THE MANY NAMES OF RMS...AND WHY

By Tim Rohr

RMS, the former Neocat “seminary,” which was at the center of so much controversy in the days of the “Fall of Apuron,” had several names:

The Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary Redemptoris Mater - Dec. 8, 1999. Decree, signed by Archbishop Apuron

The Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Archdiocese of Agana (RMS) - Nov. 27, 2002, Articles of Incorporation filed with the Government of Guam

The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, Archdiocese of Agana (RMHF) - Nov. 27, 2002, Articles of Incorporation filed with the Government of Guam

The Redemptoris Mater Archiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam - Feb. 25, 2004. Certificate of fictitious business name (DBA) filed with the Guam Department of Revenue and Taxation

WHY?

Why the different names? In 2016, RMS "Inquisitors" attempted to answer that question. Here's what they said:

"Many of the faithful are speculating on why the RMHF and RMS felt a need to hide behind a fictitious name like “The Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary.” There is speculation that the reason is to justify receipt of subsidies from the Archdiocese of Agana, and/or to fulfill the stipulation of the donor who desired to support an Archdiocesan seminary." 

- Visitation ad hoc Committee Report, September 12, 2016, Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary Redemptoris Mater, Archdiocese of Agana, Guam, Pg. 7

However, I believe there is another reason for one of the names, and it's an indicator of what most of us knew all along. The name is "The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, Archdiocese of Agana" (RMHF). 

Notice that Apuron incorporated TWO corporations on the same day (November 27, 2002) for the same entity: 1) The Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Archdiocese of Agana (RMS); and 2) The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, Archdiocese of Agana (RMHF). 

From the aforesaid Visitation ad hoc Committee Report, Pg. 4:

"On November 27, 2002, the Archdiocese of Agana filed two separate Articles of Incorporation with the Department of Land Management, Government of Guam..." 

Now, why would he do that? 

You can Google it for yourself. There is a difference between a Seminary and a House of Formation:

Apuron (his Neocat handlers, actually) knew that if he openly called it a seminary, one day Rome would want to know if, in fact, it really was. It wasn't. It was never a seminary. A seminary, like an accredited college, must conform to established standards. RMS was never even close. 

According to the aforesaid Visitation Report, there are "Four Pillars of the Program for Priestly Formation:" 1) Human Formation; 2) Spiritual Formation; 3) Intellectual Formation; and 4) Pastoral Formation.

Here is what the Visitation Committee concluded about each:

1. Human Formation - The seminary seems to rely on a seminarian’s “walk” in the Neocatechumenal Way to be sufficient to meet the human formation criteria found in the PPF. (In other words, there was no program for formation in the "seminary" itself.) 

2. Spiritual Formation - There is a lack of integration into and appreciation of the broader Catholic community’s spiritual practices, such as the celebration of the sacraments outside of the neocatechumel liturgies and equitable support for other ecclesial charisms. 

3. Intellectual Formation - (The committee sets out 9 points. The following is a condensation.) 

• The seminary is dependent on visiting professors for many of the courses. 
• A structure of prerequisite course requirements for the appropriate sequencing of courses is lacking. 
• The seminary does not have a standard language of instruction. Proficiency in reading, writing, or speaking English for college-level work is not required. Translators are used. Some students and even professors struggle with English as their second language, potentially affecting comprehension of subject matter. 
• The Blessed Diego Theological Institute does not offer a U.S.-accredited bachelor’s degree, nor can seminarians earn a master’s degree through the institute. 
• There is a lack of consideration given to the educational diversity of the students. That is to say, distinction needs to be made between a high school graduate-seminarian versus a seminarian holding a college degree. 
• A liberal arts program of studies is lacking.

4. Pastoral Formation - The pastoral approach is predominantly shaped by the Neocatechumenal Way. New Evangelization” is understood narrowly in terms of the practices of the Neocatechumenal Way.

In other words, none of the four standards for priestly formation were being met at RMS because, in fact, it was never a seminary, and, at most, it was hardly even a "house of formation." 

However, given that Rome's standards for a "house of formation" were a lot looser, Apuron decided to create two legal entities: one, so he could cover himself to Rome (RMHF) and the other (RMS) because it would be easier to bilk money from us locals because of the word "seminary," and especially, as the Committee report pointed out, if it was called "Archdiocesan Seminary," which was its fictitious business name. 

So, how much money did Apuron and the Neocats' fictitious seminary cost us? Well, ultimately it would cost us mega-millions after the Apuron and the Neocats drove us into bankruptcy, but per the Committee Report relative to money raised for the fictitious seminary:

The average for these six years is $105,504.33 per year. And given that the report says we have been subsidizing Apuron and the Neocats' fictitious seminary since 1999 (17 years by 2016), the total could be estimated at $1,793,573.67. Nice. Very nice. 

While we are having to do bake sales, car washes, and take out expensive loans (from Apuron's favorite bank) to repair our broken down churches and schools, Apuron and the Neocats waltzed away with a cool TWO MILLION off our backs, making us think that we had, as the Neocats loved to call it: "A Seminary for Guam!" 

Once again, I must remind the reader. This isn't past history. This isn't old news. The Neocats are still here. And they are richer, more powerful, and more in control than ever, thanks to their new archbishop. (Emphasis on "their.")

One more thing

There's one more thing...a very important thing. I will copy this section from the Committee Report in full (Pgs. 12-13, emphases added):

Evaluation of candidates for Ordination

As with the Norms for the Admission of Candidates, the PPF clearly articulates a set of rigorous standards meant to guide seminaries as they develop and implement the policies and practices relative to seminarian evaluation in the Norms for the Continuing Evaluation of Seminarians (See PPF 273-289). These norms emphasize the importance of the ongoing assessment of each seminarian and advise that there be a number of opportunities for them to demonstrate their readiness to progress to the next stage in their formation. The PPF requires that individuals who are involved in the evaluation of seminarians are provided with clear criteria and expectations that they must follow to maintain a high level of rigor and quality.

Based on RMHF/RMS’s written description of the process used to evaluate seminarians, there seems to be little or no correlation between the Norms for the Continuing Evaluation of Seminarians as outlined in the PPF and their evaluation practice. The process for evaluation described by the RMHF/RMS lacks clear benchmarks of achievement, timelines and criteria for acceptable performance.

Furthermore, those charged with the informal and formal evaluation of seminarians seem to lack a prescribed framework for evaluation to help guide each of their processes. This lack of any formal evaluation structure may lend itself to inconsistent and subjective evaluation decisions that lack substance or any foundation grounded in what it means to be a well-rounded seminarian or those demonstrable characteristics required to progress to the next stage of formation.

A major consequence of an inadequate evaluation process calls into question the quality, accuracy and overall integrity of any evaluation decisions which subsequently may lead to the progression of candidates to ordination who are not ready and do not meet the standards and expectations articulated in the PPF, nor have the concurrence of the Faithful.

There you have it. For nearly 20 years, thanks to Apuron and the Neocats, we spent "meeeellions and meeeelions" (to quote a certain Neocat presbyter) to produce and ordain Neocat presbyters "who are not ready and do not meet the standards..." because they never cared about the standards. 

And they still don't.