A "BEAUTIFUL ISLAND GIRL"

LINK to online version

Note: The Post has done a few edits to the published version. The original is set forth below.

As expected, the abortion issue blew up during the recent presidential debate with one of the main issues being whether or not Kamala Harris and the Democrats want to kill babies after birth. Here is the exchange:

TRUMP: "Her vice presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth — it's execution, no longer abortion, because the baby is born — is OK.”

I suppose you would expect to see Harris’ reply but Harris didn’t have to reply because the debate moderator, Linsey Davis, replied for her:

DAVIS: "There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born.”

Sometimes Trump’s passion gets the better of him so he missed an opportunity to invite Davis onto the stage and join Harris, but he also missed an opportunity to fact-check Davis’ fact-check.

Trump’s comeback should have been “what do you call discarding a crying, squirming, just born baby as bio-waste?” Because that is exactly what is perfectly legal in at least 15 states, including Minnesota where Governor Tim Walz signed a bill into law removing existing legal protections for children who survive botched abortions.

And because mothers probably don’t want to hear their baby crying while it dies in a trash can, the baby is sometimes immediately “dispatched.” There isn’t the room to document this here so just search for “drowning aborted babies.”

That’s why Trump called it “execution” and it is perfectly legal in 15 states. In fact, it was perfectly legal in Guam prior to November 27, 2013. That’s the date Public Law 32-090 was enacted.

Guam’s 2013 law mandates - among other things - that should a child survive an abortion the physician performing the abortion must take “all medically appropriate and reasonable steps to preserve the life and health of an infant.” (9 GCA §91.04(d))

At its public hearing, the legislation (Bill 195-32) was vigorously opposed by none other than our now-governor. She was clever as to how she opposed it though, arguing that the legislation was “unnecessary: "I am aware that there is already federal legislation that addresses the issue at hand, thus making this legislation unnecessary." (Committee Report, Bill 195-32.)

The “federal legislation” Leon Guerrero was referring to was the 2002 Born Alive Infant Protections Act, which, while defining infants surviving botched abortions as “full persons under the law,” lacked an enforcement mechanism to protect those “full persons.”

Even though drowning said “full persons” in a toilet, tossing them out as bio-waste, or intentionally letting “full persons” die on the delivery table is essentially aggravated murder at worst and negligent homicide at best, Bill 195-32 stopped short of the penalty for murder or homicide and left the matter for civil and disciplinary action.

Nevertheless, requiring normal medical care for a living, breathing, just-born child who his or her mother didn’t want was too much for our now-governor so she functionally argued to let the baby die while lecturing the legislature to show “more concern” for the unemployment rate. (Committee Report, Bill 195-32.)

One of the testimonies in support of the bill was submitted by a mother who lost a daughter named “Natasha” - for whom Natasha’s Law was named. Natasha’s mother recommended that the legislation, if successful, be named “Kaitlyn’s Law.”

Kaitlyn was a baby girl who survived an abortion. In another testimony, Kaitlyn’s father tells the story:

“Our daughter, Kaitlyn, survived a late-term abortion by a woman who ingested pills issued (to her at the) Women’s Clinic. Instead of inducing (the) abortion as intended, the woman went into labor and a friend (drove) her to GMH where she delivered a live 3 1/2 pound ‘preemie’ and subsequently abandoned her there.Through the good offices of our priest and godly social worker, we took the child into our home at age 34 days. After three court appearances over the next eight months, she officially became our daughter.”

Kaitlyn’s father continues: 

“The girl is a bonafide miracle child. No only did Kaitlyn escape the medical issues one might expect in a child who entered the world under such adverse conditions, she emerged as a beautiful island girl, healthy, athletic and startlingly intelligent - nothing (my wife) and I can take genetic credit for, but we consider ourselves blessed for the privilege to raise such a child.”

Attached to his testimony are pictures of this “beautiful island girl” which you can see in the Committee Report for Bill 195-32 at GuamLegislature.com

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

 RESOURCES

FRC Releases Updated Map and Issue Brief, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors

SBA Pro-Life Score Card: Sen. Kamala Harris(former) California (Democrat)

Democrats Block Thune’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

SHARON O'MALLAN REPLIES TO TROY TORRES

As set out in the previous post, Troy Torres of Kandit News had some harsh words for the Guam Catholic Pro-Life Committee and specifically its Chairman, Sharon O'Mallan. To Kandit's credit, Sharon's response was posted on its website and Facebook Page. We copy it here.

=====

Kandit is misinformed and misinforming readers on doula issue, pro-life agenda • By Sharon O'Mallan

On Friday Kandit’s Facebook ran a not so friendly discussion about myself and our pro-life group.   I was busy over the weekend, like most people, and also didn’t have a computer to respond.   Let me try and see if I can respond to Troy’s thoughts.

I am currently the Guam Catholic Pro-Life Committee Chairman.  There have been great chairmans before me and surely will be after me as we all serve on limited terms as per our Mission Statement.   It’s actually a very busy job.  We don’t just have meetings but we do a great deal of other things which involve not just abortion, but our main mission is to pray for conversion and change of hearts for people who do not understand the true harm of abortion, the death of a human being and the life long harm done to anyone involved in the abortion.

Our group can be seen out in the streets praying for an end to abortion or burying deceased abandoned babies and deceased unborn babies.  Some of our members assist in the burial of unclaimed adults.  Some of us are involved in food pantries for our brothers and sisters living in the streets or in substandard conditions.  Some of us are involved in bereavement ministries or Faith Formation groups.  We also are involved in Rachel’s Vineyards which offers post-abortion healing retreats for woman and men and families.  We get involved with other Christian groups and work together to help anyone who needs help from before conception to after death.  We hold pro-life conferences which present different wonderful volunteer groups which are out there everyday trying to improve and help and support all our brothers and sisters who need help (no matter what religion or ethnic background or belief they have). 

Troy’s accusations that we have tunnelled and insulated ourselves from the larger and actual pro-life agenda has me confused.  We don’t go out seeking recognition as we truly believe that life is from conception to natural death and beyond.   So the media does not seek us out as we are not what they want to talk about in a positive light since we are pro-life.

Prior to Roe v Wade being overturned in June 2022 our committee discussed the ramifications of that happening.   We all agreed that should Roe v Wade be overturned it would mean a lot of work for pro-life groups in each state and here on Guam.   We did not think anything would be easy.  As suspected, by April of 2023 the start of extreme abortion bills started coming out of the 37th Guam Legislature.

Bill No. 106-37 came out April 2023 by Tom Fisher and Tina Muna-Barnes.  Then Bill No. 111-37 came out in May 2023 by William Parkinson.  Both Bills were almost duplicate of each other and were extreme and harsh abortion bills.  Both bills would make abortion up to birth legal.  It would return partial birth abortions.  Both bills implied that abortion was not legal here on Guam when it is. 

On August 2, 2023 the 9th Circuit of Appeals put out an Opinion which stated that “in-person consultation” was needed before abortion.  This stopped telemedicine abortions which were happening on Guam.   The Opinion also went on to assert that abortion does not involve just one life, but two, the mother and the unborn baby. 

On August 8, 2023, William Parkinson and Tom Fisher put out Bill No. 162-37.   A bill that would change the law in regards to in-person consulting and this would make telemedicine abortions legal on Guam. 

Each time I have had to go and testify against any of these bills, it seemed that the same people were coming out to testify in support of the bills.   Same senators, same faces of supporters, etc.   

Now to the current Doula issue which I believe is what has you Troy all upset about.   In January of 2024 (this year), I was talking to an individual about the upcoming Rachel’s Vineyard retreat which offers post-abortive healing.   I was then informed about abortion doulas who were on the island.   I had never heard of a doula and mentioned it to the committee that there were abortion doulas on the island.   I actually did research on them not only on Guam but in the United States.   The particular group of doulas on island were headed by the Birthworkers of Color Collective which provides “full spectrum doula services”.  In other words, they trained abortion doulas.   I learned all this back in January of 2024.   So when Bill No. 318-37 was introduced to give $400,00.00 to an unregulated and abortion training group, of course I was going to object. 

Is it my fault that the same people supporting this bill are the same people supporting all the other abortion bills?    Only this bill had many more sponsors which I actually tried to talk to the two who you claim are extremely pro-life senators.  But because of the nature of abortion doulas which this group does not deny they do, I cannot sit back and not protest just because they are also adding that they will help women and children.    They claim that the word abortion is never mentioned in the bill, but all news articles and interviews related to the group all openly talk about the hope for better abortion help because of the doulas.   How are we supposed to turn our head and ignore this just because two senators are pro-lifers.   And just because a senator who you, Troy Torres do not like, is Opposing this Bill 318-37, this upsets you.   

Who is not being true to themselves here Troy?   Pretty words, pretty doulas and a pretty picture which are all apart of this doula bill CANNOT hide the ugly truth of what this bill is going to do:  Train Abortion Doulas. 

Another issue Troy is that you claimed that I attacked at least two doulas.  Shame on you Troy.  I sent you on a private text (between you and myself) because you asked where I came up with the idea that they were training abortion doulas.  I sent you on our private conversation, the “quoted” articles and words of the doulas from newspaper articles.  Their words, not mine.  I wasn’t attacking them, I was informing you as to what they said and not me.  You claim that by my attack on these innocent young women is where I lost you as an advocate.   

If you read or heard my testimony opposing this Bill 318-37, I asked that these resources of $400,000 be directed elsewhere to midwife programs, nursing programs, etc where these resources would help a larger variety of people.   Also where a doula is trained in three (3) days versus a certified trained nurse or midwife who receive several years of medical training and be medically certified to assist in all medical needs. 

You also mentioned a couple things which show me where you are truly coming from.   Contrary to what you are saying, we don’t sit around and sing Trump’s name or wear MAGA hats that has made us paranoid and Trumpian politicians.   We are too busy to do those things. 

Then you brought up the story of the woman who died because Georgia law made laws against abortion.   “The rest of the story...”   The poor young mother went to another state to get abortion medication pills because her state has a law banning abortion.   She took the medication and as stated as one of the warnings, sepsis is a possible side effect of taking medication abortion pills.   The babies in the womb died but they didn’t come out.  She developed sepsis and when she went to the hospital the doctors didn’t perform the necessary treatment she needed and her organs were already shutting down and she sadly died.   It made no difference about the laws against abortion.  It all points back to the dangers of abortion medication and medical malpractice on behalf of the hospital.  You said that you are hearing crickets from the pro-life groups because of the deaths, when in fact the media is covering up the true story and the pro-life groups are grieving for the unnecessary deaths. 

And you should note that according to the Committee Report of Bill 318-37, there were 617 people who OPPOSED this bill as there were only 14 people who supported it.   Yet these senators who know that the public voters have voiced opposition to this bill, have now injected it into another Bill 355-37 trying to side-step the voting public thinking they are dumb and uninformed.   Very sad.

While I have had to waste my time and energy on this letter I still have much to do.  We are planning our Life Chain, burying an unclaimed brother/sister, having a Novena to the Unborn Jesus, doing our Prayer Warriors on Wednesday and planning our next Rachel’s Vineyard Retreat in November 2024.   And yes Troy, I still have you on my daily prayer sheet.   Don’t get lost in politics, it will drag you down down down.

Respectfully submitted.

_____

Sharon O’Mallan is the chairwoman of the Guam Catholic Pro-Life Committee and a resident of Agana Heights

CLICK HERE TO GET STARTED

By Tim Rohr

Troy Torres at Kandit News recently penned a post titled The Guam pro-life movement is biting off more than they can chew, and turning off supporters. (It's also here on Facebook.)

Troy's main point appears to be that by opposing Tom Fisher's "Doula" bill (318-37), the Catholic Pro-Life Committee has become "myopically anti-abortion," and in doing so, risks "putting off people like me and others who have not formed a full conviction on the matter of abortion on demand."

First, I would advise Troy (and others) to develop his convictions independent of what anyone else is doing. However, it appears that Troy already has a well developed conviction:

I am a pro-life advocate and have been since I was 16. My advocacy is based on a singular principle: that the non-natural termination of life at any stage of life (except in the defense of yours), is homicide. 

So I'm not sure why he says at the end of his post that he has "not formed a full conviction on the matter of abortion on demand."

Meanwhile, though, Troy highlights a real problem with the term "pro-life." I have consistently railed against this term, especially when it is preceded by the word "Catholic" - which I am. I have railed against it for the precise reason that Troy exploits here: 

Being "pro-life" cannot and should not stop at valuing life in the womb. The mother's life matters, too. 

He's right. And that's the problem. The Catholic Pro-Life Committee is in fact "myopically anti-abortion" because that is exactly what it was constituted to do. It is not, and should not, be focused on quality of life issues, war, or even the death penalty. Those matters are all secondary to life in the womb, which is life at its most helpless, most defenseless, and most vulnerable. 

Abortion, to use a term from Vatican II, has "pride of place" among all moral issues.  As St. Mother Teresa said:

 “We must not be surprised when we hear of murders, of killings, of wars, of hatred. If a mother can kill her own child, what is left but for us to kill each other.”

In other words - as if this needs any explaining - abortion is the gateway to every other evil - if not to Hell itself. And this coming from a saint who spent most of her life picking up the dead and dying off the streets of Calcutta and founding communities across the globe to care for the sick, the impoverished, the marginalized. If there ever was a truly "pro-life" person it was St. Mother Teresa and she plastered abortion as the root of every other evil.

When a few friends and I started The Esperansa Project in 2008, we were sure not to use the words "pro-life," not only in the title of our organization, but also to define anything we did. We were unapologetically ANTI-ABORTION and over the course of the next 8 years we backed 12 legislative measures which sought to restrict abortion to the fullest extent allowable under Roe and Casey. 

Eight of those measures were enacted into law. Our aim was to make abortion so publicly "onerous," a term Troy uses, that no doctor would want to perform them. In 2018 the last abortionist shuttered his business and no other doctor, despite the vocal support of some and the current governor's best efforts, has wanted to take up this filthy business. 

During the legislative fight for these measures, our people were hammered and hammered and hammered again by the senatorial pro-aborts over the same thing Troy brings up: that by pushing these measures we were somehow more concerned for the babies than we were for the mothers or the the children's "quality of life" after birth. In other words we were allegedly NOT "pro-life" really. 

We won every round because we did not let them get away with that crap. Not only did we have many examples of the very people in front of them actively working to assist mothers and adopting babies, we forced the pro-aborts to confront the real cost of abortion in Guam which, given the abortion reports, was and still is the self-genocide of the CHamoru people. 

This was exactly the argument of the late Senator Elizabeth Arriola when she advanced the now much-embattled Public Law 20-134:

"Let me tell you, at the rate Guam Memorial Hospital is aborting children, between 400-600 a year, and most of them are not even reported. Where are the lives that we are going to protect and preserve? Here we go talking about indigenous rights and self-determination. What good is all that if we don't have our followers to follow and enjoy the fruits of our labor, of this generation's labor, of your labor and my labor to fix this island and have autonomous rights to govern our people?" - quoted in: Asian/Pacific Islander American Women: A Historical Anthology, pg. 372, edited by Shirley Hume, Gail M. Nomura

So my advice - again - to the "Pro-Life Committee" is to fix your name. Call it the Catholic Anti-Abortion Committee or something more general like The Esperansa Project with anti-abortion specifically set forth in the mission statement.

But what of Troy's "The mother's life matters, too." The inference is that if you are strict anti-abortion that you prioritize the life of the child over the life of the mother. I can't speak for any individual but I can speak for the Catholic Church, or more specifically, I can let the Catholic Church speak for itself:

"Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and the child." (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Association of Large Families, AAS (1951), XLIII, p. 855.)

In fact, especially in cases where the mother's life is actually in danger due to an ectopic pregnancy or a diseased pregnant uterus, the Church allows, under the principle of "double effect" for the removal of the diseased portion of the woman's body even if it means the indirect killing of embryonic life. 

The key word is "indirect." Abortion is the direct, willful, and intentional killing of an unborn child. The removal of a diseased part of a woman's body is not the direct, willful, and intentional killing of an unborn child. Even medicine recognizes this by calling these procedures salpingostomy and hysterectomy and not abortions. (Go here to read more on this.)

Troy's real beef is the opposition to Senator Fisher's Bill 318-37 which seeks to fund the training of "doulas" through the Bureau of Women's Affairs. A doula is literally, a "female helper or maidservant." In the context of the bill a doula is a "non-medical" person who is trained to 'help women and persons who are or who become pregnant to have healthy pregnancies and deliver health babies."

Fisher prefaces his bill with a landslide of horrible facts about Guam's maternal, fetal, and infant mortality rate, which is, according to Fisher, five times higher than the rest of the country and its territories. That's pretty bad, so Fisher's bill sounds good. 

However, the "pro-life" people are opposing the bill because they believe the $400,000 appropriation to a bureau run by Jayne Flores will be used to train doulas to "assist women and persons who become pregnant" NOT "to have healthy pregnancies and deliver babies," but to kill them.

Troy argues that the word "abortion" doesn't appear in the bill. That's true, however, the name BIRTHWORKERS OF COLOR COLLECTIVE (BWOCC) does. It appears five times, and with a couple of clicks on its website it is quite clear that BWOCC trains doulas to assist women in killing their babies.

Troy admits this:

There is no nexus from a doula to an abortion, except for doulas who provide comfort and care to women who choose to get an abortion.

Troy goes on to castigate the bill's opponents as paranoid conspiracy theorists:

The political arena can turn the most wonderfully motivated people into paranoid conspiracy theorists unwilling to see people who disagree with them as people who may be on the same page on different issues. For instance, just because Tom Fisher is a pro-choice advocate and pro-choice champion Jayne Flores is the director of the BWA, some in the Guam pro-life community will sustain suspicion against anything those two do. And, thus in the minds of the paranoid pro-lifers, because Mr. Fisher introduced the doula funding bill to benefit Ms. Flores' agency, there must be a subliminal pro-abortion agenda at hand.

The problem is that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a you know what. Fisher and Jayne are not just pro-choice advocates or champions, they are vigorous, relentless, and, at least in Fisher's case, even vicious pushers of abortion.

Fisher's Bill 162-37 is by the far the most viciously pro-abortion legislation ever introduced in Guam if not the entire country, and Jayne's "johnny one-note" agenda to make abortions happen in Guam is a well documented news item. What's not so well-documented is the paper trail showing Jayne's efforts to get Guam sued by the ACLU. (Read about it here.) So these two aren't your run of the mill pro-choicers. There are baby-blood-red flags every where on this deal. 

Troy promotes two co-signers, Sens. Chris Duenas and Jesse Lujan, as "the legislature's two most prolific pro-life proponents." Really, show me their anti-abortion legislation. I mean, I like them both, have voted for them both, and will vote for them again, but "prolific?" Not. 

However, it's not hard to see why Fisher recruited them to sign on to his nice-sounding bill. Fisher needed their names for exactly what is happening now: COVER. What Duenas and Lujan can do if they want to save the bill and still be "prolific" is amend the bill to prohibit any funds going to the training of "abortion doulas" - though that would need a very precise definition. 

Another thing Troy does is slam the pro-life committee for spending "energy and resources...to oppose this life-involving legislation," and argues that said "energy and resources "could be better spent on life advocacy from pre-natal care to postpartum assistance."

Well, exactly. So instead of spending $400k on training people who cannot provide medical pre-natal care and postpartum assistance, then why not spend that money on people (doctors, nurses) who can, not to mention some improvements at GMH - as Dr. Akimoto regularly and rightly shouts about. 

The real thing is this though. If Guam mothers and babies, in the womb or out, are dying at five times the national average then what the hell is really wrong and would giving "come-and-sue-us" Jayne $400k help?

If you think so, then you might as well go to the Birthworkers of Color Collective website and "click here to get started." 

WHERE ARE THESE PRIESTS AND WHY ARE WE PAYING THEM?

By Tim Rohr

In a recent post titled I'LL BE READY FOR THAT, I questioned who is the "Priest in Guam 'dumped' here after sex scandal..." as reported by Troy Torres in Kandit News. 

Troy's story was a take off on a story that had appeared in the New York Times and had alleged that a number of priests who had been credibly accused or convicted of sex with minors elsewhere had been "dumped" on Pacific islands in the 1990's including an "itinerant" priest who "still serves" in Guam.

I noted in my post that the words "itinerant priest" usually refer to priests in the Neocatechumenal Way but that I could not think of a "neo" priest who was "dumped" here in the 1990's and is "still serving" in Guam. 

The only priest who comes close to matching that description is Fr. John Wadeson. 

Wadeson was (or is) a "neo" priest and he arrived in Guam sometime in the early 2000's after Redemptoris Mater Seminary was established in Yona. An archdiocesan document of diocesan priests and how they get paid shows Wadeson on the payroll in 2005. 

On a personal note, Wadeson always seemed alright to me and I never had any issues with him. I even - for several months - refused to post anything negative about him after others started sending me information about his name being on a list of credibly accused priests in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

However, after a clergy meeting with the then-Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Martin Krebs, on July 15, 2014, Wadeson sent out an email attacking this blog and inferring that I was in cahoots with Satan. So I decided to open the flood gates on his record of clergy sex abuse in LA and it became news pretty quick. 

One week later, on July 22, 2014, then-Archbishop Apuron removed Wadeson from public ministry even though Apuron had stated that the LA allegations against Wadeson were "never substantiated."

If that was the case, Apuron had a duty to make that known when he incardinated Wadeson at least ten years earlier and put him on our payroll. But when it came to "neo" business, Apuron was never calling the shots. He was being told/ordered what to do by the real bosses.

In hindsight, ten years later and with Apuron outed and ousted, we can see why he got rid of Wadeson so quickly. This was 2 years before Apuron's accusers came forward (2016), but it was also after Apuron had been publicly accused by John Toves. Apuron knew what Toves was after and he (Apuron) was hot to make it look like he was tough on clergy sex abuse. So he threw Wadeson under the bus. 

Note: There are over 100 posts about Wadeson. Type "Wadeson" into the search box at the top of the blog and read away.

Two days after being removed from ministry, Wadeson left (fled) Guam, surfaced in San Francisco, and has never been back. The last we heard from him was a nasty letter to the PDN about me on July 25, 2014. 

At first I thought that the NY Times guy got it wrong. Wadeson has not "served...in Guam" since 2014. However, the author can be forgiven for thinking Wadeson is still here because even though Wadeson has been gone for ten years, and appeared to be in active ministry for some time in the Archdiocese of San Francisco, he's still on our payroll. 

The link is to the clergy directory of the Archdiocese of Agana which lists Fr. John Wadeson as "Priest retired - off island." No kidding, he's been off-island for ten years and has been on our payroll all that time.

According to a trusted source, the monthly stipend for diocesan clergy is $1800 per month and about $1500 a month for retired priests. I don't know how long Wadeson has been "retired," but even if he has been retired all these ten years, we have paid a priest who ran away ten years ago $180,000 ($1500 x 12 months x 10 years). 

And we're still paying him!

Meanwhile, we have priests who are not retired but are "off-island" for no reason known to us. From the Clergy Directory:

1. Akinyemi, Rev. Fr. Julius, Leave of Absence
2. Asproni, Rev. Fr. Francesco, Priest off-island
3. Camacho, Rev. Fr. Luis, Priest off-island
4. Oliveira, Rev. Fr. Edivaldo, Priest off-island
5. Quitugua, JCD, Msgr. David C., Priest off-island
6. Stoia, Rev. Fr. Aurelius, Priest off-island

Six priests at $1800 per month = $10,800 per month x 12 months = $129,600 per year. And who knows for how many years!

They're all "neos" by the way, and I believe 5 of them were formed at our local RMS, which means we paid tens of thousands of dollars for their formation as well as tens of thousands of dollars for them to BE GONE.

Also, we know that some of these priests are active elsewhere which means they are probably "double-dipping." Not a bad gig. 

I know the new archbishop is busy getting his bearings, but, as I've already said elsewhere, given all that Catholics in this archdiocese have had to suffer these last several years and the selling off of many properties that were given to the Church by the families of those same Catholics, it is time for ACCOUNTABILITY...on EVERYTHING.

So where are these priests and why are we paying them?

I'LL BE READY FOR THAT

By Tim Rohr

Troy Torres at Kandit News has posted a piece titled "Priest in Guam 'dumped' here after sex scandal, archdiocese remains silent after report in The Times."

There is no reason for the archdiocese, or, specifically, Archbishop Jimenez, to remain "silent." Troy says he contacted Archbishop Jimenez on Sept. 7. The date of the article is Sept. 15. So it's been a week. 

I know Jimenez is new to the job, but given that it was the sex abuse scandal that ultimately led to his new job, Jimenez cannot be unaware of what he was getting into. At minimum, he should say "I don't know, I'll look into it." But according to Torres, he has said nothing. 

That's not good.

That said, let's take a look at the New York Times article itself. 

When we read "New York Times," it's easy to think "New York." And then why else would New York be paying attention to something so far away unless it was really, really big. However, as is the case with  most big media, they have lots of freelance people all around the world who write stuff for their publications, and this report is one of them. 

Here's the blurb on Pete McKenzie:

Pete McKenzie is a freelance reporter who covers power, politics and the environment in New Zealand and the Pacific. He is a graduate of Victoria University of Wellington and Columbia Journalism School, which he attended on a Fulbright scholarship.

When I first saw the story I didn't pay attention to it because for us in Guam this is old news, and we didn't need the media's help to do something about it. We did it ourselves. In fact, we are still doing it. David Sablan and the Concerned Catholics of Guam remain ever involved and vigilant, although more quietly these days. I decided to look into Troy's take on the NY Times story after several people sent me a link to a comment about me - which I'll get to later.

The only thing that could have made this "new" news would be if in fact there is an "itinerant priest" (the story calls him that) ministering here in Guam who was "dumped" here after being credibly accused or convicted of sexually abusing minors elsewhere. 

At the link to the aforesaid "blurb," McKenzie gives a video presentation of all the research he did behind his story. And given this, it is curious why he names no names since he obviously has them - or does he?

A deeper read of the NY Times story reveals that most of what McKenzie is reporting happened "over a period of decades," and thus probably decades ago. However, McKenzie writes in a way that makes the casual reader believe that it is happening now, and he outright states that one of these priests, a priest who moved here in the 1990's, "still serves as an itinerant priest in Guam."

Most moved to or served in 15 countries and territories in the region in the 1990s, but one still serves as an itinerant priest in Guam...

"Itinerant" is usually synonymous with priests formed in and for the Neocatechumenal Way. There are still several "neo" priests in Guam, but most or all of them were ordained here, and I don't know of any "itinerants" who came to Guam in the 1990's. So who is McKenzie referring to and why won't he tell us? 

I would encourage Troy to contact McKenzie. If there is a credibly accused priest hiding here in Guam and McKenzie knows who it is, Kandit could do us a big favor by pressing McKenzie on who it is, especially if Jimenez isn't talking.

Meanwhile, regarding how the article came to my attention: Troy posted a link to his story on Facebook and a certain "Patrick Iriarte" left this comment:

If he's "just joking," that sure is a long "joke." I checked out his profile and this Patrick guy doesn't appear to be using his real name, nor a real profile. And he sounds exactly like the Apuronites I've dealt with so often in the past when Cristobal and Edivaldo were accusing "Tim Rohr and Associates" of a "calumnious attack on the Archbishop and the Church" for the purposes of profiting via the sale of the RMS property to a Chinese gambling syndicate:

Everything began in 2002, when a group of Chinese entrepreneurs first laid eyes on the Accion Hotel in Yona... (La Stampa, "The Guam problem, a diocese rocked by financial and sexual scandal," Sep. 21, 2017)

Well that property has been long since sold and not a single penny can be traced to my name, and for the record, it has been converted to apartments, not a casino. 

"Iriarte" is also wrong about the media protecting the identities of the victims. The media not only published the names of the victims who publicly came forward but also plastered their faces all over the news for many weeks. Later, victims, perhaps at the recommendation of their lawyers, resorted to using only their initials to protect their privacy in their legal filings. 

I was against this and even tried to get compensation to those who hid behind their initials reduced with the lion's share going to those who were brave enough to go public and who had to endure the criticism and ridicule of the Apuronites - something I know well. 

While the case against the archdiocese has been settled, the case against Apuron by his individual accusers has not. I don't know when or if that will happen. If it does then I have no doubt that Apuron will attempt to do what he said he was going to do which is to prove that he was a victim of "Tim Rohr and Associates." 

I'll be ready for that.

CARDINAL BURKE'S NEW BOOK

By Tim Rohr

Relative to the previous post about denying certain persons reception of Holy Communion, I recommend Cardinal Burke's book Respecting the Body and Blood of the Lord: When Holy Communion Should Be Denied. 

Read about it here. 

IS IT "HIGH NOON" FOR JIMENEZ?

LINK to online version

Denying the Eucharist (Holy Communion) to Catholic pro-abortion politicians is messy business for many of the world’s bishops, but especially in the U.S. where the abortion issue factors into almost every major election.

It’s messy because despite the singular clarity of Catholic teaching on the matter (willful abortion is an “abominable crime”) and automatic excommunication for persons who directly procure or participate in an abortion, application of church law (canon law) relative to disciplining persons who publicly advocate for abortion - particularly politicians - is up to individual bishops.

As an example, Joe Biden, a Catholic and a vigorous abortion advocate, upon his nomination for vice-president in 2008, was publicly warned that he would be denied communion in his hometown of Scranton, Pennsylvania by the bishop of Scranton. However, Biden was not denied communion in his then place of residence, Wilmington, Delaware.

Closer to the present, in 2022, the archbishop of San Francisco publicly prohibited pro-abortion Catholic Nancy Pelosi from receiving communion. However, a month later, Pelosi was in the Vatican chatting with the pope and received communion at a papal Mass in St. Peter’s.

The report about Pelosi’s Vatican visit does not say that she received communion personally from the pope. If she did, it would have been in marked contrast to the pope’s position on the matter a year earlier when he stated that Communion is for those who are “in the community” and politicians who support abortion are “outside of the community.” 

But even so, if the pope knew of Pelosi’s pro-abortion political record (and how could he not), then to be consistent he had a responsibility to advise the other ministers of communion at the papal Mass to deny her communion, or at minimum, privately tell Pelosi not to seek the sacrament.

There is some confusion among Catholics as to whether or not advocating for abortion by public persons, particularly politicians, warrants excommunication. According to canon law, it does.

However, excommunication in this regard is not automatic as it is with a Catholic who willfully procures an abortion or participates in one. Instead, the excommunication of Catholic pro-abortion politicians can be publicly imposed on the offending party only after a due process proceeding pursuant to canon law.

We recently witnessed such a proceeding with the excommunication of former U.S. papal nuncio, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano. For those who followed it, you may recall that Vigano was formally notified of his charges and provided a hearing before a tribunal. Vigano chose not to show up which led to the equivalent of a guilty verdict and his formal excommunication.

In the denial of communion to Biden and Pelosi by their bishops, no such proceeding took place because it was not required. In these cases, denial of communion was imposed pursuant to Canon 915 which is drawn from the church’s sacramental discipline and not its penal code. The canon states in relevant part: "those who persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

Canonist Ed Peters points out that Canon 915 “is established independently of the…penal law and operates without reference to the…binding demands of penal procedure.” In other words, any pastor, for good cause, may impose this…or not impose this (without due process), which accounts for the varied application of the canon from bishop to bishop.

Peters goes on to state that while a bishop has discretion in this matter, if the bishop does impose a prohibition pursuant to Canon 915 he must demonstrate three facts: manifestation of behavior, obstinacy in that behavior, and gravity of the offense.

And that brings us to the manifest, obstinate, and grave behavior of Guam’s governor - perhaps the most vigorous proponent of abortion of any governor in the entire country - and who continues to present herself publicly for Holy Communion.

So while it has been nice to see all the celebrations and the smiling photos with our new archbishop, the “elephant in the chancery” is the governor at the communion rail.

For the good of our local Catholic Church and all of the scandal we have recently suffered, Archbishop Ryan Jimenez has a duty to either impose the discipline of Canon 915 on the governor or tell us why he isn’t.

The governor could also publicly recant, but that’s not going to happen. So it’s “high noon” for Jimenez. 

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

Resources:

Sin To Vote For Pro-Abortion Politicians?

Pope says pro-choice politicians ‘outside community’ of Church, but urges pastoral response

After year of divisive debate, US bishops approve tepid document on Communion

Denial of the Eucharist to Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians: A Canonical Case Study

Pelosi receives Communion in the Vatican, despite her home archbishop refusing it

Excommunication in the Catholic Church

100.000 VIEWS THIS WEEK

By Tim Rohr

For some reason, JungleWatch continues its streak of extremely high views, an average of more than 100,000 views per week versus about 5-10,000 of only a few months ago. The views picked up with the announcement of the name of the new archbishop. And while we do not understand the connection yet, most of the top views continue to be of posts regarding Apuron and the Neocat controversy from several years ago. 

If you wish to read these posts, type in the title in the search bar.