By Tim Rohr
Kandit News ran a story a few hours ago about a certain Fr. (Matthew) Blockley reporting that he had been accosted by Lt. Governor Josh Tenorio in a hotel lobby in Manila.
"In the lobby I met the lieutenant governor of Guam and Matthew (Topasna), and tried to greet them," he said. "As I approached I noticed the lieutenant governor looked upset and he began to raise his voice at me about a photo that had circulated."
Kandit further reports:
The photograph Father Blockley refers to shows Mr. Tenorio, Mr. Topasna, the lieutenant governor's sister Charissa Tenorio, Guam Archbishop Ryan Jimenez, and at least three other people from Guam outside the corridor to Sanctuario de San Antonio on August 9, one of the people in the picture confirmed to Kandit. The photo was widely shared in Guam, and became the subject of scrutiny on the blog JungleWatch.
While the Kandit story dates the photo in question to August 9, the story does not date the alleged altercation between Tenorio and Blockley. Kandit posted its story on August 12 at 8:47 PM. I posted the photo on JungleWatch on August 11 at 9:58 AM, so it's possible that the JungleWatch post may be what Tenorio was upset about. However, when I received the photo via WhatsApp on August 10 at about 7:30 PM, I was told that it had already been circulating on the internet.
I received no information about the context of the photo and, due to recent travel, had not been following the news about the court order permitting travel for the three indicted persons in the photo. Not having any information about the photo, I decided to post it without comment - something I often did during the "Apuron Wars," because it was a way to discover context from the comments.
Before posting, I found the story about the three indicted persons being permitted to travel to Manila for medical reasons, so I posted a link to that story with the photo. While the post generated over 1000 views in less than 24 hours, there were only a couple of comments.
There are many comments on the above-linked Kandit story; however, it appears that no one else knows much about the photo's context or why so many others from Guam, including the archbishop (and his personal secretary), are there.
My interest in the photo was not Tenorio or his clan, indicted or not, but the presence of the archbishop. I had already been quite critical of his actions relative to the Tenorio campaign, especially his either ignorant or shameless Marine Corps Drive wave after blessing Tenorio's campaign headquarters, and then his apparent permission to use his image in paid promotional ads for the same campaign. Such ecclesiastical boot-licking is an embarrassment, at least to some of us, and, as I posited in a recent post, the Jimenez presence apparently backfired.
I was initially under the impression that the photo had been taken before the election, which, in my mind, would have made sense given that Jimenez was in the Tenorio camp. However, it is now clear that the photo is from August 9, after the election. So what is Jimenez doing there? A chance meeting? I don't think so.
And now, there's the sudden entry into the story of this priest, Blockley. Blockley was an early ally in the Apuron Wars. He had initially been incardinated in Guam under Apuron, but split to Saipan after some sort of internecine squabbles with other priests. In Saipan, under the late Tomas Camacho, Blockley again ran afoul of whatever he ran afoul of and ran away to the Philippines, where, as far as I know, he has been ever since.
At one point in the Apuron mess, I decided to not deal with Blockley anymore. I forget the reason, but there were many early "allies" that I eventually had to distance myself from due to their use of me (and JungleWatch) to assuage their personal grievances instead of righting the church, which is what I was trying to do, at great expense to myself and my family.
Meanwhile, at least from my experience with him, where Blockley goes, trouble follows. So I don't think his running into Tenorio and Topasna in a hotel lobby was a chance meeting. But of more interest to me is what Blockley says here:
"I have absolutely no interest at all in this photo or anyone in it except for [one of the people shown], who is a friend of mine who I had just had dinner with Thursday evening."
In fact, Jimenez may have been in Manila to specifically meet with Blockley. The last I heard, Blockley is still incardinated in Saipan, but stripped of his priestly faculties there, so he's been moonlighting in Manila for many years, supported by family money and assorted Catholics in Manila for whom he does private home Masses - at least that was the story the last I had anything to do with him. It could be that Blockley is working with Jimenez to have his faculties restored and even brought back to the Agana diocese, if only in name, so that he can count on a regular paycheck - from us.
I don't know, but Blockley clearly ran to Kandit with his story about Tenorio, so, after ten years of not hearing from him, he has invited as much speculation as we want.
One last thing. The Kandit story notes that Blockley says that the photo was given to him.
Father Blockley said that when he received the photo he did not feel there was anything wrong with it...
Hmmmm. I don't think so. I think Blockley took the photo. And I think it was Jimenez who told Blockley where the Tenorio party was going to be on August 9. And given Tenorio's "accosting" of Blockley upon sight of him, it appears Tenorio knew that Blockley took the photo.

Or Blockley had the photo taken by somebody else..."Hey Jhun, here's ₱100, go over there and take a photo of those guys."
ReplyDeleteQuite possibly. In any event, the whole thing seems entirely staged. For what reason is the question. But where Blockley goes, trouble follows. Jimenez already has enough trouble. Is he inviting more?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Tenorio "accosted" Blockley indicates that Tenorio knew Blockley took the photo or caused it to be taken and then distributed. And it would be typical of Blockley to "stumble upon" Tenorio and attempt to greet him as if he knew nothing. Too funny.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the meet-up in Manila was originally supposed to be a celebration of a victory in the primary is intriguing. When did the court issue the leave to travel to the defendants? If it was after the defeat in the primary, then never mind.
ReplyDeleteIt appears the court order was issued, or at least made known, on August 4. The election was August 1. However, the request for the order would have had to be made long before it was issued, so there is a possibility that the Tenorio camp anticipated victory and that the meet-up in Manila was a planned victory celebration. This would also explain why Jimenez was there. He was in the camp.
DeleteIt seems that the motion was filed on the 4th and the order granting the motion on the 5th, several days after the primary loss.
DeleteWow. That was fast. Even more suspicious now.
Delete