Saturday, May 31, 2014

DELETE!

Go to www.umatuna.org. Click on the search icon at the top right. Type in the name "Tagle". Hit enter. Two articles come up, both from 2011. That's it.

What happened to the big headline story from May 18, 2014, where Ms. Dulla begins: 
"His Eminence Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, D.D., Archbishop of Manila, has invited initiators of the NeoCatechumenal Way: Kiko Arguello, Carmen Hernandez, and Fr. Mario Pezzi, a priest of the Diocese of Rome to hold a Vocation Meeting with the youth of the Philippines on June 6."

Friday, May 30, 2014

FROM THE PINOY CATHOLIC

"In a few weeks, another self-proclaimed Messiah will descend and plague the country, and it is no other than KIKO ARGUELLO, founder of the Neocatechumenal Way."


Read more. 

Thursday, May 29, 2014

NUFF SAID!

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A MAN NOT AFRAID TO PUT HIS NAME TO HIS POSITION": 

At anon 12:05 

You say, "Guam people are kind, respectful and loving people.", and that is true. But some of you foreigners disrespect us and think of us as a lesser people; as if we never knew Jesus. Then to make matters worse, it seems to many of us that our Archbishop has been recruited by those who wish to cheat and steal from us, and destroy us from within. I say "us" because we are the Church. 

I AM NEARLY TO THE POINT OF TEARS

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A MAN NOT AFRAID TO PUT HIS NAME TO HIS POSITION": 

To Anon above from Diana's post:

As a priest who was asked to be here I am totally offended by the term contract priest. The Archdiocese of Agana needed priests, they went to my bishop, and he agreed to send priests per Archbishop Anthony's plea. I love Guam and would like to stay. But if God wills it, and I am no longer needed here, then I will go back to my diocese and serve the people of God there.

NOTE TO DEACON HAROLD

Janet B - Mangilao has left a new comment on your post "A MAN NOT AFRAID TO PUT HIS NAME TO HIS POSITION": 

Thank you Anon May 29, @9:11AM - you certainly are filled with anger. And since english is obviously your second language I will assume you are either an angry priest or seminarian. But since your anger seems so intense, it is a good bet that you have recently been maligned for certain statements made which were critical of you. I think I have a pretty good idea of who you are.


A MAN NOT AFRAID TO PUT HIS NAME TO HIS POSITION

Pale' Mike Crisostomo May 28, 2014 at 10:18 AM

I support my brother priest, Fr Paul. I stand with him. As a Diocesan priest in the Archdiocese of Agana, I am concerned about the treatment of our Filipino priests, the division in parishes where the NeoCatechumenal Way is present, and especially concerned about our Archbishop who continues to display his liking to the RMS priests over his Diocesan priests. I promise respect and obedience to HIM and HIS successors. I renewed that promise last Chrism Mass. As a priest-son of the

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

JUST AN FYI

In today's Pacific Daily News:

Many unconscionable actions by Cruz
by Tim Rohr

At a recent presentation promoting his minimum-wage bill, Vice Speaker Benjamin Cruz ranted: "It is unconscionable that we as a community can leave those at the bottom of the wage ladder groveling in poverty when we can and have the means to be able to help them."

Hmm. "Unconscionable?" Really?

Read more>

THE NEOCATECHUMENAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE CONSECRATED HOST



This is at a wedding where apparently non-Neo members were present. Thus instructions are first given on how to receive. The congregation is clearly instructed to receive in the hand and then sit. Later you see the ministers of Holy Communion directing the communicants to sit after they receive the consecrated host in their hands. We then see the bride and groom laughing and talking while they hold the consecrated host. The priest has not received before distributing the sacred species as he is required to do and as evidenced by his sitting down holding the host and then consuming after the consecrated host has been distributed to the communicants. 


HMMMM. WONDER WHO WILL BE THE GUEST SPEAKER...

...given the theme~



THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN-PART XII: THE TALL WOMAN

In the Appeal of Fr. Paul's removal which was sent to Rome, Fr. Paul's attorney, Fr. Adolpho Dacanay, S.J., concludes his investigation of the case with the following remarks (emphases mine):
3.5 This is a canonical procedure that has gone awry. In the process, canonical procedures were mangled, provisions of the Code were ignored, the attempt to correct the bungled process feeble, and in the meantime the rights of a pastor violated and his good name ruined. Even the constitution of the advisory body required by C.1742.1 is very suspicious. The concerns raised by the Archbishop could have been accomplished even without the bungled attempt at removal, therefore one really wonders what is the real purpose behind the move. 

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

THE RETURN (AGAIN) OF ZOLTAN

Dear Zoltan, as I've warned you before, if you're going to play in the jungle as a wolf in sheep's clothing, you need to remember to tuck your tail into the behind of your very poor costume and button it shut. It's very visible. Do you think that after a year now of engaging your diatribe that I wouldn't be able to spot you? What a shame that you've sunk to this. 


GUAM HAS ONLY ONE SEMINARY

The Catholic Church on Guam is passing through a very exciting moment. His Excellency, Arch- bishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, OFM Cap., D.D. announced this week that he has decided to erect a diocesan seminary for Guam. The new seminary will be called the “Saint John Paul II Archdiocesan Seminary.”
Well, it appears the "exciting moment" has quickly passed. In all the hoopla about the recent gala, the only beneficiary mentioned is "the seminary". Wait. I thought we had two seminaries? So either the other seminary doesn't need money or there really is only one seminary. 

WRONG ANSWER!

In the wake of the killing of six persons in California this past week by a sexually-frustrated 22 year old male, I see some parallels to the De Soto case which is about to go to trial. After Chad De Soto went on a rampage in Tumon last February, killing four people, I wrote the following piece for the U Matuna. 

NEW DOWNLOADS AVAILABLE

The Illegitimate Removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan-Part XI: Tear Off the Roof! v.1.0

The Illegitimate Removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan-Part XI: Tear Off the Roof! v.2.0 - This version has as an attachment the complete 67 page report Cultivating Unity: Research Findings,  A Report for the Clergy of the Archdiocese of Agana. December 2010

The links to both reports are available under the Support The Blog tab. Your support is always appreciated.

A SAD DAY FOR GUAM

Glad to be back in Holy Mother Church has left a new comment

Hello Tim:
The entire mission of the NCW is to bring people to Jesus. This is a worthy and noble cause, and one that all the baptized are called to carry out. However, what the NCW fail to realize is that though we are one body we are many parts. They have a certain way, I have a certain way, and you have a certain way. All of these are necessary for the salvation of the world. They merely fail to recognize all the other ways that people are drawn to Christ.

Monday, May 26, 2014

HERE'S A GOOD ONE

We sure do learn a lot about the Neocatechumenal Way thanks to Diana. Here's another one from a commenter:
What difference does it make? According to an article and a youtube message on Diana's post there are various ways of celebrating the liturgy. The Orthodox Catholic, the Byzantine Catholic the Anglecan, etc. who have asked to return to the Roman Catholic Church still celebrate the liturgy/mass/ communion rite according to there belief. So what makes the NCW different? If they are taking certain practices from these religious group does that make them nonconforming to the rites of the Catholic Church? 
The woman knows how to prove that their practices are legitimate. There is no counterattack on this post.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

A MORAL CRIME...READ TO THE END

It's a bit off the current topic, but this blog was established to provide a forum for much more than what it has come to be about, so allow me to depart a bit today and discuss the current local proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. I mention "local" because there is also a federal bill to do the same (which has been tabled). 

I wasn't much interested in the issue, but after attending a forum on the topic to which I was invited, I have a few things to say. The forum, held by the PDN, turned into a shouting match between local business owners and the Bank of Guam, represented by Jackie Morati (though she would say she was only representing the Women's Chamber of Commerce). The Bank of Guam supports the measure, most businesses oppose it. 

THE NEOCATECHUMENATE REACT QUITE VIOLENTLY WHEN SOMEONE CRITICIZES THE WAY

The above is a quote from THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MECHANISMS OF MENTAL CONDITIONING INSIDE THE NEOCATECHUMENATE COMMUNITY

Here are a few other excerpts. Read the whole thing.

"But one of the most serious things is the control over a person's emotions through the use of guilt and fear. In the first catechesis, they talk about the baptismal pool which one most submerge into in order to look at one's sins in the face. One catechist has said, "you must go down into the sewers in order to rise up again with Christ". Another catechist said, "the community begins to grow when you begin to argue with each other and hurl all the putridity you have inside out of you." All of this is very different from what the Church teaches about conversion ("metanoia"). The Church reminds us above all that we are saved by the love of God and that he makes us feel the joy of his mercy even in the midst of our miseries."

LIVE TRAFFIC AND FLAG COUNTER UPDATE

The Live Traffic Feed offers some interesting insights into who is coming to this blog. If you want to see more, click on the Real Time View at the bottom of the Feed.

Here's a list I compiled a few minutes ago:

Saturday, May 24, 2014

PSYCHOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS IN THE NEOCATECHUMENAL COMMUNITY

Mary Lou has left a new comment on your post "SORRY TIM, DIANA GOT YOU ON THUS (sic) ONE": 

Anonymous (May 23, 2014 at 11:43 AM) brought up an interesting point by sharing the belief of "a dr who works in mental health issues" that the NCW appeals to those who may have mental health problems. I've read several articles that substantiate this belief, including "The Psychological Mechanisms of Mental Conditioning Inside the Neocatechumenate Community" 

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN-PART XI: TEAR OFF THE ROOF!

While writing the next episode in the Fr. Paul saga - which will reveal and document the real reason for Fr. Paul's brutal ouster - it occurred to me that we could all benefit from a little more context. 

It is no secret to anyone that the Neocatechumenal Way, or at least its leadership, was behind the persecution of Fr. Paul. The Archbishop simply intends to institute the Neocatechumenal Way in every parish and Fr. Paul was in the way. The fact that this was almost immediately recognized by a local radio talk show host - where it was first mentioned in a rather knee-jerk fashion -  is an indication of just how large this reality is and how well it is not only known but expected. 

But why does the Archbishop want to do this? 

THE PEOPLE WERE HUNGRY. THEY STILL ARE.

Yesterday, one of my haters accused me of being a narcissist because I care about the number of people who view this blog. I will copy here my response to the that accusation:

Friday, May 23, 2014

PREVIEW

I wanted to give you a preview of the next installment of the Fr. Paul story. It will be subtitled: THE TALL WOMAN. Here are the first few paragraphs. It should be ready in a day or two. 

*****

In the Appeal of Fr. Paul's removal which was sent to Rome, Fr. Paul's attorney, Fr. Adolpho Dacanay, S.J., concludes his investigation of the case with the following remarks (emphases mine):
3.5 This is a canonical procedure that has gone awry. In the process, canonical procedures were mangled, provisions of the Code were ignored, the attempt to correct the bungled process feeble, and in the meantime the rights of a pastor violated and his good name ruined. Even the constitution of the advisory body required by C.1742.1 is very suspicious. The concerns raised by the Archbishop could have been accomplished even without the bungled attempt at removal, therefore one really wonders what is the real purpose behind the move. 
After a seven page review of the entire case, Fr. Dacanay poses the same question most of the Archdiocese of Agana has been asking even though almost everyone knows the answer. Everyone knows the answer because everyone knows the Archbishop's intention: to mow down any priest or deacon who stands in the way of The Way, and to intimidate into submission everyone else.

Stay tuned. 

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN - PARTS 1 - 10

We still have a few more chapters to go in this saga, but several people have asked to be able to download all the available chapters together. I have assembled all ten chapters and all the attachments into a single file which can be accessed under the Support the Blog tab. This is a still a beta version so if you want to help me proofread it please feel free to comment on any typos. Use this single file to email as an attachment to everyone who cares. 

NEW DOWNLOADS AVAILABLE

The following documents are now available for download in PDF format under the tab SUPPORT THE BLOG. All downloads are free. Contributions are accepted.

The Illegitimate Removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan - Part VII: The Evidence, with the following attachments: Fr. Paul Gofigan, letter of termination to the subject employee, October 26, 2011 (Attachment No. 12); Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, letter to Fr. Paul Gofigan, Sep. 10, 2013, Prot. No. 013-062 (Attachment No. 13)

The Illegitimate Removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan - Part VIII: The Bishop's Case, with the following attachements:  Kerrigan, Kevin. “Father Paul Says Sex Offender Did Not Possess Keys to Church or Its Facilities.” Pacific News Center, July 25, 2013 (Attachment No. 14)

The Illegitimate Removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan - Part IX: Where Is the Policy? No attachments.

The Illegitimate Removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan - Part X: One Priest. No attachments

MAN AM I HAVING FUN THIS MORNING

See recent comments. Thanks to Fr. Adrian for keeping it interesting.

But really, what don't they get? Every time they log on and spew their nastiness they are giving witness to what the Neocatechumenal Way does to people. And it's pretty damn nasty.

SORRY TIM, DIANA GOT YOU ON THUS (sic) ONE

FROM: Anonymous May 23, 2014 at 1:00 AM
Sorry Tim, Diana got you on thus one.

From her post,

According to the news report dated September 5, 2013 (whose weblink I provided below):


One June 26th, Kiko Arguello received a Laurea Honoris Causa in Sacred Theology from the prestigious John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin (Poland), for his contribution to the renewal of the Church.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

THE PURGATORY PROBLEM

Chuck White's post on Kiko's view of Purgatory - or lack of it - got some folks all in a twist, including the poor fellow from Yona who uses this blog to exorcise his Catholic demons. He's one of those who picked up a bible and now has all the answers for the rest of us. 

IF THE POPE DECIDED THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH WAS THE NCW, WOULD I FOLLOW?

I received this question in a comment. So I thought I'd answer. 

I admire what you do on this blog and thank you for sticking your neck out while others like myself choose to stay anonymous on this blog. I was wondering, if the Pope decided that the future of the church was the NCW and all it's practices, would you follow?

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

WELCOME

45 countries have visited this site since the flag counter was installed a week ago.


THE LETTER WAS A WARNING NOT AN ENDORSEMENT

The previous post was rather long so here's the abbreviated version. 

The title of the Zenit story is: Pope Francis Backs Neocatechumenal Way Liturgy

The story is about a letter Kiko Arguello reportedly received from Pope Francis. The pope's letter was reported to be a response to Kiko's own letter to the pope in which, as per the Zenit story, Kiko "told the Pope of his concern about several negative interpretations of the words of the Holy Father addressed to a group of some 12,000 neocatechumens on February 1st, 2014."

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS POST BY DIANA?

Got this in a comment:

Tim,

What are your thoughts on this post by Diana?

The following is Diana's post:

Sunday, May 18, 2014 Pope Francis Backs the Neocatechumenal Way Liturgy 
During the Lenten announcement, a letter was read to the communities. Kiko Arguello had written a letter to Pope Francis because some of the things he stated on his February 1st address were taken out of context. The Pope then wrote to Kiko, assuring him that he stands beside him. This event has now been published on May 16, 2014. One can read the full story below: 

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN-PART X: ONE PRIEST

The errors and flagrant liturgical disobediences of the Neocatechumenal Way and even Archbishop Apuron's biases have been known for a long time. And as you know, little was ever done or said about these things. There were quiet complaints and even a short-lived public protest at one point, but for the most part, Catholics on Guam just chose to live and let live.

So what changed? Many people in the NCW just think that out of the blue I and others have decided to suddenly persecute (their word) the Neocatechumenal Way. Well, no, actually, most of us have much better things to do. What changed was the strategy of the leadership of the Neocatechumenal Way, a strategy that was made manifest in the illegal and brutal treatment of Fr. Paul Gofigan by Archbishop Apuron.

AMAZINGLY BUSY


WELCOME

Welcome to our new visitors in the last 8 hours (newest in red)

Countries added: Fiji.
Regions added: Louisiana, United States • Zagreb City, Croatia • Murcia, Spain •  Franche-Comte, France •Missouri, United States • Nebraska, United States • Caraga, Philippines • Franche-Comte, France • Missouri, United States • Nairobi Area, Kenya • Dublin, Ireland • Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic • Kuyavian-Pomeranian, Poland

Monday, May 19, 2014

GOOD NEWS FOR NEO'S: NO PURGATORY IN KIKO'S KERYGMA

Read how Kiko's Kerygma purges the possibility of Purgatory...possibly (say that four times fast!)

by Chuck White

Read more

STOP ADVERTISING IN THE UMATUNA

An anonymous recommendation:

The Umatuna may as well be designated and re-named the “Kiko Fan News.” As THE CATHOLIC newspaper on Guam, our Catholic Congregation’s natural expectations are that it would be wide-range in its coverage of non-neo Parishes, parishioners, youth or Priests. But this is

POPE JOHN I: WHAT TOLERANCE IS AND IS NOT

This was a particularly contentious weekend. So I found it coincidental (?) that the weekend included the feast of Pope St. John I (-526), whose handling of the Arian heresy speaks to a particular aspect of our debate with the  leaders of the Neocatechumenal Way.

Sunday, May 18, 2014

CORK, IRELAND

The Flag Tracker in the sidebar keeps tabs on where the hits to our blog are coming from. So when I saw Cork, Ireland pop up, it reminded me of an email I sent to Fr. Neil O'Donoghue last March. Fr. Neil is originally from Cork

ZOLTAN SZEKELY TO TIM ROHR: "GAME OVER"

The other day we caught our old friend Zoltan trying to get away with posting a comment as "Anonymous" on this blog. I extended a welcome to him, told him we missed him, and asked if Diana knew he was here. As you may remember, he promised Diana awhile back that he would no longer be coming to the Jungle. There was no reply. 

Saturday, May 17, 2014

THE SMOKE OF SATAN

As mentioned, I don't bother going to Diana's blog. I simply cannot take the assault on intelligence let alone on our Holy Catholic Faith. However, the snippets forwarded me by others do prove useful from time to time. Here's one:

FOR THOSE WHO THINK I AM THE CAUSE OF DIVISION

(Note: The uploaded full report found at the link below has been fixed so that it is fully viewable.)

In December of 2010, the clergy of the Archdiocese of Agana met for a multi-day study to get to the bottom of the problems of this Archdiocese. Coordinating the study were representatives from CARA (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate) which is based at Georgetown University.

Friday, May 16, 2014

PATRONESS FOR FR. PAUL?

Saint Margaret of Cortona, T.O.S.F., (1247 – February 22, 1297) was an Italian penitent of the Third Order of St. Francis ("T.O.S.F.")

NOT FOUND

Apparently Neocatechumenal professor, David Atienza de Fruto, has decided to "cover his tracks" as demonstrated in this article by Chuck White:

Thursday, May 15, 2014

TANGO IN TAGAYTAY


Anonymous (most assuredly from the chancery) has been hounding me to prove that the Archbishop knew about the presence of the registered sex offender at Santa Barbara parish for two years and did nothing. 

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN - PART IX: WHERE IS THE POLICY?

We have been told from the beginning that the removal of Fr. Paul as pastor of Santa Barbara was necessary for the protection of parishioners, "especially the youth", and for the "safety of children."
By allowing him to work in the parish, you have exposed the children of the nearby school to a probable threat. (Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, letter to Fr. Paul Gofigan, July 16, 2013, Prot. No. 013-047) 
A school full of children is in very close proximity to the parish. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) students, Confirmation students and other youth groups are part of the parish. As the Archbishop clearly stated in his letter and was communicated to Father Paul, this is a serious matter which prompted him to act decisively. It was done with much prayer, with a review of the facts and with the ultimate consideration being the safety of our children. (Fr. Adrian Cristobal, Chancellor, Archdiocese of Agana, press release, July 22, 2013) 
You have caused grave harm to the parish by allowing such an individual with a publicly known record of sexual assault to work in the Church thus subjecting your parishioners, especially the youth, to a potential threat...There is absolutely no guarantee that the registered sex offender will never commit sexual assault again. Had he committed an act of sexual assault on church premises, the consequences would have been catastrophic. We cannot afford such a tragedy. (Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, letter to Fr. Paul Gofigan, August 20, 2013, Prot. No. 013-057)
So was the registered sex-offender the threat or was Fr. Paul? And so how has the removal of Fr. Paul as pastor made the people of Santa Barbara any safer? Is not the man still a parishioner? Does not the man and his family still attend parish events? Does he not still help out around the parish? 

Did the Archbishop issue a restraining order on him to keep him away from the parish? Are there now security guards at all the Masses to keep an eye out for him and make sure he has no contact with parishioners before or after Mass and that he does not loiter in the parking lot? 

In general, has there been any new policy from the chancery generated by this "very dangerous threat" where "grave harm" and "catastrophic" consequences were narrowly averted by the Archbishop's swift action? Are there no other possible threats in any of the parishes? Are there no other ex-cons who have returned to church? If it happened once it could happen again, couldn't it? 

Isn't it the height of irresponsibility, Archbishop, to perceive and address a possible "catastrophe", as you call it, in a particular situation, and not act promptly to address the possibility of similar catastrophes throughout the rest of the diocese with a policy measure? 

Where is your policy, Archbishop? What are the rest of us to do the next time we see a registered sex offender trying to sneak into Mass with his wife and children? What if we see him assisting at an event? Should we report him to you? Why have you not seen to the protection and safety of the rest of this diocese so that we too can be protected from registered sex-offenders? 

Or was this just about getting rid of Fr. Paul?

Go here for Part X


Wednesday, May 14, 2014

COMMENTS FROM FRENCHIE


Click on the links if you want to see the context.

frenchie May 13, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Facts vs fiction.

The neos speak of Mission and Evangelisation. What they mean is a so called reconquest of the Church within the Church.The reconquest is a very Spanish notion, that is birthed in its national history and psyche.

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN - PART VIII: THE BISHOP'S CASE

This entry is a response to the following comment which was posted after the last installment.

Anonymous May 14, 2014 at 8:21 AM had some questions for me. As usual, I gladly answer:
Is there any evidence that "they had been monitoring Fr. Paul for two years"? Why do you say this? Who claimed this and where? Even if the person was harmless, his name appeared in the national registry. This cannot be denied. Do you deny it?
In a letter from Archbishop Apuron to Fr. Paul Gofigan dated August 20, 2013 (Protocol Number 013-057), the Archbishop alleges the following:
  1. That the man had been allowed to volunteer "in an official capacity" at the parish after his employment was terminated in 2011.
  2. That the man had purchased "on numerous occasions...items under several Santa Barbara Church charge accounts at certain businesses." 
  3. That the man had once stayed at the same hotel at which a retreat for a Santa Barbara Confirmation Class retreat was held.
In addition, the press release from the Chancellor dated July 22, 2013 alleged that the man "had keys to the facilities and had an active role on church grounds in different ways."

The Archbishop rests his very case against Fr. Paul on this ACCUMULATION of evidence. This accumulation of evidence took time to compile, and the Archbishop took great pains to compile it because he needed a solid case against Fr. Paul in order to get rid of him.

And getting rid of Fr. Paul was the objective from the beginning, NOT the safety of children. Had the safety of children been the Archbishop's concern he would have addressed the problem with Fr. Paul immediately. No. The Archbishop needed a case, and he took time to compile it. And, as evidenced by the timing of the changing of the locks on Fr. Paul's office, he took time to plan it. None of this was spontaneous. It was a manufactured case and the Archbishop took great care to manufacture it. He just did not expect it to backfire. 

Well, it has.

Now let us look at Fr. Paul's response to those allegations. For whereas the Archbishop did not care to ask Fr. Paul for an explanation, other people did. And here is what he said: 

The "return" of the man "to work in an official capacity". 
Fr. Paul's response: What official capacity is he talking about? The individual helped out with volunteering his manpower. He was not involved with any ministries or catechesis with our youth.

The purchase of items for Santa Barbara Church.
Fr. Paul's response: He already had an established relationship with these businesses so I authorized him to pick some necessary items for the priest house for me.

The staying at the same hotel at which a Confirmation retreat was held.
Fr. Paul's response: I asked him to assist me in unloading retreat items as well as loading and returning items back to the church once specific activities were done. Because there were some rooms vacant, I invited him and his wife and children to spend the weekend, but they were not involved with any of the retreat activities.

Possession of the keys
In a Pacific News Center report dated July 25, 2013, Fr. Paul is quoted as saying the following: "The person who was terminated in 2011 does not possess keys to the Church and its facilities. That person and spouse as well as their children are parishioners of Santa Barbara and have frequented Santa Barbara church and its facilities many times for Mass, functions, and other activities happening at the church and its facilities." In another conversation, Fr. Paul advised a friend who inquired about the accusation that the man had keys, that on occasion he would give the man the keys to the rectory to go and fetch something he forgot, or to open the church early. The keys were always returned to Fr. Paul. 

Those who will not accept these explanation can call Fr. Paul a liar all day long. However, who they really should be addressing is the Archbishop. But since they won't, I will do it for you:

Dear Archbishop,

We have yet to hear from you how the Archdiocese of Agana in general, and you in particular, SHOULD or WOULD handle a convicted felon who, after serving his or her prison term, desires to return to our Church. 

Okay, so maybe he should not not be hired by a parish. But to what extent is he to be allowed to participate in parish life? Should he be allowed to set up tables and chairs for parish events? Should he be allowed to do errands for the pastor as this man did? How long can a convicted felon hang out in the parking lot after Mass? How soon must he exit the church after Mass? Would he be allowed to speak with other parishioners? For how long? Should he be sequestered somehow from the rest of the congregation? Would you sequester just him or would his family - in this case his wife and two daughters - be made to sit apart in the leper section? 

Archbishop, these are stupid questions because you very well know that if this man had approached you to be received into the Neocatechumenal Way, not only would he be received, he would be featured and celebrated and paraded about as another Neocatechumenal Victory:  MORE FRUIT!

But aside from what you would or wouldn't do, why are we bothering with prison ministry at all? If a man who committed a crime 33 years ago is still a danger to a parish then a man who committed a crime 3 years ago is still a danger. Just because there is a registry for sex offenders and no registry for murderers and muggers and child abusers does that suddenly make the sex offender a leper and the others okay? 

What do we do with all these criminals, Archbishop? Go ahead, give us the policy. We're waiting. And by the way, WWJD?

But of course, even asking WWJD is a stupid question because none of this had anything to do with dealing with ex-cons or the safety of children. IT HAD TO DO WITH GETTING RID OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN. 

Go here for Part IX

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

????????????????????????????????????



THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN - PART VII: THE EVIDENCE

It is now time to examine the alleged "crime" committed by Fr. Paul that supposedly warranted his brutal ouster. Let us examine the charge in the words of Archbishop Apuron:
You have allowed a registered sex offender, (name withheld), to return to work at the parish, even after you were warned by the Vicar General and the Attorney for the Archdiocese to release him. You disobeyed the order given by the Vicar General. By this action, you have in effect caused grave 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. (Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, letter to Fr. Paul Gofigan, July 16, 2013, Prot. No. 013-047)
Again, we must clarify. The man's crime occurred more than three decades ago. His crime had nothing to do with children. He went to prison. He was released from prison. He got married. He has two daughters. He approached Fr. Paul to be reconciled with our Church. He obtained a police clearance. Fr. Paul hired him as a church maintenance man.

There is nothing in his record since 1981, when the sex-offense was committed, to suggest that he had the potential to cause "grave harm" to the parish or was a "probable threat" to children." By even the most objective account, we have here a man seeking reconciliation with his church and attempting to live out his life in some semblance of quiet normalcy. 

And again we must ask, as we asked before, how the Archbishop himself would have treated the man had he come to him instead of Fr. Paul. Or had he come to an NCW catechesis, would he have been turned away?

But let us move on to the charge itself.

In October of 2011, the Vicar General, Msgr. David C. Quitugua, ordered Fr. Paul to terminate the man's employment. Two years later, on July 16, 2013, the Archbishop calls Fr. Paul into his office and accuses him of disobeying "the order given by the Vicar General."

As we have already discussed, Fr. Paul was given no opportunity for "due process" as required by Canon law and mere human decency. Had he been given such an opportunity, the Archbishop might have spared himself and this diocese the "arduous and painful" experience he promised Fr. Paul. For Fr. Paul was right and the Archbishop was wrong. Fr. Paul HAD obeyed the Vicar General and he produced the evidence: a letter of termination addressed to the employee dated October 26, 2011.

And the man did not "return to work" as alleged by the Archbishop. The man simply continued to help out around the parish as many of us do. This is why the Archbishop - when confronted with the proof that Fr. Paul HAD in fact obeyed the Vicar General's order - changed the charge.

In his Decree of Removal of Fr. Paul, dated November 12, 2013, the Archbishop changes the charge against Fr. Paul stating that the reason for Fr. Paul's removal is due to his "refusing to terminate the de facto employment of a registered sex offender working in the parish."

So whereas the charge of July 16, 2013 was Fr. Paul's failure to terminate the employment of the registered sex offender, the charge, once Fr. Paul produced proof that he had in fact terminated the man's actual employment, it is now his failure to terminate the man's de facto employment. In other words, the Archbishop attempts to redefine the man's unpaid volunteer presence on church grounds as "employment."

This attempt to change the charge after the fact did not escape Fr. Paul's attorney. Fr. Dacanay, S. J. writes in his appeal:
The charge against Fr. Gofigan has become an elastic concept. At first it was because he did not obey the direct order to terminate the employment of (name withheld). When the charge proved false, it mutated into allowing him to do volunteer work for the parish. While the case is not identical, the accusation against a pastor in order to remove him from his office is somewhat analogous to the joinder of issues in a contentious trial, and the Code is very strict that such a joinder, once determined, may be altered only under the most rigorous conditions. In this case, the accusation and the basis of the removal was expanded from not terminating the employment to allowing him to helping out in the parish. (The appeal of Rev. Paul Gofigan in relation to his removal as Pastor of Santa Barbara Parish, A.N. Dacanay, S.J., Advocate)
So where are we with this case? Let's review:
  1. Fr. Paul was illegally removed from his post as pastor of Santa Barbara Church.
  2. Fr. Paul challenged his removal on the grounds that his removal violated canonical procedure and that the reason for his removal (his failure to terminate the man's employment) was false.
  3. Archbishop Apuron in effect acknowledges the illegal proceedings against Fr. Paul by initiating the required canonical process to remove Fr. Paul on August 12, 2013 as noted in the official Decree of Removal.
  4. Fr. Paul's advocate, Fr. Dacanay, responds with a Motion to Archbishop Apuron on 8/20/13 requesting that he revoke the decree removing Fr. Paul from his parish. In the Motion, Fr. Dacanay details [1] the applicable provision of the Code for the removal of pastors; [2] the facts of the case; [3] the procedural lapses by the Archbishop; and [4] the appeal that Fr. Paul be "restored to his office as pastor, his name cleared, and the damage to his reputation repaired."
  5. Archbishop Apuron ignores the motion from Fr. Dacanay and responds with a letter of September 10, 2013 to Fr. Paul informing him that he is proceeding with the canonical process for his removal.
  6. The "Acts" (documents related to the case against Fr. Paul) are prepared by the Archbishop and sent to Fr. Dacanay for his review. (The Acts are not publicly available.)
  7. Fr. Dacanay reviews the Acts and on November 7, 2013, files an official appeal of the case. (Copy of the official appeal not yet publicly available.)
  8. The case goes to Rome where it will be heard by the appropriate Vatican Congregation.
When, we do not know? But what we do know is that even after the Archbishop's charge against Fr. Paul was proved false, the Archbishop decided to proceed to have Fr. Paul removed anyway. Why?

We're coming to that. But first we must note with great seriousness that if in fact Archbishop Apuron believed the presence of the registered sex-offender at Santa Barbara Parish to be "a probable threat" to children and a potential for "grave harm" to the parish, then he has opened himself up for an AVALANCHE OF LAW SUITS from the parishioners and the parents of those children. 

According to Archbishop Apuron's own words, Archbishop Apuron WAS AWARE of this "probable threat" since 2011 and did NOTHING until July 16, 2013

For two years, again according to Archbishop Apuron's own words, he allowed the parishioners of Santa Barbara, and "especially the youth", as well as the children from the "nearby school",  to remain subject to "grave harm" and a "probable threat". 

It is probably only out what is left of respect for his office, and the faint hope that Fr. Paul might be restored as pastor to Santa Barbara, that Archbishop Apuron has not YET been sued for gross negligence and for knowingly allowing the prospect of grave harm to endure for nearly two years without so much as even speaking to Fr. Paul once about it until July 16, 2013. 

Fr. Paul may lose his appeal. Fr. Paul may be kicked out of this diocese. But all the liability for the supposed danger alleged by Archbishop Apuron then falls on Archbishop Apuron. And with the removal and banishment of Fr. Paul, there will also disappear the faint hope that has till now helped to quell the outrage. 

We have seen many such lawsuits against bishops in the states and in Europe. We may soon see them here.

Go here for Part VIII



Monday, May 12, 2014

AFTERNOON UPDATE

I actually get tired of doing this. It's not fun cataloguing all these horrid things. It takes way too much time and frankly it's depressing. But every time I feel like stopping I get a whole truckload of crap from the Kiko's, like I got this afternoon, and am reminded about why I must do this. I've been around a lot of different people and businesses. I have engaged some very controversial public issues. And I have more than my share of enemies. 

SO FUN!

This guy claims not to be a neo, just an Apuron defender. I'm sure he appreciates it, Guy from Mangilao.

GUAM: I FRUTTI (SEMPER MARCI) DEL CAMMINO


Looks like our story is being picked up in Italy.

Saturday, May 10, 2014

AD GENTES?


One of the questions we have asked here on this blog is why is Archbishop Apuron taking seminarians from other countries and bringing them to our island under the guise of "ad gentes" and of Guam being a "mission" when we are already 400 years along in Catholicism. 

WHAT ARE WE DOING SPENDING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR A SEMINARY?


Dear Archbishop Apuron,

Did you notice? Did you notice that you and your priests are irrelevant to the hierarchy of the Neocatechumenal Way? Diana explains:

Friday, May 9, 2014

DID YOU CHECK WITH YOUR CATECHIST?

Seriously "Diana", did you check with your catechist before you posted this? I guess now we know that you really are just an ordinary "walker". Archbishop, do you actually allow this????

COMING SOON



Coming soon to a Kindle, Nook, or ebook near you.

AND HE IS ULTIMATELY CULPABLE


Anonymous May 8, 2014 at 12:24 PM left the following as a comment:
So here is Diana's response again to receiving communion... receive the host standing up, the sit and consume it. 

Recommendations by JungleWatch