Tuesday, August 30, 2016

CCOG's Press Release

According to the press release by CCOG, vice president Andrew Camacho stated that the RM Seminary should be shut down.  


First of all, CCOG does not have the expertise nor the credentials to determine the authentication of a seminary.  They are not even an accreditation team.  Therefore, what is being said in this press release is simply more propaganda against RMS.

For three years, Tim Rohr has been spreading propaganda against the RM Seminary and its priests. In fact, Mr. Rohr has even accused the seminary of money-laundering (See the screen shot below dated July 21, 2014).  This accusation of money-laundering in the RM seminary continues on even until the present day, and no one has filed a police report.  So, now the question is……why all the propaganda against the RM Seminary for three years? 

   


Secondly, Mr. Camacho compared other RM Seminaries in the United States (such as the one in Boston) and cited them as being better than Guam’s RM Seminary.  And what criteria did CCOG use to make this comparison?  According to CCOG vice president Andrew Camacho, the RMS in Boston is better than Guam because the seminarians attend ANOTHER seminary for their education rather than study at RMS.  What Mr. Camacho is actually saying without realizing it…. is that even the RMS in Boston is inadequate. If these seminarians in Boston held their studies in RMS, then it would be labeled in the same category as Guam’s RMS, which Mr. Camacho believes should be shut down.

So, how did CCOG come up with their findings without visiting the RM seminary, without interviewing the faculty and staff, and without reviewing and collecting any data from the seminary?  The answer is found in the jungle.  The source of CCOG's findings are found here , here, and here.  All three jungle posts were published by Frenchie who does not even reside on Guam.  CCOG did not even bother to do any leg work. Therefore, the claims made by CCOG are invalid and unreliable and serves only as propaganda.  

If CCOG had simply bothered to visit the RM seminary, they would have found the truth.  According to KUAM news:
It's not just the ownership of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary that's under fire, but the institution itself. On Monday, the Concerned Catholics of Guam called the seminary a "sham", alleging the priests in training had no background checks, no psychological screenings, and no records to prove they were high school graduates. The CCOG also alleged the faculty were few and unqualified.
Today, we heard from the rector of the seminary himself, Father Pius Sammut, and he's out to debunk what he's calling "misgivings" from the CCOG.
Sham or seminary? Father Sammut is defending the institute which he says has produced 17 priests for the archdiocese. In an emailed response to KUAM News, Father Pius responds to recent statements made by the Concerned Catholics of Guam.
"This is another myth propagated by the enemies of Archbishop Anthony Apuron," the priest wrote.
One by one, he tackles the CCOG's issues, from admissions to faculty and the high cost of running the rms. The CCOG contends the Archdiocese of Agana funds $200,000 for the RMS. Father Pius, however, says their calculations are wrong.
"Last fiscal year, June 2015-2016, the total RM expenses were $531,353. The subsidy of the archdiocese was $73,800, less than $3,000 per head per year!" he maintained.
While the CCOG argues it'd be cheaper for Guam to send priests-in-training to seminaries abroad, Father Pius compares Guam's seminary to those stateside.
"To form a seminarian in Mount Angel Seminary in Oregon or in Saint Patrick's in California costs more than $42,000 annually, while in Guam it costs less than $14,000. We can train three seminarians in Guam at the cost of one seminarian in the mainland. Facts are facts!"
When it comes to admissions, Father Pius states it's a three-tiered process which considers the candidates' moral life, maturity, their studies and their health as well as screenings by a national team of catechists, a retreat, and further screenings by rectors of other seminaries. The faculty, meanwhile consists of eight permanent professors and five adjuncts, all of whom are assessed and ratified by the Lateran in Rome.
As for the formation of strictly Neocatechumenal priests, Father Pius discerns fact from fiction. "Our sole focus at the seminary is the formation of diocesan priests," he stated.
Instead, he says Archbishop Apuron needed the assistance of the Neocatechumenal Way to start up the major seminary. "He asked the help of the Neocatechumenal Way because he realized that we do not have the necessary resources on island. Thanks be to God, the initiators of the Neocatechumenal Way, seeing the grave situation, pastorally, of the islands of the Pacific, namely the serious shortage of priests, accepted," he said.
"The role of the Neocatechumenal Way is to provide a solid Christian formation to the seminarians. It also facilitates their insertion into the local parish."

31 comments:

  1. Read again Diana,
    "Our sole focus at the seminary is the formation of diocesan priests," he (Pius) stated.
    But then again,
    “The purpose of the Corporation shall be to establish and conduct a House of formation to prepare men for the priesthood for the new evangelization following the life and practice of the Neocatechumenal Way…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:09 pm.

      It says that RMS priests are to prepare them for the............new evangelization following the life and practice of the Neocatechumenal Way. The life and practice of the NCW in the new evangelization is to be missionaries in foreign countries. That is what I have been saying all along. The RMS priests are trained to evangelize in foreign countries while the John Paul II seminarians will be missionaries for only here Guam. It never said to be priests for the NCW. It only says to follow the practice and life of the NCW. It never said to be priests for the NCW.

      And what is the life and practice of the NCW in the new evangelization? It is to be missionaries in foreign lands.

      Delete
    2. The truth about RMS priest is that they are sent to a foreign country by their catechist either to be with mission families, in an itinerant team or the worst part to let them escape the diocese because of immorality.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 9:21 am,

      This is a sham comment because you did not speak to any Catechists. Did you get your information from Frenchie?

      Delete
    4. To anonymous August 31, 2016 at 9:21 am -

      Did you not see posted in the Jungle a video showing Pope Francis sending mission families and priests on mission to foreign lands. Those were NCW mission families and RMS Priests.

      Go check it out. I think it is on you tube also, not really sure.

      Delete
  2. It is very funny to read what the CCOG write about the RM seminars. My question is if some og them have theological studies in order to discern how a catholic priest seminary should be? In every country the catholic "seminars" (in any order) are differents. For example in Scandinavia, those who want to be became a catholic priest must study together (in the first years) with the Lutheran theologians students (at the University)! So, you can imagine the theological studies that they get at the beginning. In average, a normal diocesan priest take around 6-7 years in to conclude their studies. A RM priest more than 10 years!! in order to confirm the vocation. An even more, it should be remember that it was not Kiko Arguello that wanted to establish the RM seminary, but the Johanes Paul II himself ask him to found these seminars (but that is another story) :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was listening to Andrew yesterday when he called Patti Arroyo. Patti asked how the research was done and if they went to the seminary. Andrew wouldn't say how the research was done. They can't even say if they visited the seminary. CCOG is the sham, and they delivered a sham report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Andrew revealed who the researchers were, they will find out that none of them visited the seminary. The only thing they did was compile all of Frenchie's comments together to make it into one report. LOL!

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 8:58 am,

      What I find very disturbing is that those people did not at least have the common sense to see that a report on a seminary without even visiting the seminary is a sham. The world becomes a scary place when people lack common sense.

      Delete
    3. Diana, it's not a lack of common sense. Andrew knew their research was wrong otherwise he would have revealed how it was conducted and who was involved. Cuz they kept it secret is an indication that their intention was not pure. Their intention was to destroy the seminary and have it shut down. This is an act of malice.

      Delete
    4. Its a bit like doing an investigation on allegations of sexual abuse without sepaking to the victims, isn't it?

      Delete
    5. Deaf Anonymous at 11:30 am,

      Actually, the alleged victims spoke out a lot through the media and in the legislative hearings, so we already know their stories. In fact, we know that the 2 alleged victims who reported their allegation to Father Jack were Quintanilla and Denton.

      The RMS, on the other hand, has been quiet. The only time you can get information from them is when you visit them, which is something CCOG never did.

      Delete
  4. If RMS forms diocesan priests why was it necessary to erect JPII seminary?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:16 am,

      Because not every priest wants to go announce the Gospel to the ends of the e earth. Some prefer to stay at home and evangelize locally. The seminarians at the John II seminary are not being trained for missions in foreign lands the way RMS priests are. Many RMS priests even learn to speak more than 2 different languages.

      Delete
    2. But they evangelize in those countries the life and practice of the neocatechumenal way. Is that correct?

      Delete
    3. Why do keep referring to them as RMS priests and not catholic priests? Is it because they are taught the life and practice of the neocatehumenal way?

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 3:20 pm,

      I called them RMS priests so YOU do not confuse them with the Capuchin priests, the Opus Dei priests, the Jesuit priests, the Dominican priests, and all other priests in the Catholic Church.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 3:14 pm,

      The NCW is in every continent, and they evangelize in every continent including Africa and Asia, which is predominantly non-Christian.

      Delete
  5. let me get this straight: you all are telling me that with so much on the line and when smart moves are needed most on all sides, that Greg Perez and Andrew Vamacho just took the word of one guy and concocted a story? A story that if flimsy will be seen through so quickly?

    Have you not seen the bigger play here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:08 pm,

      Well, they certainly did not visit the seminary nor spoke to any of the professors there nor did they collect any data from the seminary. Why did you think Andrew Camacho did not elaborate so much on how their research was done and who did it?

      Delete
  6. The AFC has spoken on the Truth about the Yona property.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 2:06 pm,

      I have always said that there are two sides to every story. You only heard one side.

      Delete
  7. Diana, We heard Pius and Apurons side and now we're hearing the AFCs side. That makes two unless you're going to come back with a comment like "There's always three sides to every story". Tony and Pius are going down and they're taking the NCW with them. Are you and the rest of the NCW families going to drink the kool-aid or are you going to come back to the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Agent 007

      You only heard CCOG and Father Pius regarding the integrity of the RMS. The former AFC has now come out to tell their side. Therefore, you only heard one side. I will publish what I have.

      Delete
  8. Diana, The AFC has come out to back what the CCOG has said all along (one side) and Pius contradicted their statement with his side of the story (second side) and that makes this story complete as you have said that there are two sides to every story. If Pius comes out with another story then that makes it three. This is getting old that you have an excuse for everything. Where are the documents, where are the statutes, etc. Pius and Apuron and yourself, have not produced any whereas the CCOG, the AFC, and even Mr. Rohr have produced them for all to see. Do you see where I'm going with this? All we get from Pius, Apuron and even in this blog is the "he said, she said" response. Show us something with substance if you have any?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:26 pm,

      What documents did they produce? I only see their statements in the press release.

      Delete
    2. Who do we believe? The former finance council or a reputable Accounting firm,Delloite and Touche! Tell me. They scramble to sell the seminary to pay some priest project! Numbers don't lie!

      Delete
    3. The former finance council. The documents don't lie and I'm referring to the meeting minutes.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 3:2 pm,

      All the documents stated that the INTENT on purchasing the property was to house the Redemptoris Mater Seminary.

      Delete
  9. Richard Untalan, former president of the Archdiocesan Finance Council, said he and others are talking about the issue in response to recent statements made by Apuron and Seminary Rector Rev. Pius Sammut. That's the second side of the story. Stop avoiding the subject about the two side theory that you brought up and stick with the facts. Like my mother use to say, talking to you is like talking to a broken record. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Agent 007,

      Richard Untalan was claiming that the Yona property was given away in secret. The Deed Restriction has nothing to do with ownership. It simply restricted the USE of the property and protected the property from being used as anything else other than a seminary. Also, the Archbishop's letter to Richard Untalan clearly stated that he was not giving the seminary away because,the ownership does not change. It was from one juridic person to the same juridic person.

      Oh yes, CCOG report said that it was a sham seminary. Tell me again how was their research done without visiting the seminary, without interviewing any of the professors, and without reviewing any data from the seminar.

      Delete