Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Father Pius has already announced to some of the community members the following information.
As of yesterday, Archbishop Hon accompanied by Father Jeff has relieved Father Pius as Rector of the Seminary. The reason Archbishop Hon cited was a lack of diocesan identity (whatever this is!) in the formation program of the seminary. Father Pius is a religious priest, Discalced Carmelite. Monsignor David is the new Rector.
More information will be passed on later.
Personally, I think it was done out of spite cuz archbishop Hon got himself embarrassed big time when he learned that he can't rescind the deed restriction. However, something good happened as a result of this. Archbishop Hon would never be able to remove Father Pius if RMS is the owner. This act actually showed who the REAL owner of RMS is...it is the Archdiocese of Agana.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:19 am,
DeleteArchbishop Hon never had the authority to rescind the Deed Restriction because he is not the Archbishop of Agana, the corporation sole. That title belongs to Archbishop Apuron. Archbishop Hon never has the authority to touch the assets of the Archdiocese, but he does have the authority to move priests around.
I never thought about it that way, but now that you mentioned it....God does indeed work in mysterious ways. Out of Archbishop Hon's sin (his spite) something positive came out of it. The fact that Archbishop Hon can install a new rector is already evidence that the Archdiocese of Agana is the owner of the Yona property.
Yep. I wonder if CCOG is going to court now that they saw this action. It wasn't RMS that removed Father Pius as the rector. We've been telling them that the property belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:38 am,
DeleteDave Sablan admitted in the Patti Arroyo talk show that CCOG was in the process of looking for lawyers to take their case. I do not know why they simply cannot just use their Bronze lawyer. Perhaps, he backed out....who knows.
Diana i am somewhat surprized that with your obedience to Rome and belief in following Apuron you would refer to the popes administrator as Hons Sin Spite!
ReplyDeleteAre you saying Archbishop Hon removed Pius out of Spite/sin. Is it not rather Archbishop Hon Found Pius to be a incompetent renergade rector of his seminary.?
Dear Anonymous at 11:57 am,
DeleteThe Catholic Church knows that ALL her members are sinners. Even the Pope can sin. Knowing that we are all sinners has nothing to do with obedience to Rome. After all, the Catholic Church teaches that all her members are sinners. Anonymous 11:19 brought up the opinion that Father Pius was removed as a result of his spite. He/she may have a point. It was only after he spoke up about the Deed Restriction that he was removed.
Nevertheless, this action allowed by God showed that it is the Archdiocese who owns the property, not RMS.
...Archbishop Hon cited was a lack of diocesan identity (whatever this is!)
ReplyDeletethis supposedly diocesan seminary needs to be run by someone in the diocese.
Dear Anonymous at 12:40 pm,
DeleteSince when has the identity of a seminary ever based on who the rector is?
Maybe it means, if it is a diocesan seminary, it should have a diocesan priest as the rector?
DeleteEver since it was created Diana, RMS has always one of its own as rector? Tell me any RMS seminary that does not have one of its as rector. Tell me.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:03 pm,
DeleteRead my response at 12:40 pm.
Dear Anonymous at 4:04 pm,
DeleteAccording to the code of canon law:
Can. 239 §1. Every seminary is to have a rector who presides over it, a vice-rector if one is needed, a finance officer, and, if the students pursue their studies in the seminary itself, teachers who give instruction in various disciplines coordinated in an appropriate manner.
The canon law never specified what kind of priest should be the rector. It is up to the Diocesan Bishop.
Then willRMS name be removed so Archdiocesan Identity can be clear? If this is so, Diana, how will Neocatechumenal formation take place?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 1:19 pm,
DeleteThis is why I said that Anonymous 11:19 may have a point when he/she expressed that Archbishop Hon did this out of spite. The reason for removing Father Pius is illogical and absurd. Who the rector is at a seminary does not determine whether the seminary is diocesan or not. RM Seminary is an Archdiocesan seminary forming Diocesan priests.
The Deed Restriction keeps the name of the RMS. If the Deed Restriction was lifted, it means that RMS can no longer use the building and facilities, and they can be told to move out by Archbishop Hon. The name of RMS would then be removed. Archbishop Apuron was wise in having the Deed Restriction put in place, as we are seeing now. This is most likely God's providence that the Deed Restriction is there.
REscinding the deed restriction doesn't mean that RMS can't use the property. It means they don't have exclusive right to it in perpetuity. Small difference in your minds perhaps, but that's a difference.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:41 pm,
DeleteRescinding the Deed Restriction weakens the seminary. In light of the fact the junglefolks hate the RMS seminarians and priests, where is the guarantee that they will not be thrown out of the seminary? We have read in the jungle how they want to remove all RMS priests from the local parishes. If that is in their minds, what do you think they will do when the Deed Restriction is removed?
I understand your concerns, but there is a difference in that those priests who are ordained and incardinated for the Archdiocese cannot be "thrown out," whether anyone in the jungle or anyone else wants it. They are the priests for the archdiocese.
DeleteAs for the other stuff, I think too much credit is being given here to the jungle as a power entity. They can't move with anything but documentation.
As for Fr Pius, and I could certainly be wrong here, if replacing Fr Pius is done in the name of making the seminary more diocesan, then I think it's more likely that Hon is doing what he's doing to restore a balance on island. The two people (besides Apuron) who inspire the most contempt are Fr Adrian and Fr Pius. Both stayed in their positions that Rohr says are the seats of abuse. By removing each, Hon may seem like he's bending to them, but he's actually balancing things out. Will the jungle folks want more? Probably. But I don't honestly see the seminary closing, nor do I see the RMS unit being kicked off island, and I certainly don't see any priests being kicked out of Guam. It's not how the Church operates. Diocesan priests have canonical rights, and they can't be sent or banished or anything like that "just because."
Dear Anonymous at 12:10 am,
DeleteYou make a good point here. But honestly, what has Father Pius and Father Adrian done that riled the jungle so much? Also, Archbishop Hon already stated that the RM Seminary belongs to the Archdiocese. Land Management and the Attorney General also agreed that the property belongs to the Archdiocese. What did the jungle do when Land Management and the Attorney General disagreed with them? They accused the NCW of infiltrating Land Management and the Attorney General's Office.
If you had read the jungle, they have been saying over and over that all RMS priests should be removed from local parishes, and they have called for the shutting down of the seminary. They also want the NCW removed from Guam. Some of Yona parishioners petitioned the Archdiocese not to allow the NCW into their parishes. So, what do you think their real agenda is? Today, the deed restriction. Tomorrow, the shutting down of the seminary. They reach their goal a little at a time.
Dear Diana at 3:39--
Delete"..accused NCW of infiltrating Land Management an Attorney General's Office."
Well, with Borja's son married to Eusebio's daughter it just gave conspiracy theorists something to build on! You can bet they're searching the AGO for a connection.
Dear Anonymous at 4:50 pm,
DeleteAnd what did they find at the Attorney General's Office so far?
@Anon. 12:10, if you read JW, you'll find that replacing Pius with Mon. David did not satisfy them at all.
DeleteI am not satisfied with David replacing Pius. Archbishop Hon should have consulted us over choice rector.Rector should be a priest who shows identity with Diocesan priestly spirituality. Neither pius nor david do.
Delete8:44 who is US?
Delete8.44pm.
DeleteWho are you?
Re 11:19 "Archbishop Hon would never be able to remove Father Pius if RMS is the owner."
ReplyDeleteIf we are one holy catholic and apostolic church, Archbishop Hon ( the Pope's administrator )with and under the authority of the Pope, could very well be able to remove Father Pius, could he not?
Dear Anonymous at 3:17 pm,
DeleteYes, he could. But Archbishop Hon cannot rescind the Deed Restriction. That is still in place. He was not given the authority to touch any of the assets of the Archdiocese, which is why he called on RMS to rescind the Deed Restriction. However, what he is asking for is the impossible. There is only one member in RMS, and only he can rescind the deed. Rchbisho Hon, on the other hand, is asking a "community" to give up the use of the property. That community does not exist.
Well, at least Monsignoe is one of the brothers. He will give a good example of fidelity in the face of persecution. May he be strong. At least Hon respects him.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a mistake in logic in some comments above. Ownership of the property is one thing and changing the rector is another. Hypothetically, a seminary could be using a rented building, still whoever has administrative power over it can appoint a new rector.
ReplyDeleteI think this mistake arises from the fact that sometimes one can use the word "seminary" referring to the building, at other times to refer to the institution. It is not wrong to refer to the former Hotel Accion building as Redemptoris Mater Seminary: it is RMS. But when we are discussing ownership of the property used by the seminary, one needs to make a distinction.
The fact that Archbishop Hon removed the rector does not prove ownership of the property. It is the title that proves ownership.
The claim that a deed of restriction changes ownership is ridiculous. If ownership had been changed by the deed of restriction, then RMS would be able to sell the property. But it can't: the restriction only allows for the use of the property. If I own something, I can sell it or do whatever I want with it. If I am permitted to use something, I am just permitted to use it and that's all. The two things are not the same.
On multiple occasions, members of this community have challenged those who object to the current state of affairs to communicate their concerns to Rome. The opposition has done just that and the result is the current request from Rome that Archbishop Apuron and those that advise him renunciate perpetual control. Where is the obedience which was so so vehemently professed these past few years? Just wondering.
ReplyDeleteIf this is what Archbishop Hon has decided, we must have faith and follow his lead. As Diana wisely wrote last month:
ReplyDelete"The Lord said, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church." It was Rome who sent Archbishop Hon; therefore, place your trust in the Bishop sent by Rome. Let your choice be on the side of Rome.
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." These words were written thousands of years ago by St. Ignatius of Antioch. So, let us choose the SIDE of Archbishop Hon, whom Rome has sent. It is clear that the Church built by Christ has sent Archbishop Hon; therefore, let us give our cooperation to Archbishop Hon and Father Nowak. Archbishop Hon has already started reorganizing things in the Archdiocese of Agana. Let us all seek peace through cooperation so that we can all be reconciled."
Faith and obedience will see us through these times, not complaining.
Dear Anonymous at 9:42 pm,
DeleteThere is just one problem with that. The Board of Directors do not have any authority to renounce the Deed Restriction. The NCW also has nothing to do with the seminary. Archbishop Hon is asking for something that is impossible to be done.
And THAT is the issue entirely. Well said. Hence, JW's frustration over what is Apuron's abuse of power.
DeleteYour argument is that it's impossible to give away something you don't own. However, a quitclaim deed can be signed by the board which conveys all property rights, regardless of whether or not the board believes such rights actually exist. Such an act is not "impossible." In fact, it's done very frequently. I've seen many spouses renounce any interest in property that is legally the sole property of their spouse. The signing of such documents serves to remove potential clouds on title; essentially, to erase any doubt. The effect of that act is debatable. You would argue the documents would have no effect. Others would disagree. If the board truly believes such an act would be of no consequence, why not just do it in the interests of obedience and unity? Is that too much to ask?
DeleteArchbishop Hon will be in Rome. Perhaps he will get info as to how to proceed!
DeleteIf Way has 'nothing to do with Seminary' then why do they name them all Redemptoris Mater. Just wondering.
DeleteDiana @ 10:10PM is right. The RMS Board of Directors don't have the authority to renounce the Deed because if they try the RMS Board of Guarantors will certainly veto it.
DeleteI do have a problem with your claim that "The NCW also has nothing to do with the seminary," Diana.
Isn't Giuseppe Gennarini the head catechist of the NCW in the USA?
Isn't the same Giuseppe Gennarini on the Board of Guarantors of RMS along with his wife?
Is it only COINCIDENCE that the USA HEAD CATECHIST of the NCW is also on the RMS Board of Guarantors and that the Board of Guarantors has the REAL POWER?
To this NCW Outsider, it sure looks like the NCW has SOMETHING to do with the seminary.
Dear Anonymous at 11:50 am,
DeleteAccording to the Articles of Incorporation, the priests at RMS are to be formed following the missionary style of the NCW. That is the only reason they are there. The NCW only teaches the missionary life of the NCW in the RMS seminaries. RMS is the only seminary in the Catholic Church that follows the NCW missionary lifestyle.
Dear Anonymous at 6:11 am.
DeleteYou asked: "If Way has 'nothing to do with Seminary' then why do they name them all Redemptoris Mater. Just wondering"
The name "Redemptoris Mater" means "Mother of the Redeemer." Would you like the name of the seminary to be changed to Society of Mary???
I would have prefered seminary to be called " Our Lady Mother of the Redeemer Queen of Peace Seminary"
DeleteThen i would have supported seminary.
Dear Anonymous at 11:14 pm,
DeleteI see.......th name "Mother of the Redeemer" means less to you. Nevermind the fact, that she is still the same woman.......the Mother of God.
It is easy Diana, the papers are ready to rescind tbe property. Just sign ths papers and let ths courts decide.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 2:41 am,
DeleteHuh???? Sign the papers and let the courts decide??? If the papers are signed, why the need for the courts? Care to elaborate?
Diana, according to the jungle Fr. Pius said "Last Saturday, August 27, Archbishop [Savio] Hon [Tai Fai] called me to inform me that he will relieve me from the rectorship. I accepted immediately because I believe in obedience."
ReplyDeleteBut in your post you reported that "As of yesterday, Archbishop Hon accompanied by Father Jeff has relieved Father Pius as Rector of the Seminary. The reason Archbishop Hon cited was a lack of diocesan identity (whatever this is!) in the formation program of the seminary. Father Pius is a religious priest, Discalced Carmelite. Monsignor David is the new Rector."
Were you reporting what Fr. Pius said about the "lack of diocesan identitiy (whatever this is!)? Or were you putting words into Fr. Pius' mouth?!?
The report from the jungle based on KUAM shows that Fr. Pius is being obedient BUT your post makes it sound like Fr. Pius is bitter and angry. I don't think what you posted was nice.
Dear Anonymous at 11:41 am,
DeleteFather Pius had already told some of the communities the reason for his removal, which was what Archbisop Hon told him. His removal was because of a lack of diocesan identity. We have no idea what "lack of diocesan identity" means. Whatever "lack of diocesan identity" is unknown. Father Pius was not angry or bitter. He was confused like all of us because "lack of diocesan identity" is confusing in that a rector does not determine whether a seminary is diocesan or not.
In the same way, we are finding Archbishop Hon's appeal confusing. He is asking something that is impossible to carry out because the Board of Directors do not have any power or authority to give up the use of the seminary.
I think it would do us good if you represented the RMS based on your knowledge of Canon Law and Guam laws.
ReplyDelete"As you well know, 'alienation' and 'assignment' are words of distinction without a difference", and "Any documents containing these words would place a huge cloud on title..."
ReplyDeleteHow prophetic! The huge cloud is upon us.
Dear Anonymous at 5:47 pm,
DeleteFrom Archbishop's Apuron's letter:
"I wish to specify precisely that, probably due to a lack of knowledge of Canon Law, it was erroneously understood as "alienation."
The matter is clearly not "alienation" but simply an assigning of the title of the property that is transferred and renamed from one 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,"
That last sentence showed that there never was any intention from the Archbishop to give away the property. "THE TITLE HOLDER THEN DOESN'T CHANGE AT ALL BECAUSE IT REMAINS THE SAME ORDINARY,"
DeleteThe propaganda of Archbishop Apuron wanting to give the property away goes back to the time when Richard Untalan wrote a letter to Father Pablo (who was the rector at the time). In his letter, Mr. Untalan told Father Pablo that the the AFC disapproved of the transfer of the property to RMS.
The problem here is that Father Pablo NEVER wrote to Richard Untalan. There never was any request from Father Pablo to transfer the property to RMS. Even Tim Rohr does not have any letter from Father Pablo requesting for the tranfer of property to RMS.
The only letter published on Tim's blog that goes back to this "transfer of property" controversy started with Mr. Untalan's letter to Father Pablo. Perhaps, you should go back and ask Mr. Untalan to produce that letter he claimed to be from Father Pablo.