Monday, February 17, 2014


Much continues to be made of the recent appointment of Archbishop Chaput to the Pontifical Council of the Laity by Neocats anxious to prove that this amounts to a papal approval of the Way.

Note to Neos: The Vatican already approved the Way in 2008. Why are you still grasping for additional signs of authentication? Why are you so insecure about your Way? Why are you even here on this blog reading this even now? Why is it necessary for you to slant every bit of news as an additional approval? 

If your Way is true and good, you need not worry about us. But you do worry. That's why you're here. That's why you are reading this. 

And why do you worry? Could it be that you know you are lying? Could it be that you know that what you do in your private liturgies is NOT what was approved? Could it be that you know that Kiko does one thing for the pope and another thing behind his back? 

How else to account for the massive anger and energy spent trying to discredit this blog and attack me personally? Why are you here? Why do we bother you? Even Kiko tells you that we are necessary (Judases), that you should be thankful for us. Why then try to discredit us? Just let us alone to "splash in our own little puddle" and get on with your revolution. Hell, according to you, you have the pope on your side, the bishops on your side, and, oh by the way, even God.

Why bother with us? Well, we know why, don't we. But let's go on and talk a bit more about this Chaput thing. 

Upon the formation of neocat seminary in Philadelphia, Chaput is quoted as saying:

The 20th century saw an explosion of new Catholic forms of life, both before and after Vatican II: Opus Dei, Focolare, Communion and Liberation, the Christian Life Movement and many others. Each has a distinct identity.  Each has a unique mission.  But led faithfully, all serve the Church by re-energizing Catholics who’ve grown cold in a culture that feeds the senses and starves the spirit.

Chaput, like many bishops and popes, is a big supporter of lay-led movements within the Church. He (and they) should be. But Chaput has a qualifier: "led faithfully". And as has been very clear for all to see, and admitted by yourselves, your movement (you cannot object to us calling it that now since you so triumphantly included yourself under that label), your movement, is blatantly unfaithful to at least one prescription of the Holy See: that other than remaining in your place, you conform the distribution of Holy Communion to the liturgical books.

You have not denied that your manner of distributing Holy Communion does not meet this prescription, rather you have:

  • defended it by re-categorizing yourselves as concelebrants vs communicants or congregants
  • mocked the credibility of the prescription (Archbishop Apuron saying he'd to see Cardinal Arinze's "credentials)
  • openly chastised the pope for not getting it (Kiko's letter to Benedict of 17 Jan 2006); and
  • interpreted Rome's lack of an ultimate crackdown on your disobedience as evidence of canonical approval.

Let's take a look at a few other things relative to Chaput's apparent support of the Way:

In establishing the RMS in Philadelphia, Chaput took pains to point out that RMS would not compete with its traditional diocesan seminary. On Guam, there is not only competition with traditional diocesan formation, there is now NO option, not even if a prospective seminarian can raise the funds himself. 

Here are a few other things:

  1. Chaput is not "walking in the Way". Our bishop is.
  2. The Way in Philadelphia is at the service of the bishop. In Guam the bishop is at the service of the Way.
  3. Chaput did not mock and challenge the Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship who spoke in the name of the pope. Our bishop did.
  4. Chaput does not celebrate the liturgy of the Way in its illicit form. Our bishop does - every Saturday night.
  5. Chaput does not threaten his non-neo priests with firings and ex-cardination. Our bishop does.
  6. Chaput does not violate liturgical norms by introducing neo-speakers after or during the homily. Our bishop does.
  7. Chaput did not illegally fire his canonically constituted finance council. Our bishop did. 
  8. Chaput has not signed over a major portion of his diocese's patrimony to the ownership and control of the NCW. Our bishop tried to and may have in fact already done so. 
  9. Chaput, in both Denver and Philadelphia has mandated that neocat seminarians receive a traditional academic formation at its traditional diocesan seminary. Guam has no equivalent of that (the Blessed Diego Institute is staffed and run by the neocats). 
  10. Chaput has not publicly sided with the Way against the rest of his diocese. Our bishop has.
  11. Chaput equally supports and encourages all the legitimately constituted lay movements in his diocese. Our bishop does not (one example is his infamous criticism of the Cursillo*) 

A few years ago, a friend of mine who used to live here in Guam and who was very friendly with some of the neo-priests at the time RMS was being formed, met up with one of those priests in the states and asked him why the NCW was such a cause for division in Guam when it didn't appear to be as pronounced in other places. 

The priest, and many would know his name if I said it, admitted that the division on Guam was unique. When pressed further as to the cause, the priest admitted that the manner in which the NCW has been implemented here was almost unrecognizable to him, and that, at least in his diocese, where he is the pastor of a parish, neo communities conform their liturgies completely to that which is allowed by the Statute. 

That's good news. That means that there are some places in which the NCW actually is legitimately implemented: at the service of the bishop (and not the other way around), and conforms its liturgy to the Statute. 

As you are aware, prior to the vicious firing of Fr. Paul - with promises of a "more arduous and painful closure" to his assignment if he did not comply, there was no JungleWatch, there was no serious opposition to the NCW. There were problems, and while it was obvious that the Archbishop had taken sides, most of us were willing to live and let live. But on July 16, 2013, THAT ALL CHANGED. 

* "...the Cursillos, it amazes me when they have the Cursillo, a weekend for example, how fired they are. But then immediately after that weekend they fizzle out in the community and you’re know everybody wants to convert the world." (Archbishop Apuron, KOLG, January 2006)


  1. Mr. Rohr, If you do not accept the latest appointment as a sign of validity of the NCW by way of Chaput confirming Denver RMS and erecting Philidelphia RMS then what your opinion for this? Cardinal Pio Laghi, then prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education and head of the Vatican Interdicasterial Commission instituted by Pope John Paul II to study the grave scarcity of priests in some areas, acknowledged in the Italian edition of L'Osservatore Romano, March 15, 1991:

    "This idea of the Council (for international diocesan missionary seminaries) has been applied in the 'Redemptoris Mater' seminaries which prepare presbyters for the new evangelization . . . this would realize a new form of ministry: the diocesan missionary." Pio Laghi. The degree conferred from the Lateran, The Popes university is not from NCW. Your argument is long but you have sone error comparison Chaput and Apuron.

    1. Another example which speaks for itself. My only question:


  2. A serious situation can soon arise if the neo priests recently ordained here feel not accepted, uncomfortable. Where can they go? This can all be too much for them. Where will they find support? They are validly ordained by Archbishop Anthony. We have to consider this, we may have to answer for this before God.

    1. I'm allowing the above comment as another example of the pathetically narcissistic mentality present in the Way. But some questions of my own:


      What about his tyrannical treatment of other priests who have given so much to Guam but were threatened and discarded because they would not serve your Way by celebrating your illicit liturgy?

      What about the priest in Manila, right now, also validly ordained by Archbishop Anthony, who is not only not receiving a dime for his stipend but was told to go beg for Mass stipends from parishes if he wanted any money from this archdiocese, and who also suffered from not being included in the Archdiocese's health policy?


    2. What a great question asked by "A Serious Situation;" one that is certainly better directed at the Archbishop, our shepard.
      He is the one that is creating this environment, essentially sending out the new priests without proper formation. I too would feel foreign in a parish I was assigned to say Sunday Mass, if Saturday Eucharist service was my imbedded desire.

    3. Anon 6:10, the Neo priest are the favored sons of the Archbishop. How ironic and how sad that the very mistreatment you speak of is being felt by Fr. Paul and other Diocesan priest. Even poor Fr Richard, a son of Guam and very gifted, was only given administrative duties at Maina. Can you answer for all these? Maybe to you their pain is warranted because they are not of the way. We should pray for our marginalized Priest that they have the strength to continue for the people of Guam. We need them more than ever. In fact, please supoort them any way you can.

  3. In Miami, Bishop-designate Baldacchino will assist Archbishop Thomas G. Wenski, who welcomed the appointment of an auxiliary bishop, the first for the archdiocese in about three years.

    Peter Baldacchino was born Dec. 5, 1960, in Sliema, Malta, and holds citizenship in both the United States and Malta. He studied for the priesthood at Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Newark, 1990-1996, and was ordained a priest for the archdiocese in 1996. He was named a monsignor in 2009.

  4. Neo priests becoming Bishops.