Thursday, July 19, 2018


I have, for quite awhile, used Facebook (as many have) as a sort of "blog," and rather neglected this one, this blog, which is the forum I once used, and frequently, to post personal musing...and sometimes more than musings.

But FB is not a place to post things you want to keep. So I've decided to repost certain FB musings here, even if they are not in keeping with the original theme of this blog, which was, originally, to comment on Church "stuff."

So here's one:

"No. No. NOTHING. Nothing will ever convince me that the the whole host of heavenly angels, despite the every present demons in rock and roll, did not whisper this song to Jimmy Page and Robert Plant, and despite their own demons, still heard....and showed us, quite unbeknownst probably even to them, the "stairway to heaven"...which we all must find...or be lost. And for that, and even that alone, I pray for their salvation...and ours."

Sunday, January 28, 2018


With the recent introduction of The Unborn Child Protection Act of 2018 in Guam's Legislature this past week, Guam has entered into the most controversial area of abortion legislation yet: pain-capable abortion limits.

The bill prohibits abortion after 20 weeks, because, as the bill states: "Medical evidence indicates that, at least by 20 weeks after fertilization, an unborn child possesses the physical structure necessary to experience pain."

The abortion promoting Guttmacher Institute lists 19 states that have similar 20 week bans with various conditions and exceptions attached. 

The immediate argument against the local bill is that similar legislation in Arizona and Idaho has been "enjoined" by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals so why are we bothering with this legislation in Guam as the Ninth Circuit is sure to do the same with our bill?

There are a variety of arguments for pushing the legislation forward but the argument I personally propose is: "SO?"

The U.S. Supreme Court itself once ruled against a man named Dred Scott, a slave who sued for his freedom after his owner had taken him to a free state (Illinois). 

Then-Chief Justice, Roger Taney, thought the ruling would resolve the slavery question once and for all (just like Roe v Wade was supposed to resolve the abortion question). 

However, "the decision immediately spurred vehement dissent from anti-slavery elements in the North, and proved to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War."

A later Chief Justice called the Scott decision "the Court's greatest self-inflicted wound."

Today, we can say "THANK GOD" some people did not sit down and shut up just because some guys in black robes ruled on something. 

Pro-life advocates are today's "abolitionists." And due to their efforts, the Dred Scott case will one day take a back seat to Roe v Wade, as not just the Court's, but the United States of America's "greatest self inflicted wound." 

Tuesday, July 11, 2017


A few days ago in Poland, President Trump characterized the current struggle with "terrorism" as a war between cultures, and questioned whether the West had the will to survive.

It's a good question. And one worth pondering especially today, the Feast of St. Benedict, whom history has come to see as not just the father of Western monasticism, but the father of Western civilization.


Monday, June 19, 2017


Today, I read in the Divine Office Intercessions:

"Man was created to glorify God through his deeds." 

Yes he was. Immediately coming to mind was the old debate between faith and works, which is not a debate at all when it is understood as not an "either/or." 

But then immediately following that thought and almost without hesitation was a vision of my amazing eleven children. If there are any deeds I hope God will judge me on it is this. 

Not that I have done anything exceptional in raising them. Most of the time I was preoccupied with just how to survive, and not just financially, and was often confused on how to be a "good father." 

No, I hope God will judge me solely on my willingness to welcome them, to want them, to still want them, to always want them, and to want us all to be with Him in eternity forever. And that, for the rest of my life, is my mission...and yours (for your children) too. 

Thursday, May 18, 2017


On May 10, in Guam Daily Post, Attorney Bill Pesch accused Department of Public Health Director, James Gillan, of making “bogus” statements and of perpetrating “absolute nonsense.” 

The “absolute nonsense,” according to Pesch, is Gillan’s claim that Guam law prevents the Director of Public Health from modifying a birth certificate to include the name of a lesbian parent as “father.” 

Pesch states that he is “not familiar with any law that says the legislature is responsible for designing birth certificates,” and claims that Gillan has the authority to modify the certificate.

However, the next day, in another publication, Pesch is quoted as saying: “

“Other states have laws which consider family dynamics of similarly situated same-sex parents, but Guam doesn’t. And that’s what Guam needs to do…When it comes to surrogacy, we’re definitely behind other jurisdictions in the United States.”

What a difference a day makes. One day Pesch is claiming that there is no such law, and the next day he is demanding that Guam law catch up with the rest of the country. 

But beyond this absurdity is the even more absurd: A lawyer demanding that a public official not comply with the law on the puerile basis that said lawyer is “sick and tired” of something he doesn’t like.

The fact is that Guam law clearly requires the full birth name of the father of the child on the birth certificate. 

That the law assumes the term “father” to be the natural father is not in question since in the absence of the natural father, the mother has the right to name him, whereupon he may be required to submit to a blood test to determine whether he is in fact “the natural father of the child.” (Other provisions are made for when the father is not known or named.)

What Pesch really wants (in addition to the forcing of public officials to break the law) is a complete overhaul of a definition of terms in the name of “gender neutrality.” 

Fine, but then we must also get rid of the words like “mother” as well as the sex of the child, since - following Pesch’s logic - defining a child as male or female at birth is apparently “prejudice,” and he’s “sick and tired” of that. 

What is lost in all this “rights” talk is the rights of the child. Does a child have a right to know its biological parents? Does a child have a right to a mother and a father (assuming the natural definitions)? 

As recently as 1989, the United Nations said “Yes.” The child has “the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.” (Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 7.) 

Reading the rest of the document there is no question that the UN’s definition of “parent” is “natural parent,” noting that sometimes adoption and foster care are necessary when a “child temporarily or permanently is deprived of his or her family.” 

Further, many diseases and their cures are now traced to genetics. Does a child have a right at some point in his or her life to know the roots of his or her genetic makeup? i.e. his or her natural parents? Where would that be recorded? 

In the mad embrace of adult rights there is no room for the rights of the child. How sad. How sadder still that many may suffer illness or disease needlessly because people like Bill Pesch helped to make it impossible for them to know where they came from. 

Tuesday, April 18, 2017


This morning an email showed up in my inbox from CHRISTIAN FORUMS with the subject line: "Purgatory: Scriptural Or Not... Or Worse?"

The author of the post followed the usual sola scriptura logic of if it's not in the Bible it doesn't exist, but goes further, calling the doctrine of Purgatory (a specifically Catholic doctrine) "the ANTI-Christ." 

I read a few of the replies, all of which appeared to agree with the author and some of which even went further in their condemnation of the Catholic doctrine and belief in Purgatory. 

I decided to leave the following reply:

The presupposition is that everything that Jesus taught can be found in Scripture. Aside from the fact that Jesus left us nothing in writing, there is also the matter as to who gets to decide what constitutes "Scripture." Just for starters, the followers of Martin Luther say there are 66 books in the Bible, the Catholics say there are 73, and the Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, and Ethiopian Orthodox all add to that. So whose "Bible" shall we refer to?

Additionally, John 21 tells us: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”

More than likely, the “many other things that Jesus did/taught” may well have occurred in the 40 day period between the Resurrection and his Ascension into heaven. If there ever was a time for Jesus to teach and the Apostles to listen, it certainly would have been during this period. 

In Acts 1, Luke tells us: “In the first book, Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus did and taught until the day he was taken up, after giving instructions through the holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself alive to them by many proofs after he had suffered, appearing to them during forty days* and speaking about the kingdom of God.”

Obviously there was much instruction during this period but nothing specific seems to be recorded in “scripture.” In fact, Luke references his “first book” (probably his Gospel), where he dealt with “all that Jesus did and taught UNITL the day he was taken up.” However, other than the Road to Emmaus account, nothing much else is said about what Jesus did or taught during this period. So it may be that this portion of Luke’s Gospel was lost. 

Specific to your inquiry, though, regarding a scriptural reference to Purgatory. A “third place” which is not Heaven or Hell can be found in Revelation 20:13-14: “The sea gave up its dead; then Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire.”

At this point I will copy a portion of what I have already written on the matter elsewhere with a link to the source:

The passage (Revelation 20:13-14) occurs within the context of a description of events which will occur at the end of time. One of the main events is that Hades will “give up its dead”. We know Hades isn’t Hell (understood as the place of eternal damnation) because Hell is noted separately as “the pool of fire”. And we for sure know that Hades isn’t Heaven. So what is it? 

Classically, Hades is understood as a holding place for the dead. Such a place was seen as necessary before Christ opened the gates of Heaven, but deemed by Luther and others as unnecessary after. Yet, here we are at the end of time, and not only is Hades still around, its got souls “holed up” there.

What are they doing there? There can be only one explanation. They are not deserving of Hell (or else they’d be there), and not yet worthy of Heaven (or else they’d be there). They are in fact, “spirits in prison”, which comports with Mt. 5:26: “you will not get out of there until you have paid the last penny.”

Tuesday, January 03, 2017


Note: This post was originally published on It was copied here for further discussion. - Tim 

Posted by Bruce Williams

An international Marian organization, along with more than 100 bishops, priests, religious and theologians from over 20 countries, are asking Pope Francis to publicly acknowledge Mary as co-redemptrix with Our Lord.

The 33-member commission offered a summary of the major points of its document:

  • Our Lady's free decision to be Mother of Our Lord was the beginning of Her participation in Our Lord's mission of salvation of the human race;
  • Our Lady's special participation in Our Lord's work of redemption is only possible through His infinite merits, and does not detract from Christ's redemptive work;
  • Mention of  the "woman" in Genesis 3:15 and Her "seed" is a foreshadowing of Our Lady's victory over Satan and sin. The Immaculate Conception is preparation for Her to be perfect human partner with Our Lord;
  • The Presentation reveals Our Lady's continued mission of co-redeemer with Christ, culminating at Golgotha, where She interiorly unites Herself with Our Lord's sufferings on the Cross;
  • The Early Church concept of the "New Eve" is the first sign of the teaching of Our Lady as co-redeemer; Her title as "Redemptrix" to point to her suffering with Our Lord at Calvary (10th century); acknowledgment of Her being "co-crucified" with Our Lord (12th century); the "Co-Redemptrix" title (15th century); the "golden age" of Co-Redemptrix (17th century); the title of "Co-Redemptrix" applied by Pope Pius XI and Pope St. John Paul II (19th and 20th centuries);
  • The prefix "co-" denotes "with" and not "equal." No one can be placed on the level of the Divine, as such would be blasphemy;
  • 2017 is the centenary of Our Lady's apparitions at Fatima, "which in itself constitutes a powerful manifestation of Our Lady's co-redemption in action."

Thursday, December 08, 2016


Today is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception and also the occasion of my annual beef about how Scripture's most important verse has disappeared from our Catholic bibles and even today's Mass readings. 

Enshrining the ancient belief that Mary was conceived without sin in her mother's womb into Dogma, Pope Pius IX declared:

“ the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.” - Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

Pius IX is referencing Genesis 3:15, the protoevangelium, the "first gospel," so-called because it is the first instance of the announcement of a Savior (and thus Scripture's "most important verse"):

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Unfortunately (at least in my view), neither in our modern Catholic bibles nor in today's Mass readings, will you hear of the virgin crushing the head of the evil serpent as our ancestors did for almost 2000 years, and as is enshrined in countless artful depictions of this magnificent moment, which not only foretold of our salvation, but concludes it in an image of the final victory over Satan at the end of time. 

Instead you will hear (or read) this:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”

Of course the "he" is Jesus, and of course it is Jesus who triumphs over Satan and wins our salvation (if we want it), but that's not what the Church has historically understood the Scripture to say. And for it to say what the modern translations say, we would have to destroy 2000 years of paintigs, mosaics, statues, and even songs, not to mention rewrite the Dogma as Pius IX wrote it.

Also, in this version, Satan's head is not even "crushed," only struck at, or in some translations, only "bruised."

We would also have to change the story about Our Lady of Guadalupe, the only apparition in which Mary names* herself: Tequantlaxopeuh, an Aztec word (since she was speaking to an Aztec) meaning “She who crushes the stone serpent,” the "stone serpent" being the dreaded Aztec god, Quetzalcoatl, to whom were offered tens of thousands of still beating hearts gouged out of living chests. 

*In other apparitions, such as at Lourdes, Mary does not give her name but a title ("I am the Immaculate Conception").

Scholars have their reasons for changing the verse (much of it having to do with making peace with protestants who reject the Immaculate Conception), but in the scriptural absence of Mary as “serpent crusher”, Quetzalcoatl has ravenously returned: for whereas this dreaded Aztec god once feasted on thousands of human hearts ripped from living chests, he now devours millions of living infants ripped from warm wombs, and drinks to intoxication the rivers of blood which flow from our abortuaries and the other altars of slaughter erected in homage to the gods of the Culture of Death. 

Santa Maria Te Coatlaxopeuh, Protectress of Unborn Children, pray for us.

Other Note:
Also, for nearly 30 post-Vatican II years the words "full of grace" disappeared from the Gospel of December 8 until they reappeared in 1997 after John Paul II required the English translation of the Gospel to include them. And while the words of today's Gospel now include "full of grace," most of our Catholic bibles do not. Rather, "favored one" or something using the word "favor" is used. Scholars argue that this translation is more exact. In replying to this argument, a certain Fr. John Echert on EWTN makes the following reply:
"Granting your grammatical analysis, the fact that the Holy Spirit continues to work in the Church to guide Her in the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures should lead us to accept the ancient tradition which translated the text of St. Luke as, “full of grace” rather than “highly favored” or some equivalent. The texts of Scripture should not be interpreted in isolation from the life of the Church, especially when a relevant dogma bears upon the subject. Such an approach assumes that there is only an original understanding and allows for no opportunity for a deepened understanding under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This approach was the failure of many of the Scribes of the time of Christ, who refused to understand the prophets and law beyond their own limited perception of meaning. As we know, many texts of the Old Testament have had subsequent applications and meaning, as is evident in the fact that they are quoted in connection with Christ. The Greek behind “full of grace” does not of itself prove the Immaculate Conception and neither would a similar Greek expression associated with another person, such as St. Stephen, demand that we say the same of him as to his conception. The Church teaches that Mary was conceived full of grace and while Stephen may have been full of grace at the time recounted in Acts, such was no doubt subsequent to his own baptism, wherein original sin was washed away and replaced by grace. ©

Friday, February 19, 2016


Once again, the Catholic media is scrambling to unscramble what the pope said. Once again, the controversy originates from remarks by the pope on a plane returning to Rome. And this time the issue is contraception.

A quick "google" of the words "pope" and "contraception" turns up:

Pope suggests contraceptives could be used to slow spread of Zika
CNN‎ - 1 hour ago

Pope opens the door to contraception in averting harmful ...
Los Angeles Times - 2 hours ago 

Zika virus: Pope hints at relaxation of contraception ban ...
BBC - 1 hour ago 

Pope Suggests Contraception Use May Be 'Lesser Evil' For ...
NPR - 5 hours ago

Pope suggests contraception can be condoned in Zika crisis ...
The Guardian - 2 hours ago 

Pope Francis Says Contraception Can Be Acceptable in ...
The Wall Street Journal - 6 hours ago

Pope Francis Says Contraception May Be 'Lesser of Two Evils' - 7 hours ago 

Is Pope Francis' Contraception Allowance During Zika ... - 3 hours ago 

So now we are in for another round of the Catholic media blaming the secular media for taking the pope's remarks out of context, etc., etc., etc...

So let's go to exactly what the pope said as reported by the Catholic News Agency:
Paloma GarcĂ­a Ovejero, Cadena COPE (Spain): Holy Father, for several weeks there’s been a lot of concern in many Latin American countries but also in Europe regarding the Zika virus. The greatest risk would be for pregnant women. There is anguish. Some authorities have proposed abortion, or else to avoiding pregnancy. As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?”  
Pope Francis: Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the ‘lesser evil,’ avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.  
Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no?  It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned.  
On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on.  
First, the pope completely mishears the question and thus inappropriately responds. The reporter DOES NOT call abortion "the lesser of two evils," his reference is to "contraception: "As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?

Next, it is sad that the pope compares abortion to "what the Mafia does." The Mafia may kill people, but there is nothing to compare to the direct killing of a victim who is as helpless and innocent as an unborn child. Equating abortion with the Mafia knocking off people who get in their way radically devalues the Catholic teaching that there are different degrees of sin. Obviously the killing of an unborn child, unable to scream or run, is grossly more serious than the mob knocking off a drug dealer for blowing a deal. But now, according to Pope Francis, it is not. This is very dangerous and such a comparison gravely undermines the effort to bring attention to the dignity and innocence of the unborn child. 

Next, Pope Francis appears to pit God against God: "we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment." There is no conflict in God, least of all in God's law. But yet, this is how Pope Francis frames it: apparently, because of the latest health issue to affect humanity, even though it is yet a tiny portion, somehow we must choose between the fifth and the sixth commandment. HUH? The fifth commandment is "Thou shalt not kill (murder)." And the sixth is "Thou shalt not commit adultery." There is no conflict. Both are mortal sins. 

Next he references the case of Paul VI and the nuns in the Congo: "Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape." Sadly, no one was talking about rape here. The reporter's reference was to the potential for birth defects precipitated by a mother's exposure to the Zika virus. Anyone can see that the reporter was not speaking of unwanted pregnancies, let alone those brought on by rape. Yet the pope uses this extreme example permitted to nuns in an extreme situation. 

However, here is where Francis either makes a huge error or permits a real slip of an agenda many are beginning to suspect. Let's talk about the error first. 

According to the Catholic News Agency, the "nuns in the Congo" issue occurred in the early 1960's. Due to the very high danger of being raped and impregnated, Paul VI was reported to have permitted nuns to use oral contraception. Since the permission was said to have been given in "the early 1960's," and Paul VI became Pope in 1963. We can guess that this occurred between 1963 and 1965, right at the same time he expanded "The Pontifical Commission on Birth Control."

The Commission originated with Paul VI's predecessor and continued under Pau VI. It was charged with determining whether or not the use of oral contraceptives by married couples could be morally allowed. So at the time Paul VI permitted the use of oral contraceptives for the nun's self-defense, the Church had not definitively decided on whether or not the use of oral contraception was an intrinsic evil. That was decided and defined by Paul VI about five years later in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae. 

Yet, Francis uses Paul VI's very narrow permit, employed specifically by a specific group of women (nuns) who were ministering in a severely dangerous situation, and a permission granted at a time when the immoral use of oral contraceptives had not yet been magisterially defined, as a model for the use of contraception generally when there is a potential of viral harm to the fetus. 

This was either an absolute misreading of the historical context, or Francis has let slip his desire to liberate the Church from that which he is not authorized to liberate.

Next, I really don't know what he is doing appealing to the Hippocratic Oath at this point. It appears that he is trying to separate religion from the world, which of course would make his liberal press friends happy. This is really obvious when he says: "Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem." Really? Somehow, human problems and medical problems, are not the concern of theology? Personally, I think I know the finer point of what the pope is trying to say, but on its face, the pope's comment just gave justification to the liberal's calls to "keep your religion out of my life." 

Then he ends the second paragraph with more confusing moral relativism: "Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned." This is not true. The Church has ALWAYS permitted the killing of another human being in self-defense. This underlying moral principle extends to the doctrine of Just War, and is even the main reason why the Church has never and can never completely condemn capital punishment. However, the real problem with this comment is that the pope once again devalues the helplessness and innocence of life in the womb by equating the killing of the unborn child with all killing.

Then there is his saying: "avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil." This statement could be true. There is nothing evil about not engaging in sex and thereby "avoiding pregnancy." However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church - which elsewhere in the report Francis says he supports - defines
"every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil..." (CCC 2370)

I personally do not think (yet) that the pope is intending mischief. I think he simply talks too much and without much thinking. At least I hope that's the case. We shall see.

Note: After posting the above, evidence that the alleged permission of Pope Paul is a myth was verified here

Monday, October 19, 2015



Pope Francis is now effectively at war with the Vatican. If he wins, the Catholic Church could fall apart

So having gone down a path that had a dead end to begin with (he cannot change moral teaching), he has two options: 1) admit he never should have gone down the path, 2) admit he can't change the teaching.

However, there is a third, and I admit I didn't think he would do this: PUNT. He's going to give the episcopal conferences the authority to decide for themselves. This gets himself off the hook and (like a good liberal) he gets to say "I tried" so he can stay popular.

The only problem is that if the pope knows he cannot change moral teaching then certainly bishops can't either. He knows this.

I have a feeling the Holy Spirit will intervene soon. Either He will give him the grace to do the right thing - as he did for Paul VI on the eve of his penning Humanae Vitae (Paul VI had been intimating that the teaching on contraception would change), or we will soon have a new pope.

Of course there is a third way: THE END. Make sure you're ready.

Note: This is just a superstition I suppose but how many remember the many allusions to the prophecy of St. Malachi after Ratzinger was elected and chose the name "Benedict." The prophecy was that the next pope after Benedict would be the last one.

You will note that in the prophecy the name of the last pope will be "Peter the Roman." I remember laughing all of this off when I first heard about it back in 2005 when Benedict took his name which connected to "glory of the olive." But now we have Francis, who refuses to call himself anything other than "Bishop of Rome." Peter = Francis. Peter of Rome. Peter the Roman. Hmmm. 

Thursday, March 26, 2015


Here's the short course in Catholic morality for anyone who cares: 

The direct and willful killing of an innocent person, born or unborn, is an "intrinsic evil" - meaning always and everywhere evil, no matter the circumstances. Catholics are obliged to completely accept this as a moral fact. There is no compromise and not even the pope can change this. 

In matters of the environment and economic systems and other matters that do not fall in the "intrinsic" or dogma category, while being required to give due consideration to a papal "view" and embrace the more universal aspects of an issue (such as a general concern for the environment and care for the poor), Catholics are NOT obliged to conform to what the pope thinks on these things. 

So whereas the pro-abortion democrats placed themselves outside the church whenever they publicly or privately supported abortion, climate-change rejecting Republicans are in no danger of doing the same and are free to oppose the pope on the matter.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...