Monday, March 10, 2014

FOR ALL THOSE WHO THINK I'M MEAN

Let's go back to the beginning.

On July 16, 2013, Archbishop Apuron, without warning, without consulting, and even without just cause (as we later learned):

  1. demanded the resignation of Fr. Paul Gofigan as pastor of Santa Barbara church,
  2. threatened him with "a more arduous and painful closure to his assignment" if he did not willingly resign,
  3. kicked him out of the archdiocese (told him to go find another bishop), 
  4. was locked out of his parish office, 
  5. was replaced (illegally) by a parochial administrator, and
  6. was forbidden to say Mass. 

Shall we repeat that? Good. Got it?

So how did this blog become about the neos? Because they came rushing to the Archbishop's defense once it was asserted (on a news program, not here) that the motive behind the Archbishop's vicious treatment of Fr. Paul was his resistance to the Neocatechumenal Way. 

Fr. Paul was asked about this on a news show. He answered that he had met with the leaders of the NCW on three occasions, and each time, he told them they were welcome in the parish but they were to celebrate their eucharist in the church (as canon law requires). 

He also asked them to "show me the document", which allowed for their departure from the liturgical norms in the manner of the distribution of Holy Communion. As a pastor, he is responsible for the correct celebration of the eucharist in his parish, and he was doing what he was supposed to do. At the third meeting, the "tall woman", slammed her fist on the table and walked out. 

In response to our recounting of these events and asking for the same document Fr. Paul had asked for, we, as well as Fr. Paul, have been maligned by neo members and defenders, spit upon, abused, and threatened, and I didn't even publish the bad stuff. The Archbishop himself even went so far as to go to Rome to have me kicked out of the order of Knights of the Holy Sepulcher. 

The only defense neo-defenders can offer for their despicable behavior is that "you did it first." No. The Archbishop did it first. 


15 comments:

  1. The reason the rabid NeoCats resort to attacks against you, Tim, is summed up by Jack Nicolson's character Col. Nathan Jessep in "A Few Good Men" — they "CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tim, you are kind, gracious, honest, and write the truth always with justice. Many are impressed with your writings, your research, your commitment always to truth and justice. You are highly respected church observer on Guam. Your writings are now read by priests, bishops cardinals throughout the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought Christ was the truth, but maybe is Tim.
      Time will show us, words pass away, especially those of Tim.
      Thanks for your service.

      Delete
    2. 10:47. Letting another jackass comment through. Sorry, don't know what else to call them. More testimony from the Neocatechumenal Way. I'm accumulating quite a collection. Will come in handy someday. Keep sending.

      Delete
    3. Thank YOU, Anonymous 10:47, for contributing to the long list of inane neo comments.
      You continue to make it easier for fence riders like me. You see, Tim is on the side of the Church and you are on the side of the Neo. I'm betting on the one that is eternal and not the other which is temporary. Hope you don't injure yourself trying to figure out which is which.

      Delete
    4. Yes, 10:47, that was inane, irrelevant, infantile, and stupid. On the four facts listed by Mr. Rohr, can you rebut any one of the four or even any part or aspect of one? And if you cannot because they are in fact true, does not these facts bother you as a Catholic and parishioner of Guam? Is it proper for an archbishop to ambush one of his own priest, threaten him, tell him to go elsewhere, and lock him out at the same time? If you were bishop, would you do the same? Church law calls for the archbishop to be pastoral, accentuated by Pope Francis, and yes, by the Truth himself, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ . Does it not bother you a little that Apuron was not, for no good reason at all? Not even a smidgen? It should, because as Christians, we are called upon to question, and when we don't, we are as guilty as the perpetrator. Don't forget: sin is not only by action, but by omission as well. Question and find out the Truth.

      Delete
  3. Glad to be Back to Holy Mother ChurchMarch 10, 2014 at 3:45 PM

    Anon 10:47 - you are a seminarian from off-island by the way you write. Hope all is good for you on Guam. You might want to remember that you are studying to be a man of God, so say something that is reflective of your calling or go home and think about what you are really called to be. Are you destined to be a leader of Christians, or just a jackass, smart-alik with nothing intelligent to say? So far I can only see the later!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Although Tim Rohr's blog disturbs my Lenten peace of mind and spirituality, I appreciate his educating us on church history and rules and exposing the wrongdoing in the archdiocese. I made a married couple chuckle after mass on Sunday by saying, with mixed feelings, "I can give up candy for Lent but not Tim Rohr's blog."

    ReplyDelete
  5. The 1047am comment is stupid. Get a life

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't say stupid, these are still our brothers and sisters in Christ. However, it is indicative of the lockstep and tunneled vision mentality of thier perspective. Drone like, I might add.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the charitable concern, but 1139 doesn't call 1047 personally stupid, he calls his comment stupid. While another word could have been chosen, singling out a particularly inept comment with an expletive is not the same as singling out the person.

      Delete
  6. Heard this morning: "The first response to truth is anger" St. Thomas Aquinas.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you. 1139am states that the comment is stupid. Which it clearly is. It does not say the person is stupid. There is a huge difference. A basic course in logic will enable you to understand this. .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I concede that your (?) statement was not a personal attack, however, why the personal attack of the assumption I do not know basic logic? I champion for the Catholic Church and champion for the cause of correcting the problems of this island's Church leaders. Do you always respond to allies as such?

      In no way did my request for charity (even if deemed unnecessary) deserve the snark apparent in your final sentence. It would behoove you to demonstrate restraint when responding to the most neutral of comments.

      Delete
    2. Thank you also 1:08pm. Your point is well-taken. I saw that the previous comment was also unfair in the mention of "logic". Unfortunately, I am not able to edit the comments, only publish or not publish. I hope we're all on the same page now.

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch