Thursday, June 12, 2014


After posting ZENIT: KIKO'S MINISTRY OF PROPAGANDA yesterday, one reader decided to write Zenit about my concerns:
So, I wrote to Junno Arocho Esteves, the author of this Zenit article about the problems with his article. This was his response: 
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions on the article. While I had attempted to show nothing more that the Eucharist and Easter Vigil celebrated by the parishes with Neocatechumenal Way were permitted, I agree that I may have left things unclear with the title, which dealt more with allowing the celebrations to take place rather than how they are celebrated. While the Neocatechumenal Way has received the support from three Pontiffs and 5 Vatican dicasteries, there are still many misunderstandings on how they carry out their celebrations within the parish. As soon as time permits, I hope some time in the future to write a piece that may go more in depth on the celebrations or seek a liturgist who can help address those concerns from the faithful. My only goal is to report the news that I receive and I hope to do a better job in presenting a balanced view on the subject.
Many thanks for your comments and please feel free to write to me any time. 
Junno Arocho Esteves


Let's look first at where he says towards the end: "My only goal is to report the news that I receive." Really? Is that how they do it at Zenit? Report news that they RECEIVE? Real reporters don't report the news that they receive, they actually go out and get the facts about a story and then report them. And where there is controversy they attempt to get both sides. But then that would be what REAL reporters do! Not Zenit-Neo hacks. 

Consider for example the story that our own Pacific News Center did on the Aaron Quitugua controversy. PNC "received" the news about Aaron's unfair treatment by the Archbishop from this blog. The reporter called me to get the facts. The reporter also called the chancery to get the Archbishop's side. His chancellor, Fr. Adrian, speaking for the Archbishop, told PNC to go away. So they ended up with only one side of the story though they did include in the news report their fruitless exchange with Fr. Adrian.  

Like any decent media organization, they did their due diligence. And when the PNC news director was later criticized in a letter from Mr. Dennis Santo Tomas for not getting the facts, PNC was able to demonstrate that they had done their homework. 

PNC could have simply reported what they received from JungleWatch, but that's not REPORTING. That's cut and paste. And apparently, at least when it comes to the Neocatechumenal Way, this is what Zenit does, since in the story about the "Neocatechumenal liturgy" and the supposed letter from the pope to Kiko, the Zenit reporter simply copies and pastes everything Kiko says with no attempt to get the other side of the controversy which prompted Kiko's letter to Pope Francis in the first place. 

From the outset there was obviously no intent by the Zenit author to "report" on anything. He confirms this in the second sentence: "I had attempted to show nothing more that the Eucharist and Easter Vigil celebrated by the parishes with Neocatechumenal Way were permitted.." In other words, the whole point of the article was to make Kiko's case to the world, to "show" that the Kiko way of doing the liturgy is permitted. IT IS NOT! But let's come back to that.*

And WHAT is a "real" reporter doing trying to "show" anything but the facts of the story? The facts were that many bishops and pastors, in the wake of Pope Francis' Feb. 1 address to the Neocatechumenal Way in which he called for unity of the NCW with the parish, had begun restricting some of the liturgical practices of the NCW communities. Kiko took offense to this, cried to the pope about it, and received a response from one of the Vatican offices. 

Obviously this was quite a controversy: Kiko versus bishops and pastors around the world and a call for the pope to intervene. But does Zenit interview even one person from the other side? Does Zenit even contact the office which sent the letter with the pope's reply? No! Zenit sits down with Kiko and not only gives him a forum to vomit all his usual self-authenticating bull-crap, Zenit gives the story a false headline to assist in said self-authenticating bull-crap: "Pope Francis backs Neocatechumenal Way Liturgy." 

Now look what happens next in this supposed reporter's letter. We are treated to the same default bull-crap that we have heard ad nauseum for years:
While the Neocatechumenal Way has received the support from three Pontiffs and 5 Vatican dicasteries, there are still many misunderstandings on how they carry out their celebrations within the parish.
Geez, spare us! It's the 5 popes thing again. Look, Mr. Estevez, the popes support good works wherever they find them. In fact Pope Benedict went so far as to publicly support an evil (since it was the lesser of the two) in his now infamous comment about condom use in Africa. The stupid people took it as a papal endorsement of condoms the same way you take every freaking photo-op and scribbling from every Vatican underling as a papal endorsement of the Neocatechumenal Way. 

However, with the final approval of the NCW Statute in 2008, the only thing the popes can now support is the NCW's activities within the boundaries of its Statute, which is why Pope Francis, upon receiving Kiko's cry-baby complaint, referred your sniveling leader back to his "charter", spanked him, and sent him home.  

Oh, and then you give us the tiresome "still many misunderstandings". Yes, we're quite used to that. It's all our fault. We don't understand. And we can't "understand" until we have spent 30 years in the neo-labyrinth of "spiritual enslavement" (as it was called by Bishop Mervyn Alexander) wherein the "flesh is stripped from our consciences with questions that no confessor would ask" (as it was described by Archbishop Luigi Bommarito). Right. And WE don't understand?????

And then Mr. Estevez says: "As soon as time permits, I hope some time in the future to write a piece that may go more in depth on the celebrations or seek a liturgist who can help address those concerns from the faithful."

Umm, let's see now Mr. Estevez, "as soon as time permits"?? Really?? You had no problem making time for Kiko's side. In fact, by the number of your articles about him you seem to have plenty of time. This controversy has been raging for years and particularly since 2008 when the Statute was finalized and the liturgical provisions continued to be ignored. That's SIX YEARS Mr, Estevez. Count them: SIX. 

I could go on, but never mind. Just hit UNSUBSCRIBE. 

* For an explanation of why the NCW is not permitted to celebrate the Easter Vigil separate from the parish, go here


  1. The controversy was between Aaron Quitugua and the Archbishop, but they only got the side of Tim Rohr who have nothing to do with the controversy. PNC didn't do their job. All they did was do a report on Junglewatch about the controversy. Get real.

    1. I have EVERYTHING to do with the controversy because it was not a controversy until I made it one. Get it? PNC went to the chancery to get their side. Fr. Adrian sent them away. Get real.

    2. Yep, PNC didn't do their job. They only did a report on Junglewatch. Thanks for proving it.

    3. Thanks, Fr. Adrian, for once again demonstrating for us what happens to people's brains after they get drunk on Kiko-aid.

    4. Tim you have no respect obviously with Archbishop, Pope Francis (I remember you criticize him) and Fr. Adrian. Just claim you have no respect for Catholics.

      Also when folks here claim their real name and you assume that is not their real name.... Nothing is right but your own analytical view. Your so full of yourself. You rant so much.

    5. Anonymous (June 12, 2014 at 6:41 AM and 9:32 AM), all you have to do is check the PNC website; here's the link:

      If you take the time to copy and paste it into your address bar, you will find the news story written by Janela Buhain Carrera, last updated on Wednesday, 05 March 2014 at 17:49 (aka 5:49 PM), which includes the statement: "PNC sought comment from Father Adrian last week, but he declined. Instead he directed us to Umatuna Si Yu’os, the Archdiocesan newspaper." You can hear that statement in the video AND you can read it in the text that accompanies the video.

      Contrary to your allegation, PNC tried to get a comment from Fr. Adrian BUT HE DECLINED — listen and read: "PNC sought comment from Father Adrian last week, BUT HE DECLINED. Instead he directed us to Umatuna Si Yu’os, the Archdiocesan newspaper."

      If you follow the link I provided, you can HEAR the words and you can SEE the words BUT since they did not emanate from the mouth of Kiko or one of his catechists, my guess is that you won't believe the words.

      Why not just admit that you can't stand the Truth, even if it's right in front of you. All you want is KAKA (Kiko Argüello's Kool Aid).

    6. Bothering you, am I? So "Anonymous" is your real name?

    7. Marylou, PNC interviewed the wrong person. Tim is only a second hand information. They can't get an interview with Father Adrian, and if they can't get an interview with Aaron Quitugua, then it should have ended there. Instead, they did a report on Junglewatch. Zenit interviewed the right person and not some second hand man who got the info from someone else.

    8. Don't worry. I don't expect you to understand. But thanks for the page hits. My goal is to get to 500,000 by the anniversary of the beginning of the persecution of Fr. Paul, July 16. And I can use all the help I can get, including yours. Keep coming back. I appreciate it.

      Meanwhile, this explanation is for people who are not drunk on KAKA.

      Aaron did not accuse the Archbishop of unfair treatment. I DID. Thus my accusation was the story. This is why they interviewed me. The chancery chose not to provide a counter view. Silence in the face of controversy is also a statement. The PNC had two sides: 1) my accusation, 2) the Archbishop's silence.

      In the Zenit story, all there is is a single lap dog reporter lapping up what Kiko feeds him. Nothing at all from a single priest or bishop that Kiko was bad-mouthing and complaining to the pope about. But then why would he do that? He said that his aim was to prove that Kiko's liturgy was permitted.

  2. Pnc poor standard of reporting. Particular case pnc only reported on Junglewatch.

    1. Gotta love the level of intelligence displayed in some of these comments. Thanks.

    2. Only takes common sense to see that pnc did a report on junglwatch.

  3. NCW poor standards for leaders.

    1. Janet B - MangilaoJune 12, 2014 at 5:13 PM

      I will also add, "NCW, poor standards for readers." They just can't get it. Which is why there are 35,000 interpretations of protestant belief from the bible. But the Church Jesus crweated has but one interpretation. Jesus was pretty darn smart setting it up with a central magisterium to prevent numb-nuts like the above Anons from getting too far off track. Maybe NCW is not Catholic!?!

  4. Anon 12:15 PM you have poor leaders on this blog who does not claim love and forgiveness but spew hate and insults. No mere close to Christianity. Pope Francis not to box yourself but you promote yourself as closet infidels.

  5. Rome is hearing archbishop and Fr. Gofigan's matter. Your numbers will go sky high.

  6. From Anon 12:15
    To Anon 1:16

    It's probably a waste of time since it's already sooooooo obvious; either you and others alike are blind or you choose to deny it, but i'll try at least once to help you understand.

    You say "you have poor leaders on this blog who does not claim love and forgiveness but spew hate and insults." Your comment is inaccurate because I do love and forgive all those who have commited wrongful acts against the Catholic Church (people) on Guam; from the Archbishop to the newest Kikobot. The problem is that love and forgiveness does nothing to correct the wrongful acts that continue to be committed by the Archbishop and the NCW.

    I present the following analogy in an attempt to insert a clear understanding of the situation through the thick piece of bone matter that surrounds the brain of all the Kikos out there.

    Joe is little boy who always looked up to his older brother Fred and always wanted to follow him around. Joe would do anything for his big brother without question or hesitation. Fred knew how his little brother looked up to him, but he thought of Joe only as a nuisance. Fred always had to take Joe with him when he went to play with his friend, but Fred and his friends always took advantage of Joe's admiration of his big brother. They took Joe's toys, ate his snacks and bullied Joe until he would feel bad and go back home. Fred would apologize to Joe everytime when he got home, and Joe would forgive Fred and tell him that he still loves him. But Fred only apologized to keep Joe coming back for more, and to keep Joe from telling their parents.

    This scenario happend over and over again. And for the longest time Joe said nothing about it to his parents. He never complained or snitched on Fred. One day, Joe finally realized that they were just taking advantage of him, and that they really didn't want him around. He put up with everything for so long because he just wanted to be accepted and loved by his brother, but now all he felt was hurt and disappointment. So finally, Joe told his parents about how Fred and his friends were treating him, but his parents had a hard time believing it because Fred always acted like a great big brother when they were around. The parents confronted Fred, but he denied it. He told them that Joe was just overreacting, and told them that Joe always got upset when they didn't play how he wanted them to play. Fred lied and denied everything. Joe lost alot of respect for his brother that day, but he eventually forgave him. He still loves his big brother, but he simply does not trust him anymore. Joe never followed his brother anywhere again. He simply didn't trust him anymore.

    I hope this story helps you to understand what has been so obvious to everyone else with an open mind and at least a little bit of intelligence. I know my 5 yr old daughter could.