Monday, September 23, 2013


This may be just an internet error, but if not, then the Chancery is trying to erase some of its missteps. 

At the center of the Chancery v Gofigan controversy is Fr. Paul’s “illegal” removal as pastor of Santa Barbara Parish. As mentioned previously, the removal, and even transfer of a pastor, requires a careful canonical procedure (Cann. 1740 - 1752)

Fr. Paul was officially, but illegally removed as pastor by virtue of the fact that he was replaced by a parochial administrator on July 17, 2013, one day after Fr. Paul was called to the chancery and told to resign. 

Fr. Paul DID NOT resign. However, his removal was further confirmed, by the fact that when he returned to his parish he found himself locked out of both the rectory and his office.

If there is a SMOKING GUN in this case, it is the Aviso of July 17 replacing Fr. Paul with Fr. Dan Bien as parochial administrator. 

All Avisos are published in the U Matuna and posted on the Archdiocesan website. However, it appears that the "smoking gun" Aviso has been removed from its website.

Amazingly, the link to the Aviso is still on the Home page:

But when you click on it you get the following message from Google:

And when you click on "cached copy" you get this:

In case you can't read it, it says:
This is Google’s cache of It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 20 Aug 2013 10:12:23 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more.
And when you click on the “Learn more”, Google tells you:

When you click Cached, you'll see the webpage as it looked when Google last visited the page. 
About Cached Links 
Google crawls the web and takes snapshots of each page as a backup in case the current page is not available. These pages then become part of Google’s “cache.” If you click on a link that says Cached, you’ll see the previous version of the site that we have stored.

The cached link works and it brings up the page that used to be there which you can view here as a PDF.

As mentioned, it may be an internet error, but all the other links on the website are working. Evidence tampering?

Obviously, the Chancery, if it wants to scrub its site of the smoking gun, then it should take down the link saying it's there, but they may also want to take down the link immediately above it since it says the same thing.

Boy, there is just no hiding from Google, is there? A lesson to all of us. We already know to be careful of what we post. Now we have to be careful of what we un-post!

1 comment:

  1. My thoughts:

    As the shepherd, you would think that the archbishop would be concerned about preserving the vocation of one of his own priests, not destroying it. Not once since the July 16th fiasco of a meeting has the archbishop reached out to one of his own, a priest that he has ordained, to paternally talk to him. This behavior is unbecoming of a bishop or a priest or any man claiming to be a “father

    Fr. Paul has always been willing and ready to reconcile, and even if he wasn’t, why hasn’t the archbishop call him anyway to meet? Is the archbishop more concerned about his image than the soul of one of his own priests? It seems so.

    Why hasn’t the shepherd reached out to one of his sheep? Jesus would.