Wednesday, May 14, 2014


Click on the links if you want to see the context.

frenchie May 13, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Facts vs fiction.

The neos speak of Mission and Evangelisation. What they mean is a so called reconquest of the Church within the Church.The reconquest is a very Spanish notion, that is birthed in its national history and psyche.

At no time the kikomaniacs wished to go and Evangelise China and/or other real land of Mission. In fact, recently many voices have raised the debate within the Church as to why so many priests are coming to Europe or North America, from Africa and South America.

Kiko has used the fact that many priests from these regions are looking forward to move to more "comfortable" areas of the world, deserting their lands of origin, who are often left with not enough priests to take proper care of their flocks. This has been roundly criticized by the majority of African Bishops.

South America is particularly the target of strong evangelisation from North American protestant churches, but so is Africa. Why then remove these priests from their own land to bring poorly formed ones to countries that have a long Catholic history, and a need for an astute parish leadership in line with the local problems these new priests have little knowledge of?

The answer is: more political power within the Church for the kikomaniacs. This is a dangerous game of smoke and mirrors. It is time we pick up the challenge and say no to this nonsense.

frenchie May 13, 2014 at 7:38 PM

As I respect Tim's decision to not deviate from the initial subject, I will make it short and to the point. I will also demonstrate this is not an argument in a vacuum.

No, I do not know everything, hence my lifelong continuation for further knowledge. As my avatar might have told you, I hail from France, the Catalan part of it, with numerous cousins and relatives on the Spanish side, but also with a side of my family originating from Piedmont and Val d'Aosta. So at my advanced age and thanks to my continued search for truth, I have made a little headway in weeding out the venom of Satan and his stooges.

Your argumentation is nothing but the copy/paste of the secular, Free Masons, and historically revisionist expression of the official left leaning medias that pervade Europe and are profoundly anti-Catholic.

Under the guise of "human rights movement" this school of thought has attempted (with some success) to blame the original European populations for the ills of the world in the last twenty centuries. The Catholic Church being at the center of Europe's construction and development during that period, is of course to blame for all the evils that men do to men, according to that overly simplistic idea you try to develop here.

The populations (Catholic or not) that fight these views are therefore by simple association, guilty of poor thinking and poor choices, political or otherwise if they oppose the discourses on colonialism, slave trade, gay marriage, celibacy for priest, defense of life and so on.

Kiko and his hordes have espoused a free masonic, Jewishfication of the Church, with the aim to become a Trojan horse of sort within our Church.

Christ has warned us repeatedly about these kinds of dangers. This is why painting opponents to this movement with the broad paint- brush of Fascism has been so effective in Europe.

This attempt to transpose this false debate to Guam by gross recuperation of that movement and align it to the ills of colonization from Spain, is nothing but evil and paternalist. The true goal being to divide our movement on Guam between Chamorros and non Chamorros, under the guise of a false advocacy.


  1. Frenchie, tell me please, how would you "ficate" the Jews? Your word of "Jewishfication" is just the most amazing invention I have ever read on Tim Rohr's blog.
    But what is your point? Did you just buy the tenets of a Jewish-liberal-mason-communist-gay-conchitawurst-etc. conspiracy theory? Well, who exactly are those trying to infiltrate the "true Catholic" doctrine disguising themselves as Trojan wooden horse in order to whisper lies to the ears of the believers...?! ;)
    Well this was a really good one from you. Frenchie rulez!

    1. Actually "the Jewification of Christianity" is quite a common description of Kiko's objectives on several of the Italian blogs. But the description is actually a discredit to the Jews who would probably see Kiko's liturgical contrivance as a bastardization of their ritual. And it is.

    2. Is this the same thing as Judaizing?

    3. Ahah, I guess we have kikoed an hornet's nest.
      Must have hit pretty close, since I have become (sin of all sins) a "conspirancy theorist".
      The kikomaniacs will stoop as low as necessary I guess.
      It is interesting that you are using Lacan's methods to try to discredit.....but then again, it is the same school of thought on the social level as Kiko....ummh: food for thoughts.
      Definitely you should not play in the Jungle...

  2. Frenchie, are you sure you are doing justice here? This was what I said about Italy: "Alessandra Mussolini, the granddaughter of Benito, a prominent female politician is dividing the Catholic Church by supporting gay rights." This is as true as shocking to learn from a Mussolini.
    About Spain: In "Kiko's home country, the front line inside the church is not neo or not neo, but other issues like female ordination, gay union and abortion rights." This is a most liberal agenda that I condemned, although you did not notice.
    About France, your home I wrote this: "Look at France where the late Catholic Le Pen's daughter is more popular in politics than her father ever was. The anti-immigrant sentiment is brewing. Where are the French Catholics standing in this chaos? Of course, both right and left as in every country... But, do you think they would like more Pacific Islanders in their country?" What do you think, frenchie? You are the one person who must know the answers for these questions the best.

    1. My dear Anon at 5.39pm:
      What do we have here.....looks like, sounds like and smells like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
      Under the guise of being understanding and analytical you surmise many, many things.
      I guess if you throw enough mud on a wall, some will finally stick.
      So let me answer you point by point.
      A) I am a citizen of the US of A
      B) regarding Mr le Pen: he is still a Catholic, like the rest of his familly
      C) Le Pen's party was only one of a very large coalition that demonstrated (en masse) in opposition to the "mariage pour tous" a euphemism for gay mariage rights in France. This coalition was spearheaded by the Catholic Bishops, Catholics of all walks of life, muslims, protestants and Jews.
      More than one million people came out in the street several times during the debate on Gay mariage, to no avail, since the socialist government passed the amendment in force.
      This is where the Catholics and others have been on this issue in France.
      D) in Spain contrary to what you claim, there is little conflict within the Catholic Church on the issues you highlight. The conflict in Spain inside the church is about the sectarisation of the Church, in which the neocatechumenal way has a huge part of responsibility, alongside Opus Dei. Even though they are standing on opposite side of the spectrum.
      E) As for Italy: to spruce up the role of Allessandra Mussolini as a prominent politician is a little far fetched. Outside of her famous last name, she does not represent much.
      There is nothing out of center with a descendent of fascism to back up gay rights..... since the whole fiction of the fascist story is based on the glory days of Rome, where these practices were quite common, until its christianization. Many fascist leaders having been awoved edonist themselves.

      Finally lets not forget your main point of contention:
      The anti-immigration movement.
      Europe like many other areas in the world has indeed a strong anti-immigration movement.
      It is expressed differentely in each country. Each nation has its own historical bearing and experience with immigration.
      What is at stake nowdays is how much immigration, and what kind of immigration.
      With a world population which, in the last 50 years, grew from slightly over 1 billion people to over 7 billion people, it is surely worthy of a debate.
      In Europe, like in the USA, nations are facing a tidal wave of illegal immigration.
      On both continents there are advocates for and against illegal immigration. In Europe more than in the US, there is a strong reluctance by the governments in place to even adknowledge the issue. Preferring to use PC code words to deflect a huge soar point with the local population.
      Illegal are now "without papers"; but they have benefits that citizens of these countries do not have: free education for their children, free healthcare, and ultimatly "regularisation" of their status.
      The abandonment of borders within Europe has led to a shift in population, that many demographs call a replacement.
      If you add this issue to the legal immigration numbered at over 250 000 a year for France, Spain and Italy each. It is an influx of 1 million people every four years for each of these countries. The major consequence being a competition for low salaries against the poor of said countries.
      Spain and Italy are major entry points for illegal immigration from Africa.
      The pope has denounced the slave like, human trade, and spurred rich countries to do more.
      All these issues are alive, but what you are trying to do is equate anti-immigration with racism, which it is NOT.
      As for France reaction, to have islanders arrive in their country: well my dear friend, France already has islanders, they are French and come from Polynesia, Melanesia, the south Indian Ocean and the Antilles, and for the most part they feel very welcome there.
      As for myself I do not know best, but I try to stay informed, and I certainly don't buy your bill of goods.

    2. Frenchie, you know you are not right. The French are very xenophobic people. They are not the champions of human right as they claim to be. Did they support us when we had to fight a war in Iraq? By no means. Is this not very sad?!
      French Catholic fundamentalists can be extremely hateful. They march behind Le Pen. Is this not a shame? They have the kind of dogmatic purism what we see in the anti- Neocatechumenal movements. They see Christ in people of the same color only. Why can't you be color blind?
      What is the reason that this blog tries to build on Guam the same kind of bigot religious hatred, one Catholic against the other, what we see in Europe? There must be some peculiar reason you guys do this so enthusiastically in this "Jungle". :(

    3. Funny. And so you come here because....?

    4. To anonymous May20, at 2.32am
      obviously you are writing from Europe, or the USA.
      Your intervention would be funny if it was not so pathetic.
      "The French are very xenophobic" based on what? the fact that they accept more than 200000 immigrants every year legally and give very generous benefits to illegals for them to stay afloat?
      France has been a country of refuge for millions from times immemorial.....Most French can trace 2 to 3 national origins in the 6 generations prior to them......
      "they are not champions of Human rights.....blah blah...did they support us when we had a fight in Iraq?"
      What the heck is your point? Do you equate the illegal invasion of a sovereign country by the USA under false pretense and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents with human rights????? Did you forget our Church strongly condemned this sham and its consequences on millions of Christians in the region?
      Yes the French refused, based on a very strong principle to intervene in this unjust war, so that means they are against human rights?????

      Now for the French Catholic fundamentalists "they can be extremely hateful"
      1) how have French Catholic conservatives become fundamentalists in your book?
      2) could you give us at least one hateful action example?
      3) Are they hateful because they are French? Catholic? or Fundamentalists?

      Another lame argument: "they march behind Le Pen" that is a total false statement,
      Some conservatives indeed vote for the National Front, but in a democracy you can vote as your conscience directs you. Are you condamning 26% of the French electorate that vote for that party, or just the Catholic that do so?
      Plus most conservative of the Catholic faith do not support Le Pen since she is divorced (among other issues)
      Why do you equate anti immigration with racism?
      Because of course, non content to defame all these good people they of course are racist..... based on your assumptions and sectarian views.

      Now for the cherry on the cake, they are bad because they are like the anti-Neos....whoa!!! what a brilliant guilty by association and guilty for what people might think.
      Of course now for a finale Tim's blog is building religious hatred and is bigotted.

      Your argumentation are so lame.....And when we read the racist exposes of your champions, when we hear the preaching of your cathechists, when we witness the actions of your leaders we know where the complex of superiority and the ugliness of the hatred comes from, and it is NOT coming from the people on this blog or even the honest followers of the way, it comes from the kikomaniacs and the apologists with the kind of yellow stripes that you represent.

  3. The question of secular movements within the Catholic Church: (introduction)

    As we are faced with an overly aggressive expansion of the Neo-Catechumenal Way on Guam, which is compounded by the fact that our Archbishop "walks" in the Way, and is no longer a neutral arbiter within his own Diocese.
    We must realize that we are hardly in a unique situation, since our Catholic Church has experienced a slew of secular movements for decades.

    There are many movements, beside the Neo-Catechumenal, they are : Opus Dei (which the press, specially in Europe and the USA wrote extensively about in the 90s and early 2000s), Focolare, Legionaries of Christ (who are trying to survive a huge corruption and sexual abuse scandal by its late founder), Comunita Di Sant Edigio (a mostly Italian, but very active group), Communion and liberation, Renewal in the spirit...
    There are also many other groups with missions more focused on charitable works or education, specially in France and Germany, but also in south America. Some like the French, traditionally serve missions in former African colonial territories.

    As you see, secular groups within the Church exist and are thriving. Two popes can be noted as having been (for different and varied reasons) strong advocate of secular movements: Pius XI and John Paul II.
    I will not develop on these supports, but if you are interested there are many books and publications covering this complex issues, and their background. A large selection can be found within the Vatican publishing group, and on Chiesa (church) news and press.

  4. Frenchie, are you saying that the anti-Kiko opinion is labeled "Fascist" in Europe? This is crazy. Also very sad. Fascists, especially German Nazis hated the Catholic church. Hitler was a follower of the British satanist Aleister Crowley. Catholic priests were persecuted. These is well know history from textbook.

    So what are Europeans saying now? Are they completely out of their mind? If being anti-Kiko is "Nazi" in Europe, then the Kikos must be all free mason cosmopolitans or something like that...??

    1. Dear anonymous at 8.04pm: I am not saying that.
      What I am explaining is that a movement created after world war II which had strong roots before the war, in both the international socialist movement (directed from Moscow) and the free masons lodges, had taken advantage of the rewriting of history, to label any nationalist movement as far right and/or fascist. By the same token, any adversary is being tarred and feathered in a similar manner.
      The recuperation of the awful events of the "shoah" by the Zionist movement both in Great Britain and in the USA facilitated the creation of the state of Israel.
      Both events were used extensively in Germany for the culpabilization of the German people, rather than the German governments.
      While they were at it, the strong anti-clerical movement in Western Europe used the opportunity to assail the Vatican as not having done enough to denounce and combat the Nazis and the Fascists.
      This is a total revisionist move, but many people bought it.
      By the time you finish defending yourself, you have lost credibility. The damage is done. The Catholic Church in Europe is under constant propaganda attack from these movements.
      In the 70s and 80s before the fall of the "Berlin Wall" these arguments reached a fever pitch.
      What the Kikomaniacs have been doing in Europe is use these boogie men to scare people into silence. As soon as somebody criticize you, you accuse them of being fascist. This is the old Stalin technnique, who declared, that "by the time they clear their good name, we will have moved to another subject" .
      As you see, they are not out of their mind, they just use this to change the subject and deflect the real issues.
      What I was criticizing was the attempt made by the person I challenged to draw a parallel in Guam and using European colonial history to divide Catholics on the island between Chamorros and non Chamorros.
      It is obvious that the kikomaniacs in Europe are getting worried about our reaction, and are attempting to lay support from afar, without fully understanding the ins and outs of the island's culture and traditions. I guess they were not expecting a fight.

  5. Frenchie, we have professor Zoltan-Kiko, an internationalist who used to write here at the blog supporting everything neo. Perhaps not anymore. He is from Europe I guess.Tim mentions him in the front (734-4582). Very arrogant, wanted to shut down Junglewatch! But he is too small for the job. Ha-ha...

    Why do these internationalists support gay marriage, female ordination and pro-choice abortion? He has no idea of Chamorro culture and talking nonsense. He just repeats Kiko and the "holy" catechists of his sect without being able to engage into discussion of the true matter we talk about. Is this not a shame?! Do you see the same attitude in France or in Catalonia?

    1. Zoltan Szekely is indeed a European name. It is a Magyar name. (Hungarian) Szekely actually means Transylvanian. This is the region actually located in Romania which has the highest minority of Hungarians in Romania. Hungarian minorities can be found throughout eastern Europe, due to the butchering of the Austro-Hungarian empire after World War I,and again after World War II.
      Transylvania was also the home of the largest Jewish population outside of Poland during world war II.
      The Hungarian government of Regent Miklos Horthy,
      between 1920 and 1944 was a strong German ally, and therefore Hungary suffered greatly under communist dictatorship.
      The 1956 revolution in Hungry which was severely put down, led to the exile of many Hungarians to the west.
      Mr Zoltan most likely is the son of one of these refugees. This in itself gives you a little background.

      The fact that he is an internationalist would go contrary to the usual attitude of a large majority of Hungarians, there or otherwise.
      The Catholic Church in Hungary suffered greatly under the Communist regime, and it has always been aligned with the nationalist cause.
      That being said, being an internationalist and a kikomaniac goes hand in hand.
      Most of the theories coming from Kiko are deeply rooted in the Free Masonic tradition and the Jewish rites of the old testament.
      The Zionist movement and the Free Masons are the biggest advocate of international standards and laws that would be reaching over the head of national governments.
      The tectonics plates of the actual political struggle in Europe at this time are along the struggle between the nationalists and the internationalists.
      The internationalists have been trying (very hard) to interpret the position of Pope Francis on fighting human trafficking and social justice as furthering their cause. (Does that sound familiar?)
      Nothing happens in a void, there are always causes and effects.
      It is not surprising then that such a person would blindly follow a secretive leader, and at the same time be an internationalist. They both have the same aim.
      Replace the existing societal and religious structures by their own, which they see as superior.
      Breaking down societies structures of families, clans,
      traditions, and religion is just a tool to reach their evil goals.

    2. I have to say this. Mr Zoltan's community is in the same parish as mine. He is a Hungarian American. His background is international but "internationalist"! So please stop this silliness.

      Kiko considers secularization as the major treat against faith in our age. The Neo-Catechumenal Way is fighting against the influences of global secularization. We are against gay marriage, female ordination and we maintain a strong anti-abortion stance.

      So what are you talking about?

    3. Hello Zoltan. We've missed you. Welcome back. Does Diana know you're here?

    4. Please, take a note that the make-up of the Way is international but NOT "internationalist" and NOT liberal!

    5. It is internationalist because it bypasses local authority. It is liberal because it takes whatever liberties it cares to to take with Church doctrine and liturgy.

    6. Zoltan trying to hide himself under 'Anonymous' LOL Zoltan, you silly professor, you!

  6. The question of secular movements within the Catholic Church
    Part I
    The main question that most modern theologists ask regarding secular movements within our Church is:
    Is our Church going towards sectarianism?
    Many of the brightest minds of the Catholic Church of the second part of the 20th century have intervened on the subject.
    Their common analysis is that all the communities I cited in my introduction see their respective leaders and founders, as heads and supreme rulers rather than their local Bishop.
    Of course on Guam we are one up on the rest of the world.

    They see their relation with the Church as coming directly from the pope to their movement's leader, and through him to them.
    To different degrees, they all bear the characteristics of a Sect. (which is a subject we debated extensively earlier this year)
    The main risk being that through their actions, the Catholic Church will be transformed into a bunch of parallel groups that do not communicate with one another, everybody having their own liturgy. (here is exactly the crux of the issue of the Eucharist celebration within the Catechumenal movement, that is denounced by Tim in this blog).
    Everybody having their own discipline, their own system of authority and beliefs.
    Feel free to read the excellent review:"the Sectarian threat of Catholic movements" by professors Alberto Melloni and Miklos Tomka in the Journal "Concilium" which I believe is reference by Tim in one of his posts.
    Concilium is a must read review for any Catholic that want to understand the complexities of our Church. It is published in many languages and is easily understood by most.
    More to come: solutions?


    Since before Vatican II there has been basically 3 types of answer to the growing problem of sectarism caused by "new communities" within our Church.

    As always when face with a crisis of identity the Catholic Church can take, what appears to be a slow concerted approach to solving the issues at hand. In our world of instant communication and immediate gratification this can appear as inapropriate or insufficient.
    We on Guam certainly have ample justification to feel that way in view of the imminence of the threat we are faced with.

    The first answer is basically a do nothing answer.
    "It faces the growing complexity and individualization of the religious question by letting religious pluarism within the Church grow excessively and renouncing every sensible selectivity"
    This is de facto the pretended approach of our Bishop, and I say pretended because we are faced with a Bishop who is "parti pris" in the process and has allowed for a geometric progression of the issue.

    The second solution is a rationalization of the structures. It appeals generally to a "reduction of the number of windows through which religious goods and services are distributed to the faithful."
    Groups of parishes entrusted to one or several priests with the help of lay people (pastoral units and other denominations).
    This answer ends up being weak as well, since it underestimates the influence that the movements (in our case NCW) have on the priests and the lay people formed within their ranks, and loaned to said pastoral units.
    Something we are very familiar here on Guam and in the Marianas. It is to be noted, that many self anointed "reasonable" advocates of the NCW on Guam are trying to advance this argument as a progression "under the radar" of their cause, masked by this type of justification, which Tim and others have demonstrated on this blog as being a sham.
    Continue: conclusion