Friday, August 22, 2014


As we now know, the first printing of the August 10 edition of the U Matuna, was frantically retrieved and destroyed soon after it was made available for pickup around 4:PM, Friday, August 8. We were told in a subsequent news story in the U Matuna the following week that the reason for the scramble to retrieve the first printing and print a second was "because of errors in the original print edition." Lies would be more like it. Lies the chancery thought they could (AGAIN) get away with. 

Let's review the timeline:

July 31: The archbishop releases a statement to the media along with a seven month old letter from an accounting firm detailing the accounting problems at the Catholic Cemeteries. The archbishop's letter alleges financial mismanagement and is a response to the public outrage over his ambush firing of Msgr. James. 

August 6: The team of accountants tasked with addressing the concerns raised by the accounting review hold a press conference and show evidence that not only had the concerns been addressed and all but one resolved, but that the archbishop had acknowledged the progress in a letter dated six weeks previous.

August 6-7: The chancery, again caught red-handed lying, flies into action and manufactures a story for the Umatuna designed to provoke sympathy for the archbishop, cast opposition as "hate speech", and discredit the financial professionals who spoke on August 6. 

August 8: It's 4:PM, and the chancery bosses are up on the hill having a victory party, thinking that they've hit a home run with their hit piece on their opponents. 


Apparently, the archbishop and his fellas had no problem trashing men like Mr. Joe Rivera and Mr. Art Ilagan, the men who had said "nothing could be further from the truth" in response to the archbishop's allegations of financial mismanagement. But the archbishop and his fellas apparently felt different about dealing with the author of the letter which arrived at 4:09, Friday afternoon. We can't expose the contents of the letter yet, but use your imagination. 

The retracted story is so full of lies that I can't address them all in one sitting, so we'll have to do this in parts. Here's the first. The text of the story is copied here for easy reading. My comments are in red. A copy of the first part of the story from the original printing of the August 10 U Matuna is at the bottom.

Archdiocese statement reviewing financial concerns

The Archdiocese of Agana wishes to reintroduce the July 29, 2014 statement regarding the initial results of the Deloitte & Touche financial review on all the finances of the Archdiocese.

Really? The Archdiocese of Agana wishes..."??? Aren't WE the Archdiocese of Agana? How about the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Agana?

Numerous misrepresentations are being circulated in the media and are creating uneasiness and confusion in the members of our Church. This is very unhealthy. Some people have even voiced that they would like to oust our Archbishop from his post, throwing insults and second-guessing the chief shepherd: this attitude is not catholic.

Let's start with "numerous misrepresentations...being circulated in the media." The only thing at this point circulating in the media, besides the archbishop's own above referenced press statement, was what was said at the press conference held by Mr. Joe Rivera and Mr. Art Ilagan on August 6. 

At the conference, these men who had been tasked to address the concerns raised by the financial review, had stated that the archbishop's allegations were untrue and "not supported by fact". To support their own position, Misters Rivera and Ilagan addressed each of the archbishop's allegations, point by point, giving the date as to when those issues had been resolved. 

By referring to the response of Misters Rivera and Ilagan as "numerous misrepresentations", the archbishop is accusing these two esteemed financial professionals and the others that worked with them of ignorance, or worse, deliberately lying. Now who are you going to believe? An archbishop that has been caught in lie after lie after lie, or these men whose professional esteem and personal integrity is on the line. 

And really? "Second guessing the chief shepherd"? Not catholic? Really? Aside from all the lies relative to the firing of Fr. Paul, the canning of Aaron Quitugua's vocation, the alienation of the Yona property, and the smearing of Msgr. Benavente, may we remind you that our "chief shepherd" was second guessed by Rome itself in 2012 in a letter from then-Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop Charles Balvo? And how about our "chief shepherd" himself  publicly "second guessing" the credentials of the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments? And you're going to tell us that our little inquiry is NOT CATHOLIC?

This hate speech can even drive people to violence and in fact some people have punctured two tires of the Archbishop’s car. This way of acting is certainly not according to the spirit of Christ and to our Catholic tradition and we pray that everybody may realize it.

So you see, you bad Catholics, "second guessing" the "chief shepherd" is "hate speech". Never mind that the "chief shepherd" uses phrases like "arduous and painful" to threaten his priests. Never mind that he accuses them of building private staircases to facilitate midnight homosexual trysts. Never mind that he mocks and snickers privately (so he thinks) at young Capuchin vocations. Never mind that he spreads gossip suggesting that a recently returned military chaplain is a homosexual (again with the homosexual). No. None of that is "hate speech", is it? But "second guessing"? Demanding accountability. Well, that's "hate speech", isn't it.

And by the way, slashing tires is a crime. Did the archbishop report it to the police? Can we see the police report? Anyway, your timing is off. The press conference with the so-called "numerous misrepresentations" was held on Wednesday, August 6. The Umatuna, at the latest, would have gone to press by the morning of the following day. To be motivated by the "misrepresentations" to slash the archbishop's tires, one would have had to see the news, slash the bishops tires, give you time to write a story about it, and get the paper off to the presses in just a few hours. Nice try. 

The facts are the following: after the advice of Cardinal Filoni, current Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, the Archdiocese embarked in 2012 on an extensive audit of all its assets. In the past, already in 2005, we had tried to begin an auditing process but the administration of the Cathedral-Basilica had vehemently refused to cooperate.

This is hilarious. There was no "advice" from Rome. It was an order, an order prompted by the complaints of the fired finance council members who had objected to the archbishop's attempt to illegally hand over a deca-million dollar asset to the control of the New Jersey syndicate which controls the Neocatechumenal Way...and, sadly, the archbishop too. 

Oh, and really, you had been trying to do this since 2005 but the "Cathedral-Basilica (aka Msgr. James) had vehemently refused to cooperate"? Goodness! Is that a whopper! Even if that was true then this is an admission of the extreme dereliction of duty on the part of the archbishop whose duty it would have been to replace Msgr. James if he had in fact "vehemently refused to cooperate".  But we are to believe that nine years later, the archbishop finally decided to take "urgent action" as he called it in his July 2014 press statement? 

Actually, the date is not insignificant. Archbishop Apuron had been chastised twice by the then-Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop Charles Balvo, for his failure to produce financial statements, once in 2011 and again in 2012. Balvo had stated in both letters that he had "never received" the required statements from the Archdiocese of Agana. 

published the 2012 letter from Archbishop Balvo on my blog on August 6, the day before this edition of the Umatuna went to print. Guess when Archbishop Balvo was appointed delegate to this region? April 2005

The archbishop swears he doesn't read my "evil" blog, but obviously somebody at the chancery does. Since Balvo said he had NEVER received a financial statement from this archdiocese, and Balvo had been the delegate since 2005...well, how convenient, we'll just blame Msgr. James for his vehement refusal to cooperate guessed it: 2005. 

I don't know about you, but I am getting tired of shaking my head. 

More to come.  


  1. As someone who has been very curious about the "wrong" edition of the 10 August 2014 U Matuna Si Yu'os, I chose to read the article from the photo provided before reading the text and Tim's comments. Having read the backstory, including the timeline of events, that was provided in the opening paragraphs I wanted to read the story for myself. And that's just I did.

    The first thing I noticed was that I couldn't find a byline, indicating the author of the article. I thought that was strange, considering the prominence of the font used for the title. I wondered: Was this article the product of a single individual or of a team of writers?

    The second thing I noticed was the contents of the article. In my opinion, parts of it reads — particularly Paragraph 2 — more like an editorial or a blog post than a news report:
    • "This is very unhealthy." This statement clearly subjective and belongs in an editorial.
    • "Some people have even voiced that they would like to oust our Archbishop from his post, throwing insults and second-guessing the chief shepherd: this attitude is not catholic." This statement is similar in construction and tone to posts from "Diana's" blog.
    • "This hate speech can even drive people to violence …" In "her" blog, "Diana" has used "hate speech" and has referred to an alleged comment by Archbishop Martin Krebs describing JungleWatch as a "hate blog." This is another statement that belongs in an editorial.
    • "… we pray that everybody may realize it." Who is "we"? Was this a quote from a Chancery official? Or is this another editorial comment?

    Too many questions were already swirling in my mind by the time I started reading the third paragraph, beginning with the words "The facts are the following: …" My internal response was, "Facts? Yeah, right — let's see them." I didn't have to read very far, thanks to the desperate attempt by the author(s) to (1) generate support for the Archbishop, (2) discredit those responsible for the so-called "numerous misrepresentations" mentioned in the first paragraph, and (3) justify the removal of Msgr. James. Voila! There it was: "In the past, already in 2005, we had tried to begin an auditing process but the administration of the Cathedral-Basilica had vehemently refused to cooperate." That sentence was clearly written to lay the foundation of blame on Msgr. James. Having followed this blog, I realized the phrase "already in 2005" was deliberately included to explain why Archbishop Balvo, the Nuncio before Archbishop Krebs, never received any financial statements from this Archdiocese — and it was all the faulty of Msgr. James as "the administration of the Cathedral-Basilica" who had allegedly "vehemently refused to cooperate."

    In my opinion, this piece did not belong on the front page of the UMSY as a news report. It failed to meet the criteria of a news report — it was not an objective, "just the facts" piece. The subjective contents that were allowed in the text — particularly the use of the word "we" — indicate that it should have been featured on the editorial page and identified as an Editorial.

    1. Good observations. The lack of a by line was the first thing I notice. Obviously more secrecy and hiding. The 2005 thing is major. Huge lie.

    2. I agree. Good observations. I can just hear the self-appointed spokesperson now: "Unfortunately, these documents found themselves on a blog somewhere." Yes, Adrian, how unfortunate for you that the people of Guam cannot be fooled by your lies, and that our eyes are opened to the destructive and chaotic leadership we are under. Jesus teaches us that man cannot serve both God and mammon, and unfortunately, we all know who those on the hill have been serving. The lies, the bullying, the denial of vocations, the slandering - all works of the evil one. I have decided to not only pray, but to fast, and I encourage my brothers and sisters to continue to have hope amidst the struggle and to pray, pray, pray. I have to remind myself that often times things get worse before they can get better, and that through all of this, God is working for the good of those who love him. He will not abandon HIS bride. He will not abandon HIS people.
      Tim has brought light through the darkness of the tunnel, and on behalf of others, we are grateful that the Lord uses him as an instrument to share the truth. If only the leadership of this Archdiocese believed in "The truth shall set you free."

    3. While out and about on errands, I had one of those “EUREKA!” moments in which I believed I had discovered the reason why there was no byline to this article. It occurred to me that there had been a three-part “Basics of Newswriting” workshop offered by the UMSY and the Office of Communication. This piece could be the final product of a group project as a way to assess the acquisition of the skills in basic newswriting by the workshop participants. A group project could explain the use of the pronoun “we” in the piece as well as the reason for the lack of objectivity in the writing. Workshop participants could have included individuals who either have blogs or who are hoping to start their own blogs. It makes sense not to include a byline reading “Participants from the Basics of Newswriting Workshop” in order to try and maintain the credibility (?) of the article.

      But then I came home and re-examined the photo of the article, noting again the prominence of the title “Archdiocese statement reviewing financial concerns.” Another idea came to me, which would explain why there was no byline. Was this another one of those “Archdiocese Statements” similar to the 22 July 2013 “Archdiocese Statement Regarding Father Paul Gofigan”; 29 July 2014 “Financial reports and financial review: Statement from the Archbishop Anthony Apuron, OFM Cap., D.D.”; and 1 August 2014 “Statement on Financial Matters”? If so, then there would be no need for the byline since the Statement would have been written by Chancellor Adrian Cristobal and/or Vicar General David C. Quitugua. It would also explain the subjectivity of the content as well as the use of the pronoun “we.”

      For whatever reason this front-page piece on the “wrong” edition of the 10 August UMSY lacked a byline, it is clear that the piece itself is consistent with previous “Archdiocese Statements” in that it includes more lies from the Three on the Hill as evidenced by Tim’s analysis/comments.

  2. Adrian, better you shut your mouth and let someone else speak. You keep putting your foot in it.

  3. Janet B - MangilaoAugust 22, 2014 at 9:00 AM

    All we can see from our "chief shepherd" is lies and threats. And then he has the audacity to chastise we the people, and some of his good priests.
    TONY BALONEY - you are disgustingly blind to the evil which has penetrated your soul. Whether it be the terrible influence of Adrian, David the JCD, or Pius and Giuseppi, you are the one who can turn things around. Only you have the apparent power to right all the wrongs.
    Yet what we see over the past few months is a dramatic spiral into deeper darkness.
    May God have mercy on your soul, and may He guide the local Church on Guam to a new Chief Shepherd who will have the grace and courage to do what is right.
    For the salvation of your soul, we urge you to step down, and take the evil influences away from here as well.

  4. Janet B - MangilaoAugust 22, 2014 at 9:08 AM

    Anonymous August 22, 2014 at 8:46 AM said: "
    Adrian, better you shut your mouth and let someone else speak. You keep putting your foot in it."

    No. Adrian is putting his foot in the Archbishop's mouth. How does it taste your chief shepherdness? So sad you cannot speak for yourself.

  5. Janet B mildly chastised an anonymous comment the other day because I suggested that the Archbishop leave behind the NCW and start acting like a leader. She proposed that our Archbishop could never be a leader. That anonymous poster was me, and I refuse to remain anonymous any longer.

    I am completely against all the problems that had occurred this past year, but I really thought there was a way out, that Archbishop Apuron could fix these problems.

    After reading the above about the scratched article from August 10, I now realize that I was wrong, and Janet B and the many other vocal voices of the people are absolutely right. It is completely offensive that our own Archbishop continues to lie. But then he lies in a way that shows he has no leadership qualities.

    If it were true that Msgr James had opposed an effort in 2005 for an audit then why did our leader do nothing? The sad reality we all need to face at this very moment (and it has finally hit me square between the forehead) is that our Archbishop is under the control of outside parties who have no concern for our local Church. They merely want to re-shape our Church into an image they have of what a church should be. This is bad. Worse yet, our Archbishop is completely over his head and is quickly drowning in the excrement they have pushed him into. He cannot swim out of it, and he is only sinking further into it.

    Tim, count me in a quickly growing list of people who are fearful of the NCW and the lack of leadership in our Church. This lack of leadership will destroy our traditions if we do not act decisively and swiftly.

    We all must demand that our Church be given a leader who will look after the care and welfare of the people, and not a particular movement, sect, or cult.

    Proudly signed,

    Gus Pablo from the beautiful village of Dededo

  6. Can someone answer this as posted on Diana's blog?
    The REAL issue here is about FINANCES: where did Msgr. Banavente get the money to buy a new Toyota Landcruiser under his name worth at least $40,000? Where did he get the money? What about the properties he bought in Dededo on both sides of his family house which is across the street from the lower church? We, the people of Dededo, are wondering where does a priest get this kind of money?. Is the salary of a Rector able to carry these rather large expenses? The 'Concerned-Catholics-of-Guam' (and of Dededo) who demand transparency are asking these questions. Can the Jungle explain this?

    1. Easily. Secular priests, otherwise known as diocesan, are not bound by a vow of poverty. They can accumulate property, transact business including real estate transactions, invest, seek employment and receive a pay check outside diocesan service, and pretty much handle their personal financial affairs like the rest of us in terms of money.

      The Archbishop himself does this. Having been relieved of his vows as a Capuchin once he became a bishop, he was permitted to do all of the above. He owns a personal home in Adacao, Mangilao, as well as other properties in the states. Recently he apparently made a nice profit selling his home in Las Vegas:

    2. Can we repeat that diocesan priests do not have a vow of poverty?? Inheriting, playing the stock market is all fair game. Do you ask people at your workplace about what vehicle they drive? Maybe it was a gift, like the 72,000.00 Equus with the slashed tires the Archbishop who wears Franciscan habit when he feels like it DRIVES. There are more important matters at hand.

    3. One more thing, they pay taxes.

    4. I am a concerned Catholic of Guam and a resident of Dededo, and I am not questioning the integrity of Msgr. James Benavente. The Benavente family is respected and they have good moral values. Instead of continuing to try and slander this shepherd, why don't you ask the Archbishop who pays for his $80,000 car? Who pays for the RMS seminarians when they travel? Who pays for their luxuries? Who pays for the bishops private residence? Who pays? Who pays? Who pays?
      These neos - always trying to detour the attention elsewhere, instead of focusing on the truth of what the leadership is doing. And who pays for that?

    5. Melissa Leon Guerrero DoAugust 22, 2014 at 3:30 PM

      Here’s the reply I have for the person asking that question, I’m not sure if it’ll be posted on Diana's blog or not:

      Dear Diana:

      I’m writing to address the question by Anonymous – August 21, 2014 at 6:28pm

      I applaud you for bringing to the forefront that the issues are of finances. You are correct – the finances of the Archdiocese of Agana are the real issue. The divergence from there, however, is where I take issue.

      Now, please allow me, if you would, to address your subsequent questions:

      Where did Msgr. Benavente get the money to buy a new Toyota Landcruiser under his name worth at least $40,000?
      o Did he?

      What about the properties he bought in Dededo on both sides of his family house which is across the street from the lower church?
      o I actually have a couple of issues with this particular question: firstly, our family business is certainly none of yours (unless the person writing this is Jessica Blas, in which case, turns out you are family…). How those homes were purchased is not for public consumption, however, please be assured that all of the funds used were acquired legitimately. We have the documentation to prove this, and will be sharing this information with the Archbishop for his private consumption. The second issue I have is a serious objection to your disclosure of where my family lives. Please, do come out of the shadows of “anonymous” so we know who to sue for this blatant disregard for our privacy. We have a pretty good attorney who just happens to be our Uncle – I do hope you have one as well.

      We, the people of Dededo, are wondering where does a priest get this kind of money?
      o You know, I’m a member of his family, and I would never ask him that question because this is actually none of my business. Good on you for not being afraid of breaking down the barriers of good manners, though.

      Is the salary of a Rector able to carry these rather large expenses?
      o Ibid.

      The ‘Concerned Catholics of Guam’ (and of Dededo) who demand transparency are asking these questions.
      o Really? You’d rather know our family business than demand transparency for the finances of the Archdiocese? Fair enough, if you really want to know, please give us your name so we can serve you some documents.

      Please know that just because my Uncle Father has remained publicly silent on many of these issues, his family doesn’t have to. We still stand behind him and know that his love for the Church, her people, and her teachings remains steadfastly intact. His calling to this vocation has been evident since we were children, and no amount of distraction – whether in the form of name-calling, false allegations, or removal from his former post – will shake that.

      Oh! Forgot one more question in your list:
      Can the Jungle explain this?
      o Actually, I’ll be posting this on the Jungle as well, in case it doesn’t show up here.

      Most sincerely,
      Melissa Leon Guerrero Do

    6. You mean to tell me that the Parishioners of Dededo are this jealous and are such gossipers?

      Stop it you NEOCANCER and do not get us, the REAL CATHOLIC Parishioners into how dirty and stupid you think?

      Do you have proof that Msgr. James used his money or the Church's money for anything?

      Shame on you, lying, Stupid NEOS!

    7. 10:18, where exactly on Diana's blog did you read this? I would like to read it on there, for myself.

    8. Parishioners of Dededo!August 22, 2014 at 3:58 PM

      Melissa, This certainly is very alarming and extremely scary!

      They publicly posted where your family lives and we are not sure of the mental state of these people? Alluding to what they are capable of?

      Would you have to result in security detail for the people that may be snooping around your family's home?

      These NEOS never stop! We are all behind you!


    10. • Anonymous (August 22, 2014 at 3:51 PM), you can find the comment that Anonymous at 10:18 AM copied and pasted from "Diana's" blog at
      Have fun reading through that post and the comments that follow …

      • Anonymous (August 22, 2014 at 6:23 PM), as a former SBCC parishioner and supporter of Fr. Paul Gofigan, I thank you for standing up for your fellow parishioners with your no-nonsense response. To be clear Anonymous at 10:18 AM brought that "inquiry" by "We the people of Dededo" from "Diana's" blog. Maybe you and fellow parishioners can follow the example of the St. Francis parishioners and write a letter to the Archbishop similar to the one featured on 22 August "Delivered Today" at
      There is no doubt that the Archbishop wants to establish NCW communities at SBCC, but the parishioners can do as St. Francis parishioners did and respectfully request that he not impose the NCW on SBCC. Good luck and God bless you!

    11. The archbishop sell his Vegas house and give the money to the poor is the biggest joke of the day. Thanks Diana, I needed that laugh. The archbishop screwd his Sablan family out of their property in Harmon and other places. How do I know you ask. I am a Sablan and VERY related to the archbishop. He is greedy and the Sainas of the family know it all to well. He doesn't know what poverty is. You should see the archbishops house in adacao paid for by the scams he pulled on his own blood. So there the truth is out. Have at it NCW defend his actions, I dare you. See you uncle Tony at the family reunion.

  7. Just for everyone's info, the priest are being called in one at a time to the big house. Keep on the alert for what they might do to our priest. I sent a note to the Nuncio and got a brief response. He is reading his e-mails. All concerned need to start flooding his e-mail so that we can get some kind of reaction from Rome, and soon.!!

    1. I hope that when priests are being summoned to the Chancery, they do not go alone any longer as both Fr. Paul Gofigan and Msgr. James Benavente did. It would be to their advantage to bring someone with them as a witness to whatever will happen there. I believe any Capuchin priest summoned should have Vice Provincial Fr. Joe English accompany him while any Diocesan priest should have ADCCA President Fr. Mike Crisostomo accompany him. If Fr. Tom McGrath, the lone Jesuit on island, is summoned to the Chancery I would hope that someone would be willing to accompany him in a gesture of solidarity.


    2. No priest must attend any private meeting with Archbishop Apuron without the presence of a lawyer with him.

  8. Mr. Pablo, I believe we have been thinking in a similar way. I figured there must be some point that the Archbishop will choose our Church over his loyalties to the NCW. I have been waiting for some statement from the Archbishop himself that there really is no hostile takeover of our parishes and our priests by the NCW, and some definitive action by the Archbishop to demonstrate the same. Unfortunately, it appears I am waiting in vain. I believe the Archbishop and the NCW knew there would be significant consequences following the termination of Father Benavente, regardless of what justifications, true or false, they proffered for the termination. Maybe they misjudged the extent of the publicity, but I cannot believe that they were that naïve to have not expected significant public outcry. Since the Archbishop determined to proceed, and continues to proceed in the manner that he has, there really is little hope in receiving a statement or any action from the Archbishop that demonstrates a commitment to the Catholic Church and her devoted people, over his own personal loyalties to the NCW.

  9. what kind(s) of printed errors would have led to something as drastic as recalling all copies and destroying them?

    out of the text so far, the only one that stands out to me as a possible answer is the statement:

    "In the past, already in 2005, we had tried to begin an auditing process but the administration of the Cathedral-Basilica had vehemently refused to cooperate."

    one thing that surely would have led the chancery to, as tim describes it, “call out the troops,” is a legal threat or order. a few thousand printed copies of libelous and incriminating statements is a really good way to get yourself in serious legal trouble.

    but this is all speculation on my part. i’ll have to see what comes next. ayayay.

  10. This is further proof that the archbishop is incapable of performing his duties as the leader of our archdiocese. He has consistently refused to comply with the Vatican's request for the archdiocese's financial reports. That required financial reports were never sent to the Vatican is reason enough for the archbishop to step down. What will a thorough financial report reveal? Must be stuff the archbishop (or his neo bosses) want hidden--what other reason can there be? If he cannot take charge, he should resign. Perhaps the archbishop should change the way he closes his letters to "Servus kiko."
    I'd be interested in knowing when the archdiocese last submitted a financial report to the Vatican during Apuron's bishopric. I'd guess it was before the neo seminary was established on Guam. So since 1999, no financial reports were submitted to the Vatican?
    What was the last item Msgr. James and his team of accountants were working on? They were almost finished but their accounting work was abruptly stopped. WHY??? What was it?
    Eileen Benavente- Blas

    1. Actually it was a financial statement requested by D & T regarding the cemeteries and was due by August 15. He could not complete it because he was fired on July 25. The question is whether or not the new administration has the same deadline. NOT.

    2. Eileen — Your suggestion to have the Archbishop change the closing of his letters to "Servus kiko" (instead of his current "Servus tuus") is EXCELLENT!

  11. It is encouraging to see all these names replacing what was at one time anonymous contributors. Thank you for your conviction and courage to inspire others to place their names to their concerns.
    It is important that more continue to rise up above anonymity so that our voices become credible by our names.

    1. Jose, some of us remain anon because we are protecting some people very close who would stand in the line of fire. True. Thanks for understanding, ok?

    2. Thank you for your response Anon at 2:00pm

      Please allow me to clarify. I was observing, not indicting. You may also say, encouraging.

      Unfortunately, yes, there is a "line of fire." That alone is a sad fact.

      Thank you for your continued support.

  12. I'm trying to recall now who is The Father of LIES!

    Oh St. John Chrysostom, pray for our Bishop's soul.

  13. Tim,
    What was on page 5?

  14. Did they report about the slashing of the tires (two tires for the record)? They should report this so the police can investigate. Sorry, but at this point, I don't believe it. Can't blame me. Remember the boy who cried wolf. But I couldn't believe my eyes that they actually put that in print (oh I forgot they recalled this version) admitting that there is somebody out there who hates the Archbishop that much. Of course, it is because of this hate blog. Don't read that blog somewhere.

    Maybe somebody enterprising can print this version and distribute it this Sunday at the Cathedral. Please don't print a lot. If you know what I mean.

  15. If the Archbishop thinks that coming out with so much lies upon lies upon lies upon lies upon lies, we will forget that he has not rebuked the revelation of Joe Rivera and company, he is mistaken. Archbishop, we are waiting for you to tell one and all that this Joe Rivera and company are a bunch of liars and that Msgr Benavente is paying them to say all these things. You couldn't have made up all these allegations. You are not capable of this. After all, you are the Archbishop, aren't you?

  16. Will someone please ask Mr. Joe Rivera, or Mr. Richard Untalan, or Sister Stephen Torres, if they sanctioned, as the AFC, an audit of the Cathedral in 2005 and were vehemently rebuffed by the administration of the Cathedral, namely Monsignor James? I would think that they would know because such an important act would have to be approved by them. Moreover, will someone ask Mr. Jerry Calvo or the rest of the parish Finance Council of the Cathedral if they knew of such audit and rebuffed it? I think Judge Cristobal Duenas was still a member then and the vice-chair. I think this may be one reason why they pulled back this version because these individuals would be might pissed at this fabrication.

  17. I don't think that Archbishop wrote this article. The second paragraph says otherwise. Words such as "oust our Archbishop", and "second guessing the chief-shepherd" gives it away. I had to read and reread the article.

    Either this was written to be handed out at the Saturday celebration or given as a copy to the head hunchos. I am assuming that this letter was written by either Father Adrian or the "elders" of the NCW"

    1. After reading Diana's newest post this morning, I think she is the one who wrote this article.

  18. Could the "letter" received August 08, be from Daniel Fitzgerald of Deloitte and Touche or their legal counsel?


Recommendations by JungleWatch