Propaganda From The Jungle

Alexander Chen wrote a comment in the Pacific Daily News.  According to Chen: 

1. Apuron was the Archbishop with absolute canonical power over his diocese. 

2. The advisory council's job is to offer advice, NOT to mandate or lead the diocese... that is the Archbishop's canonical job.

Then along comes Tim Rohr, saying that Alexander Chen is incorrect.  He cited a letter from the Apostolic Delegate to Archbishop Apuron to support his propaganda.  In that letter, Rohr underlined many things he wanted people to focus on.  Below is that same letter copied and pasted here.  This time, these are my highlighted parts that Tim did not want you to focus on.  

The establishment of a finance council, diocesan and parish, is required by the Code of Canon Law, according to Canons 492 and 537 respectively.  Canon 492 does not make reference to the vote of the finance council, however, the various canons which govern its functions distinguish occasions when it is to be heard, and hence has a consultative vote, and when it has to give its consent and hence has a deliberate vote.  Certain canons indicate that the diocesan bishop is to seek the advice of the finance council, which he is not legally bound to follow.  However, when the diocesan finance council is asked to give its consent, the diocesan bishop is to receive of an absolute majority of those present, and if he acts against this consent, he does so invalidly.  

Notice that I did not highlight as much as Rohr? What I highlighted above is what Rohr never underlined.  Why?  Because he did not want his readers to catch this phrase in the letter. He did not want his readers to know that the Diocesan bishop is not legally bound to follow the Finance Council. That is exactly what the letter of the Apostolic Delegate stated. 

The finance council is only an advisory board.  However, the Archbishop would need the approval of the Finance Council if he is going to sell a property. Canon law specifically says that a bishop must have the approval of the Finance Council, the approval of the College of Consultors, and the approval of the Holy See to alienate a property of the Archdiocese.  Archbishop Apuron did not need the approval of the Finance Council because he never gave away nor intended to give away the seminary as the jungle claimed.  Alexander Chen pointed out: 

The fact that the keys of the seminary and the possibility to sell it is in the hands of the Ordinary Archbishop contradicts any and all statements that hint that Apuron had a malicious-will in deeding the Yona seminary to the NCW, who never had total control of anything at any time, as drafted by Apuron.   

The jungle had always claimed that the seminary was given away and no longer owned by the Archdiocese; yet, not one of them have been able to explain how the seminary was transferred to the Archdiocese without any signature from the NCW or RMS.

The letter of the Apostolic Delegate mentioned Canon Law 537.  So, let us look at what Canon Law Made Easy had to say about Canon Law 537.  According to Canon Law Made Easy (the highlight and bold is mine):

The Code of Canon Law (537) mandates Parish Finance Councils in each parish. The role of the Parish Finance Council is to assist and advise the Pastor in overseeing and controlling the financial affairs of the parish, including any schools.  The Parish Finance Council is accountable to the pastor who has the responsibility for final decisions.  If the advice of the Parish Finance Council is unanimous on a given matter, the pastor will give serious consideration to the recommendation.

According to Canon Law 537, it is the the Pastor who makes the final decision.  This is also true with the Bishop who controls the Archdiocese, otherwise why did the Apostolic Delegate say in his letter, "Certain canons indicate that the diocesan bishop is to seek the advice of the finance council, which he is not legally bound to follow."