AnonymousJuly 8, 2015 at 11:23 PM
Diana,
I 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
I 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
As I pointed out in my last entry post, the words "alienation" and "assignment" do not mean the same thing in legal terms. GSN asked if the Archbishop was truthful when he did not tell the finance council that he had already assigned the Yona property and whether he need permission from Rome and his finance council to assign the property? According to the Canon Law of the Catholic Church (the bold and underline is mine):
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.
According to the Canon Law of the Catholic Church above, consent of the finance council and permission from the Holy See is needed ONLY for alienation of property. There was no alienation of property. Furthermore, the third report, which the Archbishop shared in the Umatuna, was conducted by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. This report concluded that there was no alienation of the property. The three reports are found in the following weblink:
According to the Archbishop's letter to Richard Untalan (which you can easily find in the jungle) dated November 16, 2011, the Archbishop stated (bold is mine):
"After having consulting with the Reverend Monsignor David C. Quitugua, Vicar General and Judical Vicar of the Archdiocese of Agana, regarding the matter presented to the Archdiocesan Finance Council regarding the supposed "alienation" of the property where the Redemptor Mater Seminary and the Theological Institute, "Blessed Diego Luis de Sanvitores" affiliated to the Pontifical Lateran University have their See, I wish to specify precisely that, probably due to a lack of knowledge of Canon Law, it was erroneously understood as "alienation.""
In that letter, the Archbishop already told his finance council that it was not an "alienation" of property. But they did not listen to him because they lacked knowledge of Canon Law and thought that "alienation" and "assignment" are the same in legal terms.
Diana,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response. I read your reply and it seems it's all about semantics. So, because the Archbishop "assigned" rather than "alienated" the property, he did not need to inform or get the permission from his finance council or the Holy See? What I do not understand is that the legal counsel for the Archdiocese (or maybe just the Archbishop's) advised against the idea of alienating/assigning the Yona property. If even his legal counsel advised against it, why did he move forward?
I do not understand.
-GSN
Dear GSN,
DeleteHe moved forward in the best interest of the Catholic faithful. The Code of Canon Law states that a bishop should erect a seminary if he is able to in order to promote vocations of the priesthood.
in 1999 it has been a seminary, so what are you saying
DeleteDiana, I am sorry but I am not a lawyer. I am sure your words are very clear for a lawyer but I am just lost with understanding all these stuff. If the seminary costs money then someone has to pay for it, right? Utility bills can run high. Seminarians from rich countries come and live free on the hospitality of Guam people. Is this nice? Is this fair? This is what people want to know and not get confused by lawyers' language. Thanks.
DeleteJoane Santos
Dear Joane,
DeleteMost of the money,comes from fundraising and from off-island. About 20% comes from the Archdiocesan Appeal. The upkeep and maintenance of the seminary comes from the seminarians, mission families, and NCW member without charge.
Dear Diana, I am sorry for not being so quick with grasping all this stuff. For me, it is just too confusing! You say the seminary operates free without any charge? How is this possible? Are the work hours of employees promptly reported as for any other business? I read the Department of Labor has very strong words with labor without pay. Is this not in conflict with the policies of DoL? Thanks for your time to answer my questions!
DeleteJoane Santos
Dear Joane,
DeleteThe maintenance and upkeep of the seminary is being done by the seminarians themselves, the mission families who volunteered their services, and the NCW members who also volunteered their services. Any money that comes into RMS is through fundraising and off-island donations. 20% of the funds also comes from the Archdiocesan Appeal.
Diana, I means free labor is against the law.
DeleteJoane Santos
Dear Joane,
DeleteIt is not against the law to volunteer, and that is what we do.
"....and thought that "alienation" and "assignment" are the same in legal terms." You can't really say this because you don't know what they were thinking, can you?
ReplyDeleteQuestion: What does Civil Law say? and should this go to court, would Canon Law supersede Civil Law?
Dear Anonymous at 3:05 pm,
DeleteCanon law does not contradict civil law in this case. The legal definitions for "alienation" and "assignment" that I provided in my last entry post came from a secular legal dictionary. It did not come from the Vatican. Yet, as you can see from the canon law I cited in this entry post, one would need the consent from the finance council and permission from the Holy See when there is an alienation of property. Furthermore, the Pontifical Council also concluded in their report that there was no alienation of property.
Allow me to apologize if I seem to be asking many questions or if I may sound ignorant.
ReplyDeleteWhat was the function/purpose of the seminary before the assignment of the property? Was the seminary not being utilized to form potential priests/brothers for our archdiocese or is there a difference between that and promoting vocations?
Thank you,
-GSN
Dear GSN,
DeleteWhat is now the RM seminary was once a hotel built by a Japanese businessman. This Japanese businessman later put the hotel up for sale, and the Church was interested. He gave a bargain price. It cost 1 or 2 million dollars. A donor from the U.S. donated the money to the Archbishop with the stipulations that the money be used for the building of a seminary. This hotel became a seminary in 1999. Before the assignment of property, it still remained a seminary. The Redemptoris Mater Seminary forms seminarians for the Archdiocese and for local and worldwide missionary work. The John Paul II seminary also forms diocesan priests for local missions, but NOT for worldwide missions. That is the difference between them. There are over 100 Redemptoris Mater Seminaries in all continents
There are different types of vocations. Some of those vocation include the priesthood, a religious life, or a married life. A seminary is used to form the vocation of priesthood. The RM seminarians, however, are trained for both local and worldwide missions.
Dear Diana, you have quoted from Canon Law, but you seem to have ignored the very important clause at 1295:
ReplyDelete"Can. 1295 The requirements of ⇒ cann. 1291-1294, to which the statutes of juridic persons must also conform, must be observed not only in alienation but also in any transaction which can worsen the patrimonial condition of a juridic person."
There is no doubt that this transaction (namely the deed of restriction) worsens the patrimony of the Archdiocese, therefore Canon 1292 does indeed apply.
Dear Anonymous at 5:22 pm,
DeleteCan you be more specific? Please explain how the deed of restriction made things worse despite that the RM seminary is still owned by the Archdiocese of Agana?
Worsen? I like how these jungle bunnies make phantoms out of thin air. They make bogey monsters out of mere ticks. They certainly have a talent for fantasies.
DeleteCanon 1295 exists precisely because there may be transactions that are not alienations per se but can result in a change to the patrimonial condition of the juridic person. You seem to believe that this is not possible, as you continue to argue that "ownership" is sufficient. Clearly, Canon Law foresees events where ownership may not change (alienation) but nevertheless patrimony may be affected. IN the case of the Yona property, the ownership and control by the Archbishop are obscured by the reality of various structures within the RMHF, meaning that the property is "encumbered" and is not simply an asset of the Archdiocese as it was before.
DeleteAnother way to look at this is to ask, for what reason was it necessary to perform the Deed of Restriction, if it had no effect? Clearly, the Archbishop (and other incorporators) believed there was an effect rendered by the Deed of Restriction, which is why they took this action.
Dear anonymous at 12:17 am,
DeleteThe canon clearly specifies ONLY alienation of property. The Pontifical Council concluded that there was no alienation of property regarding the RM seminary. You believe a lawyer who have absolutely no experience in corporation soles and who do not even specialize in that field. Ed Terlaje is an attorney who implied that there is no difference in "alienation" and "assignment". Yet, a quick link at a legal dictionary online clearly shows that they are NOT the same in legal terms.
You ask why have a deed of restriction? It was because of the fights between the Archbishop and the former finance council. They wanted to sell the property. Selling the seminary would indeed be an alienation. Getting the consent of the former finance council would not be a problem because they wanted to sell the seminary in the first place. All they had to do is convince the Pope to give them the permission to sell it. But first thing they need to do is one of the following: they either get the Archbishop to agree to sell the property or remove him and endorse Monsignor James to be the next Archbishop.
With respect, there are a number of fallacies in you comment of 9.40am Diana
Delete"The canon clearly specifies ONLY alienation of property."
No, Canon 1295 specifically refers to transactions that are not "alienations" but nevertheless affect the patrimony of the juridic person. The inclusion of this canon should be enough to convince you that such transactions are possible.
"You ask why have a deed of restriction?"
Well, I mentioned this only to point out that if the Deed of Restriction did not have an effect, it would not have been deemed necessary by the Archbishop and the other incorporators. In fact, you clearly believe that the Deed did have an effect namely that it would prevent the sale of the property.
However, it is not the "Pope" who has the authority to sell the property, but rather the Archbishop. The Finance Council does not have that authority either, except insofar as they might advise, or rather consent to the Archbishop wishing to do so.
You answer implies that the Deed would prevent a future Archbishop from electing to sell the property or do something other than hold it as an RMS seminary - and this is exactly what it means to affect the patrimony of the Archdiocese.
In effect, you have agreed with the proposition I have put in the previous comment - and shown that Canon 1295 should in fact be applied.
Diana,
DeletePlease explain why our Archnishop asked the benefactor to sign a document in support of what the property is being specifically used for now. The benefactor then responded and said they were unable to support or pen their name on the documented drafted.
For many people, this just does not make sense.
-GSN
Dear Anonymous at 10:59 am,
DeleteThe Canon law says that a Bishop should erect a seminary if he is able to in order to promote vocations. So, how is placing a deed restriction supposed to worsen the parsimony of the juridical person? Please be concrete in explaining your answer.. Or are you just arguing because you now know that Tim was in error when he said that the Archbishop needed the consent of the finance council?
Dear GSN,
DeleteAll I see are so-called quotes. I do not see the Archbishop's signature attached to those quotes.
Dear Diana,
ReplyDeleteVery well put. It will help to always think outside of the box. The seminary as we know it today is actually the fruit of the Counc of Trent. Prior to that priests were trained in various settings such as parish rectories, monasteries and the houses of bishops. The council standardized the formation for diocesan priests. From this was born the present day seminary which is slowly reducing in numbers.
Today, the Redemptoris mater seminaries are a fruit of the 2nd Vatican council. It is something new and it doesn't really fit the mold of what we have been used to in terms of formation for the past 500 years. Now in this age of massive secularization and profound crisis of faith, the church has brought about a new reality to respond to the needs of today's faithless generation. The Redemptoris mater seminary and such charisms like the neocatechumenal way are truly gifts of the Holy Spirit. These gifts have awakened a missionary spirit in the church. Before we always thought of the diocesan clergy as those who remained in the country of origin and the religious missionaries were the ones who went on
Mission. Today the situation has changed. Now, not only are diocesan priests going on missions to other countries, but even lay people and whole families are entering into the missions! Look at the hundreds of mission families sent to all the countries of the world! This is a recent phenomenon we have never before seen in the history of the church! The Holy Spirit is teaching us to think outside of the box, to look beyond our little side of reality and see another side of the world which is waiting for the Gospel. If you read the Vatican 2 document Missio ad gentes which is over 50 years old you will discover a freshness which is bearing fruit today. God is giving our little island so many gifts, and on top of all these even a little persecution here and there.
My advice: do not be afraid of those that want to destroy all the gifts the Holy Spirit is giving to the church in Guam. They cannot destroy the work of God. The jungle folks are able to scream loud, but their words are annoying and boring. They have no life, only depravation and malice. The hatred they have will not harm God's church. We can take courage that God is great and has many good things in store for those who love him.