Sunday, March 9, 2014

I HAVE MORE

I have yet to post the full KOLG episode which began with the Archbishop mocking Rome's instruction to conform the neocatechumenal liturgy to the liturgical books. There is much more to that episode, and now that I have a worldwide audience, it's about time to post it.

I also have not yet recounted the events of the meeting which followed that fated event on KOLG, a meeting, in the Archbishop's presence, at which a cover up was concocted and would explain why the episode was never aired again. 

I also have yet to make public the stories of at least three priests, all already verified, involving sexual misconduct, and not only covered up by the chancery, but, at least in once case, we are still paying for. 

And I have more. I haven't revealed these things because I am hoping that Rome will act first. But the thing that now makes the revelation of this other information more urgent is the increased personal attacks on me. 

At times, I let the attacks through, so others can see the vileness and rot at the heart of the neocatechumenal way which is rooted in its founder's declamation of January 17, 2006: "I will not obey", and echoed in our own Archbishop's mocking of Pope Benedict. 

I also let them through so you can see what cowards these people are. I am willing to use my name. I don't hide. I stand up in full view. But, cowards that they are, they hide behind their bushes and throw stones. 

But as everyone can clearly see, attacking me is all that's left them. They have no argument. No evidence to refute the facts that I have posted. Thus they scamper and swarm and vomit and spit.

And now they attack a young woman whose spiritual trust was violated in the confessional by a neo-agenda-driven priest, who was told to return to an error that she had painfully escaped as condition of absolution; who was told that being forced to submit once again to this error was a direct gift of "mercy" from the priest to whom she had confessed!

While I am going to hold off (for now) on the other matters I mentioned, I am going to copy here again, the response of a neo-priest, in fact, a professor at the seminary, to my question in 2008, as to why, after more than two years after the pope had directed the NCW to conform its liturgy to that of the rest of the church, the NCW continued to disobey the instruction. His reply to my question, especially since he tells us exactly what Kiko said, more than anything else, illustrates the grave waywardness at the heart of the neocatechumenal way. (My comments in red.)

4/26/08
Tim:
Kiko spoke to Cardinal Rylko, the head of the Council for the Laity, back in December when the two year transitional period ran out. [Okay, let's look at this. The original instruction was issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship with the words: "The Holy Father wishes you to know..." There is no higher authority. The NCW was given two years to conform. But here we have the evidence that after the "two year transitional period ran out", the NCW not only never made the change, but never intended to make the change.]

Both Kiko and Cardinal Rylko knew that the statues (sic) would contain a modification of Cardinal Arinze's instructions. Rylko gave an oral reply to Kiko to maintain the present practice so that the Holy See would not be put in the awkward position of seeming to change its mind by going from Arinze's letter to the new statues in a very short time. [So the rationale for complete disobedience in the matter of this instruction is to save the Holy Father from being put in an "awkward position" because Kiko believed that his way of doing things would be approved. That would be both presumption and disobedience.] 

The pope approved the statues (sic) in the beginning of February and they were to be promulgated on February  27th. [Since there is no record of this, we are left to presume that once again, this is one of Kiko's tales.] 

But just before the promulgation, the statues (sic) were removed from the hands of the Council of the Laity and sent back for further considerations by the other four dicasteries of the Curia that have to review any changes in the statues (sic).  We were just told to hold tight until you receive further word.  No explanations were given at the time. [Told by who? By Kiko of course. Translation: continue to disregard the Pope's instruction.]

There is, however, evidently still some strong resistance to the statues (sic) on the part of some in the Curia and they are trying to introduce further changes. [The implication is "how dare they!" How dare the Curia mess with Kiko's designs. How funny to read this in light of the insult of the woman who went to confession wherein we are told she approached confession wrongly because she did not accept the priest's penance to attend a meeting of the neocatechumenal way. It is okay for Kiko to reject the Curia and the Pope himself, but it is not okay for a humble laywoman to object to an illicit penance from a priest with an agenda.]

However, there are no documents to show you at this point.  All our instruction have been oral, but we are satisfied with that.  We have no choice. [You see, there is NO CHOICE. Kiko has spoken. Obeying the Pope is not an option. No document is needed. Instructions are oral. Instructions are from Kiko. Screw the Pope. Screw Rome. End of story.]

All we were told is to take no action until the Holy See resolves these matters.  This is what we are doing. [And of course, in April of 2008, the Holy See DID resolve "these matters", and incorporated the original instruction to the NCW to conform its liturgy to the liturgical books with only the following exceptions: 1) the movement of the sign of peace, 2) receiving communion under both kinds, 3) communicants were allowed to remain in their places for the reception of communion but must stand.  There was no exception for 1) the priest NOT communicating before distributing the sacred species, and 2) the communicant NOT consuming the sacred species immediately upon reception. Both are still the practice of the neocatehumenal way EIGHT YEARS after the original instruction. And you're going to mock a small laywoman for being disobedient to a neo-agenda driven priest?]

However, I hope you understand that this information is not for publication.  I share it with you so that you will understand the delicate position we are in at the moment.  I would caution against reading into these events more what I have said.  I mention them simply to show that we are not disregarding Arinze's letter, but that subsequent events have changed the situation in which we find ourselves. [For a priest to say this, and a seminary professor at that, is staggering. He just admitted in the first two sentences that the instructions in the Arinze letter in the manner of the distribution of Holy Communion HAD NOT been implemented and had been DISREGARDED. Yet he says here that "we are not disregarding Arine's letter." What an incredible web of lies the neocatechumenal way has had to weave.]

Fr. XXXXX

[Consider my not printing the name "an act of mercy from me to you." Go here if you don't understand.]



19 comments:

  1. there was a priest of this diocese who was shipped out of here in a hurry when snap showed up

    ReplyDelete
  2. Note to Oleh. Please resubmit your comment without references to any names of organizations that have nothing to do with this discussion. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Holy Molly, this is not kiddie stuff anymore... I would say, peace is only possible if the neo-catechumenary withdraws from the church proper and only recruits those who wanna go to direct missionary work to non-Catholic territories. Like countries where Christianity is barely known. I mean they should not even try to recruit those who are already Catholic and just wanna live a good Catholic life.

    What are missionaries doing in the local churches and parishes of an island of 85% Catholic population? This is my question. I am trying to make a point of wider context here, because not everybody is an expert on Guam life. When they are grabbing people from the pews they only want to organize them as "raw meat" into their pyramidal system. This is one crucial point I found out by thorough research of the literature. Another is a sense of secrecy and not sharing information with those they recruit, but this is another topic. Well, dialogue still seems to be a possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Believe this is true Tim. The archbishop many times in conversations has mocked Vatican authority. Just two weeks ago he was heard to mock archbishop Martin Krebs when he announced that archbishop Krebs is doing nothing to stop him so will continue. he then laughed Let him stop me and he like balvo will end up in dark Africa.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Correct. archbishop Apuron, has lost self respect and his own dignity. How do you expect him to respect the Holy See. The archbishop has lost respect for the people of Guam. He is so much into himself he has lost direction in life.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Archbishop was not happy with archbishop Balvo. This is true. It was over the audit. It was at that time that archbishop Apuron began to mock archbishop balvo around the chancery. But sure Apuron did not do it to archbishop Balvos face. apurons style is to insult people behind their back so he gets away with it. I suspect that Apuron did mock the cardinal for the congregation for sacraments,that it may have been recorded. If it is we should see it so people are aware of how archbishop Apuron thinks he is above the law of the church.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Very uneasy with the dark Africa statement. Not sure what it means.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wonder if this is the same priest who once preached that "a man's worst enemy is his wife." Then he compared the failure of a man because of his wife to a church that is sinking in the sand.
    A church whose members are at a stand still, that if they do not realize the fruitfulness before them, they will begin to rot and sink!

    ReplyDelete
  9. It does appear that archbishop balvo does now live in Africa.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes indeed Archbishop Balvo is in Africa now, but certainly to do a lot more than just living there.
      This appointment to Kenya and South Soudan, is an extremely difficult one. Pope Francis has spoken often and at length about the situation in South Soudan and its impact on the whole region. By sending Archbishop Balvo to represent the Holy See to this part of Africa where the Church has many faithful, in such a difficult moment, Vatican shows a lot of respect for the capabilities of the man. His mission there is not an easy one.
      Pope Francis seems to have taken strong moral positions in this region of the world. This is a tectonic plate of great importance for the future of the Catholic Church in East Africa. Hence any mission there as Nuncio, shows a great level of trust on the part of the Vatican, and not an exile as some are suggesting.
      These types of innuendo, show how shallow and unsecure our local leadership is regarding their influence. Almost appearing that they are trying to convince themselves of their own importance. As if importance should be a concern for a real Catholic leader.
      How sad and petty!

      Delete
  10. Interesting insight...
    Yes, Archbishop Balvo is now in Africa. Apparently brother Tony seem to think this is an exile. Strange view of the world, Africa being one of the most vibrant area of the Catholic Church today.
    But may there is a latent malodorous side of racism to our dear brother Antony, despite his claims for the need of new missionaries. Africa unlike Guam is still very much a land of mission.
    As for Archbishop Krebs he himself spent several years in Africa, and is very friendly with the two new Cardinals: Philippe Nakellentuba Ouedraogo from Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso ( a true follower of the blessed Charles de Foucauld). The other one from Abidjan in Ivory Coast, Jean Pierre Kutwa, who steered his flock with love and political acumen through the extremely difficult period of civil war.
    Having been Nuncio in two predominantly muslim countries: Mali and Guinea, Archbishop Krebs is not foreign to adversity unlike brother Tony. One thing he seems to have that our Bishop lacks, is humility.
    For me what is interesting, is that he might know more about Guam that he lets appear. Having been the number two at the Nuncio office in Washington DC, he has a great understanding of the inner works of the American Church. The conference that Archbishop Apuron pushed so hard for us to leave, to better isolate the island in the Pacific group. (think it happened in a vacuum?)
    I guess a little more spice into the stew of politics at the Chancery on Guam.....more to come.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Frenchie, could you clarify the statement "The conference that Archbishop Apuron pushed so hard for us to leave.."
      I thought we are under the USCCB? If not, where do we fall under?

      R. Camacho

      Delete
    2. Anonymous/R. Camacho: Guam is under CEPAC — Conferentia Episcopalis Pacifici — which is the Episcopal Conference of the Pacific that includes the bishops of several islands in Oceania.
      Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron served as the President of CEPAC twice: 1991-1996 and 2003-2010.

      Delete
    3. I guess brother Tony prefers to be a big fish in a small pound. (The church in the Pacific) rather than a small fish in a big pound. (the US conference). Thank you Mary Lou for these precisions. There are of course other reason, the Chancery wanted to be in the CEPAC. We can develop the issue later.

      Delete
  11. Frenchie. Not sure who you are but you write very well. You are correct. Archbishop Krebs is very well informed about what is happening on Guam. Many of us did not see archbishop balvos move to Africa as a demotion. Brother tony thinks because archbishop Krebs remains silent he is ok with the situation on Guam. This may not be the real story.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Brother Tony has never been consistent in his priestly life. He will flow with the way that brings personal gain for him. If brother Tony can gain power and wealth for himself he will move that direction. Hence usccb really offered him nothing, he wanted to be identified with usccb in order to get a position to get noticed. It never came and never would. Then in mid 1990s brother Tony decided he would attempt to develop the pacific bishops who not so united because of language and culture and distance. He began this, bring in the neo, begin the seminary,and Brother Tony would become noticed in Rome, and get the red hat. It's been a long journey, hope he gets it before his end, or he will die a very unhappy man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 10.00. While I agree with your general analysis of the Archbishop strategy and rationale to pursue the road he took,
      I would disagree with your opening statement.
      It is a recognized fact amongst people that have studied, worked and supported the Archbishop throughout his carreer that he has always looked at the priesthood as a carreer path, rather than a sacerdoce.
      From the beginning brother Tony has made deliberate choices that have led him to where we are now.
      The man is consumed by ambition. Not the ambition to better this or that, but rather personnal ambition. This is a powerful tool for most people, but in somebody like brother Tony, whose ego and narcisism are unchecked this becomes a dangerous cocktail.
      From the time he finally become Bishop, he has always wanted to be one of the big players in the Church.
      As you analyzed properly, Archbishop Apuron could not be who he wanted to be in the US conference, there are simply too many Bishops of much better calibre, as well as too many shruder politicians that he ever was.
      This was a major factor for his wanting to create and lead his own conference where his light would shine brighter. The result was our alignment with the CEPAC, which he led twice, as Mary Lou pointed to us.
      But in the process Brother Tony who has a sharp analytical mind (the man has his good sides) also quickly realized that in order to be noticed in Rome, he would need allies.
      Allies that had their entrances in Rome, allies that had better connections than Anthony.
      So instead of running on his own merits, our Archbishop decided to accept the advances of the Neochatecumenal hierarchy who was looking for a new land of honey. This how we got saddled with the problem we now have on Guam.
      Therefore, I truly hope that he never gets his red hat, that would be a grave injustice to the Catholic Church on Guam and as whole.
      A leader who sells his soul for temporary gains, is no longer a true leader. Anthony has stopped being an Archbishop the day he made these fatefull choices.
      Now in order to remain into power, he must surround himself with yes men and women, with people of little ethics, who do not mind using illegal and immoral means to advance their agenda. That is the crux of our struggle.

      Delete
  13. Dear Anonymous at 12.33. I have worked for many years and continue to do so with German people. One overridding thing about the way they work, is that they are methodical and deliberate. Once they have all the facts, then they come with solutions, usually 3 or 4 , and recommendations based on the analysis of the pros and cons of each solution.
    For what I know about Archbishop Krebs, it is that he would fit that description to a T.
    The silence shall not last for ever, this is why, along with many others on this blog, I recommend that anybody with pertinent information sends it to the Nuncio at the address provided by Tim, and in the manner recommended.
    A) Email, concise and to the point, with your personnal information.
    B) a regular mail copy to New Zealand. Signed.
    PS: The reason I am now able to write proper English, is that a few years after my arrival in the USA, a gentle and patient soul, took the time to tutor me and correct my poor grammar. I owe him this and much more. Through that friendship I was able to meet many of the Chamorro seminarians at St Joseph, then at St Patrick. Many of them are still priests on Guam and on Saipan. Some of them have taken what I believe is the easy but rewarding path, and now are fighting the "wrong fight". Others are doing their best to bring comfort and hope to their parishionners. Some chose not to become priest, some have left the priesthood. Through their love, compassion and enthusiasm, I have discovered Guam, and most importantly its people. I never relented or forgot. My carreer has taken me all over the world and exposed me to many type of people, but always I go back to Guam. The name of that gentle and generous soul was Paul Anthony Meno Gofigan.
    There is light at the end of the tunnel.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Frenchie. You are right in what you say. In time we can correct the grave injustices taking place in the the catholic church on Guam.

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch