Thursday, November 3, 2016

My Response

The comment in the thread of my last OP deserves a post of its own.  According to an anonymous poster: 
Diana, this is what Tim says in his latest post about your victory celebrating:

"What Apuron did not tell them is that the response from Pope Francis on September 30, was HELL NO. Specifically, Apuron was told that Pope Francis' appointment of Hon was "per mandatum speciale Summi Pontificus, and therefore in the name of the Holy Father, against Whose decision there is no recourse." In other words, Tony, SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN.

Apuron's attempt to get rid of Hon appears to have sent Francis over the top because not only did he tell Tony to shut up and sit down, he underscored his intent to finally get rid of this pathetic pedophile (who he had already asked to resign on May 28) by appointing a bishop who not only now has the immediate right of succession to Apuron's episcopal seat (sorry Adrian), but was given special faculties by the pope himself to immediately administer all aspects of the diocese "without exception."

So this is why Tricky Dick and Dingbat Diana are rushing to frame Byrne's appointment as a victory. They think Apuron's attempt at hierarchical recourse actually worked when the truth is that Apuron the Molester just got a major slap down that he didn't tell them about. (LOL Tricky Dick and Dingbat Diana!)"

This is my response:
As anyone can plainly see, Tim Rohr is desperate. He forgot about our letters of complaints to the Vatican in September and October. Let's see......he says Archbishop Apuron wrote a letter to Cardinal Filoni in July. Then he receives a letter in September citing "per mandatum speciale Summi Pontificus".  And this is coming from Tim Rohr.......the same Tim Rohr who defended Father John Wadeson of being innocent of sexual allegations in 2014 and then turned around and said that he is guilty in 2016.  The same Tim Rohr who loved to "show off" those written documents as truths on his blog.  

So, rather than showing his readers those written documents, he now expects them to swallow his INTERPRETATIONS of letters he claims to have in his possession while he quotes only a few lines???? It was Tim Rohr who interpreted my blog as saying that "Father Miguel was going to be the new bishop". The truth is Tim Rohr was incorrect. Nowhere in my blog did I ever say that Father Miguel would be the new bishop. That information came from Tim himself. And he expects people to trust him after that misinterpretation
????? There are more intelligent people on this island.

Furthermore, our letters of complaint made an impact in Rome. How does one know for certain? Because these are the facts that someone under my last OP pointed out very clearly: 

Fact - Hon failed to remove Archbishop Apuron.
Fact - Hon is and was removed in disgrace.
Fact - Hon was NOT informed by way of official channels of the appointment of Bishop Byrnes.
Fact - Byrnes' appointment was effective IMMEDIATELY when it was announced.
Fact - Neither was Krebs informed, or else news would have reached HON's ears in a matter of seconds.

So Hon and Krebs were intentionally left in the dark by the powers that be in the Vatican. Not only were Krebs and Hon left in the dark, they were completely caught off guard by their superiors in Rome. This information was intentionally withheld from them. 
The information from Rome was revealed through the media FIRST and never got to Archbishop Hon.  So, who did Tim Rohr think was responsible for giving the information to the media FIRST so the media could announce it FIRST?
As I said........ it was NOT a mere coincidence that I posted in my blog that we are getting a new bishop and then 8 days later his name was revealed through the MEDIA. :-) 

Notice that Tim Rohr NEVER said anything about the media announcing the name of the new bishop FIRST? That is a fact that he cannot refute nor explain.


  1. I still remember Patti and Tim raking over and belittling your post about the new bishop on the talk show. They didn't take it seriously. And then WHAM, a new bishop was announced. Both Tim and Hon didn't know about it until the next morning when they opened the newspaper.

  2. Diana. Tim found out something that you might not be aware of. There has been a plan from Vatican ever since January 2015 that Hon and Krebs were told to keep top secret. They were charged not to tell anyone about this plan, especially not to the media until a coadjutor Archbishop will have been appointed.

    Apuron was trapped into believing that his case looked good. But, in fact, his character and trustworthiness was tested apart from the canonical trial! The test was the RMS. Hon gave Apuron a chance to rescind the deed restriction without litigation. He missed the opportunity that started the domino effect to unfold.

    Tim says Apuron's followers were also fooled into believing that the Archbishop would be victorious. This was a case to make the rabbit jump out of his hiding place from the bushes. Now that the Apuron movement was exposed, Rome can see its minuscule impact.

    The fact is that Apuron won't be allowed to return to Guam unless he rescinds the deed restriction on the Yona property. His allegiance to Kiko versus Pope Francis will be tested. If he chooses Kiko and betrays the Pope, then his chances will be very much limited. If he chooses Pope Francis then his comrades may turn against him, but he will be allowed to return to Guam to help the coadjutor.

    What Tim says gives a completely new twist to the whole story.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:31 am,

      Are you now claiming that the Vatican keeps secrets? Do you honestly think they will plot to remove a Bishop without informing him of the reason? Apuron was removed from his duties because of the sexual allegations.

      The Vatican already knew about the deed restriction because according to Dr. Eusebio:

      "In regards to the deed of restriction, Archbishop Hon claims that the Holy See directed Archbishop Apuron to lift or rescind this deed but failed to clarify that the office making this “request” was his very own Congregation of Evangelization and he as the Apostolic delegate was the one making the request. The pope, as stated by Archbishop Apuron, never made the request. This request, however, was sent to the Congregation of Legislative Text (the highest Vatican Body for the Interpretation of legislative act) for an opinion and stated, “ the Archbishop’s act of assignment, therefore, can neither be considered a sale nor alienation, but only a [required] transfer of ownership between two “Corporation Soles” which have only one member who alone enjoys all the powers of extraordinary administration.” Additionally, Bishop Arrieta, the Secretary of the Congregation, stated, “ what seems to emerge from the whole affair is that the Archbishop (Apuron) has limited himself to only fulfilling a required act and truth”. The Vatican, the Holy See, the Pope has many arms or congregations to oversee the Catholic Church and both of these Congregations are “branches” of the Pope. Why Archbishop Hon fails to mention these facts remains to be understood."

      How do you explain the fact that the information of a coadjutor bishop had bypassed Hon and Krebs and went to the media first?

    2. "Tim found out something that you might not be aware of. There has been a plan from Vatican ever since January 2015 that Hon and Krebs were told to keep top secret. They were charged not to tell anyone about this plan, especially not to the media until a coadjutor Archbishop will have been appointed."

      This sounds more like a fairy tale Rohr would invent.

    3. Diana, in Vatican circles this round on the RMS has been over already. As Hon said, the property is not an issue. RMS belongs to the corporation sole of the Archbishop of Agana.

      What is at issue is the exclusion of the archdiocese from the benefits of the property by delegating all rights of use to a limited entity, the RMS. Archbishop Hon wanted to lift the deed restriction so that the Archbishop of Agana could make autonomous decision about the best use of the property.

      Nobody wanted to sell RMS or move RMS out of the property. However, there should be fair limitations of the exclusive rights of a limited function as RMS with its handful of half-baked seminarians.

    4. Dear Anonymous at 8:20 am,

      You stated: "What is at issue is the exclusion of the archdiocese from the benefits of the property by delegating all rights of use to a limited entity, the RMS."

      Is is up to the Archbishop to decide if he would use the rest of the property for something else. That decision alone belongs to him since he is the Archbishop and corporation sole. CCOG should not make any decision as to what the property should be used for. They can make suggestions to the Archbishop, but they should not make any demands on what the property is to be used for. The fact that they want the deed restriction removed is already a demand.

      Furthermore, CCOG follows the bronze opinion that the property does not belong to the Archdiocese. They have made that statement over and over.

    5. The coadjutor Archbishop of Agana will have unlimited power of financial matters, including ownership of the Archdiocese's corporate soles and decisions on any restriction on their use.

    6. Because the Bronze opinion has documents to prove it while your Denver lawyers have nothing. If they have. Why are they hiding it.

    7. Dear Anonymous at 9:50 am,

      Your Bronze opinion can testify that the report of the Denver lawyers exists because he saw it. He simply cannot make copies or take pictures of it. Have CCOG bring the issue to court, and they can see the entire document there.

    8. the Neos always hiding. their so-called denver report buried in secrecy. They claim that this opinion absolves this issue of ownership. however no one can see it, it's not published, i don't know, what do you do with that kind of nonsense in the real world?

    9. Dear Anonymous at 7:23 am,

      At least the report exists and the Bronze lawyer can testify to that because he has browsed through it. You cannot say the same for Tim Rohr regarding the Archbishop's letter to Cardinal Filoni. I noticed that he is back to showing OTHER documents that he has already shown before. He was asked by two people to produce the July 23rd letter of Archbishop Apuron, and he did not do it. Instead they were questioned. Now, why do you think he keeps showing OLD documents that he has shown before???

    10. We like the old docs, Diana.

    11. Dear Anonymous at 10:07 am,

      The old documents was what got people brainwashed into thinking that you do not need to ask for any more documents once he starts telling you fiction stories of having documents that he does not have.

  3. Diana, you make a big mountain from a tiny mole hill. It has no bearing who informed the media first about the appointment of a new Archbishop with extended powers. Hon definitely wanted someone with more sweeping power than he had. Archbishop Byrnes will have that power!

    Archbishop Hon and Archbishop Krebs were obviously charged not to spill out the plan to the media. These are well disciplined high ranking clergy who know how and when to shut their mouths tight. It looks like they simply wanted to circumvent Filoni. Well, they seem to be successful. That's all.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:47 am,

      Judging from Hon's demeanor at that press conference, it appears to bother him that the media announced the new bishop first.

      It is possible that Archbishop Byrnes has the authority to rescind the deed restriction, but time will tell. He already had positive things to say about the Way. And as a bishop, he understands the importance of having a seminary.

    2. Demeanor...?! I did not know this would be something significant in a whole shake-up of the archdiocese. How can you read accurately the thoughts of people by interpreting their demeanor? Hon as most Chinese people does not show much of an emotion on his face.

    3. Dear Anonymous at 8:10 am,

      On the contrary. It is the Japanese people who do not show much emotion on their face. The Chinese and Koreans have no problems expressing their emotions. Just ask Father Efren who witnessed Archbishop Hon yelling at Father Mike Crisostomo.

    4. It is always the practice not to inform anyone about appointment. A Bishop designate is always bursting to tell people friends, family but they cannot until the correct time. Anyone knows this.


  4. Diana is right here Fr.Efren did witness Archbishop Hon yelling at Father Mike. I can only assume that Archbishop Hon had a bad hair day. Its all rather like the broadway production Hairspray.

  5. The story is that Hon was fuming mad and just plain frustrated at the chancery last week when Byrnes' appointment was announced in the media. Yelling, screaming, foaming at the mouth.

    About the Lujan LAWSUIT: Someone also pointed out an interesting fact. The original lawsuit INCLUDED ARCHBISHOP SAVIO HON. The new lawsuit DID NOT have Hon's name. WHY is that?

    The theory is that Dave Lujan may have offered Hon a "sweet deal": Dave will remove Hon's name from the lawsuit IF and ONLY IF he reinstates Benavente (Lujan's nephew-godson-special friend-Attorney, etc.) and Gofigan to their rightful places so as to restore the 'glory of the church' (rolling eye balls). Also Honis to reinstate Richard Untalan into the Archdiocesan Finance Council, AND to make Benavente 'in-charge of the patrimony of the Church in Guam'. Hon is to do all this n order for his name is removed from the lawsuit.

    A sweet deal!
    - Hon is free the lawsuit.
    - Gofigan is back.
    - Benavente is in charge of the cash.
    - Richard (DISBARRED attorney) is now in charge of Archdiocesan finances.
    Talk abut the "fox" buying the Foster Farm Chicken Ranch! DOES IT GET ANY BETTER?

  6. During the press conference when the new bishop was announced by Hon, present were Gofigan, Benevente, and Richard Untalan. Why does he have to be there? Where were the delegate to the apostolic administrator and the vicar general? Look at Benavente and see who is nearby. It is interesting...actually a little scary.

    1. Who was nearby. I didn't notice anything scary. Enlighten?