By Tim Rohr
To date, my post HOW DOES A NEOCAT PRIEST PERSONALLY GUARANTEE AN $800,000 LOAN?, posted on April 19, 2026, has received 547 views and 8 comments, including this one from Rodney:
Let's take a look at Canon 285 in full:
Can. 285 §1. Clerics are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according to the prescripts of particular law.
§2. Clerics are to avoid those things which, although not unbecoming, are nevertheless foreign to the clerical state.
§3. Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.
§4. Without the permission of their ordinary, they are not to take on the management of goods belonging to lay persons or secular offices which entail an obligation of rendering accounts. They are prohibited from giving surety even with their own goods without consultation with their proper ordinary. They also are to refrain from signing promissory notes, namely, those through which they assume an obligation to make payment on demand. - emphasis added.
Pursuant to the documents I set forth in HOW DOES A NEOCAT PRIEST...?, which linked to the original questions in QUESTIONS FOR THE ARCHBISHOP (714 views), Fr. Jose Alberto Rodriguez Salamanca (his full name) is a member of the Board of Guarantors for the Neocat corporation Rainan I Langet Foundation, Inc., which, at the time in 2021, owed $800,000 on a mortgage:
Pursuant to Canon 285 §4, "Clerics...are prohibited from giving surety even with their own goods without consultation with their proper ordinary." No canon lawyer is needed to interpret this. Bottom line is: if the bishop says it's okay, then it's okay, but if not, then it's a violation of church law, and the Ordinary, the bishop, is required to do something about it.
To be fair, Jimenez wasn't the Ordinary in 2021. However, he is the Ordinary now. And, as far as I know, there is no documentation showing that Salamanca has been removed from the Board of Guarantors. If the Neocats have such a document, they are welcome to provide it, and I'll happily publish it.
Meanwhile, it would only take a single sentence from Archbishop Jimenez, newly elevated to the Vatican Dicastery for Communications, to say whether or not Salamanca is still a Guarantor or not. And, it's not like he doesn't have time to address it.
Just yesterday, there was
news that Jimenez gave a speech in some far-off town in Australia, telling his audience that Sinlaku was evidence of climate change and that "we need to really reflect and find our own little ways to save our common home."
If Jimenez can find time to fly off to Australia and talk about climate change, then he can find time to tell us about Salamanca. My bet is that he won't.
Meanwhile, this isn't the first time Salamanca's name has been found attached to the nefarious inner workings of surreptitious Neocat operations. Salamanca is one of two Archdiocese of Agana officials who signed the infamous DECLARATION OF DEED RESTRICTION, conveying the mega-million-dollar Yona Property into the control of the Neocats. The other signature was Archbishop Apuron's.
Just to be clear that we are talking about the same Fr. Jose Alberto Rodriguez Salamanca. Here is his full name as it appears today on the archdiocesan
website:
As you may recall, the aforesaid DECLARATION, which bears Salamanca's signature, once we discovered it, was one of the major things that brought down the House of Apuron. I say "once we discovered it, because Apuron secretly executed it and recorded it in violation of canon law, which required the transfer of this mega-asset to first have the approval of the archdiocesan finance council.
This amazing story will make up a large part of my upcoming book, Orchestrated. In fact, I am in the middle of writing the chapter on this mess, which is why I came across Salamanca's name on the DECLARATION just now.
The story of this secret conveyance of our Church's largest material asset is amazing. In January 2012, Apuron fired 4 of the 5 members of the archdiocesan finance council. He fired them because they wanted to discuss the "proposed" transfer of the Yona Property to RMS. I will tell you why I put "proposed" in quotes after I copy a portion of the news story about the firing:
Former AFC members Benavente, Untalan, Joseph Rivera, and Sister Mary Stephen Torres replied to the archbishop on Jan. 16, 2012, after receiving letters of termination on Jan. 11 the same year. The letter said they believe their termination was not due to the expiration of their fixed term that Apuron alluded to.
Apuron’s termination letter said the member’s term of appointment had expired and “that it is time for me to engage new members in the council.” Apuron’s letter cited the five year fixed term that each member is allotted.
However, one member, Sister Mary Stephen Torres, was one of the founding members of the AFC over 26 years ago, and all other members served for over five years prior to their termination.
In a letter to Balvo, Untalan explained that the former members then agreed that their expired terms could not be the reason for their termination. Instead, they concluded that their unanimous decision to deny the transfer, conveyance, or assignment of the title of Yoña property to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary led Apuron to terminate them from the council.
“There was no transition to break in the new members and no continuity with the past. It was quick, unexpected, sharp, abrupt, and startling,” Untalan wrote.
The property in question is currently under the name of the Guam archbishop and will be under the name of Apuron’s successors.
Notice the date of the Letter of Termination to each of the terminated members of the finance council: January 11, 2012. Now notice the date stamped on the DECLARATION OF DEED RESTRICTION, the date the DECLARATION was recorded with the Department of Land Management:
The date of the recording of the DECLARATION is November 22, 2011. The date Apuron fired the finance council is January 11, 2012. The finance council, other than Msgr. David C. Quitugua, a Neocat and a member of the finance council, was attempting to set up a meeting to discuss what they thought was still a PROPOSAL by Apuron to assign the property to RMS.
Instead of saying, "Sorry guys, I already dun it. Too bad, so sad," Apuron tries to hide what he did by firing the people who were canonically constituted to review and approve or disapprove such a proposal.
Just amazing.
Ancient history, you say? Nope. Salamanca is still showing up. And just like he showed up in 2011 on the infamous DEED, he showed up again in 2021 as described above. He also showed up at the Easter Vigil in Asan, his parish, standing behind Luis Camacho, who took the stage, front and center.
Do you see the problem?
BTW, wasn't he the guy who moved the altar that fell through the floor at the Agat church?
https://www.ucanews.com/news/vatican-asks-indian-bishops-to-curb-priests-violating-canon-law/94619
ReplyDeleteThe Vatican has given clear instructions to the Bishops in India to take action on priests who violate canon law 285. But it seems through Kiko's influence they have turned a blind eye to the same problem in Guam