THE "THEY" ARE STILL HERE

By Tim Rohr

In a Pacific Daily News Article dated November 15, 2016, Apuron, via the words of Carmelite Mother Superior, Mother Dawn Marie, spilled the beans and confirmed something most of us knew: that Apuron wasn’t running the archdiocese, that “Pius and they” were pulling all the strings. 

The article was titled: “Nun: We did not want to lie for Apuron, Sammut over Yona seminary property.” The article was about a lie Mother Dawn Marie had caught Apuron in. And, instead of joining in on the lie with Apuron - as he expected her to do - Mother Dawn called a press conference and told the whole story. 

You can read the whole story here. I want to focus on these words:

“Why did you send that letter indicating that we had donated that property and allowing for the deed of restriction when you know it was not true? He reacted, he said, ‘I’m not the one who did it. Pius and they did it. They framed the letter,'” the Carmelite mother said.

• The "He" in "He reacted" is Apuron
• "Pius" is Fr. Pius Sammut (aka Pius the Putrid or The Stinking Monk)
• "They"... well that's the important part. Apuron and Pius are gone. The "They" are still here. 

Pay attention. "If you see something, say something." 

THIRTY FIVE MEEEELLIONS AND MEEEEELLIONS!!!

By Tim Rohr

In THE MANY NAMES OF RMS, Anonymous asked further questions about how much RMS actually cost to run. Coincidentally, I found the answer soon after Anonymous asked the question. 

The question was answered by the RMS Board of Directors on Oct. 11, 2016, in their response to the Visitation Report of RMS of Sep. 12, 2016:

"Subsidy from the Archdiocese to the RMS and the Theological Institute has been an average of only 5% of the total budget."

Given that the average subsidy from the Archdiocese was $105,543 per year and accounted for only 5% of the budget, the annual budget to run RMS was $2,110,086. RMS ran for 17 years. 

The cost: $35,871,472. 

THIRTY FIVE "meeeellions and meeeeellions." !!!

And how many priests did that give us?

CATECHISM BE DAMNED

By Tim Rohr

It's truly hard to keep up with - and make sense of - what continues to pour forth from the so-called "Archdiocese of Agana." I say "so-called" because most everything that is officially said on archdiocesan letterhead continues to be from no one in particular and, at most, is attributed to a Director of Communications, who, by virtue of his job, is simply posting whatever he is being told to post. So it appears we have NO ONE running this diocese. So very unprofessional. 

The most recent posting is this:

As you can see, this Aviso, like most others, is authored by no one, but is...

Sent by Tony C. Diaz, Archdiocese of Agana Director of Communications, (671) 562-0065,

tony.diaz@archagana.org

This is just bad form. WHO is writing these things? Archbishop Jimenez...is it you? Could you please say so? Thanks.

But on to some of the points in this missive.

The first point is as follows:

• First, the archbishop has appointed Ms. Connie Shinohara as Executive Secretary to the Archbishop. She will serve on a voluntary basis effective May 17, 2026.

Before proceeding, today, this exact date, came to mind (my mind). Ten years ago, to the day, May 17, 2016, the first formal "Apuron accuser" stepped out onto an Agana street and accused Archbishop Apuron of sexually molesting him when he was an altar boy in Agat in the 1970's. 

You know the rest of the story. Not a good date to bring up in the history of the Archdiocese of Agana, but then, what does Jimenez know (or care) about our history...since he, most probably, is just passing through, a stepping stone to the Vatican - at least that is what more and more people are beginning to suspect. 

In case Jimenez needs a history lesson, here is what happened on May 17, 2016: 

Former Agat resident says archbishop molested him 40 years ago

Upon seeing the announcement about the appointment of Ms. Shinohara, apparently an unpaid volunteer, no less (see the announcement), Anonymous weighed in:

Anonymous

May 7, 2026 at 4:27 PM

Tim I fear you are on the right path about Archbishop Jimenez. This new appointing of Connie Jo Shinohara is very telling. Did the church’s stance on games of chance change? I don’t think owning House of Liberty game rooms and being Executive Assistant to the Archbishop go hand in hand.

I want you to know my response. And I'll tell you why after I post it:

Tim

May 7, 2026  at 5:06 PM

LOL. I didn't know that. I have nothing against Mrs. Shinohara. In fact, I support gaming and gambling, albeit within the strictures of the Catechism of the Catholic Church Par. 2413. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that Jimenez doesn't have a clue.

I don't think anybody knows this, but I originally "cut my teeth" standing up to Apuron, not over his sex abuse of minors, not over his mistreatment of Fr. Paul and Msgr. James, not over his secret alienation of the Yona Property, but over his abuse of us normal Catholics in the pews back in the days when he was triumphantly trying to make a name for himself amongst the protestant clergy by being their hero in their anti-gambling crusade. 

It's too far back to remember all the details, but Apuron, maybe (in hindsight), to recruit allies wherever he could, given his fear of ever being exposed, as he would be on May 17, 2016, became his own White Knight in his crusade against a proposal to bring gaming back to Guam. 

Apuron's campaign was intense. It was also a lie. From the pulpit, he forced pastors to read his letters proclaiming that gambling was a mortal sin. 

The Catholic Church does not teach this. The Catholic Church has never taught this. Here is, pursuant to my reference to the Catechism, what the Catholic Church magisterially teaches regarding "games of chance:"

2413 Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.

As anyone with a brain can see (you don't have to be Catholic), the Catholic Church, in the fullness of its wisdom, guided by the Holy Spirit, is ultimately pragmatic about "games of chance." But Apuron didn't care. The issue was making him a hero amongst the "born-agains." And since he was so openly despised by the majority of his own (for shamelessly raping their sons - as we would eventually learn), he used and abused his own by forcing his pastors, from the Sunday pulpits,  to make a new mortal sin out of gaming. 

I remember confronting one of these pastors with a copy of the Catechism opened to Paragraph 2413. He threw me out. No surprise. He was a Neocat. And Apuron, the Neocat rubber stamp, had to be protected at all costs. Catechism of the Catholic Church be damned. 

I'VE BEEN SHUT DOWN

By Tim Rohr

If you have been looking for me on Facebook or Instagram, my accounts have been shut down since the beginning of May. On May 4, I filed an appeal, but have heard nothing back despite several follow-ups. 

I can create a new account, but I want to wait a few more days. I've been on Facebook since 2009, have made over 40,000 posts, and have 1,600 friends. Additionally, I've created several groups and pages, which I manage. 

This sort of thing happens when someone files a complaint. It's happened before; however, my account was usually restored right away. Not this time. 

There are only two possibilities for the complaint: 1) My JungleWatch posts - specifically those about the NCW, which, as you can see from this blog, have been increasing in frequency and intensity as research for my book continues to unearth items I had forgotten about; and 2) my personal posts about parental alienation and parental estrangement. 

I can see why those posts would bother certain "readers." And I know people in both camps who want to silence me. 

We shall see what happens with Facebook. In the meantime, I would encourage you to check here on JungleWatch for updates, as well as my Substack.

Thank you for following. 17 Million page views and counting. 

THE RMS FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME

By Tim Rohr

In THE MANY NAMES OF RMS, I noted that one of the names was a fictitious business name: The Redemptoris Mater Archiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam. 

The fictitious business name, otherwise known as a "DBA" (Doing Business As), was filed with Rev and Tax on Feb. 25, 2004. 

The Visitation ad hoc Committee report of September 12, 2016, noted the following about the DBA (emphases added):

"Many of the faithful are speculating on why the RMHF and RMS felt a need to hide behind a fictitious name like “The Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary.” There is speculation that the reason is to justify receipt of subsidies from the Archdiocese of Agana, and/or to fulfill the stipulation of the donor who desired to support an Archdiocesan seminary." 

Here is the document:

PDF

THE MANY NAMES OF RMS...AND WHY

By Tim Rohr

RMS, the former Neocat “seminary,” which was at the center of so much controversy in the days of the “Fall of Apuron,” had several names:

The Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary Redemptoris Mater - Dec. 8, 1999. Decree, signed by Archbishop Apuron

The Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Archdiocese of Agana (RMS) - Nov. 27, 2002, Articles of Incorporation filed with the Government of Guam

The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, Archdiocese of Agana (RMHF) - Nov. 27, 2002, Articles of Incorporation filed with the Government of Guam

The Redemptoris Mater Archiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam - Feb. 25, 2004. Certificate of fictitious business name (DBA) filed with the Guam Department of Revenue and Taxation

WHY?

Why the different names? In 2016, RMS "Inquisitors" attempted to answer that question. Here's what they said:

"Many of the faithful are speculating on why the RMHF and RMS felt a need to hide behind a fictitious name like “The Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary.” There is speculation that the reason is to justify receipt of subsidies from the Archdiocese of Agana, and/or to fulfill the stipulation of the donor who desired to support an Archdiocesan seminary." 

- Visitation ad hoc Committee Report, September 12, 2016, Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary Redemptoris Mater, Archdiocese of Agana, Guam, Pg. 7

However, I believe there is another reason for one of the names, and it's an indicator of what most of us knew all along. The name is "The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, Archdiocese of Agana" (RMHF). 

Notice that Apuron incorporated TWO corporations on the same day (November 27, 2002) for the same entity: 1) The Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Archdiocese of Agana (RMS); and 2) The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, Archdiocese of Agana (RMHF). 

From the aforesaid Visitation ad hoc Committee Report, Pg. 4:

"On November 27, 2002, the Archdiocese of Agana filed two separate Articles of Incorporation with the Department of Land Management, Government of Guam..." 

Now, why would he do that? 

You can Google it for yourself. There is a difference between a Seminary and a House of Formation:

Apuron (his Neocat handlers, actually) knew that if he openly called it a seminary, one day Rome would want to know if, in fact, it really was. It wasn't. It was never a seminary. A seminary, like an accredited college, must conform to established standards. RMS was never even close. 

According to the aforesaid Visitation Report, there are "Four Pillars of the Program for Priestly Formation:" 1) Human Formation; 2) Spiritual Formation; 3) Intellectual Formation; and 4) Pastoral Formation.

Here is what the Visitation Committee concluded about each:

1. Human Formation - The seminary seems to rely on a seminarian’s “walk” in the Neocatechumenal Way to be sufficient to meet the human formation criteria found in the PPF. (In other words, there was no program for formation in the "seminary" itself.) 

2. Spiritual Formation - There is a lack of integration into and appreciation of the broader Catholic community’s spiritual practices, such as the celebration of the sacraments outside of the neocatechumel liturgies and equitable support for other ecclesial charisms. 

3. Intellectual Formation - (The committee sets out 9 points. The following is a condensation.) 

• The seminary is dependent on visiting professors for many of the courses. 
• A structure of prerequisite course requirements for the appropriate sequencing of courses is lacking. 
• The seminary does not have a standard language of instruction. Proficiency in reading, writing, or speaking English for college-level work is not required. Translators are used. Some students and even professors struggle with English as their second language, potentially affecting comprehension of subject matter. 
• The Blessed Diego Theological Institute does not offer a U.S.-accredited bachelor’s degree, nor can seminarians earn a master’s degree through the institute. 
• There is a lack of consideration given to the educational diversity of the students. That is to say, distinction needs to be made between a high school graduate-seminarian versus a seminarian holding a college degree. 
• A liberal arts program of studies is lacking.

4. Pastoral Formation - The pastoral approach is predominantly shaped by the Neocatechumenal Way. New Evangelization” is understood narrowly in terms of the practices of the Neocatechumenal Way.

In other words, none of the four standards for priestly formation were being met at RMS because, in fact, it was never a seminary, and, at most, it was hardly even a "house of formation." 

However, given that Rome's standards for a "house of formation" were a lot looser, Apuron decided to create two legal entities: one, so he could cover himself to Rome (RMHF) and the other (RMS) because it would be easier to bilk money from us locals because of the word "seminary," and especially, as the Committee report pointed out, if it was called "Archdiocesan Seminary," which was its fictitious business name. 

So, how much money did Apuron and the Neocats' fictitious seminary cost us? Well, ultimately it would cost us mega-millions after the Apuron and the Neocats drove us into bankruptcy, but per the Committee Report relative to money raised for the fictitious seminary:

The average for these six years is $105,504.33 per year. And given that the report says we have been subsidizing Apuron and the Neocats' fictitious seminary since 1999 (17 years by 2016), the total could be estimated at $1,793,573.67. Nice. Very nice. 

While we are having to do bake sales, car washes, and take out expensive loans (from Apuron's favorite bank) to repair our broken down churches and schools, Apuron and the Neocats waltzed away with a cool TWO MILLION off our backs, making us think that we had, as the Neocats loved to call it: "A Seminary for Guam!" 

Once again, I must remind the reader. This isn't past history. This isn't old news. The Neocats are still here. And they are richer, more powerful, and more in control than ever, thanks to their new archbishop. (Emphasis on "their.")

One more thing

There's one more thing...a very important thing. I will copy this section from the Committee Report in full (Pgs. 12-13, emphases added):

Evaluation of candidates for Ordination

As with the Norms for the Admission of Candidates, the PPF clearly articulates a set of rigorous standards meant to guide seminaries as they develop and implement the policies and practices relative to seminarian evaluation in the Norms for the Continuing Evaluation of Seminarians (See PPF 273-289). These norms emphasize the importance of the ongoing assessment of each seminarian and advise that there be a number of opportunities for them to demonstrate their readiness to progress to the next stage in their formation. The PPF requires that individuals who are involved in the evaluation of seminarians are provided with clear criteria and expectations that they must follow to maintain a high level of rigor and quality.

Based on RMHF/RMS’s written description of the process used to evaluate seminarians, there seems to be little or no correlation between the Norms for the Continuing Evaluation of Seminarians as outlined in the PPF and their evaluation practice. The process for evaluation described by the RMHF/RMS lacks clear benchmarks of achievement, timelines and criteria for acceptable performance.

Furthermore, those charged with the informal and formal evaluation of seminarians seem to lack a prescribed framework for evaluation to help guide each of their processes. This lack of any formal evaluation structure may lend itself to inconsistent and subjective evaluation decisions that lack substance or any foundation grounded in what it means to be a well-rounded seminarian or those demonstrable characteristics required to progress to the next stage of formation.

A major consequence of an inadequate evaluation process calls into question the quality, accuracy and overall integrity of any evaluation decisions which subsequently may lead to the progression of candidates to ordination who are not ready and do not meet the standards and expectations articulated in the PPF, nor have the concurrence of the Faithful.

There you have it. For nearly 20 years, thanks to Apuron and the Neocats, we spent "meeeellions and meeeelions" (to quote a certain Neocat presbyter) to produce and ordain Neocat presbyters "who are not ready and do not meet the standards..." because they never cared about the standards. 

And they still don't.  

THE INQUISITION OF RMS

By Tim Rohr

Archbishop Savio Hon Tai Fai, the Vatican-appointed Apostolic Administrator who administered this archdiocese between the time Apuron ran away in May 2016 and the appointment of Bishop Michael Byrnes as coadjutor bishop in October 2016, made some big errors that cost him. But the one good thing he did while he was here was the ordering of an Inquisition on the Neocat's seminary, RMS. 

The church doesn't call it an Inquisition anymore. They call such investigations a "Visitation." Thus, we have:

Visitation ad hoc Committee Report

September 12, 2016

Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary Redemptoris Mater

Archdiocese of Agana, Guam

The full report can be accessed here. Of particular interest is what the "Inquisitors" reported on pages 6 and 7:

For the past several years, the “diocesan” identity of the RMHF and the RMS has been seriously challenged. There are four basic concerns regarding this matter:

1. A legal opinion by Attorney Jacques G. Bronze (see Appendix V) was presented to the Archdiocese of Agana and holds that the land which is currently being used by the RMHF and RMS is not owned by the Archdiocese of Agana. The Bronze study concludes: 

It is my opinion that based on Guam statutes governing interpretation of deeds and contracts, the property interest conveyed is an absolute conveyance of the entire fee simple title of the subject properties to RMHF, subject to a restraint in use.

This uncertainty of title is due to the Declaration of Deed Restriction issued on November 22, 2011. (See Appendix M) without the review of the Archdiocesan Finance Council nor approval from the Holy See, which is required if, in fact, the alienation of Archdiocesan property resulted from the Deed Restriction.

The clandestine nature of how the Deed Restriction was filed has driven the belief among the faithful that the “absolute conveyance” of the property was intentional. Furthermore, it made clear that the “Archbishop of Agana, Corporation Sole” on the one hand, is a separate legal entity from the 501(c)3 nonprofit RMHF and RMS, on the other.

2. The statutes of the RMS are specifically designed to form presbyters for the “New Evangelization” as understood by the Neocatechumenal Way. As a result the seminarians’ formation does not prioritize the importance of parish ministry, parish management and the general familiarity of the seminarians with parish life.

While the RMHF and the RMS is strictly Neocatechumenal in its formation program, it was canonically erected as “The Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary Redemptoris Mater” and legally operates under the fictitious name (dba) “Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary”, names which emphasize its affiliation with the Archdiocese of Agana but this is not substantiated in its program. While this may be interpreted as a lack of transparency, at best, the seminary’s harshest critics call it dishonest.

Many of the faithful are speculating on why the RMHF and RMS felt a need to hide behind a fictitious name like “The Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary.”

There is speculation that the reason is to justify receipt of subsidies from the Archdiocese of Agana and/or to fulfill the stipulation of the donor who desired to support an Archdiocesan seminary. 

 

NEOCAT HISTORY LESSONS CONTINUED

By Tim Rohr

Archbishop Jimenez, at least from his complete inaction on the Neocat problem, apparently believes in "can't we all just get along." So I'll be posting some history lessons for him so he knows what the Neocats have done and what they are still willing to do: lie, cheat, and steal. 

"…under Canon Law (canons 1290-1298) that in order for an archbishop to sell an archdiocesan property, he must first obtain the written consent of the Archdiocesan Finance Council, the College of Consulters, and the Vatican. Archbishop Apuron did not obtain our consent, let alone that of the College of Consulters and the Vatican, to transfer the Yona property to the RMS under a secretly recorded deed on November 22, 2011."

-FULL DOCUMENT from the former members of the Archdiocesan Finance Council who Apuron fired on Jan. 11, 2012.

BECAUSE JOHN'S CLAIMS WERE TRUE

By Tim Rohr

Readers of this blog will be seeing a lot of "old stuff," as I do the research for my upcoming book:

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. 

At least that's the working title for now.

A critical chapter in the book is devoted to John Toves, the first person to accuse Apuron of sexual abuse, not of himself, but of a relative, a close relative.

Why John chose to make his accusation in 2014 is a big part of the story, but you'll have to wait for the book to find out. Meanwhile, though, Toves never really had to prove his accusation. Apuron functionally admitted his guilt by doing the stupidest things in response. 

One of the "stupidest things" was hiring a law firm in California to threaten Toves:

The undersigned has been retained to represent the interests of Archbishop Anthony Apuron of Guam, particularly with respect to the defamatory conduct in which you have recently engaged. This letter serves as a demand to you to immediately cease and desist from making any further defamatory comments or publications against Archbishop Apuron's reputation and character. Your conduct has caused and continues to cause grave harm not only to Archbishop Apuron and the church in Guam but also to the universal Church. 

Your comments and published statements that Archbishop Apuron has engaged in unlawful conduct are patently false, and you have made these comments and published these statements with full knowledge of their falsity. Under California law, it is unlawful to engage in defamation of another's character and reputation, and your defamatory conduct subjects you to significant liability. 

Accordingly, we demand that you immediately cease and desist your unlawful defamation of Archbishop Apuron. If you do not comply with this demand, Archbishop Apuron will have to pursue all available legal remedies, including seeking monetary damages for harm to his reputation and character, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and an order that you pay court costs and attorney's fees. Your liability and exposure under such legal action will be considerable. 

Sincerely, 

Michelle R Neal 

LINK to the PDF

The letterhead for Michelle R Neal's law firm read: "Employment Law Council," and her law firm was located in Sacramento, California. 

We have to wonder if Michelle R. Neal isn't a Neocat. What other reason would Apuron have to retain her to go after John? According to Neal's online bio, she is, in fact, an attorney specializing in employment law in California. 

Michelle R Neal, Lawyer in SACRAMENTO, California | Justia Lawyer Directory

Michelle R Neal is a legal professional specializing in employment law. She has been associated with Employment Law Counsel from 2013 to 2022 and is currently employed by Employment Law Counsel, LLP. Her practice includes areas such as wage and hour issues, independent contractor status, federal and state family leave laws, sexual and other prohibited harassment, personnel policies, preventative employment practices, and wage audits and claims. 

Not only did Neal have no qualifications to threaten John regarding his claims about Apuron, but she also lacked jurisdiction in Guam. Apuron had his own attorney, the late Edward Terlaje. Why didn't Apuron use Terlaje to threaten John? I know why. Terlaje knew John's claims were true. 

By the way, John did not "cease and desist." 

FROM 2013

Finding interesting stuff from a while ago:

TimNovember 21, 2013 at 5:59 AM

The "missing episode" is not missing. It will soon be released. This is why the Archbishop has tried to silence me. It is not because of what I have posted, but what I have not YET posted.

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT HEARING OF DVR

By Tim Rohr

On Thursday, April 30, 2026, Senator Shelly V. Calvo held an Oversight hearing for the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR). 

Following is a copy of the Agenda:

1. How many Government Departments or Agencies has DVR enlisted for training of Clients?
2. How many Private Sector employers has DVR enlisted for training of Clients?
3. How many Clients has DVR interviewed and how many have been refereed for training with GovGuam Departments or Agencies?  Any suggestions to make this process more responsive to the needs of clients?
4. How many Clients has DVR interviewed and how many have been refereed for training with the Private sector?  Any suggestions to making this process more responsive to the needs of clients?
5. Does DVR need more Human Resources to assist with the delivery of service to their Clients?
6. Describe the purpose(s) for the Federal funds allotted to DVR?  How can DVR further meet the purpose for the use of funds so we could minimize the return of unused funds? 
7. Any suggestions to make DVR more responsive to their Client’s needs and to needs of GovGuam Departments or Agencies and Private sector employers? 

A recording of the full hearing can be found here: https://youtu.be/m2x5LfWy5_U

There were two parents at the hearing, myself and Katherine Duenas.

• Ms. Duenas' testimony is here: 
• https://youtu.be/m2x5LfWy5_U?si=2mo1F_rJ133RNWPf&t=9107
• My testimony is here: 
• https://youtu.be/m2x5LfWy5_U?si=Qt-nBFxuxtvB5k_h&t=9983

Written testimony may still be submitted up to 5 days after the date of the hearing (April 30) to officeofsenatorshellycalvo@guamlegislature.gov.