Thursday, August 1, 2019

The Conspiracy to Destroy Guam RMS

Image result for Mother Dawn, GuamIt was in 2010 when the Pacific Daily News reported the incredible story of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Yona.  According to that news report (the bold is mine): 
 He provided us with the building that is now our seminary, a previous hotel, built by Japanese, somewhat along the lines of a Spanish monastery. It was place too big for our little faith, but for God nothing is impossible. When God gives, He gives abundantly! Imagine, a property worth millions acquired by the diocese for free! 
Yes, the Lord provided the place and the benefactors to make the purchase possible. Seek and you will find! Thus the new facility gave lots of room to accommodate more seminarians and to create new liturgical spaces needed in our formation.
In 2010, Father Pius mentioned to the Pacific Daily News that the benefactors made the purchase of the seminary possible; however, he never said who those benefactors were.  On August 3, 2014, Father Pius once again told the Pacific Daily News that an off-island benefactor helped make the purchase of the seminary possible; and once again, he never named who that off-island benefactor was.  According to news report (the bold is mine): 
The money for the purchase of the hotel was donated to the archdiocese by an off-island benefactor who offered it with the explicit intention of erecting the seminary and the theological institute. The previous owner of the hotel sold it for just $1.9 million with the proviso that the building be used as an educational facility. Actually, the archdiocese did not put down a penny.
None of the NCW members knew who that off-island benefactor was.  They were never told by the catechists or by Archbishop Apuron.  In fact, there were a lot of speculations in the NCW as to who the benefactor was.  Some NCW members such as Jeff Skvaril thought the benefactor was a rich NCW member in Guam.  On August 12, 2014, Jeff Skvaril wrote the following letter to the Voice of the People in the Pacific Daily News.  According to Mr. Skvaril:
The Redemptoris Mater Seminary did not cost the archdiocese one penny to establish but was a gift of God to the people of Guam, bought and paid for by an anonymous Guam resident. 
Other NCW members thought that the benefactor was a rich NCW member from the States.  As it turned out, the NCW members were incorrect.  All these were speculations because the leaders of the NCW NEVER revealed who the benefactor was.  HOWEVER, Tim Rohr already knew who the benefactor was since November 26, 2013.  Tim Rohr wrote on November 26, 2013 in his blog (the bold is mine):
Arrangements were made to purchase the property on terms, but the completion of the purchase was accelerated when the archdiocese received a large gift to assist in the purchase of the property through a religious order based in the states. 
The gift had the condition that the source remain absolutely anonymous. The condition of anonymity was critical because the donor did not want to hurt the religious order through which it came, and of which, there is a branch on Guam. 
While NCW members were speculating that the benefactor was an anonymous wealthy NCW member, Tim Rohr already knew that the donation came from a "religious order" of which there was a branch on Guam.  How did he know that the donation came from a religious order?  None of the NCW ever suspected the donation came from any religious order.  Most of us suspected it came from a wealthy NCW member from Guam or the U.S.   

Then on August 6, 2014, Mother Dawn told Tim Rohr the NAME of the donor or the NAME of that "religious order.", and that information was published on Junglewatch on August 6, 2014.  According to Junglewatch:
The 2 million dollar gift to purchase the Yona property did not fall from heaven. Mother Dawn, because she is devoted to our Catholic Church, spearheaded the effort to find a donor through her order and specifically through her fellow Carmelites in St. Louis, Missouri. 

Through the Carmelites in St. Louis, Mother Dawn was able to identify a donor, a private person, who agreed to give the money on two conditions:
  • That the gift be used to purchase a defunct hotel property for the "purpose of a seminary"
  • That the identity of the donor NOT be made known
Archbishop Apuron immediately proceeded to violate both of those conditions:
As many of us already know, Mother Dawn came out on November 2016 and spoke to KUAM.  According to KUAM news (the bold is mine):
In a rare press conference, Mother Dawn talked to local media to share her side of the story relating to the RMS property in Yona. You see, after years of speculation about who was the mystery $2 million benefactor that allowed for the archdiocese's acquisition of the RMS property.
She finally came out, saying all it took was a phone call to her Carmelite sisters in the US mainland.  "There was no he, it was a she - and it was me," she said.  "So the truth of where the money came from is as easy as that." 
According to the mother superior, her wish to remain anonymous was not respected. 
Mother Dawn stated that her wish to remain anonymous was not respected.  The truth was....it was respected.  Archbishop Apuron nor Father Pius ever revealed the identity of the donor.  The NCW members also did not know the identity of the donor.  It was Mother Dawn HERSELF who revealed the donor's identity on social media back in August 6, 2014. August 6, 2014 was the day the donor's identity was made public through Junglewatch and was the beginning of the conspiracy to bring down not only Archbishop Apuron, but also Guam RMS. Why Mother Dawn chose to reveal the name of the donor is something only she can answer herself since it was she who identified the donor through social media on August 6, 2014.   

20 comments:

  1. Why are you bringing up the past? History is done and you can’t change it. What does it all matter now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 3:38 am,

      You do not seem at all shocked by this information. Could it be because you already knew? Eventually, the truth will come out because the truth is always stronger than all the lies put together. Those who read this information about Mother Dawn now know that her accusation against Archbishop Apuron was false. It was never Archbishop Apuron who revealed the donor’s identity as Mother Dawn claimed. This truth is now out. Can you imagine if other truths came out?

      Delete
    2. The truth came out through mother dawn. So why are you still dwelling on it? Was the truth not enough that you need to relive it? Brother tony was already stripped by the pope. Were the facts in his case made up as well? Why not bring up brother Tony’s trial too since all that’s happened in Guam’s church was under his watch.

      Delete
    3. Why should anyone feel shocked when it seems that you can’t move forward and just want to relive the past as if the past can be changed. Why not just look forward and make a better future?

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 7:27 am and 7:28 am,

      On the contrary, Mother Dawn came out with false accusation, and the truth is eventually coming out. The NCW have moved on. It is the jungle who continues to seek the destruction of the NCW. They have not moved on; therefore, the truth will come. The people of Guam (especially those who were blinded) deserve to know the truth.

      Delete
    5. I agree. Obviously, JW deliberately destroyed Apuron and RMS using lies, and they haven’t stopped. They go after the Way with lies.

      Delete
    6. I think the only ones who were blinded were the ones who assumed brother tony was innocent. The case with brother tony was not based on heresay but rather on facts.

      Delete
    7. Dear Anonymous at 9:11 am,

      On the contrary, I laid down the facts including the date,, which even you cannot dispute. Mother Dawn told Tim Rohr the identity of the donor, and that information was published on Junglewatch on August 6, 2014. Two years LATER, in November 2016, she came out on KUAM, accusing Archbishop Apuron of revealing the identity of the donor, when in truth......she was one responsible of revealing the donor’s identity.

      Delete
    8. @Anon. 9:11 am. Get over it! Mother Dawn framed AB Apuron for what she did. Diana laid down the facts. The donor’s identity was known through JW social media since 2014, and it wasn’t Apuron who revealed it. So get over it! The truth about Mother Dawn has come out!

      Delete
  2. WOW! 😲 A nun making false accusations against AB Apuron. Wonder how much she got paid to make up this fabrication. She don’t deserve to be a nun. She should be defrocked if there’s such a thing for a nun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s like saying brother tony made false accusations too. Wonder how much he got paid

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 9:13 am,

      And what false accusation would that be when Archbishop Apuron remained in the humility of silence most of the time? The topic of this post is what Mother Dawn did on August 6, 2014.

      Delete
    3. Brother Tony still maintains his innocence even after the tribunal found him guilty. How is that remaining silent with humility?

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 11:52 am,

      As you already see from this post, Archbishop Apuron was set up from the beginning. This Carmelite nun came out, accusing the Archbishop of revealing the donor’s identity, when in truth, it was her all along. And when the truth finally came out, even you cannot dispute it. Other truths will eventually come out because the truth is stronger than all the lies put together.

      Delete
  3. Is she still a nun?

    ReplyDelete
  4. and a Carmelite nun... supposed to be in seclusion not on social media... devious woman...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can you tell us more about this? I'd want to find out some additional information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 10;10 am.

      The only additional information I would like to know would have to be from Mother Dawn. I would like to know WHY she did what she did.

      Delete
  6. The facts re opening RM Seminary are these:

    1. Archbishop Apuron, attesting the poor formation that our priests were receiving from the mainland, decided to open an Archdiocesan Seminary on island.
    2. He did not have the resources. So he asked the Neocatechumenal Way to help the Archdiocese run this seminary. To help a. bring seminarians here and b. organize the studies and formation. (Eventually an Institute was created and affiliated to the most prestigious theological University in the world – the Lateran University in Rome).
    3. The Neocatechumenal Way decided to help the Church in Guam.
    4. Regards the location, Archbishop Apuron found out that Hotel Accion was available for sale. With the help of his financial advisors, he negotiated a good price. Two million dollars including furniture and...everything.
    5. Archdiocese starts paying the initial monthly installments.
    6. Mother Dawn, on her own initiative, decides to ask her mother community in Saint Louis to susidize the whole enterprise. Her community agrees.
    7. (It is fake news that she or her community did not know that the Seminary will be run by the Neocatechumenal Way.)
    8. (It is also fake news that this seminary is a seminary for/of the Neocatechumenal Way. This Seminary was of and for the Archdiocese. It was simply run by the Neocatechumenal Way as other seminaries are run for example by the Sulpicians.)
    9. Before its existance, the Archdiocese suffered from lack of vocations and lack of Archdiocesan priests. The only solution the Archdiocese had was importing priests temporarily mainly from the Philippines.
    10. During its existance, it produced excellent fruits – good, solid,holy priests and a number of local vocations. Most of these priests are still working on island. Others were told to look for other dioceseses.
    11. And as regards money (which seems to bother some people so much), the Redemptoris Mater Seminary was by far the most cost effective and cost efficient solution.
    12. No one knows why Mother Dawn changed colors. I can guess but it is just a conjecture.

    These are the facts. Anyone who says otherwise, does not know what he is talking about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Anyone who says otherwise, does not know what he is talking about." Or else, knows it exactly but has the intention to deceive. -- I've seen both kinds.

      Delete