Bill 185 and the Upcoming Guam Gubernatorial Election

The upcoming gubernatorial election will provide Guam Catholics with a unique opportunity to decide between candidates on the basis of a non-negotiable moral issue.

In recent forums at GCC (April 28 & May 3) , gubernatorial candidates Calvo & Gutierrez were asked how they would vote on Bill 185, a bill that would create a legal equivalent to marriage (despite what the actual union might be labeled).

The responses are worth study.

Calvo: "The core foundation of a society is the family unit, and it starts with the marriage of a man and a woman, and having children. I will fight for the civil liberties of all people on our island especially for those that are the less fortunate.But ... I do believe that the foundation of this society has to be headstrong, and that means a strong family, and that means a strong marriage, and this is why I will vote no on Bill 185."

Gutierrez: "It says marriage defined ... is a thing between a male and a female. What this thing does is allow civil rights for other kinds of partnerships, as in a contractual basis ... We're not saying we're allowing marriage. We're saying we're allowing a civil kind of contract so that they can protect each other at the hospital or anywhere, ownership or property."

Now, compare both responses to official Catholic Church teaching:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALSTO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITIONTO UNIONSBETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

*****

Candidate Calvo's position is qualified yet unequivocal. He will vote NO.

Candidate Gutierrez's position is that he will vote YES. His position is essentially the position of the bill's proponents, and that is, since it not called marriage, it's okay.

However, the Church does not mention "marriage" in the above quoted document. It outright obliges all Catholics, and especially Catholic politicians to "oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions", which is exactly what Bill 185 will do:legally recognize homosexual unions. A vote in favor of such a law, by ANY Catholic politician (or any Catholic if it was a referendum) is condemned as an act that is "gravely immoral" (mortal sin).

The duty of the voter is a little more complicated. But essentially, in elections, Catholics are NOT obliged to vote for the "most Catholic" candidate, they ARE obliged to vote for the candidate that will do the "least harm" to the common good as embodied in Catholic moral teaching.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches [2357] that "homosexual acts" are acts of "grave depravity" and "intrinsically disordered". Thus Catholics can no more support a candidate that would legally recognize a homosexual lifestyle (as would Bill 185 - regardless of whether or not the partners actually engage in those acts), than could Catholics support a candidate who advocates heterosexual polygamy.

A 2006 statement by the Bishops of Kansas stated the obligation clearly:

"...it is a correct judgment of conscience that we would commit moral evil if we were to vote for a candidate who takes a permissive stand on those actions that are intrinsically evil when there is a morally-acceptable alternative."

The bishops include the following the list of moral evils: "elective abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, the destruction of embryonic human beings in stem cell research, human cloning, and same-sex "marriage." (While the bishops use the word "marriage" here, the overriding teaching by the Vatican refers simply to the "legal recognition of homosexual unions. It does not matter that the unions are not called "marriage", or that there wasn't a church wedding. The Vatican is referring to a "legal" action, not a church one.)

Some think that war, capital punishment, poverty, immigration issues, etc. should be included in the list and that Catholic voters must balance all the issues. This is not true. All moral issues do not carry the same weight as was clarified by Pope Benedict XVI (while still a Cardinal) in his memorandum issued to the U.S. Church during the run up to the presidential election in 2004 regarding worthiness to receive Communion.

In many previous communications, I offered many reasons from natural law, legal precedent, & social consequences for the Church's teaching on the matter. However, this communication simply deals with a Catholic's obligation in the voting booth. The Church is not telling us to vote for. It cannot. But it can and does tell us what we must and must not do when it comes to our moral responsibility in regards to issues and the position taken on those issues by the candidates we find on the ballot.

There are some who will always put party over principle, friendship over Faith, and relatives over Religion. We all must bear in mind our End and how we will be held to account....and that will include how we voted.

The candidates must answer for themselves. We are not asking them to take a moral position. THEY ARE TELLING US what moral position they will take. Both candidates are very well versed on this issue. Neither are ignorant of the consequences of their positions. We cannot be either.

I am very conscious of the fact that I have no teaching authority of my own to tell you these things. This is why I link all the critical points to source documents for your own reference. The Church already teaches these things. Our mission at Esperansa and the Catholic Evidence Guild of Guam is to help others know WHERE those teaching can be found. Use the links to read for yourself.

It's Rare That I Disagree With the Pope, but...

...I disagree (sort of) with him here: "Pontiff calls for re-plan of economics" http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-29107

Actually, I do not disagree with him in principle. I do believe that "economics has an essentially ethical nature as "an activity of and for human beings." and:

"Rather than a spiral of production and consumption in view of narrowly-defined human needs, economic life should properly be seen as an exercise of human responsibility, intrinsically oriented towards the promotion of the dignity of the person, the pursuit of the common good and the integral development -- political, cultural and spiritual -- of individuals, families and societies."

But, the greed and bad guys in the private sector that have given us a handful of bad companies (e.g. Enron) is really but a small fraction of the problem when compared to the economic devastation caused by what countries like Greece and Portugal have done for years, and the U.S. is just gearing up to do, and that is to print money when there is none.

A private businessmen is sent to jail for "cooking the books" and making it look like his company has more money than it does. A politician who does the same thing gets re-elected. It's impossible for the handful of bad capitalists to take a country down all by themselves. It's those at the levers of power in the government that steer a country into ruin.

At the source of the U.S. financial crisis is not Lehman Brothers or Merril Lynch. They are but bit players in a much larger game managed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the congressional committee heads that run them. These are so-called "private government run entities". There's problem number one: "private" AND "government run"??

At the source of the Greek problem is not misbehaving bankers and stock merchants, but a government that has spent itself into irrecoverable debt through policies that negate private initiative. The U.S. has been on that road for many years with its ever expanding bureaucracies, but has super accelerated in the last 12 months.

It's fashionable and safe to blame the likes of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street bad boys. But THEY ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING THAT CONGRESS ITSELF IS NOT ALREADY DOING, except Congress is doing it at exponentially higher amounts (e.g. the "Louisiana Purchase", the "Cornhusker Kickback", etc.)

I can't blame the Pope completely. I don't think he's ever had a job, let alone own a business. The main principles are correct, but the practical application is wanting. The serious culprit in the global financial meltdown is governments that have spent their countries (and states, e.g. California) into the "red hole" and killed the goose that laid the golden egg (private enterprise) by punitive and ignorant taxation and regulation.

Socialism and Communism are the alternatives to Capitalism. How's that working out? See U.S.S. R., North Korea, Cuba, etc. Some say China is a socialist success story. But in fact China has prospered only in areas it has allowed capitalism to grow. By the way, what the immigration rate into China?

Have the Pope, give me a call.

MAY 1, FEAST OF ST. JOSEPH "THE CAPITALIST"

"Interesting!" May 1 is the Catholic feast of St. Joseph the Worker. (For those who may not know, this is another title for Joseph, the foster father of Jesus.) I begin by saying "interesting" because of the sermon I heard. I'm sure it was well-intentioned and an innocent error, but the account of the institution of this feast seemed to vary a bit from actual history. So, first, some actual history.

History of the Feast

Pope Pius XII instituted the feast of St. Joseph the Worker in 1955 on the first day of May - chosen specifically to oppose the communist holiday on the same day known as "May Day" - which supposedly honored "the worker", the "proletariat".

The communist May Day was more than just a Soviet style Labor Day. The Marxist concept of "the proletariat" embodies the essence of the socialist ideology which subjects everything and everyone, including the worker, to the whim and will of the State.

In effect, the communist May Day, in the days of the U.S.S.R, was an "in your face" militaristic display of aggressive, expansionist, atheistic communism. The "worker" was but a prop for the communist hierarchy and their godless agenda.

Pius XII knew this. So, in the tradition of other Pontiffs who had previously christianized pagan holidays by inserting a Christian feast on or near a pagan one, Piux XII christianized a day devoted to atheism and the actual subjugation of "workers" to the man closest to Christ, St. Joseph "The Worker".

Today, with "the wall" down and the U.S.S.R. but a memory, it is easy to forget the threat Communism was in 1955. Stalin had already murdered an estimated 20 plus million of his own people. The Soviets had consolidated eastern Europe in their iron grip, and tanks were arrayed on the Hungarian border. All of mainland China had fallen to the Communists. And Communism was sweeping through Korea, Vietnam, and many other countries. The Soviets were amassing a nuclear arsenal and preparing to venture into space. It was a fearful time.

With an army of a couple of dozen Swiss guys dressed in bad pajamas, the Pope opted to deploy Heaven's most powerful male Saint to"sick" the Communists.

Thus, it was with some consternation that I listened to a sermon on this day which recounted the institution of the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker as the Church's response to "the extortionist of workers by the Capitalist" (actual words)!!

As we know, Communism grew out of the Marxist/Leninist rebellion against Capitalism. They are opposite economic systems. And, as history would have it, the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker was instituted precisely to COUNTER COMMUNISM - NOT CAPITALISM. But perhaps with the demise of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe now free, some feel the need to seek a new villain, and Capitalism is always handy.

However, though the USSR may be gone, communism is not. And while communism as an economic system has been severely discredited, its stepchild, atheism, is thriving. Communism isn't just the economic opposite of capitalism, it is the antithesis of Christianity, not just because it is atheistic, but because the basic disregard for the human person is inherent in communist ideology. In Communism, all, including every human person, is subject to the state.

Of course "state" is a euphemism for a self-serving elite whose rule has proven to be more ruthless and cruel than any bourgeois czar or king. With Stalin's murderous purge just coming to light (in 1955), another 36 million dead in Communist China in the name of the "Great Leap Forward", and Russian tanks clanking at the Hungarian border, the Pope wasn't thinking just then about the evils of Capitalism.

So Why the Attack on Capitalism?

Capitalist "evil" is standard homiletic fare. Perhaps its simply an innocent ignorance of history. Perhaps its a purposeful attack on an economic system that some, if not many, believe to be inherently unjust. But most likely the revisionist history is a combination of the progressive emphasis on social justice in the Church since the 60's and the natural economic gulf that exists between clergy and laity. Allow me to explain.

Essentially, most priests and religious, embrace a life of what can be called Christian socialism. In short, socialism teaches that there are no private property rights, that all is "held in common." The priest or religious who takes the vow of poverty cedes his or her right to personal ownership to the community which he or she joins and where all is "held in common."

Even secular priests, who may not take the vow of poverty and are allowed to maintain some degree of personal property, still participate in a "common life" much different than the laity, particularly those who have families to raise. The key difference though, is that this life "in common", the ceding of the right to private property, is "voluntary", not coerced, as it would be under a socialist or communist system.

The laity, because of their God-appointed duty to produce, educate, and socialize the next generation, are naturally required to put the well being of that "first community" ahead of the needs of the larger community. In order to do this, the family, or at least its head, must have access to the means of wealth creation for which the right to private property is essential.The priest or religious, while there are still bills to pay, does not have the same need. While they may be tasked to feed the poor, it is not quite the same thing as a father having to face a table full of hungry children because "daddy lost his job".

Few priests and religious have to worry about the daily crushing realities of food, clothing, shelter, and health care, etc. to the same degree that the laity, especially those who are parents, must. Thus, priests and religious would do well to address economic issues with caution simply because, for the most part, they are not subject to the same financial realities, or at least to the same degree of those financial realities, as the people they are addressing.

St. Joseph the Capitalist

But back to the title of this post. Of course it is "tongue in cheek", but St. Joseph was more "capitalist" than he was proletariat or "union guy" - which the particular sermon I heard made him out to be.

Good St. Joe bought materials, fashioned them into things people were willing to pay more for than what the material itself cost (e.g. wood = table), and used the money to care for his family and buy more materials so that he could repeat the process. It's possible that he was even an employer. Sure, he had Jesus around to help, but it's quite possible, that as a successful carpenter, he had some other local Nazarenes on the payroll.

We can also reason from Scripture that he probably did pretty well. In order for him to just pick up and go off to Egypt as instructed by the angel, he had to have some means. And the fact that Jesus was born in a stable and not a "hotel" was not due to Joseph's lack of funds. He obviously had the money or he wouldn't have knocked on the hotel doors first.

Also, we do not hear about Mary in want for her material well-being after Joseph died, so he probably socked away some of that profit to provide for his wife and Son's financial future. He may even have helped financed the ministry of his foster Son. The Scriptures don't mention it much, but we don't see Christ begging and He seemed to have the bucks when needed. So, yah, it could be said that St. Joe was a capitalist, a successful one. (Scripture does mention women who provided for his material needs. But of course that money was "made" somewhere. No government grants in those days.)

Private Property: The Essence of Capitalism
 
The essential feature of capitalism (in contrast to communism) is the right to own private property. This right is rooted in the Judeo-Christian principles upon which the U.S.A. was founded. In case you're wondering, it's the Seventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal". Obviously a thing would need to be "owned" (i.e."private property) before it could be "stolen". Thus it is no coincidence that capitalism grew up on American soil and generated the wealthiest nation in history.

Prior to the founding of the United States and the experiment in democracy, a thing could be owned until some king, lord, duke, or whoever had more power (and weapons) than you, wanted it. In short, the history of the world is tyranny.

America, in contrast,  was more than just an experiment in a new form of government, it was an experiment in the practical application of Judeo-Christian principles, as unashamedly attested to by many documents authored in the name of this country's Founding Fathers. The very idea of the equal dignity of persons ("All persons are created equal...") would have been, historically, unthinkable apart from Christianity.

So What's the Problem?

Capitalism and Christianity are essentially bound up with each other. Capitalism is a free system where people are free to do good or ill. As William F. Buckley once said, "The problem with Socialism is Socialism. The problem with Capitalism are Capitalists." Socialism inherently denies the Seventh Commandment because it coercively denies the right to private property.

Thus it is the system itself that is the problem. Capitalism embraces the Seventh Commandment and the right to private property. However, due to the personal freedom inherent in the system, bad guys are free to do bad things. Yet one can no more blame Capitalism for bad Capitalists than one can blame Catholicism for bad Catholics. Freedom is the essence of both.

But what to do about the obvious abuses in the Capitalist system? Can the Church just look the other way? No. As always, the mission of the Church is the mission of Christ, and that is: to call all men first to conversion. Then it becomes the mission of the laity, once converted, to "sanctify the temporal order", as did St. Joseph. Given the current economic crisis, perhaps the Church would do well to deploy the foster father of Jesus once again, as did Pius XII, as the patron saint of Capitalists. For what is needed is not a new economic system, but new men, which only the Church can make.

Debate on Bill 185 - Rotary Club of Guam 8/6/09

When Mr. McCully called and asked me to do this, the first thing I did was congratulate him and your organization for being the first to provide an appropriate forum for an issue of such gravity. Mr. McCully also asked me to frame the debate in terms of policy. I’m not sure I have done that to his satisfaction but we’ll give it a go.  

As some of you may know, I am not an attorney, a politician, or in the employ of a church. I am a former music teacher that was forced into selling real estate and sales to feed a growing family. And while I may own a bookstore, all that means is that I’m too busy running the store to read the books.  

Also, for the record, I am not personally opposed to people who choose to live an alternative lifestyle. I only got involved with this issue because I was alarmed that the media was relying on the easy story of Church vs the Gay Community instead of examining  

the central civil issue which is the claim to equal rights.

####  

The Legislative Findings and Intent of Bill 138, the Same-Sex Civil Unions Bill, began with these words:

"...there exists on Guam a large group of disaffected persons who have been denied one of the most basic rights ever given to law abiding citizens; the right to enter into a marriage"

The section then proceeds to make a claim for civil unions to "all the benefits, rights, and

Thus for the purposes of this brief presentation, I would like to address same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, and same-sex domestic partnerships as a single issue. I have 2 points and a proposition.

Point 1: The current legislation is reckless

First I'd like to call your attention to a practical concern that shows just how thoughtless, hodge-podge, and reckless this legislation is in the hopes that responsible citizens will at least demand a clear-eyed, methodical, and deliberate examination of the issue before us.

If you take the time to read Bill 185 you will see much about the application of the law to domestic partnerships but you will find nothing in the bill that would actually create that partnership. Section 16105 is only about the application for and the requisition of a license.

However, it is just a license to form the partnership, just as a marriage license does not mean you are married but that you have a license to get married. There is nothing that follows that would in fact create the partnership for which the license is issued. The omission is astounding.

I don't point this out for the purpose of identifying a technicality because the bill can be amended. But I point this out to demonstrate that the proponents of this legislation, in their rush to impose on our community a wholly new societal form that is sure to have far reaching and unintended (ormaybe even intended consequences), have, in the midst of highly charged emotional bluster, grabbed the frosting and left the cake.

The excited new domestic partnership applicant will walk away with a piece of paper, $30 poorer, and nothing more. … Read the bill. Point 2: The civil right to marital status is conditional. Gay Marriage would not meet those conditions.

It would seem that the proposed legislation, which would introduce the biggest societal change on Guam since the Christianization of the Chamorros, should demonstrate a bit more evidence of deliberation and thought.

First it must be understood that civil rights are granted to persons, not to corporate entities. In the eyes of the law, the minute two or more people form a legal entity, be it a business or a marriage, that entity is subject to a different set of rules than those that apply to individual persons.

Rules governing corporate bodies are determined by the relationship of that entity to the community and its relative contribution to the common good. Thus businesses are granted certain protections and incentives that are not available to individual persons. The reason is obvious.

The same is true in the case of marriage. The state has learned through millenia of societal evolution that the traditional marital unit is the most cost effective way of producing, socializing, and educating the next generation upon which the survival of the state depends.

Thus the state, because it has a vested interest in its own survival and flourishing, has chosen to protect and incentivize the societal engine we call the family, understanding that the cost to protect and incentivize the family is far less than the cost the state would incur should the family fail and the burden fall to the state, us, the tax payers.

It's just simple economics. And while proponents of alternative familial forms will point to the failure of many marriages to live up to their commitments, the question that must be asked is: do we as a society find a way to shore up and revitalize the most fundamental of all societal institutions or do we simply discard it, which Bills 138 and 185 would have us do.

The proponents of Bills 138 & 185 claim that because they too are capable of committed loving relationships they too should be accorded the same status as married persons. However, as we just saw, the state does not grant a special status to married persons because two people love each other, but because of the function the marital unit is expected to provide for the state.

Whether domestic partnerships, same-sex, or otherwise, can fulfill the same expectations the state expects of married couples is cause for study. But one thing we know for sure is that Bill 185 will not require the same public commitment as it does of married couples.

Thus on that note alone, however trivial that may seem to you, domestic partnerships as defined by Bill 185, would be asking for more than they are willing to give. In short, for a bill that makes a claim on equality, we should be able to at least expect equal commitment for equal privilege. But that's not what we get.

Next, it must be understood that while there may be a right to marriage, marriage itself, in the eyes of the state is not an automatic right.

1. The state already controls many aspects of marriage:Laws regarding consanguinity,affinity,and minimum age determine who you can marry.

• 
  
  Laws governing residency determine where you can marry and when.Laws concerning the contract of marriage govern the proper legal form.
• 
  
  The state can also determine the capacity or mental fitness for marriage
• 
  
  Then there is the whole list of things that can determine whether or not a
• marriage is valid or invalid.
Laws (in some states) may require a blood test, proof of immunity or vaccinations for certain diseases, and a physical exam before a license can be issuedLaws concerning your current marriage status determine if you can marry,

 In fact marriage is a naturally occurring societal institution that pre-exists the political order. The state did not create marriage. It only recognized and codified it.  

Thus, since the state did not create marriage, it cannot create gay marriage either.

Proponents are asking for equality for an entirely artificial construct with an organic institution that not only pre-exists our society, but is the basis for it. There's something very unequal about that.

However, having said all that. I am not opposed to same-sex couples forming their own version of marriage and even according themselves all the same benefits (whatever those are). Why do you even want to call it a marriage when at best it will only be seen as a modern appendage, an artificial construct of the state grafted onto the code like an afterthought, aDon’t just add a chapter and leach off marriage. Create your own brand new institution with its own rights and responsibilities. But leave marriage alone. Anything less than that would be a parasite, a fraud, a counterfeit, and hardly worth the dignity the gay community claims to seek.

What I am opposed to, and the gay community should be opposed as well, is the

parasitic leaching on to Title 19, Chapter 3 of the GCA, that defines both Bill 138 & 185. I urge the gay community to do the hard work of fashioning a wholly new societal institution.  

Why are you willing to settle for some second rate deal called a domestic partnership that would create a separate but equal status that could be proven unconstitutional anyway? 

mere asterisk.

No. Come up with your own legislation that gives you everything you seek in terms of incentives, protection, and legal recognition, but don’t touch Title 19 GCA, Ch 3. 

  

I have lived on Guam for 22 years. And as of now, have no plans to leave. But this is not my home, not in the way that it is a home for Chamorros, all Chamorros. The blood of my ancestors is not mixed with this soil as is the blood and sweat of your ancestor's. This is your home.

To the Chamorros. Search your ancestral memory. Ask yourself if what these bills propose is something your ancestors would be proud of. Ask yourself if this is the Chamorro way. Or did these ideas, like so many other things alien to the Chamorro way, come from other shores?

Legislate the teaching of the Chamorro language, build and sail the ancient flying proas. But in the end, the law, this law, will shape your culture and determine what sort of island your children, for those who will still have children, will grow up in.

This debate is not between two men who are not native to this place. This debate is between your past and your future. And the question before you is whether by embracing this legislation your ancestors would be just as proud of your future as you are of their past.

 The essential premise of both bills is that same-sex couples have a civil right to be married or at least to the status of marriage. However, we first need to ask why the state grants a privileged status to marriage in the first place.

responsibilities given to married couples."

In the 2 months that followed the introduction of Bill 138 and its replacement, Bill 185, there was much chatter about these so called "rights and benefits of marriage". While the language of Bills 138 and 185 hide behind the terminology of civil unions and domestic partnerships, in essence both bills advocate for and imitate marriage in every way except for Bill 185's omission of the requirement for solemnization.

Response to Senator B.J. Cruz on "Good Question" with Ray Gibson (PNC)

Senator B.J. Cruz appeared with Ray Gibson last Monday night, October 26 (2009), on "Good Question", Ray's interview show on Channel 7. Mr. Cruz made several statements about Church teaching that I thought needed addressing. Ray Gibson was kind enough to give me equal time to respond to several mis-statements by Mr. Cruz.

I was not able to address all of the items that I took issue with on the show, but feel that the problem statements by Mr. Cruz are important for us to know since he is promulgating error in the media in the name of the Church on a regular basis. We Catholics need to know truly what our Church teaches. My responses are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church with personal commentary.

Here are Mr. Cruz's comments and my responses according to the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church:

Senator Cruz: “…even Bill 212 is unacceptable because as far as the Church is concerned, anything that condones, gives any kind of safe harbor, give any rights to homosexuals...they have to oppose."

For your information, Bill 212, introduced by Senator Espaldon, would give some of the rights and benefits normally accorded to married couples to non-married couples. The bill is not sex specific and thus, the Church would not enter an opinion on this since there is nothing in the bill that would be offensive to the Church's moral teaching. However, Mr. Cruz frames the statement as the Church being opposed to the rights of homosexuals in general. This is not true. The Church does not oppose the individual rights of homosexuals. Thus the Catechism says: "Person with homosexual tendencies…must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (CCC 2358)

Senator Cruz:“Sex is just for the purpose of procreation”.

This is Mr. Cruz's understanding of Church teaching. It is an incorrect understanding. The Catechism says: "The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses and the transmission of life. (CCC 2363)" This is also known as the "unitive" and procreative", "fidelity and fruitulness". In any event, the ends or purpose of marriage is ALWAYS two-fold and NEVER just for procreation.

Senator Cruz: “Sex is not for pleasure”

The Catechism says: "Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:  The Creator himself…established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. (Pius XII, Discourse, October 29, 1951) (CCC 2362)"

Senator Cruz: "Why do you allow people in their 50’s, 60’s, 70’s…to get married. Why do you allow that if you know there’s no chance of them having children?

Of course this statement is based on the mistaken notion that sex must only be for procreation which we have shown is not the case. However, more can be said about this in light of Catholic teaching.  The fact is that while we as married couples, whether we be 20 or 80 years of age ONLY have control over the generative act ("having sex"). We do not have control over whether that act produces a child. Though it is a matter of science that a woman is more capable of conceiving at a certain point in her cycle, and that coitus can be timed to that point so that a couple may have the best chance of conceiving, ultimately conception is not a matter in their control. Thus an elderly couple, presumably incapable of procreation, are not prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse 1) because sterility is not an impediment to marriage in the first place, and 2) sexual intercourse between married persons is essentially what is called the "marital act". It is an act proper to married persons and expresses the unitive aspect of marriage which essentially is all that is in their control.

Mr. Cruz at this point made a reference to "impotency" and seemed to confuse it with "sterility". Let's take a look at that.

Impotency is the inability of a man to have an erection and thus make him incapable of sexual intercourse. Sterility or infertility is the biological inability to contribute to conception or, in the woman's case, perhaps to carry a child to term. It is instructive to note that while sterility may not be an impediment to marriage in the eyes of the Church, Impotency could be an impediment to marriage. Let me explain.

The Church assumes that the married couple has not engaged in sexual relations prior to their marriage and thus would not be aware of an infertility problem (unless it was otherwise medically determined). Thus, it is not the fault of the couple that after marriage and attempts at intercourse they do not conceive. The couple still fulfills the meaning of marriage because their marital acts are unitive and procreative (open to life). Again, no one, not even fertile couples are in control of conception.

Impotency on the other hand can be an impediment to marriage and even grounds for annulment. This presents us with a curious meditation. While the Church does not demand that a married couple produce a child, it does demand that a married couple engage in sexual intercourse. The Church does not consider a marriage valid until it has been consummated - that is until the couple engages in sexual intercourse that is open to life regardless of the fertility or infertility of the couple.

In a sense, since the Church makes sexual intercourse mandatory, not just to validate the marriage, but to be the constant "language of married love", and does not demand that the act produce a child,  we can speculate that the Church even values the unitive over the procreative, not actually, but perhaps symbolically.

Coaltion to Oppose Bill 185 Press Release 091109

RESPONSE TO THE REVISION OF BILL 185

The need to clarify the Church’s position

While the Coalition to Oppose Bill 185 does not speak for the Catholic Church, the founder of the opposition group, Tim Rohr, wants to make it very clear that Archbishop Apuron's position on Bill 185 is NOT the Archbishop’s personal position.

Rohr says that the Archbishop Apuron’s opposition to the bill is simply the local application of an instruction contained in the Vatican document CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS, which states "...all Catholics must oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions..."

This document was authored by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Church's highest office in such matters, and promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 2003.

Rohr emphasized that the Catholic Church does NOT just oppose "homosexual marriages", but universally opposes the “legal recognition of homosexual unions" regardless of what they are called.

“Not only does the Archbishop NOT have the authority to change this teaching, the Pope doesn't either,” said Rohr. “Thus no amount of revisions, vigils, petitions, or branches filled with olives, will appease the Church. It's a dead discussion.”

Rohr challenged the proponents of the bill to leave the Church and the Archbishop out of the discussion and move on to confronting the real civil issues that Bill 185 raises such as the economic impact of creating a whole new class of dependents on an already burdened GovGuam retirement system.

The Vatican document can be found at http://www.vatican.va/

# # #

If you would like more information or to schedule an interview with Tim Rohr please call him at 477-7647, or email at tim@ibosc.com

PDN quote prompting the press release: But Vice Speaker Benjamin Cruz, sponsor of Bill 185, said he's still unsure whether the Catholic church, the biggest opponent of the bill, will be happy about it. In the bill, the term "domestic partnership" was changed to "civil partnership," to emphasize that the measure deals only with civil matters and erase any religious connotations. A provision that would have applied every legal reference to "married" equally to partners in a domestic partnership was scrapped. Instead, the measure clearly states that a civil partnership is not a marriage and concedes that marriage is between a man and a woman."We wanted to make sure that the church realized that we were not trying to trick them into having civil partnerships eventually lead into marriage," Cruz said.

Response to PDN Editorial Feb242009 n Support of Same-Sex Legal Unions

In response to the Feb. 24, 2010 editorial entitled "Fight: Guam gay and lesbian community must stand up for equality", I will address two items: 1) the  Government Accountability Office data regarding the "rights and privileges" of marriage, and 2) the PDN's call for the "same rights and privileges" for "every citizen of this country".

The much-referenced GAO data can be found in a letter dated Jan. 31, 1997 and addressed to then Senator Henry Hyde in response to Hyde's inquiry on how the Defense of Marriage Act, which had become law the previous September, would affect the interpretation of federal laws applicable to marriage.

In its response to Hyde, the GAO identified 1049 instances where marital status was a factor in federal law. The GAO derived the number by doing an electronic global search of the federal code using words and parts of words that might possibly be linked to marriage (e.g. spouse, husband, widow, marr., etc.)

The GAO goes on to admit the limitations of the search and states that the 1049 figure only applies to the number of times the key words occurred in the search and that "no conclusions can be drawn" from the number since there was no way to tell from the search whether the occurrence of the search term applied positively or negatively to marital status. The so-called "marriage penalty" was used as an example. Proponents of gay rights may want to find something more credible upon which to base their major argument.

Next, if we are to take the PDN at its word: "Champions of this cause must...ensure that each and every citizen of this country is entitled to the same rights and privileges", then, in the name of equality, the PDN must also attack all forms of discrimination regarding marriage in the Guam code, so that "each and every citizen" will be "entitled to the same rights and privileges".

Title 19, Chapter 3 of the Guam Code, the Contract of Marriage, is nine pages of restrictions, regulations, and requirements regarding who can marry, who can marry who, when you can marry, etc. Here's a sampling:

§3101 requires that parties wishing to contract marriage must be “capable” of “consent” and denies marriage to any one the government deems to be mentally impaired (3202).

§3102 denies marriage to minors without the written permission of a parent or guardian, and in some cases, the Superior Court, and even requires that the couple be capable of "consummating the marriage". (Lacking a definition of the term in the law, one may assume the traditional sense is at least implied.)

§3104 forbids marriage “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…”

§3105 forbids marriage to those who are currently married.

§3106 forbids or retroactively annuls a marriage if one party does not consent to sexual intercourse, at least initially.

§3202 forbids marriage between first cousins, between an adoptive parent and an adoptive child, between a step-parent and a step-child or between a guardian and a ward without court approval.

The list goes on, but, by the way, in all those 9 pages, there is nothing prohibiting two people of the same sex from marrying. (So why do we need a bill that will give gays and lesbians something less than marriage?)

 This is not pushing an "illogical extreme". This is taking the PDN at its word in its call for the "same rights and privileges"..."for every citizen". Of course, complete deregulation of marriage is a ridiculous proposal. But either we admit that the government can and should control who marries who, and in so doing admit that it has a reason for doing so, or we must let everyone marry whom they wish. To not engage this central dichotomy (i.e. rights only for some) is intellectually dishonest and a limp pretension to equality.

Coalition to Oppose Bill 185 Letter3/1/10

Dear Senators,

While the news has been that Bill 185 will not go to the floor for a vote due to lack of support, the bill is, nevertheless, a “live bill”, and thus still demands attention. And even if Bill 185 is withdrawn, the issue, the creation of a legal equivalent to marriage between one man and one woman, is not going to go away, and will continue to follow us into the future. Thus, it is hoped that responsible legislators will continue to educate themselves on the aspects and consequences of such legislation.

Fortunately for us, other states are “field testing” the consequences of such legislation for us. We have only to look and learn. One of the consequences of creating a legal equivalent to marriage is the right of same-sex couples to adopt children. Recently (2/22/10), in the wake of a new law in Washington D.C. allowing same-sex marriages, Catholic Charities of Washington D.C. announced that it will close its 80 year-old foster care and adoption program.

The new law would require the Catholic adoption program to treat opposite sex and same-sex couples equally in considering foster and adoptive parents for children, something the Catholic Church or its agencies cannot do. Obviously, the burden of caring for these children will probably now fall to a government agency at an increased cost to taxpayers.

Time and again we are seeing where the inversion of the most fundamental of all societal institutions, (i.e. marriage between one man and one woman) creates ethical dilemmas heretofore never imagined.

This current story poses one of the most glaring dilemmas. It's one thing for same-sex couples to want to share their life together. It's another thing to insert a child into that life. It's not a question as to whether same-sex couples can provide for the child. It's a question of whether or not forcing the child into a parent-child relationship with a same-sex couple is good for the child. In short, will it be good for the child to see daddy and daddy in bed together? (What child hasn't stumbled upon an intimate moment between parents?)

The fact is that, on Guam, gays and lesbians can adopt children now, since single adults are allowed to adopt and there is no criteria governing gender identity. While one can question whether the adoption of a child by a gay or lesbian is healthy and good for the child, by law, such an adoption cannot be challenged.  However, the passage of Bill 185 would give legal sanction to the adoption of children by same-sex couples.

Senators, the passage of Bill 185 into law is not just a matter of granting rights to a particular segment of our society, it is a matter that will affect an untold number of aspects of our society such as that just mentioned.

Senators, we encourage you to continue to be vigilant on this matter and do all you can to not only preserve the traditional family but to advance it. Please take the leadership in looking at all aspects of the law in which the family, the fundamental societal unit, is affected and do all you can to assist the family and help it prosper.

“Law shapes the culture”,


Tim Rohr
Coalition to Oppose Bill 185

Arizona: A Learning Opportunity for Catholics

There has been much news recently about the new Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigration. President Obama has condemned it and vowed to have the Justice Department investigate, signaling a legal showdown with the state of Arizona. The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) were also quick to condemn the measure.

But President Obama has another reason to go after the state of Arizona. Less than 24 hours after Governor Jan Brewer signed the controversial immigration bill into law, she signed into law another bill that made Arizona the first state in the nation to opt out of the government funding for abortion mandated by Obama's new health care legislation (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - PPACA).

A quick "google" of the terms "USCCB" and "Arizona" turns up several pages dealing with the Catholic bishops condemnation of the immigration bill, but nothing about Arizona's extremely brave and brazen legislation to opt out of federal abortion funding. In being the first state to do this, Arizona lawmakers have not only thumbed their collective nose at Obamacare, but have exposed, through legislation, the massive abortion funding present in the PPACA that Obama promised would not be there. (He made the promise on national television before a Joint Session of Congress and further backed up the supposed promise with an 11th hour Executive Order.)

In short, Arizona's opting out of abortion coverage is the first shot fired across the bow of Obama's flagship issue: Health Care Reform. By now, most of us are well aware that "Health Care Reform" was really just a tool to bypass the Hyde Amendment (amongst other things) and massively fund the abortion industry. Because there are some instances where the federal government cannot intrude on states' rights, states can opt out of certain parts of the legislation. One of those parts is the state run health care exchanges through which most, but not all, of the abortion funding was to be funneled. Arizona's actions in this regard amount to a very public slap in the face to President Obama, especially since as many as 20 other states are waiting in the wings to do exactly as Arizona has done.

There are many questions that arise out of this incredibly coincidental signing of these two laws within 24 hours of each other including serious questions about the true Catholic teaching on immigration and specifically illegal immigration. But eventually all questions lead to how should a Catholic respond at the polls? (The governor seat is up for election this year.) The Catholic Church, has strong moral teachings regarding both abortion and immigration. We all know the Church's teaching on abortion. Immigration is more complicated but essentially falls under the overarching "preferential option for the poor". In short, the Church sees migration as a right, though that right is limited by various circumstances including the right of sovereign states to protect their borders. See  Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in America (The Church in America) (January 22, 1999) (Washington, D.C.: USCCB, 1999), no. 65, citing Propositio 20.

Arizona provides all Catholics an important learning opportunity but especially here on Guam where abortion has never been a front burner political issue as it is in the states every election. As you know from previous posts, Guam has an extremely serious abortion problem, being the easiest place in the United States to obtain an abortion and with a heavy majority of those abortions being Chamorro children (i.e. most likely children of Catholic mothers). It is hoped that in our own upcoming election, we will place abortion at the top of the list when choosing between the candidates.

In short, abortion trumps all other evils, including war, racisim, poverty, nuclear proliferation, etc. It trumps the other evils simply because of the degree of innocence and defenselessness of the victim. A quick comparison between victims will help. The Arizona immigration bill is thought to be controversial because it opens the door to "racial profiling". If someone looks Mexican, he or she could be stopped by law enforcement and asked for documents. Thus a Mexican-looking person could be a possible victim. However, the "victim" has many choices. He could move to another state. If he's illegal he could go back to Mexico or seek naturalization. If nothing else, he could go into hiding. These are not happy choices, but they are still choices.

Compare the person in Arizona with Mexican features to a baby in its mother's womb. There is no way to escape the abortionist's knife. There is no scream that he or she can make that will be heard. There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. This is why the Church has constantly taught that abortion is the most grievous of evils. One who obtains an abortion or assists in any way is automatically excommunicated.

These two Arizona laws highlight two moral issues: racisim (potentially) and abortion (for sure). If Governor Jan Brewer is opposed by a candidate who rejects Arizona's immigration policy but supports abortion, the Catholic would be obliged to vote for Brewer. I'll provide more documentation for these teachings in the near future. But just wanted to get this out there since it is so current. I do find it curious that our bishops are not celebrating Arizona's law to opt-out of federal abortion coverage. Maybe they'll get around to it.

THE CLERGY SEX ABUSE SCANDAL AND THE ASSAULT ON GUAM

As you know the Catholic Church on Guam is under attack from an organization that calls itself SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests). For most of us, our Faith will not be shaken by whatever allegations they may bring to the public since our Faith is not in men, not even in the priesthood, but in Jesus Christ himself who promised us that the "gates of hell would not prevail" (Mt. 16:18).

And for some of us, our faith will even be strengthened. We will become all the more adamant and motivated to defend our Catholic Faith because of these attacks. However, others, sadly, will allow their faith to be weakened, and some will use it as an excuse to leave The Faith. Thus, I would like to share, simply as a lay person, with no "letters before or after my name" a few thoughts in the hopes that this little episode will be seen as an invitation from Our Lord to become even more militant in our war against Satan on all fronts.

This article continues here.

Who to Vote For, Continued...

March 4, 2010,

On February 19, I sent out an Esperansa Newsletter imploring you to support only the candidates who would make a public commitment to oppose both abortion and the legalization of same-sex unions.

I pointed out the deplorable state of Guam's public record on divorce, abortion, crimes against the family, and out-of-wedlock birthrate, and traced these ills to our unwillingness to hold our elected officials accountable on moral grounds.

I also offered a solution: getting a signed commitment from candidates before we give them our vote. A copy of a sample commitment statement can be found here, or you can read the entire letter of 2/19 here.

Yesterday, March 3, during a public forum held by the National Association of Social Workers-Guam Chapter at the Hilton Guam Resort & Spa, the candidates were asked the following question:
If you are elected and Bill 185, which recognizes domestic and civil partnerships, is placed before the Legislature, how would you vote on the policy proposal?

You can personally read their answers here or in today's PDN.

In our opinion none of the candidates answered correctly to our satisfaction. However, given our Church's teaching requiring Catholics to support those candidates whose positions "will do the least moral harm", we would have to support Tony Ada or Martin Benavente, ONLY.

Both Ada and Benavente answered "No" to the above question, which is in our view the correct answer. However, both recommended that the issue be left to a referendum, which in our view, and the Church's view, is the wrong answer. The Church clearly states that all Catholics, and especially politicians, "are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions" (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, Ch. IV. Par. 10)

Thus, given the Church's clear and adamant teaching on the matter, politicians, as well as all Catholics must oppose such legislation regardless of its form. Perhaps someone on this mailing list can forward this newsletter to Ada and Benavente as there is a good chance that they may not be aware of the above referenced document.

Roque Aguon and William Sarmiento both appealed to their Catholic Faith, but did not say No. As just mentioned, the Catholic Faith does not allow for another opinion on the matter. And Art De Oro and Sara-Thomas Nededog both stated that they would support the legalization of same-sex unions.

The abortion question was not asked. Or, if it was, it was not reported.

There are some who think that this is one issue among many and that we shouldn't be giving so much weight to this one issue. It's not we (Esperansa) who are "giving weight" to the issue, it is the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. It is a non-negotiable. We are only passing on the teaching of the Church and urging its local application in this election.

There are also others that think because Bill 185 is reportedly "dead" that it shouldn't factor into the current election. Bill 185 is not dead (as evidenced by the question posed at the forum). It is still a live bill and could go to a vote at any time. The current election could tip the balance in favor of the bill.

And even if Bill 185 was withdrawn, the issue will not go away. Proponents will simply wait until there is a more favorable climate in the Legislature, something you, as a voter, could help bring about by voting for anyone who did not answer with a resounding "NO".

For those who think that the legalization of same-sex unions is a matter of civil rights I recommend reading my rebuttal to a PDN editorial which was printed on 2/1/10 (read here.) But regardless of the argument over civil rights we must remind ourselves that we will be held to account by a much higher judge than what we will encounter in the civil order.

One last point, and this is just a personal reflection: What to do about our friends, relatives, co-workers, business associates, etc, who are "gay"?

I move in many circles. I encounter "gays" in all those circles. Simply put, they are no different than any other human being. I have no issue at all with anyone who considers him or herself to be "gay". I have problems of my own. However, I do believe that no matter our condition when we come into this world, we are not created to stay that way.

All of us our called to supernatural life. The word itself "super-natural" means above nature. We are created and graced by the Sacraments to rise above our natures, no matter what they may be, and respond to God's call to perfection: "Be ye perfect...". Yes, it will hurt, but love without pain is a lie.

So for those of us who want to see a better Guam, now is the time to make a change. Let's vote based on principles and not on party, personal relationships and personalities. We've already been doing that.


Tim Rohr
The Esperansa Project

Subscribe to the Esperansa mailing list at www.esperansa.org

Who to Vote For?

On March 20, Guam will hold a special election for a vacant seat in the 30th Guam Legislature. There are 6 candidates in the running. Who will you vote for?

I can't tell you who to vote for but I will tell you who I will vote for: the candidate(s) who answer yes to the following 3 questions.

*****

1. Will you support anti-abortion legislation that has been passed into law in the states and has been upheld by the courts?

2. Will you oppose the legalization of same-sex unions regardless of what they are called.

3. Will you sign a statement stating as such?

*****

The answer to all three MUST BE an unequivocal YES. As a matter of fact, if there's even a waver on Question 1. The conversation is over. No need to even ask Number 2.

A PDF copy of the statement can be found at www.johnpaulthegreatguam.com See the note on the Home Page for the link.

For those who attended the recent talks sponsored by the Archdiocese at four parishes regarding Bill 185, you will recall that my personal talk began with a list of several serious moral problems that face Guam:

1. The easiest place in the United States to get an abortion.
2. One of the highest abortion rates per capita.
3. The fastest and easiest place in the United States to get a divorce.
4. More divorces on Guam than marriages since 2004.
5. An out of wedlock birthrate that is almost 3 times higher than any other state.
6. Three times the average number of people in prison than the rest of the United States with the number one crime being Domestic Violence (crimes against the family), and the number two crime related to sexual misconduct.
7. An overwhelming number of porno shops, strip bars, and "massage parlors",etc.
(I have documented these numbers in previous posts)

And all on an island that has a Catholic per capita population many times higher than any state!!

The question I posed is "How did we get here?" "How in one generation did we get here?" How did we (though I'm not from here) squander the Faith of our ancestors in one generation and make Guam into what the above stats show?

I answered those questions with one answer: "We haven't been watching who we're electing". We elect people we like, people who pay attention to us, people who do us favors, people we are related to." But for the most part we completely ignore the moral principles to which we ultimately all will be held to account.

True, there is more to the moral demise of Guam than just electing the wrong people, but it's at least one thing, one very important thing, that we can begin to do something about.

Some will ignore the moral issues stated above. For them, there are more important issues, education, public safety, etc. For most, it will not be about issues at all, but about supporting their friend or supporting their party.

In the Old Testament, God punished the disobedient Israelites by giving them the leaders they deserved. Maybe we should ponder this a bit before we run off to the polls.

Again, I am not and cannot tell you who to vote for. As for this election, I do not know any of the candidates personally and I have not been approached by any for their support. But if I am, I will have my questions, and my written statement ready.

I will post the names of all the candidates who sign the statement. If you have the signatures of any candidates, let me know and I'll add their name to the list that we will make publicly available.

By the way, the same goes for the current run for Governor. We will be posting those too.

It's time to stop the silent slaughter of the innocent in downtown Tamuning. We need leaders who are not afraid. It's up to you.


Tim Rohr
The Esperansa Project

Subscribe to the Esperansa mailing list at www.esperansa.org