MANY MORE ABORTIONS THAN REPORTED

While Guam Medical Records reports show only about 300 abortions per year on Guam (still a staggering amount for this small and mostly Catholic population), we have been aware for quite awhile that the abortion numbers are much higher and that abortions at Guam Memorial Hospital are not being reported.

During the infamous crisis over P.L. 20-134 in 1990, a short-lived law which outlawed abortions on Guam, ON THE ISSUES magazine ran a story which stated: 

If servicewomen or military spouses want an abortion, they must go either to a local clinic, like Dr. Freeman's, or Guam Memorial Hospital. It is estimated that between 600 and 1,000 abortions are performed on Guam each year. 

Obviously, it was well known then that abortions were being performed at GMH, and as we will see in a minute, it appears they still are. Of course, notice the estimated number of abortions: "between 600 and 1000" !

UPDATE

Since I didn't post anything yesterday other than the reflections on the Feast of the Holy Innocents, I wasn't expecting much activity, but there were 1100 pageviews in the last 24 hours anyway. The Comments tab is now updated. There are now 757 total comments.

MEDITATIONS ON THE FEAST OF THE HOLY INNOCENTS

A CRY IS HEARD IN RAMAH (published in the U Matuna 12/30/12)

"It is important to recall that each of these monsters began, not as monsters, but as social reformers, as promisers of jobs and a “chicken in every pot”: the Thousand Year Reich (Hitler), the Five Year Plan (Stalin), and the Cultural Revolution (Mao)."

FLEEING THE NEW HERODS (published in the U Matuna 12/25/11)

"The Catholic Encyclopedia estimates that given the population of Bethlehem at the time, Herod probably killed several dozen children. In the United States, abortion kills about 3 children per minute, so we probably kill an equal number of “Innocents” every 15-20 minutes. On Guam, we do that every 40 days or so. And history casts Herod as a monster?"

CHRISTMAS BREAK?

Well, I decided to take a bit of a Christmas break, but not so the NCW's. Here's a Christmas wish from one of them. No comment needed. If this is what the NCW produces...RUN!

yes I think you got it. This is Tim's circus, a way to be alive.I guess only 4 to 5 persons are interacting in this blog.Anyhow I liked Zoltan interventions.However I begin to realize that there is no way to communicate.I hope Tim will not fell to bad when he discovers that he Is fighting against God.Courage Tim, Jesus is born also for you, take Him into your house.Maybe one day you will use the NCW to save one of your children. That's the NCW a tool of the Church to save people.Merry Christmas to all of you!Happy New year

BUT WHAT OF US CATHOLICS...?

But what of us Catholics...?

A Christmas post from View from the Pew, published in the U Matuna, the newspaper for the Archdiocese of Agana, on 12/23/12.

PAGEVIEW UPDATE

Pageviews by country, last 30 days.

Most viewed posts this week:

FROM AN EX-NEOCAT IN REPLY TO ANONYMOUS

The following is a guest post.

This is in reply to the Anonymous who responded to Susan and who ended her letter with “Peace!”, and to anyone else who is wondering why Archbishop Apuron (and the NCW—the Neo) has caused a massive fracture in the unity of the Church In Guam.  

I prefer to remain anonymous mainly because, if history is any guide, the archbishop and his lieutenants at the Chancery may retaliate with a “painful and arduous” experience against me or those close and dear to me. But Mr. Rohr knows my identity and can corroborate my credentials, and if I was ever needed to step up in defense of the Truth, I shall. 

First, let me say that I am one of those ex-Neo and so I have first-hand and intimate knowledge of the workings of the Neo. This is not hearsay.  Having said that, I can state that all the things that have been posted by Mr. Rohr and all the comments in response are accurate and truthful. I do note some embellishments and exaggerations in some of the comments, but they do not detract or make the facts any less truthful. The criticisms are valid.

I do agree that the sarcasms are not warranted but they are understandable considering the nature, gravity, and magnitude of the subject matter. We are talking about the bride of Christ, the Catholic Church, and it is incumbent upon the faithful, especially our bishops, to steer her in accordance with the teachings of Christ and her bride, and when we deviate, and deviate gravely, then anger and sarcasm are understandable responses and should be overlooked. So let’s look past the anger and sarcasm and focus on the core of the issue that triggered the anger and sarcasm in the first place.  

I would now like to add some of my personal observations and thoughts about the Neo.  

DEAR MR. GET-TO-IT

Mr. GET-TO-IT challenged me to publish his lengthy comment. Of course he didn't need to challenge me at all. The comments are open and are immediately published upon submission. But to make sure he knew I published his comment I also published it as a post. One person has already replied at length, but I wanted to take the time to address his questions, since he raises some good ones.

Tim - Then let's get to it. If you know something then stop the speculation and come out with it, otherwise stop stringing us alone like somebodies fools. I am in the Neo and I have seen all that you have written. Although I don't necessarily agree with you, you at least lay out your facts so people can judge. But is it so irresponsible to string this out and allow all kinds of other neer do wells to comment on things they know absolutely nothing about.

I am not sure what it is that I am stringing out. I have been fairly consistent from the beginning that the central issue as regards the NCW is the decision by its leadership not to comply with Rome in the manner of distributing Holy Communion.  In fact GET-TO-IT's comment is made on the post THE CENTRAL ISSUE where I thoroughly clarify what the central issue is and after the post AND YOU WONDER WHY PEOPLE ARE MAD where I thoroughly document this decision not to comply. 

AS EXPECTED

As expected, because there is no refuting the facts I lay out, opponents have taken to personal attacks on me and my motives. The typical theme they choose is traditionalists against the NCW. This is some serious grasping. You will not see anywhere in this discussion any encouragement to become a traditionalist, whatever that is. 

I certainly have encouraged people to find another parish if they can no longer worship in peace and good conscience at the one they attend. I have not recommended any other parish in particular. 

According to my opponents, my aim here is to rid the island of the NCW. If that was my aim, I would not have kept quiet all these years. I had the evidence in hand - as documented - from 2006 onward. I had little care to use it and really could care less if the NCW did not follow their norms. As stated on several occasions, it didn't affect me. Guam had bigger problems in my estimation, and my record on addressing those bigger problems stands on its own. 

The reason the conversation has moved from Fr. Paul to the NCW is easy to understand. Everyone knows the Archbishop's agenda. It was only a matter of time before Fr. Paul would be in the firing line. He is the pastor of the largest parish on the island and has resisted the establishment of the NCW in his parish for several years. Fr. Paul knew this was coming. Everyone knew this was coming. And come it did. The Fr. Paul affair is just a microcosm of the larger war that has been going on for over a decade. 

I am in possession of several documents relative to the Fr. Paul affair but have refrained from posting them in order to allow the case to go to Rome where it will be reviewed by the Congregation for the Clergy. From the looks of it, it doesn't look good for the Archbishop, and the appeal even goes so far as to posit the possibility of ulterior motives in the firing of Fr. Paul. Well, we all know what those are, don't we. 

The real question the NCW needs to be asking is not about my motives but "Why have we not conformed to our own statute?" Perhaps the Archbishop has the answer. Ask him. 

PAGEVIEWS

YOUR EMINENCE. MY SECOND LETTER TO THE GRAND MASTER.

Following is my second letter to Cardinal Edwin O'brien, Grand Master of the Equestrian Order of the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem, of which both I and Archbishop Apuron are members. 

The letter consists of a cover letter in email form and an attachment in the form of an essay. Everything is copied here. 

Bear in mind, that after receiving my two letters, the Grand Master took no action. And while he yet may, there is still no refuting the points I make. And if anyone would like to try I will produce the evidence...which is a lot uglier than my letter.

LET'S REVIEW

Let's review. 

In 2005 you were told by Rome to conform your liturgies, especially in the manner of distributing Holy Communion, to the liturgical books - meaning you were to do as the rest of us. You said "we will not obey", and you did not. 

In 2008, your statute was approved with the same demand that you conform your liturgy to the liturgical books. You said "we will not obey", and you did not. 

This Saturday you will go to your Eucharist and you will receive communion in a manner not in conformity with the liturgical books, and in doing so, you will say "we will not obey", and you will not. 

This is why we cannot take you seriously as Catholics. 

*****

Again, I copy here an article from INSIDE THE VATICAN dated May 2012, 4 years after the Statute of the NCW was approved and you were expected to conform to it. (Highlights mine.)

NOTE TO NEOS

The neos who post here are very sure that they are in the right but for the most part do not want to identify themselves. One must wonder why. You have the archbishop and the whole chancery on your side. What is there to fear? If you believe your are correct then have the same courage as I do and identify yourself. Or are you cowards?

Those who oppose the neo have legitimate reason to fear. They have seen how the archbishop acts towards those who oppose him. But you neos, he's on your side. There is nothing to fear. Come out of the shadows. Speak proudly. Put your name on your comments. Show us who you are. We are waiting. 

The comment moderation is off. Anyone can post directly. Have at it. Use your name, first and last, your parish, your community, your "responsible", your catechist. Why not? Stop your cowardice. 

LETTER NO. 2 TO THE GRAND MASTER

Before I post my second letter to Edwin Cardinal O'Brien, Grand Master of the Equestrian Order of the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem, of which I am a member, I want to repost his letter to me, which was prompted by a visit from Archbishop Apuron in an effort to bully me into silence. Of course, the Archbishop could have just invited me to have a personal talk, but the pastoral approach is not his way, as we have seen all too often. People are bullied. I am just one. Here is the letter from Cardinal O'Brien and I will provide a link after the letter to my first reply, already posted.

Read my first reply here. The second will be published tomorrow. 

Continued at YOUR EMINENCE. MY SECOND LETTER TO THE GRAND MASTER.

THIS IS CLASSIC. NO COMMENT NEEDED.

"Do you know what is the funniest thing about all this? That one day this blog will disappear, one day Tim will die, janet will die, Mary will die...Anonymous will die...and yet Jesus Christ will be announced and many people saved through the Way..." - A Friend

There you go my Catholic friends. There it is. This is what they are taught. Reminds me of my born again friend who believed Catholics weren't saved and were going to hell unless they joined his church. Time to leave the neo parishes, put your wallets away, and WALK. Walk away. 

P.S. I was waiting for the motivation to publish my second letter to Cardinal O'Brien. This comment provided it. Stay tuned.

DEAR MR. "GET TO IT"

I will have my own analysis of Mr. "Get to it" 's comments, but this commenter does a pretty good job. You can read Mr. "Get to it" 's original post here. The following comment, which I am copying here as a post, can also be read as a comment here. Mr. "Get to it" has had about 30 comments so far. By the way, we'll call Mr. "Get to it" Mr. I.B. for short. He'll know why. 

*****

Dear Mr. “Get to it”:

It seems that you have not read the postings and comments carefully because you were dismissive of many of the arguments and points that were logically and forcefully made as just the ranting of “jealous” people. Here is what you said: 

If there is a division here on Guam, isn't it just possible the division is caused by those not in the Way, spawned by jealousy? But they are not willing to put in the hours and hard work we do. 

Please look at the comments that addresses the issue of the causes of this division, one of which is that the archbishop has chosen to join the NCW, be subservient to it, and devote extraordinary attention to such a tiny group at the expense of all non NCW people (see the comment on the analogy of the 5Th Grade Teacher’s Class). If you were the leader of an army and decided to devote all your attention to one small unit and ignore the rest of the army, will that cause dissension and division among the ranks? Of course it will. A leader is supposed to lead all, not just a select few. Don’t forget: #*^@ rolls down hill and there is plenty of it right now.

SO WHO VOTED TO KILL THE BABIES?

Bill 195-32, signed into law as P.L. 32-090, mandates normal medical care for a child who survives a failed abortion. Children who survive failed abortions are drowned, beheaded, have their spines snipped in half, or are left to die in the clinic trash. "Yea" means save the baby. "Nay" means kill the baby. Remember in November.

NOTE: The two marks in the Nay column next to Senator Muna Barnes's name means she passed twice (didn't vote). You can ask her yourself why she did this instead of immediately voting Yea.

Ph.: (671) 472-3455/6, e-mail: senator@tinamunabarnes.com 

SOMEONE ELSE IS RUNNING THINGS

The situation in Agat these last few days exposes something many of us suspect: SOMEONE ELSE is running things. 

The Archdiocese has an official policy, promulgated in its Statute, relative to a funeral Mass in the presence of cremated remains.

Fr. Jason Granado, the pastor, who denied the funeral Mass to the subject family, could not have been ignorant of that Statute. As a priest ordained and incardinated in the Archdiocese of Agana, and especially as a pastor, it is unthinkable that he did not have a copy of the Statute or at least know where to find it. 

Before I go on, let me say that I know and like Fr. Jason, and have known him since his earliest days at the seminary. Also as a resident of Agat, I see him from time to time in social settings and he appears to be well liked by the parishioners. In short, he is a good and sincere priest and of a kind and compassionate disposition.

So then why the refusal of a funeral Mass to the grieving family? 

The Church allows for only two possibilities: 1) the cremation of the remains was inspired by motives contrary to Christian teaching (Can. 1176 § 3), or 2) a funeral Mass had already taken place.

According to the family member, the family is deeply Catholic and never would have done anything purposely contrary to the Catholic faith (which is why they desperately wanted a funeral Mass). The remains were cremated for economic reasons. Their loved one was killed in the states and the remains had to be transported back to Guam. There was also no prior funeral Mass, the family wanting the funeral to be held on Guam.

So we have the following:

1. The promulgated Statute of the Archdiocese of Agana allowing for a funeral Mass in the presence of cremated remains
2. No canonical impediment to the celebration of a funeral Mass in the presence of cremated remains.
3. A pastor who could not have been ignorant of 1 and 2 but still refused a funeral Mass in the presence of cremated remains.

Thus, unless the Archbishop was willing to violate the Statute he himself promulgated, the only possible answer is that Fr. Jason is taking orders from someone else. I think it's the latter. And I further think that this sad little episode gives us a peephole into a much larger problem...much, much larger. 

Statutes of the Archdiocese of Agana, Part II, Chapter 4, Section 61.2

"In the event that the family of the deceased has the body cremated prior to the funeral mass, the funeral rites are to be celebrated….in such cases, the urn of the ashes may be brought to the church placed in the center aisle on an appropriate suitable table with the lighted Paschal candle. The Eucharist and customary prayers of commendation are conducted as if the casket were present. Burial takes place at the cemetery with the usual prayers."

- Statutes of the Archdiocese of Agana, Part II, Chapter 4, Section 61.2

Promulgated July 1996. So unless there has since been an update...

HAVE AT IT!

Anonymous challenges me to "get to it" and thinks I don't publish comments that challenge me. I published his comment, but I'll do better than that, I'll copy it here as a post so that nobody misses it. (I'll leave all the incorrect spelling and grammar.)

*****

Tim - Then let's get to it. If you know something then stop the speculation and come out with it, otherwise stop stringing us alone like somebodies fools. I am in the Neo and I have seen all that you have written. Although I don't necessarily agree with you, you at least lay out your facts so people can judge. But is it so irresponsible to string this out and allow all kinds of other neer do wells to comment on things they know absolutely nothing about.

Over all on Guam, the Neocatechumenal Way does more than any other group on island. When the Archbishop asks for help, who responds to his request? The communities respond. When he needs a priest he can rely on, who does he call, a priest trained in the Way. They are the pastors of the future, they are the way the Church on Guam will recover. The good we do far exceeds any bad that people accuse us of. All this infighting must STOP!

PAGEVIEW UPDATE

THE CENTRAL ISSUE. AND IT IS NOT FIXABLE.

This post, AND YOU WONDER WHY PEOPLE ARE MAD, has so far received 42 comments. Of all the things posted on this blog, this post deals with the central issue. Let's repeat it and not stray from it:

1. In the manner of distributing Holy Communion, the Neocatechumenal Way, more specifically, its leadership, has chosen not to conform to its own Statute, and in so doing, has set itself up outside the magisterium of the Church.
2. Legitimate magisterial authority, first in the letter from the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Sacraments, and second, in the direct message to the Neocatechumenal Way by Pope Benedict, was publicly discredited by Archbishop Apuron. 
3. The continuation of the offending practice, under the auspices of the Archbishop, since 12/1/2005, is a clear sign that the Archbishop respects an authority other than the pope. 
4. By discrediting legitimate hierarchical authority, the Archbishop, in effect, forfeits his own. The people are now just beginning to speak up about it. 

This is the central issue. And it is NOT fixable.

There is one more point. Until now, individual members could be excused for their ignorance. They were simply following what their leaders told them. That is no longer the case. Continued complicity with the offending practice in the manner of distributing Holy Communion is a act of disobedience to the Church for which they are now personally culpable.

AGAT UPDATE

The family of the murdered man was given an extra 30 minutes for the viewing (1 hour instead of just the original 30 minutes). However, still no funeral Mass, only a Memorial. For the original story go here.

For those wondering about why have a viewing at all if the remains are already cremated, it's really not about the "viewing" since closed casket viewings are not uncommon. It's about paying respect to the person who died and respect to the family.

The diocesan policy really does need to be clarified. There have been other funeral Masses in the presence of cremated remains here on Guam. Does each pastor get to decide for himself?

FAT MAN'S RULES OF THE HOUSE OF GOD

From the blog of Fr. John Zuhlsdorf here:

I redirect your attention to Fat Man’s Rules of the House of God. Fr. Hunwicke, and many other priests, know that this Rule applies:

VIII. THEY CAN ALWAYS HURT YOU MORE.

When you are in the hands of high ecclesiastics, you had better steel yourselves to the fact that when the pain starts, they are just getting started."

*****

Hmmmm. "When you are in the hands of high ecclesiastics, you had better steel yourselves to the fact that when the pain starts, they are just getting started." 

That sounds very familiar: "It is to your advantage to resign immediately rather than experience a more arduous and painful closure to your assignment..."

Fr. Paul, it sounds like you better "steel" yourself...if you haven't already. They've only begun to hurt you. Sounds like "the rack" is next. 

THIS JUST IN FROM AGAT

It was reported to me this morning that a local pastor is refusing to allow a funeral Mass for a person who was murdered in the mainland and whose cremated remains were returned home to Guam for burial. 

According to the family member, Fr. Jason, the pastor of the Agat parish, has told them that because the body isn't present, the family could not ask for a Funeral Mass but only a Memorial Mass. The family member also reported that they are being given only 30 minutes for "viewing" because there is no body (just the cremated remains).