AnonymousJuly 7, 2015 at 2:49 PM
just out of curiosity, where is everyone getting the idea of msgr. James selling the seminary? That sounds a bit absurd to me. However, if he did indeed offer to sell it, I'm sure someone would provide proof...right?
There are a bunch of speculations going on between both blogs. I just wished that this blog would provide more concrete evidence of the accusations being said. Doing so, opposed to just speculating, will bring more credibility to this blog.
I'm not against this blog at all, nor am I against the jungle, however, the jungles seems to be dishing out real evidence such as the legal report of this bronze guy, in addition to several other files sent to him. Maybe the folks on this side can start passing "Diana" some concrete evidence to enhance the credibility here. That's just my suggestion.
There are a bunch of speculations going on between both blogs. I just wished that this blog would provide more concrete evidence of the accusations being said. Doing so, opposed to just speculating, will bring more credibility to this blog.
I'm not against this blog at all, nor am I against the jungle, however, the jungles seems to be dishing out real evidence such as the legal report of this bronze guy, in addition to several other files sent to him. Maybe the folks on this side can start passing "Diana" some concrete evidence to enhance the credibility here. That's just my suggestion.
Tim Rohr has the letter of Richard Untalan dated September 8, 2011 denying the Archbishop's request. But what he never showed you (perhaps because he does not have the letter) is another letter written by Richard Untalan telling the Archbishop why the former council denied the Archbishop's request. The Archbishop has that letter as it was mentioned in the news report. According to the Mariana's Variety (The bold are mine):
A letter signed by former archdiocese finance council members Richard Untalan, Monsignor James Benavente, Joseph Rivera and Sister Mary Stephen Torres show the seminary has been an issue in the church for years. In a 2012 letter sent to Apuron when the four council members were removed by the archbishop, Untalan wrote, “It can be deduced from your letter that I am being terminated because of a decision that I, along with three other members ... have made that displeased you.”
The finance council denied the request to assign the title of the seminary real property to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. Untalan said the assignment of the title would be “imprudent, unwise and totally against the best interest of the Archdiocese.” The former finance council members had been sitting as council members for a combined 50-plus years, Untalan wrote.
Selling the property, then valued at $75 million, could eliminate the archdiocesan debt, Untalan wrote.
Cristobal said that the finance council at the time wanted to sell the property to cover the debt incurred by the Cathedral and the Catholic Cemeteries and said “to think to sell the property to cover a deficit is unthinkable and would be irresponsible for the archbishop to even harbor that idea.”
The finance council denied the request to assign the title of the seminary real property to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. Untalan said the assignment of the title would be “imprudent, unwise and totally against the best interest of the Archdiocese.” The former finance council members had been sitting as council members for a combined 50-plus years, Untalan wrote.
Selling the property, then valued at $75 million, could eliminate the archdiocesan debt, Untalan wrote.
Cristobal said that the finance council at the time wanted to sell the property to cover the debt incurred by the Cathedral and the Catholic Cemeteries and said “to think to sell the property to cover a deficit is unthinkable and would be irresponsible for the archbishop to even harbor that idea.”
The former finance council denied the Archbishop's request because (according to them) it would entail an "alienation" of property. Nevermind the fact that they had no problem with alienating the property by selling it.
Tim Rohr constantly cites Ed Terlaje's email to Richard Untalan. According to Tim Rohr:
As AAA himself should have done (but did not because he knew what the answer would be), Mr. Untalan sent AAA's letter to Atty. Ed Terlaje, the archdiocesan legal counsel, for an opinion. On November 27, 2011, Atty. Terlaje wrote:
Read your letter and that of the archbishop. As you well know, "alienation" and "assignment" are words of distinction without a difference.
A legal dictionary is online, and this is what the legal dictionary says regarding these two words:
Alienation: the transfer of title to real property, voluntarily and completely. It does not apply to interests other than title, such as a mortgages.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Alienation
Assignment: A transfer of rights in real property or Personal Property to another that gives the recipient—the transferee—the rights that the owner or holder of the property—the transferor—had prior to the transfer.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assignment
Archbishop Apuron was correct. "Alienation" and "Assignment" are not the same in legal terms. Assignment has nothing to do with transfer of title. However, selling the seminary would be an "alienation" due to the fact that there would be a transfer of title.
By the way, the jungle may have documents....but the jungle's INTERPRETATIONS of those documents is their speculation and how they mislead people. Their interpretations are not based on facts, but on mere speculations.
I am completely astounded by people who claim that that they have evidence of the Arch Bishops wrong doings but have not the humility to judge their own actions. We have also the experts commentators who will adamantly acclaim their expert knowledge of the NCW but whose comments reflect 2 and 3rd hand rumors.
ReplyDeleteI am strengthen by your patience Diana for you have so much more than me. I am also strengthen by the Word.
Luke: Chapter 22 vs 33-34...Lord, he answered, I would be ready to go to prison with you and to death. Jesus replied, I tell you Peter, by the time the cock crows today you will have denied three times that you know me.
I do not know Jesus Christ; that's why I walk. The commenters who are stuck in-between this blog and jw or support jw need our prayers.
JSB
"I do not know Jesus Christ; that's why I walk."
ReplyDeleteWha?
Thank you for clearing that up Diana - makes more sense now.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have a question may someone on this side could verify or could support: On the jungle, theres a timeline of letters regarding the old finance council and the Archbishop. Why would the Archbishop not come out and just tell the former finance council that it was all said and done and the property was already assigned? Why did he have to play (I do not want to say dumb, because that isn't a nice word at all) about it and act as if the topic was still available for future discussions?
