Showing posts sorted by relevance for query wadeson. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query wadeson. Sort by date Show all posts

Saturday, February 14, 2015

THE WADESON FILE

ThoughtfulCatholic.com blogger, Chuck White, has written a letter to Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco advising him that Fr. John Wadeson may have returned to San Francisco and be ministering secretly there. Read it here: 

Below is a review of the Wadeson file. 

11/15/2002 - Fr. John Wadeson, formerly a priest of the religious order Society of the Divine Word (Societas Verbi Divini - S.V.D.), otherwise known as Missionaries of the Divine Word, after being granted an indult of voluntary exclaustration (release from his order) is incardinated as a diocesan priest in the Archdiocese of Agana by Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron.


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. 


Saturday, July 26, 2014

SNAP: CA- Will SF let twice-accused LA/Guam priest work?

Today, SNAP has released another statement about Fr. Wadeson This time it is directed at his activity as a priest in the Archdiocese of San Francisco. 

The SNAP statement makes the following four points to which I will add comment:

"First, San Francisco Archbishop Cordileone should tell what he knows about these allegations and explain why Fr. Wadeson was apparently allowed to work as a priest here even though he was ousted elsewhere. Not one of his aides. Not one of his spokespersons. But the archbishop himself." 

It appears Fr. Wadeson may have been active in the San Francisco diocese since the early 2000's. Archbishop Cordileone only came to San Francisco in 2012 and 1) may not be aware of Fr. Wadeson's presence or record, and 2) would not have been the bishop who gave Fr. Wadeson faculties to participate in active ministry in San Francisco if in fact he does have faculties. There is the added issue that Fr. Wadeson is NOT assigned to a parish but to a Neocatechumenal Center. And as we already know, the Neo's have their own hierarchy and bypass bishops and pastors at will. What we DO KNOW is that it is Archbishop Apuron who ASSIGNED Fr. Wadeson to the Neocatechumenal Center in San Francisco. Whether he did so with the permission of the then-archbishop is what we don't know. (See pg. 19 of the 2013 Directory for the Archdiocese of Agana). 


Sunday, June 5, 2016

FUNNY QUOTES-4



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).

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

STILL MORE LIES


KUAM is reporting today that Archbishop Apuron has restored Fr. John Wadeson to ministry in the Archdiocese of Agana after an investigation by the Los Angeles Archdiocese concluded that "there is no reason to preclude Father Wadeson from serving in priestly ministry."

Congratulations, Fr. Wadeson, and you're welcome. It appears you took my advice when I wrote on July 25, 2014:
Now, get down to business, clear your name with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and publish the record exonerating you of all charges.

Saturday, September 21, 2024

WHERE ARE THESE PRIESTS AND WHY ARE WE PAYING THEM?

By Tim Rohr


In a recent post titled I'LL BE READY FOR THAT, I questioned who is the "Priest in Guam 'dumped' here after sex scandal..." as reported by Troy Torres in Kandit News. 

Troy's story was a take off on a story that had appeared in the New York Times and had alleged that a number of priests who had been credibly accused or convicted of sex with minors elsewhere had been "dumped" on Pacific islands in the 1990's including an "itinerant" priest who "still serves" in Guam.

I noted in my post that the words "itinerant priest" usually refer to priests in the Neocatechumenal Way but that I could not think of a "neo" priest who was "dumped" here in the 1990's and is "still serving" in Guam. 

The only priest who comes close to matching that description is Fr. John Wadeson. 

Wadeson was (or is) a "neo" priest and he arrived in Guam sometime in the early 2000's after Redemptoris Mater Seminary was established in Yona. An archdiocesan document of diocesan priests and how they get paid shows Wadeson on the payroll in 2005. 

On a personal note, Wadeson always seemed alright to me and I never had any issues with him. I even - for several months - refused to post anything negative about him after others started sending me information about his name being on a list of credibly accused priests in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

However, after a clergy meeting with the then-Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Martin Krebs, on July 15, 2014, Wadeson sent out an email attacking this blog and inferring that I was in cahoots with Satan. So I decided to open the flood gates on his record of clergy sex abuse in LA and it became news pretty quick. 

One week later, on July 22, 2014, then-Archbishop Apuron removed Wadeson from public ministry even though Apuron had stated that the LA allegations against Wadeson were "never substantiated."

If that was the case, Apuron had a duty to make that known when he incardinated Wadeson at least ten years earlier and put him on our payroll. But when it came to "neo" business, Apuron was never calling the shots. He was being told/ordered what to do by the real bosses.

In hindsight, ten years later and with Apuron outed and ousted, we can see why he got rid of Wadeson so quickly. This was 2 years before Apuron's accusers came forward (2016), but it was also after Apuron had been publicly accused by John Toves. Apuron knew what Toves was after and he (Apuron) was hot to make it look like he was tough on clergy sex abuse. So he threw Wadeson under the bus. 

Note: There are over 100 posts about Wadeson. Type "Wadeson" into the search box at the top of the blog and read away.

Two days after being removed from ministry, Wadeson left (fled) Guam, surfaced in San Francisco, and has never been back. The last we heard from him was a nasty letter to the PDN about me on July 25, 2014. 

At first I thought that the NY Times guy got it wrong. Wadeson has not "served...in Guam" since 2014. However, the author can be forgiven for thinking Wadeson is still here because even though Wadeson has been gone for ten years, and appeared to be in active ministry for some time in the Archdiocese of San Francisco, he's still on our payroll

The link is to the clergy directory of the Archdiocese of Agana which lists Fr. John Wadeson as "Priest retired - off island." No kidding, he's been off-island for ten years and has been on our payroll all that time.

According to a trusted source, the monthly stipend for diocesan clergy is $1800 per month and about $1500 a month for retired priests. I don't know how long Wadeson has been "retired," but even if he has been retired all these ten years, we have paid a priest who ran away ten years ago $180,000 ($1500 x 12 months x 10 years). 

And we're still paying him!

Meanwhile, we have priests who are not retired but are "off-island" for no reason known to us. From the Clergy Directory:

  1. Akinyemi, Rev. Fr. Julius, Leave of Absence
  2. Asproni, Rev. Fr. Francesco, Priest off-island
  3. Camacho, Rev. Fr. Luis, Priest off-island
  4. Oliveira, Rev. Fr. Edivaldo, Priest off-island
  5. Quitugua, JCD, Msgr. David C., Priest off-island
  6. Stoia, Rev. Fr. Aurelius, Priest off-island

Six priests at $1800 per month = $10,800 per month x 12 months = $129,600 per year. And who knows for how many years!

They're all "neos" by the way, and I believe 5 of them were formed at our local RMS, which means we paid tens of thousands of dollars for their formation as well as tens of thousands of dollars for them to BE GONE.

Also, we know that some of these priests are active elsewhere which means they are probably "double-dipping." Not a bad gig. 

I know the new archbishop is busy getting his bearings, but, as I've already said elsewhere, given all that Catholics in this archdiocese have had to suffer these last several years and the selling off of many properties that were given to the Church by the families of those same Catholics, it is time for ACCOUNTABILITY...on EVERYTHING.

So where are these priests and why are we paying them?

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

SIMPLY MORE LIES AND MORE LIES

Let's compare what Archbishop Apuron said about Fr. Wadeson versus what the Archdiocese of Los Angeles really said. First, let's read the two statements:
STATEMENT FROM THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA

On April 10, 2015 the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles in its weekly diocesan newspaper, The Tidings, published a report stating the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had conducted a thorough re-examination of the whole issue concerning the alleged accusations against Father John H. Wadeson. The Tidings made the announcement in its print edition.

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles has concluded that there is no reason to preclude Father Wadeson from serving in priestly ministry showing that all the rumors and alleged calumnies against him were unfounded.

The Archdiocese of Agana therefore announces that Fr. John Wadeson has been reinstated fully to public ministry according to a decree dated April 13, 2015.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

UNLESS AND UNTIL HIS HOME ARCHDIOCESE CONFIRMS THAT HE IS SUITABLE FOR MINISTRY

Statement Regarding Fr. John Wadeson:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(SAN FRANCISCO, JULY 25, 2014) As with all priests who hale from other dioceses, Fr. John Wadeson was granted permission to minister within the Archdiocese of San Francisco based upon assurances of good standing from his home diocese, in this case the Archdiocese of Agana in Guam.  On July 22, 2014, the Archdiocese of San Francisco became aware that the Archbishop of Agana, Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, had removed Fr. Wadeson from ministry on July 21, 2014,  “in response to concerns in the community.”  Therefore, on July 22, 2014, Archbishop Cordileone informed Archbishop Apuron that in response to this information, Fr. Wadeson would not be allowed to undertake any ministry in the Archdiocese of San Francisco, unless and until his home Archdiocese confirms that he is suitable for ministry. The Archdiocese of San Francisco has informed Fr. Wadeson of that restriction as well, and Fr. Wadeson has willingly agreed to observe it.  


We welcome and encourage anyone who may have any information concerning any possible wrongdoing by Fr. Wadeson to contact the Victim’s Assistance Office.
For more information contact:
Dr. Renee Duffey
Archdiocese of San Francisco
Victim's Assistance Coordinator
(415) 614-5506
duffeyr@sfarchdiocese.org 

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS...BUT FOR HOW LONG?


So let's take a look at the "Statement from the Archdiocese of Agana Regarding Fr. John Wadeson" (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. 
I. "In response to concerns in the community". Obviously the Archbishop, as the chief shepherd, has no concerns himself. These are just "concerns in the community." This is an admission that the Archbishop would have never taken action on his own unless the "concerns in the community" had come to light, even though his own archdiocesan policy directs him to act, and even though, as he further states:
The Archdiocese of Agana has a policy regarding sexual misconduct and sexual harassment and takes these matters very seriously. 

Saturday, July 19, 2014

DON'T CALL ME, ARCHBISHOP.

In October of 2013, speaking about his getting rid of Fr. Paul Gofigan in front of thirty members of the clergy, Archbishop Apuron bragged:
"...even S.N.A.P. heard about this and applauded me for doing this on this priest and hope that I do not reinstate him because of that..."
S.N.A.P. stand for Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. I was particularly angered when I heard about what Archbishop Apuron had said because in 2010, when SNAP was on Guam investigating the Archbishop, I was asked to publicly go on the offensive against SNAP in order to defend him. And so I did. I learned later that I had been lied to and that SNAP's visit had been a close call for the Archbishop. 


Friday, August 8, 2014

SNAP: "How many warnings does Apuron need before he takes any action to protect children?"



Guam- Victims blast archbishop: Come clean about priest

For immediate release: Thursday, August 07, 2014
For more information: David Clohessy (314-566-9790SNAPclohessy@aol.com) 
Victims blast archbishop: Come clean about priest
He knew about banned cleric, sex abuse allegations
LA lawyers even called and warned him, but 
Archbishop told San Francisco cleric had "good standing" 
Come clean, protect kids, SNAP says

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

SNAP RESPONDS

Guam’s Wadeson reinstated

Posted by Joelle Casteix on April 14, 2015 in Clergy Abuse CrisisGuam | Subscribe
- See more at: http://theworthyadversary.com/3434-guams-wadeson-reinstated#sthash.Y0jrGaYa.dpuf

KUAM announced today that former LA priest John Wadeson has been reinstated in the Archdiocese of Agana (Guam).
I have written about Wadeson in the past. According to the Los Angeles Archdiocese, he was twice accused of sexually abusing children and had been banned from working as a priest there.
According to a statement published in The Tidings (the Archdiocese of LA Newspaper), the LA Archdiocese did a investigation and “concluded that there is no reason to preclude Father Wadeson from serving in priestly ministry.”
This decision was based on the fact there has never been a settlement paid on an abuse case against Wadeson. According to the statement, when the allegations first arose, the Society of the Divine Word (the order to which Wadeson belonged) investigated the claims and found them “unverified.”
Here are my issues:
  • According to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and every other diocese across the US, the payment of a settlement does NOT equate implied guilt on the behalf of the accused. If this were the case, former San Diego Bishop Robert Brom would have been removed years ago. (He paid a former seminarian a confidential $250,000 settlement for allegedly coercing the victim into sex)
  • Why didn’t Wadeson do something immediately when the LA Archdiocese published reports that he was twice accused? If in the same position, I would do everything in my power to clear my name immediately. And I would be public about it to ensure that I was adhering to transparency.
  • What does “unverified” mean? That there was only one victim? There were no witnesses? What is a “verified” allegation?
And probably the most troublesome:
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles has concluded that there is no reason to preclude Father Wadeson from serving in priestly ministry showing that all the rumors and alleged calumnies against him were unfounded.
Rumors and calumnies? It was not a rumor that LA had said he was twice-accused, nor was it a rumor that they had banned him. But by making such a bile-infused statement, Apuron is attempting to silence and shame victims and whistleblowers by labeling them sinners and rumor-mongers.
As I have reiterated numerous times, the clergy sex abuse scandal is not about abuse. It’s about cover-up and how bishops handle allegations of abuse, perpetrators and victims.
Whether or not Wadeson is guilty, the most troubling aspect of this case is how Apuron has used it to silence victims, divide the faithful, bully whistleblowers, and shelter secrets.

Monday, October 27, 2014

DEACON LARRY'S NEW JOB

On Friday, October 24, 2014, Deacon Steve Martinez was removed by Archbishop Apuron as the Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator (SARC) for the Archdiocese of Agana and replaced by Deacon Larry Claros. Deacon Martinez had some unfinished business that we hope Deacon Claros will now complete, and promptly. 

In  July of 2014, Deacon Martinez had reminded Archbishop Apuron that the Archdiocesan Policy on Sexual Misconduct requires the Archbishop to "promptly" notify the Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator of any allegation of sexual misconduct. (Sec. IV.A.2.b.)

Deacon Martinez advised Archbishop Apuron that in the case of Fr. John Wadeson, it had recently been reported in the news that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had contacted "Guam church officials about the sexual abuse accusations against Father John Wadeson in 2011", and that as the Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator he was to be contacted "promptly". However, three years later, he had yet to be "contacted" by Archbishop Apuron.


Friday, November 21, 2014

SO HERE'S MY THOUGHTS ON THE ALLEGATION


As we know, John Toves, a former resident of Agat who served then-Father Apuron as an altar boy in the late 70's and a former seminarian at the minor seminary in Tai in the early 80's, has alleged that Archbishop Apuron (before he was made bishop) sexually molested a person whom Mr. Toves refers to as "a relative of mine" while both he (Toves) and his "relative" were at the seminary in Tai. 

So what now?

As Archbishop Apuron has himself demonstrated in his recent removal of Fr. John Wadeson from priestly ministry, the seriousness of the charge is all that is needed to remove a cleric under the Archbishop's own zero-tolerance policy. 

The only grounds Archbishop Apuron had for the removal of Wadeson was a forty year old allegation: Wadeson was alleged to have sexually molested two minors while serving at a school in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles in the 1970's.

Fr. Wadeson is on record stating that no formal charges were ever brought forward, only an allegation. But Archbishop Apuron DID NOT NEED formal charges in order to remove Wadeson. By his own actions against Wadeson, Apuron demonstrated that all that was needed was the allegation, even if it was more than forty years old. 

There is now a similar allegation against Archbishop Apuron. Whether it is true or not remains to be proven. However, again, as per the Archbishop's implementation of his own policy in his actions against Wadeson, no proof or truth or formal charges are needed for the removal of a cleric, including himself.

Thus, Archbishop Apuron, by virtue of his own policy and his own example of its implementation, MUST REMOVE HIMSELF and permit an independent investigation to move forward. (A temporary diocesan administrator will be appointed by Rome during this process.)

Whether he will do this or not IS the matter the MEDIA needs to examine. To not do this is to invite question of Apuron's influence into their news organizations. He has been known to bully them before. 

Meanwhile, we will keep watch. 

Here is a link to a google search of several stories about the Wadeson incident. Other stories can be referenced on this blog under the label "Fr. John Wadeson".

Here is a P.S.

Personally, I have always believed that the zero-tolerance approach to clergy sex abuse by the entire USCCB, and adapted for our own diocese, is stupid. Zero-tolerance makes someone guilty from the moment an allegation is made. It is extremely unjust and many good priests have been severely damaged by it. 

Zero-tolerance was a reactionary move by the U.S. bishops to cover their own behinds. For decades, many of them stood by or slammed the door in the faces of concerned lay people (as happened to my father), when they came to complain. Once they could no longer hide what was happening, they reacted with a zero-tolerance policy that was meant to show how serious they were about addressing the problem. 

But for the most part, it was a ruse, an attempt to get the glaring light of truth to shine some place else, an attempt to exonerate themselves and blame it on a few priests who they could throw to the wolves, priests who probably desperately needed help from their bishops to begin with. In the end, as we have seen, many priests have gone to jail, BUT NOT ONE BISHOP. 

Archbishop Apuron may or may not have something to hide. If he does have something to hide, then adapting the zero-tolerance policy would have been a way to throw the dogs off the scent.

I have almost 1000 unpublished comments alleging much the same as John Toves. However, as per my policy, if you're going to name someone then you must also name yourself. John was the first person to name himself. However, John did not make the allegation against Apuron here. He made it first on KUAM. We linked to the interview but did not join in the allegation. John's allegation then appeared on PNC. 

For our part, we are not banking on proving these allegations. That will be up to Mr. Toves. Well before these allegations of sexual molestation came to light, we had tons of evidence of Archbishop Apuron's consistent willingness to lie, to divide, to slander, and to wage war on Catholicism as we know it. 

Our campaign to continue to expose all of this and more continues. 

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

ISN'T THERE A ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY FOR BISHOPS TOO?

I was cleaning off my desk and I came across this again. I was about to file it away when something struck me.

In this statement, Archbishop Apuron directly infers that his removing of Fr. Wadeson "from active and public ministry" is directly related to his policy "regarding sexual misconduct". 

In my initial post about Fr. Wadeson, I only referred to the existing reports and even stated that the claims against Fr. Wadeson may be "false allegations". However, Archbishop Apuron makes no such claim or defense of Fr. Wadeson. He removes Fr. Wadeson from ministry in accordance with his sexual misconduct policy, effectively bolstering the existing allegations against Fr. Wadeson.

BUT THEN...

Archbishop Apuron helps Fr. Wadeson disappear! How's that? Really? Isn't that what all those bishops in the states were being sued for a couple of years ago...helping problem priests disappear? How does helping Fr. Wadeson disappear correlate with taking "these matters very seriously?"

Fr. Wadeson may in fact be innocent of any allegations of sexual misconduct. (Personally, I hope he is.) But Archbishop Apuron, after effectively accusing him of sexual misconduct by removing him from ministry and then helping him disappear, is now the object of MISCONDUCT. 

Isn't their a zero-tolerance policy for bishops too? Joelle Casteix (SNAP) recently began following me on Twitter. Maybe she'll know.

Suggestion to Clergy and Religious: The next time Archbishop Apuron drags you in to read off the charges against Msgr. James and/or Fr. Paul, or anyone else for that matter, ask him to explain his own conduct in helping a priest he treated as a sex offender to disappear. 








Thursday, July 24, 2014

IN TODAY'S PACIFIC DAILY NEWS...AGAIN

Ousted priest leaves Guam: Wadeson defends, praises Archbishop Apuron


PDN: "Wadeson stated he's been falsely accused, but decided to leave because he didn't want the accusations against him to tarnish Archbishop Anthony Apuron."
JW: So how does running away save Apuron? In fact it "tarnishes" him even more, doesn't it. If you were falsely accused, then simply say so and challenge the accusations.
PDN: "I was in such shock at the viciousness and lies of what was being said about me and our archbishop, whom I hold in great esteem, that I was lost for words," Wadeson stated...

Monday, July 30, 2018

RUNNING AMOK AND DOING WHATEVER THEY WANT?

(posted by Frenchie)
Yes ladies and gentlemen, Wadeson was seen on several occasions recently at the Ordot parish, which was given  a new Neo pastor as of early this month.
A man who was accused of child molestation in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles,  subsequently incardinated in this Diocese by another Child abuser, the disgraced Apuron, and "cleared" by the former Chancellor Adrian Cristobal, himself accused of child molestation, on the run like Wadeson was for a period of time, and hiding under the protection of his mentors of the NCW.

How was Wadeson "cleared"?  Plain and simple, because the archdiocese of Los Angeles, which had a dismal record, (and was sued for millions and millions of dollars because of abuse coverup)
lost the Wadeson files, and could no longer provide informations!
If that sounds eerily familiar, and similar to the still developing Mc Carrick scandal in Washington DC, New York and New Jersey, it is because we have exactly the same scenario.

What we have here, is a group of people, that think they are so much better than you and I, and can do whatever they wish. "Damn the torpedoes! full speed ahead!!"


Wednesday, July 30, 2014

THIS QUESTION DESERVES AN ANSWER

David G asks a question that I believe deserves an answer:


So if you believe Fr. John was innocent, why "bring it to light?" Maybe if you didn't, Monsignor James would still be the pastor. Again Tim, I am not saying your wrong rather, I am trying to fit things together.

My answer:


Well then here, let me help you. Here's what you should be asking. If Apuron believed he was innocent "why didn't HE bring it to light" when the charges were first published in 2004 on a national list? Why didn't HE bring it to light in 2000 when he incardinated Wadeson (who should have told him)? Why didn't Apuron bring it to light in 2011 when he recevied a call from the Los Angeles Archdiocese about Wadeson? Why didn't Apuron proclaim his innocence instead of getting rid of him? Hope that helps.


Saturday, August 9, 2014

URGENT!! "YOU DISGUST THE CHURCH!"

Meet the real bishop and pope

Received this from "Glad to be Back in Holy Mother Church". It verifies many things already mentioned on this blog.

  • Archbishop Apuron is not in control.
  • All decisions are made for this archdiocese, including who becomes a priest at RMS, by Giuseppe Gennarini, the lead "responsible" for the NCW in the United States. Gennarini is Fr. Pius' immediate superior, and Fr. Pius is the Archbishop's immediate superior. Gennarini's immediate superior is Kiko. This is the hierarchy controlling our church on Guam!
  • Both Fr. Paul and Msgr. James were fired at Kiko & Gennarini's order. 
  • Fr. Wadeson DID NOT "leave the country". At the time I thought this was an extremely odd thing to say. It was as if he was trying to throw us off as to his whereabouts. Some knew he remained in hiding at the seminary. In fact, according to this account, HE WAS. 
  • If this turns out to be true then Fr. Pablo Rodriguez, the rector of RMS, and Archbishop Apuron LIED.

Also, NOTE TO SNAP: Look for Wadeson in New Jersey at 3 Howard Place, Englewood, NJ 07631

Thank you "Glad to be Back" for your excellent work. Read on....TO THE END!

Saturday, July 26, 2014

ADD THE ASSOCIATED PRESS TO YOUR LIST

On July 25, Fr. John Wadeson wrote to the Guam Pacific Daily News:
Regarding the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, I was never incardinated there. On one occasion, when I asked to celebrate occasionally with a group of families, I was not granted faculties for a divergence with the then-Archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahoney. This decision had nothing to do with the defamatory accusation above-mentioned since the name of Cardinal Mahoney was recorded in the same list.
However, on the same day the Associate Press reported: