Friday, November 28, 2014


So the Bully of San Ramon is saying he is filing a defamation lawsuit to "defend the Church"? The Church? Defend the Church? What?

You are not the Church, Archbishop Apuron. We are the Church. Defend yourself if you want, but don't hide behind the Church like a coward. But then again, we expect such cowardice from you given what we have seen from you over this last year and a half.

And sue? You? 

You, the person who insinuated a homosexual relationship between Fr. Paul and Joseph Lastimoza. You, who accused Fr. Paul of building a stairway to his second floor room to facilitate drunken midnight homosexual trysts when he neither built the stairway or had drunken midnight trysts. You are going to file a defamation suit? (Read it here. Listen to it here.)

You? You the person who drug Joseph Lastimoza and his family into the dirt and falsely made him out to be a child molester and a danger to parishioners when 13 years previously you permitted him to fulfill the condition of his parole in the same parish? You are going to file a defamation suit?

You? You the person who cowardly bad-mouthed me to the Grand Master of the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher? You are going to file a defamation suit? (Here, here, here, and here.)

You? You the person who lied to us for 15 years about the true nature of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, saying it was a seminary for Guam when it really was only a seminary for the Neocatechumenal Way. And YOU are going to file a defamation suit? Do you know how many people could and may sue you to get their money back? 

You? You the person who lied to Aaron Quitugua about why you would not sponsor him to attend a "normal" seminary? You are going to file a defamation suit?

You? You are going to file a defamation suit when you thought NOTHING of defaming Msgr. James to the press and in front of the whole FD student body? You are going to file a defamation suit? 

You? You who hid Fr. Wadeson's record from us and from the Archdiocese of San Francisco and now hide Wadeson himself? You are going to file a defamation suit? (Here)

Now let's take a look at your response to those allegations:
" is a horrible calumny and I am obliged to defend not my person but the church. On the advice of legal counsel I will not answer any questions. However defending the church compels me to a suit for defamation; any damages that I receive I will not keep for myself, but will be given to the charitable causes of our church."  
"I have dedicated my life to spread the Catholic faith through my words and actions. It has been my sincere effort to urge strict respect for the teaching of our Catholic faith by leading the Church through prayer, and by example in my own behavior. I trust that the members of our Guam Catholic family who have observed my actions and leadership for the last thirty years will know in their hearts and spirits that these allegations are false."
Hmmm. Why not just say that you are innocent? Why not just say that the allegations are false? Why say that you "trust" that Guam's Catholics "will know in their hearts and spirits that these allegations are false?" Is it because you can't say they are false? Is it because you can't say you are innocent? Your words, Archbishop, not mine.

By the way, it seems that the person who wrote Wadeson's statement is the same person who wrote yours. He called the allegations against him a "calumny". He said he would sue. He said he'd give the money to charity. And just like you, he did not say he was innocent or that the charges were false. He said there was "no evidence" for them. 

And "leading the example"?? Really? How does threatening a man with an "arduous and painful closure" to his assignment if he does not acquiesce to your bullying fit with "leading the Church" by example? Those words are PHYSICALLY THREATENING, and it is only because of the goodness of Fr. Paul that you weren't sued already. (Maybe he'll do it now.)

But you are right about one thing, Archbishop, the Guam Catholic family has indeed "observed (your) actions and (lack of) leadership for the last thirty years", and we do in fact know something in our hearts and spirits. We know that you, the Bully of San Ramon, will lie, calumniate, bully, defame, and slander anyone who doesn't bow down to Your Emperorship. 

And now that you are going to sue, all of that will come out when you get deposed. There are so many lawyers here who would love a chance to put you on the stand. You just gave them one. Oh, and thanks once again for showing us what you learn in the Neocatechumenal Way. 

What a terribly pathetic coda to an already ended episcopate.


  1. Exactly!

    Please send this to the media, Tim!!!

  2. Interesting .....Brother Apuron wants to go to the discovery process? Is he ready for that? There are dozens of ex seminarians who are knowledgeable about this issue. Push comes to shove they will come and testify.
    Perhaps this will push John's cousin to come out and testify to clear his good name.
    Sometimes I believe that Brother Tony is almost as stupid as Brother Adrian.....
    Oops I said it?!!!
    Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa......
    I should not have said that, we all know it is almost impossible to be as stupid as Adrian.
    Again sorry......
    I guess the lawyers who were willing to work pro-bono for Fr Paul most likely will do the same for former seminarian J Toves and his cousin P.
    Apuron !!!! you are nailing your own coffin!!!

  3. Apuron it is over leave before people remove you. File a case and the people you have defamed will file against you. Diocese will have civil war.

  4. What a pathetic creature you became Archbishop.

    1. Still thinking that his health problems have changed him dramatically for the worse. NOT that he was any great shakes...but has been sucked into an evil vortex. I'm gonna see if I can get an audience with the Pope. At least I will give him my cell. He does give people a call now and then.

    2. I wish Tim Rohr could get an audience with the pope and take along all his documents. Then the pope would make sure that the Catholic Church on Guam would be healed and the NCW, if any remained, would be marginalized and made to follow the rules.


    3. Apuron bring on the lawsuit we want it . Lawsuit will reveal you to America.

  5. Archbishop Apuron,

    How is it that you have the presumption that you will win and give the money to church charities? We are taught by our Catholic Faith to internalize, to reflect, be Christ-centered, and to express God's true goodness to others. What will your lawsuit bring? At best, more disharmony to our Catholic Faithfuls here on Guam, in the States, and all over the world?

    Not sure if you are blindsided with the magnitude of these charges. Rome MUST look into it. As far as time limits, you dismissed Fr. Wadeson from the RMS, it was for allegations stemming from MANY years ago. More years than what you are being accused of. did not waste time with scapegoats like Pale' Rey Cepeda, Fr. Wadeson, Fr. Paul, Monsignor James. Literally, you threw each of them to the wolves AND under the bus. You continue to roll over them with your "Parish Visits". How convenient for you.

    You Archbishop, allowed the hostile takeover of the Basilica (which may have originated from wanting to save your behind and be compliant with the NCW's "goal" to spread its so called "Catechism" or should we say "Reformation"?). Too many disharmonious acts to remember but it has all been pretty well documented here in the JW.

    To hide behind the cloth of the Roman Catholic Church, the Archdiocese of Agana, is truly an act of heresy. IF this did truly happen and someone tried to commit suicide because of it, this is on your head Archbishop. It is not your reputation at stake here isn't it? You know is your SOUL at stake here.

    How do you think you can smokescreen the allegations and not be marred from it? How can you even have the smugness to say you must "defend the Church?". Which Church are you referencing? The Roman Catholic Church or the NCW Church? You, Kiko Arguello, and your so called "followers" are few, and yes, you've amassed a good chunk of change from the coffers of those who barely have enough to feed their families, and now you want more?

    Not sure who is more amazing, you or spider man. You weave the web of deceit, of lies and follow it up with actions that boggles the mind. You are NOT our hero, Our Catholic Faithfuls are the real heroes and they continue to oppose your true and shady colors.

    Again, how is it that you have the presumption that you will win and give the money to church charities? Who's charities are you talking about Archbishop? The "charities" of the NCW or those that really need it? Again, I am thrown off by this statement that you already have won this battle. Yes, this is only one battle in the war you brought upon the Catholic Faithfuls here in Guam. We feel it everyday. The Non-Neo Priests, the Non-Neo Deacons, the Laity, we feel it everyday. The MAJORITY of the Catholic Faithfuls feel it everyday.

    Not sure if it is ignorance or if you are just outright incoherent. It may be both. As far as your legal adviser's strategy, I agree, you should not say anything because each time you do, you dig yourself into deeper lies and deceptions, a web that will entangle you in the end.

    This is just a prediction but If I were a betting person, I believe I would put a good chunk of MY MONEY that your lawsuit will be frivolous and you will continue to make a mockery of the seat of the Archbishop of Agana.

    IF the allegations are false, why not let SARC, the NUNCIO,and those who will investigate do their job? Even a good lawyer and judge knows when to recluse themselves when there is a conflict of interest. The lawsuit you are talking about only reinforces, to me anyways, you have something that you are not sharing or not wanting to come to light.

    You've put a very painful and difficult task upon Deacon Larry Claros' obligation to his Ministry and his duty as the lead person for SARC. I know he is praying for guidance and I pray along with him that he will "do the right thing, for the right reason".

  6. You nailed it, Tim. The Arch bishop's words were meant to intimidate everyone into silence - be they victims, bloggers, or critics of any kind. He's sprinting toward his own destruction. But let him bring it on if he must. A law suit will only keep the issues in the forefront. Yes, bring it on.

  7. I do believe that the lawsuit the Archbishop is pushing for will eventually BITE HIM BACK ON HIS ASS.

  8. This will be the merriest of Christmas days.

    1. Merriest Christmas sounds more like a blood bath caused by apuron!

  9. He will Never file a lawsuit. Not happening.

    1. @9:26, sort of agree....not happening.

  10. I hope he files a lawsuit because he will then have no choice but to answer under oath everything and all questions in a deposition. John Toves will have the right to take his deposition and ask him any questions even remotely related to the suit as long as it may lead to relevant facts. JT can ask about the history of cover-ups within the Church, about Fr. Louis, about any and all sexual allegations file against the Church including all parishes and schools, review and have copied all documents under the possession for the Church, review all financial records, both of the Church and AAA's personally, all financial transactions of the RMS, the psychological profile of AAA. VG, Chancellor, the deposing of all employees at the Chancery and the RMS who may have knowledge, the deposing of Fr. John Wadeson, the deposing of Fr. Louis, the deposing of Fr. Pius, the deposing of Guissupe and Claudia, the deposing of past employees of the Chancery, the deposing of sexual victims, and SO MUCH MORE. I can't wait!!!!!!!

  11. Lawsuit or not, I've already told my kids, nieces, and nephews to be careful around AAA. We, parents, have to protect our kids. I will not wait for the courts for resolution.

  12. I never claimed to be smart, so help me out if I got my facts wrong:

    FACT: Apuron plans to file defamation lawsuit(s) in defense of the Church.

    Why? What about the allegation that ANTHONY SABLAN APURON MOLESTED SOMEONE?

    To me, this is a use of the RED HERRING technique -- used to misdirect attention away from the main subject -- a corollary of the BLAME SOMEONE ELSE technique which he used when he blamed Monsignor James for the closing of the Museum. Never mind that he, as the head of this Archdiocese, could have re-opened it in a heartbeat, which he has not done even up to now. But, that's another story. Or, for purposes of this comment, the use of the Red Herring technique.

    The media headlines say Apuron will file defamation lawsuits, and for his followers, that will suffice as his defense against the alllegation(s)made against him personally. Even though the details of the story will reveal, in Apuron's own words, that he plans to file these lawsuits in defense of the Church.

    Why is he not defending himself?
    Is he afraid the truth of these accusations will come out?

    I may not be smart, but I ain't stupid, either!

  13. I am new to this junglewatch. I read in the news and here that Mr. John Toves has knowledge of someone else being so called a victim of the AAA? Tim, who is this person who John Toves speaks of? I do not understand, but shouldn't John make his accusation credible? Name the person or that person who calls himself a victim come on his own instead of someone else saying it. This is like a he said, she said.

    1. John has already named the victim in a letter to AAA.

    2. If I am not mistaken, victim anonymity is a initially the norm.

      Also, and naturally, these cases always start out as "he said, he said" accounts. The investigation and process of discovery is what matters most. In the case of Cardinal Pell, as some have attempted to correlate, they forget that he allowed the process to occur, sans threat of a civil lawsuit. An important distinction that is omitted in their narrative.

      I pray that the Archbishop is innocent, but silencing people through threats of lawsuits is not going to clear the record.

      Remember, though, in the enthusiasm to show support neither side should claim any sort of victory just yet. And even if this goes through to court, no matter the outcome, nobody will really come out on top. Nobody except for "Wormwood."

    3. Victim, known to John, is known to many on island.

  14. Of course filing a defamation lawsuit in defense of the church is like a teacher accused of the same thing filing a lawsuit in defense of DOE. What a joke.

    1. It is a joke him filing lawsuit and money given to charity. Such a statement shows his mental state. Sure he can file but he then becomes the cause of a crisis in the archdiocese. Archbishop Apuron will become the first American bishop to file such a case. Bishops who were accused never filed as a first response. First action is an investigation by an appointed Vatican delegate. We need this cleaned up to determine the status of Archbishop Apuron. Should this be true then frankly he has no business in leading this archdiocese.

  15. I really can't see the Archbishop having much of a case filing a lawsuit in defense of the Church and not himself. It is he who has been the subject of all the controversy and the problems that have clearly divided and polarized the Catholic community. It is he who is being accused of sexual molestation and so, how is Apuron's suit in defense of the Church going to help him. He still has to deal with the accusaton of being a sexual molester, that is not going to just go away. Is anyone looking into carrying out and implementing the Archdiocese's Sexual Abuse Policy? Or is it going to be just ignored because it is the Archbishop who is the "alleged offender."

    1. Archbishop is trying to make it a case against the church. This is not against the church it is against one individual. The church is not the abuser an individual is an abuser. However, if evidence shows a cleric is an abuser, the archdiocese becomes responsible.First goal is to investigate the alleged offender.

  16. Let me get this straight, the Archbishop is filing a defamation lawsuit in defense of the Church and not himself? Is he saying the Church has been "defamed" and, therefore, he as the head of the Cathoic Church on Guam has to defend the Church. What sense does that make? I would think that he would file a lawsuit in defense of himself after being accuse of sexual molestation. What good would it do to "defend the church" against defamation when free speech comes into play. Anyone can say negative things against the Catholic Church because of free speech. I'm sure atheists and protestants say a lot of negative and even deragatory things about Catholics and the Catholic Church and are not at risk for being sued. I just can't understand where the Archbishop is coming from. I agree with Tim that if he goes that route, it will ruled a frivilous suit.

  17. Is this lawsuit a ploy to buy time so as to concoct another deceptive and conniving way to get out of a self-inflicted mess? Is this threat of a lawsuit also another attempt (even as unsuccessful as past attempts have been) to intimidate the faithful of the authentic Church of our island?

    This Archbishop has lost all credibility in our eyes and has lost the trust and respect of the faithful of this Church which he ultimately had already abandoned a long time ago; thus, his “concern” for our Church appears to be quite phony.

  18. In the US mainland, .those who were sexually molested by priests and had the courage to take their molesters to court have been able to get financial compensation for the abuse they had suffered.

    Frank Dela Cruz

    Can anyone let us, other readers of this blog, know just how much was the average compensation given by the courts of law per individual, or in out-of-court settlements between the Catholic Church and the individual victims?

    Can anyone out there estimate what it would cost the Catholic Church to compensate the victims here on Guam alone, once they decide to go public and file lawsuits?

    Those projections alone might force the Papal Nuncio and the Vatican to sit up and take notice of Guam and finally take action against the offending parties concerned.

  19. The timing is interesting. Will AAA file his lawsuit during the week of the fiesta of Santa Marian Kamalin to gain sympathy from the faithful? The novena starts on Sunday, Nov 30. What will the subject of the homily during Dec 8 precession?

    1. Anonymous (November 29. 2014 at 5:17 PM), the timing is very interesting! If you recall, the Press Conference in defense of Msgr. James Benavente was held on 6 August 2014, the 69th anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb as well as the Feast of the Transfiguration, on the steps of the Cathedral-Basilica. The possibility that AAA would file his lawsuit close to the feast day of Santa Marian Kamalen, which is the 73rd anniversary of the Japanese attack of our island home at the start of World War II, also occurred to me.

      I honestly think it would be foolish of him to try and file that Defamation Lawsuit on the pretext of "defending the church." Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron is NOT "the church" and for him to try and represent himself as "the church" is just another indication of his ongoing delusion of grandeur!

      In the meantime, the page views will continue to climb. Just 3 days ago on 26 November it hit the 1.5 million mark. In the 3 days since, there have been more than 22,000 views, averaging more than 7,000/day!!

    2. Those are good questions, 5:17. I must say though, I would hate to be in Hagatna around the time of the procession (assuming there will be one this year). One of my biggest fears is the PA System blaring AAA echoes for all to hear--Catholic and Non-Catholic alike. It's bad enough that we're reading and watching these tragic events in the local news media. If it was manditory for CCD/Catholic School students to attend this year, I would hate to be them this year. 5:17, for all of our sakes, let's hope and pray that your voiced concerns do not become reality.

  20. allow tony to file real war begins.

  21. Why is he called the "highest ranking Catholic" on the island? Maybe highest Catholic official, leader or clergy but just Catholic? The last time I checked we don't have "ranks" in Catholicism. We are all equal in the eyes of God. I know it's just semantics, but to give someone that accolade when it doesn't exist makes that person think they are above everyone else. Now on another matter. There is a saying that goes something like this, "silence = consent". So far he has not stated anything to defend himself, so you do the deduction.