SIMPLY MORE LIES AND MORE LIES

Let's compare what Archbishop Apuron said about Fr. Wadeson versus what the Archdiocese of Los Angeles really said. First, let's read the two statements:

STATEMENT FROM THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA

On April 10, 2015 the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles in its weekly diocesan newspaper, The Tidings, published a report stating the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had conducted a thorough re-examination of the whole issue concerning the alleged accusations against Father John H. Wadeson. The Tidings made the announcement in its print edition.

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles has concluded that there is no reason to preclude Father Wadeson from serving in priestly ministry showing that all the rumors and alleged calumnies against him were unfounded.

The Archdiocese of Agana therefore announces that Fr. John Wadeson has been reinstated fully to public ministry according to a decree dated April 13, 2015.

STATEMENT REGARDING FR. JOHN HOWARD WADESON

Issued by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California

Published in ‘The Tidings’, April 10, 2015

The name of Rev. John H. Wadeson was included in the Archdiocese’s “Report to the people of God” issued in 2004. In 2014 at the request of Father Wadeson a reexamination of the matter was conducted.

In relation to accusations first made in 1992 concerning alleged sexual misconduct in the 1970’s against Father Wadeson, then a member of the Society of the Divine Word [SVD], the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is aware that the allegation was investigated by the Society at the time and was not verified.  No settlement was offered or paid by the Archdiocese or, as far as it knows, by the Society.  Having reviewed the documentation presented by Father Wadeson, and following the 2014 reexamination, the Archdiocese has concluded that there is no reason to preclude Father Wadeson from serving in priestly ministry.  For this reason Father John Wadeson remains, to the knowledge of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, a priest in good standing.

Now let's see how Archbishop Apuron (his handlers actually) SIMPLY LIE and LIE and LIE to us:

Archbishop Apuron states that the LA Archdiocese did a "thorough re-examination of the whole issue concerning the alleged accusations against Father John H. Wadeson."

Nowhere in the LA statement is a "thorough re-examination" mentioned or even implied. Los Angeles only says that it is:

"aware that the allegation was investigated by the Society at the time and was not verified." 

The "Society" is a reference to Society of the Divine Word, the religious order to which Fr. Wadeson belonged in the 1970's when the sexual molestation of two minors was alleged to have happened. "At the time" refers to 1992 when the allegations were first made.

Los Angeles then says: 

"No settlement was offered or paid by the Archdiocese or, as far as it knows, by the Society."

The disclaimer "as far as it knows" does not even come close to implying a "thorough re-examination". It could mean as little as "well, we haven't heard anything."

However, Apuron goes on to claim that this shows:

 "that all the rumors and alleged calumnies against him were unfounded."

First, as Joelle Casteix of SNAP points out, there is the issue that what Apuron calls "rumors and alleged calumnies" was the actual fact that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles published Wadeson's name on a 2004 list of alleged and accused sex offenders and then twice banned him. So apparently Apuron is accusing the Los Angeles Archdiocese of calumny and spreading rumors.

Second, there is the fact that Apuron sticks with that strange word "unfounded", and strangely avoids the word "innocent". As we all know, criminals go un-apprehended everyday because there is not enough verifiable evidence to charge them, thus the allegations against them remain "unfounded." But there is missing property or a dead body anyway.

Third, the only person to instigate "rumors and calumny" against Wadeson was Apuron himself. JungleWatch and the press did nothing more than refer to the 2004 report by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Apuron went further. He removed Wadeson from ministry. A bishop only removes a priest from ministry when there is serious reason to do so. Obviously, this action by Apuron last July was an admission that he believed that Wadeson was compromised otherwise he would have defended him.

He did not.

P.S. By the way, now that Fr. Wadeson has been "reinstated fully to public ministry", will he be actually "ministering" in the diocese that pays his salary and provides for his health care and retirement?