Thursday, July 14, 2016


(Posted by Glaucon Jr)

Call me Junior.

Really. I want to make sure the Lutherans-who-call-themselves-Catholics across the hall get the name right.

This is my first post, so I decided to state clearly what my intention is here, now, and in the future. After some brief experience at the NeoCat blogs and their need for monosyllabic soundbites to grasp more than Kiko song lyrics, allow me the few minutes to make everything perfectly clear: Junglewatch is not defunct and never was going to be. It is now the next crop of wheat that will spread the truth of Christ Jesus, further and further, every day, despite these weeds that would choke the life out those who proclaim the Faith. 

Down to business. My dear Archbishop Hon;  In his masterwork The Republic, Plato has Socrates investigating the nature of justice, and he does this in long conversation with two brothers. Glaucon is the spirited brother—the one who is a man of action, of energy, of nature’s desire for what is good. His brother Adeimantus, the other interlocutor, is the more reserved, more cautious, what might be called the more sensible of the two. Adeimantus is also the more inclined to monetary concerns and creature comforts, to not being willing to pursue virtue if it costs any discomfort.

My point is that I’m not Glaucon, I’m sorry to say. Most of my life I’ve been Adeimantus, but it wasn’t until recently that I understood the implications. I have always worked for peace and reconciliation, and I’ve always highly valued courtesy and compassion. But if I’m honest, that’s a cop-out. I was just being non-confrontational. Even this week on a Neo blog, I was accused of double talk just because I didn't state the obvious. Clearly, no one needs gentility. The spirited man is needed. So there it is. I didn’t want to make waves for myself, nor for my family  on Guam in particular, especially now (both my Neo family and traditional). I just wanted a happy Catholic life in my island paradise. But the Catholic life has a price, and now is the time to pay up.

So, after quite a long displacement, now Justice has come looking for her place in our midst. The time is upon us, indeed already here. We—all of us—have a serious problem. We know it, Tim knows it, Diana and the Roman Curia know it, Pope Francis knows it, and you can be sure Kiko Arguello knows it. Our serious problem has to do with a particular man and a particular act that has risen to prominence above all others in drawing our outrage. No, not that one…wait for it…

Now we all know that when any of us sins, then if he goes to Confession and performs the prescribed penance, he is forgiven and reconciled to Christ through His Church. Even more, the Church grants us plenary and partial indulgences whereby the temporal punishment of sin is wiped away. 

It’s not popular to say, but I actually do believe that if Archbishop Apuron did what he is accused of, then he long ago confessed it and performed whatever the prescribed penance was, mostly likely to his community. If he did do it, I’m sure he is sorrowful about it. Charity requires me to extend that, and so I really don’t doubt it.

But your Excellency, there is a bit of a hiccup. Some sins have such an impact and make such a heinous mark that the real-world effects can never be undone on the victim, and especially on the perpetrator himself. It has nothing to do with forgiveness; it’s a matter of cause and effect. In canon law, some of these are called irregularities (in this case, 1042)

For example, if a man assists a woman in having an abortion, he cannot be ordained. Ever. Likewise if he attempts suicide. Likewise if he has a history of serious mental illness. And so on. Plain and simple: he is not fit. HE IS NOT FIT! He can appeal to Rome to have his irregularity lifted, but that’s a case by case thing. Otherwise, the man is simply not fit for orders. 

Remember now: this isn’t harshness on my part; it’s canon law. And it’s a good law because Holy Orders is so high a vocation, so special, so necessary for salvation for the rest of us, that if the best men possible don’t come forward, then at least these others who AREN’T FIT will be prohibited. I'm certainly not fit to be a priest. If ever anyone was conscious of not being worthy, it's me. 

So here’s the problem (and the end of the example of 1042): Archbishop Apuron has committed at least one offence that is so morally objectionable that it requires he never, ever hold active office again, regardless of contrition or confession (we'll just go ahead and let Apuron's soul-killing "scarlet fever" go--at this point, it's small potatoes).

First, he stands accused of sexual abuse and rape by four named victims (there are credible indications from chancery source that there are more). If this is true, no one denies that Apuron is unfit to be bishop. If there is not enough evidence, then he is clear of such a cloud, and I for one will be most grateful for that for all our sakes.

Second is the kick in the head that leaves even me speechless still: even if the evidence does not support the credibility of such a charge, Apuron and those serving in his name and with his consent went much, much further in committing an intrinsically evil act.

I’m not even personally concerned that he denied the charges and basically called the claimants liars.
What I’m far more concerned with is the charge that any accusation against him is calumnious and malicious and meant to destroy the Catholic Faith itself. Some readers don't live here, so I'll be clear: By doing this, on Guam, Apuron assured with the stroke of a pen that any and all accusers would be held up to ridicule, scorn, and derision. Any defenders of the accusers would receive the same. Apuron made the chance for any healing of any kind vanish in the wind, and he made sure to crucify all who dared stand up. That's like standing up in a Baptist church and declaring yourself an evolutionist atheist. So long friends. So long family. If you're not careful, so long job. Then, it's so long house. Never ever speak up, I guess.

And in his staggering hubris, Apuron said again and again that he would not only sue the accusers (and Tim Rohr and others) personally, but he also threatened canonical action against them all for daring question God’s anointed whom the Pope himself had elevated. 

For a faithful Catholic, there is no worse threat that can be made than this. That’s it.  By implication, it’s excommunication, but even an interdict would be devastating. Not even the abortion promoting, gay-marriage supporting politicians have never received threats like these in the public forum on Guam (in fact, the abortion-loving Lou Leon Guerrero at Bank of Guam gets Apuron's full financial attention).  If that’s not what Apuron meant by his threats, then why not be clear? What else are the laity to think, faithful souls of the Church that they are? Frs Adrian and Edivaldo certainly didn't do anything to dissuade anyone of that assumption. So I'll take it at face value. Apuron’s threats were designed to intimidate all of us and ensure that no other victims would come forward. It’s abuse of  power piled onto abuse piled onto abuse. And it worked. No more accusers. No way they’ll come out now. Everyone seemed intimidated.

But not everyone was intimidated. I wasn’t intimidated. Not me. Why should I be? I wasn’t out there with Tim, Deacon Steve, or the victims,  or the CCOG through all that prohibition that you, your Excellency, didn’t lift until you absolutely had to.  That’s why I wasn't intimidated.  I still remained quiet, at home, watching from the sidelines like the vast majority of faithful Catholics. Why say anything when all hell will be unleashed at Apuron’s return? His threats through Edivaldo and Adrian silenced everyone. Why speak up when you are called Protestants, Satanic, even terrorists, by the Neo blogs on Guam? Why speak when no one believes you? Why speak when every indication is that the Roman Curia will once again cover everything up like that always do? Why speak when priests from the pulpit accuse YOU of creating scandal about the gentle, hunble archbishop. Poor souls who were victimized won’t speak now. Poor souls who know what has been going on for decades won’t speak now. They live in genuine fear. Richelieu would admire such venom.

You know them by their fruits, the Lord said. A corrupt local hierarchy kept afloat by a river of money and sheltered by a canopy of greed. Kiko is secure. Apuron in his 24/7 coccoon. And all were intimidated. 

Except for Junglewatch. Who knew THAT would happen? I thank Jesus for Tim Rohr and everyone else who stood up when I didn’t. And Tim and the others have steadily become even more vilified in certain parishes more than any criminal ever was. So now we rise up in his place. At last. I’m late to the party. I ask your forgiveness, JUNGLEWATCH NATION, and yours, Archbishop Hon. I neglected justice and may well be judged for it. But no longer. Now on with the work at hand.

Your Excellency, even now, in payment for our stand for the most defenseless in Christ, we are labeled everything from lost sheep to schismatics to Protestants to possessed of the evil one (and don’t forget terrorists). And these labels come almost completely from the Neocatecumenal Way and the clergy who direct them on Guam. The best that the others can say is that it’s a shame about all this fighting. The problem is that’s like hearing a man beating his wife across the street and saying how rude the beater is for interrupting Wheel of Fortune. 

(Wives should accept being beaten to death because it's God's will? Really, Kiko? Brudda, you and I really need to have a come to Jesus talk. If we don't, you and Jesus are going to have that talk, and I'm not thinking that's going to be a boat-drinks conversation.) 

Archbishop Hon, please understand the root of the problem here: like all fights with Protestants, this is our fight in defense of Catholic ecclesiology and the Eucharist from which it flows. This isn’t knee-jerk reaction; reactionary Catholics are so ultramontanist that they’d put the rest to shame. We don't want a coup or a new regime structure. We want an end to the injustice. To be precise, we want a holy bishop for all of us, Neocatechumenal Way and us, together. 

As it is, the bad catechesis is such that the bloggers for the Neocatechumenal Way and their presbyters insist on absolute blind obedience to the bishop; our disagreement over how blind one should be (as in “not”) equates to blasphemy against Christ and personal wounding of the Pope. Even you, your Excellency, commanded the clergy on Guam to sit down and shut up and do what your bishop says, period.

After that, once the accusers came forward, YOUR VERY WORDS, Sir, were used against us to be silent and let the wounded suffer in the sake of episcopal privilege, in the name of the Holy Father.  Not just by the Chancery, but by the power brokers you left in power. It may have been unintentional, Sir, but part of the blame for the other victims not coming forward is on you!

And it didn't matter to anyone months ago what injustice and corruption reigns in  Guam’s Chancery. No one cared. Why, just another rock in the Pacific that cranks out presbyters from RMS at no cost to anyone but the good people of Guam—but not for Guam. The Great Chamorro Catholic Giveaway. But all this corruption and falsehood and heresy matters to us. And now that we are past the breaking point, all of you in Rome and elsewhere sound surprised and plead for more acquiescence. 

Hear this well, your Grace: THIS is our daily walk with Christ: this is our persecution. When the Lord warns of persecution, the first thing He says is "beware of false prophets." Well, we do, but then we are punished? The average Neo Cat Catholic on the street knows only what they’ve been told by catechists, and the best to be hoped for (they are told) is we are lost sheep, schismatics, etc. They say we hate the archbishop. They say we will do anything to get rid of the man. That they, who have the full support of Kiko Arguello, the Ordinary, the Chancery, and the clergy from RMS, are the ones persecuted at the hands of a small, petty corrupt core of malcontents. 

Our reasons? They say it’s money. It’s always about money. But their cynicism illustrates what all cynicism illustrates: that a cynic cannot fathom that a person would do something for a motive that is pure in its pursuit of the good. 

We don’t seek money. We don’t seek fame. We seek justice. And our experience of archbishops on Guam, before and now, is one of condescension and patronization.

And this boldness of ours isn’t disrespect; it’s confidence in the power of Christ in Holy Mother Church. Though you give me little reason to do so, I don’t doubt your integrity, Archbishop Hon.. I am in fact DEPENDING on it. 

Excellency, Our Holy Father Francis has preached throughout the year about mercy, mercy, mercy! oftentimes with a lack of clarity that unsettles both liberal and conservative. But what is mercy but concern, even priority, for those who are most helpless, the most vulnerable? The lost and forsaken? And who are most helpless in the world today but children, who are preyed upon by all manner of vice, impurity, and those who profit by it. Hasn't the Pope said that children and their abuse are th first justice priority, particularly abuse in the Church? They are sold as slaves in some places, but in the Church on Guam they are simply potential grist for the presbyter mill—without formation, without wisdom, without direction, and in some cases, without vocation itself. And this is yet another great injustice that swells in our midst.

For a bishop—archbishop, rather, as he has always demanded to be called, like Archbishop Cranmer here, who was the real architect of the English "Reformation," 'cause that's what good bishops do, I guess—to insist on the choicest portions and then take liberties not just with youth but with their damaged adult souls is not only scandalous, it is abominable. In one case, it is literally a crime that cries out to God for vengeance. Precisely because he IS a bishop and a descendant of the Apostles. THAT, your Excellency, is why we must stay the course with the faith and true charity that flows from the wounds of Christ.  And even if he is not found guilty of that crime against nature, then his contempt for his own accountability to Christ and His vicar on earth surely warrants swift justice.

SO THIS IS MY STATEMENT OF INTENT, Archbishop Hon, and with humility, I say: 

now that the work is begun, those of the JUNGLEWATCH NATION—in the desire to be completely faithful to Holy Mother Church according to the direction of the Tradition and the Supreme Pontiff who is tasked with protecting it—in this desire, we will continue to watch, to be vigilant, and wait for you to bring about the justice that Christ, His Church, the Tradition, Natural Law, and common decency require in a reasonable time frame. This is not a threat. It's a simple fact.  I don’t believe you aren’t a fool, for you have navigated the Curia to the position you now hold; I can only assume that you are well aware therefore of the profound corruption in our Chancery and the mockery of formation that is the Guam RMS. Therefore, we all pray you must be preparing the way for a major cleansing of the Church on Guam. 

If you’re not doing this, your Grace, you should never doubt (as the Neo aficionados do) that we will seek to do what your timidity, insensibility, or (God help us) injustice  will not. We will do whatever Justice in the sight of God requires, for justice is never opposed to mercy nor prudence nor temperance nor fortitude. But Justice is—and by definition must be—opposed to the subjugation of the People of God by their very own pastors for the pastors’ profit, self-glorification, or career advancement, against the very Gospel. It is not a human justice for human ends. It is the basic justice that children and the poor and the scarred not be harmed by others out of envy, malice, or delight in suffering. And anyone who does not understand this has no business calling himself a person of good will, much less any sort of Christian. 

If we do not act—if I do not act—then what will I say to my blessed Lord Jesus at the Judgment when He asks me from His glorious loving Heart, “My son, why did you do nothing when you KNEW my little ones were suffering? I led your there, and gave you a guide to show you how. Why did you do nothing?” 

What would I say? Nothing, for who can answer the Lord. But what terrifies me the most is that if I do nothing, He will say, “Be gone, you wicked and useless servant.”

I for one want only to hear Christ our God say in His tender voice, “Well done, my good and faithful servant. Enter into your Master’s joy.” And that is that.

In sum, your Excellency, we are not schismatics. We are the true sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church, and we are faithful to the end. We are the sons and daughters of Sts Athanasius and Maximus the Confessor, of St Catherine of Siena and St Bridget of Sweden, of St John Fisher and St Thomas More. To bow to this man who corrupts everything around him in the name of his vanity and then demands we acquiesce to his corruption in order to maintain a sense of serenity, is a slap in the face of the great courage of the saints whom we aspire to emulate. To relent is immoral in the highest degree.  Your Excellency, it is madness. We need you to protect our Church with strength, not platitudes and good will speeches of how everything will blow over. 

Like John Fisher and the others, when bishops are dead-wrong, we are obliged by the love of Christ to correct in charity and, if necessary, resist for the sake of Christ. Rather than hate or dismiss it, that in fact means we recognize the need for the hierarchy. We recognize your authority over us, Archbishop Hon. That’s exactly whey we demand so much from you. So quit milling about and help us to have a holy bishop who loves Christ and his little ones more than his pretty scarlet-trimmed white vestments that Apuron even wears when he’s holding court at Tony Roma’s.

No, we are not schismatics. If the Holy Father were to personally command each of us to bow to Apruon and his cadre of cultish polluters of the Tradition, I  would obey (for otherwise I would be in schism). As it is, he hasn’t, and I seriously doubt he ever would, for then the Bishop of Rome would have taken the millstone and hung it around his own neck. When word of this got out, the world press would see to that the Holy Father’s credibility would be annihilated in a way that airplane interviews could never repair; no apologizing to gays or victims or for global warming  will undo that damage. Therefore let justice be done upon not just Apuron but Msgr Quitugua and Fr Cristobal, for the healing cannot begin until the cancer is cut out that robs the body of its life. Remove them (with their dignity in mind, of course, and let us get on with living life in Christ instead of being a neo-Lutheran experiment in a controlled environment.

We remain, with our daily masses, rosaries, scapulars, monthly (if not weekly) confessions, and demand for faithfulness of our hierarchy to the Gospel, your faithful servants in Christ.

As for me, I sign myself, as your obedient servant in Christ,

Glaucon Jr (confirmed Augustine) Aristos 

PS. I think that went pretty well, don’t you?


  1. Wow, a learned man speaks and speaks the truth. The ball is now squarely on your court, Hon. Get cracking

  2. Proud to be a citizen of Junglewatch Nation.

  3. Dear Glaucon Jr,

    now THAT was a mouthful!!! Well done!!!

    The inhabitants of the other blog are probably pining for the "good old days" when they only had to worry about Tim. Now that he has handed the "vines" of the jungle to his friends, the "Dianas" will have even more headaches.

    I look forward to your next post and that of the other new contributors. I'll continue to pray for Tim and his family hoping they are able to get some much needed rest.

  4. Junior well said and too the point. Let's call a spade a spade and, in this instance, a protestant a Lutheran.

    The souls that are "walking" in the way, however naïve or guillible, are in peril! The wolves in sheeps clothing are culpable for deceiving these weak souls! The folded arms of presbyters is a physical response to counter the weight of the spiritual "millstone" around their neck.

    Like yourself, I also have friends who are "walking". True Christian charity demands that we gently, but firmly "guide" them back to Holy Mother Church by sowing the seed which the Spirit will nourish.

    Look forward to future post.

  5. I do apologize for the length, my friends. I will try to be a bit more thrifty in the future.

    1. The length of your writing is the least of our worries. The content is what matters. I find your style of writing to be at a higher intellectual plane yet not difficult to read. Please keep posting.

  6. Straight up talk that leaves you thinking. Thank You Mr. Glauson Jr.


    1. Just Junior. I'm nobody's mister.

      That doesn't sound quite right, but you know what I mean.

  7. Now that's a great post, Junior! I thinketh what ye sayeth much better than I ever couldeth.

  8. Wow! Someday I'd like to meet you personally and shake your hand.

  9. Hit the nail on the head, Dianah, who do you have to match Jr's caliber? certainly not you. Read it and weep....

    1. Dianah, may or whatever she call herself is completely lost with her mouth open and do not know how to counter.
      Thanks a million Junior.
      Yes, Tim and his family truly need the rest. God Bless them and keep watch over them at all times.

  10. Mr. Glaucon Junior – If Archbishop Hon still doesn’t get it (after your extensive exposé), I guess there will be nothing that will get him to open his eyes and see the problem – I mean the REAL PROBLEM - not his perceived problem! The adage is epitomized in him: “You can lead a horse to the trough, but you cannot make him drink!” Until such time as he THIRTS for truth, and drinks of the living water of Life, he – and his like – will continue to perpetuate “the grand deception”. I wonder how much of your writing will get through to him! I pray that an “angel of peace” will be sent by God to deliver your message. (I did not have that blessing after 4 personal letters to Apuron and at least 2 email messages – via a Forward from the Chancery secretary – to Hon. All of mine fell on deaf ears!)

    I believe – like you, Mr. Glaucon Junior – that these men (they are humans like us, you know) simply do not want to accept the true nature of division within our Catholic Church, and refuse to admit that the Neocatechumenal (NCW) – with its heretical teachings and aberrant practices – IS THE VERY CORE, THE SEED, OF THE PROBLEM. From the seed sprang the ROOTS of the problem, the bishops (Apuron and now Hon) and their minions, and from the roots sprang forth branches, and fruits – thanks to the nourishment provided by the bishops: support, advancement, protection, and proliferation.

    Speculations abound that Apuron will be returning to Guam to regain his throne. Other than my own gut feeling, I don’t think so – unless he is subpoenaed by civil authorities to face civil charges. So, in my mind, I am leaving it to Hon to rid the Church of the divide within its members – the Catholic Faithful. Will he do it? I have my serious doubt that he will, unless extreme pressure and possible rebellion by the Laity is put forward. That is why the Laity must continue the fight! Am I advocating for rebellion? Of course not! I’m just speculating that that might be the “course of last resort”.

    While prayer and faith alone will not be sufficient (prayers back by actions is the answer), I repeat the admonition that I had been offering all along for God to hear our pleas for healing: “If My people, who are called by My Name shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my Face, and turn from their wicked ways – then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sins, and will heal their land.” (2 Chronicles 7:14).

    Thank you for your writing, Mr. Claucon Junior. I – like the rest – look forward to hearing from you again. (Joe R. San Agustin; 7/14/16)

    1. In the event that AAA does come back and claim his throne, he should expect to be treated like an uninvited party crasher or the perverted uncle.

  11. I entertain many family and friends on many occasions. Be it a simple birthday party, anniversary, weekend barbecue, or just a nice intimate dinner. I have a standing rule for all of my guests: Leave your beliefs and prejudices at YOUR home. You are here to enjoy some time with other people, make new memories, relive old ones, or just relax. You are not here to be judged. You are not here to convince me or any of my guests to participate in your cause, beliefs, opinions, political affiliations, etc. Those issues are for me to explore and any decision that may be forthcoming is for me to make.

    You wanna be a NEO-whatever? Go for it! You wanna be old-school Catholic? Have at it! You stand left? Right? Republican? Democrat? I do not care! Leave it at YOUR house.

    So-called Brothers and Sisters, what are we doing? We are a world divided by hatred. We are a society that is falling apart because of he said/she said. The mere fact that having family and friends on both sides of this religious battle makes many people uncomfortable, speaks volumes! It does not have to be this way.

    Someone commented that we need to "'guide' people back" - who said? Were we ALL automatically selected and programmed to be who we are today? No. It was a process that came with trial and error. Our parents and their parents before them may have provided us with the knowledge necessary to move forward in a certain direction, I accept this. However, we all made decisions as we educated ourselves along the way and the end result was not always commensurate with what was hoped for us. Does this make us evil? No. It makes us human.

    If you feel you need to stand for something, stand for peace. Fight for peace. I am not a very educated individual, but I know how to reach out and help my fellow human being when the need arises. I offer my assistance without worrying about their likes/dislikes. For all intents and purposes, I may have helped a criminal at some point and time. I am okay with this. The one consensus on this forum is that none of us are worthy of judging another - a higher power has that responsibility. Therefor, it is that being that will decide the fate of the criminal I may have helped.

    Take some time to clear your mind and sift through this blog. There is an awful lot of hate and anger in many words that are typed by contributors. Why is that? We are talking about religion. A faith. A belief. I think if you need to be this hateful and derogatory, perhaps a refresher course on your particular discipline is in order. Quite frankly, the tone being used has more of a lynching mob flavor than the forgiving, love thy neighbor, love Jesus for he is pure, sales-pitch many use to "guide" people to their masses.

    I had a faith. I followed a religion. I was raised in both. Now I just speak to the higher power in the comfort of my home and at my will. I bother no one. I pray my way. Most especially, I pray for peace.

    "Let he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone."

    "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

    I believe I read that somewhere - some of you call it a bible.


    1. The only hate is from Apuron.

    2. The problem when that approach is that it makes the Gospel a message of I'm ok, you're ok. The Lord was actively reaching out; we try to do so. As to your critique, the Lord drove the money changers out of the Temple with a whip, and referred to the Pharisees as a brood of vipers. That's on matters of faith.

      This, however, is quite a bit different now since we are talking about sexual abuse, a profound abuse of power, and financial malfeasance. We are only making the case for Archbishop Hon as clearly as possible, one last time.

    3. What you're really advocating, Anon 5:27PM, is the relegation of our faith to a closet where we can each, privately, contemplate our navels. In your view, nothing is really true enough to take a stand for. In your world, there really is no room for taking a public stand against evil. In short, you advocate a thinly disguised relativism. So, you should stay off this blog, and stay home and contemplate your navel.

    4. Relativism at its finest described, un-fortunately there is such a thing as wrong or Right in all our actions written into our hearts by our creator, and which he admonished we should write into our minds,and to teach our children through the generations, these very precepts make for a moral society that we live in. so it is not relative to what one thinks personally, we in a civilized society live by rules and bounderies. You on the other hand live under a rock in dreamland. Wake up and smell the reality. Propagate your fairy tales somewhere else.

    5. 5:27 I can see that you are really very committed to being uncommitted. If I were as committed to being uncommitted as you are, I wouldn't be commenting here about my lack of commitment. But if my lack of commitment prevented me from commenting I would have no way to brag about my commitment to being uncommitted.

      Perhaps less of a commitment to being uncommitted would allow you to identify yourself rather than post anonymously. Or you could adopt a pseudonym. How about U. N. Committed?

    6. Beware if everyone likes you. It means you stood for nothing!

    7. Feel better anonymous 5:27. So you don't like confrontation. Charity is the gentle confrontation with "sin" not to be confused with the judgement of the sinner. We all are sinners, but through Christ are called to holiness! Like the good Samaritan do we help the man in trouble or avoid confrontation? We in the Jungle are confronting the "evils" that cause division in our Catholic Church. Anger is justified when "evil" is the cause of pain and suffering. Hate is the lack of charity, why some remain "anonymous".

    8. A friend, Dr. Bryce Loder, wanted to find out more about the turmoil in the local church. I sent him a link to JungleWatch. Here is his email reply which fits well in this comment stream:

      Thanks, Andrew.

      I unintentionally spent the last hour reading these posts and want to read more. I think this isn't going to go away. Some very calm people are writing intelligent arguments about why this can't be swept under the rug. Thanks for having the courage to stand up and use your name and take risks by doing so.

      Some victim who hasn't yet come forward is probably feeling that finally someone is seeking justice for him. Without being too dramatic in my assessment, I think that you might be saving the life of someone who has lived in pain and considered suicide, but might hold out some hope now. Standing up boldly for justice, without spewing hatred, is difficult, but it has to start somewhere. Thanks for being part of that movement to seek justice.

      I'm so fortunate to have friends who make me think and enrich my world. You are definitely one of those gifts to me.


    9. I don't understand Anonymous @5:27 to be abandoning justice. When he has extended a hand to the needy, he acts in accord with mercy, love and justice (by restoring value and dignity where this was lacking). Furthermore, Anonymous is a fighter and may well appreciate the verse from James 3: 18: "The harvest of justice is sown in peace for those who cultivate peace." Justice or peace? According to James, we can have both.

    10. Anon @5:27 has abandoned justice as they have seemingly abandoned God; in so much they do not recognize his authority. "I had a faith. I followed a religion. I was raised in both. Now I just speak to the higher power in the comfort of my home and at my will. I bother no one. I pray my way. Most especially, I pray for peace."

      Anon@5:27 is their own authority.

    11. By my reading Anon@5:27's post is not here any more. If he has deleted it, that is too bad. It prompted a good conversation into what the fundamental issues are. So many people want shortcuts and zingers. I cannot speak of anyone's moral state, so I only speak of being conformed to the Truth.

      And that's what we're truly after: intellectual conversion to the Truth in all its clarity and glory.

    12. Anon @5:27 seems to indicate that one makes personal choices that should not be imparted on another, that everyone should mind their own business, a person isolated from everyone else, even the act of charity is left dependant on one's choice to act or not to act. As social beings however we live in a community where our very actions or inactions have adverse effects on the state of being on ourselves as well as the community we live in. The Higher Power that Anon 5:27 refers to, tells us in many ways that we have an obligation to be our brother's keeper as we strive for that peace and unity that only he can give. Left to our personal choices, we are lost, for as the old adage says, No man is an island.

  12. Excellent! Very well put. Please make sure you deliver a copy to AB Hon. This may be language he understands.

  13. Well said Glaucon. I think I recognize the writing style from somehwhere?...but let's just say you will have supporters for your well articulated position far beyond the boundaries of Guam. I will pray for you, please be assured.

  14. Junior Glaucon thank you for your post! It was very well written. I hope it opens up many eyes and many hearts regarding the faith and what it has become. I could read your post over and over!

  15. I can sympathize with people in the NCW who have sincerely sought to deepen their faith through this organization. They feel threatened by our protests and the thought of the NCW being removed from Guam. That is very unlikely given the support the NCW has around the world and in the Vatican. It would probably take an enormous scandal to uproot the NCW from Guam or another diocese.

    For a moment think about this hypothetical situation: Guam gets a new archbishop who sees the division caused by the local NCW. Attempts to achieve unity are unsuccessful. He is able to disband the organization and those not from Guam return home. What is left for the local people who were part of the NCW? Where do they go? May I suggest the Catholic Church?

  16. Amen Andrew at 5:42 AM. In my opinion, there is so much that the NEO on the Island are going through but I really do not feel sorry for them. If they had just started their own churches and stayed out of our True Catholic Churches, they would have gone on happily on their way. But they invaded My Catholic Church because they knew that is where the MONEY IS! There were religions that have invaded Guam but the Catholic Churches still won over them. This time, Apuron sold his soul, because of material goods, to the NEOS and here we are. Bring back our Traditional and True Catholic Religion and We Will Live in Unity and Peace. Try to impose those awful NEO whatever is Not Going to Work! BiBa Katolikus!

  17. Dear Glaucon,
    You say: "If the Holy Father were to personally command each of us to bow to Apruon and his cadre of cultish polluters of the Tradition, I would obey (for otherwise I would be in schism)." Really? After all you said about AAA? Thomas Aquinas would not, nor would I.

    1. In one way, bowing to the law is yielding to that man's higher authority, whether right or wrong. In another instance, bowing as if in to give holy worship to that same man is worth the death you ask about and for Timothy. Give then to Caesar what's belongs, and to God what is God's own.

    2. My dear Timothy,
      thank you for such a crucial observation and the wit to draw from the Common Doctor. If the Holy Father spoke in this way and commanded me--Junior--to speak no more of this, then I would have two choices: to obey or disobey.

      Thomas would indeed do as i do, because he most of all recognized that while he is the Common Doctor of the Church, no one theologian or canon lawyer, or Church Father or bishop or blogger or whatever, is to be relied upon as the fulness of the Faith. Thomas never even thought of himself as a theologian, but as a teacher of the Sacred Page, i.e. Scripture.

      Hence, Thomas would say that if the Pope commands him to do thus-and-so, and it is not contrary to Faith, then he would do it. But Thomas--and any Pope who commanded him--would also know that the Pope would ask for the reason for our insistence on our position. Given the evidence, no Pope would disagree. Given the evidence, Pope Francis would never command me to submit.

      In fact, Pope Francis has repeatedly asserted--and by his promotion to Archbishop Cupich in Chicago (a notorious liberal) to the Congregation of Bishops in replacement of Archbishop Raymond Burke--that conscience is paramount. I think at face value this goes entirely too far, but let's take the Holy Father at his word:

      if the divorced and remarried are perhaps permitted to receive the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ our God while in an objective state of mortal sin, then there is absolutely NO WAY he would object to my defense of the Tradition of the Faith, which is flowed from and end in the Holy Spirit Himself.

      But this is far too far. I am no schismatic and never would be. I fight for the Body of Christ Himself, both as Church and in particular for the Eucharist. No Pope would or in fact could command against that. Infallibility prevents his speaking so when he speaks ex cathedra and not just as a man (e.g. that mustard is better than ketchup).

      And I say moreover that if the Holy Father commanded me thus, then I would require him to tell me why I should submit, in light of the evidence. He would have to. Infallibility requires it. Anyone who is theologically honest would never ever ever say, "Because I say so, that's why!" Children and frustrated parents do that, not the vicar of Christ. For Pope Francis to do that would justify exactly why Jesus warned against the chief steward who abuses his fellow servants.

    3. Dear Glaucon,
      Further to the matter of obedience/disobedience. Thomas Aquinas writes: “It is written (Acts 5:29): ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” Thus, Thomas distinguishes three types of obedience: “one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey; secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful; thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.”
      (Summa Theologica, Prt II, Second Part; Question 104. Obedience. Article 5.)

      As Thomas does not advocate indiscreet obedience in unlawful matters that are against God, you need not obey a bishop in matters unlawful; and you wouldn’t be schismatic in consequence of disobeying the pope if he demanded that you obey a bishop requiring unlawful things of you.

      So I think Thomas would support you, should the unthinkable happen, namely, that a pope require obedience to a bishop who in turn requires your complicity in matters unlawful.

    4. Point taken. What I had in mind was more along the lines of the Pope seeing the bigger picture, as in having far more facts at his disposal and therefore commanding me to obey since my personal acts are themselves not evil in the particular sense (all things being equal), and my obedience in these matters therefore being part of the larger correction of the matter. I apologize for not articulating that. Perhaps it's inconsequential, but that was my train of thought.

      "Unthinkable" is the heart of the matter. The Pope could and never would command such a thing. Especially this one, with his penchant for highlighting conscience, which is itself a bit troubling theologically since it's not the conscience which is so important as much as it one's conscience enlightened by Faith.

      But we argue to disagree. Thank you for reminding us all that we are on solid ground in our work. God love you.

  18. But in the end, even Caesar belongs to God. Do I hear an amen??