Don't be misled with his "the pope sent me" stuff. This is the same crap the kiko's tell us. "The pope sent us. "We all know from news report that Pope Francis has sent Archbishop Hon after the sexual allegations against Archbishop Apuron surfaced. It is all over the news. In fact, Archbishop Hon himself said that he was appointed by Pope Francis as Apostolic Administrator "sede plena" to Guam. So, who should you believe.......the jungle or Archbishop Hon who was sent by the Pope in his stead? Make your choice.
Tim Rohr also stated:
If Rome really wanted to mend the division in Guam and restore unity, they would have sent us someone with some experience as a pastorIf the jungle really wanted to mend the division in Guam and restore unity, they would ACCEPT the person the Vatican sent and not make any attempts to push him into getting things they wanted their way according to their time frame. As Catholics, we should accept who the Vatican gives us as our Apostolic Administrator. So, who should you follow......the jungle or the Vatican who sent Archbishop Hon? Make your choice.
Tim Rohr also mentions the RM Seminary:
He will find a way to preserve RMS because those are his orders.The truth is....Archbishop Hon's orders is to restore unity between Catholics. The ownership of RM seminary was one of the controversy dividing Catholics, and Archbishop Hon resolve that controversy by stating that the seminary belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana, no doubt about it.
Tim Rohr further states (the bold is mine):
Even if he is presented with hard evidence that the seminary property was stolen by Apuron, and even if he is somehow forced to see to its return, there is nothing keeping Hon from keeping the seminary going. The return of the property will not shut down the seminary. In fact, he will use the "return of the property" as a foil to mask his plan to preserve RMS.What I placed in bold is confusing. Why? Because it now appears that it does not matter to Tim if the seminary is returned. It appears that he wants the seminary shut down. Below is a photo of Pope Francis with two priests he ordained from the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. You can find the story here. Father David Tisato is a thirty-one year old seminarian from the Redemptoris Mater of Rome and is originally from Chievo in northern Italy. Before joining the RM Seminary, he was a promising professional soccer player. The other priest is Father Elias. Both are seen here with Pope Francis joining him in prayer and to bless the crowd.
And yet the RMS i. takamatsu was closed by the Japanese bishops. So yes. It can be close for the good of God'S people.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 12:05 pm,
DeleteThe RMS in Japan was taken over by the Vatican so it is under the Vatican rather than the Church of Japan. Do you really want the Holy See to take control of the property in Yona? Furthermore, the NCW and RMS priests are in Japan. The Vatican refused the request of the Japanese bishops to expel them. So the NCW is still thriving in Japan.
Anon. 12:05. Diana said to make a choice. I take it then that your choice is the jungle and not the Vatican? Was that the choice you made?
DeleteDiana @ 12:29
DeleteYou always state that the priests should obey the bishops. Well, here you write that the Japanese bishops requested to expel the NCW, and prior to this request, I'm sure the Bishops had asked the priests to obey them and follow their wishes (presumably to stop their NCW practices?) Wouldn't this, therefore, mean that the NCW and RMS priests were disobedient?
How is this different from what you are saying about the non-Neo priests on Guam being disobedient?
Dear Anonymous at 7:41 pm,
DeleteThe bishop in Japan wanted to expel the NCW out of their country, but Pope Benedict XVI said no. Because the Pope said no, the NCW and RMS priests still remain in Japan. The only thing the bishop in Japan can do is tell the NCW not to have the Eucharist. So, they do not have the Eucharist. But they can still have the celebration of the word because no bishop can stop them from celebrating the word because it is the right of every Catholic to study and read the Bible in their homes. That is what the celebration of the word is and no bishop can stop them from reading and studying the bible.
9:54pm--
DeleteYes, but before the Pope weighed in, I'm sure the Bishops were instructing them to cease and desist. So, you're saying that disobeying their bishops is okay until the Pope tells them to stop?
Then, in keeping with this line, the Guam non-Neo priests were okay with their disobedience to AB Apuron, as well. They believed there was something not quite right with his actions and could not follow blindly. And now we hear that Apuron was disobedient with the See's order re the Yona property....the Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways.
Dear Anonymous at 8:54 am,
DeleteHow did they disobey the bishop? It was the Pope who told the Bishop not to expel them. They did not tell the NCW to leave their country. The Bishop in Japan asked the a pope permission to expel the NCW from Japan, and the Pope said no.
C'mon, Diana, think BEFORE the Pope came in to settle the problem. You don't expel an organization for no reason. The Japanese Bishop most likely began to see the differences, began to see issues arise in the parishes, and then became concerned to a point where he requested to have them removed from Japan. It was during all that time where the disobedience was.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:28 am,
DeleteThe main concern in Japan was mainly the culture. The Japanese bishop felt that the the NCW was too European.
What about Archbishop Socrates, Diana? He was pretty clear what the problems related to. Strangely, he found the same concerns that we do, as do many parishes and individuals around the world.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 5:33 pm,
DeleteIn one of the documents that was illegally leaked to the press, this was what was written about the problems with the NCW in Japan:
"In his report, extracts from which were published in the recent book His Holiness: The Secret Papers of Benedict XVI by Italian journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi, Bottari writes that the Neocatechumenate symbolizes a broad failure on the part of the Catholic church to understand Japan’s culture.
“Here, I would say, stands the controversial point and the difficulties posed by the method of the members of the Neocatechumenal Way. From what one sees, they come and apply, to the letter, a method born and prepared in Europe, without caring about adapting to the local world. I’ve found among them here in Japan the same style that I saw in Cameroon, where I was a missionary twenty years ago; the same songs (with the guitar), the same expressions, the same catechesis, all transmitted with a style based more on imposition than proposition. One can thus understand the tensions, disagreements and reactions they generate, which sometimes find them little disposed to dialogue. Their intentions are certainly admirable, their good will, but insertion in the local culture is missing. This, in my modest opinion, is what the local Japanese bishops are asking of them – to take off the European dress in order to present the heart of the message in a purified way close to the people.”
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/leaks-confirm-ambivalence-about-neocatechumenal-way
This is unbelievable! The jungle is shedding all disguise and directly attacking the Church and the rule of the Pope in Vatican by accusing them by supporting child molesters. Extremely malicious and uneducated propaganda! When violence erupts, these ignorant thugs will be fully responsible for the harms done to people and to the Catholic Church. Read below:
ReplyDeleteGilboaAugust 18, 2016 at 8:43 AM
The Catholic church and Vatican are in support of child molesters and are protecting child molesters. Child molesters must face justice and if Senators and the Governor do not support this Bill 326-33 agree with THESE priest who DO NOT HOLD THE WORD OF GOD AND ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH SATAN. The Catholic and their priest continue to turn their backs of their own people. They have heard the truth from the victims.
http://www.junglewatch.info/2016/08/bill-326-33-committee-voting-sheet.html
Oh, my, my... so whoever do not support your sham bill is of Satan? Really? Is this your concept of democracy, Mr. Gilboa? My, my ... Please, why don't you go back to some elementary school to learn the basics of true democracy?
DeleteLaw making is based on the votes of Senators who are supposed to follow their conscience and the best interest of their constituents. It is not the interest of the Catholic Church and the Catholic people of Guam to have a law that opens the doors to baseless accusations and potential bankruptcy. Therefore whoever votes on this bill is not following the interest of the Catholic Church and the Catholic people of Guam.
But even if a senator votes for the bill, she/he is not from Satan. This senator could be simply a victim of jungle brainwash in believing that this bill is not a sham. Or she/he may be in the false believe that voting on this bill will make her/him reelected.
You see, a desperate desire for reelection could become a true "devil" in the heart. Still, this devil is not from Satan, but from the corruption of one's heart.
Senators who voted to pass sham Bill 326-33 are: Frank B. Aguon, Jr., Thomas C Ada, Benjamin J.F. Cruz, Rory Respicio, Nerissa B. Underwood, Anthony V. Ada, Frank F. Blas, Jr.
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is that please, DO NOT VOTE on those who want to disrupt and bankrupt the Catholic Church for monetary gain.
Definition of sham
: something that is not what it appears to be and that is meant to trick or deceive people
: someone who deceives people by pretending to be a particular kind of person, to have a particular skill, etc.
: words or actions that are not sincere or honest
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sham
Anonymous at 1:32pm,
DeleteWhy would you say this is a sham?? It gives those of us who have been abused (not just those abused by a church clerical) an opportunity to bring our perpetrators to court!! What is so wrong about that? And if our Church has been errant in covering for them, and they are included in the suit, then so be it. Because we MUST clean up our Catholic Church -- NO MORE cover-ups. If it means we suffer as a whole, then we just fortify and build up after the cleanse.
This is more than just money, people!
Dear Anonymous at 8:16 am,
DeleteHe/She is calling it a sham because they are going after the Archdiocese rather than the perpetrators who committed the crime and covered it up.
Dear Anon at 8:16 a.m. have you seen the bill? Have you read it carefully? Do you fully understand the implications? Anyone who is acting in concert with someone accused can also be accused? What does it mean?
DeleteFor once, Rohr heavily lobbied for Archbishop Apuron for many, many years. He called himself an "attack dog" of the Archbishop. These are his own words that he admitted. Did he act "in concert" with someone accused? Yes, he surely did. So if Apuron is tried at court then Rohr also had be tried at court, according to Bill/ Law 326-33!
Do you understand this, my friend? Rohr acted "in concert" and lobbied for legislation that made it difficult to file a claim for childhood sexual abuse victims. It is a fact. It is his own admission. That is why this bill is a sham.
8:35PM-
DeleteYou, my friend, are too hung up on Tim Rohr. I don't give a crap what he did or did not do. I only see the bill as a means to closure for victims. If you are in 'concert' in any way, then you SHOULD be held accountable as well. My mother is quaking in her knees because she allowed my step father to abuse me!!
As I stated earlier, if the ArchDiocese is guilty of covering up, and it is proven, then so be it. We, the Church community, can take it and will overcome.
So are you going to sue your step father of your mother?
DeleteIf you mother acted in concert with your step father, then she is guilty by bill 326-33. Why don't you go then ahead and take the chance of your life time?!
Bob Klitzkie who re-wrote bill 326-33 is also a sham. He cannot say the difference between certificate of title and deed restriction. He cannot say the difference between conspiration and acting in concert either. Lol. So why did he need to mess up the bill?
DeleteThis bill is not serving justice, it is serving special interest. Bob Klitzkie is bought by special interest of realtors and CCoG. Frank Blas is a spineless senator who does not give a hoot to the quality of his own bill.
News Flash: The Holy See has been telling Tony to rescind and annul the deed of the RMS for years because they knew that it was conveyed illegally and he refused. Tony has been very disobedient. Where is Tony hiding now?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 6:11 pm,
DeleteI actually know something you do not know. Time will reveal the truth on this one. :-)
Hmmmmm. Sounds like Brother Tony wasn't obedient to the Holy See?
DeleteOr is Archbishop Hon now under the control of the jungle who made him release his statement?
No, I think time has only revealed that Brother Tony has been disobedient.
Dear Anonymous at 10:49 pm,
DeleteI would not be too certain about that. If the Holy See did indeed told Archbishop Apuron to rescind the Deed Restriction a year ago, that document would have leaked out to the jungle a year ago. Something seems odd and out of place.
Diana, for once it looks like you and Tim Rohr are really in agreement.
DeleteYou said "I actually know something you do not know. Time will reveal the truth on this one. :-)"
Yesterday on K57 radio it sounds likeTim Rohr knows something too because he said "It isn't over til it's over."
Both of you are telling us there's still more coming.
Dear Anonymous at 6,09 am,
DeleteYes. Tim suspects that Archbishop Hon is still lying despite that the fact that he said he rescinded the Deed Restriction. I am not surprise about that. But as I said in my previous comment, there is something odd and out of place. Documents are always leaked out from the chancery and into the jungle. Therefore, if the Holy See instructed Archbishop Apuron to rescind the Deed Restriction.....1) that document would have been leaked out to the jungle a year ago, 2) the report done by the Pontifical Council would have noticed it, and 3) why review the use of the property if the Holy See said to rescind it. I agree with Tim Rohr on the third one. Archbishop Hon stated to Jesse Lujan in KUAM that he will review the use of the property. If it is true that the Holy See instructed for the Deed Restriction to be rescinded, why would Archbishop Hon even meet with the priests and presbyterial council to discuss it? What is there to discuss if the a Holy See already gave instructions?
I agree with you, dear Diana, that something is very fishy here. If Archbishop Apuron was asked "not once" during the last year to rescind the Deed Restriction, then he did not obey. If Archbishop Hon is right, then the Pope made personal appeal of avoiding litigation. It seems to be evident that a lengthy court procedure to settle internal matters is the last thing the church on Guam needs right now. Why did Archbishop Apuron make the decision to keep the paperwork of the seminary as it is now?
DeleteSo, the question is did the Holy See really tell Apuron to remove the deed restriction or is Hon trying to appease JW into unity?
DeleteDear Diana at 7.303AM. Are you accusing Archbishop Hon of lying then?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:45 am,
DeleteWhere in my comment did I say that? I said something is odd and out of place.
Dear Diana at 1.28pm.
DeleteYou said:
"Therefore, if the Holy See instructed Archbishop Apuron to rescind the Deed Restriction.....1) that document would have been leaked out to the jungle a year ago, 2) the report done by the Pontifical Council would have noticed it, and 3) why review the use of the property if the Holy See said to rescind it."
Now, the only way to understand what you have written here is as a suspicion that what Hon has said about the Holy See instructing Apuron to rescind the deed, is not really true. Isn't that what you are implying Diana?
if so, then you are simultaneously casting aspersions on the Honesty of one Archbishop Hon, who made an official statement that contradicts your suspicion.
Dear Anonymous at 4;07 pm.
DeleteI am implying that there may have been some misunderstanding. You see....the problem here is that whenever some one expresses an opinion, you already see it as a lie. When I say that "something" is odd and out of place, how did you understand someTHING to mean a person rather a situation? SomeONE implies a person while some THING implies an event or situation.
So Diana if someTHING is odd and out of place
DeleteAND you believe that
the jungle would leak the document from the Holy See but didn't
Does that mean that Archbishop Apuron did not defy the Pope?
Maybe the jungle didn't leak the document from the Holy See because there is no document from the Holy See?
Maybe Archbishop Hon isn't as Honest as Anon @ 4:07 PM thinks??
Dear Anonymous at 2:48 am,
DeleteOr perhaps, there was a document from the Holy See, but it did not reach Archbishop Apuron and Archbishop Hon was unaware of it. Did it get lost in the mail? Was it even sent out?
This is the problem with people like you. You automatically judge people as "liars" without even understanding what they are saying. People like you call everyone a liar even when they are expressing their own opinion about a situation. You cannot distinguish between the words "someONE" and someTHING that you still had to create your own stories to justify yourself for calling people a liar.
Sorry Diana @ 8:43 AM but if you remember Archbishop Hon said there was NO decree of removal for Fr Paul
DeleteBUT the jungle published it
WHY did Archbishop Hon say there's no decree?!?!
BTW: I DIDN'T "create the story" about the decree of removal.
That's what I thought about when you pointed out that if there was a document from the Holy See the jungle would leak it.
That's why I think Archbishop Hon isn't Honest
He shown himself to be Dishonest.
Dear Anonymous at 9:50 pm,
DeleteAgain, I am not Archbishop Hon. I do not speak for him. The questions you are asking are questions you should address to him because it pertains to him. For all I know, he probably was unaware of the decree just as he was unaware that Walter Denton was just standing near him when he was addressing the protestors.
The decree of removal was probably hidden from Archbishop Hon. That might be the reason he did not know about it.
Delete"The truth is....Archbishop Hon's orders is to restore unity between Catholics. The ownership of RM seminary was one of the controversy dividing Catholics, and Archbishop Hon resolve that controversy by stating that the seminary belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana, no doubt about it."
ReplyDeleteJudging by the news, I'd say Hon didn't get the memo that it's all a done deal. I already know you're going to sling this as Hon is making a pastoral decision that it's for harmony, but if it was still completely in the hands of the Archdiocese, he wouldn't make any statement at all. No doubt about it.
How's it feel to have the Archbishop give evidence against all those lies you've been telling for ages about RMS?
