Thursday, July 30, 2015

TIM, CAN YOU PICK AT THIS?


  1. tim can you pick at this? found this in the neo blog

    DianaJuly 27, 2015 at 9:59 PM

    Dear Joane Santos,

    1. Father Paul was removed due to disobedience. He was told to remove Lastimosa in 2011. Lastimosa was still doing the same duties as he had always been doing, so in 2013, Father Paul was removed. It never had anything to do with the NCW. If the Archbishop really wanted the NCW in the Dededo Parish, he would simply remove Father Paul from the Dededo Parish the day AFTER Patricia Cottman banged her fist on the table.

    2. The finance board was removed because OBVIOUSLY their best interest was not in the Church due to the fact that they wanted to sell the seminary. The fact that they were unable to sell the seminary is irrelevant. A finance council is supposed to be a good advisor looking out for the best interest of the Church. Advocating for the selling of the seminary is NOT in the best interest of the Church.

    As for the rest, I already covered that. 

In 2011, Apuron ordered Fr. Paul to terminate the employment of Mr. Lastimoza. When Fr. Paul was called in two years later he was accused of disobeying an order:

"You disobeyed the direct order given by the Vicar General" are Apuron's exact words in his July 16, 2013 letter to Fr. Paul. 

When Fr. Paul produced the evidence that he had obeyed the "order given by the Vicar General", Apuron changed the charge to "refusing to terminate the de facto employment" of Mr. Lastimoza. (Decree of Removal. August 20, 2013. Prot. No. 013-074)

Apuron changed the charge because he had been proven wrong. In his Appeal to the Decree of Removal, Fr. Paul's canonical advocate criticized Apuron's changing of the charge saying: “the charge against Fr. Gofigan has become an elastic concept."

He went on to call the Archbishop’s actions against Fr. Gofigan “a canonical procedure that has gone awry” and accused Apuron of:

  • mangling canonical procedures, 
  • ignoring provision of the Code, 
  • making a feeble attempt to correct the bungled process, 
  • violating the rights of a pastor, 
  • and ruining his good name.

He concluded by questioning Apuron's real motives - something we continue to do on this blog, writing: 

“The concerns raised by the Archbishop could have been accomplished even without the bungled attempt at removal, therefore one really wonders what is the real purpose behind the move.”

As for Apuron putting in the NCW after Cottman pounded her fist on the table, he certainly could have. But Apuron doesn't call the shots in the Archdiocese. Gennarini and Pius do. And they are much smarter than Apuron. They know they have to sneak in the NCW lest we detect their evil intent. This is why they waited for something they could take Fr. Paul down with - or so they thought.

They didn't count on me reviewing the parole records of Mr. Lastimoza and finding that Apuron himself had permitted the same man to work in the same parish in the same capacity thirteen years earlier.

But then they didn't count on a lot of things, did they.

I'll "pick on" the second thing later. 

Recommendations by JungleWatch