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. 

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. 

26 comments:

  1. Let me see , this retreat happened in October 2013' right? So right after the retreat, there was some buzzing at St. Luke's hospital....how do I know, because Deacon Tenorio was at St. Luke's for either a physical or medical attention....buzz, buzz, buzz! Cleric whispers can be heard! Can you imagine the humming going around at St. Luke's? Wonder how many islanders heard of it ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I did not get this from Deacon Tenorio, it is important to note that the people who emphasized how long the Archbishop waited before taking action were the Archbishop's supporters. It did not occur to them that this set the Archbishop up for a major liability. They thought they were emphasizing the Archbishop's patience and careful research. We also know that the Vicar General was directly told of the man's presence at the parish as a volunteer in January of 2013.

      Delete
    2. I am not implying that it came from Deacon Tenorio...all I am saying is that there was buzzing within the hospital!

      Delete
    3. Yes, there was much buzzing everywhere after that retreat...if that's what you call a retreat: an event where priests are slandered and lied about by their bishop in their absence?????

      Delete
    4. The Archbishop's supporters were trying to emphasize his "patience and careful research"? Considering that he did not follow the canonical process, there's only one word for their effort: FAIL!!

      Delete
    5. In my personal defense of Deacon Tenorio and his wife included, I have personally tried to discuss some of the problems with Deacon Tenorio and he consistantly says to me that God is in Charge and we should never disrespect our ArchBishop. He has cut me off a couple of times and I know not to bring any disrespectful talk about the Archbishop up to him. I wish I could be Not-Anonymous for this but what can I say, just take my anonymous comment for real.

      Delete
    6. I really do not want to include Deacon and Mrs. Tenorio in any of this, but it inevitably becomes part of the conversation from time to time. Deacon is ordained. His responsibilities are different than us, the laity. We are not bound by obedience. In fact, we are bound to do as Pope Francis recently said: "I ask you, please, to importune the shepherds, to disturb them, all of us shepherds, so that we can give you the milk of grace, of doctrine and of leadership." http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/on-the-good-shepherd

      Delete
    7. What ever anyone from Guam says in St.Lukes Hospital Manila is repeated all around the city of Manila within hours.

      Delete
    8. Confirmed. I was in st.Lukes hospital at the end of the retreat of the priests when the horrible talk of the archbishops retreat was circulating Manila. I remember it very well because the archbishop,that evening was to attend a function at st. Theresa's church. He had wasted previous hours hanging out in mall of Asia according to witness. Then that night what he told priests about fr. Gofigan was circulating throughout the Guam residents in st. Luke's. We were all shocked that the archbishop was speaking in Manila in the way he was. It was just horrible shocking disturbing to speak in a public way about any Priest. It was clear the archbishop had the knife out for fr.paul.

      Delete
  2. hurray for smartphones! the darned things can record anything and are quite easy to hide.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No, Tim, I did not hound you. I only pointed out that your story-line is falling apart, because you are simply bluffing. I would not advise to anyone to listen to your "facts" or predictions. It should be time for Fr. Paul as well to realize what kind of "help" he is receiving from you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So when I post the recording if the Archbishop saying this you're going to say that I hired an impersonator, right? Why don't you check with your pastor so I don't have to embarrass the Archbishop further. Unless this is Fr. Adrian which would make sense since everyone knows you want his job.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous (May 15, 2014 at 5:54 PM), I cannot believe that you put quotation marks around the word FACTS in your post. Have you — and other Archbishop supporters/Kiko-bots — not yet realized that Tim Rohr only posts things he can substantiate by visual (documents) or auditory (recordings, like the "lost" KOLG episode) means? Do you really want to goad Tim to post whatever recording he has available?

      To be honest, I'm astonished that you haven't brought out the Kiko-bot mantra of "hearsay, gossip and superstition" to try and account for the use of quotation marks for the word FACTS in order to minimize the effects of what Tim has posted.

      When the conflict between Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron and Fr. Paul Gofigan first erupted in July 2013, most people — including SNAP — supported the Archbishop’s actions and vilified Fr. Paul for endangering the welfare of the children/youth, per the Archbishop’s allegations. At this point, it is apparent that JungleWatch has been very helpful in rallying support for Fr. Paul.

      In the months that have followed, with the disclosure of substantiating documents and/or the KOLG recording, the support for the Archbishop has steadily eroded — save from the Kiko-bots whose antics are familiar on this blog as well as some “regular” Catholics who take exception to the revelation of the Archbishop’s actions — while the support for Fr. Paul has continued to grow. People who initially did not want to take sides, those who remained “on the fence,” have finally come down on the side of Fr. Paul as they sift through the documents that Tim makes available.

      The kind of “help” Fr. Paul is receiving from Tim is the kind of “help” the Archbishop could once count on for himself. Those days are long gone and the Archbishop has only himself to blame. He may have been given bad advice about what to do with Fr. Paul, but it was ultimately up to him to accept or reject what his advisors said.

      Delete
  4. Tim, if you want on this comment page I can leave the names of all the individuals who sat that wet Friday night in the lobby talking about the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fr. Adrian was not present at the retreat according to reports. But the stories circulating among the clergy at the retreat about fr. Adrian's playing games among Theroests of Guam were just as horrible to hear. He was causing problems between the priests and bwtween the archbishop and clergy according to reports.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To Anonymous at 5:54 PM. Why is it so hard for you to believe that the archbishop made those malicious and defamatory remarks about Fr. Paul? I heard the story going around as well so I independently asked 5 clergy that were present. There was over 30 of them. They all confirmed that the archbishop did make those malicious remarks. So, instead of ridiculing Tim's facts, why don't you investigate yourself and ask some of the clergy that were present.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I do hope that Father Paul and Mr. L(and his wife and two daughters) sue the archbishop for libel. To prove his case, all they have to do is subpoena the 30 plus priests and deacons that were present and ask them under oath what the archbishop said. As priests, they would not lie. It would be an easy case!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why subpoena. Tim said he has recordings of the archbishop. Use the recordings.

      Delete
    2. Because it will be fun.

      Delete
    3. Not only fun, but imagine parading one by one 30 plus clerics to the witness stand, taking their oath, and then hear them testify(many would be grimacing on the outside but smiling in the inside---:) ) how their shepherd maligned Fr. Paul and that man. It would be agonizing for the archbishop but cleansing for Father Paul, that man's family, and the people of Guam to see that the Truth will free you. Afterwards, archbishop Apuron can retire to that place in Israel where the NEO has their palace.

      Delete
    4. This would be spectacular! Breaking news in the tvs and front pages in the newspapers! Perhaps even national newspapers... The kikos of the world could chew their tongues off in shame. Yes, in shame!

      Delete
    5. Oh, I see, you enjoy humiliation.

      Delete
    6. There was nothing so humiliating than locking a pastor out of his parish and kicking him out of his rectory and leaving him homeless, jobless, and without a diocese. Ya'll seemed to enjoy that.

      Delete
  8. You said that the Archbishop said, ""I waited 2 years to see what would happen..."

    Did you personally heard this yourself or did you hear it from someone else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both. But better yet. Just go ask the archbishop if he said it. You can also check with the Vicar General about what he was told in January of 2013.

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch