Thursday, May 15, 2014


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. 

It is important for him to disprove my claim that the Archbishop was aware of the man's presence at the parish because:
  1. if the Archbishop really did know this, and
  2. really did believe that the man had the potential to cause "grave harm" to parishioners and was a "probable threat to children" as he claimed in his July 16 letter and was backed up by Fr. Adrian in his press release of July 22, then 
  3. the Archbishop would be liable for allowing this "grave harm" and "probable threat" to persist and lawsuits could follow. 
So for the last two days he has hounded me for proof in an attempt to discredit me and save the Archbishop some very dangerous lawsuits. Here are his comments. Click on the hyperlink if you want to view the full comment or the context.

Is there any evidence that "they had been monitoring Fr. Paul for two years"? Why do you say this? Who claimed this and where? ...

Tim, you did not answer the question. You claimed that the Archbishop "had been monitoring Fr. Paul for two years.....that is 24 months or 730 days!" How do you know? ... If you claim the Archbishop knew this person was around the church from 2011 to 2013, then you have to prove that he was aware ...well before 2013 and he deliberately waited years before he acted. However, the things show that the Archbishop learned ... only in summer 2013, when he became angry at once and acted on immediate impulse. He felt, probably, being compelled to act in order to protect the reputation of the Dededo church and the Catholic archdiocese of Guam

...How do you know that the Archbishop has been monitoring Gofgifan for 2 years?

The Chancery did not know about the violation for two years. It is clear from the facts. The Archbishop trusted Fr. Paul that he would follow his instruction he gave him in 2011. As soon as he learned about the alleged violation two years later in 2013, he acted. ....I really wonder how would you argue here, because it does not matter how hard you try, it does not add up to a valid and viable case challenging the Archbishop's decision. 


Well, once again, the Archbishop's side forces me to reveal stuff I would rather not reveal, or at least re-reveal. Really, you guys should check with him before you go running your mouths. But since you can't help but run your ill-educated mouths I must drag out stuff that the Archbishop does not want to see drug out. 

Here is the Archbishop in his own words:

"I waited 2 years to see what would happen..."

He himself said this in front of 30 members of the clergy at their retreat in Tagatay last year. How do I know? You really don't want me to post that, nor would you want me to finish the sentence the Archbishop starts above. But go ahead, poke me some more. For what comes next is the subject of a major civil lawsuit, and it is not coming from Fr. Paul. Go ahead. Check with your boss. You should have done that in the first place. 

Recommendations by JungleWatch