Wednesday, July 9, 2014

RMS 103 - ARTICLE IX


In our last post we left off with a question about why a Board of Guarantors would be given veto or approval power over the most important affairs of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. A "guarantor" is normally nothing more than a "co-signer", someone who guarantees the payment of another person's debt should that person default. 


So there is first the question: Why did RMS need a cosigner? There was no debt. RMS was given the Yona property to use rent free. And if a loan was needed, the archdiocese could have procured it on its own. It procures loans all the time without cosigners. 

There is next the question: If co-signers were needed (they weren't) why are three of the four cosigners foreigners? What's wrong with our own people? 

Finally there is the question which we have already asked: WHAT are guarantors, co-signers, doing with FULL VETO OR APPROVAL POWER over the MOST IMPORTANT AFFAIRS of "our" seminary?

Let's review:
  1. There was no need for guarantors to begin with.
  2. If there was a need, local people could have been named.
  3. The guarantors, essentially nothing more than co-signers, are given full control of the seminary.
(The phrase "something wicked this way comes" comes to mind.)

Before we examine WHO these guarantors are we must ask: What are the MOST IMPORTANT AFFAIRS OF THE CORPORATION? In fact, the corporation, the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, only has ONE MOST IMPORTANT AFFAIR: to prepare men for the priesthood. That's what seminaries do. In fact Article III states this.

The seminary has NO other business but to prepare men for the priesthood, and the Board of Guarantors has full VETO AND APPROVAL POWER over this "business." We have long known it, but this proves it. The Archbishop does NOT ultimately decide who is ordained and who is not. His is only one of four votes:



So we have the Archbishop, a married couple, and a mystery priest from New Jersey. We can understand why the Archbishop, both because he is the incorporator of the seminary and the archbishop of the diocese in which the seminary is to be located, would want full control of the seminary, BUT what about these other guys? 

And why would a priest be a guarantor? What assets would an individual priest have that could possibly qualify him as a cosigner for a multi-million dollar operation? Answer: It was never about being a guarantor. It was about CONTROL. 

And as for the Gennarini's, a married couple living in New Jersey...WHAT ARE WE DOING giving them a full 50% of the control of who becomes priests for our archdiocese? 

Unless of course, these are NOT priests for our archdiocese. Unless of course the people of Guam have been lied to and bilked for over a million dollars over the last decade believing the story about how these were priests for Guam. They aren't. They are priests for Kiko. 

On a deeper level, this is a grave moral problem for Archbishop Apuron. This means that he is ordaining priests at the direction of lay persons. This means that he may himself know very well that certain men are NOT true candidates for the priesthood, but since he only has 25% of the say, he has NO say. 

This means that Archbishop Apuron is ordaining priests that God is telling him not to ordain. This means that Archbishop Apuron is violating his power as a bishop and placing his own people in harm's way by ordaining men who should not be ordained. And this means that men who have no real vocation or do not posses the qualities to be a priest are being personally ruined by being ramrodded through a priest factory for the sheer purpose of Kiko's numbers. This is VERY GRAVE.

And it is probably, at least eternally, more grave than the question about who owns the Yona property. But let us now turn out attention to that.

In Archbishop Apuron's letter of 16 November 2011, he stated that the transfer of the title of the multi-million dollar property occupied by RMS was not an "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. 
We have already noted in our previous post that RMS is NOT a corporation sole as is the archdiocese, but is a normal non-profit corporation with a board of directors and subject to Guam law. So it is NOT subject to the same Ordinary as he claims! And HERE we see exactly just who the seminary is subject to: the Board of Guarantors, 50% of whom are the Gennarini's.

And who are the Gennarini's? They are the "Responsibles" for the Neocatechumenal Way in the United States. They are Kiko Arguello's right arm. They are the ones making the decisions for us. They are the wizards behind the curtain, doing the will of their master, Kiko, and making Archbishop Apuron jump, lie down, roll over, beg...and hand over a $35 million dollar property while school children do car washes to buy books.  

I'll be back. 










Recommendations by JungleWatch