Providentially, as I begin, Anonymous asks:
Exactly! And apparently a lot.
The U Matuna Story (The truth about the property of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary - April 19, 2015), carried the following footnote : "The whole document can be consulted at the Chancery."
Our first clue that there is something "to hide" was that the full document was not posted on the Archdiocese's website for all to see. If the document had actually exonerated Archbishop Apuron's actions, we can be sure that he would have made sure everyone of us could read every word.
By comparison, Apuron printed every word of the decision by the LA Archdiocese regarding Fr. Wadeson, enabling Apuron's reinstatement of Wadeson, in the same issue of the U Matuna. And we all know how Apuron spared no space in publishing every jot and tittle he could publish about Msgr. James. In fact, both the statement about Wadeson and the infamous Internal Review report blasting Msgr. James are both prominently featured on the archdiocesan website under "Featured Posts"!
Our second clue that there is something "to hide" was when a CCOG attorney went to the Chancery to "consult" the document and was told that not only could he not have a copy, take no pictures, and take no notes, but that he would have to stand at the counter and read the 20 page document in the presence of chancery staff.
Our third clue that there is something "to hide" is that the document is no longer available to the public. The CCOG attorney was told on April 23 that the document would only be available until 4pm on April 24. This was not what was printed in the U Matuna, so we have no choice but to believe that Archbishop Apuron really did not think anyone would come to look at it, and when someone did, he hastily made the decision to pull it.
Obviously, the document by the Denver firm DOES NOT do what Archbishop Apuron wanted it to do. But what did he want it to do and why?
First, let me preface what I am about to share with my belief that Archbishop Apuron is NOT making any of these decisions. In fact, he has not been making decisions for many years. All decisions are either made by the Gennarini-Pius hierarchy or they must be submitted to them for approval, even who will be ordained!
Also, it is already a well-known fact that Archbishop Apuron does not write any of the letters he signs, at least not the official ones. It is also quite obvious that all his sermons are either written for him or downloaded verbatim from some online source. And of course for years he has not had an original word of spiritual counsel and direction in the U Matuna, his Sunday Gospel and Reflection being lifted directly from the book 365 Days with the Lord (which at least he gives credit to).
You may think that this is being derogatory towards the archbishop. In fact, it is being merciful. While he still must take responsibility for all that is being done in his name, I believe personally that he is not in his right mind and has been co-opted and controlled by Gennarini and Pius because they need a bishop they can use for their own ends.
However, because the archbishop is the archbishop, we will still have to name him as we proceed.
So what did Apuron want the Denver law firm to do and why?
He needed it to show that he did not alienate the property when he recorded the Deed Restriction, restricting the property for perpetual use for use only by RMS and Blessed Diego Institute.
Why did he need to do that?
Continue to Pt. 2