(WHO OWNS REDEMPTORIS MATER PART 1 HERE)
On January 11, 2012, Archbishop Apuron terminated the following four of the five members of the Archdiocesan Finance Council:
- Sister Mary Stephen Torres, RSM (treasurer for many years of the Sisters of Mercy of Guam)
- Mr. Joseph Rivera (retired director of the Bureau of Budget and Management)
- Monsignor James Benavente (Rector, Dulce Nombre de Cathedral-Basilica and the person who has spearheaded the massive reconstruction and renovation of the Basilica, the Catholic Cemeteries, and other important projects within the Archdiocese)
- Richard J. Untalan (President, UMC Holdings)
Together, these four members accounted for over 50 years of service on the Finance Council. The one member not terminated?
- Msgr. David C. Quitugua, Vicar General
The reason the four were terminated?
They supported the decision of the Archdiocesan Legal Counsel, Atty. Ed Terlaje, to deny the request of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary to convey or assign the title of the real property upon which the seminary lies to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, a corporate entity separate from the Archdiocese of Agana:
"It would be imprudent and not in its best interest for the Archdiocese to permanently restrict in any way the use of said property, now or in the future, particularly in light of the fact that its market value is at a conservative $75 million (to quote the Archdiocesan Legal Counsel) and is free and clear of any monetary encumbrances. This property alone, if sold, can eliminate the entire debt of the Archdiocese which is one-fourth (1/4) of the market value of said property. To restrict its use in the way that you and your Vicar General/Judicial Vicar have proposed (the assignment of the title of the property from the name of the sitting bishop to a separate public juridic person, the Seminary, which is under the influence and control of persons who are not part of this Archdiocese) would be imprudent, unwise, and totally against the best interest of this Archdiocese. As our learned legal counsel opined, “alienation” and “assignment” are “words of distinction without a difference”, and the proposed assignment “will place a huge cloud on the title of the property”.
After 50 combined years of service, the Archbishop's letter of termination arrived abruptly and without notice, via postage mail.
The stench of Cuesta San Ramon.
ReplyDeleteIF the Archbishop did,or intends to give title to the Redemptorist Seminary, then he is the biggest FOOL within the community. It seems that he only thinks of the livelihood of those in the WAY.
ReplyDeleteThe plea for the Archdiocesan Annual Appeal? Sell the property! There. Will more than enough to educated the seminarians, fix our dilapidated churches and feed the hungry. If not, then ask those in the community especially the doctors, lawyers, and Indian chiefs to contribute at 100% more than they give.
I would love to live in comfort, with a view overlooking the ocean, but I can't afford it. I make do with what I have. Sorry Buddy, this year my Annual Appeal will personally go to charitable organizations. It may not be much but at least I can make the lives of those in need a bit more comfortable.
My friends in the Chancery and clergy tell me that the Fr Pius etc came up with the idea to have the Archbishop give the Neo Seminary full ownership of that multimillion dollar land and building because dont forget the Archbishop two years in a row had heart problems and surgery. Plus he is not far from the retirement age (praise the Lord!) So even the Neos are not that dumb and they see the wiritng on the wall. The days when they control the Archbishop of Agana are not going to last forever. If the new Archbishop who takes over in 7 or 8 years is not a puppet of the Neos then the Neos can sell the Redemtorist Mater Seminary lock stock and barrel and run off the the states with 50 million or more. My sources which some are priests told me that even the Archbishop admitted this to the finance council that the Neos dont feel secure living in that old hotel until full legal ownership is theirs and no new archbishop can kick them out, or they can sell it with nobody's say so. Guam is so small there are no secrets here. Poor Neos. We got your number.
DeleteThere are those who believe that the Archbishop can do whatever he wants on behalf of the NCW and nothing will happen because members of the Church hierarchy protect each other. There are those who believe that what the Archbishop has done and/or is doing — his public implication on KOLG that he will follow Kiko Argüello and not the Pope, his threatening and bullying priests in his plan to force formation of NCW communities in all parishes, his failure to provide due process to Fr. Paul Gofigan coupled with his calumniating of Fr. Paul and Mr. Lastimoza, his attempts to transfer RMS to the NCW, etc. — are wrong but are too afraid to do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteAnd then there are those who scoff at our concerns about the NCW, calling them “overreactions,” because the actions of the NCW “doesn’t affect” them. Anybody who truly cares about the future of the Church in Guam needs to do the research about this movement. It is truly more PROTESTANT than Catholic and the Archbishop of Guam is an active member.
Wake up, people — do your research and learn about this threat to our Church on Guam. Write your letter of concern to the Apostolic Delegate as others and I have done. We cannot let our Church fall into the hands of the NCW. We are the Church Militant — WE MUST FIGHT FOR OUR FAITH, WE MUST FIGHT FOR OUR CHURCH ON GUAM!
anonymous at 9:47AM. There are more than one groups right here on our island that need our money. Kamalen Karidat, St Dominics. I belong to a parish that used to be Capuchin. Now we have a neo priest. Even though he's a nice person, i cannot support his movement. My money is going to the Capuchins. They also have young men studying and hopefully we would get more Capuchin priests because at one time they were going down in number. My heart will always be with them.
ReplyDeleteI thinks it's time that someone conduct a title search of the seminary property to find out who owns it. The archbishop's legal relationship to the archdiocese is that of a trustee. He has a fiduciary duty to manage the assets of the archdiocese for the exclusive benefit of the archdiocese and its members. If he indeed transferred the seminary to the NCW, then he may have violated that fiduciary duty. If he has received income or other things of value from the NCW, that would only increase the impropriety of his transfer of the seminary to the NCW.
ReplyDeleteTim,
ReplyDeleteThank you for providing us with this information. Does the Archbishop, Msgr. David Quitigua, and Fr. Adrian Cristobal really think that the flock whom they shepherd are bunch of IDIOTS! They think that the people in the pews don't know what they, the leadership of San Ramon are doing? They think that the people in the pews are going to simply ignore what they've done to the members of the Finance Council whom they fired. I have great admiration for all of these four members of the Finance Council who did the right thing by rejecting the Archbishop, Msgr. Quituga, and Fr. Cristobal's attempt to rob our Archdiocese of our contributions. Thank goodness we have members of our church who were courageous enough to stand up to the Archbishop! The Archbishop had no idea what he was getting himself into when he fired them. Great move Msgr. Quitugua, on your part in telling the Archbishop that the former members of the Finance Council were the enemies of the NCW.
It's time for them to reveal their lies. It's time for the Archbishop, Msgr. David Quituga, and Fr. Adrian Cristobal to reveal the lies they have been covering up:
1. Why they fired the members of the Finance Council
2. Reveal the real reason why the Archdiocese was ordered by the Vatican to conduct an audit
3. Reveal the letter from the Vatican stating such an order
Regarding the Archdiocesan appeal, why should we now fund your seminary when you were so ready to give our property away? The Archdiocese, we highly suspect, have been funding the seminary all these years. So, why do we in the pews need to support them now?
I encourage all my brothers and sisters in the pews to restrict their contributions to our parishes only. In other words, when you make your contributions, tell your pastors to make sure that your money is to support your parish and none of it is to go to the seminary. That way the pastor must honor your wishes as a donor. So, let's NOT make our parishes and pastors suffer, instead, let's help them. Tell the Archbishop to sell his $68,000 car to help fund the seminary. Let's not let our parishes suffer on the account of the Archbishop, Msgr. Quitugua and Fr. Cristobal. BUT, first, they must reveal to the faithful how much money they are pumping into the seminary before we give any of our money to the chancery.
Each parish is obliged to pay a percentage of every Sunday collection to the chancery, and what they do with it, nobody knows. Unfortunately, stewardship does not go both ways.
DeleteThought money was being used for salaries of chancery employees,maintenance, utilities etc. Maybe I'm wrong.
DeleteSo a percentage of each and every Sunday collection — including the ones from the Saturday evening Vigil Masses — is sent to the Chancery? Considering that many parishes send the basket around twice, I'm guessing the percentage is taken from the "first" collection since that is the one that produces more money.
DeleteA couple of weeks ago I noticed, as the basket passed in front of me during the first collection, that I could still see the bottom of the basket. Normally, by the time it reaches us in the 6th row, there are at least a couple of layers of bills and/or envelopes. That same evening, as the basket for the second collection was making its way down the aisle, the person carrying it brought it all the way to the 5th row before one person in that row accepted it and put money into the basket. I also declined to put any money into it.
Several people have suggested that we go back to the "old ways" and give our donation directly to the priest or to the parish office in the form of Mass Intentions so that the funds cannot be sent to the Chancery.
Here is a better idea....write your checks to GPA,GWA, etc. on memo line put payment to help defray utility cost. Turn in your donations to the church office and say, for flowers, candles, wine,cleaning supply for the church. Better yet, get them a gift certificate to a floral shop, the friary for the wine, Home Depot, bensons, etc. then you will know where your money is going to.
DeleteFantastic idea! It satisfies both the precept of the Church and canon law, but halts the funding of malfeasance.
Delete...here's where you can truly say "holy cow!"
ReplyDeleteIn less than 3 months, Saipan will have been without a bishop for 4 years. When was the last time we have seen progress in getting Saipan a bishop? Does the Apostolic Nuncio for Guam and Oceania, Archbishop Martin Krebs, really plan on doing anything about Saipan or the NEO issue on Guam? Perhaps the people of the Mariana Islands are too small for him to be concerned about. Assuming that many people from Guam and Saipan have sent the Nuncio letters of concern, have ANY received a response? Saipan has waited almost 4 years! I'm starting to think that the Nuncio (and higher) are gonna wait until Apuron retires so as to avoid any politics.
ReplyDeleteThe Nuncio has confirmed receipt of letters and emails and has advised that he is keeping an eye on things. However, the Nuncio isn't the only person of authority we have recourse too. He is the first level, and is being give the courtesy of being advised first of what is going on. There's something much bigger coming. Stay tuned.
DeleteWhen you say 'bigger', is the bishop's removal within context?
DeleteI've got a suggestion for something "bigger." If the archbishop transferred the seminary to the NCW, then a parishioner should bring suit against the archbishop and the NCW. The parishioner would probably have standing as a beneficiary of the statutory trust of which the archbishop is the trustee. The suit could seek money damages and restitution of the seminary property back to the archdiocese. You can be sure that the apostolic delegate or someone else from Rome would intervene in about 0.2 seconds after the suit became public knowledge.
DeleteAudit, what audit?? If Rome ordered an audit, then the faithful need to hear about it.
ReplyDeleteThese divisions within and amongst NCW and non-NCW clergy and amongst our non-NCW Catholic Faithful and NCW; the bullying and outright coercion of non-NCW parish priests; blatant Diocesan estate management irregularities; the ill-treatment and discrimination of local young men desiring simply non-NCW seminary formation; undisguised favoritism and personal preferences for NCW members from our spiritual Shepherd and Father; the removal of Fr. Gofigan from the Dededo parish where he is loved and respected, etc, etc, etc; but most especially, the major confusion created by the discrepancies with the distribution and reception of the Sum and Summit of our Catholic Faith and the misunderstandings about Catholic teachings and traditions about our Catholic Faith or devotions -- all these underhanded and devious goings on with selfish and shameful motives -- all have roots to NCW.
ReplyDeleteWe see it. We hear about it. We understand what is going on! We cannot afford to continue being quiet and complacent about all these!
Fellow Catholic faithful, please sound out, give voice to your observations, fears and concerns thru your written letter or email to the Apostolic Nuncio.
We fail to see how any Priest from San Ramon can be appointed bishop of Chalan Kanoa. They have no respect for priests and would only contribute to the many serious problems in the Chalan Kanoa diocese.
ReplyDelete