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.   


  1. I don't understand these people. The RMS is a gift from God. You need to accept this with praise and thanksgiving, gratitude and humility. Where is praise? Where is thanksgiving? Where is gratitude? Where is humility? The donor handled over to us the gift of God. Why? Because the donor's wealth came from God for this very purpose! To give it to Guam as a seminary to educate Catholic priests. What is wrong with you, people, who want to reject the gift of God?! Why do you shun God himself?

    Rather than talking about the donor's intent, we may as well talk about God's intent! Yes! God wanted Guam to have a nice place for priestly education. So He told the donor to donate and lo, we now have the RMS to raise the next generation of priests! This was and IS the intent of God! Is this bad? Not at all. God loves you, he is a loving and caring Father! All He wants from you is to accept his gift, according to His intent, with a humble heart.

    It is not late to correct those who want to sell. How do you think to sell something that came from God? His gift is irrevocable. His intent is ever with you. Selling the RMS is very irreverent. How can you ignore God, your loving Father? You cannot do that! You need correction, right now! I'll pray for you all who want to sell the seminary that God have mercy on your sin.

    1. OMG, do you think dear anon that selling the Yona property is sin? Are you saying Archbishop Byrnes is a sinner?

      A gift may come from God but is managed by people. People mess up what God might have intended for them. This is the case with the RMS. If God wanted Guam to have a seminary, He surely did not want it to be restricted for the Neo Catechumenal. Is it not like mismanaging a gift from God? Is this not the real sin here we should talk about?

    2. Dear Anonymous at 7:57 am,

      It was never restricted to the NCW. That is another misconception that Rohr misled you into believing. That is a seminary for the Archdiocese, and the priests formed in RMS are diocesan priests.

    3. Dear anonymous at 7:57

      Yes he is a sinner he has weaknesses he has temptations and right now he is falling into one temptation and that temptation is money the crap of the devil he can't live on bread alone but live and trust in god like how I keep on repeating my self with the words the pope where he says it's not about money and archbishop was making sure where the money was going to and even pope Francis is even calls the church a hospital not a place where people say I don't need god because you don't want god you just want the world

    4. Dear God is one, are you stating Archbishop Byrnes is a sinner because he is selling the RMS? This is an assault on rightful church authority! The archdiocese needs a lot of cash to settle the sins of the past. The Archbishop has every right to sell everything that needs to be sold. Don't you think the sins of the past are catching up on us?

      Perhaps, it was God's intent to give a donation so that the property can be sold with great profit to pay off the sexual abuse victims. God does not want you to sell the schools and close the parishes. God's intent was to bless us with a source of cash money to survive.

      You say money is the crap of the devil. But exactly money, an awful lot of money, is what can salvage the situation of hundreds of sexual abuse charges! The crap of Satan is used to poison your mind into believing that you don't need that money. But in fact you badly need it. It would be sin not to pray and pay settlement cost to the victims.

    5. Dear God is one,

      Archbishop Byrnes is not our enemy. Could you please refrain from judging him. I do not think Archbishop Byrnes is obsessed with money. He needs money....yes, but the money is not for himself. It is to pay the debts of the Archdiocese and provide funds for the Hope and Healing Program.

  2. The document from Untalan is weak evidence. To say that started the conveyance of the RMS title is clearly false when this is clearly a response to a request by Fr. Pablo.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:12 am, 

      That letter is what started the false accusation because that is what Rohr used to implicate Mr. Gennarini and Archbishop Apuron of conveyance of the title of the Yona property. There never was any request from Father Pablo. 

      Remember....Archbishop Apuron claimed that there was a conspiracy to oust him from his position. If that is true, one then has to wonder if Untalan's letter was part of that conspiracy to discredit the Archbishop to get him ousted. There was never a request from Father Pablo or RMS. Yet, Tim Rohr used this document to make false accusations against the Archbishop and Mr. Gennarini. Let us also not forget that CCOG wrote up a report on the seminary without even visiting the seminary.

    2. That's a tactic Tim used. He's a salesman, and he uses his skills of persuasion by twisting the documents to his own advantage. People who question him like Timothy Guile are blacklisted. Tim doesn't like being questioned.

    3. Diana, the deed restriction was unnecessary. Why did you need it?

      The Holy See evaluated the document in 2015 and came to the conclusion that the deed restriction places the patrimony of the church into danger of further alienation in the future. Don't you think it opened up this opportunity?

      The Holy See then instructed the archdiocese to give up the restriction without litigation. Apuron, however, resisted on advice from the NCW. Why did you have to resist a reasonable accommodation of the Holy See's request? Was it a useful or fruitful strategy?

      Now, the archdiocese faces all the consequences. Don't you think, dear Diana, that all the troubles of the archdiocese are somehow related? Is it possible that God wanted to teach a lesson to church leadership about being an honest pastor of souls under your care?

    4. Dear Anonymous at 2:17 pm,

      I do not know how many times I have to tell you over and over the purpose of the Deed Restriction. All the troubles and division of the Church started with the removal of two priests. Before that, no one had any problems with the seminary. The seminary was brought to the forefront after the removal of the two priests.

    5. Diana, please, do not repeat your mantra. Focus on the Holy See's concern about the RMS. Again, you are talking about something else. It is irrelevant how things started a long time ago.

      It is a fact now that the Yona property will be sold to pay for the debts and victims. It is a reasonable and justifiable solution.

      What is important is that grave concerns were raised that had to be resolved by Archbishops Hon and Byrnes. So, please, answer the question honestly. Only once, but tell the truth and the whole truth.

    6. Dear Anonymous at 8:00 pm,

      Those questions have already been addressed. Why keep repeating the same questions? This is why Archbishop Apuron and many in the NCW remained silent. When the Archbishop came out to answer the questions, he was called a "liar." When he remained silent, he was criticized for being quiet and not answering their questions. How many times do you want to hear the same answer.

      As a matter of fact, you are already telling me to answer the question honestly for ONCE and to tell the truth. So, already you assume that I would be lying. My friend, this OP showed that it was not me who constantly changed stories.

    7. Diana, you assume Rohr and the jungle behind every concern. It is not true! Perhaps you assume this because you have this embittered split between his camp and your camp. But many concerned Catholics do not belong to one camp or the other. We are not in either camps, but we are eager to clean up the mess of the church. We are not interested in your fight between the camps for dominance. Why should we care? That is your business and not ours.

      While we are not in either camps, we have valid concerns expressed by the Holy See and the rightfully appointed local church administrators. You seem to ignore this and dwell in a mantra developed for refuting Rohr and the jungle only. Please, forget Rohr for a minute and look at the true concerns.

      You don't seem to be capable to refute Archbishop Hon, Byrnes and the Holy See. You don't even seem to care about us concerned Catholics who do not even read the jungle.

      But there are valid concerns here regarding the RMS business for one. You said the deed restriction was to prevent selling. But it is to be sold anyway. Is it not normal to sell when pressed? So how can you claim NCW was right with the deed restriction? The Apostolic Delegate made particular request to Apuron and the NCW to restore the original state of matters. They did not follow Rohr, the jungle, the fired priests or whatever... they only followed Vatican policies to request a restoration of the property without litigation. Why do you think they only listened to Rohr? You say the property remained in the possession of the Archdiocese. Archbishop Hon confirmed that. So why did you reject the Holy See's request then? Do you see my point, dear Diana?

      Diana, you have never gave an honest and forthcoming answer yet that could explain the motifs and moves NCW made here. We would be very much interested to know. This lack of explanation raises a whole lot of suspicion. The suspicions are there even without Rohr or the jungle. Why do you think it is only them? We are much more than them. believe me. It is, in fact, the best interest of the NCW to clear up its position here, so that truly concerned Catholics may make their own mind according to the best information available.

    8. Dear anonymous at 8:00

      It shows that your getting in trouble here on Guam from them and you know because your saying stop involving Rome it shows that Rome is helping us here on Guam because you know who is the one that's doing all this harm because you know that it is Tim and ccog and lfm that's causing this and what do you say oh it's not them that's causing this it's those guys that I mentioned in the top

    9. Dear Anonymous at 9:40 pm, 

      It was not the Holy See who asked the NCW to give up the deed restriction. It was Archbishop Hon who asked the NCW to give up the deed restriction. We gave our answer.

      ONLY the Archbishop of Agana and his successor had the authority to give up the deed restriction. That has been said soooooooo many times. The NCW never had authority or control of RMS. ONLY the Archbishop or his successor had authority and control and only the Archbishop or his successor had the authority to rescind the deed restriction. That has been said soooooo many times. In fact, that answer was even in the news. Father Pius came out and told the media that ONLY the Archbishop of Agana or his successor had the authority to rescind the deed restriction. Do you read the newspaper???

      You said that they only wanted the restoration of the property without litigation?????? The property had always been under the Archdiocese so what was there to restore??????

      That is the very reason why the NCW could not rescind the deed restriction. It was under the Archdiocese, not under the NCW. Do you see my point now, dear Anonymous??? How many times do you want to hear that same answer, which was even published in the newspaper?

    10. Dear Diana, you stated "it was not the Holy See who asked the NCW to give up the deed restriction". But how can you state this without calling Archbishop Hon and the PDN liars? According to the PDN, Hon said in August 2016:

      "In August this year, Hon said Apuron also didn't follow multiple instructions by the Holy See as early as 2015 to rescind and annul a deed restriction that gives the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and a theological institute, both controlled by the Neocatechumenal Way, the legal right to use church property indefinitely."

      Please, make an effort to clear this up, because this contradiction is a great source of distrust for us concerned Catholics living on Guam.

      Please note, that the article says these:
      a. instruction came as early as in 2015 to rescind the deed restriction;
      b. the instruction came from the Holy See;
      c. Apuron refused to follow on the instruction;
      d. the concern was about the legal right to use church property indefinitely;
      e. nobody talked about the ownership of the RMS;
      f. Apuron could have rescinded the deed restriction before he was suspended, but he failed to do so!

      I surely hope you will address Archbishop Hon's testimony in this matter with respect, honesty and much detail. Thanks.

    11. Dear Anonymous at 6:48 am,

      Archbishop Apuron came out and gave his answer. He said he never receive any letter from the Pope. Archbishop Hon claimed that the Archbishop Apuron disobeyed the Pope. How did he disobey the Pope, when he never receive a letter from the Pope, telling him to rescind the Deed restriction? Where is the letter? Does Archbishop Hon have the letter from the Pope? If he had the letter, then why didn't Archbishop Hon show it to the media? According to Archbishop Apuron, Hon was the only one who told him to rescind the Deed restriction in 2015, but he never got any instruction from the Pope regarding the Deed Restriction. So, it is back to Archbishop Hon. Where is the copy of the letter from the Pope?

      If Archbishop Apuron had disobeyed Pope Francis in 2015, he would have received some disciplinary action from the Pope. His title as Archbishop of Agana could have been removed by the Pope for disobedience.

    12. Anon. 6:48 am, you said you're neutral. You're not for JW or the NCW, just a concerned Catholic who is not associated with JW. Yet, you claim that Diana hasn't been honest and forthcoming. Really? Why don't you go to the JW blog and ask Tim why he changed his story?

    13. Dear anon at 8:57 am, I am not reading the jungle.

    14. Dear God is one @ 10:32 AM,
      You know that the article has changed for decades to have a better version than this one is there any other thing about it that I can do that something to be true and is that something that we can see on our own or not sure about the only one I have is the fact I can see the new one and then it again is the only time you get a chance to do good in a long time right

    15. Dear Anonymous at 8:59 am,

      But you believe the jungle anyway. You have already come here with a pre-judgment against the NCW despite your claims of neutrality. You have already made up your mind who to believe regardless of what I say.

    16. dear anonymous at 9:07

      your still fighting rome and the pope because the facts is the way is approved and the people who are causing the problem is ccog and richard untalan lfm and tim rohr even the pope is getting involved here i believe because of his homilies and what he says is get rid of those who are causing the problem and the people who are causing the problem are those who i put ontop because when the archbishop had the meeting with tim rohr he knew that it was the people who i mentioned

    17. Dear Diana at 9:14 am, I apologize if I made you feel like that. I don't believe the jungle because I don't even know their standpoint on this. But I believe the envoys of Pope Francis who visited on island in 2015 and I believe Archbishops Hon and Byrnes.

      Don't you think there is a conflict between the statements of Archbishop Hon and Apuron as published?

    18. Diana, please, do not judge me. You are in danger of falling into a "them and us" world, where nobody exists except your adversaries and the NCW. In fact, many good Catholic folks are out of this split. Archbishop Michael for one is neither on the jungle's side nor on your side. So am I! Please, respect that.

    19. Anonymous at 2:53 PM: Thank you for your courage. I agree that there are some things that need clarification. But it has been my experience during my occasional visits here that if you raise valid concerns as you do (the conflicting statements) and if you don't agree with the blog administrator 100% you are automatically considered judgemental and anti-NCW.

      I'm like you in that I believe the Vatican visitors as well as Archbishops Hon and Byrnes. I also think the conflict needs to be settled. I hope to see the clarifications soon.

    20. Dear Anonymous at 2:53 pm,

      When Archbishop Hon came in 2015, it was to gather data as to what was going on in Guam. Archbishop Apuron knew that was the purpose of the meeting because Rome notified him of their arrival. When the Apostolic delegation was here, they gathered statements and reports from numerous people. They spoke to many people. That was when he suggested to Archbishop Apuron to rescind the deed restriction. That came only from Archbishop Hon. It did not come from the Pope because Archbishop Hon was instructed by the Pope only to gather data and reports in Guam at that time. The Pope did not send any other message. All the time that Archbishop Hon was here, he spoke to many people and gathered reports from them. He never said anything to the media about any instruction from Pope Francis regarding the deed restriction. What he did to those reports is unknown. It is obvious that he did not read them because when questioned about Father Brouillard, he knew nothing. Father Broulliard was in the report CCOG gave him in 2015.

      Archbishop Hon probably thought that because he was sent by the Pope, then whatever instruction he gave Apuron is deemed from the Pope. That is not the case. If it comes from the Pope, Archbishop Apuron would be made aware of it. When he first heard of the accusation, Archbishop Apuron was surprised and said he received no instruction from the Pope.

      When Archbishop Hon became the Apostolic Administrator for Guam, one of the things He did was rescind the deed restriction himself. He was told that ONLY the Archbishop of Agana or his successor have the authority to rescind the deed restriction. He did not have that authority because he was not the Archbishop of Agana or his successor. He overstepped his authority, thinking that he had that authority. After much review, he realized he was wrong. So, he told the NCW to remove the deed restriction, but again he learned he was wrong. The NCW also did not have that authority. Therefore, in 2015, Archbishop Hon may have overstepped his authority when he told Archbishop Apuron to rescind the deed restriction. He was not the Pope.

    21. Dear Diana, what Archbishop Hon said is more consistent with the facts than your narrative. After the Apostolic Visitors left Guam in 2015, they analyzed the situation and presented their finding to the Holy See. The Holy See, in turn, instructed Apuron to rescind the deed restriction on the Yona property immediately and without litigation. It was not a letter from the Pope to Apuron, but instruction from the Holy See. Apuron did not follow the instruction.

      What you write should be supported by factual evidence. Rather, I only see hearsay of what could have transpired. Where are the supporting facts? In lieu of them, your speculation remains unconvincing. When Archbishop Byrnes was appointed, the Holy See instructed him to immediately rescind the deed restriction without litigation. His first act in office was to comply. I emphasize, Byrnes did that immediately and this is an evidence that Archbishop Hon told the exact truth! Where is your evidence, dear Diana, that Apuron told the truth The correction on the Yona property had to be made by Vatican to salvage the situation of the Archdiocese of Agana.

      Diana, I am truly concerned and would like to understand what prevents you from seeing and appreciating what Archbishops Hon and Byrnes have done and keep doing for Guam.

    22. Dear Anonymous at 5:57 pm, 

      You stated: "
       It was not a letter from the Pope to Apuron, but instruction from the Holy See."

      If the instruction did not come by letter from the Pope, then how was it conveyed by the Pope when Archbishop Hon had already left the island? 

      Furthermore, the Pope never told Archbishop Byrnes to rescind the deed restriction. It was Archbishop Hon who told Byrnes to rescind it. That was in the newspapers. Please get your facts straight. Archbishop Hon is not the Pope. It is Pope Francis.

    23. "It was not a letter from the Pope to Apuron, but instruction from the Holy See."

      Maybe the instruction was sent by pigeon carrier! LOL!! 🤣

    24. Dear Anonymous at 6:30 pm,

      That cannot be. Anonymous 5:57 pm said there was no letter involved. Could it be that the pigeon was carrying voice mail?

    25. "The Pope never told Archbishop Byrnes to rescind the deed restriction."

      How do you know, Diana? Did Pope Francis tell you that? Archbishop Hon only repeated the instruction of the Holy See to Archbishop Byrnes. That made the difference between Apuron who did not comply and Byrnes who did!

      Please, stop suggesting the Archbishop Hon, the envoy of Pope Francis did not tell you the truth. Is there any fact justifying your assumption? If not, let me stick with the rightful church authorities who made great efforts to resolve the problem.

    26. Diana, the letter did not have to come from Pope Francis in person. Let me recall into your mind that the so called Arinze letter written in 2006 to the NCW did not come directly from Pope Benedict either. It still represented the Holy See's instruction as Pope Benedict confirmed.

      Another possibility is that Apuron did receive a letter from Pope Francis, but failed to admit it.

    27. Dear Anonymous at 6:34 pm, 

      It was in the news. According to the Guam Daily Post:

      "I am pleased to announce that the Archdiocese of Agana, through Archbishop Michael Jude Byrnes and concurred by Archbishop Savio Hon, with advice and support of both the Archdiocesan Finance Council and Presbyteral Council, has acted to transfer complete and unrestricted control and possession of the Yona property back to the Archdiocese of Agana," Rev. Jeff San Nicolas said during yesterday's press conference."

      Dear Anonymous at 6:39 pm,

      First, you say that the instruction did not come in a letter. Then you are saying that it did??? Apparently, you are confused and cannot make up your mind. Therefore, this round about discussion is over.

    28. 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.

    29. Dear Anonymous at 9:26 pm,

      I will respond to your comment in a post.

  3. Diana, Tim responded to your post in his blog. Do you have a response to that?

    1. Tim didn't respond he showed a letter without fr.pablos signature or writing

    2. Dear Anonymous at 8:31 am,

      Yes, if it was a request from Mr. Gennini or Archbishop Apuron, then why name Father Pablo????? Why write a letter to Father Pablo?????? Please go back and tell Rohr to provide the request letter from Father Pablo and to stop changing his stories and go into speculations.

      I already have it on record and in the screenshot that Rohr specifically stated:

      "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."

      That statement above was made by Rohr himself on November 10, 2014. He specifically stated that the request came from Father Pablo Rodriguez. The only reason he is now changing his story was because he got caught.

    3. The minutes in Rohr's blog showed the former AFC accusing RMS of wanting to transfer the title to RMS, but where are the minutes showing that RMS wanted that done? The former AFC (with the exception of Monsignor David) are all against AB Apuron.

    4. Dear Anonymous at 10:00 am,

      There are none. The former Board of Directors of RMS has all the minutes of their meetings. There was never a request from Father Pablo or the RMS Board of Directors to transfer the property title to RMS. There were no discussions of a transfer of property title to RMS in any of the RMS meetings.

      Furthermore, Archbishop Apuron has consistently stated that RMS is still owned by the Archdiocese of Agana even with the Declaration of Deed Restriction in place. When Archbishop Hon took control, he also came out and publicly stated that RMS is still owned by the Archdiocese, no doubt about it. Father Jeff, who was tasked with reviewing the seminary, also came out and publicly stated that RMS is owned by the Archdiocese of Agana.

    5. The purpose of the deed restriction was to restrict the use and benefits of the property for Neo Catechumenal purposes.

  4. Pope: the choice between good, evil is one we all have to make




    Pope Francis greets pilgrims in St. Peter's Square after the Wednesday general audience, June 1, 2016. Credit: Daniel Ibáñez/CNA.
    Pope Francis greets pilgrims in St. Peter's Square after the Wednesday general audience, June 1, 2016. Credit: Daniel Ibáñez/CNA.
    by Elise Harris
    Vatican City, Jul 23, 2017 / 05:07 am (CNA/EWTN News).- On Sunday Pope Francis said good and evil are often entwined, and that as sinners, we can't label any one group or institution as bad, since we all face temptation and have the ability to choose which path to follow.

    “The Lord, who is wisdom incarnate, today helps us to understand that good and evil cannot identify with definite territories or determined groups of people,” the Pope said July 23.

    Jesus tells us that “the line between good and evil passes through the heart of every person. We are all sinners,” he said, and asked for anyone who is not a sinner to raise their hand – which no one did.

    “We are all sinners!” he said, explaining that with his death and resurrection, Jesus Christ “has freed us from the slavery of sin and gives us the grace of walking in a new life.”

    Pope Francis spoke to the crowd of pilgrims present in St. Peter's Square for his Sunday Angelus address, which this week focused on the day's Gospel passage from Matthew, in which an enemy secretly plants weeds alongside the wheat in a master's field.

    The image, he said, shows us the good seed that is planted in the world by God, but also the bad seed planted by the devil in order to corrupt the good.

    It not only speaks of the problem of evil, but also it also refers to God's patience in the master, who allows the weeds to grow alongside the wheat, so that the harvest is not lost.

    “With this image, Jesus tells us that in this world good and evil are totally entwined, that it's impossible to separate them and weed out all the evil,” Pope Francis said, adding that “only God can do this, and he will do it in the final judgment.”

    Instead, the parable represents “the field of the freedom of Christians,” who must make the difficult discernment between good and evil, choosing which one to follow.

    This, the Pope said, involves trusting God and joining two seemingly contradictory attitudes: “decision and patience.”
    Diana look at what pope Francis said just today

  5. Dear Anonymous @ July 24, 6:54AM,

    Imagine a Christian being blacklisted by a fellow-Christian. No better yet, don’t imagine that--rather imagine this:
    “[A]ll who shared the faith owned everything in common; they sold their goods and possessions and distributed the proceeds among themselves according to what each one needed. Each day, with one heart, they regularly went to the Temple but met in their houses for the breaking of bread; they shared their food gladly and generously; they praised God and were looked up to by everyone” (Acts 2).
    Ah, Christianity…the good old days!

    1. That happens when you clear up misunderstandings and fights before the sun goes down.

      Oh the suffering we must go through to maintain our relationships with one another....

    2. Dear Anonymous at 12:57 pm,

      The same is true with marriage.

    3. Of course it is. I only mentioned it because it's one of the reasons why we're here suffering because we seek to understand and live united with one another...trying our best to resolve our differences and love one another as God calls us to love one another.