CONCERNED CATHOLICS OF GUAM VILLAGE MEETINGS

Presentation notes -­ Tim Rohr Compiled 3/19/15

Table of Contents

1. The Removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan

2. The public destruction of Msgr. James Benavente

3. The RMS Property Scam

4. Catholics need to see accountability (The two seminaries and the annual appeal -­

op-­ed by Tim Rohr in PDN)

5. Letter to Archbishop Apuron from Vangie Lujan about the closure of the museum

6. Is the Neo Catholic?

7. In Gofigan case wrong cleric removed (op-­ed by Tim Rohr in PDN)

8. Why “Straw Man Fallacy” was used (op-­ed by Tim Rohr in PDN about Fr. John

Wadeson)

9. Problem with the Way is its leadership (op-­ed by Tim Rohr in PDN)

10. Fight within Church goes back 20 years (op-­ed by Tim Rohr in PDN)

THE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN compiled by Tim Rohr

3/3/15 July 16, 2013. Fr. Paul Gofigan is called to a meeting with Archbishop Anthony Apuron and Msgr. David C. Quitugua, the Vicar General. At the meeting he is read a letter : (1)

accusing him of disobeying an order from the Vicar General to terminate an employee two years previously

accusing him of causing “grave harm to the parish…especially the youth” and creating “a lasting and potential threat to the safety and well-­being” of his parishioners and staff

demanding his immediate resignation as pastor of Santa Barbara parish or face a more “arduous and painful closure to your assignment.”

telling him to go “look for a benevolent bishop willing to accept you.” According to Fr. Gofigan, upon returning to his office, Fr. Gofigan finds himself locked out of his office -­ the archbishop having ordered the locks changed while he was at the meeting with the archbishop. July 17, 2013. The very next day Fr. Paul Gofigan is officially removed as pastor of his parish by an Aviso (2) appointing Rev. Father Dan Bien as the Parochial Administrator of Santa Barbara Church, upon which Fr. Gofigan is then:

removed from the schedule of presiders, effectively censuring him without due process told to vacate the rectory with no alternative residence provided

July 20, 2013. Fr. Gofigan distributes a letter to his parishioners advising them of his unjust removal and his intention to seek appropriate recourse against them. July 22, 2013. Fr. Gofigan writes to Archbishop Apuron stating his rejection of the archbishop’s demand that he resign, and asserting his canonical right to “basic due process”, all of which had been heretofore violated by the archbishop. (3)

July 22, 2013. The chancery releases a public statement to the media:

accusing Fr. Gofigan of disobeying “ a directive from the Archbishop” implying that the subject employee was and is a danger to children: “A school full of

children is in very close proximity to the parish.” (4) July 28, 2013. Fr. Gofigan writes Archbishop Apuron and requests a copy of his decree of removal and states his intention to seek “recourse to the author of the decree in accordance with Canon 1734.1” and names his advocate: Father Adolfo N. Dacanay, S.J. (5)

The Removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan Page 1 of 4

August 2, 2013. The Vicar General writes Father Gofigan saying that there is no decree of removal because he was never removed and that the letter of July 16, 2013 demanding his resignation was only an attempt to “persuade the pastor to resign.” (6)

August 12, 2013. Archbishop Apuron initiates the removal of Fr. Paul according to canonical procedure (which is a de facto admission that he previously violated the procedure) and convenes the canonically required consultation with two pastors, Rev. Msgr. Brigido Arroyo and Rev. Fr. Jose Alberto Rodriguez. August 20, 2014. Archbishop Apuron writes Father Gofigan:

again accusing him of disobeying his 2011 instruction to terminate the employee again accusing the employee of being a danger to parishioners again accusing the employee of specifically being a danger to children claiming that there is no guarantee that the employee, who went to prison in 1981 for

sexual assault, will never commit sexual assault again again demanding Fr. Gofigan’s resignation as pastor (even though he was already

officially replaced with an administrator, effectively removing Fr. Gofigan as pastor and making a letter of resignation unnecessary.) (7)

Before we continue with the timeline, let us address some of the above:

Upon being accused on July 16, 2013 of disobeying Archbishop Apuron’s order to terminate the subject employee in 2011, Fr. Gofigan produced a letter dated October 26, 2011 proving that he had terminated the man’s employment.

The former employee’s parole records were later obtained from the Guam Parole Board showing that the man had in fact worked at Santa Barbara parish from 2000 to 2003 as a condition of his parole and with the knowledge of Archbishop Apuron, and long before Fr. Gofigan was made pastor of the parish. This shows that Archbishop Apuron did NOT consider the man, then only recently released from prison, to be all the dangers he makes him out to be 13 years later

Archbishop Apuron violates all the canons (1740-­1752) relative to the removal of a pastor in his July 16 demand for the resignation of Fr. Gofigan.

Having violated church law and having been caught doing it, Archbishop Apuron backtracks saying his initial demand for resignation was only an attempt to “paternally persuade” Fr. Gofigan to resign.

August 20, 2013. Fr. Adolofo Dacanay files a motion to revoke the decree of removal with Archbishop Apuron and asks the Archbishop:

to restore Fr. Gofigan to his office as pastor to clear Fr. Paul’s name to repair the damage done to Fr. Paul’s reputation (8)

The Removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan Page 2 of 4

September 10, 2013. Archbishop Apuron ignores the Motion from Fr. Dacanay and informs Fr. Gofigan that he is “proceeding with the removal process observing the canonical norms”. (9) September 13, 2013. Fr. Gofigan writes Archbishop Apuron acknowledging receipt of his September 10 letter advising him of his intent to proceed “with the removal process” and states that since he is only now proceeding with the removal that

it is apparent that he has not yet been removed from this office as pastor, and that he be restored to his office as pastor.(10) Archbishop Apuron ignores Fr. Paul’s request

November 11, 2013. Fr. Gofigan’s advocate, Fr. A.N. Dacanay, S. J., provides Archbishop Apuron with a copy of “the appeal of Rev. Paul Gofigan in relation to his removal as Pastor of Santa Barbara Parish.” 15 In the appeal, Fr. Dacanay:

states that “the charge against Fr. Gofigan has become an elastic concept” (a reference to Archbishop Apuron’s “mutating” the charge against Fr. Gofigan from refusing to obey his order to terminate an employee to refusing to obey his order to terminate a “de facto”employee)

details the “procedural lapses in the manner the Archbishop acted” criticizes the Vicar General’s August 02 assertion that Fr. Gofigan had no right to

appeal his removal since according to the VG he was not removed (even though the appointment of a parochial administrator officially removed him).

calls the Archbishop’s actions against Fr. Gofigan “a canonical procedure that has gone awry”

accuses Archbishop Apuron of: mangling canonical procedures, ignoring provision of the Code, making a feeble attempt to correct the bungled process, violating the rights of a pastor, and ruining his good name.

He concludes by stating: “The concerns raised by the Archbishop could have been accomplished even without the bungles attempt at removal, therefore one really wonders what is the real purpose behind the move.” (11)

November 12, 2013. Archbishop Apuron officially decrees the removal of Fr. Gofigan “from his office as pastor of Santa Barbara Church” (three months after he de facto removed him by the appointment of a parochial administrator and locking him out of his office). (12)

December 6, 2013. Fr. Gofigan writes Archbishop Apuron confronting him about remarks he (Apuron) made at clergy retreat in Manila wherein Archbishop Apuron heavily infers that Fr. Gofigan and the former employe were involved in a homosexual relationship. Apuron alleges that Fr. Gofigan had gone so far as to construct a “stairway up to his room” so that the employee could visit him “in the middle of the night with cases of beer and what not and stay

The Removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan Page 3 of 4

there until the early morning.” (The comments were recorded.) Fr. Gofigan calls these remarks “slanderous and defamatory” and demands “both a retraction and an apology in writing.” (13)

January 13, 2014. Fr. Gofigan again writes Archbishop Apuron

reminding him of his (Gofigan’s) demand for a retraction and apology which was “not provided” and advises that the Archbishop: “Your failure to retract those slanderous and defamatory statements leaves me no choice but to take steps to rectify your wrong and to salvage my name, which you have gone out of your way to ruin.”

Fr. Gofigan concludes by giving the Archbishop until 14 Jan to make the requested retraction in writing and if he (Apuron) fails to do so Fr. Gofigan “will take action (including legal action) to salvage my name.” (14)

January 14, 2014. A meeting is arranged between Archbishop Apuron and Fr. Gofigan at which, according to Fr. Gofigan, Archbishop Apuron did not apologize but only suggested that “we cool off” and “let the canonical process run its course.” Gofigan advises Apuron: “I will continue to press my case both canonically and civilly.” (15)

NOTE: Fr. Paul learned in January 2015 during his meeting with the Apostolic Visitors that they were not aware of his case -­ suggesting that Archbishop Apuron never filed it...which gives new light on his desire to “let the canonical process run its course.” January 16, 2013. Fr. Gofigan writes Archbishop Apuron clarifying that there was no apology from Archbishop Apuron and that:

there was only an excuse for the defamatory remarks that Apuron meant to “ruin and defame my name and that of Mr. Lastimoza” and all in an attempt to “bolster and justify your act in removing me on July 16th as

pastor of Santa Barbara.” (16)

Fr. Gofigan was later assigned as a “priest in residence” to St. Anthony’s Church in Tamuning where he still awaits the outcome of his appeal. FOOTNOTES All documents for this topic can be accessed at: www.junglewatch.info > CCOG Presentations > THE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN

The Removal of Fr. Paul Gofigan Page 4 of 4

The public destruction of Msgr. James Benavente compiled by Tim Rohr

3/3/15 July 25, 2014. Msgr. James is called to the chancery.

Archbishop Apuron accuses him of financial mismanagement and reads him a list of accusations.

He also accuses Msgr. James of trying to sell the seminary property. Msgr. James asks objects that the accusations are untrue and asks for an opportunity

to provide an explanation. He is denied and is told he will receive a copy later.

July 26, 2014. Msgr. David C. Quitugua (Vicar General) and Fr. Adrian Cristobal (Chancellor) visit Msgr. James at the Cathedral rectory and hand him three decrees:

1. Prot. 2014-­038: removing Msgr. James as Director of Catholic Cemeteries 2. Prot. 2014-­039: removing Msgr. James as Rector of the Cathedral-­Basilica 3. Prot. 2014-­040: dissolving the Archdiocesan Development Group which Msgr. James

headed. Msgr. James reminds the Vicar General and the Chancellor that Archbishop Apuron

gave “his word” that he would provide Msgr. James with a hard-­copy of the allegations and allow him the opportunity to clear his name.

The Vicar General replies that the Archbishop decided to proceed with his decisions against Msgr. James based on the allegations which had been read to Msgr. James the day before. There was no “opportunity” for Msgr. James to respond to the allegations.

Msgr. James informs the parish council of his removal. July 28, 2014. Msgr. James writes the Vicar General

reminding him that the Archbishop had given his word on July 25, 2014 that he would provide Msgr. James with a copy of the allegations read to him at their meeting on the same day.

reminding him that the Archbishop had handed the list of allegations to the Vicar General and said “make him a copy.”

reminding him that he has not yet received a copy advising him that it is his (Msgr. James) canonical right to be “furnished a copy of

these allegations immediately”. Msgr. James also advised the Vicar General: “you stated that my removal was ‘motivated by the necessity to put in order several administrative issues signaled by Deloitte and Touche.’ I have no idea what you are talking about as I have not seen this report.”

The public destruction of Msgr. James Benavente Page 1 of 4

July 29, 2014. Archbishop Apuron releases a statement to the media about his reasons for the removal of Msgr. James though he doesn’t mention him by name, only his positions. Msgr. James still has not received a copy of the archbishop’s accusations. (1) July 31, 2014. Archbishop Apuron releases a second statement to the media giving further reasons for his removal of Msgr. James. Still Msgr. James has not received a copy of the accusations. (2) July 31, 2014. Msgr. James sends a letter (Cor. 2014-­001) to Archbishop Apuron stating that requests for a copy of the written allegations were request on the following dates:

Friday, Jul 25, twice, no response. Saturday, Jul 26, no response. Tuesday, Jul 29, no response. Wednesday, Jul 30, no response. Thursday, Jul 31, no response.

July 31, 2014. Msgr. James is assigned to the position of Parochial Vicar of St. Anthony Church, Tamuning. (3) NOTE: There was no intention by the Archbishop to reassign Msgr. James to any position in the Archdiocese of Agana otherwise he would have simply advised him of the transfer of his assignment instead of giving him a Decree of Removal with NO assignment. Clearly Archbishop Apuron wanted Msgr. James out of the Archdiocese. August 03, 2014. Archbishop Apuron publishes the allegations against Msgr. James in the U Matuna, after refusing to meet with Msgr. James to discuss the allegations. (4) Yet, later, Archbishop Apuron would tell us that he could do nothing about Msgr. James’ case because Msgr. James did not meet with him.

August 06, 2014.

Mr. Joseph Rivera, former Director of the Bureau of Budget Management and Resources for the Government of Guam and Mr. Art Ilagan, the current Insurance and Banking Commissioner and former Director of the Department of Revenue & Taxation along with other financial professionals hold a press conference on the steps of the Cathedral challenging the allegations by Archbishop Apuron against Msgr. James and offering proof to to contradict the Archbishop’s allegations. (5)

Msgr. James sends a letter to Archbishop Apuron answering the archbishop’s accusations which he had sent to the media on July 31, 2014. (6)

August 08, 2014.

An edition of the U Matuna with a front page story with all the allegations against Msgr. James is printed and made available for distribution at the Cathedral.

At 4pm on the same day, Archbishop Apuron receives a letter from Attorney David Lujan in behalf of Msgr. James.

The public destruction of Msgr. James Benavente Page 2 of 4

The edition is hurriedly collected and destroyed. The U Matuna is reprinted with a different story. (7)

August 11, 2014. Msgr. James submits Request to Revoke Decree of Removal to Archbishop Apuron. August 19, 2014. Archbishop Apuron sends a letter to Msgr. James denying his request. (Prot. 2014-­048) NOTE: Archbishop Apuron has since publicly stated that he could do nothing about the removal of Msgr. James because the case is in Rome. Msgr. James did not even appoint an advocate until 9/1/14. The truth is that Archbishop Apuron did not want to speak with Msgr. James. August 22, 2014. In response to accusations against the family of Msgr. James, Msgr. James writes Archbishop Apuron voluntarily disclosing personal and family assets with documents. September 01, 2014. Letter of Appointment as Canon Lawyer for Msgr. James from Fr. Thomas Doyle, JCD to Archbishop Apuron. NOTE: Archbishop Apuron had from July 25, 2014 to August 31, 2014 to work out a solution with Msgr. James. Not only did Archbishop Apuron NOT meet with Msgr. James, he never gave him a copy of the allegations against him. September 02, 2014.

Fr. Thomas Doyle, JCD, advocate for Msgr. James files formal Letter of Petition for the Revocation of Decree of Removal of Msgr. James with Archbishop Apuron.

Msgr. James issues Letter of Hierarchical Recourse against the Decree of Removal to Archbishop Apuron and to Cardinal Oullet, Cardinal Prefect for the Congregation of Bishops.

September 04, 2014. Letter from Msgr. James to Archbishop Krebs, Apostolic Nunciature, informing him of documents sent to Holy See regarding Hierarchical Recourse against the Decree of Removal. September 15, 2014. The family of Msgr. James writes Archbishop Apuron expressing the hurt their family has suffered due to Archbishop’s public and scandalous attack on Msgr. James. (8) December 17, 2014. Former Finance Council, Mr. Joseph Rivera, writes Archbishop Apuron, showing how the original seven million dollar cost to renovate the Cathedral had been reduced to a balance of 1.7 million at the time of Msgr. James’ removal. Archbishop Apuron does not reply. (9)

The public destruction of Msgr. James Benavente Page 3 of 4

January 06, 2015. Msgr. James meets with the Apostolic Visitors. Details of the meeting are not known. January 23, 2015.

Archbishop Apuron publishes an “internal review” which is inserted into the U Matuna, once again repeating all his allegations against Msgr. James. The “internal review” is “mysteriously” unsigned. (10)

Msgr. David C. Quitugua, Sr. Marian Arroyo and three other members of the Cathedral finance council (Tim Perez, Mariflor Leon Guerrero, & Jonathan Bordallo) publish a letter to the parishioners of the Agana Cathedral with allegations against Msgr. James. (11)

Msgr. James had no knowledge that Archbishop Apuron, Msgr. David C. Quitugua, Sr. Marian Arroyo and the other members of the Cathedral’s finance council had conspired to do this, and as of this date, Msgr. James has yet to be afforded the due process that is his canonical right.

FOOTNOTES All documents can be accessed at: www.junglewatch.info > CCOG Presentations > THE PUBLIC DESTRUCTION OF MSGR. JAMES BENAVENTE

The public destruction of Msgr. James Benavente Page 4 of 4

THE RMS PROPERTY SCAM

complied by Tim Rohr 3/3/15

Sometime in 2011.

Archbishop Apuron is approached by the leadership of the Neocatechumenal Way (Gennarini, et al.)* to sign over the title to the Yona Property (formerly Accion Hotel) to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary (RMS).

Because the transaction involves an archdiocesan asset valued at more than 2 million dollars, Archbishop Apuron is canonically prohibited from proceeding with the conveyance of title without the approval of the Archdiocesan Finance Council (AFC). (Rome’s approval is also required.)

* Note: Giuseppe Gennarini and his wife, Claudia Gennarini, are said to be both the chief catechists and “responsibles” for the Neocatecumenal Way in the United States and the Pacific. Both are listed as “guarantors” in the RMS Articles of Corporation.

September 08, 2011. The AFC votes to deny the request. Mr. Richard Untalan, then-­president of the Archdiocesan Finance Council, writes Fr. Pablo Ponce Rodriguez, Rector, The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation:

The matter of the transfer of the title to the property on which the Seminary is located and situated has come before the Archdiocesan Finance Council, as it involves the alienation of the patrimony of the Archdiocese of Agana. The request before us is that title of the property be conveyed and transferred to the Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, Archdiocese of Agana, a Guam non-­profit corporation. Upon review and consideration, the Archdiocesan Finance Council has denied the request that the title be conveyed to the Redemptoris Mater House of Formation. (1)

According to Mr. Untalan, Archbishop Apuron agreed with the AFC’s decision. November 11, 2011. Either Archbishop Apuron changed his mind or someone changed it for him, because on this day he writes Richard Untalan:

After having consulted with the Reverend Monsignor David C. Quitugua, Vicar General and Judicial Vicar of the Archdiocese of Agana, regarding the matter presented to the Archdiocesan Finance Council regarding the supposed "alienation" of the property where the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and the

The RMS Property Scam Page 1 of 4

Theological Institute "Blessed Diego Luis de San Vitores" affiliated to the Pontifical Lateran University have their See, I wish to specify precisely that, probably due to a lack of knowledge of Canon Law, it was erroneously understood as "alienation". The matter is clearly not "alienation," but simply an assigning of the title of a property that is transferred and renamed from one public juridic person subject to the Ordinary to another public juridic person subject to the same Ordinary. (2)

If the foregoing sounds like a desperate attempt at a rationalization, that’s because it is. Because on: November 22, 2011.

Archbishop Apuron, without the knowledge or required approval of the AFC or even his legal counsel (as we shall see) files a Declaration of Deed Restriction with the Guam Department of Land Management, restricting the use of the old Accion Hotel property solely to RMS and the Blessed Diego Institute for “perpetual use”, effectively alienating the property as an asset of the Archdiocese of Agana. (3)

Mr. Untalan, unaware that Archbishop Apuron has already done the deed, is under the impression from the Archbishop’s November 11 letter that he wants the AFC to reconsider the conveyance of the title.

In preparation for this reconsideration, Mr. Untalan solicits an opinion from Atty. Ed Terlaje, the archdiocesan legal counsel, who, by his answer, indicates that he is also unaware that Archbishop Apuron has already deeded permanent control of the property to RMS.

On November 27, 2011, Atty. Terlaje writes:

Read your letter and that of the archbishop. As you well know, "alienation" and "assignment" are words of distinction without a difference. Any documents containing these words would place a huge cloud on title to real property which would result in a protracted litigation and prohibitive cost to remove such cloud. Do you really want to risk title to the property conservatively valued at 75 million dollars? I have other serious concerns raised in the letter, and if you wish, would like to discuss in private with you and other members of the finance council. (4)

The RMS Property Scam Page 2 of 4

Between November 27 and December 5 2011. Having received the legal counsel's opinion, Mr. Untalan called for a meeting of the

AFC on December 6, 2011. On the agenda, as Item #5, was the title issue. Archbishop Apuron, who was off-­island at the time, wrote to Mr. Untalan, instructing

him to take Item #5 off the agenda. Mr. Untalan complied and Item #5 is taken off the agenda.

December 6, 2011. The Vicar General, Msgr. David C. Quitugua, on the morning of the scheduled meeting, sends an email to Mr. Untalan accusing him and the other members of the AFC of as follows:

To deny the Archbishop this right, on the one hand, breaks communion with him and, on the other hand, represents a "vulnus" towards the Archbishop insinuating a form of disrespect towards his person. (5)

Mr. Untalan replies to the Vicar General that he is "stunned" by the his accusation and goes on to explain:

that Item #5 had already been taken off the agenda, that it was not going to be discussed in the Archbishop's absence, and that the vicious accusation by the Vicar General against him and the rest of the AFC

was uncalled for. (6) The meeting was cancelled. Later that day, Archbishop Apuron sends a separate email berating Mr. Untalan

saying he is "appalled" at Mr. Untalan's disobedience, reiterates that the issue is not to "be discussed until I come home", and orders him to "stop this nonsense." (7)

Mr. Untalan responds: "I am deeply hurt that you would accuse me of disobeying you and that I was creating nonsense..." (8) Archbishop Apuron does not reply.

January 11, 2012. Mr. Untalan and the other three members of the AFC who opposed the transfer of title (Msgr. James Benavente, Joseph E. Rivera, and Sr. Mary Stephen Torres, RSM), receive a letter from AAA stating:

The term or your appointment has expired and I believe that it is time for me to engage new members in the council...This letter marks the official termination of

The RMS Property Scam Page 3 of 4

your membership. Your five year term has already lapsed since your appointment in January 25, 2000 in the archdiocesan finance council. (9)

In fact, Mr. Untalan's term had "already lapsed" seven years previously. The same was true of the other members whose term had "lapsed". And in the case of Sister Stephen, her term had "lapsed" nearly twenty years previously. March 07, 2012. Archbishop Charles Balvo, then-­Apostolic Delegate to Oceania, aware of Archbishop Apuron’s firing of the AFC, but unaware that he has already alienated the property by restricting its usage in perpetuity to RMS (which is in effect the Neocatechumenal Way), writes Archbishop Apuron:

The establishment of a finance council, diocesan and parish, is required by the Code of Canon Law…(the finance council) has a deliberative vote…when the diocesan finance council is asked to give its consent, the diocesan bishop is to receive the consent of an absolute majority of those present, and if he acts against this consent he does so invalidly. Regarding the matter at hand…consent is required not only from the finance council but also from the college of consultors. If these do not give their consent, the diocesan bishop is not free to do as he pleases. (10)

January 06, 2015. The Deed of Restriction, giving full control of the old Accion Hotel property to the Neocatechumenal Way for “perpetual use” on November 22, 2011, over three years previously, is discovered and published on JungleWatch.info. NOTE: Attached to the Deed of Restriction is a DECREE OF DESIGNATION authored and signed by Archbishop Apuron. A DECREE is specifically a public proclamation. However, this particular DECREE was never publicly proclaimed. And there was a reason. FOOTNOTES All documents can be accessed at: www.junglewatch.info > CCOG Presentation > THE RMS PROPERTY SCAM

The RMS Property Scam Page 4 of 4

KWWSZZZJXDPSGQFRPDUWLFOH23,1,21

3DJHRI 0DU30067

&DWKROLFVQHHGWRVHHDFFRXQWDELOLW\:ULWWHQE\7LP5RKU0DU JXDPSGQFRP

(DFK/HQWWKH&DWKROLFVRI*XDPDUHDVNHGWRFRQWULEXWHWRDVSHFLDODSSHDO7UDGLWLRQDOO\PRVWRIWKHIXQGVFROOHFWHGGXULQJWKHDSSHDOZHUHXVHGWRKHOSILQDQFHWKHIRUPDWLRQRISULHVWVIRUWKLVGLRFHVHZKRZHUHQRUPDOO\VHQWWRVHPLQDULHVLQWKHVWDWHV

,QZLWKWKHHVWDEOLVKPHQWRI5HGHPSWRULV0DWHU6HPLQDU\RU506LQ<RQD*XDP&DWKROLFVZHUHOHGWREHOLHYHWKDWWKLVZDVDVHPLQDU\IRU*XDPDQGWKDWRXUPHQZRXOGQRORQJHUKDYHWREHVHQWWRVHPLQDULHVLQWKHVWDWHV$SSHDOIXQGVEHJDQWRIORZGLUHFWO\WR506

2YHUWKH\HDUVLWRFFXUUHGWRVRPHWKDWWKHUHZDVVRPHWKLQJVXVSLFLRXVDERXW5061RWRQO\ZHUHWKHUHKDUGO\DQ\ORFDOPHQWKHUHWKHSODFHZDVWHHPLQJZLWKVHPLQDULDQVZKRKDGEHHQEURXJKWWR*XDPE\WKHDUFKELVKRSIURPVHYHUDORWKHUFRXQWULHV

*XDP&DWKROLFVDUHXVHGWRKDYLQJFOHUJ\IURPRWKHUFRXQWULHVDVVLVWRXUDUFKGLRFHVHEXWWKHVHPHQDW506ZHUHQRWFOHUJ\7KH\ZHUHXQWUDLQHGDVSLUDQWVWRWKHSULHVWKRRGZKRUHTXLUHG\HDUVRIHGXFDWLRQDQGILQDQFLDOVXSSRUW ILQDQFLDOVXSSRUWRXU

6RZKHUHDV*XDP&DWKROLFVLQWKHSDVWKDGEHHQDVNHGWRVXSSRUWDIHZRIRXUORFDOPHQLQRIILVODQGVHPLQDULHVWKH\ZHUHQRZEHLQJDVNHGWRVXSSRUWDVPDQ\DVRUPRUHPHQIHZRIZKRPZHUHORFDO

*XDP&DWKROLFVFRQWLQXHGWRFRQWULEXWHWRWKHVHPLQDU\WKLQNLQJDOOWKHZKLOHWKDW506ZDVDGLRFHVDQVHPLQDU\IRUWKH$UFKGLRFHVHRI$JDQD%XWLQZHOHDUQHGWKDWLWZDVQW

7KH)U3DXO*RILJDQILULQJILDVFREOHZWKHOLGRIIWKHRWKHUZLVHTXLHWEXWVLPPHULQJZDUWKDWKDGEHHQUDJLQJIRU\HDUVEHWZHHQORFDOGLRFHVDQSULHVWVDQGZKDWFDQRQO\EHGHVFULEHGDVDVWUDWHJLFQHRFDWHFKXPHQDOWDNHRYHURIWKHZKROHLVODQGZLWK506DQGLWVSODWRRQVRISUHVE\WHUVLQZDLWLQJWKHKHDGRIWKHVQDNH

$QLQYHVWLJDWLRQLQWR506UHYHDOHGWKDWLWVDUWLFOHVRILQFRUSRUDWLRQPDQGDWHGWKDWLWIRUPPHQRQO\DFFRUGLQJWRWKHOLIHDQGSUDFWLFHRIWKH1HRFDWHFKXPHQDO:D\

7KHOLIHDQGSUDFWLFHRIWKHQHRFDWHFKXPHQDOZD\LVGHPRQVWUDEO\GLIIHUHQWWKDQWKHOLIHDQGSUDFWLFHRIWKHWUDGLWLRQDOGLRFHVDQSULHVWKRRG,QIDFWWKH1HRFDWHFXPHQDO:D\ZDVIRXQGHGDVDUHDFWLRQWRZKDWLWVIRXQGHUVEHOLHYHGWREHDIDLOHGGLRFHVDQSDULVKPRGHORIWKHFKXUFK

*XDP&DWKROLFVKDGJLYHQKXQGUHGVRIWKRXVDQGVLIQRWPLOOLRQVRIGROODUVRYHUDGHFDGHDQGDKDOIWRZKDWWKH\EHOLHYHGZDVDUHDOGLRFHVDQVHPLQDU\$QGE\ZKHQWKHUXVHZDVXQFRYHUHGWKH\KDGDOUHDG\EHHQOHDUQLQJWKHKDUGZD\WKDWSULHVWVIRUPHGLQWKHOLIHDQGSUDFWLFHRIWKH1HRFDWHFKXPHQDO:D\ZHUHLQIDFWGHPRQVWUDEO\GLIIHUHQWWKDQWKHGLRFHVDQSULHVWVWKH\KDGJURZQXSZLWKHJ0VJU-DPHV%HQDYHQWH)U3DXO*RILJDQ)U0LNH&ULVRVWRPR)U-HII6DQ1LFRODVHWF

5HDOL]LQJWKHUXVHZDVXS$UFKELVKRS$SXURQKXUULHGO\HUHFWHGDVHFRQGVHPLQDU\6W-RKQ3DXO,,6HPLQDU\LQ0DORMORM+RZHYHULQGHVLJQDWLQJWKLVVHPLQDU\VSHFLILFDOO\GLRFHVDQKHDGPLWWHGWKDW506ZDVLQIDFW GLRFHVDQZKHQZHZHUHWROGIRU\HDUVWKDWLWZDVQRW

:KHUHGRHVPRQH\JR"

$OORIWKLVPHVVKDVUHVXOWHGLQDEDFNODVKIURPORFDO&DWKROLFVZDQWLQJWRNQRZWKHWUXWKDERXWZKHUHWKHLU

KWWSZZZJXDPSGQFRPDUWLFOH23,1,21

3DJHRI 0DU30067

$OORIWKLVPHVVKDVUHVXOWHGLQDEDFNODVKIURPORFDO&DWKROLFVZDQWLQJWRNQRZWKHWUXWKDERXWZKHUHWKHLUPRQH\LVJRLQJ

$FRXSOHZHHNVDJRWKH&RQFHUQHG&DWKROLFVRI*XDPVXEPLWWHGDOHWWHUWR$UFKELVKRS$SXURQDVNLQJKLPWREHIRUWKFRPLQJDERXWWKHGHVWLQDWLRQRIWKHDSSHDOIXQGV

7KHUHZDVQRDQVZHUIURPWKHDUFKELVKRS,QVWHDGKHUHFUXLWHGDIHZRIWKHORFDOER\VWKDWDUHDWWKHVRFDOOHGGLRFHVDQVHPLQDU\DQGVHQWWKHPRXWZLWKSUHSDUHGVFULSWVWREHJIRUPRQH\IRUWKHDSSHDOREYLRXVO\EHOLHYLQJWKDWDIUHVK\RXQJORFDOIDFHZDVPRUHOLNHO\WRJHWWKHPDQDPNRWRRSHQXSWKHLUFKHFNERRNV

7KHSUREOHPLVWKDWDOOWKHPRQH\IRUWKHDSSHDOUHJDUGOHVVRIZKRDVNVIRULWJRHVWRWKHDUFKELVKRS$QGDVKHKDVDOUHDG\GHPRQVWUDWHGKHZLOOGRZKDWHYHUKHZDQWVZLWKLWZLWKRXWUHJDUGIRUDFFRXQWDELOLW\RUWKHLQWHQWLRQVRIWKRVHZKRJLYHLW

7KHERWWRPOLQHIRU*XDPV&DWKROLFVPXVWEH1RDFFRXQWDELOLW\QRPRQH\1RPDWWHUZKRDVNVIRULW

7LP5RKULVDUHVLGHQWRI$JDW

October 30, 2014 Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron Archdiocese of Agana 196Cuest San Ramon Ste B Hagatna, Guam 96910-­4334 Hafa Adai Archbishop Apuron, I’ve become aware of statements you made during a recent visit to parishioners of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament Church. When questioned about the abrupt closure of the National Museum of the Dulce Nombre de Maria Cathedral-­ Basilica, I understand you responded that Monsignor James closed the museum. I must say I expected more from our island’s spiritual leader and I am disappointed that you continue to mislead people about this matter. After you made it abundantly clear that Monsignor James was not to have any authority over the museum, it hardly seems fair that you would now accuse him of closing the facility. In fact, Monsignor David is the only one who had the authority to either open or close the museum. Below is a brief chronology of the events that transpired over the past few months with regard to the museum: July 25: Announcement that Monsignor David would now be responsible for museum

operations. Week of July 27: I contacted Cathedral staff to find out if the museum would be opened as

had been announced. Monsignor David, the new rector, and his administration did not respond.

August 1: Mary Kidd Mary Kidd gave me approval to move forward. August 2: Coreen Leon Guerrero, who identified herself as a representative of Monsignor

David, informed me that the museum would in fact proceed as planned. At this time I noted that some families who had provided materials for the exhibits were concerned about the museum’s future and had already removed some of their personal collections. However, Monsignor Calvo’s family had agreed to loan their collections for a short while longer.

August 4, Father Adrian and Monsignor David contacted me about meeting to discuss opening the museum. Based on that conversation, it was quite clear that Monsignor David possessed the authority to open or close the museum. This fact was supported by statements made by Father Adrian Cristobal to KUAM News.

August 4: The following item appeared in a KUAM News report: “Today Archdiocese spokesperson Father Adrian Cristobal addressed the concerns of the

island's Catholic community saying the museum's closure is only temporary. He added

Monsignor David Quitugua is overseeing the transition, noting, "And in this change of

administration Monsignor David desires that the persons that are you know involved with

volunteering helping managing the museum that everything is order and that the transition

process be taking place in such a way that we can assure that it will be open again and to

Vangie Lujan -­ Letter to Archbishop Apuron re Museum closure Page 1 of 2

assure to the public that the administration will be taking care of these things the new

administration."

August 6: A 10 a.m. meeting of museum volunteers was scheduled to determine the future for the museum. However, at 9:15 a.m., Mrs. Kidd called to inform me that the meeting would be cancelled indefinitely due to other activities at the Cathedral. The former Finance Committee will be holding a press conference.

Throughout this situation, numerous announcements, including bulletin messages, have been made regarding the museum. Even if you did not actually write these messages, you, Monsignor David and Coreen Leon Guerrero must certainly have been aware of them. The fact that they continued suggests you condoned the messages, and it is disingenuous of you to state otherwise. I was at the museum from 5:30 am to 2:30 pm, at no time did anyone informed me that the information announced was incorrect. It is now October, months after this project began. I am troubled that you continue to blame Monsignor James and others for the museum closure. Neither Monsignor James nor the volunteers who spent countless hours preparing the facility have the authority or capacity to open or close the museum. I hope you will acknowledge this truth and proceed accordingly, rather than continuing to perpetuate falsehoods that have no place in our church or our community. So you are now making your way throughout the various parishes making your pastoral visit. For what? What is the purpose of this sudden decision on your part to hold these meetings, meetings such as the one at Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament? Is it to defend yourself and continue to malign Monsignor James? When is all this going to end? When are you and Monsignor David going to stop blaming everyone but yourselves for how you’ve destroyed this archdiocese? Since you refused my personal invitation to see the new layout of the museum during the Woman Chamber of Commerce presentation at the Government House in July, I have attached pictures of the museum to show you what you have destroyed. Sincerely,

Evangeline C.D. Lujan Parishioner of Agana Cathedral Basilica Museum Volunteer

Vangie Lujan -­ Letter to Archbishop Apuron re Museum closure Page 2 of 2

IS THE NEO CATHOLIC? By Tim Rohr

Here is the simple answer:

Yes, insofar as it adheres to its 2008 Statute. No, insofar as it departs from its 2008 Statute.

Let’s review:

In 2002, Pope John Paul II called on the leadership of the Neocatechumenal Way to submit its teachings and methods for review by church authorities.

The period of review was called “ad experimentum” and was to be a period of five years, from 2002 to 2007.

In 2002, the NCW submitted its Statute (rule) and its catechetical directory (teachings). In 2005, after reviewing the liturgical practices of the NCW, the NCW leadership was

ordered to cease distributing communion to communicants while seated and to conform their liturgy in general to the “liturgical books” (The Roman Missal and the General Instruction for the Roman Missal [GIRM]).

The NCW was given two years to make the transition. The NCW did NOT make the transition and continued to celebrate their liturgy their

way, justifying their disobedience by stating that the final statute (to be approved in 2008) would permit their practice.

The final version of the Statute, approved in 2008, did NOT permit their practice. The NCW continues to violate the liturgical books, specifically in its communion rite, as

follows: the priest/celebrant does NOT communicate before distributing the Sacred

Host to the communicants the communicants do NOT consume the Sacred Host upon reception, but sit

and wait till all members of the community have received, and then consume together upon a signal from the celebrant.

This practice is “illicit” and breaks communion with the Church. When confronted, the only reasons given for the continued illicit practice are:

“Rome has permitted this.” -­ Archbishop Apuron though he has never produced the evidence, and

“Rome knows we do this.” This is an admission that they know this practice is not permitted but they will continue to do it anyway.

For those who want to be able to explain this to others, hard evidence is needed. Following is a copy of the relevant sections of the Statute showing the practice in 2002 and the elimination of the practice in 2008.

2002 Statute (Before Approval) Art. 13 § 2. The neocatechumens celebrate the Eucharist in the small community in order to be gradually initiated into full, conscious and active participation in the divine mysteries, according also to the example of Christ, who, in the multiplication of loaves, made the people sit down “in groups of fifty” (Lk 9:14). This custom, consolidated in the more than thirty-­year old praxis of the Way, has born rich fruit. § 3. In consideration also “of specific formative and pastoral needs, taking account of the good of individuals or groups, and especially of the fruits which may be derived from them for the entire Christian community”, the small neocatechumenal community, with the authorization of the diocesan Bishop, celebrates the Dominical Eucharist after first Vespers open also to other faithful.

2008 Statute (With Approval) Art. 13 § 2. The neocatechumens celebrate the Sunday Eucharist in the small community after the first Vespers of Sunday. This celebration takes place according to the dispositions of the diocesan bishop. The celebrations of the Eucharist of the neocatechumenal communities on Saturday evening are part of the Sunday liturgical pastoral work of the parish and are open also to other faithful. § 3. For the celebration of the Eucharist in the small communities the approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite are followed, with the exception of the explicit concessions from the Holy See. Regarding the distribution of Holy Communion under the two species, the neocatechumens receive it standing, remaining at their place.

The 2002 Statute, written by Kiko Arguello, explicitly directs the people to sit down. The 2008 Statute, revised and approved by church authorities, eliminates the reference to sitting down and simply requires the neocatechumens to celebrate according to the "approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite." The only exception permitted is for the neocatechumens, since the group is small, to remain in their place instead of processing towards the celebrant. The other "explicit concessions" are detailed more fully in a footnote. Those "concessions" are the exchange of the sign of peace before the offertory and the reception of communion under both species. (See footnote 49 below.) 49 See Benedict XVI, Speech to the Neocatechumenal Communities on January 12, 2006, in Notitiae 41 (2005), 554–556;; CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter of December 1, 2005 in Notitiae 41 (2005), 563–565;; “Notification of the Congregation for Divine Worship on celebrations in groups of the Neocatechumenal Way,” L’Osservatore Romano, December 24, 1988: “The Congregation consents that among the adaptations foreseen by the instruction “Actio Pastoralis”, nn. 6-­11, the groups of the above-­mentioned “Way” may receive communion under two species, always with unleavened bread, and transfer “ad experimentum” the Rite of Peace to after the Prayer of the Faithful.” (1)

KWWSZZZJXDPSGQFRPDSSVSEFVGOODUWLFOH"$,'

3DJHRI 1RY30067

,Q*RILJDQFDVHZURQJFOHULFUHPRYHG:ULWWHQE\7LP5RKU1RY JXDPSGQFRP

2Q2FWDOHWWHUIURP'DYLG0LOOVZDVSULQWHGLQWKLVSDSHU0LOOVLGHQWLILHGKLPVHOIRQO\DVDUHVLGHQWRI1HZ<RUNDQGLQWHUHVWHGE\WKHGLVFXVVLRQLQ*XDPDERXWDSULHVWZKRZDVUHPRYHGIURPKLVSDULVKDUHIHUHQFHWRWKHUHPRYDORI)DWKHU3DXO*RILJDQDVSDVWRURI6DQWD%DUEDUDSDULVKPRUHWKDQD\HDUDJR

1RUPDOO\WKHUHPRYDORUWUDQVIHURIDSDVWRULVQRWQHZVEXWWKHSDUWLFXODUO\EUXWDOZD\LQZKLFK*RILJDQZDVWUHDWHGE\KLVELVKRSFDXJKWWKHDWWHQWLRQRIWKHSUHVV

)RUWKRVHZKRGRQWNQRZLQ-XO\RI*RILJDQZDVWKUHDWHQHGE\$UFKELVKRS$SXURQWRUHVLJQLPPHGLDWHO\RUVXIIHUDQDUGXRXVDQGSDLQIXOFORVXUHWRKLVDVVLJQPHQW

:KLOH*RILJDQZDVPHHWLQJZLWK$SXURQ$SXURQKDGWKHORFNVFKDQJHGRQ*RILJDQVRIILFHVRWKDW*RILJDQZRXOGILQGKLPVHOIORFNHGRXWZKHQKHUHWXUQHGWRWKHSDULVK

,QDGGLWLRQWRVWULSSLQJ*RIJLDQIURPWKHRIILFHRISDVWRUDQGORFNLQJKLPRXWRIKLVRIILFH$SXURQDOVRVWULSSHGKLPIURPWKHVFKHGXOHRI0DVVHVIRUFHGKLPWRYDFDWHWKHUHFWRU\DQGDWWHPSWHGWREDQLVKKLPIURP*XDPE\RUGHULQJKLPWRILQGDQRWKHUELVKRSZKRZRXOGWDNHKLP

*RILJDQVFULPH"7ZR\HDUVSUHYLRXVO\$UFKELVKRS$SXURQKDGRUGHUHG*RILJDQWRILUH-RVHSK/DVWLPR]DDSDULVKPDLQWHQDQFHPDQZKRLQEHFDXVHRIDQHZODZDQGDFRQYLFWLRQIRUUDSHDQGPDQVODXJKWHUZDVUHTXLUHGWRUHJLVWHUKLPVHOIDVDVH[RIIHQGHU

*RILJDQWHUPLQDWHG/DVWLPR]DDVRUGHUHGEXWFRQWLQXHGWRPDLQWDLQKLVIULHQGVKLSZLWK/DVWLPR]DDQGKLVIDPLO\ZKRWKURXJK*RILJDQKDGUHHPEUDFHGWKHLU&DWKROLFIDLWKZLWK/DVWLPR]DFRQWLQXLQJWRDVVLVW*RILJDQZLWKPRVWO\SHUVRQDODQGUHFWRU\UHODWHGQHHGV

)RU$SXURQWKHPHUHSUHVHQFHRI/DVWLPR]DDWWKHSDULVKHYHQDVDQXQSDLGSHUVRQDODVVLVWDQWWR*RILJDQZDVVHHQDVGLVREHGLHQFHGHVHUYLQJRIWKHDUFKELVKRSVDFWLRQV

7KHILULQJPDGHQHZVIRUDIHZGD\VWKHQWKHVWRU\GLVDSSHDUHG$QGRWKHUWKDQDEULHIEORZXSZKHQDUHFRUGLQJVXUIDFHGDIHZPRQWKVODWHURI$SXURQLQVLQXDWLQJDKRPRVH[XDOUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQ*RILJDQDQG/DVWLPR]DWKHUHKDVEHHQQRSXEOLFGLVFXVVLRQRIWKH$SXURQ*RILJDQDIIDLU

7KXVWKHVXGGHQDSSHDUDQFHRIDOHWWHUIURPD1HZ<RUNUHVLGHQWZLWKDQLQWHUHVWLQDORFDOGLVFXVVLRQWKDWQRRQHZDVKDYLQJDWOHDVWIRUPDQ\PRQWKVZDVLQWHUHVWLQJLQLWVHOI

0LOOVZKRVD\VWRKDYHNQRZOHGJHRIWKHHYHQWVLQYROYLQJ/DVWLPR]DIURPIULHQGVVHUYLQJLQ*XDPZKRWROGPHWKHVWRU\SURYLGHVDOHYHORIGHWDLODERXW/DVWLPR]DVSDVWWKDWIHZRQ*XDPFDQHDVLO\ILQG

,QIDFWZKHQGRLQJP\RZQUHVHDUFK,ZDVDGYLVHGE\WKH6XSHULRU&RXUWWKDW/DVWLPR]DVFDVHILOHVIRUWKHWLPHSHULRGUHIHUHQFHGLQWKH0LOOVOHWWHUQRORQJHUH[LVWDQGDUHWRRROGWREHLQLWVGDWDEDVH

$QHZVSDSHUDUFKLYHZRXOGKDYHWKHVWRULHVEXWWKH3'1VRQOLQHDUFKLYHGRHVQRWJREDFNWRPHDQLQJWKDWVRPHRQHRQ*XDPZRXOGKDYHKDGWRSK\VLFDOO\GLJXSWKRVHGHWDLOVDQGVHQGWKHPWR0LOOV7KHUHLVQRWKLQJZURQJZLWKVRPHRQHGRLQJVREXW0LOOVZDQWVXVWREHOLHYHWKDWKHKDVQRFRQQHFWLRQZLWK*XDPRWKHUWKDQIULHQGVVHUYLQJLQ*XDPLQ

$QGWKHQ0LOOVIDVWIRUZDUGVWRDQGUHFRXQWVLQGHWDLOWKHHYHQWVOHDGLQJXSWR*RILJDQVUHPRYDOHYHQUHFRXQWLQJFKDUJHVDJDLQVW*RILJDQPDGHRQO\E\$UFKELVKRS$SXURQLQDSULYDWHOHWWHU

KWWSZZZJXDPSGQFRPDSSVSEFVGOODUWLFOH"$,'

3DJHRI 1RY30067

HYHQUHFRXQWLQJFKDUJHVDJDLQVW*RILJDQPDGHRQO\E\$UFKELVKRS$SXURQLQDSULYDWHOHWWHU

0LOOVFRQWLQXHVWRDWWHPSWWRIUDPHKLVVWRU\DVDPRUHJHQHUDOFRQFHUQDERXWVH[RIIHQGHUVEXWLQWKHHQGKHVORSSLO\H[SRVHVKLVUHDODLPZKLFKLVWKHSURSSLQJXSWKHFXUUHQWO\HPEDWWOHG$UFKELVKRS$SXURQFRQFOXGLQJ,IWKHUHLVVRPHWKLQJWREHVDLGDERXWLWLWLVWKDWWKHUHPRYDORIWKLVSDVWRUVKRXOGKDYHEHHQPDGHEHIRUH

7KRXJKKHDLPVDW*RILJDQ0LOOLVHIIHFWLYHO\LQFULPLQDWHV$SXURQZKRZDVWKHRQO\FOHULFZKRFRXOGKDYHUHPRYHG*RILJDQ

,QIDFWWKRXJK$SXURQDFFXVHG*RILJDQRIH[SRVLQJFKLOGUHQWRDSUREDEOHWKUHDWDQGFUHDWLQJDODVWLQJDQGSRWHQWLDOWKUHDWWRSDULVKLRQHUVKHODWHUWROGWKHFOHUJ\WKDWKHZDLWHGWZR\HDUVWRVHHZKDWZRXOGKDSSHQ

*LYHQ$SXURQVVXSSRVHGVHYHUHFRQFHUQRYHUZKDWKHEHOLHYHGWREHDWKUHDWWRFKLOGUHQDQGSDULVKLRQHUVDQGWKHQKLVVXEVHTXHQWWZR\HDUVRILQDFWLRQZKLOHKHZDLWHGWRVHHZKDWZRXOGKDSSHQLWLVREYLRXVWKDWWKHZURQJFOHULFZDVUHPRYHG

,WVQRWWRRODWHWRIL[WKDW

7LP5RKULVDUHVLGHQWRI$JDW

Why 'Straw Man Fallacy' was usedPacific Daily News -­ Hagatna, GuamAuthor: Rohr, TimDate: Jul 31, 2014Start Page: A.21Section: Opinion

Document Text

It appears that Father John Wadeson, in his letter to the editor of July 25, has defaulted to what logicians call "TheStraw Man Fallacy." This fallacy can be demonstrated thus: Person A has position X. Person B presents position Y (adistortion of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore X is wrong and A is the problem.

I am Person A. X, my position, is as follows:

*Wadeson's name appears on a list of clergy who are accused of molesting minors in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

*If those charges are false, he and Archbishop Apuron -­-­ who took him into this diocese -­-­ should have said so when thelist was first made public.

*Having failed that, both Wadeson and Apuron should clear the record now.

Wadeson is Person B. His position, Y, is that I, or more specifically my blog, is the source of the accusation of saidincidents of child molestation. Therefore, Wadeson, attacks Y (which is actually me) instead of addressing X.

The facts are otherwise. The "accusation" was in a statement by the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, orSNAP. SNAP's statement was carried by all of Guam's major media outlets, as well as my little blog.

There are many reasons Wadeson would default to a straw man fallacy rather than confront facts. Let's review a few:

*The list became public in 2004, several years after Wadeson was accepted into this archdiocese by ArchbishopApuron, and neither he nor Apuron attempted to clear the record from the outset as they should have.

*In the ensuing 10 years, neither Wadeson nor Apuron addressed the issue of Wadeson's record to the people of thisarchdiocese.

*Archbishop Apuron and Wadeson are members of the Neocatechumenal Way. And it appears Apuron incardinatedWadeson lickety-­split while refusing to incardinate priests from the Philippines who had served Guam's Catholics fordecades but who objected to serving in the "Way."

*When the story broke, Wadeson had several opportunities to speak to the media and refute the charges. Instead hechose to hide and then "leave the country" (as he put it).

*Archbishop Apuron, instead of standing up for the priest he incardinated, despite his record, opted to throw Wadesonunder the bus, removing him from "active ministry" -­-­ an action which increased the air of suspicion about them both.

But perhaps the biggest reason to default to the straw man fallacy is to discredit me. And here's why. Over the last yearI have:

*Exposed Archbishop Apuron's unjust treatment of Father Paul Gofigan.

*Exposed Archbishop Apuron's slander of Father Gofigan and a parishioner.

*Exposed Archbishop Apuron's attempt to hand over title to a major archdiocesan asset to the Neocatechumenal Way.

*Exposed Archbishop Apuron's illegitimate termination en masse of the members of the finance council who opposedhis decision to give away said asset.

*Exposed Archbishop Apuron's coercion of young men who desire to be priests to enter the Neocatechumenal Way.

*Exposed Archbishop Apuron's misleading one priestly aspirant as to why he could not be sent to an off-­islandseminary.

*Exposed the deep and hurtful divisions that non-­Neocatechumenal priests are in fear of speaking of.

The end of Apuron's reign means the end of the reign of the Neocatechumenal masters who have:

*pulled his strings for nearly two decades,

*bullied parishioners,

*insulted local culture and traditions,

*provided safe haven for un-­vetted foreign priests and seminarians while persecuting our own,

*and helped themselves to the free flow of unaccounted-­for money.

So of course they need a straw man. But in this case, X really does mark the spot. And it's not going away.

Tim Rohr is a resident of Agat.

ID_Code: M0-­307310012

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

Abstract (Document Summary)

Wadeson is Person B. His position, Y, is that I, or more specifically my blog, is the source of the accusation of saidincidents of child molestation. [...]Wadeson, attacks Y (which is actually me) instead of addressing X. The facts areotherwise.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

Problem with The Way is its leadershipPacific Daily News -­ Hagatna, GuamSubjects: Popes;; Etiquette;; LeadershipAuthor: Rohr, TimDate: Aug 17, 2014Start Page: n/aSection: Columnists -­ Opinion

Document Text

In his Aug. 6 letter to the editor, Fr. Adrian Cristobal protests that the Pacific Daily News committed "an injustice againstthe Catholic Church" by referring to the Neocatechumenal Way, or NCW, as a "sect." He goes on to trumpet therecognition of four popes and the papal approval of its statutes.

Let's address each of these.

1. The recognition of four popes.

The NCW or "The Way" is just one of more than 100 "ecclesial realities" (lay movements) recognized by the CatholicChurch and "accompanied" (governed) by the Vatican dicastery known as the Pontifical Council for the Laity.

All of these groups, since they have the official recognition of the Vatican, have the "blessing" of the popes;; and some,being older than the "The Way," have more blessings by more popes.

However, only "The Way" or, more precisely, its leadership, regularly translates "blessing" as license to do other thanwhat it is constituted and permitted to do.

For instance, the NCW's constituting document (its statute) states that the implementation of the NCW in a parish is tobe in cooperation with the pastor. However, as most non-­neo pastors in Guam can tell you, pastors are ignored,scolded, and (as was the case with Fr. Paul Gofigan) even threatened by the real leaders of the NCW, the "catechists."

In 2010, the abuse of pastors by these catechists had become so bad in the Archdiocese of Lingayen-­Dagupan,Philippines, that its archbishop, Socrates Villegas, imposed a moratorium on the NCW, stating:

"There is a prevailing sentiment of superiority among the community members ... resulting in a disdainful attitudetowards those who are not walking The Way or have stopped joining the meetings. Besides, disdainful and disrespectfulremarks about my predecessor, about some priests and even about my own person, have been repeatedly heard fromthe catechists of the communities contrary to good manners, upright conduct, filial respect and Christian charity."

In 2011, the situation was even worse in Japan, causing the Japanese bishops en masse to petition Rome to oust theNCW from their country altogether.

Rome replied by reaffirming the right of each bishop to repress the NCW in his own diocese as he saw fit -­-­ though theNCW still spins this as a rejection by Rome of the bishops' en masse petition.

2. The papal approval of its statutes.

The statute of the NCW received definitive approval from the Vatican in 2008. The document defines and regulates theteachings and praxis of the NCW. This means that the NCW has Rome's "blessing" only insofar as it conforms to itsstatute. Departure from the provisions of the statute constitute grounds to suspect it as a "sect" and treat its activities as"sectarian."

The leaders of the NCW violate their own statute regularly at every eucharistic celebration (their Mass) when theydistribute the consecrated bread in a manner not permitted by their statute. And this is just one of the abuses.

The real problem with the Neocatechumenal Way is not the violation -­-­ even the persistent violation -­-­ of its regulatorynorms. Even Rome has shown that it is willing to look the other way when it comes to a few weeds growing with thewheat.

Rather, the real problem with the Neocatechumenal Way, or more specifically, its leadership, is the aggressive sense ofsuperiority, the disrespect and the disdain for others, as described by Archbishop Villegas.

While Catholics in such countries as the Philippines and Japan can depend on their bishops to go to bat for themagainst this damaging and aggressive disdain for our faith, our people, our priests and our culture, our problem onGuam is a bishop who is one of them.

September 2, 2014

Fight within Church goes back 20 yearsBy Tim Rohr

Many are probably wondering "What on Earth?" as the fight within the local Catholic Church spills intothe streets and onto the pages of newspapers and nightly news. It's a mess by anybody's reckoning.And it's time for an explanation.

The war is not new. It has been 20 years in the making. Twenty years ago, a certain Fr. Pius Sammutarrived on Guam to plant the Neocatechumenal Way -­-­ a particular approach to Christianity started inthe 1960s in Spain. Fr. Pius found a warm welcome in Archbishop Apuron and together they set off toplant the Neo flag in Guam.

There are many different groups within the Church, but none have caused such division as theNeocatechumenal Way. The cause of this division is inherent in its structure. For whereas the holysacrifice of the Mass is the central prayer and unifying act of all Catholics regardless of what group theymay or may not belong to, the Neocatechumenal Way celebrates its own version of the Mass apart fromthe rest of the Church, and usually not even in a church.

It would be difficult to explain the different levels of authority they have or don't have to do this. Thebottom line is that regardless of those permissions or lack of them, the Neocatechumenal Way practiceshave led to the painful division that is now spilling into the street.

For several years, parishioners found ways to go along to get along. And it might still be that way exceptfor what happened in January of 2006.

In December of 2005, Pope Benedict, through the Cardinal Prefect for the Congregation for DivineWorship, ordered the Neocatechumenal Way to cease receiving communion seated and to receive likethe rest of the Church: standing or kneeling.

One month later, Archbishop Apuron took to the air on Catholic radio, publicly criticizing the directiveand calling the cardinal's credentials into question, even though the directive written by the cardinalbegan with the words: "I am to inform you of the Holy Father's decisions."

So in January of 2006, Archbishop Apuron effectively not only gave a public "no" to the Holy Father, butin addition ridiculed both his messenger and his message. This was major and the listeners knew it!

At that moment, Guam Catholics had before them their archbishop publicly siding against the HolyFather, and with a group, whose leader, Kiko Arugello, had also publicly opposed the same papaldirective. The question for Guam's Catholics at that moment became: Do we go with Pope Benedict? Ordo we go with Kiko Arguello, whom Archbishop Apuron is now publicly and officially following?

But there was also a third possibility: Maybe the archbishop had simply made a mistake. I had hoped itwas the latter. However, that hope was wiped away the following day.

The show on which the archbishop had spoken was a regular Monday morning program, and the showwas normally replayed the same afternoon and twice more later in the week.

Fr. Mike Crisostomo, the host of the program, was very aware of the archbishop's damaging statementand immediately ordered the replay pulled. However, no explanation was given to my son, thetechnician responsible for its replay.

With the news of the archbishop's statement spreading like wildfire, many were tuned in at 3 p.m. that

afternoon to hear the replay. There was none. The phone at the station began ringing. Callers wanted toknow why. My son, not having any other information, simply answered: "I don't know. They just told menot to play it."

Obviously, this added fuel to the fire and an emergency meeting was called to come up with anexplanation for pulling the show for next two scheduled replays.

I was at the meeting and so was the archbishop. Everyone knew the gravity of the situation. The rightthing to do would have been for the archbishop to simply state that he had misspoke and apologize forthe confusion. That didn't happen.

Instead, a member of the clergy proposed that we blame the missing replay on "technical difficulties."

The room fell silent. The archbishop said nothing. We had just all been asked to lie. I waited. Silence.

Finally, I said: "That's a lie."

And I am still saying it.

CONCERNED CATHOLIC OF GUAM VILLAGE MEETINGS

Supporting Documents for presentation by Tim Rohr

(More documents and links to audio files can be found at www.JungleWatch.info > CCOG Presentations and at https://soundcloud.com/undecoverneo)

THE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN (1) Apuron vs Gofigan 2013.07.16 Apuron Letter to Gofigan (2) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2013.07.17-­04. AVISO (3) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2013.07.22. Gofigan Refuses to Resign (4) Apuron vs. Gofigan. Chancery press release of 7/22/2013 (5) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2013.07.28. Request for Copy of Decree (6) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2013.08.02. Vicar General Letter to Fr. Gofigan (7) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2013.08.20. Archbishop Apuron letter to Fr. Paul Gofigan (8) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2013.08.20. Motion to revoke decree of removal (9) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2013.09.10. Letter Apuron to Gofigan (10) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2013.09.13. Letter Gofigan to Apuron (11) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2013.11.07. Appeal of Rev.P.Gofigan (12) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2013.11.12. Decree of Removal (13) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2013.12.06. Gofigan Letter to Apuron (14) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2014.01.13. Gofigan to Apuron (15) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2014.01.14. Gofigan Press Release (16) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2014.01.16. Gofigan to Apuron THE PUBLIC DESTRUCTION OF MSGR. JAMES BENAVENTE (1) Apuron vs Benavente. 2014.07.29 Apuron's Statement (2) Apuron vs Benavente. 2014.07.31 Archbishop Statement (3) Apuron vs Benavente. 2014.07.31_Aviso (4) Apuron vs Benavente. 2014.08.03 Umatuna Apuron Statement (5) Apuron vs Benavente. 2014.08.06 Monsignor_ Archbishop's Statements on Finances 'Absolutely Wrong' (6) Apuron vs Benavente. 2014.08.06 Catholic Cemeteries Accounting Corrections (7)) First edition of 8/10/14 Umatuna (destroyed). Second edition of 8/10/14 Umatuna with new story (8) Apuron vs Benavente. 2014.09.15 Letter From Family of Msgr James (9) Apuron vs Benavente. 2014.12.17 Joseph Rivera Letter to Archbishop Apuron (10) Apuron vs Benavente. 2015.01.23 Internal Review (11) Apuron vs Benavente. 2015.01.24 Cathedral Bulletin

THE RMS PROPERTY SCAM (1) Letter from Mr. Richard Untalan, president of the Archdiocesan Finance Council of the Archdiocese of Agana, to Fr. Pablo Ponce Rodriguez, Rector, Redemptoris Mater House of Formation. (2) Letter from Archbishop Apuron to Richard Untalan. November 16, 2011 (3) Deed Restriction. 2011.11.22 (4) RMS Scam. 2011.11.27 Legal Counsel Opinion (5) RMS Scam. 2011.12.06 Quitugua to Untalan-­Vulnus (6) RMS Scam. 2011.12.06 Untalan to Quitugua (7) RMS Scam. 2011.12.06 Apuron to Untalan (8) RMS Scam. 2011.12.06. Untalan to Apuron (9) RMS Scam. 2012.01.12 Untalan fired (10) RMS Scam. 2012.03.07 Letter to Apuron from Archbishop Balvo

THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANACHANCERY OFFICE196B Cuesta San Ramon ! Hagåtña, Guam 96910-4334 ! Tel: (671) 472-6116, (671) 562-0000 ! Fax: (671) 477-3519

July 22, 2013

Archdiocese Statement Regarding Father Paul Gofigan

Effective July 17, 2013 His Excellency Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron appointed Father Dan Bien, Parochial Administrator of Santa Barbara Church in Dededo.

Father Dan replaces Father Paul Gofigan as the Parochial Administrator. Father Paul is still a priest and at this time, a priest with the Archdiocese of Agana.

However, in light of specific assertions made by Father Paul in a letter he widely disseminated publicly July 20, the Archdiocese is compelled to respond to set the record straight. Here are the facts:

I. INVESTIGATION & COMMUNICATION -- Father Paul stated in his letter he was asked to resign despite following the Archbishop’s directive. He wrote, “… this entire issue could have been cleared up if they had simply spoken with me, and done a basic investigation…”

• 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.

II. SAFETY OF CHILDREN FOREMOST• Father Paul was asked to resign because he disobeyed a directive from the

Archbishop. In 2011, he was asked to terminate employment of an employee publically (sic) known to have a sex offense on his record.

• Father Paul asserts in his letter that he did terminate the employee. However, our investigation has revealed that the person continued to have an active presence at the parish as a volunteer. The person had keys to the facilities and had an active role on church grounds in different ways.

It should be understood by everyone that the Church has the utmost compassion for all people, even those who have fallen and may have committed crimes in the past. We are all sinners; the Church is comprised of sinners. We welcome and do not bar anyone from our Masses.

It pains the Archbishop and the Church to have to take this action against a brother priest. Father Paul is and has long been a very good, faithful priest in the Church on Guam.

However, especially in light of the painful lessons the Church and all of society have had to endure in recent years – and still endures – we must abide by standards that will safeguard all children in our care. As Jesus teaches us, the youngest are among the must vulnerable among us and great care must be given to safeguard them.

A school full of children is in very close proximity to the parish. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) students, Confirmation students and other youth groups are part of the parish.

As the Archbishop clearly stated in his letter and was communicated to Father Paul, this is a serious matter which prompted him to act decisively. It was done with much prayer, with a review of the facts and with the ultimate consideration being the safety of our children.

Archdiocese of Agana, 562-0000.

2

(Via e-mail and hand-delivery)Most Rev. Anthony Sablan Apuron, OFM Cap., D.D.Metropolitan Archbishop of Agana196B Cuesta San RamonAgana, Guam 96910

Dear Archbishop:

In my letter of July 22nd, I have asked for the revocation of the decree removing me from my office as pastor in accord with the provision of C.1734.1.

I am now proposing the recourse to the author of the decree in accordance with C. 1734.1.

In accordance with C.1738, I am appointing Father Adolfo N. Dacanay, S.J. as my advocate.

The recursus and the formal papers will be submitted in 10 days.

Respectfully,

Father Paul A.M Gofigan, PastorSanta Barbara Church

Cc: Most Rev. Martin Krebs, Apostolic Delegate

Tim Rohr

(7) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2013.08.20. Archbishop Apuron letter to Fr. Gofigan

Tim Rohr

(8) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2013.08.20. Motion to revoke decree of removal

Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron, OFM Cap., D.D.196B Cuesta San RamonHagatna, GU 96910

September 13, 2013

Dear Archbishop Anthony: I have received your letter of September 10 informing that you are proceeding with the removal process. I understand that you have informed Fr. Dacanay that I have "not been removed as pastor as is evident by the fact that the process for removal is in progress". This, I must admit is surprising considering the steps you took immediately after our initial meeting of July 16, 2013, namely: (a) a parochial administrator was officially designated; (b) I was locked out of the parish offices; and (c) I have been removed from the schedule of presiders of the Eucharist. These are the steps that you took before my removal as you now claim; these are the steps that you took even before you started the formal procedure for my removal as you now admit. Your Grace, I therefore ask that since I have not been removed and that you just started the process of removing me, that you restore me to my office as pastor, with all the consequences that follow therefrom.

Respectfully,

Fr. Paul A.M. Gofigan

Cc: Fr. Adolfo Dacanay, S.J., Archbishop Martin Krebs, Apostolic Nuncio, Monsignor David C Quitugua, Fr. Adrian Cristobal, Liza Weisenberger

SANTA BARBARA CATHOLIC CHURCH330 Iglesias Circle Dededo, Guam 96929-5327Tel: (671) 632-5659-9534 Fax: (671) 632-1713

Tim Rohr

(11) Apuron vs Gofigan. 2013.11.07. Appeal of Rev.P.Gofigan

December 06, 2013Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron, OFM Cap., D.D.Archdiocese of Agana196 B Cuesta San RamonAgana, GU 96910

Dear Archbishop Apuron:

At the recent clergy retreat in Manila, you were heard to say the follow-ing:

“...some people are wondering what is going on between the two of them that Fr. Paul is willing to sacrifice his priesthood for this particular man.”

You were also heard to say the following:

“...so many complaints were coming in about why was he still working there and why were they so intimate, because he had built a stairway up to his room, his room was on the second floor, and he would come in the middle of the night with cases of beer and what not and stays there until the early morning...”

The “particular man” to whom you refer is, of course, Mr. Joseph Lasti-moza, and I have to wonder who the “some people” are.

Archbishop, your remarks have put me in a very bad light. I can only draw the worst of conclusions from your words “between the two of them.” Did you accuse me of a homosexual relationship with Joseph Las-timoza? As you know, Mr. Lastimoza is married and that he and his wife have two daughters.

Furthermore, did you accuse me of improperly using parish funds or re-sources to build a stairway to my room to further this relationship? As my predecessors and many parishioners can confirm, the stairway was there long before I was assigned to Santa Barbara. As for delivering “beer”, yes, beer is one of my favorite drinks and, yes, Mr. Lastimoza, (as well as many other parishioners, friends, and family) has on occasion dropped off beer and other drinks, food, and supplies to my room (many of which are do-

FROM THE DESK OF

T (671) 488-0613 FR. PAUL A.M. GOFIGAN F

ST. ANTHONY & ST VICTOR CATHOLIC CHURCHTAMUNING, GUAM

nated by parishioners, friends, and family), and, yes, on occasion, he would be there, as with other parishioners, friends, and family, to talk, laugh, converse, to socialize, to hear confessions, and to counsel, and, yes, have drinks and food while doing so.

Archbishop, perhaps these attacks are part and parcel of the “painful and arduous” experience you threatened that I would experience if I did not accede to your demand to resign, but it is my sincere prayer that you im-mediately set the records straight on this matter as these remarks are slan-derous and defamatory. I would like both a retraction and an apology in writing.

Respectfully,

Father Paul A.M. Gofigan

Cc: Most Rev. Martin Krebs, Apostolic DelegateMsgr. David C. Quitugua, Vicar GeneralFr. Adrian Cristobal, ChancellorAdolfo N. Dacanay, S.J., Advocate

FROM THE DESK OF

FR. PAUL GOFIGAN

PAGE 2

Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron, OFM Cap., D.D.Archdiocese of Agana196 B Cuesta San RamonAgana, GU 96910

January 13, 2014

Your Excellency Archbishop Apuron:

In my letter to you of 6 Dec 2013, I asked that you retract, in writing, the slan-derous and defamatory statements you made against me and Mr. Joseph Lastimoza.

As of this date, you have not provided the requested retraction nor have you re-sponded in any way despite having over a month to do so.

Your inaction leaves me no choice but to conclude that you either believe those slanderous statements to be true, or you do not consider my request worthy of response.

Your failure to retract those slanderous and defamatory statements leaves me no choice but to take steps to rectify your wrong and to salvage my name, which you have gone out of your way to ruin.

Please be reminded that you made those slanderous statements in front of thirty-plus members of the clergy from both Guam and the Philippines at the recent Archdiocesan Retreat in the Philippines. I can understand you holding to your position to remove me as pastor of Santa Barbara according to the procedures prescribed by canon law, but to publicly malign my person (and that of another parishioner and his family) in front of my fellow priests is simply malicious and mean. I will allow you one last opportunity to make the requested retraction. You have until noon, Tuesday, 14 Jan 2014, to make the retraction in writing, and to give a copy of your retraction to every member of Guam’s clergy. If you fail to do so, I will take action (including legal action) to salvage my name. I pray that it does not come to this.

FROM THE DESK OF

T (671) 488-0613PGOFIGAN@GMAIL.COM FR. PAUL A.M. GOFIGAN F

ST. ANTHONY & ST VICTOR CATHOLIC CHURCHTAMUNING, GUAM

May God bless you.

Fr. Paul A.M. Gofigan

Cc: Most Rev. Martin Krebs, Apostolic DelegateMsgr. David C. Quitugua, Vicar GeneralFr. Adrian Cristobal, ChancellorAdolfo N. Dacanay, S.J.

FROM THE DESK OF

FR. PAUL A.M. GOFIGAN

PAGE 2

Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron, OFM Cap., D.D.Archdiocese of Agana196 B Cuesta San RamonAgana, GU 96910

January 15, 2014

Your Excellency:

After much reflection, I am deeply disappointed at what I now describe as a pointless meeting this af-ternoon. I was hoping and praying that perhaps you were finally reaching out to reconcile and start the healing that this Catholic community of Guam des-perately needs and wants. Instead, all you asked was that “we cool off ” and let the canonical process run its course.

I am not sure what you mean by cooling off. You made reference to Mr. Rohr and how he was after you, but what does Mr. Rohr have to do with me and the defamatory remarks you made against Mr. Lastimoza and me? Please do not forget that it was you who threatened a “painful and arduous” closure to my assignment at Santa Barbara, and I have to say that you have indeed made it very painful and arduous for me.

FROM THE DESK OF

T (671) 488-0613PGOFIGAN@GMAIL.COM FR. PAUL A.M. GOFIGAN F

ST. ANTHONY & ST VICTOR CATHOLIC CHURCHTAMUNING, GUAM

While you apologized in a very broad and verbal way, you still did not put your apology in writing and more importantly, did not send anything to the those clergy who heard these slanderous remarks. You did not do anything to repair the damage al-ready done. As I mentioned to you in our meeting, my Advocate, Fr. Dacanay SJ has recovered from his ailment and is now able to continue to represent me. Therefore, I will continue to press my case, both canonically and civilly. I will continue to take any and all steps to salvage my name and vocation which you have gone out of your way to ruin.

Respectfully,

Fr. Paul A.M. Gofigan

Cc: Most Rev. Martin Krebs, Apostolic DelegateMsgr. David C. Quitugua, Vicar GeneralFr. Adrian Cristobal, ChancellorAdolfo N. Dacanay, S.J.

FROM THE DESK OF

FR. PAUL A.M. GOFIGAN

PAGE 2

Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron, OFM Cap., D.D.Archdiocese of Agana196 B Cuesta San RamonAgana, GU 96910

January 16, 2014

Your Excellency: I misspoke. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in our meeting yesterday and in my subsequent letter where I said you gener-ally apologized. In retrospect, you did not. What you said in-stead was to make an excuse for your defamatory remarks by saying it was taken out of context or that it was not what you intended to say. Upon checking again what you actually said, there is no doubt that you meant what you said and you meant to ruin and defame my name and that of Mr. Lastimoza in an attempt to bolster and justify your act in removing me on July 16th as pastor of Santa Barbara. I wanted the record clear on this point. Respectfully,

Fr. Paul A.M. Gofigan

Cc: Most Rev. Martin Krebs, Apostolic DelegateMsgr. David C. Quitugua, Vicar GeneralFr. Adrian Cristobal, ChancellorAdolfo N. Dacanay, S.J.

FROM THE DESK OF

T (671) 488-0613PGOFIGAN@GMAIL.COM FR. PAUL A.M. GOFIGAN F

ST. ANTHONY & ST VICTOR CATHOLIC CHURCHTAMUNING, GUAM

Tim Rohr

(1) Apuron vs Benavente. 2014.07.29 Apuron's Statement

THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA

CHANCERY OFFICE196B Cuesta San Ramon Hagåtña, Guam 96910-4334 Tel: (671) 472-6116, (671) 562-0000 Fax: (671) 477-3519

July 31, 2014

Statement by Archbishop Apuron on Finances

With the advice of the Finance Council and Deloitte and Touche for transparency andaccountability, I wish to communicate the economic problems evidenced by the initial review ofArchdiocesan entities. This step has not been taken lightly, as we have been trying to getinformation for some years from the entities involved but with no significant results.

In particular, the report of Deloitte and Touche noted the following significant accountingdeficiencies in The Catholic Cemeteries of Guam, Inc.:

1. that The Catholic Cemeteries of Guam, Inc. had incorrectly included in its assets,land which was not in its own name; thus, overstating its assets, and using thisproperty to secure a loan;

2. that construction costs were duplicated, incorrectly overstating its assets by $3.8million, and that the construction contracts needed to verify the exact costs weremissing. More than seven months after the report, construction documentsshowing the exact costs have yet to be produced.

3. that the accounting is not “in conformance with accounting principles generally

accepted in the United States of America“ because there is no way to distinguishbetween what has been paid and what is due, and between principal and interest.

4. that depreciation was never recorded and we are dealing with an “estimate” whichis unacceptable in accounting as it could involve a violation of fiduciaryresponsibility.

5. that The Catholic Cemeteries of Guam, Inc., did not allocate money for long termcare liability, and this is not “correct accounting.” After almost one year thismatter has not yet been corrected despite recommendation, causing an increase ofliability of at least $800,000.

Deloitte and Touche concluded that since “we don’t know the correct amount of the long term

care liability, we don’t know the correct depreciation, we don’t know the correct allowance for

doubtful accounts, we don’t know how much revenue in a specific year has been overstated” an

audit is at the moment impossible.

Deloitte and Touche did not issue a report on the Cathedral but the Archdiocesan FinanceOfficer documented a series of accounting improprieties that can be produced as well.

(Page 2 – Archbishop Statement)

This report is released, under the advice of Deloitte and Touche and the Archdiocesan FinanceCouncil, to begin a process of reorganization and reordering. I am being proactive in moving theArchdiocese forward to ensure proper financial accountability and integrity. We are committed tofulfill our obligations and the intentions of our contributors.

Given the gravity of the situation, I was compelled to take urgent measures changingadministration in order to end this state of affairs which is detrimental to the Archdiocesecanonically and financially in the entities involved. This decision, contrary to speculations, dealsonly with the matter of good administration and my canonical responsibility with themanagement of archdiocesan temporal goods. As I have previously stated, we will releaseshortly the full financial reports and financial reviews for all diocesan entities.

As in the past, when we faced grave matters, I addressed them through a pastoral letter; thishappened when we faced the danger of casinos being established on the island, or when I forbadethe use of the Cathedral-Basilica and other Catholic churches for civil marriages, or when Iaddressed the issue of abortion and the defense of the family. I will soon publish a pastoral letterpreparing us for the fiftieth anniversary for our Archdiocese. We Guamanians are renowned forour hospitality and dialogue. Let us begin all together the process of renewal, reconciliation,reordering and moving forward.

Servus Tuus,

/s/Most Rev. Anthony S. Apuron, OFM Cap., D.D.

Archbishop of Agana

Attachment: Deloitte & Touche Catholic Cemeteries Report

2

Tim Rohr

(3) Apuron vs Benavente. 2014.07.31_Aviso

Tim Rohr

(4) Apuron vs Benavente. 2014.08.03 Umatuna Apuron Statement

JOBS CARS HOMES APARTMENTS LEGAL NOTICES DATING BUY & SELL PLACE AN AD

Archives Home Saved Search Logout Search Tips FAQ Pricing My Account Help About the Archive Terms

Document

Start a New Search | Previous Results

Other Formats: Abstract Full Text Printer Friendly

Monsignor: Archbishop's statements on finances 'absolutely wrong'Pacific Daily News -­ Hagatna, GuamSubjects: Funeral homes;; Press conferences;; CemeteriesAuthor: Gaynor Dumat-­ol DalenoDate: Aug 6, 2014Start Page: n/aSection: Local News

Document Text

Monsignor James Benavente responded directly to Archbishop Anthony Apuron, in a letter sent today, on Apuron'sprevious public statements of financial mismanagement and financial record-­keeping problems under Benavente's watch.

Some of the archbishop's statements were "absolutely wrong," Benavente wrote.

A group of Guam financial experts also held a press conference this morning, saying the archbishop's statements weren'tfactual.

On Apuron's public statement that the Catholic Cemeteries of Guam used land that was not under its name, but wasinstead under the Archdiocese of Agana, as collateral for a loan, Benavente wrote:

"Regarding the recording of the land at the Catholic Cemeteries as an asset, the Deloitte & Touche (letter) acknowledgesthis correction in their letter of Jan. 8, 2014. It should be noted that before the Deloitte audit, the only persons who couldhave have known that the land was also recorded on the Archdiocese books was you, as archbishop, and DeaconDominic Kim. Additionally, your letter is absolutely wrong in stating that the property was used to secure a loan.... Thisclarification was pointed out to Deacon Kim in 2012, and a copy of that letter was also given to you."

* On the archbishop's public statement that the recording of building assets was duplicated and construction projectdocuments couldn't be found, Benavente wrote:

"The initial financial statement of the Catholic Cemeteries did include a duplication of building assets but this item wascorrected very early on in the review process. Even the Deloitte & Touche letter dated Jan. 8, 2014 acknowledges thiscorrection. Your letter of July 31, 2014 to the media inaccurately states that after seven months the constructiondocuments for (Catholic Cemeteries projects) have yet to be produced. Copies of the actual construction documents weresubmitted to your finance officer, Dominic Kim, who requested them."

"In summary, out of the five allegations contained in your letter to the media of July 31, 2014, two had already beenresolved prior to the Jan. 8, 2014 letter from Deloitte to you, and two others were corrected and submitted to Deacon Kimwith the May 21, 2014 transmittal,"

"The final item is being worked on and could have been completed before the deadline of Aug. 15 you had set for us inyour June 26 letter," Benavente wrote. "However, because the records were confiscated by the new administration, weare unable to complete the work begun."

Apuron fired Benavente from being the rector of the Dolce Nombre de Maria Cathedral-­Basilica and as the CatholicCemeteries director more than a week ago, stating that the Cathedral-­Basilica and the Catholic Cemeteries had beenpoorly managed.

Financial experts who were privy to the archdiocesan finances held today's press conference on the front steps of theDulce Nombre De Maria Cathedral-­Basilica to state that the archbishop's public statements didn't match with facts.

"Nothing could be further from the truth," said Joe Rivera, former GovGuam budget director. Rivera was joined by ArtIlagan, Rev and Tax commissioner;; Rick Duenas;; Gerald Taitano, president of the Agana Cathedral-­Basilica ParishCouncil, and Richard Untalan, former president of the Archdiocesan Finance Council, at the press conference, heldoutside the Cathedral-­Basilica.

ID_Code: M0-­140806004

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

Abstract (Document Summary)

On Apuron's public statement that the Catholic Cemeteries of Guam used land that was not under its name, but wasinstead under the Archdiocese of Agana, as collateral for a loan, Benavente wrote: "Regarding the recording of the landat the Catholic Cemeteries as an asset, the Deloitte & Touche (letter) acknowledges this correction in their letter of Jan. 8,2014.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

Other Formats: Abstract Full Text Printer Friendly

Tim Rohr

(6) Apuron vs Benavente. 2014.08.06 Catholic Cemeteries Accounting Corrections

Tim Rohr

(7)) First edition of 8/10/14 Umatuna (destroyed). Second edition of 8/10/14 Umatuna with new story

Tim Rohr

(8) Apuron vs Benavente. 2014.09.15 Letter From Family of Msgr James

Tim Rohr

(9) Apuron vs Benavente. 2014.12.17 Joseph Rivera Letter to Archbishop Apuron

January 23, 2015

ARCHDIOCESAN INTERNAL REVIEW REPORT OF

CATHEDRAL-BASILICA AND THE CATHOLIC CEMETERIES

The Archdiocese of Agana in the past several months has been conducting an internal review of the Dulce Nombre de Maria Cathedral-Basilica and The Catholic Cemeteries of Guam, Inc. following a determination by the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche, that The Catholic Cemeteries was not auditable. Following the appointment of the current Rector, Monsignor David C. Quitugua, grave irregularities were discovered involving the administration of the entities which were formerly administered by Monsignor James Benavente (“Msgr. Benavente”), prior to July 25, 2014. Specifically, the following are some of the irregularities noted: (1) Msgr. Benavente as the administrator of the Cathedral-Basilica and The Catholic

Cemeteries developed projects which resulted in the Archdiocese incurring $7 million dollars ($7,029,853.93), which were consolidated in 2009 from different loans held at the Bank of Hawaii and Bank of Guam to First Hawaiian Bank, and re-financed again in 2012. These two entities have the largest indebtedness of all other entities in the Archdiocese, and in 2013, a review of the principal balances indicated that the overall reduction of their indebtedness was less than the average 20% reduction by other Archdiocesan entities. Another project that was formerly administered by Msgr. Benavente is indebted for $2.2 million dollars as of 2013, and due to its financial condition has only been paying interest on its outstanding debt, up to August 2014. These three entities constitute approximately 37% of the total indebtedness of the Archdiocese (the remaining indebtedness represents all parishes and catholic schools).

(2) Msgr. Benavente as the administrator of the Cathedral-Basilica and Catholic Cemeteries,

commingled funds and transferred funds between the two entities without respect of restrictions on funds -- i.e. cemetery funds were used for payroll of Cathedral-Basilica employees; monies restricted to stipend payments for the clergy were used to pay for loans; also, a pervasive practice was evident in the reimbursements for personal credit card payments – these practices resulted in extremely difficult record keeping, failure to apply generally accepted principles of accounting, and most importantly making verification and audit by auditors impossible.

(3) Between January 2009 and July 2014, Msgr. Benavente received payments of

$326,913.61 by simultaneously drawing payroll and stipends from The Catholic Cemeteries, and stipend payments from the Cathedral-Basilica. Upon the change of administration, credit cards in the name of the Archdiocese were discovered holding balances in excess of $60,000; the credit card in the name of The Catholic Cemeteries was specifically used by Msgr. Benavente for restaurants, air fare, the Shangri-La Hotel in Manila and other five star Hotels. In the same period, The Catholic Cemeteries and the Cathedral-Basilica expended more than $123,000 towards credit card payments to First Hawaiian Bank and American Express. Other payments for a credit card in the name of Msgr. Benavente, a gas card, and cellular/data phone privileges, which were paid for by The Catholic Cemeteries, accounted for an additional $23,000. Notably, $13,000 of cemetery funds were paid for Msgr. Benavente’s 20th Anniversary reception. Total advances documented between January 2009 and July 2014 by both entities for Msgr.

- Page 2 – Benavente are nearly $475,000. This does not include cemetery family crypts valued at $380,000.00, which were gifted by Msgr. Benavente to his close friend and family; in other words, no fee was charged for these cemetery plots.

(4) Under the prior administration, $400,000 in past due obligations for the Cathedral-

Basilica and The Catholic Cemeteries accrued; the past due obligation is as of July 25, 2014, and does not include the $7 million dollar obligation owed to the First Hawaiian Bank. For the Cathedral-Basilica, $188,000 of the past due obligations are for insurance premiums, and the monthly income generated by the Cathedral-Basilica is insufficient to pay for both past due and current insurance premiums, utility and other expenses, and bank loans. The current financial condition of the Cathedral-Basilica is in the red. Notwithstanding its financial condition, Msgr. Benavente granted education scholarships for tuition, substantial donations for medical assistance, employee loans, and other donations from parish funds. Another $27,000 of parish funds were used to pay for Msgr. Benavente’s projects involving the Knights (papal honors).

(5) Deloitte & Touche on January 8, 2014, notified the Archdiocese that The Catholic

Cemeteries was not auditable due to significant accounting deficiencies. One of the issues identified was the long-term care (aka perpetual care) liability, which was not accurately reflected in the financial statements, nor was it properly allocated in its records; specifically, prior sales were recorded as revenue rather than setting aside any portion for long term care. Despite the passage of more than six months from the report, no progress was noted to address this major issue; nor was there any set funds set aside and designated as perpetual care funds to conform to the recommendation; the Deloitte & Touche report showed a liability of $800,000 in long term care which during 2013 grew to more than $1.3 million. Since the change of administration, the Perpetual Care Fund has been established with an approximate balance of $30,000, in just a few short months.

Despite the lack of auditability and the irregularities identified, much progress has been made these past five months in an expansive effort to collect, compile and review the financial data for both the Cathedral-Basilica and The Catholic Cemeteries. Significant efforts are being advanced to ensure that both entities are able to meet their financial obligations, which include financial assistance from the Archdiocese for the Cathedral-Basilica, and the establishment of a Perpetual Care Fund to address the current perpetual care liability issues. The Archdiocese of Agana, in its commitment to transparency, will continue the purpose for which the internal review was initiated - to acknowledge the necessity of reorganizing the administration in order to move the Archdiocese of Agana into an auditable condition.

** This Archdiocesan Internal Review Report is also available online at www.aganaarch.org **

CHANCERY OFFICE 196 CUESTA SAN RAMON STE. B HAGATNA, GUAM 96910 Tel (671) 562-0000 / Fax (671) 477-3519

Tim Rohr

(11) Apuron vs Benavente. 2015.01.24 Cathedral Bulletin

Tim Rohr

(1) RMS - Letter from Mr. Richard Untalan

Tim Rohr

(2) RMS - Letter from Archbishop Apuron to Richard Untalan. November 16, 2011

Tim Rohr

(3) RMS - Deed Restriction. 2011.11.22

Tim Rohr

(4) RMS Scam. 2011.11.27 Legal Counsel Opinion

Tim Rohr

(5) RMS Scam. 2011.12.06 Quitugua to Untalan-Vulnus

Tim Rohr

(6) RMS Scam. 2011.12.06 Untalan to Quitugua

Tim Rohr

(7) RMS Scam. 2011.12.06 Apuron to Untalan

Tim Rohr

(8) RMS Scam. 2011.12.06. Untalan to Apuron

Tim Rohr

(9) RMS Scam. 2012.01.12 Untalan fired

Tim Rohr

(10) RMS Scam. 2012.03.07 Letter to Apuron from Archbishop Balvo