Monday, May 2, 2022

A GROWING SCANDAL IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON GUAM....THE CHANCERY IS DOING......?

 Posted by Frenchie.


ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!

 



THAT IS RIGHT: THE CHANCERY IS DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

 

What is this scandal we are talking about?

Well it has been front and center in the local media for the last four weeks.

We are talking about the legislature's bill #  291-36  introduced by a bipartisan  group in order to give more protection to the unborn.

 

This has led to a vociferous and vicious campaign of white lies and gross mis-characterisation, from the radical feminists advocating for infanticide under any circumstances.

Governor Lou Leon Guerrero-Cook fearing that this time her candidacy  for re-election could run into trouble with some of her base, has chosen to unleash her pitbull: Jane Flores to lead the charge against this legislation. Her daughter Dr Cook-Nugyen even wrote a letter to the editor trying to give cover to the" fly by your pants medical arguments' against the bill. Only to be schooled in an adverse column by Dr Shieh.

This has not slowed down the campaign against proposition 291-36 .

Yesterday Sunday May 1st, Jane Flores decided to go to Church in my local parish with her family, which is not her regular parish. Apparently she has had some issues with some of the parishioners there, because of her advocacy which brings SCANDAL  and created tension in said parish.

Yesterday, Jane Flores had the audacity to present herself for communion, and taking advantage of the mask, she received it in her hands. Bringing more SCANDAL around another parish. When I asked the priest after the office, why he had granted communion to the person responsible for bringing chemical abortion on the island, he seemed absolutely shocked and dismayed, that he had been lured in doing so.

This pastor and several others contacted earlier today, agree that the Chancery and the Archbishop  not taking any action on this subject has created a situation of lose, lose for all the priests,as well as parishioners being distraught by such situation. 

Here we have an individual, who advocates vociferously against the teachings of our Church, but also against the most simple and basic moral issue of infanticide, who deliberately flaunts her arrogance, and brings scandal, shame  and discord to parishes around the island. All the while putting her own soul in danger of eternal damnation for receiving the Eucharist while not in a state of Grace.

Why does the Chancery not react accordingly?

Is it because we have no chancellor? Or is it because the multi hats wearer from Detroit Fr. Richards has left us? Is it because the new Vicar General is still not up to speed with his duties?

Or is it because the Archbishop is ready to resign due to health reason?


 The Umatuna Si Yu'os 

is encouraging people to join the "Rally for life" tomorrow May 3rd.

 

The question remains, why is the Chancery doing absolutely nothing about people like Jane Flores who insist on bringing SCANDAL into the Church? 

9 comments:

  1. Yesterday, the Umatuna, posted a picture of someone wearing a t-shirt saying "Guam is Pro-Life." This is one of the worst lies Catholics tell themselves. I left the following comment:

    "Guam is not pro life. Guam is pro abortion. Guam voters voted against two of the most prolific pro life candidates (Aguon and Rodriguez) and voted for Guam’s most notorious champion of abortion for our Governor. And who, for decades, has made a fortune on church money in her bank."

    We should also be reminded that pursuant to the abortion reports since 2008, women identifying their ethnicity as "Chamorro" (and therefore most likely Catholic) comprised approximately 2/3 of the abortions procured on Guam.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for reminding us about these hard truths

    ReplyDelete
  3. Doesn't Judge Gatewood share some of the blame for this? Isn't she Catholic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well anon at 7.12 It is true that Judge Gatewood is Catholic indeed. She also swore an oath to apply the law, according to the constitution. She has to apply to this situation the guidance that Jesus himself gave us.
      "Give unto Caesar, what belongs to Caesar. Give unto God what belongs to God"

      Delete
    2. That's not true. The issue was whether the informed consent could be required to be given in person, and she ignored the Magistrate's well-researched recommendation.

      Delete
    3. You obviously do not comprehend how a judge's duty or how jurisprudence do apply in a ruling. You or I can detest the ruling, we can find the magistrate recommendation well researched, yet it does not apply to the actual jurisprudence and the ruling from the 9th circuit, which we belong to.
      On the other hand, should the SCOTUS rule otherwise, that decision and others would be muted.
      The law of the US might not fit with our moral standards, but this is why Jesus taught us to make the difference between what is of Cesar, and what is of God.
      How we do use our influence to convince Cesar to change his mind, is up to us.

      Delete
    4. The "recommendation" was actually an Opposition Brief written by the AG, and it was very well done. However, at the hearing, the judge believed that the AG did not make the case. What's really dangerous about the ruling though is that the AG made the case for the critical nature of in-person encounters in serious matters and how telephonic communications, zoom or otherwise, cannot replace the gravity of an in person consultation. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court recently noted that the Courts will be using Zoom even after the pandemic is over. This is a very bad thing. Our whole system of justice depends on two opposing parties being able to engage each other, person to person, in the flesh.

      Delete
    5. I just remembered that yes, there was a magistrate's opinion, and yes it was well done. But it was still up to the AG to argue the case at the final hearing. He did well (James Canto), but the judge believed he didn't convince. But besides that, being Catholic has nothing to do with being for or against abortion anymore. Most Catholics support abortion. Look at the president.

      Delete
    6. I just remembered that yes, there was a magistrate's opinion, and yes it was well done. But it was still up to the AG to argue the case at the final hearing. He did well (James Canto), but the judge believed he didn't convince. But besides that, being Catholic has nothing to do with being for or against abortion anymore. Most Catholics support abortion. Look at the president.

      Delete