This comment from Tim Rohr is incorrect. It is not the job of the Archbishop to submit financial documents to the Vatican. According to Canon law 1283 and 1284, which specifies the duties of the Financial Officer or Administrator (the bold is mine):It was not his job to do so. It was the archbishop's. I'll have more later and documentation to prove this.
Can. 1283 Before administrators undertake their duties:
1° they must take an oath, in the presence of the Ordinary or his delegate, that they will well and truly perform their office;2° they are to draw up a clear and accurate inventory, to be signed by themselves, of all immovable goods, of those movable goods which are precious or of a high cultural value, and of all other goods, with a description and an estimate of their value; when this has been compiled, it is to be certified as correct;3° one copy of this inventory is to be kept in the administration office and another in the curial archive; any change which takes place in the property is to be noted on both copies.
Can. 1284 §1 All administrators are to perform their duties with the diligence of a good householder.
UPDATE:
After further reading of the canon law and the press release from the Archdiocese of Agana, it is the Financial Officer who must submit the paperwork to the proper authorities in the Vatican. According to the press release:
Stephen Martinez has distinguished himself egregiously for his incompetence: in his official capacity as the former Archdiocesan Financial Officer, Mr. Martinez, unbeknownst to the Archbishop, failed for six consecutive years to submit the required annual financial reports to the proper authorities at the Vatican."Unbeknownst to the Archbishop" because the Archbishop trusted his Financial Officer to do his job. The Archbishop only became aware of the neglect when he was notified by letter from Archbishop Balvo. Naturally, it would make sense for Archbishop Balvo to write a letter to Archbishop Apuron because he is the head of the household. The financial officer is not the head. If there is a problem within the household, the head should always be notified. That is true in any family household. This is also true in any company. If there is a problem with an employee, a letter of complaint would be sent to the top (the employer).
1) A diocesan chancery is the branch of administration which handles all written documents used in the official government of a Roman Catholic or Anglican diocese.
ReplyDeleteIt is in the diocesan chancery that, under the direction of the bishop or his representative, all documents which concern the diocese are drawn up, copied, forwarded, and a record kept of all official writings expedited or received.
The official charged with the execution of these duties is known as the diocesan chancellor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocesan_chancery
2) In the Roman Catholic Church a chancellor is the chief record-keeper of a diocese or eparchy or their equivalent.
Normally a priest, sometimes a deacon or layperson, the chancellor keeps the official archives of the diocese, as a notary certifies documents, and generally manages the administrative offices (and sometimes finances and personnel) of a diocese.
He may be assisted by vice-chancellors.
Though he manages the paperwork and office (called the "chancery"), has no actual jurisdictional authority: the bishop of the diocese exercises decision-making authority through his judicial vicar, in judicial matters, and the vicar general for administrative matters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_(ecclesiastical)
Dear Anthony,
DeleteAre you saying that the Financial Officer have absolutely no duties at all?
Dear Diana, why are you posting Canon Law in relation to the Diocesan inventory, when the accusation from Fr Adrian refers to the "annual financial reports"?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:14 am,
DeleteI provided the weblink of canon law, but in the OP, I only wrote a part of it. If you had read the entire canon law 1284, it says that the Financial Officer is supposed to keep the annual financial reports.
Prepare, yes. Deliver to the Vatican, not really--at least not according to 1284. The issue of submission to the Vatican is the heart of the matter.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:21 pm,
DeleteYou cannot issue something, which the Financial Officer failed to prepare. If the Financial Officer cannot do his job, then he should be fired. Every job is important in building up the Church. If people at the bottom do not take their job seriously, they sabotage the entire functioning of the Church.
The Church consist of two parts....the Head and the Body. The Body must work together with the Head for the good of the Church. If the financial officer does not care to do his job for the good of the Church, then his failure can cost the Church.
I think the real gist here is that the Archbishop is responsible for the archdiocese as a whole, and thus ultimately responsible. Of course that's not what Tim said. Nevertheless, if the Archbishop did receive these letters and did not submit, it's on him. To say that year after year he demanded Deacon Steve do it but then not follow up, and then demand again, strains credulity. I'm sorry, but that's a bit much.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:49 am,
DeleteCanon law says that a Bishop can ENTRUST someone to be a financial officer to oversee the finances. And Canon law gave the Financial Officer certain duties he is supposed to carry out. If the Financial Officer failed to do his duties, the Bishop can and should relieve him and appoint someone else. The mistake of Archbishop Apuron is that he entrusted the wrong people.
"The mistake of Archbishop Apuron is that he entrusted the wrong people. "
DeleteAbsolutely correct. The Neocats.
The Archbishop has lots of patience - look at how he was patient with the incompetence of Martinez for six years.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 2:13 pm,
DeleteThe "Neocats" are not the ones giving the Archbishop a problem.
The buck starts and stops with the Bishop. To cast the blame on someone else is the mark of a bad leader.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 10:51 pm,
DeleteThe Financial Officer must work together with the Archbishop. If the Financial Officer neglects his duty, it reflects not only on the Archbishop but on the entire diocese. Everyone must do their part in building up the Church. And if the Financial Officer neglects his duty by not submitting in the financial report to the Archbishop, that is the fault of the Financial Officer and he should be fired.
"The bishop himself doesn’t need to be morally guilty. It’s enough if he is purely lacking in the diligence required of his office.
DeleteThe procedures call for the Vatican to start an investigation when “serious evidence” is provided that a bishop was negligent. The bishop can defend himself. At the end of the investigation, the Vatican can prepare a decree removing the bishop or ask him to resign. If he doesn’t, the Vatican can issue a removal decree."
Check the Washington post about what the pope issued on June 4th. Obviously brother tony has been negligent from financial responsibilities to even sexual abuse policies. Threatening to sue does nothing except show the lack of leadership in any organization.
So, the Archbishop is a drone then. He can't think or direct himself to comply with those matters directed at him. He can't pickup the phone and say, "hey where's my report, year1?" "hey where's my report, year 2?"....year5"
DeletePer your reply, i guess he can't
Dear Anonymous at 12:51 am,
DeleteWith all your letters and noise, the Pope is fully aware of what is going on in Guam. After all, did we not have an Apostolic Delegation sent to Guam to review the problems here? The Delegation was here; therefore, the Pope is fully aware of what is going on. But the Delegation has also heard the Archbishop's side. And Rome continues to do nothing for you.
"And Rome continues to do nothing for you."
DeleteDid you not see the new Motu Proprio?
Dear Anonymous at 10:04 am,
DeleteActually, it is to our advantage that Rome does nothing for YOU. As for the new Motu Proprio, I find it interesting that even the Pope says that it is the Archbishop who OVERSEES all the sexual abuse cases......something which Deacon Martinez disagreed with. Nevertheless, the route that the Archbishop chose to take is the right one.
The Review Board no longer exists; therefore, having a private investigation is useless. Considering the nonexistent Review Board, the proper way is to hire a private investigator to conduct the investigation and a law firm to pursue a lawsuit.
Diana how can the archbishop OVERSEE ALL THE INVESTIGATIONS when the allegation is against him?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:55 am,
DeleteBecause the Archbishop is the accused in this case, this is why he is going through another route, considering the fact that there is no longer any Review Board. As the accused, the Archbishop will file a lawsuit.
We agree completely. Your statement assumes though that Deacon Steve not only didn't submit to the Archbishop, but that the Archbishop was either ok with such a serious breach, or too afraid of the Deacon, or just plain out of it. In other words, it's on the Archbishop.
ReplyDeleteWhat's far more likely (I'm very sorry to say) is that the financial reports were submitted to the Archbishop, but thereafter weren't sent to Rome. My evidence? The fact that the Archbishop is surrounded by men who are far less trusting and therefore a bit more persnickety about little things like statements regarding the financial condition of the Archdiocese.
C'mon Diana. You'll have to do alot better than that to convince anyone. And that's the problem. I honestly am hoping to be convinced that Rohr is wrong and that the Archbishop is just being cast in a bad light. But I've not evidence to show that. To paraphrase "Amadeus," "You have passion, but you do not persuade."
Dear Anonymous at 5:39 am,
DeleteI do not hear Deacon Steve defending himself on the financial report. In the same way, I never heard the former finance counsel at the doorsteps of the Cathedral providing evidence after the Archdiocese published their findings of Monsignor James. They were at the doorsteps of the Cathedral before the Archdiocese found the mismanagement. And at the doorsteps, they proclaimed all the good things Monsignor James had done, but they left out the parts about him giving free plots to friends and relatives. They left out the part about using up the Archdiocesan credit cards to pay for his anniversary party. They left out many things. And when the Archdiocese uncovered the parts they left out, I never saw them at the doorsteps of the Cathedral offering explanations of the said mismanagement.
Stevie Martinez did not even take note of the gross mismanagement and corruption of the Benavente gang. The Msgr was said to have "gifted" himself with hundreds of thousands of dollars - church and burial money mind you - see the archdiocese report of jan 2015 - and where was the Stevie? He was part of the Rohr party - it's very factual and clear. The Stevie man can cry all he wants about incompetence but he is the one who really is in the side of Rohr and the Lynch-the-archbishop gang. He even defended the corruption of the Msgr. Sad - very sad that they take glee in destroying the church.
DeleteStevie wonders: "So, what's goin on down with united?"
That still doesn't address the issues, though, does it? It sounds like grinding down everyone in an attempt to defend the indefensible.
ReplyDeleteAh well. Have fun with the motu proprio.
Dear Anonymous at 8:40 am,
DeleteIt addresses the issue quite well. As I said, Rome is aware of the problems we are having here on Guam. He had been aware of it for three years. :-)
Rome is a "He" now?
DeleteIn any event, Apuron is finished. And no-one cares whether Martinez fulfilled his obligations as the financial administator. Its a red herring.
IN fact, its a fallacy - ad hominem. Rather than keep the argument to the relevant subject (ie the sexual abuse allegations) the Archdiocese wants to muddy the waters and cast aspersions against a man who is acting in the interests of the victims. This is just the sort of thing that will bring them down. Do they not know that? Do they honestyly think that Rome will be ok with that?
Dear Anonymous at 9:59 am,
DeleteI call Rome a "he" because the Pope is a man and will always be a man. The Pope is the Head of State of Vatican City and leader of the Catholic Church.
Deacon Steve can still help victims without judging the Archbishop, who is innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps, he should take lessons from Father Mike and Father Jeff on how to be a Christian.
I notice you didn't say "perhaps he should take lessons from teh Archbishop"
DeleteDear Anonymous at 2:39 pm,
DeleteThat is because the Archbishop is the one being accused and therefore has a right to defend himself. Father Mike and Father Jeff are not being accused of sexual abuse, and should not judge.
By your reasoning, if a person is innocent until proven guilty, and any statement without him being proven guilty is being judgmental--including an accusation of wrongdoing--then to make any accusation about anything done in secret is always judgment and therefore sinful. Boy, that Jesus must be the most judgmental of all, esp when He calls the Pharisees hypocrites when He doesn't present clear public evidence and documentation. So too all the saints who defended the Faith against heresies.
ReplyDeleteIt's right to think that the only Christian saintliness is to always turn the other cheek. The problem with your interpretation is that turning the other cheek doesn't mean you let someone break into your house, abuse your wife and children, then burn the house down, all in the name of being Christ-like. And that's exactly the standard you're applying.
And why are Fr Jeff and Fr Mike so quiet? Because after the public shaming of Fr Paul and Msgr James and the threat of lawsuits and "canonical measures" on Rohr, Dcn Mike, and everyone else, why would anyone who directly "works" for the Archbishop, so to speak, ever want to speak up, even if it was about something grievous? Besides, and in your deflection, Diana, you know it to be true, Dcn Mike was the former SARC and has a record of work in this area with the Arch--Frs Jeff and Mike don't.
All your financial stuff is just demonic smoke. Deacon Mike is the unChristian one, while Fr Adrian and Fr Edivaldo are good Christians after summarily dismissing any concern or claims of victims? Shame on all of you! Same on all in the NCW who from this day forward give support to such evil direction.
Dear Anonymous at 7:45 pm,
DeleteFirst of all, Jesus is the only one who can judge because He is the only one without sin. He told us not to judge others but to correct others. He also said that those without sin, let him cast the first stone. In the end of the world, it will be Christ who will judge mankind because He is the only one who can.
Secondly, in the Middle East, Muslim radicals are breaking into Christian homes, raping their wives and burning down their homes. These Christians are called "martyrs" by Pope Francis and martyrs go straight into Heaven. Christians are called to be martyrs like the Apostles. Of course, martyrdom comes from the grace of God.
And finally, I think you meant "Deacon Steve."
Diana are you trying to somehow link the NEO community here and their struggle with Christian martyrs in the Middle East? How is that connected?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:27 am,
DeleteNo, I was responding to your question. We all have free will. You have a right to defend yourself and your family if an invader comes into your home. Others may choose a different path than yours. There is nothing wrong with your path of defending yourself and your family. But there is also nothing wrong when a person decides not to fight back. To each, his own choosing.
you're right. Deacon Steve, not Mike. My mistake.
DeleteThe press release of the Internal Review Report from the Archdiocese of Agana on January 23, 2015 stated some VERY INTERESTING facts:
ReplyDelete1. “Between January 2009 and July 2014, Msgr. Benavente received payments of $326,913.61 by simultaneously drawing payroll and stipends from the Catholic Cemeteries, and … from the Cathedral-Basilica”. Did you file this income with Rev and Tax? Call Art Ilagan! He can 'FIX' it.
2. The report also said that Msgr. Benavente racked up a charge of $60,000 in “credit card (expenses) in the name of … Catholic Cemeteries … specifically used by Msgr. Benavente for restaurants, air fare, the Shangri-La Hotel in Manila and other five star Hotels”. (Was Tagle invited?)
3. Msgr. Benavente also “expended more than $123,000 towards credit card payments to Bank and American Express [for] a gas card, and cellular/data phone privileges, which were paid for by the Catholic Cemeteries, accounted for an additional $23,000. Notably, $13,000 of cemetery funds was paid for Msgr. Benavente’s 20th Anniversary reception”. Ahhhh, the high cost of living high off the hog. Or, is it the people's money? But, did the nights of the holy tomb get a cut?
4. “Total advances documented between January 2009 and July 2014 by both entities for Msgr. Benavente (were) nearly $475,000”. WOW! Nice bank account. Did the he report this as ‘income’ tax? Isn’t Deacon Martinez a “Finance Officer?” Any financial advice Steven?
5. “This does not include cemetery family crypts valued at $380,000.00, which were gifted by Msgr. Benavente to his close friend and family; in other words, no fee was charged for these cemetery plots”. GIFTS???? At whose expense? By Tan Maria and Tun Jose who worked hard for those crypts!!! Now, the friends of the Msgr. are reaping their loot. SAD!!!
These are just the facts that Msgr and his friends looted the church. Now, why would Rohr and his gang defend him? Because maybe he has a share it the loot?
Were these filed as income or gifts? Quick, call Steve! Steve, fix this NOW! Tell Richard you'll be late for work! Where's Art Ilagan?
My goodness!!!! I THOUGHT CONCERNED CATHOLICS OF GUAM WAS FIGHTING FOR TRANSPARENCY!
Maybe someone should conduct a tax investigation of the Msgr???? THAT'S REALL TRANSPARENCY! Hey Greg, whaddya think?
Explain to me how all of that listed above has anything to do with the Archbishop allegedly molesting little boys? I fail to see the connection.
DeleteWow, that's quite a list. Just a couple of things to add:
Delete1) how much does the Archbishop spend to fly all 40+ seminarians to Rome when they go, especially since we foot the bill?
2) as for Archdiocesan press releases go, it's not fit to wipe myself with. Just look at the claims of conspiracy-claimed by the Archdiocese!. I'd understand the Archbishop saying he's innocent or even believing that, but when the Chancellor himself says it's all lies when by everyone's acknowledgement there's no investigation, I'd say the press releases are nothing more than evidence for an egregious abuse of power. Double that for the threats of canonical penalties for coming forward with a claim of abuse.
3) if the Monsignor really is guilty of these abuses, then throw the book at him as well. If he's not, let's sue the compilers of the same as libelous so they'll reap their own reward.
4) The same goes for the RMS and all other entities on Guam, including Dcn Tenorio and the U Matuna and how the Chancery has for years drawn $100K or more from the Catholic Mission Extension in the name of being a "mission diocese" when we are the Archdiocese of the region!
Let all the criminals get what they deserve for raping the Church, especially the priests who have been abusing or hiding abuse all this time.
How THAT for consistency? Let there be transparency--but it's a two-edged sword the Archbishop will never wield because he'll bleed as much as anyone.
Diana,
ReplyDeleteYou should estimate how much Msgr. Benavente looted from the Cathedral and cemeteries as reported in the 2015 report and do an estimation of how much he owes in taxes.
Get a tax expert like Deacon Reveren Steven Martinez to do an estimation - he is COMPETENT to do so, right?
Ahhh yes, the most reverend COMPETENT DEACON MARTINEZ.
Monsignor Benavente is a holy Priest he does not take money as you claim. Goodness gracious what will you say next.
ReplyDeleteThis is is not about Monsignor. He has not damaged priests. This is about Apuron who damaged priests.
Anon 10:29 on the contrary he did. Free cemetery plot, free school fee at St.Thomas Aquinas and his anniversary. 10K tab at Leo Palace. Came out our pockets. some Filipino was oppressed under his watch in Agana Cathedral.
DeleteAnon 10:29, MJB can't obey his bishop. MJB is allowing these people to demand the Archbishop to step down and reinstate him. Whether MJB agrees with the decision of AAA, he should have, out of obedience, done so with grace.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. This is about pedophila and the sexual abuse of altar servers. Stay on topic folks
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 12:36 pm,
DeleteThat is not what the OP says.
Didn't the release say that all this started when benavente was removed? I'm confused. Since CCOG and rohr insist on restoring benavente and gofigan and this is like a constant thmee over and over again. Sorry, but I'm just tryin to connect all these stories. If they are restored will ccog and rohr then stop the persecution of the bishop? Is that why they are still fighting the bishop?
DeleteWhat is the purpose of this blog?
ReplyDeleteTo give an insider's view of the Neocatechumenal Way on Guam?
Do you really think that your extensive discussion of abuse allegations and of other alleged misconduct (by non-NCW clergy) is promoting understanding of the Way and its long-term best interests?
Might it not be better for all concerned to reserve discussion of these matters for the proper fora?
Especially if, as you have explained, a civil defamation action is imminent?
Just a thought.
Prayerful best wishes.
What is happening to our church.
ReplyDeleteArchbishop Apuron where is your
Leadership in this time of crisis?
I agree Diana, it is the topic of the day. Apparently it is more worthwhile for the NCW to focus on allegations of Deacon Martinez's incompetence, rather than the allegations of sexual abuse or the sexual abuse policy that Martinez openly criticized. Detract and Deflect. It is a great plan.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 5:19 pm,
DeleteThe Archbishop's lawyers can take care of the sexual abuse allegation in court. Right now, it is simply Roy's words against the Archbishop's words. Is that not correct?
Hope it goes to court and see both on the stand. Whose words will be believed? The accuser is my guess.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:53 am,
DeleteIt will go to court.
what is the OP
ReplyDeleteAssociates of Rohr inside chancery.
ReplyDeleteIntention to overthrow Archbishop.
Priest involved.
Diana
ReplyDeleteArchbishop no longer in charge.
Dear Anonymous at 9:55 pm,
DeleteActually, he is still the Archbishop of Guam. Archbishop Hon will in charge until this episode is cleared up, which hopefully will be soon.
I wouldnt be surprised if ccog, lfm and rohr dugging info on Archbushop Hon to smear his name....
ReplyDeleteWe'll see upcoming days how this plays..
They tried to do it to Generinis as visiting guest to the island... now a Archbishop from off island is coming if not already here... They feared Cardinal Pual but sighed relief because he wasnt here to stay long. Now Archbishop Hon is gona be here till ??
Hhhmmmmm????