Saturday, March 18, 2017

Setting The Record Straight

This is in response to the anonymous poster whose comments can be found here.  The poster's comments are in blue while mine are in black. I only published a portion of his/her comment on this post.  The red are quotes from the jungle. I also divided his/her comments for a better response. According to the Anonymous poster: 

Anonymous @ 2:14 AM, records show that Apuron himself had allowed that very same person you refer to as "a Rapist but murderous" to work at Sta. Barbara in March 1999 5 years before Fr. Paul was ordained. A copy of the parole document can be seen on Junglewatch. Please explain WHY Apuron approved of the man being on Church grounds in 1999, fresh out of prison but not in 2013 after living quietly and with a family 14 years later?!? He was much more dangerous in 1999 than in 2013. 
This so-called approval, which you mention is found here.  This record is a an ORDER from the Guam Parole Board ORDERING Joseph Lastimoza parole under certain conditions.  Nowhere in that document do I see Archbishop Apuron's name and signature granting any kind of approval for Lastimoza to do community service at the Dededo parish.  It was an ORDER from the Guam Parole Board.  So the question in the world did you see this as an approval from Archbishop Apuron when his name and signature is not even on the paper?  

It was Archbishop Apuron who instructed Father Paul to remove Joseph Lastimoza from being employed at the Dededo parish once he learned that he was a sexual offender.  Father Paul fired Lastimoza; however, he kept him as a voluntary worker at the Church.  Archbishop Apuron removed Father Paul for disobedience.
Apuron's sexual past definitely opened the doors. Junglewatch started in 2010 with 6 posts. 2011 had 6 posts. 2012 had 6 posts. Most of the posts were on the topics of same-sex marriage, abortion and other current events issue.
As a matter of fact before the very first post on the Fr. Paul controversy there were 11 posts in 2013 including a July 16 post on Trayvon Martin. Fr. Paul wasn't mentioned until Tim Rohr posted the July 23 PNC TV report on Apuron's removal.
Tim Rohr did not write the first post "The Chancery V Gofigan" as a way of documenting the local controversy until July 25. But Tim Rohr did not only write about "Chancery V Gofigan" in 2013. He also wrote about Obamacare, married priests & the local ordination of Anglican convert Fr. Richard Rojas, Miley Cyrus & pornography, homosexuality in the Church, MLK & Kennedys, non-NCW-related liturgical abuses, Guam as a Divorce Mill, etc. etc
As a matter of fact the first mention of the NCW didn't come up until August. And at the end of August there was a short post that read:
"TO BE CLEAR! A copy of my response to a comment implying that this blog is "an arena of persecution" of the Neo-Catechumenal Way: JungleWatch is not concerned with the NCW. IT IS concerned with the liberty of its clerics who feel free to rewrite the catechism to justify their aims. IT IS concerned with the liberty of clerics who feel free to disregard instructional norms from Rome (I have it on record). IT IS concerned with clerics who feel their authority trumps canon law."
You stated that the first mention of the NCW did not come up until August, 2013.  What you quoted above can be found here dated August 28, 2013.  You claimed that the first mention of the NCW did not come up until August 28, 2013 when Tim Rohr published that post.  Below is a post from Tim Rohr criticizing the NCW dated July 23, 2013, which you can find here (the bold is mine):
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."

Therefore, you have made a false claim in stating that the first mention of the NCW did not come up until August, 2013.  It started even before that.  I have shown you the evidence.  

Apuron shot himself in the foot when he removed Fr. Paul in July 2013. If he had not done that there would be no "Chancery V Gofigan" posts to attract readers to Junglewatch. Tim Rohr would have continued to post his views on current events or moral issues like abortion. Nobody would be reading Tim Rohr's blog. Tim heard stories about "Apuron & the Agat Boys" even while he was Apuron's PR guy. But Tim Rohr never said anything. 

You were already caught making false statements in your comments.  Yes, Tim claims to hear stories about "Apuron and the Agat Boys."  The same Tim Rohr who claimed that Archbishop Apuron gave permission for Lastimoza to work at the Dededo parish and then flaunts a document from the Guam Parole Board ORDERING Lastimoza to work at the Dededo parish without any signature from the Archbishop.  

So, in truth, it was the Guam Parole Board who ORDERED Lastimoza to work at the Dededo parish in 1999 as clearly shown in that document. So, who made the false claim? And most importantly, why did you not read the document yourself?  Why did you just swallow everything you were told?  Perhaps if you had read the document yourself, you would have noticed that Archbishop Apuron's name and signature was absent.

Many years later, when Archbishop Apuron learned that there was a convicted sex offender working in the Dededo parish, he ordered Father Paul to remove him.  Father Paul fired Lastimoza, BUT allowed him to work as a volunteer worker in the parish. Therefore, it was Father Paul who allowed a convicted sex offender to work as a volunteer worker.      


  1. I think you will find that the parole board can't make an "order" for someone to do community work in the Church without the permission of the Church. Duh.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:42 pm,

      Since when has the government ever needed the Church's permission for anything? Do you not know that the government can even take your property without your permission???? All that is required for the government to do is compensate you for taking your property. As for the Church and all other non-profit organizations, they are required to follow civil laws passed by the government.

      According to Guam's law regarding the parole board 9GCA Section 80.80.:

      (a) If a prisoner is released on parole, the board shall require as a
      condition of his parole that he refrain from engaging in criminal conduct.
      The board may also require, as a condition of parole, either at the time of his
      release on parole or at any time and from time to time while he remains
      under parole, that he: (11) satisfy any other conditions reasonably related to his rehabilitation or to the public safety and security.

      That's a very broad and general law. Furthermore, Tim Rohr never claimed to make any educated guesses. He claimed to have ALL THE FACTS AND ONLY THE FACTS. So, if it is true that Archbishop Apuron gave his permission, why hasn't Tim produced the actual document granting that permission with the Archbishop's name and signature on it? Even the Guam Parole Board did not include any such document with their ORDER paper to Lastimoza.

    2. Sorry Diana but Anonymous @ 10:42 PM is correct. The parole board CANNOT ORDER the Dededo Church to accept a parolee. Permission must be given by some official in the church. And it CANNOT BE DONE AT THE PARISH LEVEL. It would have to be done at the CHANCERY. Whether it was Apuron or a designee who gave the permission doesn't really matter since ultimately APURON was the TOP OFFICIAL in the church back in 1999.
      BTW: Comparing taking away property and assigning a parolee to community service at a Catholic (or any) Church are two very different government actions.

      While you're right that "the government can take your property without permission" as long as the owners are compensated you're only telling a HALF TRUTH. That government power of eminent domain also requires that the land be taken for PUBLIC USE and that it's not just government land grabbing at random that the owners are FORCED to accept as your imply.

      While you quote the Guam Code Annotated about the CONDITIONS of parole why don't you go deeper to find out whether the government can FORCE any organization to accept the placement of a parolee? As with other jurisdictions you will find that while courts can order community service they CANNOT ORDER the community agency to accept parolees. Permission from the profit or non-profit agencies must be obtained and are kept on record. Such documentation from those would not necessarily be attached to the orders of individual parolees.

    3. Since you labeled this post as "Jungle Cleaning" I thought I'd see what the jungle had on this. Your link to the parole document got me curious. There's a post called "Apuron vs Parole Board" and saw comments like what you're saying in this post. Anyway here's a comment that could explain the parole board- church arrangement:

      frenchieOctober 22, 2014 at 11:51 AM
      Dear Anon @ 10.14: Are you for real?
      A parole board does not just assign a parolee out of the blue.
      They have agreements with the businesses, NGO or religious organizations that are willing to work with these parolees.
      They have parole officers who check with said location.
      This is a very well established procedure.
      Of course the State department of Corrections and the Court have vested interests in these, so there are documents.
      Are they a matter of public record? That is another question.
      Due to the privacy laws, there are most likely restrictions on who has access to what where and how.
      Otherwise the rest is public record.
      The point of these revelations is that the Chancery is involved, a pastor cannot sign on this within the previous green light from the Chancery.
      Back then Father Paul was still studying at Harvard.
      So the Chancery knew, from the beginning.
      This is why this is so evil and immoral on their part to use something against father Paul for which they had knowledge of for over 13 years.
      Is this so complicated?
      They knew, they lied, they covered up.
      It had nothing to do with danger to children, it had everything to do with inside politics, and the order by Gennarrini to the Archbishop to get rid of Fr Paul.
      Nothing less than that.
      This is why Tim got involved with this blog, and that so many of us have participated in this fight.
      Time to wake up

    4. Dear Anonymous at 7:49 and 8:41 am,

      Then provide the document with Archbishop Apuron's name and signature on it.

    5. Dear Anonymous at 7:49 and 8:41 am,

      Please see my new post in the following weblink:

  2. The parole board approves applications for parole only if the custodian agrees to meet the conditions and ACCEPTS responsibility.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:20 pm,

      Then, please provide the application form so we can see if the Archbishop's signature is on it. Ask yourself why Tim used a document that did not have the Archbishop's signature and accused him of giving permission for a sex offender to work in the Dededo parish.

  3. It is almost irrelevant whether the chancery approved the community service at Dededo back in 99. Gofigan wasn't reprimanded for that. He was reprimanded for disobedience when he was ordered to fire the fellow. Although he made it look like he fired him, but he remained at the parish against the expressed order of the archbishop.
    Moreover, the accusations that followed against Apuron regarding the Yona property and the molestations have nothing to do with Gofigan, who, in the meantime, got where he wants to be. Like Diana's earlier comment shows, Rohr's morbid hatred against the NCW and Apuron have little to do with the Gofigan case, which served only as "casus belli", to justify the onslaught of insults, demeaning, and false accusations. I wrote false not because I know of evidence regarding the molestation allegations, but because the "giving away" of the Yona property, which was always quite obviously false, but now its falsehood is evident. Rohr knew this all along, yet persisted in the lie. This shows you the kind of tactics he is willing to resort to. Lies come from the father of lies. The plot against Apuron is satanic.

  4. Rohr comes through as a liberal cuckoo in the traditional Catholic nest. He praises the Economist, a Wall Street liberal news magazine for reporting on the advances of anti-Catholic forces on Guam. Even JW patrons have to challenge his enthusiasm for extreme secularism. But Rohr rejects criticism against the enemies of our church and are defending Wall Street liberalism to the last drop of his blood. Why? You may be surprised why would he do that? Well, simply because of his detectable commitment to his secular mainland handlers.

    Sunday, March 19, 2017

    AnonymousMarch 19, 2017 at 10:24 PM
    The Economist is an extremely liberal magazine and very anti Catholic. I was reading it for years and finally stopped because of their one sideness in social issues. So i am not surprised they did a story but not because they are fair and balanced.

    TimMarch 20, 2017 at 3:19 AM
    What did the story say that wasn't true?