Wednesday, July 16, 2014

I DIDN'T PLAN IT THIS WAY, BUT...

The post about Fr. Wadeson was precipitated by his July 15 email condemning the release of information from the clergy meeting this past Monday with Archbishop Krebs. If not for that email, nothing here would have been said of Fr. Wadeson or his sex abuse record. 

How coincidental (?) that Fr. Wadeson and his record, and by extension, Archbishop Apuron's harboring of a person with said record, be made known ONE YEAR LATER TO THE DAY (July 16) of Archbishop Apuron's accusation of Fr. Paul for harboring a person who was allegedly "a danger to children" - an accusation that has turned out to be grossly untrue, but could be VERY TRUE about Archbishop Apuron.

What better way of commemorating the "Gofigan Ambush" than for that ambush to ricochet right back to the chancery on the very date of the original ambush while we surge past a half million views. God is not sleeping. 

35 comments:

  1. Those were my thoughts as I read "Signed: Sick of It" this morning. Like other dates (22 November 1963, for one), 16 July 2013 is one that has been burned into my memory. I was just reading the Archbishop's letter and was preparing a reflection on the timing of this latest development. Thanks for the reminder that "God is not sleeping!"

    ReplyDelete
  2. In true TimStyle, you planned this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. I provoked Wadeson to send out that email. Too funny. But thanks for giving me the credit. I'll take it. Meanwhile, what are you going to do about a priest with a sex offender record under the protection of Apuron?

      Delete
    2. @ 11:58 Tim is so powerful, he made you comment.

      Delete
  3. Janet B - MangilaoJuly 16, 2014 at 11:59 AM

    Dear Archbishop Anthony:
    On behalf of many faithful Catholics on Guam, I would like to extend to you a cordial and loving HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!
    Today is the one year anniversary of when you decided to take firm action against a priest you accused of harboring a danger to the community. Although you forgot a few procedures required by Canon law, you were certainly successful in getting Fr Paul out of Santa Barbara.
    My grandmother used to always say not to burn your bridges, but it seems that you have a track record of absolutely torching everything and everyone who stands in your way of making the kikos the only Church on Guam.
    Well, I'll let you get back to your pizza party and ice cream with the boys from the seminary, but I just wanted you to know we remember you on this special anniversary day and we thank you for waking the sleeping giant.
    And remember that ancient saying that still holds true even today...would goes around comes around.
    Happy Anniversary and pizza be with you!
    P.S. - I know of someone else who resides at San Ramon Hill who may be harboring a potentially dangerous man. Let me know if you would like to talk?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tim, there are no coincidences in life. Things happen for a purpose, and the purpose here? Hmmm...I have to think that when someone (like the archbishop) shuts the door on you, God opens a window. The House of God must be cleaned, and we have to start from the top. Apuron must resigned. There is no excuse for incardinating a man so quickly, without notice, and without a background check. This is pure and unadulterated negligence. Apuron must resign or be fired in order for the healing to begin. There are no other options. If Apuron truly has the Church's interest and her faithful at heart, he wouild resign and beg for forgiveness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Outwit- and you are?????? GOD?

      Delete
    2. 1:14. It's "Outraged".

      Delete
  5. Outraged. Archbishop has abused his trust. He Knew about wadeson's past . Allowed him near children.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There's a difference between the two. The man whom Father Gogifan helped was convicted and sentenced to jail. The man whom the archbishop helped was not convicted and sentence to jail. The website you provided said, "The Database of Publicly Accused Priests does not state or imply that individuals facing allegations are guilty of a crime or liable for civil claims. The reports contained in the database are merely allegations.The U.S. legal system presumes that a person accused of or charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty."

    A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which is exactly as I have stated. The issue here is not his record but why he was incardinated lickety split without a background check and without consultation with the presbyteral council. And more, why is he incardinated here but never here. And who is paying for his stipend, insurance, etc.

      Delete
    2. Of course the more you talk about Wadeson the more times his name gets posted and the more times it has the potential in surfacing in a search engine.

      Sure innocent until proven guilty. Just like Apuron treated Gofigan. BTW, the L.A. diocese doesn't believe in innocent till proven guilty, do they? They didn't wait around for a conviction. He's banned.

      Delete
    3. One probable reason why Wadeson was banned from LA was that because there was credible reason against him. The Church does not need to meet the standard of a criminal conviction to take action. All it needs is some kind of credible evidence. This is why OJ Simpson, while found not guilty in a criminal court, was still held liable in a civil court for negligent homicide. Wadeson should have never been incardinated here in Guam in the first place. A cursory background check would have raised a lot of red flags to give us pause. Instead, the archbishop incardinated him without even a cursory check. And guess what? We are stuck with him. We just can't just fire him. He need to find a BENOVOLENT BISHOP if he is move elsewhere. Oh wait, my bad. He has already in Archbishop Apuron!.

      Delete
    4. 12.40pm. Concern is if the victims decide to sue they will go after wadesons place of incardination. Issue is in La but they removed him. aaa invited him to Guam, incardinated him without evaluating his past. This is the problem. Aaa is responsible for him. Payments if ever enforced by law will come from Guam. Hope you see the major concerns.

      Delete
  7. Glad to be Back to Holy Mother ChurchJuly 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM

    When I was walking, one of the things I always appreciated was the fact that members brought their children to the celebrations,
    And now I see that the Archbishop was harboring a priest who was kicked out of Los Angeles for sex abuse allegations and welcomed him with open arms here in Guam. Did he ever consider the risk that he put the youth of our Archdiocese under? Childern of my community members were at risk and were never advised of it. This is unconscionable Archbishop.
    So this has been exposed and one may innocently now believe that when Fr John is removed from ministry all will be well.
    But that is wrong, absolutely naive. Because if the Archbishop will allow this man in without any background check, and we see this result, a logical man must ask if others have been admitted to Guam that may pose a similar threat to our youth.
    What kind of background check is done on all the many seminarians who come to Guam? My understanding is that they all line up at Porto San Georgio in Italy and Kiko selects 400 men to go off to the RMS seminaries. And then these men are assigned to a seminary location. Then they magically arrive in Guam and are accepted into our Neo communities, and our island community.
    Are any of them sex offenders? Are any of them fugitives from the law? Are any of them convicted felons? We simply do not know because no background check is done.
    This is a most frightening situation! Plus there is no psychological evaluation done so we see there is also a risk of having priests who are significantly prone to mental illness. I think Fr Edwin Bushu is one of those who appear to be mentally imbalanced. But I am no expert, neither is the Archbishop, the Vicar General, Giuseppi, or Kiko himself. That is why smart leaders follow the requirement of a professional psychological examination.
    Archbishop Anthony, you have potentially put many many people at risk. We demand that you either:
    1.) verify that all seminarians have been thoroughly screened and had their backgrounds checked, or
    2.) have these checks done by a professional group with experience in this area.
    Additionally, we demand that you also verify that professional psychological examinations have been conducted on all members of the clergy and on all seminarians, and if not that they be given these critical examinations within the next 30 days.

    If anyone should refuse to submit to either the background check or psychological exam, then they should have their faculties suspended immediately in order to safeguard our community.

    Not only is the safety of our children at risk, but the health of our Church is in grave peril until you can absolutely verify these two requirements. I pray you will agree with me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, we have no reason to say that the victims of the alleged abuse were children. And we don't know the gender of the alleged victims either. Just that there were two credible accusations.

      Delete
    2. Follow the links to the L.A. Times Database where the information originated. It says:

      This database contains records for 247 priests within the Los Angeles Archdiocese who have been accused of child molestation dating back decades. It contains their past assignments and the locations of the alleged abuse. The information was gleaned from civil lawsuits and records publicly released by Cardinal Roger M. Mahony after they were provided to plaintiffs' counsel in mediation. The Times also relied on the Official Catholic Directory, an annual listing of U.S. clerics and their assignments. You can use the search function to find a particular priest or parish or click on browse to see the complete list. http://www.latimesinteractive.com/priests/

      Delete
  8. 12.39pm excellent statement.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Janet B - MangilaoJuly 16, 2014 at 12:51 PM

    I am only guessing here, but I did look at the LA site that says Fr John has no faculties in LA, and they list him as a priest from Guam. Is it possible that Fr John was on a side trip from San Francisco, and went down to LA to evangelize the Neo way? And when he was there someone found out it was THAT guy, and then posted the notice we see from St Dorothy? It seems what they are saying is that even though he was never convicted of a crime, the Archdiocese of LA wants absolutely nothing to do with Fr John Wadeson. So they post a public notice warning people about THAT guy.
    That should tell us a lot. If he was exhonerated of all accusations it is hard to believe they would still post that kind of notice.
    I'm not saying he's guilty, because only the courts can do that. But LA learned the hard way not to mess with potential abusers.
    Only question remaining is when will we learn, or will it have to cost us $6 Billion, loss of parishes and schools before we learn?
    Archbishop, I'm sorry to say it, but I think the time for you to step down has now come.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rumor has a friend in San Francisco saw Joelle at the United ticket office picking up tickets for an upcoming flight. I wonder where SNAP is sending her?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2.07pm. Do not know about air ticket story. For sure Joelle has read Tim's post.

      Delete
    2. Arriving tomorrow night.

      Delete
  11. Archbishop Apuron. resign.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NO I won't .

      Delete
    2. ANON 2:54 PM is obviously not Apuron, but just a jerk fooling around.

      Delete
    3. ...actually he would have said "NEVERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!"

      Delete
  12. This newest development of a priest incardinated on Guam with a suspicious past of being a possible sexual offender is NEWS that needs to be made pubic. There is more than sufficient credible information that would warrant a local investigation and the local media should be concerned about this. Here we have a cleric who has been covertly incardinated as a priest on Guam and very little is known about him. In fact, if I haven't been reading the Jungle Watch blog, I would have never known anything about this Fr. Wadeson and the fact that he is fully financially supported by the Archdiocese of Guam and he is hardly on Guam? The fact that this priest, Fr. Wadeson, has been designated as having "no faculties to minister" and "no permission to exercise the priestly office," in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles clearly means that he has been determined as not fit to function as a priest. However, because he has been incardinated on Guam, his apparent priestly faculties have been restored. Does this mean that Guam has nothing to worry about and that his suspicious past should be ignored. I don't think so. Being on the Archdiocese of Los Angeles' database of unsuitable priests is tantamount to being on a sex offender registry. If it didn't mean anything, why is it a published list for the public community to review. Archbishop Apuron has to be answerable for this and is modus operandus of remaining silent isn't going to cut it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ANON 12:39 is right. When I was walking in the Neo, I heard the public confessions(sharing is what they call it) of several seminarians and I have to say, some of them sounded like sexual perverts. I know that some of them were sent back home because they were obviously "not all there". The big question is: how about those that were not so obvious and managed to become priests in our archdiocese and in other dioceses?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Archbishop Krebs told us we must solve our own problems. We must follow pope Francis and make a mess in the archdiocese to bring change. Pope told us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heck, we don't need to make a mess, the Archbishop has done a perfectly fine job of that all by himself!

      Delete
  15. A year ago today, an injustice was done to a Guam priest. A year ago today, an injustice was done on a person who had served his sentence and was welcomed by this Guam priest just like what the Bible teaches in the Prodigal Son. (It is so ironic that this person was already forgiven by society and yet our "compassionate" church cannot forgive him). A year ago today, an injustice was done to this person' wife. A year ago today, an injustice was done to this person's two children. I may not be able to undo the injustice done. But I can surely stand against the injustice. In due time, this little timie will not be timid.

    ReplyDelete
  16. LOL. Tony, what goes around comes around.
    Have a nice pizza

    ReplyDelete
  17. how does the AAA account for $6600.00 in other clergy support

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He doesn't. But an audit would. Thus the silence.

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch