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.