Saturday, August 9, 2014

CHUCK WHITE RESPONDS TO DR. RIC EUSEBIO


  1. Here's my response to Dr. Ric Eusebio, for what it's worth:
    -----------------------------------
    Dr. Ric Eusebio,

    I found your op ed piece today to be sugar coated warm pap and several of your assertions to be quite disingenuous. Let's go over a few:

    “I have never seen the catechists or the archbishop carry a gun and threaten anyone to join.”

    Nobody said anything about guns, Dr. Eusebio. The psychological leveraging found in “the Way” only needs verbally intimidating catechists and perhaps a few flashes of temper. Members of “the Way” know that they will not progress to the next stage of “the Way” without the concurrence of the catechists assigned to their community. They want very badly to pass the scrutiny, so why on earth would they want to do or say anything to anger their catechists?
    “I have never seen them take so much as a dime of our people's money for themselves.”

    Well, I have rock-solid proof that a significant portion of the money and valuables collected during the second scrutiny goes directly to the Archbishop. Kiko says so, and I believe him. In fact, Kiko calls this “the loot of demons”. Now, I’m willing to give the Archbishop the benefit of doubt and assume that this money - in once certain instance it involved tens of thousands of dollars - is used to further the Gospel. But transparency (didn’t you use that word?) is needed. How much has the Archbishop accrued in this manner over the years and what has he done with it?

    “I have never heard or seen a grand design to insert all Catholics in Guam in the Way or a plan to "take over" all parishes in Guam.”

    Ask the priest that are not in “the Way”. They live in a climate of fear and reprisal and they made that fact known to our Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop Krebs when he was here.

    “Serving his flock faithfully as he was chosen by the Vatican, now suddenly he is evil?”

    I for one, have never criticized the Holy Father’s choice of Anthony Sablan Apuron to lead the See of Agana, but I am extremely critical of Anthony Sablan Apuron’s choices since he assumed that See.


    “Despite his efforts to be transparent, the facts he presents seem to be taken out of context and interpreted in a "colored" malicious manner.”
    Dr. Eusebio, I find it curious that you made no mention of the whole John Howard Wadeson fiasco of the last few weeks. Is this your idea of transparency??

    Chuck White
    http://thoughtfulcatholic.com

19 comments:

  1. Dear Dr. Ric Eusebio:

    You may not have seen the archbishop take a dime, but check with your catechist Fr. Pius. Part of the money thrown in the bucket to "kick the devil", as we were all told to do, went to the archbishop personally, and we are all talking big bucks here(easily in the thousands)! Perhaps you were not involved in the collection but just check, and you will find out that it is true.

    As for taking over parishes by neo priests, please open your heart and mind and see how the non neo priests have been treated and how the neo priests are treated. Any independent observer would note how neo priests are favored. Do you not see discrimination in how Fr. Jun and Manny were denied incardination, despite over 25 years of loyal and devoted service to this archdiocese, and yet, Fr. Wadeson, at the blink of an eye, was incardinated? Do you not see a problem of how the elderly Fr. Simeon(over 80 years old), pastor of Maina,was abruptly told one day after over 30 years of service in Guam and Saipan that he was not needed anymore and he is now released and free to go back to the PI(he had no home to go too in fact--he was literally thrown out into the street)? Do you not see a problem with how the newly ordained neo priests are immediately becoming pastors, unlike Fr. Kidd, despite their lack of experience and education? Wake up Dr. Eusebio and start looking with an open mind and heart.

    On serving his flock "faithfully", has the archbishop? Just because he was chosen by the Vatican does not make our archbishop immune from bad and, yes, evil, decisions. Look at what Bernard Law did in Boston, Mahoney did in Los Angles, and the many others. The Vatican may have chose them, but the Vatican did not force them to do evil. These bishops had a choice, and they chose badly.

    As for his efforts at being transparent, what efforts? He accused Monsignor James of all sorts of allegations and read these allegations to his councils, but still refused to give Monsignor James a copy of the written allegations. He then issues a press release citing a letter from the auditors as the basis of his removal but conveniently chose not to release the rest of the story, as Mr.Rivera, Illagan, Duenas, and Untalan exposed so clearly and explosively. Where is the transparency in all that? And who selectively took an auditor's letter over 8 months old without disclosing his June letter that totally contradicts his own claim? Now, if anyone took something out of context and colored it maliciously as you said, it is Archbishop Apuron!

    Your a fine surgeon Dr. Eusebio but please read and analyze ALL of the facts carefully. You will then see the TRUTH.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nicely said, but how about saying that in a letter to the editor?

      Delete
    2. All so very true. And very sad when you see that all laid out.

      Delete
  2. It really apprears that Kikos brainwashing type techniques do work. It's unfortunate most of the Neo's on Guam are good people, but they all seemed to say they were "weak" in one way or another and found "The Way". This tells me they should not be leading our Church. Other priest with a True Sound
    Mind and Spirit should be. That is the real issue. Think about it, do you let someone with emotional or spiritual issues run the show? Probably not a good idea right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So are you saying that your faith is without flaw? You are worthy of reaching heaven at this point? if so, then good for you. But I highly doubt anybody at this point is worthy of getting to heaven, including myself.

      Delete
    2. David G. How's Diana doing?

      Delete
    3. She's doing great, and yourself? She's entitled to her opinion and so are you ;)

      Delete
    4. She is not entitled to be stalking my children.

      Delete
    5. Yes. Stalking is a crime. You do that to my family, beware this Catholic Man.

      Delete
    6. I checked to see if Diane was lying about your child being all over the internet. She's right. Your daughter's photo is all over the internet. I think you should know that being the concern father that you are. I never had my kid have their face on the internet or the newspaper. Never know how many pedophiles are out there.

      Delete
    7. Thank you, David G. For telling me how Diana is you should very well know, Diana , I mean David, I mean Diana. Ohhhh, never mind. And whoever you are, what you did is stalking. You do go to jail for that, you know. In your great zeal to defend NCW, you probably didn't even realize you were stalking, but we did.

      Delete
    8. Really? if it is a crime, move forward with legal actions. Gathering information from a public website, especially a news site, is not stalking. Tim you know that.

      Delete
    9. Diana: the gift that keeps on giving. As we follow his self destruction on his blog, he reveals more and more his psychosis. Now there he speaks of a conspiracy. His neo testimony is one of perpetual victimhood. Pathetic!

      Delete
    10. It's called a persecution complex and it is deliberately fostered by "the Way". A classic sectarian technique.

      Delete
    11. David G. I am going to answer this at the risk of further exposing a member of my family which as a father I do not what to do. "Diana" did not just "gather information" from a news site. "She" went to my daughter's facebook page and gathered information there too. She also essentially accused my daughter of having something to do with the PDN stories. This is sick. My daughter was a write for the Vibe. This means she was a free-lance writer and NOT employed by the PDN. And how sick is it to think that some little teen age girl is going to influence stories appearing on the front page.

      Because of the threats to my person that I have consistently received I had already contacted the FBI several weeks ago and at their instruction have created a "paper trail" of all of these attempts to impugn, malign, and threaten me and or members of my family. I have added this sick episode as well.

      Too bad Diana is not as concerned about Ric Eusebio's son who is or was an actual employee of the PDN.

      Delete
    12. At 10:11. Once again, at the risk of exposing a member of my family, I will answer this. My daughter is all over the internet because, on her own, she has made a name for herself as a writer. Specifically she has documented growing up with two brothers who have autism. Because of this, she has become well known and her picture, sometimes long with her brothers, have been published. She is also a performer and has appeared in several productions, also contributing to her pictures on the internet. But thank you for your concern, though sadly I have to suspect that it was not sincere.

      Delete
    13. I know I should really stay away from “Diana’s” blog but I find in it an interesting display of mental instability. I’m constantly amazed at just how irrational “her” thought processes are. In “Having the Upper Hand” 9 August post, “Diana” claimed that “she” was only trying to figure out PDN’s “conflict of interest” when she discovered the Rohr connection, via Dana. VOILA!! In “Diana’s” mind Dana, as a VIBE intern, was able to influence the editing of all things NCW-related. While Dana may be articulate, intelligent and accomplished, she cannot exert any influence on how the PDN handles articles about the NCW. Other people expressed the same argument, but “Diana” as well as “El Camino” and a couple of “her” Anonymous disciples insisted that Tim Rohr ultimately controls the PDN and Dana was instrumental!

      The following day, 10 August, “Diana” wrote about the “Unbalanced Journalism” of the PDN because, as “she” claims, there were no complaints from either Chuck White or Tim Rohr about having their articles edited. “Diana” contrasted the transcript of the Fr. Pius interview, along with articles submitted by Dr. Ric Eusebio and Mr. Pablo Aglubat posted on “her” blog, with what was published in the PDN to point out where the newspaper had exercised its editorial options. In one of the comments, “Diana” was asked if she had the original submissions from either Chuck or Tim to make the comparison as had been done with the NCW material. “Diana’s” response was “Not only did they not complain about it, they proudly displayed it on their blog site.” In “her” mind, since neither writer complained about his article being edited, no editing was done. Really?!?!

      I can only wonder how the publisher and editors of the newspaper would react if they took the time to read the allegations in “Diana’s” blog in which “she” eventually accuses the PDN of “yellow journalism.”

      Delete
  3. Father Adrian sounded like a person who thinks he can calm people down with his soothing voice on k-57. It's pretty easy to tell he was downplaying the issues and acting all innocent. So this island will see what they really have planned. May God have Mercy on their Souls for Selling Out Our Church and all it's History on Guam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like Pius, a soothing voice with conniving eyes...then they attack your integrity. Don't let it fool you.

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch