Saturday, April 2, 2016

Correcting The Jungle

I recalled saying that RMS is a corporation sole, and I was mocked and ridiculed for it.  A corporation sole is an ecclesiastical office (the OWNER of the Church land).  For example, the Archdiocese of Agana is a corporation sole with the Archbishop as the only corporate sole.  The legal owner of the Archdiocese of Agana is Archbishop Apuron.  He is the only corporate sole of the Archdiocese.  Therefore, the Certificate of Title of a corporation sole should list the OWNER (the PERSON) of the corporation....such as Archbishop Anthony Apuron, Corporation Sole, Archdiocese of Agana.   

In his blog, Tim Rohr already admitted that RMS is an ecclesiastical office similar to the Archdiocese of Agana.  According to Tim Rohr:
A "see" is an ecclesial jurisdiction, such as the Apostolic See or the See of the Archdiocese of Agana. Notice that in the language of the Declaration of Deed Restriction, Apuron clearly recognizes that RMS is a "see," an ecclesial jurisdiction, distinct from the Archdiocese of Agana. And he is "subjecting" the entire property FOREVER (perpetual use) to the control of that separate "see," which, other than being only one vote on both boards, he has no control, even though he is the sole incorporator.  
Junglewatch

Finally, Tim Rohr recognized that RMS is an ecclesial jurisdiction similar to the Archdiocese of Agana.....in other words a "corporation sole."  In his blog, he stated that RMS is a separate SEE, distinct from the Archdiocese of Agana, and he is accusing the Archbishop of "subjecting" the entire property to the control of that separate SEE. 

Well, now that Tim Rohr has established RMS as a SEE, can you guess who is the corporation sole of that SEE???? 
 
According to Father Pius in his interview to PDN: 
Regarding the transfer of the title, the legal adviser of the archdiocese, five years ago, asked that the title be transferred to the Redemptoris Mater Corp. to respect the intention of the donor and to safeguard the property. This corporation is a 'corporation sole' where there is only one member, namely the archbishop, who has all power.  
In his blog, Tim Rohr underlined the part which stated, "the title be transferred to the Redemptoris Mater Corp."  However, he deliberately ignored the part where it clearly stated that RMS is a corporation sole (just like the Archdiocese of Agana) and there is only one member who is the corporate sole (just like the Archdiocese of Agana). 

As a matter of fact, the Articles of Incorporation of RMS listed Archbishop Apuron as the only corporate sole and the only member of RMS.  It did not list anyone else.  The corporation sole or corporate sole is legally defined as: "those which by law consist of but one member at any one time, as a bishop in England... It is said in England to include the Crown, all bishops, rectors, vicars and the like.2"  

This will be the jungle's undoing and downfall.  You cannot list Redemptoris Mater Corp. on the Certificate of Titles because it is NOT a person.   A person's name must be listed for the purposes of knowing who is responsible in case of unforeseen events.  The jungle have now established that RMS is a SEE just like the Archdiocese of Agana.  A SEE is a corporation sole and has an owner in charge.  The owner of RMS is and has always been Archbishop Apuron.  

So, what was the transfer?  The title was transferred from Archbishop Apuron, corporation sole, SEE of Archdiocese of Agana TO Archbishop Apuron, corporation sole, SEE of Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary.  This is the reason why he did not need the permission of the Finance Council or Rome.  He was transferring property he already owned to himself.  Transferring property to yourself is not an "alienation" of property.  In fact, some people would not even call it a "transfer." As the Archbishop wrote in his letter to Richard Untalan on November 16, 2011: 
The title holder then doesn't change at all because it remains the same Ordinary...... 
Since a PERSON has to be named on the Certificate of Titles as owner of RMS, who is Bob Klitzke going to say is the owner?  If he says that Giuseppi Gennarini is the owner, then the next question to ask Mr. Klitzke is......why did he skip the Archbishop's name on the list?  According to the Articles of Incorporation of RMS, Archbishop Apuron was listed FIRST under the Board of Guarantors.  So, why did he skip the Archbishop and name the second person on the list of the Board of Guarantors as the legal owner of RMS?  Furthermore, where is his written evidence showing that Giuseppi Gennarini is the owner of RMS?  This will be the jungle's downfall.   

104 comments:

  1. Why is there an "Inc" after the RMS, but not after the "Archdiocese"? Could it be becuase one is a corporate sole (the office of the Archbishop)and one is simply a separately incorporated non-profit entity.

    Are you seriously going to carry on this stupid argument that the RMS is a corporate sole? Its so ridiculous its laughable. Have you even asked a lawyer this simple question yourself? I can't believe you're that stupid frankly - you have no idea what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:07 pm,

      You read what Tim Rohr wrote. He accused the Archbishop of subjecting" the entire property FOREVER (perpetual use) to the control of that separate SEE.

      And for your information, St. John's Seminary in Los Angelos is also a corporation sole with the Archbishop of Los Angeles as the only member and corporate sole. According to the weblink below:

      "Like most Catholic diocesan seminaries St. John's is a "corporation sole," and the archbishop of Los Angeles is the "corporate sole," the single legal owner who passes authority to his successor in office. At St. John's, the archbishop also serves as chair of the board of directors, which is legally an advisory group, not a board of trustees with final authority."

      http://63.134.219.120/magazine/pastarticle.cfm?id=679

      So, you see, Anonymous, St. John's Seminary is a corporation sole with a Board of Directors and with the Archbishop of Los Angelos as the only corporate sole and only member. Sound familiar?????? So, who turned out to be asinine in the end? RMS follows the same structure as most seminaries in the U.S. do. This will be the jungle's downfall.

      Delete
  2. That information hearing is gona be very interesting. I would like to hear who Klitzke will name as the owner of RMS. I bet it's gonna be Giuseppi Gennarini. I can now hear Jackie Terlaje asking him why he named the second person on the list of the Board of Guarantors as the owner after skipping the archbishop, whose name is first on the list. I also like to see what written evidence Klitze has showing Gennarini as the owner. Does Klitze have a CT saying Gennarini is the owner?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Teri Untalan is at it in the PDN's Voice of People section on this beautiful Sunday morning... Please, take it with a pinch of salt what she says.

    http://www.guampdn.com/story/opinion/2016/04/02/voice-people/82545834/

    Here is my response:

    Teri Untalan, in the Chalan Pago parish there are several Neocatechumenal communities. Why don't you come and visit us once at our Holy Day service to see if your sisters and brother adoring Jesus Christ are indeed a "Machiavellian horde, a nefarious cult, a marauding band of interlopers" as you say.

    Your language for us is not the language of truth but the language of unbridled bias, burning hatred, painful ignorance and a threatening intent of persecution. The Attorney General does not agree with you regarding the title certificate of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. What is at issue is whether the information recorded on the document is correct or not. Nobody claims it is incorrect.

    In a civilized society you cannot make public accusation about people without making the slightest attempt to justify your charges. We still have to wait for you to make civilized argument about the Neocatechumenal Way.

    You say you "will be the voice of doom to my fellow Catholics in Guam." I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Your opinion piece sounds more like the voice of a demagogue from the Völkischer Beobachter getting a free ride on the pages of the Pacific Daily News.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Zoltan,

      Right now, the jungle is expressing their frustrations because after three years, they still produced nothing. The jungle was recently jilted when the Attorney General finally announced that she agreed with the methods taken by Director Mike Borja. Now, Mike Borja can go into the information hearing room with confidence saying that what he did was in accordance with the law. And he has the Attorney General's support.

      The jungle will be even more jilted after the information hearing when the archbishop produces all the documents he has showing that he is the owner of RMS. The only thing Bob Klitzke has is a Bronze OPINION. And Bob Klitzke will most likely name Gennarini as the owner without any supporting documents to show for it.

      Delete
    2. Dear Diana, Teri Untalan's piece was apparently written before the opinion of the AG came into light. However PDN published it only after this important turning point! Therefore she was unable to take into consideration that there is no legal question left open about the correction of the certification of title. This makes Teri Untalan look like completely out of sync with reality. Well, based on what she says about the Neocatechumenal Way, she still is.

      Delete
    3. Rohr removed a comment from the jungle calling Umatuna Si Yu'os a Nazi newspaper. It was there 5 minutes ago and now it is gone. He must be deeply ashamed of what he just said. Signs of repentance?

      Delete
  4. The AG should look into JW, LFM, and CCOG. Someone asked Tim to take it to court and used Klitzke if the Bronze attorney is too expensive, and this was Tim's reply:


    TimApril 2, 2016 at 11:57 AM

    Now, as per going to court, there is no reason to rush this. We are having quite a bit of fun watching the LIARS make stumble after stumble. And after each stumble, our eventual law suit becomes easier.

    In fact, truth be told, we were sort of at a stalemate a few months back. It was questionable whether anyone had standing to be even be able to bring a suit, and because of the ambiguous nature of a corporation sole, it was going to cost many thousands of dollars to determine if we could even file a suit.

    But then stupid Jackie got that false certificate and gave it to stupid David and stupid David published it, handling us a gift. Once they did that, they took it out of the arena of an internal corporate dispute and made it a much larger civil issue, requiring the legislature to now get involved since the AG herself has even "concurred" with a violation of Guam law.

    So you see, we are saving lots of money, not having to hire expensive lawyers and at the same time letting Jackie and the Fools hand us damning document after document. And wait till you see the smoking gun we just got.

    LOL. This is too good to be true. And it's FREE! LOL. Courage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:21 am,

      That is an interesting thing that Tim Rohr said in his blog. If that is their main strategy, then what exactly do they plan to do with the $50,000 CCOG collected from its members? And what about the funds being raised by LFM?

      Furthermore, they have been losing battle after battle. In the first place, we did not take it out of the arena. It was Klitzke who took it out of the arena by involving the AG, and look at where that got him. Now, Tim thinks that the involvement of the Guam Legislature makes it a larger civil issue? Was Tim Rohr not aware that Senator Tom Ada is no longer calling an OVERSIGHT hearing????

      That oversight hearing has turned into an information hearing. The fact that Senator Ada has changed the form of the meeting already shows that the Guam Legislature is together with the AG. In other words, there is NO oversight.

      Delete
  5. DIANA show the document stating that RMS is a corporate sole. LOL
    The simple question is this. If RMS is still owned by Apuron then how did he protect it by giving it to RMS as they quote Pius saying?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:25 am,

      He protected it by being the sole member and only corporate sole of RMS. He protected it by making sure that he is the only one who has the power to remove both the Board of Directors and the Board of Guarantors just like he did with the former finance council.

      Delete
    2. The Archbishop has no power to remove the board of Guarantors.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 9:58 am,

      Yes, he does.

      Delete
    4. @ Anon. 7:25. Diana has just shown that a seminary can be a corporation sole with a Board of Directors and with the Archbishop of Los Angeles as the sole member and corporate sole. What makes you so sure that RMS is not a corporation sole like the St. John's Seminary?

      Delete
    5. Dear Diana at 12.40, the RMS Articles of Incorporation stipulate the members of the board of guarantors, and there is no provision for their election or dismissal. The Articles then go on to say that the board of Guarantors has a veto power over any "important area" of the operations of the corporation.

      Can you explain in what way you believe that the Archbishop has the power to remove the board of guarantors?

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous at 1:28 pm,

      It is found in the Bylaws of the corporation. The Articles of Incorporation also does not say how the Board of Directors are to be selected or how long their term of office will be. It simply said that their term of office and manner of election or appointment will be determined by the Bylaws of the corporation. Therefore, the term of office, manner of appointment and dismissal can only be found in the Bylaws of the RMS corporation.

      Also, Father Pius pointed out in his interview with PDN:

      " The only member, namely the Archbishop, chooses all Directors. Then there is a Board of Guarantors that guarantees that the Corporation follows the original purpose for which it was created. The Archbishop chooses, confirms or dismisses freely these guarantors.

      http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2014/08/entire-interview-of-father-pius.html

      Delete
    7. Dear Diana, can you please provide a link or a quote from the bylaws that deals with how the Archbishop may dismiss the board of Guarantors. I understand from the Bronze opinion that there is no such provision in the bylaws (http://www.scribd.com/doc/270817643/Legal-Opinion-Final-Final-Part-II-Only) Please back up what you state with some evidence. Thank you.

      Delete
    8. Oh Diana, did you deliberately lie or were you simply under a misunderstanding. I have just now looked at the by-laws of the RMS and there is nothing, repeat NOTHING, regarding the appointment or dismissal of the Board of Guarantors.

      It is now absolutely necessary to show why we should believe that Pius did not lie when he said "The Archbishop chooses, confirms or dismisses freely these guarantors", and why we should believe that you are not deliberately lying when you said that this power to appoint and dismiss is to be found in the by-laws.

      Delete
    9. Dear Anonymous at 10:45 am,

      The Bylaws stated that the Neocatechumenal Responsible Team for the United States will be part of the Board of Guarantors. Those Bylaws were made and signed by Archbishop Apuron, who is the ONLY MEMBER in RMS. Therefore, by putting that in the Bylaws, it was the Archbishop himself who appointed the Responsible Team of the US to be part of the Board of Guarantors.

      Furthermore, the Bylaws of RMS also stated (Article VIII Section 2):

      "The Bylaws of the Corporation may be altered, amended, restated, or repealed by and only by, actions of the Members of the Corporation."

      In short, there is only ONE MEMBER in the corporation who has that power to amend or make changes to the Bylaws. That ONE MEMBER is the Archbishop. Therefore, the Archbishop can appoint or dismiss members in the Board of Guarantors simply through an amendment in the Bylaws.

      Delete
    10. So when you said:

      "It is found in the Bylaws of the corporation."

      what you really meant is that they are NOT to be found in the by-laws?

      This new theory of yours on the nature of truth intrigues me.

      So let's be clear then. Do you agree that as they currently stand, the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws of the RMS do not provide for the appointment and/or election of the Board of Guarantors, other than mandate that it always includes the US responsible team (Gennarini et al)? And that neither the Articles of Incorporation nor the By-laws provide explicitly for the removal or dismissal of that same Board?

      Delete
    11. Dear Anonymous at 3:42 pm,

      The Bylaws do provide the appointment and/or election of the Board of Guarantors. The Bylaws are not set in stone. As it stands, the Archbishop in creating the Bylaws and approving it with his signature has appointed the Responsible Team of the US. Those Bylaws can be changed ONLY by the Archbishop (being that he is the sole member in the corporation), and there is no one who can oppose him.

      Delete
    12. Dear Diana,

      this is what I asked:

      "Do you agree that as they currently stand, the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws of the RMS do not provide for the appointment and/or election of the Board of Guarantors, other than mandate that it always includes the US responsible team (Gennarini et al)?"

      Are you able to give a straight answer?

      Because this:

      "The Bylaws do provide the appointment and/or election of the Board of Guarantors" is unclear. Do you agree with my first statement?

      Delete
    13. Dear Anonymous at 7:26 pm,

      How much clearer can I get? I already stated that the Bylaws DO PROVIDE for the appointment and even dismissal of the Board of Guarantors. Article VIII Section 2 of the Bylaws made that provision.

      Delete
    14. Article VIII Section 2 of the Bylaws says nothing whatsoever of the Board of Guarantors. Is it any wonder that Catholics find it difficult to trust the NCW when you indicate that you are quite willing to speak untruths, if you think it will advantage your idolatrous community? Shameless.

      Delete
    15. Dear Anonymous at 2:25 am,

      It was through the Bylaws that the Board of Guarantors were appointed. And it is only through the Bylaws that they can be changed or dismissed. That is where Article VIII Section 2 comes in. Only the Archbishop has the authority to alter or amend the Bylaws. By amending it, he can remove the part about the Responsible Team of the US. You are unable to see that because you are looking for one specific name. You are unable to understand that Article VIII Section 2 gives authority to change anything in the Bylaws only to the Archbishop.

      Delete
    16. Dear Anonymous at 2:25 am,

      For a better explanation, see my latest post below.

      http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2016/04/bylaws-of-rms.html

      Delete
  6. What Fr. Pius says is completely different from the articles..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:40 pm,

      When Father Pius said that RMS is a corporation sole, no one believed him. When he says that a transfer was made, suddenly they say he is telling the truth. You are only picking and choosing what you want to hear.

      Delete
    2. Very interesting. Rohr and co. are always winning their argument at JW in their own eyes, whatever they say. It is an easy win, but only at JW! Lol.

      However, out of their JW comfort zone they are just sore losers. They are way too much coward to get the law checked upon them at court. They are so afraid to hear the truth, they keep postponing the moment of truth time and again!

      They come here to test their insane ideas on us, then they return back home to JW to lick their wounds they caused to themselves. What a miserable branch!

      They fool around frolicking here and there but they will never file a lawsuit. Why? Very simple, because the law is not on their side.

      Delete
    3. What I read at Junglewatch are all long litanies of a compulsive nature. You can hardly even see any new information, but everything is self-repetitious, recycled over and over ad infinitum. Any professional in the area of psychiatry can easily identify this character of a compulsive-obsessive behavior.

      A couple days ago Rohr admitted that he needs JW for personal "healing". It is his Freudian free association arena where he can experiment with his self-made psychotherapy. His followers are too blind to recognize that all he needs them for is to flatter his wounded ego. Well this is exactly what they quite slavishly do. Lol!

      Delete

  7. If this seminary belongs to Guam and Ojr Archbishop is the owner then we the church of Guam have demand. I demand a voice in the appointment of our archdiocesan seminary. I want a voice on who becomes rector and who teaches in Oir seminary. We must demand more say over the day to day administration. Them I will believe it belongs to archbishop. I demand more say in the administration of seminary.
    Brother Damian Jesus is Lord community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:52 pm,

      The Catholic Church is not a democracy.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 7:27 pm,

      All you have is an interpretation of the Bronze lawyer. That is what you will have on the day of the information hearing. The Archbishop, on the other hand, will have the following information:

      1. The report and encumbrance report from the Pacific American Title stating that the Archbishop owns RMS even with the Declaration of Deed Restriction in place.
      2. The report from the Denver law firm which specializes in religious institutions and corporation soles stating that the Archbishop owns RMS even with the Declaration of Deed Restriction in place.
      3. The report of the Pontifical Council stating that there was no alienation of the property even if the Archbishop transferred the title of the property to the RMS Corporation because the Archbishop owns RMS.
      4. The corrected Certificate of Titles certifying the Archbishop as the legal owner of RMS.
      5. The Articles of Incorporation of RMS showing that the Archbishop is the sole member and only incorporator of RMS.
      6. The Bylaws of RMS which stated that the Archbishop is the corporation sole of RMS and have the authority to appoint and dismiss the members in the Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors.
      7. The Declaration of Deed Restriction which has been filed by the Department of Tax and Revenue as a "Declaration" rather than as a "Deed."

      As for Bob Klitzke, what will he bring to the Information Hearing? He will only have the opinion of a real estate lawyer who has absolutely no experience of religious institutions or corporation soles.

      This is an information hearing. The person who will have the most information is certainly NOT Bob Kliztke. He can argue all he wants that the Certificate of Title should have RMS as the legal owner, but he will be asked the question, "WHO" in RMS is the legal owner. We already know he is not going to say the Archbishop. His only choices are "Gennarini" or "I don't know." Either way he answers, he loses.

      Delete
    3. "6. The Bylaws of RMS which stated that the Archbishop is the corporation sole of RMS and have the authority to appoint and dismiss the members in the Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors. "


      Are these bylaws public documents? Can you please provie a link to them or otherwise show where they say that the Archbishop has authority to appoint and dismiss the members in the Board of Guarantors

      Because the Bronze opinion states that:

      "The establishment of the Board of Guarantors by this not-for-profit corporation calls into question as to how the Board of Guarantors are to be elected or removed from such position once he/she becomes a member of said board, as the bylaws do not address the electin or removal procedures of such Board of Guarantors and neither does Guam law. "

      It goes on to say that:

      "Since Guam law does not recognize a Board of Guarantors and in the absence of any provisions for the removal or election of such board in the articles or by-laws of RMHF, the Archbishop despite being the sole member of the not-for-profit, cannot remove the members of the Board of Guarantors unless the Archbishop files for an application for the dissolution of RMHF."

      So, are we to not believe a real estate attorney on these things? Are you able to simply show us where the by-laws address those things that Bronze claims they don't? If what you say is true Diana, that ought to be fairly straightforward. Thankyou

      Delete
    4. I am confused Diana. Are you saying that a corporation is not able to hold real property? Is that why you suggest that Kliztke will be stumped for an answer when asked "who" is the legal owner. Can't the "legal owner" be simply the RMS (or the RMHF or whichever)?

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 11:23 pm,

      In the case of the RMS property, the answer is no. It has already been established that RMS is an ecclesiastical office. Therefore, the public juridic person of RMS must be named in the Certificate of Titles. WHO is that public juridic person in RMS?

      Delete
    6. The "public juridic person" is the Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, presumably.

      Much the same as in the following link, where the Seminary was established as a "public juridic person":

      "12.5. The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation
      Established in 1996 as a Colorado nonprofit corporation and as
      a public juridic person, The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation (Redemptoris Mater Seminary)
      is located on the
      grounds of the John Paul II Center for the New Evangelizat
      ion." http://archden.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/PH-Chapter12.pdf

      And, article 1.3 of the Statutes of the NCW state:

      "3. The Neocatechumenal Way, endowed with public juridical personality"

      Were you honestly arguing that a "public juridic person" must be a specific human being?

      Delete
    7. Dear Anonymous at 3:07 am,

      There is a difference between a person and a personality. RMS has an ecclesiastical office similar to the Archdiocese of Agana. According to the Declaration of Deed Restriction (Capitalization is mine):

      "The property shall be dedicated, to and for the use, of the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary, a non-profit corporation.....in perpetual use as a SEE of the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary."

      The Declaration of Deed Restriction identifies RMS it to be a SEE similar to the Archdiocese of Agana. The SEE makes RMS a "corporation sole." Therefore, there is a PERSON in charge, and that person's name should be listed.

      Delete
    8. Oh, I see. You're back tracking now. First you ask who is the "public juridical person" in the RMS. But now, having been informed, do you acknowledge that the RMS is a "public juridic person" itself? Because, if so, your argument is gone. There doesn't need to be a specific "person in charge" listed as the owner - but simply a civil owner, a "public juridic person", in this case the RMHF.

      Delete
    9. Dear Anonymous at 10:25 am,

      On the contrary, I was using the same example the Archbishop used when he wrote to Richard Untalan. According to the Archbishop:

      "The matter is clearly not 'alienation,' but simply an assigning of the title of a 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...."

      Delete
    10. Can. 116 §1. Public juridic persons are aggregates of persons (universitates personarum) or of things (universitates rerum) which are constituted by competent ecclesiastical authority so that, within the purposes set out for them, they fulfill in the name of the Church, according to the norm of the prescripts of the law, the proper function entrusted to them in view of the public good; other juridic persons are private.

      Delete
    11. So, anon at 3.37, are you suggesting that "public juridic persons" are not individuals, as Diana claims?

      Delete

  8. Diana I'm not saying no to the seminary.
    I'm simply saying RMS is ours belongs to Guam.
    Therefore we the owners the church of Guam have a God given right to say who becomes rector and who teaches. It belongs to us the people and we have a say how the seminary is governed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Brother Damian,

      First of all, you do not own the Church. The Church belongs to Christ and Christ alone. It was Christ who built the Church, not you.

      Finally, you do not have any God given right to determine how the seminary is governed. Why? Because the Church is not a democracy.

      Delete
    2. The fact that the Gennarinis have a "God-given" right to govern a seminary on Guam should be enough for you to realize there is a problem.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 11:25 pm,

      Just because you are not sitting as a member of the Board of Guarantors is no reason for you to hate the Gennarinis. What exactly do you see as a problem? Could you be more specific?

      Delete

    4. Diana I have no Pronlem with a seminary here on Guam.
      However, we the people of Guam own this seminary. It is our land our property.
      Gennarinis are not blood of Guam.
      Our own priest must be appointed to seminary.
      One of our priests should be rector.
      Our own priests should be appointed to the board.
      You say church is not a democracy. It is not. But you have abused the system to make it a dictatorship. At least have a balanced system and appoint local priest's to be board.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 8:58 am,

      Says who??? We are Catholics. The Catholic Church is God's true Church. And in God's true Church, there is no such thing as foreigners. As St. Paul said there are no Jews, Gentiles, slaves, or masters in Christ Jesus. We do not belong to this world....a world that recognizes different nationalities and ethnic groups. We belong to God's kingdom where everyone is one family. Everyone is brothers and sisters with God as our Father, Mary as our Mother and Christ as our Brother.

      Delete
  9. The real problem is that the church is the 'people of God' if you forgot. The problem is the Gennarinis have a say and determines who will come to attend the seminary. Neither the Archbishop has a say who can be part of it. Only those in the communities. If there are outsiders it is because of the Blessed San Diego Institute that is attached to the RMS seminary to hide the fact that no one outside the communities can become RMS priest. I know. So why can't active committed lay people of Guam have no say.
    The church is not a democracy crap. The church is neither a DICTATORSHIP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:20 am,

      You stated: "The real problem is that the church is the 'people of God' if you forgot."

      How is that supposed to be a problem? Can you explain further? Would you prefer that the Church be a building? Would that solve the problem?

      First of all, in order for a man to enter any seminary, he has to receive a calling from God. It is the Bishop of the person who decides which seminary to send him. Remember Aaron Quitugua. It was not the Gennarinis who was telling Aaron Quitugua where to go. Aaron was told to attend one of the two seminaries here on Guam. He wanted to go off-island to a seminary that would receive his University of Guam credits so he does not lose out.

      Delete
    2. Diana, I find it very reasonable if someone wants to go to a seminary that would receive his University of Guam credits. An accredited institution must be able to accept credit from other institutions. What is wrong with that?

      Delete
    3. "In order for a man to enter any seminary, he has to receive a calling from God." Diana, it is an internal call that cannot be enforced or sanctioned. How do you think it works? Some people may feel they were called for holy priesthood, then they feel they might have been called for something else. How do you explain the high drop-out rate at the RMS?

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 1:11 pm,

      If a person desires the priesthood, one of the things he is required to do is being obedient to the Bishop. If he cannot do that, then perhaps, he needs to discern his vocation more.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 1:25 pm,

      Can you show me the statistics of this high drop-out rate compared with other seminaries?

      Delete
    6. Anon 1:25 PM where did you find such statistic of drop out rate at RMS? YELLOW BOOK or Tim's vile? LOL! KEEP drinking it, it make you smarter.... Should you follow his PYRAMID scheme????

      Delete

  10. What is wrong with a seminarian suggesting to a bishop where he studies for the Priesthood? It should be a mutual agreement where a seminarian studies. For example. A young man dialogues with his parents about the college he will attend. Same with a bishop and seminarian. Before NCW arrived here Archbishop consulted each seminarian where they wished to study. Majority opted for St. Patricks menlo. It was Fr. Blockley who informed Archbishop Apuron of seminary changes when he came to our Diocese. Fr. Blockley introduced what he said " discovering a common ground agreement" agreement was consultation. Seminarians were consulted where they would study. Aaron adopted this " common ground agreement " seminarians would pay their own seminary expenses. Father Blockley was a creative thinker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:42 am,

      A young man can dialogue with his parents, but the law in the Ten Commandments makes it clear....Honor and obey your father and mother. And since you compared it to parent-child relationship, then the same should hold true between bishops and seminarians.

      Delete
  11. Diana, here is a question, just by itself. Someone called my attention that praying the Rosary too often may lead to spiritual dullness, a mental condition called aridity toward God. What is the truth? How often do you pray the Rosary in the neo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:32 pm,

      Praying the rosary is a devotion. There is no Church law saying that every Catholic MUST pray the rosary. Some people love the rosary, which is fine. In the NCW, we do not make it a requirement to pray the rosary. It is up to the individual if they want to pray the rosary.

      Delete
    2. "Someone called my attention that praying the Rosary too often may lead to spiritual dullness, a mental condition called aridity toward God. "

      I suspect this can't be a serious question, but if it is my advice is don't ever listen to that "someone" again.

      With regard to the prayer and worship in the Church the rosary is second only to the Mass in its beneficence.

      15 promises Our Lady gave to Christians who recite the Rosary:

      1) Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive signal graces.

      2) I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary.

      3) The Rosary shall be a powerful armour against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies.

      4) It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of men from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means.

      5) The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish.

      6) Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying himself to the consideration of its sacred mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise him in His justice, he shall not perish by an unprovided death; if he be just he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life.

      7) Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the sacraments of the Church.

      8) Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at death the light of God and the plentitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the saints in paradise.

      9) I shall deliver from Purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary.

      10) The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in heaven.

      11) You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary.

      12) All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities.

      13) I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the Rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death.

      14) All who recite the Rosary are my sons, and brothers of my only Son Jesus Christ.

      15) Devotion of my Rosary is a great sign of predestination.

      http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1448527.The_Secret_Of_The_Rosary

      Delete
    3. That someone is my friend and I rather listen to him than to somebody whom I don't even know. My friend is a Christian and I respect that. For me a good Christian is better than a bad Catholic. Praying the Rosary is a wonderful thing once in a while. But every day? That would empty it from its mystery.

      Also, we don't know how Mother Mary said her 15 points other than by apparition. But are apparitions real? Nobody has ever been able to make a photo of an apparition, not even in Medjugorje, the site of the latest apparitions, with the most advanced photo technology. How can you explain that?

      http://www.medjugorje.org/

      Delete
    4. Oh, I apologize, I thought you were Catholic.

      Catholics would never say that praying the Rosary every would empty it from its mystery, whatever that actually means.

      As for apparitions, perhaps you could look at what the Church teaches about these things - that although they are generally regarded as "private revelation", in some cases, there is enough good evidence, particularly in relation to the seer's life, that the Church "approves" these apparitions, and declares them to be supernatural. Such is the case for the apparitions at La Salette, Lourdes, Fatima, Quito and Akita.

      I stringly urge you to look them up.

      "For me a good Christian is better than a bad Catholic."

      What about a good Catholic?

      Delete
    5. If you say you are a good Catholic then I know you are probably not. If faith for you is only a tool to glorify yourself then you are not even a Christian. Jesus had never said glorify yourself in my name. He said glorify God because all glory is due to Him!

      A senseless, mechanical recitation builds dullness of spirit and aridity toward God. The mystery of Rosary is in the coming of the Son of God through Mary. Those who pray it as a dry mantra, often forget this and look for personal benefit only. Paying the Rosary once in a while with an attentive heart, though, helps you to rediscover this mystery in the miracles of Jesus.

      False expectations about praying the Rosary can easily lead to superstition. If you don't have a personal relation to Jesus Christ then how do you expect a payer to save you? There are many superstitions related to the apparitions, as well. I am not talking about the Church's teaching that I respect, even though I have my own doubts about these so called "miracles". If you like it, I am a doubting Thomas who cannot be convinced by obscure tales or church papers only by Jesus Christ himself.

      I could not care less if there is an "approval" of an apparition or not. I would like to see the evidence caught by camera on a nice and clear piece of photo. Don't tell me a real thing appearing in front of many cannot be photographed by advanced technology. That would be superstition. The 15 "promises" you quote are not even part of the official Catholic teaching!

      Bible has no indication apparitions will occur with healing power communicated through a vision of a figure. If Jesus wanted this then He would have talked about it when He dwelt among us! Rather, He gave the key of heaven to Peter and assigned the apostles to spread the gospel, heal and forgive sins.

      He told them about Himself: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:19-20)

      Delete
    6. So many false dichotomies, straw men and the like! Its almost a (bad) work of art. Lets see...


      I did not say I was a good Catholic. I simply replied to your (meaningless) statement that a "good Christian is better than a bad Catholic" (whatever that actually means) by asking where does a good Catholic fit in to that schema. I guess in your view there is no such thing as a good Catholic (don't you believe in saints?).

      Well, that's sufficient for paragraph 1

      You say that "False expectations about praying the Rosary can easily lead to superstition" - and I reply that "false expectations" about anything can lead to superstition, even "false expectations" about the community will do that. So the answer is - don't have false expectations of the Rosary - and in order to do that, you need to know what the Rosary is and what its promises are.

      Then you say "If you don't have a personal relation to Jesus Christ then how do you expect a payer (prayer) to save you?"

      I don't. Jesus can save me. A prayer cannot.

      Also, does your statement assume that I (or whoever) do not have a personal relation (sic) with Jesus Christ? Why not assume the person that prays the Rosary actually does have this relationship with Christ. Or is it inconceivable in your world view that *anyone* that holds the Rosary in esteem must, by definition, not be truly Christian?

      You then go on to question the Church's capacity to make pronouncements on private revelations, and even whether such "miracles" can exist. Do you live in a bubble? What about the miracles that are documented every time a saint is pronounced?

      It is an evil generation that demands signs. But ok, how about this one:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun

      Here is another image of the event:

      http://www.theworkofgod.org/Aparitns/Zeitoun.htm

      Doubt no longer, but believe.

      The rest of your comment is just silly.

      If your views are the product of the formation of the NCW communities, then we have every reason to be concerned.

      My last piece of advice, for what it is worth - read the book on the Rosary by St Louis de Montford, then see what you think.

      Delete

  12. Diana why i is the rosary not a part of your religion when you claim to be catholic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 3:12 pm,

      Where did I say that it is not part of our religion?

      Delete
    2. If God is for us who can be against us if the spirit of God has set us free.
      Nothing can take us from his love. The spirit of God has set us free.

      Delete

  13. You said Diana NCW does not do the rosary as it is private prayer.
    Rosay is not a part of your catholic church.
    This is the problem Diana.
    Your catholic church is not authentic Catnolic church of Guam.
    It's why we don't want you here.
    Do YOU UNDERSTAND ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:38 pm,

      I never said that. Do not put words in my mouth. I stated: "In the NCW, we do not make it a requirement to pray the rosary. It is up to the individual if they want to pray the rosary."

      If you FORCE people to pray the rosary, then your church is not an authentic Catholic Church.

      Delete
    2. "If you FORCE people to pray the rosary, then your church is not an authentic Catholic Church."

      Thats true. At the same time, you would do well to consider these again:

      14) All who recite the Rosary are my sons, and brothers of my only Son Jesus Christ.

      15) Devotion of my Rosary is a great sign of predestination.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 2:27 am,

      Through our baptism, we are already brought into God's family with God as our Father, Mary as our Mother, and Jesus as our Brother. It is our baptism that we were made part of God's family. A person can choose whatever devotion they wish to pray.

      Delete
    4. Hey anon, I don't know what you mean by predestination, but it is Calvinist teaching, no Catholic! Do you think Mother Mary wanted us to convert to Calvinism?

      Delete
    5. Hi Anon at 6.02. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but predestination is indeed a Catholic concept, although it is easily misunderstood. Please try to keep up.

      http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

      Delete
    6. Predestination in the proper sense is a fictious concept, that is not related to the knowledge of people, but to the knowledge of God only! God is all-knowing so He knows your destiny. It is fictious because you cannot have the same knowledge as God.

      As the Catholic Encyclopedia says "the notion of predestination comprises two essential elements: God's infallible foreknowledge (præscientia), and His immutable decree (decretum) of eternal happiness."

      As human beings we can never have this knowledge because then we would be equal to God which is impossible. This is the Catholic teaching in a nutshell. The free will of man is professed as essential part of God's design. You can choose your fate by living in sin or repenting and confessing. This is your path to hell or heaven, both remaining open for you to choose till the end of your earthly journey.

      Predestination has real significance for Calvinists only, who claim that your free will is overridden by the foreknowledge of God. This is wrong. As Calvin erroneously claims:

      "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto... Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only."

      You see this is the full blown meaning of predestination, taking away your freedom and reducing you a puppet of God's grace and salvation. When you learn about your salvation, as Calvin says, you become righteous for a lifetime. We Catholics do not believe in that. Righteousness is contingent upon the voluntary participation in the Holy Sacraments.

      Delete
    7. Dear Anon at 10.21, the word you're looking for is "fictitious" not "fictious".

      In any case, as I said, the notion of predestination is easily misunderstood. But it is nonetheless Catholic dogma, as the Catholic encyclopedia states:

      "Between these two extremes the Catholic dogma of predestination keeps the golden mean, because it regards eternal happiness primarily as the work of God and His grace, but secondarily as the fruit and reward of the meritorious actions of the predestined. The process of predestination consists of the following five steps: (a) the first grace of vocation, especially faith as the beginning, foundation, and root of justification; (b) a number of additional, actual graces for the successful accomplishment of justification; (c) justification itself as the beginning of the state of grace and love; (d) final perseverance or at least the grace of a happy death; (e) lastly, the admission to eternal bliss."

      If you want to get a sense of the statement about the rosary and predestination, read this:

      http://fatima.org/crusader/cr58/cr58pg14.asp

      "Here is the Scripture which the Church applies to Mary. "Then the Creator of all things commanded, and said to Me: and He that made Me (Mary), rested in My tabernacle (dwelt within My womb), and He said to Me: Let Thy dwelling be in Jacob (the elect), and Thy inheritance in Israel, (the people of God), and take root in My elect." (Ecclus. 24:12-13) "And I took root in an honorable people, and in the portion of My God His inheritance, and My abode is in the full assembly of saints." (Ecclus. 24:16) "I am the Mother of fair love, (Jesus, ‘Who is charity,’ 1 John. 4:16), and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. In Me is all grace of the way and of the truth, (Jesus, ‘the way, the truth, and the life,’ St. John 14:6) in Me is all hope of life and of virtue." (Ecclus. 24:24-25) And how can we hope to have life and be virtuous if Jesus, the fruit of life, is not flourishing in our soul? And then She invites us to come to receive the graces of Jesus Christ from Her, "Come over to Me, all ye that desire Me and take your fill of My fruits." (Ecclus. 24:26)

      This is why, in Her numerous apparitions to souls, She continually urges us to pray the Rosary. This is why, at Fatima, Portugal, in 1917, approved by the Church; approved by God Himself by the great miracle of Oct. 13, 1917, (St. Mark 16:20); confirmed also by the fulfillment of many prophecies, (St. John 14:29); this is why Mary told the children, "In order to save souls, God wants to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If you do what I tell you, many souls will be saved ..." God wants Mary rooted in our souls, as I have just proven from Scripture, for our salvation. This is why St. Alphonsus de Liguori says that "devotion to Mary is morally necessary for our salvation." This is why St. Louis de Montfort said, "I have no better way of knowing if a man is for God than if he likes to say the Hail Mary and the Rosary." This is why, whether you be Catholic or non-Catholic, you should say the Hail Mary and Rosary every day, if you wish to be one of the predestinate. Even if you are a non-Catholic you should familiarize yourself with the Message of Fatima, for Pope John Paul II said, "The message of Fatima is addressed to every human being."

      It sometimes amazes me that those who attend and laud the Redemptoris Mater seminaries appear to have such a disdain towards devotion to Our Lady. I wonder if it is simply ironic, or rather deliberate?

      Delete
    8. The beginning of the state of grace and love is my baptism. When I rediscover my baptism then I rediscover my disposition of grace and love, as well.

      The five stages of predestination tells me nothing because it is of God's knowledge only and not mine. That is why predestination is fictious for us human beings. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fictious) Nobody except God can have foreknowledge of the salvation of any individual. So what does it have to do with me?!

      It is only Calvin who thinks predestination is important because he misunderstood it and claimed it to himself as human knowledge. He was wrong. God's realms is on high and our human realm is down on earth. The two cannot be reconciled. So what are Calvinist talking about predestination that is none of human business?

      You quotes from the Book of Sirach show wisdom literature, pure and simple. If you are familiar with the Ancient wisdom literature, Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, then you recognize typical features that were collected by the author Joshua ben Sira.

      There is no such thing as "approved by God", not even a miracle or apparition at Fatima. Why would God need to approve anything He did? Miracles are the work of God so He does not need to approve them! Veneration of Mary is not the same as marketing apparitions to sell for the faithful in large quantities as the many forms of souvenir items and idols. The apparition business is for women only, they stick to it, decent Catholic men find for themselves better ways to express their faith.

      There are many different ways to be a Catholic. Please, do not try to force your particular way and your particular understanding on me.

      Delete
    9. Dear Anon, I was not referring to "the apparition business" but rather, to devotion to the Blessed Virgin. Your evident disdain leads me to suspect that you must be a seminarian or priest of the NCW. I hope that is not the case.

      So I can probably guess I might "rediscover my baptism"...

      Anyway, as I pointed out, Predestination is a dogma of the faith. And you can choose to discard it if you wish, but not if you wish to retain all that it means to be Catholic.

      "God's realms is on high and our human realm is down on earth. The two cannot be reconciled."

      Um, I think you'll find that the Church regards Jesus Christ as the reconciler...

      "If you are familiar with the Ancient wisdom literature, Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, then you recognize typical features that were collected by the author Joshua ben Sira"

      Oh, so it would be absurd, then, to suggest that this scripture might speak of the Virgin Mary? After all the Virgin Mary is for women, isn't she? Not for tough men like you, with your true understanding of the ancient wisdom schools and their turn of phrase and all.

      "There is no such thing as "approved by God""

      You only need barely open your Bible to prove that statement wrong:

      "God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good."

      Of course God "approves" of the things he does!

      IN any case, the author used that phrase to indicate that a supernatural event took place in Fatima. Do you believe that Anon? I suspect not.

      I'm not particularly inclined to get into your statement that "The apparition business is for women only", and I hesitate to point out that such a comment would seemingly disqualify Abraham, Moses, Sts Peter and Paul, and not a few hundred saints.

      When the Church declares these events as supernatural and worthy of belief, she is leaving open the possibility that the actual Mother of Jesus is truly appearing with actual messages from heaven. I suppose you might know better than the Blessed Virgin Mary, so you are free to ignore that.

      "There are many different ways to be a Catholic."

      DO you mean to imply that you can be Catholic without believing in The Blessed Virgin Mary being the Mother of God? IN her perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception? Her miraculous Assumption into heaven?

      These are not optional extras for Catholics! And if these dogma are true, what does it mean for us?

      Delete
    10. Dear Anon, you confuse approval by acknowledgement. God does not need to approve creation because it went exactly according to His plan. "It was very good." It is to acknowledge the outcome.

      God had created us male and female. Why do you think 150 decades of Rosary should be recited daily by a man of good strength? Could not this time be utilized better? This man can do much more for God by going out to meet people and tell them about the kerygma of our Lord. Even old and fragile ladies may do better to go out and hug those people in the name of Jesus Christ who haven't been hugged for years by anyone.

      We venerate Mother Mary as the biological mother of our Savior. How should this be the same as uncritically accepting unverifiable accounts that have never been confirmed or caught on film? I respect the Church saying that apparitions are "worthy of belief". But you cannot enforce this belief on anybody who finds the expression of the mysteries of Jesus Christ in a more meaningful way someplace else.

      Yes, Jesus reconciles us as human beings with His Father in Heaven. But this is not the same as bringing down God's realm to the earth. If God's realm would be on earth then we would not need to go up to heaven.

      Delete
    11. Sorry, it is 15 decades, of course, not 150.

      Delete
    12. There will, of course, be a new heaven and a new earth.

      "We venerate Mother Mary as the biological mother of our Savior"

      That is a very good reason to love her, for sure. She is the New Eve, of course, the Ark of the Covenant, the purest and most pefect of creation, our Queen and OUR Mother. I hope that your use of the word "biological" was not an effort to diminish her importance in the things that transcend biology.

      The Virgin Mary is the one who is "full of grace". This is not just a historical phrase - Our Lady remains the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. And when she appeared at Fatima to the little children, she asked for specific devotions and prayers, including the Rosary.

      I would like to think that Catholics who love Our Lady might take that seriously, but sadly it seems there are always those that resent her.

      In fact, this conversation began with an Anon claiming that reciting the Rosary would cause one to become "dull and arid" towards God (do you agree with this?). It is not about "forcing" or "enforcing" anything.

      "This man can do much more for God by going out to meet people and tell them about the kerygma of our Lord. Even old and fragile ladies may do better to go out and hug those people in the name of Jesus Christ who haven't been hugged for years by anyone. "

      This is simple arrogance. Do you think that you accomplish the Mission by your own efforts? You know better do you, that you would accomplish more by doing what you do rather than through prayer? This attitude would thankfully put you in a small monority of Catholics over the centuries.

      I can only imagine what you think of the Carmelites or other enclosed Orders. I sure hope you will be able to rise above those attitudes if you ever preside at Mass for them.

      Delete
  14. Diana what do you mean in saying praying the Rosary emptises itself of meaning. Statement sounds heritical to me. Please do not confuse our faithful Catholics with your watered down cafeteria catholocism.
    Sincerely Sister Margaret Mary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Sister Margaret Mary,

      There is nothing under this thread saying that. Please put on your glasses so you can read better.

      Delete
    2. " Praying the Rosary is a wonderful thing once in a while. But every day? That would empty it from its mystery. "

      Just what the devil would say.

      Delete
    3. No, it is not the devil. It is me. I had noticed a long time ago that my fellow parishioners at Rosaries repeat the Hail Mary without even thinking of the meaning of the words. They don't pronounce the words, they just mumble in a high speed that cannot be comprehended. Reciting the prayer 50 times in a row without thinking about its meaning is what causes dullness and aridity toward God.

      When someone is lost, reciting the Rosary may give a much needed comfort to those mourning. It is a special time of healing. But reciting the Rosary every day in a mechanical manner without any specific reason is a different story. Then words are losing their meaning in repetition. Is is like Buddhists reciting their mantra thousand and thousand times a day.

      The mystery of the Rosary is Mother Mary herself who gave birth to the Son of God. Bible never said Mary can heal or forgive sins, although her love may convert sinners. She cannot grant our wish through prayer, but she would intercede for us. This is a great mystery in itself well enough for me.

      Does it sound like the devil for you? Then too bad, I cannot help you. When you demonize those who tell you something discomforting, something challenging your mind, then you demonstrate weakness and a fear from discussion. It is the same as admitting defeat.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anon at 11.55, I have no fear of discussion, which is why I am prepared to discuss this.

      While it may be true that saying the Rosary devoutly and with mindfulness is far better than merely running off the words in a rote way, I challenge you to show me someone who says the Rosary daily who is not mindful of what they do.

      What you describe is exactly the sort of thing that you hear in the NCW catechesis. When I attended, I heard a NCW priest opine that when he was young he was "forced" to say the Rosary at school, and he said it in that unthinking way. He then went on to say "What good did that ever do me". So I pointed out that he was now a priest - and that perhaps the Rosary played a part in that.

      In any case, no-one is suggesting, especially not the Blessed Virgin Mary (not "Mother Mary" by the way), that the Rosary should be "mumbled in high speed that cannot be comprehended". If the Rosary is prayed with faith and trust in God, meditating on the mysteries of the life of Christ, then it cannot fail to have a beneficial effect.

      You ought to read more about the Rosary, and try praying it yourself, before you say things like this - which essentially become blasphemous and simply quite wrong.

      St Augustine said that prayer increases our attraction for the object of our prayer - in other words, by prayer we grow in love for God. The Rosary is an immense good, a priceless treasure of the Church, and it is unfitting for you to denigrate it or call into question its wonderful effects. Suggesting that reciting the Rosary will cause "dullness and aridity towards God" is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard - it is quite the opposite.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 12:45 pm,

      A person should not be forced to pray the rosary. The NCW priest who was forced to pray the rosary did not become a priest because the rosary was forced upon him. Something else inspired him to become a priest. God is not about "force" because a He respects and values our freedom. God gave us free will, and He wants us to pray to Him out of our free will. If a person is forced to say a prayer, the prayer becomes insincere. I think the rosary is a beautiful prayer. The rosary is actually about the life of Christ.

      My mother prayed the rosary every night in the privacy of her room. It was not forced upon her. I pray the rosary once in a while, and also in the privacy of my room. I agree that there is a lot of power in prayer. Catholics should lead a prayerful life, and the Church is filled with so many devotions. Some Catholics love the rosary like my mother did that she prayed the rosary every night. Others like the Divine Mercy prayer. Personally, I love the morning and evening prayers in the Liturgy of the hours.

      Delete
    6. "forced to pray the rosary"

      Sure, that happens all the time. Let me ask you this. Do you "force" your children to come to Mass with you, or do you tell them its ok if they don't? This priest complained that he was "forced" to say the Rosary at school. Now, what do you think - should he have been excused, or was it reasonable, and ultimately good that he prayed the rosary?

      Delete
    7. Dear Anonymous at 11:36 am,

      When a parent tell their children to attend Mass, that is not "Force." Why? Because as parents, we have a duty to teach our children and lead them into the right path. And children must be obedient to their parents as they are being taught right from wrong. When your child becomes an adult, he/she makes his/her own decisions, and parents can only hope and pray that their guidance was good enough to help their children make the right choices as adults. Adults who chose to pray the rosary especially in the privacy of their rooms are not forced. No one told my mother to pray the rosary every night. That was something she chose to do on your own.

      Delete
    8. What the priest said abut the rosary being forces is from the catechesis, he was just parroting it without even thinking if it was charitable enough to say it in a group that you do not even know.
      Forcing anyone to attend mass even in the community is OK....what?

      Delete
    9. Dear Anonymous at 2:08 pm,

      What the priest said about the rosary was from his experience. He said he was forced to say the rosary in school. Kids often feel that they are forced to attend Mass, CCD, school, and even say the rosary. That is from a child's perspective. What did you expect from a child? I was a rebellious teenager myself and often complained about going to Mass. It was not until much later in life as an adult that I can thank my parents for guiding me in the right direction.

      Priests are human beings too. The priest who said that was relating his own experience as a child, but the rosary and other prayers are beneficial and should not be denigrated. All prayers are good and can be viewed as a dialogue with a God.

      Delete
    10. "What the priest said abut the rosary being forces is from the catechesis"

      Quite right. Also, as Diana points out "parents (and other adults)... have a duty to teach our children and lead them into the right path"

      It is a stupid thing for a priest to complain that he was "forced" to say the rosary as a child, and even more that he would ask "what good did it do me?" - with a view to convince us that it did no good, of course.

      Delete
    11. I need to clarify something. When I said that all prayers are good, I was referring to such prayers as the rosary, divine mercy prayers, novenas, prayer of the heart, the Lord's prayers, and prayers of simplicity. All such prayers are good.

      Delete
    12. Which prayers are no good then, Diana?

      Delete
    13. Dear Anonymous at 6:00 pm,

      The prayers that ask God for revenge or retribution or wealth and power.

      Delete
    14. Read the catechesis Diana/Susana, it is written there. You are not faithful to the catechesis.

      Delete
    15. Dear Anonymous at 10:10 am,

      When a priest says that he was forced to recite the rosary when he was in school, he was referring to his own experience as a child, not to the catechesis.

      Delete
  15. I pray 15 decades daily sometimes I repeat 15 decades . Takes me three hours daily to pray. During prayer I have no distractions . Focused on the mysteries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell me, pray, how would this bring you closer to God and his Son Jesus Christ? I am asking because I don't have that kind of time 3 hours a day, but I would like to feel closer to my Savior.

      Delete
  16. Forcing Fr. Luis to leave the island to escape accountability is a Mortal sin even
    in the name of Obedience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 2:10 pm,

      The fact that you show no mercy to a weak man is your problem. God will have mercy on those who show mercy, and God forgives those who repents. The fact that Father Luis resigned as the parish priest shows that he has done the right thing. By stepping down as parish priest, he has done a right and noble thing. He has found God's mercy.

      Delete
    2. Given the circumstances surrounding his resignation, and given that he is a "weak man" as you put it, do you think it is right, or even prudent, that he is involved in this "youth retreat"?

      I wonder what the Vatican, more specifically Pope Francis, would make of that?

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 3:14 pm,

      These are the facts. There is no record of Father Luis being involved in a sex crime. He was arrested for custodial interference.

      Delete
  17. Where did I say i did not show mercy? You are projecting and judging Diana. Fr. Luis stepping down was his choice and it is admirable to say. But sending him off the island when there were a lot of questions surrounding the incident is just not 'merciful' to the people. It was cruel. If he was asked, he would prefer to stay which is the responsible and compassionate way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 4:15 pm,

      All you are looking for is juicy gossip, which is a mortal sin.

      Delete