honest dialogue.

    8. Dear Anonymous at 1:35 pm,

      In order for one to be converted, one must hear the Word of God. The church is where the word of God and Gospel is proclaimed. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

      CCC 1436 Eucharist and Penance. Daily conversion and penance find their source and nourishment in the Eucharist, for in it is made present the sacrifice of Christ which has reconciled us with God. Through the Eucharist those who live from the life of Christ are fed and strengthened. "It is a remedy to free us from our daily faults and to preserve us from mortal sins."

      As you can see, the Catechism states that conversion find its source in the Eucharist. Where do you receive the Eucharist? Would it not be at Mass?

    9. Diana, this is so wrong. People who come to the Sunday mass are already converted to Catholic faith. You receive the Eucharist only if you are in good standing of faith. If you haven't confessed your sin then you cannot take the Eucharist! Please, convert yourself first!

      People who take the Eucharist at Sunday mass are the great strength and source of Catholic faith! What do you want from us? You need to "convert" those who don't come to the church, who don't go to confession, who don't take the Eucharist! They are the lapsed and unfaithful. Convert yourself and those around you first!

      I couldn't care less about your CCC. My faith in Jesus is written in my heart, not in the CCC. Will CCC convert anyone? Don't be ridiculous. It is only the Lord who can achieve everything or anything. Therefore, covert yourself first, before you want to convert anyone else.

      Eucharist saves me from mortal sin? Yes, of course! So why don't you go to preach to those who live in mortal sin?! Bring them to the church, bring them to confession. Make them good Catholics. Convert yourself first to become a good Catholic. Then, I will know what conversion you are talking about.

    10. Dear Anonymousp at 1:26 pm,

      By conversion, I was not referring to the Catholic religion. Conversion means a change of heart. In other words, a Catholic who lives with their boyfriend/girlfriend is converted when they get married in Church.

  6. Pope: Lent is favorable time for conversion


  8. Dear Diana,

    Neither the archbishop nor the CCOG is going to go away anytime soon. For the sake of the Church on Guam, where would it be best to have the issues between the two parties resolved? In a courtroom? In the media and on blog sites? Or seated around a table in prayer-driven discussions? From what I understand the CCOG has asked to meet with the archbishop, but there has never been any meeting. I, for one, do not understand why the two parties have not been able to meet. Do you know why?

    1. Dear Timothy Guile,

      The Archbishop nor the NCW are also not going away. The Archdiocese has already answered the questions that CCOG have asked. Why does he have to repeat himself? He has opened himself up to the parishioners of Toto who also asked the same questions as CCOG. He gave his answer to them. In fact, someone had recorded the question and answer session in the Toto parish and gave it to Tim Rohr where he published and mocked everything the Archbishop says.

      CCOG has met with the Archbishop's representatives. Those who met with CCOG represented the Archbishop. They were his spokepersons. That should have been sufficient because whatever comes from his spokepersons come from the Archbishop.

    2. Mr. Timothy Guile, the Archbishop's committee that met with CCOG were Fr. Jeff, George Kalingal, and Mariles Benavente. As Diana said, they represented the Archbishop. So, they have the answers to their questions. However, CCOG doesn't want to accept those answers.

  9. Dear Anonymous and Diana,

    I am no stranger to conflict. Our family lived under apartheid in South Africa and Namibia (1974-79) where the forces of apartheid and minority rule were pitted against forces for liberation and majority rule. Those two countries are now at peace, and former foes have learned to live together, but it took a long time for the conflict to ripen, fall off the tree and rot away. It seems that the conflict on Guam within the Church is not at that point yet. The spirit of reconciliation is still shackled. I pray for its release.

    1. Dear Timothy Guile,

      Thank you. We are also praying for reconciliation. Those who oppose the Archbishop and NCW are few in number but we still consider them our Catholic brothers and sisters. In my parish, those who are in the NCW and those who are not walking in the NCW can get along. In fact, our parish council consist of parishioners who walk in the Way and who are not walking in the Way.

    2. Hi Timothy, I am not surprised that fire and brimstone is coming on you from the jungle. Rohr is a very proud person, insanely jealous of his own command. He is fine with you until he can control and twist your words at his blog. But he goes absolutely berserk, when you refuse his manipulations and expose his dirty manners of managing his blog. Now, he and his henchmen will come after you. He is so predictable. Lol.

      When JW started in 2013, I had the illusion that it might be a forum to discuss Catholic things. But it came out very soon that Rohr has a different agenda. Even though I had attended his Monday evening sessions and we were Facebook friends, his hostility grew day by day. He knew from the beginning that I was a member of the Way, but he had no problem with that at that time. He even praised the NCW as a group of good Catholics. All this changed only much later.

      In the Fall of 2013, Rohr started to throw out my comments from his blog, mocked and ridiculed everything that disagreed with his agenda. This was the time I called him intellectually dishonest and show him a thorough description of his techniques as perfectly fitting this category.

      I exposed his blog as spreading hearsay, gossip and superstition. I pointed out his hypocrisy about anonymous comments. He loves them, allows them, promotes them and utilizes them. He has an anonymous army of trolls who echo back his demagoguery every day. Some of his anonymous commenters or those who use fake names are Rohr himself. He employs all clandestine techniques to stir emotions. His hate mongering became a defining character, a signature for JW.

      Rohr became furious when I exposed him. He unfriended me on Facebook and deleted my comments at his blog. What is more, he stole my pictures from my Facebook page and paraded them on his blog. He came after me in my workplace. He became arrogant and haughty and started to wage a vicious war against everything and everyone who disagreed with him. It was only a few times later that I could post comment on his blog for no avail.

      As about initiating conversation, well, I gave it a try myself at a CCoG meeting in Agat last year. I presented my points offering an honest discussion. But Rohr had a different plan. He dispatched his cronies against me and they started to shout at me. They literally shrieked off my head by hysterically calling me a colonizer. Not one of the people present stopped these unintelligent outbursts, revealing CCoG and Rohr as the real masterminds of this mental poison they manufacture for the gullible.

      At the same meeting, appealing on our former friendship, I asked Rohr to stop using abusive language on his blog against the Way. He publicly laughed off my request and he confirmed in front of the audience that he will continue using bad words on his blog. If there is one thing he kept his promise, it is this. His blog in utterly unreadable.

      Knowing of past events and seeing the development of JW into a full blood hate blog, I am not surprised at all that Rohr treated you like this. Even though you offered a peaceful avenue of honest intent to reconcile differences, you are vilified, humiliated and thrown out not from the blog only, but even from the Monday evening Rohr sessions, where he covertly trains his adherents to hate stronger and hate more. One word about Frenchie. Well, the guy likes to spell my name, but he has never spelled his own. How interesting is this? He definitely has a sense of humor. Actually, he is exactly that, nothing but a French joke! Lol.

    3. Dear Zoltan,

      There was a time when I posted comments in the jungle, in the hopes that we and those in the jungle would come to some understanding and reconciliation. After a while, what I said no longer mattered. They accused me of being a priest and demanded to know my identity. Whatever topic I addressed was all being diverted to the issue of my identity. After that, I stopped making comments in the jungle. The jungle have always told the NCW to question their Catechists. But when someone questions Tim Rohr..........

    4. Timmy has also accused Diana of being Fr. Edivaldo, Jackie Terlaje, and Susana. It never ends. Rather than having a decent discussion with Mr. Guile, Tim accused him of being a plant for the Way. Mr. Guile is not even a member of the Way. But that's how JW is. You try having a decent discussion by asking them questions, and then suddenly you're being accused of something.

    5. grow up in faithMarch 8, 2016 at 1:54 PM

      Let me repeat from a post I sent in earlier:

      The reason JW becomes marginalized is its ALL OR NOTHING strategy. JW wants a complete elimination of NCW from Guam or else... But any reasonable approach is rather based on GIVING AND TAKING: you give some and receive some in exchange. That is why many of us propose a common sense approach that seeks a peaceful coexistence of all Catholic groups, where mutual respect including giving and taking goes without saying. Of course, the necessary condition is mutual good will, visible trust building measures and a readiness for good compromises that respect the interest of all groups.

      The sad part is that JW is suspicious of the middle ground between the two camps. Voices of self-restraint are suppressed. JW tends to forget that its quality is coming from the exchanges and contributions of others. Truncating the discourse truncates the truth! Anonymous commenters are divided into the good ones and the bad ones. Those who uncritically praise JW are the "good ones". They appear even if they are obscene and cursing. The "bad ones" who dare to be critical of the JW approach are silenced by censure.

      Moderation of the blog could be reduced to eliminate obscene words and cursing as in many faith based blogs around the world. Only those comments would be censured that violate basic decency, but no comment ever would be eliminated based on its critical view point. Of course, this solution does not fly at JW, as JW needs to suppress those who disagree.

      Dear Diana, I might be wrong but in many regards your blog goes in parallel with JW. You diametrically oppose everything written in JW, thus you create the same kind of blog with a different, opposite content. In the process of peace making this approach might not be useful. If you look for a peaceful coexistence, as I certainly hope NCW would want this on Guam, then rather than mimicking the adversary, you might discover some new avenues of gracefulness and sincerity in conducting a blog. I hope you at least give it a try.

    6. Dear Grow up in faith,

      As anyone can see, I have published comments on my blog that I do not always agree with. For example, I do not always agree with you, but many of your comments are published anyway. Not all comments on my blog comes from members of the NCW. There are many comments that comes into my blog, but many of them are not published due to profanity, name-calling, one sentence insults, arguments that go off in circles, etc. I have even received death threats. The fact that I am getting all these inappropriate remarks shows that I must be doing something right. :-)

    7. Hi Diana, that is right. It is amazing how intensely jungle folks play this silly game called "Who could Diana be?" They are just unable to stop it. This is just too foolish. Of course, they will never come close because nobody really knows who Diana is.

    8. Dear Tim, Frenchie, Chuck, Zoltan, Deana, Anonymous et alii,

      I am an academic. I hope this explains, in large part, how I comport myself on Deana’s, Tim Rohr’s and Chuck White’s blog sites. I may at times fall short of my ideals (and if I do, call me out), but this is what they are: ask questions for clarification if I don’t know something, identify a line of argument by looking for its claims and support for claims made, examine whether the support for a claim stands up to critical scrutiny, present my own line of thought with supporting arguments and/or documentation. My ideal for inquiry bars me from making ad hominem attacks. It bars me from trying to embarrass or deride others. It bars me from inappropriate sarcasm and or misleading hyperbole. And, in a way, it even bars me from debating and keeping score. Rather it encourages me to listen, examine, propose, explicate and support claims in search for understanding.

      One last thing: I am grateful for the individuals named above for allowing my contributions to their blog streams in the past, and hope they allow contributions in the future. But if they do not, then I will withdraw from those platforms. God bless us in our pursuit for understanding and wisdom.

    9. Dear Timothy Guile,

      This is actually the first time you have made comments in my blog under this thread. You have always posted comments in Tim Rohr's and Chuck White's blog sites but never on mine until now. Part of being an academic is also listening to both sides of the story. Every issue has two sides. You have always been listening to only one side until you came here to ask why the Archbishop has not met CCOG.

      I welcome comments on my blog. However, those who read and make comments here know that I will NOT publish any inappropriate comments.

  10. What do you mean Diana by inappropriate comment. Each comment has special value to the one who comments. This is about freedom of the press. Each has the right to comment on this blog as they wish. It is a public domain. You should publish every comment. You only publish pro NCW comments.
    Archbishop delegate is right. This is a hate blog against our church. Shame on you girl.

    1. I believe that freedom of expression comes with great responsibility. Freedom of expression without any sense of responsibility then becomes a hate blog. This is why I expect certain rules.

      1. No name calling such as "idiot", "stupid", or "a bunch of animals." Discuss the topic especially the OP. Do not attack the commenters.

      2.Absolutely no profanity. Please keep all comments clean. This blog is not a place for you to bash someone publicly.

      3.Stop asking the same questions over and over. Either accept the answer you have been given or write your letter of complaint to the Vatican. It is not necessary to beat a dead horse.

      4.No backtracking. Backtracking is dishonest. Honest and true discussions can benefit both sides as we can learn from each other.

    2. Diana, I am sorry, but what do you mean by backtracking? When I mail a letter I may pay a little extra to be able to backtrack. Is this what you mean?

    3. Dear Anonymous at 11:35 am,

      An example of backtracking is:

      When a commenter insisted that Early Christians defined Sunday (being the first day of the week) as starting at "sunset" or at "midnight." When shown the Catholic Encyclopedia that defines Sunday observation of the Early Church as "from Saturday evening to Sunday evening", the person then pretends that he is in agreement with what the Catholic Encyclopedia stated all along rather than admit that he was in error about defining Sunday as "sunrise" or at "midnight."

    4. Then why don't you say it is pretending? Why do you call it backtracking? The expression backtracking or tracing back, depending on the context, has different connotations.

    5. Dear Anonymous at 11:59 am,

      You asked me what I meant by backtracking. I answered your question. To answer your next question.... "backtrack" also means to reverse or withdraw your opinion. In a written dialogue, one can always determine if a person reverses or withdraws their opinion. When the person says that he agreed with the Catholic Encyclopedia ALL ALONG.....this is a dishonest reversal of opinion. It is backtracking, and a dishonest one. If a person says that he did not say such thing despite that it is there in the written comment, that is a dishonest withdrawal of opinion. In either case, the person was being dishonest. The honest approach would be to either admit the error or thank the person for correcting him/her.

    6. Is this not what you call convincing the other person? If your reason is accepted then the discussion may change the opinion of the other. Is this not your success? I would not call it backtracking. As a rule of posting comments this requirement seems to be ambiguous.

    7. How manyh times have you had to admit "i stand corrected"?

      Is that what you mean by "backtracking"?

    8. Dear Anonymous at 1:06 pm,

      It becomes a change of opinion only if the person takes the honest approach. If a person stubbornly refuses to acknowledge his/ her error by insisting that he/she never contradicted the Catholic Encyclopedia, the person is being dishonest in the debate.

    9. Dear Anonymous at 2:35 pm,

      When I say that I stand corrected, I am acknowledging that person has corrected me. I am admitting my error. Admitting an error is not backtracking for it is taking the honest and proper approach in the debate.