Saturday, April 4, 2015

THE SAD OBEDIENCE TO KIKO AND LIFE LONG CONSEQUENCES FOR THE REST OF US

I received and posted Lester's letter after I had already posted about the Neo-Easter Vigil baptism controversy. So in light of Lester's letter and the mess he and his family had to go through to track down a copy of their child's proof of baptism, it would be good for us to review a few things. 

Not that the Archbishop, the Vicar General or the Kiko's (the militant neo's) will care, but it will be instructive for the rest of us and maybe even provide a warning to other neo-parents who are in a similar situation to Lester's.

As we know, the Sacrament of Baptism is serious business. It is the entry into the Church and upon proof of it all other Sacraments depend. Thus the Church goes through great pains to insure that the Sacrament is administered validly and that proof of its administration is beyond reproach. 

This is why Church law requires that it be recorded immediately.
Can.  877 §1. The pastor of the place where the baptism is celebrated must carefully and without any delay record in the baptismal register the names of the baptized, with mention made of the minister, parents, sponsors, witnesses, if any, the place and date of the conferral of the baptism, and the date and place of birth.
Can.  878 If the baptism was not administered by the pastor or in his presence, the minister of baptism, whoever it is, must inform the pastor of the parish in which it was administered of the conferral of the baptism, so that he records the baptism according to the norm of ⇒ can. 877, §1.
This is also why Church law requires the Sacrament to be administered in a church:
Can.  857 §1. Apart from a case of necessity, the proper place of baptism is a church or oratory.
In fact, our own archdiocese further mandates that it be so:
Outside the case of necessity, it is not lawful for one to confer the sacrament outside of his own parish without the proper permission. - III. A. The Sacrament of Baptism, Handbook of Faculties - Archdiocese of Agana, Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron, December 22, 2006
So let's review Lester's case in light of these statutes:

In order for Lester to have his baby baptized outside a church or oratory, he would have had to get special permission from the bishop. Lester's baby was baptized in the Bishop Baumgartner school gym. He did not get special permission from the bishop because he was not told to by his catechist. 

In order for Lester to have his baby baptized outside his parish - as per Archbishop Apuron's own statute - Lester would have had to get "proper permission" from the bishop. Lester's parish is Agana and the baby was baptized in Sinajana. Lester did not get "proper permission" from the bishop because he was not told to by his catechist.

(Do you see what happens when the catechist replaces the pastor as is what happens in the NCW?)

According to Lester, Msgr. David C. Quitugua (the Vicar General) was the priest who performed the baptism. In order for Msgr. David C. Quitugua to perform the baptism outside a church and outside the parish of the parents, Msgr. David C. Quitugua was required to examine the permissions granted by the bishop to do both before he could proceed with the baptism. 

He did not.

He did not because there were no permissions. And there were no permissions because there was no request for those permissions. And there was no requests for those permissions because the parents were the ones who were required to request those permissions. And the parents were not required to request those permissions because the Neocatechumenal Way makes up their own rules. And the Neocatechumenal Way makes its own rules because it is a different church.

Going on.

Having failed in his duty both as the presiding priest and more so as the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Agana (the guardian of church law) to secure copies of the required permissions, Msgr. David C. Quitugua then failed to have the baptism properly recorded as per Can. 878 which required him to notify the "pastor of the parish in which it was administered of the conferral of the baptism, so that he records the baptism according to the norm of ⇒ can. 877, §1."

We know he did not notify the pastor of the Sinajana parish (St. Jude's) because of the following:
  1. When Lester asked the chancery for a copy of the Baptismal certificate, he was "told that they have no documents of a baptism held on Easter Vigil."
  2. For the chancery not to have a copy, there are only two possibilities: either St. Jude's parish never sent a copy to the chancery (as required) or the baptism was never recorded at St. Jude's because the pastor was never notified of the baptism (as required).
  3. We know that the reason was the latter because when the chancery finally produced (manufactured) the baptismal certificate, the place of the baptism is noted as Dulce Nombre de Maria Cathedral-Basilica and not St. Jude's in Sinajana where the baptism actually took place. 
  4. This means that the chancery completely made it up.

And then here's the real kicker. The baptismal certificate signed by the Vicar General says:
"As appears from the Baptismal Registry of the Chancery Office."
What?

The chancery had already told Lester that "they have no documents" of the baptism of his son. In other words there were NO documents in the "Baptismal Registry of the Chancery Office". So the copy was manufactured and the statement is a lie

Wow!

How would you like that? An outright LIE enshrined forever on your child's baptismal certificate.

But of course to the Archbishop and the Vicar General and the Kiko's, these aren't lies, these aren't violations. As far as they are concerned they are in full compliance to Kiko Arguello and that is all that matters. 

Unfortunately for Lester and his family, and for the rest of us as well, this sad obedience to Kiko and disregard for church norms, especially in the matter of parish record-keeping of the sacraments, could have life-long consequences.

Learn more about that here.






18 comments:

  1. Well, that explains all the mess we have in this Archdiocese, If AAA allowed all this to happen, where the NCW Catechist are making important decision regarding the administration of the sacraments, then it should be made official in the adviso that our new bishop "Pius Samnut" is in charge, since he is AAA's catechist and appears to be making all the decisions in the Church.

    The VG as the canon lawer for the Archdiocese is suppose to safeguard the proper administration of the Sacraments according to church law, however it seems that he does not have any gumption to say no to "Pius and his minion Catechist" and allows all this ruckus to take place. If VG is not up to the job, perhaps he should just retire.

    The situation in our diocese is clearly a case of the tail wagging the dog. This is the only Diocese where an outsider priest is Catechizing the "Teacher". Vatican II doc -Lumen Gentium Chap 3 summarizes that the bishop’s highest priorities are to lead the people towards order, harmony, and unity. His office is the fullness of the priesthood, and as bishop is one who is spiritually named as one who stands in place of Christ for us. His episcopal consecration empowers him to sanctify, teach, and lead.

    Where is the Harmony, Unity, How can there be sanctifying in a church divided? Is he leading us anywhere ? Is he teaching us anything ?

    AAA perhaps a very lowly advise from a no-body, dump Pius as a Catechist, get on your knees, roll up your sleeve and rely on the Holy Spirit as your Catechist, We gurantee, you will not go wrong on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pius won't last. But, then there is always the Tall Woman.

      Delete

    2. Seriously Fr. Pius, Looking sickly.

      Delete
    3. I still remember the Tall Woman's "testimony" at St. Anthony's Church more than a decade ago. Part of her testimony was that she was "passed from man to man." I guess The Way helped her land one man-Pius.

      Delete
    4. I still remember the Tall Woman's "testimony" at St. Anthony's Church more than a decade ago. Part of her testimony was that she was "passed from man to man." I guess The Way helped her land one man-Pius.

      Delete
    5. It is no coincidence that Pius, Apuron, and his tribe of kikos are looking weary as of late. The Lord hears the cries of His people! The flesh is God's creation as well as the soul. When the soul succumbs to evil, the flesh will rot. For those who should know better, like the clergy, God's mercy quickly turns to vengeance.

      On His cross, Christ called out to the Father for mercy, for "they know not what they do". The same could not be said of Judas. Those men up on the hill know full well that what they are doing is contrary to the Church and in pursuit of less than what is holy. Lest they forget that God's mercy is boundless but for those deserving of His mercy. Only protestants believe that you are saved once for all time. We Catholics believe salvation must be perpetually earned in this life and that the sacraments are the vehicle by which we can receive the grace we need to deserve our place in heaven.

      Delete
    6. careful, there, 9:17...can't EARN salvation. That's a heresy.

      Delete
    7. I think what Anon 9:17 meant, which our Lord asssures us, Is we have to persevere until the end to be saved (Mat 24:13), The question is persevere in what? St. Paul tells us " Working out our salvation with much trembling and fear" (Phil 2:12). So while we cannot earn our salvation, We must respond to the call of God to follow him and be faithful, all these require our effort, with God's grace operative of course...

      Delete
  2. There's a lady named Coreen running the office there now. She used the church's name when soliciting donations for the Easter festivities in the parish only to find out that she was also giving it to the Neos. I stopped giving. She can't find my documents and she blames the previous secretary. What a bunch of baloney.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there is a lot of blaming going on. Even after all these months. Many of the accusations are flat out lies. Oh, well. Seems that's the way the ball bounces nowadays at CB.

      Delete

  3. Cathedral Rector is hardly ever to be seen in CB office.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course, the Cathedral Rector is never in the office. How many jobs can one sickly person carry? Even the fittest of men would not be able to handle all these positions. It is just another example of the poor, poor executive skills of AAA. (besides the fact he doesn't have anyone else.)

      Delete
  4. Attended part of the Good Friday services at CB and wondered what happened to the altar servers as there were none at the altar. I shrugged it off as oh well, maybe none wanted to participate and therefore didn't show up. This morning I was talking with a fellow CB parishioner whose family members are altar servers. He stated that the altar servers did in fact show up on Friday. However, AAA informed them (servers) that they WERE NOT NEEDED. Apparently the seminarians took over the duties. I can't swear to this (them being turned away) as I don't have firsthand knowledge, but I DID see all the NEO nuts (seminarians) trying to play the part (altar servers). Talk about being EVERYWHERE! But if this is true, HOW SAD! BTW, Fr. Luis' mom was there, all smiles. Mike-whats-his-name, Ashton, the tall lady, Corine, pretty much everyone I've been reading about in the jungle who are part of the Sect were there. Lotsa kissy-kissy-cheek-cheek going on. Muta!! Ooohhhhh, and then there was the life-size statue of the Mother of Sorrow. Never seen her before...definitely not on Good Friday services. Maybe it's just me, but I felt like it detracted from the solemnity of the day Jesus was crucified. My saina always taught me the significance of Good Friday and that nothing is more important or more worthy of our attention than honoring Christ for the sacrifice he made.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have had 2 kids baptized at the NCW Easter Vigil (which is the best event of the year) and I know hundreds of other people who have done the same. Never had (or heard of) any issues as far as documentation or validity but we do ours in the actual church building here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I understand that St. Anthony Parish, one of the largest parishes on Guam, has nine (9) candidates for the sacrament of Confirmation this year. Nine. And Blessed Diego de San Vitores, one of the smallest parishes on Guam, if not THE smallest, has fifteen (15). Let's give a big shout out to the "New Evangelization"!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yeah, well at CB I don't think they even have a definite number. The supposed candidates hardly make appearances. Worst, the "teachers" have been no-show for the past couple weeks! I heard Con and pre-con often are joined and that they're discussing the 10 commandments! At pre-con? gotta be kidding! OMG! SAD!! FAIL!

      Delete
    2. And a shout out to Rudeee....instructing confirmation class. Kidding, or what.

      Delete
  7. What a sad situation for a pitiable and laughable Archdiocese of Agana has become! When you have a VG who is complicit in criminal activity of ncw, instead of a canon lawyer who should protect the patrimony and interests of the archdiocese, then you know you are in big trouble. A VG who tries to pass off as an intellectual but who really is an insecure judgmental snob! VG my foot, you know nothing, nincompoop!

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch