Wednesday, July 23, 2014


So let's take a look at the "Statement from the Archdiocese of Agana Regarding Fr. John Wadeson" (July 22, 2014):
In response to concerns in the community regarding Father John Wadeson serving in the Archdiocese of Agana, the Archbishop has decided to remove Father Wadeson from active and public ministry at this time. 
I. "In response to concerns in the community". Obviously the Archbishop, as the chief shepherd, has no concerns himself. These are just "concerns in the community." This is an admission that the Archbishop would have never taken action on his own unless the "concerns in the community" had come to light, even though his own archdiocesan policy directs him to act, and even though, as he further states:
The Archdiocese of Agana has a policy regarding sexual misconduct and sexual harassment and takes these matters very seriously. 

II. "takes these matters very seriously." This is either a lie or a complete demonstration of incompetence. The first paragraph of the Statement just said that the removal of Wadeson was only "in response to concerns in the community", NOT because of any concern on the part of the Archbishop. So much for taking "these matters very seriously"!

Elsewhere, the Archbishop admits that he did NOT take these matters very seriously but only considered them "allegations:
"The allegations were made in 1990s and they were never substantiated. There was no settlement, the allegations just appeared," said Father Adrian. He further added that the Archdiocese of Agana “does not discriminate against false or true accusations.” - Pacific News Center
So how does the Archbishop get to have it both ways? His statement says that he takes matters of sexual misconduct "very seriously", and within minutes he* says he "does not discriminate against false or true accusations." HUH! (* Every official statement from the chancery, regardless of who delivers it, is a statement from Archbishop Apuron.) 

Well, he gets to have it both ways because he is the Archbishop and he is counting on the "silence of the lambs." He is counting on no one to hold him to account. He is counting on this all going away in a few days and us going back to our "cooking" (see Fr. Francesco's accusation that we spend too much on food and too much time "cooking".) 

III. "never substantiated."  If these allegations against Fr. Wadeson "were never substantiated", and that fact was good enough for Archbishop Apuron to incardinate him into this archdiocese and assign him to the seminary as a formator - a critical position in the formation of priests, then WHY is Archbishop Apuron now THROWING WADESON UNDER THE BUS? 

He should be defending Wadeson. He should be making the case that the charges "were never substantiated" and that he has personally deemed Wadeson to be innocent and in good standing. But Apuron is NOT doing this. Apuron is throwing Wadeson under the bus. 

And why is he doing this? Because he thinks that what we are after is Wadeson. And that by throwing him to the mob, we'll leave him alone. WRONG! Apuron's throwing Wadeson to the mob is an admission by Apuron that he knows the allegations against Wadeson are credible and indefensible. So he dumps Wadeson and scurries back up the hill. 

Let this episode be a lesson to all you who seek shelter under Apuron's episcopal robe. Every last one of you will be fed to the mob before he takes a single ounce of personal responsibility. Run for the hills. (or back to your country) NOW!

IV.  "removed from active and public ministry at this time." Wadeson does NOT participate in "active and public ministry at this time" in the Archdiocese of Agana. He lives and "works" (?) at a Neocatechumenal Center in San Francisco. 


And there is probably a seriously good chance that the Archbishop of San Francisco, given the clandestine operations of the Neocatechumenal Way, does not even know he's there...YET! Note to Archbishop Apuron. Expect a call from Archbishop Cordileone. (P.S. His name means "the heart of a lion" :)

Amazingly, Wadeson, even though he lives in San Francisco, is assigned to the local
Guam seminary as a "formator". What is a formator? Here is a description from a major seminary (a real one):
Part of the role of the seminary formators in the community building is their quality presence in the seminary and community activities. Presence and participation in the seminary activities provide powerful images of role models and of personality integration. The seminarians must perceive and feel that the seminary formators are their co-journeyers and partners....there is no substitute to the establishment of a healthy and harmonious relationship between the formators and the seminarians.
Now how does a priest who lives in San Francisco:
  • offer a "quality presence" to seminarians,
  • provide a "powerful image of a role model",
  • be a "co-journeyer and partner",
  • and establish a healthy and harmonious relationship" 

when those seminarians live in Guam?

Answer: HE DOESN'T. His assignment at the seminary qualifies him for a paycheck (courtesy of the people of Guam) so he can go off and spread the gospel of Kiko in those far-distant, un-christianized lands such as the Archdiocese of San Francisco. And he is only one of several who, via Archbishop Apuron, suck off the people of Guam under the guise of a seminary position, and use our money while dismantling our church from within. I'll come back to the others. 

Meanwhile, how long will the lambs stay silent?


  1. They'll stay silent for awhile, it's been a year and I still see the same names. where are the new ones?

  2. I've noticed there have been a handful of people who, while posting as "Anonymous," actually put a name at the end of the comment. It would help if they would just type in their name in the drop-down option that reads "Name/URL" instead of scrolling all the way to "Anonymous." But as someone who has been targeted on a couple of occasions by name in "Diana's" blog, another possibility could be they're hoping that the Three on the Hill and/or the Kikos/Kikobots will overlook their names and focus only on "Anonymous."

    In the meantime I will continue to add my 2¢ to the discussion.

  3. Janet B - MangilaoJuly 23, 2014 at 12:56 PM

    Those poor three dudes up on the hill just cannot seem to get anything right. I agree with Tim that the press release was shocking to me. Obviously, they need to get a real person with integrity to start writing for them. Their lies are too transparent, and they cannot explain away an error with glossy words.
    The release should have said:
    Fr John faculties removed
    San Francisco to be notified of this decision
    Archbishop takes blame for this grievous error in judgement
    If any on Guam have any info on any wrongful actions by Fr John please report them to the Archdiocese or the Government immediately
    If any are aware of any wrongful actions by any priest or Church employee/voluntary please report
    An independent board will be looking at details surrounding Fr John's incardination to take all necessary steps to discipline those who put the people of Guam at risk

    Too bad the Director of Communications, Monsignor Bibi Arroyo has been silenced during this whole incident. Maybe he refused to lie!

  4. In addition to what you have stated, what happened to the archdiocesan policy on priests that are accused of sexual abuse? oh, I forgot, doesn't apply to the kikobots, they answer to a higher power.


  6. Wow r u serious tony apron I think you are so confuse and contradicting on this issue first u say u take this serious and then you say u didn't as a bishop u should be ashamed of yourself apron practice what you preach u r not fit to be call archbishop and you celebrate mass and read the gospel according to his word ( our lord Jesus Christ ) or according to your word....believe me the truth will come out you have put shame in our island and to the people of Guam......your sad and your not above the law .....lastima your chamorro spare me

  7. You say that his removal means nothing, but to him it means a lot. Now you publicly say that he's innocent. That's too bad because you were the one who destroyed him, not the archbishop. Your followers were calling the archbishop to take out Wadeson, and you encouraged them. The archbishop did what you encouraged your followers to do.

    1. Show me where I encouraged anyone to insist on Wadeson's removal. I am not interested in Wadeson's removal. Only Apuron's. Got it?

    2. And he hasn't been removed from anything. He was not in active ministry here. Now let's see what Cordileone does.

    3. 1:25am: are you saying that Fr. Wadeson should not have been removed? ... his crime should not have been revealed? ... are you defending and sympathizing with an adult predator -- a priest predator, at that?!! ... never mind the minor/child victims? ... but poor "destroyed" Fr. Wadeson?

      Are you also insinuating that Tim (or anyone for that matter, who would have revealed Fr. W's history) should be ashamed for being instrumental in bringing this information out in the open!? ... and are you insinuating that it was good of the Archbishop to have kept silent and have kept this information in "the closet"?

      We pray for the minds and hearts of these kikos!