Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Challenging A Bishop's Authority

The following article was given by one of the commenters in the last entry post.  The Catholic Church was never a democracy, and the Bishop does have the right to move priests to another parish and even to remove him.  The division in Guam's Church is mainly in the clergy rather than the people.  Someone in the clergy is bringing the division to the people by leaking out information to the jungle.  Whatever problems the clergy has should be resolved between them.  It should never be brought to the people.  The bold in the article is mine. 
Bishop Liam Cary
Bend, Ore.  This story was updated Thursday, Feb. 27, 2014 at 7:38 a.m. central time.  Editor’s note: This is Part 3 of a five part series on the dispute between a pastor and his bishop in  St. Francis of Assisi Parish in Bend, Ore. Removed from his post last October, Fr. James Radloff filed an appeal, but his request was denied by the Vatican, as the Congregation for Clergy sided with Baker, Ore., Bishop Liam Cary. The Jan. 31 decision allows Cary to keep secret the reason for the ouster and permits a continued bar on Radloff’s public ministry. Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

Baker, Ore. Bishop Liam Cary's emphasis on the vow of obedience in his May 7, 2013 open letter to St. Francis of Assisi Parish in Bend, Ore. is viewed by many as a key to Fr. James Radloff's removal as pastor.

Petitions were circulated asking the bishop to back down on plans to transfer popular Spanish-speaking priest Fr. Juan Carlos Chiarinoti, a native Argentinian. In the letter, Cary admonished parishioners and Radloff for the petition effort.  He called it “out of place” and said it “thrust into public view matters that must be dealt with in private and whetted the appetite for an explanation that could not be forthcoming."

Cary also directly rebuked Radloff: "In launching this movement to pressure me to do what he wanted, your pastor made a very serious error of judgment. He actively recruited you to stand with him against your bishop. ... On the day of his ordination, a priest places his hands between those of the bishop and publicly promises 'respect and obedience' to him and his successors. ... To build up the unity of the Church, priests must be willing to walk the way of obedience; and a bishop must be able to count on his priests to be true to their promise."

In a 2007 interview then-Fr. Cary expanded on how critical it had been for him as a diocesan priest to be obedient to his ordinary. 

One priest who has known the bishop “for many years” and worked with him, said Cary and Radloff's understandings of obedience and priestly ministry “are about 179 degrees apart.”

The priest — who asked not to be named — feels Cary views a diocesan cleric's core work should be carrying out the bishop's vision of ministry and parish, and that a priest is first accountable to his ordinary. Radloff operates from a mandate of “serving the people of God to the best of his ability” and that is his “first line of allegiance.”

Fr. Leo Weckerle strikes a middle ground. “I know Fr. Radloff extremely well,” he said Feb. 21. “He is an extremely hard-working priest, a great priest, although he can be somewhat precocious at times and can think with his mouth, and that can get him into trouble.”

“It would be a great shame if his talent were to be wasted,” said the retired priest who resides in the small community of Terrebonne, Ore. and who has had his own run-ins with bishops in the past.  

“The bishop really is the pastor of all the people in the diocese,” added Weckerle, a former chancellor and judicial vicar of the diocese.  “It is up to the priest using his knowledge gained in the seminary and in private study to put all his talents toward … carrying out the vision of the bishop.  A priest cannot do his own thing outside the bishop's vision for the diocese. It is up to each one of us priests to adapt ourselves to the bishop. ….”

The bishop has spoken

In letters to the editor of Bend's major newspaper, The Bulletin, and in reader posts following NCR reports, some accuse Radloff of episcopal disobedience. 
Summarizing some of these views, one parishioner told NCR: “So many Catholics here do not understand that the church is not a democracy and they certainly don't understand that we accept whatever comes our way cheerfully and with humble obedience. My comment will fall on deaf ears of those who want their way no matter what. … I would hope that they will receive the grace to forgive and just let go. That is what I am praying for. Those who have already accepted what has happened want to move on and make our parish a positive, welcoming, loving, and helpful place.”

Mentioned multiple times as “a major actor in the present drama,” in the words of one parishioner, John Henchman might echo those thoughts.

A parish council member and “longtime pillar of the parish,” in the words of another parishioner, Henchman told NCR on Feb. 8 that he did not want to comment, but he did say, “The bishop had every right to make his decision,” and indicated it should be accepted and respected.

Thirty-year parishioner Ken Roberts seems to agree: “We have no idea what prompted the decision but believe it had been brewing for quite some time and not done rashly. My take is that a lot of the people are still upset, not so much about Radloff’s removal but the manner in which it was done and the bishop’s seeming unwillingness for any kind of reconciliation or any public explanation of his decision.”

Many do not accept at face value Cary's insistence that he refuses to divulge the reasons for Radloff's removal to protect “the right to privacy of all involved parties,” as he wrote in his letter to parishioners attending Feb. 15-16 Masses.
Some say the language rings reminiscent of statements used by church officials to cover up clergy sexual abuse. 

Said one parishioner, “I understand the bishop is the bishop and all that, but my generation is not going to just follow blindly.”

While Radloff did take a vow of obedience, the priest did not break that vow by appealing the bishop's decision “to a higher authority because the priest believes the order to be wrong,” wrote Radloff's canonical adviser, Fr. Thomas Faucher, in a 2,300-word statement on the case released in early January. Written in a question-and-answer format, the narrative was later published as a full-page advertisement The Bulletin, paid for by a group of Radloff supporters
In a portion of the statement on the vow of obedience, Faucher wrote: “That promise has to understood in the full context of the church. No priest can be disobedient to the bishop if he appeals what the bishop has ordered to a higher authority because the priest believes the order to be wrong. The priest cannot just ignore the order, he has to appeal the order to Rome.

So, no, Fr. Radloff has not been disobedient. Fr. Radloff has done every single thing the bishop ordered him to do except resign as pastor. He has correctly appealed that order, using the official law of the church. Fr. Radloff has been totally obedient. He has not disclosed the reasons for his removal even though there are canon lawyers who say he could. But out of obedience to Bishop Cary he has not done so. He has not exercised public ministry, even though there are canon lawyers who say he could. Again out of obedience to Bishop Cary he has not done so. He was willing to go to Merrill, and then out of obedience did not go to Merrill. Fr. Radloff has never spoken to a reporter or given any type of interview since he was removed on Oct. 1, 2013

Faucher issued the document, he explained at the time, to combat the “destruction” of his priest-client's “good name and reputation” as well as to call attention to the “large amount of erroneous information” swirling around that priest's removal.”



Monday, June 29, 2015

To Anonymous Who Accused The NCW Of Bad Words In The Jungle

What makes you so certain that it was a member of the NCW who said those vile things in the jungle when they use their name as "anonymous" like you did?  Tim Rohr made a lot of enemies.  The priests whom you made fun of in the jungle (such as Father Rudy) also have family and friends and have become enemies of Tim Rohr.  So, what makes you think it was a member of the NCW? As a matter of fact, even some of those in the Guam Legislature do not like Tim Rohr.  So, again, what makes you think it is a member of the NCW when Tim Rohr has made so many enemies that are not even in the NCW?   

All you ever do in the jungle is make rampant speculations as to the identity of the anonymous commenters.  You accuse almost every anonymous commenters in the jungle as Father Adrian or the Archbishop.  This only goes to show the jungle's arrogance.  Father Adrian and the Archbishop have better things to do than make comments in the jungle.  The jungle have also accused me of being Jackie Terlaje, Holly, Susanna, Father Pius, Father Edivaldo, etc.  Now, Tim Rohr actually thinks I am a conglomerate of many different people, and he is still wrong about who I am.  How much more the commenters he accused on his blog?  

Friday, June 26, 2015

Kiko Arguello's 2006 Letter

In 2006, Kiko wrote a "thank you" letter to Pope Benedict XVI.  This letter was twisted and misconstrued by those who oppose the NCW.  Nowhere in Kiko's letter did he say that he would disobey the Pope.  According to the letter: 

"We also wish to thank you for the benevolence, mercy, and goodness You have shown to those farthest away in allowing the moving of the sign of peace and in granting a period of two years for the adaptation of the manner of distributing the Communion of the Body and the Blood of the Lord: we have always shown to the many brothers who have emerged from hell, full of wounds and of self-loathing, that in the Holy Eucharist the Lord makes present his love, dying and rising for them; and not only that, but prepares a table, an eschatological banquet, which makes Heaven present and where He himself, full of love, has them sit down and comes to serve them: “He will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them” (Lk 12:37)."

First of all, as anyone can see above, Kiko THANKED the Pope for two things in the above paragraph of his letter: 1) for moving the sign of peace, AND 2) for granting them a period of two years for the adaptation of the manner of distributing the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. 

Kiko acknowledged his gratitude when the Pope moved the sign of peace and in granting a period of two years for the adaptation of the manner of distributing the Body and Blood of Christ.  A colon punctuation was used after he expressed his gratitude.  In grammatical usage, a colon punctuation is used between independent clauses when the second sentence explains or expands on the first sentence such as the following: 

 He got what he worked for: he really earned that promotion.

See the explanation here.

Kiko was explaining or expanding more on what those adaptions were regarding the distribution of the Body and Blood of Christ.  Furthermore, this was how Kiko ended his letter: 

Thank You, Your Holiness! Together with the Cardinals and the many Bishops who have supported us, and above all in the name of the many who were far away and today bless Christ, we thank You with our whole heart.

Asking for Your Apostolic Blessing,

Kiko Argüello, Carmen Hernández, Fr. Mario Pezzi

The end of his letter showed an expression of joy and happiness because of the support they received.  If there had been no support, there would not have been a thank you letter as well. Common sense dictates that one does not give a thank you letter to someone who gave no support.  That letter was written in 2006.  In 2007, we know that Kiko Arguello and Pope Benedict XVI continued to have private meetings with each other.  According to news report: 

According to Giuseppe Gennarini, this way of receiving Communion sprang from a private meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and Kiko Arguello on May 26, 2007. The Holy Father liked the idea of the priest coming to each person with the Eucharist because it shows that Christ comes to you in the person of the priest, Gennarini said. 

Private Meetings with Pope

In 2008, the Statues were approved, and a new way of receiving the Body of Christ was introduced in the Way.  In other words, there was a change.  We received the Body of Christ standing, then we sit down and contemplate on His Body.  We consume the Body of Christ together sitting down.  That was the change.  Previously, we would receive the Body of Christ sitting down and consume His body together in a sitting position. 

How the NCW celebrate the Eucharist was NEVER kept a secret.  If Kiko and the NCW were deliberately being disobedient, why didn't they hide it?  Even a thief would not reveal his crime in the open.  The NCW never kept the way they celebrated their Eucharist a secret; therefore, everyone knew how the Eucharist was celebrated.  As a result of that openess, complaints poured into the Vatican accusing the Way of celebrating the Mass illicitly.   

As a matter of fact, in 2009, some of the Bishops in Japan closed the Way's seminary and wanted to expel the Neocatechumenal Way from Japan.  Despite complaints coming in, Pope Benedict XVI intervened and rejected the plan to expel the NCW from Japan.  According to news report:

Alvaro de Juana Hernandez, a spokesman for the Way told CNA Jan. 12 that Pope Benedict XVI had rejected the bishops’ plan. During the meeting, he said, "the Holy See communicated that the Neocatechumenal Way cannot be suspended, cannot be thrown out or taken out of Japan."

Pope rejects plan of Japanese Bishops

The Holy See said that the NCW cannot be suspended, cannot be thrown out or taken out of Japan.  The same would be true of Guam as well.  Nevertheless, as more complaints poured into the Vatican, Pope Benedict  XVI ordered an investigation to determine whether these complaints were actually true.  The investigation was ordered on April 11, 2012.  Thanks to the NCW who have never kept their Eucharistic celebration a secret, those investigations should be very easy to conduct.

On February 28, 2013, Pope Benedict XVI resigned. Almost a year had gone by and nothing came out from the investigation. On March 13, 2013, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected Pope and took the name Francis.  A few months later, Pope Francis ceased all investigations on the Neocatechumenal Way that Pope Benedict XVI had started.  

Then on February 2014, Pope Francis confirmed Kiko Arguello for five more years as Consultor for the Pontifical Council for the Laity.  On March 6, 2015, Pope Francis gave the NCW his strongest support.  And on May 16, 2015, Kiko Arguello and Carmen Hernandez received an honorary doctorate from the Catholic University of America. 

So, to those who oppose the Way and think that we are celebrating the Mass illicitly, continue to write your letters of complaint to the Vatican.  Your complaints are simply old news to the ears of the Vatican.  We have already given our answer.  We have the permission from the Pope to celebrate the Eucharist the way we do and are not in violation of it.  But if you do not believe us, then take it up with the Vatican because you have no authority over the NCW. 

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

NCW Revives Catholic Church

MIAMI | To most it is a mystery. To some it seems like a sect. It is not a movement, like Cursillo or the Charismatic Renewal. But it has the approval of popes dating back to Paul VI and including, just last month, Francis. 

One thing is certain: the Neocatechumenal Way definitely moves people to a new life as Christians. 

It is a series of steps — similar to the RCIA, or Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults but lasting much longer — aimed at rekindling the faith in people who have been baptized Catholics. 

Miami’s new auxiliary, Bishop Peter Baldacchino, is a product of the Neocatechumenate, which his family joined when he was 13 in his native Malta. He describes the Way as “small communities of rediscovering the faith.” 

“Once faith is rediscovered, fruits start to grow. We have seen many fruits,” he said.

Fast facts about the Neocatechumenal Way
  • Founders: Kiko Argüello, a painter, and Carmen Hernandez, a graduate in chemistry and theology, who met in the shanty town of Palomeras Altas, on the outskirts of Madrid, Spain, and developed a program for evangelizing the slum’s residents, many of them gypsies, prostitutes, drunkards and robbers who had no relationship with the Church.
  • 1974: The Congregation for Divine Worship, while preparing the reintroduction of the catechumenate for adults (known as RCIA), publishes a laudatory note, “Praeclarum exemplar,” and settles on the name “Neocatechumenate” to indicate an itinerary of post-baptismal formation for those who are baptized but not sufficiently catechized.
  • May 8, 1974: Neocatechumenal Way is approved by Paul VI during a meeting with Argüello and Hernandez.
  • 1987: John Paul II opens the first Redemptoris Mater seminary in Rome to prepare priests for the New Evangelization; today, there are 100 Redemptoris Mater seminaries worldwide, with almost 2,000 priests already ordained and 2,000 seminarians in formation. Eight of those seminaries are in the U.S., including the one in Miami.
  • 1990: Neocatechumenal Way is recognized by John Paul II as “an itinerary of Catholic formation valid for our society and our time,” and an instrument for the New Evangelization.
  • June 13, 2008: Five Congregations of the Holy See — Doctrine of the Faith, Divine Worship, Bishops, Catholic Education, and Council of the Laity — approve the final statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way
  • Jan. 17, 2011: Pope Benedict XVI approves the “Catechetical Directory of the Neocatechumenal Way.”
  • Families in mission: Neocatechumenal Way sends families to areas on the periphery of cities, often immense slums, to form nuclei of evangelization and small communities that can contain the spread of Protestant sects until priests can be sent and new parishes founded. Currently, there are about 1,000 families in mission all over the world. 
  • Missio ad gentes: Groups consisting of a priest and four or five large families who, at the request of a bishop, receive a mandate to evangelize de-Christianized or pagan areas. There are now 95 missio ad gentes in the world, including six in the U.S. dioceses of Brooklyn, Boston and Philadelphia
  • Feb. 1, 2014: Pope Francis, meeting with about 12,000 members of the Neocatechumenal Way, sends 450 families in mission and 42 new missio ad gentes. 
  • • Today, there are about Neocatechumenal 25,000 communities in 800 dioceses and 6,000 parishes in 124 nations, including 1,000 communities in 300 parishes and 75 U.S. dioceses. 
  • • The Archdiocese of Miami has 30 communities in eight parishes.
His vocation is one of them. The growth of the Catholic Church in the Turks and Caicos, where he served for the past 15 years, is another. “Where there was nothing, and where now, thanks be to God, there is something.”

Another “fruit” of the Neocatechumenal Way is an abundance of vocations, because it is a process of formation that encompasses the whole family and attracts young people. 

That abundance of vocations resulted in the establishment of Redemptoris Mater seminaries, where men from different countries study together and are ordained for a particular diocese, but commit themselves to serving in whatever corner of the world they are most needed. 

Bishop Baldacchino, a Malta native, is the first bishop in North America to come from a Redemptoris Mater seminary, and only the third such bishop worldwide. One of his classmates, an Italian from Salerno, is vicar general in Estonia. 

A Redemptoris Mater seminary opened in Miami in December 2011 and currently has 13 seminarians enrolled. One Redemptoris Mater priest already has been ordained for the Archdiocese of Miami, and another will be ordained this May.

The Neocatechumenal Way began in Spain in 1964. Two lay people — Kiko Argüello and Carmen Hernandez — developed it as a method of evangelizing the residents of one of Madrid’s poorest slums. Pope John Paul II hailed the Neocatechumenate as “an itinerary of Christian formation valid for our society and for our time.”
“The catechumenate always existed in the Church,” Bishop Baldacchino explained. “It was the instrument the Church used to turn pagans into Christians. It isn’t magic. It is a process that the Church always had.

“I think it was Paul VI who said that we are living in a time of a new form of paganism, a neo-paganism. And he saw paganism, catechumenate, Christianity; and therefore, neo-paganism, neo-catechumenate, new Christian.”

The Neocatechumenal Way fits perfectly with the need for the “new evangelization” that Pope John Paul II described: Not so much bringing Christ to a world that never knew him, as helping nominally baptized Christians — or cultural Catholics — rediscover the fullness of the Christian faith, and live accordingly.

Sister Enith Montero, a Dominican of the Immaculate Conception who has worked at St. Cecilia Church in Hialeah for many years, said she, too, has seen the fruits of the Way.

The parish closed in 2009 for financial reasons, and re-opened in December 2011 with Father Emanuele De Nigris as pastor. Father De Nigris, a native of Italy, is the product of the Redemptoris Mater seminary in Washington, D.C., and serves as rector of the Redemptoris Mater seminary in Miami, which is based at St. Cecilia.

“It has been transformed,” Sister Montero said of the parish. “From the ashes, now it has life in abundance, a community that is very much alive and committed.”

It’s not comparable to what it was before, she stressed, because the community also was “very active, had many (spiritual) groups,” when she served as director of religious education. “It simply is different.”

Her co-worker, Sister Maria Teresa Flores, put it this way: “There are new people and above all young people, young people who hunger for God.”

“These two new priests have raised the community from the ashes,” Sister Montero said. “It’s a new Pentecost.”

Monday, June 22, 2015

Twisting Words From The Jungle

In the Umatuna dated June 21, 2015, Father Adrian stated:  Seminarians are trained for ministry in the Church, they are not trained for  the Neocatechmenal way as was falsely noted.  Father Adrian's letter can be found here.  Father Adrian is correct.  The men at the RM Seminary are being trained for the new evangelization.  This is what the RMS Articles of Incorporation stated (bold is mine): 

The purpose of the corporation shall be limited to the following: to establish and conduct a Seminary to prepare men for the priesthood for the evangelization, following the life and itinerary of the Neocatechumenal Way as a way of formation in accordance with the precepts of the Roman Catholic faith. 

What I placed in bold above is what Tim Rohr left out.  This is what Tim Rohr stated: 

Adrian, you are either stupid beyond belief of you are the Church's most unscrupulous liar. It says right here that the men are prepared "following the life and itinerary of the Neocatechumenal Way",


Notice that Tim Rohr stated, "the men are prepared 'following the life and itinerary of the Neocatechumenal Way'."  He left out "for the priesthood for the evangelization....." He left this part out because he intends to mislead his readers into believing that these men are being prepared to become "Neo priests" rather than "diocesan priests."  

There are different types of evangelization in the many movements and organizations of the Catholic Church.  The Charismatic Catholics, for example, have their own evangelization, which is very different from the NCW.  The Charismatic Catholics use prayer meetings, Spirit seminars, Masses and services with healing prayers, and music ministry as a way to evangelize.  The NCW, on the other hand,  evangelizes in two by twos, testimonies, itinerancy, through the Great Mission, the Catechesis, and with the Ad Gentes.  The RMS seminarians are being prepared for the priesthood for the evangelization, following the life and iternary of the Neocatechumenal Way.......NOT in the life and itinerary of the Charismatic Catholic Renewal or even the Cursillio Movement.   Father Adrian is correct.  The seminarians in the Redemptoris Mater Seminary are not being trained for the Neocatechumenal Way. They are being trained for the evangelization and ministry of the Church as all Catholic priests regardless of whether they are Opus Dei, Jesuits, Franciscans, Charismatic Renewal, Eastern Catholic, or diocesan priests from the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. 

Father Adrian also pointed out that there are seminarians in the RM Seminary whose tuition, room, and board are being paid by the Diocese of American Samoa, the Archdiocese of Apia, Western Samoa, and the Diocese of Kiribat-Nauru.  Twenty-six of the diocesan seminarians are studying for the Archdiocese of Agana.  According to Father Adrian:

Several of our diocesan priests ordained from the Redemptoris Mater Seminary now work in parishes in the Archdiocese. Fathers Alberto, Edivaldo, Krzysztof, and Antonino serve as Pastors. Father Harold is the Vice-Rector of the seminary, Father Michael Jucutan is Vice-Rector of the Cathedral-Basilica. Fathers Francesco and Vincenzo serve as Parochial Vicars, Fathers Julius Akinyemi as Parochial Administrator of Merizo and Umatac.  Fathers Julio Cesar and Miguel Angel are off island doing doctoral studies in Theology; eventually they will return to teach at the seminary. Fathers Edwin, Aurelio, Fabio and Jason are on mission in other countries. Nine are currently in Guam, two are in studies, and four are on loan. Priests serve the local church to which they are assigned and are also called to go to all the nations and “teach them everything I have commanded you.”

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Krakow: The City Of Mercy

World Youth Day is coming up next year, and once again our youth in the Neocatechumenal Way is preparing themselves to participate in this beautiful event started by St. John Paul II.  Over 40,000 youths in the Neocatechumenal Way have participated in the last WYD in Brazil.  The next WYD is in Krakow, Poland, the City of Mercy; and our youth are brushing up on their Polish.  Our theme is Matthew 5:7  "Blessed are the merciful: they shall have mercy shown them."  Poland is also the home country of Pope John Paul II who is now a saint.  It is also the home of many saints.  Father Krzysztof Szafarski, one of Guam's priest is also from Poland and is currently the pastor of the Santa Rita Church. 

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Evangelizing In Two By Twos

Mark 6:7-9   Calling the Twelve to him, he began to send them out two by two and gave them authority over impure spirits.  These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts.  Wear sandals but not an extra shirt.

One of the things that impressed me about the NCW is that once a year they would evangelize in two by twos following the instructions of Jesus to His disciples when He told them not to take any bag or money.  I have seen Jehovah Witnesses going out from door to door.  They have with them their cars, wallets, and bibles.  Once a year, the RMS priests and seminarians would go out in two by twos for about two weeks.  But they carry only a plane ticket or bus ticket to take them to their destination and back, a passport, and their bible.  They do not bring their wallets or money, and they do not bring any luggage. 

This year, they will be doing that again. The itinerants, seminarians, priests, and families in mission will be meeting in Newark on July 9th in the evening.  They will be sent out to all corners of the United States.  They will go out without any money or food, just a plane/bus ticket and their passport.  On July 25th, they will return to Newark to relate their experience on how God has provided them regardless of the fact that they brought no food or money with them.  They are important witnesses to everyone. In the past, there were some priests who have shared their experience with the communities.  I still remember Father Jucutan's pizza story.  :-) 

Some people may criticize the Way for evangelizing in America.  Well, Christianity in America has decreased according to statistics.  We are all called to be God's light. We should not hold back in sharing the Gospel just because we are in America (or even in Guam).  People in America are just as much in need of Christ as they are anywhere else in the world. 

Also, this September Pope Francis will be coming to Philadelpha for the Family Day and for the canonization of Father Junipero Serra.  He will meet with the families on September 26th and 27th.  Kiko, Carmen, and Father Mario will be meeting with the families and the youth on September 28th.  The meeting will be presided by Archbishop Chaput, and there will be many Cardinals and Bishops.  These are historic events and the communities are invited to participate.

Monday, June 15, 2015

Widower, Father Inspired To Priesthood

NKN_4846Edmond Philip Ilg, a seminarian at the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary in Yona arrived on Guam a year and a half ago. He has a 28-year-old son who is also a seminarian but for the Archdiocese of Washington.

1. Tell us about yourself.

I am a widower. My wife died in 2011, we were married in 1982. I have two sons, one in Heaven and Philip who is 28 years-old and is in the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Washington, D.C. He will be ordained a transitional deacon on June 13th. I was baptized as a Lutheran and never had attended a Catholic Mass until age 20 when I attended with Connie who would become to be (my) wife. I received religious education for adults at the Church of the North American Martyrs in Bayside, NY, was confirmed on the Easter Vigil in 1982 and was married at American Martyrs that September.

We moved to New Jersey in 1985 and were members of St. Francis of Assisi parish. We were active in the parish… After the death of our second son in 1993 we relied on the help of the Church, but things were difficult and our marriage was very much in turmoil. In 1996, we heard a catechesis which was given in our parish by members of the Neocatechumenal Way and we joined a community. This community was an immense help to both of use and kept our marriage together through a separation and other challenges we faced.

