Wednesday, November 30, 2016


Posted by Tim
I'll still be a the picket line this Sunday.


  1. I hope you don't spoil the special day for our First Communicants.
  2. We have SAVED and ARE SAVING "the day" for our First Communicants. Until the laity you see protesting and picketing got involved those same First Communicants were the very children our predator archbishop and (now we are finding) many others like him preyed on and ravaged their innocence.

    Whether or not those First Communicants end up having to cross a picket line (that will be up to the picketers) their parents would do well to thank those brave people that their children will not be receiving their First Communion from the hands of a bishop which grabbed the genitals of children their age nor hear the words "the body of Christ" from the mouth of the same bishop who (per Ray De Plata's testimony) sucked the penis of a ten year old while being forced to suck the penis of the filthy priest, Antonio Cruz.


  1. How many first communions were "spoiled" by apuron because there hadn't been a picket line?

  2. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)November 30, 2016 at 12:39 PM

    Below is an excerpt from Neil Pang's final interview with Abp Hon before the archbishop's return to Rome on Dec. 1st. Abp Hon got it right --- some of the Church's staunchest supporters came from its harshest critics. Translation: the Sunday picket continues!

    "I learned that we need to have more pastoral concern and compassion for those wounded by the church. ... Fundamentally, I feel that most of them still have great love for the church. They protest in order to purify the church." He said he came to realize that some of the church's staunchest supporters came from some of its harshest critics. "Fundamentally, I feel that most of them still have great love for the church," he explained. "They protest in order to purify the church."

  3. The Neo said the protestors were breaking up the church. Abp Hon just told them how wrong you Neos are.

    1. The KAKA filled NEO Cult Dungbat created a new blog chastising Archbishop Hon on his efforts to establish peace in Guam. I can say that Archbishop Hon did the right thing by removing these NEO cult Presbyters from thier positions.
      Wednesday, November 30, 2016
      Looking Back With Hon
      According to the Guam Daily Post:
      To the community of the Neocatechumenal Way, Hon said he had another message.
      "Number one, I pray for them, I really pray for them," he said.
      Hon's second message to NCW followers was to be more open and inviting and that, in addition to having good intentions, the leadership within the NCW needed to develop a willingness to talk and open lines of communication. He explained that while he had undertaken efforts to contact NCW leadership, he was unable to really establish a dialogue with them.
      This is my response:

      Dear Archbishop Hon,

      Let us be honest here. It was NOT difficult to contact the leadership of the NCW. As a matter of fact, you removed him. Father Pius was the Head Catechist of the NCW in Guam and the Rector of RMS. You were able to contact him and tell him that you are removing him as Rector of RMS. Father Pius was obedient and stepped down.

      What good intentions did you do? You removed the leadership of the NCW and targeted the parishes that have the NCW in them. You took out RMS priests without their knowledge. You never contacted them nor wrote them a letter, telling them of their new assignment. And you were fully aware of where to find them. The first time they learned of their new assignment was through the Umatuna.

      Imagine waking up in the morning and opening up the Catholic newspaper only to find that you were assigned to a different parish or to DOC effective about TWO DAYS AGO! And to top it off, you replaced these priests who were walking in the Way with a Parochial administrator as if they were being removed for doing something wrong. These two priests have appealed their case, which you refused to listen. With all due respect, the person who was unwilling to talk and open lines of communication was YOU.
      Diana at 11:40 PM

    2. I recall a reporter asked Archbishop Hon when he was leaving Guam. His respond "this Wednesday". "Let us be honest here" Diana's time of posting her final thoughts about Archbishop Hon was 11:40PM(wed.) Ok Diana. Archbishop Hon had probably started preparing for his journey then or may have left Guam already, and you are heard.

    3. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)December 1, 2016 at 8:11 AM

      Ah-ha! Diana discloses that Presbyters Adrian and Edivaldo were taken by surprise about (1) the new priest assignments last summer, (2) were not formally provided notice of their change in assignments, (3) subsequently requested an appeal for their abrupt assignments change, and that (4) Abp Hon would not entertain their appeal.

      Here are some pieces of those events that either Diana and/or Presbyters Adrian and Evivaldo don’t mention. In an interview granted by Abp Hon to the Pacific Daily news around August 3, 2016, Abp. Hon shared that “within days of his arrival in Guam in early June, he said he privately asked about priests who were on island to turn in a courtesy resignation to give him leeway to reassign them, if needed, for the unity of the church. He said most of the priests turned in their courtesy resignation, and he’s since been reassigning priests, in consultation with the Presbyteral Council.”

      Because of this request by their bishop, Presbyters Adrian and Evivaldo should not have been taken by surprise about the priest assignments. I would venture to guess that those two presbyters were among the ones who didn’t turn in their courtesy resignations. I’m inclined to think that, instead, they hunkered down and dug-in their heels in their rectories. I understand that Presbyter Adrian is still hunkered down at Barrigada at present, some almost 3-months after the priest assignments were issued. Talk about defiance to Abp Hon!

      On a similar note, let’s also talk about the very glaring abrupt priest “reassignments” over the past recent years that has seemed to have been erased from Diana’s memory. Let us remind her of Abp Apuron’s abrupt removal of Msgr. James from his position as vicar of the Cathedral and of Fr. Gofigan from his pastorship at Santa Barbara Parish. If my memory is correct, I believe Abp. Apuron did not entertain a process of appeal to Msgr. James and Fr. Paul. I also believe that it is likely that Presbyters Adrian (who was then Chancellor of the Archdiocese) and Evivaldo (who was then and continues to be the fist-pumper of that old Chancery team) counseled Abp. Apuron in that abrupt removal and his subsequent refusal to entertain an appeal. I am doing a mental happy dance as I write this that Presbyters Adrian and Evivaldo are having a taste of their own medicine.

    4. Correct, Rose de los Reyes. Both presbyters Adrian and Edivaldo defiantly refused to turn in the courtesy resignation (contrast to dedicated priests who know it was not about them personally but about facilitating the work of Archbishop Hon to bring unity and reconciliation to the Archdiocese. For far too long, these two presbyters have arrogantly flaunted their untouchability, protected as they were by the inefficient Apuron. In the years following his removal, Apuron was unable to make decisions, controlled simply by the machinations of Pius, Adrian and toy boy Edivaldo. Sadly even non-neo priests such as opportunistic Fr. Joel (hope he is not your relation) milked this condition for all its worth. In Fr. Joel's case, unbridled freedom to extort money through innumerable fundraising for personal gain, and unabashed public flirtation with a Dededo parishioner whose husband killed himself upon learning about the situation. These normally scandalous circumstances have been going on but unfairly normalized during Apuron's watch. We still need to purge clergy and programs out of these oddities that plague the local church. Archbishop Byrnes must run a tight ship to correct abuses and restore credibility to the Church.

    5. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)December 2, 2016 at 11:33 PM

      Thank you, Anon 10:21, for confirming my summation on this topic. I admit that my summation is based on my readings of JungleWatch and readings of other online publications, so I feel wobbly sometimes with putting things in writing. For this reason, I welcome any corrections. My comments will be all the better for any and all corrections it receives.

      The priest re-assignments by Abp. Hon this past-August was an event I was following in real time through the Archdiocese’s official statements. The JungleWatchers contributed the updates on the subsequent refusals of Presbyters Adrian and Evivaldo to conform to the new assignments. Their refusal was appalling to me largely because of their display of disobedience to their bishop when the bishop’s intent is to stabilize the tumultuous situation in the local Church with the help of the clergy. They were not team players in that effort. Their refusal to conform to the re-assignment was (and still is), in effect, undermining the role of their bishop as head of the Church. When you undermine your bishop, you are crippling the effects of his work. In the case of Abp Hon, as I mentioned, he was trying to stabilize the situation, which was tumultuous in many fronts and all at the same time, in the local Church. What I saw was this he was trying to do this with the help of the clergy (obviously, he can’t do it all himself!). From my memory, the re-assignments shifted-out the less experienced priests (primarily the NCW-formed priests) out of their pastorship positions into secondary support priest positions. And rightly so! You can’t have a Presbyter Evivaldo, for example, as pastor of Chalan Pago --- a parish with a school, because you need an experienced administrator to oversee the operations of both the parish and the school! Evivaldo lacked that background (and many other qualifications ... but that is a whole topic in and of itself). The parishioners are the ones who suffer when the pastor is not a good administrator and worse yet, not a good spiritual leader on scripture and on Catholic practices. The pastor feeds spiritual nourishment to his parishioners and I believe the Chalan Pago parishioners were spiritually malnourished during his pastorship in Chalan Pago. I noticed that Presbyter Adrian is still with his heels dug-in the Barrigada rectory. There was an article two weeks ago in the Umatuna about a ribbon cutting ceremony with the Ysrael family involving the Barrigada parish and he was photographed with the donors in this ribbon cutting ceremony. If, as I understand from Diana, Presbyters Adrian’s and Evivaldo’s wish is to appeal their re-assignments but were refused by Abp. Hon to entertain an appeal, then I would like Abp. Byrnes to entertain an appeal because I want to see their reasons as to why they felt their re-assignments to Umatac and the DOC (respectively) are unfair, unjust, inappropriate, etc. I just want to see the bases of their appeal because I am predicting that those bases are laughable since Diana basically gave a preview (in her comments above) of what those bases would be. Presbyters Adrian and Evivaldo are not team players to the clergy and it is sad for the clergy to have these “weak links” in their team. The clergy is central to the efforts of Abp. Byrnes to put the local Church back on track and I know they clergy will need all the help and prayers they can get.

    6. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)December 3, 2016 at 1:15 AM

      As to the clergy situation of the local Church, I feel for the clergy when I think about them having to work with a compromised, morally bankfrupt, and unskilled bishop in Abp Apuron. It is working for a tyrannical, impetus boss who doesn’t know what he’s doing, didn’t have a clear mission statement for his team, and no clear how-to directives on how to meet the mission, no support from the boss --- yet he wants the clergy to produce! If this were a regular employment situation, the priests can just quit and find another job! But in the case of the clergy this “job” situation is it not just a job. It is a vocation, a life’s commitment to God and to their Church, and they couldn’t just walk away. Thank you to them for not walking away. They worked thirty-years under this “work” environment and this “boss;” were caught between providing pastoral care to their parishioners; and all the while trying hard not to undermine their incompetent and morally compromised Abp Apuron who availed himself and his position to the controls of the NCW leadership. The clergy was put in a precarious and dysfunctional position. God bless them for doing what they could, in a 24/7 vocation, under those toxic circumstances (as Carmelite sister, Mother Dawn Marie, had so accurately identified it a few weeks ago).
      You are correct, Anon 10:21, there is work to be done in improving the “work” situation for the clergy. It’s time to clean house in the clergy front. Disobedience by Presbyters Adrian and Evivaldo (are there others?) to their re-assignments has to come to a head with Abp. Byrnes so that they won’t be allowed to undermine his office and his authority, and in the process, not undermine his plans to move the Church forward and get it out of its mess. Moral uprightness has to be put in check so that there won’t be the likes of Fr. Joel's case of unchecked public flirtation. Is Fr. Joel a different priest from the one often discussed in JungleWatch named “Rudee” who is involved in a relationship with a parishioner? Tim also mentioned a disclosure to him by a female rape victim by a clergy member whose mother had advised her not to say anything about it to authorities yet that clergy member is still actively serving. I feel for the clergy with having to work for thirty years under a leadership of a morally bankrupt bishop; one who has lost his standing in correcting these and other prohibited activities in which some of his priests engage because he himself engaged in similar (and worse) activities.

    7. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)December 3, 2016 at 1:18 AM

      As to organized fundraising by priests for personal gain and even for legitimate causes outside of the archdiocese, that is a no-no in Archdiocese of Seattle without clearance from the Chancery. All the pastors know that rule so that they they keep a close check on the fundraising activities within their parish. I hope this system is implemented in the Archdiocese of Agana. One of the reasons that fundraising for causes outside of the archdiocese has to be approved by the Chancery is that the archdiocese recognizes that the local Faithful is already burdened by its financial commitments to maintain their parishes, Catholic schools, and its archdiocese(through its once a year Annual Catholic Appeal). That rule is to protect the tapping-out of the local Faithful of their finances for the local and worldwide Church. The Chancery does give approvals for fundraising efforts for out-of-diocese organizations, but it wants to keep track of the names of those organizations, how often, and their causes, etc. so that it knows who or what outside organizations are coming into the archdiocese for financial support. I doubt such a system is practiced in the Archdiocese of Agana, which is probably why Fr. Joel has taken advantage of the situation (another clergy “weak link” for the team).

    8. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)December 3, 2016 at 1:36 AM

      Again, while I’m thinking about them, I feel compelled to express my gratitude to the clergy of the Archdiocese of Agana for working under a tyrannical and dictatorial bishop for thirty years. God bless them for sticking out their vocation under this awful prolonged circumstance. There is a special brotherhood among priests. I see it when I see a group of them together. I also see it in our liturgical celebrations when all of them come out to liturgy in support of each other or in support of one of them. It’s a beautiful sight by an outsider like me to see that brotherhood on display. In addition to support from the outside, the clergy need that support among themselves, within their brotherhood, to be able to do the work that they have committed to do for the rest of their lives which is, in most cases, a 24-7 situation. It is a betrayal of some sorts to the brotherhood when one or more of them (the “weak links” as I term it) do not step up to the plate and take one for the team so that they can all move forward together in the work that they do for the Lord and for the Church. It is a betrayal to the brotherhood when one or more conducts himself in ways that are not that of a clergy member. The brotherhood suffers when one or more of them screws up. A big “Thank You” to the clergy of the Archdiocese of Agana for their commitment to the Faithful and to their brotherhood.

    9. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)December 4, 2016 at 2:59 AM

      P.S. At the risk of looking as if I were merely distancing myself from a same-named priest with questionable practice, but I’m not … No, Fr. Joel de los Reyes is not a relative of mine. I first ran across his name in JungleWatch this past summer when the archdiocese’s published priest re-assignments was posted in JungleWatch. I asked my Dad then if our family was related to him and Dad said no. With my own research, I learned that Fr. Joel’s family is from southern Philippines and my family is from northern Philippines. During my childhood on Guam there were two de los Reyes families on the island. One was my immediate family and we were from Dededo. The last of my immediate family left the island by 1988. The other was a family in Barrigada. Our two families were not related, nor did we know each other. I only knew of the Barrigada family because I would occasionally be asked if I was related to Oscar de los Reyes, who was an outstanding high school athlete on the island back in our days.

    10. We would have been glad to let Fr. Joel stay in the background, but he decided to lecture us several months ago in the Umatna:

  4. i expect the neocats to play misunderstood victim. before archbishop byrnes, they'll contrast their joyful and welcoming presence with the non-stop complaining of the picketers. they'll be selling their "fruits" for sure, for sure.

  5. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)December 1, 2016 at 11:33 PM

    It is not so much the comment of Anon 8:28 (the subject of this discussion) that is disappointing, but it is the shallowness that lies beneath Anon 8:28’s statement about the protesters potentially spoiling the day for first communicants. Her/his comment is fixated on the importance of appearances even when appearances are not supported by the substance of truth and transparency. This is the very attitude, the culture’s emphasis on appearances, that has damaged the local Church and brought it to its knees today. This is the very attitude and practice that has implicitly allowed the decades of child sexual abuse to happened within in the local Church. Anon 8:28’s expectation is that the protests will be suspended on the Sunday of First Holy Communion so that, for appearances sake, photos of protesters will not be in selfies or personal photographs of the first communicants’ family albums; nor would the children be subjected to the out-of-the-norm condition of Catholics collectively visibly and publicly stating their opposition to and demands for changes from the Church and have that be a part of the first communicant’s childhood memories. To that, I say, there is nothing bad about having protesters as part of a child’s First Holy Communion memory if you explain to the child why there are protesters present.

    If Anon 8:28 is concerned about the protests during the First Holy Communion mass --- which I assume will be in the spring because that is when they normally take place --- then between now and this coming spring, Anon 8:28 should start doing her/his part in actively correcting the wrongs that have to be righted in the Church and joining in prayer and even joining in protest for the laicization of Abp. Apuron, a clergy member who has undoubtedly sexually violated some of the former first communications in Guam’s recent decades; and therefore doesn't deserve the honors and benefits afforded to a bishop.

  6. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)December 1, 2016 at 11:44 PM

    While Anon 8:28 doesn’t “get it,” I am heartened by Abp. Hon who, over time during his ministry on Guam, did eventually get it: “He said he came to realize that some of the church's staunchest supporters [aka “the protesters”] came from some of its harshest critics. ‘Fundamentally, I feel that most of them still have great love for the church, he explained. ‘They protest in order to purify the church.’ Hon said it was after he realized this that he came to not only accept the protestors, but to listen to them.” [Guam Post; Nov. 29, 2016]. Anon 8:28 should take a page in his/her attitude from Abp. Hon.