Archbishop contends he requested Pope appoint temporary replacement

By Nestor Licanto
KUAM
June 7, 2016

http://www.kuam.com/story/32159824/2016/06/07/archbishop-contends-he-requested-pope-appoint-temporary-replacement

Archbishop Anthony Apuron continues to deny the accusations lobbed against him. In a message from Rome, Apuron says he remains the Archbishop of Agana, but it was he who requested the Pope appoint a temporary replacement.

"The appointment of an apostolic sede plena means that while the administrator will discharge the archdiocesan pastoral duties, I remain your bishop," Apuron announced. The Vatican announced Monday that Archbishop Savio Tai Fai Hon will serve as temporary apostolic administrator of the Guam Archdiocese.

Apuron says this allows for an independent investigation of the sexual abuse accusations against him to proceed.  "I reaffirm my innocence and I'm victim to these horrible calumnies, and I welcome the assistance provided by the Holy Father in sending us Archbishop Hon. I urge you, my dear people, to pray for me, your shepherd, and for our church."

Meanwhile, the archdiocese also struck back at its main critics. It issued a decree against  the Concerned Catholics of Guam organization, declaring it a prohibited group that church members should renounce and avoid. It accused them of actively promoting opposition to the archdiocese, and soliciting and manifesting fraudulent and malicious allegations.

The decree is set to take effect on June 14.

In response. Concerned Catholics of Guam vice president Dave Sablan issued the following statement:

I read the "Decree". 
 
First, our organization was organized under Guam corporate law.
 
Secondly, the word "Catholic" in our title refers to the Faithful people who call themselves "Catholic"; the Laity of the Church, if you will.  We are not an organization of the Archdiocese of Agana, otherwise, we would have to have the blessing and sanction of the Archbishop.  We know that. 
 
We could have easily called ourselves "Concerned Christians of Guam"; or Concerned Laity of Guam.  Our organization has no connection to the Archdiocese.  If we formed an organization called the "Graduates of Father Duenas High School Corporation", should I need the permission of the principal of the school to use the name of the school from which we graduated in this instance?  Same difference with "Concerned Catholics of Guam."
 
Now, if we are to call ourselves the "Catholic Society of Guam" or the "Catholic Organization of Guam", then the use of the term "Catholic" would need the approval of the Archbishop.  But that is not how we are using that term.  We are identifying ourselves as Catholics--persons who are baptized Catholics, bound together for a common purpose which is not related to associations needing the approval of the appropriate ecclesiastical authority (the Archbishop of Agana) as defined in Canon Law.
 
Thirdly, CCOG, last year, had requested to officially meet with the Archbishop on at least a couple of occasions.  He never granted us the audience.  So, what are we to do, if he does not seem to want to talk to us to understand our purpose and objectives, which we outlined in our bylaws and articles of incorporation, filed with the Department of Revenue and Taxation? 
 
When it was discovered that the Archbishop himself allegedly violated Canon Law by giving away the Redemptoris Mater Seminary property in Yona, we, CCOG, the Laity Faithful of Guam, were and are obligated under Canon Law (Book II:  The People of God), to bring these matters to the attention of the Bishop of the diocese.  But since the Archbishop is complicit in this giving away of that property, thus affecting negatively the patrimony of the Church on Guam, CCOG is compelled under Canon Law to let high authorities in the Church know of this squandering of a valuable property for alleged selfish reasons on the part of the Archbishop.
 
In a white paper prepared by the Lay Education National Working Group's Voice of the Faithful-Voice of Renewal on "Responsibilities and Rights of the Laity", they state: 
 
"That the faithful may feel compelled, in the face of the sex-abuse crisis, its coverup by bishops, and the financial and pastoral repercussions of those failings, to form associations for the reform and renewal of the Church itself, is a sad comment on the needs of our Church today.  But such associations are a necessary step for participating in the 'common priesthood of the faithful' and thus 'in the one priesthood of Christ.' " (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, #10).
 
I trust this clarifies our position.