Loading...

The Facts: The Removal of Monsignor James - Hallo friend SMART KIDS, In the article you read this time with the title The Facts: The Removal of Monsignor James, we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article baby, Article care, Article education, Article recipes, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : The Facts: The Removal of Monsignor James
link : The Facts: The Removal of Monsignor James

The Facts: The Removal of Monsignor James

On July 26, 2014, the Umatuna read that Monsignor James would be transferred to the Tamuning Church and Monsignor David Quitugua would be the Rector of the Cathedral.  The Umatuna did not mention anything about financial mismanagement.  Financial mismanagement was mentioned in Junglewatch, dated July 26, 2014, the same day.  A letter signed by Monsignor James was also posted in the jungle blog.  KUAM news later picked up the story that Monsignor James was removed for possible financial mismanagement.  

After serving 20 years as rector of the Dulce Nombre de Maria Cathedral Basilica, Monsignor James was removed on July 25, 2014 for financial mismanagement.  The jungle claimed that it was all a lie.  And again, the NCW was blamed for the removal of Monsignor James.  According to Tim Rohr: 

• Archbishop Apuron is not in control.
• All decisions are made for this archdiocese, including who becomes a priest at RMS, by Giuseppe Gennarini, the lead "responsible" for the NCW in the United States. Gennarini is Fr. Pius' immediate superior, and Fr. Pius is the Archbishop's immediate superior. Gennarini's immediate superior is Kiko. This is the hierarchy controlling our church on Guam!
• Both Fr. Paul and Msgr. James were fired at Kiko & Gennarini's order. 

Several reasons were suggested by the jungle for the removal of Monsignor James.  Whatever reason they came up with always had to do with the NCW.  For example, one story was concocted by the jungle that the NCW removed Monsignor James because he was most likely to be the next Archbishop of Agana.  Therefore, he was removed, and the NCW planned to install Father Adrian as the next Archbishop of Agana.  According to Tim Rohr (the bold is mine): 

Apuron was really nothing more than a thirty year joke we were all willing to tolerate. But Pius has brought real evil, thanks to that perfect combination of "dunce and vengeance," Adrian the Pathetic - who apparently still thinks he will make us all his footstool when he is crowned the next emperor of Agana. 

That there might be someone else made bishop is the real reason Apuron decreed the removal of Fr. Paul and Msgr. James - and the real reason he still won't lift those decrees, now that - thanks to The Diana - we know that he can. 

Whatever reason they came up with, it was never "financial mismanagement".  Instead, they blamed the NCW for it.  And the jungle demanded the Archdiocese to show proof. The Archdiocese then cited the Deloitte and Touche report.  An internal review was also conducted, and the findings were published six months later in January 2015. Some of the findings in the Internal Review included the following: 

• Between January 2009 and July 2014, Monsignor James received payments of $326,913.61 by simultaneously drawing payroll and stipends from the Catholic Cemeteries, and sipend payments from the Cathedral-Basilica.
•  Upon the change of administration, credit cards in the name of the Archdiocese were discovered holding balances in excess of $60,000; the credit card in the name of the Catholic Cemeteries was specifically used by Monsignor James for restaurants, air fare, the Shangi-La Hotel in Manila and other five star hotels.
• In the same period, the Catholic Cemeteries and the Cathedral-Basilica expended more than $123,000 towards credit card payments to First Hawaiian Bank and American Express. 
• Other payments for a credit card in the name of Monsignor James, a gas card, and cellular/data phone privileges, which were paid for by the Catholic Cemeteries, accounted for an additional amount $23,000.
• $13,000 of cemetery funds were paid for Monsignor James 20th Anniversary reception. 
• Total advances documented between January 2009 and July 2014 by both entities for Monsignor James are nearly $475,000.
• Cemetery family crypts valued at $380,000 were gifted by Monsignor James to his close friend and family.  

After the Internal Review Report was made public, Rohr did not deny any of the findings.  Instead, he found excuses for them.  Here are some examples of those excuses (the bold is mine):

Comment 1:

The mistake Msgr. James made was technical. Because the Catholic Cemeteries is incorporated, a board resolution to approve a "loan" to Joshua Perez would have been the correct way to go. However, within church organizations, it is not uncommon for one fund to "lend" to another, if only, as we see here, to facilitate the coordination of an event until the funds can be reimbursed. 

It was a technical mistake?????  In the first place, a loan to pay for an anniversary party would never have been approved because such funds are not slated for personal use. It is against the law to use a corporation's funds for personal use. Monsignor James took it upon himself to take the money from Catholic Cemeteries without any approval from the board or Archbishop Apuron to pay for his personal use. That was the issue.

Comment 2: 

The accusation about cemetery crypts or plots being give to friends and family as favors is a lie.  Plots and/or crypts were given to two families for services they have done in exchange for them. The exchange was based on value for value. The "Benavente" plot cost less than $10,000. 

What were those services?  Where is the paperwork on it?  No such paperwork existed showing that in exchange for so and so services, Catholic Cemeteries will provide plot/crypt number xxxxxxx located at xxxxxx.  The documents only show the plots/crypts were given and the cost waived.  It did not even state the reason for the waiver.  

Comment 3:

The credit cards used by Msgr. James were not procured privately or secretly by Msgr. James. The were ISSUED by the Archdiocese of Agana........  

• Msgr. James regularly used his personal credit card to pay for the Cathedral Basilica's power bill, allowing for an additional 30 days to pay off the bill, which he always did.

The problem was NOT that the credit card was issued by the Archdiocese.  The problem was that Monsignor James did not use it responsibly.  Credit cards were also issued by the Archdiocese to other priests, but they used it responsibly.  

Monsignor James used his personal credit card to pay for the Cathedral's power bill???  How is that supposed to be beneficial to the Cathedral????  By the time the next month rolls in, the Cathedral still owes Monsignor James' credit card for the previous month and another month to the Guam Power Authority.  

Comment 4:

Five Star Hotels. The report says "Five star hotels". However it only notes the Shangri-La in Manila. It only notes the Shangri-La because that was the only "five star hotel" which was used by Msgr. James. Yet, Apuron et al try to make it look like Msgr. James availed himself to five star hotels around the world (as does Apuron). The reason Msgr. James stays at the Shangri-La is because he has a special rate of $130 a day which is the equivalent of a mid-range hotel. 

• Archbishop Apuron often stayed at the Shangri-La himself and whenever he stayed with Msgr. James, Msgr. James picked up the hotel tab for the archbishop. 

The report specifically said "The Shangri-La Hotel AND other five-star hotels. 

Monsignor James picked up the hotel tab for Archbishop Apuron?  Perhaps, Rohr got the wrong bishop.  We all know how close Monsignor James is to Cardinal Tagle.  Archbishop Apuron is not known to travel with Monsignor James.  

As you can see, Rohr never denied the Deloitte and Touche  report nor the findings in the Internal Review. He simply found excuses for them. Archbishop Apuron removed Monsignor James for financial mismanagement.  The NCW never had anything to do with it.
    

thus Article The Facts: The Removal of Monsignor James

that is all articles The Facts: The Removal of Monsignor James This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article The Facts: The Removal of Monsignor James with the link address https://onechildsmart.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-facts-removal-of-monsignor-james.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: