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. 

HELPING TOM BURY MARY

By Tim Rohr

Today I agreed to assist a relative (I'll call him "Tom") to bury his sister (I'll call her "Mary"). 

Tom and Mary were born and raised Catholic. However, many years ago, Tom joined an evangelical church (I'll call it a "church" for convenience) and Mary remained Catholic. 

Tom's church is like many such evangelical churches: tight-knit, responsive, outgoing, helpful, and very personable. Mary's Catholic parish is like many parishes: anonymous, unresponsive, inward, not helpful - at least not unless you ask...and ask again, and impersonal. 

God bless you if your Catholic parish is not like Mary's.

Recently Mary died. The only relative who cared about her was Tom. In fact, Tom was really the only person in the world Mary had. She died quietly of brain cancer while sitting next to Tom watching TV. 

The reason I'm involved, other than being a relative, is that Tom is having trouble getting Mary buried. 

Mary, before she died, made it clear that she wanted a Catholic funeral. Upon her death Tom called Mary's parish church. His call was answered by a parish secretary who had no idea who Mary was (she was always a quiet person) and reflexively read off the funeral charges from a price list. 

This is a side note, but perhaps one of the most important jobs for a pastor is choosing and educating the right person to be the church secretary, since this is the person who almost everyone, parishioner or not, will interact with first, and will always be seen as an extension of the pastor. Sadly, my almost constant experience is... Well, I'll let that go for now.

Long story short, the price of a Catholic funeral and burial - just the charges for the church, the Mass, and the priest, are a hardship for Tom since Mary died with nothing to her name and Tom has already used most of his own meager resources dealing with the other aspects of Mary's death.

Tom tried to negotiate with the secretary but she said he would have to meet personally with the pastor to discuss it and the pastor was on vacation for a couple of weeks. Meanwhile, Tom lives about 100 miles away. 

Tom called me for help. He was very nice about it. He didn't criticize the Catholic church, but he let me know that he is a member of a bereavement ministry at his church and that they immediately attend to the needs of deceased members at no charge and even provide a reception. If the family of the deceased can donate, that's fine. Otherwise, everything is taken care of - including the cost of a burial plot, casket, whatever, if that's what's needed.

What a great ministry. 

If our poor, publicly-battered Catholic Church ever wanted to restore its public image and bring alienated Catholics back to the fold, this would be the way to do it. In fact, it's already required that we do it as a Corporal Work of Mercy.

True, Canon Law mandates the following: 

• "Deceased members of the Christian faithful must be given ecclesiastical funerals according to the norm of law." Can. 1176 §1
• "A funeral for any deceased member of the faithful must generally be celebrated in his or her parish church." Can. 1177 §1. 
• "Regarding offerings on the occasion of funeral rites, the prescripts of can. 1264 are to be observed, with the caution, however, that there is to be no favoritism toward persons in funerals and that the poor are not deprived of fitting funerals." Can. 1181 

Note the word "offering." These are not "fees." And in "summary," a deceased Catholic cannot be denied a Catholic funeral because someone can't afford the aircon bill. 

Certainly our pastors know all this, but most "regular" Catholics do not. And they are usually not told. They, like Tom, are just read a price list by the church secretary. 

At Tom's church, when one of their members dies and the church secretary gets a call, the caller is immediately referred to Tom's bereavement ministry and they spring into action to see to everything that is needed. 

Upon getting Tom's call today asking for help to bury his sister in the Catholic way that his sister wanted, I did a search and found that there is a non-profit Catholic organization in Mary's diocese which provides assistance to bury the dead much in the way Tom's church does. 

However, Mary’s church secretary was either ignorant of this help or didn't care to share it. She just read off a price list and when Tom objected he was told he'd have to meet with the pastor who was on vacation for another two weeks and would have to drive 200 miles round trip to meet with the pastor when he returned. 

Meanwhile, Mary’s body remains in storage. I don't know what it's costing Tom, but it may be more than what Mary's church is charging by the time we finally get her buried.

I told Tom that I'd meet with the pastor and take care of it. 

Meanwhile, we have so many "ministries." Why not one like Tom's?

I'll join.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION

Can I Become a Priest, If I Have an Illegitimate Child?

And the answer goes well beyond the question, which makes the answer even more important. 

Here's part of the answer:

The question that a bishop or religious superior will have to ask is, is a prospective priest’s past life so problematic that it will create difficulties for him (and for the diocese or religious institute) if he becomes a priest? And will it cause scandal, or at least confusion, among the faithful to whom he is expected to minister?

FULL ARTICLE HERE

NOTE TO PARISHIONERS

A detailed list of properties owned by the Archbishop of Agana (aka Archdiocese of Agana) transferred to the Trust (established for the benefit of certain claimants) includes several properties currently operating as parishes. 

Those properties are of no use to the claimants unless they are converted into cash, so presumably the Trust will put the properties up for sale. 

Now is the time for parishioners who want to save their parishes to organize, incorporate, and make every effort to purchase their parish properties back and keep them under the control of their own corporation. 

And Canon Law is on your side.

During the bankruptcy hearings, there was an attempt by the defense to make the case that individual parishes were not "owned" by the Archbishop, but were individual entities in the control of the pastor and by extension the people of the parish. 

Unfortunately, the lay people who testified in support of this position based their testimony mostly on stories and hearsay and (per my recollection) received very little (if any) help from the church's attorneys to support their argument.

I remember being astounded at the church's silence on this matter given what was at stake and given that church law was and is on the side of those who testified trying to save their parishes. Consider the following:

Though some dioceses in the United States are set up as civil “corporations sole”, this civil legal construct is not appropriate for the Ordinariate, nor does it accurately reflect the Church’s understanding that each individual parish is its own separate public juridic person.

...the parish or mission is designated as a public juridic person to give it a formal canonical status. The juridic person as a canonical “corporation” then assumes all of the obligations and privileges of an established parish or mission. If it owns property, the property becomes part of the public juridic person of the parish and its administration must be governed by canon law. This means that all parish property is controlled by the parish (in the person of the pastor (c. 532)), and its civil incorporation must reflect that reality. 

- Parish Property Ownership in the Catholic Church 

Instead of making these arguments, the defense let themselves be beaten into a box with one word and the one word was itself "One." 

The question from the plaintiff's to the defense was "is the Catholic Church one?" This question was asked over and over and it was aimed at well-meaning lay people who should have been defended by the highly paid lawyers for the archdiocese, but weren't. 

The lay people answered from a "belief" perspective, i.e. the "One" Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Obviously "One" in this context only means "One" in belief, not "one" in worldly ownership. 

But that distinction was never made, and our church leadership simply caved:

According to the vicar general, (Fr. Romeo Convocar) following a ruling from District Court of Guam Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, “the archdiocese is essentially one body, which means all the liquid and real property assets of all parishes and schools owned by the archdiocese are part of the bankruptcy estate.” - SOURCE

Even though I wanted to see justice for the true victims - especially those who came forward and put their names and faces to the cause, I also wanted to see justice for the Catholics in the pews, most of whom are also innocent victims in this matter, given that they would be made to pay the bill, not the perpetrators.

Perhaps the "archdiocese" so weakly defended itself because not a single member of the clergy would be made to pay a dime. What a shame. 

WHY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN...AND CANNOT EXCOMMUNICATE GOVERNOR LLG

By Tim Rohr

Catholic Church Law (Canon Law) addresses abortion only once.  And from 1983, when the revised code was first promulgated, until Dec. 8, 2021, the code at Can. 1398 stated: 

A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

The Latin phrase "latae sententiae" means "a sentence already passed," or more popularly: "automatic," i.e. an automatic excommunication due to the act itself without any further action by ecclesial authority. 

In other words, no letter from your bishop is necessary. 

Can. 1398 does not address politicians who support abortion or anyone else involved in the abortion. It only addresses the person who directly procured the abortion. 

So where does the idea that pro-abortion politicians should be excommunicated come from since it appears only the mother can willfully "procure" an abortion?

Up until Dec. 8, 2021 (and we will discuss what changed in 2021 in a bit) it came from a combination of the afore-referenced Can. 1398 and another canon which does not mention abortion but sets forth a familiar legal principle:

Can. 1329 §2. Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them; otherwise, they can be punished by ferendae sententiae* penalties.

*"sentence to be passed"

This should be familiar because accomplices to a crime under most secular law systems are just as guilty as the actual perpetrator. (Remember the word "actual" for later.)

The question is whether or not a pro-abortion politician is an accomplice to the crime of abortion - as said crime is defined by the Catholic Church - and should said pro-abortion politician, if Catholic, be excommunicated?

The answer - at least until 2021 - was a pretty hard "yes." 

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict one year later, and as then-Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, weighed in definitively on this matter when a pro-abortion Catholic, John Kerry, became the Democratic nominee for the office of U.S. President.

Said Ratzinger:

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

Bringing the matter closer to home (Guam), there is a question of whether or not Governor Lou Leon Guerrero can or should be excommunicated for vetoing the Heartbeat Act. 

The answer, in this writer's opinion, and pursuant to Ratzinger's instruction,  is "no." 

Vetoing a bill is not "campaigning and voting for (a) permissive abortion... law." In fact, vetoing a bill that still permits the killing of unborn children up until a fetal heartbeat is detected could be construed as functionally a "pro-life" act - that is, of course, if you didn't know Lou Leon Guerrero. 

LLG's real excommunicable act - in this writer's opinion - is her very public use of the governor's office - not to mention our tax dollars - to solicit, recruit, and procure abortion doctors to come to Guam to perform abortions after the last abortion clinic in Guam closed in 2018 - which happened to coincide with LLG's first election as governor. 

While it could be argued that said efforts by Gov. LLG (via the Bureau of Woman Affairs and her abortion-lieutenant, Jayne Flores) is neither "campaigning" nor "voting for...permissive abortion laws," it can JUST AS JUSTLY be argued that LLG is using the full force of her public office to promote and provide abortions. 

However, no one, to my knowledge, has objected - from the Catholic pulpit - about LLG's hard abortion advocacy...even though LLG's virulent advocacy for abortion has not only been obvious since her elevation to the office of Governor, but has been very public since at least 1990, when LLG backed Atty. Anita Arriola, in attacking and successfully suing the Government of Guam for enacting "Belle's Bill." 

However...and this is a big HOWEVER, the real reason we may not have heard anything from the pulpit may be due to Pope Francis, in 2021, adding a single word to Can. 1398 (which he renumbered as Can. 1397 §2. )

That canon now reads:

A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Compare the 2021 canon to the original 1983 canon:

A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

The addition of the word "actually" changes things a bit...or a lot. Before proceeding, copied here is a short commentary on the change:

The Vatican’s English translation of the new norms deviates from the currently approved English translation of the canon on abortions and excommunication. The translation change is likely to be appreciated for emphasizing directly the person to whom a latae sententiae excommunication for abortion actually applies.

The old translation of canon 1398 said that “a person who procures a completed abortion” incurs such a penalty.

While canonists have emphasized in recent years that “procurement” refers to a person undergoing, funding directly, or performing an abortion, numerous popular commentators have at times argued that canon 1398 could also apply to politicians supporting legal protection or state funding for abortion, given that they might be considered to have remote moral participation in particular abortions.

The new Vatican translation of the norm, which in the official Latin edition remains the same, makes an effort to thwart that argument, and to state more clearly the intended meaning of the canon: Renumbered as canon 1397 §2, the canon’s translation adds a crucial word: “A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” 

Incredibly, Pope Francis - despite his demonstrable liberal sympathies for women - with his amending and renumbering of Can. 1398, functionally relieves all accomplices to abortion - including politicians - and lays the blame completely on the person who "actually procures an abortion," which could only be the mother (if said mother proceeded under complete free will). 

As an aside, the word "completed" was deleted from the now-renumbered Canon 1398. 

This may be one of the "pro's" to the amendment of the subject canon since - on its face - the previous wording inadvertently allowed for the still full communion of anyone who formally or materially participated in the intentional death of a defenseless, innocent human being - a baby - in the event that said "baby" survived" a failed abortion, i.e. not "completed."

No matter. LLG would want that child dead anyway. 

A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN

 Posted by frenchie.

Following his implementation of his Synod of Synodality, the new Code of Canon law, reorganization of the bodies of government, inside the Vatican, Pope Francis accelerate his deconstruction of the Church under the guise of a needed modernization of the Church at all cost. 

It seems that the disastrous results of modernization of western societies and of the Vatican II do not suffice, and that the reflection that would ensue in any normal organization, has turned into a rush forward, as if the pontiff was afraid not to be able to finish his mission before he is recalled by his maker.

Francis latest Motu Proprio titled: "Assegnare Alcune Competenze"

is turning some of the normal competences of the Vatican to local bishops.

You can read Vatican News 

Here 

What is very troublesome is that under the guise of decentralization, the Pope is giving great new opportunities for Sects like the NCW here on Guam to grow unabatted.

Further there shall be a transfer of power from the Vatican to the Bishops in the decision to the reduction of the obligations of masses under Canon 1308.

Finally this will also impact the Mass intentions that a priest can or not celebrate.

Quite a disturbing issue here on Guam where this is a integral part of the fiber of our local Church.

Lets pray that the Chancery will clarify this specific point to assuage people's fears.

FILONI IS NOT THE HOLY SEE, YOU SEE :)

AnonymousAugust 31, 2017 at 11:52 PM

The KAKA filled NEO Cult Zombies are again showing their true colors at the Dungbats latest blog. They are using that ill fated social media to tell everyone that the Red Pope controls the NEO Cult Presbyter Factory in Yona and ArchNEO Cult Presbyter Anthony Sablan aspirin is still in control of the Catholics on Guam. LMAO 😂 😂



AnonymousAugust 31, 2017 at 7:57 PM

Excuse me. RMS cannot be sold off without the approval of the Congregation for Evangelization/curia.
Archbishop of Agana requires consent of curia to sell/close down.
Wishes of Cardinal Filoni/curia important. Archbishop Anthony is Archbishop of Agana.

Canon Law does not require the approval of Filoni, the Curia, or his pathetic congregation. Canon Law requires permission "of the Holy See":

Can. 1292 §2. The permission of the Holy See is also required for the valid alienation of goods whose value exceeds the maximum amount, goods given to the Church by vow, or goods precious for artistic or historical reasons.

So what is the Holy See? Is it Filoni? Nope. The Holy See is ultimately the pope. The Catholic Church is a monarchy, not a democracy. But beyond that, there is this:

Can. 1293 §1. The alienation of goods whose value exceeds the defined minimum amount also requires the following: 

1/ a just cause, such as urgent necessity, evident advantage, piety, charity, or some other grave pastoral reason;

The "just cause" is the salvation of the "essential properties," i.e. churches and schools. If the Yona property is NOT part of the settlement, attorneys for the plaintiffs will NOT be willing to settle and will pursue their cases through the court where ALL diocesan properties will be at risk.

The pope is not likely to place all of our churches and schools at risk to save a neo-infested property which will probably need millions of dollars of decontamination work (if not several exorcisms), before the property is of any use to anyone.

MORE HELP FOR "MR. ARCH DIOCESE."

Continuing from this post, Mr. Arch Diocese will find this canon helpful:

Can. 803 §1. A Catholic school is understood as one which a competent ecclesiastical authority or a public ecclesiastical juridic person directs or which ecclesiastical authority recognizes as such through a written document.

It is quite possible that given it was the crooked Apuron who "worked something out" with the group which took over the Mt. Carmel school, that there is a "written document" SOMEWHERE, wherein, Apuron, the "ecclesiastical authority" at the time, permitted the name Catholic to remain attached to Mt. Carmel School even though said "authority" - as demonstrated by the Elliman-Phillips affair - does not in any way shape or form DIRECT Mt. Carmel School. 

Whatever the facts are, it would be wise for the group running the school to remove the word Catholic from its title. The pending sex abuse claims against Mr. Arch Diocese will put everything with the name Catholic on it at peril. 

Meanwhile, Mr. Arch Diocese, despite the fact that he will not sign his name to his own statements (this one wasn't from Byrnes), has a duty to the the faithful of this diocese to publicly request that the name be removed. And should the group refuse, then publish an Aviso stating that the school is OUTSIDE the "competent ecclesiastical authority," and canonically is NOT a Catholic school. 

P.S. These anonymous statements from Mr. Arch Diocese not only demonstrate the lack of commitment to transparency from "the chancery," but do more to create even further distrust amongst the laity who are sick of seeing this Apuron-era method of communicating with us. 

CANON LAW: THE CANONICAL TRIAL

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P59.HTM

BOOK VII

PROCESSES

Part I.

TRIALS IN GENERAL (Cann. 1400 - 1403)

Can.  1400 §1. The object of a trial is:

1/ the pursuit or vindication of the rights of physical or juridic persons, or the declaration of juridic facts;

2/ the imposition or declaration of a penalty for delicts.

§2. Nevertheless, controversies arising from an act of administrative power can be brought only before the superior or an administrative tribunal.

Can.  1401 By proper and exclusive right the Church adjudicates:

1/ cases which regard spiritual matters or those connected to spiritual matters;

2/ the violation of ecclesiastical laws and all those matters in which there is a question of sin, in what pertains to the determination of culpability and the imposition of ecclesiastical penalties.

LET'S ALL LEARN ABOUT CANONICAL TRIALS

Trials According to the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church

THE REAL PROBLEM: GETTING OUR SPIRITUAL LEADERS TO DO THE RIGHT THING!

Posted by Tim Rohr

It appears that Archbishop Hon could use the advice of someone who can read Canon Law. Listed as members of the Archdiocesan Finance Council on the Archdiocese of Agana website are:

http://www.aganaarch.org/consultative-groups/

Note: While the objectivity of finance council decisions by neocatechumenates (Ada and Quichocho) can certainly be questioned in matters related to RMS (Quichocho is also RMS Board Treasurer), and David C. Quitugua is demonstrably ethically compromised (certificate of title), we'll leave those issues aside for now and continue with the following. 

There are a couple of problems here. The first is that Deacon Dominic Kim is also the Archdiocesan Finance Officer:

CANON 766 AND A CASE OF NAUSEA

Whenever someone sends me a copy of the drivel over on "the other blog", I hesitate to do anything with it. It is not just that their postings are a general assault on intelligence, the authors of the "other blog" are faustian in their ambition to remake the church in their own image and to even entertain them makes me sick. 

It is not just that the authors at "the other blog" are uninformed. Quite the opposite. They are very informed - and informed by the sort of twisted logistical machinations of Screwtape who instructs Wormwood on how to seduce his "patient" into hell:

"Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church", advises Screwtape to Wormwood. And one has only to listen to the long ramblings of a Kiko, a Pius, or a Diana to know how thoroughly they subscribe to this diabolic advice. 

WHAT IS CANON LAW?

As the oldest continuously functioning legal system in the western world, canon law affects virtually every aspect of the faith life of over one billion Catholic Christians around the world. But, as Pope John Paul II explained when he promulgated the Code in 1983, canon law "is in no way intended as a substitute for faith, grace, charisms, and especially charity in the life of the Church and of the faithful. On the contrary, its purpose is rather to create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy love, grace, and charisms, it at the same time renders their organic development easier in the life of both the ecclesial society and the individual persons who belong to it." John Paul II, ap. con. Sacrae disciplinae leges (1983) 16.

Learn more at www.canonlaw.info

WHAT CANON LAWYERS ARE AND AREN'T

by Dr. Edward Peters, reposted from www.canonlaw.info

Most people think of canon lawyers as bespectacled, gray-haired monsignors who sit in dark-paneled rooms and quote Latin verses from authors dead for a hundred years. It may have been like that once, but today canon lawyers cut rather a different figure. Here I want to explain what canon lawyers are and aren't, what canon law is, and how to use (or not to use) a canon lawyer.

Canon law is the legal system of the Catholic Church. It is the oldest functioning legal system in the Western world. The word canon comes from the Greek kanon, meaning a rule or measure. In the early centuries of Christianity, canon law consisted mostly of rules developed in synods and councils. Like other legal systems, canon law developed over the centuries, adopting new techniques while discarding outdated ones. The rediscovery of Roman civil law in the eleventh century greatly aided the development of canon law as a discipline distinct from moral theology.

Read the rest of the article here.