Monday, May 23, 2016

ALEXANDER CHEN: PROTECTOR OF PEDOPHILES


Alexander Chen, a protector of pedophiles, decides to bring up the John Wadeson affair in the PDN. LOL. We're going to have some fun revisiting this. Thank you, Mr. Chen, for the opportunity. An opportunity made new again now that Roy Quintanilla has made known what Apuron did to him. 

http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/05/21/public-weighs-abuse-allegations-against-archbishop-apuron/84696854/

Alexander Chen ·
Did you know that Fr. Wadeson was exonerated of all the 'false' accusations that he was a victim of and that Tim Rohr never asked him for forgiveness for having publicly humiliated him and exiled him from the state of California and Guam?
Did you know that Tim Rohr was joyful with hatred as he associated Fr. Wadeson with the Archbishop in his campaign to smear the Archbishop, accusing him of harboring pedophiles?
Do you think Tim Rohr who did it once, won't do it again? and again? if it helps his agenda?
Did you know that there are people who would sell the truth, their dignity, the Church, smear anyone, lie, insult, degrade, deceive, etc. all for money?
Wake up and smell the coffee, scumbags like Tim Rohr abound in this World.

Dear Mr. Chen. Did you know that Fr. Wadeson was NOT "exonerated" as you say. Here is the finding of the Los Angeles Archdiocese as stated in its newspaper on April 15, 2015:
In relation to accusation 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, 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. 
https://www.scribd.com/doc/313491672/Wadeson-Statement-From-Los-Angeles 
Let us look at a couple of things. First there is this: "the accusation was investigated by the Society at the time and was not verified." This is the equivalent of having Apuron investigate himself. There was no independent investigation. The Society (Society of Divine Word) to which Wadeson at the time belonged, and which would have been financially liable if it did find something, supposedly investigated one of its own with the verdict being that the accusation was "not verified." 

The investigation performed by the Society did not exonerate Wadeson, nor did it proclaim his innocence, which should have been simple to do if the accusations were false. Instead, the Society (which would have had to probably pay out big money) just said "not verified." 

In fact, we can be sure that the Society never did an investigation because if it had, Wadeson would not have had to appeal to the Los Angeles Archdiocese in 2014 when we "outed" him here in Guam. Had the Society actually investigated the accusations in 1992 and had a report saying that the accusation could not be verified, Wadeson would have had the results of that investigation and immediately produced them when we "outed" him. In fact, Wadeson would have produced them upon being placed on the 2004 Los Angeles Archdiocese list of priests "credibly accused" of sexually molesting minors. 

Wadeson was on that Los Angeles list for TEN YEARS before I said anything about it. What person in their right mind, having evidence that he has been falsely accused would not have produced evidence to have himself removed from that list. Wadeson did not produce it because he did not have it. And Wadeson did not have it because his Society NEVER did the investigation in 1992 they told the Archdiocese of Los Angeles they did when it inquired in 2015. 

Next, let's look at what the LA diocese actually said:
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. 
What they're saying is that 40 years later, they didn't find anything. And why didn't they find anything? Because, and they say it themselves, they ONLY  "reviewed the documentation presented by Father Wadeson. " At most, the LA diocese may have also checked with Wadeson's former Society for the results of the non-existent investigation. 

And then there is this from Mr. Chen:
Tim Rohr never asked him for forgiveness for having publicly humiliated him and exiled him from the state of California and Guam?
Mr. Chen, let's review. I understand that given your kindergarten understanding of things this might be difficult for you to grasp, but I didn't exile anybody. LOL. It was Apuron who ran Wadeson out of town because Wadeson was an embarrassment to him. Take a look at what Apuron said on July 22, 2014:
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. 
https://www.scribd.com/doc/234816533/Apuron-Wadeson-PressRelease-2014-07-22
LOL, Mr. Chen. It was Apuron who "publicly humiliated him and exiled him," and you want ME ask "for forgiveness." You must be a neocat, Mr. Chen. Only neocats think like KAKA. LOL

Moving on, it was the LA Archdiocese who banned Wadeson from public ministry in 2003, ELEVEN YEARS before I brought up Wadeson's record in July of 2014. In fact, I published nothing new about Wadeson. The list with Wadeson name on it and the accusations was published by the LA Times in 2004. 

In 2011, Wadeson applied for permission to minister in the LA Archdiocese and was refused. And not only was he refused but the LA Archdiocese contacted Apuron and warned him about Wadeson:
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.
http://sfist.com/2014/07/25/priest_twice-accused_of_child_moles.php
Mr. Chen, that was in 2011. Apuron was told about Wadeson in 2011 and did nothing. The least Apuron could have done would have been to require Wadeson to get the results of the investigation that his former Society supposedly conducted "at the time" (1992). But Apuron did not. He did not because Wadeson did not have the report. And Wadeson did not have the report because there never was one. 

And by the way, Mr. Chen, WHY is Wadeson, a priest incardinated in this diocese, a priest who is on our payroll, a priest we must provide health insurance for, a priest who we must provide a retirement for, a priest who lives at our expense...WHY is he applying for ministry in the LA Archdiocese, and why, since he got on our payroll in 2004, has he been somewhere else 99% of the time? 

Hmmmmm, Mr. Chen, Hmmmmmm? Back to kindergarten, Mr. Chen. Your KAKA catechists have much to teach you. Courage. 


10 comments:


  1. Interesting how Wadeson with his history became incardinated into Guam. It is of greater interest that two years after the wadeson case same questions are raised against Anthony Sablan Apuron. This time there is a person question Apuron. There is now a form taking shape which we did not see before.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And here's another consideration. When Wadeson left Guam, he turned up in Queensland, Australia, saying "Mass" for the local Neo communities. According to the Archdiocese there, it emerged that Wadeson had no authority to do so (ie no celebret) nor had he advised the Archdiocese (in Queensland) of his presence, or sought any permissions from them . I understand the Archdiocese put a stop to it very quickly.

    Just typical of the NCW. This is only one of a number of similar instances of which I am aware, where the NCW shuffle suspect priests from place to place, quite independent of the knowledge and/or authority of the local Church. There are a number of cases in Australia where priests have been moved on after unseemly incidents, sometimes involving children, and at other times forming relationships with local parishioners - even leaving the priesthood. Of, course, all of this is kept very quiet indeed - it is the NCW after all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As always, Tim's rebuttal is on-point. Great work Tim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous,
      Did Father Wadeson’s former society conduct an investigation and issue a report, or did it not? Tim Rohr argues that there was no report because if there had been one Father Wadeson would have produced it to clear himself from the Los Angeles Archdiocese list of priests credibly accused. This is a reasonable inference. However reasonable it is, it is, for all that, still only an inference. We still do not know what documentation Father Wadeson produced in 2014 and why he did not produce documents earlier in 2004.
      If there were a search of the society’s files and a report on the investigation were found, we could point to it and maintain for a fact: There is a report. If after a thorough search of the society’s files, no report surfaced, we could claim either that there never was a report (Tim Rohr’s claim), and maybe never an investigation; or that the report on the investigation was destroyed, misplaced or stolen. Short of such a thorough search, we are left with Tim Rohr’s inference and my questions: Was there an investigation/report or not? What documentation did Father Wadeson submit in 2014?

      Delete
  4. Well, I never thought I’d see the day
    When a priest would be driven away.
    Forget men in dresses!
    It’s Fr John! Stop the presses!
    His perversion’s too much for LA!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr. Chen, seriously, are you going to let Tim have the last word on this? You know, I don't think Tim could be completely right on all things. (But so far, he has been.) I hope you will be the first one to find a crack in his armor. Sincerely and seriously, please be the first one. But if you can't, please admit it and tell Tim, sorry I was wrong. Unlike those before you, who just walk away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Ebet, there is a pattern with the Way, they walk a way....
      What is funny is that Mr Chen, who works for the leftist government of Venezuela, keeps hounding Tim, for no reason, just repeating like a robot, all the lies put out by the putrid Maltese.
      This is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

      Delete
  6. Query:

    Why does the Archbishop persist in protecting abusive priests by shuttling them around as was common in the “bad old days”?

    Is it solely to protect his NCW Cult cronies and promote the “interests” of the Way?

    Or is there some personal predilection at play?

    Or both?

    The answers may have legal significance.

    ReplyDelete
  7. At this point, it is interesting, that close to 100% of the defenders of Archbishop Apuron are members of the neo community.
    What does that tell us?

    ReplyDelete
  8. At this point, it is interesting, that close to 100% of the defenders of Archbishop Apuron are members of the neo community.
    What does that tell us?

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch