Monday, June 30, 2014


Copied from Diana's blog:

Diana June 28, 2014 at 9:05 AM 
Dear Anonymous at 8:42 a.m., Tim Rohr wrote on my blogsite in March when he invited to meet with him. From his comment, I see a lot of emotion in it. From his comment, I also see that it has more to do with the Archbishop than it does about the Way. 
As for the priest, he is supposed to be obedient to the Archbishop. He took a vow of obedience. This means that IF THE BISHOP TELLS THE PRIEST TO OPEN HIS PARISH FOR THE WAY, THE PRIEST SHOULD OBEY THE BISHOP. (my emphasis)
The person who copied and left this as a comment on my blog (here), speculated that "Diana" might be spilling the beans about the real reason Fr. Paul was fired. Of course, we don't need any speculation at this point. Not a person outside the kiko-clan believes that his firing had anything to do with anything other than Fr. Paul's resistance to the Neocatechumenal Way. But the comment offers us some other insights.

First, as I have posited already, the Kiko's are ready to drop the Archbishop should he become too much baggage. The Way is the Thing, Kiko is their bishop, Apuron, for now is merely useful. Notice how here (and elsewhere) "Diana" looks to separate the Archbishop's actions from The Way: "I also see that it has more to do with the Archbishop than it does about the Way."

This explains why the Kiko's want to milk Apuron and this archdiocese for all we're worth (including stealing the Yona property) while he still is able to affix his signature to pieces of paper. Kiko has demonstrated that he has no use for bishops who are of no use to him. Archbishop Apuron is, sadly, just one of many.

Second, Diana's blurb about obedience affords us, once again, to examine what this "obedience" is. We have said previously that no one, not even a priest who has taken a vow of obedience to a bishop is required to remain obedient when the bishop himself has demonstrated disobedience to the authority from which his own authority flows. 

In other words, a bishop's authority is not autonomous. His only authority is his office, and his office is only valid insofar as it is in union with the Church to which that office belongs. By demanding Fr. Paul to accept the Neocatechumenal Way without regard to canon law and liturgical norms, the Archbishop violated the authority of his office, and Fr. Paul had a responsibility to oppose him. 

In Fr. Paul's case it was not a direct order from the Archbishop, since it is the Archbishop himself who takes orders. But it was the authority of the Archbishop's office that was used to bully Fr. Paul by those who give orders to the Archbishop. 

Fr. Paul did exactly what he should have done and what every other priest is required to do: require conformance to the norms of the Church. The Archbishop has no authority to modify those norms at will. Thus, he and everyone else who celebrates the current form of the neo-Eucharist is OUTSIDE the Church insofar as they persist in that error. 

To refute this and stop the controversy and division, the Archbishop has only to produce the document permitting the questioned practices. Because the liturgy is the property of the universal church and not this or that group, every aspect of the liturgy is centrally governed. And any variation, in order not to cause scandal, is documented and published for ALL to see. 

But while the order to accommodate The Way and permit its illicit liturgical practices did not come directly from the Archbishop, the 2008 order to the Three Filipino Priests, to not only accommodate the Way, but to directly participate in its illicit practices, DID come directly from the Archbishop. 

In his letter to one priest, Archbishop Apuron wrote
I am now asking you…as Archbishop of Agana to accompany this...Community as their presbyter for their Celebration of the Eucharist every Saturday evening at 7:30pm.  If you decide you will not serve, I will have to let you know now, that your time in this Archdiocese will be for only one year from the above date.
To the other two priests, he wrote:
I would like you (name of priest) to seriously consider following the next series of catechesis which will take place in (the priest's parish) and committing yourself to the community that will later be formed as its presbyter as well as other communities born from hereon in the parish. Unless I see this desire manifest in you within the coming years, I may ask that you go elsewhere….If you do not agree to the above, then you are free to begin to look around for a benevolent bishop to accept you into his arch/diocese.
Archbishop Apuron himself KNEW at the time he wrote these letters that the "Eucharist" he was demanding these priests to celebrate was, at the time, NOT YET approved. We know this because he concludes his letters with the following:
I am very certain that Rome will promulgate the Statutes of the Neo-Catechumenal Way within a few weeks now. I am enclosing three letters of three Ordinaries in the Philippines who have endorsed The Way prior to Our Holy Father's definitive endorsement of The Way. 
Archbishop Apuron recognizes that the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, had YET to definitively endorse The Way, but yet demands that these priests respond in the affirmative to a demand that would cause them to be complicit in an act that, as of December 1, 2007, was definitively illicit. 

Let's review that. The date December 1, 2007 is critical because that was the deadline given by Pope Benedict through the Congregation for Divine Worship on December 1, 2005 to the NCW to rid itself of liturgical practices that were not in compliance with church norms:
In the celebration of the Holy Mass, the Neocatechumenal Way shall accept and follow the liturgical books approved by the Church, without omitting or adding anything. 
This first instruction was to be immediate. There was no period of transition granted as there was for distribution of Holy Communion:
On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition (not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion. This means that the Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the manner of distributing the Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books.  - Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum , Prot. 2520/03/L, From Vatican City, December 1, 2005 
The Archbishop's letter to the three priests is dated March 28, 2008. So nearly four months after the deadline, the NCW continued to persist in its disobedience to Rome with Archbishop Apuron not only officially promoting and participating in this disobedience, but ordering his priest to disobey Rome as well. 

We know that the NCW had disregarded the deadline. In response to the public outcry over the demands of the Archbishop, I had written a professor at Redemptoris Mater Seminary, the intellectual center of the Neocatechumenal Way on Guam, to get the straight scoop. This is what I was told:

Dear Tim:  All of the directions contained in Cardinal Arinze's letter have already been put into practice.  The only exception is the manner of receiving communion.  
And why was it not implemented? According to the same source:
Kiko was granted an audience with the Pope in May, 2007, and discussed the issue. Kiko proposed an alternative method which would meet these problems and which the Pope then accepted.  The statues (sic), which incorporate the other provisions of Arinze's letter, were then amended to reflect this modification. 
And how do we know that the Pope "then accepted" the "alternative method" proposed by Kiko? Well, from Kiko, of course. SURPRISE! 

As stated above, the liturgy belongs to the universal church. It is the sacrament of unity. Any variation has the potential to cause disunity. This is why Rome carefully guards the liturgy and when variations are granted for cultural or pastoral reasons, Rome officially signs off on them in a public manner so as not to cause scandal and disunity. 

The idea that a liturgical norm as central and as important as distributing and receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ would be modified in a private conversation between the Pope and Kiko and officially but privately permitted is simply NOT possible. 

Like the Archbishop, my seminary source was counting on the final version of the NCW Statute to permit Kiko's anomalous method of distributing Holy Communion:
The fact that the statues have been delayed is most unfortunate.  I trust their publication will go a long way to remove any suspicions.
BUT, it was not to be! Other than to remain in one's place, THERE WAS NO OTHER permission granted in the final Statute. Neocatechumenal communicants were to RECEIVE exactly as the rest of us. And to EMPHASIZE this, the original letter from 2005 was incorporated into the Statute

Nearly ten years later, Archbishop Apuron persists in participating and promoting a celebration of the Eucharist that is NOT permitted. In opposing Rome, from the day of his infamous 2006 radio speech, to this day, he has, by virtue of his disobedience, effectively abdicated his office relative to the governance of the liturgy, if not his office entirely

The Archbishop, sadly, has chosen to follow a different authority, and we rightly reject his choice. 

To put an end to any of these allegations he has only to produce the permission that Kiko says he has. If there is such a permission then the Archbishop has encouraged scandal by letting these errors persist without instructing the faithful. If there is no permission, then he has encouraged disobedience to Rome. 

And Fr. Paul, and every other priest has a duty NOT to obey, for there is a higher authority to which they are bound. 


  1. yep, and this is very telling, for they then tried to get the Pope to sign the documents without his knowledge, to "promulgate" the neo liturgy. hence the mass firing of individuals in the vatican if memory serves me right. Why don't you people just leave and form your own church,then you can do whatever you please with no authority to tell you that you can or cannot do this or that, since it is quite obvious that you have no intention of conforming to the RCC . call it the kikobots or something...

    1. I believe you amy be referring to the 2012 shenanigans Kiko tried to pull on Pope Benedict, trying to trick him into okaying the NCW liturgies. The Pope was able to intercept the document at the last minute and gave Kiko a public bashing. However, the Pope's language is so reserved and polite that it is hard to tell that that is what he was doing. In any event, there was NO approval of the NCW liturgy. But as we can see, he tried the same in 2007, and when he didn't get his way, ordered his followers to proceed according to his demands and not that which eventually was recorded in the statute. Bad guy.

  2. Note that the archbishop uses the same words...find yourself a benevolent bishop...that he used with Fr. Paul. That is one thing we can say about the archbishop: he is consistent, and consistently malicious and imperious.

    1. A benevolent Bishop? We could use one of those in Guam! Sound just right: benevolent....

  3. On a side note Fr. Paul is saying Mass at St. Anthony/St. Victor parish in Tamuning. Family and i were blessed to attend his 9:30am Sunday service. If you want to experience a Mass delivered with a homily constructed with both the utmost intelligence and eloquence deserving of Rome itself, then come and attend and listen to Fr. Paul at St. Anthony/St. Victor services.

    Fr. Paul engages his parishoners, walking down the aisle during his homily, making contact with the young and old. No faltering in his voice, no stumbling to remember what he prepared,
    he's truly a model Priest that we are blessed to have on this island. We were fortunate that our kids received his blessings as we went up for the Sacrament of Communion.

    His big message, parents teach your children faith. Do not rely on their going to CCD alone, or theology classes, don't think of the answer yourselves, if you google it, make sure you are googling a Catholic site. Required, get a copy of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church for your homes.

    Luckily growing up, we had this book at home among the Childcraft and World Book encyclopedias and it is the best defense to other parties saying "that their way is the way."
    In itself that moniker is arrogant and it is confusing to most unsuspecting people.

    The Archbishop truly dis-serviced the faithful on the island by going after this man. Fr. Paul is one of this Dioceses' great assets and he is truly the persecuted one for standing up for the truth of our Church.

    Diana claims, the NCW has the approval of five Popes. I say, Popes can be wrong, Cardinals and Bishops can be wrong, but not God. Never. Which is why we are not lying down for the NCW.

  4. This whole situation, of course, is a spiritual battle we're undergoing; but it is extremely sad and extremely disappointing that the Archbishop and the hierarchy in this diocese are on the wrong side of this battle!

    What is hopeful and appeasing is the fact that Jesus promised that with Peter and with all of Peter's successors (The Papal Apostolic Succession) Jesus will always be with HIS Church thru the Holy Spirit. This is why we know that in the Roman Catholic Church -- the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church -- is where we find authentic Catholicism and where lies the Fullness of The Truth!

    It was to Peter (and to no one else) that Jesus gave The Keys to His Kingdom -- thus, The Way and The Only Way of acquiring that Fullness of The Truth! Knowing that, why would anyone need to look anywhere else or to anyone else for The Truth?

    The most important question to ask however, is this: who is it who would want to lure Catholics away from the authentic Church and away from The Source of The Fullness of The Truth?

    Yup, this is a spiritual battle we're in the midst of; but we already know who comes out victorious! ... and that is not only the Good News for us, but a comforting and appeasing Good News for all who opt not to follow kiko's way!

  5. Fr. Dan Bien was incardinated into the archdiocese. It seems that all these Filipino priests can be purchased for a price. Every one has their own agenda. But when the truth prevails the sincere people to the plastic people will show.

    1. Fr. Dan was not one of the priest addressed in the 2008 letters. However, I hope all priests who are not incardinated in this diocese question the timing of any invitation to become incardinated. And we hope, regardless of your decision, you will stand up for the truth when you are needed.

    2. Letters threatening Filipino priests began as far back as 1990. Cases were not published because clergy left Guam and in those days we did not have Internet to blog. But the threatening letters from the archbishop began around 1990 . There is a history here which some still remember.

    3. Correct. fr. Dan was not one of the clergy members addressed in the 2008 letters.
      Correct. Non incardinated clergy may well need to reflect on the timing of an invitation to incardinate into Agana . However, observing what is happening we have a body of clergy that is self interested. Many have a personal gain here in the game at play, the archbishop has offered silver plates to buy silence so the truth will be concealed. Many of the guys are only concerned with cash they will play the game and when there time come will leave. No one will rock the boat. Sure archbishop is wrong no question, but clergy will be silent they thinking of their own security now. Reality Tim. Your right on all you say Tim, you have high ideals , your honest, but that is not how this archdiocese works. Money talks all over Guam.

    4. @4:59 can't be absolutely certain of all you say ....but is true clergy are certainly quiet. Can't say I blame them; but what they say should carry more weight than what us bottom feeders have to say. Courage! NCW does not have a copyright in this word.

    5. Disturbing statement 4.59pm. Makes me think you have a clerical knowledge.

  6. Tim your opening a hornets nest with June 3oth post. However, as always Theost is true. Question is working out how to respond to the post.

    1. Please use spell check or at least proof read your comments.

  7. To make you all smile. I have a letter here where the dear bishop signs off, " I am your archbishop.". Language so amusing.

  8. Diana must have ordered to go ....she is not cooking supper, that's fore sure. Quoting Card. Arinze. Convenient. But, Arcbishop did say Arinze is not really for the WAY.

  9. Archbishop answers only to the pope. No number of comments posted on this page will bring change to the archdiocese. Seven years ahead of archbishop Apuron. Are you going to spend next seven years at this blog. Waste of your life.

    1. If this blog opens the eyes of people, it will be worth the wait!

    2. Anonymous (June 30, 2014 at 6:39 PM), what you don't seem to realize — or maybe you do and it disturbs you — is that this blog has been very therapeutic for many people. Even though, like you, they shield their identities it has been cathartic for them to finally express what has been pent up inside for many years — for some, decades. Those who have been able to walk away from the NCW have also been able to express their gratitude via this blog.

      You, "Diana," "Bernie," and the various Kiko's/Kikobots who have posted venomous comments in this blog, have drunk so deeply of the KAKA that you cannot see or hear the Truth that has been presented in this blog. The fact of the matter is that the Archbishop answers to the Pope ONLY if it first meets the approval of Kiko Argüello. Therefore you try to minimize and/or marginalize those who air concerns, questions and/or criticisms about the actions of the Archbishop, et al. and the illicit pseudo-liturgy of the NCW. You cannot disprove what has been documented, so you and your ilk resort to accusing Tim of stealing documents and/or labeling the Truth as “gossip, hearsay and superstition” or claiming that what is revealed “mocks” the Archbishop and/or the NCW.

      As long as people are experiencing levels of healing as a result of submitting comments, this blog is NOT a "waste" of any of our lives. If this blog is a "waste of YOUR life," then please feel free to ignore it for your own peace of mind.

  10. @6:39 pm. Sweet dreams. The blog may not be it. You're correct.

  11. "Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness."

    - Father Frederick Faber

  12. His Eminence +Luis Antonio G. Cardinal Tagle will be on Guam for Monsignor James Benavente's 20th Jubilee of Priestly Service. His Eminence will be the homilist. I wonder what he would say of the treatment of the Filipino Priests by the Archbishop?

    1. Maybe the Archbishop can learn from Tagle's homily! Maybe the NCW will too! He is an excellent homilist! You all listen now you hear!

    2. So you think Jennifer Dulla will cover the story on Monsignor Benavente? Maybe she can personally interview Cardinal Tagle this time..LOL
      On a side note, what a sad thing that Fr. Tom McGrath celebrated his golden jubilee and only the Rector of the Cathedral and Deacon Steve Martinez celebrated with him. Fr. Ken Carriveau recently retired from Santa Barbara, and no one from the Chancery showed up for him either. Very sad that our non neo priests are not recognized for their dedication and hard work. But it's kinda interesting how the Archbishop delegates important positions/tasks to the non neo priests. Maybe he knows the products of the RMS just won't get it right. He just doesn't want to admit it.

    3. 4:13 PM. I doubt Cardinal Tagle wants to be interviewed about his views of the NCW. He will be on Guam to help celebrate and not to be bothered with our problems here! I am sure that Jennifer Dulla will not cover the story! Someone else will!

    4. I believe 4:13PM was being facetious. However, I am not so sure Cardinal Tagle is not interested in our problems here. Several bishops in the Philippines are having trouble with the NCW and he is well aware of the problems Kiko poses to his own diocese. Guam is a case study.

    5. Anonymous (July 1, 2014 at 4:13 PM), you have such a wicked sense of humor! But I admit, I was thinking along the same lines after noticing that Jennifer Louise Dulla had not had any stories featured since her series of NCW-related stories in the 18 May issue of the U Matuna Si Yu'os until this weekend. However, instead of being predominantly featured in the first pages as before, her report was moved into the centerfold, so one had to "dig" to find it.

      I'm pretty sure that the local hierarchy will be present for the celebration of Msgr. James' Sacerdotal Anniversary. Unlike the events you mentioned — Fr. Tom's Golden Sacerdotal Jubilee and the retirement of Fr. Ken Carriveau — this time there will be a prominent Prince of the Church in attendance. I don't think the Archbishop, et al will miss the photo ops and the chance to rub shoulders with someone who was once mentioned as a possible successor to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI! LOL

    6. Jennifer is going to be busy bringing the Sunshine Back!

    7. The Umatuna should devote, a page each, to Fr. Tom M. and Fr. Ken C. -- its the least the Umatuna hierarchy can do to honor both long-time Priests who have served Guam and Catholics well. Many of us will appreciate seeing these two pages devoted to Fr. Tom and Fr. Ken!

      ... after all,this year is designated as the Year of The Clergy, isn't it? These are the things about our devoted Priests that warrants publicizing and highlighting.

    8. I know both priests (Fr Tom McGrath and Fr Ken Carriveau) very well, and I have the greatest of admiration for their solemn celebration the Mass and clear, succinct, and moving delivery of the homily. Fr Tom is a fine epitome of humility when he preaches, and Fr Ken is a shining example of brotherhood when he greets you. It certainly is a CRYING SHAME that the Archbishop did not take time out to publicly acknowledge and thank these priests on behalf of the Catholic community of Guam, if not on behalf of himself. Did he forget? Was he too busy? Or was it because these priests are not members of his NCW cult? Father Tom and Father Ken - know that there are many more in this Archdiocese who recognise and appreciate you than those who do not. Wish that some of your humility will rub off to our archbishop. God knows he needs at least a little of it! Thank you for your service to the Catholic community of Guam.