Wednesday, June 4, 2014


Isn't it funny? The Chancery Three have spent the better part of a year trying to convince us that a volunteer at Santa Barbara parish was a de facto employee in order to justify their brutal eviction of Fr. Paul; but now that their own de facto employee has gotten them into major trouble, they will try to convince us that she was just a volunteer!

It does not matter that Jennifer Dulla is not on the payroll, her frequent stories in the U Matuna do not appear as letters to the editor or op-ed's, they appear and are placed as news stories. Her name on these frequent stories makes her a de facto employee many times more than the man at Santa Barbara who quietly helped out around the parish with church chores and whose name was on none of it.

It does not matter that the Santa Barbara volunteer had a criminal past and Ms. Dulla does not. That is not the issue at this point. The issue is that the Archbishop's case against Fr. Paul rests on the redefinition of a volunteer as a de facto employee. But now, in order to extricate himself from the trouble caused by the "misinformation" propagated on his watch in his own newspaper, he must redefine his own de facto employee as a volunteer.

If Ms. Dulla can be redefined as a volunteer who acted alone without any connection to the Archbishop and without any requirement of responsibility on his part, then the Santa Barbara man can also thus be defined as a volunteer who acted alone and without any connection or requirement of responsibility of Fr. Paul.

And while the presence of the Santa Barbara volunteer resulted in no harm even though the Archbishop believed him to be capable of harm, Ms. Dulla's "error", on the Archbishop's watch, DID cause real harm:
  1. A Cardinal's name was used without his permission to falsely promote an event.
  2. The false promotion resulted in nearly 100 people spending nearly $1000 each to attend the falsely promoted event. 
  3. The youth were told that they would be going to Manila to evangelize Filipino's, which was both a lie and an insult to their hosts. 
So which de facto employer should be removed? The one who allowed an ex-convict to set up tables and chairs for church events and run errands for the pastor? Or the one who allowed a scandalous hoax which abused the name of a Cardinal of the Catholic Church as well as the trust of a whole diocese?

Recommendations by JungleWatch