Tuesday, January 6, 2015


aka "Seminarygate"

Relative to the legal observations in the previous post,  I want to point out the language in the first "WHEREAS" in the Decree of Designation. 

Archbishop Apuron predicates his whole Decree on RMS being the "major seminary of the Archdiocese of Agana." 

A "major seminary" is defined as a "Roman Catholic seminary giving usually the entire six years of senior college and theological training required for major orders."

It is quite obvious from its "product" (presbyters), even if it will not publish its credentials, courses, or list of faculty, that RMS is NOT a place where one goes to get "the entire six years of senior college and theological training." 

But besides that there is the problem of the words "of the Archdiocese of Agana." We know for a fact from Article III of RMS's Articles of Incorporation that RMS is NOT constituted to form priests for the life of a diocesan priest. It is constituted to form "priests" (if that's what they are) to follow "the life and itinerary of the Neocatechumenal Way." 

As we all know, and can see for ourselves, "the life and itinerary of the Neocatechumenal Way" is radically different than the life and practice of the diocesan priesthood. 

This is why, when confronted with his 15 year long lie about the true nature and mission of RMS after the people of Guam had given millions of dollars to it, Archbishop Apuron "erected" the St. John Paul II Seminary in Malojloj, that seminary being the actual "seminary of the Archdiocese of Agana" in that it actually was erected to form priests for service in the diocesan priesthood in the Archdiocese of Agana. (It doesn't, but that's another story.)

In a statement about the two seminaries, published on the archdiocesan website, the Archbishop says:
The Archdiocese of Agana has two seminaries: Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam (RMS) in Yona and the [St.] John Paul II Archdiocesan Seminary of Guam in Malojloj. Both seminaries train men to become diocesan priests. In particular, a ‘diocesan seminary’ trains men to become diocesan priests who will eventually serve his particular diocese.  A ‘diocesan missionary seminary’ trains men who will become diocesan priests who will also be willing to be sent to a mission for a time anywhere the diocesan bishop sends him.
There's a problem with this. 

Nowhere in its statement of PURPOSE (Art. III) does it say anything about forming men to become diocesan priests or that they will serve the Archdiocese of Agana. 

Apuron's neocatechumenal masters, Gennarini, Pius, et al., had no interest in producing priests and pastors to serve in traditional diocesan roles. They just needed a place and a bishop to manufacture numbers, numbers of presbyters, which in turn they could use as currency to buy influence with Rome. 

This is why they are always bragging about how many seminaries, seminarians, and presbyters they have. However, Apuron needed his own numbers to shine up his own Roman resume in order to get that red hat, so he placed them in parishes to make it look like they were truly priests for this archdiocese. But, as anyone can see (sadly) they are seriously fish out of water. 

(Note: While you have your real problem presbyters, some of them are just nice guys who through no fault of their own are put into positions by Apuron for which they were never trained and for which they never signed up for.)

But he also did this to exact revenge for his public embarrassment of 2008, when anti-neo demonstrators demonstrated in front of the Cathedral on the occasion of the Cathedral's Jubilee with
both the Apostolic Delegate and the Cardinal of Cebu present. No one had ever publicly demonstrated against a Catholic bishop in Guam before, and at the moment, Apuron set out to show everyone who was Master.

(The only reason why there was a demonstration, by the way, was because Apuron had threatened three beloved priests with deportation - they were guest priests from the Philippines - if they did not serve the Neocatechumenal Way. The protest was not against the NCW, but Apuron's forcing these priests to serve it or leave.)

There is also another problem with the statement posted about the seminaries on the archdiocesan website. It says that men trained at RMS are priests who "will also be willing to be sent to a mission for a time anywhere the diocesan bishop sends him." 

This is a farce. No bishop has the authority to send a priest to any other bishop's diocese. A priest can only work in another bishop's diocese at the INVITATION of the bishop of that diocese. So there is no "sending". Most bishops are usually happy to have more priests so if an offer is made, they are not likely to turn it down. But Archbishop Apuron cannot SEND anyone anywhere who is not first invited. 

We recently saw what a mess this "sending" nonsense can make of things. 

Fr. John Wadeson was "sent" by Apuron to the Archdiocese of San Francisco (ASF). Wadeson wasn't there to work in the ASF, he was there to work in the NCW. 

As an aside, this is what is meant by the NCW's "going on mission". They aren't going to evangelize people in uncivilized lands like the missionaries of old. They are going into already Catholic places and evangelizing people out of their churches and into their communities. That's why Wadeson was in San Francisco. 

And that's why the recent "going on mission" of Bushu, Fabio, et al. was a farce. In fact, the "sending" or Fr. Santiago was even more of a farce since he wasn't even incardinated here. (See "Four priests go on mission". Umatuna, Dec. 8, 2013.) And of course, Bushu is back already. Some mission. 

But back to the Wadeson fiasco. 

When it was learned that Wadeson had been credibly accused of sexually molesting two minors in Los Angeles and had been banned from that diocese, the Archbishop of San Francisco essentially said WTH? Bishops accept priests from other dioceses on the references and clean bill of health from the bishop of the diocese from whence they come. 

Silly man. He actually trusted Archbishop Apuron and then he got his hands "SNAP-ped" when Wadeson was outed. This is the mess that is a natural result of the NCW's disregard for normal diocesan boundaries and protocols (and for church authority in general). 

By the way, this may have been the event which sparked the current investigation of Archbishop Apuron. Archbishop Cordileone is NOT a silly man, and having been publicly humiliated by SNAP and its exposure of Wadeson, Cordileone may very well have filed his own report with the now-visiting Congregation. 

In conclusion, this Deed Restriction is based on the false premise that RMS is the "major seminary of the Archdiocese of Agana". It is not. Thus the deed is invalid. But we may have to sue to invalidate it. 

Any takers?

Recommendations by JungleWatch