THOSE TROUBLESOME LAY PEOPLE

By Tim Rohr

Let's take a look at Archbishop Krebs' letter to Apuron of Sep. 30, 2016. There is a lot more to this letter than meets the eye. 

First, some background:

Apuron fled Guam sometime between May 17, 2016, when Roy Quintanilla made his accusation, and May 25, 2016, when a Vatican photographer found him at St. Peter's, apparently begging Pope Francis for help.

On June 6, 2016, Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Savio HON TAI-FAI Apostolic Administrator for the Archdiocese of Agana. The appointment was sede plena, which means "the seat is filled," indicating that Apuron remained Archbishop in name.

At the time, Hon served as Secretary to the Vatican's Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. Hon's boss was Cardinal Fernando Filoni, who served as Prefect of the Congregation.

Hon had previously visited Guam in January 2015 as a "Visitator," the modern equivalent of an Inquisitor. Hon was tasked with looking into what all the ruckus in Agana was about, which at the time included the Fr. Paul thing, the Msgr. James thing, the Fr. John Wadeson thing, the John Toves thing, and the beginning of the RMS thing.

I remember feeling relieved that Rome was finally paying attention. However, it soon became clear to those of us who personally met with Hon in January 2015 (including me) that Hon was not here to fix things but to shut down the lay uprising against Apuron and the Neocats. His boss, Filoni, was already a known Neocat sympathizer, if not a closet Neo himself.

So we didn't trust Hon when he showed up a year and a half later in June 2016 as the Vatican-appointed administrator. And we were right not to trust him. 

On June 9, 2016, at St. Anthony's church in Tamuning, Hon, addressing the clergy and laity of the diocese, changed the script. According to our inside intel, Hon was supposed to assure us he would coordinate the investigation into the sex abuse allegations against Apuron - the thing that caused Apuron to flee. 

Instead, under a thinly disguised speech about "unity," he functionally chastised us for creating "disunity." Once again, Hon was here to put down the uprising. And given that Filoni was his Neocat boss, this was no surprise.

I was in the audience that day, and I saw the look on Archbishop Krebs' face as Hon went off script. It was pained. Krebs had been working for at least two years to address the exploding issues in Apuron's diocese, a diocese which had just been rocked with the horrific allegations from Roy Quintanilla, and then Walter Denton, who, coincidentally, had come forward with his graphic account of his being raped by Apuron as a twelve-year old altar boy, on the same day (June 6, 2016) that Hon had been appointed to Guam. (Roland Sondia hadn't come forward yet.)

It was immediately clear that Hon was acting on orders from Filoni - the Neocat's buddy in Rome - to put down the lay uprising in Guam. Krebs' face was pained because he knew what Hon was up against, and he knew that Hon didn't. 

Hon was up against the most organized and determined group of lay people in the entire Catholic world, and we were about to make his life HELL.

We did.

Here is Kreb's letter to Apuron with my comments in red.

+++++

30th September 2016 

The first thing to note is the date, 9/30/16. The date of Apuron's letter to Filoni is 7/23/26. Nearly two months to reply. Yes, things move slowly in Rome. However, when you read Krebs's letter, it's easy to see that the reason for denying Apuron's demand (to discipline Hon) was very simple and did not require deliberation. (I'll get to the reason when we get to it.) The time required to formulate the response suggests there must have been a heated argument between Krebs and the Neocats: Filoni, Hon, and the Neocats Brass. 

Your Excellency, 

At the request of His Eminence Card. Fernando Filoni, Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, I have the honour to inform you of the following decision. 

I can see Archbishop Krebs smiling to himself when he wrote: "I have the honour..."  "Honour" (Honor) would have been the word to use in a congratulatory letter. But this was a DENIAL, even a slap down. And Krebs said he had "the honour" of delivering it. Well, given what Krebs had been through the last few years with Apuron and the Neocats and the mess they created, I am quite sure that, for Krebs, it was INDEED an HONOUR. 

On 28th July 2016, the Congregation has received a hierarchical recourse "against the actions of the Apostolic Administrator sede plena, Archbishop Savio Hon Tai-Fai, SDB, which have interfered with matters concerning the Bishop, in accord with the norms of CC. 1732 ff". As sender of the recourse was indicated the address of the Archdiocese of Agaña. 

Krebs seems to go out of his way here to mention that the "sender" (Apuron) used "the address of the Archdiocese of Agana." There was really no reason for Krebs to say this, other than to further poke Apuron, given that Apuron had abandoned the Archdiocese of Agana the previous May and had taken refuge, probably first in Rome, and then, by then, at the Neocat base in New Jersey. Krebs appeared to want to tell Apuron that he (and everybody else) knew Apuron was no longer residing in the Archdiocese of Agana. 

Now Cardinal Filoni communicates that the recourse has been attentively examined but cannot be accepted, because the Apostolic Administrator has been appointed "per mandatum speciale Summi Pontificis", and therefore in the name of the Holy Father, against Whose decision there is no recourse (can. 1404 : "Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur"). Moreover, the Decree of appointment has attributed to the Apostolic Administrator in the same ecclesiastical circumscription "omnes facultates ad administrationem et gubernionem pastoralem eiusdem Archidiocesis spectantes, sine ulla exceptione". Consequently, the Apostolic Administrator "replaces" the Archbishop "in omnibus", until the Holy See decides otherwise. On 12th August 2016, Cardinal Filoni has personally informed the Holy Father of the hierarchical recourse, and His Holiness has taken note of what is presented above. 

Apuron's demand that Filoni discipline Hon is denied because it was the Pope himself who appointed Hon, not Filoni. And, as Krebs lays out, there is no recourse against the Holy Father. Moreover, Krebs points out that Hon's authority is "in omnibus," meaning, "in everything." 

With every best wish and kind regards, I am 

Yours sincerely in the Lord 

+ M. Kum 

+Martin Krebs Apostolic Delegate 

The letter as a whole functionally memorializes a major turn of events. Two months earlier, Hon was so clearly on the side of the Neocats that we (the lay uprising) had added Hon's name to our pickets against Apuron. 

The public pressure we (the lay uprising) put on Hon forced him to take certain actions against Apuron (detailed in Apuron's letter), which prompted Apuron to protest to Filoni. Apuron's protest to Filoni was probably what flipped Hon's switch and led him to side with Krebs, resulting in the decision to deny Apuron's demand for recourse. 

Apuron, as a bishop, should have known that Hon's appointment to Guam was made by the pope. In fact, I am sure that he did. So why did he write such a stupid letter? There's only ever one answer when things don't make any sense: The Neocats. 

The Neocats were (and still are) so sure of their power in Rome, especially since they had Filoni in their pocket. Filoni was so powerful at the time that he was known as The Red Pope (a cardinal who was just as powerful as the pope). So, it's easy to see how the Neocats believed they could get Filoni to back Apuron and shut down Hon. 

And he probably would have, but for one thing: those troublesome lay people in the streets of Agana.

OUR "SYNODAL" JOURNEY

"We need to seek ways of walking together in our Synodal journey as one people of God." 

- Archbishop Ryan Jimenez, Pastoral Letter, August 15, 2016

THE USE OF EXTRAORDINARY MINISTERS IS NOT TO BE HABITUAL

By Tim Rohr

A few days ago, a commenter inquired why the "ministers" in Dededo wear "white gowns like the priest."  I assume the commenter was referring to those persons who are properly called "Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist," and the "white gowns" are albs.

If Guam were part of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the answer would be yes.

GIRM 339 In the Dioceses of the United States of America, acolytes, altar servers, readers, and other lay ministers may wear the alb or other appropriate and dignified clothing.

However, Guam is not part of the USCCB. Guam belongs to the Episcopal Conference of the Pacific (CEPAC), of which, by the way, Archbishop Jimenez is the sitting president. 

So, given that the instruction GIRM 339 is specific to "Dioceses in the United States of America," and Guam's Catholic Church is NOT a diocese in the USA, the question is: what is the policy for dioceses within CEPAC? 

Archbishop Jimenez, as the current president of CEPAC, is in a good position to answer this, but don't expect one. He probably never thought of it before. Guam (and the rest of the Marianas) usually just defaults to whatever the USCCB is doing - when it is convenient. 

Meanwhile, however, there is an instruction that applies to this question which is not specific to a certain geographic region, but applies to the entire Church, and it's not about whether this or that person may wear an alb, but when in fact these "ministers," the Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, may be employed.

The instruction is titled: 

ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST

The Instruction was promulgated by multiple Vatican Congregations in 1997.

The specific instruction regarding the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion is as follows (empahses added):

Article 8

The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

The non-ordained faithful already collaborate with the sacred ministers in diverse pastoral situations since "This wonderful gift of the Eucharist, which is the greatest gift of all, demands that such an important mystery should be increasingly better known and its saving power more fully shared".(95)

Such liturgical service is a response to the objective needs of the faithful especially those of the sick and to those liturgical assemblies in which there are particularly large numbers of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion.

§ 1. The canonical discipline concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion. The same discipline establishes that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the Bishop, the Priest and the the Deacon.(96) Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are those instituted as acolytes and the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, § 3.(97)

A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for this situation, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations ad actum vel ad tempus or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.(98)

§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

This function is supplementary and extraordinary (101) and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law. It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;

— association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;

— the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of "a great number of the faithful".

+++++

The above hardly needs commentary. The last sentence should suffice. The use of extraordinary ministers is NOT to be "habitual."

KIKO ARGUELLO'S (FAKE) HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

 By Chuck White

ROME RESPONDS...TO APURON

By Tim Rohr

In "AND HE'S LYING STILL" (Sep. 10, 20206), we saw a letter from Apuron addressed to Cardinal Filoni demanding that Filoni take action against Archbishop Hon. The letter was dated July 23, 2016.

On Sep. 30, 2016, Filoni answered Apuron through Archbishop Krebs, the Apostolic Nuncio at the time. There is much to say about this answer, but I will save the comments for another post. Here is the reply from Filoni. (emphases added)

30th September 2016 

Your Excellency, 

At the request of His Eminence Card. Fernando Filoni, Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, I have the honour to inform you of the following decision. 

On 28th July 2016, the Congregation has received a hierarchical recourse "against the actions of the Apostolic Administrator sede plena, Archbishop Savio Hon Tai-Fai, SDB, which have interfered with matters concerning the Bishop, in accord with the norms of CC. 1732 ff". As sender of the recourse was indicated the address of the Archdiocese of Agaña. 

Now Cardinal Filoni communicates that the recourse has been attentively examined but cannot be accepted, because the Apostolic Administrator has been appointed "per mandatum speciale Summi Pontificis", and therefore in the name of the Holy Father, against Whose decision there is no recourse (can. 1404 : "Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur"). Moreover, the Decree of appointment has attributed to the Apostolic Administrator in the same ecclesiastical circumscription "omnes facultates ad administrationem et gubernionem pastoralem eiusdem Archidiocesis spectantes, sine ulla exceptione". Consequently, the Apostolic Administrator "replaces" the Archbishop "in omnibus", until the Holy See decides otherwise. On 12th August 2016, Cardinal Filoni has personally informed the Holy Father of the hierarchical recourse, and His Holiness has taken note of what is presented above. 

With every best wish and kind regards, I am 

Yours sincerely in the Lord 

+ M. Kum 

+Martin Krebs Apostolic Delegate 

LINK TO COPY OF ORIGINAL LETTER

LIPSTICK ON A PIG?

By Tim Rohr

It's unfortunate, but the reality is that we, the Catholics in the Archdiocese of Agana, Guam, must always question everything our church leadership says and does. And we must do this because not doing this has cost us millions and millions of dollars, many ancestral properties, and, most importantly, countless lost souls. 

For decades, many of our clergy, at the highest levels, lied to us, deceived us, misled us, and stole from us while raping our children, our church, and our bank accounts, leaving us with the bill of ruined children and a bankrupt church. 

Sorry to be so negative, but not really. I was personally persecuted by Apuron's mob for daring to be the face of what everyone knew for decades. I paid a heavy price for speaking the truth, and my children are still paying it.

So, I am going to question everything, including this:

Archdiocese announces efforts toward canonization of San Vitores

LINK

This was announced on September 10, 2026. The timing of the announcement leaves us only two options for what to think:

1. The removal of Blessed Diego's relics on Sep. 1, 2026,  from the Cathedral to the church in Tumon was for the purpose as set forth in the Sep. 10, 2026 announcement, in which case, our current church leadership is simply negligent and very poor planners, given that the relocation of the relics occurred with great media fanfare but no context such as the present announcement would have provided, making the "efforts toward canonization" appear as an afterthought.

Or:

2. Our church leadership became rattled after the otherwise sudden, unannounced, and rather disrespectful, if not physically harmful (to the relics), relocation of the relics was called out on JungleWatch on September 2, the day after the move, and, in which case, they are now scrambling to put lipstick on a pig.

It's quite sad when the only charitable option is to surmise that the real reason is neglect and poor planning - especially given that we are talking about the man who brought Catholicism to Guam, and then died for it.

The following is the text of the announcement:

---

Circular No. 2026-31

To: Clergy, Religious and People of the Archdiocese of Agana

From: Very Reverend Fr. Paul A.M. Gofigan, Vicar General    

Cc: Archbishop Ryan P. Jimenez

 Rev. Fr. Junee Valencia, Parochial Vicar / Blessed Diego Parish

Date: September 10, 2026

Re: Movement for the Canonization of Blessed Diego

Luis de San Vitores

---

Pax et Bonum 

The Archdiocese of Agana is undertaking an important effort toward the canonization of Blessed Diego Luis de San Vitores, the Jesuit missionary and martyr of Guam. As we move forward, various events and activities will be planned to promote greater awareness, prayer, and devotion to Blessed Diego throughout the Archdiocese.

As we continue toward canonization, one of the most important things that must be demonstrated and documented is a genuine, active, and widespread devotion to Blessed Diego among the faithful, together with the Church’s required canonical process.

For this reason, devotion to Blessed Diego is not simply encouraged; it is an essential part of this effort.

His Grace, Archbishop Ryan P. Jimenez, has appointed Rev. Fr. Junee Valencia, Parochial Administrator of Blessed Diego Luis de San Vitores Church in Tumon, to lead this movement. A committee has been formed to help foster a renewed devotion to Blessed Diego and to provide opportunities for the faithful to learn about his life, missionary zeal, and martyrdom.

On Tuesday, September 1, 2026, several significant items associated with Blessed Diego were transferred to Blessed Diego Church in Tumon: his cassock, the machete traditionally associated with his martyrdom, a painting of Blessed Diego, and a historical letter written by him. These items now provide the faithful with a special opportunity for prayer and public veneration.

The faithful are warmly invited to come and pray before these sacred relics associated with Blessed Diego.

Public Veneration:

Weekdays, except Thursdays - 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Also available after weekday Masses

In the months ahead, educational and devotional initiatives will be developed for parishes. Parishes will be encouraged to incorporate prayers and a novena to Blessed Diego into their parish life. All parishes are requested to pray the Prayer for the Intercession of Blessed Diego (see below)  at all Masses, and the faithful are encouraged to pray this prayer both communally and privately.

Our hope is that, through a renewed and widespread devotion to Blessed Diego, his memory and intercession will become increasingly present in the spiritual life of our people. We pray that this devotion will support the canonical requirements necessary for his eventual canonization and for Blessed Diego Luis de San Vitores to be proclaimed a Saint of the Universal Church. 

God willing, Blessed Diego Church may one day be designated as an official shrine through the proper process with the Holy See.

His Grace, Archbishop Ryan P. Jimenez, Rev. Fr. Junee Valencia, the Archdiocesan Liturgical Commission, and the committee are grateful for the prayers and support of the faithful and are committed to promoting this cause.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

---

PRAYER FOR THE INTERCESSION

OF BLESSED DIEGO LUIS DE SAN VITORES

God of Mercy and Love, 

through the preaching of Your martyr Blessed Diego,

You brought the good news of Christ to the people of the Marianas, who had not known him.

By his prayers help us to endure all suffering for love of You and to seek You with all our hearts, for You alone are the source of life.

We ask this through Your Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with You in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God forever and ever.

 Amen.

(Pause now and ask Blessed Diego for your request) 

Our Father … / Hail Mary … / Glory be …

Blessed Diego … Pray for us.

AND HE IS LYING STILL

By Tim Rohr 

In a recent post (BLOGGER ACCUSED BY WIFE), I wrote:

This was May 2018. Apuron had just been found guilty by the Vatican, and I was the main mover in outing him. Apuron planned to appeal and demonstrate that he had been framed by "Tim Rohr and his associates," and that I was colluding with a Chinese gambling interest to steal the "Yona Property" (the old RMS seminary) from the Neocats to install a casino there. 

Amazing, but true. Not true that there was an alliance between me and a gambling interest. But true that this is what Apuron and the Neocats accused me of. And, at the time, it was in the news.

Today, while researching for the book I am writing about the horrifying mess that was (and still is) the Archdiocese of Agana, I came across a letter written by Apuron to Cardinal Filoni dated July 23, 2016. 

In the letter, Apuron demands that Filoni take action against Archbishop Hon, who was the Vatican-appointed Apostolic Administrator to this diocese after Apuron fled in May 2016.

The letter is quite entertaining, and reeks of Apuron - if you know what I mean. His protestations of innocence are laughable (if not sickening) given what the Vatican itself officially found him guilty of, a finding upheld by Pope Francis himself after Apuron appealed his verdict directly to the pope. 

Of particular interest to me, though, was Apuron's accusation about the plot to turn the seminary into a casino, which you will see towards the end of the letter. 

Apuron swears to Filoni that he has "amassed a substantial body of proof" connecting this "plot" against him as being mixed up with a "gambling syndicate." 

That's funny. He's had ten years now to show that "substantial body of proof." He never did. And he never did because he was lying. And he is lying still.

A copy of the full letter and the attachments can be accessed here. The following is copied from the letter for easy reading.

+++++

Note: There are many spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors in this letter. I left them as they are. All underlines and bold are Apuron's.

July 23st, 2016

HE Fernando Cardinal Filoni
Prefect of Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples
Piazza di Spagna 
48 - 00187 Roma

Your Eminence,

    It is with great regret that I am obliged present you with this act of canonical recourse against Archbishop Savio HON TAI-FAI, S.D.B. in his role as Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese of Agana sede plena.

    As you know, I requested that the Holy Father authorize such a provision for the Archdiocese while I dedicated myself to disproving the false, malicious, and calculated allegations of sexual abuse made against me by some parties on the island. This seemed to me to be the most prudent course of action, both to allow me to fight the allegations in the most direct way possible, and also for the good of the souls of my archdiocese, who were suffering greatly because of the concerted media campaign against me.

    While I still believe that Archbishop HON arrived in Guam with a sincere desire to help our Church, which has been so sadly rocked by the orchestrated sedition and malice of a very few, it has become increasingly apparent to me that his administration is doing gravest harm: to the very fabric of the Archdiocese; to the spiritual well-being of the people and clergy of Agana; and to my own person.

    I wish to reassure you of my personal support for the role of an Apostolic Administrator sede plena. Following Archbishop HON's appointment, as I believe was both canonically and pastorally appropriate, I issued a statement welcoming his impending arrival and, since then, I have refrained from commenting, either publicly or privately, on any aspect of his work in the Archdiocese. I am aware how important it is that I respect the scope of any Administrator ability to govern the Archdiocese during this time of my impediment, since it is their work which will, and must, make possible my eventual return to my See when the accusations against me have been disproven.

    While reiterating my respect for Archbishop HON's office, and while I have done everything required by the law to respect its powers and preserve its dignity, I must bring to your attention the seriously damaging actions which he has undertaken in its exercise, and the flawed canonical understanding which seems to underpin his behavior.

    As Your Eminence is no doubt aware, the position of Apostolic Administrator sede plena is no longer officially defined in the Code of Canon Law. The canon pertaining to its definition and powers were removed during the process of canonical reform. Of course, the Holy Father has remained free to continue to make use of this position as and when he has considered it prudent, and, through this continuing exercise of pontifical discretion, the role continues according to the norm of law.

    Because the position of Apostolic Administrator sede plena is no longer codified for the Latin Church, its application and understanding in Latin dioceses is subject to the ordinary and proper methods of canonical interpretation. In this case, the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches preserves the role of Apostolic Administrator sede plena but provides that the "rights, obligations, and privileges are drawn from the letter of appointment" (CCEO 234 §2); thus, that which is not contained in the letter of appointment cannot be considered within the Administrator's scope.

    Of course, the role of Apostolic Administrator sede plena is not an informal or ad hoc arrangement, its definition and praxis is long established in the law and practice of the Church.

    In recognition that the defining characteristic of the office and its exercise is that there is and remains a bishop of the diocese during the administration, and that neither the administrator nor the bishop is subject to the other, the firm canonical principle has always been that an Apostolic Administrator sede plena must not interfere in any matter which concerns the Bishop: non debet tamen se immiscere causis Episcopum ipsum spectantibus (c. 316 §2, CIC 1917). Such an action by an Administrator would be gravely prejudicial to the rights of the Bishop and present a clear conflict of interest and competence by the Administrador.

    In addition to this, there is the longstanding, indeed immemorial canonical principle that during the time of an Administrator nihil innovatur.

    This understanding of Archbishop HON's office has been confirmed for me by a number of canonical experts, but far more importantly, you yourself assured me when we met, on two separate occasions before Archbishop Hon arrived in Guam, that the Apostolic Administrator's powers would concern only the pastoral duties of the Archdiocese while the process of verifying the credibility of the accusations against me was proceeding. This assurance of yours gave me the necessary peace of mind to remain in Rome to face the allegations.

    It is my most urgent concern that Archbishop HON has, on multiple occasions, violated this assurance, and the most basic principles of his office, causing real, grave, and immediate: damage to my good name; prejudice to my ability to defend myself against the malicious accusations to which I have been subjected; and impediment to my ability to resume stable governance of my archdiocese when this process ends.

    He has done this through the following:

    On June 15th, 2016, by Decree, he rescinded a penal precept and a general decree legitimately placed by me against Deacon Martinez and Concerned Catholics of Guam - parties who have publicly, intentionally and maliciously made false allegations, of the most serious kind, against me and, though warned several times, have not retracted them. By this act he has effectively given credence to their unfounded slanders, further prejudicing my ability to defend myself [Cf. attachment 1 and 2].

    On June 17th, 2016, he requested the resignation of all the officials, pastors and vicars of the Archdiocese. This action not only sought to compel an act that can only be voluntary and severely compromises the ordered functioning of the archdiocese, depriving it of all its appointed officials, but this action gravely and directly injured my good name by suggesting that all the appointments made by me were somehow tainted, either by poor judgment or even corruption. This action has created a grave disturbance among the clergy, and terrible confusion among the faithful, and it gravely jeopardizes my ability to defend myself and resume the stable governance of the diocese [Attachment 3].

    On June 17th, 2016, Archbishop HON enjoined the Presbyteral Council, with the authority of his office, to write to me demanding my resignation as Archbishop of the diocese. And further, to petition the Holy Father to request the same from me. This is an extraordinarily prejudicial act against my person. It is in stark violation of all canonical principles of his office and far exceeds the scope of his authority.

    On June 23rd, 2016, he informed the Presbyteral Council that he had delegated the same above-mentioned Deacon Stephen MARTINEZ, a man against whom I previously had issued a canonical precept for clerical disobedience to me and for public slander against me, to collect testimonies relating to the unfounded allegations of sexual abuse of minors made against me. By instructing MARTINEZ, he has appointed my accusers to be my investigators. By interfering in this matter at all he has involved himself in a matter which is the proper and exclusive competence of the Congregation from the Doctrine of the Faith, to whom the matter had already been presented.

    By this one action, Archbishop HON has completely prejudiced the process of justice against me, interfered in an ongoing investigation by the CDF in which Archbishop HON is absolutely incompetent to act, and discredited the entire investigative process.

    Given the severity of these actions, I had no alternative but to write to Archbishop HON, asking him:

    To immediately revisit these decisions which have so gravely disturbed the Archdiocese, exceeded his scope of authority, and been so prejudicial to my person;

    To refrain from any further such actions which would similarly disturb the good of souls in the Archdiocese and cause me personal injury;

    Immediately present me with a copy of his decree of appointment and all the instructions from your Congregation which accompanied it directing the exercise of his office.

    This was done on 1 July, 2016 [Cf. Attachment 4]. Unfortunately, I received a response, by means of an informal email [Cf. Attachment 5], from Archbishop Hon on 9 July, 2016, in which he rejected the canonical definition and authority of his office, assuring me that my understanding of his role was “by no means applicable to [him].” He insisted his actions in the diocese and against me were justified and within his scope of authority. He stated that he would immediately send scanned copies of the documents which I requested, but he has failed to do so.

    Since his response, he has proceeded to further and graver actions against me, engaging a civil law firm to treat with my accusers on behalf of the Archdiocese. In his negotiations with this law firm, and in all his contact with me, he has continued to demand my resignation. 

    Given that he has refused to comply with my reasoned requests, and having given him due notice of my intentions should this be his decision, I hereby make canonical recourse to you in accord with the norm of canons 1737 and 1735 of the Code of Canon Law. 

Therefore, I ask that you: 

    Instruct Archbishop HON to immediately amend or revoke those acts of governance, as listed above, which have proven gravely prejudicial to my person, and direct him to refrain from further interfering in matters which touch the person of the Archbishop of the diocese and/or are the exclusive competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; 

    Furnish me with copies of the decree of appointment and instructions for the exercise of office given to Archbishop HON for his role as Apostolic Administrator sede plena, 

    Suspend Archbishop HON from the further exercise of that office, and proceed to his removal and replacement with one willing to respect the dignity of that office, the integrity of the Archdiocese, the good of souls, and the rights of the Archbishop. 

    Your Eminence, I am innocent of the allegations made against me. Furthermore, I have amassed a substantial body of proof which establishes that the allegations made against me are not only malicious and false, but financially corrupt and the fruit of a plot to undermine the good governance of the Archdiocese and gain possession of archdiocesan property for sale to a gambling syndicate for the construction of a casino. 

    I assure you again that I am innocent and that nothing, neither public slander nor any amount of inappropriate pressure from episcopal colleagues, will induce me to resign. I see clearly the need to defend to the last not only my good name, but the welfare of the people of my Archdiocese, whom I will on no account abandon. 

Servus tuus, 

Most Rev. Anthony Sablan Apuron OFM Cap. Archbishop of Agana 

JOHN PAUL II IN GUAM - 1981

Copied from Clare Calvo's Facebook post.

 

Apuron appears here.

VATICAN 2 SAYS...

From a comment by Chuck White, originally posted here.

Yes, this (post) describes a dominant form of clericalism. But there's another form too where good and well-intentioned lay persons are tempted to believe that the highest meaning of their vocation is to serve in the sanctuary. This is a form of clericalism.

How about this quote from the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium:

"31. ...What specifically characterizes the laity is their secular nature...the laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God. They live in the world, that is, in each and in all of the secular professions and occupations. They live in the ordinary circumstances of family and social life, from which the very web of their existence is woven. They are called there by God that by exercising their proper function and led by the spirit of the Gospel they may work for the sanctification of the world from within as a leaven. In this way they may make Christ known to others, especially by the testimony of a life resplendent in faith, hope and charity. Therefore, since they are tightly bound up in all types of temporal affairs it is their special task to order and to throw light upon these affairs in such a way that they may come into being and then continually increase according to Christ to the praise of the Creator and the Redeemer."

How about lay people stepping up in the secular world around them. We don't have to wait for Father's permission for everything.

BLOGGER ACCUSED BY WIFE

By Tim Rohr

Every once in a while (thankfully not as often as before), someone who doesn't know me - or who has something against me - "googles" my name, and, like what happened today, the trash about me being a wife-beater and child-molester of my own children comes up.  

In those days (2018), it was my own lawyer who was my worst enemy. I could have easily discredited those allegations with a single statement; however, my lawyer (one of six I would eventually retain - not including myself) threatened me to remain silent, and at the time, I trusted my lawyer - something I will never do again.

I would learn later that my then-lawyer had a reason for her threat, a reason I will not get into here; however, let's just say that when I threatened to sue her for legal malpractice, she gave me my retainer back to get rid of me. (I have all the documents.) I could have sued for much more, but I had other matters on my mind at the time.

Meanwhile, the damage was done. Not so much to me. I could handle it. But to my children. Once, during a visitation with my son, William, who suffers from multiple disabilities and who was being functionally held hostage half a world away at the time, he (William), who was very good with his iPad, showed me his screen and said, "Dad, what's this?"

It was a picture of his mother and me on the front page of a KUAM story titled "Blogger accused by wife."  

I will link it here in case you want to see.

It was all lies, of course, but, as I said, the damage was done. 

And the damage was done by Krystal Paco, who couldn't resist "breaking" the story, even though it was absolute nonsense. I have the complete text exchange with Krystal. She told me that she had learned of my wife's accusations via an "anonymous tip." And when I asked her to hold off on the story, she replied that she did not want to get "scooped." 

So she ran the story, and it got picked up by every other media outlet but one. Haidee at the PDN refused to do a hit piece on me. When I asked her if she was going to, she replied:

Haidee and I, even though we had been on good terms previously, were not on good terms at the time, so it would have been easy for her to jump in and kick me when I was down, as Krystal did. But she didn't. 

Once again, I have all of this in texts, in case Krystal or anyone else wants to challenge my claims. Krystal, by the way, was soon rewarded for her trashing of me - a very public opponent of then-candidate for governor Lou Leon Guerrero- when she was appointed Lou's Director of Communications after Lou won the election.

I only bring this old stuff up today because it happened again today - the trash from nearly a decade ago, remaining on the internet, thanks to a reporter who didn't want to get scooped. 

There's more to the story, though. A certain group of priests were in on it. 

This was May 2018. Apuron had just been found guilty by the Vatican, and I was the main mover in outing him. Apuron planned to appeal and demonstrate that he had been framed by "Tim Rohr and his associates," and that I was colluding with a Chinese gambling interest to steal the "Yona Property" (the old RMS seminary) from the Neocats to install a casino there. 

Amazing, but true. Not true that there was an alliance between me and a gambling interest. But true that this is what Apuron and the Neocats accused me of. And, at the time, it was in the news.

So I know where Krystal's "anonymous tip" came from. And it's why I won't let the Neocat thing go.

CLERICALISM IN THE PHILIPPINES

By Fr. Jeffrey Dawa Habado

Copied from his Facebook Post. See FB post for comments. 

CLERICALISM: How it has become a hindrance to the realization of PCP II's vision for the Philippine Church

Clericalism is a religious mindset and institutional culture where ordained ministers (bishops, priests, and deacons) are placed on an exalted pedestal, exaggerating their authority at the expense of the laity. 

It fosters a sense of entitlement, elitism, and superiority among the clergy, while reducing laypersons to a passive, submissive role where they merely listen and obey rather than actively participate in the Church's mission.

The identification of clericalism as a primary hindrance to the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP II) vision is a collective consensus strongly put forward by the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and various local theologians.

What is Clericalism?

According to definitions highlighted by Pope Francis and Church leadership:

The Core Definition: It is an elitist and exclusivist vision that treats Holy Orders as a form of power to be exercised rather than a generous service to be given.

The "Two-Way Street": It is not just driven by arrogant priests; it is reinforced by laypeople who are overly deferential, treating clergy as the "sole actors" of the Church.

The Impact: It devalues the grace of baptism. It isolates the hierarchy from the ordinary "flock," causing the poor and marginalized to suffer from a lack of true pastoral accompaniment.

Clericalism as a Hindrance to PCP II

In 1991, PCP II set a revolutionary vision for the Philippine Catholic Church: to become a "Church of the Poor" and a "Community of Disciples". 

This vision relied heavily on empowering the laity and proliferating Basic Ecclesial Communities (BECs).

However, over successive evaluations—such as the National Pastoral Consultation on Church Renewal (NPCCR)—and modern reports linked to the Synod on Synodality, the Philippine Bishops collectively confessed that clericalism is the root cause preventing this vision from fully flourishing.

The CBCP noted that because many priests still refuse to share decision-making power and maintain a culture of entitlement:

The Laity remains marginalized in actual church governance.

The "Church of the Poor" becomes compromised, as wealthy donors are often favored over the impoverished populace.

True dialogue is blocked, stalling the consultative, servant-leadership model that PCP II originally mandated.

Notable Philippine Bishops Who Addressed Clericalism

Jose Cardinal Advincula (Archbishop of Manila)

Cardinal Advincula explicitly named clericalism as a threat to the Church's vision. He warned that "there is the shadow of clericalism that distorts ministry into privilege and weakens the baptismal dignity and co-responsibility of the faithful." He noted that this mindset serves as an obstacle to the Church's mission because it blocks the voices of the laity, the young, and those on the margins from being heard in decision-making.

Pablo Virgilio Cardinal David (Bishop of Kalookan)

As a chief advocate for a participatory Church, Cardinal David has frequently criticized how clericalism stunts the laity. He warned that in a clericalistic Church, laypeople will never see themselves as active agents of evangelization. He stressed that treating priests and bishops like royalty creates an unhealthy divide, leaving the laity dependent rather than empowered to share in the Church’s mission.

Archbishop Julius Tonel (Archbishop of Zamboanga)

During a gathering of Mindanao clergy, Archbishop Tonel strongly warned priests that clericalism and entitlement undermine the Church's mission. He directly called clericalism and complacency "killers of lay participation," pointing out that a culture of privilege leads to a failure to listen to the community. 

ANY QUESTIONS?

By Tim Rohr

In case you're wondering why Jimenez is playing nice with the NCW...

The NCW, pursuant to their catechetical directory, is required to give the bishop 1/3 of the proceeds from each 2nd scrutiny. If every community averages 20 members and each member gives an average of $ 15,000 in cash or equivalent, that’s $300,000, of which $100,000 goes to the bishop. 

On Guam alone, about 20 communities have been formed, so that’s $2 million to a bishop who allows the NCW. 

Any questions?

BTW

Fr Luis Camacho had until 2/2/26 to file his appeal with the Vatican. It has now been 7 months since that deadline. It’s hard to believe the Vatican hasn't acted on that appeal yet. Have they concurred with the other two findings of guilt? And if so, why is it being hidden from us? 

You know if he was cleared, we would have heard about it in our faces.

FANOHGE CHAMORU PUT I TANO'-TA!

By Tim Rohr

The following was sent to JungleWatch anonymously:

Inexperienced workers dismantled and removed the sacred relics believed to include the cassock of Father San Vitores from the Cathedral and transported them to Blessed Diego Church in Tumon.

The relic was removed from its protective glass and placed on the floor without reverence. Workers handled these sacred relics without knowing their true significance. This was not their fault. They were hired to dismantle, remove, and deliver them. They simply did what they were told to do.

After placing the relics on the floor, they loaded the display case into the back of a pickup truck. To the inexperienced eye, this may look innocent enough, but to someone like myself, familiar with the proper handling and preservation of museum artifacts, this is a disaster.

The clothing and the Martyr’s letter were placed back into the glass case in the back of the pickup truck, exposed to the elements, including direct sunlight and intense heat. The oil painting commissioned by King Juan Carlos as a gift to the people of the Marianas was placed to the side of the pickup truck and exposed to sunlight and potentially to rain, scratches, and other damage.

Why were these sacred religious artifacts not transported in proper acid-free archival containers and protected from the sun’s intense light and heat? Since they were transported during the day and inside a glass display case, the temperature within that enclosed case could have risen significantly above the outside temperature. Such conditions can be extremely damaging to historic textiles, documents, paintings, and other fragile materials.

The ink on the letter may now be at greater risk of fading, while the cassock, exposed to moisture, salt air, light, and sudden changes in temperature and humidity, may deteriorate more rapidly. As an experienced curator for almost all of my professional life, I consider this a disaster. Whoever orchestrated or authorized such a brazen transfer of these sacred relics should be held immediately accountable. These sacred relics are important to the people of Guam and especially to the local Church pursuing his sainthood. 

What if the transport vehicle had been involved in an accident? The cassock could have been damaged by broken glass, thrown onto the roadway, exposed to direct sunlight, or soaked and drenched by rain. The original letter of Father San Vitores could have been irreparably damaged by exposure to sunlight or water.

This recent exposure to light and heat may accelerate the deterioration process of both the cassock and the letter.

Why was there no professional supervision present? Why was there no museum curator present? Why was there no priest present to supervise the transfer of these sacred relics?

And now that these sacred artifacts have been moved to the church in Tumon, was a professional curator consulted regarding their proper handling, preservation, and display? Are they protected from direct and indirect sunlight? Is the room in which they will be placed temperature- and humidity-controlled? What safeguards are now in place to ensure that these irreplaceable pieces of our religious relics are preserved for future generations?

This is yet another deeply troubling action under the leadership of the new Archbishop. For many in our community, actions such as these raise serious questions about whether sufficient respect is being shown toward the religious, historical, and cultural identity of Guam’s indigenous CHamoru people.

If reports concerning remarks you allegedly made about the CHamoru people of Guam are accurate, Archbishop, then we deserve a clear and public response. The people have a right to ask whether our identity and sacred history are being preserved and respected by you, Archbishop.

It is time for the CHamoru people to stand up for the preservation and protection of our sacred religious and cultural heritage.

Fanohge CHamoru put i tano’-ta!

HOW HENRY VIII GAVE US RU-486

By Tim Rohr

In the late 1990's to early 2000, I was a regular columnist for the official newspaper for the Archdiocese of Agana, then called "The Pacific Voice."  In early 2000, I wrote a column that got me fired. There were probably other reasons, but this particular column stirred up the controversy that got me canned. 

The memory of this only came to me today when a friend posted a link to an article on the same topic, in which the author takes a position very similar to what I had posited in 2000. 

I wasn't surprised the article got me canned. What I wrote directly challenged what was being taught as "science" in our Catholic schools, and still is. So, 26 years later, I am sharing it here. 

HOW HENRY VIII GAVE US RU-486

By Tim Rohr
In the Pacific Voice, 10/29/2000

Recently my wife approached me with a quandary that had been prompted by a question from one of our children. 

It’s a question that has caused great consternation in some quarters of the believing world for almost two centuries. 

And one man’s answer has led to the destruction of an inestimable number of human beings. 

The question was this: “If God made the world in seven days, when did He make the dinosaurs?” 

The question was, once again, the classic conflict between the literal account of Genesis and the findings of modern science.

I think most Catholics understand that we do not believe in a literal “seven days”. After all, the sun wasn’t even created until the third “day”, so how could there be a “day” in our understanding of the word, if there was no sun to rise or set the first two days? 

What’s important for us is not how God created the universe, or how long He took doing it, but that He DID it...by whatever means He chose.

Unfortunately, our license to overlook the literal interpretation of Genesis has opened the door of our Catholic schools and textbooks for Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection. 

I say unfortunate, because though these theories technically remain only theories, they have entrenched themselves in our curriculums as plausible if not fact and we find ourselves unwittingly teaching our children a lie. A lie, that as I said, has led and continues to lead to the destruction of an inestimable number of human beings.

I will explain the destruction thing in a minute. But first, before the academicians unload their professional wrath upon this layman, allow me to recommend that they and all teachers and parents read the book Did Darwin Get It Right-Catholics and the Theory of Evolution by George Sim Johnston. 

Mr. Johnston simply brings out what scientists have known all along: that there is simply no empirical evidence for Darwin’s theories either in the fossil record or in laboratory experiments. 

Both give evidence to certain mutations within a species, but after more than 160 years of paleontological research since the “Voyage of the Beagle” there is not a single fossil record, as Johnston says, that can convincingly document a single transition of one species to another. 

Fish stubbornly remain fish. Or as Chesterton said, “Darwinists seem to know everything about missing links except for the fact that they are missing.”

I would love to go into all the scientific stuff that the book puts forth, but space won’t allow and I want to get to my point. 

What’s rarely discussed about Darwin was that he was first a philosophical materialist, an agnostic with an agenda to rid the universe of a Creator, and then a scientist. I will refer my critic to the above-mentioned book for supporting arguments of this.

One can trace Darwin’s hostility towards religion back through two generations of his family tree. My leap backward to Henry VIII and forwards to RU-486 is purely imaginary. But it looks something like this. 

As you know Henry canned his marriage in an act of pure defiant disobedience and “un-poped” himself. In effect, this paved the way for every member of his church to do the same. And, by the time Charles Darwin was born a few centuries later, a large segment of the English population had “un-poped” themselves right out of any faith at all. 

Darwin’s theory of evolution as documented in his Origin of Species was the perfect scientific antithesis to Genesis, and it was un-scientifically pounced on and promulgated by atheists, agnostics, materialists, and other scientists with an anti-religious agenda.  

Within the Origin of Species are the theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest, neither of which is there the least empirical evidence for, but nevertheless became the mantras of irreligious ideologues from which were spawned such perverted thinkers as Marx, Hitler, and Stalin. 

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest were natural rationales for Hitler’s genocidal attack on the Jews and Stalin’s reign of extermination (neither of which, by the way, come close to the number of murdered pre-born’s in this country alone as sanctioned by our own Supreme Court).

I again make another leap forward to RU-486. The theory of natural selection seems to have “evolved” into just plain “selection." Abortion, by whatever means, allows us to select who will live and who will die and survival of the fittest now reads survival of what is personally convenient and economically feasible. 

Is it any wonder that the same company (IG Farben) which manufactured the poison gas Zyklon B used in the Nazi concentration camps invented RU-486 

I’m not going to argue against RU-486 for I would be preaching to the choir, at least in this publication, but I am arguing for an intellectually honest review of the inclusion of the Darwin’s theory of evolution in our Catholic curriculums as a plausible explanation for the created world. 

Could it be that our unquestioning embrace of Darwinism and natural selection has actually provided the rational platform for the increasing (now 33%) number of Catholics who believe a woman should be allowed to have an abortion for any reason?

If Mr. Johnston is correct, and I believe he is, then there is simply no scientific evidence for Darwinism, and it should be taught as such. 

However, Mr. Johnston points out that there is plenty of scientific evidence for what he calls the “abrupt introduction of species”, a theory that fits perfectly with Genesis. 

Will get to that another time. Meanwhile, it’s just nice to know that some distant uncle wasn’t a monkey.

+++++

PS. A decade later, in 2010, The Pacific Voice, now named Umatuna, brought me back as a columnist. I lasted another three years and got canned again. But it didn't matter. By then there was JUNGLEWATCH :) Most of the columns from those years are posted at this blog. 

HAROLD STILL "OFF-ISLAND"

By Tim Rohr

To JW's regular readers. Apologies if things seem a bit quiet. They aren't. However, 99.9% of my energies are committed to writing the long-awaited and much-needed book, currently titled:

ORCHESTRATED

How a blog and the laity took down an archbishop and exposed the largest clergy sex abuse scandal, per capita, in the whole Catholic world. 

The book, of course, is already written on this blog for the most part over nearly ten years, with 5000+ posts and 60,000+ comments. Assembling it all into a single book as part of a comprehensive story is the challenge. 

Meanwhile, I will try to keep up with the news from time to time, including this:

On August 29, 2026, Archbishop Jimenez released an Aviso stating that Fr. Junee Valencia is appointed as Spiritual Director of the Guam Cursillo Movement, and Fr. Danilo Trajano is appointed as Parochial Vicar of San Vicente Ferrer and San Roke Parish, Barrigada. 

However, no mention is made of any appointment for Apuron-Best-Buddy, Fr. Harold Colorado, who recently returned to Guam. As of today, Jimenez's website states that Harold is still "off-island."

Interesting timing for his return, as well:

THE LINK BETWEEN CLERICAL SEX ABUSE AND HOMOSEXUAL CLERGY

By Gene Thomas Gomulka

If I grew up in a home in which I witnessed my father abusing my mother, might I, after I marry, likewise be abusive toward my wife? So many of our problems as adults stem from childhood experiences. While some people become alcoholics after being raised in a home where one or both parents were addicted to alcohol, other people, traumatized by that childhood experience, never touch a drop of alcohol. This pattern also applies to clerics, including popes, bishops, and priests, who were sexually groomed/abused before they were ordained, often in Roman Catholic seminaries.

FULL ARTICLE