Friday, June 23, 2017

The Cost Of Appeasement

According to Tim Rohr:
I'm afraid you don't have your facts straight. The committee report will clearly show that the Archdiocese of Agana, then under the administration of Archbishop Savio Hon Tai-Fai, an apostolic administrator appointed by Pope Francis, did NOT oppose the legislation. In fact, there was surprise among the legislators that there was NO opposition from the church. 
This is false.  It is actually Tim Rohr who does not have his facts straight. The Archdiocese of Agana, under Archbishop Hon, did not support NOR oppose the bill.  In other words, there was SILENCE. That is what the committee report shows.  Silence does not indicate that the Archdiocese was in support of the bill. Father Gordon MacRae clearly stated that the Archdiocese of Agana OPPOSED the bill.  Then comes along Rohr saying that the Archdiocese did NOT oppose the legislation.  REALLY?  Does he have a letter from the Archdiocese saying they support it?  Therefore, Rohr is incorrect when he said that Archbishop Hon did not oppose the bill.  What he purposely left out is the fact that Archbishop Hon also did NOT support the bill.  This is simply a manipulating of the facts and twisting of words.  

Why the silence?  Archbishop Hon was so engrossed into appeasing the jungle that he went to Rome in the hopes of convincing the Pope to remove Archbishop Apuron.  He was so focused on that goal that he was unaware of what the jungle was doing behind his back in the Guam Legislature.  It was only when he was halfway around the world when someone in Rome pointed out to him about the bill.  Immediately, Archbishop Hon sent a desperate message to the Guam clergy to persuade the Catholic faithful to sign a petition opposing the bill, which was already passed by the Guam Legislature.  Upon learning about the bill, he then made his opposition known.  Unfortunately, it was too late, and this was the cost of Archbisop Hon's appeasement.  Nevertheless, it was Tim Rohr and the Junglewatch Nation who worked for the passage of this unjust law, which even Father Gordon opposed. 

Tim Rohr also stated: 
The archdiocese (Hon) did NOTHING, until the 11th hour, just before the governor signed it, calling for a veto.    
 Exactly.  The Archdiocese did nothing (meaning it neither oppose nor support the bill) until the 11th hour when they finally made their opposition to the bill known. Tim Rohr further stated (the bold is mine): 
Archbishop Apuron and Flores, before him, both new of Brouillard's 30 years of abuse in Guam, which is why Flores kicked him out of the diocese and sent him home to Minnesota (where he continued to abuse). Apuron did NOTHING to help to heal Brouillard's victims because of his own history of abuse. 
First of all, Tim Rohr is known for his irrational obsession of grammar and spelling. Lately, he has been making some spelling errors, and he is unaware of it.  Below is a screenshot of his error in case he decides to correct it.  Now, you know that the Tim Rohr who constantly berates other people of their grammatical and spelling errors is also guilty of making the same errors.  God works in mysterious ways. 


Secondly, it is on record that Archbishop Flores knew about Father Brouillard's sex abuse.  It is also on record that Archbishop Flores covered it up by transferring Father Brouillard off-island.  However, Rohr has no evidence showing that Archbishop Apuron knew of Father Brouillard's sex abuse.  In fact, he was not even the Archbishop at the time. Tim Rohr also stated:
Also your timing is wrong. Apuron's victims were not waiting for the coffers to be opened. The bill was signed into law last September. Burke did not come to Guam until February of the following year. 
It was on May 10, 2016 that a campaign to lift the statutes of limitation was organized (See the weblink here).

It was on July 1, 2016 when the alleged victims filed a libel and defamation lawsuit against the Archbishop in the total sum of 2 million dollars. (See the weblink here.)

The bill, lifting the statutes of limitation was signed into law by Governor Calvo on September, 2016.  A few weeks later on November 1, 2016, Roland Sondia, Roy Quintanilla, and Walter Denton filed a lawsuit against the Archdiocese for 5 million dollars. (See the weblink here.)  

On February, 2017, Cardinal Burke came to Guam to investigate the sex abuse allegations.  However, Roland Sondia and Roy Quintanilla refused to testify before Cardinal Burke.

The Archdiocese, on the other hand, did not respond to these lawsuits until April, 2017,which was 2 months AFTER Cardinal Burke came to Guam. On April, 2017 the Archdiocese responded by trying to get the lawsuits dismissed in court (See the weblink here) and at the same time introduce the Hope and Healing Program to settle out of court (See the weblink here). 

It was in early March, 2017 when the Archdiocese and Tim Rohr published about a settlement fund (See the weblink here).  This settlement fund started with 1 million dollars coming from the Archdiocese. Then on April, 2017, the Archdiocese introduced the Hope and Healing Program to settle out of court with the start up cost of one million dollars, which was mentioned in early March. 

In that SAME time frame, Walter Denton was the first Apuron accuser to provide testimony to Cardinal Burke (See the weblink here). Walter Denton gave his testimony to Cardinal Burke on March 17, 2017 (about eight days AFTER the settlement fund was announced in the news and in Rohr's blog). After that, the other Apuron accusers who initially refused to testify then came forward to testify.

In his article, Father Gordon MacRae stated: 
Cardinal Raymond Burke was sent by the Vatican to investigate the case, but reportedly some of the accusers have declined to answer any questions while waiting for the Church’s ATM to open.  
Apparently, Father Gordon got the timing correctly.  

57 comments:

  1. JW just lost its credibility. They couldn't get their timeline straight. Then again, what do you expect from Timmy who constantly changed his stories? First, he says he didn't know anything about Denton's letter to the Vatican. Then next, he says he was involved with Denton's letter to the Vatican.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yea. AB Hon did everything to appease the protestors and what did that get him? He cleared Fr. Paul and Mon. James of all charges and gave them honorable positions in the church. He removed Mon. David, Fr. Adrian, and Fr. Edivaldo from their positions. He removed Fr. Pius as rector of the seminary. He obeyed the jungle's demands. He even managed to get AB Byrnes to remove the deed restriction before he even moved to Guam. And yea, he tried to get the Pope to remove AB Apuron because that was what they demanded. While he did all that, look at what Rohr did behind his back. They passed a bill that would destroy the church and make all of us pay for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At anonymous 1:29: Yes Archbishop Hon did so much to pleased the protestors. He wanted to first give them something so that he can get something in return, but that did not happen. It was Monsignor James who was seen late at night at the former carmelites residence because that is where Archbishop Hon stayed throughout his time here on Guam. Archbishop Hon had private meetings with Monsignor James to establish the committees that he did. Some committees were the Archdiocese Finance Council, Seminary Visitors, Scenario of Situation, Proposal of Repositioning of Priests and Ongoing formations. Archbishop Hon also appointed Monsignor James as Delegate for Church Patrimony, Fr. Paul to Delegate for Clergy. Archbishop Hon cleared Monsignor James of all charges but the facts tells us all that Monsignor James used the Catholic Cemeteries Money to pay for his personal Anniversary Party, but whywas he cleared of that? Because the people that stood at the steps of the Cathedral that supported Monsignor James are also the people that now have positions in the Archdiocese Finance Council.
      Archbishop Hon listened to Monsignor James to put these (his) people in place before Archbishop Byrnes comes to Guam. Why? Because Monsignor James knew that with his people in place (in the committees), Archbishop Byrnes has no one to help him other than Monsignor James and Father Paul's group of people.
      Lets look at some examples... It was Monsignor James who leaked out information to Tim Rohr. Look at the evidence on Junglewatch about Aaron Quitugua who had personal emails sent from Father Adrian regarding him being a seminarian. I think the email was between Father Adrian and Aaron. But because Monsignor James wanted to leak information, he told Aaron to give him the emails. Aaron was the Head Altar Server in Dededo until the removal of Father Paul. Then he was one of the Head Altar Servers in Cathedral because Monsignor James is his Confirmation Nino. Connections...
      Another situation was about a Lester Gonzalles, He was one of the Heads and still is at Cathedral when Monsignor James was there. He came back when Father Paul became the rector. I overheard him saying that Monsignor James asked him to give Tim Rohr a statement about how the Neocatechemunal way holds their baptism because he does not have his child's certificate. These are examples of what Monsignor James needed to expose the Archdiocese.
      Until this day, Archbishop Byrnes surrounds himself with those who are affiliated with the CCOG and LFM because some are related to those who have positions in the Archdiocese. Vince Pereda who is a part of the Protection of Minors taskforce along with his wife MaryLou who are frequent commentors of the Jungle Watch blog.
      There is something that will be coming soon in the future. Brace yourselves because by the influence of Monsignor James, Father Paul and Father Richard, the Seminarians will be attending the St. Patrick Seminary in the Fall and the Seminarians at the RMS will move back to their homes because Monsignor James convinced Archbishop to shut down the Blessed Diego Institute. Also, Father Richard gave a hint that because of the lawsuits, that the small parishes will close and move somewhere else.

      -Guamboy (I'm not logged on my personal computer).

      Delete
    2. David Lujan is also related to Mon. James. The plan was to make Mon. James the next Archbishop. That was why David Lujan was disappointed that the Pope appointed Byrnes the Coadjuator Archbishop. Lujan came out publicly saying that any one of our local priests could have been appointed, meaning his nephew Mon. James.

      Delete
    3. Well now according to witnesses it was the monsignor who took the young man to see the blogs author. Just ask his mom. Unfortunately his mom thought she was doing well in giving half informations to the monsignor. The monsignor eventually started to bad mouth the young man and make gossip against him. Its a shame, truly.

      Delete
    4. Guamboy!

      Nice summary of events. All we need to do is continue on and indeed embrace ourselves because there is still more to come.
      First, is to work on unity among the clergy. They are the heads and until they come to some kind of resolution to peace, the people will follow. Currently, there are still leaks among the clergy. There is what we call transparency and then there are priests who feel the need to report everything from their clerical meetings to their influential acquaintances. Byrnes needs to work on this first. Some of them are even recording the meetings and sending them out via whatsap. Im not talking about NCW priests.
      The NCW has a newly appointed delegate from Byrnes and its not good. This man is out to destroy the NCW. Evidenced by his prior press releases and vocal comments against the NCW. The aviso has not been publicly released but yet both Ror and I know, I wonder if our sources are the same.
      On a side note, the NCW continues to wait in obedience to Byrnes. We have been since his arrival. He has yet to meet with us as a whole but it is totally understood because to do so could be taken wrongly and used negatively by the jungleblog, ccog, lfm, slm and so on.
      This past March Byrnes did not celebrate the Fiesta of St. Patrick at the RMS Seminaryb but in a meeting with the seminarians 2-3 days before, he assured them that they remain with him in prayers and support. He has no plans to shut down the seminary. Remember the Seminary and Property are too different things.

      God be with us.

      By the way, its nice to be back on Guam after being gone for a couple of months.

      Pas!
      -Jokers Wild

      Delete
    5. Welcome back, Jokers Wild.

      Delete
    6. A lot of confidential information is sent out of Byrnes office via whatsap.
      I was under impression Archbishop approved of this.

      Delete
  3. Hardly worth commenting, but how was Tim wrong when he said that the Archdiocese under Hon did not oppose the Bill? That is a correct statement isn't it? What he said doesn't actually imply that the Archdiocese under Hon supported the Bill, which I suppose is why you're getting so worked up about it.

    Tim made this comment to correct an incorrect statement by that awful priest. Why you should be wanting to argue on his behalf is beyond me. It just makes you look worse (I know, I didn't think that was possible either)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 2:07 pm,

      It was an incorrect statement because the truth is......they did not say anything about it. By CONTRADICTING Father MacRae who clearly stated in his article that the Archdiocese opposed the bill, Tim is claiming the opposite. The only person who spoke out against the bill was Dr. Zoltan Szekely, who is a member of the Neocatechumenal Way. The Archdiocese, on the other hand, said nothing until after the bill was passed. That is the truth.

      Delete
    2. Diana I'm sorry but you are wrong.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 6:41 am,

      Care to elaborate?

      Delete
    4. I think Anonymous @6:41 AM found some unflattering information about Father MacRae online here:

      Home

      Delete
    5. Dear Jane,

      Actually, I think Anonymous at 6:41 am was referring to my previous comment at 2:07 pm.

      Delete
  4. Diana, the entire clergy of Guam joined Archbishop Hon to stop the bill.The people of Guam wanted bill passed thats why it passed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not everyone you forget that father mike crissostomo didn't want to read it

      Delete
    2. Pale mike had the right to follow his conscience as did each of us ?

      Delete
  5. Priests wrote to the Gov. asking him not to sign bill.
    Priests collected signatures but it was not enough. Anyway that law can be changed very easy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 3:19 pm and 3:24 pm,

      Let us be truthful here. There were more signatures opposing the bill that was submitted to the governor. There were over 5000 signatures submitted in such a short time while the jungle only collected 3000 signatures in a span of 2 months. And there were some priests who ignorantly supported the bill.

      Delete
  6. Is anyone on God's green earth doing anything to challenge the constitutionality of that law?

    I mean if the law is flawed and unconstitutional and stricken from the laws of Guam, wouldn't all the cases currently filed in court be moot? I believe something should be done about that before those pathetic board members from hope and healing start dishing out money all in the name of settling out of court.

    it is so sad that the this "J.A." person is accusing a deceased priest Father Ray of sexual abuse... This "J.A." guy, Im going to assume was from the beautiful village of Asan.. and if so, Asan is a very small village and an even smaller parish, especially around the year's 1980 through 1990... so narrowing down to find out who the initials belong too isnt going to be that difficult... I remember my early age and growing up in Asan, walking from my house, cassock in hand and eagerly excited for Mass all the while the "First bell" rang throughout the village. I, as well as my other "knight's of the Alter" as we were called faithfully served our church and priest. I also remember serving during Pope John Paul's visit.. serving masses for Bishop Flores, Archbishop Apuron, Father Arroyo, Father Quitugua, Father Ray, and at times, visiting priests... Whether it was as an alter server and throughout my years growing up in Asan, people in my generation, my age bracket whether five year's older or five year's younger, WE ALL KNOW EACH OTHER. We all know who does what for the church, from maintenance to who attends daily mass etc etc... and my point is.. to "J.A.", i pray for you, your soul ensnared by the wickedness of the devil. I also pray for the soul of Father Ray that he is with God and his eternal reward at the table of the lord.

    I also pray for the people of Asan that they continue to keep our church unstained with all the evil that is happening throughout this island.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bill can be changed Diana.
    we can change the law by a petition. we can all help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:33 pm,

      This public law must be declared unconstitutional. Petitioning for a change in the law will not work. If we go that route, you will only see more lawsuits filed before the new law takes effect. Declaring the current law unconstitutional is the only way to put a stop to all the current lawsuits. The law must be challenged.

      Delete
    2. Then lets challenge the law.

      Delete
    3. Maybe not a petition to change the law, but a petition to the courts to get the law declared unconstitutional.

      Delete
    4. Hasn't a petition already been filed by Jacque Terlaje, the lawyers for the Archdiocese, and the lawyers for the Boy Scouts of America?

      Delete
    5. Dear J,

      From what I read in the news, she and the Archdiocese are challenging the law. I have not heard anything about a petition.

      Delete
    6. Thank you for the response Diana, but that is what I meant by petition. Not in the sense that there was an actual petition signed by hundreds or thousands of people, just that a formal request was made to challenge the constitutionality of the law through a written document by one or all three defendents. Thank you for allowing me to further clarify my point.

      At any rate, the only way to stop the filing of "false claims" is to declare the law unconstitutional. How far along is the progress on the challenge of constitutionality? When can we expect a result? Now that there is the potential for mediation through settlements, can the constitutionality of the law still be challenged IF those filing their claims withdraw them because they've settled outside of court?

      It would be extremely unfair to our whole society if the challenge to the law was revoked because there is no longer a defendant to challenge it. If that happens, then we should sign a petition to push forward with a review of the constitutionality of the law because if it stands ANYONE can become a victim of it 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years from now.

      -Just my thoughts on the subject-

      Delete
  8. Has anyone ever noticed that when Attorney Lujan doesn't get what he wants from the Archdiocese, a lawsuit is suddenly filed?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Diana, I think Timmy is jealous that Fr. MacRae wrote an article about Guam and ended up praising you instead of him. LOL!!!

    Timmy is delusional. He thinks the Archdiocese didn't oppose the legislation and his evidence is the committee's report that has NOTHING on the Archdiocese. The report doesn't even mention the Archdiocese's name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:03 am,

      Yes, I read that. This is what Tim Rohr posted:

      "MacRae gets his facts from a pure joke of a blog. The legislation was NOT opposed by the archdiocese. The committee report proves that."

      http://www.junglewatch.info/2017/06/not-good-ryan-not-good.html#more

      This is exactly the same tactic he used to fool people. He told people that Archbishop Apuron APPROVED a sex offender to work at the Dededo parish and pointed to the Parole Board Report as his evidence. The Parole Board Report does not even have the Archbishop's name and signature on it.

      Delete
  10. Rohr is a pathological liar. He believes his own lie. He is convincing his readers that you believe a blog who has no real name. I say so what! You can smell bull and he has his book how do you win someone (not exact title.) He is manipulative. Is true Msgnr Benavente leaked many things to him. Remember flight schedule is one of em.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not the tool that destroys but the person holding it who makes the choice to destroy with it.

      Delete
  11. Diana, the Jungle Watch site put a good deal of effort into disparaging Father MacRae for writing that article. Much of what Mr. Rohr says is untrue and has been disproven by my research and that of The Wall Street Journal in their extensive three-part series about Father MacRae's case. I posted a comment in rebuttal with a link to my own research here: http://araminthethicket.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-father-gordon-j-macrae-story.html

    Either Mr. Rohr refused to post my comment, or he did so and then took it down. If I or my research are mischaracterized in any way I will research a Federal USC civil action of my own for liable or defamation. Blogs are protected by First Amendment Rights, but like other media they are liable if they publish as true something that they know to be false. Good job on this rebuttal, Diana.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you want to protect yourself and your comments, you should link them with a verifiable account that you own.

      Delete
    2. Dear Ryan,

      Tim Rohr published your comment in a post in his blog, but I do not know if he published the entire comment.

      Tim Rohr is known as a man who enjoys attention and the accolade of a crowd. What really bothered him more was this following passage written by Father Macrae because that was the first thing he quoted in his response to you.

      "Diana deserves to have her voice heard and shared. Ironically, one of her most-cited sources has been the writings at These Stone Walls, and especially two that she posted on May 4, 2017, under the titles, “The Injustice Against Father Gordon MacRae,” and “Civil Liberties of the Priests.” When these were printed and sent to me, I was so very proud to see comments posted on them by some of the readers of These Stone Walls."

      Delete
  12. Diana, do you blame Archbishop Hon and the Archdiocese for being silent about the bill up until the last minute?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear J,

      The blame for the passage of the bill falls on the Junglewatch nation because they created, introduced, and worked to get it passed. The Archdiocese was not the only one who was silent. The people who opposed it (with the exception of Dr. Szekely) also did not speak out against it. Our silence only made it easier for the bill to be passed by the Guam Legislature.

      Delete
    2. Junglwatch nation worked to pass bill 326. Unfortunately, JWN supported by clergy.

      Delete
  13. I'm amazed, I must say. Seldom do I come across a blog that's equally educative and engaging, and let me tell you, you've
    hit the nail on the head. The issue is an issue that not enough folks are speaking intelligently about.
    I'm very happy I found this during my search for something concerning
    this.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:08 pm,

      I am publishing it. No names were mention; therefore, anyone could speculate as to who it is.

      Delete
    2. I changed my mind. I have a better idea on what to do with your comment.

      Delete
    3. No unity among local priests. Comment Diana removed perfect example. Good Diana removed it to protect those priests calling for position power.

      Delete
    4. Diana the jungle is making a post about what you just did and a poster put on and was wondering what happened that you removed it from the blog here

      Delete
  15. It would do well to inform the current apostolic delegate that the bad words against him on the other blog is due to his brother priest who loves him in his face but kills him when the door is closed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. who are these priests?

      Delete
    2. No unity among local priests. They preytend to be friends in public. Close door kill each other behind their backs. Always same. Reason now we need NCW clergy because our own clergy are unable to lead by example.

      Delete
    3. Anon 10:14am:

      Archbishop Byrnes is calling for a year of prayer and reconciliation to begin on July 6. We can use this as an opportunity to pray for our "local" priests which includes any priest who currently serves and has served our island.

      Delete

    4. year of prayer will fail from day one.

      Delete
  16. Read Jungle nation blog today.
    Reference made to " stinking priests." TLM Friary.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dorothy R. SteinJune 26, 2017 at 4:09 AM

    I found Father’s MacRae’s entire article to be most compelling. I have been following the many threads in this story and it is clear to me that there are agendas behind this story on the Island of Guam that are just as dark as sexual abuse itself. The first victory of those agendas is to convince people that child abuse is as dark as it gets. That usually lights the match for moral panic. The problem here is that those who incite the moral panic also profit from it. Young people must be protected and guided, and a community that preserves its cultural and spiritual heritage will see to that. What appears to be happening in Guam is the opposite. The cultural and religious heritage of a people is being squandered by the greed and hidden agendas of a few and the apathy of a few too many. Let us hope for the sake of the good people of Guam that Father MacRae’s fine article, and Diana’s lone voice, will serve as a wake-up call. His article has lifted this story from Guam and put a floodlight on it around the world.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Take a look Chuck White twisting cathechisis who self proclaim scholar. If anyone who can find a word for me that person who believes that his smart and find anyone else as same level iq and believes his interpretation..... then that person does not believe in God alone. SMH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear anon, I don't think Chuck White believes his interpretation or even makes any particular interpretation of his own. What I read at his blog is a quite standard understanding of the official catechetical teaching of the church.

      He also does not say is a scholar. But he had read a good number of books about the Catholic faith and his expositions of theological content is remarkable.

      His questioning of the theology of the Holy Spirit in the NCW is interesting. At most charismatic groups the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is an ongoing process and faith life is organized around it. The invocation is not reduced to verbal but cuts into the spirituality of the group. There is no "transmission" but a direct flow of spiritual content.

      How does the Holy Spirit act in the NCW? We see verbal invocation and "transmission" from the founders but the free outpouring and flowing of spiritual content looks somewhat compartmentalized. I mean NCW has the concept of admonitions and echos that serve as a compartment of "transmitted" spiritual content for digestion. Compartmentalization, however, acts against a free outpouring that is so characteristic in authentic groups.

      For its comparative value, I would appreciate an informed/ inside view on the theology of the Holy Spirit as played out at the NCW groups.

      Delete
    2. Anon 7:25 u said many things but said nothing. If your been with this charism for over 30 years You'll see a a twist. He can believe that pigs fly. How can you say something and bastardized this gift if your in the sideline.

      Delete
    3. The guarantee of the Holy Spirit in the catholic Church is expressed by the institution called charism. NCW was established as a charism by Pope St. Paul John. He said it is a valid for our time.

      The charism is instituted through a charismatic entity which is the itinerary. It is guarded by the officially acknowledged leaders of the charismatic entity who themselves possess charism. These people are the leaders of the NCW. After the death of Carmen Hernandez, the charismatic leader is Kiko Arguello alone, assisted by Fr. Mario Pezzi.

      There is only one valid flow of the Holy Spirit which is top down. This is that Mr. White has no idea about. The Holy Spirit is granted by placing the hand. Valid charism is flowing from Kiko through those who have been selected to transmit the flow of the Holy Spirit by placing the hand on them.

      Those who say the Holy Spirit is given freely at baptism forget that baptism is often at such an early age that the Holy Spirit cannot yet penetrate one's soul. A baby won't pray. Therefore you need valid channels of the holy Spirit to make its impact on the believer.

      If you wish, the NCW is a vehicle of channeling the true Spirit to those who were chosen. As the Lord says, "you did not choose me, but I have chosen you".

      Delete
    4. Dear anon at 6:48 pm, I don't see your point. Who is saying pigs can fly? Who is bastardizing what? Who is in the sideline? I don't think by any means that the Holy Spirit could/ should be treated lightly. The outpouring of spirit in the form of blessing and grace keeps the faithful standing tall.

      Delete
    5. What is the difference between an "admonition" and an "echo"?

      In everyday language these words have their own meaning. How does the meaning of these words relate to the special usage in NCW? NCW seems to shift the meaning of words of significance to lend them distinguished meaning. NCW creates some kind of religious slang that is hard to grasp for common folks.

      Delete