PIUS IS A LIAR, TOO. (BUT THEN WE ALREADY KNEW THAT.)

Response by Tim Rohr to Fr. Pius Sammut’s comments in today’s Pacific Daily News story: Sect 'cannot possess the seminary': Priest explains about Neocatechumenal Way. August 3, 2014http://www.guampdn.com/article/20140803/NEWS01/308030001/Sect-cannot-possess-seminary-Priest-explains-about-Neocatechumenal-Way

I don't have time right now to expose all of Pius' lies. But here are a few:

Pius says: "The money for the purchase of the hotel was donated to the archdiocese by an off-island benefactor who offered it with the explicit intention of erecting the seminary and the theological institute."

It's an intentional use of the article "the" as if the seminary was specifically to be "the neocat seminary". Here is what the donor's statement actually said the donation was to be used for: "for the purchase of a defunct hotel, for the purpose of a seminary." "A seminary". Obviously the donor had in mind "a seminary" for the Archdiocese of Agana, like any other diocesan seminary. In fact, since I know the people involved in procuring the donation, I can back this up. However, THE DONATION WAS NOT USED for "a seminary" FOR the Archdiocese of Agana. The donation was used to establish a specifically Neocatechumenal Way seminary to the exclusion of normal diocesan formation. We know this because Article III (PURPOSE) of the RMS Articles of Incorporation (attached) states the following:

"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."

THERE IS NO INTENT TO FORM DIOCESAN PRIESTS FOR THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA. One must follow "the life and practice of the Neocatechumenal Way". The Archbishop himself admitted this fact when he created a SECOND seminary last December to accommodate the ONE seminarian who did not want to follow the "life and practice of the Neocatechumenal Way." If RMS was "a seminary" for the Archdiocese of Agana there would have been NO NEED to create a second one, would there?

Pius says: "Regarding the transfer of the title, the legal adviser of the archdiocese, five years ago, asked that the title be transferred to the Redemptoris Mater Corp. to respect the intention of the donor and to safeguard the property."

Dear Fr. Pius, the "legal advisor of the archdiocese" is Atty. Ed Terlaje. Here is what Atty. Ed Terlaje wrote on November 27, 2011 in an email to the Archdiocesan Finance Council with the subject line: Response to AFC’S Decision regarding Alienation of Seminary Property. Read it, everybody read it, and tell me if this sounds like Atty. Ed Terlaje is asking "that the title be transferred to Redemptoris Mater Corp." READ IT!

“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?”

Now Pius, either you are as big a liar as the Archbishop, or you two have a different attorney. Which is it?

Now here's Pius' biggest lie:

Pius says: "This corporation is a 'corporation sole' where there is only one member, namely the archbishop, who has all power."

Now, let's look at who, according to the Articles of Incorporation, ACTUALLY have "all the power". Their names are:

• Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron (address Guam...sometimes)• Mr. Giuseppe Gennarini (address New Jersey)• Mrs. Claudia Gennarini (address New Jersey)• Fr. Angelo Pochetti (address New York)

And they have "all the power" because Article IX in the Articles of Incorporation gives them "all the power": "The Board of Guarantors has a veto or approval power for the most important affairs of the Corporation."

So WHO has full "veto or approval power" over EVERYTHING? These four. The Archbishop is just one vote. This is why Atty. Terlaje vehemently objected to including a "Board of Guarantors" in the first place. He knew there was no need. Guarantors are only needed when there is a need to secure debt. As Pius tells us, the seminary didn't cost the archdiocese a penny (not totally true either), so there was NO NEED to establish a Board of Guarantors and Atty. Terlaje knew that this was just asking for the trouble that we are now facing!

Now what does "full veto or approval power for the most important affairs of the Corporation" mean? Well, what is THEE most important affair of the Corporation? Answer: the making of priests. Now, Pius, do you want to tell us why 3 to 1, three people who don't live here, including a lay married couple, (and all high-ranking neo's) have absolute control over who becomes a priest in Guam and who does not? Isn't that supposed to be the sole responsibility of the bishop? In fact, Mr. Gennarini was just here around July 20 to do a "scrutiny" of prospective priest candidates at the seminary. WHAT THE HELL, Archbishop? Why are you letting these people tell you who can be a priest and who cannot? It is already known that you have ordained certain men from that seminary who YOU KNEW should NOT be ordained. Yet, Pius tells us that you have your "own mind"??? Right.

And Pius. Who the hell are you really? And why are you, a Carmelite monk, wandering the face of the earth. And why are you, a Carmelite monk, even here? Who gives you the authority to speak for our archdiocese? You are not incardinated here. You are not "our" priest. You are permanently shacked up at the Archbishop's place. You mooch off the good people of Guam. And now you come on to the PDN, lie through your teeth, and call us racist.

PEOPLE OF GUAM. DO YOU SEE WHO THIS MAN IS? DO YOU SEE THAT THERE IS NO RECONCILIATION WITH LIARS?