Saturday, August 2, 2014


So I was busy today with around the home duties and only had time here and there to approve comments on my iPhone. Nice to know I was missed. Didn't know so many people have Jungle Fever and were wondering why I hadn't posted or commented in the last 30 minutes. But now that the day is done, on to some business. I hope you paid attention to the two MAJOR articles in the PDN and the Variety. WOW! Talk about a punch to the gut followed by an upper cut. And guess what? That was not Tim Rohr talking. That was Joe Rivera and Richard Untalan. Two men who know the REAL TRUTH. And there's more to come!

Here's some other stuff I want to address:

1. My title: "Apuron is a liar". I know that shocked some people that I would actually say that let alone make it the title of the post. It was meant to. Someone mentioned that Archbishop Apuron has never called me a "liar", as if that was some sort of reason for me not to call him one. Well, there's no reason to call me a liar. I have substantiated absolutely everything I have posted including the Archbishop's lies. 

I'm simply not sure what else we can call them. The aren't just slips of the tongue or misstatements. And given their use - the defamation and ruination of selected priests - these aren't just lies, they are vicious lies, and more will be revealed in the coming days. 

But now for the bombshell. Well, not quite. For many months I gave the Archbishop the benefit of the doubt every time one of his statements was found to be a lie. You see, I know, and many people know, that the Archbishop does not write his own letters. None of these lies that are coming out of the chancery are written by him. The archbishop is handed prepared statements to either read or sign and then his handlers promulgate them in his name. 

It really is a sad situation. Of course, the Archbishop must take full responsibility for these lies, but one wonders just how long he will allow himself to be made a fool by the people he thinks he can trust. I'll leave it at that for now. 

2. I've received a small number of comments from those who are moaning and groaning about all this mess and lamenting that they are going to leave the church if this keeps up and what a poor example all of us are and all that. Look. There is only ONE reason to become Catholic or stay Catholic. And that is because it is TRUE. We've had arguments in our church since those two apostles fought over who was going to be greater in heaven, and we've had bad bishops and priests since Judas. And Jesus himself picked those guys. 

You all need to get yourself a good book on Church history to see what we've been through the last 2000 years. It'll blow your mind. I recommend TRIUMPH, by Harry Crocker III. It's time to grow up and get ahold of yourself. Stop looking to be coddled. It's called the Church Militant for heaven's sakes. Hey, here's something to buck you you from Archbishop Fulton Sheen:

"If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hated." Read more here

3. Someone else went on about how are we going to ever get along if I, let me repeat that "I" am not willing to humble myself. And of course, the person didn't leave his or her name. So it's time we examine "humility". 

I have absolutely nothing to gain by any of this. For over a year this has cost me a huge portion of my life. I'm well past the point in my life where I need to make a name for myself, as if I hadn't already done so. By putting my name on this blog I hold myself out for ridicule, threats, taunts, and all manner of evil. If I am wrong on something, there is a personal cost to me. 

Contrast this with "Diana", the default spokesperson for the kiko's. There is no personal cost to "her" because "she" is anonymous. This is pride. This is a person so prideful that "she" will not witness with her person, so that responsibility will never accrue to "her". And the same is true for the person who criticized me for not having humility but did not have the humility to engage me in person. And why didn't the person want to engage me with their real name? Because then that person would have to let their defenses down and be known. 

Imagine Christ hiding out in Nazareth in some cave sending out anonymous notes rather than presenting himself in person to the people he wished to witness to. How typical of our age that cowardice is now revered as humility and courage is branded pride. 

4. Also today I received another comment ridiculing my going to Mass at the Friary and asking what parish I belong to, etc. etc. etc. So let's review, AGAIN. 

I DO NOT "go to Mass" at the Friary. You got that? Here, let's do that again. I DO NOT "go to Mass" at the Friary. I have decided that what is best for my family is to attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form, as promulgated and promoted by Pope Benedict XVI in his Moto Proprio of July 7, 2007, Summorum Pontificum. (You really ought to read it sometime.) 

Pope Benedict, in his accompanying letter to bishops, explained that the reintroduction of the "ancient Latin liturgical tradition" was " a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church", and he encouraged bishops to receive "in full harmony...all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio. " In short, the restoration of the ancient Latin liturgical tradition was the center of his "hermeneutic of continuity" and his wish to restore harmony in the church after the rupture wrought by what he believed to be a misinterpretation of the Council. 

On this island, only Fr. Eric Forbes has endeavored to fully embrace the intent of Summorum Pontificum. I say "fully embrace" because there are other a couple of other priests who also embrace it and who have learned and are learning to celebrate the ancient Mass. But it is only offered regularly by Fr. Eric, and he happens to be at the Friary. As a Catholic and as per the norms promulgated in Summorum, I have the right to seek out and attend this form of the Mass, and so I do. 

This Mass is not offered at my home parish, Agat, so I do not go there. But I also DO NOT go there because its pastor believes something different about the Eucharist. He also celebrates a different Eucharist (in the NCW) than he does with the rest of the parish. He also, as a member of the Neocatechumenal Way, regularly violates his own statute in the manner of the distribution of Holy Communion. 

I do not have to attend his neo-celebration to know this. I do not have to attend ANY neo-celebration to know this. I have only to read Kiko's rejection of Pope Benedict's request to celebrate the Eucharist according to the norms of the liturgical books. I have only to remember Archbishop Apuron's own rejection of the Pope's request. I have only to read the accounts of many "witnesses" of the neo-Eucharist to know that church norms are rejected and neo-presbyters do what they wish. 

I DO NOT want my children to grow up in the presence of priests who reject legitimate magisterial authority as Archbishop Apuron publicly did and as he and his neo-presbyters regularly do, AND THEY KNOW IT. 

That's all I have for now.


  1. With the recent word from Rome about the sign of peace. What does that mean? What does it mean for the Neo movement? I asked Diana and this was her response.

    DianaAugust 2, 2014 at 7:51 PM
    Dear Anonymous at 6:26 p.m.,

    The Statutes of the Way was already approved by the Vatican in 2008. It was presented and given ONLY to the NCW. So, we follow what the Vatican has already approved for us.


    So basically it's a no. Not going to change or follow. Now who is being disobedient to the holy father?

    1. Will comment soon on this.

    2. "Diana" should note this excerpt from the recent article on the CNA website:

      "The congregation for worship also noted that there are several abuses of the rite which are to be stopped: the introduction of a “song of peace,” which does not exist in the Roman rite; the faithful moving from their place to exchange the sign; the priest leaving the altar to exchange the sign with the faithful; and when, at occasions such as weddings or funerals, it becomes an occasion for congratulations or condolences."

      All of the aforementioned abuses are committed during the neo-eucharistic celebration. And yet for a group of people who frequently stress obedience to the archbishop and kiko, I doubt they will obey the Congregation for Divine Worship. That is exactly the problem.

    3. Here is Diana's response.

      Dear Anonymous at 8:54 p.m.,

      According to the CNA/EWTN:

      " The Congregation for Divine Worship, in a recent circular letter, announced that the placement of the sign of peace within Mass will not change, though it suggested several ways the rite could be performed with greater dignity.

      “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments … pronounced in favor of maintaining the 'rite' and 'sign' of peace in the place it has now in the Ordinary of the Mass,” Fr. Jose Maria Gil Tamayo, secretary general of the Spanish bishops' conference, related in a July 28 memo.

      He noted that this was done out of consideration of the placement of the rite of peace as “a characteristic of the Roman rite,” and “not believing it to be suitable for the faithful to introduce structural changes in the Eucharistic Celebration, at this time.”

      The sign of peace is made after the consecration and just prior to the reception of Communion; it had been suggested that it be moved so that it would precede the presentation of the gifts."

      It seems to me that the Vatican wants to move the sign of peace to the way the NCW is ALREADY doing it. It appears that the Vatican wants to follow the NCW by moving the sign of peace to precede the presentation of gifts. In other words, YOU are the one who have to follow what we are already doing in the NCW.

    4. OUCH!! After quoting all that. There simply is no cure for KAKA. And with Diana the disease as fatally metastasized.

  2. Well, must admit Tim I have the jungle fever. I wake up even 3am to open jungle watch for the jungle never sleeps. Apuron can strike at any hour and when he does we need to be ready.

    1. Jungle fever? You must be having anxiety attacks not knowing what is to BLOW UP in your FACE and then EXPEL right out your ass!

    2. @August 3, 2014 at 9:52 PM
      Hey monsignor David, more fruit?

  3. Great post, Tim. The archbishop does tells lies, hence he is a liar. No one can give him the benefit of the doubt after hearing him "enlighten" the PI retreat attendees about Father Paul with his outright lies!!! I was shocked to hear what he said. All this happening with the arch is disturbing to me after I recently decided to stop being a fallen-away Catholic and go back to regular attendance at Mass and the sacraments of confession and Holy Communion. The arch's actions won't affect my decision but he as our spiritual leader has shown himself to be lacking big time. He is entrenched in his divisive position. The only solution I can see is his removal. The arch is not the church on Guam. I would not abandon my faith and those who are considering doing so should rethink this move. Perhaps this is what the arch and his Neo cronies want--to drive away all their opposition so they'll have a free rein. Nothing doing! I will not abandon the church when she needs the protection of the faithful in her time of need. I am hanging on like a pit bull.
    Eileen Benavente-Blas

  4. You're so always right on the money because you don't have any hidden agenda. I am so thankful to a friend of mine who gave me the book Truimph and was able to learn that what is happening to our church in Guam is nothing compared to what our church has gone thru the years. This is kid stuff and definitely no reason to leave the church. We can only come out stronger from the experience.