CHANCERY V. GOFIGAN UPDATE - 8/13/13

The canonical proceedings challenging the Archbishop's removal of Fr. Gofigan as pastor remain, for now, out of the public eye. But Fr. Gofigan's continued presence in the pews and not on the altar at Sunday and daily Mass is obviously NOT out of the public eye and has many Santa Barbara parishioners wondering what will become of him. 

For now it appears that Fr. Gofigan is being allowed to still live in the Santa Barbara rectory, but is reportedly not allowed to do anything else related to his being a priest. This situation cannot continue. At some point he will either be forced to leave or restored to his position as pastor, or perhaps some other compromise will be sought. Since the Archbishop has returned to the island, we can assume that the canonical proceedings challenging his decision to remove Fr. Gofigan have commenced. 

One bit of news that has surfaced is that Fr. Gofigan was notified by the chancery that he cannot appeal the decision to remove him since he was never formally removed. The basis of the chancery's position is that the letter given to Fr. Paul on July 16 only demanded his resignation but did not formally remove him. 

However, the public is already very aware that he has been removed as pastor via the aviso appearing in the following Sunday's U Matuna - the official organ of communication for the Archdiocese. The public is also aware that upon returning to the rectory after the July 16th meeting, Fr. Gofigan found the locks on the rectory changed, and that his priestly faculties to say Mass and to preach have been revoked. 

In legal language this is known as "ipso facto", or "by the fact itself". Even though there was no official document of removal as of yet from the Archdiocese - the demand for resignation notwithstanding - the fact that Fr. Gofigan was officially replaced, locked out of his rectory, and denied his priestly faculties, is an "ipso facto" removal, and a very public one at that. 

The initial anger amongst many parishioners and more generally among many of the Catholic laity seems to have turned mostly to sadness and bewilderment, and predictably so. From all accounts it appears that the chancery has acted imperiously and without regard for the laity.

Whether of not the chancery was within the canonical boundaries to summarily remove Fr. Gofigan as pastor is something the canonical appeal will determine. But meanwhile the people see a priest stripped of his parish and his priesthood - without warning - without explanation - and without any pastoral concern for how they might feel or respond.

So while the titans war, the people are shaken and suffer. This is the real tragedy. 

NOTE: Of course, Fr. Gofigan is not the first pastor to be arbitrarily dismissed from his post. But he is the first one to challenge it. More later. 

THE CHANCERY V GOFIGAN: PROHIBITED FROM SAYING MASS

As per a recent Facebook post, today, Sunday, August 4, will be the third Sunday Fr. Gofigan will prohibited from celebrating Mass. While the removal of Fr. Gofigan as pastor was quite public as per the aviso replacing him with Fr. Dan Bien, there has been no formal or public pronouncement from the chancery forbidding Fr. Gofigan to celebrate Mass.

According to canon lawyer, Cathy Caridi, J.C.L, at her website www.canonlawmadeeasey.com, prohibiting a priest from celebrating the Eucharist "is ordinarily made not only to the priest himself, but is openly addressed to the faithful of the diocese as well."

This is understandable. The bishop's ultimate responsibility is to his flock, and it is in fact "the flock" which should be put on notice if he has prohibited a priest from saying Mass in his diocese. However, there has been no such public notice and predictably many are asking questions.

In response to those questions, Fr. Gofigan recently stated:

"I originally approached the Parochial Administrator, Fr. Dan Bien, if he could give me something in writing regarding what I can do and what I cannot do. He contacted third Chancery who instructed him to tell me that I can only concelebrate and cannot preside nor preach. They refused to put this in writing." (Reprinted with permission.)

The celebration of the Eucharist, the "source and summit" of our Faith, is, for a priest, the very heart of his calling. It is THEE "priestly act". Prohibiting a priest from engaging in it is deadly serious business and the church has strict provisions relative to such a prohibition.

Amazingly, a validly ordained priest, a priest upon whom there is no known suspension, has been - according to Fr. Gofigan - prohibited from saying Mass via an oral message from an unknown chancery source and through a third party.

There may be more to it, but given the silence of the chancery on the matter, "the flock" is left to its imagination. If nothing else, the prohibition without proper notice is highly damaging and severely uncharitable to the flock - which is left wondering and wandering...and growing ever more angry.

Again, we must say: THE CHANCERY IS BEING VERY POORLY ADVISED.

A further comment from Fr. Gofigan in response to a supporter on his Facebook page:

I have been fasting and praying since all of this has happened but the worst fasting that was imposed on me by the administration is not celebrating the one thing that is the very essence of Christ's priesthood which is to confect the Eucharist and give re-present him to his people. I think this is the worst punishment that can ever be placed on a priest but as St. Paul once said, "Nothing can separate me from the love of God." 

WHAT IS CANON LAW?

As the oldest continuously functioning legal system in the western world, canon law affects virtually every aspect of the faith life of over one billion Catholic Christians around the world. But, as Pope John Paul II explained when he promulgated the Code in 1983, canon law "is in no way intended as a substitute for faith, grace, charisms, and especially charity in the life of the Church and of the faithful. On the contrary, its purpose is rather to create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy love, grace, and charisms, it at the same time renders their organic development easier in the life of both the ecclesial society and the individual persons who belong to it." John Paul II, ap. con. Sacrae disciplinae leges (1983) 16.

Learn more at www.canonlaw.info

THE CHANCERY V GOFIGAN: NO MURDERER REGISTRY?

Two murderers granted parole - Guam Pacific Daily News, July 30, 2013

The Chancery v Gofigan affair appears to have been precipitated by a law which went in to effect in 2010, requiring persons convicted of a sex-related crime to appear on a public registry. The subject person who is at the source of the controversy appears to have been released from prison some years earlier since he had already been hired by the parish as early as 2008. Apparently his employment was not an issue until the new law went into effect and his name appeared on the sex-offender registry in 2010. 

Given the rationale for the sex-offender registry, one wonders why there is no murder-registry. Is murder any less of a crime? In fact, it is considered a worse crime, and rightly so.

Given the claim by the chancery that the presence of a registered sex-offender is a "probable threat" to parishioners and children, should the Archdiocese not be just as concerned about the presence of paroled murderers wandering loose about the parish as well? Should a pastor be allowed to hire a paroled murderer out of charity if the person could not find employment elsewhere? Or should a paroled murderer be allowed to volunteer at a parish?

To what extent can persons with a criminal past be allowed to participate in the life of the church? This is a question the Archdiocese must address, for its actions in this case expose the fact that the Archdiocese appears to have no policy for the reintegration of convicted criminals into its fold regardless of the crime. 

The Archdiocese in its press release of July 22 stated "We welcome and do not bar anyone from our Masses." This is fine, but then what other parish activities are registered sex-offenders, and for that matter any other persons with a known criminal past, actually barred from, and for what reason?

Given the limits implied by the press release, a registered sex-offender must leave the church grounds immediately after Mass and cannot even attend the parish fiesta. Of course this is absurd, but it illustrates the grave lack of foresight in establishing a precedent without a policy. 

Again, we can only assume, given its actions, that the Archdiocese is being very poorly counseled. And it is hoped that the Archbishop - despite his signature - was not made fully aware of the full extent of these actions or its canonical implications, and will pastorally resolve the matter upon his return from World Youth Day. We shall see soon.

THE CHANCERY V GOFIGAN: IRONIC TIMING FOR SURE

Well, how's this for ironic timing? On the flight home from World Youth Day, the Pope is reported to have said: "Sinners can be forgiven. Sinners can work at the Vatican. Actually, the Vatican staff is composed exclusively of sinners." 

Catholic columnist Phil Lawler goes on to report that the Pope then cautioned reporters against digging into the past misdeeds of their subjects; that approach is “dangerous,” he said. "It is also un-Christian; as Jesus offers forgiveness, so should his followers."

Ironically, Archbishop Apuron is also on the way home from World Youth Day, and upon arrival will have to decide what sort of sinners can be allowed to work, or even volunteer, in Guam's parishes.

I say "what sort of sinners" because apparently only sinners who appear on the sex-offender registry are to be barred from working or volunteering at parishes. 

The part about "digging into past misdeeds" being "dangerous" and "un-Christian" also resonates close to home since the offending person in the Gofigan affair committed his sole crime 32 years ago, which by most measures could certainly be considered a "past misdeed". 

Curiously, both the Pope and the Archbishop are dealing with issues regarding sex-offenders: one registered, and one alleged. 

The Pope was responding to the handling of one Msgr. Ricca, who was alleged to have a rather flamboyant homosexual past and whom Pope Francis had only recently appointed to a very sensitive Vatican position.

Though the Pope alluded to an investigation of Ricca which turned up "nothing damaging", it appears he was not unaware of Ricca's past because he then launched into a short lecture on the danger of digging up "the sins of youth". 

However, while Ricca may have been "younger", he was not a "youth" when, while serving in the Vatican diplomatic corp in Uruguay in 2001, just across the river from Francis' episcopal headquarters in Buenos Aires, his alleged tryst with a Swiss male became well known. (To read more on the affair see the full story here.)

The Pope's comments about the Ricca matter actually made "out of context" headlines just today with the press trumpeting something about the Pope opening up the church to gay clergy. Of course that's not what he said or meant but that's another matter. 

In any event, Archbishop Apuron will have to decide (or perhaps he already has):

1. whether the sin committed by the registered sex-offender at the Dededo parish 32 years ago qualifies as a "sin of youth", 
2. whether or not the chancery's digging into the "past misdeeds" of this said sex-offender was "dangerous" and "un-Christian", 
3. and since "sinners can be forgiven" and "work at the Vatican", whether or not said sex-offender can be "forgiven enough" to work as a volunteer at Santa Barbara,
4. and whether or not Fr. Paul Gofigan was harboring a sex-offender and endangering school children, or just doing what the Pope said Jesus would do and what his followers must do as well.

Hmmm. Ironic timing for sure.

WHAT CANON LAWYERS ARE AND AREN'T

by Dr. Edward Peters, reposted from www.canonlaw.info

Most people think of canon lawyers as bespectacled, gray-haired monsignors who sit in dark-paneled rooms and quote Latin verses from authors dead for a hundred years. It may have been like that once, but today canon lawyers cut rather a different figure. Here I want to explain what canon lawyers are and aren't, what canon law is, and how to use (or not to use) a canon lawyer.

Canon law is the legal system of the Catholic Church. It is the oldest functioning legal system in the Western world. The word canon comes from the Greek kanon, meaning a rule or measure. In the early centuries of Christianity, canon law consisted mostly of rules developed in synods and councils. Like other legal systems, canon law developed over the centuries, adopting new techniques while discarding outdated ones. The rediscovery of Roman civil law in the eleventh century greatly aided the development of canon law as a discipline distinct from moral theology.

Read the rest of the article here.

THE CHANCERY V GOFIGAN: WHO WILL REPRESENT FR. GOFIGAN?

I have no personal contact with either side in this debate. In fact I have not spoken personally with Fr. Gofigan for several years. However, because of the massive public support now assembling in his behalf, there is a load of information circulating. Most of it I ignore or file away because even though it is sincere, at this point it is only necessary to keep the facts straight.

One of the biggest questions is "what happens next?" The next step appears to have been taken in Fr. Gofigan's retaining of a canon lawyer. According to emails circulating last night, the canon lawyer is Father Adolfo N. Dacanay, S.J., Chairperson of the Department of Theology at Ateneo de Manila University. According to one email he is considered: "one if not the most foremost canon lawyer in the Philippines."

There appears to be a lot both written by him and about him. Here's a link to what Google Search turned up. Here's a post (in a lighthearted pose) of him on Facebook:

THE CHANCERY V GOFIGAN: THE SNAP SNAFU

In its haste to endorse the actions of the Archbishop against Fr. Paul Gofigan, SNAP director, David Clohessy, apparently did not bother to get the facts. In a statement released on July 25, 2013, Clohessy states:

"Father Paul Gofigan had been instructed by Archbishop Anthony Apuron to fire a predator who worked at the church but failed to do so..." (Read the entire statement here.)

However, Fr. Gofigan DID NOT "fail to do so". Below is a copy of the letter from Father Paul releasing the person in question on October 26, 2011, as required by the Archbishop.

But first a couple other observations.

Clohessy also notes that Fr. Gofigan had put "children in harm's way", and "It is outrageous that any individual would rather put his career before the safety of children..."

This thing about children, with the heavy implication that the subject person was a child molester, is not only getting tiring (since it is not true), but is bordering on incurring legal action for those who continue to publicly make this man out to be a child molester.

The man raped an 18 year old woman 32 years ago. It was a heinous crime, a horrible crime, a crime he deserves to suffer the rest of his life for even though he has done his time in prison. But he did not molest a child. And the continued public hammering on "the safety of children" relative to this man's case is keeping this slanderous allegation alive.

Unfortunately, the idea that this man was a child molester can be traced to the Archbishop's initial letter to Fr. Gofigan of July 16, 2013 in which he said: "By allowing him to work in the parish, you have exposed the children of a nearby school to a probable threat."

This idea that the man was a "threat to children" was then reinforced by an Archdiocesan press release on July 22 which devoted a whole section to the "Safety of Children", fully implying that this man, who had committed the rape of an adult woman 32 years ago, was an active child molester.

In fact, a few initial news reports picked up on this strong language from the Archdiocese and reported the man as a child molester until the error was corrected. However, SNAP's statement shows just how far and wide the maligning of this man's character has gone.

Rape is a heinous crime. However, society has deemed the sexual molestation of children a greater and more despicable crime, and rightly so. And while the authorities at the chancery may not have intended it so,  their words have provoked a slanderous and dangerous accusation of a new and more heinous criminal act.

The SNAP statement concretizes the effect of these loose words and possibly sets the Archdiocese up for legal recriminations far beyond the issue of Fr. Gofigan's status.

I have kept my personal opinions mostly to myself, but at this point I must say that it appears to me that the chancery is being very poorly counseled.

NOTE: In rereading SNAP's statement, if I was the man in question or a member of his family I'd seriously sue them for defamation. SNAP refers to the man as a "predator". Such a designation implies a pattern of behavior. The man has one instance of rape to his name over a quarter century ago. Again, the seriousness of his crime can never be diminished nor forgotten, but "predator" is quite a different thing. I think he should sue...since he no longer has an income as a maintenance man.

Fr. Gofigan attempts to make this distinction in this KUAM news story.

THE CHANCERY V GOFIGAN: THE SNAP ENDORSEMENT

The SNAP (Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests) endorsement of Archbishop's Apuron's actions against Fr. Paul Gofigan presents a curious irony. In 2010, SNAP was on Guam demanding the Archbishop's head. In fact, it was but one of several threats to the Archdiocese and specifically the Archbishop occurring at that time.

Senator B.J. Cruz' Bill 372-30 attempted to make Archbishop Apuron specifically and personally responsible for reporting child abuse or neglect and would have subjected him to a possible penalty of imprisonment up to 6 months and made him a third-degree felon.

The reason Cruz gave for introducing his vindictive bill was not due to the example of a Vatican "edict" as he stated in the bill's findings and intent, but because he was angry at the Archbishop for his opposition to the legalization of same-sex unions and the public blow-up that occurred as a result of a mistake-laden meeting between the clergy and several senators in the latter part of 2009.

Shortly thereafter, Senator Cruz introduced Bill 385-30 to lift the statute of limitations to facilitate the prosecution of sex crimes perpetrated on minors and, as has happened in the states, would have made the Archdiocese liable for every possible or alleged sexual transgression against minors going back decades. This could have potentially broken the Archdiocese financially or at least hobbled it for many years.

Both bills were timed with a visit to Guam by SNAP with Cruz having the Archbishop "dead in his sights":

"The problem with the church on Guam," said Cruz, "is they've had this technical 'nobody's been arrested and nobody's been convicted'.  But the more important question is in the 26 years that you've been archbishop of the Archdiocese, how many priests have you sent to therapy, how many of them came back and are still here in the parishes, how many of them have we offended and how many have you laicized?" (KUAM, March 22, 2010)

Cruz knew he had ammunition:

"Cruz claims he knows of a laicization of a priest last year that allegedly was sexually abusing boys in one of the parishes on island. " (KUAM)

In fact, the Archdiocese was then involved with the laicization of this priest and the only reason the affair did not blow-up publicly is because the families of the victim(s) and the Archdiocese both agreed to handle the affair privately.

SNAP did its best to get people to come out against the Archbishop, and given both of Cruz' bills, had they passed in their original form, could have cost the Archdiocese millions and possibly sent the Archbishop and other members of the clergy to prison.

In the end, SNAP was able to expose a couple of clerical misdeeds which happened long ago (and in one instance, elsewhere). And through a lot of hard work, Cruz' Bill 372 (now P.L. 30-218) was amended to delete the specific reference to Archbishop Apuron (i.e. "Roman Catholic Archbishop").

Bill 385 was dropped but the issue was taken up again in the 31st Guam Legislature in two bills: Bills 33 and 34. Bill 34 could have been very dangerous to the Archdiocese since it held "institutions", not just persons, liable for crimes against children. However, again, through serious efforts, the bill was amended to delete any reference to institutions, effectively taking the teeth out of the bill since institutions, such as the Archdiocese, could not be sued.

However, the whole episode brings to light a glaring contrast in which the way the priest who was laicized was handled and the actions taken against Fr. Gofigan.

It has been pointed out by many that whereas the priest who would eventually be laicized was dealt with privately (and with obvious pastoral care) and given more than one opportunity to mend his ways, Fr. Gofigan, at least according to the information that is now public, was not given an opportunity to plead his case, but was summarily handed a demand for his resignation, an action which was immediately made public by the publication of an aviso replacing Fr. Gofigan at his Dededo parish.

Obviously the glaring contrast between the treatment of the two priests by the Archdiocese has people scratching their heads and has prompted much discussion in the media about an ulterior motive - as noted in the previous post on this story.

There is also a postscript to the story. The priest who was laicized later sought to assist a parish as a CCD teacher. Apparently he was allowed by the pastor to do so. The Archdiocese, upon learning of the arrangement, asked the pastor to remove the former priest - who had been alleged to have sexually abused boys - from the program. The pastor apparently complied and that appears to be the end of it.

The short of it is this: Both Fr. Gofigan and the other pastor (who shall remain unnamed) allowed two different men to assist their parishes as volunteers. Both of those men had a record of sexual offenses, one against children and one against an adult. The pastor who allowed the man who had sexually abused children (relatively recently) to function as a volunteer was advised privately and quietly to remove him. The priest who had engaged a volunteer who had committed a sexual crime against an adult 32 years ago was publicly fired.

Thus more head scratching.

THE CHANCERY V GOFIGAN (continued)

On her K57 radio show (Tuesday, July 23), host, Patti Arroyo, suggested a possible ulterior motive for the firing of Fr. Gofigan from his Dededo parish post and his otherwise rather clearly implied direction to go find another diocese.

In her interview with Fr. Gofigan - and independent of any comment made by him - Arroyo suggested that the action taken against Fr. Paul was not about the status of the registered sex-offender but about the desire of the Archbishop to implement the Neo-Catechumenal Way into Guam's largest parish, a move Gofigan is said to have resisted.

While Arroyo did not mention Fr. Gofigan's resistance to the establishment of the NCW in his parish, it has been commonly known for awhile that he did not favor it. It is also commonly known that the Archbishop is not only a strong advocate of "the Way", but is a practicing member, "walking" as it is called.

A few days later, on her Friday show, which she co-hosts with Ray Gibson and Travis Coffman, Arroyo was much more adamant about the whole episode being about Fr. Gofigan's resistance to the NCW. (A recording of the show is not currently available.)

Coffman had brought up the news that SNAP (Survivor's Network for those Abused by Priests), a national organization which had come to Guam a few years ago, had come out in support of the Archbishop's actions against Fr. Gofigan. The conversation then gravitated towards the subject of clerical sexual abuse in general. Arroyo then asserted that the whole thing had nothing to do with the sex-offender but was "all about the Neo-Catechumenal Way."

At that point I called in, not to discuss the NCW, but to clarify the crime for which the registered sex-offender was convicted: the rape of an adult. This clarification is critical to maintain because of the hot issue of sexual molestation of minors by clergy.  For whereas the general public may be more forgiving of a man who committed a rape 32 years ago, the public is not as likely to be as forgiving of a man who sexually molested a minor no matter how many years ago - as recent events have shown.

(Why the issue of child molestation continues to crop up in this affair is something I'll comment on separately.)

I also commented on the show that while a registry exists for sex-offenders, there is no such registry for convicted murderers or any other category of criminal who - given the reason behind a sex-offender registry - could be considered every bit as much a threat to parishioners or the general public, if not more. In effect, had Fr. Gofigan had hired a paroled murderer, it appears there may have never been a problem.

At that point, Arroyo again asserted that the whole issue was about the Neo-Catechumenal Way, and "didn't I agree?" I answered that she appeared to know more about that than I did. However, she continued to press me for my awareness about the division in the Archdiocese over the NCW.

I replied that I was very aware of the division. (I had addressed the division in 2008 when I became aware of a protest* mounted in front of the Cathedral during its 50th anniversary. See Honest Thoughts on the Neo-Catechumenal Way - a post which continues to get a high amount of traffic.)

However, I did not agree or disagree with Arroyo's assertion. The short of it is this:

It is well known that the Archbishop has been heavily advocating "the Way" in this Archdiocese for the better part of a decade. Equally well known is the resistance of some pastors to the NCW which allegedly includes Fr. Gofigan, who, until now, pastored the largest parish on the island.

Also, coming to light is a disagreement over the formation of seminarians who do not want to be formed within the context of the NCW. Guam's seminary (Redemptoris Mater) is known to be the seat of the NCW on Guam and it is easy to assume that any seminarian passing through it will be formed in the manner of NCW traditions and ends. I don't know this for sure, but as stated, it is easy to assume this and most due.

It has come to light that Fr. Gofigan, in responding to the desire of certain young men desiring priesthood but who do not want to be formed within the NCW, had been seeking alternatives for their formation. This was thought to be in opposition to the will of the Archbishop who apparently is desirous of having all local seminarians be formed for the priesthood at Redemptoris Mater.

A recent event involving a seminarian who objected to NCW formation and Fr. Gofigan's reported support of the seminarian seems to have fueled the fire that also led to the revoking of Fr. Gofigan's position as Director of Vocations for the Archdiocese along with the demand for his resignation as pastor. News travels fast on Guam and this may have been why Arroyo, apparently independent of any comment made by Fr. Gofigan, zeroed in on the NCW.

In any event, these divisions do exist and are getting exponentially worse. Many supporters of the NCW simply align any and all resistance to "the Way" with disobedience to the Archbishop. Opponents of "the Way" claim the Archbishop is not just a supporter of "the Way", but is "one of them", and thus no longer represents all Catholics on Guam.

The Archbishop is in fact "one of them": a member of one of the communities. And while whether or not he still represents all Catholics on Guam can be argued, the perception by many is that he does not because he is "in it."

Nothing stated here is new of course. This has been the talk for almost a decade. Many in the NCW simply count the opposition as necessary persecutions for the eventual "triumph" of the NCW. And the opponents feel they are being persecuted because they do not wish their parish to be broken into communities and forced into practices they reject.

The word "triumph" is not used loosely. In a conversation with a very knowledgeable priest within the NCW, I was informed that it is the belief within the NCW that traditional parish-based Catholicism is "broken" and that the small community model of the NCW is the future of the Catholic Church universally. While we all can profess the same Faith, the contention appears to be over whether which model will triumph.

Personally, I don't completely disagree with this priest's analysis. The parish model is very broken as evidenced by the mass exodus by Catholics from Catholicism altogether. However, I would contend that the parish model broke itself when the parish became about the parish and not about what the parish is supposed to be about. (I won't go further here on that point.) The small community model may be part of the answer, or it may be the answer itself. However, if that is to be the case then evangelism not ostracism is what is needed.

This leads to the final point on this post. As we know, Fr. Gofigan was not just relieved of his duties, he was, in effect, banished from Guam. The fact that the Archbishop added "if it is your wish" does not soften that fact. It is the equivalent of me telling my son that where he'll sleep and eat from now on is "open to discussion" and if he doesn't like it he can get the hell out.

A priest, especially an incardinated one, is the spiritual son of his bishop in a much more significant and material way than average lay persons are the spiritual sons and daughters of their priests and bishops. However, Fr. Paul's banishment goes beyond just the spiritual. He also placed his material well-being in the hands of his bishop upon his ordination. His ability to work, live and eat depends greatly upon his status as a practicing priest within a diocese, serving at the will of a bishop.

Unlike a son who I may have banished from my home, Fr. Gofigan can't just go find another place to live and pick up a job somewhere to make ends meet. Though technically he could, Fr. Gofigan is a priest and is a priest forever, yet has no ability to function fully as a priest apart from the "permission" of a bishop.

I also brought this up on Arroyo's show on Friday. For whereas the people of Guam may well have deferred to the Archbishop's decision to remove Gofigan from his posts regardless of the circumstances, the community of Guam, if it is as family-centered as we are told it is, will not take well to the spiritual, material, and geographical banishment of a son by his father, especially when there is no possibility of the son, however prodigal he may or may not be, to return to the father.

I will also state, at least in some defense of the Archbishop, that while he did in fact sign the letter to Fr. Gofigan, it was most likely composed by others, and it wouldn't be the first time a bishop, or even a Pope, authorized an action for which the repercussions had not been fully thought out.

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, it is a matter of great regret for every Catholic that this could not have been handled more as a private family matter between a father and his son. However, it is now too late for that, and all of us Catholics will be getting lessons in canon law and the process of hierarchical recourse.

*The protest was mounted in response to an ultimatum given to three parish priests to comply with the Archbishop's wishes to cooperate with the Neo-Catechumenal Way or leave the diocese.

THE CHANCERY V GOFIGAN

On July 16, 2013, Fr. Paul Gofigan, Pastor of Santa Barbara Parish in Dededo, Guam, was given a letter by Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron: 1) demanding his resignation, 2) relieving him of his duties as Director of Vocations and Director of Diaconate Formation, and 3) releasing him from the Archdiocese to "go and look for a benevolent bishop" willing to accept him.

According to the letter, the Archbishop's actions were due to Fr. Gofigan's alleged disobedience in regards to an order apparently issued in 2011 by the Archdiocesan Vicar General (Msgr. David C. Quitugua), to Fr. Gofigan to terminate the employment of a worker known to be a registered sex offender.

The Archbishop accused Fr. Gofigan of causing "grave harm" to the parish by exposing his parishioners, "especially the youth" and the "children of a nearby school" to a "probable threat". He then accused Fr. Gofigan of bringing "grave, lasting and proven harm to the parish" and thereby demanded his resignation.

The Archbishop then publicly replaced Fr. Gofigan by issuing an Aviso in the "U Matuna", the official newspaper of the Archdiocese. The edition first appeared at Saturday evening Mass on July 20, 2013.

On July 20, 2013, Fr. Gofigan responded to the Archbishop's letter with a letter to his parishioners clarifying that he had indeed terminated the employee, who was a maintenance worker at the parish, upon the order of the Vicar General in 2011. He also clarified that the registered sex offender had committed his crime (the rape of an adult female) 32 years ago, had served his time in prison, had sought reconciliation with the church for himself and his family, and, though he was no longer employed, had continued to help with maintenance tasks when asked.

Fr. Gofigan went on to state that"the entire issue could have been cleared up" if they "simply had spoken" with him and done a "basic investigation." And rather than take the easy path and resign, he would take the much more difficult path and request a hearing. He also requested that his parishioners support the newly appointed parochial administrator (Fr. Dan Bien), and asked for prayers for himself and the archbishop.

Both letters and a news story is posted at the Pacific News Center website.

On Monday, July 22, 2013, the Archdiocese responded with a press release and stated as follows:

• The Archbishop DID in fact speak directly to Father Paul. He and the Vicar General, Msgr. David C. Quitugua, spoke to Father Paul in a meeting July 16 as he was informed of the decision.

• There WAS an investigation on the matter. Father Paul was informed of this in that same meeting and in the letter he received July 16. He was given an opportunity to respond.

The press release and a news story can be found at the Pacific News Center website here.

On Tuesday, July 23, Fr. Gofigan was contacted and interviewed by a local radio station (K57). During the interview, Fr. Gofigan again clarified that he had terminated the employee as ordered, that he had continued to receive the subject person and his family at the church and at the rectory on a pastoral basis, and that the person had continued to assist Fr. Gofigan and the parish when asked. 

He also reaffirmed that the registered sex offender had committed his crime 32 years ago, had served his prison sentence, had sought reconciliation with the church upon release, and in Fr. Gofigan's opinion, did not present a threat to anyone, and in fact had obtained a police clearance in order to first be employed at the parish in 2008. (Note: The sex offender registry was not established until 2010)

Fr. Gofigan also clarified that this person did not have keys to the parish, as alleged by the Archdiocese, but had been given keys by Fr. Gofigan to open the church on occasion when Fr. Gofigan was running late. 

Fr. Gofigan went on to state in the interview that he was pursuing the right to due process as afforded him by Church law (Canon law), and contested that he was not given the canonically required 15 days to respond to the accusations against him, but only "15 minutes" (on July 16), and that his position as pastor was "a canonical one", and, as such, required a canonical process to remove him, a process Fr. Gofigan says was not afforded him but a process he his now requesting.

The interview with Fr. Gofigan on K57 can be found here.

Because the Archdiocesan press release of July 22 had emphasized the danger posed by the subject person to a "school full of children...in very close proximity to the parish", Fr. Gofigan sent out his own press release on July 24 clarifying the autonomy of the school from the parish and stated that neither he nor anyone else on his staff had access to the school outside the normal security procedures established by the school. He also addressed the current status of the subject person as follows

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.

He then stated:

In my refusal to resign as pastor, I am requesting that the Archbishop performs his duties and obligations in accordance with the teachings and laws of the Church. 

The full press release and news story is posted at the Pacific News Center website here.

Related links:
Code of Canon Law: The Procedure in the Removal and Transfer of Pastors (Cann. 1740-1752)
Dededo Priest Asked to Resign - KUAM, July 22, 2013
Archdiocese Responds to Priest Replacement - KUAM, July 22, 2013
Parishioners disagree with Archbishop's position - KUAM, July 23, 2013
Archdiocese says parish priest failed to fire known sex offender - Pacific Daily News, July 23, 2013
Pastor refuses to resign - Marianas Variety, July 23, 2013
Priest to initiate litigation rather than resign - Marianas Variety, July 24, 2013

My comments: 

The following was posted as a comment to the Pacific Daily News Story: Archdiocese says parish priest failed to fire known sex offender.

No one is questioning the right of the Archbishop to protect children or parishioners in general from known sex offenders. Fr. Paul terminated the man when he was told to. The issue now is not the termination of the employee but the termination of Fr. Paul. Pastors have a canonical position and canonical procedure must be followed for the removal of pastors.       

Fr. Paul's position is that procedure (similar to due process) was not followed and his canonical rights as a pastor were violated. Canon Law (Church law) gives him the right to a hearing and to be represented by a canon lawyer.  

Few people know to what extent the Catholic Church has gone to extend canonical (legal) protections to both priests and laity and to provide a path for "hierarchical recourse", a recourse that can lead all the way to the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, the equivalent of the Supreme Court. The fact that it has done this is testimony to the Church's awareness of the abuse of sheep by its shepherds. 

In this case, Fr. Paul was not just removed from his position as pastor, his faculties to say Mass were revoked and he was "invited" to leave the island. With the accusation of "harboring a sex offender" over his head, he would have nowhere to go. No bishop would take him and he would no longer be able to function as a priest. 

Fr. Paul's contention is that this was an abuse of power and his life has been destroyed. Whether that is truly the case is what we will be decided before a tribunal in what will be similar to a court case.

VIDEO: Father Paul Believes His Canonical Rights as a Priest Were Violated

VIDEO: Father Paul Believes His Canonical Rights as a Priest Were Violated

VIDEO: Father Paul Gofigan Refuses Archbishop's Instructions to Resign; Seeks Hearing Instead

TRAYVON MARTIN: JUST ANOTHER USEFUL BODY

So here's the thing. The prosecution in the Zimmerman-Martin case had a lot on their side:

• The President of the United States who compared the dead teen to his own son (completely unprecedented).
• The U.S. Department of Justice which (unconstitutionally) financed and orchestrated protests against the defendant.
• Most of the major media dutifully carrying the president's water to keep this a case about race, and editing actual evidence to manufacture racial bias (SEE BELOW)
• Major threats of violence and civil unrest if the defendant was not found guilty.
• A judge heavily invested in a guilty verdict of some kind (thus she offered the lesser charge of manslaughter once it was evident that second-degree murder could not be proved).
• Months of 24/7 national media coverage portraying the victim as a 13 year old rather than a man big and strong enough to break the defendant's nose with a single punch.
• And ultimately a jury that had to know they would be living in fear for a long time to come should they find the defendant not-guilty.

The fact that the prosecution could not make its case was ultimately due to one thing, the testimony of the forensic expert who demonstrated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. Even if Zimmerman had provoked the encounter by "following" Martin, Martin still made the choice to engage Zimmerman and break his nose, and, as the forensic expert proved, proceeded to harm Zimmerman further.

The jury had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by finding the defendant not-guilty. They will probably have to move or live in hiding for many years. The fact that they found the defendant not-guilty is glaring evidence that the prosecution itself had none - which is why in the end - the prosecutor told the jury to judge "with their hearts". In other words, "ignore the evidence", "don't use your brains", "go with your feelings."

Sadly, this is what many have done, gone with their feelings. The great tragedy though, is the suspension of brains to protect Barack Obama. Because ultimately this is his campaign, which is why he interjected himself into it from the beginning. Otherwise, it would have been just another shooting, which happens hundreds of times per day in this country.

Obama needs division, strife, unrest, and crisis, to "fundamentally transform America." It's right out of his community organizing Saul Alinsky handbook. Trayvon Martin has been just another useful body in that campaign. Watch and see.

**********
NBC's EDITED RECORDING
ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he's up to no good. ... He looks black.

THE FULL CALL:
ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining, and he's just walking around looking about.

DISPATCHER: Okay. This guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?

ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.

***********

A SLEW OF PROBLEMS KEEP GUAM BAD

Published in the Pacific Daily News, July 14, 2013

Jackie Marati has publicly called Gov. Eddie Calvo a coward for letting Bill 19 lapse into law. So by that logic are we then to assume that Marati would have called the governor a hero if he had signed it? Probably not. He'd be called worse things.

Read full article here or here if link no longer works. 

CHURCH SHOULD NOT TAKE GOVERNMENT AID

Published in the Pacific Daily News, July 7, 2013

I found it a bit coincidental that an editorial praising the good deeds of Deacon Frank Tenorio appeared opposite an opinion piece on immigration by Cardinal Timothy Dolan on the same day (June 15 Pacific Daily News).

Read full article here or here if link no longer works.

ON QUOTING THE POPE

Letter to the Editor of the Marianas Variety, Guam. Published 6/16/13.

Click here to link to the online edition or here if the link no longer works to a pdf copy of the published letter. The text of the letter with links for documentation follows:

In “ben’s Pen” (Marianas Variety, June 13, 2013) Senator Ben Pangelinan includes a paraphrase of a quote by Pope John Paul II: “The measure of a country's greatness should be based on how well it cares for its most vulnerable populations.” 

 It’s a curious quote for Pangelinan to use, for the context of the quote was a May 2000 address to the new ambassador of New Zealand to the Holy See in which the pope carefully took the ambassador to task for his country’s persistent opposition to legal protections for the unborn and New Zealand’s near world-leading abortion rate.

 The pope had actually gone on to define those “vulnerable populations” as the “unborn and the dying”. Here’s what the pope actually said: “A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members; and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying.” (Libreria Editrice Vaticana)

 I call Pangelinan’s use of the quote “curious” because no sitting senator has been more vociferously opposed to legal protections for our society’s “most vulnerable” - the unborn - than Senator Pangelinan. 

 His opposition to Bills 54-30 and 52-31 on the session floor is a matter of record, and both speeches were impassioned assaults on any attempt to intervene on behalf of the unborn by giving the mother a simple pamphlet outlining the potential risks of abortion, her rights, and her alternatives.

 Both bills called for the availability of information already called for by the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v Casey and by the laws of the majority of U.S. states. 

 But Pangelinan has remained adamant that Guam women should not be given information that might change their minds about proceeding with an abortion, even though nearly 10% of pregnancies on Guam now end in abortion and two thirds of those are of Pangelinan’s own ethnic group. (Guam Medical Records)

 Senator Pangelinan also criticized the lack of implementation of the Health Care Exchange called for by the Affordable Care Act. At a public forum held last July by the Guam Medical Society, local health insurers confirmed that the Exchanges would fund abortions. 

 Several states, having discovered the abortion funding mechanism, have chosen to opt out of the Exchanges. Due to an oversight in the Affordable Care Act, Guam would have to opt in. Apparently that’s what Senator Pangelinan wants us to do - and once “in”, Guam residents would be forced to fund abortions.

 Since Senator Pangelinan quotes John Paul II, so will I: “(T)o safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person...is the principal duty of every public authority...(and) laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual.” (Evangelium Vitae, 71-72)

FIND INFORMATION BY INVESTIGATING ABORTIONS

Printed in the Pacific Daily News, May 26,  2013 

"Rendering a female consistently infertile for the purposes of commercial sex through traditional birth control is tedious and fraught with forgetfulness and mistakes, and often result in costly abortions. Abortifacients like Plan B will make it much easier to use and abuse girls and women by making it easier for sex traffickers and their customers to destroy the evidence."

Read the full article here or here if the link is no longer active.

MARRIAGE IS NOT A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT

This op-ed was published in the Guam Pacific Daily News on April 26, 2013.

Former Guam resident, Bobbie Servino, is accusing the Catholic Church of promoting hatred and discrimination. In a letter to Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the current president of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, Servino says that she is "outraged" that the Catholic Church spent "$2 million on anti-gay marriage ballot campaigns during last year's election."

Read more here or if the link no longer works go here.

SAME-SEX ARGUMENTS USING "LOVING" WRONG

Printed in the Pacific Daily News, Sunday, April 14, 2013

In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the decision known as Loving v. Virginia, ruled that state laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. As one half of an interracial marriage, I am a direct and personal beneficiary of that decision and, as such, maintain and assert a personal right and duty to preserve its authentic legacy. 

Read more here. If link is no longer active go here.

THE REAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Published in the U Matuna, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Agana, Guam, 3/10/13.

The number of abortions on Guam were down slightly in 2012 - from 295 in 2011 to 275 last year. There are no changes in trends: most abortions occur during the first trimester, young adults ages 18-22 have the most abortions, and Chamorros account for  the largest share (62%) of abortions. But what do these numbers mean and how can we bring them down?

Some advocate for better education of our youth. But the youth, ages 13-17, account for only 2% of abortions. Some call for greater access to contraception. But contraception is more readily available than ever before. Others would like to see more opportunities for adoption. But there is already a waiting list at CPS of hopeful parents waiting to adopt. Some say we need to improve the economy, but in general, wealthier economies have higher abortion rates.

So, what to do? First, we must put everything on the table. For several years now, our abortion reports have defied the myths that abortions on Guam are either procured by teens or outsiders. They are not. As mentioned, teens account for only 2% of abortions, and “locals” account for more abortions than all other ethnicities combined.

As Catholics, we must further admit that since 85% of “locals” identify themselves as Catholic, abortion is a Catholic problem. Also, for a culture that still largely prides itself as family-oriented and one which has traditionally cared for the children of relatives who were unable to care for their own, we must ask why the number of Chamorro children aborted by their mothers continues to escalate even while the percentage of the Chamorro population on Guam continues to decline.

In short, we must get rid of our myths before we can proceed. I personally tire of hearing “but they’re Catholic” when one learns of a certain lawmaker’s obstruction of pro-life legislation, or the now tired and transparent mantra about the culture being “family-oriented” given the staggering incidence of family violence we are constantly confronted with. Even more wearisome is the talk about the need to reach our teens when it’s the adults who account for 98% of abortions.

Our first reaction is usually “we have to talk about this more.” But as Catholics, we already talk about it “more”: no organization has defined doctrine condemning abortion as clear as ours, no group organizes more public protests, and no group is as active in the charitable ministries which address the social issues thought to be the causes of abortion. Yet our abortion numbers rise, and Catholics throughout the U.S., not just Guam, increasingly accept abortion even while the rest of the nation is heading in the other direction.

Some think that the number of abortions procured by Catholics is high because of the the Church’s teaching against the use of contraception. However, access to contraception has not only NOT slowed the abortion rate, it can be easily proved that contraception’s failure rate has contributed to increased abortions. According to the FDA, condom use, the most common form of contraception, will result in pregnancy 18% of the time, and oral contraceptives, 9% of the time. And of course - thinking “I’m protected” - contraceptive use leads to more frequent sexual activity which increases the number of contraceptive failures leading to more abortions.

It is difficult to battle the rate of abortion when one of its main causes (contraceptive use) is seen as the solution. But telling the truth about contraception’s failure and battling government initiatives to further inject it as a social solution is critical to any effort to decrease abortion. 

However, I hold little hope for this. Contraception is a “sacred cow”. Our culture desires sex without consequences - and contraception, despite its glaring failure rate and the monstrous spread of disease, proposes to hold the magic key.

Of course, in the end, women are the losers. Contraception liberates men not women. It’s the woman who end up with a “problem pregnancy” and in the abortion clinic when contraception fails. And in many cases she is drug there by the man who impregnated her. 

The Elliot Institute documents that nearly 64% of abortions are coerced. And when the woman is unwilling, she is often beaten or killed: homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women. Also, coerced abortions may account for why the post-abortive woman is six times more likely to commit suicide. 

Yet, often the most ardent advocates of increased legal protections for women are also the most ardent advocates of increased access to contraception and abortion. Contraception enables bad men to more easily use and discard women. And when contraception fails, abortion allows men to destroy the evidence. How fortunate for them that so many women believe these both to be “rights”.  

The 2012 Guam Abortion Report can be accessed at www.esperansa.org.

WRONG ANSWER AND THE TRAGEDY IN TUMON

The tragedy in Tumon last week is almost too huge to comment on. The grief and anger is simply unimaginable. Like most, I wondered what would make this person do such a thing. 

Some things have come to light: drugs, divorce, a romantic breakup, a recent departure from the structured world of school. In this case, it was a lethal cocktail of events which exploded into a murderous act.

Internet technology also may have factored. A You Tube video of the girl the suspect apparently separated from was found. In it she shares an emotional message of contrition over their break up, restates her love for him, and concludes by blowing him a kiss.

Whereas in the past many a broken-hearted lover may have stared longingly at a picture of a lost love, a video message from a former lover is quite another thing. Upon viewing the video myself, it was easy to imagine the emotions which might have overcome this 21 year-old male as he viewed it, probably over and over.

It also appears that the suspect may have planned to take his own life. It was reported that he had been giving away his personal belongings, and appeared deeply troubled. Such a plan is not hard to imagine when the above-mentioned “cocktail of events” is mixed with the video reminder of his loss.

While the suspect did not succeed in taking his own life - if that was his plan, it is certain that he had lost all regard for it. And his age and his action once again brought to the fore a concern about the mounting number of young people, especially males, who are increasingly prone to suicidal behavior.

Because suicide is such a terribly sensitive and thus dangerous topic on which to speak, I did not want to address it prematurely. However, given the impact of this incident, now may be an opportune time to examine a possible cause for the increase in suicide amongst the young which few have considered, nor seem to want to consider.

Nationwide, the suicide numbers are actually declining slightly. In 1950, there were 13.2 suicides per 100,000 people. As of 2010, there were 12.4. However, for young people ages 15-24, and especially for males, it’s another matter. During the same time period, suicide in this age bracket has tripled.

Losing so many young people, just as the promise of life is beginning, is an atrocity  of pandemic proportions that should force us to put everything on the table in our attempt to address it. But there is one thing which is never “put on the table”. 

The most common cause of suicide in this age bracket appears to be despondency over a broken romance. But “breaking up” is not new. What IS new is the sharp increase in violence and suicide which follows upon the end of a romantic relationship. Why?

If we were to graph it, we would easily see that the increased rate of suicide amongst the young would match the increased rate of young people who are sexually active. So while breaking up is not new, the rate at which an increasing number of young, unmarried people are having sex with each other IS. (Does not apply in all cases, of course.)

Draw your own conclusions, but sex does something to a young couple that simply exchanging rings and innocent affections does not. Sex, regardless of age or intent, does what it was designed to do: makes two people one. It is not just a biological act, it is an irreversible exchange of persons which, if nature so deigns, fuses the two into a wholly new person: a child.

Thus, breaking up is no longer a matter of a “Dear John letter” and giving back a ring. Whether or not pregnancy occurs, the breaking of a sexually bonded relationship is the full ripping apart of “one body”, a fission of persons, the relational equivalent of splitting the atom with metaphorically proportionate consequences of emotional and spiritual fallout, often far beyond ground zero. 

The rupture of sexually-fused persons leaves a radioactive emotional wound, a hemorrhage that does not heal, despite the numbness time may assuage it with. And death is the fallout: murderous rampages, suicide, emotional self-destruction, drug addictions, broken families, genital diseases, and generations of broken people.

And what is our answer? More condoms, more birth control, more “Plan B”, more pills, patches, implants, abortifacients and abortions because “they’re gonna do it anyway.” 

Wrong answer! While contraception might limit pregnancy, it will never limit the internal devastation wrought by the splitting of persons fused together in sexual intercourse. Think about that the next time some politician or federally funded project wants to teach your child how to put on a condom.