JungleWatch

Monday, May 12, 2014

AFTERNOON UPDATE

I actually get tired of doing this. It's not fun cataloguing all these horrid things. It takes way too much time and frankly it's depressing. But every time I feel like stopping I get a whole truckload of crap from the Kiko's, like I got this afternoon, and am reminded about why I must do this. I've been around a lot of different people and businesses. I have engaged some very controversial public issues. And I have more than my share of enemies.

SO FUN!

This guy claims not to be a neo, just an Apuron defender. I'm sure he appreciates it, Guy from Mangilao.

Looks like our story is being picked up in Italy.

AD GENTES?

One of the questions we have asked here on this blog is why is Archbishop Apuron taking seminarians from other countries and bringing them to our island under the guise of "ad gentes" and of Guam being a "mission" when we are already 400 years along in Catholicism.

Dear Archbishop Apuron,

Did you notice? Did you notice that you and your priests are irrelevant to the hierarchy of the Neocatechumenal Way? Diana explains:

DID YOU CHECK WITH YOUR CATECHIST?

Seriously "Diana", did you check with your catechist before you posted this? I guess now we know that you really are just an ordinary "walker". Archbishop, do you actually allow this????

Coming soon to a Kindle, Nook, or ebook near you.

AND HE IS ULTIMATELY CULPABLE

Anonymous May 8, 2014 at 12:24 PM left the following as a comment:

So here is Diana's response again to receiving communion... receive the host standing up, the sit and consume it.

WITHOUT SPENDING A SINGLE PENNY

I was asked to respond to this:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "WHO OWNS REDEMPTORIS MATER?"

A COUPLE OF THINGS

For those of you sending me comments alleging clerical sex abuse, I will not post those comments unless:

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

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

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

FRUIT?

I get lectured regularly by the Kiko's about the "fruits". We're supposed to judge the Way by its fruits. I have quite a collection of this kind of fruit:

How do you KNOW Kiko lives lavishly? Do you have proof he has a mansion or just pure HATE and PREJUDICE!

A PERSONAL THREAT AGAINST MY PERSON

I have no interest in "Diana's" blog. Anyone who would go so far as to equate "concelebrants", as designated in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, with "connumicants" to justify a wayward communion practice has already...well, it's simply not worth reading any further.

SOUNDS OF SILENCE

It has been rather quiet lately, hasn't it? What happened to the constant harping that I was spreading gossip and evil division? Hmmm. Maybe the facts had something to do with it? Of course, most of them have been presented before. And it really is a shame I have to do this again. But just so you know why I am, I am copying again the challenge below.

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)

OUR ANGER IS DIRECTED AT YOU

Comment from "Anonymous Parishioners" responding to my being called a "hypocrite" in one of my posts:

6:11 and 8:45AM and to our Archbishop: Even if we tried we couldn't be supremely hypocritical seeing as the hypocrisies, the divisions and the subtle fraudulence pulled on this Catholic congregation comes from the Diocesan HIGHER-UPS, the HIERARCHY of this Catholic Church on Guam.

WE'LL STICK WITH PETER

Received the following challenge via email. Him in red. Me in black.

The unfortunate part is many the posts, blogs, comments are laced with half-truths, misinterpretations and some outright lies (or lack of support to corroborate the points many make).

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN - PART III

We will now examine the letter of August 2, 2013 from Msgr. David C. Quitugua, Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Agana, to Fr. Paul Gofigan.

In the previous installment we noted that the thrust of this letter was to advise Fr. Paul Gofigan that he could not challenge his removal as pastor from Santa Barbara Parish because he had not been removed as pastor from Santa Barbara Parish...even though he was:

Locked out of the parish offices.
Told to vacate his living quarters.
Removed from the schedule of presiders at Mass.
Stripped of his priestly faculties.
Officially replaced by a parochial administrator
And had his removal announced at every Mass on the following Sunday

THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN - PART II

We must now take a closer look at the Archbishop's letter to Fr. Paul of July 16, 2013.

There are three main things that happen in this letter:

Fr. Paul is told that he has caused grave harm to his parish.
Fr. Paul is told to resign as pastor from Santa Barbara Parish (and he is also removed as Director of Vocations and the Director of the Diaconate Formation Program.
Fr. Paul is told to "go and look for a benevolent bishop willing to accept you", meaning he is to be banished from the diocese.

SUGGESTION BOX

As you can see from the date of the letter below, I received it awhile ago. I receive lots of letters, emails, notes, packages, etc. You'd be amazed at what I get. I don't post it or even use most of it because this isn't a personal vendetta of mine against any one person. There is something desperately wrong in this archdiocese and I truly believe it is coming from the outside, though it uses local people. However, after Peace/Joy's taunts I'm feeling a little more frisky today. It's rather innocent. And most people have already, on their own, chosen to do this. So it won't do much harm. But, just to let you know the kind of mail I get. You may need to zoom in to read it.

MORE FROM PEACE AND JOY

Confronted with sheer indisputable facts, here is how the Peace/Joy people respond:

You are hypocritical again. When people use their names, you jump on them and orchestrate mobbing attacks against them. That is your reality You are a violent person who cannot take opposing views.

I would like to thank Fr. Francis Walsh for standing up for our Church today in the local news. It is always heartening to see a priest take a public stand. He is sure to get a lot of blowback, especially for his comments about Church teaching on homosexual acts, contraception, and abortion. So pray for him. Been there.

TWISTING IN THE WIND

Well the Anonymous Coward who challenged me to substantiate my contentions is now twisting in the wind. Let's see what he has to say. (I'm taking out his mention of other people since I'm the target.)

While your page views on blogspot have risen, people viewing your posts on the jw facebook group has dwindled more and more.....just thought you might want to take notice of this fact.