Friday, January 23, 2015


I know that I am Arch-enemy No. 1 (pun intended). 

None of what is happening now would have befallen AAA if I had not endeavored to make public and to keep public his ongoing transgressions against certain members of the clergy, many lay members of the diocese, liturgical norms and the legitimate magisterium of the Church, and now, his sneaky mega-million dollar deal with the Gennarini's and RMS.

Remember that it was "sneaky" because while the archdiocesan finance council and the finance officer were under the impression that they were to meet to discuss the matter on December 6, 2011, AAA had already deeded away control of the property on November 22, 2011, and AFC president, Richard Untalan, was belittled and mocked by AAA for calling the meeting. If it was not sneaky and a truly above-board transaction, there would have been no need for AAA to smear Mr. Untalan. But he did.

So all of this became known because of the intense scrutiny of this blog as well as the tens of thousands of comments and the rapidly accumulating pageviews - which average nearly 8 to 10 thousand per day and will probably pass TWO MILLION tonight.

So AAA needs to stop me. 

He first tried to do this by going to Cardinal Edwin O'Brien, the Grand Master of the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher - of which I am a member. You can read about that here, here, and here. It is instructive to note - after you read those entries, that Cardinal O'Brien never responded after I presented my case against AAA.

Through others I have been threatened, my family threatened, my friends threatened, where I go to Mass threatened. The "other blog" has made it nearly their full time business to discredit me and members of my family. 

Of course, nothing has worked. So now, fresh from being passed over for a red hat and with nothing to lose, he is going to go after his perceived enemies (not just me) with the only weapon left to him: excommunication or some sort of delict. 

However, he can't willy-nilly excommunicate me. He needs an offense. He's working on it (which is why the chancellor recently left the comment: "That's what you think. Stand by.")

I'm sure he'd like to use Can. 1373 which states:
A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.
However, he would have a hard time proving that my aim was to "incite animosities or hatred" just for the sake of inciting "animosities or hatred." My aim was and has always been to call the archbishop into question when he himself violates church law - as he demonstrably did in the Fr. Paul case, liturgical law - as he does every time he permits neocats to testify during Mass and of course the illegitimate neo distribution of Holy Communion, and perhaps now even civil law - with the possible violation of Guam law relative to the rights and duties of a corporate sole. 

These aren't just my personal opinions. The appeal filed in behalf of Fr. Paul by his counsel, Fr. Dacanay, affirms my observation that Archbishop Apuron bypassed required canonical procedure for the removal of a pastor - and then comically tried to say later that Fr. Paul wasn't removed at all, even though he was locked out of his office and stripped from the parish schedule of presiders. The violation of liturgical law has been noted and documented over and over. And by the way, every Catholic has standing to oppose any pastor who knowingly transgresses liturgical law. As for the civil case, well, we'll see.

So, if "animosities and hatred" have been incited against the archbishop because of the truth, then so be it. The record shows that he has no regard for the feelings of the people and has simply continued to march down his destructive path. However, not once have I ever called for or organized any public action against the bishop other than to tell readers to let your wallets do the talking. This call is legitimate because we have shown that RMS was NOT what we were told it was and our money has been taken under false pretenses. 

So, Can. 1373 won't work, so that's why his buddies have been trying to stir up something they can use: Can. 1370. Here's the whole Canon:
Can. 1370 §1. A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if he is a cleric, another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, can be added according to the gravity of the delict. 
§2. A person who does this against a bishop incurs a latae sententiae interdict and, if he is a cleric, also a latae sententiae suspension. 
§3. A person who uses physical force against a cleric or religious out of contempt for the faith, the Church, ecclesiastical power, or the ministry is to be punished with a just penalty.
This is why, if you haven't noticed, there have been many attempts to try to corner me into admitting that I have wished ill health and/or physical harm on the archbishop. Of course that is nowhere to be found. I will copy here such an instance and my response:

Didn't you wish (posted here) that he would fall ill or incarnate evil? Yes or no?

Goodness your English is bad. No. But plenty of people have wished that on me

Many people love you also but answer the question. Yes or NO?

Maybe this is what you are referring to. But due to your lack of language skills you completely miss the significance of the "either/or".

"We can only hope, if we are to give charity a chance, that Archbishop Apuron is severely ill and must be immediately removed. Because if this is not the case, then we have a bishop who is evil incarnate, and he wouldn't be the first one. "

They have also tried to link me to the alleged slashing of AAA's tires, and have tried to make me the reason why they have had to wire the chancery with security cameras and lock their gates and the reason AAA needed body guards on December 8. 

You see where this is all going. AAA needs to make it look like he is physically endangered and that it's because of me. If he can do that then he thinks he has a canonical basis to impose a "just penalty" on me. He may do so. But the only problem is that it will not be a "just penalty" and I could civilly sue for psychological harm and canonically sue for the abuse of his office. 

However, by then I'll probably have to wait in line. 

Recommendations by JungleWatch