THEN AND NOW

 

APPARENTLY SHE'D RATHER FIGHT WITH DOUG

 By Tim Rohr

Note: This post is about abortion, the slaughter of the innocents. And lest anyone think such a post is out of context for the Christmas Season, today, December 28, is the Feast of the Holy Innocents, the first martyrs, slaughtered by a governor.

"Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Guam has decided that the ban has no force or effect because it was repealed by implication through subsequent laws that allow for and regulate abortion on island." - O'Connor, J. (2025, Dec. 19). Governor opposes rehearing for AG appeal in abortion ban injunction case. Guam Daily Post

As the main mover behind those aforesaid "subsequent laws" which the Guam Supreme Court used to justify its repeal of Guam's "old abortion ban" by implication, I have a few thoughts to share about the current motion for a rehearing on the matter. 

Going back to 1990, when Guam's "old abortion ban" (P.L. 20-134) was first signed into law, or even back to 1989 when it was introduced, then following it through all the recent court battles, I believe it's fair to estimate that this legislation has cost the Government of Guam (i.e. "us") many millions of dollars, and it appears that the battle will continue and so will the dollars.

While I support the AG's attempts to exhaust every last avenue to do what he was elected to do (enforce the laws of Guam), I have to wonder about the Governor's real motivation in keeping this fight alive.

Rather than carry on this multi-million dollar slug-fest, the Governor, who has the authority to introduce legislation (via the Rules Committee), could simply submit a one sentence bill calling for the repeal of P.L 20-134 and all of its effects - or something like that. 

Of course any member of the Legislature can do this too, but - probably because they're afraid to touch it - no one - for 35 years now, has done so. 

So the real "ball" (or in this case, "the baby") is in the Governor's court. The AG has no authority to repeal the law. His only authority (and his job) is to enforce the law. So if the Governor doesn't want the AG to pursue the matter, then it is really up to her to repeal the law and stop the nonsense. 

But she hasn't, and she probably won't. She seems to want the 1990 injunction to remain enshrined into Guam law as a monument to herself - since she was instrumental in getting Guam's "old abortion ban" enjoined back in 1990 - an act which ultimately led to the deaths of thousands and thousands of mostly CHamoru children.

Note: 2008 was the first year, thanks to The Epseransa Project, that the abortion reporting law was enforced. 2018 was the last year an abortionist publicly practiced in Guam. LINK

So like so many things she has done since coming to office, she wastes and wastes...

But back to the Supreme Court and the "repealed by implication" thing. As the aforesaid main mover of the four laws that led to the Court's decision, I had filed an amicus brief (here and here) in the case. My argument was that since Roe was still the law of the land, any attempt to outright ban abortion at the time would have never even made it to a filing let alone a vote. 

There was no option, in those days, other than to regulate abortion pursuant to what was already precedent. Thus we introduced, passed, and enacted: 1) a ban on partial-birth abortion; 2) a requirement for parental consent for abortion for minors; 3) a requirement for informed consent for abortion; and 4) an expanded abortion reporting law. (The Esperansa Project backed a total of 8 abortion-regulating bills into law.)

All four of those laws did not ban abortion because they could not, but limited and regulated it where they could. Thus for the Guam Supreme Court to opine that those four laws "repealed" P.L.-134 "by implication," in my mind anyway, was a stretch, because the overturn of Roe in 2022 completely abrogated, annulled, wiped-out the whole deal and created a brand new ball game, meaning, the Court should have looked at the case post-Roe, and not within it, as it did.

I had made this argument in my amicus brief, but I was really a nobody in this high stakes game between the Governor, the AG, government lawyers and the Justices of the Guam Supreme Court. Yet, I am quite certain that my argument struck a chord given that one of the Justices, writing separately in his concurrence, spent several pages attacking my argument (here and here).

Well, back to the point of this post: It is Governor Lou Leon Guerrero who does not want this issue to go away as evidenced by the fact that she refuses to introduce legislation to repeal the troublesome thing. 

Apparently, she'd rather fight with Doug. 

RELATED POSTS

A Cry is Heard in Ramah, Dec. 28, 2012

Fleeing the New Herods, Dec. 23, 2011

NO DISCUSSION, NO DEBATE, NO SYNODAL SOLUTION TO TLM VS NO

By Tim Rohr

This is a specifically Catholic Church post, so, as is my practice with previous posts of this type, I only mention it on this blog and refer you to my other - if you care to read it.

https://1timothy315.blogspot.com/2025/12/no-discussion-no-debate-no-synodal.html

Merry Christmas. 

WE WAIT

By Tim Rohr

Merry Christmas, by the way, in case I forget, and especially to the millions of viewers who keep this blog high up in the algorithms. As of today, we are about 5,000 views away from SIXTEEN MILLION views since July 2013, an average of about 107,000 views per month, and that includes the many months, and sometimes years, when not much was happening. 

Those number are also exceptionally significant given that for the most part this blog has mostly posted stories relative only to the goings-on in the Archdiocese of Agana, perhaps one of the smallest Catholic dioceses in the world. And our country-counter tracks viewers from almost every country on earth. 

So why all the attention on this tiny diocese? Well, the clergy sex abuse scandal certainly played a large part, especially since it included the outing of the sordid history of our former archbishop, not to mention his ultimate "outing" from this diocese and this island by the pope himself. But such scandals are everywhere, so no reason for the rest of the world to tune specifically into Guam for that. 

Beyond the scandal, as horrible as it was, we have to thank the NCW for the popularity of this blog. The NCW is indeed all over the world. And guess what? The rest of the world has the same problems with the NCW that we have, so that's why so many viewers from everywhere tune in to what's happening in Guam. It's the NCW. And here in Guam, and specifically on this blog, we have taken on the NCW in a way few others have. 

Now before, continuing, I must, once again, distinguish the average well-meaning "member" of the NCW from its generals, who, in recent posts, I have begun to call the "Heresy Guys." But for this post, I'll stick with NCW.

Many other blogs, websites, etc. have done much to catalog and expose the heretical ways of "The Way," and, if not outright heretical, then at least the crass liberties The Way has taken with the limited permissions given it by Catholic Church authorities (such as the liberties the NCW takes with its Vatican-approved "Statutes").  

However, at JW, not only have we done much of that (in conjunction with Chuck White's work at ThouthfulCatholic.com), we - and this is what makes JW unique - have exposed and pursued the dirty political underbelly of the thing which, here in Guam, has engaged in everything from absconding with millions of dollars in church property to aiding, abetting, and ultimately hiding and protecting, some of the most sexually abusive clerics.  

Sorry, I know this is the wrong time of the year to write about this, and actually I set out to write about something else entirely, but that's what came out. However, maybe there is still a Christmas twist:

In my experience, there are many more good and sincere Catholics in our local Church than there are those who abscond, abet, hide, and protect both the bad guys and the bad teachings (and not just those by the NCW). They are just mostly quiet. Not quiet out of fear, but quiet because they don't know what to do, and they (we) trust our bishop and our priests to ultimately do the right thing...someday.

So, we wait...for three wise men, or maybe just one.

 

WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

 NCW Priests Ordained at RMS Guam 

1. Fr Alberto Salamanca.    

2. Vincenzo Acampora.    

3. Fr Michael Jucutan.    

4. Fr Jason Granado.      

5. Fr Krzysztof Szafarski.  

6. Fr Edwin Bushu.          

7. Fr Harold Colorado.          

8. Fr Julius Akinyemi.            

9. Fr Pedro Durango.             

10. Fr Antonino Caminiti.  (Deceased)

11. Fr Luis Camacho.        

12. Fr Aurelius Stoia

13. Fr Miguel Angel Pardo 

14. Fr Julio Cesar Sanchez

15. Fr Francesco Asproni

16. Fr Edivaldo Oliveira 

17. Fr Fabio Faiola.             

VATICAN: SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH A MINOR

 By Tim Rohr

Well, well. It's so nice to hear from The Diana again. We missed you. You did more to help us get rid of Apuron than anybody else. Had it not been for you and your blog keeping the "conversation" going for those couple of years after the Gofigan and Benavente thing cooled down (and before Apuron's victims came forward), old Brother Tony might still be running things.

But to the point. 

THE BACKSTORY TO THE LUIS CAMACHO MESS

By Tim Rohr

This started out as a short post to address the "correction," i.e. the thing Archbishop Jimenez is calling a "clarification." It's not a clarification of course, it's a correction to a very big error. But I got sidetracked on to the whole history of this thing. And while I've catalogued this history elsewhere (Orchestrated and High Drama in the AOA), both of those are multi-part and very long. So, in the interest of those not familiar with the backstory, here's the abridged version.

++++

Well there's much to say about this mess, but perhaps the first thing to say is "we told you so." Since Ryan Jimenez took on the mantle of Archbishop of Agana, we have been urging him to do something about what caused all of our problems in the first place: the "Jewish-Protestant heresy, as Bishop Athanasius Schneider terms it, that marched onto our island in 1995 and set up shop under the direction of the Nefarious Monk and his sponsor, the now de-frocked Fr. X. (I'm going to leave out some of the actual names.)  

AMAZING...BUT EXPECTED

By Tim Rohr

The Neocats never give up. They wear you down. Luis will win in the end...unless, unless...the people of this archdiocese stand up like they did against the bishop who ordained him.  

 

By the way, I don't know who this bishop is, but he nails it:

TROY'S TAKE ON THE CAMACHO AFFAIR

LINK

DIANA: "NO BIGGIE" - NINE YEARS LATER

By Tim Rohr

Whenever there is new news about something going on with the Neocats - as there was this week - there is usually a flurry of activity on old posts. Given the gravity of the Luis Camacho Affair, I really didn't expect to see any old posts near the top. However, this post from 2016 is ranked 3rd over the last 7 days. I really don't know what caused all the views. There wasn't anything in it about Luis Camacho. The comments - 9 years later - are amusing though.

https://www.junglewatch.info/2016/06/diana-no-biggie.html

For context, the post, featuring comments from The Diana, was posted the day Walter Denton spilled his guts at a street press conference in Hagatna, recounting how, as a 12 year-old altar boy in Agat, he was sodomized by then-Fr. Anthony Apuron. In hindsight, it was Walter's testimony, more than any other, which brought the canonical investigation down on Apuron and the literal Gotterdamerung which followed.

https://www.junglewatch.info/2016/06/altar-boy-sodomized-by-father-apuron.html

FR. LUIS: SCAPEGOAT

By Tim Rohr

For anyone who knows a bit about the underbelly of Neocat theology, it's hard to miss the irony of what happened to one of the Neocat's own sons: the now-former Fr. Luis Camacho.

I don't know a lot about this weird theology, but I know someone who does, and Chuck White has studied and written quite a lot about it on his blog ThoughtfulCatholic.com. 

Several years ago, Mr. White posted an article titled The Xiphias Gladius Project. As White points out, said Project is the "name of a team of Neocatechumenal academics dedicated to researching and teaching the theories of Rene Girard,  a French-born American academic." (I recommend reading the full article.)

MORE ON THE "SAGA OF LUIS CAMACHO"

The following was submitted anonymously in response to the post THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF THE "SAGA OF LUIS CAMACHO" 

+++++

Who is really responsible for the Abuse of a Merizo Girl?

Fr Luis admitted his guilt the day of the offense. And Archbishop Apuron accepted his resignation. Even though his seminary training was flawed, he is responsible for his actions. BUT, the lies and deceit that followed are not by Fr Luis, but of the Neo Catechumenal Way (NCW). Let’s review the reality…

THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF THE "SAGA OF LUIS CAMACHO"

By Jose Martinez

On December 11, 2025, Archbishop Jimenez issued a pastoral letter addressing “The Case of Luis Camacho.” While it appeared to bring closure to the charges of sexual misconduct against Luis Camacho, the letter is better understood as only the first installment in what should rightly be called “The Saga of Luis Camacho.” (thoroughly documented on JungleWatch)

AVISO. DECEMBER 11, 2025

 

PDF

NEEDED CLARIFICATION ABOUT DEFLECTION AND DENIAL.

 (Posted by Frenchie)

Some of the most powerful weapons of Satan and his fallen angels, are lies, deception and denial of his own existence. This is the main reason behind his title of the GREAT DECEIVER. As I engaged last month in denouncing the fact that two of our most well-known politicians, who are running for the office of Governor for our island while being freemasons, and advertising themselves as Catholics; I was fully aware of the type of adversity I would be facing. Several friends warned me about possible retaliations, both spiritual and temporal. A couple of priests close to me, suggested some very powerful prayers of protection, while a group of parishioners volunteered to pray the Rosary for my protection and that of Tim

CONSCIENCE IS NOT PRIVATE JUDGMENT

By Tim Rohr

The recent scuffle on this blog relative to a couple of candidates for governor who are also communion-going Catholics and Freemasons, has brought several issues to the fore, but namely the need to clarify the difference between conscience and private judgment. 

The Catholic Church authoritatively teaches that membership in Freemasonry is a "grave sin." Anonymous Freemason (in the aforementioned "scuffle") consistently argues that his membership in Freemasonry is not a grave sin because his conscience tells him so. 

ON THE IRRECONCILABILITY BETWEEN CHRISTIAN FAITH AND FREEMASONRY

By Tim Rohr

Given the current debate about Freemasonry on this blog, it may be useful to set out relatively recent official Catholic Church teaching on the matter. So we copy here the following document on the "Irreconcilability between Christian faith and Freemasonry."

REFLECTIONS A YEAR AFTER DECLARATION OF CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Irreconcilability between Christian faith and Freemasonry

(Emphases added)

On 26 November 1983 the S. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (S.C.D.F.) published a declaration on Masonic associations (cf. AAS LXXVI [1984], 300). At a distance of little more than a year from its publication, it may be useful to outline briefly the significance of this document.

WHY CAN'T A CATHOLIC BE A FREEMASON? FR. MITCH PACWA SJ EXPLAINS

 

EXORCISMS NEEDED

By Tim Rohr

It wasn't news, but it was known by some that before Archbishop Byrnes moved into the Archbishop's house at the old Chancery, he performed an exorcism on the place. Given the evils that reportedly occurred in the Archbishop's house, including Apuron raping his own nephew (which was in the news), Archbishop Byrnes was right to be concerned about this "house of horrors" being occupied by demons let in by Apuron's acts and who knows who else and what else.

But given what we know now, after ten years, and after hundreds of lawsuits, a federal court trial, and bankruptcy, what about all the other places where these evil acts - the sexual molestation of minors, mostly boys, by many members of Guam's clergy, in otherwise sacred or at least blessed spaces (schools, churches, rectories). 

Notable places would be (in no particular order):

• The Capuchin Friary
• Santa Teresita (Mangilao)
• Our Lady of Mt. Carmel (Hagat)
• San Isidro (Maloloj)
• Nuestra Senora de la Paz y Buen Viaje (Chalan Pago)
• St. Anthony School (Tamuning)
• Fr. Duenas School (where the infamous Fr. Louis Brouillard "taught" for several years)

All of these places and probably more should be exorcised followed by many rosaries and Masses for reparation. Otherwise, "Satan, and all the evil spirits, [will continue to]prowl about [this diocese]seeking the ruin of souls," including yours, our children, and our children's children.

 

ANALYSING A TROPHY PICTURE

 Posted by Frenchie:

Last week, we posted this picture, without comment after an expose about freemasonry, and why it is wrong, and a grave sin for any Catholic to associate with freemasonry.

As the article made the rounds on our local social media, a proxy for one of the persons on this picture, asked in a condescending manner, if this was meant to be an indirect attack on his patron, an insinuation.

UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM WITH FREE MASONS

 Posted by Frenchie

The Catholic Church forbids Catholics to join Freemasonry because it is considered incompatible with the Church Faith and Doctrine.

This is a pretty strong statement, but this is the reality for Catholics since the appearance of this sectarian philosophy back in the early 18th century.

This prohibition stems from free masonry philosophical and religious tenets, which the Catholic Church views as containing errors and being in conflict with Catholicism.

This is actually a fairly diplomatic position, since as some former grand masters have revealed, one of the main goals of freemasonry is the destruction of the Church.

Here are the reasons why the Church is unequivocal about free Masonry

1) Religious indifferentism:  the Church teaches that Freemasonry promotes the idea that all religions are equally valid and that truth can be found in any faith, a concept called Religious Indifferentism. This conflicts with the Catholic belief that Jesus Christ is the one true path to salvation.

2) Rival Religion: According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Freemasonry displays the elements of a religion, including Temples, Altars, prayers, and rites and therefore becomes a rival to the Christian Faith.

3) Secrecy and oaths: freemasonry secret oaths, which can include threats of gruesome punishment for revealing its secrets, are seen as contrary to Christian Morals and public Christian Principles.

4) Conflicting Philosophy: Freemasonry emphasis on "enlightment" through reason and rationality is seen as a secular, naturalistic philosophy that is at odds with Catholic Teachings on Faith, Divine Revelation and Grace.

5) Anti-Catholic Sentiment: Historically, certain forms of Freemasonry have held Anti-Catholic views, and the Church has noted that some Masonic teachings and practices, such as viewing the Pope as an "impostor", are fundamentally opposed to Catholic doctrine.

Status of the Prohibition

The ban on Freemasonry has first been issued in 1738 and reaffirmed by numerous Popes since then.

1983 Code of Canon Law: The 1983 revision of the code of Canon Law removed specific mentions of Freemasonry, leading to some confusions about the ban's status.

Reaffirmation of the Ban: In the same year the Vatican issued a declaration clarifying that the prohibition remained in effect. The declaration stated that Catholics that joined Masonic Associations are in a state of grave sin and cannot received Holy Communion.

Continued Clarification: The Vatican has continued to reaffirm this position, most recently in a 2023 letter from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which explicitly stated that active membership is forbidden and those who join are in a state of grave sin.

As you see, it is very clear to all but the blind, the deaf and the stupid, that being a freemason is not possible for Catholics, and that any person who does this is in a State of Grave Sin.

The question, for the Catholic Church in Guam is therefore very relevant. 

If one watches in passing the back bumpers of other cars in traffic, you will notice without too much difficulty a fairly sizeable number of Masonic symbols on said cars. I first noticed this when I first moved to Guam, and I was quite surprised to see so many Masonic signs. After consulting with several friends, I was told many people associated with Masons were hailing from the Philippines. But in observing closely, I also noticed in my parish, and in other parishes I visited occasionally that several CHamoru, some with strong clan affiliation, were obviously active in Lodges. Which leads us to this next picture.

Next: unravelling the web of lies.

HALLOWEEN: HOLIDAY OR "HELL-I-DAY?"

By Tim Rohr

On my "other"blog, THE MASS NEVER ENDS, the most read post since 2011 has been the above titled post. Given that today is October 31, and Halloween for some, I thought I'd link to it here. 

WHO'S THE NEW PRIEST?

 

WHAT'S HAPPENING?

By Tim Rohr

Not much has been happening so I expected to see low numbers for views. But I was wrong. While we haven't posted much of anything new the last few weeks, we are already at nearly 1/4 of a million views and we aren't even half way through the month. 

 Whenever I see this, I always check out the most viewed stories for the same period, in this case, the last 7 days, to see what people are reading. And here's the most viewed posts:

All of the most viewed posts are from more than ten years ago, and all either about Apuron or the Neocats. This usually means that something is happening somewhere that will involve Guam. 

I've been urged several times to write a book about the whole sordid affair that led to Apuron's ouster, but I always reply: "The story isn't over yet." And, it's not. 

There is no reason to believe (yet) that the new archbishop isn't in the control of the same people who controlled Apuron. And his refusal to enforce the Byrne's Mandate to cease and desist the formation of new communities is the red flag...or is it purple?

WHY (MODERN) CHRISTIAN MEN LACK AMBITION

By Tim Rohr

This is a subject that comes to mind quite a bit, at least to MY mind. And I believe it is the reason that Catholic couples end up divorcing at nearly the same rate as everyone else. 

Common Reasons Why Christian Men Lack Ambition

This article was published in The Daily Declaration, an Australian publication. Here's a summary of the reasons. 

• The Rise of Therapeutic Christianity
• Fear of Worldly Power
• A Shrunken View of the Kingdom
• Passive Theology Produces Passive Men
• Pietism
• The Church Often Equates Passivity with Godliness

In my opinion, I believe Catholics can trace the problem back to 1969. 

YOU GET WHAT YOU PERMIT

By Tim Rohr

This post is about an issue outside the usual.

A few years ago, when struggling with a domestic matter, I joined a couple of Dad's groups on Facebook. I joined because I was seeking encouragement from other Dad's. I did get encouragement, but in a backwards sort of way. I'll explain in a minute.

It's commonly known that in domestic matters, specifically child custody cases, Dad's are usually on the losing end: the mother gets the kids and dad's are functionally forced to pay a ransom (child support) to see their kids. 

I call it a ransom because the court has no means in place to see that Dad's dollars go to the "support" of the children instead of the mother's. In other words, the mother is free to spend Dad's dollars on anything she wants, including lifestyle choices harmful to the children (e.g. other men). 

And given that nearly 80% of divorces (and therefore custody cases) are initiated by women, men are right to criticize the system as a female-favoring racket.

However, the old adage "you get what you permit," measures up here. Given my experience in these groups, I have to admit that most men lose because they would rather blame the system than learn to fight. And even when I've encouraged them to fight, the complaint is "we shouldn't have to."

And that's the "backwards encouragement." I was encouraged to learn to win in my own case because I was disgusted by the number of men in these groups who gave up and who chose to blame and complain rather than "fight like a man."

I think that's all I want to say about this...for now. Just remember, and this goes for everything in life: YOU GET WHAT YOU PERMIT.

+++++

Immediately after posting this, I happened upon this story of a man who refused to die. That's what I'm talking about.

+++++

He was mauled, crushed, and torn apart—his throat slashed, his ribs broken, his back flayed open by the claws of a grizzly. In 1823, Hugh Glass lay in the wilds of the Upper Missouri, a dying man. His comrades, certain no soul could endure such ruin, abandoned him to the earth. But Glass did not die. With nothing left but a stubborn will, he began to crawl—mile after mile, dragging his ruined body across two hundred miles of wilderness, alone and hunted, where even wolves and vultures seemed to circle, waiting for his last breath.

It was not a miracle. It was survival at its rawest. Glass clawed at roots and berries, gnawed the bones of dead beasts left by predators, and drank from mud-choked streams just to keep the fever from taking him. Each day was a battle, each night a torment, yet he pressed forward, inch by inch, his body broken but his resolve unyielding. He should have perished a dozen times over, yet something within him refused to surrender.

At last, skeletal and half-dead, he stumbled into Fort Kiowa—a man who had defied the grave. His story was not written in triumph or riches but in endurance, carved into legend by the sheer force of will. By the time his tale spread across the frontier, Glass had become more than a trapper—he was proof of how far a man could crawl when death demanded he stay down. And so the question lingers still: if abandoned, broken, and left for dead, would you rise and crawl on, as he did?

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE KIRK ASSASSINATION

By Tim Rohr

According to media reports, Charlie Kirk's 22 year old assassin was "...a brilliant, church-going kid," the recipient of "a prestigious academic scholarship to college," and "a 'very nice' Mormon (who) regularly went to church with his family." 

“He was a smart kid … I was shocked this was even him,” said a neighbor. In short, he was "the boy next door," a very smart, decent, family-loving, church-going boy. 

As the media reports progress, accounts of Tyler Robinson's radicalization begin to seep into the narrative:

Robinson had become increasingly political in recent years and ranted just before killing Kirk that he believed the activist was “full of hate,’’ officials said Friday.

The question quickly becomes: 

How did an otherwise smart, decent, family-loving, church going kid, turn political assassin in what must have been a very short period of time, the time between graduating from high school with a "college presidential scholarship" to Utah State University, the "highest academic scholarship the school offers," to pulling the trigger on September 10, 2025. 

According to some who knew him, Robinson became radicalized through "bad friends and social media." However, given the pictures of Robinson with his family, and also given that he is Mormon - meaning even closer family ties and support, it's hard to see how he could have gone from the Mormon boy next door to the first political assassin in this country since 1968 by just a very few years of exposure to "bad friends and social media."

Just as I was about to tell you what I think happened, I received a message that led me to this video, wherein the narrator says:

But something happened to Tyler at college that happens to a lot of students. Take a look at these people who went to college and came out worse.

The New York Post reported:

But the accused killer spent just one semester at the Logan school in fall 2021 before he took a leave of absence for reasons the school could not disclose, she said.

I red-flagged this when I first read it a few hours ago. Robinson had received "the highest academic scholarship the school offers," and he spent just one semester using that scholarship "before he took a leave of absence for reasons the school could not disclose." 

Given what he did on September 10, 2025, it's not hard to see how Robinson went from the "very nice" Mormon boy next door to political assassin. I've seen it happen first hand, in my own family. 

No, no one became an assassin, but I sadly witnessed one of my most beautiful, most intelligent, and most prayerful children, and a child who I felt exceptionally close to, become an absolutely different person after her college experience - and it was a highly touted Catholic college. 

And by "different," I mean in the worst way, and to the point where she publicly renounced her Catholic faith, or seemingly, any faith. Because she is my daughter and I love her, I won't say more. But the only variable between who she was and what she became was her college years. 

I wasn't surprised though. I too went to a "highly touted Catholic college," and came out "radicalized." I won't get into details, but college, particularly my theology classes, crippled me morally and  psychologically for years to come. In fact, I believe I'm still in recovery. 

It's interesting watching the raw emotion pouring out from every corner of the media over the Kirk assassination. There is a lot of finger pointing, and a lot of talk about "the left, the left, the left." But, at least in my experience, the real root of the demented hate that is saturating our culture today and has led to the first political assassination in this country since 1968, is hiding in plain sight, right in the classroom, especially a college classroom, and even a Catholic college classroom. 

WHO IS "THEY?"

By Tim Rohr 

A June 1, 2025 story in the Pacific Daily News about Fr. Cody Merfalen notes: 

“Merfalen’s ordination marks a rare and significant moment for Guam’s Catholic community because he completed his priestly formation entirely in Rome.”

It’s not unexpected that we in Guam would gush as if this is some sort of honor for Guam. Unfortunately, because we are such a small place, it's easy to blush with juvenile pride at the mere mention of our little island by “anyone” bigger than us. 

That Merfalen moved to Rome, attended a seminary, and was ordained for the diocese he had relocated to is nothing exceptional. In fact, many others have done the same. Bishop Randolph Calvo (born in Agana in 1950) comes to mind.

Now, had Merfalen been selected by our own bishop to attend a seminary in Rome for some special service to Guam, successfully completed his studies, and had been ordained to serve in Guam...well then maybe we could get behind that. 

But just moving to another place, Rome or otherwise, and getting ordained, by the pope or otherwise, notwithstanding that priestly ordination is something of its own to "usually" celebrate, Merfalen's ordination is far from something to celebrate as "rare and significant." 

I say "usually" because since Merfalen is a Neocat, and as we in Guam know, the Neocat "presbyters" have brought us nothing but heresy, hardship, and ultimately, bankruptcy - if you understand the connection between the Neocats and the Apuron scandal that brought this archdiocese to its financial knees. 

But back to "rare and significant." Is it "rare of significant" for a seminarian to be ordained by the bishop of the diocese in which he is to be incardinated?  Umm, no. In fact, (unless otherwise delegated) it is only the diocesan bishop who can ordain and incardinate a priest into that bishop's diocese. And who is the Bishop of Rome? The pope. 

The pope wasn't acting as "pope" when he ordained Merfalen and several other seminarians. He was acting as Bishop of Rome. He was acting as any other bishop. So, in this matter, being ordained by the pope was no more "significant" than any man being ordained in any diocese and by the bishop of that diocese.

Now, and as already mentioned, had Merfalen been especially selected by our own bishop for advanced studies in Rome or something like that, and for ultimate service in Guam, then, well, yes, that might be "rare and significant." But he wasn't. 

I don't know how he ended up in Rome, but the Neocats are always looking for trophy's, so good chance that Merfalen was selected by the Neocat Brass - the priest-makers - to go to Rome for their own political purposes. 

Merfalen notes in his homily that he was in the seminary for 16 years (twice as long as normal, by the way). So that places the beginning of his seminary journey at around 2009 while Apuron was not only still in power, but the Neocats were beginning to assume power of their own. 

It's quite possible that Merfalen was sent to Rome only for a Neocat formation (at Rome's RMS) and not for the purpose of being incardinated there, but was in Rome when Apuron's Neocat house of cards came tumbling down circa 2015-2018, and was advised by the Neocat Brass just to stay in Rome. 

Of course for the Neocats, it doesn't matter where one is incardinated. As we have seen here in Guam, they pretty much go wherever their Brass tells them to go, with no allegiance to the diocese for which they were incardinated - not to mention the diocese which probably paid for his education and training. 

In fact, Mefalen says so in the PDN story: 

"Father Cody Merfalen’s assignment may soon take him to the outer islands in Micronesia, though he hopes to return to serve on Guam one day..."

Interesting. So he's incardinated in the Diocese of Rome, but his "assignment may soon take him to the outer islands of Micronesia..." Assignment by who? 

As a priest ordained and incardinated in the Diocese of Rome, his bishop, his boss, is Pope Leo XIV. Why would Pope Leo assign a Rome-incardinated priest, a diocesan priest, a priest ordained and incardinated to serve in the Diocese of Rome, to the "outer islands of Micronesia?" 

He wouldn't. But the Neocat Brass would, and they will. They call the shots. Not the bishop. We saw, and still see, this first hand in Guam. EXHIBIT A: Fr. Krzysztof Szafarski. 

Per his little pre-Mass speech, Krzysztof is going to Rome to "study." Really? Was he selected by his bishop, Ryan Jimenez, to do this? If so, then Jimenez owes us, the people whom Krzysztof was ordained to serve (not to mention the same people who paid for his formation for so many years), an explanation. But there is no explanation from Jimenez. The only "explanation" was his Aviso stating, effective Sept. 14, 2025, Krzysztof is on "study leave." 

The fact is that Jimenez can't give us an explanation because Jimenez did NOT select Krzysztof for "study leave." The Neocat Brass did. Make no mistake. They still run things, and Jimenez will do what he's told. Why he will do what he's told is a matter for speculation, but knowing these guys, the Neocat Brass, I'm sure Jimenez owes them something.

Functionally, the Neocats (and I don't mean the average "members") are parasitic. They come in, suck up the resources of a diocese, including regular church members, and not only give nothing back, but do whatever they want, go wherever they want, and functionally give us the finger if we don't like it. (Listen to Krzysztof's little pre-Mass speech. He could hardly contain a nasty word about those who didn't like the idea of his "gift.")

At least Merfalen doesn't think an assignment in Guam, the same Guam who is celebrating him as "rare and significant," would be all that bad:

“He said he wouldn’t mind coming here, and it would be nice." 

Merfalen continues:

But he said it’s wherever they need him,” Paul Merfalen said.

Who is "they?" 

It ain't the pope.

FRS. KRZYSTOF AND CODY

By Tim Rohr

On August 30, 2025, at Immaculate Heart of Mary parish in Toto, Fr. Krzysztof Szafarski, the current Parochial Administrator, tells us that his going to study in Rome is a "gift," and infers that if you don't like it then... 

Fr. Cody Merfalen, recently ordained and incardinated in Rome, is the celebrant. Here is his homily. 

The full video of the Mass was posted on Facebook here. No further comment at this time.

MEANWHILE BACK AT THE RANCH..... THE NEOS CONTINUE TO RUN WILD

(posted by frenchie)

Back on June 8 of this year, I posted an article under the title "Deja vu, all over again" which is available in our archives... In that article, I revisited decades of NCW propaganda, and some of the sticking point of said propaganda.

This had been prompted by a perfectly coordinated operation of earned media, a tactic which the NCW operators have mastered quite well.  In this case they had forwarded through social media, a somewhat pedestrian event, and transformed it in a victory lap for the Neos on Guam within the radio morning shows, but also in our 2 newspapers and on KUAM.

This was about a member of the NCW Guam who had been "chosen" to go to the seminary in Rome and had been subsequently incardinated in that Diocese of Rome.

That article like many pertaining to the NCW got a lot of views. It appears that while the Neos have been behaving more discreetly than in the past. People are quite aware of the potential for frictions and conflicts, therefore any information or news on that subject appears to peak the interest of a good number of Catholics.

One of the items I underlined was that Fr Merfalen (the individual incardinated in Rome) was planning to visit Guam in late August, Early September.

One thing that has happened over the last year in my parish, since the replacement of our former Pastor by Fr Val, is that we have observed the re appearance of the Neos in our Parish Hall. This had not been the case over the preceding years, as the communities had migrated to St Anthony, St Victor in Tamuning, where they were welcomed with open arms by Fr Mike. As I pointed in many other articles Fr Mike was and still is one of the most pro NCW diocesan priest in our Archdiocese. 

So, this evening as I went to my Sunday service, what was not my surprise to see our meeting hall used for a large NCW reunion, with the presence of the new Neo's superstar Fr Merfalen...

 

It was all very family oriented, but this raises more questions than answers. 

Something that I shall revisit later this week.

This just confirms what we knew. The Neos are still very active, they keep their promises, and they are preparing for the future.

IS THE CLERGY SEX ABUSE CRISIS OVER?

Not according to The Rev. D. Paul Sullins, Ph.D. Listen and learn.

 

TELL THE TRUTH OR GO TO JAIL

By Tim Rohr

In a comment on THEY RAN, Anonymous at August 30, 2025 at 9:53 PM says:

On August 27th, Frenchie wrote "...a series of specific complaints were unearthed..." regarding Msgr. Benavente. On August 29th, in response to a question, Frenchie was less dramatic, admitting, "A complaint was filed by an alleged victim..." It irresponsible of Frenchie to initially exaggerate the situation. There is a life and reputation at stake. 

Anonymous at August 31, 2025 at 6:53 AM responded:

Not if the complaint was "buried" for a long while.

Here is my response:

It’s hard to believe that anything with any credence detrimental to Msgr. James could be "buried." As you may remember, Msgr. James has been hounded since 2014 when Apuron and the two evil stepsisters (David the Tall and The Adrian) ganged up on him, first kicking Msgr. out of the Cathedral, then attacking him for several weeks if not months in a very public way over alleged financial mismanagement and anything and everything their fried brains could think of. If there was anything "buried," you can bet that these evil twins and their neo-hounds would have dug it up.

The pogrom against Msgr. James actually goes back further than 2014: to the 1990’s when Msgr. Was made a Msgr. and The Adrian was passed over. Adrian went on an off-island pouting sabbatical for several years and returned in 1995 with the Neocats in tow. They had one objective: make Adrian the next bishop and get rid of Msgr. James. 

So we’re looking at at least 30 years of “James-hate” by the people who ran this diocese for at least the next 20. And then there was Byrnes and Convocar for the last 10 years, who, because of the crushing scrutiny brought by all the law suits, could be said to have been hyper-attentive to anything that hinted in the least at clergy misbehavior. On top of that, our diocese had been under a judicial microscope for most of those 10 years with the lawyers for hundreds of claimants gnashing their teeth at the mere smell of scandal.

So here's the deal. 

Let's be done with this. One way or another. Let's out the whole damn thing. If Jimenez wants to make something of this, then good. Let him put everything on the table - INCLUDING THE NAME AND THE FACE OF THE ACCUSER. No more of this FACELESS INITIALS crap. And everybody and anybody who has the slightest fingerprint on this needs to be subpoenaed, including the archbishop, put on the stand, placed under oath, and made to tell the truth or go to jail. 

Jimenez may have believed this would remain an internal matter, or at most, a canonical matter. But it's out of the box now, and Jimenez has invited civil action.

As I shared in THEY RAN, because of my own history, I want to see people who believe they have been falsely accused fight back. I'm sick of accusers who think they can just throw stones, run away, and hide behind their initials or fake names like "Diana." NOPE. Put every last one of them on the stand, starting with the archbishop.

I'll watch.

THEY RAN

By Tim Rohr

In a recent post by Frenchie, some details came up relative to accusations against Msgr. James Benavente:

...the Status of Msg James as Pastor of the Cathedral, rather than the Archbishop was becoming challenging. It became even more difficult when a series of very specific complaints were unearthed, which led to an inquiry being launched which normally would lead to a leave of absence for the person investigated. Msg James lawyered up and decided to fight the complaints, which has led to a temporary situation where he is only authorized to celebrate mass, but is restricted in almost all activities. Ergo his odd assignment at the Santa Barbara Parish which is located close to his family roots.

In the comments, Frenchie later notes:

Msg James has rights while going through the process of being investigates. At least he has not ran away like Cristobal.

And I would add, also like Apuron. Functionally, both Apuron's and Cristobal's disappearing act at the first mention of an accusation was an immediate admission of guilt. Both of them had the resources to fight the allegations. But they chose to run instead. 

Msgr. James has chosen to stay and fight. And in fact, this is something I wish other priests would have done - if they were innocent of course. And I don't mean just the priests accused in the clergy sex abuse scandal which bankrupted the archdiocese, but the priests since then, including the now-deceased Fr. Nino and apparently Fr. Dan Trajano. 

BTW, other "runaways" are Fr. Luis Camacho (2015) and Fr. John Wadeson (2014). And, due to chancery silence, we are not sure as to whether other missing priests aren't actually runaways as well (all neo's by the way):

• Rev. Fr. Julius Akinyemi (Leave of absence [no reason given]), 
• Rev. Fr. Francesco Asproni (Priest off-island [no reason given]), 
• Rev. Fr. Edivaldo Oliveira (Priest off-island [no reason given])
• Rev. Fr. Aurelius Stoia (Priest off-island [no reason given]), 
• Rev. Fr. Krzysztof Szafarski (On study leave [studying what or why? we don't know])

Even though I was at the forefront of exposing the clergy sex abuse scandal in this diocese, I was disturbed at how weakly the archdiocese defended itself. I wanted the archdiocese (specifically the apostolic administrators, Archbishop Byrnes, and the lawyers) to defend our church and our innocent priests. And I wanted this because I knew that a rigorous defense would out the true perpetrators. 

Instead, the church threw in the towel, both when Archbishop Byrnes decided to cease vetting accusers, and at the trial when the lawyers seemed to just roll over and let the other side shoot at will. Byrnes' decision to cease vetting accusers opened the door for the new abusers: false claimants with greedy attorneys. 

Without any vetting or any attempt by church officials and their attorneys to put up a fight for the innocent among them, the whole process became tainted, causing the public to question the validity of any claim, which effectually played into Apuron and the Neocats' hands - whose only defense was that everyone was lying.

I was further disturbed by the fact that I had gone to war against the clerical sex monsters on behalf of the men who I had met, spoke with, looked in their eyes, and verified, to my satisfaction, that they were telling the truth and were willing to stand up and call Apuron out long before there was any law to protect them or the ability to sue.

Byrnes' dropping the defense and his near-sobbing "I'm sorry" at trial may have seemed like the "Christian" thing to do, but it ended up being the most un-Christian thing to do in that it not only let the robber barons in, it compromised the gut-wrenching work Apuron's initial accusers had to endure to come forward, not to mention handing Apuron and the Neocats the aforesaid talking point if not an outright victory, a victory Apuron recently tried to cash in when the initial accusers were forced to drop their complaints by their lawyers because there was no money anymore in suing Apuron.

There was no reason to be a door mat, but Byrnes - probably because of his advisors - chose to be one, and in effect, made all of us the door mat since we pay the bills. Why he chose this, I don't know. Even though I knew him personally and liked him very much, I always felt that there was a "deal" behind the scenes: that he knew this assignment was temporary, and that if he would just last it out, that there would be a happier home for him back in Michigan. 

When his health began to fail, I wasn't surprised. As the years went by, I could see the stress in his face and his frame, and hear it in his voice. It was most evident when he took the stand at the federal trial in 2022. He was hunched over in grief and could barely speak. Watching him on TV, I remembered my early meetings with him when I warned him about what the "presbyters" would do - to him. 

Byrnes thought he could make peace. He thought "can't we all get along" might work. It didn't. Byrnes, even though he knew his appointment here was primarily influenced by the Neocat generals (most specifically Cardinal Filoni), did not understand or appreciate their willingness to crush him, and when he closed the seminary, that's exactly what they did.

Now, back to Msgr. James. 

Msgr. James has seen what has become of the "door mats." Not one priest has yet stood up for himself or our church, not publicly anyway. Some may think Fr. Paul stood up, and in a way, he did. However, in 2013, Fr. Paul was on his way out, and for good. A canon lawyer was provided for him by someone else who was willing to pay the bill. And here on JungleWatch, we waged the war that ultimately turned the tables in Fr. Paul's favor - and at great cost to some of us. 

In fact, I wrote an entire book (TARGET = PRIEST) about the Apuron v Gofigan affair. A supporter paid for the publication of hundreds of copies, and at the height of the drama, volunteers stood at church doors around the island and passed them out for free.

Without JW, and the benefices of a donor who paid for the canon lawyer (and the books), Fr. Paul's war against Apuron would have remained a few discarded letters in a chancery trash can. Still, Kudos to Fr. Paul for being willing to stay in the fight and not run. 

And apparently Msgr. James has no reason to run either, or else he would have, like so many others before him (or quietly go on "sabbatical" or just "off island" like these other guys). 

I have no idea what the accusations are and I don't care. In all my years of dealing with Msgr. James on a personal level, a business level, and a pastoral level, I have never seen anything, and after all my years in the trenches with several of these bad guys, I'm pretty good at sniffing things out. 

What I do know is that he has his haters, one in particular. In 2014 he came to me with a long list of "dirt" he supposedly had on Msgr. James. However, I knew the backstory. I knew why he wanted me to take Msgr. James down. I told him I wasn't interested and to do it himself. He has been trying ever since.

I'm going to let Msgr. James defend himself. I don't need to do that. However, as one who was publicly abused by false allegations of the most horrendous type (sexually molesting my own daughters), and as one who did not run but turned and faced the demons through multiple lawyers, judges, court battles, and the covid-shutdown of the courts, I will support anyone who is willing to do the same. It's simply too easy to take out someone with false allegations, especially men, and especially clergy. 

Some credit me for actually taking down the likes of Apuron and Cristobal. But I didn't have to take them down. They ran.

REVISITING THE ISSUE OF PARISHES ASSIGNMENTS, FOLLOWING LAST YEAR TAINTED 6 YEARS ROTATION.

 (Posted by Frenchie)

About the same time last year, I wrote a column in this blog to analyze the movement of priests organized by "the three on the Hill" as they were called by the priests of our Archdiocese. 

After Archbishop Byrnes resigned for health reasons several things happened that would impact the situation of our already weakened Archdiocese.

During his tenure Archbishop Byrnes had to address a mountain of issues left by his predecessor, the disgraced, corrupt and devious Anthony Apuron. One of these issues was the carving of fiefdoms within parishes. Archbishop Byrnes decided to enforce the at time controversial issue of tenure of priests by introducing a 6 years rotation of Priests within the Parishes of the Archdiocese. This unable the Archbishop to address the issue of the NCW "invasion" in every parish on the island, and the removal of problem priests to less influential positions, or in some cases (ie: Adrian Cristobal) to discipline rebellious and/or defiant clergy members. 

Our situation was quite exceptional, and the solution was adequate on a short-term basis. It allowed Byrnes to smoke out the rebels, and attempt to re equilibrate a form of balance in a number of parishes.

As I said it was an adequate temporary solution, but it certainly was not a panacea.

Following Byrnes sidelining, Fr Concovar who had served as Vicar General was named Apostolic Administrator to oversee our Archdiocese until the nomination of a new Archbishop. This will have consequences as we shall see.

Another issue that did affect us indirectly, was the stroke suffered by the Nuncio, who had had a very good grasp on our issues, but ended incapacitated and whose mission was taken over by his right-hand man. A much less pastoral priest, and let say, a more Manichean person. 

At the same time all this was happening, several individuals (understand priests) were jockeying to become the New Archbishop. Leading the Candidates were Bishop Jimenes from Chalang Kanoa, Fr Concovar the Apostolic administrator, Msg James the "Pastor" of the Cathedral (a very unusual situation) who told all his supporters that he was the front runner because of his alleged privileged relationship with Cardinal Tagle the head for the Dicastery for the Evangelization of people who oversees the Pacific Region. Other candidates, less known and less driven were also waiting in the background.

Not long after the lines were drawn, Bishop Jimenez became the obvious leading contender, thanks to his presidency of the Pacific Bishops conference, followed by Fr Concovar, who had very strong incentives to make sure that his tenure as Apostolic Administrator would be as smooth as possible.

Having reestablished the context of last year (2024) parishes re-assignment, lets analyze what I observed last year.

The first thing we established is that the Capuchins were not moved, because of their unique situation which is to take care of specific parishes under the care of their order. In these parishes the approach is a community approach rather that specifically that of a single priest. The Capuchins share duties and assignments from the ranks of their order.

The NCW. Following the open conflict with Archbishop Byrnes, he had accepted some NCW presbyters departure, along with the need to identify the "on mission" personnel. This led to assignments of Presbyters in NCW strongholds, namely: Agat, as well as the chapel in Yigo.  Fr Joel was sent to Barrigada to "manage" the parish. The latest becoming a disaster.  Most other Presbyters were moved to secondary roles around all parishes. In 2024 the system remained the same, after a strong advocacy by  Chrystof and Harold. Fr Concovar acquiesced to the Neos demands, making sure not to make waves. Meanwhile the other 2 from the Hill, Msg James and Fr Crisostomo organized what they thought would be the friendliest re-assignment to their planned takeover. 

Fr Val the quintessential brown noser, got assigned to Our Lady of Lourdes in Yigo with Fr Nino as replacement of Fr Vicenzo. Fr Dan Bien was moved from Santa Barbara to Barrigada. New priests were assigned to Santa Rita,  Santa Barbara, Malojloj,  Inalahan, Tumon, Umatac, and Merizo. The most notable move was the exile to the south of Fr Gofigan The vicar for Liturgy. The notable people that did not move were Msg James and Fr Crisostomo who stayed in their comfy, wealthy assigned parishes.

This all happened in July of last year, before the arrival of our New Archbishop on the Day of the Assumption of Mary.

Many of us concluded that Fr Concovar had coordinated the transition with the assent of the new upcoming Archbishop. Others who were justly concerned (and many still are) by an alignment of Archbishop Jimenes with the NCW following his very friendly relation with them in Chalang Kanoa, remained sceptic...

While this assumption was partially true, the devil is in the detail, as Archbishop Ryan quickly found out. The process of discovery was gradual and slow due to the stalling of dossiers by Fr Concovar until he was nominated as Bishop of Chalang Kanoa. Not long after Archbishop Jimenes nominated Fr Paul as Vicar general, many dossiers which had been swept under the carpet started appearing and were found fairly quickly to be time bombs which could destroy the precarious balance of trust that Archbishop Byrnes had painstakingly attempted to re-establish. 

This was a huge hot potato, especially after the Chancery was sold to finance the settlement with the abused victims, which led to a difficult to plan transfer of the Archdiocese administration down to the Cathedral. Not only did the transfer turned out to be a perilous one, but the Status of Msg James as Pastor of the Cathedral, rather than the Archbishop was becoming challenging. It became even more difficult when a series of very specific complaints were unearthed, which led to an inquiry being launched which normally would lead to a leave of absence for the person investigated. Msg James lawyered up and decided to fight the complaints, which has led to a temporary situation where he is only authorized to celebrate mass, but is restricted in almost all activities. Ergo his odd assignment at the Santa Barbara Parish which is located close to his family roots.

All that instability and come to Jesus situation of several priest which had been delayed for too long also explains the nomination as Administrators, which is usually a one-year Temporary assignment before being nominated as Pastor.

Talking to several priests around the Island there is definitely a sentiment of relief, coupled with why we had to wait so long? I guess Archbishop Ryan is very cautious navigating this minefield. I am fairly sure that his 1st year adaptation taught him, that the devil is indeed in the detail. And several people from very different background would be very pleased to see him falter.

Time will tell.