KUAM news reported the Archdiocese response to CCOG's claims regarding the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. Yet, despite the Archdiocese coming out with an explanation, I could bet that the jungle would just declare it to be lies. Nevermind the fact that even Father Pius came out with the same explanation five months ago. I could also bet that CCOG is not going to believe the Archdiocese. Why? Because they already stated in their press release that statements coming from the Archdiocese are unreliable. At any rate, according to the news report (the highlight is mine):
Guam - As the Concerned Catholics of Guam organization met with a delegation from the Vatican on island for a pastoral visit late this afternoon, the Archdiocese of Agana responds to the findings of the group's investigation into the Redemptoris Mater Seminary - and according to Father Adrian Cristobal the multimillion dollar property remains an asset of the archdiocese, despite claims and documents provided by the CCOG.
Father Cristobal, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Agana, is responding to recent concerns raised by the group which believes the seminary property is no longer an asset of the archdiocese and that the seminary is not following its intended mission to form young men into diocesan priests.
In response to questions submitted in writing to the archdiocese, Father Adrian says that could not be further from the truth 'this is totally false" . Father Adrian says the title is listed in the property of the Archdiocese of Agana. Matter of fact he also states that the property came into the archdiocese thanks to the Neocatechumenal Way.
He also responds to the CCOG's contention that in December 2011 Archbishop Anthony Apuron signed off on a declaration of deed against the advice of the Archdiocese Finance Council. Father Adrian again denies those allegations. He says it was the other way around and that the council wanted to alienate the property " in fact had the intention to sell the property to cover the debt incurred by the cathedral and catholic cemeteries."
Father Adrian said that the establishment of a diocesan seminary and a prestigious theological institute are "goods" of such paramount importance for the life of the diocese that to think to sell the property to cover a deficit is "unthinkable and it would be irresponsible for the archbishop to even harbor that idea. The seminary and the institute are both essential to help the evangelization in the Pacific." and cites that Canon Law 114 requires that a seminary possess the means necessary for fulfilling its goals including the stability of the property on which it is operating.
So who exactly has control over the RMS? According to Father Adrian the Archbishop of Agana, in this case Archbishop Anthony Apuron. While the CCOG contends that the archbishop no longer has control Father Adrian say, "I do not know who invents these things: the Redemptoris Mater Seminary is a corporation sole which means that it is governed exclusively by only one member the Archbishop of Agana." Meanwhile the CCOG believes that the archbishop is only 25% of the RMS corporation. Father Adrian acknowledges that the archbishop does have two boards to assist in matters pertaining to the seminary. A board of directors and a board of guarantors but stresses that the board of guarantors does not manage the seminary. He adds the directors and guarantors are appointed by the archbishop and "he can change them whenever there is a need".
Meanwhile KUAM News has also learned that the former finance council that advised against the 2001 Declaration of Deed has a meeting scheduled with the visitors from the Vatican.
http://www.kuam.com/global/story.asp?s=27778683
The points I highlighted above are similar things that Father Pius told the media FIVE MONTHS AGO. Again, we have not changed our story. Finally, the Archdiocese has now revealed that it was the Finance Council who wanted to sell the seminary to pay the debts incurred by the cathedral and the Catholic cemeteries. The "perpetual use" keeps that from happening and ensured that the donor's wish was granted. The donor attached a tie to the money that he freely gave to the Archdiocese. He donated the money with the explicit intention that it be used to build a seminary. The finance council had no respect to the donor's intention, which prompted the Archbishop to file a "perpetual use" deed.
The Redemptoris Mater Seminary did NOT come from the people of Guam. It came as a result of the Neocatechumenal Way. So, the Way has contributed TO GUAM by building a seminary FOR GUAM. Contrary to what is being said in the jungle and worldwide by anti-Neo websites the NCW has contributed to the Catholic parishes and the Catholic Church, but the NCW members do it anonymously. We do not want accolades and praises for the good things we do for the Catholic Church, which is the reason why the donor wishes to remain anonymous. The donor also walks in the Way and is practicing what the Catholic Church teaches, which is not to seek the praises of this world nor build up treasures on earth.
yup while the Archbishop travel to Rome the Finance council tried to sell the property with out him knowing it. The last council just disrespected him across the board. This is a FACT Jungle and it's very true!
ReplyDeleteI believe scripture describes the situation well;
ReplyDeletego and say to these people;
Listen and listen but never understand! Look and look but never perceive
These people's heart is torpid, their ears dulled, they have shut their eyes tight to avoid using their eyes to see, their ears to hear, using their heart to understand, changing their ways and being healed by me.
ACTS 28 verses 26-27
the passage to time reveals the truth; the rohrs of the jungle, the intellect of the whites, the chatter of the chatholics of Guam cannot further more deny the exposure of their false...half truth claims....lies...and accusations.
Our human nature prepares us for further persecutions and nastiness but unknown to them, it is necessary for our salvation. Nothing...nothing coming from them can separate us from God.
The CCOG website displays as one of the items of the mission of CCOG is "Give the laity an official voice in the governance of the archdiocese"
ReplyDeleteCCOG is anything but official in the Church. The faithful have the right to organize themselves into associations, but they need to seek approval from the hierarchy. This group is clearly against the hierarchy: they are the rarest possible away from official. I hope the delegation gently lets them know that when they meet.
The jungle have always been saying that the Archbishop wanted to give the seminary to the Redemptoris Mater Corporation, which is true. But the jungle left out the part where the Finance Council wanted to SELL the seminary to pay off the debts of the cathedral and Catholic cemeteries. They did know the reasons why the Archbishop did what he did.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be new information that just came out of thin air after months of being in question. I'm talking about Fr. Adrians remarks that the Finance council wanted to sell off the property in Yona to pay off the CB and Catholic Cemetaries debts. Why is this being made known only now by the Chancery? Is it even true? Financial statements that have been produced show that the loans taken out to finance projects for CB and CC are in good shape financially. They were not behind in payments and had managed to bring the debt down significantly. I find it far reaching that the Finance Council of the Archdiocese would even suggest that selling the Yona property was even an option unless they were in danger of being in default or significantly behind in payments which would cause financial harm to the Archdiocese.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the proof of Fr. Adrians statement that the AFC was the initiators of selling the Yona Property to "specifically" cover the debts of the CB and CC? I for one would like to see that proof before making judgement. A statement just doesnt cut it anymore!
Just so you know, many many many people are waking up to this situation and division in our Archdiocese and like me, the days of the Chancery issuing responses and statements and expecting all catholics on Island to believe and follow blindly is now a thing of the past.
I have nothing against the NCW. I have made and still am making every effort to understand your itinerary. Worship our Father in Heaven, Jesus our Savior and trust in the Holy Spirit that what you do is to further the Kingdom of God here on Earth. That's all good and proper.
What I and many now see as the problem are our Spiritual leaders who cannot seem to get our Archdiocese united again. This finger pointing of he said she said, they started it, we didnt do anything wrong is so ridiculous to read in the blogs and in the media and does not show that either side is willing to capitulate unless some heads start rolling. Maybe we do need an impartial outsider to come in and sort out this mess!
Dear Anonymous at 1:17 pm,
DeleteThis is NOT new information. Father Pius came out on August 2, 2014 and told the media that certain people wanted to sell the property. According to the PDN dated August 2, 2014:
The whole discussion on the property of the Accion Hotel began two to three years ago because certain individuals wanted to sell the building to pay their debts.
http://www.guampdn.com/article/20140803/NEWS01/308030001/Sect-cannot-possess-seminary-Priest-explains-about-Neocatechumenal-Way
This news came out FIVE MONTHS AGO, but Tim Rohr and the jungle were so busy saying "lies, lies, lies," that they did not even read what was being said. Now, you are saying that this is new information. This information was given to you five months ago, and it is only today that you are acting surprised???
Now, you are asking for evidence? It is the jungle folks who have been screaming, "Lies, lies, lies, lies." In fact, they only told half the truth by keeping out the part where certain individuals wanted to sell the property. Therefore, since the jungle made the accusation that we lied, then they have to provide the evidence of these lies.
Show the evidence about wanting to sell the property to pay off debts. Words are nothing anymore! Written document t is what most of us want to see! Words, words, words,...meaningless without documentation!
DeleteDiana, You ALL, both sides, need to show evidence when you accuse each other of wrongdoings. Or am I sheep that I should take at face value what Pius, Fr. Adrian, you or the Jungle people say without evidence of wrongdoing? You are all just slinging mud without proof.
DeleteNow listen carefully to what I ask, "Where is the proof of Pius' and Fr. Adrians statements?" This will go a long way to clearing things up and give solid reason why the Archbishop had cause to "safeguard" the Yona Property.
Dear Anonymous at 2:17 pm,
DeleteWhy don't you ask those who were in the Finance Council? After all, they only told Tim Rohr half the truth. Don't you think they should have told the whole truth? It is true that the Archbishop wanted to give the seminary to the Redemptoris Mater Incorporation. So, why didn't they tell the other half of the story? Why didn't they tell the reason why they objected the Archbishop? After all, the title of the seminary would still be under the Archdiocese. They just cannot use the seminary for collateral. So, go back to the former Finance Council and have them explain the reasons why they objected to the Archbishop's proposal. Let them tell the whole story instead of half the story.
Just hold on a minute, Diana. The assignment of the property occurred in November of 2011. It wasn't until August 2014 that Pius stated that "certain individuals" wanted to sell the property to pay debts. Apart from the fact that he didn't say that the Finance Council wanted to sell it, we have learnt not to believe a word that comes out of Pius' mouth (Ernie too!)
DeleteI second the question raised by Anon at 1.17pm, namely "Where is the proof of Fr. Adrians statement that the AFC was the initiators of selling the Yona Property to "specifically" cover the debts of the CB and CC"
Can you answer that? Or is it simply another case of "we were told by Pius" (Ernie)?
Dear Anonymous at 2:21 pm,
DeleteSee my response to Anonymous 2:17 pm. We already gave you our side of the story five months ago. Now, let's see if CCOG is actually going to investigate the former Finance Council if they are really interested in finding out the truth.
Investigation means to listen to both sides to get to the bottom of the truth. Father Adrian already said that it was the Finance Council that wanted to sell the property. If the Archbishop REALLY wanted to sell the property, he would NOT have placed the "perpetual use" deed in which the building can ONLY be used as a seminary.
Are you being deliberately obtuse Diana? The assignment means that the Archdiocese has essentially passed this asset to another entity. That is not only imprudent but, and here's the real issue, it would appear that the Archbishop does not have the authority to do this on his own, but must secure the consent of the Finance Council, as per the instructions of Archbishop Balvo.
DeleteWhat is your response to that? What has Pius or Adrian to say about that?
Dear Anonymous at 3:25 pm,
DeleteDid you not read Tim Rohr's time line? Richard Untalan and the Finance Council rejected the Archbishop's proposal on September 8, 2011. It is Tim Rohr's blog and Untalan's letter can be found in the weblink below:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/251151110/Richard-Untalan-letter-to-Fr-Rodriguez
So, it was in 2011 when the DEBATE over the property was already occurring. The Finance Council rejected the property to be turned over to the Redemptoris Mater Inc. in September, 2011. On November, 2011, the Archbishop filed a "perpetual use" deed, in which the property cannot be mortgaged, sold, or be used for other purposes. Why don't you ask the former Finance Council what was going on in 2011 that prompted the Archbishop to file a "perpetual use" deed?
INVESTIGATE THE FINANCE COUNCIL TOO!!!
DeleteYOU PEOPLE HAVE A PERSONAL VENDETTA AGAINST THE COMMUNITIES AND ARE JUST MAD BECAUSE OF THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE ARCHBISHOP!
LISTEN! HE IS THE APPOINTED ARCHBISHOP! HE CAN MOVE A PRIEST TO ANY PARISH HE WANTS! HE HAS THAT AUTHORITY. BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOO, THEY WANNA CRY AND COMPLAIN.
YOU PEOPLE HAVE AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE. JUST FREAKIN ADMIT IT ALREADY!
DROP YOUR STONES...BETTER YET, SINCE YOU'RE ALL SOOOOOOOO PERFECT, THEN THROW THEM AT THE BISHOP. (And if you think I mean this literally, you're more wrong than I thought)
Dear Anonymous at 3:34 pm,
DeleteWhat I find amazing in all this discussion is that in the first place, YOUR money did not purchase this seminary. It did not belong to you or any of the people of Guam because they did not buy it. The money never came from the people of Guam. It came from a wealthy off-island benefactor with a stipulation attached to it. The title of the property is still under the Archdiocese just as Tim Rohr says. The only thing is.....you cannot count it as an asset due to the "perpetual use" deed attached to it. And it should NOT be counted as an asset. Why? Because the purpose of the building is to be used as a seminary just as the donor stipulated. The Archbishop made sure of that. If the Archbishop does not have the authority to do that as you say.......then why are you complaining. I'm sure Rome will reprimand him on it. But so far, Rome has been supportive of the Archbishop, which leads me to believe that the Archbishop did the right thing.
Besides, why are you complaining? Your money did not go into purchasing the seminary anyway.
"Besides, why are you complaining? Your money did not go into purchasing the seminary anyway."
DeleteIts always about the money for you isn't it Diana. As for me I trust in God and don't obsess about money the way you do.
No, this is about lies within our Church. They are not to be tolerated - lies and liars should be rejected, and certainly removed from authority. If there is one thing we have learned about the NCW in recent months, its that all of you, from top to bottom, feel perfectly entitled to lie if it suits your purposes. I have had this experience myself recently. It is now what we expect from you all.
Dear Anonymous at 4:06 pm,
DeleteActually, it is the other way around. I support the Archbishop on this. His action made sure that no one can get collateral on the property. The ones complaining the are ones who wanted the collateral on the property.
No, the ones complaining are the ones that are fed up with lies and deceit. You deceive yourself every time you frame this issue as though the NCW critics were rubbing their dirty hands together, beady eyes shifting around, salivating at the idea of getting this rich asset. In fact, as we can see by the letter by Richard Untalan to Fr Rodriguez, that you referred to above, the only ones that wanted to get their hands on this property were your lot! That letter was written in response to the NCW requesting a transfer of title! Given the opposition by the finance Council to this request, the best you could get out of the Archbishop was the Deed.
DeleteTalk about hypocritical!
So are you saying that they could have sold the property without the Archbishop's approval?
DeleteAnyone could have wanted or suggested to sell the property, but only AAA can allow the transfer or sale of ownership. There was no need for him to protect it.
DeleteWe will see...
DeleteCourage Diana! God is with you.
DeleteArchbishop Apuron reminds me of that the Church refers to as the "Suffering Servant"
DeleteMay God continue to be with him!
Dear Anonymous at 4:52 pm,
DeleteI do not think that they can sell the property without the Archbishop's approval. And that probably explains their desperation of removing the Archbishop at all cost and reinstating Monsignor James and Father Paul. I am pretty sure they may want Monsignor James to be the next Archbishop.
Dear Anonymous at 4:54 pm,
DeleteIn light of what is happening today, I think he did the right thing. If I was the Archbishop, I would feel very threatened and would actually hire a bodyguard 24 hours. Have you seen the viciousness of the jungle??? As a result, there was already one fanatic who slashed the Archbishop's tires.
The Archbishop is being called "evil incarnate" and many other despicable things. Tim Rohr even stated that he hopes that the Archbishop would be severely ill so he could be removed. The jungle is a hate blog, and there is no telling what would happen if there is a deranged lunatic who reads it and believes every word of it especially the part where Tim stated that the Archbishop is "evil incarnate."
Dear Anonymous at 4:22 pm,
DeleteOur lot contributed to the seminary, and we did not use the property to gain any profit from it, but to produce priests for Guam and the evangelization of the Catholic faith.
Look at what Tim Rohr is saying in the jungle nowAnswer: Prior to June 2008, many things. After June 2008, nothing.
ReplyDeleteWhy June 2008?
In June 2008, the Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way (NCW) received final approval.
The Statute of the NCW is its charter, it's "birth certificate". Like any legally constituted association, that association only legitimately exists when it is in compliance with its charter. Outside the charter, it ceases to exist, either ipso facto or or by a formal se
Anonymous January 8, 2015 at 1:17 PM
ReplyDeleteYou have a point that a sound...logical mind would make to understand this mess. But look at the facts as we know it.
However, two (2) entities of the Archdiocese, the Agana Cathedral-Basilica and Catholic Cemeteries of Guam, Inc. have about seven million dollars of indebtedness which has been reduced only marginally and which accounts for about one quarter of the total indebtedness of the Archdiocese of Agana.
Moreover, Deloitte & Touche has determined that the accounting practices, especially of the Catholic Cemeteries of Guam, Inc., are “inappropriate”. Deloitte and Touche, listing the cases of inappropriate accounting, concluded that an audit is not possible until appropriate accounting has been reestablished in The Catholic Cemeteries of Guam, Inc.
A logical mind would ask...would question; how can this be if we have a diligent and responsible finance committee headed by a equally responsible priest.
I would assume otherwise.
another fact..........what is the percentage a realtor would make on a 35-70 million dollar sale? Oh my....mr. jungle man himself is a realtor in real life.
how does one justify 7 million dollars of debt?
Finance committee state Deloitte & Touche audit findings are wrong......hiding....
no...no...the Arch Bishop is responsible.........more hiding.....more misdirection.
another fact.....business people in all industries do not tell the whole truth.
ANONYMOUS 4:06,
ReplyDeleteMoney? How is Diana "always about the money"? Diana is simply answering these pathetic questions from your Rohrs'.
YOU'RE THE LIAR! YOU ALL SPREAD THE LIES! YOU'RE THE LIAR!
If you "trust in God" then where is the faith that Rome did not make a mistake appointing Archbishop Apuron?
LOOK AT TIM'S BLOG. LOOK WHAT IT ENCOURAGES. LOOK AT THE CONSTANT MOCKERY FROM HIM AND THOSE WHO COMMENT. LOOK AT IT! LOOK AT IT!
ALL YOU GUYS DO IS HATE!
YOU GUYS DON'T WANT PEACE!
YOU GUYS WANT "THE PEOPLE'S PRIEST" TO BE REINSTATED. AAA ACTED WITHIN HIS POWER
PLEASE, SHUT UP ALREADY. YOU GUYS ARE LIKE REPEATING THE SAME THING ALL OVER AGAIN, AND ITS CAUSING DIANA TO REPEAT EVERYTHING.
BE
OPEN
MINDED!
STOP FOLLOWING TIM ROHR!
you got that right
DeleteA Redemptoris Mater Seminary is a diocesan seminary that operates with the help of the NCW. The NCW stuffs these seminaries with vocations, thus resolving the most burning issue of most dioceses (definitely that of the Archdiocese of Agana, which in the past had to resort to importing priests). If an ordinary wants this kind of help in his diocese, he accepts that these vocations come as a result of a faith formation that needs to be continued throughout the seminary formation and later in the life of priestly ministry. If an ordinary does not accept this, that diocese shouldn't have an RMS seminary. It is like when someone wants a cow in order to have it's milk: this person would have to accept the conditions which the cow needs to survive and be able to give milk. Do not get a cow if you are not willing to feed it.
ReplyDeleteTo ensure the proper faith formation of the students, the NCW itinerant team responsible for the Way in the US is included in the board of guarantors of the RMS of Guam. They are the ones responsible for filling it up with students, so think before you want to kick them out. If they are taken out (which is ultimately the decision of the local ordinary, and not of any group of concerned or not concerned individuals), Guam local Church would have to fill her seminary by herself (which, it seems frankly, she wouldn't be able to do).
There are 102 RMS seminaries around the world right now. Apparently all of these seminaries operate successfully to serve the local and the universal Church. To my knowledge, no complaint has EVER surfaced to the effect that the diocesan priests who had been formed in these seminaries are worse than priests formed in other seminaries, or that they showed partiality in their service of the local Church where they had been assigned (such as not serving the whole parish, only the NCW communities), or that they administered the sacraments irreverently. As far as I know, they serve the parishes to the best of their abilities and, once they have done that, nourish their faith through the NCW itinerary.
In view of these facts I must conclude that the RMS seminaries (filled up by the NCW) are an immense plus to the dioceses they operate in, and through their openness and missionary impulse, to the universal Church.
I would invite all those who think or feel that they dislike the existence and operation of the RMS of Guam to ponder these facts, think of the future of the Church in the Pacific and, putting aside their feelings of hurt and anger over some reassigned clergy, support the wise decision of the lawful hierarchy to preserve this gift of the Holy Spirit.
most recent rohr comment on PDN
ReplyDeleteIf Apuron is "in full control of Accion property" then why would the archdiocesan legal counsel, Atty. Ed Terlaje opine as follows:
trohr needs to be at the forefront....to be heard. This is necessary because many Catholics on Guam would rather be lead by a loud drum....by someone popular.
Investigators at crime scene would ascertain very basic questions...who has more to gain from this crime?
the facts are irrefutable.....trohr is a realtor who may have lost out in potentially 4 million dollars in commission fees for the sale of RMS.....$4,000,000.00.
the finance committee did not maintain financial records according to the auditor.
these people have all to gain from the removal of Arch Bishop Apuron.
The RMS will produce priest......Guam needs them...the world needs them....we need them now.
There is nothing more to be said..the decision is now in the hand of the Delegations fro. Rome. Whatever is decided must be accepted. Will the NCW accept the removal or resignation of the Archbishop if it comes to this? Will the others accept the fact that Rome says APURON stays?
DeleteWill there still be disunity because the decision didn't go your way or their way!
There is nothing anyone can do now except pray that there is guidance and all will be able to come in u its for the sake of the Catholic Church!
maybe tim rohr need be aubit
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:36 pm,
DeleteI will accept whatever decision the Vatican officials make. I will accept whatever they simply because I am Catholic. I only hope that they do not tell us that we have to reconcile on our own because obviously we need some guidance or direction. It takes the two groups to want unity and reconciliation. If only one is serious about it and the other is not, it will not work. If one is willing to call meetings for talks and the other is more interested in recording the meetings and publishing it to be mocked at, it will not work.
Remember, we are not the ones going around with recorders nor are we leaking documents out from the chancery. If serious talks are to take place, it starts with listening what the other has to say, and not keep yelling "liar, liar, liar" without hearing what was said . As I pointed out a few times, the information about the seminary was not new information. Father Pius mentioned it Five months ago. As a matter of fact, when the financial report was published, the jungle accused him of publishing an incomplete report because the seminary was not included in it. The Archbishop said that the seminary was not included because it was a separate corporation. And the jungle called him a liar. Now that the jungle found the perpetual use deed, why are they still calling the Archbishop a liar? After all, he did say that the seminary is a separate corporation, and then the jungle starts acting as though this was new information.
Diana, I don't even want to go to the remember this, remember that...one needs to move forward and the first people to call the shots for meetings is the Archbishop. People are tire hearing Adrian speak. He fumbles things. The Archbishop needs to step up to the plate! He is the Shephered, so it is his duty.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:40 pm,
DeleteWhy are you expecting the Archbishop to speak publicly? And what father Adrian does not fumble. His explanation is consistent with what Father Pius said and with what the Archbishopp said after the financial report was published. It is the opposition who is not consistent. First, the Archbishop said that the financial report does not include the seminary because it is a separate corporation. Tim Rohr called him a liar. Well, now that you have the evidence that the seminary is a separate corporation, you are still calling him a liar. So, which is it? Is it a separate corporation or not? Make up your mind.
my dear Diana;
Deleteagain with the half truths, the financial report shown is the LIE, also the article stated seminary and cemetery not shown because separate, TRUE, it further stated will be published later, is now LATER????
Dear Anonymous at 10:14 pm,
DeleteI am sure that there have already found some things out, but I am also certain that they are waiting until all the findings are completed before publishing it. As previously stated, it is a mess and worse than they first thought.
AnonymousJanuary 9, 2015 at 8:14 AM - Agree. Not to mention in great need of evengelization for OCEANIA. They don't see it.
ReplyDelete7:40 PM here..DIANA, I was not talking about the corporation, I was simply stating the word UNITY! Did you light the candle in a deal room and concentrate on the flame that stands for the light of the world? Unity is all I said. I said nothing about corporation, money, etc. so why are you bringing it up? I merely stated that the Archbishop should start the healing process himself and not go throught Father Adrian.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 2:42 pm,
DeleteAnd exactly how do you propose that he do that? Whenever he does come out to speak, he is either called a liar or ridiculed. When John Toves accused him of sexually molesting his cousin, the Archbishop was not even on Guam. He was in Rome. When he returned, he publicly said that the allegations were false, and the jungle were still not satisfied. They want him to SPECIFICALLY say that he is innocent and to put it in WRITING. It is not enough for him to say that the allegations are false. So, how do you propose that he do that?
DIANA, he has to start somewhere....just quit making excuses for him...he needs to take the first step. If he can't do this, there will never be unity...
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:55 pm,
DeleteIn all fairness, he has tried. I also went to the jungle to try and clarify some misconceptions of the Way. All I received from them is accusations and name calling. They did not hear a word I said. Melanie from Tamuning also did the same thing, and all they did was accuse her of being the Archbishop. Like I said, what exactly do you propose that he should do?
1. In John Toves' case, the Archbishop already said that the allegations were false. They were not satisfied and wanted to put it in writing that he is innocent.
2. The Archbishop published the financial report of the Archdiocese showing a surplus. They said it was incomplete and want to see the financial report of the seminary. The Archbishop said that the seminary is a separate corporation. They called him a liar.
3. In the case of Monsignor James, the Archbishop said that he was removed due to financial mismanagement. They called him a liar. Now, Tim Rohr is saying "EVEN if they find financial mismanagement by Monsignor James, it is nothing compared to the financial mismanagement of the Archbishop. So, now Tim is taking a different stand. He is now open to the possibility that there may be financial mismanagement by Monsignor James, but he is comparing that financial mismanagement as LESS.
4. The Archbishop has always said that the seminary in Yona is a separate corporation. They called him a liar. Now, they find evidence at Land Management that the seminary is indeed a separate corporation, but they still call him a liar.
How many times do you need the Archbishop to start somewhere??? You cannot bring unity to someone who never wanted unity in the first place.
HI, seems to me that if we had proceeds from land there would be plenty change left over after paying our debts. But what do I know. Just a thought.
ReplyDelete