Letter from Archbishop Ryan

The Archbishop's letter can be found in the Archdiocesan Website:

According to Archbishop Ryan: 

As your bishop, I warmly invite the Neo-Catechumenal Way to deepen its collaboration with our parishes and diocesan ministries by sharing more fully the rich gifts of its charism. In this way, the entire Archdiocese may benefit from its emphasis on evangelization, family life, missionary outreach, and the active participation of the faithful. At the same time, I encourage the members of the Way, while faithfully preserving their distinctive charism, to continue discerning how it may be expressed in ever greater communion with the liturgical and pastoral life of our parishes. We need to seek ways of walking together in our Synodal journey as one people of God. 

Many members walking in the Way have been serving in the parishes together. Some of us decided to help the CCD program by being teachers and coordinators. Some of us serve as Lectors and Eucharistic Ministers in our parishes. Some were nominated to be part of the Parish and Finance Council of the parish. Some join the parish choir during Mass. Some teach the baptismal classes and RCIA classes in the parish. Some of them work in the Pastoral Office of their parishes. Some join the Ministry of the Sick of their parish, giving holy communion to the bedridden. 

The main issue that the jungle has brought up is the money situation. It is always about the money. They complain that the NCW is not financially contributing to the parish. This is false. Some of us attend the parish Mass as well as the NCW Mass held on Saturday evening. When we have our Reconciliation in the parish, a serious collection is given to the Parish for the use of the facilities. When we hold our Eucharistic celebration in the Parish, every member is asked to put money in the collection for the Parish. Therefore, the Parish also receives money from the NCW every week when they have their Eucharist in the Parish. I also know that some of the communities contributed flowers to be placed on the altar every month. The NCW have also upgraded some of the Parishes without any cost to the parish. 

It has always been about the money. You can read Rohr's complaints here. Contrary to what JungleWatch says, the NCW has been contributing to the parish. If we use the hotels for our retreats, the parish doesn't pay for it. The members of the NCW pays. Afterall, it was the NCW who used the hotel. When we use the parish for our Eucharistic celebration, the members also pay the parish. We contribute to the parish in many ways. 

Comments For Mr. Terlaje

In the last OP, a Mr. Terlaje expressed his concern about accountability in the NCW.  And this concerned expression was made under the OP regarding the alleged misuse of funds by Monsignor James.  Although the thread was a bit diverted from the original OP, it nevertheless remained within the boundaries of money and accountability.  

The NCW cannot hold money in a savings account. Also, we do not collect money during the Eucharist as they do in the parish. Collection of money are made for a specific purpose and must be used up.

For example, a case of wine cost $100, and there are 20 brothers in our community.  Everyone contributes $5.00 in the trash bag and everyone is able to afford to put in $5.00.  The case of wine is brought to our community.  There is the accountability.  It is the same with ordering flowers. 

Below are two excellent comments addressed to Mr. Terlaje (spacing are mine):  

  AnonymousOctober 13, 2016 at 1:25 AM

Good Morning Mr. Terlaje

At the end of the weekend a bill is issued reporting the total cost for all expenses incurred at the hotel. The bill is split according to the number in attendance. Those who can, pay. Those who are unable, dont. Those who are happy to give more, give. Its as simple as one, two, three. The collection is then taken straight to the counter for payment. No one leaves the premises with a huge sum of cash. Only the exact amount needed for full payment is collected, no overage. So yes you are right in regards to who ever collects, they use it down to the last penny.

Now in regards to the money you donate to your respective parish; if you are either writing checks or indicating your name on cash donations then there is accountability to determine your end of year contributions. However, this does not apply to those donating to the trash bag for the mere fact that they do not want it to be known the amounts they have contributed. Also, the collections are made with a specific intention and with an exact amount. For example, if the community needs to purchase a case of wine for the Eucharist then a simple collection is made, only enough for the case of wine. In this situation, whoever is tasked to make the purchase is then the one who takes with him the cash collection. Accountability is guaranteed when this person delivers the case of wine. If someone offers to incur the cost entirely then he is most likely asked to make the purchase himself. Therefore avoiding any need for accountability.

You wont understand anything of this if you are looking at the NCW as a formal association, club or organization. As is always stated, we are an itinerary, a way of formation. More so, we look to each other as family, as brothers and sisters.

This comment below is from DCI:  

AnonymousOctober 13, 2016 at 9:29 AM

My previous comment was going to be my last on this topic but Mr. Terlaje said he gets a receipt at the end of the year for his donations which prompted this comment. So I can only assume then that he makes his donations by check, or he attaches his name to cash he donates as mentioned by Anon. at 1:25 am.

So I want to pose one question to Mr. Terlaje.

So Mr. Terlaje, you get your receipt at the end of the year, because we assume you write a check and or attach your name to your cash donations, what about the majority of parishioners who donate by cash, how do they get their receipt? What if when the basket of collections/cash make it to the back and people counting the money count 1000 dollars and they decide to keep 200 of it and only report 800.

Okay, that was more than one question. But the questions are in the same line of questioning that Mr. Terlaje is asking about accountability in the NCW. Which is as I have shown is very much the same as the parish collections with regard to cash contributions.

To reiterate one last time to Mr. Terlaje that I know how much the three night stay at the hotel with meal cost, so I can choose to pay at the hotel counter or I can simply throw the money in the trash bag and not worry about it. This is the same for every brother who attends the convivence.

Mr. Terlaje that invitation for you to attend a Catechesis stands in perpetuity. :-))

DCI

Let The Light Of Truth Shine

Everyone wants to be assured that the Church is spending money the right way. Everyone wants to be assured that there are no financial mismanagement and corruption in our Church. This goes the same for our government.  After all, when we hear of government corruption, it bothers us because we expect the people we voted to do what is beneficial for the people rather than for themselves.  

Focus on whether there is substantial evidence or not.  The truth needs to be told.  Focus on documentations rather than stories and rumors.  The FIRST sign that there may have been some sort of financial mismanagement was in the Deloitte and Touche report in 2014, which can be found here.  

After Monsignor James was removed for financial mismanagement, Joe Rivera and a small group of Catholics held a press conference at the steps of the Cathedral to refute the Archbishop's claim of financial mismanagement. They addressed the Deloitte and Touche report.  However, their press conference said nothing about the funds taken from Catholic Cemeteries to pay for Monsignor James' anniversary dinner, which was the reason he was removed. You can read the story here.

Through an Internal Review, more misappropriation of funds were discovered.  After the Internal Review was made public, Joe Rivera and the former board did NOT come out to address these issues at all.  

Is it true that Monsignor James took $13,000 from Catholic Cemeteries to pay for his anniversary dinner?  Yes, that is a fact.  Is it illegal to use corporation funds for personal use?  Yes, that is a fact.  Is there substantial evidence that Monsignor James used funds from Catholic Cemeteries to pay for his anniversary dinner? Yes. The evidence are the two checks he signed.  Did Monsignor James reimburse the funds he took for his personal use?  Yes, that is a fact.  And this fact is irrelevant because the law clearly stated that it is illegal to use corporation funds for personal use. 

The former cemeteries board under Monsignor James publicly stated that they knew about the funds and approved of it; however, they never produced the 2014 minutes as their evidence.  According to Jackie Terlaje, there were no minutes granting such approval.  Jackie Terlaje and the former Board have now released a full report of substantial evidence against the alleged misuse of funds. Their full report can be found here.  According to PNC news:  

The report includes numerous credit card statements, a couple of contracts and catholic cemeteries checks signed by Benavente paid to the Agana cathedral in the thousands of dollars.

The credit card statements show that the credit card belonging to the Catholic cemeteries, was used for things like dinners, hotel stays at the Shangri-la in Makati, accommodations in Chicago and Boston, a stay at PIC worth over $1,300, medication, travel, and other charges.

Also in the report are two burial contracts, one for Benavente and another for Frank Santos. The contracts are for private family plots that are both valued at $190,000 each, but in the contract the charges appear to have been waived.

Finally, there are checks signed by Benavente payabe to the Agana Cathedral Basilica for the repayment of church loans.

If a person suspects that a crime has been committed, the right thing to do is to contact the civil authorities.  That has already been done.  It is important to submit any substantial evidence that one has of any criminal activity.  The truth should be known.  In order to get rid of corruption, the evidence need to be examined and the truth be told.  In order to get rid of darkness, the light of truth needs to shine brightly.   

Former Board Of Catholic Cemeteries Resigned

According to KUAM news, the former Board of Catholic Cemeteries resigned due to the fact that they refused to be complicit in the alleged cover-up of Monsignor James' misappropriation of funds.  Jackie Terlaje gave a final report, which you can find in KUAM news.  A criminal complaint has already been filed in the Guam Police Department and Attorney General's Office.  According to the news report: 

Former board refused to be complicit in alleged cover-up

The previous board of directors of Catholic Cemeteries says not only does the temporary leadership of the Archdiocese of Agana have the authority to fire them, they resigned their positions because they refuse to be complicit with an alleged cover-up of the misuse of cemetery funds.

About an hour after the archdiocese issued a press release to announce the official termination of the Catholic Cemeteries board and their replacements, their predecessors held a press conference. Attorney Jacque Terlaje said, "This board effectively and immediately resigns their directorships due to the request of the delegate to turn a blind eye to the absolute misuse of funds. The board has been requested to disregard the laws and standards governing this non-profit corporation.

"In good conscience to the church the truth and the laws of Guam, we decline to participate in this attempt to subvert justice for the dead and the families that have entrusted the cemeteries to utilize the funds paid for services for the cemeteries and not for any personal use."

Terlaje formerly the board secretary, led the press conference. Sitting beside her were former board members Dennis Santo Tomas, Lillian Posadas and Roland San Agustin.  The archdiocese announced they were removed on Friday.  Their termination follows a complaint the previous board  filed involving Monsignor James Benavente for alleged misuse of cemetery funds for his 20th anniversary celebration in 2014.

As we reported, one week after that party Archbishop Anthony Apuron removed him as rector of the cathedral and director of Catholic Cemeteries following a Deloitte & Touche audit alleging financial mismanagement. Fast forward to September 30 of this year, and the new temporary leadership of the archdiocese cleared Monsignor Benavente of any wrongdoing.

The fired board maintains however their complaint was justified and backed up by documentation, as Terlaje said, "Because this board has revealed the truth and  abided by its obligation to protect cemetery funds, the  current administration of the Archdiocese of Agana has decided to silence our board by terminating directors without cause and without proper authority."

Following the filing of the complaint, the archdiocese issued another press release, stating this specific allegation had been vetted and once again cleared Monsignor Benavente of any wrongdoing. As for the new Catholic Cemeteries board:

- Joseph T. Duenas was appointed as Interim Administrator, replacing replaces Father Jose Alberto Rodriguez-Salamaca who was relieved of his duties.

- Wayne Santos was part of the previous board but he was reappointed. He is Vice President and Marketing Manager of Bank of Guam

- Daniel J. Tydingco: Executive Vice President of Legal, Regulatory and External Affairs TeleGuam Holdings, LLC, dba GTA

- Gregory D. Perez: Project Manager Pacific Unlimited Inc.

- John A. Cruz: Hagatna Mayor

- Gerald A. Taitano: Director of Personnel Naval Facilities Marianas

Meanwhile, the previous board today submitted a final report to the archdiocese on the misuse of cemetery funds.

In response to the press conference and allegations made by former board members:  The Archdiocese of Agana issued a press release maintaining its position regarding Monsignor James Benavente. The press release stated “We have full confidence in our newly appointed board and interim administrator of Catholic Cemeteries. We are moving forward in this area and at all levels in our Catholic Church on Guam. It is crucial that we do so, given the challenges and tasks at hand”.

UPDATE:

I often said that the ONLY time you disobey a Bishop is when he is telling you to do something immoral such as to steal, kill, etc.  The Board of the Catholic Cemeteries said that Father Jeff was requesting them to cover up a criminal activity.  More information is found in PNC news:

"The board of directors of the catholic cemeteries of Guam unanimously believes that its conduct related to the release of information on the misuse of cemetery funds is justified by the truth, and supported by documentation and records maintained with the corporation, in addition to the review findings of Deloitte and Touche dated January 8, 2014. Because the board has revealed the truth and abided by its obligation t protect cemetery funds, the current administration of the Archdiocese of Agana has decided to silence our board by terminating directors without cause and without proper authority," stated Terlaje. 

The report includes numerous credit card statements, a couple of contracts and catholic cemeteries checks signed by Benavente paid to the Agana cathedral in the thousands of dollars.

The credit card statements show that the credit card belonging to the Catholic cemeteries, was used for things like dinners, hotel stays at the Shangri-la in Makati, accommodations in Chicago and Boston, a stay at PIC worth over $1,300, medication, travel, and other charges.

Also in the report are two burial contracts, one for Benavente and another for Frank Santos. The contracts are for private family plots that are both valued at $190,000 each, but in the contract the charges appear to have been waived.

Finally, there are checks signed by Benavente payabe to the Agana Cathedral Basilica for the repayment of church loans.

"The adminsitration has requested that this board be complicit in the cover up of the use of cemetery funds for the personal use of Msgr. Benavente. In 2014, Archbishop Anthony Apuron appointed the directors of the board to manage and operate the cemetery corporation. Each director has offered their time and effort to ensure protection of the Perpetual Care Fund to be used for its intended purpose and to avoid further pillaging," concluded Terlaje.

Attorney Terlaje and the other former board members did not take any questions from the media.

About three hours after Terlaje's press conference, the Archdiocese of Agana issued another statement saying they maintain their previous position regarding Benavente "as stated several times now in recent weeks."

Press Release Of Jackie Terlaje

In KUAM news today, Jackie Terlaje is not backing down.  The complaint against Monsignor James Benavente was already filed with the Guam Police Department and the Attorney General's Office, and she intends to pursue it.  According to Jackie's Press Release, the vote was unanimous and there were no minutes approving $13,000 to give to Monsignor James for his anniversary dinner.  In a written letter, dated 2016, the former board wrote that they knew about the money and had approved of it.  However, there were no official minutes to show they approved it in 2014.  According to Jackie's Press Release (the bold is mine): 

Today, I address the statements of the Archdiocese of Agana accusing me of falsifying a certification of a Resolution, as the Secretary of the Board of Directors ("Board") of the Catholic Cemeteries of Guam, Inc. ("Catholic Cemeteries"), and renouncing the authority of the Board to make complaints of the misuse of funds entrusted to us by the Archbishop of Agana, Archbishop Anthony Apuron.  

First, the Board unanimously authorized the Resolution dated September 30, 2016, and each Director specifically authorized me to execute the certification.  Each Director must act in good conscience and speak the truth.  I have not been notified by any Director of any objection nor any change of mind on the subject matter. 

Second, I want to be abundantly clear, that I am not the attorney for the Catholic Cemeteries.  I do not represent the Catholic Cemeteries in my legal capacity.  I am merely a public servant who provides a community service to the non-profit corporation, and to which I serve as a Director of the Board, and as the Secretary.  

Third, the Board is authorized to "manage and direct the affairs...operations...property and funds of the Corporation, "pursuant to Article III of its Bylaws.  All records released on the Guam Police Department (GPD) and the Office of the Attorney General (AG) are property of the Catholic Cemeteries, and subject to the authority of the Board.  

Fourth, as the Secretary of the Board, it is my responsibility to maintain the records of the Corporation.  There are no corporate records or meeting minutes supporting the Archdiocese's statement that "The previous board of directors had approved the advancement of the funds and thus the advancement of funds was proper and authorized."  As Director and Secretary, I respectfully disagree that the use of funds paid for the burial of the deceased may be used for a private celebration for the person benefit of any director, officer, or employee of the Catholic Cemeteries.  

Fifth, I acknowledge receipt of the demand and threat of legal action by attorney David Lujan to immediately withdraw the complaint filed with GPD and AG.  However, I will not unilaterally withdraw a statement authorized by the Board; the facts provided to GPD and the AG are the truth, and I am obliged as an officer of the Catholic Cemeteries to protect the funds entrusted to me by the deceased, and by the numerous Catholic families who have buried their loved ones with the Catholic Cemeteries.   

finally, as a Catholic, I too am deeply saddened by the state of affairs in the Archdiocese, Fr. Jeff San Nicolas has graciously extended the olive branch and his apology.  I have accepted his apology, and agree that we must find a way to seek the truth and conciliation for the Church that we all love.  The Catholic Cemeteries Board have also extended to him an invitation to join us at our board meeting today to discuss further these issues, and to find an amicable solution.

 

Connections

Guamboy did an excellent job in explaining his opinion.  He is also very perception as he connected all the connections.  Below is his comment, which I believe deserves its own post.  His comments can be found here and here (spacing is mine): 

Part 1
I am not a follower of the Neocatechumenal Way but I respect them! I am a regular Catholic who devotes many of my volunteer hours helping my Parish, but I am not part of the CCOG or LFM. I believe that the CCOG and LFM is a group that is out to push their personal agenda, ie, Removal of Archbishop Apuron and other things. I have been a very active parishioner for about 16 years of my life and I am concerned with the current Archdiocese administration. Why? Because since Archbishop Hon has arrived, he was and still is being confronted by the people who cause the greater division in the Church on Guam. But, since Archbishop Hon is showing his colors to protect or favor more of the local priest such as Monsignor James, Fr. Paul and Fr. Jeff but what about the other priests who are willing to help for the good of the Church. There are many priests that have been silent and obey their superiors like the some filippino priests and the priests that are following in the neocatechumenal way. But, I believe it is the local priests that are the reason for these division. Such as Monsignor James. When he was removed by Archbishop Apuron for Financial Mismanagement was because he signed for checks from the Catholic Cemetery Inc. for the use of his personal Anniversary Celebration. Even though there is an intent to repay after the celebration is unbecoming of a priest. His evidence is that the former board approved the transaction is still in question because the members of the board at that time are close friends. Why do I say close, is because John Rivera is Monsignor's godson, Gerald Taitano was the President of the Cathedral Parish council and John Jr. Calvo is also monsignor's boboy (Nino to his son as well) and Joshua Perez who is Monsignor's boboy and who wrote a check to himself in those amount. I question why did the previous board concluded to use Catholic Cemeteries money to support monsignor's party? These questions will not be answered.  

Back to Archbishop Hon being in favor of local priest. It is upsetting for me to understand why? Let us be fair. In his Presbyteral Council, it consists of members of local priest who is bitter and is one sided and who believes that the Neocatechumenal way is a problem. I personally beg to differ. I believe we all need to coexist and learn to bring unity but unity right now is not the problem. The priests in this archdiocese are grouped and some will not even want the breathe the same air as others. These groups are: Local priests, Filippino priests, priests that are in the neocatechumenal way, capuchin priests and even local priests who hates the following groups. The priests needs to know that they are priests for the Archdiocese of agana and not for themselves. I am concerned with the way the neocatechumenal way is being treated by Archbishop Hon and some local priests. This is why there is a division. The problem is that they rather create a deeper conflict but I hope Archbishop Hon does realize that it is not only the local priests, it is all the priests that needs to reunite. 

Part 2  

In regards to assignments of priests, I am wondering why is there a need to reshuffle priests. I believe that priests should move every 6 years but his committee saw it fit to put some priests who has not even been a pastor or administrator for 6 years in a parish. I believe that they should move priests who have stayed longer in the parishes. Such as monsignor James, he was rector for 20 years. But I know for a fact he will not take a small assignment. Fr. Mike C. has been in Toto for more than 10 years but his parishioners will become angry if he is moved. Well guess what. I heard he will be pastor of Yigo church. So I wonder how would toto parishioners will react. Sometimes it is for the good of the church. 

In conclusion, Archbishop Hon needs to reevaluate his committees and place 2 of each priest groups for the best interest of the Church. Archbishop Hon also needs to apologize to the people of guam and Archbishop Apuron for writing a statement that he is asking the Holy See to remove Archbishop Apuron as Archbishop of Agana. Why? Because his statement already implies that Archbishop Apuron is guilty. I personally believe that he is innocent of all these allegations because all of these allegations came forward by Tim and his followers. Also, keep in mind that the lawyer Dave Lujan is Monsignor's godfather. Wow! Talk about connects. Tim also used to work alongside Monsignor James as the Gift shop manager. All connected. Archbishop Hon should also investigate as to how the Archdiocese was exposed and the documents that are publish on Jungle watch. He was the leak. Monsignor James is helping in giving all the documents to Tim. Evidence are a personal emails from Fr. Adrian to Aaron Quitagua and many other personal and private letters or statements to the priest. Archbishop Hon, investigate the local priests who are at the root of all these such as Monsignor James. But, wait he's best friends with them. So No. 

In Making Decisions

An anonymous commenter asked me for my opinion to his/her questions, which can be found here.  According to his/her comment: 

AnonymousOctober 3, 2016 at 10:38 AM

Diana,
How do you feel about what the Cemetery Board did? I mean, it completely circumvented their boss, AB Hon. No matter what we feel about his actions, shouldn't we still respect that he is the boss? I'm disturbed that it seems as if they are going behind his back. While we await AB Apuron, AB Hon is our Apostolic Delegate assigned by Pope Francis and is due our full cooperation. This is all so disheartening. Please call for everyone to stop with the disrespectful words against him. Disagree and say why, but let's not be like the Jungle folks.

Let me first say this:  As you can now see, we are not led by blind obedience as the jungle claimed.  We have free will.  Like everyone else, we can sin.  We can disobey.  As humans, we can fall. It is true that Archbishop Hon was sent by the Pope, and we are supposed to be obedient and respectful to him. Yet, this happen and God allowed it to happen.  Our catechists never taught us blind obedience. They told us that it is good to obey God, the catechists, the priests, the Archbishop, the Pope, our parents, our teachers, our elders, etc.  But they also taught us that we have free will.   

Now, to answer your question:  The Bible not only tells us to obey the Bishops, but it also tells the Bishops to care for their sheep.  The Bible tells us that children are to obey their parents, but it also instructs the parents to care for their children. Shepherds, parents, and all those in authority always set the examples for us to follow.  When they set good examples, we tend to follow those good examples. When they set bad examples, it is also human nature to follow those bad examples.  In other words, when parents break their promises to their children, in time children will also learn to break their promises to others. 

Disobedience can be a sin depending on the circumstances.  The Catholic Church looks at the REASON or INTENT for the sin of disobedience. They also look at whether the person had full knowledge of the consequences of the sin and their consent in committing the sinful act.  Therefore, disobedience can either be a venial or mortal sin depending on these factors.  If a person disobeyed because he is being asked to do something immoral, that is NOT a sin.  We are obligated to follow God's commandment above everything else; therefore, it would NOT be a sin if we are asked to steal, kill, etc.   On the other hand, if he disobeyed a command that is not immoral but because he disagrees with it, that could be a venial sin.  If he disobeyed a command for the purpose to slander, discredit, and destroy someone's name and reputation that would be a mortal sin.   

The first person to show disobedience was Archbishop Hon (the very person whom the Pope sent).  According to Father Mike in the Patti Arroyo talk show, he revealed that the FIRST thing that Archbishop Hon did was try to remove Archbishop Apuron.  Archbishop Hon sent a letter asking Archbishop Apuron to resign.  There was no response from him.  So, Archbishop Hon encouraged the Presbyterial Council to vote for Apuron's removal. These were Archbishop Hon's first actions.  This was disobedience to the Pope.  As to whether it is a venial or mortal sin, I would prefer to let God be the judge of that.      

After encouraging the Presbyterial Council to remove Apuron, he went to Rome to ask Pope Francis to have Apuron removed as Archbishop of Agana.  And what happened while he was in Rome?  Both Father Jeff and Father Mike disobeyed their superiors.  This should come as no surprise.  After all, it was Archbishop Hon who taught them disobedience.  Disobedience often breeds disobedience.  Father Jeff instructed Father Mike to read the letter and distribute the petitions.  He disobeyed because he disagreed with Archbishop Hon's decision and felt that the alleged victims should be more important than the Church's assets. Was that a venial or mortal sin?   Father Jeff, on the other hand, disobeyed Cardinal Filoni because his intent was to discredit the integrity of the RM seminary.  Was that a venial or mortal sin?     


Shortly after Archbishop Hon cleared Monsignor James' name, the Cemetery Board filed a complaint to GPD and the AG's office against Monsignor James. They accused him of misappropriation of funds and submitted evidence to show that.  They did not obtain Archbishop Hon's permission.  Was their disobedience a venial or mortal sin?  What was the reason and intent for going to GPD and the AG's office?  Did they feel that the truth should be told about both Monsignor James and Archbishop Hon?  

In light of the sex abuse scandals and cover up in the past, many Catholics can be torn between loyalty to the Church and honesty.  If Monsignor James is actually guilty of misappropriation of funds as the evidence appear to imply, should the Cemetery Board be honest about it or should they be loyal to an Archbishop who may be covering up a criminal activity?  Either way, the Cemetery Board can also be guilty of sin by remaining silent.      

No one ever said that life was easy.  We each have to make our own decisions.  But before making those decisions, we need to examine our conscience and discern whether we are doing it for the good of others, for correction, for ourselves, for the destruction of others, etc.  In the end, God will be the judge because He knows the heart of each person.         

The Invalid Irregularities

According to KUAM news:

Delegate to the administrator Father Jeff San Nicolas made the announcement in a press conference Friday morning on behalf of Archbishop Hon. "I hereby declare that Monsignor Benavente's response is found both credible and satisfactory and none of these alleged major irregularities should be held valid," he stated.

 This is my response to Archbishop Hon:  

Apparently,  your excellency, those invalid major irregularities contain two checks in the amount of $13,000 made out to a Joshua Perez for Monsignor James 20th Anniversary dinner.  In addition to those two checks was a receipt in the amount of $14,280 for reimbursement for the 20th Anniversary dinner. That sounds very "SUBSTANTIAL" to me rather than invalid.  

Now that Jackie Terlaje has submitted that report to the Attorney General's office and the Guam Police Department, the justice system will decide whether there is enough "substantial" evidence to move forward in indicting Monsignor James for misappropriation of funds along with other charges.  If that happens, questions will be brought up from the Catholic faithful regarding the Church's finances.  Questions will be asked as to how you managed to clear Monsignor James of financial mismanagement with "substantial" evidence in place.   

Archdiocesan Internal Review Report

An anonymous commenter asked to post the Archdiocesan Internal Review Report of the Cathedral-Bascilica and the Catholic Cemeteries, which can be found here and in the Archdiocese of Agana website.  The report was conducted on January 23, 2015 and listed the following: 

(1)  Msgr. Benavente as the administrator of the Cathedral-Basilica and The Catholic Cemeteries developed projects which resulted in the Archdiocese incurring $7 million dollars ($7,029,853.93), which were consolidated in 2009 from different loans held at the Bank of Hawaii and Bank of Guam to First Hawaiian Bank, and re-financed again in 2012.  These two entities have the largest indebtedness of all other entities in the Archdiocese, and in 2013, a review of the principal balances indicated that the overall reduction of their indebtedness was less than the average 20% reduction by other Archdiocesan entities.  Another project that was formerly administered by Msgr. Benavente is indebted for $2.2 million dollars as of 2013, and due to its financial condition has only been paying interest on its outstanding debt, up to August 2014.  These three entities constitute approximately 37% of the total indebtedness of the Archdiocese (the remaining indebtedness represents all parishes and catholic schools). 

(2)  Msgr. Benavente as the administrator of the Cathedral-Basilica and Catholic Cemeteries commingled funds and transferred funds between the two entities without respect of restrictions on funds - i.e. cemetery funds were used for payroll of Cathedral-Basilica employees; monies restricted to stipend payments for the clergy were used to pay for loans; also, a pervasive practice was evident in the reimbursements for personal credit card payments - these practices resulted in extremely difficult record keeping, failure to apply generally accepted principles of accounting, and most importantly making verification and audit by auditors impossible.

(3)  Between January 2009 and July 2014, Msgr. Benavente received payments of $326,913.61 by simultaneously drawing payroll and stipends from The Catholic Cemeteries, and stipend 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 Msgr. Benavente for restaurants, air fare, the Shangri-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 Msgr. Benavente, a gas card, and cellular/data phone privileges, which were paid for by The Catholic Cemeteries, accounted for an additional $23,000.  Notably, $13,000 of cemetery funds were paid for Msgr. Benavente's 20th Anniversary reception.  Total advances documented between January 2009 and July 2014 by both entities for Msgr. Benavente are nearly $475,000.  This does not include cemetery family crypts valued at $380,000.00, which were gifted by Msgr. Benavente to his close friend and family; in other words, no fee was charged for these cemetery plots.  

(4)  Under the prior administration, $400,000 in past due obligations for the Cathedral-Basilica and The Catholic Cemeteries accrued; the past due obligation is of July 25, 2014, and does not include the $7 million dollar obligation owed to the First Hawaiian Bank.  For the Cathedral-Basilica, $188,000 of the past due obligations are for insurance premiums, and the monthly income generated by the Cathedral-Basilica is insufficient to pay for both past due and current insurance premiums, utility and other expenses, and bank loans.  The current financial condition of the Cathedral-Basilica is in the red.  Notwithstanding its financial condition, Msgr. Benavente granted education scholarship for tuition, substantial donations for medical assistance, employee loans, and other donations from parish funds.  Another $27,000 of parish funds were used to pay for Msgr. Benavente's projects involving the Knights (papal honors).  

(5)  Deloitte & Touche on January 8, 2014, notified the Archdiocese that The Catholic Cemeteries was not auditable due to significant accounting deficiencies.  One of the issues identified was the long-term care (aka perpetual care) liability, which was not accurately reflected in the financial statements, nor was it property allocated in its records; specifically, prior sales were recorded as revenue rather than setting aside any portion for long term care.  Despite the passage of more than six months from the report, no progress was noted to address this major issue; nor was there any set funds set aside and designated as perpetual care funds to conform to the recommendation; the Deloitte & Touche report showed a liability of $800,000 in long term care which during 2013 grew to more than $1.3 million.  Since the change of administration, the Perpetual Care Fund has been established with an approximate balance of $30,000, in just a few short months.  

Monsignor James Referred To GPD And AG Office

As I mentioned in one of my previous comments in the last OP, when you put people who are against the Way in charge, it would come as no surprise that Monsignor James was cleared of all allegations of financial mismanagement. After all, look at the bias seminary report.  At any rate, the Catholic Cemeteries of Guam Inc. has now filed a complaint with the Guam Police Department and the Attorney General's Office against Monsignor James. According to KUAM news:

Complaint filed with GPD and AG regarding Monsignor James Benavente   

In an interesting twist, just hours after the Archdiocese of Agana held a press conference to announce that all allegations of financial mismanagement made against Monsignor James Benavente were invalid, KUAM News has learned that a complaint has been filed by the Catholic Cemeteries of Guam, Inc. with the Guam Police Department and the Attorney General’s office.

According to the complaint Catholic Cemeteries alleges $13,000 was misused for the personal use of Monsignor James Benavente, specifically for his 20th anniversary dinner in 2014.

Personally, I think this should have been done a long time ago.......like back in 2014 when the misuse of funds was discovered.  When the financial officer of the Yona parish was found to have stolen thousands of dollars from the parish, the police was notified and she was arrested.  The Church should have done the same thing with Monsignor James once it had been discovered that he misued the funds.  But Archbishop Apuron was too merciful.  Rather than reporting it to the police, he removed Monsignor James from the Cathedral, and he went to the Tamuning parish where he could still practice his priestly duties.  

Now, that GPD and the AG is involved, he can explain how he managed to take $13,000 for his personal use, specifically for his 20th anniversary dinner.  Even if he had paid back the $13,000, do you think the government would excuse him?  Do you think the Government of Guam would clear him of these allegations? 

According to the Criminal Defense Lawyer Website: 

 A person who misappropriates funds with the intent to later return the money to the rightful owner is still guilty of misappropriation. It also doesn't matter if the misappropriation only lasted for a short amount of time. 

MORE ON PNC NEWS:

The report states that Msgr. James Benavente misused over $13,000 in church money for his anniversary dinner. 

Guam - Just moments after he was vindicated, a complaint was filed against Msgr. James Benavente for allegedly spending over $13,000 in church money for his personal use.

PNC obtained a board resolution from the Catholic Cemeteries of the Archdiocese of Agana, signed by Attorney Jacque Terlaje, who also represents Archbishop Anthony Apuron in a separate libel and slander lawsuit filed by four of the Archbishop's alleged sex abuse victims.

The report from the catholic cemeteries was sent to both the Guam Police Department and the Attorney General's Office today. In the report, it states that two checks were written to a Joshua Perez totaling $13,620 dollars for the purpose of Benavente's 20th anniversary dinner back in June and July of 2014.

However, attached to the report is a receipt from the Catholic Cemeteries for $14,280 in reimbursement for Benavente's 20th anniversary dinner.

Not long after Msgr. James' anniversary dinner, he was fired by Archbishop Anthony Apuron as the director of the catholic cemeteries and rector of the cathedral basilica.  

PNC reached out to Msgr. James for his response but he was unavailable for comment as of news time.   

Archdiocesan Annual Appeal Shows Increase

Compared to the last recording, the Archdiocesan Annual Appeal showed an increase.  The following can be found here.   


The following contributions have been made to the Archdiocesan Appeal as of June 10, 2015.

Parish	Turned In	Pledge	Total
Agafa Gumas, Yigo – Santa Bernadita Chapel	3,300.00		3,300.00
Agana Heights-Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament	250.00		250.00
Agana-Cathedral-Basilica	15,206.80	1,060.00	16,266.80
Agat – Our Lady of Mount Carmel	2,603.00	350.00	2,953.00
Asan – Nino Perdido Y Sagrada Familia	3,403.00	720.00	4,123.00
Barrigada – San Vicente Ferrer & San Roke	7,665.00	760.00	8,425.00
Chalan Pago – Nuestra Senora de la Paz y Buen Viaje	2,166.00		2,166.00
Clergy	1,300.00		1,300.00
Dededo – Santa Barbara	3,939.00	16,800.00	20,739.00
Harmon – St. Andrew Kim Catholic Church	3,801.00		3,801.00
Inarajan – St. Joseph	410.00		410.00
Maina – Our Lady of Purification	536.00		536.00
Malojloj – San Isidro	545.00		545.00
Mangilao – Santa Teresita	3,137.41		3,137.41
Merizo – San Dimas	100.00		100.00
Mongmong – Nuestra Senora de las Aguas	625.00		625.00
Ordot – San Juan Bautista	150.00		150.00
Others/Unclassified	300.00		300.00
Piti – Assumption of Our Lady	1,515.00		1,515.00
Santa Rita – Our Lady of Guadalupe	4,956.00		4,956.00
Sinajana – St. Jude Thaddeus	2,633.00		2,633.00
Talofofo – San Miguel	100.00		100.00
Tamuning – St. Anthony & St. Victor	3,210.00	500.00	3,710.00
Toto – Immaculate Heart of Mary	150.00		150.00
Tumon – Blessed Diego Luis De San Vitores	2,130.00		2,130.00
Umatac – San Dionisio	300.00		300.00
Yigo – Our Lady of Lourdes	14,977.79		14,977.79
Yona – San Francisco De Asis	425.00		425.00
TOTAL:	79,834.00	20,190.00	100,024.00

The Truth About RMS Property

The following was taken from today's Umatuna:

-------------------------------
Archdoicese of Agana Statement

To dispel groundless rumors and in the service to the truth to the Catholic faithful of Guam, the Archdiocese of Agana has diligently taken steps to clarify the canonical and civil status of the property housing the Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary Redemptoris Mater and the Blessed Diego Luis de San Vitores Theological Institute for Oceania.  Therefore, three reports related to the property on which both archdiocesan entities stand are available to the public by contacting the Chancery office in Hagatna (San Ramon Hill). 

First the Ownership Report - 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]. 

Second, the Civil Law Report - 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."  

(c) Conclusion:  "For those lawyers who regularly practice this specialized area of religious Institutions law, including the intersection of canon and secular law, the conclusion reached here that the Archbishop is in control of the property would not be at all controversial."  

Third, the Canon Law Report - 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]

Conclusion:  What has been aforementioned demonstrates clearly that all rumors, opinions and writings contrary to the aforesaid documents are showing only slanderous intentions aiming to disturb the communion of the People of God with grave moral responsibility of the authors. 

Internal Report: Part II

There are already 100 comments in my post "Internal Report of Cathedral Bascilica and Catholic Cemeteries," and it appears that people still want to discuss this topic. There has also been a few divergent comments under that thread, so please folks do not diverge from the main OP as much as possible.  

I only included part of the report, which stated the following: 

Between January 2009 and July 2014, Msgr. Benavente received payments of $326,913.61 by simultaneously drawing payroll and stipends from the Catholic Cemeteries, and stipend 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 Msgr. Benavente 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 Msgr. Benavente, a gas card, and cellular/data phone privileges, which were paid for by The Catholic Cemeteries, accounted for an additional $23,000.  Notably, $13,000 of cemetery funds were paid for Msgr. Benavente's 20th Anniversary reception.  Total advances documented between January 2009 and July 2014 by both entities for Msgr. Benavente are nearly $475,000.  This does not include cemetery family crypts valued at 380,000.00, which were gifted by Msgr. Benavente to his close friend and family: in other words, no fee was charged for these cemetery plots.

The rest of the Internal Report can be found in the Archdiocese of Agana website: 

http://www.aganaarch.org/8188/archdiocesan-internal-review-report-cathedral-basilica-catholic-cemeteries-2/

It was Monsignor James who first brought the scandal of financial mismanagement to the media. The first time the public heard of the financial mismanagement of Monsignor James did not come from the Archbishop. It came through Tim Rohr's blog, which is a social media. It was on July 26, 2014 when Tim first posted about hearing the removal of Monsignor Benavente.

It was in the morning of July 26th when a letter from the Archbishop was delivered to Monsignor James. This letter did not go to the Media. It only went to Monsignor James. Monsignor James then wrote a letter to the employees of the Catholic Cemeteries, the Catholic Gift Shop, and the Catholic-Bascillica informing them of his removal. That letter (which stated "Confidential") was given to Tim Rohr and published on his blog.  It was through Junglewatch that the public learned about the reason for Monsignor's removal.   

At 9:17 pm, KUAM picked up the story because someone sent KUAM the same letter. It was also through Junglewatch that the public learned the reason for Monsignor Benavente's removal.  Tim Rohr published the following information of Monsignor James Benavente on Saturday, July 26, 2014. 

http://www.junglewatch.info/2014/07/msgr-james-benavente-removed-as-rector.html

This was where it all started.  The Umatuna did not mention any financial mismanagement. It only mentioned that Monsignor James was transferred and that Monsignor David would take over his position.  Now, CCOG wants to know why the Archdiocese released the Internal Report regarding Monsignor James and not privately speak to Monsignor James about it.  I think they should start from the beginning and ask why did Monsignor James went to the media first to reveal the scandal regarding himself.