THE PRINCES OF THE CHURCH...AND WHY THE NEXT BISHOP OF GUAM MATTERS

By Tim Rohr

Given that the neocats, specifically Atienza et. al, have finally succeeded in getting rid of Archbishop Byrnes, we can expect a huge fight over the bishop's chair of little ol' Guam.

Why such a huge fight over a diocese that hardly holds the population of small Los Angeles suburb?

And why has the fight already gone all the way to Rome and will go to Rome once again?

Here's my answer.

It's not that Guam means anything to anyone in Rome or even the neocat hierarchy. The story that Guam was going to be the neocat launchpad into China was all a fiction and if the neocats want into China, they have much better places to launch from. 

No. The real reason why Guam is so important to the neocats, and specifically who the next bishop will be, is because of what happened to Guam's neocat Redemptoris Mater Seminary ("RMS").

The neocats have a bunch of RMS's around the world, and these priest-factories are their key to the highest halls of power throughout the Catholic World. 

The reason is this. 

Bishops who produce the most new priests are fast tracked to the cardinaliate. And it's the cardinals who call the shots at the top of the church, including who will be the next pope. That's why they're called "the princes of the church." And most of these dudes live in a palatial splendor that would embarrass real princes. 

The founders of the NCW can be credited with being masterminds for figuring out that the quickest and surest way to control the Church, would be to control the Cardinals, and the way to control the Cardinals would be put the Cardinals in their debt by helping them go from purple hats (bishops) to red hats (Cardinals) by manufacturing priests in their dioceses in greater and greater numbers.

As many of us heard first hand from several of the neocat seminarians and priests here in Guam, the neocat recruits usually were products of messed up lives, and many were off the streets of third-world countries or at least third-world circumstances.

This is why we see so many of these "recruits" coming from underprivileged countries and NOT going back after ordination, but living a much more comfortable first-world life in the United States and Europe. It's not uncommon for the priesthood to be used this way. In the U.S. it's called an R-1 visa.

Okay. So back to Guam.

The Redemptoris Mater Seminary system, as just shared, is the main artery of the NCW power structure. And the RMS in Guam is the only RMS in the whole world to have been shut down - and by a bishop. 

And not just shut down, but fully and dramatically exposed as a thorough and complete SHAM that not only did not provide a true priestly formation, but bilked the good people of Guam for millions and millions of dollars in the belief that RMS was "A Miracle for Guam" as the neocat shisters proposed their seminary to be:

Moreover, RMS - as The Bronze Opinion would demonstrate - was a functional "land grab" of what was the archdiocese's most valuable asset - at the time, estimated to be - by Apuron's own legal counsel - worth 75 Million Dollars. The whole mess was thoroughly outed in THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE FIASCO and THE ULTIMATE TREACHERY. 

Archbishop Byrnes had no intention of closing RMS at first. (Perhaps he had his arm severely twisted on his way to Guam). However, the exposition of facts, thanks to tens of thousands of dollars spent by the Concerned Catholics of Guam to legally expose the title mess, mounting evidence that RMS was a sham seminary, and compounded by the daily drumbeat of ever more clergy sex abuse allegations, left Byrnes no option. So he closed it.

And since then, the neocats had been out for his head. 

Byrnes' shut down of the Guam RMS was the first tear in the RMS artery and the neocats knew that it could lead to severe bleeding of evermore RMS's around the world by bishops who have similar misgivings about what is really going on there, functionally crippling the neocats priest-production system and undermining their cardinal-making power.

So to fix the problem, Byrnes had to be 1) run out of town; 2) replaced with a neocat bishop - or a boot licker - who would then decry Byrnes' "mistake," and 3) resurrect RMS. 

They have accomplished step 1. We await to see if they will do the next two. 

As a P.S. Readers may recall that there was a "mystery" group which was first given the go ahead to purchase the former RMS property after the archdiocese declared bankruptcy. They even put down a large deposit. But when it came time to coming up with the balance, they disappeared. The property was eventually purchased by a developer and turned into apartments. Meanwhile, there are now many other church properties on the chopping block. We should keep an eye on who is buying them. 

And a P.P.S. There are some who wonder why I personally care so much about this and why I invest so much time and care in keeping this ugly thing in the public's face. Answer: Byrnes wasn't the only guy they wanted to run out of town. 

ATIENZA HAS TO BE TOLD AGAIN...AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN. SO STOP THE MONEY.

By Tim Rohr

Today, March 28, 2023, the Vatican announced that Archbishop Byrnes has resigned as Archbishop of Agana and Fr. Romeo Convocar has been appointed Apostolic Administrator until a new archbishop is appointed. 

The Vatican announcement did not give a reason but the media reports "medical reasons." For those of us closer to the situation, we know that the Archbishop's demise was related to reasons of mental health. 

Byrnes' resignation, and his reasons, was anticipated in this post from December 2022: AND SO THEY CRUSHED HIM

And "they" will crush the next bishop too if he is not either a neocat or a boot licker. This is what they do. 

As evidence, I present the following. 

Just yesterday (the timing is interesting given that Convocar knew of Byrnes' resignation), Fr. Convocar, now the Apostolic Administrator, issued a MEMORANDUM to all clergy clarifying that Archbishop Byrnes' 2017 MORATORIUM prohibiting the NCW from establishing new communities is still in force. 

At the end of his MEMORANDUM, Fr. Convocar writes:

"I thank Dr. David Atienza and his wife Maruxa, the Itinerant Catechists of the Neocatechumenal for meeting with me…We all agreed that it was important that all part of the Church - the Body of Christ - work together to shine the Truth and Love of God in this broken world."

This is a joke. 

Atienza and his wife have no more intention of obeying Fr. Convocar than they did Archbishop Byrnes, and they never will. 

More than FOUR YEARS after Archbishop Byrnes issued his March 15, 2015 letter establishing the aforesaid moratorium in the strictest terms, the same Archbishop Byrnes, via Fr. Ronald Richards, was forced to issue another letter, dated August 18, 2021, to the same Mr. Atienza noting that Atienza had ignored the moratorium, had continued to establish new communities, and had to be told, by Byrnes, to "cease this process immediately."

FOUR YEARS LATER!

Now, two more years after that last letter, Atienza has to be told again...yesterday.

Soon after Byrnes' arrival on Guam, I and others - who were the reason Byrnes was here in the first place, met with Byrnes and defined very clearly who the neocats were. I'm not speaking of the rank and file members, but specifically of the neocat leadership, Atienza et. al. 

We told Byrnes that they would faun all over him with faux respect but that behind his back they would laugh at him, disrespect him, ignore him, disobey him, and otherwise drive him crazy while they continued to do whatever they wanted - which is exactly what they did.

We also told him that the reason for this is the NCW has its own hierarchy, and that he - Archbishop Byrnes - was not "their bishop," and "their bishop" would always be Apuron. 

Further, we told him that the NCW was is in fact a parallel church, but even worse, a church masquerading in the deepest heart of the true Church, and that they had heavy hitters in the Vatican who would crush anyone who got in their way - including him (Byrnes).

Despite our dire warnings, Byrnes, nevertheless, wanted to make peace, so we are not surprised at what has happened. True, Byrnes closed the seminary, but that had more to do with finances and illegal land titles than what the neocats were actually doing there. 

Given the reluctance of our church leadership to do anything other than write letters, the only response left us who are tired of this is to once again "stop the money." 

If your parish supports, hosts, provides for a neocat community, then write your pastor a letter as to why you are withholding your donations. A pastor has a lot of control over what happens in his parish, and that includes hosting neocats.

It's sad, but it is the only thing our church leadership appears to hear. 

BYRNES STEPS DOWN

Guam Archbishop Michael J. Byrnes steps down for medical reasons

Pope Francis on Tuesday accepted the resignation of Archbishop Michael J. Byrnes of Agaña, Guam.

Byrnes, 64, has led the Catholic Church on the U.S. island territory since the 2019 conviction of its former Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron for the sexual abuse of minors.

CONTINUED

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2023/03/28/230328a.html

NOT A GOOD START FOR OUR NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL - MAYBE

By Tim Rohr

On Friday (March 24), the District Court of Guam issued ORDER denying the Attorney General's motion to lift the injunction on P.L. 20-134, a 1990 law banning most abortions in Guam. 

The reason for the DENIAL was that Defendant AG failed to refute Plaintiffs' argument that "the [public law] was a legal nullity the moment it was passed and can have no force or effect today.”

While Defendant AG argues that the legal basis for the permanent injunction no longer exists, Defendant AG failed to address whether the change in law in Dobbs warrants vacatur of the permanent injunction in its entirety. As Plaintiffs have argued, “irrespective of Dobbs or any other Supreme Court decision concerning abortion issued after [Guam Public Law 20-134] was enacted, the [public law] was a legal nullity the moment it was passed and can have no force or effect today.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 20, ECF No. 391. Defendant AG has not refuted this argument, and after having reviewed the relevant statutes and the legal authority provided by Plaintiffs in their opposition, to which Defendant AG did not respond, the court finds that Defendant AG has not met his burden under Rule 60(b)(5). (Emphases added)

If the Court's account of things is correct, then this is not a good start for our newly elected AG.

It's a little late now, but - in my limited lay view - the AG should have argued that P.L. 20-134 was NOT a "legal nullity" on grounds that it was in fact one of the nation's first constitutional challenges to Roe under Webster. In fact, this was precisely why the late-Senator Elizabeth Arriola introduced her bill:

Senator Arriola said that banning abortion had been the main goal of her political career and that she drafted a bill as soon as the Supreme Court opened the way for new restrictions. - The New York Times, March 16, 1990. 

In fact, P.L. 20-134 ("the law") made huge national news because it was one of the nation's first challenges to Roe, even preceding the landmark case in Casey (1992). And, as a challenge to Roe, it worked its way all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court (where the challenge ended when the Court declined to hear it). 

The challenge under Webster is set out as follows in Guam Society of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 962 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1992):

Guam contends that Roe has no force after Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 109 S.Ct. 3040, 106 L.Ed.2d 410 (1989). Putting Webster together with non-majority opinions in other cases, Guam contends that the classification of competing interests has changed. Guam relies particularly upon Justice O'Connor's dissents in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. at 814, 106 S.Ct. at 2206, and Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416, 452, 103 S.Ct. 2481, 2504, 76 L.Ed.2d 687 (1983). According to Guam, five Justices of the Supreme Court now recognize the state's compelling interest in potential human life throughout pregnancy, and no longer adhere to the Roe analysis. In Webster, a three-Justice plurality stated that it did "not see why the State's interest in protecting potential human life should come into existence only at the point of viability." Webster, 492 U.S. at 519, 109 S.Ct. at 3057. It also characterized the woman's interest as a "liberty interest," as distinguished from a "fundamental right." Id. at 520, 109 S.Ct. at 3058. Guam would put these statements together with Justice Scalia's view that Roe should be overruled. Id. at 532, 109 S.Ct. at 3064. It would then add Justice O'Connor's view that regulations that do not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's right to seek an abortion are sustainable if rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. Id. at 529-30, 109 S.Ct. at 3062-63; Thornburgh, 476 U.S. at 828, 106 S.Ct. at 2214.6 Finally, it would include Justice O'Connor's position elsewhere expressed that the state's compelling interest exists throughout pregnancy. See Akron, 462 U.S. at 459, 103 S.Ct. at 2507; Thornburgh, 476 U.S. at 828, 106 S.Ct. at 2214. From this mix, Guam derives the conclusion that its interest in fetal life can overcome the woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion, and that Guam's Act is therefore not unconstitutional on its face. (Link) (emphases added)

Guam would lose it's appeal at the 9th Circuit and would be later denied a final appeal by the Supreme Court, but the above facts demonstrate that the law was NOT a "legal nullity" at the time of its enactment, but was in fact an intended constitutional challenge to Roe, and moreover, that the Guam Legislature was fully within its authority to engage and pass the legislation that led to the law and the resultant constitutional challenge.

Meanwhile, the law was more than just a challenge to Roe, it was a challenge by "little Guam" for sovereignty - a real David and Goliath moment - something the Bevacqua's of Guam should be shouting in praise of (but aren't):

In 1990, Guam became embroiled in one of the most divisive social policy debates in its forty-year history as a U.S. territory when a Chamorro woman senator introduce a bill virtually banning abortion. This legislation was passed unanimously be a twenty-one-member legislature with seven women senators. The local activism this controversial bill catalyzed, its enactment, and the immediate challenge to its constitutionality catapulted Guam in the U.S. nation media as a frontrunner in the race to overturn Roe v Wade… 

At the time there was a complex interaction over abortion among activists, interest groups, legislatures, governors, and courts being played out in several states. The was sparked by the July 1989 Supreme Court ruling in Webster v Reproductive Health Services, which opened the door for states to test the limits of how far they could in restriction access to abortion…

While this law, like others in the race to overturn Roe, was a local response to national policy development, it was embedded in growing local frustration over the impasse with the U.S. Congress to act on Guam’s proposal to change its political status. The signing of this bill and the appeal of the lower court’s decision all the way to the Supreme Court provided a high-profile opportunity of Guam’s governor to link his personal moral justification for the ban on abortion with a broader political case. (emphases added)

- Asian/Pacific Islands American Women: A Historical Anthology, Chamorro Women, Self-Determination and the Politics of Abortion in Guam, Vivian Loyola Dames, Pg 366 (Link to Google Book)

All of the above is not only an "easy search," it was also huge news at the time and certainly within the memory of the AG. We are waiting to hear what's next.

HIGH DRAMA IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA - PART 11: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM & CONCLUSION

By Tim Rohr

CONTINUED FROM PART 10

To review. On May 17, 2016, Roy Quintanilla publicly accused Apuron of sexually molesting him. About ten days later, and before another accuser would come forward, Sen. Frank Blas, Jr. introduced Bill 326-33. The original bill sought to lift the civil statute of limitations on sex abuse of minors but only held persons liable and not institutions. 

There was probably a very good chance that Bill 326 would have passed with only personal liability because it was quite clear that Apuron's accusers, of which there would be four by mid-June 2016, first only wanted to confront Apuron privately, and failing that, sought only a legal path to hold Apuron accountable. 

Legislation cannot be aimed at a person specifically and Blas' bill did not name Apuron, but there was no doubt at the time about the aim of the bill and the intention of Apuron's accusers.

Also, by mid-June 2016, Apuron was threatening to sue his accusers. And if nothing else, they needed legal recourse should Apuron carry through on his threats.

Archdiocese plans to sue for 'malicious lies'

None of the initial accusers were asking for or were interested in money. Initially they just wanted to confront Apuron privately, share the wounds they had carried for decades, and maybe get an apology. And if no apology, at least the opportunity to confront the man who had tormented their memories for so long.

After the first accuser, Roy Quintanilla, came forward, it was immediately clear from the media coming from the chancery that not only would there be no private meeting with Apuron let alone an apology, but that Apuron intended to attack. 

Apuron's video response (and other videos coming from the chancery) the night of Roy's accusation created a public uproar and may well have been the motivation behind Blas' decision to introduce Bill 326-33.

Fast-forward to today when the Archdiocese of Agana is in bankruptcy and is being forced to sell or forfeit over 80 church properties, the real issue is how Blas' bill went from a bill only holding persons liable to a bill also holding institutions liable - which is what opened the door to bankrupting the Archdiocese, and which was never the intent of Apuron's accusers nor the Concerned Catholics of Guam nor any of many lay people who wanted to see justice for Apuron's victims. 

What happened is pretty much summed up in Bob Klitzkie's statement to the Pacific News Center after a public hearing on the amended version of Bill 326 which included institutional liability:

“This is what I thought would’ve been appropriate. Let’s go ahead and sue the abusers with their own personal money or whatever … but not the institution. And this is what I thought we could do,” says Klitzkie.  “The hierarchy and processes of the church would be sufficient to clean up the church so that child sexual abuse would become no more than a bad memory–so I thought. I was wrong.”

In other words, Klitzkie and most everyone else believed all we really needed was a law to hold persons liable for sex abuse of minors, and such a law "would be sufficient to clean up the church." So what went wrong?

It started on June 9, 2016, when newly-appointed Apostolic Administrator, Archbishop Savio Hon Tai-Fai ("Hon") addressed the archdiocese at St. Anthony's Church in Tamuning. 

Hon failed to mention - even once - the crisis that brought him to Guam in the first place: the accusations against Apuron. Instead Hon's only message was that he was here (in Guam) "to restore unity and stability." 

For those of us who had gone before Hon's Inquisition in January 2015 - when he came to Guam as an "Apostolic Visitator" (an investigator), Hon's failure to mention the accusations against Apuron and his "restore unity" rhetoric reinforced what we saw in January 2015: that Hon was here to put down the rebellion. 

Given that Hon was Secretary to Cardinal Filoni and that Filoni was in cahoots with the Kiko's, it was even clearer that Hon was here to protect the Neocatechumenal Way generally and the Redemptoris Mater specifically. 

Note: Cardinal Filoni was then-Prefect for the (Vatican) Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, but more importantly, had been long since nicknamed "The Red Pope" because of the power he wielded in the Vatican as a Cardinal (thus "Red") which was thought to be equal to or even greater than Pope Francis. Perhaps this is why Francis got rid of him after the Apuron affair blew up and "exiled" Filoni to a position with a nice title but with no power in Rome. (I'll have more to say about this in a future post.)

It was later learned that Hon had gone off script at his June 9 address. Hon was supposed to address the accusations against Apuron but he chose not to. The omission was glaring, a real elephant in the room. 

Within days, "the rebellion," began pressuring the legislature to amend Bill 326 to include institutional liability to send a loud message to Hon, Filoni, and all the way to the Pope, that we meant business. 

As the amended bill was being readied for a public hearing, Hon announced that he had sent all the relevant documents related to the accusations against Apuron to the Vatican. 

Given the timing, just one day before the first of three public hearings on the amended Bill 326, it appeared that Hon was only now sending those documents - almost a month after he had arrived - in response to growing outrage to Hon's refusal to address the real crisis. 

David Sablan, president of Concerned Catholics of Guam, expressed this mounting frustration with Hon in a comment to the Pacific Daily News:

“That doesn’t tell us anything. OK, so he says that documents have been sent to Rome. So what? Walter Denton’s documents have been sent to Rome since August,” said Sablan. “It’s the same thing we’ve heard from Apuron, Father Quitugua and Father Adrian. We want transparency? Who is handling it? What issues can we expect? Where is Archbishop Apuron? The faithful need to have information. We don’t want more of the same things we’ve been getting, ever since we started bringing up these issues.”

Had Hon, on June 9, 2016, simply said that he was aware of the accusations against Apuron and that he intended to assist in a proper investigation, Bill 326 would have probably not only not been amended to include institutional liability but may never have passed even in its original form. 

The Catholic laity of Guam would have believed Hon and would have trusted that the matter was in good hands. At that point, interest, or at least public passion for, a legal remedy might have gone away because as Mr. Klitzkie said:

“The hierarchy and processes of the church would be sufficient to clean up the church so that child sexual abuse would become no more than a bad memory–so I thought."

But Hon was not here to get to the bottom of anything. He was here - on orders from his boss, Filoni, to put down the rebellion, protect Apuron, the Neocatechumenal Way, and the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. 

As already demonstrated in Part 9, Filoni's control of our archdiocese and everything we speculated about relative to Hon was exposed in September 2016 when the then-rector of the seminary, Msgr. David C. Quitugua, wrote to then-vicar general, Fr. Jeff San Nicolas:

This is to inform you that His Eminence, Fernando Cardinal Filoni, Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, has been made aware of the pre announced  “visit" of the Laity Forward Movement to the Seminary. Cardinal Filoni’s instruction is that no such “visit” can be made to the Seminary…

Given that so many years have now passed since these events, and given the sad state of affairs the archdiocese now finds itself in, it's easy to forget how all of this came about and just blame the most obvious figures: Apuron's initial accusers, the Concerned Catholics of Guam, the picketers, myself, this blog, etc. 

But given the facts, there is no question who and what brought the Archdiocese of Agana down. And given Kiko's right hand man, Giussepe Gennarini's recent presence in Guam, one has to wonder if the Kiko's aren't circling the remains of the Archdiocese of Agana and organizing to scoop up former church properties. 

BITTER PILL

Thanks Chuck for the link.

BITTER PILL, by Timothy Reichert, May 2010

"...the contraceptive revolution has resulted in a massive redistribution of wealth and power from women and children to men."

SEN. BARNES AND SYSTEMIC RICE-ISM - AND WHY THE GOVERNOR'S QUESTION IS STUPID

By Tim Rohr

That abortion (and contraception) has liberated men and not women, should be a no-brainer for anyone with brains (and normal hormone levels). 

However, pursuant to the contemporary persistent penchant for the narrative over the truth - or as Tall Tales host, Bob Klitzkie, terms it, "systemic rice-ism' (aka "the rice is red") * -  this ugly fact gets little play outside moral arguments. 

Note: Bob explains this at the beginning of nearly every show. 

So it is instructive, helpful, edifying...whatever, to see this glaring fact - that abortion (and contraception) has liberated men and not women - laid out in mathematical models in an economics paper titled: 

AN ANALYSIS OF OUT-OF-WEDLOCK CHILDBEARING IN THE UNITED STATES

The paper was authored in 1996 and published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics and can be read in full here. 

Copied here is the Abstract:

This paper relates the erosion of the custom of shotgun marriage to the legalization of abortion and the increased availability of contraception to unmarried women in the United States. The decline in shotgun marriage accounts for a significant fraction of the increase in out-of-wedlock first births. Several models illustrate the analogy between women who do not adopt either birth control or abortion and the hand-loom weavers, both victims of changing technology. Mechanisms causing female immiseration are modeled and historically described. This technology-shock hypothesis is an alternative to welfare and job-shortage theories of the feminization of poverty. - SOURCE

My own Abstract would be this:

Prior to the "constitutional right" to both contraception and abortion - contraception in Griswold (1968) and abortion in Roe (1973), there was social pressure on men to assume responsibility for the children they fathered. 

However, post Griswold and Roe, men were liberated to say:

"Hey, not my problem. She had The Pill. And if she doesn't want the kid, she can abort it. Screw you. Leave me alone."

And the father would be right. 

The U.S. Supreme Court in Casey specifically denied a father's rights relative the mother's decision to abort. In fact, Casey held that the husband (father) did not even have a right to be told:

“Section 3209's husband notification provision constitutes an undue burden, and is therefore invalid” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 837 (1992)

 In short, Casey said "screw you" to the father. So, in effect, Casey functionally permitted the father to say "screw you" to the mother.

In the last legislature, Senator Tina Barnes introduced the “Pregnancy Support Act of 2022.” 

It appears that the bill didn't go anywhere - and just as well - since it was nothing more than "virtue signaling" anyway. But had it found its way into Guam law, then - because Barnes' bill was pre-Dobbs - it could have set the stage for a constitutional challenge under Casey. 

Once again, Casey held that fathers did not even have the right to know of the mother's decision to abort "their" unborn child. However, Barnes' bill required the father to financially support the same unborn child - regardless of the mother's intent to keep or kill the child. 

It logically follows that if a father can be legally required to financially support his unborn child then the same father could certainly require that the mother bring the child to term, birth the baby, and not kill it - thus creating an "undue burden" pursuant to Casey.

At the time Barnes introduced her bill (pre Dobbs) the bill could have been found unconstitutional pursuant to the "undue burden" standard.

It all becomes very interesting when we review the governor's second question to the Supreme Court of Guam:

Whether the Organic Act of Guam, as it existed in 1990, authorized the Guam Legislature to pass an unconstitutional law. 

Did Barnes violate the Organic Act when she introduced legislation that created an unconstitutional undue burden on a pregnant mother?

The bottom line in this whole fiasco - and why the governor's question is stupid - is: 

It is NOT for the legislature to determine constitutionality of anything. Its job is to enact legislation - come what may. 

It's the job of the courts to determine such stuff as lawfulness and constitutionality, and that's if, and ONLY if, the matter is properly brought before the courts via adversarial parties through the court's front door - and NOT through the backdoor via Guam's absurd 7 GCA § 4104.

*****

Copying below some excerpts from the aforesaid 1996 report in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. (Emphases added)

• Rising out-of-wedlock birthrates are of social policy concern because children reared in single-parent households are more likely to be impoverished and to experience difficulties in later life. 

• A substantial literature documents that single parenthood results in a variety of adverse consequences for children (see, for example, Manski, Sandefur, McLanahan, and Powers [1992]).

• ....in the case of female contraception and abortion, men may have been beneficiaries.

• The first task of this paper is to illustrate, through two theoretical models, how analogous mechanisms could operate with respect to increased availability of abortion and female contraception for women. These models will show how the legalization of abortion and the availability of female contraception could result in a decline in the competitive position of women relative to men-especially if they do not use contraception or abortion.

• ...a decline in the cost of abortion (or increased availability of contraception) decreases the incentives to obtain a promise of marriage if premarital sexual activity results in pregnancy.

• Those women who want children, who do not want an abortion for moral or religious reasons, or who are unreliable in their use of contraception, may want marriage guarantees but find themselves pressured to participate in premarital sexual relations without any such assurance.

• Sexual activity without commitment is increasingly expected in premarital relationships, immiserizing at least some women, since their male partners do not have to assume parental responsibility in order to engage in sexual relations.

• The sexual revolution, by making the birth of the child a physical choice of the mother, makes marriage and child support a social choice of the father. 

• "Since the decision to have the child is solely up to the mother (see Roe v. Wade) I don't see how both parents have responsibility to that child.... When one person has the decision-making power, they alone have the responsibility to provide and care for that decision."

• This paper offers theoretical reasons why the technological shock of abortion and female contraception may have played a major role in the rise of out-of-wedlock childbearing. 

• The fraction of children born out of wedlock increased at an accelerated pace beginning in the middle 1960s, for both whites and blacks. This trend has continued almost to the present time. 

• The fraction of women retrospectively reporting having had sexual intercourse prior to age sixteen-jumped in precisely 1970...

• When the cost of abortion is low, or contraceptives are readily available, potential male partners can easily obtain sexual satisfaction without making such promises and will thus be reluctant to commit to marriage. 

• Thus, women who, in the absence of contraception and abortion, would not engage in premarital sexual activity without assurance of marriage will feel pressured to participate in uncommitted relationships once contraception and abortion become available.

DAVE SABLAN: VACATE INJUNCTION

 Letter to the editor (Guam Daily Post)

Vacate injunction on Belle Arriola law

By David J. Sablan

In reviewing the three questions the governor wants answered by the Supreme Court of Guam to counter the attorney general’s motion in the U.S. District Court of Guam to vacate the injunction on P.L. 20-134 – the Belle Arriola law that prohibits abortion on Guam from inception, i.e., fertilization of the mother’s ovum in her womb forming a zygote, the start of a human being – God willing, I believe the answers to be quite simple.

CONTINUED

SEWER BABIES

At about 1:42:54 on this past Monday's Tall Tales, Bob begins talking about how the end "product" of do-it-yourself medical abortions is a tiny human child who is flushed down a toilet with the rest of the mother's waste. 

Co-host, Jose, then commented about how there are now all sorts of restrictions and warnings against depositing grease and oils and other materials harmful to our sewers, but apparently not dead unborn infants. 

Jose's comment brought to mind an incident when a GWA employee happened to identify a human fetus floating amongst the other sewage at a Dededo water plant:

Autopsy set for fetus found at water plant  -KUAM, May 12, 2010

I further addressed the morbid matter in a couple of blog posts which were published in the Umatuna, the newspaper for the Archdiocese of Agana:

SEWER BABY OFFERS PRO-LIFE OPPORTUNITIES

WHAT TO DO WITH THE SEWER BABY

THE ORCS OF ADELUP

By Tim Rohr

Beginning at about 1:27:58 into this past Monday's Tall Tales, the show's host, Bob Klitzkie, takes a call from Senator Chris Duenas relative to what Bob characterizes as a "judicial free-for-all:" 

BOB: "...the Supreme Court is saying for this so-called Declaratory Judgment anybody who wants to can file an amicus brief without going through the process of asking for leave. So they’re turning a horrible judicial procedure - you wouldn’t think they could make it any worse - but they’re turning it into a judicial free-for-all because anyone of your constituents who can put together something that says Amicus Brief on the top and pony up the filing fee can probably go over and file it at the Supreme Court." 

Duenas concurred: 

"...if you look at the April 14th date it’s like general public - so how does general public even know how to prepare a matter to bring before the court in terms of praying on the court for the purpose and especially since really the question is not necessarily about pro or con on the issue it’s about a matter of law. "

Bob then cuts to the chase:

"Now Chris. Stop and step back for a minute and consider - as you say - that anybody can file on the 14th of April. Which side of the game do you think this favors?" 

Duenas responds:

"I mean absolutely. You could see the pile on already." 

What both Bob and Sen. Duenas are referring to is that the governor and her ACLU Orcs are already aggressively positioned to flood the Supreme Court with "template" briefs while the so-called pro-lifers have no leadership or direction even minutely comparable to what the governor and the ACLU is providing to their death-in-the-womb clones.

This, of course, is an indictment of why well-intentioned pro-life efforts, for decades, have failed, and will fail now. Pro-lifers traditionally rely on religious and emotional pleas - stuff legislatures and courts have no room for. 

Note: The Esperansa Project purposely divorced itself from church-based groups and religious and emotional arguments, which is why it was successful in reining in what was, in 2008, the most un-regulated abortion industry in the nation: Guam's. Beginning in 2008, Esperansa saw to the introduction of several pro-life bills, eight of which became law, and three of which the governor is aiming at in her action before the Supreme Court of Guam.

Meanwhile, allow me to demonstrate what Bob means when he asks Duenas "which side of the game do you think this favors?"

Upon the announcement that the Supreme Court of Guam is "asking for interested members of the community to weigh in on whether Guam’s 1990 abortion ban should stand," the Pacific Daily News ran an article which included what appeared to be a helpful note for the average "members of the community:"

"Interested parties can file a so-called “amicus brief” as an adviser to the case. For more information on how to submit a brief, contact the Clerk of the Supreme Court at justice@guamsupremecourt.com."

Pursuant to this very nice advice, I sent the following email:

The Court responded as follows. 

Notice that the Court did not provide any details on HOW to file - which was my direct question - only WHERE to file. Anyone who has ever dealt with the courts will know that HOW to file - i.e. the proper format - means all the difference between whether your "filing" will be thrown in the trash or counted. 

A few minutes later, the Court apparently had second thoughts about it's SPARSE response and sent me this:

However, this was even more insulting in a way. 

What lay person - who has no idea of how to communicate with the Supreme Court of Guam - would even know where to find "RULE 14?" 

Incredibly, but commensurate with Bob's cryptic question ("who do you think this favors?") the Supreme Court of Guam did NOT even provide a link or an attachment to said "RULE 14." 

But you can bet the governor and the ACLU know Rule 14, and have already crafted their template letters for their hordes. 

Having spent the last five years learning how to navigate the judicial system due to a personal matter, I at least knew what to google. Following is my filed Amicus Brief. Perhaps it can be used as a template even if you're not an Orc.

Note: It appears I forgot the "jurat," though I don't know if it's required. But just in case, go ahead and add "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief" before the "RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED..." and then your name. 

PDF here

GUAM: "THE WORLD'S LEADER ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS REFORM"

“In 2016, Guam became the world’s leader on SOL reform when it simply erased child sex abuse SOLs backwards and forwards. The result is that nearly 50 Guam survivors have come forward so far and the dangers to children hidden from plain sight are coming into focus. Bishop Apuron and Fr. Brouillard have been sued by many. Even a woman has come forward, defying the false assumption that the abuse by priests is limited to boys.”

FULL ARTICLE

My Note: When then-Governor Eddie Calvo signed Bill 326-33 into law, his accompanying comments clearly indicate that he expected the law to be constitutionally challenged. 

"I recognize Bill 326 has several legal and technical concerns. A major concern is over the bill's retroactive application of the civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse cases. Whether such retrospect will pass constitutional muster is unclear...Despite these questions, today I will err on the side of the aggrieved. If am wrong, then the courts will tell me so. Or perhaps the Legislature will craft new legislation in order to clarify these issues."

The challenge never came. 

Prior to Calvo's signing, there was a concerted effort by the archdiocese to convince Calvo to veto the bill. The effort came at the instigation of certain very competent lawyers. After Calvo signed the bill, I found it curious that the same "competent lawyers" did not mount a constitutional challenge to the bill in behalf of the Archdiocese.

Later, as the Archdiocese was preparing to succumb to bankruptcy, I (and others) again wondered why there was no challenge to the retroactive component to the legislation given the "several legal and technical concerns" the governor had already expressed upon signing. There seemed to be an open door.

But the people "on the Hill" remained silent. 

My guess is that the Archdiocese was in such turmoil at the time - Apuron going AWOL, Hon's fumbling, the insertion of a completely unprepared Byrnes into the hottest spot on the Catholic globe, and the almost daily drumbeat of new clergy sex abuse allegations - that Archbishop Byrnes simply folded.

But did Byrnes fold on his own or was he told to? Recall that Byrnes himself told us that he answered to Cardinal Filoni:

“Byrnes added that Filoni, as the prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, is something like his superior and that he reports to Filoni.”- Guam Daily Post, Feb. 16, 2017

And while Filoni has since been removed as prefect, he wasn't removed until December 2019. The Archdiocese filed for bankruptcy in January 2019. 

Filoni was replaced as prefect by Cardinal Tagle, Archbishop of Manila, a prelate known to be friendly to Guam. Does Byrnes - or whoever is running this place - now answer to Cardinal Tagle? 

I don't think so. And the reason is this. There is no "chain of command" above a bishop. He doesn't work for a Vatican bureaucrat, not even the pope, and is only answerable - and only to the pope - in very narrow ways, usually in matters that only concern church teaching relative to faith and morals. 

This is what sounded "so wrong" when Byrnes told us he "reports to Filoni." We knew that the Kiko's were running Filoni - at least in Guam. Filoni is gone. Byrnes is pretty much gone. But Kiko isn't. And Gennarini - surprise - is suddenly here. 

HIGH DRAMA IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA - PART 10: DIES IRAE DIES ILLA

By Tim Rohr

CONTINUED FROM PART 9

[REMINDER: The objective of this series is to demonstrate who was and still is behind the bankruptcy of the Archdiocese of Agana and all that it is now costing us.]

But now back to Hon and how his orders from Kiko-Filoni led to the bankruptcy of the Archdiocese of Agana.

Publicly, Archbishop Hon was very careful to always make it appear as if he was earnestly working towards "reconciliation and healing." In fact, he was. Hon very much hoped to resolve the conflicts peacefully. And who wouldn't? In fact, this is what Apuron's accusers also wanted to do. 

But Apuron, even after fleeing to Rome, continued to stoke the flames that would lead to the bankruptcy of the Archdiocese of Agana by insisting on his innocence and making it appear that the appointment of Hon was "his idea:"

Meanwhile, there were just too many questions that Hon failed to answer. His smiling demeanor at every public appearance and his calls for "healing and reconciliation," did not sit well with the stirred-up laity of the Archdiocese of Agana, PARTICULARLY because it was quite clear that Hon was Filoni's lieutenant and Filoni answered to Kiko. 

Really complex for those who have not followed the intricacies of this terrible story for all these many years, but in summary: HON'S SMILE WAS NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

It's difficult to crucify Hon on Kiko's ready-made cross. 

Hon was a Vatican bureaucrat just doing his job in a place he'd rather not be. In fact, inside intel at the time reported to us that Hon could be heard screaming (in Italian) into the phone on several occasions. 

It can be easily assumed that Hon was talking - or rather screaming at - Filoni. The fact is that - and Apuron's Vatican trial would bear this out - never, and I mean NEVER, in the history of the modern Roman Catholic Church, had anything like what happened in Guam ever happened before. 

But meanwhile, GUAM'S LAITY - or at least a very adamant few - WOULD NOT GO AWAY.

CONTINUED ON PART 10

DEAR GIUSEPPI. HEARD YOU WERE IN TOWN. WELCOME BACK

 

KUAM NEWS Apr 21, 2016

Members of Concerned Catholics of Guam and the Laity Forward Movement angrily greeted Guiseppi Gennarini and his wife as they arrived at the Guam International Airport just after 10:30 Thursday night. Gennarini is described as the leader of the Neocatechumenal Way in the United States. His name been mentioned in the ongoing controversy over the ownership of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Yona. Local Catholics Vangie Lujan and Gerry Taitano was one of the dozens who showed up to the airport for the Gennarini's arrival.

KLITZKIE: "NOW IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS...AND WHERE'S BEVACQUA WHEN WE NEED HIM?

...then this whole Neocatechumenal Way (issue) might not be as important to you as it ought to be." - Bob Klitzkie, Tall Tales, Friday, March 10, 2023.

Hear Bob's entire expose, titled "Frenchie vs the Neocats" starting here. And read the whole CERTIFICATE OF TITLE FIASCO here on JW.

Meanwhile, the real import of Bob's message is that the Neocat thing is not just an internal Catholic Church squabble. 

If the Neocats can reach into the Department of Land Management - and even all the way up into the office of the AG via at least one very powerful Guam-Barred attorney (as demonstrated in FIASCO) - and manipulate Certificate of Titles to properties valued at mega-millions of dollars, then what else can they do, or even, what else have they already done - especially given the Neocats intimate connection with the Bank of Guam?

The Neocat matter is NOT just an internal Church squabble. It's a mafioso-like takeover of the internal workings of everything in both our church and government that Kiko-Guerillas intend to control - a realtime assault by realtime Neo-Colonists. 

Where's Bevacqua when we need him? 

Oh yah. Never mind. 

BTW, just to keep things clear, the Director of DLM whom Bob sued (and won) was Michael Borja, not "Juan Borja" as Bob stated on his show. 

Again, read about the whole mess on JW in CERTIFICATE OF TITLE FIASCO....and be afraid for what the Neocats can do to your own title. 

Meanwhile, it looks like they are ready to scoop up several properties that they caused to be forfeited via their forced bankruptcy of the Archdiocese of Agana - which is detailed in the ongoing series: HIGH DRAMA IN THE AOA

Bob's commentary was interrupted by the "half-time show." His commentary after the half-time show continues here. 

HIGH DRAMA IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA - PART 9: KIKO CONTROL OF AOA EXPOSED

By Tim Rohr

CONTINUED FROM PART 8

[REMINDER: The objective of this series is to demonstrate who was and still is behind the bankruptcy of the Archdiocese of Agana and all that it is now costing us. It has been recommended that I save all this backstory for a book, however, the Kiko's are already back - and must be stopped.]

Apuron fled Guam on or about May 17, 2016, the day Apuron's first "accuser," Roy Quintanilla, publicly accused Apuron of sexually molesting him in the 1970's.

Six days later, on May 23, 2016, Senator Frank Blas Jr. introduced Bill 326-33 to lift the civil statute of limitation on child sex abuse. 

However, then-Apostolic Administrator to the Archdiocese of Agana, Archbishop Savio Hon Tai-Fai ("Hon"), and his then-boss, Cardinal Fernando Filoni, * had little to worry about since Blas' bill only aimed at the civil liability of persons and not institutions. In other words, should Blas' bill become law, Roy could sue Apuron, but that was it. 

* At the time, Filoni was Prefect for the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples which oversees "missionary" dioceses, and Hon was second in command. Why the Archdiocese of Agana, with an 85% Catholic population and a history of Catholicism for more than 400 years was still, in 2016, considered a "missionary" diocese - causing it to fall under Filoni and Hon's purview - is a matter touching on another scandal which funneled millions of dollars to this archdiocese and which did little more than fund the salaries of pet chancery employees. 

At this point (May 23, 2016), there was only one accuser, and Apuron had all the resources of the archdiocese to legally bury Roy. But then Apuron made a big mistake: Apuron ran to Rome for cover. 

Apuron did not announce his departure and probably thought he could recruit Francis to his side before any of us knew about it. 

Unfortunately for Apuron, Apuron's Kiko operatives apparently failed to inform him that approaching the Pope in a Vatican receiving line in the middle of St. Peter's square was probably not a good idea since - especially if you're a bishop - your picture would be taken by an official Vatican photographer. 

And so it was. In fact, there were several pics.

Meanwhile, back in Guam, on June 6, 2016, Hon arrived and assumed the duties of Apostolic Administrator as Apuron was AWOL.

On the same day, Walter Denton came forward with his devastating story of being raped by Apuron when he was 13 years old. This was a game changer for Hon. One accusation by one guy is not something the Vatican could have or would have acted on. The only reason why the Vatican acted, temporarily removing Apuron and installing Hon, was because Apuron had abandoned his post and fled into hiding. 

But now there were two. And Denton's accusation of rape sent the issue to a new level. Had Hon's job assignment been to get to the bottom of things, things might have worked out very differently for the Archdiocese of Agana. But Hon's job assignment was not to get to the bottom of things. Hon's job assignment was to put down the rebellion against the Neocatechumenal Way.

I know this because of my own inquisition before Hon during his Apostolic Visitation in January 2015 wherein Hon attempted to take me down by characterizing my motives (my posts on JW) as a personal vendetta against Apuron. But I also knew this for the simple reason that Filoni was Hon's boss. And Kiko was Filoni's boss. 

This would be made very clear a few months later when Fr. Jeff San Nicolas, in his then-capacity as "delegate to the administrator," pulled back the curtain on Filoni and his operators in Guam.

At a press conference in September 2016, Fr. Jeff revealed a letter he had received from Msgr. David C. Quitugua, a hard-core Kiko-operative and then-rector of the Neocat seminary, in response to Quitugua's denial of a visit to the seminary by a small group of lay people. Quitugua wrote:

This is to inform you that His Eminence, Fernando Cardinal Filoni, Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, has been made aware of the pre announced  “visit" of the Laity Forward Movement to the Seminary. Cardinal Filoni’s instruction is that no such “visit” can be made to the Seminary…

The news story goes on to report:

Father Jeff alleges it's the same Neocatechumenal support Archbishop Anthony Apuron continues to receive amid allegations of disobeying the Holy See relative to the RMS as well as the credible allegations of child sex abuse made against him. Father Jeff pleads to Pope Francis to declare the Archdiocese of Agana sede vacante - without a bishop.

Before going on with even more evidence that Filoni was running this archdiocese through Hon, let's review some facts about the Neocat seminary. 

We were told for years that this was a seminary FOR Guam, not just a seminary IN Guam. And, true to the generous spirit of the church's laity, millions of dollars were raised to support the seminary and its seminarians under the belief that this was "FOR Guam." 

The fact that Guam's laity had given millions of dollars for more than a decade to this "seminary" creates a stark contrast to Quitugua's final statement in his letter to Fr. Jeff:

We kindly ask you to inform the Laity Forward Movement that their “visit” and their demand for documents is not allowed.

Really? Quitugua et. al had no trouble depositing millions of dollars in checks from those same laity. But now they can't even visit. In fact, Quitugua keeps "visit" in quotes in a direct attempt to mock those same laity who just want to know what Quitugua and his brood did with their millions of dollars. 

So how does this seminary FOR Guam and IN Guam suddenly fall under the control of a foreign operator like Filoni? It doesn't. Unless of course Filoni is in the control of the Kiko's who control the seminary. So saying that Kiko was Filoni's boss is not a stretch. The line of command was laid out clearly and plainly in the letter Fr. Jeff exposed in September 2016. 

However, most of us who had been fighting in the belly of this stinking beast since at least 2013 knew that Kiko - via Filoni - did not just control the seminary, he controlled the whole Archdiocese of Agana. Archbishop Byrnes would confirm this when he arrived in November 2016: 

“Byrnes added that Filoni, as the prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, is something like his superior and that he reports to Filoni.” - Guam Daily Post, Feb. 16, 2017

But now back to Hon and how his orders from Kiko-Filoni led to the bankruptcy of the Archdiocese of Agana.

TO BE CONTINUED - PART 10

ARCHBISHOP VIGANO: "THE HERETICAL INDOCTRINATION OF THE POWERFUL SPANISH GURU"

Bishop Athanasius Schneider is no longer the only bishop to publicly label the teachings of Kiko Arguello a "heresy," he is now joined by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, who in the course of this extensive three part article has much to say about Kiko Arguello and the heretical waywardness of the Neocatechumenal Way including this:

This then is the situation of the Nuns, who arrive in Italy with the mark of infamy of having escaped the manipulations and heretical indoctrination of the powerful Spanish guru.

The series by Vigano is about the sufferings of a group of nuns, originally brought together by Kiko, but who eventually fled the "heretical indoctrination of the powerful Spanish guru." 

After fleeing the heretical clutches of Kiko and his Neocat generals (see the article), the nuns attempted to embrace a life of Traditional Catholicism. However, upon doing so they have been made to suffer the most grotesque indignities. 

This is what happens to people who dare oppose the Kiko's. 

The untrained eye (and maybe even Vigano's) may see the persecution of these nuns as just another attack by the current pope on anything that even smells of actual Catholicism. 

However, for those of us who have fought our way out of the Belly of the Kiko Beast (here in Guam), it is quite clear that due to the Kiko's undue influence in a corrupt Vatican, those who will not submit to the Kiko's - just like these nuns, will pay a catastrophic price. 

*****

Following are some key quotes from Vigano's article - Part 1:

• This monastery in the Italian region of Marche experienced a moment of rebirth when it began to welcome female vocations from the so-called “Neocatechumenal Way” [the Cammino] of Kiko Argüello. As has already happened in Santa Maria delle Rose and in practically all the communities under Kiko’s control, so too in Holland the autonomy of government of the Monastery was put to the test by the serious and undue interference of the leaders of the Cammino.  This parallel Neocatechumenal hierarchy established by Argüello and his “catechists” led the Sisters to the decision – taken collegially in Chapter – to distance themselves from the Cammino.  

• Because of the problems caused in the Dioceses and parishes by the Cammino, the Neocatechumenals no longer enjoy the enthusiastic welcome they received in the past, and this mistrust also affects the Nuns, who are rejected precisely because of their origin. 

• Bishop Manetti applied the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum in their favor, believing that the occasional celebration of the Mass in the ancient rite could help the Community to definitively free itself from its Neocatechumenal formation. 

• The victims are the thirteen Nuns. Victims because of their troubled past, in which they were able to grow spiritually and escape the pressures and obsessive interference of the establishment of the Neocatechumenal Way...

KIKO IS LORD

The Return of The Gennarini occasioned the memory of a post on The Thoughtful Catholic with some real gems by Gennarini's "Lord," Kiko Arguello, and wherein Kiko demonstrates that Kiko's "Lord," is...well, Kiko. 

Read the post here.

 

BABYLGUAM

Posted by Tim

In response to the previous post by Frenchie, Anonymous comments:

These parasites cannot make any more damages. If Guam expelled them once they can do it twice...

I replied:

That's the trouble. They were never expelled. Byrnes refused to do it.

 An as a reminder, here's why:

“Byrnes added that Filoni, as the prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, is something like his superior and that he reports to Filoni.” - Guam Daily Post, Feb. 16, 2017

But to address "damages" specifically, and relatively speaking, the Neocats have done no damage at all compared to the damage we permitted to go on under our noses for decades while we busily planned fiestas. 

The Neocats, and more specifically The Gennarini's (aka The Kikos) have simply re-landed in Guam to lap up the carrion. 

The Church in Guam is still salvageable. 

But given who the majority of Guam Catholics elected governor - twice - it appears that God has abandoned us to the Babylonians. 

WHY HERE AND NOW?

 Posted by Frenchie

Recently former 2 terms Governor Carl Guiterrez, president and CEO of GVB, permit czar and chairman of the Governor's Economic Strategy Council, penned a very interesting "Forum" in the pages of the Guam Daily Post.

In his column, "the Carl" posit that Guam has a unique position to take advantage in becoming a hub, in order to access the rest of the Marianas, the different Micronesian Islands and the Marshalls. He advocates that the current expansion of the DoD projects in the region, is a great opportunity. The former Governor goes on to argue in details his proposal.

This was a well written and argumented piece, but one might ask: what does that have anything to do with the Catholic Church??

Let us see.

The Archdiocese of Agatna is the official Metropolitan See (consist of several dioceses) namely 

Chalan Kanoa (Saipan), The Caroline Islands, the Apostolic Prefecture of the Marshall Islands, and Guam.

Before Bishop Amando Samo of the Diocese of the Caroline Islands passed away in 2021, a Coadjutor was named due the ill health of Bishop Samo (a native of Chuuk), Bishop Julio Angkel in 2020.

It is to be noted that the Society of Jesus, played a key role in the Evangelization of the Caroline Islands. Two priests now "retired' (but still active) on Guam, spent a large part of their sacerdoce in the Federated States of Micronesia: Namely Fr. Hazel and Fr Mc Grath.

Our own Archbishop: Michael Jude Byrnes, despite his relatively young age is out on an extended medical leave. At a time when the Diocese of Chalan Kanoa's Bishop is seen as very receptive to the muses of the NCW, we are in a situation of precarious balance, due to the uncertain situation related to the unfinished business of the bankruptcy and the unfinished settlement with the victims of Apuron and his mignons.

Nature does not like a vacuum.

Yesterday, we shared with you the fact that Giussepe Gennarini, the deliberate, nefarious and devious leader of the NCW sect in the USA, took advantage of this vacuum of power to land unopposed on Guam, in what appears in clear contradiction of Archbishop Byrnes restrictions.

We might not have all the information, since several very active NCW members were spotted laying siege to the office of the Vicar General fairly recently. 

Could Fr Concovar have caved in to undue pressures?

How was the Delegate to the NCW not made aware of this large event?

Hopefully these questions can be answered quickly.

Meanwhile we now know that this event, was not just a joyous reunion of like minded people, after a long crossing of the desert. In fact it is only a first step in a process of reconquest, after their major setbacks following the unseating of Apuron, the defrocking of Cristobal, the untimely death of Fr Pius, and the self-imposed exile of a large part of the NCW cadre in the Western Pacific which included Msg Quitagua who continually and steadfastly refused to acknowledge the authority of Arch. Byrnes, and by doing so directly challenged the Vatican to do something about it....We are still waiting, but don't hold your breath.

As always the Diana does'nt disappoint. 

We learned on her blog that this visit to Guam by the former militant of the Italian Red Brigades (and infamous Host to Apuron) is only the first step of a plan to "evangelize" the surrounding islands, which in Neo parlance means an offensive to take over the Churches already in place ( the infamous neo policy of the locusts) Gennarini in one swoop takes advantage of the empty space left in our region. His analysis of the opportunities of using Guam as a beachhead is shockingly similar to that of Carl Guitterez on a different subject.

You have to render unto Cesar what is due to Cesar......Gennarini is disciplined, deliberate and dedicated. He definitely understand the meaning of Carpe Diem.

Well played Giussepe