Saturday, February 14, 2015

THE WADESON FILE blogger, Chuck White, has written a letter to Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco advising him that Fr. John Wadeson may have returned to San Francisco and be ministering secretly there. Read it here: 

Below is a review of the Wadeson file. 

11/15/2002 - Fr. John Wadeson, formerly a priest of the religious order Society of the Divine Word (Societas Verbi Divini - S.V.D.), otherwise known as Missionaries of the Divine Word, after being granted an indult of voluntary exclaustration (release from his order) is incardinated as a diocesan priest in the Archdiocese of Agana by Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron.

02/17/2004 - Fr. Wadeson's name appears on a report by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles which is published in the Los Angeles Times. The report notes that Fr. Wadeson was twice accused of sexually molesting minors between the years 1973 and 1977 when he was assigned to Verbum Dei High School in the Los Angeles diocese.

2011 - Fr. Wadeson applies for authorization to minister in Los Angeles. He is refused and Los Angeles officials contact the Archdiocese of Agana:
"In 2011, Wadeson asked the Los Angeles archdiocese for authorization to minister once more in Los Angeles because he was traveling in California. The archdiocese refused and contacted archdiocese officials in Guam after learning he was working there, said archdiocese attorney Michael Hennigan. He said he did not know what was done with the information."

07/16/2014 - JungleWatch posts the link to the 2004 Los Angeles report showing Fr. Wadeson's name on a list of those credibly accused of sexually molesting minors. 

07/22/14 - Archbishop Apuron removes Fr. John Wadeson from ministry in the Archdiocese of Agana:
"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. The Archdiocese of Agana has a policy regarding sexual misconduct and sexual harassment and takes these matters very seriously."

07/22/14 - Fr. Adrian Cristobal tells the Pacific News Center that Archbishop Apuron was aware of Fr. Wadeson's record:
PNC contacted Father Adrian last Friday, who confirmed that Father Wadeson had a record in California. But he denied claims that Father Wadeson was being protected by the Archbishop. Father Adrian said the Archdiocese is aware of Father Wadeson’s past, but the allegations were just that: allegations.  
Father Adrian told PNC last Friday that before Father Wadeson was incardinated on Guam, their policy  would have required the twice accused priest to produce an affidavit of suitability from his previous bishop or religious leaders. It’s not clear whether that was indeed turned over before Wadeson was incardinated as he is still banned from serving in Los Angeles.
Fr. Cristobal also said that the archdiocese:
 “does not discriminate against false or true accusations.”

07/23/14 - The PDN reports that Fr. Wadeson leaves Guam. In the same article, chancery officials tell the PDN that they do not know when Wadeson was incardinated:
PACIFIC DAILY NEWS, July 23, 2014: "The archdiocese was unable to answer when Wadeson was incardinated, or officially given authority, to be a priest on Guam."

07/24/14 - A letter from Fr. Wadeson is printed in the Pacific Daily News in which Wadeson claims that the accusations are false and the he will "proceed judicially against those who advance this calumny":
I warn anyone who wishes to reiterate this false accusation that I have instructed my lawyer to proceed judicially against those who will advance this calumny. Whatever compensation may be obtained after the court pronouncement will be devolved to help people in need, on Guam.

07/25/14 - The Archdiocese of San Francisco, where Wadeson had been "ministering", issues a statement that it had permitted Wadeson to minister in its diocese "based upon assurances of good standing from his home diocese."

It is here, that we must offer some commentary. 

• The only person that Wadeson can "proceed judicially" against is Archbishop Apuron. Apuron is the only person who has re-accused Wadeson of the acts Wadeson says are false. Apuron did this when he officially removed Wadeson from ministry on 7/22/14. 

• All other references to Wadeson's record by us or by the media were just that: references to Wadeson's public record as found in the published report by the Los Angeles Archdiocese. By removing Wadeson from ministry, Apuron effectively and publicly stated that he personally believed that Wadeson was unfit for ministry. 

• By removing Wadeson from ministry, effectively stating that he was unfit for ministry in this diocese, Apuron also admits that he LIED to the Archbishop of San Francisco so that Wadeson would be permitted to minister in that diocese. 

• We must say that Apuron LIED to the Archbishop of San Francisco because the Archdiocese of San Francisco lists Wadeson in its 2006 directory as active in ministry in San Francisco two years after Wadeson's record was published by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and four years after he was incardinated by Archbishop Apuron - who has admitted to knowing Wadeson's record. 

• The fact that Wadeson was permitted to continue serving in the Archdiocese of San Francisco until July 25, 2014, means that Apuron permitted Wadeson to minister in San Francisco for at least ten years, knowing all the while that Wadeson was unfit for ministry in his own diocese as evidenced by the fact that he removed him on July 22, 2014. 

In addition, Apuron appointed Wadeson "formator" at the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. How Wadeson was able to be a formator to seminarians here in Guam while ministering full time in the Archdiocese of San Francisco is another matter.

The fact is that Apuron permitted Wadeson to minister both here in Guam and in San Francisco for at least a decade without any investigation of Wadeson's past. We know Apuron chose to neglect the investigation because as already documented above:
  • The chancery does not know if Wadeson produced the required affidavit of suitability.
  • The chancery does not even know when Wadeson was incardinated.
  • The chancery ignored Wadeson's record and the warnings from Los Angeles because in the words of Fr. Cristobal, the archdiocese “does not discriminate against false or true accusations” even though in its press release of 7/22/14 the same archdiocese says it "has a policy regarding sexual misconduct and sexual harassment and takes these matters very seriously." 
(Apparently the archdiocese only takes matters of sexual misconduct very seriously if one is not a neo-priest.)

So let us review:

• No one has re-accused Wadeson of anything but Archbishop Apuron. 

• By removing Wadeson from ministry, Apuron has admitted that he has not only kept that fact that he believed Wadeson to be unfit for ministry from the people of the Archdiocese of Agana, but from the people and bishop of the Archdiocese of San Francisco as well. 

The CCOG and other responsible people should add to their list of actionable crimes against the Catholics of the Archdiocese of Agana, Archbishop Apuron's neglect of his duty to protect the children of this archdiocese from known sexual predators - not so much because of Wadeson's credible accusations from the 1970's but because by his removal of Wadeson in 2014 Apuron showed us that he himself believed Wadeson to be a danger to children. 

The issue now is "Where is Wadeson?" 

If he is ministering anywhere in the world it can only be via an affidavit of suitability signed by Archbishop Apuron. And if there is such an affidavit, then Archbishop Apuron is again lying and this time to other bishops. And if Wadeson is ministering without faculties then he is ministering not only invalidly, but in absolute defiance to the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church. Of course as a neo, this would be nothing new. 

Regardless of where Wadeson is, Apuron has declared him dangerous by removing him. And because he is still a priest of the Archdiocese of Agana he is also potentially a huge liability to the Archdiocese of Agana. He's a lawsuit waiting to happen and the people of this archdiocese will have to pay the bill. 

Note: This post will be turned into a page labeled "Wadeson File" where we will keep all news items relevant to Wadeson and his whereabouts. Check back later. 


  1. I can confirm that Fr Wadeson is in fact "ministering without faculties" and "in absolute defiance to the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church." See the previous post "Yep" if you wish to understand where this has occurred most recently.

  2. I was motivated to write the letter after hearing a recorded conversation, dating from October 2014, between Fr. Pius Sammut and the responsible for Fr. Wadeson's community here on Guam. The responsible asserts that Fr. John is an itinerant in San Francisco. Of course, as an itinerant, he could be anywhere, at any time, including Australia. But the NCW has a $1.1M complex in the Mission Hill area of San Francisco, and that was Fr. Wadeson's last known address.

    The Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way provide for two types of “itinerants”: itinerant catechists (Article 31) and itinerant presbyters (Article 32). Since teams of itinerant catechists usually include one “presbyter” (priest) (Article 31), it would seem that Fr. John is indeed serving as a priest. In addition, with respect to itinerant presbyters, Article 32 mandates “The ordinary, in contact with the bishop who welcomes them, establishes the time frame of their availability.” So, if there has been no coordination between bishops about Fr. Wadeson's itinerancy, then the Statues are being ignored. But then again, what's new?


  3. When a diocese has so many problems between it's bishop and priests sure indication serious leadership problems with the bishop. Problems evolve when there is disunity between the ordinary and his priests. Serious issues between Archbishop Apuron and priests of the Archdiocese.

    1. Monsignor David (the elder) was absolutely right when he told Apuron "You are the problem!" Apuron's dictatorial and unreasonable demands are the cause of serious issues between him and the priests.


  4. First time in Guam's history laity are called to defend the church from an archbishop who allows Wadeson to function in San Francisco.

    1. Archbishop sadly lost respect trust of priests . Archbishop is the problem.


  5. Fr. Wadeson disaster in waiting.

  6. AAA is wondering why people have so much against him. He is too focus against Rohr, CCOG, White, etc. that he fails to listen to us. He needs to understand that if we, traditional Catholics, don't agree with Rohr, CCOG, White etc., he won't need to wonder why the majority of the people are against him. I would also believe Mrs. Kasperbauer, Mrs. Duenas, and many more will go public to speak to the people about the goodness of AAA. As of today, I haven't seen any of our manamko leaders or anyone other than the NEO religious leaders go public to support AAA.

    1. I visited a manamko who is a very devout Catholic who has been a shut-in most of her life and she told me that the archbishop is money hungry. Our manamkos are not blind. Any loyalty to Apuron is out of respect for his title.

  7. This post really should be labeled " the wanted soon file"! BTW is father bushy here to stay? Where is he assigned? What happened to bushy' mission in the Congo ? Short trip!