Thursday, July 7, 2016

Archbishop Hon Is Representative Of Pope Francis

It was Pope Francis who sent Archbishop Hon in his place to bring unity to the Church in Guam.  Therefore, any defiance against Archbishop Hon is also a defiance against Pope Francis, the Vicar of Christ who sits on the chair of the Apostle Peter.  An anonymous commenter pointed out under the thread of my last post that the jungle is being disobedient to Archbishop Hon.  In his blog, Tim Rohr has called Archbishop Hon "stupid," a "racist supremacist" and a "narcissist bishop."  This also means that he has called Pope Francis "stupid," a "racist supremacist" and a "narcissist bishop."  But it does not stop there.  Jesus Christ spoke these words to His disciples: 

Luke 10:16  Then he said to the disciples, “Anyone who accepts your message is also accepting me. And anyone who rejects you is rejecting me. And anyone who rejects me is rejecting God, who sent me.”

These words from Christ is very important.  It calls for trust and obedience to Pope Francis and his representative whom he sent in his place.  Any defiance against the Pope is also a defiance against Christ and His Church.

The jungle is impatient because they demand Archbishop Hon to do this and to do that.  They have everything they wanted all laid out, and there is no compromise or negotiation.  They demand everything their way, and they want it done according to their terms and in their own timetable.     

What exactly do they want?  They call for the destruction of the Neocatechumenal Way, the shutting down of the RM Seminary, and the removal of all RMS priests from the parishes.  They demand that Archbishop Apuron be defrocked without due process of the law. These are only a few things on their list.  To demand that everything be done their way does not bring peace. The only ones who can rightly demand anything would be Pope Francis and his representatives who stand in his place (in this case Archbishop Hon).  Pope Francis has asked the people of Guam for his trust and prayers when he sent Archbishop Hon to be our Apostolic Administrator to bring unity to the Church in Guam. So, to the junglefolks and members of LFM and CCOG, let us be very clear about this........Rome has spoken!!!  So, we allow Rome to do what they came here to do.  And it will be on Rome's terms! 


  1. How can the people at jungle say they love the Catholic Church and obey Pope Francis when they shun, look down, mock and attack Archbishop Savio who was appointed by Vatican? He represents Pope Francis on Guam in everything except the sexual allegations that were taken out and brought to Rome for investigation.

    How can they claim they love the church when they cause so grave damages from inside? How can they be obedient to the supreme church authority, to the office of the Roman Pontiff, to Pope Francis if they are disobedient to his local voice Archbishop Savio? How can they say they are Catholic when they are so full of hatred against everything the church provides?

    1. Maybe they need to get own Church. they already look up to Tim Rohr as there god.didn't take long before they started attacking Archbishop Hon, no respect......sad sad sad sad :( all because of one Man, Tim. Man has a lot of'' H A T E'' if you want to call him a man. divide not to unite. should be ''unite not divide'' can make this a better Guam.

    2. This topic is going to distraction. The moles from the jungle deviate discussion from their anti-Vatican propaganda and actions to the stories of the alleged victims. Trolling around vehemently, they avoid talking about their disdain against Pope Francis and the Curia but prefer spreading the fake inventions of Rohr.

      In fact, all discussions of the incriminated testimonies belong to the authority of Rome. Only the Pope's office has the right to conduct the investigation! If jungle people have anything to tell in this regard they should tell it to Vatican officials. Period.

      Jungle trolls should not bring their garbage here, spread their venom and troll out the blog. They are not people of good will! They are the emissaries of division. So why don't you go back to your jungle hole, please, and leave us normal people alone?!

  2. Compromise is underway .
    Pray for this intention tonight.

  3. This is clear talk, folks. Archbishop Apuron and Hon are made equally evil and the Vatican is made the enemy in the simpleminded worldview of these brutes:

    TimJuly 7, 2016 at 6:07 PM

    This is about sending a message to the whole Catholic Church hierarchy. And it will be an arrow shot directly into the heart of the Vatican - with Apuron’s and Hon's faces on it.

  4. So what does it take to keep sexual predators and abusive priests out of the Catholic church?

    The Catholic institution's modus operandi appears to be to attack the victims and shield the predators. Oh and to pray.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 5:16 am,

      First of all, denying the allegations is not attacking the victims. Both the jungle and the alleged victims say that all they want is for Archbishop Apuron to tell the truth. Let us be honest here. What they really want is for the Archbishop to say what they want him to say, which is NOT to deny anything even if he feels that he is innocent.

      Someone in the last post stated that if Archbishop Apuron had only said that he is innocent and stop there, then everything would be okay and it would not go this far. We have already seen that this is not true. How many times has the Archbishop say that the RMS property belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana, and they still call the Archbishop a liar? That is all he has been saying about the property, and that is not enough for them. In fact, having a certificate of title with the ownership showing the archbishop's name on it also did not satisfy them. Instead, they want the ownership changed.

      Furthermore, there are more child abuse outside of the Catholic Church than inside of it. Archbishop Apuron has been the Archbishop for 30 years, and no victims came out accusing him when he was Archbishop. The only alleged victims who came out were all from Agat about 40 years ago when he was a priest in the Agat Parish for only two years.

    2. Anonymous at 5:16am, what does it take to keep terrorists out of America?

      Our immigration laws may be too lenient and let people who may be extremist into our country.

    3. Denying the allegations and publicly maligning the victims is an attack.

      Proclaiming the Apuron's innocence without even lifting a finger to investigate the allegations is an attack.

      "Archbishop Apuron has been the Archbishop for 30 years, and no victims came out accusing him when he was Archbishop."

      Incorrect on several fronts.

      1. The accusations were ignored when the victims stepped forward as children.
      2. Apuron is still the Archbishop and the allegations - for as far as we can tell - are still being swept under the rug by Apuron's friends.
      3. Representatives of the Archdiocese have attacked the victims in public (and most likely, in private).

    4. Dear Anonymous at 7:57 am,

      The accusation was first made by the accusers, and it was made publicly. The accused denied the accusation and called the accusation malicious and calumnious, and this was done publicly. If the accusers can not take the same action they dish out, then they should have done it privately. It is hypocritical for the accusers to humiliate someone publicly, and then turn around and cry a temper tantrum when their accusations were denied and called malicious and calumnious.

      1. Blame that on Father Jack. The two boys said they reported it to Father Jack who was the new priest in town whom they hardly knew. Perhaps, they should have reported it to their parents. Using our culture as an excuse for children not turning to their parents when they need help puts the Chamorro people in a very negative light. That kind of argument is saying that Chamorro parents do not care about their children being abused and raped. And this is simply untrue.

      2. Where did you get that information? Was it from the jungle? You trust the jungle more that God's Church? Tim Rohr controls the jungle while Christ controls His Church. So, which one do you place your trust on?

      3. The Archdiocese has kept quiet. Being quiet is not an attack. People have their own opinions about the sexual allegations, and they are allowed to express those opinions. So, when a person says he has doubts about the allegations of the victims, they have a right to express those doubts and explain their reasons why. In the same way, if people have doubts about the Archbishop's innocence, they can also expressed that opinion and explain why they harbor those doubts. It is called "Freedom of expression". Because there has not been an investigation, one cannot say for certain whether the Archbishop was guilty or not. Nevertheless, we already have the junglefolks holding up signs to defrock him without due process of a trial. That is an attack on the Archbishop's rights.

    5. 1. How sure are you that the victims really told Fr. Jack? We can't ask him if this is true. There is NO evidence other than a testimony by the alleged victims. And calling forward witnesses seems to be based on how criminal prosecutors validate testimonies and evidence for cold cases.

      2. So the entire church of God is under a conspiracy to lead people to Hell?! Archbishop Apuron, the NCW, Archbishop Hon, and Pope Francis are all in it together to destroy humanity and lead us away from God. Excuse me, but if you look it from an organizational perspective, they would obviously be going against their organization's goals. And seeing as God is in charge of the organization and the consequences of going against him is eternal damnation, I highly doubt that they would sweep it under the rug or that anyone in their position would want sweep it under the rug.

      3. If you're referring to the statement on May 13th and the subsequent ones that followed, a lawsuit has been filed. Are you fishing for a counter argument to persuade a jury?

    6. Perhaps they should have reported it to their parents? In the 1960s and 1970s whenever children reported that Uncle Joe or Uncle Juan touched their privates parts the children were told that's the way Uncle was. When a girl told her Mom that the Mom's boyfriend had fondled her the Mom blamed the girl and said she asked for it. The children were made to feel that any abuse was there own fault. Even you said that Walter Denton must have been sleeping on his stomach in the nude because if his story about being raped was true it was his own fault for sleeping like that.

    7. Dear Anonymous at 5:02 pm,

      That is not Guam's culture and never had been. The Chamorro people have been known to protect their children. In the 1960s and 1970s, you would never see signs reading "Parents do not leave your children unattended" in any stores or business establishment because at that time, many parents knew their duty. It was mandatory that children let their parents know where they were going; therefore, a mother cannot blame the girl for going to the rectory when she already had the permission of her mother to go there. Parents taught their sons to protect and keep an eye on their sisters. Because there were no cell phones at that time, parents expected their kids to be home at a certain time. In the 1960s and 1970s, when Uncle Joe or Uncle Juan touched the child inappropriately, there would be a family feud where one family refuses to speak and visit the offending family member.

      I never said that it was Denton's fault for sleeping in the nude and on his stomach. I brought that up because what 13 year old sleeps in the nude especially when they are not in their own house and without any blanket to cover them??? His statement is either incomplete or suspect.

    8. Diana,
      Not sure where you get your information from, but you are seriously mistaken about Guam's culture in the fact, it was common for people to hide things, not wanting to "air their dirty laundry in public". Talk with anyone in the profession and they will tell you that was one of the biggest problems in dealing with the issue. Statistics show that sexual abuse is more often done by someone very close to the victim--relatives included--and reporting of it is rare because of the repercussions the victims receive. Unfortunately, the shame on the families was, and still is, often more of a deterrent than the child's pain when it came to that....
      Just listen to the current commercial on tv where the children are talking about the issue. It's an attempt to educate everyone that sexual abuse is NOT okay, and it IS okay to tell someone. Why else would we need to produce commercials like that if not for the express purpose of changing the engrained behaviour?

    9. Dear Anonymous at 8:08 am,

      Not airing their dirty laundry applies only to problems in the "family", not problems outside the family. When a family member sexually abused the child, they do not report the family member to the police. But they also do not blame the child. They protect the child by either ostracizing the family member or avoiding contact with the family member. But if it is a member outside the family, they will be reported to the police most of the time.

      The priest on Guam who was caught abusing young boys on Guam was caught because it was reported to the police.

    10. Diana,
      In many cases the priest is considered like a family member. Many (not all, mind you) parents at that time would have been too ashamed to make it known that the village priest abused their child. Again, talk to professionals in the field who have done studies about this issue and they will tell you about their struggles in getting victims to come forth.

  5. What makes us think that Father Jack didn't say anything? For all we know, he may have said something. But, it fell upon deaf ears.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:39 am,

      Then where is the report? If he said something about it, them there should also be something written about it. Something of this nature should have a written report.

  6. Really? It took Deacon Claros about three seconds to conduct his SARC investigation and then stated that there will be no report. You see the pattern? That's why there's no report.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:39 pm,

      Be reasonable. John Toves came around claiming that his cousin was sexually molested by Archbishop Apuron. And this is information he never got from his cousin, but from someone else. Toves admitted that he never spoke to his cousin, and his cousin never came forward. What is the SARC suppose to investigate? If they call in John Toves for questioning, what is there that he would say different from what he told the radio stations? It is simply repeating what he already said in the news.

      And what do you mean there was no report? There indeed was a report. John Toves wrote a letter to the SARC that his cousin was molested by Archbishop Apuron. That is already a document. But where is the report or document showing from Father Jack?

    2. Bravo) Diana!!! Keep up the Good Work :-))))). RIGHT ON RIGHT ON 7:06 AM what are you talking about ??

  7. See Diana...that's what I like about you. You always have an answer!

  8. Um, I hate to break it to everyone, but absolute obedience applies only in matters of faith and morals. Your own quote says "my message," not "blind obedience to you apostles no matter what you do." I'm not saying the Jungle is right on; I'm saying not to confuse the two.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:43 pm,

      You stated: "I hate to break it to everyone, but absolute obedience applies only in matters of faith and morals."

      This is incorrect. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

      CCC 1269 Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us. From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to "obey and submit" to the Church's leaders, holding them in respect and affection. Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptized person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church.

      The Catechism above says nothing about "faith and morals." You are obligated to obey and submit to the Church leaders. The ONLY time you can disobey is when the Church leader tells you to do something IMMORAL such as stealing, killing, etc.

    2. Calling bad names the Vatican appointed Archbishop is not obedience and not Catholic at all! Claiming that Archbishop Hon is "racist", for example, is a head-on attack against the authority of Pope Francis that cannot be tolerated. Let me repeat, this simply cannot be tolerated! What wrong did Archbishop Hon do to you, my friend, that you hate him to the guts?!

      You weasels disdain our beloved Pope, as well, but you don't have to courage to admit. Admitting your hatred against the head of our Catholic Church would give you relief. But cowardice prevents you from showing your true color. Why? Why can't you people be honest for a change?

  9. That's not what obey and submit mean either. That's a way extreme view. I'd say you know that, but I don't think you do. I'm sure you mean what you say.

    That said, if (and that's a big if) things go down that Rome clamps down on liturgical abuses and what not, I'll be sure to remind you of your demand for absolute blind obedience.

    1. Our obedience is first and foremost to the Holy Spirit, whose voice here on earth is expressed, among others, by Vatican and Pope Francis.

    2. Dear Anonymous at 10:51 pm,

      The Catechism of the Catholic Church says to obey the Church leaders. The Bishops (including the Bishop of Rome who is the Pope) are the Church leaders. The Holy Bible is also consistent with the Catechism in obeying the Church leaders. According to the Apostle Paul who was a Bishop:

      1 Corinthians 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.

      As you can see from the biblical verse above, the Apostle Paul told the Church in Corinth to follow him. Another verse from the Bible:

      Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. [fn]Let them do this with joy and not [fn]with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

      If you cannot obey the Bishops who represents the Apostles of Christ, how can you even obey the Holy Spirit???? If you cannot obey the Pope who is the Vicar of Christ, His representative on Earth, how can you obey the Holy Spirit???

    3. Dear Diana,

      From what I'm seeing here it looks like we're not allowed to criticize or disagree with the Pope and his representatives (like Apuron and Hon). We're supposed to blindly obey them and never ever question them.

      If I remember correctly Jesus himself appointed Peter as the first Pope. Peter wasn't elected by sinful men. He was appointed by the Son of God himself. So it seems that since Jesus appointed Peter, nobody should be able to disagree with him. But how about in the Bible where Paul disagreed with the FIRST Pope and the FIRST Vicar of Christ? When Paul writes that "when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face" it looks like Paul disagreed with Peter who was appointed by Our Lord himself. I'm guessing in your eyes he wasn't supposed to disagree with Peter who was personally chosen by Christ to be his Vicar on earth. But Paul didn't just disagree with Peter he OPPOSED Peter.

      And then there's the story of how a laywoman named Catherine challenged Pope Gregory XI and told him to go back to Rome. I'm guessing in your eyes she wasn't supposed to disagree with the Pope who is the Vicar of Christ. But Catherine disagreed with the Pope and she wasn't afraid to tell him that he was wrong. She became a saint even though history shows she wasn't obedient and she didn't keep quiet when she saw the Pope needed to act.

      It looks like the church has 2 saints who would not be saints if you had your way since both of them disagreed with their Popes and did not obey their Popes. Just saying.

    4. Dear Anonymous at 7:29 am,

      There is a difference between disagree and disobey. The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Canon law says that we can disagree with Church authority, but in the end....we obey. The relationship of the Church is like the relationship of the family. In the human family, children are taught to obey their parents. My son can disagree with his father about taking out the garbage. He can say how unfair it is that his sister only washes the dishes while he does all the dirty work. He considers taking out the garbage dirty work and washing the dishes as "cleaner work." At any rate, he can complain and disagree all he wants, but in the end......he will take out the garbage even if he grumbles doing it. That is obedience.

      As for the Apostle Paul, he disagreed with the Apostle Peter, but he never disobeyed Peter. Paul felt that Peter was being unfair to the Gentile converts by removing himself from them and sitting with the Jewish Christians. Being the leader, Peter did that in order to avoid conflict between the Jewish Christians and Gentile converts because there was conflict between them. Paul complained to Peter about his behavior because he disagreed with him. After all, Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles.

      However, the Apostle Paul ended up following Peter's example of avoiding conflict later on. Read Acts 16:3. It tells you that St. Paul circumcised Timothy in order to avoid conflict with the Jews. So, in the end, even St. Paul who disagreed with Peter ended up following Peter's example of avoiding conflict.

      As for St. Catherine, she never disobeyed the Pope. She communicated with the Pope and corrected him. The Pope, realizing that she was correct, returned to Rome. We are allowed to express disagreement and even correct a Church leader, but nowhere in the Catechism, canon law, or in the Bible does it say to be disobedient or outright disrespectful.

    5. I have to agree with 7:29 am Anon because it looks like anytime someone says something critical or disagrees with the Pope or his representatives it is automatically labeled as being disobedient in this blog. Paul wrote that he OPPOSED Peter to his face. If it wasn't the Apostle Paul doing it in the Bible and if it was Juan Cruz opposing the archbishop in the jungle you would say Juan Cruz was being disobedient. Right?

    6. Dear Anonymous at 8:14 am,

      Read my response to Anonymous 7:29 am. St. Paul never disobeyed the Apostle Peter. Rather, he later learned from it by following his example.

      Tim Rohr already made it clear where he stands, and his actions is not about disagreement. He has already urged his followers to hold up picket signs telling Archbishop Hon to go home. That is disobedience. He urged his followers not to contribute any money to the Church in the hopes that it collapses. This is disobedience. Tim Rohr has not only complained about Archbishop Apuron for three years, but also WORKED toward removing him. When one WORKS to remove the Archbishop, that is disobedience.

      As I said, my son can disagree about throwing out the garbage, but if he ever rips apart all the garbage bags to avoid doing his chores.....that is disobedience.

    7. Some people don't know the line between disagree and disobey. Disagree means to differ or fail to agree with another person's opinion or action. Disobey is to resist and defy. Resisting to follow and showing defiance is disobedience. Calling the apostolic administrator evil and a racist supremacist is defiance. It's not even a disagreement. It's slander.

    8. But you don't havce children Diana.

      Anyway, all you seem to do is go around pointing the finger saying - "he's a sinner, she's a sinner". Give it a rest.

      Despite what you might have been told, it is NOT sinful to resist evil. Thta's the bottom line. The Mystery of suffering is far more subtle than the version you get in the Way.

    9. Dear Anonymous at 11:56 am,

      And what evil has Archbishop Hon done that you now defy him?

    10. The question should be, what has Archbishop Hon NOT done?

  10. This needs a SPOTLIGHT team on Guam to get to the bottom of it all.