Thursday, October 2, 2014

MONEY AND THE NCW

More evidence of the grave danger this Archdiocese has been put in by its own bishop. These aren't just personal ramblings of stupid people. This is repetition of what they have been told and taught by Archbishop Apuron, Fr. Pius, and the whole alternative hierarchy of the Neocatechumenal Way. But as usual, we appreciate the opportunities these poor people give us to tell you the truth. So let's proceed:




Art. 1, §3 of the Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way states that the NCW is "endowed with a public juridical personality." What does this mean? According to church law, there are three types of persons: physical, moral, and juridic. The NCW is a juridic person. A juridic person is "like a civil-law corporation", and can "own property, enter into contracts, sue or be sued." (1). The reason canon law does not use the term "corporation" is because the term "corporation" is not used universally. (2)
(1) John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green. New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. New York. Paulist Press. Pg. 155
(2)  Francis G. Morissey, OMI. Juridic Persons: A Practical Guide

Art. 4 § 1 makes it clear that insofar as the NCW is an "itinerary of Catholic formation...it has no material goods of its own." But because the NCW is also a "juridic person", Art. 4 § 2 goes on to clarify:
When in a diocese it is considered useful to financially support initiatives and activities for the evangelization realized through the Neocatechumenal Way, the diocesan bishop, at the request of the International Responsible Team of the Way, will consider the suitability of erecting an autonomous diocesan foundation, with juridical personality, regulated by its own statutes, which will also be recognized by the civil authorities. This may also be supported by oblatory donations made by participants in the Neocatechumenal Way, as well as by foundations and other individuals. 
In addition, § 3, states: 
In the communities, collections are made to answer different needs. It is the task of the responsible team of the community and of the responsible teams of the Way at every level, to ensure that such collections are administered with a great sense of responsibility and respect for the law. 
So let's interpret all this. The Church is saying that in regards to funding activities the NCW should erect an autonomous foundation which is recognized by civil authorities. In other words, they are to do what almost every other Catholic organization does: register and regulate itself, and institute a system of financial accountability. (On Guam and in the U.S., this would be a non-profit corporation.) And, as per § 3, even prior to or in the absence of an "autonomous foundation", the money collected at the community level must still "respect the law." 

And what law would that be? 

So long as the NCW operates under the auspices of the parish, it is the parish itself that is covered by the civil law which grants financial autonomy to churches. Thus, every dime and dollar moved within the context of any gathering or activity of the NCW is subject to the same accounting requirements of the parish as is every other dime and dollar. And in this regard, it is the parish pastor who MUST see to it that those funds are accounted for the same as it is his duty to see to the handling of any other monies or collections. 

Back to § 2, the Church doesn't actually say "should". Instead it says "useful". As usual, the Church does not dictate provincial matters, but leaves these kinds of things to the sense of ethics and propriety of the diocesan leadership. (Do you see the problem?) 

The reason this section is included in the Statute is specifically to protect the NCW from the criticism of financial obfuscation that this NCW post is protesting against. Yet, rather than embrace the safeguards the Church has given it for its own protection and growth, they vomit and spit.

Here's some more of their ignorance on display: 




Hmmm. So we see that only NCW have large families and understand Providence. Right!


Obviously, once again, they take Fr. Pius' word for everything when they have a duty to the Church itself to know exactly what the Church has constituted it to do, and NOT just take the word of people who use them. They are certainly welcome to remain stupid if they wish, but they are not welcome to make up facts that are contrary to what the Church has stated. 

And then there's the matter of "Benavente wanted to sell it to pay for his debts". Obviously this is coming from Archbishop Apuron since he has been heard to say this on several occasions. And it is more evidence of the lies he is willing to tell to slander and hurt his own priests. 

Msgr. James had no authority to sell anything thus Msgr. James could never have even have tried to sell anything. The only thing Msgr. James did was vote (and just one vote of five) to NOT transfer the title of the Yona property, a property of the Archdiocese of Agana, to RMS, a corporation separate from the Archdiocese of Agana. 

So more slandering of Msgr. James. How sad for a bishop to do to his own priest. And how DANGEROUS for his soul. 

Recommendations by JungleWatch