Tuesday, May 31, 2016


This is only my first response, freak.


Another allegation surfaces of molestation by archbishop
Posted: May 31, 2016 4:39 PM
Updated: May 31, 2016 5:35 PM
By Krystal Paco

It's the latest of accusations against Archbishop Anthony Apuron, as an Agat woman now residing in Arizona says she's been harboring her son's secret for far too long. CONTINUED


Tuesday, 31 May 2016

Mother Says Son's Last Words: "Father Apuron Molested Me"

Written by  

Doris Concepcion's son, Joseph A. Quinata, died 11 years ago, while undergoing surgery.
Guam - News allegations of sexual abuse against Archbishop Anthony Apuron. This time coming from a mother who says her son finally let go of his secret while he was lying on his deathbed. We have an emotional interview from Doris Concepcion. CONTINUED

Tuesday, 31 May 2016

Archbishop Apuron Denies Sexually Abusing Doris Concepcion's Son

Written by  Press Release (LOL. Written by "Press Release" because Eddie the Waldo is to chickenshit to sign it. LOL.)

The Archdiocese released a statement, denying the allegations of sex abuse.
Guam - In response to the latest allegations of sex abuse against Archbishop Anthony Apuron by Doris Concepcion who says her son was molested by Apuron, the Archdiocese of Agana released a statement once again denying the allegations.
The release blames catholic blogger Tim Rohr for "launching a vicious and calumnious attack on the archbishop and the church."  (I'm famous!!! Yippee!!) CONTINUED


P.S. Tony, remember this?


May call's Doris Concepcion a LIAR. (I'll come back to this.)

So Far Only One Alleged Victim

An anonymous commenter made the following statement, which can be found here:

This is my response:

First of all, the Federal Residual Exception is rarely used.  According to Birdsong's Law Blog:
 It was intended that the residual exceptions would be used sparingly by the courts and only in rare and exceptional circumstances.9  The Advisory Committee cautioned that the residual exceptions “do not contemplate an unfettered exercise of judicial discretion, but they do provide for treating new and presently unanticipated situations which demonstrate trustworthiness within the spirit of the specifically stated exceptions”10
Secondly, in my country, a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  And the accusations are called "allegations."  The judicial system of Guam and the United States was established to protect a person's rights especially the rights of the accused so he/she can get a fair trial.  This does not mean that the person accusing is telling a lie. 

Recently, I posted a story about Cardinal Bernardin and Cardinal Pell.  Bernardin was also accused of sexual molestation in the 1970s by Stephen Cook.  However, this does not mean that he was lying. Cook later dropped the charges.  Cook later said that he had relied on people who told him things that were not true, "asserting that he is absolutely convinced of Bernardin's innocent.

Although the statutes of limitation prevents Mr. Quintanilla from bringing the Archbishop to court, it does not prevent the Archbishop from bringing Quintanilla to court.  For the past three years, we already know that the jungle has been desperately trying to remove Archbishop Apuron.  This was not the first time the Archbishop was accused of sexual molestation.   These are things that has happened so far:

  1. The first charge of sexual molestation came from John Toves in November, 2014.  John Toves was not molested, but he claimed that his cousin was sexually molested by Archbishop Apuron.  He spoke on behalf of his cousin whom he had never spoken to for several years.  And he heard of the sexual molestation of his cousin from other people. John Toves is known to be a good friend of Father Paul who even walked with him to the chancery and who was with him at the cathedral.  What does John Toves want?  He wants Father Paul and Monsignor James to be reinstated, and he wants the Archbishop to step down.  Although his relative never came forward, John called on other victims to step forward.  The Archbishop, on the other hand, said that he did not sexually molest John's cousin.
  2. Then on May 17, 2016, Roy Quintanilla came into the limelight of the media's cameras claiming that he was sexually abused by Archbishop Apuron.  His lawyer, who happened to be a relative of Monsignor James, was there representing him.  His reason for finally coming out after 40 years was because he learned that he was not the only victim, and has called out to other victims to step forward.  And what does Mr. Quintanilla want?  He wants the Archbishop to apologize to him and to step down.  The Archbishop, on the other hand, said he did not sexually molest him.
  3. Now today, a dead person from the grave comes out to claim that he was  sexually molested by the Archbishop.  Of course, the dead person cannot speak for himself.  His mother spoke on behalf of him.  Doris Concepcion is also a very close friend to the family of Roy Quintanilla.  And what does she want?  She wants the Archbishop to admit the truth and do what is best for the people of Guam.  The Archbishop, on the other hand, said he did not sexually molest her son. 
So far, only ONE person has come out claiming sexual abuse.  John's cousin did not come out and neither did Joseph Quinata.  Only Roy Quintanilla came out.  The reason he came out was because he now understands that he is not the only victim and even continues to call for other victims to step forward.  Forty years ago, Mr. Quintanilla thought that he was the only one.  Today, he says that he is not the only victim.  However, he is the only alleged victim who came out. 


Mother of deceased man accuses Apuron of molesting son

Doris Concepcion, of Prescott, Ariz., says her son, Joseph A. Quinata, told her he was molested by Archbishop Anthony Apuron of Guam. Quinata died 11 years ago. Video was produced by David Wallace of The Arizona Republic.



“In the past days, malicious and calumnious accusations against the Archbishop have surfaced, even from a deceased person,” Father Adrian L.F. Cristobal, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Agana, said in a statement. “The Archbishop strongly denies this accusation as he had done so before.”


Cristobal added that “Archbishop Anthony urges the faithful not to be afraid, to stand for the truth and he asks for continued prayers.”


“(Apuron) would ask me if he can have Sonny, because Sonny would do this and that, and he needs help around the rectory,” Concepcion said. “And then he wants Sonny to spend the night with him so they can go and do something for the church, and he needed help. Sonny would retaliate, and say, ‘No, mama, I don’t wanna go,’ and I would punish him. No, you have to go, because Father Apuron needs help.”


“I have no reason to not to believe my son,” she said. “He didn’t want to take it to his grave.”


All I want is for him, if he has a conscience, to admit the truth and do what’s best for the people. That’s what I want him to do, but I don’t think he ever will. But that is my message for him.”


“I’m not putting our church down,” Concepcion said, “No, we the people are the church. That’s what makes the church — us — and (Apuron is) using the church.”

My Interview with Patti Arroyo this morning


Mother of second alleged victim of archbishop speaks, Victims respond


Statement by Joelle Casteix of Newport Beach, CA, Western Regional Director of SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAPNetwork.org) (jcasteix@gmail.com, 949-322-7434 cell)

Our hearts ache for Doris Concepcion, who has so bravely spoken out about the abuse her son endured.

Parents of sexual abuse victims carry an awful and painful burden. Ms. Concepcion only wanted the best for her son. She had no idea that she was possibly putting her child in the path of a predator. We hope that Ms. Concepcion finds the peace and healing she so deeply deserves. Her powerful words and story have made is safer for victims of abuse everywhere—no matter the predator—to come forward and find healing and justice.

Two brave people have now come forward to allege child sexual abuse at the hands of Archbishop Apuron. The time for "internal investigations," bullying parishioners, and maintaining the status quo is over.

It is time for the Vatican and Pope Francis to adhere to their promises of child safety. They must immediately step in and publicly remove Apuron from his office until a complete and independent investigation is complete.

In the meantime, Apuron should and must do the right thing and voluntarily step aside. No cleric, especially an archbishop, should remain in ministry when he has two credible allegations of abuse that have not been investigated.

We implore other victims to come forward to law enforcement and civil authorities. As Roy Quintanilla and Doris Concepcion have shown Guam's victims of abuse, help and support are available.

(SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, is the world’s oldest and largest support group for clergy abuse victims. SNAP was founded in 1988 and has more than 20,000 members. Despite the word “priest” in our title, we have members who were molested by religious figures of all denominations, including nuns, rabbis, bishops, and Protestant ministers. Our website is SNAPnetwork.org)

Contact - Joelle Casteix (949-322-7434 cell, jcasteix@gmail.com), Barbara Dorris (314-503-0003 cell, bdorris@SNAPnetwork.org), Barbara Blaine (312-399-4747, bblaine@snapnetwork.org)


Joelle Casteix is offering a Kindle Version of her book for free for a limited time:

The Well-Armored Teen: Easy Tools Protect Your Teen and Tween From Sexual Abuse, Bullying, and Exploitation 


The decedent’s statement is admissible hearsay.

When molestation survivor Joseph A. Quinata made his statement to his mother Doris Concepcion about what happened to him at age 11, he expressly did so because he was about to undergo surgery for a perforated intestine, with only a 30% likelihood of survival, and did in fact pass away shortly thereafter.

Under the law, statements made under the belief of imminent death about the cause of death, such as “He shot me,” are an exception to the normal rule excluding hearsay testimony from court proceedings. Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(2).

Statements in the face of imminent death about other matters are also admissible under the Residual Exception, where “the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” Fed. R. Evid. 807(a)(1).

This is significant because it greatly increases the likelihood of admissibility of Joseph A. Quinata’s statement in any civil or criminal case where it may be relevant.

The hearsay statements of other survivors who are now unavailable (whether through death or an unwillingness to relive the psychological trauma) may very well also be admissible under the Residual Exception, based upon independent indicia of reliability.

But because Joseph A. Quinata’s statement was made under the belief of imminent death, it is quite literally a nail in the coffin of the clerical careers of Guam NCW Cult leaders Archbishop Apuron, Father Sammut, Father Cristobal, et al.

St. Thomas Aquinas posited at least four possible reasons for human suffering, as when a loved one passes away. (1) Free will. (2) Imperfect knowledge. (3) Good from evil. (4) Redemptive suffering -- in union with Christ.

The grief and sorrow experienced by his family upon the death of Joseph A. Quinata may indeed lead directly and proximately to a great spiritual good (# 3), the dissolution of the Guam NCW Cult Leadership.

They should step aside temporarily before they are removed permanently. Let us pray that their counsel gives sound legal advice.

May the faithful of the Archdiocese be strengthened to stand up and speak out for what is right, and to support those in our midst who have suffered and continue to suffer from this criminal conspiracy.

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle! 


Monday, May 30, 2016


Here's a couple of other news items:


There was a funeral in Yigo last week. One of the family members is very entrenched in the Neos (she lives with them at RMS as a volunteer). It was reported that her family told her NOT to brings her neo priests and seminarians but they showed up anyway.

One of the seminarians asked if all 28 of them can process in with clergy. Fr. Paul, the presider, told them no because they served no liturgical function. The parish already had their altar servers. However, when the Mass started they were all at the front entrance of the church and processed in. 


These pictures were taken Sunday night right at 7pm (the Mass starts at 7pm):


Dead roaches
A note about the seminarians at the funeral. Aside from their finger in the face to Fr. Paul who asked the seminarians NOT to process in with the celebrants, what are they doing there anyway? Do they only show up to funerals where one of their own is involved? Isn't this more evidence that the THEY are the DIVISION? If you're a neo, the kiko priests and seminarians will show up to your funeral or the funeral of your relative, but to hell with you if you are not one of them? Yep. That's about right. 


Arizona woman says her son was molested by Archbishop Apuron


Doris Concepcion, of Prescott, Ariz., says her son, Joseph A. Quinata, told her he was molested by Archbishop Anthony Apuron of Guam. Quinata died 11 years ago. Video was produced by David Wallace of The Arizona Republic.

6:55PM Update. There seems to be some issues with the video. It will probably be up later.

Meanwhile, here's the synopsis from someone who was able to see the video:

I don't know where to put this comment but I just read that a lady by the name of Doris Concepcion from Prescott, Arizona has come forward and said that her son, Joseph Quinata (he passed away) told her that Father Anthony S. Apuron sexually molested him when he was a child. Ms. Doris stated, "she couldn't understand why her son, Joseph would kick Father Apuron and never put two and two together. Her son, Joseph told her that he had to tell her something because he had held on to this secret for a long time and that Father Apuron did molest him". Ms. Doris stated that she herself had held onto her son's secret for 11 years until Roy Taitague Quintanilla came forward about Father Anthony Apuron molesting him 40 years ago. Ms. Doris says her son passed away but now that someone else has come forward about the sexual molestation by Father Anthony Apuron, she can now let the WORLD know of Father Apuron.


Posted by Chuck White

Sunday, May 29, 2016


There's lots of news and things to post about relative to our ongoing battle with Apuron and the neo-cult, but permit me a brief break from that to comment on a discussion I found both disturbing and amusing, though really more amusing than disturbing. 

There was a bit of a dust up on Facebook about the "pre-contact" Chamorro "fashion show" at FestPac last week which featured at least one mostly nude young woman who wore an "outfit" which gave new meaning to "Nothin' but net." LOL.

For those who don't know "Nothin' but net" refers to the perfect basketball shot where the ball passes through the hoop without hitting the back board or even touching the rim, "swooshing" through only the net. The young woman was pretty much covered with "nothing" but a "net" - a fish net.)

One of my daughters and a friend of hers got in on the discussion, both expressing their discomfort with the attempt to "re-imagine" pre-contact "lingerie," as it was said to be.  And quite quickly, my daughter was accused of 1) applying her "post-contact" Catholic moral sense to a "pre-contact" cultural (albeit "imagined") reality, and 2) not being Chamorro, she was told she had no right to opine. 

I had a good laugh at #2 since the guy chastising her non-Chamorro-ness had a very Spanish surname, making him probably more a descendant of the colonizers than any pre-contact Chamorros. 

And #1 was even more ridiculous since neither my daughter nor her Chamorro friend ever mentioned Catholicism but simply expressed how the outfit (what there was of it) made them feel as women - being about the same age as the woman who was on display. 

There were several other threads on the same issue bouncing around Facebook and Catholicism was getting quite a pounding. It was the usual stuff: all was idyllic until those evil missionaries showed up and forced the natives to wear clothes. 

I'm not an expert on the history of Guam and Micronesia, but Fr. Eric Forbes is. In a comment, he noted that the nudity of the natives was not an issue for the early Catholic missionaries. In fact, it is still not an issue where nudity or partial nudity is still the norm. Fr. Eric noted that there are still women in Yap who come to Mass wearing only their hair (for a top) and no one thinks anything of it. 

In general, the idea that Catholicism has a problem with nudity is a laugh. Walk into the Sistine Chapel where the popes are elected and the greatest painting ever painted has Adam's penis hanging out of the ceiling. LOL. Catholic art is resplendent with the naked human body. This is probably why the early Catholic missionaries to the Pacific had no problem with native nakedness and still don't. 

Continuing with Fr. Eric's comment, he noted that it was the advent of Protestant missionaries to the Pacific in the 1800's which precipitated the "Mother Hubbard dress," as he termed it. 

I hope to learn more about this in the near future, but here are a couple of passing thoughts.

