THE ILLEGITIMATE REMOVAL OF FR.

PAUL GOFIGAN
PART I
by Tim Rohr, April 30, 2014
On July 16, 2013, Fr. Paul Gogan was called to the chancery where he was handed a letter
1
by
Archbishop Apuron demanding his resignation under canons 1740 and 1741 which establishes
the reasons a bishop may remove a pastor.
Unfortunately for the Archbishop he chose to ignore canons 1742 through 1747
2
which establish
the process by which a pastor may be removed, particularly canon 1742 which instructs: "he
paternally is to persuade the pastor to resign within fteen days, after having explained, for
validity, the cause and arguments for the removal."
Prior to giving Fr. Paul the letter demanding his resignation, there was no attempt on the part of
the archbishop to fulll this part of the canon. And in fact, as the letter clearly demonstrates, not
only does the archbishop NOT attempt to paternally persuade the pastor, he THREATENS him
with a "arduous and painful closure" to his assignment.
And the archbishop does not stop there, he goes on to effectively excardinate Fr. Paul telling
him: "I hereby release you from the Archdiocese to go and look for a benevolent bishop willing
to accept you." The archbishop then says: "This is effective immediately."
The problem for the archbishop is that canon law prohibits him from making "this...effective
immediately." Canon 1742 requires the above noted "fteen days" for the pastor to resign after
the bishop has "paternally" attempted "to persuade the pastor" to do so.
And even then, the bishop CANNOT remove the pastor. Canon 1744 requires the bishop to give
the pastor an extended time to respond: "If the pastor has not responded within the prescribed
days, the bishop is to repeat the invitation and extend the useful time to respond."
Aside from the foregoing, the archbishop also skipped the very rst step required in canon 1742
which requires: "the bishop is to discuss the matter with two pastors selected from the group
established for this purpose in a stable manner by the presbyteral council at the proposal of the
bishop."
The archbishop by his own admission did not fulll this canon. Upon being confronted with his
violation of Canon Law, the archbishop is forced to follow the norms for the removal of a pastor
and in the Decree of Removal
3
dated Sept 10, 2013, informs Fr. Paul of the date of the required
consultation with the two pastors selected by the presbyteral council:
b) The required consultation with two pastors, Reverend Msgr. Brigido Arroyo and Reverend
Father Jose Alberto Rodriguez, was held on August 12, 2013 (Prot. N0. 013-055).
Let's review. The consultation was required BEFORE the archbishop could even ask Fr. Paul to
resign. The consultation occurred AFTER (Aug 12) the archbishop demanded Fr. Paul resign (Jul
16).
But the real tragedy here is not the skipping of the consultation with the pastors appointed by the
presbyteral council. It is not even the skipping of the requirement to PATERNALLY persuade the
pastor to resign. The real tragedy is that the alleged offense for which Fr. Paul was terminated
had occurred two years previously and not a word was ever said to Fr. Paul about it.
When an employer, a good one, sees a problem with an employee, he doesn't build up a case
against him for two years and then whacks him. He tries to correct the employee along the way
and only when there is no other option is an employee let go. This is not just good business
practice, it is simple human decency.
However, in the case of Archbishop Apuron and Fr. Paul, the archbishop is NOT just Fr. Paul's
employer, he is Fr. Paul's FATHER. This is why canon law uses the word PATERNALLY. And
this is the real tragedy. There was no attempt to engage Fr. Paul even on the employee level.
Rather, as we would later learn, the archbishop essentially stalked Fr. Paul for two years,
building up a case against him, and then, violating all canonical norms, slams Fr. Paul to the wall
with a demand for his resignation and tells him to go nd another bishop which is the equivalent
of telling a son to go nd another father.
This is the tragedy. It is a tragedy because this one episode is a microcosm for how Archbishop
Apuron has "ruled" this archdiocese from the beginning of his tenure. And it has not gone
unnoticed. In the words of one elderly observer: "He thinks he's Flores." But of course not even
Archbishop Flores, according to those who knew him, would have acted with such disregard for
the law, and moreover, disregard for a fellow human being let alone a priest paternally entrusted
to his care.
In fact, for you Kikos and Neos who don't understand the vengeance against you, this should
provide a clue. You are the pet child of a father who has abused his other children as Fr. Paul has
been abused. Those other children are now not asking for love. They are only asking for justice.
But the archbishop has not only shown he has no interest, his actions are so reckless and so
contrary to the good of this diocese that we can only assume, in charity, that someone else is in
control.
To be continued.
Footnotes
1
Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, letter to Fr. Paul Gogan, July 16, 2013, Prot. No.
013-047. (Attachment No. 01)
2
. Code of Canon Law, THE PROCEDURE IN THE REMOVAL OR TRANSFER OF
PASTORS (Cann. 1740 - 1752), in The Code of Canon Law: Latin-English Edition
(Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1983). (Attachment No. 02)
3
Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, DECREE OF REMOVAL, Nov. 12, 2013, Prot. No.
013-074. (Attachment No. 03)
The Illegitimate Removal of Fr. Paul Gogan. Attachement No. 01
CODE OF CANON LAW
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P6Z.HTM
SECTION II.
THE PROCEDURE IN THE REMOVAL OR TRANSFER OF PASTORS (Cann. 1740 - 1752)
CHAPTER I.
THE MANNER OF PROCEEDING IN THE REMOVAL OF PASTORS
Can. 1740 When the ministry of any pastor becomes harmful or at least ineffective for any
cause, even through no grave personal negligence, the diocesan bishop can remove him from the
parish.
Can. 1741 The causes for which a pastor can be removed legitimately from his parish are
especially the following:
1/ a manner of acting which brings grave detriment or disturbance to ecclesiastical communion;
2/ ineptitude or a permanent inrmity of mind or body which renders the pastor unable to fulll
his functions usefully;
3/ loss of a good reputation among upright and responsible parishioners or an aversion to the
pastor which it appears will not cease in a brief time;
4/ grave neglect or violation of parochial duties which persists after a warning;
5/ poor administration of temporal affairs with grave damage to the Church whenever another
remedy to this harm cannot be found.
Can. 1742 1. If the instruction which was carried out has established the existence of one of the
causes mentioned in ! can. 1740, the bishop is to discuss the matter with two pastors selected
from the group established for this purpose in a stable manner by the presbyteral council at the
proposal of the bishop. If the bishop then judges that removal must take place, he paternally is to
persuade the pastor to resign within fteen days, after having explained, for validity, the cause
and arguments for the removal.
2. The prescript of ! can. 682, 2 is to be observed for pastors who are members of a religious
institute or a society of apostolic life.
Can. 1743 A pastor can submit a resignation not only purely and simply but also conditionally,
provided that the bishop can accept it legitimately and actually does accept it.
Can. 1744 1. If the pastor has not responded within the prescribed days, the bishop is to repeat
the invitation and extend the useful time to respond.
The Illegitimate Removal of Fr. Paul Gogan. Attachment No. 02
2. If the bishop establishes that the pastor received the second invitation but did not respond
even though not prevented by any impediment, or if the pastor refuses to resign without giving
any reasons, the bishop is to issue a decree of removal.
Can. 1745 If the pastor opposes the cause given and its reasons and alleges reasons which seem
insufcient to the bishop, the bishop, in order to act validly, is:
1/ to invite the pastor to organize his objections in a written report after he has inspected the acts,
and offer any proofs he has to the contrary;
2/ when any necessary instruction is completed, to consider the matter together with the same
pastors mentioned in ! can. 1742, 1, unless others must be designated because those pastors
are unavailable;
3/ nally, to establish whether the pastor must be removed or not and promptly to issue a decree
on the matter.
Can. 1746 After the pastor has been removed, the bishop is to make provision either for an
assignment to some other ofce, if he is suitable for this, or for a pension as the case warrants
and circumstances permit.
Can. 1747 1. The removed pastor must refrain from exercising the function of pastor, vacate
the rectory as soon as possible, and hand over everything belonging to the parish to the person to
whom the bishop has entrusted the parish.
2. If, however, the man is sick and cannot be transferred elsewhere from the rectory without
inconvenience, the bishop is to leave him the use, even exclusive use, of the rectory while this
necessity lasts.
3. While recourse against a decree of removal is pending, the bishop cannot appoint a new
pastor, but is to provide a parochial administrator in the meantime.
The Illegitimate Removal of Fr. Paul Gogan. Attachment No. 03