Saturday, April 18, 2015


The archdiocese has called a meeting of the clergy to discuss how to respond to the local call for the legalization of same-sex marriage.

May I remind the Catholic leadership that their response last time around was such an utter failure that it led to a belief that Archbishop Apuron had called for the beheading of homosexuals and a much longer fight than was necessary. 

The Catholic leadership knows exactly to what I refer. For the rest of you, just google the words "apuron homosexual muslim". 

So I am going to suggest EXACTLY what I suggested the last time around and was completely ignored - as I probably will be this time. Here it is. Ready?

SAY ONLY WHAT THE CHURCH SAYS, no more no less. 

In fact, please don't even restate it in your own words. Simply refer any inquiries about your position to the document:


The document was issued in 2003 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and ends with the following papal stamp:
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Thus, there is no higher authority and there is no reason to pretend that you can improve on it.

Now, here are some other thoughts.

It is absolutely stupid for the Church to engage in a debate on the matter. 
  • First, the Church cannot change its position because at the root of that position is not some fundamental belief about homosexual relations but a fundamental truth about the intrinsic nature of sexual relations period. 
  • Second, even if that position could be modified, local church leaders would have no authority to do so. 
  • Third, the real militants behind the current effort (not the actual couple) want to draw the Church into a fight in order to avoid the larger social, anthropological, and philosophical discussions where they would lose if the fight could ever be fair.
I have proven this time and again by constantly and consistently dismantling the view that the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia somehow provided a precedent for same sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage advocates will quote a phrase from Loving which states "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man", and then they will stop there. They stop there because 1) that quote makes their case, and 2) if they go on, the rest of the statement unmakes their case.

Here's the whole statement from Loving:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Notice "basic civil rights of man" is in quotes. When a phrase or sentence is in quotes in a  court decision it is because it is referencing a precedent case, and the precedent case is always immediately noted. The precedent case in this case is Skinner v. Oklahoma. Thus the whole section reads:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). 
We then go to Skinner v. Oklahoma and we read: 
Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
I have demonstrated this fact countless times since 2009 when the debate first broke into the open not because I oppose same-sex marriage, but because I oppose dishonesty. However, rather than engage the truth of the matter I get labeled a homophobe, a bigot, a hater, etc. 

I'm fine with that. But the local church leadership does not need to wade into these waters. There is nothing more to be said about the matter. The doctrine is not changeable and local church leaders would have no authority to change it anyway. So simply DON'T GO THERE. 

Refer inquiries on same-sex unions of any kind to the above document (have a copy ready), and general inquiries on homosexuality and homosexual relations to the relevant portions of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

Then meanwhile get back to fixing your internal problems because your moral credibility is so shot that anything you say will create an even more "arduous and painful" experience for the rest of us. 


  1. Don't know whether to laugh or cry. ( leaning toward crying). Don't forget " Edivaldo has a masters!". Besides legislators and social media have decided already. Where were you Archbishop? Golfing with Obama?

  2. AAA is not a factor anymore as his credibility is shot, and his crew of bumbling buffoons will just make matters worse. Guamanians are at the mercy of the media and politicians.

  3. No, he was not golfing with Obama. He was busy with his lawyers putting together mumbo jumbo on the front page of the U Matuna. I can't wait to go up to the Chancery and see the papers. (the ones that say who owns the Yona property. ) What's with that? Anyhow, I won't go alone. I'm scared to go near there. Just a feeling.

    1. I will try and go this week to view the papers. What have we to fear? Truth and honesty are on our side.
      Eileen Benavente-Blas

    2. All I can say is that they wouldn't have to have paid al these lawyers and seek opinions if Apuron just didn't mess around with the title, the structure, and designation- what I read is Apuron is in charge however, he has been a failure. What I also see and notice is that they are quick to say "here it is in writing" and the "proof". Yet the simple texts, statutes, and documents we all have been asking are all just relayed "verbal" and that was a good enough answer. You see NCW and Apuron- how you depend on "documents" to supposedly clean up and get truth- where is it? Speaker Tanaka has been waiting? We have been waiting? For the good o the church (like Pope Benedict did- God blesses humbleness and courage )- resign- think of the church that you are hurting.

    3. as the neo-tuna despensa si yu'os stated "the opinion concluded the following:
      so tony paid for a favorable OPINION
      I understand Rome's cannon lawyers are too occupied dealing with tony's misdeeds,
      david was not available to give an unbiased opinion
      where else can tony get an opinion without paying for one
      ??? why the need for the OPINION
      fees for filing Guam documents, cheaper than PAIN OPINION

  4. The latest Umatuna has the AAA figures which is very sad. 12k as of 4/15. It also praises and welcomes back Fr. Waddy, AND it also says that the RMS is still under control of the Archbishop and says it has proof and it can be viewed at the chancery.

  5. Can anyone believe anything the Chancery publishes?

    1. Chancery credibility has been reduced to nil, but interesting, nonetheless, if he claims that he is still in control of RMS. If that is so, he certainly (by admission) has the power to return the property to the Archdiocese - if he wants to! At least for once he can't say "I can't do anything about doing that; it is in the hands of Rome!"

  6. You mean CCA is only $12,000 is that all?

  7. The Chancery's words and tales no longer holds water. Anytime the CCOG is ready to sue this diocese's leaders, the faithful are ready to financially support CCOG. We have our monies we kept from giving to the aaa's appeal!

  8. The problem we have in our Church has not yet been resolved, and on top of that the same sex community is seeking for legal marriage. Perfect timing. Guam has a full plate to deal with. What's next. Came across an artical that the U.S.A. had given their input explaining why Guam should legalize same sex marriage. What's the reason. Why turn the attention towards Guam. Distraction? What's Satan cooking up now for the world.

    St. Michael, protect us and defend us.

    1. @10:31 pm as the saying goes in Ireland- "Tis himself'. St. Michael protect and defend us.

  9. Hey Tim what's the deal with the cheif of police getting to you with the request?

  10. Guam Archbishop Condemns Homosexuals, Relates to Suicide-Bombers
    By Cherchez La Femme - Nov 3, 2009 | 0 Comments
    Anthony Apuron is the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Agana, Guam. He went to college in New Hampshire and studied seminary in New York. Recently he made a statement that condemned homosexuality in such a way that illustrated a keen misunderstanding of the culture of marriage-for-love that has evolved out of the culture of marriage-to-procreate to which the Catholic Church clings (which, perhaps, has everything to do with the fact that preists can't marry). This is the only explanation I can come up with for Apuron's statement that, "The culture of homosexuality is a culture of self-absorption because it does not value self-sacrifice." I'm not sure what specifically homosexuality has to do with self-sacrifice or a lack thereof (I'd argue that American culture as a whole is a pretty selfish one), but I can, after eighteen years of catechismic focus on the Catholic faith, follow some sort of squiggly path back to the whole "sex is meant for baby-making," thing.
    However, Apuron quickly undercuts that line of reasoning when he says, "…any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice." Um. What? Is he actually praising suicide bombers and their devotion? Isn't suicide, like, one of the really really bad sins? I know it is. And this Archbishop, a man whose words undoubtedly reach the ears of countless under-educated yet devoted Catholics in Guam who don't understand rhetoric. A statement like the following could actually be a dangerous one:
    One, however, does not have to agree with the gruesome ways that the fundamentalists use to curb the forces that undermine their culture to admit that the Islamic fundamentalist charge that Western Civilization in general and the U.S.A, in particular is the 'Great Satan' is not without an element of truth. It makes no sense for the U. S. Government to send our boys to fight Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, while at the same time it embraces the social policies embodied in Bill 185 (as President Obama has done). Such policies only furnish further arguments for the fundamentalists in their efforts to gain more recruits for the war against the 'Great Satan.
    Bill 185 proposes a law that would allow gay couples to enter into domestic partnerships. Clearly, Apuron feels the bill should not be passed. But the way in which he expresses his disapproval is shocking (not to mention his implimentation of historically propagandist language like "our boys"). He says, without saying, that the United States is this "Great Satan," and implies that it is because the US has popularized the idea (even though same sex marriage is not a federally protected right here) that Guam is in the position to vote on this bill.
    Despite eventually removing myself from the religion I was brought up with, I've always felt that Catholic dogma embodied a certain level of wisdom and introspection. But Apuron's views exhibit a fundamental ignorance of the people who he is supposed to guide, the Catholic values on life, and the nature of romantic love and how fundamentally unselfish it must be at times.

  11. Suicide Bombers Are Better Than Gay Marriage – The ... › Religion
    Oct 27, 2009 - Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual ... On Thursday, Apuron issued a letter emphasizing that the Catholic ...


  13. April 15th, 2015 by kresta in the afternoon

    by Diane Montagna via

    VATICAN CITY — Why did Pope Francis’ controversial comments on Sunday about the “Armenian Genocide” cause such a furor in Turkey?

    To help understand the true history behind the 1915-16 atrocity, Aleteia interviewed the German historian and author, Dr. Michael Hesemann, who was in Rome for Sunday’s Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica commemorating the 100th anniversary of the genocide, otherwise known as Metz Yeghern [the Great Evil].

    Among the documents contained in your (German historian and author, Dr. Michael Hesemann) book, you include a letter written by the Superior of the Capuchins in Ezrurum, Fr. Norbert Hofer, to the Vatican in October 1915, which states: “The punishment of the Armenian nation (for alleged uprisings) is merely a pretext used by the Masonic Turkish government to exterminate all Christian elements in this country.”

    Many readers may be surprised to hear mention of the Masons in relation to the Armenian Genocide, particularly in light of the desire at the time to unite Turkey with Sunni Islam as the state religion? Can you explain how the Masons factor in to the Armenian genocide, and who are the “Young Turks” which you referred to earlier?

    Yes, of course. It would have been easy and rather populist to blame Islam for the Armenian genocide, especially as we are facing the horrible events of our own time in the very same region, with Islamic States’ massacre against Christians and Yazidis in the north of Syria and the Iraq.

    But none of the responsible politicians, neither Talaat nor Enver nor Cemal Pasha, was a fanatic Muslim. The Young Turks were anything but fundamentalists. They were a young, revolutionary movement started by Turkish academics who had studied in most cases in Paris, where they came in contact with both the ideals of Masonry and European nationalism. Many of them were accepted by Masonic lodges and indeed the lodge of Thessaloniki became a kind of national headquarters for them.

    Talaat Bey — the man responsible for the Armenocide — was even Grandmaster of the Grand Orient of the Turkish Masonry. That’s a historical fact. The ideology of the Young Turks can be described as “proto-fascism.” Only race did not play any role as the unifying element, since there is nothing like a “racially pure” Turk. Rather, it was substituted by religion, namely Sunni Islam.

    Islam was therefore instrumentalized for political reasons. It gave all those who were involved in the killings a rationale, a justification for their deeds. But behind it was the master plan of a political ideology, which misused religion for its purposes, and so sought the homogenization of the Turkish nation.

  14. Pope Francis JUST recommended to Italian president: "Vatican Radio) The orderly development of "a civil, pluralistic society requires” that the “authentic spirit of religion” not be “confined” to “personal conscience but that its significant role in the construction of society is recognized,” said Pope Francis in his remarks to the Italian president. ' Just for thought as we are in a struggle for same sex marriage. Sounds we need to hear right now.

  15. No worries. The Umatuna today gives us license to bring out the rest of the story and I will.