Five priests came forward, disagreeing with the Archbishop's public statement made on July 29, 2014. These priests included Father Tom McGrath, Father Jeff San Nicolas, Father Mike Crisostomo, Father Patrick Castro, and Father Gus Gumataotao. These five priests made up the Presbyteral Council and the College of Consultors. The public statement made by Archbishop Anthony Apuron was "I informed the Presbyteral Council, the College of Consultors about this situation, and they expressed their support."
Apparently, the "this situation" was interpreted by these five priests as the firing of Monsignor James Benavente. So, let us look closely at the Archbishop's entire letter, which was published in the Archdiocese website here. This is what the letter stated in its context:
Moreover, Deloitte & Touche has determined that the accounting practices, especially of the Catholic Cemeteries of Guam, Inc., are “inappropriate”. Deloitte and Touche, listing the cases of inappropriate accounting, concluded that an audit is not possible until appropriate accounting has been reestablished in The Catholic Cemeteries of Guam, Inc.
I informed the Presbyteral Council, the College of Consultors and the Archdiocesan Finance Council about this situation, and they expressed their support.
When taken into context, we can now see that the"this situation" the Archbishop was referring to was the audit findings of Deloitte & Touche. Taken out of context, it is easy to manipulate the readers into believing that the one sentence was referring to the firing of Monsignor James.
According to the letter( which those five priests signed) no mention of removing Monsignor James was ever discussed in the July 25th meeting that took place between the Archbishop and the Presbyteral Council and the College of Consultors. So, their letter matched what the Archbishop said to KUAM news. The July 25th meeting was a discussion about the financial report and review just as the Archbishop indicated to KUAM. He did not mention firing Monsignor James because he had not spoken to him yet.
At the July 25th meeting, the Archbishop presented to them the financial report regarding some major problems with the Agana Cathedral-Basilica and Catholic-Basilica and Catholic Cemeteries of Guam Inc. That was the main discussion in the meeting, and according to the Archbishop's letter and response, those five priests expressed their support to the Archbishop that some action must be done to correct those problems. So, those five priests who made up the Presbyteral Council and the College of Consultors agreed with the Archbishop that there was indeed some financial mismanagement, and some action needs to be done to rectify the problem.
The Archbishop's response is found in here. According to KUAM news:
Archbishop Anthony Apuron responds to a letter written by five Catholic priests calling on him to clarify statements he made in a July 29th press release regarding his reasons for the removal of Monsignor James Benavente.
According to Father Adrian Cristobal Archbishop Anthony Apuron had and still has every intention of meeting with Fathers Tom McGrath, Jeff San Nicolas, Mike Crisostomo, Patrick Castro and Gus Gumataotao. The five priests as we reported wrote a letter to the archbishop dated August 4th. They were seeking clarification on his statement in his July 29th press release explaining his decision to remove Monsignor James Benavente from his positions as rector of the Archdiocese of Agana and director of the Catholic Cemeteries. The basis for his removal? Allegations of financial mismanagement. In the statement the archbishop wrote, "I informed the Presbyteral Council, the College of Consultors and the Archdiocesan Finance Council about this situation and they expressed their support."
The five priests are part of that Presbyteral Council and in their letter to the archbishop said they disagree with his statement and it's connection with his decision to remove Monsignor James. As we reported they referred to a meeting they had with the archbishop on July 25th during which he presented the financial situation of the Archdiocese of Agana. The priests state the archbishop made no mention of his intent to remove Monsignor James and that they were not consulted on the matter. They also stated they had no opportunity to discuss or raise objection to his removal and that at no point during these proceedings was a vote or question on the matter placed on the table for discussion to come to the conclusion of our "expressed support of your decision to remove him".
According to Father Cristobal however, he tells KUAM today that the archbishop explained in detail the serious situation that the archdiocese found itself to the Presybteral Council during that july 25th meeting and he told the council clearly that he was going to take action.
Cristobal added a number of the priests expressed their surprise and concern. Many agreed that the archbishop needed to do something about the situation. The archbishop did not, and could not, tell them what specific action was going to be taken, because he had not yet spoken to the person/s involved. Father Adrian adds, "The Presbyteral Council is an advisory body and the archbishop is not required to seek their permission with regards to assignments of priests. What was written in the press release was correct." After receiving the letter of these five priests Father Adrian adds he had in mind to speak with them in a private meeting, and he still intends to speak with them. He could not do it earlier because he went to Korea for the pope's visit. Unfortunately this letter went public and even appeared on a blog somewhere.
You missed the last part. "Based on these findings, I have decided that a change in administration in these two entities, the Agana Cathedral-Basilica and The Catholic Cemeteries of Guam, Inc., is necessary and urgent to reestablish proper accounting practices and to complete the financial review, financial report and the audit". The archbishop didn't say what he was going to do and the council would have objected to it. AAA only reinstated the council after the Nuncio found out he wasn't consulting them on matters. Looks like AAA doesn't care for the Nuncio either. The assignment of priests isn't the matter at hand. It is maligning a brother priest with falsehoods. I predict the 5 did this to remove themselves for many upcoming lawsuits. Good on them.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 9:29 p.m.,
DeleteThe Archbishop wrote those words after he made the decision as to what needed to be done. On the July 26th meeting, he presented only the financial report to the Presbyteral Council and the College of Consultors, and that was the only thing that was discussed. The Archbishop most likely did not yet know what action needed to be taken, but knew that some type of action was necessary.
On the contrary, he consulted them on matters, which was he financial report that he brought forth on July 26th. And it appears that they agreed with the Archbishop that some type of action needed to be taken. Anthony Apuron is the Archbishop, and he is the only one who makes the final decision on what action needed to be taken.
I re-read the report from from Deloitte & Touche on the Archdiocese website, and no where in that the report did it mention about Msgr. James' removal. Archbishop's comment -- that was misunderstood by Presbyteral Council and the College of Consultors and the followers of JW -- was in reference to the financial situation of the Cathedral-Basilica and the Catholic Cemeteries, not Msgr. James! I believe it was intentionally misconstrued to portray our Archbishop to look like a liar.
ReplyDeleteDear In Jungwatch we do not trust,
DeleteI agree with you in that it was orchestrated to make the Archbishop look like a liar. In Junglewatch, Tim Rohr is now more concern about whether the Archbishop was going to call in these five priests or not. He did not say anything as to what these five priests agreed with the Archbishop during that July 26th meeting.
According to their letter, they met with the Archbishop about the financial report of D & T, and they supported the Archbishop about what was brought forth at that table. So, why doesn't Tim Rohr talked about that. I think what they supported the Archbishop on in that meeting was much more important as to whether the Archbishop was going to privately meet with those five priests or not.
Love it.
ReplyDeleteBut what about the June 26, 2014 letter from the Archbishop to Msgr. James Benavente that acknowledged the amount of corrective action that had been taken and requesting that the financial statements for the year ending 6/30/2014 be submitted? The financial experts stated that as of the writing of the 6/26/2014 letter four of the five issues raised by Deloitte & Touche already had been resolved and the last one would be completed by the time the statement would be submitted in August.
ReplyDeleteIf the Archbishop presented only the January D&T letter and didn't share his 6/26/2014 letter, the Presbyteral Council and College of Consultors didn't get all the information. Also those 5 priests who signed and sent the letter are not the only members according to the Archdiocese of Agana website. So while the Archbishop (actually Fr. Adrian, not the Archbishop) said that the Council and College supported his decision to take action, it doesn't mean those 5 were in agreement. Even though you wrote "those five priests who made up the Presbyteral Council and the College of Consultors agreed with the Archbishop," there are other members (Msgr. David C. Quitugua, Fr. Adrian Cristobal, Msgr. Brigido Arroyo, Fr. Joseph English, O.F.M., Cap., Fr. Jose Alberto Rodriguez, [College of Consultors who are also on the Presbyteral Council with] Msgr. David I.A. Quitugua, Fr. Lito Abad) in addition to the 4 who make up the groups mentioned. Fr. Mike is not a member of either group but is the ADCAA President.
Writing that the 5 priests "made up the Presbyteral Council and the College of Consultors" when there are as many as 12 in one of those groups is as misleading as the KUAM report that says the Archbishop responded when it was actually Fr. Adrian who did the talking. People have been wanting to hear the Archbishop speak for himself for over a year now. And we're still waiting.
Dear Wondering Why,
DeleteI apologize for the error in stating that the five priests made up the Presbyteral Council and the College of Consultors. I mentioned those five because they were the ones who wrote the letter to the Archbishop asking for clarification. The others did not sign their names. Apparently, they understood that it was the financial report that was brought forth to the July 26th meeting and it was the financial report that they supported the Archbishop on. The others understood what it was they agreed and supported the Archbishop on while the other 5 were asking for clarification in the Archbishop's public statement because they interpret it to mean the firing of Monsignor James.
From what I gather, more information is still coming in and it appears that the financial situation of those areas which Monsignor James was handling is a lot worse than we originally thought. It appears that the financial experts did not tell the entire story.
The other priest that did not sign we're neo priests. Now it makes sense.
DeleteThey were called to meet to discuss other matters and the Archbishop walks in reads a quick statement and doesn't leave room for opinions or consultation or questions. "That is not understanding" when you blind side them. The council was a bit lost and asked to adjourn? The others were not there cause they missed the meeting. They have no say in the battle. They didn't want to be a part of this corrupted action either. I agree with Diana, the financial matters are so bad the corruption it actually starts at the top with the seminary, the NCW, and Apuron. Rome it watching and taken lots of notes. Can wait for the financial report. BTW- Mr. Fitzgerald is a good friend of mine and he laughed at how Apuron is doing this and presenting this. The full audit will be made available and the people will see the truth about Apuron and his regime.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:16 a.m.,
DeleteAnd they did not need clarification for something they understood very clearly.
To Anonymous 6:16 AM
DeleteFr. Jeff was a "neo-priest" who was in a Yigo community, and he signed. Comments like yours only cause further division. What do you expect from all of this -- division or reconciliation?
Blaise - there is no intention for these guys for reconciliation but to destroy NCW and the Archbishop. Everything is a plot.
DeleteFr. Jeff is not RMS.
DeleteAsk Father Jeff if he wants yo be referred to as a neo priest. Get back to us on that. Ok?
Delete9:29 PM quoted "Based on these findings, I have decided that a change if administration in these two entities is necessary and urgent." Could the Archbishop be using the meeting to say he followed Canon Law by consulting with the Presbyteral Council? Maybe he didn't want Msgr. James to claim that he didn't follow due process like Fr. Paul did?
Delete7:18 AM says that other members missed the meeting. Who were missing? Could it be that apart from the 5 who signed the letter, only Msgr. David C and Fr. Adrian were there too?
Blaise, Fr. Jeff WAS a "neo-priest" but he was also at Msgr. James' first Mass at St Anthony, so maybe that's why he signed?
Dear Anonymous at 10:40 a.m.,
DeleteFather Jeff was walking in a community.
9:39,
DeleteYou say he "was". So is he still a neo priest? I'm talking about those that did not sign for the simple reason that the are Neos. And by the way, reconciliation starts at the top, and it will never happen as long as they continue to ram their Way down our throats. I might be more open if you can justify the removal of priest, the attempt to sign over the Yona property, the blatantly obvious favor for all things neo, and the disrespect for our culture, then I might consider sincere attempts for reconciliation initiated by the Archbishop.
Here we go again with the "neo" being the problem!!! So annoying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:20 p.m.,
DeleteFather Paul already took the case to Rome. Let Rome be the one to settle that, so you would not need the Archbishop to justify his removal. The removal of Monsignor Benavente was because of financial mismanagement. These justification has been given. Simply give the Archbishop enough time to gather all the information from D & T.
If you believe that reconciliation starts at the top, then why was information leaked at a closed clergy meeting? How can reconciliation even start when priests are now worried as to whether they are being recorded and whether their written letters would fall in the wrong hands only to be published in the jungle?
12:20 pm,
DeleteReconciliation starts with you, with us. When you start labeling individuals you only add fuel to the fire. I stand by our Archbishop and the decisions he's made. In time, he will speak and our questions will be answered. If I may ask: did you ever think that maybe our Archbishop believes in the Way for the simple fact that it saves lives? Why not share to the rest of the world this gift from God? Maybe it may not appeal to everyone but it would be a disservice to the island if he kept this gift to himself. Does he not deserve some credit for having the courage to answer to God's calling? You are called to do the same -- to share the love of God. This is the life of a Christian!
he accepted God's call when he said Yes in becoming a priest. and again when he was chosen as bishop....hence the title...to oversee all. I dont see him nor hear him talk this way. everything is lopsided...favoring ncw movement than others.
Deletehe should act, speak, and think as before....without this movement.
he doesn't have many friends and he is weak in leadership....so he enjoyed the attention given to him and PROMISE of priests by this movement. cant blame him.. really...just sad that he has to go through this mess just to save this movement.
bishop can do away with ncw and we would still have the catholic church....right?
@ AnonymousAugust 20, 2014 at 11:23 AM
DeleteI don't think any priest in his right mind would want to be referred to as a "Neo-priest", as there is no such thing.
I know diocesan priests who:
-were formed in a RM seminary and are recipients of the NCW itinerary
-were formed in a RM seminary and are NO LONGER recipients of the NCW itinerary
-were formed in a seminary OTHER than RM and are recipients of the NCW itinerary
-were formed in a seminary OTHER than RM and HAVE NEVER BEEN recipients of the NCW itinerary but support and help the NCW (among these you could count a number of popes and a great number of cardinals also)
Can I presume that some would call all these "neo-priests"? Well, they would be wrong. There is no such thing as a "neo-priest". Period.
Of course, it suits certain people to label these priests as part of their "brain-washing theory". It is so convenient to declare that all who disagree with you are brain-washed, so you don't have to take into account their opinion. It used to be the method of bolshevik communists to condemn people on account of their family background and upbringing. I hope it is needless to say that bolshevik communists represent an anthropology quite different from that of the Church. In that anthropology brainwashing is possible because they do not acknowledge the dignity and freedom of the human person.
Whoever says or presumes that I am brainwashed on account of being a member of the NCW, believes in an anthropology which is NOT Catholic Christian. And there goes the big fat problem of Tim, Chuck and the rest of them: they do not believe in Christian anthropology, they do not respect the dignity and freedom of human beings. By not respecting it in the recipients of the NCW, perhaps without even realizing, they do not respect it in anyone (including themselves, even their children, even including Christ). If NCW members can be brainwashed, then anyone can be brainwashed and there is no sense in dialogue whatsoever.
I heard you are a priest in the ncw. As a member of the ncw id like to know why we don't kneel during the eucharist?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 2:57 p.m.,
DeleteFirst of all, I am not a priest. Not kneeling is not a problem. There are many liturgies in the Catholic Church, and some of them do not involve kneeling. For example, the Eastern Catholics (who are in communion with the Pope) do not kneel in their Mass.
@ AnonymousAugust 20, 2014 at 2:57 PM
DeleteAsk yourself why you don't kneel, not "we". I am a member of the NCW and I do kneel and genuflect in front of the Blessed Sacrament exactly as it is laid out in the liturgical norms. If you don't do it, the only one you can blame is yourself.
The GIRM says that kneeling should always be the posture during the consecration. However, there are exceptions allowed. In cases where there are no kneelers, then the congregation is obliged to remain standing and to perform a reverent bow when the priest genuflects after consecration. One must also remember that we are to be the Mystical Body of Christ, the church, so our actions must be in unity, especially during a Eucharist. This is where the debate ensues. For example, you will not see "neos" standing during the consecration at the Sunday Parish Mass because it is expected that most in attendance are not in the "neo", making standing the lesser of norms and so to promote "unity" all will kneel during consecration.
DeleteOne should always remember to promote "Unity" during the Mass. We should be more than willing to put aside our "personal preference" in postures when celebrating as one. The Liturgy is not a personal action, it is communal in the sense that it is of the Church, a Sacramental Unity.
If you want to know why, ask your catechists. "Ask and you shall received" the answer. I asked.
Delete"Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia"
Those 5 priests who wrote the letter to the Archbishop are a bunch of wimps who cannot accept authority. They need to grow up!
ReplyDeleteFor example, the Eastern Catholics (who are in communion with the Pope) do not kneel in their Mass...
ReplyDeleteright but in their case they do not follow the Roman Rite, which applies to the masses we know here
Dear Anonymous at 7:51 p.m.,
DeleteBut in our case, we follow the Roman rite. The problem was not kneeling. The problem was the way we receive the Body of Christ, which was not in unity with the whole universal church (both east and west). That was corrected in 2008.
As Janet B alluded that the Way should be excommunicated innthe Catholic Church in Guam. Just like Japan. Little that she know, Japan Archbishop who as for the NCW til people complained.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 3:24 p.m.,
DeleteThe Way was not excommunicated in Japan. The Bishop there wanted to expel the Way, but the Pope intervened, so the Way stayed in Japan. The Way in Japan remained obedient to their Bishop even if he was against the Way.
eh?
DeleteYes.
Delete"Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia"
To Janet B - You cannot excommunicate an itinerary of Catholic Formation, you can only excommunicate a person or persons, you cannot excommunicate a juridic person. Please get your facts straight.
DeleteThe REAL issue here is about FINANCES: where did Msgr. Banavente get the money to buy a new Toyota Landcruiser under his name worth at least $40,000? Where did he get the money? What about the properties he bought in Dededo on both sides of his family house which is across the street from the lower church? We, the people of Dededo, are wondering where does a priest get this kind of money?. Is the salary of a Rector able to carry these rather large expenses? The 'Concerned-Catholics-of-Guam' (and of Dededo) who demand transparency are asking these questions. Can the Jungle explain this?
ReplyDeleteAnon 6:28 PM good question, back to Tim Rohr being part of payroll and the Cathedral in a 2 mil HOLE?
Deletewhy don't you ask about the house the Archbishop had in Vegas and then sold it? why does he have a house in adacao? why? why? why? where does he also get this money to own a house in Vegas? Vegas of all places....home of the gambling machines and strip joints!!!!
DeleteDear Diana:
DeleteI’m writing to address the question by Anonymous – August 21, 2014 at 6:28pm
I applaud you for bringing to the forefront that the issues are of finances. You are correct – the finances of the Archdiocese of Agana are the real issue. The divergence from there, however, is where I take issue.
Now, please allow me, if you would, to address your subsequent questions:
Where did Msgr. Benavente get the money to buy a new Toyota Landcruiser under his name worth at least $40,000?
Did he?
What about the properties he bought in Dededo on both sides of his family house which is across the street from the lower church?
I actually have a couple of issues with this particular question: firstly, our family business is certainly none of yours (unless the person writing this is Jessica Blas, in which case, turns out you are family…). How those homes were purchased is not for public consumption, however, please be assured that all of the funds used were acquired legitimately. We have the documentation to prove this, and will be sharing this information with the Archbishop for his private consumption. The second issue I have is a serious objection to your disclosure of where my family lives. Please, do come out of the shadows of “anonymous” so we know who to sue for this blatant disregard for our privacy. We have a pretty good attorney who just happens to be our Uncle – I do hope you have one as well.
We, the people of Dededo, are wondering where does a priest get this kind of money?
You know, I’m a member of his family, and I would never ask him that question because this is actually none of my business. Good on you for not being afraid of breaking down the barriers of good manners, though.
Is the salary of a Rector able to carry these rather large expenses?
Ibid.
The ‘Concerned Catholics of Guam’ (and of Dededo) who demand transparency are asking these questions.
Really? You’d rather know our family business than demand transparency for the finances of the Archdiocese? Fair enough, if you really want to know, please give us your name so we can serve you some documents.
Please know that just because my Uncle Father has remained publicly silent on many of these issues, his family doesn’t have to. We still stand behind him and know that his love for the Church, her people, and her teachings remains steadfastly intact. His calling to this vocation has been evident since we were children, and no amount of distraction – whether in the form of name-calling, false allegations, or removal from his former post – will shake that.
Oh! Forgot one more question in your list:
Can the Jungle explain this?
Actually, I’ll be posting this on the Jungle as well, in case it doesn’t show up here.
Most sincerely,
Melissa Leon Guerrero Do
Dear Anonymous at 11:11 a.m.,
DeleteHe probably sold the house and gave the money to the poor.
DeleteDear Melissa,
Why are you angry? People ask questions about the Archbishop's car and house all the time. And now an anonymous poster did the same, but this time is Monsignor James' car and house. Monsignor James has been in the news regarding financial mismanagement; therefore, it is only natural to ask about Monsignor James ' car and house.
Mismanagement? There were documents in black and white that were presented to show the injustice done by the Archbishop. Needless to say, people just can't accept it.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:58 p.m.,
DeleteFrom what I understand, there are more things surfacing about the finances that were not yet made public.
Diana August 22, 2014 at 5:37 PM
DeleteDear Melissa,
Why are you angry? People ask questions about the Archbishop's car and house all the time. And now an anonymous poster did the same, but this time is Monsignor James' car and house. Monsignor James has been in the news regarding financial mismanagement; therefore, it is only natural to ask about Monsignor James ' car and house.
----
I humbly request that these comments please stop inquiring about the obtainment of financial wealth made by our priests and Archbishop.
Quite frankly, it's none of our concern. No one goes to you and asks how you obtained your car, or your home, how you have X amount of cash in your account, how you spend your paychecks, and makes judgments or presumptions on your way of living.
The same respect should be given to our priests and our Archbishop. To the Anonymous poster asking about how Monsignor Benavente obtained his new car, or the other comments asking how the Archbishop obtained his property, knock it off and quite frankly it's none of your business.
And Diana, stop throwing fuel to the fire. All you have to do, and if you have any sense of decency, is to just take down the Anonymous posting asking about how Monsignor Benavente obtained his wealth, instead of chiding Ms. Melissa's comment with the "well people were asking about the Archbishop." Those should've been removed as well, because that's nothing more than nitpicking. To say that it's only natural for us to speculate what's going on because of the accusation that he's been removed due to financial mismanagement is just downright low.
By allowing a person to post something as ignorant as that is just begging for more anger, which juxtaposes your call for peace within the Church. So, I ask you please remove his/her comment, and filter out any other comments that call for a breakdown of our clergy's personal finances (bank accounts, private purchases, et al).
This is just a humble request to respect the privacy of ALL members of our clergy. After all, they're as human as we are, and deserve at least that much personal privacy and above all - respect, despite our opinions of them.