Monday, October 27, 2014

DEACON LARRY'S NEW JOB

On Friday, October 24, 2014, Deacon Steve Martinez was removed by Archbishop Apuron as the Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator (SARC) for the Archdiocese of Agana and replaced by Deacon Larry Claros. Deacon Martinez had some unfinished business that we hope Deacon Claros will now complete, and promptly. 

In  July of 2014, Deacon Martinez had reminded Archbishop Apuron that the Archdiocesan Policy on Sexual Misconduct requires the Archbishop to "promptly" notify the Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator of any allegation of sexual misconduct. (Sec. IV.A.2.b.)

Deacon Martinez advised Archbishop Apuron that in the case of Fr. John Wadeson, it had recently been reported in the news that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had contacted "Guam church officials about the sexual abuse accusations against Father John Wadeson in 2011", and that as the Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator he was to be contacted "promptly". However, three years later, he had yet to be "contacted" by Archbishop Apuron.


The following month, Deacon Martinez again advised Archbishop Apuron that he STILL had not been contacted as per the allegations against Fr. Wadeson as required by the Archdiocesan policy. He also raised the issue of background checks as required by Section III.C. of the Abuse Policy:
...the selection of candidates for the Archdiocese, as well as of employees and volunteers, will include background checks and other standard means of assessing one’s potential for sexual misconduct.
Deacon Martinez then questioned whether or not such an investigation had ever been conducted on Fr. Wadeson who had been welcomed into this Archdiocese as an incardinated priest by Archbishop Apuron around 2004, two years after the policy had been put in place. 

(However, then Deacon Steve then makes a fatal "mistake". He goes on to question whether the Archbishop is conducting the required background checks on the many seminarians who are being imported into Guam. We'll have to come back to this.)

Finally, after nearly another month, Archbishop Apuron responds to Deacon Martinez by saying that in the case of Fr. Wadeson, "the Review Board cannot and should not investigate complaints based on hearsay or information published in social media as a response to third party complaints."

Ummmm, Archbishop, the allegations against Fr. Wadeson did NOT appear in "social media", they appeared in a 2004 report by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles entitled: Report to the People of God: Clergy Sexual Abuse, Archdiocese of Los Angeles, 1930-2003. In the report Fr. Wadeson is "accused of molesting two youths" between 1973 and 1977. 

Fr. Wadeson was not your problem in 1977, but he became your problem in 2004, the year the report appeared and the year you incardinated him into this diocese. When we learned of these accusations ten years later, rather than engage the accusations and prove them false, you hid Fr. Wadeson. And now that Deacon Martinez has turned up the heat, you fire him. 

So, Deacon Larry, it is your turn. 


24 comments:

  1. Deacon Larry is a sorry a**. He sees everything that is not associated with the NEO as The DEMON in the Archdiocese. Larry, get a life!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Finally, after nearly another month, Archbishop Apuron responds to Deacon Martinez by saying that in the case of Fr. Wadeson, "the Review Board cannot and should not investigate complaints based on hearsay or information published in social media as a response to third party complaints."

    Add this to the long list of revelations about the mishandling (and manipulations) of public information coming out from the chancery. Looks like willful ignorance is the name of the game and it is wholly deliberate.

    It is incredible that there are those who still refuse to accept that massive impropriety is occurring in our archdiocese; this is rendering them culpable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. St. John Chrysostom pray for their poor souls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deacon Larry is a very good man. I have always said that there are good Neo's and Deacon Larry is a good one. He is a good husband, father and Great Catholic. He is a very honest hard working person. I hope that they do not use him as a scrapegoat to cover up things because Deacon Larry is not that kind of person. Truly he is not that kind of person. Respectfully, Sharon E. O'Mallan

      Delete
    2. I don't know Sharon, the motto is listen and obey. If the Archbishop says this or that, will Deacon Larry be willing to do as told or turn the other cheek?

      Delete
    3. Do you really think Larry is going to investigate Archbishop Apuron? That's the question. And I think we all know the answer. Deacon Steve was willing to hold Apuron accountable and got himself fired. Larry has 3 conflicts of interest: 1) he is in the direct employ of the Archbishop, 2) he is in the neo and is obedient to his community's responsibles and his catechist, 3) he is a Deacon bound by obedience to the Archbishop. On this last one, Deacon Steve was able to challenge the Archbishop on technical grounds which did not compromise his obedience, but I don't think Larry is going to do that. The good news is he probably won't have to. SNAP will get to Apuron before Larry is outed for not doing anything.

      Delete
    4. Sharon, people who cover up sexual abuse of children are not good men. They are evil men and anyone who contributes to the covering up abuse with intention contributes to the grave moral disorder in the agana archdiocese.

      Delete
  4. SNAP , oh dear, Tony, don't wana hear of SNAP. Bad news for him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Should the archbishop ever have to be investigated it will be an emotional day for this archdiocese.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Doubts concerning the moral integrity of Archbishop Apuron exist.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Very action of removing deacon Martinez is an indication that archbishop is covering up some problem within this archdiocese. By the very fact he has failed to follow correct action in the Wadeson case remains a concern .

    ReplyDelete

  8. Where is Father Wadeson? Priests and people of agana Guam have a right to know where Fr. Wadeson is now assigned by archbishop Apuron. Who is paying for Fr. Wadeson? Fr. Wadeson also supported by catholic charity appeal money. People who give to CCA have a right to know how our money is spent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 3.03,
      I strongly feel for your demands to know, but you have to understand some facts before moving forward.
      Fr Wadeson was already a member of the NCW before he was encardinated here on Guam by the Archbishop.
      This is the only reason he found a heaven here. The Arch agreed to the demands of his handlers in the NCW.
      They could no longer hide him in NJ at the time because of the "APB" sent by Los Angeles. This is why they asked the only Bishop that walks the way.
      Pius as his catechist within the "Way" is his superior, therefore he can't deny him.
      As soon as he was encardinated he was sent to SF to take care of another NCW parish.All the while having a cushy job at the seminary which justify another salary, and back and forth trips between the bay area and here.
      SF's Archbishop only agreed because brother Anthony assured him all was OK.
      Which obviously was a lie.
      So now, they have moved him away again, with the help of Gennarini (the big boss of NCW in the USA).
      Best info is that he is moving between NCW communities in Connecticut, NewYork and New Jersey.
      I have no proof yet, but I believe that most likely we still pay him something, like the priest in MN.
      This is one of the reasons we need to clean house. The sooner the better.

      Delete
    2. Frenchie, following this logic any priest with a problem can claim to join the NEO and befriend Fr. Pius. Fr. Pius then goes to the archbishop of Guam and then you instantly given membership of Guam. Sounds dangerous practice to me. If Apuron was not under the order of Pius then may be Wadeson would not have arrived on our shores.

      Delete
    3. Dear anonymous@ 6.18, this is exactly what I assertain. We found out about Wadeson because he had an history in the USA.
      What is the record of other "invitees" here through RMS, nobody knows. We cannot count on the Neos to tell us, because of their secretive culture and their penchant for covering up anything and everything they do.
      There is in fact a big question about Fr Pius himself. Why did he live Malta, while he was the superior of his order for that island/State?
      Why does it seem that the Carmelite are very quiet when it comes to his past between 1973 and 1994? A 21 year period.
      We also have more "itinerant" priests, why? what is not being told?
      In other locations like in New Jersey the Genarinnis have been known to cover up for priests with a checkered past, while ruthlessly attacking their opponents in vicious media campaigns.....
      Still more to find out.
      Yes it is a dangerous practice. Think about it. You can control priests that owe you shelter and comfort, as long as they follow instructions, it is a win win situation for the priest, (shelter, anonimity, sometime wealthy life style) and for the NCW, dedicated servants that would not dare cross you.
      The morality in it: none!!! The danger to our loved ones: enormous!!!

      Delete
    4. How many more abusers of children is Apuron covering here on Island at rms.

      Delete
    5. At 1:50 AM I know of at least one who have passed. Whispers among the parishioners about certain priests and even the archbishop have been going on for years.

      Delete

  9. Archbishop Apuron moral disgrace to society.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why did archbishop Incardinate Fr. Wadeson into Guam in 2004 when he knew there was a problem in the LA archdiocese? Why was there no background check into Fr. Wadeson Prior to Incardination? Why knowingly bring a problem into this archdiocese?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why do these abuse cases keep returning to haunt us? In 2010 Apuron informed the archdiocese there was no abuser working in agana Guam. Seems something wrong with this archbishop.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Deacon Steve, I hope you forwarded all of this to Archbishop Krebs. I also hope everything is documented.
    Who exactly did the diocese of LA contact if not with SARC?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow then it is true EVIL has enter our CATHOLIC CHURCH.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Was Deacon Martinez given a reason for his firing? Was he even told before hand that he was being replaced? At every turn, the Archbishop is showing more of his vindictive nature. A wolf in sheep's clothing! Jesus weeps!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No reason was given. Just a letter that he had been replaced. Not even a chance to resign or experience "an arduous and painful closure" to his assignment.

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch