GEEZ!

By Tim Rohr

The public mess between Trump and the Pope is, as usual, largely a media fabrication, except in this case, the main culprit is the Catholic media. It's pathetic to see these news agencies anxious for clicks. It's also funny to see the mainstream media running to the defense of the Pope. Let's try that with abortion, contraception, or same-sex relations. LOL!

Unfortunately, Bishop Robert Barron, who had just begun to gain some credibility (in my eyes, anyway), didn't stay above it, but jumped into the middle, demanding that Trump apologize to the Pope.  

Stupid move. Trump doesn't apologize to anybody. That's who he is, and, by the way, that's why he's the president for the second time. 

Apparently, Barron caught his mistake and tried to clean it up with a post on X, wherein he makes a distinction that he failed to make before:

"The role of the Church, therefore, is to call for peace and to urge that any conflict be strictly circumscribed by the moral constraints of the just war criteria. But it is not the role of the Church to evaluate whether a particular war is just or unjust. That appraisal belongs to the civil authorities, who, one presumes, have requisite knowledge of conditions on the ground."

So, in other words, Barron backs out of the mess he stepped into by saying they're both right. He is right about that, and he backs up his new position by referencing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is our compendium of all that the Catholic Church teaches on faith and morals:

"The Pope has said, on numerous occasions, that he is not a politician and that his role is not the determination of any nation's foreign policy. But he has just as clearly said that he will continue to speak for peace and for moral constraint. In making both of these claims, he is operating perfectly within the framework of paragraph 2309 of the Catechism. If we understand that the Pope and the President have qualitatively different roles to play in the determination of moral action in regard to war, we can, I hope, extricate ourselves from the completely unhelpful narrative of “Pope vs. President.” 

Barron's reference to the Catechism opened up an old wound with me: my absolute head-shaking dismay as to why our Catholic clergy, for the most part, and even the Pope, when engaging issues on faith and morals, refuse to quote the Catechism "chapter and verse," or in the case of our Catechism, the paragraph number, and instead pronounce things like it's their personal opinion. 

I cannot recall a Sunday sermon (or any other day for that matter) where I have ever heard a priest quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the paragraph number that tells the people who are listening two things: 1) This is the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church and NOT "my" personal opinioin; and 2) Where they can find it for themselves so they can grow in knowledge and wisdom of the Catholic faith like our clergy says we are supposed to. 

Protestant and Evangelical pastors cannot get through a sermon without quoting chapter and verse, usually of the Bible, but often other sources, multiple times. But us? 

How much damage in this Trump v Pope thing could have been avoided had the Pope simply quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "chapter and verse," relative to the "just war" matter, and maybe added a bit about how his job is to uphold the teaching of the Catholic Church? But no, instead, he made some new-sounding quip about those who "wage war," and then, when confronted about it, instead of referencing authentic Catholic teaching on the matter (quoting the Catechism), he responds, "I'm not afraid of Trump." 

Geez. 

PLAYGROUND TRASH TALK

By Tim Rohr

Copying here my Facebook post, then some commentary after.

+++++

As a usually outspoken Catholic, I'm being asked for my thoughts about the recent spat between the president and the pope. I don't really want to wander into this on FB, where I try to keep things neutral - at least in recent years. But one thing keeps coming to mind. 

Leo says, "I'm not afraid." 

JP2 said: "Be not afraid." 

I really think Leo would do better if he said the latter. 

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Mt. 10:28

This is all we really need to care about. At least that's what I do. Eternity is a very long time. 

+++++

Upon Leo's election, there was quite a bit of speculation that he, the first American ever elected pope, was elected for no other reason than to oppose Donald Trump.

Knowing THE MESS that Francis created in the Church during his 13 years, including the appointment of cardinal-electors who would be certain to perpetuate it, THE MESS, I gave some credence to this view, but nevertheless hoped otherwise.

By the way, in case you don't know or don't remember, Francis began his pontificate with the order "MAKE A MESS!" 

In a column for the Guam Daily Post, published in June 2025 and titled WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE NEW POPE? I wrote that I believed Pope Leo, contrary to Francis, would be much more careful with his words. 

He was...until now. And it's not his now much publicized statement on Palm Sunday: "Jesus does not listen to prayers of those who wage war," which much of the world saw as a direct jab at Trump's war on Iran. 

There is some speculation as to whether the pope meant those who "wage" war or those who "initiate" war. And that would make a big difference, since under the Just War Theory, we can morally engage in self-defense. 

So, as with Francis (and there's even a new word for it), the "pope-splainers" were out in force to tell us, once again, what the pope "really meant." 

However, we don't need them to tell us now. Leo told us himself what he really meant and exactly who he had directed his "wage war" comment to when he told the press: "I'm not afraid of Trump." 

With that comment, the mask came off. Sadly, for the pope, Trump's usual provocative style, which is nothing new and always to be expected, provoked the pope to get down into the TDS gutter with the others. 

How different things could have been had he quoted the Gospel he says he is proclaiming with the words "Be not afraid," rather than such self-absorbed human words: "I'm not afraid." It reminds me of that childhood playground trash talk: "I'm not afraid of you," and "My dad can beat your dad," etc. SMH

By the way, Pope Leo is currently on a much-publicized tour of Africa. He will be in Africa for 11 days. Guess where he is not going?

STUFF WE SOULDN'T BE DOING ANYWAY: A LENTEN REFLECTION

By Tim Rohr

Like his predecessor, Pope Leo is urging a "practical" form of abstinence for Lent. 

“I would like to invite you to a very practical and frequently unappreciated form of abstinence: that of refraining from words that offend and hurt our neighbor.”

I know that this makes people feel all warm inside, and who am I to contest the pope, but as I wrote two years ago in STUFF WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING IN THE FIRST PLACE, the pope is urging us to abstain - for Lent - stuff we shouldn't be doing in the first place. 

In other words, the pope (and all who promote this idea) are functionally implying that it is quite okay to go back to "words that offend and hurt our neighbor" once Lent is over. 

The pope can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the merit in "giving something up," aka "sacrificing," is that the thing sacrificed (food, sleep, time, money) is a good thing to begin with and that the sacrifice hurts - at least a little. 

I'm reminded of the famous incident of Cain and Abel. Abel's sacrifice was pleasing to the Lord and Cain's was not. The Bible doesn't tell us why God rejected Cain's sacrifice, but it's pretty clear that Abel sacrificed his best and Cain did not. 

Food and sleep are sustenance. So is time and money. They are also good things (or are at least meant to be good things). When we fast or abstain from food, get up extra early (to pray), give of our time and money to a charitable cause, we are giving up/sacrificing good things. When we abstain from "words that offend and hurt our neighbor" - to quote the pope - we are giving up BAD things. 

Which sacrifice do you think God will be pleased with?

Meanwhile, of course, we should use Lent, and the graces granted through our sacrifice of good things, to permanently stop doing - not just give up for Lent - stuff we shouldn't be doing anyway.

'WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE NEW POPE?"

LINK to online version

I will return to my series on “What to do when falsely accused” in my next column. But for this column, given the extraordinary moment of the surprise election of the man who took the name Leo 14, I thought I’d share a few thoughts on the new man in Rome. 

“What do you think of the new pope?” is a question I’ve been getting since the day the American, Robert Prevost, walked out onto the loggia as “Leonem Decimum Quartum.” 

First, I think he is a very smart man, and being smart, I predict he will be very careful, much more careful than his predecessor - who didn’t seem to care about being careful. In fact, you might say Francis’ order to “make a mess” at World Youth Day 2013 became the modus operandi  of his entire pontificate. 

During Francis’ reign, I had friends who went so far as to claim Francis was an anti-pope, an imposter to “the chair.” Some joined groups and movements to militate against him. 

Me…not so much. After every new discombobulation of the faith, from “Who am I to judge?” to the fabrication of “synodality,” I just shrugged my shoulders and repeated my usual refrain: “God gives us the leaders we deserve.”

And why wouldn’t God give us a discombobulating pope, given that for the better part of a century now, most Catholics have rejected Church teaching on everything from contraception to transubstantiation?

In fact, the election of the subdued and little known Robert Prevost is - I think - a quiet admission by his electors that Francis made too much of a mess, even for the progressive cardinals, many of whom were anointed by Francis to make more of a mess.

And speaking of “synodality,” this appears to be Leo’s first test. And how he handles it will bear witness to the remainder of what appears will be a long pontificate. 

While Francis flirted with blessing same-sex unions and permitting communion to adulterers, it really was just flirting. Of course flirting is dangerous, but with “synodality” Francis was “all in.” 

Synodality is the disturbance that it is because it functionally changes the nature of the Catholic Church. Let me explain. 

Earlier I referred to "synodality" as a fabrication. In fact, as I type “synodality” into my current draft, it keeps showing up with those squiggly underlines indicating that the word is misspelled or doesn’t exist. 

It doesn’t exit. The words “synod” and “synodal” do exist, but not “synodality.” Francis made it up. In fact, Cardinal Cupich, one of Francis’ “make a mess” boys, admitted “synodality” is a made-up word in a 2023 post titled: “‘Synodality’: a new word for an ancient reality.” 

Etymologically, “synod” means “assembly” or “meeting.” Okay, an assembly of who? Because the term has been hijacked by those who want to change Catholic Church governance, let’s take a look at an unadulterated definition in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Synod: an ecclesiastical governing or advisory council: such as a): an assembly of bishops in the Roman Catholic Church; b): the governing assembly of an Episcopal province; c): a Presbyterian governing body ranking between the presbytery and the general assembly; d: a regional or national organization of Lutheran congregations.

Up until Francis, a “synod” in a Catholic context meant “a): an assembly of bishops…” And as you can see, it means a different sort of assembly in a non-Catholic context. With “synodality,” Francis appears to have adopted “c,” the Presbyterian model: a meeting of “the presbytery (clergy) and the general assembly (laity). 

Suspiciously, Cupich’s blurb about an “ancient reality” conveniently avoids the actual “ancient reality” that was in fact the first synod: the Council of Jerusalem as described in Acts of the Apostles (15:2-35). Cupich skips it because, per the scriptural account, the only attendees were “the apostles and the elders” - in other words, the pastors or overseers (clergy). There is no mention of the “overseen” (laity) being present.

The motivation behind Francis’ fabrication of “synodality” was the creation of a so-called “listening church.” And that’s the problem. Jesus didn’t command his apostles to “go and listen.” Jesus commanded the apostles to “go and teach.”

So how will Leo handle this? He has already said at the outset “We are a synodal church.” It was a careful thing to say at the moment. But because the Catholic Church is first and foremost and always will be an Apostolic church, I think he’s going to let the whole thing die quietly.

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    

POPE LEO 14 AND THE NEOCATS

By Tim Rohr

It's funny. The big question around here immediately after Leo14 was elected wasn't whether the new pope was "Catholic" or not (an inference to the Francis confusion), but whether he was "Neo" or not. 

We can be sure that the Neocat Brass was pulling out all the stops to get one of their own into Peter's chair, and that they were doing it long before Francis breathed his last. 

We can assume that the Neocat Brass was hoping to resurrect their "Red Pope" (Filoni). I say "resurrect" because, for whatever reason, Filoni fell out of favor with Francis and was banished to the Vatican hinterlands. 

Filoni History

For those who don't remember, Filoni played a direct role in propping up the Neocats here in Guam and specifically the now-closed Neocat seminary. 

In September 2016, the Laity Forward Movement (LFM) led my Mrs. Lou Klitzkie, attempted to visit what was then the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Yona. After all, for years, Apuron had raised millions of dollars for the seminary from local Catholics under the banner "A Seminary for Guam!" 

So the LFM reasoned, if it's a seminary for Guam, then let's pay it a visit.

The LFM was turned away at the door. In response to the attempted visit, the now-missing Msgr. David C. Quitugua and then-acting rector of the seminary, wrote Fr. Jeff San Nicolas, who at the time was the delegate to the Apostolic Administrator, Archbishop Hon.

Msgr. David wrote:

Cardinal Filoni’s instruction is that no such “visit can be made to the Seminary. 

In response, Fr. Jeff did a press release stating:

The intent of Msgr. David’s letter was now clear to me. Neither I nor Archbishop Hon is the church authority over decision making regarding the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, even over simple matters such as who can visit. Cardinal Filoni is in charge.

(The letters can be read in full here.)

This was big news at the time because for years we knew the Neocats were running Apuron, and then after Hon took over, because he was Filoni's secretary, we figured the Neocats, through Filoni, were running Hon, AND with the specific aim to stomp out the opposition to Apuron, including discrediting Apuron's accusers.

Hon, trying to thread the needle of pretending to be in charge but really taking orders from Filoni and the Neocats, got himself in trouble when the legislation to lift the civil statute of limitations on sex abuse against minors became law on his watch, particularly because the legislation had been amended to include institutional liability, which enabled Apuron's accusers (and many others) to sue the archdiocese. 

This was a recipe for bankruptcy and Hon's action had precipitated the whole environment which gave public momentum for the law. 

This may have ultimately been the reason why both Filoni and Hon were kicked out of their very powerful positions in Rome and we haven't heard much if anything from them since.

Back to the present

Things start to make sense when we remind ourselves that the Cardinal who took Filoni's place as Prefect for the powerful Congregation once headed by Filoni was Cardinal Tagle - once the darling of the Neocats until he dissed them as I set out in this recent post. 

The Neocats have pretty much had their way with Rome for decades. Paul VI thought they were nice guys. JP2, in the spirit of New Evangelization, gave them a lot of room. Ben16 tried to rein them in, but they ran over him. Francis was too busy bashing "rigid" Catholics and making "a mess" (his words) to do much about Kiko's tribes who used the camera and microphone happy pope for constant photo ops. 

The mess in Guam was the first stumbling block for Kiko et. al, and they badly needed a pope, post-Francis, who would preserve their avenues of power in Rome, and maybe even restore Apuron - which is why Apuron's "I'm innocent" speech on the first day of the conclave is suspicious for its timing. 

However, probably like everybody else in the world, not even the Neocat insiders figured on the man who would become Leo14. And it appears that Leo is wise to the Neocats, having had to take over a diocese in Peru that was laid waste by the Peruvian equivalent of Apuron. 

See HERE for the rest of that story.