Setting The Record Straight

This is in response to the anonymous poster whose comments can be found here.  The poster's comments are in blue while mine are in black. I only published a portion of his/her comment on this post.  The red are quotes from the jungle. I also divided his/her comments for a better response. According to the Anonymous poster: 

AnonymousMarch 18, 2017 at 8:48 AM

Anonymous @ 2:14 AM, records show that Apuron himself had allowed that very same person you refer to as "a Rapist but murderous" to work at Sta. Barbara in March 1999 5 years before Fr. Paul was ordained. A copy of the parole document can be seen on Junglewatch. Please explain WHY Apuron approved of the man being on Church grounds in 1999, fresh out of prison but not in 2013 after living quietly and with a family 14 years later?!? He was much more dangerous in 1999 than in 2013. 

This so-called approval, which you mention is found here.  This record is a an ORDER from the Guam Parole Board ORDERING Joseph Lastimoza parole under certain conditions.  Nowhere in that document do I see Archbishop Apuron's name and signature granting any kind of approval for Lastimoza to do community service at the Dededo parish.  It was an ORDER from the Guam Parole Board.  So the question begs......how in the world did you see this as an approval from Archbishop Apuron when his name and signature is not even on the paper?  

It was Archbishop Apuron who instructed Father Paul to remove Joseph Lastimoza from being employed at the Dededo parish once he learned that he was a sexual offender.  Father Paul fired Lastimoza; however, he kept him as a voluntary worker at the Church.  Archbishop Apuron removed Father Paul for disobedience.

Apuron's sexual past definitely opened the doors. Junglewatch started in 2010 with 6 posts. 2011 had 6 posts. 2012 had 6 posts. Most of the posts were on the topics of same-sex marriage, abortion and other current events issue.
As a matter of fact before the very first post on the Fr. Paul controversy there were 11 posts in 2013 including a July 16 post on Trayvon Martin. Fr. Paul wasn't mentioned until Tim Rohr posted the July 23 PNC TV report on Apuron's removal.
Tim Rohr did not write the first post "The Chancery V Gofigan" as a way of documenting the local controversy until July 25. But Tim Rohr did not only write about "Chancery V Gofigan" in 2013. He also wrote about Obamacare, married priests & the local ordination of Anglican convert Fr. Richard Rojas, Miley Cyrus & pornography, homosexuality in the Church, MLK & Kennedys, non-NCW-related liturgical abuses, Guam as a Divorce Mill, etc. etc
As a matter of fact the first mention of the NCW didn't come up until August. And at the end of August there was a short post that read:
"TO BE CLEAR! A copy of my response to a comment implying that this blog is "an arena of persecution" of the Neo-Catechumenal Way: JungleWatch is not concerned with the NCW. IT IS concerned with the liberty of its clerics who feel free to rewrite the catechism to justify their aims. IT IS concerned with the liberty of clerics who feel free to disregard instructional norms from Rome (I have it on record). IT IS concerned with clerics who feel their authority trumps canon law."

You stated that the first mention of the NCW did not come up until August, 2013.  What you quoted above can be found here dated August 28, 2013.  You claimed that the first mention of the NCW did not come up until August 28, 2013 when Tim Rohr published that post.  Below is a post from Tim Rohr criticizing the NCW dated July 23, 2013, which you can find here (the bold is mine):

In any event, these divisions do exist and are getting exponentially worse. Many supporters of the NCW simply align any and all resistance to "the Way" with disobedience to the Archbishop. Opponents of "the Way" claim the Archbishop is not just a supporter of "the Way", but is "one of them", and thus no longer represents all Catholics on Guam.

The Archbishop is in fact "one of them": a member of one of the communities. And while whether or not he still represents all Catholics on Guam can be argued, the perception by many is that he does not because he is "in it."

Therefore, you have made a false claim in stating that the first mention of the NCW did not come up until August, 2013.  It started even before that.  I have shown you the evidence.  

Apuron shot himself in the foot when he removed Fr. Paul in July 2013. If he had not done that there would be no "Chancery V Gofigan" posts to attract readers to Junglewatch. Tim Rohr would have continued to post his views on current events or moral issues like abortion. Nobody would be reading Tim Rohr's blog. Tim heard stories about "Apuron & the Agat Boys" even while he was Apuron's PR guy. But Tim Rohr never said anything. 

You were already caught making false statements in your comments.  Yes, Tim claims to hear stories about "Apuron and the Agat Boys."  The same Tim Rohr who claimed that Archbishop Apuron gave permission for Lastimoza to work at the Dededo parish and then flaunts a document from the Guam Parole Board ORDERING Lastimoza to work at the Dededo parish without any signature from the Archbishop.  

So, in truth, it was the Guam Parole Board who ORDERED Lastimoza to work at the Dededo parish in 1999 as clearly shown in that document. So, who made the false claim? And most importantly, why did you not read the document yourself?  Why did you just swallow everything you were told?  Perhaps if you had read the document yourself, you would have noticed that Archbishop Apuron's name and signature was absent.

Many years later, when Archbishop Apuron learned that there was a convicted sex offender working in the Dededo parish, he ordered Father Paul to remove him.  Father Paul fired Lastimoza, BUT allowed him to work as a volunteer worker in the parish. Therefore, it was Father Paul who allowed a convicted sex offender to work as a volunteer worker.