Tuesday, October 4, 2016


Posted by LaPaz, Jungle Watch Correspondent from Spain.

There is a maxim very used in diplomatic circles and even in daily life of people, which was coined by greek historian Plutarco (born at the end of first century) and attributed to empereor Julius Caesar. His wife, Pompeii, was under suspect of infidelity. Although facts demonstrated she did not commited it, Julius Caesar repudiated her. Why, if he already knew she was innocent? Then he pronounced the famous phrase: 

"Mulier Caesaris non fit suspecta etiam suspicione vacare debet"

In English, it means "Caesar's wife must not only be honest, but also seem so". Just the fact of having been under suspect was enough to not considering that person, Pompeii, appropriate for the duty of State. 

Some people have such duty of State. For example, a member of royalty. Historically, kings and queens used to have marriages among their families because they supposedly were professionals of royalty. They were trained from the cradle to live by that high duty of State. That duty was over all. 

They were supposed to behave always as the Caesar's wife, despite their own likes and preferences. They were "servants" of that duty of State given directly by God. That was the Ancient Regime and the holy justification for royals. Today we can not talk in the same way, because the mentality of times is quite different. 

For example, in Europe actual kings and queens have married by love with non professional people. In Spain we have King Felipe VI married with Letizia, a woman without lineage. She was a wonderful journalist, she is quite nice and modern. She is not a professional queen, if it is allowed to say. Her behaviour is not so strict as Felipe's sisters, who were born to be professionals of royalty. 

Then, landing in Guam again, we see a bishop, Apuron, who seems not having studied the right lesson of the Caesar's wife and all his loved and loving people, neocatechumenals, who do not notice they should stay with their closed mouth if they really love him very much.

But we know it is impossible for a neocatechumenal to keep composture and of course be in silence. Neos always talk too much, their prophet Kiko is the first in talking more than needed. He has not been called to be a diplomatic. And worse: he thinks to be a diplomatic person is quarreled with the truth. 

We have Diana's blog as a gotero (dropper) of the truth. She brings what she knows drop by drop. She consciously says a bit here, unconsciously a few there...but always with an arrogant attitude, she knows the whole and you don't. 

Apart from being a childish behaviour, it is just the opposite of the Caesar's wife rule. As showing themselves, neocatechumenals, like the privileged ones who know all the truth, they indirectly are underlining the rest, the plebes, do not desserve the least consideration. 

I guess how is it possible to justify that attitude not only in front of other catholics, who are at least sheep of the same sheperd, the bishop, but in front of civil authorities. If any citizen was accused of molestation, I do not know if the law would allow him to travell out of the country and being missing for several months, while his mother was writting in internet "I know where he is but you do not know it". 

It is very disconcerting because Apuron is a bishop of catholic Church, he must answer Rome as a ordained ministry of the catholic Church but also he is a citizen of Guam, subject to Guam's laws. Benedict XVI was clear about it, Pope Francis too: any ordained ministry accused by sexual abuses has to be judged by catholic Law but also by civil. 

Diana and neos are trying to draw a picture very different than the one shared by the rest of the world. She underlines once and twice Apuron is innocent and he will come back soon to seat again as the Archibishop of Guam he is. 

International news papers since Hon was sent to Guam had announced Apuron has been removed because of sexual abuses accusations, first, and because of his attempts of blocking the inner investigation of the truth, second. 

Meanwhile, Diana tells us drop by drop Apuron is in Rome, maneuvering with Kiko and Filoni, as if Pope Francis had not spoken enough through the simple fact of naming an apostolic administrator for Guam. Hon is not keeping the chair for Apuron while Apuron is missing doing his bussiness with Kiko, but I think Diana and neos do belive it. 

Despite she knows better and more than us, I do not think Rome will give Apuron's seat back for him. The great mistake of Kiko, Filoni, Apuron, Diana and company is the considerarion of the NCW as the navel of the world. For them, all Guam diocese problems do summarize around the NCW: with it or against it. They only value things and people in terms of neocatechumenal benefit or neocatechumenal damages. 

Common people commit sins, while neocatechumenal do not sin because everything has a reason. For example, when a priest uses "money of the faithful people" to pay his birthday party, it is not the same if that priest is neocatechumenal or if he is only a diocesan one. As well, it is not the same money from "natural religious" or from neocatechumenals to pay for a private use of a priest. Incredible but true. 

Then, we know by Diana's blog that Apuron's birthday or elsewhere party was paid by the Neocatechumenal Way. It is, with money from each neocatechumenal member pocket. But, weren't they as catholic as the rest? Weren't they so diocesan as the rest? Why do they make that distinction with the money of the faithful?

Another stupid thing told by Diana. She says when Apuron travels he lives in Redemptoris Mater or neocatechumenal places for free. That is why Apuron does not need to spend money from Guam diocese in hotels. Apuron travels with holy money and holy expenses. That shows the great lie of Kiko and his NCW. If Redemptoris Mater seminaries and neocatechumenal hosting (Domus Galilaeae, Domus anywhere) are diocesan and they are not neocatechumenal assets, who is paying for them? Diocesan money or neo money? 

The problem is we have a problem. 

Money for Domus is from private pockets but Domus figures as a diocesan asset. Which diocesan money paid the Domus in Jerusalem? Each neocatechumenal community in Europe was obligued to pay a determinate ammount of money, Kiko forced each community to borrow the equal of 6.000,00$ from the bank. Many thousands of money paid by private people to build a place where Apuron and company enjoy. But then where is the rigid line between private and diocesan money, Diana? Where is the rigid line where transparency starts and finishes?

Please, Diana, try to be as the Caesar's wife if you really consider yourself as a "woman of State" because of your neocatechumenal condition. If you know but you want to keep silence, just shout up. Because maybe all your words to show off about Apuron and Rome an the truth will be used against you someday. 

Dear Anonymous at 3:43 pm,

Do not worry. Archbishop Hon is not going to be here long. I know what happened in Rome. He is not happy about it, so he is causing as much damage as he can before he leaves. Very unbecoming of a bishop". 

Dear Anonymous at 12:11 am,

Archbishop Apuron did not use Church funds for birthday. It was paid for by the NCW and everyone else who was there. Tickets were $200.

Dear Anonymous at 7:11 am,

We know that Archbishop Apuron does not travel or hang out with Monsignor James. The Archbishop hangs out more with the RMS priests because that is what the non-RMS priests have been complaining about. When Archbishop Apuron was in Rome, he does not even stay in a hotel. The NCW in Rome gives him lodgings for free in their own homes. Monsignor James does not travel with the Archbishop; therefore what he did in Sangri-La was to his benefit alone.
Dear Anonymous at 8:00 am,

You spoke too soon. Tim Rohr explained about the checks and receipt. Nevertheless, even he admitted that it was the wrong thing to do. Money that does not belong to a person should not be used for personal use. Under the law, it is clearly a misuse of funds. Apparently, other inappropriate things were discovered after the removal of Monsignor James.

Dear Anonymous at 6:34 pm,

Anthony Apuron is still the Archbishop of Agana. Pope Francis did not remove his title.

Dear Anonymous at 1:21 pm,

The pope did no such thing. Anthony Apuron is still the Archbishop of Agana. Monsignor James has been given a second chance. We hope he learns his lesson and move on to being a better priest. Father Paul has moved on and even gets along with the Agana communities. In fact, Father Paul joined the Agana communities in their agape. We hope Monsignor James is also able to move on and leave the jungle behind him as Father Paul did.

Dear Anonymous at 6:31 am,

About 20% of the Annual Archdiocesan Appeal goes to RMS.

Dear Anonymous at 3:54 pm,

I have not heard Jackie's response to Father Jeff's press conference. Furthermore, after reading Archbishop's letter, I found that he contradicted himself. First, he said the RMS property belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana,no doubt about it. Now in his letter he speaks about returning the RMS property to the Archdiocese of Agana??? I am very suspicious of people who sing a different song and dance every now and then.

Dear Anonymous at 2:48 pm,

If you really believe that , then take it to court. We can resolve that in court. We have all the documents showing that RMS still belongs to the Archdiocese.

Dear Anonymous at 8:31 pm,

The jungle can demand excommunication all they want. It is not going to change the fact that Monsignor James is now going to answer to the government authorities. And if he is indeed found guilty, then the jungle will stand alone while the entire Catholic community in Guam will demand why the church was "covering up" Monsignor James. And when Rome hears about the "cover up"...........

Dear Anonymous at 7:02 pm,

Regardless of what he does, the damage has already been done. This is now in the hands of GPD and the Attorney General. Monsignor James will now have to answer to government officials, and this time we will know for certain whether he is really cleared of financial mismanagement. If found guilty, I wonder what Archbishop Hon will have to say to the people of Guam. If found guilty, how is Archbishop Hon going to explain his "cover up" regarding church finances?

    1. Dear Mr. Terlaje,

      They get it from their income.
  1. NCW gets the money from their own pockets.....Or from selling something of their own that they have no use for...and like Diana says...their work income.....

Someday NCW will have to swallow its own medicine: transparency. 


  1. In my Diocese, the NCW mission families were put on the diocesan payroll, while the NCW paid cash money to the diocese, from an unknown source on a regular basis, presumably to pay back the diocese for the income paid to the families.

    Of course, the intention was to make it appear that the mission families were employed, so that, after a period of time, they would qualify for government benefits.

    All the time, of course, the NCW claim they have no material assets of their own (according to their statutes).

    This is quite clearly money laundering, and presumably the same arrnagement is made for NCW families in other places around the world.

    Not only that, but the mission families are given discounts on Catholic education and regular access to support from Catholic charities.

    This is what the NCW call "providence". And its all free.

    A miracle!

    1. I guess I am "providence" when I donate to my old alma mater. It would be interesting to see what students get tuition discounts and scholarships. NO MORE FROM ME!

  2. As mentioned, the facts, after I learned them, were better than my speculation. The pr joys board approved the expenditure. It was not an advance to be paid back. Msgr.'s family only decided to pay it back after Apuron mistreated James as a way to send a message. F-U. Any company, non-profit or otherwise, can spend money on anything except that which is prohibited by its bylaws.

    Of course the real issue now is that Jackie LIED.

  3. Another Great Article LaPaz!

  4. Thank you LaPaz. I threw out the bait and the dungbat Diana took it all, hook, line and sinker and has confirmed my suspicions. The RMS and the NCW is nothing but a money laundering sham on the island. Keep up the good work and keeping us informed.

  5. So AnonymousOctober 4, 2016 at 5:17 PM said: NCW gets the money from their own pockets (church donations) Or from selling something of their own that they have no use for. (RMS seminary) and like Diana says...their work income..(we're back to church donations). lol!!