Thursday, May 1, 2014


We must now take a closer look at the Archbishop's letter to Fr. Paul of July 16, 2013. 

There are three main things that happen in this letter:
  1. Fr. Paul is told that he has caused grave harm to his parish.
  2. Fr. Paul is told to resign as pastor from Santa Barbara Parish (and he is also removed as Director of Vocations and the Director of the Diaconate Formation Program. 
  3. Fr. Paul is told to "go and look for a benevolent bishop willing to accept you", meaning he is to be banished from the diocese.

Now here's the context:
  1. Fr. Paul is called to the chancery for a meeting with the Archbishop at 3:pm on July 16, 2013.
  2. Fr. Paul does not know the reason for the meeting. 
  3. Fr. Paul arrives.
  4. The Archbishop, in the presence of the Vicar General, reads the letter of removal to Fr. Paul, and then hands it to him. 
Then here's what happens:
  1. Fr. Paul returns to Santa Barbara and finds himself locked out of the parish offices. While at the meeting with the archbishop, the locks were changed. 
  2. Fr. Paul is replaced with a parochial administrator. 
  3. Fr. Paul is told by the parochial administrator that he must vacate his living quarters. 
  4. Fr. Paul is removed by the parochial administrator from the schedule of presiders at the parish Masses 
  5. Father Paul is told by the parochial administrator that he is not to exercise any of his priestly faculties. 
The problem is Canon Law does not allow for the appointment of a parochial administrator while there is a sitting pastor. Can. 539 defines a parochial administrator as one who takes the place of a pastor "when a parish becomes vacant or when a pastor is prevented from exercising his pastoral function." 

The parish was neither vacant nor was Fr. Paul officially prevented from exercising his pastoral function since the Archbishop's letter of July 16 said "If you do not submit your resignation immediately, you are charged to supply your reasons as soon as possible." Fr. Paul DID NOT submit his resignation so the parish was not vacant, and the Archbishop's letter did not prohibit Fr. Paul from continuing to exercise his pastoral function, but only instructed him to supply his reasons for not resigning "as soon as possible." 

Fr. Paul would supply those reasons on July 22, 2013, but on July 17, the day after the meeting with the Archbishop, Archbishop Apuron issued an Aviso replacing Fr. Paul as pastor of Santa Barbara Parish with a parochial administrator.

In his letter of July 22 giving his reasons for not resigning, Fr. Paul alleges that the Archbishop acted illegally:
"Your appointment of a parochial administrator in this case is clearly illegal. Canon 539 provides that the ordinary may appoint a parochial administrator only if the parish is vacant. It is not vacant because I have not resigned and I have not been canonically removed. Therefore, the appointment of a parochial administrator in this case is invalid and illegal (Canon 153). Further, your act to appoint a parochial administrator contemporaneously when I was given the demand letter clearly violates the 15-day statutory period to respond under Canon 1742. Basic due process was not accorded to me in this case. The illegal appointment of the parochial administrator has made my removal public (Official Aviso in Vol. 67, No. 29 of the Umatuna Si Yu'os), to the great confusion and scandal of the faithful and to the detriment of my good name, an actionable offense under Canon 1390. Compounding the damage to my reputation, although I clearly have not resigned, an announcement was made at each mass on Sunday July 21, that I had resigned." 
So let's review:
  1. The Archbishop's letter of July 16 neither removes Fr. Paul as pastor nor does it prohibit him from exercising his pastoral function. It only directs him to supply his reasons for not resigning if he will not resign immediately. 
  2. The Archbishop officially replaces Fr. Paul with a parochial administrator, locks him out of the parish, tells him he must vacate his living quarters (that's called homeless), prohibits him from "performing any tasks and duties including presiding at mass and preaching (that's called jobless), and has his removal announced at every Mass. (See July 22 letter.)
  3. Fr. Paul accuses the Archbishop of not according him due process as required by Canon Law for the removal of pastors and informs the Archbishop that he will challenge his removal (See July 22 letter.)
Then the funny stuff starts. 

On August 2, the Archbishop through the Vicar General informs Fr. Paul in a letter that he cannot challenge his removal "since no decree has in fact yet been issued removing you from the office as pastor of Santa Barbara Church, there is no basis in law for the proposal of a recourse by you at the present time.

So, Fr. Paul has been removed but he has not been removed so he cannot challenge his removal, yet (let's do this again), Fr. Paul was locked out of the parish, told to vacate the rectory, prohibited from exercising his priestly ministry, officially replaced with a parochial administrator, and his removal announced at every Mass at Santa Barbara. 

All of this, while Canon Law, at the bare minimum, instructs the bishop (c. 1742) to "paternally... persuade the pastor to resign." You decide.

Go here for Part III


  1. You truly make this painful for Fr Paul. Hope and Peace!

    1. In an interview with Patti Arroyo, Fr. Paul said he was past the pain as he had already experienced every possible feeling about what the Archbishop did to him. And if I was making it painful for Fr. Paul, he wouldn't be reposting my posts on his Facebook page now would he? I think we both know where the pain is. And you're the cause.

    2. Am I the cause, really? Wow, you overestimates me. Or is this your usual saber rattling? Funny!

    3. You sure are here a lot.

    4. How would you even know that Tim is making this painful for Fr. Paul? Have you taken a moment to ask him? Why do you attempt to pin Fr. Paul's pain on Mr. Rohr? Are you even paying attention? C'mon. Be an adult. Use your CRITICAL THINKING skills. Use your brain. Otherwise just stop making your useless remarks.

    5. Anon@6:14pm go away. you have nothing of any worth to bring to this situation. 'saber rattling' !! do you not understand how worthless these kinds of 'comments' are?

    6. Anonymous
      Why would it be painful for Fr. Paul, is it because they are trying to tell the truth or is it because they are trying to hide the truth. your call.

    7. RE: Anonymous May 1, 2014 at 6:14 PM

      Yes, Mr. Rohr is the cause of all Fr. Paul's woes. It was Mr. Rohr who threw false and weak accusations at him, wrongly expelled him from his parish with no respect for Church custom and procedure, and made up malicious slander stories to undermine his personal integrity.

      Oh wait... NO.

    8. RE: Anonymous May 1, 2014 at 6:14 PM

      Yes, Tim Rohr is the cause of all Fr. Paul's woes. It was Tim Rohr who threw false and faulty accusations at him, expelled him from his parish without respect to proper Church custom and procedure, and spread malicious slander to undermine his character integrity. Yep, that was all Tim Rohr's doing.

      Oh wait... NO.

  2. Can you also, if available, post the press release from the chancery that was sent to the media in response to the letter Fr. Gofigan sent to his parish informing them of what had happened to him.
    That press release is a perfect example of how the chancery attempted to manipulate the story from the get go. Maybe five to ten years ago their misinformation may have been successful, but because most public records are now readily available online, they were caught. They embellished the situation using children as an attempt to stir up an emotional response. It was clearly a despicable and diabolical decision on their part. It also backfired as SNAP then tried to enter the arena - on the chancery's behalf!
    When you play with the devil, you're gonna get burned.

    1. All the documents are already available under the Apuron vs Gofigan tab. Scroll to the bottom. I will be referencing the one you mention in an upcoming post as I put it in context.

    2. The children, the children, the children... Spinmeisters shameless act to gain public support. Dig a little below the surface and find the hidden truth and facts. Take the time to read the letters and listen to interviews. Yes I care about the children but the school is fenced in and have security procedures in place. Neither Gofigan or Lastimoza had keys/access to school.

      Also interesting that SNAP incorrectly stated that Fr. Gofigan refused to terminate Lastimoza. Was it accidental, intentional, or did their source mislead them.

      Lastimoza continued to volunteer after he was terminated by Fr. Gofigan. He continued to seek spiritual guidance from Fr. Gofigan, who could not refuse him without going against what Christ would do. The Archbishop used these acts against Fr. G by twisting the facts and manipulating the public to forward his agenda and save face.

      Was it expected that Fr. G ban Mr. Lastimoza from attending mass, volunteering, and seeking spiritual guidance? If so, then how about we ban all the convicted criminals, known adulterers, divorcees, bigots, racists, cheats, and SINNERS from seeking the Kingdom of God.

  3. What could be Tony's true motivation for this?

    1. You will soon see that Fr. Paul's canon lawyer asks the same thing.

    2. He did not obey!

    3. You are correct. The Archbishop did not obey Church law.

    4. It's something deeper than that why Paul was removed immediately. Your hearing one side. He (Paul) was told but did not obey. He continues. Is deeper than that and who are you that the Archdiocese to give you that reason. Paul was dismissed for a serious violation. Life goes on and move on. Paul went the media because he was hurt but he knew why.

    5. Yes. Don't you worry. We'll get to the reason why Fr. Paul was removed. And then we'll get to the real reason, Father.

    6. Anon @ 8:01 am. For what other reason than the one the chancery had stated from the beginning? I keep hearing that there is more to the story, and not for the benefit of Fr. Gofigan. However, if that is the case, then the chancery is in even more hot water for obvious reasons.
      For one, promoting the rumor that there is more to the story is fool hardy and a credibility killer for the chancery. If there is a different, more damaging reason, they would/should have lead with that instead of with the convoluted accusation they stuck themselves with.
      I don't see how they can backtrack and recover from here on.

    7. Yep. There is definitely MORE to the story. And definitely NOT in favor of the chancery. Whether Fr. Paul wants to go there or not is up to him.

  4. Archbishop Apuron we have no trust in your leadership.

  5. This story is now in international media. The media is following it and other stories involving the archbishop of Guam.


    How has Kiko managed to con the Holy father so comprehensively ?
    Kiko has managed to con the Holy Father by using a very simple sales technique used by all professional salesman, known in the jargon as "pressing hot buttons." What are John Paul II's hot buttons? That's easy: the gospel of life, evangelization and youth.
    So whenever Kiko and his cohorts are in the presence of the Holy father they work these three hot buttons like professional salesman. Firstly, they continually stress in his presence their movement's opposition to abortion, artificial contraception and sterilization etc. - that's the gospel of life hot button pressed. Secondly, they reel off statistics about their rapid world-wide expansion - that's the evangelization hot button pressed. Finally they ensure that at any youth gathering, their youth are up early and at the front of the crowd waving Neocatechumenate banners - that's the youth hot button pressed. That's all there is to it really, all quite simple.
    Kiko doesn't of course say to the Pope, "Oh by the way, Holy Father, behind your back we refer to you as a pagan because you offer sacrifices, the alleged sacrifice of the Mass, every day." Nor does he say, "Oh by the way, Holy Father, I've completely rewritten the Church's liturgy to exclude all reference to sacrifice, redemption, atonement etc. Do you mind?" And he most certainly doesn't tell the Holy Father that his movement's apologists are trained to talk every week for sixteen weeks in parishes without once mentioning the Catechism of the Catholic Church .
    The Pope is certainly a great man, but this doesn't make him a mind-reader. Like the rest of us, he sees what he sees, not what is deliberately concealed from him. Good people are by nature trusting and are therefore also by nature perhaps the last people to spot the sort of deep duplicity practiced by Kiko and his movement.

  7. Neocatechumenal Way : Protestant in Nature to the fullest
    The people in the way does not concern themselves over the consecrated host because Kiko and Carmen totally reject what the church believes and teaches on the TRANSUBSTATIATION. Kiko writes in his Neocatechumenate Orientation Guide p. 317 “there is no Eucharist without the assembly… It is from the assembly that the Eucharist springs from.” Again this is why they do not believe in priests. It’s the assembly that brings the Real Presence and the host is merely a symbol and the Kikos feel why have a priest. Christ is no longer present after the their Eucharistic celebration ends. Carmen stated to a priest that if Christ wanted to be among us in this manner. Christ woud have come to us as a stone rather than a piece of bread.

    So there you have it. All those canonied saints, all those thousands of holy monks and religious women, all those millions of faithful Catholics, who have spent hours on their knees every week for centuries adoring the Blessed Sacrament. They are all heretics adoring cookies! So much for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It will come as a bitter disappointment to many to discover that in spite of the orthodox public facade maintained by the Way, they are just as much cafeteria Catholics as the rest of our post-Conciliar dissident.

  8. The only way to find out much about the Neocatechumenate Way is to question people who have come out of the movement. But members are bound to silence and I have found even ex-members sometimes feel constrained by this ethos of secrecy. Two ex-members I wanted to question felt they needed to be "absolved" by a priest from this obligation before they could talk freely abouThe Way is like proceeding through a series of locked interconnected rooms. You enter the "first room" where you are told what your task is. When you have completed this task, the "next room" is unlocked and you learn your next task. When you enter "room one", there is no way you can know what is in "room ten", unless someone who has reached "room ten" has come out of the movement and is prepared to talk. To complete the process reputedly takes twenty years. I have not yet found anyone who has come out who has been in longer than four to five years.t their experiences to me! Source:

    1. I have been out of the NCW for over five years, but I was in for at least five years. The NCW celebration of the Eucharist being non-Sacramental totally escaped me. If this is correct, aren't the members being dubbed? Saipan visitor just recently connected to this blog.

    2. Dear Anon at 6.21. Welcome back to the true Church. The question you asked is essential, and is at the core of what we have been pointed at.
      Good people are being indeed "dubbed", they are being mislead and abused.
      All the while real priests are being persecuted for doing their job and moneys are being misdirected.
      I hope you will be able to find a welcoming parish with a good priest that will help you overcome this revelation.
      In the meantime continue reading, and please do not fear asking questions.

  9. I am an ex neo and i think they ALL shall come back to our mother church so we ALL can celebrate together!!