Tuesday, April 17, 2018

The Facts: The Removal of Monsignor James

On July 26, 2014, the Umatuna read that Monsignor James would be transferred to the Tamuning Church and Monsignor David Quitugua would be the Rector of the Cathedral.  The Umatuna did not mention anything about financial mismanagement.  Financial mismanagement was mentioned in Junglewatch, dated July 26, 2014, the same day.  A letter signed by Monsignor James was also posted in the jungle blog.  KUAM news later picked up the story that Monsignor James was removed for possible financial mismanagement.  

After serving 20 years as rector of the Dulce Nombre de Maria Cathedral Basilica, Monsignor James was removed on July 25, 2014 for financial mismanagement.  The jungle claimed that it was all a lie.  And again, the NCW was blamed for the removal of Monsignor James.  According to Tim Rohr
  • Archbishop Apuron is not in control.
  • All decisions are made for this archdiocese, including who becomes a priest at RMS, by Giuseppe Gennarini, the lead "responsible" for the NCW in the United States. Gennarini is Fr. Pius' immediate superior, and Fr. Pius is the Archbishop's immediate superior. Gennarini's immediate superior is Kiko. This is the hierarchy controlling our church on Guam!
  • Both Fr. Paul and Msgr. James were fired at Kiko & Gennarini's order. 
Several reasons were suggested by the jungle for the removal of Monsignor James.  Whatever reason they came up with always had to do with the NCW.  For example, one story was concocted by the jungle that the NCW removed Monsignor James because he was most likely to be the next Archbishop of Agana.  Therefore, he was removed, and the NCW planned to install Father Adrian as the next Archbishop of Agana.  According to Tim Rohr (the bold is mine): 
Apuron was really nothing more than a thirty year joke we were all willing to tolerate. But Pius has brought real evil, thanks to that perfect combination of "dunce and vengeance," Adrian the Pathetic - who apparently still thinks he will make us all his footstool when he is crowned the next emperor of Agana. 

That there might be someone else made bishop is the real reason Apuron decreed the removal of Fr. Paul and Msgr. James - and the real reason he still won't lift those decrees, now that - thanks to The Diana - we know that he can. 
Whatever reason they came up with, it was never "financial mismanagement".  Instead, they blamed the NCW for it.  And the jungle demanded the Archdiocese to show proof. The Archdiocese then cited the Deloitte and Touche report.  An internal review was also conducted, and the findings were published six months later in January 2015. Some of the findings in the Internal Review included the following: 
  • Between January 2009 and July 2014, Monsignor James received payments of $326,913.61 by simultaneously drawing payroll and stipends from the Catholic Cemeteries, and sipend payments from the Cathedral-Basilica.
  •  Upon the change of administration, credit cards in the name of the Archdiocese were discovered holding balances in excess of $60,000; the credit card in the name of the Catholic Cemeteries was specifically used by Monsignor James for restaurants, air fare, the Shangi-La Hotel in Manila and other five star hotels.
  • In the same period, the Catholic Cemeteries and the Cathedral-Basilica expended more than $123,000 towards credit card payments to First Hawaiian Bank and American Express. 
  • Other payments for a credit card in the name of Monsignor James, a gas card, and cellular/data phone privileges, which were paid for by the Catholic Cemeteries, accounted for an additional amount $23,000.
  • $13,000 of cemetery funds were paid for Monsignor James 20th Anniversary reception. 
  • Total advances documented between January 2009 and July 2014 by both entities for Monsignor James are nearly $475,000.
  • Cemetery family crypts valued at $380,000 were gifted by Monsignor James to his close friend and family.  
After the Internal Review Report was made public, Rohr did not deny any of the findings.  Instead, he found excuses for them.  Here are some examples of those excuses (the bold is mine):

The mistake Msgr. James made was technical. Because the Catholic Cemeteries is incorporated, a board resolution to approve a "loan" to Joshua Perez would have been the correct way to go. However, within church organizations, it is not uncommon for one fund to "lend" to another, if only, as we see here, to facilitate the coordination of an event until the funds can be reimbursed. 
It was a technical mistake?????  In the first place, a loan to pay for an anniversary party would never have been approved because such funds are not slated for personal use. It is against the law to use a corporation's funds for personal use. Monsignor James took it upon himself to take the money from Catholic Cemeteries without any approval from the board or Archbishop Apuron to pay for his personal use. That was the issue.

Comment 2
The accusation about cemetery crypts or plots being give to friends and family as favors is a lie.  Plots and/or crypts were given to two families for services they have done in exchange for them. The exchange was based on value for value. The "Benavente" plot cost less than $10,000. 
What were those services?  Where is the paperwork on it?  No such paperwork existed showing that in exchange for so and so services, Catholic Cemeteries will provide plot/crypt number xxxxxxx located at xxxxxx.  The documents only show the plots/crypts were given and the cost waived.  It did not even state the reason for the waiver.  

Comment 3:
The credit cards used by Msgr. James were not procured privately or secretly by Msgr. James. The were ISSUED by the Archdiocese of Agana........  
• Msgr. James regularly used his personal credit card to pay for the Cathedral Basilica's power bill, allowing for an additional 30 days to pay off the bill, which he always did.
The problem was NOT that the credit card was issued by the Archdiocese.  The problem was that Monsignor James did not use it responsibly.  Credit cards were also issued by the Archdiocese to other priests, but they used it responsibly.  

Monsignor James used his personal credit card to pay for the Cathedral's power bill???  How is that supposed to be beneficial to the Cathedral????  By the time the next month rolls in, the Cathedral still owes Monsignor James' credit card for the previous month and another month to the Guam Power Authority.  

Comment 4:
Five Star Hotels. The report says "Five star hotels". However it only notes the Shangri-La in Manila. It only notes the Shangri-La because that was the only "five star hotel" which was used by Msgr. James. Yet, Apuron et al try to make it look like Msgr. James availed himself to five star hotels around the world (as does Apuron). The reason Msgr. James stays at the Shangri-La is because he has a special rate of $130 a day which is the equivalent of a mid-range hotel. 
• Archbishop Apuron often stayed at the Shangri-La himself and whenever he stayed with Msgr. James, Msgr. James picked up the hotel tab for the archbishop. 
The report specifically said "The Shangri-La Hotel AND other five-star hotels. 

Monsignor James picked up the hotel tab for Archbishop Apuron?  Perhaps, Rohr got the wrong bishop.  We all know how close Monsignor James is to Cardinal Tagle.  Archbishop Apuron is not known to travel with Monsignor James.  

As you can see, Rohr never denied the Deloitte and Touche  report nor the findings in the Internal Review. He simply found excuses for them. Archbishop Apuron removed Monsignor James for financial mismanagement.  The NCW never had anything to do with it.    

30 comments:

  1. Id also like to share that I found it very suspicious when Msgr Benevente was also in Manila in 2014, the same time that we were there for the vocational meeting with Kiko. I found it odd because this was also the time that Cardinal Tagle denied that he invited the NCW to Manila. I know Msgr Benevente was there because I stood in line with him at the ticket counter, it was he and his "Godson", myself and Archbishop Anthony consecutively.
    Im telling you, there is someone, something greater in evil that is behind this mess but it has not been revealed yet to us.
    We are in the crossfires of the succession of the Pope.
    An Attack on Archbishop Anthony is an attack on the NCW(so they think) which is then an attack on Kiko and therefore an attack on Filloni.
    Cardinal Burke who ended up being the judge of Archbishop Anthonys trial was not by coincidence. Burke is anti Francis, therefore anti Filloni.
    Someone is pulling strings in Manila.

    This was never about the NCW. Remember now, they accussed the NCW of being the Authoritive hand of this diocese and to include at times the Vatican also. If this was so, the NCW would have had full control of this diocese to this day, even with all their desperate attempts. But as shown in where we are today, they have practically removed the NCW from Guam entirely.

    The next step to relinquish Guam from Filloni will be for Byrnes to get the Archdiocese of Agana included in the USCCB(US Conference of Bishops) rather than the current affiliation to the OCEANIA Conference. Byrnes will also change our status as a mission diocese.
    Watch it happen.

    Pas!
    -Jokers Wild

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Byrnes will also change our status as a mission diocese."

      A “mission diocese”? Doesn’t a mission diocese need priests formed with a missionary spirit? The Redemptoris Mater Seminaries forms priests for the New Evangelisation who are both diocesan and missionary. Could the RMS in Yona be reopened for the “Mission Diocese of Agana”?

      Delete
    2. Dear Jokers Wild, what you say is very logical and convincing.

      "Get the Archdiocese of Agana included in the USCCB (US Conference of Bishops)". "Change our status as a mission diocese."

      How can Byrnes do that without proving anything? The canon lawyer said it is probably not the abuse that was convicted. So how can Byrnes take away due process again? Just asking.

      Delete
    3. "We are in the crossfires of the succession of the Pope.
      An Attack on Archbishop Anthony is an attack on the NCW (so they think) which is then an attack on Kiko and therefore an attack on Filloni."

      Wow, this IS frightening!

      Delete
  2. So why are you all still stuck in the past when the church needs to move on? What does focusing on the past suppose to accomplish? Archbishop Byrnes is our archbishop now and he's a very smart guy who is trying to correct all the mistakes in this diocese. 30yrs of mistakes is a lot and archbishop Byrnes needs our support and prayers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 2:12 pm,

      The truth needs to come out because many people have been misled and are still being misled. Church assets are going to be lost and the ones to reap the rewards are those who misled them. Who is selling the Malojojo Seminary?

      Delete
    2. No he’s not he’s our co-adjutor archbishop he’s forcing us to have him as archbishop when he’s not

      Delete
    3. I agree with you that we should support the Coadj. Archbishop as a coadj. Only as a coadj. and not an administrator! Because our true archbishop is not Byrnes but Archbishop Apuron! Do you understand? Until Rome announces otherwise, you cannot take away his right for due process as you did in the past. We remember how you manipulated due process for your benefit to deprive human rights from a person who was falsely accused. It was very unlawful. Please, understand that what you do and what Byrnes is doing is unlawful according to the constitutional right of every citizen for due process.

      Delete
    4. Why is Monsignor James even there the man spends money that wasn't even his loss of church property and he was living the High Life and Rome don't see this maybe they need to read your blog Diane and not Tim Rohr let's finally get the truth and Guam give it back to the real Archbishop Apuron!÷

      Delete
    5. Rome did speak and banned brother tony from ever coming back to guam. I'm sure you'll say he's appealing the verdict but even at that, what's stopping him from coming to guam and running the diocese? Again, Rome spoke and we have to respect the verdict even if we don't agree with it. It's just not any of our call to say otherwise.

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous at 6:19 pm,

      Rome never said he was banned from Guam. Only Rohr was saying that. Read what the sentence said. It said he cannot RESIDE in Guam. That means he cannot take up residence here.

      Delete
    7. Where does it say he cannot take up residence here? I believe pdn, post, Internet etc. all said brother tony is banned from guam.

      Delete
    8. Dear Anonymous at 8:43 pm,

      I believe the Vatican Press Release because it came from the Vatican.

      Delete
    9. Yes the Vatican press release was published word for word all over the pdn, the post, the Internet , etc. so where did it say he couldn't reside in guam?

      Delete
    10. Dear Anonymous at 12:53 am,

      Then please read the Vatican Press Release quoted in the local news. According to the Vatican Press Release:

      “The Apostolic Tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, composed of five judges, has issued its sentence of first instance, finding the accused guilty of certain of the accusations and imposing upon the accused the penalties of privation of office and prohibition of residence in the Archdiocese of Guam.”

      There it is.......PROHIBITION OF RESIDENCE. You do know what “residence” mean.....right?

      Delete
    11. If you believe brother tony is still so innocent then why does he stay away from Guam?

      Delete
    12. Dear Anonymous at 8:58 am,

      Have you not been keeping up with current events? It is because he is going through his appeal.

      Delete
  3. Regarding financial records. Does CCOG have to file annual financial statements of revenue and expenditures with the Dept of Revenue and Taxation? Would be interesting to see what they used their 'donations' for.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Donations ?? TIM ROHR----?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Please help me out, "prohibition of residence in the Archdiocese of Guam" means Archbishop Apuron can't reside in the district of Guam as long as he remains a priest, right? He is probably not going to resign as a priest, but if if he really wanted to reside in Guam, he can do it but not as a priest.

    Guam Catholic for Apuron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Guam Catholic for Apuron,

      Archbishop Apuron is still a priest and an Archbishop. His faculties were never removed and he can still administer the sacraments. Prohibition of residence means he cannot take up residence or live in the Archdiocese of Agana. If the Vatican wanted to ban him from entering the island, they would have used the word “deportation”. We have had off-island bishops such as Cardinal Cortes preside the Eucharist, but he does not reside in the Archdiocese of Agana.

      Delete
    2. I don’t think the Archdiocese of Guam includes public and private residences. If I’m reading the sentence as it is written, it is possible he can reside in Guam, but not in any property owned and controlled by the Archdiocese.

      Delete
    3. The real question is if he is willing to come back to Guam, even for a short visit.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 10:16 am,

      That depends on his doctor.

      Delete
  6. 6 new RM Priests for the diocese of Rome... and Tim Rohr claims to know the Neo Catechumenal Way better than the Vatican?

    http://www.lastampa.it/2018/04/17/vaticaninsider/ita/news/papa-francesco-ordina-domenica-sacerdoti-c-anche-un-ex-avvocato-AAcvXz2IYdBzt8OMnlDTHN/pagina.html

    We would have been ordaining at least 10+ priests by now if it were not for the anti-Vatican, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, greedy demonic powers in the island.

    Tim Rohr is somewhere laughing at the fruit of his work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:15 am,

      Thank you for the news. I will publish this in a post. Also, I doubt that Rohr is laughing. He is divorce and a very lonely man right now. He made his bed and is now lying in it.

      Delete
  7. FINALLY!!!!! About time someone wrote about all the money that man stole and embezzeled!!!! And I bet there is more!!!!! What about all his “godsons”? When are they going to finally speak?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I second that 4:11PM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not nice, 4:11 and 10:25. Not at all.

      Delete
    2. Yup, it’s not nice. It’s TRUTH

      Delete