Tuesday, July 8, 2014

RMS 102

In our last post on this story we noted that four of the five members* of the archdiocesan council were fired en masse after opposing Archbishop Apuron's attempt to hand over the title of the Yona property** to the Neocatechumenal Way. The only member not fired was the Vicar General who is required to be in union with the bishop, but who also is not only a member of the Neocatechumenal Way but has a residence on the Yona property. 

Also as noted in our last post, the archdiocesan finance council is the one council that is not merely advisory. Canon Law requires a bishop to obtain the CONSENT of the council in the matter of the alienation of certain church properties, specifically properties as valuable as the one in question (estimated to be valued currently at 35 million dollars). 

Archbishop Apuron knew this and so did the Vicar General, which is why neither objected to the original decision of the finance council to deny the transfer of title. The decision was clearly enshrined in a letter from the finance council to Fr. Rodriguez, the seminary rector, dated September 8, 2011:
The request before us is that title of the property be conveyed and transferred to the Redemptoris Mater House of Formation…Upon review and consideration, the Archdiocesan Finance Council has denied the request…
You may be asking what possessed Archbishop Apuron to, out of the blue, up and demand that the Archdiocese of Agana hand over a $35 million dollar property to a foreign controlled entity when churches and schools are relying on bake sales and car washes to repair their crumbling buildings! Hang on to that thought.

It is apparent that Archbishop Apuron, after the denial of the transfer, immediately sought the council of the "foreign controllers". (We'll talk about who they are in a bit.). It is apparent because two months later, on November 16, 2011, Archbishop Apuron wrote the council:
After having consulted with (the Vicar General)…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. The Title holder then doesn’t change at all because it remains the same Ordinary…
"After having consulted with the Vicar General"??? Really? This is terribly problematic. The Archbishop is here either admitting or asking us to believe that he did not FIRST consult with the Vicar General (whose job it is to advise the bishop in these matters) before seeking to transfer the title of a $35 million dollar asset, held in trust (as per Guam Law) for the people of the Archdiocese of Agana. 

If he did not FIRST consult with the Vicar General, then this is an admission of gross ineptitude. But of course he consulted with the Vicar General. The two of them, both hard core kiko's, were in on this together from the beginning. Archbishop Apuron just didn't expect to be told NO. (He's not used to that.) But he was. 

And then comes the jab at the council for being too stupid to understand Canon Law ("probably due to a lack of knowledge of Canon Law, it was erroneously understood..."). Really?? After diligently performing their duties under Canon Law cumulatively for the better part of 50 years these four extremely astute members of the council, including two much respected and proficient lay financial professionals, suddenly don't know their duties under Canon Law?

But this just shows you how far Archbishop Apuron is willing to go in obeying his foreign masters versus not only the good of our local church but versus the wise counsel of men and women whom he personally chose and who have advised him for more than a decade. 

But then comes the real shocker, so let's copy it here again:
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. The Title holder then doesn’t change at all because it remains the same Ordinary…
Let's carefully examine the words: "transferred and renamed from one public juridic person subject to the Ordinary to another public juridic person subject to the same Ordinary. The Title holder then doesn't change at all because it remains the same Ordinary..."

This is either a staggering if not dangerous display of gross incompetence on the part of our chief shepherd or simply a bold face lie. But there is another possibility. He could be just repeating what he was told to say. Let's look. 

The first "juridic person subject to the Ordinary" is the person of the archbishop, incorporated under Guam law as a "corporation sole". The Yona property is owned (or at least we hope so) by the first juridic person, according to the provisions and strictures for a corporation sole under Guam law (which we will address later). 

Archbishop Apuron, as the first juridic person wishes to "assign" the title of the Yona property to a second juridic person, another corporation, which he says is "subject to the same Ordinary", himself. But is it?

The Articles of Incorporation for the Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, the second juridic person to which the title is to be “assigned”, state the following:
These Articles certify that the undersigned, Anthony S. Apuron, OFM CAP., D.D., Incumbent, Archbishop of Agana, a Corporation Sole, being over the age of eighteen (18) years, does hereby form a nonprofit corporation under and by virtue of the provisions of the Guam Nonprofit Corporation Act., 18 G.C.A. §10101…”
It is clear that Redemptoris Mater is NOT a second Corporation Sole, which would have made it fully "subject to the same Ordinary", but a completely separate, stand alone, non-profit corporation. The Archdiocese of Agana does NOT have a board of directors. The RMS corporation does. This fact already compromises the autonomy of the Archbishop regarding direction of the corporation, but the real issue is the strange insertion of a Board of Guarantors.

Here is what the Articles say about the Board of Guarantors:
The Board of Guarantors will be constituted by five (5) sages who will have the sake of guaranteeing that the corporation pursues only the purposes for which it has been constituted. 
Remember now that Article III declared that RMS was constituted to serve the Neocatechumenal Way. But now watch this:
The Board of Guarantors has a veto or approval power for the most important affairs of the Corporation. 
Read that again and read it slowly. This is NOT a power normally given to guarantors. Who are these "guarantors" and why do they have this power?

Check back tomorrow. 

*The four fired members of the Archdiocesan Finance Council:

  • Richard J. Untalan
  • Joseph E. Rivera
  • Sister Mary Stephen Torres, RSM
  • Monsignor James L.G. Benavente
**The Yona property is the old Accion Hotel property in Yona currently occupied by the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and the Blessed Diego Institute. 


