Friday, April 11, 2014


There appears to be some discussion amongst some in the Neo-communities as to how to delink the fate of the Neocatechumenal Way on Guam from the fate of Archbishop Apuron. 

The goddess Diana

  • The canonically illegal (and now very unpopular) firing of Fr. Paul.
  • The subsequent retaining of a canon lawyer by Fr. Paul and the filing of an appeal to Rome.
  • The Archbishop's later implication at the clergy retreat in Manila that Fr. Paul and a layman were involved in a homosexual affair and the Archbishop's accusation that Fr. Paul had gone so far as to build a stairway to his room in order to receive this man privately (both false).
  • The potential civil lawsuit as a result of the Archbishop's implied allegations.
  • The attempt to convey the title to the multi-million dollar property upon which Redemptoris Mater Seminary sits to an entity other than the Archdiocese of Agana.
  • The canonically questionable firing en masse of the archdiocesan finance council when it objected to the said conveyance and/or assignment (which was within its right to do).
  • The denial of Aaron Quitugua's request to be sent to a non-neo off-island seminary on the grounds that the archdiocese did not have the funds which turned out to be not true when Aaron later was still denied sponsorship to an off-island seminary after he volunteered to finance his own education - leaving everyone to wonder not just about the future of local vocations but the Archbishop's honesty (even though the untruth about finances was actually told by Fr. Adrian). 
These are just some of the things that plague Archbishop Apuron that some in the Neocatechumenal Way now want to distance themselves from. 

For those of us not in the Way, we tend to lump the Archbishop in with the Neocatechumenal Way, and for good reason. However, as we have begun to learn, many in the Way are just ordinary members and do not understand the connection between the Archbishop's above listed actions and woes, and the fate of the Neocatechumenal Way on Guam. 

As anyone can see, the Way and its practices, and whether they are orthodox or heterodox, was not a burning issue with anyone until July 16, 2013 when the Archbishop gave Fr. Paul the ultimatum to resign and leave this diocese or face a "more painful and arduous closure" to his assignment. 

While many of us could see the problems and in fact could see bigger problems coming, there was no real energy to engage those problems. We were simply willing to live and let live and get on with our own business. But the treatment of Fr. Paul quickly brought the decade long tension between the Neocatechumenal Way - which the Archbishop has stridently sided with - and the rest of the church on Guam. 

So why do the Neos now want to dump the Archbishop?

Following the Fr. Paul event, which was quickly linked to his opposition to the Way, most of the subsequent conversation turned towards the theological and liturgical peculiarities of the NCW. And thanks to some of its members, much has been exposed, including the rather startling (for us) belief that the Archbishop has little to no authority over the individual communities!

This was uniquely revealed to us in a comment by the the now famous local Neo member, Zoltan:
"...when a bishop allows the Way to work under its jurisdiction, then the same bishop consents to the faith life and the practices of the Way. So we do not need special permission from the local bishop, or the Archbishop in this case, to participate in and follow our celebrations."
Zoltan, a university math professor, is not unintelligent, and has been extremely earnest in his attempts to educate us about the Neocatechumenal Way. We have no reason not to believe that what he has shared with us is exactly what he has been taught. Many of the things shared by Zoltan which we first found to be outrageous were later backed up by the neo-"goddess", Diana, whose blog is apparently the counter to this one. So barring any authentic disagreement or counter to Zoltan's statement, we must accept it as true.

And upon further analysis, we can see why it is true. The Archbishop is NOT the Archbishop in the Neocatechumenal Way. He is treated and addressed as just one of the brothers, and himself, sits at the feet of the appointed catechist. In fact, this subjection of a bishop to a lay catechist was never better displayed than in Kiko's recent public tutelage of Pope Francis, where "Kiko the Catechist" made the Pope sit alone, center stage, in front of a world audience, while he lectured him for ten minutes about the Way, Kiko's Way.)

Thus we can see why Zoltan and others view the Archbishop as they do. And we can also see, given that he has now become a serious liability, why they now want to separate themselves from him. 

To be continued. 


  1. Are they really worried? Don't they have a good seven years left until Archbishop Apuron turns 75?

  2. I doubt very much that the NCW will dump the Archbishop. He may be an ordinary brother in the community, but outside the community he is still the Shepherd of the Catholic Church on the island.

    1. Right. "Dump" was an exaggeration. But there is certainly talk of how to separate themselves from the Archbishop in terms of sharing any of the repercussions from the legal actions now being taken against him. And actually, the fact that some members do not understand how the actions of the Archbishop can have any impact on their communities is telling.

    2. Being a part of the community is being a part of the family. One needs to remember that the NCW is on a mission to help people get back on track with their relationship with God in a deep spiritual sense.

      If the Archbishop is truly a brother in their eyes, they will find a way to help him out in difficult situations and eventually will back him up all the way.

  3. I will not "dump" the Archbishop. I just do not want accusations against him having to do with the NCW. Respectively, if his actions has to deal with the NCW, and not on his personal account, then produce the document that states all his actions are because of the NCW. The assumption or the "it's obvious just compare the two"is what got the NCW into this mess. Like it has been said in the begining and I will support it, the mess is between those who oppose the Archbishop and his actions versus the Archbishop himself or the "Three on the hill." I am not condoning his actions, all I am saying is do not put the blame on the NCW.

    1. David, you need to get rid of the "I" in all your comments. This is not about you or what you will or won't do. Nor is this about individual members. As for "the document", I have already produced it. The Archbishop publicly sided with the NCW and against the Pope in January 2006 on KOLG. The war on regular Catholics began then. He has never rescinded that statement.

    2. David, it's because of the NCW that his actions are as is. He shouldn't have walked the way but he did! He should have stayed impartial but he has not done so and his actions speak for themselves.

    3. I think it's been made very clear that the Archbishop is responsible for the deep division in the Church on Guam and nothing good will come of this. I'm already seeing that many of the Catholic faithful are very skeptical of his message with regard to the Archdioese Annual Appeal and have made it known that they do not intend to donate anything this year to the AAA. In fact, many I've talked to have stated that they plan to donate to other causes such as the Friary for the formation of those wanting to become Capuchin priests or directly to support the local parishes. If you want to get an idea of just how much the AAA is generating, just look at the Umatuna. It's pretty pathetic. The Archbishop has set the goal for this year to be over $200,000.00 and I seriously doubt that the total will even reach $100,000.00. I wonder how long the AAA will be extended.

      I pray everyday that this deep division in our church will somehow be resolved and a healing process will occur. However, so far I'm just not seeing it.

  4. David, I don't think anyone is blaming the NCW for the archbishop's malfeasance, but I also think that the NCW members have the responsibility, like any other Christian especially Catholics, to ensure that their NCW leaders are in conformance with the teachings of the Church, and not to just blindly follow what they say. And if the NCW members are cognizant of violations, looking the other way is not a good thing, for God and Church.

  5. I don't see reason to be alarmist. We are a big church, a big tent. We have enough room for everybody! No reason to struggle for the best place or exclude anyone from the tent. If we do the right thing and respect each other, then things will work out for the glory of God! St. John says this:

    "10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 12 not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous." (1 John 3:10-12)

  6. But you can't remove the ncw -- at least the leaders and the hierachy of the ncw here on Guam and even outside of Guam -- because it is the root and the source of the division; of the removal of Fr. Gofigan, of the bishops's being compelled to risk slander, etc.

    Isn't Fr. Gofigan's removal just the catalyst for the majority of non-neo, catechized, concerned faithful Catholics and those who were stifled about what they knew to come forward over this "straw that broke the camel's back"?

    But let this be an eye-opener to all neo members -- what happens to members who have served their usefulness to the ncw???

    1. Please provide the "document" that states Fr. Paul's removal is because of the NCW.

      What happens to the members? Is there something to expect? I think not... it is to help better our faith, and with our faith strengthened it will be carried out with the deeds we do noticed or unnoticed. Our mission will stay the same. And from what know, members to go around saying " I am a Neo" rather "I am a Catholic."

    2. David G. you already have a trademark. When a member of the NCW meets another member there is a greeting of a double cheeck greeting. Do you do that to ALL you usually greet? NO! MEMBERS ONLY are afforded this special greeting.

      Funny how at the regular masses you have members greet each other with the double cheek during the peace sign, but priests who are members don't do it when there are other concelebrants at mass. Why is that?

    3. Was hoping that David would be able to provide the measure of intelligence which has been lacking from the ncw side. However the above comment dispels all hope.

    4. The NCW may see the Archbishop as a liability to the problems but at the same time he is there collateral when pushing forward their agenda on island.

  7. Tim you are knight correct. What does your superior think about all this? These attacks to the archbishop? these attacks to NCW? Do you think this is the right way to do it. If it is a right to do so.

    1. First, for those of you for whom English is a second language and want to keep your identity anonymous, may I recommend that you have someone else write your comments. You are pretty easy to pick out.

      And as to your question. Yes. I am a Knight of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem. The Archbishop himself went to Rome to personally complain about me to the Grand Master of the Order. I received a letter of discipline from the Grand Master after the Archbishop's complaint. I then invited the Grand Master to dismiss me from the order if after reviewing my reply he felt that I was in the wrong.

      You can read my letters to the Grand Master here:
      and here:

      He has not yet dismissed me and he is still welcome to. But what the Archbishop has done to Fr. Paul and others has nothing to do with me. And getting rid of me will not make those law suits go away, will it?

  8. For the sake of peace, let's talk about the sacrament of Holy Order. This means you have to respect any person consecrated by the Church because it is a sacrament. It is not necessarily the person who is holy, but his office. So whatever you think of the Archbishop, this intrepid bishop-bashing should immediately stop!

    It is well understood that according to the laws of basic decency a person is innocent until proven guilty. But at this blog for some reason a person is considered guilty until proven innocent. Ouch! This is not a Catholic thing to do! Not by any bits.

    1. There are some who have bashed the bishop personally, true. However, the charges I listed above are not bishop bashing. They are publicly known and in fact well beyond my control.

      On more than one occasion, I have personally approached the Archbishop for an answer to the matters that are the source of scandal and division in this diocese. I have invited him to simply state his reasons for allowing certain practices. I then promised to respect his pronouncements and to say no more about it.

      However, he has chosen to remain silent and allow the scandals to escalate. Our pointing out the difference between what Rome officially permits and what the Archbishop unofficially allows is not bishop bashing. It is the right of the laity to know and it is the duty of the bishop to teach.

      We are simply exercising our right and waiting for him to exercise his. And for the record I have not allowed the worst comments to be posted.

      And "for the sake of peace", why don't you yourself approach the Archbishop and ask him to definitively rule on the liturgical practices of the NCW in regards to the distribution of communion.

    2. Apr12 9:02pm "For the sake of peace" you would like for the majority of Faithful Catholics to observe respect for the archbishop -- never mind that the bishop does not show the same respect for the faithful lay members of this congregation who are non-neo.

      "for the sake of peace" -- never mind disrespect from the bishop toward other non-neo priests (who also have received the Holy Sacrament of Holy Orders) and our expectations of Christian charity from our bishop when he talks about others.

      "for the sake of peace" you want the faithful, non-neo Catholics to keep our heads buried in the sand -- never mind that the archbishop does not exercise his duty and responsibility as the shepherd of this diocese and congregation to address serious Liturgical concerns and causes of the division.

      “For the sake of peace” let us all just put on blinders and ignore that our bishop does not answer our letters or calls. “For the sake of peace” let’s overlook the fact that RESPECT IS EARNED AND GOES BOTH WAYS even for those who have been received into the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

  9. Where did the NCW have their celebration this evening or was there one celebrated as a whole congregation?

  10. Very well, so you are not bashing the Archbishop, Tim? Let's see you list:
    1. where is the proof that the firing was illegal? can you show the verdict?
    2. it has nothing to do with the Archbishop
    3. you are expounding a gossip
    4. until it has been realized your talk is plain rumor
    5-6. produce the documents please
    7. how was this a decision by the Archbishop?

    Your bias against the Archbishop is undeniable, Tim. You consent to and publish the wildest anti-bishop propaganda motivated by simple hatred. What is this if not the fiercest bishop-bashing? You singled out and bullied Fr Adrian, another clergy, based on your bias and false assumption. You are not an innocent angel at all, Tim, you are masterminding and orchestrating all these activities in your tiny world of influence.

    You absolutely disrespect the Church when you don't acknowledge and ridicule the sacrament of Holy Order.

    1. You give me much credit. Me? One small layman with nothing more than a blog? Against the Archbishop with all the powers of the church, his own newspaper, his pulpit, his chancery, his money? But thank you. I'll take it.

      So by the way, where were you when the Archbishop needed someone to stand up against the same-sex bill? Where were you when BJ Cruz was trying to get him thrown in jail for covering up sex crimes? Where were you when SNAP was here hounding at his door? Did I see your face in the news defending the Archbishop or did you prefer to remain anonymous coward that you are now. Some defender of the Archbishop! You won't even put your name on your comment.

      As for the proofs you request, they have already been proven several times on this blog. But thank you for challenging me as it will give me the opportunity to bring these things up all over again in a soon to come post. Stay tuned.

    2. So, please, produce the verdict that the firing was illegal! Will you?! Otherwise stop spreading these unfounded allegations. You make an impression of one disgruntled person led by sheer frustration. You even harm your own cause whatever it may be.

    3. Okey dokey. See post. Thanks again. You make it easy.

    4. @8:44 am: All of the issues raised by you have been addressed by Tim -- multiple times. You should not presume that just because you have not read or understand the evidence that the evidence does not exist. Tim does not hurt his own cause with his posts. And his cause -- as he is the first to say -- is not his "own." It's the cause of many Catholics on Guam and in Catholic communities throughout the world where the NCW has sought to convert the Catholics to the NCW.

  11. If anyone was at the Chrism Mass and heard the Archbishop's homily, you would know where he was coming from.

    1. The community does not make the church
    2. The church is not us, it is the house of God where we are I. Communion with him
    3. Renewal of catechism is important especially among the young.
    3. I get my strength in the community I am in.
    4. Much changes will occur in the next few years that would be hard to accept.
    5. And something about dreaming....which I took as old traditions die and new ones emerge

    Here, I am only assuming that he is a die hard Neocat and nothing will turn him around no matter what.

    I am tired of hearing of how sorry he is for offending and yet he sides with the Neocats. Such a forked tongue he has. He looked very sincere but at the same time I saw that his heart was cold.

    1. The archbishop can apologize all he wants, but the proof is not in his words, but in his actions. Is he sorry in that he has done wrong, or is he sorry that he can't get us to tow his line?

  12. Diana comes from the community of Chalan Pago!