Former London pastor to be sentenced
[Source] August 29th, 2008:
A disgraced Baptist pastor in London will be sentenced next Tuesday on a dozen sex-related and assault charges.
A sentencing hearing was held Wednesday for 58 year-old Royden Wood, an ex-pastor at the now-defunct Ambassador Baptist Church.
He was convicted in April of nine assaults on three boys in the 1980s, and three sex-related charges involving two female church members.
Six more sexual assault charges were laid in July.
Wood’s lawyer argued for a conditional sentence but Crown sought a jail term given the lengthy abuse inflicted on the boys.
Outside court, Wood said he has `enjoyed jail,’ had a `good time there’ and that it didn’t scare him.
Naperville police investigate vandalism to statue of Jesus outside Catholic church
[Source] August 29, 2008:
Naperville police are investigating an act of vandalism at a Catholic church near downtown.
Police said a man in his 20s pushed over a 4-foot-tall marble statue of Jesus that stood outside the Sts. Peter and Paul Catholic Church on Monday night. When the statue tumbled, its head broke off, police said.
The statue was valued at $4,000.
Frank Partipilo, facilities manager at the church, 36 N. Ellsworth St., said the statue has been repaired.
This is the second time the church has been vandalized in three months. In May, someone stole a statue of the Virgin Mary from the lawn of the church. That statue has not been recovered. The 2-foot-tall, white plaster statue was valued at $700.
Unconventional Baptist church not shy about sex
[Source]:
TUCSON, Ariz. — A Web site with a name like Puresextucson.com is not something you’d expect a Southern Baptist pastor to brag about.
But not only is 27-year-old Jeremiah McDuffie flaunting the site — created it.
McDuffie sent not-so-subtle mailers this week to 35,000 Tucson homes: postcards showing a photo of four feet peeking out from under bedcovers in a suggestive pose.
He also took out full-page advertisements in two local newspapers.
McDuffie, pastor of The Element Community Church, explains that he wants us to know that God wants them to have good sex.
Ultimately, he hopes to open up dialogue on a subject he says is too often regarded as taboo in houses of worship. Yet it’s also at the root of so many issues he hears about from worshippers and others who seek him out for pastoral counseling, he said.
“Sex wasn’t invented in a dark alley behind a porn shop. It’s part of God’s design,” McDuffie’s Web site says.
Not everyone has been happy to receive the mailers. The Catalina Baptist Association, the organization whose name is on the back of the flier, has received a few dozen irate calls, and The Element has had a few, too.
“The negative calls we’ve had were basically from people saying this was a subject we shouldn’t be dealing with in church, that it’s inappropriate,” said McDuffie, who confesses he was once a porn addict.
McDuffie’s in-your-face message is meant to attract people to a series of sermons about sex that he’ll be giving on consecutive Sundays beginning Sept. 7. The first one is titled, “The Greatest Sex You’ll Ever Have.“
It’s an interesting topic for a pastor whose one-year-old church is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, a denomination with a conservative reputation.
McDuffie said that while he’ll be using the Bible in his sermons, he doesn’t plan on telling worshippers what they can and cannot do.
“This is not a ‘don’t have sex’ talk,” said McDuffie, who is restricting his sermons to those age 13 and older.
The Element is one of more than two dozen “plant” churches that the denomination has started in Tucson in recent years. The plant churches are typically contemporary in worship style — with rock bands instead of hymns and auditoriums rather than sanctuaries — and they don’t have the word “Baptist” in their names.
The Element is not the only such church talking about sex. Also on Sept. 7, two other local Baptist “plant churches” will hold events titled “Porn Sunday.”
One of those churches, CityEdge, is even having a wet-T-shirt contest in recognition of Porn Sunday.
“It’s actually just a couple of our guys being silly, wearing wet T-shirts,” said the Rev. Billy Creech, the 34-year-old pastor of CityEdge, which is just four months old.
But Creech said the message behind Porn Sunday is a serious one. Like McDuffie, he wants to broach subjects that are normally not discussed in church — at least not with frankness. Porn Sunday opens a series of sermons at CityEdge titled “The Unspeakable.” Other subjects include money, work and sex.
“Let’s stop hiding things and stop playing ‘church,’ ” Creech said. “People are tired of that. Instead of pointing fingers at what our culture is doing, we want to be real and talk about who we are in here.”
The Church of England in Crisis
[Source]:
The above heading should give no satisfaction to any evangelical Christian. Some of the finest literature in the evangelical heritage comes from gospel ministers of the Church of England, and a considerable number of evangelicals continue to belong to that denomination today. The crisis to which we refer has arisen from more than one direction; one major cause has been the fact that no discipline has been exercised within the Anglican communion (led by the Archbishop of Canterbury) on the Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church USA for their allowance of practising homosexual clergy. This has prompted the withdrawal of some evangelicals from these sections of Anglicanism and their realignment with the Province of the South Cone (which covers six South American countries), whose Primate, Archbishop Gregory Venables, remains in communion with Canterbury. By this means the disaffected — of whom Dr Jim Packer is the best known — support their claim to remain Anglican.
Justification for this procedure requires a re-examination of what it means to be ‘Anglican’. The historic definition has treated membership in the Church of England as adherence to the Church as by law established in Britain, under the sovereign as ‘Supreme Governor’ and in communion with the See of Canterbury. As the denomination spread into the Dominions, and the overseas provinces ceased to be simply colonial attachments, the definition has been slowly modified. In June of this year, however, a step was taken to redefine ‘Anglican’ in a fundamental manner. Some 1,200 Anglican delegates, including Archbishops Venables (South Cone), Akinola (Nigeria), Orombi (Uganda) and Jensen (Sydney), met at Jerusalem, and took the name ‘GAFCON’ (Global Anglican Future Conference). The primary aim was ‘to promote the gospel as we Anglicans have received it’; this included adhering to the name ‘Anglican’ while disowning large numbers identified with that title and perhaps even Canterbury itself.2 The proposal that emerged was the formation of a new structure which would stand for genuine Anglicanism, that is, for the ‘tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican Identity’. For this purpose the Primates attending the Jerusalem gathering were encouraged to ‘form a Council’.
Within weeks of the Jerusalem Conference the majority of the General Synod of the Church of England, meeting in York, while not directly addressing the GAFCON proposal, determined that nothing like it would be acceptable. At that Synod a motion that clergy be allowed to remove themselves from the oversight of female bishops (whose existence is now in view), to be under the oversight of another diocese, was decisively rejected. No such accommodation is to be allowed. Evangelicals, however, were not seen as the main sufferers from this decision. It was Anglo-Catholic clergy who took the lead in resisting the appointment of female bishops; many evangelicals voted with them, not necessarily because they were against female bishops, but because the Anglo-Catholics represent ‘orthodox Christology and morality’ and were therefore judged worthy of support.
The alignment of evangelicals with Anglo-Catholics at York was not incidental. It is part of the current Anglican evangelical policy and underlies the GAFCON platform. The participants at Jerusalem did not designate themselves as ‘evangelicals’, but as ‘confessing Anglicans’. The ‘Declaration’ issued by the Conference shows why the latter term was adopted. For centuries evangelicals have appealed to the Thirty-nine Articles as affirming the Protestantism of the Church of England, particularly the Articles which deny the ‘Romish Doctrine of Purgatory’ (22), other ‘sacraments’ (25), ‘the sacrifices of masses’ (31), and the jurisdiction of ‘the Bishop of Rome’ (37). For Anglo-Catholics those statements have long been the most serious barrier to any re-union with Roman Catholicism, and if evangelicals were to enjoy their partnership there was no way that commitment to all the Articles could be required. Consequently Anglo-Catholics were accommodated in the GAFCON Declaration by the words, ‘We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine’ – ‘containing’ is the escape clause that allows for choice on which of the Articles express ‘the true doctrine’. Yet simultaneously the Declaration allows no escape clause when it comes to points Anglo-Catholics regard as necessary truths. Evangelicals have long had problems with certain points in the Book of Common Prayer (1662), yet the Declaration says: ‘We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage . . . we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship.’ And there is to be no equivocation over Episcopacy: ‘We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God . . . We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.’3
The GAFCON Declaration identifies liberal theology as an enemy of the gospel, but it is not the only enemy. The historic Anglican evangelical position was to recognize danger from two directions: secular rationalism on the one hand and false religion on the other — the unbelief of the world and the misbelief which makes sacraments, priests, and the Pope necessary for salvation. From both directions the authority of Scripture is attacked. In an anxiety to remain ‘Anglican’, the new evangelical policy is one of common cause with Anglo-Catholics whose doctrinal deviation from Roman Catholicism is minimal; the price for such co-operation is that some fundamental truths have to be left unstated, while episcopacy is treated as though it was of first importance. This has led to the oddity of supposing it to be necessary for clergy to be under a bishop even though his diocese is thousands of miles distant.
Even as the GAFCON Declaration was beginning to circulate there were signs of disunity among the participants. Dr Packer has called on Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury to resign, alleging that with regard to homosexuality he pretends to believe what he does not in fact believe; but Archbishop Venables – the Primate to whom Packer now answers – when asked if he endorsed Packer’s words, said he did not. Archbishop Jensen urged his bishops not to attend the Lambeth Conference (held in July), and has said, ‘If you continue in fellowship you are endorsing the lie and are complicit in it.’ On the other hand Archbishop Venables attended the Lambeth Conference, believing ‘there is more need for dialogue’. A still more fundamental issue facing the GAFCON movement is the question how they can claim to be the true Anglicans while not wishing to be a breakaway from the majority in the Anglican communion. Point 11 of the GAFCON Declaration says, ‘We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice’, but what of the others (including the Archbishop of Canterbury)? ‘We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith.’ Packer has called for the Declaration to be a litmus test: ‘I would like to see it established as a basis for orthodoxy and missionary action. Anglican provinces who didn’t come along with this would be in the outer circle of limited communion for not identifying with Anglican orthodoxy.’ How can this be said, while at the same time it is repeatedly asserted by GAFCON leaders that their proposed structure would not be, in Jensen’s words, ‘a Church within a Church’? ‘It is not the formation of an alternative group’, Venables insists, and goes on: ‘We are not taking power over anybody, we are just bringing things together.’ The contradiction inherent in these statements is palpable. It lays GAFCON open to such critics as the Bishop of Durham who ask by what authority this Jerusalem grouping (an ‘unaccountable body’), has set itself up as the custodian of orthodoxy. When asked how the existence of GAFCON’S proposed ‘Primates’ Council’ was to be justified, Jensen replied, ‘First of all they have authority because they have been elected by their own people.’ His answer takes us to the crux of the problem. As an evangelical, holding to Scripture, Jensen has no difficulty in appealing to the election of the people. But when did Anglican Episcopacy ever find its warrant in ‘the people’, and where is there any trace of such a thing in the Ordinal which the GAFCON declaration means to uphold?
It seems to us that the desire to redefine Anglicanism, and to sustain Anglo-Catholic support, has led to an inconsistent appeal to Scripture. It was good to hear Archbishop Orombi of Uganda asserting that the great issue was the authority of Scripture, not homosexuality, but confidence in GAFCON is undermined by the way that authority has been inconsistently used. We regret also, that instead of making appeal to Scripture sufficient, the GAFCON spokesmen follow the ecumenical practice when they write, ‘We believe the Holy Spirit has led us.’4
So far we have heard no Anglican evangelicals resident in England speaking on behalf of GAFCON and few of them appear to have been at the Jerusalem Conference. But it would be a strange new ‘Anglicanism’ that is not in communion with the Church of England and the See of Canterbury. Further, in all the current discussions there is one momentous issue left in silence. The Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1700) secure that the British sovereign cannot be a Roman Catholic. The repealing of this legislation may well be close and, given the current religious climate, there can be no expectation the change will be prevented. Does that matter? Does the cause of Christ depend on acts of Parliament? I do not raise the matter to pursue that question but rather to point out that such a change would radically affect the meaning of ‘Church of England’. What kind of church would it be to have a Roman Catholic as its ‘Supreme Governor’? Or could a multi-faith sovereign – as Prince Charles has said he wishes to be – hold that position? The annulment of the Acts of 1689 and 1700 would entail more than the removal of a religious test for the monarch. The idea that the Church of England is ‘the national Church’ is, for many, already a fiction. A major dismantling of what has been the established Church may well take place, and what comes out of it is likely to have some favourable relation to the Church of Rome. The question Dr Lloyd-Jones pressed in 1966 is the more relevant today: ‘Are evangelicals prepared to be of a Church that would include the Church of Rome?’ Anglo-Catholics have no problem in answering that question, but it will be too late for Anglican evangelicals to return to the position of Bishop Ryle and say: ‘I maintain that the Established Church of England had better be disestablished, disendowed, and broken in pieces, than re-united with the Church of Rome.’5
The current Anglican evangelical response to homosexuality (at least the only one that gets publicity), while being faithful to Scripture on that point, is by-passing more fundamental issues.
Notes:
1. An abbreviated version of this article was published in Evangelicals Now, September 2008.
2. ‘While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury’ (GAFCON Final Statement). In this article I do not mean to overload the text with references to sources. The relevant web-sites can easily be found and other quotations come from the Church of England Newspaper (July 4, 2008) and Evangelicals Now (July and August 2008). The web-site of South Cone Province shows its Anglo-Catholic sympathies and contains the statement, ‘The Archbishop of Canterbury is the focus of unity’.
3. Speaking of the way Tractarianism (the origin of Anglo-Catholicism in the Church of England) assimilates with Roman Catholic belief, an evangelical leader of the 19th Century wrote: ‘The two systems proceed onwards by many of the same steps. Beginning with Tradition, they go on to Justification by infused righteousness, the authority of the Fathers, the Catholic Church the interpreter of Scripture, salvation by sacraments not by faith, the sacrifice of the Eucharist’ etc. [J. Bateman, Life of Daniel Wilson, Bishop of Calcutta (John Murray: London, 1860), vol. 2, p. 213.
4. Even worse is the way the writer of ‘GAFCON Takes Off!’ the lead article in Evangelicals Now (August 2008), thinks there was a succession of ‘miracles’ in the Jerusalem Conference.
5. John Charles Ryle, Charges and Addresses (repr. Edinburgh; Banner of Truth, 1978), p. 170. ‘Reunion with Rome means the abolition of our Thirty-nine Articles’ (p. 169).
Pope angry over crucified green frog sculpture
[Source] 28 August 2008:
A sculpture of a crucified frog threatened with eviction from Bolzano’s new modern art museum after being condemned by the pope, the minister of culture and local right-wing politicians is staying where it is.
Today the museum’s governing committee decided “by a clear majority” to keep it on display.
The work by the late German artist Martin Kippenberger shows a lurid green frog, warty and bug-eyed, nailed to a cross with its tongue hanging out – but holding a foaming tankard of beer in one hand and an egg in the other.
Exhibited in the inaugural exhibition of the new Museion in the centre of this German-speaking city in Italy’s far north, it was said by the museum curators to be a self-portrait of the artist “in a state of profound crisis.” But attacks on the work, which began locally, culminated in a letter to a local critic from the pope and a condemnation by the minister of culture.
The warning shots were heard back in May, after the exhibition’s opening. The president of the Bolzano region, Luis Durnwalder, said it was “an offence.” While noting that it was not the job of politicians to sit in judgement on art, he said the work “could be felt as a provocation on the part of the population of Alto Adige, 99 per cent of whom are Catholic.”
Then the broadsides began. Franz Pahl, president of the regional council, said the work was “not art but a blasphemy and a disgusting piece of trash that offends many people.” A separatist group, the Union for South Tyrol, got up a petition to have it removed, and said it had collected 10,000 signatures. Mr Pahl, who made the frog’s removal his personal crusade, went on hunger strike, and after eight days was taken to hospital. Pope Benedict spent his summer holiday in the region, and this week Mr Pahl said he had written to him to say the piece “injured the feelings of many people who see in the cross the symbol of the love of God and of our salvation which deserves recognition and religious devotion.”
Yesterday Sandro Bondi, minister of culture in the central government, joined the chorus of condemnation. The work, he said, “not only wounds the religious feelings of many who see in the cross the symbol of the love of God, but also offends the good sense and feelings of those who do not identify with the symbol.” Mr Bondi recently said on the record that he did not understand modern art.
For Mr Kippenberger, whose work has been shown at the Tate Modern and the Saatchi Gallery and who died in 1997 aged 44, the grotesque amphibian was an alter ego. He completed a series of works depicting it in different poses.
The museum moved the four-foot high work from the entrance, but refused to get rid of it. And today it shrugged off the pressure. Alois Lageder, the museum’s director, told The Independent, “The controversy has been exploited by politicians including Mr Pahl for electoral reasons. It’s true the pressure was heavy but we are an autonomous museum and we have taken our decision. The work aroused a lot of argument among visitors, many liked it and many disliked it – but the public row was merely political. And it has gone on long enough.”
More sources:
Italy museum defies pope anger over crucified frog
Pope’s call for ‘blasphemous’ frog to be removed from museum refused
Jesus spotted on a moth
[Source] watch CNN vidoe | KLTV vidoe:
Jesus has appeared on wood, a towel, cellphones and a ultrasound in recent months, but the latest Jesus siting isn’t for sufferers of Mottephobia, because Jesus has appeared on the back of a moth.
East Texas man Kirk Harper spotted the moth on an RV trailer Monday, and told local reporters that right away he could tell it was unique.
Of all the recent sitings, this one at least has some strong semblance of a face. Bonus points though because apparently when the moth flutters, the mouth moves. Pics above.
Teen testifies that former pastor forced him to perform sex acts
[Source] August 29, 2008:
A 15-year-old boy testified yesterday that Rodney Keith Boothe, a pastor in the boy’s church, made the boy perform oral sex on him and then told him not to tell anyone about the incident.
“He said, ‘Don’t tell because a whole bunch of stuff is going to happen, and they’re not going to believe you,’” the boy said on the witness stand in Forsyth Superior Court.
Boothe, 40, is on trial for 42 sex-related charges, including 10 counts of indecent liberties with a child and 13 statutory sex-offense charges. Prosecutors say that the alleged sex acts happened between 2005 and April 2007.
Two teenagers accused him of touching them and performing sex acts on them and having them perform sex acts on him. The 15-year-old said he was 13 and 14 when the sex acts happened.
The other teen, now 18, testified Tuesday that the sex acts began when he was 15 and stopped when he was 17, after his aunt saw explicit cell-phone text and picture messages he and Boothe exchanged. The 18-year-old has said he initially resisted Boothe’s advances, then came to believe he was in love with him.
The aunt called police.
Boothe and both teens were members of Greater Church of Deliverance on North Cherry Street, which is also known as Christ Cathedral Church of Deliverance.
In testimony, Boothe has been described as an overseer, a pastor who would preach when the church’s senior pastor was out.
Stephanie Drake, the church’s chief of staff, said in a phone interview that Boothe was dismissed as soon as church leaders learned of the allegations against him. She said that he was a volunteer who “may have spoken on an occasion or so.”
The older teen knew Boothe earlier, from a church they both attended in Wilmington. The older teen was living in Virginia, and Boothe was living in Winston-Salem when the teen decided to live with Boothe. The older teen had bounced around from family member to family member.
The 15-year-old said that the sex acts with Boothe happened both in Boothe’s house and in the 15-year-old’s home, including once when the 15-year-old’s family took in Boothe’s family.
Both teens have given the same testimony about Boothe at one point asking the older boy to propose a sex act with the younger boy, an act that the older teen said Boothe told him he wanted to watch.
The 15-year-old said some sex acts happened when his siblings were playing with Boothe’s daughters at Boothe’s house.
In one case, the boy said, he and several children were in Boothe’s room when Boothe told them to leave so Boothe could get ready for church.
The boy said that Boothe told him to stay because he had some shoes to give him to wear to church. The boy said that Boothe then began touching him as the boy was putting the shoes on.
The boy said Boothe took off the boy’s shorts, but then stopped because his phone rang. He then was on the phone, the boy said, and nothing more happened.
Then they all went to church, the boy said.
The 15-year-old’s testimony was given in a mostly empty courtroom, after prosecutors asked Judge Stuart Albright to clear the courtroom for the boy’s testimony.
Albright did, sending out some of Boothe’s family over defense attorney Paul James’ objection. Albright later modified his order and allowed a Winston-Salem Journal reporter to be in the courtroom, over prosecutor Pansy Glanton’s objection
Confessions of a porn addict pastor
[Source] August 29, 2008:
AN AUSTRALIAN pastor who inspired hundreds of thousands of people with his fight against terminal cancer has admitted he faked his illness to hide an addiction to porn.
Police are now investigating disgraced pastor Michael Guglielmucci over the collection of public donations to his cancer cause.
The alarm is understood to have been raised by the Hillsong Church in Sydney which revealed the pastor’s hoax in an email.
His deception was so great his wife quit work to care for him, he forced himseld to vomit regularly at night and even lost his hair to fool his family and the public about the extent of his illness.
Guglielmucci, whose parents established Edge Church International, an Assemblies of God church, had earlier this year released a hit song, The Healer, which debuted at No. 2 on the ARIA charts and was featured on Sydney Hillsong church’s latest album.
It since has become an anthem of faith for believers, many of whom are suffering their own illness and were praying for a miracle for Guglielmucci – more than 300,000 people have watched one performance on YouTube.
In a frank TV interview, Guglielmucci explained fabricating a terminal cancer battle to hide his 16-year obsession with pornography.
“This is who I am – I’m addicted to the stuff, it consumes my mind,” he said of pornography.
“… I’m sick and this is why I had to come up some sort of explanation of what was happening in my body.”The shame manifested itself physically, resulting in him losing his hair and purging his body.
“I don’t know how you can fake vomiting all over yourself night after night after night, I’m not that good an actor,” he said.
To conceal the two-year cancer lie which he hid from his wife and family, he sent phoney emails to his loved ones from non-existent medical practitioners.
“I’ve been living a lie for a long time,” he told the Seven Network’s Today Tonight. “I’ve been hiding who I am for so long. I can honestly say to you that the last two years have been hell for me physically, emotionally, but I never sat down and said … let’s try and fool the world.”
Detectives have begun investigating claims that disgraced pastor Michael Guglielmucci deceived people into donating money to a fake cancer cause.
The South Australian police commercial and electronic crime branch has contacted officers in Victoria and New South Wales.
It has also been checking various Pentecostal church-related websites.
Guglielmucci’s wife, however, has vowed to try to save their marriage, despite the humiliating revelations of his cancer hoax and pornography addiction.
Amanda Guglielmucci, 29, has also defended her husband, insisting he is a good man, trapped by lies which had spiralled out of control.
“I know he’s not an evil man, there’s not evil in his heart,” she said yesterday.
Mrs Guglielmucci, who is staying in their Sydney home while Michael is with his family in Adelaide’s southern suburbs, said she would try to salvage her marriage.
“I know that I love him, I know that much,” she said.
“We’re just not going to rush anything, we’re gonna walk through the process, however slowly it needs to happen, in order for the healing and restoration to be complete and then we’ll go from there.”
She has turned to a counsellor to help cope with her husband’s massive deception, which has shocked not only his family’s church, Edge Church International, but the world-wide Christian movement.
Just over two weeks ago, the world-renowned pastor and songwriter sat his wife of seven years down at their Sydney home and told her the awful truth.
“I was the first one he told, he confessed everything to me,” Mrs Guglielmucci said.
“He just went through it – where it had started, everything in his life as a young kid, the patterns. He was crying, sobbing actually, absolutely sobbing, he just said ‘I don’t have cancer’.
“He was terrified, I still remember the look on his face . . . it was a very hard moment for him, as it was for me hearing it.”
Despite his elaborate deception and his admission of an addiction to adult pornography, Mrs Guglielmucci said it was feelings of sympathy and shock rather than anger that overwhelmed her.
“I could just see a really broken, unwell man. At that point I found it really quite hard to get angry,” she said.“Seeing your husband of seven years absolutely sobbing in front of you, risking everything coming forward and telling the truth – in that instance it was really hard to be angry or mad.”
Mrs Guglielmucci said she understood people struggled to believe she could not have known her husband was faking his illness. However, she maintained his real symptoms – vomiting, hair loss and apparent pain – never gave her reason to suspect otherwise.
“I never questioned it, when you love someone you trust them. I had no reason not to trust him,” she said.
“Perhaps I feel a little bit foolish in this, hindsight’s a fabulous thing . . . but I’m trying not to beat myself up.”
Mrs Guglielmucci even quit work to look after her ailing husband. “In the middle of the night he was in so much pain I would put towels in the microwave to try and give him some relief in his back,” she said.
However, she never attended doctors’ appointments with him, a move she now regrets.
