Friday, September 5, 2014

FROM JANET B, WITH LOVE.

I normally wouldn't make a post of a comment by Janet B. She's way too edgy and uses surly nicknames that I'm not quite ready to use. But she makes a good point in this comment. If Archbishop Apuron did not see to the health care coverage for Fr. Efren, then as his Ordinary, he would still be responsible for his medical bills. Looks like he'll be sending a check to Fr. Matthew Blockley. 



  1. Janet B - MangilaoSeptember 5, 2014 at 6:25 PM
    After much prayer this afternoon about how the Archbishop completely abandoned Fr Efren, a few questions came to mind. Oh how I wish I had the answers, but my heart tells me the answers are already known. Here are some questions:
    Deacon Dominic Kim said the reason why Fr Efren could not be covered was because he was off-island.
    If that is true, how about Fr Miguel studying in Rome, is he without medical coverage?
    How about Fr Egivaldo when he was studying in Rome, was he also without coverage?
    How about Fr John Wadeson when he was ministering in San Francisco, was he without coverage?
    How about Fr Adrian when he was in Denver, was he without coverage?
    How about Fr Fabio and Fr Aurelius now assigned to China, are they without coverage?
    How about Fr Santiago now assigned to Japan, is he without coverage?
    How about Fr Edwin now assigned to Kenya, is he without coverage?
    How about Fr Jason now assigned to Saipan, is he without coverage?

    Oops, these are all neo priests, of course they are well taken care of.

    Another question: if the reason is that Fr Efren was off-island and couldn't be covered, how was Monsignor James able to get him covered after just a single call?

    Last question. Since Tony Baloney is "father" to all his priests, with or without coverage, isn't he responsible for their medical expenses? Therefore, since medical insurance was the Arch-villian's choice to have or have not, isn't he legally responsible for the medical expenses of any priest? It only seems logical to me that he is responsible. Maybe our crack canon lawyer, David the JCD can answer this very important question. Oops, first he is not so bright, second he can only defend the boss, so we will never get a straight answer.

    I think Fr Efren should get a lawyer to push for immediate reimbursement of any and all expenses not covered by insurance. Just one more case for Rome to see how messed up things are on Guam. I'm sure at some point they will have to notice.

    Is Deacon Dominic also kiko? Must be.

9 comments:

  1. You can get health insurance for college kids studying off-island.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Probably just desperate to keep his well-paying job.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Deacon Steve MartinezSeptember 5, 2014 at 10:16 PM

    Thank you Janet for bringing these questions to the fore. I believe you are correct in your assessment that if Fr. Efren had no insurance then the Archbishop is responsible for his care, no matter the circumstance, no matter the amount.

    I am aware of a similar situation. A priest from Guam had an enormous medical bill, which exceeded the coverage limit of the Archdiocese of Agana's health policy for him. Msgr David stated that if it is established that this priest was indeed incardinated here then the Archdiocese would be responsible for the excess billing not covered by the insurance company. However, the Archbishop may not be aware of the specifics as I believe this issue arose during the time he was off-island for his own medical issues. I am sure Msgr David remembers the situation. Perhaps Msgr David could look at Fr. Efren's situation and verify that the same responsibility also applies in his case.
    It would certainly seem like the right thing to do. If not, then a simple explanation from the Archbishop or Msgr David could explain why not. Based on the number of comments to the original post, it appears to be an issue that many people are concerned with. Understanding is important in order to put this issue to rest.
    Let us pray that we will be able to clear this issue quickly from the list of items that seem to be hurting our Church. And let us also give thanks to God that Fr Efren was returned to health and is now serving our Church and our young men at FD.
    Deacon Steve Martinez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Archbishop, your silence is DEAFENING!!!!!

      Delete
    2. Yes, the silence is deafening; but the smug attitude that the truth will come out makes me nervous. What the heck is he up to. Seems to think he is "WINNING". SMUG. I don't like the smell of it. There's something to it. He better be able to throw a cloak of TRUTH over all of this soon because he is losing the faithful one by one and YES, making people physically ILL and ruining LIVES.

      Delete
    3. What we can be sure of is what WON'T come out: the finances re RMS and the Chancery.

      Delete

  4. Oh dear sending a check to Fr. Matthew Blockley is the last thing on the mind of Archbishop Apuron. The very name of Fr. Matthew Blockley raises his BP.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Question? Wasn't father efrin in the military? Did he retire from the airforce or was he honorably discharged? If he retired then doesn't the military still give him benefits? But if he was honorably discharged for serving his contacted time then that is a different story. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fr. Efren Adversario was HONORABLY DISCHARGED. He did not retire and thus has no retirement benefits including medical coverage. At the moment he was discharged, the responsibility for his material care including his health care became the responsibility of his Ordinary, Archbishop Apuron, a responsibility that Archbishop Apuron defaulted on.

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch