THE EMPEROR WITH NO CLOTHES AND THE "OLD WOUND"

By Tim Rohr

The Emperor with No Clothes

In the post GEEZ!, I mentioned that the persistent failure of our church leaders to reference the Catechism when pronouncing, or in the case of a pope, pontificating on matters of faith and morals, is, with me, an "old wound." 

As I explained in GEEZ!, while we Catholics have the benefit of grounding ourselves in 2000 years of defined doctrine and dogma, our church leaders almost never, and that includes the popes (at least the last two), reference "chapter and verse," that "defined doctrine and dogma," and instead, pronounce stuff as if it's their personal opinion. 

And this leads to untold damage, with everything from people getting mad at this or that priest and leaving the Catholic Church altogether, to the current stupidity between the President and the Pope, which is splitting Catholics and Americans generally. 

In this post, I wanted to share why this is an "old wound" for me. Following is a draft of a chapter in my upcoming book, Orchestrated: How a blog and the laity took down an archbishop and exposed the largest clergy sex abuse scandal, per capita, in the whole Catholic world.

+++++

It had been quite obvious to many for a very long while that Apuron was brainless - a mere shell of a man, truly an "emperor with no clothes." In 2009-2011, when I was involved in a project that forced me to get up close and personal with Apuron and the chancery's inner workings, I was horrified by what I saw. 

I got to get up close and personal, not because of any favor Apuron and his people were doing for me, but because of what I was doing for them. I was the attack dog they were sending out to do battle in the public square with then-Senator BJ Cruz, first, over his same-sex bill, and then BJ's statute of limitations bills. 

In 2011, Senator Cruz introduced two bills related to removing the statute of limitations on sex crimes against minors. Both bills were enacted into law but were time-limited, making it necessary for new legislation in 2016 when Apuron’s accusers came forward.

[REFERENCE] Raymundo, S. (2016, May 23). Law limits sexual abuse charges. Pacific Daily News.

In meetings at the Chancery (the office for the archdiocese), Apuron might as well have had a stick holding him up. He seemed permanently out to lunch - in a Faustian daze as to what was happening and limply waiting for somebody to tell him what to do. 

The breaking point for me came when I exploded at a meeting after an absolutely stupid "apuronic" move. It was after a meeting with some members of the legislature at the Guam Hilton. In fact, I had recommended the meeting. 

At the time, I had thought that instead of this soundbite war in the press over the same-sex union legislation, it would behoove the clergy to have a sit-down with Senator BJ and the boys and talk like grown-ups.

My concern was not for Apuron but for the Catholic Faith. The press was ripping the Church apart for being anti-gay, and the “response from Apuron” thus far had only exacerbated things. I put "response from Apuron" in quotes because while the "response" was sent out in his name, there was actually no response from Apuron. Apuron was not capable of a response - or even a homily for that matter. 

As most know, Apuron's homilies were usually canned. A couple of times, when I could tell he was just reading something, I googled a particular phrase, and the homily would pop up. Most people already knew this. Listening to an Apuron homily was like listening to a machine. Of course, at the time, I did not know why he was so hollow. 

All of Apuron's speeches, statements, etc., on same-sex legislation were ghostwritten by Fr. Francis Walsh, a "professor" at the Neocat’s Redemptoris Mater Seminary (“RMS”). And for this event at the Hilton, Walsh had written one that was to become famous. 

Apuron probably never read it. But I did. Walsh had let me review it. I had thought he was going to submit it as an opinion piece to the media with his own name. I could see that it was incendiary, but that was his business. 

Unfortunately, he (Walsh) made it our business. Walsh had his "paper" printed on Apuron's letterhead, and copies were passed out to the senators at the Hilton meeting, whereupon the meeting immediately imploded, and Apuron was caught on camera running down a Hilton hallway, fleeing reporters. 

Until recently, the mere googling of the word "Apuron" would quickly lead you to that infamous letter, but of course, recent events (Apuron’s sex scandals)  have obscured it. Wikipedia still references it:

“Apuron drew criticism for a letter distributed by his archdiocese in October 2009 demonizing gay members of the community while simultaneously praising Islamists. It said in part: Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. That is why they repress such behavior by death. Their culture is anything but one of self-absorption. It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice.” 

Up to this point (about October 2009), for several weeks I had been slogging through the town halls, the press, the radio, TV, speaking in schools, etc., at great cost to myself and my family, not in defense of Apuron, but trying to distinguish between what Apuron was "saying" and what the Church actually taught about same-sex stuff - something Apuron apparently didn't even appear to know.

I was also having to war against the image of the Church presented by a certain Catholic deacon who would stand up at town hall meetings and start screaming and preaching at the presenters, creating more enemies as he did.

In addition, I was incensed by what I perceived to be Senator B.J.'s attempt to pull a fast one by substituting the original bill with another, which would have kept his substitute bill from receiving a public hearing, allowing an important piece of legislation on same-sex unions to sneak through without one. 

After several horrible weeks of being maligned in the media as a "homophobe" (which is the label attached to anyone who even demands transparency in the matter of same-sex legislation), I eventually prevailed. 

Senator BJ's substitute bill was NOT germane to the original and had to have its own hearing, a hearing which eventually sank the bill, not because of any opposition by the Catholic Church or even me, but because it prompted a letter from the Director of the Government of Guam Retirement Fund to the Legislature, a letter sent six months before it finally became known.

For months, I had been urging the media to ask about the effect of the same-sex legislation on the Government of Guam Retirement Fund. I knew that most people did not really care about the bill's moral dimension, but they would certainly care about its financial impact, especially if it affected their retirement. 

I was right. 

I still remember the moment when K57 talk show host Ray Gibson got the Fund's executor, Mr. Joe T. San Agustin (“Joe T”), on the radio. Joe T said he had sent a letter to the legislature six months earlier, stating that same-sex union legislation could break the retirement fund. The problem was that, should the bill become law, it would create a whole new class of GovGuam dependents for which the retirement fund had "no actuarial tables." 

Sorry, Mr. Joe T, if I'm not paraphrasing this correctly, but that was the upshot. Senator BJ got on the air with Joe T, and an argument ensued. Joe T did not back down, and the next day, Senator BJ withdrew his bill, saying he didn't have enough votes.

Apologies for that long diversion, but it's important for the reader to know how much Apuron's lack of brains cost me and how far I was willing to go to protect him. At the time, only six states had passed similar legislation. Had Guam passed it, given its mostly Catholic population, Apuron would have stood out to Rome like a diseased wart on a sore thumb. Little did I know that I should have just let it happen. But I really wasn't trying to save Apuron. 

Apuron was presenting (Neocat) Fr. Walsh's letters as if they were his own, and Walsh's letters were long on his own views and short on actual Catholic teaching, endangering the Church in the public view and pushing people (who might have otherwise not cared about the issue) to support the legislation just to oppose what looked like a very hostile Church - when really it was only a Neocat agenda -NOT to protect of promote Catholic teaching, BUT to protect and promote Apuron - their rubber stamp and sugar daddy.

At those many meetings with the clergy and the archbishop, where there was much hand-wringing over how to engage the same-sex union legislation, I kept saying over and over and over: "JUST PRESENT WHAT THE CHURCH ACTUALLY SAYS!" I couldn't believe I had to tell an archbishop and a room full of priests and theology professors to say this, but I did. And still, time after time after time, they IGNORED Church teaching and presented their own.

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.

CAVEMAN MARRIAGE

By Tim Rohr

Warning: The following is long and kind of wandering. 

+++++

In this recent post, I said that Senator B.J. Cruz ("B.J.") was on to something with his (2009) domestic partnership bill and that I would get to it later. So here's the later.

B.J.'s bill would have made it legal for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to form a domestic partnership which would mirror marriage but did not require solemnization, i.e. exchanging vows before a public official.

At the time, I thought that in the drama surrounding the whole uproar, that B.J. had forgotten to require solemnization. Maybe he did, but looking back on it, it really is where marriage is not only going, it is where marriage has already been, long before the government got a hold of it. 

CAVEMAN MARRIAGE

Before there was such a thing as a marriage license or even the word marriage, a man and a woman were considered bound to each other - usually for life - by their being declared bound to each other, either by their families or by themselves, or by simply holding themselves out as bound to each other by cohabitating and having children. 

B.J.'s bill, even though it still required a license and a filing of some sort, basically hearkens back to this primitive way of forming a lifelong bond between two people. 

Primitive marriage wasn't lifelong because the couple said "till death do we part." Primitive marriage was lifelong because for the better part of human history death was certain if they DID part. 

What came to be called marriage was a naturally occurring primal institution that organically sprang from the impulse to survive.

Of all beings that breed, human offspring takes the longest to mature: on average 14 years for females and 16 years for males. In fact, most state marriage laws reflect this reality - setting those ages as the minimum age to legally marry. The ages are not arbitrary creations of law. They are the dictates of biology: when female and male humans are usually capable of reproducing. 

In primitive times (and even not so long ago), a man and woman would normally bear many children. Again, it was about survival. Infant mortality rate was high, but also many children were needed to produce food - either by hunting or farming - and also to defend the family against hostile outsiders. 

Thus Scripture speaks of children as arrows in a quiver. (Psalm 127)

Having many children - again for survival - meant that mom and dad needed to stick around (and stick together) to see their offspring to maturity, and also so that their offspring would be around to take care of mom and dad when mom and dad couldn't take care of themselves. 

It's just the circle of life, and our laws and court decisions (prior to 2015 - and I'll get to that) reflect this fact: the fact being that what we came to call marriage is a naturally occurring primal institution which pre-exists the political order and of itself was naturally ordered to procreation and "the very existence and survival of the race."

The U.S. Supreme Court even says so:

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). 

WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?

I hate to break it to you, but for the better part of human history, the lifelong union of a man and woman, which came to be called "marriage," was not about "love." In fact, prior to the 1960's, the word "love" usually did not appear in any marriage formula or law. 

Here's the Catholic Church formula prior to Vatican II (1962-1965):

PRIEST: WILT though take N., here present, for the lawful wife, according to the Rite of our Holy Mother the Church?

MAN: I will

PRIEST: WILT though take N., here present, for the lawful husband, according to the Rite of our Holy Mother the Church?

WOMAN: I will

(The couple joins hands.)

MAN: I, N. N., take thee, N.N., for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

WOMAN I, N. N., take thee, N.N., for my lawful husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

PRIEST I join you together in marriage, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost Amen.

Nothing about love, only about law: lawful this and lawful that. That's because marriage was a lawful contract that could not be broken without lawful consequences. (And the same was true for secular marriages.)

Note: Modern Catholic theologians and thinkers prefer the word "covenant" over contract. But that's another post-Vatican II creation. Sure, marriage can be thought of as a covenant, but the traditional emphasis on the word "lawful" positioned marriage (at least in the Catholic Church) as an unbreakable legal contract.

After Vatican II (the 1960's), we begin seeing stuff like "to love all the days of my life" and stuff like that. The problem with that is...so what happens when the couple no longer "loves" each other? - which happens to most, sooner or later. 

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OPENS THE DOOR TO SSM

On top of this "love" stuff inserted into the Catholic marriage vows, the Church, in 1983, reformulated its canon (law) relative to the purpose of marriage to read:

Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.

Prior to 1983, this is what the Church held:

Canon 1013, § 1. The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; the secondary ends are mutual help and the remedy of concupiscence.

The 1983 code not only erased the hierarchy of ends (primary...secondary), it created a new end: "the good of the spouses." And by its placement in the code (before procreation), the new code made "the good of the spouses" the primary end (or purpose) of marriage.

One can argue all day long that the new code did not do what I just said. But no one can argue that since the new code was promulgated that the rate of divorce among Catholics hasn't exploded to match that of non-Catholics. 

And further, perhaps to cover for this radical implosion of the Catholic marriage bond, the number of decrees of nullity ("annulments"), especially in the U.S., have so scandalously exploded that Catholic World Report labeled the U.S. "Annulment Nation."

It's not hard to figure out. Once "the good of the spouses" became the purpose of marriage, or even one of the purposes, it's not long before one of the spouses, or both, don't feel so "good" about who they married. So, the marriage is kaput. And Church tribunals are kept busier than a cat on a hot tin roof processing, and usually granting, requests for annulments. 

MAKING MARRIAGE ABOUT LOVE...NOT CHILDREN

Because there was nothing in U.S. laws or major court decisions relative to marriage that said anything about love, and in fact, (said laws and decisions) continued to emphasize that marriage was about procreation, same-sex marriage advocates needed to make marriage about love and not procreation - for obvious reasons.

Their favorite legal battering ram was the 1967 Supreme Court decision in Loving v Virginia, a decision that found state bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage advocates latched on to a phrase in that decision and turned it into their battle banner. The phrase was:

“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man..."  Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967)

It worked. This phrase from Loving provided the key precedent in the 2015 SCOTUS decision holding bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. 

Amazingly, the same-sex marriage advocates succeeded in getting the Obergefell Court (and apparently their opponents) to ignore the fact that their battle phrase was only the first part of a longer sentence, the full sentence being:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).  Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967)

It's right there. The Loving Court found state bans on interracial marriage to be unconstitutional pursuant to its finding in Skinner wherein the Court held:

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. ” Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)

Pursuant to Skinner, and by extension, Loving, marriage is about procreation and procreation is about marriage. And only in that context is marriage "a basic civil right of man."

Note: At this point it is necessary to address a common argument against the natural connection between marriage and procreation. Critics will call out examples of couples who are incapable of procreation due to age or infertility, and then attempt to impugn the procreative function of marriage. The short answer is this: Even healthy, fertile couples have no control over procreation. They only have control over the procreative act. Use your imagination.

But of course, in order for same-sex marriage to gain a foothold, "love" was made to replace procreation. 

And so Justice Kennedy (in Obergefell) wrote:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love...marriage embodies...love...

Ah. A new precedent. Suddenly marriage is about "love"...when it never was before. 

Note: Something tells me that one day Obergefell will "fell," oops, I mean "fall," for the same reason Roe fell. There simply is NOTHING in the Constitution nor in our history that supports the notion of "love" as  grounds for marriage. 

However, who can blame Justice Kennedy, a Catholic, when his own Church opened the door that he (and the majority) walked through three decades later.

By inserting "the good of the spouses" into the definition of the purpose of marriage, the Church made marriage about love. And though the canon includes "procreation," procreation still comes, well, second. 

Thirty years later, Kennedy's Court would do the same.

BACK TO B.J.'S BILL

So back to B.J.'s bill. Both the church and the state have made marriage meaningless. Oh, both still say the right words, but their actions...well, you know how that goes. 

No fault divorce, the constitutionalizing of same-sex marriage, and the wild fiasco of family law that has turned "big brother" into the new mom and dad, has made marriage an almost stupid thing to do - and it appears the younger generation gets this as an increasing number aren't even bothering. 

And, the Catholic Church's avalanche of annulments - and, the current pope's preference to fast track even more annulments, functionally giving credence to what others snicker as "Catholic divorce" - well, why even bother with a sacramental marriage when the Church you married in, can, even against your will, set your sacramentally married spouse free to marry someone else - and in the same Church...at the same altar...and right there in front of your face.

Note: Read this particular annulment adventure involving a famous U.S. Catholic family: Ex-Kennedy wife says Vatican overturns annulment

So maybe the heck with it. If two people want to spend their lives together and raise a family then let's go back to caveman days. In fact, more and more people are already doing it anyway. B.J., Dig out that bill.

A Final Note: Of course I am not rejecting sacramental marriage, and will never support SSM. I will believe in sacramental, potentially procreative marriage, and embrace it till I die because sacramental, potentially procreative marriage was instituted by Jesus Christ. If that makes me more Catholic than the pope, then so be it. Anyway, that's not too hard to do these days. 

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

APURON'S REAL GHOST WRITER AND THE NEW JERSEY MACHINE

By Tim Rohr

In my initial response to Troy Torres’ editorial, “The archdiocese is a mess and needs a leader,” I noted that there were “some holes…and other missing links” in Troy’s history of what I’ll refer to as the "BJ Cruz matter" and mentioned that I might fill in the holes and missing links at some point. 

Troy responded that he was “very much looking forward to (my) next piece on this.” 

It’s actually a very small hole, but first I shall copy the following from Troy’s editorial:

“A mutual friend of Guam Public Auditor Benjamin F. Cruz, Jr. vouched for Mr. Cruz’s devotion to his Catholic faith during a tumultuous time for him. Apparently, when Mr. Cruz introduced a same-sex marriage statute and was attacked (quite ironically) by now-disgraced former Archbishop Anthony Apuron, the former legislative speaker continued going to Mass. Our friend despised how Apuron and others were treating Mr. Cruz. (Cruz)…tried convincing our friend to remain faithful despite the shortcomings of the church’s leaders. 'F***that,' this friend said of the Archdiocese of Agana. And just like that, the church lost yet another parishioner."

It appears that the "attack" referred to is an incident that occurred between certain members of the legislature, including Mr. Cruz, and select members of the clergy at a meeting at the Guam Hilton in October 2009. 

SHENANIGANS LIKE THIS

I've been a regular critic of Speaker BJ Cruz, however, on this one, I'm in his corner. From KUAM:

In a scathing four page letter sent to the AG on Monday, the Speaker accused her of breaking the law by providing incentive or bonus pay to an employee of her office that was not entitled to it. Cruz then accused the AG of unethically writing an opinion justifying the adjustment. "  

And then, I love this line:

"To circumvent this clear statutory reality, you issued a legal opinion worthy of Goldie Locks and the Three Bears".  

Nice job, BJ. Kinda sound like me going after Apuron and Adrian for the last 4 years. KUAM continues:

The issue about the bonus pay was the subject of a recent budget oversight hearing with the AG’s office.  In his letter, Speaker Cruz accused the Attorney General of having a "Record of Failure, Silence and Exploitation".

PRESS ON, MR. SANTOS! NEVER MIND THE COWARD, BJ.

Note: See my 2011 note added to the bottom of this post.

Cruz has said he doesn’t plan to reintroduce the bill again because there could be a constitutional issue of constantly reopening statutes. 

“I don’t want to be embarrassed that it’s going to be challenged constitutionally,” Cruz said. “I can’t keep opening and closing and opening again the statute.”

http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/05/22/law-limits-sexual-abuse-charges/84640416/

Dear Mr. Joe Santos,

It sounds like this time around BJ is protecting Apuron. Never mind the coward, BJ, Mr. Santos. You are doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do! And when you do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, you don't worry that you might be "embarrassed." Press on, Mr. Santos. Your cause is just and your motive sincere. Plus, you are doing the hard work that The BJ never did, working to get public support. This is what TRULY helping the "little guy" looks like. Press on, Mr. Santos. Press on. 

Silent No More! petition drive
http://www.guampdn.com/picture-gallery/news/2016/05/09/silent-no-more-petition-drive/84168790/

Campaign aims to lift statute of limitations on civil claims of child sexual abuse
http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/05/10/campaign-aims-lift-statute-limitations-civil-claims-child-sexual-abuse/84170138/

Catholics urged to sign "Silent No More" petition
http://www.kuam.com/story/31930513/2016/05/09/catholic-urged-to-sign-silent-no-more-petition

Silent No More: resident starts movement against child sexual abuse
http://www.kuam.com/story/31846188/2016/04/28/silent-no-more-resident-starts-movement-against-child-sexual-abuse

Petition targets sex abuse
http://www.postguam.com/news/local/petition-targets-sex-abuse/article_dc7c95fe-168c-11e6-a0b2-3bc43d3706fc.html

Joe Santos with Patti Arroyo
http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/pnc-k57-interviews/9287

Petition Launched to Lift Statute of Limitation on Sex Abuse
http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/local/9258

Guam teacher campaigns against stature of limitations
http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/programmes/datelinepacific/audio/201800323/guam-teacher-campaigns-against-stature-of-limitations

New Guam campaign against child sex abuse
http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/303620/new-guam-campaign-against-child-sex-abuse

Teacher Starts Campaign to End 2-Year Statute of Limitations of Child Sex Abuse on Guam
http://northwoodssaveachild.blogspot.com/2016/05/teacher-starts-campaign-to-end-2-year.html


The following was sent to an email list which included the then senators. A PDF copy of the original email can be found here. 

Tim Rohr February 23, 2011

Greetings!  This is a personal message. No one has asked me to send this. No one has asked me to speak in defense of the Church.  I am sending this message tonight because Bill 34 was debated today in the Legislature and was moved to the 3rd Reading File, which means it will be up for a vote in the next few days. Bill 34 enacts "window legislation" which will lift the statute of limitations for alleged crimes against children, so that these alleged crimes - days or decades old - can be prosecuted. On the surface, the bill is appealing. Who could be against justice for children? And in normal circumstances I wouldn't be opposing the bill or asking you to oppose it. As a teen, I was a "victim" of unwanted sexual advances by a member of the Catholic clergy. I also had the "hierarchical door" slammed in my face when my father and I went to see the Archbishop (Los Angeles) about the matter. I shed no tears for the LA Diocese when it had to cough up somewhere near half a billion dollars in law suits over child sexual abuse.  However, there are a couple things that you should know about Bill 34. First, Bill 34 and its predecessor, Bill 334 in the last legislature, despite what Senator B.J. Cruz continues to publicly disclaim, IS AIMED at the Catholic Church in general and the Archbishop in particular. Bill 34 is Senator Cruz's personal act of retaliation against the Archbishop for opposing Bill 185 which would have legalized same-sex unions.  Senator Cruz made this threat after a meeting with the clergy and some members of the Legislature at the Hilton Hotel in 2009 when Bill 185 was being hotly debated. Senator Cruz knows he made this threat. And Senator Cruz knows that his primary purpose of introducing Bill 34 is his personal vindictiveness. Senator Cruz is welcome to introduce whatever bill he wants regardless of his personal motivations. Its just too bad he doesn't have the courage to stand on his convictions and take on the Archbishop and the Catholic Church publicly. He has to hide behind his supposed concern for justice for children. But the real reason to oppose Bill 34 is not because of Senator Cruz's childish tirade, but because the Church isn't the Archbishop and the priests. The Church is US. This is especially true on Guam where the assets of the Church are directly linked to the people who sit in the pews and their ancestors. Window legislation such as Bill 34 has resulted in major financial damage to diocese across the U.S. To pay for this, the dioceses have had to sell its properties, which is the only wealth most dioceses actually have. In the states, where most members of parishes are not intimately connected to the founding of parishes and where most of the properties sold were already abandoned or scheduled for downsizing anyway, the impact of the sold properties was not personal. On Guam, it will be quite different. This afternoon I spoke with a person who is running a bake sale to help pay back the loan needed to repair their parish church after the last typhoon. I am sure you are quite familiar with the needs of parishes being met by "the little people", the many people who quietly give, work, and donate to keep their parishes and schools alive. Churches, schools, chapels... on Guam, these were not built by wealthy bishops and priests, these were built by you, by your parents, your grandparents, your ancestors. The land upon which many church buildings stand was for the most part given to the Church from family lands. In addition the Archdiocese of Agana educates about 5000 young people every year at a savings to the Government of Guam of about $6000 per child. Its charities feed, clothe, house, and care for more people every day than all the government agencies put together. Yet, as one Catholic Senator (who supports Bill 34) said: "The witness that stepped forward to provide testimony against Bill 34 (Deacon Jeff Barcinas) at one point articulated the fact that he was concerned about the financial impact this might have upon the institution that he represented and so in my mind he was saying it was all about money..." (KUAM) Of course its all about the money Senator, but its not about Deacon Barcinas' money. It's not about the Archbishop's money. It's about the our money. It's about the money that is needed to feed those homeless every day at Kamalin Karidat. It's about the money that is needed to keep an extra 5000 students from knocking down the doors of the public school system for whom our government can't even provide working buses and functioning toilets let alone quality education. Perhaps Deacon Barcinas could have and should have better made this point. But perhaps we are expecting too much of our elected leaders to understand the implications of financially destroying an institution that is holding up a huge corner of Guam's society and serving the needs of people GovGuam will otherwise be required to care for. The sad part is that the "victims", if indeed there are any, will see a pittance in financial gain compared to the attorneys who will gorge themselves on the proceeds of the sale of ancestral properties that Bill 34 will force. And most of them won't even be from here as you probably can guess.  It's quite easy to understand Senator Cruz's blindness or apathy to the damage that will follow Bill 34. It's not as easy to understand the blindness of other senators to the damage they are about to do, NOT to Archbishop Apuron, not to some abstraction called "the Church, but to their own people. I'm hoping that there will be enough who will not be so blind. We shall see.