Saturday, September 26, 2015

Misinterpretations From The Jungle

During a dialogue with an anonymous commenter, he/she pointed to a weblink in Junglewatch, which can be found here.  Tim Rohr wrote about the NCW and Money.  According to Tim Rohr: 

Art. 1, §3 of the Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way states that the NCW is "endowed with a public juridical personality." What does this mean? According to church law, there are three types of persons: physical, moral, and juridic. The NCW is a juridic person. A juridic person is "like a civil-law corporation", and can "own property, enter into contracts, sue or be sued." (1).

Notice how Tim Rohr used only half a sentence in order to mislead people.  In here, he misleads people into thinking that the NCW is a juridic person and can therefore own property, enter into contracts, sue or be sued.  This is actually what the Statutes state (the bold is mine): 

§ 3. The Neocatechumenal Way, endowed with public juridical personality,2 is composed of an ensemble of spiritual goods:3
What I placed in bold is what Tim Rohr left out.  He only read up to the word "personality" and stopped there.  If had continued to read the whole sentence, it says that the NCW is composed of an ensemble of "SPIRITUAL goods." In other words, the NCW is a juridic person composed of "spiritual goods."  Property is not a "spiritual good." 

In regards to Article 4 Sections 1-3 Tim Rohr interprets it as follows (the bold is mine):

So let's interpret all this. The Church is saying that in regards to funding activities the NCW should erect an autonomous foundation which is recognized by civil authorities. In other words, they are to do what almost every other Catholic organization does: register and regulate itself, and institute a system of financial accountability. (On Guam and in the U.S., this would be a non-profit corporation.) And, as per § 3, even prior to or in the absence of an "autonomous foundation", the money collected at the community level must still "respect the law."  
Tim Rohr stated:  ".....the NCW should erect an autonomous foundation which is recognized by civil authorities."  This is actually what the Statutes stated (the bold is mine and underline 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.
Tim Rohr stated that it was the NCW that should erect this autonomous foundation.  The Statutes made it clear that it was the Diocesan Bishop that will erect the autonomous foundation.  Because Tim Rohr misled people into thinking that it was the NCW that erects this foundation and is a juridic person, he thinks that it was the NCW who has to be recognized by the civil authorities and respect the law.  The Statutes made it clear that the foundation established by the Bishop is the one that is a juridic person whose statutes are recognized by the civil authorities. 

Regarding the monies collected in the communities which Tim Rohr cited in Article 4, Section 3 of the Statutes, he explained (the bold is mine): 

And what law would that be? 
So long as the NCW operates under the auspices of the parish, it is the parish itself that is covered by the civil law which grants financial autonomy to churches. Thus, every dime and dollar moved within the context of any gathering or activity of the NCW is subject to the same accounting requirements of the parish as is every other dime and dollar. And in this regard, it is the parish pastor who MUST see to it that those funds are accounted for the same as it is his duty to see to the handling of any other monies or collections. 
This is what the APPROVED Statutes stated in Article 4 Section 3 (the bold is mine): 
§ 3. In the communities, collections are made to answer different needs. It is the task of the responsible team of the community and of the responsible teams of the Way at every level, to ensure that such collections are administered with a great sense of responsibility and respect for the law.
The APPROVED Statutes made it clear that the responsible team of the community and the responsible teams of the Way are authorized to ensure that such collections are administered with responsibility and respect for the law.  The Holy See did not give that authority to the parish pastor.  So, what do you think?  Do you think that Tim Rohr made an honest mistake and did not know how to read the Statues properly?  Or do you think he deliberately lied to mislead people into believing him to serve his agenda?  And most amazing thing of all, all those under the jungle thread did not even bother to correct Tim Rohr.  They simply swallowed up everything he misinterprets.   


  1. I think Tim rohr understand this stuff better than you do. The point he is making is correct - ie that the NCW, when collecting money, should operate through the parish, as that would be with "respect for the law", for as he says "it is the parish itself that is covered by the civil law which grants financial autonomy to churches".

    The point about the bishop raising the foundation is a tenuous one. The foundation may be erected by the bishop, but as we all know, the foundation is as NCW as anything else you do. So, Kiko has been clever and deceptive in this clause of the Statutes, for, while it seems like the bishop might have seomthing to do with the foundation, in reality it is simply another arm of the NCW octopus.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:35 am,

      I take it that you have a reading disability because nowhere in that approved statutes did it say that the NCW can erect the diocesan foundation nor did it say that the parish priest is responsible for the funds collected by members of the NCW.

    2. Anon 1035:

      You just dont understand the entire concept. From what I understand in your comment, you want the NCW community to channel all "collections" through the parish. You are applying this concept because you are under the assumption that the NCW collects like a regular collection at mass. They Dont.
      If the Knights of Columbus ask all their members to chip in for the cost of an Ad in the umatuna should they run it through the parish?
      If the altar servers collect money to buy a birthday gift for the priest should they run it through the parish?
      If the choir decides to go out for dinner and then they all share the bill, should they run it through the parish?
      Mostly likely not, right?
      Its like this in the NCW. Collections are made for specific things and events. Everyone is asked to chip in as their hearts desire. No one knows who is giving what but as soon as the exact amount is reached, the collection ends.
      So if the NCW is at the hotel for an event, at the end of the event everyone is asked to chip in for the cost of using the hotel. The money is collected and the bill is paid then and there. Are you saying that the NCW should turn the money over to the parish and then have the parish pay the bill?
      If you think that there are members walking around with large sums of money then you are wrong. There are too many risks in that and even catechists would discourage this ever happening.
      I would suggest to you that you stay away from blogs that tell stories of what they think is happening. It is much wiser to take information from the mouths of those actually in the NCW.
      In a nut shell, Since the NCW is part of the parish, the parish should be more than willing to fork out the different expenses brought on by the communities, right? Many parishes support their ministries financially by purchasing materials, uniforms, songs sheets, paying for retreats. Many Parishes dont charge their ministries for the use of the church facilities for practice, meetings and fellowship. Shouldnt the NCW be entitled to these perks too? Despite being part of the parish the NCW chooses to take on their own bills.
      Hope Ive helped you understand it a bit better.

      -Jokers Wild

  2. Diana, Timmy is now accusing you of being Susanna.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:07 pm,

      So, what else is new? I have already said that I am not Susanna, but the jungle does not believe me. That is not my problem.

  3. junglewatch is also accusing the NCW of being AIRPORT CATHOLICS. Do the research, their(Latin Rite Fans) Spiritual Director(Fr. Eric) has been off-island many more times than our archbishop and even Fr. Pius. Birds of a feather flock together. Whats even worse is that this priest has been to manila on numerous occasions this year just to go shopping. Hes now in California just for the end production stage of a DVD. So if they want to criticize the Archbishop, NCW members and RMS Priests for their travel patterns, go right ahead. Then we should take a tally of all travel made by ALL priests of this archdiocese to include their purpose of the trip and their detailed itinerary. Lets find out where they went, where they ate, where they slept at night, where they shopped, where they had their entertainment at, where they played their video games and while we're at it lets just request for who traveled with them and why did they have to go.
    Come on people apply the standards to everyone.

    -Jokers Wild