LUCIO FROM ITALY

By Tim Rohr

On the post BECCIU IS BACK, we had a nice little exchange with an anonymous commenter who later identified himself as Lucio from Italy. 

Even before Anonymous identified himself as "Lucio" from Italy on March 27, 2026, at 4:56pm, it was clear to me, and also to Deacon Steve Martinez, who Lucio was attacking, that Lucio was actually a local, Guam, Neocat. 

After years of dealing with Neocat surreptitiousness and subterfuge (thanks to our years of engaging "The Diana"), it's not difficult here at JW to smell a rat. 

March 27, 2026, at 4:56pm in Guam would have been March 27, 2026, at 7:56am in Italy. Even without looking at the Flag Counter, we knew "Lucio" was a local Neocat, but I thought I'd take a look at the Flag Counter anyway. 

There was no one from Italy who was on Jungle Watch on March 27, nor on March 26, nor on March 25. That last person from Italy visited JW on March 24, and only once, whereas "Lucio," to make the number of comments "he" made, would have had to make multiple page views. On March 27, there was a big zero from Italy. 

SOURCE: https://s01.flagcounter.com/detail30/it/or4G

Aside from the usual Neocat leadership lies, it's worth copying and commenting on the exchange that involved "Lucio," Deacon Steve, and me. Deacon Steve started with the first comment:

Deacon Steve Martinez March 25, 2026 at 5:26 PM

In looking at your link to a 2014 JW post, I don’t recall that post, but it is also very timely.

My take away is that your 2014 post makes it very clear that the NCW is to celebrate the Easter Vigil with the ONE parish Easter Vigil.

There was a meeting in 2024, when I was delegate to the NCW, where the Apostolic Delegate, Fr Romy Convocar, and Fr Paul made it clear to the NCW leadership that there was to be no separate NCW vigil mass. The NCW representatives were not happy about the decision, claiming it was allowed in their statutes.

Fr Paul pointed to the GIRM which requires only one Easter Vigil in a parish, and that they were wrong in their understanding of the NCW statutes.

They left the meeting knowing they were clearly told to join their parishes for a single Easter Vigil.

But as we have seen in other areas, the NCW does what the NCW wants to do. So they celebrated their own Easter Vigil.

Tim March 25, 2026 at 7:42 PM

Yes. They have always done whatever they want because they own the bishop of whatever diocese they are in.

Anonymous March 26, 2026 at 5:32 PM

In 2024 who did they own?

[COMMENT: This was the first entry from "Lucio." The date and time in Italy would have been March 26 at 8:32 AM. There was no login from Italy on that day.] 

Tim March 26, 2026 at 7:19 PM

They owned the bishop makers. Both Convocar and Jimenez minded their manners. Both were rewarded.

[COMMENT: While the former Apostolic Administrator, Fr. Romy Convocar, did take a stand about the Easter Vigil thing, as Deacon Steve relates in the first comment, and while he also reaffirmed the moratoriam on the formation of new communities ordered by the late-Archbishop Byrnes, he took no action - that we know of - to sanction the Neocats for their open and hostile disregard of those directives. And Jimenez, going on two years since he took over, has done nothing. So it's not hard to guess that both clerics are "owned."]

Anonymous March 26, 2026 at 11:18 PM

Pope Francis settled the matter in 2014, revoking a Feria VI in this regard. The Easter Vigil with the indults granted to the Neocatechumenal Way can be held, as is done in all parishes of the Pope's Diocese (Rome). Becciu has nothing to do with the Neocatechumenal Way; he is linked to Chiara Lubich's Focolare Movement. (Everyone knows this.) From what you write, I must say that unfortunately, Pope Leo, who is American, when he warned the Spanish bishops about the danger of traditionalists, very similar to American evangelicals and influenced by nonsense like QAnon, etc., was probably right. Fortunately, in Europe (and in Italy in particular), this is a marginal issue. P.S. It's truly unfortunate to read certain comments from a gentleman who I believe is a permanent deacon. Perhaps he would review canons 273 to 289, which he is bound to respect. Happy Lent, a time of conversion - for everyone -.

[COMMENT: We'll need to break this down sentence by sentence. So here we go.

"Pope Francis settled the matter in 2014, revoking a Feria VI in this regard. The Easter Vigil with the indults granted to the Neocatechumenal Way can be held, as is done in all parishes of the Pope's Diocese (Rome)." 

Lucio is hoping the average reader won't notice the second half of this statement. The first half begins with "Pope Francis settled the matter..." and then refers to "Feria VI," which, when asked later for the source, as you will see, would not provide a source and is counting on the average reader, upon seeing "Feria VI," will think "wow, she really knows what she's talking about." (Oh, by the way, Lucio is a she. But I'll get to that.)

The first part about the pope is the usual Neocat thing: "the pope has spoken, the pope loves us, so shut up and sit down, blah, blah, blah..." However, the pope was not acting as the pope in the matter, he was acting as the Bishop of Rome, and, whatever "Feria" decision he made, it applied only to the Diocese of Rome, meaning his decision had nothing to do with Guam, where, according to the Neocat's own Statutes, the Neocats are at the service of the bishop: "The Neocatechumenal Way is at the service of the bishop..." (Title 1, Article 1, §2)

"Becciu has nothing to do with the Neocatechumenal Way; he is linked to Chiara Lubich's Focolare Movement. (Everyone knows this.)" 

We do know that. However, the 2014 post to which I referred in BECCIU IS BACK, and in which Becciu's name first appears on this blog, demonstrates quite a different position by Lucio and her Neocats. Back then, due to a letter Becciu had sent Kiko (the Neocat founder), Lucio and her Neocats were parading Becciu about like a prophet, claiming that his letter to Kiko proves that the pope loves them. So now that Becciu is in trouble, big trouble, they don't know him and he's involved in some other Movement. LOL.

"From what you write, I must say that unfortunately, Pope Leo, who is American, when he warned the Spanish bishops about the danger of traditionalists, very similar to American evangelicals and influenced by nonsense like QAnon, etc., was probably right. Fortunately, in Europe (and in Italy in particular), this is a marginal issue." 

This was a shot at me, and it's the first hint that this is not "Lucio from Italy," but  Guam Neocat, who thinks she knows me. She thinks I attend the Latin Mass, which is why she made the "the danger of traditionalists" quip. However, except for very rare occasions, I haven't attended the Latin Mass in Guam since 2018.

"P.S. It's truly unfortunate to read certain comments from a gentleman who I believe is a permanent deacon. Perhaps he would review canons 273 to 289, which he is bound to respect. Happy Lent, a time of conversion - for everyone -."

So here is where "Lucio" tries to discredit Deacon Steve Martinez. She knows Deacon Steve personally, and also knows that he's the only cleric in this diocese willing to call the Neocats out - just as, ten years ago now, he was the only cleric willing to call Apuron out. But I'll let Deacon Steve explain for himself in the following comments.]

Tim March 27, 2026 at 8:04 AM

Would you mind posting or linking to the documentation you reference relative to "Pope Francis settled the matter." Apparently the hierarchy in this diocese is unaware. Also, since you seem to be quite knowledgeable about the NCW, what are your thoughts about the NCW's disregard - since 2017 - of the moratorium (and still in effect) on the formation of new communities?

Anonymous March 27, 2026 at 8:40 AM

Obviously, I have no link to forward, just as your bishop doesn't need one; he can refer to the source. For your information, an Italian journalist you're certainly familiar with wrote about it: Sandro Magister, announcing the opening of the evaluation process in 2012 and its closure in 2014 by the Supreme Pontiff. If Neocatechumenal Way catechesis is not permitted in your diocese, you must be obedient to the bishop, but certainly, for a parent, being denied a serious and comprehensive education in the Catholic faith for their children is a source of pain. Perhaps for some traditionalist parishioners or deacons, it's better to have an atheist child? So, if families, fulfilling their right and duty to educate their children, provide a parental education in the faith, I see nothing wrong with that; on the contrary, I see a lot of value in it! The important thing is that a Catholic theology be always proposed, founded on the Creed, the Word of God, and the Sacraments. But also on Catholic morality on issues such as: the right to life (even Cain), love for enemy, welcoming strangers, helping poor's, rejecting war, and announcing the good news.

[COMMENT: 

"Obviously, I have no link to forward, just as your bishop doesn't need one; he can refer to the source."

So why doesn't Lucio have a link to forward? If it's a papal decision, and apparently an important one, since this is the point Lucio is arguing, then why no reference? How many times can I say "typical Neocat?" 

"For your information, an Italian journalist you're certainly familiar with wrote about it: Sandro Magister, announcing the opening of the evaluation process in 2012 and its closure in 2014 by the Supreme Pontiff." 

The reference to Sandro Magister, an Italian blogger, was a dead giveaway that this wasn't some random dude from Italy who happened upon this blog. I haven't referred to Magister on this blog in many years. So this is someone who has been reading JW for at least that long. Lucio is local, and her name begins with "M." 

"If Neocatechumenal Way catechesis is not permitted in your diocese, you must be obedient to the bishop, but certainly, for a parent, being denied a serious and comprehensive education in the Catholic faith for their children is a source of pain." 

Apparently, for Lucio (and the usual Neocats), "a serious and comprehensive education in the Catholic Faith" is only possible in the Neocatechumenal Way. Well, you'll get catechized, alright, catechized right into a heresy: "It is a Trojan horse in the Church. I know them very well because I was an episcopal delegate for them for several years in Kazakhstan in Karaganda...I have to state: The Neocathecumenate is a Protestant-Jewish[12]community inside the Church with a Catholic decoration only...According to Kiko, the dark age of the Church lasted from the 4th century until the Second Vatican Council. It was only with Vatican Council II that light came into the Church. This is heresy because this is to say that the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church." - His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

"Perhaps for some traditionalist parishioners or deacons, it's better to have an atheist child?"

There you go. Don't you see? If you're not a Neocat, you're raising your children to be atheists.  

"So, if families, fulfilling their right and duty to educate their children, provide a parental education in the faith, I see nothing wrong with that; on the contrary, I see a lot of value in it! The important thing is that a Catholic theology be always proposed, founded on the Creed, the Word of God, and the Sacraments. But also on Catholic morality on issues such as: the right to life (even Cain), love for enemy, welcoming strangers, helping poor's, rejecting war, and announcing the good news."

It's hard to even comment on this. Bottom line is, for Lucio, you will never learn these things unless you're a Neocat.]

Tim March 27, 2026 at 2:22 PM

You didn't answer the question.

[COMMENT: As a reminder, my question was: "...what are your thoughts about the NCW's disregard - since 2017 - of the moratorium (and still in effect) on the formation of new communities?" Lucio's answer was a long misdirection. I'm so used to this.]

Anonymous March 27, 2026 at 3:00 PM Note: This is actually from Deacon Steve Martinez, who mistakenly selected "Anonymous" when he posted. He will later correct the error and identify himself.

Dear Anonymous at 11:18. Can you let me know which Canon you believe I have not been faithful to? The comment I made was relevant to the posting by Tim which shows the NCW does NOT have authority to celebrate their own Easter Vigil. If that is wrong, then show us all where that authorization has been granted so we can all review it. If such a document exists, then produce it.

If Rome allows the NCW to do separate Easter Vigils, I am not aware. But ultimately, any exclusions or modifications to that would be at the discretion of their ordinary.

My comment was specific for Guam. The Guam NCW was specifically told they were to celebrate their Easter Vigil with their parish and not separate. They were back then unable to provide any documentation granting an indult to the very clear GIRM. Our apostolic delete at the time had the same authority as the ordinary, and he was very clear…join your parish for the Easter Vigil. But the NCW refused to be obedient to that requirement. So how did I violate canon law by my comment?

One last comment…if you expect us to take you seriously I suggest you use your real name. Why are you hiding from us?

Tim March 27, 2026 at 3:14 PM

This is a good point. The local Neocats have always argued this and that about what their Statutes permit, and, of course, always with their own interpretation. But bottom line is that the NCW has no authority of its own other than what is granted to it by the bishop in whatever diocese they operate. If the bishop of this diocese says "no separate Easter Vigil," then that's it.

It's quite clear that the Anonymous challenger is another typical Neocat, given the usual disregard for any local authority.

Tim March 27, 2026 at 2:50 PM

And as regards Deacon Steve Martinez, we, in Guam (since it doesn't sound like you are from here), are forever grateful to him. He was the lone cleric who was willing to stand up publicly to the former Archbishop Apuron and call him out for the decades of sexual abuse of minors which he both participated in and oversaw. Deacon Steve's courage led to exposing the largest sex abuse scandal, per capita, in the whole Catholic world. Apuron slapped him with a censure, but he didn't care. Right is right. And hundreds, if not thousands of victims of clergy sex abuse finally had access to justice, thanks to the same Deacon you feel authorized to chastise behind "anonymous." Typical Neocat.

Tim March 27, 2026 at 4:57 PM

Actually, on second thought, Anonymous, I believe you are from here. And you are also a long time reader of JW. That's easy to tell from your reference to Sandro Magister, who I haven't mentioned in years. Nice try though. Hafa Adai. P.S. Only a Neo would wish a "Happy" Lent. As the rest of us know, in case you don't, Lent is when we enter into the wilderness with Jesus and join in his pain. So, "Blessed Lent" would be more appropriate. Just a suggestion. But seems that you, Neocats, could use some of that "traditional" catechesis. :)

Anonymous March 27, 2026 at 3:20 PM (Note: This is also coming from Deacon Steve.)

To Anonymous at 8:40:

Archbishop Byrnes initiated the moratorium on the creation of new NCW communities after trying on several occasions to review and understand exactly what was being taught on your catechesis. His request was denied to review a copy of David Atienza’s Catechetical Directory. At that point he placed the moratorium on new communities until his request to review the materials was agreed to by David and the NCW. It was their decision to accept the moratorium instead of giving the Archbishop a copy. And that moratorium remains in place today. This is a choice the NCW has made.

However, in his wisdom and compassion, the Archbishop did allow for existing members (at the time the moratorium went into effect), to add their children to communities. David and Maruxa Atienza were certainly aware of this as they also brought it up in a meeting we had with the NCW. But the fact remains that the NCW has ignored the moratorium and has created new communities without regard to the moratorium.

