Thursday, July 24, 2014


NEW YORK TIMES: "The Archdiocese of San Francisco has settled 101 abuse cases and paid $68 million in settlements since 2003."

They aren't going to take kindly to Archbishop Apuron's assigning Fr. Wadeson to their diocese. Expect a call.


  1. As per Diana, in not so many words..You are just as guilty as the Archbishop, the rector, the vice-rector and all those who knew about Father Wadeson and didn't do anything to protect the innocent!

  2. As usual with anything regarding the NCW or the three stooges on the Hill: Deny, deny. Deflect with a lame issue and then when all else fails, accuse other parties of your own sins.
    What else is new Diana?
    So tiring to always see the same modus operandi.

  3. Those who protected Fr. wadeson shame.

    1. Didn't Tim say that Wadeson was innocent?

    2. I said I believe he's innocent till proven guilty. Many priests have been wrongly accused. And according to the LA report, several of the priests formerly on their list have cleared their name. Why Wadeson has not, I don't know.

      In any event, according to the Archdiocesan Directory HE WASN'T HERE. He was assigned to San Francisco. I think I've seen him 2 or 3 times in 10 years. He also, as far as I knew, had no "active ministry" in our archdiocese (since the seminary is considered separate from the archdiocese).

      The word "protected" does not qualify to enter into the conversation here because there was no one pressing charges against him, so there is nothing and no one to protect him from. That's why I say the issue is not Wadeson, but Apuron. The question we have is, since Wadeson's record is public information, why didn't Apuron clear the air about this a long time ago? It would have been easy. A simple statement saying we are aware that there are accusations against Fr. Wadeson but we believe him to be wrongly accused and therefore find no obstacle to incardinating him into our archdiocese. Easy.

      In fact, the Archbishop could have said this yesterday to the press instead of the slash, burn, blame b.s. we got, making both of them look all the more guilty. So maybe they are.

  4. Did Archie assign Wadeson to SFO? Or did he wander over there when he told PDNhe was leaving the country, albeit with a heavy heart?

    1. Janet B - MangilaoJuly 25, 2014 at 2:25 PM

      Sources close to the Vatican tell us that Fr John was incardinated in Guam and then sent almost immediately to evangelize the pagans in San Francisco. He is seen on Guam whenever there is a big event for the kikos, and travels often to wherever the Archbishop is to brown nose.
      As far as being a formator for the Seminary that is just a ruse, either to get more money for the seminary, or to keep those watching quiet.
      DIDN'T WORK!
      A few questions are now raised...
      1.) Since Fr John has been suspended, but not really suspended, will we, the people of Guam continue to support him financially?
      2.) How about the other neo priests who are on "mission" in Africa, Asia, Japan, Chicago, etc. Are we paying for them to minister overseas, or are the dioceses they are now working in paying for them?
      3.) Do the dioceses that these missionaries are in even know of their presence, or are they under the radar to all except the Neo elite?

      Many more questions, but these are the easiest to answer for our notorious group on the Hill.
      Oops, I forgot, they can't even verify if a certain priest belongs to us or not!
      Time for three resignations...that will help to rebuild the bridges they have thoroughly torched during their reign of terror.
      Adios three amigos.
      Vaya con whatever!

    2. Is the Archbishop on the island?

    3. Anonymous (July 25, 2014 at 4:20 PM), a Facebook post from a funeral held today indicates that the Archbishop was on island at least until the end of the Mass. Whether he flew off after that, I don't know … but he was here today.