GOING TO FIND OUT WHO'S NAUGHTY OR NICE

The penchant for corporal punishment by Guam's Senator "Santa Claus" (Dwayne San Nicolas) is probably more akin to his original predecessor than Senator "Santa Claus" may realize.

The original "Santa Claus," Saint Nikolaus, 1,500 years before becoming iconized by Clement Moore in "A Visit from Saint Nicholas" ("T'was the night before Christmas..."), famously and allegedly "corporally punished" - during the First Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. -  a certain priest by punching him in the mouth.

The recipient of Nick's punch was a dude name Arius, who Nick regarded as a heretic. Google Arianism if you want to know more, but meanwhile, so much for the "jolly" part of "Jolly Ol' St. Nick." Nick apparently was the 4th century equivalent of a mad Mike Tyson on an airplane. 

So Senator Dwayne San Nicolas is not only in good company, but apparently on the right track. And here's hoping that Guam's Saint Nick goes after the heretics in GovGuam, i.e. the big boys and girls, as gleefully as he portends to go after Guam's bad little boys and girls who have been naughty and not nice. 

SOLVING FOR X and SENATOR SANTA CLAUS

By Tim Rohr

Tall Tales Talk Show Host, Bob Klitzkie, recently addressed news about the possible introduction of a bill by Senator "Santa Claus" which would permit the "caning" of certain criminals, a la Singapore. 

Not only does rookie Senator Dwayne San Nicolas look and dress (sort of) like Santa Claus, his last name literally translates to "Santa Claus:" San (Saint) Nicolas (Nik-o-Laus). 

But Guam's Saint Nick "ain't" interested in depositing Christmas candy "canes" into the stockings of good little girls and boys ("hung by the chimneys with care in hopes that Saint Nikolaus soon would be there").

No, Guam's Saint Nick is apparently much more interested in depositing judicial "canes" onto the backs of bad little girls and boys. 

It's probably a publicity stunt. But whether it is or not, San Nicolas, a businessman, and apparently a good one, is getting lots of "earned media" for said "stunt," and probably ho-ho-ho-ing all the way to his office and re-election.

However, Guam's Saint Nick and his red-nosed foray into Singaporean justice is not the subject of this post. 

Mr. Klitzkie's discussion of Singapore prior to his addressing the proposed caning bill reminded me of a column I wrote for the Umatuna, the newspaper for the Archdiocese of Agana, in 2012, wherein I wrote about Singapore's terrible problem - a problem that is creeping up on Guam as our current Governor continues to champion the destruction of Guam's native population by destroying Chamorro babies.

Read more at: SOLVING FOR X

FRENCHIE AND CARL TAKE ON BEVACQUA

COMMENT BY FRENCHIE 

Frenchie January 18, 2023 at 4:38 AM

Bevacqua has two major problems:

1) he lacks intellectual honesty, because he is willing to argue any which way to further his narrow and flawed sense of history, and his revisionist understanding of said history

2) His lack of deep research on issues of ethnology, civilisations, and again history, makes him conclude wrongly on the reasons of certain events. Not surprising, since this is not his background of studies.

In the history of the world, it has been underlined that societies living in highly challenging environment, mostly desert settings, tend to be matriarchal. Within these very few matriarchal societies, IE: the Touaregs of the Sahara, the Tubus of the Tibesti, or to a lesser extent the Bushmen of the Kalahari, it has been established that the lack of food and liquid resources has led these tribes to regulate the number of births in the tribe according to the annual living conditions. These are exceptional conditions, which cannot be superposed to other civilizations and/or situations.

Dr Rubinstein never equated these known examples of population control to the situation in the Marianas, which were very different.

The situation facing Chamorros then, are more in line with the aborigines on larger islands like Taiwan, which also faced a brutal military colonization, and subsequent subjugation. In this case, it was noted the same high ratio of suicide and infanticide as a form of refusal of their loss, rather than a matriarchal enlightened approach to population control. Bevacqua is here again being petulant and dishonest.

Bevacqua's tactic of trying to fit a political argument to an historical narrative is not new, but it is certainly highly reprehensible.

COMMENT BY CARL

Carl Borja Nelson January 23, 2023 at 1:49 PM

I posted this article to Bevacqua's "Guahan Politics) page over a week ago. He eventually responded, of course denying Tim's points in his opinion piece (without offering serious evidence refuting Tim's points).

I responded to that and then he responded again; and then, for some reason he (or, he says, one of his co-administrators) kicked me off of the site and took down the article.

I messaged him asking him for his reason for kicking me off of the site and talking down my post (and our comments). He messaged me back that it was one of his co-administrators that did it. Possible but I'm skeptical.

He said he would look into it and try to get me back on the site as soon as possible.

He came back and said that he needs a copy of the post because FB won't let him see it. I don't have a copy of it. It was taken down . Lol. SMH.

I just sent him a link to Tim's above article refuting Bevacqua's argument that abortion was accepted and considered positive by indigenous Chamorros.

I don't understand why he criticizes America and other Western capitalist countries but invests so much energy trying to make us copy those countries' practice of killing innocent, unborn infants (62M+ in America alone since Roe v Wade in 1973).

SHIRLEY TERLAJE'S AMAZING STORY...AND MINE

By Tim Rohr

The late Shirley A. Terlaje, wife of the late Atty. Edward Terlaje, and mother of the Superior Court's newest judge, The (soon to be invested)  Honorable John Terlaje, had some special things to say in her written testimony in support of the bill that became "Belle's Law," P.L. 20-134, and you can read it all here.

I knew Mrs. Terlaje and was quietly close to her in a way. She would often come by my Catholic bookstore that I owned and operated in the late 2000's and we would share, in a reserved way, much about our Catholic faith. Perhaps it was because I had 11 children and she had 11 children that we found some special things in common. Also, one of Mrs. Terlaje's daughters and her husband are godparents to one of my sons. 

When our 11th child was born in the late 2000's our family was struggling to make ends meet. Mrs. Terlaje, having 11 of her own, probably sensed my struggle and one day soon after the birth of our 11th, Mrs. Terlaje showed up at my store and handed me a $1,000 check. "This is just between us," she said. 

And I did "keep it between us," until just now. 

But there is another thing that makes us "close," and I did not know this until I just now read her now decades-old testimony. I will copy here the relevant portion:

People who would never dream of discriminating against another on the grounds of color, discriminate against the unborn child on grounds of size, because that child is so very small that he (she) cannot in fact make its voice heard. Therefore, it is brushed aside as being of no importance.

During the pregnancy of my sixth child, I experienced exactly this type of discrimination against my unborn child. During the first two months of my pregnancy, I had been quite sick and the doctors had done a large number of X-rays, in an attempt to determine what was causing me to be so sick. When it was later discovered that I was pregnant, the doctors told me and my husband that in all likelihood, the child would be deformed and brain damaged. (This was before the use of ultrasound to determine such things.) The doctors tried to convince us that I should go to Japan to have an abortion. Abortions were then legal in Japan, but had not yet been declared legal in the United States. My husband and I were both appalled at the idea of killing our own child, so we refused to follow the doctors advice. Six months later in that year, I gave birth to a healthy baby boy, our son, John. John is now 23 years old, and is still healthy, and a great joy to all those who know him. He was born without any perceivable physical or mental defects, and tests have revealed that he has the highest IQ score of any of our 11 children. Irregardless, of what his health or intelligence had been, I cannot imagine casting him aside, and not allowing him the chance to be born. In just these few years, he has had a great impact on our family and on the lives of all who know him.

I'm assuming, of course, that Mrs. Terlaje's "John" is the same John who will soon be The Honorable John Terlaje. Meanwhile, the "serendipity" for me is that while I only just now learned about Mrs. Terlaje's "John," I have a similar story.  

During the pregnancy of our 9th child, ultrasound revealed concerning details that indicated that our baby would be born with Down Syndrome. Two doctors were in the meeting with us after the ultrasound. 

While not explicitly telling us to abort our son, it was definitely "suggested." And "suggested" coming from two doctors to frightened parents who completely trust "the medical professionals" equates to pressure to "do it." 

We went through hell for several months seeking out whatever else we could to help our baby. In the end he was born without an issue. And while I don't know his IQ, I would dare say that he is our most handsome son and a real physical specimen of a now adult man. 

Without knowing Mrs. Terlaje's story about her son - a story I learned just now, ten years after Mrs. Terlaje told her story via her testimony, we would ask one of Mrs. Terlaje's daughters and her husband to be godparents to the son we were told to abort...just like John. 

THANK YOU GUAM

By Tim Rohr

I began this post in my head on Martin Luther King Day, when, on or about the same day, a Facebook memory jumped out at me of something that happened to one of my daughters several years ago. 

In fact, here it is:

I had a good laugh at the time, but I'm glad I saved it as a memory since it is a memorial to how my wife (who is of African descent ) and I chose to raise our children. 

In fact, at least from what I can recall, it was never even a choice. We (and I am of European and Mexican descent) never thought or spoke of race. We were just people and our children were just children. 

But living and growing our family in Guam helped - where everybody is a "mix up mix up" (to quote a Bob Marley song).

Jessica's hair, like most of our six daughters (and our five sons), was like her mother's. So the "Black guy" asked "you African American?"

Knowing my daughter Jessica, I can just see her face. This was probably the first time she was asked if she was "African American" and "why your hair look like dat?" 

Jessica probably rolled her eyes in shy disbelief and discomfort before however she answered - which unfortunately was not recorded as part of the FB memory. 

I was raised in Los Angeles, which is pretty much a "mix up mix up" place, and I myself am a "mix up," the product of a German father and a Mexican mother, though both were fifth generation American and neither knew hardly a word of German or Spanish. 

My wife was raised in the Caribbean, which is probably the most "mix up" place in the world - which is why it has produced the most unique culture and some of the world's most beautiful people - not to mention the world's fastest sprinters (Jamaica!). 

Because of where we were raised, even on the opposite ends of the continent, neither of us ever really experienced hard racism, so we were in for a bit of a surprise after we married and first moved to a town in northern Florida in the mid 80's. 

It took me a while to figure out what was going on but after attempting for several days to find a home to rent after we arrived there - and being turned down several times - I finally figured out why (in that town) black people lived on one side of the (railroad) tracks and white people on the other. Literally. 

Finally, one landlady hit me over the head with the racist reality when she told me that she couldn't rent to us "because of the Klan." I don't think there was any threat from "the Klan," but she used it to scare us away because denying us a lease on the basis of race would have gotten her in legal trouble. 

We found a place about 10 miles out of town and we were somewhat happy - even though it meant I had to ride my bicycle 10 miles to work every day since I had no money to gas up the little Datsun truck that had gotten us to that town from the opposite coast. 

While living there, I recall a couple of fun "racist" facts. 

My wife was attending school in that town and one day when I went to pick her up I heard one of her fellow students shout: "You married to a WHITE MAN?!!!!" LOL. Yes. She was. 

But my wife was from the Caribbean where everybody was married to everybody and where white people and black people did not live on opposite sides of the "tracks" as they did in that north Florida town. In fact, in those islands, there were no "tracks." We had a good laugh and went home.

Sometime later I was at a laundromat in that same town. I was folding diapers on a table and my very black first-born son was sitting on the same table. As I was in the black part of town (the other side of the tracks) and obviously a white man (though I'm a bit brown) with a black baby (my one year old son), we were an object of suspicion and one of the black ladies watching me apparently called the cops. 

The cops showed up and wanted to know what I was doing with this black boy (Timmy).  I explained that my wife was black, that this "black boy" was my son, and that these were his diapers. The cops smiled and went away. 

Anyway, within a few months, I got a job offer in Guam and we packed up and moved to literally the other side of the world where we lived for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS and raised TEN more children after "Timmy."

Thank you Guam for giving my family the opportunity to just be...well, Guamanians, and not black, white, or whatever. 

LAURA SOUDER VS MICHAEL BEVACQUA

By Tim Rohr

As already demonstrated multiple times in this blog, Guam "historian," Michael Bevacqua, insists that the killing of Chamorro children by their own mothers is a practice "consistent with CHamoru values" - and, in fact, is a functionally proud expression of "matrilineal" authority and power. 

Fellow CHamoru historian, LAURA MARIE TORRES SOUDER (as Souder sets out her own name in a sworn affidavit) presents a radically different view from Bevacqua's.

In support of what we now know as "Belle's Law," P.L. 20-134, Souder filed an affidavit stating:

I have personally interviewed in-depth in Chamorro...traditional Chamorro healers, known as ‘suruhana’ to document their practices, methods of healing, and also the social attitudes and consequences of specific treatments including those which induce the termination of pregnancy. One suruhana admitted that she administered abortive treatments. She told me that she knew what she was doing was not culturally acceptable…In other words, she recognized the deviancy of her behavior. The suruhana and all others I have interviewed informed me that while a few healers were known to dispense treatments for abortion, none of them associated that type of treatment with healing or curative “amot” (medicine).

My informants spoke honestly about the shame and abhorrence that was associated with the practice of intentionally destroying a life. It is a well established fact that when abortions are practiced by suruhana they are always performed in secret and with shame. This secrecy has been and continues to be a significant indicator that those who perform or have abortions recognize that the act is defined as culturally deviant. They feel shame and do not wish to be known for fear of social reprisal. 

Historical evidence further indicates that incidences of collective acts of abortion and suicide in the darkest moments of Chamorro history during the Spanish era were aberrant and must be interpreted for what they were - - acts of ultimate defiance against genocide, total subjugation, and colonial servitude.

 It would be no surprise if Mr. Bevacqua "pooh-poohed" any of my intrepid expositions of his warped version of CHamoru history - given that I am a "haole."  However, the sworn interjections of Ms. Souder, a person whose curriculum vitae (as set forth in her affidavit) appears to heavily outweigh Mr. Bevacqua's, is another matter. 

Whether Ms. Souder still stands behind what she filed under penalty of perjury thirty years ago is a question. But given the resurgent importance of "Belle's Law" in the wake of Dobbs...

Well. We shall see.

***

Listen to Bob Klitzkie on Tall Tales address this HERE

POPE PAUL III VS MICHAEL BEVACQUA

Lumping the expansion of Catholicism in with the excesses of the Spanish Conquest of the New World is an ad nauseum thing amongst agenda-driven activists who masquerade as historians. And sometimes, as is the case with Michael Bevacqua, this leads to some very twisted positions.

Given that CHamoru's - already an ethnic minority in their own land - are aborting their children at many times the rate of other ethnicities, Bevacqua's abortion advocacy equates to a push for the self-extinction of the very people he portends to champion.

But beyond Bevacqua's historical contortions of abortion, there is the fact that the Catholic Church and its missionaries were not one and the same with the Conquistadors and in fact were often their antagonists.

The excerpt from the 18th century Jesuit historian's journal as set out in a previous post relative to Bevacqua's twisted history is an example. Let us examine it again here:

[T]hey cannot abide the yoke of the Spaniards because of their great pride and haughtiness, and that they would like to live as they did in the past, in freedom and [following their] barbarous customs. Because of this, many hang themselves and others kill themselves [each other?]…The women, likewise, purposely sterilize themselves; or if they conceive, they find ways to abort, and some kill their children after birth in order to save them from the subjugation of the Spaniards. 

The very large diminution of population comes from the subjugation imposed upon them by the force of arms. As lovers of liberty they could not tolerate a foreign yoke. This became so painful for them that, not being able to free themselves of it, they preferred to lose their lives by hanging and by other desperate means. The women purposely sterilized themselves, and they threw their newborn children into the sea, convinced that an early death would free them of travails and a painful life…[in death] they would be fortunate and happy. Subjugation was so despicable that, for them, it was the ultimate and most deplorable calamity.

Other than referring to Chamorro customs as "barbarous," the Jesuit priest (Joannis Joseph Delgado) is blatantly critical of "the Spaniards." Given that Delgado himself is a Spaniard, it is clear that there is a separation between the Church and the Crown. 

Delgado speaks of "the yoke of the Spaniards, of their "great pride and haughtiness," and of "subjugation" by the Spaniards of the Chamorros that is "despicable...a deplorable calamity." The whole tone of Delgado's entry is one of lament. 

Delgado's lament is consistent with the official Catholic Church position relative to the colonization and evangelization of "the Indians of the West and the South" as promulgated in the papal bull Sublimis Deus - On the Enslavement and Evangelization of Indians by Pope Paul III in 1537.

Writing more than two hundred years before Delgado recorded his observations in Guam, Paul III characterized the mistreatment of "the Indians" as the work of Satan:

"The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God’s word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith."

The pope then goes on to declare:

"Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters...the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect."

Certainly excesses and cruelty existed but it cannot be said by the likes of Bevacqua and others that this was the will and intent of the Catholic Church. It was not. 

***

Listen to Bob Klitzkie on Tall Tales address this HERE

WHO IS RUNNING THIS PLACE ANYWAY?

By Tim Rohr

As a postscript to the previous post PARKINSON WIMPS OUT, this writer asks: WHY IS PARKINSON CONSULTING WITH THE ACLU? 

Per the PDN news story:

“Today, I was originally going to announce an introduction of a bill that would repeal Public Law 20-134. However, after having consultation with the ACLU, I decided to hold off on this decision in order to allow the situation to play out in the courts,” Parkinson said Thursday.

The ACLU's lawsuit is about the in-person mandate required by Guam's informed consent for abortion law. The suit has nothing to do with P.L. 20-134, "Belle's Law." In fact the ACLU suit was initiated several months before the Dobb's decision overturning Roe that brought the long-enjoined "Belle's Law" to the fore as an issue.

So why is Parkinson consulting with the ACLU about a completely different issue. Who is running this place anyway? And is the ACLU now running Parkinson?

Let's not hear of any talk of "independence for Guam" from senators like Parkinson who must "run to papa" before they make a move. 

PARKINSON WIMPS OUT

By Tim Rohr

Sen. Will Parkinson is right about one thing. 

From the Pacific Daily News story:

Although the 1990 law calls for a voter referendum, Parkinson said he does not want the matter to go to a public vote.

“I don’t agree with the idea of a referendum as a lawmaker, because we were elected by the people of Guam to make the hard decisions,” Parkinson said.

“(If) every time we have a difficult decision like abortion, we stick it to the people, then what are we here for? … Let’s make a decision and not pass the buck.” 

Parkinson is absolutely right. Enough of the cowards in the legislature. What do they get paid for if not "to make hard decisions?" 

He WAS also right about his intent to introduce a bill to repeal "Guam's decades old abortion ban," Public Law 20-134. Deciding what to do about an abortion law is precisely the job of the legislature. 

However, in this writer's opinion, Parkinson wimped out after apparently getting spanked by the ACLU:

"...after having consultation with the ACLU, I decided to hold off on this decision in order to allow the situation to play out in the courts...”

So after "holding court" about the duty of the legislature not to "pass the buck" to the people, Parkinson passes the buck to the courts.

Allowing "the situation to play out in the courts" is probably going to be an extremely long, drawn out, and costly affair - which it already is, all paid for of course by the people who Parkinson says should not be saddled with "the buck."

It could be of course, as radio talk show show host Bob Klitzkie points out, that Parkinson is just playing his cards in return for "earned media." But Parkinson's ducking behind the ACLU should still cost Parkinson something and not us. 

CHALLENGING THE "ANCIENT-NESS" OF CHAMORU ABORTIONS

CHamoru activists like Michael Bevacqua and the governor herself have maintained that abortion is historically consistent with Chamoru values. 

In his declaration in support of the current ACLU lawsuit challenging Guam's informed consent for abortion law, Bevacqua writes:

...ensuring access to safe and legal abortion in Guam is consistent with Chamoru values, culture and history and, indeed, there is substantial evidence that Chamoru women have long exercised autonomy and moral authority to make decisions about their pregnancies.

Bevacqua leans on the cultural phenomenon of matriarchal power for the historical roots of abortion in Chamorro culture:

Ancient accounts tell us that Chamoru women in Guam were more than merely vessels for their communities but were empowered to make decisions about their bodies and families. We see a matrilineal focus, where lineage and symbolic societal power resides primarily with women, in many traditional Micronesian Island cultures, but in the Chamoru culture of the Marianas, that it has historically being the strongest. This is something which the earliest accounts of contact with Europeans highlight. Chamoru women in ancient times had authority over themselves and men in many ways that frankly appalled the early Catholic missionaries, who saw as part of their evangelism the reduction of this social and cultural power.

Bevacqua goes on to support his view by referring to research by Dr. Donald Rubinstein describing "ancient" Chamoru abortifacients: 

Dr. Rubinstein has found historical, ethnographic and linguistic evidence dating back to the 18th century showing that, over time, women in Guam and throughout the region have utilized a variety of methods to induce miscarriage or end their pregnancies, as well as to use birth control and other methods to control their fertility.

However, Bevacqua fails to reference a significant entry in Rubinstein's research that traces abortion in CHamoru history - at least on a genocidal scale - to the Spanish period, which means that abortion in CHamoru culture is not so "ancient," and also reveals that abortion was not an exercise of matriarchal power but a desperate response to colonial subjugation.

In a paper titled "Culture in court: notes and reflection on abortion in Guam," Rubinstein recounts a journal entry by a Jesuit priest historian in 1751 describing what Rubinstein labels: "the catastrophic depopulation of the Chamorro people:"

[T]hey cannot abide the yoke of the Spaniards because of their great pride and haughtiness, and that they would like to live as they did in the past, in freedom and [following their] barbarous customs. Because of this, many hang themselves and others kill themselves [each other?]…The women, likewise, purposely sterilize themselves; or if they conceive, they find ways to abort, and some kill their children after birth in order to save them from the subjugation of the Spaniards. 

Later, in 1788, the same Jesuit historian, as quoted by Rubinstein, writes:

The very large diminution of population comes from the subjugation imposed upon them by the force of arms. As lovers of liberty they could not tolerate a foreign yoke. This became so painful for them that, not being able to free themselves of it, they preferred to lose their lives by hanging and by other desperate means. The women purposely sterilized themselves, and they threw their newborn children into the sea, convinced that an early death would free them of travails and a painful life…[in death] they would be fortunate and happy. Subjugation was so despicable that, for them, it was the ultimate and most deplorable calamity.

Regarding the reference to “purposely sterilized themselves," Rubinstein writes that it "is usually interpreted to refer to intentional abortion."

At least according to the above observations from the 18th century, abortion in CHamoru history was not and is not an "ancient" indigenous value but a relatively recent response to colonial subjugation wherein self-genocide was preferable to a "foreign yoke." 

But is that the reason today's Chamorros still kill their babies at many times the rate of other ethnicities? 

SOURCE

 

THE RULERS WE DESERVE

Queen Jezebel

There remains much concern by dedicated anti-abortion Catholics about the refusal of our archbishop to excommunicate one of the most hardened and public pro-abortion government officials in the country - our very own Governor Lou Leon Guerrero. 

That concern was deepened when our Vicar General, Fr. Romeo Convocar - who only days earlier had compared Leon Guerrero to King Herod - called for and celebrated a Mass of Thanksgiving for Leon Guerrero's re-election, at which Leon Guerrero received communion from the same Fr. Romeo Convocar. 

In this writer's opinion it is time to stop losing sleep over what our church leadership is doing or not doing and recognize that God may be punishing us with the rulers we deserve - which is something God did as a matter of course throughout Bible history whenever His Chosen People abandoned Him. 

The fact is that why should we be upset about the failure of the church to act on a single person - even if she is the governor - when for decades, according to official abortion reports, Chamorros, the majority of whom are Catholic, have aborted their children at a near genocidal rate.

It should be no surprise if God has finally "handed (us) over to impurity through the lusts of (our) hearts for the mutual degradation of (our) bodies" and we have received "the due penalty for (our) perversity" (Romans 1:20 et seq) - by God's giving us the rulers we deserve. 

Meanwhile, let's see if we can change some votes for the next election. 

*****

Romans 1:20-32

Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.

While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.

Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. 

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

REAL JUSTICE VS THE MONSTERS OF SAN RAMON

By Tim Rohr

In the video in this news story, Atty. Ed Caldie breaks into a passionate speech about "those who came forward" and how "we all got a huge gift from them for doing that." 

A typical lawyer speech - especially one who is walking away with millions regardless of the outcome. But beyond that:

Who exactly "came forward?" 

Other than Leo Tudela, Roy Quintanilla, Walter Denton, Roland Sondia, and Doris Concepcion - for her deceased son ("Sonny" Quinata), every one of the hundreds of other "survivors," save one or two others, have hidden behind their initials instead of putting their names and faces out there like the brave few just named.

Moreover...

it was ONLY the a-forenamed brave FEW who publicly testified in support of the bill that eventually gave the hundreds of other "survivors" the opportunity to sue the Archdiocese of Agana for damages. 

REAL JUSTICE..

If there's going to be "justice" - if anything is left after the attorneys are done - then REAL "justice" should disproportionately compensate the very few who actually did "come forward," and DID NOT cower behind an attorney or their initials in a court filing.

And that's another thing. 

Those FIRST FEW who actually did "come forward," came "forward" without an attorney and without a law to protect them from the WRATH of Apuron and his Goblins. 

In fact, Apuron and his Goblins responded to these FIRST FEW with threats to sue civilly and canonically. 

Here is one example:

Tim Rohr and his associates launched a vicious and calumnious attack on the Archbishop and the Church...The perpetrators of these calumnies have resorted to insults and violence revealing their true intention to destroy the Catholic Church and discredit the Archbishop by whatever means. Their method is to confuse and mislead the faithful, even to the point of inducing some to bring false testimony. This was predicted even before the first accusation was revealed.

Those who are orchestrating this campaign are inciting people into hatred of the Archbishop and the Catholic Church. They have produced scandal, confusion and grave errors with the cruel intent to injure the Archbishop, the Catholic Church in Guam and many other people of good will who have been outraged and harassed. Therefore, the Archdiocese of Agana is in the process of taking canonical and legal measures against those perpetrating these malicious lies.

And let's not forget the late John Toves who was and is still the real hero here. 

It was John Toves who first pointed a public finger at Apuron. 

It was John Toves who first marched on "Fortress Apuron" on San Ramon Hill.  

And it was John Toves who was first thrown off that hill by Apuron's Goblin-in-Chief, the now disgraced and defrocked run-away, the former Fr. Adrian Cristobal. 

Toves died without receiving a single cent for his courage. 

NOTE: The references to Toves are many. See here to all references on JW. 

SO: Let us see some REAL JUSTICE. 

Let's see to it that the survivors who put their REAL NAMES and FACES out there when there was not only no hope of compensation, but the full expectation that they would be sued into poverty and oblivion by the "filthy" machine - including the New Jersey Mafia who protected Apuron and sought to crush anyone and everyone who stood up to "the filth in the Church." 

"How much filth there is in the church, even among those who, in the priesthood, should belong entirely to Him. How much pride, how much self-sufficiency." - Pope Benedict XVI

And now let us speak of others who "came forward." 

How about the Catholics who spent FIFTY-FOUR SUNDAYS marching in front of the Agana Cathedral during the 9:30am Mass - "Apuron's Mass." 

Yes. What about them? 

What about the sneers and the hate from fellow "Catholics" (?) who intentionally and brazenly pushed through the marchers' picket line Sunday after Sunday and who entered the once-hallowed walls of the Agana Cathedral and presented themselves for "Holy Communion" -  with nary a thought to the "FILTH" that was perpetrated from THAT same altar. 

And what about the many Catholics who testified in support of the bill to lift the civil statute of limitations so that survivors could finally seek justice - EVEN THOUGH those same Catholics knew that they would have to pay the bill because the actual perpetrators would never be required to pay a single shekel?

Yes. What about them?

SETTLE THIS and give whatever is left to the real SURVIVORS who dared put their names and faces up against the MONSTERS OF SAN RAMON when they had nothing to gain and everything to lose. 

CONVOCAR'S MASS FOR "HEROD"

Rather than a "Mass of Thanksgiving" for the re-election of two of the most anti-Catholic (in practice) people ever elected to their offices, Fr. Romeo Convocar, who now leads the Archdiocese of Agana in the absence of Archbishop Byrnes, should have called for a Mass of Reparation, Penance, Conversion  - anything but a "Mass of Thanksgiving."  

Only days earlier, the same Fr. Convocar compared the re-elected governor to Herod and his Slaughter of the Innocents:

Father Romeo Convocar, vicar general of the Archdiocese of Agaña, said the timing of the governor's action was ironic.

"The decision of Gov. Lou Leon Guerrero to veto Bill 291-36 which would give life to the Guam Heartbeat Act of 2022 comes on this particular day, the Feast of the Holy Innocents," Convocar said. "The feast commemorates the young children in Bethlehem who were massacred by King Herod of Judea in his attempt to kill the infant Jesus."

But now Convocar wants us to join him in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in THANKSGIVING for re-electing "Herod" - as Convocar himself functionally labels her. 

Maybe it's time we Catholics start withholding our money again. The silence of empty collection plates appears to be the only thing our local church hierarchy hears. 

Or maybe another picket...given the speculation that Convocar could be our next bishop.

NOTE: As you can see from the script below the picture, Convocar had the comments turned off for his Facebook announcement.  The Comments are open on JungleWatch. 

WHY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN...AND CANNOT EXCOMMUNICATE GOVERNOR LLG

By Tim Rohr

Catholic Church Law (Canon Law) addresses abortion only once.  And from 1983, when the revised code was first promulgated, until Dec. 8, 2021, the code at Can. 1398 stated: 

A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

The Latin phrase "latae sententiae" means "a sentence already passed," or more popularly: "automatic," i.e. an automatic excommunication due to the act itself without any further action by ecclesial authority. 

In other words, no letter from your bishop is necessary. 

Can. 1398 does not address politicians who support abortion or anyone else involved in the abortion. It only addresses the person who directly procured the abortion. 

So where does the idea that pro-abortion politicians should be excommunicated come from since it appears only the mother can willfully "procure" an abortion?

Up until Dec. 8, 2021 (and we will discuss what changed in 2021 in a bit) it came from a combination of the afore-referenced Can. 1398 and another canon which does not mention abortion but sets forth a familiar legal principle:

Can. 1329 §2. Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them; otherwise, they can be punished by ferendae sententiae* penalties.

*"sentence to be passed"

This should be familiar because accomplices to a crime under most secular law systems are just as guilty as the actual perpetrator. (Remember the word "actual" for later.)

The question is whether or not a pro-abortion politician is an accomplice to the crime of abortion - as said crime is defined by the Catholic Church - and should said pro-abortion politician, if Catholic, be excommunicated?

The answer - at least until 2021 - was a pretty hard "yes." 

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict one year later, and as then-Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, weighed in definitively on this matter when a pro-abortion Catholic, John Kerry, became the Democratic nominee for the office of U.S. President.

Said Ratzinger:

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

Bringing the matter closer to home (Guam), there is a question of whether or not Governor Lou Leon Guerrero can or should be excommunicated for vetoing the Heartbeat Act. 

The answer, in this writer's opinion, and pursuant to Ratzinger's instruction,  is "no." 

Vetoing a bill is not "campaigning and voting for (a) permissive abortion... law." In fact, vetoing a bill that still permits the killing of unborn children up until a fetal heartbeat is detected could be construed as functionally a "pro-life" act - that is, of course, if you didn't know Lou Leon Guerrero. 

LLG's real excommunicable act - in this writer's opinion - is her very public use of the governor's office - not to mention our tax dollars - to solicit, recruit, and procure abortion doctors to come to Guam to perform abortions after the last abortion clinic in Guam closed in 2018 - which happened to coincide with LLG's first election as governor. 

While it could be argued that said efforts by Gov. LLG (via the Bureau of Woman Affairs and her abortion-lieutenant, Jayne Flores) is neither "campaigning" nor "voting for...permissive abortion laws," it can JUST AS JUSTLY be argued that LLG is using the full force of her public office to promote and provide abortions. 

However, no one, to my knowledge, has objected - from the Catholic pulpit - about LLG's hard abortion advocacy...even though LLG's virulent advocacy for abortion has not only been obvious since her elevation to the office of Governor, but has been very public since at least 1990, when LLG backed Atty. Anita Arriola, in attacking and successfully suing the Government of Guam for enacting "Belle's Bill." 

However...and this is a big HOWEVER, the real reason we may not have heard anything from the pulpit may be due to Pope Francis, in 2021, adding a single word to Can. 1398 (which he renumbered as Can. 1397 §2. )

That canon now reads:

A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Compare the 2021 canon to the original 1983 canon:

A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

The addition of the word "actually" changes things a bit...or a lot. Before proceeding, copied here is a short commentary on the change:

The Vatican’s English translation of the new norms deviates from the currently approved English translation of the canon on abortions and excommunication. The translation change is likely to be appreciated for emphasizing directly the person to whom a latae sententiae excommunication for abortion actually applies.

The old translation of canon 1398 said that “a person who procures a completed abortion” incurs such a penalty.

While canonists have emphasized in recent years that “procurement” refers to a person undergoing, funding directly, or performing an abortion, numerous popular commentators have at times argued that canon 1398 could also apply to politicians supporting legal protection or state funding for abortion, given that they might be considered to have remote moral participation in particular abortions.

The new Vatican translation of the norm, which in the official Latin edition remains the same, makes an effort to thwart that argument, and to state more clearly the intended meaning of the canon: Renumbered as canon 1397 §2, the canon’s translation adds a crucial word: “A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” 

Incredibly, Pope Francis - despite his demonstrable liberal sympathies for women - with his amending and renumbering of Can. 1398, functionally relieves all accomplices to abortion - including politicians - and lays the blame completely on the person who "actually procures an abortion," which could only be the mother (if said mother proceeded under complete free will). 

As an aside, the word "completed" was deleted from the now-renumbered Canon 1398. 

This may be one of the "pro's" to the amendment of the subject canon since - on its face - the previous wording inadvertently allowed for the still full communion of anyone who formally or materially participated in the intentional death of a defenseless, innocent human being - a baby - in the event that said "baby" survived" a failed abortion, i.e. not "completed."

No matter. LLG would want that child dead anyway. 

SORRY POPE BENEDICT - I WISH YOU HAD DIED IN PETER'S CHAIR

By Tim Rohr

As expected, the mainstream side of conservative Catholic media is rushing to canonize the late Pope Benedict XVI. A recent article by the EWTN-owned National Catholic Register echoed most of what that media is saying in its article "Benedict's Prophetic Voice." 

One thing for sure is that Benedict was indeed a saintly man, and the Church's saint-making process (canonization) pretty much looks only at the saintly qualities of its subject and not necessarily at what he or she said or did while occupying a particular ecclesial office, not even the Chair of Peter. 

So, in that regard, Benedict will most probably follow his predecessor, John Paul II, into sainthood -  though probably not while Francis is pope. 

According to some sources that dare to speak up about this, Francis has done his best to downplay the death of his predecessor:

— Neither in Vatican City, nor in its extraterritorial dependencies, nor in its nunciatures, was official mourning declared. The bells did not ring for death, nor did the flags fly at half mast. This last detail was surprising. Any country has this measure of mourning when a relatively important person dies. For the Vatican and for the court of Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI was not. Curiously, the Italian state and Great Britain ordered their flags to be flown at half mast on December 31. - Caminante Wanderer (translated)

It's quite possible, given his "real" humility, that Benedict wanted it this way. But we don't know. What we do know - or at least intelligently conjecture - is that Benedict was run out of town by a red-robed mafia who replaced him with Francis. We know this because certain members of said Mafia have bragged about how they did it. 

How much Francis had to do with this coup, we don't know. But what we do know is that Francis has spent almost his entire pontificate undoing much of what Benedict did, i.e. the Vatican Mafia's agenda - in particular Francis' functional abortion of Benedict's restoration of the right of every priest to celebrate the Traditional Mass. 

In my opinion (not that it matters), the blame - if I can call it that - for much of the current mess the Church is now in lies with Benedict. Whether or not he was told by God to step down is something we can't know for sure. But what we do know for sure is that Benedict's abdication - and that is what it was - opened the door for what walked in...or seeped in.

Sorry Pope Benedict, but I personally wish you would have died in Peter's Chair, like everyone of your predecessors save one. 

ATTY. WILLIAMS INSISTS THE "RICE IS RED!"

By Tim Rohr

Civil Beat, a Honolulu-based publication, has posted a mostly well-written article about the abortion debate in Guam. 

The article quotes pro-abortion attorney Vanessa Williams as saying: 

“I’m a Chamorro, I’m Indigenous, I’m from Guam, born and raised here; I’m a Catholic, I was baptized and raised in this community." 

The article then goes on to say: 

But she disagrees with the idea that the church’s stance on abortion should affect access to the procedure on Guam, so much so that she currently serves as local counsel for the ACLU lawsuit that enabled the abortion pills by post.

That Williams and others like her continue to take aim at "the church" (the Catholic Church) as a significant opponent, indeed, sometimes the only opponent, is a classic example of what radio talk show host Bob Klitzkie often refers to as "systemic rice-ism" - a play on words that began when someone wrote a letter to a local paper pointing out that what we call "red rice" is actually orange and the paper responded with the equivalent of "shut up." 

The dust-up over the actual color of "red rice" led Klitzkie to use it as an ongoing metaphor for "truth v narrative."

That the pro-aborts continue to hang on to the "the narrative" that the "rice is red," i.e. that the Catholic Church is the bad boy in the battle over abortion, is telling. And it is telling because it is not true. 

In fact, as demonstrated several times on this blog, and most recently here, the Catholic Church at the highest levels has been in bed with pro-aborts for decades - which is why the most prominent pro-aborts in our government, from Biden all the way down to Gov. LLG are stridently, publicly, and sometimes viciously pro-abortion. 

That Williams and others continue to bang on their "rice is red" drum is telling because it tells us they have no argument to support the direct killing of helpless, innocent, defenseless tiny human beings and can only continue to divert attention away from their bloody business by pitting the public against the "mean old church" - a strawman argument if there ever was one. 

In fact, Williams should be sending a thank you letter to Pope Francis and crediting the church she so often vilifies as an important ally because of Francis' recent amendment to canon law - which will be addressed in a future post. 

Civil Beat not off the hook

And not to let Civil Beat off the hook for its own "rice is red" take:

Reporter Anita Hofschneider, titles a subsection of her article: "Faith Underpins Support For Ban." She goes on to write:

The fact that abortions may become much harder to obtain is good news to Pat Perry, a Guam resident who is a member of the Guam Catholic Pro-Life Committee.

“You can’t say that killing an innocent human being is ever a right,” she said. “I truly believe that Sen. (Elizabeth) Arriola’s bill, when she first introduced it back in 1990, it was perfect.”

Perry’s conviction comes from the strength of her faith, a common perspective on Guam where an estimated 90% of residents are Catholic and the church is often intertwined with Indigenous Chamorro culture. Back in 1990, Guam’s former Archbishop Anthony Apuron threatened to excommunicate senators who opposed the abortion ban.

From what Hofschneider reported, the only thing that ties Perry's statement to Catholicism is that she is a member of the Guam Catholic Pro-Life Committee, but Perry reportedly says nothing about her Catholic faith. Perry simply states: “You can’t say that killing an innocent human being is ever a right.” That's not a religious belief. Our own secular laws say the same thing. 

Given the penchant for the media generally to "pin the tail on the church," had Perry actually said something relative to Catholic Church teaching, we can assume that Perry would certainly have been quoted, and Hofschneider wouldn't have had to reach back to Apuron's absurd threat from thirty years ago for a "tail" and a "pin."

Additionally, Hofschneider, while pointing out that "an estimated 90% of residents are Catholic and the church is often intertwined with Indigenous Chamorro culture," neglects to mention that Chamorros, in the face of their rapidly declining population, account for nearly two-thirds of all procured abortions. 

SOURCE

This is a fact Hofschneider knows well - but apparently, like Williams, wants to maintain that "the rice is red." Maybe someday a reporter will do the real story: Why Chamorros (now spelled CHamoru), led by their own CHamoru governor and "baptized" Catholics like Vanessa Williams, are racing to self-extinction by killing their own. 

 

THE REAL PROBLEM ISN'T CATHOLIC POLITICIANS

By Tim Rohr

Quoted in a post by canonist, Edward Peters, David Carlin, former majority leader of the Rhode Island senate, in speaking of a pro-abortion Catholic official observed:

"...while many Catholic constituents disapprove of the official's stance on abortion, they none­theless continue to cast ballots for him. In fact, he sees this voting pattern repeated regularly--not only in Rhode Island but all across America. The net result, he says, is: "The more Catholics a state has, the more likely it will send pro-choicers to Washington, and the fewer Catholics it has, the less likely."

"In the end," Carlin says, "the problem isn't Catholic politicians: It's the Catholic voters."

With local Catholics historically accounting for two-thirds of Guam's abortions, is it any wonder why we have the governor we have?

Recently I heard that a local pastor took a stand during a Sunday homily against the current governor and her veto of the Guam Heartbeat Act. 

According to the report of what the pastor said, the governor should be denied communion and anyone who sees the governor presenting herself for communion should confront the priest who administered the sacrament to her. 

I don't know if the pastor went further and let his congregation know that the real problem "isn't Catholic politicians (but) Catholic voters." It certainly would have been a good opportunity. Maybe next Sunday. And maybe more than just him. 

As a P.S. My personal thought is that over and above the governor's veto of a single bill, the governor's thirty year history of abortion advocacy, and now her public acts as governor to procure abortionists for Guam - even going so far as to get the ACLU to sue ourselves as FOIA'd documents show - is the real basis for excommunication, even if it is not likely to happen. Meanwhile, it is really up to Guam voters to "excommunicate" the pro-aborts from office - something else that is not likely to happen.

COMMENTS

By Tim Rohr

In the interest of time (mine) I have opened up the comments to "un-moderated." That means that as soon as a comment is posted it will appear on the blog. So there may be weird stuff, spam, etc. that will show up from time to time. I'll delete the spam stuff when I get around to it. But this new setting will help let comments through without my having to read every one. BTW there are over 60,000 comments on this blog. Peace. Happy New Year. 

SO MANY VIEWS FROM RUSSIA?

This a chart of views from regions of the world over the last seven days. Curious as to what would cause so many views from Russia. 

 

APURON'S REAL GHOST WRITER AND THE NEW JERSEY MACHINE

By Tim Rohr

In my initial response to Troy Torres’ editorial, “The archdiocese is a mess and needs a leader,” I noted that there were “some holes…and other missing links” in Troy’s history of what I’ll refer to as the "BJ Cruz matter" and mentioned that I might fill in the holes and missing links at some point. 

Troy responded that he was “very much looking forward to (my) next piece on this.” 

It’s actually a very small hole, but first I shall copy the following from Troy’s editorial:

“A mutual friend of Guam Public Auditor Benjamin F. Cruz, Jr. vouched for Mr. Cruz’s devotion to his Catholic faith during a tumultuous time for him. Apparently, when Mr. Cruz introduced a same-sex marriage statute and was attacked (quite ironically) by now-disgraced former Archbishop Anthony Apuron, the former legislative speaker continued going to Mass. Our friend despised how Apuron and others were treating Mr. Cruz. (Cruz)…tried convincing our friend to remain faithful despite the shortcomings of the church’s leaders. 'F***that,' this friend said of the Archdiocese of Agana. And just like that, the church lost yet another parishioner."

It appears that the "attack" referred to is an incident that occurred between certain members of the legislature, including Mr. Cruz, and select members of the clergy at a meeting at the Guam Hilton in October 2009. 

THOUGHTS ON THE SECOND DEATH OF POPE BENEDICT XVI

By Tim Rohr

Pope Benedict XVI ("B16) died yesterday, on the last day of 2022. But he also died in February 2013. 

As the National Catholic Register notes: 

"In a real sense, then, his papacy “died” with his resignation. To continue the analogy, while they normally happen at the same time, the death of a pontificate is distinct from the death of the man himself." 

B16 was only the second pope in two thousand years to resign the papacy, and the first pope in 600 years to do so. 

Why he resigned will long be debated. B16's own reason was that he was in frail health.

My thought was always "so?"

I know that sounds disrespectful, but he is Pope, i.e. "Papa" for a reason. Those of us who are fathers in the natural world don't get to resign as "father." And those that do ("deadbeat dads") are rightly questioned and usually punished.

GUAM'S SACRIFICE TO MOLOCH

By Tim Rohr

Moloch, a Canaanite deity associated
with child sacrifice

In the previous post, I made the case that Guam voters support abortion based on the fact that the person voters have now twice elected as governor is "Guam's most vociferous and powerful proponent of abortion for more than three decades."

Some have argued that it is not that Guam voters actually support abortion but that the issue just doesn't factor largely compared to voters' main interest: essentially access to more government goodies and a governor who will "take care of me."

So functionally we are willing to sacrifice unborn children in return for government benefices and the governor most likely to bestow them upon us. 

Such thinking is not new. From the dawn of time there have been "civilizations" who, in return for rain and good crops, regularly sacrificed their children to the gods. 

Substitute "governor" for gods and "quality of life" for rain and good crops, and we fit right in.

It may be true that Guam voters really don't support abortion when they vote for Lou Leon Guerrero and others like her, and that voters are just doing what most voters everywhere do: vote for the politicians who promise the most free stuff. (Note: There is also the matter that she was very weakly opposed. Something for the Republicans to think about and learn from.)

REGARDING THE FAILED OVERRIDE OF THE GOVERNOR'S VETO OF THE HEARTBEAT ACT

By Tim Rohr

Just some thoughts.

It was always known that should the Heartbeat Bill make it through the Legislature that Guam's most vociferous and powerful proponent of abortion for more than three decades and who is now the governor would veto it. And it was also known that there would never be enough votes to override the veto. 

As set forth several times previously in this blog, the Heartbeat Bill, at the time it was introduced was a good move and the best that pro-life advocates could do under Roe. The Heartbeat Bill also followed in the footsteps of eight Esperansa Project backed bills that were enacted into law, all of which incrementally combined to shut down Guam's abortion industry in 2018. 

However, the Dobbs decision overturning Roe changed all that. It is now possible to completely ban abortion and that will be the bottom line for the 37th Guam Legislature. No more beating around the bush. No more half measures. No more "I'm personally pro-life, but..." 

The Heartbeat Act, even if enacted into law, would not have banned abortion after detection of a fetal heartbeat. It simply permitted civil suits against certain persons involved in the abortion.