Dear Anonymous at 8:23 pm,
DeleteI heard with my own ears that Archbishop Hon said that the RM Seminary belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana. It still does. I also heard Archbishop Hon say that the deed restriction only restricted the use of the property. Archbishop Hon asked that the Deed Restriction be rescinded; however, he does not have that authority.
As a matter of fact, the title of his letter stated (capitalization is mine): "On the property now USED by the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and Blessed Diego Theological Instutite."
Notice that he said "USE", NOT owned. Nevertheless, Archbishop Hon has no control over the Archdiocese's assets. His authority only extends to bringing peace and unity, not to touch the assets of the Archdiocese. The Pope never gave him the authority to touch any of the assets of the Archdiocese.
Okay, gloves are off. The jungle is going mad. Please, know that nothing in jungle is published without the direct permission of these five people:
Delete- Rohr,
- White,
- Glaubun,
- Frenchie,
- Lapaz.
Therefore any comment published at the jungle reflects the views of these people. Let see what their mindless agent had to say in the current situation. Folks, this can only mean one thing: be prepared for violence from the jungle group!
JamesAugust 18, 2016 at 11:42 PM
What happens next?
I say its time to cut the locks on the gates, take them off their hinges, and rip down those No Tresspassing signs. RMS and BDI will be exposed for what they truly are... but not without the continued involvement of the laity.
Those signs in front of the Cathedral should now read: "SELL YONA; FEED THE POOR" or something of that nature. Let's use those millions and millions to pay for the lawsuit and restore order in the church's finances so we can do what we're supposed to in regards to caring for sick, imprisoned, and poor.
"SELL YONA; FEED THE POOR"
DeleteWhat? Good Lord in heaven! This is mad. Sell the seminary?! Why? You have to find alternative ways to feed the poor. For one, parishioners should be encouraged to give generously during Sunday collection so that church funds would be sufficient to buy food to the poor. How about that Mr. James??
There is fringe on both sides, and this poor guy's a kook. I'm not sure how you figure glaucon or lapaz control things. Lapaz lives in Spain she says. Where in the world do you see people calling for violence?
DeleteTell me just one fringe at our side. Can't you? NCW has no fringes because the communities control your excesses. The jungle, however, is the fringe itself. All jungle figures are freaks, competing who is the biggest one among them. Are you calling them exception? Lol.
DeleteNo, my friend, they are no exception. This is the very essence of the jungle. They are merchants of hatred, stirring emotions until it blows out in violence. You'll see them lynching the faithful in short time. You will be scared and ashamed when the blood will flow. Will you intervene or just shut up, be silent and look at the lynching with hidden joy?
Wow! So ABAA did fraudulently transfer the property!
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 9:05 pm,
DeleteNo, he did not transfer the property. Read the title of Archbishop's Hon's letter. It stated (capitalization is mine): ""On the property now USED by the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and Blessed Diego Theological Instutite."
It says USED, not owned. The Archdiocese still owns the property. The Deed Restriction only restricts the USE of the property, but there was no transfer. Archbishop Apuron and Hon were both telling the truth when they said that the property still belonged to the Archdiocese of Agana.
If I own the title to the car, but you have it out of state to do with it as you please for years on end, my ownership is in name only. Quit being so dishonest with yourself and others. If the roles were reversed, you'd be furious.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:52 pm,
DeleteThe Archdiocese owns all the cars the priests drive around in. It is for their use, but it still belongs to the Archdiocese and therefore can take the car and give it to another priest. Therefore, the ownership is not in name only.
It is important to see that the ownership has never been an issue. The issue has always been the Deed Restriction. The Deed Restriction did not change the ownership, in fact it cannot change it, but restricted who can benefit from the property. It was claimed that the beneficiary will be the NCW in perpetuity. Now, this should change.
DeleteThe jungle is right that it is too early for them to rejoice. If the Deed Restriction is changed to 25 or 10 years at a time, or rescinded altogether, it has no impact on the ownership. The Yona property will belong and remain to belong to the Archdiocese, no matter what. It is implied that seminarians cannot be thrown out of church property, therefore they will also remain.
Dear Anonymous at 7:31 am,
DeleteI agree that the ownership was never the problem. However, the jungle claims it was the ownership that is the problem. Even with the deed restriction removed the seminarians will remain where they are and will still receive the formation of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary.
Has the deed restriction been removed already? When? Who removed it?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:20 am,
DeleteI donot think the Deed Restriction was removed, but it is not for the reason Tim Rohr stated. The only person who can rescind the Deed Restriction would be the Archbishop of Agana. Archbishop Hon is the Apostolic Administrator, and he was never given the authority to touch the assets of the Archdiocese.
Dear Diana
Delete"It says USED, not owned. The Archdiocese still owns the property. The Deed Restriction only restricts the USE of the property, but there was no transfer. Archbishop Apuron and Hon were both telling the truth when they said that the property still belonged to the Archdiocese of Agana."
How is it possible to argue that the Archdiocese "owns" the property, if the Archdiocese is not able to rescind the Deed Restriction? It appears that Hon has asked the NCW to rescind it. Why would he do that if the property belonged wholly and solely by the Archdiocese.
Rather, it seems that HOn recognizes that the property has been conveyed to the NCW because only the NCW can decide to rescind the Deed Restriction.
Dear Anonymous at 11:20 am,
DeleteEven Tim Rohr has said that Archbishop Hon said that the property belongs to the Archdiocese. Archbishop Hon never said that it was conveyed. Tim Rohr is correct on that one. I do not think Archbishop Hon can rescind it because he is not the Archbishop of Agana. Also, I do not think he was given any authority to touch any of the assets of the Archdiocese.
"I do not think Archbishop Hon can rescind it because he is not the Archbishop of Agana."
DeleteBut the NCW is not the Archbishop of Agana, so why would Hon ask the NCW to rescind the Deed? It appears, as I said, that Hon believes only the NCW can rescind it.
As to your opinion about Hon's authority - did he not say he had "all powers" to administer the Archdiocese? This surely means he can act for and on behalf od the Archbishop of Agana in any act that the Archbishop might ordinarily take?
Dear Anonymous at 4:04 pm,
DeleteHe is not asking the NCW. He is asking RMS. I do not think his authority extends to the goods of the Archdiocese especially since there is someone with the title "Archbishop of Agana". When it comes to the assets of the Archdiocese, it would be prudent for Hon to ask the person who still holds the title. Any assets of the Archdiocese belongs to the Archbishop of Agana and his successors. Archbishop Hon is not the Archbishop of Agana or the successor.
"He is not asking the NCW. He is asking RMS"
DeleteYes, and? How are they different? The RMS is a separately incorporated body run by the NCW.
"Any assets of the Archdiocese belongs to the Archbishop of Agana and his successors. Archbishop Hon is not the Archbishop of Agana or the successor. "
So now you are suggesting that Hon does not know what he is doing?! Do you really claim that Hon doesn't know who can rescind the Deed but you do? Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Of course his authority extends to the goods of the Archdiocese. How can he administer the Archdiocese without that power? Do you honestly think that Archbishop Apuron has to personally sign checks and authorise payments while in exile?!
In any case, the fact remains that Hon has asked the RMS inc/NCW to rescind the Deed, which indicates his belief, at least, that the RMSInc/NCW control the ownership of the property.
Dear Anonymous at 5:28 pm,
DeleteAre you really serious or are you being sarcastic? You really cannot see that there is a big difference between the NCW and RMS? How is it that you are unable to see that one consist of only men and the other consist of men, women, children, single, married and of all age groups?
Did you not listen to Bob Klitzkie in the talk show with Patti Arroyo? He said that Apuron has to sign papers in order to get the property back. If Archbishop Apuron is in the board of Directors and Board of Guaranter, do you not think that Archbishop Hon would take Apuron's place on those boards since he has the power? Obviously not according to Bob Klitzkie. So, why are you arguing with me on this issue when the other side also agrees?
Mrs Gennarini is on the board of guarantors of the RMS INc. I presume shes a woman. There are women employed or volunteering for the RMS.
DeleteThe RMS has in its constitution a servitude to the NCW. And the RMS is controlled by the NCW leadership. Its hardly a stretch to put them together.
Let me ask you this Diana. Why did Hon ask the RMS to rescind the Deed? Why not simply do it himself, or simply order Apuron to do it? Why did he ask the RMS?
Dear Anonymous at 11:00 pm,
DeleteI am not Archbishop Hon. I do not speak for him. When he returns from his trip, you can ask him your questions.
Now why would they keep RMS running after reading about all its deficiencies? Hopefully, Archbishop Hon will open his eyes and see that shutting it down would be the best thing for the archdiocese.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 10:05 pm,
DeleteReally? And I suppose Guam can go back to borrowing priests from the Philippines and the U.S.
"The "property" was no doubt acquired by the Archdiocese, and yet its use has been conceded in perpetuity to RMS and BDTI."
DeleteThis is what Archbishop Hon said. The property belongs to the Archdiocese. However, the "in perpetuity" addition to its use should be rescinded. That was the request of Pope Francis from Archbishop Apuron if I read it correctly.
So rather than sticking to the "in perpetuity" condition, another formu8la should be found that keeps the property at the Archdiocese, but at the same time it allows the operation of the seminaries.
This won't ever happen without goodwill and good intention from all involved parties.
Diana @ 10:21pm--
DeleteDo you even have to ask??? If, as @10:05 said, RMS is running with many deficiencies, then YES Guam can go back to borrowing priests from the Philippines and the U.S. Better to have properly formed priests than ones who were short-changed in their formation, don't you think?
Dear Anonymous at 8:04 am,
DeleteI have met and heard the homilies of Father Santiago, Father Kzysof (spelling), Father Harold, Father a Edivaldo, Father Mike Juncton, Father Franchesco, and many other and they celebrate Mass just as any non-RMS priests.
Regarding 'deficiencies' of the RMS. We should wait for the report from Archbishop Hon's committee visiting the seminaries. Then we will see their assessment and recommendations. This will be another major issue for Archbishop to address.
DeleteRepositioning of priests will be a big issue. Once the announcement is made of the shuffling of priests from one parish to another, not everyone will be happy. The reality is, is that people have their favorite priest and will follow him to his new parish assignment. If their favorite priest is moved from St. Anthony Catholic Church in Tamuning to San Dionisio Catholic Church in Umatac, some people will follow him - driving distance is not a problem, outside of village where they reside is not a problem. Why are such people following their favorite priest? Our priests are to lead people to Jesus Christ. Priests should encourage people to worship Jesus Christ in the parish church of their home village. What will people do when their favorite priest dies? Jesus Christ is risen, is alive, is God! So one way to rebuild our local churches is for people to worship God in their village parish church. To support their home village parish church.
DeleteWe spent a lot to time with rohr; white and others. Why? The Word of God does not need defending. These people are in the muck...why do we allow ourselves to be at their level? Dust the feet...and move on. The Gospel is above the petty....PETTY issues.
DeleteTO Diana @ 8:11 AM -- I don't know about the other presbyters you mentioned, but that Father Mike Jucatan is a joke. Have you seriously heard his homilies? I attended a couple of his masses and I'm sad to say I was so embarrassed for him. Sorry but he either needs to undergo more training or just get out of the priesthood. He's not a good example for the RMS.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:46 pm,
DeleteYes, I have heard him speak a few times. I still remember his homily about the pizza. I know that Father Mike Junctun struggles with his words, because of a disability. Yet, this shows that God can even choose someone with a disability to be His priest. Perhaps, if you pray for patience, you would be able to enjoy his homily.
We all have weaknesses! All people are God's creation! All creation is beautiful! What we do and how we treat what God created reflects a great deal on how you view, love, and treat God. Despite only attending some of his masses at cathedral a few times, I believe he is a good man. To struggle and allow God into your life through those weaknesses is a blessing because there is JOY in suffering for God. Why? Because his love and mercy endures FOREVER while our earthly love is imperfect and can never, ever be a true source of happiness and joy. To see the confidence and joy in a person who willing embraces his/her weakness for love God is to see a living example of what it means to have faith.
DeleteArchbishop Hon is not the Archbishop of Agana. He really has no authority over this archdiocese
ReplyDeleteArchbishop Apuron is the Archbishop of Agana.
AnonymousAugust 20, 2016 at 9:33 AM Agree
Delete