DELICIOUS: LIKE MIDDLE SCHOOL FIGHTING IN THE PLAYGROUND

Listen to Lou and Therese attack each other. 

DELICIOUS! 

LINK

Commentary later. :)

A CRAZY CASE AND PASTORAL COWARDLINESS

 By Tim Rohr

𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐓 𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐃𝐒: 𝐁𝐀𝐁𝐘 𝐆𝐀𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐋’𝐒 𝐒𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐎𝐆𝐀𝐂𝐘 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐓 𝐈𝐍𝐂𝐋𝐔𝐃𝐄𝐃 𝐀 $𝟐,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐏𝐀𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐆𝐍𝐀𝐍𝐂𝐘

McKenna West’s surrogacy contract with Los Angeles couple Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar is now part of the public court record — and it reads like a corporate price sheet for a human life. Signed August 29, 2025, the agreement laid out 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐲, including a $2,000 payout that only kicked in if the pregnancy had to be terminated.

West was set to collect $6,000 a month for ten months, plus a $5,000 bonus for a C-section — the termination payout was smaller than either. When she refused to end the pregnancy of a baby later diagnosed with a life-threatening heart defect, West says in her own court filing that she was warned she could owe 𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐬 $𝟐𝟓𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 for breaking the agreement.

West also claims in her filing that the biological parents tried to 𝘤𝘶𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘴 by booking her into a Holiday Inn Express in Washington State for the abortion. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐭.

The biological parents, according to the court filing, 𝘤𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘔𝘤𝘒𝘦𝘯𝘯𝘢 𝘪𝘯 𝘔𝘢𝘺 — the month she refused to end the pregnancy. West gave birth to Gabriel in Dallas on August 12, after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton got publicly involved and pro-life advocate Lila Rose helped get her to a state with some of the nation’s strongest protections for unborn life. Gabriel is now in his biological parents’ custody, receiving NICU care for hypoplastic left heart syndrome, with the next hearing set for August 25.

𝐀 𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐲’𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨 𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐮𝐲 𝐢𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤. 𝐌𝐜𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐚 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐆𝐚𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 $𝟐𝟓𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎.

This is a crazy case, but maybe not so crazy, and probably not uncommon, given the very common occurrence of surrogacy: a woman agreeing to gestate and give birth to a child, conceived by two other persons, usually in a laboratory. 

One crazy note in this from an ABC News story:

“West is harming Rumi by relocating to Texas, requiring him to be born in Texas, away from his parents and the specialized cardiac team in Los Angeles that will provide his lifelong care,” the court filing states. 

Can't make this up. The biological parents who wanted the child killed in the womb because their baby wasn't perfect is suing the surrogate mother for "harming" the child by first, giving birth to him "away from his parents" and away from a supposed "cardiac team in Los Angeles," where, if she had gone there prior to his birth, there would be no baby to to have given "care" to.

This is the evil underbelly of in vitro fertilization. And this is why the Catholic Church formally holds:

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."

Sadly, most Catholics don't know this. And even sadder still, they don't know this because their pastors are too cowardly to teach it. 

AND HE CAN'T DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT

By Tim Rohr

Going further (from the previous post), his letter was an insult. If you notice, he names all the groups, ministries, and other ecclesial realities on this island, but there is no issue with any of them except the NCW.  

So this did not need to be a diocesan-wide, public letter. It should have been a letter between Jimenez and the arch-Neocats who run the thing. If there were to be any letter at all to the rest of us, there should have been one stating that Jimenez had secured the Neocats' cooperation on whatever he was asking for. But instead, Jimenez issues a pastoral letter to the entire diocese whining about what he is "inviting" them to do. Why?

Because he's checking a box. 

He knows he has to do something. In fact, he knows he has to either publicly enforce Archbishop Byrnes's moratorium or publicly rescind it. He knows he has to do something about the Neocats propping up Luis Camacho on an altar last Easter. He knows he has to do something about the illegitimate "Masses" at their headquarters in Asan. He knows he has to do something about the priests who blatantly violate church law and celebrate those Masses in an unconsecrated space. And he knows he has to do something about the three Neocat priests who openly snubbed him, their fellow clergy, and the visiting Apostolic Nuncio at their recent clergy meeting. 

Per Frenchie:

...during said visit by our Nuncio, he led a meeting with the clergy and the religious orders of Guam to get their feedback on the situation of the relations with the Neocatecumenal Way. Attending this meeting were the Archbishop, the members of the Chancery representatives, as well as the parishes' priests and permanent deacons and members of the religious orders. Among the priests present were the three presbyters actually on island at this time.

There were several presentations about different issues, with questions and answers. When it came to the subject of the relations with the NCW,  the three presbyters in question got up, left, and never came back.

This is why I titled my last post: THE ANSWER IS "NO" AND "SCREW YOU." That is exactly what they said by their actions when they walked out of the clergy meeting with the Nuncio. And so Jimenez responds with a little letter begging them to cooperate during next year's Easter Vigil. GEEZ! SMH!

Jimenez's actions regarding the Neo bring back memories of Archbishop Hon, when he was the Apostolic Administrator of Guam. Hon was the secretary to the Congregation headed by the arch-Neocat Cardinal: Filoni. 

From the intel we were receiving from inside the chancery at the time, Hon was often on the phone with Filoni and shouting in Italian. Filoni, who was in bed with Kiko and the Gennarinis, wanted Hon to shut us up and save the Neocats. 

Hon was up against pressures Filoni couldn't have imagined because, by that time, the CCOG, LFM, and JW were major forces, AND we were pressing for the legislation that would help us clean up our church. We didn't want to do it that way, but it became clear after Hon took over that the church, aka Filoni, was backing the Neocats... and Apuron. 

They, Filoni and Hon, left us no option. We had to press for the legislation, which in effect allowed us to sue ourselves (since we are the church and the money behind it), so we could rid ourselves of the decades-old "filth in the church," specifically the Neocats' bishop.

Now we have a new Neocat bishop. And he has made it clear with this measly little letter - issued for no other reason than to check a box and hope that we are too stupid to know what is really going on: Jimenez walking the tightrope to Rome, a rope held at least on one end by the Neocats.

We've been here and done that. And we're "mad as hell, and we aren't going to take it anymore."

BTW, that the three Neocat presbyters so easily mocked and snubbed the Apostolic Nuncio, Rome's man in this region, is very telling: the Neocats know they are not under the authority of the normal Catholic Church hierarchy. This is something we already know. They are a parallel church and have long since had their own hierarchy. They take their marching orders from their Neocat Brass, not the diocesan bishop, not even the Apostolic Nuncio. That's why they could walk out with impunity. And Jimenez can't do a damn thing about it. That's what his letter demonstrated. 

THE ANSWER IS "NO" AND "SCREW YOU"

- Blackbeard to Captain Jack Sparrow (Pirates of the Caribbean: "On Stranger Tides."

It's not like we didn't know it. We've been saying it even before he took the job. And we knew it because we know the Neocat Brass is still pulling all the strings in this archdiocese. 

Jimenez knows he owes his career to them, and he also knows he owes his next job, a cushy job in Rome, to the same. However, he knows that in order to get that cushy job in Rome - his next step in his ecclesial career - he has to perform.

Meanwhile, Jimenez has a problem. People, especially people who pay attention to JungleWatch, are watching, and watching very warily. 

Many of us paid a huge, if not terrible, price to clean up the disaster wreaked on this diocese by the Neocats, especially their disgusting attempts to shield and save Apuron at the expense of the countless children who their bishop (Apuron)* either personally ruined or who were ruined on his watch - a true reign of psychological and sexual terror on our most vulnerable: our children.

*By the way, Jimenez should note, though he probably already knows, that the Neos still regard Apuron as their bishop. They rejected the authority of Archbishop Byrnes, the Administrator, Convocar, and they would reject Jimenez's authority as well if he ever tried to assert it. But they know he won't. And today's "Pastoral Letter" - which we will get to - proves it. 

Let's recall the monster the Neocats were protecting - and still are:

I was only 12 years old when I was raped by Father Apuron. I was an Alter (sic) Boy for my village in Agat. Being an Alter (sic) Boy motivated my desires to serve God and to become a priest. I may have been young, but I knew that was my calling. 

In the evening of April 16, 1977, I spent the night in the rectory with Father Anthony to help prepare the church for Sunday services. Father Anthony and I had dinner in the rectory. After dinner, I helped Father Anthony wash the dishes. After cleaning up the dirty dishes, I went into the living room, sat on the lazy boy chair, and watched TV for a little bit. I started to feel tired and sleepy. I pulled the handle of the lazy boy and got it to recline. As I was lying on the lazy boy chair. Father Anthony Apuron came into the living room and asked me if I was ready to go to sleep. I told him yes and that I was going to sleep on the lazy boy chair. He said no, and he insisted I sleep in the bedroom with him. I said, " Okay, Father. 

Sometime late that night or early morning I woke up feeling something or someone on top of me, smothering me, and I felt something going in me, and it was hurting me. I was pinned down to the bed on my stomach with my legs spread apart. I could not move. I could not move my arms or my legs. I was pinned down. I felt something going in me, and it hurt so much. 

I shouted out to please stop. I kept shouting, and I tried to move, but all I could feel was him on top of me, thrusting something in me. He told me it would be alright. He finally stopped, and he lay down on me like he was resting. He got off me, and I immediately got off the bed. I was crying and breathing hard. 

I could feel my butt was all wet. I asked him why you did that to me. I kept asking why. He said if I said anything to anyone, no one will believe me. That night had changed my life forever. It had changed my direction in life. 

- Walter Denton, June 27, 2016, Testimony in favor of Bill 326-33 before the Guam Legislature (The full testimony is here.)

A few months ago, Apuron's Neocat handlers trotted him out in front of a camera to proclaim his innocence after his accusers, the plaintiffs, represented by the office of Lujan and Wolff, finally dismissed their cases after ten years of delay, delay, delay. The plaintiffs had no path forward. The suit was not criminal; it was civil. It was a suit for damages: money. And Apuron, given ten years to get rid of his assets, had none. 

I'm sure it pained Jimenez to have to say something that damaged his stock with the Neocats, and if not for our searing posts on JungleWatch about Apuron's lies, he might have said nothing. However, with the spotlight on him, Jimenez had to say something, so he referred to the Vatican verdict: APURON GUILTY.

Today, Jimenez issued a "Pastoral Letter," which, after several paragraphs of mumbling "words like fog" about unity and synodality, all aimed at dusting off the Neocats, he finally gets to what he's actually asking them to do:

"I invite them to celebrate the Sacred Triduum, especially the Easter Vigil, together with the wider parish community..."

He doesn't require them - as Catholic Church law already requires, he squeakily "invites" them. 

Ummm, Archbishop, in case you didn't already know, their answer is NO. In fact, it's NO and SCREW YOU - which has been their position on everything for decades.

ARCHBISHOP JIMENEZ INCARDINATES MSGR. RUBEN ESPENO

 

The following was received from an anonymous contributor:

One might want to ask why the Archbishop selectively picks and chooses which incardinated priests are published by way of an Aviso.  There have been several priests incardinated that he did not publish. He had them incardinated without an Aviso. He did it quietly. Even the priests in Guam were not informed of the incardination. 

What is he hiding? And why do it quietly? Just ask the Diocese of Chalan Kanoa, where he incardinated priests from the Philippines and no one knew till he left Saipan for Guam. The entire diocese was shocked by the revelation.  

They only learned about it when he brought the priest to Saipan and introduced him to Bishop Convocar. And guess what? The priest had no intention of serving in Saipan. He departed Saipan with Archbishop Jimenez.

PRIEST PUBLICLY EMBARRASSES 12-YEAR OLD CHILD AT GREAT-GRANDFATHER'S FUNERAL

Submitted to JungleWatch

Yesterday, during my father’s funeral Mass, Father Felixberto C. Leon Guerrero interrupted the service to publicly call out my 12-year-old granddaughter, who was standing near the back of the church while watching her 1-year-old sister and looking at the memorial boards. He stated that she was “dancing” and told her that if she was not going to pay attention, she should leave the church.

If she was making dance-like movements, I am certain she was not putting on a dance performance or doing a “TikTok” in the middle of my father’s funeral Mass. She is a 12-year-old child who was grieving, helping watch her baby sister, and moving around near the back of the church. Children do not always sit completely still, and they process grief and emotions differently from adults.

What happened was deeply upsetting and, in my opinion, completely inappropriate. My granddaughter was publicly embarrassed in front of everyone during an already painful and emotional day for our family. She was humiliated, became extremely upset, and left crying because of the way she was singled out.

This was my father’s funeral Mass—a time when our family needed compassion, comfort, understanding, and pastoral care. I struggle to understand how publicly humiliating a 12-year-old child, especially during her great-grandfather’s funeral, reflects the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Church should be a place where people, especially children, feel welcomed, loved, and safe—not shamed or made to feel that they do not belong.

She was standing in the back, helping watch her 1-year-old sister and looking at the memorial boards honoring her great-grandfather. Even if Father Leon Guerrero believed her behavior was distracting, there were compassionate and respectful ways to address the situation without interrupting a funeral Mass and publicly calling out a grieving child.

No child should leave a church feeling humiliated, rejected, or as though she was being told she did not belong there. Jesus welcomed children with love and compassion. As Catholics, I believe our actions toward others, especially children and grieving families, should reflect those same teachings.

What should have been a sacred and comforting final farewell to my father is now also remembered as the moment my granddaughter was publicly embarrassed during his funeral Mass. I cannot understand how that was necessary, compassionate, or acceptable.

MEANWHILE THE NEOS ARE CONTINUING UNABETTED WITH THEIR LACK OF RESPECT.

 Posted by Frenchie.

In my previous post, I questioned what would the Nuncio (who recently visited our Diocese) think about the fact that our Archbishop was not discerning enough, or was poorly advised by his "executive secretary", to avoid the basic common sense of not being seen in the company of controversial individuals or being put in a position of compromise.

This reminded me in passing that during said visit by our Nuncio, he led a meeting with the clergy and the religious orders of Guam to get their feedback on the situation of the relations with the Neocatecumenal Way. Attending this meeting were the Archbishop, the members of the Chancery representatives as well as the parishes' priests and permanent deacons and members of the religious orders. Among the priests present were the three presbyters actually on island at this time.

There were several presentations about different issues, with questions and answers. When it came to the subject of the relations with the NCW,  the three presbyters in question got up, left and never came back.

To this day, no one knows what measures the Archbishop took as the leader of this Diocese, or as the Vicar of the Clergy, a role he assumed in May. This type of open rebellion against their own Bishop in front of the Nuncio, cannot be simply excused. It should at minimum be addressed amongst the parties present at that brotherly meeting. Again, and this is becoming a disturbing trend we end with more questions than answers.

When will Archbishop Jimenez take the bull by the horns and address the 800 Lb gorilla in the room.

We are anxiously waiting .

This is specially critical before the return of the most destabilizing current member of the NCW clergy on Guam: Fr Harold who has apparently found a solution to his immigration status.  If nothing is done about these open slights, after two years leading the Archdiocese of Agana, people will certainly start to question the abilities of our most recent Archbishop.

UNDER THE INFLUENCE?

Posted by Frenchie.

Between Kandit news and Tim's revelations since the posting of the Scintilla's picture, apparently taken over the weekend in Manilla, many questions have surfaced about the motivation behind Archbishop Jimenez presumed "chance" meeting with the Tenorio Clan.

One person that is front and center in the damning portrait, is Connie Shinohara, the oddly promoted executive secretary of the Archbishop, who in theory should advise the Archbishop on the inherent risks he would be facing in rubbing elbows in public (even in distanced locations) with certain individuals who are in the limelight for whatever reason. In this case we are talking about the current Lt Governor, an unabashed advocate of GLBTQ rights and a strong supporter of the evil euphemism: "a woman's right to choose" the moniker for the murder of unborn babies, both issues being considered as scandalous by the Church.

The question is then, why would the executive secretary not protect her boss the Archbishop from the obvious communication nightmare we are witnessing? The follow-up question is why the Archbishop, a fairly intelligent individual would allow himself to be influenced negatively by said executive secretary?

This is certainly not the type of behavior expected from someone whose stated ambition is to serve the Church in Rome. I wonder what our new Nuncio might make out this kerfuffle?

It is a well known fact that Connie Shinohara is very close to Josh Tenorio. Perhaps she is the whisperer in the ear of Jimenez, in which case this would be catastrophic, but would explain many things. Her previous gig, having been at the Port Authority, managing the "Port seven" dossier, which led to the re-instatement of very flawed employees that had been terminated. The whole thing being a glimpse into the corruption of the democratic party machine and the port authority, under the guise of righting a wrong. But what is more troubling with Connie is how intertwined she was with the still not totally resolved scandal of the house of liberty game rooms, which is also being litigated by the feds. These issues should have been red flags for the Chancery.

Enters the new twist in the story: the very controversial and unpredictable Matthew Blockley. Many people affirm that Blockley and the volatile Tony Sgro are acquittances. It is interesting to note that the accusations against Josh and Matthew (Topasna) have popped up in Kandit, since a certain well known car dealership very close to Tina has been such a good sponsor of Kandit News, and that Blockley has fed Kandit with his somewhat one sided report. There is apparently a lot more to the story.

To recap, we have our Archbishop and his executive secretary whose primary goal should be to protect her employer travelling to Manilla, who "accidently" meet with the Tenorio Clan (most of them under federal indictment). Just this, is a public relation nightmare. So far this has not appeared to rattle many people at the Chancery.

We have two loose canons hovering over the whole disaster: Matthew Blockley and Tony Sgro, with agendas still undisclosed at this time. Still when your reputation is : where they go, trouble follow; we should be attentive at what is going to be revealed sooner or later.

Finally we have the current Lt Governor, who does not need any more controversy at this time embroiled in something which appear to be very frustrating.

The last question being therefore: Who is influencing whom and for what purpose?

WHO I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR

By Tim Rohr

I was off-island for the primary, and, frankly, I wasn't motivated enough by any candidate to go out of my way to vote early. 

However, if I were a Democrat, and I'm not, I would have voted for Tenorio, for no other reason than he just seems to be the more reasonable and approachable of the three Democratic candidates.

I am a registered Republican, but I think if I had voted, I would have written in "Jeff" or "Jeffrey," for no other reason than to make a statement. Both Republican candidates made statements relative to abortion that were not only disappointing, but sort of stupid.

As I laid out in previous posts, abortion legislation is not even an issue in this election, and every candidate team (except for Terlaje) demonstrated their inability to lead this government by falling into a trap they didn't even need to step into. If you want to know more about why I say this, see my posts here and here. 

Note: Even though Terlaje was the only candidate not to "step in it," I still would have voted for Tenorio on account of what I already stated.

Now that it's between Terlaje and Ada, I think I'll do another write-in: Jesus. I'd like to vote for Ada, but he's an avowed Freemason. And for a Catholic, that's a problem. I don't blame Ada. I'm sure he never knew...until now. 

It's a matter that our clergy should have engaged him on long ago. However, when you have an archbishop who eagerly runs away from the altar during the funeral for perhaps Guam's most beloved priest in order to give a big hug to Guam's most vicious advocate for abortion ever (the governor), and the nation's first openly gay Lieutenant Governor, and later give them communion, then....?

Note: The picture of Typhoon Bavi doesn't have anything to do with the post...other than its what Guam politics always feels like. :)

I THINK BLOCKLEY TOOK THE PHOTO

By Tim Rohr

Kandit News ran a story a few hours ago about a certain Fr. (Matthew) Blockley reporting that he had been accosted by Lt. Governor Josh Tenorio in a hotel lobby in Manila.  

"In the lobby I met the lieutenant governor of Guam and Matthew (Topasna), and tried to greet them," he said. "As I approached I noticed the lieutenant governor looked upset and he began to raise his voice at me about a photo that had circulated."

Kandit further reports:

The photograph Father Blockley refers to shows Mr. Tenorio, Mr. Topasna, the lieutenant governor's sister Charissa Tenorio, Guam Archbishop Ryan Jimenez, and at least three other people from Guam outside the corridor to Sanctuario de San Antonio on August 9, one of the people in the picture confirmed to Kandit. The photo was widely shared in Guam, and became the subject of scrutiny on the blog JungleWatch.

While the Kandit story dates the photo in question to August 9, the story does not date the alleged altercation between Tenorio and Blockley. Kandit posted its story on August 12 at 8:47 PM. I posted the photo on JungleWatch on August 11 at 9:58 AM, so it's possible that the JungleWatch post may be what Tenorio was upset about. However, when I received the photo via WhatsApp on August 10 at about 7:30 PM, I was told that it had already been circulating on the internet.

I received no information about the context of the photo and, due to recent travel, had not been following the news about the court order permitting travel for the three indicted persons in the photo. Not having any information about the photo, I decided to post it without comment - something I often did during the "Apuron Wars," because it was a way to discover context from the comments. 

Before posting, I found the story about the three indicted persons being permitted to travel to Manila for medical reasons, so I posted a link to that story with the photo. While the post generated over 1000 views in less than 24 hours, there were only a couple of comments.

There are many comments on the above-linked Kandit story; however, it appears that no one else knows much about the photo's context or why so many others from Guam, including the archbishop (and his personal secretary), are there.

My interest in the photo was not Tenorio or his clan, indicted or not, but the presence of the archbishop. I had already been quite critical of his actions relative to the Tenorio campaign, especially his either ignorant or shameless Marine Corps Drive wave after blessing Tenorio's campaign headquarters, and then his apparent permission to use his image in paid promotional ads for the same campaign. Such ecclesiastical boot-licking is an embarrassment, at least to some of us, and, as I posited in a recent post, the Jimenez presence apparently backfired.

I was initially under the impression that the photo had been taken before the election, which, in my mind, would have made sense given that Jimenez was in the Tenorio camp. However, it is now clear that the photo is from August 9, after the election. So what is Jimenez doing there? A chance meeting? I don't think so.

And now, there's the sudden entry into the story of this priest, Blockley. Blockley was an early ally in the Apuron Wars. He had initially been incardinated in Guam under Apuron, but split to Saipan after some sort of internecine squabbles with other priests. In Saipan, under the late Tomas Camacho, Blockley again ran afoul of whatever he ran afoul of and ran away to the Philippines, where, as far as I know, he has been ever since. 

At one point in the Apuron mess, I decided to not deal with Blockley anymore. I forget the reason, but there were many early "allies" that I eventually had to distance myself from due to their use of me (and JungleWatch) to assuage their personal grievances instead of righting the church, which is what I was trying to do, at great expense to myself and my family.

Meanwhile, at least from my experience with him, where Blockley goes, trouble follows. So I don't think his running into Tenorio and Topasna in a hotel lobby was a chance meeting. But of more interest to me is what Blockley says here:

"I have absolutely no interest at all in this photo or anyone in it except for [one of the people shown], who is a friend of mine who I had just had dinner with Thursday evening."

It's interesting to me that Blockley doesn't name the friend. Why not? So let's guess: if there is anybody in the photo that Blockley knew well enough to have dinner with, it is obviously Archbishop Ryan Jimenez. 

Both Blockley and Jimenez were priests together in Saipan for several years. In fact, if Blockley did not have dinner with Jimenez, but someone else in that picture, then that would have been a strange snub of Jimenez, who is, after all, the Archbishop of Agana, the diocese where Blockley was originally incardinated. 

In fact, Jimenez may have been in Manila to specifically meet with Blockley. The last I heard, Blockley is still incardinated in Saipan, but stripped of his priestly faculties there, so he's been moonlighting in Manila for many years, supported by family money and assorted Catholics in Manila for whom he does private home Masses - at least that was the story the last I had anything to do with him. It could be that Blockley is working with Jimenez to have his faculties restored and even brought back to the Agana diocese, if only in name, so that he can count on a regular paycheck - from us.

I don't know, but Blockley clearly ran to Kandit with his story about Tenorio, so, after ten years of not hearing from him, he has invited as much speculation as we want.

One last thing. The Kandit story notes that Blockley says that the photo was given to him. 

Father Blockley said that when he received the photo he did not feel there was anything wrong with it...

Hmmmm. I don't think so. I think Blockley took the photo. And I think it was Jimenez who told Blockley where the Tenorio party was going to be on August 9. And given Tenorio's "accosting" of Blockley upon sight of him, it appears Tenorio knew that Blockley took the photo.

TONY ADA'S FREEMASON TIES - A FACTOR IN THE GENERAL ELECTION?

Submitted by a contributor

Google AI says:

 will Tony Ada free mason ties have a negative impact on Catholic voters on general gubernational race

Whether Republican gubernatorial nominee Tony Ada’s Freemason ties will have a net negative impact on Catholic voters in Guam’s November 3, 2026 general election depends on the voter segment, but historical trends and local commentary indicate it will likely cause localized friction rather than a widespread voting boycott. [1, 2]

The primary factors dictating how this dynamic will play out across Guam's highly Catholic electorate include:

1. Direct Backlash from Traditionalist and Devout Catholics

• The Religious Conflict: The Catholic Church holds a historically strict stance against Freemasonry, maintaining that a Catholic cannot simultaneously be a Freemason. Because Tony Ada explicitly identifies as Catholic while maintaining membership in Charleston #44 F&AM, some traditionalists view this dual affiliation as a direct contradiction. [1, 2, 3]
• Active Opposition Campaigns: Traditionalist Catholic commentary groups on Guam, such as the influential blog JungleWatch, have actively campaigned against the Ada-Calvo ticket. Critics have openly urged Catholic voters to reject Ada, framing his fraternal ties and political outreach to non-Catholic organizations as a betrayal of Church values. For this highly devout voter bloc, his Masonic ties are an outright disqualifier. [1]

2. Mitigation via Cultural and Secular Voter Priorities

• Dominance of Economic and Quality-of-Life Issues: For the broader, more secularly minded Catholic population on Guam, day-to-day economic struggles far outweigh fraternal controversies. Exit polling and supporter feedback from the August 1, 2026 primary highlighted that voters are overwhelmingly focused on the high cost of living, outward migration, bad roads, and economic revitalization. Ada's "Guam First Agenda" focuses on these practical, "back to basics" issues, which resonates with voters regardless of religious friction. [1, 2, 3]
• The "CHamoru Culture" Factor: Religious expression on Guam is heavily intertwined with CHamoru culture and familial networks. Ada has historically emphasized that his political philosophy revolves around cultural servant-leadership. Furthermore, he and his running mate, EJ Calvo, strategically kicked off their primary election day by attending morning Mass, maintaining visible alignment with local Catholic traditions to neutralize criticisms. [1, 2, 3]

3. The General Election Matchup Dynamics

• A Polarized Choice: In the general election, the Ada-Calvo ticket faces the Democratic team of Senators Therese Terlaje and Sabina Perez. Conservative Catholic voters who are uncomfortable with Ada’s Freemasonry face a political dilemma: they must weigh their discomfort with his fraternal ties against their likely ideological opposition to the Democratic platform. [1, 2]

Summary Verdict

The Freemasonry issue will cost Ada votes among traditionalist, highly conservative Catholics who follow local religious watchdogs. However, it is unlikely to trigger a mass defection of the general Catholic electorate, as the vast majority of voters are prioritizing concrete issues like the economy, public safety, and government corruption over private fraternal memberships. [1, 2, 4]

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DdMgZn58u/

A THIRD (AND FINAL) VIEW OF WHY TENORIO LOST TO TERLAJE

By Tim Rohr

In addition to my previous two theories of why the Tenorio campaign lost to Terlaje (here and here), there is one more possibility that may have contributed to Tenorio's loss: the very visible presence, if not active participation, of Archbishop Ryan Jimenez.

For a while now, Jimenez has been snuggling up to the current top occupants of Adelup. 

On January 17, 2026, right in the middle of the Funeral Mass for Fr. Michael Crisostomo, Jimenez visibly interrupted the Mass, left the sanctuary, paraded right in front of Fr. Mike's grieving family, and rushed to heartily shake the hands of the Adelup duo. 

On February 20, 2026, Jimenez publicly blessed the Josh and Tina campaign headquarters and then joined his heroes on Marine Corps Drive to wave with them.

Thereafter, Jimenez allowed himself to appear as a prop in paid advertisements for the Josh and Tina campaign. 

Recently, Jimenez was seen with Tenorio and his partner at a church in Manila. 

No big deal, maybe. But Jimenez doesn't appear to have any photo ops with any of the other gubernatorial candidates. 

Notwithstanding that Josh and his current boss have brazenly stood for policies and positions mortally condemned by the church, Jimenez is ordained and consecrated to lead; it is just damn unbecoming for a Catholic archbishop to devolve into an ecclesiastical political fanboy.

Credit goes to Josh, though. While Jimenez may have been a willing fanboy, he had to be invited to the party first. Josh, an otherwise astute politician, can be forgiven for wanting to be seen with the archbishop and, more importantly, receiving the arch's personal blessing. (Picture above)

In normal times, especially in Guam, appearing to be in favor with church leaders, especially the archbishop, would be a definite positive. However, these are not normal times. The Catholic Church in Guam, and especially its leadership, was severely damaged after being outed as the most dangerous place in the Catholic world for minors. 

Per capita, Guam's Catholic clergy sexually abused minors, almost all boys, at a rate 14 times that of the Archdiocese of Boston, the diocese which inspired the Academy Award-winning movie "Spotlight," and that number is based just on the known lawsuits. I personally know of many more victims who either settled out of court or chose not to come forward. In short, Guam's clergy sex abuse scandal was simply massive.

Jimenez may think that because he's the "new kid in town," Guam's shame and scandal are not on him. He's wrong. He can smile all he wants, but he has been a priest in this archdiocese (Saipan is part of the Archdiocese of Agana as a suffragan diocese) for 25-plus years. Additionally, he was the late Bishop Tomas Camacho's right-hand man for many of those years, and Camacho was also accused of sexual abuse of minors. 

In fact, I am willing to say that there is not a priest in any of the Mariana Islands who served under Apuron or Camacho who did not know the filth that festered in this church for decades, and that includes Jimenez - and DID NOTHING.

However, as terrible as that all is, and as tainted as it makes Jimenez, there is a larger reason why Tenorio erred in recruiting Jimenez to be a campaign poster boy. 

Those outside the controversy may have only seen the clergy sex abuse scandal as the thing that motivated lay people to band together into the CCOG (Concerned Catholics of Guam) and the LFM (Laity Forward Movement), which ultimately organized into the 54-week picket in front of the Cathedral every Sunday and finally brought the Vatican crashing down on this diocese. 

But it was not the sexual abuse thing that motivated those lay people. It was the abuse of this archdiocese by Apuron and the Neocatechumenal Way, an abuse that continues under Jimenez, and, from all evidence, continues with his blessing. 

Jimenez is in with the Neocats. That's simply the overwhelming, albeit mostly silent, perception, and will remain the overwhelming perception until Jimenez does something about it. But he won't. His promotion to Rome depends on the same people who are hiding Apuron.

I'm sure Josh didn't think of that.

GOOGLE AI'S TAKE ON THE JIMENEZ'S BLESSING OF TENORIO CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS

 Here's what Google AI says after search for "jimenez bless tenorio campaign headquarters:"

Jimenez’s Blessing of Tenorio Campaign Headquarters

Archbishop Ryan Jimenez’s blessing of the Josh Tenorio and Tina Muña‑Barnes gubernatorial campaign headquarters in Hagåtña has drawn political and religious commentary, with some critics citing U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) guidelines on church involvement in politics www.junglewatch.info.

Event context
According to local reporting, Tenorio and Muña‑Barnes launched their 2026 gubernatorial bid with a rally at their Hagåtña headquarters, drawing about 2,000 supporters and a motorcade of over 1,000 vehicles www.nminewsservice.com. The campaign site has been a central hub for their outreach, events, and public appearances www.joshtina.info.

Religious and political controversy
JungleWatch reported that Jimenez’s blessing of the Tenorio headquarters — and his participation in a “wave” procession — could be seen as an endorsement of that candidate team, violating USCCB rules that prohibit clergy from endorsing candidates or using church resources for partisan purposes www.junglewatch.info. While Guam is not part of the USCCB and is under the Oceania Bishops’ Conference (CEPAC), the article noted that Jimenez has in past instances followed USCCB guidelines when convenient and ignored them when not www.junglewatch.info.

Critic’s view
The blog post argued that the blessing, combined with Jimenez’s public appearance at the event, was a “blatant statement of support” for Tenorio and Muña‑Barnes, especially since no similar blessing was reported for other candidates’ headquarters www.junglewatch.info. Critics also pointed out that the action used church personnel (Jimenez and Fr. Joseph Anore) for a partisan political purpose, even if church facilities were not used www.junglewatch.info.

Tenorio campaign stance
The Tenorio–Muña‑Barnes team has not publicly commented on the blessing. Their official site focuses on policy, events, and volunteer recruitment www.joshtina.info, and their rally in Hagåtña emphasized economic and governance reforms www.nminewsservice.com.

Key takeaway
The blessing has become a point of debate because it blends religious symbolism with political campaigning. While Jimenez is not bound by USCCB rules, the action has been interpreted by some as politically partisan, raising questions about the intersection of church leadership and electoral politics in Guam www.junglewatch.info+1.