VATICAN: SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH A MINOR

 By Tim Rohr

Well, well. It's so nice to hear from The Diana again. We missed you. You did more to help us get rid of Apuron than anybody else. Had it not been for you and your blog keeping the "conversation" going for those couple of years after the Gofigan and Benavente thing cooled down (and before Apuron's victims came forward), old Brother Tony might still be running things.

But to the point. 

It's tragic that we cannot rely on this archbishop to keep the story straight. However, even though he messed up on the laicization thing, he didn't backtrack on what the Vatican found him guilty of. And if he was wrong on that, believe me "the trained lawyer" and the Heresy Guys would have been all over that and there would have been a retraction. But there wasn't. 

So from the first letter, we see that it wasn't just Deacon Steve Martinez and JungleWatch who made sexual allegations as The Diana claims. Apparently somebody else did too or the the "Congresso of the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith" could not have found the "Rev. Luis Venancio B. Camacho"..."guilty of delicta graviora cum minore - grave offenses involving a person under the age of eighteen." (I just love the Latin by the way: "delicta graviora cum minore." It sounds like the title of a tragic aria in a Puccini opera.) Ah "delicta!" 

Also, note the plural: "offenses." This would be consistent with local rumors that when the cops caught Luis in a car at an Agat beach with an underaged girl in 2015, that it wasn't the first time that he had something going on with this girl. In any event, "grave offenses" sounds a bit more serious than "custodial interference."

And then there was the Penal Decree of May 5, 2025 (as set forth in the first letter) finding Luis "guilty of delicts contra sextum, meaning violations of the Sixth Commandment (sexual misconduct) committed with a minor. Again, the plural: "delicts." (How serendipitous that "sextum" which appears to refer to sex, actually is Latin for "Sixth," but it's all the same anyway.)

Here, the Vatican spells it out SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH A MINOR. So, since the Vatican didn't call Deacon Steve or me (JungleWatch) then obviously, given the gravity of this whole affair, the delicta graviora, don't you think the Congresso might have done more research than just read JungleWatch? Of course they did. Maybe they interviewed the girl after all. Especially now that she is no longer a minor.

As I've shared on this blog several times before, all of this is unnecessary. Every human being falls, even priests, even neo-priests. Even now, if Luis would just say I'm sorry, most likely he would be welcomed back with open arms. 

But the Heresy Guys can't afford an "I'm sorry." Their Neocat worldwide empire is on the line, which is why after ten years and having been found guilty twice by the Vatican, once by the pope himself, Apuron came running out to the cameras a couple months ago to declare his innocence because his accusers dropped their civil cases against him. 

The cases were dropped because this was a civil liability matter which sued for money damages, and Apuron had no money. So the lawyer for Apuron's victims saw no reason (since their would be no payout) to pursue the case. The real reason didn't matter though, not to Apuron, and not to the Heresy Guys. 

Meanwhile, a note to Archbishop Jimenez. Could you please retain some competent legal counsel, PLEASE. We really can't afford any more "misunderstandings."

THE BACKSTORY TO THE LUIS CAMACHO MESS

By Tim Rohr

This started out as a short post to address the "correction," i.e. the thing Archbishop Jimenez is calling a "clarification." It's not a clarification of course, it's a correction to a very big error. But I got sidetracked on to the whole history of this thing. And while I've catalogued this history elsewhere (Orchestrated and High Drama in the AOA), both of those are multi-part and very long. So, in the interest of those not familiar with the backstory, here's the abridged version.

++++

Well there's much to say about this mess, but perhaps the first thing to say is "we told you so." Since Ryan Jimenez took on the mantle of Archbishop of Agana, we have been urging him to do something about what caused all of our problems in the first place: the "Jewish-Protestant heresy, as Bishop Athanasius Schneider terms it, that marched onto our island in 1995 and set up shop under the direction of the Nefarious Monk and his sponsor, the now de-frocked Fr. X. (I'm going to leave out some of the actual names.)  

The history is long, complex, and dirty, but in short, Fr. X, going back to his seminary days, had the equivalent of a high school grudge against his better looking and brighter classmates. The grudge was aggravated in the early 90's when he was passed over for the honorific of "Monsignor" while his nemeses, and one nemesis in particular, received the title. Fr. X left in a huff under the guise of sabbatical, and while away, fell in with the Nefarious Monk who was a key operative in the aforesaid "Jewish-Protestant heresy."

Fr. X saw his opportunity. The Heresy Guys had money, power, and numbers. But Fr. X had something the Heresy Guys needed. You see, in order for the heresy to grow, they needed their own priests. The Heresy Guys had already gotten papal permission from the well-meaning JP2 to have their own seminaries, but they needed bishops to ordain their guys, especially the guys no other bishop wanted. And Fr. X had a bishop: Apuron. More specifically, Fr. X had the dirt on Apuron. The idea was to use that dirt to deal with Apuron. The deal was: You let us run your diocese, you give us a seminary, and you ordain who we tell you to, and we'll take care of you if ever that dirt of yours hits the fan. 

But why did Fr. X need the Heresy Guys? Fr. X wanted to be the next Archbishop of Agana, not because he really wanted to be an archbishop, but because he didn't want "the other guy, his arch-nemesis, to get the job. It was all high-school stuff, and Fr. X would finally get his revenge for not getting picked first for the kickball team.

By 1995, Apuron had gotten away with his perversions for at least a couple of decades. It's not that nobody knew. In fact, it seemed that everybody knew. When I first relocated to Guam in 1987, it wasn't long until I heard the whispers, whispers I continued to hear for many years after, but always whispers with a knowing smile. In other words, Apuron's sexual perversions, as well as many other clerics, was just, well, you know, it was sort of like that uncle who you try to keep away from your daughters, but he still gets invited to all the family parties. In other words, it was known, but hey, "When's the next fiesta?"

However, at least from some of the other whispers I heard, Apuron was always aware that someday these ghosts of Agat Past, might surface, especially after that devastating run in with Walter Denton in Washington around 2000. 

Walter was in the military and happened to be in Washington at the time. As I heard it from Walter, a party of local Guamanians was planned and Apuron would be in attendance. Walter heard about it and invited himself to the party. At the party, Apuron, in his usual near-papal regalia, was making the rounds and everyone was fawning over him and kissing his ring. But then he came to someone who didn't kiss his ring. It was Walter. Walter stared at him and said: "Archbishop do you remember me?" Apuron didn't. Then Walter told him his name and according to Walter, Apuron went as white as the regalia he was wearing.

For those who don't know, according to Walter, Apuron had sodomized him, raped him, when he was a 12 year-old altar boy at the Mt. Carmel parish in Agat, where then-Fr. Apuron, was pastor (ca. 1975). 

LINK TO STORY

Back to the Washington meeting, Apuron, per Walter, asked Walter to go for a walk with him. Walter agreed and, again per Walter, Apuron began crying and begging Walter to forgive him. From what I remember, Walter was moved to forgive him until Apuron offered him a picture of himself and a CD featuring Apuron singing, as a peace offering. Walter walked away and was silent for the next 15 years until this blog began giving clergy sex abuse victims a voice. 

In the meanwhile, per my sources (there were many), Apuron had been lawyering up for years, both canonically and civilly. He knew the day of reckoning might one day come, and he knew he needed a Plan B. Thus, he was perfect prey for Fr. X, the Nefarious Monk, and the Heresy Guys. They would protect him so long as he would rubber stamp their projects. It worked well for a while, quite a while. And it might still be working except for an overreach by Apuron when he, at the orders of the Heresy Guys, began the campaign to clear out the parishes of Neo-resistant pastors, beginning with Fr. Paul Gofigan and Msgr. James Benavente. Additionally, Apuron had overreached by p-ssing off some key people on the finance committee when he told them to shut up and sit down when questions came up about the status of the then 75 Million Dollar seminary property. 

There was some suspicious stuff going on with that property and Apuron was overreacting to normal questions good finance committee members are supposed to ask. Of course, we would eventually find out why Apuron was acting so strangely, he had already surreptitiously deeded the property to the control of the Heresy Guys. And why did he do that? The Heresy Guys were pretty bright crooks, and experienced too. They were no slouches. Their names read like the cast of The Sopranos...or The Godfather. They knew what was coming for Apuron one day, and they wanted to get that property, their seminary property, out from under the name of the Archbishop of Agana, a Corporation Sole. They knew that a lawsuit, like the one that eventually came, would cause that property to wind up in a legal settlement. So getting Apuron to deed it to them before anything like that happened was a smart move, a very smart move. But it had to be kept on the down low, and so it was. There was no announcement. Just a deed quietly filed with Department of Land Management on November 22, 2011. 

Well, anyway, bottom line is the Heresy Guys waltzed right in here and took over. It was slow and quiet at first. But by 2008, things had gotten heated enough to prompt the first public protest ever against Apuron, and it happened on a day that the Cathedral was celebrating its jubilee, or something like that. There were visiting bishops who were in the procession which marched around in front of the cathedral directly across the street from the protestors who held very visible signs attacking Apuron. I saw Apuron's face as he walked by and knew trouble was coming. From that day he, Fr. X, the Nefarious Monk, and the Heresy Guys cranked their seminary into overdrive. Apuron was going to drive out every last one of the Neo-resistant priests.

By 2013 Apuron had enough of his Neo-priests ordained where he could make a major move. The first target was Fr. Paul Gofigan. In July 2013, Apuron and his Heresy Guys dragged Gofigan into the chancery and read him the riot act: "It is to your advantage to resign immediately rather than experience a more arduous and painful closure to your assignment..." 

When I heard of these words, I knew they didn't come from Apuron, they came from the Heresy Guys. The Heresy Guys were writing the script and directing their rubber stamp puppet to perform. You can read all about it in Apuron vs Gofigan. 

Next, they went after Msgr. James Benavente, who was then the rector of the cathedral. Same henchmen, same evil twins (David the Tall & Adrian the Small), same script: threats, public malignment, brutal, ugly, and pathetic given that this was our archbishop, the vicar general, and the chancellor doing this. But then again, they were just puppets of the Heresy Guys and the Nefarious Monk. 

However, the news about Benavente woke up a sleeping monster in San Francisco by the name of John Toves. The story is too long to tell in this already long story (you can read it in Orchestrated), but John was the first to come out publicly and accuse Apuron of what everybody already knew. It took about another year. John didn't give up. And eventually John's shouting out Apuron's perverted history reached others. Then others. Then hundreds. And then bankruptcy. 

So you see where this all started? I'm speaking to the current archbishop. Do you see why we have been quietly asking you to, at minimum, at least enforce the restrictions on this Jewish-Protestant heresy that your predecessor put in place?

The Heresy Guys will beat you just like they beat Byrnes. In fact they already are (beating you) given the mess over the Camacho thing. Bankruptcy. The loss of millions and millions of dollars. The loss of lands and other assets. (And the loss of how many souls?) All paid for by the faithful Catholics of this archdiocese and their ancestors. All of it, lost because Apuron let the Jewish-Protestant heresy in the door. Well, that's not entirely true. He let Satan in first. 

More to come.

AMAZING...BUT EXPECTED

By Tim Rohr

The Neocats never give up. They wear you down. Luis will win in the end...unless, unless...the people of this archdiocese stand up like they did against the bishop who ordained him.  

 

By the way, I don't know who this bishop is, but he nails it:

WHEN ORDINATION BECOMES A MISTAKE

Tragedy of Giving Titles to Those Without Mantles

There are ordinations that should never have happened.

There are hands that should never have been laid.

There are people who should never have worn a collar, touched a pulpit, or carried a title because the attitude behind the person was already a warning from Heaven.

One of the greatest dangers in ministry today is placing a crown on a head that has never carried a cross.

Some people were ordained because they could sponsor projects.

Some because they had influence.

Some because they appeared helpful, quiet, humble, or “faithful.”

But many pastors have discovered—too late—that what looked like firewood was actually a cobra hiding under dry sticks.

When you carry a title you don’t have the mantle for, you automatically enroll yourself into battles you are not equipped to fight.

And when such people enter leadership, their true colors eventually emerge, pride, rebellion, manipulation, stubbornness, carnality, and corruption.

DID YOU REMEMBER SIMON THE SORCERER (Acts 8:9–24)

The early church almost made a dangerous mistake.

Simon the Sorcerer was in church, he believed, he was baptized, he followed Philip, and he even admired the anointing.

To an undiscerning eye, Simon looked ordination-ready:

Committed, Present in every service, Close to the leaders, Eager to serve

But Peter discerned that his heart was not right before God.

He wanted the office without the character.

He wanted the anointing without repentance.

Had they ordained him, Simon would have become a disaster in leadership.

This is the same mistake happening today:

People ordained without purification.

People given authority without maturity.

People consecrated without transformation.

You ordain a man for his money, he will buy influence and scatter the church.

You ordain a woman for her loyalty, her hidden rebellion will manifest later.

You ordain a man because he is supportive yet his heart is not saved.

You lay hands on someone who begged for a title, soon you’ll beg God for mercy.

Some ordination services should never have taken place.

Some photos on the wall of the church should never have been framed.

Some collars should never have touched certain necks.

Because titles don’t change people, titles expose people.

A snake remains a snake even when dressed in a clerical gown.

The early church did not ordain people because of their pockets or personalities.

They ordained men “full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom” (Acts 6:3).

Not full of ego.

Not full of ambition.

Not full of cunning generosity.

Not full of hidden agendas.

If a pastor ordains the wrong person, he will fight battles that were never part of his calling.

There are people who look like firewood but carry venom.

There are people who look like helpers but are traps.

There are people smiling today, waiting to strike after ordination.

It is better to delay a genuine calling than to ordain a disaster.

His Excellency

++Dr. Chinomso Jude Nwala

TROY'S TAKE ON THE CAMACHO AFFAIR

LINK

DIANA: "NO BIGGIE" - NINE YEARS LATER

By Tim Rohr

Whenever there is new news about something going on with the Neocats - as there was this week - there is usually a flurry of activity on old posts. Given the gravity of the Luis Camacho Affair, I really didn't expect to see any old posts near the top. However, this post from 2016 is ranked 3rd over the last 7 days. I really don't know what caused all the views. There wasn't anything in it about Luis Camacho. The comments - 9 years later - are amusing though.

https://www.junglewatch.info/2016/06/diana-no-biggie.html

For context, the post, featuring comments from The Diana, was posted the day Walter Denton spilled his guts at a street press conference in Hagatna, recounting how, as a 12 year-old altar boy in Agat, he was sodomized by then-Fr. Anthony Apuron. In hindsight, it was Walter's testimony, more than any other, which brought the canonical investigation down on Apuron and the literal Gotterdamerung which followed.

https://www.junglewatch.info/2016/06/altar-boy-sodomized-by-father-apuron.html

FR. LUIS: SCAPEGOAT

By Tim Rohr

For anyone who knows a bit about the underbelly of Neocat theology, it's hard to miss the irony of what happened to one of the Neocat's own sons: the now-former Fr. Luis Camacho.

I don't know a lot about this weird theology, but I know someone who does, and Chuck White has studied and written quite a lot about it on his blog ThoughtfulCatholic.com. 

Several years ago, Mr. White posted an article titled The Xiphias Gladius Project. As White points out, said Project is the "name of a team of Neocatechumenal academics dedicated to researching and teaching the theories of Rene Girard,  a French-born American academic." (I recommend reading the full article.)

In short Girard matters greatly to the Neocats because Girard teaches that Christ's death was not a sacrifice, just as the Neocat founder, Kiko Arguello does. Rather, Girard (and Kiko) teach that Jesus Christ was a "scapegoat" and that his crucifixion and death was a ritual "scapegoating." White explains:

Girard posits that we learn what to desire by imitation, and as we compete for our desires, violence can erupt.  Our communities and societies have controlled this violence by projecting it onto a scapegoat outside the community.  Once the scapegoated enemy has been eliminated, some peace returns for a while.  Ancient sacrificial religions with sacrifices and prohibitions originated as an attempt to ritualize this “scapegoat mechanism” and control the violence. 

Functionally, this is what Archbishop Jimenez (if he does nothing else about the matter) has done. He has attempted to "control the violence" - the justifiable outrage of many in this archdiocese (even if it has been ten years) - by sending Luis "into the wilderness."

Then Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone designated for the task. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness.— Leviticus 16:21–22, New Revised Standard Version

In this case, the scapegoat isn't an innocent animal, but a person who really did the things he was accused of and deserves to be banished to the wilderness. However, given the atrocious level of "all the iniquities of the people" (Apuron and the NCW handlers - and don't forget Diana), one might view the now branded ex-priest as relatively innocent - a scapegoat.

The "atrocious iniquities" have been well laid out in the previous two posts on the matter, but to sum up: Luis was caught in the act and arrested. While it was downplayed as "custodial interference," it's quite obvious that it was a lot more than giving an underage girl a lift somewhere without her parents' permission. And it's obvious from all that followed: Luis' resignation, his sudden disappearance, the lies that went as far up as the bishop of Doha, Qatar, and perhaps even up to then-Pope Francis, that something very, very serious happened.

I say "even up to then-Pope Franics" because Doha, Qatar, where Luis found refuge, is not a diocese but an Apostolic Vicariate under the direct administration and authority of the pope. In fact, even though Bishop Camillo Ballin, Luis' protector, was a bishop, he was not the bishop of Doha. He was the "apostolic vicar." The actual bishop of Doha is the bishop of Rome, the pope. 

This may explain why it took so long to get to the bottom of the Luis Affair: both Ballin and Francis are dead. And despite the still questionable direction of the new sheriff in town (Pope Leo XIV), it is quietly known that Leo is no friend of the NCW given what he had to deal with in Peru. So in short, for Luis, there was "nowhere to run, nowhere to hide," but back to Guam where he thought he might have a good shot at some cover, if not redemption.

But why did he think this? (If he did.) It's just speculation, but it seems quite possible that the new archbishop, particularly since he has done nothing to enforce any of the limits on Neo activities that his predecessor had put in place, that he might go soft on Luis. And it's quite possible that he may have. However, JW has never let this story go, and from what I can tell, certain clerics didn't let it go either, especially since it appeared that Luis just came marching back expecting, and maybe even demanding (as the Neo-clerics are inclined to do) to be welcomed.

And why wouldn't he? Luis was raised in Neo-think. All you have to do is blather out your sins to your community and all is well. In fact, that might have worked. Had Luis immediately and publicly confessed his bad-doings to the community, the whole community of Guam and not just his little Neocat enclave, and begged forgiveness, the people of Guam are such that he probably would be a much-loved and active pastor in Guam today. 

Or even if he did this ten years later. Had he gotten off the plane, called a press conference, and openly apologized for the "sins of youth" from ten years ago (even though he was in this 30's), I believe we would have forgiven him and welcomed him back. 

But he didn't do that. From what I understand, he secretly returned to Guam and functionally demanded to be restored. This put the clergy of the archdiocese between a rock and a hard place. This wasn't possible. Luis' actions of ten years ago came at a time when Apuron and the Neocats were already under increasing scrutiny (Apuron had already been called out as sex abuser by John Toves), and the Luis Affair was the "shot heard round the diocese" as it led to a cascade of events that resulted in the financial undoing of the archdiocese and the loss of many millions of dollars not to mention the loss of lands that many ancestors of the local population had donated to their church. 

So why didn't Luis just apologize? He couldn't. What we on the outside have to understand is that saving the face of the Neocatechumenal Way is the over-arching and controlling ethic of every thought and action by its members. Exhibit A is Apuron himself, who only recently, after nearly 10 years and having been found guilty twice by the Vatican, romps out in front of a camera and lies all over again, obviously reading a script most probably written for him by his handlers. 

Speaking of Apuron, and I've said this before, even he - despite the horrible things he did - would have been forgiven if he would just have said "I'm sorry, I was wrong." Imagine the pain those few words would have spared this Church! Imagine.! But Apuron had long been in the clutches of the Evil Monk and those beyond him, not to mention, the Great Deceiver himself (which is why Archbishop Byrnes chose to exorcise the bishop's house at the chancery before he moved in.)

But back to the scapegoat thing. I hope this isn't true, but from what we can tell so far, it appears that Archbishop Jimenez, by casting Fr. Scapegoat Camacho into the wilderness, is hoping that we will be quietly mollified ("controlled the violence") and will cease demanding action against the truly bad actors in this case and that "peace returns...for a while." 

+++++

The letter from Bishop Camillo Balin exonerating Luis Camacho in 2016:

MORE ON THE "SAGA OF LUIS CAMACHO"

The following was submitted anonymously in response to the post THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF THE "SAGA OF LUIS CAMACHO" 

+++++

Who is really responsible for the Abuse of a Merizo Girl?

Fr Luis admitted his guilt the day of the offense. And Archbishop Apuron accepted his resignation. Even though his seminary training was flawed, he is responsible for his actions. BUT, the lies and deceit that followed are not by Fr Luis, but of the Neo Catechumenal Way (NCW). Let’s review the reality…

Bishop Ballin was a total Neo priest. Like Apuron he regularly attended the private Saturday evening mass as a “brother” in his NCW community. That’s why Qatar was a safe haven for a sex offender like Fr Luis. And, for the very same reason, that’s why Guam was a safe haven for sex offenders like Fr John Wadeson. The Neo has a long record of harboring sex offenders!

The Neo is masterful in creating priests with low qualifications as long as they are willing to drink the Neo Kool-Aid. So, Fr Luis, an admitted sex offender, hides out in Qatar. Even worse … as a youth minister - go figure that one out! But early in his underground ministry in Qatar, Chuck White had the courage and good sense to write a letter to the Bishop of Qatar, advising him that there were problems back in Guam with Fr Luis. That seems like a REALLY responsible thing to do. “Protect Qatar AND protect Guam”. Because Mr White understood that if Fr Luis did anything bad in Qatar, Guam would be held responsible for allowing a known sex offender to carry out his ministry in a distant land. 

Now, at this point, one must ask, did the Archdiocese of Agana also send a clear warning to Qatar, advising Bishop Ballin that Fr Luis had his faculties in Guam suspended for sex abuse of a minor child? If the Archdiocese of Agana did then good job by the Church in Guam. That would be a good letter to publish to help restore some faith. If no letter was sent? Then wow! The people in Guam have a right to know why this precautionary step was not taken. 

But we know that Fr Luis flew under the radar, with no faculties, for 9 years. And then in 2024 the prodigal son returns to his Guam spiritual father. So what changed? Why did FR Luis suddenly return to Guam where he knew his ministry was finished? 

The answer is clear. In early 2020, Fr Luis’ benevolent Bishop, Camillo Ballin, passed away. Suddenly Fr Luis’ protection was at risk! You can be sure the Neos were desperate to have a fitting replacement in Qatar. They had to place someone willing and able to push the Neo agenda, and totally disregard the Catholic Church processes and safe environment guidelines. 

The Church moves slowly, but finally, after a three year period, a new Bishop was appointed to Qatar, Bishop Berardi. And like all bishops going to their assignment, the first thing they do is get a feel for what is going on in their area of responsibility. That probably took about a year. 

And then? Then when he was ready to implement his vision for his area, Bishop Berardi must have had Fr Luis at the very top of his agenda. Any Bishop would have serious questions about Fr Luis (if they weren’t infected by the NCW). Try as they might, the Neo must have been unable to coax Bishop Berardi (who has an advanced degree in moral theology) to allow Fr Luis to continue in ministry, or to pass him on to some other Neo stronghold where Fr Luis could continue flying under the radar. 

Eventually, Fr Luis was forced to return to Guam to face the music. And it wasn’t the tune he wanted to hear from Fr Romy … no restoral without a full investigation to clear him.  And Fr Romy starts an investigation.

Looking back on 2016, remember where Bishop Ballin sent a letter to the faithful in his vicariate in 2016 saying that Rome had investigated the matter thoroughly and found Fr Luis completely innocent? That was a bold Neo lie! Rome had never done an investigation before 2024. 

The first verdict against Fr Luis, by Guam/Australia, was guilty of sex abuse. 

But the Neo was not yet ready to quit. So an appeal went to Rome for a review. Unlike the fake investigation Bishop Ballin claimed in 2016, in 2024 a real investigation by Rome confirmed a second verdict … Guilty. 

And because of that second confirmed ruling, he is now just Luis Camacho, not Fr Luis Camacho. 

All the lies. All the slander. All the deceit. But interestingly, none of it came from Luis Camacho…he knew the truth, and resigned right after his arrest. All the lies and all the slander and the misleading statements came from the NCW. They desperately tried to save face. And in desperation they tried to keep their precious asset…a Neo priest. 

So now we know the truth. 

Rome did the right thing by laicizing Fr Luis. He made a grievous mistake and is being held accountable, as it should be. But now we wait and see what the Archbishop of Agana will do with the party who is guilty of conspiracy and complicity…of outright lies and deceit. 

The Neo willfully subjected youth to grave harm by blocking attempts at investigation, and by allowing Fr Luis to flee to a distant Neo conclave. And the NCW subjected two Churches to a potentially huge liability. 

Archbishop Ryan… the faithful on Guam would like to know when a trial against the NCW will be held to determine the penalty for their crimes against our people and our Church. We await your public notice on when this will start. And we plead: do not make us wait another ten years to conclude this second canonical trial. 

As you said in your letter to the people of Guam: truth, justice, and responsibility are paramount. But real truth, justice, and responsibility are not accomplished until all responsible parties are brought to justice. ‎

Fr Luis admitted his guilt 10 years ago and resigned. The NCW forced him into continuing his ministry in a distant land. When will the Neos be held accountable?

THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF THE "SAGA OF LUIS CAMACHO"

By Jose Martinez

On December 11, 2025, Archbishop Jimenez issued a pastoral letter addressing “The Case of Luis Camacho.” While it appeared to bring closure to the charges of sexual misconduct against Luis Camacho, the letter is better understood as only the first installment in what should rightly be called “The Saga of Luis Camacho.” (thoroughly documented on JungleWatch)

What is most striking in Archbishop Jimenez’s letter is its silence regarding a central player in this saga: the Neocatechumenal Way (NCW). Far from being a peripheral presence, the NCW orchestrated Camacho’s removal from the island, shielded him from accountability, and launched a campaign to discredit Deacon Steve Martinez, who had courageously exposed (here and here) both the sexual misconduct justifying Camacho’s 2015 arrest and Archbishop Apuron’s failure to enforce the Archdiocese’s Sexual Misconduct Policy. In 2016, the NCW coordinated press releases and interviews, issued on Archdiocesan letterhead, attacking Deacon Steve. These included statements from Chancellor Adrian Cristobal, now disgraced and laicized, while Archbishop Apuron himself was effectively sidelined by his NCW catechists.

The NCW’s involvement is unsurprising. At the time, Father Luis Camacho was one of the newly ordained “poster priests” of the NCW’s Redemptoris Mater Seminary. His arrest was not merely another blemish on the NCW’s troubled record in Guam; it was a direct blow to their image. To protect their prized local Chamorro son, they scrambled frantically, more like Keystone Kops than shepherds, but unlike silent-era comedy, their maneuvers inflicted real and lasting harm.

The damage, both spiritual and temporal, to our Archdiocese demands serious admonition. Archbishop Jimenez' pastoral letter ought to be followed by a forthright acknowledgment of the NCW’s role, especially now that Deacon Steve Martinez has been publicly vindicated.

In his December 11 letter, Archbishop Jimnez affirmed “our Archdiocese’s continuing commitment to transparency, accountability, and the protection of minors and vulnerable persons, as we continue the long effort and difficult work of restoring trust.” Those words would resonate if followed by a second part that directly addresses the NCW’s actions: their squirreling away of Luis Camacho from civil and Church authority, their slander against Deacon Steve Martinez, Tim Rohr, and others, and their deliberate deception of the faithful.

The harm inflicted by the NCW on Guam cannot be minimized. It was orchestrated. It was deliberate. It was coordinated. And it was deceptive. To leave such conduct unrebuked undermines the Archdiocese’s credibility in its pledge to accountability and trust. The NCW seized control of our Archdiocese during a time of vulnerability, wreaking havoc on families, parishes, and even depriving us of a sacred space once graced by Saint John Paul II during his visit to Guam.

It is time for the NCW to be properly addressed. No moment is more fitting than now, in the wake of Archbishop Jimenez’ “part one” conclusion to The Saga of Luis Camacho.

RELATED NEWS

Archbishop: Luis Camacho no longer a priest after Vatican review, Pacific Daily News, Dec. 11, 2025

LUIS CAMACHO RETURNS - BUT THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM, JungleWatch, May 8, 2024

The Luis Camacho FILE

AVISO. DECEMBER 11, 2025

 

PDF

NEEDED CLARIFICATION ABOUT DEFLECTION AND DENIAL.

 (Posted by Frenchie)

Some of the most powerful weapons of Satan and his fallen angels, are lies, deception and denial of his own existence. This is the main reason behind his title of the GREAT DECEIVER. As I engaged last month in denouncing the fact that two of our most well-known politicians, who are running for the office of Governor for our island while being freemasons, and advertising themselves as Catholics; I was fully aware of the type of adversity I would be facing. Several friends warned me about possible retaliations, both spiritual and temporal. A couple of priests close to me, suggested some very powerful prayers of protection, while a group of parishioners volunteered to pray the Rosary for my protection and that of Tim

As you see, there was no delusion about what we were facing. Therefore, it was not surprising a couple of days later when "anonymous" appeared in the comment section below the articles. Anonymous had taken the task to bring us contradiction from his point of view. It became very clear, very fast that this person was ready to try to deflate our analysis.

Having faced for over 13 years the personal attacks from Neocats, failed Clergy and their minions, we know what to expect. As I explained over 10 years ago, we are faced by the old tactic of the 3Ds. For the new readers on this blog, I am not referring to three-dimension images, but rather Denial, Deflection and ultimately Destruction (or at least attempts at destruction) 3 Ds.

Our freemasonry advocate first tried to pose as an open-minded debater, while slowly peppering his comments with grossly ridiculous assumptions, false statements and mischaracterizations. So far, no surprise. As this bombardment of arguments, picked up in intensity, I noted that the flow was very scripted and repetitive. Having debated Marxists, Atheists, Neocats and the likes for several decades, this was certainly not a surprise. Nor was it a surprise for Tim Rohr, who first saw the onslaught and joyfully engaged our contradictor, with simple questions. It did not take long for our obviously disgruntled debater, to switch to deflections. Feel free to consult the tit for tat in the comments section.

Let's look at the argument presented to us.

Part one of three

First Part Denial

I )"New" Freemasonry is an open book, more like a modern fraternity of good, spirited people.

Well, what a nice picture. Whatever old conflict the Freemasons might have had with the Church, it was a very long time ago, according to our Masonic Catholic. Things have "evolved" (despite continuous and repeated Church Statements) Now Freemasonry is a benevolent, all-inclusive fraternity, who has grown past these pesky issues. If only this was true, I would be the 1st one to celebrate. Sadly, the facts are divorced from the cruel reality.

 The constant message and advocacy by freemasons, starting in 1717, with a strong intensity in the 1950s and 1960s, and a more polished communication today, regarding the Catholic Church has never wavered, and continue to this day. Here are the strategic recommendations from Masonic Lodge P2:

1) Weaken the concept of the real presence of Christ during the Mass.

2) Take away decorum: No more signs of the Cross, no more genuflections, do away with kneeling, especially during communion, get women and laity to give communion. Start giving communion on the hand, instead of on the tongue, collect some for Satan masses.

3) Promote Laity over Priesthood

(the weaponization of the sexual abuses by failed priests is only one of many ways to degrade the image of priests as shepherd of their flock)

A recent Gallup Poll in the USA has found a preponderance of Americans who have adopted 8 Major Masonic Moral issues. Here they are.

Birth control 91%, Divorce 73%, Heterosexual Fornication 69%, Homosexuality 63%, Birth outside wedlock 62%, Doctor assisted Suicide 57%, Pornography 36%, Polygamy 17%.

II ) Using Protestant and Enlightment Worldviews

Typical of Freemason tactics is advancing Protestant arguments as de facto Catholic Teachings.

Taking us back of course to 1517 and the advent of the Reform Movement that split the Church.

A little knowledge of our own history is necessary, I encourage everyone to look at the Protestant Enlightment Worldviews which were and continue to be the antithesis of the Catholic Aristotelian-Thomist view of Nature, commonly referred to as Natural Law.

The more obvious argument brought forth by our deceiving freemason, pretending to be Catholic is presented as follow:

"A Catholic conscience formed honestly before God guides him, in his personal relation to Christ"

So according to our Masonic theologian, no needs for Catechism, or Canon Law. Definitely a Calvinist concept taking us back to 1517, hardly a modern concept, but surely in contradiction to CCC 1758.

In both cases, the contradictor attempts to negate the subject at hand , which remains the irreconcilability of being a Mason and a Catholic at once. This is a clear case of Denial

CONSCIENCE IS NOT PRIVATE JUDGMENT

By Tim Rohr

The recent scuffle on this blog relative to a couple of candidates for governor who are also communion-going Catholics and Freemasons, has brought several issues to the fore, but namely the need to clarify the difference between conscience and private judgment. 

The Catholic Church authoritatively teaches that membership in Freemasonry is a "grave sin." Anonymous Freemason (in the aforementioned "scuffle") consistently argues that his membership in Freemasonry is not a grave sin because his conscience tells him so. 

I don't fault Anonymous Freemason for believing this as most likely he is a product of our contemporary CCD system, if not also adult faith formation, which has led him to believe that conscience equates to making up your own mind about what is a "grave sin" and what is not.

This isn't new. We have seen this time and time again with many Catholics when it comes to issues such as abortion, contraception, and same-sex relations. 

The real issue is a misunderstanding and thus a misdirection by Catholic formators (teachers and pastors) about the concept of "conscience."

In short "conscience" is formed from two words: "con" (with) and "science" (knowledge). CONSCIENCE = WITH KNOWLEDGE. Knowledge of what? In the matters of Catholic faith and morals, it is knowledge of what the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church believes and authoritatively teaches.

Conscience, at least in the Catholic moral context, is NOT private judgment - which is exactly what you see in all the arguments presented by Anonymous Freemason. However, as already stated here (and elsewhere), Anonymous Freemason is certainly not alone. 

Here's hoping that there are some pastors who are paying attention and will address the matter at soonest. By the way, in that regard, we should all be appreciative of Anonymous Freemason's obstinate denial of Catholic Church authority, otherwise, the Church's prohibition on Catholic membership may not have become known at all. 

ON THE IRRECONCILABILITY BETWEEN CHRISTIAN FAITH AND FREEMASONRY

By Tim Rohr

Given the current debate about Freemasonry on this blog, it may be useful to set out relatively recent official Catholic Church teaching on the matter. So we copy here the following document on the "Irreconcilability between Christian faith and Freemasonry."

REFLECTIONS A YEAR AFTER DECLARATION OF CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Irreconcilability between Christian faith and Freemasonry

(Emphases added)

On 26 November 1983 the S. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (S.C.D.F.) published a declaration on Masonic associations (cf. AAS LXXVI [1984], 300). At a distance of little more than a year from its publication, it may be useful to outline briefly the significance of this document.

Since the Church began to declare her mind concerning Freemasonry, her negative judgment has been inspired by many reasons, both practical and doctrinal. She judged Freemasonry not merely responsible for subversive activity in her regard, but from the earliest pontifical documents on the subject and in particular in the Encyclical Humanum Genus by Leo XIII (20 April 1884), the Magisterium of the Church has denounced in Freemasonry philosophical ideas and moral conceptions opposed to Catholic doctrine. For Leo XIII, they essentially led back to a rationalistic naturalism, the inspiration of its plans and activities against the Church. In his Letter to the Italian people Custodi (8 December 1892), he wrote: «Let us remember that Christianity and Freemasonry are essentially irreconcilable, so that enrollment in one means separation from the other».

One could not therefore omit to take into consideration the positions of Freemasonry from the doctrinal point of view, when, during the years from 1970‑1980, the Sacred Congregation was in correspondence with some Episcopal Conferences especially interested in this problem because of the dialogue undertaken by some Catholic personages with representatives of some Masonic lodges which declared that they were not hostile, but were even favourable, to the Church.

Now more thorough study has led the S.C.D.F. to confirm its conviction of the basic irreconcilability between the principles of Freemasonry and those of the Christian faith.

Prescinding therefore from consideration of the practical attitude of the various lodges, whether of hostility towards the Church or not, with its declaration of 26 November 1983 the S.C.D.F. intended to take a position on the most profound and, for that matter, the most essential part of the problem: that is, on the level of the irreconcilability of the principles, which means on the level of the faith, and its moral requirements.

Beginning from this doctrinal point of view, and in continuity, moreover, with the traditional position of the Church as the aforementioned documents of Leo XIII attest, there arise then the necessary practical consequences, which are valid for all those faithful who may possibly be members of Freemasonry.

Nevertheless, with regard to the affirmation of the irreconcilability between the principles of Freemasonry and the Catholic faith, from some parts are now heard the objection that essential to Freemasonry would be precisely the fact that it does not impose any «principles», in the sense of a philosophical or religious position which is binding for all of its members, but rather that it gathers together, beyond the limits of the various religions and world views, men of good will on the basis of humanistic values comprehensible and acceptable to everyone.

Freemasonry would constitute a cohesive element for all those who believe in the Architect of the Universe and who feel committed with regard to those fundamental moral orientations which are defined, for example, in the Decalogue; it would not separate anyone from his religion, but on the contrary, would constitute an incentive to embrace that religion more strongly.

The multiple historical and philosophical problems which are hidden in these affirmations cannot be discussed here. It is certainly not necessary to emphasize that following the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church too is pressing in the direction of collaboration between all men of good will. Nevertheless, becoming a member of Freemasonry decidedly exceeds this legitimate collaboration and has a much more important and final significance than this.

Above all, it must be remembered that the community of «Freemasons» and its moral obligations are presented as a progressive system of symbols of an extremely binding nature. The rigid rule of secrecy which prevails there further strengthens the weight of the interaction of signs and ideas. For the members this climate of secrecy entails above all the risk of becoming an instrument of strategies unknown to them.

Even if it is stated that relativism is not assumed as dogma, nevertheless there is really proposed a relativistic symbolic concept and therefore the relativizing value of such a moral-ritual community, far from being eliminated, proves on the contrary to be decisive.

In this context the various religious communities to which the individual members of the lodges belong can be considered only as simple institutionalizations of a broader and elusive truth. The value of these institutionalizations therefore appears to be inevitably relative with respect to this broader truth, which instead is shown in the community of good will, that is, in the Masonic fraternity.

In any case, for a Catholic Christian, it is not possible to live his relation with God in a twofold mode, that is, dividing it into a supraconfessional humanitarian form and an interior Christian form. He cannot cultivate relations of two types with God, nor express his relation with the Creator through symbolic forms of two types. That would be something completely different from that collaboration, which to him is obvious, with all those who are committed to doing good, even if beginning from different principles. On the one hand, a Catholic Christian cannot at the same time share in the full communion of Christian brotherhood and, on the other, look upon his Christian brother, from the Masonic perspective, as an «outsider».

Even when, as stated earlier, there were no explicit obligation to profess relativism as doctrine, nevertheless the relativizing force of such a brotherhood, by its very intrinsic logic, has the capacity to transform the structure of the act of faith in such a radical way as to become unacceptable to a Christian, «to whom his faith is dear» (Leo XIII).

Moreover, this distortion of the fundamental structure of the act of faith is carried out for the most part in a gentle way and without being noticed: firm adherence to the truth of God, revealed in the Church, becomes simple membership, in an institution, considered as a particular expressive form alongside other expressive forms, more or less just as possible and valid, of man’s turning toward the eternal.

The temptation to go in this direction is much stronger today, inasmuch as it corresponds fully to certain convictions prevalent in contemporary mentality. The opinion that truth cannot be known is a typical characteristic of our era and, at the same time, an essential element in its general crisis.

Precisely by considering all these elements, the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation affirms that membership in Masonic associations «remains forbidden by the Church», and the faithful who enrolls in them «are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion».

With this last statement, the Sacred Congregation points out to the faithful that this membership objectively constitutes a grave sin and by specifying that the members of a Masonic association may not receive Holy Communion, it intends to enlighten the conscience of the faithful about a grave consequence which must derive from their belonging to a Masonic lodge.

Finally, the Sacred Congregation declares that «it is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above». In this regard, the text also refers to the Declaration of 17 February 1981, which already reserved to the Apostolic See all pronouncements on the nature of these associations which may have implied derogations from the Canon Law then in force (Can. 2335). In the same way, the new document issued by the S.C.D.F. in November 1983 expresses identical intentions of reserve concerning pronouncements which would differ from the judgment expressed here on the irreconcilability of Masonic principles with the Catholic faith, on the gravity of the act of joining a lodge and on the consequences which arise from it for receiving Holy Communion. This disposition points out that, despite the diversity which may exist among Masonic obediences, in particular in their declared attitude towards the Church, the Apostolic See discerns some common principles in them which require the same evaluation by all ecclesiastical authorities.

In making this Declaration, the S.C.D.F. has not intended to disown the efforts made by those who, with the due authorization of this Congregation, have sought to establish a dialogue with representatives of Freemasonry. But since there was the possibility of spreading among the faithful the erroneous opinion that membership in a Masonic lodge was lawful, it felt that it was its duty to make known to them the authentic thought of the Church in this regard and to warn them about a membership incompatible with the Catholic faith.

Only Jesus Christ is, in fact, the Teacher of Truth, and only in him can Christians find the light and the strength to live according to God’s plan, working for the true good of their brethren.

WHY CAN'T A CATHOLIC BE A FREEMASON? FR. MITCH PACWA SJ EXPLAINS

 

EXORCISMS NEEDED

By Tim Rohr

It wasn't news, but it was known by some that before Archbishop Byrnes moved into the Archbishop's house at the old Chancery, he performed an exorcism on the place. Given the evils that reportedly occurred in the Archbishop's house, including Apuron raping his own nephew (which was in the news), Archbishop Byrnes was right to be concerned about this "house of horrors" being occupied by demons let in by Apuron's acts and who knows who else and what else.

But given what we know now, after ten years, and after hundreds of lawsuits, a federal court trial, and bankruptcy, what about all the other places where these evil acts - the sexual molestation of minors, mostly boys, by many members of Guam's clergy, in otherwise sacred or at least blessed spaces (schools, churches, rectories). 

Notable places would be (in no particular order):

• The Capuchin Friary
• Santa Teresita (Mangilao)
• Our Lady of Mt. Carmel (Hagat)
• San Isidro (Maloloj)
• Nuestra Senora de la Paz y Buen Viaje (Chalan Pago)
• St. Anthony School (Tamuning)
• Fr. Duenas School (where the infamous Fr. Louis Brouillard "taught" for several years)

All of these places and probably more should be exorcised followed by many rosaries and Masses for reparation. Otherwise, "Satan, and all the evil spirits, [will continue to]prowl about [this diocese]seeking the ruin of souls," including yours, our children, and our children's children.

 

ANALYSING A TROPHY PICTURE

 Posted by Frenchie:

Last week, we posted this picture, without comment after an expose about freemasonry, and why it is wrong, and a grave sin for any Catholic to associate with freemasonry.

As the article made the rounds on our local social media, a proxy for one of the persons on this picture, asked in a condescending manner, if this was meant to be an indirect attack on his patron, an insinuation.

Let me be clear there is no insinuation, it is a direct statement about two individuals: Senator Joe San Augustin (D), and Senator Tony Ada (R). Both of them are considered at this time as leading candidates to become the next Governor of Guam. Both of them pretend and claim that they are devout Catholics, both of them apparently see no moral dilemma in the obvious double standard they are trying to get away with.

This site is a Catholic site; it treats subjects related directly or indirectly with Catholic issues on the island of Guam.  Over the last 13 years we have covered issues far and wide from problem priests, to abortion, to mismanagement and everything in between

As we are an island officially Catholic at 80%, it is important that these two individuals advertising themselves as Catholic, but in fact being active in freemasonry, clarify their position.

You cannot be one and the other, at once.

Over the weekend the very good local Catholic website: Thoughtful Catholic, treated the issue, in a clear and concise way. You can read it 

Here

This is totally clear; there is no room for interpretation. You are either Catholic, or a Freemason. You CANNOT be both at once. Therefore, the question becomes why any of these two individuals, insist on showing up at mass, and taking communion, while they are clearly in a situation of grave sin? This situation is what the Church calls scandalous.

In the case of Senator San Augustin, who is a parishioner at our Lady of Lourdes Church in Yigo, I have personally witnessed several different parishioners on separate occasions over the last 4 years confront San Augustin about going to communion while wearing an oversized Freemason ring. On every occasion, the Senator was very flippant and dismissive, to the point that the former Pastor on several occasions made it very clear from the pulpit that being a freemason is being in a great state of Sin. To no avail. The Pastor even reached out to family members for an intervention, also without success. At the time the Apostolic Administrator (now Bishop of Chalan Kanoa) did not feel it was sufficient to intervene. Since then, the current parish administrator, does not appear to have taken any further step to address the problem. In fact, he has elevated Senator San Augustin's spouse to become a lecturer, which means the couple seats in the front row, while he continues to go to communion.

In the case of Tony Ada, it is not apparent that many people have been in the know, about this similar situation. But the problem here, might be even more controversial, because Senator Ada is a Knight of the Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem. A prestigious Catholic Order created by Godfrey of Bouillon, the leader of the 1st Crusade. No communication here that has been noted. Apparently Msgr James who was the initiator of the Order in 2012, at the Cathedral, did an indirect admonition through the current Magistral Delegate of the Order, Rodney J Jacob. At this time, we do not know, if that admonition had any result. But the issue is extremely disturbing, especially for someone running for the Highest Secular Office of the Island. The apparent lack of judgment and morality is more than troubling for someone wanting to become our leader for the 21st century. Deceit and distortion are often affiliated with politics. That does not mean, we have to agree to it.

Let's see if either Archbishop Jimenes or our newly minted Exorcist will take the bull by the horns.

It would be logical for the Equestrian Order of the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem to demand that Tony Ada, either resign as a Knight, and/or resign as a Freemason, then follow the process to be forgiven for his sins.

In any case, it is not a good way to start a political campaign for Governor

UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM WITH FREE MASONS

 Posted by Frenchie

The Catholic Church forbids Catholics to join Freemasonry because it is considered incompatible with the Church Faith and Doctrine.

This is a pretty strong statement, but this is the reality for Catholics since the appearance of this sectarian philosophy back in the early 18th century.

This prohibition stems from free masonry philosophical and religious tenets, which the Catholic Church views as containing errors and being in conflict with Catholicism.

This is actually a fairly diplomatic position, since as some former grand masters have revealed, one of the main goals of freemasonry is the destruction of the Church.

Here are the reasons why the Church is unequivocal about free Masonry

1) Religious indifferentism:  the Church teaches that Freemasonry promotes the idea that all religions are equally valid and that truth can be found in any faith, a concept called Religious Indifferentism. This conflicts with the Catholic belief that Jesus Christ is the one true path to salvation.

2) Rival Religion: According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Freemasonry displays the elements of a religion, including Temples, Altars, prayers, and rites and therefore becomes a rival to the Christian Faith.

3) Secrecy and oaths: freemasonry secret oaths, which can include threats of gruesome punishment for revealing its secrets, are seen as contrary to Christian Morals and public Christian Principles.

4) Conflicting Philosophy: Freemasonry emphasis on "enlightment" through reason and rationality is seen as a secular, naturalistic philosophy that is at odds with Catholic Teachings on Faith, Divine Revelation and Grace.

5) Anti-Catholic Sentiment: Historically, certain forms of Freemasonry have held Anti-Catholic views, and the Church has noted that some Masonic teachings and practices, such as viewing the Pope as an "impostor", are fundamentally opposed to Catholic doctrine.

Status of the Prohibition

The ban on Freemasonry has first been issued in 1738 and reaffirmed by numerous Popes since then.

1983 Code of Canon Law: The 1983 revision of the code of Canon Law removed specific mentions of Freemasonry, leading to some confusions about the ban's status.

Reaffirmation of the Ban: In the same year the Vatican issued a declaration clarifying that the prohibition remained in effect. The declaration stated that Catholics that joined Masonic Associations are in a state of grave sin and cannot received Holy Communion.

Continued Clarification: The Vatican has continued to reaffirm this position, most recently in a 2023 letter from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which explicitly stated that active membership is forbidden and those who join are in a state of grave sin.

As you see, it is very clear to all but the blind, the deaf and the stupid, that being a freemason is not possible for Catholics, and that any person who does this is in a State of Grave Sin.

The question, for the Catholic Church in Guam is therefore very relevant. 

If one watches in passing the back bumpers of other cars in traffic, you will notice without too much difficulty a fairly sizeable number of Masonic symbols on said cars. I first noticed this when I first moved to Guam, and I was quite surprised to see so many Masonic signs. After consulting with several friends, I was told many people associated with Masons were hailing from the Philippines. But in observing closely, I also noticed in my parish, and in other parishes I visited occasionally that several CHamoru, some with strong clan affiliation, were obviously active in Lodges. Which leads us to this next picture.

Next: unravelling the web of lies.

HALLOWEEN: HOLIDAY OR "HELL-I-DAY?"

By Tim Rohr

On my "other"blog, THE MASS NEVER ENDS, the most read post since 2011 has been the above titled post. Given that today is October 31, and Halloween for some, I thought I'd link to it here. 

WHO'S THE NEW PRIEST?

 

WHAT'S HAPPENING?

By Tim Rohr

Not much has been happening so I expected to see low numbers for views. But I was wrong. While we haven't posted much of anything new the last few weeks, we are already at nearly 1/4 of a million views and we aren't even half way through the month. 

 Whenever I see this, I always check out the most viewed stories for the same period, in this case, the last 7 days, to see what people are reading. And here's the most viewed posts:

All of the most viewed posts are from more than ten years ago, and all either about Apuron or the Neocats. This usually means that something is happening somewhere that will involve Guam. 

I've been urged several times to write a book about the whole sordid affair that led to Apuron's ouster, but I always reply: "The story isn't over yet." And, it's not. 

There is no reason to believe (yet) that the new archbishop isn't in the control of the same people who controlled Apuron. And his refusal to enforce the Byrne's Mandate to cease and desist the formation of new communities is the red flag...or is it purple?

WHY (MODERN) CHRISTIAN MEN LACK AMBITION

By Tim Rohr

This is a subject that comes to mind quite a bit, at least to MY mind. And I believe it is the reason that Catholic couples end up divorcing at nearly the same rate as everyone else. 

Common Reasons Why Christian Men Lack Ambition

This article was published in The Daily Declaration, an Australian publication. Here's a summary of the reasons. 

• The Rise of Therapeutic Christianity
• Fear of Worldly Power
• A Shrunken View of the Kingdom
• Passive Theology Produces Passive Men
• Pietism
• The Church Often Equates Passivity with Godliness

In my opinion, I believe Catholics can trace the problem back to 1969. 

YOU GET WHAT YOU PERMIT

By Tim Rohr

This post is about an issue outside the usual.

A few years ago, when struggling with a domestic matter, I joined a couple of Dad's groups on Facebook. I joined because I was seeking encouragement from other Dad's. I did get encouragement, but in a backwards sort of way. I'll explain in a minute.

It's commonly known that in domestic matters, specifically child custody cases, Dad's are usually on the losing end: the mother gets the kids and dad's are functionally forced to pay a ransom (child support) to see their kids. 

I call it a ransom because the court has no means in place to see that Dad's dollars go to the "support" of the children instead of the mother's. In other words, the mother is free to spend Dad's dollars on anything she wants, including lifestyle choices harmful to the children (e.g. other men). 

And given that nearly 80% of divorces (and therefore custody cases) are initiated by women, men are right to criticize the system as a female-favoring racket.

However, the old adage "you get what you permit," measures up here. Given my experience in these groups, I have to admit that most men lose because they would rather blame the system than learn to fight. And even when I've encouraged them to fight, the complaint is "we shouldn't have to."

And that's the "backwards encouragement." I was encouraged to learn to win in my own case because I was disgusted by the number of men in these groups who gave up and who chose to blame and complain rather than "fight like a man."

I think that's all I want to say about this...for now. Just remember, and this goes for everything in life: YOU GET WHAT YOU PERMIT.

+++++

Immediately after posting this, I happened upon this story of a man who refused to die. That's what I'm talking about.

+++++

He was mauled, crushed, and torn apart—his throat slashed, his ribs broken, his back flayed open by the claws of a grizzly. In 1823, Hugh Glass lay in the wilds of the Upper Missouri, a dying man. His comrades, certain no soul could endure such ruin, abandoned him to the earth. But Glass did not die. With nothing left but a stubborn will, he began to crawl—mile after mile, dragging his ruined body across two hundred miles of wilderness, alone and hunted, where even wolves and vultures seemed to circle, waiting for his last breath.

It was not a miracle. It was survival at its rawest. Glass clawed at roots and berries, gnawed the bones of dead beasts left by predators, and drank from mud-choked streams just to keep the fever from taking him. Each day was a battle, each night a torment, yet he pressed forward, inch by inch, his body broken but his resolve unyielding. He should have perished a dozen times over, yet something within him refused to surrender.

At last, skeletal and half-dead, he stumbled into Fort Kiowa—a man who had defied the grave. His story was not written in triumph or riches but in endurance, carved into legend by the sheer force of will. By the time his tale spread across the frontier, Glass had become more than a trapper—he was proof of how far a man could crawl when death demanded he stay down. And so the question lingers still: if abandoned, broken, and left for dead, would you rise and crawl on, as he did?