Sunday, June 1, 2014

WILL THEY WATCH HIM BURN?

For Archbishop Apuron, this is a moment of truth. He did not manufacture the lie about Cardinal Tagle's invitation. His "handlers" did - the people who have been using him from the beginning. The question now is will they let the Archbishop burn, or will they own up to their crime? 

We have, ever since the beginning of this blog, attempted to give Archbishop Apuron the benefit of the doubt. We have suggested time and time again that someone else is calling the shots and that Archbishop Apuron is just being used. Others have begged and pleaded with the Archbishop to depart from the beast which is consuming him and destroying this diocese. All to no avail of course.


But now we have crushing, irrefutable evidence that Archbishop Apuron is either a LIAR himself, or was used by LIARS. If the actual liars do not come forward then the whole world is left looking at Archbishop Apuron's attempt to use the name of Cardinal Tagle without his knowledge or permission and not just for wrong purposes, but to artificially aggrandize the Neocatechumenal Way, its Initiator, and by extension, Archbishop Apuron himself!

Archbishop Apuron will now find out the truth about those who profess to love him. If they do, then they will identify themselves and exonerate the Archbishop who now must publicly apologize for the wrong done. If they do not, if they do not love him, if they are only using him, if they will just cast him to the side when they are done with him, then they will continue to hide in the shadows and watch him burn. 

My guess is they will do the latter. 


21 comments:

  1. The problem that the fabricated story about Cardinal Tagle engendered is that it not only strain our relationship with the PI, it will galvanized our Filipino brothers in Guam to never trust the Chancery again. No amount of apologizing in the world will heal the damage and unite our community. Archbishop Apuron has lost total credibility. He can never be trusted again. He cannot govern under these circumstances. The only decent and right thing to do under these circumstances is for Archbishop Apuron to resign. If he does not, it will only mean he will double down on his efforts to glorify and beatify the NCW, at the expense of everyone else, in order to solidify his legacy that because he founded the RMS, he created a bounty of vocations for Guam. History will not be kind though as it will see through the façade. Archbishop Apuron may be able to salvage his legacy if he resigns. Otherwise, he will be like Cardinal Mahoney, ostracized and shunned after retirement.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Archbishop is not CEO of a publicly traded company and should not resign. He is trying his best and needs our prayers and support more than ever.

    The issue isn't over race - don't make it about that. It's the leadership of the NCW that is the problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the problem is the leadership of the NCW, as you say, and because the archbishop, as our CEO of the Church in Guam, allowed that leadership to do what they want, then the archbishop is at fault and should resign. Nothing in this archdiocese can be done or move without the archbishop's permission, and if he allows it, then the responsibility is his.

      Delete
    2. Exasperated already!June 2, 2014 at 3:09 PM

      The Archbishop may not be, should not be and is not a CEO, that is so true. The fact of the matter is he sure does behave as one and reigns like he is a CEO of a company instead of a Servant of the Clergy of Guam and instead of a spiritual Leader of the Catholic Congregation and Diocese of Guam -- you cannot ignore that because we did not initially tag him with that description or label. Our Archbishop sees himself as one and that is why he regards his Archbishop position in that light and carry's out his tasks in the manner that a Business CEO would!

      Lord knows we Catholics on Guam have been yearning (for quite a while now) for a genuinely committed Bishop who would lead us and spiritually shepherd us; and so do the clergy -- judging from what as we hear, read and see!

      Delete
  3. Mr tony Diaz needs to make a statement regarding this matter. If the archbishop ordered this story to be published we need to know. If the writer wrote the article alone, we want to know why she did not phone Manila to gain correct data for publication. Does she just write anything that comes to her mind. This means she has no standards in her writings and raises questions about her. Hope this week we can get to the truth of this matter. To lie about cardinal chito is not acceptable to the Filipinos. This is not how the archdiocese of Manila functions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. The sooner the Chancery discloses what happened, apologizes to Cardinal Tagle, make an announcement on the Catholic radio station, and print a retraction in the Umatuna, the easier will it be to repair the damage inflicted by this archdiocese. If they do not move expeditiously, it will be a disaster for this archdiocese.

      Delete
  4. Suspect working on history of archbishop that he is the liar. Let's see how this unfolds in the coming days. Certainly someone in the Guam chancery needs to make a statement on this story is disturbing.
    Regarding the cost of this trip if it is being paid for by the bishops appeal and or the gala it is a serious issue. This money was not given for trips off island. It is a grave abuse of his authority to use such funding for a trip. This matter needs immediate clarification on who is paying the airfares.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Isn't is possible the the initiators of the NCW wrote to his Eminence Cardinal Chito Tagle asking permission to come and spread the word? Could it be that his Eminence Cardinal Tagle's reply was taken as an invitation?

    The NCW says says, we were told as they always seem to say. Others say, His Eminence Cardinal Tagle wouldn't do it. None of us know the whole picture. Did the NCW receive the invitation straight for His Eminence Cardinal Tagle himself to come to Manila to join the Evangelization March? Did they see the invitation for the Cardinal to the initiators?

    I certainly cannot answer the question. I am not a NCW flock nor do I work at the Chancery. The only person who can answer this is the Cardinal himself. Our problems our ours and not the Cardinal's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do know the whole picture and so does the Archbishop.

      Delete
    2. Oh no you don't cardinal tangle did invite the youth to the Philippines

      Delete
    3. OK, 5:45AM Let's go with your scenario and say the ncw initiators did write Cardinal Tagle "to come and 'spread the word'" as you put it. Don't you see how that arrogant statement there would not lead one to accept your self invitation? The ncw will go to the Philippines TO SPREAD THE WORD? Give us a break!

      So maybe (for the purpose of this same scenario) that manner of request to join Cardinal Tagle is why Cardinal Tagle did not respond; and so the NCW -- because it is typical of them to react this way -- based on Cardinal Tagle's NON-RESPONSE, took that non-response as giving the NCW a thumbs-up.

      (BTW 10:36AM the Cardinal's last name is Tagle)

      Delete
  6. To ANON 5:45 AM, the word on the street is that the reporter, editor, and someone else(someone in charge of Worship?) within the Umatuna received a letter from Cardinal Tagle stating that he never issued an invitation and that the Umatuna print a retraction. At any rate, the NCW initiators and the Chancery(especially the archbishop) should never assume anything when you attribute a statement or act to a person especially a cardinal such as your Eminence Cardinal Tagle. That is just bad and negligent reporting. All they had to do was to email or call his Eminence. It was that simple, and because they didn't, one has to speculate why not? Was it because it involved the NCW(the archbishop's baby), no one in the Umatuna questioned the veracity of the statement? I mean, word was spreading around the NCW communities by NCW priests that the famous Cardinal Tagle was personally inviting Kiko and the NCW youths and seminarians from Guam. Wow! That certainly gave a lot of prestige and incentive to this cause! Was that the real reason for the subterfuge?

    ReplyDelete
  7. As President for the CBCP in Manila and heading this New Evangilizatio. Conference, could it be possible that Archbishop Socrates made the invitation seeing that he is like Archbishop Apuron soooo NEO? Probably a wanna be cardinal too!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, because the Umatuna would have used Socatres as the one inviting. Tagle and Socrates are not even remotely close in spelling or pronunciation so it would be impossible to mistake one for the other.

      Delete
    2. According to this, Socrates DOES NOT LIKE the Neo:

      http://www.lingayen-dagupan.org/ArchBishop/neocat.html

      Delete
  8. In the Philippines the NCW is still a unknown quantity. Already there have been problems with the organization. A number of bishops of the Philippines will not allow the NCW in their dioceses. The problem is here that cardinal tagle who does not engage in politics has been used to inform people that he invited kiko and all here. This would give the impression he supports the NCW. The archdiocese of Manila allows it to function, that is different to saying the archbishop of Manila invited. But then Guam makes it far worse by leading people to believe cardinal tagle wants Guam youth in Manila to evangelize. This may not be so. It is about the impression archbishop Apuron led people to believe that is so wrong. Obviously anyone from Guam is welcome as guests to any religious educational conference in the Philippines. Let us work on true facts and statements and not re create to support our own belief. This is where the problem is. Now it's exposed it raises further questions on administration of the archbishop of Guam.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Strongly suggest archbishop issues a statement simply apologizing for this news article. This will bring the matter to a close.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Let's just say the archbishop did not lie and knew nothing about this case. Because this is now being read world wide, will those who used the archbishop come forward and accept responsibility for the case. In which case he would be cleared. This is a possibility. But knowing how the archbishop functions he wil sit through it and wait for it to pass over as he always did. This method leads to greater problems in the long term. Best to identify what went wrong here and inform the people. Then the matter can be laid to rest. But to leave it hanging shows no responsibility or accountability of anyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He knew. I just learned that he is leading the Guam Neo contingent to evangelize Manila, or is it to pay homage to Kiko, his true and underlying intent? He truly is the AIRPORT BISHOP.

      Delete
    2. If he knew that this article was a lie and goes to lead the group in the evangelization, then it shows he has no SHAME!

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch