Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Regarding Ownership Of RMS

Image result for Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Guam

According to the Guam Daily Post, CCOG is calling for the removal of five priests:  Monsignor David C. Quitugua, former vicar general; Father Adrian Cristobal, former chancellor; Father Alberto Rodriguez Salamanca, former vice chancellor; Father Edivaldo da Silva Oleveira, former spokeman and aide to Archbishop Apuron; and Deacon Frank Tenoria, who supported Archbishop Apuron.  

According to the Guam Daily Post: 
Sablan accused Quitugua of being responsible for the confusion surrounding the former Hotel Accion, now Redemptoris Mater Seminary, in Yona, and the misleading publication of a false certificate of title of the Yona property to "mislead the Catholics in Guam by trying to fool them into believing the Yona property was still part of the assets of the Archbishop of Agana, Corporation Sole." 
The reason CCOG wants them removed makes no sense.  You do not remove someone simply because they are walking in the Way.  That is discrimination. You also do not remove someone simply because they are obedient to the Archbishop.  They made a vow of obedience to the Archbishop of Agana; therefore, they did nothing wrong.  

In all fairness to Monsignor David Quitugua, he told the truth when he said that the Yona property on which the seminary stands belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana. The Archdiocese had always been saying that the seminary is under the Archdiocese of Agana.  They never changed their story.  The confusion was brought about by Tim Rohr, CCOG, and LFM who insisted that the seminary did NOT belong to the Archdiocese.  Here are the facts:  
  1. An ownership and encumbrance report was completed in 2014 by Pacific American Title, which confirms that the lots on which the seminary sits, identifies the owner as the Archbishop of Agana.  Therefore, contrary to rumors, the title deed has always remained in the hands of the Archdiocese [1]. 
  2. The law firm of Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP in Denver, Colorado, who is the most prominent firm specialized in establishing corporations sole in many Catholic dioceses in the U.S. and in civil-religious issues related to corporation soles, was asked a legal opinion on the Archbishop's powers, as sole member of the seminary [2].  The opinion concluded the following:  

    (a) Regarding the relationship between the Archbishop and the Board of Guarantors: "The corporate governance structure of Redemptoris Mater shows...that the Archbishop of Agana retains substantial authority over Redemptoris Mater, as the Archbishop is the sole member of the entity under civil incorporation laws, presides over the governing boads, has the power to appoint the governing boards, the power to amend the civil governing documents and is the Ordinary under canon law with specific authority over the entity as prescribed in the Canonical Statutes and under canon law."  

    (b) Regarding the designation of the title deed for use by the Seminary and the Theological Institute: "The authority of the Archbishop over the entity, particularly with respect to the administration of real property, is a fundamental aspect of the canon law relationship between the Archbishop and Redemptoris Mater.  The method used by the Archbishop under civil law of conveying beneficial use of the Property to Redemptoris Mater while retaining legal title to the Property within the Archdiocese of Agana is consistent with canon law prescribed structures; is consistent with civil law methods widely used by numerous Catholic dioceses in the United States both historically and currently; and is a necessary civil law structure to reflect and enforce the Archbishop's powers of jurisdiction over Redemptoris Mater under the Code of Canon Law.  Absent the express approval of the Archbishop of Agana, neither Redemptoris Mater nor any governing board or other person affiliated with such entity has the civil power or authority to cause the transfer or sale of the property." 
  3. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, which his the highest authority in the Catholic Church for interpreting the laws of the Church, was asked to provide a ruling on the land, building and title of the present Redemptoris Mater Seminary.  

    The Pontifical Council concluded that there was no alienation of the property even if the Archbishop transferred the title of the property to the RMS Corporation because "based on what has been said, it seems...devoid of truth to speak of sale or alienation of a diocesan patrimony in this context...it is also clear that the present assignment of this patrimony to the Seminary does not make it a real" alienation because the owner remains the same, namely the diocese or the Archbishop." [3]  
     
  4. The Department of Land Management issued certificate of titles showing that the Yona property and seminary belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana. 
  5. Archbishop Hon also declared that the seminary belonged to the Archdiocese of Agana.  According to KUAM news: "The Archdiocese of Agana owns that property. No doubt of it. And then there's a certain ambiguity who has the right to use it. And on this matter, I'm going to have a review of it," said Archbishop Hon during an interview on KUAM........
  6. In an interview on the Patti Arroyo talk show, Professor Gennarini stated that the Seminary belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana.
  7. Father Pius Sammut, former rector of the RM Seminary, stated that the Seminary belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana and only the Archbishop or his successor can lift the deed restriction.  According to the Pacific Daily News:  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 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.
The fact that Archbishop Byrnes (the successor of Archbishop Apuron) was able to rescind the deed restriction is PROOF that the Seminary had always been under the Archdiocese of Agana. All these facts above were made public to the people of Guam.  

One would think that the jungle would actually be happy to hear that the Yona property on which the seminary sits belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana. What is absolutely shocking is learning that they were not at all relieved to hear that news. Instead of being relieved, they labeled Monsignor David and the Archdiocese a liar.  One would think they would be relieved to see the certificate of titles showing the Archbishop of Agana as the owner of the property.  But instead, they demanded that the title be changed, showing RMS as the owner instead of the Archbishop of Agana.  According to KUAM news:
Terlaje says there was a mistake on the 2015 title. There was no memorial, which is to restrict use of the property. She says the archbishop has corrected that. She added, "I want it to be a theological institute, and in this theological institute what the people of Guam will receive are priests, catholic priests who will continue to serve our island, and that's exactly what he did. He put a use restriction on the land itself. It never changed the ownership of the property."
But concerned Catholic Bob Klitzkie, an attorney and former senator, says the certificate of title was not updated to reflect the current true owner, because the most recent entry shows the property was transferred.  

45 comments:

  1. Thanks for your op, dear Diana. At least there is someone who is saying the truth. CCOG is definitely lying and it looks as if the guys at the Chancery believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Diana, you cannot deny that Fr. Pius Sammut conspired with NCW-appointed clergy to deprive the Catholic Church of Guam from the benefit of using the acquired property as it wishes. This was not an ownership issue. This was a sovereignty issue. The church was restricted in its sovereign decision over how to benefit from the property.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:51 pm,

      There is documented evidence showing that the Yona property was acquired for the purpose of housing the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. The Archbishop can always change his mind and remove the deed restriction just as was already shown when Archbishop Byrnes removed the deed restriction.

      Delete
    2. Diana, your statement about the RMS would not stand at court. The benefactor was deceived. You know it, still keep repeating it. It is morally corrupt.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 5:54 am,

      The benefactor was never deceived. There were email exchanges between the benefactor and Archbishop Apuron. Tim Rohr had the wrong person. He had someone who was never the benefactor and who never exchanged any emails with the Archbishop regarding the 2 million dollars.

      Delete
    4. Diana, the benefactor has never expressed a desire to restrict the donation to the benefit of the NCW.

      Delete
    5. Diana, the problem was the board of guarantors with a veto power over the Archbishop of Agana. It was Archbishop Hon who undid the plot of Pius, Apuron and the Gennarinis. Without him the board could have blocked any change in the status of the Yona property.

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous at 2:50 pm,

      How would you know? Have you seen the emails between Archbishop Apuron and the benefactor?

      Dear Anonymous at 2:53 pm,

      The fact that Archbishop Byrnes did away with the Board of Guarantors is already PROOF that Archbishop Apuron and his successor had all the power and authority just as Father Pius explained.

      Delete
    7. Diana, please, produce the statement of the befactor of asking the donation to be given for NCW purposes. You won't because you can't. In fact, the benefactor contacted Archbishop Hon in 2015 and told him everything how was her intention betrayed. As a consequence, the Holy See ordered Apuron to give up the deed restriction without litigation. On pressure from Pius, however, Apuron repeatedly refused to comply.

      Pius tried to justify the disregarding of the Holy See's order by making false claim: "The people of Guam did not contribute any penny to the purchase price of the Accion Hotel", he said. This was not true, of course.

      The ploy was exposed by Jungle nation. Apuron had to be relieved from his position in order to undo the deed restriction and neutralize the advances of the Gennarinis on Guam church properties. This fiasco made Kiko to fire Pius. Please, do not block my comment from the readers. They deserve to know the truth.

      Delete
    8. Dear Anonymous at 6:33 pm,

      I never said anything about the NCW. I said it is in the documents that the Yona property was acquired for the purpose of housing the Redemptoris Mater Seminary.

      Delete
    9. If Fr Pius said that then it is a statement of earthly concern. He demonstrated a heightened interest in acquiring earthly possession for his movement and for his personal interest. It was aaid that he used RMS to hide away from the questioning of his conduct.

      Delete
    10. Diana, what was the purpose of establishing a board of guarantors hidden from Vatican's view at the first place?

      Delete
    11. Dear Anonymous at 12:09 am,

      Father Pius was not the one who said that. Those statements are found in documents approved by the former Archdiocesan Council.

      Dear Anonymous at 12:11 am,

      The fact that you know about the Board of Guarantors only proves that it was never hidden at all.

      Delete
    12. Dear Diana, you cannot say that sincerely. You yourself have quoted Fr Pius repeatedly saying that "the people of Guam did not contribute any penny to the purchase price of the Accion Hotel". You quoted him to justify that a board of guarators was appointed from off island entities.

      Delete
    13. Diana, the Holy See ordered the removal of the board of guarantors in 2015, after the apostolic visitation of Archbishop Hon on the island. Vatican did not have the information before. It was the Jungle nation that recovered the fact and let the Holy See know about it. Why do you think the apostolic visitors came to Guam at the first place? The information about the board of guarantors was hidden in a document that Vatican did not have access to at the time.

      Delete
    14. Dear Anonymous at 3:30 pm,

      I've always said that the Board of Guarantors was appointed by the Archbishop. Where did I say that they were appointed off-island?????

      Delete
    15. Dear Anonymous at 3:36 pm,

      The Holy See did not order the removal of the Board of Guarantors. I have no idea where you acquired this false information.

      Delete
    16. The board was removed as part of restoring the patrimony of the Catholic Church of Guam. The Holy See demanded the removal of the deed restriction without litigation. Vatican wanted to restore the patrimony to the Catholic Church. Apuron had to be removed so that the deed restriction could be rescinded without a lawsuit.

      Delete
    17. Diana, the board had to be removed by Abp Byrnes. This is a hard fact. What do you think why was it necessary? Please, be forthcoming. This is a chance for truth.

      Delete
    18. Dear Anonymous at 4:35 pm.

      The patrimony and ownership had always been intact. And only Archbishop Apuron or his successor could rescind the deed restriction. Also, it was only Archbishop Hon who told Archbishop Apuron to remove the deed restriction. The Pope said nothing.

      Delete
    19. Dear Anonymous at 11:20 pm,

      Where is this "had to" coming from? The fact that Archbishop Byrnes removed the board is only proof showing that we were right all along. We were the ones saying that the Archbishop is the only one with all the power and authority.

      Delete
  3. Who is ruling the Church here in Guam? Brynes or CCOG?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It appears that CCOG is running the church. Byrnes might as well step down and crown David Sablan Archbishop of Agana.

      Delete
    2. It's sad that AB Byrnes caved in to their hate. AB Hon did the same thing. And what did it accomplish so far?

      Delete

  4. +Tim Roar.
    Archbishop of Agana.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Diana their is some god news Monsignor James is no longer patrimony of the church here on Guam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear God is one,

      As you notice in my blog, the resignation of any priest is not something I celebrate. Nowhere in my blog did I ever say that Monsignor James should be removed from his position nor did I ever call on Archbishop Byrnes to remove him in order to satisfy the NCW. Unlike CCOG, the NCW did not call for the removal of Monsignor James.

      Delete
    2. Monsignor resigned from his curia office because it was the correct position to do so.
      No one,including Diana,rejoices in the resignation of a priest.However,there comes a time in the life of we priests that for the good of Holy Mother Church we do remove ourself from situations where by our very presence is the cause of growing disunity to the Body of Christ.
      The Monsignor made a good action infact he should remove himself from the Archdiocese for an extended time. That is not to say he is in any wrong it is simply the most prudent action to take for the good of Mother Church.
      I hope others who need to resign/retire who are a part of this problem will have the humility to do so.
      Fraternally, a brother priest.None Neo.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 11:31 am,

      With all due respect, Father, those particular priests whom you hope will have the humility to resign or retire were NOT part of this problem. The problem is the hatred found in the hearts of a FEW Catholics.

      Delete
    4. There's a lesson to learn in scripture. Jesus humbled himself to the crowd who were calling for his crucifixation. As for Pontus Pilate, all he did was APPEASED the crowd.

      Delete
    5. Upon reading further in scripture, we find the corrupted leaders paying the two Romans soldiers who guarded the tomb to keep silent. Then, they pointed their fingers to the apostles and accused them of stealing the Body of Christ in an attempt to deceive the people. History repeat itself in Guam's Church.

      Delete
    6. Diana, looks like JW is now persecuting Fr. Jeff.

      Delete
    7. Dear Anonymous at 2:06 pm,

      This only goes to show that the jungle is not only against those priests who walk in the Way, but also against any priest who disagrees with them.

      Delete

  6. Who is the new minister for property and Human settlements appointed by Archbishop Byrnes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The position is Patrimony not Minister of Property Human Settlements?
      Who gives you such terminology?

      Delete
  7. Team Richard & James trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Seems like the CCOG is making the decision. Wow. CCOG is the bishop.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A certain priest is the informant and tells the author what to put on the blog and when. Look into it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A certain priest is the informer.Directing JW from situation room on the 48th Floor.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 11:22 pm,

      Most of us are aware that there is a mole in the chancery since it was obvious that Tim Rohr already knew about the resignation of Monsignor James before it hit the media. But what 48th floor are you referring to?

      Delete
    3. Diana I think the person their talking about is father paul the two people whose at the center of this persecution

      Delete
    4. Dear God is one, what is exactly your accusation against Fr. Paul? Talking about persecution, Fr. Paul was persecuted by Apuron and not vice versa. Do you deny that Fr. Paul was persecuted in 2014 and afterward?

      Delete
  10. Diana did you hear what happened to Monsignor just like last year with father pius as the rector of the seminary he was forced out

    ReplyDelete
  11. Monsignor is a polarizing figure in this Archdiocese. His skills in administration are dishonest. Appointing him in charge of patrimony a joke from day one. Ulterior motives in almost all he does.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm talking about Monsignor David

    ReplyDelete