Tuesday, January 28, 2014


In early 2011, when Archbishop Apuron was in the states for a heart-related medical issue, the Neocat bigwigs paid him a visit. Apparently the Archbishop's heart condition had brought them to the realization that their primary benefactor would not always be around, and in fact, given the Archbishop's current health situation, might not be around for long. 

Knowing that a new archbishop may not be as supportive as Archbishop Apuron and could even oust the Neocatechumenal Way from Guam, the bigwigs convinced the Archbishop to convey the ownership of the property occupied by the Redemptoris Mater Seminary to their corporation, a corporate entity separate from the Archdiocese of Agana. 

Because the value of the property was over one million dollars, the Archbishop did not have the canonical authority to alienate the property without the consent of the diocesan finance council and the college of consultors (See Can. 1292 §1). 

A few months later, the request to convey the title to the property was submitted to the diocesan finance council by Fr. Pablo Rodriguez, the Rector of the Seminary. On September 8, 2011, the finance council replied, denying the request. At this point, it appears the Archbishop agreed with the decision of the finance council because he instructed them to send the letter of denial to  Fr.  Pablo Rodriguez.

(The actual letter has been taken down. It was posted earlier to show that I had it. I receive almost all the documents I post from anonymous sources.)

But the Neo bigwigs didn't give up, they knew the value of the property and they were hell bent on having it. Apparently scolded back into docility by the bigwigs, the Archbishop reversed his support of the finance council's decision and on November 16, 2011, and still off-island, sent a letter to the finance council, criticizing their decision and accusing them of not understanding canon law:
"I wish to specify precisely that, probably due to a lack of knowledge of Canon Law, it was erroneously understood as "alienation". The matter is clearly not alienation, but simply an assigning of the title of a property that is transferred and renamed from one public juridic person subject to the Ordinary to another public juridic person subject to the same Ordinary." 
However, as noted in our previous post, the archdiocesan legal counsel opined that, relative to civil law, the only law relevant to the ultimate question of ownership of real property, the words alienation and assignment were "words of distinction without a difference," and any documents containing these words would place a huge cloud on the title which would result in protracted litigation and huge costs to remove it. 

The legal counsel asked to meet with the finance council to discuss the matter and a meeting was arranged for early December 2011. As the Vicar General is a member of the finance council, he of course learned of the meeting, and speaking for the Archbishop, ordered the finance council to take the matter of the seminary property off the agenda. The finance council did so, but went ahead with their meeting on other council matters. 

Believing that the finance council had disobeyed Archbishop's order, the Vicar General, on December 6, 2011,  wrote a letter to the other four members of the finance council, accusing them of a "vulnus" against the archbishop, "breaking communion" with him, and "disrespecting his person." 

To be continued. 


  1. Please Lord, a Coadjutor! That's all I have to say.

  2. Tim, are you able to post the entire letter (redact the signers or council members whose names may be on the letter)? Not to question the authenticity of the letter...but to flush out the detractors and doubters of the truth.

  3. Questions floating around my mind: (1) Is the seminary building paid off? (2) if not, where does the money come from to pay the loan? (3) How can title be transferred if there is a lien holder other than the diocese or the archbishop? (4) What assets were used to secure the loan to pay this property? I thought that the order, organization or whatever bowed out from financing the loan.

  4. My only thought is why hasn't a petition been created for the removal of the bishop? If that were to be passed around and sent to the Nuncio, I'm sure he'll get the message that our bishop needs to go before things get worse.

    1. Anonymous (January 28, 2014 at 9:59 AM): I’m guessing that the reason no petition for the removal of the Archbishop has been created is because it would be hard to convince people to sign it. In the weeks following the Archbishop’s removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan as pastor of Sta. Barbara Church a letter was circulated. It simply stated “Your Excellency: We the Catholic Faithful of the Archdiocese respectfully request that you reinstate Fr. Paul Gofigan as Pastor of Santa Barbara Church.” Despite the outrage being voiced by many, it was difficult to get people to sign the letter because they did not want to incur the displeasure of the Archbishop. People who work in parish offices did not want to sign because the Archbishop would recognize their names. People who belonged to various lay groups did not want to sign for fear of offending the Archbishop. This was merely a letter asking for the Archbishop to reinstate a priest and people were afraid to sign.

      Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to sign a petition for the removal of the same Archbishop. I would love to be proven wrong, but as “More Hate Mail,” an earlier post on this blog, indicated: People who have complained about the NCW in private now say that we should be praying and not airing our “dirty laundry” via this blog. Let’s face it — people love to complain but are they not inclined to take any kind of action, especially if their names will be revealed.

      Anonymous (January 28, 2014 at 9:59 AM), if you decide to create the petition, you can count on me to sign it! I will also help you gather signatures if you do this.

  5. Thank you Tim, and to all who are contributing to the truth about the goings on. Parts 1, 2, and 3 about the outrageous saga of the management of the Seminary in Yona are enough proof that our voices need to be heard by Rome and the Apostolic Nuncio; yet, there are more parts to be revealed it appears, to these atrocities! The way I see this, we have two MAJOR BATTLES here:

    Battle #1: Indeed, we are members of the Church Militant of the Universal Catholic Church, therefore WE, the Faithful on Guam are the Church Militant of our Diocese; because of the certainty of this fact, as Church Militants WE ARE CALLED TO DEFEND OUR FAITH -- its doctrines, traditions and teachings in THE WAY Jesus Christ TAUGHT and as interpreted and led by our Magisterium, our Pope.

    As a mere “community organizer” of the NCW, Kiko does not and cannot fill any Pope’s shoes in any way, shape or form let alone arrogantly alter or refashion JESUS’ WAY and then concoct “Kiko’s way” aka the Neo-Catechumenal Way (NCW). No, Kiko, nor our Archbishop for that matter, do not have the authority nor the sanction of Rome, even, to continue practicing nor advocating for the irreverent manner of distributing and receiving Jesus’ Body and Blood in Holy Communion!

    To illustrate the level of regard we are required to have for the Holy Eucharist, re-read and refresh your memory about the story of St. Tarcisius (a 12 yr. old, at that) who lived during the fierce persecutions of Christians from the Romans in the third century. Tarcisius believed and understood that he had in his possession the Holy and Precious Body of Christ in the Eucharistic Hosts entrusted to him to transport to dying prisoners. Rather than giving in to a gang of boys he encountered who demanded that he expose the Host, Tarcisius chose to physically endure the verbal taunting, terrorizing’s and physical beatings from the boys in order to physically conceal and protect the Holy Hosts from their irreverent acts, on his way to the prison. A fellow Christian rescued him but Tarcisius died of the injuries. As his mangled body was carried away, it was found that he was still clutching and protecting the Holy Hosts from his perpetrators. The early Christians, you see, believed in The Real Presence. The Holy Eucharist is the Sum and The Summit of our Faith, after all, without which our Faith and Catholic Church could not be identified as THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, FOUNDED BY JESUS CHRIST!

    Fellow Faithful, we don’t need to shed an ounce of our blood, but we are called to be MILITANTS for our Faith; and if we also believe in The Real Presence (acknowledging that Jesus, Himself, is in the Consecrated Host!), then we need to fight the good fight, acknowledging and voicing our outrage and our lividness over how the Blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is irreverently distributed and received by the NCW, and by voicing our indignation over our Archbishop’s condoning of and cooperation in these pagan-like actions and impious attitude toward The Real Presence of Christ in the Sacred Host.

  6. Battle #2: WE, ARE THE CHURCH ON GUAM! We, are the Catholic Congregation and Faithful of this Diocese without which Archbishop would not have a congregation and flock to shepherd. The monies, the buildings and estates; the financial investments; the properties and possessions of this Catholic Diocese on Guam, all that, EXISTS PRIMARILY FOR THE FAITHFUL OF THIS DIOCESE; TO ENABLE THE FAITHFUL TO COME TOGETHER IN UNITY AND ONENESS TO PRAY, TO WORSHIP, TO BE CATECHIZED, TO BE SPIRITUALLY NOURISHED AND HEALED AND TO HELP EACH OTHER GET TO HEAVEN!

    Our contributions, our donations, our services, our volunteer time, effort and sacrifices; all that we do is for one reason only: we do those things because WE LOVE GOD! And because we love God, WE LOVE OUR CATHOLIC FAITH AND OUR CATHOLIC RELIGION; WE LOVE OUR CATHOLIC CHURCH’S RICH TRADITIONS AND OUR CATHOLIC DEVOTIONS AND CULTURE ON GUAM.

    Fellow Faithful aren’t all those things worth fighting and standing up for; and worth demanding that irregularities about its physical and financial management be conducted transparently, and our questions be answered truthfully? The future or demise of our Catholic Church on Guam as we know it, is in our hands. Are we going to remain silent and complacent to the goings on? What is it worth to you?

  7. You are correct Maria. The diocesan priests and loyal Catholics of Guam need to unite and come forward in people power to defend their church. Begin with one Sunday when all Sunday donations are withheld on all parishes. When the money stops archbishop Apuron will be concerned. If the people keep giving money you feed the problem. Stop the Sunday donations make a statement it's the only way now.

  8. This tactic of witholding our Sunday donations one Sunday has worked in the US but I doubt it will work here. Our people are too soft hearted and feel they will harm their own parish and not the real cause of our problems. We will need to do a lot of convincing that one Sunday is temporary and sometimes a little hurt is needed before things get better - think of the doctor putting a needle in you. Even if the collection goes down 50% on one Sunday, the pastors will scream and shout. Yes, I agree with whats been said. The real power is with us the lay people. But will we use it?