WEIRD, BUT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR "A COMMUNITY OF PERSONS"

By Tim Rohr

Maybe this is nothing. Maybe. However, the memories of days not so long ago, when weird stuff was coming out of the chancery, have taught me to treat weird stuff from the chancery with immediate suspicion. And this transfer is weird.

PDF

1. Archbishop Jimenez references Canon 1748 as the basis for his authority to order this transfer. Canon 1748 states the following:

Can. 1748 If the good of souls or the necessity or advantage of the Church demands that a pastor be transferred from a parish which he is governing usefully to another parish or another office, the bishop is to propose the transfer to him in writing and persuade him to consent to it out of love of God and souls.

Fr. Gofigan is not a pastor. He is a parochial administrator:

https://aganaarch.org/clergydirectory

Thus, no such canonical process is required. If you read on beyond Can. 1748, you will see that the canon is just the beginning of a process that leads to increasing complexity. Why reference this canon when no such process is required? 

A parochial administrator is just that, an administrator. An administrator can be appointed, transferred, or removed at the bishop's discretion. This was the point of appointing only administrators, rather than pastors, in the first place - so Jimenez could move them around at will. 

If you search the above-referenced clergy directory, you will see that there are only four pastors, all of whom are Capuchins, not diocesan priests. I don't know the canonical relationship between the Capuchins and the archbishop, but Capuchins don't take a vow of obedience to the bishop of a diocese. Interesting that Jimenez left them as pastors. 

2. The letter is dated April 19, 2016, and is stated as follows: "Given this 19th day of April, 2026..." Today is April 15, 2026, and the letter was posted to the AOA Facebook page on April 12:

Perhaps Jimenez meant that the appointment would take effect on April 19. But then the letter should have had language to that effect, and it doesn't. 

3. Moreover, Archbishop Jimenez is off-island and has been for several days. Why couldn't this transfer business wait till he got back? Why the rush?

Weird.

The appointment of Deacon Len Stohr LINK

There has also been a question about a deacon being appointed as a parochial administrator. Per Canon 517.2, this is permitted:

Canon 517 §2. If, because of a lack of priests, the diocesan bishop has decided that participation in the exercise of the pastoral care of a parish is to be entrusted to a deacon, to another person who is not a priest, or to a community of persons, he is to appoint some priest who, provided with the powers and faculties of a pastor, is to direct the pastoral care.

However, notice that the canon is based on "a lack of priests." Why does Guam have "a lack of priests"?

We paid millions (meellions and meellions - for those who remember) to ordain 17 priests out of RMS. Where are they? Some, like Krzysztof Szafarski and Edivaldo Oliveira, are gone but are still on our payroll. Others, like John Wadeson, never actually worked in Guam or worked very little, yet are receiving retirement benefits off the back of a bankrupt archdiocese. 

That said, I am not opposed to the consolidation of parishes or the assigning of priests to serve multiple parishes. That's being done everywhere these days. Given the two options, though, I think the latter is better. One thing is clear: in Guam, parishioners are very attached to their parishes and willing to financially and physically support them.

Canon 571 §2 also permits a parish to be entrusted "to a community of persons." That may be the best way to go for Guam. Parishioners need to organize, take control, and assume responsibility for the temporal and operational aspects of their parishes. Priests and Deacons don't need to be administrators. They need to be priests and deacons. 

And, given this trend of shuffling clergy around, parishioners will be better for it.