Saturday, July 18, 2015

SPECIAL MESSAGE TO ARCHBISHOP HON TAI-FAI

In this weekend's U Matuna:


Really? According to Fr. Jeff and Fr. Adrian? What?

Let's revisit the wording of LAST SUNDAY'S Decree:
In virtue of canon 1223 of the Code of Canon Law and by reason of my authority as Archbishop of Agaña, I hereby erect the PÅLE’ JESUS BAZA DUEÑAS ORATORY at the Father Dueñas Memorial School in Ta’i, Mangilao.
So just one week ago Apuron was invoking his full authority as Archbishop of Agana under the Code of Canon Law to change the name of the chapel of a school, but this week the principal of that school and the Chancellor change it to "also known as the Boys Chapel"?


And "not erase the name"? Bull crap. You know what is really wrong about this? What is really wrong is not that these people are an incompetent bunch of buffoons, which they are, what's really wrong is that they treat US as if WE are. 

They really expect us to believe that last week's official and solemn erection of the PALE JESUS BAZA DUENAS ORATORY on what used to be the "BOYS CHAPEL" was really just an oversight and that what the archbishop really meant was to say that it would be "also known as"?

No. What really happened was Apuron and Cristobal got spanked by the FD alumni group that oversaw the building of the Boys Chapel - the naming of which referred to a specific event which caused the donor to fund it. 

So now we get this ER-RECTUM crap? 

Now, everyone. Take a look at this statement from the last paragraph of last Sunday's Decree:
This instrument revokes the previous decree, Protocol Number 2014-022, formerly establishing the ‘Boys Chapel’.
Not only did the Archbishop's decree fail to mention the "also known as", his Decree specifically and clearly REVOKES the former name. 

Sorry Fr. Jeff. You're a good guy but you are now a participant in another BIG LIE. We expect Apuron and Adrian to lie to us, but not you. But then it's July and you probably were told to lie or face a "more arduous and painful closure to your assignment." I would recommend an apology to the people of the archdiocese asap. They will understand...but not for long.

#####

Rome, do you see how this bishop destroys priests? Archbishop Hon, when you were here last January, you lectured these priests about being obedient and chased them all back into their holes. Well this is what "obedience" in the Archdiocese of Agana under Archbishop Apuron looks like - with your help: 

PRIEST HAVE TO LIE 
or be thrown out. 

Thanks for that.

#####

Let's be very clear. The Decree of July 12, 2015 CLEARLY and IRREFUTABLY REVOKES the name "Boys Chapel". That Decree is an official instrument of the Archdiocese of Agana. Unless it is just as clearly and irrefutably revoked with an instrument of exact weight, then the change of name remains, and no ERRATA printed in the paper is going to change that nor will it allow it to be: "also known as."

This is the big insult and the BIG LIE.

I gave Fr. Jeff some quarter when I allowed for the fact that he was pressured under obedience to consent to have his name associated with this useless and deceitful ERRATUM. If he did not consent to have his name associated with it, then he is welcome to publicly say so and I will gladly make it known.

I feel sorry for Fr. Jeff - as I do all the priests of this archdiocese who are forced into compromise daily by a bishop, a vicar general, and a chancellor whose deceit, greed, and lust for power knows no bounds. The rest of us can refuse to participate or speak our minds. But these priests can't. Or so they were told by Archbishop Hon.

And more to the point:

The issue here is not about the renaming of a chapel, the disregard for a donor's intent, or the consistent public lying of this archbishop and his henchmen. The ISSUE here is about (once again) the ABUSE OF A PRIEST who has no power to defend himself or object* - as we have seen in the treatment in the preceding two July's with Fr. Paul and Msgr. James.

This is the ISSUE. And this one we lay at the feet of ROME.

* However, Fr. Jeff's lack of power to defend himself or object does not prohibit him from telling us that he did not consent to the use of his name in this lie - though he will probably be told to go find another bishop if he does.

Recommendations by JungleWatch