"It's hot" is the usual reason given for "pre-contact" nudity. However, that doesn't explain why people in other "hot" places in the world wore clothes long before there were any European influences (India, Northern Africa, etc.). 

Methinks Pacific island nudity had more to do with the absence of items that could be used for material. The islands had no large animals whose skins could be used for clothing, which is why most pre-contact "clothing" seems to have been made out of vegetation and shells. And let's face it, pandanus leaves make for some pretty hellaciously itchy underwear. I'm sure I'd have preferred to go naked too if that's all there was to wear!

It also appears that when private parts were covered, it was more for protection than anything else. A man running through the jungle with his "family plan" dangling loose is asking for trouble (and pain). It seemed wise to do what one could to cover that up...or at least keep it under control. (More LOL!)

And back to our "fashion show." Therein lies the real issue. I thought it rather hilarious that my daughter and her Chamorro friend were told to shut up and sit down by someone who championed a so-called pre-contact experience of culture - as if ancient Chamorro's had fashion shows. LOL

The exposure of bare breasts or (even bared other parts) would have been quite acceptable in the re-presentation of a pre-contact ritual, dance, or re-enactment of a village scene. 

However, the mostly naked young woman was NOT presented in a pre-contact cultural context, but in the very modern, very western, very post-contact context of a contemporary fashion show where models are presented as...well, "models," objects, paraded about in a completely non-real way for no other purpose other than to stimulate an audience and excite the eye. 

Something tells me ancient Chamorro's didn't have time for fashion shows - and probably used fish nets for catching fish...not "lingerie." 

LOL. Courage. 



Posted by Chuck White
Joelle Casteix, the Western Regional Director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), called into Guam’s K57 Radio station recently and said that Guam’s situation is very unique for two reasonsRead more.

Saturday, May 28, 2016


Even with your horrid past, you might have made it to retirement with a modicum of respect. 

Your victims had opted to suffer in silence, some for decades, some even unto death. 

Others who knew of your HORRID HABITS chose, out of love for their Church, to not speak against you. 

They chose to hold what they knew, not daring to utter a word about those awful things. 

Dying rather than telling. 

All was quiet, even buried. And then you chose to hand over the fate of your soul to the STINKING MONK:

who has orchestrated you right into HELL

You still have time. 

Your choice. 

My advice:

Get rid of the STINKING MONK.


How's that "investigation" coming?

And if you haven't noticed, the "complainant" is represented by Attorney David Lujan. That means your "trained lawyer" is in communication with him? LOL. Bet you wish you wish you hadn't let the "The Giuseppe" treat your former counsel (a "real lawyer") like crap. 

Friday, May 27, 2016


It's not "alter," it's "altAr. Thx.


As the local attention has turned to FestPac for another week or so, I am going to save my nuclear bombs for later. Meanwhile, I'd like to return to what I consider to be the central issue: the Liturgy.

It is not for naught that this fight with the Neocatechumenal Way began over - and continues still - with the differences in the celebration of the Liturgy (aka Sacred Liturgy, the Mass, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Eucharist...).

The Liturgy is the central act of Faith. It is, as Vatican II describes it, both the Source and the Summit of our Faith. Thus, and rightly so, the Magisterium of the Church reserves its regulation to itself, meaning: no priest or even a bishop can make the slightest change to it without the approval of the Pope himself, albeit usually via the responsible Congregation, the Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW).

This is why Ground Zero for what has escalated into an all out war was what happened on January 9, 2006: Archbishop Apuron publicly declared that he would NOT obey the liturgical directive of the CDW demanding that the NCW abandon its communion rite and return to that which was prescribed in the Liturgical Books. (Audio here. Transcript here.) 

In doing so, Apuron rejected the absolute authority of the pope since not only is it the pope who holds absolute authority over the governance of the liturgy, the CDW directive actually began with the words: "The Holy Father wishes you to know..."

However, one of the reasons we have been so ineffective in waging this war against the errors of the Neocatechumenal Way is because (I believe) our own errors hinder the Holy Spirit from helping us. 

As oft noted in this blog, many of our Masses are littered with liturgical variances which are neither prescribed nor permitted - making us not only no different than the obstinately disobedient Kiko Arguello and bishops like Apuron, but often worse.

I realize that few really care about this like I do and that most can't wait for the next shame and scandal post, but I will press on with what I know MUST be fixed if our efforts are ever to produce anything more than a brief respite between the current crisis and the next one.

While I have addressed several matters previously such as communion in the hand (permitted only as an exception by Memoriale Domini) and the centrality of Sunday MORNING Mass (vs Saturday and Sunday night Masses which were only "permitted" for those who could not attend Sunday Morning), with this post I would like to address the thing that is most obvious and therefore the most disturbing: the role of music in the liturgy.

The very first chord of the very first bolero-like strum on a kiko-guitar is the very first red flag the uninitiated will notice when they get anywhere near a neo-eucharist. The wailing and banging which soon follows quickly leaves one wondering if one has mistakenly stumbled into a Spanish fleamarket or half-time at a bullfight.

However, as shocking as this is to the soul intending on worshiping God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is not often far from the usual fare dished up at any Mass where "the band plays on."

At this point, given my well known proclivities for a Mass filled with solemnity and reverent silence (it's wonderful, by the way), you might expect me to launch into a lecture on a return to Masses with Gregorian Chant (which, by the way, Vatican II required - SC 116). But i shan't.

I simply want to refer ALL, I mean ALL, that is priest and pastor, liturgists, choirs, choir directors, musicians, and normal pew sitters to EXACTLY what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church requires and has required since 1967 as regards music and the Liturgy.

The first document produced at Vatican II (1962-1965) was the Constitution on the Liturgy. And it was FIRST for good reason: the Sacred Liturgy, the Celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is CENTRAL to everything else. And amongst the arts which contribute to an ever more glorious celebration of the Source and Summit of our faith "sacred song" was said to be PRE-EMINENT, "greater than any other art":
112. The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy.
Like many things addressed at the Council, the details relevant to more generally prescribed norms were left to the various Vatican Congregations, Dicasteries, and Commissions. In the case of "sacred song," a Consilium was established within the Congregation for Divine Worship to work out the more intimate prescriptions. The work of the Consilium was published and promulgated in an Instruction on March 6, 1967, entitled Musicam Sacram (Sacred Music).

And as far as I know, in the 50 years since its promulgation, no one has ever read it. I can say that with confidence because I have never been to a post-conciliar Mass where its norms were evident!

And it is my GREAT HOPE, that, given the Kiko-scourge that has descended on our Church, that we will at last pay attention to (and OBEY) the liturgical prescriptions of the authentic Magisterium of the Catholic Church, especially since the Kiko's so obviously and demonstrably and provably reject that same Magisterium.

Let's see if we can do better.

First, let us read the first three paragraphs of this Instruction so you know by what authority it was issued:

1. Sacred music, in those aspects which concern the liturgical renewal, was carefully considered by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. It explained its role in divine services, issued a number of principles and laws on this subject in the Constitution on the Liturgy, and devoted to it an entire chapter of the same Constitution.

2. The decisions of the Council have already begun to be put into effect in the recently undertaken liturgical renewal. But the new norms concerning the arrangement of the sacred rites and the active participation of the faithful have given rise to several problems regarding sacred music and its ministerial role. These problems appear to be able to be solved by expounding more fully certain relevant principles of the Constitution on the Liturgy.

3. Therefore the Consilium set up to implement the Constitution on the Liturgy, on the instructions of the Holy Father, has carefully considered these questions and prepared the present Instruction. This does not, however, gather together all the legislation on sacred music; it only establishes the principal norms which seem to be more necessary for our own day. It is, as it were, a continuation and complement of the preceding Instruction of this Sacred Congregation, prepared by this same Consilium on 26 September 1964, for the correct implementation of the Liturgy Constitution.

It is clear from the outset that the Congregation for Divine Worship is the highest authority in the Church on this matter and it is issuing the Instruction on Sacred Song subject to the "Constitution on the Liturgy."

Before we proceed (for those who still care) I want to re-emphasize that it is critical for every pastor and person responsible for the use of music in the Liturgy to know and understand the principle norms of this Instruction. And it is just as critical that we all know them so we, the people in the pews, can exercise our responsibility and rights as citizens of the Church in holding those responsible for the right implementation of these norms to account - something we are just learning to do in another area of this war on "abuse."

So, after the "short course" below, come back and read the whole thing here.

5 March, 1967

Now, the short course:

According to the Instruction, there are two kinds of Masses: a Mass which is "read" and a Mass which is "sung." A "read" Mass has NO music. It is simply "read." If music is to be employed at all, it is then a Sung Mass, and it MUST conform to the following norms outlined in the Instruction

Now, don't worry, you are still going to get to do your favorite songs and solos, and no one is going to make you put your guitars away, but the following MUST be followed or we might as well lay down our arms and turn the church over to the Kikos. 

Are you ready? Okay. Jumping right into the meat of this thing, let's go:


27. For the celebration of the Eucharist with the people, especially on Sundays and feast days, a form of sung Mass (Missa in cantu) is to be preferred as much as possible, even several times on the same day.

28. The distinction between solemn, sung and read Mass, sanctioned by the Instruction of 1958 (n. 3), is retained, according to the traditional liturgical laws at present in force. However, for the sung Mass (Missa cantata), different degrees of participation are put forward here for reasons of pastoral usefulness, so that it may become easier to make the celebration of Mass more beautiful by singing, according to the capabilities of each congregation.

These degrees are so arranged that the first may be used even by itself, but the second and third, wholly or partially, may never be used without the first. In this way the faithful will be continually led towards an ever greater participation in the singing. (May I emphasize that? "The second and third, wholly or partially, may never be used without the first.)

29. The following belong to the first degree:

(a) In the entrance rites: the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the prayer.

(b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the acclamations at the Gospel.

(c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: the prayer over the offerings; the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus; the final doxology of the Canon, the Lord's prayer with its introduction and embolism; the Pax Domini; the prayer after the Communion; the formulas of dismissal.

(So let us once again note: NOTHING else is to be sung unless these things belonging to the first degree are sung: "The second and third, wholly or partially, may never be used without the first.")

30. The following belong to the second degree:

(a) the Kyrie, Gloria and Agnus Dei;

(b) the Creed;

(c) the prayer of the faithful.

31. The following belong to the third degree:

(a) the songs at the Entrance and Communion processions;

(b) the songs after the Lesson or Epistle;

(c) the Alleluia before the Gospel;

(d) the song at the Offertory;

(e) the readings of Sacred Scripture, unless it seems more suitable to proclaim them without singing.


Now, was that so bad? No. You still get to do all of your favorite tunes, but ONLY when when the THIRD DEGREE is reached. And the only thing necessary to reach the Third Degree is that One and Two have been satisfied. Make sense? Okay.

So do you see how beautiful this Instruction is? Do you see with what great care our Holy Church cares for its Holy Mass? It is the Mass ITSELF which is to be sung. And guess who the primary soloist is: THE CELEBRANT. 

The First Degree requires him to sing:

  • the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people
  • the prayer.
  • the acclamations at the Gospel.
  • the prayer over the offerings
  • the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus
  • the final doxology of the Canon
  • the Lord's prayer with its introduction and embolism
  • the Pax Domini
  • the prayer after the Communion
  • the formulas of dismissal

And, do you see it? Almost all of these are interactions with the people so guess what: THE PEOPLE SING TOO! (Example: "The Lord be with you. And with your Spirit.") 

This is what Vatican II meant by "active participation." It did not mean we were supposed to sing the entrance, offertory, communion, or recessional songs. It meant we were to be ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS with the Celebrant himself in the solemn participation of Christ offering himself to his Father through the actions and words of the priest!

We can still sing all that other stuff, but if we are going to sing at all, our Church FIRST requires us to sing...THE MASS...and NOT "the songs!"

Now, as for priests who think they cannot sing, get over it. The bare minimum is a "johnny-one-note." It's already very common in the liturgy. Example: the priest intones on a single note: "The Lord be with you." And the people respond on the same note: "And with your Spirit." 

Done. Easy. And Father, if you still think you cannot do it, then get some help. Practice. The Holy Spirit would not require you to do something He would not give you the power to do. 

It's time to get serious about this folks. And pastors, it's time to stop feeling intimidated by the choir. Sorry choirs, but my liturgical music roots go back to 1977 (I was the part of Bob Hurd's group in Los Angeles and sang the first ever performance of Hear I Am Lord with Dan Schutte from a draft that was still in pencil) and I am very well aware of the authority we think we have when it comes to music at Mass. And you know what: WE ARE WRONG.

But as I hope you can see, the Instruction does NOT tell you which songs to sing or what instruments you can use (though we certainly could use better discernment in that regard), it simply requires in what order things are to be done. 

The reason most of us do not know this is because the man tasked with knowing this Instruction and implementing it in a diocese is the Bishop, the primary guardian of the Liturgy. And just because our own doesn't care about his job doesn't mean we shouldn't care about ours. 

So let's get to it. We cannot accuse the NCW of liturgical aberrations if we participate in them ourselves. Let's get our Sacred Liturgies sacred again. Then maybe we will "get our Church back." (Maybe.)

Thursday, May 26, 2016


5/27 Special request update: Stop Tony from singing. Done. Enjoy real sacred song instead. Peace.

And now, by special request, when you log into JungleWatch, you lucky people will all be immediately serenaded by that famous recording artist Anthony S. Apuron (if your speakers are on). 

Back when I was helping with KOLG, Tony the Tenor used to require that a selection from his big hit CD's play several times a day. Well, now all he has to do is tune into JungleWatch and he can hear himself over and over. 

In case you don't know who this wonderful artist is, there's a picture of him at the top of this blog surrounded by his fans. 

Enjoy while you can. The tuneful Tony will soon be singing a different tune. 

Courage! :)


If you're planning to visit the Children's Art Exhibit today, don't bother going to where the FestPac schedule in today's PDN says it is. 

From a report I recently received, the Children were turned away from exhibiting their art at the Basilica Museum by David the Villain who after agreeing to host the FestPac event decided at the last minute to charge the FestPac organizers an exorbitant fee, causing the organizers to scramble to find another venue. 

Apparently, this schedule has appeared in the paper over the last several days with many people showing up at the Basilica "Museum" only to find the place empty and the doors locked. (Of course there is no such thing anymore as the Basilica Museum. It was dismantled after David the Villain got rid of Msgr. James. See related stories here.)

I was told the Children's exhibit and the other exhibits listed were moved to Agana Shopping Center. And while there's been a whole lot of hollering going on about the alleged lack of organization, how about a shoutout for Apuron, David the Villain. Adrian the Drain, OJ the primatologist, and the other jokers who are making an international ass out of our local church. 

Wednesday, May 25, 2016


My brother is dead. This is a death threat:

  1. Maybe it's time for Tim to go see his brother....
It's the same person I've been tracking for awhile.

Hey, coward. See if you can identify yourself on this. I can.

Expect a call.


One would think that David the VG and Adrian the Chancellor, both of whom have been so in our face over the last three years with their false certificates of title and insulting attempts to shut us down at every turn, would be on the front lines with their own video messages declaring Apuron's innocence. 

After all, they have known him as long as the lapdog deacon they drug out to bark on cue (thanks to OJ's Oscar-winning direction - even getting Chamorro-speaking Tenorio to pronounce Quintanilla "kin-tah-knee-lee-ah" like it would be pronounced in OJ's mother tongue. LOL!)

But no David. No Adrian. Not a peep. Maybe they are pre-practicing their Miranda Rights:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”

Well after three years of doing and saying really stupid stuff, we might surmise that keeping their mouths shut about the accusations of sexual molestation against Apuron is the their first smart move in a long while. Good luck, guys. 


LOL. Looks like we are not alone. However, even this article does not expose the real problem. The policy is written by bishops for bishops to protect bishops.

If the perp is the bishop - like ours is - then there is no policy. This is why the laity have had to step in  (just as we are) in the recent cases where bishops have ultimately been asked to resign. Also, this so called "charter" is non-binding because a bishops' conference cannot bind individual bishops to comply. It's all a ruse.

So the real message? The laity must be ever vigilant. Wherever possible, take back your children. Do as the bible says "train them up in the way they should go." Do not depend on the "church" to do it for you. Do as the Church itself says: be the "first educators" of your children.

And another message. Since the Mass is the "source and summit" of our faith, we can be sure - as we have seen with the neocat liturgy - that wherever the Mass is "abused," every other sort of abuse will follow.

And now, just for fun, let us once again watch the Archdiocese of Agana's most embarrassing moment - a real example of why you do not want to trust the current local church hierarchy (Apuron and his goons) with your children.

The Puppeteers with their puppet! from Undercover Neo on Vimeo.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016


Now that Diana has been exposed and the whole secret cult is unraveling as Apuron descends into a rabid fit of self-defense, it is good to revisit some of the posts of the past where we tried to raise the red flag. 

I came across this one from July 12, 2014 as we received the Apostolic Nuncio for a visit during which his message was to "build bridges." Exactly 12 days later, Apuron (the Molester) would haul Msgr. James into his office and blow up a very important bridge. The public bashing of Msgr. James would prove to be too much for the patient and tolerant Catholics of Guam. Looking back, it was a turning point. 

But back to July 12, 2014 and the "concerns" I posted about the Neocatechumenal Way. The original post is found here.


...Senator Blas just called BJ's bluff on the smoking thing. LOL. Two back to back scores for Blas this week so far. Is he running for governor? Peace.


12:40pm Updated - see ****** below

  1. Vincent P. Pereda - RESIGNED May 18, 2016
  2. Deacon Larry Claros
  3. Trinie Pangelinan
  4. Juan Rapadas - RESIGNED May 18, 2016
  5. Mariles Benavente - RECUSED self May 20, 2016*
  6. George Kallingal


Monday, May 23, 2016


Posted by Chuck White

Are you tired of reading stories about the sexual affairs of Neocatechumenal presbyters?  Sorry, but I've got another one...Read more.


As if it wasn't enough that Apuron used Roy for his own seflish gratification, now Jeff Marchesseault uses Roy for his own selfish ends as well.

Roy had just finished an interview with the PDN and had already gotten into a car with his friend who was transporting him to different meetings, when Mr. Marchesseault ran up to the car Roy was in and began knocking feverishly on the car window.

Roy, being the gentleman that he is, rolled down the window to see what the frantic man pounding on the glass wanted. He wanted a picture with Roy, and specifically a picture with Roy with the Cathedral in the background.

He wanted the picture so he could post it on his Facebook with the following message:


Guam senator introduces bill that would allow molested kids to sue perpetrators any time


Alexander Chen, a protector of pedophiles, decides to bring up the John Wadeson affair in the PDN. LOL. We're going to have some fun revisiting this. Thank you, Mr. Chen, for the opportunity. An opportunity made new again now that Roy Quintanilla has made known what Apuron did to him. 


Alexander Chen ·
Did you know that Fr. Wadeson was exonerated of all the 'false' accusations that he was a victim of and that Tim Rohr never asked him for forgiveness for having publicly humiliated him and exiled him from the state of California and Guam?
Did you know that Tim Rohr was joyful with hatred as he associated Fr. Wadeson with the Archbishop in his campaign to smear the Archbishop, accusing him of harboring pedophiles?
Do you think Tim Rohr who did it once, won't do it again? and again? if it helps his agenda?
Did you know that there are people who would sell the truth, their dignity, the Church, smear anyone, lie, insult, degrade, deceive, etc. all for money?
Wake up and smell the coffee, scumbags like Tim Rohr abound in this World.

Dear Mr. Chen. Did you know that Fr. Wadeson was NOT "exonerated" as you say. Here is the finding of the Los Angeles Archdiocese as stated in its newspaper on April 15, 2015:
In relation to accusation first made in 1992 concerning alleged sexual misconduct in the 1970’s against Father Wadeson, then a member of the Society of the Divine Word, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is aware that the allegation was investigated by the Society at the time and was not verified. 
No settlement was offered or paid by the archdiocese or, as far as it knows, by the society. Having reviewed the documentation presented by Father Wadeson, and following the 2014 reexamination, the archdiocese has concluded that there is no reason to preclude Father Wadeson from serving in priestly ministry. 
Let us look at a couple of things. First there is this: "the accusation was investigated by the Society at the time and was not verified." This is the equivalent of having Apuron investigate himself. There was no independent investigation. The Society (Society of Divine Word) to which Wadeson at the time belonged, and which would have been financially liable if it did find something, supposedly investigated one of its own with the verdict being that the accusation was "not verified." 

The investigation performed by the Society did not exonerate Wadeson, nor did it proclaim his innocence, which should have been simple to do if the accusations were false. Instead, the Society (which would have had to probably pay out big money) just said "not verified." 

In fact, we can be sure that the Society never did an investigation because if it had, Wadeson would not have had to appeal to the Los Angeles Archdiocese in 2014 when we "outed" him here in Guam. Had the Society actually investigated the accusations in 1992 and had a report saying that the accusation could not be verified, Wadeson would have had the results of that investigation and immediately produced them when we "outed" him. In fact, Wadeson would have produced them upon being placed on the 2004 Los Angeles Archdiocese list of priests "credibly accused" of sexually molesting minors. 

Wadeson was on that Los Angeles list for TEN YEARS before I said anything about it. What person in their right mind, having evidence that he has been falsely accused would not have produced evidence to have himself removed from that list. Wadeson did not produce it because he did not have it. And Wadeson did not have it because his Society NEVER did the investigation in 1992 they told the Archdiocese of Los Angeles they did when it inquired in 2015. 

Next, let's look at what the LA diocese actually said:
No settlement was offered or paid by the archdiocese or, as far as it knows, by the society. Having reviewed the documentation presented by Father Wadeson, and following the 2014 reexamination, the archdiocese has concluded that there is no reason to preclude Father Wadeson from serving in priestly ministry. 
What they're saying is that 40 years later, they didn't find anything. And why didn't they find anything? Because, and they say it themselves, they ONLY  "reviewed the documentation presented by Father Wadeson. " At most, the LA diocese may have also checked with Wadeson's former Society for the results of the non-existent investigation. 

And then there is this from Mr. Chen:
Tim Rohr never asked him for forgiveness for having publicly humiliated him and exiled him from the state of California and Guam?
Mr. Chen, let's review. I understand that given your kindergarten understanding of things this might be difficult for you to grasp, but I didn't exile anybody. LOL. It was Apuron who ran Wadeson out of town because Wadeson was an embarrassment to him. Take a look at what Apuron said on July 22, 2014:
In response to concerns in the community regarding Father John Wadeson serving in the Archdiocese of Agana, the Archbishop has decided to remove Father Wadeson from active and public ministry at this time. The Archdiocese of Agana has a policy regarding sexual misconduct and sexual harassment and takes these matters very seriously. 
LOL, Mr. Chen. It was Apuron who "publicly humiliated him and exiled him," and you want ME ask "for forgiveness." You must be a neocat, Mr. Chen. Only neocats think like KAKA. LOL

Moving on, it was the LA Archdiocese who banned Wadeson from public ministry in 2003, ELEVEN YEARS before I brought up Wadeson's record in July of 2014. In fact, I published nothing new about Wadeson. The list with Wadeson name on it and the accusations was published by the LA Times in 2004. 

In 2011, Wadeson applied for permission to minister in the LA Archdiocese and was refused. And not only was he refused but the LA Archdiocese contacted Apuron and warned him about Wadeson:
In 2011, Wadeson asked the Los Angeles archdiocese for authorization to minister once more in Los Angeles because he was traveling in California. The archdiocese refused and contacted archdiocese officials in Guam after learning he was working there, said archdiocese attorney Michael Hennigan. He said he did not know what was done with the information.
Mr. Chen, that was in 2011. Apuron was told about Wadeson in 2011 and did nothing. The least Apuron could have done would have been to require Wadeson to get the results of the investigation that his former Society supposedly conducted "at the time" (1992). But Apuron did not. He did not because Wadeson did not have the report. And Wadeson did not have the report because there never was one. 

And by the way, Mr. Chen, WHY is Wadeson, a priest incardinated in this diocese, a priest who is on our payroll, a priest we must provide health insurance for, a priest who we must provide a retirement for, a priest who lives at our expense...WHY is he applying for ministry in the LA Archdiocese, and why, since he got on our payroll in 2004, has he been somewhere else 99% of the time? 

Hmmmmm, Mr. Chen, Hmmmmmm? Back to kindergarten, Mr. Chen. Your KAKA catechists have much to teach you. Courage.