Monday, July 31, 2017

Archbishop Hon's Appeasement Policy

A few days ago, I was reading the news about a woman who reported to police that she was assaulted by a machete-wielding man.  She gave the police the name and description of the man.  So, the police went looking for him.  However, later interviews with the same woman revealed that she constantly changed her story.  She was inconsistent, and investigators later discovered that she fabricated the whole story.  So, she was arrested for giving a false report to the police.  

Inconsistency in stories is usually an indication that the story is fabricated.  And a person who constantly change their stories usually have something to hide.  Let us take, for instance, what Tim Rohr said in his latest  post about Archbishop Hon.  According to Tim Rohr:
Apuron asked to be temporarily replaced by an apostolic administrator who he thought would put down the rebellion and allow him to return, but the rebels were more than the administrator could handle and soon the administrator joined the rebels. 
Did Archbishop Hon joined the jungle?  Actually, he was intimidated and threatened with a lawsuit. That was the part that Rohr left out.  Archbishop Hon's name was in a lawsuit together with Archbishop Apuron. However, his name was removed from the lawsuit after complying with the jungle.  According to the jungle (the bold is mine):
Tim replied to each message: “Why does he want me there and what is he going to say?”

One priest replied that Hon’s statement would have something to do with the victims. To which, Tim replied, “Too late about the victims. He’s only doing something now because he got served the lawsuit yesterday. Pathetic.”
In order to get his name out of the lawsuit, Archbishop Hon retracted Archbishop Apuron's statement....a statement where Archbishop Apuron said he was innocent and claimed that there was a conspiracy to oust him from his position. After retracting Archbishop Apuron's statements, Hon's name was removed from the lawsuit.  This was the kind of tactic they used to get him to comply to their demands. 

Interestingly enough, David Sablan, the President of CCOG who was recently charged with allegedly holding secret meetings and conspiracy, was also found to allegedly use the same tactic  According  to Pacific News Center:
Board member Deanne Torre allegedly told investigators that she believed that “there would be punitive actions against any board member who voted against Sablan and that the Governor’s Office would be notified if a board member were to cast a dissenting vote.” 
Archbishop Hon was a weak Bishop who did not possess the courage to stand up to persecution, but would rather give in to appeasement, hoping that the jungle's anger and resentment would burn less bright.

If there is a lesson to learn on appeasement, it is that sometimes it is not always a good thing.  When Europe appeased Adolf Hitler, it cost the lives of many people. Archbishop Hon's appeasement policy will cost the Church to lose all her assets. Archbishop Hon was so focused on removing Archbishop Apuron just as the jungle wanted him to do that he did not realize that the jungle had worked behind his back to pass a law to lift the statutes of limitations on sexual abuse. He only realized it when he was already in Rome.  By the time he made his opposition to the bill known, it was too late.  

Christ never gave in to appeasement. Instead, he gave in to persecution.  Persecution is never easy. It takes fortitude from the Holy Spirit. It takes the grace of God to become a martyr...... even If it is a white martyr.  

Saturday, July 29, 2017

More Deception From The Jungle

According to Tim Rohr, he cited the following as his evidence of the 5 year statutes of limitation on the deed restriction (the red is mine): 

§ 11207. Entry on Real Estate.
 No entry upon real estate is deemed sufficient or valid as a claim, unless an action be commenced thereupon within one year after making such entry, and within five years from the time when the right to make it descended or accrued. 

You can find the full document here.  The document that Tim Rohr pointed to is actually in regards to a person trying to recover property from the government. The Yona property is not considered government property nor is the Yona property being seized by the government.  Tim Rohr cites section 11207, which is what I placed in red.  Below is the Article number and section numbers in order:

                                                                    ARTICLE 2

§ 11201. When Government of Guam Will Not Sue. 
§ 11202. Action Not to Be Brought by Grantee from Government.
§ 11203. Actions Within Five Years.
§ 11204. Limitation of Actions Relating to Registered Land.
§ 11205. When Seizin Necessary Within 5 years.
§ 11206. When Such Seizin Necessary.   
§ 11207. Entry on Real Estate.
§ 11208. Possession, When Presumed. Occupation, When Deemed Legal. 

This is not a statutes of limitations on the Deed Restriction.  It is a statutes of limitations on real property seized by the government of Guam.  So Junglefolks, please go back and tell Tim Rohr to next time give a weblink to the full document so they can read it themselves. 

When property is given to a non-government entity, the procedure is different. For example, if property was given to me, it becomes MY property.....period. If the original owner decided 8 years later that he would like to have the property back, he would have to ask me if he can buy the property back from me.  That is plain simple common sense.  You cannot just take property you gave away without asking the new owner.  To get the property back, the new owner must relinquish the property to the original owner through a Deed.  This, of course, requires a signature from the new owner giving up or selling the property back to the original owner.  

In the case with the Yona property, there were no signatures from RMS relinquishing the property to the Archdiocese.  Tim Rohr and CCOG believed that Archbishop Apuron gave away the Yona property to RMS; yet, there were no signatures from RMS relinquishing the property back to the Archdiocese.  Why? Because the property was ALREADY in the possession of the Archdiocese.  

In the Grant Deed, the only signature was Archbishop Byrnes (with Archbishop Hon concurring).  There are no signatures from the RMS Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors.  Why?  Because the Archbishop of Agana or his successor is the corporate sole of RMS.  Only the Archbishop of Agana or his successor have full control, authority, and ownership of RMS.  No other signatures were needed.  In fact, this grant deed was simply a show from CCOG.

As a matter of fact, this grant deed was used by Tim Rohr to show proof that Archbishop Apuron gave away the Yona property.  See the weblink here.  But none of the junglefolks asked Rohr HOW did it show that when the only signatures you see are Archbishop Byrnes (aside from Archbishop Hon).  Where are the signatures of RMS showing that the property was relinquished by them? 

Friday, July 28, 2017

Some Interesting News

A couple of things have been brought to my attention:  

News #1: Tim Rohr claimed that the Declaration of Deed Restriction had a statutes of limitations.  According to Rohr:
LOL. It's called the statute of limitations which was due to expire on 11.22.16
Tim Rohr was actually the first one to start this rumor about a statutes of limitations on the Deed Restriction.  According to the Junglewatch blog dated October 7, 2016: 
This is the time left for Hon to file a complaint against RMS if the Archdiocese is ever going to see the return of the Yona property. At 12:AM on November 22, the statute of limitations (SOL) will expire on the claim on title to said property and the Archdiocese of Agana will be forever banned from making that claim.  
And what did Rohr use as his evidence to show that there is a statutes of limitation on the Deed Restriction?  He used the September 7, 2011 minutes of the Archdiocesan Finance Council.  Any intelligent person knows that the minutes of a meeting is simply a record of what was discussed at the meeting. Furthermore, did anyone read the minutes?  Nowhere in the minutes did it mention a 5 year statutes of limitations.  

One would think that the document of the Deed Restriction, which was established on November 22, 2011, would be used as the evidence.  But it was not. Nevertheless, even if it was used as evidence, nowhere in that document did it mention a 5 year statutes of limitation.  You can find the document of the Declaration of Deed Restriction here.

Most baffling of all is that none of the junglefolks questioned Rohr.  They simply gave up all their faculties of reason and relied on everything Tim said without even reading the documents themselves.  It appeared that even the media was brainwashed.  

Archbishop Hon may have also been convinced by Rohr that there was a statutes of limitations when in truth, there was none.  Then again, it may not have taken very much to convince him anyway, considering the fact that he did much to appease the jungle. This led to my suspicion that Archbishop Hon may have also convinced Archbishop Byrnes into thinking that there was a statutes of limitation. The Deed Restriction did not have any time limit on it.  There was no mention of a 5 year statutes of limitation on the November 22, 2011 document when it was established.  Archbishop Byrnes could have waited until he arrived on Guam, review the issues surrounding the Deed Restriction and decide how to approach it.  Because he rescinded it before his arrival, it appeared that pressure was applied on him to get it rescinded before November 22, 2016, which Rohr claimed was the deadline.  

Now, to the junglefolks, go back and ask Tim Rohr to show you where exactly did it say the Deed Restriction had a 5 year statutes of limitation, which would be November 22, 2016.  

News #2: Speaking of Archbishop Hon, I have just learned from some sources in Rome that Archbishop Hon got into an accident.  He fell in his bathroom and cracked one whole side of his ribs.  Prayers are needed for his recovery.  

News #3: According to the Guam Daily Post (the bold is mine):
Six people who were on the board of federally funded Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority, and the agency's executive director, face a combined 47 misdemeanor charges for allegedly holding secret meetings that violate the Open Government Law.
The misdemeanor charges include violation of the law that requires keeping meetings open to the public, as well as official misconduct and conspiracy.
"Illegal secret meetings (were) held to facilitate the award of $4.1 million in tax credits," according to one of the allegations stated by Chief Prosecutor Philip J. Tydingco in his declaration supporting the filing of charges. 
"The investigation revealed that the (board of commissioners) specifically David J. Sablan, Cecile B. Suda, Deanne Torre, John Ilao, Roland Selvidge and Rosie Blas, conspired, held secret meetings, decided GHURA business and made illegal votes outside of the public eye, in violation of various provisions of the Open Government Law," said the chief prosecutor. 
"Executive Director Michael Duenas shared in the conspiracy as a willing facilitator of the (board's) secret meetings and associated illegal conduct." 
 Yes, this is the same David Sablan, President of CCOG.  He was charged with a misdemeanor for allegedly holding secret meetings, official misconduct, and conspiracy.  Oh my......conspiracy!!!  Well, now that Mr. Sablan is one of the accused......I wonder what he now thinks about the democratic principle of "presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?"  This is the reason why you should not judge.  There will come a time, when you will be wearing the same shoes as the accused.  Do you think CCOG, LFM, and the rest of the Junglewatch Nation should label David Sablan guilty without due process of a trial?  

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Responding to Anonymous Poster

An anonymous poster made the following comment, which can be found here.  According to his/her comment: 
Dear Diana, how would I know? I only tried to reconcile the statements of Archbishops Hon and Apuron. The instruction may have came from the Holy See but not as a letter from Pope Francis. How do you reconcile them? Thanks.
First of all, it helps to listen and to have an open mind.  Jumping to conclusions does not help the situation.  One should examine all sides and look at things from the context of the situation. 

It was news to everyone when Archbishop Hon announced to the media that Archbishop Apuron disobeyed the Pope when he was instructed to rescind the Deed Restriction.  This announcement came on August 19, 2016.  Father Pius gave an answer to Archbishop Hon's accusation.  According to KUAM news:
While Archbishop Hon has previously stated Apuron did not follow a directive given by the Holy See a year ago to rescind and annul the deed restriction, Father Pius states, "The Pope never gave any directive. It was a congregation of the Holy See, which gave this indication and, as I said, an archbishop answers only to the Holy Father."  
Therefore, it seems that there was a misunderstanding between Archbishop Hon and Archbishop Apuron.  All bishops answer only to the Pope, the Holy Father. An instruction was given to Archbishop Apuron to rescind the Deed Restriction, but this instruction did not come from the Pope.  It came from a congregation of the Holy See. A congregation of the Holy See is not the Pope.  Because it came from a congregation, Archbishop Apuron had the choice to either follow it or not.  Archbishop Hon, on the other hand, was mistaken into thinking that all instructions coming from a congregation is an instruction coming from the Pope. That is an error. 

Likewise, he also made another error into thinking that he had the authority to rescind the Deed Restriction.  On August 18, 2016, he reported in a press release that he has rescinded and annulled the Declaration of Deed Restriction, not realizing that he overstepped his authority.  Father Pius, who was the Rector of RMS at that time, came out and announced through the media that only the Archbishop of Agana or his successor have the sole authority to rescind the Declaration of Deed Restriction.

I am certain that after reviewing the necessary documents, Archbishop Hon realized his error.  There is a document stating that the Redemptoris Mater Seminary is a corporation sole (similar to the Archdiocese of Agana). and that the corporate sole is the Archbishop of Agana. That document is not found in the Department of Rev. and Tax as Tim Rohr assumed.  It is a document that came from the Vatican. 

After realizing his error, Archbishop Hon then called upon the NCW to rescind the Deed Restriction and requested the RMS Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors to sign the papers drawn up by CCOG.  However, this again is another error.  The NCW, the RMS Board of Directors and the Board of Guarantors also do not have the authority to rescind the Deed Restriction nor do they have the authority to sign any papers giving up the use of the property. Because RMS is a corporation sole, only the Archbishop of Agana or his successor have the sole authority to rescind the Deed Restriction. Coadjutor Archbishop Michael Byrnes was the only one who can rescind it. Notice that the NCW, the RMS Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors did not dispute Coadjutor Archbishop Byrnes?  The dispute was only with Archbishop Hon because he never held the title Archbishop of Agana nor was he the successor of the Archbishop of Agana.

Archbishop Hon has publicly stated that the seminary belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana.  Archbishop Hon stated to KUAM news:
"The Archdiocese of Agana owns that property. No doubt of it...."
He said this in the Jesse Lujan talk show and to KUAM, but CCOG refused to listen. Instead, they criticized Archbishop Hon.  CCOG believed that the Declaration of Deed Restriction transferred the seminary to RMS, which is false. They got this false information from Tim Rohr, and they chose to believe Tim Rohr over Archbishop Apuron, Archbishop Hon, Father Pius, and Father Jeff San Nicolas who all stated that the seminary is owned by the Archdiocese of Agana. The Declaration of Deed Restriction is not a deed as the jungle claimed.  It is a declaration just as the document itself stated.  The purpose of the Deed Restriction was to protect the intent of the donor and to protect the seminary from being sold.  The 2 million dollars donation came with certain stipulations, which Archbishop Apuron intended to protect.  

Sunday, July 23, 2017

Twisting The Documents

An anonymous poster brought the following to my attention. You can find his/her comment here.  The comment made by Rohr is in blue while mine is in black (the bold is also mine): 

 TimJuly 23, 2017 at 5:43 AM
Most if all of the material assets "owned" by the Archdiocese of Agana have their origin somewhere in a gift. But none of that matters. The Archdiocese is being FORCED to sell these properties to settle the sex abuse cases that the neocat regime of Apuron, Quitugua, and Adrian long since knew about but tried to hide. 

Correction:  The Archdiocese was placed in a position to sell these properties because the Junglewatch Nation worked to pass a law, bringing in lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. Do not blame this on Archbishop Apuron because he was not on island when you worked to get this law passed.  How sad....that the families who generously donated their properties out of love for the Church does not matter to you.  
If the Archdiocese does not sell the properties, the court will take over and sell them for the archdiocese. Gennarini foresaw this which is why he set up RMS as he did and got Apuron to convey title to the Yona property to his control in 2011.

The only thing you did was victimize the innocent parishioners who will have to pay for these lawsuits.  And these include the families who generously gave the Church their properties as gifts to be used for the people of Guam.  These families are probably better off having the court take over.  Why?  Because the court is not going to go against their own civil laws that protect the donor's intent.  After everything is taken away and nothing is left, that is the legacy the Junglewatch Nation left for the innocent parishioners. 

Now to address your last sentence: "Gennarini foresaw this which is why he set up RMS as he did and got Apuron to convey title to the Yona property to his control in 2011." 

The FIRST person who claimed that Archbishop Apuron wanted to convey the title of the Yona property was the jungle.  On November 10, 2014, Tim Rohr wrote the following in his blog:

Fr. Pius tells people that these members were fired because they were trying to sell the seminary property. The next time he says this call him a "liar". In fact, SHOUT IT. The truth is that Archbishop Apuron was attempting to convey the title to the property to RMS, a corporate entity separate from the Archdiocese of Agana and controlled by a sleazy neocat New Jersey based Board of Guarantors.

