Sunday, December 1, 2013

CHANCERY V GOFIGAN: LET'S GET BACK ON TOPIC

Let's review:

On July 16, 2013, Fr. Paul Gofigan was summoned to the chancery. He was handed a letter and told to read it. In the letter, the Archbishop said: 

"...it is my sad duty to ask that you submit your resignation from the office of Santa Barbara Church in Dededo." 

The reason?

"You disobeyed the order given by the Vicar General."

What was the order?


The order was to terminate the employment of a registered sex-offender at the parish. 

Fr. Gofigan had in fact complied with the order as evidenced by this letter of termination dated October 26, 2011. 

But here's the larger problem for the Archbishop:

In his demand for Fr. Paul's resignation, the Archbishop accuses Fr. Paul of causing:

"…great harm to the parish by allowing such an individual with a publicly known sex-offense record to work in the Church thus exposing him to your parishioners, especially the youth. By allowing him to work in the parish, you have exposed the children of the nearby school to a probable threat. Your decision to allow (name of sex-offender) to work at the parish created a lasting and potential threat to the safety and well-being of your parishioners and office staff."

With this letter, dated July 16, 2013, the Archbishop is admitting that he was personally aware of the presence of this supposed "lasting and potential threat" at Santa Barbara Parish for at least two years and did NOTHING. 

In fact, another letter from the Archbishop to Fr. Paul (not yet posted) shows that the Archbishop had been compiling a two year long dossier on the parish-related activities of the man in question. 

So here's the thing. If the presence of this man was in fact, a threat, "especially (to) the youth", and the Archbishop was aware of this man's presence and activities at the parish for at least two years, then WHY did he do NOTHING about it until July 16, 2013? 

Because Fr. Paul terminated the man in 2011 as per the order of the Vicar General, Fr. Paul is not guilty of disobedience. The most that could be made of his allowing the man to continue as an unpaid volunteer - if in fact there was any reason to believe that the man posed a risk to the safety of parishioners - is a lack of judgement, which would warrant perhaps a disciplinary letter. 

But the Archbishop, because he declares the man to be a "threat", and because the "care of souls" in the diocese is ultimately his responsibility, and because he did NOTHING for two years about this "threat", incriminates himself as guilty of GRAVE NEGLECT. 

It is amazing that whoever wrote this letter did not see this! 

There is also the serious matter of the Archbishop's implied accusation that the man in question is a pedophile. This suggestion is simply slander. The Archbishop is aware of the man's record and knew that his offense had nothing to do with children. 

So why - in both the 16 July 13 letter and in the press release of 22 July 13 - is the man continually cast as a danger to children? Obviously the chancery thought such a charge would play in their favor. 

They were wrong. 

The outcome of Fr. Paul's appeal which will now go before the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome is now almost beside the point. What we have here is a serious crisis of leadership in this Archdiocese. 

I and others are still willing to give the Archbishop the benefit of the doubt. Despite his signature on those letters, I am quite sure someone else both wrote them and convinced him to take the course of action that has led to this mess.

I know this because of a letter which was written in 2009 at the height of the same-sex civil union debate. The letter was distributed at a meeting with the Legislature. The Archbishop did not write this letter, but it was printed on his letterhead. The distribution of the letter caused immense damage. And still today, if you google the words "Archbishop Apuron homosexuality" you will see that the Archbishop is famous for calling for the execution of gays. 

Of course, he did no such thing. But this is what happens when you let other people write your letters...and you sign them. 







9 comments:

  1. Tim, I remember this letter. You called into K57 and explained it had been written by the neo-catechumenate moral theologian who used the archbishop's letterhead without his permission. Apparently the moral theologian offered to take responsibility and to apologize but the archbishop would not let him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Responding to this:

    Tim, I remember this letter. You called into K57 and explained it had been written by the neo-catechumenate moral theologian who used the archbishop's letterhead without his permission. Apparently the moral theologian offered to take responsibility and to apologize but the archbishop would not let him.

    Yes, I did. Another example of my defending the Archbishop. But about the letter. Prior to its being distributed, the author had sent me a copy to get my thoughts. The letter was a good one, and seen in context, the particular portion about Islam and its treatment of homosexuals made a powerful point.

    But I had thought the letter was going to be used as an op-ed in the paper (with the author's name), or perhaps used as an address, a talk (again by the author). Because the author was a moral theologian, the letter had the potential for a stimulating intellectual discussion of the matter, something I had been advocating for since all we had had up till then on the same-sex bill was a sound byte war.

    I had not clue the letter would be passed out willy-nilly to the legislature and on the Archbishop's letterhead. Of course, Senator Cruz saw his opportunity and he used it, he sent it to the press.

    I remember hearing Travis Coffman reading it on his show that afternoon. Travis was actually agreeing with the letter, or at least acknowledging the points until he came to the part about the execution of gays by Muslims. Without the opportunity to engage the author on the finer point of the passage, Travis jumped to the obvious and all hell broke loose.

    We had an emergency meeting at the chancery that afternoon. (I was on the archdiocesan team at the time which was tasked with engaging the bill). Everyone there will tell you that I was livid. I could not believe the blunder. And it was a huge blunder, complicated further by an extremely bad handling of the press after the meeting where the Archbishop was caught on camera hurrying down a hallway refusing to answer any questions.

    You are correct. The author, offered to set the record straight. In fact, it may not have even been his decision to print it on the Archbishop's letterhead and distribute it. It was simply an intellectual piece that provided some basic discussion points about the issue.

    Again, a very bad decision, and it has made the Archbishop famous. The lesson here though is that there was no lesson learned, as we now see in the current drama.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am just common folk. I sit in the pew Sunday after Sunday and am spiritually fed by my pastor. While I don't claim to understand all the "politics" that take place, or the moral theology stance on issues, even an everyday Catholic like me can see there are some very serious problems here.

    There is a huge division within our Archdiocese and the source always seems to point to the Neo-Catechumenal Way. We do have other movements and groups on Guam like Couples for Chr4ist, El Shaddai, Cursillo, Marriage Encounter, Divine Mercy, KofC, CDA, etc. But no one seems to complain ever about them being a problem. Why is the Neo such a huge problem.

    Does it all revolve around power and money? They obviously have the power because they have the Archbishop completely under their control/spell.

    I was at the first night of the Novena last night at the Cathedral and I noticed that the Archbishop was missing. A friend of mine is very active with the largest annual feast day celebration (12/08) and I asked if the Archbishop was sick, because he is normally at the Cathedral for each night of the Novena. She mentioned that he cannot on Saturday nights because he has a Neo mass for his community at his house, and that he cannot on Sunday because he hosts the seminarians and missionaries for a pizza party at his house every Sunday.

    That upset me that his Neo community was more important than the people of Guam. Why can't they move their masses for the Agana fiesta, and why can't they forego a pizza party, soda and ice cream once or twice a year for the fiesta. Isn't the Archbishop's parish Agana? And he was absent?

    Last night my sister reminded me that a few years back we had a priest over to my parents house for dinner. We try to sponsor/adopt a priest a few times a year if they have no family here. This priest was a Neo priest and had mentioned that all the clergy had a big three day pow-wow/meeeting to discuss unity, because there were some priests that were not happy about how all the attention the bishop was paying to the seminary and the Neo activities. They hired a consulting group from Notre Dame or some other place like that. This priest had mentioned it was a real eye opener for him because he was new and didn't realize there was such a problem. I don't know what suggestions were made to fix this division, but it seems that they still are here. And from what I see it all points to the Neo.

    Perhaps the problem is that the Archbishop surrounds himself with all Neo people so he doesn't have any balance. Maybe it's time to start all over, get rid of the Neo leaders that come and go...Fr Pius, Pat, etc. Change the bishop, or if this one stays make him stop walking the Neo Way so exclusively, and really make the Seminary a place for all priest studies throughout the Pacific...not just Neo priests.

    As you used to say Tim, this is just a simple view from the pew. But something needs to happen because our Church is starting to slowly implode. Rome help us!

    Anonymous because of fear from the Church leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Who is Fr. Pius and what is his role here on Guam? Is he a key player in the saga of Fr. Paul? Why did someone call Fr. Pius the "invisible archbishop" in a previous comment?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am just common folk. I sit in the pew Sunday after Sunday and am spiritually fed by my pastor. While I don't claim to understand all the "politics" that take place, or the moral theology stance on issues, even an everyday Catholic like me can see there are some very serious problems here.

    There is a huge division within our Archdiocese and the source always seems to point to the Neo-Catechumenal Way. We do have other movements and groups on Guam like Couples for Chr4ist, El Shaddai, Cursillo, Marriage Encounter, Divine Mercy, KofC, CDA, etc. But no one seems to complain ever about them being a problem. Why is the Neo such a huge problem.

    Does it all revolve around power and money? They obviously have the power because they have the Archbishop completely under their control/spell.

    I was at the first night of the Novena last night at the Cathedral and I noticed that the Archbishop was missing. A friend of mine is very active with the largest annual feast day celebration (12/08) and I asked if the Archbishop was sick, because he is normally at the Cathedral for each night of the Novena. She mentioned that he cannot on Saturday nights because he has a Neo mass for his community at his house, and that he cannot on Sunday because he hosts the seminarians and missionaries for a pizza party at his house every Sunday.

    That upset me that his Neo community was more important than the people of Guam. Why can't they move their masses for the Agana fiesta, and why can't they forego a pizza party, soda and ice cream once or twice a year for the fiesta. Isn't the Archbishop's parish Agana? And he was absent?

    Last night my sister reminded me that a few years back we had a priest over to my parents house for dinner. We try to sponsor/adopt a priest a few times a year if they have no family here. This priest was a Neo priest and had mentioned that all the clergy had a big three day pow-wow/meeeting to discuss unity, because there were some priests that were not happy about how all the attention the bishop was paying to the seminary and the Neo activities. They hired a consulting group from Notre Dame or some other place like that. This priest had mentioned it was a real eye opener for him because he was new and didn't realize there was such a problem. I don't know what suggestions were made to fix this division, but it seems that they still are here. And from what I see it all points to the Neo.

    Perhaps the problem is that the Archbishop surrounds himself with all Neo people so he doesn't have any balance. Maybe it's time to start all over, get rid of the Neo leaders that come and go...Fr Pius, Pat, etc. Change the bishop, or if this one stays make him stop walking the Neo Way so exclusively, and really make the Seminary a place for all priest studies throughout the Pacific...not just Neo priests.

    As you used to say Tim, this is just a simple view from the pew. But something needs to happen because our Church is starting to slowly implode. Rome help us!

    Anonymous because of fear from the Church leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am just common folk. I sit in the pew Sunday after Sunday and am spiritually fed by my pastor. While I don't claim to understand all the "politics" that take place, or the moral theology stance on issues, even an everyday Catholic like me can see there are some very serious problems here.

    There is a huge division within our Archdiocese and the source always seems to point to the Neo-Catechumenal Way. We do have other movements and groups on Guam like Couples for Chr4ist, El Shaddai, Cursillo, Marriage Encounter, Divine Mercy, KofC, CDA, etc. But no one seems to complain ever about them being a problem. Why is the Neo such a huge problem.

    Does it all revolve around power and money? They obviously have the power because they have the Archbishop completely under their control/spell.

    I was at the first night of the Novena last night at the Cathedral and I noticed that the Archbishop was missing. A friend of mine is very active with the largest annual feast day celebration (12/08) and I asked if the Archbishop was sick, because he is normally at the Cathedral for each night of the Novena. She mentioned that he cannot on Saturday nights because he has a Neo mass for his community at his house, and that he cannot on Sunday because he hosts the seminarians and missionaries for a pizza party at his house every Sunday.

    That upset me that his Neo community was more important than the people of Guam. Why can't they move their masses for the Agana fiesta, and why can't they forego a pizza party, soda and ice cream once or twice a year for the fiesta. Isn't the Archbishop's parish Agana? And he was absent?

    Last night my sister reminded me that a few years back we had a priest over to my parents house for dinner. We try to sponsor/adopt a priest a few times a year if they have no family here. This priest was a Neo priest and had mentioned that all the clergy had a big three day pow-wow/meeeting to discuss unity, because there were some priests that were not happy about how all the attention the bishop was paying to the seminary and the Neo activities. They hired a consulting group from Notre Dame or some other place like that. This priest had mentioned it was a real eye opener for him because he was new and didn't realize there was such a problem. I don't know what suggestions were made to fix this division, but it seems that they still are here. And from what I see it all points to the Neo.

    Perhaps the problem is that the Archbishop surrounds himself with all Neo people so he doesn't have any balance. Maybe it's time to start all over, get rid of the Neo leaders that come and go...Fr Pius, Pat, etc. Change the bishop, or if this one stays make him stop walking the Neo Way so exclusively, and really make the Seminary a place for all priest studies throughout the Pacific...not just Neo priests.

    As you used to say Tim, this is just a simple view from the pew. But something needs to happen because our Church is starting to slowly implode. Rome help us!

    Anonymous because of fear from the Church leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here is my story.

    A few years back a family member of a NCW had passed away. I was there to attend the mass and rosary being offered for the deceased. Lo and behold Father Pius Summit walks in and members of the NCW stood up, hugged him, kissed his hand and his garment. I have NEVER seen people within the church stand up and give the Archbishop this type of reverence that was given to Father Pius. You make your own conclusions!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Your post today reminds me how he also was aware of cepeda in 1992. If all this continues it will open pamdoras box.

    ReplyDelete
  9. After reading your latest post on the Gofigan affair and how the archbishop waited for two years before he took action against the presence of the sex offender, I am appalled on how incompetent, inconsistent, and vicious the attempts by the archbishop were to remove Fr. Paul. This is especially so in light of another recent incident in which the pastor of the Toto parish was asked to remove a volunteer working in an official capacity with minors. I understand that the archbishop called in the pastor and asked that said person be removed, and the pastor did so. No disciplinary action was taken against the pastor, and rightly so because he was first counseled and allowed the opportunity to do so.

    Question: Why wasn’t that done with Fr. Paul particularly in light of the fact that canon law dictates that the archbishop shall be paternal in his approach as he seemed to have done with the pastor of Toto? With Fr. Paul, he was the opposite of being paternal by calling in Fr. Paul on July 16th and demanding his resignation on the spot or face a “painful” process in getting removed, and then presuming that Fr. Paul will resign, locked him out, suspended his faculties, and appointed a replacement all within hours of that infamous July 16th ambush of a meeting! Why wasn’t Fr. Paul first not counseled paternally directing him that although the sex offender was no longer employed by the parish(he obeyed the order of the Vicar General by terminating him), his presence as a volunteer(he was not even in any official capacity dealing with minors unlike the Toto case) still poses a problem and thus his presence should be restricted or removed? I mean, any wise, decent, and good president would have first done that with any of his managers or employees, especially a “good” priest which is how the archbishop described Fr. Paul.

    If in fact the archbishop believed that the sex offender was an imminent threat to the youth and others, and did not do anything for two years, then his competency and ability to govern this archdiocese is highly questionable, and moreover, strong justification in itself for the archbishop to be removed from his position as archbishop. If the president of a company knew that one of his managers was employing a known and dangerous criminal and did nothing about it for two years, and thus exposing the company to great liability, such a president would be fired immediately!

    The flip side to the above described scenario is that the archbishop did not in fact believe that the sex offender posed an imminent and dangerous threat, but, unfortunately for the sex offender and his wife and kids, he was a convenient pawn used to trump up charges against Fr. Paul in order to remove him as pastor, because without these fabricated and sensational charges, the archbishop cannot capriciously remove Fr. Paul. Instead of ruining just one man(Fr. Paul), another man and his family were also ruined!

    Something is very wrong with how the folks on top of San Ramon Hill are governing this archdiocese. Perhaps we will all get lucky and the Nuncio will intervene and restore stability, consistency, and good and paternal governance by removing the current management. In the private sector, the archbishop and his staff would have all been fired by now.

    ReplyDelete