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. 

PAGE VIEW UPDATE

 Nearly 600,000, and we aren't halfway through the month yet.

Most viewed post for last 30 days:

THE SHAM AND THE SCAM OF THE NEOCAT'S RMS - WORLDWIDE

By Tim Rohr

A very informed frequent commenter, otherwise known as "Rodney," left the following information via a comment. I am posting the comment here because it deserves its own post. Rodney's observations correlate with everything we have seen and experienced firsthand in Guam since the mid-1990s.

Rodney's comment:

The Redemptoris Mater Seminary (RMC) is a pipeline designed by the Neocatechumenal Way (NCW) leadership in connivance with certain bishops to control the personal lives of NCW priests for their own ends.

1. Isolation and Strategic Incardination

• Foreign Recruitment: Most seminarians entering the RMC are brought from outside the host country. They are entirely unfamiliar with the local culture, language, and social structures.

• Transitional Incardination: These foreign seminarians are ordained and incardinated by a local bishop. However, immediately after ordination, they are dispatched to entirely different countries for ministry.

• Untraceable Clergy: The whereabouts of these priests are frequently shrouded in mystery. Their names are often missing from official diocesan clergy directories. When they are listed, they are falsely recorded as serving at the local RMC, despite physically residing and working in another country.

2. Canonical Violations and Parallel Authority

• Bypassing Itinerancy Laws: Canon law strictly prohibits vagrant or itinerant clergy. The NCW circumvents this by legally binding a priest to one foreign diocese while moving them globally at the whim of the movement's leadership.

• Neglected Canonical Contracts: Under Canon law, when a diocesan priest is sent to serve in another diocese, the sending bishop must issue a formal written agreement (scriptum) to the receiving bishop detailing the contract terms. Evidence suggests this mandatory requirement is routinely ignored for NCW priests.

• The Dual Allegiance Conflict: NCW priests face a severe conflict of interest. While Canon 273 demands strict reverence and obedience to their Ordinary (the local bishop), these priests are functionally ruled by lay catechists and NCW itinerants.

• Infringement on Scrutinies: The NCW operates as a parallel power structure—a "church within a church." Lay catechists frequently exercise vetting power over a seminarian’s readiness for Holy Orders. This directly infringes upon Canon 241, which reserves the right of scrutiny exclusively to seminary rectors and bishops.

3. Deficient Formation and Systemic Vulnerability

• Segregated Training: By isolating seminarians within specialized NCW communities instead of integrating them into the broader diocesan presbyterate, the system breaches Canon 245. This canon mandates that seminary formation must prepare men for the common pastoral life of the local church.

• Lack of Awareness: Because these men do not attend standard diocesan seminaries, many remain completely unaware of universal canonical norms and their personal rights as rights-bearing clergy.

4. Financial and Psychological Exploitation

• Economic Dependency: NCW priests working abroad are left entirely at the mercy of lay catechists. They receive NO standard Mass stipends or the mandatory monthly sustenance allowance guaranteed to diocesan priests.

• Abuse of Public Confession: Priests who do become aware of these structural abuses are often too terrified to leave or report the matter. The NCW practice of public scrutiny and public confession means their personal sins and vulnerabilities are known to the community, leaving them highly susceptible to psychological pressure and blackmail.

• Episcopal Abdication: By participating in this system, local bishops effectively wash their hands of their administrative, spiritual, and financial responsibilities toward their diocesan priests, abandoning them to an unaccountable lay-led structure.

5. Institutional Compromise at the Vatican

• Systemic Oversight Failure: The Dicastery for the Clergy is fully aware of these global operational patterns due to the sheer volume of RMCs worldwide.

• A Blind Eye: By refusing to intervene or investigate these serious canonical delicts and clerical abuses, officials within the Vatican administrative apparatus have effectively surrendered their duties as institutional watchdogs, siding with the system rather than protecting vulnerable priests.

++++

Most of what Rodney says was documented in a 2016 Visitation Report to our own RMS.

NCW PROBLEMS IN NEW MEXICO

...and no surprise, the bishop is a Neocat from Malta. 

Neocatechumenal Way faces controversy in Catholic dioceses

The implementation of the Neocatechumenal Way is at the heart of a growing division in the Diocese of Las Cruces and linked to the removal of a priest from a Basilica in Mesilla.

Amidst suspicion and rumors that the integration of the Neocatechumenal Way is changing the traditional practices of the Roman Catholic faith locally, parishioners are asking what exactly it is and what it means for the Diocese of Las Cruces.

CONTINUED

...

The last part of the article is about similar problems in Guam

TWO DOCTRINAL DISTORTIONS OF THE NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY

By Tim Rohr

This is an excerpt of a presentation Chuck White recently gave to the Voice of the Laity in Las Cruces, New Mexico.  Here, Chuck presents two examples of the Neocatechumenal Way's problematic teaching. 

The full presentation may be viewed at Understanding the Neocatechumenal Way

CANONIZATIONS FOR KIKO AND CARMEN? DEVIL'S ADVOCATES WELCOME!

By Tim Rohr

It's been a while since JW broke ONE MILLION pageviews in a single month, but that's what happened in May.

 Of course, last month, April, wasn't too shabby either, with nearly 700,000 views. And for the last several months, JW has been registering close to 500,000 views. 

In case you're wondering what people are looking for or looking at. Here are the most viewed posts for the last 30 days:

The 2014 post about the removal of Msgr. James, as Rector of the Cathedral, is normally in the top ten every month. However, this is the first time this month's top story is the top story, even though it's a post from 11 years ago.

The only thing that I can think of that's driving this sort of traffic is the frantic Neocat push to get Carmen Hernandez canonized. Story here. 

It's easy to assume that the push is coming from Kiko himself, who, no doubt, is desirous of being similarly canonized, and quickly, upon his passing.

Such canonizations would seal the future for the Neocatechumenal Way as a major force in the Church for a very long time, as if it isn't already. 

But why would potential canonizations for either Carmen or Kiko be drawing such viewership to JW, especially since JW hasn't been exactly complimentary to them?

Well, that's probably exactly why. All canonization processes have a "devil's advocate," someone specifically tasked with uncovering dirt and challenging the canonization. 

And, as probably nowhere else in the world, the dirty inner workings of the thing that Kiko and Carmen created have been exposed here in Guam, the most significant of which is their devious protection and continued hiding of an archbishop found guilty of molesting minors by the Vatican itself. 

TEN YEARS AGO THIS MONTH - THE AGAT BOYS CAME TO LIFE

By Tim Rohr

In Part 1 of the series, JACKIE! NO SURPRISE, I referred to the Neocat Yona Property land grab as an attempt to "steal" the property from the archdiocese.

That's not entirely correct.

The Neocats knew Apuron's past and that lawsuits would be coming for him one day. And with how things were already unfolding in the States in those days (around 2000), with dioceses having to file for bankruptcy, the Neocats knew that The Yona Property, their seminary, would only be a matter of time before RMS would wind up on the judicial chopping block.

The only way to prevent that from happening was for Apuron to convey title to the property to an owner not legally associated with the archdiocese. This is why Apuron created (incorporated) a completely separate legal entity (RMS) on November 27, 2002, only a few days after he closed on The Yona Property on November 15, 2002. 

The trouble was how to transfer title to the property without our knowledge. 

As the record shows, the first thing was not to do it right away. Apuron would wait nine years. 

The second thing was to draft a conveyance document that did not look like one. So Apuron (and when I say "Apuron," I am always referring to Apuron and the Neocat leadership) came up with a document with the strange title of Declaration of Deed of Restriction, which, on its face, appeared to just restrict the use of the property to a Neocat seminary (but in fact, transferred title to RMS). *

The third thing to do was to record the document with the Government of Guam Department of Land Management without anyone (except for Apuron and the Neocats) knowing. Apuron would do this on November 22, 2011.

I've always been curious about this timing. What was happening in 2011 that suddenly moved Apuron and the Neocats to make this move after nine years?

While there had always been a low-level buzz about Apuron's sordid past ("The Agat Boys"), open accusations about this past were still three years away (when John Toves first went public). 

However, something happened in 2008 that probably triggered it. For the first time in the history of this archdiocese, a group of laypeople organized and publicly protested against their bishop.

The protest took place on April 20, 2008, in front of the Cathedral, during a major celebration attended by visiting bishops and cardinals. The Pacific Daily News reported:

Armed with signs and placards, a band of Catholics yesterday protested across from the Dulce Nombre de Maria Cathedral Basilica for what they believe is a dividing of Catholicism.

Group members said the protest was not against the Catholic church, but rather the Neocatechumenal Way movement, which they said members of the clergy and Archbishop Anthony Apuron were promoting.

The Neocatechumenal Way "has the ultimate goal of bringing the faithful gradually to the intimacy with Jesus Christ and to make them active members of the Church and credible witnesses of the Good News of the Savior everywhere," according to its Web site.

But Toto resident Lou Bamba said that a person must be invited to attend a Neocatechumenate gathering, whereas the Catholic church freely welcomes anyone.

Bamba said her understanding of the Neocatechumenal convocation is that the group brings non-practicing Catholics back into the church, and converts non-Catholics into believers.

"It's creating a major division in the Catholic church," Bamba said. "The archbishop is personally involved in this Neocatechumenal movement, ... and we feel that it is dividing the three main family institutions that make up the Catholic faith the clergy, parish and biological families."

The protest was a big embarrassment for Apuron, and I remember the look on his face when he saw the protestors as he and the visiting prelates processed into the Cathedral. The protestors stood immediately across the street from the Cathedral, holding large, visible signs. The look on Apuron's face was not one of embarrassment, but anger and revenge. And he would get it.

Ordinations at RMS were immediately ramped up; three years later, in 2011, he would secretly deed The Yona Property to the Neocats; in 2013, he would begin the hostile, public destruction of local clergy who stood in his way, starting with Fr. Paul and Msgr. James, and who knows what else he might have done if laypeople hadn't started banding together in what became the CCOG.

The ironic thing is, if Apuron hadn't started these wars (at the order of his Neocat handlers), the Catholics of Guam might have been content to let those stories about The Agat Boys remain just stories. 

Instead, those "stories," ten years ago this month, came to life in the persons of the real Agat Boys.

May 17, 2016    Man alleges archbishop molested him as a child

June 08, 2016    Former Agat altar boy accuses Guam's archbishop of rape

June 15, 2016  Another accuser comes forward with sexual abuse allegations against Guam's            archbishop

* “It is my opinion that, based on Guam statutes governing the interpretation of deeds and contracts, the property interest conveyed is an absolute conveyance of the entire fee simple title of the subject property to RMHF, subject to a restraint in use.” (Note: RMHF is Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, otherwise known as Redemptoris Mater Seminary.) - Jacques Bronze, Legal Opinion on Declaration of Deed of Restriction, May 13, 2015

KIKO AND CARMEN - THE REAL STORY

By Tim Rohr

For some reason, per our stats for the last 7 days, this 2015 post has many times more views than its nearest counterparts.

The post is based on information provided by the still mysterious "Frenchie." :)

 

LET'S SEE IF APURON AND THE NEOCATS TRY IT AGAIN

By Tim Rohr

The Guam Daily Post reported today that Apuron's personal attorney, Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, has filed a motion to dismiss the remaining civil suit against Apuron.

Per the Post: "The case, first filed in the federal court in 2019, alleged Apuron sexually assaulted a student when he was a minor in the 1990s." And also: "The stipulation indicates plaintiffs’s attorney Charles McDonald had agreed for the case to be dismissed with prejudice."

There were a total of 10 cases filed against Apuron, personally, each alleging sexual assault. Last May, upon both parties' agreement, nine of them were dismissed with prejudice, meaning the decision to dismiss would be final, and the same claim(s) can not be made again. 

As readers may remember, the dismissals in May provided an occasion for Apuron to put on a little song-and-dance via video, claiming the dismissals proved his innocence. The Post article recalls Apuon's "song and dance" as follows:

“Over the past decade, I have been unjustly condemned by the media and in the public opinion because of certain false accusations made against me. In silence, I have accepted this injustice out of love for Jesus Christ, praying for those who were doing evil against me,” said Apuron who further called the dismissals “evidence” of his innocence.

Fortunately, in this article, the Post also recalls the backlash from the new archbishop, which, my sources tell me, involved Vatican input:

In response to those initial dismissals and Apuron’s message, Archbishop Ryan Jimenez, following consultation with the diocese’s legal counsel, stated the dismissals did not “operate as an adjudication about the merits of a particular case, but is a mechanism that allows parties to a particular civil case to mutually agree to end that legal matter."

Jimenez additionally highlighted Apuron was found guilty of committing abuse against minors.

"That determination was made following a canonical investigation and penal trial conducted by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith in Rome. The determination led to the former bishop losing his rank and duties as the leader of the Catholic Church on Guam, as well as perpetual prohibition preventing him from returning to Guam or presenting himself with the insignia attached to the rank of bishop," Jimenez wrote.

"Nothing about that determination has changed," Jimenez added.

Apuron's song-and-dance last May was obviously choreographed by his handlers, the usual suspects. While Archbishop Jimenez handled it well, especially by first seeking counsel from the right authorities, if nothing else, the brazenness of Apuron's performance should be an absolute warning to Jimenez of just how committed Apuron's Neocat handlers are to thwarting every authority, including his.

Let's see if Apuron and the Neocats try it again.

THE "THEY" ARE STILL HERE

By Tim Rohr

In a Pacific Daily News Article dated November 15, 2016, Apuron, via the words of Carmelite Mother Superior, Mother Dawn Marie, spilled the beans and confirmed something most of us knew: that Apuron wasn’t running the archdiocese, that “Pius and they” were pulling all the strings. 

The article was titled: “Nun: We did not want to lie for Apuron, Sammut over Yona seminary property.” The article was about a lie Mother Dawn Marie had caught Apuron in. And, instead of joining in on the lie with Apuron - as he expected her to do - Mother Dawn called a press conference and told the whole story. 

You can read the whole story here. I want to focus on these words:

“Why did you send that letter indicating that we had donated that property and allowing for the deed of restriction when you know it was not true? He reacted, he said, ‘I’m not the one who did it. Pius and they did it. They framed the letter,'” the Carmelite mother said.

• The "He" in "He reacted" is Apuron
• "Pius" is Fr. Pius Sammut (aka Pius the Putrid or The Stinking Monk)
• "They"... well that's the important part. Apuron and Pius are gone. The "They" are still here. 

Pay attention. "If you see something, say something." 

THIRTY FIVE MEEEELLIONS AND MEEEEELLIONS!!!

By Tim Rohr

In THE MANY NAMES OF RMS, Anonymous asked further questions about how much RMS actually cost to run. Coincidentally, I found the answer soon after Anonymous asked the question. 

The question was answered by the RMS Board of Directors on Oct. 11, 2016, in their response to the Visitation Report of RMS of Sep. 12, 2016:

"Subsidy from the Archdiocese to the RMS and the Theological Institute has been an average of only 5% of the total budget."

Given that the average subsidy from the Archdiocese was $105,543 per year and accounted for only 5% of the budget, the annual budget to run RMS was $2,110,086. RMS ran for 17 years. 

The cost: $35,871,472. 

THIRTY FIVE "meeeellions and meeeeellions." !!!

And how many priests did that give us?

CATECHISM BE DAMNED

By Tim Rohr

It's truly hard to keep up with - and make sense of - what continues to pour forth from the so-called "Archdiocese of Agana." I say "so-called" because most everything that is officially said on archdiocesan letterhead continues to be from no one in particular and, at most, is attributed to a Director of Communications, who, by virtue of his job, is simply posting whatever he is being told to post. So it appears we have NO ONE running this diocese. So very unprofessional. 

The most recent posting is this:

As you can see, this Aviso, like most others, is authored by no one, but is...

Sent by Tony C. Diaz, Archdiocese of Agana Director of Communications, (671) 562-0065,

tony.diaz@archagana.org

This is just bad form. WHO is writing these things? Archbishop Jimenez...is it you? Could you please say so? Thanks.

But on to some of the points in this missive.

The first point is as follows:

• First, the archbishop has appointed Ms. Connie Shinohara as Executive Secretary to the Archbishop. She will serve on a voluntary basis effective May 17, 2026.

Before proceeding, today, this exact date, came to mind (my mind). Ten years ago, to the day, May 17, 2016, the first formal "Apuron accuser" stepped out onto an Agana street and accused Archbishop Apuron of sexually molesting him when he was an altar boy in Agat in the 1970's. 

You know the rest of the story. Not a good date to bring up in the history of the Archdiocese of Agana, but then, what does Jimenez know (or care) about our history...since he, most probably, is just passing through, a stepping stone to the Vatican - at least that is what more and more people are beginning to suspect. 

In case Jimenez needs a history lesson, here is what happened on May 17, 2016: 

Former Agat resident says archbishop molested him 40 years ago

Upon seeing the announcement about the appointment of Ms. Shinohara, apparently an unpaid volunteer, no less (see the announcement), Anonymous weighed in:

Anonymous

May 7, 2026 at 4:27 PM

Tim I fear you are on the right path about Archbishop Jimenez. This new appointing of Connie Jo Shinohara is very telling. Did the church’s stance on games of chance change? I don’t think owning House of Liberty game rooms and being Executive Assistant to the Archbishop go hand in hand.

I want you to know my response. And I'll tell you why after I post it:

Tim

May 7, 2026  at 5:06 PM

LOL. I didn't know that. I have nothing against Mrs. Shinohara. In fact, I support gaming and gambling, albeit within the strictures of the Catechism of the Catholic Church Par. 2413. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that Jimenez doesn't have a clue.

I don't think anybody knows this, but I originally "cut my teeth" standing up to Apuron, not over his sex abuse of minors, not over his mistreatment of Fr. Paul and Msgr. James, not over his secret alienation of the Yona Property, but over his abuse of us normal Catholics in the pews back in the days when he was triumphantly trying to make a name for himself amongst the protestant clergy by being their hero in their anti-gambling crusade. 

It's too far back to remember all the details, but Apuron, maybe (in hindsight), to recruit allies wherever he could, given his fear of ever being exposed, as he would be on May 17, 2016, became his own White Knight in his crusade against a proposal to bring gaming back to Guam. 

Apuron's campaign was intense. It was also a lie. From the pulpit, he forced pastors to read his letters proclaiming that gambling was a mortal sin. 

The Catholic Church does not teach this. The Catholic Church has never taught this. Here is, pursuant to my reference to the Catechism, what the Catholic Church magisterially teaches regarding "games of chance:"

2413 Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.

As anyone with a brain can see (you don't have to be Catholic), the Catholic Church, in the fullness of its wisdom, guided by the Holy Spirit, is ultimately pragmatic about "games of chance." But Apuron didn't care. The issue was making him a hero amongst the "born-agains." And since he was so openly despised by the majority of his own (for shamelessly raping their sons - as we would eventually learn), he used and abused his own by forcing his pastors, from the Sunday pulpits,  to make a new mortal sin out of gaming. 

I remember confronting one of these pastors with a copy of the Catechism opened to Paragraph 2413. He threw me out. No surprise. He was a Neocat. And Apuron, the Neocat rubber stamp, had to be protected at all costs. Catechism of the Catholic Church be damned. 

I'VE BEEN SHUT DOWN

By Tim Rohr

If you have been looking for me on Facebook or Instagram, my accounts have been shut down since the beginning of May. On May 4, I filed an appeal, but have heard nothing back despite several follow-ups. 

I can create a new account, but I want to wait a few more days. I've been on Facebook since 2009, have made over 40,000 posts, and have 1,600 friends. Additionally, I've created several groups and pages, which I manage. 

This sort of thing happens when someone files a complaint. It's happened before; however, my account was usually restored right away. Not this time. 

There are only two possibilities for the complaint: 1) My JungleWatch posts - specifically those about the NCW, which, as you can see from this blog, have been increasing in frequency and intensity as research for my book continues to unearth items I had forgotten about; and 2) my personal posts about parental alienation and parental estrangement. 

I can see why those posts would bother certain "readers." And I know people in both camps who want to silence me. 

We shall see what happens with Facebook. In the meantime, I would encourage you to check here on JungleWatch for updates, as well as my Substack.

Thank you for following. 17 Million page views and counting.