Blog Song

Sunday, February 11, 2018

My Input on the Article of Vatican Insider

Once again, the Guam Daily Post was the only Guam newspaper who picked up the story published by the Vatican Insider.  The story of the Guam Daily Post can be found here.  While the Guam Daily Post does not do any investigative work but simply reports the news, at least they were able to point to the Vatican Insider so that the people of Guam can hear Archbishop Apuron's side of the story. There are a few things I would like to address regarding the latest article of the Vatican Insider.  Some of those points are things I highlighted in the article.  

First of all, I would like to address the "wheelchair", which apparently Rohr is using to discredit the story.  Anyone who has dealt with handicap people know that wheelchairs are not only for those who are unable to stand or walk. It is also used for people who are able to walk but not for long distances.  Archbishop Apuron arrived in a wheelchair because he is unable to walk long distances due to his latest surgery. He was able to stand to meet the pope because that does not require him walking long distances.  

Secondly, in order for Archbishop Byrnes to sell the seminary, he would need the approval of the Presbyteral Council, the Finance Council, and the Holy See.  Obviously, he is able to get the approval of the two councils since most of its members consist of the Junglewatch Nation.  The article, however, pointed out that the Holy See was not interested in seeing the property being sold.  According to the article in Vatican Insider: 
In his letter, the prefect of Propaganda Fide reminded Byrnes of the Church’s interest in not selling the property and the prohibition placed on alienating the property based on previously stipulated conditions. 
In the third place, was Archbishop Byrnes made aware that other diocese in the Pacific region had announced plans to send their seminarians to Guam and therefore increase the enrollment of the seminary to 80?  Was he aware of this information before he went public to the media and announce that the seminary was "unsustainable?" 

In his blog, Rohr questioned why many diocese in the Pacific would send their seminarians to Guam rather than to Fiji.  The answer is very simple.  Archbishop Byrnes even admitted it in the Pacific News Center.  He stated, "“Well what I have to do is look at the statutes for the RMS seminary, because they are unique,”  Archbishop Byrnes was correct when he made this statement.  RMS is unique than other seminaries that many dioceses in the Pacific planned to send their seminarians to Guam rather than to Fiji.  According to NBC news:
When a Vatican office summarized a 2005-2006 study of U.S. seminaries seeking answers to the clergy sex abuse scandal, it recommended that seminaries make their rules more demanding so men shed a "worldly style of life" — and it suggested Redemptoris Mater seminaries were examples worth following. 
A final thing that caught my attention was the following information reported by Vatican Insider: 
During a general audience in October 2017 in St. Peter’s Square, a canonical recourse signed by approximately 25 priests, lawyers, and other prominent figures from Guam was hand-delivered to the Pope. The signers appealed to the Pope to personally intervene regarding Byrnes’ decision, which, it read, “has inflicted a spiritual, moral and physical harm upon the faithful of Guam as a result of his actions without respect for canon law.” The appeal --multiple sources report-- is currently under review by some dicasteries of the Curia.  
There were 25 priests who signed a canonical recourse?  Obviously, Archbishop Byrnes was not very successful in bringing unity to his priests.  Healing and reparation starts with the clergy.  If there is no unity in the clergy, how does one expect to have unity in the congregation?  As I said before, if the priests have stood together as one with Monsignor David against CCOG who demanded his removal, it will send a strong message and a lesson of unity to the Catholic faithful.  But that did not happen.  Instead, some chose to be on the persecutors' side.    

42 comments:

  1. Diana the POST would and will be the only media source that will publish this stuff in an unbiased manner because l u j a n has no interest in that company, PDN has l u j a n written all over it.
    Archbishop Byrnes should have asked himself why did those four priests have to go beyond and above him in the first place? The fact that they did is a clear sign that they felt they were not being heard by their own shepherd. Archbishop Byrnes was really quick to fire them from the council and label them as insubordinate but Byrnes has yet to do anything concerning all the other files and info that have leaked out of the chancery since He becoming Coadjutor of this Diocese. Does he plan to also publicize his disciplinary actions towards those individuals who continue to feed the jungle animals with sensitive documents?
    WHat gets me even more is that after firing the four from the council, he appoints priests not even in this diocese to sit on the council.
    Things are just getting worse.

    Pas!
    -Jokers Wild

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The four priest did not respect the Archbishop by going behind his back. Pure and simple...disrespect to those who have been given authority by Mother Church.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 10:27 pm,

      Archbishop Byrnes is no better. He sacrificed Monsignor David TWICE to the mob. Rather than standing beside him, he gave in to the demands of CCOG to have him removed.

      Delete
    3. Diana, what mob, please?! Archbishop Byrnes is not following any kind of mob! When you say you are "obedient" to the bishop it means more than just keeping his order that you have to. It also means you don't talk ill of him! Msgr David was not sacrificed. His appointment was revoked for insubordination. That is all.

      Delete
    4. Dear Grow up in faith,

      Read the news report below:

      http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2017/06/20/quitugua-resigns/407859001/

      This took place BEFORE that. Therefore, I was never referring to the event when he was found insubordinate.

      Delete
  2. Archbishop Byrnes is on Retreat. Leave him in peace. Simon Peter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ha! Retreat my foot. H’e somewhere panicking because rome has turned its eye on his wicked actions. And I say wicked because no one can be so stupid in today’s church as to close a seminary with a prospected 80 seminarians from and for the pacific. So if his actions are not the result of head-splitting blinding stupidity then it must be that they are wicked and/or corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 80 seminarians? Perhaps slight exaggeration. Simon Peter

      Delete
    2. Dear Simon Peter,

      No exaggeration at all. RMS Guam had seminarians from Samoa, American Samoa, and Kiribati. And those islands were closer to Fiji, but they chose to send their seminarians to Guam.

      Delete
    3. Samoa withdrew.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 1:27 pm,

      We all know that they withdrew because of all the conflict surrounding the seminary.

      Delete
  4. Diana Timmy is trying to twist a video of pope Francis meeting with archbishop Anthony because like the post he put on showing that he was walking but in his next post it shows that the archbishop was in a wheelchair looks like he’s getting desperate

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear God is one,

      Rohr shot himself in the foot when he tried to make the Vatican Insider news article into a liar by mentioning the "wheelchair." The news report said that Archbishop Apuron arrived in a wheelchair, and Rohr made such a big deal of showing photos of the Archbishop standing before the Pope.

      Rohr's credibility was shot when the PDN pointed out that the Archbishop was sitting in a wheelchair. The "wheelchair" thing is only a distraction....not worth arguing about. Now that his credibility has been shot to pieces, he goes on to interpret the Pope's action as if he was God and knew all along what the Pope was feeling in his heart. Another distraction is his criticism of the entertainment.

      Delete
  5. Diana, how come we hear now that Archbishop Apuron "suspended himself" on June 6th 2016? Is this true? We have read a different version of the story:

    "Pope Francis suspended Apuron on June 6, 2016, after former altar boys came forward starting in May 2016 to accuse Apuron of rape and sexual abuse when he was parish priest in Agat. Apuron has denied the allegations."

    https://www.postguam.com/news/local/italian-paper-quotes-apuron-saying-to-pope-i-wanted-to/article_5a91af64-0e5d-11e8-b249-47cb0ac44bd3.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joanne, you are right. It was not him who suspended himself. He was suspended by the Pope. But this bears not much significance now. Cardinal Burke has his tribunal testimony and that will make the case secure.

      Delete
  6. Diana Timmy is now going after father Jeff

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear God is one,

      It appears to me like the jungle is getting ready to oust Father Jeff from his position and possibly other local priests as well. I wonder if Archbishop Byrnes is going to stand beside Father Jeff or ask him to resign "in light of the current climate."

      The jungle prefers to see Monsignor James be the next Archbishop. David Lujan is Monsignor James’ uncle, and when he first heard the news that Archbishop Byrnes was chosen to be the Coadjutor, he was sorely disappointed and made a discriminatroy remark that was reported in the news. Attorney Lujan stated in news report:


      “I wonder about the prudence of Rome when I heard about this. It goes to show that the people that are advising Pope Francis just have absolutely no idea about Guam,” said Attorney David Lujan.

      Lujan is representing alleged victims of clergy sex abuse including those filing lawsuits against the church and Archbishop Anthony Apuron.

      “I think it’s offensive that Rome selects someone from Detroit of all places, and a white person at that, to send that person to Guam, really, to sort of shepherd us when we got numerous brown priests that were born here, that grew up here, that know the people of Guam and are part of the people of Guam, whether they’re Chamorros or Filipinos…”

      https://cathnews.co.nz/2016/11/18/guam-welcome-new-archbishop/

      Delete
  7. All the Guam news outlets are biased. The Daily Post was the first to report the LaStampa article, but they couldn't keep themselves from writing "disgraced" in front of the name of Archbishop Apuron. Since then they changed it to "suspended", because to say disgraced is an outright lie and a calumny. However, they didn't remove the phrase from their other articles. Daily Post is a clearly biased news outlet.
    It is true, the others are worse: liar Haidee Eugenio has repeated the lie in virtually all her articles about AAA, that the Vatican put him on trial, while the truth is that Archbishop requested the vatican trial himself, to clear his name. Then the Pope suspended him, clearly at his own request, in order to undergo the vatican investigation. Accusations of this sort are very serious. They need to be taken seriously, because they mean that crime has been committed: if they are true it is the crime of the accused; if they are untrue, then it is the crime of the accuser. These things are no joke. The criminal(s) will have to answer before the judgment seat of God, even if there is no justice served here on earth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Diana,
    I think it might be worth debunking an article Rohr has written on Jungle about Humanae Vitae.
    http://www.junglewatch.info/2018/02/there-is-bit-of-uproar-over-news-that.html
    It seems he is trying to blame humanae vitae (without evidence) for corruption and some sort of abstract implosion in the Church.
    I think it would be easy to disprove that, being that not following Humanae Vitae is the number one cause of divorse in the Catholic Church. As well as the fact that the reason for it not having gotten a lot of traction (as he states it) is probably also related to the corruption and sex scandals that are in the Catholic Church.
    I find it curious that the same person throwing sexual abuse allegations is condemning a document that defends the holiness of the sexual act in marriage. The only document that defends procreative union. Seems to me that he is in favor of sexual freedom that leads to actual sexual abuse yet is defending supposed sexual abuse victims. The irony is unending.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I think Timmy doesn’t disagree with the norms given by HV regarding contraception. He is claiming that bl. Paul VI has made a few mistakes before writing HV, and also in it, but not the part where he speaks of the evil of contraception but in paragraph 6. I disagree with him on that. Tim totally misunderstands par. 6 of HV. He thinks the Pope there is saying that the moral teaching of the Church is up to a vote of a commission as long as all members vote unanimously. That is not what he is saying there, if you care to read carefully. Anyway, the biggest problem of this guy (Tim) is very obviously narcissism.

      Delete
  9. Personally, I think that rohr is showing signs of damage on his sexuality by pointing out certain acts of a circus performer in front of the pope that other people would not think of...i've seen the video and didn't think nothing of till rohr mentions it and insinuates that AAA is thinking the same thing rohr thinks....maybe one to many porn sites rohr??

    Leroy Brown

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leroy that is funny.

      Luis L. Carino====》 Espana

      Delete
    2. T.Rohr is just just regurgitating the narrative that the Vatican is inherently unreliable, corrupt, perverted. These are his own true-beliefs, but only when the Vatican disagrees with him. Why does he has to do that, now? Because Rohr suspects that Apuron has been found not-guilty, so he has to run to all mediums and say the opposite, insinuate that Apuron's silence means guilt, truth or not, T.Rohr could care less. The ends justify the means or whatever means as long as his 'version of the facts' is perpetuated. The only 'trap' he has painstakingly placed for Apuron is his court trial and Apuron is way too clever for small-time corrupt politicians, specially in a small island where he trusts more a Canonical Trial than the court in Guam. T.Rohr has friends that 'can' do his bidding at the court-level. How can I be sure of this? Well, look at how easy it was for T.Rohr to have 'his friends' eliminate the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits, just in time when 'his own personal' war against Apuron was being waged. Coincidence? I believe Apuron doesn't think so?

      Delete
    3. Ha! I’ve been saying for years that Timmy is not catholic!!! See ? He doesn’t accept the authority of the pope. He is NOT ROMAN Catholic. Maybe he can call himself a schismatic Tridintine instead of a Protestant. But definitely not catholic. I knew it all along.

      NB

      Delete
    4. I find it stange that Timmy calls himself a catholic blogger yet he goes against the catholic church and its leaders..
      I agree with NB....
      But still pray for Timmy that the Lord touches his heart....
      "Because we must!!"

      Leroy Brown

      Delete
  10. All of us! Stop judging. Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday, let's pray and do almsgiving this season. Kick the devil on the butt - all the negative is a win for the devil. Jesus Son of David have mercy on all of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 7:14 PM your preaching to the choir. Tell that to who post it crotch shot!!!!!.

      Gino Sinajana

      Delete
    2. Diana in Oct 2017 you said:

      "The Way was born on December 8th, and inspired by the Blessed Virgin Mary through Kiko Arguello."
      Can you provide verification that the Way was born on December 8 - Mary's feast day?
      I may be wrong, but this sounds like NCW propaganda to promote the Way. Surely, there is a dated document or letter from 50 years ago stating this. Can you provide?
      Thank you.

      Delete
    3. Anon 3:58
      May 8th the virgin of Pompeii not December 8.
      Major NCW events have unintentionally fallen on that date.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 10:01 pm,

      I guess I was mistaken on the dates. I thought it was on December 8th. I did recall David mentioning the Virgin of Pompeii at the last annual retreat, but I was paying more attention when he spoke about the 50th anniversary of the NCW communities in Rome and that we were all invited.

      Delete
  11. We are ALL sinners. Anon. 7:14 is giving good Catholic advice which is dangerous for one's spiritual health if ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Diana, take courage and spread the truth in order that error may be corrected. To ignore truth is to condone error.
    Deciding to not print my letters, says that you can't trust the NCW members to make their own intelligent decisions based on the evidence I have presented. You have virtually wiped out their God-given gift of free will with a push of a "delete" button.
    And, if I am the one that needs to be corrected, I truly would appreciate some constructive criticism on what I have written. Am I not a child of God, too? Does not God wish that I be saved too?
    Or has the NCW condemned me without giving me a fair trial (in the courts of your blog)?
    Sincerely,
    Another View

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Another View,

      My blog will not be used to spread your propaganda and lies about the NCW. You can go to the jungle for that.

      Delete
    2. Dear another view
      If you intentionally invent facts that create doubt among people who have no information this is evil. Debate should happen between people with full knowledge of church teachings. Specially when what you are debating is your personal belief.

      Delete
  13. CCOG's nature are putting doubts. Look at Gofigan's crew. They were thrown out under the bus after their Pope Gofigan got reinstated by Hon.

    Luis L. Carino ======》 Espana

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear Anon 10:01

    ?????? I was asking for clarification of Diana's statement of Oct 2017.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Another View,

      It was already obvious that you have made up your mind on what to believe.

      Delete
  15. Diana, I was addressing Anon. It appears there is no clarification? Then the statement should not have been made. Peace

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dear Diana,
    Re yours of 355 PM
    Yes, I have made up my mind my on what to believe based on the Bible, Popes' letters, encylicals, books, Saints writings, magisterium, etc. It's when we believe others who contradict these things, that we have a problem. But, thanks be to God, these problems can be solved because when you love Jesus, you want to please Him. Peace and Love Diana

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear another view,

      My mind is made up for the same reason. God seeks those who worship Him in spirit and in truth. Christ said you will know them by their fruits. If you wish to spread your propaganda and twisting lies, there is a blog that will gladly publish them for you. Peace and love another view.

      Delete
  17. What dates did Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI celebrate Mass with the Neocatechumenal Way? Are there any pictures, or Utube videos of these?
    Thank you and God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Clara,

      See the weblink below:

      https://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2018/02/responding-to-clara.html

      Delete