Blog Song

Monday, October 13, 2014

Remember Father John??

According to an anonymous poster he/she stated: 

People need to let the past stay in the past. Mr. L did his time. He got out and he decided to make his life better for his two kids and for himself. If he's a danger to our community, why would they even bother with parole? If he's a danger, why doesn't he strike again? He is not a harm to anyone. He has not hurt anyone after he got out. He's now happily married with two kids. He may have a dark past, but he's not letting it control his life. He's not out there hurting anyone. He's trying to live his life for the better. But sadly now everyone is throwing stones and spitting at him. People need to stop. We teach our kids that it isn't nice to say mean things about other kids, no matter how true they can be. But here we are, ignoring what we preach.
 
Because this person has changed his life and has not caused any problems for more than 30 years, we should let the past be the past.  Was that what the jungle did to Father John??????? 
 
Father John was also accused of a crime more than 30 years ago.  The BIG difference between him and Joseph Lastimoza was that Father John was never convicted of any crime.  In fact, he was never arrested or indicted.  There was no settlement of any kind regarding his allegation.  Father John also have not caused any problems for more than 30 years since that allegation.  Was he a danger to the community?  Did the jungle let the past be the past????  Father John was removed because his past was brought up by Tim Rohr. 

And now the jungle is planning on threatening Father Adrian for my copy and paste of PDN.  Below is what another Anonymous poster stated: 

Oh Diana, because of you cutting and pasting soon you will hear the story entitled " Here's Johnny".

Father Adrian will soon be echoing more garbage in his life. He wasn't totally honest the first time round. Can't wait to hear the remaining echoes from the Archbishop....Oh what slander this will be....Courage to eat the garbage that will be thrown out soon! Such fruits!


OH GEE.....why not go after PDN while you are at it??  As anyone can see....the jungle does not believe in free expression.  Not only is our jobs threatened, but so is our freedom of expression.

 

53 comments:

  1. It is all in God's hands now. Whatever comes out, comes out. If there is no wrong then there should be no worries. If if there is wrong done, then people should face the music. Nothing more you can do but pray as we all are praying for all this fiasco to end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:30 pm,

      I agree. The truth is the truth. :)

      Delete
    2. @12:30 giving up so easily? That's strange.

      Delete
    3. 3:22 PM. Let's just say that there is too many mud slinging and I am tired of it. I now leave everything in the Lord's hand. Gotta get ready. Family will be arriving from work so we begin our evening with the Angelus at 6 followed by the rosary and the night prayer before eating supper. You all have a wonderful evening.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 4:19 pm,

      Let go, let God. Do you not know that God uses people as His instruments to carry out His will?

      There was a man waiting to be rescued from a flooding. A boat came by to rescue him. The man aboard the boat called to other man and told him to climb aboard. The man said, "No, the Lord will rescue me." So, the boat left. Another man with a helicopter came and told he man to climb aboard. The man said, "No, the Lord will rescue me." So, the helicopter left. Then the man drowned in the flooding.

      At the gates of Heaven, the man asked, "Lord, why didn't you rescue me. I waited for you." The Lord said, "My child, I came to rescue you twice, one by boat and another by helicopter.....and you refused my help."

      No one in the jungle told us the truth about the sex offender's past except David Mills. Instead, we were told that the Archbishop removed Father Paul because of the Way. It has been over a year since Father Paul's removal, and there is still no NCW in the Dededo parish. Then comes along David Mills and reminded everyone of Joseph Lastimoza's past. The Archbishop removed Father Paul because he disobeyed him for not removing Lastimoza's from parish duties. Why else would Tim Rohr make such personal attacks on David Mills.

      Delete
    5. Many times it makes sense to go back to the origins of a story.

      I was in Guam last year when the issue about Father Paul Gofigan came to light in the media. And I still remember that it was not the Chancery or Archbishop who made the issue public but Father Paul Gofigan. And I still remember that the media, in particular the radio talk show of Patty Arroyo immediately and gratuitously jumped to the conclusion that the real reason of Father Paul’s dismissal was his apparent refusal to start the Neocatechumenal Way in his parish. Tim Rohr soon jumped on the wagon decrying and blasting the Archbishop for this evil that he had allegedly done. The rest is history.

      Now that this David Mills, whoever he is, has put the whole issue back to perspective, there is the predictable racket. What did Mills do? He just clarified in detail what were the accusations against this Lastimoza. Simply by speaking the truth, he vindicated the actions of Archbishop.

      No one is so sick as to gloat over a rape and a murder. But the truth needed to be reaffirmed since falsehood had taken control of this story.

      Delete
  2. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles has never removed the word "credible accusations" from its list. So why are you comparing this Fr. John to Lastimoza who was paroled and freed? Logical? No. When LA drops Wadeson from the list, we zip our lips. Deal? BTW, when Wadeson arrived on Guam he was always introduced as from Australia. True enough, but who knew of his years in LA, Nj and other places.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 3:21 pm,

      To this day, the registry lists John Lastimoza as a Level 1 convicted sex offender and will soon add "murderer" to the registry. Logical? Yes. And John Lastimoza will NEVER be dropped from the list while Father John has a chance of getting his name dropped from the list.

      Delete
    2. As, I said, when the name is gone from the list in LA. Silence. Let's see about the upgrade to "good chance"

      Delete
    3. I am on registry of marrow who's going to know, unless there is a reason to know? Diana, you are a murderer with your blog. You keep stabbing away at this guy. After all the uproar when he was revealed, did the justice system say anything at all?? No. The more you capitalize on the PDN (because you never do any investigation yourself) the more you rape his family of a way to support themselves. Another crime, Diana. Irresponsible responsible that you are. Perhaps.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 5:42 pm,

      Those on the jungle always say that they need to know the truth and the truth will set you free. So, here is the truth about the man's past. And I did not make it up. So, what is the problem?

      Delete
    5. Diana, the problem is that you do this in order to justify the Archbishop's action. This person was a sinner. Now, you hit on this person because he was a sinner. The same time you guys in the NeoCat keep saying that you are sinners. So what is your attitude? Are you hitting those who sin? Or are you belonging to them? This is a very fine moral issue that all sectarian groups used to fail to resolve among themselves. This is actually a test that reveals if you have a sense of Catholic morality or you just fake it, if you are a member of a sectarian group or not...

      You would not care if the Archbishop would not be a NeoCat. But he is a NeoCat so you try to justify whatever he does. This is the problem. You make fellowship with someone just because the person is a NeoCat, but refuse to make fellowship with others who are "plain" Catholics. You are not Catholic in the general sense of the word. Jesus has embraced all of us, sinners as we are, Catholics as we are. But you are Catholic for those only who are like yourselves, the NeoCats. This is the reason many people think of the NeoCat as a sect inside the Church.

      Delete
    6. Dear voice of faith,

      I stand up for the Archbishop not because he is a "neo-cat." Even if he was not walking in the Way, I would still stand up for him because he is the true representative of the Catholic Church. David Mills wrote to the PDN, and a large majority of the readers of PDN are the locals....those who live on Guam. Both Tim's blog and mine are frequented by many from other countries. By posting Mills letter on this blog, they also get to see it. So, now they have a more balanced view of what is going on.

      The jungle claims that Father Paul was removed because of the NCW. Over a year has passed and still no NCW in the Dededo parish. If the Archbishop really wanted to put the NCW in Dededo, he would have done so by now. David Mills letter reminded us of the real reason why Father Paul was removed. He was given a directive to remove someone who was on the sex offender registry and Father Paul disobeyed. Everyone rallied for Mr. Lastimoza, but no one said anything about the victim he raped and killed. If the story is going to be told, then let the ENTIRE story come to light, and not just the parts you want to show. It was Mr. Mills who reminded all of us of the victim, who should not be forgotten even if the man repented.

      Delete
    7. As usual vof, you are mistaken. People who participate in the NCW make plenty of fellowship with people of other groups, Opus Dei, Communion and LIberation, Charismatic Renewal, Focolari. It is hard however to make fellowship with people who have beliefs, morals and ethics that are contrary to Catholic teachings. Like yourself. we can be personal friends, but we must agree to disagree in all matters of importance in life and faith.

      Delete
  3. Members of the clergy are held to a higher standard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:12 pm,

      And that is the reason why the Archbishop removed Father Paul and Monsignor James. As Mr. Mills pointed out, if this was in the US parishes, Mr. Lastimoza would never have been hired.

      Delete
    2. I don't know what is the big fuss about keeping a person of bad past away from the children?! There is nothing "fine moral issue" here. Would voice, Isaias (or their wives) allow Mr Lastimoza to supervise their kids? Lol! Well, I knew the answer before I asked. Question is closed!

      Delete
  4. Diana, Is that what jesus would do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Isaias,

      Someone else asked me this same question, so I am going to give you the same answer. Jesus will forgive your sins when you repent, but forgiveness of sins is not the same as "punishment of sins, which are already forgiven." In other words, your sins are forgiven, but the punishment can remain. You may not agree with this, but this is Catholic teaching. And Jesus is the same God as the Old Testament. According to EWTN:

      Principle 3: Temporal penalties may remain when a sin is forgiven.

      When someone repents, God removes his guilt ("though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" [Is. 1:18]) and any eternal punishment ("Since . . . we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God" [Rom. 5:9]), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery: "Then David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.'

      "Nathan answered David: 'The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die'" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David, to the point of sparing his life, but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments.[8] In Numbers we read, "But Moses said to the Lord . . . 'Now if thou dost kill this people as one man, then the nations who have heard thy fame will say, "Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which he swore to give to them, therefore he has slain them in the wilderness"' . . . Then the Lord said, 'I have pardoned, according to your word; but truly, as I live . . . none of the men who . . . have not hearkened to my voice, shall see the land which I swore to give to their fathers" (Num. 14:13-23). God states that, although he pardoned the people, he would impose a temporal penalty by keeping them from the promised land.

      Later Moses, who is clearly one of the saved (see Matt 17: 1-5), is told he will suffer a temporal penalty: "And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 'Because you did not believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them'" (Num. 20:12; cf. 27:12-14).

      Protestants often deny that temporal penalties remain after forgiveness of sin, but they acknowledge it in practice—for instance, when they insist on people returning things they have stolen. Thieves may obtain forgiveness, but they also must engage in restitution.

      Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone's car, you have to give it back; it isn't enough just to repent. God's forgiveness (and man's!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.

      http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIMINDU.htm

      Delete
    2. To put it simply, Isaias, Lastimoza's sins are forgiven because he truly repented. But his punishment remains. Part of what he has to deal with is the fact that he cannot obtain a job in any Government of Guam agency nor the Church. This does not mean that Lastimoza cannot attend Mass. He can attend Mass and receive Holy Communion, but he cannot be employed by the Church nor do volunteer work for the Church. That is part of the restitution he must learn to cope with while living on earth because of the life he took.

      Delete
    3. Although I disagree with you on SOME things; I have to agree with you on this. Forgiveness through the sacrament of reconciliation removes the ETERNAL punishment but does not remove the TEMPORAL punishment. The Catholic Church does use the example of MOSES that you cited. I am not walking in the way but on this part, thank you for researching and stating the appropriate response.

      Delete
    4. Jesus would love the sinner and tell him to stay away from situations of sin. I understand you are not catholic but we have to learn the act of contrition and one of the conditions to receive absolution is to have the intention of sinning no more. No person with a sincere desire to not sin puts himself or herself in situations where there is the possibility of sinning!!! I really find fr. Gofigan very reprehensible. Lastimoza is just a man who is probably just trying to live his life to the best of his ability like everyone else is doing. But that gofigan with his moral authority would put him in such a dangerous position FOR HIS SOUl never mind safety to others, is either ignorant if catholic teaching or criminally wrong. And for all of you who say I have no compassion for saying this then you are all sinning in pride. No one should trust themselves not to fall in sins. Especially when it is a vice. For those who have forgotten how you end a confession:

      Act of Contrition

      O my God, I am heartily sorry for
      having offended you, and I detest
      all my sins, because of Your just
      punishments, but most of all because
      they offend You, my God, who are
      all-good and deserving of all my love.
      I firmly resolve, with the help of
      Your grace, to sin no more and to
      avoid the near occasion of sin.

      Delete
  5. Yes, I remember Father John, and since he is a priest of AGANA, may we know where he is? What's the problem?? Hmmmmm? Where is he.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:44 am,

      He left Guam just as the PDN stated.

      Delete
    2. Actually he is is no longer a priest of agana. So he does not need to inform anyone on his whereabouts especially violent individuals like you.
      You know what he did when he was accused publicly humiliated and removed from his post? Nothing. He prayed for his bishop and his accusers and left to clear his name so that the church would not suffer scandal. Please compare that with the tone of your post, gofigan's and benavente's public smear campaign of the archbishop.

      Delete
    3. Yeah 10:44 where is that flight schedule that Father John left the not according flight schedule? We are waiting.from your Pope Rohr and Chuck White. Anymore slander you would to claim? By the way I'm not Pius. Stop being anonymous and detach yourself from Rohr's bossom.

      Delete
    4. No longer a priest of Guam? That was fast.

      Delete
  6. I met Fr. John at the RMS seminary. He toured me around the facility and spoke of the NCW not knowing that we met already 20 some years ago when he was Itenerant in the US. We met at a Convivence of itenerants in Ashbury Park.
    Question: Did Giuseppe and company knew of his predicament before they chose him to be itenerant or was this overlooked (intentionally)? Did the Archbishop knew about this or did Giuseppe by passed the Archbishop and just assigned Fr. John in the seminary as iternerant/spiritual director.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Isaias,

      I cannot answer for the Archbishop. I do not know if he knew about Father John's past. At any rate, in our country, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nevertheless, when his past was brought up by Tim Rohr (who obviously knew about it and only used it when it was convenient to his advantage), the Archbishop removed Father John. Father John went away and did not condemn the Archbishop for it.

      Delete
    2. Dear isaias, I'm glad to see your improvement in posing questions. However there are 2 major flaws. 1. Using the word "intentionally" and addressing mr. Gennarini as "Giuseppe and company" makes your question a leading question and as such cannot receive satisfactory answer because it does not leave freedom of possibility. That question only wants the answer you want from it. 2. Question 2 is even worse. In the first place it is a follow up question that assumes your answer to number 1. In the second it presupposes that either AAA is guilty of willful bad appointment or that mr. Gennarini is capable of appointing anybody. Both are false premises.
      Two false premises cannot logically make one true conclusion. "What do they teach in schools today?"(c.s.lewis)

      Delete
  7. Annonymous 5:46 ..of course i want the ANSWER. You know logician that when Giuseppe assigns itenerants, the receiving bishop doesn't have a say on that. Yes, no say. With seminarians, the diocesan bishop has no say. I know because i went thru the process long before you were in the community.
    Question: Did Giuseppe know about Fr. John's issue or not? a. Yes b. No. c. Maybe
    Is the archbishop in a position to say no Fr. John's appointment as Spiritual Director when Giuseppe assigned him here? a. Yes b. No.
    I teach children in school to be truthful.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Induction method: Giuseppe appoints itenerants since he is head itenerant/responsible for NCW USA. Therefore, Fr. John as iternerant/Sprirtual director of RMS in Guam was appointed by Giuseppe.

    Deduction method: Giuseppe is head itenerant/responsible for NCW USA. Fr. John is appointed as itenerant/spiritual director for Guam RMS. Therefore, Giuseppe appoints/assigned Fr. John as itenerant/spiritual director of RMS Guam.

    ReplyDelete

  9. Isaias Ginson October 16, 2014 at 5:14 PM

    Your powers of deduction is limitless and boggles the mind but it is the Holy Spirit that chooses and sustains.

    Our church was formed probably 33 AD. and guided since then with the power of Holy Spirit. Giuseppe is a messenger at best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:51 pm,

      I am kindly correcting your comment. Our Church (which is the Catholic Church) was formed in the first century at Pentecost and founded by Jesus Christ.