The following letter from Richard J. Untalan, who was the then-president of the finance council shows that the request to convey the title to the property "on which the Seminary is located" came from Fr. Pablo Ponce Rodriguez, Rector of RMS.

Below is a screenshot of the above statement: 

The evidence that Rohr used showing that Archbishop Apuron was attempting to convey the title to the property of RMS was a letter written and signed by Richard Untalan dated September 8, 2011.  You can read the full letter here.

You would think that the most credible piece of evidence would be a letter written and signed by Father Pablo rather than Richard Untalan. What is baffling of all is that none of the junglefolks ever questioned why Rohr did not produced the letter from Father Pablo?  Why the letter of Richard Untalan, who we all know is a member of the Junglewatch Nation and who wanted to sell the seminary?  A letter from Father Pablo requesting that the title of the Yona property be conveyed to RMS would have been much more credible.  

What Rohr did not tell his followers is that there NEVER was a letter from Father Pablo.  The former Board of Directors of RMS have the letter of Richard Untalan, but there is NO letter from Father Pablo.  Imagine the surprise from Father Pablo's face when he received Untalan's letter.  He had no idea what he was talking about. So, to the Junglewatch Nation, you have already seen the letter written and signed by Richard Untalan.  Now, ask Tim Rohr to produce the letter written and signed by Father Pablo.  

Therefore, the truth is......the accusation that Archbishop Apuron wanted to convey the title of the Yona property to RMS was started by the jungle.  It never came from the Archbishop, the NCW, or even RMS.  One then has to wonder......what was the real intent of Untalan's letter?  For one, we already know that his letter was used by Rohr to discredit the Archbishop. 

This is not the first time Rohr has done this.  I have shown you how Rohr accused the Archbishop of allowing a sex offender to work at the Dededo parish, and then use a document by the Guam Parole Board as his evidence. The document from the Guam Parole Board does not have the Archbishop's name and signature on it (See the story here).  

Now you have seen how Rohr discredited Archbishop Apuron by using a letter by Richard Untalan claiming that Father Pablo requested the title to be conveyed to RMS.  He never showed the letter of Father Pablo simply because there was none.  Father Pablo never made such a request.   

Saturday, July 22, 2017

Donor's Intent

According to news report, the Yona property on which the RMS sits is one of the sites that will be sold as a result of the child abuse lawsuits.  But did anyone check the laws on whether this piece of property can be sold?  What makes RMS special is that the property was acquired through a donor.  The donor contributed 2 million dollars with the intention that the money be used to house the Redemptoris House Seminary.

The donor's intent is protected by American law.  According to Wikipedia:
In philanthropydonor intent is the purpose, sometimes publicly expressed, for which a philanthropist intends a charitable gift or bequest. Donor intent is most often expressed in gift restrictions, terms, or agreements between a donor and donee, but it may also be expressed separately in the words, actions, beliefs, and giving practices of a philanthropist. Donor intent is protected in American law regarding charitable trusts, and trustees' primary fiduciary obligation is to carry out a donor's wishes.[1]
Fidelity to donor intent is sometimes distinguished from grant compliance, and "donor intent" refers to the actions of a grantmaking entity and grant compliance refers to the actions of a grant recipient, but the term donor intent is commonly used to refer to both the guiding principles of a grantmaking entity and the purposes of a specific gift.[2]
There have been many controversies, including litigation, over donor intent at private foundationsuniversities, and arts organizations.[3][4][5]
On November, 2002, an anonymous donation of two million dollars was given explicitly and solely for the purchase of the Hotel Accion to house the Redemptoris Mater Seminary.  That was the donor's intent, which is protected by law. It appears that the commission that is pushing for the sale of the properties for the Chancery is not taking into account the intention of the donor.  

Friday, July 21, 2017

RMS Priest In Sudan

In Sudan, there are about 97% Muslims and only 1.5% Christians.  Father Daniele is an Italian priest who is a member of the Neocatechumenal Way.  He received his formation in the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Beirut. Father Daniele is pictured above in front of the baptismal font in St. Kizito parish church in Dar es Salaam. This is his story.

Sudan: A chance for a better life - Catholic schooling system is one of the pillars of the Church  
Dust and mud brick houses everywhere – as far as the eye can see. The houses indistinguishable in colour from the ground on which they stand. Trees are few and far between. The road leading northwards from the Sudanese capital Khartoum shimmers in the burning heat. The temperature is 45°C according to the thermometer. At a certain point the car turns off into an unmade road with deep potholes, into a residential suburb. “Welcome to the Saint Kizito School of Daressalaam”, says our host, Father Daniele, as we stand in the courtyard of the school, which is named after the youngest of the Ugandan martyrs. This Italian priest is a member of the clergy of the Catholic archdiocese of Khartoum. His fluent Arabic enables him to communicate with the people of his parish in their own language. “I belong to the Neo-Catechumenal Way and I studied at our seminary in Beirut. I‘ve been living in Sudan now for over 10 years.” A move he has never regretted, ever, he tells us. “But it is an extremely difficult pastoral field we work in here as priests”, he adds. This has to do more than anything with the life circumstances of his parishioners. “They are totally uprooted people. The parishioners we are dealing with here are for the most part former country dwellers from the Nuba mountains in the south of Sudan. Their lives there were marked by the customs and traditions of their villages. But here, far from their homeland, they are completely lost.” Many of them arrived many years ago already in the Khartoum area, in search of work or in order to escape the fighting in their homeland. But most of them can only survive as day labourers, and this eats away at the men‘s sense of self-worth. “Many of them simply drift around idly when they don‘t have any work”, says Father Daniele. And many have no work at all. “In their traditional view of themselves, they are herders and warriors. But since there is no fighting no herding to be done here, all the work falls on the shoulders of the womenfolk.” 
Unlike 90% of the Sudanese, who are Sunni Muslims, the people of the Nuba Mountains are Christians. Owing to the fact that the Christian faith did not arrive in Sudan until the 19th century and is not deeply rooted, there are often syncretist tendencies, with magic practices rubbing shoulders with the Christian faith. For this reason Father Daniele attaches great importance to helping people grow in their faith. “I want to show people, above all in spite of their poverty, that God loves them. And indeed each of them individually.” This is not always easy to understand for people imbued with a tribal way of thinking, he explains. But at least he has no concerns regarding poor church attendance. “The people come in large numbers to church. On Sundays our church is full”, he tells us. The catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) helped to pay for its construction. Father Daniele thanks all ACN‘s benefactors for their help. “It is extremely important that the church should be a beautiful and worthy place”, he explains. “It is undoubtedly the most beautiful place in the lives of these people, since they otherwise know only their own poverty stricken huts and homes.” 
Father Daniele has a particular concern for the children. The parish school is his most important resource in this respect. “Many of the children would spend the whole day roaming around the streets if they didn‘t come to us in school. Their parents show little concern for them. Attention, and even tenderness, is something most of them have never experienced, and above all not from their fathers.” Father Daniele therefore wants to convey to the children a sense of their own self-worth. “We want to show them that they are respected, precious people, loved by God, by listening to each one of them and showing them respect.” And precisely because the circumstances of the children are so difficult and their families so large and so poor – eight children and more is by no means unusual – he places great hope in the schools. “However modest our means are here, without education the children will have no chance of a better life.”  
It is true, the school system is one of the pillars on which the numerically small Catholic Church rests. For one Church representative – who would prefer his name is not made public – the Church educational system is crucially important. “Our schools gain us acceptance among the majority Muslim community, and above all with the state. It is strongly Islamic, and yet because of the rapid population growth, the number of people moving into the towns and the limited public resources, it is overstretched and unable to provide enough schools. Hence it is happy to see the Church involved. As a Church we maintain almost 20 public schools in Khartoum city alone, and permission to build schools – unlike for churches – is something that is always granted to us.” The schools are attended both by Christians and by Muslims. Our interlocutor is fully aware that the quality of the schools is not the highest. “After all, we scarcely have money for teachers and books, and nor do our pupils either.” But no pupil is refused admittance, even if he or she cannot afford the school fees. “For the children of the poorest families the school is the only possibility of bringing a little order into their lives”, he tells us.  

Happy Liberation Day!


Ecstatic Cat Jumping

Thursday, July 20, 2017

My Take On The Article

This is my opinion on the previous article I had just posted written by Father MacRae.  According to Father MacRae (the bold is mine): 
It’s that floodlight that seems to be a problem for those in Guam who plotted to bring down Archbishop Anthony Apuron for apparent agendas of finance and property control having nothing to do with protecting young people from abuse. These same people collaborated with SNAP early on to develop tactics that would serve their cause. 
It is interesting to see this coming from someone on the outside looking in. Father MacRae has a point.  First of all, we already know that the jungle was in collaboration with SNAP early on. Secondly, this four year controversy did not start with the sexual abuse.  It actually started with the removal of two priests: Father Paul Gofigan and Monsignor James Benavente.  Father Paul was removed for disobedience in July, 2013.  He was instructed to remove a known sex offender and murderer from the parish. Although Father Paul terminated the employee, he continued to work as a volunteer doing the same job when he was employed. In other words, only his paycheck was removed, but his title as Director of Facilities Management remained.  See the screenshot below, which was updated April 2, 2013 (two months before Father Paul's removal): 

Monsignor James, on the other hand, was removed for financial mismanagement the following year in 2014. While the Archdiocese work for improvement and change as stated in the Umatuna, what Archbishop Byrnes is unaware of is that many of the people with him are the same people who already knew about the financial problems of the Archdiocese in 2011. In fact, even Tim Rohr (who was not a member of the Archdiocese Finance Council) was also aware of it.  According to Tim Rohr:
"The Archdiocese is 20 Million dollars in debt which means that even if Apuron can blame 7 million dollars of that debt on Msgr. James, the remaining 13 Million is all on Apuron. The truth is of course that even the 7 million dollars that Msgr. James was tasked with paying back was actually Apuron's loan, not Msgr. James', for the simple reason that Msgr. James has no authority to sign for a loan." 
The reason the Archbishop placed people in certain position was because he trusted them to do the right thing. In other words, if the person knew that the Archdiocese could not pay for the project he had in mind, then he should not have entertain the thought of getting a loan nor mislead anyone into thinking that the Archdiocese can pay for the project.  From what I understand, Monsignor James had a lot of projects done. 

Since the removal of Monsignor James, the controversy centered mainly on the RM Seminary and the Archdiocesan finances.  It wasn't until November, 2014 when John Toves appeared, accusing Archbishop Apuron of sexually molesting his cousin.  John Toves was actually the first person to bring up a sexual molestation allegation against the Archbishop (See the historical timeline).  

Interestingly enough, Tim Rohr kept a file entitled "Apuron's crimes" on his blog, which you can find here.  This list covered alleged crimes of Archbishop Apuron from 2002 to November, 2015.  Interestingly enough, the 2002 alleged crime has to do with acquiring the RM Seminary.  It goes all the way back to the Seminary, a property valued at 75 million dollars, which the media consistently emphasized in their report. Also, of all the alleged crimes he listed on that page, there were no sexual abuse or molestation charges against the Archbishop.

John Toves accused Archbishop Apuron of molesting his cousin in November, 2014.  That is not on Rohr's list.  Mae Ada came on the radio talk show of Patti Arroyo on August 19, 2015 and reported that she heard from someone who was allegedly molested by Archbishop Apuron.  That man was later identified as Walter Denton.  Rohr claimed to have met Denton in August-September, 2015. Yet, Rohr did not indicate any sexual abuse allegations against Archbishop Apuron on that list.  

More From Father Gordon MacRae

The following article came from Father Gordon MacRae, author of "These Stone Walls, which is found here.


Image result for Father Gordon MacRae

Cardinal George Pell and Other Martyrs for a Nefarious Cause

Father George David Byers and I were both recipients of unexpected recognition for our respective writings this summer. Father Byers, whose status as a Missionary of Mercy has been extended by Pope Francis, received a First Place citation by the Catholic Press Association for his articles in Catholic media about the Year of Mercy. Father Byers tried to play it down, but it’s a bigger deal than he lets on. [See: Missionaries of Mercy: “New Phase” from the Holy See (Amoris laetitia internal/external forum guidelines?)]
I, on the other hand, should shout from the rooftops the most unexpected recognition ever bestowed upon These Stone WallsTSW has been cited by an organization to which I have never aspired. The site, Today’s Martyrs Resources for Understanding Current Christian Witness and Martyrdom, published a short list commending “organizations engaged in original reporting, evangelical witness, political advocacy, refugee services and other activities, led by people who have experienced some degree of persecution firsthand.”
The page of commendations at Today’s Martyrs includes Aid to the Church in Need International, Open Doors International, Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East, Issues of Rights and Justice, Revival Chinese Ministries International, China Aid, and (Who would have thought) These Stone Walls.
When I was notified of this recognition, I at first thought it was due to my posts, “Criminal Aliens: The ICE Deportation of Augie Reyes,” and “Dreamers of Home The ICE Deportation of Kewei Chen.” It made sense that articles about the treatment of our fellow humans during deportation proceedings caught the attention of this international Christian human rights forum.
But I was wrong in that assumption. My writing about my friends, Augie and Chen, may have caught the eyes of some social justice concerns, but the persecuted people that the Today’s Martyrs site recognizes as the subjects of TSW’s “original reporting and evangelical witness on contemporary Christian martyrdom” are Catholic priests. Let it sink in for a moment, please, that this concern for the persecution and suppression of fundamental rights for priests comes not from a Catholic human rights forum, but from an Evangelical Christian one.
At first, this had a sense of the surreal for me. Revelations of great irony often do. Aspiring to martyrdom has never been on my personal list of career milestones. Some readers suggest that there may be elements of a sort of “white martyrdom” in my story, but I have never seen myself in that light.
The irony is that the other organizations on this list are in the trenches taking steps to counter persecution and martyrdom around the world. In the eleventh hour, the organizers of Today’s Martyrs included These Stone Walls on that list. At first it seemed a great honor. And then a great responsibility. I wondered where the heroic Catholic voices are in this recognition, but then I found some. They were loud and clear. I’ll name them in a moment.
As June turned to July this year, a time when most Catholic blogs experience their annual summer readership slump, These Stone Walls had a huge and unexpected surge in readers, doubling, at times even tripling, our usual summer readership. Of the five most read posts in the first half of 2017, three of them were in June.
I ended last month with two “heavy” posts that brought lots of heat – and I hope some light – to two tough subjects. The first post, on June 21, was “On the Island of Guam, Is the Eighth Commandment Discarded?” The day after it was posted, it became the feature article for the National Catholic RegisterThe Big Pulpit which chooses the best in Catholic media daily.
It was also featured on Pewsitter. Both sites courageously stepped up to promote an uncomfortable topic among Catholics: the recognition that the sex abuse scandal in the priesthood has taken on elements of a classic moral panic resulting in the unjust persecution of Catholic priests and open suppression of their rights under both Church and civil law. As a result of their coverage of that post, TSW reader Dorothy Stein – one of over 1,000 who came to it via a link at The Big Pulpit, published this very incisive comment:
“Your account of the origins of the Commandment against false witness is most compelling. So is this entire article. I have been following its many threads 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 [in Guam] 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 just 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 good people of Guam that this … will serve as a wake-up call. Your effort has lifted this story from Guam and put a floodlight on it around the world.”
It’s that floodlight that seems to be a problem for those in Guam who plotted to bring down Archbishop Anthony Apuron for apparent agendas of finance and property control having nothing to do with protecting young people from abuse. These same people collaborated with SNAP early on to develop tactics that would serve their cause. Sexual abuse claims against the Archbishop formed within a context of those other agendas, and appear to have been used, under the guidance of SNAP, as a weapon of mass destruction to get rid of some priests, the Archbishop included.
With typical and shameless “island mentality,” the problem that some of the Guam antagonists had with my post was that “outsiders” are now looking in. “Diana,” in her Neocatechumenal Way blog, followed up my June 21 post with a defense of it entitled, “The Cost of Appeasement” (June 23, 2017). It’s worth a read!
Don’t let that subheading fool you. The plea deal worked out by Philadelphia prosecutor Seth Williams was not for Msgr. William Lynn. It was for himself. Just one day after I posted “Will Fr Charles Engelhardt’s Prosecutor Take a Plea Deal?” the question was answered. My post revealed that Mr. Williams faced a 23-count federal indictment for fraud, bribery, and corruption.
At some point in the early stages of his trial, the charges were increased to 29 felony counts. Then, a day after I published my post, Seth Williams took a deal to plead guilty in exchange for a five-year prison sentence. He also resigned from his office that same day.
According to the terms of the deal, the former state prosecutor admitted to the truth of all 29 counts, but was allowed to plead guilty to only one corruption charge, thus limiting his deal to a five-year term in federal prison. U.S. District Court Judge Paul Diamond ordered him detained until his October 24 sentencing. The statement of federal prosecutor Robert Zausmer served as a stunning summation of the case:
“Today Mr. Williams admitted that he sold his office in exchange for a corrupt series of payments.. [This is] a great victory in the battle against corrupt conduct by public officials.”
This story brings to the fore once again an important distinction that Catholic writer Ryan MacDonald once made in “The Post-Trial Extortion of Father Gordon MacRae.” “Plea deals work well for the guilty, but for the innocent, not so much.” For Seth Williams and other guilty defendants, a plea deal is a way to keep a light glowing at the end of a tunnel. An innocent defendant who cannot fathom freely taking such a deal will end up spending far more time in prison than one who is actually guilty. The late Father Charles Engelhardt got a longer prison sentence than his guilty prosecutor, and died there, an innocent man chained to a gurney.
I wrote “Will Fr Charles Engelhardt’s Prosecutor Take a Plea Deal?” because it was a small way to bring a bit of justice to the stories of the late Father Engelhardt and Monsignor William Lynn. The outcome of the Seth Williams case is another nail in the coffins of their unjust prosecutions and the integrity of the Philadelphia justice system that allowed them.
Once again, a number of brave Catholic voices took up my post about this story and promoted it. Both Pewsitter and the National Catholic Register’s The Big Pulpit featured it prominently. Father George David Byers made it a headline on his Arise! Let us be going! blog, and so did Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Cristi at his Abyssus Abyssum Invocat blog.
And with the force of conviction, Father John Zuhlsdorf promoted that post at his celebrated and popular “Father Z’s Blog” drawing readers to my post by the thousands. Father Z introduced it:
“Please run, don’t walk, to These Stone Walls, the blog of Fr. Gordon MacRae, unjustly jailed and innocent of crimes against minors. Its a long read, and lurid in many ways, but it reveals the slimy underside of the Accuse-a-Priest industry. It seems that fraud is catching up with some of the frauds who made false accusations. The question is, will there eventually be justice?”
Father Z asks a question that haunts this story, but he has already helped bring a little justice to it. His effort, combined with those of Father Byers, Bishop Gracida, Tito Edwards at The Big Pulpit, PewSitter, and others made my post, “Will Fr Charles Engelhardt’s Prosecutor Take a Plea Deal?” one of the most widely read posts of the year thus far.
From where I write, there is not very much justice to be had, but these brave voices helped me bring some to the name of Father Charles Engelhardt, martyred in prison for the cause of nothing more redemptive than money and some corrupt prosecutor’s career path.
This corrupt moral panic began in America and spread its tentacles around the world. In its latest chapter, Australian Cardinal George Pell has had to take a leave from his Vatican post to return to Australia to face forty-year-old charges of sexual abuse. This insanity has run amok.
David Pierre at The Media Report has published an alarming review of the source for these unjust charges. What makes them most unjust is the fact that they have been coached, rehearsed, and ritualized over the course of years. Australia’s Royal Commission on child abuse and the Church all but issued an open invitation to accuse Cardinal Pell. If the Commission learned anything at all from America it is how easily the media becomes an all-too-willing tool for moral panic. The Commission targeted Cardinal Pell for a display of “trophy justice” through what one observer calls “a vile harvest of lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Cardinal Pell’s good name has been the bull’s eye all along, and this is not at all new. I wrote in 2015 of the rumors, innuendo, and other attacks aimed at him in “Peter Saunders and Cardinal Pell: A Trial by Media,” and again in “Mother Angelica and Gerard Henderson on Spin Down Under.”
At a more sane time in a just society, this case would not have proceeded to formal charges. This is a case in which Cardinal Pell became the target of a criminal probe, and then a frantic and agenda-driven search was set in motion to find something, anything to even vaguely support bringing the charge. The result is these forty-year old claims for which this prelate must now offer some miraculous defense to “clear his name.”
The truth is, that can never be done. Once so besmirched and tainted by a Royal Commission, any form of mud could stick in what passes for justice and due process in this story. The world’s 1.2 billion Catholics owe to Cardinal Pell a strong and insistent presumption of innocence.
It is beyond ridiculous that any citizen of a just society should have to defend his reputation and good name against anything less than clear and compelling evidence of guilt when forty years pass before a charge is brought. Catholics must demand that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and not just assumed. Anything less leaves a cloud of doubt over Australia and its justice system. This should be made clear by Catholic voices on a global scale.
Having lived through this, and living through it still, I can attest to what should be a terminating fatal flaw in these charges. No such evidence exists or ever existed. The real goal is not to take Cardinal Pell’s life or freedom, but his moral voice and his agenda for Vatican financial reform. There are those who are quite happy to have him out of the way.
Mine is not a call to passively seek justice and move on. It is a call to revolution. This nonsense continues because of the clamor of a few and the silence of many. The sexual abuse story in the Catholic Church ended many years ago. All that exists now is vengeance, and the nefarious agendas – like those of SNAP recently exposed – that seek to harness vengeance to satisfy their own ends.
The good people of Australia would do well to remember that your government serves your interests, not the other way around. A point was made in my post, “On the Island of Guam, Is the Eighth Commandment Discarded?” The Eighth Commandment against false witness is at the very heart of God’s justice. False witness for profit – “what is evil in the sight of God” (1 Kings 19:15-21) is the most vile injustice of all.
Note to readers from Father Gordon MacRae: I would be remiss if I excluded The Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights from my list of loud and clear Catholic, voices concerned for the rights of priests. The Catholic League could not have been more vocal in its concern for me as expressed in Bill Donohue’s “Travesty of Justice: The Ordeal of Father MacRae” and a number of other postings. You would serve the cause of justice well through a membership in the Catholic League.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Myths Vs Facts

Listening is part of effective communication.  With effective and proper communication comes the resolution of conflicts and a better understanding of the other person.  It also leads to peace and the truth.  This does not mean that all will come to an agreement, but it often leads to a peaceful co-existence. Accusations and judgments NEVER lead to peace or truth.  If you are here only to make an accusation, then you were never interested in hearing our side of the story.  You have already made up your mind.  An example of a closed mind is the anonymous person who made this comment, which I did not publish:  

1. Your way of administering the holy Sacrament of Penance is suspect. You kinda try to sing over the public confession you enforce on your followers, but anyone with a good ear can hear the words of every single confession. This is against the required confidentiality of the sacrament as instituted by the Catholic Church. 
Clearly, this person has already made up his/her mind and is not interested in hearing what we have to say.  This is simply an accusation.  No one can hear over the confession, and each person is not forced to confess.  

There are always two sides to every story.  Listening to only one side is not going to get anyone to determine the truth. Jokes Wild has opened up an excellent dialogue to dispel the myths or rumors about the Way.  According to Jokers Wild: 

What is more bothersome than the twisting of words and half truths if the jungle blog is that there are many people who believe it.
Ive met a whole lot of people who have judgments of the church and especially the NCW and most of the time their views are based on things that originated in the jungle blog. When I realize this I then take the time to sit down with them and tell them the entire truth, I clear the record. Most of the people share that it now all makes sense to them. Id like to share some common questions that I have received about the NCW.

1. Why do you do Public Confessions?
Answer: We dont do public confessions. Your confession is reserved to be heard by a priest. What does happen is that sometimes when we are given a WORD from scripture it brings us to our daily reality, our struggles, sin, mistakes. Many times though these things are shared because the WORD helps us through them. Theres a difference between a response/reflection/experience/testimony in light of a WORD from scripture and the sacrament of Confession.

2. Why do you sit and pass around the Body and Blood of Christ?
Answer: We dont. With special permission though, instead of forming a line, the priest approaches the communicant.

3. Why do you dance at your Mass?
Answer: We dont dance during the mass. After the Priest has exited the main sanctuary we form a circle and reverently celebrate what has just took place. Even though the Mass has ended, the celebration must continue because it is joyous to celebrate the resurrection, the passover. Many may have entered into the Mass(Eucharist) dead and grumbling and are now experiencing life because of the saving power of God working through the WORD and EUCHARIST. Those who dont want to dance usually join in by just clapping along with the music or playing their instruments.

3. Why do you abandon your family for community? Didnt they just have a party and you chose to go to community instead?
Answer: The community doesnt come first. GOD comes first before anything else. With that as a priority it is also better for me to work on my relationship with Christ rather than on social gatherings. I am only with my community 2-3 times a week, I still have the other 4-5 days to spend with my family.

4. Is it true that you are going to have to give all your property to the Neos?
Answer: NO! I dont have to give anything that I am not happy to give away. I also cant give the NCW any property because by their regulations they cannot own any real property. I have never been forced to give anything unwillingly.

5. Is KIKO your prophet?
Answer: In the context of biblical prophets, No! Kiko, the initiator of the NCW is just that, the initiator. I will admit though, when you have someone who constantly is helping you with good words of encouragement, courage, perseverance, you then have a tendency to rely on them for a word. I know that Kiko is only an instrument that God uses. Ultimately it is God doing all the miracles. We are always reminded to stay away from Kikoism. Kiko to me is the same as you having a priest whom you really learn from their homilies and actions. I also have certain priests whom always seem to hit the spot.

6. Why are the Neos forcing everyone to join? I am Catholic, I dont want to change.
Answer: Are you in a Neo community? No right? So I guess there wasnt any force. Im still Catholic, the NCW is just a gathering of Catholics who want to try and gain more faith. Joining the NCW does not change your religious affiliation. The NCW is approved by Rome to be valid for todays society.

More to come...

Sorry Diana but I just had to and maybe it would be good to publish a post on CLEARING THE RECORD or MYTHS vs FACTS.

-Jokers Wild