THE CHANCERY V GOFIGAN: THE SNAP SNAFU

In its haste to endorse the actions of the Archbishop against Fr. Paul Gofigan, SNAP director, David Clohessy, apparently did not bother to get the facts. In a statement released on July 25, 2013, Clohessy states:

"Father Paul Gofigan had been instructed by Archbishop Anthony Apuron to fire a predator who worked at the church but failed to do so..." (Read the entire statement here.)

However, Fr. Gofigan DID NOT "fail to do so". Below is a copy of the letter from Father Paul releasing the person in question on October 26, 2011, as required by the Archbishop.

But first a couple other observations.

Clohessy also notes that Fr. Gofigan had put "children in harm's way", and "It is outrageous that any individual would rather put his career before the safety of children..."

This thing about children, with the heavy implication that the subject person was a child molester, is not only getting tiring (since it is not true), but is bordering on incurring legal action for those who continue to publicly make this man out to be a child molester.

The man raped an 18 year old woman 32 years ago. It was a heinous crime, a horrible crime, a crime he deserves to suffer the rest of his life for even though he has done his time in prison. But he did not molest a child. And the continued public hammering on "the safety of children" relative to this man's case is keeping this slanderous allegation alive.

Unfortunately, the idea that this man was a child molester can be traced to the Archbishop's initial letter to Fr. Gofigan of July 16, 2013 in which he said: "By allowing him to work in the parish, you have exposed the children of a nearby school to a probable threat."

This idea that the man was a "threat to children" was then reinforced by an Archdiocesan press release on July 22 which devoted a whole section to the "Safety of Children", fully implying that this man, who had committed the rape of an adult woman 32 years ago, was an active child molester.

In fact, a few initial news reports picked up on this strong language from the Archdiocese and reported the man as a child molester until the error was corrected. However, SNAP's statement shows just how far and wide the maligning of this man's character has gone.

Rape is a heinous crime. However, society has deemed the sexual molestation of children a greater and more despicable crime, and rightly so. And while the authorities at the chancery may not have intended it so,  their words have provoked a slanderous and dangerous accusation of a new and more heinous criminal act.

The SNAP statement concretizes the effect of these loose words and possibly sets the Archdiocese up for legal recriminations far beyond the issue of Fr. Gofigan's status.

I have kept my personal opinions mostly to myself, but at this point I must say that it appears to me that the chancery is being very poorly counseled.

NOTE: In rereading SNAP's statement, if I was the man in question or a member of his family I'd seriously sue them for defamation. SNAP refers to the man as a "predator". Such a designation implies a pattern of behavior. The man has one instance of rape to his name over a quarter century ago. Again, the seriousness of his crime can never be diminished nor forgotten, but "predator" is quite a different thing. I think he should sue...since he no longer has an income as a maintenance man.

Fr. Gofigan attempts to make this distinction in this KUAM news story.