What are you implying by sarcastically stating "a fine example of the 'fruit' of the Neocatechumenal Way"?
What are YOU implying by implying that I am sarcastically implying?
Tim I know your being sarcastic. I am not a Kikobot or whatever you want to call them but to constantly say "[this is an] example of the fruit..." is offensive. I get it, you may come back at me and bring up other things that other people in the NCW have said to offend you as well and I apologize. But the real fruit of the NCW is not what you see here. Call them by their names and don't generalize the NCW as a whole. This may not matter to you but many have and are taking you seriously, (you are aware of this as well) by believing in you, many might take it to the extreme and label the NCW as what you say they are here. The only reason why I say this is because not one (maybe i missed it) post that you somewhat talked about "the fruit" of the NCW was ever positive. It was always relating to something negative.
"Fruit" is the one word the Neo's use most, and use it to justify their existence. Wadeson is a "fruit" of the NCW. And for the record, I have yet to experience any "positive" fruit of the NCW on this blog. I have been blasted with the most vile vitriol I have ever experienced in my whole life and I grew up in East L.A.
Let me add my two cents to the discussion. You know, why the Archbishop is not listening to us. Not even to Msgr Quitugua, the elder, who told the Archbishop he is the problem. It is because of his Neo community. None of them has said anything to him to make him think he is the problem. For them, he has not done anything wrong. And this is the crux of the matter. That is why he has not shown any evidence of changing his ways. Sorry, I know you don't Tim using the word "fruit", but I have to add this as still one fruit of the NCW.
@ 7:42 AM: As far as I have seen on this site, the Neos never answer difficult questions and instead they: i. argue that the Pope permits their activities and ii cite to their "fruits." You can't have it both ways. You can't use your "fruits" to aggrandize your church but cry foul when others cites to your "fruits" for the opposite purpose.
If this was the case, why couldn't he or the Archbishop state this in the first place? Why pack up and leave? Why ban him when he isn't even here half of the time? think Fr Wadeson was leaving anyway at some time and just wanted to make a dramatic exit.
Correct. Why pack up and leave? Why did the Archbishop CAN him if he was innocent? But then that's what this Archbishop does whenever the flames get to close to his own behind. Wadeson. Come back and defend yourself. Stop running.
According to Diana, Father Wadeson is waiting for people like you to come after him, then his lawyer will move. You need to stay put Tim!
Good luck with that one Fr. Wadeson.
Tell Diana to ask Apuron if it's okay for me to release the recording of his infamous Tagaytay speech where he taught everyone present how to do calumny.
Fr. John: if you have proof of your innocence, stop whining and produce it. No one in Guam is defaming you. They have simply repeating what is in the public domain for many years now especially in the archdiocese of Los Angles.
David, until proven innocent, by reason of mental illness, Desoto will remain in jail, same as Wadeso, until proven innocent, he should remove the collar and refrain from performing any priestly duties. jes of chalan pago
So Jess you wanna man up and join SNAPP? Just curious if you would like to ride this WAGON. Are you prepared to take this to an EXTREME level? I encourage you to choose your word carefully. Bear in mind this is on the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2273.
The comparison does not match. Sorry.
Hey, we better remain Anon, since we have been warned by Wadeson. Is his attorney Neo? Say, Lady DI, did Saint Padre Pio, to whom you have compared John Wadeson, hire a lawyer and publicly warn people in the MEDIA??? Just a question.
WOW! Diana is so gong ho about the word "EXCOMMUNICATION"! I bet she is itching right now as to the course of action. She says she knows who the culprit is. SO SPIT IT OUT DIANA AND SHOW YOUR PROOF!
I am going to recommend not to post on Diana's blog because you just can't reason with her and the others - they are all too cuckoo for kikopuffs and it would be like trying to reason with a two-year old. Though her posts have given much insight inside the NCW here on Guam, reading her stuff has been difficult to stomach lately. So read it for entertainment, but don't post your comments there. She and the others read Jungle Watch so they will get your message posted here.
As they say: "You can't reason with stupid." But yes, read if you need a laugh. I don't.
Anonymous (July 26, 2014 at 9:39 AM), I made the mistake of posting on "Diana's" blog and trying to clarify comments in which my name was mentioned. Unfortunately, I'm a slow learner and ended up doing that twice.In the first instance, I had taken exception to a claim that "… ALL the post [sic] on Jungle Watch … wish the Archbishop to fall ill and die or step down of his duties …" (my emphasis). I challenged "Diana" or the Anonymous person who submitted the comment to provide proof of the claim that "ALL" the posts wished ill health and/or death to the Archbishop. "Diana" dug up ONE comment from 26 June in which the person wrote that since the Archbishop would not resign, we would have to wait until he was "gone," which "Diana" interpreted as a wish for the Archbishop's death! I pointed out that it was not a definitive statement wishing Apuron ill health or death and then indicated that "gone" could possibly refer to the Archbishop’s forced retirement to a life of prayer. But "Diana" discounted my interpretation and "her" rigmarole of explanations continued, so I let it go, giving "Diana" and her fans the impression "she" had won and I had lost. No problem — I value my sanity and saw no point in continuing to try and reason with "her."More recently another Anonymous person referred to me by my full name — albeit with the wrong last name, a common error — along with the fact that I use a Hurry Cane, stating if he/she were the Archbishop, I would be excommunicated along with Tim Rohr. I cleared the record and provided the correct surname, acknowledging that due to my terminal illness, I do use the Hurry Cane, as indicated, or a walker. I did not bother to provide further follow up statements.You're right in that "Diana's" blog provides great insight inside Guam's version of the NCW, including but not limited to, the kind of "obedience" required via their mantra "Do not question; just obey" along with the convoluted thought processes — if we can even call it that — to which "Diana" and "her" followers are prone to follow.Per the Serenity Prayer:God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, [the inability to reasonably discuss anything with “Diana” and other Kikos/Kikobots];The courage to change the things I can, [assisting with the complete restoration of the AUTHENTIC One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to the Archdiocese of Agana]; And wisdom to know the difference [so that I may refrain from trying to engage “Diana” and other Kikos/Kikobots in meaningful discussion while contributing to the ongoing discussions here in JungleWatch].
uh huh, a real Christian, " i'm gonna sue!". doesn't scripture say something about that? oh I forgot you're still learning, that's why you walking
So you say your innocent. Then why did LA Diocese effectively prohibit you from saying mass in their diocese? And why did you just run away? Why did aaa "remove you from active ministry"?WHY?
I will publicly say it again. I believe Wadeson is innocent of all charges. In fact, I am the only one besides himself saying that. I even said it before he said it. The problem is that our own Archbishop HAS NOT SAID IT. In fact, the Archbishop has shown us that he believes Wadeson is guilty by publicly canning him. So Wadeson, who's your friend?
Yup, we all meed friends.
I just can't believe that if Fr. Wadeson is innocent of the "credible accusations" against him, why hasn't he made a full all out effort to clear his name. It would seem to me that unless he wants the cloud of suspicion lifted, he would make every attempt to clear his name and have his name removed from the list of priests who have been banned from priestly ministry in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Also, SNAP would no longer be following him and continue to identify him as a sexual predator. Instead of clearing his name, it seems that Wadeson is content on just moving on and hoping that no one will pay attention to his suspicious past or that somehow it will all go away. I hope it is the last time we hear about him and hope that our Archdiocese is no longer extending any kind of financial support to him. Oh, and by the way, when our we going to see the financial disclosures from the Chancery?
Just wondering what Kiko is thinking of all of this??? Kiko, que pasa?
Fr. John's attempt to proclaim his innocence was pitiful. He had all those years to do it. He had the opportunity to do so when he applied for incardination here. He should divert the money he is paying to hire an attorney to look at defamation charges and spend it on clearing his name. This matter doe snot pass the SMELL test. Sorry Fr. John but you are going to have to do a lot better than issuing a statement proclaiming your innocence to prove your innocence.