Monday, January 12, 2015

KIKO'S FATAL ERROR


Many have expressed the sentiment contained in the following comment:


  1. And so it is clear that the chancery is entrenched in this message and is prepared to play this charade no matter the evidence presented. The fact is the assignment has been executed and recorded already. What options, if any, does the Catholic community have now to undo the damage? If it will require a civil suit, then where do we begin? If title belongs the archdiocese and the archdiocese is a corporation sole, then presumably no other person or entity has standing to bring suit or demonstrate tort. Not a lawyer but logic follows that as an individual, I can assign or sell or deed property that I own without restriction. You can't sue me for selling my property just because you don't like the buyer...can you?

    Not trying to be a nay sayer but if something can be done, can someone who knows about these issues recommend the proper course of action? My gut feeling is that if something can be done, some kind of technical restraining order should be requested immediately. This rhetoric from the chancery seems like a bid to buy time. If Apuron's already in hot water with Rome, what's to stop him from executing a deed of conveyance to the RMS before he's replaced? Or is this already a lost cause?
What can we do? What can we do? In fact, these are questions I have been hearing for more than two decades. Archbishop Apuron has always appeared to be untouchable, even by Rome. 


He has proven to be very effective in getting rid of the opposition, even (I believe) getting the former nuncio (Archbishop Balvo) kicked out of the Pacific after Balvo told him in a March 7, 2012 letter that he as bishop "is not free to do as he pleases." 

Within the year, and two years shy of completing his second term as Apostolic Delegate to the Pacific, Balvo was suddenly transferred to Kenya, and Archbishop Apuron was said to have been laughing about Balvo being exiled to "deepest, darkest, Africa." 

Obviously Archbishop Apuron does not have such influence in Rome, but Kiko Arugello does - as evidenced by the amazing amount of things he has been able to get away with including telling Pope Benedict to his face that he had no intention of conforming his communion rite to the liturgical books as ordered in December of 2005. 

Catholic Bishops already wield an extraordinary amount of power over people's lives, certainly by virtue of their apostolic commission, but also by virtue of a weak governmental structure which makes every bishop in the world, more than 5000, accountable to only one boss, the pope, who obviously cannot keep up personally with each and every bishop. 

Roman Congregations and nunciatures help to oversee some of this, but ultimately the pope depends on the bishops themselves to be the guardians of the church, not the diplomats. 

Archbishop Apuron is further protected from scrutiny by distance and geographic isolation and by the fact that Guam is an island with no simple access to a neighboring diocese for those wishing to flee. He is also protected by the unique hybrid of episcopal conference affiliations which makes us part of the U.S. conference when he wants to be and part of the Episcopal Conference of the Pacific when he doesn't. 

In short, there is almost ZERO accountability, and a careful study of the aforementioned letter from Archbishop Balvo will show that Archbishop Apuron has had little regard even for Rome. 

That said, what  do we do? 

Well, we have already done much. People talk about "coming together" all the time, but on this blog, we have. Of course we had some help from the archbishop himself by his own going to the media and by his very public dressing down of Fr. Paul and Msgr. James. 

Had Archbishop Apuron handled his differences with these men quietly and professionally then there probably never would have been a JungleWatch and eventually an apostolic visit. But he did not.

There is no doubt that the public outrage over the mistreatment of these two priests, regardless of the charges against them, had almost everything to do with the eventual occasion of the apostolic visit. The Fr. Paul and Msgr. James episodes caught the attention of the press and the press caught the attention of the nuncio and the nuncio caught the attention of Rome. 

Of course, I humbly take the blame for keeping all of it "in the news" even when it wasn't. But it wasn't just me, as anyone can see, this blog is more comment-driven than driven by my posts. In just about 18 months, I have published 21,317 comments with another 1,316 left unpublished. And of course that counter ticked up to nearly two million pretty fast. 

We can be quite sure that Kiko, who always has eyes and ears in the deepest recesses of the Vatican walls, was already aware of what was coming, and probably told Archbishop Apuron to get himself a personal appointment with the pope and be sure to bring chocolates. 

We can assume this because Archbishop Apuron met with Pope Francis on November 21, 2014 and despite all the feel good stuff put out about the visit by the chancery, it appears there was some pretty bad crap going on too. 

As we have already noted, a Vatican news agency reported that the visit included an inquiry into the Wadeson affair, and our friend Frenchie, whose intel we have learned to trust, told us that the visit "did not go well for Apuron." Thank you, Frenchie, and yes he really is from France. 

We "know it did not go well for Apuron", because on December 11, 2014, only a few days after his return to Guam, Archbishop Apuron received a notice from Cardinal Fernando Filoni, the Prefect for the Congregation which oversees this diocese, stating: 
"the Roman Pontiff considers it opportune that this Missionary Dicastery makes a Pastoral Visit to the local Church in Guam with the hope of fostering reconciliation and mutual understanding in the Archdiocese." 
(Note that it says "in the Archdiocese" NOT between the Vatican and the Archdiocese as it had been spun.)
In light of Archbishop Apuron's photo-op with the Roman Pontiff, published only a few days previously, it appears that it may have been at the meeting with Apuron that the Pope decided "it opportune" to make a Pastoral Visit. I'm just guessing, but maybe the pope, in addition to being humble, is also "wise as a serpent". 

We saw how the chancery tried to spin it, telling us everything from it being a visit to explore the possibility of hosting a papal visit to a congratulatory visit in which the Roman visitors wanted to see for themselves the amazing accomplishments of Archbishop Apuron. "We are very happy, very happy", said the Chancellor, "very happy." 

However, as if we did not already know, Tony Diaz gives away the real reason for the visit in this Sunday's U Matuna in his lead story: 
"Speaking words of peace and reconciliation for a church divided by tension, intense conflict and controversy..." 
Yes, we know that this is a church divided by tension, intense conflict and controversy, so why was the chancery spinning it as a congratulatory visit? Well we know why. (Sadly, Mr. Diaz' Rodney King impression - "can't we all just get along" - is part of the problem.)

In hindsight, we can see that Archbishop Apuron's November 21, 2014 visit wasn't just a drop by. It is obvious that Kiko Arguello had learned of the investigation into our diocese by Cardinal Filoni's Congregation - probably from Filoni himself - and told Apuron to get himself to Rome and "pronto"! 

But that advice may have turned out to be Kiko's fatal error. 

More on how we can get the property back in a bit. 

42 comments:

  1. Heard the wealthy donor from Guam who walks in the NCW wants his money back. He is really disgusted by all of this scandal. He has plenty of money to sue for its return to him. Heard from the not so wealthy side of his family. Sad .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There may have been a "wealthy donor" who donated money for the improvement of the property after it was purchased. In fact there may have been several. However, there was only one donor who gave the initial 2 million to pay off the Bank of Guam loan which was procured to purchase the property. And that donor was neither in the Way or from Guam.

      The reason why this lie keeps being perpetuated by the Neos is because this is what Pius told them in order to make his own appearance here on Guam seem more miraculous. Now that the story is being increasingly exposed as a fraud, so is Pius.

      Please people in the Neocatechumenal Way, those of you who still have a sense of right and wrong, wake up and "come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins." Rev. 18:4

      Delete
    2. The donation arranged by the Carmelite mother superior was not from Guam.

      Delete
  2. You could be right, Tim. Why on earth would AAA try so hard TWICE to see the Pope? Once in Korea and once in Rome, and only a month or two apart. Or maybe he heard through Kiko's grapevine that the bishop from Tonga was going to get the red hat.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Replies
    1. Actually, the pope was pushing AAA's arm away. The picture says it all.

      Delete

  4. Well said Tim. Pius a problem priest with no place to go found a way to make himself a part of the seminary package and create a place for himself on Guam. Fraud from his arrival just no one could prove it until Junglewatch began. We did not have the intel or resources on Internet in 1995 to show what a fake Pius is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just watch, he will slink away for a while. Betcha ten bucks. Then he'll be BAAACCKKK again. Pizza Pius

      Delete

  5. Upon reflection in the latter six four months of 2014 Apuron became desperate to get to the pope. This was after the pope received substantial complaints about him. But it was after the popes November meeting with Apuron that he took action.very interesting pattern of events at play here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A simple note, on the background.
    Just imagine how much pressure Filoni must have felt, from other Congregations and the Holy Father.
    When you know that Filoni was a "papabili" at the last election, and that the is also one of the biggest fan of Kiko and Carmen inside the Vatican, the mere fact that he actually had to agree to send this delegation, is extremely telling.
    This is not something the Cardinal would have done of his own initiative.
    It is not a secret that he has resisted the foreign office's requests for month.

    Another interesting item here, is that two Archbishops who have had excellent relationships with the Nuncio in the last two years, the Archbishop of New Zealand and the Archbishop of Tonga have been elevated to Cardinal.
    Finally many have questioned at times the mettle of Archbishop Krebs, I never did.
    I had it from close friends in Africa that Krebs is an unusually brave person, who is very determined, and steadfast. The fact that he is also fairly close to Archbishop Balvo, and that the former Nuncio, gave him ample warning about what the was facing, gave him a heads up on the issues.

    I believe that we shall be impressed in the months and years to come by the amount of work and energy he did put in trying to genuinely solve our issues here on Guam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do hope his all his works and efforts will be blest and that our issues will be resolve.... jes of chalan pago

      Delete
    2. Frenchie ...one your best insightful posts. Keep on!!!

      Delete
    3. Who in their right mind would yearn to be a Cardinal?

      Delete

    4. Correct Frenchie.

      Delete

    5. Those " darkest africa " statements came to the attention of Archbishop Chales Balvo and Cardinal Tim Dolan in New York. Apuron forgets, Charles Balvo, Martin Krebs, Tim Dolan, and Others on this page, all have friends who are connected. Small world...... so when Apuron passes gas, everyone knows within an hour, thanks to this blog. Correct ?

      Delete
    6. 7.08 pm must respond to you before I leave for my dinner party. To be a cardinal today is a great service to the church and a sacrifice. It is a special vocation invitation of the lord . It demands great humility and particular series to the poor. unfortunately men like Apuron see it in tems of power and status. This is why he so badly wanted to be Amthony Cardinal Apuron of Guam. I believe he was well on the road to being made a cardinal. but around the fall 2014 something changed the direction. The wind blew to Tonga and for obvious reasons.

      Delete
    7. Pius, Quitiqua, and Cristobal are the reasons Apuron didn't get selected to be a Cardinal.

      Delete
    8. 9.34am. They contributed to helping us bring Apuron to the attention of Rome.

      Delete
  7. Nobody has asked how come during the last ordination in Saipan, Archbishop Krebs was there but AAA was absent. Was it just because of previous commitment?

    To keep a semblance that the RMS is producing priests for Guam, the newly ordained, albeit fast-tracked priests stay here for two years serving in parishes and then off they go. Sometime, they don't even stay that long especially when nobody is looking. When somebody notices, he comes back to keep the semblance of presence on Guam. It is part of grand lie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Archie was ordaining bishop for Diaconate...Abp Krebs for Priestly Ordination...sounds likke not a huge deal.

      Delete

    2. Would you honestly want to be ordained by Anthony. That would amount to being ordained with the kiss of death. Correct 4.34pm. You supposed to reply correct followed by time of posting. Know what I mean?

      Delete
  8. A gradual but increasing exposure of the shady businesses of NeoCats should be continued.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tim, I was researching some Neocatechumenal links related to Guam and came across this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b2SfCuSu6Y
    I find it puzzling to see Saint John Paul II celebrating the Neo Eucharist and even allowing the very things we are fighting against here at home (most especially allowing everyone to consume the Eucharist at the same time). What do you have to say about this? Was Saint John Paul II a Neo Supporter and is that a bad thing?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Fr.Matthew BlockleyJanuary 12, 2015 at 8:36 PM


    Intense conflict created by Anthony Apuron he is the cause of the conflict.

    ReplyDelete

  11. Great interview tonight KUAM news by Journalist Tim Rohr. A must watch for international readers.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Right, so the Archdiocese is in shambles and the bishop goes off to the PI?
    For what, another photo op? What will it take for Rome to do something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct 11.01pm. Archdiocese presently has no spiritual leadership. Archbishop Apuron is no longer in control of the Archdiocese and has not been so for the past 15 years. The laity exercising their baptismal call to discipleship are now in charge. It is our right to protect the assets and finances of our island home from this cult Apuron allowed to run a mock on our island home.

      Delete

    2. Doub't if Apuron will chase a photo op on this Manila trip. Infact it would not be to his advantage at this stage. Framcis already suspects something wrong with him, and don't forget Cardinal Tagle who will be with the pope knows all about Apuron and the visitation.

      Delete
    3. AAA went to the Philippines under the guise of seeing Pope Francis. This is just another pleasure trip for Tony and his boys. He will be incognito as he enjoys the fantastic nightlife. Drinking, singing, laughing, hobnobbing with his pals there. Call me Tony.

      Delete
    4. Hope he brings back pictures with the pope for the brothers. So we can discover who he is with ­čśâ

      Delete
  13. I remember that, shortly after being elevated to Monsignor, Msgr. James came to speak to my son's class. I asked the teacher afterwards how it went, and she said most of the kids were in awe, because of his title. Msgr. James went on to tell them that, even though he has a different title, he's just a priest, not any holier or higher than anyone they call, "Father."

    By that logic, AAA is the same -- with the added responsibility to manage an archdiocese, but in the end, he is a priest. By translation of his motto, he is Our Servant. How is it that a priest with a slogan so humble in words, wields his ambitious power so wantonly in action?

    Then there's this message being carried out this past Sunday, talking about how there's no division in the Church. Firstly, what a sad, missed opportunity to talk about how, with his baptism, Jesus invites us to be in him; and with our baptism, we invite Jesus to be in us. We are in him, he is in us, in this indelible mark on our souls! So beautiful (and the message I heard in my Parish).

    Secondly, how does this propaganda help our situation? In the confiteor, we confess our sins, "for what I have done, and for what I have failed to do." Be propagating this belief that if they keep Jedi Mind Tricking us that there's no division in the Church, they are "failing to do" what they know is the right thing. Time to strike your breast for the mea culpa.

    I keep on praying, in the meantime. This past week was an emotional one, and it's quite disheartening to know that the path of ignorance is the take away for our Diocesan Managers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they want to keep us ignorant, obedient, and subservient. They think they are our masters and we are nothing more than their servants/underlings. This is why we need to continue speaking up and help the rest of our brothers and sisters in Christ shake off the "hypnotic spell" that resulted from being "indoctrinated" and bullied into submission. We are all equal in the eyes of God!

      Delete
    2. Pius believed Guam people would simply do as he told them because he was a priest. For many years they did. But we always believed one day Guam people would wake up to the evil reality they faced. Thank God they woke up'

      Delete
  14. To anon at 7.46, yes indeed when you pee in the wind, your shoes get wet. While our Church numbers over 1.3 billion there are only about 5000 bishops. Somebody is bound to know somebody.
    Then you touch, maybe unconsciously onto something else. The "darkest Africa" comment was troubling in many ways.
    Archbishop Balvo and cardinal Arinze are both black clergy and it is quite striking to note in both cases that Anthony use derogatory and demeaning statements and words against both these men, and this with such virulence that one cannot not take notice.
    Obviously Anthony has a huge issue with black men, specifically black men in position of authority.
    I had in the past glossed over this issue in view of the multiple challenges facing us; but I must admit that this call to the character of the individual, or in this case his lack of character.
    I am sure this did not go unnoticed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. 6.20 am. Frenchie correct as always. Archbishop Balvo and Cardinal Dolan were seminary friends in the NAC. The American nuncios in the world are a very small group as with the first secretaries working in the nunciatures a few we know.
      You Know Frenchie the nuncio of Benin Africa came to learn of Apurons use of darkest Africa. He was not impressed.

      Delete
  15. Thank you Frenchie 6.20am. This connection never entered my mind. But I now see the possible connection.

    ReplyDelete

  16. Archbishop Balvo is a white Guy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. To anon at 9.18 and 9.54, in Apuron defense, it must be noted that while it is obvious that he has that issue, nothing happens in a vacuum. For anybody to feel so untouchable that he would feel confidant to actually make these remarks in public and with such violence, a person must have a sense of vindication that re enforce the primary feeling.
    We know only of one person at the chancery, or to be more exact in the Archbishop close proximity, who has that kind of violent and perverse background.
    That would be the Archbishop, special handler and NCW big boss on Guam, Pius.
    The man of the shadows, the Maltese with heavy and murky connections with Sicilians and Calabreses where these kinds of feeling are out in the open and very prevalent.
    So, if Tony felt that arrogant, and confident that he could slander fellow Archbishops and Cardinals who happen to be black, and make his feelings known on how he perceives Africa, there is no doubt in my mind, that it comes from the poor advise of his confidant.

    On another note to Tim, the Pius connections to these murky groups and individuals is certainly also not an accident. I would adventure to say that most likely the scheme we have uncovered here with the RMS property and the shell game that Genarinis and consort have been playing is tied up somehow to a larger and wider use of RMS properties to launder monies, facilitate the keeping under a cloak of secrecy of dubious individuals (see Wadeson, and Pius) to do their biding, and use political influence both at the local archdioceses level, and in the Vatican by churning up half baked priests, to curry favors from weak princes of the Church. Unfortunately, we also have seen that some communities of Discalded Carmelites (not all, thanks God) around the world have chosen to tie their future to the destiny of the NCW, and in doing so they also have provided aid and support to some of these schemes.
    You have lifted a veil of deception and most likely deep corruption within our Church but also in our country.
    I know the CCOG is also hot on the trail of this story, I would suggest that before proceeding with further actions, we definitely need to consult with friends and supporters in the legal community, and in the crime fighting community here and at the federal level. This is a very big story, we have to go into it with our eyes and ears wide open.

    To underline my point, do not lose focus of one of the main reason Pope Benedict decided to resign. The corruption of the finances at the Curia and in some large dioceses was such that some of his closest advisers and confidantes had been implicated. Pope Benedict more a Theologian than an Administrator felt so tired and overwhelmed that he chose retirement. We know Pope Francis has already cleaned up a lot of that mess, but there are still many strongholds of people involved in these schemes. (not surprisingly many of them have strong relations with Carmen and her companion.)
    St Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle....

    ReplyDelete
  18. you all act like little children who you going to badmouth the pope next?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And certainly not Pope Francis. He ordered the investigation despite your pope's best efforts to keep it from happening.

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch