Friday, January 31, 2014


Early 2011: Archbishop Apuron is approached by the Neocats to transfer the title to the property currently occupied by the Neocat seminary (RMS), to RMS, a corporation separate from the Archdiocese of Agana, and 75% controlled by foreign Neocats.

September 2011: Because the conveyance of the title involved a transaction valued at over one million dollars, and because it involved an "alienation of the patrimony of the Archdiocese of Agana", the matter, as dictated by Canon law, was put before the Archdiocesan Finance Council (AFC). With the Archbishop present, and with the advice of the archdiocesan legal counsel, four of the five members of the AFC voted to deny the transfer of said title. Further, at the direction of the Archbishop, the president of the AFC, Mr. Richard Untalan, was instructed to write the letter of denial and notify the rector of RMS of the AFC's decision. And so he did.

End of story? Not.

November 16, 2011: Archbishop Apuron writes the AFC stating that the matter of the transfer of title to RMS was erroneously addressed, and rather than an "alienation" of property, it was rather, an "assignment".

November 27, 2011: The archdiocesan legal counsel opines:
As you well know, 'alienation' and 'assignment' are words of distinction without a difference. Any documents containing these words would place a huge cloud on title to real property which would result in a protracted litigation and prohibitive cost to remove such cloud. Do you really want to risk title to the property conservatively valued at 75 million dollars?
The legal counsel went on to say that he had other "serious concerns" raised by the Archbishop's letter and that he would discuss them privately with the finance council.

Between 11/27 and 12/4/11: Mr. Untalan calls a meeting of the AFC on December 6 to discuss normal business as well as to discuss the seminary situation. The seminary situation is Item #5 on the agenda.

Between 11/27 and 12/4/11: Archbishop Apuron, who is off-island, instructs the finance officer, Deacon Steve Martinez, to take Item #5 off the agenda and orders the AFC not to discuss it in his absence. Because the president of the AFC sets the agenda, not the finance officer, Deacon Martinez notifies the president, Mr. Untalan, of the Archbishop's instruction and Mr. Untalan complies. Item #5 is taken off the agenda.

12/5/11 11:55PM: Mr. Untalan sends a reminder email to the other members of the AFC to attend the meeting scheduled for the next day.

12/6/11 7:46AM: The Vicar General, Msgr. David C. Quitugua, believing that Item #5 was still on the agenda, sends an email to Mr. Untalan, accusing him and the other members of the AFC of some nasty stuff:
To deny the Archbishop this right, on the one hand, breaks communion with him and, on the other hand, represents a "vulnus" towards the Archbishop insinuating a form of disrespect towards his person.
(Note: "this right" was the desire of the Archbishop that the AFC would not discuss Item #5 in his absence. "Vulnus" means "wound".)

12/6/11 9:31AM: Mr. Untalan replies to the Vicar General: "I am stunned". Mr. Untalan went on to explain that Item #5 had been taken off the agenda, that it was not going to be discussed in the Archbishop's absence as was his wish, and that the vicious accusation by the Vicar General against him and the rest of the AFC was uncalled for. The meeting was cancelled.

12/6/11 3:38AM (where the Archbishop is at): Archbishop Apuron sends a separate email personally berating Mr. Untalan saying he is "appalled" at Mr. Untalan's disobedience, reiterating that the issue is not to "be discussed until I come home", and to "stop this nonsense."

12/6/11 3:17PM: Mr. Untalan writes the Archbishop: "I am deeply hurt that you would accuse me of disobeying you and that I was creating nonsense..."

1/11/12: Mr. Untalan and the other three members of the AFC who opposed the transfer, in other words all the members except the Vicar General, are terminated en masse by the Archbishop.

More to come. By the way, Mr. Untalan was a member of the same Neocatechumenal community as the Archbishop, lest some think he was anti-Neo.


  1. Was a member? No longer a member? If not, I guess he saw the light and the hell hole he was in.

  2. Shocking beyond words.

  3. The archbishops threats and bullying style is shown once again.
    Would have expected better from Monsignor David. That is not what he was taught in Rome.

    1. And what was Monsignor David taught in Rome? I thought it was canon law. If that's true, then he must have skipped some classes...

      And is that where he first got hooked by "the Way"?

  4. As more and more details are revealed in these posts and comments, the scandal grows. Please Archbishop Apuron, as the leader of the Catholic Church in Guam, you have the responsibility to lead your flock. It's time to address their concerns, complaints, questions, etc... The wounds are festering; healing needs to take place. For the good of the Church, both sides need to come together in humility to dialogue and reconcile. The time is now!

    1. He is in Rome to be a witness to the NEO. Who knows, maybe he will stop by new jersey to see his land partners. O well.

  5. Sister Mary aquinas op . David spent nine years in Rome studying a two year degree. .

    1. After 9 years and he still couldn't get things right? This should not be surprising. Rome obviously gave him his Canon Law degree just to get rid of him. If not he would probably still be there. Kinda sounds like that hate monger Ben LG. I used to think he was a tenured professor at UOG he was there so long. But all that time he was just a student.