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. 

APURON BLAMES "PRESSURE GROUP THAT PLOTTED TO DESTROY ME..."

By Tim Rohr

I just stumbled across this Apr. 4, 2019 article by The Catholic World Report. It asks the same questions that many of us have been asking. 

Analysis: Gregory, Apuron, ‘zero tolerance,’ and pontifical secrets

From the story:

The archbishop blamed the failure of his appeal on “a pressure group that plotted to destroy me, and which has made itself clearly known even to authorities in Rome.” While such defenses sound often like unbalanced conspiracy theories, it cannot be ignored that something is unusual about Apuron’s case.

FULL ARTICLE

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

START WITH THE DODGERS

By Tim Rohr

I'm spending some time in the Los Angeles area otherwise I probably wouldn't have known about this. 

Well that's not quite true. I am not a baseball fan and have never been. And for some reason - maybe it's because I grew up in LA - I dislike any sports team with the "LA" in front of the rest of its name. So I wouldn't have been paying attention anyway.

But since I'm here, I'm hearing about it. 

So there's this thing happening. The LA Dodgers are honoring a thing called "The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence." The FRONT PAGE article (linked here and below) describes the group as follows:

The “sisters” are a group of homosexual and transgender men who dress as nuns and wear heavy clown makeup in a campy, burlesque version of pseudo-Catholic blackface.

What's absolutely funny (to me) is that while "homosexual and transgender men...dress as nuns" in their comical crusade to mock and ridicule Catholic nuns (and by extension, all of Catholicism), most Catholic nuns haven't been dressing like the "homosexual and transgender men" are dressing (traditional habits) since, well, probably since Julie Andrews in the "Sound of Music." 

In fact, the article states that the "homosexual and transgender men" got their traditional nun gear "in 1979 after receiving surplus habits from a production of The Sound of Music."

So, yah. It's a real LOL. 

Nuns, actual Catholic nuns, for the most part, haven't been suffering the donning of traditional habits since the post-Vatican II "60's." 

And now we finally have a return to the traditional habit. 

But Alas! said "habits" now cover the bodies of "homosexual and transgender men," and, oh yah, these nun-clad men are scheduled to be honored at Dodger Stadium in a predominantly Catholic city.  

You can't make this stuff up. 

As an aside, and before I go on, I was a 6th grader in a Catholic school (in this same city) around the time of the conclusion of Vatican II (1965). The effect was shocking and immediate. The nuns really did throw off their habits (at least at my school), and also changed their names - from the names of saints (such as Sister Mary Joseph) to their own names like "Sister Rosemary" or just "Rosemary." Ten years ago I wrote about that experience in a column for the Umatuna (the newspaper for the Archdiocese of Agana): CATHOLIC SCHOOL: AN ALTERNATIVE MEMORY

Meanwhile, back to the LA situation. 

FRONT PAGE (which I don't believe is a particularly Catholic publication) published an article today (June 6, 2023) titled:

An Archbishop’s Moment of Truth - Los Angeles' Gomez reaches a moral crossroads regarding LGBTQ activism.

Per the article, apparently the "Archdiocese of Los Angeles" published a statement "criticizing the Dodgers’ decision...(to honor this Catholic-bashing group)."

However, as Front Page goes on to say: 

Gomez' name is missing.

So if Gomez' name is missing, just who is "the Archdiocese of Los Angeles?" 

Umm, it's a nothing. The Archdiocese is a "thing." Things don't make statements. People do. As (Guam) Tall Tales Talk Show host, Bob Klitzkie, continually reminds us, it's NOT the "department," it's the "director." 

GOMEZ' CHICKENS

In 2008 or so, then-President Obama's pastor, (Rev. Jeremiah Wright) in referring to the events of 9/11, infamously said "America's chicken's have come home to roost." Wright was employing an old saying (however wrongly) which means that what one does wrongly in the past will eventually "come home to roost," i.e will come back to you. 

As far as this little layman is concerned (me), Gomez' "chickens have come home to roost." And while Gomez wasn't around then, I was. 

In the 1970's the Los Angeles archdiocese was so steeped in its self-celebration of sexual liberation, especially "homosex," that its seminary, St. John's Camarillo, was publicly snickered at as "The Pink Palace" - it was almost a given than a dude had to be gay to be admitted. (See: "Goodbye, Good Men" by Michael Rose) 

I was there at the time (not the seminary but in the archdiocese). And I would have been a "victim" if I hadn't run. 

Meanwhile, fifty years later, and after billions in lawsuits, Gomez took the job. So it's all on you, Archbishop Gomez. And just so you know, I won't be suing. 

Take care of the others. Start with the Dodgers.

+++++

For the reader's convenience, the full FRONT PAGE article is copied here:

At certain times in life, an individual must decide whether to put resolute action behind rhetorical boilerplate. For Jose Gomez, that time is now.

Gomez, the Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles, has an unmatched opportunity to repel the growing influence of “woke” madness in his community. Whether he will take that opportunity, however, remains an open question.

The opportunity in question is the Los Angeles Dodgers’ decision to re-invite the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to the team’s Pride Night on June 16. The “sisters” are a group of homosexual and transgender men who dress as nuns and wear heavy clown makeup in a campy, burlesque version of pseudo-Catholic blackface.

The “sisters” began as a gay comedy troupe in San Francisco in 1979 after receiving surplus habits from a production of The Sound of Music. Since then, the “order” has founded 53 “houses” and “missions” in 28 states and the District of Columbia, as well as 26 “houses” and “missions” in eight countries overseas.

The troupe made itself known for ridiculing Catholic faith and practice with such stunts as a “Foxy Mary” beauty contest, pole dancing on a cross and such stage names as Sister Marqesa de Sade and Sister Homocycle Motor Sexual.

Catholic motifs are pivotal to the act.

“We realized that the nun’s habit contains a lot of social stigmas all in one: gender issues, gender identity issues and religious bigotry issues,” said Sister Vicious Power Hungry Bitch. “So the habit is like a lightning bolt.”

But since its founding, the group has adopted social activism in the name of community outreach. As such, the Sisters for Perpetual Indulgence has become a subtle yet powerful weapon in the “woke” arsenal.

The troupe raises money for grants ranging from $250 to $1,000. The groups it funds include:

— Queer Rebel Productions, a group for LGBTQ artists “whose works challenge white supremacy, racism, trans-phobia, homophobia, and classism,” stated the troupe’s website.

— Queer Expression Oakland, described as a “grassroots, volunteer and youth-led community organization facilitating inclusive creative movement and art-making spaces for queer and trans youth (ages 5-25) in the Bay Area.”

— Valid USA, “which provides education, gender affirming clothing and resources to transgender youth and young adults.” The troupe’s grant paid for “chest binders and clothing for California Students,” the website said.

As part of its quest to “promulgate universal joy and expiate stigmatic guilt,” the troupe also links to various resources, including those offering “trans-affirming care.” One is Dimensions Clinic, which offers “free or low-cost healthcare for youth, ages 12 to 25, with services tailored specifically to serve transgender and gender non-binary young people.”

On June 24, the “sisters’ ” San Francisco “house” also will join seven other sponsors to support the “Trans-tastic Soccer Games,” designed to “celebrate queer, trans and non-binary power through sports,” to start the city’s Pride Weekend. The schedule includes activities not only for adults but also for children and teens between 8 and 16.

In other words, the Sisters for Perpetual Indulgence ranks in the vanguard of the LGBTQ activists’ quest to groom children by confusing them about their sexuality. A former activist told Epoch Times on May 26 that she left the movement because of that quest.

It is beyond significant that the propaganda video that included the interview with Sister Vicious Power Hungry Bitch takes place during an Easter egg hunt for children.

The archdiocese’s statement criticizing the Dodgers’ decision emphasized that ridicule, especially of legitimate nuns who dedicate themselves to community service. It called on “all Catholics and people of goodwill to stand against bigotry and hate in any form and to stand for respect for one another and for the religious beliefs of our communities of faith,” it said.

However, Gomez’s name is missing.

Gomez must do more than condemn the contempt for Catholic faith and practice. He must do more than sign a paper. He must draw attention to the troupe’s attempt to groom children and its advocacy of sex-change surgery. On March 20, the United States Council of Catholic Bishops condemned such surgeries and the use of puberty blockers, especially for minors, as FrontPage Magazine reported.

Gomez served as the USCCB’s president until his three-year term expired in November.

The archbishop also must assert that, for all intents and purposes, two civic institutions have declared Catholics to be non-persons.

One of those is the Dodgers. The other is the Los Angeles Times, which ran an article focusing on the troupe’s community work while ignoring its anti-Catholic performance art. L.Z. Granderson, one of the Times’ most “woke” columnists, went so far as to call any legitimate criticism “homophobic,” ignoring Catholic concerns in the process.

But Gomez can do even more. He must encourage and organize a boycott of both the Dodgers and the Times. Fans should stop buying tickets and souvenirs. Season-ticket holders and subscribers to the team’s cable channel must cancel their packages. Newspaper subscribers should do likewise. Picketing or even staging a sit-in at Dodger Stadium on Pride Night certainly would attract attention.

As Bud Light and Target can attest, boycotts can be devastating.

Since promoting transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, Bud Light sales fell by $110 million off last year’s pace as of May 13. In addition, consumers have stopped buying Anheuser-Busch’s other brands. Meanwhile, Target’s stock lost $9 billion in value one week after introducing LGBTQ-themed clothing for children.

But does Gomez have the imagination and the courage to take such a step? Catholics in Los Angeles await his answer — and he has very little time to provide one.

 

UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE...LACI AND CONNOR'S LAW

I subscribe to History.com and get daily "on this day" stuff. Yesterday, June 1, there was this entry which piqued my interest:

"2004: Opening statements begin in Scott Peterson murder trial."

From the story: 

"On Christmas Eve 2002, the pregnant Laci had disappeared from Modesto, California...The bodies of Laci and her baby were found washed up on shore near the marina where Scott Peterson kept his boat on April 13 and 14, 2003. Within a week, Scott Peterson was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, with the special circumstance of double homicide..."

(Note: The story doesn't give detail, but since it says "the bodies" and gives two separate dates, one can presume that the unborn child had been separated from his mother and "washed up" separately and on a different day than his mother. Did Scott Peterson carve out his unborn son from his mother's womb and kill him separately? I'll need to further read the case - or you can do it yourself.)

Since people kill people all the time in California, and crimes of passion are common (Scott Peterson was in an extramarital affair at the time), the story might have quickly been buried but for a debate that was then raging in the U.S. Congress over what was ultimately named UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2004 ("the Act") at the time the Peterson case went to trial. 

Congress passed the Act and President George W. Bush signed it into law. In short, the law states:

Whoever engages in conduct that...causes the death of, or bodily injury...to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty...the punishment...is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother. 

(The full act can be read here.)

The Peterson case factored heavily into the debate as evidenced by the fact that the new law was nicknamed "Laci and Connor's Law." 

Laci Peterson was Scott Peterson's murdered wife and Connor was their "murdered son."

"Murdered son" is in quotes because at the time, pursuant to Roe, a "fetus" was not defined as a human or a person, but only as "potential life." 

As you might imagine, pro-abortion groups, including then-Catholic-presidential candidate John Kerry, vehemently opposed the Act since, of course, it opened the door for legal personhood of "the thing" that was inside "the thing's" mother. 

Kerry and his pro-abortion gang were right about the danger of such a law. They knew that once legal personhood of an unborn "thing" was codified into law, it would ultimately lead to the unraveling of Roe, which it ultimately did (Dobbs 2022). 

The federal law not only criminalized the harming or the death of "the thing," the law codified "the thing" as a "child...in utero." And, in fact, said "child in utero" even had a name: "CONNOR." 

GUAM

In 2012, Sen. Frank Blas Jr. introduced similar legislation:

Bill No. 409-31 (COR) - F.F. Blas, Jr. An act to add Chapter 16 of Title 19 of the Guam Code Annotated relative to Acts of Violence against an unborn child. Received: 1/9/12 - 10:13 a.m.

The bill failed. Here is the voting sheet:

Four years later, in January 2016, Sen. Frank Blas Jr. reintroduced the legislation as BILL NO. 231-33 UNBORN VICTIM'S OF VIOLENCE ACT. 

This time, The Esperansa Project, after a string of other anti-abortion legislative successes, was aggressively involved. The bill passed and was signed into law by Governor Eddie Calvo on Mar. 4, 2016 as P.L. 33-132.

GUAM LAW: "UNBORN CHILD"

As of Mar. 4, 2016, the following is enshrined in Guam Law:

...unborn child shall mean a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. - 9 G.C.A. § 17.03 (b)

While the subject law does not criminalize abortion in Guam, it does in fact preclude the pro-abort argument: "my body my choice." 

Guam's UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT clearly identifies the "child in utero" as a human being, a separate human being who can be murdered, and for whose murder the murderer can and shall be punished:

The penalty for murder of an unborn child shall be the same as the penalty for murder defined in Chapter 16 of Title 9, Guam Code Annotated. - 9 G.C.A. § 17.05 (b)

Pursuant to Guam law, the pro-aborts can still murder their own children, but they are doing just that: murdering their own children. 

So instead of "my body, my choice," their mantra must needs be: HIS LIFE, MY CHOICE or HER LIFE MY CHOICE. In fact, why not give him or her a name? Like "Connor" or "Connie." The U.S. Congress did. 

BACK TO PETERSON

Scott Peterson was found guilty of murdering both Laci and Connor. 

In the murder of Connor, Scott Peterson's unborn son, Peterson was convicted and found guilty under California's Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a) [which] defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” 

What is quite interesting is that the subject section of California's penal code was expanded to include "the unlawful killing of...a fetus" in or about 1970. 

California is known to be one of the most liberal states in the nation. Yet, already in or about 1970, even California recognized the "malice" of "killing a fetus" and by implication, that said "fetus" was in fact a human being and a legal person - otherwise "it" could not be "killed." 

It would take "Catholic" Guam nearly half a century and two tries to do the same. 

And had it not been for The Esperansa Project and its supporters, the second bill would have probably suffered the same fate as the first. 

BTW. Here's the Voting Sheet on the bill that became Guam's UNBORN VICTIM'S OF VIOLENCE ACT.

FR. STAN FORTUNA

UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE

I was at the airport-

Opened up the paper-

I was shocked at what I saw-

Talk about a new law could it be a new rule

Or was it just another fool

I had to read it again-

Thought there was somethin I was missin-

Could it be it was the truth-

Comin from a politician-

Or was it just wishful thinking what I was readin

Or was it just an attempt to stop our national bleedin

A new kinda law-

To overturn Roe v Wade

To get the nation back on track-

With how we use financial aid-

All the hotsy-totsy people getting worked up in a tirade

Republicans and Democrats

Under-worked and overpaid

The next time in the court-

Death presented opposition-

The demon started screamin-

About the truth of our position-

They saw their end comin destined for the grave

Ain't this the land of the free

And the home of the brave

CHORUS:

Thou shall not kill

But not on Capital Hill

Ya let us do it with the doctor

Or we do it with the pill

Mommies ain't safe in the streets

But if a thug come and beats

Mommy over the head

And leaves the baby for dead

Ya say it's fine but it's tragic

We can't stop it with magic

It's politically bleak

It's cause we're spiritually weak

Y'all try to cover up the scam

With illegitimate silence

Check it "I'm here to defend

Unborn victims of violence"

Let's let freedom ring-

Bring it to the Senate-

These are the dogs-

Who gonna try to prevent it-

They will never admit it-

The government's the culprit-

There is silence in the clergy-

Some won't preach it from the pulpit-

Congress is afraid to speak-

They livin like a puppet-

You gotta watch ya never know

Who got their hand on a string

We'll never really find out

What happened to Kennedy and King

Too many educated lawyers-

Could the situation worsen-

Is it really true they don't believe-

It ain't a fetus but a person-

Governmental desecration

Multi-million lives been spent

What will it take for them to learn

The right to life is self-evident

Legislation makin bad laws-

Year to year case to case-

Destroying the culture-

Poisonin the market place-

This is the land of the free-

This is the home of the brave-

As we movin on we steppin back we livin like a slave

Livin in denial sleepin in a grave

The embryos are frozen the suicide's assisted

You call this freedom "wake up" this is seriously twisted

CHORUS:

Thou shall not kill

But not on Capital Hill

Ya let us do it with the doctor

Or we do it with the pill

Mommies ain't safe in the streets

But if a thug come and beats

Mommy over the head

And leaves the baby for dead

Ya say it's fine but it's tragic

We can't stop it with magic

It's politically bleak

It's cause we're spiritually weak

Y'all try to cover up the scam

With illegitimate silence

Check it "I'm here to defend

Unborn victims of violence"

CHORUS:

Thou shall not kill

But not on Capital Hill

Ya let us do it with the doctor

Or we do it with the pill

Mommies ain't safe in the streets

But if a thug come and beats

Mommy over the head

And leaves the baby for dead

Ya say it's fine but it's tragic

We can't stop it with magic

It's politically bleak

It's cause we're spiritually weak

Y'all try to cover up the scam

With illegitimate silence

Check it "I'm here to defend

Unborn victims of violence"

https://www.letssingit.com/fr.-stan-fortuna-lyrics-unborn-victims-of-violence-c47zphs

LetsSingIt - The Internet Lyrics Database

JOAN OF ARC: CROSS-DRESSER V. MARK TWAIN

By Tim Rohr

May 30 was the Feastday of (aside from St. Francis) Catholicism's now-most fabled saint: JOAN OF ARC. 

The burning at the stake of 19 year old girl, who had just done what no other man had dared to do (read her history) has captured the imaginations of many, including a certain "Mark Twain" (which we'll get to in a bit). 

How pathetic (but pathetically predictable) that Joan, in this self-absorbed age, is now being cast as an icon for the "trans" generation:

So Joan was burned at the stake for being a cross-dresser. SMH. What a mess. 

Returning to Twain. 

Twain wasn't a particularly religious man. So it's peculiar that he spent 17 years of his precious time researching Joan. And somewhere along the line between Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, Twain produced what he considered his finest work: 

"She was truthful when lying was the common speech of men; she was honest when honest was become a lost virtue; she was a keeper of promises when the keeping of a promise was expected of no one; ... she was full of pity when a merciless cruelty was the rule; she was steadfast when stability was unknown, and honorable in an age which had forgotten what honor was; she was a rock of convictions in a time when men believed in nothing and scoffed at all things; she was unfailingly true in an age that was false to the core; ... she was of a dauntless courage when hope and courage had perished in the hearts of her nation..." 

----Mark Twain in his book, "Joan of Arc"

GO JESSE: "QUITE AN EARFUL!"

YOUTUBE: Senators are meeting in emergency session to discuss two bills that will provide more than $64 million in typhoon recovery assistance. Mayor’s Council of Guam president Jesse Alig was there to brief senators on conditions in the villages, and gave them quite an earful. 

HERE

HELPING TOM BURY MARY - AND MAY 30, 1951

By Tim Rohr

A couple weeks ago I wrote a post titled HELPING TOM BURY MARY and wherein I set out some of the challenges my non-Catholic cousin was having procuring a Catholic funeral and burial for his Catholic sister. 

The issue in short was: while my cousin's "church" had a dedicated ministry to burying their dead at no cost to the dead or the bereaved, his sister's Catholic parish had a rather daunting price list of services.

My cousin, knowing I'm Catholic, contacted me for help and I agreed to meet with the pastor to discuss the matter and today was the day I met with him (the pastor).  

The pastor was an African, as a lot of them are in this area (I'm presently off-island). He had just returned from a few weeks away and I was his first appointment. I was quite sure that he hadn't time yet to check his schedule as he seemed a bit surprised to see me.

I was immediately impressed. 

The first thing Father did after asking my name and sitting down in his office was to launch into about a two minute prayer invoking the blessing of St. Timothy upon me and ending with a Hail Mary. I sort of wondered if he was testing my Catholicism when he went into the Hail Mary, so I prayed it audibly along with him. 

He seemed assured.

I thanked him for the prayer and told him I appreciated a priest who prayed. 

Bottom line is that after I told him of my cousin's challenges with trying to get his sister buried pursuant to her wishes for a Catholic funeral and burial and the charges my cousin was quoted, the pastor was perplexed, maybe even a little angry. He said "I'm going to have to talk to my staff. This is not the Church I belong to." (Referencing the prices quoted my cousin by the parish secretary.)

So no charge for anything, not the use of the church (and it's a church that is as large as the Agana Cathedral), not the utilities, not the priest, and not the services of a priest or deacon at the interment/burial at a cemetery at least 30 minutes away. 

Thank you, Father. 

Meanwhile, we intend to make a donation of all we can. 

P.S. As I was waiting for Father, I was thumbing through some documents I had re my deceased cousin and sort of rustling through my many memories of her, even though most of those memories were from many years ago. Then, near the top of one of the papers I noted her birthday. It was today, May 30, 1951. 

I won't say "Happy Birthday in heaven, Mary," because, as Catholics, we believe that only God can know that. But, as Catholics, what we do believe is that a proper Catholic funeral and burial will help her get there just in case she isn't there "yet." So I'm glad that's what she'll get. Finally. 

LET'S PUT MEMORIAL DAY BACK

There's a saying that says "What you do speaks so loudly that what you say I cannot hear." It's a version of "Actions speak louder than words," and the like.

A real example of the truth of this maxim, in a negative way, is what happens every year on Memorial Day. 

Over and over again we read, see, and hear stuff like "remember all those who served," or something to the effect of remembering or honoring all service men and women. 

And over and over again we read, see, and hear reminders that Memorial Day is NOT for those who wore the uniform but for those who DIED in it.

Particularly irksome is hearing or reading "Happy Memorial Day! WTH? Seriously? Happy?

The reminder of what Memorial Day really is never seems to gain ground. 

And here's why.

Government goof balls desecrated this day when they made a three-day weekend out of it. That's fine for some holidays, but NOT Memorial Day. 

Here's what the History Channel says about how and why that happened:

For decades, Memorial Day continued to be observed on May 30, the date General Logan had selected for the first Decoration Day. But in 1968, Congress passed the Uniform Monday Holiday Act, which established Memorial Day as the last Monday in May in order to create a three-day weekend for federal employees. The change went into effect in 1971. The same law also declared Memorial Day a federal holiday.

The concept of a three-day weekend is just that: a party weekend. And that's what most of America appears to do. 

In other words, no matter how many reminders we get about what Memorial Day is supposed to be, the fact that our government turned a sacred day to remember our heroic dead into nothing different than Labor Day or the 4th of July, has made Memorial Day into just another day to BBQ, booze it up, and take out the boat. 

It's one thing to serve. It's another thing to die serving. 

Memorial Day is a sacred day, a day set apart like no other. Let's put it back to May 30 and leave it there. 

Party some other time. 

METEOROLOGIST: "SO WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?"

By Tim Rohr

As Typhoon Mawar was approaching Guam, it intensified to a Supertyphoon with gusts up to 175mph and was making a beeline for my home in Agat. While my home has been through such winds before (Paka and Pongsana), that was awhile ago, and I had some other special reasons for being concerned about my home this time around. 

So, like many, if not most of you, I spent some extra time on my knees (as I did in Paka and Pongsana), praying that the wrath of Mawar might be turned away, or at least just a bit. And that's what happened, as described by meteorologist, Mike Middlebrooke, in this Facebook post. Thank you Mike for saying it like you said it. 

Below is copied the full text of Mike's post in case you can't link to the above, with his pics inserted:

Posted by Mike Middlebrooke on Facebook

All those who prayed prior to and during the passage of Typhoon Mawar across Guam might be interested to know that in response to the prayers of many, Mawar went from being a 155 mph super typhoon out ESE of Guam down to a 135-140 mph non-super typhoon just east of the island before crossing the north tip of Guam at that lesser intensity. Once Mawar got safely west of Guam, it intensified again and as I write this (Thu 11 PM CDT) it is now a Cat 5 super typhoon with max winds of 185 mph.

The first picture shows STY Mawar ESE of Guam Tue 23 May at 240 AM CDT, 540 PM Tue at Guam, with max winds of 155 mph. 

The second picture is a screen grab from an excellent live briefing on FB by the Warning Coordination Meterologist for Guam, Landon Aydlett. It is an enhanced IR satellite image of Mawar in which the eye has deteriorated significantly, indicating weakening, and is now crossing the northern tip of Guam. 

From the radar image in the third picture it appears that there was a massive intrusion of dry air into the eye from the north, wiping out the northern half of the eyewall. This is NOT the radar signature of a STY, and at this point JTWC had downgraded Mawar to a non-super typhoon with max winds at 120 kt, or 138 mph. (The lower limit for super is 130 kt, 150 mph.) But the strongest winds of 130-140 mph were in the heavy rain band south of the center, and Mawar dragged those winds and the heavy rain over the island, resulting, as everyone on Guam knows, in considerable damage and flooding. 

In the last image, from the 25th at 11 AM CDT, 26th at 2 AM on Guam, we see STY Mawar has intensified rapidly since leaving Guam behind, and had winds of 170 mph at image time. As indicated earlier, now those winds are assessed at 185 mph. 

So what does this all mean? 

1. Well, hundreds or even thousands of God's people were praying for Guam, that Mawar would weaken or shift course or do both. Mawar weakened just in time to spare Guam the terrible destruction of a 160 mph STY in favor of a lesser 135-140 mph storm. 

2. As bad as Typhoon Mawar was, it could have been A LOT WORSE, and I think a miracle occurred. I can't imagine what it would be like if Mawar had passed over Guam at, say, 185 mph!

3. But having said that, we also see that a 140 mph typhoon can still do a lot of damage and be very dangerous even if it isn't super.

We should give thanks to the Lord and praise Him for the way things turned out! Now we all need to pray for a fast recovery, with power and water restored as soon as possible. God bless all of you on Guam; we are still praying.

+++++

GOODBYE PNC

By Tim Rohr

SOURCE

Anyway. That was the headline on May 11, 2018, in a news story, reported by Jolene Toves, and broadcast on what used to be PNC News. 

As an aside, it was interesting timing. May 11, was "our" 32nd wedding anniversary, and also the same date "the other party" retained an attorney who was intimately related to the woman who would be governor (it's a matter of public record), a woman I had battled with for more than a decade over the abortion issue.

Moreover ..."11" was the number of children "the other party" and I brought into this world. 

(As the case wore on, "11" and even May 11, would factor in an uncommon way into this case - a story I may tell at another time.)

The PNC story was one of four hit pieces on me that ran that week in May 2018: the first two by KUAM, and then followed by the Guam Daily Post, and finally PNC. (You can read all of them here.)

At least, Krystal Paco, the then-KUAM reporter who first trashed me for two nights in a row on public television, gave me an opportunity to make a statement in my defense. However, PNC DID NOT. 

NOTE: Because I was then represented by counsel, I checked with my attorney as to whether or not I should provide a statement to the media. She (the attorney) basically told me that if I talk to the media that I could find another attorney. I should have. And eventually did. But that’s a story for later. 

PNC (Jolene Toves) simply picked up on the KUAM story, regurgitated the allegations, and never attempted to present the other side: MINE.

So now PNC is DEAD:

After almost twenty years of presenting news to our island and the region, the Pacific News Center is ready for our next stage of evolution...The thirty-minute television production of PNC will be taking a temporary hiatus as we reimagine and prepare for the future of news on our island. 

LOL. "evolution...reimagine..." NOT.  PNC - at least its TV presence -  is done. 

Meanwhile, JW, continues to clip along into the many millions of views from every country on the face of the earth. (See the sidebar.) Call it "serendipity" or "justice" or maybe even "divine justice." 

But now, back to Krystal Paco's "breaking" expose on Tim Rohr as a wife-beater and child-molester of his own children. 

I'm going to give you the abbreviated version and in the interest of time I am not going to provide all the supporting docs. Just know that I can.

+++++

On the morning of May 9, 2018. I received a text from Krystal Paco, then of KUAM, with certain copies of the other party's filings alleging the aforesaid "domestic violence and abuse." 

I wasn't surprised or shocked, in fact I replied to Krystal that it was "expected." 

To understand why it was "expected," one would have to understand the complex workings of what I had been involved in to take down the world's most notorious empire of clergy sex abuse (per capita), headquartered right here on "Chancery Hill," and propped up by the nefarious "Kiko's" - and some perfect storm stuff on the family side. 

I don't have time to explain the Kiko's roll. Just search for "Kiko's" in the above search bar for starters. And I'm not going to drag my family through this again, at least not now, even though some were willing partners with the media (and the Kikos) to drag me through it. (I have the emails.)

Krystal's screenshots were of papers filed in an unfortunate domestic matter. And given that normally real news reporters do not sit around at the court waiting for the latest papers filed in domestic disputes, I asked Krystal how she came to know of "this case." 

Well...might as well copy the Whats App chat here exactly as it happened. I'm on the right. Krystal's on the left:

So Krystal was given the "case number as my tip." 

So: 1) WHO would know the "case number"; 2) WHO would want to give it to Krystal Paco as "a tip;" and 3) and WHY?

I know WHY and I have stacks of stuff to back it up. But it's a story for another day. 

+++++

PS. The only Guam media that did not attack me on this matter was the Pacific Daily News. After enduring a week of filth aimed at me, I contacted Haidee at the PDN to see if she was going to trash me too. To Haidee's credit (and the PDN's), it went like this:

Tim Rohr <timrohr.guam@gmail.com> Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:17 PM
To: Haidee Eugenio <heugenio@guam.gannett.com>

Well so far the PDN is the only news org that hasn't trashed me. If you're planning a story, let me know. While I can't talk to the press, there's somethings I can point you to that the other guys missed in that file.

Eugenio, Haidee <heugenio@guam.gannett.com> Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:35 PM
To: Tim Rohr <timrohr.guam@gmail.com>

As far as I know, we are not running a divorce proceedings story. I’m not aware of any plan.

Tim Rohr <timrohr.guam@gmail.com> Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:15 PM
To: "Eugenio, Haidee" <heugenio@guam.gannett.com>

Much appreciated