Thursday, January 15, 2015


MB: A local TV show, "The Buzz," recently featured the new organization Concerned Catholics Inc. Comments rooted in misinformation about the Neocathecumenal (sic) Way were made by Greg Perez, the guest, and Jesse Lujan, the host...A written reply is insufficient to address these and other one-sided remarks as they can easily be misinterpreted.

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, why then write a letter to the PDN? Why not request to go on the same show that Mr. Perez was on? I'm sure Mr. Lujan will be accommodating.

MB: I, too, am a concerned, practicing Catholic. I am involved in the Way, a charism approved by the Catholic Church since 2004.

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, the Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way received final approval from Rome in 2008. It was not "a charism" that was approved, but a "final rule". Nowhere in the document is the word "charism" used in relation to the Way. The word "charism" is only used twice and both only in relation to the charisms of bishops and priests and in the context of their authority over the Way. (Art 5. §2., Footnote No. 37).

MB: Unfounded statements made during the show include that the Way practices and teaches a different cathechism (sic) of faith and that it is causing a division within the Church.

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, perhaps you can help dispel this "unfounded statement" by simply  asking your leadership to produce a copy of the Catechetical Directory of the Neocatechumenal Way so that we all can see for ourselves that we are wrong. As your catechists know, said directory is off limits to anyone but for those who are authorized within the NCW to see it. It is not enough to say that it is "approved". Simply have your leadership produce the directory and let us see for ourselves that we are wrong. 

Without evidence we must assume that what we actually hear is correct. One of the things we heard is the teaching that Jesus Christ is "a sinner". This is a very grave matter. It is the absolute opposite of what the Catholic Church teaches which is that Jesus Christ was the pure and spotless lamb. Yet, a neocatechumenal priest who taught both at the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and instructed candidates to the permanent diaconate was recorded saying the following: 
"He experienced the forgiveness of the Father, because he was a sinner.  He became a sinner. Willing, not because he was imposed, because he was a sinner, willingly, willing, a sinner." 
You can read the full transcript here
and listen to him say it here:

MB: ...a dialogue with those of us in the Way, instead of listening only to critics, might be a more adequate approach to address concerns.

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, may I suggest that you call Mr. Perez and invite him to have "a dialogue" with you.

MB: Based on personal experience and direct observation, the Way is undeniably an important, additional, Catholic vehicle helping many to discover or re-discover the power and presence of Christ in their lives.

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, I would concur. Your personal experience and direct observation is valid...for you. It is not the "good things" that people like Mr. Perez have problems with, but the grossly errant teachings like the one already demonstrated, the Archbishop's blatant disregard for both liturgical norms and respect for congregations when he permits members of the Neocatechumenal Way to "witness" during Mass and during the time reserved for the homily, and the continued disobedience to the Holy See in the manner in which Holy Communion is distributed. 

MB: Most Concerned Catholics board members seem to be affiliated with known critics of the archbishop. 

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, is Mr. Greg Perez a "known critic of the church"? From what I know, Mr. Perez' family literally built the church here on Guam. Who is he "affiliated" with? I only came to know Mr. Perez after he approached me about wanting to do something about all the problems he was seeing in the church. He was not "affiliated" with me. 

MB: Have members considered the possibility that they have been triangulated by factions who have separate issues with the Church?

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, surely you are not saying that Mr. Perez and Mr. Sablan and the others have no mind of their own? That they are easily "triangulated." I would question that judgement. As for "separate issues"? The only issues I know of that both Mr. Perez and Mr. Sablan have are the issues of division that our religious leaders seem to be be committed to continuing, as sadly evidenced once again in this past Sunday's U Matuna in its defense of RMS. Even if their view is correct, why, upon the conclusion of the apostolic visit which was said to promote healing and reconciliation, why did the archbishop authorize the printing of a story that has been at the root of so much contention? But of course, their view is NOT correct. May I encourage you to approach the archdiocesan legal counsel for his opinion to verify this assertion. 

MB: Seemingly, the goal of this new group is to get rid of the archbishop. Will there be any effort towards an objective review of issues?

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, many people, including Mr. Perez, have attempted to "review the issues" with the Archbishop privately over many years and have been turned away. In fact, in 2010, a serious effort was made by all the clergy to reconcile their issues with the archbishop when together they sponsored a serious study of the problems by a Georgetown based group. But despite the great amount of time, effort, and money spent on the attempt which was formalized in the report CULTIVATING UNITY, it can be demonstrated that the archbishop disregarded the effort and the problems continued to mount.

Go here to learn more about this:

The people who formed the Concerned Catholics are busy men and women. They have other things to do. In fact, much of the credibility of this group stems not from their stated objectives, but from the fact that the entire community knows them and knows that they are accomplished business people. They only formed this group as a last ditch effort to get the Archbishop to pay attention. And instead of paying attention he accused them of being a group which "plots against the church."

Did the Archbishop make any attempt at "an objective review of the issues" before he accused them of such? Before he accused Fr. Paul, Before he accused Msgr. James? Before he accused Deacon Martinez? Before he accused Mr. Lastimoza? I sincerely hope you see the problem?

MB: How about seeking input from those actively in the Way for balanced perspectives? Otherwise, not all concerned Catholics in Guam are represented....How will others know of the opportunity to provide feedback?

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, you are providing "feedback" in the PDN. Please continue to provide "feedback" by calling KUAM and ask to go on the show. However, I would caution you to study the Statute of the NCW before you do. Sadly, the problem is most in the NCW simply do only as they are told by their catechists and ignore the actual teachings and instructions of the legitimate authority of the church. The violation of the norms relative to the communion rite is a prime example. Sadly Archbishop Apuron himself obeys his catechists instead of the pope. This was clearly demonstrated when he was asked at a recent pastoral visit to produce the document which permits him and the rest of the NCW to digress from the liturgical books in its "eucharist". He said he would find it 'somewhere". That was over a month ago. But of course, it's been nearly ten years since he first publicly made such a claim and has yet to produce anything. He can't produce anything because it doesn't exist. Sadly, he is only repeating what he has been instructed to say. This is very dangerous for a bishop.

MB: What criteria is being used to determine the factors that are "dividing" the Church?

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, there is  a long list of things. Here are a few: 1) the above noted heretical teaching of a neocatechumenal priest that Jesus "is a sinner", 2) the violation of canon law by the archbishop in his termination of Fr. Paul as pastor, 3) the public humiliation and defamation of a layman and his family both in accusing him of being a "danger to children" and insinuating that he was in a homosexual relationship with Fr. Paul, 4) the public humiliation and defamation of Msgr. James Benavente by the archbishop's going to the media with a list of charges against Msgr. James even before he gave Msgr. James a list of the charges against him, 5) the secretive deeding of a deca-million dollar archdiocesan asset to a third party without the required consent of the finance council and against the advice of the archdiocesan legal counsel, 6) the "hiding" of Fr. John Wadeson. I could go on. 

MB: Have they looked at testimonies from people who have, in fact, returned to the Catholic faith or have converted to Catholicism because of the Way? Have they listened to those who have experienced healing from abusive backgrounds, addictions, and from spiritless lives and those who have been helped to reconcile from estranged relationships, including with God?

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, yes, they have and so have I, for many years in fact. They and I have no issue with your experiences and your personal improvements in life. The only issue is with all of the other items which are only partially noted above. 

MB: Will they look at the numbers of those who have answered the call to religious life, sacramental marriages, openness to life, church ministry, itinerancy or mission life? Can they objectively look at the parishes that have publicly denounced the Way saying that they do not want "us" in their parishes? Can they agree that rejection, prejudice and discrimination against those who choose other paths to spiritual growth are factors that destroy any community?

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, sadly, when we look at the actual product of "those who have answered the call to religious life" at least through the RMS system, we have to wonder to what religion these men are actually called? Their theology is confusing, their practices strange, their care of the liturgy a mess, their disregard for local piety disdainful, and so on. We also must question this exaltation of  "itinerancy and mission life" when in fact we know that what is meant by that is going into existing Catholic communities and pulling people out of them and into the NCW. 

MB: What about the disrespectful discourses in some of the social media perpetuated by some who profess to defend our Catholic faith? Will they review those websites and assess how name-calling, derision and mockery is a source of divisiveness?

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, this is an obvious reference to me. The only name calling I have done is to call the archbishop a liar simply because I have no other name for it. It is demonstrable lie after demonstrable lie. But let's face it. I am new to the scene. The "divisiveness" you bemoan has been going on for nearly 20 years, ever since Fr. Pius planted his flag on Guam. The leadership of the NCW knows that. But because they had the archbishop on their side they were able to keep the rest of us shut up. 

MB: What does it say about the ethics of person(s) and organization(s) that underhandedly and secretively video tape spiritual gatherings then slant and distort images and information against the speakers and the people gathered in faith? These behaviors are unethical and immoral.

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, the video tape you refer to was recorded by an attendee and the fact that the event was being recorded wasn't a secret. It was recorded and meant to be shared within the NCW. It was posted on the internet by one of your own and was shared. I don't know how it came to be shared with the rest of us. But I question the concern about the meetings being recorded and shared. If the NCW is what you tell us it is, why not let people experience how wonderful it is by sharing the recordings? The rest of the Catholic world does this. Video and audio recordings of Catholic conferences everywhere abound. 

MB: Is a campaign of hate and bigotry targeted toward those in the Way conducive to building Church?

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, Kiko Arguello and Carmen Hernandez, the founders of the NCW have a very different definition of "church". They believe that the model of parish-based Catholicism is dead and that their small-community model is the future of the church along with their questionable theology and their own form of the Mass. The rest of us have a right to question it.

MB: Some critics refuse to accept the rightful authority of the Vatican Council in its endorsement of the Way. By whose authority will Concerned Catholics base their decisions with regards to the Neocathecumenal practice of the Catholic faith? Will they accept the authority of the Vatican Council?

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, may I ask which "Vatican Council" you are referring to? Those words normally refer to Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II said nothing about "the Way". If you are referring to the Pontifical Council of the Laity which oversees the NCW then yes, we accept its authority. We accept its authority as exercised in its approval of the Statute of the NCW. If only your leadership would adhere to it. You ask "by whose authority will Concerned Catholics base their decisions" relative to your practices. Answer: The Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way - which DOES NOT permit your leadership to violate the liturgical books as they do week after week. If you believe that they do not, then simply ask them to produce the "permission" which Archbishop Apuron says exists "somewhere." 

MB: What our community needs is a diversely represented organization to facilitate healing. Rather than fault-finding, instead acknowledge the strengths in our faith community and identify areas for improvement.

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, may I suggest that you start one. 

MB: I sincerely appeal to Concerned Catholics to engage in a process that will allow all voices to be heard on this matter so that a genuinely Christian resolution to all concerns can be reached. Please do not tread on our rights and freedom to worship as we believe.

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, for twenty years the NCW leadership had the ONLY voice which could be heard. The rest of us were forced to sit in our pews and listen to members of the NCW take over the homilies and hear how we in the pews were just "regular Catholics". We were forced to remain in our pews at the end of Masses awaiting the final blessing of the priest while NCW members went on with long advertisements about the Neocatechumenal Way. We were forced to listen to our own Archbishop publicly discredit the magisterium of the Church in favor of the teachings of Kiko Arguello. We were forced to watch our priests publicly humiliated so that the NCW would have free reign in parishes. We were lied to about the true nature of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary after having given many millions to it. We are now being lied to about the ownership of the property. 

For twenty years, the "regular Catholics" of Guam had NO VOICE. Now a group only a couple weeks old goes on a talk show for a total of 23 minutes talk time and the NCW is being persecuted and not heard?

MB: More importantly, if the Way is providing an option to help our island community with its high rates of suicide, teen pregnancies, domestic conflict, violence and substance abuse, why on Earth would anyone want to dismantle it?

TR: Dear Ms. Benavente, we don't want to dismantle it. We just want your leadership to stop lying to us and abusing the church that people like Mr. Perez's family worked decades to build. The NCW is perfectly authorized to function within the limitation of its Statute. It's too bad the NCW leadership has no regard for its own Statute or for the magisterium of the Catholic Church from whence it came. 

In conclusion and in the spirit with which you began your public letter, may I offer to be the first to participate in dialogue with you. I would gladly welcome the opportunity. Please do not be put off by my sometimes harsh and confrontational rhetoric on this blog. At times I feel it is necessary. Your family knows me and can attest to my sincerity. I look forward to hearing from you. 


  1. Be careful what you ask for Ms. Benavente. Dialogue has never been apart of your NCW leaderships agenda, and you know it because you yourself as a member, are not allowed real "dialogue" with your one-sided catechists.

    There are people who have left the NCW or have one foot out the door who have been gaining the courage to finally speak up about their experiences in the neo. Even those who have been in it for years. And while they do acknowledge the saving grace they experienced while in the NCW, the common thread that these former members all speak about are the negative, intrusive, and conditioning methods that were employed by their catechists.

    I have but one question that requires the honesty you are requiring: While you signed your name to your letter and these are your personal sentiments, did you still have to get permission from your catechist or responsible before submitting it to the PDN? While some may scoff or dismiss this question, those who are in the NCW know this to be all too real.

    As you try to paint a rosy picture, be aware that the truth tends to bleed through the layers.

    1. Amen, you nailed it! Dialog and asking questions is not allowed! I would also ask Ms. Benavente if a catechist asked her to write the letter.

  2. I will not begrudge Mrs. Benavente of her positive experiences with the Neo movement. However, her write-up defending her group falls short on explaining why the NCW deviates from the Mother Church to the point of disobedience and disregard to prescribed liturgical practice. Surely someone as educated and experienced in the helping profession as Mrs. Benavente should be able to understand the pitfalls of getting enmeshed in a group. Or does she?

    1. While Ms. Benavente professes her positive personal experience in the Way, it also emphasizes the strategy by which the NCW proliferates. Notice how these public testimonies fixate on how they make the individual feel better about themselves or their current life situations. It's never about the theology of the Catholic faith. The practices of the Way are all geared toward luring individuals into a false sense of security in ever-increasing stages of co-dependency. It's a feel-good movement. The focus is not God, it's all about how you as a member are pleasing to God no matter your transgressions.

      You can hear the same testimony at any recovering addict meeting and virtually every other protestant church.

      If any NCW member wishes to respond, please explain how specifically the practices of the Way which depart from the liturgical norms of the Church facilitate the deepening of your faith and how they enhance your understanding of the Truth which you could not otherwise gain from the Catholic church proper?

    2. Anon at 11:28 PM, you brought up some excellent points on the dynamics of people involved in groups/movements, and in this case how the NCW lures and trap those seeking the "feel good" experience centered on "self" instead of the great spiritual feeling when one makes a true connection with God by focusing on Him.
      Speaking of Truth, I see how the Neos are led away from it by their insistence that Jesus Christ is a sinner. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Calling Him a sinner is the farthest thing from the Truth.

  3. In summary, this is her response [paraphrased section]:

    [CCoG seems to be an affiliation of those critical of the Archbishop]

    Since Apuron is at the heart of the division, why is it a surprise that the affiliation's membership is critical of him?

    [CCoG doesn't adequately reflect the NCW Catholics of Guam]

    The judicial equivalent of this assertion is the prosecutor representing both the prosecution and the defense.

    [Listen to a Catechesis, look at the number of presbyters we produce, look at who we have healed]

    There are several assumptions here.
    1. That the NCW Catechesis/Mass is inline with what was actually approved by Rome.
    2. That the NCW presbyters, missionaries, etc. who have been so speedily trained are actually capable or preach what has been approved by the Church.
    3. That the NCW leaders, middle leaders, and sub-leaders are genuinely capable of providing adequate counseling to those who have been harmed.

    [Those opposing AAA and the NCW have been disrespectful, mocking, and derisive in their commentary]

    In all honesty and fairness to Ms. Benavente, this has happened to some extent. I've commented and traded blows with Tim on this very topic. However, it's more accurate to say that this has happened on both sides of the discussion. I've posted the same criticism on Diana's board of her blog style and despite remaining respectful and fair, many of my posts on his/her board were deleted or not approved. I don't recall Tim deleting/not approving my posts here. One addressed my criticisms and the other deleted to avoid them.

    [It's unethical and immoral to secretly record NCW meetings and then use them against us through misinterpretation, slant, and distortion]

    Why the secrecy in the first place, brothers and sisters? What secrets are you keeping from the rest of us?

    Since these secret recordings have been provided in full (documents, letters, homilies, videos, etc), what is actually of concern here?

    That we don't understand what it is that we see before our eyes? Or that the NCW doesn't have the control mechanisms and a controlled environment to indoctrinate its own teachings that aren't inline with the Mother Church? Those are very different things.


    Ms. Benavente's post is that it follows the tired and beaten-to-death NCW PR formula.

    - Testify
    - Claim persecution
    - Claim Rome and God is on their side
    - Criticize, attack, and mock
    - Claim its all about the money
    - IGNORE the actual criticisms.

  4. Ms. Benavente, what "video recordings" are you referring to? I'd love to see them! Unfortunately, your catechists don't usually allow video recordings of your events. Too secret, I guess.

    I too found your comment about the "Vatican Council" deceptive. The Father's of the Second Vatican Council said nothing about "the Way". They did, however, speak about post - baptismal catechesis, which I partially address here.

  5. Kindly include in our count-ups, the number of days that will pass since Tim offered to sit down with Ms. Benavente for a dialogue. I thought dialogue is anathema in the Way. I guess not.

  6. To anonymous @ 3:50 p.m.: don't count your chickens before they hatch! Ms. Benavente suggested a dialogue, Tim accepted. But, a dialogue is still not guaranteed to happen. So your initial thought that dialogue is anathema for Neos may still be valid.The ball is now in the Neos hands. So, yes, let's have a count-up.

    If a dialogue is set up, who will represent the Neos? Ms. Benavente? Why don't we hear directly from the horse's mouth -- Pius? And, to make things credible, both sides should have documents ready to back up their assertions or to defend themselves against the other side's
    "accusations." So, it won't just be another "He said, She said" situation. Let's have none of this "the authorization is somewhere, I'need to find out where exactly" b.s.

    And because such a dialogue, if it ever happens, would be of island-wide interest as well as importance, it should be televised. I'm sure sponsors can be found. Or admission can be charged to a listening (only) audience to help defray the cost of production and broadcasting.

    Maybe we can find someone whose reputation is beyond reproach (Attorney General Elizabeth Barrett Anderson, comes to mind) who would be willing to act as moderator.

    And let's not put the burden on Mr. Tim Rohr and Pius only. Perhaps three people on each side would be fair, with one on each side being a lawyer, since I am sure legal documents will have to be presented and thus explained to the general audience.

    Like you, Anonymous @3:50 p.m., I hope "dialogue" is NOT anathema to the Neos.

    I can't wait!!

    1. WHAT A TREMENDOUS IDEA! Yes; let’s have a dialogue, a true dialogue - not a debate like we see during pre-election seasons.

      To reiterate the thoughts of Anon 4:59 pm, let’s have a truly professional dialogue – in the fashion of a forum - where folks from either side present their respective side of the “story”, with a totally neutral professional moderator to ensure that the dialogue does not turn out to be a three-ring circus, but a true exchange of ideas, thoughts, criticisms, and defence of each position, backed up by facts, documents, and evidence.

      Rules: Polite, charitable, no personal characterisation, not a debate with a winner-loser in the end, but rather INFORMATIONAL so people can be educated as to the position of each side.

      General topics: Theology, beliefs, liturgy, rubrics, practices; hierarchical administration, finances, public reporting, accountability, transparency;

      Specific issues: Redemptoris Mater Seminary (property issue, academic issue, financial issue), JP2 Seminary, Fr Gofigan Case, Msgr Benavente Case, Deacon Martinez Case, seminarians’ issues; museum issue; Mass-at-Veteran-Cemetery issue;

      Because the issues are many, let’s have a SERIES OF DIALOGUES TO INFORM, so that people can judge for themselves and make their own assessments and judgments.

      This is a skeleton outline, and perhaps in some cases flawed, so let someone more versed improve on it – substance-wise and procedural-wise.


  7. Here are just a few things for you to chew on if you wish to "dialogue" Taken from the document Redemptionis Sacramentum
    Reception of Communion
    [] The Communion of Priests
    [97.] A Priest must communicate at the altar at the moment laid down by the Missal each time he celebrates Holy Mass, and the concelebrants must communicate before they proceed with the distribution of Holy Communion. The Priest celebrant or a concelebrant is never to wait until the people’s Communion is concluded before receiving Communion himself.

    Preaching [161.] As was already noted above, the homily on account of its importance and its nature is reserved to the Priest or Deacon during Mass.
    [169.] Whenever an abuse is committed in the celebration of the sacred Liturgy, it is to be seen as a real falsification of Catholic Liturgy. St Thomas wrote, “the vice of falsehood is perpetrated by anyone who offers worship to God on behalf of the Church in a manner contrary to that which is established by the Church with divine authority, and to which the Church is accustomed”.[278]
    [170.] In order that a remedy may be applied to such abuses, “there is a pressing need for the biblical and liturgical formation of the people of God, both pastors and faithful”,[279] so that the Church’s faith and discipline concerning the sacred Liturgy may be accurately presented and understood. Where abuses persist, however, proceedings should be undertaken for safeguarding the spiritual patrimony and rights of the Church in accordance with the law, employing all legitimate means.
    [177.] “Since he must safeguard the unity of the universal Church, the Bishop is bound to promote the discipline common to the entire Church and therefore to insist upon the observance of all ecclesiastical laws. He is to be watchful lest abuses encroach upon ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the Word, the celebration of the Sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the veneration of the Saints”
    [184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.
    [77.] The celebration of Holy Mass is not to be inserted in any way into the setting of a common meal, nor joined with this kind of banquet. Mass is not to be celebrated without grave necessity on a dinner table[159] nor in a dining room or banquet hall, nor in a room where food is present, nor in a place where the participants during the celebration itself are seated at tables.
    [57.] It is the right of the community of Christ’s faithful that especially in the Sunday celebration there should customarily be true and suitable sacred music, and that there should always be an altar, vestments and sacred linens that are dignified, proper, and clean, in accordance with the norms.

  8. Why is Ms. Benavente complaining about her voice or the NCW voices not being heard? Wasn't she one of the voices that were heard by the visitors? Weren't majority of the lay people who were on the schedule Neo? Therefore, I would think it's fair to say that their voices were heard, both lay and clergy members of the NCW.

    1. How on earth was it arranged for so many NEOS to be on the delegates list in the first place???????? Still unanswered question,

    2. Com'n, ANON 1:13....Why so many NCW on the list?? When you stack the cards, the House often has the advantage. In reality, that was what they thought.....

  9. Ms. Benavente, your plea “not to tread on our rights and freedom to WORSHIP AS WE BELIEVE” gives us the truth about what the NCW is and what the NCW follows and believes. You reveal that the NCW “worships as the NCW believes,” but not as Catholics believe and practice. Well, that is the crux of what we, The Concerned Catholics, are concerned about.

    1. I, too, want to ask Ms. Benavente about her 'plea'. If you believe in the Catholic faith and all it's teachings, then why is the NCW directing their members to 'worship' differently((rights and freedom to worship as 'we' believe) than the rest of us? I feel that the NCW prey on those who are having challenges in their personal lives. How could you not believe in what they are preaching when they've brought you closer to God and family? Once they get you to that point, then they've got you hooked and are ready to have a community to defend their mission, which to me, is to destroy the Catholic church! Why else would they have separate masses, separate communities, whisper, whisper, secrets, secets, arrogance. All I know is God built our church and He will let others 'TRY' and destroy it but it will never happen. Open your eyes, Ms. Benavente, wash off all the film blinding you from the truth.

  10. By all means, the NCW should go ahead and “worship as they believe” ala NCW way, but they should practice what they preach and should do unto us the same as they request for the NCW. The NCW should not get in the way of our rights and freedom to “worship in the Catholic way”. The NCW’s freedom to “worship as the NCW believes” will not experience any interference if the NCW moves out of the Catholic Church, lock stock and barrel. It will end the division which started when the NCW barged into the Catholic Church on Guam

    1. The mission is to bring the “erring sheep” back into the fold, but if we just can’t convince those who have fallen victims to the NCW cult in Guam, then fine! Do your thing! Absolutely!

      There are still some unfinished business we have to deal with though (like the return of the RMS property to the Archdiocese of Agana – free and clear) - but so far as the practice of your faith, let’s live, and let live! If the NCW members want to practice their beliefs undisturbed, fine and dandy – just don’t call yourselves “Catholic”, and don’t do it in our Catholic churches, under the guise of being Catholics. Call yourselves “NCWers”, and do your thing – but not in our Church. You know the old saying: NIMBY (not in my back yard). We’ll treat you kindly and charitably like the rest of our non-Catholic Christian brethren – or as some call them “separated brethren”. That way, we are SEPARATE, and don’t have to live under the stigma of a “divided church”. Deal?

  11. Some have suggested a "dialogue" of proportions much larger than what I had in mind. My offer is personally to Ms. Benavente, a private chat about our views, simply a personal sharing. Perhaps there is something I am missing. My compassion for those in the Neocatechumenal Way, and who are being unduly damaged by the consequences of the actions of its aggressive leadership has been largely formed by many such chats with people in the NCW, which is why I try to separate them from the leadership and the militant "kiko's. I do not believe that a "great debate" would be fruitful. One to one. The offer is open to everyone, not just Mariles. I will make time.

  12. Anonymous January 16, 2015 at 12:03 AM: I totally agree.

    The Way is NOT for everyone. Our Church leaders have directed many of our parishes to be transformed into NEO parishes. I now feel like an outcast in MY church in MY village of Barrigada. It is so bad that my family now travels to Toto (IHOM) to attend mass in a non-NEO parish and it is like night and day. It is my fear that as the RMS continues to spit out NEO priests that ALL non-Neo parishes will eventually disappear. God Bless you Tim and thank you for this blog. You are a true defender of the Catholic faith. Do not rest until we prevail.