As your bishop, I warmly invite the Neo-Catechumenal Way to deepen its collaboration with our parishes and diocesan ministries by sharing more fully the rich gifts of its charism. In this way, the entire Archdiocese may benefit from its emphasis on evangelization, family life, missionary outreach, and the active participation of the faithful. At the same time, I encourage the members of the Way, while faithfully preserving their distinctive charism, to continue discerning how it may be expressed in ever greater communion with the liturgical and pastoral life of our parishes. We need to seek ways of walking together in our Synodal journey as one people of God.Many members walking in the Way have been serving in the parishes together. Some of us decided to help the CCD program by being teachers and coordinators. Some of us serve as Lectors and Eucharistic Ministers in our parishes. Some were nominated to be part of the Parish and Finance Council of the parish. Some join the parish choir during Mass. Some teach the baptismal classes and RCIA classes in the parish. Some of them work in the Pastoral Office of their parishes. Some join the Ministry of the Sick of their parish, giving holy communion to the bedridden.
Neocatechumenal Way - An Insider's View
Tuesday, August 18, 2026
Letter from Archbishop Ryan
Thursday, June 18, 2026
The True Timeline
In his blog, Rohr stated:
In his post, MacRae republishes a piece he wrote about Apuron in 2017. The post is full of errors, but then again, he had DIANA as his source. One of those errors is the following statement:
It was on May 10, 2016 that a campaign to lift the statutes of limitation was organized (See the weblink here).Cardinal Raymond Burke was sent by the Vatican to investigate the case, but reportedly some of the accusers had declined to answer any questions while waiting for the Church’s ATM to open.The reference to "the Church's ATM" is MacRae's sarcastic characterization of the law (P.L. 33-187) lifting the civil statute of limitations on sex crimes against minors, which opened the door for the many lawsuits that ensued. MacRae implies that some of the accusers refused to talk to Burke because they were only interested in money.
However, the Burke investigation commenced in February 2017. The aforesaid law was enacted in September 2016. So, the so-called ATM was already open. In fact, it was the uproar around this legislation that forced Rome to pay attention and finally send Burke to Guam.
MacRae is also wrong about the accusers declining to answer questions.
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.
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.
The 8th Commandment and Apuron
The following post was published in Father Gordon's blog, which can be found here:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Eighth Commandment Has a Day of Reckoning on the Island of
Guam
prayer was offered for a falsely accused priest at the London prison cell of St Thomas More, while on the Island of Guam, a former Catholic Inquisition is exposed.
Urgent Note from Father MacRae:
I wrote this post in June, 2017. It is in part about something that happened on the Island of Guam. (Yes, we are back to Guam again!) Former Archbishop Anthony Apuron was accused in 2017 of sexual abuse dating back to the 1970s when he was a young priest in Guam. Please read the post, but most importantly please read the Addendum that I have included at the end, which now casts an entirely different light on the case against Archbishop Apuron. The truth will set you free, Scripture tells us, but when all statutes of limitation are abandoned, most of us may not live long enough for truth to be told. Archbishop Apuron did!
+ + +
“Hear me out. You and your class have ‘given in’ — as you rightly call it — because the religion of this country means nothing to you one way or the other.”
— Sir Thomas More in Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons, London, 1961, p. 122
Sir Thomas More became Saint Thomas More, a martyr for faith and truth when he was executed for “high treason” upon the order of King Henry VIII in 1535. The King demanded complicity from Thomas More in a campaign against the Catholic Church when the Pope denied the King an annulment from his marriage to Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn.
As Lord Chancellor of England, Thomas More surrendered his favor with the King and his Court to defend his Church and faith. The King’s response set in motion the Protestant Reformation in England. Meanwhile, Henry VIII went on to marry a total of six times. Thomas More, condemned for fidelity to his Catholic faith, was imprisoned in the Tower of London and beheaded on July 6, 1535. His head was mounted on a pole at the Tower of London Bridge.
Saint Thomas More was canonized a saint and a martyr 400 years later, and today is honored by the Catholic Church on June 22. On June 22, 2017, Dr. Robert Moynihan visited the London prison cell of Saint Thomas More where, among his prayers, he offered one for me and forothers falsely accused. Dr. Moynihan is Editor and Publisher of the very fine Inside the Vatican magazine.
The prayer was requested by Suzanne Formanek, a reader in Eastern Europe who asked that readers join in a prayer for justice through the intercession of Saint Thomas More. I am most grateful to them both — but we must all remember that a prayer not yet answered is not at all prayed in vain.
There is a special significance to this development. Readers may recall a previous pursuit of justice before a US court. The outcome was described by Catholic writer, Ryan A. MacDonald in “A Grievous Error in Judge Joseph Laplante’s Court.” It is worth a visit to scroll to the last segment of that post to see the great irony of Saint Thomas More’s presence in this story.
Catholic Scandal and the Rule of Law
In the photo above, from A Man for All Seasons, Sir Thomas More faces trial and martyrdom.
I cannot help but ponder, today, how Saint Thomas More might weigh the state of justice and civil liberties on the Western Pacific Island of Guam, the southernmost of the Mariana Islands. For those unfamiliar with the territory, the Marianas were visited by Ferdinand Magellan in 1521 and later colonized by Spain. The island chain was named for Maria Anna, widow of Philip II, King of Spain from 1556 to 1598.
In 1898, at the end of the Spanish-American War, Guam was ceded to the United States. The Japanese captured the island in December of 1941, but it was retaken by American forces in the summer of 1944. In 1950, US citizenship was conferred upon the people of Guam, which remains a self-governed US territory.
Following a trend of reactive legislative controversies across the United States in the wake of Catholic scandal during the last two decades, the legislature and governor of Guam passed and signed into law in 2016 “Public Law 33-187.” The misguided law opened a window to extend civil statutes of limitations in sex abuse claims against institutions such as the Catholic Church.
Saint Thomas More, a lawyer, legislator, and statesman, would likely deem Public Law 33-187 to be contemptible in the arena of human rights and civil liberties. The misguided law opened a retroactive door for lawsuits and other claims for compensation years or decades after existing statutes of limitation had expired. It provided for no standard of justice to separate the real from the contrived.
Like the bishops of virtually every American Catholic diocese where such an unjust law was considered, the Guam version was opposed by the Archdiocese of Agana, Guam. It was opposed because it also opens a window to fraud. Many mainland USA legislatures that considered such a law ultimately rejected it as biased and unjust.
I wrote the truth, from my own experience, about why such laws are an affront to truth and justice. In “Due Process for Accused Priests,” a 2009 article in Catalyst: Journal of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, I described how some states were duped by nefarious agendas into considering “window legislation” similar to what was passed in Guam and other US territories.
The Facts, the Fraud, the Stories
Those agendas are the fuel that has kept the Catholic scandal in the United States going and growing. Leaders of SNAP — the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests — used the story of Catholic scandal to promote their own interests and line their own pockets. This latest offshoot of the Catholic scandal is but the latest to be exposed, as it was in these pages in “David Clohessy Resigned SNAP in Alleged Kickback Scheme.”
There is layer upon layer in the Catholic scandal as it emerges anew in Guam, and the various layers appear to be a blueprint drafted from what has happened across America. First, there is the layer of the cold, hard fact that a guarantee of a financial windfall is the end result of virtually every claim.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that there are some in our midst who would sell their souls for money. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers in New York, a Commission had to be set up to investigate the rampant fraud attempts of those who claimed to have lost loved ones who were not even there and businesses that did not even exist.
After the infamous BP oil rig explosion and its environmental disaster in the Gulf of America, BP had to set up its own fraud commission to deal with a vast number of fraudulent claims for money. The company took out full-page ads in The Wall Street Journal to describe the multitude of fraud attempts aimed in its direction.
There were two waves in the Catholic clergy sexual abuse story. The first wave came in from the 1960s to the 1980s, when victims and their parents came forward with grave concerns about the behaviors of a very small percentage of priests. In far too many of these cases, bishops failed to use canon law effectively to deal with those situations and instead were too caught up in warding off public scandal. These cases deserved to be compensated and were.
The second wave was a tsunami of far older claims. In 2002, The Boston Globe set in motion a classic New England witch hunt that spread its moral panic. The sheer volume and tone of the public face of the scandal eroded civil liberties for all priests.
The civil liberty of a presumption of innocence was eliminated, and the floodgates were opened for false claims, most of which were many years- or decades-old and for which no evidence exists.
Of the total claims against priests in the United States, a full 70-percent fall into this second category. They have reaped in excess of four billion dollars in uninvestigated, unquestioned abuse settlements. In each case, the accused priests — both guilty and innocent alike — are ruined, permanently barred from any ministry. Noted Boston Civil Rights Attorney Harvey Silverglate described the feeding frenzy in his 2002 article, “Fleecing the Shepherds”:
“There is good reason to doubt the veracity of these newer claims, many of which were brought only when it became known that the [Catholic] Church would settle for big bucks.”
Revelations about lawsuits against David Clohessy and the organizers of SNAP allege a kickback partnership with personal injury lawyers and the manipulation of a scandal-hungry media. I wrote of this phenomenon in “To Fleece the Flock: Meet the Trauma-Informed Consultants.”
By no means does this imply that all claims are false. It means that those most offended and harmed by false claims are, not only the priests and dioceses that are the targets of fraud, but also the legitimate victims of abuse whose suffering becomes tainted, suspected and cheapened when the floodgates are opened to invite false claims. Opposing fraud is part of the sacred trust owed to real victims of abuse.
The Eighth Commandment Is at the Heart of Justice
David F. Pierre, Jr. chronicles many such accounts in his landmark book, Catholic Priests Falsely Accused: The Facts, the Fraud, the Stories. It exposes one chilling tale after another of priests whose careers and reputations were ruined by false claims of abuse (including, for full disclosure, a chapter about claims against me).
Before the law was passed in Guam, the Archbishop of Agana was himself accused of abuse dating back many years. Cardinal Raymond Burke was sent by the Vatican to investigate the case, but reportedly some of the accusers had declined to answer any questions while waiting for the Church’s ATM to open.
One brave Catholic blogger in Guam has taken up the necessary discussion that the mainstream news media refuses to have. Armed with the journalistic skepticism that was once the hallmark of the American press, “Diana,” on her blog, the Neocatechumenal Way — An Insider’s View, has almost single-handedly brought sanity and truth to the moral panic as it now emerges anew in Guam.
Diana deserves to have her voice heard and shared. Ironically, one of her most-cited sources has been the writings at Beyond 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 this blog.
I also noticed that most of the local comments were posted anonymously. The reason, I am told, is that the various agendas behind this story have more to do with quarrels over local property and finances than with child-protection policies. Commenters fear public ridicule or retaliation for posting their opinions.
In such struggles — and Guam has been no exception — great polarization takes place. The result may well be a local sex abuse scandal that has become just one more weapon in the arsenal of hidden agendas and scurrilous motives.
The sole entity for whom none of the secret agendas remains hidden is God Himself. He notes every keystroke written by accusers and defenders alike and knows also the state of the hearts and souls behind them.
This is not a new story. The Eighth Commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,” (Exodus 20:16) also commands certain elements in the law that must remain intact for the Commandment to remain God’s Law. One of these elements is that hearsay, rumor, and innuendo are simply not good enough to bring a charge — not even for God.
Former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz in The Genesis of Justice (Warner Books, 2000) describes the origin of the Eighth Commandment as being a false accusation of sexual abuse brought against Joseph by Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39:6-20):
“The Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor’ derives directly from Potiphar’s wife bearing false witness against Joseph…. [The] desperate question — ‘How can we clear ourselves?’ — is answered by this prohibition and the subsequent procedural safeguards that rest on this Commandment.”
— The Genesis of Justice, p. 250
When false witness results in profit, God’s law reveals it as the vilest of betrayals of the law. Jezebel did “what is evil in the sight of God” when she obtained profit from false witness against Ahab (1 Kings 21: 8-14). The law requires that:
“A single witness shall not prevail against any man for any crime or any wrong. Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained.”
— Deuteronomy 19:15-21
As for Guam’s embrace of Public Law 33-187 and any potential for its role in violations of the Eighth Commandment:
“There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.”
— Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, 174
+ + +
June 17, 2026: A Very Necessary Update
Nine years after writing most of the above post, contacts on the Island of Guam alerted me to a major development in the accusations against Archbishop Apuron, which resulted in him being removed from office and retired without pension. He is now age 80.
une 17, 2026: A Very Necessary Update
Nine years after writing most of the above post, contacts on the Island of Guam alerted me to a major development in the accusations against Archbishop Apuron, which resulted in him being removed from office and retired without pension. He is now age 80.
The following query was submitted by me for analysis from the xAI Grok artificial intelligence platform.
QUERY:
This post was in part about sexual abuse allegations that arose in Guam causing the removal of the Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron. I defended him in that post. Subsequently a Vatican court determined him to be guilty and sidelined him with no pension whatsoever. He has consistently maintained his innocence throughout, and I uncovered and reported on multiple conflicts of interest from those accusing him at that time.
He is now 80 and alienated but still insists on his innocence. I am in receipt of a May 7, 2025 post by Joan Aguon Charfauros. The title is “Nine Dismissals with Prejudice Filed in Cases Naming Former Guam Archbishop Apuron.” Can you please weigh in on this?
xAI GROK:
Yes, I have reviewed the May 7, 2025 post by Joan Aguon Charfauros (“Nine Cases Dismissed” / “Nine dismissals with prejudice filed in cases naming former Guam Archbishop Apuron”) on the Neocatechumenal Way — An Insider’s View blog, along with contemporaneous local news coverage from KUAM, Pacific Daily News, and Post Guam. Here is a clear, fact-based weighing-in on the development.
What Happened on May 7, 2025
Nine civil cases in the U.S. District Court of Guam were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice via stipulations filed by the plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Eight involved allegations of sexual abuse dating back to the 1970s (when Apuron was a parish priest in Agat/HÃ¥gat, mostly involving former altar boys).
One was a defamation case.
Key details:
No settlement, no money, and no other consideration was paid to the plaintiffs.
The dismissals are permanent — the same claims cannot be refiled.
Apuron’s attorney, Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, emphasized that the actions were plaintiff-initiated voluntary stipulations and highlighted Apuron’s consistent denial of the accusations.
Apuron himself broke years of relative silence with a video statement (shared in the coverage), stating in part:
“Over the past decade, I have been unjustly condemned by the media and public opinion because of certain false accusations made against me… Today, the claims made against me in 9 cases have been dismissed permanently… Contrary to false recent media reports, I have never entered into any settled agreement, and I’ve always refused to do so. I also never paid any sum of money to my accusers. Today’s dismissals come from the plaintiffs and are further evidence of my innocence.”
He also noted that the canonical process did not result in his laicization (defrocking), and contrasted this with typical outcomes for priests or bishops found guilty of such crimes.
A follow-up development: By May 2026, reporting indicated the final remaining active lawsuit against him in federal court was also heading toward (or reached) dismissal with prejudice.
The Broader Context Father MacRae Mentions
Vatican canonical outcome: In 2018, a Vatican tribunal found Apuron guilty of “delicts against the Sixth Commandment with minors.” His appeal was denied in 2019, making it final. He was removed as Archbishop of Agaña, exiled from Guam, and subjected to severe restrictions. He was not laicized and retains his status as a bishop/priest (albeit with no active ministry or pension, per your account). This remains in effect and operates under Church law standards (moral certainty in an inquisitorial process), distinct from civil court standards.
Your 2017 article: You defended Apuron and highlighted what you saw as conflicts of interest among accusers or related parties, tying it to broader issues of false witness and the Eighth Commandment. Public records show deep divisions in Guam’s Catholic community at the time (involving local politics, the Neocatechumenal Way tensions, Archdiocesan finances/bankruptcy, and the handling of other abuse claims). Some investigative reporting (e.g., Associated Press 2019) alleged Apuron covered up other abusers and destroyed files, but those claims are contested.
Weighing In
This is a significant legal development in the civil realm for Apuron. After nearly a decade of litigation involving serious allegations, the plaintiffs (through counsel) chose to drop all nine cases permanently without extracting any payment or concession. That outcome is unusual in high-profile clergy abuse litigation and lends weight to Apuron’s (and his supporters’) narrative that the claims lacked sufficient merit to proceed to judgment or settlement on plaintiffs’ terms.
— End of xAI Grok input
+ + +
Note from Father Gordon MacRae: While the above machinations in pursuit of money were underway, over all this time on the Island of Guam, this other story, which has been ignored, continues to cry to Heaven for justice.
Getting Away with Murder on the Island of Guam (now with xAI Grok’s analysis of that story)
Sunday, April 12, 2026
A Re-post
I am reposting the following post, which was published on April 16, 2016. You can find it here. According to news report: "Deacon Steve alleges that, based on his understanding, Father Luis and the student engaged in oral sex."
Deacon Steve was not present at the scene when Father Luis was arrested. If someone had told the Deacon that he was a witness who saw the whole thing, then why didn't that person report it to CPS?
----‐------‐------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the thread of my last post, it was made clear that it was the jungle who created the sex abuse allegation. This allegation never came from the police or the Archdiocese of Agana. However, the jungle is trying to blame the Archbishop for something they are responsible for. According to Tim Rohr (the bold is mine):
It is not we who have incriminated Father Luis, it is the Archbishop of Agana. And here's why:...........
On March 18, 2015, the Archbishop of Agana announced that he had "initiated a canonical investigation" into the matter which led to the arrest of Fr. Luis Camacho. In doing so, the Archbishop implicitly admits that there was "suspected sexual misconduct."
Junglewatch
The following is what the Archbishop ACTUALLY stated in his letter:
The archdiocese has initiated a canonical investigation and is cooperating fully with civil authorities.
The phrase "into the matter which led to the arrest of Fr. Luis Camacho" was put in by Tim Rohr himself. The police made the Archdiocese aware of Father Luis' arrest, which was "custodial interference." No mention or implication were ever made of any type of sexual activity by the police or the Archdiocese. A canonical investigation was conducted because ANY ARREST of a pastor is a scandal. For example, if a pastor was found inside a strip bar, that is a scandal which can lead to disciplinary measures.
The FIRST time any implication of sex was mentioned between the girl and Father Luis was in the jungle. On March 18, 2015 (the day after Father Luis was arrested), Tim Rohr wrote in his blog (the bold is mine):
Archbishop Apuron,You have a responsibility to confirm or deny the veracity of this incident. Because the girl was of the age of consent, there is no crime (if in fact she consented), and no way for the public to verify the truth or falsity of this incident.............I can tell you exactly how the chancery is going to spin this.
There's no getting around the truth of the matter. So they are going to say that they are taking this very seriously, that they have a policy of zero tolerance, that they will investigate the incident, blah, blah, blah....and then he'll disappear like Wadeson.
Junglewatch
As anyone can clearly see, the very FIRST implication of sex between Father Luis and the girl was made in the jungle on exactly SAME DAY that Deacon Steve Martinez submitted a child abuse report against Father Luis to the Archdiocese and to CPS. These allegations came from the jungle, and these allegations were made without any investigations on their part.
Therefore, Tim Rohr lied when he blamed the Archbishop for implying sexual abuse. It was Tim Rohr who perpetrated a horrific injustice on Father Luis by creating this scandal of sexual activity and finding him guilty without the due process of a trial. In fact, they even identified the sexual ACT!!! Imagine that!!! It was Deacon Steve who actually identified the sexual ACT. According to Pacific News Center (the Bold is mine):
Deacon Steve alleges that, based on his understanding, Father Luis and the student engaged in oral sex.
BASED ON HIS UNDERSTANDING????? In other words, the jungle conducted no investigation nor did they witness any sexual activity. The Deacon's "understanding" was enough to incriminate Father Luis of a sexual act.
Furthermore, this comment made by Joker's Wild says it all. His whole comment can be found here:
Readers need to be reminded that the scandal of sexual activity was created by the jungle. GPD never said that Fr. Luis was caught in the act. It was the popular commenters over at the jungle who started that rumor. They should all be ashamed of themselves. Its understood when silence brings reason for scandal but to place scandal because of outward motives is scandalous in itself. They are responsible for that and should take ownership of the scandal they created. Instantly, the archdiocese released a statement on the matter but they( jungle people) decided they were not satisfied with it as in all things and took the matter into their own hands. So the Archdiocese did their part and have no fault in the rumors that are being passed around.
Sunday, March 29, 2026
Deacon Steve Martinez in JungleWatch
You can find the following comment in JungleWatch.:
In looking at your link to a 2014 JW post, I don’t recall that post, but it is also very timely.
My take away is that your 2014 post makes it very clear that the NCW is to celebrate the Easter Vigil with the ONE parish Easter Vigil.
There was a meeting in 2024, when I was delegate to the NCW, where the Apostolic Delegate, Fr Romy Convocar, and Fr Paul made it clear to the NCW leadership that there was to be no separate NCW vigil mass. The NCW representatives were not happy about the decision, claiming it was allowed in their statutes.
Fr Paul pointed to the GIRM which requires only one Easter Vigil in a parish, and that they were wrong in their understanding of the NCW statutes.
They left the meeting knowing they were clearly told to join their parishes for a single Easter Vigil.
But as we have seen in other areas, the NCW does what the NCW wants to do. So they celebrated their own Easter Vigil.
Unfortunately, the comment came from a Deacon in Guam. The problem is that there are a few clergymen like this Deacon who is against the Way. The NCW is allowed to celebrate the Easter Vigil according to their Statutes, which was approved by Rome. In 2019, a news article wrote (the bold is mine):
The episcopal council of the Rome diocese, in a document distributed March 1, said the unity of the diocese — seen especially through the unity of the bishop and pastors of parishes in the celebration of the Eucharist — is especially important to emphasize during the triduum: the Holy Thursday Mass of the Lord’s Supper, the Good Friday liturgy of the Lord’s Passion and the Easter vigil Saturday night.
“To express visibly the unity of the holy people of God and express the deepest meaning of belonging to an ecclesial community,” the council said, those who frequent non-parish churches, chapels and oratories or who belong to special groups, associations or new movements “are exhorted to take part in the celebrations of the Easter triduum in parish churches.”
An exception exists for “national churches,” like the U.S. Catholic community at St. Patrick Church in Rome, and for members of the Neocatechumenal Way, whose Vatican-approved statutes allow for small-group celebrations of the Easter vigil, Father Midili said.
Cardinal Angelo De Donatis, the papal vicar for the Diocese of Rome, published the council’s document with a note saying the joint triduum celebrations would make the parishes “the pulsing heart” of diocesan liturgical life, while the other churches and oratories could “rediscover their proper charism as privileged places for personal prayer and the celebration of reconciliation.”
All bishops should be in communion with the Pope. All priests and deacons should be in communion with their bishops. The Vatican has already approved the Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way, which specifically instructs the Way how to celebrate the Easter Vigil.
Unfortunately in Guam, we are aware that Deacon Steve Martinez stood against Bishop Anthony Apuron, the bishop who ordained him. According to the Pacific Daily News:
“The archbishop is an accused serial sexual predator," Martinez said. "Because of that, he has selfishly used the policy to ignore the fact that he is in charge in a conflict of interest. Because what the policy clearly says in Section 484, is that the accused, if they are felt to be a potential danger to the community, should step down from their position until the investigation is resolved, until the Review Board has made its recommendation and until the archbishop has decided how to proceed with the accused. But the archbishop has not stepped down.”
Deacon Steve Martinez was also a member of CCOG (Concerned Catholics of Guam), which is an organization who protested against Apuron. He was later told to step down. According to the Guam Daily Post:
DEACON Steve Martinez said he left his position as treasurer of the Concerned Catholics of Guam as directed by an archbishop from Rome.
“Our visitors from Rome had asked me to step down from my role in CCOG and when an archbishop from Rome asks you to do something, you do it. So I removed myself from any involvement from CCOG,” Martinez said. “So Archbishop Anthony Apuron no longer has any reason to place me under censure.”
Martinez said he advised Apuron that he would stepping down and also apologized for things he wrote that were disrespectful to the archbishop.
“He accepted the apology. We certainly have a strange relationship but we have a relationship. He’s still my archbishop,” Martinez said.
The following video is an example of CCOG's character. Mr. Gennarini, the head catechists in the U.S. mainland, came to Guam and were greeted by CCOG at the airport. The video showed how they greeted him. Yes, this is the group whom Deacon Martinez was once a member of before he was told to step down.
Sunday, February 1, 2026
St. Pope John Paul Ii: ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA
The following was taken from Ecclesia de Eucharistia (the bold is mine):
8. When I think of the Eucharist, and look at my life as a priest, as a Bishop and as the Successor of Peter, I naturally recall the many times and places in which I was able to celebrate it. I remember the parish church of Niegowić, where I had my first pastoral assignment, the collegiate church of Saint Florian in Krakow, Wawel Cathedral, Saint Peter's Basilica and so many basilicas and churches in Rome and throughout the world. I have been able to celebrate Holy Mass in chapels built along mountain paths, on lakeshores and seacoasts; I have celebrated it on altars built in stadiums and in city squares... This varied scenario of celebrations of the Eucharist has given me a powerful experience of its universal and, so to speak, cosmic character. Yes, cosmic! Because even when it is celebrated on the humble altar of a country church, the Eucharist is always in some way celebrated on the altar of the world. It unites heaven and earth. It embraces and permeates all creation. The Son of God became man in order to restore all creation, in one supreme act of praise, to the One who made it from nothing. He, the Eternal High Priest who by the blood of his Cross entered the eternal sanctuary, thus gives back to the Creator and Father all creation redeemed. He does so through the priestly ministry of the Church, to the glory of the Most Holy Trinity. Truly this is the mysterium fidei which is accomplished in the Eucharist: the world which came forth from the hands of God the Creator now returns to him redeemed by Christ.
During his travels, St. Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass in various, often public, locations, emphasizing the universal reach of the Eucharist. After all, the Early Christians didn't have buildings to gather in to worship. The former Pope had the mentality of the Early Christians.
Thursday, January 22, 2026
Full speech of Leo XIV to the NCW
The entire speech of Pope Leo XIV is found here.
In the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Peace be with you!
Dear brothers and Sisters,
Cari Fratelli e Sorelle, good morning and welcome! I am pleased to see so many of you here. I greet the members of the International Team of the Neocatechumenal Way, Kiko Argüello, MarÃa Ascensión Romero, and Father Mario Pezzi, as well as the Bishops and priests that accompany you.
A special thought goes out to the families present here, an expression of their missionary zeal and of that desire which should always inspire the entire Church: to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world, so that all may come to know Christ.
In fact, this desire has always animated and continues to nourish the life of the Neocatechumenal Way, its charism, and the works of evangelization and catechesis that represent a valuable contribution to the life of the Church. To everyone, especially those who have drifted away or whose faith has weakened, you offer the possibility of a spiritual journey through which to rediscover the meaning of Baptism, so that they may recognize the gift of grace received and, therefore, the call to be disciples of the Lord and His witnesses in the world.
Inspired by this spirit, you have rekindled the fire of the Gospel where it seemed to be dying out and have accompanied many Christian individuals and communities, awakening them to the joy of faith, helping them to rediscover the beauty of knowing Jesus, and fostering their spiritual growth and their commitment to witness.
In particular, besides the formators and catechists, I wish to express my gratitude to the families that, heeding the inner prompting of the Spirit, leave the securities of ordinary life and go on mission, even to distant and difficult territories, with the sole desire to proclaim the Gospel and bear witness to God’s love. In this way, the itinerant teams composed of families, catechists, and priests participate in the evangelizing mission of the whole Church and, as Pope Francis affirmed, contribute to «awakening» the faith of «non-Christians who have never heard of Jesus Christ,» but also of so many baptized Christians who, even though they are Christians, «have forgotten [. . .] who Jesus Christ is” (Address to the Adherents of the Neocatechumenal Way, March 6, 2015).
To live the experience of the Neocatechumenal Way and carry out its mission also requires, on your part, inner vigilance and a wise critical capacity to discern some of the risks that always lurk in spiritual and ecclesial life.
You propose to everyone a path of rediscovering Baptism, and this Sacrament, as we know, by uniting us to Christ, makes us living members of His Body, His one people, His one family. We must always remember that we are Church and that, if the Spirit grants each one a particular manifestation, this is given — as the Apostle Paul reminds us — «for the common good» (1 Corinthians 12:7) and therefore for the very mission of the Church. Charisms must always be at the service of the Kingdom of God and of the one Church of Christ, in which no gift of God is more important than another — except charity, which perfects and harmonizes them all — and no ministry should become a reason to feel superior to our brothers and sisters or to exclude those who think differently.
Therefore, I also invite you, who have encountered the Lord and live His discipleship in the Neocatechumenal Way, to be witnesses of this unity. Your mission is particular, but not exclusive; your charism is specific, but it bears fruit in communion with the other gifts present in the life of the Church; the good you do is great, but its purpose is to allow people to know Christ, always respecting each person’s path of life and conscience.
As custodians of this unity in the Spirit, I urge you to live your spirituality without ever separating yourselves from the rest of the ecclesial body, as a living part of the ordinary pastoral care of parishes and their diverse realities, in full communion with your brothers and sisters, and particularly with the priests and Bishops. Go forward with joy and humility, without closing yourselves off, as builders and witnesses of communion.
The Church accompanies you, supports you, and thanks you for what you do. At the same time, she reminds everyone that «where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom» (2 Corinthians 3:17). Therefore, the proclamation of the Gospel, catechesis, and the various forms of pastoral action must always be free from coercion, rigidity, and moralizing, lest they give rise to feelings of guilt and fear instead of inner liberation.
My dearest ones, I thank you for your commitment, for your joyful witness, for the service you perform in the Church and in the world. I encourage you to continue with enthusiasm and I bless you, while invoking the intercession of the Virgin Mary to accompany and protect you.
Thank you!