Sunday, November 20, 2016


Posted by Chuck White


  1. To what extent is this… “he also cut the seminary’s ties to the Neocatechumenal Way”

    Do I take the Coadjutor Archbishop Michael Jude Byrnes, to ACTUALLY mean that if Guam is to MAINTAIN and OPERATE a seminary, it WILL do so ONLY if and ONLY if anything and everything related to the ncw TO BE completely REMOVED and entirely SEVERED?

    Will that include ALL the personnel involved with neocatechumenal way or ONLY at the seminary…

    if he's to cut ties, the string needs to be COMPLETELY cut...
    We have relied on divine providence, long before ncw laid claim to it...

    1. I believe this process is in deference to the current crop of young men studying for the priesthood at RMS. It is a clear message to one and all that NCW will not be the focus for these men but service to the Catholic Community of Guam. The calling to sacred priesthood is the Holy Spirit's work thus we must suspend judgment on seminarians' motives. We will leave it up to Archbishop Byrnes to talk to them individually and assess/discern for himself whether they meet standards and that they are motivated to serve as priests for the Archdiocese of Agana. I presume that their numbers will whittle down considerably but it is far better to have men of quality and character than a quantity of random men whose character can be potentially called in question. There is neither magic formula nor calculations to assure quality control, so it might behoove us to leave this one to Archbishop Byrnes who is ultimately responsible for clergy within his jurisdiction and to formators of real seminaries. Of course, laypeople are heavily invested in their education and support so our voice counts towards choices regarding our future spiritual leaders. Proper vetting and proper education are required.

    2. To clarify. RMS was first created by episcopal decree in 1999. Per the decree as found in Appendix B of the ad hoc committee report

      there was NO reference to a neocatechumenal way formation, only a reference to the norms as found in canon law.

      RMS was incorporated in 2002 at which time the formation per the life and practice of the neocatechumenal way was inserted.

      There was no reason to establish a corporation for RMS. It already had a juridical existence under canon law by virtue of the decree. Of course, now we know the reason.

      By removing the reference to a neocatechumenal formation, Archbishop Byrnes has simply restored; the language of the corporation documents to match that of the episcopal decree.

      In short, there is NO provision to form priests at RMS according to "the life and practice of the Neocatechumenal Way." And since the RMS system is set up ONLY to do that, there is nothing left to do but put an end to the operation altogether.

    3. Yet another vital layer to the analysis - thank you.