Sunday, June 15, 2014

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN-PART XIII: TREATED LIKE A DOG

To review. After the initial attempt to get rid of Fr. Paul was exposed to be canonically illegal, Archbishop Apuron re-initiated the process of getting rid of him through the required canonical procedures, albeit with a modified charge: the supposed retaining of a de facto employee instead of an actual employee. Fr. Paul's canon lawyer first issued a motion to revoke the charges against Fr. Paul and when that failed, issued an official appeal which finally sent the case to Rome where it awaits a hearing.

At that point things were fairly cut and dry and in the hands of the proper authorities, and many people have criticized me for not letting it stay there. But it was not ME that did not let it "stay there", i.e. let it be handled by Rome and shut up about it. It was Archbishop Apuron who "did not let it stay there", and who himself took the issue to a whole other level.

For whatever reason, the Archbishop decided to bring up the whole affair in the midst of the Archdiocesan clergy retreat in Tagaytay, Philippines last October. With the case being handled by lawyers and Roman congregations, the Archbishop should have been the last one to say anything about it. Yet he did.

But he did not just speak of the case. According to Fr. Paul the Archbishop added some inflammatory details and sordid observations. In a letter to Archbishop Apuron dated 12/6/13, Fr. Paul quoted the Archbishop as saying to the clergy present at the retreat:
“...some people are wondering what is going on between the two of them that Fr. Paul is willing to sacrifice his priesthood for this particular man.”
The inference of a homosexual relationship did not escape those present. But just in case some thought they might have heard wrong, Fr. Paul also quoted the Archbishop as going on to say:
“...so many complaints were coming in about why was he still working there and why were they so intimate.."
At this point, as sordid, inflammatory, and grossly out of place as these comments are, the Archbishop was still welcome to his personal thoughts about the matter, but then he made a claim that was easily disprovable, which to those present, suggested malicious intent by the Archbishop:
"....because he had built a stairway up to his room, his room was on the second floor..."
Unfortunately for the Archbishop, it was well-known that the stairway had been there long before Fr. Paul ever came to Santa Barbara. So why did the Archbishop make this up? We see why he made it up in the next part of what he is reported to have said:
"...and he (Fr. Paul's friend) would come in the middle of the night with cases of beer and what not and stays there until the early morning...”
"Middle of the night", "cases of beer" (really "cases"?), and stay "until early morning"??

So it wasn't enough to disgrace Fr. Paul by firing him without due process. It wasn't enough to disgrace Fr. Paul by locking him out of his office. It wasn't enough to disgrace Fr. Paul by putting him out on the street. It wasn't enough to disgrace Fr. Paul by announcing his removal at every Mass. It wasn't enough to disgrace Fr. Paul by banning him from saying Mass. It wasn't enough to disgrace Fr. Paul by banishing him from the diocese. It wasn't enough to disgrace Fr. Paul by blacklisting him to other bishops. 

No, now we have to go "Harlequin" on him and allege a homosexual love-affair and enhance the story with the building of a secret stairway, cases of beer, "cases" mind you, not just a six-pack, midnight rendezvous', and sexual orgies that lasted till the early hours of the morning! And all at a retreat for the clergy and coming from the mouth of the Archbishop to his priests and deacons!

At the end of this barely concealed porn-filled talk, the Archbishop is said to have asked his clergy to pray for Fr. Paul. If anything, the clergy now had a very serious reason, many reasons in fact, to pray for the Archbishop, as if they hadn't already. 

The big problem was that up till this point, the Archbishop's actions against Fr. Paul were pretty much church matters. But with the ugly things alleged at the retreat, he had now made allegations against a layman, a married man with two daughters, and a man not subject to the silencing and bullying power of the Archbishop. This would push the case into the civil sphere. But we'll come back to that. 

There were at least 30 members of the clergy at the retreat and word apparently quickly got back to Fr. Paul about what had transpired. Given the date of his letter to the Archbishop, 12/6/13, over a month later, it appears Fr. Paul gave the Archbishop's allegations some long hard thought before writing the letter which asked the Archbishop:
"Archbishop, your remarks have put me in a very bad light. I can only draw the worst of conclusions from your words “between the two of them.” Did you accuse me of a homosexual relationship with (name withheld)?"
"As you know, (name withheld) is married and that he and his wife have two daughters. Furthermore, did you accuse me of improperly using parish funds or resources to build a stairway to my room to further this relationship? As my predecessors and many parishioners can confirm, the stairway was there long before I was assigned to Santa Barbara."
Fr. Paul concluded his letter saying:
"Archbishop, perhaps these attacks are part and parcel of the “painful and arduous” experience you threatened that I would experience if I did not accede to your demand to resign, but it is my sincere prayer that you immediately set the records straight on this matter as these remarks are slanderous and defamatory. I would like both a retraction and an apology in writing."
As usual, the Archbishop said nothing. 

How dare this impudent priest confront me in this way and with my very own words! What doesn't he understand about obedience? He is nothing but a servile dog to me. Sit down and shut up. 

Of course those are my thoughts about the Archbishop's thoughts. But those thoughts are not hard to imagine given the Archbishop's actions of what we have all been witness to throughout these many months. 
  • Fr. Paul was treated like a dog when he was ruthlessly confronted with the demand to resign. 
  • He was treated like a dog when he returned from the meeting to find himself locked out of his office. 
  • He was treated like a dog when he was kicked to the curb and told to get out the rectory. 
  • He was treated like a dog when he was held up for public shame by being fired without an explanation.
  • He was treated like a dog when he was stripped of his faculties. 
  • He was treated like a dog when the Archbishop did not respond to the motion to reconsider his removal. 
  • And he was treated like a dog when he was mocked, made fun of, and accused of building secret staircases to enable midnight trysts with a homosexual lover. 

And for what? For WHAT is all this maliciousness? 

Some people are beginning to wonder, Archbishop, some people are wondering WHO it is that YOU are willing to risk your OWN priesthood for as well as this whole archdiocese! 

Go here for Part XIV


50 comments:

  1. worth noting:

    "The devil -- said part of the LaSalette secret (granted back in 1846) -- "will resort to all his evil tricks to introduce sinners into religious orders... The priests, by their wicked lives, by their irreverence and impiety in the celebration of the holy mysteries, by their love of money, honors, and pleasures, have become cesspools of impurity." "
    http://www.spiritdaily.com/europamuscoakita.htm

    Fifty years ago Italy’s most famous modern saint was being treated like a criminal
    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/06/12/fifty-years-ago-italys-most-famous-modern-saint-was-being-treated-like-a-criminal/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,

      Is it possible that the person(s) pulling the Archbishop's strings have something on him? Maybe even blackmail.

      Delete
    2. No. He is a willing participant.

      Delete
    3. Long believed certain priests have a certain knowledge of the archbishop. In exchange for their silence they were left alone.

      Delete
    4. Let the truth prevail.

      Delete
    5. One time I thought blackmail but after years of observation don't think so. A willing participant .

      Delete
    6. He would have known about the stairs if he had been doing his duty performing pastoral visits which are long overdue...
      Archbishop, you have lost the pulse of the people because you refuse to be among them, and instead go jetsetting with your NCW lackies...

      Delete
    7. of course. So everyone knows about the stairs. Dumb

      Delete
    8. What 5:01 means, 6:33 is that no construction can occur on church property without the Archbishop's consent because all church property belongs to the Archbishop. He would have had to okay the construction of a staircase. If it was built after 1984 when he became Archbishop, then he okayed its construction. Fr. Paul was ordained in 2004.

      Delete
  2. Archbishop what about your gay lover we kept silent for years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The above is an example of tons of such comments that I have not allowed to be posted. But go ahead, push my buttons.

      Delete
    2. well, ahem. I don't think the Archbishop's plans for seven more years are going to pan out; I really don't. We better start praying for good of Local Church of Agana. This will be quite a ride. Buckle Up. Meal trays up and back rests in the straight position. Throttle, flaps. Loose the brakes. This is sad for more than just Guam.

      Delete
    3. Say it's not true

      Delete
    4. get FREE attorney
      answers to your legal questions.......Careful, Tim. Diana has a LAWYER. www.lawguru.com

      Just thought you should know. Signed uneducated old lady as Diana call some of us.

      Delete
    5. Who's WE who kept such good silence? Hoping it is not the priests. WE, hmmm.

      Delete
    6. Don't think Archbishop has a special friend now. Unacceptable to lead the clergy to believe that fr. Paul had a special friend.

      Delete
    7. Basic problem of Guam is homosexuality in the church. Root cause even before the neo. Often think archbishop allowed neo in to cover up issues in the archdiocese. What ever, the local church needs a new leadership archbishop can no longer lead Guam sad reality. We can wait seven years until his end but it will be seven years of just wasted time of complaining about him. Nothing will happen with him around only greater problems why he remains.

      Delete
    8. Archdiocese needs an apostolic visitation. Problems so deep they cannot be resolved in the internal forum. Archdioce may well need outside help to clean up the internal problems in the chancery. Archbishop Apuron has lost trust confidence.

      Delete
    9. Thanks for keeping the unsubstantiated stuff out. I never realized the comments were that awful. I'm assuming there are other comments that are really out there but that is why Jungle Watch is reputable because there are facts.

      Delete
    10. 12:54 AM, I wouldn't worry about the Nuncio. Word is that he is inching his way over here. He is getting his team together! BTW this came from my contact in New Zealand!

      You folks better check....another leak in the Nuncio's office!

      Delete
    11. Once facts are communicated direct to the apostolic delegate facts will be given to Tim Rohr

      Delete
    12. Worrying comments which appear to support long time concerns in the archdiocese of Agana and the diocese of Chalan Kanoa.

      Delete
    13. Let the truth prevail.

      Delete
    14. No special friend right now? Too bad, Tony, I think you can bring your companion up to business class if you book together. What a waste of a good opportunity for free drinks.

      Delete
  3. 9.05 am very close. Daily this blog gets closer to truth.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gay had an affair slowly wake up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GAY had an affair? Or guy had an affair? Somebody is confused. Or drunk. Or something. Shoot.

      Delete
  5. Threats to archbishop were removed from Guam. Guys wake up look around its in your face. Those who discover the truth are removed at any cost. History of this going back 25 yrs.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Removed? Dead or Alive? Good thing we are ANON.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @5:56 pm. Really big accusation, there. Tim, is that you? Looking for page views? Page views, and more page views. Really, grow up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for another page view. Come on back.

      Delete
    2. Just a few away from 400,000 and it hasn't even been a year yet. Come on, lend a hand. My goal is 500k on the anniversary of the Archbishop's ambush of Fr. Paul.

      Delete
    3. I see a lot of Santa Rita on the traffic feed...must be the old man, Tim. Don't be proud of yourself. Thanks old man from Santa Rita.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJune 15, 2014 at 8:40 PM Your welcome, I can't stop laughing how Tim tripped. Ladies are ruffling his feathers. What a RIOT


      Old Man George- Retired Marine and proud Irish Catholic

      Delete
    5. Thanks for the page view Ivan.

      Delete
    6. Tim hahahaha. George is the name. Hahahaha. you've been serve. Trim that feminine beard of yours will yah. Oh by the way, my cousin from New Zealand wrote to me. The nuncio laugh about your claim and he said about the letter from Cardinal who wrote you years ago about something Knight of the Columbus and he started laughing hysterically. I have no clue why.

      Good Day. George

      Delete
    7. Hey, Ivan. Why do you think I post your comments?

      Delete
    8. You seem to be always laughing George! You must be practicing here in the jungle for your stand up comedian jokes! No one is laughing. You are a stale as the "Quackers" in my neighbors' yard.

      You should name yourself George Burns II! Maybe not, this would only do injustice to the man's name!

      Delete
    9. George, not true.

      Delete
    10. Anon 7:56pm. PTTP

      Delete
  8. Arcbishop needs help now. His leadership has become a problem .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Needs to be free of office to attend to legal problems. Don't drag whole Church, including NCW, with you, Tony.

      Delete
  9. To the apostolic delegate hold off on any episcopal appointments from Guam until the facts are known to you.Guam and the Mariana islands require an apostolic visitation .seriously a church in moral decay .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Archbishop has requested Auxiliary. Then he can spend more time with DA BRUTHAS. AND! He can finally travel. It is something he always wanted to do. Fr. Michael can cover 9:30 Mass, no problem.

      Delete
  10. 9.37am. Agree. Apostolic visitation is now called for. Problems are very serious the church has come to a stop, disunity is at all time high, morale clergy all time low, issues surround the archbishop that concern Catholics, and those who reported abuse to him he bullied and removed. Let the truth prevail.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Our bishop needs to reread this excerpt from a synod in which he had participated. Pope John Paul II stresses the community of priests, and the bishop as their father, not a boss:

    "Bishops are encouraged to make the priests feel that they are indeed co-workers with him in the Lord's vineyard. They should also encourage priests to minister to one another, in a spirit of brotherhood, in order to build a strong local diocesan clergy through mutual support and ongoing renewal".
    Given in Rome at Saint Peter's, 22 November 2001, the twenty-fourth of my Pontificate. JOANNES PAULUS PP. II
    POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION ECCLESIA IN OCEANIA OF HIS HOLINESS
    POPE JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS PRIESTS AND DEACONS MEN AND WOMEN
    IN THE CONSECRATED LIFE AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL ON JESUS CHRIST AND THE PEOPLES OF OCEANIA: WALKING HIS WAY, TELLING HIS TRUTH, LIVING HIS LIFE

    ReplyDelete
  12. For our bishop's review:
    "POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION PASTORES GREGIS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II ON THE BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST
    FOR THE HOPE OF THE WORLD" given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, on 16 October 2003, the twenty-fifth anniversary of my election to the Pontificate. JOHN PAUL II quotes a "...great Bishop of the ancient Church, Saint Hilary of Poitiers: ''The blessed Apostle Paul, wishing to describe the ideal Bishop and to form by his teachings a completely new man of the Church, explained what was, so to speak, his highest perfection. He stated that a Bishop must profess sure doctrine, in accordance with what has been taught, and thus be able to exhort others to sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it ... On the one hand, a minister of irreproachable life, if he is not learned, will only manage to help himself; on the other, a learned minister will lose the authority which comes from his learning, unless his life is irreproachable''.126

    ReplyDelete
  13. To 1:41 p.m. Your cousin from New Zealand. You claim the Nuncio laughed. Get Real! You have nothing to say but idious remarks. Another fat lie again. Stop playing in the Jungle.! Penny

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch