Wednesday, December 17, 2014


Concerned Catholics of Guam President Greg Perez on "The Buzz" with Jesse Lujan, KUAM.

Here are the links to the show: Part 1  Part 2

The group's website is

Tuesday, December 16, 2014


Yesterday, December 15, Archbishop Apuron did a pastoral visit to St. Francis Parish in Yona. During the opportunity for Q & A, parishioner Tommy Tanaka read a list of concerns to the Archbishop. The following is one of them:

Archbishop, I am concerned that the celebration of the Eucharist in the neocatechumenal communities is not in compliance with the exceptions to the liturgical books permitted in Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way.

The people receive the sacred host standing, but they do not consume it immediately as the rest of us are required to do. They wait till all have received then they sit and then consume. 

Is this practice of sitting to consume the consecrated host permitted by Rome, and if so, where?

And if it is permitted by Rome, why have you not made it clear to the entire diocese that this practice is permitted so that we are not scandalized by what we perceive to be a violation of liturgical norms?

This is a major concern for us because this practice separate the neocatechumenal way from the rest of the faithful and we feel that you have an obligation to clarify it for us.

According to some who were there, the Archbishop replied that the neocatechumenal way of distributing Holy Communion "was approved", but that he would have to look up the source.

If this is what he said, then great. We look forward to "the source". Because it must have come very recently since Benedict XVI, in an audience with the Neocatechumenal Way in 2012 said:

"The Decree approving the celebrations listed in the 'Catechetical Directory of the Neocatechumenal Way' has just been read. They are not strictly speaking liturgical but are part of the itinerary of growth in faith...It is the task of the celebration in the small communities — regulated by the liturgical books that must be faithfully followed, with the details approved in the Statue of the Way..."


There is NOTHING in the Statute of the Way which permits a communicant to sit and consume. There is NOTHING in the Statute of the Way which permits the priest to delay his own communion until he has first distributed the sacred host to the communicants.

Yet these are the practices of Archbishop Apuron himself when he celebrates his neo-eucharist with his community and the practice of every single neocatechumenal community. So the permission, the Archbishop is said to have referred to must have been granted since January 20, 2012.

We wait anxiously to see it.


by Chuck White

Another recording has been secretly smuggled out of the castle…Listen to what Fr. Edwin “Pius” Sammut O.C.D, the lead catechist for “the Way” in Guam, and another speaker told members during their recent “Beginning of the Year” Convivence in Guam about the Way’s troubles in Japan. (continued)

Monday, December 15, 2014


Caribbean Christmas cakes are a perennial favorite.


I heard there were several "interesting" homilies this weekend including one "whipping" the newly formed Concerned Catholics of Guam. Send your recordings or the links them to We have Rome's ear now. 


  • >"I guess you confuse, revealing the truth, unveiling the lies as being attacks"

    That's hardly the case. The problem with interpreting absolutely everything AAA does in the worst way possible (ie. having protection when he feels that his person is being threatened) is that it dilutes the valid and reasonable criticisms people have of AAA.

    Criticizing men dressed in black and khaki hardly seems important. What truth is revealed in doing so?

    >"We know the problem the Church is facing, it is called the NCW and its endless procession of lies and deceit. What is there to discuss?"

    There are many wonderful people in the NCW, even Tim concedes this. Their goal is to move closer to God. Isn't the the stated goal of Christianity?

    If you take the stance that there can be no more discussion and thus no room for reasoning - even with these people of good intention - then the harm to the Church may be far worse than you imagine.

    The danger I see is that so many people are taking pleasure in the fight itself. There are many wonderful people who will be harmed, however this drama plays out.

    "To hide amongst the bodyguards while walking behind the Karosa shows his fear and his unending doubt that the Santa Marian Kamalen would not protect him. "

    Jump off a cliff and pray to Santa Marian Kamalen to protect. Having faith doesn't mean you should go out and do something stupid. It's this sort of petty criticism that distracts from the valid ones.

    "Didn't the Lord say, " Do not be afraid for I am with you always?""

    Jump off a plane without a parachute and report back to us about fear, faith, and leaving absolutely everything up to Santa Marian Kamalen. Faith is a wonderful thing, however it may not mean what you think it means.
  • December 14 at 9:33

    You say: The problem with interpreting absolutely everything AAA does in the worst way possible (ie. having protection when he feels that his person is being threatened) is that it dilutes the valid and reasonable criticisms people have of AAA.

    I say: Why does AAA feel “that his person is being threatened”? Threatened by whom? Why did he remain cowering in his office when John Toves went to see him? Why did he not just come out and calmly confront John Toves and say that John Toves was wrong, that he never touched his relative? Why has AAA never even proclaimed his innocence to the rest of us? AAA is being threatened by THE TRUTH and no amount of bodyguards will protect him from that.

    You say: There are many wonderful people in the NCW, even Tim concedes this. Their goal is to move closer to God. Isn't the the stated goal of Christianity?

    I say: I have always made a distinction between those who joined the NCW for the right reasons and the Kiko’s. Sadly the good people in the NCW are even greater victims than the rest of us. They are the ones that are most lied to and most abused by the NCW leadership. The biggest lie is that “the liturgy has been approved”, referring to the NCW liturgy. It’s a lie Apuron tells all the time and its a lie that he tells every time he celebrates his NCW “eucharist”.

    You say: If you take the stance that there can be no more discussion and thus no room for reasoning - even with these people of good intention - then the harm to the Church may be far worse than you imagine. The danger I see is that so many people are taking pleasure in the fight itself. There are many wonderful people who will be harmed, however this drama plays out.

    I say: And yes, and how sad it is that Apuron has not taken the leadership and publicly shown us that what we believe to be your insistent disobedience to Rome is only our imaginings. He could put this whole thing to rest with a public statement and posting the “approval” in the U Matuna. We would have nothing. This all would have been silenced long ago. But he won’t because he can’t. Because he’s lying. AGAIN. There is no pleasure in this fight. The “harm to the Church” is what you have brought to it and what Apuron has allowed to continue. How sick to believe that we who stand up against lies and error and Apuron’s bullying are the problem. Sick.

    You say: Jump off a cliff and pray to Santa Marian Kamalen to protect. Having faith doesn't mean you should go out and do something stupid. It's this sort of petty criticism that distracts from the valid ones.

    I say: Ah yes, now you reveal yourself. You have no argument for AAA. You make jumping off a cliff and praying for protection (the sin of presumption) to simply walking in a procession. If Apuron felt truly threatened then he should have had real guards, not pretend ones. But no, he did not want real guards, he wanted to make a show. He wanted to show how he is the persecuted one. Narcissist that he is, he wanted the procession to be all about him.

    Apuron does not need bodyguards, he needs soul-guards.
  • Sunday, December 14, 2014


    So I've been receiving all kinds of comments about who the guys were in black shirts and shades at the procession surrounding Apuron. Some say they are altar boys who are still loyal to Msgr. James. Others say they are thugs, and some even "neocat thugs." 

    I'm not going to publish any of the more recent comments about this because the point of my posting the picture was not WHO these guys were but what they looked like.

    There has always been security at the procession provided by the Cathedral staff, but they DID NOT wear black shirts, the pretend bodyguard paraphanalia, and act like they're working for Obama. These guys wanted to look like thugs and they did.

    No surprise. Archbishop ("arduous and painful") Apuron is the biggest thug of all. 

    What was on display on December 8 was the vivid manifestation of the final dissolution of this diocese. The line in the sand that Archbishop Apuron drew in January of 2006 on KOLG when he openly rejected the authority of the pope and embraced Kiko has become a line of black shirts surrounding a man who has reason to be fearful, not from any person or threat of attack, but from THE TRUTH. 

    Apuron knows this and he would run if he could, but he can't. The Kiko's will keep him here as long as they can to keep ordaining their fake presbyters. We can't stop that. But we CAN stop them from doing it our expense. 

    But then that is up to you.


    In the previous post, it was noted that it may take many years for someone to speak about being sexually abused, especially if they were young at the time and especially if the molester was an authority figure. 

    But there is another reason, and it's probably the main reason. I experienced it myself. 

    In the 1970's, while painting a hallway in our parish rectory (I had been hired by the pastor), I overhead the pastor and another man I knew engage in a sexual conversation that made it obvious that the two of them were regularly seeing each other for sexual encounters.

    While the relationship was homosexual, it wouldn't have mattered, one expects your priest and pastor to be faithful to his vows.

    I recall how sick it made me feel. I froze in the hallway, daring not to move. The two were on the other side of the door. I found a way to quietly leave without being discovered.

    I decided to tell my dad. Many parishioners had suspected that something was wrong with this other man. He was living next door to the church in a house that the church owned. It was discovered later that he was living there at the expense of the parish and was kept there in order for the two of them to have easy access to each other. It was also learned that the pastor, in addition to giving him a a free place to live at the expense of the church, was paying his boyfriend with parish funds. 

    The two were adults, so no one was being abused or molested, but I don't think I have to explain how harmful this relationship was to the church.

    My dad and I decided that something needed to be done so we went to the chancery office in downtown Los Angeles. We asked to see the Archbishop. Upon learning of the nature of our visit, the receptionist showed us the door, the door out.

    The Archbishop and my pastor had been classmates in the seminary, and while there was no love between them, the "boys" still took care of their own. 

    One might ask, well how does this consensual adult sexual relationship hurt you? It didn't. But it hurt my father. Unlike me, he didn't have the education and the mental tools to deal with the violation. He was seriously wounded, and his life, now lacking its most essential pillar, began to deteriorate. He stopped going to Mass, he became bitter, and when my brother was murdered he went into a decline that killed him as well, though it took him 30 more years to die. 

    Three days before he died a few months ago, he saw a priest for the first time since that fateful day at the Los Angeles chancery in the 1970's.

    In the current case alleged by John Toves, it is very probable that the alleged victim's family was similarly stonewalled by church authorities if they ever tried to report the incident - and I am told they did. Today things are different, but back in the 70's and 80's, you got a "thank you we received your letter" and that's it. 

    At most, a perpetrator priest would be quietly moved to another parish, but a bishop..? They don't get moved, you do. 

    So while those who are trying desperately to discredit Toves for waiting so long, the real reason for the so-called failure to report, whether it is this incident or any other, is that - back then - there was no one to report to. In the church who do you go to? Well, the bishop - as my dad and I tried to do. 

    I don't know if the creators of the Concerned Catholics of Guam had this in mind when they started, but by virtue of their existence they now have created an alternative to the bishop for matters like these. They may not be set up to do it yet, but perhaps the greatest service they can do the church is to offer alternative recourse to those who have been abused by church authorities, and whose only recourse, till now, has been those same authorities. 

    And if John Toves did nothing else, he just showed us how that works. It doesn't. 

    Saturday, December 13, 2014

    30 YEARS

    Anonymous asks:

    it took 30 years to accuse him ??

    This distance of "30 years" has been frequently used to discredit John Toves' attempt to confront Archbishop Apuron about the alleged sexual molestation of his relative. It's rather interesting to listen to because some of the same people have no problem believing the decades-old allegations against Bill Cosby. 

    On a more general note, as a society we have begun to invest a great amount of money and energy into "victims awareness" campaigns, as we have become ever more aware of the all sorts of abuse that never gets reported. And, under other circumstances, Mr. Toves' coming forward after "30 years" would have been seen as evidence of the success of our society's attempt to increase this awareness. However, because the current situation involves the Archbishop, suddenly normally clear thinking people are skittish. 

    Perhaps, then, if you are one of the doubters, you should read the 2002 report commissioned by the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops to study the problem of clerical sex abuse in the United States. 



    A few years ago when Archbishop Apuron was coming under fire by S.N.A.P and I was recruited to assist in discrediting and getting rid of S.N.A.P., I did a thorough study of this report. And perhaps, before you throw people like John Toves overboard, you should too. 

    The report found that while most of the incidents of clerical sex abuse occurred between 1950 and 1984, most of those incidents did not begin to be reported until the mid 1990's when the extent of the problem began to become better known. In fact, a delay in reporting of "30 years" turns out to be the norm. 

    It should make sense to any thinking person that a child or even a teenager might not come forward immediately about being sexually molested, especially if the perpetrator is an authority figure, and especially if that authority figure is a church authority figure. In fact, they might never come forward. As we've learned over the last several years in working with "victims awareness", the experience is often so emotionally and psychologically wounding, the most common reaction is to bury it. 

    Here are some of the main characteristics about clergy sex abuse discovered by the John Jay study:
    • An overwhelming majority of the victims, 81 percent, were males. The most vulnerable were boys aged 11 to 14, representing more than 40 percent of the victims. This goes against the trend in the general U.S. society where the main problem is men abusing girls.
    • A majority of the victims were post-pubescent adolescents with a small percentage of the priests accused of abusing children who had not reached puberty.
    • Most of the accused committed a variety of sex acts involving serious sexual offenses.
    • The most frequent context for abuse was a social event and many priests socialized with the families of victims.
    • Abuses occurred in a variety of places with the most common being the residence of the priest.

    Aside from Mr. Toves' allegation, there is a question about whether Archbishop Apuron ever even looked into the possibility of victims abused of Fr. Louis Brouillard. Fr. Brouillard is a priest still incardinated in the Archdiocese of Agana and ministered on Guam in the 1970's for the better part of the decade. 

    From the 2012 report by the Diocese of Duluth it appears Fr. Louis was sent away from Guam about 1981 to the Diocese of Duluth where he apparently continued his habit of sexually molesting young boys and in 1985 was finally removed from ministry. 

    If Fr. Louis was removed from ministry in Duluth for sexually molesting youth, there is a strong possibility that he had been doing the same here on Guam. While his time here in Guam would have been before Archbishop Apuron became bishop, the question is whether or not Archbishop Apuron ever investigated the possibility of local victims and has made any attempt at healing. After all, Deacon Claros, the newly appointed sex abuse response coordinator of the archdiocese, recently told us that concern for the victim is primary. 

    Archbishop Apuron has kept Fr. Louis Brouillard on the archdiocesan payroll all these years and he remains a priest incardinated in this archdiocese. There may or may not be local victims of Fr. Louis. The question is did Archbishop Apuron care to ever even look or did he figure sending Fr. Louis a paycheck every month for the last 30 years to stay away to be enough. 

    Hmmm. 30 years. 

    Friday, December 12, 2014


    No doubt, Apuron is attacking Msgr. James again because he thinks Msgr. James is behind John Toves' visit and the creation of the Concerned Catholics of Guam. 

    He thinks this because he is being told this by someone who also wants to take down Msgr. James, and he (Apuron) thinks he has the real intel. 

    He doesn't. 

    In fact, I know who that "someone" is. In fact, I have "the email" that would completely expose this lying fake. 

    I'll get around to doing that when I feel like it, or better yet, we'll let him sweat since he'll probably figure out that this post is aimed at him. How fun to watch fools lie to each other and believe those lies because they want to. 

    For the record, Msgr. James and John Toves have not seen or spoken to each other in more than twenty years. Msgr. James had NOTHING to do with John Toves' allegations or his coming here. John Toves chose to come here quite on his own. 

    And also for the record, Msgr. James had NOTHING to do with the creation of CCOG. The idea for the CCOG began with Greg Perez. After Mr. Perez approached me about the idea, I approached Dave Sablan about joining Mr. Perez. Together, along with a few others, they came up with the idea for the corporation. But Msgr. James had NOTHING to do with it. 

    In fact, as I did with Fr. Paul, I made sure to keep Msgr. James away from anything that we the laity were doing in their behalf. 

    So why is Apuron doing this?

    Apuron knows he is slipping fast with Rome. He desperately needs to shore up his crumbling facade. He doesn't know that it's too late. His lies have been thoroughly documented and arrived in Rome before he did. 

    Since Apuron is a bully, he doesn't know how to do anything else but bully. So he latched on to what he thinks is intel from this latest fool who hates Msgr. James more than he does and will now publicly punish Msgr. James in retaliation for John Toves and the CCOG. 

    What a messed up diocese this is. But it's exactly what we want, at least for now. We want Rome to see the manifestation of full-blown Kiko-ism. And there is no better place in the world for it than Agana, Guam and its puppet bishop. 

    Apuron was prophetic about one thing. This is certainly an "arduous and painful closure to your assignment".  But it will be his own.


    Archbishop Apuron is getting ready to release more trash about Msgr. James. A real example of a true shepherd. NOT. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Too many lies already. No one cares anymore what you say...except the people who prop you up, at least until you are no longer useful to them.


    The website for the Concerned Catholics of Guam is now up. It can be found at but can also be reached with the .com suffix. The group looks to be be very active...and aggressive.


    Thursday, December 11, 2014


    Where is your defamation suit, Archbishop? Where is it? You see that counter? The whole island is counting the days since you said you would sue. In case you need a reminder, here is what you said on November 28:

    "...defending the church compels me to a suit for defamation."

    So bring it on.

    Just make sure you sue to defend yourself and NOT the church. The church isn't being accused of sexually molesting anyone. YOU ARE.


    The CCOG is a bit more diplomatic than JungleWatch. While they are working out their agendas and strategic plans, I am recommending that the one thing everyone who wants to help can do and can do RIGHT NOW is RECORD EVERYTHING.

    The reason CCOG came into existence and the reason we have been able to accomplish anything at all, including getting Rome to pay attention (and they are paying attention) is because we have been able to DOCUMENT THE LIES and the horrible teachings such as the incredible "Jesus became a sinner" lecture to the diaconate candidates.

    So record, record, record.


    We've been getting quite a few comments and inquiries on how to get involved with the Concerned Catholics of Guam. The officers wish to thank you for the overwhelming support. They will be meeting soon to prioritize their objectives and develop a plan of action. They will need people for ad hoc committees for each of the areas. 

    If you wish to help, send an email to Include all the contact info you feel comfortable giving. Also include a note on what your main area of concern is or where you think you might be able to help. Below is a list of objectives for the group:

    + Concerned Catholics of Guam, Inc. +


    Clergy, Religious and Laity
    • Support local vocations; provide grants and scholarships to aspiring local seminarians to attend an established and an accredited Diocesan seminary

    • Provide an official forum for complaints and concerns from the laity and clergy

    • Provide a forum and representation assistance for those who have been abused by the religious and clergy in Guam

    • Give the laity an official voice in the governance of the archdiocese

    • To encourage the Catholic Faithful in the belief and practice of the Catholic religion in matters of rites, liturgies and rubrics as approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

    Parish Affairs
    • Support parish-related needs through grants and contributions

    • Assist parishes in putting their finances in order

    • Review the practices of the Neo-Catechumenal Way to determine if they are in compliance with their statutes and the precepts of the Roman Catholic Church

    Archdiocesan Affairs
    • Work to achieve financial transparency in the archdiocese

    • Assist the archdiocese put their finances in order

    • Recommend amendments to archdiocesan policies which do not justly address serious concerns, especially with the current sex abuse policy

    • To represent the concerns of the laity in regards to any archdiocesan decision to alienate real property, especially property which was given to the church for a specific purpose

    • To engage in activities that promotes the Catholic Faith in Guam in accordance with sacred traditions, Scripture and the Magisterium of The Roman Catholic Church

    • To encourage the observance of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites

    • Evaluate the performance of the management of the archdiocese and recommend changes where necessary


    Archdiocese bans media from filming without clearance

    Posted: Dec 10, 2014 11:11 AM PGTUpdated: Dec 10, 2014 11:11 AM PGT

    Guam - It's not public property; it's not government property, but rather private property! Those are the words from the Archdiocese of Agana which is now banning the media from filming or conducting interviews on Chancery grounds unless given permission. The Archdiocese has designated the St. John Paul the Great Center for Evangelization as the facility where media interviews can be conducted. The facility is adjacent to the Chancery and media will need to be escorted there. This new policy follows John Toves invitation to media last week to follow him to the Chancery as he attempted to confront the Archbishop. Toves accused the Archbishop of sexually molesting his cousin 30 years ago, but no victim has come forward.
    MY NOTE: Even if a victim did come forward, the Archbishop's policy designates the Archbishop as the arbiter of the entire process. 


    Wednesday, December 10, 2014

    Vangie and James speak about the great loss to our community by the closure of the museum the very day it opened. Vangie speaks directly to the Archbishop's blaming Msgr. James for the closure of the Museum even though the Archbishop himself had already removed Msgr. James from his position as rector of the Cathedral several days earlier.


    Wednesday, 10 December 2014

    Father Paul Gofigan with Patti Arroyo


    Okay all you mullets, you female fish. Line up for China!

    “So we, when we send the girls, all the Chinese [men] who are wanting to see a girl, targeting girls: “Come to catechesis! All the Chinese are going to the catechesis."

    "You know that the mullet, mullet are caught like this: you take a female, cefala, a fish, and all males -shh! – Follow it, and fall into the net.”

    -Kiko Aguello, Naples, Italy, May 20, 2012