CCOG Complete Report

Report
On Affairs Within Archdiocese of Agana

1/5/2015
Concerned Catholics of Guam, Inc.
Table of Contents
REPORT ON FAILURES AND DEFICIENCIES OF OUR CHURCH LEADERS
CAUSING A DIVISION AMONG THE FAITHFUL
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I. Clergy Mistreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Father Paul Gofigan, Pastor of Santa Barbara Parish, Dededo, Guam . . . . . . . . .

--Defamation of Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--Chronology of Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Footnotes on the Matter of Father Paul Gofigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
3
4
9-10
B. Monsignor James Benavente, Pastor (de facto), Dulce Nombre De Maria Parish,
Agana, Guam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
C. Deacon Stephen Wm. Martinez, Assigned to the Parish of Dulce Nombre

De Maria, Agana, Guam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--Threat of Interdiction if Deacon Martinez
Continued as a Member of CCOG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
12
II. Stewardship and Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A. The National Museum of the Dulce Nombre De Maria Cathedral-Basilica. . .
12
12
B. Two Seminaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--Youre Welcome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Footnotes on the Matter of Two Seminaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
15
20
C. On the Matter of Conveyance or Assignment of Title to Real Property

To the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--The Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Footnotes on the Matter of Conveyance or Assignment of Title to Real Property
To the Redemptoris Mater Seminary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--A Post Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III. Heretical Instructions & Pronouncements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On the Controversy in the Archdiocese of Agana over the Manner in which
Holy Communion is Distributed in the Eucharistic Celebrations of the
Neocatechumenal Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
21
27
27
28
28
Footnotes on the Controversy in the Archdiocese of Agana over the Manner in which
Neocatechumenal Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
Epilogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39

P.O. Box 8647
Tamuning, Guam 96931
Telephone: 1-(671) 727-3233
January 4, 2015
Introduction
The Concerned Catholics of Guam, Inc. (CCOG), was established as a non-
profit organization to assist the Archdiocese of Agana in addressing a division
among the Faithful within the Catholic Church on Guam.
The officers and board of directors of the organization are community
leaders and devout Catholics who decided to organize to help the Church on
Guam and the region via a bonafide corporate structure, providing an official
forum for dialogue among the Catholic clergy and laity of Guam and the region to
discuss issues of concern and to work out solutions as best as they could provide.
CCOG saw its beginning on the impetus of these community leaders,
strong in their Catholic faith, after witnessing alleged misuse of Archdiocesan
funds received from the Faithful on Guam; the cavalier use of the names of
certain members of the Clergy without consulting them to put blame or
responsibility on them; and the destruction of the reputation of two priests, held
in high regard by the Faithful on Guam.
The pronouncements of the Archbishop of Agana and the actions,
statements, and omissions from the Archdiocesan leadership, i.e., the Vicar
General and the Chancellor, on matters relating to parish affairs; on the
punishments handed down to members of the clergy; on the practices of the
Neocatechumenal Way vis a vis traditions that have been practiced by the
Faithful in the parishes of Guam among other matters of concern to the Faithful,
have caused confusion, anxiety, and frustration among the Catholics on Guam
and the region.
Recognizing the divisiveness that exists within the Catholic Church on
Guam that has been festering for almost twenty years since the advent of the
Neocatechumenal Way on Guam, the founding members of CCOG were
compelled to organize so the Laity and the Clergy could have a forum to discuss
their issues and to seek assistance and resolutions to these problems, as seeking
answers and assistance from the Archdiocese have been misleading, unfulfilling,
and not in compliance with Canon Law or the Magisterium of the Church, the
latter being what many have found out later.
Email: ConcernedCatholicsOfGuam@gmail.com Website: www.concernedcatholicsofguam.org
The Archbishop of Agana and the leadership of the Archdiocese have been
allegedly secretive in its financial management of the Archdioceses treasury.
They have been negligent in their pastoral care of the Faithful, pitting the
practices of the Neocatechumenal Way against the cultural traditions of how the
Faithful on Guam through generations have practice their faith and worship of
God the Father and of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the detriment of unity and peace
among the Faithful, fostering doubt on what is truly right in how we should
worship God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.
It is incumbent upon CCOG to make known this divisiveness and to seek
remedies per Canon Law Title I, No. 212, 2-3.
Therefore, CCOG puts forth these issues of concern hoping that the
assistance of higher ecclesiastical authority can take definitive action to restore
harmony, unity, peace and love within our Church on Guam and the region.
I. Clergy Mistreatment
A. Father Paul Gofigan
Pastor of Santa Barbara Parish, Dededo, Guam
The removal of Father Paul Gofigan, in July 2013, as pastor of the largest
parish on Guam came as a shock to the Catholics of Guam. Fr. Gofigan was well-
respected and loved by his parishioners.
The parish of Santa Barbara, Dededo, especially was shocked to learn of
their pastors disobedience in following an order from the Vicar General to
release an employee of the parish who is a registered sex offender who was
convicted of his crime over 30 years ago. The order was issued a couple of years
before it was discovered that the employee was still working for the parish.
The parishioners of Santa Barbara were further shaken to learn that
because of this disobedience, Fr. Gofigan was alleged to have put the children
of Santa Barbara school in danger, and thus, was immediately removed from his
duties as pastor.
Later it was learned that the removal of Fr. Gofigan was unfounded and
illegitimate per the precepts of Canon Law, and that Fr. Gofigan did in fact follow
the order from the Vicar General, two years earlier when it was issued, but the
former employee continued to volunteer to help around the parish rectory,
without compensation. The order from the Vicar General did not ban the person
in question from volunteering to help as an active parishioner.
The damage to Fr. Gofigans reputation and character, however, had been
done.
2
On July 16, 2013, Father Gofigan was called to the Chancery and was told
that he has to resign as Pastor, or face a more painful and arduous closure to
his call for voluntary resignation, for allegedly disobeying the order to dismiss a
parish rectory employee and registered sex offender and ex-convict who was
dubbed a threat to the welfare of the children at nearby Santa Barbara School.
Afterwards, the following facts and the truth were discovered:
(1) Fr. Gofigan had in fact dismissed the employee two years
earlier when directed by the Vicar General. That former
employee later volunteered to continue working without
compensation, helping around the parish rectory; and
(2) there never was any proof that the individual in question
(Mr. Joseph Lastimoza) was in fact a threat to the children
at the nearby Catholic school.
Father Gofigan requested for a written document of the charges
prompting his dismissal and at the same time asserted his right to defend
himself.
Instead Fr. Gofigan, upon returning to the rectory at Santa Barbara after
his meeting with the Archbishop that afternoon, found the locks changed, and
was advised by the newly-appointed parish administrator that he had to vacate
the premises. Further, his name was removed from the parish bulletin as a
celebrant of some of the Masses that following Sunday.
The canonical procedures for the removal of pastors were violated by
Archbishop Apuron concerning prior counseling and due process. Canon nos.
1740-1752.
--Defamation of Character
The Archbishop, at a retreat-conference of priests of the Archdiocese of
Agana, held in October 2013 at Tagaytay, Philippines, publicly defamed Fr. Paul
Gofigan by insinuating that Fr. Gofigan was probably having homosexual trysts
with Mr. Joseph Lastimoza, the registered sex-offender and parishioner who
continued to work around the parish rectory as a volunteer.
In making these statements about Fr Gofigan, he not only disparaged Fr.
Gofigans reputation, but moreover hurt the reputation and family of Mr. Joseph
Lastimoza.
Fr. Gofigan vehemently denied this insinuation and demanded an apology
from the Archbishop. None was ever given to the best of CCOGs knowledge to
date. Father Gofigan has filed a case against Archbishop Apuron with the
Vatican.
The case of Fr. Paul Gofigan was documented in a book, titled: Target
Equals Priest, which can be made available.
--Chronology of Events
A chronology of events is listed here below summarizing the removal of
Fr. Paul Gofigan from Santa Barbara Parish:
July 16, 2013.
a. Fr. Paul Gofigan is called to a meeting with Archbishop Anthony Apuron
and Msgr. David C. Quitugua, the Vicar General. At the meeting he is read a
letter:
accusing him of disobeying an order from the Vicar General to
terminate an employee two years earlier;
accusing him of causing grave harm to the parishespecially the
youth and creating a lasting and potential threat to the safety
and well-being of his parishioners and staff;
demanding his immediate resignation as pastor of Santa
Barbara parish or face a more arduous and painful closure to
your assignment;
telling him to go look for a benevolent bishop willing to accept
you.
b. According to Fr. Gofigan, upon returning to his office, Fr. Gofigan finds
himself locked out of his office, the Archbishop having ordered the locks changed
while he was at the meeting with the Archbishop.
July 17, 2013.
The very next day Fr. Paul Gofigan is officially removed as pastor of his
parish by an Aviso from the Chancery appointing Rev. Father Dan Bien as the
Parochial Administrator of Santa Barbara Church, upon which Fr. Gofigan is then:
removed from the schedule of presiders, effectively censuring him
without due process; and
told to vacate the rectory with no alternative residence provided.
July 22, 2013.
a. Fr. Gofigan writes to Archbishop Apuron stating his rejection of the
Archbishops demand that he resign and asserts his canonical rights for basic due
process, all of which had been heretofore violated by the Archbishop.
b. The Chancery releases a public statement to the media:
accusing Fr. Gofigan of disobeying a directive from the Archbishop;
implying that the subject employee was and is a danger to children:
A school full of children is in very close proximity to the parish.
4
July 28, 2013.

Fr. Gofigan writes Archbishop Apuron and requests a copy of his decree of
removal and states his intention to seek recourse to the author of the decree in
accordance with C. 1734.1 and names his advocate: Fr. Adolfo N. Dacanay, S.J.
August 2, 2013.
The Vicar General writes Father Gofigan saying that there is no decree of
removal because he was never removed and that the letter of July 16, 2013
demanding his resignation was only an attempt to persuade the pastor to
resign.
August 20, 2014.
Archbishop Apuron writes Father Gofigan:
again accusing him of disobeying his 2011 instruction to terminate
the employee;
again accusing the employee of being a danger to parishioners;
again accusing the employee of specifically being a danger to
children;
claiming that there is no guarantee that the employee, who went
to prison in 1981 for sexual assault, will never commit sexual
assault again, thus justifying his accusation that the man is still a
danger;
again demands Fr. Gofigans resignation as pastor (even though he
was already officially replaced with an administrator, effectively
removing Fr. Gofigan as pastor and making a letter of resignation
unnecessary).
Relevant facts to consideration with regard to Fr. Gofigans removal as pastor
of Santa Barbara parish, Dededo:
Fr. Gofigan produced his letter to the employee terminating his
employment at Santa Barbara parish dated October 26, 2011, proving
that he had in fact obeyed Archbishop Apurons order when it was given;
The subject employee in fact worked previously at Santa Barbara parish
over a period of three years as a condition of his parole with the
knowledge of Archbishop Apuron and long before Fr. Gofigan was made
pastor of the parish.
Archbishop Apuron did NOT consider the man, then only recently
released from prison, to be all the dangers he makes him out to be 13
years later as the reason for removing Fr. Gofgian as pastor of Santa
Barbara parish.
5
Archbishop Apuron initially violates the canons (1740-1752) relative to

the removal of a pastor in his demand for the resignation of Fr. Gofigan.
Having violated specific canons and having been caught doing it,
Archbishop Apuron backtracks saying his initial demand for resignation
was only an attempt to paternally persuade Fr. Gofigan to resign (as
required by canon law).
August 12, 2013.
As later noted in the official Decree of Removal, Archbishop Apuron
initiates the removal process according to canonical procedure (a de facto
admission that he previously violated the procedure) by convoking the required
consultation with two pastors, Rev. Msgr. Brigido Arroyo and Rev. Fr. Jose
Alberto Rodriguez.
August 20, 2013.
Fr. Adolofo Dacanay files with Archbishop Apuron a Motion:
to restore Fr. Gofigan to his office as pastor;
to clear his name; and
to repair the damage done to his reputation
September 10, 2013.
Archbishop Apuron ignores the Motion from Fr. Dacanay and informs Fr.
Gofigan that he is proceeding with the removal process observing the canonical
norms.
(Note: Obviously, Archbishop Apuron did not follow canonical norms
given that on July 17, 2013, he officially replaced Fr. Gofigan with an
administrator. An administrator cannot be appointed to a parish
unless the pastors office is vacant. Thus, Archbishop Apuron upon
appointing the administrator de facto admits that he had already
removed Fr. Gofigan from his office, albeit illegally).
September 13, 2013.
Fr. Gofigan writes Archbishop Apuron acknowledging receipt of his
September 10th letter and states that since he is only now proceeding with the
removal that it is apparent that he has not yet been removed from this office as
pastor and he be restored to his office as pastor with all the consequences that
follow therefrom.
November 11, 2013.

6
Fr. Gofigans advocate, Fr. A.N. Dacanay, S. J., provides Archbishop Apuron
with a copy of the appeal of Rev. Paul Gofigan in relation to his removal as
Pastor of Santa Barbara Parish.
In the appeal, Fr. Dacanay:
states that the charge against Fr. Gofigan has become an elastic
concept (a reference to Archbishop Apurons mutating the charge
against Fr. Gofigan from
refusing to obey his order to terminate an employee, to refusing to
obey his order to terminate a de facto employee);
details the procedural lapses in the manner the Archbishop acted;
criticizes the Vicar Generals August 2nd assertion that Fr. Gofigan
had no right to appeal his removal since he was not removed (even
though he was);
calls the Archbishops actions against Fr. Gofigan a canonical
procedure that has gone awry;
accuses Archbishop Apuron of: 1) mangling canonical procedures;
2) ignoring provision of the Code; 3) making a feeble attempt to
correct the bungled process; 4) violating the rights of a pastor; and
5) ruining his good name.
He concludes by stating: The concerns raised by the Archbishop could have
been accomplished even without the bungled attempt at removal, therefore one
really wonders what is the real purpose behind the move.
November 12, 2013.
Archbishop Apuron officially decrees the removal of Fr. Gofigan from his
office as pastor of Santa Barbara Church (three months after he de facto removed
him by the appointment of a parochial administrator and locking him out of his
office).
December 6, 2013.
Fr. Gofigan writes Archbishop Apuron confronting him about remarks he
(Apuron) made at recent clergy retreat in Tagaytay, Philippines wherein
Archbishop Apuron heavily infers that Fr. Gofigan and Joseph Lastimoza, the
subject employee, were involved in a homosexual relationship.
Archbishop Apuron alleges that Fr. Gofigan had gone so far as to construct
a stairway up to his room so that the employee could visit him in the middle of
the night with cases of beer and what not and stay there until the early morning.
(The comments were recorded). Fr. Gofigan calls these remarks slanderous and
defamatory and demands both a retraction and an apology in writing.
January 13, 2014.
7
Fr. Gofigan again writes Archbishop Apuron reminding him of his

(Gofigans) demand for a retraction and apology which was not provided and
advises that the Archbishop: Your failure to retract those slanderous and
defamatory statements leaves me no choice but to take steps to rectify your wrong
and to salvage my name, which you have gone out of your way to ruin.
Fr. Gofigan concludes by giving the Archbishop until 14 January 2014 to
make the requested retraction in writing and if he (Apuron) fails to do so Fr.
Gofigan will take action (including legal action) to salvage my name.
January 14, 2014.
A meeting is arranged between Archbishop Apuron and Fr. Gofigan at
which, according to Fr. Gofigan, Archbishop Apuron did not apologize but only
suggested that we cool off and let the canonical process run its course.
Gofigan advises Apuron: I will continue to press my case both canonically and
civilly.
January 16, 2013.
Fr. Gofigan writes Archbishop Apuron that there was no apology yet from
Archbishop Apuron and that:
there was only an excuse for the defamatory remarks;
that Archbishop Apuron meant to ruin and defame my name and
that of Mr. Lastimoza; and
all in an attempt to bolster and justify your act in removing me on
July 16th as
pastor of Santa Barbara.
Fr. Gofigan was later assigned as a priest in residence to St. Anthonys
Church in Tamuning where he still awaits the outcome of his appeal.
With regards to Joseph Lastimoza, the subject employee:
Mr. Lastimoza was convicted of rape and manslaughter of an adult
woman in 1981.
He went to prison and was paroled in 1999.
He served out the terms of his parole as a maintenance man at
Santa Barbara Church from 03/30/99 to 03/29/02 without any
objection from Archbishop Apuron.
By his own admission, it was because of his association with Fr.
Gofigan that Mr. Lastimoza returned to the Church, and as a
married man and father of two, had been living a quiet, faith-filled
life and one exemplary of the success of the corrections system.
All of this was shattered by Archbishop Apuron on July 16, 2013
8
and thereafter due to the continued statements about Mr.

Lastimoza being a danger to parishioners and children by
Archbishop Apuron.
===============================
Footnotes:
Letter from Archbishop Apuron to Fr. Paul Gofigan. July 16, 2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/221840769/ApuronvsGofigan20130716ArchbishopAnth
onySablanApuronlettertoFrPaulGofigan
Official Aviso. July 17, 2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/251200447/ApuronvsGofigan2013071704AVISO
Letter from Fr. Paul Gofigan to Archbishop Apuron. July 22, 2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/251201487/ApuronvsGofigan20130722GofiganRefusest
oResign
Archdiocese Statement Regarding Fr. Paul Gofigan. July 22, 2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/222412242/ApuronvsGofigan20130722ChanceryPressR
elease
Email from Fr. Paul Gofigan to Archbishop Apuron. July 28, 2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/221537908/ApuronvsGofigan20130728RequestforCopy
ofDecree
Letter from Msgr. David C. Quitugua to Fr. Paul Gofigan. August 02, 2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/251201731/ApuronvsGofigan20130802VicarGeneralLet
tertoFrGofigan
Letter from Archbishop Apuron to Fr. Paul Gofigan. August 20, 2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/221843293/ApuronvsGofigan20130820ArchbishopAnth
onySablanApuronlettertoFrPaulGofigan
Letter from Fr. Paul Gofigan to Joseph Lastimoza. October 26, 2011
https://www.scribd.com/doc/251202065/ApuronvsGofigan20111026TerminationLett
er
Community Service Record of Joseph Lastimoza. 03/30/99 to 03/29/02
https://www.scribd.com/doc/244788132/ApuronvsGofiganLastimozaCommunityServi
ceRecords
Code of Canon Law on the Removal of Pastors
https://www.scribd.com/doc/251202234/ApuronvsGofiganCodeofCanonLawRemoval
ofaPastor
Decree of Removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan as Pastor of Santa Barbara Church.
Archbishop Apuron. November 12, 2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/223636939/ApuronvsGofigan20131112DecreeofRemov
al
Motion to Restore Fr. Paul Gofigan to his office as pastor. Submitted by Fr.
A.N. Dacanay, S.J., August 20, 2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/223638354/ApuronvsGofigan20130820Motiontorevoke
decreeofremoval
Letter from Archbishop Apuron to Fr. Paul Gofigan. September 10, 2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/223637635/ApuronvsGofigan20130910LetterApuronto
Gofigan
Letter from Fr. Paul Gofigan to Archbishop Apuron. September 13, 2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/251202567/ApuronvsGofigan20130913LetterGofiganto
Apuron
The appeal of Rev. Paul Gofigan in relation to his removal as Pastor of
Santa Barbara Parish. Submitted by Fr. A.N. Dacanay, S.J. November 07, 2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/251202683/ApuronvsGofigan20131107AppealofRevPgo
figan
Decree of Removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan as Pastor of Santa Barbara Church.
Archbishop Apuron. November 12, 2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/223636939/ApuronvsGofigan20131112DecreeofRemov
al
Letter from Fr. Paul Gofigan to Archbishop Apuron. December 06, 2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/229679412/ApuronvsGofigan20131206GofiganLetterto
Apuron
Letter from Fr. Paul Gofigan to Archbishop Apuron. January 13, 2014
https://www.scribd.com/doc/251202902/ApuronvsGofigan20140113GofigantoApuro
n
https://www.scribd.com/doc/251202907/ApuronvsGofigan20140114GofiganPressRel
ease
https://www.scribd.com/doc/251202911/ApuronvsGofigan20140116GofigantoApuro
n
Community Service Record of Joseph Lastimoza. 03/30/99 to 03/29/02
https://www.scribd.com/doc/244788132/ApuronvsGofiganLastimozaCommunityServi
ceRecords
===============================
B. Monsignor James Benavente

Pastor (de facto) of the Dulce Nombre De Maria Cathedral-Basilica Parish
Agana, Guam
10
The following year (on July 25, 2014), Msgr. James Benavente was
removed from his position as Rector (de facto Pastor) of the Cathedral-Basilica
(and the parish of the Dulce Nombre De Maria, Agana); and from his position as
Director of Catholic Cemeteries of the Archdiocese of Agana.
Msgr. Benavente sought in writing the charges levied against him which
prompted his immediate removal as pastor of the Agana parish and Director of
Catholic Cemeteries. Archbishop Apuron agreed to that request. The main
reason was financial mismanagement of the funds entrusted to him (Msgr.
James Benavente).
Msgr. Benavente is also a member of the Archdiocesan Finance Council
which decided not to approve the alienation of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary
in Yona, Guam to the corporation overseeing the seminary, whose officials are
leaders and members of the Neocatechumenal Way, including Archbishop
Apuron; and Giuseppe and Claudia Gennarini, high level officials in the
Neocatechumenal Way, who are based in New Jersey.
Canonical procedures for the removal of pastors (though Msgr. Benavente
is also considered the rector of the Cathedral-Basilica, the seat of the Archbishop
and the center of the Archdiocese of Agana) were again violated in the case of
Msgr. Benavente as was the case with Fr. Paul Gofigan.
The Archbishop announced to the secular media that the removal of Msgr.
Benavente was prompted by financial mismanagement of funds entrusted to him
as a member of the Archdiocesan Finance Council and as the Director of Catholic
Cemeteries of the Archdiocese of Agana.
Five highly-respected clergymen who are members of the Presbyterial
Council publicly demanded a clarification from the Archbishop when he stated
that he (Archbishop) had consulted and obtain the concurrence of his
Presbyterial Council before removing Monsignor Benavente. The clergymen said
they were not consulted. There was no response (at least not made public) to
the priests demand for clarification from the Archbishop.
The Faithful, in reading and hearing only one side of the story
surrounding the removal of Msgr. Benavente, have become weary and doubtful
of pronouncements and announcements coming from the Archdiocese on such
issues, wondering who is actually telling the truth; though it seems from the
public uproar the scale is tipping in favor of the laity helping the Archdiocese
who have effectively accused the Archbishop of making false and misleading
statements on such sensitive matters of concern to the Faithful and with the
clergy whose reputation and integrity have been besmirched with impunity by
the Archbishop, the Vicar General and the Chancellor of the Archdiocese of
Agana.
C. Deacon Stephen Wm. Martinez

Assigned to the Parish of Dulce Nombre De Maria, Agana, Guam
11
On October 24, 2014, Deacon Stephen Martinez (Sexual Abuse Response

Coordinator for the Archdiocese SARC, previous to that date), was removed
from his position as SARC after advising the Archbishop that as the SARC, he,
Deacon Martinez, is to be notified immediately of any issues relating to sexual
abuse involving the clergy and religious of the Archdiocese of Agana.
Deacon Martinez learned through the news that a priest incardinated in
the Archdiocese of Agana had a record of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles, and that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles in 2011 had contacted Guam
church officials to advise them about the sexual abuse allegations against said
priest. Deacon Martinez was surprised that he was never contacted about this.
Knowing about this priests sexual abuse record (Father John Wadeson),
and not saying anything about it to the SARC is the equivalent of concealing the
sexual abuse record of this priest, when it should have been reported to the
SARC as required by the Sexual Abuse Policy of the Archdiocese of Agana.
The subsequent removal of Deacon Martinez as the SARC for the
Archdiocese lays grave suspicion on just what were the intentions of the
Archbishop and other church officials who knew about and kept quiet.
--Threat of Interdiction if Deacon Martinez Continued as a Member of CCOG

On December 17, 2014, Deacon Martinez was advised by the Archbishop
in a letter that he was being stripped of his faculties as a Deacon for being a
member of the Concerned Catholics of Guam, Inc. Initially, the interdict
(suspension of the faculties of the Deacon) was to take effect on December 17,
2014.
However, the very next day, Deacon Martinez was given another letter
stating his interdiction (suspension) will go into effect on January 19, 2015,
unless he resigned from CCOG.
===============================
II. Stewardship and Leadership

A. The National Museum of the Dulce Nombre De Maria Cathedral-Basilica
As a result of the dissolution of the Archdiocesan Development Group (on
July 25, 2014 by Decree Prot. 2014-40 from the Archbishop), which oversaw the
National Museum of the Dulce Nombre De Maria Cathedral-Basilica, many of the
Faithful were concerned that before the museum was open to the public it was
closed. It has been more than five months since the closure of the museum, with
no directive from the Archdiocese on whether the museum will open or not. This
has caused anxiety among the Faithful, and concern among the donors to the
museum who are wondering if their contributions have been for naught.
12
As a result of the dissolution of the Archdiocesan Development Group, the

responsibility will be maintained by the new Rector of the Cathedral Basilica,
Monsignor David Quitugua, the Vicar General of the Archdiocese, to preserve the
artifacts in the museum and continue its mission, if he so desired.
At a visitation in the parish of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament, Agana
Heights, the Archbishop was asked by the congregation gathered why the
museum project was apparently abandoned. Archbishop Apuron responded that
the museum at the Cathedral-Basilica was closed by Monsignor James
Benavente. This statement is false.
Msgr. Benavente did not close the museum, but was removed from his
duties of overseeing the projects under the Cathedral-Basilica of which one was
the National Museum. Msgr. Benavente was working to open the museum when
he was relieved of his duties at the Cathedral-Basilica.
It was Msgr. David Quitugua, the new Rector of the Cathedral-Basilica
who decided not to open the museum. This was clearly stated by the Chancellor,
Father Adrian Cristobal, when he was interviewed on this subject by a television
news reporter, which was aired on KUAM-TV News.
===============================
B. Two Seminaries
TO THE APOSTOLIC VISITORS TO THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA
ON THE MATTER OF TWO SEMINARIES FOR GUAM
Submitted by Tim Rohr
timrohr.guam@gmail.com

Upon request by CCOG, Inc.
because of his extensive research into this matter
(Edited for this Report)
December 28, 2014, Hagatna, Guam
13
Recently, Archbishop Apuron returned from a photo-op with Pope

Francis, boasting about how pleased the Holy Father was that Guam had two
seminaries.
First, Guam does NOT have two seminaries. It has one seminary (and
even thats questionable) and a boarding house for what Archbishop Apuron
believes are disobedient misfits. The young men in the boarding house, an
abandoned Carmelite monastery, have been sent there to shut both them and us
up.
In August of 2013, I made the public aware about the plight of Junee
Valencia, a young man who desired to serve the Archdiocese of Agana as a
diocesan priest, but who was forced by Archbishop Apuron to attend the local
Redemptoris Mater Seminary (RMS) instead of being sent to a traditional and
accredited seminary in the states like almost every diocesan priest from Guam
before him. Junees objection to attending RMS was that it was a decidedly
Neocatechumenal Way formation. This was obvious by what it had already
produced since it was founded in 1999.
My blog, JungleWatch, brought an unwanted light to the problem.
Archbishop Apuron had been able to fund the RMS with donations from the
people of Guam because they had been led to believe that the RMS was a
seminary for Guam, a phrase which led the people here naturally to believe that
the RMS was a diocesan seminary where diocesan priests could be formed and
readied for the priesthood.
However, not only was it apparent that the RMS was producing
something very different than traditional diocesan priests, its academic
credentials began to be questioned. Some noticed that there was no academic
14
handbook, no authentic list of faculty, and credentialed only by Archbishop

Apurons saying that it was affiliated with the Lateran, though no document was
ever proffered.
This lack of academic credential came to the fore when a young man,
Aaron Quitugua, like Junee before him, petitioned Archbishop Apuron to sponsor
him to Mount Angel Seminary in Oregon. Archbishop Apuron, through his
chancellor, Fr. Adrian Cristobal, advised Aaron that he could not be sent to the
Oregon seminary due to a lack of financial resources.
Aaron volunteered to take care of his own expenses if only Archbishop
Apuron would sponsor him. Aaron was then told by Fr. Adrian Cristobal: I
regret to inform you that your request to have the Archdiocese sponsor you
at Mt. Angel Seminary is denied. In the event that you do have a change of
direction in this matter and decide to follow the course of action that we
require, please fell (sic) free to contact me.
The course of action which we require was formation solely at the
Redemptoris Mater Seminary. At this moment it became clear to all that to be a
priest in the Archdiocese of Agana, one had to be formed in the Neocatechumenal
Way. There was no option.
I published several blog posts on the matter, but the following post,
published on October 23, 2014, best tells the story. In addition there are several
links within the story leading to substantiating material. In short, Archbishop
Apuron not only did NOT want a second seminary, he specifically did NOT want a
DIOCESAN seminary. He only erected the second seminary after I exposed the
real nature of the RMS (constituted ONLY to form priests in the
Neocatechumenal Way). He has since privately mocked this second seminary
and its seminarians. Yet, he went to the Holy Father and bragged about having
two seminaries.
Heres the post:
--Youre Welcome
Since 1999, the Catholics of Guam had been told that the
Redemptoris Mater Seminary (RMS) was for Guam. In fact, a 2010
publication celebrating itself declared the seminary to be "A Miracle for
Guam." In the publication we are told that the seminary was both diocesan
and missionary. There's nothing unique about that, the Church by its
nature is missionary.
So, no problem. The people of Guam continued to pour lots of
money into the seminary thinking all the time that it was their seminary
and it was producing priests for Guam. It did occur to some that there were
a disproportionate amount of foreigners coming to the seminary. But since
we were told that they were coming to serve the Church in Guam, most
figured no problem.
15
The RMS folks had many interesting things to say about themselves
in their 2010 self-congratulating publication. They speak of the growth of
the number of seminarians as if there really was growth of the number of
seminarians. There wasn't. There was only growth in the number of
seminarians Archbishop Apuron was importing via Kiko Arguello's
worldwide vocation machine. But on paper, it didn't matter where they
came from, Archbishop Apuron could take the credit for "producing"
vocations even though he was only importing them, a sort of ready mix
vocations mixture.
Still the Catholics of Guam did not complain, even though they were
being taxed ever more heavily for the support of this growing neo-migrant
population. The people of Guam are naturally welcoming and they are quite
used to welcoming foreign priests to the island.
However, this was a little different. No, a lot different. The priests
who had come to Guam over the last 400 years of Guam's Catholic history
were already priests, trained, formed, educated, ordained, and prepared to
go to the ends of the earth.
The guys Archbishop Apuron has been bringing in are not trained,
formed, educated, ordained, or prepared to go anywhere or do anything.
The people of Guam would have to provide for their training, formation,
education, preparation, and ordination.
Still the people did not complain even though we had no idea how
many there were that we paid for who simply went home or went
elsewhere. Nor did we ask why Guam had 20 times more seminarians per
Catholic than dioceses like Boston or Newark (which tells us we are taking
in seminarians who are not wanted elsewhere). Nor did they ask if these
men had been psychologically-screened, academically-qualified, or
vocationally-assessed as would be required of anyone entering a seminary
and aspiring to the priesthood. We didn't ask any of those questions
because we trusted Archbishop Apuron.
Another funny little entry from the self-congratulating 2010
publication is the myth that the Accion Hotel property was acquired for
free: When God gives, He gives abundantly! Imagine, a property worth
millions acquired by the diocese for free!
Just because the property was acquired without the Archdiocese
having to fork over its own money does NOT mean it was acquired for free.
Many people spent many hours, days, weeks, and months, working to
acquire the property. And then after that, hundreds of thousands of dollars
and thousands of hours were spent turning the former hotel property into a
seminary.
16
In the matter of the acquisition, the money was given to the

Archdiocese by a stateside donor who was located through the hard work of
a local nun. The money was given on two conditions:
that the gift be used to purchase a defunct hotel property for the
purpose of a Seminary; and
that the identity of the donor NOT be made known.
Archbishop Apuron violated both conditions. Amazingly he publicly
named the donor, and the money was not used for the purpose of a
seminary, at least not for the Archdiocese of Agana as we shall see.
The RMS happily took our money for the better part of 15 years, but
then in July of 2013, something happened.
As we all know, Fr. Paul Gofigan was kicked out of Santa Barbara
parish, but he was also kicked out of his post as vocations director. In his
care at that time was a young man named Junee Valencia who was aspiring
to the diocesan priesthood and wished to attend a seminary in California as
most of the other diocesan priests here in Guam had done before.
Archbishop Apuron refused to send him to California and insisted
that if he wanted to be a priest in the Archdiocese of Agana, he must attend
the RMS. However, as everyone already knew, the RMS was a
neocatechumenal seminary and Junee desired a traditional diocesan
formation.
During this debate, I decided to check out the Articles of
Incorporation for the RMS and read clear as day in Article III: The
purpose of the Corporation shall be to establish and conduct a House of
formation to prepare men for the priesthood for the new evangelization
following the life and practice of the Neocatechumenal Way. This was
never actually stated.
The 2010 RMS publication congratulating itself only referenced the
seminary as diocesan and missionary, which, as already explained, did not
raise any flags. But here we have a constituting document stating that the
purpose of the RMS is to prepare men for the priesthood . . . following the
life and practice of the Neocatechumenal Way.
Archbishop Apuron was giving Junee Valencia NO OPTION to be any
other kind of priest other than a neo-priest. No other diocese in the world
forces its men to be neo-priests. Neo-seminaries, where they exist, exist
alongside regular diocesan seminaries, and for the most part, neo-
seminarians are required to take their studies at a traditional diocesan
seminary.
17
However, in the Archdiocese of Agana, not only is it the other way

around, the Archbishop permitted NO OTHER OPTION. We know this to be
absolutely true because of what Fr. Richard Kidd was told by the Chancellor,
Fr. Adrian Cristobal, when Fr. Richard was trying to get sponsored to a real
seminary. Fr. Adrian told Richard: In this archdiocese, the diocesan
priesthood is no more. Anyone who wants to be a priest must go through
the Neocatechumenal Way.
And then I decided to make something else public, Article IX, which
gives Giuseppe Gennarini and his wife, Claudia, a New Jersey couple, 50% of
the decision-making power for the most important affairs of the seminary.
And what are the most important affairs of the seminary: The formation
of priests.
The other 50% of the decision-making power is divided between
Archbishop Apuron and a neo-priest who doesn't live here. So Archbishop
Apuron only has 25% of the decision-making power over who becomes a
priest and who doesn't. That's dangerous. Two lay people and a priest who
have nothing to do with Guam get to decide who is going to be a priest FOR
Guam. So not only was the RMS never a diocesan seminary as we were told,
it's not even ours. 75% of it is controlled by people from somewhere else,
who along with Archbishop Apuron, their only goal is to grow the
Neocatechumenal Way whether we like it or not.
So how much has this cost us? The spread in the U Matuna
promoting the most recent annual appeal stated that it costs nearly One
Million dollars a year to run the RMS. The Archdiocese of Agana, meaning
the Chancery, puts up 10% of that and the rest is said to be funded through
gifts and fundraisers. Given that the annual Seminary Gala is the
seminary's major fundraiser, and that the Gala is attended and funded by
Guam Catholics, we have no reason not to believe that the better part of
those gifts and money raised through fundraisers comes from the PEOPLE
of the Archdiocese of Agana.
So given that the seminary is 15 years old, and allowing for
increasing expenses over that period, it is not unreasonable to believe that
the people of Guam have coughed up close to Ten Million Dollars over the
last 15 years to support a seminary because we were told it was ours.
Amazingly, as if to say, Oh no, we've been found out! Archbishop Apuron,
after I made these revelations last year, announced in December of 2013
that he has decided to erect a diocesan seminary for Guam. For 15 years
we did not have a diocesan seminary for Guam when we were told that we
did?
Obviously the erection of a diocesan seminary for Guam is a BIG
admission that the RMS is NOT a diocesan seminary for Guam, even under
the guise of its being both diocesan and missionary as the 2010 self-
congratulating publication stated.
18
So, by the erection of this other seminary, Archbishop Apuron is

admitting that the RMS is NOT diocesan in any way shape or form
otherwise there would be no need to erect a diocesan seminary for Guam.
Of course, we knew that about the RMS already. Their formation is so
completely neo-catechumenal that their products stumble and bumble
through a simple Mass. And those that eventually get the hang of it, clearly
show their preference for their separate celebrations with their small
communities. We can't blame them. They did not sign up to be parish
priests. They signed up to be neo-catechumenal presbyters.
But Archbishop Apuron needed to perpetuate the ruse that the RMS
was a diocesan seminary (vocations are the currency of clerical
advancement), so he ordained them and made them fill the traditional role
of a diocesan priest even though not only are they NOT formed for the
diocesan priesthood, they are actually taught that parish-based Catholicism
is dead.
Now back to Junee Valencia. There would be a separate seminary
for Juneethe seminary in Malojloj. Except that it wasn't a seminary. It
was an abandoned monastery. And Junee would be made to sleep and eat
there while his RMS counterparts wined, dined, lounged and slept in the
palatial former hotel after having sucked up nearly ten million dollars from
faithful Guam Catholics. And while he would live and eat apart, Junee still
had no other option other than to take his classes with the neo's at the neo-
seminary.
And the same is true of the other 4 men who recently joined Junee in
his Malojloj boarding house. Almost a year later (this week), the new
seminary was finally officially erected. But despite all the hoopla, off the
record, while he said all the right things about the seminary in public,
Archbishop Apuron referred to the seminary as something they wanted,
meaning of course it is not something he wanted. These men did not want
an old monastery to sleep in. They want an authentic formation for the
diocesan priesthood, and an erection does not a seminary make, especially
now that we see who you put in charge of it: three un-incardinated priests
(who you can control or tell to get out).
Msgr. Arroyo, who is nice enough but not in a position health-wise
to take on any more duties (though he will always do your bidding), and
the infamous Fr. Adrian who is the one who lied for you to Aaron
Quitugua about his not being able to attend a real diocesan seminary.
How sad that the erection of this boarding house is just another lie
made necessary by the exposure of the first lie which was that the RMS was
not what the Archbishop said it was.
The sad part is that some on our side are buying this new lie and
giving Archbishop Apuron the cover he needs. We must stop the ruse. Stop
the charade. Stop hurting real vocations. These men should be sent to St.
19
Peter Chanel, the regional seminary for the episcopal conference to which
the Archdiocese of Agana belongs and where they can have real courses
with real teachers and not the junket-happy professors they get at the RMS.
Oh, and by the way, You're Welcome". End of Post
As a postscript, we must question why young men from Guam who desire
to serve the Archdiocese of Agana in the diocesan priesthood are NOT sent to St.
Peter Chanel, the regional seminary for the episcopal conference to which
Guam belongs, and of which, Archbishop Apuron has served as its president.
===============================
Footnotes:
To be a priest in the Archdiocese of Agana. Tim Rohr. JungleWatch.
August 23, 2013.
http://www.junglewatch.info/2013/08/tobepriestinarchdioceseofagana.ht
ml
I regret to inform you. Tim Rohr. JungleWatch. February 24, 2014.
http://www.junglewatch.info/2014/02/iregrettoinformyouthatyour.html
A Miracle for Guam. Guam Pacific Daily News. Special Sections. 2010.
http://www.guampdn.com/guampublishing/specialsections/
evangelization/pg1.html
The Chancery vs. Gofigan Update. Tim Rohr. JungleWatch. July 27, 2013.
http://www.junglewatch.info/2013/07/theapurongofiganaffairupdate72713.html
To be a priest in the Archdiocese of Agana. Tim Rohr. JungleWatch.
August 23, 2013.
http://www.junglewatch.info/2013/08/tobepriestinarchdioceseofagana.ht
ml
Why Junee must live apart. Tim Rohr. JungleWatch. November 29, 2013.
http://www.junglewatch.info/2013/11/whyjuneemustliveapart.html
Articles of Incorporation. Redemptoris Mater House of Formation.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/236374235/RMSArticlesofIncorporation
2014 Archdiocesan Annual Appeal.
http://www.aganaarch.org/2014archdiocesanannualappeal/
A new diocesan seminary for Guam. Umatuna. December 15, 2013.
http://www.aganaarch.org/2014archdiocesanannualappeal/
I regret to inform you. Tim Rohr. JungleWatch. February 24, 2014.
http://www.junglewatch.info/2014/02/iregrettoinformyouthatyou.html
Dont be suckered again. Tim Rohr. JungleWatch. October 17, 2014.
20
===============================
C. On the Matter of the Conveyance or Assignment of Title to Real Property

to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary
Upon request of CCOG, Inc.
because of his extensive research into this matter
Did Archbishop Anthony Apuron convey, transfer, assign, alienate or
otherwise compromise the title or control of the Old Accion Hotel Property
located in Yona, Guam (Yona Property) to its current occupant, Redemptoris
Mater House of Formation and in so doing violate both church law and the trust
of members of this diocese by worsening the patrimonial condition of the
Archdiocese of Agana (Can. 1295)?
--The Facts
Sometime in 2011, Archbishop Apuron appears to have been approached
by the leadership of the Neocatechumenal Way (Gennarini, et al.) about signing
over the title to the Yona Property to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary (RMS).
(Note: Giuseppe Gennarini and his wife, Claudia Gennarini, are said
to be both the chief catechists and responsibles for the
Neocatechumenal Way in the United States and the Pacific. Both are
listed as guarantors in the RMS Articles of Corporation.)
We know this because of a letter dated September 8, 2011, addressed to
Fr. Pablo Ponce Rodriguez, Rector, The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation,
from Richard J. Untalan, then president of the Archdiocesan Finance Council
(AFC). In the letter, Mr. Untalan writes:
The matter of the transfer of the title to the property on which the
Seminary is located and situated has come before the Archdiocesan Finance
Council, as it involves the alienation of the patrimony of the Archdiocese of
Agana. The request before us is that title of the property be conveyed and
transferred to the Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, Archdiocese of
Agana, a Guam non-profit corporation. Upon review and consideration, the
Archdiocesan Finance Council has denied the request that the title be
conveyed to the Redemptoris Mater House of Formation.
Two months after Richard Untalan wrote to Fr. Rodriguez, Archbishop
Apuron wrote to Richard Untalan:
21
After having consulted with the Reverend Monsignor David C.

Quitugua, Vicar General and Judicial Vicar of the Archdiocese of Agana,
regarding the matter presented to the Archdiocesan Finance Council
regarding the supposed alienation of the property where the Redemptoris
Mater Seminary and the Theological Institute Blessed Diego Luis de San
Vitores affiliated to the Pontifical Lateran University have their See, I wish to
specify precisely that, probably due to a lack of knowledge of Canon Law, it
was erroneously understood as alienation.
The matter is clearly not alienation, but simply an assigning of the
title of a property that is transferred and renamed from one public juridic
person subject to the Ordinary to another public juridic person subject to the
same Ordinary.
The Title holder then doesn't change at all because it remains the
same Ordinary, whereas the assignment qualifies the subject regarding its
use and, consequently, renders the property subject to rights, duties and
obligations, including maintenance.
In addition, canons 1256, 1257 and 1276 remove any doubt that the
supreme authority of the said juridic person is the Archbishop.
Furthermore, the Seminary is canonically a public juridic person
(canon 238) subject in toto to the jurisdiction of the Ordinary. Also, from a
civil point of view, the Seminary is a Corporation Sole in which the Sole
member is the Ordinary with absolute powers who remains, in any case, the
exclusive hold of the Title to the Property.
One would think that Archbishop Apuron would have FIRST consulted the
Vicar General to make sure that all canonical matters for the transfer of the title
were in order. In fact, he probably did.
The most likely scenario, given what we know about Gennarinis control
of Archbishop Apuron and this archdiocese in general, Archbishop Apuron
probably reported back to Mr. Gennarini about the AFCs refusal to transfer the
title to RMS, and Mr. Gennarini either wrote or dictated the outline of the above
letter. As Archbishop Apuron should have done (but did not because he
probably knew what the answer would be), Mr. Untalan sent the Archbishops
letter to Atty. Ed Terlaje, the archdiocesan legal counsel, for an opinion.
On November 27, 2011, Atty. Terlaje wrote:
Read your letter and that of the archbishop. As you well know,
alienation and assignment are words of distinction without a difference.
Any documents containing these words would place a huge cloud on title to
real property which would result in a protracted litigation and prohibitive
cost to remove such cloud. Do you really want to risk title to the property
conservatively valued at 75 million dollars? I have other serious concerns
22
raised in the letter, and if you wish, would like to discuss in private with you
and other members of the finance council.
Having received the legal counsel's opinion, Mr. Untalan called for a
meeting of the AFC on December 6, 2011. On the agenda, as Item #5, was the title
issue.
Archbishop Apuron, who was off-island at the time, wrote to Mr. Untalan,
instructing him to take Item #5 off the agenda. Mr. Untalan complied and Item
#5 is taken off the agenda.
However, the Vicar General, Msgr. David C. Quitugua, on the morning of
the scheduled meeting, sent an email to Mr. Untalan accusing him and the other
members of the AFC of as follows:
To deny the Archbishop this right, on the one hand, breaks
communion with him and, on the other hand, represents a "vulnus" towards
the Archbishop insinuating a form of disrespect towards his person.
Mr. Untalan replied to the Vicar General that he is "stunned" by the his
accusation and goes on to explain that Item #5 had been taken off the agenda,
that it was not going to be discussed in the Archbishop's absence, and that the
vicious accusation by the Vicar General against him and the rest of the AFC was
uncalled for. The meeting was cancelled.
Later that day, Archbishop Apuron sent a separate email berating Mr.
Untalan saying he is "appalled" at Mr. Untalan's disobedience, reiterating that the
issue is not to "be discussed until I come home", and to "stop this nonsense."
Mr. Untalan responds: "I am deeply hurt that you would accuse me of
disobeying you and that I was creating nonsense . . ."
On January 11, 2012, Mr. Untalan and the other three members of the AFC
who opposed the transfer of title (Msgr. James Benavente, Joseph E. Rivera, and
Sr. Mary Stephen Torres, RSM), receive a letter from Archbishop Apuron stating:
The term or your appointment has expired and I believe that it is time
for me to engage new members in the council...This letter marks the official
termination of your membership. Your five year term has already lapsed
since your appointment in January 25, 2000 in the archdiocesan finance
council.
In fact, Mr. Untalan's term had "already lapsed" seven years previously.
The same was true of the other members whose term had "lapsed". And in the
case of Sister Stephen, her term had "lapsed" nearly twenty years previously. It
is obvious that Archbishop Apurons termination of the membership of these
four members had NOTHING to do with their terms lapsing and everything to do
with standing in Mr. Gennarini's way to get the title to the Yona Property
transferred to his control.
23
However, if it was true what Archbishop Apuron said in his November 16,
2011 letter to Richard Untalan about the property remaining in the control of the
Archbishop regardless of who it is assigned to, then why was it necessary to
remove the members of the AFC who opposed it?
Answer: Because Archbishop Apuron knows that while RMS may be a
corporation sole, it is NOT in the sole control of Archbishop Apuron, as he claims.
It is, according to Article X of the RMS Articles of Incorporation in the control of
the Board of Guarantors which consists of Archbishop Apuron, a certain Fr.
Angelo Pochetti, and Giuseppe and Claudia Gennarini.
In fact, Archbishop Apuron himself recently confirmed that RMS is an
entity separate from the Archdiocese of Agana when he stated in Disclosure of
Financial Statements of the Archdiocese of Agana as found on the archdiocesan
website, that the finances of RMS would be disclosed separately on its own
website. Of course the finances were never disclosed.
There is also the very clear reprimand from Archbishop Charles Balvo, the
then papal delegate to the Pacific. In a letter dated March 7, 2012, three months
after Archbishop Apuron fired the members of the finance council who opposed
him, Archbishop Balvo wrote Archbishop Apuron:
The establishment of a finance council, diocesan and parish, is
required by the Code of Canon Law . . . (the finance council) has a deliberative
vote . . . when the diocesan finance council is asked to give its consent, the
diocesan bishop is to receive the consent of an absolute majority of those
present, and if he acts against this consent he does so invalidly. Regarding
the matter at hand . . . consent is required not only from the finance council
but also from the college of consultors. If these do not give their consent, the
diocesan bishop is not free to do as he pleases.
There is also the fact that Archbishop Apurons own archdiocesan legal
counsel opined that from a civil point of view, there was NO difference between
an alienation and an assignment, as Archbishop Apuron wants us to believe, and
that "(A)ny documents containing these words would place a huge cloud on
title to real property which would result in a protracted litigation and
prohibitive cost to remove such cloud."
Archbishop Apuron is apparently trying to hide his transfer of the control
of the Property to RMS (which is really the Neocatechumenal Way) behind
church canons, but a civil court will not give a wit about church canons. It is
clear that assigning The Property to RMS will cloud the title and make it
almost "prohibitive" to retrieve.
So did Archbishop Apuron assign the title to the Yona Property to RMS?
Actually, he wouldn't even have to assign "the title", he could simply assign the
control of The Property to RMS and it would be of the same effect.
24
Let's say that he did. If so, he is probably in violation of the following

church laws:
a. Can. 1291. The permission of the authority competent
according to the norm of law is required for the valid alienation of
goods which constitute by legitimate designation the stable patrimony
of a public juridic person and whose value exceeds the sum defined by
law.
b. Can. 1292 1. Without prejudice to the prescript of Can. 638,
3, when the value of the goods whose alienation is proposed falls
within the minimum and maximum amounts to be defined by the
conference of bishops for its own region, the competent authority is
determined by the statutes of juridic persons if they are not subject to
the diocesan bishop otherwise, the competent authority is the
diocesan bishop with the consent of the finance council, the college of
consultors, and those concerned. The diocesan bishop himself also
needs their consent to alienate the goods of the diocese.
c. Can. 1292 2. The permission of the Holy See is also required
for the valid alienation of goods whose value exceeds the maximum
amount, goods given to the Church by vow, or goods precious for
artistic or historical reasons.
Recalling that according to the archdiocesan legal counsel, under civil
statute "alienation" and "assignment" are . . . words of distinction without a
difference . . ., and in matters of title to real property the archdiocese is subject
to civil statute, not just church law, thus even an assignment of title or control of
the property constitutes an alienation and Archbishop Apuron CANNOT
canonically do so without:
1. the consent of the finance council;
2. the consent of the college of consultors;
3. those concerned (which could be all of us); and
4. permission of the Holy See because the value "exceeds the
maximum amount" (one million).
In addition, since the value of the real property "exceeds the
maximum amount", any manipulation of the title to the property or its
control is subject to the following:
Can. 1293 1. The alienation of goods whose value exceeds the
defined minimum amount also requires the following:
1) a just cause, such as urgent necessity, evident advantage,
piety, charity, or some other grave pastoral reason
25
2) a written appraisal by experts of the asset to be alienated.

Can. 1293 2. Other precautions prescribed by legitimate
authority are also to be observed to avoid harm to the Church.
Can. 1294 1. An asset ordinarily must not be alienated for a
price less than that indicated in the appraisal.
Can. 1294 2. The money received from the alienation is either
to be invested carefully for the advantage of the Church or to be
expended prudently according to the purposes of the alienation.
Lastly, there is this:
Can. 1295. The requirements of Can. 1291,1294, to which the
statutes of juridic persons must also conform, must be observed not
only in alienation but also in any transaction which can worsen the
patrimonial condition of a juridic person.
According to this canon, there does not even have to be an "alienation" of
title, but simply "any transaction which can worsen the patrimonial condition of
a juridic person", and certainly the assignment of control of the Yona Property to
any other entity that is NOT the Archdiocese of Agana (and RMS is not), will
certainly "worsen the patrimonial condition" of this archdiocese. On a real level,
it would be a shame if Archbishop Apuron gave away a property valued at 75
Million Dollars while individual parishes and schools struggle to stay alive and
parishioners and parents dig deep to keep those parishes and schools afloat.
We beg the Apostolic Visitors to find out the truth. If in fact, Archbishop
Apuron has "worsened the patrimonial condition" of this archdiocese in any real
estate transaction with the Neocrat-controlled RMS, he should be REMOVED
immediately.
However, sadly, removing him won't give us the property back if it has
indeed been assigned. If he has given control of the property to RMS (under the
control of the Gennarinis) then there is nothing the Apostolic Visitors can civilly
do about it. It is, as Atty. Terlaje warned, under "a huge cloud on title to real
property" and will "result in a protracted litigation and prohibitive cost to
remove such cloud."
The matter is so serious that even if Rome is able to discover that
Archbishop Apuron has violated our trust and alienated a huge portion of our
archdiocesan patrimony and in fact disciplines Archbishop Apuron or even
removes him, the Catholics of Guam may well pursue a civil suit against the
Archbishop, for, according to the laws of Guam, a corporation sole functions as a
trustee, and we, the Catholics of Guam are the beneficiaries.
===============================
26
Footnotes:
Letter from Mr. Richard Untalan, president of the Archdiocesan Finance
Council of the Archdiocese of Agana, to Fr. Pablo Ponce Rodriguez, Rector,
Redemptoris Mater House of Formation.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/251151110/RichardUntalanlettertoFrRodriguez
Letter from Archbishop Apuron to Richard Untalan. November 16, 2011.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/251155159/ApurontoUntalanNov112011
See Richard Untalan for documentation.
Ibid.
Ibid
Ibid
Articles of Incorporation. Redemptoris Mater House of Formation.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/236374235/RMSArticlesofIncorporation
Disclosure of Financial Statements of the Archdiocese of Agana
http://www.aganaarch.org/7965/disclosureoffinancialstatementsofthearch
dioceseofagana/
Letter from Archbishop Charles Balvo, Apostolic Delegate to the Pacific, to
Archbishop Apuron. March 7, 2014.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/237432703/ApuronBalvotoApuronMarch72012
===============================
--A Post Script

Why does Gennarini, et al. want title to the property? Mr. Gennarini knows
that Archbishop Apuron will only hold his office for a short time longer, whether
it be due to age, health, or Rome. In fact, Archbishop Apuron was said to have
said to some members of the finance council: "They think I'm going to die", as
the reason for the request from Gennarini et al. to transfer the title. Well, yes,
Archbishop Apuron is "going to die", but do we seen him transferring the title to
every parish and school to its current occupants? Do we even hear of anyone
asking? NO. Why? Because the Archdiocese of Agana is a corporation sole and
title to the property will pass to the next occupant of his office. And therein lies
the problem.
Gennarini, et al. KNOW that Archbishop Apuron is a unique "gift" to the
Neocatechumenal Way. No bishop in the world has been so easily controlled and
used by the Neocatechumenal leadership, even going so far as to ordaining men
that probably no other bishop would ordain, and even Archbishop Apuron
himself is said to have not wanted to ordain. But he obeys their orders.
27
Gennarini, et al. know that in order to continue their command and control
center, otherwise known as the Archdiocese of Agana, they must keep the
seminary. Thus by taking control of the title to the property they can tie a
successor bishop's hands from evicting them.
This brings us to a related item that we will discuss more in depth later:
Some think that the Archbishop's campaign to discredit Msgr. James is just out of
jealousy or a desire to control the Cathedral. It isn't.
The Archbishop's campaign against Msgr. James is to discredit him in order
to keep him from becoming the next bishop. The Neocatechumenals need a neo-
bishop. This is why they brought Fr. Adrian Cristobal back from his self-imposed
exile where he had several years to pout over his being passed over for
Monsignor.
Archbishop Apuron has little regard for Fr. Adrian, which is why he passed
over him in the first place, but Adrian is a Neo, and the Neo-crats need a neo-
bishop; thus, the campaign to destroy Msgr. James and the return of Adrian not
just to Guam, but to the highest office available at the chancery. Archbishop
Apuron is simply following orders.
IV. Heretical Instructions & Pronouncements

On the Controversy in the Archdiocese of Agana over the Manner in which
Neocatechumenal Way
Upon the request of CCOG, Inc.
because of his extensive research on this matter
The controversy in the Archdiocese of Agana over the manner in which

Holy Communion is distributed in the Eucharistic celebrations of the
Neocatechumenal Way (NCW) is no small matter. This is primarily due to
Archbishop Apurons public response to a 2005 directive from the Congregation
for Divine Worship and the Sacraments (CDW).
In December of 2005, in the midst of the ad experimentum period
granted to the Neocatechumenal Way, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect for the
CDW, issued a letter to the leaders of the Neocatechumenal Way beginning with
the address: The Holy Father wishes you to know. . .
28
In the letter, Cardinal Arinze notes six items of concern relative to the
celebration of the Holy Eucharist by the Neocatechumenals. Item 5 reads as
follows:
5. On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition
(not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass
from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its
communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the
church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in
which the entire Church receives Holy Communion. This means that the
Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the manner of distributing the
Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books.
Only a few weeks later, speaking on the Archdiocese of Agana radio
station (KOLG 90.9 FM), Archbishop Apuron publicly challenged Cardinal
Arinze's authority to issue the directive, saying:
Arinze, to tell you the truth, is really not for the Way, and I dont know
what credentials he has, I mean I dont want to get into an argument in
terms of an individual but Cardinal Arinze, with due respect, uh, I, you know
uh, I dont know why he uh uh wants us to conform to what...and you know
the . . . (He then changes the subject.)
This might have been seen as an error or a small slip up except that it
occurred in the context of the 40-minute long address in which Archbishop
Apuron defends the Neocatechumenal Way in terms of we and us
(categorically identifying himself with the NCW apart from the rest of the
diocese) and goes so far as to cast Cardinal Arinzes letter as an historically
unique permission for the NCW to continue its practices:
. . . in fact, really looking at the letter, mostly, beside the
interpretation of the two columnists...it is the first time in the history of the
church that we were give permissions for the variations that is being done in
the Neocatechumenal Way, officially by the pope.
The program, which at the time was aired live every Monday morning,
was normally rebroadcast in the afternoon of the same day and twice more, later
in the week. Word quickly got out about the Archbishops statements and many
were waiting for the rebroadcast to hear for themselves what was a very obvious
taking of sides by Archbishop Apuron, not just against those of us who are not
members of the NCW, but against the legitimate authority of the Church (the
CDW). The rebroadcast never came. Realizing the full impact of the
Archbishops scandalous remarks, the shows producers decided not to
rebroadcast the episode. However, they did not initially announce why.
Angry listeners began calling the station asking the technician on duty
why the program was not being rebroadcast. The technician simply told the
callers what he was told: I dont know, they just told me not to run it. (The
technician was my son).
29
The next day a meeting was called by Deacon Frank Tenorio, the manager
of the station. The object of the meeting was to come up with a statement that
could be released explaining why the program with the Archbishops damaging
remarks was not being rebroadcast. With the Archbishop present, Deacon
Tenorio proposed that we blame it on technical difficulties. The shows hosts,
Fr. Michael Crisostomo and Mr. Fred Rodriguez, (and others) were present at the
meeting. Everyone seemed shocked into stillness. Deacon Tenorio, in front
of the Archbishop, had just proposed a lie. There was no protest from
Archbishop Apuron. Apparently he was content that we lie for him.
After a long moment, I called it a lie. Again, no response from the
Archbishop. Finally, Fr. Crisostomo proposed something benign that was at least
not a lie. This episode would have long been forgotten except for Archbishop
Apuron's continued campaign to advance the Neocatechumenal agenda in this
diocese, a campaign he actually began in Rome in 2005 at the Synod on the
Eucharist where in front of Pope Benedict XVI and the rest of the synod fathers,
he proudly advocated for the anomalous liturgical practices of the NCW.
Here is an excerpt from a report by the Catholic News Service:
Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron of Agana, Guam, said perhaps
the church needs to restore the 'breadness' of the bread, by using the
unleavened bread used in the ancient and primitive church rather than the
wafer-thin, mass-produced bread we use as hosts for our people today.
He said using signs that fully and powerfully represent the reality
they signify and not just approximate them might lead the faithful to better
appreciate the Eucharist.
He said in his experience small faith communities more successfully
grasped the faith. In order to foster that sense of a close community, he
suggested the priest take the Eucharist to seated people.
"What sort of a banquet does one go to which requires you to stand
rather than sit? Archbishop Apuron asked. He said that in the Gospels, St.
Mark said Christ served the apostles he did not ask or invite them to come
up in order to receive his body and blood. The archbishop praised the
Neocatechumenal Way in Guam and said he has witnessed a remarkable
growth in faith in the lives of thousands of people who are part of this
parish-based process of faith formation.
In another news report, Archbishop Apuron is said to have . . .
asked that the practice of receiving communion while seated be extended,
because if the Eucharist is a banquet, then this is the most appropriate
posture.
30
(Note: Archbishop Apuron's belief that the Eucharist "is a banquet",

is based in Kiko Arguello's theology of the Eucharist as solely a
banquet to the exclusion of it being a Holy Sacrifice).
Archbishop Apuron personally bragged about his comments at the synod
during the above mentioned radio program on KOLG:
. . . as you know, it was made public that I argued first of all for the
kiss of peace to be moved, or at least the possibility of having to move the kiss
of peace at before the offertory after the homily, before moving into the
liturgy of the eucharist as is done in the eastern church. And thats what
separates us from the eastern church but it had been the much earlier
practice of the church in the primitive church, the receiving communion
seated. My argument, and in front of the pope and the bishops there . . .
Thus, we can be assured, given his public statements in Rome to the pope
himself, that the KOLG incident was NOT a slip up, and that Archbishop Apuron
was in fact, in those statements on KOLG, stating clearly and emphatically that he
not only believed that the liturgical inventions of Kiko Arguello, the founder of
the NCW, to be most appropriate, he also, in rejecting Romes authority on the
matter, was publicly embracing an alternative hierarchy.
This alternative hierarchy has continued to rule Archbishop Apuron to
the present day. And while many of us were willing to overlook most of damage
that seemed to be mostly occurring around the edges of our church, we could no
longer ignore it once Archbishop Apuron began his attack on the very heart of
our church with his public persecution and maltreatment of the clergy, first in
2008 when he threatened three priests from the Philippines with an effective
deportation should they not serve the NCW, and then again in 2013 and 2014
with his public attacks on Fr. Paul Gofigan and Msgr. James Benavente,
(Note: Fr. Gofigan, because he stood in the way of the NCW's control
of the largest parish on the island, and Msgr. Benavente because he
has long been rumored to be Apuron's most likely successor, and not
being "Neo", he had to be eliminated).
In April of 2008, four months after the two year grace period given by
Cardinal Arinze for the NCW to change its communion practice, and one month
prior to the final approval of the Statute of the NCW, I approached a priest, a
member of the Neocatechumenal Way and a professor at Guams Redemptoris
Mater Seminary, and asked him why, given the deadline, the NCW had NOT
complied with Cardinal Arinzes directive.
I am copying here the full conversation on this issue between this priest,
who for the purposes of this post I shall refer to as Fr. X:
(Note: The priest's name will be supplied in the version submitted
directly to the visitators. I do not consider this priest to be the
culprit in this matter. He appears to be just the messenger. However,
31
hopefully he has seen how much damage all this has led to. The
priest is welcome to identify himself in the comments below if he
wishes. Highlights are mine).
4/26/08 (from Tim Rohr to Fr. X)

Father, I have spent quite a bit of time compiling questions, but
before I submit any of them, perhaps this one needs to be answered first.
Has the NCW on Guam obeyed the directive of Pope Benedict XVI as
transmitted through Cardinal Arinze's office on December 1, 2005
regarding the reception of Holy Communion:
5. On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition
(not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass
from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its
communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the
church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in
which the entire Church receives Holy Communion. This means that the
Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the manner of distributing the
Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books.
The two year transition period expired as of Dec 1, 2007. However,
every person in the NCW that I have asked about this says that they still
receive Holy Communion according to the way described above from which
the NCW was instructed to depart. Has the NCW been granted an extension
of the time allotted?
If so, I would encourage you to make it known so that the rest of
Guam's Catholics are not scandalized by what appears to be disobedience.
Or, is it that just some communities have not gotten the word? Or, is it that
some communities are not in line with the full authority of the Church? Is
this something that the bishop himself can decide? If so, then that should
be made known. As I've said before, whatever Rome is okay with I am okay
with. I have no issue with anything that Rome allows regardless of my
personal preferences. We just need to know the real story. As it looks now,
the NCW is not obedient and appears to be making its own rules. I think
this question needs to be dealt with first. Thank you, Tim
4/26/08 (from Fr. X to Tim Rohr)
Dear Tim: An extension has been granted. The reason for this is
that the statues that will be definitively approved have a modification of
the instructions contained in the letter from Cardinal Arinze. These
statutes were to have been approved to coincide with the end of the two
year period mentioned in the Cardinal's letter, but other issues regarding
the statutes have been raised by one of the departments of the Roman
Curia. Kiko asked the Council of the Laity, which oversees the NCW, what
should be done, and he was instructed by the Cardinal Prefect of the
32
Council to continue the present practice until the statues are completed.
We are still waiting. Fr. X
Then this needs to be made known. I will be happy to do my part in
getting the word out so that the opponents of the Way no longer use this as
part of their evidence against the Way. Can you please supply a copy of the
instruction from the Cardinal Prefect? Thank you, Tim
Tim: Kiko spoke to Cardinal Rylko, the head of the Council for the
Laity, back in December when the two year transitional period ran out.
Both Kiko and Cardinal Rylko knew that the statutes would contain a
modification of Cardinal Arinze's instructions. Rylko gave an oral reply to
Kiko to maintain the present practice so that the Holy See would not be put
in the awkward position of seeming to change its mind by going from
Arinze's letter to the new statues in a very short time.
The pope approved the statutes in the beginning of February and
they were to be promulgated on February 27th. But just before the
promulgation, the statutes were removed from the hands of the Council of
the Laity and sent back for further considerations by the other four
dicasteries of the Curia that have to review any changes in the statutes. We
were just told to hold tight until you receive further word. No explanations
were given at the time. There is, however, evidently still some strong
resistance to the statutes on the part of some in the Curia and they are
trying to introduce further changes. However, there are no documents to
show you at this point. All our instructions have been oral, but we are
satisfied with that. We have no choice.
All we were told is to take no action until the Holy See resolves
these matters. This is what we are doing.
However, I hope you understand that this information is not for
publication. I share it with you so that you will understand the delicate
position we are in at the moment. I would caution against reading into
these events more what I have said. I mention them simply to show that we
are not disregarding Arinze's letter, but that subsequent events have
changed the situation in which we find ourselves. Fr. X
Okay, I won't pass this on. However, I must say that it does seem
odd that a change or abatement of a directive coming from such a high
office as that of the Congregation for Divine Worship, and also one that
made so much news upon its release, and one that affects the worship of
over 1 million Catholics (the estimated pop. of the NCW) and the
33
observations of many millions more (those aware of the directive but not
in the NCW), could be left to just a conversation between Kiko and the
Cardinal. While I have no reason to doubt what you say is true, the
potential for scandal is huge. Also, the Pope very clearly reinforced the
directive from the CDW in his address to the NCW on Jan. 12, 2006.
It is hard to believe that this Pope, perhaps the clearest thinker on
the planet, would change his mind. Also, the fact that the practice is still in
place even now shows that the directive that came out over two years was
completely ignored. The NCW was not given 2 years to continue its
practice, but 2 years to change it.
Obviously no effort was made to change it. I also understand that
one of the contingencies for the approval of the statutes is an investigation
into how fully the Neocatechumenal Way has adhered to the
norms issued in December 2005 by the Congregation for Divine Worship.
Why is there any need to investigate your obedience in this matter if in fact
the approval of the statues is going to include a retraction of the
directive???
I have to say that on a personal level your answer is a great
discouragement. My issue is not with you, but with the continued mystery
that seems to shroud more and more aspects of the NCW. I think for now,
due to my increasing skepticism about the NCW, it will be wise of me to no
longer engage in any attempt at dialogue or reconciliation between the
NCW and those that are openly hostile to it. I will wait in silence for Rome
to speak. Thank you for your time. Tim
Dear Tim: All of the directions contained in Cardinal Arinze's letter
have already been put into practice. The only exception is the manner of
receiving communion. There are some practical problems due to the type
of bread that we use. We will the expressed direction of the Roman Missal
which says that the bread should look like bread. Hosts may be used as a
second option if circumstances render it more feasible. As a matter of
practice, all parishes that I am ware of do not even attempt the preferred
form because of the difficulties attached to it. Arinze's letter presupposes
the use of hosts as does the mode of distribution envisioned in his letter.
Kiko was granted an audience with the Pope in May, 2007, and
discussed the issue. Kiko proposed an alternative method which would
meet these problems and which the Pope then accepted. The statues, which
incorporate the other provisions of Arinze's letter, were then amended to
reflect this modification. The fact that the statutes have been delayed is
most unfortunate. I trust their publication will go a long way to remove any
suspicions. Fr. X
34
Okay, I'll wait. Tim

So as you can see, the 01 December 2005 directive from the CDW was
NEVER obeyed, and as per this email conversation with Fr. X, the permission is
said to have come from Cardinal Rylko.
The question is whether or not Cardinal Rylko, if in fact this account is
true, has the authority to overrule the 01 December 2005 directive from the
CDW, and if so, why is there no documentation of this decision from Cardinal
Rylko?
According to Fr. X, all the instructions are oral. This is not the way Rome
operates especially in matters regarding the celebration of the Eucharist.
Of course, the main context of Fr. X's comments is the pending approval of the
Statute in which it appears he is assured the NCW will continue to be permitted
to receive communion sitting.
The Statute received final approval two months after this conversation (in
June 2008), and there was NO permission to continue the Neocatechumenal
practice of receiving Holy Communion seated.
Specifically Article 13 3 states:
For the celebration of the Eucharist in the small communities the
approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite are followed, with the exception
of the explicit concessions from the Holy See. Regarding the distribution of
Holy Communion under the two species, the Neo-Catechumens receive it
standing, remaining at their place.
Footnote 49 is copied as follows with my comments in italics:

See Benedict XVI, Speech to the Neocatechumenal Communities on
January 12, 2006, in Notitiae 41 (2005), 554556.
(In this address, Pope Benedict emphasizes that the 01 December
2005 instruction from the CDW was issued on his behalf).
CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter of December 1,
2005 in Notitiae 41 (2005), 563565 (This is the letter from
Cardinal Arinze instructing the Neocatechumenals to cease the
practice of receiving Holy Communion while seated).
Notification of the Congregation for Divine Worship on celebrations
in groups of the Neocatechumenal Way, LOsservatore Romano,
December 24, 1988: The Congregation consents that among the
adaptations foreseen by the instruction Actio Pastoralis, nn. 611, the
groups of the above-mentioned Way may receive communion under two
35
species, always with unleavened bread, and transfer ad experimentum

the Rite of Peace to after the Prayer of the Faithful.
Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way Final Approved Text June
2008. To summarize, the 2008 Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way provides
for the following exceptions:
1. The communicants may receive communion under two species.
2. The communicants may receive the sacred species remaining in
their place standing (not sitting).
3. The Rite of Peace may be transferred to after the Prayer of the
Faithful.
However, relative to the manner in which Holy Communion is
distributed in the Neocatechumenal celebration of the eucharist in the
small communities, this is the practice to this day in the Archdiocese of
Agana:
1. The celebrant, prior to his own communion, distributes the sacred
host to the communicants who stand, remaining in their place.
2. The communicants do not consume the sacred host but continue to
hold it.
3. The communicants wait till the sacred host has been distributed to
all.
4. They then sit, still holding the sacred host.
5. The celebrant himself then returns to his chair, holds up the sacred
host, says Behold the Lamb of God, and communicates himself.
6. The communicants, seated, then consume the sacred host.
Absent public permission from the Holy See, there are two major
transgressions of the liturgical books:
1. The priest has moved his own communion until after he has
distributed the sacred host to the communicants.
2. The communicants do not consume the sacred host upon receiving
as required in the GIRM par. 161, but sit and then later consume.
On December 15, 2014, Archbishop Apuron publicly stated that Rome has
given permission for these exceptions:
36
Rome has approved it even the way were receiving Communion.

That they receive the host standing and they can sit down and everybody who
receives it and they eat together, as the Priest stands and says, Behold the
Lamb of God . . . you know, the acclamation before and they receive it sitting
down. Rome has given permission for that. And its somewhere I need to find
out where exactly, but they told us that permission is given.
We now ask the present Visitors from the Holy See, to clarify once and for
all whether or not Rome has approved it. I f Rome has approved it, then we
simply ask that said approval be properly made known so this ongoing scandal
can be stopped.
If Rome has not approved it, then we simply asked that the practice itself
be stopped and that the instruction be made public.
--Conclusion
While the manner of distributing Holy Communion in the
Neocatechumenal community celebrations of the eucharist versus the rest of the
local church is an outward sign of our division, we believe that the obstinance to
the Holy See in this matter and as documented above, underlines a much more
dangerous division, a division of belief in what the Holy Eucharist in fact is.
We even must wonder whether or not our new Neocatechumenal
presbyters and even our own Archbishop believe the same thing the rest of us
believe about the Real Presence: That Jesus Christ is ACTUALLY present, body,
blood, soul and divinity, and not just MYSTERIOUSLY present in the community,
as many Neocatechumenals have intimated.
Further, Archbishop Apuron often evidences what many of us
frighteningly suspect: That he no longer has a mind of his own, that he simply
parrots what he is told to say, that he is under the control of his
Neocatechumenal masters, specifically Fr. Pius Sammut, O.C.D., who is ever at
his side and to whom Archbishop Apuron seems to submit every word and
decision, and more specifically (and dangerously) Mr. Giuseppe Gennarini, the
chief "catechist" and "responsible" for the United States and the Pacific.
I make this observation in a general way because over these many years,
Archbishop Apuron's actions against the larger Church do not make sense even if
we account for the possibility of Archbishop Apuron being a "bad man", but I also
make this observation specifically because much of what Archbishop Apuron
says relative to the Neocatechumenal Way can be traced almost word for word to
his Neocatechumenal masters.
As an illustration, consider a statement by Archbishop Apuron already
referenced:
. . . in fact, really looking at the letter, mostly, beside the interpretation of the
two columnists . . . it is the first time in the history of the church that we were
37
given permissions for the variations that is being done in the

Neocatechumenal Way, officially by the pope.
Now consider what Giuseppe Gennarini told the news agency, Zenit only
a few days earlier on January 1, 2006:
"For the first time, the Holy See has accepted several variations to the
way the Eucharist is celebrated within the context of the Neocatechumenal
Way, as licit adaptations . . . To the best of my knowledge, this is the only case
in which the Holy See has granted such an explicit permission to an ecclesial
group."
Sadly, we find this kind of parroting all too often in Archbishop Apuron's
words, but exponentially more dangerous is his robotic obedience to Gennarini
et. al. in the administrative decisions of this archdiocese, specifically his firing of
Fr. Paul Gofigan and Msgr. James Benavente, but most dangerous of all, his
ordaining of men from Redemptoris Mater Seminary even he himself knows
should not be ordained.
We trust you will learn all this for yourselves.
===============================
Footnotes:
Letter from Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine
Worship and the Sacraments. Prot. 2520/03/L. Vatican City, December 1, 2005.
To the esteemed Mr. Kiko Argello, Ms. Carmen Hernandez, and Rev. Father
Mario Pezzi.
http://www.internetica.it/neocatecumenali/english/arinzeletterinterview.htm
Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron. KOLG, 90.9 FM, Catholic Educational Radio,
Agana, Guam. January 2006.
http://www.junglewatch.info/2014/02/bywhatauthority.html
Ibid.
Glatz, Carol. Eucharistic adoration is key, but also has drawbacks, bishops
say. Catholic News Service. October 6, 2005.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0505663.htm
Magister, Sandro. Liturgy: Benedict XVI Brings the Neocatechumenals Back
to the Right Way. Chiesa News. December 27, 2005.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/44140?eng=y
Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron. KOLG, 90.9 FM, Catholic Educational Radio,
Agana, Guam. January 2006.
Apuron, Anthony. Letters to Frs. Hector Canyon, Manuel (Jun) Trenchera,
Jr., Manuel Ombao. March 28, 2008.
38
https://www.scribd.com/doc/234271730/Apuron2008Letterstothe3FilipinoPriestsedi
ted
Rohr, Tim. The Removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan. JungleWatch.info
http://www.junglewatch.info/p/documentsrelativetocase1.html

Rohr, Tim. Posts relative to the removal of Msgr. James Benavente.
JungleWatch.info
http://www.junglewatch.info/search/label/Msgr.%20James%20Benavente
Rohr, Tim, X, Fr. X. Email conversation. April 2008.
Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way Final Approved Text June 2008
http://www.camminoneocatecumenale.it/public/file/en_Statute2008.pdf
Apuron, Archbishop Anthony S., Address to the parishioners of St. Francis
Parish, Yona, Guam. December 15, 2014.
https://soundcloud.com/undecoverneo/tanakaquestionandaasaansweronneocommuni
on
13 Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron. KOLG, 90.9 FM, Catholic Educational
Radio, Agana, Guam. January 2006.
14 Neo-Catechumenate on the Holy See\'s Guidelines. Interview With
Giuseppe Gennarini. Zenit. January 01, 2006.
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/neocatechumenateontheholyseesguidelines
===============================
Epilogue
The purpose of this disquisition is to bring to the forefront serious
matters of flawed leadership emanating from the Chancery, which is causing a
division among the Catholics on Guam. Many are questioning the rift among the
clergy who are members of the Neocatechumenal Way and those who are not.
Archbishop Apuron is perceived by the people to be favoring the members of the
Neocatechumenal Way and neglecting all others not part of the movement.
There seems to be underlying motives as to why Archbishop Anthony
Apuron; the Vicar General, Monsignor David Quitugua; and the Chancellor,
Father Adrian Cristobal of the Archdiocese of Agana are engaging in such acts
contrary to how one should shepherd his Flock to protect and nourish them with
the Good News.
What is evident from the matters discussed above is the cavalier attitude
of the leadership of our Church on Guam to deliberately misinform and misguide
the Faithful on Guam; coldly defame certain members of the clergy and run the
affairs of the Archdiocese unilaterally, disregarding tenets of Canon Law.
39
It is with sincere sadness that such a major problem has disrupted the
harmony and tranquility of the Catholic Faithful on Guam and in the region.
CCOG has taken it upon itself to be an active voice for the laity to help
restore the good practices of our Church community before the
Neocatechumenal Way and its leadership were introduced to Guam.
Pope Francis has admonished his bishops to be in and amongst the people
they shepherd. To understand them and lead them well, saving their lives and
souls for God. CCOG agrees with this and whole-heartedly desire a Shepherd of
the Flock on Guam who takes these words of the Holy Father, Pope Francis, to
heart.
Yours in Christ, Jesus, Our Lord and Savior,

PO Box 8647
Tamuning, GU 96931
Tel: 671-727-3233; Fax: 671-646-4549
concernedcatholicsofguam@gmail.com
40
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
Supplemental Report
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
On Affairs Within Archdiocese of Agana
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
1/8/2015
Table of Contents
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
ON FAILURES AND DEFICIENCIES OF OUR CHURCH LEADERS
CAUSING A DIVISION AMONG THE FAITHFUL
Sexual Abuse Issues and The Archdiocese of Aganas Sexual Abuse

Policy Deficiency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On the Matter of Teaching that Jesus is a Sinner and the General

Problems Caused by a Very Poor Command of the English Language
By RMS-Produced Presbyters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Supplemental Report
Sexual Abuse Issues
and the Archdiocese of Aganas
Sexual Abuse Policy Deficiency
January 8, 2015
The Concerned Catholics of Guam is gravely concerned with the safety of our youth,
and the Archbishops obvious conflict of interest in refusing to address several issues which
appear to violate his own policy which could possibly bankrupt the Archdiocese and the
Church we love.
The following synopsis of these egregious failures was prepared by Deacon Steve
Martinez, former Sex Abuse Response Coordinator (SARC), who was fired from his position
as SARC for insisting that he be allowed to carry out his responsibilities of that position.
As SARC for the Archdiocese of Agana, I became aware of a violation of policy on
July 28, 2014 after reading a news report regarding Fr John Wadeson from ABC News. I
immediately wrote a letter to the Archbishop informing him that I believe he had violated
our policy where IV.A.2.b. requires him to notify me should an allegation against a priest
surface. Additionally, I stated my concerns of another section of our sex abuse policy
concerning the requirement for screening the backgrounds for individuals entering our
Clergy. When Fr John Wadeson was incardinated in Guam, a proper background check
would have revealed the action the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had taken against Fr John
Wadeson.
In order to protect the Archdiocese I suggested a thorough investigation be
conducted in order to determine the risk to the Archdiocese, and to prevent future
violations which could harm the Archdiocese. I also suggested a meeting to include the
Vicar General and our legal counsel so necessary precautions could be taken to protect the
Archdiocese.
After having received absolutely no response from the Archbishop after more than
four weeks, I wrote a second letter to the Archbishop on August 27, 2014. Once again I
expressed my concern for the Archdiocese. I additionally pointed out the conflict of
interest in his inaction, since only the Archbishop can determine when matters should be
investigated or other action taken. Since he was the alleged violator of our policy, and had
failed to take any action whatsoever, this conflict of interest pointed out a flaw and
weakness in our policy that should be addressed. An alternate application of the policy
should be added in the event the Archbishop, the SARC, or any other person involved in
managing the policy should be accused of a violation of the policy.
Because of the apparent lack of investigation into Fr John Wadesons background,

I also voiced concern over the background checks for our seminarians, most of whom come
from foreign countries. The importance of documenting the background checks in a
permanent file for each priest and deacon was highlighted. This documentation would be
vital should an allegation of sex abuse arise at a future date against any Church
representative.
Further, since the Archdiocese of Agana was informed by Los Angeles in 2011
about the credible allegations against Fr John Wadeson, I asked if the Archdiocese of San
Francisco was also advised at that time, since Fr John was on missionary duties in San
Francisco, while incardinated here in Agana.
Since he was a possible risk to children based on the credible allegations, we had a
responsibility to advise San Francisco in 2011 that this priest was ministering in their
diocese. It is likely that Fr John had been ministering in San Francisco to the
Neocatechumenal Way communities without faculties from the Archbishop of San
Francisco, since Fr John had stated that he received faculties from San Francisco in 2013
or 2014, but his ministry there dates back many years earlier.
Lastly, after the ABC report on Fr Johns history in Los Angeles, his faculties in
Guam and San Francisco were revoked. However, since Fr John was still our responsibility,
I asked the Archbishop if we even knew where Fr John had fled to? More importantly,
wherever he was, had we notified the diocese of that location of the revocation of his
faculties in LA, Guam, and San Francisco?
My August 27 letter urged the Archbishop in the strongest terms possible to call
for a meeting so that these important issues can be addressed. I concluded my second
letter on the Fr John Wadeson issue by insisting on the Archbishops cooperation to allow
me to carry out my responsibilities. No such meeting was ever called, and I have received
no response from the Archbishop to the important questions raised in my two letters. Nor
had he cooperated in calling for an investigation as I had urged.
The response I did receive was a letter from the Archbishop on October 24, 2014
removing me as the SARC and appointing Deacon Larry Claros as my successor.
Subsequent to my removal, an allegation of sex abuse against the Archbishop was
brought to the Archdiocese in late November, 2014. Had my suggestion been heeded to
implement an alternative path of responding to an allegation against the Archbishop, the
handling of the allegation would have been free from the specter of a conflict of interest.
Instead, what little I know about the recent allegation is that more policies have been
violated in the Archdioceses response to the accuser.
The current SARC first said that no investigation would be done, then later said an
investigation had been carried out. However, who conducted the investigation is suspect.
The SARC is not to investigate, but to coordinate an investigation. Nor is the Sex Abuse
Review Board to conduct an investigation, but to hear the findings of a professional
2
investigator and then recommend to the Archbishop possible action to be taken. Because
of public statements by the SARC and the Chancellor casting doubt on the Archdioceses
intention to adhere to its own policy, the Archdiocese lost credibility, and has discouraged
future reporting of sex abuse.
Both the handling of the Fr John Wadeson issue and the recent allegation by John
Toves against Archbishop Apuron leave the Archdiocese both at risk and vulnerable. This
is a repeated pattern of the handling of a priest from Guam in the 1970s.
Fr Louis Brouillard was stripped of his faculties by Archbishop Flores after
credible allegations arose against Fr Brouillard. He went back to his home state of
Minnesota.
Apparently, the diocese in his home town was never notified of his status in Guam,
and he was later accused of sex abuse in Minnesota, and stripped of his faculties there.
The Archdiocese of Agana is responsible for this priest, as no action was ever taken to
laicize this priest. He continues to receive pay by the Archdiocese of Agana, and victims in
Minnesota could hold our Archdiocese responsible for liability for not insuring their safety
by properly notifying Fr Brouillards diocese of residence.
My concerns for the handling of Fr John Wadeson have proven valid based on the
recent revelation of Fr Brouillards repeat offense. Unless the policy is revised, the
Archdiocese remains at grave risk because of our Archbishops absolute refusal to allow
any investigation into the circumstances and questions I have raised as required by my
position.
I suggest and pray that Rome will direct an investigation to find the facts of these
matters, and then insist on modifications to our sex abuse policy which will provide for a
safer environment for the people of Guam, and protect the patrimony of the Archdiocese.
Supplemental Report
On the Matter of Teaching that Jesus is a Sinner
and General Problems Caused by a Very Poor Command
of the English Language by RMS-Produced Presbyters
by Tim Rohr
at the request of Concerned Catholics of Guam, Inc.
based on his research into this matter
Edited for this report
We have grave reason to believe that despite the promulgation of the recently
(2010) approved texts of the Catechetical Directory for the Neocatechumenal Way, the
"catechists" and teachers of the Neocatechumenal Way continue to teach a version of the
faith that is NOT Catholic.
We believe this is also why Kiko Arguello has been obstinate against the Holy See in
the matter of bringing his version of the Eucharistic celebration into conformance with the
liturgical books as was required by the 2008 Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way.
The following is an example of this sort of departure from authentic Catholic
teaching wherein the instructor teaches that Jesus Christ "is a sinner".
This is a transcript of a recording 1 of a class for the permanent diaconate instructed
by a Fr. Angelo Veraldi (SPEAKER) around March of 2014. Upon inquiry, we learned that
he was also instructing the seminarians at Redemptoris Mater Seminary (RMS).
While the primary concern here is Fr. Veraldi's teaching that Jesus Christ "was a
sinner", the full text of this transcript is an example of the kind of preaching the Catholics of
Guam are increasingly exposed to at Masses celebrated by a "presbyter" ordained from the
RMS.
The sermons are often grossly disjointed, barely intelligible, laced with theological
novelty, delivered as if the "presbyter" had nothing else to do but fill in the required time,
and very often, insulting to traditional piety and devotion.
1
(In fact, the liturgy itself often suffers the same fate as the presbyters lose their place
or leave out portions of the Mass. A recent example is the recently ordained Fr. Harold
Colorado who was reported to have concluded the Mass by saying "Uh, ok, we're done. Let's
go" instead of the required dismissal. 2
There is also the matter of permitting "presbyters" 3 like Fr. Veraldi, to teach or
preach when their command of the English language is so obviously negligible. Calling
Jesus Christ "a sinner" may be a mangled translation of 2 Cor 5:21 ("For our sake he made
him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in
him."), but then all the more reason not to permit such poor English speakers to teach
something so critical to our salvation in the English language.
One wonders what is wrong with all the wonderful English speaking priests and
professors who could have taught the same course - many of them right here on Guam -
that we have to import someone from Italy who hardly can speak the language.
Of course, we know the answer: Everyone aspiring to the clerical life in the
Archdiocese of Agana must be formed according to the Neocatechumenal Way.
Transcript of a Class Taught by Fr. Angelo Veraldi

To the Candidates to the Permanent Diaconate
Of the Archdiocese of Agana
March 2014
SPEAKER: . . .very action, action of liturgy. Liturgical action. Also when we
sight the son by ourself, because as a church we pray for everybody. And then there
is Jesus Christ inside, inside of the sons (signs?). Sons (signs?) must be referred to, to
Jesus Christ. Is a prefiguration. He experienced, he experience the son (sign?) before
ourself. Before me and before you, Jesus Christ experience the Son (sign?). He
experience the love of God, the Father.
He experienced the forgiveness of the Father, because he was a sinner.
He became a sinner. Willing, not because he was imposed, because he was a
sinner, willingly, willing, a sinner.
SPEAKER: In the mass many times we say, has he approach his passion.
Willingly accepting. Accepting. He took the sins away, all the sins away. Then, the
time of liturgy is not just to choose some hour and go to the church.
2
The time of the liturgy is -- could be always and everywhere. When we spend
some, some, some moments praying the liturgy of the Hour, or we pray -- the Lords
we pray -- in the Eucharist, for example. The time is everywhere. Everywhere. Any
time is good for do liturgy. Any time. I dont do liturgy -- I repeat -- I dont do
liturgy only when I go to celebrate mass; no. Also in my room I do liturgy. The time -
- I repeat -- dont be a worry about why you repetition because Roman says,
Repetita *juvant. The things which you repeat are fruitful. Are fruitful.
(Chuckled)
Okay. And in the time of liturgy we do *cult. Cult means honor, worship.
Worship. We do worship. To whom? To God, of course.
If we go to the Old Testament, we see the prophets. What were they doing?
Doing? They were choosing time to preach the word of God and ask the people to
come down to renew themselves.
And at what time? Doesnt matter. What time? Doesnt matter. They are
free from the slavery; they have to do some liturgy. They are in the -- in the side
they do liturgy, because they remember. Remember. Remember God.
And fortunately, the Hebrew in exile, in exile, they didnt live the *cult of
Yahweh. No. Fortunate. Fortunate. We sometimes, we, when we are sick, for
example, we dont pray. We are lazy. Or we have something to do. I have to go visit
the person. I have to go to do the work. And then we forget liturgy. We forget
prayer. Forget prayer. But, what does it happen? Because we are human being. We
are not angels. We are not saints, already. Already. Perhaps somebody of you saint
already. (Chuckled) Perhaps.
No, Im -- Im not saint already. Im not saint. I wait to be ______, to be ______.
I said to this morning, celebrating mass, we become happy, or you become
saint when we observe the Lord. When we observe the Lord we become saint. But,
what happened? Theres always devity. Devity.
UNKNOWN: Devil?
SPEAKER: Huh?
UNKNOWN: Devil?
3
SPEAKER: Devil.
UNKNOWN: Diablo.
SPEAKER: Diabolus, satan. He always there. Hes always there. And he
wants me to observe his law. But I have to observe the law of God. And the law of
God is not an imposition. Many times all the Christian think that the law of God is
an imposition. Obligation. No! No. No. You should put it in your mind: its not an
obligation. Because God says also, if you observe my law you will become saint. You
will become happy. If you -- if you. And then many times, of course, God says
observe entirely as you command to your children. Observe that. Dont do that!
Do that! What have I to do that? Because I am your father.
And then I give you my will. My will is a law. The law of God is will of God.
What is the will of God? Love. Love. He loves me and you, when he commands me
and you to observe his law. Its not a rule. The law of God is not a rule. Its an
expression to do something good. Could be an imposition. I go on the road and then
I saw the light, traffic light, red. Then I -- I would say, no, I dont stop. What
happen? What happen if I dont stop?
UNKNOWN: You get killed.

UNKNOWN: Accident.
SPEAKER: Accident. Perhaps accident. Then there is a green. You do, you
do pass. The same is the law of God. It tells me how can I behavior myself. And the
behavior should be good, not bad. Paul was feeling this, this battle between him and
the Lord. Was feeling. He said, me know why. I wanted to do good thing; I do bad
thing. Then, we are the same as Paul; we are not stranger people. Stranger people
from Paul. No, no, we are the same.
Then, the time to do liturgy is always and everywhere. And dont forget that.
Why? Because we think, many times think that liturgy must be done in the church
or in the chapel or in the room or in the powder room, or in that house where I go to
celebrate mass. No. Everywhere. Everywhere. Many times I do pray on the plane
when I fly. Many times.
I tell you one fact. I was once on the plane, and then I saw a Moslem people
pulling out of his pocket their rosary, their rosary. And then I said to myself, Why
4
am I not to do the same? I pull out my rosary and I started to say my rosary.
(Laughed) In front of him. In front of him. Because they think to be very, very
faithful people. No, they are faithful as us, as our same thing. Faithful, the same.
And then I am called to do a ______. Saying the rosary is not a liturgy. Saying
the rosary not liturgy. Liturgy maximum could be blessing of the rite of funerals.
They are liturgy. They are liturgy, but not rosary. Not the procession. I tell them,
not the procession, not the _________ are not liturgy.
We can call them paraliturgy. Paraliturgy. Instead of real liturgy, they are
this actions. But they are not liturgy, because liturgy means action from Jesus Christ
with the people, with his people. This is the definition.
To glorify God and sanctify ourselves. This is the liturgy, real liturgy. And
who sanctifies our self? Who? What sanctifies our self? Sacrament. Sacrament.
Eucharist, baptism, confirmation, matrimony, anointing to the sick. All the
sacraments give sanctification. All. Each one has got one some characteristic. But
is always sanctification, salvation.
In Italy, still now, the parents do baptize their children because they fear,
they fear they grow up with -- with legs like this. *Clown legs, like this. Or they
dream bad dreams. They do bad dreams, they say, Sicilian people, Sicilian people.
But its not for them. I dont do liturgy of the baptism for that purpose. But I do the
liturgy of the baptism for becoming Christian.
What does it mean Christian? To enter your family above. To experience
eternal life. What is eternal life? I told you already. What is eternal life? You ask
________, (laughed), the oldest. Full of wisdom. The old people are full of wisdom.
(Laughed) What is eternal life? Eh? Which each can experience. I -- I say we have
to experience yet.

UNKNOWN: Salvation.
SPEAKER: Huh? Salvation? But what is salvation?
UNKNOWN: Love of God.
SPEAKER: Huh?
UNKNOWN: Love of God.

5

SPEAKER: Love! Very good, very good, very good. Love. Eternal life
consisting -- do love, in do love. God save me and you because he loves me and you.
He is giving me salvation through his love; not through my works, which sometimes
are bad. Sometimes I say -- many times Im bad. Envy, *ill wish, selfishness,
sensuality, laziness, indifferences.

UNKNOWN: Anger.
SPEAKER: Anger. Hunger. Hunger.
UNKNOWN: Anger.
SPEAKER: Anger. Anger. We got age. (Laughed) Otherwise we have -- we

have hunger, we are hungry. Are you hungry or angry? (Laughed)
UNKNOWN: Sometimes at the same time.
SPEAKER: At the same time.

The time, the time -- I repeat -- the time of liturgy we cannot have to go and
_______ on the sea, on the pacific sea. No. Or in Guam, in the forest of Guam, no. In
Italy, no. Everywhere. Where I am, I can spend time, time for liturgy. And liturgy
must be done for you parents, for you fathers, must be done with your family. Did
you experience sometimes? Because when I ask some men who is married, Do you
pray with your children? As it was a surprise. Do you pray with your wife before
going to bed?
Do you remember what did Isaac with his wife -- Rebecca, no? Rebecca? --
its written in the bible: Before unite themselves they were going out of the bed,
kneeling down, pray, and then unite. (Laughed) Yeah? They were doing liturgy, of
course. They were doing liturgy, because they thought if we dont -- if we dont do
that we are not real Christian. Real Christian believes that liturgy is what -- is an
action for Christian.
And then I repeat also the time we cannot have to go and search the time.
No. Somebodys walking, can pray, can do liturgy. See? If I pray with _______, I go
liturgy. Not every prayer, of course, is a liturgy, not every prayer. Personal prayer
not -- Why? Because the characteristic of liturgy is to -- is dialogical.
6
UNKNOWN: Dialogue.
SPEAKER: Dialogue. Is a dialogue. A sense of characteristic of liturgy is

dialogue.
UNKNOWN: Dialogue with God, right?
SPEAKER: Dialogue with God, or with the people. With the people to God.
And that is a main characteristic of liturgy.
Some Christian -- I would say many Christian want their children to be
baptized privately. No! No. Because baptism is not, is not a private thing. Baptism
is liturgy. And liturgy calls people. Calls people. Now, the church after the Vatican
Second said it will be better to celebrate the various sacrament during the
Eucharist, during the Eucharist.
But, what happened? What happened? All the people were asking the priest,
the parish priest, Could you baptize my son during the mass? Could you make our
matrimony during the mass? Yeah. And then as there were many asking, the
church said stop, stop, stop. Ask the permission to the Bishop.
Now, in my diocese, if you want to celebrate sacraments during the mass on
Sunday, you have to ask the Bishop. Why? Because there are many, they wanted.
And then the people, normal people, coming to mass were tired. Every sacrament is
a liturgy. Every sacrament. Even if you do penance, penance on the road going
somewhere, yes, is liturgy, because God, Jesus Christ is here, is there.
UNKNOWN: So, if a rosary is not liturgy, what other prayers are liturgy?
What prayers?
SPEAKER: Private prayers are not liturgy.
UNKNOWN: So, what prayer do I say?
SPEAKER: Liturgy of the hour. Liturgy of the hour is liturgical action.
Liturgical action. Not private. Privately I said, angelus Domini salve Maria is
liturgy, no.
UNKNOWN: So, are you saying that if I take my bible, do the night reading,
by myself, in my room, by using the book, it is liturgy?
7
SPEAKER: Liturgy.
UNKNOWN: But if I just go out, like you say, praying or saying the rosary by
myself, or in the church, is not a liturgy?

SPEAKER: No. Its not a liturgy.

UNKNOWN: And what is the reason for that, Father? Why is it that, because I
use the book it becomes liturgy?

SPEAKER: No, not because I use the book. I can say the psalms mentally. I can
say its liturgy. Because Jesus Christ.

UNKNOWN: For saying the psalm in your own mind it becomes liturgy as
well?

SPEAKER: Of course, because the psalms are prefiguration of Jesus Christ.
They call Jesus Christ. Otherwise, we have no liturgy. Same Eucharist, no. No? We
have _____ liturgy.
UNKNOWN: Can I also summarize that the liturgy of the hour is being said all
over the world, and at no time is it not being said. And thats why when youre saying
it by yourself, youre saying it with the community of the world.
SPEAKER: Yeah, of course. Also Eucharist is being celebrated all over the
world, at all time. All time, for ______ hour, no?
We are here in nine hour before Europe, or something. And then we are
celebrating -- I celebrated this morning, the Eucharist at 8:00. 8:00 was there
11:00, before 11:00. And then could be said that liturgy -- Eucharist especially --
Eucharist is celebrated all the over the world, at all time, __________ time.
Jesus Christ, when big sacrifice was intelligent. Was intelligent. He knew
that his sacrifice was celebrated all over the world at all time! At all time! The
sacrifice in the temple, the temple, is a Jerusalem temple, was said just on that hour.
On that hour only. The truth of sacrifice of Jesus, the Eucharist, is wonderful.
Wonderful. Because we can have the fruit from the liturgy at any time! At any
time! When we are sleeping we can receive, yes, because there are many other
communities celebrating. (Laughed) Huh?
8
UNKNOWN: So, devotion, liturgy and paraliturgy, those are like -- those are
not liturgical?
SPEAKER: No, no, no. Devotions are not liturgical action. No. No, no.
Devotions to Saint Patrick, we are doing the novena of Saint Patrick. Its not a
liturgy. Not a liturgy. Unless it is included in Eucharist it becomes liturgy.
To go to Lourdes, to go to Fatima, to go to Medjugorje, is a liturgy? No, its
not liturgy. Not liturgy. Is a devotion. If I gather with the other people, celebrating
mass is a liturgy, real liturgy. But not when I go to the sanctuaries.
UNKNOWN: So, Father, even if were gathered as a group and praying, if its
not a mass its not considered liturgy?
SPEAKER: But should we, the group, should be done -- how can I say? --
some which we can say, we can say, here is Jesus Christ doing this prayer with us. I
repeat, the rosary is not a liturgy. Not a liturgy. Adoration to the sacrament is not
a liturgy. Not a real liturgy. But we have to do. We have to do. Not because its
imposed, but because we need also private prayer. We need.
Alfredo was saying to the seminarian, Dont pray only when you come to a
Eucharist or when you come for the little _______. Pray by yourself. Yourself, yes, of
course.

UNKNOWN: Is benediction part of liturgy?
SPEAKER: No.
UNKNOWN: No?
SPEAKER: Its not.
UNKNOWN: But its Christ.

SPEAKER: The blessing, yes. The blessing, yes, but not the adoration, not --
something like that.

UNKNOWN: But it doesnt degrade, its not a degradation. The devotion is not
a degradation, no?
9
SPEAKER: No.
UNKNOWN: It has valid effects?

SPEAKER: Oh, blessing, yes, because its God who blesses us. Its God. Jesus
Christ blesses us. And he is with me and with you, with the people.

Funeral, I said before, the rite of funeral is __________.
Okay. We can go on, or take a break.
- End of Transcript -
Footnotes
Recording of Fr. Angelo Veraldi instructing candidates to the permanent
diaconate in the Archdiocese of Agana that Jesus Christ "is a sinner".
https://soundcloud.com/undecoverneo/frangelo-march-15-2014-session
1
Account of the celebration of the Mass by Fr. Harold Colorado, December

28, 2014, San Vicente Church, Barrigada, Guam.
http://www.junglewatch.info/2014/12/report-on-mass-with-fr-
harold.html
2
The neocatechumenal appear to avoid the word "priest" and use

"presbyter" exclusively.
3
10
IS THE NEO CATHOLIC?

By Tim Rohr

Here is the simple answer:

Yes, insofar as it adheres to its 2008 Statute.
No, insofar as it departs from its 2008 Statute.

Lets review:

First, there are two Statutes (Rules) for the Neocatechumenal Way. The 2002 "ad
experimentum" Statute and the 2008 Statute which received Final Approval.

The 2002 Statute permitted neo-communicants to receive and consume the sacred host while
sitting. The 2008 Statute DOES NOT.

Here is a side by side comparison:

2002 Statute
Art. 13 2. The neocatechumens celebrate
the Eucharist in the small community in order
to be gradually initiated into full, conscious
and active participation in the divine
mysteries, according also to the example of
Christ, who, in the multiplication of loaves,
made the people sit down in groups of fifty
(Lk 9:14). This custom, consolidated in the
more than thirty-year old praxis of the Way,
has born rich fruit
.

3. In consideration also of specific
formative and pastoral needs, taking account
of the good of individuals or groups, and
especially of the fruits which may be derived
from them for the entire Christian
community, the small neocatechumenal
community, with the authorization of the
diocesan Bishop, celebrates the Dominical
Eucharist after first Vespers open also to
other faithful.

2008 Statute
Art. 13 2. The neocatechumens celebrate
the Sunday Eucharist in the small community
after the first Vespers of Sunday. This
celebration takes place according to the
dispositions of the diocesan bishop. The
celebrations of the Eucharist of the
neocatechumenal communities on Saturday
evening are part of the Sunday liturgical
pastoral work of the parish and are open also
to other faithful.

3.
For the celebration of the Eucharist in the
small communities the approved liturgical
books of the Roman Rite are followed, with
the exception of the explicit concessions from
the Holy See. Regarding the distribution of
Holy Communion under the two species, the
neocatechumens receive it standing,
remaining at their place.

As you can see, the 2002 Statute, written by Kiko, explicitly directs the people to sit down. And
as you can further see, in 2008, the Church replaces this "praxis" by simply requiring the
neocatechumens to celebrate according to the "approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite."

Normally Rome does not outright condemn certain experimental practices, it speaks to what is
right and expected. This is what Rome does here. There is no permit in the final statute to
continue the "praxis" of sitting to consume no matter how much "rich fruit" has been supposedly
born of it.

The only exception permitted is for the neocatechumens, since the group is small, to remain in
their place instead of processing towards the celebrant.

The other "explicit concessions" are detailed more fully in a footnote. Those "concessions" are
the exchange of the sign of peace before the offertory and the reception of communion under
both species. (See footnote 49 below.)

(We might note here that the regular distribution of communion under both species is a specific
exception made for the neocatechumenal way, and not for our regular parish masses.)

We know that Kiko Arguello publicly objected and refused to change this "praxis" when first
directed to by the Congregation for Divine Worship on December 1, 2005. The incident became
famous because Archbishop Apuron also publicly rejected the same order and even called into
question the credential of the Congregation's Cardinal Prefect. This was a direct rejection of the
authority of Rome by our Archbishop, and he has sided with Kiko ever since.

As we know, and especially the neocatechumens know. Every time they celebrate the
Eucharist, they violate their own Statute, the very thing that legitimizes the Way as Catholic. And
they violate it not just in some small detail, they violate the very trust of the Church at the
highest moment of what is supposed to be the Sacrament of Unity. In short, as soon as they
distribute communion and receive and consume in the manner that they do (sitting down), they
say NO to their own Statute, NO to the Church, and NO to communion with all of us.

Individual members have been lied to by their leaders that they have a permit to depart from the
liturgical books required by the Statute. They have NEVER produced that permission and as
you have seen on this blog many times, they DISAPPEAR (Atoine Tajalle - Archbishop Apuron)
when asked.

*****

Also, and I have blogged about this before, the Neocatechumenal official website is very
deceptive about the difference between the two statutes.

Go to the website by going to www.aganaarch.org > New Evangelization > Neocatechumenal

Way.
Once there, go to Statutes > DEFINITIVE STATUTE (2008) > STATUTE OF THE
NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY

You will see the NCW logo but no active link to go further. The logo is hyperlinked but clicking
on it will only take you to a blank screen. You have to right click on it to get to the right click
menu and then you have to know to open the link in a new tab. Then you'll find the 2008
Statute.

Knowing the Kiko's this is not a mistake. It is purposely difficult to get to because it contains the
dreaded instruction to follow the liturgical books which DOES NOT permit their "praxis"of
consuming the sacred host while seated.

By contrast, let's see how easy it is to get to the 2002 Statute which is the one the Kiko's want
everyone to think is the correct "praxis".

Go to STATUES > "AD EXPERIMENTUM STATUTE (2002) > TEXT OF THE STATUTE.

VOILA!

There it is.

Seriously, to the good people of the Neocatechumenal Way, it is your duty, if you want to
remain Catholic, to hold your leaders accountable to that which was entrusted to them (the 2008
Statute) by the Fathers of our Church. Simply ask them to show you the permit, the indult, the
document, whatever you want to call it, which permits you to receive communion in the way you
do. If they cannot produce it then you are participating in an "un-sacrament of disunity" and will
continue to place yourself outside the Catholic Church if you continue.

And if nothing else, then at least receive communion the way the Church instructs: consume the
host "as soon as" you receive it (GIRM 161), then sit down. Then see how much your
community still loves you.

49 See Benedict XVI, Speech to the Neocatechumenal Communities on January 12, 2006, in Notitiae 41 (2005), 554556;
CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter of December 1, 2005 in Notitiae 41 (2005), 563565; Notification of the
Congregation for Divine Worship on celebrations in groups of the Neocatechumenal Way, LOsservatore Romano, December 24,
1988: The Congregation consents that among the adaptations foreseen by the instruction Actio Pastoralis, nn. 6-11, the groups of
the above-mentioned Way may receive communion under two species, always with unleavened bread, and transfer ad
experimentum the Rite of Peace to after the Prayer of the Faithful.

CCOG Complete Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CCOG Complete Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Report

On Affairs Within Archdiocese of Agana

Concerned Catholics of Guam, Inc.

A. Father Paul Gofigan, Pastor of Santa Barbara Parish, Dededo, Guam . . . . . . . . .

C. Deacon Stephen Wm. Martinez, Assigned to the Parish of Dulce Nombre

II. Stewardship and Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C. On the Matter of Conveyance or Assignment of Title to Real Property

Concerned Catholics of Guam, Inc.

Email: ConcernedCatholicsOfGuam@gmail.com Website: www.concernedcatholicsofguam.org

July 28, 2013.

Archbishop Apuron initially violates the canons (1740-1752) relative to

November 11, 2013.

Fr. Gofigan again writes Archbishop Apuron reminding him of his

and thereafter due to the continued statements about Mr.

B. Monsignor James Benavente

C. Deacon Stephen Wm. Martinez

On October 24, 2014, Deacon Stephen Martinez (Sexual Abuse Response

--Threat of Interdiction if Deacon Martinez Continued as a Member of CCOG

II. Stewardship and Leadership

As a result of the dissolution of the Archdiocesan Development Group, the

Recently, Archbishop Apuron returned from a photo-op with Pope

handbook, no authentic list of faculty, and credentialed only by Archbishop

In the matter of the acquisition, the money was given to the

However, in the Archdiocese of Agana, not only is it the other way

So, by the erection of this other seminary, Archbishop Apuron is

C. On the Matter of the Conveyance or Assignment of Title to Real Property

After having consulted with the Reverend Monsignor David C.

Let's say that he did. If so, he is probably in violation of the following

2) a written appraisal by experts of the asset to be alienated.

--A Post Script

IV. Heretical Instructions & Pronouncements

The controversy in the Archdiocese of Agana over the manner in which

(Note: Archbishop Apuron's belief that the Eucharist "is a banquet",

4/26/08 (from Tim Rohr to Fr. X)

Okay, I'll wait. Tim

Footnote 49 is copied as follows with my comments in italics:

species, always with unleavened bread, and transfer ad experimentum

Rome has approved it even the way were receiving Communion.

given permissions for the variations that is being done in the

Yours in Christ, Jesus, Our Lord and Savior,

Concerned Catholics of Guam, Inc.

Sexual Abuse Issues and The Archdiocese of Aganas Sexual Abuse

On the Matter of Teaching that Jesus is a Sinner and the General

Because of the apparent lack of investigation into Fr John Wadesons background,

Transcript of a Class Taught by Fr. Angelo Veraldi

SPEAKER: Huh? Salvation? But what is salvation?

UNKNOWN: Love of God.

UNKNOWN: Love of God.

SPEAKER: Anger. Hunger. Hunger.

SPEAKER: Anger. Anger. We got age. (Laughed) Otherwise we have -- we

SPEAKER: Dialogue. Is a dialogue. A sense of characteristic of liturgy is

SPEAKER: No. Its not a liturgy.

UNKNOWN: Is benediction part of liturgy?

SPEAKER: Its not.

UNKNOWN: But its Christ.

UNKNOWN: It has valid effects?

Funeral, I said before, the rite of funeral is __________.

Okay. We can go on, or take a break.

Account of the celebration of the Mass by Fr. Harold Colorado, December

The neocatechumenal appear to avoid the word "priest" and use

IS THE NEO CATHOLIC?

Go to the website by going to www.aganaarch.org > New Evangelization > Neocatechumenal

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi