THE NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY AND THE PROBLEM IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA

This is the Introduction to my book TARGET EQUALS PRIEST: THE NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY AND THE MISSION TO DESTROY FR. PAUL GOFIGAN. I am copying it here as it provides a short summary of what the Neocatechumenal Way is and how it led to a big problem for the Archdiocese of Agana. 

*****

INTRODUCTION

The Neocatechumenal Way is one of many “ecclesial realities” within the Catholic Church. The term “ecclesial reality” is really a term in search of a definition and is used to semi-identify a host of groups and movements that have arisen in the 50 or so years since the close of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). 

These “ecclesial realities” are usually founded and formed by lay persons. While they often serve as a bridge between the church and the world, they also have a history of running into trouble. This is because unlike members of a religious order or diocesan clerics, lay people are not directly governed by or accountable to a religious superior; and the only time they fall within the orbit of church authority is when they seek some level of official recognition by the Church or desire to use church property.

ON THIS DAY, FOUR YEARS AGO...

Posted by Tim

...the evil Tony's demented demise began by an act of his own hand. Little did we know (nor did he) exactly where his pitiful actions on that day would lead. 

My objective from the beginning was not just to bring down Tony, but to expose the evil machinations of the worldwide money laundering, property grabbing, power usurping, heretical cult otherwise known as the Neocatechumenal Way, a facade behind which there are some seriously evil operators. 

The beginning of Apuron's Gotterdamerung and the "Twilight of Kiko's gods" can be read in TARGET EQUALS PRIEST. 

Download a free copy here (or leave a donation).
And find all the related documents in the FILE BOX under APURON VS. GOFIGAN

THANK YOU, POPE FRANCIS!

Posted by Tim

Someone sent me a message that The Diana is going ballistic about my post yesterday, FORGIVENESS? - PART 3: A PROGRAM OF DESTRUCTION. Yawn. I always find it amusing when people try to guess my motives. It is a sad commentary as to how low they have sunk. 

The fact that someone would do the right thing because it is the right thing doesn't occur to them. There must be something in it for them, be it money, the assuaging of a personal grievance, or the defense of a friend, or whatever. (I've been accused of it all, including the "whatever.")

Rather than argue against these inanities, let's say they're all true. Let's say I'm personally mad about something. Let's say that there's a big payoff for me (a real estate commission for selling the Yona property, LOL!), or I'm just protecting my friends. Let's say it's all true. 

ORCHESTRATED? - PART 6

Posted by Tim Rohr

“I guess we can expect the protesters in front of the Cathedral to stop protesting for the reinstatement or the restoration of Msgr. James and Fr. Paul Gofigan.” - Krystal Paco. KUAM. July 27. 

*****

AB HON IS WRONG ON FR. PAUL

Posted by Webster.

Archbishop Hon is either ignorant or cunningly clever, or maybe even both. 

I consulted a canon law site on the internet to check on whether a Decree of Removal does expire after 3 months, as AB Hon said on The Jesse Lujan Show this morning on KUAM. 

Nowhere on that site does it say that a  of Removal, or any decree at all (unless a specified time of expiration is mentioned in the Decree) automatically expires after 3 months. 

In fact, it says that if a pastor has taken an appeal against his removal, the office of pastor remains vacant while the appeal is pending. 

So, no new pastor can be appointed until the appeal is resolved. We all know that Fr. Paul appealed his removal. AB Hon knows that. He was given the documents himself. 

So why would AB Hon even suggest that Fr. Paul's Decree has expired? 

I think to THROW US ALL OFF. You see, AB Hon does not want to revoke Fr. Paul's Decree of Removal because that would make it look like there was a winner and a loser, something he is desperately trying to avoid from happening. 

So, he throws us crumbs to throw us off while he paternally consoles Fr. Paul that all will be good. Just accept what happened to you because I will eventually assign or "restore" you to somewhere else that will please you. Just be patient and respectful. 

AB HON cannot assign Fr. Paul back to Santa Barbara because canon law forbids it until Fr. Paul's appeal is officially resolved, and it cannot be resolved without a formal ruling on the appeal. 

UNLESS, Fr. Paul quietly withdraws his appeal and accepts his Decree of Removal. This is where I think this case is going. How sad and tragic for Fr. Paul. His good name and reputation will never be restored and repaired if he does, including the vicious smear on Joe Lastimoza and family.  But that is up to him. 

Pray for Fr. Paul. He is between a rock and a hard place. AB Hon has got him cornered and placated.

My verdict: AB HON is intentionally feigning ignorance and therefore cunningly clever.

AND HON SMILES

Posted by Tim Rohr

As you have seen from my activity in the news, Tim Rohr has not "gone away." And while I have turned over the administration of this blog to others and opened it up to some wonderful authors, I will still use it when necessary. And today it is necessary.

Archbishop Hon is apparently on a media blitz. Unfortunately, it appears we can trust him no more than Apuron and Adrian. 

http://www.kuam.com/story/32569743/2016/07/Friday/archbishop-hon-details-some-of-the-biggest-issues-he-faces

KUAM: "The archdiocese owns that property. No doubt of it. And then there's a certain ambiguity who has the right to use it. And on this matter, I'm going to have a review of it," Archbishop Hon stated.

Archbishop Hon KNOWS this is NOT true. In January of 2015, Richard Untalan and Joseph Rivera, who were both fired by Apuron from his finance council for opposing the transfer of the property, met personally with Hon and explained that the recently discovered Declaration of Deed Restriction, recorded at Land Management on November 22, 2011, conveyed title to the property to RMS, a corporation wholly separate from the Archdiocese of Agana and controlled ultimately by the Board of Guarantors which itself is 75% controlled by the two Gennarini's and Angelo Poschetti, the Neocatechumenal Responsible Team for the United States. 

In May of 2015, a copy of the Legal Opinion by real estate attorney Jacques Bronze, was forwarded to Hon's office. The Legal Opinion demonstrated in great detail that the document executed by Apuron and recorded at Land Management: “operates to transfer a present interest and is an absolute conveyance in fee simple, of the subject real property to RMHF, divesting all right, title and interest of the subject property from the Grantor, except for the subject restraint in use.”

Hon is publicly misleading Guam's Catholics and we must believe, given that Hon was advised as just stated, that he is doing this purposely. 

Sadly, all of this would have been legally cleared in court had the Attorney General NOT intervened in the legal process required by law by "working something out" with "the trained lawyer." 

After Msgr. David C. Quitugua, on November 29, 2015, published in the Umatuna a false copy of the certificate of title to the property previously obtained from Land Management by Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje (aka "the trained lawyer"), Attorney Robert Klitzkie directly engaged the Director of Land Management, Michael Borja about the false certificate.

Borja agreed that the certificate published by Msgr. David C. Quitugua in the Umatuna was in error and initially set out to take corrective action prescribed by law which would have required the issue to be brought before the Superior Court. However, Borja soon aborted that prescription and defaulted to something being "worked out" between Deputy Attorney General, Kristin Finney and Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje. 

This route not only kept the matter from going before the court where the truth would have been revealed about the title, but it was a shameful abuse of the law by those elected and appointed to uphold it. The whole ugly story can be found in this series of posts. 

Let's look at some of Hon's other "misleading" statements in this interview:

KUAM: Hon tells KUAM News he continues to reach out to the alleged victims. 

Hon has NOT called a single one of them. And if he really was sincere about this, he would have at least invited Roland Sondia to his July 27 press conference. Roland lives on Guam and works right across the street at the PDN. But Hon did not invite Roland nor did he "reach out" to any of them by phone, letter, email, whatever. Perhaps he thinks that because he appointed Fr. Pat Castro to be a liaison to the victims, whatever that means, that he has "reached out." If so, then that is very telling of what kind of "priest" Hon really is. 

KUAM: He also clarifies he wasn't aware he was in the presence of one of the alleged victims who was picketing outside the Hagatna Cathedral moments before Sunday morning mass. "Unfortunately at that time I did not notice the presence of Mr. Walter Denton, so I did not ignore him.

What is sad is that Denton had been all over the news media for several days before this happened. Walter should not have had to try to approach Hon on the steps of the Cathedral. He should have immediately received a call from Hon when he came forward about his being raped by Apuron several days earlier, in fact the day after Hon arrived on Guam. There was no such call, no attempt to "reach out" to Walter, leaving Walter no alternative but to try to "reach out" to Hon on the street. 

KUAM: According to the $2 million dollar libel and slander suit against the archdiocese and Apuron, plaintiffs allege such statements were prepared and released by Father Edvilado Olivieras. According to Hon, there's no proof Father Edivaldo was ever appointed the church's official spokesperson.

And how would we know there is "no proof"? Are we supposed to believe the man who just told us that the Yona property belongs to the archdiocese and that he has "reached out" to the victims? The statement, though, really shows Hon's incompetence. "Proof" that Edivaldo was appointed spokesman is NOT needed. The fact that Edivaldo declared that he WAS the spokesman, and the fact that Edivaldo ACTED in that capacity, doing so on the Archbishop's letterhead, is all the "proof" Attorney David Lujan needed to include Edivaldo in the amended complaint. And if Hon is not careful, he will soon find himself a defendant.

Now here is the real "whopper!" 

KUAM: Hon confirms he's met with representatives of the Concerned Catholics of Guam.

Hon did in fact "meet" with two representatives of the CCOG: Greg Perez and Robert Klitzkie. After keeping them waiting for twenty minutes past their appointment time, according to Klitzkie, Hon opened the meeting with "is there something you want to tell me?" Klitzkie read a list of concerns and per Klitzkie's report, Hon had nothing to say other than to quibble with Klitzkie's referring to Apuron's "victims" as "victims" (Hon doesn't like that word), and then to say good-bye. 

Perez and Klitzkie did not ask for the appointment. Hon did. And Perez and Klitzkie agreed to meet with Hon in good faith, believing he was interested in having a discussion. Instead, Hon was only interested in checking the CCOG off his list so he could later say - as he does in this interview - that he had "met with representatives of the Concerned Catholics of Guam." 

And here is another FALSE story:

Father Paul Gofigan and Monsignor James Benavente both restored

http://www.kuam.com/story/32547973/2016/07/27/father-paul-gofigan-and-monsignor-james-benavente-both-restored

To be clear: NEITHER PRIEST WAS RESTORED, because, as you will see, neither priest will be "restored" to the positions from which they were removed. In the case of Msgr. James, it is clear what is happening:

KUAM: Monsignor Benavente said, "What Archbishop Hon did was he retracted the statements that was made about me, the malicious statements maligning my name, and he's basically retracted that. And more importantly is that he's according me the opportunity to have due process, which was never given to me.

In short, Msgr. James was NOT cleared of Apuron's charges against him which led to his being removed as rector of the Cathedral, Director of Catholic Cemeteries, and Director of the Archdiocesan Development Group. All Hon did was retract the statements Apuron later released about him to the press. In fact, Hon apparently thinks Msgr. James is still guilty because by according him "due process," he essentially is saying "Okay, I'll give you an opportunity to stand trial." Msgr. James must now defend himself to Hon, but given Hon's already demonstrated penchant for ignoring facts...well, good luck to Msgr. James.

As for Fr. Paul, unfortunately he slapped the faces of those who have stood up for him these past three years by changing the meaning of the word "restore." For those who have been standing in the streets with signs reading RESTORE, "restore" meant to restore both priests to the positions from which they were wrongly removed. 

This is especially true with Fr. Paul, whose canonical rights were clearly violated by Apuron's appointment of Fr. Dan Bien as Parochial Administrator to Santa Barbara parish in July of 2013, automatically eliminating Fr. Paul from his position as pastor. Apuron's actions clearly violated canon law, as both Fr. Paul's canon lawyer later clearly outlined, and as Apuron himself de facto admitted by commencing the correct canonical process which led to the official Decree of Removal issued several months later, a decree, Hon says does not exist. 

At the press conference on July 27, Fr. Paul tells us that his version of "restore" only means to "restore" his name, which Fr. Paul believes Hon did by saying that Fr. Paul engaged in no "formal" act of disobedience." Fr. Paul is welcome to accept what ever olive branch (or fig leaf) Hon wants to give him, but this remains a slap in the face to those who have labored so long in his behalf. By not restoring Fr. Paul to his position as pastor of Santa Barbara, Hon leaves in place Apuron's Decree of Removal, which while canonically confected, remains based on the act of "formal disobedience" that Hon says Fr. Paul did not commit. 

Additionally, Hon's words are deceptive. His use of of the adjective "formal" is not by chance. In Catholic moral teaching there is both "formal" and "material" participation in an act. An example: The direct procurement or performance of an abortion is "formal participation in evil." Driving someone to the clinic to get an abortion is "material participation." Hon, while saying Gofigan is not guilty of "formal disobedience" is leaving in place the fact that he believes Gofigan is guilty of "material disobedience," which is why Gofigan will NOT be restored to his position as pastor of Santa Barbara. The material disobedience is Hon's view that Gofigan acted badly in publicly opposing Apuron over his mistreatment. So Hon has to punish Gofigan. 

This has nothing to do now with what Fr. Paul and Msgr. James themselves are satisfied with. This has to do with the truth. For us who have labored so long in their behalf, RESTORE meant more than just the restoration to their positions, it meant the complete rejection of all that Apuron both said and did by canceling not only Apuron's words, but also his acts. Hon has retracted Apuron's words, but has left his acts in place, which is why neither priest will be "restored."

Once again, this is not about what either priest will settle for or make them happy. This is about TRUTH. And once again, as with Apuron, Quitugua, Adrian, Pius, Edivaldo and the whole smelly lot, Hon is doing as they did...albeit, with a smile. 

THE FIRST ISSUE. LET'S FIX THIS NOW!

We are willing to give Archbishop Hon a point or two for at least getting the names David C. Quitugua and Adrian Cristobal out of our faces. I have some ideas about their replacements which I will share later - and granted, I realize that probably neither of them wanted these jobs. 

So for now, let's move on to the next issue, which should have been the FIRST issue (after extending a personal helping and welcoming embrace to the sex abuse survivors - alleged or otherwise, which of course did not happen.) 

The FIRST issue is the status of Fr. Paul Gofigan and Msgr. James Benavente. It is the FIRST issue because it was the treatment of these two priests by Apuron, David, and Adrian which was the catalyst for the explosion that followed.

It is also the issue that Archbishop Hon has had the most time to deal with as well as the authority to do something about. Both cases were known to Hon in his capacity as Secretary to the "competent congregation" for at least a year and half. That NOTHING was done regarding either case before Hon arrived here is telling. That NOTHING has been done SINCE Hon arrived here is even more telling. 

When I say "nothing has been done," I don't mean poking the issue and floating proposals for a possible resolution. I mean: 

1. a clear and public condemnation of how these two priests were treated by Apuron, David, and Adrian, and 
2. an immediate restoration of the two priests to their positions. 

Let me explain.

1. Hon must PUBLICLY condemn the actions of Apuron, David and Adrian against Fr. Paul and Msgr. James because these two priests were themselves PUBLICLY condemned by Apuron, David and Adrian. 

2. Both MUST be restored to the previous positions, Fr. Paul as pastor of Santa Barbara and Msgr. James as Rector of the Cathedral and Pastor of the Cathedral Parish (he was both), because both were removed in a manner that was canonically illegal. 

In Fr. Paul's case, he was illegal replaced by a parochial administrator without first being removed according to the canonical provisions for the removal of pastors. In Msgr. James' case, he was removed without being afforded his canonical right to due process to address the accusations Apuron made against him. 

The key word is "removed." Neither priest was transferred. Both were suddenly and abruptly REMOVED. Neither priest was offered a different assignment. Both were assigned later to St. Anthony only after the expression of public outrage.

Given that both priests had their canonical rights violated, Archbishop Hon, in the name of justice and unity, MUST condemn Apuron's illegal acts against them and restore them to their positions.

Once that is done, Hon can then ask for their courtesy resignation, which (I've heard) he is asking of everyone, and they can be reassigned as he sees fit. 

The Cathedral

However, one thing must be clear, the NEO's are NOT to hang on to the Cathedral. The Cathedral MUST be the seat of unity. The NEO's, who only represent a tiny percentage of the diocese, should not be permitted to occupy the "seat of unity." 

What's more, it is EXTREMELY CLEAR that their "eucharist" is so dissimilar to our Catholic Mass, that the NEO celebration of their "eucharist" in our Cathedral is a shot through the heart of any attempt at Catholic unity. 

The Neo Communion Rite

And as long as we are on that subject it is time for Archbishop Hon to either show us the document permitting the NEO's communion rite or publicly prohibit it. To review, there are two elements of the communion rite which do not conform to the liturgical books nor are they permitted in the NCW statute:

1. The priest delays his communion until the sacred species has first been distributed to the communicants. (The liturgical books require the priest to first consume the sacred species, and THEN distribute Holy Communion.)

2. The neo-communicants "receive" the consecrated bread* in their hands but do not immediately consume as required by the liturgical books. They return to their seats, consecrated bread in hand, and then consume upon receiving a signal from the celebrant. 

* We are not sure if the bread is actually consecrated since from what we can tell, the Neo belief is that Jesus was a sinner and thus not God. But we will address that another time.

You could say that this manner of receiving communion is GROUND ZERO for the heartache in this diocese as this is the practice Apuron openly defended during his infamous 2006 KOLG radio tirade. Hon MUST either show us the document permitting this practice or must officially and publicly prohibit it. 

Okay? Ready, set, go!

A PRIEST PROBLEM?

Lately the poor fools on Apuron's side have given up on blaming me and the CCOG for the battleground that this diocese has turned into and retreated to their former position that this is "a priest problem." 

HE IS TO BE "PITIED"

1. 
   
   AnonymousJuly 30, 2015 at 1:18 PM

   then of course zoltan backs up Diana in the continued beating of a priest who has been alienated and still without a chance of DEFENDING HIS OWN PERSON. plus seeking transparency and other questions we ask but don't get answers. just plain dumb remarks, from the neo.
   
   
   Zoltan July 28, 2015 at 8:47 AM
   
   Dear Joane, please read the answers for your question by Diana. I only give a few more words.
   
   1. Hitting a desk with fist is a sign of emotion. It is no proof that it was related any any way to the much later firing of Fr. Paul by the Archbishop. Where is the evidence?
   
   By the way, I have my own copy of "Target = Priest" from the Agat meeting. It has NO AUTHOR'S NAME printed on it and no publisher's information at all. Another way to say this that this book was written by an anonymous coward who was so afraid of the repercussions that he did not reveal his identity!
   
   
   

FUNNY & FILTHY

The Kiko's are criticizing SNAP saying it is anti-Catholic. That's funny. Tell that to Archbishop Apuron who bragged about his support from SNAP.

"...even S.N.A.P. heard about this and applauded me for doing this on this priest and hope that I do not reinstate him because of that..." - Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron to thirty members of the clergy at a retreat in Tagaytay, Philippines on October 10, 2013.

Listen to it here: https://soundcloud.com/junglewatch-info/manila-the-tagaytay-treatment

Here's a close transcript [my comments in red]:

PROVIDENTIALLY...THE REST OF THE STORY

In a recent comment, a coward again tried to smear Mr. Lastimoza in order to defend Archbishop Apuron's mistreatment of Fr. Paul. Apparently only in the Neocatechumenal Way is one never forgiven (unless of course you join them). 

I wasn't going to address it and I thought long and hard before bringing this to a post. But an email I received yesterday providentially changed my mind. It's a part of the story that hasn't been told yet, at least not here. The sender gave me permission to share it:

BECAUSE GIUSEPPE SAID

I don't know exactly how this will play out, but given the absence of an immediately condemnable crime, Archbishop Apuron will probably be given a list of things to do to show good faith on his part for an attempt at reconciliation - as the Apostolic Visit was said to have as its objective.

My guess is that there will be an attempt at making up with the lesser level "offenders", e.g. Fr. Efren, Deacon Steve, etc., but we probably won't see any attempt at reconciliation with Fr. Paul or Msgr. James. 

That's too bad. Anything less than restoring Fr. Paul and Msgr. James to their positions constitutes a reconciliation charade. 

Here's why.

APOSTOLIC VISITORS: ON THE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN

ON THE MATTER OF THE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN AS PASTOR OF SANTA BARBARA CHURCH AND THE SLANDER AGAINST MR. JOSEPH LASTIMOZA

Submitted by Tim Rohr

timrohr.guam@gmail.com

December 28, 2014, Hagatna, Guam

A PDF copy is available here.

July 16, 2013. Fr. Paul Gofigan is called to a meeting with Archbishop Anthony Apuron and Msgr. David C. Quitugua, the Vicar General. At the meeting he is read a letter 1 :

• accusing him of disobeying an order from the Vicar General to terminate an employee two years previously

• accusing him of causing “grave harm to the parish…especially the youth” and creating “a lasting and potential threat to the safety and well-being” of his parishioners and staff
• demanding his immediate resignation as pastor of Santa Barbara parish or face a more “arduous and painful closure to your assignment”
• telling him to go “look for a benevolent bishop willing to accept you.”

According to Fr. Gofigan, upon returning to his office, Fr. Gofigan finds himself locked out of his office - the archbishop having ordered the locks changed while he was at the meeting with the archbishop.