Wednesday, May 14, 2014

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

55 comments:

  1. It sounds fishy to me. Purchasing items Is not the same thing as picking up the items for the priest. Anyone can pick up those items, but purchasing power belongs to a worker in official capacity.

    Staying at the hotel with the confirmation class appears that he's involved. For the sake of appearance, he shouldn't have been there. That would be like a seminarian getting a ride back to the seminary with two single women. Nothing happened, but for "appearance sake" the seminarians know better than to put themselves in that situation.

    As for the keys, only workers are supposed to have keys. Are there no other official workers there that the priest can give the keys to? Isn't an official worker supposed to be the one to open the church rather than a volunteer. It appears that the volunteer is more readily available than the official workers. Where are the official workers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's pretty funny. And it's also why I said you can call Fr. Paul or me a liar or fishy or whatever you want to call this, but the Archbishop's accusations prove the Archbishop was aware of the man's presence and activities and supposed danger to children and did nothing for two years, providing evidence that this was never about what he tried to make it about.

      Delete
    2. Aon 12:07 pm. You obviously know nothing about how volunteers staff most parish functions here and most other places. It is not at all unusual to have a volunteer open the church doors. If you work on San Ramon hill, God help us.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous at 12:07: Your bias is getting in the way. This list that the Archbishop provided would be proof that he (and his associates) had been observing and compiling "evidence" for the past 2 years. That alone is more of an indictment of the Archbishop than anything. The Archbishop's intent was not to remove the gentleman in question, but rather to remove Fr. Gofigan. He just didn't think his scheme through. That's why most people who scheme get caught in their lie.
      Fr. Gofigan's answers were routine and actually irrelevant in that the issue of the man in question is not the true reason why Fr. Gofigan was fired.

      But to clarify in response to your assumptions towards Fr. Gofigan's answers: Volunteers are pivotal to the function of a parish, and most duties and privileges you claimed belong only to "official workers" are also afforded to volunteers.
      Even if he was involved with the confirmation class retreat, what does that prove? Besides your overactive imagination, there is nothing that would indicate otherwise. However, Fr. Gofigan stated that he was not involved and it is pretty credible as this man was not a catechist, but a volunteer laborer. Besides, he stayed in the hotel with his family. Would you go as far as indict them, his wife and two daughters, as complicit in the conspiracy as well?

      Delete
    4. Does that not show the mercy he had on Fr. Paul? I mean two years? Maybe two years for to see if he'd actually conform to his request? And so, he did not.

      Delete
    5. Fishy? What is unusual about someone helping a priest pick up or buy things from a store? It happens all the time especially in a big parish like Santa Barbara, and most of the people in a parish are volunteers who want to help in any way. Father Paul reached out and embraced this man and his family to bring him back to the Church. If this man wanted to show his appreciation and gratitude, then allow him. We do this all for the glory of God. The question that should be asked is did the archbishop conduct a thorough investigation on the presence of this man? Were parishioners asked on the positive or negative effects of the presence this man? Wouldn't it have been proper to discuss this matter with the pastor first or to ask him to assist in the investigation? Why exclude Father Paul? Unless of course the motive was not the safety of the youth but a witch hunt---to find anything that can be twisted and perverted to make Father Paul look and sound bad. I have seen and conduct many investigations in my lifetime and I can tell that this was done hastily and unprofessionally, and it was not done for the safety of the children. Shame, Shame, Shame!

      Delete
    6. Thanks 2:32. That was funny. Afternoon laugh. Needed that. Mercy? Mercy? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

      Delete
    7. I would always lend keys to official working rather than volunteers. But no one answered my question. Where are the official workers? Why is pale giving out the keys to this particular volunteer? It's still fishy. Sounds like there's no official workers around & only one volunteer who is given a key.

      Delete
    8. What sounds fishy is you. And sounds like you're fishing. Nothing better to do? How do you know he doesn't ask others to do similar favors? You don't. Go fish. How sad that this is all that the Archbishop has for his defense.

      Delete
    9. If I'm gonna buy somethin for the priest, I use my own money. If the church is gonna buy somethin for the church, that is church official business and requires an official church worker and not some volunteer.

      As for staying at the hotel during confirmation retreat, it sounds to me like he was rewarded for his labor. A volunteer should receive nothing, money or reward. When a volunteer receives some sort of reward for his service, that is no longer voluntary work. Seems that Gogifan found a way to pay the worker if not in wages. Like I said, sounds fishy to me.

      Delete
    10. Published the above comment for your amusement.

      Delete
  2. 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?
    You have listed 3 points from the Archbishop's letter. These 3 points do not show the Archbishop himself monitored Fr. Paul. It only shows that information arrived to the Archbishop as points of concern in the Santa Barbara church community, some time before the he acted last summer. Actually, all 3 points proved to be valid, factual observations by concerned parishioners.
    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 of the 3 points well before 2013 and he deliberately waited years before he acted.
    However, the things show that the Archbishop learned about the 3 points 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. You have just given me some very powerful things for my next post. Stay tuned.

      Delete
    2. Here's part of it:

      Go back and read the Archbishop's letter of July 16, 2013 where he says "After my preliminary investigation and consultation with others..." This was not an act of immediate impulse. The evidence was compiled. An investigation was ordered and concluded. A consultation was held. The ambush including the changing of the locks and the order for Fr. Paul to vacate the rectory was planned.

      There is no evidence of immediate action on the part of the Archbishop and what the bishop knew and when he knew it is a matter now for him to prove, not us. Because he says that Fr. Paul disobeyed the Vicar General's order in 2011. We get to assume that he was aware that Fr. Paul disobeyed the Vicar General's order in 2011 and did nothing about it. At the very least, if the man was the threat that the archbishop said he was, then it was up to the archbishop to make sure that Fr. Paul obeyed the order. By only getting around to addressing it in 2013 is an admission that the archbishop obviously did not care enough about the so-called safety of children to make sure that Fr. Paul carried through.


      Lastly, we can be certain that the archbishop did not care about the safety of parishioners or children because ALL HE DID WAS FIRE FR. PAUL. How did firing Fr. Paul protect the parishioners and the improve the safety of children? Did the archbishop issue an edict of removal for the man and his family from Santa Barbara Parish? Are they no longer allowed to attend parish functions? Are they no longer assisting at the parish?

      As far as we know, the man and his family is every bit as present at Santa Barbara Parish doing exactly what he was doing before Fr. Paul got fired. The Archbishop did not remove the man, the so-called "probable threat". HE ONLY REMOVED FR. PAUL. The "threat is still there".

      If the Archbishop personally cares about the safety of children and truly believes that this man is a probable threat then we call on the Archbishop to go and confront the man and drive him and his family from parish grounds and get a court order banning them from the property. Go ahead Archbishop. It was the man who was the threat, right? Not Fr. Paul…or was it?

      Delete
    3. Tim, I'm afraid we are going in circles here. The Archbishop has jurisdiction on priests and church employees only. The 3 points probably came from concerned parishioners last Summer. These facts were confirmed by additional witnesses. Then a decision had to be made. So what are you exactly talking about in your never ending saga of self-repetitious posts?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous at 8:30am: You are the one going around in a repetitive exercise. You have hammered a nail in one foot thus you walk in circles. When Tim or someone else removes that nail from your foot in answering your ill-informed questions, you hammer another nail into your other foot.
      You will soon find that while you remain in your perpetual direction, we all will have moved on. Pray that someone else come along and finally you allow them to remove that which has confined you to your circle.

      Delete
    5. 8:30AM, Why not quit while you're ahead? The more you respond the more you reveal to everyone about your ignorance over how things work at the Parish level. It's obvious you are the one going around in circles.

      Your statements are filled with "if" this or "if the Archbishop..." "it sounds to me..." "things show..."

      Judging by your posted assumptions and your guesses, and questions and lack of documented proofs to back your posts, you have nothing substantial to contribute except mindless chatter in that dizzying merry-go-round you're in.

      Delete
    6. Actually 8:30 AM, my main objective is to give something to do to people like you with nothing better to do than hang out on my blog.

      Delete
  3. At 1:22 p.m......the word used is ALLEDGED

    al·leged
    əˈlejd/
    adjective
    (of an incident or a person) said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality.
    "the alleged conspirators"
    synonyms: supposed, so-called, claimed, professed, purported, ostensible, putative, unproven More

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm inclined to agree with 12:07 and 1:22. One question I thought of when reading this particular post is regarding the "vacant" room. If the parish paid for the rooms for this retreat, does this mean that the parish also paid for the room for this volunteer who had nothing to do with the retreat process, and who only helped to off load? I think that is questionable. As a parent paying fees for retreats, I would not appreciate that my money was spent on a room for a volunteer and his family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, what a wonderful Christian attitude. You must have learned that from the Kiko's as well.

      Delete
    2. Ya gotta be kiddin. You have no problem with the parish paying for a volunteer who has no business being in a confirmation retreat? But you don't care to give money to the seminary where it is being used to feed and educate seminarians.

      Delete
    3. If a hotel room(s) are booked, but not every room at time of reservation is occupied, the room is still paid for. Even to get a refund or cancel the room is usually the cost of one days stay. Allowing him to stay with his family for the night is a non-issue.

      Delete
    4. Right 5:04. We don't.

      Delete
    5. Anon 5:04 p.m. Juts like you what business???? Me too, what business do I have giving to AAA if foreigners have a stake in the RMS seminary?

      I am the doubting Thomas....show me the papers that actually says that the RMS belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana...an no other parties are listed!

      The parents of these men should donate to the seminary to help subsidize for their education and room and board, just as we send money allowances to our children while they are studying abroad.

      Diana in one of her post stated that "it's all about the money." Take the Gala for example, do you honor only honor those who are benefactors to the RMS? Why is it that you do not honor those who tirelessly give their time and services to the church or RMS, but do not have a penny to their name? Don't they also merit recognition? Is honoring a person with MONEY more important? Yes, this is where the statement " it's all about the money" comes into play!

      Delete
    6. Actually, most of the honorees at these galas have NOT been benefactors of RMS, but really to only their individual parishes. RMS uses them to make it look like they support the Way. Most are almost forced to be honored by the Archbishop. They do not want it, but they do it as a favor to the Archbishop.

      Delete
    7. It all comes down to the MONEY! I donate $10k to my parish so I get to be honored! Tun Jose who is only a farmer takes care of maintaining the grounds of the church and his wife tan Maria who has been washing the corporals, the priest s vests, makes his meals with no pay cannot be honored? Which has more honor....the one who gives X amount to $$$ or the one who offers freely their services?

      I know the Gala is all show!!!! Honor the rich and the rich will support. Who is Tun Jose and Tan Maria anyways, they are just poor people! One cannot make money from the poor. Rich people, rich friends! Poor people, poor friends!

      Delete
    8. Your reply, Tim, brings to mind a certain order. Or should I say a certain Mother?

      Delete
    9. Well, then you would be wrong. I was told this by someone whose family member was approached to be an honoree and refused because they didn't want to be used.

      Delete
    10. At 7:16AM. May I say something here about money. Most truly wealthy people do NOT want to be known let alone singled out and honored. They have very serious business reasons for this. They allow themselves to be "honored" at these galas because most are elderly traditional Catholics who will do whatever the archbishop asks even though they don't agree with it. Some even know that they are being used by him, but they humble themselves and accept it as a duty to the church.

      But I do agree with you on the whole scam of the honoree thing. "What good is to love those that love you. Even the heathen do as much.". The Gala is simply a tool to gain legitimacy for the NCW. Because it is a fundraiser for RMS, it appears that the people honored actually support RMS and by extension the NCW. Fortunately for RMS and the Archbishop, it has worked thus far. But that's going to change.

      Delete
  5. Funny to both Anonymous May 14, 2014 at 1:22 PM and Anonymous May 14, 2014 at 12:07 PM
    Me thinks you do not spend to much time if any, in the parish.
    First, if only paid employees(workers) had keys to the facilities, nothing would get done. I know of many priests who pass their keys to parishioners to grab something from here or there. Majority of people who open and close the church at any parish are not paid.
    Second, "Actually, all 3 points proved to be valid, factual observations by concerned parishioners" let me throw it right back at you. How do you know?
    Are you a parent? If the concern was for "the Children", as soon as you knew, wouldn't you intervene immediately instead of waiting for whatever reason?
    Third, and most important as Tim mentioned,WWJD? I am reminded of the woman caught in adultery. Are you ready to stand before the Lord and condemn these men? And Jesus said "neither do I condemn you". This man has spent his life to make amends for his sin, yet you and others continue to condemn him. The song remains the same...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He will be forgiven once he joins the Kiko's.

      Delete
    2. The only person who should carry keys are those in official capacity and not a volunteer worker. The same goes with those purchasing supplies for the church. Anon at 1:22 has a point. How do you know that the Archbishop has been monitoring Gofgifan for 2 years?

      And why would Gogifan just casually tell someone that he loans the keys to the person only to get something for him and the keys get returned to him If that's what he usually does, then why bring it up to a parishioner?

      Delete
    3. Again, posted for your amusement.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous May 14, 2014 at 5:12 PM
      Like I said, it is obvious you don't spend time in the parish...
      and yes it is Tim. LOL

      Delete
    5. I unlocked and locked the church as a young alter boy (volunteer). So was that wrong? Of course not, other volunteers would do the same. It's a church owned by the people, not GPO or Kmart

      Delete
    6. Please leave Fr. Paul out of this volunteer baloney you bring up. He isn't the only pastor to work with happy labor. You just bring up more smoke screens to hide the real issue. Get of the volunteer thing already!. The Chancery knows that volunteers play a big role in the parishes. Even during the audit, they asked for a list of volunteers who counted the collection and in fact, encouraged more volunteers to be involved with this process. Our former pastor used to always comment: "there's no pay but the benefits are out of this world" to invite help for various parish functions.

      I personally volunteer and I have keys to the office and so what of it? If it is wrong to have keys or purchasing power as a volunteer, then YOU go to the Archbishop and complain about people helping in the parish and then this Archdiocese can put out a policy restricting that. We'll be waiting for that along with all the others.

      Delete
    7. Anon at 5:12 doesn't seem to understand the the Catholic parish is not merely a "business" but a family. The parish family is an extension of our own family. Some parishioners live this out in faithfully volunteering their time, treasure and talent to help not only the parish priests but our whole parish "family," in living testimony to their individual faith. Some only have time and talent, some only have treasure and time, some only have treasure, time or talent. All give some, but some give all. (It's not just a military motto, but a Christian one.)

      Delete
  6. The archbishop "defenders" are doing him more harm than anybody else.....
    No argumentation based on facts, just a list of suppositions, and fictional scenarios, which are mostly based on the "what if..."
    Guilt by association is an old method not used in the Catholic Church since the darker days of the Spanish Inquisition. (which itself was a perversion of the much needed Holy Inquisition, rooted in the Protestant movement backlash).
    It is still used freely in most dictatorships (of all tendencies) and was a preferred tool of most communist regimes.
    In order to use these kind of arguments, one usually must be free of any sense of shame and moral rectitude.
    It is sad to see so many stoop so low to defend the indefensible.
    Devotion to a leader, can be recommendable, when this leader is worthy of it.
    Blind devotion without question, to a leader that has gone out of his way to prove us all, that he cares little about his duties, is blind stupidity, rarely encountered outside of the 8th grade recreation area.
    Covering your eyes and ears, and screaming at the top of your lungs is not going to change any of the facts represented on this site.
    Poor rationalization of evil acts, only leads to catastrophic results. The history of the world is full of example. Less we forget!......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So tell me, dear frenchie, what is wrong with the Archbishop responding to valid, factual observations by concerned parishioners of the Santa Barbara church? Were not the observations true?!

      Delete
    2. Hmmm. Were you perhaps one of those "concerned parishioners"? We know about the moles. Just know that there is a very real possibility of a civil case, where, if it should go to court, people will be put under oath to testify.

      Delete
    3. I wonder if parishioners from Santa Barbara came foward to complain or if they were approached because of the Fr. Paul witch hunt?

      Delete
    4. Canon Law was written to protect bishops. But because this bishop did not follow the law and took it into his own hands, we are now free to speculate however we want. Had there been a proper investigation as Canon Law prescribed, there would be no argument. The Archbishop broke the law and the fallout is the consequence.

      Delete
  7. Dear Tim.
    Peace and love of the Lord.

    Very much aware of the influence that junglewatch is having on the church of Guam and indeed beyond the islands to Europe also. With our greatest respect to you and the work you are doing in the pacific.

    Through your page may we also send our respect to archbishop Anthony Apuron. It is the archbishop we wish to communicate with through junglewatch.

    Archbishop, what is now happening and will happen on Guam in the coming weeks is best resolved prior to entering into civil law cases which will cause grave upset to you, to the archdiocese and to the church on Guam. We believe that many of the serious issues concerning Guam can be resolved through prayer, dialogue, and humility. This is sincere request to you to please begin to resolve the issues now before further upset is caused to the archdiocese. Please a little humility will go along way in now resolving the issues. To leave things any longer unresolved will lead to bigger issues.

    Archbisjop Krebs will shortly be informed of a course of action that will be taken in September should issues be unresolved.

    This post is first to please ask you to act humbly and please work to resolve issues why there is still time.

    With respect.

    A concerned person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whats the point? People have already stated their thoughts and feeling toward Archbishop. What will it matter?

      Delete
    2. To Anonymous at 7.58 pm.
      Thank you for reaching out, this is a very powerful request, representing all we were taught in the Church I love and cherish.
      I will pray that the Archbishop be touched by your humble request.
      Pax Christi

      Delete
    3. Friend just trying to save the archdiocese millions of USD in civil law suits.

      Delete
    4. Anon at 11:30 PM. Silly "question." So now this is all about the Archbishop's feelings?
      Seriously, who would allow their small child to stay up late at night to be leaving such an immature comment, let alone allow them to play in the Jungle?

      Delete
    5. Have a strong feeling this is for real.

      Delete
  8. Well said, frenchie. These "arch-defenders" have certainly heard of the saying "people in glass houses shouldn't thrown stones", but obviously choose to ignore it - or maybe they think they are throwing cotton balls! After all is said and done, the "house of cards" will fall (voluntarily or forcibly) because it is not founded on solid ground. It is a shameful hyprocrisy! And when that happens (when, not if), we just pray that clear minds and humble hearts will prevail, and that the "arch-defenders" will not continue to be in blind servitude to a man (not the Arch) who denies that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is INDEED a true and propitious SACRIFICE, not just a festive remembrance. What a blasphemy this is to us Catholics! Pray for the Arch because he knows that he is being used, but just got caught up a seemingly inextricable web that he can't seem to get out of. And the more he wiggles to try to extricate himself, the more his "defenders" solidify the web. The Arch is a smart man, and he realizes that in this case "silence is perhaps golden" -- as we had not heard from him in these blogs , or least I haven't read any.
    I see that this "drama" has reached Italy. Will it seep into Rome and the Vatican? - Anon.

    ReplyDelete
  9. With respect to the hotel room used by this man and his family, this is what I know. This man wasn't the only volunteer that helped load and unload things. There were other helpers, and because there were excess rooms that were not to be occupied but paid(you pay to reserve an estimated number of rooms in advance), Father Paul allowed these helpers, as a show of gratitude and appreciation, to occupy the rooms. More importantly, these helpers/volunteers had no contact from beginning to end with the youth or their chaperones and teachers, and they stayed on a different floor. Father Paul had things under control, as he usually does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for clarifying but the original claim of the danger of the hotel stay was trivial and the commenter was more than likely trying to deflect any wrong by the Archbishop.

      God Bless Fr. Paul and this man and his family during this difficult time. Please pray for the Archbishop too. He needs proper guidance and help.

      Delete
  10. If the archbishop removed every priest, Neo or not, because they allowed a volunteer to have possession of Church keys or to run errands to buy or purchase things, we will no priests left in Guam! Wake up Folks! These are petty and specious reasons to remove a pastor. I agree though that if the archbishop had continuously warn Father Paul over a two year period not to allow this man to volunteer, then Father Paul was at wrong. BUT.......the archbishop did not, and guess what? The Chancery knew that this man was there months before July 16th and found that everything was okay. And how do I know? Testimonies and statements from people who were directly involved.Now, will the doubters stop imagining that the archbishop is innocent of wrongdoing!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Janet B - MangilaoMay 18, 2014 at 11:36 PM

    Dear Tim - since the Archbishop has spewed so many different stories about Fr Paul, he can honestly say he didn't say something. That's because he cannot possibly track all the different stories spun, so he isn't lying, he is merely an over-zealous liar.
    What he knew and didn't know can no longer be tracked by even himself!
    But no fears - God is watching.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Janet B - Mangilao, I'm guessing the Archbishop, et al forgot the words of Sir Walter Scott: "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive …"

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch