The Socio-Political impact of same-sex legislation

Symposium, September 7, 2009

1. Understanding the political landscape and the issue of civil rights

2. The consequences of the legalization of same-sex unions

3. Why and how we must speak out.

I. Political landscape and the issue of civil rights

On August 24, the PDN published the results of a survey that showed that while the majority of people on Guam would not support same-sex marriage, they would support the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

How did we get here? There is no doubt about what our Church teaches on the matter:

“…all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions…” (-CDF)

And probably no other community in the United States is as predominantly Catholic as ours. Yet we have majority support for something our Church tells us we MUST oppose.

Have we simply cast off our Catholic Faith on this matter?

How we got here is a complex question. For years we have quietly embraced, or at least tolerated, contraception, cohabitation, and yes, even abortion. As you may know, Guam is the easiest place in the United States to procure two things: an abortion and a divorce. And from a quick search on the internet, it appears as though the gay lifestyle also enjoys the Hafa Adai spirit.

Indeed, the Legislative Findings and Intent of Bill 138, the same-sex civil unions bill, so much as said so, appealing as it did to "kindness" and "compassion" of the people of Guam as one of the bases for the legalization of same-sex unions.

While this is not the main point of my talk, I believe we may need to re-evaluate this so-called kindness and compassion. The acceptance of contraception has led to a multitude of ills including abortion. Cohabitation has led to one of the highest rates in the nation of unwed mothers. And the health risks of gay sex are staggeringly high.

But aside from the complex part of the question of "how we got here", there is also a very simple answer. A quick study of the route taken by gay activists in other states where same-sex unions now receive legal recognition will show a simple 2 part strategy:

1. cloak the agenda in the language of civil rights

2. keep away, at least initially, from the word "marriage"

If you've been following the stories of the two same-sex bills from the beginning, you can easily see that the same-sex advocates on Guam have done their homework and have stuck with the successful game plan of same-sex lobbies in other states. However, on Guam, a 3rd tactic has been added.

The same-sex advocates here anticipated opposition from the Catholic Church. So from the beginning they have tried to make it look like they were attempting to appease the Church knowing that the media, unwilling, or too lazy, to look at the deeper issues, would fan the flames of a war between the Church and the gay advocacy.

In so doing, the advocates have been able to isolate all opposition to their cause as only religious opposition which then makes it easy for them to discard that opposition by appeals to a false understanding of “separation of church and state” (e.g. “Who are you to impose your religion on us?”).

If you have been following the town halls, hearings, and commentary in the media, you will have seen that this is precisely what they have been doing, and as you have seen from the PDN poll, it's working.

I want to quickly discredit each of these 3 tactics in the hopes that we can force this issue into the clear light of an honest discussion. Since we do live in a democracy, we, the people, have a right to choose the kind of society we want to leave for our children, but we also have a right to the truth, without which there is no democracy.

A. Is same-sex marriage a civil right?

First, let us quickly review the difference between a natural right and a civil right. Natural rights are those “endowed by our Creator”. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are natural rights. A civil right is a right granted by civil authority by reason of citizenship. (e.g. A non-citizen has a right to life,a natural right, but does not have a right to vote, which is a civil right.)

Next, we must note that civil rights apply to persons, not corporate entities. A corporate entity in the eyes of the state is any legally recognized arrangement between two or more people, be it a business, a church, or a marriage.

While the civil rights of the individuals involved in a corporate entity are still applicable, the entity itself is not accorded civil rights since a legal entity is not a person.

Society subjects corporate entities to certain restrictions and obligations not required of individuals and at the same time grants them certain benefits and protections.

For instance, a business can deduct expenses that an individual cannot. A church can file for a tax-exempt status whereas an individual cannot. A marriage too is granted certain protections and benefits that are not available to individual persons. But why?

Simply put, the state grants certain benefits and protections to corporate entities based on the relationship of that entity to the larger community and its contribution to the public good.

A business is granted tax exemptions because it contributes to the economy and employs people. A church is granted tax-exempt status because the state sees that it performs a social function of helping people, a function that would otherwise fall to the state and cost more money than what it costs the state to allow the tax-exemption.

The state does not grant these favors arbitrarily. It's to the states economic advantage to do so.

In the case of marriage, the state has come to see that the one man - one woman family unit is simply the most cost effective way of producing, socializing, and educating the next generation, upon which the survival of the state depends.

The state is motivated to protect and incentivize the family unit because it understands that if the family breaks down, the burden of raising the necessary next generation would fall to the state and would simply cost more money than the cost of protecting and incentivizing the traditional family unit in the first place.

But isn't marriage a civil right?

No. Marriage itself is not a civil right. What is a civil right is the right for a man and a woman to contract marriage in the eyes of the state. Again, civil rights apply to individuals, not entities.

Well, what’s to keep two people of the same sex from contracting marriage? Isn't it their civil right?

At issue here is the fact that nowhere in history do we have any precedent for this demand. Homosexuality has been a part of the human condition since the beginning, but it has always been seen by every culture and in every time as a condition that is not normative. Thus there has never been a culture that has embraced the practice since doing so would have meant an end to that particular society due simply to the sterility of the relationship.

Because there is no precedent, the same-sex lobby, in its search for validation has latched on to the issue of civil rights, much to the consternation of many Black people for whom the civil rights movement is historically and uniquely theirs.

The case most trumpeted by the same-sex lobby is the 1967 case of Loving vs. the State of Virginia in which laws against inter-racial marriage were declared unconstitutional. Same-sex proponents see this case as legal precedent for their case for same-sex marriage. Proponents like to quote the following from the Court’s opinion:

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man',..."

However, the second sentence does not end there. Notice the comma. The rest of the sentence reads:

“ …fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

Also, notice the quotations marks bracketing the words “basic civil rights of man”. The quotation marks are there because the Court in the Loving case is quoting another case, the 1942 case of Skinner vs. the State of Oklahoma.

The full sentence in Skinner is worth noting. It reads:

“We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

In quoting Skinner, the Loving Court acknowledges, underscores, recalls and ratifies that in the eyes of the law, Marriage and procreation are inexorably linked.

B. Keep away, at least initially from the word “marriage”

We must not be swayed by the same-sex proponents’ use of the words “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” and their claims that by not requiring a religious ceremony, traditional marriage is not compromised.

This is a deception for two reasons:

1. A religious ceremony is not required to get legally married.

2. Both bills, but especially Bill 185 aggressively annexes all the language applicable to marriage in the Guam Code to domestic partnerships.

Section 16109 states:

Notwithstanding any provision of law, every reference in the Guam Code Annotated to "marriage," or any aspect there of, shall apply equally to "domestic partnerships," including:

(1) Every reference to "married" shall apply equally to the status of partners in a domestic partnership; and

(2) Every reference to "husband," "wife," or "spouse" shall apply equally to a partner in a domestic partnership; and

(3) Every reference to marital status, including without limitation provisions pertaining to parties and procedures for annulment, divorce, separation, or dissolution, shall apply equally and as necessary to domestic partnerships and to partners in a domestic partnership.

The use of the designations “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” is a tactic knowingly employed by the same-sex proponents to slip the legislation past the general public.

My opponent in the debate before the Rotary Club of Guam in fact admitted that the designation “domestic partnership” would be “a little easier for the public to swallow”.

And as you have seen from the PDN poll, the strategy is working.

To summarize: Because same-sex couples, while they may be capable of loving relationships, cannot of themselves produce children which is the fundamental purpose of Marriage as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, there is no legal precedent or civil right to same-sex marriage.

C. Isolate all opposition as religious opposition….then appeal to the so called separation of church and state in order to discard the opposition.

In this, the proponents are taking advantage of the ignorance of most people about this so-called separation. In fact there is simply no such thing. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

As you can see there is no separation of Church and state as our history as a country has plainly shown. Not only was the Black civil rights movement peopled by Black Christians and led by Black religious leaders, but the abolition movement against slavery was peopled by White Christians and led by White religious leaders. To say that religion has no place in public discourse we would first have to discount such things as the abolition of slavery and the Black civil rights movement.

As a matter of fact not only are religious perspectives allowed in public discourse, they are in fact protected by the clause “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.

II. The consequences of the legally recognizing same-sex unions.

"Gay Marriage is not simply some sort of private, self-regarding kind of thing. Legalized Gay Marriage is about forcing other people to recognize these relationships as valid, legitimate, and equal, and can potentially involve serious legal consequences to those who disagree, especially churches and schools."

Here are some examples:

• Activism in schools both public and private
• In 2008, a booklet titled, "Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth," was distributed to all 16,000 school districts in the country.
• Under the guise of promoting tolerance and equality, the publication:
• Advises schools against sexual re-orientation therapy
• Warns educators that on-campus gay and lesbian clubs must be accepted
• Cautions against presenting heterosexuality as normative
• Tells students that “homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality

• In Montgomery County, Maryland, public schools are currently required to teach that homosexuality is innate and anal sex is an alternative method of sexual expression. A recent challenge by concerned parents was refused a hearing by public school officials and will now go to court.

• In October of 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar signed into law SB 777 which requires LBGT education for K-5 and will use public funding to influence school children against the Judeo-Christian understanding of human sexuality, marriage, and the family.

Religious freedom compromised and religious people persecuted

• In Massachusetts in 2004: Justices of the peace who refused to preside over same-sex unions due to moral or religious objections were summarily fired.

• In 2006, Boston Catholic Charities, which ran an adoption agency, was ordered by the state of Massachusetts to allow gays and lesbians to adopt children. In order not to be complicit in an act contrary to the Catholic Faith, the Archbishop was forced to close the agency.

• In 2008, a Christian photographer was fined $6000 by the state of New Mexico Human Rights Commission for refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding.

• In 2007 a Methodist Church in NJ had its tax-exempt status revoked for refusing to rent out a pavilion for a lesbian wedding.

• Traditional community organizations (Boy Scouts) targeted
• Polygamy and Pedophilia a natural consequence
• Traditional marriage destroyed

III. Why we must speak out and how.

Understanding the commandment “to love”

It has been common to hear or read signs held by gay advocates during the recent town halls and public demonstrations that said “love thy neighbor” or at least appealed to the commandment to love.

We must not forget that the commandment to love thy neighbor (as thyself) is only the second commandment to love found in Mt. 22.

The first is "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.”

Jesus goes on to say that “This is the greatest and the first commandment.” And then he adds: “The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

As we know, loving God means doing what he commands us to do and NOT to do.

Biblical directions on how to speak out

“If your brother should commit some wrong against you, go and point out his fault but keep it between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. If he does not listen, summon another, so that every case may stand on the word of two or three witnesses. If he ignores them, refer it to the Church.” - Mt. 18, 15-17

Gospel consequences of not speaking out

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father”. – Mt. 10: 32

Recommendations for speaking out in the public squareEducate yourself

• Educate yourself
• Write a letter to the editor
• Write a letter to lawmakers
• Testify at public hearings
• Call in to radio talk shows and voice your opinion

Resources:

[Slide 26: recommended resources]

· www.johnpaulthegreatguam.com >Issues

· Facebook Causes: Esperansa

· Homosexuality and the Catholic Church: Clear Answers to Difficult Questions by Fr. John F. Harvey

The insanity of same-sex parenting

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_insanity_of_same-sex_parenting/

-marriage is primarily a license to form a family, not merely a license for sexual relations.

-As atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in Marriage and Morals(1929): "It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."

-Homosexual acts cannot create children; therefore the State has no interest in regulating homosexual relationships.

As David Blankenhorn wrote in The Future of Marriage (2007): "Marriage is fundamentally about the needs of children… Redefining marriage to include gay and lesbian couples would eliminate entirely in law, and weaken still further in culture, the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child."

Nothing less is at stake than that an innocent child, first opening her eyes in this world, should see the faces of those two people, her own mother and father, who together gave her life, not the faces of two men who will be her technologically-contrived, State-decreed "parents".

Time is running out to restrain the social vandals who write laws in our land. As Blankenhorn warned: "Once this proposed reform (of gay marriage) became law, even to say the words out loud in public -- ‘Every child needs a father and a mother’ -- would probably be viewed as explicitly divisive and discriminatory, possibly even as hate speech."

For the sake of all children yet to be born we must despise threats of "hate speech" and say out loud that every child needs the love of a father and a mother.

On the President's Health Care Speech

Just an observation for those who are following this: As for now, all observations, pro or con about Obama's speech on health care reform are correct. The reason is that Obama was referring to "his plan" which is not out yet.

The only thing we have currently on the table are the House and Senate plans, of which there are many, though HR3200 is the one most people are familiar with. HR3200 definitely does have language in it that would allow for federal funding of abortions, end of life "counselors", and a hole for caring for illegal aliens (which I am not personally opposed to by the way). But word is that Obama was not talking about HR3200.

Consider the following report from the Catholic News Agency:

CNA asked Richard Doerflinger, the Associate Director of the U.S. bishops' Secretariat of Pro-life Activities, if President Obama was saying last night that the bishops' assessment of the bill's funding is wrong.

"We have said the current bills such as HR 3200 will fund and mandate abortion coverage. Last night the President did not comment on that issue, but said the new bill he is preparing to introduce will not fund abortions," Doerflinger replied to CNA in an email.

"We have to wait and see what is actually in the bill before judging whether we agree. We are willing to work with him and Congress to help make sure this commitment is reflected in the actual bill," Doerflinger added.

Any new legislation on health care reform is unlikely to be introduced as an entirely new bill but would most likely be introduced in a "manager's amendment," a package of amendments agreed to by both sides before its introduction.

Why the President himself did not make this clear is curious...

But back to my original position in this conversation. The Catholic Church (and all Christians) should not be sitting around waiting for the government to do what it should be doing. Caring for the sick is one of the required Seven Corporal Works of Mercy.

In the past, as I have pointed out previously, it was the Christians who saw to the needs of their suffering fellow men and women. The problem as I see it is that we feel that we are now fulfilling our Christian obligations by simply supporting legislation instead of doing what Christ showed us.

Christians everywhere need to begin uniting and working towards creating a system of health care that is not beholden to any government. Then there would be no need to worry about abortion funding or conscience clauses.

I believe it can be done simply because I believe that with God all things are possible. I have some specific ideas but will have to get to those later.

Bucking the Bishops Over Health Care

I must say that I was truly sickened by the USCCB letter to Congress on the so-called "health care reform" legislation that is currently being entertained. Read the letter here.

While the letter makes the appropriate nods to the "sanctity of life", the authors are obviously completely ignorant of the damage giving THE GOVERNMENT universal control over anything, especially matters of life and death, will bring.

But that's not why I'm sickened. What sickens me is that the USCCB, in this letter, is abdicating the Church's Gospel appointment to care for the sick to the government.

In the letter, the author, reminds Congress that the "Health Care is a critical component of the Catholic Church's ministry."

Well then, get on with it. Stop trying to make nice with the Romans and just do what the Church has always done (until lately). Health care has always been the business of the Church, not the State.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., in his book, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization reminds us in quoting medical historian Fielding Garrison, that "before the birth of Christ 'the spirit toward sickness and misfortune was not one of compassion, and the credit of ministering to human suffering on an extended scale belongs to Christianity.'"

The first large scale public hospital was started in Rome by a Christian woman named Fabiola as an act of penance. By the end of the 4th Century, care for the sick was institutionalized by the Church in almost every major city. In the Middle Ages the sick began to find assistance at Franciscan monasteries. Etc.

The very word "hospital" has come to us through the works of the Knights of Saint John, otherwise known as the "Hospitallers", and later known as the Knights of Malta. The "Hospitallers" were so called because of their establishment of a "hospice" in Jerusalem around 1080. The hospice was established to provide a refuge for the poor and safety for pilgrims. Around 1120, under Raymond du Puy, the hospice began to emphasize its service to the sick.

In any event, the good Raymond and others like him, did not spend time petitioning the government to provide health care. It was simply a Gospel imperative, and they did it. The state, recognizing the contribution of the Church over time, began to see the wisdom of supporting the Church in this work.

However, now, the Church, at least in the U.S., has become just one more snout in the government trough. Most Catholic health care and aid institutions are simply middle agencies for the distribution of federal dollars. Our moral high ground is reduced to letters to Congress begging to be heard.

The only remedy is the application of the Gospel not only in spite of, but in direct opposition to THE GOVERNMENT, the new Rome, where euthanasia, infanticide, and abortion were everyday realities (see link).

Screw the 501c3 crap. If we gave half as much attention to the advancement of the Gospel as we do to preserving our "tax-exempt" status, we might have turned this country around long ago.

There will be hell to pay.

Gay Rights = Smoker's Rights

I'm not a smoker, but I think it's time for someone to stand up for smoker's rights. For several years now smokers have had many of their civil rights denied them. Here's a short list:

1. The right to peaceably assemble.
Local and state laws have increasingly barred smokers from assembling with other smokers in the gamut of public places.

2. Right to Privacy.
A high court in Florida has decided that a smoker can have "no legitimate expectation" of the right to privacy.

3. The right to work.
Hiring bans on smokers are legal in many states.

4. Right to housing.
Some states have banned smoking in private apartments and public housing.

5. Right to pursue happiness on private property.
In Rolling Hills, CA, local homeowners lost the right to have a smoke in their own yards.

The list goes on. Here on Guam smoking is banned in restaurants which I believe is an infringement on private property rights. Proprietors should be free to run their businesses as they see fit. No one is forcing non-smokers to visit their restaurant.

In the name of health the government is expanding its coercive powers on all fronts. Since most of us do not smoke, we didn't pay much attention when here on Guam they went after the restaurants. But as we can easily see from the example of other states, it will not stop there, as Bill 150 clearly shows.

Senator B.J. Cruz introduced Bill 150 which would raise the tax on tobacco products an extra 50%. I find it a bit amusing that the champion of civil rights for one particular group is leading the charge against the civil rights of another group.

As you know, Senator Cruz backed Bill 138 and introduced Bill 185 in the interest of securing civil rights for people with same-sex attraction. Since the introduction of Bill 138 in June, we have heard at length from proponents about how homosexuality is something that can't be helped, that gays and lesbians are just "born that way" and because of this helpless predilection society must recognize and grant them the right to marry whomever they choose.

Okay, let's say that it's true, that there is in fact a "gay gene", that homosexual behavior is something hard-wired into one's system and that same-sex attraction is as genetic as being Black or Mexican. Fine. But smoker's can make the same claim.

In an article published in the American Psychological Association's journal of Health Psychology in January of 1999, entitled ''Evidence Suggesting the Role of Specific Genetic Factors in Cigarette Smoking,'' psychologist Caryn Lerman, Ph.D., of the Georgetown University Medical Center and her co-authors demonstrated that a link exists between smoking behavior and the dopamine transporter gene (SLC6A3-9). In their study of 289 smokers and 233 nonsmokers, they found that individuals with an SLC6A3-9 genotype were less likely to be smokers than individuals without that gene.

And in their article, ''A Genetic Association for Cigarette Smoking Behavior,'' Dean H. Hamer, Ph.D., of the National Cancer Institute and colleagues found from examining 1,107 nonsmokers, current smokers and former smokers that the SLC6A3-9 gene was associated with certain personality characteristics that influenced a person's susceptibility of being able to start and stop smoking.

According to these studies, smokers are every bit as helpless as gays say they are. So why is Senator Cruz, the recognized champion of gay civil rights, bent on not only depriving these helpless people of their civil rights, but punishing them with a tax on top of it?

The primary rational for the war against smokers is the burden smoking places on health resources. In the Marianas Variety on 8/15/09, Senator Cruz stated “Considering the overwhelming scientific data showing numerous health-related problems associated with tobacco use, an increased tax on tobacco is definitely necessary to prevent people from smoking.”

I wasn't going to bring this up, but since Senator Cruz has taken to employing "scientific data", perhaps smokers should require scientific data of their own. At the public hearing for Bill 185 - the domestic partnership bill - I resisted inserting data from a report entitled The Health Risks of Gay Sex by Dr. John Diggs, Jr., M.D.

The medical data is detailed, graphic, scientific, and staggering. But as to the present topic, the study notes that while smokers lose an average of 13.5 years of their life, the average years of life lost for practicing homosexuals is 20.

I didn't bring up the study because for every study there is always another study. But since the proponents of Bill 150 want to bring up studies, then out of fairness, smokers should demand that similar studies be presented on the health risks of homosexual behavior and its potential impact on health care resources.

It could all be very scientific. The question is which puts more of a burden on health care, smoking or gay sex? You don't have to look far for the answer. According to National Institute of Health 2002, while 11 million people in America are directly affected by cancer compared to three-quarters of a million with AIDS, seven times more money is spent per patient on AIDS research than Cancer research.

If taxing tobacco products will reduce smoking as Senator Cruz claims, then taxing gay sex should do the same, don't you think? Of course such a proposition is ridiculous and I'm for leaving both groups legislatively alone.

Coaltion to Oppose Bill 138 Position Statement

July 14, 2009

We believe that Bill 138, especially in its new form, is bad for the people of Guam. Bill 138, if passed into law, will demand the people of Guam to legally recognize an alternative form of marriage that would not require sexual complementarity, permanence, mutual fidelity, or openness to life - the primary service of marriage to the common good - which is the production, socialization, and education of the next generation.

Bill 138 will reduce the solemn public vow of marriage to a matter of licensing and private agreement that will make such unions even easier to get into and out of. Because Bill 138 would open the door for opposite sex couples to have all the benefits and protections of marriage without the public commitment of marriage, we can expect that there will be even more displaced children, discarded women, and increased financial burden on the people of Guam.

The sponsor of Bill 138 has repeatedly publicly stated that his bill will respect marriage. The evidence speaks otherwise. Section 16109 of the revised bill would require the people of Guam to recognize "every reference in the Guam Code Annotated to marriage, or any aspect thereof," to be applied "equally to domestic partnerships”, including every reference to husband, wife, or spouse, and any reference to marital status.

Essentially there is absolutely no difference between marriage and the domestic partnership that Bill 138 asks us to legislatively enshrine, EXCEPT that domestic partnerships will not require a public act. The sponsor refers to the public act as a "ceremony" and infers the word "wedding". However, according to the law, the "ceremony" is not the wedding, but "solemnization", which is essentially the swearing of one person to another in front of a public official and two witnesses. It can take all of 30 seconds.

Solemnization is essentially the act of publicly enshrining the new union. The reason it is public is because marriage is essentially an entity that does not exist simply for the benefit of the couple but also for the benefit of the society in which it exists. Society assumes and expects the new union to do its part in creating the next generation necessary for that society to endure and flourish (sterile unions notwithstanding). Bill 138, by eliminating the public act, is essentially stating that a domestic partnership is a private agreement and is not subject to public expectations.

We say, fine. But then domestic partnerships are then not privy to the same protections and incentives that society grants to solemn public covenants. The protections and incentives that domestic partnerships seek are not granted to married couples because they care for each other, but because they have made a public commitment to produce, socialize, and educate the next generation (again, sterile unions notwithstanding). Society has historically recognized the fragility, complexity, and burden of such a commitment and has chosen to support and protect it, especially given the particular vulnerability of women and children. Whether we will continue to support and protect it is the question before us.

We know that we live in a democratic society and we respect the will of the people. But let it truly be the will of the people. In this regard we recommend that the legislature follow the laws of Guam as well as its own standing rules. Our concerns regarding the law are as follows:

1. Senator Cruz has authored a substitute version of Bill 138, which, according to all news reports, was to be heard on July 15. However, the rules do not allow a substitute bill to be heard before the original. Knowing this, Senator Aguon, who chairs the committee that would hear the bill, advised that the original bill would be heard on July 15, but that public comment would be accepted on the substitute bill. (K57, July 13) However, "public comment" at a public hearing is essentially a "hearing". And the law requires public notice of five working days before a hearing can be lawfully conducted. The first public notice that the substitute version of the bill would be heard on July 15 was in the PDN on Friday, July 10. This would allow for less than four full working days before the hearing – a violation of the Open Government law. Additionally, the substitute version was not made available for the public to review. What we have is a classic strategy of “bait and switch”- simply an insult to the intelligence of the people of Guam.

2. The reason that the substitute version was not made available was because that it could not be. According to the Legislative Standing Rules Section 5.04, a substitute bill can only be introduced by the oversight Committee, the Author, or the Committee on Rules. Senator Cruz is none of these and thus not authorized to submit a substitute bill.

3. Section 5.04 also states that "amendments to any bill referred to it which are germane to, and not inconsistent with, the subject as expressed in the title, or may recommend a germane substitute bill." The fact that the new Bill 138 is radically different from the original in that it 1) incorporates opposite sex couples, 2) requires legal recognition of same-sex marriage contracted in foreign jurisdictions (16108), and 3) forces the people of Guam to apply all aspects of references to marriage to be applied to domestic partnerships (16109), brings into question the issue of "germaneness" required by the standing rules. Clearly, the new bill is neither "germane" nor consistent with the original bill, despite the author's repeated claims.

4. Realizing this, Senator Aguon was right to withdraw the bill from the hearing scheduled for July 15. (In defense of Senator Aguon, and due to his only recently having arrived back on island, he had not yet seen the revised bill and was not aware of the issues it presented.) HOWEVER, a public hearing on the revised bill still cannot go forward unless the revised bill is duly substituted under the standing rules, or it is introduced apart from the original bill.

5. We also find it extremely disingenuous for Senator Cruz to continue to claim that he has "scaled back" the original bill to appease the Catholic community. The new bill is many times more aggressive than the original. By withholding the new bill from the public and keeping us from seeing just how offensive to marriage his new bill is, we believe that Senator Cruz is allowing animosity to accrue against the Church for the purposes of influencing public opinion in his favor.

6. The new bill also eliminates the possibility of assisting near relatives to care for each other as Senator Cruz said was his intent (Dededo Town Hall). Section 16103 would declare void a domestic partnership between “parents and children, ancestors and descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sister of the half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews.” One has to sincerely wonder, why Senator Cruz would publicly state such a noble intent and then forbid it in his legislation. If Senator Cruz is sincere about providing the protections and benefits he seeks, we already have the model of the Hawaii Reciprocal Benefits Act which would do precisely what Senator Cruz says that he wants to do.

7. Because the revised bill now incorporates opposite sex couples we urge Senator Aguon’s Committee to hear both Bill 158 and Bill 138 (or whatever number it turns out to be) at the same time, as, essentially, both bills are now at the same table. We now must decide as a society whether to preserve marriage or abandon it.

Some help for Senator Cruz

In his July 8, 2009 interview with Ray Gibson on K57, Senator B.J. Cruz gave us an overview of some of the particulars of what the substitute bill for Bill 138 would look like.

Here are some of the main points:

1. The words "marriage" and "union" will not be a part of the bill.

2. The bill will request for the "benefits and protections" currently applicable to legally married couples.

3. The bill will not specify gender.

Senator Cruz mentioned that he had been approached by members of the homosexual community who were concerned that the substitute bill would not recognize "the spiritual relationship" between same-sex couples and, in effect, be a step back for homosexuals.

Senator Cruz's reply was that the intention of the substitute bill would be to first pursue the "end goal" of Bill 138 and wait for a more favorable environment to put forth more progressive legislation.

(He is hoping that Obama will overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage. Just a note: Obama cannot overturn the DOMA. Congress will have to. But given the folks running things now, there might be a pretty good chance.)

According to Senator Cruz, the "end goal" of Bill 138 is the annexation of the same "benefits and protections" legally accorded to heterosexual married couples. Senator Cruz knows that this is not the "end goal" of Bill 138, or he should know after four weeks of town hall meetings.

The commentary, questions, and discussion which accompanied the presentation of the bill at each meeting rarely, if ever, dealt specifically with "benefits and protections", but with the true "end goal" of the bill which is the legislative authentication of homosexual behavior. Talk of "benefits and protections" was but a pretext for what in effect turned out to be little more than 4 weeks of gay pride rallies, despite the much exaggerated opposition. (For the record, I have no personal issue with gay pride rallies, but let's not call them Town Halls.)

There are two giant issues that Senator Cruz and the proponents of whatever bill he comes up with will have to address:

1) The legal, social, and moral (not religious) foundation for the requisition of the rights and benefits they seek.

2) Adherence to and adoption of all the laws currently applicable to marriage since, as of now, the new bill will simply appropriate the current marriage laws, and in effect, setup what amounts to a parallel marriage.

The legal, social, and moral (not religious) foundation for the requisition of the same rights and benefits accorded to legally married heterosexual couples to be also granted to partners of a legally recognized non-marital entity

As stated elsewhere in one of my posts, the government is not in the business of arbitrarily distributing "benefits and protections". Legally recognized corporate entities are granted certain benefits and protections - be they marriages, businesses, association, or otherwise - based on their relationship to the larger community in which they exist and their contribution to the common good. Thus, certain tax benefits or exemptions may apply to a business or an association that would not apply to individuals or even other businesses or associations. It is dependent on the aforementioned criteria.

Thus, proponents of this new non-marital entity will need to justify their claim to the same social benefits and protections currently accorded legally recognized married couples by arguing convincingly that this new non-marital entity can attain to the same role marriage fulfills in its relationship to the community and its contribution to the common good.

This is the question that law makers must first ask otherwise there is no boundary to the claims individuals or legal entities may make on its government.

Adherence to and adoption of all the laws currently applicable to legal marriage.

We have heard much from the proponents about rights, benefits, privileges, and protections. We have heard next to nothing about duties, obligations, requirements, and obligations.

Senator Cruz must know that the creation of a new legal institution of persons, especially one that attempts to parallel an institution that predates, engenders, and sustains the very society that has historically and in every generation and culture sought, in turn, to nurture and protect it, will not be a simple task.

A cursory review of Chapter 3 of the GCA, Articles 1-3, will reveal a legal maze that will consume legislative resources far beyond the introduction of this bill. Let's look at a few:

Consummation of the Marriage: The law states that "Any unmarried person of the age of eighteen years or upwards, and not otherwise disqualified, is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage." The law assumes and requires both consent and consummation for marriage to be valid. While the new bill will not specify gender, it would have to eliminate the requirement for consummation since it would discriminate against same-sex couples. Either that or it would have to redefine "consummation".

(Perhaps this could lead to a debate over why the law requires consummation in the first place. After all, aren't we supposed to be "keeping the government out of our bedrooms?" What business is it of the government'? Well, for now, it is.)

"Husband and Wife": Current marriage law refers in several places to "husband" and/or "wife". Will the new law simply appropriate these terms without regard to their historical context within traditional marriage? The problem becomes more obvious when same-sex couples are involved.

Minors: The law allows persons below the age of 18 and above the age of 16 to contract marriage with parental consent. Will the new law appropriate this condition directly? Will we have same-sex 16 year old high school sophomores living in a legal entity that despite the nomenclature parallels and approximates marriage? I isolate the problem with same-sex couples because the law already allows 16 year-old's to marry.

The law further allows females as young as 14 to marry with appropriate permissions. How will this apply to lesbian girls. The law assumes that the 14 year old female will be marrying a male that is at least 16 years old. Direct appropriation of the marriage laws would allow two 14 year old girls to enter into a legally recognized lesbian relationship with all the benefits of legally married couples.

One might argue "what parent would allow their children to do any such thing?". Parents are already allowing the children to do "many such things", with or without their knowledge. But one can easily see how same-sex couples who have legal custody of their children could certainly allow or even encourage their children to take advantage of a law that authenticates same-sex unions and furthers the agenda that we all know is there.

Incompetency of Parties: The law reads: "Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate."

How will the new law handle this? Incest assumes sexual intercourse between opposite sex persons and the detrimental effects on offspring of close blood relations. Same-sex relations are sterile. With no possibility of offspring there is no possibility of the detrimental effects associated with incest, so this section of the law would have no basis if applied to same-sex entities.

(Again, it is instructive to note that despite the many objections to procreation as the reason for marriage, our law, with regards to such things as incest and consummation assumes that procreation is the "ends" of marriage.)

Senator Cruz, in attempting to distinguish his proposed non-marital entity from marriage made several references to the word "ceremony", stating that the proposed institution would not require a "ceremony" but would simply be a registration process and "they wouldn't have to go through the whole ceremony".

I think the word Mr. Cruz is looking for is "wedding". The marriage and the wedding are two different things. A marriage according to Guam law does not require a ceremony/wedding. A legal marriage requires a license, solemnization, and authentication, but no party. Two people can simply get a license, have their marriage solemnized by the appropriate public official in the presence of one or more witnesses, and authenticated or certified at the Office of Vital Statistics.

There is no "ceremony" unless one wants to refer to "solemnization" as a ceremony (which it is).

Of Mozart, Marley, & Michael

I believe that every once in a while, or probably more often than we notice, God, being the all-powerful Creator that He is, creates something or someone, simply to show off, or more precisely to “show us”.

Properly appreciated, the creation should naturally lead the "appreciator" to the Creator. God, of course, leaves us reminders and signs of His power and goodness everywhere, But every once in a while, I believe He gets "impish" and creates a Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or a Michael Joseph Jackson, people whose genius has no other explanation other than God decided to breathe into existence a phenomenon that He hopes will make us pause long enough to consider the source. Sort of a "look what I can do".

Mozart’s genius has been legendary for centuries. At 3 he was playing the keyboard. By 5 he was composing. While still a child, he wowed the world with inexplicable feats of performance and composition.

Jackson’s pedigree needs no detail. His special genius was most apparent when he, like Mozart, was still a child. There were other precocious child stars of the time, but none as brilliant and as captivating as Michael Jackson, and certainly none that could compare with him as he matured.

The only other person in the world, during Jackson’s lifetime who could even come close to the same influence and force of personality was Bob Marley. Marley’s genius, too, was beyond natural explanation. His music was beyond rhythm, lyrics, and melody. It was even beyond him. Marley was a force of nature. His music, like Jackson’s, was a spiritual eruption, a channeling of supernatural soul-deep stirrings into sound and motion. This is why, despite their very dissimilar circumstances and styles, we are irresistibly drawn to them, whether or not we are fans of their music or message.

There is a scene in the movie “Amadeus” where Mozart, in the midst of his mother-in-law’s ranting, begins to “hear” music and wanders into the next room, as if beckoned and possessed by a siren, and writes down what he’s “hearing”. The scene captures the essence of men like these. Mozart’s world is crashing down all around him. His wife is threatening to leave him. His father has disowned him. His debts are mounting. His health is failing. And…and all he "hears" is "the music".

Out of mercy, I think, God does not let men like this live very long. Their flames burn so intensely that, in the absence of a mentor to control and protect them, they internally burn to death. Mozart died at 35, Marley died at 35, and Jackson too, perhaps, “died” at 35.

Men of such genius cannot be left on their own if we wish to keep them longer. In the days before Mozart, there were men of similar genius. One could say Bach was comparable. He did not "flame out" because men of his station in that era did not get to choose their own way. A man’s station then was defined and controlled by who and what he served.

Bach, while in a way, enslaved to his station and class, was nevertheless freed from having to wrestle with the demons of self-actualization, and thus at liberty to channel all his personal resources into a creative life that is nothing short of monumental, while living a reasonably normal family and social life.

It was Mozart who broke the mold. Perhaps he suffered from a much too opportunistic father. Bach, while as musically great as Mozart, did not have the burden of being a child star. Mozart was the first child star. He was the Michael Jackson of his age. In short order, he outgrew his father, much the same way, Jackson outgrew his father (and his brothers). Due to their early fame and fortune, both had the material tools and the public support to break free of their familial and social moorings.

And both, while it is common to say that they possessed great talent, were in fact, actually possessed themselves by that talent. Such geniuses need guidance, and too early, they had none. Both then were doomed to early death, and so it was.

Marley, was different in this way. It never escaped "Brother Bob" that he was “Jah’s” instrument. His religion, whatever one may think of it, was always central to Marley’s mission, or at least it became so in proportion to his success. Marley's spiritual progress is easily traceable in each recording, culminating with the plaintive solo acoustic wail labeled "Redemption Song": the last track, on the last album made before his death.

One might wonder why God would “curse” men with gifts beyond their control and which would doom them to much suffering and early death. Of course God does no such thing. God creates only that which is good and beautiful. Both Mozart and Jackson might have had very different ends had not greedy and much less gifted men seized the opportunity that both of these remarkable lives presented.

In any event, history has proved kind to Bob Marley and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, but perhaps not so, Michael Jackson. Marley, in death, has been become a superstar of mythological proportions. And Mozart's enduring brilliance has outpaced his trail of personal peccadilloes. However, Jackson, who died at 51, may have lived too long for history to do him the same favor.

BILL 138: THE QUESTION THAT MUST FIRST BE ANSWERED

The question that needs to be asked...and answered before Bill 138 can receive serious consideration as a matter of equal rights is why (traditional) marriage has certain rights and benefits under the law in the first place. The government doesn't arbitrarily give out favors. It expects something in return.

The question is "what does marriage and the traditional family contribute to the common good that society has found worth incentivizing?) And since the proponents of Bill138 are asking for the same rights and benefits for same-sex couples, the corresponding question must also be asked "can same-sex couples make the same contribution?"

The government does not grant rights and privileges to married couples because two people love each other. Senator Cruz believes he can make this bill more palatable by making civil unions available to non-married heterosexual couples as well. But the question of whether civil unions should have the same legal status as marriage would remain.

In short, society has determined over the course of centuries that it is more cost-effective and beneficial for that society if the parents who beget children actually raise them. Thus we have (in the U.S.) the deductions for dependents, the child tax credits, the "married filing jointly", and other aspects of the tax code that incentivize the traditional family, and likewise the penalties for parents who neglect that family.

What the proponents of Bill 138 are missing in their appeal to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is that those protections apply to persons, not corporate entities, which any legal union of two or more people would be, regardless of what you call it. That's why a license is required, whether it is to do business or get married.

The government has a whole separate set of rules for legal entities based on the relationship of the entity to the larger community and its value in terms of the common good. Thus the queston: Can same-sex unions make the same contribution to the common good that married couples make (or at least are expected to make)?

Of course we are talking about children here. But since many people think we already have more than enough children, this aspect of the social contribution might be conveniently marginalized. However, such a speculation cannot negate the central fact that the survival of a society at its core is completely dependent on its replacement rate. This should be of particular concern to Chamorros who are fast becoming a minority on their own island. Other races are simply having more babies.

In European countries where the traditional family and marriage went the way of the Romans more than a generation ago, native Europeans are quickly finding themselves disappearing as Muslim immigrants are having 3 babies to their 1. It is predicted that by 2050 Muslims will be the majority population. Countries like Denmark and Sweeden are now paying their own people to have babies.

While, this discussion may seem to be tangential to the original question, it is not. Married couples and the traditional family fulfill a service to society by simply producing the next generation (the obligation to raise them is inherent). And while same-sex couples may believe they can provide that service via medical technology, technology can only manipulate life, it cannot create it. A man and a woman are still needed, be it only their sperm and ovum.

Thus only a man and a woman can produce the next generation without which there is no society - or perhaps a very different society. The fact that in some cases gay couples may make good parents does not mitigate the question.

An honest bill advocating for same-sex rights would take into account that gay couples, regardless of other attributes, are not the biological equals of their married counterparts and can never be. Thus, such a bill would NOT lay claim to ALL of the same rights and benefits that society has reserved for those who serve the special function of producing the next generation.

But that said, legislators need to examine the destructive elements within our legal system that reward irresponsible parenting and dissuade many from marrying and making the lifelong commitment to the very tough job of dying to oneself so that others might live.

Bill 138 - Guam's first foray into civil unions

The moral issue aside, Bill 138 is problematic for several reasons: lack of substantiating data, faulty reasoning, erroneous claims to rights, discrimination on several counts, and useless language.

Lack of data
The bill claims that "there exists on Guam a large group of disaffected persons". No research is quoted to substantiate the claim. The "large group" is simply the author's conjecture.

Faulty reasoning
The Bill appeals to "recent rulings allowing gay marriages in Massachusetts and Connecticut" and then apparently its author deduces that two states out of fifty is reason enough to declare that it is now time for Guam to "afford its sizeable number of same sex couples" the right to enter into a similar union. Two out of fifty is hardly an argument. (And again no data substantiating "sizeable" is referenced.)

Erroneous claim to rights
The bill claims that these "disaffected persons" are denied "one of the most basic rights ever given to law abiding citizens: the right to enter into a marriage."

Marriage is not a basic right. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are basic rights in the United States. While marriage might make you happy, you don't automatically have a right to it. First, marriage requires that there is someone else who wants to marry you, thus negating any claim to a "basic right. Second, marriage is subject to laws governing such things as minimum age, freedom to marry (not already married), and blood relations. Marriage is also subject to the personal objections of those who believe there is good cause for a couple not to marry, thus the famous phrase still used in some marriage ceremonies: "If anyone objects to this marriage speak now or forever hold your peace". And by the way, one does not have to be a "law abiding citizen" to marry as prison marriages will evince.

Discriminatory
For a Bill that builds upon a claim to equal rights, the following issues certainly seem inconsistent if not discriminatory:

Waiting period: The bill requires that a "couple wishing to enter into such a union must have resided on Guam for a period of five consecutive years". Heterosexual couples only have to be on Guam for 5 days.

Residency: The bill requires these couples to "have their own private residence in the Territory". What about homosexuals who can't afford a private residence? There is no such requirement for heterosexuals.

Citizenship:The bill requires proof of American citizenship for couples desiring civil union. Heterosexuals do not have to be U.S. citizens to get married in Guam. The same for the Social Security number requirement.

Age: The Bill allows for a minimum age of 17 years with parental consent and a court order, however, the minimum age for heterosexual minors to marry is 16 and a female may be as young as 14 (with appropriate permissions).

Useless language
The Bill claims in its Findings and Intent that such unions will not be "recognized as a marriage" but later claims that religious denominations will not be forced to officiate at the ceremony. Since the Bill claims to only advance legislation regarding civil unions and not gay marriage, how is it that a religious denomination would even be involved? Religious denominations may perform a marriage ceremony but are not authorized to grant a marriage license nor a license for a civil union.

I am surprised that Senator Cruz, normally a careful and exacting legislator, allowed this Bill to be introduced under his name.

Music in the Liturgy

Notes from presentation, May 23, 2009 for Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, Yigo.

Here are the two power point presentations. I will be adding notes to this post in the future.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, Chapter VI - On Sacred Music

Musicam Sacram, Section Pertaining to the 3 Degrees of Liturgical Music

Canonical Conundrum

I would like to express my personal appreciation to Archbishop Apuron for reconsidering his decision to close the Friary to public Masses. My family and I, probably more than most, were personally affected by the decision as we have attended the Traditional Latin Mass at the Friary as celebrated by the Capuchins for over ten years. So we are extremely grateful.

In addition, I would like to express my admiration for the Archbishop. Due to the public uproar over the initial directive, it had to be very difficult for him to make a public retraction. I'm sure he was the recipient of many prayers. I wonder how many of us could have done the same?

But while there seems to be a happy ending, there are many who have been left personally unsettled or further embittered about many things concerning our Catholic Church on Guam.

Many are scratching their heads in disbelief that such a directive could have ever been made in the first place without the expectation of the huge public backlash that followed. This disbelief has given way to speculation of all kinds, and some of it not very charitable.

Some question the Archbishop's advisers, others his wisdom, and others are even suspicious of a political conspiracy.

I won't personally speculate. In business I see management make decisions every day that leave the "guys on the line" shaking their head in disbelief. As the son of a construction worker, I often listened to my dad share his frustration over the "bonehead" decisions of his boss.

As a person in management myself I made a business decision ten years ago that I'm still paying for. A decision that could have been avoided by simply communicating with the people that were at issue. Driving down the road on any given day I find myself slamming the steering wheel and shaking my head at the "stupidity" of my actions, even though it was ten years ago. Perhaps some of you can relate?

Stuff like this happens. What's important is how we respond. Every challenge offers us an opportunity to "get better or get bitter". You choose. I believe that the Archbishop, given the great humility necessary to make the public retraction, has chosen to get better. What we will do is the question.

Meanwhile, this incident has once again laid bare a nerve that threatens our Catholic community at a deeper level. And if I may, I would like to address it from my lay perspective.

The deeper issue I want to address is not "where the money goes", or political conspiracy, or even "Neo vs Non-Neo", all of which have been insinuated or alleged outright. The issue I would like to weigh in on is the proper response to a perceived clerical wrong.

Our Church, in Her deep concern for every soul, has insured that every Catholic, regardless of station, has the right to appeal a perceived clerical wrong. This care and concern is inscribed into the very governance of the Church in the Code of Canon Law, cannons 1732-1739, a section entitled: RECOURSE AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE DECRESS.

A big part of our problem as laity is that we think we are powerless in the face of clerical decisions that we disagree with. Indeed, we are sometimes told that.

In the first days of this recent uproar, several people who regularly attend the noon Mass at the Friary sought an alternative at another Mass held at another religious community. Apparently the crowd grew so large, the priest felt the need to admonish those in attendance and criticized their presence at the Mass as an act of disobedience to the Archbishop. According to the person who shared this with me, the crowd was told that in Guam "the Archbishop is the Pope" and must be obeyed.

In the meantime I was watching emails fly back and forth between those who felt that silent submission should be the only response and others who felt the opposite. At my bookstore there was a long parade of many customers who felt the need to "unload" with considerable angst.

I would venture to say that the wound inflicted by the argument over how to properly respond to the Archbishop's directive was actually more egregious than the hurt caused by the closed doors at the Friary chapel.

This isn't the first time lack of knowledge over the proper response to the Archbishop's position on something has generated a backroom civil war in Guam's Catholic community. Such a war raged over the gambling issue, and continues to rage over the Archbishop's desire to see the Neo-Catechumenal Way welcomed in more parishes.

Not knowing what to do, and being told that any disobedience is improper, offended Catholics simply "blow off" their frustration publicly and the media is quick to grab the story, especially since such "active participation" of the laity is still an anomaly in Guam.

In short, the Church does not tell us to "sit down and shut up" as some might infer. The Church officially says "come unto me". And while the Archbishop's wishes as well as his person and his office should always be respected, he is not the "Pope on Guam".

And even if he was, where one can attend Mass, how one should vote on gaming, and even the decisions regarding the Neo-Catechumenal Way, do not qualify for the "infallible" category.

But that said, I now must spend a minute on what is meant by Faith and Morals. Some thought that the Archbishop's decision qualified for the infallible Faith category, because it concerned the "practice" of the Faith. Not true, Faith in the infallible sense refers to the magisterial Teaching of the Church on such things as the Trinity, the Real Presence, and the Marian Dogmas. Mass schedules and locations don't qualify.

As for Morals, some think that because gambling is a moral question that the Archbishop has infallible authority in this regard. Not true. While, it is a moral question, the Church does not magisterially proclaim that gambling is immoral as it does such issues as abortion and artificial contraception. (Would that we laity be just as concerned about those things our Church DOES magisterially teach!)

Where the Church does not officially teach the morality or immorality of something, Catholics are obliged to inform their consciences and grapple with the moral dimensions of the issue on a personal level.

Now that we have got that out of the way. Let's take a look at what we are SUPPOSED to do when we disagree with a clerical decision made by any member of the clergy, not just a bishop. This is a process known as "Hierarchical Recourse".



The first line of recourse is always:

“If your brother should commit some wrong against you, go and point out his fault but keep it between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. If he does not listen, summon another, so that every case may stand on the word of two or three witnesses. If he ignores them, refer it to the Church.” - Mt. 18, 15-17

It is the "refer it to the Church" that is the subject of the following:

1. A written request must be made by the aggrieved party seeking from the person who issued the decree of the following:
• a request that the original decree be revoked;
• a request that the original decree by somehow changed or amended. (Can. 1734 §1)

2. The person making the challenge must do so within ten “useful” or available” days after receiving notification of the decree. (Can. 1734 §2)

3. If the author of the decree being challenged is directly responsible to the bishop, the recourse is made directly to the diocesan bishop (Can. 1734 §3)

Note: In this case, since the author of the decree was the diocesan bishop, recourse may be made directly to the appropriate Roman Congregation (usually through an apostolic nuncio).

4. The issuing authority has thirty days to respond to the request by the petitioner to modify or amend the original decree (Can. 1735)

After receiving the petition, the issuing authority has three options:
• Revoke original decree
• Amend the original decree in some manner
• Ignore the decree and not respond

If the author of the decree does not respond within 30 days, or if the aggrieved party is still not satisfied with the response of the issuing authority, the petitioner may appeal directly to the hierarchical superior of the decree's author; i.e., to the appropriate Roman congregation.

5. The author of the decree can decide to suspend the effects of the decree voluntarily. If the author does not suspend the effects of the decree within ten days, the petitioner is free to request suspension from the hierarchic superior (Roman Congregation). (Can. 1736)

6. The recourse can be transmitted directly to the Roman Congregation or sent to the author of the decree for immediate transmittal to the appropriate Congregation (Can. 1737 §1)

7. Those seeking to make recourse have the right to be assisted by an advocate. (Can.1738)

8. The hierarchic superior may respond to the recourse in one of several different ways:
• Confirm the original decree
• Declare the act invalid
• Order rescinding or revocation of the decree
• Amend the decree
• Replace the decree with one of its own
• Issue a new decree contrary to the original (Can. 1739)

9. If there is no response by the Congregation within three months, or if the complainant or the bishop has been notified by the Congregation of its decision in the matter, the case can be appealed to the next hierarchical level, the Apostolic Signatura, within thirty available days.

10. The complainant to the Signatura may seek recourse against what is believed to be violations of the law or against the procedures used by the Congregation in making its decision.

11. Recourse to the Signatura does not automatically suspend the previous decision of the Congregation (unless the universal law of the Church states otherwise.)

The bottom line is that there is always a door open to anyone who feels wronged by a clerical decision. But in order to make "hierarchical recourse" our "last recourse", may I suggest the following:

1. Clergy should do their best to communicate first with all parties that can be possibly affected by a forthcoming decision. While it is to the credit of the Archbishop and the Friars that an amicable solution was arrived at in the current matter, perhaps much of the damage control could have been done ahead of time.

2. A commission or council as suggested in Can. 1733 (below) to handle grievances is a good idea. If we already have one, then I don't know about it. If we don't have one, then we should.

3. Clerics should use incidents like this one to further educate the public on what the Church actually teaches about their rights instead of leaving them in the dark or worse, educating them wrongly as demonstrated above.

4. Lay people need to hold off on the media speed dial and pursue grievances according to the will of the Church. But of course, this presupposes that we know what to do and that is the responsibility of our pastors.


For your reference here are the applicable cannons:

Can. 1732 What is established in the canons of this section concerning decrees must be applied to all singular administrative acts which are given in the external forum outside a trial excepting those which have been issued by the Roman Pontiff or an ecumenical council.

Can. 1733 §1. Whenever a person considers himself or herself aggrieved by a decree, it is particularly desirable that the person and the author of the decree avoid any contention and take care to seek an equitable solution by common counsel, possibly using the mediation and effort of wise persons to avoid or settle the controversy in a suitable way.

§2. The conference of bishops can determine that each diocese establish in a stable manner an office or council whose function is to seek and suggest equitable solutions according to the norms determined by the conference. If the conference has not ordered this, however, the bishop can establish a council or office of this kind.

§3. The office or council mentioned in §2 is especially to be of assistance when the revocation of a decree has been requested according to the norm of can. 1734 and the time limits for making recourse have not elapsed. If recourse has been proposed against a decree, however, the superior who deals with the recourse is to urge the person making recourse and the author of the decree to seek a solution of this kind whenever he sees hope of a favorable outcome.

Can. 1734 §1. Before proposing recourse a person must seek the revocation or emendation of the decree in writing from its author. When this petition is proposed, by that very fact suspension of the execution of the decree is also understood to be requested.

§2. The petition must be made within the peremptory period of ten useful days from the legitimate notification of the decree.

§3. The norms of §§1 and 2 are not valid:

1/ for recourse proposed to a bishop against decrees issued by authorities subject to him;

2/ for recourse proposed against a decree which decides a hierarchical recourse unless the bishop gave the decision;

3/ for recourse proposed according to the norm of cann. ⇒ 57 and ⇒ 1735.

Can. 1735 If within thirty days after receiving the petition mentioned in ⇒ can. 1734 the author of the decree communicates a new decree by which he either emends the earlier one or decides that the petition must be rejected, the time limits for making recourse run from the notification of the new decree. If the author makes no decision within the thirty days, however, the time limits run from the thirtieth day.

Can. 1736 §1. In those matters in which hierarchical recourse suspends the execution of a decree, the petition mentioned in ⇒ can. 1734 also has the same effect.

§2. In other cases, if the author of the decree has not decreed the suspension of execution within ten days after receiving the petition mentioned in ⇒ can. 1734, an interim suspension can be sought from his hierarchical superior who can decree a suspension only for grave reasons and always cautiously so that the salvation of souls suffers no harm.

§3. If the execution of the decree has been suspended according to the norm of §2 and recourse is proposed afterwards, the person who must deal with the recourse according to the norm of ⇒ can. 1737, §3 is to decide whether the suspension must be confirmed or revoked.

§4. If no recourse is proposed against the decree within the established time limit, the interim suspension of the execution given according to the norm of §§1 or 2 ceases by that very fact.

Can. 1737 §1. A person who claims to have been aggrieved by a decree can make recourse for any just reason to the hierarchical superior of the one who issued the decree. The recourse can be proposed before the author of the decree who must transmit it immediately to the competent hierarchical superior.

§2. Recourse must be proposed within the peremptory time limit of fifteen useful days which in the cases mentioned in can. 1734, §3 run from the day on which the decree was communicated; in other cases, however, they run according to the norm of can. 1735.

§3. Nevertheless, even in cases in which recourse does not suspend the execution of the decree by the law itself and suspension has not been decreed according to the norm of can. 1736, §2, the superior can order the execution to be suspended for a grave cause, yet cautiously so that the salvation of souls suffers no harm.

Can. 1738 The person making recourse always has the right to use an advocate or procurator, but useless delays are to be avoided; indeed, a legal representative is to be appointed ex officio if the person making recourse lacks one and the superior thinks it necessary. Nevertheless, the superior always can order the person making recourse to be present in order to be questioned.

Can. 1739 The superior who deals with the recourse, as the case warrants, is permitted not only to confirm the decree or declare it invalid but also to rescind or revoke it or, if it seems more expedient to the superior, to emend, replace, or modify it.