Sunday, June 5, 2016


ADRIAN CRISTOBAL: The Archbishop has always taken very seriously any allegations, and even rumors, of sexual abuse and acted on them:…this is what he did when he limited the faculties of Fr. John Wadeson following the surfacing of an old unproven allegation (subsequently cleared by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles).

TIM ROHR: I made known the allegations against John Wadeson in a post on July 16, 2014 after he criticized my earlier posting of an audio recording of the clergy meeting with the visiting Apostolic Delegate. Wadeson's email lectured the other clergy about "breaking communion" and gave the usual sop about Apuron that all of his neo-subjects give him.

I happened to know that Wadeson had a particular interest in defending Apuron. Apuron had quietly given him refuge from his past, incardinating him into this diocese when his record of alleged sex abuse would have kept him from being incardinated in any other diocese.  Also, Wadeson was a phantom priest. He was given the position of "formator" at RMS and thus put on salary, but he was never here. He lived in San Francisco where he "ministered" to neocatecumenal communities. 

I had known of Wadeson's record for quite awhile and never intended to bring it up. But his chastising his fellow clergy and his shot at me for posting the recording of the meeting with the Delegate changed my mind and I posted the following notice from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles: 
The following clergy have no faculties to minister (no permission to exercise the priestly office) in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Please call the Parish Office and/or the Vicar for Clergy Office should they present themselves for any ministry here. 

Rev. John Howard Wadeson Archdiocese of Agaña, Guam
And said "the Archbishop owes us an explanation." 

He owed us an explanation because the allegations against Wadeson had been known since the Los Angeles Times published them in 2004, which was about the time Wadeson was incardinated by Apuron. A background check would have turned them up, but Wadeson and Apuron are neo's, so no background checks for them. 

And for sure, Apuron was aware of Wadeson's record because that's when he got a call from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles:
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.
In fact, in this PNC news report from July 22, 2014, Cristobal himself admitted to having already known about the allegations against Wadeson but that "the Archdiocese" had brushed them off saying "there were only allegations." 

LOL. So much for Cristobal saying: "The Archbishop has always taken very seriously any allegations, and even rumors, of sexual abuse and acted on them."

Apuron knew about the allegations against Wadeson from at least 2011, but only acted on them AFTER I made them known on my blog THREE YEARS LATER and Wadeson became an embarrassment to him. 

And as for Adrian's claim that the allegations were "subsequently cleared by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles." That's another Adrian lie. Here's the statement from Los Angeles published 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. 
Does anybody see anything in this statement that says Wadeson was "cleared" of the charges? 


Here's what you see:

  1. Los Angeles is only aware that Wadeson's Society did an investigation "at the time" (in the 1970's). Los Angeles itself did NOT do an investigation. 
  2. The Society "at the time" did not verify the charges (no surprise given the financial liability of the Society if the charges were verified)
  3. Los Angeles ONLY reviewed documentation PRESENTED BY FATHER WADESON (they looked no further than what Wadeson gave them)
  4. Los Angeles concluded that there was "no reason to preclude" Wadeson from ministry. 

Wadeson was NEVER cleared of the charges. Los Angeles simply said they didn't find anything after reviewing what Wadeson showed them. LOL! 

Never mind Wadeson, the crook here is Cristobal, once again lying, lying, lying to you and me. BTW, Adrian, I'm sure Wadeson is glad that you and others keep bringing up his name so I can keep telling the truth, over and over and over. Good luck in finding "another bishop who will take you." Your time here is short.

* I recently did a thorough review and expose of the Wadeson case here


  1. there's plenty of Neobishops out there... it wont be cheap for neo's paying for it, but eventually Cristobal will get same treatment as Camacho

  2. What is the full name of the priest who went to Minnesota?

    1. A bit of internet searching resulted in some interesting information and local history regarding Fr. Louis Brouilliard.

      Assignment Record– Rev. Louis Brouillard

    2. Brouillard (wich in French means fog) has been in retirement for over a quarter of a century at the expense of the Agana Diocese. He is now in his mid 90s, and enjoying a peaceful life in Pine City MN.
      Few people know of his past. He goes to regular services at the Immaculate Conception Church there.
      He kept a low profile when the Diocese of Duluth released the list of abuser priests in their See, and their whereabouts.
      That was two years ago, since then he has returned to a normal life, even if he needs an oxygen tank to go around.

      My sources tell me that he is "persona non grata" at any events of the St Mary's Catholic schools there, because parents objected to his presence after Duluth released the list of abuser priests. The local sheriff keeps him on a loose watch, but that is about it.
      Hope it helps.

    3. Does the Arxhdiocese support Ray Cepeda? Is he laicized?

    4. No support. Yes laicized.

  3. Adrian, you're starting to look like Evi...

  4. Putrid Pius, look what you have done. Infamous.


Recommendations by JungleWatch