Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Deed Restriction Still In Place

As I pointed out earlier, I do not think the Pope gave Archbishop Hon the authority to touch any of the assets of the Archdiocese of Agana.  In regards to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, the deed restriction has not been rescinded at all.  Only Archbishop Apuron and his successors have the power to rescind the deed restriction.  Also, it was pointed out by Father Pius and Archbishop Hon that the RM Seminary still belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana. A deed restriction is not the same as a deed.  Furthermore, we now learned the truth.  Pope Francis never told Archbishop Apuron to rescind or annul the Deed Restriction, and that explains why there were no documents from Pope Francis.  Archbishop Hon was not referring to the Pope, but the media misinterpreted his statements.  According to the Pacific Daily News:

Seminary rector: Only Apuron can lift deed of restriction on church property

The rector of a seminary in Yona said Tuesday only Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron or his successor can lift the deed of restriction that gives the seminary and a theological institute the legal right to use the local Catholic church’s property.
The Rev. Pius Sammut, rector of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Yona, said the sole owner of the Yona property is the Archdiocese of Agana. Sammut said the archbishop who currently oversees the local archdiocese, Savio Hon Tai Fai, has said this repeatedly.
The deed restriction allows the Archdiocesan Redemptoris Mater Seminary to use the Yona property, Sammut said.
“The only one who can lift the deed of restriction is the ordained Archbishop of Agana, Mons. Apuron or, eventually, his successor,” Sammut told Pacific Daily News.
Proper legal action must be done in order for the Archdiocese of Agana to again take control of the property, said attorney and former island Sen. Robert Klitzkie.
Klitzkie has been a supporter of the causes of the Concerned Catholics of Guam Inc., a group that wants the archdiocese to again take full control of the Yona property. Klitzkie doesn’t identify himself as a member of the group.
Proper legal action, Klitzkie explained, includes having the RMS corporation’s board of directors adopt a resolution authorizing the lifting of the deed of restriction and the board of guarantors has to abide by that resolution.
Klitzkie said the four guarantors are Apuron and New Jersey-based high-level members of the Neocatechumenal Way — Giuseppe Gennarini, Claudia Gennarini and the Rev. Angelo Pochetti.
Hon has told the media he doesn’t know where Apuron is.
Apuron last made a visual public statement in early June in a recorded video message to members of the Guam community. In the video, Apuron appeared to be at the Vatican in Rome.
The Vatican placed Apuron on leave after former altar boys started publicly accusing him of sexual abuse. Apuron hasn’t been charged with any crime.
Pope Francis sent Hon to Guam in early June to temporarily administer the local Catholic church.
Hon issued a statement last week requesting the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and the community that controls it to voluntarily return the Yona property, instead of having the matter go to court.
Hon said while the Archdiocese of Agana acquired the property, its use has been conceded in perpetuity, meaning forever, to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and The Blessed Diego Theological Institute in an unusual way.
The Concerned Catholics of Guam, which has repeatedly called for Apuron’s removal, said on Monday the Neocatechumenal Way actually owns and controls the seminary and property in Yona.
Sammut said the Neocatechumenal Way “has no authority or any say in this matter.”
The Neocatechumenal Way is a group within the Catholic church whose worship style differs from traditional Church practices. Other Catholics, including church members on island, have been critical of people part of the Way.
Sammut said per its own statutes, “the Neocatechumenal Way, being an itinerary of Catholic formation that is implemented in the dioceses through services freely given, has no material goods of its own.”
Sammut and Apuron are members of the Neocatechumenal Way.
He said he wasn’t consulted before Hon issued a statement on Thursday about the seminary and the property. Sammut said he hopes he will be able to do that in the future.
The Yona property, which used to be the former 100-room, oceanside Accion Hotel, is the local Catholic church’s largest asset, estimated anywhere between $40 million and $75 million.
The Archdiocese of Agana bought the property for $2 million more than a decade ago.
David Sablan, the newly elected president of the Concerned Catholics of Guam, said it’s preparing a lawsuit to help ensure that the Archdiocese of Agana takes back control of the Yona property.
Sablan said the lawsuit is an option on the table if the Redemptoris Mater Seminary Corp. does not do the right thing which is sign the deed to return the property back to the archdiocese.
Sammut said “the property cannot be returned because, as Mons. Hon said, it belongs to the archdiocese.”
“If you refer to the restriction of use, it was decided by Mons. Apuron to protect the seminary, a public juridic entity of the Church, which is carrying on the most important mission in a diocese, that of forming priests,” Sammut said. “For this very purpose, that of forming a seminary, the Archdiocese bought this property and the archdiocese did not pay a cent for it.”
A public juridic person is a legal entity under canon law that allows the Catholic church's ministries to function in the name of the Catholic church.
Sammut said from this institution or seminary, 17 priests and four deacons have been ordained.
Of them, 14 priests and four deacons are serving Guam, he added.
“As mentioned before, the Archbishop of Agana and his successors, being both the Sole Member of the RM Seminary and of the Archdiocese of Agana, is the only individual that can make this determination. I have no authority whatsoever to do this decision,” Sammut added

‘Never defied the pope’

Hon, in his statement last week, said the Holy See’s instruction for Apuron to rescind and annul the deed of restriction on the Yona property “has not been carried out accordingly.”
“Thus, I hereby sincerely ask the collaboration of all the faithful to act with obedience to the directive of the Holy See,” the archbishop said.
Sammut said members of the Neocatechumenal Way never defied the pope because they do not own anything.
“Archbishop Apuron never defied the Pope either, since the pope never said to the Archbishop to lift the deed of restriction,” Sammut said. “If you refer to the indication or request of a Congregation of the Holy See, I can only say that in the Catholic Church every Diocesan Bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper and immediate power, and that indications or requests of the Holy See need to be evaluated by the Bishop in the exercise of his pastoral function.”


  1. Wow, Fr Pius is really prepared to lie , isn't he?! This is amazing coming from a priest.

    About the only honest remark he made was that "I have no authority whatsoever to do this decision"

    Archbishop Hon asked the RMS Corporation to lift the restriction.
    Fr Pius says the NCW as an "itinerary" can't own any material assets. True, but the RMS Corp, wholly controlled by the NCW, can and does. So does the NCW controlled Family of Nazareth foundation (or whatever the local equivalent is).

    It is disingenuous and deliberately misleading for Fr pius to suggest that the "NCW" cannot own material assets. What is the Domus Galilaeae? I suppose that has nothing to do with the NCW? I suppose the NCW don't control and operate it?

    What nonsense. How dare a priest blatantly lie by saying "the Neocatechumenal Way “has no authority or any say in this matter.”!

    And what exactly does he mean when he says : "If you refer to the restriction of use, it was decided by Mons. Apuron to protect the seminary"

    Protect it from what? And how does the Deed restriction protect it?

    1. Dear Anonymous at 5:07 pm,

      For three years, all you have been hearing from the Archdiocese is that the RMS property belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana. That has not changed. Even Archbishop Hon said it. The NCW does not own RMS.

      As for the Domus Calilaeae, that is owned by the Vatican. The only thing the NCW did was build the structure, but it does not own it. According to the weblink below:

      "One of the greatest desires of Pope Paul VI was to build in Israel a center where Seminarians could complete their formation before being ordained. It was with this frame of mind that the Vatican purchased Notre Dame, near the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem. At the beginning of the 80’s, the Custodian in the Holy Land offered the Neo-Catechumenal Way the possibility to build a center of formation, for studies and retreat, on a piece of land situated on the Mount of Beatitudes.

      The Vatican allowed the NCW to build on the land, but it did not give the NCW the land. In the same way, the Archdiocese of Agana allowed the RMS to use the property it owns.

      The deed restriction serves as a protection to keep the seminary in use as a seminary and nothing else. The Archdiocese put a restriction on itself and only the Archbishop and his successor can lift it.

    2. AnonymousAugust 24, 2016 at 5:07 PM Why do you think Fr.Pius lied and yours is valid with one sided assumption. Your agenda is to destroy life and the Catholic Church!

    3. "the Custodian in the Holy Land offered the Neo-Catechumenal Way"

      Yes, its all very crafty isn't it? The NCW get an asset without ever getting an asset, because it goes through foundations and other groupings. The land and any improvements on it are for the exclusive control and use of the NCW but there is no "ownership" in the strict sense. Wonderful. Kiko wins the game of deception, once again.

      So, you are suggesting that the Archbishop put a deed restriction on his own property to stop it being used for another purpose, even though the Archbishop can change his mind at any time and allocate a different purpose to the property? Presumably no-one other than the Archbishop can desginate a purpose for the land.

      So you are saying that the Archbishop was trying to protect it from himself even though it offered absolutely no protection from himself?

      How funny. More likely, the deed restriction limited the capacity of the Archbishop to designate its use, or to sell it, or some other action, because it TRANSFERRED Ownership to another entity (the RMS Corporation - a separate and distinct organization from the Archdiocese. The Archbishop may participate in the authority of the RMS Corporation, but he doesn't have sole jurisdiction over it (the Corporation, that is).

    4. Dear Anonymous at 7:35 pm,

      If you do not believe that the RMS property does not belong to the Archdiocese, you can always take it to court.

    5. With no disrespect because I love my community and my island. But, why are the Giuseppe’s on such important documents? My family who dont understand me keep asking me and I don't know the answer.

    6. Dear Anonymous at 9:39 pm,

      They were appointed by Archbishop Apuron. The members of the Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors were appointed by the Archbishop, who is the sole member of RMS.

    7. Yours @10:09--
      I think @9:39PM was asking why them? They don't live on Guam, have nothing to do with Guam. My family asks same--if Fr Pius says NCW has nothing to do with RMS, why do the G's (who do have much power in NCW) in such position? Hard to answer such questions and my saying because AB Apuron appointed them does not explain it.

    8. Dear Anonymous at 7:45 am,

      The law on Guam says that the appointee does not have to be from Guam nor reside here. The Gennarinis does not represent the NCW. He is not even the founder of the NCW.

    9. Yes, we know that appointee does not have to be from Guam nor reside here. The question is, why them? Are they knowledgeable in the running of a Seminary? That is the kind of information that would be helpful. Otherwise, why would these people even want to do this?
      And please....I know the Gennarinis do not 'represent' the NCW, and are not founder. But they are considered 'higher-ups' in the NCW and we all know how much influence they have.

    10. Dear Anonymous at 8:51 am,

      Since it was Archbishop Apuron who appointed them, then he is the only one who can answer your question.

    11. But AB Apuron is nowhere to be found Diana, so you as the "NCW insider" should be able to answer the question. Please don't escape the hard questions which I'm sure you know the answers to.

    12. Dear Anonymous at 11:48 am,

      The purpose of CCOG's lawsuit is to return the property to the Archdiocese because they believe that it is not owned by the Archdiocese. So, the first thing that needs to be done is for the court to determine the ownership. If the court finds that the Archdiocese does indeed own the property, it would not matter if Archbishop Apuron is there or not. CCOG simply loses the case. If the court finds that the property belongs to RMS (as CCOG believes), Archbishop Apuron is still not needed because in the eyes of civil law, the Archbishop did nothing illegal. In the eyes of human justice, something what is unethical may not always be illegal.

    13. Diana - Makes you wonder why seminarians from Europe would come to the seminary here on Guam when there's the Domus Galilaeae which is closer to them. What makes the Guam seminary so special for seminarians all over the world to come here?

    14. Dear Anonymous at 12:02 pm,

      They did not come here of their own choice. Their names were pulled from a lottery.

    15. Hey Diana @ 12:02 PM -- The question was in regards to why the Gennarinis are on the board when they're not even from here. Trying to sidestep the question eh?

    16. Dear Anonymous at 12:12 pm,

      My response was to Anonymous at 11:48 am, He/She asked about Archbishop Apuron. Mr. Gennarini's name was not mentioned.

    17. Diana @ 8:12 AM, you say "The Genarinnis does not represent the NCW" and yet in one article after another we read "… Giuseppe Gennarini, leader of the 500 Neocatechumenal Way communities in the United States. "
      He's a LEADER of NCW communities but you say he doesn't represent the NCW? What kind of a leader is that????

    18. Dear Anonymous at 11:27 pm,

      Kiko Arguello is the one who represents the NCW because he is the founder. Mr. Gennarini is not the founder, but the head catechists of the U.S.

  2. yes please return the property to the guam church so we can sell it. Was the plan; was always the plan...we have comfortable catholics on Guam who can benefit monetary from the sell. We want things to be the same....anything outside our spiritual comfort zone is unacceptable.

    “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

    oh yes...this is the Son we follow.

    in case our limited church history is as shallow as our faith...the first years of our church was not what you consider "peaceful". Apostles were killed....the Son of God was killed.

    and for thousands of years afterwards there was peace.

    Until today.

    The church on Guam is divided. So what is the problem?

    Who do you choose to follow? Who do you choose to follow?

    1. Who divide the Church. Do you see the Archbishop Apuron and the Neocathecumenal way going to the media to defend them selves? Who blows more hot smoke than Trump but the CCOG , LFM (LGBT Proud supporter) Tim Rohr and Chuck White. An will come soon and very soon.

    2. My goodness, @7:18, look at that Christian love! Rejoicing at the prospect of the wrath of God on another Christian. Even if you hate their stand on something, does that really merit such delight at the thought of damnation of another?

    3. Dear Anonymous at 5:14 am,

      I do not think he is rejoicing. He is bringing a warning. God does not sleep.

  3. All they want is money and destroy the Catholic Church. I pray for their soul if they think this is right.

    1. You always resort to CCOG and folks wanting money and destroying the Church! Yet, NCW is the one changing things in the Church, leading to a destruction of what has been for the past thousands of years! Yes--, they want to de-struct, or change, the Catholic way of things to the way Kiko says it should be.
      I have never seen such a problem as I do now! When changes took place in the past, I have seen resistance and unhappiness, but no division like now. And not only on Guam-- I am reading that wherever NCW is, there is the same. In Japan, in the Philippines, in Spain, in France, etc....yes, you have your communities that are thriving, but there is also destruction. Read about the incidences and you will find commonality in them.
      When a problems persists in all circumstances, all environments, it's time to evaluate. And that includes looking at self as the culprit. (And this goes both ways!)

  4. Dear Diana, Archbishop Hon claimed that the Holy See gave instruction to rescind and annul the Deed Restriction of the RMS property. It seems to be a contradiction when we read that it was only a reference to "the indication or request of a Congregation of the Holy See". An instruction is not the same as an indication or request.

    A clarification would be very useful here because it is a general perception that Archbishop Apuron defied the Holy See by not carrying out its instruction. Would not the Holy See and its Congregations represent the intention of Pope Francis? People perceive that Father Pius is contradicting the Apostolic Administration, while this might not be the intention. However, the critics take advantage of this perception, anyway.

    1. Dear Zoltan,

      The media was the one who misinterpreted Hon. When he said "Holy See", he meant the Congregation of Divine Worship rather than the Pope. Archbishop Hon need to correct the media. He should be here sometime today or tomorrow, so hopefully, he will correct the media. Because it was a request, Archbishop Apuron did not disobey. A request means you have the option of saying yes or no.

    2. the media didn't misinterpret anything. And neither should you, are you the Archbishop? are you the Vatican?

    3. Dear Diana,
      I agree with Zoltan, 7:30. A clarification would be useful. You opine that since it was a request, Apuron may have opted to say no and Hon needs to correct the media.
      I saw it another way: Hon believes that when your superiors request, it is a nice way of telling you to do something. For example, when your mother asks you to take the trash out, she expects it to be done---you can't tell her no.
      As for who actually made the request---does it really matter? Perhaps Hon believes the Congregation of Divine Worship acts in the Pope's stead in these matters.
      In any case, I'm sure he'll clear it up when he arrives back.

    4. Dear Anonymous at 9:03 am and 8:21 am,

      Request means to ask and it comes with an option. When I tell my son to throw out the trash (which he hates), I am not asking or requesting him to do it nor am I not leaving him any option to say no. However, I agree with you and Zoltan that clarification is needed.

      It is obvious that there is some misinterpretation or misunderstanding somewhere. The media said that Archbishop Apuron disobeyed the Pope, and they got this source from Archbishop Hon. Archbishop, on the other hand, never used the word "Pope" but used the word "Holy See", which could easily be interpreted as the Pope. Then Father Pius stated that Pope Francis never told Archbishop Apuron to rescind or annul the Deed Restriction. And of course, there is no document from Pope Francis saying anything to that effect. So, clarification is needed.

    5. It seems to me that a big part of this whole mess between you and the CCOG and the others is INTERPRETATION. How both sides interpret the Bible, how you interpret the law, and how you interpret messages. Sometimes literal definition of words is followed, other times colloquial or dialectical.
      Oftentimes I detect purposeful use of different interpretations so as to sidetrack the other party. (Makes for interesting reading!)
      The issues you face are similar to what we have here in my parish (although not to the same degree) minus the sexual allegation charges. I am interested in seeing how you resolve them.

    6. Dear Anonymous at 11:16 am,

      For every story, there are two sides. One can determine where and how a misunderstanding took place after listening to both sides of the story. However, in the case of the Declaration of Deed Restriction, we have already heard both sides, and both sides are adamant in what they believe in. Perhaps in this case, the best way to resolve the issue is for CCOG to bring it to court.

    7. 11:16- you're right on interpretation. It doesn't matter whos' asking however, Hon can speak on both authorities, Holy See or Congregation, but in the end he's still asking it doubt or misinterpretation about that.

  5. If a request was made to Archbishop Apuron, and he said no, then rather as seeing it as disobedience to the Holy See, perhaps we can see it through the eyes of what it means to lead the Church on Guam to God. Afterall, the Archbishop is a pastor. He is in charge of ensuring the growth of our faith in God. He, like all of us, will have to answer to God for those decisions made. If he believes that the RMS is a good thing for our spiritual growth, then we have the choice of accepting that decision or not. I believe the basic facts have all been made clear and laid out.

    1. @1:59PM--
      The problem with your way of thinking is that even pastors may be wrong...even they are susceptible to the devil's temptations! There have been many examples of this.
      If, as you say, he made the decision based on what he believes is best, then why hide the fact that the Holy See requested that he rescind the deed restriction? Now that it's been discovered it just makes it appear that he has been deceptive. Yes, basic facts have been laid out, but you can't say it's clear if there are different assumptions being drawn.

    2. Why did Archbishop Hon decide to reveal it in the first place? He was sent here for unity not division. Isn't revealing this creating division? So isn't he, too, also going against the orders of the Pope?

  6. There is no misinterpretation and Pius is mistaken. The Holy see is no other than the bishop that seats on the chair that is the pope or/ the Curia.

  7. Here's the thing with Pius, why does Archbishop Hon need to consult him before making a statement? This statement screams at your face...with ABAA Pius was running this Dioceses and Pius forgot his place with the Apostolic Administrator.

    The deed of restriction is in plain language. Apuron just can't sign it back. The three other named recipients of the deed all need to sign it in concordance in order to convey it back. Outright lie from Pius.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 3:17 pm,

      He has consulted with the Presbyterial Counci. It would not hurt to consult the rector of RMS since it has to do with the seminary anyway. It would also save him the embarrassment of making a public statement of rescinding something he had no power to rescind.


  8. AnonymousAugust 25, 2016 at 2:01 PM

    The only misinterpretation here is you who pretend to know what the intent of the Holy See is.

    Are we to assume that you have a relationship with the Holy See and in fact can speak in behalf of their office?

    Yes or No.....simple question......can you just answer yes or no?

    1. the intent of the Holy See as personified by Archbishop Hon is to ask for the deed to be rescinded. That is the intent. The Holy See stands before you in the person of Archbishop Hon. He has ask you to do something specific. Just Like how Pope Benedict says to follow the norms of the Eucharist, Kiko writes back in flowery prose how they will sit in a banquet..... Schism yourselves out of Catholicism already and call it a day!


    2. I speak on behalf of the Holy See.
      The Holy See through Archbishop Hon are asking the NCW to rescind the deed. Follow the Holy Farher Diana on ALL matters not only your cafteria stle of Church. Obedience to Rome please!

    3. Dear Anonymous at 10:42 am,

      The RMS property already belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana. And the NCW has nothing to do with the Deed Restriction. According to the Articles of Incorporation, there is only one sole member in RMS, and that is Archbishop Apuron. The other people I the Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors are NOT members of RMS. A non-member cannot rescind the Deed Restriction nor sign any papers to that effect.

    4. When HON first came to Guam, you were very critical of the people in the jungle respecting and obeying HON. Why don't you following your owe advise?

    5. Dear Anonymous at 12:39 pm,

      Archbishop Hon is asking the NCW to give up RMS. How can that be done when the NCW does not even own it?

  9. No there is a sole incorporator when the RMS corporation was formed. But the members of RMS are the board members and the board of guarantors. You are wrong. Read the articles...the guarantors can override decisions by the board. If it wasn't true why did the articles list both the board of director and the guarantors....

  10. This debate is annoying. Perhaps answering the following questions will help everyone understand why that building is even owned by the Archdiocese of Agana in the first place.

    1. Has anyone asked why this RMS building was purchased in the first place?
    2. Who's money was used to purchase it?
    3. What will CCOG have the church do with this building if RMS moves out of it?

    Let me take a guess at the answers. Correct me if my guess is out there.

    1. That building was purchased for the purpose of establishing an RMS Seminary. Why else would the church of Guam buy a building like that and its first use after the purchase is a Seminary...wait, the archdiocese did not pay a cent for that building, someone else did.

    2. Klitskie mentioned they would turn it into a Diocesan Seminary. Does Klitskie or the CCOG know how to form priests and run a seminary? I doubt they do. What will most likely happen is that if the RMS leaves, that building will not be used and will sit there rotting while they fight over it, and sell it in the end.

    Klitskie, CCOG, LFM, and whoever else out there do not have the authority to determine the use of that building, the Archbishop does, so shut up already.

    Another question.

    Why would someone pay for a building for the archdiocese without knowing what the building was going to be used for?

    Perhaps that person paid for the building because he or she, knew what the building was going to be used as an RMS Seminary.

    1. It's already been established that the person did NOT know about the RMS seminary. In fact, Apuron had requested that she sign something to that effect and she said she couldn't because that would be lying.
      What's annoying are the assumptions made w/o first knowing the truth.

    2. Dear Anonymous at 8:26 am,

      All you had was Tim's word on that. He never published that letter in his blog. He could have published the letter and blacked out the person's name to protect his/her identity, but he never did that.

  11. Yes. Hé published thé letter.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 5:41 pm,

      No, he did not. He only quoted what he said was on the letter. The letter itself was never published.