AnonymousJuly 30, 2015 at 9:46 PM
Diana at July 27th, 9:59 pm,
Tim refuted your first statement to Joane Santos. What do you have to say about that?
"In 2011, Apuron ordered Fr. Paul to terminate the employment of Mr. Lastimoza. When Fr. Paul was called in two years later he was accused of disobeying an order:
"You disobeyed the direct order given by the Vicar General" are Apuron's exact words in his July 16, 2013 letter to Fr. Paul.
When Fr. Paul produced the evidence that he had obeyed the "order given by the Vicar General", Apuron changed the charge to "refusing to terminate the de facto employment" of Mr. Lastimoza. (Decree of Removal. August 20, 2013. Prot. No. 013-074)"
Tim refuted your first statement to Joane Santos. What do you have to say about that?
"In 2011, Apuron ordered Fr. Paul to terminate the employment of Mr. Lastimoza. When Fr. Paul was called in two years later he was accused of disobeying an order:
"You disobeyed the direct order given by the Vicar General" are Apuron's exact words in his July 16, 2013 letter to Fr. Paul.
When Fr. Paul produced the evidence that he had obeyed the "order given by the Vicar General", Apuron changed the charge to "refusing to terminate the de facto employment" of Mr. Lastimoza. (Decree of Removal. August 20, 2013. Prot. No. 013-074)"
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.
UPDATE:
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."
Hi Diana,
ReplyDeleteThe archbishop was rather disingenuous in removing Fr. Paul when the employee in question was originally placed in the parish with the approval of the archbishop himself. This person did community service and after he completed his community service, he became a paid employee at the parish. Fr. Paul did terminate the individual when told to do so by the archbishop.
It's odd that the archbishop had no problem approving this person's placement in the parish to do community service and then changes his mind years later. He should remove himself as archbishop since he set everything in motion to begin with. Just seems fair to me.
Eleanor Aguon
Dear Eleanor Aguon,
DeleteYou stated: "It's odd that the archbishop had no problem approving this person's placement in the parish to do community service and then changes his mind years later."
What is odd about that? People can change their minds after many years. Employers can change their minds and decide to lay off an employee after they first hired him. How do you know that the Archbishop was fully aware of the man's crimes when he first allowed him to do community service?
Hi Diana,
DeleteNow you are being disingenuous if you are proposing that the archbishop might not have known the background of the person he approved for community service in a parish. He knew this person was a released felon and needed to do community service as part of his release. If he didn't know the crime he should have asked. It is the archbishop's responsibility to know what he is approving. I was commenting about his actions not those of others who might change their minds. Are you suggesting that the archbishop doesn't thoroughly consider his decisions before making them? You do the archbishop a disservice by suggesting that he didn't know of the person's crime.
Eleanor Aguon
Dear Eleanor,
DeleteI was suggesting that the Archbishop was probably unaware of the kind of crime Lastimoza had committed and had trusted the parole boards decision. After all, everyone knows about the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. The Archbishop probably thought that the parole board would not allow the request of a sex offender to do community service in a Catholic parish, considering the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. The Archbishop may not have known about the kind of crime Lastimoza committed until many years later when someone notified him that Latimoza's name was on the sex offender registry.
Diana- Who was more in danger to children- Fr. Paul (who committed no crime) Mr Lastimoza(who crime was paid for and with an adult)? Or Fr. Luis Camacho( who got caught having sex with a minor)? Why was Fr. Luis case handled differently? It's because he was the first Chamorro fruit of the way to be ordained. He will be charged soon and the fact is that guilty people don't run away and hide. I thought you all loved persecution and debauchery? You already know the answer and you know I am right.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 7:24 am,
DeleteI do not know what country you live in, but I live in Guam, which is an unincorporated territory of the U.S. And in Guam, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Mr. Lastimoza is clearly the one who pose a danger to society because he was a convicted sex offender and murderer.
As for Father Luis, there was no charge of any sexual offense. His charge has to with an interference of custody. And because he has not gone to trial, he is still innocent until proven guilty of custodial interference.
Hi Diana,
DeleteWhere is Fr. Luis? Is he on island? Did he run away? Sounds fishy to me. What he did was inappropriate for a priest. He used poor judgment. Not very responsible for a priest. I expect higher standards from a priest. Perhaps the priesthood is not for him.
When a person commits a crime, serves his time and is released, he has paid his debt to society. Released felons need a support group. This person found that support at Santa Barbara Parish and Fr. Paul. This man is not a threat to anyone. You are being un-Christian in the way of you speak of him. Shame on you.
Eleanor Aguon
Dear Eleanor,
DeleteI agree with you that Father Luis used poor judgment. He put himself in a compromising situation. I will remind you that priests are human beings and can fall. You are wrong to think that a priest cannot fall into sin. This is why we always pray for all our priests. Father Luis needs to discern whether the priesthood is for him or not. And being away from the girl is the best way to make that discernment. Surely, even you would agree that it would be best for Father Luis to be completely away from the girl. And the best way is to be out of Guam where he can easily run into her, considering that Guam is a very small island.
I also disagree with you if you actually think that all released felons is no longer a threat. I will remind you that there are SOME people who have been released from jail and end up going back to jail. That is a fact and a reality. Joseph Lastimoza is a convicted sex offender and murderer whose name is still on the sex offender's registry list. Saying that has nothing to do with Christianity. It is the truth. It is good that Mr. Lastimoza has repented, and I applaud him for that. However, I think that even he realizes that no matter what good he does at Santa Barbara Church, that will never erase the rape and murder of a beautiful young girl. That is something that Mr. Lastimoza has to live with for the rest of his life. There are some sins you can repair, and some you cannot. Murder is one of those sins you cannot repair despite that he has been forgiven. This is why forgiveness of sins is separate from punishment of sins.
Hi Diana,
DeleteI diagree with your response so we can just leave it at that.
About Fr. Luis and his preparation at RMS for the priesthood and NCW, are seminarians there given the opportunity to take a year away before making their final decision to become ordained?
A friend of mine, during his year away from a stateside seminary, found that he did not have the calling as he had thought. He ended up being a teacher at a local Catholic school, marrying, and having a family. Perhaps Fr. Luis could have benefited from a year away from the seminary. Also, there might have been pressure on him to discern a calling as his uncle is the bishop in Saipan. I think it's important to live in the world before giving up the things of the world. It appears that he went from high school directly to RMS.
I do wish him the best in his off-island discernment.
Eleanor Aguon
Dear Eleanor,
DeleteI agree that it is important for a seminarian to discern his calling. There are 2 seminarians I know at RMS who have left because they felt that their calling was not for the priesthood.. I do not know the formation of the seminarian because I am not one.
Once a man is ordain into the priesthood, that does not guarantee that he will not fall into sin. The devil tempts the priests more than the laity. The laity should always pray for all the priests that God sustains them.
Hey Diana guess what tim said to fr pius and the archbishop he don't you have the fear of hell on you and he calling us and you we are a bunch of fools here
ReplyDeleteSome people truly enjoy to use the words fool, stupid, idiot, retard. etc. in every second sentence they publish for the public. This gives them much needed satisfaction. However, by playing this game they are surely not even helping their own cause.
DeleteUnless, of course, its true
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou said "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. "
ReplyDeleteActually he did. He said "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. This is why they waited for something they could take Fr. Paul down with - or so they thought."
Dear Anonymous at 10:31 am,
DeletePlease read the UPDATE on my entry post above.
"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? "
ReplyDeleteThe charge was changed after Fr was accused of disobeying the directive to terminate the employment of that gentleman. After he showed that he did in fact do so, the charge was changed to failing to terminate a "de facto" employment.
Dear Anonymous at 10:33 am,
DeleteIt was a "de facto" employment of a registered sex offender. Both letters mentions a" person" who has to be terminated, NOT a position of employment.
The next thing coming from JungleWatch is the jihadist onslaught. In his Can You Pick post Tim allows this:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous July 31, 2015 at 8:55 AM
It is a holy war John. It is good against evil.
The sad thing is that the jihadist propaganda is coming from Islam and should nothing to do with Catholicism.
11.51am. Did not hear them use word jihadist but I did hear them talk of an internal revolution from the center. As I understand there is some kind of a revolution taking place, revolution led from the center but not sure what he means.
DeleteRevolution from center what is meaning of this?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:10 PM,
DeleteI suspect 11.51am used the word jihadist simply because a jihad is oftentimes translated as 'holy war'-- the terminology used in the JungleWatch post.
Yes, 11.51, it is sad and should have nothing to do with Catholicism...you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
Jihad means holy war against evil.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:14 pm,
DeleteThe word "holy war" was used in the jungle rather than "jihad." Jihad is a Muslim term. "Holy War" is a Christian term that goes back to the Crusades. It was John Toves who first made that comment in the jungle. And then an anonymous commenter agreed with John Toves by making the following comment:
AnonymousJuly 31, 2015 at 8:55 AM
It is a holy war John. It is good against evil Apuron.
As anyone can now see, it is they who are calling for a holy war against the Archbishop and the NCW.
Don't these priests ever obey the bishop? Hello! Didn't they make a promise of obedien when they were ordained? Fr Gofigan and Benavente needs to 'man-up' if they really are 'men' and obey! Perhaps they Are not men but just a bunch of wooosess.
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of truth, Pat Cottman NEVER "banged her fist on the table." She is one of the most gentle women I have ever met and she would never dream of doing that.
ReplyDeleteThe priests and the deacon who were present for this meeting can testify to this.
Another invention of our dear Tim!
the word (SNEAK) is exactly what they did of course they didn't take the opportunity at first because it would have been an obvious decision that is why they waited until later to replace the position with a neo presbyter with the ideal that no one would notice. sneaky yes cmon you know better than I do that this is all a plot for something greater not for the benefit of others but for the leaders of the ncw... why is the ncw being fully funded while the schools shut down, and we don't see any of that money being contributed to a cause? better yet no transparency? and why is it evertime something happens in the church someone has to be blamed for it? and you don't see any of the church leaders taking any responsibility for their actions, like Adrian? or quitagua? or apuron? lol is the ncw the low, that it will take an incredible priet and publicly humiliate him and throw aside as if he were a piece of rag? you speak highly on this blog about the great thing the ncw has to offer but that's a practice we don't see publicly in church or out of church. I bet you won't even post this comment here your to afraid to let these see the truth about what destruction the ncw has cause the families and the relationship between friends better yet the financial well-being for both the church and families that have sacrificed there hard earned money to contribute for a cause for something greater than a profit and here on your blog you talk about doing great thing when all we see is people being told to sign over their inheritance if they love god... not know that it's going to leave their family devastated financially. if you are that great have apuron meet with the CCOG publicly or is the ncw to great to do the right thing? have apuron bring this to and end or does the ncw have to much to lose? call your leader archbishop Anthony apuron and tell him to bring unity to the church or is that not what the ncw wants?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:02 am,
DeleteThe Archbishop does not need to SNEAK any priest. He already have the authority to put in any priest he wants in the Dededo parish. If it was his intention to put in an RMS priest at Santa Barbara Church, he did not need to sneak one in. He would simply do it.
right that's exactly the contradiction because you knew the ncw doesn't have to try because the plot has already been set to demolish the church. and your doing a good job might I add. but it's contradicting because you said tim was wrong about Pius and Gennarini well somehow some way right it happened so tim was not wrong it may have not been exact but it did happen. yeah if it were tony's intension but it did have to start with paul didn't it he was the obstacle, but why fire him? I still don't understand that and that's a big why... why couldn't they just transferred him? put him on suspend him or something but not fire the guy all that practice thrown away in one day. tony should know that...he must feel like a king? he had now remorse for the poor guy, and is that what the ncw is all about beating up priests ?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 3:32 pm,
DeleteYou ask why remove Father Paul???? How many times do we have to tell you that he was removed because of disobedience????? How many times do you need to hear that????
Dear Diana, is there any chance that you could talk about Fr Paul with love, please?
Delete