I do agree with you…parents are to be the first teachers of the faith to their children. And if they need help from the Church, the clergy is ready and willing to fulfill our obligation. Are you implying that the clergy in your parish are unable to do this adequately?

And even the priests serving the NCW should be more than willing to carechise any one wishing that, without a person having to join the NCW should can we both agree to that?

Lastly, as I suggested to Anon at 11:18, use your real name and be proud of it.

God bless.

Richard March 27, 2026 at 3:26 PM

I agree with Tim regarding Deacon Steve.

Deacon Steve Martinez March 27, 2026 at 4:46 PM

Tim. My apologies. I didn’t intend my comment at 3:20 or so to be anonymous. It was my comment regarding the NCW being responsible for the continuance of the moratorium. Abp Byrnes would have reconsidered right away if he was supplied with the information David and Maruxa refused to provide. I proudly affix my name to it.

Deacon Steve Martinez

Deacon Steve Martinez March 28, 2026 at 4:56 AM

My apologies all. The comment at 3:00 was meant to have my name affixed to it as well. I was responding to an anonymous user who felt I had violated Canon law and also they were trying to justify separate Easter Vigils by a small group outside of the parish they supposedly belong to. I’m still trying to figure this out”comment thing out”, but that was me at 3;00 and I proudly sign my name to it as Deacon Steve Martinez

Anonymous March 27, 2026 at 4:56 PM

1) My name is Lucio, I'm Italian (I live in Italy), I'm 52 years old, married, have a daughter, and am a blue-collar worker. I'm a former agnostic and have been attending the Neocatechumenal Way in my parish for 18 years. 2) The Neocatechumenal Way is at the service of the bishops; clearly, a bishop can decide to ban the Easter Vigil for small communities, of course. How certain is it that the Roman Pontiff has allowed and encouraged it for at least 52 years in his diocese? Does that mean something for everyone? 3) I don't know the dynamics of your island, I don't know what the catechists of the Neocatechumenal Way on your island have or haven't said. It's clear that there's a clear lack of charity, understanding, and acceptance. I don't understand what this vigil takes away from you, especially since I don't believe you're obligated to participate. 4) As for the deacon, I recognized his name because I'd read it in a comment on a page of American traditionalists, on X. He wrote that Kiko "sells" liturgical furnishings and other items, which isn't true. An ordained minister isn't someone who rants in a pub. 5⁸) This is my last comment. The only thing I can do is pray for the Church on this island, and I'd say for the entire American Church, at risk of hydrological deviations.

[COMMENT: "hydrological"???? LOL.  hydrology (noun) the branch of science concerned with the properties of the earth's water, and especially its movement in relation to land.]

Tim March 27, 2026 at 5:01 PM

LOL "Lucio." Nice try. I think this is your "last comment," because you're getting the feeling we know who you are. We've been dealing with you guys for more than 10 years. You're getting too easy to spot. Blessed Lent. :)

Deacon Steve Martinez March 27, 2026 at 8:18 PM

Dear Lucio:

Thank you for your comment. I know that famous Brazilians often go by one name, but I didn’t know that Italians do the same. Where in Italy are you from? And what is your last name?

FYI, I was in the NCW, and when Kiko was on Guam I had the chance to hear him talk about the initial idea of the creation of the NCW. He said the goal was to get people who were outside the Church to come into the Church. And once they have been catechized, then he wanted to return them into the Church/parish. Small community first, then back into the big (and parish) community.

That is a sound goal, and Rome agreed to allow the NCW to go in that direction. But that is not the way it is working on Guam. Here, most of the members of the NCW were Church members taken out of the parish, and sent to small and private communities.

So, you have been in the NCW for 18 years. That’s a long time, and you have gone through all your scrutiny steps. And many people, here and in Italy, ask when will you be integrated into the parish community where you belong? We have many members of the NCW on Guam that have been in community for up to 31 years when the NCW first came here. When will they integrate to the parish and Church as a whole? Will they ever be full members of the parish community? Or will they always be in a separated, small community?

I’m glad to hear the you acknowledge that “…clearly, a bishop can decide to ban the Easter Vigil for small communities, of course.” I’m curious as to your thoughts on why the NCW in Guam decided to completely ignore the Ordinary’s instructions. David and Maruxa Atienza have no regard for the idea of obedience to the local Bishop…and that seems to extend to the priests who serve those communities because the clergy in the NCW also chose to be disobedient to their Ordinary. And regardless of our personal desires, as members of the clergy, at some point we are called to follow our vow of obedience. Can you tell me why the NCW clergy choose to not follow their Bishop when it is inconvenient?

No one can show me where the NCW communities are allowed to celebrate the Easter Vigil in Rome separately. And I was my Bishop’s delegate to the NCW for many years. You say that Rome has a separated celebration for 52 years. For me, that is rather sad. Even if that is so, it is the Bishop’s prerogative. But the GIRM is specific in this area. The Easter Vigil is so significant that all people of a parish are called to show unity by celebrating only one Easter Vigil. Why does the NCW not want to participate in parish unity? Why do they choose to celebrate outside of the Church and away from their fellow Catholics on such a significant event? Are they separated brethren who do not want to associate with the rest of our parish community? Do they believe that their Mass is somehow better than the Mass in the Church? That’s what people on Guam are feeling…that some NCW members feel special. And we know what Jesus said about the humble, versus the exalted.

I always welcome the opportunity to talk about the divisive effects of the NCW on diocesan communities worldwide. Please private message me at deaconsteve56@gmail.com. I am hoping to visit Rome later in 2026 and would like to meet with you and talk about these issues face to face. It’s always hard to have meaningful communications via text, where thoughts cannot be adequately conveyed, and easily misinterpreted.

Have a blessed Easter, and I do hope you choose to be with your entire parish community on this beautiful day, to signal true brotherhood.

Deacon Steve Martinez

[COMMENT: Lucio is a local Neocat. A liar. And a woman. I wonder what Canon she's violating, or is that one of the Ten Commandments.]

BECCIU IS BACK

By Tim Rohr

A certain Cardinal Becciu has been in the church news quite a lot lately. He is already a convicted felon, but he was recently made to stand trial for more corruption charges.  You can learn about his history in this Wikipedia article. Scroll down to the section titled "Trial." 

His name has appeared on this blog multiple times, beginning in 2014, when a letter, signed by Becciu, was loudly trumpeted by local Neocats as proof that "Pope Francis backs the Neocatechumenal Way." 

We questioned the letter in 2014 here. Something didn't sound right. Becciu appeared to be another Kiko-operative in the Vatican. How fitting that he ended up as "the first Catholic Cardinal to testify in Vatican criminal court," and then convicted. 

THE TED CRUZ THING: TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS ARE "PARASITES"

By Tim Rohr

Recently, Senator Ted Cruz has been in the crosshairs of Catholic commentators for endorsing a social media post alleging that a “'foreign'” cabal of Papists is taking over the Republican Party," and that its leaders are "parasites." The title of the post is:

The Long Game and the Conservative Right: How a Network of Political Catholic Integralists, Russian Ideologues, and Media Provocateurs Are Systematically Dismantling the Evangelical Foundation of the American Right

It's a long read - over 10,000 words, and I am going to take a crack at reading the whole thing, commenting on it in sections as separate posts as I go along with my comments in red. 

Some may think that, as a Catholic, I should be offended by the post and by Cruz's endorsement of it. I'm not. In a way that neither the author of the post nor Cruz could possibly anticipate, both the author and Cruz are making the case for the sanity of the pre-Vatican II Church, including why the Society of Saint Pius X ("SSPX") should not only survive, but be taken very seriously. 

Note: The characterization of traditional Catholics as "parasites" does not appear in this particular section of the post. It's in the full post, and I'll comment on it later.

So let's begin:

+++++

The conventional framework for understanding the convulsions tearing through American conservatism treats them as a foreign policy argument. Israel or no Israel. Aid or no aid. “America First” versus “globalism.” This framing is wrong in the most important possible way.

What is happening is not a debate. It is a demolition.

The men and women at the center of this operation are not primarily interested in the 2026 midterms or even the 2028 presidential election. They are interested in a question that will take a decade or more to fully answer: Who controls the ideological and theological DNA of the Republican Party’s base?

For seventy years, that answer has been evangelical Protestant Christians. Roughly 30 percent of the American electorate, 80 percent of whom vote Republican, motivated by deep biblical conviction, organized through tens of thousands of local churches, and bound together by a theological commitment to the Bible have been in the driver's seat of the conservative movement.

Right off the bat, the author drives headlong into a mess, and that's this: While the "tens of thousands of local churches" may be "bound together by a theological commitment to the Bible," there is, in fact, as many versions of their theology, and thus their "commitment" as there are "tens of thousands of churches," each interpreting the "Bible alone" ...alone. In other words, there is no central authority in Protestantism, thus the reason for the very word ("protest-antism"). In this sense, non-Catholic Christian churches (Protestants) are very much like Islam, wherein theological interpretation depends on individual imams, and present-day Judaism, wherein theological interpretation depends on individual rabbis. In other words, there is no "bound together"; thus, everything that follows is based on this faulty premise. Let's explore anyway. 

Remove it, or transform it, and you have a different party. Not a party with different policies. A party with different gods.

That is the actual objective.

In other words, the author is admitting that the Republican Party is, and should be, a Christian fundamentalist party, and as we shall see, a Zionist party.

I am going to map out what I think is the most sophisticated attack in modern political history and all of its corresponding vectors — institutional, intellectual, theological, generational, and media — and explain how each one feeds into a single ten-year project: the replacement of evangelical Protestant political theology with a Catholic integralist or ethnonationalist framework that views Jews, Israel and Protestants not as covenant partners but as adversaries of Christian civilization.

I'm not so sure about this being an "integralist or ethnonationalist" thing, nor about it being "a single ten-year project," but she (the author) is right about one thing: Catholicism, orthodox Catholicism, traditional Catholicism, has never viewed "Jews, Israel and Protestants...as covenant partners," but neither has it ever viewed them as "adversaries." Traditional Catholicism has always viewed all of the above, in one form or another, as "separated brethren," in need of conversion and salvation.

In the Good Friday liturgy, Catholics have special prayers ("solemn intercessions") for both Jews and non-Catholic Christians. The current (post-Vatican II) versions are toned down, but there is still a hint at conversion:

The current "Novus Ordo" solemn intercession for the Jews:

"Let us pray also for the Jewish people, to whom the Lord our God spoke first, that he may grant them to advance in love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant...Almighty ever-living God, who bestowed your promises on Abraham and his descendants, hear graciously the prayers of your Church, that the people you first made your own may attain the fullness of redemption. Through Christ our Lord." 

The current solemn intercession for non-Catholic Christians is innocuously titled "For the Unity of All Christians."

"Let us pray also for all our brothers and sisters who believe in Christ, that our God and Lord may be pleased, as they live the truth, to gather them together and keep them in his one Church...Almighty ever-living God, who gather what is scattered and keep together what you have gathered, look kindly on the flock of your Son, that those whom one Baptism has consecrated may be joined together by integrity of faith and united in the bond of charity. Through Christ our Lord. R. Amen."

It is worth noting the contrast between the post- and the pre-Vatican II versions of these two prayers. And I will say why it is worth noting after I set out the pre-Vatican II prayers. 

Pre-Vatican II intercession for the Jews (as amended by Pope Benedict XVI in 2008 for use in the 1962 Missal):

"Let us pray for the Jews: May our God and Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, Saviour of all men...Almighty and Everlasting God, who desirest that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth; mercifully grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles enters into Thy Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ our Lord. Amen."

Note how the pre-Vatican II version, at the outset, calls on the Jews to "acknowledge Jesus Christ..." whereas the post-Vatican II version does not, and other than completing the prayer with "Through Christ our Lord," doesn't mention Christ at all. 

The pre-Vatican II intercession for non-Catholic Christians is radically different from the post-Vatican II version. In fact, it boasts a very confrontational title: FOR HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS.

"Let us pray also for heretics and schismatics: that our Lord God would be pleased to rescue them from all their errors; and recall them to our holy mother the Catholic and Apostolic Church....Almighty and everlasting God, who savest all, and wouldst that no one should perish: look on the souls that are led astray by the deceit of the devil: that having set aside all heretical evil, the hearts of those that err may repent, and return to the unity of Thy truth. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end." 

Wow! I set these prayers out because, more than probably anything else, these intercessions demonstrate the radical difference between pre- and post-Vatican II Catholicism, and, as we continue with this article, we will see why the author is so afraid of Traditional Catholicism, particularly as it is embodied in the aforementioned SSPX.

A Necessary Distinction: This Is Not About Catholicism or Regular Catholics but about Political Catholic Integralism

Before mapping this operation in full, one clarification is essential — because without it, the analysis will be misread, and misreading it serves the operation’s interests.

This is not about Catholics.

The 70 million American Catholics who go to Mass on Sunday, vote their conscience, pay their taxes, coach Little League, and have been reliable partners in the pro-life movement for fifty years are not the subject of this investigation. They are, in a real sense, among its victims. The political integralist Catholicism being deployed in this operation bears no relationship to the ordinary American Catholic faith — it uses the vocabulary and symbols of a faith tradition as a vehicle for a power project that most practitioners of that faith would find alien and alarming. In fact, I would argue that but for the influencer and opinion-shaper class, everyday Catholics don’t even know it's happening. (emphases added)

Wow! Traditional Catholics will not find a better champion than this author. That's the whole point! This author, in fear of losing protestant-evangelical control of the Republican Party, is desperate to save the "ordinary American Catholic." Why? Well, because, at least according to the major polls, the "ordinary American Catholic" is functionally a protestant. The "ordinary American Catholic: 1) sees Sunday Mass as optional; 2) does not believe in the very thing that makes Catholicism Catholic: the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and 3) picks and chooses his or her morality (e.g., "Cafeteria Catholicism"). That is exactly Protestantism. 

What is actually being deployed is a specific ideological cocktail with three distinct ingredients, none of which represent mainstream American Catholic life.

The first is integralism — a pre-Vatican II political theology that holds the Catholic Church should exercise direct authority over temporal governments, that religious liberty is a Protestant error, and that a properly ordered state must subordinate itself to Church teaching. This is not the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is not the position of Pope Francis. It is the position of a small but highly credentialed group of academic theorists — Vermeule, Ahmari, Deneen, Pappin — who have spent the last decade building intellectual infrastructure and who are quite explicit about their goal of replacing the Protestant liberal constitutional order that America was founded on. (emphases added)

Wow! Again! She is so right. The fact is, even if "the bishops" are too afraid to say it, the Catholic Church holds that because Christ is King, "all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ." (Pope Pius XI) Now, even Ted Cruz says that. But, like most non-Catholic Christians, he doesn't accept the second part, which is the Catholic doctrine that the One King has only One Church, and the Vicar of Christ is its temporal head. Thus, the theology, and it's not political, "that holds the Catholic Church should exercise direct authority over temporal governments, that religious liberty is a Protestant error, and that a properly ordered state must subordinate itself to Church teaching." This is not the recent creation of "academic theorists," for a "ten-year project." It is Catholic Dogma, and a dogma specifically defined by the teaching magisterium of the Church in Pius XI's Quas Primas. So now you see what has got Ted Cruz and others like him all riled up. 

And now, the author gets to her real target, which she hopes is Pope Leo's target as well: 

The second is SSPX-adjacent traditionalism — the world of the Latin Mass hardliners, the Society of Saint Pius X, the sedevacantists and near-sedevacantists who regard the Second Vatican Council as a catastrophic betrayal and the post-conciliar Church as illegitimate or gravely compromised. Nick Fuentes operates in this world. His entire theological framework — the Apostles’ Creed imagery, the Christ the King invocations, the explicit hostility to ecumenism and interfaith dialogue — is drawn from a traditionalist Catholic milieu that the Vatican itself has repeatedly disciplined and that most American Catholics have never encountered. The SSPX was in irregular canonical status with Rome for decades. These are not mainstream Catholic positions. They are fringe positions that have been given a mass media platform. (emphases added)

This is funny. The author practically frames the SSPX as the Anti-Christ with "a mass media platform," and on the verge of completely imploding Protestant/Evangelical-Republicanism, but then goes on to squeak that they are a fringe group who "most American Catholics have never encountered." Ummm, Ms. Author, Mr. Cruz...which is it? Stupid stuff like this makes a reader wonder about the author's real motivation for writing this and just what Ted Cruz is really afraid of.

The third ingredient is imported European and Middle Eastern sectarianism — and this is perhaps the most important point, because it explains something that confuses many American observers: why does any this feel so foreign?

It feels foreign because it is foreign. America does not have a native antisemitism rooted in two thousand years of living in close proximity to Jewish communities in a Catholic or Orthodox Christian civilization. We did not have pogroms. We did not have the Dreyfus Affair. We did not have centuries of Jewish ghettoes enforced by Church law, blood libel accusations, forced conversions, and expulsions. The specific texture of European antisemitism — the theological contempt, the conspiratorial frameworks about Jewish power, the language of “Christkillers” and “usurers” and “rootless cosmopolitans” — is not native to American political culture. It had to be imported.

That importation is exactly what is happening. Dugin’s geopolitical framework is Russian. The integralist political theology is drawn from pre-Enlightenment European Catholic political thought. The SSPX traditionalism is French in origin — founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a bishop who openly expressed sympathy for the Vichy government. The specific antisemitic conspiracy frameworks being deployed — about Jewish control of media, finance, and foreign policy — are recognizably derived from European far-right sources, recycled through American online culture and repackaged for a new generation.

The Middle Eastern dimension adds another layer. Part of what Carlson, Fuentes, and their network have successfully done is import the sectarian framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it exists in the Arab world and on the European left — a framing in which Israel is a settler-colonial project, Zionism is racism, and Christian support for Israel is a form of complicity in oppression — and introduced it into evangelical spaces where it has no native roots. The Palestinian Christian angle — sympathetic pastors presented on platforms like Carlson’s as authentic voices of the Church in the Holy Land — is specifically designed to create cognitive dissonance for evangelicals who have never had to think of support for Israel as a form of Christian-on-Christian hostility.

None of this is accidental. All of it is deliberate. And all of it is being imported into a country that, uniquely among Western nations, built its founding constitutional architecture specifically to prevent exactly this kind of sectarian conflict from taking root.

I let the author ramble on here because there is no point in proving each of her points wrong, or at most, exaggerated. The author's ramble is yet more evidence that there is something else going on. (I think I know what it is.) If this particularly traditional Catholic "project" is so "foreign" to Americans, then how does it have the power she claims it has? Why is it so scary? 

The Voter Problem

There is one more thing that must be said plainly, because it reveals the desperation underlying the operation’s aggression.

Amazing. She now characterizes the "project" as acting in "desperation." Desperation is how people or groups act who are losing. But she claims they are winning. How can an otherwise astute politician like Ted Cruz even recommend reading this? I know why. When it comes to the "bible-alone" Christian, like Ted Cruz, his authority is himself. I'll let it go at that for now.

The network has infrastructure. It has influencers. It has think tanks and podcasts and academic journals and a Vice President who has yet to condemn it. Although many of us who supported him have high hopes that when it comes time he will. What it does not have — what it has never had — is voters.

Ummm...but no one has heard of them, right?

American Catholics do not vote as a bloc for Catholic nationalist candidates. They never have. Italian-American Catholics in New Jersey, Irish-American Catholics in Boston, Latino Catholics in Texas and Florida — these communities vote on economics, immigration, crime, jobs, and family. They do not vote on integralist political theology because they have never heard of integralist political theology and would not recognize themselves in it if they had.

The Groyper movement’s actual voter base, stripped of the online amplification, is vanishingly small. Nick Fuentes cannot turn out precinct captains. He cannot fill a city council race. His million livestream viewers are a media phenomenon, not an electoral coalition.

She's right. Catholics do not vote as a bloc. They don't even vote Catholic. So again, what is there to be afraid of? There must be something.

This is why the operation must convert rather than persuade. It cannot win a fair fight for the Republican base because it does not represent the Republican base. So it must change the base — by demoralizing and theologically disorienting the evangelical voters who currently constitute it, by recruiting the next generation before they have formed stable convictions, and by capturing the institutional infrastructure through which that base is organized.

The aggression of the current moment — Carlson’s escalating attacks, Bannon’s declaration that Shapiro is a cancer, the shamelessness of the Young Republicans chats — is not the confidence of a movement that knows it is winning. It is the urgency of a movement that knows it does not have voters and needs to acquire them before the window closes.

And there you go. The author herself makes her own case that this is a nothing-thing. Yet, Cruz ordered us all: "READ every word of this. It’s the best & most comprehensive explanation of what we’re fighting."

Understanding that changes everything about how the counter-operation should be run. The goal is not to win a debate with Fuentes. The goal is to ensure that the evangelical base he is trying to convert understands, with clarity and confidence, what is being done to them, why, by whom, and what is at stake if it succeeds.

They are not being invited into a new political coalition. They are being hollowed out and replaced. And the people doing it are counting on them not to notice until it is too late.

Well, I conclude, at least for this portion, that this whole thing is absolutely comical. Really? Catholics converting Evangelicals? Hey, wait a minute!

To be continued. 

 

REMEMBERING BOB KLITZKIE...WITH THE BOOK HE WANTED WRITTEN

By Tim Rohr

The anniversary of Bob Klitzkie's passing (April 2, 2025) will be in a few weeks. Bob was an important, if not daily presence in my life for nearly two decades. A whole book could be written about our adventures, and maybe I'll write it. 

Meanwhile, I have decided to write another book, a book that Bob had been urging me to write for several years and till the day he died: the story of how a ragtag group of laypeople, mostly elderly, and some even in wheelchairs and walkers, banded together to bring down the sex trafficking regime that ruled the Archdiocese of Agana for decades. 

While I was the face of that "lay movement," Bob was the brains behind it. That should come as no surprise. Anybody who knew Bob knew he was the "brains" behind just about anything worthwhile. 

I sure miss him, and I could certainly use his brains now. But he taught me well, and maybe he's teaching me still.

The title of the book, Bob's book, at least for now, is: 

ORCHESTRATED

How a blog took down an archbishop and exposed the largest clergy sex abuse rampage in the whole Catholic world.

I chose to call the book ORCHESTRATED, because, as Apuron's sex abuse empire began to crumble, I was accused by Apuron and his Neocat gestapo led by the now defrocked Fr. Adrian Cristobal and Fr. Edivaldo Olivera, of orchestrating this "gotterdamerung" for personal gain. 

They were right. It was orchestrated. It had to be. Apuron held all the power and there was no law at the time which would have allowed his victims to sue him. Meanwhile Apuron publicly threatened to sue his accusers, and specifically me:

"Tim Rohr and his associates launched a vicious and calumnious attack on the Archbishop...Those who are orchestrating this campaign are inciting people into hatred of the Archbishop and the Catholic Church...Therefore, 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

So yah, it was orchestrated. But while I was the orchestra conductor, Bob was the composer. So in memory of a great man with a great brain, I am sharing a draft of the Preface here. 

God bless you, Bob. Hundreds and probably thousands of innocent children, once buried by the clerics who hoped to bury their crimes forever, now have a voice, and hopefully, at last, justice.

ORCHESTRATED

Preface

In May and June of 2016, three men, then in their 50's, came forward to publicly accuse Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, then the Archbishop of Agana, Guam, of sexually molesting them when they were in their teens.

No one could predict that the testimony of these three would lead to what is, per capita, the largest clergy sex abuse scandal in the entire Catholic world. Three years after Roy Quintanilla, Walter Denton, and Roland Sondia testified on a city street in Hagatna (Agana), Guam, a reporter for the Pacific Daily News, a local paper, would write:

“Per capita, Guam has about 171 claims of clergy sex abuse per 100,000 people — well beyond the about 12 clergy sex abuse lawsuits per 100,000 people in Boston, whose clergy sex abuse scandal was portrayed in the movie, "Spotlight." The greater Boston area has a population of more than 4.7 million, compared with Guam's 163,000.”  - Eugenio Gilbert, H. 2019, Oct. 27. From a culture of silence to cover-ups: How Guam ended up with 280 clergy sex abuse claims. Pacific Daily News. 

In short, Guam’s clergy sex abuse scandal, at the time the archdiocese declared bankruptcy in 2019, was, per capita, fourteen times the size of the Boston scandal which inspired an Academy Award winning movie. 

How could this happen in an island community that was (and still is) deeply Catholic and fiercely familial? The short answer, for now, is because Guam is both deeply Catholic and fiercely familial.

Being “deeply Catholic,” locals, for decades, if not centuries, had what could be described as an almost superstitious reverence for the priest. The priest could do no wrong, and God help you if you accused the priest of wrongdoing. As I personally heard from several victims of clergy sex abuse, the mere mention of an impropriety by a priest was met with a slap in the face from a mother or even a grandmother, followed by a severe warning to “never talk about the priest that way again.”

Being "fiercely familial” would normally be considered a strength, a good thing. And it usually was. However, it also meant woe to whoever brought shame on the family. And so, even if parents knew or suspected their child’s story to be true, saving (family) face was the paramount principle, so the child was told to never speak of it again.

I am not speculating. I am repeating here in writing what I was told many times by clergy sex abuse victims who, even after many years, still spoke in hushed and fearful tones. 

Given the twisted reverence for the clergy and the cultural imperative of saving family face, it’s not hard to see how Guam’s children, particularly boys, became a “happy hunting ground” for perverted clerics for so many years. (Some lawsuits in the Guam debacle dated incidents back to the 1950’s.)

You might be thinking “those poor boys” (they were mostly boys), and you would be right. With your pastor raping you and then threating “no one will believe you” - as Walter Denton testified, and your mother punishing you for even mentioning such a thing - as Doris Concepcion testified, so many boys, hundreds that we know of only because they filed lawsuits, but probably thousands that we don’t know of, had nowhere to turn but on themselves, a fact tragically demonstrated in Doris Concepcion’s story, copied here in relevant part:

Concepcion said… her son started to act out, sometimes violently, when he was an altar boy in Agat.

“My son tried to stab (Apuron), attack him, and tried to burn the priest’s house down, and I would punish my son,” Concepcion said. “(My son) would just say,‘Am I the devil’s son, mom? Am I that bad?’ And he kept repeating that to me.”

She said her son…often talked about committing suicide and started to tell people he was Jewish. As an adult, he became addicted to drugs and would disappear for long periods of time, she said.

“I didn’t know (about the molestation) until my son was 38 years old when he passed away, and that’s when I found out,” Concepcion said.

“And he was molested and I was giving the priest, giving him permission to do it to my son. He was so afraid to tell me.”

Concepcion said she trusted Apuron at the time and believed in his every word.

“(Apuron) would ask me if he can have Sonny, because Sonny would do this and that, and he needs help around the rectory,

” Concepcion said. “And then he wants Sonny to spend the night with him so they can go and do something for the church, and he needed help. Sonny would retaliate, and say, ‘No, mama, I don’t wanna go,’and I would punish him. No, you have to go, because Father Apuron needs help.”

Concepcion said her son told her about being molested just as he was being taken into surgery in May 2005. He did not survive the procedure.

“He said, ‘Mom, I know I’m not the devil’s son.’ I said,‘No, you’re not’. And he said, ‘Come closer to me Mama, give me a hug.’ And I did," Concepcion said. And he said, ‘Mom, I was molested by Father Apuron.’ And I said,‘Who?’ He said,'Remember the priest in Agat? He molested me when I was an altar boy.’ And my heart just dropped, because he was dying. I didn’t even know.”

She never spoke to her son again. She said she tried to ask him if he had been raped by Apuron, but her son only gestured as he was being taken into surgery.

Eugenio, H. 2016, May 31. “Mother of deceased man accuses Apuron of molesting son.” Pacific Daily News.

Per Doris’ account, Sonny, until the day he died, nearly thirty years after Apuron raped him as a 9 year old, believed he was “the devil’s son:” that he, Joseph “Sonny” Quinata, was the evil one, the bad one, and not the clerical pervert who raped him. 

It’s not hard to see why Sonny Quinata turned to drugs and suicidal ideation. How many others did the same? Guam’s suicide rate is more than double the national average. And as far as I know, no one has ever attempted to connect the dots between what we now know is the dirtiest diocese in the world and Guam’s suicide hemmorage. Well, I’m connecting it.

As important as it is, investigating why this happened is not, here, my main objective. Rather, my objective is to recount - as much as I can remember - as the subtitle of this book sets out: “How a blog brought down an archbishop and exposed the largest clergy sex abuse scandal in the whole Catholic world.”

And beyond that, my hope is to share with the rest of the Catholic world the power that lay people actually have in rooting out this “filth in the Church” as Pope Benedict once deemed it. For, as far as I know, Guam is the only place in the Catholic world where the outing of both said “filth” and the clerics who propagated it, was wrought, not by lawyers, not by the media, not by the government, but by ordinary lay people who said “Hell no, we aren’t going to take it anymore,” and then did something about it.

So let’s begin.

O'BRIEN...AGAIN

By Tim Rohr

In 2013, as things began to heat up in this archdiocese, I received a letter from Cardinal Edwin O'Brien, then the Grand Master of the Equestrian Order of the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem, of which I was a member. In fact, his name is on this thing:

The letter was functionally a "cease and desist order" if you want to remain a Knight. Read it here.

O'Brien didn't know it, but it was his letter that led to the outing of the Apuron sexual scandal. Here's why.

At the time of O'Brien's letter, the issue was about Apuron's treatment of Fr. Paul Gofigan and nothing yet had been alleged about Apuron's sexual abuse of minors. I thought it rather odd that someone would go to the Vatican to try to shut me down about the Fr. Paul thing. JungleWatch was hardly a thing in 2013. So the overkill of getting a cardinal in Rome to threaten me made me suspicious that I was on to something that Apuron and the Neocat brass were afraid of. So I stayed on it, and well, you see what happened.

I also found it strange that O'Brien went silent after I wrote him back and set out a barrage of facts about Apuron. I found it strange because he had the authority to kick me out of the Order but he didn't, making me think I had hit on something O'Brien thought best to leave alone. 

My suspicion would be validated when in 2018, Archbishop Vigano listed O'Brien's name in a letter outing compromised bishops. Read it here. 

By coincidence, I was in the middle of reviewing the O'Brien affair for a book I'm writing when I checked my email and came a cross a link to a substack article by a Catholic priest who was also threatened by Cardinal O'Brien for doing the same thing I was doing in 2013:

VINDICATED ONLY AFTER DEATH by Gene Thomas Gomulka 

SAY SO OR FIX THE LINK

By Tim Rohr

Apparently the memorandum issued by the late Archbishop Byrnes placing a "pause" on the formation of new Neocatechumenal communities in this archdiocese has been rescinded - or maybe just erased, since there was no official announcement.  

In any event you won't be able to find it on the archdiocesan website. Instead you will get:

Here. Try it yourself: https://archagana.org/standing-directive-related-to-the-neocatechumenal-way

Meanwhile, Google AI still knows about it:

And the link is still on the archdiocesan website:

But it only goes to "404."

A technical glitch? Maybe. However, as we all know, these sorts of things - when it comes to the neocat power people - are constant: sneak, disregard, deflect, deny, hide, erase...

Meanwhile, it's good that JungleWatch saves everything. Links to the original memorandum and all the documents which came after it can be found in this post.

Note to Archbishop Jimenez. If you've rescinded the moratorium, say so. If not, then fix the link. 

THE SSPX, DAVID, ABSALOM, JOAB AND GUAM

By Tim Rohr

Bishop Athanasius Schneider, a bishop well-known to many of us in Guam after his visit of a few years ago, has appealed to Pope Leo to permit the SSPX to proceed with its announced consecration of bishops. 

Schneider's larger point, though, is even if the SSPX proceeds without papal permission, the act is not schismatic, hardly warrants excommunication, and at most may be an act of disobedience. 

Schneider argues that papal primacy does not unilaterally equate to an absolute requirement of obedience. The pope has primacy in matters of faith and morals but not always in administration - at least that's Schneider's position (and I agree with him).

To buttress his point, Schneider presents the case of St. Athanasius:

"...in 357, St. Athanasius disobeyed the order of Pope Liberius, who instructed him to enter into hierarchical communion with the overwhelming majority of the episcopate, which was in fact Arian or semi-Arian. As a result, he was excommunicated. In this instance, St. Athanasius disobeyed out of love for the Church and for the honor of the Apostolic See, seeking precisely to safeguard the purity of doctrine from any suspicion of ambiguity."

In other words, Pope Liberius had ordered Athanasius "to enter into hierarchical communion" with heretics and a heresy which absolutely contradicted the very nature of the Son of God. Schneider points out that Athanasius disobeyed out of "love for the Church and for the honor of the Apostolic See" i.e. the papal office and not necessarily the person in that office.

By coincidence, yesterday, in my daily two chapters a day bible reading (one chapter from the OT and one from the NT), I read the account of David's grief at the death of his son, Absalom. (2 Kings 19 or 2 Samuel 18). 

Absalom had revolted against his father, turned the majority of Israel against him, and was set on killing David. David escaped into the wilderness with a few loyalists, including the warrior-general, Joab. David sent Joab to engage and conquer Absalom and his forces but instructed Joab not to kill Absalom. Joab killed him anyway. 

Commentators conclude that Joab disobeyed David because saving the Kingdom was more important than accommodating David's sentimental feelings for his son. In other words, Joab deemed duty to the Kingdom more important than obedience to the king. David was wrong. He had put his personal need over his larger duty to the kingdom. 

Of course, David had famously done the same previously with the neighbor lady (Bathsheba). And by the way, Joab knew this. In fact, it was Joab, who carried out David's order to murder Bathsheba's husband, Uriah. It's just an aside to the main point of this post, but given that experience (killing Uriah to cover for David's adultery), Joab may well have felt license to disobey David when, once again, David put his personal needs before the security of the kingdom.

Joab was eventually killed by Solomon, another of David's sons, but Joab's death was due to his forming an alliance with another brother against Solomon, not his killing of Absalom. 

Here in Guam, those of us who stood up to the then-current "king," the archbishop-abuser-in-chief, were violently criticized for not being "obedient" to the archbishop when we were functionally commanded to "shut up and sit down." 

Imagine what would have happened had we obeyed. 

GENERATIONAL ABUSE: THE REAL REASON FOR THE COVER UP?

We see child abuse within families perpetuated generation after generation, so it should come as no surprise that the same pattern occurs within the church:

"In order to understand the reason behind the failure of Church officials to correct the problem of sexual abuse and their subsequent cover-ups of that abuse, one has to realize that the genesis of the problem lies within the infiltrated structures of the Catholic Church. That is to say, most of the predator priests who abused, raped, and sodomized countless children, the majority of whom were teenage boys, were themselves victims of prior predation."

READ MORE

OUR PATH LIES ENTIRELY OUTSIDE THE PARISH

By Tim Rohr

I often get asked to become a lector, eucharistic minister (properly known as Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist), and even a deacon. I always decline. For many years, my reason was practical. My wife and I have 11 children, and my state in life, and thus my "ministry," was to be a husband and a father, and "a man cannot server two masters."

However, the real reason was I did not think it right for lay people to be serving in the sanctuary. (It's why it's called a "sanctuary.") I know the Church permits it, but I never felt good about it and still don't. But more importantly, I've always believed that we lay people can serve our Church much more when we are not in the sanctuary, but amongst our own in the marketplace, on the streets, and in our homes. This is our proper place.

There is no question, right now, that our Church is in an upheaval. And I believe much of it is due to the blurring of lines between the clergy and the laity, a blurring that has led to politics, power struggles, and corruption within dioceses and parishes which dwarf similar problems in "the world." 

Since "active participation of the laity" usually invokes images of lectors, eucharistic ministers, CCD teachers, etc. and not what I believe it to be, believing as I do can make one feel quite alone. Thus, I was heartened to read this article and to discover that I'm not alone. And maybe you're not either. 

Here are a few excerpts from WHEN THE PARISH YOU HATE, HATES YOU

• In the short term, laymen must abandon all desires, plans, and schemes to force change on the hierarchy and on the local parish. Abandon them completely.

• “The councils, the committees, the little fiefdoms of the men’s and women’s clubs, they exist not to grow, but to act as bulwarks against change. Even if the Pastor wants change, he has to deal with this interconnected web of laypeople who have his bishop’s office on speed dial and know exactly what to say for the pastor to get an unwanted call himself. “Uncharitable. Pushy. Demanding. Rigid.”

• “The path of the laity is not for us to push back into the parishes. It is not for us to rush again into a battleground in which we are powerless, unwanted, and ineffective. Our path lies entirely outside the parish, in our homes and in society.”

STICKY EVIL

By Tim Rohr

Every once in a while, someone thanks me for "standing up for the victims" (of clergy sex abuse). I am grateful for their kind words. However, whenever it happens I am always reminded of just how dirty, filthy, and sticky evil it all was. I say "sticky evil" because you can't engage evil of that magnitude without having some of that filth "stick" to you. 

The bottom line was that in engaging this filthy mess, those of us who got involved disturbed legions of demons who had been having their way in Guam for decades. It was like disturbing a hornets nest. And the hornets, even ten years later, are still vengefully mad.

A few months ago, I published the post EXORCISMS NEEDED.  In the post, I made the case that exorcisms are needed on the many places (churches, schools, rectories, etc.) where so many of these atrocities upon the bodies, minds, and souls of so many children (and some adults) were committed, and where "the hornets" still angrily swarm. 

And, given that so many of these crimes were committed in consecrated and blessed spaces (such as sacristies and rectories), these were crimes of sacrilege. 

One particularly horrific account of such a crime occurring in a rectory was made public by Ramon De Plata. I can't even reprint it here, it is so horrific and filthy. Mr. De Plata went public with his story on KUAM in 2016. The full text of his statement is also available here. 

In his statement, Mr. De Plata names the parishes of Agat, Barrigada, Mangilao, and Chalan Pago where perverted atrocities, known to Mr. De Plata, occurred. We also know that many occurred in the rectory and the sacristy at the Malojloj parish which was "pastored" by the infamous and now late Fr. Louis Brouillard. 

We also now know, from the many testimonies, that these sex crimes against children in our diocese occurred over decades, so it is quite probable that no church or school or otherwise church-related property has been left untainted by this pervasive and soul-destroying evil. 

From what I was told, the late Archbishop Byrnes would not even move into the archbishop's house at the chancery until he exorcised the place. We know of at least one atrocity which occurred there: the rape of Mark Apuron by his "Uncle Tony" in the archbishop's bathroom while members of Mark's family were just feet away in another room:

"He asked, 'What are you doing?'" Mark Apuron said. He said he froze, afraid of what trouble he was in, when his uncle allegedly pulled down his pants and pushed him onto the vanity. The teen thought he was going to get a whipping for smoking and drinking but instead, he said, his uncle raped him. SOURCE

We also know from Leo Tudela, that the St. Fidelis Friary was the scene of some terrible, sex-saturated crimes against boys who lived there, who, as in Leo's case, were often boys from Saipan who had come to Guam for their education.

Maybe because I was drawn into the sticky evil of it all. Maybe because I heard so many stories from the victims themselves - including those who didn't sue but just wanted someone to hear what had happened to them. Maybe because "the hornets" particularly stung me and members of my family in angry retaliation for my role in upsetting their decades-old nests. Maybe because of all that, I am particularly sensitized to "the hornets" when I am in physical proximity to some of those places and can "smell" the evil, can feel "it" on the skin of my soul. I don't know how else to describe it.

In any event, I have learned how to protect myself with rosaries and the sacraments, but I know the hornets are still in those places. Swarming. Stinging. Poisoning. Don't think that a few bucks thrown at the victims and a couple days of clergy recollection has wrought real reparation, especially for the decades of sacrilegious crimes wreaked upon those hundreds, if not thousands, of young souls. 

Exorcisms are needed. At least to start.

SO WILL HE BLESS THE CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS OF ALL THE CANDIDATES?

 

By Tim Rohr

In "Do's and Don'ts Guidelines During Election Season" published by the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the bishops set out a couple of provisions of interest relative to the above action by Archbishop Jimenez:

• Do not endorse or oppose candidates, political parties, or groups of candidates, or take any action that reasonably could be construed as endorsement or opposition.

• Do not make available the use of church facilities, assets, or members for partisan political purposes.

Jimenez violates both. 

First, unless, Jimenez plans to not only bless every candidate's headquarters, but also join each of them in a Marine Corps Drive wave, then Jimenez' action - as demonstrated in the above video - can certainly "be construed as endorsement" of this particular gubernatorial team. 

For now though, since there is no mention by Jimenez of his plan to act similarly with each of the candidate teams, Jimenez' blessing of the Josh & Tina headquarters, not to mention Jimenez "walking the sidewalk during the wave," is not just "construed" as his support for Josh and Tina, but is in fact a blatant statement of support. Certainly, Frank Arriola's letter positions it as such. 

Second, while Jimenez' action did not "use church facilities," it did use assets and members (himself and Fr. Joseph Anore) for clear "partisan political purposes."

Jimenez may argue that he is not subject to the USCCB, and he would be correct. Guam is not a member of the USCCB and is, rather, a member of CEPAC, the bishops conference of Oceania. However, such a reasoning, if he uses it, is a head fake. Jimenez, like Apuron, adopts the USCCB guidelines when it is convenient and ignores them when it's not. 

There is also the argument that no bishop is subject to a regional or national council. And that's true. In fact, a bishop isn't subject to anyone, not even the pope, except in very grave matters - which we saw with Apuron. 

So, yah. Jimenez can do whatever he wants. And that's what he's doing: whatever he wants...just like Apuron. 

Someone asked me why Jimenez thought it was okay to do this. I answered that Jimenez leaves us only two choices: he's stupid or he's compromised. The reply was: "he's not stupid."