THEULTIMATETREACHERY

TheApuronDeception:Abishopattemptstodeceivehispope

May8,2015,Agana,Guam

The following is a consolidation of four posts related to a grossdeceptionperpetuatedby the

Archbishop of Agana involving the alienation of a megamillion dollar property from the
Archdiocese of Agana and the archbishop's gifting itto hisfriends.Theoriginalposts,posted
at JungleWatch.info, assume the reader already knows the long history and complex
background to whatmay bethe final chapter to thissadsaga.Forourpresentpurposesthe
consolidation of the story so that it may be more easily shared, the followingbackground is
provided:

Background

Sometime inearly2015,ArchbishopApuron,theArchbishopofAgana,Guam,hiredaDenver
law firm to render a favorable opinion on the status of title to thepropertycurrently occupied
by the Redemptoris Mater Seminary (RMS) and Blessed Diego Institute. He published
excerpts from that opinion in the
U Matuna
, the newspaper for theArchdioceseofAgana,on
April19,2015.

Why did Archbishop Apuron hire an expensive law firm, not licensed to practice in Guam, to
dothis?

Since the January 2012 termination of the services of the four members of thearchdiocesan
finance council whohadopposed the conveyance oftitle to said property to RMS, there has
been much speculation and doubt as towhetherornottheproperty(valuedatasmuch as75
million dollars by the archdiocesan legal counsel) was still part of the patrimony of the
ArchdioceseofAgana.

The Redemptoris Mater Seminary is a legally constituted Guam corporation, and legally
separate from the Archdiocese of Agana. Conveyance of title to RMS would place said

Page1of11

property and its value outside the patrimony of the Archdiocese of Agana, meaning, as it is
phrasedin
Canon1295
,the"patrimonialconditionofthediocese"wouldbe"worsened."

In January of 2015, a deed restriction on said property, quietly recorded by Apuron in

November of 2011, was discovered. The discovery heightened the already highly suspect
status of the title to property as the deed used key languagewhich,inGuamlaw,specifically
denotesthealienationofproperty.

If itcouldbeprovedthatArchbishopApuronhadinfactalienatedthe75milliondollarproperty
from the patrimonyoftheArchdioceseofAgana,thenhe couldberemovedbyRomefromhis
position as Archbishopof Agana for the flagrant disregard for church law and causing grave
harmtothepatrimonialconditionofthedioceseentrustedtohiscare.

Withthisbackground,letusproceed.

I.TheDenverOpinion

The U Matuna Story (

Thetruthabout the property of theRedemptorisMaterSeminaryApril
19, 2015
), carried the following footnote :
"The whole document can be consulted at the
Chancery."

Our first clue that thereissomethingtohidewasthatthefull documentwasnotpostedonthe

Archdiocese's website for all to see. If the document had actually exonerated Archbishop
Apuron's actions, we can be sure that he would have madesure everyone of us could read
everyword.

By comparison, Apuron printed every word of the decision by the LA Archdioceseregarding

Fr. Wadeson, enabling Apuron's reinstatement of Wadeson, in the same issue of the U
Matuna. And we all know how Apuron spared no space in publishing every jot and tittle he
could publish about Msgr. JamesBenavente. In fact, boththestatementaboutWadesonand
the infamous Internal Review report blasting Msgr. James are both prominently featured on
thearchdiocesan
website
under"FeaturedPosts"!

Page2of11

Our second clue that there is something"tohide"waswhena ConcernedCatholicsofGuam,

Inc. (CCOG) attorney went tothe Chanceryto "consult" the document and was told that not
only could he not have a copy, takenopictures,andtakenonotes,butthathewouldhaveto
standatthecounterandreadthe20pagedocumentinthepresenceofchancerystaff.

Our third clue that there is something "to hide" is that the document is nolonger available to
the public. The CCOG attorney was told on April 23 that the document would only be
available until 4pm onApril24. This was not what was printed in the U Matuna, so we have
no choice but to believe that Archbishop Apuron really did not think anyone would come to
lookatit,andwhensomeonedid,hehastilymadethedecisiontopullit.

Obviously, the document bythe Denver firm DOES NOTdowhatArchbishopApuronwanted

ittodo.Butwhatdidhewantittodoandwhy?

II.TheAnswer

He needed it to show that he did not alienate the property when he recorded the Deed
Restriction, restricting the property for perpetual use for use onlybyRMS andBlessedDiego
Institute.

Whydidheneedtodothat?

He needed to showthathedidnotalienatethepropertybecausealienationofpropertyofthat
value requires the consent of both thediocesanfinancecouncilandthecollege ofconsultors.
In fact, Archbishop Balvo, who at the time was the Apostolic Delegate, wrote Apuron on
March7,2012,remindinghimofthis:
Regarding the matter athand,as indicatedinthevariousparagraphsofCanon1292,to
carry out acts of alienation, consent is required not only from the diocesan finance
council but also of the college of consultors. If these do not give their consent, the
diocesanbishopisnotfreetodoashepleases.
According to Canon 1295, the consent of the same bodies is required in any
transactionwhichcanworsenthepatrimonialconditionofthediocese.
ArchbishopCharlesBalvo,lettertoArchbishopAnthonyApuron,March7,2012

Page3of11

In addition, as per
Canon 1292
:
"The permission ofthe Holy Seealsoisrequiredforthevalid
alienation of goodswhose value exceeds the maximum sum."The"maximum sum"assetby
the Episcopal Conference of the Pacific (CEPAC) is Two Million Dollars, and of course the
subjectpropertyisworthfarmorethanthat.

Thus, if it is proven that the

Deed of Restriction on the Yona property
, filed by Apuron on

November 22, 2011, does in fact alienate the property from the Archdiocese of Agana, then
Apuron has violated church law by failing to obtain the consent of the finance council, the
collegeofconsultors,andmostofall,theHolySee.

Ifinfacthedidthatthen
Canon1296
prescribestheconsequences:
Can. 1296 When alienation has taken place withoutthe prescribed canonical
formalities, but is validincivillaw,thecompetentauthoritymustcarefullyweighallthe
circumstances and decide whether, and if so what, action is to be taken, namely
personalorreal,bywhomandagainstwhom,tovindicatetherightsoftheChurch.
In short,
since the suspect violator is the bishop himself, the competent authority is now
Rome,
and church law requires Rome to decide "whether, and if so, what action is to be
taken...tovindicatetherightsoftheChurch."

Before Rome can take action, however, it mustbedetermined atthecivillevelwhetherornot

alienation actually occurred.Thus, Apuron is attempting to dissuade us and Rome that it did
not occur. However, the firm he hired is not licensed to render a legal opinion on a Guam
transaction. So the story in the UMatuna wasanotherattempttoplayusforfools,andRome
too.

However, we will NOT be played for fools. The CCOG has hired its own Guam attorney, a
specialist in real estate transactions, to render a valid opinion. More on that later, but this is
why the chancery wouldnotlethimtakeanynotesfromthe Denveropinionandhassincehid
itawayfrompublicview.

There's another angle to this that must be considered. Therealissue, as Archbishop Balvo
stated, is whether or not the Deed Restriction "
worsens the patrimonial condition of the
diocese
." This is Rome's real concern because Rome recognizes that the patrimony of a

Page4of11

diocese is not a bishop's personal property but property to be held in trust and used for the
benefitoftheentirediocese.

Whether or not Apuron's deeding away control of the subject property to a corporation
separatefromtheArchdioceseofAganaworsened"thepatrimonyofthediocese"couldeasily
be determined by simply asking whether or not the Yona property appears on the balance
sheet of the Archdiocese of Agana, which is probably why Apuron refuses to post the
financialsofthearchdiocese.

Apuron has already admitted that it does not, arguing only that he is still in control of the
property and that his name is on the title. However, one doesn't have to be involved in a
million dollar transaction to know that if you assign property for use by another entity, no
lendinginstitutionisgoingtocountitamongstyourassets.

III.TheTelltaleHeart

Apuron and his handlers musthave known that the

Deed Restriction
, recorded secretly with
LandManagementonNovember22,2011,couldnotbekeptasecretforever.

Things were getting hot. In late 2013, this blog exposed the fact that Redemptoris Mater
Seminary (RMS( was not only
not forming diocesan priests as we were told it was, it was
never intended to: it's Articles of Incorporation stating specifically that RMS existed to form
priests according to "
the life and practice of the Neocatechumenal Way" which is oriented
towardsbreakingparishesintosmallcommunities.

Comically, Apuron admitted this was the truth by hurriedly establishing anotherseminary(St.
John Paul II Seminary in Malojloj, Guam) that is supposed to do what RMS said it did, but
never did: form diocesan priests. Butof course this second seminary was nothingbut aruse
aswell,andhasproceededtoruinevenmorelives.

Throughout 2014, through this blog, we kept thepressureonandbytheendof2014,Apuron

was desperate. In additionto the millions donated by the original donor, many more millions
had been raised from Guam Catholics over several years for RMSforwhattheythoughtwas
itsmission.
Page5of11


Once the Catholic public learned the truth about RMS, there was a backlash:a campaign to
STOP THE MONEY. However, JungleWatch cannot take all the creditfor thebacklash.Most
of thecreditgoestoApuron,who,inanefforttosquashus,beganrabidlyordainingextremely
illformed and unqualified presbyters from RMS, who, quite without the help of JungleWatch,
proceeded to offend and alienate the peoplewho had been paying their way formorethana
decade.

Meanwhile, JungleWatchbegan exposing the possibility that Apuronhad violated churchlaw

by deeding the property toRMS. Wedid not know yet about the Deed Restriction, but there
was plenty of evidence that something untoward had happened, especially the extremely
ill
treatmentofMr.RichardUntalan
andtheothermembersoftheformerfinancecouncil.

By December of2014,Apuronmusthavebeen feelingtheheatbecausehewrotealetter toa

certainpersoninSt.Louisstating(namesareleftout):
"I am writing this letter to assure you...and your very generous benefactors who will
always remain anonymous* that the donation given to theArchdioceseofAganawhen
the former Accion Hotel in Yona, previously owned by a Japanese Company was
bought by the Archdiocese of Agana in which the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan
Seminary of Guam has, is and continuestobeusedasaseminary,but,intitlebelongs
totheArchdioceseofAgana."
* The reason he says the donor will remain anonymous is because the anonymity of the donor was a
condition of the donation. However, Apuron had already revealed the source of the donation almost
immediately after it was received, causing serious financial harmto those who hadprocured the donation
becausetheirregulardonorsbelievedthattheirdonationshadbeenabused.

First, why is Apuron writing to the benefactor (actually the benefactor's representative)
TWELVE years later to assure the benefactor that the donation was used for what it was
intended(thedonationwasgivenin2003)?

Was it perhaps, like Poe's "Telltale Heart",thatthesecretDeedRestrictionwastickinglouder

and louder inApuron'sconscience? Afterall,tocoverhistrail,hehadviciouslydismissedfour
people (the finance council) who had served him faithfully and well for many years,he had

Page6of11

accused Mr. Untalan of "nonsense", and had "sicked" his Vicar General afterhim to accuse
himofa"
vulnus
",whichwasaveiledthreatofexcommunication.

AndthencameJungleWatch,withexposureafterexposure.Thetickinggotlouderandlouder.
TICK,TICK,TICKTICK!

IV.ApocalypseNow

Let'sreviewthekeypoints.

O
n November 22, 2011, Archbishop Apuron, without the approval or knowledge of the
archdiocesan financecouncil, the collegeofconsultors,ortheHolySee,fileda
Declarationof
Deed Restriction
with the Department of Land Management of the Government of Guam,
restricting the former Accion Hotel property for the sole use of the Redemptoris Mater
SeminaryandtheBlessedDiegoInstitute,
inperpetuity.

O
n January 12, 2012, Archbishop Apuron
terminated the service of the four members ofthe
archdiocesan financecouncil whohadpreviouslyvotedagainsttheconveyanceoftitleofsaid
propertytoRMS.

I
nlate2013,JungleWatchbeganaseriesofpostsquestioningthestatusofsaidproperty.

I
nJanuaryof2015,theDeedRestrictionwasdiscoveredandmadepublic.

I
n the same month, a Vatican delegationarrived on Guam to conduct anApostolicVisit.The
former members ofthefinancecouncilmetwiththedelegationandprovidedthemwithacopy
of the Deed Restriction as well asthehistoryofthearchbishop'sattempttoconveythetitleto
RMSoutrightandtheirsubsequentterminationfromthecouncilwhentheyrefusedtodoso.

J
ungleWatch does not know ifthe VisitatorsconfrontedArchbishopApurononthematter,or,
if they did, what they advised him to do. But it seems that something happened because
ArchbishopApuron
suddenly
gotbusytryingtocoverhistracks.
Page7of11

O
n December 18, 2014, Archbishop Apuron released a
statement to the press "welcoming"
an upcoming "pastoral visit" from the Vatican. While it was made to appear as simply
"pastoral" and as "fostering communion", it was quite clear, both from the names and
positions of thepeoplewho were coming,andwhattheydidwhentheyactuallygothere,that
thenatureofthevisitwasinvestigatory.

Since the statement to thepress was made on December 18, 2014, Archbishop Apuron, no
doubt, had received word at least a day or two before. Apparently heknewhewasintrouble
and he wasted no time because on December 17, 2014, the day before the statement tothe
press,ApuronshotoffalettertoTDR*.

*TDR is the acronym we will use to designate The Donor's Representative. The donor is the person or
persons who anonymously gave the approximately 2 million dollars to the Archdioceseof Agana
"forthe
purchase of a defunct hotel,for the purpose of a seminary"
(exact wordsof thedonor'snote). The donor,
whowantedto remainanonymous,madethedonationthroughanintermediarywhoseidentitywechooseto
protect.SowewillsimplydesignatethatpersonasTDR.

In his December 17, 2014 letter to TDR, Apuron, aware of the impending visitation from
Rome,writes:

"I am writing this letter to assure you...and your very

generousbenefactorswhowillalwaysremainanonymousthatthe
donationgiventotheArchdioceseofAganawhentheformer
AccionHotelinYona,previouslyownedbyaJapaneseCompany
wasboughtbytheArchdioceseofAganainwhichtheRedemptoris
MaterArchdiocesanSeminaryofGuamhas,isandcontinuestobe
usedasaseminary,but,intitlebelongstotheArchdioceseof
Agana."

Obviously there is noreason for Apuron, 12 years later, to be writing TDR to assure him/her
that the property still belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana...unless of course, it doesn't and
heisactuallysettingupTDRforsomethingelse.

Page8of11

That"somethingelse"cameonJanuary29,2015,whenApuronagainwrotetoTDR:

"May I ask a favor...send mealetterofsupportforthe

donationmadebyyourdonorsandbenefactorstotheArchdiocese
ofAganain2003forthepurchaseoftheAccionHotelforthe
ArchdioceseofAganaforthepurposeofhousingtheRedemptoris
MaterSeminaryandtheTheologicalInstitutefortheformation
ofpriests."

Apuron had obviously gotten spanked by the Roman visitatorsandnow was sodesperateto
exonerate himself that he asked TDR to lie for him (as we shall see). In fact, he was so
desperate that henotonlyaskedTDRtolieforhim,heactually wroteoutthelieforhim/herto
sign and simply send back. We know this because in TDR's February 2, 2015 reply to
Apuron,TDRwrites:

"InconclusiondearArchbishopApuron,Icannotsigntheletter
youdraftedformebecauseitwouldnotbeinfacttruthful."

We are tempted to say "amazing"in relation to Apuron's audacityto ask TDR to lie for him
and if you knew who TDR was you would not be just
amazed
, you'd be
aghast
!Butbecause
we have grown so used to Apuron's lies this appears to be just one more. But it is not just
"one more". It is the
Ultimate Treachery! We will come backtothatinaminute.Fornow, let
usreadwhatelseTDRtoldApuron:

DearArchbishopApuron,in2003whenthesaid"funds"were
donated,wehadabsolutelynoknowledgeoftheseentities(like
RedemptorisMaterSeminary
,the
NeocatechumenalWay
,orthe
TheologicalInstitute
fortheformationofpriests),notto
speak of any specific intention whatsoever to relate this
donationtothem.Infact,wedidnotevenknowoftheselay
organizations,sonaturallywecouldnotdirectanythingto
thembyname.Itwasoursoleintentiontohelpthepeopleof
Guamtoprovideapropertyforaseminaryfortheformationof
priestsfortheChurchinGuam.Atthattime,in2003,wewere
Page9of11

madeawareoftheburdenyouwerecarryinginregardtothe
purchaseofthispropertyforaseminary.Itwasourdesireto
helprelieveyouofthisconcernandenabletheArchdioceseto
conductaseminaryintheformerhotel.
Thiswasourintent
.It
wasnotourintentthattheArchdioceseplaceonthehotel
property,purchasedwithourdonation,a
deedrestriction,in
perpetuity
,wherebythepropertyisnowdedicatedtobeused
only for the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and Theological
Institute.Asaresult,wefelt"veryillatease"whenwecame
to know about the "Deed Restriction" which gives the
Redemptoris Mater Seminary control of thesaidPropertyin
"perpetuity". The phrase, "in perpetuity" implies that the
seminary now belongstotheNeocatechumenalWayChristians,
whichistheonlygrouppermittedtousethepropertynoworin
thefuture.

Theletterthenconcludes:

Inconclusion,dearArchbishopApuron,Icannotsigntheletter
yourdraftedformebecauseitwouldnotinfactbetruthful.
Wearekeepingyou,theseminariansandallthepeopleofGuam
verymuchinourprayers.MaytheSpiritoflovebringpeace
andunitytoall.SincerelyinChrist,TDR.

We have labeled this series of posts THE ULTIMATE TREACHERY because this is not just
another Apuronconcocted lie. This is an attempt by
Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron,
Ofm,Cap.DDMetropolitanArchbishopofAgana

to
LIE
directlytotheHolyFather.

In 2012, Apuron had been

warned by then Apostolic Delegate to Oceania, Archbishop
Charles Balvo, thathewasNOTfreetodoashewishedinthematterofthisproperty.Church

law protects the faithful from theactionsofrogueandruthlessbishopsbyrequiring,whenitis

a matter of harmingthe "patrimony" of a diocese, consent from a series ofgoverningbodies,
in this case, the archdiocesan finance council (which he fired),thecollegeofconsultors(who
wereneverconsulted),andtheHolySee(whoseapprovalheneversought).
Page10of11


Apuron has bragged for months that "no can touch" him and he hasscoffed and sneered at
our efforts, be they blog posts, letters from the CCOG, or the now more visible public
demonstrations. He felt safe in treating us this waybecause heknowsthatonlythepopecan
removehim,andtherehastobeSERIOUSreasonforapopetoremoveabishop.

Brazenly violating canon law and intentionally harming the patrimony of this diocese to the
tune of tens of millions of dollars is SERIOUS reason. Thus Apuron's only hope was to get
TDR to say that he/she gave him the money for RMS in the first place. And as youcan see
TDR did NOT go along with Apuron's vile ruse, concluding his/her reply with the words:
"becauseinfactitwouldnotbetruthful."

Failing this, Apuron got even more desperate which is why he got the Denver law firm to
render what he tries to make look like a favorable opinion. But when the CCOG sent their
attorney to look at the actual opinion, every effort was made to make it difficultfor him (no
notes, no copies, no pictures, and he had to stand and read the whole 20page documentin
the presence of chancery staff), and then it was immediately withdrawn from public
inspection.

I cannot release the actual copy of the letter from TDR, but ArchbishopApuron knows that
everywordofthisistrue,andsodoesRome.Andtheyknowwheretogettheletter.

Holy Father, ArchbishopApuron has attempted to treatyou likehetreatsus.Wesuggestyou

findoutwhy...andsoon.

TheabovewascompiledbyTimRohr,JungleWatch.info

Page11of11