HANDLING ESTRANGEMENT

LINK to online version

In my previous column, I addressed what a Time magazine article calls the “epidemic of estrangement.” According to the article, one in two Americans is estranged from a close relative with estrangement usually occurring between a parent and an adult child.

I shared how I had personally experienced estrangement with multiple adult children and promised to share how I dealt with it.

At first, I didn’t. I was in shock. Without getting into personal details, I’ll just say it was sudden and incomprehensible. There was no fight, no disagreement. After many years of a normal and mostly warm parent-child relationship, there was a sudden “I never want to see you again.” And then I was blocked, cancelled, erased. It’s been nearly eight years.

A couple of my daughters actually did their “I never want to see you again” message on social media and included some pretty terrible accusations. As horrible as this was at the time, it turned out to be helpful.

Friends who saw those postings - even though they were as shocked and saddened as I was - reached out to me. One of those friends was a social worker who recognized the elements of the associated phenomenon of “parental alienation.”

I say “associated” because alienation and estrangement are two different things. Alienation is the manipulation of a child (adult or not) by one parent to turn on the other, whereas estrangement is the adult child (or other relative) acting on his or her own. In either case, the end is the same: the sudden and baseless isolation and estrangement of the “target,” who is usually a loving parent.

Thanks to the article that my social worker friend sent me, I quickly recognized that I was not alone. Understanding you are not alone is probably the most important thing since the sudden shock of being cut off, cancelled, and erased by a loved one can lead to a most intense loneliness that can quickly descend into self-harm.

So that’s one of the reasons I am writing this column: to let you - if you have experienced this - know that you are not alone.

In my case, the shock was exponentially intensified by my daughters trashing me on social media, and later, some very hurtful accusations filed in court which the local media picked up and blasted all over the news for nearly a week in May 2018.

It is coincidental (?) that all this happened just weeks after the Vatican had found then-Archbishop Apuron “guilty of “sexual abuse of minors,” a matter in which “Tim Rohr and his associates” (Apuron’s words) had played a "conspiratorial" role. But said “coincidence” is a topic for another column.  

Through it all, though, I was surrounded and supported by people who had known me for many of the thirty years I and my family had thus far lived in Guam.

Part of this support was a result of my own action and I would recommend you do this. I immediately contacted friends and neighbors and calmly assured them that the accusations were false. The fact that I didn’t hide or run away had much to do with my own self-confidence and also brought relief to those who wanted to have confidence in me.

It helped that I had no history of being or acting anything like what I was being accused of, so, as the saying goes: “don’t do in the dark what you wouldn’t do in the light.” You never know when you are going to need your “history.”

So, establishing support is number one. The second thing is educate yourself. Starting with the article my friend sent me, I soon found ever more information and support in every possible format - especially on YouTube where I heard the stories of other parents who could have been telling my exact same story.

The third thing - and this was hard - was for me to go “all business” - to see the whole affair objectively and to deal with my accusers as accusers and not loved ones. In a way, the absurdity and falsity of their accusations helped. They left me no hope of reconciliation, and it’s the false hope of reconciliation that keeps you paralyzed and leads to self-harm.

Lastly - and I’ll have more to say about this in another column - was understanding that once my children reached age 18 I had no right to them. My job was done. So I forgave them, gave them back to God, and moved on. I recommend you do the same.

Tim Rohr has resided in Guam since 1987. He has raised a family of 11 children, owned several businesses, and is active in local issues via his blog, JungleWatch.info, letters to local publications, and occasional public appearances. He may be contacted at timrohr.guam@gmail.com    

 

LET'S GET HIM OUT OF OUR DIRECTORY AND OFF OUR PAYROLL

By Tim Rohr

In HE CAN START WITH THIS, we see that "our" Msgr. David C. Quitugua occupies the position of Parochial Administrator at Blessed Virgin Mary Parish in Darby, Pennsylvania. According to a post in Catholic Straight Answers:

When a parish is “vacant,” meaning that the pastor has retired, been transferred to another assignment, or is incapable of exercising his duties as a pastor, the bishop must appoint as soon as possible a parochial administrator.  In general, an administrator has the same duties and scope of authority as a pastor; however, these may be limited by the bishop.  The bishop in time may decide to appoint the administrator as the pastor.

Now, it seems rather odd, at least to me, that a priest, not incardinated in a diocese, and supposedly "on mission" - as all of these neocat presbyters are said to be, would be appointed to a position which is equivalent to a pastor. Doesn't the Archdiocese of Philadelphia have any of its own priests? 

As usual, whenever things don't add up, we must always expect neocat shenanigans, especially when it comes to sheltering and even hiding major kikocats from Guam like Quitugua. 

Another strange thing is if Quitugua is the Parochial Administrator - the pastor in everything but the name - why isn't he living at the parish so he can be available to his parishioners? Surely the parish - which has such a fine church - must have a rectory.

From the posted info, it appears Quitugua resides - like he did here in Guam - at the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, which has a different address in a different city than the parish. 

One may wonder how Quitugua ended up in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Philadelphia, like Boston (under Cardinal Sean O'Malley), is another neo-friendly diocese due to its once being headed by Archbishop Charles Chaput, which is how the RMS got established there to begin with. 

One wonders what is it with these Capuchins and the Neo's. 

Meanwhile, back in Guam, if Quitugua has risen to the level of what is functionally a pastor in another diocese, lets' get him out of our directory and off our payroll. The Catholics of Guam have already paid enough for the mess he left us. 

HE CAN START WITH THIS

By Tim Rohr

One of the things the new archbishop needs to address and address quickly is where are all the priests whose names appear in our clergy directory and who are not here. And some haven't been here for a long time. 

One of those priests is Msgr. David C. Quitugua, who apparently transferred himself from rector of the now closed RMS in Guam to an RMS in Philadelphia.

Meanwhile, he is still listed as a priest of the Archdiocese of Agana.

We don't know if he is still on our payroll. That's something the archbishop needs to clarify. But even if he isn't, he is still incardinated in this archdiocese which means we are liable for him.

In September I did a post titled WHERE ARE THESE PRIESTS AND WHY ARE WE PAYING THEM. Six priests, including the aforesaid Monsignor are "Guam" priests but absent from Guam. 

If they want to live and minister someplace else, then fine, let's get them excardinated so their new bishop can incardinate them. 

The fact that this hasn't happened though - even after several years - is telling. Maybe these other bishops don't want them. 

I wonder why?

In any event, in the spirit of the transparency that the new Archbishop Ryan Jimenez promised us, he can start with this. 

By the way, here's a nice little slide show of the Monsignor celebrating his 40th ordination anniversary. And that reminds me. The Umatuna and Archdiocese Facebook pages have been very active in publishing congratulatory posts for the ordination anniversaries of all the priests, but not the Monsignor's, whose anniversary was January 7. 

 

THE CHARMER, THE MANIPULATOR, AND THE CORRUPTOR

 posted by Frenchie

Unlike in the famous 1970s spaghetti western movie : " The Good, The Bad and the Ugly" these are not different individuals, but rather one single person with multiple sets of skills. (or sins).

If you recently read Junglewatch, the last two articles are concerning this individual, namely Father Harold Colorado Prieto.

But this is not entirely surprising. During the year 2024 Fr Harold, aka Boboboy (from his days of close association with the disgraced Apuron) has ably engaged in a campaign of de-diabolization, to make us forget his dubious past and redraw a new, more appetizing image. This is his "Charmer" facet. After months of disappearance from the Archdiocese of Agana, when he continued to be the willing man servant of Apuron, Harold reappeared when Archbishop Byrnes attempted to lay down the law for the NCW "Presbyters" as they like to be called, back until about 2017, at least here.

The Charmer

The then Vicar General, Fr Richards and Fr Harold, along with several other "presbyters" were assigned to St Anthony/ St Victor, which had been an accommodating shelter for the NCW, without being too obvious. This is where and when Harold initiated his charming offensive, which continues until now. Using his latino charisma and charming (but deceiving) ways, he embarked in a patient and long campaign to reshuffle his image. Blatantly wooing parishioners and fellow priests, in often inappropriate ways, and making headways. One can remember Troy Torres on his blog defending this "sexy man" who was discriminated without reason. This was probably the most blatant example of confusion of the faithful. The plan was obviously working.

The Manipulator

You have to admit that Harold puts a lot of efforts in his mission. He never turns down a request, and is always ready to "help". The most recent example, but certainly not the only one, being his willingness to be the speaker at the upcoming March for life. Harold has also been spotted with our new Archbishop in non clerical social outings where he voluntary is advancing his services. While the string is pretty thick for those of us accustomed to the NCW bait and switch tactics, it does not seem to be obvious to less aware persons who end up being manipulated into situations they do not fully grasp. There is no tit for tat at the beginning, just an exchange of favors between nice people, who appear to be on the same wavelength. Little does the mark know that he or she is the target of a scam.

The corruptor

Some of us remember clearly the compromising situations of Apuron and Harold. Few have connected the dots, where Harold is not beyond taking advantage of a moment of weakness,  an awkward incident, or an embarrassing situation. But like his predecessor the putrid Pius he is an expert at capitalizing and weaponizing such opportunity. This is probably the reason he was sent back to us, as the agent of Genarrini on Guam. The New Jersey gang has shown in the past how adept they are at this kind of game.

It is very sad to note the lack of memory people generally have about what happened less than 10 years ago. If we do not learn our lessons from the past, we shall be condemned to relive them. Lets arm ourselves with this knowledge, and lets not fall for the same traps all over again. This latest incident with the March for life is a perfect example of a well meaning person being out maneuvered by a sly operator.

 Harold has been put in charge of the NCW stronghold of Agat, and he is now more dangerous than ever. This is a perfect storm, with a new Archbishop still unsure whom to trust, a bunch of cliques within the clergy, Harold the dangerous operator, and a transition for a new Vicar General.

Catholics on Guam should beware.

CCOG PRESIDENT OPPOSES CHOICE OF CPLC SPEAKER

By Tim Rohr

Concerned Catholics of Guam President David Sablan has written a letter opposing the choice of Fr. Harold Colorado Prieto by the Catholic ProLife Committee as the main speaker at this Friday's March for Life.

LETTER: Major concern with regard to the March for Life event on Friday

Pacific Daily News, Jan. 15, 2025
By David J. Sablan

https://www.guampdn.com/opinion/letter-major-concern-with-regard-to-the-march-for-life-event-on-friday/article_fd8db9d0-d2ee-11ef-a531-0f1e05b122eb.html

Guam Daily Post, Jan. 15, 2025

By David J. Sablan

https://www.postguam.com/forum/letter_to_the_editor/major-concern-regarding-the-march-for-life-event/article_f838f2e8-d2f2-11ef-9fb7-fb9c1d351648.html

There is a March for Life procession and rally this Friday starting in front of the Dulce Nombre de Maria Cathedral Basilica in Hagåtña. The event participants want to show strong support for life, specifically for unborn babies.

The primary objective of the Guam Catholic Pro-Life Committee is to rally our support for the unborn children developing in the wombs of their mothers. Aborting babies is evil. The unborn are children of God and are entitled to life, a gift from God, our Creator.

When I read the announcement of this March for Life event, it listed Father Harold Prieto as its main speaker at the rally. Probably for many, he is just another member of the clergy. Many probably do not know who he is.

I questioned the organizer of the event how and why was he chosen to speak at the event? The response did not satisfy me. With other leaders of our clergy, or lay persons who could speak with authority, knowledge, and influence on the subject of abortion vs. life of a baby in the womb, I was shocked that Fr. Harold Prieto was asked to speak at this important event.

If there is one member of the clergy who can be identified as probably the closest ally to the now-disgraced, demoted, and permanently exiled from Guam, former Archbishop of Agana, Anthony Apuron, it is Harold Colorado Prieto.

Apuron was found guilty by a Vatican tribunal for "certain accusations" relating to allegations of sexual abuse of minors. Apuron was stripped of his title of archbishop of Agana and exiled forever from Guam. He can never return.

This was a major scandal that hung over Guam like a dark cloud for several years till justice was finally served for the people of Guam. Pope Francis further decreed that Apuron could not appeal his conviction and sentence.

Harold Prieto was Apuron's right hand man and one of his fiercest defenders.

Why is the Pro-Life Committee giving him a platform to present himself as someone who has authority, knowledge, and influence to rally support for the Pro­ Life cause?

The other disturbing fact is, Harold Prieto is part of the Neocatechumenal Way, NCW, which has been trying to resurrect their reputation from the Apuron scandal.

The NCW organization on Guam started to exert their power because of their support from Apuron, only to be brought down with Apuron when he was exposed of corruption and certain accusations relating to sexual abuse of minors.

Harold Prieto is a priest. If he had any ounce of humility and concern for the feelings of those hurt by Apuron's scandal, which still is haunting us as we financially settle with the victims of Apuron and other individuals abused by other members of the clergy, he should have not accepted to be the main speaker at this event.

Concerned Catholics of Guam, Inc. is working to remove the Neocatechumenal Way organization from Guam and the region. Their methods of conversion and teachings are not in line with scripture, the magisterium and traditions of our Catholic Church.

David J. Sablan is the president of Concerned Catholics of Guam, Inc. 

My Note

From the feedback I've received, it appears the real concern about Fr. Harold isn't his horrible record from the Apuron years but, in the words of one commenter: "his usual nonchalant, unprepared homilies and delivery may actually offend the non-Catholic participants," and "He's going to be too hip, trying to cater to the youth that may actually be offensive to the adult non-Catholic attendees."

Given that this is the main Catholic ProLife event of the year, one wonders why the new archbishop has to be off-island (again) at this time. It would have been a perfect opportunity for him to show leadership on this issue which, given the number of abortions procured by local Catholics and the current governor's abortion militancy, is, next to the scandal Apuron left us, the biggest scandal in Guam's Catholic Church. 

Again, given the prominence of this event and the archbishop's absence, speaking duties should have fallen to the Vicar General, Fr. Romeo Convocar, or, next in line,  Msgr. Ruben Espeno who is the Spiritual Director for the Catholic Pro-Life Committee. But these two either declined to speak or were not invited to. 

Meanwhile, given that this is a public event and not specifically Catholic, it would probably have been advisable to have a layperson speak, especially a layperson more intimately involved with the ProLife cause. 

In any event, Mr. Sablan's points are well taken and given how Harold is directly connected to the events that led to the bankruptcy of this archdiocese, in my view, Harold's selection to speak at this event is certainly ill-advised if not a slap in the face to those of us who paid a heavy price to expose the evil that Harold was defending.

 

LET THE NEW SHEPHERD BEWARE

A Vatican source said that the organizers “should have known better” than to invite Archbishop Apuron. 

This is both old and new news. Old because the article is from 2018 and published shortly after Apuron was first found guilty by the Vatican and before his appeal - which was denied by the pope himself. It's also new because, while I was aware of other instances where Apuron showed up "on stage" with the pope after he was found guilty, I was not aware of this one as reported by the Jesuit-run America Magazine - though I do remember when it appeared in the Pacific Daily News. 

The key thing here is not so much Apuron embarrassing the pope, but the Neocat brazenness to invite Apuron to the event immediately after his guilty verdict and to place him on the same stage as the pope. This, once again, demonstrates the complete Neocat disregard for just about everything that we have so often witnessed here in Guam. Let the new Shepherd beware. 

The article from America Magazine is linked here and copied in full below:

Pope Francis was likely unaware of Guam archbishop’s presence at Rome celebration

Pope Francis would not have known in advance that the former archbishop of Guam, Anthony S. Apuron, would be on stage with him in Rome on May 5 at the Te Deum celebration of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Neocathecumenal Way, one of the biggest pastoral and spiritual movements in the church today, if at times a controversial one.

A Vatican source (who asked not to be identified) explained that whenever the pope is invited to such a large public event he does not see the guest list in advance nor is the list checked by Vatican officials, as they trust the organizers of these gatherings to act in a responsible way. Archbishop Apuron had been condemned by a Vatican tribunal on March 16. He left Guam in 2016 after child molestation charges against him surfaced, including a more recent allegation of abuse from his own nephew.

At the celebration at Tor Vergata, a field outside of Rome, there were many cardinals and bishops from all over the world, including Archbishop Apuron—who has been one of the most friendly bishops to the movement in the Pacific—as well as around 100,000 people from some 130 countries. All the attendees were invited by the Neocathecumenal Way organizers. The movement began in Spain in 1964 and claims more than one million adherents in 6,000 parishes worldwide.

The archbishop’s presence may have gone unnoticed had it not been reported, with a photo and video, by The Pacific Daily News, on May 7. The Vatican Press Office would offer no comment on the archbishop’s presence at the event.

The Vatican source, however, told America that the organizers “should have known better” than to invite Archbishop Apuron, given that a Vatican Tribunal had found him guilty of some of the accusations against him. “With friends such as these, the pope has no need of enemies,” the source remarked.

After its verdict was reached, the Vatican Tribunal’s public statement did not identify which offenses the archbishop had been found guilty of, but it said it imposed on him “the penalties of privation of office and prohibition of residence” in the Archdiocese of Agaña in Guam. He was not dismissed from the clerical state and has the right to appeal the sentence. U.S. Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, a noted canon lawyer, was the presiding judge in the canonical investigation of Archbishop Apuron.

The archbishop insists on his innocence and has begun the appeal process. That means his penalties “are suspended until final resolution.” Nevertheless, the source said that under the circumstances the archbishop “should have kept a low profile” and not attended such a public event.

Members of the Neocathecumenal Way have been criticized for insensitivity as they have carried out evangelical work, and some of its liturgical practices have been challenged. Before sending 34 teams of Neocatechumenal Way members off on new missions, including to poorer parishes on the "peripheries" of Rome, Pope Francis on May 5 reminded its assembled members about the obligation of every Christian to evangelize, and he gave notes on how it should be done. He told the thousands gathered at Tor Vergata that sharing the Gospel means being a witness to love, responding to questions and patiently walking alongside people, not dictating how and when they take the next step.

In Guam, Archbishop Apuron had been a strong supporter of the Neocathecumenal Way. Most controversially, he turned over diocesan property to adherents of the way without seeking the proper approval from Rome. That property has been reclaimed by the archdiocese, and the seminary run by adherents of the Neocathecumenal Way has been closed.

After the verdict was announced in March, Archbishop Michael Byrnes, Archbishop Apuron’s successor, publicly apologized on behalf of the whole archdiocese for the “grave harm” caused by Archbishop Apuron. Archbishop Byrnes, who has been leading the Archdiocese of Agaña since 2016, said a new chapter of humility, repentance and healing has opened for the Catholic Church in Guam following the verdict. Archbishop Apuron is among the highest-ranking church leaders to have been tried by the Vatican for sexual offenses.

“We hang our heads in shame for the grave evil one member inflicted upon others, in this case the most vulnerable,” Archbishop Byrnes said during a news conference in Guam March 18. The archdiocese, in preparation for settlements in scores of abuse cases dating back decades, is preparing for the sale of a number of church properties.

TOP POSTS FOR THE LAST 30 DAYS - WHAT THEY TELLS US

By Tim Rohr

Except for the first two, all of the other most viewed posts for the last 30 days are close to ten years old and from the days of the Apuron-Neocat wars. Still so much interest. I'm guessing that this blog serves as a detailed history of what happened - both for those who don't want it to happen again and those who have plans not to make the same mistakes they did last time.  

FOOD FOR THOUGHTS

 posted by frenchie

Following my Post regarding Notre Dame of Paris,  I received several comments asking if I saw any similarities with what we have recently witnessed, here on Guam?

Let me clarify the context, the question was following my explanation that all religious building in France are owned by either the local government or the national government, and that the Church is just a tenant of sort, free of rent, but not owning the Churches where we celebrate our own religion.

The people posing the question to me, were referencing the recent purchase by the Government of Guam of the buildings housing the Chancery, as well as the residence of the Archbishop.

I must say that I had not thought of this issue, under such an angle. Yet, it seems that it is worth to ask ourselves a few questions, since if we are not paying with our contributions, we are with our taxes. Worse, after some reflexions, one can wonder what are the real intentions of the Governor, since her family's bank is on one side the largest creditor of the Archdiocese, while she herself is one of the most rabid proponent of abortion on the island. Could Lourdes Leon Guerrero Cook benefit either financially or politically from said purchase, by holding it as a Damocles sword of sort over the head of the new Archbishop?

The plot thickens if you consider her close relationship with some very influential members of the local clergy, who had been smudged in the past by some less than above the board accounting methods. Further the chief of staff of the Governor, happens to be a close protege of one of said influential members of the local Clergy. Actually it is through this personal and close relationship that a meeting was established during the visit of Cardinal Tagle at the end of November, between his eminence and the Governor and Lt Governor, bypassing the Archbishop himself, who was left out to dry. (and probably not very pleased)

Several other incidents, have happened before and since this mishap, where the same actors have sidelined Archbishop Ryan, undermining our new prelate. It also appears that the people that are still at the Chancery, dating back to the Apuron years, have not given the best advices to the Archbishop, specially in regards to communication. (is this incompetence or sabotage?)

Regular readers of this site, have surely noted that Tim Rohr has been quite critical (with some very good reasons) of some of the communications of our newly minted Bishop in regards to public statements, relation to the Neos, as well as public appearances, which could be charitably qualified as ill advised and socially awkward.

Now that Fr Concovar has been given the duty of being the Bishop of Chalan Kanoa, we should all watch carefully who our own Archbishop will entrust with the crucial and poisoned title of Vicar General. The decision should be very telling and give us a small window of opportunity in the thought process of our new Leader. Lets pray that he takes the corrective measures necessary, and surround himself with true servants of the Church, and not ill intentioned clerics who do not have his best interest, and our Church best interest in mind

It would certainly be a shame to fall back into the bad habits of the Apuron's era. Perhaps it is a good time for some of the individuals who had jokeyed for the Archbishop position, to take a deep breath, and make peace with the fact that they did not get the job. There are way too many serious issues in this Archdiocese for a few bruised egos to sabotage the few inroads we have made over the last 10 years. Archbishop Jimenez needs good advices and some solid support at the Chancery, not some career driven individuals who do not have our best interest in mind. Time out!!!

WHILE WE CELEBRATED THE ADVENT, CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR

 posted by frenchie

Pope Francis recently condemned the "cruelty" of another israeli air strike, which led to the death of another 7 children from a single Palestinian family, in Gaza, according to a communique from the civil defense of the territory.

" Yesterday, Children were again targeted. It is simply plain cruelty, it has nothing to do with war. I wish to say it publicly because it wounds my heart"  The Pope declared while talking to members of the Curia of the Holy See.

The speaker for the Civilian defense of the Gaza Strip Mahmud Bassal denounced " a new massacre by the occupiers (Israel) who "martyred 10 members of the Khalla family, who was targeted by an aerial strike on the family's house in Jabalia, near the town of Gaza. All the victims are from the same family, including 7 children, the oldest one being 6 years old, adding that there was also 15 severely wounded."

The Israeli armed forces affirmed that the Gaza Civil Defense statement does not match its own information. Tsahal claims that it hit several terrorists who operated a military structure, that belonged to Hamas, and represented a threat to its own troops.

This Israeli statement matches almost all its statements when it is accused to have targeted, Hospitals, schools, Churches and refugee camps consisting at this time of flimsy tents.

Pope Francis who is 88 years old, has constantly called for Peace since the October 7th attack and the campaign of retaliation and terror that followed it. Recently the Pope has used harsher terms than in the past against the Israeli operation now in its 14th month.

While the western press has been for the most part silent or apologetic about the Israeli operation, Francis in November declared "the arrogance of the invaders is taking over the need for dialogue in Palestine. A position which is starkly different than the usual Vatican tradition of Neutrality.

At a time when the World Health Organization remains totally mute about the bombardment of the last Hospital left standing in Gaza, Francis appears to be a single voice in the desert. In excerpts of his soon to be published Book, the Pope argues for a minutious study to legally determine if the situation in Gaza constitute a genocide, an accusation strongly rejected by Israel.

OF POPE FRANCIS, NOTRE DAME OF PARIS AND THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT

 posted by Frenchie,

On December 15th 2024 at 10;35 Anonymous commented, in an exchange with Tim regarding the Neos: " I was disappointed to read that Pope Francis declined to attend the re-opening of the Notre Dame Cathedral, that iconic monument of French Catholicism in Paris. I do hope there was a representative from the Vatican present at the re-opening which I hope will contribute to the revitalization of the Church in France ( and indeed in all of Europe)".

This is a comment fairly representative of many Catholic's concerns, which reflect both a lack of knowledge about the present and past situation of the Catholic Church in France, as well as the reason for Pope Francis not attending that ceremony.

I have never been an apologist for Pope Francis, and his many declarations which are often contradicting and confusing. In fact I have often criticized his modernist approach which betrays his close ties to the Peronist movement in Argentina (which was responsible for the deliquescence of the country), and the Jesuit movement of Social Justice in South America. A movement totally not understood in the USA, but central to Francis world view. It is often seen as a precursor to the woke movement, in many regards it is socially more radical. Should you be interested you just need to consult the webpage of the Jesuits, to quickly comprehend their goals and motivations. Nothing has changed in their approach since they were expelled from several countries and severely reprimanded, by no less than 5 popes. They only bided their time, kept a low profile before being rehabilitated, yet fundamentally their core beliefs never changed.

That having been established, Francis had several good reasons not to be used as a prop by Macron (the french president). Further despite all his confusing stands on so many issues, Pope Francis has been very consistent about his views of the Masons and their relentless efforts to destroy the Catholic Universal Church. Bergoglio has always seen the Masons and their allies as an existential danger to the Church. He has made numerous clear warning about the danger that Masons represent, and he has encouraged the Bishops to take steps to counter their influence and denounce their nefarious agenda.

On  December 9th 1905, the french government of the III Republic signed a earth chattering Law regarding the separation of Church and State. The law titled: "Loi du 9 decembre 1905, concernant la separation des Eglises et de l'Etat" applied to all christian churches. It confiscated all Church properties, and gave the buildings to the municipalities. Regulated what could or could not be said inside, as well as what could be displayed in and out of the said buildings. It changed the status of priests as employees of the State, and listed penalties both civil and penal for infringing said law.  Therefore the Notre Dame of Paris Building is the property of the municipality of Paris. While the Cathedral is use for the worship of the Catholic faithful, under the care of the Archbishop of Paris, there is no guarantee that the state could not transform it into a Museum, a Mosque or a Protestant Temple. Actually the Mayor of Paris, Mrs Hidalgo, along her city council of Greens, Communists and GLBTists floated the idea to turn the Cathedral into a museum for several months after the fire. More recently a conservative member of the council, who is a muslim suggested charging an entrance fee to enter the Cathedral.

The 1905 law was the brainchild of two french politicians: Emile Combes 1835-1921 a radical socialist, and a free mason of the grand orient since 1869. Aristide Briand 1862-1932, socialist, cofounder of the Humanite (the communist party daily) Free Mason of the trait d'union orient de St Nazaire 1887, and finally of the Knights of the workers 1895. Aristide Briand was the President of the council of Ministers 6 times, a Nobel Prize Winner, and one of the main advocate for the league of Nation, and a commercial Europe. Basically a globalist before we knew what it meant.(A Masonic goal of world government led by an enlighten elite) It is in this context that Pope Francis has always refused to visit Paris. He previously visited Strasbourg for the  Youth movement week, and Marseille, which he titled the oldest city of the western Mediterranean. 

Meanwhile Macron, the President of the French Republic, also a Mason, who is being challenged at home consistently, and whose personal life is far from being stellar, is in dire need to look as presidential as possible. His policies have ruined the country, and he has tried without shame to appear as an international star. (which he has failed completely) . His plan for the re-opening of the Cathedral was so radical and in poor taste, that even the spineless Council of French Bishops opposed it. The plan was something along the lines of the opening of the Paris Olympics. A compromise was finally reached with a two part re-opening. One where the world leaders would be welcomed in a semi religious ceremony, the other the next day which would re-consecrate the Cathedral as a place of worship. This of course was not acceptable to the Pope. 

To answer Anonymous question of a Vatican official attending the ceremonies. The answer is yes, of course. The official being the Nuncio for France.

Meanwhile, the Pope chose to accept the invitation to visit Corsica by the Cardinal Bishop of Ajaccio, a Franciscan, and currently the youngest Cardinal of the Conclave. There was a moment of uncertainty because the authorization for a visit had to be accepted by the President of the French Republic. Of course Macron being Macron, made the Pope wait till the last minute, to give his approval. In the end fearing a backlash from the notoriously hot tempered Corsicans, he relented. In the end Francis became the 1st Pope to visit Corsica, another step on his policy of outreach to the Mediterranean communities, and gave Macron a lesson in diplomatic tit for tat.

As for the revitalization of the Churches of France and Europe, it has been on the way for several decades.  Almost 60 years after Vatican II and its catastrophic consequences for our Church, the revitalization has come mostly from the traditionalist movement, which has done a tremendous job of outreach to the young and the non believers. Here lies the conundrum, the modernist movement within the Church has not only taken the sacred out of the liturgy, it has also emptied the churches of its faithful. The irony is that the churches in France and Europe that have high attendance and devout following are the traditionalists. France which for decades lost thousands of priests to death and retirement while churning out barely 100 new priests a year, has seen a three fold increase in vocations. Yet these vocations are mostly from traditionalist communities. A similar movement also has happened among religious communities of Religious Sisters and Brothers. Hence the Vatican is faced with a dilemma. While promoting modernists to Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals, the base of the European priesthood is made of traditionalist priests, while the modernists of the 60s are now in their 80s or 90s. This probably explains some of the knee jerk reactions we see from time to time. Further the priests  brought in from Africa, South America and India to fill the gaps in Europe mostly come from far more conservative societal background, which compound the issue for the Vatican.

It is a perfect case of damned if you do, damned if you don't 

P.S: One of several reasons Francis has been relatively harsh vis a vis of the Neocatumenates, is that he does not like their Judeo Masonic structure and their Masonic tendencies to secrecies.

WHEN THINGS DON'T ADD UP

In a comment to the post CHURCH MOURNS THE PASSING OF FATHER ANTONINO CAMINITI, Anonymous writes:

AnonymousDecember 26, 2024 at 8:38 PM

Sounds like suicide. The reason he brought him in to archbishop residence was because he was going through a hard time

I responded to the comment but decided to set it out more clearly here:

Unfortunately this is a growing speculation. What we do know - per the archbishop's letter of 12 November 2024 - is:

1. That the archbishop received a report of "a serious allegation of clergy misconduct of a boundary violation toward an adult female."

2. That the accused was Fr. Antonino Caminiti and that the incident occurred 11 years ago when "Nino" was pastor of the church in Asan.

3. That "the necessary procedures were initiated, the preliminary investigation was conducted and the allegation is now under further investigation as recommended by the Independent Review Board."

4. That the archbishop was "concerned about his (Fr. Nino's) well-being and the need to accompany him during this trying moment as a father would do."

5. That "given temporary precautionary measures," Fr. Nino "will reside with me" (with the archbishop at his residence).

6. That Fr. Nino was awaiting acceptance to a Center for Assisted Intensive Renewal Program for Priests.

And then, pursuant to the archbishop's letter of 16 December 2024, hardly one month after the archbishop's announcement of the allegation against Fr. Nino, the archbishop announces Fr. Nino's death with no information other than to ask for prayers and the schedule for the rosary and funeral.

In short:

1. Fr. Nino was accused by an adult female for what is obviously a violation of a sexual nature.

2. Fr. Nino was functionally placed under house arrest in the archbishop's own house while he awaited acceptance to a reform house.

3. That four weeks later, Fr. Nino is dead, and on the archbishop's watch. 

4. That the archbishop has made no mention of the cause of death.

5. That the archbishop's silence on this matter has led to speculation of suicide and even poisoning (murder) as the cause of death.

What we also know, or at least can deduce, is that Fr. Nino's death was sudden and unexpected. If it was a stroke or a heart attack, it would have been so simple for the archbishop to say so. But he has not. 

What is so ironic is that the archbishop started out his letter of 16 November 2024 regarding the allegation stating: 

"Since my installation as Archbishop of Agaña, I expressed that I will be transparent as your shepherd."

What could be more non-transparent that keeping secret the cause of death of someone functionally under house arrest in the "shepherd's" own house?

Sad to say, but those of us who have been through the "ugly" in this archdiocese, must - when things don't add up - suspect that something else is going on. In other words, the cause of death is being kept secret for a reason - and probably at the order of someone other than the archbishop. 

The image in the bottom left of this announcement is a clue.

Before things get uglier, the archbishop can prevent further scandal by being the "transparent" that he promised us. How did he die? Where did he die? Answer those questions and maybe we can prevent the next question: Why did he die?

CHOOSE TO HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS

LINK to online version

According to a recent Time magazine article, “How Estrangement Has Become an Epidemic in America,” 1 in 2 adults in the U.S. are estranged from a close relative.

Given the season, perhaps I should be writing about something more Christmassy instead of something as serious and sad as estrangement.

But since estrangement from close relatives is usually felt most acutely at this time of year, perhaps it’s a good time to address it. It may even help some who suffer with this to know they are not alone.

Few things are as painful as being estranged from a loved one, particularly when that loved one is your child. It happened to me. And it happened suddenly and severely.

For quite awhile I was in a daze - to put it mildly. One minute everything was normal and the next minute, and out of nowhere - at least as I experienced it, I was cut off, blocked, erased - and by multiple children.

In time, I would learn that I wasn’t alone. Once they heard about it, friends came forward to share with me their own accounts of being cut off, blocked, and erased by their adult children, and, in some cases, accused, as I was, of everything from neglect to abuse.

I found the same stories in online support groups, one of which is hosted by Dr. Joshua Coleman, one of the authors of the aforementioned Time article.

Dr. Coleman, a psychologist and therapist, is unique among psychologists and therapists in that he blames the estrangement epidemic - at least in part - on psychologists and therapists.

In another article, Dr. Coleman writes: “As therapists, we hold up the ideal parent or family experience as a way to shine a light on what an adult’s life might have been if she’d had better parenting. This serves the purpose of helping our client to not blame herself for self-limiting and self-hating voices, and to allow her distance from parents and others whose contact tends to amplify that voice, rather than diminish it.”

In other words, “don’t blame yourself, blame your parents.” As Dr. Coleman writes: “…therapists tempt adult children to feel contempt or even hatred for their parents.”

Such therapy has become an industry, a lucrative one. It’s not hard to see how easily psychologists and therapists - even well-meaning ones - can get clients for life, or at least keep them coming back for the next session and the next.

No one wants to blame him or herself, especially not in today’s “victim” culture, so who more convenient to blame for your troubles than your parents, and if you’re a female, particularly your father.

This becomes even more destructive when the other parent, mother or father, takes the side of the child to fan the flames of blame on the target parent.

However, one doesn’t need a therapist to learn to blame one’s parents. We are surrounded by a culture which elevates the child over the adult, a culture, particularly via movies and other media, which casts adults as bumbling idiots and children as mature masterminds - a delusion that warps into evermore damaging estrangement when that child becomes an adult.

Unfortunately, we parents have participated in our own destruction by wanting to give our children the proverbial “better life than we had.” So we are not as hard on them as our parents were on us. And whereas we more than likely received scant and rare praise from our parents, we shower our children with ours.

And the result? 1 in 2 U.S. adults are estranged from a close relative and it is usually an adult child.

I don’t know about you, but there was plenty to blame my parents for, particularly my father with whom I had a strained relationship, especially as an adult. However, it never ever occurred to me to disrespect my parents or to cut them off.

So when I look at how much gentler I was to my own children, it’s hard to understand how they could disrespect me and cut me off, that is until I take into consideration the victim culture they live in and the kind of “therapy” Dr. Coleman writes about.

So what to do? This is the constant cry of the parents in the online groups that I am in. I can tell you what I did, but I’ll leave that for a future column. Meanwhile, CHOOSE to have a Merry Christmas. That’s what I’ve done for seven Christmases now. Choose.

Tim Rohr has resided in Guam since 1987. He has raised a family of 11 children, owned several businesses, and is active in local issues via his blog, JungleWatch.info, letters to local publications, and occasional public appearances. He may be contacted at timrohr.guam@gmail.com    

STATS AND TRENDS

By Tim Rohr

These are the top 3 most viewed posts over the last 7 days. As you can see, they all have to do with the NCW, including the 3rd story which was posted more than 10 years ago. The fact that the post about Msgr. James' ouster as rector of the Cathedral as part of the attempted NCW overthrow of our diocese 10 years ago appears with the top two stories is telling. And what it tells me is that the neocat generals are alive, well, and active - especially now that they have this new leadership in place - both here and in Saipan.

CHURCH MOURNS THE PASSING OF FATHER ANTONINO CAMINITI

 ARCHDIOCESAN ANNOUNCEMENT

BIBA TEQUANTLAXOPEUH!

LINK to online version

December 12 is the Catholic feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. And while the feast is close on the calendar to our celebration of Our Lady of Kamalen (December 8), the two “Our Lady’s” are close in another way.

Most of us who live in Guam are familiar with the legends of how the statue named Santa Marian Kamalen came to our shores and its miraculous adventures since, but not so well known is what we might call a “prequel” to its arrival in Guam.

Legend has it that the statue came to be at the bottom of the sea between what is now the village of Malesso and Cocos Island due to its having survived the shipwreck of a Spanish galleon, most likely the Nuestra Senora del Pilar which sank off the coast of Cocos Island in 1690.

The statue was believed to be aboard the galleon because Spanish ships of that day usually carried the statue of a patron saint for protection, and in the time of the Spanish galleons sailing between Mexico and the Philippines, this particular image of the Virgin Mary was very popular.

The original statue had been widely venerated in Spain since it was discovered in 1326. In that year, as legend has it, an angel appeared to a cowherd and told him to dig in a certain spot. Upon doing so, the cowherd uncovered a statue of the likeness of the Virgin Mary.

In his book, “The Wonder of Guadalupe,” George Johnston describes how the image had come to be buried six centuries earlier when Christians, fleeing the invading Muslims in 711 A.D., hid the statue for safekeeping.

The statue was an important one because, as Johnston describes, it had been a gift to a local Spanish bishop from Pope St. Gregory the Great (d. 604 A.D.) who had venerated the statue in his private oratory.

The statue was special to the pope because it was said to have been sculpted by St. Luke. As tradition has it, St. Luke was personally close to the Blessed Mother in the years after Jesus ascended into Heaven and it is very likely that Mary herself was his model.

Following the legend, it goes like this: St. Luke, who beheld the very face of the Blessed Mother, sculpted her image. The statue came to be in possession of Pope St. Gregory the Great who gifted it to a Spanish bishop. (590 A.D. to 604 A.D.) Christians fleeing the Muslims buried it for safekeeping (711 A.D.) It was discovered by a cowherd (1326 A.D.).

Upon discovery, the image came to be an object of popular veneration, especially by seafarers. Christopher Columbus is said to have venerated the image prior to his voyages to what became “the New World.”

Given its popularity among seafarers, it is quite probable that a copy of the image was aboard the Nuestra Senora del Pilar when it sank off the coast of Cocos Island in 1690.

Assuming this history is true, and also assuming how well the copies of the image were made, it is quite possible that the face of our Santa Marian Kamalen is the same face St. Luke beheld 2000 years ago: Mary herself.

So what is the connection to Our Lady of Guadalupe?

When the Spanish cowherd discovered the statue in 1326, it was near a village in Spain named “Guadalupe.” And, by the time the Blessed Mother appeared to Juan Diego in Mexico in 1531, the shrine at Guadalupe, Spain, was already well known.

Scholars speculate that this is why the Spanish bishop in Mexico thought Juan Diego had said “Guadalupe” when the bishop asked Diego for the name of the lady who had appeared to him. Diego, an Aztec, had probably said the phonetically similar Aztec (Nahuatl) word “Tequantlaxopeuh” - pronounced “Tequetalope,” which means “she who saves us from the devourer.”

For Aztecs, there was a real “devourer,” the serpent god “Quetzalcoatl,” to whom was sacrificed tens of thousands of still-beating human hearts torn from their still-living hosts.

Of all the Marian apparitions, the apparition to Juan Diego is the only one in which Mary gives her name instead of a title (such as “Immaculate Conception”). And the name she gives Diego is “Tequantlaxopeuh - She who saves us from the Devourer.”

The name comports with Genesis 3:15 and nearly 2000 years of images of Mary standing on and crushing the serpent, Satan.

Biba Santa Marian Kamalen. Biba Tequantlaxopeuh.

Tim Rohr has resided in Guam since 1987. He has raised a family of 11 children, owned several businesses, and is active in local issues via his blog, JungleWatch.info, letters to local publications, and occasional public appearances. He may be contacted at timrohr.guam@gmail.com    

 

NEOCAT PRIESTS

By Tim Rohr

For years we have been criticized for labeling Neocat priests "Neocat priests." We were shouted at that there is no such thing as a Neocatechumenal priest, that they are "just priests," diocesan priests, like the other diocesan priests. We knew this wasn't true. We knew that their formation and mission was completely different than "regular" diocesan priests. So we continued to label them what they were: "Neocat priests." 

Yesterday, at the ceremony for Santa Marian Kamelen, Archbishop Ryan Jimenez confirmed that "priests in the Neo-Catechumenal Way" are their own subset of priests - that they are different.

"To my brother priests and deacons, where are we now as a presbyterate?" he asked. "Are we committed to walk together—as religious priests--the Capuchins and Jesuits—as local priests, as Filipino priests, as priests in the Neo-Catechumenal Way?"

The Capuchins and Jesuits are "religious" (belonging to an order). Local and Filipino priests refer to the obvious. So who are the "priests in the Neo-Catechumenal Way?" 

Well, they are "Neocat priests," formed for a different mission and purpose than the diocesan priesthood. 

By the way, you may want to read this.

Great Britain: The “Neocatechumenal Way” Reined in by a Bishop

The danger that many bishops fear is that the particular habits of the Neocatechumenal communities all over the world will introduce a new “rite” into the Latin liturgy, artificially created by the founders of the Way, a rite that is foreign to  liturgical tradition, full of doctrinal ambiguities, and a cause for division in the community of the faithful. In short, a new Mass of the New Mass.

WHERE WERE YOU WHEN THE BULLIES AND THE BASTARDS MOLESTED AND RAPED OUR CHILDREN

By Tim Rohr

The following post appeared on the Facebook page of the Archdiocese of Agana. I will copy and past the full post and then draw out my concerns after. 

Archbishop: "Where are we as people of God?'

---

Young men guide the karosa with the historic statue of Santa Marian Kamalen as the Most Reverend Ryan P. Jimenez follows close behind during the procession celebrating the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin and Feast of Santa Marian Kamalen Monday, Dec. 9, 2024 in Hagatña. Deacon Greg Calvo is to the right of Archbishop Ryan.

Marking his first celebration of the Feast of Santa Marian Kamalen on Guam as our shepherd, Archbishop Ryan initiated a rallying call during his homily atop the patio of the Cathedral-Basilica. 

He called on all people of our Catholic Church on Guam to walk closer together as one family, faithful to God like Mother Mary and working together in unity.

Echoing God's words to Adam and Eve in Genesis , "Where are you?" Archbishop Ryan first directed the question to each of the 11 schools of our Archdiocese of Agaña as he opened his homily. Then the archbishop asked all Catholics the same question but emphasized that the “Where are you?” is really a question of “Who are we?”

"When God asked 'Where are you' in the Book of Genesis as we heard at Mass today, God did not ask about physical location," Archbishop Ryan told the people. "God did not ask Adam and Even which tree  were they hiding behind. The 'Where are you' question means 'human beings, where are you in the scheme of things?'”

Archbishop Ryan continued, "Where are we as people of God in the Archdiocese of Agaña? Who are we as people of God in this archdiocese?" 

Our new archbishop recalled that on December 8 of 2015, Jesuit priest, Fr. Fran Hezel, delivered a message at the same spot before the traditional lukkao (procession) of Santa Marian Kamalen.

"Fr. Fran emphasized that 'the people of Guam look to Santa Marian Kamalen as the patroness of this island through good times and through trials, always watching over us, bringing us closer to her, to her Son, and to one another. We are supposed to be her family, brothers and sisters to one another,'” the archbishop said.

"But nine nine years ago, Fr. Fran also challenged all of you when he said how could we walk together behind the statue and honor our Mother when we are so divided? Imagine our Mother looking down on us and shaking her head," said Archbishop Ryan.

"If I may use contemplation,I imagine the Blessed Mother saying, 'I feel sad for my children who are so divided?'”

“Piniti yu’ nu i famagu’un-hu ni manpus man/a/dispatta,” the archbishop said in Chamorro.

"That was nine years ago. Today, December 9, 2024, if God asks us 'Where are we as a people,' I dare to say, 'We are here,' 'Mang-gaigi ham guini…' we are doing our best to continue to walk together, slowly but steadily, not perfect, but full of hope."

Archbishop Ryan thanked everyone for coming together for the festal commemoration and for the Santa Marian Kamalen procession. He said, "Our practice of lukkao (procession) is very much in line with the Holy Father’s emphasis on a church walking together. He uses a technical term 'synodality' but it is not really something new…synodality, simply put is walking together. Walking together in faith: communion, participation, and mission."

Archbishop Ryan asked the young people present in Hagatna and listening to the livestream, "Are you willing to walk together, rain or shine … but in faith, in love, and in hope?"

Then he addressed parents, educators, spiritual fathers and sisters to the young, telling them, "Let us assure our young of our “thoughtful and patient accompaniment.”

The clergyman chosen by Pope Francis to lead the Church on Guam also urged greater unity and fellowship among the clergy. "To my brother priests and deacons, where are we now as a presbyterate?" he asked. "Are we committed to walk together—as religious priests--the Capuchins and Jesuits—as local priests, as Filipino priests, as priests in the Neo-Catechumenal Way?"

He continued, "To the religious sisters, parishioners, those involved in the many ministries of our parishes, where are we now and, like the Blessed Mother who said 'yes,' do we also say 'yes' to moving forward and doing our best to be better, safer churches, and more responsive and compassionate to those in need?"

Expounding on the day's Gospel of Luke, 1:26-38, Archbishop Ryan told the people that Our Blessed Mother gave her “yes” to God, with all humility, (and) with a spirit of service,... and this was essentially a proclamation of her love.

"However, Mary’s 'yes' was not a 'once-in-a-lifetime' thing," the archbishop said. "In truth, from that moment onwards, up until the 'end', Mary had to continue saying 'yes' to God. In other words, it was not enough to make a choice; it was also necessary to make a commitment to that choice."

"And so, let us renew this commitment to walk together, to start our procession (lukkao), through the intercession and protection of the Blessed Mother, Santa Marian Kamalen," Archbishop Ryan said.

Our archbishop concluded his reflection to the people this way:

"Since I started calling the young, let me now call the not-so-young?  To our parishioners of the 26 parishes -- where are you?

Månu nai gaigai hao? (where are you?)"

"I am here – Estegui yu  (Gaigue yu guini)," the archbishop said in Chamorro. "We are here – Manggaigi ham guini."

---

Archdiocese of Agana photo by Tony C. Diaz

++++++

I suppose there are many who think that I'm picking on or even being disrespectful to our new archbishop. That's fine. I'm past the point of caring. After seeing and having personally lost so much in the wars to expose the largest per capita clergy sex abuse scandal in the entire Catholic world, I don't care. Stuff needs to be said and I'm going to say it. 

1. UMATUNA: Then the archbishop asked all Catholics the same question but emphasized that the “Where are you?” is really a question of “Who are we?”

There was a reason John Paul II ordered the beginning of the Nicene Creed to be changed back to "I believe" instead of the purposely mistranslated "We believe" which is what we were erroneously and purposely made to profess every Sunday for several decades. The Latin "Credo" is "I believe," and it is "I believe" for a reason. In the end, we will stand, naked and alone, before God's throne and we will be judged individually not collectively. 

There won't be any "we." There will only be a "you," a "where are you?" Or more specifically "where were you when I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me." (Mt. 25:41)

When God went looking for Adam in the garden, God wasn't asking "Who are we?" God was going after Adam, not even Adam and Eve, just Adam. Of course God knew all that had happened. He didn't need to ask. The real import of the story here is that Adam was put in charge, not Eve, and not both of them, and Adam failed. And he failed again when he blamed Eve. And while God punished both of them - and ultimately all of us - God held Adam responsible for the Fall, which is the very reason why Jesus is "the new Adam." 

I'm no theologian, but I don't need to be, and neither do you. God isn't asking "who are we?," or even "who are you?" He's asking exactly what the Scripture says: "Where are you?" Adam sinned. That's why he is hiding. And God is calling him out. When we sin we don't get to blame or hide. We don't get to take anyone into the confessional with us just as we won't be able to have anyone at our side at the Judgment. 

A great sermon could have been made out of those three words "Where are you?" Where are you in your relationship with Jesus right now? Are you hiding? Are you hiding a sin? Are you one person in church and another person at home? Maybe next year.

2. UMATUNA: "But nine nine years ago, Fr. Fran also challenged all of you when he said how could we walk together behind the statue and honor our Mother when we are so divided? Imagine our Mother looking down on us and shaking her head," said Archbishop Ryan. "If I may use contemplation, I imagine the Blessed Mother saying, 'I feel sad for my children who are so divided?'”

Wow. Really? What got into the archbishop to dig up what "Fr. Fran" said nine years ago and then to use it to guilt trip us with "I imagine the Blessed Mother saying, 'I feel sad for my children who are so divided?'”

In case the archbishop needs a reminder, our church was "so divided" at the time because Apuron's crimes were beginning to be exposed: the canonically illegal firing of Fr. Paul Gofigan, the shameful eviction of Msgr. James, the discovery of the secret deed that gave away the church's largest asset to the Neocatechumenal Way, and the beginning of the accusations of sexual abuse that eventually brought down the conviction of Apuron by the pope himself.

But in those days, we had people like "Fr. Fran" telling us to shut up and sit down and trying to shame us into silence with crap like what he said nine years ago about the Blessed Mother "looking down on us and shaking her head." 

You bet she was shaking her head. But it wasn't at us, it was at you: the "Fr. Fran's" and bishops like Flores, Apuron, Camacho. And now we have to include Jimenez because obviously Jimenez, by digging up this nine year old scolding to vicariously scold us again, is lashing out at those of us who stood up to the bullies and the bastards who molested and raped our children and then attempted to shame and sue us into silence.

So maybe that's why Jimenez didn't want to talk about "Where are you?" Because "WHERE WERE YOU?" is the question we were asking about the clergy in this archdiocese for decades while Jimenez' brothers ate our children's bodies and vomited out their souls.

COURAGEOUS - AMENDED

By Tim Rohr

In my post of a few days ago COURAGEOUS? NOT! wherein I called out the archbishop use of "courageous" to describe the 287 persons who had filed lawsuits against the archdiocese for clergy sex abuse when only a very few were actually "courageous" enough to use their names, I overlooked an important truly courageous survivor: Leo Tudela.

I probably forgot to mention Leo because I was more focused on Apuron's victims and the initial four who went public prior to the introduction of legislation which led to the lawsuits. 

However, Leo, whose allegations of abuse by Guam clergy goes back even to the 1950's when he was a young boy from Saipan, played and still plays a critical role in bringing justice to the survivors of decades of abuse by Guam's clergy and others who were in the employ of the Church and its institutions. 

At the legislative hearing for the bill that would become law, Leo's testimony brought many in the hearing room to tears including several senators, and while testimony from the other victims was similarly tragic and powerful, I believe Leo's testimony, probably because Leo is an older man, really nailed the bill to the wall and brought about the unanimous vote.

After the bankruptcy proceedings were initiated, Leo became the point man for all the victims and continues in that roll today, making sure that amidst all the "lawyering," the real victims and the tragedy they suffered are not forgotten.

See: LEO TUDELA SHARES HIS STORY OF BEING SEXUALLY ABUSED BY CHURCHMEN ON GUAM 

COURAGEOUS? NOT!

By Tim Rohr

Archbishop Ryan Jimenez has published the court-ordered "Disclosure Statements" naming those persons "named in the sexual abuse lawsuits."

I assume most readers will focus on the names. However, I want to focus on Jimenez' use of the word "courageous" in his "accompanying letter" to describe the abused:

"...the Archdiocese responded to the mandate of the 287 courageous men and women who revealed their childhood suffering at the hands of members of the Church."

There were not 287 "courageous men and women." There were four: Roy Quintanilla, Walter Denton, Roland Sondia, and Doris Concepcion (for her deceased son, Joseph "Sonny" Quinata). 

Just about everyone else hid behind their initials in their court filings. The few who did use their real names - and I can only think of one - Apuron's nephew, Mark Apuron - did so well after there was a law in place to protect them: the law lifting the civil statute of limitations permitting accusers to sue their abusers and the institutions to which the alleged abusers belonged or were employed by.

Roy, Walter, Roland, and Doris came forward well before there was any law to protect them and in doing so wrought the wrath of Apuron upon them as he threatened to sue them both civilly and canonically:

"...the Archdiocese of Agana is in the process of taking canonical and legal measures against those perpetrating these malicious lies." - Archdiocese of Agana, Media Release, May 31, 2016

I have shared this many times, but it needs to be continually shared. These four did not demand compensation, they demanded an apology - only an apology. At that point, Apuron could have put out a statement saying "I'm sorry, but I did not abuse you" and it probably would have all been over. 

But he didn't. While he did state that he did not abuse them, he also threatened to sue them for saying so.

Archdiocese plans to sue for ‘malicious lies’ again - Pacific Daily News, June 1, 2016

(Note: The funny-tragic reality about all this is that Apuron had already run away. These threats were made by the arch-neocats, Adrian and Edivaldo, who had occupied Apuron's throne after he high-tailed it to Rome.) 

That set off the chain reaction which led to all the horror which followed, including the Church's bankruptcy. 

Still, things may not have gotten very far if not for the machinations of "the Red Pope," the Kiko's man in Rome - who, as we would later discover - was the wizard pulling all the levers.

After sending his right hand man, Archbishop Hon, to Guam to put down the rebellion - and it was an anti-neo rebellion as much as it was a rebellion against Apuron's sex abuse of minors, the Red Pope, probably via influence from the Neocat generals (you know who they are), ridiculed the legislation Senator Frank Blas, Jr. had put forward to lift the civil statute of limitations on sex crimes against minors. 

Archbishop Hon: "In two weeks this will die down." - June 12, 2016

Frank's bill, though, did not include institutional liability, leaving little to no reason for lawyers to take up the cause against perpetrators who for the most part had no material assets and several of whom were dead. 

Upon the Red Pope's orders, Hon ridiculed the legislation and that set off the lay-person-run move to amend the legislation to include institutional liability - enabling the abused to sue the archdiocese - or more specifically - the Archbishop of Agana, a Corporate Sole. 

As we know, the bill, after gut-wrenching emotional testimony by Apuron's survivors (the four of them), passed the Legislature unanimously, and, after one last attempt by the Red Pope to stop it via a petition ordered by Hon, was signed into law in September 2016. 

After the neocat-controlled Hon was run out of town and was replaced by the soon to be Archbishop Byrnes, there was no more opposition. Byrnes pretty much threw up his hands and said "I'm sorry...sue me."