Friday, March 23, 2018


Posted by Tim

Alas, just when I thought I could retire, The Diana, gives me reason to press on. 

True, I actually pay no attention to The Diana. However, I regulary receive a steady flow of copies of "her" blathering from others. 

My first impulse is to "trash" the copies after reading about three words. However, I probably should not be so hasty. 

It was thanks to The Diana that Apuron is now GONE! 

As I've shared several times, long after the Fr. Paul issue was no longer interesting to anyone, The Diana continued to attack this blog (and me personally), giving me an ongoing reason to stay online. 

And, ultimately, this "staying online" is what provided the forum for the sex abuse allegations to shake off their 40 years slumber, the account of which is carefully detailed in the JW series ORCHESTRATED

So, those of us who are glad to be rid of this 30 year reign of terror, should never cease to thank The Diana for keeping the battle going long after it was actually over. 

And now that it is apparent that Apuron and his Kikos plan to continue the battle, we should welcome The Diana's continued foray into stupidity so we can continue to display it to the Vatican and ultimately to the lawyers who will pursue Apuron in Federal Court. 

So thanks, Diana. [My comments in red.]

Comments That Are Not Published
To the junglefolks, by now you should already know that I am no longer publishing your comments due to the fact that you are not here to dialogue or learn about the NCW.  Your mind is already made up, and this blog will not be used to promote your agendas and propaganda.  You can make those comments in the other blog.  

[Actually, no one is really interested in "dialoguing" with a genuine coward - the absolute antithesis of Christ. Imagine Christ hiding behind a pseudonym and writing letters from behind a rock rather than standing in full view in the synagogue and the public square - as the author of this blog has.]

I also see that Rohr is once again trying to twist the English and Italian translation.  No matter how he twists it, this is what EVERYONE should remember:  

[SMH. Rohr (me), took the time to screenshot the actual announcements posted on the Vatican website and then paste those screenshots directly to this blog for the very purpose of avoiding the make-believe accusation that I twisted anything. See for yourself here.]

The PENALTY imposed on Archbishop Apuron did not keep him from being in contact with children.  

[Well it keeps him from OURS!]

Father Brouillard was sentenced to a life of prayer.  This sentence kept him in isolation where he cannot be in contact with children.  

[Father Brouillard was never "sentenced." A "sentence" is the result of the conclusion of a trial. Brouillard was never put on trial. He was removed from ministry, but NOT by Archbishop Apuron who was his bishop since 1986 until June 6, 2016 (when Apuron's episcopal faculties were suspended), but by the Bishop of Duluth in whose diocese Brouillard continued to function from 1981-1984 (and abuse even more children) where he had been sent by then-Archbishop Flores, apparently without a warning label.]

Archbishop Apuron, on the other hand, never received such sentence.  The CDF removed his title and banned him from returning to Guam.  In other words, the sentence given to Archbishop Apuron is a sentence which the jungle lobbied for in their protests. 

[Well, at least The Diana got that right. My point from the beginning, and long before the sex abuse allegations came out, was that Apuron was a bad guy. If you'll remember, my only aim at the outset was to question Apuron's unjust treatment of a couple of priests. Eventually, my only goal was "APURON OUT!" True, some also called for defrocking, but not me. Defrocking would make him a layman and out of the control of Church authority. I wanted him to stay under the control of the Church.]

[BTW, just whose authority is Apuron "under?" My guess is that he is under the authority of Archbishop Byrnes. Apuron is incardinated in this diocese and Byrnes is now his superior. And it is very likely that the Vatican privately gave (or will give) Byrnes the authority to decide what Apuron can and cannot do - including banning him from contact with children.]

The CDF never banned him from being in contact with children. This simple FACT alone says EVERYTHING.  As I said in my last post, if he was found guilty of child sexual abuse, then why didn't the Vatican tell him to stay away from children?  Why not give him a life of prayer, which will keep him away from children?  

[We don't know that it didn't. It could have been part of the Kiko's plea deal with Francis not to publicly announce the details of Apuron's "life after sentencing." The Vatican is famous for even the sentence itself demonstrates. And, as already stated, it may be up to Archbishop Byrnes.]

Rohr can twist the English and Italian translation all he wants, but he cannot dispute the FACT that the Vatican never told Archbishop Apuron to stay away from children.  

[Alas, copying and pasting directly from the Vatican website is "twisting." Folks, I think we're winning. LOL]

Also, remember that it was Rohr who stated that there was no canonical trial and no appeal.  His statements are in contradiction to the facts I had already laid out in my previous post.  Remember that it was Archbishop Apuron who said he pursued a canonical trial and already filed an appeal.  And so far, the FACTS all point to the truth found in Archbishop Apuron's statements....that there was a canonical trial and an appeal.    

[This will be debunked in what follows.]

The Appeal Was Approved
These are FACTUAL DATA that can be verified.  According to Tim Rohr:
Let's make this very clear. An appeal is not an appeal when it is filed. An appeal is an appeal when the appellate court agrees to hear it. Said court may also refuse to hear it. In either case, just as with the sentence, the Vatican will announce it via the same sort of Bulletin.
First of all, this is the same man who manipulated people into believing that there was no canonical trial.  In his blog, Rohr wrote:
He's in the area. I have "hard copy" evidence. He's not in Rome defending himself at his canonical trial because there's isn't one.
[The first mention of a Vatican trial wasn't until late January 2017. And the Vatican was under no obligation to let us know that it had commenced. What the Vatican did say was that it "cannot release information until the trial is over":
"The Holy See Press Office at the Vatican confirmed that Apuron’s canonical trial is ongoing. However, the office said it cannot release other information until after the trial is over, and referred further questions about the trial to the local archdiocese, the Archdiocese of Agana."]
The only who said that there was a canonical trial was Archbishop Apuron.  Today, Rohr is saying that there is no appeal. He believes that the Vatican must publish that there is an appeal.  Did the Vatican ever publish that there was a canonical trial? Today, we know for a FACT that there was a canonical trial.  Today, we know for a FACT that Rohr was incorrect when he said there was no canonical trial.  The evidence and facts presented speaks for itself. 

[LOL. SMH. Let me repeat. The Vatican stated that it "cannot release information until the trial is over." The trial is now over. And Apuron is OUT! Archbishop Byrnes has said so. But apparently The Diana knows better. But then, of course "she" does "know better." The Diana and her Kikos are not part of the Holy Catholic Church, and they are hereby demonstrating this better than I can.]

Today, Rohr says that there is no appeal because the CDF did not accept it; yet, he showed absolutely no evidence that the CDF did not accept it.  It is the same with the canonical trial.  He said there was no canonical trial; yet, he showed no evidence that there was no canonical trial.  Rather, he called Archbishop Apuron a liar.  Today, we now know that there was a canonical trial, and this truth came from Archbishop Apuron.  While Rohr continues to say that there is no appeal, this is what the CDF stated according to Catholic News Agency:
Until appeals are resolved, “the imposed penalties are suspended until the final resolution” of the trial, according to the CDF.    
[What The Diana doesn't tell you is what the same article states immediately after: 
The prefect of the CDF, Archbishop Luis Ladaria, will determine whether or not to accept the appeal, and then be responsible for appointing judges to consider it.
"...will determine." That means it has not yet been determined. Thus, there is NO appeal.]

Until appeals are resolved, the imposed penalties are suspended....ACCORDING TO THE CDF.  The CDF says the sentence is suspended and Rohr says that it is not suspended.  So, who should you believe????  The answer should have been obvious.  Again the truth was found with Archbishop Apuron who stated that he had already filed an appeal.  

[LOL. Umm, Diana, do you really think that the CDF would keep something as important as the status of who is the "Archbishop of Agana" a secret, especially given the global scrutiny of this shameful case? And BTW, we are supposed to believe the word of a man who fled Guam after a single allegation from one guy who hadn't live here for 40 years???]

This news report came in on Friday, March 16th.  Coadjutor Archbishop Byrnes addressed the media on Monday, March 19th and declared himself Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Agana three days after the CDF already stated that the imposed penalties are suspended until the final resolution of the trial. Again, the evidence and facts presented speaks for itself. 

[Keep it up, Diana. You are doing a better job of getting Byrnes to ban your bastard movement better than I can.]

Furthermore, Rohr stated in his blog (Capitalization and bold is mine):
 "The canonical process in relation to the accusations, INCLUDING those of child sexual abuse, charged against the Reverend Anthony Sablan Apuron, OFM Cap., Archbishop of Agaña, Guam, has concluded." The Italian translation leaves no question as to what Apuron was tried for and found guilty of.]
Rohr deliberately misinterpreted the translation.  

[Once again, copying and pasting directly from the Vatican website is "misinterpreting." SMH]

The word "including" is used to include the child sexual abuse charges.  This means that there were other charges.  "The canonical process in relation to the accusations, INCLUDING those of child abuse...."  The Vatican never stated what the charges were that Archbishop Apuron was found guilty of and of which he is now in appeals.  

[The fact that the Vatican LATER amended its March 16 statement to make SURE that the English translation of the sentence included the words "sexual abuse" when the original did not, should tell us all we need to know.]

If the guilty charges were child sexual abuse, then why didn't the Vatican tell Archbishop Apuron to stay away from children??????  Why a much lesser sentence?  As the article pointed out, if the guilty charge was child sexual abuse, it did not match the sentence.  

[Permanent EXILE has never been levied on any cleric, priest or bishop, in modern times.]

And Coadjutor Archbishop Michael Byrnes judged Archbishop Apuron guilty of child sex abuse without actually knowing what he was found guilty of.  Because the Vatican never publicized the charges he was found guilty of, the Coadjutor Bishop should have refrained from judging a brother bishop. Instead, he should have turned to Jesus Christ who said, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged."

[LOL. Thanks, Diana. Did you check with Tony before you pressed "publish?" Just remember, Tony's nemesis is the smartest, most astute man in today's Church, Cardinal Burke, which is why, despite his other issues with him, Francis chose him to investigate and judge Apuron. And BTW, only a pope can ultimately rule on the fate of a bishop. So guess who ultimately sentenced him? Anyway, thanks Diana. Thanks for helping me get rid of Apuron. And thanks for helping this diocese - with this post - to finally get rid of the Kikos. Start packin']