AnonymousOctober 2, 2017 at 1:02 PM
I was curious when I was reading Tim Rohrs answer to the La Stampa article, particularly in regard to the Lewis Roca opinion of January 2015. SO I went to have a look at that document, which I don't think I've seen before. this is the opinion that Archbishop Apuron and others made such a big deal about, in relation to the "ownership" of the seminary property.
Lo and behold, here is the official description of the two entities - the Archdiocese and the Seminary - according to these specialist lawyers:
"the civil corporate structure of the canonically erected entity that is the Archdiocese of Agana is clear - it was incorporated under the laws of Guam as "Archbishop of Agana, a corporation sole". Similarly, the civil corporate structure of Redemptoris Mater is clear from the corporate documentation reviewed - its was incorporated as a non-profit incorporation with a sole member which is the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Agana. From the public filings, including the Articles and ByLaws, Redemptoris mater is clearly a nonprofit charitable organisation with a religious purpose under the civil laws of Guam"
This is exactly what Tim and his friends were saying all along, but which was outright denied by the NCW inclduding Arch Apuron, Gennarini, fr Pius and most of all Diana.
This blog is full of claims that the Redemptoris Mater is a "corporate sole". Yee it seems that these claims by the nCW were made in full knowledge that their own lawyer consultants had clearly agreed with Tim and the others.
Now, that is shameless.
Are you going to post a retraction to all of those claims now Diana?
Lo and behold, here is the official description of the two entities - the Archdiocese and the Seminary - according to these specialist lawyers:
"the civil corporate structure of the canonically erected entity that is the Archdiocese of Agana is clear - it was incorporated under the laws of Guam as "Archbishop of Agana, a corporation sole". Similarly, the civil corporate structure of Redemptoris Mater is clear from the corporate documentation reviewed - its was incorporated as a non-profit incorporation with a sole member which is the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Agana. From the public filings, including the Articles and ByLaws, Redemptoris mater is clearly a nonprofit charitable organisation with a religious purpose under the civil laws of Guam"
This is exactly what Tim and his friends were saying all along, but which was outright denied by the NCW inclduding Arch Apuron, Gennarini, fr Pius and most of all Diana.
This blog is full of claims that the Redemptoris Mater is a "corporate sole". Yee it seems that these claims by the nCW were made in full knowledge that their own lawyer consultants had clearly agreed with Tim and the others.
Now, that is shameless.
Are you going to post a retraction to all of those claims now Diana?
You stated: "This is exactly what Tim and his friends were saying all along, but which was outright denied by the NCW inclduding Arch Apuron, Gennarini, fr Pius and most of all Diana."
This is incorrect. Let us make this abundantly clear. The main point of the argument had always been OWNERSHIP! Who owned RMS? Do you not remember??? The picketers were holding up signs saying "Restore RMS." What did you think they meant by that? It was about OWNERSHIP. Whether RMS was a Corporation Sole or not was the least of the arguments.
What Tim Rohr and his friends has been sayng all along was that RMS did NOT belong to the Archdiocese and that Archbishop Apuron GAVE AWAY the seminary to RMS......PLAIN AND SIMPLE. You can argue all you want as to whether RMS is a corporation sole or not, but that was the least of the argument. WHO OWNED RMS was the major dispute!
What Tim Rohr and his friends has been sayng all along was that RMS did NOT belong to the Archdiocese and that Archbishop Apuron GAVE AWAY the seminary to RMS......PLAIN AND SIMPLE. You can argue all you want as to whether RMS is a corporation sole or not, but that was the least of the argument. WHO OWNED RMS was the major dispute!
Rohr and friends claimed that Archbishop Apuron gave away the seminary to RMS and that RMS was the NEW OWNER. In fact, Bob Klitzkie claimed that the title of certificate was incorrect and should read RMS as the owner rather than the Archbishop of Agana.
Today, they are saying that it now belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana because Archbishop Byrnes took it away from RMS. If that were true, then where are the documents showing the signatures of RMS relinquishing the ownership to the Archdiocese????? All you see is the signature of Archbishop Byrnes. To this day, Rohr has not been able to satisfactorily explain how the new owner RMS relinquished the seminary to the Archdiocese WITHOUT any signatures!!! In fact, he ignores it altogether.
The NCW, on the other hand, had always claimed that the seminary had always been under the Archdiocese of Agana and that it was NEVER given away. Only the Archbishop of Agana or his successor have control and authority of RMS and can even rescind the deed restriction.
As for the law firm of Lewis Roca, the report also stated that they are a prominent law firm specializing in establishing corporations sole in many Catholic diocese in the U.S. and in civil-religious issues related to corporation soles. In other words, even they recognize that St. John's Seminary in California is BOTH a non-profit corporation and a corporation sole (See my post here and here).
As for the law firm of Lewis Roca, the report also stated that they are a prominent law firm specializing in establishing corporations sole in many Catholic diocese in the U.S. and in civil-religious issues related to corporation soles. In other words, even they recognize that St. John's Seminary in California is BOTH a non-profit corporation and a corporation sole (See my post here and here).
Furthermore, I have a document signed by Juan Ignacio Arrieta, the secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts stating:
"......in fact, it was requested that the said properties be transferred from one "Corporation Sole" [diocese] that has the Archbishop as the only member to another "Corporation Sole" [Redemptoris Mater Seminary] which also has the same Archbishop as the only member."
Archbishop Apuron has this same document, so there is written evidence showing that RMS is a corporation sole. What story do you think Rohr will invent to refute this document? What makes RMS a "Corporation Sole" is because it has only one sole member, the Archbishop. This is the same as St. John's Seminary in California, which is both a non-profit corporation and a Corporation Sole with the Archbishop of Los Angeles as its sole member (See my post here and here).
"it was requested that the said properties be transferred from one "Corporation Sole" [diocese] that has the Archbishop as the only member to another "Corporation Sole" [Redemptoris Mater Seminary] which also has the same Archbishop as the only member"
ReplyDeleteI don't understand this. Why would the above request be made if it was already under the corporation sole (diocese)?
Dear Anonymous at 3:55 pm,
DeleteIt was done to fulfill the articles and bylaws of RMS, which named the Archbishop as the sole member of RMS. RMS acts as a corporation sole. If this was not done, anyone who was in control of the Archdiocese would have been able to close down or even sell the seminary. This was why Archbishop Hon was unable to rescind the deed restriction. Only the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Agana or his successor have this authority. Archbishop Hon had to get Archbishop Byrnes' signature because (being the successor), only he had the proper authority. Archbishop Apuron wanted to make certain that only he and his successor have control of the seminary. No one outside the Archdiocese of Agana should have this control, and Archbishop Hon was OUTSIDE the Archdiocese of Agana.
Sorry, but I still don't understand. Aren't both still "one member" corporations? How is the diocese run different from RMS if both essentially are "owned" by that one member, specifically the Archbishop of Agana. How could "anyone" in control do anything if both operate under the sole member aka Archbishop of Agana?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:55 pm,
DeleteRMS has its own articles and bylaws, which they must follow. The Archdiocese also have their own articles and bylaws. RMS was not controlled by Archbishop Hon despite that he was sent by Pope Francis. Pope Francis sent him to take care of the affairs of the Archdiocese following the articles and bylaws of the Archdiocese.
Archbishop Apuron still holds the title of Archbishop of Agana. RMS articles and bylaws names only the Archbishop of Agana or his successor as having the full authority. Archbishop Hon was never the Archbishop of Agana nor the successor. He was the Apostolic Administrator. There is nothing in the bylaws of RMS that says in the absence of the Archbishop, whoever is placed in charge of the Archdiocese has authority. The bylaws are specific and names only the Archbishop of Agana or his successor as the sole member of RMS.
Let us pray Diana. Decision on Archbishop Anthony has been made.
DeleteYou still don't clearly explain how they operate differently and the need for separate incorporations under the same corporate sole member.
DeleteWhy is RMS different from everyone else? Why not place those same protections on the rest of the properties?
5:45pm: What are you going to pray for?
DeleteYou obviously didn't read the Lewis Roca report Diana, and evidently neither did Archbishop Arrieta.
ReplyDeleteBecause in the Lewis Roca report, there is substantial discussion on why the RMS was set up NOT as a structure under the "corporate sole" but rather as a separately incorporated nonprofit entity.
There id no doubt about it, according to this law firm with expertise in these matters. The RMS was never set up as a corporate sole.
Lewis Roca discusses that some seminaries etc are set up under the corporate sole of the Archdiocese (like St John's Seminary) and then goes on to explain that the RMS, not being a corporate sole, is set up with a separate structure, as are many other educational entities in the Church. ie that it is not unusual to have such an arrangement.
But, you say;
"Whether RMS was a Corporation Sole or not was the least of the arguments"
In fact, of course it is part of the argument. Because if RMS was structured within the Archdiocesan entity (ie As a function of the "corporate sole"), there could be no question as to whether the property belonged to the Archdiocese. but, by being separately incorporated, the RMS is a distinct entity to the Archdiocese, as so a transfer of property, or the perpetual use of the property, could be seen as an alienation.
Finally, this is where you display incredible ignorance:
"What makes RMS a "Corporation Sole" is because it has only one sole member, the Archbishop."
That is actually completely false and wrong. Please speak to someone who knows more about this than you, as you are on the wrong track about this entirely.
But, it still is rather ironic that the report commissioned by the exiled Archbishop actually says the opposite of what you, he, the NCW, Arrieta have been claiming.(To give Arrieta the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he simply assumed the RMS was structured within the auspices of the Archdiocese, and therefore he thought it an entity of the corporate sole).
Dear Anonymous at 5:54 pm,
DeleteArchbishop Hon stated that RMS is under the Archdiocese of Agana no doubt about it. That was in the news report. The only one saying that RMS was not under the Archdiocese is the jungle. And I am sorry that you cannot see that, but that is not my problem.
Anon @ 5:54
DeleteLet me summarize your complaint/argument. We are mad because the RMS is setup in such a way that we cannot bypass it's laws and find a loophole to sell the property and obtain a huge paycheck. Gosh darn it these pesky Neos should just put it under the dioceses not corporation sole.
The intent of your elaborate argument is immoral in nature. It is meant too misguide readers into thinking the Rms doesn't follow church structure, without pointing out that the Rms was setup that way to follow church structure while simultaneously protect itself from predators like you.
Dear Anon at 9.29pm,
Deletehi, I think you misunderstood the purpose of my comment. I was merely pointing out that the Lewis Roca report confirms what was claimed by Tim Rohr and others, and contradicts what was claimed by Diana, gennarini, and others, namely that the RMS is not and was not a corporation sole.
you can see from Diana's response: "What makes RMS a "Corporation Sole" is because it has only one sole member, the Archbishop." that she has no idea what she is speaking about. That doesn't stop her though.
And even you made the same mistake! You say "Gosh darn it these pesky Neos should just put it under the dioceses not corporation sole"
But, don't you see that the Archbishop is the corporation sole - he is constituted to act through the Archdiocese, hence the Archdiocese is also a corporate sole, and any function of the Archdiocese would be considered an activity of the corporate sole (Archbishop).
So, "putting under the diocese" is the same as saying "make it a corporation sole".
Because the RMS was separately incorporated as a nonprofit corporation, it is not "under the diocese" and is therefore not a corporate sole.
It may not seem important to you, but bear in mind that we have had many high profile NCW people, as well as the author of this blog make a silly claim about "corporate sole", which only demonstrates that you shouldn't listen to them while they are stubbornly ignorant.
It is not the setup of the RMS that calls it into question, but rather the behaviour of its leaders, most especially the willingness to lie outright.
Dear Anonymous at 11:09 am,
DeleteI believe Anonymous 9:29 pm hit it on the head.
You stated: "It is not the setup of the RMS that calls it into question, but rather the behaviour of its leaders, most especially the willingness to lie outright."
We have always said that RMS is under the Archdiocese of Agana, and we have always said that only the Archbishop of Agana or his successor have full control and authority. That was not a lie.
And that was already proven when Archbishop Byrnes rescinded the deed restriction and removed the board of directors and board of guarantors. Therefore, it was not a lie.
You lied each time you claimed the RMS was a corporate sole. So did Gennarini, Pius and any number of other NCW people. Even though it was pointed out to you and the others each time it was said, you still continue to argue that the RMS is/was a corporate sole.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:46 pm,
DeleteI already said that I have a document signed by Juan Ignacio Arrieta, the secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts stating that RMS is a corporation sole. Are you going to tell me that the secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts is also a liar?
No, he simply has no knowledge to make any claims on the civil corporations. he only has authority in regard to canon law, not civil law. His definition of corporate sole may bear no resemblance to the civil law, and is therefore rather meaningless. A bit like your own understanding of the concept. Anyway this is all moot now
DeleteDiana their is a decision now we wait and see if archbishop gets his full authority back
ReplyDeleteDear God is one,
DeleteLet us pray.
Did I hear Archbishop Byrnes correctly during his interview with KUAM? He stated that he is still waiting word from the Vatican because they have a sentence for AB Apuron and they had to send it out to the Judges to sign. Why have a sentence if he is found innocent.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 7:01 pm,
DeleteAccording to news report:
"Diaz said Byrnes has only been notified that there is a decision, but he does not know the specific charges, the verdict or the penalty, if any."
I was reading an article which reported that CoAB Byrnes said there is a possibility to make an appeal once the verdict is known? It would be done through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, no new evidence, no new testimonies. Just a check to see if all the steps had been followed in a canonical manner. Why would he have to say something like that? Who would make such an appeal? And what rumors has he heard about the trial/verdict? I do find it interesting that the article from Vatican Insider, the verdict of the trial, and AB Hon's new appointment all happened within a week. Interesting and intriguing. Maybe we'll know by the weekend in the Umatuna ??? All I can say is that, should "coadjutor" be removed from Byrnes title, it either means AB Anthony was found guilty (forced resignation) or he could be found innocent and nothing proven against him, and he decides to resign on his own for whatever reason. If innocent and nothing proven against him, AB Anthony could return to Guam with the aid of an auxiliary Bishop and coadjutorAB Byrnes? The verdict, no doubt, will show what is the future and pathway forward for the Archdiocese.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:37 am,
DeleteArchbishop Apuron has expressed through the Vatican Insider that he would like to return as Archbishop of Agana and to have an auxiliary bishop beside him to assist him.
I disagree with Archbishop Byrnes that his return would be a disaster. It is very unfortunate that he judged a brother bishop based on whether the papers were organized and what not.
Archbishop Apuron is a bishop who spoke out against casino gambling and same sex marriage whenever legislation was proposed to get these things enacted. He is a bishop who erected two seminaries in Guam. He is a bishop who went walking in two by two, evangelizing door to door. He is a bishop who let all the workers in the chancery start the workday with a prayer at the chapel, which is the reason you cannot always get anyone on the phone at 8:00 am. Every employee started the workday with the bishop at the chapel praying.
What a shame that Archbishop Byrnes was incapable of seeing this in the man. Instead, he saw paperwork, money, policies, and all the things a bureaucrat would see. He called Archbishop Apuron's return a disaster. What is truly a disaster is his political relativism and the suppression of truth.
C Archbishop Byrnes has full authority. He used his judgement and authority to close RMS. Thank God.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 2:36 pm,
DeleteThat is what we have been saying all along. Only the Archbishop of Agana or his successor have full authority. What made you think it was God who wanted the seminary shut down?
https://books.google.com/books?id=4aM-BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA371&lpg=PA371&dq=how+long+can+a+judge+in+a+canonical+trial+take+to+reach+a+verdict&source=bl&ots=ou600m903W&sig=BGzRYSdK8n_utDrzIUz6FXsXJbI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjslNydjNPWAhVCmJQKHezSDOYQ6AEIFjAF Read this and it's not supposed to be published to the people of a verdict you can read it on trial verdicts
ReplyDeleteWhy viewers still use to read news papers when in this technological world everything is accessible on net?
ReplyDeleteWatched on KUAM Facebook Live: Archbishop Byrnes announced RMS will be closed at end of the year.
ReplyDeleteWhy did the Vatican Insider say the announcement was made in August????? "Last news report that on August 29, 2017, Byrnes announced the closure of the Seminary and the Institute."
SOURCE: http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2017/09/interesting-news-from-vatican-insider.html
Dear Anonymous at 2:27 pm,
DeleteIt was already known since that time. After all, all the books in the libary at the seminary have already been boxed up.
But Diana if archbishop is restored and he comes back the seminary Byrnes decision will be revoked
DeleteDiana at 3:16 PM, you say "It was already known since that time" BUT what Anon @ 2:27 PM pointed out is that the Vatican Insider said "on August 29, 2017, Byrnes ANNOUNCED the closure of the Seminary and the Institute" and there was NO ANNOUNCEMENT MADE (until today OCTOBER 3, 2017).
DeleteEven if "it was already known since that time" there was NO OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT as the Vatican Insider said in its article. I'm guessing the author of the article didn't bother verifying the information provided by the Guam NCW Insiders.
Dear Anonymous at 3:40 pm,
DeleteWhy do you think those 4 priests wrote to Cardinal Filoni asking for help? It was already known that Archbishop Byrnes was being pressured by CCOG to close the seminary.
Diana, don't you think that archbishop Byrnes as a seminary administrator could make his judgement from interviewing men at RMS ?? Aside from all other influences and financial consideration? Come Holy Spirit. He is the Archbishop.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:57 pm,
DeleteFrom what I heard in the jungle, the Hope and Healing Program was Rohr's idea. The year of reparation was CCOG's idea. And in PNC news, we hear from Archbishop Byrne's mouth that pressure was a factor for him in closing the seminary, and we all heard David Sablan say that they will tell Archbishop Byrnes to shut down the seminary. So, what decision did Archbishop Byrnes make that was solely his own decision?
Diana says:
DeleteDianaOctober 4, 2017 at 3:16 PM
Dear Anonymous at 2:27 pm,
It was already known since that time. After all, all the books in the libary [sic] at the seminary have already been boxed up.
So if the seminary is open until December, why are all the books already boxed up? Will there be no need for these during the semester? I guess learning will be hampered again at RMS Yona. Maybe that's why our Archbishop decided to close down the seminary...they don't take academics seriously.
Did you hear one of the reports ask AB Byrnes that he thought RMS can sustain itself? AB Byrnes said "That's not the point!" LOL!!! That is the point! First, he said that Guam cannot sustain a seminary because it's a tiny island, then he's saying the opposite when someone brought up that the seminary has been sustaining itself without any help from the Archdiocese.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 3:20 pm,
DeleteArchbishop Byrnes is the Coadjuator Archbishop of Agana, and he does not even know how much the Archdiocese would save if they close down the seminary. Yet, he admitted that he spoke to the Archdiocesan Finance Council?
He did not know that it would cost the Archdiocese $40,000 per year PER SEMINARIAN. That was what the Archdiocese was paying before RMS was established. After RMS was established, it only cost the Archdiocese $9000 per year per seminarian. And he admitted that he spoke to the Finance Council??? Someone does not know how to do their math. The answer to the question is simple. There is no savings. It cost the Archdiocese more money to send the seminarians off-island.
He uses cost as a pretext to close the seminary.
ReplyDeleteHe has a hatred for the seminary, the new evangelization, a hatred for Archbishop Apuron. I predict that his next target to kill will be the communities.
His agenda for Guam is to destroy the hope for the evangelization. How sad for him.
Dear Anonymous at 4:09 pm,
DeleteHe used cost as an excuse. One of the news reporter pointed out that the seminary was sustaining itself without any cost from the Archdiocese. And what did Archbishop Byrnes say? He said, "That's not the point!"
Furthermore, a reporter asked how much will the Archdiocese save after the closing of the seminary. His answer? He does not know. For someone who used cost as his reason, you would think he would know exactly how much the Archdiocese would save in cost. He either came poorly prepared in that press conference or he was pressured into it.
He didn't use cost, he used "sustainability"
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:20 am,
DeleteAnd when a reporter said that he thought the seminary was able to sustain itself, Archbishop Byrnes said, “That’s not the point.” Therefore, the reason is Because they needed the money to pay the settlements.
He said "That’s not the point" because the reporters question implied that sustainability was a purely economic question.
DeleteWhen byrnes referred to "sustainability" he evidently didn't mean with regard to money, (ie Money is not the point), but rather about the model of the formation and activity of NCW priests through the RMS seminaries.
Dear Anonymous at 11:41 am,
DeleteMoney was the point. He needed the money to pay for the settlement costs. The rest were excuses.
So are you accusing the Archbishop of lying then? When he said, "that's not the point" he was lying?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:11 pm,
DeleteHe was deflecting.
I wonder what Co-adjutor Archbishop Byrnes will do should he later discover all the decisions he has made were based on false information passed to him?
ReplyDeleteI wonder who gave him that false info that it was gonna cost the Archdiocese twenty thousand dollars per year to send a seminarian off-island.
DeleteAnd it even shows that he doesn't obey the pope because like how pope francis says it's about sinners not about healthy people and it's not about money
ReplyDeleteDiana I bet that he already knows the verdict Byrnes does and he's just in a hurry to get rid of everything because look at what he said during the announcement of a decision that if the archbishop returned as a record archbishop I'm not going to say those other words but he's just trying to delay
ReplyDeleteDear God is one,
DeleteIf Archbishop Byrnes knows the verdict, we would too. The verdict is not made public yet.
It seems Byrnes was pressured by JW. We don't have a Catholic Church anymore. We have jungle church.
DeleteAnonymousOctober 4, 2017 at 2:39 PM
In no small effort on Tim Rohr’s part. Rms closes. Thank God. Definitely within Arch Byrnes authority. THAT will be questioned.
The savings is not on the $$$ but on ensuring that the men whose answers the call of service are receiving the proper formation. FACT; one of those seminarians sent to CA had to repeat the first four years of formation and studies because the quality he received at RMS-Guam was very insufficient. These men once ordained must be afforded the proper education and formation if they are to continue the Holy Spirits call to service.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:00 pm,
DeleteIt has always been about the money. These seminarians receive degrees from the Lateran University in Rome. Father Miguel earned a much higher degree than any of our local priests who were formed at St. Patrick's Seminary.
Furthermore, we Chamorros have always valued our lands on Guam. See what is happening with the Chamorro Land Trust Act. And here you are willing to give valuable Guam land to foreign investors rather than keeping it under the Guam Archdiocese. Only foreign investors can afford to buy that Yona property.
Dear Anonymous at 10:00 pm,
DeleteOr maybe those seminarians sent to CA didn't give a d*mn about studies? Have you thought about it? What means for you "proper education and formation"?
Interesting. It seems that what Mae Llanes is really proposing is that only Chamorros should have land rights, and all land should remain under Chamorro ownership. But isn't she filipina?
DeleteMae says "...we Chamorros [sic, because she's not] have always valued our lands on Guam." Hmm...
1.) who were those people that first sold Tumon land when the tourism boom started? Chamorros
2.) and who did they sell their land to? Japanese
3.) and why was this a bad thing? It wasn't bad, it gave us an industry
These only disprove her wacky assumption.
Saipan has its Title XII which forbids foreign ownership of land in the CNMI. Not even US citizens can own land there, unless they are of CNMI descent. Is this what Mae is proposing for Guam? So funny that Mae seems to condemn foreigners, when she is one, and the cult she belongs to is filled to the brim with Spaniards, Italians, Brazilians, and Poles. The same foreigners that get all their kiko-cult members here on Guam to clap like flamencos and sing spanish songs.
And Mae doesn't believe any Chamorros could afford to buy such a valuable piece of property. Apurun must feel the same way, which is why he GAVE it to the NCW for free!
But wait a second Mae, who owns the Dusit Thani? Aren't there locals who could buy the land if they wanted? Yes there are. But Mae's solution is to have it stay with the NCW so it will always be in Chamorro hands. But aside from a few local kikos, aren't the NCW foreign invaders as well?
Folks, the melt down is nearly complete. The kiko-bots are so beside themselves from the loss of Pius, the loss of Apurun, and the loss of RMS Yona. Next comes the loss of their movement here on Guam for the heresy they teach to poor unsuspecting cult members, and even to poor unsuspecting deacon candidates.
Soon, all will be lost in the kiko fantasy land, and now their heads are spinning. I'm not sure if I should laugh, or if I should feel a deep sense of pity.
Answer: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - LOL
Sorry Mae/Diana - but you are now officially irrelevant.
The sale of Catholic Property hurts, no doubt. But the reason we are at this point is that Archbishop Apuron enraged the public with his reaction to the sex abuse allegations.
DeleteBy calling those men liars who were attempting to ruin the Church, he started the discussion among the people, and his attitude made it easier for the legislature to approve the removal of the statute of limitations.
If the Archbishop said that he was referring those allegations to Rome so it could be properly and thoroughly investigated we would have no lawsuits today.
Instead, he had Deacon Tenorio and Fr Edivaldo and Fr Adrian attack the men who came forward.
The Archbishop's refusal to follow his own policy is why we even have to consider selling the RMS property. It is indeed sad, but if the allegations are true, then some form of compensation and a lot of counselling are a moral obligation, both from the Church and from the accused.
Dear Whacky Joker,
DeleteI am not Mae Llanes. The reason I said "We Chamorros" is simply because I am Chamorro.....simple as that.
Yes, the people who sold the Tumon lands were the Chamorros, and who got rich out of it? Certainly not the Chamorros. I believe that we shouldn't rely on tourism as our number one economy. We should diversify our economy. When you rely on only one thing and that one thing goes down, the entire economy goes down.
I mention the Chamorro land trust act because I believe that the Chamorros should have the lands and the benefits that comes with it. And I also believe in the Chamorro-only vote regarding our political status. I definitely will vote for Guam's political status because I am Chamorro.
Dear Saddened by events,
DeleteArchbishop Apuron never used the word "liars." Read his statement. We are losing the land because certain people are vengeful and wanted to hurt the Church by pushing for a bill that would lift the statutes of limitations. Part of the fault also falls on us because only one person stood up opposing the bill in the public hearing. There were more than 5000 signatures submitted to the Governor to veto the bill. Our only hope now is for the law to be declared unconstitutional and inorganic. By doing that, it will make all lawsuits null and void.
The Archbishop may not have used the word liar as his supporters did. He actually used a much worse word for his accusers. He called their act calumnies. It's a big word so look it up. It is quite a bit stronger than a mere liar, but they both mean about the same.
DeleteBy the way, when those brave men came forward there was no possibility for compensation. That came later, spurred by the reaction of the Archbishop and his supporters' harsh words to villify the accusers. There were no consoling statements from the Church, only condemnation.
That is what caused people to react to get the statute of limitations removed. Most people who heard the accusers found them very honest and believable, so they were outraged at how the Church responded.
Silent No More was not started by a victim, but by a man who felt there was a grave injustice in how the Church was reacting to the accusations. He will not profit at all from his campaign, except in heaven.
At least Archbishop Michael did the right thing by offering his concern and prayers for those who have been hurt by priests and the Church. He needs to be praised and not derided.
Dear Saddened by events,
DeleteThe word "calumnies" is a noun referring to the words spoken. The word "liar" is a noun referring to the PERSON. Therefore, the word liar is worst.
You stated: "when those brave men came forward there was no possibility for compensation."
So, now that there is compensation, they came forward??? And you call that brave??? I called it greedy. And if this the reason they came forward, then they were not after justice at all, but money. The love of money is the root of all evil.
The first four accusers all went public long before the law was even contemplated. Money was not their motive. It was from the beginning about justice. But because money is now possible, aren't these four entitled to compensation if their allegations are true?
DeleteAnd as far as calumny-it doesn't refer to just the words, but is "a misrepresentation intended to harm another's reputation".
Dear Saddened by events,
DeleteAll four accusers came out and said they were not interested in the money. Yet, the moment the Archbishop came out to defend himself by claiming his innocence, the next thing they did was file a 2 million dollar lawsuit against him.
Just imagine if someone had accused YOU of sexual molestation, what would YOU say? In our democratic society, a person has a right to come out and say whether he is guilty or innocent of a crime he is being accused of. If YOU were accused of a crime, what would your answer be.......especially when YOU feel that YOU did not commit the crime and your accuser was mistaken about it. It is very easy to say something UNTIL it happens to you.
Just think of Joe San Agustin, who was a member of CCOG calling for Apuron to be defrocked. When a woman accused him of sexual abuse, you do not hear from him anymore. He remained silent. Archbishop Apuron, on the other hand, claimed he is innocent and chose to proclaim it. If you were in their shoes, what would YOU do? Would YOU remain silent like Joe San Agustin or claimed your innocence like Archbishop Apuron? Take your pick........because no matter what YOU pick, CCOG will label you guilty anyway without due process of the law.
In the long run in does save the archdiocese a huge amount of money. Many of the priest formed from RMS no longer serve our island. They are sent of island on a mission. On the other hand those seminarians that the archdiocese sponsers will serve our people. Secondly, I have attended mass with an RMS priest presiding and gosh they need help with their homilys. For example, the RMS priest from Agana needs major help.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 7:50 pm,
DeleteMany of them are in mission serving the universal Church. And the reason they were able to go on mission is because we are no longer lacking priests. Since the establishment of RMS, have you noticed that Guam has not asked for any priests from the Philippines? The RMS priest in Agana had no problems with homilies. However, he has a handicap with speech and he serves as an inspiration to people with speech disabilities. God calls all kinds of people to the priesthood and to do his will. Even Moses was called by God, and Moses had a speech disability.
Well, Diana, with so many priests off on vacay, there is a shortage.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:52 pm,
DeleteWhat shortage? All the Masses are being said in the parishes. And the priests are on mission because Archbishop Byrnes ALLOWED them to go on mission. Did you think that they just woke up one day and left without permission? They asked Archbishop Byrnes and he said yes.
Heard priests complain how many masses they have. Sorry.
DeleteThe bottom line is that RMS is what we have always said it was. In fact, it has always been exactly what its corporate formators said RMS was: "TO FORM PRIESTS IN THE LIFE AND PRACTICE OF THE NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY. "
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:52 pm,
DeleteShame on those priests for complaining. The RMS priests love the Mass. They never saw it as a burden.
Anonymous 7:03 am,
Open your eyes! The RMS priests have also been saying regular Masses in your parishes. The difference is that the local priest stay only in the local church preaching the Gospel while the RMS priests spreads the Gospel to the entire world.
The RMS priests are also busy covering parishes that have priests who would rather travel the world for conferences and leisure.
DeleteDiana, could FRENCHIE be Father Eric Forbes? I have a strong intuition, they're both history buffs. Last week, FRENCHIE was on a role with his writing contributions to the jungle, especially during the LA Stamps reveal. He recently shared that he can't comment in depth because he is "on the road", guess who also is on the road, rather airplane, Fr. Forbes! I think I found the mole.
Pas!
-Jokers Wild
Pas! Jokers wild. You are wayyyy off. Forbes way to clever to be exposed. Presses his buttons from hidden place.
DeleteWell its the thought that counts. I got the conversation going and at least now there's some attention towards priests who prowl about the world seeking the sale of DVDs, church furniture and rewording music.
DeletePas!
-Jokers Wild
PS: I thought For doesn't have time for Dianas blog?
PNC: “Were you pressured by any of [the protesters] to make this decision?”
ReplyDelete“It’s certainly a factor in the decision but I didn’t feel like I was pressured toward the decision. Anybody–when people are expressing angst, it’s information, it’s not necessarily determinative, but it’s information,” noted the archbishop."
Send this to rome, terrible!
The Way and Fr. Pius never controlled AB Apuron. Those were Rohr's accusation. The real reason they were angry was because they couldn't control AB Apuron. Now that a weak Bishop like Byrnes comes along, they like him because they can control him. Obviously, Byrnes is not running the Archdiocese. Rohr and David Sablan are the bishops of Guam.
DeleteYep. Byrnes is definitely not in control. He was pressured into closing the seminary. He said it's not an easy decision and doesn't take delight in it? Oh pleeeeeaaaasssseee!!! Someone tells him it's gonna cost $20,000 a year to send seminarians off-island and he just swallows that incorrect info without checking the facts like the rest of the junglefolks.
DeleteByrnes not in control? Don't doubt it for a moment.
DeleteDouble 20 Gs Richard Kidd said so.
ReplyDeleteAs for the priest in hagatna with what people consider a speech problem....I din't think so....his homily takes a person with faith and wisdom to understand because he goes into details.
ReplyDeleteNobody pays attention to details nowadays.....if they did then they would get it.....
On the closing of the RMS...
ReplyDeleteSome guy posted the following comment on PDN...
"It was sustainable before and growing... now it is not sustainable? what gives? Why not wait until after the decision of the Vatican Tribunal? Why now? Why the rush?
Can't Bishop Byrnes see that it gives more credibility to the accusations that it is all driven by political or special interest groups within the island (i.e. mafia-like) and that he looks like a puppet?
Whatever the motives for Byrnes to rush to sell, it doesn't look judicious to do it BEFORE the Tribunal's veredict? What if Apuron is innocent, the fabrications are true, and Byrnes is doing exactly what they want? Is he aware of how irresponsible, imprudent, thoughtless, ill-advised he looks?"
When Archbishop Anthony is declared innocent, and he will be, hopefully it will be in time to save our seminary.
DeleteI agree with your post Anonymous at 4:54am. Unless Byrnes knows the verdict...but, if he doesn't, then he's really made a terrible mistake. And to say that the RMS isn't a "sustainable model" for Guam, not in only in an economical sense (which in fact was provided for by benefactors and many in the NCW communities), but specifically because of its missionary aspect unique to every RMS is not a logical reason to close down the RMS. Hon, Jeff, and apparently now under Byrnes administration, they find suspect the NCW's view of "mission." Ultimately, it comes down to what are these peoples view of ecclesiology. Most of the time they keep Jesus locked up in the Church as Pope Francis said. "Mission" is going to the parish, coming out of the parish, going to the squares and peripheries, and even going to another country to announce Jesus Christ! I think Guam wants functionary priests rather than priests who have a missionary zeal to do whatever the Bishop assigns him or sends him to go. Hopefully these people know that we are missionary by virtue of our Baptism. Unfortunately, many remain stationary Catholics and somehow cannot see that parish life and missionary zeal go hand in hand.
DeleteFolks write to Byrnes and with no response. Write to Rome.
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding me?? Seminary was for the population of the Pacific Oceania which was a good thing...how can Bishop Byrnes be so misled to the selfishness of certain groups on this island?? Listening to these so called advisors who have some issues with authority/law all related to money or personal interest....which still leads back to money or status of power..
ReplyDeletePopulation of Pacific Oceania justifies the seminary's existence like he said about Miami and other states....
Wow....so selfish....
Pope JPII declared that the seminary for the Oceania region is St Peter Claver in Fiji. It still exists. So why we do need to duplicate that here on Guam? There is another unsustainable aspect, it is a duplication of what the Pope created in Fiji, except Fiji isn't a strictly neo seminary.
DeleteCorrection: It's St. Peter Chanel, not Claver.
DeleteWith the news of shooting in vegas...related to gambling so i hear. If seminary turns into a casino then possible that those kind of acts could happen here in guam....hhhmmmm
ReplyDeleteLord help us....
Bishop Byrnes will find any excuse to justify his capitulation to CCOG, Benavente, Untalan and Lujan in their demand to shut down the seminary in order to have the Chinese investors swoop in to make a killing and thus establish a foothold on the island in order to erect their casinos.
ReplyDeleteThe only obstacle to the casino was the Catholic church of guam under the leadership of Apuron. With Apuron out of the picture and Benavente now in power, this opens the way for Benavente's powerful dealers and wheelers to break ground for the casino.
The corrupt monsignor will get a cut! If he can't be a bishop then at least he'll get his hands on some quick cash in the millions.
The archdiocese will also gain its share to pay off the sex abuse accusers and to cover the millions in church monies stolen by the former rector and director of catholic cemetery. What's his name again?
Thanks to greed, the lust for power, corruption and the ineptitude of Byrnes, the church on guam is and will be forever hamstrung by the power of the Chinese mafia who will take hold of the island. The church under Byrnes has effectively silenced her voice to resist corruption and evangelize in order to make room for money.
Oh, I forgot, the Calvos will also benefit from this I am sure!
We can only pray that God will turn this folly around and return Apuron to power.
Rohr published Cardinal Filoni's letter in his blog. This letter was addressed to AB Byrnes. Now who would give the letter to Rohr? Hmmmmmm.....
ReplyDeleteOf the four back-stabbing priests, one of them bragged and sent out a copy and Tim got a copy of it.
DeleteAnd too bad if Filoni is mad. As the wise Archbishop Krebs once said on Guam, there are no secrets. Doesn't Filoni understand this. Never write something that you would be ashamed of if other people saw it.
Dear Anonymous at 5:21 pm,
DeleteNone of the four priests had a copy of that letter. That written letter was solely addressed to Archbishop Byrnes and Archbishop Byrnes alone. I do not see any CC in there.
Really? No secrets? Then you have an explanation as to why the Pope’s Butler was arrested after he leaked private letters of the pope to the media? I do not think Cardinal Filoni is going to take it very lightly.
Publishing letter is outrage. Filoni very angry!
ReplyDeleteByrnes himself. Just that kind of guy.
ReplyDeletePeace of Christ be with you!
ReplyDeleteMy heart is so heavy today because of the sad news of the closing of the RMS. I am saddened but not discouraged.
It is always easier to criticize and judge how and in what way others accomplish their jobs and tasks and for the most part I try my best not to do this but today I will.
I share the same sentiments as Sonny Ada in regards to the closure altogether of the RMS and only wish that the Archbishop would agree to keep the seminary open at the expense of the NCW, I know we would support it fully because we are not blind to the holy fruits. I was always moved by Father Pius when he would say, "rather than just having GOOD priests, we must also have good and HOLY priests".
In all that has happened since the assignment of a Coadjutor Archbishop not once has he reached out as a shepherd and addressed the brothers and sisters in the NCW to assure us that he cares for us. Instead he has time and time again placed moratoriums, halts on our activities and celebrations. Am I not to feel abandoned and more worse singled out by his decisions?
He stopped us from having Cathechesis, he stopped us from doing our Missions in the public parks after Easter, he instructed us to cut down the number of seminarians at the RMS and now he has decided to shut down the RMS.
Reach out to us Archbishop Michael from another angle. Even as a parent corrects his child, he must reinforce the discipline with Love and compassion.
In all that Archbishop Michael has done he has only exercised his Authoritive powers but has not practiced his filial gifts as Shepherd to us all.
I prayed lastnite during our Word celebration more than I have ever in all my years of walking. I prayed for Archbishop Michael and for our church, I prayed for Archbishop Anthony's return and I also prayed for the devil to get out of the chancery.
Pas!
-Jokers Wild