IT'S JUST NATURE: MY RESPONSE TO THE HATERS

By Tim Rohr

It appears my Epstein post has caused a bit of a stir. First, it got me "fired" from the Guam Daily Post, and since, I've received a steady stream of hate mail and comments like the following:

bruce gulick <bruce.gulick@gmail.com>

You’re deranged, and a disgrace to the family that attempted to raise you.

May God have mercy on your soul.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "HAPPY PAGE VIEW ANNIVERSARY":

And yet NO COMMENTS. Well, none except for this one mocking you. Turns out everyone hates you. Isn’t that correct, pedophile-lover?

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "CANCELLED ":

You literally asked what the fuss was about over 14-year-old sex workers while immediately pointing out after that the age for consensual sex was at minimum 16.

there.third.below@clkdmail.com

Good afternoon,

I just came across you blog. You are definitely a pedophile and then I saw that you are involved with the Catholic Church and it all made sense.Thank you 

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "THE EPSTEIN THING":

Have you lost your fucking mind? He abused literal CHILDREN you sick sonofabitch 

No problem, the hate gives me the opportunity to go further on the issue than I could in a space-limited column.

The question is not at what age is it okay to engage in sex, and I mean sexual activity of any sort, but when is it right at all?

I hold to the Catholic position as copied here directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The fecundity of marriage

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life," teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."

The essential statement in this paragraph is:

"it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."

Notice that it's not called a "sex act," but a "marriage act." Marriage is assumed as the good and natural state for "the act," and since "the act" must "remain ordered...to...procreation," marriage is assumed to be between a man and a woman.

In short, and to be blunt, sex is only "okay" when it occurs within a marriage between a man and a woman and only when sex is ordered to procreation - in other words: no contraception - thus the Church's prohibition.

This isn't my opinion. It is the universal teaching of the Catholic Church, always was and always will be, simply because it is founded in the very beginnings of humanity:

God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female* he created them. God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.* (Genesis 27-28)

This is also why even so-called "natural family planning" (periodic continence) is also wrong (a sin) when it is employed without grave reason. (Look it up.) The whole point of marriage, God's point, (properly called "the ends of marriage") is to "be fruitful and multiply." 

Argue with God. Not me.

And this is why, in my Epstein post, I mocked the whole idea of these false lines we draw which say at this age this is okay, and not at that age. As I pointed out, the ages of majority and consent are artificial government-made lines, and they are made even more irrelevant by our making contraception available and even free to minors of any age at our public health centers and even our schools. 

In fact, to further demonstrate the point, consider the following from a group organized to oppose child marriage:

Child marriage occurs when one or both of the parties to the marriage are below the age of 18. Child marriage is currently legal in 34 states, and 4 U.S. states do not require any minimum age for marriage, with a parental or judicial waiver.

Here in Guam, until 2015, the legal marrying age for a female was age 14 with parental consent, which, at the time, was pretty much the standard throughout the U.S. I'll explain why it changed in 2015 in a minute. But it's clear that our laws approved of a 14 year old girl engaging in sexual relations pursuant to the consent of the parents to marry. There was no maximum age for her husband so presumably he could be much older. 

So there's another moveable line. And if a line is moveable, it really has no meaning. Thus, my sarcastic quip in my Epstein piece: "What's all the fuss?" For anyone with a brain not yet darkened by whatever perverse prejudice may be beholding it at the moment, I believe my sarcastic quip was clear: On the one hand we self-righteously condemn a dirty old man like Jeffrey Epstein and on the other we're handing our kids contraceptives and even legislating that they be paid with tax dollars and handed out at our public health centers. 

In Guam in 2015, then-Senator Narissa Underwood introduced Bill 119-33, the "Guam Marriage Equality Act of 2015." The bill raised the marriage age to 16. The aim of the bill was not to protect 14 year old girls, but was a reaction to Guam's marriage law being caught between a rock and a hard place after SCOTUS legalized same-sex marriage. 

Since two persons of the same sex could now marry, gender language (male and female) had to be eliminated. The legal minimum age for marriage for males was already 16, so what to do with the "girls." Oh, wait a minute, there are no longer boys and girls, just partners, so the bill made it 16 for everybody. Another moveable, government-made line. 

Thus my sarcasm about our sanctimonious crusade against a single dirty old man and this meaningless appeal to something magical happening at 18 that makes it okay to have sex but not buy beer. Here is the relevant portion of Senator Underwood's Bill 119-33 which became Public Law 33-65.

The bottom line, even if you don't believe in God is that sex makes babies, or at least is designed to, even if it is only Nature's design. And the best place for those babies to grow up, prosper, and make babies of their own, i.e. the survival of our species, is in the context of a mother and a father committed to each other for life. It's just Nature. 

As a P.S., I know where the hate is coming from. It's this line: "So pedophilia was not the operative perversion. I’ll let you figure out what it was."

 

BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY

LINK to online version

Unlike Christmas, Thanksgiving, New Year, and the Fourth of July, all of which have identifiable origins, Valentine’s Day (like Halloween) is a holiday for no apparent reason.

Sure, there is evidence that St. Valentine was a real person who was martyred near the end of the 3rd Century. However, the Catholic Church has many saints and, but for St. Patrick, there is no secular holiday for them like there is for St. Valentine.

There is speculation that Valentine became associated with love and marriage because he was executed for secretly marrying Christian couples. And the phrase “from your Valentine” is said to have come from a note Valentine had written on the day of his execution to his jailer’s blind daughter whom he had healed.

No matter the origin of the holiday or the legend, February 14, which in 496, is the day Pope Gelasius declared as the day Valentine was martyred, has become the day we particularly celebrate “love and marriage.”

Today we take for granted that love and marriage go together, and in that order. But history doesn’t reflect this. Historically, marriage and children went together and love came later, if at all.

I am reminded of the lovely song in Fiddler on the Roof where Tevye asks Golde: “Do you love me?” Over the following verses, Golde avoids answering, saying (singing) that for 25 years “I washed your clothes, cooked your meals, cleaned your house, given you children, milked your cow…”

But Tevye insists: “But do you love me?” Finally Golde relents and responds “After 25 years…I suppose I do.” Then the two end in a sweet duet singing: “It doesn't change a thing, but even so. After twenty-five years…it’s nice to know.”

For most of history (and still in some parts of the world), marriage was about the survival of our species, not love. Our laws still reflect this reality.

A few years ago when Guam’s marriage laws were being challenged on the basis of “love is love” and we should be able to marry whomever we love, I did a study of the marriage laws in every U.S. state and territory, and the word “love” did not appear.

Here’s the relevant part of Guam’s law:

10 GCA § 3101. What Constitutes Marriage. Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which the consent of parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone will not constitute marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization authorized by this Title.

10 GCA § 3206. Particular Form Not Necessary. No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is required, but the parties must declare in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage that they take each other as husband and wife, or as spouses.

The phrase “or as spouses” was added after the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, but still no mention of “love.” So much for the argument “love is love.”

Even the famous case, Loving v Virginia, which formed much of the basis for the argument for same-sex marriage, never mentions “love.” (The plaintiffs’ name notwithstanding.)

The Lovings were a biracial couple who were denied married status in Virginia in 1967. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that marriage between two people of different races could not be denied because marriage “is a basic civil right of man fundamental to our existence and survival.”

The Court did not spell out what “survival” meant because it was referencing a precedent case, Skinner v Oklahoma, wherein the Court spelled it out: “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

Of course this is a reflection of what God himself says to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1: 28. Upon creating them “male and female,” God doesn’t say “go and love each other.” Instead he orders them to “be fruitful and multiply.”

So where does love come in?

It really didn't enter marriage until the advent of Christianity. Prior to Paul telling men to love their wives “as Christ loves the Church” (Eph. 5:25), a wife was nothing more than a man’s property.

So it is fitting that a day dedicated to “love and marriage” is founded on a Christian martyr, a Catholic saint, who lost his head for marrying Christian couples, even if it's only a legend.

Happy Valentine's Day. Be fruitful and multiply. 

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     

AND WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT PAGANS IN PARIS?

LINK to online version

So the news is about the mocking of Christianity at the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics. It may surprise some readers but I don’t care. In fact, I might say it was even “deserved.”

But before I go there, there is the question as to whether or not critics jumped to conclusions about what appeared to be a reenactment “in drag” of the Last Supper as immortalized in paint by Leonardo Da Vinci.

According to the ceremony creator, David Jolly, the scene in question was not meant to imitate the Last Supper but “to do a big pagan party linked to the gods of Olympus” and “promote tolerance of different sexual and gender identities.”

The alleged “Last Supper” was not the only seeming biblical parody. Jolly also staged what appeared to be the worship of a golden calf and a horse and rider right out of the last pages of the Book of Apocalypse.

To “flesh” out the bacchanal, Jolly, according to the AP, mixed in performances of  “a practically naked singer painted blue (who) made thinly veiled references to his body parts; a blonde-bearded drag queen (who) crawled on all fours to the thumping beat of ‘Freed From Desire,’ and “the tail end of an intimate embrace between two men who danced away, hugging and holding hands.”

And then there was Marie Antoinette’s guillotined head sitting in the window of the same building where the condemned Marie awaited her execution.

What any of this has to do with the Olympics, I don’t know, but all seems to be well in the “City of Love” because Jolly and his pals were reportedly doing nothing more than having a jolly good time, albeit in the spirit of the French Revolution. Anyway, Jolly said he was sorry if anyone was offended.

Now, to my point. Let’s assume that Jolly and his pals intended to mock Christianity, and, given the scene at issue, to mock specifically the Catholic belief in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. While I’m all for condemning sacrilege, how much worse is what a bunch of wild pagans did on the shores of the Seine than what most U.S. Catholics believe and do - at least according to polls.

I’m not preaching anything personal here, so don’t shoot the messenger. Following are some direct quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (“CCC”) relative to tough moral teachings contrasted with what Catholics actually believe and do. I would say again “at least according to the polls,” but most serious Catholics know these facts to be true.

On abortion, the CCC teaches that “abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law…(and is) an abominable crime.” (CCC 2271). Meanwhile, a 2019 Pew Research poll reports that only one in ten Catholics believe abortion is wrong in all cases, and, President Biden, a Catholic who 49% of Catholics voted for and who is the most strident pro-abortion president ever, continues to receive communion with impunity. (By the way, the same is true of our local governor.)

On homosexual acts, the CCC teaches that such acts are "acts of grave depravity…and under no circumstances can they be approved.” (CCC 2357) However, according to Pew: “ in the United States, about six-in-ten Catholics (61%) said… that they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry.” And recently, the current pope has muddied the waters further by authorizing blessings for “couples of the same sex.” (Fiducia supplicans III.)

On contraception, the CCC teaches: “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.” (CCC 2370) But, according to Pew: “Just 15% of Catholics say that using contraception is morally wrong.”

And then there’s Guam, perhaps the most Catholic place in the world per capita, with also - per capita, the Catholic world’s worst record of the sex abuse of minors by Catholic authorities from the bishop to grade-school teachers.

Finally, it’s ironic that many Catholics are upset about what appeared to be a mocking of the scene wherein Christ institutes the Sacrament of the Eucharist, when, according to Pew, only one-third of U.S. Catholics believe in the sacramental presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist: that Jesus Christ is fully present, body, blood, soul and divinity in the consecrated species (bread and wine).

And we’re concerned about pagans in Paris?

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   

PRIDE MONTH: AN ALTERNATIVE HISTORY

LINK to online version

In his June 8 letter to the editor, Sen. Parkinson lashed out at “instances of hate directed toward the LGBTQ+ community.” He then went on to lecture about flags, symbols, equality, love, acceptance, resilience, etc.

Given Parkinson’s righteous eloquence and his reference to “instances” (plural) and “hateful actions” (plural), one would think that war had broken out in the streets and gays were being rounded up and deported.

But despite Parkinson’s attempt to magnify the matter by digging up another incident from “a few years ago,” there is only one incident: the tearing down of a pride flag in Sinajana, and we don’t even know if it was actually a “hateful action” or a stupid one by just another screwball vandal.

Nevertheless, Parkinson gets good marks for being sharp enough to see an opportunity for free media not long before the next election.

Speaking of “hate” though, if one wants to experience it, you only need to speak up about the issue as I am doing now. Nothing labels you a “hater” faster or harder than having an opinion that doesn’t genuflect before the rainbow flag.

Back in 2009-2010, during what I call “the same-sex wars,” I found myself quite alone and at the center of things after legislation was introduced to legalize same-sex unions.

I ended up at “the center of things” not because I challenged same-sex unions morally but because I challenged the legislative shenanigans employed to try to slip the bill into law.

However, to take any position opposing the bill – even just demanding an honest legislative process – made you a hater.

I’m not sure why I cared about the issue. On a personal level, I don’t even notice or care about a person’s sexual orientation. However, reading Parkinson’s faux-Churchillian address to his “subjects” reminded me of why I entered the fray.

If there’s something that sets me off, it’s the abuse of little people by big people, big people like a senator, like Sen. Parkinson.

In this case (and in my opinion), Parkinson blows up a single pathetic act of vandalism into a Pride Month apocalypse, not only to send out his low-frequency virtue signal but to cast himself as an LGBTQ+ Lancelot even if he is only jousting at straw men, or is it windmills?

The same thing happened in the same-sex war thing. Other than serious missteps by the now-banished Archbishop Apuron (which I’ll get to), there was never any meaningful opposition to the legislation so there was no need to sneak the thing through.

However, the proponents weren’t looking to simply get a bill passed, they were looking for a fight, or more so, a stage, and a stage with a spotlight, a spotlight on them. So when no fight materialized, they created an army of straw men and attacked their manufactured “haters.”

The media at the time was all in. So the whole thing became a machine, not a political machine to legalize same-sex unions but a machine to elevate and aggrandize an in-your-face normalization of same-sex behavior, lifestyle, whatever you want to call it. And the machine rolled over and crushed into “haters” any little people who dared peep up with any thought to the contrary.

Actually, the whole thing was such a false fight that it would have gotten tired of itself and gone away but for Apuron’s ghostwriter priest at the now infamous Redemptoris Mater Seminary.

Said priest fancied himself a moral theologian and attacked the bill via a letter to the Legislature in which he referenced the beheading of homosexuals by Muslims. Unfortunately for the now-banished Apuron, the priest did not put his name to the letter but distributed it on Apuron’s letterhead.

And wham! That’s all the proponents needed. They had their straw man: a Catholic archbishop (Apuron) who would allegedly behead homosexuals. I still remember the news report showing Apuron running down a hallway with reporters chasing after him.

Ultimately, the legislation did go away when the sponsor withdrew it. On Catholic Guam you might think that it was withdrawn for moral reasons. It was not.

There was plenty of support for the bill and it would have passed but for a phone call one morning into a radio talk show by the then-director of the GovGuam retirement fund.

Said director outlined the probable negative impact of same-sex unions on the retirement fund and that was that. The sponsor withdrew the bill the next day.

Tim Rohr has resided in Guam since 1987. He has raised a family of 11 children, owned several businesses and most recently been 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 

AT LEAST FR. JAMES MARTIN, S.J. IS HONEST

By Tim Rohr

In his Apostolic Administrator’s statement of Dec. 22, 2023 regarding Fiducia Supplicans ("FS"), Apostolic Administrator for Agana, Fr. Romeo Convocar, urges us to “carefully read the actual document, instead of relying on presentations or interpretations by media and other sources.” 

I did. 

And it doesn’t say what Fr. Convocar tells us it says. 

Fr. Convocar says that FS “refers to…the blessing of persons and not unions of persons or couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples.” 

Fr. Convocar’s “interpretation” absolutely contradicts the heading of Section III which is clearly titled: “Blessings of Couples in Irregular Situations and of Couples of the Same Sex.”

If Pope Francis wanted to make it clear that FS was only about “the blessing of persons and not unions,” as Fr. Convocar wants us to believe, then the title could have easily and clearly been: “Blessing of Persons in Irregular Situations and Persons in Same-Sex Unions.”

But it isn't.

In fact, FS uses the word “individual” only once, and not even in the singular: “the ordained minister could ask that the individuals have peace…” The blessing is clearly directed towards a “couple,” thus the Vatican’s clear use of the plural.  

FS uses the word "person" seven times, however, in the most critical part of the document, when the pope might have stuck with the singular to avoid confusion, he opts for the plural ("persons") and emphasizes that the blessing is for a couple and not a person by further using the word "themselves" instead of him or herself:

"...the ordained minister join in the prayer of those persons who, although in a union that cannot be compared in any way to a marriage, desire to entrust themselves to the Lord and his mercy..." (Par. 30)

When will these people stop lying to us?

At least Fr. James Martin is honest about what Pope Francis really wants:

Fr. James Martin, SJ, blessing a same-sex couple the day
after FS was promulgated

FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS

By Tim Rohr

As many now know, Pope Francis has authorized priestly blessings for couples in "irregular unions," including same-sex unions. Most of what is in the news is filtered one way or another so you are encouraged to read the source document as posted on the Vatican website.

THOSE WHO CHOSE "NOT TO..."

By Tim Rohr

At some point, I'm going to be too old to care about who I offend, but I'm not at that point yet, so this post - since it is in reference to someone recently deceased and also greatly (locally) revered - will be intentionally vague. 

In a way, the identity of the recently deceased is not important given that he/she is but one of many powerful people here in Guam who could have made a difference in Guam's Catholic Church when it was still possible to make a difference, but for whatever reason, chose to remain "in the background." 

Of course, we all know - in fact the world knows - what has become of Guam's now bankrupt Catholic Church, and bankrupt not just legally and financially.

The present story goes back to about 2009 when I was being called by "the chancery" almost daily to appear at meetings to address what was probably our local church's first major crisis: same-sex union legislation as introduced and supported by then-Senator B.J. Cruz. 

I was called because at the time I was fairly active in the public media defending all things Catholic - and apparently this chancery think-tank thought I would be an asset to say stuff to the media that they themselves did not want to say. 

In other words, I was - in military terms - "cannon fodder," front line stuff: "look, here, shoot at him!"

I knew what "they" were doing and that I was being used, so I proposed a list of heavyweight Catholics who had both the legal acumen and the Catholic credentials to engage a heavyweight like BJ. I mean, I was just a "mosquito" to BJ, so why not bring out your big guns?

The chancery group nodded in agreement and advised that the persons on my list would be contacted.

At the next meeting, the verdict was that no one - NO ONE - (including the recently deceased) was willing to get involved. 

BJ's legislation went beyond mere legislation, it created a firestorm over homosexuality - or more specifically - homosexual acts, and the bottom line was that NO ONE in "our church" wanted to go there. 

Why?

Because almost everyone had a friend or relative who was homosexual. (Of course, as we now know, certain "members" of those chancery meetings were also homosexual.)

In order to attend these "meetings" - which were often in the middle of the day - I often had to hang a sign on my business saying "closed." This impacted my business and family finances, but I was willing to do it because my first occupation was the defense of our Catholic Church - and not the then-Archbishop. 

It was a difficult time. My only objective was to defend Catholic Church teaching relative to sex, homo or hetero sexual. Catholic Church teaching is extremely clear. The sexual act - more properly called the nuptial act - is naturally and divinely ordered to the begetting of children and thus presenting more souls to Our Lord for Him to Love. 

Chastity is that virtue which allows us to direct all our sexual desires, emotions and attractions toward the dignity of the person and the real meaning of love.  It means we learn to put our own desires and wants aside and instead look to the greatest good for the other.  And so, through practising the virtue of chastity, we learn self-mastery and true love – becoming more Christ-like. (See: CHASTITY)

But I digress.

The bottom line is that back then (2009...) our local Catholic Church heavy-hitters preferred NOT to engage. They liked their positions as "eucharistic ministers, lectors, greeters," etc. And aside from being friends and relatives of homosexuals, they knew and liked BJ. 

I didn't really know BJ, but even as his pain in the ___ in those days, I still liked him. He was honest and open. And one day, after most of the same-sex legislative drama was over, he showed up at my Catholic bookstore and purchased a book about Catholic teaching on homosexuality. 

But going back to how I opened this post - that some powerful people could have made a difference when making a difference could have mattered, our Church is now under court-order to divest itself of millions of dollars of property, property given to the Church by Guam's Catholic faithful over generations if not centuries. 

And most of this terrible trauma is due to the actions of homosexual clergy who helped themselves to young male flesh, and consequently, the people who could have made a difference but chose NOT TO.

SO IT'S "PRIDE" MONTH - A MEMORY OF "A PISSING MATCH" - AND GUAM'S TRUE SACRED COW

By Tim Rohr

So it's "Pride" month, and I set out in this post to offer some profound reflections, including the fact that currently, thanks to what some still call "An Act of God," Guam is more concerned with power and water than it is with "pride" or anything else. 

But, I got distracted with memories. So I'll share the following as a sort of Part 1 for what I ultimately and eventually aim to address: "marriage." 

For now. Here's the "memory."

+++++

Every June 3, I am reminded of a mistake I made. 

On that day, in 2009, I got drawn into what then-Senator B.J. Cruz (hereinafter referred to as "B.J.") eventually called "a pissing match."

IT HAPPENED LIKE THIS

On June 3, 2009, the Guam Youth Congress recruited B.J. to introduce legislation that would legalize same-sex civil unions - Guam's first foray into this stuff.

I was sitting in my office minding my own business when I got a call that afternoon. I won't say from whom, but it was from - or at least in the name of - an important person in the local Catholic Church.

The caller gave me the news about the bill and then asked: "Do you want to do something about this?"

There were a few reasons why I was called: (1) I had been somewhat active publicly defending the Catholic faith from the usual attackers in letters to the editor; (2) I had recently gained some notoriety advancing Guam's first anti-abortion law in nearly thirty years (a ban on partial-birth abortion); and (3) I owned and operated a Catholic bookstore. 

My mistake was not responding with - why don't you call the Knights of Columbus, or any one of the many deacons, or really anybody but me. 

Instead, I said I'd check it out. 

As I expected, the media had immediately latched onto the bill and was looking for a fight with the local Catholic Church.

The Archdiocese of Agana, aka then-Archbishop Apuron, was an easy "whipping boy" - a role he - or the people who spoke for him - almost always stupidly and immediately obliged. 

I had learned long ago never to engage any social issue from a religious perspective because that's exactly what the other side was waiting for so "they" (the other side) can discard you as a religious nut-case, or ridicule you out into the street with their false "separation of church and state" arguments.

It doesn't matter that there is no such "separation" in the U.S. Constitution. It's a lie that's been told so many times that most people think it's there. So it works.

IT GET'S MESSY

The whole affair began to get really messy when the Guam Youth Congress sponsored several "townhalls" to promote the legislation. 

As expected, the religious folk showed up. 

I was at all the townhalls and I have to say that the "protestants" did a very good job. 

They (the "protestants") presented their views succinctly and respectfully, and even made some really significant logical arguments. I remember one black pastor saying something like the following:

Look at me. Am I black? Of course. You can see I'm black. Am I gay? You can't tell. Because unless I tell you, you can't know. So you cannot equate racial discrimination with discrimination against homosexuals because with race, it's self-revealing, but with sexual orientation, it's not. A homosexual has to tell you he's homosexual. As a Black man, I don't have to tell you. You can see that I am. 

In short, and in general, Blacks, and especially Blacks, objected to the homosexual appropriation of the Black racial struggle against discrimination. Read more about that here. 

Meanwhile, the Catholic side didn't do so well. There was shouting and crying and threats like "what would your mother think," and stuff like that. 

In short, the Catholics gave the bill's supporters, as well as the media, what they wanted: a fight, and a good one. Catholics were immediately cast as haters, bigots, homophobes, etc. And it was easy to do. 

To make matters worse, the Neocats were looking for ways to further ingratiate themselves with then-Archbishop Apuron, and one of the priest-professors at the then-Redemptoris Mater Seminary took to writing several sermons and press releases with Archbishop Apuron's name on them. 

One of these writings appeared to suggest that homosexuals should be beheaded. It's not what the writer intended, but he was stupid to even "go there." I wrote about it in a post titled DON'T GO THERE. More about the beheading fiasco can be found at KUAM. 

Meanwhile, I was calling into talk shows, writing letters to the editor, and doing what I could to distance myself from the "walk into this" stupidity that was coming from "The Hill" (the Chancery, but really RMS), while trying to engage the legislation (at great expense to my businesses and my family) without getting into the religious stuff. 

In fact, it was B.J. who inadvertently helped me do that. 

HOW B.J. HELPED ME DO THAT

The Guam Youth Congress bill was full of holes and was not holding up well. So B.J. substituted a new bill that replaced civil-unions with domestic partnerships. B.J. was actually onto something there, but I'll get to that later. 

The problem with B.J's domestic partnership bill was that it was "substituted" instead of introduced. This is technical stuff, but in short a substitute bill must be "germane" to the original. 

In my view, B.J's bill was not germane. Anyway, it gave me something to argue about other than the same-sex stuff. Eventually B.J. introduced the domestic partnership bill separately. And the debate began all over again.

By this time, "the Church" had pretty much been sidelined because of the aforesaid stupidity from The Hill, and I was the only opponent left in the ring...with B.J., which occasioned his reference to "a pissing match." 

It was pretty funny. 

I was challenging B.J.'s domestic partnership bill on procedural grounds and the media was still trying to cast me as a religious zealot. A reporter thrust a microphone into B.J.'s face and said something about what "Tim Rohr said..." B.J. replied:

"I'm not going to get into a pissing match with Tim Rohr." 

LOL. He was right. I was a nobody. Really. But the media had nobody else. So "they," the media, instead of going after something substantive, spent all their time trying to create a pissing match. 

And, given the issue, B.J.'s characterization of the same-sex issue as "a pissing match," was not only apt, it was a hilarious visual. 

HE WAS AND IS A GOOD MAN

I remember a few weeks later, B.J. walked into my Catholic bookstore and bought a book about what the Catholic Church teaches on homosexuality. I took his money and said thank you. 

I always believed and still believe that B.J. Cruz is a good man. And I really didn't like opposing him. 

We had some stuff in common. 

At almost the same age (17) both of us were sexually approached by priests, and both in California. We took different paths at that point. But I knew what it felt like. So when I heard "B.J.'s" story (as told to Ray Gibson one morning on K57), all of my memories came back to me. 

Yes, I chose a different way to respond. And to this day I still say "I won't leave Jesus because of Judas." But that doesn't take away from how B.J. responded to his "attacker," especially when he was 17 (like me).

IN THE END

In the end, B.J. withdrew his bill. He didn't have the votes. But it wasn't because of anything I did. It was because of what Joe T. San Agustin, the then-director of the GovGuam retirement fund, did. In fact "Joe T" had "did" it long before B.J. finally withdrew his bill.

Upon introduction of the first same-sex union bill, Joe T had sent a letter to the legislature setting out his concerns about how the legislation would impact the GovGuam Retirement Fund - Guam's true "sacred cow." 

It was simply math. 

Joe T's position was that there were no "actuarial tables" to project the impact of legal same-sex unions on the GovGuam Retirement Fund.

The media buried Joe T's letter for more than a year, probably because the fight with the Catholic Church was more fun than retirement fund actuarial tables. 

At long last, probably over a year after the initial drama, Joe T and Sen. Cruz had it out on Ray's show on K57. 

Joe T hammered on the math and the potential harm to the retirement fund. The argument on the radio got hot, but the next day or so, Cruz withdrew his bill. 

Up till then, poll after poll showed public support for the bill. However, once word got out how it might negatively impact the retirement fund it was a fairly sure thing that said support would go away. So in the end, it was money not morals that determined the fate of the bill.

The whole thing was a meaningless drama and a waste of time (in my hindsight view) because in 2015, a U.S. Supreme Court decision made same-sex marriage legal everywhere, and by 2016, the Archdiocese of Agana would be the scandal of the world. 

But, as mentioned earlier, Cruz was "on to something" with his domestic partnership idea. So I'll get back to that soon. 

Meanwhile, avoid pissing matches and here's hoping you all get power and water soon.

Part 2 is CAVEMAN MARRIAGE

HERE COME THE JUDGE

 

A letter authored by Attorney David Lujan was printed in the Guam Daily Post today. 

Parents choose godparents, not the Catholic church

- The letter is copied below in black and my comments are in red. - 

****

On Nov. 21, the Pacific News Center carried a story about Lt. Gov. Tenorio being prohibited from being a godfather for the sole reason he is in a same-sex relationship.

While PNC may have "carried a story," that's not the story. The story is that no one can be a godparent in the Catholic Church who doesn't qualify. It doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is. Those qualifications can be found in the Code of Canon Law beginning at Canon 872.  As the author of the letter to the Post is an attorney, he will appreciate where the statute can be found.

The choice of who is to be godparents belongs solely to the parents, not the church. Parents bestow the privilege upon a person because of a long-term relationship, and, belief in certain qualities perceived in whom they believe will help raise, guide, and be a good example for the child. No priest is qualified to contradict the parent’s choice.

It appears that the author may be referencing the cultural meaning of "godparents" given the qualities he sets forth for the choice of godparents. However, none of those qualities are what Church law sets forth in Canon 872. 

Pursuant to Canon 872, a godparent, in addition to presenting the child for Baptism (or Confirmation - which is the only other sacrament requiring a "sponsor"),  "helps the baptized person to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism and to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it." 

The key words are "a Christian life." 

This applies to everyone. Thus a person in a sexual relationship with another person of the opposite sex to whom he or she is not married, is - in the eyes of the Church - living in a perpetual state of mortal sin and cannot be a Catholic godparent.

The disqualification because of same-sex relations is hypocritical. Why should homosexuality be a disqualifying factor? I remember being taught that “God created man in his image.” If so, why should God be limited to a male only? Wouldn’t this mean God discriminates? Since I have never seen God in a physical form, and I suspect neither have others, why should we conclude that God is a male only, and not a female, nor any other physical form?

Actually, God did not make a "male only." Genesis 1:27 says: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." And then Genesis 1:28 goes on to tell us why God made mankind "male and female:" God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." 

Thus the male and female - in a faithful, fruitful and multiplying relationship - is the very Image of God on Earth, which is also why the deliberate frustration of the ends of the procreative/reproductive act (contraception, abortion) are a violation of God's very Image and thus a mortal sin - abortion being the additional sin of murder.

In addition, I was also taught God is omnipotent and just. If this is true, then heterosexuals, homosexuals, and LGBTQs were equally created in God’s image!

Yes, they were and yes we are. We are all created equal in the eyes of God, BUT with the freedom (free will) to become unequal and to choose our ends, just as Adam and Eve did, and just as did Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob...and Judas - of whom Christ said "better for him that he had not been born." (Mt. 26:24)

Since God supposedly knows, at the moment of conception, the sexual characteristics of each human God allows to be created, I cannot believe that God intended a child to be pre-ordained to end up in hell. I believe God is just.

Yes, God is just. And because God is Just, every person is created with free will and thus (at the age of reason) the freedom to choose heaven or hell as our eternal ends. As for going to heaven, Scripture tells us "nothing unclean shall enter it." (Rev. 21:27) 

And we are free to either decide for ourselves what is clean and unclean...or to look to the Church Christ left us and the teaching authority for that Church. (Personally, I'll stick with two-thousand years of Church teaching as descended from the Apostles versus my own small, selfish, concupiscent mind.)

As the creator who is all-knowing and just, God could not have intentionally created only heterosexuals in his image. Hence, members of LGBTQs were equally created in His image.

Unfortunately for the author's point, the opposite-sex couple - in a faithful, fruitful relationship (having children - or at least open to life in every nuptial act) - is exactly how Genesis defines  "His image." 

Heterosexuals and LGTBQs abound throughout every race and culture. They are part of humanity and we should embrace, not exclude them, since God created them.

For the record, sacramentally married opposite-sex couples who contracept are also excluded from being godparents...and from receiving Holy Communion. Again, the Church discriminates equally. Well, sort of. 

Because while homosexual acts are only considered intrinsically disordered, contraceptive acts between sacramentally married persons are dealt a much more severe blow. Such acts are defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as "intrinsically evil." (Catechism of the Catholic Church at par. 2370.)

In other words, the Catholic Church (in its official teaching - and not this or that pope, bishop, or priest) RECOGNIZES that homosexual acts are subject to a disorder that certain persons may not be able to control. Meanwhile, the same Church condemns heterosexual acts that are deliberately contraceptive as always and everywhere (the definition of "intrinsic") EVIL. 

One might say that in its official doctrine (i.e. the Catechism) the Catholic Church is far more compassionate to persons with a homosexual orientation than it is to male and female sacramentally married persons, who deliberately contracept. 

In closing, the Church, the archbishop, and that priest who brought the news to the lieutenant governor prohibiting him the privilege and honor of being a godfather that most of us heterosexuals have experienced owe a profound apology not just to the lieutenant governor, but other members of the LGBTQ community.

I agree with the author. The leadership of our Church does owe an apology for every time this or that cleric looked the other way at what the author presents here. Looking the other way for decades because of weak (and many times immoral) clerical leadership and cultural pressure, and even now, not taking the opportunity to address this matter publicly in the Archbishop's own newspaper when the matter with the Lt. Governor first surfaced, has demonstratively led to more hard feelings, possible scandal, and even more souls swimming away from the Barque of Peter.  

By the way, I've heard it quipped, "A good attorney knows the law. A great attorney knows the judge." It would be a good idea for all of us who care about Eternity to know both the law and The Judge. 

This is a P.S.

Perhaps the author of the letter to the Post cannot be held culpable for very much. Given his age, he is perhaps the local product of the Flores-Apuron generation which produced the most horrific record of sexual abuse of minors in the modern history of the Catholic Church in the Western World. 

For those who don't know, Guam's record of clerical abuse of minors, per capita, during the Flores-Apuron years, is FOURTEEN TIMES that of the Archdiocese of Boston - which not only made damning international news, but also inspired the Academy Award winning movie, Spotlight. 

However, as a P.P.S.

It should also be noted that all known cases against the former archbishop(s) and the Archdiocese of Agana have next to nothing to do with clinically defined pedophilia, and everything to do with (clinically defined) same-sex oriented clerics who preyed on underage, mostly-male, biological adults. The question is...will we every NAME THE PROBLEM.

The JUDGE will. 

.....

And then there's a P.P.P.S (is there such a thing?)

Given that Attorney Lujan's office has the lion's share of clergy sex abuse cases, Mr. Lujan stands to make many millions of dollars if not many, many millions of dollars from the work this blog did to expose the afore-referenced scandal - all of which is rooted in decades of homosexual activities by certain members of Guam's clergy, going all the way up to the office of Archbishop. If - pursuant to Mr. Lujan's theology that God simply made people that way and they can't help it - then, but for the artifice of the age of the majority (18), there is simply no case. 

MAYBE NOW IS A GOOD TIME

To his credit, not even Lt. Governor Joshua Tenorio blamed the "Church" (Archbishop Byrnes) for his  (Tenorio) being prohibited from being a godparent "because he's gay." 

Tenorio correctly connected the "Church's" prohibition to his being a confirmation godparent/sponsor to his niece to his being in a same-sex relationship, and not "because he's gay."

But that didn't stop the Pacific News Center from lying about both what the Church said and about what Tenorio himself said, headlining its story:

Lt. Governor prohibited by Church from becoming godparent to his niece because he’s gay

By Julianne Hernandez -November 21, 2020

Like God, the Catholic Church is "no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34-35), meaning neither God (nor the Church) has favorites. The qualifications for being a godparent apply equally to everyone regardless of sexual orientation and the nature of one's sexual relationships.

The qualifications for being a godparent (or in this case a confirmation sponsor) are set forth in Church Law (Canon Law), and like civil law, Church law is "no respecter of persons." Those qualifications can be read in full here, but the issue at question here is Can.  874 §1.3:

(A godparent must) "be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on..."

In the interview on K57, the show's host inquires into Tenorio's reception of the required sacraments but does not inquire into whether or not Tenorio is leading "a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on..." 

Tenorio's answer of course would have to be no, which is the same answer a person engaged in a sexual relationship with another person of the opposite sex he or she is not married to would have to answer. 

Also, one can be single and still a godparent, so it's not about who you are married to or in a relationship with. It's about whether or not you are living in a perpetual and especially a public state of unrepentant mortal sin, which would be the very opposite of "the function to be taken on" which is: 

(to assist) "the baptized person (or confirmee) to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism (or confirmation) and to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it." - Can. 872

The bottom line is that sex is about "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). And intentionally* sterile sexual acts, whether they are same-sex acts or contraceptive acts, are mortally contrary to God's design. 

*Some persons are naturally sterile due to age or other reasons and thus the nuptial act is not intentionally sterile."

There are a few more points in the story that should be made. 

One wonders why the pastor(s) even had to get the Archbishop involved. Joshua Tenorio is a public figure and his homosexual lifestyle is not only not a secret, it is a celebrated fact, i.e. "the first openly gay Lt. Governor." This is something that could have been politely and discreetly addressed between the pastor and Tenorio. Tenorio even said that at least one of the pastors was his friend. 

The other matter, given that Tenorio is the public figure that he is, after Tenorio went public about the issue on the radio, the "Church" should have addressed the matter just as publicly; not that the Church should have made this about Tenorio, but the Church could have and should have used the opportunity to educate the public, and especially the Catholic faithful, many of whom do not understand what has been set forth in the foregoing.

There is one other matter. In Guam, "godparent" carries a cultural meaning that goes beyond just a duty to assist the baptized and confirmed person in growing in the Catholic faith. Often times it includes financial, social, and other responsibilities, including political connections. All of which can much determine the future (at least in this world) of the baptiz-ee or confirm-ee. 

And this is why people get upset a lot of times over the godparent thing. The difference between "God and mammon" (Mt. 6:24), at least when it comes to this extra-godparent role, is something the "Church" (at least in Guam) seems very hesitant to address. 

Maybe now is a good time.

MARRIAGE: PART 4- "BONUM CONIUGUM"

In responding to my series of posts on Marriage, particularly my third installment, "LET THERE BE SPACES IN YOUR TOGETHERNESS", Anonymous August 16, 2017 at 6:24 PM states:

"Marriage went down the tubes in the US because mandatory joint income tax return filings are insanely high. Many happily married couples divorced but continued to live together because of that."

To which I replied"

"You are referring to the "marriage penalty." For those who don't know:

https://taxfoundation.org/understanding-marriage-penalty-and-marriage-bonus/"

I further added:

"I tried to address this back in 2009-2010 during the first debates over legalizing same-sex unions. The pro-crowd kept shouting about all the benefits married people have. LOL. Not!"

I share this as a prequel to what I was already planning for my 4th installment on this series which is not what the civil government did, but what our own bishops did to destroy marriage. I actually wrote about it in 2013 in a post on my blog TheMassNeverEnds. However, I will copy it it here:

APURON'S LETTER: A MISSED OPPORTUNITY. TODAY'S PDN

A couple of notes on my op-ed in today's PDN.

The archbishop was quite viciously attacked by some in the media and generally in the online comments about transgressing the so-called "separation of church and state" in "his" (it wasn't his) letter condemning "events" advancing same-sex marriage. 

THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT

There have been several comments related to homosexuality. Some I have published, others I have held as I could see they could be hurtful as well as wrong. 

While our church leaders seem to flounder about when all they need to do is quote the Catechism, let us not make the same mistake by similarly floundering about with our own ideas of what the Church teaches or what we would like it to teach. 

Instead, let us carefully read EXACTLY what the Church teaches as written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

DEAR SENATORS

Dear Senators,

In 1857, Supreme Court Chief Justice, Roger B. Taney, wrote that all black people are:

"beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

The case was (Dred) Scott v. Sandford. And the court's decision (7-2) was supposed to be the last word on the slavery question. The court had spoken. One race could own another.

Thank God we had lawmakers and civic leaders back then that didn't say what some of your are saying:

"The courts have already made a ruling on this issue and we can't pick and choose when to follow the orders of the court, so let's comply and get back to work." - Senator Michael San Nicholas. Guam Pacific Daily News. April 20, 2015

And P.S. If you believe (as some of you are also saying) that you cannot let your religious (Catholic) views influence your civic decisions, then STOP using Catholic events (funerals, etc.) to campaign.

DON'T GO THERE

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

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

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

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

WHAT TO DO ABOUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Someone messaged me the other day and asked if I was going to "do anything" about same-sex marriage.

The person is probably asking me because of the role I played a few years ago engaging the same-sex union bill back in 2009.

My answer is yes. And here it is.

WHERE DO I STAND?

One of the tricks that was used by the proponents of Guam's previous attempt at legalizing same-sex unions was to make it look like the archbishop personally was not willing to compromise. This allowed the proponents to objectify a single target and freeze it, or in this case: him. 

Unfortunately, due to the archbishop's lack of control of the message that was being put out in his name, the trick worked. And once the archbishop was objectified as the sole opponent of the bill, it was easy to then vilify the whole Catholic Church as homophobic, which is standard "m-o" for same-sex protagonists. 

The truth is of course that no bishop or priest has the authority to say anything other than what the Church says on matters of faith and morals where those matters are magisterially defined. And the right use of the sexual function is one of those matters. In short, sex by design, God's design, makes babies:

"God created man in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it." (Gen 1:27-28)

We might use sex for other things (money, pleasure, or even intimacy), but then we depart from God's design.

IT'S NOT THE MEDIA!

Yesterday, the media was abuzz with the news that Pope Francis had denounced the conservative emphasis on moral issues and had urged our church to be more welcoming and merciful. In media-speak, that means more “liberal”. 

I have been wanting to read the actual interview as posted on the website of the British Jesuits (I don't trust America Magazine - the U.S. Jesuits), but the link currently does not appear to be working. So for now, I’ll need to go with the news reports and try (once again) to decipher what the Pope “really” meant. 

AND NOW THIS

The whole same-sex marriage, gay rights, hate crimes agenda has as its epicenter the murder of Matthew Shepard. This is where the agenda found its cause celeb. The case has been used to depict anyone who speaks out against the gay agenda as homophobe, a bigot, and a hater. It has led to the revocation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the overturning of key portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, the persecution of clergy and businesses who refuse to mary same-sex couples or serve them, and even to the rights of school children in California to use whatever bathroom they want depending on which gender they feel like identifying with.

BISHOP SILVA PENS IMPORTANT LETTER ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Bishop Silva of Honolulu has written one of the better arguments against the legalization of same-sex marriage, which is once again way making its legislative way towards law in the state of Hawaii. Silva clarifies the proper role of "discrimination" and outlines the practical consequences in a way few religious leaders have. 

Same-sex marriage is coming to Guam again soon. We would do well to pay attention to how other dioceses are confronting it. Read his introductory memorandum here and the full letter at the link at the bottom of the page.