Tuesday, April 14, 2015

STILL MORE LIES


KUAM is reporting today that Archbishop Apuron has restored Fr. John Wadeson to ministry in the Archdiocese of Agana after an investigation by the Los Angeles Archdiocese concluded that "there is no reason to preclude Father Wadeson from serving in priestly ministry."

Congratulations, Fr. Wadeson, and you're welcome. It appears you took my advice when I wrote on July 25, 2014:
Now, get down to business, clear your name with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and publish the record exonerating you of all charges.

Here, let me copy the whole post for you, just in case you forgot that I was about the only person on Guam sticking up for you after your bishop threw you under the bus:

Not only am I the only person publicly saying that the charges against you in L.A. are false - even as your Archbishop threw you under the bus and then ran for cover - I am going to hereby defend your right to our material support of you, despite your threat to sue us.

As you can see in the many recent comments, people are calling for you to be cut off from the land of the living financially. I am here to say that no matter how egregious your transgressions may or may not be, no matter what your status is relative to your faculties or "active ministry", as a priest incardinated in this archdiocese, you have the right the material support of your well-being: your stipend, your medical care, your food, clothing, and shelter and whatever else is normally required of a bishop for the material support of his priests.

I call on the Archbishop to continue to see to the care of both your material and spiritual well-being even though he gave no thought of either in kicking Fr. Paul out into the street a year ago. Even though he threatened priests not friendly to your Neocatechumenal Way with the next thing to deportation. Even though you accuse us of vicious lies. And even though you threaten to sue us with the money we collect and hand over to the Archbishop for your support. Yes, Fr. Wadeson, even though.

Now, get down to business, clear your name with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and publish the record exonerating you of all charges.


And while we're at it, here's a few other things I said:

There was no court case brought against Fr. Wadeson and he may in fact be innocent of any charges. If that is the case, Archbishop Apuron should clear the cloud of scandal and state that this is the case.

Sadly, Fr. Wadeson may be wrongly accused. I personally have always thought so. However, these were questions that were never answered. And now they are being asked. Let this be a lesson to all who work with and for Archbishop Apuron. 

Wadeson is not the issue. Nor is he the danger.

He (Apuron) should be defending Wadeson. He should be making the case that the charges "were never substantiated" and that he has personally deemed Wadeson to be innocent and in good standing. But Apuron is NOT doing this. Apuron is throwing Wadeson under the bus. 

I publicly stated that I believed you were innocent of those charges and that there were all kinds of false allegations in Los Angeles in those days. In fact, Wadeson, I was in Los Angeles at the same time as you, and only a few miles away. Our high schools were in the same league. Yours: Verbum Dei. Mine: Bishop Amat. I could go on about what I saw in Los Angeles in those days. But I'll save it...The truth is the Archbishop threw you under the bus when things got hot. If he believed you were innocent then he should have fought for you.

Wadeson, here's a note of advice. If you are innocent of the charges leveled at you in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, then why don't you work to clear your name? The report says that several priests on the same list have already had their names cleared and charges dropped. Have you even tried? Or did you think you could just disappear into the Neocatechumenal Way and hide away in Guam? Fr. Wadeson. Go to Los Angeles. Walk into the chancery office. And challenge those charges. Get your name off that list. Get a document from LA saying that you have been cleared. Post it for the world to see. So that maybe next time you won't have to "leave the country." 

*****

So, Fr. Wadeson, it appears that you did exactly as I said to do. What took you so long? Why did you not attempt to clear your name the minute it showed up on that list in 2004? If my name appeared on any such list and I was innocent, I wouldn't have wasted a minute. Yet, you let eleven years go by. Why? Is it because you felt safe under the wings of Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron and the Neocatechumenal Way? 

And speaking of Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron, it was HIS duty to demand the investigation IMMEDIATELY when your name was first published by the Los Angeles Archdiocese in 2004, alleging two credible instances of sexually abusing minors. 

The fact, that you finally got your name off that list DOES NOT exonerate Archbishop Apuron for NOT doing what he was supposed to do eleven years ago. In fact, HOW MANY OTHER instances of sexual misconduct might we learn about from the unvetted neo-hordes he imports to Guam?

Something very disturbing

But that aside, there is still something very disturbing about this whole issue. And that is NOT ONCE have you ever said you were innocent. Here's what you said:
"I was never inquired nor condemned and this accusation is a calumny. The investigation made into that allegation concluded that it was without foundation..." - Pacific Daily News, Voice of the People, July 24, 2014
"Wadeson stated he's been falsely accused, but decided to leave because he didn't want the accusations against him to tarnish Archbishop Anthony Apuron."..."I was in such shock at the viciousness and lies of what was being said about me..." - Pacific Daily News, Ousted priest leaves Guam, July 24, 2014
Even the letter from Archbishop Gomez stating that there is no reason to preclude you from ministry does not say that you are innocent. It basically says what you said, that no foundation for the charges could be found:
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.- STATEMENT REGARDING FR. JOHN HOWARD WADESON. Issued by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California. Published in ‘The Tidings’, April 10, 2015
Still more lies

Incredibly, the Chancery jokers can't help themselves. Even when there is actually some small reason to celebrate THEY STILL HAVE TO LIE. Here's what the Chancery release said:
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. 
LOL Fr. Wadeson, where in Archbishop Gomez' letter does it say that "all the rumors and alleged calumnies against (you) were unfounded"??? It doesn't, does it?

Let's review what Los Angeles said:
  • (T)he 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.
  • Father John Wadeson remains, to the knowledge of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, a priest in good standing.

There is no reference to "rumors and calumnies" by Archbishop Gomez. The chancery completely manufactured that line and stuck it in Archbishop Gomez' mouth. Didn't they, Fr. Wadeson?

How sad for you. After all that work to clear your name the jokers on the hill contaminate your moment with STILL MORE LIES. Meanwhile, tell us that you are innocent.

Now, about that priest in Merizo...


48 comments:

  1. Deacon Steve MartinezApril 15, 2015 at 12:16 AM

    Tim - you hit the nail on the head.

    Until the investigation determined that Fr John Wadeson was in good standing, Archbishop Anthony had to rely on the allegations against him. By his own policy implemented in 2002 he had no choice.

    But, the fact is that Archbishop Anthony rejected/refused to follow his own sex abuse policy on background checks and notifying the SARC about allegations against a priest under his authority, and also failed to do proper background checks and psychological exams for incoming priests. These are issues to which the Archbishop is required to respond. I am a first hand witness that these articles of the policy were violated, and he has never responded to my demands for an investigation into the circumstance surrounding these alleged violations.

    All people need to be assured to the fact that sex abuse is a very serious issue in our Church, and that the Archbishop has a responsibility to insure all our youth are safe in Church-related activities. He has failed in this responsibility. He has failed by:
    1.) failing to inform;
    2.) failing to do proper background checks; and
    3.) failing to properly evaluate the psychological state of his incoming priests and seminarians.

    These are serious transgressions of a policy intended to protect our youth, and the Archbishop has yet to answer to these questions. The very same questions also apply to the 45 seminarians at RMS in Yona. If the Archbishop will allow a priest into the Archdiocese with a serious cloud over his reputation, then what can we expect of seminarians from foreign lands who may or may not have similar clouds in their past. Even our local boys need to be properly vetted, as in the case of Gabe Camacho who publicly admitted to having taken advantage of more women than he could count. He posited that he may be the father of multiple children to multiple women. The people of Guam need to know whether these are men worthy of the office of priests.

    These are serious issues that weigh on the hearts of our people. If the Archbishop is unwilling to follow his own policies to protect our youth, then who will watch after their protection? While acting as SARC for the Archdiocese of Agana I was determined to insure these issues were resolved. My obligation in that office was to the youth of Guam, and not to the Archbishop or any clergy, or employee, or volunteer of the Church. But he released me from service to him when I started to question his own alleged violations of this policy. I hope Deacon Larry Claros will continue to follow up on these "most important concerns" that remain unanswered.

    Whether Fr John has actually been cleared of the cloud over his head does not change the fact that our Archbishop has allegedly violated his own policy designed to protect our youth.

    These are questions which demand a response from Archbishop Anthony to clear his involvement in apparent violations to his policy. To remain silent to these serious issues and questions is to allow this cloud to remain over his own episcopate.

    Archbishop, the people of Guam would like to hear your response. Clear and straightforward responses to these questions will also aid in clearing the cloud over your own head as to the alleged violations against your own policy on sex abuse.

    The children of Guam deserve nothing less!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Deacon Steve for bringing the discussion to its proper focus. Yes, the archbishop needs to be clear and straightforward in this matter in addition to the other concerns expressed by Guam's faithful. Maybe one of these days he'll experience a moment of sudden revelation and begin to say and do things to promote healing, for he has inflicted a vulnus on our Catholic community.
      Praying for you and the faithful clergy.

      Delete
    2. Steve Martinez you are not worthy to serve on the altar...

      Delete
    3. LOL. So what are we to make of all you kiko's lecturing us about judging? LOL.

      Delete
    4. Holy Father Pope Francis just spoke to accepting "BALANCED" candidates to religious life and priesthood. Fresh admonition, Archbishop Tony. Are the RMS candidates properly screened, OR NOT?? Answer the question which we have asked many times. How bold and arrogant can you possibly be?? Answer for all to see and hear.

      Delete
  2. Amazing how you always find a way to cover your butt...it's called INTEGRITY! Thanks Tim, we all know that you only want what an overwhelming majority of us want...THE TRUTH.

    The Kikos will try to rub this in your face, while we watch as they eat more dirt served by their own hands. The Kiko juice is too strong for their minds, even if they read all your posts from 2014.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Joelle Casteix speaks out. http://theworthyadversary.com/3434-guams-wadeson-reinstated

    ReplyDelete
  4. If the SVD's and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles doesn't want him, why are we accepting him and incardinate him? Very bad pastoral practices that ultimately will drive people mad! This is enough to know how very bad this looks. Maybe he should return to San Francisco instead.

    ReplyDelete
  5. i'm reading the archdiocese of LA's statement as saying only that wadeson is presumed innocent until proven guilty. he may or may not actually be innocent, but there's just not enough findings of fact to prove guilt and keep him from active ministry. i agree with what joelle casteix wrote about wadeson's perplexing lack of response and apuron's "bile-infused" statement.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The tactics of personal assault on targeted persons badly backfired. It is not the way to go. Wadeson was exonerated and Apuron justified. See I told you so!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t know if you’re being facetious here or not, but the only person who was exonerated was me.

      Obviously Wadeson was not interested in clearing his name or he would have done it earlier. Apuron was not interested in clearing his name or he would have done it in 2004 before incarnating Wadeson or at least in 2011 when the LA diocese informed him personally of Wadeson’s record.

      The only reason Wadeson did this was because I made the problem public in the midst of a controversy about the NCW. And while Apuron threw Wadeson under the bus, and Wadeson himself threatened to sue me, I remained steadfast proclaiming Wadeson’s innocence and urging him to clear his name.

      As already mentioned, Apuron not only did not stand by Wadeson, he and he alone publicly condemned him by removing him from ministry. The alternative would have been a declaration of a belief in Wadeson’s innocence and a public announcement that he personally would pursue the restoration of Wadeson’s reputation. But Apuron didn’t do that, did he?

      So, you’re welcome.

      Delete
    2. @7:53, were you being facetious or not? Your turn.

      Delete
    3. Selling this as victory, Tim? What a chutzpah! You created this scandal in order to hunt down persons. You cried wolf in local media days and night. You rallied your handful of followers. You even got the anti-Catholic SNAP get involved. Then your target fought back and shook off the mud you threw at him. His good name is restored. Your crying wolf is falling back on you. Your followers are getting exasperated. Local media is starting to shrug you off as troublemaker. This is what you have achieved. Much brouhaha for nothing. Is this like all of your past and future victories, Tim?

      Delete
    4. LOL. "Your followers are getting exasperated." LOL. Tell that to the hundreds who are coming to the village meetings every week. The crowds are growing.

      "Local media is starting to shrug you off." LOL. Probably for the first time in local church history, my challenge to the archbishop merited a full center spread in a Sunday edition of a local paper:
      http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?pbid=f720eb2d-91af-4778-af5d-488025f9c9be

      "This is what you achieved." Well, yes, thank you. And I achieve all the more every time you come here and let me waste your life for you.

      See you soon.

      Delete
    5. Just because Fr. Pius conditions your community to drone away responses it doesn't mean you're regurgitating any truth.

      If Tim created this scandal with Fr. Wadeson, then what a magnificent genius he was in having the foresight all the way back in 1972 in colluding with Fr. Wadeson's accusers.



      Delete
    6. LOL. Is that what they're saying? Hilarious. But in the end no one can argue that the only reason Wadeson went to LA to clear his name is because of me. So how does it feel Fr. John to finally get that weight thrown off? You're welcome.

      Delete
    7. But of course, this isn't a "victory" at all, not for me and not for Fr. Wadeson. It won't be a victory until he publicly says he is "innocent". He has never claimed that. Why?

      Delete
    8. Wadeson was credibly accused in 1973 and 1977 of molesting two boys. Did the recent investigation involve interviews with the two who accused Wadeson? Did they sign a statement that the were never molested by Wadeson? If not, there's still a cloud of suspicion hanging over Wadeson's head. As a parent I wouldn't trust him with my children.

      Delete
    9. 3:14 p.m. Fr. Wadeson may not be innocent. Being cleared does not mean innocent. It is very hard to prove molestation. In my former diocese in the states a priest was accused and then cleared a year or so later because it's difficult to prove molestation occurred. His faculties were returned. A decade later another alleged victim came forward. This time the diocesan investigators concluded the priest was guilty of the crime. His faculties were removed and the now retired priest did not contest the decision. So maybe Fr. Wadeson is innocent. Or maybe he's just lucky this time. I would advise boys and young men to avoid being alone with him.

      Delete
    10. Is dancing around the banquet table ok??

      Delete
  7. Catholics of Guam have suffered way too long under Tony's inept leadership. Wadeson's case is just one of many examples of Tony's ineptness. Tony, stop deluding yourself. Step down Tony and let someone with integrity and leadership abilities take over. Do it now!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fr. Wadeson, please remember that Apuron did not come to your defense at all. Instead, he threw you immediately "under the bus," and issued a press release restating the Archdiocese's policy regarding allegations of sexual misconduct. Fr. Wadeson, with friends like Apuron, you don't need enemies!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sharon E. O'MallanApril 15, 2015 at 8:40 AM

    I am glad that he is getting his case resolved. Nobody hopes for the downfall of a human being and for me, especially a Priest. Priest are very important. They are able to perform Baptism, give Confession and forgive our sins and Annoint the Dying which gives comfort to the one dying and to the families. A Priest is able to change the Bread into The Body of Jesus and the wine into The Blood of Christ. I sure hope everyone includes a prayer for Priest and Seminarians in each rosary. My son and I sort of had an argument last night. He accused me and the Junglewatch people (and of couse Tim) of condemning Father Wadeson. I told him that he is wrong. I told him that if he really read what was said was that we wanted Father Wadeson to stop hiding and go and defend himself if he is innocent. He has just wasted 11 of his Priestly years hiding. He actually should be grateful to Tim and the Junglewatch people who encouraged him and forced him to go and clear his name.
    All said, I am glad he has resolved his problem. Hopefully all Priest who are wrongly accused do the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sharon how can you say that Father Wadeson was hiding? and how can he be grateful to Tim Rohr? Come on Sharon stop... I thought you are better than this... God Bless you and your son.

      Delete
    2. She can say he was “hiding” because he was not forthcoming about his record. He knew of the allegations against him when he first approached Apuron for incardination in 2000.

      Upon being incardinated into this archdiocese, both he and Apuron should have made a joint statement acknowledging the accusations and claiming them to be false. They did not. This is hiding.

      The allegations were not acknowledged until they became an issue while Archbishop Krebs was here last July. And they only became an issue because of the need to prop up Apuron so he could keep his presbyter factory going.

      This is why Wadeson said he was “leaving the country” to protect Apuron. Leaving to where? He is incardinated in this archdiocese. He has a duty to it. Instead he ran off and hid.

      Sharon can say that Wadeson can be grateful to me because I was the only one PUBLICLY defending Wadeson and urging him to clear his name. The archbishop did not utter one word in Wadeson’s defense. Instead he incriminated him by canning him.

      So yes, God Bless you Sharon for not drinking KAKA like the commenter who doesn’t have the integrity to use his/her name as you did.

      Delete
    3. Your move @1:21pm. I am sure you are better than that.

      Delete

    4. Archbshop Apuron should have re called Fr. Wadeson to Guam to make his press statement.

      Delete
    5. Not. Stay in California, Wadeson.

      Delete
  10. I guess my ??? is why the announcement in its print edition only, and why not online as well,is this just between LA and Guam

    ReplyDelete
  11. I answered my ??? fr john howard wadeson is online, media outlets quoting kuam.com

    search: Guam priest reinstated after investigation clears him
    http://www.snapnetwork.org/la_victims_blast_archdiocese_s_move_to_clear_accused_priest

    Quietly and with little explanation, LA Catholic officials have reversed themselves on a twice-accused predator priest. That priest has now been put back to work. This is incredibly reckless

    which is just like tony.. RECKLESS..... feel free to add

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, Joelle Casteix nails it in her post, Guam's Wadeson reinstated. Here's what she has to say about Archbishop Apuron's "all the rumors and alleged calumnies against him were unfounded" quote:

    Rumors and calumnies? It was not a rumor that LA had said he was twice-accused, nor was it a rumor that they had banned him. But by making such a bile-infused statement, Apuron is attempting to silence and shame victims and whistleblowers by labeling them sinners and rumor-mongers.

    Also, a very important question also remains: why on earth was this twice-accused man incardinated into the Archdiocese of Agana so damned quickly, while so many of the Filipino priest that have served us so well for years are still waiting for the opportunity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We all know the answer to that.

      Delete
  13. Just wait. Father(?) Luis Camacho will come back after they say that he did not have sexual relations with a girl in a car at the beach! Just wait, it will happen! !! For sure, for sure. ..

    Damn lying Neos!!!

    NON Neo Msgr. James have said and will continually say that he DID NOT financially mismanage monies and the accusations targeted by apuron, quitugua, cristobal, arroyo and sammut were untrue.

    Neo Wadesson will not deny nor admit he's a child molester.

    Neo Apuron does not deny nor admit he's a child molester.

    Neo Camacho is so far away to deny or admit he's a child molester. And even if he were here, will still neither deny nor admit any wrong doing.

    See the pattern?

    RESIGN APURON! NEOS, BE GONE!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. So AAA is the only one that can forgive? I guess you have to be a kikobot in order to receive forgiveness. That my friend is more than enough evidence that this is a cult. They only forgive their own brethren. What about Father Paul? Monsignor James? You slander and publicly humiliate them through your propaganda. AAA, you are the epitome of evil! May God (and I'm not referring to Kiko) have mercy on your pitiful soul.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tim prepare yourself, as Wadeson mentioned in Uma Tuna you and SNAP will pay a big price if you continue with your attack.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. If we could just get one if them to really sue us. That would be great. They'd be out in the stand under penalty if perjury and forced to tell the truth.

      Delete
    2. Really Tim? Careful, your wish might really come true.

      Delete
    3. Oooooh, Adrian, scarrrry! Loser.

      Delete
    4. Deacon Steve Martinez belongs on the Alter. AAA needs to step down NOW, along with all his Neo Mats!!!!

      Delete
  16. @ Anon 7:15: I wish the neo would leave our island! That is what I wish for!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pius look like a dead man walking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hopefully Pius would soon be called to his fiery "reward."

      Delete
    2. Pius like a walking cadaver. know what I mean?

      Delete
    3. persecuted Pius

      Delete
    4. Boo-hoo Pius is being persecuted. Boo-hoo people are saying mean truths about him. Boo-hoo persecution.

      Delete
  18. Adrian??? You still playing in da Jungle? Don't you have to take care of other things like your neo parish, your chancery office duties (btw-what are those duties?) and there is rumor that you are no where to be found for the vocations director for any of the vocations that fall under you...oh...thats right!...not a NEO Priority, right? oh well...You'll soon be under the bus with aaa driving it. See ya!...I will be a bystander watching and I pray I can be a good Samaritan and help you up. Enjoy your limited days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Adrian, what is happening in the Jp2 seminary? New seminarians for September?

      Delete
  19. Good afternoon, Tim, I am one of the faithful concerned Catholics who has been attending the village meetings and I applaud you for bringing out the evilness of the Archbishop to some of our Catholic faithful who "may have had their heads in the sands of Guam". I, myself had my "head in the sand" until the ouster of Monsignor James from his position as Rector of the Hagatna Cathedral Basilica. I came and Listen (not to Listen to the Ode to Joy of the NCW) and I was shocked at the revelations of the happenings in our Holy Catholic Church by the NCW. I am writing today because I had a discussion with a family member last night (they both told me that they left the NCW, but I guess they've been coerced back into the NCW fold) and this family member stated that "Why are "WE" against the NCW?". I explained that I and the rest of the Concerned Catholics of Guam do not have a problem with the NCW co-existing on this island, but if the NCW choose to be a religious denomination like the other religious denominations on Guam, then build your "OWN CHURCHES". I also explained that all the Concerned Catholic Faithful on Guam want from the Archbishop is "ACCOUNTABILTY OF ALL THE MONIES THAT WE HAVE GIVEN TO THE ARCHDIOCESE OVER THESE PAST DECADES". To this date, the Archbishop has not once acknowledged or replied to any requests that has been made from the Concerned Catholics of Guam or even to the Cathedral Basilica parishioners. My family member and I were having a heated discussion about the NCW and this family member says, "What is wrong with the NCW?" Again, I mentioned that I do not have any problems with the NCW as long as the NEOs mind their own business and leave us, the Concerned Catholics alone and again, the only question that I have and the rest of the Catholic Faithful have is, "WHERE IS ALL THE MONEY THAT WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED THE YEARS GOING TOO!" Fair question, but no answer from the Chancery Office, the 'NEW FINANCIAL COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CATHEDRAL BASILICA, OR THE ARCHBISHOP." So, to any NEO member who would like to answer this question, Please feel free to answer or better yet, ARCHBISHOP, please answer this question for ALL THE CONCERNED CATHOLICS OF GUAM WHO ARE AWAITING A RESPONSE TO A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION!". My family member and I were having a discussion about the "FATHER LUIS INVESTIGATION (my family member stated that there "IS" an investigation) and I was told that I was very quick to judge and I haven't heard the "FULL STORY." So, I said, " well, the Catholic Faithful is waiting for a response to the 'FULL STORY", but again, no answer. So, the end result, my family member has been drawn back into the fold of the NCW.

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch