I THINK WE FOUND THE MOLE

Posted by Tim

On January 8, 2014, I wrote this:

It's obvious the chancery was working with a MOLE at Santa Barbara. Come out of your hole. Show us who you are. Never mind, we'll smell you out. 

CHANCERY VS GOFIGAN: STINKING MOLES

I think we found the mole. This is gonna be good.

BTW, you may want to brush up on the whole APURON VS GOFIGAN saga. I think it's about to blow up again.

SMH! THE LATEST LIE.

As part of Archbishop Apuron's current campaign to restore his image to some semblance of a pastor, he is attempting to reframe the original crisis that got him in trouble in the first place: his mistreatment of Fr. Paul Gofigan.

Recently we saw a public attempt to justify the Archbishop's firing of Fr. Paul in the pathetically inept letter to the editor of a person calling himself "David Mills" and claiming to be simply a casual observer from New York. 

Mills completely gave himself away as an Apuron/Neo-operative by providing a level of detail about the case that no casual observer from New York could access. (See my response to "Mills" on this blog here and in the PDN here.)

THAT WASN'T THE REASON, WAS IT?

Archbishop Apuron,

From March 30, 1999 to March 29, 2002, Joseph B. Lastimoza performed the same duties at Santa Barbara Church under YOUR purview that you fired Fr. Paul Gofigan for permitting him to do between 2011 and 2013. But that wasn't the reason, was it? 

Community service program records for Joseph B. Lastimoza at Santa Barbara Parish

DEAR MR. MILLS

I just wanted to thank you for the opportunity. 

You see, no one in Guam was having the conversation you said you were interested "by": the conversation about Archbishop Apuron's removal of Fr. Paul. It was old news and had pretty much gone away. And, happily for the Archbishop, most of the ugly details of how he treated Fr. Paul never really made it to the press. 

However, I was told by the PDN that your letter was the inspiration for, or at least related to the genesis of, the front page story about Mr. Lastimoza, an article which, along with your letter, has caused his teenage children to be bullied at school, his wife to cry, and his 81 year old sickly mother to collapse. 

HERE'S THE BLURB FOR THE BOOK

(Diana, would you like an autographed copy?)

Fr. Paul Gofigan was the pastor of the largest parish on the island of Guam. He was also one of the few pastors left on the island who resisted the advance of the Neocatechumenal Way, a cultic international organization that had cultivated heavy influence with corrupt Vatican officials as well as many of the world's bishops, including Guam's. It was only a matter of time before the Archbishop of Guam would be ordered by his Neocatechumenal masters to crush Fr. Paul. That time arrived on July 16, 2013. At a meeting with the Archbishop, Fr. Paul was ordered to resign as pastor, locked out of his office, stripped of his priestly faculties, publicly replaced, ordered to vacate his place of residence, and banished from the diocese. The Archbishop expected Fr. Paul to just go away. He didn't. This is the story. 

ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BOOK

The post about my upcoming book on Fr. Paul quickly produced the "wailing and gnashing" of teeth I had expected it to. So thank you to the haters for giving it a ratings bump within minutes of the announcement. 

But to answer some questions. The book is already written and publicly available on this blog. Its core is the 16 "chapters" that I have already posted under the title THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL. And you can pretty much read the guts of the thing by clicking on the tab above with the same title. 

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN-PART XVI: NO APOLOGY

Note: The entire 16 chapters thus far written can be read in their entirety beginning here. Each chapter is linked at the end to the next chapter.

***

I erred slightly in saying in my last installment that the Archbishop "would respond". In fact, we don't know if he would have on his own. For what looked like a response from the Archbishop - an invitation to Fr. Paul to meet with him - we learned later was the work of Fr. Mike Crisostomo.

Fr. Mike is the current president of the Association of the Diocesan Clergy of the Archdiocese of Agana, and as such - and also because of just who Fr. Mike is - felt that things had gone too far and took the responsibility to set up a meeting between the two in the hopes that there would be some attempt at reconciliation. 

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN-PART XV: ONE LAST TRY

After Fr. Paul's letter to Archbishop Apuron of 12/6/13, asking him to "set the record straight" about his allusions to a homosexual affair with a former employee and even the false accusation that Fr. Paul had built a staircase to his private room to facilitate what in the Archbishop's words sounded like drunken orgies, Fr. Paul waited for more than a month for the Archbishop to respond. The Archbishop, as usual, did not respond.

So on 1/13/14, Fr. Paul again wrote the Archbishop, saying the following:

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN-PART XIV: A LAST STAND

On January 13, 2014, after waiting more than a month for Archbishop Apuron to respond to his letter of 12/6/13 requesting the Archbishop to address his concerns regarding the defamatory and slanderous statements made at the October retreat for the clergy, Fr. Paul again wrote the Archbishop asking him to respond:

In my letter to you of 6 Dec 2013, I asked that you retract, in writing, the slanderous and defamatory statements you made against me and (name withheld).  

As of this date, you have not provided the requested retraction nor have you responded in any way despite having over a month to do so. 

Your inaction leaves me no choice but to conclude that you either believe those slanderous statements to be true, or you do not consider my request worthy of response. 

Your failure to retract those slanderous and defamatory statements leaves me no choice but to take steps to rectify your wrong and to salvage my name, which you have gone out of your way to ruin.

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN-PART XIII: TREATED LIKE A DOG

To review. After the initial attempt to get rid of Fr. Paul was exposed to be canonically illegal, Archbishop Apuron re-initiated the process of getting rid of him through the required canonical procedures, albeit with a modified charge: the supposed retaining of a de facto employee instead of an actual employee. Fr. Paul's canon lawyer first issued a motion to revoke the charges against Fr. Paul and when that failed, issued an official appeal which finally sent the case to Rome where it awaits a hearing.

At that point things were fairly cut and dry and in the hands of the proper authorities, and many people have criticized me for not letting it stay there. But it was not ME that did not let it "stay there", i.e. let it be handled by Rome and shut up about it. It was Archbishop Apuron who "did not let it stay there", and who himself took the issue to a whole other level.

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN-PART XI: TEAR OFF THE ROOF!

While writing the next episode in the Fr. Paul saga - which will reveal and document the real reason for Fr. Paul's brutal ouster - it occurred to me that we could all benefit from a little more context. 

It is no secret to anyone that the Neocatechumenal Way, or at least its leadership, was behind the persecution of Fr. Paul. The Archbishop simply intends to institute the Neocatechumenal Way in every parish and Fr. Paul was in the way. The fact that this was almost immediately recognized by a local radio talk show host - where it was first mentioned in a rather knee-jerk fashion -  is an indication of just how large this reality is and how well it is not only known but expected. 

But why does the Archbishop want to do this? 

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN - PARTS 1 - 10

We still have a few more chapters to go in this saga, but several people have asked to be able to download all the available chapters together. I have assembled all ten chapters and all the attachments into a single file which can be accessed under the Support the Blog tab. This is a still a beta version so if you want to help me proofread it please feel free to comment on any typos. Use this single file to email as an attachment to everyone who cares. 

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN-PART X: ONE PRIEST

The errors and flagrant liturgical disobediences of the Neocatechumenal Way and even Archbishop Apuron's biases have been known for a long time. And as you know, little was ever done or said about these things. There were quiet complaints and even a short-lived public protest at one point, but for the most part, Catholics on Guam just chose to live and let live.

So what changed? Many people in the NCW just think that out of the blue I and others have decided to suddenly persecute (their word) the Neocatechumenal Way. Well, no, actually, most of us have much better things to do. What changed was the strategy of the leadership of the Neocatechumenal Way, a strategy that was made manifest in the illegal and brutal treatment of Fr. Paul Gofigan by Archbishop Apuron.

TANGO IN TAGAYTAY

Anonymous (most assuredly from the chancery) has been hounding me to prove that the Archbishop knew about the presence of the registered sex offender at Santa Barbara parish for two years and did nothing. 

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN - PART IX: WHERE IS THE POLICY?

We have been told from the beginning that the removal of Fr. Paul as pastor of Santa Barbara was necessary for the protection of parishioners, "especially the youth", and for the "safety of children."

By allowing him to work in the parish, you have exposed the children of the nearby school to a probable threat. (Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, letter to Fr. Paul Gofigan, July 16, 2013, Prot. No. 013-047) 

A school full of children is in very close proximity to the parish. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) students, Confirmation students and other youth groups are part of the parish. As the Archbishop clearly stated in his letter and was communicated to Father Paul, this is a serious matter which prompted him to act decisively. It was done with much prayer, with a review of the facts and with the ultimate consideration being the safety of our children. (Fr. Adrian Cristobal, Chancellor, Archdiocese of Agana, press release, July 22, 2013) 

You have caused grave harm to the parish by allowing such an individual with a publicly known record of sexual assault to work in the Church thus subjecting your parishioners, especially the youth, to a potential threat...There is absolutely no guarantee that the registered sex offender will never commit sexual assault again. Had he committed an act of sexual assault on church premises, the consequences would have been catastrophic. We cannot afford such a tragedy. (Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, letter to Fr. Paul Gofigan, August 20, 2013, Prot. No. 013-057)

So was the registered sex-offender the threat or was Fr. Paul? And so how has the removal of Fr. Paul as pastor made the people of Santa Barbara any safer? Is not the man still a parishioner? Does not the man and his family still attend parish events? Does he not still help out around the parish? 

Did the Archbishop issue a restraining order on him to keep him away from the parish? Are there now security guards at all the Masses to keep an eye out for him and make sure he has no contact with parishioners before or after Mass and that he does not loiter in the parking lot? 

In general, has there been any new policy from the chancery generated by this "very dangerous threat" where "grave harm" and "catastrophic" consequences were narrowly averted by the Archbishop's swift action? Are there no other possible threats in any of the parishes? Are there no other ex-cons who have returned to church? If it happened once it could happen again, couldn't it? 

Isn't it the height of irresponsibility, Archbishop, to perceive and address a possible "catastrophe", as you call it, in a particular situation, and not act promptly to address the possibility of similar catastrophes throughout the rest of the diocese with a policy measure? 

Where is your policy, Archbishop? What are the rest of us to do the next time we see a registered sex offender trying to sneak into Mass with his wife and children? What if we see him assisting at an event? Should we report him to you? Why have you not seen to the protection and safety of the rest of this diocese so that we too can be protected from registered sex-offenders? 

Or was this just about getting rid of Fr. Paul?

Go here for Part X

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN - PART VIII: THE BISHOP'S CASE

This entry is a response to the following comment which was posted after the last installment.

Anonymous May 14, 2014 at 8:21 AM had some questions for me. As usual, I gladly answer:

Is there any evidence that "they had been monitoring Fr. Paul for two years"? Why do you say this? Who claimed this and where? Even if the person was harmless, his name appeared in the national registry. This cannot be denied. Do you deny it?

In a letter from Archbishop Apuron to Fr. Paul Gofigan dated August 20, 2013 (Protocol Number 013-057), the Archbishop alleges the following:

1. That the man had been allowed to volunteer "in an official capacity" at the parish after his employment was terminated in 2011.
2. That the man had purchased "on numerous occasions...items under several Santa Barbara Church charge accounts at certain businesses." 
3. That the man had once stayed at the same hotel at which a retreat for a Santa Barbara Confirmation Class retreat was held.

In addition, the press release from the Chancellor dated July 22, 2013 alleged that the man "had keys to the facilities and had an active role on church grounds in different ways."

The Archbishop rests his very case against Fr. Paul on this ACCUMULATION of evidence. This accumulation of evidence took time to compile, and the Archbishop took great pains to compile it because he needed a solid case against Fr. Paul in order to get rid of him.

And getting rid of Fr. Paul was the objective from the beginning, NOT the safety of children. Had the safety of children been the Archbishop's concern he would have addressed the problem with Fr. Paul immediately. No. The Archbishop needed a case, and he took time to compile it. And, as evidenced by the timing of the changing of the locks on Fr. Paul's office, he took time to plan it. None of this was spontaneous. It was a manufactured case and the Archbishop took great care to manufacture it. He just did not expect it to backfire. 

Well, it has.

Now let us look at Fr. Paul's response to those allegations. For whereas the Archbishop did not care to ask Fr. Paul for an explanation, other people did. And here is what he said: 

The "return" of the man "to work in an official capacity". 

Fr. Paul's response: What official capacity is he talking about? The individual helped out with volunteering his manpower. He was not involved with any ministries or catechesis with our youth.

The purchase of items for Santa Barbara Church.

Fr. Paul's response: He already had an established relationship with these businesses so I authorized him to pick some necessary items for the priest house for me.

The staying at the same hotel at which a Confirmation retreat was held.

Fr. Paul's response: I asked him to assist me in unloading retreat items as well as loading and returning items back to the church once specific activities were done. Because there were some rooms vacant, I invited him and his wife and children to spend the weekend, but they were not involved with any of the retreat activities.

Possession of the keys. 

In a Pacific News Center report dated July 25, 2013, Fr. Paul is quoted as saying the following: "The person who was terminated in 2011 does not possess keys to the Church and its facilities. That person and spouse as well as their children are parishioners of Santa Barbara and have frequented Santa Barbara church and its facilities many times for Mass, functions, and other activities happening at the church and its facilities." In another conversation, Fr. Paul advised a friend who inquired about the accusation that the man had keys, that on occasion he would give the man the keys to the rectory to go and fetch something he forgot, or to open the church early. The keys were always returned to Fr. Paul. 

Those who will not accept these explanation can call Fr. Paul a liar all day long. However, who they really should be addressing is the Archbishop. But since they won't, I will do it for you:

Dear Archbishop,

We have yet to hear from you how the Archdiocese of Agana in general, and you in particular, SHOULD or WOULD handle a convicted felon who, after serving his or her prison term, desires to return to our Church. 

Okay, so maybe he should not not be hired by a parish. But to what extent is he to be allowed to participate in parish life? Should he be allowed to set up tables and chairs for parish events? Should he be allowed to do errands for the pastor as this man did? How long can a convicted felon hang out in the parking lot after Mass? How soon must he exit the church after Mass? Would he be allowed to speak with other parishioners? For how long? Should he be sequestered somehow from the rest of the congregation? Would you sequester just him or would his family - in this case his wife and two daughters - be made to sit apart in the leper section? 

Archbishop, these are stupid questions because you very well know that if this man had approached you to be received into the Neocatechumenal Way, not only would he be received, he would be featured and celebrated and paraded about as another Neocatechumenal Victory:  MORE FRUIT!

But aside from what you would or wouldn't do, why are we bothering with prison ministry at all? If a man who committed a crime 33 years ago is still a danger to a parish then a man who committed a crime 3 years ago is still a danger. Just because there is a registry for sex offenders and no registry for murderers and muggers and child abusers does that suddenly make the sex offender a leper and the others okay? 

What do we do with all these criminals, Archbishop? Go ahead, give us the policy. We're waiting. And by the way, WWJD?

But of course, even asking WWJD is a stupid question because none of this had anything to do with dealing with ex-cons or the safety of children. IT HAD TO DO WITH GETTING RID OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN. 

Go here for Part IX

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN - PART VII: THE EVIDENCE

It is now time to examine the alleged "crime" committed by Fr. Paul that supposedly warranted his brutal ouster. Let us examine the charge in the words of Archbishop Apuron:

You have allowed a registered sex offender, (name withheld), to return to work at the parish, even after you were warned by the Vicar General and the Attorney for the Archdiocese to release him. You disobeyed the order given by the Vicar General. By this action, you have in effect caused grave harm to the parish by allowing such an individual with a publicly known sex-offense record to work in the Church thus exposing him to your parishioners, especially the youth. By allowing him to work in the parish, you have exposed the children of the nearby school to a probable threat. (Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, letter to Fr. Paul Gofigan, July 16, 2013, Prot. No. 013-047)

Again, we must clarify. The man's crime occurred more than three decades ago. His crime had nothing to do with children. He went to prison. He was released from prison. He got married. He has two daughters. He approached Fr. Paul to be reconciled with our Church. He obtained a police clearance. Fr. Paul hired him as a church maintenance man.

There is nothing in his record since 1981, when the sex-offense was committed, to suggest that he had the potential to cause "grave harm" to the parish or was a "probable threat" to children." By even the most objective account, we have here a man seeking reconciliation with his church and attempting to live out his life in some semblance of quiet normalcy. 

And again we must ask, as we asked before, how the Archbishop himself would have treated the man had he come to him instead of Fr. Paul. Or had he come to an NCW catechesis, would he have been turned away?

But let us move on to the charge itself.

In October of 2011, the Vicar General, Msgr. David C. Quitugua, ordered Fr. Paul to terminate the man's employment. Two years later, on July 16, 2013, the Archbishop calls Fr. Paul into his office and accuses him of disobeying "the order given by the Vicar General."

As we have already discussed, Fr. Paul was given no opportunity for "due process" as required by Canon law and mere human decency. Had he been given such an opportunity, the Archbishop might have spared himself and this diocese the "arduous and painful" experience he promised Fr. Paul. For Fr. Paul was right and the Archbishop was wrong. Fr. Paul HAD obeyed the Vicar General and he produced the evidence: a letter of termination addressed to the employee dated October 26, 2011.

And the man did not "return to work" as alleged by the Archbishop. The man simply continued to help out around the parish as many of us do. This is why the Archbishop - when confronted with the proof that Fr. Paul HAD in fact obeyed the Vicar General's order - changed the charge.

In his Decree of Removal of Fr. Paul, dated November 12, 2013, the Archbishop changes the charge against Fr. Paul stating that the reason for Fr. Paul's removal is due to his "refusing to terminate the de facto employment of a registered sex offender working in the parish."

So whereas the charge of July 16, 2013 was Fr. Paul's failure to terminate the employment of the registered sex offender, the charge, once Fr. Paul produced proof that he had in fact terminated the man's actual employment, it is now his failure to terminate the man's de facto employment. In other words, the Archbishop attempts to redefine the man's unpaid volunteer presence on church grounds as "employment."

This attempt to change the charge after the fact did not escape Fr. Paul's attorney. Fr. Dacanay, S. J. writes in his appeal:

The charge against Fr. Gofigan has become an elastic concept. At first it was because he did not obey the direct order to terminate the employment of (name withheld). When the charge proved false, it mutated into allowing him to do volunteer work for the parish. While the case is not identical, the accusation against a pastor in order to remove him from his office is somewhat analogous to the joinder of issues in a contentious trial, and the Code is very strict that such a joinder, once determined, may be altered only under the most rigorous conditions. In this case, the accusation and the basis of the removal was expanded from not terminating the employment to allowing him to helping out in the parish. (The appeal of Rev. Paul Gofigan in relation to his removal as Pastor of Santa Barbara Parish, A.N. Dacanay, S.J., Advocate)

So where are we with this case? Let's review:

1. Fr. Paul was illegally removed from his post as pastor of Santa Barbara Church.
2. Fr. Paul challenged his removal on the grounds that his removal violated canonical procedure and that the reason for his removal (his failure to terminate the man's employment) was false.
3. Archbishop Apuron in effect acknowledges the illegal proceedings against Fr. Paul by initiating the required canonical process to remove Fr. Paul on August 12, 2013 as noted in the official Decree of Removal.
4. Fr. Paul's advocate, Fr. Dacanay, responds with a Motion to Archbishop Apuron on 8/20/13 requesting that he revoke the decree removing Fr. Paul from his parish. In the Motion, Fr. Dacanay details [1] the applicable provision of the Code for the removal of pastors; [2] the facts of the case; [3] the procedural lapses by the Archbishop; and [4] the appeal that Fr. Paul be "restored to his office as pastor, his name cleared, and the damage to his reputation repaired."
5. Archbishop Apuron ignores the motion from Fr. Dacanay and responds with a letter of September 10, 2013 to Fr. Paul informing him that he is proceeding with the canonical process for his removal.
6. The "Acts" (documents related to the case against Fr. Paul) are prepared by the Archbishop and sent to Fr. Dacanay for his review. (The Acts are not publicly available.)
7. Fr. Dacanay reviews the Acts and on November 7, 2013, files an official appeal of the case. (Copy of the official appeal not yet publicly available.)
8. The case goes to Rome where it will be heard by the appropriate Vatican Congregation.

When, we do not know? But what we do know is that even after the Archbishop's charge against Fr. Paul was proved false, the Archbishop decided to proceed to have Fr. Paul removed anyway. Why?

We're coming to that. But first we must note with great seriousness that if in fact Archbishop Apuron believed the presence of the registered sex-offender at Santa Barbara Parish to be "a probable threat" to children and a potential for "grave harm" to the parish, then he has opened himself up for an AVALANCHE OF LAW SUITS from the parishioners and the parents of those children. 

According to Archbishop Apuron's own words, Archbishop Apuron WAS AWARE of this "probable threat" since 2011 and did NOTHING until July 16, 2013. 

For two years, again according to Archbishop Apuron's own words, he allowed the parishioners of Santa Barbara, and "especially the youth", as well as the children from the "nearby school",  to remain subject to "grave harm" and a "probable threat". 

It is probably only out what is left of respect for his office, and the faint hope that Fr. Paul might be restored as pastor to Santa Barbara, that Archbishop Apuron has not YET been sued for gross negligence and for knowingly allowing the prospect of grave harm to endure for nearly two years without so much as even speaking to Fr. Paul once about it until July 16, 2013. 

Fr. Paul may lose his appeal. Fr. Paul may be kicked out of this diocese. But all the liability for the supposed danger alleged by Archbishop Apuron then falls on Archbishop Apuron. And with the removal and banishment of Fr. Paul, there will also disappear the faint hope that has till now helped to quell the outrage. 

We have seen many such lawsuits against bishops in the states and in Europe. We may soon see them here.

Go here for Part VIII

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN - PART VI: THE CHILDREN

Now, let's take a deeper look at what Archbishop Apuron says. Let's copy the charge here again (emphases mine):

You have allowed a registered sex offender, (name withheld), to return to work at the parish, even after you were warned by the Vicar General and the Attorney for the Archdiocese to release him. You disobeyed the order given by the Vicar General. By this action, you have in effect caused grave harm to the parish by allowing such an individual with a publicly known sex-offense record to work in the Church thus exposing him to your parishioners, especially the youth. By allowing him to work in the parish, you have exposed the children of the nearby school to a probable threat.

Now, why does the Archbishop say "especially the youth" and emphasize that the man is even a threat to a nearby school? The man's crime, in 1981 when he was 21 years old, involved an adult female. There is no record of his EVER having been a threat to children. So why now is he suddenly a threat to children? It's a theme the Archbishop desperately wanted to impart and we shall soon learn why. 

The "danger to children" theme is hammered yet again on July 22, 2013, when Fr. Adrian Cristobal issues a press release overtly emphasizing this danger to children. In fact, in the press release, the man is apparently ONLY a danger to children because no other group is mentioned:

...especially in light of the painful lessons the Church and all of society have had to endure in recent years – and still endures – we must abide by standards that will safeguard all children in our care. As Jesus teaches us, the youngest are among the must vulnerable among us and great care must be given to safeguard them. 

A school full of children is in very close proximity to the parish. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) students, Confirmation students and other youth groups are part of the parish. 

As the Archbishop clearly stated in his letter and was communicated to Father Paul, this is a serious matter which prompted him to act decisively. It was done with much prayer, with a review of the facts and with the ultimate consideration being the safety of our children.

The chancery is obviously pounding a drum: the children, the children, the children. Before we get into why they are beating this drum, we have to deal with the fact that given the man's record, which had nothing to do with children, this is awfully close to bearing false witness. The man is being implicitly accused by the Archbishop and the Chancellor of a crime he did not commit, and they both KNOW what they are doing. 

Here we have a man who went to jail for what he did, was released after many years, got married and had two daughters, humbly sought to return to his church, asked to work as a church janitor so he could feed his family, and even obtained a police clearance to do so. And now he is drug out of this quiet life by the archbishop of the church to which he has returned, and is beaten and publicly smeared as a child molester. 

At first, it worked. The media immediately picked up that theme. The children, the children, the children became child molester, child molester, child molester...just as the chancery had planned. Why did they plan this? We'll get to that. 

There has been much criticism of Fr. Paul "going to the media." This has been used as a way to beat Fr. Paul up and make him look like the bad guy. However, the first person to "go to the media" was Fr. Adrian. Here's what happened.

At the meeting with the Archbishop of July 16, 2013, and after being ambushed as we have already detailed, Fr. Paul told the Archbishop and the Vicar General that he would be informing his parishioners of his removal and his intent to challenge it. According to Fr. Paul (through a friend because I have never spoken personally with him on any of this), the Archbishop and the Vicar General just stared at him. 

That weekend, Fr. Paul, even though he was already removed, did exactly what he said he was going to do, distributing a letter explaining his removal after all the Masses at his parish since he was not allowed to speak to his parishioners from the pulpit. 

The paper trail

Let's stop here and note something which has amazed many ever since this started: the paper trail. Obviously, JungleWatch has become "famous" because I "have the goods". The "goods" are the actual letters and documents relative to this whole mess. And how did I get them? It was easy. Fr. Paul, having nothing to lose, shared them with friends, and they quickly filtered out to others including me. (Fr. Paul himself has never given me a document.) 

But why was there even a paper trail to begin with? Had the Archbishop called Fr. Paul in and spoken with him as a father to a son - and as was required by Canon Law - there would have been no July 16 letter. And even if Fr. Paul had eventually challenged the Archbishop it would have been nothing more than "he said, he said". 

But the Archbishop doesn't talk with people. He sends them letters. And this is why we have all this evidence, not just about this case, but about the shenanigans with the RMS property, the firing of the finance council, the mess with Aaron Quitugua, and every other scandal. 

Because the Archbishop prefers to act as an authoritarian (rather than pastorally), he has created his own stew by giving the whole world a fairly damning paper trail. In fact, it was the Archbishop's own words, in writing, that gave Fr. Paul's advocate all the documentation and evidence he needed to prepare the appeal that has now gone to Rome!

And by removing Fr. Paul before the following Sunday, denying him the ability to address his parishioners in person, the Archbishop essentially forces Fr. Paul to be begin his own paper trail, since the writing of a letter and its distribution outside the church is all that is left him. And it was this paper trail that got to the media Monday morning. 

With the July 16 letter from the Archbishop and Fr. Paul's subsequent letter to his parishioners in hand, and listeners already barking on the radio about the whole affair, the media called Fr. Paul to get his side and Fr. Paul provides.

(Fr. Paul did NOT go to the media. They went to him. I know this because two of the media organizations called me get Fr. Paul's number. I didn't have it. They called me because - as you may know - they normally call me whenever any church business comes up they want comment on.)

At this point, someone smart in the chancery should have sensed danger and called Fr. Paul in to hash things out in private. But no, Fr. Adrian adds fuel to the fire, lots of it. He "goes to the media" by sending out a press release, a press release that ultimately proves damning to the chancery because it becomes, as we shall soon see, the "smoking gun" which allows Fr. Dacanay, S.J., Fr. Paul's advocate, to demonstrate that the Archbishop violated canonical norms in his treatment of Fr. Paul. 

As an aside, and another point of amazement, is: with a parish as large as Santa Barbara, the largest on the island, and Fr. Paul being as popular as he was, how could the Archbishop not think that this would NOT blow up in his face, especially given his slash and burn tactics? Was this just a strategic blunder...or did he just not care? But slash and burn he did, and then off to the party in Rio. Santa Barbara be damned. Kiko was waiting. Oh, and the Pope too. 

Go here for Part VII

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN - PART V: THE OFFENSE

It is time now to review the offense for which Father Paul is allegedly guilty. The name of the subject person, even though it is already known, is being withheld out of consideration for the the man's wife and his two young daughters who have nothing to do with this. 

Here are the Archbishop's exact words from the July 16, 2013 letter demanding his resignation:

You have allowed a registered sex offender, (name withheld), to return to work at the parish, even after you were warned by the Vicar General and the Attorney for the Archdiocese to release him. You disobeyed the order given by the Vicar General. By this action, you have in effect caused grave harm to the parish by allowing such an individual with a publicly known sex-offense record to work in the Church thus exposing him to your parishioners, especially the youth. By allowing him to work in the parish, you have exposed the children of the nearby school to a probable threat.

Let's stop here and discuss. Let's say, for the sake of the discussion, that everything the Archbishop accuses Fr. Paul of is true and that everything he says about the man is true. It's not, but we'll get to that. Now let's say the man, who committed his crime 33 years ago and was released from prison after a lengthy term, instead of going to Santa Barbara showed up at a catechesis for the Neocatechumenal Way. And let's say that the catechist or the responsible or whoever was in charge of that particular catechesis learned of the man's record and went to the Archbishop for counsel on how to handle the desire of a registered sex-offender to enter a community. 

How do you think the Archbishop would have responded? Would he have said what he said here to Fr. Paul? Note that the "great harm" noted by the Archbishop is not that the man worked in the parish but that he was "exposed to parishioners, especially the youth." Would he not be "exposed" to Neocatechumenal community members? Are there no "youth" in the Neocatechumenal Way? What do you do with a registered sex-offender who wants to join a Neocatechumenal community?

If the man was a danger simply by being around the parish, how much more dangerous would he be in a community where the exposure would be much more frequent and close? There is only one answer based on the Archbishop's own words: OUT! But then how does that comport with Kiko's words: 

"...we have always shown to the many brothers who have emerged from hell, full of wounds and of self-loathing, that in the Holy Eucharist the Lord makes present his love, dying and rising for them; and not only that, but prepares a table, an eschatological banquet, which makes Heaven present and where He himself, full of love, has them sit down and comes to serve them." - Letter from Kiko Arguello to Pope Benedict XVI, Jan. 17, 2006.

Let's go further. What if this man had shown up on your own door step, Archbishop? What if this man had asked to join your community? What if this man had asked for your spiritual guidance and assistance in healing the wounds of his own self-loathing? Is he not one of "the many brothers who have emerged from hell?" Would you not "prepare a table" for him? An eschatological banquet...full of love, and have him sit down with you?

Fr. Paul did exactly what you say you profess to do as one who is walking. Yet he is brutalized for his compassion and the ex-prisoner beaten and humiliated by your condemnation.  Do you see the problem?

We do.

Go here for Part VI

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN - PART IV: BANISHED

In addition to all the foregoing - wherein Fr. Paul is denied due process for his removal, locked out of the parish, told to vacate the rectory, removed from the list of scheduled presiders, replaced with a parochial administrator, and publicly humiliated by the announcement of his removal at all the parish Masses - there is the even larger issue (and more frightening for Fr. Paul) of his being told to go find a "benevolent bishop", otherwise translated: "GET OUT OF MY DIOCESE!"  (Letter from Archbishop Apuron to Fr. Paul Gofigan, Juy 16, 2013)