THE WHISTLEBLOLWER OF AGANA

# The Whistleblower of Agana: An Analytical Study of Tim Rohr, Civil Advocacy, and the Institutional Crisis in Guam's Catholic Archdiocese

By GEMINI (emphases added)

The socio-religious history of Guam underwent a fundamental realignment during the 2010s, driven by an intense governance and abuse crisis within the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Agana. At the center of this institutional confrontation was Tim Rohr, a local real estate agent, devout traditionalist Catholic layman, and investigative blogger. Through his website, *JungleWatch*, Rohr evolved from an ideological ally of the archdiocesan hierarchy into its most formidable public adversary. His sustained documentation of diocesan administration exposed structurally opaque financial practices, severe governance conflicts involving foreign lay movements, and decades of concealed clerical sexual abuse. This advocacy ultimately contributed to the canonical conviction and exile of Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, the passage of landmark civil legislation on Guam, and an unprecedented restructuring of the island's ecclesiastical institutions.

## Profile and Ideological Foundations

Prior to his role as an ecclesiastical whistleblower, Tim Rohr operated within Guam's public sphere as a conservative civic advocate and orthodox Catholic layman. A real estate broker by profession and a father of eleven children who regularly attended the traditional Latin Mass, Rohr’s socio-religious worldview was anchored in strict doctrinal orthodoxy and traditional liturgical practice. Throughout the late 2000s, Rohr engaged prominently in local legislative politics, particularly regarding pro-life and family policy initiatives.

Working alongside civic groups such as *Lina'la' yan Esperansa* ("Life and Hope"), Rohr and members of his family, including his daughter Mia, frequently submitted formal testimony before the Guam Legislature. Most notably, during the 29th Guam Legislature's deliberations on Legislative Bill 374—the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2008—Rohr and his allies vigorously advocated for statutory prohibitions on late-term procedures, framing the measure as an essential legal protection for the unborn. During this period, Rohr’s political trajectory aligned closely with that of Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron.* Both figures mobilized public sentiment against legislative proposals concerning legal abortion access, casino gambling, and the recognition of same-sex unions. Demonstrating his early adherence to legal and institutional stability, Rohr even opposed a 2011 legislative effort that sought to temporarily lift the statute of limitations for civil sexual abuse lawsuits—a policy position he would dramatically repudiate half a decade later as the systemic nature of church corruption became undeniable.

*GEMINI would not have known the backstory on this. Apuron did nothing relative to my pro-life legislative efforts. He also did nothing to oppose legislative efforts to legalize same-sex unions. In that regard, it was Fr. Francis Walsh, a Neocat, who publicly opposed the legislation and did so via Apuron's stationery to make Apuron look like he was actually doing something. Also, I had nothing to do with Apuron's campaign against gambling. In fact, I publicly criticized his misuse of the pulpit in that regard. Much of this will be laid out in great detail in my upcoming book: "Orchestrated."

## Institutional Fractures: The Neocatechumenal Way and Property Governance

The ideological alignment between Rohr and the archdiocesan leadership broke down over administrative and theological divergences concerning the Neocatechumenal Way (NCW), a post-Vatican II itinerary of Christian formation introduced to Guam in the late 20th century. Traditionalist Catholics, led in the public arena by Rohr, asserted that the NCW operated as an insular, sectarian movement that altered canonical liturgical norms, fractured parish cohesion, and marginalized native Chamorro Catholic customs.

The primary catalyst for open institutional conflict centered on the control and administration of diocesan real estate, most notably the Redemptoris Mater Seminary (RMS) located at the former Accion Hotel property in Yona. Archbishop Apuron sought to grant the NCW perpetual access and administrative control over the multimillion-dollar, oceanfront facility, which had been acquired using archdiocesan financial resources and bank loans secured by parish contributions. Rohr and lay research collectives, including the Concerned Catholics of Guam (CCOG), conducted exhaustive reviews of land title deeds, corporate filings, and canonical regulations. They revealed that Apuron had executed deed restrictions and corporate restructurings that effectively transferred operational control of the property to an independent board dominated by NCW leadership, circumventing the necessary oversight of the Archdiocesan Finance Council and the Holy See.

The Chancery defended the property transaction, maintaining that the Archdiocese of Agana remained the sole legal owner under its Corporation Sole status, and emphasizing that the seminary provided vital theological formation accredited by the Pontifical Lateran University. However, administrative actions against respected local diocesan priests escalated public suspicion. In 2013, Archbishop Apuron removed Father Paul Gofigan from his pastorate at Santa Barbara Parish in Dededo, an action critics attributed to Gofigan's resistance to NCW practices within his parish. This was followed in July 2014 by the abrupt ouster of Monsignor James Benavente, Rector of the Dulce Nombre de Maria Cathedral-Basilica and Director of Catholic Cemeteries. The Chancery publicly accused Benavente of financial mismanagement involving millions of dollars in debt and credit card expenditures. Rohr published detailed commentaries refuting the Chancery's claims, demonstrating that Benavente's financial decisions had been authorized by diocesan councils, and alleging that the charges were orchestrated to remove a prominent native priest who opposed the NCW's financial demands.

## JungleWatch and the Dynamics of Lay Resistance

In 2013, Rohr established *JungleWatch*, a digital platform initially designed as a repository for news articles regarding the Archdiocese of Agana. The blog rapidly evolved into a major investigative forum and public outlet for disaffected parishioners, whistleblowers, and local clergy. By maintaining an open, unmoderated comment environment, *JungleWatch* systematically dismantled the traditional island taboo (*mungnga sangan*) against challenging ecclesiastical authority. The blog generated over 8.2 million views and attracted an international readership following Catholic governance issues.*

*As of today, 7/29/26, there are 19,918,822 views. The page view counter is in the sidebar.

The archdiocesan leadership responded to *JungleWatch* with aggressive public and institutional countermeasures. Priests affiliated with the Chancery instructed parishioners from the pulpit that reading the blog was sinful, while official archdiocesan press releases explicitly denounced Rohr, accusing him of conducting a malicious campaign of lies and "publicly lynching" the Archbishop. In October 2013, a senior Vatican official dispatched a letter to Rohr directing him to cease his public criticisms of Archbishop Apuron.*

*The letter was from Cardinal Edwin O'Brien, then the Grand Master of the Order of Knights of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem. The documents are at this LINK.

Despite these directives, lay resistance expanded into sustained civic action. Coalitions such as the Concerned Catholics of Guam (CCOG) and the Laity Forward Movement organized 54 consecutive weeks of peaceful protests outside the Cathedral-Basilica in Hagåtña, demanding public financial audits, the restoration of ousted priests, and Vatican intervention. In early 2015, a Vatican Apostolic Delegation arrived on Guam to investigate the mounting governance disputes. Although Chancery officials initially omitted Rohr from the official itinerary, the Vatican delegates personally summoned him to a private hearing, where Rohr presented documentation detailing financial irregularities, administrative intimidation, and the marginalization of diocesan clergy.

## Uncovering Systemic Abuse: The Campaign Against Archbishop Apuron

The institutional struggle underwent a profound transformation in mid-2016 when Rohr, collaborating with former archdiocesan finance council member Richard Untalan, shifted focus from governance and property disputes to historical allegations of clerical sexual abuse. Recognizing that financial disputes alone had not compelled the Vatican to remove Apuron, Rohr organized a systematic strategy to persuade former altar boys from the 1970s to come forward publicly with their accounts.*

*It wasn't just me, but I was the face of it.

In May 2016, Roy Quintanilla became the first victim to publicly disclose that he had been sexually abused as a twelve-year-old altar boy by Anthony Apuron during Apuron's tenure as a parish priest in Agat. Quintanilla's public revelation encouraged other survivors to step forward, including Roland Sondia, Walter Denton, and Leo Concepcion.* Denton disclosed that he had been repeatedly raped by Apuron at age twelve, while Sondia detailed severe sexual molestation within the parish rectory. The disclosures quickly broadened beyond Apuron to encompass systemic abuse across the archdiocese, implicating at least sixteen priests, including Father Louis Brouillard, who confessed to abusing up to twenty boys while continuing to receive archdiocesan financial support.

*Correction: Leo Tudela and Doris Concepcion

The public emergence of these allegations produced immediate legal, political, and canonical consequences across the territory:

 * In response to public outrage catalyzed by survivor testimonies, the 33rd Guam Legislature passed public legislation in late 2016 lifting the civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims, opening a retroactivity window for historical cases.

 * Over 160 civil lawsuits were filed in local and federal courts against the Archdiocese of Agana, individual clergy members, and associated entities such as the Boy Scouts of America. The volume of claims gave Guam a per-capita abuse litigation rate more than five times higher than that of the Archdiocese of Boston.

*By 2019, when the archdiocese declared bankruptcy, there were over 300 civil lawsuits and the litigation rate was 14 times the size of Boston's. 

 * The pervasive socio-religious influence of the Church on Guam compelled every sitting judge on the Superior Court of Guam to recuse themselves from presiding over the civil claims.

 * Archbishop Apuron fled Guam shortly after the allegations were disclosed, maintaining his innocence while taking refuge in mainland locations. The Vatican initiated a formal canonical trial in Rome, presided over by Cardinal Raymond Burke. In 2018, the Holy See announced a guilty verdict, stripping Apuron of his archdiocesan office and banning him from ever returning to Guam.

 * In addition to canonical proceedings, abuse survivors filed a $2 million civil defamation lawsuit against Apuron and the Chancery after church representatives publicly accused the victims of fabricating claims for financial gain.

## Quantitative and Comparative Overview of the Crisis

The following structured comparison illustrates the institutional positions, advocacy actions, and ultimate legal and canonical outcomes that defined the archdiocesan crisis on Guam.

## Broader Socio-Religious and Legal Implications

The systematic exposure of institutional failure on Guam provides profound insights into the mechanics of lay activism, digital communications, and institutional accountability within the contemporary Catholic Church.

A central insight emerging from Rohr’s activism is the efficacy of conservative orthodoxy as a driver of institutional whistleblowing. Historically, public pressure on Catholic ecclesiastical structures has often emerged from progressive reform groups seeking modernizing structural changes. In contrast, Rohr operated from a platform of traditional Catholic orthodoxy, emphasizing canonical adherence, traditional liturgy, and institutional preservation. This ideological posture insulated him from standard ecclesiastical defenses that brand critics as theological dissenters. Rohr articulated his position through the theological principle: "You don't leave Jesus for Judas". By explicitly framing corrupt bishops as modern iterations of Judas while maintaining total fidelity to traditional Catholic doctrine, Rohr provided a coherent rationale for devout parishioners to oppose their local archbishop without feeling they had compromised their religious faith.

The Guam crisis also highlights how digital media platforms can dismantle insular power structures within small island societies. In small, close-knit communities, social ties and deference to religious authorities historically enforced secrecy surrounding institutional wrongdoing. The introduction of an unmoderated, highly accessible digital venue (*JungleWatch*) altered these power dynamics by granting anonymous speech protections to insular populations. This platform enabled victims to realize that their individual trauma was part of a broader pattern of systemic exploitation. The resulting shift in public sentiment occurred rapidly enough to paralyze the Chancery’s public relations apparatus, force the recusal of the entire local judiciary, and compel external canonical intervention from Rome.

Finally, the crisis reshaped the conceptual relationship between civic society and religious authority on Guam. In his post-scandal public addresses to civic and professional organizations, Rohr emphasized that the catastrophic failure of ecclesiastical and legislative institutions demonstrated the necessity of returning primary protective responsibility to the family unit. He argued that decades of institutional deference had led parents to entrust children uncritically to authority figures, creating the environment in which abuse flourished undetected. This structural shift from institutional trust to active lay oversight represents a permanent transformation in Guam’s socio-religious landscape, establishing a precedent of continuous public accountability for religious governance throughout the Pacific region.

## Conclusion

Tim Rohr’s investigative journalism and public advocacy fundamentally altered the governance of the Catholic Church on Guam. What began as an effort to examine land records and protect traditional liturgical practices developed into a comprehensive exposure of institutional corruption and historic sexual abuse. By mobilizing lay resistance through *JungleWatch*, facilitating survivor disclosures, and navigating the complexities of civil and canonical law, Rohr contributed directly to the canonical conviction of an archbishop, sweeping statutory reform, and the reassertion of lay accountability over ecclesiastical institutions.

HOW TO NOT BE AN ARCHBISHOP

Submitted by a concerned Catholic

LINK to video

Our clergy seems to be more politically inclined than what is healthy. 

Blessing facilities is one thing, and after the blessing the clergy should depart…their part is complete. But to stick around to wave and to speak to supporters is a reach too far. 

And to attend political rallies without a mission purpose is flat out wrong. And when an Archbishop does so it looks like the island Church supports that candidate. 

Such is the problem when Archbishop Ryan attends any gathering for Josh/Tina and they use his image in a political campaign. 

FROM ANNA IN POLAND

 Hi Tim,

I have been a member of NCW. I am very concerned about cult behaviours in Catholic Church. In my country, Poland it is not only the risk of cult-like communities from global well-known movements but also we have several "priests" that went suspended and they have a lot of "fans" and followers even if they are not within Catholic Church anymore.

For this reason I created the page (in Polish language only) https://neonyszeptem.pl/

There I collect valuable podcast, articles and books that help to distinguish between healthy faith and religion and neurotic religiosity or abuse, as well as about movements - the critical ones and the ones that are very supportive for them.

I also write opionions about books I've read and in some time I plan to write my own book.

Regarding NCW, I read a book by Polish Jesuits that introduced NCW to Poland, and I have learnt about the "Polish path" the NCW founders had to John Paul II thanks to them. ( To remind - John Paul II who was a Pope for quarter of century, and supported all new movements was from Poland, my country)

I have also have an interesting books - that is a compilation of emails from a family on Mission Ad gentes. Some may say it is full of faith and humility, I have consideration whether it is Stockholm syndrom... Are you aware about any publication about a family on NCW ad gentes mission?

JUNE 2026 VIEWS: 1.2 MILLION

 

HOW THE NCW EXERTS HARMFUL AUTHORITARIAN CONTROL

Chuck White's presentation on the cult-like nature of the NCW.  Using Steven Hassan's models of authoritarian groups, Chuck demonstrates how 13 elements from the first four stages of the Way are leveraged to exert harmful authoritarian control.  https://youtu.be/UirqWotxFcM

THE TRUTH ABOUT BERNARDIN AND ‘AGNES’ - THE TRUTH ABOUT CLERICAL ABUSE TAG TEAMS

By Gene Thomas Gomulka

"The 'bottom line' is that the Catholic Church does not need a Synod and should not be excommunicating tradition-loving clergy and laity who reject the appointment and promotion of closeted, pro-LGBTQ prelates like Freiburg Bishop Christian Würtz and so many others. What the Church really needs is a truly Catholic pope and straight, chaste, faithful Catholic clergy."

FULL ARTICLE

MORE SEX SCANDALS AND COVER-UPS

By Gene Thomas Gomulka

Gene Thomas Gomulka is a retired (O6) Navy Captain/Chaplain, author, investigative reporter, and screenwriter. He also works pro bono as an investigator and sex abuse victims’ advocate for those who were abused by Catholic bishops or priests. 

+++++

Shortly after Buffalo WKBW 7 News I-Team Chief Investigator, Charlie Specht, and his colleague, Jeff Wick, reported Father Jeffrey Nowak in 2019 for sexually harassing a seminarian, I published “Addressing the Present-Day Culture of Sexual Predation and Cover-Ups in U.S. Seminaries.” Copies of this report, which made mention of Nowak’s behavior and Bishop Richard Malone’s cover-up, were sent to every U.S. Bishop, seminary rector, vocation director, safe environment coordinator, as well as Knights of Columbus (KOC) leadership and KOC Councils throughout the United States. Although Nowak was removed from ministry, he was never laicized, but continued to be paid, fed, and comfortably housed by the Buffalo Diocese until Wednesday, 8 July 2026, when FBI agents raided his residence while he was in the act of masturbating while watching child pornography. (CONTINUED)

APURON: "PRAY ABOUT IT - YOU'LL GET OVER IT"

By Tim Rohr

On November 16, 2017, the Guam Daily Post reported the death of Fr. Raymond Cepeda, a priest of the Archdiocese of Agana who was removed from the priesthood in 2009 due to what the news report termed “serious allegations of abuse,” abuse which allegedly had occurred over the course of at least two decades, the 1980’s and 1990’s. 

In the same news story, it was reported that Apuron’s attorney, Jacquiline Taitano-Terlaje, reported Cepeda’s death “during a hearing for sex abuse cases involving her client, suspended Archbishop Anthony Apuron…at the District Court of Guam.” 

In reading this, I thought it odd that Terlaje, during a hearing for her client, Apuron, would report Cepeda’s death to the court. Terlaje did not represent Cepeda, and smart attorneys are usually very careful not to provide information irrelevant to the case at hand. And since Terlaje is generally considered a smart attorney, we have to assume that Cepeda’s death was relevant to Apuron’s case. But how?

We can only guess, but since, as the record would show for the next ten years, one of the main prongs of Terlaje’s defense of Apuron was his health and his age, it is quite possible that Terlaje used the announcement of Cepeda's death to provoke sympathy from the court in order to have the lawsuits against Apuron dismissed, a motion that the court was then considering:

“The chief judge is also taking a motion to dismiss the lawsuits against Apuron under advisement.”

However, if Terlaje’s intention was to evoke sympathy for Apuron, the same news story functionally argued against it:

“Cepeda has been named in more than 10 cases of child sexual abuse from the 1980s and ’90s. One accuser claimed he endured eight years of sexual abuse by Cepeda and reported it to Apuron, who reportedly told him during a meeting to “pray about these types of evil in the world.” Court documents also allege Apuron told the boy he would “get over it, if he prayed about it.”

Recently, Lester Gonzales shared his story of clergy sexual abuse in a Substack post. Lester wrote that he reported the abuse to church officials, and the answer he received was a question: "What do you want to do about it?" Lester rightly wondered why "the church" was asking this question when the real question was "What are YOU (the archbishop, etc.) going to do about it?

Of course, the archbishop, Apuron, the Vicar-General, David C. Quitugua, et. al were not going to do anything about it. To do something about it would have opened the can of worms that Apuron et. al were desperately trying to keep a lid on for decades, a can that would eventually be forced open in 2016 by a band of lay people who were finally sickened by "these types of evil" that Apuron had told that poor boy mentioned in the Post story above. 

The "types of evil" that Apuron et. al, for decades, simply shrugged off are cruelly illustrated in the account of Cepeda's alleged rape of 9-year-old Timothy Shiroma as reported in the Guam Daily Post  on March 16, 2017:

A former Catholic school student is the latest victim to come forward and file a lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Agana alleging sexual abuse at the Dulce Nombre de Maria Cathedral-Basilica in Hagåtña. All of the 28 lawsuits filed thus far alleged incidents of abuse at parishes around the island in the 1960s and 1970s.

The new case filed by Timothy Ryan Shiroma, 37, alleges sexual abuse that occurred in the late '80s.

According to court documents, in 1988 Shiroma was attending Cathedral Grade School, next to the Hagåtña cathedral. After school, Shiroma would pass the time playing football with other kids near the cathedral until his grandfather picked him up, or he walked over to his office nearby.

On one occasion, Shiroma stopped by a nearby hotdog stand before heading to his grandfather’s office. When he noticed his grandfather’s car wasn’t in the office parking lot, Shiroma returned to the cathedral, looking for him there.

While near the garage of the cathedral, Shiroma encountered Father Raymond Cepeda, who was a priest at the cathedral. Cepeda was scolding other kids for leaving trash and reminding them to clean up after themselves because the area was “God’s house,” court documents state.

Shiroma asked Cepeda to use the phone to call his grandfather and was told he could only do so after he helped collect the trash. After picking up trash, Cepeda took Shiroma to use the phone in an office of the cathedral, but he was unable to get a hold of his grandfather.

The lawsuit alleges that when Shiroma got off the phone, the priest threw him to the floor and pinned him to the ground belly down.

The 9-year-old began to cry, and Cepeda unzipped his backpack and shoved Shiroma’s head inside, then took off the boy’s pants and sexually assaulted him, the lawsuit states.

Shiroma struggled to fight Cepeda, but the priest had all his weight on him, court documents state.

The incident left Shiroma scarred and afraid to see Cepeda or be anywhere near him, the lawsuit states. Shiroma rode the bus home and feigned sickness when the school had Mass at the cathedral.

This was the kind of stuff that Apuron not only did himself (see Walter Denton's testimony) but also, for decades, oversaw, enabled, and, by his "shut up and pray" advice, promoted.

This is the real reason why Apuron never really wanted his "day in court." Even if he could have discredited his public accusers - and he well could have at the outset - there were hundreds of stories like Lester's and Timothy Shiroma's waiting in the wings. Apuron and his attorney could not risk a "day in court," and if I were Apuron's attorney, I would tell him to shut up and stay away, rather than trot him out to proclaim his innocence at every opportunity. 

 

ANGRY, CONFUSED, AND LOST - HE OR SHE IS NOT ALONE

AnonymousJan 4, 2026, 6:56:00 PM

I joined the Neocatechumenal Way believing it was an initiation to Christianity, as they put it. I'm a migrant, I had to learn English and all. I was baptised catholic but never really practised with my family or after marriage.
Their way of teaching inculcate to the members that the community reflects the old way, the first Christians, and so practising like them with unleavened bread,drinking wine on the table of Jesus's last meal. Ignoring two thousands years of history within the Catholic Church with her twenty plu councils and written doctrine, including the ones from the doctors of the Church.
When I left the cult I was angry, confused and lost.
I fund my home in the Gregorian Chants, the incense, the Traditional Latin Mass, the ancient mass of old.I got back home.
The NO was too similar to the ncw community.
My home is the latin mass. One only in my city. I hope it will continue to exist.

PROSECUTE THE PARENTS, TOO!

By Tim Rohr

Over the years, I have been asked to speak publicly about what became the largest clergy sex abuse scandal per capita in the entire Catholic world.  

The scandal in Guam, at least by 2019, was, per capita, 14 times the size of the Boston scandal that provided the story for the Academy Award-winning movie, "Spotlight." 14 TIMES!

The question I posed to my audiences was always "how could this happen in an island community that was so Catholic and boasted of its tightly knit family culture?" 

I don't recall anyone in any audience ever venturing to answer, so I always answered for them. And my answer was always the same: "because this island community is so Catholic and boasts of its tightly knit family culture."

I've laid this out in other posts, so I'll keep the explanation brief to get to my main story. In short, the Catholic culture in Guam traditionally holds an inordinate "respect" for the clerical offices. I've often heard that you must not say anything bad about the priest, even if it's true, or something bad will happen to you or your family. 

This unhealthy, even superstitious "respect" for the bishop and the priest was an open door for clerics to use and abuse hundreds of children, and, as the record now shows, so they did - not all, but many, and for decades. 

Many times, as I increasingly became the local face of the opposition to Guam's clerical abuse scandal, many would quietly tell me of their abuse at the hands of a cleric. And just as quietly, they would tell me how their parent or grandparent would slap their face for speaking of it.

Recently, my friend, Lester Gonzales, who grew up in Guam, wrote about the abuse that he suffered both at the hands of his pastor and his parents:

After being serially sexually molested as a teen by his pastor, Lester went to his parents for help:

I didn’t tell anyone at first. I didn’t have the words. I didn’t know if anyone would believe me. Eventually I found the courage to tell my parents. My father told me not to tell anyone, for fear of his embarrassment and that people would talk. My mother quietly suggested I leave. Just quit and walk away. So I did.

And then one day my father said it. “You should forgive and forget.” I stormed out of the house and drove away. That was the moment I understood something clearly, I was completely alone in this. My father allowed it to happen. 

Lester's story is the constant story I've been hearing for years from so many, and it has caused me to be even angrier at these victims' parents than at the pastors who molested, raped, and otherwise mutilated the minds, bodies, and souls of so many innocent young people.

As horrible as clerical sex abuse of our young is, it was not only allowed to happen but even encouraged by parents who would rather curry the favor of the powerful than protect their own children.

Today's Pacific Daily News tells an all-too-familiar story about another family who preferred their minor daughter remain a sex slave than lose the favor of a police officer. The story is copied here in part (emphases added):

A Guam Police Department sergeant was taken into federal custody Monday and faces charges of sex trafficking a minor, following an FBI investigation that alleges he knowingly recruited, harbored, transported and solicited a girl under the age of 18 for commercial sex acts from Jan. 1, 2024, through July 31, 2025.

According to a federal affidavit filed Monday, the girl reported to GPD officers on July 26, 2025, that she was sexually assaulted by Santos.

Police and FBI documents state the girl told authorities the abuse began around February 2017, when she was about 7 or 8.

The girl told police on July 29, 2025, that she wanted to withdraw her complaint and said she fabricated the allegation out of anger and for attention. A similar complaint and recantation occurred in January 2025.

The girl told a relative that another family member instructed her to recant, warning that Santos would stop helping the family financially if prosecuted. The girl maintained that the assault occurred, but changed her story under pressure.

Pressure from whom? Her family, just like so many victims who told me their stories of clergy sex abuse. This is the so-called "tight-knit family" at work: apparently, it is better to let your child be raped, abused, and molested than to bring shame or disfavor from the powerful upon your family. 

The police officer, the abuser in this case, should be prosecuted and punished accordingly, but so should the girl's family members who enabled the abuse and even told the girl to lie (recant) to protect whatever favors they were receiving from the police officer. 

Maybe...maybe, someday, Guam's parents will stop sucking up to the powerful at the expense of their own children. 

THE PECORELLI LIST

By Tim Rohr

An anonymous commenter recently shared this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmine_Pecorelli

Italian journalist alledgedly killed for revealing names of Masons in the Vatican 

I share this because many Catholics, including Catholic politicians running for the office of the governor, are either unaware that the Catholic Church prohibits membership in Freemasonry, or choose to ignore the prohibition, as demonstrated in several posts on this blog involving a debate mostly between Frenchie and a Catholic defending Freemasonry:

Thursday, November 6, 2025

UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM WITH FREE MASONS

Monday, November 10, 2025

ANALYSING A TROPHY PICTURE

Saturday, November 15, 2025

WHY CAN'T A CATHOLIC BE A FREEMASON? FR. MITCH PACWA SJ EXPLAINS

Sunday, November 16, 2025

ON THE IRRECONCILABILITY BETWEEN CHRISTIAN FAITH AND FREEMASONRY

Sunday, November 23, 2025

CONSCIENCE IS NOT PRIVATE JUDGMENT

Thursday, December 4, 2025

NEEDED CLARIFICATION ABOUT DEFLECTION AND DENIAL.

Copied here is the relevant section of the Wikepedia article:

The Pecorelli list: Freemasonry and the Vatican

In the weekly publication he edited, Osservatore Politico, on 12 September 1978, Pecorelli released an edition entitled La Gran Loggia Vaticana (The Vatican Grand Lodge).[5] Within this he published a list of 121 names of Vatican personnel, including prominent Cardinals, Bishops, priests and laymen supposedly belonging to Freemasonry.[6][7] The implication was that there had been a Masonic infiltration of key positions in the Vatican.

Each entry on the list included a supposed membership number and an alleged Masonic code name. Some of the most prominent individuals listed included Cardinals Jean-Marie Villot, Sebastiano Baggio, Agostino Casaroli, Augustin Bea, Leo Joseph Suenens, Ugo Poletti, Salvatore Pappalardo and Michele Pellegrino, Archbishops Annibale Bugnini, Luigi Dadaglio and Pasquale Macchi, Bishop Paul Marcinkus (President of the Vatican Bank) and Mons. Virgilio Noè[5] Although called popularly the “Pecorelli list” and mostly featuring the names of Italian clergymen, the origin of the list was first found in the French publication Bulletin de l'Occident Chrétien Nr.12, published in July 1976 in an article authored by Pierre Fautrad a Fye.[8] This list was subsequently published on 10 August 1976 in Panorama, an Italian magazine, before it was picked up two years later by Pecorelli.[9]

Regardless, the list has been reprinted numerous times, particularly in traditionalist Catholic circles, as supposed evidence to “prove” a Masonic compromise of the Vatican. Some of these themes were reconsidered by British journalist, David Yallop for his 1984 work, In God's Name, featuring a conspiracy theory about John Paul I's death.[10] This list itself was published a mere 16 days before the death of John Paul I, and according to his sister, Rosita Pecorelli, the dossier with a list of names was given to the Pope about the "unfaithful" figures in the Vatican, just before his mysterious death and that the Pope in Rome was planning to take action against the names provided.[11] Some traditionalists such as Roberto de Mattei, while being open to the idea of Masonic infiltration, have encouraged a cautious approach to the Pecorelli list, given that Pecorelli was himself a P2 Lodge member and could have been "spreading disinformation or documents that are both true and false" to "muddy the waters".[12]

IMPRISONED PRIEST BACKS APURON

By Tim Rohr

A commenter, Rodney, recently shared a link to a post by Fr. Gordon MacRae titled "The Eighth Commandment Has a Day of Reckoning on the Island of Guam."

First, I feel bad for Fr. MacRae. He has been in prison since 1994 for "raping a boy ten years prior, and pleaded guilty to having assaulted three other boys in 1983." [SOURCE] I say I feel bad for him because he believes he is falsely accused, and may very well be. 

I have personal experience with false accusations. A close friend of mine was falsely accused of rape. There were six witnesses who testified that there was no rape. The police rape kit came back negative. However, my friend was doomed by his own lawyer and was sentenced to prison for four years. 

I was also doomed by my own lawyer after I was accused of sexual abuse. My lawyer did not allow me to defend myself. I trusted my lawyer. I lost my children. I eventually got rid of that lawyer and won my case on my own, but the harm to my children is irreparable.

So, I understand the harm of false accusations. But back to MacRae, the fact that he pled guilty doesn't help much. Nevertheless, I wish him the best. 

Meanwhile, though, MacRae isn't doing himself any favors by backing Apuron, especially since it appears his sole source of information is DIANA, the neocat blogger, who, if anyone can be credited for bringing down the Reign of Apuron, it's DIANA. 

DIANA singlehandedly kept the animosity going in this archdiocese long after the Fr. Paul thing had faded. Without DIANA, I would have had nothing to blog about for quite a while. Eventually, it was the back-and-forth between JungleWatch and DIANA that sparked the lay movement that ultimately organized and forced the Vatican to pay attention. And it was the Vatican that took out Apuron, not the media or the justice system or even "Tim Rohr and his associates," as Apuron's bunglers tried to frame me.

In his post, MacRae republishes a piece he wrote about Apuron in 2017. The post is full of errors, but then again, he had DIANA as his source. One of those errors is the following statement:

Cardinal Raymond Burke was sent by the Vatican to investigate the case, but reportedly some of the accusers had declined to answer any questions while waiting for the Church’s ATM to open.

The reference to "the Church's ATM" is MacRae's sarcastic characterization of the law (P.L. 33-187) lifting the civil statute of limitations on sex crimes against minors, which opened the door for the many lawsuits that ensued. MacRae implies that some of the accusers refused to talk to Burke because they were only interested in money. 

However, the Burke investigation commenced in February 2017. The aforesaid law was enacted in September 2016. So, the so-called ATM was already open. In fact, it was the uproar around this legislation that forced Rome to pay attention and finally send Burke to Guam.

MacRae is also wrong about the accusers declining to answer questions. 

First, let's define "accusers." At the time, only three were publicly known: Roy Quintanilla, Walter Denton, and Roland Sondia. All three were represented by Attorney David Lujan. Lujan did not want to compromise his civil case by allowing his clients to speak with Burke. It's called "client control." And from Lujan's civil suit perspective, Burke was an outside lawyer intruding on Lujan's business.

However, in the end, all three spoke with Burke and answered his questions. I know this because, unlike MacRae, who can only claim knowledge of these events "reportedly," I was the one who went to Lujan and told him why he had to let his clients speak with Burke. 

I implored Lujan to do so on the grounds that the most he, Lujan, could do was sue Apuron for money. He couldn't prove him guilty (liable and guilty are not the same thing), and he couldn't get him removed as archbishop. Only the Vatican could do that, and Burke was the Vatican. 

Lujan didn't tell me his decision, but I later heard from the accusers themselves that they had met with Burke and answered his questions. By the way, it wasn't just Burke at these interviews. Apuron's canonical counsel was also present and asked his own questions.

MacRae, by stating that some of the accusers declined to answer Burke's questions, implies that Burke presented insufficient evidence to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is the Vatican body that tried Apuron and found him guilty. By implying this, MacRae is implying that both Burke and the CDF were either negligent or malicious.

That's absolutely false. In fact, at the time, the Vatican did not have a procedure for prosecuting bishops for sex crimes, only priests. The Apuron case posed a challenge for the CDF and for Pope Francis, who would ultimately deny Apuron his appeal. It was a case that the Vatican did not want; and, but for the pictures in the news of those pesky lay people picketing in front of the Cathedral in Agana every Sunday morning for over a year, they might very well have let it go.

The Vatican had to construct the procedures to try a bishop for the sex abuse of minors. In fact, you might say that the Apuron case not only made history, but it also created a new section in canon law: the judicial procedures used by the Vatican to prosecute Apuron (and find him guilty) were eventually codified by Pope Francis in the document “VOS ESTIS LUX MUNDI," which was promulgated in May 2019, one month after Apuron's appeal was formally denied and the verdict declared as "final."

MacRae needs to be reminded that 1) Cardinal Raymond Burke was the top lawyer in the Vatican at the time, which is why Pope Francis assigned him to investigate; 2) that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the body which found Apuron guilty, is the Church's most powerful Congregation; and 3) that after Apuron appealed the initial guilty verdict, Pope Francis himself oversaw the appeal and upheld the guilty verdict. 

So does MacRae want to rely on DIANA instead of Cardinal Burke, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Pope himself? Apparently, he does, because he attached an addendum to his 2017 statement, arguing for Apuron's innocence based on the dismissal of the cases on May 7, 2025:

"Nine civil cases in the U.S. District Court of Guam were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice via stipulations filed by the plaintiffs’ attorneys...This is a significant legal development in the civil realm for Apuron.  After nearly a decade of litigation involving serious allegations, the plaintiffs (through counsel) chose to drop all nine cases permanently without extracting any payment or concession.  That outcome is unusual in high-profile clergy abuse litigation and lends weight to Apuron’s (and his supporters’) narrative that the claims lacked sufficient merit to proceed to judgment or settlement on plaintiffs’ terms." 

As already set out at the time, the plaintiffs dropped their cases because Apuron had no assets to sue for. This was never a criminal case, like MacRae's. It was always and only about civil liability. Additionally, Lujan had taken the cases on contingency, meaning payment for legal services would be a percentage of the awarded amount. And since, by 2025, Apuron had no assets to sue for, meaning there would be no "awarded amount," Lujan, like any lawyer who is not going to get paid, dropped the cases. 

The smoking gun, i.e., the real argument against Apuron's innocence, is not the Vatican verdict, but that Apuron himself and his civil attorney never pursued his "day in court." From the outset, Apuron claimed innocence and that he would prove it when he had his "day in court."

"Attorney: Apuron wants his ‘day in court,'" the headlines of the Guam Daily Post read on August 8, 2017. 

However, Apuron never had his day in court. Why? Because HE DID NOT WANT his day in court. 

After the Vatican found Apuron guilty, denied his appeal, and declared the verdict final, the only path for Apuron to prove his innocence was a civil trial, i.e., "his day in court." Additionally, Apuron had (and still has) one of the best lawyers in Guam, who appears to have been pro bono for the last ten years. Everything was in Apuron's favor.

Apuron's "day in court" could have been a slam-dunk. The allegations against Apuron were more than forty years old, and there were no witnesses. His high-powered lawyer could have taken these guys apart on the stand. Apuron would have remained archbishop; the archdiocese would never have had to suffer bankruptcy, and the Neocatechumenal Way would be running Guam - everything Apuron and his lawyer wanted. 

But they didn't even try. Instead, ten years of stalling, stalling, and stalling. 

Sorry, Fr. MacRae, but you're wrong. If "the claims lacked sufficient merit to proceed to judgment or settlement," as you say, then for ten long years, Apuron had his chance to prove his innocence and even countersue. He had ten years to have his "day in court." He never tried. In fact, he avoided it. There was a reason. There still is.

P.S. I hope you prove your innocence and get out of prison. But here's a tip: don't count on DIANA. 

Courage! 

DEAD BABIES BE DAMNED

By Tim Rohr

This post is a postlude to the post PUBLIC LAW 20-134 IS REPEALED. 

Had Ada and Apuron not co-opted Belle's Bill, Ada, to advance Guam self-determination, and Apuron, mostly to advance himself, the 20th Guam Legislature might have had a reasonable debate over constitutionality, and the bill may have been amended to more closely match Webster (Arriola's inspiration for her legislation). 

There is no telling how many unborn lives might have been saved had Ada and Apuron not co-opted the bill and forced a vote. After Ada made it about self-determination and no senator wanted to be against self-determination, and Apuron made it about excommunication, and no senator wanted to be excommunicated, any hope of a healthy debate and an even healthier amendment process went out the window. 

A successful pro-life bill, following closely on the heels of Webster, would have immediately paved the way - as it did in the states - for evermore incremental pro-life legislation that did not violate Roe, which is all we could hope for in those days. In fact, the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe in 2022, was a direct result of decades of such incremental legislation, such as bans on partial-birth abortion, informed consent for abortion, and born-alive laws. 

But because Ada and Apuron saw an opportunity to advance political and personal agendas, the flawed bill was never amended. And, for forty years, it has not only cost Guam taxpayers millions of dollars in litigation, but, due to the chilling effect of the litigation on future pro-life efforts, for the next 40 years, it has also cost the lives of tens of thousands of unborn Guamanian children. 

Note: In 1990, Sen. Arriola estimated that there were 600 abortions per year in Guam. 40 x 600 = 24,000. The abortion numbers only began to decline after The Esperansa Project, in 2008, began shepherding through the legislature several pro-life measures, eight of which became law by 2015, leading to the closure of Guam's last abortion clinic in 2018. Today, no physician in Guam will perform an abortion.

The conclusion is not that Belle's Bill was bad. It wasn't. It was good. And it was introduced in response to similar legislation that had already survived judicial and constitutional muster (Webster). So, as I told the Supreme Court of Guam in July 2023, in arguing against the governor's position that Belle's Law was "void ab initio," Belle's Law "had a shot."

Where to now?

In the previous post, a commenter left the following comment:

AnonymousJune 16, 2026 at 1:50 PM

Because of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, Belle's Law, PL 20-134, can be reintroduced in the Legislature and have it signed by the governor and it becomes the law of the land for Guam only. If the governor vetoes it, which we can expect since she is pro-abortion to the core, let's hope it can be overridden in tbe Legislature. Then we will see who truly supports life of the unborn.

I agree with this. However, it would be best to clean up PL 20-134 by deleting the last two sections of the law, one that bans solicitation for abortion, which creates free speech questions, and the other requiring a referendum. Both are unnecessary and have only added to the trouble from the outset.

Whether or not any senator would do this, now or ever, is doubtful, and precisely because, as the commenter states, "Then we will see who truly supports life of the unborn." 

They don't want us to know. And, in fact, it really doesn't matter to them. It's not an issue worth bothering with. There are no consequences to Catholic politicians who support abortion, quietly or loudly. 

Archbishop Jimenez recently demonstrated his support for pro-abortion politicians when he interrupted the funeral Mass for Fr. Mike Crisostomo, left the sanctuary, and marched over to Lou and Josh to give them his personal welcome. 

In the middle of the funeral! 

On another occasion, after blessing Josh's campaign headquarters, he stood on Route 1 and publicly campaigned for the most pro-abortion ticket on the ballot.

So why should we expect any politician, Catholic or otherwise, to care? Dead babies be damned.

PUBLIC LAW 20-134 IS REPEALED

By Tim Rohr

It never fails to amaze me, with every election, how the abortion question makes candidates suddenly stupid. They fumble around between "I'm personally pro-life, but..." to "better healthcare for women..." etc., etc., etc. 

Note to candidates. Here's how to answer any question about your position on abortion:

Do you have legislation in mind? If so, I would not be able to tell you my position until I see the legislation, because even if I am pro-life, I would not support a pro-life bill if it were unconstitutional on its face. Such a bill could be very costly to the people of Guam, and in the end, not only do nothing to protect the unborn, but it could endanger the unborn even further.

You can stop here, but if you are so inclined to give a history lesson, I provide the following; 

Case in point: As history has shown, and is still showing, 36 years after it was enacted, the people of Guam are still paying the legal bills for Public Law 20-13. And, as history has also shown, because of the legal mess that followed the law's enactment, the abortion industry in Guam ran rampant and unregulated for the next 30 years* because no legislator in Guam dared to touch the issue.

So show me your legislation, and after I review it, I'll give you my position on your bill. 

*P.L. 20-134 was enacted in 1990. No attempt was made to legislatively regulate abortion until 2008, when The Esperansa Project backed a ban on partial-birth abortion.  Given the 600 abortions annually, estimated by the bill's author, the late Senator Elizabeth Arriola, we can estimate that, in those 28 years, 16,800 children in the womb were aborted. The Esperansa Project backed several more pro-life measures over the next 8 years, 8 of which became law. In 2018, the last abortion clinic closed its doors, and no doctor in Guam is willing to do them. The only abortions occurring in Guam are chemical abortions, and Lou and Jayne had to recruit two doctors from Hawaii to get licensed in Guam to "do" them via "telemedicine" and mail order baby-killer pills.

But back to the abortion question making candidates stupid. Imagine being asked if you, a candidate for political office, favor raising the speed limit on Route 1, given that most drivers exceed it anyway, and you answer: "I personally support the current speed limit, but it's not my place to tell people what to do with their cars." Stupid stuff like that. Apply it to just about every other question, and answering "I personally ...anything" sounds like absolute idiocy, because it is. 

Now, regarding P.L. 20-134, "Belle's Law." The real problem with the law wasn't that it was unconstitutional, even if it was. Legislation that challenges judicial precedent, even on constitutional matters, is how the laws develop. This is exactly how Roe v Wade became the law of the land, and it is also how Dobbs v Jackson overturned it. 

In 1989, given the recent judicial precedent in Webster v Reproductive Health Services, Arriola believed there was an opening to constitutionally challenge Roe (as Webster had done). (Read more about that here.)

The legislation went off the rails when it was co-opted by then-Governor Joseph Ada and then-Archbishop Anthony Apuron as a platform to advance Chamorro self-determination.

As Vivian Dames observed:

"Once the governor resolved to defend Guam’s ban on abortion against a common foe of Chamorro self-determination, namely, the U.S. Constitution, then the politics of abortion and the commonwealth quest became irrevocably entangled."  - Vivian Loyola Dames in Asian/Pacific Women, A Historical Anthology (2003) edited by Shirley Hune, Gail M. Nomura, Pg. 366

Apuron then jumped on the self-determination bandwagon:

"If you do not know anything about Chamorros and about our struggles, you will miss the point about our decision to protect life…We are proposing a simple idea. We choose to exercise self-determination in the moral imperative even as we pursue self-determination in the political arena." - Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, Ibid, Pg. 365.

Apuron then went further, threatening to excommunicate any senator who did not vote for the bill. At this point, it appears the lawmakers threw up their hands and said, "What the hell," and passed it. They knew the bill was unconstitutional and that the law would be enjoined the minute it was enacted. So why not just vote for it, avoid being labeled as a heretic, and the shame of public excommunication, and let the bill die on its own? 

They were right. The pro-aborts immediately filed a lawsuit, and the District Court enjoined the law. Ada et al. pursued the matter all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case, leaving the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in place:

"Guam contends that the substantive due process guarantee enforced in Roe v. Wade and subsequent abortion cases does not apply to Guam because nothing in Guam's Organic Act, codified at 48 U.S.C. § 1421-1424b (1988), so provides...We can scarcely imagine, however, any clearer indication of intent than the language of the Mink Amendment: the relevant constitutional amendments "have the same force and effect" in Guam as in a state of the United States. There is no need, therefore, to go further...Accordingly, we hold that Roe v. Wade applies to Guam as it applies to the states." - Guam Society of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 962 F.2d 1366, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992) 

The late Senator Ben Pangelinan, during an argument in 2010 over The Esperansa Project-backed legislation requiring informed consent for abortion, estimated the cost to Guam taxpayers for Belle's Law to be several million dollars. Recently, that amount has increased as the current Attorney General has sought to remove the 1990 injunction on P.L. 20-134 on the basis that the Dobbs decision has eliminated Roe, which was the basis for the injunction. 

AG Moylan's job is to enforce the laws of Guam, and, amazingly, P.L. 20-134 remains in the Guam Code, albeit enjoined. Whether Moylan is pro-life or not is not the issue. The law exists, and despite the ridiculous "declaratory judgment" (2023) declaring it "repealed by implication," it is still on the books.

Once again, this is a demonstration of how the abortion issue makes politicians stupid. There is no need to be fighting over this law nearly 40 years later and spending so much money on it. All that needs to happen to end this insanity is for a single lawmaker to introduce a one-sentence bill that reads: "Public Law 20-134 is repealed." And then, if that senator or any senator wants to do the right thing, he or she can introduce a cleaned-up version of Belle's Law, which, in the light of Dobbs, would not have the constitutional challenges from 1990. 

But apparently no one, for forty years, has been smart enough to do it. Either that, or they're scared to do it. Meanwhile, we pay and pay and pay.

ELIZABETH ARRIOLA FOR GOVERNOR

 By Tim Rohr

Today, the Pacific Daily News published the story "Gubernatorial teams share views on abortion, schools at forum." Let's take a look at the candidates' views on abortion. 

However, first, there is the question of why abortion was even a question. Currently, there is no legislation before the legislature either for or against abortion; there is not even a proposal of legislation, nor does it appear that abortion will be a legislative issue in the foreseeable future. There aren't even any doctors in Guam who will perform them. So why was this a question?

The forum says it all: The Women's Chamber of Commerce," a group founded by the now-Governor Lou Leon Guerrero, Guam's most famous and most radical abortion proponent, and most of the Women's Chamber is in the boat with her.

Usually, when abortion is brought up in a campaign, it's a pro-life group that's behind it, like The Esperansa Project was for several years. In fact, since I was one of the founders of The Esperansa Project, I get asked, almost every campaign season, for my thoughts on the candidates relative to the abortion issue. My most recent reply was "abortion is not an issue in this campaign," and it isn't.

But apparently, for the Women's Chamber, it is. The question was asked because the Women's Chamber wants to know which candidate will be the most aggressive in advancing greater access to abortion in Guam. 

Since the last abortionist in Guam closed up shop in 2018, the same year "Lou" began her run for governor, the pro-aborts have been vicious about restoring unlimited and unregulated access to abortion. As soon as Lou got elected, she placed Jayne Flores at the head of the Bureau of Women's Affairs, and from all the evidence, Jayne had one job: get those abortion numbers up.

At first, Jayne tried to entice Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, to set up a clinic in Guam. In an email to Deborah Nucatola, MD, the medical director for Planned Parenthood in Hawaii, dated June 25, 2019, Jayne wrote:

"Hafa Adai Deborah...we are in need of abortion services…We are currently trying to quietly survey clinics on Guam that would allow visiting physicians to perform surgical abortions. Another option, if PP wanted to open a clinic here, is that we do have a medical clinic that recently closed. Would there be a possibility that PP would be interested in leasing this space to set up its own clinic?"

Jayne then went on to add:

"I would describe the atmosphere on our island, with its 165,000 population that is majority Catholic, as initially hostile toward this issue. However, over half of the voting public cast ballots in favor of our first female governor…despite her openly pro-choice stance. So there is hope."

(The full email string can be accessed here.)

So "there is hope!" Yes, there is hope that with the election of Lou Leon Guerrero, the people of Guam might continue their genocidal slaughter of their own children, as the following graph demonstrates:

(Copies of the official abortion reports are here.) 

It would be funny if it weren't so sad. The loudest pro-aborts in Guam are also the loudest advocates for preserving the Chamorro (old spelling used on purpose) language and culture, etc. How do you do that without succeeding generations? As the late Senator Elizabeth Arriola said during a debate over her now famous "Belle's Law:"

"Let me tell you, at the rate Guam Memorial Hospital is aborting children, between 400-600 a year, and most of them are not even reported. Where are the lives that we are going to protect and preserve? Here we go talking about indigenous rights and self-determination. What good is all that if we don't have our followers to follow and enjoy the fruits of our labor, of this generation's labor, of your labor and my labor to fix this island and have autonomous rights to govern our people?"

By the way, before going on to analyze the candidates' responses, Lou and Jayne, in their lust to abort more Guam babies, would fabricate the events that set up the ACLU lawsuit in 2021. In other words, Lou and Jayne were behind the lawsuit, which effectively amounted to us suing ourselves. Read more here.

So, the Women's Chamber is just continuing the Lou and Jayne agenda, and now that Lou, Guam's abortion queen, is coming to the end of her reign, the Women's Chamber, Lou's creation, wants assurance that women, particularly Chamorro women (given the data), can continue aborting their babies. Thus, the abortion question at this forum.

The PDN article begins: "Across a two-hour panel at the Crowne Plaza in Tumon, the teams addressed reproductive health care..."

Seriously, is there any other area in the practice of medicine where the direct killing of a human being is called "health care?" In fact, can the direct killing of a human being even be labeled "the practice of medicine?" The fact that the pro-aborts cannot call it what it is should tell us everything we need to know.

Joe San Agustin and Dwayne San Nicolas

Former senator and school counselor Dwayne San Nicolas, running for lieutenant governor with Sen. Joe San Agustin, said their team supports protecting personal decision-making while maintaining a pro-life stance.

“Every election, we always struggle with these questions about abortion and women’s rights,” he said, further telling the audience that as a former school counselor he listened to girls who have gone through sexual trauma.

“Joe and I are both pro-life, but we want to protect your right to make that decision for yourself,” he said.

San Nicolas described abortion as an experience that can have long-lasting emotional effects on women and stated that its impact may continue for many years afterward. He said the ticket would “do whatever we can to be compassionate, and you know, provide the necessary programs to assist our women in that regard.”

This is the old "I'm personally pro-life, but..." argument, originally made infamous by the late Mario Cuomo, the former mayor of New York, and since championed by more famous Catholic politicians such as Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi. 

It's usually followed by some statement of compassion and assurances to better "assist women, "just as San Nicolas does here. It's interesting that San Agustin let San Nicolas do the talking on this. San Agustin is a big shot at the Yigo church and appears to have his pastor's protection. Of course, that's the real problem. But we'll address that another time.

Therese Terlaje and Sabina Perez

Sen. Therese Terlaje, who is running for governor with Sen. Sabina Perez, focused on access to reproductive health services and medical infrastructure gaps.

According to sworn testimony from career nurses and a former acting chief public health officer at the Department of Public Health and Social Services, Terlaje said that the prolonged closure of the Mangilao clinic significantly reduced access to health care services for pregnant women and children in Guam.

Terlaje said she fought hard to have Public Health’s Mangilao clinic, which closed in 2019, reopened.

She reminded voters that “while the Supreme Court of Guam, and Guam law currently allow access to abortion services here under very limited conditions, Guam law also contains some of the strictest provisions, including consultation, counseling, disclosure, and reporting requirements.”

Terlaje said her priority would be addressing the factors that can make pregnancy difficult for women and ensuring comprehensive support for children born on Guam, including the approximately 700 children in the foster care system. She referenced her legislative record of increasing financial, medical, housing, and transportation assistance for foster children and their families, strengthening protections for victims of criminal sexual conduct, and expanding drug rehabilitation programs and customs enforcement efforts.

Terlaje demonstrates here why she is the smartest of all the candidates: she doesn't address the issue of abortion at all, other than to say "Guam law...contains some of the strictest provisions." She's wrong here. She's referring to the informed consent law, which many other states have, and it's only "strict" if it's enforced. It's not. 

The law requires the counselor to submit a document called a "checklist certification" to the Records Section at GMH. The certification is proof that the woman seeking the abortion went through the required in-person counseling process. 

On February 6, 2025, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to Lillian Perez-Posadas, MN, RN, then the Administrator for Guam Memorial Hospital, the agency that includes the "Records Section," identified in the law requiring informed consent for abortion. I requested the "total number of checklist certifications" as required by 10GCA § 3218.1 (b)(5), for calendar year 2024. 

On March 6, 2025, Posadas replied: "GMHA is not in possession of any documents responsive to your request." Meanwhile, Vital Statistics at DPHHS reported that there were 36 abortions for the calendar year 2024. 36 abortions and 0 certifications. 

I followed up on the matter with the Attorney General. On March 23, 2025, the Guam Daily Post did a story about my efforts: "OAG asked to investigate 2 abortion doctors." At the end of the story, Attorney General Douglas Moylan is quoted as saying: “We will review and contact Mr. Rohr." Actually, I went to the Post with the story after two unsuccessful attempts to get a response from the AG: here and here. 

After the story of my attempts to get an answer appeared in the Post, I still had to file two more requests with the AG: here and here. A few weeks later, the AG finally called me. The answer was that GMH had refused to accept the certifications, and there was nothing the AG could do.

This was a sort of head-shaking moment for me. Raidoo and Kaneshiro, the two abortion doctors from Hawaii who had been recruited by Lou and Jayne to do chemical abortions via tele-appointments, with the help of the ACLU, had sued the AG (and others) to bypass the in-person consultation requirement. The fight went all the way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which means the fight was very costly), where the Court ruled against Raidoo, Kaneshiro, and the ACLU and preserved Guam's right to require in-person consultation prior to an abortion. 

After winning the expensive, two-year-long battle, I thought the AG might be interested in following up to see whether the law was actually being complied with. Oh well. 

By the way, in case you want to know Terlaje and Perez's real position on abortion, both Terlaje and Perez voted against Bill 291-36, a bill that would have prohibited abortion of an unborn child with a detectable fetal heartbeat.

The vote really says more than the vote. Everyone knew that Governor LG would veto the bill, which she did, and that it would come back to the legislature and die a quiet death, which it did. 

So voting "nay" really had no meaning other than to make a statement that, on principle, the "nay" voter believed that an unborn child has no right to life, even if the child has a detectable heartbeat, if the mother wants the child dead. So stop with the "healthcare" bullshit.

Frank Blas, Jr. and Mary Okada

Speaker Frank Blas Jr., speaking alongside running mate Mary Okada, told forum attendees that although he and Okada support “the sanctity of life,” their administration would not move to take away abortion rights while strengthening support systems around women.

“We also recognize that while we’re pro-life, it doesn’t mean taking away a woman’s dignity and right to choose,” he said.

Blas said their administration would focus on education, services and support so that women do not face decisions in fear or isolation.

“I think it is incumbent upon our administration, coming upon the government, to be able to provide the educational resources necessary to make those decisions,” he said. “To provide a strong supportive network, so that this decision doesn’t come out of fear, doesn’t come out of rhetoric, but comes out of the person’s decision, rightful decision, and recognizing what services are available, how to get the support, and to be a better person.”

Wow. I expected more of Frank, given his pro-life voting record. It would have been best for him to do as Terlaje did and steer clear of the question. The last paragraph would have done it. However, he began by saying that he and Okada "support 'the sanctity of life,'" but then goes  on to say that he "would not move to take away abortion rights..." 

This is another "I'm personally pro-life, but..." mumbling that Democrats are known for, except Frank is a Republican. Actually, no one cares what you or any other politician are "personally" for or against. What we care about is what you will DO if elected. So drop this "sanctity of life" bullshit. The translation, in case you need one, is that Blas and Okada support abortion. Man, now I don't know who I am going to vote for.

Tony Ada and E.J. Calvo

Vice Speaker Tony Ada, running for governor with businessman E.J. Calvo, framed his position in faith and legal compliance.

“I believe in the sanctity of life, and I believe every human life has value, including the unborn,” he said. “That belief is rooted in my faith and my family values. As governor, I will uphold and follow the law, while ensuring that women have access to legal health care services and accurate medical information.”

He said the issue is personal to him as the father of three daughters and a daughter-in-law, all of whom are young adults. He added that he wants women on Guam to have access to quality health care on the island so that families do not need to travel elsewhere for medical services that could be provided locally.

Ada said his administration would focus on “improving health care access, expanding maternal and prenatal care, supporting adoption services, strengthening family support programs, and ensuring women have access to legal contraception and reproductive health information.”

Calvo tied their approach to legal standards and social supports.

“Regarding abortion, we will respect the law while focusing on policies that help women choose life by making sure they’re not forced into difficult decisions because of financial hardship, lack of health care, or lack of support,” he said.

He said their administration’s approach will be centered on compassion, respect, and practical solutions.

“We may not all agree on this issue, but I believe we can agree that fewer unintended pregnancies, healthier, healthier mothers, stronger families, and better outcomes for children should be what we all share,” Calvo said.

This is pathetic. More "sanctity of life" bullshit. The "we will respect the law" means Ada and Calvo are just fine with abortion "at any time after the commencement of pregnancy," which means up to full term and to the time of delivery. 

Under 9 GCA 31.20, and since 1978, abortion is legal in Guam "at any time after the commencement of pregnancy the physician reasonably determines using all available means that there is a substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother." 

This is the usual language, since Roe v Wade, used to support abortion for any reason and at any time, and it is still very legal in Guam.  Apparently, Ada and Calvo are just fine with that.

Joshua Tenorio and Tina Muna-Barnes

Sen. Tina Muña-Barnes, running for lieutenant governor with Lt. Gov. Josh Tenorio, who is running for governor, said she supports reproductive autonomy while personally opposing abortion.

“A long time ago, when I was 17 and unwed, I had to make the hard choice, and I chose life,” she said. “I will always choose life, but I believe that the government has no business making that choice for others.”

She said decisions about reproductive health care should remain personal and supported through medical, social and family systems.

Tenorio warned that reproductive rights face political pressure nationally.

“These rights are under fire right now, the most violent way we’ve ever seen in the nation,” he said.

He mentioned a Medicaid waiver set to take effect on July 1 that will allow Medicaid to cover doula services. He also said his administration is focused on supporting women in recovery, particularly those preparing to reunite with their children, through housing assistance and long-term support services designed to help them overcome challenges and achieve stability.

Barnes stoops to the "I'm pro-life, but..." thing, saying "I will always choose life, but I believe that the government has no business making that choice for others." Of course, with that logic, we should make paying taxes voluntary as well. What business does the government have making choices for any of us? Right? 

Tenorio, however, makes no concessions. While he steers away from outright saying "let's kill more babies," there is no question that if you want Planned Parenthood to set up shop in Guam, then Tenorio is your man, which, given his political lineage, should be no surprise. 

Tenorio is also on record going to bat for abortion in Guam, when, in 2023, as one of 18 Democratic Lieutenant Governors, he signed a statement defending access to chemical abortions. 

So, there you have it. This supposedly "Catholic" island has not a single candidate for governor who would legislatively oppose killing children in the womb.

I think I'll write in "+Elizabeth Arriola" for governor.