Friday, October 17, 2014

AND IN THE DIOCESE OF DULUTH

I posted this in a comment but will note it again here to make it more prominent. There is nothing much to be made of the recent revelation from the Diocese of Duluth about Fr. Louis Brouillard. Fr. Louis is now in his 90's and no longer a danger to anyone. The revelation is only useful in light of Archbishop Apuron's public smearing of Msgr. James's alleged faulty accounting practices. If accounting for every penny applies to Msgr. James then we demand the same from Archbishop Apuron. Did the Archdiocese of Agana financially support Fr. Louis and if so, how much? We aren't critical of the support because if in fact he is still a priest of the Archdiocese of Agana, then he is due that support. Of course there is the other issue of selective support of priests, but we'll get to that another time. 

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "DON'T BE SUCKERED AGAIN": 

Don't remember where the post is, so I will not even bother to find it. Now just sitting here trying to sort things out where MONEY is a concern.

Question is... Father Louis and Father John Wadeson are still listed I am assuming as part of the Diocesan Priest of the Archdiocese of Agana. So, XXXXX amount of money is still being sent to Father Louis? Will XXXX amount of dollars still be sent to Father John Wadeson?

If both priests are still incardinated with the Archdiocese of Agana, as I am assuming they are, then the Archdiocese is still responsible for their expenses? Hello...answers anyone! 

*****

Yes, Fr. Louis is still "a priest of Agana" and thus must still receive XXXX number of dollars. Sadly, it looks like he continued his harmful ways after he was sent away from Guam. Note, it's sad that this priest's name has come up again after all these years, but Archbishop Apuron had no problem persecuting Mr. Lastimoza after just as many years. In fact, while Mr. Lastimoza was sent to prison in 1981, Fr. Louis was sent to Minnesota scot free with a pension in the same year. Now both men's names are pushed back into the public in the same exact year: 2013. Except one paid a price for his crimes, and the other, well, well we've been paying.

Duluth Diocese names 17 ex-priests credibly accused of abuse

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/12/31/news/duluth-diocese-priest-list


http://www.andersonadvocates.com/PriestList/102/Father-Louis-Brouillard.aspx

FATHER LOUIS BROUILLARD

Father Louis Brouillard, DOB 07/27/21, served in the Diocese of Duluth. He was ordained in 1948. According to the Diocese of Duluth, Father Brouillard has been credibly accused of child sexual abuse. The Diocese of Duluth has included Father Brouillard on its official list of clergy members who have been credibly accused of child sexual abuse.

According to the Diocese of Duluth, the following summarizes the Diocese of Duluth locations at which Father Brouillard served, as well as his status:

Cleric’s prior assignments in diocese:

Temporary Administrator: St. Joseph, Beroun - 7/27/1981 – 7/11/1984

Pastor: St. Mary, Kewatin - 7/11/1984 – 11/12/1985

Pastor: St. Anne, Kelly Lake - 7/11/1984 – 11/12/1985

Diocese or religious order: Priest of the Diocese of Agana, Guam

Date removed from ministry: 11/12/1985

Current location: Pine City, MN

Current status: Not in ministry, Faculties revoked.

30 comments:

  1. Thank you for answering. Now I guess we need to keep track to see whether XXXX of $$$$ is being sent to somewhere else. Where does this XXXX of $$$ come out of for Father Louis? Where in the Archdiocesan financial report does this fall under?

    ReplyDelete
  2. When was Father Luis here, what was he doing here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. many may have forgotten, but Father Louis use to walk with the Boy/Cub Scouts during the Liberation Day Parade. I believe that he was stationed at Barrigada at one time also.

      Delete

  3. Omg Mr. Mills what have you begun?

    how much as archbishop Apuron been paying . Fr. Louis is 90 years old . Jeff Anderson has been following Guam and yes we are aware.

    ReplyDelete

  4. Why did Fr. Louis leave Guam? Why did Fr. Louis abuse in Deluth? archdiocese of agana knowingly send a troubled priest to the mainland ? We need answers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In 1985 this was ordinary way to handle problems. Nothing out of the ordinary with this story AT ALL. Unfortunately, very unfortunately.

      Delete
    2. Sadder, still, this kind of problem-handling continues even now. Today, deviants go to Qatar and not Minnesota. Everybody loses...

      Delete

  5. Where was Louis assigned. 1985 Was Flores still with us then? Who ever was bishop not important. greater importance have we been paying Fr. Louis since 1985. This could amount to thousands of USD. We have a right to know.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, the Fr. Louis story doesn't have much relevance. He was sent away from Guam in 1981 by then Archbishop Flores, apparently for the same reason he shows up on this report from Duluth. The only reason it is relevant now is because Duluth just recently released this report and shows him still listed as a priest of this diocese which means he is probably being supported, and has been supported by this diocese.

    There's nothing wrong with that and it's actually our diocese's responsibility to do so. However, given how Fr. Efren was treated by this diocese after he separated from the military (left to fend for himself and told to go beg parishes for Mass stipends), the decades-long support of an alleged child molester strikes quite a contrast. Also, since Apuron wants to dissect and crucify Msgr. James in public over every little penny, then we are going to demand the same from Apuron. Show us the money, and more importantly: SHOW US WHO IS GETTING IT.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There is also the issue of Mr. Mills. I was aware of the reasons Fr. Louis was sent away more than a year ago, and also aware that he had been financially supported these last three decades by "other clergy support" as shown on the Appeal. I wasn't aware about his continued alleged molestation of children in Duluth until SNAP brought to my attention several weeks ago. Still I did nothing with it, and even told SNAP that it wasn't worth doing much with. However, Mr. Mills has helped me to change my thinking a bit. Adrian, you might want to give him a call. You still have his number, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ya, Adrian, get on it. Or are you busy? Or SOMETHING.

      Delete

  8. I agree with the Rock Tim Rohr. We don't care hell about Fr. Louis. But what this case does show is the injustice of Archbishop Apuron. Apuron may well have paid thousands of USD to Fr. Louis. In same way Apuron pays thousands to rms priests. yet his own Diocesand priests he cannot find a mass intention to help or health coverage. In other words Apuron will only help a priest who is a neo, or a priest like Fr. Louis with a history. I guess Tim, the word is two faced. archbishop Apuron is clearly out to destroy diocesan priesthood of Guam.

    ReplyDelete

  9. Oh mr mills, you have begun a Christmas of discontent.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Do u have any evidence showing that money was sent to this priest or this just speculation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it is fact. other clergy support is him. add to that Fr jphn and the itinerants, and you see the duplicity of our leader

      Delete
    2. It is not speculation. Ask the current and any former finance officers of the archdiocese. A check is cut every month.

      Delete
    3. 10.23am yes believe this true.

      Delete

  11. Would be of interest to learn exactly the coatings for the upkeep of Fr. Louis on the mainland.fr. Louis was removed in 1985. That is twenty nine years ago. just say Fr. Louis was given $12,000 Usd a year. I suspect more. But 12,000 Usd a year for twenty nine years creates $348,000 USD.
    According to sources he is now sickly requires more help costing Guam greater Money. Possible half a million Usd have been pumped into Fr. Louis with a history. Archbishop Apuron do you see the problem?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Father Louis Brouillard is still incardinated in Agana, but his faculties were removed in the Duluth diocese in 1985, he lives a quiet retirement at about 93 years old in Pine City MN which is located in the northen part of mid state along Highway 35.
    He apparently also had a drinking problem and was a regular figure of the AA for priests in MN for several years, until travelling became too difficult.
    The relevant question is: why Agana still have him on the payroll? Is this his price for silence?
    Another skeleton in a very large closet.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Fr. Louis is still relevant. Because he belongs to this archdiocese and we continue to pay him a stipend. Archbishop Apuron has a continuing obligation to keep other dioceses informed of Fr. Louis sexual crimes. When SNAP came out in 2010, why didn't Apuron do something about Fr. Louis' status then? He didn't. Now Fr. Louis has committed sexual crimes in Minnesota. This is what happens when we bury our heads in the sand, as Apuron has done all these years. Those victims in Minnesota have a case against this archdiocese. Now, where is Father John?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I remember Fr. Louis as a child growing up in the parish of Mangilao in the late 60's through early 70's (as most of the elderly parishioners and their children know). My brothers were altar servers for him and I believe most of the sons of Mangilao were also altar servers for Fr. Louis. I moved away and always wondered where he went and what happened to him. Now, the parish community of Mangilao today know just where Fr. Louis is. I guess, someone is trying to keep Fr. Louis out of the limelight but the truth is now revealed that this archdiocese has kept Fr. Louis on the payroll to live out his life.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I also remember Fr. Louis as a boy growing up in Mangilao. Fr,. Louis was the parish priest for Mangiao for a good number of years and was very involved in the Boys Scouts. I even remember him wearing a Boys Scout uniform as an adult leader. I also remember him having a lot of alter boys spend time at the rectory where he lived and even had a number of them spent overnight. I was always suspicious of why he would frequently have young boys with him and now that suspicion makes sense given that he has been identifed as a credible sexual abuser. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a good number of boys who would now be in their 50's, who were victims of his sexual abuse, Back then, it would be unheard of to disclose being sexually abused by a priest as these boys would not be believed and, therefore, they kept it a secret all of their lives. If they told their parents, they would be told not to say anything and just pulled away and not having anything further to do with Fr. Louis. It's also not surprising that nothing was done by the Archdiocese whle he was on Guam and that he was just allowed to leave Guam and "be forgotten." Unfortunately, he was not forgotten and now it has publicly come out that he probably molested young boys on Guam. I thought that he had probably passed away and that would be the end of it. However, now I learn that he is 93 years-old and pretty much in a retirement home where he will live out the rest of his life. What really can be done? The Church back in the 60's and 70's had no established protocol on how to deal with child sexual abuse and it has only been in the last 15 to 25 years that child abuse in all forms has come to national attention with annual public awareness campaigns devoted to directly address it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @3:05pm.. Like I had posted before, I remember him marching in the Liberation Day Parade with the scouts. These men should be in their early 60s and older. Age 11 to be a Boy Scout and I was a wee bit younger than them.

      I doubt very much that these men will come forward if sexual a use really happened to them. Some may have gone to their eternale rest. Others maybe in the NCW. Their are those who are too ashamed to come out at this point in their lives.

      Delete

    2. Yes, 5.44pm. I believe you are right. some victims have already gone to their eternal reward. Fr. Louis continues to live at the expense of the Archdiocese. In moral conscience the archdiocese does have a responsibility to Fr. Louis as he is an Incardinated priest into Agana. No one with a conscience would want to stop this to even an old drunk who hurt so many. However, Guam has a right to know exactly how much money Archbishop Apuron has forwarded to Fr. Louis. People have a right to know how he spends money of the people. Not his personal money, it is money of the church.

      Delete

  16. 3.05pm. Should you have any specific Knowledge please contact SNAP.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anyone who is a victim of child abuse on Guam must immediately report to SNAP California that has the responsibility for Guam. second step is to inform law enforcement. Do not inform Archbishop Apuron.. Any victim needing immediate help on Guam will be assisted through SNAP.

    ReplyDelete

  18. Even 93 year old must be held responsible. Someone on Guam around 50 plus may well have spent 30 years suffering from the horrible action of abuse by a Guam Priest. We need to encourage the victims to immediately Call SNAP so the healing can begin.

    ReplyDelete

  19. Very alarming post 3.05pm.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well just got curious an came across this website stating that Father John Wadeson owns a home in the Excelsior District in San Fran. If this were true, is the Archdiocese paying for this also? If true, did he inherit the home? Did he buy the home? If so, where did the money come from? I thought these RMS presbyters couldn't own anything.

    Priest Twice-Accused Of Child Molestation Was Permitted To ... - SFist
    sfist.com/2014/07/25/priest_twice-accused_of_child_moles.php
    Jul 25, 2014 - Father John Wadeson, second from right (Umatuna.org). The Archdiocese of San ... Lennon says Wadeson has a home in the Excelsior District.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Maybe should ask the lawmakers to go after war atrocities too! Japanese soldiers who raped, murdered while their stay on Guam. They still visit Guam and they have no remorse of what they have done to the people of Guam. Some just laugh how easy it was for them to have their way with us.

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch