Wednesday, April 29, 2026

MORE QUESTIONS FOR ARCHBISHOP JIMENEZ: IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

By Tim Rohr

Upon being found guilty by a Vatican Tribunal in March 2018 "of certain of the accusations," Apuron appealed the verdict. 

He lost. 

On April 4, 2019, then-Archbishop Michael Byrnes announced: "Rome upholds guilty finding against now Bishop Apuron."

And this time, the Vatican made it clear what Apuron had been found guilty of: 

"...the Tribunal of Second Instance upheld the sentence of First Instance, finding the Archbishop guilty of delicts against the Sixth Commandment with minors."

The Sentence:

"...the privation of office; the perpetual prohibition from dwelling, even temporarily, in the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese ofAgaña; and the perpetual prohibition from using the insignia attached to the rank of Bishop."

However, Archbishop Byrnes had some questions for Rome, questions that are still unanswered:

"Byrnes said he would be seeking clarification from the Vatican, including whether Apuron can still lead Mass, ordain priests, or be buried on Guam when he dies."

Maybe Archbishop Byrnes did receive the clarification. If he did, he didn't tell us. So it's now on Archbishop Jimenez to tell us. 

And there is another thing, an important thing. The title of Archbishop Byrnes' April 5, 2019, press release was: 

"Rome upholds guilty finding against now Bishop Apuron."

At the ensuing press conference, the news reported:

The Vatican said the penalties imposed on Apuron are: "the privation of office; the perpetual prohibition from the dwelling, even temporarily, in the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Agana; and the perpetual prohibition from using the insignia attached to the rank of Bishop."

Byrnes said this means Apuron no longer holds the title of archbishop of Agana and, correspondingly, no longer has a title of archbishop. "Neither can he use the insignia of a bishop, including ring and mitre," Byrnes said.

Apuron, however, wasn’t defrocked or laicizied. Byrnes said as he understands it, Apuron went from being an archbishop to bishop, but is prohibited from doing certain bishop duties or wearing certain insignia of a bishop. -emphases added

However, at Catholic-Hierarchy.org, Apuron is shown as Archbishop Emeritus of Agana.


This is a problem. And we need Archbishop Jimenez to clarify. Is Apuron still an Archbishop? And, is he Archbishop Emeritus of Agana? 

Emeritus" is a title normally reserved for a person who has retired honorably from office. As we know, and as the above table shows, Apuron was REMOVED from office on April 4, 2019, and REMOVED in disgrace. 

I have seen this webpage many times over the years, and I do not recall seeing the last line indicating that Apuron is "Archbishop Emeritus of Agana." It appears to be a recent addition. And, as many others and I have learned over the years, when things are "fishy," the Neocats aren't far away.

So, how about it, Archbishop Jimenez? Is Apuron "Archbishop Emeritus of Agana," or not?

TESTIMONY OF TIM ROHR TO CARDINAL RAYMOND BURKE

By Tim Rohr


In February 2017, Cardinal Raymond Burke was sent to Guam by Pope Francis to investigate the sexual abuse allegations against then-Archbishop Anthony Apuron. He did not ask to meet with me. There was no reason to. 

Being a good investigator and the top lawyer in the Vatican, Burke only scheduled meetings with primary witnesses, persons with firsthand experiences and knowledge, such as the men who had personally accused Apuron of sexually molesting them in their teens, and former members of the archdiocesan finance council who were fired by Apuron for questioning his transfer of the Yona Property to the Neocats.

Though I did not have firsthand knowledge of the matters Cardinal Burke was investigating, I had something no one else did: THE WHOLE STORY. Because I was the "blogger," I had documented, cataloged, and memorialized, in writing, for the whole world to read, all the events which led to Burke's being sent to Guam.

I don't know if my testimony helped, but in the end, the Vatican, on the basis of Burke's investigation, found Apuron guilty, and, upon Apuron's appeal, he was found guilty again by the Pope himself. 

My testimony to Cardinal Burke is a summary of all the events that led to the collapse of the Apuron regime. Forgive the necessary redactions.



EX-NEOCAT SPEAKS

By Tim Rohr

One good thing about writing this book (ORCHESTRATED) is that all the research is turning up some gems that are worth revisiting, including this testimony from an ex-Neocat.

 


LINK to PDF

Tuesday, April 28, 2026

DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM?

By Tim Rohr

To date, my post HOW DOES A NEOCAT PRIEST PERSONALLY GUARANTEE AN $800,000 LOAN?, posted on April 19, 2026, has received 547 views and 8 comments, including this one from Rodney:

Under Canon 285 §4, a priest is strictly forbidden from acting as a financial guarantor for a loan, without his Ordinary’s consultation. The Bishop’s refusal to address this violation suggests one of two things: either he authorized this breach of clerical discipline, or he is complicit in it.

Let's take a look at Canon 285 in full:

Can. 285 §1. Clerics are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according to the prescripts of particular law.

§2. Clerics are to avoid those things which, although not unbecoming, are nevertheless foreign to the clerical state.

§3. Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.

§4. Without the permission of their ordinary, they are not to take on the management of goods belonging to lay persons or secular offices which entail an obligation of rendering accounts. They are prohibited from giving surety even with their own goods without consultation with their proper ordinary. They also are to refrain from signing promissory notes, namely, those through which they assume an obligation to make payment on demand. - emphasis added.

Pursuant to the documents I set forth in HOW DOES A NEOCAT PRIEST...?, which linked to the original questions in QUESTIONS FOR THE ARCHBISHOP (714 views), Fr. Jose Alberto Rodriguez Salamanca (his full name) is a member of the Board of Guarantors for the Neocat corporation Rainan I Langet Foundation, Inc., which, at the time in 2021, owed $800,000 on a mortgage:

Pursuant to Canon 285 §4, "Clerics...are prohibited from giving surety even with their own goods without consultation with their proper ordinary." No canon lawyer is needed to interpret this. Bottom line is: if the bishop says it's okay, then it's okay, but if not, then it's a violation of church law, and the Ordinary, the bishop, is required to do something about it.

To be fair, Jimenez wasn't the Ordinary in 2021. However, he is the Ordinary now. And, as far as I know, there is no documentation showing that Salamanca has been removed from the Board of Guarantors. If the Neocats have such a document, they are welcome to provide it, and I'll happily publish it.  

Meanwhile, it would only take a single sentence from Archbishop Jimenez, newly elevated to the Vatican Dicastery for Communications, to say whether or not Salamanca is still a Guarantor or not. And, it's not like he doesn't have time to address it. 

Just yesterday, there was news that Jimenez gave a speech in some far-off town in Australia, telling his audience that Sinlaku was evidence of climate change and that "we need to really reflect and find our own little ways to save our common home."

If Jimenez can find time to fly off to Australia and talk about climate change, then he can find time to tell us about Salamanca. My bet is that he won't. 

Meanwhile, this isn't the first time Salamanca's name has been found attached to the nefarious inner workings of surreptitious Neocat operations. Salamanca is one of two Archdiocese of Agana officials who signed the infamous DECLARATION OF DEED RESTRICTION, conveying the mega-million-dollar Yona Property into the control of the Neocats. The other signature was Archbishop Apuron's.




LINK to full document

Just to be clear that we are talking about the same Fr. Jose Alberto Rodriguez Salamanca. Here is his full name as it appears today on the archdiocesan website:


As you may recall, the aforesaid DECLARATION, which bears Salamanca's signature, once we discovered it, was one of the major things that brought down the House of Apuron. I say "once we discovered it, because Apuron secretly executed it and recorded it in violation of canon law, which required the transfer of this mega-asset to first have the approval of the archdiocesan finance council.

This amazing story will make up a large part of my upcoming book, Orchestrated. In fact, I am in the middle of writing the chapter on this mess, which is why I came across Salamanca's name on the DECLARATION just now. 

The story of this secret conveyance of our Church's largest material asset is amazing. In January 2012, Apuron fired 4 of the 5 members of the archdiocesan finance council. He fired them because they wanted to discuss the "proposed" transfer of the Yona Property to RMS. I will tell you why I put "proposed" in quotes after I copy a portion of the news story about the firing:

Former AFC members Benavente, Untalan, Joseph Rivera, and Sister Mary Stephen Torres replied to the archbishop on Jan. 16, 2012, after receiving letters of termination on Jan. 11 the same year. The letter said they believe their termination was not due to the expiration of their fixed term that Apuron alluded to.

Apuron’s termination letter said the member’s term of appointment had expired and “that it is time for me to engage new members in the council.” Apuron’s letter cited the five­ year fixed term that each member is allotted.

However, one member, Sister Mary Stephen Torres, was one of the founding members of the AFC over 26 years ago, and all other members served for over five years prior to their termination.

In a letter to Balvo, Untalan explained that the former members then agreed that their expired terms could not be the reason for their termination. Instead, they concluded that their unanimous decision to deny the transfer, conveyance, or assignment of the title of Yoña property to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary led Apuron to terminate them from the council.

“There was no transition to break in the new members and no continuity with the past. It was quick, unexpected, sharp, abrupt, and startling,” Untalan wrote.

The property in question is currently under the name of the Guam archbishop and will be under the name of Apuron’s successors.

- Stole, J. (2014, Aug. 02) Finance council axed years ago for questioning Apuron. Marianas Variety 

Notice the date of the Letter of Termination to each of the terminated members of the finance council: January 11, 2012. Now notice the date stamped on the DECLARATION OF DEED RESTRICTION, the date the DECLARATION was recorded with the Department of Land Management:



LINK to full document

The date of the recording of the DECLARATION is November 22, 2011. The date Apuron fired the finance council is January 11, 2012. The finance council, other than Msgr. David C. Quitugua, a Neocat and a member of the finance council, was attempting to set up a meeting to discuss what they thought was still a PROPOSAL by Apuron to assign the property to RMS. 

Instead of saying, "Sorry guys, I already dun it. Too bad, so sad," Apuron tries to hide what he did by firing the people who were canonically constituted to review and approve or disapprove such a proposal. 

Just amazing. 

Ancient history, you say? Nope. Salamanca is still showing up. And just like he showed up in 2011 on the infamous DEED, he showed up again in 2021 as described above. He also showed up at the Easter Vigil in Asan, his parish, standing behind Luis Camacho, who took the stage, front and center. 




Do you see the problem? 

BTW, wasn't he the guy who moved the altar that fell through the floor at the Agat church?


Monday, April 27, 2026

OUR DUTY OF DISCERNMENT, WAS NEVER AN EASY THING TO START, AND CERTAINLY TO ACHIEVE

 (BY FRENCHIE)        



Ever since I reached what is commonly known as the age of reason, I have been haunted by the concept of discernment. Something every Catholic is supposed to thrive for, but that few even attempt to face, or even understand.



Later in life, when I became uneasily conscious about the concept of evil, and how it is an essential determining factor in the saving of our own souls, I started devouring Catholic books on dogma, the concept of right and wrong, of justified wars and many other lofty concepts. I went through the writing of what we term the Doctors of the Church, only to come out of all these well-developed theories and doctrines even more confused and conflicted. 

As a teenager, I had, like most boys a crisis of identity, mixed with stages of rebellion and rejection of all what my system of education tried to help me with. Luckily my thirst for knowledge, and my love of history, gave me a window of opportunity, to overcome this early hurdle that is often a high mountain to climb for many young persons.

It is an accidental encounter with an aging missionary who spent most of his Sacerdote in Africa, evangelizing but also being an exorcist which gave me that opened window, which would eventually take years to fully open. 

The difficulty in developing a personal relationship with God, is accepting to surrender to his will, and accept that most of our lives are a struggle against evil and temptations that surround us on all sides. how many times have we heard or read " do not fear, I am with you" without really grasping its meaning, and of course the consequences on our lives.



I feel lucky to have been born pre-Vatican II, it gave me a different outlook of what happened post-Vatican II. By the time Vatican II ukases were disseminated, I was already a teenager.   My historical studies of the French Revolution, what preceded it and the role of British Masonic lodges in facilitating, organizing, and manipulating events, (not unlike the color revolutions put in place by our alphabet soup intelligence agencies) as so many trojan horses in Catholic French society, also gave me an insight about the constant attacks against the Catholic Church at large, since well before the Reformed movement. There is a constant, a thread, a how-to method to these attacks. They are all demonic in nature and spread through lies, innuendos and false benign alighting theories.



While the USA has not been witnessing, murder, imprisonment, religious cleansing, or genocide, it has been the scene of strong opposition from the White Anglo Saxon Protestant elites from the Northeast as well as violent and murderous actions by the Klan in the post-civil war era, against what they termed Papist followers. It was only over 60 years ago that a large campaign of whispers targeted the Kennedy Brothers, before they were both murdered.

Recently, at the occasion of the conflict between Israel and Iran, in which we foolishly decided to take side, we have witnessed a massive current of anti-Catholicism rearing its ugly head, once more. Key Senators like Cruz from Texas, or Gramm from South Carolina have resorted to the old Klan tactics of denigrating the Catholic faith. The President himself launched open attacks against Pope Leo for opposing what St Augustine of Hippo described as an unjust war. While the Vice President fell into a trap of having to defend his faith by attacking the messenger.



These Talmudic, Masonic old tactics go back centuries, and they target a division between the faithful. Good conservative Catholic who still have not made their mind on Pope Leo, as well as the usual opposition of Popes within the Church have taken that opportunity to deepen the divide, while anti-religious leftists have come to the defense of a Pope they perceive wrongly as a societal warrior. Both sides are wrong, and they demonstrate a lack of discernment that is obvious and very sad.

We should all pray, to get rid of our own respective prides, and surrender to Christ teachings, by trusting in him. While we are at it, we should also pray for the protection of the remaining Christians in the Levant, who are under coordinated attacks by evil forces, of the usual source.


Sunday, April 26, 2026

MEEEELLION AND MEEEELLIONS

By Tim Rohr

I still smile whenever I think of the word "millions." At a meeting between then-Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Martin Krebs, and the clergy of this archdiocese in July 2014, one of the Neocat priests, in a thick European accent, I believe it was Italian, criticized the people of Guam for spending "meeeellions and meeeellions" on food. 

I received a copy of a secret recording of the meeting and published a summary of what was said. Here is the part about the "meeeellions and meeeellions."

Fr. Francesco (don't know his last name), a bona-fide Kiko, then lays into the people of Guam saying that our culture is the problem, that we spend too much on funerals, that we spend "meeeellions and meeellions" of dollars on food, that all our time is spent cooking, and that Guam has to change. 

(The crowd falls silent. This was bad. Fr. Francesco just spilled the beans. For this is what all the Kiko's think about everyone who is not a Neo. It is we who have to change. The do not have to change. They are truth and light. We are darkness and wrong. "Judases", they call us. And we spend all our time COOKING!!!!) 

My publishing of the summary of the meeting led to one of the first explosions to rock the Apuron-Neocat regime, the outing of Fr. John Wadeson, but that's another story, and a story I get quite deep into in my upcoming book: ORCHESTRATED. 

Today, the "meeeellions and meeeellions" thing came to mind when I saw that JungleWatch has passed 17 million views. I didn't recall being that close a few days ago, so I thought I'd take a look at the stats to see what was going on. 

We had been humming along for months at 150,000 to 250,000 views per month. However, in this month, which is not over yet, we have had more than half a million views: 574,687.



So, of course, I wondered what people are reading. Here are the top posts for the last 30 days:


All of those posts are from many years ago, a decade or more - except the last two. The last two are where "Lucio from Italy" decided to engage. So Lucio makes the list. 

I had another smile when I saw this because I had told Lucio, who was getting meaner and nastier in his defense of the Neo's and his attempt to discredit me, that we were grateful for people like him, because, like Diana, their nasty comments drove up our page views, giving the world a better look at who these people are. 

So thank you, Lucio, again, for helping us reach "meeeellions and meeeellions." Hope you come back soon. BTW, you suddenly went silent when Sinlaku hit Saipan. 

Saturday, April 25, 2026

ONE MORE SIGN FROM HEAVEN

By Tim Rohr



I am doing research for my book: Orchestrated: How a blog and the laity took down an archbishop and exposed the largest clergy sex abuse scandal, per capita, in the whole Catholic world, and I am coming across many things that have more meaning today than they did ten years ago, when most of those events occurred.

One of those things was this statement by then-Vatican-Appointed Apostolic Administrator, Archbishop Savio Hon Tai Fai at a press conference on July 27, 2016:

I also specifically recant and retract all statements implying or suggesting that Mr. Rohr was part of a conspiracy involving an improper and clandestine real estate transaction, or that he had any improper motives in raising questions about the financial matters of the Archdiocese.
+Archbishop Savio Hon Tai Fai, SDB, Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese of Agana, Press Conference, July 27, 2016 [LINK]

I didn't pay much attention to this statement at the time. I was pretty sure Hon was only trying not to get sued, and moreover, probably trying to calm the building resentment against himself for initially making light of the allegations against Apuron which had brought him to Guam in the first place. 

I am quite sure that I was right then and I am right now in my assessment. However, in hindsight, and given that after Apuron was found guilty by the Vatican, Hon's public exoneration of myself, has more meaning.

After his Vatican conviction, Apuron had publicly claimed that, on appeal, he would prove his innocence by proving that he was a victim of a conspiracy by "Tim Rohr and his associates" who Apuron alleged to be conspiring with a Chinese gambling concern to oust Apuron (famously against gambling), acquire the Yona Property (the RMS Seminary), and turn the place into a casino. 

It almost worked. Apuron was found guilty by the Vatican on March 16, 2018. Three weeks later my name and my face was on the front page of the local news for a full week, branded as a wife-beater and sexual molester of my own children. Apuron's attempt (with the help of the Neocats) to "prove his innocence" by taking me out, had begun. 

(By the way, the media never cared to get the facts, they just ran with the story. One news platform, the Pacific Daily News, was the only local media that had the integrity to ignore this trash. One day, I will tell more of this story.)

I would survive, and even prosper, but their lies (Apuron and the Neocats) would wreak untold and permanent damage on my family, especially my youngest children.

I did take some solace, however, in the date Apuron was found guilty: March 16,  Rome time. In Guam, it was March 17. March 17 is the Feast of St. Patrick, the patron of Guam's Neocat Redemptoris Mater Seminary, which had been at the center of so much of this hell. 

It was also the same day Luis Camacho had been arrested on an Agat beach three years earlier. 

I took the date as a sign from heaven that I had done the right thing. And, as of today, I take my rediscovery of this 2016 exoneration as another sign. None of that conspiracy crap was true. And every Catholic on this island, and all over the world for that matter, should understand just how far the Neocats and the dirty bishops in their clutches will go to save themselves...and ruin you and your family too.

Oh, one more thing. July 27, the day I was exonerated, by a Vatican-Appointee, no less, is my birthday. One more sign from heaven.

Thursday, April 23, 2026

THE EMPEROR WITH NO CLOTHES AND THE "OLD WOUND"

By Tim Rohr

The Emperor with No Clothes


In the post GEEZ!, I mentioned that the persistent failure of our church leaders to reference the Catechism when pronouncing, or in the case of a pope, pontificating on matters of faith and morals, is, with me, an "old wound." 

As I explained in GEEZ!, while we Catholics have the benefit of grounding ourselves in 2000 years of defined doctrine and dogma, our church leaders almost never, and that includes the popes (at least the last two), reference "chapter and verse," that "defined doctrine and dogma," and instead, pronounce stuff as if it's their personal opinion. 

And this leads to untold damage, with everything from people getting mad at this or that priest and leaving the Catholic Church altogether, to the current stupidity between the President and the Pope, which is splitting Catholics and Americans generally. 

In this post, I wanted to share why this is an "old wound" for me. Following is a draft of a chapter in my upcoming book, Orchestrated: How a blog and the laity took down an archbishop and exposed the largest clergy sex abuse scandal, per capita, in the whole Catholic world.

+++++

It had been quite obvious to many for a very long while that Apuron was brainless - a mere shell of a man, truly an "emperor with no clothes." In 2009-2011, when I was involved in a project that forced me to get up close and personal with Apuron and the chancery's inner workings, I was horrified by what I saw. 

I got to get up close and personal, not because of any favor Apuron and his people were doing for me, but because of what I was doing for them. I was the attack dog they were sending out to do battle in the public square with then-Senator BJ Cruz, first, over his same-sex bill, and then BJ's statute of limitations bills. 

In 2011, Senator Cruz introduced two bills related to removing the statute of limitations on sex crimes against minors. Both bills were enacted into law but were time-limited, making it necessary for new legislation in 2016 when Apuron’s accusers came forward.

[REFERENCE] Raymundo, S. (2016, May 23). Law limits sexual abuse charges. Pacific Daily News.

In meetings at the Chancery (the office for the archdiocese), Apuron might as well have had a stick holding him up. He seemed permanently out to lunch - in a Faustian daze as to what was happening and limply waiting for somebody to tell him what to do. 

The breaking point for me came when I exploded at a meeting after an absolutely stupid "apuronic" move. It was after a meeting with some members of the legislature at the Guam Hilton. In fact, I had recommended the meeting. 

At the time, I had thought that instead of this soundbite war in the press over the same-sex union legislation, it would behoove the clergy to have a sit-down with Senator BJ and the boys and talk like grown-ups.

My concern was not for Apuron but for the Catholic Faith. The press was ripping the Church apart for being anti-gay, and the “response from Apuron” thus far had only exacerbated things. I put "response from Apuron" in quotes because while the "response" was sent out in his name, there was actually no response from Apuron. Apuron was not capable of a response - or even a homily for that matter. 

As most know, Apuron's homilies were usually canned. A couple of times, when I could tell he was just reading something, I googled a particular phrase, and the homily would pop up. Most people already knew this. Listening to an Apuron homily was like listening to a machine. Of course, at the time, I did not know why he was so hollow. 

All of Apuron's speeches, statements, etc., on same-sex legislation were ghostwritten by Fr. Francis Walsh, a "professor" at the Neocat’s Redemptoris Mater Seminary (“RMS”). And for this event at the Hilton, Walsh had written one that was to become famous. 

Apuron probably never read it. But I did. Walsh had let me review it. I had thought he was going to submit it as an opinion piece to the media with his own name. I could see that it was incendiary, but that was his business. 

Unfortunately, he (Walsh) made it our business. Walsh had his "paper" printed on Apuron's letterhead, and copies were passed out to the senators at the Hilton meeting, whereupon the meeting immediately imploded, and Apuron was caught on camera running down a Hilton hallway, fleeing reporters. 

Until recently, the mere googling of the word "Apuron" would quickly lead you to that infamous letter, but of course, recent events (Apuron’s sex scandals)  have obscured it. Wikipedia still references it:

“Apuron drew criticism for a letter distributed by his archdiocese in October 2009 demonizing gay members of the community while simultaneously praising Islamists. It said in part: Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. That is why they repress such behavior by death. Their culture is anything but one of self-absorption. It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice.” 

Up to this point (about October 2009), for several weeks I had been slogging through the town halls, the press, the radio, TV, speaking in schools, etc., at great cost to myself and my family, not in defense of Apuron, but trying to distinguish between what Apuron was "saying" and what the Church actually taught about same-sex stuff - something Apuron apparently didn't even appear to know.

I was also having to war against the image of the Church presented by a certain Catholic deacon who would stand up at town hall meetings and start screaming and preaching at the presenters, creating more enemies as he did.

In addition, I was incensed by what I perceived to be Senator B.J.'s attempt to pull a fast one by substituting the original bill with another, which would have kept his substitute bill from receiving a public hearing, allowing an important piece of legislation on same-sex unions to sneak through without one. 

After several horrible weeks of being maligned in the media as a "homophobe" (which is the label attached to anyone who even demands transparency in the matter of same-sex legislation), I eventually prevailed. 

Senator BJ's substitute bill was NOT germane to the original and had to have its own hearing, a hearing which eventually sank the bill, not because of any opposition by the Catholic Church or even me, but because it prompted a letter from the Director of the Government of Guam Retirement Fund to the Legislature, a letter sent six months before it finally became known.

For months, I had been urging the media to ask about the effect of the same-sex legislation on the Government of Guam Retirement Fund. I knew that most people did not really care about the bill's moral dimension, but they would certainly care about its financial impact, especially if it affected their retirement. 

I was right. 

I still remember the moment when K57 talk show host Ray Gibson got the Fund's executor, Mr. Joe T. San Agustin (“Joe T”), on the radio. Joe T said he had sent a letter to the legislature six months earlier, stating that same-sex union legislation could break the retirement fund. The problem was that, should the bill become law, it would create a whole new class of GovGuam dependents for which the retirement fund had "no actuarial tables." 

Sorry, Mr. Joe T, if I'm not paraphrasing this correctly, but that was the upshot. Senator BJ got on the air with Joe T, and an argument ensued. Joe T did not back down, and the next day, Senator BJ withdrew his bill, saying he didn't have enough votes.

Apologies for that long diversion, but it's important for the reader to know how much Apuron's lack of brains cost me and how far I was willing to go to protect him. At the time, only six states had passed similar legislation. Had Guam passed it, given its mostly Catholic population, Apuron would have stood out to Rome like a diseased wart on a sore thumb. Little did I know that I should have just let it happen. But I really wasn't trying to save Apuron. 

Apuron was presenting (Neocat) Fr. Walsh's letters as if they were his own, and Walsh's letters were long on his own views and short on actual Catholic teaching, endangering the Church in the public view and pushing people (who might have otherwise not cared about the issue) to support the legislation just to oppose what looked like a very hostile Church - when really it was only a Neocat agenda -NOT to protect of promote Catholic teaching, BUT to protect and promote Apuron - their rubber stamp and sugar daddy.

At those many meetings with the clergy and the archbishop, where there was much hand-wringing over how to engage the same-sex union legislation, I kept saying over and over and over: "JUST PRESENT WHAT THE CHURCH ACTUALLY SAYS!" I couldn't believe I had to tell an archbishop and a room full of priests and theology professors to say this, but I did. And still, time after time after time, they IGNORED Church teaching and presented their own.


Wednesday, April 22, 2026

GEEZ!

By Tim Rohr



The public mess between Trump and the Pope is, as usual, largely a media fabrication, except in this case, the main culprit is the Catholic media. It's pathetic to see these news agencies anxious for clicks. It's also funny to see the mainstream media running to the defense of the Pope. Let's try that with abortion, contraception, or same-sex relations. LOL!

Unfortunately, Bishop Robert Barron, who had just begun to gain some credibility (in my eyes, anyway), didn't stay above it, but jumped into the middle, demanding that Trump apologize to the Pope.  

Stupid move. Trump doesn't apologize to anybody. That's who he is, and, by the way, that's why he's the president for the second time. 

Apparently, Barron caught his mistake and tried to clean it up with a post on X, wherein he makes a distinction that he failed to make before:

"The role of the Church, therefore, is to call for peace and to urge that any conflict be strictly circumscribed by the moral constraints of the just war criteria. But it is not the role of the Church to evaluate whether a particular war is just or unjust. That appraisal belongs to the civil authorities, who, one presumes, have requisite knowledge of conditions on the ground."

So, in other words, Barron backs out of the mess he stepped into by saying they're both right. He is right about that, and he backs up his new position by referencing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is our compendium of all that the Catholic Church teaches on faith and morals:

"The Pope has said, on numerous occasions, that he is not a politician and that his role is not the determination of any nation's foreign policy. But he has just as clearly said that he will continue to speak for peace and for moral constraint. In making both of these claims, he is operating perfectly within the framework of paragraph 2309 of the Catechism. If we understand that the Pope and the President have qualitatively different roles to play in the determination of moral action in regard to war, we can, I hope, extricate ourselves from the completely unhelpful narrative of “Pope vs. President.” 

Barron's reference to the Catechism opened up an old wound with me: my absolute head-shaking dismay as to why our Catholic clergy, for the most part, and even the Pope, when engaging issues on faith and morals, refuse to quote the Catechism "chapter and verse," or in the case of our Catechism, the paragraph number, and instead pronounce things like it's their personal opinion. 

I cannot recall a Sunday sermon (or any other day for that matter) where I have ever heard a priest quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the paragraph number that tells the people who are listening two things: 1) This is the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church and NOT "my" personal opinioin; and 2) Where they can find it for themselves so they can grow in knowledge and wisdom of the Catholic faith like our clergy says we are supposed to. 

Protestant and Evangelical pastors cannot get through a sermon without quoting chapter and verse, usually of the Bible, but often other sources, multiple times. But us? 

How much damage in this Trump v Pope thing could have been avoided had the Pope simply quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "chapter and verse," relative to the "just war" matter, and maybe added a bit about how his job is to uphold the teaching of the Catholic Church? But no, instead, he made some new-sounding quip about those who "wage war," and then, when confronted about it, instead of referencing authentic Catholic teaching on the matter (quoting the Catechism), he responds, "I'm not afraid of Trump." 

Geez. 

Sunday, April 19, 2026

HOW DOES A NEOCAT PRIEST PERSONALLY GUARANTEE AN $800,000 LOAN?

By Tim Rohr



In QUESTIONS FOR THE ARCHBISHOP (Feb. 20, 2026), I asked how two itinerant catechists (David and Maruxa Atienza) and a “priest of this archdiocese,” Fr. Alberto Salamanca, are in a position to guarantee a debt of $800,000 and projected to be millions. 

Of course, there was no answer from the archbishop. The archbishop, only recently appointed to serve in the Vatican’s Dicastery for Communication, an appointment much celebrated in the media, has a problem communicating just about anything important to the faithful in his own diocese. 

But that's no surprise. Guam is only a stepping stone to a desk job at the Vatican for Jimenez. 

He has also communicated NOTHING relative to the appeal supposedly initiated by the sometimes-priest, Fr. Luis Camacho, after being publicly embarrassed (Jimenez, that is) for jumping the gun and being totally wrong about Camacho's defrocking.)

Connecting the two things, it was at Salamanca's parish, Asan, wherein the "appealing-priest," Camacho, appeared front and center on the altar at a separate Neocat Easter Vigil. 

Jimenez, the new appointee to the Vatican's Dicastery for Communications, has also communicated NOTHING regarding the Neocat's blatant disregard for the moratorium on the founding of new communities, imposed by the late Archbishop Byrnes and ratified by the former Apostolic Administrator, Fr. Romeo Convocar. 

Jimenez, the new appointee to the Vatican's Dicastery for Communications, has also communicated NOTHING about the Neocat corporation, RAINAN I LANGET, which owns and operates its own Neocat place of worship, and is accumulating millions of dollars in assets. 

Jimenez, the new appointee to the Vatican's Dicastery for Communications, has also communicated NOTHING, well, nothing much at all about anything...though he did find time to campaign for "Josh and Tina." 

But back to Salamanca and his personally guaranteeing an $800,000 loan. How does a priest in this archdiocese do that? 

Archbishop Jimenez. We are waiting for your answer. On at least this.

P.S. We know the answer. We're waiting to hear if the new appointee to the Vatican Dicastery for Communications knows...and will communicate.

Thursday, April 16, 2026

RODNEY SAYS...

By Tim Rohr

Every once in a while, a comment deserves its own post. This is one:


"The Holy Father’s choice to directly target President Trump, while remaining silent on the Islamist persecution of Christians in Africa, is more than a missed opportunity—it is a dangerous signal. If the Vatican's silence on the Trappist martyrs in Algeria or the slaughter in Nigeria stems from a fear for Christian safety, then consistency was required. By attacking figures like Trump while ignoring the violence of Islamist groups and Iranian proxies, the Pope inadvertently signals to these extremists that they may continue their persecution with total impunity. This imbalance does not foster peace; it emboldens the oppressor. As John Paul II warned, there is no peace without justice, and there is no justice in a silence that protects the violent while rebuking the defenders."

 

PLAYGROUND TRASH TALK

By Tim Rohr



Copying here my Facebook post, then some commentary after.

+++++

As a usually outspoken Catholic, I'm being asked for my thoughts about the recent spat between the president and the pope. I don't really want to wander into this on FB, where I try to keep things neutral - at least in recent years. But one thing keeps coming to mind. 

Leo says, "I'm not afraid." 

JP2 said: "Be not afraid." 

I really think Leo would do better if he said the latter. 

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Mt. 10:28

This is all we really need to care about. At least that's what I do. Eternity is a very long time. 

+++++

Upon Leo's election, there was quite a bit of speculation that he, the first American ever elected pope, was elected for no other reason than to oppose Donald Trump.

Knowing THE MESS that Francis created in the Church during his 13 years, including the appointment of cardinal-electors who would be certain to perpetuate it, THE MESS, I gave some credence to this view, but nevertheless hoped otherwise.

By the way, in case you don't know or don't remember, Francis began his pontificate with the order "MAKE A MESS!" 

In a column for the Guam Daily Post, published in June 2025 and titled WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE NEW POPE? I wrote that I believed Pope Leo, contrary to Francis, would be much more careful with his words. 

He was...until now. And it's not his now much publicized statement on Palm Sunday: "Jesus does not listen to prayers of those who wage war," which much of the world saw as a direct jab at Trump's war on Iran. 

There is some speculation as to whether the pope meant those who "wage" war or those who "initiate" war. And that would make a big difference, since under the Just War Theory, we can morally engage in self-defense. 

So, as with Francis (and there's even a new word for it), the "pope-splainers" were out in force to tell us, once again, what the pope "really meant." 

However, we don't need them to tell us now. Leo told us himself what he really meant and exactly who he had directed his "wage war" comment to when he told the press: "I'm not afraid of Trump." 

With that comment, the mask came off. Sadly, for the pope, Trump's usual provocative style, which is nothing new and always to be expected, provoked the pope to get down into the TDS gutter with the others. 

How different things could have been had he quoted the Gospel he says he is proclaiming with the words "Be not afraid," rather than such self-absorbed human words: "I'm not afraid." It reminds me of that childhood playground trash talk: "I'm not afraid of you," and "My dad can beat your dad," etc. SMH

By the way, Pope Leo is currently on a much-publicized tour of Africa. He will be in Africa for 11 days. Guess where he is not going?



Wednesday, April 15, 2026

WEIRD, BUT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR "A COMMUNITY OF PERSONS"

By Tim Rohr

Maybe this is nothing. Maybe. However, the memories of days not so long ago, when weird stuff was coming out of the chancery, have taught me to treat weird stuff from the chancery with immediate suspicion. And this transfer is weird.

1. Archbishop Jimenez references Canon 1748 as the basis for his authority to order this transfer. Canon 1748 states the following:

Can. 1748 If the good of souls or the necessity or advantage of the Church demands that a pastor be transferred from a parish which he is governing usefully to another parish or another office, the bishop is to propose the transfer to him in writing and persuade him to consent to it out of love of God and souls.

Fr. Gofigan is not a pastor. He is a parochial administrator:



Thus, no such canonical process is required. If you read on beyond Can. 1748, you will see that the canon is just the beginning of a process that leads to increasing complexity. Why reference this canon when no such process is required? 

A parochial administrator is just that, an administrator. An administrator can be appointed, transferred, or removed at the bishop's discretion. This was the point of appointing only administrators, rather than pastors, in the first place - so Jimenez could move them around at will. 

If you search the above-referenced clergy directory, you will see that there are only four pastors, all of whom are Capuchins, not diocesan priests. I don't know the canonical relationship between the Capuchins and the archbishop, but Capuchins don't take a vow of obedience to the bishop of a diocese. Interesting that Jimenez left them as pastors. 

2. The letter is dated April 19, 2016, and is stated as follows: "Given this 19th day of April, 2026..." Today is April 15, 2026, and the letter was posted to the AOA Facebook page on April 12:


Perhaps Jimenez meant that the appointment would take effect on April 19. But then the letter should have had language to that effect, and it doesn't. 

3. Moreover, Archbishop Jimenez is off-island and has been for several days. Why couldn't this transfer business wait till he got back? Why the rush?

Weird.

The appointment of Deacon Len Stohr LINK

There has also been a question about a deacon being appointed as a parochial administrator. Per Canon 517.2, this is permitted:

Canon 517 §2. If, because of a lack of priests, the diocesan bishop has decided that participation in the exercise of the pastoral care of a parish is to be entrusted to a deacon, to another person who is not a priest, or to a community of persons, he is to appoint some priest who, provided with the powers and faculties of a pastor, is to direct the pastoral care.

However, notice that the canon is based on "a lack of priests." Why does Guam have "a lack of priests"?

We paid millions (meellions and meellions - for those who remember) to ordain 17 priests out of RMS. Where are they? Some, like Krzysztof Szafarski and Edivaldo Oliveira, are gone but are still on our payroll. Others, like John Wadeson, never actually worked in Guam or worked very little, yet are receiving retirement benefits off the back of a bankrupt archdiocese. 

That said, I am not opposed to the consolidation of parishes or the assigning of priests to serve multiple parishes. That's being done everywhere these days. Given the two options, though, I think the latter is better. One thing is clear: in Guam, parishioners are very attached to their parishes and willing to financially and physically support them.

Canon 571 §2 also permits a parish to be entrusted "to a community of persons." That may be the best way to go for Guam. Parishioners need to organize, take control, and assume responsibility for the temporal and operational aspects of their parishes. Priests and Deacons don't need to be administrators. They need to be priests and deacons. 

And, given this trend of shuffling clergy around, parishioners will be better for it. 

Monday, April 13, 2026

NOTE TO JIMENEZ: WHY THE CAMACHO MATTER MATTERS

By Tim Rohr

The Luis Camacho affair matters, and here's why. Up until Apuron and his Neocat cronies smuggled Camacho out of Guam almost immediately after his arrest on March 17, 2015, there really wasn't an identifiable offense that reached beyond the boundaries of internal church problems. There was no reason for the broader community to care.

The Gofigan thing, the Benavente thing, even the Wadeson thing, as far as the rest of the community, especially the media, was concerned, was really just infighting, internal church squabbles. The media would make it news from time to time, but usually only upon being prompted by a church media release. 

It would be another year (2016) before "Roy, Walter, and Roland" came forward. And while John Toves had made his accusations in late 2014, he was not a victim himself and offered no names of those he said were victims. Also, the CERTIFICATE OF TITLE FIASCO over the RMS property hadn't come out into the open yet either. 

So, there wasn't much news for the larger community. Up until March 17, 2015, everything was pretty much an internal spat, much of it sparked by the Neocats, but outsiders couldn't understand who or what the Neocats were. And pretty much, they still can't. 

But Camacho was arrested. Regardless of what he was caught doing, the arrest of a Catholic priest was news. You have to hand it to the Neocats, though. No one else could have gotten the real reason Camacho was arrested buried as fast as they did. 

And, while we now know what Luis was really arrested for - pursuant to the Vatican verdict - which is what we knew all along, we have always known when and where he was arrested, and who arrested him:


So, even if the reason was "Custodial Interference," what was Camacho doing, alone in a car with a female minor, at APAKA POINT, Agat, on 3/17/2015 at 12:44pm? He certainly wasn't giving the girl a ride home from school. 

By the way, having lived in Agat for decades, I know APAKA POINT well. It's perfectly situated for such a rendezvous, a public park, yet hidden behind a swampy, overgrown triangle of land between the back gate to the Naval Base and the entrance into Agat. It's rarely frequented, especially on a Tuesday, and especially at this time of day. Perfect, or so he thought. 

Had Apuron not been a Neocat puppet and had he not had access to the worldwide Neocat underground, which was expert at trafficking in priests in trouble, as Camacho was now, Apuron might have been forced to do the right thing and let the chips fall where they should: Camacho had done something very wrong; it would have become known; and he would have had to pay the civil penalty. 

But Apuron DID have access to that Neocat underground, so he had options. So, under the cover of night, off Camacho went. 

And this was the turning point.

Apuron's clandestine cover of Camacho opened the door for the media and for the larger Guam community to care. This was no longer an internal spat between priests, bishops, and pro- and anti-Neo groups. This was Exhibit A of what bishops across the U.S. had been accused of doing for decades: shuffling around problem priests - a scandalous practice that had already brought down several dioceses through lawsuits and bankruptcy. 

Camacho's arrest, Apuron's shuffling him off, and all the lies that followed would lead directly to what became the outing of the largest clergy sex abuse scandal per capita in the Catholic world and the eventual bankruptcy of this archdiocese. 

And it all really started on March 17, 2015, coincidentally the feast of St. Patrick, the adopted patron of Guam's Redemptoris Mater Seminary. St. Patrick may have driven all the snakes out of Ireland, but apparently, they found their way to Guam.

So, in case the new archbishop is wondering what all the fuss is about over Camacho's showing up on the altar at a recent Neocat Easter Vigil, this is why. 

Sunday, April 12, 2026

KIKO AND McCARRICK: BUDDIES

 By Tim Rohr

The first RMS (in the U.S.) was established under McCarrick. It's also where he ran to once his filthy life was outed. 





March 2006: McCarrick asks Monsignor Robert Sheeran, president of Seton Hall University, about residing part time in an on-campus residence for priests, close to the seminary. Archbishop Myers tells Sheeran he strongly opposes the move. McCarrick arranges to live part time at the Redemptoris Mater seminary in Hyattsville, Maryland.

December 2007: Sambi meets with McCarrick to discuss his move out of the Redemptoris Mater seminary and the request that he live a quiet life of prayer. An emotional McCarrick tells Sambi that because Priest 1 was 25 at the time of the allegations, what had happened was not a crime, and that his continued pursuit of the allegations seemed to be a grab for money.

January 2007: Sambi reports his meeting with McCarrick to Re and adds that he looked into whether the leaders of Redemptoris Mater seminary considered McCarrick an active threat. Seminary leaders say McCarrick was “touchy” but they did not consider him to be a threat.

2007-2008: McCarrick maintains residence at Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Hyattsville, Maryland, during this time, where he lives in his own wing.

Early 2009: McCarrick moves to St. Thomas the Apostle Parish in Washington, D.C., as arranged by Wuerl. According to the report, McCarrick still maintains an office at the Redemptoris Mater Seminary “and travels there frequently for work.”

July 14, 2014: After a brief conversation with Parolin, Ouellet writes a letter to the Secretary of State about the restrictions given against McCarrick, including that he move out of Redemptoris Mater seminary and that he live a private life of prayer and not accept invitations in the U.S. or abroad.

MORE NOTES FOR LUCIO

Deacon Steve Martinez responds to Lucio.  (The hyperlinks have been added)

Tim,

Your post (NOTES FOR LUCIO) is very well laid out. But there is also a key letter from the Archdiocese that you failed to cite, the press release dated 05/07/2024. I am familiar with the circumstances to a limited degree. But I worry that in an effort to support his beloved bishop, Lucio just might try to say that there was a previous ruling, but the case was only forced to be reopened at the insistence of Fr Luis’ accuser (me), or by those who are trying to persecute the NCW. Believe me when I say, I have heard this from some people on Guam, more than I expected.

Most people probably don’t know I am related to Fr Luis. I was very proud to participate in his ordination mass, and I fully supported his ministry for Guam. He was the first Chamorro priest ordained from the Guam seminary. That’s why, on March 17, 2015, when I was made aware of Fr Luis’ arrest and the circumstances that were relayed to me, I faced a huge decision. Do I ignore the information given to me? Or do I take my legal requirement to report what I was told, and file a report with CPS and the Archdiocese? I’d like to say it was a tough decision, but it really wasn’t. Since, by law, I am a mandated reporter, it was a law that had to be followed. So I filed my report before 8am the next day. The hard part was living with the consequences, because that part of my family now refuses to speak with me and my wife. I was really hoping that an investigation would exonerate him, but my job was not to judge or investigate. My only job was to file a report and participate in the investigation if asked.

So, Lucio, save your time. And for all those who thought I was fabricating stories to get to Fr Luis, or make the NCW look bad, that just is not true.

Now to add one more bit of proof that Bishop Ballin’s letter was not just misleading, but completely false, I also refer you to a press release from the Chancery Office in Guam dated May 7, 2024, at the time when Fr Luis reappeared after a nine-year absence.

The fourth paragraph from the Chancery states:

“Rome opened a canonical investigation on Father Luis following the incident in 2015. Though the Vatican has not been able to make a canonical ruling due to insufficient evidence, the case is not closed. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith informed then Archbishop Michael Byrnes on Nov. 18, 2022 that the case is filed in the archives at this time as it is not possible to proceed with any canonical action.”

The truth is Rome did initiate an investigation on a timely basis. The charges were indeed very serious. But Rome was never able to reach a conclusion because the main witness (the accused) fled Guam, and the government agencies absolutely refused to provide a copy of the arrest report to the Church.”

So, the June 25, 2016, statement by Bishop Ballin is a proven bold but false statement. Recall what he said in that notice on his letterhead with his official seal attached:

“The subsequent deep and thorough investigation has reached the absolute certainty that “there is not a semblance of truth (fumus veri facti) to the accusation” made against Fr. Luis.”

The actual truth is the investigation languished for lack of evidence. Thank goodness the Vatican archived the information it had just in case the investigation should ever be renewed. And then in 2024/2025 that’s exactly what happened. And a finding of fact was finally reached; an independent penal process in Australia was concluded; and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith fielded an appeal by Fr Luis, and then reconfirmed the original finding of fact and the penalty.

So Lucio, do you still place credence in Bishop Ballin’s letter of 06/25/2016? I do not wish to cast aspersions on anyone, especially those who have died, but I feel compelled to make sure the truth is heard, and not bent or manipulated.

Deacon Steve Martinez


NOTES FOR LUCIO

By Tim Rohr



Our friend, who fantasizes that he is our "nightmare," Lucio from Italy (but not really), is back. In a comment on BREAK FREE, LUIS. IT'S TIME, Lucky Lucio goes on about what a wonderful chap Bishop Camillo Ballin was and how he was so well-respected in the Vatican, etc., etc., etc. 

Ballin, as you will recall, is the bishop who verbally slapped Chuck White for asking what Luis Camacho was doing in his diocese when Luis was an incardinated priest in Guam. Ballin snapped back: "He is now my priest." 

You can see what Lucio has to say about it here and my reply here, if you care to. However, since Lucio wants to talk tough about Ballin, I thought now would be a good time to reshare Ballin's official announcement, dated June 25, 2016, to the whole Vicarate of Northern Arabia, for which Ballin was the Vicar, that Luis was absolutely innocent and a victim of our "lies and calumnies." 

You can read the full letter here. The following is the relevant part:

...I was saddened receiving information that lately some individuals have spread, both in writing and by word of mouth, lies and calumnies about one of our priests who has served in our Church. In fact, some accusations against Fr. Luis Camacho have been divulged among our people. Because of this, in order to clarify the lack of any foundations for such rumors and accusations, even the Holy See has been forced to start an inquiry. 

The subsequent deep and thorough investigation has reached the absolute certainty that “there is not a semblance of truth (fumus veri facti) to the accusation” made against Fr. Luis. 

Contrast Ballin's June 25, 2016 letter with the letter from Luis' real bishop, Archbishop Ryan Jimenez, dated Dec. 11, 2025:

The Archdiocese of Agana has received official notification that on September 19, 2025, the Congresso of the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith completed its review of the case involving Rev. Luis Venancio B. Camacho, who was ordained a priest for our Archdiocese on November 9, 2013. The Congresso confirmed that Mr. Camacho was found guilty of delicta graviora cum minore - grave offenses involving a person under the age of eighteen- and it upheld the penalty previously imposed: dismissal from the clerical state. 

The Dicastery’s review included the 2015 arrest of then-Fr. Camacho, the canonical investigation that followed, and a subsequent petition for recourse that he himself submitted in an effort to have the penalties removed and to be restored to priestly ministry. 

Following the canonical investigation, a Penal Decree was issued on May 6, 2025, finding Rev. Camacho guilty of delicts contra sextum, meaning violations of the Sixth Commandment (sexual misconduct) committed with a minor, and imposing the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state.

Yet, in 2016, Ballin told us that the Holy See had cleared Camacho with "absolute certainty." Once again, none of this makes any sense unless you know who you're dealing with: THE NEOCATS.