ON THE MATTER OF THE REMOVAL OF FR. PAUL GOFIGAN AS PASTOR OF SANTA BARBARA CHURCH AND THE SLANDER AGAINST MR. JOSEPH LASTIMOZA

By Tim Rohr
Jungle Watch
December 28, 2014

http://www.junglewatch.info/2014/12/apostolic-visitors-on-removal-of-fr.html#more

A PDF copy is available here.

• 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.”

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

• 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.”

• 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, thus justifying his accusation that the man is still a danger.
• again demands 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

• Upon being accused of disobeying Archbishop Apuron’s order to terminate the subject employee, a registered sex offender, Fr. Gofigan produced his letter 8 to the employee terminating his employment at Santa Barbara parish dated October 26, 2011, proving that he had in fact obeyed Archbishop Apuron’s order when it was given.
• It was later discovered that the subject employee had in fact worked previously at Santa Barbara parish over a period of three years as a condition of his parole with the knowledge of Archbishop Apuron and long before Fr. Gofigan was made pastor of the parish. 9 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 as the excuse for getting rid of Fr. Gofgian.
• Archbishop Apuron initially violates all the canons (1740-1752) relative to the removal of a pastor in his demand for the resignation of Fr. Gofigan. 10
• Having violated all the canons and having been caught doing it, he backtracks saying his initial demand for resignation was only an attempt to “paternally persuade” Fr. Gofigan to resign (as required by canon law), and then on August 12, formally initiates the removal process as per canonical procedure and provisions.

• to restore Fr. Gofigan to his office as pastor
• to clear his name
• to repair the damage done to his reputation

• it is apparent that he has not yet been removed from this office as pastor
• he be restored to his office as pastor “with all the consequences that follow therefrom.” 14

• 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 he was not removed (even though he was)
• 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.”

• 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.” 20

• Mr. Lastimoza was convicted of rape and manslaughter of an adult woman in 1981.
• He went to prison and was paroled in 1999.
• He served out the terms of his parole as a maintenance man at Santa Barbara Church  from 03/30/99 to 03/29/02 without any objection from Archbishop Apuron. 21
• By his own admission, it was because of his association with Fr. Gofigan that Mr. Lastimoza returned to the Church, and as a married man and father of two, had been living a quiet, faith-filled life and one exemplary of the success of the corrections system. All of this was shattered by Archbishop Apuron on July 16, 2013 and thereafter due to the continued statements about Mr. Lastimoza being a danger to parishioners and children by Archbishop Apuron.