Thursday, February 16, 2017

Vatican Investigators On Island To Get Depositions

According to news report, Roland Sondia did not give his oral deposition to the Vatican investigators.  However, Mr. Sondia was willing to give his testimony to the media without his lawyer being present.  On June 16, 2016, Mr. Sondia appeared in the radio studio and was interviewed and questioned by Patti Arroyo.  You can listen to that interview here.  Then comes the opportunity for Roland Sondia to testify to the Vatican investigators so that Rome would know his side of the story, and he refused to give his testimony.  He chose to follow his lawyer's advice.  According to KUAM news (the bold is mine):
The group is scheduled to meet with other members of the community to receive testimony. Seen leaving the Chancery prior to Sondia's meeting was Deacon Steve Martinez. Martinez was a former Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator for the Archdiocese of Agana until he was removed by Apuron.
The group is scheduled to meet with other members of the community to receive testimony.  Obviously, Deacon Steve Martinez was one of them.  Who else did the Vatican investigators have in mind? 

By the way, why is Monsignor James and Father Paul off-island at this time?  Was it a coincidence that they are not on island when the Vatican investigators are here?  Was it possible that they knew the Vatican investigators were going to be here and decided to disappear in order to avoid being called in for questioning?  Or is it simply a coincidence? 

Furthermore, an anonymous poster wrote the following comment under the last OP.  His/Her comment made a lot of sense (spacing is mine):
AnonymousFebruary 16, 2017 at 10:55 PM 
Anon 6:50 pm 
This advise from David Lujan makes no sense. Usually the person who is being accused is advised not to speak, because if he says anything politically incorrect it can be used to further accuse him. 
The defendant shouldn't need to be politically correct on how he was abused if he is indeed the victim. This is suspicious behavior leading people to think there are ulterior motives.  
Even more so if the only gain is to block the Vatican's investigation. I don't know but if I was the victim I would want the Vatican to know everything so justice could prevail. 


  1. Msgr. James Fr.Paul are not persons of interest to Cardinal Berkes. Cardinal berks flew here to see those with intimate knowledge of situation. Cardinal Berks only concerned with victims.
    Fr.Paul is in meetings in Colarado.Msgr is in meetings in England.

  2. sensed Cardinal Burke was looking for Monsinuer James.
    Cardinal obvioysly heard about him intending to question him.
    Cardinal Burke knows its a conspiracy against Archbishop Anthony.

  3. Dear anon at 11:20 pm
    Even if Msgr. James and Fr Paul are of no interest to Cardinal Berkes, doesn't that just prove that they should be in Guam during such an important event. I just don't understand what you're trying to argue. Being MIA during an investigation, which you could have information on is not really justifiable at all. Whether Cardinal Berkes showed interest or not is irrelevant.

  4. Crazy! JW distrusts Cardinal Burke and Vatican procedures. They don't collaborate. One cannot cure foolishness. Deposition could not be made. Burke will return Rome empty-handed. David Lujan should be defrocked. This is scandalous! Tim Rohr is done. His trolls are extinguished on low morality.

    Sunday picketers blew their chances. Nobody will defrock Apron without evidence produced by the deposition. No deposition, no evidence, no reaason to defrock Apuron, The snake is biting its own tail. Accusing the 2000 years old Catholic Church with sexual abuse? Are they mad or what?! LFM blames everything on Archbishop Byrnes who is not responsible for anything. Total chaos! Nothing makes sense anymore.

    This is the outcome of the whole conspiration. The plot backfired. Nothing is true anymore, not even the opposite of what they say. The conspirators fell into the same pit they dug up for others. Their fate is coming from the hand of God!

    1. Yes, they actually said that! The news is all over about it. They say Roland was not allowed to testify because of the 2000 years of sexual abuses in the Catholic Church. David Lujan said that. He says all Vatican is doing is covering up sexual crimes and shielding sexual predators. Unbelievable!

      This is the official standpoint of Junglewatch. Everybody was fooled saying Jungle folks are Catholic. They are not! Rohr is lying that he did not say this. He said the exact same thing! He has been saying the same things for years. He is reaping the fruits of his sowing. Rohr is a liar. Now he wants to get away with this massacre of faith, decency and reason. He won't. He will be held responsible. He can loot the Catholic Church at a tainted civil court out of cash money as much as he wants. But he and his cohorts won't be considered Catholics ever again.

      Can we call this justice?

    2. Raymond at JW (not the same as Cardinal Burke ;) is one of the ferocious ones. He espouses the vilest anti-church propaganda that you see from New York liberals only who want to erase the Catholic Church and raze down Vatican. Simply ugly.

      RaymondFebruary 17, 2017 at 8:20 AM

      This "show" is there to appease the people. Do not be fooled. Like Mr. Lujan states, the catholic church has been doing this type of thing for centuries. Why should they change?

  5. Why is Roland not saying anything to investigator about his alledged abuse?? Following instructions of lawyer? Is he the one facing trial??
    That action alone says alot about the case...definately not in his favor....
    1 point for Archbishop Apuron....

    1. Don't you think it's kinda suspicious that his lawyer would not be allowed to be present during his testimony? Think about it 6:29 PM.

    2. Dear Anonymous at 5:26 pm,

      His lawyer, David Lujan, did not seem to mind his client being interviewed and questioned by Patti Arroyo. Roland was able to give his testimony and answer questions to the media without his lawyer present. Most lawyers would not allow their clients to go to the media. Instead, the lawyer would speak to the media in behalf of his client. I find it more suspicious that the lawyer now balked when Roland would be interviewed without his presence.

    3. Sorry, but they are totally different scenarios Diana. You can't compare an interview over the radio with Patti Arroyo and one behind closed doors with Vatican officials who will determine the outcome of the case. It smells very fishy!


  6. Cardinal Berkes sent his advanced party to Guam to make the necessary appointments in asia pacific region. Neither names appeared on the list. Therefore they are not of interest in this investigation at this time nor at any time in the future.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:52 pm,

      How would anyone know whose name is on the list. We only know about Roland Sondia because he revealed it to the media.

  7. All this gossip going on in the comments is going to end up hurting people you know.

    Most of the comments are jumping to conclusions. The full facts of Fr. Paul and Msgr. James' leave haven't even been given.

    When I take off from work or have something scheduled outside my office, my boss is made aware of it and approves of my actions. Wouldn't you expect the same for Fr. Paul and Msgr. James? They couldn't have just up and left.

    Hello people....

    Someone had to have given them the green light otherwise wouldn't they end up in trouble? Why would they want that trouble if that really is indeed the case? What exactly would they have to gain by doing so?

    Therefore, I don't think it's right for you all to be spreading rumors about their leave and whereabouts. Instead, if you are indeed curious and want something to gossip about, shouldn't you get all the facts first? Shouldn't you at least ask:

    1. Why did they leave
    2. Who approved of their leave
    3. When was it approved and was that approval prior to or after all parties were aware of the Vatican team coming to Guam this week?

    Aren't finding the answers to those questions the least you could do for the sake of everyone involved in this matter?

    1. Anon 8:49 pm
      This is rich coming from the opposition which actually is taking people to court. Lets get this straight, them leaving the country is indeed a fact. There has been no accusation made, they are not in court.
      Second, it is very reasonable to be suspicious of the fact that they are gone in this time, specially when it is a fact that they where involved with a lot of what has happened at JW.
      Third, you do not need permission as a priest to leave the country. This means your statement is false. You need permission only if you wish to be changed from dioceses or parish etc. A priest can decide to leave without reason as long as he notifies the pastor. If you are the pastor you can just get up and leave with the excuse of vacation.
      Notice I said notify, not ask permission. All of which is still suspicious behavior. Again no accusations have been made. If people decided to defrock, persecute, defame, and take them to court then indeed their lives would be hurt. However this is exactly what is happening to Bishop Apuron, whose life has deeply been hurt and defamed. I don't see you appalled because of it.

    2. Way did they Leave???????? Nothing But a ''R O H R'' Conspiracy against are Archbishop Anthony Apuron......START OF THE CONPIRACY NO CASINO ON THE ISLAND!!!

    3. 2:15pm,

      I understand now why it's suspicious, but what do you want to do? What should be done?

    4. Names of conspirators are listed.
      Conspirators share one goal to remove Archbishop Anthony to build a Casino.

  8. If jungle watch is going nuts over Cardinal Burke, the traditionalists of all known traditionalists alive and in the media today, then there is something obviously wrong with their perspective.

    I find it hard to believe they would be upset at his appointment as judge in the case since Cardinal Burke would seem like the judge MOST LIKELY to rule in favor of defrocking Archbishop Apuron if he's found guilty. In my opinion, the victims have NOTHING to fear by telling the TRUTH.

    HOWEVER, it is a choice that they can and have already made. We can only pray that everything was and is continually being done to the best of the abilities of those involved to make the truth of the situation known and a just decision made.

  9. What's suspicious about Fr. Paul and Msgr. James being off-island?

    1. Dear Anonymous at 2:18 pm,

      It is their timing that is suspicious. And the fact that they are BOTH off-island makes it even more suspicious.

    2. And what about Father Albert? He is off island as well, yet you don't think that that is suspecious....smh

    3. Might want to check your sources if you are talking about Father Alberto. We are currently having a lunch meeting on the island of Guam at this very moment. Looks like your source is providing you with "alternative facts" to try and bring up irrelevant things to shift the conversation. As a matter of fact he was on a Guam way before the arrival of the Cardinal. Obviously he has nothing to hide. Smh...get your facts straight before you insert your foot in your mouth again.

  10. All this gossip going on damages our good priests. Monsignor James is off-island.
    Fr. Paul is preaching a retreat in San Francisco. what's suspicious about preaching a retreat?

  11. Sunday picketers are like the sheep herd lead to the slaughter. They are being used and deceived. Nobody knows anymore who they are protesting against. Atty Lujan protected Archbishop Apuron from potentially harmful testimony. Who will defrock anyone without deposition and testimony?!

    This sheep is very much confused who their enemy is. Archbishop Apuron? Archbishop Camacho? Fr. Bruillard? Cruz? Etc.? Who they protest against? Archbishop Hon? Archbishop Michael? Cardinal Burke? What is this craziness?! Whose side atty Lujan is on? Why is Jungle watch protecting Apuron from potentially harmful testimonies?

    Now, you see why LFM had to be filled up with manamko, blindfolded and sent to the front line so that they don't even recognize that someone is playing fool with them.

    1. Anonymous 11:40 AM, there are a lot of manamko on the picket line but we're not all manamko AND like the manamko I know what I'm picketing for and who I'm protesting against.
      I'm picketing for Apuron to be permanently removed as Archbishop so sometimes I carry the APURON OUT sign. Sometimes I carry the DEFROCK APURON sign because I believe that he ruined the lives of many more young boys besides the 3 who have accused him and the 1 dead man whose story was shared by his mother and brother.
      Diana pointed out that Mr. Sondia was on the radio with Patti Arroyo without his lawyer present. The difference between the June 2016 K57 interview and the one last week with Cardinal Burke is that in June there was no lawsuit pending. But as of November 2016 David Lujan officially became Mr. Sondia's lawyer when Mr. Sondia filed the lawsuit against Apuron. It's not a good idea for a layman like Mr. Sondia to face the representatives of the Church who are all ordained like Apuron without his lawyer. Let's face it. The priests and Cardinal Burke are more interested in protecting the Church from scandal than they are about Mr. Sondia.

      BTW: From what I've been told and from what I've read from former members, if anyone is being used and deceived it's the members of the NCW who cannot make decisions without the permission of their higher-ups who tell them which job to take, who to date or marry, when and where to go on vacation, etc, etc, etc

    2. Oh, really? You had prevented the tribunal from doing its job. No punishment will be carried out without supporting evidence. You don't have to be a rocket scientists to figure this out. Lol!

    3. Anon 8:18 pm
      So you basically are saying you want to destroy the whole Catholic Church based on your believes. Not evidence, or facts, just based on your own believes. You see nothing wrong with this?
      In feudal times, a person could get his neighbor burned at the stake just because he desired to take over his property. (sound a little like whats going on here). Today we have something called trials so that a person is not burned at the stake unjustly. Is it maybe possible at all that you might be wrong. That blind belief in a person's accusations is not enough.
      Last of all, I don't know who your sources are about the NCW but they are deeply misguided. For centuries in the Catholic Church it is good practice for a person who wants to be holy to take on a Spiritual Director. Spiritual directors or guides are not always priests, but their sole function is to give advise as to what is christian and will help you further be holy or what is not and will take you off the good path. According to the Second Vatican Council, a person can not be Christian on his own but requires community and direction. There is a vast difference between requiring permission and receiving advice. I can not help but think logically that in an itinerary that is suppose to take you to adult faith you would receive advice as to what are Christian decisions and what goes against the teachings of Christ. Seems to me these sources are just upset to realize that some of their life decisions are not as Christian as they like to think. Taking occasion of their hurt pride they are using this to spread lies and demonize the NCW. The path to Christianity is a humble one.
      Look up and read about the Catechumenate of the early catholic church. If you read up on it you will find that in the first 3 centuries of the Catholic Church for a person to become christian they had to change employment and rectify different life decisions. Example: If you worked making idols, you had to stop making idols. If you where a soldier you had to stop carrying weapons etc.
      The distinction to be made here is advice as opposed to force. The NCW forces no one to do anything. The fact is your sources are EX members. This means they where free to leave. The NCW presents the teachings of the Catholic Church and a person is free to receive them or not.

  12. Something tells me Cardinal Burke wasn't on Guam just to investigate the sexual abuse allegations against Apuron.

    Vatican City, Feb 16, 2017 / 03:47 pm (CNA/EWTN News).-

    The Vatican has sent Cardinal Raymond Burke to Guam to act as presiding judge at the trial of Archbishop Anthony Apuron, who was removed from office in June 2016 following allegations of child sex abuse.

    Cardinal Burke is a canon lawyer and former prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the Holy See's highest court. He currently serves as the chaplain of the Knights of Malta, where he has clashed with the Holy See over the removal of the Grand Chancellor of the Knights. He is also one of four cardinals who signed the controversial dubia, a letter asking Pope Francis to clarify parts of his apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia”.

    Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, who leads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), appointed Cardinal Burke to the Guam trial.

    Archbishop Apuron has denied the allegations against him and has not been criminally charged. Most of the allegations involve sexual abuse of altar boys in the 1970s.

    On Thursday, the AP reported that one of Archbishop Apuron’s accusers refused to appear before the Vatican court, despite a request from Cardinal Burke for testimony.

    Attorney David Lujan, representing former altar boy Roland Sondia, told the AP that the proceedings were "worse" than he had expected because he wasn't allowed to be present to advise his client, who was to have been "questioned by the prosecutor, who is a priest, and Archbishop Apuron's lawyer, who is a priest, and a presider who is Cardinal Burke, and a notary who is also a priest."

    "We felt it wasn't in my client's best interest to be in that position," he said. He said Sondia may submit a written declaration instead.

    Many of the allegations against Archbishop Apuron became public last year, after full-page ads sponsored by Concerned Catholics of Guam encouraged anyone who had been abused by clergy to come forward, according to reports from Pacific Daily News.

    Following the new allegations, the Archdiocese created a new Task Force for the Protection of Minors and a new Victims Support group to aid in the counseling and support of victims and their families.

    “The Church on Guam has a duty and desire to render pastoral care to all of its faithful, most especially those who have been severely wounded by those holding trusted positions in our Archdiocese. We are strengthening our work in this area and pledge to provide a safe environment for all children and all people entrusted in our care,” the Archdiocese said in a November statement.

    In November 2016, Pope Francis appointmented Detroit Bishop Michael Jude Byrnes as coadjutor archbishop of the Archdiocese of Agana. He replaced Archbishop Savio Hon Tai Fai, who was sent to Guam by the Vatican in June to temporarily replace Apuron.

    Archbishop Apuron is a member of the Neocatechumenal Way, a group within the Church that has also clashed with other Catholics on the island over the past few years.

    Besides sexual allegations, Archbishop Apuron has also been accused of mishandling control over the island’s seminary, reportedly using it as a Neocatechumenal seminary rather than a diocesan seminary, which led to the withdrawal of all Samoan students. Guam’s Carmelite nuns also relocated to California last year over issues with Apuron.

    Guam is a U.S. island territory in Micronesia, in the Western Pacific, with a population of 165,124. Approximately 85 percent of the island’s citizens identify as Catholic.

  13. NCW caused in house fighting. Pius started all these fights. Until he came we were a church in peace.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:56 am,

      Father Pius never caused any fights. The fights started because of greed over the Yona property.