Thursday, October 22, 2015


"The Diana", in an attempt to defend once again the theft of the Yona property by Archbishop Apuron, reprinted a Q&A with Pius the Putrid which was printed last August in the Pacific Daily News. Thanks Diana. You give us the opportunity, once again, to demonstrate why we call him "Pius the Putrid."

Here are excerpts of the answers from Father Pius Sammut.
Q: Did the Neocatechumenal Way attempt to influence the transfer of title to the former Accion Hotel property in Yona from the Archdiocese of Guam to an entity whose officers are members of the Neocatechumenal Way?
A: Actually it is the other way around. The purchase of the Accion Hotel was proposed by the Neocatechumenal Way to the archbishop, because in order to start the seminary and an institute, there was a need for rooms for 30 to 40 seminarians, 10 faculty professors, four classrooms, a library for 20,000 volumes, a chapel. The money for the purchase of the hotel was donated to the archdiocese by an off-island benefactor who offered it with the explicit intention of erecting the seminary and the theological institute. The previous owner of the hotel sold it for just $1.9 million with the proviso that the building be used as an educational facility. Actually, the archdiocese did not put down a penny.
By stating that it was the Neocatechumenal Way which proposed the purchase of the property, Pius confirms that there was never any intent to establish a seminary to form genuine diocesan priests, something we are all now witnessing. 

He then states that the donation was given with the "explicit intention of erecting the seminary (meaning a Neocatechumenal Way seminary) and the theological institute (meaning the Blessed Diego Institute)." Those who were involved with the acquisition of the property and the direct solicitation of the donor would tell you otherwise. The donation was given with nothing other than a note stating "for the purchase of a defunct hotel for the purpose of a seminary." Also, there was no condition that the donation be returned should the archdiocese decide to do otherwise with the property at some point in the future. 

This also contradicts the letter from the head of the Carmelite order in St. Louis through whom the donation was given who wroteDear Archbishop Apuron, in 2003 when the said "funds" were donated, we had absolutely no knowledge of these entities (like Redemptoris Mater Seminary, the Neo-catechumenal Way, or the Theological Institute for the formation of priests), not to speak of any specific intention whatsoever to relate this donation to them. In fact, we did not even know of these lay organizations, so naturally we could not direct anything to them by name. It was our sole intention to help the people of Guam to provide a property for a seminary for the formation of priests for the Church in Guam.

Not knowing that there was such a thing as the Neocatechumenal Way the Superior of the St. Louis Carmelite Order could have only believed that she was directing the donation to the establishment of a genuine diocesan seminary, something RMS, as per its articles of incorporation, is NOT. 

Conclusion: Pius is a Liar. 
PIUS: Regarding the transfer of the title, the legal adviser of the archdiocese, five years ago, asked that the title be transferred to the Redemptoris Mater Corp. to respect the intention of the donor and to safeguard the property. This corporation is a 'corporation sole' where there is only one member, namely the archbishop, who has all power. He is assisted by a board of directors who (oversees) the daily administration. The only member, namely the archbishop, chooses all directors. Then there is a board of guarantors that guarantees that the corporation follows the original purpose for which it was created. The Archbishop chooses, confirms, or dismisses freely these guarantors.
Here Pius confirms that there was in fact an intent to transfer the title to RMS. However, he's really a big fat Liar here. It was not the "legal adviser of the archdiocese" who told the archbishop to transfer the title. It was Pius himself - in cahoots with Gennarini. We know it was not the "legal advisor" (Atty. Ed Terlaje) because we have a copy of the agenda for the finance council meeting of September 7, 2011 containing the warning of Atty. Terlaje to the archbishop NOT to transfer the title without amending the articles of incorporation lest he "relinquish ultimate control of the asset." Apuron ordered the finance council to transfer the title without amending the articles, meaning he had full knowledge that he was "relinquishing control of the asset." See the agenda here

He is also lying about RMS being a corporation sole. We know this because the articles of incorporation for RMS do not indicate that it is a corporation sole, but a normal non-profit corporation, which by law, means it is governed by its board of directors, not its members, even if it is only one member. The only thing Apuron can do as the sole member is appoint or terminate the members of the board - and only as per the by-laws which require noticing. He cannot make any decisions related to the actual running of RMS except for his (current) 1/5 vote as one of five members of the board. 

Pius is also lying about the archbishop choosing or dismissing the guarantors. We know this because the RMS by-laws require that the "responsible team" for the United States always be among the guarantors. Apuron has no control over who those team members are. We also know this because Attorney Bronze found that the board of guarantors is “a separate, unelected, and un-removable board having veto power over (the) board of directors, the officers, and the sole member, the Archbishop of Agana and his successor.” See full opinion here

Conclusion: Pius is a LIAR. 
PIUS: So the Neocatechumenal Way does not and cannot -- by reason of its statutes -- possess the seminary but simply ensures the formation. ... The whole discussion on the property of the Accion Hotel began two to three years ago because certain individuals wanted to sell the building to pay their debts. Actually the archdiocese is only supporting 3 or 4 percent of the seminary's budget, while the rest is supported by Catholics from all over the world including different foundations and Propaganda Fide.
Pius is lying again. First since when do "certain individuals" have the authority to sell diocesan property? They don't. Only the archbishop could authorize such a transaction - that is so long as the property was within the corporation sole of his office. Ironically, because the property is now NOT under the auspices of the corporation sole and is now under the governance of a non-profit corporation legally separate from the Archdiocese of Agana, the property can NOW be sold by the RMS board of directors, and as per the by-laws, can do so before Apuron would have a chance to replace them. 

Conclusion: Pius is a LIAR. 

Recommendations by JungleWatch