The following was made by an anonymous commenter, whose comment can be found here.
This is my response:
Tim Rohr did not refute anything. I stated: " If the Archbishop really wanted the NCW in the Dededo Parish, he would simply remove Father Paul from the Dededo Parish the day AFTER Patricia Cottman banged her fist on the table."
He did not refute that at all. He said nothing about why the Archbishop did not remove Father Paul the day AFTER Patricia Cottman banged her fist on the table, which was stated according to Father Paul. In 2011, the Archbishop ordered Father Paul to terminate the employment of Mr. Joseph Lastimoza. Then Tim Rohr claimed that the Archbishop CHANGED the charge?
In 2011, Father Paul was not removed. He was given an order, which is to terminate an employee. In 2011, there were no charges. There was only an ORDER given to Father Paul to terminate an employee. So, how can Tim Rohr say that the charge was changed when in 2011, Father Paul was not charged with anything?
In 2013 after an investigation was conducted, the Archbishop charged Father Paul for "act of DISOBEDENCE BY REFUSING to terminate the employee." That was the REASON for his removal. In other words, he was removed because he disobeyed the order of 2011, which was to terminate the employment of Lastimosa. That was the first charge. There were no second charges after that nor any changes to that first charge in 2013.
The July 16, 2013 letter said that he disobeyed because he did not terminate Mr. Joseph Lastimosa. According to the July 16, 2013 letter (bold is mine):
"You disobeyed the order given by the Vicar General and the Attorney for the Archdiocese to release him."
The Decree of removal on August 20, 2013 says the same thing. According to the Decree of removal (bold is mine):
"A canonical reason for removal has been determined, that is Reverend Father Paul A.M. Gofigan's act of disobedience refusing to terminate the de facto employment of a registered sex offender working in the parish...."
Father Paul was removed for disobedience when he did not remove Mr. Joseph Lastimosa from employment. So, what change was Tim Rohr referring to? Terminating an employment does not mean to remove only the paycheck, but also to remove the duties that came with that paycheck. The NCW never had anything to do with Father Paul's removal.
I received a comment saying that Tim Rohr did refute my statement. Apparently, the anonymous commenter above copied and pasted only a part of Tim Rohr's statement. Tim Rohr further stated on his blog:
"As for Apuron putting in the NCW after Cottman pounded her fist on the table, he certainly could have. But Apuron doesn't call the shots in the Archdiocese. Gennarini and Pius do. And they are much smarter than Apuron. They know they have to sneak in the NCW lest we detect their evil intent."
My response to this is........OH REALLY?? If it was Father Pius and Gennarini who call all the shots, then whose decision was it to put Father Bien (a "non-Neo" priest) to replace Father Paul on July 17th, which is the very next day AFTER Father Paul was removed????????
If the goal was to install the NCW into the Dededo parish, and Father Pius and Gennarini call all the shots as Tim Rohr claimed, then why didn't they take the opportunity to replace Father Paul with an RMS priest? That would have been the smart move. In fact, that would have been the golden opportunity to "sneak in the NCW."