Sunday, April 13, 2014


Anonymous Coward has insisted that I produce the "verdict" that the July 2013 firing of Fr. Paul Gofigan was illegal. You can thank him/her for my dragging this back into full public view. So here it is.

The Archbishop produced his own "verdict" when on September 10, 2013, he wrote Fr. Paul Gofigan:
"Following my request for your resignation as pastor of Santa Barbara Church in Dededo on August 20, 2013 (Prot. No. 013-057), this is to inform you that I am proceeding with the removal process observing the canonical norms."
Had the Archbishop followed canonical norms back in July, there would be no need to begin the "removal process observing the canonical norms" two months later. 

Fr. Paul was officially fired on July 17, 2013, when Archbishop Apuron, in an Aviso, replaced Fr. Paul with a parochial administrator. Canonically, a parish cannot have both a pastor and a parochial administrator as one supplants the other. Thus, effectively, Fr. Paul was fired. 

The fact that replacing Fr. Paul was canonically illegal is admitted to by the Archbishop in his having to begin the process of removal according to canonical norms on September 10, 2013. 

There is no longer a question as to the illegality of the Archbishop's removal of Fr. Paul as pastor. What is at question at this point, and what will go to Rome, is whether or not the Archbishop had sufficient grounds to take this course of action against Fr. Paul. 

The original accusation against Fr. Paul was that he had not terminated the employment of an employee in 2011 as he had been ordered. When Fr. Paul produced the letter of termination dated 2011, the Archbishop changed his accusation to Fr. Paul's  "de facto employment" of the individual. 

So for the sake of our Anonymous Coward, let's review:

  1. Archbishop Apuron illegally replaced Fr. Paul as pastor of Santa Barbara by appointing a parochial administrator without proceeding according to canonical norms. 
  2. Fr. Paul challenged his removal. 
  3. Archbishop Apuron admitted to the illegal removal by beginning the canonical process for removal two months later.
  4. No "verdict" is required because this is not the matter that is going to court. It is not going to court because the Archbishop is not challenging the accusation that he illegally replaced Fr. Paul. He admitted to it by beginning the canonical process of removal on September 10. 
  5. What IS going to court is the grounds for his removal. Whether the Archbishop had sufficient grounds to remove Fr. Paul is the verdict which will be decided upon by the Congregation for the Clergy. 

What I have recounted in all of my posts are these facts which are already known and have been reported on by the media before I even had access to them. Both Fr. Paul and the Chancery released statements on this matter before JungleWatch ever said a thing. 

And if anyone has kept this matter publicly alive it is people like Anonymous Coward who continue to give me reasons to continue commenting and reposting on this matter. In fact, if you review, almost all of the posts on this matter have been in response to challenges like Anonymous Coward. Keep them coming. 


  1. So Brave Tim, you do not have the proof. The canonical norms are in order. Thank you, that was all I wanted to point out.

    1. So there you have it. Neo reasoning on display. Send more. I'll post it, even if you don't have the integrity to put your name to your words.

    2. anon 9:42am By the same token, can YOU prove the opposite, yourself? ... or are you doing a "neo": the practice and mindset that when there is SILENCE (from the diocesan hierachy) it means that all is legal and kosher within our Hierarchical Powers to do what we want. We, members of the congregation, just need to keep our heads in the sand you see, in spite of all these goings on from the hierarchy! Ours is not to reason why ...

    3. I think will just have to wait and see. In the end is when we will know what is truth.

    4. Anonymous April 13, 2014 at 9:42 AM

      Another spastic response, but it is useful. Not for you of course. Your only aim is to discredit me. But useful for others. So let's proceed.

      The above Coward thinks that because there is no "verdict" that there is no proof. Let's use an analogous situation. You get pulled over for speeding. You are given a ticket. You have a choice. You can contest the ticket in court or you can pay the fine.

      Because you know you were speeding and got caught you realize contesting it in court would be useless, so you pay the fine. There is no "verdict" because there is no trial. You did something illegal (speeding). You got caught. There was no need to go to court. You paid the fine. Done.

      In the case of the Archbishop's canonically illegal replacement of Fr. Paul with a parochial administrator before proceeding with the process of removal of a pastor as per canonical norms, the Archbishop got "caught", he knew he was wrong, and he didn't bother to contest.

      He probably didn't expect to get caught, but he did. Thus he initiated the actual process for removal according to canonical norms on September 13, 2013. However, this was nearly two months after he had already replaced Fr. Paul with a parochial administrator.

      The "document" that the above Coward demands are provided by the Archbishop himself.

    5. Or you can think, the fact that you know your speeding but think you can get away with it, so you challenge it hoping you get away with it.
      There is alway two points to the story. Like i will say until it is proven, until the end, we all have our own opinions until the truth is revealed.
      In a sense, both are innocent until proven guilty right?

    6. Actually David, this is why in Mark 12:30 Christ adds the word "mind" to the "Great Commandment": You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. (Compare with Deut 6).

      Those of us outside the Way actually obey this commandment. We use our "mind". We look for facts, evidence. We don't wait for others to render an opinion. So to help you out here are the facts.

      The procedure for the removal of pastors is found in cannons 1740-1752. The key procedure is here:

      Can. 1742 §1. …the bishop is to discuss the matter with two pastors selected from the group established for this purpose in a stable manner by the presbyteral council at the proposal of the bishop. If the bishop then judges that removal must take place, he paternally is to persuade the pastor to resign within fifteen days, after having explained, for validity, the cause and arguments for the removal.

      First, prior to the issuance of the Archbishop's letter demanding the resignation of Fr. Paul on July 16, 2013, there was no discussion of two pastors selected by the presbyteral council.

      Next, there was no attempt to paternally persuade Fr. Paul to resign within 15 days.

      Can. 1745 goes on to say: If the pastor opposes the cause given and its reasons and alleges reasons which seem insufficient to the bishop, the bishop, in order to act validly, is:

      1/ to invite the pastor to organize his objections in a written report after he has inspected the acts, and offer any proofs he has to the contrary;

      2/ when any necessary instruction is completed, to consider the matter together with the same pastors mentioned in ⇒ can. 1742, §1, unless others must be designated because those pastors are unavailable;

      3/ finally, to establish whether the pastor must be removed or not and promptly to issue a decree on the matter.

      None of these steps were followed. Fr. Paul, without knowing why he was called, was called in to the archbishop's office, and handed a letter demanding his resignation or face "a more arduous and painful" closure of his assignment. In addition, he was in effect, excardinated, an extremely severe action.

      The documents supporting all of this can be found under the Chancery v Gofigan tab.

      The Archbishop has a legal advisor, the Vicar General. Since the Vicar General was present at the meeting, we can assume that he advised the Archbishop that he could ignore Canon Law and simply bully Fr. Paul into resigning.

      He was wrong. And so are you. However, it appears that David G and the VG may be one and the same. And that would explain a whole lot. Don't you think?

  2. Anon 9:42 am You continue to whine because you are running on the non-sense way rather than the sensible way. All the documents Tim provided are exactly what you need to see but you totally deny the facts documented. It is not so hard to read. It is so typical of your behavior. Ignorant that you are .. You fail to see the truth. Own up to it! Why don't you!

  3. Based on unfounded allegations and anti-bishop bashing propaganda you guys sought to derail the Archdiocesan Annual Appeal of the Archbishop. It is well documented on this very blog. If successful, your efforts would unquestionably cause damages to the whole of the Catholic faithful of Guam.

    St John tells us that if you hate your brother then the truth is not with you. Please read his letter (1 John 3). One great fruit of the Way is that we read and know the Bible unlike those who only hear the Word once in a week in a Mass, read aloud far away in a microphone, when they don't even pay the slightest attention.

    If you guys decide to break koinoia with the Archbishop and a large segment of the Catholic faithful on the island by spreading your anti-Catholic hatred then why should the Archbishop keep koinoia with you?! Please, give serious thought to the fact that Holy Order is a sacrament that all Catholic has to show respect to.

    1. Projection alert!

    2. Anon 7:34am, you're correct, we must follow Kiko's instructions, not the nonsense we hear every Sunday, the Pope or the CCC.

  4. AnonymousApril 13, 2014 at 9:14 PM No is what you want to see. How do you know is valid? Hmmmmmm

  5. I am so hurt and dissappointed that this actually is going on here on our island, OUR CHURCH! Tony and his stooges have really caused much to think about. I am a catholic and the two greatest commandments is to love our GOD with all our heart and to love our neighbors. This certainly is not happening here within our Church. I have faith and trust in the Lord that the truth will be revealed and my brother can continue to serve our people. It is taking much prayers and GREAT FAITH just to enter a church and to worship my GOD. It will be especially difficult to attend the masses during the Holy Week. My brother is a strong person and fights for what is right and I stand behind him and all that treats everyone as one family in God. I will especially pray for Tony and his stooges that they are given the strength and courage to bring the people together as a universal family. In God's eyes, we are all loved equally by HIM. I can say that this situation with my brother has strengthened my faith and made me a better person, with more compassion and love for all ! Let's all stop this and try to move in a more positive attitude and love for everyone.

    1. Tony and the stooges? YOUR BROTHER FAILED TO OBEY! Plain and simple.. The Holy Order is not the American Justice. I pray for your brother to contemplate for holiness. He is still a priest and present Jesus Christ. Accept it, in obedience. When he was ordained he OATH to obey the Archbishop. I was there when he said "I DO". Did he or did he not meant to say it?

    2. Priests are not required to obey their bishop when that bishop transgresses the laws of the church. A bishop's only authority comes from his union with the church. The Archbishop's removal of Fr. Paul was canonically illegal, and canon law provides recourse for priests like Fr. Paul whose rights within the church are violated. Fr. Paul is following the canonically prescribed path of that recourse. The Archbishop, having been called on his transgression, has now gone back and begun the canonical process of removal.

  6. Just during the Palm Sunday celebrations, Pope Francis went to visit the seminarians of the Pontifical Leonine College of Anagui. His preaching: " Be Sheperds like the good Sheperd."
    In his message his holiness urged seminarians to take seriously the words of the prophets" Woe the wicked Sheperds who pasture themselves and not their flock".
    For the integral text and comments: see Http://
    I think our Archbishop should heed to this well thought of and revealing word from the Pope himself.
    Had he done so, we would not be debating his ill advised decision regarding father Paul.
    May this holiest of week allow us to look inward on the challenges that face us. May the celebration of our Lord's sacrifice to save us and his resurrection give us the strength necessary to succeed in chasing the merchants out of the Temple.