More Misconceptions From The Jungle

Tim Rohr misleads his readers into believing that Rome works very very very slow.  According to Tim Rohr: 

Such idiots. Rome doesn't work that way. Rome worked for years with Henry VIII and Martin Luther privately and never took public action against them until they themselves took public action against Rome.

Comment from jungle

Of course, this is false.  Rome does not work that way TODAY.  The internet and television did not exist during Henry VII's and Martin Luther's time; therefore, the news and communication was very slow.  My entire response to the above comment can be found here. 

Below is Tim's reply (the bold is mine): 

TimDecember 30, 2015 at 6:05 PM

Yah a great example of why I call Diana a "whorehouse of a blog." She sleeps with every rumor that pretends to justify her public prostitution to Kiko's cause. LOL.

The Australian priest was excommunicated in 2013. He had already had his faculties removed by his bishop in 2011. Unless you're Apuron, priestly faculties are not removed with out a thorough investigation as well as many pastoral invitations to reform.

The priest had a long history of violating church law including supporting gay marriage, advocating for the ordination of women, and being present when communion was given to a dog.

Technically it was not Francis who excommunicated the priest. The priest was excommunicated at the request of the priest's bishop - which is how these things work when you have a bishop who actually does his job - WHICH WE DON'T.  

The pope acted on the years of evidence as presented by the priest's bishop. For Dingbat to say that the pope acted promptly as if he had done the investigation personally shows her diseased whorehouse mind.

Regardless of the facts, to say so serves her purpose, so she prostitutes the truth to serve her Lord and Master Kiko Arguello and his arch-demon, the spiritual-syphilitic, yellow-mouth, Pius the Putrid.

LOL, Dingbat. Courage. 

  What I placed in bold is a deception.  Tim Rohr deceived you into believing that the Pope excommunicated the Australian priest at the request of the priest's bishop. He wants you to believe that this is how the Vatican works.  This is false.  According to the news report: 

Reynolds said he expected to be dismissed from the clerical state but did not expect to be excommunicated. He said he was told that Archbishop Hart did not apply for the dismissal from the clerical state, but that someone else contacted the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-excommunicates-dissident-priest-in-australia/

As anyone can see, Tim continues to mislead people.  So, CCOG, hold your leader Tim Rohr accountable.  It was not the Archbishop who informed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  For all we know, it could be a lay person who made the contact. 

Furthermore, Tim Rohr had nothing to say about the "shortened" time it took to disciplined the Australian priest. In other words, the Vatican can work in a faster pace today due to technology.  The jungle and thoughtful Catholic have accused Kiko of teaching doctrines contrary to the Catholic Church such as not believing in the Holy Trinity.  Therefore, I would not be surprised if Tim Rohr and Chuck White has written letters of complaint to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding Kiko's teaching.  According to Tim Rohr:  

Unlike Apuron, the Church is paternal, and attempts to reconcile with the wayward quietly.

Diana does not know if the investigation was "called off" because nothing was found. An investigation may very well be called off because the investigators found what they are looking for. Once found, it would be very typical of the Church to work quietly to bring whatever is out of line, into line.  

It has already been over 7 years since the Statutes have been approved and how is the Vatican disciplining Kiko into compliance????   

1.  On February, 2014, Pope Francis confirmed Kiko Arguello for five more years as Consultor for the Pontifical Council for the Laity. 

2.  Pope Francis received a private audience with Kiko on December, 2014, praising him for a job well done (See weblink below).

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/renewal-in-the-spirit-neocatechumenal-way-leaders-meet-with-pope

3.  Kiko received an honorary Doctorate from the Catholic University of America in May, 2015.

Unlike the Australian priest, Kiko Arguello has not received any disciplinary action. Instead, he was rewarded to continue his work as Consultor for the Pontifical Council for the Laity under the new Pope, praised for a job well done, and received an honorary doctorate. The investigations into the Way was dismissed by Pope Francis because all the allegations were unfounded. 

Kiko Was Obedient To The Vatican

Someone brought up Father Walsh's letter to Tim Rohr dated April 26, 2008.  An anonymous commenter indicated that Kiko and the NCW ignored the instructions of Pope Benedict through the letter of Cardinal Arinze in December, 2005.  His/Her comment can be found here.

 

First of all, nowhere in my previous comment did I even mention Cardinal Arinze.  This is one of the problems with the jungle.  They put words in other people's mouths despite that the person never said it.  My previous comment referred to Father Walsh's letter.  According to his letter (the bold is mine): 

 

4/26/08

Tim:

Kiko spoke to Cardinal Rylko, the head of the Council for the Laity, back in December when the two year transitional period ran out.  Both Kiko and Cardinal Rylko knew that the statues would contain a modification of Cardinal Arinze's instructions.  Rylko gave an oral reply to Kiko to maintain the present practice so that the Holy See would not be put in the awkward position of seeming to change its mind by going from Arinze's letter to the new statues in a very short time.  The pope approved the statues in the beginning of February and they were to be promulgated on February  27th.  But just before the promulgation, the statues were removed from the hands of the Council of the Laity and sent back for further considerations by the other four  dicasteries of the Curia that have to review any changes in the statues.  We were just told to hold tight until you receive further word.  No explanations were given at the time.  There is, however, evidently still some strong resistance to the statues on the part of some in the Curia and they are trying to introduce further changes.  However, there are no documents to show you at this point.  All our instruction have been oral, but we are satisfied with that.  We have no choice.  All we were told is to take no action until the Holy See resolves these matters.  This is what we are doing. However, I hope you understand that this information is not for publication.  I share it with you so that you will understand the delicate position we are in at the moment.  I would caution against reading into these events more what I have said.  I mention them simply to show that we are not disregarding Arinze's letter, but that subsequent events have changed the situation in which we find ourselves.

Father Walsh wrote the above letter to Tim Rohr before the Statues were approved.  At that time, the NCW received and consumed the Body of Christ sitting down. 
 

Cardinal Arinze's letter to Kiko in December, 2005 contained some guidelines from Pope Benedict XVI that the NCW was supposed to follow.  In January, 2006, Kiko then wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XVI, thanking him for granting him two more years to adapt to the changes they made in the celebration of the Eucharist.  According to Kiko Arguello (the bold is mine): 

We also wish to thank you for the benevolence, mercy, and goodness You have shown to those farthest away in allowing the moving of the sign of peace and in granting a period of two years for the adaptation of the manner of distributing the Communion of the Body and the Blood of the Lord: we have always shown to the many brothers who have emerged from hell, full of wounds and of self-loathing, that in the Holy Eucharist the Lord makes present his love, dying and rising for them; and not only that, but prepares a table, an eschatological banquet, which makes Heaven present and where He himself, full of love, has them sit down and comes to serve them: “He will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them” (Lk 12:37). 

It is very obvious from Kiko's letter that there was a change in the way the Eucharist would be celebrated because of the fact that he mentioned it. His letter actually acknowledged that there was a change in the Eucharistic celebration that the NCW was supposed to adapt in the next two years. However, in the next two years, the NCW made absolutely no change to the way they celebrated the Eucharist.  Why?  The answer is found in Father Walsh's letter to Tim Rohr.  

According to Father Walsh's letter, the approval of the Statutes was supposed to take place in February 27, 2006; but that never happened. Why?  Because it was removed and sent back to four dicasteries of the Curia for further review.  Cardinal Rylko then instructed Kiko to maintain the present practice and take no action until the Holy See resolves the issues.  Thus, for the next two years, the NCW continued to receive and consume the Body of Christ sitting down.  Therefore, how can one fault Kiko Arguello for disobedience when he was instructed by Cardinal Rylko to maintain the present practice and take no action until the Vatican resolves the issue?   

 

It was on May 11, 2008 when the Statutes were finally approved. Whatever the issues were in the Curia, it was finally resolved. The changes that came after that were not the same.  The change that was made was to stand to receive the Body of Christ by hand, then sit down and hold His body close to your heart and contemplate Christ's Body with reverence.  Together with the priest, the assembly consumes the Body of Christ sitting down.  That was the change, and this change came with a written instruction.  I was there at the Beginning of the Year Convivence of 2008 when the entire approved Statutes were read page by page, and instructions were given as to how to celebrate the Eucharist.  Those instructions were given by Father Pius.  Apparently, that was the adaption the NCW was supposed to make in the two years had the Statutes been approved in 2006.

Tim Rohr claimed that I called Father Walsh a liar (See his comment in his blog. ) Actually, it was Tim who called Father Walsh a liar because he doubted every single word he wrote to him (See the weblink below): 

http://www.junglewatch.info/2013/12/and-you-wonder-why-people-are-mad.html

 

  

Oh Holy Night - HomeTown

What Does The Catholic Church Say?

Some people criticize the NCW for following the Archbishop.   What does the Catholic Church say about it?  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the bold is mine):

1269  Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us. From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to "obey and submit" to the Church's leaders, holding them in respect and affection........

The Catechism is extremely clear on this.  It emphasized that we are to obey and submit to the Church leaders - the Pope and Bishops.  Our Church leader is Archbishop Anthony Apuron. He is the local vicar of Christ. Now, some people will mislead others by saying that the Catechism also says to follow your conscience.  The Catechism does not contradict itself. It is not going to clearly instruct one to '"obey and submit" to the Church leaders and then say something contrary to it.  Nowhere in the Catechism does it ever say to "disobey" the Church leader.  Instead, it instructs the faithful to follow their conscience in not following the directives of civil authorities who make laws that are contrary to the moral order, to the fundamental rights of human beings, and to the teachings of the Gospel (See CCC 2242 and 2256). 

Even the Holy Bible clearly tells us to obey and be submissive to the Church leaders.  According to the Holy Bible:

Hebrews 13:17-18 Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you. Pray for us, for we are confident that we have a clear conscience, wishing to act rightly in every respect.

Others may deceive you by pointing to Acts 5:29 where the Apostles stated, "We must obey God rather than men".  Yet, the Catechism of the Catholic Church interprets this biblical verse as referring to civil authorities (See CCC 2242 and 2256). The Church does not interpret Acts 5:29 to mean the Pope and Bishops.  Again, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not contradict itself when it clearly says to obey the Church leaders.  

What about Jesus?  What did Jesus say about obedience to the Pharisees who sat in the Chair of Moses? According to the Holy Bible:

Matthew 23:1-3  Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Jesus was fully aware that the Pharisees were hypocrites; nevertheless, He instructed His disciples to obey them.  Obey them, not because they were hypocrites, but because they sat in the chair of Moses.   This must have been very difficult for many of Jesus' disciples to do.  

Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us to obey and submit to the Popes and Bishops.  What if the Pope or Bishop is like the Pharisees, you ask? If Jesus said to listen to the Pharisees, He would also tell you to listen to the Pope and Bishops?  Obey them.....not because they are sinners, but because they sit in the chair of the Apostle Peter. Our history shows that the Church had a few bad Popes in the past who did not deserve to sit in the chair of Peter; nevertheless, it was Christ who still guided the Church regardless of who sits in the chair.  A few bad Popes in our history did not destroy the Catholic Church nor led her astray. Christ led His Church where He wanted her to go despite those few bad popes.  Although Archbishop Apuron is human and can sin like everyone else, he is not destroying the Church by bringing in the NCW.  After all, even the Pope allowed the NCW in Rome to exist.  

 The Holy Bible screams of obedience.  Children are to obey their parents, slaves are to obey their masters, wives are to obey their husbands, and the faithful are to obey their Bishops.  And when Christ came into the world, He also obeyed and submitted to the authority of His mother and step-father Joseph (Luke 2:51).  God puts everyone under the authority of someone so we can learn humility and prepare for God's kingdom. After all, how can one say they follow Christ if they cannot even follow the Archbishop who is the local vicar of Christ?

Have faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord.  The Catholic Church can never be lost because Christ is her Head and Spouse who always guides and protects her just as He promised.  "The gates of Hell will not prevail against her".  For the protesters who say they want their church back.....the church had always been there.  The Church was never lost.  You were the one who was lost.  The Church never left and Christ is waiting for your return. The true teachings of the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church is to obey your church leader.     

Chiara Lubich: Founder Of Focalare

Sometimes, the NCW is called a "cult" and compared to the Legion of Christ whose founder led a double life.  Marcial Maciel Degollado was the founder of the Legion of Christ who abused young boys and maintained a relationship with two women, fathering up to at least six children.  Kiko Arguello is in no way like Marcial.  There are no such allegations like that against him. 

Just because one founder fell does not mean that ALL founders will fall.  Chiara Lubich, for example, is the founder of the Focalare movement.  She died in 2008 at the age of 88.  Five years after her death, she has become a candidate for sainthood.   

Did the Focolare Movement experience any controversy similar to the Neocatechumenal Way? Of course they did.  You can read about some of the controversy regarding the Focolare Movement here.  Their controversy is similar to the NCW, and some of the sources are coming from disgruntled ex-Focolares. With the founder of Focolare on the road to sainthood, one wonders what they have to say now?  This simply goes to show that one should not compare all organizations to the founder of the Legion of Christ.  Just because one founder fell does not mean that ALL founders will fall.   

According to the weblink below:  

The Focolare, which in Italian means “hearth,” is a Catholic movement founded by Lubich in Trent during the Second World War with the aim of promoting unity. Over the years, it’s been especially active in ecumenical and inter-faith dialogue, and currently claims 100,000 members in 182 countries.

The Focolare are also the only movement in the Catholic Church whose statutes require the group's president to be a woman. 

During the papacies of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Lubich was a close confidante and probably the most visible lay woman in Catholicism. 

Pope St. John Paul II, for instance, requested her participation as an observer at several meetings of the Synod of Bishops. 

Upon her death in 2008, Benedict XVI regarded Lubich as the “founder of a large spiritual family that embraces multiple domains of evangelization,” and expressed his admiration for Lubich’s constant commitment for communion in the Church, for ecumenical dialogue, and for fraternity among all people.........

That tree, the pontiff said, “now extends its branches in all the expressions of the Christian family and also among members of different religions and among many who cultivate justice and solidarity together with the search for truth.”

The Focolare began their ecumenical dialogue in 1961 and have forged ties with Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and others, including the American Society of Muslims founded by the late Imam Warith Deen Mohammed. 

Talking to Vatican Radio, Maria Voce, who succeeded Lubich in the presidency of the movement, said there is a large cache of documents, letters, and videos of Lubich that they had turned over to the diocese for a tribunal that will study the sainthood cause.

With the collected information, the tribunal will have to determine if Lubich lived Christian virtues in a heroic way and deserves to be declared venerable. If so, the attribution of a miracle to her intercession would then be the normal requirement for beatification, and another one would be needed to declare her a saint. 

In that Jan. 20 interview, Voce said Lubich’s holiness can be seen in her ordinariness, calling her an example of being a saint “by leading a normal life.” 

Everything extraordinary in her “normal life is the fruit that comes from God, from Chiara’s relationship with God and Chiara’s normal relationship with the people,” Voce said.

If Lubich is eventually declared blessed, she’ll become the second Focolare to receive the honor. Chiara “Luce” Badano, an Italian girl who died at 19 after a two-year fight against bone cancer, was beatified in 2010. 

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/01/28/woman-who-was-confidante-to-popes-now-a-sainthood-candidate/ 

Responding to Another Commenter

An anonymous commenter made the following comment, which can be found here. 

AnonymousDecember 18, 2015 at 12:56 PM

"It was already known since 2011 what the Archbishop intended to do, but the former finance council misunderstood the Archbishop. In his letter to Richard Untalan, the Archbishop tried to explain that it does not involve alienation of property, but they had a difficult time understanding it just as they still do now. "

What? The original plan was to transfer ownership explicitly wasn't it? And when that idea was shown to be silly, and without support, the Deed Restriction was lodged - without any public statement and evidently without the knowledge of even the finance committee as the discussion was still going on!!

Thank God you're not a lawyer, and no-one needs to rely on your advice!

Before the Declaration of Deed Restriction was lodged, the Archbishop made it known to the former finance council that what he intends to do was NOT "alienation".  Below is what the Archbishop wrote to Richard Untalan on November 11, 2011, which can be found in Tim Rohr's jungleblog.  According to the Archbishop's letter to Richard Untalan (the bold is mine): 

The matter is clearly not "alienation" but simply an "assigning" of the title of the property that is transferred and renamed from one public juridic person subject to the Ordinary to another public juridic person subject to the same Ordinary. 

The title holder then doesn't change at all because it remains the same Ordinary.......

The former finance council misunderstood the Archbishop because they thought that he intended to give away the RMS property.  The Archbishop acknowledged that the finance council did not understand him probably due to their lack of knowledge of canon law.  In his letter to Richard Untalan, the Archbishop stated that the title holder does not change at all because it goes from one public juridic person subject to the Ordinary to another public juridic person subject to the SAME Ordinary. 

That public juridic person is the Archbishop.  The title simply goes from Archbishop Apuron to Archbishop Apuron (the same person).  This issue was brought forth to protect the seminary from being sold, considering that some people have expressed the desire to sell the property.  In addition, the Archbishop did not need the approval of the finance council to transfer property he already owned to himself.  As anyone can see from the Archbishop's 2011 letter to Richard Untalan, there was never any intention of giving the seminary away since the beginning.     

The structure of the RM seminary is almost similar to the St. John's seminary in California.  St. John's seminary is a corporation sole with a board of directors and with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles as the corporate sole and owner.  See the weblinks below for more explanation: 

http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2015/10/st-john-seminary-in-california.html

http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2015/10/not-this-again.html

UPDATE:

With that said, CCOG can go ahead and pursue their lawsuit in a civil court as they originally planned.  And when you lose (and you will lose) you need to also pay the Archbishop's lawyer. Remember the following facts before going to court:  

FACT 1:  The Declaration of Deed Restriction was recorded and filed as a "Declaration" rather than as a "Deed"at the Department of Tax and Revenue.  You can argue all you want that it is a deed; however, the fact that it was recorded and filed as a "declaration" on the written document itself has more weight than your opinion. 

FACT 2:  The Certificate of Titles is under the Archbishop's name, clearly stating that the RMS property is under the Archdiocese of Agana.  You can argue all you want that the property is under the NCW or RMS, but the fact that you have no written document (such as a certificate of title) showing the property under NCW or RMS weakens your case.  Again, all you have is your opinion.  

FACT 3:  The legal name of RMS as stated in Article I of the Articles of Incorporation is "Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA."  You can argue all you want that RMS is not part of the Catholic Church on Guam, but the fact remains that the name "Archdiocese of Agana" is clearly stated in the Articles of Incorporation.  It is up to you to prove that what is written in the Articles of Incorporation is really not referring to THE "Archdiocese of Agana" but to ANOTHER "Archdiocese of Agana".......whatever.

FACT 4:  Contrary to the accusations of the former finance counsel and the jungle, the November, 2011 letter of the Archbishop to Richard Untalan showed that the Archbishop never implied that he wanted to give away the RMS property.  In his letter, Archbishop Apuron clearly stated that the "title holder then doesn't change at all because it remains the same Ordinary."  This only strengthens the Archbishop's side. The misunderstanding of the former finance counsel and the legal counsel was blown out of proportions and further misconstrued in the jungle. 

FACT 5:  The Archbishop has three reports done by the Pacific American Title; a reputable law firm that specializes in religious institution, canon law, and corporation sole; and the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.  

FACT 6:  An "ownership" and "encumbrance" report was concluded by the Pacific American Title declaring that the RMS property still belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana despite the Declaration of Deed Restriction.  So, you can argue that the deed restriction causes an encumbrance, the report done by the Pacific American Title will show that it does not.  What written report do you have other than a legal opinion showing that it causes an encumbrance? 

In concluding this entry post, decent comments are invited.  However, those who only have vile, meaningless things to say will not be published.  If you have nothing to say other than calling me vulgar names, then you have lost the debate.  I already had to delete all comments on this blog before writing this update.         

Declaration Of Deed Restriction 2

It was brought to my attention in my last entry post that Tim Rohr thinks that the Way can sell the RM seminary without the approval of the Archbishop.  The comment can be found here. That is incorrect.

The Certificate of Titles show that the Archbishop is the legal owner. One cannot sell a property without the permission from the legal owner. Tim Rohr believes that the Certificate of Titles mean nothing because it did not mention the Declaration of Deed Restriction.  According to Tim Rohr: 

Now, if the 2011 Deed did not affect the ownership of the property, why would David the VG publish a Certificate of Title omitting it, especially when the actual Title Report from Title Guaranty SHOWS the Deed   

We cannot accept that he did not know it was supposed to be on there. He's the Vicar General - the equivalent to our civil government's attorney general, he's supposed to be the ONE person in the diocese who knows these things. And even if he is ignorant - that's why the archdiocese has a legal counsel.

http://www.junglewatch.info/2015/12/david-vgs-latest-attempt-to-defraud.html#more

In the first place, the Declaration of Deed Restriction does not need to be in the Certificate of Titles.  Why?  Because the Archbishop owns the declaration.  It says so in the fine print at the bottom of the first four pages of the declaration.  It stated: 

Declaration of Deed Restriction by owner Archbishop of Agana, A Corporation Sole, Anthony Sablan Apuron, OFM, Cap., DD.,  Incumbent. 

Thus, the Archbishop owns the Declaration of Deed Restriction.  As Jackie Terlaje pointed out in her press release to the media (the bold with italics is mine): 

One need only look to the first line of the document, “Declaration of Deed Restriction”; the declaration itself does not profess to be a grant deed, quitclaim deed, warranty deed or other similar deed document, which conveys in whole the property to a grantee. The declaration professes to be a document of a limited purpose to grant a right of perpetual use. In fact, the declaration declares that the Archbishop of Agana, A Corporate Sole, is the “Owner” of the property, imposing on itself a restriction. By imposing on itself a restriction, the Archbishop, in the same way, can impose further conditions on himself as the Owner of both the Seminary Property, and the seminary itself. It is not necessary to be a legal scholar to know that the same authority who issued an administrative decree, can immediately issue the day after another administrative decree saying exactly the contrary.

In other words, the Declaration of Deed Restriction is OWNED by the Archbishop; therefore, he can even remove the declaration simply because he owns it. One only need to look at the bottom of the page to see that the declaration is indeed owned by the Archbishop.  Tim Rohr often cite the Bronze's legal opinion on his blog.  CCOG's lawyer is wrong because

1. he assumed the declaration to be a "deed" when in fact, it was never even filed as a "deed" but as a "declaration" by the Department of Tax and Revenue, and 
2. he did not read the fine print at the bottom, stating that the Declaration of Deed Restriction is owned by the Archbishop.    

A Question To Ponder

In my last entry post, Grow up in faith and an anonymous commenter brought up an interesting point.  It is true that the jungle have said that the Archbishop did not violate any civil laws.  Tim Rohr stated that the Archbishop was in violation of canon law.  In his blog, Tim Rohr even cited the canon laws that he believed were violated by the Archbishop.  So who convinced CCOG to sue the Archbishop in a civil court?  Why pursue a lawsuit in a civil court if there were no violation of any civil laws?   Why did they not obtain a canon lawyer instead, considering that the jungle have consistently stated that the Archbishop was in violation of canon law?

Division Among Protestors.

A commenter who goes by the name "Grow up in faith" made an interesting observation of the opposition:

grow up in faithDecember 15, 2015 at 11:35 AM

What came out of this ironic piece at JW is that there is a bitter division among the ranks of the protest movement. The division is coming from the opposing opinion of who should be regarded as the number one enemy: the archbishop or the NCW.

 

Those who consider the archbishop the number one enemy argue that he is the one who should be removed. This view is supported by Tim Rohr. They go against the NCW just as much as it is needed to remove the archbishop from his office. They hate the NCW only because NCW is affiliated with the archbishop and they hate the archbishop first! They have a vision of discrediting, humiliating and destroying the archbishop so that someone else would replace him who is oblivious of the real issues of Guam Catholics. Then, they could influence him more easily. This group may make a peace with the NCW under the condition that the archbishop must go.

The opposing view in the protest movement is that the NCW should be targeted as number one enemy. They consider the NCW as the root cause of all problems inside the local church. This view is supported by Chuck White and the CCOG. They hate the archbishop only because he allows NCW to operate on island, and they hate the NCW first. Their goal is the remove NCW from the island, either by forcing Rome to act as Chuck proposes, or even by sheer physical force as some CCOG members demand. Their vision is that the heresy charges against NCW will find favor at the Curia and this would allow them as the persecuting arm of Vatican to ostracize and chase members of the NCW away. They would make peace with the archbishop easily, as long, as he commits himself of banning the NCW from Guam. 

This division inside the protest movement was inevitable, because of the diverging views. The internal logic of radical thinking leads to escalation. A number one enemy must be named. Nothing would make sense anymore without blaming everything on one thing, be it a person or an organization. The split in the rank is about who should be hated first, and above all: the local leader, Anthony Apuron, or the local NCW communities.

I personally do not see any way out of this dead end. While some of the complaints expounded by CCOG ring true, it was a mistake to go into blanket opposition and frontal attack against everything that is happening in the church on Guam under the current leadership. Tim Rohr is a bright person with great strength in convincing people. However, his views and proposal have not been screened for validity. CCOG made an error in following blindly these proposals. Now, when the monetary influx starts coming into CCOG, the hidden split in strategy is coming out and divides the protesters.

What is the best strategy to continue the fight? It is just too hard to make a decision. But not making a decision will take a high toll on both JW and CCOG. In my opinion the best decision would be to go forward and meet halfway with both the archbishop and the NCW. We don't need more bitter infighting. We need a meaningful approach that allows the archbishop to lead and at the same time would foster better integration of the NCW into the parishes. Of course this would be a radical change away from meaningless and self-destructive radicalism of the prevailing trends of both JW and CCOG.
 

These are my thoughts: 

There are indeed two groups of people among the opposition.  The first group wants the Archbishop removed while the second group wants to work with the Archbishop to resolve the problems in the Church.  CCOG is obviously the second group.  Their mission statement clearly indicate that they wish to work with the Archbishop. 

Unfortunately, their actions are contrary to their mission statement.  Tim Rohr is in the first group.  He has publicly stated that the Archbishop should be removed.  Yet, CCOG allows him to become their mouthpiece in their meetings that they might as well make Tim Rohr the President of CCOG.  The fact that they have allied themselves with those who wish to remove the Archbishop contradicts their mission statement altogether.    

The money which CCOG received from some of the people was intended to be used to bring the Archbishop to court in order to get the RMS property returned to the Archdiocese of Agana.  It is illegal for CCOG to use the money they collected for any other purpose other than what it was intended.  So, they have a serious dilemma.  With the publication of the Certificate of Titles, anyone with intelligence can see that the RMS property is still under the Archdiocese of Agana.  What courtroom judge would rule in favor of CCOG when the Archbishop is the one holding the Certificate of Titles, clearly stating who owns the property?  The Archdiocese of Agana never misled them.  It is also not the fault of the Archdiocese that CCOG did not believe them nor gave them the benefit of the doubt. 

Grow up in faith has a point. Everyone can see that the jungle blog focus its attack on the Archbishop while the Thoughtful Catholic blog focus its attack on the NCW.   

Child Of A Mission Family

One of the beautiful things about the NCW and mission families is that they foster and promote vocations.  Many in the NCW discern what their vocations would be.  Some are called to serve God through the priesthood.  Some sisters are also called to the convent.  Others are called to a married life.  All these vocations are good.  Whatever Catholic organization there is that help the youth discern their vocation in life is always a good thing.  In the NCW, we get youths who stand up to the call for the priesthood.  These youths still have to discern whether they are truly being called to the priesthood or to a married life. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freshman Peter Brancale, 14, grew up in the Neocatechumenal Way, an organization within Catholicism that formed in the 1960s.

“I’ve had a vocation to the priesthood since I was very young,” Brancale said.

He lives with his family inside a former chapel in Bed-Stuy, and plans on attending a full-time seminary after he graduates. 

At Cathedral, students must be open to the priesthood, and their school day is centered more around the faith than other Catholic high schools.

Mass is held every morning, confession is held on a regular basis and religion is integrated in most classes.

But students are embraced whether they continue on to a higher seminary or not, officials said.

“We’ve made it very clear in our service to the school... a boy doesn’t have to promise that he’s going to be a priest or that during his time here he’s going to convince us of such,” Fonti said.

“We want him to first and foremost be true and honest, and also to be willing and open to grow intellectually and also spiritually.”

Peter Brancale grew up in a missionary family and said he's wanted to be a priest his whole life. He goes on weekend mission trips with his family. "We go in there and basically pronounce the word of God," he said.(DNAinfo/Katie Honan)

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150924/elmhurst/next-pope-may-come-from-high-school-behind-queens-center-mall 

 

Declaration Of Deed Restriction

Many people in the jungle including CCOG's lawyer believed that the Declaration of Deed Restriction is some kind of deed that conveys the RMS property from the Archdiocese of Agana to a corporation called RMS.  Take a closer look at the Declaration of Deed Restriction, which can be found in the jungle's blog weblink below: 

http://www.junglewatch.info/2015/01/on-definition-of-decree-and-possible.html

There are 26 items listed under "Type of instrument recorded" which the recorder at the Department of Revenue and Taxation is supposed to mark with an X.  These 26 items included (the bold is mine): 

1. Deed
2. Mortgage
3. Assignment
4. Addendum
5. Decree
6. Orders
7. Power of Attorney
8. Agreement
9. Affidavit
10. Release
11. Amendment
12. Assumption
13. Map
14. Judgment
15. Revocation
16. Termination
17. Lease
18. Contract
19. Certificate
20. Declaration
21. Easement
22. Claims
23. Cancellation
24. Notice
25. Bill of Sale
26. Withdrawal

Of the 26 items, the recorder check marked "Declaration."  Deed, which was the very first item, was never checked marked.  Furthermore, look at very first sentence in the Declaration of Deed Restriction."  It stated (the bold is mine): 

THIS DECLARATION OF DEED RESTRICTION ("Declaration") is made on this 21st day of November, by ARCHBISHOP OF AGANA, A CORPORATION SOLE, ANTHONY SABLAN APURON, OFM, CAP., D.D., INCUMBENT (hereinafter "Owner"), whose mailing address is...........

Look at what I placed in bold above.  What the jungle calls a "deed restriction" even states that it is a "declaration" rather than a "deed."  And this is the evidence that CCOG plans to provide as proof that the Archbishop gave away the property?  

This written document actually favors the Archbishop's side because it is written right there in black and white that it is a declaration just as Jackie Terlaje stated.  It was NEVER a deed of any kind.  Tim Rohr deceived his readers by focusing on only the word "Deed." They overlooked the fact that the word "Declaration" was checked marked as the type of instrument on paper.  They overlooked the fact that even the first sentence identified the Declaration of Deed Restriction as a "declaration".     

This was no different when the jungle also deceived its readers into believing that RMS was a separate corporation.  They focus on only the words Redemptoris Mater House of Formation and left out the words "Archdiocese of Agana", which was also written in Article I of the Articles of Incorporation. 

Meaningless Arguments

An anonymous commenter wrote the following in my last entry post: 

AnonymousDecember 7, 2015 at 7:02 PM

Diana, where does the Denver law firm practice it's law? You can't take another jurisdiction's law and apply it to Guam. It's common sense. ANY attorney also knows that laws are different in each jurisdiction.

On August 1st, I published an entry post on radicalism.  There were 12 rules on radicalism that I listed in my post.  The second rule fits the anonymous comment above (the bold is mine): 

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.) 

Notice that the commenter never addressed the "real" issues.  The real issue is that the law firm of Lew Roca Rothgerber LLP had concluded in their report that "the corporate governance structure of Redemptoris Mater showed...that the Archbishop of Agana retains substantial authority over Redemptoris Mater, as the Archbisop is the sole member of the entity under civil incorporation laws, presides over the governing boards, has the power to appoint the governing boards, the power to amend the civil governing documents and is the Ordinary under canon law with specific authority over the entity as prescribed in the Canonical Statutes and under canon law." In addition, the law firm in Denver took into consideration Guam's civil laws as well as the canon law of the Church when they concluded their report. This is the "real" issue, which the commenter avoided.

The same thing was true with the St. John's Seminary in California.  Under this blog, I pointed out that the St. John's Seminary in California is a corporation sole with a board of directors.  It is also under the Archdiocese of Los Angeles with the Archbishop of Los Angeles as the corporate sole.  This is the same situation as the RM seminary on Guam.  Tim Rohr's excuse is that the St. John's Seminary is not a corporation.  This is incorrect.  I also pointed out under this blog that St. John's seminary is a corporation.  After that, one does not hear anything from the jungle about St. John's seminary being filed as a corporation.  The issue was avoided. It is the same with the comment above. 

It was much easier to label the RM seminary as not being part of the Catholic Church on Guam than to deal with the "real" issues.  For example, they have no response as to why the official name of the seminary has "Archdiocese of Agana" attached to it in its Articles of Incorporation.  Radicals avoid responding to the "real" issues and only make meaningless and irrelevant arguments that are not even worth getting into.  

Now, that the Certificate of Titles were provided, they are making up another story about the Archdiocese "leasing" the property to RMS.  If Teri's story is true, then please provide the lease contract.   

Official Name Of RMS

It appears that the jungle cannot make up their minds.  First, they accuse the Archbishop of "giving away" the property to RMS.  Now, that the certificate of titles have been produced, the jungle started changing their song and dance as usual.  Now, they are accusing him to "leasing" the property to RMS.  According to Teri Untalan in today's Pacific Daily News: 

A copy of a certificate of title was posted to support this claim. One can have a certificate of title showing that one owns a particular piece of property, but it would not show that said property has been leased for 99 years, for example. 

And a long-term lease is similar to what the archbishop of Agana, Anthony Apuron, did with the property now in the control of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary.

http://www.guampdn.com/story/opinion/2015/12/06/catholics-do-not-follow-blindly/76768750/

 So, is CCOG going to take the Archbishop to court for "giving away" or "leasing" the property to RMS?  Teri Untalan also made the claim that the Redemptoris Mater Seminary is not part of the Catholic Church of Guam.  According to her: 

Be informed that the Redemptoris Mater is not part of the Catholic Church in Guam. It is a nonprofit corporation whose organizational documents show that the majority of the principals do not live in Guam, do not worship here, and whose only connection to Guam are that they are the Neocatechumenal-responsible team for which Guam is part of their area.......

The official name of RMS is found in its Articles of Incorporation.  The official name is "Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, Archdiocese of Agana."  The name "Archdiocese of Agana", found in the Articles of Incorporation as its official name, is the evidence showing that it is part of the Catholic Church in Guam. 

Likewise,  when one says, "Hagatna, Guam" one is saying that the village of Hagatna is part of the island of Guam.  Therefore, it stands to reason that "Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, Archdiocese of Agana" is saying that RMS is part of the Archdiocese of Agana, which is a Catholic Church on Guam.  RMS is a nonprofit corporation whose Articles of Incorporation shows that it is part of the Catholic Church in Guam with the Archbishop as the corporation sole (See Article V of the Articles of Incorporation).  

Furthermore, the academic formation of the seminarians in RMS on Guam is affiliated to the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome., which is also called "the Pope's university".  After completing their studies, the degree conferred comes from the Lateran University.  According to the U'Munta, the program studies and the Faculty have the Nihil Obstat of the Lateran University.  This is further evidence showing that the RMS on Guam is indeed not just part of the Catholic Church on Guam but also part of the entire "UNIVERSAL" Church.  

The Witnesses

"And I am particularly glad that this mission is carried out thanks to Christian families, united in a community, who have the mission to give witness to our faith that attract people to the beauty of the Gospel, in the words of Christ:  'This is how all will know that you are my disciples' (John 13:34), and 'be one and the world may believe' (John 17:21)." - Pope Francis
  
When God has worked a miracle in our lives, it should be shared with the world.  Many will say that the testimonies of the members of the Way are exactly the same.  Actually, they are similar but not exactly the same.  Why are they similar?  Because the problems found in every family and society are similar. Humans, regardless of their race and background, are not all that dissimilar from each other when confronted with daily problems at work and home.  We all face similar problems:  divorce, loss of a loved one, health issues, financial difficulties, problems with children, problems at work, drugs, alcohol, suicide, abusive relationships, etc.  All these are problems one finds at home and in society.    

The divorce rate has increased over the years.  How many people on Guam know someone who is divorced?  More people live with their girlfriend/boyfriend rather than marry. How many people know a couple who are living together? So, when a witness from the Neocatechumenal Way speaks about their parents on the verge of divorce or being raised by a single parent, this is a topic many people are facing.  

The testimonies of the NCW members are not from scripts, but testimonies of their own lives.  When God works a miracle in our lives, we are to share it to the world, not keep it to ourselves.  The testimonies reveal the everyday problems people face in our society, which are not new. It also manifests God's existence in our world who comes to heal us and take up our suffering. 

Most important of all is to live out one's baptismal promise.  Faith and works go hand in hand.  It is not human works, but the works of the Holy Spirit in us carrying out His work.  Carry the death of Jesus in your bodies.  With the Holy Spirit in you, the problems in your life no longer becomes a suffering and a burden.  One can see the light of Christ in that person during times of trials and death.  For example, the Apostles who were martyred went to their deaths with joy because death meant to see their Savior Jesus Christ.  

When I came into this world....I was crying and everyone around me was laughing.  But when I leave this world, I would be laughing and everyone around me would be was crying. 

   

NCW Great Mission Worldwide

The following video is the longer version of the Great Mission.  It shows all the countries where the Great Mission took place.  It shows the Neocatechumenal Way worldwide.  The quotes from Pope Francis is also very beautiful. 

Advent Announcement

The NCW had their Advent Announcement last night.  The Advent announcement was started by Kiko Arguello, and this announcement was passed on to the Head Catechists and then to the communities.  The announcement was mainly about the coming of Christ.  Christmas has become so commercialized that many often forget that the reason for the season is Jesus.  The Catechists encouraged the brothers to pull out the Belen.  So, this year, the NCW communities are encouraged to set up a beautiful nativity in their homes and to pray the novena.  After the novena, one of the children in the family is to take the statue of the baby Jesus to present to all family members present in the novena so they could "amen" the baby Jesus.  A family that prays together stays together.   

Of course, we also heard many things during the announcement.  According to our catechists, Kiko Arguello also warned the brothers to stay away from chatting on the social media.  We were encourage to phone the person rather than texting the person.  To hear the human voice saying "I miss you" has more meaning than reading it in a text.  Kiko said that the internet itself is not evil, but people use it for good or bad purposes.  For example, pornography is found in the Internet and can destroy many marriages.  "Chatting" in the social media can also destroy lives. Even the Attorney General warns children of "chatting" on the social media for they could be chatting with a sexual predator. It can be dangerous to allow a child to have a computer in his/her bedroom.  The computer should always be in an area (such as the living room) where the parents can see what the child is doing on the computer.  

The announcement was also about the rejection of Christianity.  In France, 94% of the people are Catholics; however, the nativity has been banned.  You can read all about it here.  In Texas and in many schools across America, Christian children are being suspended for wearing a cross or crucifix to school.  Texas is known as the buckle of the Bible belt where there are more Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists; yet, a young Catholic boy was suspended from school for wearing a cross.  You can read all about it here.  In Guam, most of our senators are Catholics who passed the same sex marriage law.  All these laws passed by Catholic countries only goes to show that Catholics are rejecting their Christian faith despite that some of them attend Sunday Mass.  

A Catholic who leads a double life is a serious thing.  How can a Catholic go to Sunday Mass; yet, see nothing wrong with hating his brother?  How can a Catholic receive Jesus in the Eucharist; yet, see nothing wrong with banning the nativity in public?  The rejection of Christianity comes from Christians themselves.  This is why the Pope says that Christianity in Europe (and probably even in the U.S.) needs to be re-evangelized.  With the passage of same sex marriage on Guam, it appears that even Guam needs to be re-evangelized. Thirty years ago, people on Guam understood that same sex marriage was wrong.  Today, it is acceptable.  On Christ's second coming, He is not going to ask us where we put the tabernacle or where we celebrated Mass.  He is not going to question us on whether we received Him by hand or tongue during the Eucharist. 

Luke 18:8 ....However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?  

The Church Universal 5 - The Neocatechumenal Way

This video is about 27 minutes long, but very important to listen to from beginning to end. It tells  about the Neocatechemunal Way and the Catechesis. The Catechesis was born from the dialogue with the poor.  The video shown at the end was very beautiful. GUAM is also in the video.   Hooray for Guam!!!!   :-)

Ownership Of RMS Confirmed

Now, that the Certificate of Title has been released through the Catholic newspaper, I hope to see the media on Guam follow up on the story.  They can interview the Director of Land Management regarding the Certificate of Title issued to the Archdiocese of Agana.  The following was taken from the U Matuna Si Yu'os, a Catholic newspaper on Guam.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ownership of Seminary property confirmed

The Archbishop of Agana is the legal and sole owner of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary of Guam in Yona (former Hotel Accion property) according to the Certificates of Title issued by the Government of Guam, Department of Land Management on October 30, 2015. 

The Department of Land Management issued Certificates of Title Nos. 135922, 135923, 135924 and 135925 for the ownership of the property where the Redemeptoris Mater Seminary of Guam is located in Yona.  There are four Certificates of Title because the Seminary property is made up of 2 lots, and 2 right-of-ways. 

Guam law authorizes the Government of Guam by the Director of Land Management to issue a certificate of title to the owner of the property, or his agent.  According to Monsignor David C. Quitugua, Vicar General, "The release of these certificates clearly resolves any doubt that the owner of the seminary property is the Archbishop of Agana, A Corporation Sole." 

Msgr. David C. Quitugua states, "These certificates establish that the Archdiocese of Agana by Most Rev. Anthony S. Apuron, OFM, Cap., D.D., Archbishop of Guam, maintains legal ownership of the Seminary property, and it is only the Archdiocese through the mechanisms of Canon Law that will determine the transfer or conveyance of this property.  Of course, all transaction must be civilly legally recorded and registered."  He continued, "The transfer or sale of the Seminary property and it monetary value cannot outweigh the intrinsic worth that the seminary provides for evangelization in the Pacific."  Moe than 40 young men currently are enrolled in the formation for the priesthood.  Thse men come for the Archdiocese of Agana.  Other Bishops from he Diocese of Kiribati, American Samoa and Western Samoa are also sending their men here.

Additionally, the Blessed Diego Luis de San Vitores Theological Institute which provides for the academic formation of the seminarians, is affiliated to the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome.  This is the Pope's University.  At the completion of studies, the degree conferred comes from the Lateran University. The program of studies and the Faculty have the Nihil Obstat of the Lateran University. 

The release of the Certificates of Title confirms the previous opinions of Bishop Arieta of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts (the highest judicial authority in the Roman Curia, who serves in the name of the Pope), and Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP, who have stated that the Archbishop continues to maintain authority over the Seminary property. 

A blessing from Monsignor David C. Quitugua, "In the spirit of Thanksgiving, let us remember to give glory and praise to God for all his blessings upon us.  We ask Santa Marian Camarin to continue protecting us, as she has done over the years.  Dankulu na Si Yu'os Ma'ase to all the faithful for your generosity big or small, and for all that you do in the Archdiocese."