  1. Dear Mr. Rohr:

    I thought the archbishop presides over all the meetings of the Finance Council, which means that he was the presider when the Finance Council voted no. The Vicar General also had to be there as that is one of his major duties. Therefore, they were all there when the issue was deliberated and I presumed that they all agreed. I am sure the minutes of the meeting reflect this fact. Stunning is all I can say. Something fishy is going on and it is obvious that the archbishop is not calling the shots!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Yes. The council could not have sent the letter of denial to RMS without the archbishop's knowledge.

    2. Not only his knowledge, but HIS APPROVAL.

    3. Janet B - MangilaoJuly 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM

      Ok, boys. What you fail to realize about the AFC meetings is that our dear Archbishop is actually at a huge disadvantage in this situation. Although the AFC voted and poor Tony also had to vote against it to save face, he didn't have Fr Pius, Giuseppi, and Kiko to help him through the tough spots. But the Archbishop erred yet again.
      When he replaced the members of the AFC that actually had integrity, he was SUPPOSED to name Kiko, Fr Pius, Giuseppi, and Diana.
      Poor Archbishop, just can't seem to get things right.
      But seriously, I know two of the former members and they would have been so helpful to the Archbishop in these trying times as far as sound advice.
      I guess he doesn't want sound advice anymore, just OBEDIENCE!!!
      Sorry Archbishop. Real Catholics have a different view of obedience than your Chancery militia!

  2. Does anyone know if the Legal Counsel of the archdiocese was at the meeting when it voted no to the transfer? His advice would be crucial. Does anyone know if he advise the council to vote no? If he did, then the archbishop, after the fact, not only turned 180 degrees but ignored the wisdom and judgment of this astute body and his legal counsel. WOW! Has the archbishop lost his mind???????????????? And the Vicar General? Where was he? Isn't he supposed to protect the archdiocese?

    1. The Legal Counsel expressed an extremely strong opinion against the Archbishop's wish to transfer the title of the property or even to "assign" it. I'll be referencing his opinion in my next post.

  3. Will someone please disclose the names of the four members that were fired and their backgrounds? If there combined time in the council Is over 50 years, then we are talking about people who know their stuff and who have sacrificed their time and money to serve our Lord. Why on earth would the archbishop FIRE ALL FOUR PEOPLE AT ONCE? That doe snot make sense just from a organizational point of view. That breaks 50 years of continuity abruptly. Illogical and stupid, and more so, damaging to this archdiocese.

    1. Richard J. Untalan
      Joseph E. Rivera
      Sister Mary Stephen Torres, RSM
      Monsignor James L.G. Benavente

    2. I heard from someone that Sister Stephen has been with the finance council from when it was first established in the 80s, some 30 years ago. And she was fired after all those years! Wow. That's gratitude for you.

    3. Mr. Rivera served with distinction as the director of BBMR and I think is now the controller of Calvo Enterprises. That wasn't smart of the archbishop to get rid of him.

    4. Who are the new 4 that replaced them?

    5. Janet B - MangilaoJuly 8, 2014 at 7:42 PM

      Anonymous July 8, 2014 at 5:37 PM asks:
      "Who are the new 4 that replaced them?Replaced by:"

      Sonny Ada - kiko
      Danny Quichocho - total kikobot
      John Weisenberger - non NCW
      Marilyn Megofna - non NCW

      So the sole survivor of the seasoned group fired for doing the right thing is Monsignor David C Quitugua, total kiko, and cuckoo Vicar General who cannot follow Canon Law if his room at the Yona RMS Palace depended on it. The Archbishop now has three Kikos to 2 non-kikos. Well, we've seen how kikos have no ability to think and act for themselves, so the Archbishop is now able to do whatever Fr Pius and Kiko want him to do.

      I was listening to the Chad Desoto trial. One doctor says he has schizophrenia, which means he has lost all connection with reality, completely unable to tell right from wrong, and real from not real. So for those kikos who are ardent supporters of all things kiko, I think I have a fitting term for them -
      KIKOPHRENIA - a mental disorder which quickly renders a cultist follower completely unable to connect with reality and logic.

      The good news is that if you are able to convince society that you have this mental disorder, they may provide free lodging for you right next to GMH. We could sell the seminary and move all those guys to DMHSS for formation/treatment.

    6. @5:37 pm...good question...ANSWER somebody, anybody??? Helloooo? Anybody there?

  4. He also fired Monsignor James Benavente! I thought Monsignor James was his right hand as Monsignor has been instrumental in leading the charge on many of the archbishop's projects.

  5. These are all prominent members of the Catholic Faithful community who I`m sure would have the best interest of the Archdioesce in mind and would never agree to anything that would not serve the Catholic Community as a whole. Firing all of these individuals clearly doesn`t make any sense and leads to the suspicion that the Archbishop is not "calling the shots."

    1. Glad to be Back to Holy Mother ChurchJuly 8, 2014 at 1:26 PM

      While in the NCW it was drilled into our minds - do not question, just obey.
      It would appear that this is also one lesson the Archbishop has taken to heart. He will obey Kiko and Pius no matter what they ask him to do. This is truly a sad era for our Archdiocese. To think that we are getting ready to celebrate 70 years of freedom from Japanese occupation, but now we have another type of occupation on our shores.
      When will we get to celebrate VK Day? (Victory over Kiko Day). I celebrated my personal VK 2.4 years ago! Praise be to God for that.

    2. How long you been walking Glad?