Saturday, October 31, 2020


"You guys talk about transparency and accountability with our government, and being open, yet they (referring to Archbishop Michael Byrnes) sweep Bishop Apuron away, and there's zero accountability for all the injustices; that he committed here on Guam, and they're hiding him in the Vatican."Guam Pride founder and president Lasia Casil

While Casil is grossly misinformed if Casil thinks Archbishop Byrnes has anything to do with Apuron being swept away and "hiding in the Vatican," Casil may be right that someone or "someones" are hiding Apuron in the Vatican. 

As demonstrated here, "someone" in the Vatican is certainly keeping an eye on JungleWatch. On August 31, 2020 alone, there were 18 views of JungleWatch from Vatican City - and all from the same computer. 

A few of the links tell us what the "someone" in Vatican City was looking for:

We shouldn't be surprised if Apuron is being hid, not only "by the Vatican," but maybe even "in the Vatican." 

There is, of course, the "Red Pope," aka Cardinal Filoni, and Apuron's connection with the powerful Neocatechumenal Way. But there is also what Pope Benedict called the "gay lobby," which is sometimes referred to as the "Lavender Mafia" because of how much power "it" has. 

In memoirs, ex Pope Benedict says Vatican 'gay lobby' tried to wield power: report (Reuters)

While Apuron might have been labeled a "pedophile" because of the allegations against him for sexually molesting underaged males, there is no evidence that Apuron was a pedophile. 

A pedophile, clinically defined, is a biological adult who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. None of Apuron's known victims were prepubescent children, all were post-pubescent (adolescent) teenagers

And while Apuron's alleged victims might have been under the legal adult age of 18, all (taking the norm into account) were fully developed biological adult males. 

In other words, Apuron's alleged abusive acts were homosexual acts, albeit still "criminal" because of his alleged perpetrating said acts on unwilling victims - not to mention the alleged trickery and abuse of his clerical office.

Note: Criminal is in quotes because the criminal statute of limitations has now expired so even if said acts occurred as they are alleged, said acts cannot be labeled criminal. The law permitting the alleged victims of Apuron to sue Apuron for child abuse. 

So it makes sense that the Vatican, now so widely known to be in the control of several pink prelates, would have a nice flat for the fleeing Apuron. 

In fact, given what we now know about Apuron's alleged victims. Apuron may feel right at home in Francis' Vatican (i.e. "who am I to judge?")

Vatican cops bust drug-fueled gay orgy at home of cardinal’s aide (NY Post)

Great observation, Lasia Casil. The gay lobby (i.e. the Vatican "LGBTQ community") may in fact be hiding this guy.

Oh Yah. Trick or Treat. 

Accusers locate Apuron

Friday, October 30, 2020


A segment of this interview was made into a news item and was referenced in the previous post "FOR THE VIOLENT BEAR IT AWAY." Here is the full interview. It is programmed to start at the point Barnett challenges Archbishop Byrnes with the penis reference.

Wednesday, October 28, 2020


Several days ago, the archbishop of Agana, Guam, Archbishop Michael Byrnes, issued a letter in response to comments made by Pope Francis in support of civil unions for same-sex couples. 

In the letter Archbishop Byrnes rightly and correctly stated that the pope's comments do not change Church teaching. 

Apparently, certain persons on Guam took offense to the Archbishop's comments and KUAM ran an article titled: "Guam LGTBQ members share thoughts on archbishop's same-sex marriage stance"

Yesterday, radio talk show host, Bob Klitzkie engaged the KUAM article on his afternoon show "Tall Tales," and I (Tim Rohr) called in. 

You can listen to what I said, but the gist of what I said is that what Archbishop Byrnes said is NOT his "stance." 

Neither the Archbishop nor the Pope has the authority to change Church teaching. 

More after the video.

The challenge in these days of poorly catechized Catholics (and even clergy) is defining what is meant by "the teaching of the Church." 

The Catholic Church is the only Church which can and does trace its "deposit of faith" to Christ and the Apostles, i.e. "one, holy, catholic, and APOSTOLIC faith.

Other "churches" trace their "deposit of faith" to the Bible, and more specifically, to one individual's particular interpretation of the Bible, which is why there are more than 30,000 "churches."

