Sunday, December 08, 2013

Tequantlaxopeuh and the Immaculate Conception

Today, December 8, is the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. I've never heard anyone make the connection, but it is fitting that this solemnity be so close to the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, December 12.

The appearance of the Virgin in Mexico in 1531 to the Aztec, Juan Diego, is the only apparition in which the Virgin leaves an image of herself, but more importantly, her name: Tequantlaxopeuh (pronounced “Tequetalope”), which translates: “She who crushes the stone serpent.” The stone serpent was the dreaded Aztec god, Quetzalcoatl, to whom were offered tens of thousands of still beating hearts gouged out of living chests. 

The name correlates directly with the woman of Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, and she will crush thy head while you lie in wait for her heel."

Genesis 3:15 provided the basis for the belief in Mary's sinlessness and was eventually dogmatically enshrined in 1854:

“ 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

Sadly, post Vatican II translators, in order not offend other Christians, retranslated our modern bibles to to read "he" (not she). Here's the reading you will hear rom the pulpit: "he will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” In fact, Satan is not even crushed in this version. 

Regardless of the scriptural revisionists, the Virgin has most often been depicted in every form of art standing on the head of the serpent, crushing the devourer - literal translation of Genesis 3:15 etched in stone, you could say.

The revisions didn't end there though. Post Vatican II translators got rid of the words "full of grace" from Luke 1:24, and replaced them with "favored one" or something similarly innocuous.  In fact, until 1997, when John Paul II made us put them back, the words "full of grace" were not even used in the Gospel of December 8, the very day we celebrate her being "full of grace." 

But the mandate was only for the readings of that day. Your Catholic bible probably still just says "favored one." What a mess we have been given by the church of "We know better than you. " 

Related articles and references:

Tuesday, December 03, 2013



"It's Sad How Wrong Pope Francis Is (Unless It's a Deliberate Mistranslation By Leftists)".

"I mean, if he wants to portray himself as still from the streets where he came from and is not anything special, not aristocratic. If he wants to eschew the physical trappings of the Vatican, okay, cool, fine.  But this that I came across last night totally befuddled me.  If it weren't for capitalism, I don't know where the Catholic Church would be." (He's pretty darn right about that. has the Catholic Church listed as the 3rd largest landholder in the world, behind only Queen Elizabeth and Saudi Arabia.)

"...somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him.  This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope."  (He even gives him the benefit of the doubt that someone else wrote this.)

"Now, as I mentioned before, I'm not Catholic.  I admire it profoundly, and I've been tempted a number of times to delve deeper into it.  But the pope here has now gone beyond Catholicism here, and this is pure political." (This document went way beyond traditional church social teaching. It specifically battered a singular economic system.)

MY NOTE: I have listened to Rush for 25 years. He has always spoken glowingly of Catholicism to the exclusion of every other religion. His respect for John Paul II and Benedict was profound. Thus I have been praying for his conversion. Guess I'm going to have to keep praying.

Rush is not wrong. This letter from Francis was an erratic attack on the free market economy, which has historically lifted more people out of poverty and feudalism than any other economic system. (We can have this discussion another time.)

But there is hope. The Vatican has since taken down the infamous interview with the atheist. The Pope is reported to have "regretted" the publication of the interview...even though it was proudly published and defend on the Vatican's own website.  It's going to be harder to walk away from this one though.

Saturday, November 30, 2013


There is many a storied Catholic saint who is lauded by Christian writers, teachers, priests, and prelates, for renouncing wealth and power and embracing poverty (Francis of Assisi, Anthony of Padua, Frances de Sales, et. al.). However, let them be reminded that they could not have renounced it had they had not had it to begin with. Let there be more wealth and power. For if good people do not claim it, bad people will.


While almost all of the conservatives seem taken aback by the pope's bashing of the free market, the real trouble lies in what he says in par. 253 (Evangelii Gaudium):

"Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence."

Let's read that again: "...authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence." And how are we to reconcile this view with the actions of Mohammed himself? According to the pope, Muhammed was not an "authentic" Muslim.


The recent Apostolic Exhortation by Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, which contains some troublesome passages, as well as many of the things he has said since taking office, require us to check the authority of papal and/or church documents.

EWTN has the following:

Wednesday, November 20, 2013


In today's Opinion section of the Pacific Daily News, Diane tells us why we shouldn't pray to Mary. I responded in the comment section and am copying the reply here:

Dear Diane, 

Let's review. Our prayer to Mary goes like this:

"Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee." 

At this point we are simply quoting Scripture, Luke 1:28. Yes, I know your bible probably does not say "full of grace", but the original Greek (Luke wrote in Greek) does: kecharitoméne. Let us go on.

"Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." 

Again, except for the addition of the name "Jesus", we are still just quoting Scripture: the words of Elizabeth in Luke 1:42. And I'm assuming saying the name "Jesus" is okay. 

Let's go on.

"Holy Mary, Mother of God." 

Okay, stop right there. How dare we refer to Mary as the Mother of God, right? 

Well, there's a lot to that, but the easiest way to understand this is that we are simply restating what Elizabeth says in the very next verse. After Elizabeth says "Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb", she says in Luke 1:43: "And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Elizabeth calls the child in Mary's womb "my Lord". As a good Jew, Elizabeth could not have addressed anyone as "My Lord", other than God. So, we Catholics simply say the obvious along with Elizabeth. 

And in case you have trouble with the word "Holy" as in "Holy Mary". "Holy" simply means "set apart." In Latin, it's "sancta" as in "sanctuary". Mary was chosen to be a "sanctuary", set apart, singled out, etc. So we simply call her that. Going on.

"Pray for us now and at the hour of hour death." 

Up till now, we have only been quoting Scripture, and simply restating who Scripture says she is (Holy, Mother of God), but now we ask her to pray for us. Do you ever pray for anyone? Has anyone ever asked you to pray for them? Do you say "Oh no, don't ask me, ask God"? I'm sure you don't. I'm sure you pray for them and pray fervently. But then aren't you, by your definition of "pray", coming between them and God? Are you not interceding in their behalf? Of course you are. But you are not wrong in doing so. In fact you are being obedient to the many commands in Scripture to pray for one another. 

James 5:16 is one of those scriptures. James exhorts us here to not only pray for each other, but to even confess our sins to one another. Wait a minute, I thought we were supposed to confess our sins only to God? Well, we'll get back to that another time. Let us look at the very next thing James says in 5:16: "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much." This means that prayer are effective relative to the degree of righteousness of the person doing the praying. Thus we ask particularly holy and "anointed" people to pray for us, believing, and believing rightly, as per James 5:16, that their prayers are particularly effective. 

Thus because of who Mary is, "Mother of my Lord", we believe that her prayers for us are uniquely powerful. In the Scriptures, the Scriptures you tell us to search, we see Jesus even upsetting the divine order of things by performing his first miracle at Cana ("my hour has not yet come") simply because it was his Mother's desire. Here we see Mary interceding for the bride and groom and for all the people at the wedding. In fact, Mary doesn't ask Jesus to do anything. She essentially expects him to do her will by saying to the servants "Do whatever he tells you." That's pretty powerful.

And it is because of this power, the power we find in the Scriptures you tell us to search, that we continue to seek Mary's "intercession" ("pray for us now and at the hour of our death"), simply because we have in Scripture the clear fact that Jesus listens particularly to (and even obeys) his mother. 

So you see, Diane, when we "pray" to Mary, we are, for about 3/4 of the prayer, simply quoting Scripture, and the last bit, is simply asking for prayers. We hope that is okay with you. 

However, we Catholics, do owe you an apology. I am willing to guess that what I have just explained was never explained to you, even though you were a Catholic for 50 years. Sadly, there is a disconnect in our Catholic faith between what our Church officially teaches (which is what I have just shared) versus what Catholics actually are often taught, which is often very little. Shame on us for not sharing the riches of the Catholic faith, as found in our true teachings. We will be held accountable for that. 

If you would like to know, though, what the Catholic Church actually teaches, and get beyond what you think it teaches (again, not your fault), it's extremely accessible. I operate a Catholic bookstore in the Cathedral. You can pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church for as little as $10 (or even access it free online). No, don't worry, the ceiling will not cave in if you walk in. That's reserved for Catholics who know better but do not do what they know. 

In fact, I'm going to give you one for free. Come by our store. I probably won't be there, but I'll set aside a Catechism with your name on it and leave it behind the counter. I'm going to give you the more accessible version. It's called the Compendium to the Catechism. Kind of breaks it down into more bite size chunks. I'll leave it there for a week. Just give the clerk your name and it's yours. 

Feel free to contact me if you have further inquiries. I'm at God Bless.

Monday, November 04, 2013

On Purgatory

"There is not one baptism only. One is that which the Church administers here by water and the Holy Ghost. Another is the baptism of suffering, whereby each is cleansed by his own blood. There is also a baptism at the entrance of Paradise. This last baptism did not exist in the beginning; but after the sinner was driven out of Paradise, God set there a fiery sword… But though there be a purgation here, there must be a second purification there, that each of us, burnt but not burnt up by that fiery sword, may enter into the delight of Paradise. But this fire whereby involuntary and casual sins are burnt away… is different from that which the Lord assigned to the devil and his angels, of which he says, enter ‘into everlasting fire.’”- St. Ambrose of Milan, Doctor of the Church, Explanation of Psalm 118, c. A.D. 380

“That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire."- St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69, A.D. 421

“Each one will be presented to the Judge exactly as he was when he departed this life. Yet, there must be a cleansing fire before judgment, because of some minor faults that may remain to be purged away. Does not Christ, the Truth, say that if anyone blasphemes against the Holy Spirit he shall not be forgiven 'either in this world or in the world to come' (Mt 12:32)? From this statement we learn that some sins can be forgiven in this world and some in the world to come. For, if forgiveness is refused for a particular sin, we conclude logically that it is granted for others. This must apply, as I said, to slight transgressions.”- Pope St. Gregory the Great, Doctor of the Church, Dialogues, 4:39, A.D. 594

Monday, August 12, 2013


Bishop Robert Lynch attacks the Population Research Institute. Read his blog post here:

My response follows:

It is curious that a post alleging a lack of evidence would impugn its target with a post lacking evidence. We are only told that PRI and others slander the CCHD (Catholic Campaign for Human Development) and the CRS (Catholic Relief Services), we are not given documented examples. But we don't really need to go there. CRS admits that it funds CARE - an organization which actively promotes contraception - but such funding is "carefully restricted to morally acceptable purposes." (CNA, 7/30/13). Isn't that a bit like giving money to Planned Parenthood but only for breast exams?  

But beyond that, isn't this really about the majority of Catholics, including bishops and priests, once again winking at Humanae Vitae? I've been personally counseled most of my married life to believe that the use of contraception was really a private choice. My wife and I only needed to pray about it. Why should we not think that Catholic institutions like CRS have not embodied, and in fact, instituted said "winking" into its practices? 

Thursday, August 08, 2013


In this post, a Catholic blogger attempts to define the "serious reasons" which allow for the use of periodic continence (NFP) within marriage. 

My comment follows:

Because the "Church" never defined "serious reasons", it was left to us to fill in the blank, and apparently this is an attempt to fill in the blank. And even with this attempt, the author implies that our attempt to fill in said blanks will fall short without the guidance of a "solid spiritual director versed in these matters." Well good luck finding one of those. But beyond that, let's examine a few things:

The author says that artificial contraception is "intrinsically evil because they (condoms, pills) intervene in the natural process", but periodic continence is "morally neutral." I would argue that condoms and pills are not intrinsically evil things because they are things. Their use becomes problematic when they are employed with an evil intent: to prevent conception. 

Likewise, periodic continence becomes problematic when it is employed with an evil intent: to prevent conception without "serious reason.". In fact, periodic continence, since it is an act of the will (I will not have sex with my spouse), is NEVER morally neutral. It can be morally good or morally evil, but it is never neutral.

I also find it curious that the central moral dilemma of modern man - the control of procreation (let's face it) was addressed by our Church via a pope in what appears to be a sidebar to an already obscure address to an even more obscure group (Italian midwives). 

One could argue that the moral application of periodic continence had been addressed earlier in more prominent addresses by Pius XI (Casti Connubii) and later by Paul VI (Humanae Vitae), but both encyclicals do not enumerate the "reasons", as does Pius XII,  who in fact provides the grounds for the morality of the method. 

JPII gets into it in his Theology of the Body, but TOB is way down there on the scale of authoritative pronouncements. 

Thus, we are apparently left with a scramble to unpack the four reasons left us by Pius XII in a tiny address that carries relatively little magisterial weight. 

Actually, the Catechism rescues us by its use of the word "just" as in "just cause". However, I've yet to read or hear any attempt to unpack this, so let me give it a go. 

When the Church uses "just" relative to moral issues it generally does not mean "just figure it out for yourself". The best parallel would be the use of the word "just" in defining "just war". 

There are several key provisions which must be in place for a war effort to be considered "just" and therefore morally "inbounds". One of the key provisions for a Just War is "proportionality": the benefits must equal the damage.

Denying God souls to love (children) - by whatever means - is serious business and demands proportionate (just) cause. And when it comes to marital relations the discernment of that cause cannot be reliant on a list, or anyone's attempt to define that list - which is probably why no pope ever has. 

Personal holiness is your only aid in this regard. Total submission to the Holy Spirit and union with God in and through his sacraments is all there is. Throw away your charts and get out your rosaries. 

Disclaimer: Father of eleven who thought one was enough and is so glad things did not go as I planned.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013


Responding to a post at where in a priest, responding to an open letter by a lay person as to the needs of laity responds by saying priests are not "superhuman".


Father, you ARE superhuman by virtue of the sacrament which makes you a priest. And we can expect you to be superhuman in the same way our children should expect us sacramentally married people to be the same. Otherwise what’s the point? "Be ye perfect" was not a suggestion.

Further thought: Every Christian is called and given all he or she needs to be superhuman, to transcend fallen human nature. Otherwise Christ's spilt blood matters not.  I know what they mean when Christians, priests or otherwise, say "I'm not superhuman", or "I'm not perfect", but I still believe it's a modern cop out. Being a saint is a superhuman endeavor. And as Chesterton said (paraphrase): the only tragedy is to not be one.


Saturday, July 13, 2013


The Most Reverend Bishop Athanasius Schneider - "Vatican II Must be Clarified" (June 27, 2013)

I was in grade school during the council . We used to watch it on a black and white tv during religion class. I lived through the immediate radical changes which began to occur even before the council ended. 

For 50 years I've been hearing "Vatican II must be clarified". The fact is that the council documents, though they did not depart from traditional doctrine (with the exception of Dignitas Humane), left holes in the application of the documents big enough to drive a truck-full of heresies through. 

Thus it is not a matter of the correct interpretation of Vatican II or a need for clarification. And the fact that we're still calling for such a thing 50 years later should be an indication that where there's smoke there's fire. The council documents were meant to do what they did and thus we have the church we have. 

There is no better proof of the radical nature of the council than the fact that the first act of the council fathers was to trash the schema prepared by John XXIII, effectively telling the pope who called the council to get lost, "we'll do as we please". And so they did.

This is thoroughly documented in Roman Amerio's IOTA UNUM. However, you can read a brief account of it here:

However, that said, I don't reject the council. It is what it is. But it is truly sad how we've been scrambling ever since to try to make sense of it. Council's historically solved problems. Vatican II has done the opposite.

Tuesday, July 09, 2013


"I wish the political powerhouses who invested all their energy into the gambling issue could spend that much time advocating for your medical care." - Governor Eddie Calvo, statement on why he allowed Bill 19 to lapse into law, 7/8/13 

Yes, just imagine! Except all those big shots go off island for their medical care.

See Pacific News story here.

Special Address on Bill No. 19
By Eddie Baza Calvo

Good evening,

Tonight at midnight, Bill No. 19 will lapse into law without my signature. When that happens, nothing will change except that the hospital will get more money. There won't be any slot machines at the stores. There won't be casinos popping up. And bingo, cockfighting, kiddie rides, and Liberty machines will continue.
Thank you all for your phone calls, email, and Facebook comments on this issue. Thank you for calling talk radio to express your opinions. I had a decision to make. I realize with whatever decision I made, some people will be angry. The important thing was to listen to all of you, and then make the best decision I could make.

I'm quite surprised how this issue morphed into something bigger than it actually was. Two bills sought to increase taxes on existing gaming. One bill would use the taxes for sports facilities. Another to the hospital. The two bills became one...but not before some senators turned the whole debate upside down. The entire discussion became about gambling. The twisted irony is the bill finally sent to my desk did nothing to limit or expand gambling on Guam. Whether these senators meant it that way is for them to answer to you.

I'm not going to sign this bill for two reasons. The first is the way this bill was handled. The second is the amendment to ban bingo and cockfighting that didn't receive any public hearing. Fortunately, the amendment was defective because of a missing appendix. The bill doesn't have the effect of banning bingo and cockfighting because of a mistake made. That reinforces my first reason for not signing this measure.

But I'm also not going to veto this bill...and for a much-more important reason. Bill 19 sends more money to your hospital. I've been there many times, just like many of you. More of us are going there for more reasons than we want. The place needs money for the medicine in the I-V bags, and for the blood tests and X-rays we get. We need more nurses in the ER so you don't have to wait so long.

It's very simple to demand that the hospital collect more from its patients. That's impossible to do from patients who can't afford to pay. And it would be heartless and inhumane to let people die or suffer simply because they couldn't afford hospital care.

I wish the political powerhouses who invested all their energy into the gambling issue could spend that much time advocating for your medical care. Gambling addiction is a social disease that has the potential to destroy our community if casinos are allowed. But there are diseases like cancer, diabetes, and heart ailments killing people now...destroying families...hurting survivors to their core. If we can get them the medical care they need in our only public hospital, then that's what we should be focusing on.

At the end of this month-long debate on gambling, what do we have to show for it? A divided community? A war of words? A shameless showdown about an issue that just popped up out of nowhere? The product of this debate was a bill that did nothing about gambling, but actually does something meaningful for anyone who ever has to go to the hospital. That's almost all of us. And so if casinos will remain illegal, and your hospital gets more money, that's a good enough reason to allow this bill to become law.

If the legislature wants to outlaw Liberty machines, bingo, cockfighting, or other forms of existing gambling, then senators should introduce a separate bill. It should be done through a transparent process, with public hearings and widespread community input. If that should ever happen, I would caution senators to act with care and not haste. And I would advise something else. The people of this island voted several times to keep casinos illegal. They have never spoken out about bingo, cockfighting, and Liberty machines.

If the AG believes these machines are illegal, then why did he drop the lawsuit and not pursue charges? It's because the AG has written that the law itself is ambiguous and conflicting. I would suggest for someone to clarify the law...and for everyone to get back to the business of running the government. Buried under all this controversy are the yet-to-be-resolved Blue House cases, Cepeda case, De Soto case, and all the burglars and robbers police officers have arrested.

This entire process has revealed some flaws in the system. Grave revelations were made about how bills are replaced with major amendments...or how things appear out of nowhere after senators vote on a certain version of a bill. This is not the first time this has happened. And there have been more important bills passed using these same tactics...from whole budget bills abortion bills. I hope this opens a new conversation by the media about this process.
More importantly, I hope this whole saga is over. In my book, bingo players and cockfighters aren't causing any problems. Families and children like going to Chuck-e-Cheese and the amusement park at the mall. The carnival is doing just fine. It's really time for the legislature to move its focus back to the real issues facing all of us.

Have a good evening, and God bless you all.


Read story here.

Again, such irresponsible reporting. This is supposed to be a news story NOT an editorial. Calvo did NOT "fail to make a decision". He MADE A DECISION to let it lapse into law. That is one of his options and it is used by governors to make a statement. But he went further by releasing a statement which fully explained HIS DECISION. Truly, PDN, this is getting embarrassing. Like or not what he did, at least try to retain some semblance of journalism in your news stories.


The editorial can be read here.

It is truly encouraging to see the PDN so vociferously demand the voice of “the people” in the making of legislation from beginning to end. This is going to come in handy the next time such legislative sausage-making occurs on an issue they don’t necessarily care about or support.

I would like to remind the PDN of their editorial silence over a legislative monstrosity that was so huge that the bill had to be jerked and given a different number - but only after desperate shouting by a very few members of the public on talk radio.

It was substitute Bill 138-30, which sought to legalize same-sex civil unions. The original Bill 138, as submitted by the Guam Youth Congress, contained glaring inequities (civil unions were denied to those who did not “have their own private residence”), and was so poorly drafted, that it never should have been introduced in its original form, but Senator B.J. Cruz introduced it anyway.

After a series of townhall meetings, the poor drafting and embarrassing inequality in a bill touting equality became glaringly obvious, so Senator Cruz decided to rewrite the bill. 

The trouble began when the public hearing for the original Bill 138, which was already scheduled and noticed, became a public hearing for - not the original bill - but the substitute bill which the public had not yet seen. In addition, Senator Cruz, as per the standing rules, had no standing to submit a substitute bill, as only the bill’s author, the Rules Chair, or the Oversight Chair, had the standing to do so and he was none of those. 

We cried “foul”. How could we testify on a bill we had never seen? This was not just some rezoning thing, this was a bill that would significantly alter a fundamental societal institution and we wanted the debate to occur in the full light of day. 

But the PDN had already taken a pro same-sex editorial position, and while - to their credit - they allowed opposing views to be printed, they took no issue with the underhanded morphing of a bill which sought to accomplish what they supported.

We (opponents) were lectured - mocked actually - in the media and made to look like we were making something out of nothing. The Oversight Chair, Senator Frank Aguon, allowed the substitution of the substitute for the hearing on the grounds that it was actually the same bill with a few changes.

We (opponents) clamored for a copy of the substitute bill which we were only able to procure after much shouting on K57 that a hearing was about to be held on a bill which the public did not have access to. 

Upon procuring a copy of the bill it was quickly evident that the new bill was substantially different from the original and not only could it not be admitted as a substitute because Senator Cruz had no authority to submit it, but - because it introduced a wholly new category of legal unions for opposite sex couples- it also failed the test of germaneness. 

After a testy exchange on K57 with Senator Aguon, who mocked the idea that the substitute bill was any different than the original, it became evident that the public’s right to know and offer informed input, was publicly being trampled on and the hearing was cancelled.

In the end, Senator Cruz had to withdraw his substitute bill, since it was not a substitute, and resubmit it at Bill 185-30, and a whole new battle began. Senator Cruz cleverly submitted Bill 185 at 4:21pm on July 20, the day before Liberation Day, and at 6:31pm sent out the first notice for the hearing, when - to be sure - no one would be paying attention - at least not for another 36 to 48 hours. 

The drama unfolds from there. But man! Could we have used the PDN’s help back then in exposing the trampling of the people’s right to know and all the other wonderful platitudes the PDN now calls for over the Bill 19 fiasco. However, the PDN wanted to see same-sex unions legalized, so....silence.

In fact, the lack of transparency in the legislative sausage making of Bill 19 pales in comparison to Bill 138-185 circus. While we may not like the way it turned out, what happened to Bill 19 was perfectly legit and it happens with many bills. Bill 19 had a hearing. It morphed on the floor. What’s new?

It didn’t even drastically morph. Bill 19 already proposed to redirect gaming revenues from the general fund to another destination. The modified bill only added another source of gaming revenues (albeit contested), and added an additional destination: the hospital. 

The version which passed is NOT “very different from the measure that was introduced and had a public hearing” as claims the PDN. Also, the PDN claims that Bill 20 “was radically altered from its original version well after its public hearing...” Yes, it was, but the “radically altered” Bill 20 had a public hearing. The PDN continues to ignore this fact. 

This is a discredit to your paper and your profession. Ignoring the calls for public transparency - as you did in the Bill 138-185 episode - is one thing. (Oh, and by the way, don’t get me going on what you did to Bill 323-31.) But distorting facts in such a critical community conversation as what Bill 19 has provoked, is another. All of us are welcome to our own opinions, but we are not welcome to our own facts. 

Please, for the sake of an honest community discussion, let’s have at least one adult in the room.

Monday, July 08, 2013


"We say frankly that so far we do not have sufficient reason to consider the norms given by Pope Pius XII on this matter [of contraception] as out of date and therefore as not binding. They must be considered as valid, at least until We feel obliged in conscience to change them." 

- Paul VI Acta apostolicae sedis (AAS) 56 (1964) 588-59,
1964 address to the special papal commission on the use of contraceptives 

Saturday, July 06, 2013


Following is response to an earlier post which you can read here. The conversation on Facebook can be found here.

WAYNE SAYS: The last part I have issue with being a non Catholic. I believe that while Jesus did leave us a church the head was probably James and not Peter. not that Peter was not used by God. but the church of Jesus Christ is much more than a building.

WAYNE SAYS: about Sunday: I always have worshiped on Sundays and always will. That said I know the Bible doesn't mention Sunday but the first day of the week. which in Israel started at sunset not at sunrise. from what I read most scholars think Jesus rose at midnight on Saturday night which would have been the first day. the women who brought him spices did so just before dawn according to Jewish custom but Jesus already had risen.

WAYNE SAYS: Also, in Catholic teaching “pray to” does not mean to worship, but “to ask”. We ask the saints for their assistance because in John’s vision we see the saints praying for us: “the prayers of the saints”.=====I have an issue with too because I don't believe praying or interceding with the dead is very Biblical since through Christ we have direct access to God whom we can call Abba Father. its the same access the saints have.

@ Wayne. We don't believe the dead are "dead", but in heaven, truly alive. And in Revelation, John sees the saints in heaven with bowls of incense which he calls the "prayers of the saints". And just as you can pray for me and I can pray for you, the saints in heaven can pray for us as well. In fact, their prayers, if we are to believe James 5:16, are exponentially more efficacious: "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (KJV). Being in heaven, the saints are fully "righteous". 

You are welcome to believe that James was the head of the Church, which in fact he was, in Jerusalem. But the "key" is understanding what Jesus meant when he gave to Peter the "keys". We see almost the same exact phrase in Isaiah 22:22, where the key to the house of David is given to the new prime minister. Christ is the son of David, and by divine right, it is now His house, and his key to give. He gives it to Peter, not to James. In addition, before he does this, Christ gives Peter his name - changing it from Simon to Peter. A name change in ancient Israel designated a role change. It is obvious here, that Peter is to be the "prime minister", otherwise we have to say that Jesus was just using some flowery language. In fact, he was quoting Isaiah 22:22.

As for Sunday, you are correct, the Jewish day did begin at sunset. However, perhaps to distinguish themselves from the Jews, the first Christians gathered together on the first day and in the morning. The most prominent extra-biblical record of this is found in a letter from the Roman governor, Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan:

“They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

Notice too what they did at their assembly. We call it the Eucharist.

JEFFREY SAYS: I am not Catholic but my wife is,, I thought that MAN could not judge a Man for their sins or works, only God, so if he is a saint, by whose standards.. Please inform me of this my wife of 20yrs could not

Hi Jeffrey. I thought I answered this before, but I don't see it, so I'll give it another go. Let's talk about "judging" for a minute. The minute we say "he's a good man", we've exercised judgement, or even "a nice guy". This is not the judgement we are forbidden by Christ to make when he says "judge not". What Christ is referring to is "the heart", which only God can know. But on to canonization. The power for the Pope to declare a man a saint is found in Matthew 16:18-19, where upon Christ's giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter he then gives him the power to bind and loose: "what you declare bound on earth will be bound in heaven and what you declare loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven." There is no doubt that Peter is given a unique power - even power over heaven. 

The "keys" imply dynastic succession. They represent an office, and are first mentioned in Isaiah 22:22 as the "key to the House of David". Christ is the son of David. It his now his "house" and his keys to give. He gives them to Peter. And just as the office of the "prime minister" as symbolized by the "keys" passed down from Hezechiah (Isaiah 22) and now to Peter, the keys, the office, continues to Pope Francis. 

So in answer to your question: "the pope's standards".


In a Facebook post about recent news on possible sainthood for Pope John Paul II, one commenter posts:

How does the Roman Catholic understanding of “saints” compare with the biblical teaching? Not very well. In Roman Catholic theology, the saints are in heaven. In the Bible, the saints are on earth. In Roman Catholic teaching, a person does not become a saint unless he/she is “beatified” or “canonized” by the Pope or prominent bishop. In the Bible, everyone who has received Jesus Christ by faith is a saint. In Roman Catholic practice, the saints are revered, prayed to, and in some instances, worshipped. In the Bible, saints are called to revere, worship, and pray to God alone.


YOU SAY: In Roman Catholic theology, the saints are in heaven. In the Bible, the saints are on earth. 

Actually our church teaches that it's both - the saints are in heaven and on earth. We call this the "communion of saints": "'What is the Church if not the assembly of all the saints?' The communion of saints is the Church."(Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 946)

In the Bible, we find the saints in heaven quite clearly in Hebrews 12:1: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses...” And John, in recording his vision of heaven writes:  “And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.” (KJV)

YOU SAY: In Roman Catholic teaching, a person does not become a saint unless he/she is “beatified” or “canonized” by the Pope or prominent bishop.

First off, for several centuries, only the Pope, not a prominent bishop, has the final say on canonization. Second, canonization does not make a saint, God does. Canonization only bestows an official recognition. There are (we hope) billions of souls who are in the presence of God whose names we do not know. 

YOU SAY: In the Bible, everyone who has received Jesus Christ by faith is a saint. In Roman Catholic practice, the saints are revered, prayed to, and in some instances, worshipped. In the Bible, saints are called to revere, worship, and pray to God alone.

Nowhere in Catholic teaching are the faithful instructed to “worship” any one but God. Saints are revered for their exemplary Christian examples, the same way we would revere living Christian examples. Also, in Catholic teaching “pray to” does not mean to worship, but “to ask”. We ask the saints for their assistance because in John’s vision we see the saints praying for us: “the prayers of the saints”.

Finally, Catholics do not limit their knowledge of faith to what is only in the Bible simply because Jesus didn’t leave us one. As you know, Jesus wrote nothing, nor did he instruct anyone to write anything (other than John in Revelation). If he wanted us to only follow a book he would have left us one.

You may well believe, as we do, that the authors of Scripture were inspired of the Holy Spirit, but that is a “belief”, and nowhere in Scripture do we find what is supposed to be in Scripture. In fact, we might well assume that Jesus did his most serious teaching after the Resurrection when he had his apostles' full attention. Why else would he hang around for an extra 40 days. Yet, the Bible records relatively little of what Jesus said and did during this period. 

A quick example. Most Christians worship on Sunday, yet nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say to worship on Sunday (instead of Saturday). However, we find the Christians gathering “on the first day of the week to break bread” in Acts 20:7. Where did they learn to do this? We can assume that Jesus himself started this on the Sunday’s after the resurrection. While Scripture is silent on this, most Christians accept Sunday worship unquestioningly. 

While Jesus did not leave us a book, he did leave us a Church, and a teaching authority for that Church. We believe that Church was founded on Peter, and that the “seat of Peter” is today occupied by a man who took the name of Francis. You are welcome not to believe that and to reject any of the above. But you are not welcome to your own facts about what our Church teaches. It’s our party, you are welcome to attend. But you don’t have to. 

Thursday, July 04, 2013


A response to Veto it: People need to tell the governor why he must reject Bill 19, editorial, Pacific Daily News, July 4, 2013

Dear PDN. This is like the third time this week there have been blatant errors by either your editorial or reporting staff. As the central news entity on Guam, we critically need you to get things right in order for our citizenry to make the best decisions.

YOU SAY: Bill 19 -- which would tax video gaming machines in order to help pay Guam Memorial Hospital debt -- is horrible legislation...”

Bill 19 will not “tax” video gaming machines. These machines are already being taxed. Bill 19, like Bill 20 before it, seeks to redirect those tax revenues to GMH. How they are disbursed is another matter. But Bill 19 does not legalize or propose to tax gaming machines.

YOU SAY: “The gaming machines that would be taxed are illegal. Attorney General Leonardo Rapadas has made that clear.” 

The AG has issued an opinion. The Administration has issued there’s. The controversy is over a section of a previous law that was left unclear. Apparently it’s a matter for our courts to decide.  Meanwhile, our senators could resolve the controversy in one fell swoop by simply passing a bill clearly outlawing gambling, or limited forms of it. They don’t need to toy around with fixing Bill 19. But we’ve yet to see either Pangelinan or Cruz, the two most outspoken critics in the Legislature of gaming, do it. I look forward to your next editorial calling on the opponents of gambling to introduce a bill banning it.

YOU SAY: “Our island has rejected legalized gambling in many forms on five separate initiatives in recent years. 

We did not reject gaming in “many forms”, but in very limited forms: essentially a casino and certain types of gaming devices. There are far more legal forms of gaming on Guam than the ones we’ve voted against.

YOU SAY: “The bill that was passed is radically different from the one that was introduced. Senators combined two bills, effectively creating a new bill -- one the people of Guam weren't given a chance to comment on. This kind of sneaky, underhanded legislative action that arrogantly ignores and rejects public input must not be tolerated.”

I am very happy to see this concern. However, as you know, this happens all the time. I was told publicly that it is the “legislative process”. Bills morph in committee and on the floor frequently. As mentioned in a previous post, I had a meeting with you showing how Bill 54-30, a bill designed to advise women of the risks of abortion, morphed into a bill that promoted it. I thought it was a good story. You blew it off as “the legislative process.” Nothing to see here.

And in the larger scheme of things, Bill 19 only morphed slightly. It already proposed to redirect revenues from gambling activities. Cockfighting and bingo were named. The only difference to the bill now is that it added gaming devices to “gambling activities” and instead of redirecting the revenues to the mayor’s council it sends them to the hospital. In addition, Senator Rodriguez, though he was not required to do so, held a full public hearing on his amended Bill 20 and there was plenty of public input. 

You criticize the bill for not paying vendor debt. It actually does. But the fact that the majority of the revenues go to constructing an urgent care facility is a significantly responsible act that aims to get to the core of the hospital’s debt. Without an urgent care facility, the public is forced to use the emergency room, tying it up and complicating the handling of real emergencies, and incurring huge charges for care which are so big, many self-payers just blow it off.

By the way, on Ray Gibson’s show yesterday, I asked him if he could recall the last time a governor vetoed a bill that had been passed unanimously by the Legislature, which means that it’s veto proof. He couldn’t recall. However, I should have recalled it myself. Bill 54-30, the bill that morphed from a pro-life bill into a pro-abortion bill, with no outcry from the PDN or any other media, passed the legislature 14-1, about as close to unanimous as you can get. We (Esperansa Project) were able to get to Governor Camacho, and he rightly vetoed it. Meanwhile, we, without the help of the PDN, were able to show the deception - mostly on radio - and it became too hot to handle and there was no vote to override. 

In any event, I am so glad to see your change of heart and your new outrage about legislation that passes without public input. I, and others, will be expecting such vigilance on every bill. 

Finally, I would like to call on the Governor to sign this bill, since it is the will of the people as represented by the unanimous vote of those whom the people elected. And then I would like to call on the Governor to challenge Senators Pangelinan, Cruz, San Nicolas and the others who so vehemently oppose gambling and think it bad for our society to immediately introduce a bill banning all gambling activities. This is not Calvo’s decision. It was the legislature’s. The bill, as it stands, is completely veto proof. Calling on him to veto it is a waste of time. Call on the legislature to introduce and pass a bill to ban gaming and gambling in all its forms if you think its so bad. 


A comment on GOOD INTENTIONS ON BILLS NOT ENOUGH, Lee Webber, Pacific Daily News, July 4, 2013.

We are in the midst of this mess because gambling opponents have never clearly distinguished between the forms of gambling they condemn and the gambling they are willing to admit and why. Opponents have generalized the evils of the addiction. If what they say is true, it is the addictive power of gambling that is the issue and not the form of gambling. Thus, based on their own arguments, all forms of gaming would have to be considered equally dangerous and equally banned. But they contradict the central tenet of their argument by only showing up when gambling machines are the issue, compromising the integrity of their cause. The fact is that the opponents of gambling are NOT opposed to certain forms of gambling, at least not equally. They need to state this and state their reasons why. 

I would also recommend a new name for Keep Guam Good (a local anti-gambling organization). They seem to have nothing to say about:
  •  1) why Guam has the most liberal abortion laws in the nation with 2/3 of aborted children being Chamorro
  • 2) why Guam has the highest divorce rate in the world, 
  • 3) why Guam has the highest suicide rate in the nation, 
  • 4) why Guam has the highest out of wedlock pregnancy rate in the nation, 
  • 5) why Guam is fourth in the nation for STD's, 
  • 6) why Guam has double the rate of child abuse for the rest of the nation. 

And there's more. For documentation on any of this, message me. We seem to have descended into the moral pit quite without the help of these machines. Maybe there's something else wrong.

Wednesday, July 03, 2013


NOTE: "Winsdor" was the name of the plaintiff in the case which overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. "Griswold" is explained in the post.

In the wake of the two recent SCOTUS decisions relative to same-sex marriage, I made the following post on Facebook:

In his dissent, Alito defines the argument as a contest between two visions of marriage—what he calls the "conjugal" and "consent-based" views. He defines the conjugal view of marriage as a “comprehensive, exclusive, permanent union that is intrinsically ordered to producing children.” 
And therein lies the achilles heel. Conjugal marriages have not been "intrinsically ordered to producing children" for nearly four decades. The production of children has become something to be mechanically, chemically, or surgically controlled. Conjugal marriages thus become consent-based marriages, which is the fundamental premise of same-sex marriage and why same-sex marriage will ultimately be the law of the land, unless...

A good friend, conservative Christian, and frequent Facebook ally in the culture war, disagreed with my identifying the otherwise unquestioned embrace of birth control by traditionally married couples as the central culprit in the collapse of marriage as “intrinsically ordered to producing children” and thus a gateway to same-sex marriage.

Because most Catholics, let alone non-Catholic Christians, see no problem with contraceptive sex (so long as it is within marriage), I have great understanding for anyone who doesn’t see the connection between contraception and same-sex marriage.  Following is my response.


No worries. I know of only three people who agree with me, so you're in the majority. In any event, it's not my opinion. As a Catholic I would be a hypocrite and a liar and would have no reason to be a Catholic if I did not uphold my church's moral teaching which essentially states that we belong to God, all of us, body and soul, our sex lives too.

Since you're not Catholic, you don't need to worry about it. So you can stop here. However. for the record, our church teaches that God made man and woman to be fundamentally procreative.* Whether procreation occurs is ultimately up to God, not us. However, we have made it up to us by artificially controlling our fertility.

Up till 1930, every Christian denomination taught that the deliberate frustration of the procreative act was a violation of God's plan for our bodies. In fact, selling contraceptives to married couples was illegal in the U.S. until 1965 when those laws were declared unconstitutional in Griswold v Connecticut. The grounds? The "right to privacy". The first instance of this "right" in a judicial ruling.

It's interesting to follow it from there. The next instance where the "right to privacy" was invoked was in Roe v Wade, and the next: Lawrence v Texas wherein anti-sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional. In Scalia's dissent in this case, he predicted (in 2003) that the way was now paved to gay marriage.

Amongst Christians, the Anglicans were the first to allow for contaceptive use in marriages under very limited conditions. But within 30 years or so, every Christian denomination either allowed it or looked the other way. However, for all of Christian history, the chemical (the pill), mechanical (condom), or surgical (vasectomy) frustration of the marital act was seen as an offense to natural law and thus to God, who by design, created our bodies to make more souls for him to love.

Only the Catholic Church has held to the ancient teaching, found in written form as early as 50AD in the Didache - the earliest known Christian writing. HOWEVER, and this is a big HOWEVER, the majority of Catholics, including most of its ordained leaders, at least in the U.S. have chosen to ignore the ancient teaching and have gone the way of the Anglicans.

In fact, even as a Catholic, I was unaware of my church's teaching on birth control until late in life, and had been counseled on several occasions by pastors to go ahead and use it (so long as I prayed about it first!!)

In the end, my intent with this short essay is not to convince you or anyone else to change your mind about birth control, but to demonstrate the legal, judicial, and moral connection between the arbitrary control of fertility to where we are now with same-sex marriage. Whether we agree there is a connection or not, the fact is we are here, and gay couples are claiming the same rights as straight couples: the right to spousal happiness and sexual satisfaction apart from the obligation to procreate.

Thus, my ultimate recommendation - as stated elsewhere: the only way to advance the future of one man one woman marriage is for those marriages to keep their promises: till death do we part and to accept children willingly and lovingly from God - to do what is "intrinsically ordered".

(I am well aware of the financial limits and special circumstances which may call for the limits of family size, but ultimately the question we must answer is whether or not we trust God enough to take care of that. I did first.)

One last note. After the birth of our 10th child, who was born with many complications, the doctor wagged her finger in my face and said "no more children". The little girl in my profile pic is our 11th. Obviously I'm a bad listener.

* Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life," teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2366)

"...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)

Monday, July 01, 2013

A response to a post by Public Discourse: THE SUPREME COURT, YOU, ME, AND THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE.

(Go here to read the post.)

In his dissent, Alito defines the argument as a contest between two visions of marriage—what he calls the "conjugal" and "consent-based" views. He defines the conjugal view of marriage as a “comprehensive, exclusive, permanent union that is intrinsically ordered to producing children.”

And therein lies the achilles heel. Conjugal marriages have not been "intrinsically ordered to producing children" for nearly four decades. The production of children has become something to be mechanically, chemically, or surgically controlled. Conjugal marriages thus become consent-based marriages, which is the fundamental premise of same-sex marriage and why same-sex marriage will ultimately be the law of the land, unless...


In responding to the recent Supreme Court rulings relative to same-sex marriage, the Kansas bishops show us why there is a problem in the first place.

It is not same-sex advocates who wish to redefine marriage, it is the Catholic Church, at the highest levels, which already has! And in doing so, has paved the way for same-sex marriage. The Kansas bishops' statement gives evidence of this:
In addressing this issue we must begin by recalling that when asked about marriage, Jesus said: “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’?” (Matthew 19: 4)  Scripture, biology, and the Natural Law reveal that it is God’s design that the two sexes are complementary.  While Americans have a laudable desire to treat all people with equality, equality does not mean interchangeability.  The well-intentioned desire to accept any and all circumstances is misplaced when it applies to an eternal institution such as marriage. We would further note that God’s plan for marriage is for the wellbeing of men and women.  However it is also, and especially, for children. - Kansas Bishops Issue Statement on the Supreme Court Marriage Decisions, June 27, 2013
Notice that the bishops, in this statement, separate the supposedly inseparable unitive and procreative ends of marriage.

Biological complementarity is positioned as an isolated end, almost a first principle, while procreation is added as a "however" and an "also". Even adding the word "especially" doesn't help because identifying progeny as "special," still (if not further) separates the procreative ends.

Modern Catholic teaching on marriage is rife with this kind of language and it descends from a novel insertion into the 1983 Code of Canon Law known in Latin as "bonum coniugum" or the "good of the spouses", an insertion which caused renowned canonists like Cormack Burke to scramble to manufacture a justification.

The essential squabble is whether the "bonum coniugum" is an END or a PROPERTY - a "good" of marriage. Seen as an "eternal good," in that marriage is a path to heaven - the "good of the spouses" as an "END of marriage" can be easily admitted.

But seen as an earthly "good,'" it simply translates into mutual satisfaction and spousal happiness, which is really no more than ONE of the "goods" of marriage, and only a potential good at that.

Theologians may squabble over whether the 1983 canonical insertion of the "good of the spouses"* was a good idea or not, but the net effect was an immediate avalanche of annulment requests, the wholesale abandonment of the sacrament of marriage by the following generation, marriages which see children as an option, accessory, appendage, or even a hindrance to marital happiness, and a fast track to the legalization of a marital union where spousal happiness is all that matters.

What's really sad is that these bishops this, in the above statement, are thinking that they are actually defending marriage, when in fact they are DESTROYING it!

Once upon a time our Church actually taught that children were the reason for marriage. They were not "however's", "also's", or even "especially's". They were "primary". 

This belief descends directly from the first account of creation (Gen 1:26) where, in a single act, God creates "them male and female" and commands them to be "fruitful and multiply".

  There is no separation. There is no "oh by the way" when it comes to the duty to be fruitful. There is no "however" or "also". Man and woman are created married and fruitful in one act.

This is why the Church does NOT recognize a marriage as valid - even after the wedding and all the proper sacramental form has taken place - UNTIL the man and woman "consummate the marriage" in a nuptial act that IS COMPLETELY OPEN to what the nuptial act was "God-designed" for: A CHILD.  Only THEN are they husband and wife!

And so this draws into question whether or not Catholic couples are actually married when their first conjugal act is intentionally sterile - whether by natural means or not. Avoiding children through periodic continence (NFP) is allowed as an exception for grave reasons ("just cause" says the Catechism). If couples have grave reason not to conceive from the outset then the question is raised should the marriage proceed...or can there even be a marriage.

I don't think so. For that couple has just taken a vow to accept children "willingly and lovingly FROM GOD!"

The Order of Celebrating Matrimony #60:
  1. "(Name) and (name), have you come here to enter into Marriage without coercion, freely and wholeheartedly?"                    
  2. "Are you prepared, as you follow the path of Marriage, to love and honor each other for as long as you both shall live?"                        
  3. "Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God and to bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?"
The bride and groom respond "I have" or "I am." 

Yet, in our pre-cana classes, so-called "natural family planning" is taught in a neutral way, and in a way which implies that it is perfectly legitimate to avoid a child from the outset. SMH. 

Tuesday, June 25, 2013


Letter to the Editor of the Marianas Variety, Guam. Published 6/16/13.

Click here to link to the online edition or here if the link no longer works to a pdf copy of the published letter. The text of the letter with links for documentation follows:

In “ben’s Pen” (Marianas Variety, June 13, 2013) Senator Ben Pangelinan includes a paraphrase of a quote by Pope John Paul II: “The measure of a country's greatness should be based on how well it cares for its most vulnerable populations.”

It’s a curious quote for Pangelinan to use, for the context of the quote was a May 2000 address to the new ambassador of New Zealand to the Holy See in which the pope carefully took the ambassador to task for his country’s persistent opposition to legal protections for the unborn and New Zealand’s near world-leading abortion rate.

The pope had actually gone on to define those “vulnerable populations” as the “unborn and the dying”. Here’s what the pope actually said: “A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members; and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying.” (Libreria Editrice Vaticana)

I call Pangelinan’s use of the quote “curious” because no sitting senator has been more vociferously opposed to legal protections for our society’s “most vulnerable” - the unborn - than Senator Pangelinan.

His opposition to Bills 54-30 and 52-31 on the session floor is a matter of record, and both speeches were impassioned assaults on any attempt to intervene on behalf of the unborn by giving the mother a simple pamphlet outlining the potential risks of abortion, her rights, and her alternatives.

Both bills called for the availability of information already called for by the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v Casey and by the laws of the majority of U.S. states.

But Pangelinan has remained adamant that Guam women should not be given information that might change their minds about proceeding with an abortion, even though nearly 10% of pregnancies on Guam now end in abortion and two thirds of those are of Pangelinan’s own ethnic group. (Guam Medical Records)

Senator Pangelinan also criticized the lack of implementation of the Health Care Exchange called for by the Affordable Care Act. At a public forum held last July by the Guam Medical Society, local health insurers confirmed that the Exchanges would fund abortions.

Several states, having discovered the abortion funding mechanism, have chosen to opt out of the Exchanges. Due to an oversight in the Affordable Care Act, Guam would have to opt in. Apparently that’s what Senator Pangelinan wants us to do - and once “in”, Guam residents would be forced to fund abortions.

Since Senator Pangelinan quotes John Paul II, so will I: “(T)o safeguard the inviolable rights of the human the principal duty of every public authority...(and) laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual.” (Evangelium Vitae, 71-72)

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...