Based on this comment which Joseph Santos heard from Archbishop Hon, it appears that our Apostolic Administrator has been looking into the case of Father Paul and Monsignor James. He has not reinstated them because there may be some validity to their removal. The reason Archbishop Apuron removed Father Paul was due to disobedience, and the reason for Monsignor James' removal was due to financial mismanagement. Yet for three years, the jungle has been blaming the NCW for their removal.AnonymousJuly 15, 2016 at 8:47 PMSorry that this is off-topic, but this just came from the jungle. I thought it was important to bring it here.
Joseph A. SantosJuly 15, 2016 at 8:10 PM
The last comment from our "pastoral visit" last night in Mongmong was that AB Hon has not reinstated Pale Paul & Mons. James because there may be some validity to their removal. So Hon is moving "cautiously and with prudence". Anyone care to come to their defense?
Friday, July 15, 2016
Interesting News
An anonymous commenter copied and pasted a comment from the jungle, which was very interesting. According to the commenter:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hallelujah! Good news!
ReplyDelete30 I will praise the name of God with a song;
I will magnify him with thanksgiving.
31 This will please the Lord more than an ox
or a bull with horns and hoofs.
32 Let the oppressed see it and be glad;
you who seek God, let your hearts revive.
33 For the Lord hears the needy,
and does not despise his own that are in bonds.
34 Let heaven and earth praise him,
the seas and everything that moves in them.
35 For God will save Zion
and rebuild the cities of Judah;
and his servants shall live there and possess it;
36 the children of his servants shall inherit it,
and those who love his name shall live in it.
(Ps 69)
Hook, line and sinker.
ReplyDeleteHmmmmm........could this be the reason Capt. Tim Rohr abandoned ship?
ReplyDeleteDefinitely. Plus a good portion of cowardice! He is running away from the responsibility for what he did because he cannot stand the heat he created anymore.
DeleteLeaving blogging, probably. But I highly doubt he's leaving the fight. Keep your guard up, folks.
DeleteChuck White and Frenchie (alias Glaucon) took over the jungle. Lol! They are of second rank, second quality service men behind Rohr who abandoned ship. Chuck has this compulsion to collect fake theology about the NCW from around the world and publish it at his blog. He does not even pay credit to the obviously anti-NCW sources that he is stealing from. Well, probably he does not have to because those Internet sites are all dormant and became dead frozen about a decade ago, anyway!
DeleteFrenchie is just a highbrow intellectual with a fake intellect. He has no concept of strategy or planning, he is just having a good time by giving himself and expounding on his manias. You would think he is just a jovial old gentleman. But he is not. It is too bad he tries to blackmail the Pope by alarming his liberal media contacts, thus giving himself away as a no good liberal jackal from the Rohr cadre. He says:
"When word of this got out, the world press would see to that the Holy Father’s credibility would be annihilated in a way that airplane interviews could never repair; no apologizing to gays or victims or for global warming will undo that damage."
http://www.junglewatch.info/2016/07/for-your-eyes-archbishop-hon-my-notice.html
Frenchie's latest silliness is this "Jungle Nation" stuff. He came up with the idea that his manamko army of the elderly, who go out for fun and entertainment for their old days when they picket around town, is actually a whole nation, a separate and distinguished group of people of common heritage. Lol! Yeah, they are a nation of fake super egos... Well, it is not only childish, it is also ridiculous. Let's remind Frenchie of the word of our God:
Psalm 96
4 For great is the Lord and most worthy of praise;
he is to be feared above all gods.
5 For all the gods of the nations are idols,
but the Lord made the heavens.
Glaucon is not Frenchie
DeleteAnon 7:52, oh yeah?! Is he not? Well, if you say so... Lol!
DeleteDid anyone catch the beginning part of Pale Mike's interview with Patti Arroyo? Something was said about Tim's walking away from JW, and it centers around Fr. Gofigan. Apparently, there's been some misunderstanding between Fr. Gofigan and Tim, which caused Tim to walk away from JW. Listen to it here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pacificnewscenter.com/pnc-k57-interviews/10107
Rohr is a mindless radical. He did not really care about Fr. Paul at all, he only exploited Fr. Paul's situation for his own personal gain. No wonder, Fr. Paul had enough of that! Rohr is very proud, we all know that he cannot swallow criticism, now we see, not even from his own camp.
DeleteThis captain was the first to run from his sinking ship to save his skin. Shame and contempt is his share even from his fellow conspirators. This is a typical fate of self inflated pricks who think they can rule over others.
Two questions to Mr. Glaucon Jr: If you and your CCOG/LFM cohorts are not schismatic as you claim, then
Delete- why don't you guys withdraw the frivolous libel/slander charges you made against the church leadership and 50 other people?
- why don't you withdraw the unfounded sexual accusations against Archbishop Apuron?
One more:
Delete- why don't CCOG and LFM let Senator Frank Aguon Jr. know that they cannot support any anti-Catholic bill directly attacking the Catholic Church at the Guam legislation?
A lot of anonymous commenters in this blog site. What's up with that? Are they really that scared to use their real name or blog names?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:47 am,
DeleteYou are also an anonymous. I do not mind the anonymous comments, but it would help if they chose another name other than "anonymous".
Very wise to ask who will come to their defense; Arch Bishop Hon can then see for himself whether the so called defense arguments are based on facts relative to the church policies or based on rumors; blogs or other misguided information.
DeleteI have doubts about Mr. Rohr finishing with the JW. However if this news is true. Good for him(and I really mean it) he will have more time for his wife and kids.
ReplyDeleteDiana, you say "Based on this comment which Joseph Santos heard from Archbishop Hon" Are you sure Joseph Santos HEARD from Archbishop Hon? I'm not so sure.
ReplyDeleteJoseph A Santos wrote "The last comment from our "pastoral visit" last night in Mongmong was that AB Hon has not reinstated Pale Paul & Mons. James"
Joseph A Santos mentioned a "pastoral visit."
Maybe he was talking about the "pastoral visit" by Fr Dan Bien and not a "pastoral visit" by Archbishop Hon?
Wasn't Fr Dan Bien the priest assigned by Archbishop Hon to look over the finances of Mongmong and meet with parishioners?
Maybe Fr Dan Bien said something that he heard Archbishop Hon say and that's what Joseph A Santos is writing about?
Maybe you can check with Joseph A Santos if he really heard from Archbishop Hon? I'm sure he's easy to find.
Just look for the Silent No More sign on the white pickup truck he drives around. Then you can ask him yourself. Get the facts. Don't ASSUME.
Dear Anonymous at 7:31 am,
DeleteYou are probably correct. Nevertheless, if Father Dan was the one who said it, he may have either got it from Archbishop Hon or he knew all along that the removal was valid. According to an anonymous commenter in the jungle:
AnonymousJuly 16, 2016 at 9:52 PM
As far back as 2014, I heard from Fr Bien's own mouth the allegations about Fr. Paul. He was one of the associates at Santa Barbara at that time, and I felt the conviction of his words that the allegations as far as he was concerned were indeed true. If ever there is a hearing on this, Fr. Bien has to account for the stories he spread about Fr. Paul.
Here's a comment from someone who is brave enough to put his name on a comment in the jungle
DeleteJose M. July 16, 2016 at 4:28 PM
To be clear, AB Hon was not at the Mongmong parish visit. He was too busy with the NCW to bother with visiting our parish. But I digress (or do I?)
What was mentioned of the status of both Mnsgr James and Fr. Paul was in response to a comment by a parishioner. The parishioner wanted to express that these parish visits mean little if AB Hon has not addressed the removal of both priests and the absence of any retraction of their removals sans due process.
Fr. Dan Bein, the Mongmong representative member of the Parish Visitation ad hoc committee was the one who alluded that there may be some validity to the accusations.
That statement, I believe, was intended to pertain to only one of the clergy and not both.
So it looks like you don't have to look for Joseph Santos. Jose M said that Archbishop Hon was not at Mongmong so you did ASSUME wrongly.
Dear Anonymous at 10:44 am,
DeleteWas Jose at there at the parish visit? What made him believe that Father Dan was referring to only one clergy especially when the parishioner asked about both clergies? As for the Anonymous person who heard Father Dan back in 2014, his testimony is just as valid. We already know that there was a witness who heard what Father Dan said in 2014.
So much for innocent until proven guilty. Unless you're Neo of course.
DeleteLet's just be patient and await for Archbishop Hon's decisions when he is ready to announce them.
Delete- Vincent (Chalan Pago)
Dear Anonymous at 1:24 pm,
DeleteI'm only asking questions, not making accusations.
Here's the whole discussion of Fr. Dan's testimony from 2014 from the jungle:
DeleteAnonymousJuly 16, 2016 at 9:52 PM
As far back as 2014, I heard from Fr Bien's own mouth the allegations about Fr. Paul. He was one of the associates at Santa Barbara at that time, and I felt the conviction of his words that the allegations as far as he was concerned were indeed true. If ever there is a hearing on this, Fr. Bien has to account for the stories he spread about Fr. Paul.
AnonymousJuly 17, 2016 at 3:24 AM
I know I'm asking for it here, but hear me out: it is certainly possible that there was some inappropriate relationship of Fr Paul with another person in his parish. I'd hate to think so, but it's not impossible. Let's be clear that that may be an issue to factor in hee. But what's more important based on Tim's many articles is that Fr Paul wasn't given his canonical due. In fact he was seriously abused by AAA's actions here and his gossip at the retreat. So either way Fr Paul has a real claim for reinstatement and an apology for all involved.
I say all this because I just don't want things to get confused if some evidence of something inappropriate did come out. But based on the bs with Fr Luis and the philandering priests, it's shouldn't matter to the chancery anyway.
AnonymousJuly 17, 2016 at 7:20 AM
Fr. Bien is a good one to talk! Ask him what happened to his brother (Fr. Ysrael) here in Oregon. https://www.yahoo.com/news/oregon-priest-goes-missing-hidden-camera-allegations-225434427.html?ref=gs
AnonymousJuly 17, 2016 at 12:46 PM
Fr Bien wanted Fr Paul's Job. He was the one trying to endear himself to Apuron, and replace his pastor.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree...
Dear Anonymous at 6:44pm,
DeleteI do not think there was any inappropriate relationship between Father Paul and anyone else. I believe Father Dan was referring to the allegation, which was disobedience. There was an investigation at the Dededo parish when someone complained that the person whom Father Paul was supposed to fire was still working in the Church. Archbishop Hon may have reviewed the investigation documents.
Since Father Paul's removal, the jungle had blamed the NCW. The jungle believed that Archbishop Apuron wanted the NCW into the Dededo parish. If that were true, the Archbishop would have placed an RMS priest there. But Father Dan who was already there was placed in charge. The jungle never had any problems with Father Dan being in charge UNTIL Joseph Santos and an anonymous person heard him say that there may be some validity to their removal. Then, they changed their song and dance, which is not surprising.
Have you not notice, that when I said that we pray the rosary, they changed their song and dance again. First, they say that we do not say the rosary and that we even put the rosary down. Then later, they say it is only after 12 years that they tell the he NCW members to pray the rosary. They could never stick to the same story. The NCW members were never told not to pray the rosary. What they teach us in the Way is HOW to pray. They taught us HOW to pray just as the Carmelites and religious were taught to pray at 3:00 am every day.
Actually it was the NCW that "changed its song and dance". For the bulk of its history the NCW mocked the rosary and accused anyone who had th devotion to the rosary of being naturally relogious, or "pagan". After being criticized for its attitude to the ROsary, Kiko tried to contain the damage by pretending to endorse the rosary - through the method now used- that the Rosary is given only at a certain time and under certain conditions.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:56 pm,
DeleteYou misunderstood what natural religiosity means. The Catholic Church is against religiousity, which is also what the NCW is against. You can read about it in the following weblink:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-rejects-false-religiosity/
Anon 7:56PM who would I believe, a guy who was granted by a Saint and Pope Francis or you. Is easy to troll and believe the anti Neocatechumenal web site in Italy. Old news, this was clarified and we never told by anyone not to do the Rosary including Kiko. Again you are misinform. Come to the cathechisist and see for yourself.
DeleteThe pope is being disingenuous. What are these supposed devotions that do not "brings you to Jesus". He gives no example. Its simply words meant to sound profound. Can you give an example of a Catholic devotion that is not focused on Jesus, or does not bring one to Jesus?
DeleteThe pope also refers to those "who have a false sense of religiosity" and “only seek devotions”. Who are these alleged people? Does he mean faithful Catholics? Can you specify who these people are supposed to be? Its all nonsense.
Show me a Catholic that practices devotions, and I'll show you someone that believes in Christ and his Church.
Besides, your reponsse to my previous comment did not actually answer the substance of it. I presume then, that you actually agree with what I said?
Dear Anonymous at 12:35 am,
DeleteIt means to have more affection toward a religious practice and devotion rather than to God.
I simply asked for one example. And you can't give one. That just proves my point - its all words,no reality.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:18 am,
DeleteBased on that definition, you really cannot think on your own that you need people to spell it out for you?
Dear Diana, no I can't. I fail to see that popular pious devotions are not centred on Christ, or that they don't lead one to Christ. Perhaps you can think of an example? Your definition - "to have more affection towards a religious practice than to God" - is in my mind a false dichotomy. More likely, having affection toward a religious practice is motivated by affection for Christ.
DeleteSo, I'll ask you once again, for what its worth. Please give us a real example of this so-called religiosity.
Anon 1:18AM your blowing hot smokes. Reality? Take a look around you..The Neocathecumenal way did not defame anyone. We obeyed the Archbishop and the Pope. You Jungle followers think the Catholic Church is U.S. Government. The Vatican is not form by democracy but Jesus Christ.
DeleteHow are you defining religiosity? If the Church is against it, then what is it?
DeleteDear anon at 11:05, here is an example. I hope you have humility in your heart to heed.
DeleteAlthough wearing a Biba Katoliku t-shirt and protesting with an "I love my Catholic Church" sign would make you look very, very much religious, this would NOT make you a good Catholic by itself! Especially if you want to exclude your sisters and brothers from the church. The Catholic Church is not yours to exclude but to share! Do you understand this, my friend?
Connecting to the Lord Jesus in outwardly signs is a kind of religiosity, but the same time excluding the Lord Jesus, as manifested in others, from your heart and rejecting Him as your Savior is betraying Him and abandoning his Church. You need a true relation to Jesus inwardly, in your heart and soul, so that you may truly come close to Him.
So thta's the best you can do? We were speaking of devotions, specifically the Rosary, and you want to point out that wearing a particular t-shirt and protesting is proof of natural religiosity?
DeleteFirst of all, under DIana's definition, your example fails. This is not an "affection toward a religious practice or devotion".
Secondly, the fact that someone chooses to demonstrate against what they believe is damage to the Church is hardly evidence that they "exclude the Lord Jesus". Quite the contrary I would say. How you see that as "rejecting Him as your Savior" is totally beyond me. You may not like it but it only shows your particulr prejudice, and not anything about the faith of the demonstrators.
Dear Anonymous at 9:12 pm,
DeleteActually, it was you who failed to understand. Your devotion to the Catholic Church rather than to God is religiosity. We worship God and only God alone. You are not supposed to worship the Church that Christ built. Christ said to love God with all your mind, all your heart, and with all your soul. That was the first commandment. The second is to love your brothers and sisters, which is the Church. God comes first even before the Church. Your protests and tee-shirts has always been about the Church. It was never about God.
What is the Church? The Body of Christ. Are we not meant to adore and worship the body of Christ?
DeleteThe Church is not only the body of CHrist, but was instituted directly by him. It is absolutely appropriate to love the Church and to seek to be faithful to it. There is no division to be made between Christ and his Church.
Dear Anonymous at 10:32 am,
DeleteIn this case, the protesters were worshipping the Church building. When they demand that they want their church back, they meant the building because they want all RMS priests and the Way out.
As to your question, do not confuse the actual Body of Christ which we consume during Mass to the members of the Church. We love and adore God first and foremost. The church members (who is also the Church) comes second. Nothing should come first before God, and nothing is equal to God. God is above all things because He is the Creator of all things.
"In this case, the protesters were worshipping the Church building. When they demand that they want their church back, they meant the building because they want all RMS priests and the Way out. "
DeleteWrong.
"do not confuse the actual Body of Christ which we consume during Mass to the members of the Church."
Where did I do that?
Love for the Church is not incompatible or in competition with love for God and Jesus Christ. I really worry about you sometimes, Diana.
Dear Anonymous at 11:55 am,
DeleteChrist was specific as who you should love first. The first commandment was to love God. The second is to love your neighbor. The neo or comes second. In fact, Christ even said that those who love mother father, brother, sister, and children more than Him is not worthy to be His disciple. The protestors love the Church more than God, and that is religiosity.
"The protestors love the Church more than God, and that is religiosity. "
DeletePure assertion. Loving the Church is loving God.
Dear Anonymous at 3:48 pm,
DeleteWe, the Church, is not God. You are supposed to love God above everything else. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
CCC 2134 The first commandment summons man to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him above all else.
Now, show me where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church does it say that loving the Church is loving God???
Anon 3:48 you sound like a protestant.
DeleteShow me in the catechism where loving the Church is natural religiosity. In fact show me in the catechism any mention of observing devotions being natural religiosity.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:57 pm,
DeleteI already gave you the website of the Pope in which he explains religiosity. When you put your love for the Church (or any religious practice and devotion) first and above God, that is religiosity. Furthermore, I asked you to show me where in the catechism it says that loving the Church is loving God. As Catholics, we love God above everything else........and that means everything.
Those who support Archbishop Apuron. We know the facts that both clergy are faulty..... At least one priest has his own 10k burial plot if not excommunicated.
ReplyDeleteGlaucon Jr. says:
ReplyDelete"Healing cannot begin until the cancer is cut out that robs the body of its life."
Dear Glaucon Jr., could you elaborate, please? What cancer are you talking about? Are you talking about persons, leaders or lay groups/ movements? We assume the body is the Catholic Church. But how is the Catholic Church "robbed from its life"? Your enlightening in this puzzle would be greatly appreciated.
in order to be healed you first have to admit that one is sick. It seems to me that people like glaucon rather talk about someone else's sickness than admit to theirs. Now if one walks on water it does not require anything from anyone to include the man on the CROSS.
DeleteSo medicine doesn't work if you don't know you're sick? Unless you're a member of the Church of Christ, Scientist, I'm pretty sure that's not right.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 3:09 pm,
DeleteKnowing that you are sick is finally realizing that you are a sinner. The Church is a hospital for sinners, and Christ is the physician who comes to heal.
I went and looked where he said that. It looks like he meant removing Fr Adrian and Monsenior.
ReplyDeleteGlaucon called these religious clergy of good will "cancer" in the church. How does he dare? He also called the NCW a "cancerous growth" in the body of the church. His only excuse is that he has no idea whatsoever what he is talking about. NCW is a hope for the future of the Catholic Church as Popes Paul VI, John-Paul II, Benedict and Francis all have declared.
DeleteWe could also call Rohr, Glaucon, Frenchie, White, etc. different names and diseases. About Junglewatch for example leper may come into mind. But we don't do this! We don't call these people ugly names and don't label Junglewatch as disease. Because we have class and good manner.
"He also called the NCW a "cancerous growth" in the body of the church."
ReplyDeleteIt's important to read this in the context of how disruptive and aggressive the NCW exists outside of its stated purpose.
On Guam, it has seized power by gaining control of its Archbishop and controlling him. The Catholic church on Guam has lost valuable resources to the NCW. We lost our Yona property, lost our priests, lost new priests who were turned away for not wanting to become Neo, and much more.
So yes, it is a cancer. An aggressive one.
Deaf Anonymous at 9:33 am,
DeleteYou have not lost anything. The RMS property still belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana. The fact that Archbishop Hon's said that they are now conducting a visit on all the parishes and seminaries is proof of that. If the seminary actually belonged to someone else, Archbishop Hon would not be able to conduct a visit into the seminary.......simple as that. When Mr. Gennarini was here on Guam, we also have a verbal recording over the news of him stating that the seminary does not belong to him, but to the Archdiocese of Agana. What evidence do you have that the seminary does not belong to the Archdiocese?
Okay, so say the RMS property belongs to the Archdiocese. What good is it for? Formulation of RMS priests only to be shipped off-island at our expense?
DeleteThe title that says that it can only be used by the NCW.... forever.
DeleteDear anon at 9:33 am, if you still cannot see that your language is the language of exclusion and excision then I cannot help you. Calling other people cancer and a church group cancerous is just plain disgusting and mean-spirited.
DeleteYou are like the members of KKK who convince themselves by faulty and murderous logic that they are right to exclude others from the benefits of life and faith. They convince themselves that it is okay to attack and kill others. Then you see the KKK in action, their activity is marked by crying families and burning crosses.
Your language is that of the KKK, that of dehumanizing, elimination, lynching and murder. What would you do with someone whom you just called a cancer? What would you do with a group you just called cancerous? Be honest, my friend, and admit what is on your heart. Dehumanizing others is the first step of elimination, lynching and murder. Your only excuse might be that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Make no mistake, my friend, your excuse is hereby expired! You cannot hide behind your ignorance anymore. We just told you what you are doing. From now on, if you use the language of exclusion and elimination again, you will be called what you are, the KKK of Guam.
Dear Anonymous at 11:28 am,
DeleteIt is good for the universal Cburch to send out priests to either evangelize or to countries that need priests. For a long time, the Philippines have been sending out their priests to places where they are needed such as Guam. Now, it is our turn to pay that back by doing the same.
Diana,
DeleteYour pro-ncw poster is calling me a member of the KKK and accusing me of being "dehumanizing, elimination, lynching and murder." While I don't hold think it's indicative of NCW behavior, that comment is borne out of sin and hatred. We are merely talking about issues within our church that affect the larger population of Catholics. Yet, I'm being called KKK, exclusionary, and ignorant. How very unchristian of that poster.
Dear Anonymous at 6:32 pm,
DeleteHe/She is actually referring to your LANGUAGE rather than you as a person. I have also posted something similar on my blog regarding the behavior and language of the jungle dehumanizing the the NCW as "evil" and satanic. At the airport, Mr. Genarinnis has been called "Satan.". When you dehumanize a group do people (NCW) as evil, satanic, and a cancer, then it becomes easier for others to seek their destruction because they see them as something that is not human.