And this is why so many churches these days (e.g. Episcopalians) believe themselves divinely empowered to not only embrace homosexual marriage, but also authorized to ordain openly homosexual men and women into the ministry, the priesthood, and even the bishopric.

So when Archbishop Byrnes says that the pope's comments don't change Church teaching (capital "C"), he is functionally saying that not only do some off-hand comments by the pope in a documentary NOT carry any "ecclesial weight," Archbishop Byrnes is also saying that the pope has NO AUTHORITY to change that which was handed down from Christ through His Apostles and continues to live before us today.

I'm glad I listened to this next video till the end because I almost turned it off. It appeared that Archbishop Byrnes was caving. A certain Glenn Lujan had just said "God loves us all and he forgives us...

Before I tell you how Archbishop Byrnes responded, let's be clear, God does love us all, God does want to save us, God does want to bring us home to heaven, and God DOES want to forgive us. BUT WE MUST REPENT AND PROMISE TO "SIN NO MORE." - Jesus, John. 8:11 

So it doesn't matter if we are in a same-sex union, an adulterous union, or an intentionally contraceptive union; unless we "firmly resolve with the help of thy grace to sin no more" (the Act of Contrition), there is NO forgiveness. NONE.

Now, back to what Archbishop Byrnes said.

In this radio segment, it appeared at first that Archbishop Byrnes was making this about his personal beliefs and not the Apostolic Faith; and that Mr. Lujan was getting the better of him. However, Archbishop Byrnes shifted gears and said "Sin is Sin." 

We don't know what happened after that because KUAM cut the interview at that moment, but not before Mr. Lujan's face showed that he didn't have an answer. 

Perhaps that's why KUAM cut it?

Jesus said a lot of strange things, and this is one:

"And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away." - Matthew 11:12
Look it up if you want. There are many interpretations. But Jesus himself showed us what it means to sacrifice your body when he permitted his own Sacred Body to be subjected to the most torturous violence ever allowed by God: the Sacred Passion and Death of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 

And having paid that price, Jesus now sits "at the right hand of the Father" and will come to "judge the living and the dead." 

For the violent bear it away.



Parties in Guam's clergy sex abuse cases could receive assistance with the mediation process, at no cost, to help settle the cases in three months.

Posted by The Guam Daily Post on Tuesday, October 27, 2020




The Guam Women's Chamber of Commerce holds itself out to be an organization to "advance women in business." But given 3 of the 6 questions on its candidate survey, the GWCC appears to be little more than a front for the pro-abortion women of the Democrat party. 

2. Do you support the re-election of President Donald Trump? Why, or why not?

3. Do you support a woman's right to choose?

4. 10 GCA subsection 3218 requires that a physician who performs an abortion on Guam must fill out a report containing 25 potentially identity-revealing items about the patient: age, ethnicity, village, number of living children, etc. This report must be turned in to the Department of Public Health and Social Services. This statute and a number of other statutes are designed to intimidate women and doctors with regard to abortion on Guam. If elected, would you be willing to repeal 10 GCA 3218?

Bob Klitzkie called out the bait and switch GWCC yesterday on Tall Tales.

Tuesday, October 27, 2020


On his radio show today, Bob Klitzkie mentioned that the Vatican keeps on an eye on JungleWatch. He's right. 

Friday, October 23, 2020


 Oct. 23, 2020


Archbishop’s statement regarding

pope’s comments on same-sex civil unions


National media yesterday reported that Pope Francis made the following comments as part of a new documentary, Francesco: “Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God. You can’t kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.” – AP

I will address this issue with our Catholic faithful by way of a pastoral letter shortly to provide guidance and minimize confusion that I’m certain has arisen. However, to immediately respond to questions by our Guam media, I issue this statement:


First, it’s important to note that the comments attributed to the Pope are from a documentary -- NOT a papal pronouncement. I regard it similar to what he says when he lets reporters ask him questions on his flights to and from whatever country he has visited. Which is to say, it has very little ecclesiastical weight. It does NOT alter Church teaching.


In his papacy, the Holy Father has historically expressed great compassion and concern for our brothers and sisters who struggle with same-sex attraction. Rightfully so. However, he has repeatedly affirmed Church teaching on marriage, that marriage as designed by God, is a union of a man and a woman. I emphasize that the Catechism of the Catholic Church has not changed with respect to the Sixth Commandment.


United in matrimony, a man and woman cooperate with Our Creator in the miracle of life, procreation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:  1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84


When it comes to our relationships with persons who struggle with same-sex attraction, God is the one to judge, the Holy Spirit is the one who convicts our hearts toward repentance and our role is to love all sinners into holiness.


 Archbishop Michael Byrnes

Metropolitan Archbishop of Agaña

Thursday, October 22, 2020


Posted by Tim

By now, half the world knows that Pope Francis has come out publicly in support of same-sex unions. 

Pope Francis calls for civil union law for same-sex couples, in shift from Vatican stance

Catholic News Agency

And Francis' arch-nemesis has already fired back:

Archbishop Viganò responds to new film in which Pope endorses homosexual civil unions

Lifesite News


I can't do better that Vigano, so I'll leave the big arguments for the big people. However, I will quibble with the pope on something I (and many lay people) have more authority than the pope to quibble about.

Francis argues that we ought to have "civil unions" so that "homosexuals" - or at least those desiring legal recognition of their union - "are legally covered." 

And this is where we lay people can tell Papa to go pound sand. 

Anyone who has endured a court-ordered break-up of a marriage (which is what a "civil union" is), will know that in this age of no-fault divorce, the last thing you can count on is being "legally covered." 

No-fault divorce statutes have not only castrated the marriage contract, said statutes can functionally force civilly-joined people to surrender their "legal cover" to the state. 

Today, not withstanding a "pre-nup" to the contrary, any married person in a no-fault divorce state, for no reason at all, can simply file a petition for a couple hundred bucks and demand a divorce and half or more of everything accumulated during the marriage. Laws and rules vary by jurisdiction (i.e. states, counties, etc.), but basically that's the gist of it. 


Let's say there is a same-sex couple in a civil union - such as the one Francis says we should have. And let's say Partner 1 is the breadwinner and Partner 2 doesn't produce income. And let's say they've been in a civil union for 10 years. 

And let's say that thanks to Partner 1's high paying job, Partners 1 and 2 have been able to acquire an upscale home, create several investments, stash a lot of money into a retirement account, and acquire some really nice stuff, i.e. cars, furniture, vacation home, etc.

And let's say one day Partner 2 grows tired of Partner 1 and files for divorce. No fault divorce says that Partner 2 gets half of everything Partner 1 worked for.

This is what Papa Francis calls "legal cover." Had they not been in a civil union, neither one of them would have any right to the property of the other. 

Best Interest of the Child

Of course this has nothing to do with the sex of the couples. But at least heterosexual marriage - being that it is naturally ordered towards the bearing and raising of children - has a built-in foil against jumping from partner to partner. And even in a heterosexual marriage gone bad, the presence of children is potentially a moral neutralizer. 

Most states now, including Guam, have legislated a "best interest of the child" standard. And any marital breakup wherein minor children are involved, invokes the "best interest" statutes, including the division of property, which may be divided by the court in the "best interest of the child." 

In fact, the whole "community property" idea, wherein all assets acquired during the marriage belong to the couple, is all about the "best interest of the child," since the law assumes that marriage exists for the bearing and raising of children.

It gets complicated, but despite all the arguments about "love" being the reason for marriage - which is the basis of Francis' argument - civil laws, nationwide, still say that love doesn't matter. In fact, in all of marriage law, the word "love" never appears. And it doesn't appear in divorce law either. What matters is the child, the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.

The bedroom

After reading many comments on several postings in social media re Francis' support of same-sex civil unions, the most common put-down of anyone who dared oppose the pope's message was the tired-old argument, i.e. "who are you to tell people what they can do in their bedrooms."

The answer is "Nobody." 

Nobody has the right to tell anyone what they can do in their bedrooms. The issue is that Francis and others do not want to leave it in the bedroom. They want to force it into the courtroom...and into legislative chambers...and into your face.

End Notes

On a private note, I have had long years of experience with this issue. And I have found that the happiest and most secure same-sex couples want nothing to do with civil unions, same-sex marriage, an agenda such as Papa's, or a contract that is not worth the paper it is written on in the age of no-fault divorce. 

Lastly, it doesn't matter what Francis says in a documentary, on an airplane, or even in an apostolic exhortation. Francis is not the Church. He's just the Pope ("Papa")...for now.  

Every morning, I pray the "Morning Offering" which normally ends with these words: "for the intentions of the Holy Father." However, these days, I leave out the words: "the intentions of...

Tuesday, October 20, 2020


 I’ve known women who fell for this creed in their youth who now, in their fifties and sixties, cry themselves to sleep decades of countless nights grieving for the children they’ll never have and the ones they coldly murdered because they were protecting the empty loveless futures they now live with no way of going back.  “Where are my children?  Where are my grandchildren?” they cry to me.

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”  Winston Churchill wrote this over a century ago.

During my junior year in high school, the nuns asked about our plans for after we graduated. When I said I was going to attend State University, I noticed their disappointment.  I asked my favorite nun, “Why?” She answered, “That means you’ll leave four years later a communist and an atheist!” CONTINUED

Monday, October 12, 2020




This is an article from February 2019 dealing with the McCarrick matter which appears to have involved much more that McCarrick's homosexual predator behavior. 

Communists successful in infiltrating Catholic Church

by Michael Voris, S.T.B. • • February 21, 2019 

The communists were incredibly successful in infiltrating the Church; McCarrick was one of their men

This summit has been assailed as a phony sideshow by homosexual clerics attempting to hide their own homosexual network, chief of which had been Theodore McCarrick, who the network protected for decades and in many ways is the entire reason for this meeting.

But there now appears to be much more to this story than just the homosexual angle, as large as that still looms.


The McCarrick affair intersected with the Apuron matter in August 2018 when the McCarrick story first broke. JW has always believed that the pope's strange comments about the Apuron matter indicated that Apuron's powerful NCW allies deep inside the Vatican had succeeded in channelling Apuron's appeal directly to the pope and that the pope had intended to reverse Apuron's guilty verdict. However, before the pope could exonerate Apuron, the McCarrick affair broke and it appears that Francis simply had no way out other than to deny Apuron's appeal. 


The pontiff revealed that the last bishop to have been judged by such a process was Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron, who the Vatican announced in March had been found guilty of "certain of the accusations" against him, which included sexually abusing young men decades ago.

Noting that Apuron is appealing the verdict, the pope said that because it is a "very, very difficult case," he had decided to "take the appeal upon myself."

"I took it upon myself and I made a commission of canonists to help me," Francis explained, adding: "It is a complicated case on one hand, but also not difficult because the evidence is very clear."

"But I cannot prejudge," he said. "I'll wait for the information, and then I will judge."

Thursday, October 8, 2020


Restrictions on churches and churchgoers violate the free exercise of religion clause

By Robert Klitzkie

Our Organic Act has held since 1950: “No law shall be enacted in Guam respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of their grievances.” It’s 48 USC § 1421b. (a) and it tracks the First Amendment to the US Constitution. CONTINUED

Monday, October 5, 2020


Cardinal Becciu: Vatican official forced out in rare resignation (Story here)

Dossier To Vatican Alleges Cardinal Becciu Covertly Channeled Money to Australia 

The National Catholic Register (EWTN) stops short in its headline of stating exactly why Becciu allegedly did this, but at least the article goes on to suggest that Becciue did this to knock out Cardinal Pell, the Pope's number one guy investigating Vatican finances at the time.

Meanwhile, Becciu has shown up several times on JungleWatch long before he made news re the current scandal. 

Sunday, October 4, 2020



In August 2017, Apuron's attorney said:

"I think it is important for Apuron to have his day in court...The longer this case is delayed, the higher risk my client will die with this case hanging over his head." 
"Attorney: Apuron wants his ‘day in court,'" Guam Daily Post, Aug. 8, 2017.

However, ever since then, Apuron has been trying to avoid "his day in court." Last month, Apuron filed a motion to halt the sex abuse cases pending against him. 

"Former archbishop uses 2016 law in attempt to halt sex abuse cases," Guam Daily Post, Sep. 10, 2020

Today, it was reported that Apuron's accusers are insisting that Apuron gets what he first said he wanted:

"Apuron accusers move to block request to halt lawsuits'"  Guam Daily Post, Oct. 3, 2020