KIKO AND McCARRICK: BUDDIES

 By Tim Rohr

The first RMS (in the U.S.) was established under McCarrick. It's also where he ran to once his filthy life was outed. 

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/04/04/a-timeline-of-abuse-allegations-against-deceased-former-cardinal-theodore-mccarrick/

March 2006: McCarrick asks Monsignor Robert Sheeran, president of Seton Hall University, about residing part time in an on-campus residence for priests, close to the seminary. Archbishop Myers tells Sheeran he strongly opposes the move. McCarrick arranges to live part time at the Redemptoris Mater seminary in Hyattsville, Maryland.

December 2007: Sambi meets with McCarrick to discuss his move out of the Redemptoris Mater seminary and the request that he live a quiet life of prayer. An emotional McCarrick tells Sambi that because Priest 1 was 25 at the time of the allegations, what had happened was not a crime, and that his continued pursuit of the allegations seemed to be a grab for money.

January 2007: Sambi reports his meeting with McCarrick to Re and adds that he looked into whether the leaders of Redemptoris Mater seminary considered McCarrick an active threat. Seminary leaders say McCarrick was “touchy” but they did not consider him to be a threat.

2007-2008: McCarrick maintains residence at Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Hyattsville, Maryland, during this time, where he lives in his own wing.

Early 2009: McCarrick moves to St. Thomas the Apostle Parish in Washington, D.C., as arranged by Wuerl. According to the report, McCarrick still maintains an office at the Redemptoris Mater Seminary “and travels there frequently for work.”

July 14, 2014: After a brief conversation with Parolin, Ouellet writes a letter to the Secretary of State about the restrictions given against McCarrick, including that he move out of Redemptoris Mater seminary and that he live a private life of prayer and not accept invitations in the U.S. or abroad.

MORE ON "WHERE IS TONY?"

By Tim Rohr

On June 16, I published the post "Where is Tony?" and linked it on the JungleWatch Facebook page. A day later, Facebook removed the post. The following day I posted a follow up story about why I thought Facebook had removed the post. 

I didn't start out the June 16 post with Apuron's whereabouts in mind. The post was supposed to be about Cardinal O'Malley's neocat connections and activities, as inspired by his own post on his own blog. However, in writing the post I had one of those aha moments and speculated that Apuron may very well be residing (hiding) under O'Malley's wing. 

I've never had a JW post removed from Facebook before, and this one was removed within hours of my posting it. Thus my suspicion that I had stumbled upon the truth and that either the Kiko-police or O'Malley's were quick to try to kill the story. There really is no other explanation. Why would Facebook care about mere speculation about where Apuron is?

In doing some research through old posts today I came across a post from 2018 where the following was reported by the Catholic News Agency:

"...in 2009 or 2010, after receiving reports of habitual sexual misconduct on the part of McCarrick, Pope Benedict XVI had ordered that “the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living..."

The report goes on to say that McCarrick was: 

"living at that time in Washington's Redemptoris Mater Seminary."

As we now know, McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington D.C., and a huge power broker for the Church in the U.S., has been found to be one of the worst sex abusers in the entire sordid clergy sex abuse scandal. 

So it's interesting why McCarrick chose a Neocat seminary to shelter in after the scandal broke. And why wouldn't Apuron do the same? There's a nice big, comfortable Neocat seminary in Boston, and it is protected by the most powerful Cardinal in the United States, if not one of the most powerful in the world: Cardinal Sean O'Malley.

As a side note, after McCarrick was forced to leave the RMS in D.C. he took up new residence at a Capuchin Friary: St. Fidelis Friary in Kansas. He was eventually forced from there too. But why would they take him?

O'Malley, like Apuron, is a Capuchin.

APURON...JUDAS...AND WHAT ELSE IS THERE?

By Tim Rohr

CRISIS MAGAZINE has published a very heart-tugging opinion piece titled "Bishop Strickland Becomes a Victim for the Church He Loves."

The author begins by describing an event, wherein, as a child, the author was audibly raped via a payphone, and then compares that experience to being "raped" as an adult by a similar loss of innocence in the Cardinal McCarrick case...and by extension, the recent attack by Pope Francis on Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas.

I do not share the author's sentiments given that by age 17 - or so - I had learned not to revere any man with a Roman collar. 

I could go on and on as to "why" - including my own experience of an attempted seduction by "a pastor," however, I do not care to - though I will share a link to this story.

As an aside, the McCarrick affair has mega-personal meaning for me, and here's why:

+++++

At the time the McCarrick affair was exposed (August 2018), Pope Francis was "reconsidering" the March 18 DECISION by the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) which found a certain Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron GUILTY of stuff. 

It's all "Vatican-speak," which is the equivalent of "political speak" and designed to make us wonder. 

In the grand scheme of things, despite the horrors perpetrated by Apuron and many of his clerical cohorts under the very-ignoring noses of many of the children's own parents (a question yet to be asked or answered), Guam's "little problem," even though per capita it is the largest clergy sex abuse problem in the western world, Guam hardly registers on the Vatican-world radar, and I do not know if it ever will be. 

A tiny beach bungalow on the other side of the world

At the time the McCarrick story broke I was harboring in a tiny beach bungalow in the Virgin Islands -  pursuant to a legal agreement to "visit" my two youngest children on the U.S. Virgin Island of St. Croix where they had been functionally kidnapped and sequestered more than a year earlier.

I won't go into my personal drama here, but at the time, I was very aware that my "attack" on Guam's Archbishop Apuron would have major personal repercussions - and the loss of my family - and particularly my children - was one of them.

And while I felt somewhat exonerated in March 2018 after Apuron was found guilty of everything I had exposed here in JW (with the help of a very few), the reality was that Apuron's "army" went into attack mode and I was publicly crucified as a wife beater and child molester of my own children for the better part of the early weeks of May 2018. 

The bottom line for me...as I've stated many times - even publicly - is:

I will not leave Jesus because of Judas.

And it should be for you too:

Despite it all, Rohr said he is still a believer. “My faith wasn’t in Archbishop Apuron or father so-and-so,” he said. “You don’t leave Jesus because of Judas.” - Guam Daily Post, Aug. 19, 2019

Jesus, being God and the second person of the Blessed Trinity, knew who he chose when he chose Judas to be on of The Twelve. 

I don't want to get into the deeper "think" of all that, but my limited take is that Jesus chose a Judas for such a time as our own, when (some of) our own descendants of the apostles would betray us. 

So what!

Go to the cross with Jesus anyway. What else is there?

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS: DISCREDIT TIM ROHR

By Tim Rohr

This post at COMPLICIT CLERGY begins:

In late July 2018, a small group of Catholic laymen gathered to discuss the Theodore McCarrick sex scandal. A mix of emotions was in the room that day: sorrow, frustration, anger, disappointment and disgust. How was it that Theodore McCarrick had been allowed to abuse so many young men over multiple decades?

Read the full post here.

By the time this group met (I'll call it "the McCarrick Group"), we lay Catholics in Guam, beginning in 2013, had already dealt with a far larger and longer clergy sex abuse scandal, and the former Archbishop Apuron had already been found guilty and sentenced by the Vatican in March 2018. And, as I read through the post, it appeared that the McCarrick Group had taken a page right out of the Guam playbook. 

Thinking that the McCarrick group had studied the Apuron situation in Guam is no mere fanciful thinking. Though McCarrick was a much bigger player in the Catholic world than Apuron, there is a connection between the two cases. And had the McCarrick scandal not exploded in Pope Francis' face when it did (August 2018), Apuron, despite having been found guilty and removed from Guam, might have regained his office and brought vengeance upon those of us who stood up to him.

Francis himself made the connection between McCarrick and Apuron during an interview on a flight from Ireland to Rome in August 2018. The McCarrick scandal had just blown up and the blow-up was further blown up by a scathing 11-page letter by Archbishop Vigano, former papal nuncio to the U.S., which named Francis and several other bishops as being complicit in a McCarrick cover up. (Note: One of the bishops named by Vigano was Cardinal Edwin O'Brien who personally threatened me in October 2016.) 

Here is what Pope Francis said about Apuron during that interview:

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

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

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

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

For those who had dealt closely with the Apuron situation here in Guam, it wasn't hard to see what was really going on behind the pope's conflicting statements saying: on the one hand that Apuron's was "a very, very difficult case," and on the other hand - only a sentence or two later - saying that Apuron's case was "not difficult because the evidence is clear."

These two very contrary statements by the Pope on such a serious matter - and public statements at that - pointed directly to the pressure he was under from what we call here in JungleWatch, "The Kikos," i.e. the Neocatechumenal Way leadership, who at that time, had significant influence with Francis via their "Red Pope," Cardinal Fernando Filoni.

Filoni's direct involvement to protect the neocats in Guam, and Apuron specifically, is too long to go into here and has already been demonstrated many times on this blog. Just type "Filoni" in the search bar at the top of this blog if you want to fill yourself in. 

In short, though, Apuron's downfall in Guam was a severe blow to The Kiko's worldwide, and they knew it. Apuron, at the time, was the only bishop in the world who would ordain neocat presbyters upon command from The Kiko's. If Apuron fell, The Kiko empire - a very lucrative one - might soon follow. So upon Apuron's initial conviction and sentencing, The Kiko's, most likely via their "Red Pope," sprang into action to get Apuron's conviction overturned via an appeal.

Thus we see the strange convolution where Francis bypasses the normal course of appeals via the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and tells the reporters that he will "take the appeal upon myself." I mean, really? The pope is going to stop what he's doing for the rest of the Catholic world and focus on what to do with a single wayward bishop from an obscure diocese in the middle of Oceania?

Don't get me wrong. Guam is my chosen home and I want the best for it, but you see where I'm going? There had to be something else at play to cause the pope to take on Apuron's appeal himself when there was a canonical apparatus to otherwise handle it, and then for Francis to have it on his mind in the middle of the interview about McCarrick.

Per my experience, I knew exactly what was going on. The Kiko's had gotten to Francis via the Red Pope and Francis was being pressured to overturn Apuron's conviction - especially since Apuron maintained not only his innocence but also that he was the victim of a "real estate conspiracy" led by ME. 

According to the church they allege he (Rohr) had a personal interest in the plan and was supposed to be involved in the multi-million dollar sale as a real estate mediator. - "Church says there's a plot to topple the archbishop," KUAM NEWS, June 3, 2016

Thus, the first order of business was TO DISCREDIT TIM ROHR. And they did that, or attempted to do that, by getting to certain persons close to me who then colluded with certain other persons close to Apuron, persons who were invested in seeing to my demise...and who were nicely rewarded afterwards, though, for some, those "rewards" are beginning to unravel. But that's a story for another day. (Meanwhile, pay attention to Kandit.)

And this is where McCarrick came to the rescue. Read the full news report and ask yourself why would Apuron's case be brought up in the middle of much larger world-shattering news like Cardinal McCarrick's case?"

Apuron was an outback-nobody, and McCarrick, as the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington DC for many years, was a kingmaker. So why did reporters bring up Apuron in the middle of their interview with Francis about McCarrick?

The answer is found in these words from the interview: "The pontiff revealed that the last bishop to have been judged by such a process was Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron..." 

Apuron wasn't just the "last bishop to have been judged by such a process," he was also THE FIRST. I don't have time to link all the stories, but the main reason the Vatican hesitated in engaging Apuron was because it did not have a process for prosecuting bishops for sex abuse. It only knew what to do with priests. 

This was big news at the time and the Vatican literally did not know what to do with Apuron. And it (The Vatican) would have probably ignored the whole matter (given Apuron's obscurity) had it not been for the FIFTY FOUR SUNDAYS that lay Catholics obstinately marched in front of the Agana Cathedral each and every Sunday during the symbolic 9:30am Mass and the ever present media coverage.

In the end, the pope denied Apuron's appeal. And I am very sure it was because the McCarrick scandal brought a spotlight to the Vatican and Francis was caught in the glare. Once that happened, Francis really had no choice but to be tough on Apuron. The whole world was watching. Otherwise, I think Apuron would have been exonerated by the pope and restored as Archbishop of Agana. 

As it is, Apuron's sentence was quite light. He was not laicized as most priests are once found guilty of similar abuses. He remains a bishop though he cannot present himself as one. And more importantly, for the Kikos, he remains a priest, apparently in good standing, and most likely celebrates their "Eucharist" in their "small communities." 

Meanwhile, I didn't make a dime on my so-called "real estate conspiracy." 

However, we must remember that Apuron is not done. Aside from the archdiocesan cases, there are cases which name Apuron personally as a defendant. When those cases will be brought to trial, I don't know. But if and when they are, we can be sure that Apuron and his defenders will drag up the whole conspiracy story again. I'm looking forward to it. There are certain people I want to subpoena. 

See also: SAVING APURON...THE REST OF THE STORY...FOR NOW (and the comments)

HOW THE MC CARRICK STORY TIES WITH OUR STRUGGLE WITH THE NCW HERE ON GUAM

 (Posted by Frenchie)

The original three of the NCW

AKA

The Trinity of Evil

While Carmen has left this earthly environment, creating a huge vacuum in the organization of the NCW, because she was the brain trust of the operation; the inside struggle for power continues with the Genarrini brothers jockeying for the control of the money machine, and its propaganda wing.

Carmen was not yet in the ground, that Kiko's backers were already clamoring for the Sainthood of the departed. This of course was received with great enthusiasm by the followers of the sect, while most real Catholics were shaking their head in disbelief. This is why it is essential that we understand how the Vatican proceeds, and how Kiko and his ilks are using corruption and influence peddling to influence and divert the process to their advantage.

The infamous Diana

 

 

This blog, thanks to its countless readers and participants has been able to unveil some of that process over the years. Recently we were contacted by a concerned Denver Catholic, whose parish is being slowly taken over by the NCW. This concerned Denver Catholic ended up reading many posts from this blog, as well as the "Thoughtful Catholic" blog, in order to comprehend what he was facing.

He was particularly interested in a post I made on the feast of St Michael the Archangel (September 29, 2016) almost 5 years ago. This post was titled : "it really makes a lot of sense, when you put all the pieces of the puzzle together". It can be found 

HERE

What is so interesting in that inquiry by a Concerned Catholic  from Denver, (which is one of the original point of development of the NCW in the USA)....is the fact that good honest Catholics have no clue about what is going on in their own Diocese of Denver, after so many years of presence and work by the Neos, and how deeply rooted the NCW is in Colorado. It demonstrates the great duplicity and excellent talent of the NCW leadership to hide in plain sight, until it is too late when the laity finally realizes what is going on, in their own parishes. The cancer has already spread all over.

Perhaps many Catholics in Denver are still unaware of Kiko's church within the Church. We on Guam cannot pretend we do not know, yet despite their coverup for Apuron, their using of the Chancery as a political tool, their diversion of funds at several levels, the Neos on Guam have not been held to account. Despite a public stance, demanding obedience and abiding to canon law, Archbishop Byrnes has done almost nothing to bring the Neos to the fold. No longer able to meet at the fake seminary in Yona, they opened a new center in Asan in October of 2019. Many Neos when thinking they are in a friendly environment refer to this new "meeting" place as "our Church".

All this has been reported, yet Archbishop Byrnes has done nothing. Again, he has been empowered by Cardinal Filoni, with instructions, unknown to us officially. If we believe the neo's saying: " you can judge the tree, by the fruits it produces". If that is the case, it looks like Archbishop Byrnes real mission was to buy time and provide cover for the NCW on Guam. If you have any doubt, please look at the fruits..... Still prolytising, still recruiting, still undermining, still celebrating their heretical services, still advancing an agenda of conquest and submission of the Church to their sect.

 

It is certainly not the priests that Archbishop Byrnes is surrounding himself with, that are going to make a difference. Fr Ronald is too busy gathering power, and preparing the next victim to be thrown under the Bus (any bets?), and he is fairly close to several Neo presbyters. While the vicar of the Clergy Fr Mike has been so compromised by Fr Harold, that he has become their latest little puppet. 

 

Archbishop Jose Rodriguez Carballo

Secretary of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated life and Societies of Apostolic Life

It seems that the Vatican is fully aware of the type of challenges the NCW and other groups like them bring into the equation, as stated by the Above mentioned Archbishop Jose Rodriguez Carballo in a recent interview which you can find

Here

While the NCW was abetting Apuron on Guam, they also use their strong relationship with Cardinal Mc Carrick to open two seminaries, and expend their footprint in the USA. They also used his influence to open missions in several locations, and allow many of the NCW presbyters to be Pastors of parishes who were left at the mercy of the Genarrini mafia. Of course they made sure to cover up his proclivities, when they did not facilitate his sins, as they did with  Apuron. The best proof, being that they even built a nice suite in one of their seminary for him to retire. Knowing full well of his strong attraction to young seminarians.

Now that the Michigan administration is back on island, let see if they will address the continued disrespect the NCW has for them, or NOT?

Lets watch also if the failed priests like Fr Mike, will be called to order, or if Archbishop Byrnes will overlook these grave issues in order to advance his new upcoming agenda? 

TIME'S UP

Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga - head of the Papal Cabinet of Cardinals (C9)

While major media outlets like CNN and the New York Times are vigorously defending Pope Francis against allegations that he covered up Cardinal McCarrrick's pederasty, the Boston Globe is sticking to its guns. Sunday's edition of that paper included this editorial: 

Time’s up on Pope Francis and Catholic Church leaders being able to handle clergy abuse crisis

"Time’s up for Pope Francis and the leaders of the Catholic Church.

Catholics everywhere — and anyone who cares about children — should demand that our criminal justice system start treating the Roman Catholic Church for what many victims believe it is: an international criminal conspiracy to cover up the rape of what in the United States alone might amount to 100,000 children."  Read more.

To faithful Catholics, that's a shocking statement, even if we admit that there are some bad actors involved in cover-ups who are deeply embedded into the Church's structures of governance.

LET'S ASSUME THE ALLEGATIONS ARE FALSE...

Pope Francis attends a meeting with faithful of the diocese of Rome
at Saint John Lateran Basilica in Rome, Italy, in a May 14, 2018 file photo.
REUTERS

Let's assume for a minute that Archbishop Viganó's most significant allegations are false.  In other words:

1. Pope Benedict did NOT impose any sanctions on Cardinal McCarrick, and
2. Archbishop Viganó NEVER told Pope Francis about Cardinal McCarrick's heinous misdeeds.

Well, then, if that's the case, why wouldn't Pope Benedict, for the sake of the unity of the Church if for no other reason, exonerate Pope Francis with a short, simple public statement?  And why wouldn't Pope Francis assert, just as simply, that Archbishop Viganó never told him about McCarrick's misdeeds?  Two holy men would be telling the truth for the sake of the Church.  It seems so simple.

But no, both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have nothing to say about the matter, the faithful are left wondering why, and the Church is left lurching dangerously close to schism.

That's if Archbishop Viganó's allegations are false. But they ring true, and if they are, we can only assume that Pope Francis is silent to avoid being caught in a lie.