Saturday, October 1, 2016

The Invalid Irregularities

According to KUAM news:
Delegate to the administrator Father Jeff San Nicolas made the announcement in a press conference Friday morning on behalf of Archbishop Hon. "I hereby declare that Monsignor Benavente's response is found both credible and satisfactory and none of these alleged major irregularities should be held valid," he stated.
 This is my response to Archbishop Hon:  

Apparently,  your excellency, those invalid major irregularities contain two checks in the amount of $13,000 made out to a Joshua Perez for Monsignor James 20th Anniversary dinner.  In addition to those two checks was a receipt in the amount of $14,280 for reimbursement for the 20th Anniversary dinner. That sounds very "SUBSTANTIAL" to me rather than invalid.  

Now that Jackie Terlaje has submitted that report to the Attorney General's office and the Guam Police Department, the justice system will decide whether there is enough "substantial" evidence to move forward in indicting Monsignor James for misappropriation of funds along with other charges.  If that happens, questions will be brought up from the Catholic faithful regarding the Church's finances.  Questions will be asked as to how you managed to clear Monsignor James of financial mismanagement with "substantial" evidence in place.   

70 comments:

  1. I noticed that Timmy and the junglefolks don't have anything to say about the checks and the receipt. He's only citing Hon's statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:00 am,

      You spoke too soon. Tim Rohr explained about the checks and receipt. Nevertheless, even he admitted that it was the wrong thing to do. Money that does not belong to a person should not be used for personal use. Under the law, it is clearly a misuse of funds. Apparently, other inappropriate things were discovered after the removal of Monsignor James.

      Delete
    2. I wonder how Mon. James explained the free cemetary plots given out to family and friends.

      Delete
    3. There is no question Monsignor James made an error in using money that did not belong to him for personal use. No priest must use church money for personal use. However, the question becomes. Is this justified to report to GPD? Is there intention to perform white collar crime? Does intention evidence support the claim Mondignor knew he performed a crime. If this was not made public would the amount have been repaid? is there evidence of other personal bills paid on cards not repaid? The expenses on credit cards are they justified expenses. Most organizations have guidelines for company travel hotel ect budgets per night meals per day.
      These are the important questions that determine the intentions of monsignor.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 1:43 pm,

      If I am not mistaken, I believe one of the charges is misappropriation of funds.

      Delete
    5. Yeah and Rohr also said in his "explanation" that a priest's anniversary is supposed to be paid by the parish. What a bunch of bologna! 13thousand for the priest's anniversary and the poor parish didn't have that much (cause it was drowning in debt under his administration) so he paid it from the cemeteries... I am a priest in the US and my stipends (like that of all Guam priests) are well more than what is needed for the simple life of a single man and I have never ever thought that the parish should pay for an anniversary party for me. And my parish is not in red. The only thing the parish pays me beside the stipends is room and board. It is a very simple thing to know what is mine and what isn't. I will have to give an account to God about this, so I won't ever touch what is not mine. In fact I give my envelope just as all the parishioners do. I say all this 'cause I remain anonymous, otherwise I would never mention to anyone, but I think is just plain uprightness not to splurge on parish money.

      Delete
  2. JW is saying that there was never any attempt to hide the money used to spend for the anniversary dinner. Really? I didn't recall the former AFC mentioning any of that at the door steps of the cathedral. The money used to pay the anniversary dinner was discovered only until after the removal of Mon. James.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it true that Archbishop Hon replaced Fr. Jeff as delegate by Fr. Paul? If true, this must be related to the insubordination of Fr. Jeff that he committed during the off island trip of Hon to Rome. Fr. Jeff did not follow the instruction and published a confidential seminary report behind the back of the Apostolic Administrator, unauthorized! Looks like this was the last straw of disobedience that Hon could tolerate from him.

      Fr. Jeff is a strong ally of the jungle. His actions were programmed by his comrades in the anarchist group. Perhaps jungle folks can comfort him now by taking him to the picketing line tomorrow. So Fr. Jeff may hold up a big sign given to him by Bob Klitzkie saying "Hon go home!" Lol, that would be a revenge worthy of a Rohr clone.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @ 3:39 PM, please READ CAREFULLY:

      Fr. Jeff SN is the "Delegate of the Apostolic Administrator"
      Fr. Paul G is the "Delegate of the Apostolic Administrator FOR CLERGY
      Can you tell the difference?

      It's just too bad you're so blind and believe all the nonsense you are told. Your life could be much better if you would work on improving your Reading Comprehension Skills before you start attacking nonNeo priests.

      Delete
  3. I attended 10am Mass at San Vicente last Sunday where Adrian presided along with Deac Larry. I noticed a peculiar thing in that during the prayers of the faithful they named Pope Francis and Anthony Apuron, but did not include Archbishop Hon in the prayers. I immediately thought "they don't recognize his authority here" whereas when you attend mass at some other parishes they do include Arch. Hon's name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A shameful and unabashed call for violence against NCW clergy from the jungle. Perhaps, it is time to send the police to Rohr's headquarter are escort these terrorists away in chain!

      AnonymousOctober 1, 2016 at 12:36 PM

      I have a lawn mower and bushcutter that you can use on presbyter Jose Alberto Rodriguez.

      Delete
    2. GIRM 149: priests have to mention only the ordinary and may mention auxiliary and coadjutor. They aren't allowed to mention any other bishop in the EP. Adrian did the right thing and it has nothing to do with the authority of Hon.

      Delete
  4. Finally his mismanagement is made public and you still don't mention shangrila in Manila? And his "friends"? Come on. Time to bring it all out into the open.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Shangrila Manila.
      from 2001 to 2014 substantial sums donated to Shangrila Hotels Resorts.

      Delete
    2. Yes, mention Shrangi-la. And also check the registrar and you'll see Arch Apuron's name there quite a few times. Lots of times WITH Benavente! Remember, Apuron has to approve all this expenditure. Do we want to go there, people??

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 7:11 am,

      We know that Archbishop Apuron does not travel or hang out with Monsignor James. The Archbishop hangs out more with the RMS priests because that is what the non-RMS priests have been complaining about. When Archbishop Apuron was in Rome, he does not even stay in a hotel. The NCW in Rome gives him lodgings for free in their own homes. Monsignor James does not travel with the Archbishop; therefore what he did in Sangri-La was to his benefit alone.

      Delete
  5. I think the NCW are taking a massive risk by doing this. At the moment, they are looking very petty, vimdictive and hypocritical.

    I don't think that this was very well thought out. This sort of transaction where monies are used and then reimbursed happes all the time nd I think most people wouldn't regard it as fraudulent or criminal.

    Instead the NCW people come across as horrible!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:37 pm,

      Does that also include giving free cemetery plots to family and friends?

      Delete
    2. Diana, you should ask yourself if that also includes giving away a multimillion dollar hotel to the NCW. So does the law only apply to when it benefits just the NCW?
      What about the 4 bogus certificates of titles that were hidden and then changed? Com'on, let's not be hypocritical with the drama.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 2:48 pm,

      If you really believe that , then take it to court. We can resolve that in court. We have all the documents showing that RMS still belongs to the Archdiocese.

      Delete
    4. Where does it show that Benevente gave away plots to family and friends? Com'on now, how many plots were given away and how many are occupied because if they aren't occupied and it was given away then I'm sure it can be taken back. Besides, who would want to be buried at any of the Catholic cemeteries with the way it's been run recently. It's deplorable and disrespectful to the dead.

      Delete
    5. I didn't think you could reply about the alleged cemetery plots you Diana said were given away by Monsignor Benevente because you have no proof and are just dramatizing the whole situation to disgrace Monsignor Benevente. This seems like the NCW tactic.

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous at 7:55 am,

      It is in the Internal Review Report. See the previous OP.

      Delete
    7. Giving away free cemetery plots? Why don't you follow your advice and take it to court Diana.

      Delete
    8. Dear Anonymous at 6:56 pm,

      Jackie already filed a criminal complaint. It is up to the AG and the police to investigate the complaint.

      Delete
  6. Anon 11:39,

    Are you seriously gonna question the obedience of authority NOW? Let's start with priests who get all butt hurt because THEIR bishop moved them to another parish. They are priests for the people. If the bishop says move there, then you MOVE whether you like it or not. FYI, that's ARCHBISHOP Anthony Apuron.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It can be hard to have faith. We might waver sometimes or feel our faith isn’t as strong as it should be. We ask why when bad things happen to people we love or when the world’s cruelty overwhelms us. In the first reading, the words seem as if they could be written today or many times throughout history.

    “Why do you let me see ruin;
    why must I look at misery?
    Destruction and violence are before me;
    there is strife, and clamorous discord.”

    The Lord tells the prophet to wait, to have faith. In the gospel, the apostles ask Jesus to increase their faith. His response: Faith the size of a mustard seed can do the seemingly impossible. As with the servant in the parable, it’s our job to have faith, to trust in God and to do what we know we must to put that faith into action. We have to have faith in God and faith in ourselves to do what we can, where we are to make the world a more just and better place. We can be encouraged by the story of the mustard seed and let that seed flower and grow in our lives.

    We can live out the words from Timothy in the second reading:

    “For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice
    but rather of power and love and self-control.”

    I pray that the spirit of power and love strengthens my faith even in the face of strife and clamorous discord.

    http://onlineministries.creighton.edu/CollaborativeMinistry/100216.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 3:43 pm,

      Do not worry. Archbishop Hon is not going to be here long. I know what happened in Rome. He is not happy about it, so he is causing as much damage as he can before he leaves. Very unbecoming of a bishop.

      Delete
    2. If Hon is unbecoming, what is brother tony, a saint?

      Delete
    3. So who would be the next Archbishop if you say he will be leaving soon?

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 5:39 pm,

      Who said he was a saint?

      Delete
    5. Dear Diana, what happened in Rome? And how do you know what happened in Rome?

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous at 6:34 pm,

      Anthony Apuron is still the Archbishop of Agana. Pope Francis did not remove his title.

      Delete
    7. Anon @ 6:40 PM Hon probably got CHEWED OUT IN ROME BIG TIME. He was supposed to shut down Rohr/CCOG/LFM. Remember how he said the picketers would be gone in a couple of weeks? There were a couple of dozen of manamko that day. In 2 weeks there were about 75 and they weren't all manamko. Hon even stopped saying the 9:30 Mass. LOL Anyway the picketing is Stroke One
      Then when he was threatened with a lawsuit Hon retracted Apuron's statements against the victims and rescinded the decree against CCOG. Strike Two
      He still kept preaching the Gospel about the Archdiocese owning RMS even though he was given all the docs in January 2015. But CCOG forced him to act when they made a presentation to the Presbyteral Council. All of a sudden the other priests heard what we was told and saw the same docs from 2015 plus more. And they believed CCOG. Strike Three.

      Hon SAYS he asked the Pope to remove Apuron. But did he really?
      Hon SAYS he has a letter from the Presbyteral Council asking the Pope to declare the archdiocese sede vacante. But did he deliver it?
      Hon was trying to preach peace and harmony to the masses and then joined the NCW in Saturday night services and his cover was blown. That got CCOG/LFM even madder at him. (They were already mad after he prayed for Apuron and then didn't pray for Apuron's victims at St Anthony)
      Hon was trying to save his butt from being sued here on Guam and got in trouble with Rome.
      Hon is trying to play on BOTH sides of the fence because just like Apuron Hon wants to trade his pointy white hat for a red one.
      BUT now Hon has CCOG/LFM on Guam mad at him AND his boss Cardinal Filoni is on his case in Rome.
      Hon was trying for a Win-Win. He was trying to keep NCW/RMS in place AND put down the protesters and dissidents.
      But now it's not just CCOG/LFM mad at him. Rome is mad at him. The NCW on Guam is mad at him. Hon is losing everywhere he turns.
      Hon wants to get out of here. He's been wanting out since he saw how divided the archdiocese is and how all his nice words didn't make a difference.
      But will Hon be allowed to go back to Rome with things in an even bigger mess than when he arrived? PL 33-187 as example #1. Growing picket lines as example #2. The possibility of more sexual abuse victims coming out as example #3.

      But you know what the funniest part of this is? Having Tim Rohr/CCOG/LFM and Diana/NCW on the SAME SIDE where Hon is concerned just for different reasons. That's something I never thought could ever happen.

      Delete
    8. Dear Anonymous @7:16AM,
      As they say, "the Lord acts in mysterious ways..."

      Delete
    9. No, you are wrong, dear anon, in your assessment of Hon's performance. You apparently have no idea of Chinese warfare. The sword they use is a double edge sword, cutting in both directions! Opposition on both sides will be exhausted slowly, little-by-little, one step at a time.

      Hon will never give up or surrender, because he was given super-power from Rome for at least one year. He has time until at least next June to wear out, crumb and scrap resistance. Never underestimate the shrewdness of a Chinese warrior!

      Delete
  8. Hon is shrieking disobedience and insubordination ….

    Well his trusted buddies Jeff and Crisostomo started it….

    Jeff openly defied the Pope in front of all the media. Cardinal Filoni told him to do something and he said no I will not do it.

    Mike openly defied Hon in not reading the letter of Hon himself and then going to the radio and boasted that he did not read it.

    A divided house is destined to destruction….

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon @ 7:35 PM: Did you HEAR Fr. Mike BOAST about not reading the letter? I was listening to Patti on K57. What I heard was that he just returned on Saturday night (which means he WASN'T AT THE CLERGY MEETING WHEN THE DIRECTIVE WAS GIVEN).
      So he didn't know he was supposed to read that stupid letter and he ADMITTED that he failed to do so which is different from your claim that he BOASTED.

      Delete
    2. LOL.... poor father mike,,,, he did not know?! Why then he apologized in the clergy meeting?

      Delete
    3. 9:20AM--
      Maybe because he got scolded? Maybe because Hon told him to? (Clergy meeting that you attended? Then you know what scolding I speak of...)

      Delete
  9. Rohr displaying time clock

    ReplyDelete
  10. Clock to his mania....

    ReplyDelete
  11. Catholic Cemeteries of Guam, Inc. is an entity of the Archdiocese of Agana. Pope Francis entrusted full pastoral responsibility and administrative authority of the Archdiocese to Archbishop Savio Hon Tai Fai, SDB, as Apostolic Administrator of Agana in June, 2016. Late this afternoon, the Archdiocese learned second-hand, from local news media, that an individual had filed a complaint against Monsignor James Benavente with the Guam Police and Attorney General’s Office on behalf of the Catholic Cemeteries. The subject matter which the complaint mentions was addressed and the findings determined Monsignor James to be cleared of any financial irregularities. Archbishop Hon wishes to make very clear that in no way has he authorized any individual to represent the Archdiocese nor file such a complaint on behalf of the Catholic Cemeteries and the Archdiocese. Such misrepresentation constitutes a grave wrong and disobedience that the recognized leadership of our Catholic Church on Guam will not tolerate. Indeed, we were not consulted or contacted regarding this act. No such document was forwarded to the Archdiocese. Archbishop Hon will take immediate and appropriate action to discipline the person or persons involved as he would do with any act of insubordination by persons under his pastoral care.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So no priests used church money to pay for a celebration like anniversary dinner? Really. I think all have and it's fine as it's a practice and most everyone was invited. Just like Apuron''s birthday or anniversary? Who paid for that? Again it's all Church funds. So what is all the drama about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:11 am,

      Archbishop Apuron did not use Church funds for birthday. It was paid for by the NCW and everyone else who was there. Tickets were $200.

      Delete
  13. And where does the NCW get money? From church donations?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Mr. Terlaje,

      They get it from their income.

      Delete
    2. The NCW is not entitled to income, according to its statutes

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 11:44 pm,

      The NCW does not have a bank account, but it's individual members have their own income because the members work as doctors, lawyers, etc.

      Delete
    4. Like Doctor Ric Eusebio and Lawyer Jackie Terlaje, right? So it's a portion of their income that they give and that's where the NCW gets their income? I have a job too and that's where I get the finances to give to my parish. Isnt it the same thing. It's called church donations.

      Delete
    5. Dear Mr. Terlaje,

      When we give our money to the Church, then it is a church donation. When we purchase the $200 ticket for the birthday party, then it is for the birthday party. When I purchase $50 of groceries from Payless Supermarket, then it goes to the store. When I purchase a movie ticket, then the money goes to the theater. Can you distinguish the difference?

      Delete
    6. The definition of income is as follows: Money received, especially on a regular basis, for work or through investments. Question: Where does the NCW receive money on a regular basis?

      Delete
    7. Dear Diana, So the income from members of the NCW (doctors and lawyers) is the source of income for the NCW? Correct? So they work for the NCW and all revenues generated by their profession is collected by the NCW. You said it, I didn't.

      Delete
    8. Dear Mr. Terlaje,

      Incorrect. It is their money. They chose to do what they want with their income. And they do not work for the NCW. The NCW does not pay me anything. My job in the government is the one paying me. I choose what to do with my income.

      Delete
    9. Dear Diana,
      So where does the iincome for the NCW come from? It doesn't just fall out of the sky. It comes from donations from the members of the church. Income is defined as money that is earned from work, investments, business, etc.

      Delete
    10. Dear Mr. Terlaje,

      The NCW does not have any income. When money is collected, it does not go to the NCW. It goes into paying for the use of the hotel and other facilities that we use for our retreat. The NCW does not collect on a regular basis the way the Church does. The Church collects money regularly during Mass. In the NCW, we do not collect money on a regular basis. Whatever money is collected is always used up such as paying the debt of the hotel we use.

      Delete
    11. Where does Tim Rohr get donation from, is he supposed to be exempt ?

      Delete
  14. NCW gets the money from their own pockets.....Or from selling something of their own that they have no use for...and like Diana says...their work income.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the NCW gets their income from doctors, lawyers and othe NCW members? Isn't that the same thing as a donation?

      Delete
  15. And you have documents to prove that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:36 pm,

      Yes. Receipts are given after the person purchase the $200 ticket. The ticket was his/her entrance into the birthday party that was held at the hotel.

      Delete
  16. So if you purchased a $200.00 ticket for a birthday party dinner. Where you serve a $200.00 meal? Or was your meal worth $100 and the rest goes to the birthday boy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:46 pm,

      Most of the money went to the seminaries. The Archbishop used his birthday for a fundraiser for the seminaries. The money did not come from the Catholic Cemeteries.

      Delete
  17. Dear Diana,
    This is the definition of fundraising: Fundraising or fund raising is the process of gathering voluntary contributions of money or other resources, by requesting donations from individuals, businesses, charitable foundations, or governmental agencies.

    If the fundraising effort is for the seminaries and is headed by the archbishop then the donations are church donations because the seminary belongs to the church.....correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Mr. Terlaje,

      You are part of the Junglewatch nation. From what I understand the jungle does not believe that the seminaries belong to the Archdiocese. So, which is it? You cannot say that the seminary is part of the Archdiocese only when it suits you. Resolve that issue first before you decide what is church donation and what is not church donation.

      Delete
  18. Dear Diana,
    I don't want to just hear it from one side. I need to hear it from both sides point of view. All I get from you is a runaround. I love my church and will do whatever I can in my power to protect it. God bless.
    V/r
    Mr. Terlaje

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Mr. Terlaje,

      It appears to me that you are more interested in our money......and when I say "our" money, I am referring to the money that we earned in our jobs as doctors, lawyers, etc. I do not tell you what to do with your money. In fact, I do not care if you donate your money to the Red Cross. You do with your money whatever you want. Do not tell us what and where we should donate our money.

      Delete
  19. Dear Diana,
    The mirror has two faces. Others had asked and I just chimed in to get your side of the story but you kept dodging the question. You said Archbishop Apuron did not use Church funds for birthday. It was paid for by the NCW and everyone else who was there. Tickets were $200. All I asked was where did the NCW get the money to pay for this event. You said that it came from the NCW income, remember? I then asked you where does the NCW get their income? You could've said from the Vatican and end of story but you didn't. You still didn't answer it so will end it here. It was nice blogging with you.
    V/r
    Mr. Terlaje :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Mr. Terlaje,

      I meant it was paid by members of the NCW rather than the organization itself. Of course, I could always say it was paid by Catholics, but that is not quite true. Some non-Catholics were there.

      Delete