By Tim Rohr
It's truly hard to keep up with - and make sense of - what continues to pour forth from the so-called "Archdiocese of Agana." I say "so-called" because most everything that is officially said on archdiocesan letterhead continues to be from no one in particular and, at most, is attributed to a Director of Communications, who, by virtue of his job, is simply posting whatever he is being told to post. So it appears we have NO ONE running this diocese. So very unprofessional.
The most recent posting is this:
As you can see, this Aviso, like most others, is authored by no one, but is...
Sent by Tony C. Diaz, Archdiocese of Agana Director of Communications, (671) 562-0065,
tony.diaz@archagana.org
This is just bad form. WHO is writing these things? Archbishop Jimenez...is it you? Could you please say so? Thanks.
But on to some of the points in this missive.
The first point is as follows:
- First, the archbishop has appointed Ms. Connie Shinohara as Executive Secretary to the Archbishop. She will serve on a voluntary basis effective May 17, 2026.
Before proceeding, today, this exact date, came to mind (my mind). Ten years ago, to the day, May 17, 2016, the first formal "Apuron accuser" stepped out onto an Agana street and accused Archbishop Apuron of sexually molesting him when he was an altar boy in Agat in the 1970's.
You know the rest of the story. Not a good date to bring up in the history of the Archdiocese of Agana, but then, what does Jimenez know (or care) about our history...since he, most probably, is just passing through, a stepping stone to the Vatican - at least that is what more and more people are beginning to suspect.
In case Jimenez needs a history lesson, here is what happened on May 17, 2016:
Upon seeing the announcement about the appointment of Ms. Shinohara, apparently an unpaid volunteer, no less (see the announcement), Anonymous weighed in:
I want you to know my response. And I'll tell you why after I post it:
Tim I fear you are on the right path about Archbishop Jimenez. This new appointing of Connie Jo Shinohara is very telling. Did the church’s stance on games of chance change? I don’t think owning House of Liberty game rooms and being Executive Assistant to the Archbishop go hand in hand.
I want you to know my response. And I'll tell you why after I post it:
LOL. I didn't know that. I have nothing against Mrs. Shinohara. In fact, I support gaming and gambling, albeit within the strictures of the Catechism of the Catholic Church Par. 2413. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that Jimenez doesn't have a clue.
I don't think anybody knows this, but I originally "cut my teeth" standing up to Apuron, not over his sex abuse of minors, not over his mistreatment of Fr. Paul and Msgr. James, not over his secret alienation of the Yona Property, but over his abuse of us normal Catholics in the pews back in the days when he was triumphantly trying to make a name for himself amongst the protestant clergy by being their hero in their anti-gambling crusade.
It's too far back to remember all the details, but Apuron, maybe (in hindsight), to recruit allies wherever he could, given his fear of ever being exposed, as he would be on May 17, 2016, became his own White Knight in his crusade against a proposal to bring gaming back to Guam.
Apuron's campaign was intense. It was also a lie. From the pulpit, he forced pastors to read his letters proclaiming that gambling was a mortal sin.
The Catholic Church does not teach this. The Catholic Church has never taught this. Here is, pursuant to my reference to the Catechism, what the Catholic Church magisterially teaches regarding "games of chance:"
2413 Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.
As anyone with a brain can see (you don't have to be Catholic), the Catholic Church, in the fullness of its wisdom, guided by the Holy Spirit, is ultimately pragmatic about "games of chance." But Apuron didn't care. The issue was making him a hero amongst the "born-agains." And since he was so openly despised by the majority of his own (for shamelessly raping their sons - as we would eventually learn), he used and abused his own by forcing his pastors, from the Sunday pulpits, to make a new mortal sin out of gaming.
I remember confronting one of these pastors with a copy of the Catechism opened to Paragraph 2413. He threw me out. No surprise. He was a Neocat. And Apuron, the Neocat rubber stamp, had to be protected at all costs. Catechism of the Catholic Church be damned.