Thanks!
Dear Anonymous at 3:33 am,
DeleteI cannot speak for the Archbishop. A question I would like to ask the former finance council is why did they not come out and reveal that they wanted to sell the seminary to pay the debts for the Cathedral and Catholic Cemeteries? They came out and said that the Archbishop wanted to give the seminary away, but that was only part of the story. According to the news report, the Archbishop and the former finance council had many disagreements over the seminary. These disagreements was not only because the Archbishop wanted to give the seminary away, but ALSO because the former finance council wanted to sell the seminary. These disagreements may have led the Archbishop to mistrust the finance council and therefore went to file a per perpetual deed to protect the seminary from being sold. These disagreements may also have given the Archbishop some suspicion as to the financial situation of the Cathedral and Catholic Cemeteries that may have been kept from him by Monsignor James who also a member of the former finance council.
The timeline on Tim's blog would make better sense if people were made aware of the surrounding events taking place between the Archbishop and the former finance council. So far, the documents that Tim Rohr has are only documents supplied to him from the former finance council. The letter that Richard Untalan wrote to the Archbishop is not there. We only know about it when it was mentioned in the Mariana's Varity. It was Richard Untalan who wrote that letter to the Archbishop, and for some reason, Mr. Untalan did not submit that letter to Tim Rohr.
" These disagreements may have led the Archbishop to mistrust the finance council and therefore went to file a per perpetual deed to protect the seminary from being sold."
DeleteCan you explain what you mean by this? Wouldn't it be impossible to sell the seminary property unless the Archbishop agreed? I mean, surely the only person that couldd actually sell the property would be the Archbishop?
Can you provide a copy of Mr. Untalan's letter to the Archbishop so that your claim can be validated Diana?
Delete"These disagreements was not only because the Archbishop wanted to give the seminary away..."
DeleteSo you do agree that's what he wanted to do.
Dear Anonymous at 3:22 pm,
DeleteNo, that is what the former finance council thought he was doing.
Dear Anonymous at 3:20 pm,
DeleteNo, it is best that the Archbishop keeps all his documents in the event that CCOG files a lawsuit.
Dear Anonymous at 2:28 pm,
DeleteThe former finance council consist of Monsignor James. The financial report for the past couple of years have never been published. Monsignor James has been stalling in providing those financial reports to the Archbishop. If those financial reports are not published as requested by the Vatican, the Archbishop can be removed by the Pope, and Monsignor James can be the next candidate for Archbishop due to his popularity. After that, the seminary can be sold. Since the removal of Monsignor James, the Archdiocese have been able to publish the 2012 and 2013 financial report.
Diana,
DeleteI think the that the letter written by Mr. Untalan should have been made known. However, his letter had nothing to do with the Archbishop assigning the property. So do you think the Archbishop was truthful when he did not tell the finance council that he had already assigned the Yona property?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but did he not need the permission from Rome and his finance council to assign the property or was it within his authority? If it was not within his authority, why did he move forward? I do not understand.
-GSN
Dear GSN,
DeleteYou asked: "do you think the Archbishop was truthful when he did not tell the finance council that he had already assigned the Yona property?"
The finance counsel is only there to advise the Archbishop. The Archbishop can either listen to their advise or not. The only time consent is needed from the finance counsel is when alienation of property is involved. According to the Canon Law of the Catholic Church:
Can. 1292 §1 Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 638, §3, when the value of the goods whose alienation is proposed falls within the minimum and maximum amounts to be defined by the conference of bishops for its own region, the competent authority is determined by the statutes of juridic persons if they are not subject to the diocesan bishop; otherwise, the competent authority is the diocesan bishop with the consent of the finance council, the college of consultors, and those concerned. The diocesan bishop himself also needs their consent to alienate the goods of the diocese.
§2. The permission of the Holy See is also required for the valid alienation of goods whose value exceeds the maximum amount, goods given to the Church by vow, or goods precious for artistic or historical reasons.
Because there is no alienation of property, the Archbishop did not need the consent of the finance counsel nor permission from the Holy See. According to the Canon Law stated above, it is only when there is alienation of property that the Archbishop would need the permission from the Holy See and consent from the finance counsel.
If I still could say something I ask that the property transfer issue not be emphasized too much. It is very divisive and would not lead anywhere. In the end, perhaps some years from now there would be a legal decision. Rather than dwelling in that controversy we would rather need to find and build common ground for peace and unity in our Church. Diana, what is your take on this?
ReplyDeleteDear Diane,
ReplyDeleteYou ignored my pasting (2 parts) re Cardinal Sarah and his being instructed to continue the good work of Pope Benedict XVI re the liturgy. (Could this mean the investigation into the NCW Mass that Pope Francis previously dismissed is now finally being acknowledged?) If the NCW thought Cardinal Arinze was too demanding/strict re the proper way of celebrating the liturgy, Cardinal Sarah, the new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, appears to be made of the same cloth.
May we be obedient to the will of God.
Dear Anonymous at 11:44 am,
DeleteCan you show me the article where Pope Francis specifically told Cardinal Sarah to investigate the NCW?
Read my post again. I myself asked. "could this mean.....?"
DeletePeace.
Dear Anonymous at 2:43 pm,
DeleteThere is nothing to indicate that Pope Francis opened up an investigation into the Way. Telling Cardinal Sarah to continue the good work of Pope Benedict XVI is not launching any investigation on anyone.