Below is what an anonymous comment was made under this blog, which can be found here.
"She then accuses the group of "archbishop-bashing," of spreading rumors and, incredibly, of having designs on the former Accion Hotel property for a casino. Herrero then offers a long apologetic as to the status of the property, referencing a recent legal opinion by a Denver law firm on Apuron's deeding control of the property to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, or RMS."
The casino thing and the CCOG's responsibility to address same-sex unions, etc., are too ridiculous to respond to, but Herrero's claims about the Denver opinion and the status of the "seminary property" cannot go unchecked.
Herrero tells us that "Redemptoris Mater belongs to the archdiocese." Actually, it does not. RMS is a legally constituted entity, a nonprofit corporation, incorporated under Guam law, wholly separate from the Archdiocese of Agana, which itself is a corporation (corporate sole).
Like any Guam corporation, RMS is wholly under the control of its board of directors. Apuron, as the sole incorporator and member, can replace the board, but the board could sell the property tomorrow without Apuron's authorization or even his knowledge."
Tim Rohr acknowledges that Anthony Apuron can replace the board. The Archbishop is the one who chooses the board and can even replace the board; yet, he believes that the board can sell the property without the Archbishops authorization or knowledge. Apparently, Tim Rohr forgot that the power lies in the person who chooses and can remove the board. This is the same concept used in every democratic government. Who is really in power......the Governor or the people who elected him? The Archbishop would place people on the board who agrees with him in the same way the majority of people would place in government the person whose ideals and policies they agree with. The board cannot sell the property without the Archbishop's authorization or knowledge because the Archbishop puts in place those who have no desire to sell the property. The fact that the Archbishop removed the former finance council who wanted to sell the seminary to pay off the debts in the Archdiocese proves that.
"Herrero says the CCOG is spreading a "silly lie" that the archbishop handed the seminary to the Neocatechumenal Way, or NCW, and that such an accusation is "silly" because the statute of the NCW prohibits the NCW from owning property.
Herrero apparently has no knowledge of Article 4 Section 2 of the NCW statute which permits the bishop to erect an NCW autonomous diocesan foundation, with juridical personality, regulated by its own statutes, recognized by civil authorities, and through which money and property may be channelled."
Apparently, Tim Rohr has no knowledge of Article IV, Section I, which states:
§ 1. The Neocatechumenal Way, being an itinerary of Catholic formation that is implemented in the dioceses through services freely given, has no material goods of its own.
So, why did he leave this information out? The NCW cannot own any material goods. Tim Rohr focused on Article IV section 2, which stated (bold is mine):
§ 2. When in a diocese it is considered useful to financially support initiatives and activities for the evangelization realized through the Neocatechumenal Way, the diocesan bishop, at the request of the International Responsible Team of the Way, will consider the suitability of erecting an autonomous diocesan foundation, with juridical personality, regulated by its own statutes, which will also be recognized by the civil authorities. This may also be supported by oblatory donations made by participants in the Neocatechumenal Way, as well as by foundations and other individuals.
It is not the NCW who will erect an autonomous diocesan foundation. According to the Statutes, it is the diocesan bishop who will erect it. The NCW will simply put in their donations from their own pockets. But nowhere does it say that the NCW is to erect it or own it.
"However, the CCOG is making no claim that Apuron gave the property to the NCW. Its only claim and concern is that Apuron deeded control of the property "for perpetual use" to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, a corporation separate from the Archdiocese of Agana, which has as its sole stated purpose the preparation of men for the priesthood "following the life and practice of the Neocatechumenal Way."
In addition, RMS's articles of incorporation and bylaws establish a board of guarantors which reserves for itself complete veto and approval power over the "most important affairs of the corporation" and requires that the board of guarantors always include the "Neocatechumenal Responsible Team for the United States." In short, the Neocatechumenal Way Responsible Team (currently Giuseppe and Claudia Gennarini and Fr. Angelo Poschetti) forever control RMS and RMS — as per Apuron's deed — forever controls the former Accion Hotel property (valued at $40 million-plus)."
If the board of guarantors include the Responsible team of the NCW in the U.S., then why is Tim Rohr worried that the property would be sold? Gone are his worries of the property being sold. What could be more important to the Neocatechumenal Responsible Team than forming priests in the new evangelization that "follows the life and practice of the NCW?"
It appears that Tim Rohr is REALLY not concern about the board selling the RMS property as he claimed a short while ago. So, what is his real complaint? Could it be that what Mari Flor Herrero's said about building a casino is not that far off?
"To understand why Apuron hired a Denver law firm to prove that he did not alienate the property when he clandestinely deeded control of it to RMS back in 2011, one must understand that church law requires Vatican approval for the alienation of property over a certain value and the subject property certainly exceeds that value. The law is in place to protect the patrimony of the Catholic faithful from being seriously harmed by rogue bishops.
Not only did Apuron not seek the approval of the Vatican before he deeded control of the property in perpetuity to RMS, he also bypassed the approval of other requisite diocesan bodies. Should it be proved that Apuron in fact alienated the property, he would be answerable directly to the pope, who would then have grounds for severe disciplinary action, including removal."
Does Tim Rohr have evidence showing that the Archbishop did not seek the approval of the Vatican before he deeded the property in "perpetual use?" Where is this evidence? What does Tim Rohr have to say about the Canon Law report, which was the third report mentioned? Why did he leave that information out? If the Archbishop did not seek the approval of the Vatican, then why didn't the Canon Law Report state that? According to the Canon Law report:
Third, the Canon Law Report - The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, which his the highest authority in the Catholic Church for interpreting the laws of the Church, was asked to provide a ruling on the land, building and title of the present Redemptoris Mater Seminary.
The Pontifical Council concluded that there was no alienation of the property even if the Archbishop transferred the title of the property to the RMS Corporation because "based on what has been said, it seems...devoid of truth to speak of sale or alienation of a diocesan patrimony in this context...it is also clear that the present assignment of this patrimony to the Seminary does not make it a real" alienation because the owner remains the same, namely the diocese or the Archbishop."
"Amazingly, Apuron sought the opinion of a law firm not licensed to practice law on Guam. But aside from a possible ethics violation, we can be sure that the Denver firm's opinion did not exonerate Apuron because if it did, Apuron would have made sure the opinion was posted on the archdiocesan website for all to see.
It was not. Instead, we were told that if we wanted to see it, we would have to go to the chancery.
The CCOG sent its attorney to take a look. Not only was the attorney not permitted to make copies, take pictures or even take notes, he was made to stand at the counter and read the entire 20 page opinion under the supervision of chancery staff, and the next day the document was completely withdrawn from public inspection.
Now do you see why there is a need for an organization publicly calling Archbishop Apuron to transparency and accountability?"
First of all, the Denver law firm is a very prestigious law firm that it would be difficult to dispute their findings. And why does Tim Rohr say that they are not license to practice on Guam. Does he know this for a fact? Did he see their license?
Secondly, the law firm did exonerate Apuron otherwise CCOG's attorney would already be taking the Archbishop to court. The Archbishop made a wise choice not to post the full report in the Archdiocesan website otherwise the information could be twisted around and misconstrued. We already see how information that was leaked out into the jungle was twisted around.
If CCOG's attorney actually believes that the RMS property does not belong to the Archdiocese of Agana, he can take the Archbishop to court. I am sure the Archbishop has his lawyers and documents ready to show that the RMS property does belong to the Archdiocese of Agana. CCOG's attorney, on the other hand, is going to have to show his documents (whatever that is). We have not seen any documents showing that the RMS property does not belong to the Archdiocese of Agana.