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. 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...