In a rare press conference, Mother Dawn talked to local media to share her side of the story relating to the RMS property in Yona. You see, after years of speculation about who was the mystery $2 million benefactor that allowed for the archdiocese's acquisition of the RMS property.
She finally came out, saying all it took was a phone call to her Carmelite sisters in the US mainland. "There was no he, it was a she - and it was me," she said. "So the truth of where the money came from is as easy as that."
According to the mother superior, her wish to remain anonymous was not respected.Father Pius and the NCW never revealed who the donor was. In fact, it was Mother Dawn herself and Tim Rohr who revealed it two years ago. Mother Dawn spoke to Tim Rohr about the donor and Tim published the information in his blog on August 6, 2014. Therefore, the news report is incorrect. Mother Dawn did not just FINALLY come out now. She came out two years ago. According to Tim Rohr, he wrote on his blog dated August 6, 2014:
The 2 million dollar gift to purchase the Yona property did not fall from heaven. Mother Dawn, because she is devoted to our Catholic Church, spearheaded the effort to find a donor through her order and specifically through her fellow Carmelites in St. Louis, Missouri.
Through the Carmelites in St. Louis, Mother Dawn was able to identify a donor, a private person, who agreed to give the money on two conditions:
- That the gift be used to purchase a defunct hotel property for the "purpose of a seminary"
- That the identity of the donor NOT be made known
Below is a screenshot taken from the jungle:
Therefore, the person who broke the silence and told about the donor was Mother Dawn. How else would Tim get the information? Mother Dawn broke her silence and gave the information to Tim Rohr two years ago. Tim then published it in his blog for the entire world to see. Patti Arroyo also interviewed Mother Dawn, and the next day she made a comment in the jungle about her interview with Mother Dawn. You can find that comment here. (Note the date and time):
- Patti ArroyoAugust 7, 2014 at 7:29 AMI have spoken personally with Mother Dawn Marie on this. All reported above on the "deal" for Redemptoris Mater Seminary is true, especially the part about the notion that the Carmelites had an extra 2 million laying around. Because the conditions of the "gift", not loan were violated people think the Carmelites don't need help. In fact, they live on $30 each a day and Mother Dawn Marie is currently scouring the country for financial support. If anyone is interested in a solution...help the Carmelites. It's the most productive, personal effort you can make to help fix an otherwise out of control holy war.
So, the media already knew two years ago. Nowhere in this blog was it ever published that the donor were Carmelite nuns. Father Pius never revealed that the donor were Carmelite nuns. In fact, some members in the NCW speculated that the donor must be walking in the Way or some rich benefactor. Why the speculation? Because Father Pius and the Archbishop kept the donor's identity a secret, which is why we had different notions as to who the donor was.
Was the donor's wish to remain anonymous violated? Yes, but it was not us who violated it. Father Pius and the Archbishop protected the donor's identity. In fact, to protect the donor's identity, the pronoun "he" was used instead of "she." So, who was the FIRST one who broke the silence and violated the condition that the donor be made anonymous? Who was the FIRST one who said that the donor were Carmelite nuns?
Nothing on ur writing nor ur quotes that states who the benefactor was. She identified a donor but there was no names mentioned. May I ask, since u r on the Way and a biblical person, why do u get so diffensive? Isn't it more important to pray for others if u truly believe that they're wrong? I'm just wondering because reading ur blog makes me wonder what really is ur intention if u r truly a follower of the Word. My aunt is an active NCW in Saipan but so different from u and the rest in Guam.
ReplyDeleteDear Vince,
DeleteThe NCW is being blamed for revealing the donor to be the Carmelite nuns, which is not true. Let the light of truth shine. Christ is truth. Only He can bring unity, and it starts with the truth.
Totally agree with u but through prayers can unity happen. We as Christians can never add fuel to the fire, we must humble ourselves and let the Holy Spirit do its work in making all the impossible possible. I know u have good intentions but again, prayers can only change a person. Good example is St. Scholastica who fervently prayed for his son St. Augustine who was a BAD person at one point in time. In His time, He makes all things possible! Prayers to u and the rest of the team. BTW, I have close relatives who are actively involved on the Way in Yigo.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Diana is being defensive. She stated mostly facts like Dr. Eusabio who came out to tell about RMS after a bias report was published in the media by Fr. Jeff. Diana have always stated that there are 2 sides of the story. Her blog portrays one side while JW portrays another side. Her post here gives pause for people to think about what the truth is. Some of her posts have also called on the brothers to continue their prayers.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:50 pm,
DeleteOur catechists told us to come out and speak the truth especially if we are asked. According to the PDN:
"The mother superior was the person who got the Carmelite nuns in the United States to donate $2 million to the archdiocese on Guam to buy the Yona property over a decade ago.
She said the identity of the donors at the time was supposed to be anonymous, but Apuron and others violated that agreement from the beginning, she said."
http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/11/14/2m-donor-broker-we-did-not-want-lie-apuron-sammut-over-yona-property/93844028/
Father Pius and the Archbishop never went to the media to tell that the 2 million dollars was donated by the Carmelite nuns in the US. We first heard about it in the jungle in 2014.
OMG Diana. What does it matter who revealed what at this point in time? The main issue is that Archbishop Apuron and Father Pius asked the Carmelites to lie for them. Stop trying to deflect this matter.
DeleteDoes it really matter what's been done after the TRUE intent of the donors was revealed?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 2:00 am,
DeleteI guess you did not read the post from Rohr on August 6, 2014. At that time, no letter was mentioned because the letter did not come out until later. Mother Dawn came out and revealed the donor because she does not want to be labeled a "neo-sympathizer,"
So, the truth comes out. She was prejudice against the Way. When the letter came out, she accused the Archbishop of going against what the donor wanted. They wanted a seminary. The RMS is a seminary, but Mother Dawn wanted any Seminary except RMS due to its affiliation to the NCW.
Vince D. @ 9:09,
DeleteIn regards to your statement: "We as Christians can never add fuel to the fire, we must humble ourselves and let the Holy Spirit do its work in making all the impossible possible," why do you think St. Paul and St. Peter and all the martyrs were put to death?
From the beginning, many were put to death for being Christians, for proclaiming the truth. To forget that important part of history is to forget the legacy passed down to you. It is to forget the sacrifice that they made because they believed and proclaimed that Jesus Christ was the messiah. That he was God here with us. That he rose from the dead and wants us all to be saved from the death that results from sin.
To speak the truth is to meet with resistance. It is to go head to head with the biggest liar in the world who wants us to tear us away from God. If you want to know the truth and let the truth be known, you have to fight the evil in the world to tell that truth.
So, when you say that we should never add fuel to the fire, from what I believe to know of God, that is not what it means to be humble. To bear with wrongs patiently, yes, but we also can instruct the ignorant and admonish the sinner. And doing so can add fuel to the fire and make waves. Doing so can lead to death.
So as appealing it seems to avoid suffering, I think to do so would be to deny the love that the early leaders of the church and many of the martyrs and others had that they have passed on to us today. It would be to deny that there is something, someone worth dying for.
So, I believe Diana is right. The truth should be known, great or small, because it is the truth. And sometimes the truth isn't what we want to hear or expect to hear but it does not change the fact that it is the truth.
It really doesn't matter how things came to light about who the donor is. The thing is the TRUTH was revealed along with the donors wishes. The sad part is that there WAS a toxic environment which was created to the point where the Carmelites were forced to make a decision to leave this island. This all done under an NCW leadership. So stop the blame and take a little responsibility to the facts which were revealed by the Holy Spirit. You say the NCW is being persecuted when it is not. The truth is actually revealing itself on what the NCW is. Rome did listen and the coadjutor responded.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 3:35 am,
DeleteSee my comment above at 7:22 am.
It's all about Tim Rohr Revenge, conspiracy,Property,Large Commission,from his Chinese Customer?? it's funny what money does to People,it seems so easily to give their soul for . crazy!!!
ReplyDeleteAll this does not matter any more Diana because Archbishop Bynes has cut the seminary's ties to the NCW. :-)
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 6:58 am,
DeleteIN case you have not noticed, operations at RMS is the same as usual. The words were cut from a piece of paper, but the life and study of the seminarians remains untouched. ☺
But eventually it will be done. It's only a matter of time.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:52 pm,
DeleteTime will tell. I am glad that God has given a strong bishop who at least has dealt with racism and hate.
Its freaken SUNDAY and for the most part I was having a very beautiful day all up until I decided to read whats going on in the blogs.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, we have always said since the start that the archdiocese owns the seminary property. If they didnt, Archbishop Byrnes would not have been able to lift the deed restriction. I wish the best to our diocese, they have lifted the restriction that protects the property from the temptation of getting rid of it. It now can be sold off to fulfill any of the upcoming lawsuits. Archbishop Anthony, who knew how important his obligation was to promote the formation of priests placed the deed to protect it, and that was all, to protect it.
Archbishop Byrnes, trying to be politically correct, changed some verbage on the status of the seminary. However, the life and function of the seminary continues as always, they are being formed and prepared for the new evangelization. Get with the program people.
Thanks be to God for the NCW. We are here to stay, we aint going anywhere. Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever.
Pas!
-Jokers Wild
Dear Jokers Wild,
DeleteArchbishop Byrnes did not know the full story. He believed Archbishop Hon who was consistently in communication with him. But do not worry, in time he will fully understand everything when he arrives on Guam and settles in. ☺
I suppose that everyone who doesn't believe in the way is prejudice in your eyes Diana.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 5:25 pm,
DeleteNo. It is only the jungle.
How is it just the jungle when you said mother dawn was ignorant?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:46 pm,
DeleteMother Dawn went to Tim and revealed the donor to him. Why consult with Tim instead of the media?
And that makes her ignorant? Does it matter who she went to? Would it have changed the truth? Fact is that it was the Carmelites who gave the $2 million for the archdiocese to aquire the asuncion hotel for use as a seminary and not just for a particular group.
DeleteSo again, what difference would it make?
Dear Anonymous at 8:05 pm,
DeleteIt makes her ignorant because she did not know that RMS is a seminary even with the word "seminary" in there for everyone to see.
Anonymous, you asked if I believe if everyone who does not believe in the Way is prejudice. I gave you my answer.
But the condition was not exclusively for the NCW's use forever like the deed restriction stated. How selfish is that?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:19 pm,
DeleteThe deed restriction was there to protect the property because there were people who want to shut down the seminary and sell the property. In the future, the property could be used for other things other than a seminary since the property was big enough. But no ever asked the Archbishop or even suggested to build something on the property that could benefit other Catholic organizations. Instead, it was suggested that the property be sold to pay off the debts of the Archdiocese. So, who is being selfish?
They even went so far as to discredit the integrity of the seminary, such as CCOG coming up with a report without even visiting the seminary or reviewing its documents. All they did was compile all of Frenchie's comments into one report.
Diana, Mother Dawn was tricked into signing the paperwork. She might have been misinformed about the RMS deliberately. That is what the media states and that is how Guam Catholic folks see it. You may deny this, but how can you convince the public? Do not ever underestimate the sympathy and high regard good Catholic people feel for Mother Dawn and the Carmelites!
DeleteDiana @ 8:34 PM are you sure the Deed Restriction was put in place to protect the property because there were people who want to shut down the seminary?
DeleteAccording to the interview with Giuseppe Gennarini Archbishop Apuron signed the Declaration of Deed Restriction in 2011 to protect the Yona property from being sold in case the Archbishop or Archdiocese was ever sued. Now why was that even a concern back in 2011? That was 2 years before the archbishop removed Fr Paul (which started jungle watch) and 3 years before he removed Msgr James and 5 years before the first allegation of sexual assault was made.
How did Gennarini know that in 2016 there would be (1) allegations of sexual abuse against the archbishop (2) the legislature would unanimously pass a bill to lift the statute of limitations for civil litigation against child sexual abusers (3) the governor would sign the bill into public law???
Very, very strange.
But you will now do one of 2 things (1) you won't publish this or (2) if you do publish this you will deny what Gennarini said and continue to try to sell the story of the evil CCOG and ignorant Mother Dawn.
BTW: You really should stop insulting Mother Dawn's intelligence because your just helping the LFM with their picketing. More people showed up yesterday and lots of them said that they're mad about losing the Carmelites.
WTG Diana. WTG.
Dear Anonymous at 6:36 am,
DeleteAt that time in 2011, the Archbishop already saw that there were many people taking an interest in that property because of its value. Greed can make people do things at whatever cost. He may have foreseen that in the future the Archdiocese may be sued in order for these people to get the property. That prophecy came true. Not only is the Archdiocese facing a lawsuit, but the Archbishop himself is also facing one by the alleged victims.
As for the Carmelites, they were placed in a large house in Tamuning because it is closer to the hospital and their medical needs can easily be met. They left because no one is enrolling in the Carmelite order in Guam. I heard from a friend that some of our young girls in the NCW went to the Carmelites in Guam, but they were rejected. So, they left and found a carmelite monastery in New Jersey that accepted them.
Diana,
DeleteDo you know who was taking an interest in the value of the property?
What happens if the new archbishop doesn't see it the way the NCW sees it? Are you going to start calling him names and such?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 7:50 pm,
DeleteWhat names did I call Archbishop Hon?
Anon. 7:50, Diana never called AB Hon any bad names. If you want to see the bad names toward AB Hon, go to JW.
DeleteDid I say you called archbishop hon names? I think you need to reread that question and not assume.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:21 pm,
DeleteYou asked if I would be calling the new Archbishop names if he does not see eye to eye with the Way. Anyone reading my blog already knows that it is not my style to call a bishop bad names. I do not agree with Archbishop Hon trying to remove Archbishop Apuron, but I never resorted to name calling. As Anonymous 8:15 says, go to the jungle if you want to see bishops being called bad names.
Diana, you said Hon follows the devil. This is name calling. Even worse!
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:41 pm,
DeleteNo. That is not what said. The following is what I wrote:
"Rather than following Christ, these spiritual leaders have fallen because they also condemned Archbishop Apuron without the due process of a trial. By their example and actions, these shepherds have only taught that it is okay to condemn another person even without a trial. And this example and action is against the Catholic faith."
http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2016/11/why-rush.html
DeleteDianaNovember 13, 2016 at 10:19 PM
Dear Anonymous at 5:31 pm,
This is why we need to always pray for our bishops and priests. The devil consistently attacks them. As you can see, Archbishop Hon, Father Jeff, Father Mike, and the rest of the Presbyterian council who voted to remove Archbishop Apuron have fallen. Instead of leading the sheep to Jesus and His Gospel TEACHING, they have followed the devil in judging and condemning a man without a trial. So sad.
Dear Anonymous at 9:48 pm,
DeleteThat is still not name calling. Name calling is calling a person bad names such as devil, evil, Satan, idiot,stupid, etc.
My comment was criticizing Hon's action, which is a sin. Condemning a person is a sin. I was not calling him any bad names. According to the dictionary
"Name-calling is defined as calling a person insulting or derogatory NAMES.
To condenm someone is also defined as name-calling.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 10:24 pm,
DeleteI was not condemning Archbishop Hon. I was condemning his action as sinful behavior, which needs to be corrected.
We are not infallible Diana. Just admit it and move on.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 10:29 pm,
DeleteI never said that we are infallible. But when bishops and priests display bad behaviors, someone should call attention to their behaviors so it can be corrected.
Dear Anonymous at 10:29 pm,
DeleteI never said that we are infallible. But when bishops and priests display bad behaviors, someone should call attention to their behaviors so it can be corrected.
Sin is coming from the devil. Sin is not coming from God. When you sin, you are a sinner. You follow the devil, rather than God. We do not condemn Hon. Only his action which is sin. We know that you follow the devil when you sin. Everybody is a sinner. So Hon should be humble and say, yes I am a sinner. I follow the devil, rather than God. His actions speak volumes of his attitude with sin.
DeleteBut we can learn from it. Hon's sin and disobedience teaches us a lesson. If you follow the devil, you will be corrected. God will tell you that your action is condemned! You won't know about Archbishop Byrnes and the whole media will laugh on you. This is you well deserved correction, Archbishop Hon. Rather than not judging Archbishop Apuron, you chose to judge him. You chose devil. As for me and my household, we will follow God! Archbishop Apuron is a sinner, but not that way. You are the sinner, especially Hon and his priests who want to close the seminary, who follow the devil and destroy the Kingdom of God!
You also said that Mother Superior Dawn is ignorant. That's name-calling. Ignorant is defined as lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. You basically said that she is stupid.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 10:38 pm,
DeleteName-calling is using insulting and derogatory NAMES. "Ignorant" is not a derogatory name. Why ? Because all it means is being unaware or lacks knowledge about something.
On the other hand, calling someone "stupid is the insulting word and therefore considered name-calling. Why? Because according to the dictionary, "stupid" means brainless.
An ignorant person is NOT brainless. They simply were unaware about the subject or lacked knowledge about something they are unfamiliar with.
Name-Calling: Full Definition: : the use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 10:50 pm,
DeleteThank you!
CCOG was behind AB Hon as mentioned in the Guam Post:
ReplyDelete"Sablan told the Post that CCOG had worked closely with the archdiocese, and that they had provided church officials with the directives and funding necessary to ensure that the paperwork was completed in a timely and efficient manner.
Going into the future, Sablan said that CCOG would continue to operate for the original purpose that it was founded.
Firstly, Sablan said that the next likely action on the part of the archdiocese would be to file for something called a “quiet title” transfer – essentially a shortened period of time during which complainants may submit opposition to the amendments made by Byrnes after which no claims can be heard."
http://www.postguam.com/news/local/protests-continue-strong/article_2309f742-af07-11e6-a6b0-5b90a4c0032a.html
So, how short is that period and after which can we expect to see the next set of lawsuits that will force the Archdiocese into bankruptcy and thus persuade the church to sell the seminary to pay off its debts instead of closing parishes?
Dear Anonymous at 5:48 am,
DeleteWhat is a "quiet title" transfer?
The trust fund set up by Archbishop Hon should be built up to avoid parish closures. And the Church can already settle the claims with the victims of Father Louis since that is an open and shut case. The alleged victims of Apuron will have to wait until after the canonical trial.
Diana from your other posts and comments I really thought you were an expert in legal matters. But since you asked, I looked it up on the online Legal Dictionary and this is what it said:
DeleteQuiet Title Action
A proceeding to establish an individual's right to ownership of real property against one or more adverse claimants.
An action to quiet title is a lawsuit filed to establish ownership of real property (land and buildings affixed to land). The plaintiff in a quiet title action seeks a court order that prevents the respondent from making any subsequent claim to the property. Quiet title actions are necessary because real estate may change hands often, and it is not always easy to determine who has title to the property.
A quiet title suit is also called a suit to remove a cloud. A cloud is any claim or potential claim to ownership of the property. The cloud can be a claim of full ownership of the property or a claim of partial ownership, such as a lien in an amount that does not exceed the value of the property. A title to real property is clouded if the plaintiff, as the buyer or recipient of real estate, might have to defend her full ownership of the property in court against some party in the future. A landowner may bring a quiet title action regardless of whether the respondent is asserting a present right to gain possession of the premises.
For example, assume that the seller of the property agreed to sell but died before the sale was finalized. Assume further that the seller also gave the property to a nephew in a will. In such a situation, both the nephew and the buyer have valid grounds for filing a suit to quiet title because each has a valid claim to the property.
The law on quiet title actions varies from state to state. Some states have quiet title statutes. Other states allow courts to fashion most of the laws regarding quiet title actions. Under the Common Law, a plaintiff must be in possession of the property to bring a quiet title action, but many state statutes do not require actual possession by the plaintiff. In other states possession is not relevant. In some states only the person who holds legal title to the real estate may file a quiet title action, but in other states anyone with sufficient interest in the property may bring a quiet title action. Generally, a person who has sold the property does not have sufficient interest. When a landowner owns property subject to a mortgage, the landowner may bring a quiet title action in states where the mortgagor retains title to the property. If the mortgagee keeps the title until the mortgage is paid, the mortgagee, not the landowner, would have to bring the action.
The general rule in a quiet title action is that the plaintiff may succeed only on the strength of his own claim to the real estate, and not on the weakness of the respondent's claim. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that he owns the title to the property. A plaintiff may have less than a fee simple, or less than full ownership, and maintain an action to quiet title. So long as the plaintiff's interest is valid and the respondent's interest is not, the plaintiff will succeed in removing the cloud (the respondent's claim) from the title to the property.
Atty Ed Terlaje had warned Archbishop Apuron that the Deed Restriction could put a cloud on the ownership of the Yona property so the quiet title would also clear the cloud and protect it against an adverse claimant like NCW.
Well according to NOLO its a type of lawsuit and it seems like the purpose is to make it known to anyone who wants to dispute the ownership of the propety and make the claim that the property is truly owned by the current title holder.
Deletehttps://www.nolo.com/dictionary/quiet-title-action-term.html
Perhaps Archbishop should have had this done while the deed restriction was in place to prove that the Archdiocese was the true owner of the property and not the RMS.
Looking back, perhaps when you stated that you would be willing to go to court to prove ownership, you probably should have gone and done something like this before the deed restriction was lifted.
Hahaha....Mr. Sablan who was under investigation by feds for ghura telling the church about "quiet transsfer"? I dint even trust that...
ReplyDeleteSounds fishy......
Can this be true? Mother Dawn and associates trying to get the Yona property. What will she use it for? They don't need that land now. We are shocked.
ReplyDeletegroup unlikely bed fellows claimimg seminary. Religious, clergy.
ReplyDelete