Thursday, January 8, 2015


But anyway, a few facts. I know facts are troubling things for the Diana's, but:

  • No one can sell the property but the Archbishop. 
  • The suit, if there is one, would be over the Archbishop's deception. Regardless of what he calls this, his legal counsel told him that under Guam law, any "assignment" of this property to RMS would be considered under Guam law an "alienation" and would result in a "huge cloud on title and protracted litigation". He assigned control of the the property to RMS without the required approvals of the AFC, the College of Consultors, and the Vatican. While I can again argue why this is a harm to the patrimony of the archdiocese because of Articles IX and X in the RMS articles of incorporation, it is sufficient to note the legal opinion of the archbishop's long time friend and legal counsel, Ed Terlaje. 
  • The donor was not in the Way. The donor was a lay person living in the states who was identified with the help of our local Carmelite nuns working through a Carmelite convent in St. Louis. The donation was given on the condition that the donor remain anonymous and the money be used for the purchase of a "defunct hotel for the purpose of a seminary". There was NO condition that the "defunct hotel" always be used for a seminary, and there was certainly no mention of a Redemptoris Mater Seminary, which is constituted ONLY to form priests according to the Neocatechumenal Way (Art. III of the the RMS Articles). 
  • But to back up. The donation DID NOT enable the Archdiocese to purchase the property. The property had already been purchased. It had been purchased with a loan from the Bank of Guam, a loan that was researched and procured by the SAME AFC that these idiots think were trying to sell the property. The donation simply allowed the archdiocese to pay off the loan early. 
  • By the way, Archbishop Apuron completely violated the condition of anonymity right off the bat and - I am told - made the donor's life hell thereafter as hundreds of requests for money poured in from others, including more requests from Archbishop Apuron.
  • Thanks for saying that the property is to be used for "missionary purposes". That completely contradicts AAA's DECREE OF DESIGNATION which says it is to be used solely as "the major seminary of the Archdiocese of Agana." By definition, a seminary for a diocese is NOT missionary. But of course we know that this is a deception too. RMS is not a diocesan seminary, even if its products are awkwardly placed in parishes. 

No, the CCOG, of which I am not a member, does not need the money. But here is a list of recommendations for the use of the property:

  • A retirement home for retired priests and nuns
  • A shelter for the homeless, abused, and endangered 
  • A real institute open to anyone who wants to study there
  • A real seminary instead of the broken down digs down in Malojloj
  • A retreat center for all of Guam's Catholics
In fact there is precedent for this. Back in the 80s when I was attending Loyola Los Angeles, the Jesuit seminary was moved from its palatial digs high up in the Santa Barbara mountains down into the Los Angeles inner city. The idea was that men wanting to work as priests amongst God's people should be formed amongst them as well. 

So instead of palatial digs and getting waited on hand and foot at the cafeteria, like the RMS guys do, the Jesuits-to-be lived humbly in the inner city, and often ate in nearby soup kitchens and homeless shelters. The former palatial digs in the Santa Barbara mountains became a retreat center. 

So while Pope Francis moved out of a palace and into a guest house. The RMS guys are moved out of a guest house and into a palace. And these are "missionaries"?


  1. Let's look over that Deed of Restriction one more time. Paragraph 1 binds the owner, the owner's heirs, the owners successors, and the owner's assigns (anybody the owner assigns the title to). So no future Archbishop of Agana would be able to wrest the property from the Neocatechumenal Way to use it in any other way. Do you really think Rome would agree to that?


  3. My god what story of fraud and deception by a native son of Guam. never thought I would see the day a son of Guam, an archbishop would do this to his own blood. it is a tragic day in the history of the church in our island nation. Apuron may well remain but we as a people must never trust or respect him or those associated with him. Apuron no longer represents our nation's blood.