Tuesday, September 2, 2014


  1. Janet B- I wonder you and Tim are one person. Yeah he must wear a skirt ........LOL. Earplugs? How many people here on Guam Shack up? Virginity loss in a young age??? This is reality that is going on Guam since. Children knows, so your mockery makes you a person that you are.

    come to Diana's blog and will discuss this in a different level. Janet Ms. Nasty


David Rak drak@brick.net via gmail.com 

6:21 AM (4 hours ago)
to Jungle

You are wrong and continue to be. We heeded the Holy Father's directive. We receive it standing at our place as put forward in the Statutes.

As I said, go to a full Catechesis or go to a Eucharist because they are a valid Mass of the parish.

I will pray for you.  It's unfortunate you have this hatred for something you don't know.

All the communities I know always work for communion with the pastor and within the parish.




Dear David,


I have blocked many allegations and accusations made on this blog about certain priests as well as the Archbishop. If you want to make such an accusation then I am requiring the same standard that I hold myself to: use your name (your real one) and either present documentation or be willing to testify publicly to what you know. The only exception I am willing to make for now is when the priest himself makes allegations against me or this blog from behind a pseudonym...and he apparently has more than one. 


There have been some suggestions as to how we should engage the Neo-commercials inserted into the Mass. (Mass is not truly over until the priest has left the sanctuary). Some say that we should stand up and protest, others say we should immediately be allowed a rebuttal, and others say we should just walk out. 

The following person proposes an alternative, and in reply, I propose an additional alternative:

  1. Well, no, I won't walk out before the final blessing. In my opinion, if you do that, you just let someone come between you and Jesus whose real and true presence has just been celebrated is in fact now staring in the face of that person giving their 'testimony'. I want to spend some time with my Lord after receiving him. We are all made one in the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ. We become his eyes, his voice, his hands and his feet as the song goes and if we walk out before the final blessing, aren't we in effect saying that we are not what we eat? We would be no different than those who walk out right after they receive Communion thinking they got Jesus now and they have more important things to do. I don't like the testimonials either, but that is for the presider to correct and make sure that whatever the testifier is going to say is not nonsense or disrespectful to our worship. The 'presider' has control of this whether he knows it or not. Each presider is ultimately responsible for what is allowed in mass. They review and approve whatever announcements are made, don't they? So why don't they review and 'approve' the testimonies as well? Most of the time it's glaringly obvious the testifier didn't prepare well beforehand. But they are not going to keep me from worshipping my Lord because of their ignorance and ineptness. I would suggest that for those parishes which allow these testimonies, the pastors require them to be reviewed and approved beforehand, just like they do for wedding and funeral songs. The integrity of our Sunday worship is of the most urgent importance, it is the central act of our faith and the utmost care should be taken to ensure that every part of it is done well and gives glory to God.
    1. At 6:47. Your sentiments are understandable. I myself have sat through more than one neo-commercial at the end of Mass for the same reason, though I was revolted by what I saw and heard. It is a crime though that our Archbishop co-opts our faithfulness and our desire to spend time with our Eucharistic Lord (by not walking out after communion) to insert his neo-commercials.

      The Eucharistic Lord is still present within us in those last moments of the Mass (See CCC 1377). In fact, this is why the Church is so adamant about those last moments of Mass NOT being abused with announcements etc., unless for "serious reason". (RS 74)

      As an aside this is why it is also critical that we “regular” Catholics maintain an attitude of prayerful respect at the end of Mass and as we exit the Church. Our bodies, so long as the “Eucharistic species subsist” (CCC 1377) are the temporary tabernacles for the God of all Creation. The Church does not give an exact amount of time for this, but a biological estimate is at least 15 minutes.

      Yet, we see, almost every Sunday, those sacred moments erupting into hand-shaking, back-thumping, grandma-kissing, happy birthday-singing, and the general din of ordinary conversation while Jesus cries: “Let me spend these few minutes with you.” The Neos are not the first to show irreverence to those moments. We started it.

      I can also understand your believing that the “presider has control”. Sorry to disappoint you. He does not. When it comes to the Neocatechumenal Way he has no control. These people come in the name of the bishop and say “the Archbishop says”, or the Archbishop wants”, etc. And seeing how the Archbishop has treated any priest who has stood in the way of the NCW, these “presiders” know that it is death to resist.

      Yet, while this is a grave injustice and a horrible abuse of power, the real crime is the rude intrusion into the most precious moments Jesus has with us. But if we are serious about our objection to the Archbishop’s allowing this, then let us first get serious about protecting those moments ourselves. Stay behind after Mass. Learn some “prayers after communion”. Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is truly within us in those moments. He is “in us” in the most intimate sacred way he can possibly be with us, and us with him, this side of heaven.

      Restore the sacred and the “lost” who the Neo’s say they are here to rescue, won’t want to go anywhere else.


Fight within the church goes back 20 years

Many are probably wondering "What on Earth?" as the fight within the local Catholic Church spills into the streets and onto the pages of newspapers and nightly news. It's a mess by anybody's reckoning. And it's time for an explanation.


Monday, September 1, 2014


The comment string on Deacon Steve Martinez' letter to the editor in today's PDN

  • Chuck White ·  Top Commenter · Missouri University of Science and Technology
    Thank you, Deacon Martinez, for your letter. It's the first time in my recollection that a member of the ordained clergy in good standing on Guam has acknowledged in the public media there are problems. I hope that you will not face any reprisals for what you have written.

    My prayer for the Church here is that its many secrets will be replaced with an honest transparency and that our evangelistic and catechetical efforts will reflect the legitimate diversity of Jesus's flock.

    Chuck White
    • Zoltán Székely · Works at University of Guam
      Dear Deacon Steve, I respect your opinion. However, I have to disagree. Internet blogs can be useful as forums to share thoughts. But there are minimal cultural expectations blogs have to keep in order to be considered worthy to read. In most European and mainland American blogs with wider readership there are some unwritten rules followed that enforce these expectations and make the ensuing conversations possible. These basic rules are simply not followed at JungleWatch.

      As a former commenter at Tim Rohr's blog, I was greatly embarrassed to see that many of my comments challenging Tim's position were simply censured out. When I protested, Tim stole my profile picture from social media and posted it on his blog, together with my workplace information including my office location and phone number. It was such an abuse of trust that would never ever happen at any of the above mentioned culturally acceptable blog sites.

      I warned Tim about a year ago that his methods of managing his blog are intellectually dishonest. You may read about this more here: http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html . Then, a mob of anonymous comment-trolls were unleashed on me, trying to silence and chase me away from his blog. I suspended my comments altogether under these culturally unacceptable circumstances. So it is completely justified to call these kinds of "grey matter" blogs like JungleWatch, that do not follow a required minimum in fairness and conduct, trash blogs and hate blogs as these terminus exactly describe and cover their scopes.

      If you, dear Deacon Steve, want to have meaningful exchanges of ideas to happen on blogs, you have to establish one with minimal cultural expectations. In particular, you have to ensure that

      1. only registered persons can make comments;
      2. anyone who makes a comment is identifiable by IP code;
      3. no anonymous comments are possible;
      4. there is an unbiased team of moderators who make moderation decisions by consent;
      5. common Internet blog protocols on acceptable vocabulary and conduct are enforced.

      I wish you good luck in acting on your idea by establishing a suitable framework for further, culturally acceptable exchange of thoughts and opinions.
      • Tim Rohr ·  Top Commenter · Hagatna
        Dear UOG Admin, take note. This is a person you permit to run loose on your campus courtesy of your payroll and our tax dollars.
    • Zoltán Székely · Works at University of Guam
      Let me emphasize: anonymous comments are possible on blogs because the owner of the blog validates the "anonymous" comment option. It is a deliberate choice of the owner, an invitation in fact, to make anonymous comments. It is possible only because the owner wanted it that way! Anyway, it is popular feature on trash blogs and hate blogs, where trouble makers hide behind anonymity.

      However, if the owner of the blog invalidates this option, then no more anonymous comments can be made! Does it sound simple? Well, the technology to clean up the mess caused by anonymous comments is given. What else is needed? Only good intention from the particular blog's owner. Is there any good will and good intention?
    • Ricardo Eusebio
      It's unbelievable to see a deacon advocate a counter message to the shepherd. Many people have reported being so disturbed by these blogs that they can't go to sleep. Appropriately the archbishop's message which is the same as the nuncio, Archbishop Krebs is to stay away from these blogs but I never heard him say all blogs or all social media. Similarly, if the Archbishop says not to watch a particular movie which can lead you to sin, he is not saying do not watch "all" movies. Deacon Martinez seems to be advocating for us to watch the particular movie and figure it out yourself. If you sin,...well at least you are informed. Wow!


    In today's Pacific Daily News

    By Steve Martinez

    It is curious to many why Archbishop Anthony Apuron has recently warned high school students and faithful Catholics not to go to the blogs. On the other hand, Pope Francis is the latest pope to emphasize the necessity for the Church to reach people through social media. Early in his pontificate he called the Internet "a gift from God.

    Read more:

    Sunday, August 31, 2014


    The word "affair" is radioactive. The mere mention of it can open old wounds or start a mortally sinful chain reaction of imaginings. The use of it in the context of an unsolicited testimony in front of families as it happened at Mass this morning is not just an abhorrent abuse of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is  also a brutal rape of the fragile sensibilities of the unsuspecting hearers. 

    A family in attendance may well have spent many years healing from the wounds of an infidelity, crawling out of the pit of despair, still bleeding, still trying to heal, seeking to restore their lives in Christ in their commitment to the Eucharist...and then there's THIS guy, throwing around the word like its a badge, stabbing people at random with its mere mention.  

    Another couple, having marital problems, hears the word "affair" and a temptation that one or both of them have been fighting off through frequent confession, reception of the eucharist, and the avoidance of dangerous thoughts and the "near occasion of sin" is suddenly jolted into an imaginative reaction that rips the soul, sucks the heart dry of moral courage faster than the juice can be sucked out of Fr. Edivaldo's orange girls, and sends the psyche into a fit that quickly spirals into hell. 

    And all the while, standing, waiting for the priest's final blessing, with the Eucharistic Lord still present within them. 

    Talk about the abomination in the temple. And all at the direction of Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, Ofm. Cap. D.D.


    This is a response to the report that a member of the Neocatechumenal Way was invited to give a testimony and announce a catechesis today at St. Joseph's Church in Inarajan at the 7:30AM Mass.

    The commenter noted that the testimony occurred after the final blessing. If that is the case, this is still an abuse. So long as the priest is in the sanctuary we are still considered "at Mass", and the people are still bound to remain until he has left. Thus, if the testimony occurred after the final blessing and before the priest left the sanctuary, this is an abuse of both the Mass and the congregation.

    Another commenter noted that the testimony occurred after the Prayer after Communion and before the final blessing - which is most probably the case. It is still an abuse. 

    Redemptoris Sacramentum states that such an announcement or testimony by a lay person can be given only for "serious reasons". When used in an authoritative papal statement such as Redemptoris Sacramentum, the words "serious reasons" are not to be taken lightly. Yet these NCW testimonies and invitations are routinely inserted during the Mass, a clear violation of St. John Paul II's instruction in Redemptoris Sacramentum. And these people lecture us on OBEDIENCE?
    REDEMPTORIS SACRAMENTUM [74.] If the need arises for the gathered faithful to be given instruction or testimony by a layperson in a Church concerning the Christian life, it is altogether preferable that this be done outside Mass. Nevertheless, for serious reasons it is permissible that this type of instruction or testimony be given after the Priest has proclaimed the Prayer after Communion. This should not become a regular practice, however. Furthermore, these instructions and testimony should not be of such a nature that they could be confused with the homily,[156] nor is it permissible to dispense with the homily on their account.
    On Sunday, February 9, 2014, Archbishop Apuron did not even wait until the Prayer after Communion, but personally invited the Neo-member to testify as part of his homily.