UNDER THE INFLUENCE?

Posted by Frenchie.

Between Kandit news and Tim's revelations since the posting of the Scintilla's picture, apparently taken over the weekend in Manilla, many questions have surfaced about the motivation behind Archbishop Jimenez presumed "chance" meeting with the Tenorio Clan.

One person that is front and center in the damning portrait, is Connie Shinohara, the oddly promoted executive secretary of the Archbishop, who in theory should advise the Archbishop on the inherent risks he would be facing in rubbing elbows in public (even in distanced locations) with certain individuals who are in the limelight for whatever reason. In this case we are talking about the current Lt Governor, an unabashed advocate of GLBTQ rights and a strong supporter of the evil euphemism: "a woman's right to choose" the moniker for the murder of unborn babies, both issues being considered as scandalous by the Church.

The question is then, why would the executive secretary not protect her boss the Archbishop from the obvious communication nightmare we are witnessing? The follow-up question is why the Archbishop, a fairly intelligent individual would allow himself to be influenced negatively by said executive secretary?

This is certainly not the type of behavior expected from someone whose stated ambition is to serve the Church in Rome. I wonder what our new Nuncio might make out this kerfuffle?

It is a well known fact that Connie Shinohara is very close to Josh Tenorio. Perhaps she is the whisperer in the ear of Jimenez, in which case this would be catastrophic, but would explain many things. Her previous gig, having been at the Port Authority, managing the "Port seven" dossier, which led to the re-instatement of very flawed employees that had been terminated. The whole thing being a glimpse into the corruption of the democratic party machine and the port authority, under the guise of righting a wrong. But what is more troubling with Connie is how intertwined she was with the still not totally resolved scandal of the house of liberty game rooms, which is also being litigated by the feds. These issues should have been red flags for the Chancery.

Enters the new twist in the story: the very controversial and unpredictable Matthew Blockley. Many people affirm that Blockley and the volatile Tony Sgro are acquittances. It is interesting to note that the accusations against Josh and Matthew (Topasna) have popped up in Kandit, since a certain well known car dealership very close to Tina has been such a good sponsor of Kandit News, and that Blockley has fed Kandit with his somewhat one sided report. There is apparently a lot more to the story.

To recap, we have our Archbishop and his executive secretary whose primary goal should be to protect her employer travelling to Manilla, who "accidently" meet with the Tenorio Clan (most of them under federal indictment). Just this, is a public relation nightmare. So far this has not appeared to rattle many people at the Chancery.

We have two loose canons hovering over the whole disaster: Matthew Blockley and Tony Sgro, with agendas still undisclosed at this time. Still when your reputation is : where they go, trouble follow; we should be attentive at what is going to be revealed sooner or later.

Finally we have the current Lt Governor, who does not need any more controversy at this time embroiled in something which appear to be very frustrating.

The last question being therefore: Who is influencing whom and for what purpose?

I THINK BLOCKLEY TOOK THE PHOTO

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."

It's interesting to me that Blockley doesn't name the friend. Why not? So let's guess: if there is anybody in the photo that Blockley knew well enough to have dinner with, it is obviously Archbishop Ryan Jimenez. 

Both Blockley and Jimenez were priests together in Saipan for several years. In fact, if Blockley did not have dinner with Jimenez, but someone else in that picture, then that would have been a strange snub of Jimenez, who is, after all, the Archbishop of Agana, the diocese where Blockley was originally incardinated. 

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.

I'LL HOLD OFF ON THE REST OF THE STORY ----- FOR NOW

As a BTW, and with due respect to Troy - whose work and opinions I personally respect - priests are not "just regular guys who have different commitments than non-priests." They are consecrated persons who have special commitments that "non-priests" do not have. 

I'll hold off on the "rest of the story".... for now. BTW "David" is not smiling. 

DEAR DIANA...HAVE FUN WITH BLOCKLEY

He's a waste of time. But I saved his emails anyway...because I always suspected what he really was and knew someday I might have to use them.

By the way, one of the funniest things about Blockley was his anonymous comments. He spelled so bad that I had to ask him to rewrite them because I knew everyone would know it was him. SMH. Have fun, Diana. BTW, Rome already has his number. There's a reason he hasn't retuned to Saipan...even with a new bishop.

PS. Note to author of the La Stampa thing. 

HEY DIANA! THIS IS BLOCKLEY

Dear Diana,

In case you didn't know, Blockley was double-crossing me by colluding with that idiot from SNAP. But then idiots do tend to run together. More so, Blockley led me to believe he really had something on Bishop Camacho. So I let him have his say on my blog a couple years ago. But he never came out with it. So like others who try to use me, I dumped him. Plus, he's a double crosser on many other levels. He especially loves to hate Msgr. James, just like you. So he'll be at home on your blog. You can have the AWOL piece of shit. And as for your other conspiracy shit, have fun. Bye. I have property to sell. LOL. Courage. 

WHY IS APURON IN MANILA?

On Tuesday, May 17, 2016, Roy Quintanilla, made known that he was sexually molested by Anthony S. Apuron, currently the Archbishop of Agana, approximately 40 years ago when he was a twelve year old altar boy in the parish of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in Agat, Guam.

Within a few hours, the Archdiocese released a statement stating the following:

On the introductory page to the "policy," we read:

NO. 1. Despite the first principle of the policy being "the victim is not responsible for the abuse," within only a couple hours of the release of this statement, the Archbishop, the person ultimately responsible for seeing to it that "the victim is not responsible for the abuse," personally attacked the victim.

NO. 2. Despite the second principle of the policy being "the healing of the victim should be primary concern," within only a couple hours of the release of this statement, the Archbishop, the person ultimately responsible for seeing to "the healing of the victim as the primary concern," personally attacked the victim.

NO. 3. Despite the third principle of the policy being "all allegations of sexual misconduct are to be taken seriously," within only a couple hours of the release of this statement, the Archbishop, the person ultimately responsible for seeing to it that "all allegations of sexual misconduct are to be taken seriously," personally attacked the victim.

And within 24 hours of his own attack on the victim, Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron had both Deacon Frank Tenorio and his personal secretary, Fr. Edivaldo Da Silva Oliveira, personally attack the same victim in the same way.

Having immediately violated the first principles of his own policy, Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron proceeded to violate the policy itself:

Item 2c. requires the Archbishop to "direct an Investigator to do a complete investigation."

There will be no Investigator and there will be no investigation. Per the Pacific Daily News (May 20, 2016), Archbishop Apuron's personal secretary and Archdiocesan spokesman,  Fr. Edivaldo Da Silva Oliveira, declared: "it never happened."

Rev. Edivaldo da Silva Oliveira, who identified himself as a personal secretary for the archbishop, spoke on behalf of Apuron on Friday. 

When asked if Rev. Niland told Apuron what Quintanilla told Niland, Oliveira said, “(Niland) never reported because it never happened.”

http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/05/20/deacon-defends-archbishop-accused-molestation/84640378/ 

However, in doing all this, attacking the victim - first personally and then with Tenorio and Edivaldo, Apuron has completely admitted his guilt. If Apuron was innocent, it not only would have been easy for him to extend an invitation to Mr. Quintanilla to further discuss the matter, it would have been the right thing for a bishop to do. At the very least he could have done what Cardinal Pell had done when similarly accused. Pell stepped aside and permitted a third party investigation. When exonerated he returned to his job. 

Obviously Apuron has done none of these things. Instead he has immediately and viciously attacked the victim. 

Now, this brings us to why Apuron and the Waldo (aka Fr. Edivaldo Da Silva Oliveira) suddenly up and departed to Manila yesterday morning. 

For now, it is Apuron's word against Mr. Quintanilla's. Apuron knows that so long as he can keep this one on one, he can continue to deny the charges. However, two on one, three on one, and more... will change the matter very quickly. He must keep other victims from coming forward. 

Fr. Matthew Blockley was invited to be incardinated in this diocese by Apuron in the early 90's. However, Blockley saw something that made him split to Saipan after only a couple of years in Agana and before he was ordained. 

Blockley was ordained in Saipan but ran afoul of Bishop Camacho when Apuron and Pius tried to insert the Neocatechumenal Way into Saipan in the late 90's. According to Blockley, he also stumbled across some grave financial improprieties. Blockley - per his account - was severely beaten one night by a group of thugs (who he believed to be Bishop Camacho's) and fled to the states where he hid for several years for fear of his life. 

Upon his retirement, Camacho released an all points bulletin to all the U.S. bishops to flush out Blockley and force him back to Saipan (though according to Blockley, Camacho knew where he was). The priest in the states who had given Blockley shelter for several years could no longer do so. Still fearing for his life, Blockley fled to Manila, where (again according to Blockley) he is living privately under the protection of Cardinal Tagle. 

What did Blockley see in the early 90's that made him flee Agana? Apuron knows. The only question is what will it take to buy Blockley's silence?

That's all I can say for now.

For all posts related to Fr. Blockley go here. 

BLOCKLEY CONFIRMS HE GAVE APRUON THE HEAD FAKE

I can confirm the following.

Late afternoon, October 30th, prior to the chancery closing, there was a panic within Archbishop's office.  The chancellor reported that he had uncovered an intended plot to disrupt Archbishop's birthday by protests planned to evolve from within the Hyatt Hotel.   

It was reported to Archbishop Apuron that an identified non-American citizen entered Guam Friday on board a flight from Manila Philippines. The identified non-American citizen checked into the Hyatt Hotel with the intention of  disrupting the Sunday evening event.  

The non-American citizen was identified as Father Matthew Blockley.  

Archbishop Apuron immediately ordered a tightening of security at San Ramon and Hyatt Hotel. 

Archbishop was led to believe Fr. Blockley was visiting Guam with the intention of speaking against the Archbishop on his 70th birthday. This was based on Anon messages left on Diana's blog. 

The Archbishop instructed Hyatt Hotel of the potential security dangers threatening the birthday celebration.  By Monday morning it was confirmed to the Archbishop that Fr. Matthew Blockley had not left Manila bound for Guam. This was confirmed by the Archdiocese of Manila.

Sent from

Fr.Matthew Blockley

BLOCKLEY: "YOU CAN POST THIS"

This is what I saw in my own words. 

IL CASO DI P. BLOCKLEY & LA CURIA NEOCATECHUMENALIZZATA

Guam: vescovo neocatecumenale celebra la "liturgia di Kiko"

Riprendendo il tema delle gravi intimidazioni neocatecumenali (nel Cammino, infatti, non si effettuano solo "oliature"), riportiamo qui sotto il caso di p.Blockley, che ha inviato la sua storia su Jungle Watch (traduzione a cura di Valentina). La curia neocatecumenalizzata di Guam ha tutto l'interesse a screditare p.Blockley o almeno a coprirlo con una cappa di silenzio.

Per capire il contesto, è utile sapere che mons.Apuron, arcivescovo di Guam, si professa fratello nel Cammino Neocatecumenale, così come i citati p. Cristobal, p. Tenorio, p. Pius Sammut.

FROM JANET B, WITH LOVE.

I normally wouldn't make a post of a comment by Janet B. She's way too edgy and uses surly nicknames that I'm not quite ready to use. But she makes a good point in this comment. If Archbishop Apuron did not see to the health care coverage for Fr. Efren, then as his Ordinary, he would still be responsible for his medical bills. Looks like he'll be sending a check to Fr. Matthew Blockley. 

1. 
   
   
   

READ IT AND WEEP

Fr.Matthew Blockley has left a new comment on your post "NEW FACTS FOR "NO DOUBT ABOUT IT"": 

Dear Mr. Rohr.

Further to reading the post today on Filipino priests and in particular Father Efren Adversario, please allow me to comment.

My personal staff and I were present at the time when Fr. Efren Adversaio was admitted to the Makati Medical center. Unknown to many, Fr. Efren was not well for some time and I had opened up the guest rooms in my private residence for him. I had also asked the household staff to take care of him, as I would do for any priest who was not well. 

WIPE YOUR DROOL

Dear Diana et. al,

Wipe the drool and try not to froth. 

Long before Fr. Matthew Blockley sent me the account of his time in Saipan and Guam, he sent me all the links to the news stories that you all are now sending me. He wanted me to know what the news reports said so that first I would know that he was real, and second that there were very serious reasons for his having gone into hiding. 

The fact that Bishop Camacho put out an APB on him in 2008 is not the news. What is the real news is why Bishop Camacho waited until 2008 to do it when he had run Fr. Blockley out of Saipan in 2000, and why he did an APB to the USCCB when he knew very well where Blockley was. 

We'll be uncovering all that soon. Meanwhile, try not to step in it. Truly, your childish tantrums are such a discredit to everything you say that your movement is. And to think Fr. Edivaldo is calling the shots. Wow!

WHO IS BLOCKLEY? PART 2

Let us pick up from the final paragraph of the previous installment to this story:

In 1998, Archbishop Apuron and Fr. Pius, through Fr. Roger Tenorio, began making inroads into Saipan with the Neocatechumenal Way. Knowing the history of the NCW in England, where I was from, and its having been denounced there by several bishops including the bishop of Clifton who called the NCW a form of “spiritual enslavement,” I worked to stop its growth on Saipan.

I was very vocal about my opposition to the Way. Fr. Pius got very angry with me. He told me that I was preventing the will of God, and that the Neocatechumenal Way would be formed in Saipan with or without me. 

WHO IS BLOCKLEY? - UPDATE

On "her" other blog, the one she talks to herself with, "Diana" has posted a tired old swipe at Fr. Matthew Blockley, an APB to the bishops "brotherhood" to flush out Blockley. "She" posted it of course because Archbishop Apuron is desperate to discredit Blockley because Blockley has "the goods". 

Fr. Blockley was AWOL for a very good reason. In fact, if it had happened to you, you'd go AWOL too. And THAT my friends is the "rest of the story" which will now soon follow...and in which you will soon learn why Saipan has no bishop several years after Bishop Camacho's retirement. (There's a reason Rome did not ask him to stay on.)

In fact, this is the story that I think Dan Brown may eventually pick up. (Okay. I took out the part about the suggested title. It was just a bit of a warning to the other side not to mess with stuff they know nothing about. Blockley was supposed to be dead, remember?)

A LETTER FROM FR. EFREN ADVERSARIO

July 30, 2014

Dear Mr Rohr,

My attention was recently piqued by separate verifiable sources about the Archbishop's public allegation of an improper relationship between Fr Matthew Blockley and I while I was in Manila these past months.  It is true I separated from the US Air Force due to my mother's condition.  I wanted to spend time with her, and Archbishop Apuron granted the leave.  During this time I was commuting between Naga City and Manila, and Fr Blockley was gracious enough to offer lodging while in Manila.  Upon hearing this allegation, I was bemused, befuddled and flummoxed by the questionable comedic intent and resolved to ignore it despite some urging from others to demand an apology from the perpetrator.

THE TAGAYTAY TREATMENT...and THE DESTRUCTION OF TWO MORE PRIESTS

3:41PM Link to audio has been fixed

As he left "the country" (as he put it), Fr. John Wadeson, a priest twice accused of child molestation, threatened that he had instructed his lawyer "to proceed judicially against those who will advance this calumny."

Calumny is kind of big word for some of us so I thought I'd provide both a definition and an example. Here's the definition:

WHO IS BLOCKLEY?

Some have seen the name of Fr. Matthew Blockley in the comments on this blog and recently in two PDN stories (here and here). You may be wondering who he is. Rest assured that he is not a name the Chancery Three expected or wanted to see. In fact, rest assured that the Chancery Three are probably hard at work discrediting him, and in fact may have already begun the Tagaytay treatment. 

If you google Fr. Blockley you will find stories like this one from 2008 essentially involving an all-points bulletin from Saipan Bishop Tomas Camacho to find and flush out Blockley who he considered to be AWOL from the Diocese of Chalan Kanoa. 

The story made more or less national news because Fr. Blockley was staying with a priest friend who was also a well-known Fox News commentator, Msgr. James Lisante. Let's let Fr. Blockley tell you the part of the story that is not in the news:

WILL THEY TAGAYTAY BLOCKLEY?

Taal Volcano near Tagaytay

Some of you have seen the name of Fr. Matthew Blockley assigned to some of the comments and have asked who he is? Part of his history is easy to find out on the Internet. The other part is not. 

You will soon hear about that other part. But meanwhile, be apprised that the Chancery Three will do everything they can to discredit him, including giving him the Tagaytay treatment...if they haven't started already. Oh, and remember, the Archbishop said "gossip is evil."