Thursday, July 18, 2024


By Tim Rohr

10 bucks says it's Fr. Jason Granado. I don't have any documentation to support this analysis, but here's the scenario as I see it. 


Walter Denton, Roland Sondia, Roy Quintanilla and Doris Concepcion (for her deceased son Joseph Quinata) came forward with their accusations against then-Archbishop Anthony Apuron in May-June 2016. 

A few months later, in or about September 2016, Fr. Jason Granado, a Guam-incardinated priest, was "loaned" to the Diocese of Chalan Kanoa, Saipan.  

Granado was one of the "first fruits" of the former Guam Redemptoris Mater Seminary, and had served for a few years after his ordination in Guam parishes. Given the timing of his being shuttled off to Saipan - as the Apuron scandal exploded - some of us were suspicious of the move, especially given that Granado was a neocat and the use of the word "loan." 

From a post on Facebook, February 21, 2024

Usually priests are "assigned," not "loaned." So there was a question - as there were many questions in those days - as to what was really going on. After all, by 2016 Guam Catholics had been bilked for millions of dollars for nearly a decade to fund what RMS proudly touted as "A Seminary for Guam." So why were we sending these very expensive guys away? (At the time 8 RMS priests had disappeared.)

I speculated that Apuron had no authority to assign a priest to another diocese, so the term "loan" was used. I wrote about it here. And as you can see from the above FB post, the archdiocese is still sticking to that story. 

The blowup of Apuron's past came as no surprise to Apuron or the neocat generals. While I'm sure they hoped it would never happen, the ongoing clergy sex abuse apocalypse in the states was bound to reach Guam's shores at some point. 

In fact, as we speculated numerous times in this blog, Apuron's willingness to welcome the neocats back in the mid-90's was probably motivated by Apuron's desire to have an escape hatch when his past ultimately came knocking. 

And, as we further speculated, the price for Apuron's protection was subservience to the demands of the neocat generals, demands which included establishing a seminary and ordaining whoever they told him to ordain. Thus Guam became a dumping ground for guys other bishops wouldn't ordain. 

I don't think Granado was one of them. He seemed to me to be following a genuine vocation and may have sought the priesthood, neo or not. Also, he wasn't authoritarian like his RMS buddies nor did he default to screwy stream-of-(un)consciousness sermons (again, like his buddies) - qualities, by the way, which make him a good candidate for bishop.

As set out in this blog many times, the path to power in Rome is a numbers game: the number of vocations, i.e. new priests. 

This was the strategy of the now much-disgraced (and dead) Fr. Marcial Maciel and his Legionaries of Christ. Maciel is one of the Catholic Church's most notorious sexual perverts, but in his day, thanks to the number of new priests he was putting out, he was off-limits to any accusations or investigations because he enjoyed the personal protection of now-St. John Paul II. 

Kiko and his generals understand this path to power. But given Kiko's weird theology - a Protestant-Jewish heresy as Bishop Athanasius Schneider has called it - Kiko and his pals have had to search out other pals who happened to be bishops to get their boys ordained. 

Unfortunately, given the state of leadership in the Church over the last few decades, finding these "pals" has not been difficult, especially when they are wined and dined and plumed and swooned courtesy of the neocat black trash bags. 

The neocats didn't need to work very hard to get Apuron. He was delivered on a platter by the faithless Adrian: the guy who brought the neocats to Guam after a self-imposed exile (i.e. a multi-year pout) after he was passed up for the title of "Monsignor." 

Adrian knew Apuron's sordid history, and in hindsight, it's easy to speculate that Adrian - who had designs on being Apuron's successor - saw an opportunity to put Apuron over a barrel by leveraging neocat money, power, and intrigue. 

In any event, Apuron became a rubber stamp and Adrian became the face of the Archdiocese of Agana, especially after John Toves showed up in 2014 and Apuron began hiding behind Adrian and Adrian's buddies (Edivaldo, et al). 

The neocat generals weren't too concerned with losing Apuron as their rubber-ordination-stamp because the plan all along was to put the younger Adrian in Apuron's place. However, as Adrian was the backup plan to Apuron, if Adrian was now "the plan" and no longer the backup, the generals needed a new backup. 

And this is where I think they put their heads together and came up with Granado, not as a future bishop for Guam, but Saipan. 

By September 2016, Apuron had already run away and the Vatican had appointed Archbishop Hon to manage the mess that was now the Archdiocese of Agana. As we had been gunning for the close of RMS, and, by that time, had already outed the whole Certificate of Title Fiasco, the neocat brass, always with the long view, began considering a retreat and regrouping in Saipan. 

The plan (in my view) was to infiltrate Saipan with a neocat presbyter, slowly gain the confidence of the bishop and the people, quietly move him up the line and have him in place for the right time, whereupon their guy would be appointed bishop and the neocats would have a new base of operations. 

Meanwhile (again in my view), the idea was to massage Saipan Bishop Ryan Jimenez to at least be a neocat sympathizer, get him eventually moved to Guam, and then get Granado appointed chief shepherd of Saipan. And Voila! 

As an aside, I think the neocats did not want Jimenez to join them like Apuron did. The neocats knew there would be major opposition in Guam to his appointment as bishop if Jimenez was a neocat. It would be easier to get Jimenez into Guam if he was not a neocat but still indebted to the neocat hierarchy for future uses.

All fantasy you say? Well we will see in a very short while, won't we. Saipan is "bishop-less," but not for long. And while I don't have "documents," to prove the above, I do have memories of my several private meetings with Archbishop Byrnes. It was clear to me during those meetings that Byrnes had been strategically placed in Guam, but not for long. And it turned out to be not for long. 

The call to Byrnes to go to Guam came from our old friend Filoni. And before Byrnes came to Guam he was contacted both by Apuron and at least one of the neocat generals. I am quite sure that they didn't expect Byrnes to close the seminary. And after he did, things started to go downhill - very downhill - for Archbishop Byrnes.

Friday, July 12, 2024


By Tim Rohr

I wonder what's next. Last month we had one of the highest numbers of views in the history of this blog (102,753). The interest appeared to coincide with the appointment of a new archbishop for Guam.  

This month, July - and we're not even half-way into it - we have already had 268,116 views, and 205,000 views just this past week, a week where the news was focused on the archbishop-to-be.

I took a look at the post which were getting the most views over the last seven days and once again, they are years-old posts from the days of the Apuron-Neocat wars.

What's next?


Thursday, July 11, 2024


LINK to online version. Links to references added.

Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League, has written a book titled “The Truth About Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and Causes.”

Donohue does a good job at not letting the Catholic Church (“the Church”) off the hook, rightly criticizing its leadership all the way up to the popes.

However, Donohue also lays much of the blame on the media, lawyers, the culture, and particularly the sexual revolution.

Not that he isn’t right about how all of that contributed to the problem, but like many who have theorized about this mess, Donohue, for the most part, misses the mark.

I say “for the most part” because he bumps into it in a late chapter, but doesn’t see it as the root cause. I do. I shall explain.

The clergy sex abuse crisis, as it came to be known, began in the late 1960’s, peaked in the 70’s, and began to taper off in the 80’s.

Those years coincide with the greatest period of cultural revolution in modern times, so it’s easy to see why defenders like Donohue claim that the Church, at least in America, was swept up by the times.

However, such a view would hold: “As the World goes, so goes the Church.” And that’s not true. The truth is: “As the Church goes, so goes the World.” This is based in Christ’s own words “you are the light of the world, you are the salt of the earth.”

In other words, the Church has all the grace needed to “overcome the world” because Jesus has already done it. So it’s a slap in our Redeemer’s face to blame “the world,” the sexual revolution, the times, the culture, whatever.

1968 is the year most agree is when the aforesaid revolution exploded. So the Church cannot say “the world made me do it” because there was already a revolution happening in the Church since the close of Vatican II three years earlier in 1965 - as evidenced by the beginnings of a mass exodus of priests and nuns and the collapse in vocations which continues to this day.

Aside from what the Council promulgated, the real problem is what the Council created: an expectation of change. And nowhere was this expectation more fevered than the possibility of separating sex from progeny: artificial birth-control - specifically “the pill.”

Interestingly, birth-control, by order of both Pope John 23 and Paul 6, was not a topic on the table at the Council. A separate commission, the Birth Control Commission, had been instituted, first by John and then expanded by Paul, to address it.

For Pope Paul, the commission was a disaster. Its members voted 64-2 to permit married couples to contracept. I say “disaster” because the prohibition on contraception is something no pope or commission had or has the power to change. So what was Paul to do?

Well, he wrote the encyclical Humanae Vitae. But HV did not once and for all condemn contraception as most Catholics think. Nope. The pope left it up to a vote and a future commission. Here’s what he wrote at the outset of the encyclical:

“…the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain…because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed…”

In fingering the fact that the commission was “not (in) complete agreement” (even though the vote was 64-2), the pope outright implied, whether he meant to or not, that the teaching could have changed had there been “complete agreement,” and more significantly: one day there might be.

Moreover, why would a pope establish a commission to study the issue if there was no possibility of change? So there was the expectation of change right from the start.

Donohue bumps into this inconvenient fact in Chapter 11: “…had there been no commission…there may have been some discontent but the convulsions that followed would have been avoided.” (By “convulsions,” Donohue is referring to the explosion of clergy sex abuse.)

It mattered not that the pope, in Humanae Vitae, went on to restate the unchangeable teaching of the Church on the matter, he had already let the horse out of the barn.

And that’s all the wild-eyed revolutionaries needed. The sexual revolution in the Church was off and running a whole year before Woodstock; and “the convulsions” - the “filth in the church,” as Pope Benedict labeled it - is exactly what followed.

Tim Rohr has resided in Guam since 1987. He has raised a family of 11 children, owned several businesses, and is active in local issues via his blog,, letters to local publications, and occasional public appearances. He may be contacted at   

Tuesday, July 9, 2024


By Tim Rohr

Bill No. 318-37 is set for a public hearing on Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 9:00AM. There are so many red flags in and around this bill it's almost (sadly) comical.  

First there is the matter that the bill aims to reduce Guam's near 3rd-world infant mortality rate by sending more money to the government agency which - since the outset of the current administration - appears to have been singularly tasked with increasing Guam's infant mortality rate by killing babies before they can make it out of the womb: the Bureau of Women's Affairs.

Second, the bill purports to fund the training of "doulas." By definition, a doula is: "a woman, typically without formal obstetric training, employed to provide guidance and support to a pregnant woman during labor," and/or "a woman employed to provide guidance and support to the mother of a newborn baby." This sounds good, but since when did local women, or women anywhere, forget how to do what nature designed them to do? 

There is much to say about this, including maybe the real problem is the increasing number of pregnant women on drugs or getting beat up by their boyfriends, but aside from that, given the mortality rate that the bill sets out, perhaps the money would be better spent funding the training of midwives - aka women with obstetric training, especially since there is a dearth of OB-GYN's. 

According to a recent Pacific Island Times report:

The OB-GYN shortage in Guam is aggravated by several local factors. For an island with a population of approximately 154,000, there are only seven working OB-GYNs, and most of them are nearing retirement age, with only three working full-time.

In fact, this fact, the shortage of OB-GYN's, is so glaringly related to the increase in the infant mortality rate, that the bill's intent to hand over $400,000 to Guam's most public advocate of abortion, Jayne Flores, the Director of the Bureau of Women's Affairs, instead of funding either the recruitment of more OB-GYN's or at least the training of midwives, that there is little room for doubt that the bill is nothing more than a cover to make sure more women kill more babies before they're born. 

And then when you look at the list of sponsors the true intent of the bill becomes even clearer, especially since the primary sponsor is the guy who crafted the most vicious pro-abortion legislation ever put to paper:

Sponsor(s) - Thomas J. Fisher / Joe S. San Agustin / Roy A. B. Quinata / William A. Parkinson / Dwayne T.D. San Nicolas / Christopher M. Dueñas / Tina Rose Muña Barnes / Jesse A. Lujan / Amanda L. Shelton

Third, this is an old trick that those of us in the abortion wars are used to seeing: virtue signaling by the pro-aborts, i.e. it's "Hey, look at me, I'm pro-life. I care about mothers and children. You bad people, you only care about abortion. You don't give a damn about the baby once it's born, etc., etc., etc."

Is there anyone with more than one brain cell on this island who doesn't think that Jayne Flores (and her governor godmother) will not make sure that these "doulas" will not be trained to counsel pregnant women to abort?

Lastly (even though there's more), given the sponsors' bowing to the altar of political correctness in the language of their bill - where they ignore the fact that nature has dictated that only women can get pregnant - by continually referencing "women and persons who are or who become pregnant…," the funding cannot go to the Bureau of Women's Affairs. Either Jayne will have to change the name of her bureau or she'll need to add "and Persons."

Monday, July 8, 2024



ROME (AP) — The Vatican on Friday excommunicated its former ambassador to Washington after finding him guilty of schism, an inevitable outcome for Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano. The conservative had became one of Pope Francis ' most ardent critics and a symbol of the polarized Catholic Church in the United States and beyond. CONTINUED


Interview: Archbishop-Elect Ryan Jimenez on Pope Francis' appointment

Sunday, July 7, 2024


By Tim Rohr

With the appointment of Bishop Ryan Jimenez to be the new Archbishop of Agana, now is a good time to repost this post from April 2023:


Saturday, July 6, 2024


By Tim Rohr

Yesterday I noticed that there has been an inordinate amount of activity on this blog. Normal monthly views average around 40,000. However, last month the views numbered 102,753. And this month, only after a few days, the views already number 74,475. 

I was wondering what was driving all that traffic so I looked at the most viewed posts over the last 7 days. Here they are:

The list goes on. All of these are years-old posts from when the Apuron-Neo wars were raging. So I suspected something was about to break. 

And sure enough it did:

Pope Appoints Bishop Ryan Jimenez as Archbishop of Agaña


(CEPAC, Suva, Fiji) – The Holy Father, Pope Francis, has appointed Most Reverend Ryan P. Jimenez,  Bishop of the Diocese of Chalan Kanoa, as the new Archbishop of the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Agaña, Guam. The appointment was officially published on July 6, 2024 (12:00 noon CET Rome).

The Installation Mass will be held on August 15, 2024, the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the Dulce Nombre de Maria Cathedral-Basilica in Hagatna, Guam.

Archbishop-elect Jimenez is currently the President of CEPAC, the Episcopal Conference of the Pacific (Conferentia Episcopalis Pacifici), and the Vice-President of the Federation of Catholic Bishops Conferences of Oceania (FCBCO) — which is composed of the bishops conferences of Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and CEPAC. He also serves as a consultant to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Islander  Affairs.

Born and raised in the Philippines, Archbishop-elect Jimenez came as a migrant worker to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) in 1995 and taught at Eskuelan San Francisco de Borja, a Catholic school on the island of Rota. In 1999, he was accepted to the seminary program of the Diocese of Chalan Kanoa; he was ordained to the priesthood on June 8, 2003. In 2010, he was appointed Apostolic Administrator of Chalan Kanoa and, in 2016, as its second bishop.

Archbishop-elect Jimenez began his studies and formation for the priesthood at St. Joseph Seminary College (high school department) in the Diocese of Dumaguete, Philippines. He then transferred to the college program of the Jesuit-run San Jose Seminary in Quezon City, earning an undergraduate degree from the Ateneo de Manila University. Subsequently, he earned three advanced degrees from St. Patrick’s Seminary and University in Menlo Park, California: Bachelor of Sacred Theology (STB), Master of Divinity (MDiv), and Master of Arts in Theology (MA). In 2025, he expects to graduate from the Graduate School of Religion and Religious Education at Fordham University, the Jesuit University of New York, with a Doctor of Ministry (DMin) degree.

Since March 28, 2023, the Very Reverend Romeo Convocar has served as the Apostolic Administrator of the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Agaña following the resignation of Archbishop Michael Byrnes due to health reasons.


Photo info: The Most Reverend Ryan P. Jimenez,  Bishop of the Diocese of Chalan Kanoa, meets with Pope Francis at the Vatican in Rome in this file photo provided by CEPAC, the Episcopal Conference of the Pacific.

Thursday, July 4, 2024


By Tim Rohr

This past weekend I was blessed to be in the presence of a relic of one of the original Twelve Apostles: Saint Jude. The relic is a portion of the Saint's arm and it is "touring" the U.S. under the protection of Fr. Carlos Martins, a well-known exorcist. Here is a video recording of Fr. Martins giving a homily about the relic of St. Jude. 

In addition to being an exorcist, he is also an excellent homilist and he posts a short sermon each Sunday on Facebook. While scrolling through his posts I happened upon a post from August 2018 in response to Archbishop Vigano's damning "tell-all" letter from the same month.

I wrote about this letter in a recent post and demonstrated the direct connection between Archbishop Vigano's letter and how it led to Apuron's removal. So I found Fr. Martins FB post on the matter very intriguing. I copy it here:

August 26, 2018

I just spent the last two hours on the phone with a friend in the Vatican Curia.  He said that the news of Archbishop Viganò has hit the Curia like an atomic bomb.  Two things are universally noted regarding Viganò: 1) He is highly respected as a professional, and 2) His Curial positions gave him clear access to the damning information he reported.  In other words, he is not a hack, and he is not relying on rumor.  This makes his report absolutely worthy of belief.

Viganò always had a reputation for being a combatant of internal Vatican corruption.  In fact, during the Vatican leaks scandal, whistle-blowing reports that he authored were among the main documents that were leaked.  This was an attempt by the persons he outed to pre-empt the report’s impact and suck the energy out of the attempt to investigate their claims.  Naturally, the subsequent energy went into investigating the Vatileaks situation in general, and Viganò was exiled as Nuncio to the United States for being a trouble maker who produced “erroneous assessments” (words from a joint statement issued by Cardinal-President Emeritus Giovanni Lajolo, President Giuseppe Bertello, Secretary-General Giuseppe Sciacca and former Vice Secretary-General Giorgio Corbellini on behalf of the Governatorate of the Vatican).   To put this kind of demotion in perspective, as Delegate for Pontifical Representations—a position from which he was THEN PROMOTED to Secretary General of the Governatorate— Viganò was in charge of all the Apostolic Nunciatures in the world.  Thus, when garbage was reported to the Holy See on a bishop or Cardinal—like it was with McCarrick of Washington, DC—Viganò was the first to know about it, because his desk is where the information landed.  For him to be demoted as the Nuncio to the USA, from having been promoted to as the Vatican’s number 3 administrator behind the pope, was severe, to say the least.  In other words, Viganò is not a hack, but a highly respected individual who had been regularly promoted for doing his job well.

In the words of the Curial official I spoke with this afternoon, what Viganò has reported “makes the Borgia popes look like saints.”  The feeling in the Curia right now is that the response of Viganò’s enemies will to try to discredit him personally, both because of the impeccability of Viganò’s character and the impossibility of his having interpreted the facts incorrectly.  Their only hope will be to try to take energy away from the perversion and corruption that he uncovered.  They will likely state that he is a bitter man who is seeking personal aggrandizement after having been exiled from Rome.  When this occurs, don’t buy into it.  Viganò is retired.  He has nothing personally to gain from this.

Friends, my advice to you is to write your bishop and demand that he request a COMPLETE AND FULL INVESTIGATION into the allegations brought forward by Archbishop Viganò.  We are at a watershed moment in the life of the Church.  If we don’t protect her from the wolves that have crawled into her and dwell inside her, we then have only ourselves to blame when more sheep are eaten alive, and the Church loses even more credibility in the eyes of the world. Archbishop Viganò’s report is a call to all the sons and daughters of the Church to personally intervene for her own health and safety.

Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Joseph Strickland (Bishop of Tyler, Texas) have already issued statements today calling for the same.  Add your authority to theirs.  Write your bishop today.  Then write to Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and request the same, and copy the letter you sent to your bishop.  Letters to Cardinal DiNardo can mailed to:

Daniel Cardinal DiNardo
President of the USCCB
Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston
1700 San Jacinto St.
Houston, Texas 77002

Then, also write the Apostolic Nuncio and copy everything you sent to the bishops:

His Excellency, Archbishop Christophe Pierre 
Apostolic Nuncio tot the United States
3339 Massachusetts Ave NW
Washington, DC  20008-3610

Saturday, June 29, 2024


LINK to online version. Reference links added. 

So if you’ve been following this series (Part 1 on March 27 and Part 2 on April 15), you will know that legislation requiring informed consent for abortion in Guam was first introduced in 2008, morphed through three incarnations, endured blatant attempts by its opponents to kill it, and finally limped into law after a surreal legislative session in October 2012 (as Public Law 31-235).

However, even then the pro-aborts weren't done. Given the upcoming election it was risky to oppose the legislation, so the pro-aborts inserted a time bomb into the bill and set it to go off after the election.

In short, the bomb was language requiring the printed materials (a brochure and checklist) to be approved pursuant to a rule making requirement. The problem was that the printed materials were not “rules.” The sneaky intent of the requirement was to keep the law from ever being implemented.

Here is what then-Governor Calvo had to say about it:

“It is clear under the provisions of the Administrative Adjudication Act…that the ‘printed materials’ and ‘checklist certification’ are not ‘rules’ or ‘regulations’ … they merely reduce to a distributable form the information required under the…Act. Thus the requirement that they be subject to another protracted process that leads, once again, to the review by the Legislature should not serve to provide senators with another proverbial ‘bite of the apple’ to delay the implementation of this law.”

Though Governor Calvo had called out the chicanery, there was no reason to expect any senator to champion the new law through the rule-making barricade. So supporters of the bill (we called ourselves “The Esperansa Project”) got busy.

The Legislature had passed Bill 52-31 just days before the 2012 election, so, aiming at making this “time-bomb” an election issue, we sent all senatorial candidates a letter asking if he or she would 1) vote to approve the printed materials should they pass muster with the rule requirement; or 2) vote to repeal the requirement should the Attorney General opine that the printed materials did not meet the definition of a rule.

Next, given our experience with lawmakers running for cover under the guise of waiting for “an opinion from the AG,” we, the supporters, beat them to it by requesting the AG’s opinion first.

On May 23, 2013, the AG opined that the printed materials “do not meet the definition of a rule.” Thus the path to amend the law was cleared to proceed. We just needed someone to introduce a bill to repeal the requirement.

Newly re-installed Sen. Frank Aguon, Jr. was first to the plate. This was a bit of a miracle. In previous legislatures, and particularly when Aguon was on the 2010 gubernatorial ticket opposite then-Sen. Eddie Calvo, Aguon, along with then-Sen. Rory Respicio, had been the main opponents of the legislation.

After Aguon was released from the bonds of the gubernatorial ticket, a ticket that lost to Calvo, Aguon, always a popular pick, wound up back in the Legislature and became a champion for the unborn, especially in the fight to pass a bill which protected babies who survived failed abortions. Maybe I’ll write about that another time.

To amend the informed consent law and get rid of the rule-making requirement, Aguon introduced Bill 191-32. A few days later, Sen. Dennis Rodriguez introduced similar legislation, Bill 193-32. Even though Rodriguez’ bill was second, I believe Aguon agreed to withdraw his bill and let Rodriguez’ bill proceed since Rodriguez had chaired the committee which had championed the bill through the Legislature.

Bill 193-32 passed unanimously. But the pro-aborts weren’t done. Once again, at the 11th hour, “193” was amended to require the printed materials to be approved by a complicated panel composed of two directors from Public Health, an OB/GYN, a social worker, and a psychiatrist. (See Public Law 32-089)

Well, this is getting too long and I don’t want to do a Part 4. Ultimately, the printed materials were approved and a law requiring informed consent for abortion, after five hard years, was implemented.

Implemented, yes. But never enforced. I followed up with several Freedom of Information Act requests regarding the required distribution of the printed materials. The results were always “none,” even though abortions continued to be performed.

In the end, this law and a few others, particularly a 2015 law which put teeth into the abortion reporting law, made performing abortions so burdensome that no Guam doctor has wanted to do them since the last abortion clinic closed in 2018. (See Public Law 33-218)

Tim Rohr has resided in Guam since 1987. He has raised a family of 11 children, owned several businesses, and is active in local issues via his blog,, letters to local publications, and occasional public appearances. He may be contacted at  

Other References

Bill 52-31: A History-Part 1

Bill 52-31: A History-Part 2

Bill 52-31: Rules Committee Meeting, March 28, 2011, Respicio shuts down the cameras

The Esperansa Project Website

Tuesday, June 25, 2024


By Tim Rohr

In a recent post, I shared the pope's case against Archbishop Vigano and Vigano's defiant response. For a summary of what's going on, see National Catholic Register's recent post: "Archbishop Viganò’s Astonishing Transformation from Vatican Insider to Alleged Schismatic."

Here in Guam, we should pay special attention. If not for Vigano, many of us are very sure that Apuron would still be Archbishop of Agana. And here's why.

On March 16, 2018, the Holy See Press Office published the following release:

The canonical trial of minors, brought against the Most Reverend Anthony Sablan APURON,OFMCap., Archbishop of Agaña, Guam, has been concluded. The Apostolic Tribunal of the Congregation, composed of five judges, has issued its sentence of first instance, finding the accused guilty of certain of the accusations and imposing upon the accused the penalties of privation of office and prohibition of residence in the Archdiocese of Guam.

The sentence remains subject to possible appeal. In the absence of an appeal, the sentence becomes final and effective. The penalties are suspended until final resolution.

For whatever reason, the release did not specify what exactly Apuron was found guilty of. And as expected, Apuron, or more precisely, his people, immediately pounced on the opportunity to exploit the vague "verdict," claiming that it didn't say he was found guilty of child sex abuse.

However, the release was later amended to include a clearer announcement:


The canonical process in relation to the accusations, including those of child sexual abuse, charged against the Reverend Anthony Sablan Apuron, OFM Cap., Archbishop of Agaña, Guam, has concluded.

The Apostolic Tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, composed of five judges, issued the sentence of first instance, declaring the defendant guilty of some of the accusations and imposing to the defendant the penalties of termination from office and the prohibition of residence in the Archdiocese of Guam.

The sentence remains subject to an appeal. In the absence of an appeal, the sentence becomes final and effective. In the event of an appeal, the penalties imposed are suspended until the final resolution.

It's a bit clearer since the first paragraph states "including those of child sexual abuse," but the "clarification" still retains the vague language of "guilty of some of the accusations." The reader has to put 2 and 2 together and get 5 to figure out what Apuron was found guilty of - and a hard assumption can be made from the severity of the sentence: "termination from office and the prohibition of residence in the Archdiocese of Guam" - though his supporters spun the penalty as evidence that Apuron did not abuse minors:

If the archbishop has been found guilty of sexual abuse of minors, the penalty leveled against him is unusual - often a cleric found guilty of such crimes would be "laicized," or removed from the clerical state, sources said. - CNA. Aug. 28, 2018

The reference to "Guam" made the release sound even weirder, coming from such a high office in the Vatican, given that there is no "Archdiocese of Guam." Rather, it is officially the "Archdiocese of Agana."

At the time, those of us who had been in the heat of this battle for several years, recognized the Vatican mumbo-jumbo regarding such a serious matter as evidence that a certain highly-placed, neo-friendly cardinal had tampered with the announcement, and that said tampering was a red flag that there was more tampering to come. Saving Apuron was critical to the agenda of the Neocat generals so we expected Apuron to appeal and he did:

After he was found guilty, Apuron released a statement insisting on his innocence and announcing his appeal.

"I have been informed of the conclusion of the first instance canonical trial against me. While I am relieved that the tribunal dismissed the majority of the accusations against me, I have appealed the verdict," he said.

"God is my witness; I am innocent and I look forward to proving my innocence in the appeals process," the statement read. - CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, August 28, 2018

Given that Cardinal Raymond Burke, probably the Vatican's most competent cardinal and lawyer, had been at the head of the Apuron investigation from the outset, we knew he had most likely presented the water-tight case that got the guilty verdict and booted Apuron out of Agana and that there was little possibility of Apuron winning an appeal.

We also must remember that Apuron was the first bishop in modern times to stand trial before a Vatican tribunal for crimes against minors. In fact, one of the reasons it took so long for the Vatican to take action is because at the time accusations against Apuron came to the attention of the Vatican there was no protocol in place to handle a bishop who had been thus accused. 

Bishops had been accused of such crimes before but none were put on trial. They were either removed by agreement or resigned their office. So why did Apuron go to trial? We have to continually remind ourselves that Apuron was never acting on his own. He was a pawn in a much larger power game orchestrated by the Neocat generals who had a lot to lose on their world stage since Apuron was their number one "priest-maker" - a key component to the expansion of power within the Church by the NCW. 

It's not over

And do not think that this is over. Apuron's personal abuse case in Guam has yet to go to trial: "Trial eyed in abuse cases against Apuron, others..." And besides "I didn't do it," Apuron's defense will be that he is a victim of a calumnious conspiracy orchestrated by me:

The church meanwhile is also accusing Martinez of being part of a conspiracy or the "Rohr Group" to topple the archbishop. (KUAM, June 3, 2016. Also see Apuron's press releases here and here.)

In 2012, a blog called “Jungle Watch” was created online, attacking Archbishop Apuron and the Neocatechumenal Way, accusing them of manipulating the prelate and “colonizing” the entire Agaña diocese. The site is managed by Tim Rohr, a real estate agent employed by Msgr. Benavente and involved in the projected sale of the seminary. - La Stampa. Sep. 21, 2017 

Note: I was never involved in the "projected sale of the seminary," as the record now shows. In response to the false allegations about my role, I was prepared to sue Apuron and the Archdiocese, but decided to hold back and let the truth come out via the real victims.

While it was a given that Apuron would appeal, a strange twist came when Pope Francis announced that he was bypassing the normal course of appeals and would be judging Apuron's appeal himself:

The pope explained that in considering Apuron's appeal, he is bypassing the traditional "giuria"--the council of bishops that make up a tribunal--and will be considering the appeal himself. This is because Apuron's situation is a "very difficult case." - CNA, August 28, 2018

Notice the date of the report of the pope's decision: August 28, 2018. Six days earlier, on August 22, 2018 *, Archbishop Vigano had shocked the Catholic world with a now-infamous 11-page letter wherein he blew the whistle on the now-defrocked Cardinal Theodore McCarrick as well as the entire Vatican apparatus which in clear view of Pope Francis had protected McCarrick. 

Having blasted Francis directly as well as several other major prelates, Vigano called for Francis to resign:

Francis is abdicating the mandate which Christ gave to Peter to confirm the brethren. Indeed, by his action he has divided them, led them into error, and encouraged the wolves to continue to tear apart the sheep of Christ’s flock.

In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them. - Archbishop Vigano. Letter. Aug. 22, 2018

To be sure, Franics was not expecting such a challenge from such a highly-placed and well-respected Vatican insider. (Vigano had been second in command at the Vatican under Pope Benedict 16.) And while it is only my speculation, it is an educated speculation that Francis, in the glaring light of the disgusting McCarrick scandal, decided to throw Apuron under the bus as a little demonstration that he did not tolerate ordained sex abusers, and particularly consecrated ones (bishops). 

Without Vigano's very public and naked accusation of Francis and his "lavender" connections, it is quite possible that Francis would have let Apuron off the hook and he'd be back in Guam wreaking hell on all of us:

(Archbishop) Byrnes: Disaster if Apuron were to return (Pacific Daily News, July 6, 2017)

So now, as is his "MO" with his enemies, Francis intends to make Vigano pay. 

The O'Brien Thing

As a side note, this mess allows me the opportunity to once again bring up how Francis' Vatican tried to make me "pay" for exposing Apuron. 

In October 2013, I received a letter from Cardinal Edwin O'Brien threatening to remove me as a member of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem (of which he was then the Grandmaster) if I didn't stop picking on Apuron via my blog. At the time, the only thing I had posted was about Apuron's mistreatment of Fr. Paul Gofigan, nothing else had blown up yet. I wrote about it here

I challenged O'Brien multiple times to proceed to come after me. He never responded, leading me to believe what I had suspected: that O'Brien had no clue what was going on and had been put up to silencing me by the same people that were trying to silence me in Guam. 

However, in August 2018, I learned that there might be more to O'Brien's running for cover after I confronted him when he was called out by Archbishop Vigano in Vigano's letter of Aug. 22, 2018 (pg. 5):

As far as the Roman Curia is concerned, for the moment I will stop here, even if the names of other prelates in the Vatican are well known, even some very close to Pope Francis, such as Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio and Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, who belong to the homosexual current in favor of subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality...Cardinals Edwin Frederick O’Brien and Renato Raffaele Martino also belong to the same current...

By the way, and I have yet to develop this. After I snuffed out their (Apuron and his people) attempt to silence me even from the Vatican, they went after my family. I intended to expose all of it at a trial on a personal matter. However, the trial was "interrupted" after the first day and never continued. Three years later the matter was suddenly and unexpectedly closed via settlement. I chose to settle to protect my son. This is probably the most evil part of the story...which is why I hesitate to tell it. Maybe one day.

Now, back to Apuron's proposed Guam trial. Apuron fully intends to exonerate himself and condemn me at his trial by exposing the "pressure group that plotted to destroy" him:

Apuron, in his statement, said there's been a coordinated campaign against him. ("Tim Rohr and his associates" - See Apuron's press release of May 31, 2016)

"The pontifical secret prevents me from litigating my good name in public, but I wish to take this opportunity to offer my deepest thanks to the many individuals who have privately and publicly come forward in my defense, despite threats and the climate of fear on my beloved home of Guam," he said.

Apuron said this climate, "shown by the local media, which hampered the work of the court of first instance, testifies to the presence of a pressure group that plotted to destroy me, and which has made itself clearly known even to authorities in Rome." - USA TODAY, April 4, 2019

By the way, while the first announcement about Apuron's guilt did not name what he was found guilty of, the announcement regarding the denial of his appeal did:

On 7 February 2019, the Tribunal of Second Instance upheld the sentence of First Instance finding the Archbishop guilty of delicts against the Sixth Commandment with minors.Press Release from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 04.04.2019

Thank you Archbishop Vigano for standing up to the deep church.

“Just as there is a deep state, there is also a deep church that betrays its duties and forswears its proper commitments before God." - Archbishop Vigano

* The release of Vigano's letter on August 22, 2018 was personally serendipitous. It was the worst and loneliest day of my life. I was in the Virgin Islands at the time to see my children and was in the middle of a very ugly legal battle that I won't detail now (or maybe ever). I learned of Vigano's letter three days later on my way back to Guam. When I saw the date of the letter I saw it as a sign from heaven that I was right about who was really behind the attempt to destroy me. I look forward to Apuron's Guam trial and I hope he subpoenas me.


Saturday, June 22, 2024


By Tim Rohr

On June 16, I published the post "Where is Tony?" and linked it on the JungleWatch Facebook page. A day later, Facebook removed the post. The following day I posted a follow up story about why I thought Facebook had removed the post. 

I didn't start out the June 16 post with Apuron's whereabouts in mind. The post was supposed to be about Cardinal O'Malley's neocat connections and activities, as inspired by his own post on his own blog. However, in writing the post I had one of those aha moments and speculated that Apuron may very well be residing (hiding) under O'Malley's wing. 

I've never had a JW post removed from Facebook before, and this one was removed within hours of my posting it. Thus my suspicion that I had stumbled upon the truth and that either the Kiko-police or O'Malley's were quick to try to kill the story. There really is no other explanation. Why would Facebook care about mere speculation about where Apuron is?

In doing some research through old posts today I came across a post from 2018 where the following was reported by the Catholic News Agency:

" 2009 or 2010, after receiving reports of habitual sexual misconduct on the part of McCarrick, Pope Benedict XVI had ordered that “the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living..."

The report goes on to say that McCarrick was: 

"living at that time in Washington's Redemptoris Mater Seminary."

As we now know, McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington D.C., and a huge power broker for the Church in the U.S., has been found to be one of the worst sex abusers in the entire sordid clergy sex abuse scandal. 

So it's interesting why McCarrick chose a Neocat seminary to shelter in after the scandal broke. And why wouldn't Apuron do the same? There's a nice big, comfortable Neocat seminary in Boston, and it is protected by the most powerful Cardinal in the United States, if not one of the most powerful in the world: Cardinal Sean O'Malley.

As a side note, after McCarrick was forced to leave the RMS in D.C. he took up new residence at a Capuchin Friary: St. Fidelis Friary in Kansas. He was eventually forced from there too. But why would they take him?

O'Malley, like Apuron, is a Capuchin.


"Gentlemen, it could be a good idea before the really bad times start to learn a trade.  I don’t know if this might entail night school or crash courses or whatever.  Don’t be dreamy about this.  Consider plumbing, electrical work, technical positions, EMT, etc.  Be practical. (Learning Chinese might be practical too, if you think about it.)"

ASK FATHER: Attacks on the Vetus Ordo… “Aren’t you worried?”


Archbishop Viganò responds to schism charge: ‘I regard the accusations against me as an honor’ 

(LifeSiteNews) — The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has informed me, with a simple email, of the initiation of an extrajudicial penal trial against me, with the accusation of having committed the crime of schism and charging me of having denied the legitimacy of “Pope Francis,” of having broken communion “with Him,” and of having rejected the Second Vatican Council.


Friday, June 21, 2024


From Associated Press:

The former nuncio to the US says he faces schism charges from the Vatican

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican’s former nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, said on Thursday that he has been summoned by the Vatican to face charges of schism.


Thursday, June 20, 2024



LINK to online version

Dear Congressman James Moylan,

Recently, I was made aware that on May 20, U.S. Sens. Katie Britt, R-Ala., and Ted Cruz, R-Tex., introduced the IVF Protection Act in order to ensure that no state prohibits access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) services. As of June 5, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said that he had already begun the process of bringing a legislative package aimed at protecting Americans’ access to assistive reproductive technology to the floor for a vote.

Congressman, I do not support this bill and ask that you formally make every effort possible to speak against this bill through legislation! Our voices here on Guam must be heard! Do not delay!

The reasons stated by Sens. Cruz and Britt may convey a message of comfort to couples who desire to conceive a child of their own, but the underlying reasons to reject this bill are of moral and legal concerns. “The philosophy that underpins the moral and legal case for abortion dovetails with the philosophy that underpins the case for IVF.” 1

Congressman, as a Republican you may be persuaded to follow the lead of both Republican senators, but in all things, the truth is our guide. Whereas we already know that abortion is immoral, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, so is the IVF process and the catechism addresses these issues in the following paragraphs:

# 2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' “right to become a father and a mother only through each other.”

#2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union. … Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”

To clarify, here are the links between abortion, which kills life, and the IVF process, which creates life:

1. The IVF process amounts to an early-stage form of eugenics. Both abortion and IVF treat human life in a callous, haphazard way. In the IVF process, clinicians use the process called “embryo grading.” 2 The embryos are evaluated and “graded” for their cellular quality, and assist a couple in determining the sex of their child, as well as the physical qualities of their child. Although some may be saved for future use, all unwanted embryos are literally discarded/aborted! Ultimately, the IVF process establishes “the domination of technology” 3 over human life. 

2. “A second link between abortion and IVF is that they share the same false anthropology. Abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide give humans the final say over the end of life whereas IVF gives humans the final say over the beginning of life.” “IVF distorts what it means for a child to be a gift [from God] by instrumentalizing the creation of new life. The IVF clinicians attempt to play God in the process.” 

3. A third link between abortion and IVF is that both have evolved to confuse mankind as to the purpose of sex, which is the creation of life and continuance of the human race. What this means is that a couple can indulge in sex-for-purely-pleasure, and abortion gives them “an out” or the ability to prevent the birth of the fetus. The other side of this purpose-of-sex-coin is that IVF demotes the value of sex by eliminating sex in the process of procreation: The ovaries are removed in a lab, the sperms are obtained via masturbation, and the embryos are created in a petri dish.

In summary, congressman, please read the article from Crisis Magazine, as well the paragraphs from the catechism of the Catholic Church, which clearly explains why the IVF is a gravely immoral act. Lobby against the passage of the IVF Protection Act. If you have a question, or want to discuss strategy, please call me anytime after 7 a.m. Guam time.


Mrs. Maria P. Espinoza

Monday, June 17, 2024


By Tim Rohr

I usually link posts on this blog to my personal account on X and to the JungleWatch Facebook Page. Within hours of posting a link to the story "Where is Tony?" Facebook removed it for going against community standards. 

As you can see from reading the post yourself, there is absolutely nothing that could be against FB community standards and I have certainly linked much more incendiary posts. 

I filed a complaint to FB and asked for a review. We'll see what happens. However, for now, I am quite certain that the thing that triggered the removal was a complaint either from the Kiko police or O'Malley's. And it's very probable that the reason for the quick action and the complaint was that I named Apuron's hiding place.

BTW, as I was reviewing the post, I noticed another current story about O'Malley in JW's linked blogs on the right sidebar.  The story is about an interfaith prayer service O'Malley apparently hosted a couple days ago in his cathedral. The author refers to the guest speakers as "an assortment from hell." (LINK)

You'll need to press translate to read it unless you can read Italian.

Sunday, June 16, 2024


By Tim Rohr

A friend recently forwarded a link to a post on the blog of Cardinal Sean O'Malley, Cardinal Archbishop of Boston. 

Before moving on to what I want to write about, I will say that the Cardinal gets good marks for his blog. It's not only an excellent medium for keeping in touch with his flock, but also a way to present himself as accountable to that flock as his posts generally highlight his day to day activities as Shepherd. 

I have a past connection with the Cardinal. He was appointed Bishop of the Diocese of St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands when I lived and worked there in the early 1980's. While named "Diocese of St. Thomas," the diocese encompasses the whole U.S. Territory of the Virgin Islands which consists of three main islands: St. Thomas, St. Croix, and St. John. I lived on St. Croix.

Moreover, I had something to do with O'Malley's appointment. 

The short story is that I had inadvertently uncovered a drug ring that was operating in the Catholic high school I was teaching at, and it appeared that the ring was operating under the cover and protection of the then-principal, albeit via blackmail. The principal was a favorite of the then-bishop (O'Malley's predecessor), and the principal enjoyed pretty much complete immunity to any complaint brought against him to the bishop. 

I informed a local priest of what I hade learned and suspected, and short story even shorter, the priest immediately took action to remove the principal. In doing so, some things other than the drug ring were uncovered - some rather terrible things - and the bishop retired not long after the principal was removed. (I wrote more about this in 2013.)

O'Malley was then a young "up and comer" and he was sent in to fix the mess, sort of like what happened here in Guam a few years ago. Interestingly enough, O'Malley and Apuron are both Capuchins. There is only one other Capuchin bishop in the U.S., Archbishop Charles Chaput

More interestingly, all three are in tight with the Neocatechumenal Way, and especially O'Malley. 

In August, 2016, O'Malley was seen at a meeting seated behind NCW chief, Kiko Arguello, as Arguello characterized the then-new accusations against Apuron as "persecutions." Chuck White wrote about it here.

Here is a screenshot from a news clip showing O'Malley and Apuron sitting together at a meeting in the Vatican in September, 2015. At the time, Apuron had already been under fire for removing Fr. Paul and Msgr. James, John Toves had publicly accused him of molesting his cousin, and the whole Certificate of Title Fiasco regarding the RMS property had been exposed.

For some reason, this screenshot of the two sitting together at the Vatican in September 2015 is our post with the highest number of views, even though it's only a screenshot with no story. As you can see, the post with the next most views is very far behind.

In his blog post of June 14, 2024, O'Malley has two entries about the Neocatechumenal Way: 

1) He visits Boston's Redemptoris Mater Seminary for the institution of new acolytes and lectors (steps toward priesthood); 

and 2) he attends a groundbreaking ceremony for an "expansion project" for the same seminary.

At first I thought "nothing to see here." O'Malley has been pals with the NCW hierarchy for quite awhile. But then it occurred to me that if Apuron has found a hiding place anywhere, it may be with his fellow Capuchin and in a diocese where - with O'Malley's help - the NCW is very strong. 

Just a thought. Maybe more later.  

Thursday, June 13, 2024


LINK to online version

In his June 8 letter to the editor, Sen. Parkinson lashed out at “instances of hate directed toward the LGBTQ+ community.” He then went on to lecture about flags, symbols, equality, love, acceptance, resilience, etc.

Given Parkinson’s righteous eloquence and his reference to “instances” (plural) and “hateful actions” (plural), one would think that war had broken out in the streets and gays were being rounded up and deported.

But despite Parkinson’s attempt to magnify the matter by digging up another incident from “a few years ago,” there is only one incident: the tearing down of a pride flag in Sinajana, and we don’t even know if it was actually a “hateful action” or a stupid one by just another screwball vandal.

Nevertheless, Parkinson gets good marks for being sharp enough to see an opportunity for free media not long before the next election.

Speaking of “hate” though, if one wants to experience it, you only need to speak up about the issue as I am doing now. Nothing labels you a “hater” faster or harder than having an opinion that doesn’t genuflect before the rainbow flag.

Back in 2009-2010, during what I call “the same-sex wars,” I found myself quite alone and at the center of things after legislation was introduced to legalize same-sex unions.

I ended up at “the center of things” not because I challenged same-sex unions morally but because I challenged the legislative shenanigans employed to try to slip the bill into law.

However, to take any position opposing the bill – even just demanding an honest legislative process – made you a hater.

I’m not sure why I cared about the issue. On a personal level, I don’t even notice or care about a person’s sexual orientation. However, reading Parkinson’s faux-Churchillian address to his “subjects” reminded me of why I entered the fray.

If there’s something that sets me off, it’s the abuse of little people by big people, big people like a senator, like Sen. Parkinson.

In this case (and in my opinion), Parkinson blows up a single pathetic act of vandalism into a Pride Month apocalypse, not only to send out his low-frequency virtue signal but to cast himself as an LGBTQ+ Lancelot even if he is only jousting at straw men, or is it windmills?

The same thing happened in the same-sex war thing. Other than serious missteps by the now-banished Archbishop Apuron (which I’ll get to), there was never any meaningful opposition to the legislation so there was no need to sneak the thing through.

However, the proponents weren’t looking to simply get a bill passed, they were looking for a fight, or more so, a stage, and a stage with a spotlight, a spotlight on them. So when no fight materialized, they created an army of straw men and attacked their manufactured “haters.”

The media at the time was all in. So the whole thing became a machine, not a political machine to legalize same-sex unions but a machine to elevate and aggrandize an in-your-face normalization of same-sex behavior, lifestyle, whatever you want to call it. And the machine rolled over and crushed into “haters” any little people who dared peep up with any thought to the contrary.

Actually, the whole thing was such a false fight that it would have gotten tired of itself and gone away but for Apuron’s ghostwriter priest at the now infamous Redemptoris Mater Seminary.

Said priest fancied himself a moral theologian and attacked the bill via a letter to the Legislature in which he referenced the beheading of homosexuals by Muslims. Unfortunately for the now-banished Apuron, the priest did not put his name to the letter but distributed it on Apuron’s letterhead.

And wham! That’s all the proponents needed. They had their straw man: a Catholic archbishop (Apuron) who would allegedly behead homosexuals. I still remember the news report showing Apuron running down a hallway with reporters chasing after him.

Ultimately, the legislation did go away when the sponsor withdrew it. On Catholic Guam you might think that it was withdrawn for moral reasons. It was not.

There was plenty of support for the bill and it would have passed but for a phone call one morning into a radio talk show by the then-director of the GovGuam retirement fund.

Said director outlined the probable negative impact of same-sex unions on the retirement fund and that was that. The sponsor withdrew the bill the next day.

Tim Rohr has resided in Guam since 1987. He has raised a family of 11 children, owned several businesses and most recently been active in local issues via his blog,, letters to local publications and occasional public appearances. He may be contacted at