The jungle wants you to believe that you have "a right to show the world their absolute revulsion of the man" who is the Archbishop of Guam. According to the jungle:
NOTE: The CCOG, the LFM, and all people who care that the title Archbishop of Agana still belongs to a man named Anthony S. Apuron, will continue to publicly call for his resignation if not total and absolute LAICIZATION.
This has nothing to do with Archbishop Hon, his duties, or his authority. The people have a right, and have always had a right to show to the world their absolute revulsion of the man who not only wreaked havoc on this diocese for three decades but, as we are now learning, raped and mutilated our children. In this regard, WE WILL CARRY ON.This is against Catholic teaching. It is against the teachings of Christianity. Christ taught us to love all people including our enemies. Where in Church doctrine or in the Gospels did it say that we have a right to show revulsion of a man??? As Christians, we abhor sin. But where does it say that we are supposed to abhor a man??? The jungle teaches you to show revulsion to a man (the person of Archbishop Apuron), which goes against all Christian teachings. The jungle teaches you to oppose the Pope's decision, which goes against Catholic teachings.
Obligations/rights of all Christian faithful: The first set of rights is found within Canons 208 – 223:
ReplyDeleteThe Obligations & Rights of All the Christian Faithful.
These rights do not only apply to the Laity but all members of the Church.
In summary they are:
Can. 211 All the Christian Faithful (i.e. the Laity [which includes Religious] and the Clergy) has a right and a duty to spreading the Good News to the whole world.
Can. 212
§2. The Christian Faithful has the right to make known their needs and desires to the "pastors of the Church".
For Clergy "pastors" could be their Dean, Bishop/Archbishop, etc.
For Laity this could be their Parish Priest or Dean or Bishop, etc.
§3. The Christian Faithful have the right "…and even at times the duty" to give "…the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful".
Can. 213 The Christian Faithful have the right to receive assistance from the "sacred pastors" "…especially the word of God and the sacraments."
Can. 214 The Christian Faithful have the right to worship according to approved rites and to "…follow their own form of spiritual life so long as it is consonant with the doctrine of the Church."
Can. 215 The Christian Faithful are free to "…found and direct associations for purposes of charity or piety or for the promotion of the Christian vocation in the world and to hold meetings for the common pursuit of these purposes."
It is of note these do not have to be approved by the ecclesiastical authorities.
However, cf. Canon 216 below about using the name Catholic.
Can. 216 The Christian Faithful have the right to "…promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings". However, "…no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority."
Can. 217 The Christian Faithful have the right to a Christian education "…by which they are to be instructed properly".
Can. 218 The Christian Faithful who are involved in "the sacred disciplines" have the right to inquire and express opinions in their area of expertise as long as they are in accordance with the magisterium of the Church.
Can. 219 The Christian Faithful have the right not to be forced into a particular "state of life."
Can. 220 Nobody is permitted to "illegitimately" harm another person’s reputation or to "injure" a person’s right of privacy.
Can. 221
§1. The Christian Faithful have the right to "vindicate" and defend the rights they possess in Canon Law within a "competent ecclesiastical forum".
This is most often going to be the Diocesan Tribunal which mainly oversees marriage annulment applications.
§2.The Christian Faithful have the right to a fair trial by any "competent authority".
This extends to civil and criminal trials as well as within ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
§3. The Christian Faithful can only be punished with "canonical penalties" (such as ex-communication) "according to the norm of law", that is they cannot be bestowed arbitrarily.
Any ecclesiastical charges against an individual must be fully proven.
Obligations/rights of the lay Christian faithful
ReplyDeleteThe second set of rights is found within Canons 225 – 231: The Obligations and Rights of the Lay Christian Faithful.
These rights are specific to the Laity.
In summary they are:
Can. 226
§2 Parents have the right to educate their children.
Can. 227 The Laity should have the same freedoms as their fellow citizens.
However, these freedoms should be enjoyed and lived out in accordance with the "spirit of the gospel" and the magisterium of the Church.
At the same time the Laity should avoid any suggestion their opinions are necessarily the teaching of the Church.
Can. 228
§1. Suitable qualified Lay persons can be appointed by "the sacred pastors" to those "…ecclesiastical offices and functions which they are able to exercise according to the precepts of the law."
§2. Lay persons who "…excel in necessary knowledge, prudence, and integrity" can be appointed by "the pastors of the Church" as experts and advisors, even in councils according to the norm of law."
Can. 229
§1. Lay persons have the right to "...acquire knowledge of Christian doctrine."
§2. Lay persons also possess the right to acquire that fuller knowledge of the sacred sciences and attend "…ecclesiastical universities and faculties or in institutes of religious sciences."
§3. If the"… prescripts regarding the requisite suitability have been observed", they "...are also qualified to receive from legitimate ecclesiastical authority a mandate to teach the sacred sciences."
Can. 230
§1. Lay men can be admitted "…through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte." Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church.
§2. Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector "…by temporary designation".
All lay persons can also undertake "…the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law."
§3. When required, such as a lack of Ministers, "…lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law."
Can. 231
§2. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 230, §1 where, for example, a lay person works full-time for the Church they "…have the right to decent remuneration" by the Church for roles they undertake for Her.
"They also have a right for their social provision, social security, and health benefits to be duly provided".
It is of note that there are a number of fundamental rights stipulated here – the right to privacy, the right to fair trial, etc.
Such rights are also reflected in many civil Human Rights Charters such as the a European Convention of Human Rights.
It is of particular note that many of the more specific rights outlined above are conditional and require approval by the appropriate "ecclesiastical authority".
Dear Anthony,
DeleteAnd in all this, where does it say to go against the decree of the Pope? Where does it say we have the right to show absolute revulsion to a man?
Because anthony Sablan Apuron is just a man.
DeleteIt wouldn't be against the teaching to reject a heretic bishop, nor a schismatic, nor an unfit bishop. Such has been the case through two millennia. We reject Arius, we rejected all manner or schismatics, and we have always opposed men who were morally as well as personally not up to the task.
ReplyDeleteTo demand good pastors isn't unChristian; it's positively Pauline. In Galatians, St Paul calls out St Peter. It's not because Peter is a bad person or a heretic. It's because he's wrong. Peter was weak at the time, but after Paul's admonition, Peter stepped up and got back in the game.
If only the Archbishop would get back to what's important instead of all the other stuff, all would be well, and I'm quite confident all would be forgiven.
And for the record, it was never a matter of Msgr James and Fr Paul for me. Who cares about their jobs? I want Guam's Church to thrive, to move on. We have souls to save, not battles with each other to fight.
Dear Anonymous at 4:25 pm,
DeleteWho are you to determine who is heretic and who is not. It was Pope Feancis who said that Anthony Apuron remains the Archbishop of Guam; therefore he has the support of the Pope. Who are you to go against the Pope's decision?
He said he remains archbishop. It he did not say permanently meaning it could be until the investigation into the sex abuse allegations is completed. If Rome believes he is guilty of molesting those boys then they will have him resign or they will remove him. And Diana speaking out about an archbishop accused of raping little boys is not in any way shape or form "going against the pope." Would you have us believe that the Pope honors and respects child molesters ?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 5:14 pm,
DeleteIt is always best to follow the rule of law, "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." There is a reason why our justice system was established this way.
I have a cousin who was accused of rape by a minor. He lost his job because of that accusation. Fortunately, his wife and family stood by his side. They felt that the girl made a mistake and did not really recognize the rapist. Do you know how my cousin was acquitted? After the teenage girl gave birth, my cousin demanded a paternity test. That paternity test was the evidence that proved he was not the rapist.
Do you know why the teenage girl kept silent and was crying? Because she was scared to death of being thrown out into the street when her family finds out that she was having sex with her teenage boyfriend. When she found out she was pregnant, she went into panic mode and made up a story about being raped. But things got out of hand when people went on a witch hunt looking for a rapist who did not exist. My cousin was accused of rape and lost his job. The girl was too scared to tell the truth and my cousin lost his job. When the paternity test came out, the girl broke down and told the truth. This is why I strongly believe in the rule of law.
What about Fr.Paul Monsignor James.Archbishop demonized these good men. ?
Deletepeople who act like judge, jury and ex...cannot understand mans laws nor accept or live by Gods laws. Impossible.
DeleteI am the 4:25 from above. I never said Apuron was a heretic. As for who I am, I'm a Catholic who knows the catechism and knows heresy when he hears it, thanks not only to good formation but also the fact that I taught at a Catholic seminary. We all as Catholics should know our faith and are called to correct when a person is wrong, but in charity of course.
DeleteWhy so angry? I never said he was a heretic. I was only making the point that disobedience to a heretic or a schismatic or an unfit bishop (as in really unfit, not "he's unfit because I don't like him") isn't disobedience.
You know what? Forget it. I'm wasn't even attacking, just commenting. Why bother to comment if you're going to go into ballistic mode?
Dear Anonymous at 1:13 pm,
DeleteI apologize and I hope you forgive me. I interpreted your comment to mean we are the ones to decide who is a heretic and who is not. It is not always easy to know heresy even when a person knows their Catholic faith. All the heretics excommunicated by the Church were Catholics who thought they knew their faith.
In the Early Church, there were people who also thought that the Apostle Paul was a heretic because he taught that circumcision was not necessary and that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. A decision from a council in Jerusalem had to determine whether circumcision was to be imposed among the Gentiles. It had always been the leaders of the Church to make those kinds of decisions. I agree with you that we should always correct our brother in charity. But the decision as to who is heretical is best left to the Pope and the teaching Magisterium.
In this blog, it has been said many times that the NCW is heretical and this criticism has been coming from the laity who claim to know their Catholic faith.
Anon. 1:13 pm, Folks can misinterpret what you say if you deviate away from the Original Post. Diana has always insisted to stick to the OP. You may not have mentioned Archbishop Apuron, but the OP is about Archbishop Apuron and Archbishop Hon.
Delete4:25 here again. You too are right. Such is the human condition that we fight for what we love and often misstate what we mean. I too ask your forgiveness for overstating my case, now as always. I'm against the abuses of the NCW, just as I am against the abuses in the trad community, but I absolutely know and revere your sincerity, and I hope you do mine. Brothers and sister in Christ, indeed.
DeleteArchbishop Hon also mentioned that the Name of Archbishop Anthony remains in the eucharistic prayer during Mass and also requested for priests to include his name also because he is in need of prayers too.
ReplyDeleteJunglewatch should continue showing their true colors. They make it more and more obvious to the administrator that no one can satisfy them. So I agree that rorh should not stop with his BS sick perverted commenters should increase their obsession with obscene language.
Pas!
-Jokers Wild
Archbishop will be ok Diana.
ReplyDeleteSoon he will return to his chair
Like a vacation for six weeks then he be home with us again.back to normal by september.
Personally, I'd like to see the investigation get under way, as well as the lawsuit.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'd like to see the investigation get under way, as well as the lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteWondering....is the decree by Apuron issued via Cristobal still in effect? Someone told me it was rescinded by Hon.
ReplyDeleteAccording to KUAM, Father Nowak confirmed the decree has been removed from the archdiocese's website and is under review.
DeleteThis is a terrible time me personally. I am in the Neocatechumenal Way, and people who are not in Way, identify the Way with Archbishop Apuron, and vice versa. I understand he is a brother walking in the Way. I respected him cause of his position. I believe that one is innocent until proven guilty. But to be called everything derogatory but a God Loving woman who is seeking to get heaven. The Way has taught me so much about my Catholic Faith. I am grateful for the Way, the tripod, the love of community, especially during my time of crisis. Archbishop Apuron and Father Luis Camacho I pray for both of you..I pray for all seminarians and priests for God to keep His Hands on you and not let go.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 11:05- Don't just pray for the Archbishop and Fr.Luis, but for all the brothers and sisters! Persecution is good for us, it brings us closer to Christ! Hate is being activated and we must DE-ACTIVATE this hate by showing love. Love those that hate us, that persecute, that judge us..... because in the end we rise with Christ! Courage!
DeleteWas that Jerry Taitano that I saw protesting at the cathedral? I thought I heard from a relative that he left the Catholic Church and joined another religion?
ReplyDeleteAnd I bet your relative is in the neocathemunal way. No, Mr. Gerald Taitano is 110% Catholic.
DeleteOMG 11:57 PM! What's your beef with this Jerry Taitano? Stick to the OP like Diana always says.
DeleteYes...we all are 110% catholic....
ReplyDeleteBut not even 50% christian......
Children under 3 years old are more christian than most.....