      Delete
  10. You have made your Catechist as Idols. You know what to do with your idols. Second scrutiny..... ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Here is some changes in tone coming from the Synod on the Family (National Catholic Reporter)
    The Synod emphatically calling on the prelates to "feed the flock" and to search for lost sheep, the pontiff also directed them to avoid the temptation to become either a "hostile rigorist" concerned only with enforcing church doctrine or a "destructive do-gooder" that advocates "false mercy" instead of truth telling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Isaias,

      An idol is something one worships. We do not worship our catechists no more than we worship the Pope.

      Delete
  12. Common Diana, the Pope is too far, you hang to your catechist word as if it is coming from God, right? Of course, i know that. I have been catechist/itenerant myself. If you disobey the catechist word or even question, you question God and you are labelled disobedient.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Isaias,

      Because I have read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I would know if the catechists are going against God's words. In other words, if the catechist tells me that abortion is okay, then I already know it is not coming from God. There was one person I know who disobeyed his catechists. His catechists told him to stop committing adultery and return to his wife to work out the problems in his marriage. He was told to try and save his marriage. That person left the Way because he did not like hearing what the catechists were telling him. So, what do you think? When the catechists told this person to stop committing adultery, do you think that came from God or not?

      Delete
    2. What happens if trying to "work out the problems in one's marriage" is not the healthy way to go? And you opt another way? Will the catechist honor one's decision? Can he or she continue in the community or you are given the "NCW way or the highway" catechesis. It happened to me, (not on marriage issues) but on other issues. NCW way or the highway, take it or leave it.

      Delete
    3. Dear Isaias,

      How is it that "working out the problems in one's marriage" not healthy? To resolve problems in the marriage is ALWAYS healthy. When one overcomes the problem, it strengthens the marriage.

      The catechists understands that the person has free will and will honor that free will. However, whether the person can continue walking in the community depends on the situation. I do not know what your situation was. If the catechists sees that the person is only there to take advantage of the brothers in the community in a very bad way, the catechists can tell the person to leave the community.

      Delete
    4. Here in Guam you only had one itenerant catechist that is more or less been here from the very beginning unlike where i came from. I have seen international catechist come and go. All taking different avenues during scrutinies and you kinda get lost after one catechist tells you one thing and then another one says something contradictory to the other and writes you off saying, "i am your catechist now."

      Delete
    5. Isaias GinsonOctober 21, 2014 at 2:38 PM your motive is obvious and ought to destroy the Way here on Guam and the Catholic Church,

      Delete
    6. Isias Contradictory? That is passing judgment don't you think? You are going against the Grace that is highly a grave sin. For an individual who self proclaim to be in the Way for a while, your intentions is to destroy it. What pity.

      Delete
  13. Depends on how useful the person committing adultery was to the catechists. They (catechists) look @ the big picture (How can I use this person to benefit public perception of "the way"). If person can't be used; they kick them to the curb.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 5:04 am,

      The Catechists never had to kick out the adulterer. They end up leaving on their own because they did not like hearing what the catechists told them.

      Delete
  14. AnonymousOctober 21, 2014 at 5:04 AM that is a fat lie, I sense your living a double life. Nope is not going to work for yah,

    ReplyDelete
  15. El Camino and Diana: Father Pius and many other Presbyters specifically told us to stop defending the Way to the world. The Way speaks for itself and doesn't require defending. Why then the defensive remarks @ 5:11 & 6:41. Leave it alone, let the dead bury the dead and stop thinking every statement made is an attack to you personally.

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

      Father Pius said that we can speak out and even write to the PDN.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousOctober 22, 2014 at 1:03 AM sorry I spoke to Pius directly and he never said that, what he said not to got to Jungle Watch a Hate blog.

      Delete
    3. Dear El Camino,

      Yes, Father Pius also said not to go to Junglewatch when he was going around visiting the communities in every parish. I also heard him say that.

      Delete
  16. OH, it changed??? I'll check w/my catechist. Why the 180 degree turnaround?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 5:27 am,

      I heard it from Father Pius when he went around visiting all the communities in each parish. Yes, by all means......please check with your catechists. As a matter of fact, you can even check with Father Pius.

      Delete