As I previously laid out in my post ORCHESTRATED - PART 6 (Aug 3, 2016), Fr. Paul's statement to KUAM at Hon's July 27 press conference was in direct contradiction to the facts.
Gofigan: Basically he stated what I wanted, what I stated three years ago when I wrote a letter through my canon lawyer to retract the accusations and also to restore me and what that word restore means is really to clear my name and this is basically what he did today. He cleared my name and formally stated that after further review (of the evidence) he found no evidence to say that I was formally disobedient.
As most of you know, I spent three long lonely years fighting for what Fr. Paul REALLY wrote to his canon lawyer, a canon lawyer who others paid for. . I'm not going to say Fr. Paul lied, but he changed the facts to fit what made him feel good and left the rest of us standing out in the sun and the rain.
I'm sorry to have to bring this up again. I intended to move on, particularly after Fr. Paul trashed me on his Facebook page. However, perhaps you can see why I and others have no interest in "supporting Fr. Paul."Now, let us go back to 2011. Father Paul was told to terminate the employment of Joseph Lastimoza because he was a convicted sex offender. Two years later, Father Paul was accused of disobedience and removed from the Dededo parish. Was Father Paul disobedient? An investigation was done and it was found that Mr. Lastimoza was still working in the Dededo parish and even had keys to the parish. It was also found that he was allowed to purchase some supplies for the church. Nevertheless, Father Paul said that he was a voluntary worker.
Mr. Joseph Lastimoza was supposed to be terminated from his employment at the Dededo parish in 2011; however, the 2013 Catholic Directory in Guam showed that Mr. Lastimoza had an official position at the parish.
Rev. Fr.
Paul M. Gofigan, Pastor
Rev. Fr. Dan Bien, Parochial Vicar
Rev. Fr. Joel delos Reyes, Parochial Vicar
Mrs. Jackie T.L. Ignacio, Executive Secretary
Mrs. Nenette Antonio, Director of Liturgy & Worship
Mr. Patrick Riggs, Director of Youth Ministry
Mr. Joseph Lastimoza,
Director of Facilities Management Rev. Fr. Dan Bien, Parochial Vicar
Rev. Fr. Joel delos Reyes, Parochial Vicar
Mrs. Jackie T.L. Ignacio, Executive Secretary
Mrs. Nenette Antonio, Director of Liturgy & Worship
Mr. Patrick Riggs, Director of Youth Ministry
See the screenshot below:
The website was updated on April 2, 2013, just three months before Father Paul was removed from the Dededo parish. If Mr. Lastimoza was terminated from employment in 2011, why did his name appear on the 2013 Staff Listing of the Dededo parish as the Director of Facilities Management? If I was terminated from my job, I would no longer have my title or position. Was Mr. Lastimoza an official staff member of the Dededo parish working as the Director of Facilities Management or was he a voluntary worker as Father Paul claimed? Surely, he cannot be both. If he was a voluntary worker, someone should have informed Father Paul that allowing a voluntary worker to act in an "official" capacity especially in the finance area (such as purchasing supplies for the church) would not look very good in an audit report.
The reason for Father Paul's removal at the Dededo parish was disobedience. It never had anything to do with the Neocatechumenal Way. However, some people believed the false accusation that the NCW was the reason for his removal. The person who first made this suggestion was Patti Arroyo in her interview with Father Paul in 2013. However, the Archbishop's letter to Father Paul never mentioned the NCW. Rather, the letter cited "disobedience" as the reason for his removal.
This whole thread is already on a non-starter pace. The issue of removal isn't so much about NCW nor in a way Mr Lastimoza; it's about being removed as pastor without due process under canon law. Apuron went around that, and that's the basis for his appeal. That's why he originally said he wanted restoration to being pastor back then, as you noted.
ReplyDeleteFr Paul's reversal has been characterized as a reversal. That's being charitable. It looks an awful lot like betrayal since Tim was fighting for him in the first place. Once Hon was here, he "accepted" the restoration of his name, which he was given I suppose.
All the rest of this is just picking a fight. Tim's been upfront about his frustration with Fr Paul.
Finally, for years, the Archdiocese was notoriously late in updating the actual information on its website. To say Lastimoza actually worked there because of the website is no evidence at all. If it said on the parish bulletin that he worked there, then you've got it. ArchAgana website= no-go.
Dear Anonymous at 3:18 am,
DeleteYou missed the point of my post. My post started with Tim exposing Father Paul's inconsistency. The whole point of the post is that if he can lie to Tim, what made you so certain that he did not do the same to Archbishop Apuron?
The website was not updated in 2011. The last update was in 2013......at a time when his name should not have been on the list. I can understand his name being on the list in 2010 or 2011, but to update the list in 2013.......the same year Father Paul was removed, and still have Lastimoza's name in it?
Fair enough.
DeleteDid you do your due diligence and check with the Dededo parish if the website was ever updated or not? As you know some of these mom and pop websites are published and the access is limited to the few who know how to update in the parish. Sloppy conjecture and speculation on your part
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 5:48 am,
DeleteThe last update was on April 2, 2013, three months brfore Father Paul's removal. After Father Dan took over, he never bothered to update it. Lastimoza was supposed to have been terminated in 2011.
why do you keep defending liars is all i want to know? deed restriction done in secrecy. Apuron says one thing to the AFC then a few days later does exactly what he told AFC he wouldnt do. smells.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 8:06 am,
DeleteIf you are referring to the Deed Restriction, that did not start with Archbishop Apuron. It started with Richard Untalan's letter to Father Pavlo. His letter claimed that RMS requested that the title of the property be transferred to RMS, and Mr. Untalan denied that request.
The problem here is that Father Pablo never wrote a letter to Richard Untalan to request such a thing. Also, you are deviating from the thread. Please stick to the topic of discussion.
Whats the real reason for this OP? You say that because Fr Paul allegedly lied to Tim, he might have also lied to Apuron. So then, what. Whats the bottom line here? Lets assume you are right and Fr Paul lied to Apuron. What does that mean practically? Is this about Fr Paul now having some responsibility for the Cathedral communities?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:57 am,
DeleteWhy did Father Paul lie to Tim? It is obvious that he contradicted his own statement. Why did he not apologize and admit that what he said three years ago and today are different? Yet, there was no apology, and he insisted that what he meant by "restore" was only to clear up his own name? If he had told the truth in the beginning, none of this would have happened.
"...none of this would have happened." like what?
Deletelike the emergence of people who have a bone to pick with Apuron, especially those who allege sexual abuse against Apuron?
the Archdioceses' public defamation of those alleged victims? and the action now pending against the Archdiocese because certain hotheads threw stones?
God works in mysterious ways!
Dear Anonymous at 1:10 pm,
DeleteThe sexual allegations did come out as a result of Father Paul's removal. The infighting among Catholics was a result of Father Paul's removal because he wrote a letter to his congregation and went to the media. The emergence of the sexual allegations did not start the infighting among Catholics. It started with Father Paul's removal in 2013.
@Anon 1:10. The sex abuse allegations started only this year. Before that, Catholics were divided starting with the removal of Fr. Paul.
DeleteWhy did sexual abuse allegations start only this year?
DeleteIf infighting began 2013 with Fr.Paul's removal it should stop September 2016 on his appointment to Cathedral. True?
DeleteAfter three years Fr.Paul better to have a new parish.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 2:24 pm,
DeleteYou asked: "Why did sexual abuse allegations start only this year?"
The sexual abuse allegations came from Tim Rohr. Did you not hear his taped interview in K57. He said he was responsible for Roy Quintanilla coming out and that everything that happens in the future, he is responsible for.
Just what is the purpose of this OP, Diana?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 3:02 pm,
DeleteI already answered that question.
Dear Diana at 12.54
ReplyDeleteSo then, is it correct to summarize your original post this way - that Fr Paul was not disciplined because of anything to do with the NCW, but rather because of "disobedience"?
Presumably, if that is the case, you are saying this because you wish to address the perception that there is a problem between the NCW and Fr Paul? And presumably you wish to do that because Fr Paul is now rector of the Cathedral which is claimed as a NCW stronghold.
Of course, Archbishop Hon declared recently that Fr Paul was not disobedient in fact or form.
Thereby, it is suggested that Apuron's discipline of Fr Paul was for some other reason than the alleged disobedience (which didn't actually occur).
What, then, is that other reason? Could it actually be the underlying difficulties in the relationship between the NCW and Fr Paul?
Dear Anonymous at 3:41 pm,
DeleteI never said anything about Father Paul's new position as rector. The title of this OP is "Back to the beginning in 2013". Now, that we know that Father Paul contradicted himself today, the possibility exists that he did the same thing in 2013 when he was removed.
In 2011, he was told to remove Joseph Lastimoza from employment in the Dededo parish. In 2013, he was accused of disobedience. Father Paul produced a letter of termination, which he says was given to Lastimoza. The question is......why did he not give a copy of this letter in 2011? Apparently, Father Paul did not reply to the Archdiocese saying that he has complied and attach a copy of the letter of termination. I also noticed that he had a reply to everything when he was caught contradicting himself.
When asked why Lastimoza had keys to the parish, he had an answer to that. When he was asked why Lastimoza was acting in an official capacity, purchasing supplies for the church, he also had an answer for that. Nevermind the fact that allowing a voluntary worker to act as an "official" staff member especially in the finance area would look very inappropriate in an audit report. Now that we know that Father Paul can contradict himself, we can look back and question his responses in 2013.
Why? To what end? Why are you bringing this up? Is it just for fun?
DeleteYou say
"Now that we know that Father Paul can contradict himself, we can look back and question his responses in 2013. "
So lets assume we do question his responses in 2013. Then what? What purpose do you hope to accomplish?
Dear Anonymous at 8:41 pm.
DeleteIt is to help you see the possibility that you may have been wrong in supporting Father Paul, and that you should have left him alone to fight his own battles rather than fight it for him. Obviously Tim Rohr learned that lesson too late.
Yup Tim Rohr bury him and Gofigans supporter. Goes with Dart Vader's line. If your not with us your against us.
DeleteGosh Ok. So you really have no idea what's going on, do you? This problem that we have - and that is being addressed - is not about whether Fr Paul can be trusted, but rather about the NCW and the damage it does.
DeleteYou can make all sorts of claims about Fr Paul (or anyone else) but we all know that the NCW is a cult, that it teaches things foreign to the Church, and that its members will lie, cheat and steal if they are told to, or if they think it is for a good reason.
Then in the same respect you should let Archbishop Apuron fight his own battle.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:42 am,
DeleteWe have already heard all the false accusations the critics had to say about the NCW. Your negative opinion of the NCW does not matter to us. Do you know why? Because we have the support of Pope Francis. He supports and endorsed the NCW, and he has given his blessings to our charism.
Your charism isn't the problem. It's how you do it that's the problem. That's why Francis has warned families going on mission to be especially watchful about pride.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 2:33 pm,
DeleteWe all have to be watchful of our pride regardless of whether we are in the away nor not.
WOW you all worship the same God!! What so wrong with the NCW???? It just seeds these people just want to come back to the Church, There's noting wrong with that, CCOG why all the Hate.......
DeleteWait till you see Sarah Nededog take up Fr Paul. :-)
ReplyDeletePlease elaborate. What can we expect to see?
DeleteFr Paul went to Harvard, Diana. Wears his ring to prove it. Harvard man.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 9:40 am,
DeleteSo?
I'm normally 100% against Diana, but I agree: so?
DeleteHi Diana,
ReplyDeleteHave you seen Fr. Paul's Facebook post where Tim Rohr said Fr. Paul "trashed" him? I couldn't find it. It would be good to see exactly what was posted.
I think too that it would have been hard to put Fr. Paul back at Santa Barbara after an absence of 3 years. Fr. Dan Bien has done a terrific job as pastor. I thought Fr. Paul would be given the pastorship of another parish but the decree declaring him unfit as a pastor has not been rescinded, according to Tim Rohr. That is too bad.
Eileen Benavente-Blas
Dear Eileenbb,
DeleteI do not know. It is possible that he may have deleted it. I am not aware of what occurred or what was said between him and Father Paul.
I do not think it too difficult to place Father Paul back at Santa Barbara Church. The parishioners know both Father Paul and Father Dan very well. Father Dan was also at the Dededo parish when Father Paul was there.
Fr.Paul Harvard? Yea i sat on the Moon.
ReplyDeleteOr it could be looked at another way---that (Fr. Paul incident) was just the "straw that broke the camel's back". It was the the last straw for non-Neos who were complaining and questioning things among themselves. The changes in Barrigada church, the Cathedral, Chalan Pago. The whispered stories of how Fr. Efren was treated, and how the Filipino priests were dismissed. The "missing" statue at Santa Rita church. The "weird" things people were told by "these new presbyters". Etc., etc....
ReplyDeleteIf you check, whatever happens with Fr. Paul does not make too much of a difference now because it started the ball rolling. The movement has switched from underground whispers to out in the open...people are asking questions and not taking just any answer. People understand that the Laity is responsible for what happens in their Church and will no longer just wait for Rome to fix things. They won't just sit by and let it happen---they will be an active Laity.
So, whether or not Fr. Paul was lying, or changed his mind, or whatever---NCW Guam is now under the microscope for the Catholic faithful WORLDWIDE to observe. Do you not see that THAT is the whole objective???
Dear Anonymous at 1:34 pm,
DeleteThe NCW was here in Guam since 1999. The first indication of any problem was among the clergy, not the laity. The complaints of the clergy is mainly that Archbishop Apuron spends too much time with the RMS priests. The complaints I have heard are: He travels with them, he dines with them, he is more comfortable with them. In other words, feelings of jealousy. It was not the NCW, but that the Archbishop appears to pay more attention to the NCW and the RMS priests rather than to them.
Then when the Archbishop tried to encourage the other priests to get a taste of what the NCW was like, there was resentment.
Yes, but now we know that the NCW is a Trojan horse in the Church. Now the complaints are not about favoritism, but about the theological, pastoral and liturgical problems, not to mention the cult-like behavior and the abuse of power.
DeleteAs Anon at 1.34 said - the Fr Paul issue brought it into the open where all the other problems were given light. Now, no-one thinks its merely a matter of favoritism.
Dear Anonymous at 3:55 pm,
DeleteAll this information you obtained about the Way came from "anti-Neo" websites that were frozen in time in 2006. And the only ones spreading this propaganda is the jungle.
No, the information I have comes from my own experience. I've witness the NCW "Mass". I've been to the catechesis. I've heard the testimonies.
DeleteYes, you may be correct about restoring Fr. Paul to Santa Barbara so maybe there's a reason we're not privy to to explain why the decree of removal as a pastor was not rescinded.
ReplyDeleteEileen Benavente-Blas
Diana,
ReplyDeleteI have always wondered why there appeared to be such hatred towards the NCW on Guam by other Guam catholics. I never thought the reason was jealousy. But now that you have said it, and now that I have had time to think about it, it is the only logical explanation.
The way to get someone to see things your way, is not to hate on them and call them names, as that other blog has been doing to the NCW. They want to kick out the NCW, but perhaps they don't know that the members of NCW on Guam are Chamorros, Philipinos, Hawaiians, Micronesians...etc., most of them are US Citizens. Myself for example and many others I know who walk in the Way, are US citizens, so there is no way they can kick us/NCW members out.
So to them, I want to say don't be jealous, God loves you just as much as He love us who are members of the NCW on Guam. Or maybe...don't hate what God loves.
Dumb Catholic from Inarajan
Dear Inarajan,
DeleteIt's not jealousy at all. It's an issue of bad teaching and illicit liturgy. That's the disagreement. Is it so impossible that we stand on principle?
Dear Sept. 7, 2016, at 10:16 am,
DeleteThanks for your response, but illicit liturgy goes right over my head and I will venture to guess it's the same for majority of Catholics...that is why I trust that ordained priests know what that is and will ensure the it is done properly. I did google illicit liturgy and this is what Apologist Fr. Charles Grodin had to say at Catholic Answers:
"Re: What is an invalid or illicit Mass?
Valid means that the essential elements of a sacrament were present and thus the sacrament took place.
Illicit means that the ritual was not properly performed according to the liturgical norms but the sacrament took place.
Assuming there's a validly ordained priest with faculties and the proper matter of bread and wine, the only way that a Mass could be invalid is if the words are consecration were so greatly changed as to change the plain meaning of the words. Even a small change in the world (e.g. a priest says for all instead of for many) would not invalidate the Eucharist since the essential meaning is the same. Generally speaking if a priest were to substitute poems for the Scripture readings, it would be greatly illicit (and sinful) but as long as the words of consecration were correct (or only slightly changed) then the sacrament would still be valid.
Attending a Mass where the celebrant illicitly introduces elements contrary to the ritual, it still fulfills the Sunday obligation of the faithful. They attended Mass and worshiped the Real Presence of Christ, it's not their fault the celebrant made illicit choices within the Mass. However, if the Mass was invalid then the obligation to attend Mass would not be fulfilled since there was no actual Mass (no valid consecration, no Real Presence)."
I'm just a Dumb Catholic from Inarajan, and I think standing on principle is great, but when you hate other Catholics and go so far as calling them Satan...sir or mam, I think your principles are compromised.
The disagreement should not be the cause of our division or hatred towards the other. It should be the thing that brings us to the table. It is not a reason to hate the other.
Dumb Catholic from Inarajan
Blessed Virgin Mary healed Fr.Eric.
ReplyDeleteNever heard Pale Eric call Our Lady RMS
Our Lady is Mother of God Queen heavenky Peace. AVE AVE AVE MARIA. HAPPY BIRTHDAY MARY. i crowned all of 30 Marys in house today. Now in goung around island to visit Mary Statues in parishes. Praying Mary cries tears today. AVE AVE AVE MARIA.
Dear Anonymous at 10:01 am,
DeleteAre you saying that Father Eric does not recognize our Lady as the "Mother of the Redeemer?"