The Archdiocese of Agana is a "corporate sole". RMS is not. Here is a copy of the Articles of Incorporation for the Archdiocese of Agana showing the passing (by an amendment) of the Archdiocese of Agana from the control of Archbishop Flores to his successor, Apuron. Notice, there is no designation of a Board of Directors because a Corporation Sole does not have a Board of Directors. RMS has a Board of Directors because it is NOT a corporate sole, it is a registered non-profit corporation in the Territory of Guam with the required Board of Directors.
http://www.junglewatch.info/2015/07/the-bronze-shoe-and-pius-is-liar.html
Corporation soles existed for more than 600 years, and the notion of corporation was derived from canon law. rather than the other way around. In other words, it was the state that copied the canon law. The United States Supreme Court have recognized the religious corporation sole under common English law, and they have recognized both diocesan common law corporation sole and parish common law. Corporations sole is identified as a king of a country or a diocesan Bishop. And a King or President of a country can have a board of directors. A corporation sole is not identified as to whether they have a Board of Directors or not. According to the weblink below (the bold is mine):
Corporations sole consist of one person only and his successors, in some particular station, who are incorporated by law, in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In this sense the king is a sole corporation; so is a bishop; so are some deans, and prebendaries, distinct from their several chapters; and so is every parson and vicar.
http://www.churchstatelaw.com/statestatutes/commonlawcorporationsole.asp
Tim Rohr does not understand that a corporation sole is a PERSON. It is not a thing or an object. In fact, the Articles of Incorporation, which Tim Rohr cited, named Anthony Apuron (the person) as the corporation sole for the Archdiocese of Agana. According to the weblink below:
The corporation is a person. The law knows only persons as the subjects of rights and the objects of gifts. We must drop our talk of gifts to saints and churches. It must be to a person that a conveyance of land is made; and, as the common law will not recognize the interest of one to whose use a conveyance is made, the conveyance must be made directly to a person, real or fictitious. Thus, if a conveyance is to be made to a rector it cannot be made, as of old, to the church, or the saint, or to God; it must be made to the man J.S. who is rector and his successors.
This is what Tim Rohr did not understand when he complained that the title of corporation sole was under the name of the Archbishop rather than the Archdiocese of Agana. Anthony Apuron is the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Agana. This does not mean that Anthony Apuron is to benefit personally. It means that the Church will benefit rather than the individual because he is the Archbishop, a representative of the Catholic Church. The above article also stated (the bold is mine):
Id. at 457-58. "Every diocesan bishop, every rector of a parish, is a corporation sole, and can acquire and hold land (and now also personal property) even during the vacancy of the see* or living, for the benefit of his successors, and can bind his successors by his lawful conveyances and contracts." Black's Law Dictionary 366 (8th ed. 1999) (quoting Edward Jenks, The Book of English Law 118-19 (P.B. Fairest ed., 6th ed. 1967).
The RM seminary was purchased by the Archdiocese of Agana. The title of the property in which the seminary sits is under the Archdiocese of Agana. The RMS seminary has a corporation sole (in this case - the Archbishop) in the same way that the Archdiocese of Agana also has a corporation sole (in this case - the Archbishop). You can read the rest of the article in the website that I provided above.
So what about the letter of support that Archbishop Apuron requested from the donor of which they refused to sign? Doesn't it make you wonder why the archbishop would do this Diana?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 1:07 pm,
DeleteAs I told GSN in another thread, all I see are so-called quotes. I do not see the Archbishop's signature attached to those quotes.
Isn't there a double standard at work here Diana at 8:58PM? Whenever someone has a question about the neos you always say "Fr. Pius said" or "The Pope told Kiko Arguello" or "Kiko Arguello said" because you say there is no need for written proof. Now you're saying that you "do not see the Archbishop's signature attached to these quotes." Is it because you think Tim Rohr would try to make up documents to prove his case? He hasn't had to in the past. Why would he start now?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:33 pm,
DeleteIt is not like Tim to publish only quotes from a letter. His usual motto is to publish the letter with the names blacked out
Corporate sole proponents frequently make use the Roman Catholic Church as their shining example.
ReplyDeleteThey claim that the Roman Catholic Church is organized as a corporation sole.
Indeed, many dioceses are (but fewer all the time); but what type of corporate soles are they?
Are they anything like those that were formed centuries ago in England prior to the English Reformation under canon law, or are they something altogether different?
In other words, were they chartered by the exclusive authority of the church under canon law, or did they come into existence by virtue of legislative-issued corporate charters or State statute-authorized articles of incorporation?
No state in America recognizes a corporation sole as a canon law entity.
ReplyDeleteRather, all corporate soles, if recognized at all, are only recognized as civil law entities.
No mention is made anywhere in these statutes of canon law.
Rather, all that is recognized is civil law.
But canon law honors, by default, the entirety of civil law. As a consequence, corporation sole is recognized and is part of Catholic canon law. Isn't it so?
DeleteCorporations sole — Church and religious societies.
ReplyDeleteAny person, being the bishop, overseer, or presiding elder of any church or religious denomination in this state, may, in conformity with the constitution, canons, rules, regulations, or discipline of such church or denomination, become a corporation sole, in the manner prescribed in this chapter, as nearly as may be; and, thereupon, said bishop, overseer, or presiding elder, as the case may be, together with his or her successors in office or position, by his or her official designation, shall be held and deemed to be a body corporate, with all the rights and powers prescribed in the case of corporations aggregate; and with all the privileges provided by law for religious corporations.
Just like any other non-profit religious corporation, the corporation sole is viewed and treated by the states that legally recognize it as a "creature grounded in civil law" and, thus, “a creature of the State.”
ReplyDeleteEven the powerful and wealthy Roman Catholic Church has never denied that this is the case, nor has the Catholic Church ever, at any time in America's history, stated that the corporation sole is a canon law entity.
Corporate sole proponents espouse that the corporate sole is an especially well-settled area of English Common Law which legal historians, legal scholars, and the courts well-understand, over which there has been complete agreement, over which there has been little if any dispute, and for which there is complete approval for its alleged virtues.
ReplyDeleteHowever, nothing could be further from the truth
Many states have adopted the common law of England through the "rules of decision" provision in its constitution. See, e.g., Or. Const. art. XVIII § 7. The intent behind this provision was to adopt the common law of England “as it existed, modified and amended by English statutes passed prior to the Revolution.” Peery v. Fletcher, 182 P. 143, 146-47 (Or. 1919).
DeleteWe have held that by force of our constitution and statutes, § 7, Art. XVIII, Oregon Const.; Laws of Oregon, 1843-1849, p. 100, the common law of England, modified and amended by English statutes, as it existed at the time of the American Revolution, was adopted and is in force in this state, as far as it was general and not local in its nature, was applicable to the conditions of the people, and was not incompatible with the nature of our political institutions, or in conflict with the constitution and laws of the United States or of this state.
In re Moore's Estate, 223 P.2d 393, 396 (Or. 1950) (citing cases). Such rules of decision provisions arguably mean that many states could recognize a common law corporation sole because English common law recognized both lay and religious corporations sole. I Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England 458 (1765-1769).
Diana, Tim made the following statement in JW. Is this true? Will Archbishop Apuron always be in the Board because he is named personally?
Delete"In his being named as a guarantor in the RMS Articles of Incorporation, he is named personally without any reference to his office.
Because he is named personally - and not his office - he will remain on the Board of Guarantors even after he is replaced as Archbishop of Agana."
Dear Anonymous at 9:35 pm,
DeleteWhat Tim said is false. The corporation sole includes the Archbishop's successors just as it stated in that legal website I provided.
This corporation is a 'corporation sole' where there is only one member, namely the archbishop, who has all power. The corporation sole is assisted by a board of directors who (oversees) the daily administration. The only member, namely the archbishop, chooses all directors. The corporation sole is also assisted by a Board of Guarantees. The Boards are the assistants of the corporation sole. Therefore, the successor of Archbishop Apuron will be in the Board of a Directors and Board,of Guarantors. Anthony Apuron will no longer be on the two boards because he would no longer be the corporation sole.
The plural of "corporation sole" is "corporations sole" and not "corporation soles".
DeleteThis error appears in the heading and several times in the blog post and comments.
Dear CNMI Lawyer,
DeleteThank you for the correction, and I will make the correction wherever possible. I type 60 words per minute, and when I am in a rush at work, I do not always proofread my comments and posts.
Is your employer ok with you blogging at work, Diana at 8:30 AM?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:21 am,
DeleteI blog during my breaks and lunch time using my,own personal laptop.
Thank you Monsignor David
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 5:31 am,
DeleteSince the beginning, I have stated that I am not a priest. So, no, I am not Monsignor David.
Yep, you may not be a priest but surely there are priests and others that assist with your posts Diana. It's plain and obvious. Some comments are well written, some don't make sense and some are just way out in left field. They all don't sound like they're from the same person.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 2:58 pm,
DeleteI am sorry to disappoint you, but I have always,been the same person. Now, back to the OP. Do you have something to,say about the OP?
It just makes the rohring folks stare in disbelief that a woman leads a blog against them successfully. It is because they don't know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves. Diana is like Judith who's gonna take the head of Holofernes. Blessed be God. May God bless Archbishop Apuron and the Church in Guam.
Delete