My wife died of a reoccurrence of Breast Cancer in June, 2011. We were helped immensely by the love and support which we received from our community in the Way who always came to visit her in the hospital and prayed.

After my wife died, I continued to work as a sales engineer until I felt I was being called to go in mission as an itinerant. Then in 2012, I went to a meeting and I was assigned to a parish to accompany the priests in prayer and their ministry.

2. When and how did you realize that you wanted to become a priest?

 During the time I was in the parish I really did not have the feeling that I was called to be
a priest, I felt called as an itinerant. However, in August, 2013 there was a mini-pilgrimage in the parish where I was itinerant. It went to the Shrines of the North American Martyrs in New York and Canada and I found myself sitting on a stage at the Shrine in Toronto. That was a memory of the day after the World Youth Day with Pope St. John Paul II at a vocational meeting where I had seen hundreds of kids standing in a response to the call to the religious life. The next Saturday I went to the 2013 World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The trip was a pilgrimage where God really spoke to me about my vocation and I attended a vocational meeting after seeing Pope Francis. I came back … and spoke to my catechists. They suggested that I go to the vocational meeting in Italy for men wanting to enter the priesthood … I was chosen to go
to Guam.

3. How has your journey of discernment been so far?

I have seen God acting in many concrete signs to call me to this vocation and I feel my call very strongly. I have been here a year and a half and feel extremely blessed to be here. The seminary life is a routine of prayer, work and studying. The spiritual direction I am receiving is helping me a lot to build my interior life which I need to do to stay close to God. Going back to university studies after 34 years was a challenge at first, but the teachers are excellent and always willing to help. This sounds ideal, it is not. I was very independent, with a successful job and my hardest adjustment is to set my pride aside and to be obedient. I have learned that this is the most important thing I can learn in the seminary through reading the lives of the saints. At this point in my life with God’s calling I am very, very grateful to be here.

4. Which pope has influenced your vocation and why?

Without a doubt that would be Pope St. John Paul II (the Great). The pilgrimage to Canada in 2002 to the World Youth Day was extremely powerful for my entire family. My son would tell you that this was a turning point in his discernment of his call. My wife and I also saw Pope John Paul II in 1995, in Giants Stadium when he came to New Jersey. Of course at both these events I was married and had no thought of ever being a priest. However, the presence of that Pope had a profound effect on all who were there… I love to read the daily messages by Pope Francis which I read every day when I was itinerant. He is a deeply spiritual man who has many profound messages which influenced me as well.

5. Advice for young people discerning for a vocation.

Do not be afraid of what others think. It is especially difficult with social pressure which is applied to young people today. The truth is that your friends and family who may make fun of religion are also searching and trying to find meaning in their lives. Be open to hearing the voice of God in events of your life, this is the way God speaks to people, through events. Pray about it and ask God to let you know what His Will is in your life, and listen to what He says to you. I would also encourage you to go to a World Youth Day, it is an awesome experience… Finally, for the notso-young, like me, it is never too late for God
to act in your life.


Sunday, June 14, 2015

Archdiocesan Annual Appeal Shows Increase

Compared to the last recording, the Archdiocesan Annual Appeal showed an increase.  The following can be found here.   

The following contributions have been made to the Archdiocesan Appeal as of June 10, 2015.

ParishTurned InPledgeTotal
Agafa Gumas, Yigo – Santa Bernadita Chapel3,300.00
Agana Heights-Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament250.00
Agat – Our Lady of Mount Carmel2,603.00350.002,953.00
Asan – Nino Perdido Y Sagrada Familia3,403.00720.004,123.00
Barrigada – San Vicente Ferrer & San Roke7,665.00760.008,425.00
Chalan Pago – Nuestra Senora de la Paz y Buen Viaje2,166.00
Dededo – Santa Barbara3,939.0016,800.0020,739.00
Harmon – St. Andrew Kim Catholic Church3,801.00
Inarajan – St. Joseph410.00
Maina – Our Lady of Purification536.00
Malojloj – San Isidro545.00
Mangilao – Santa Teresita3,137.41
Merizo – San Dimas100.00
Mongmong – Nuestra Senora de las Aguas625.00
Ordot – San Juan Bautista150.00
Piti – Assumption of Our Lady1,515.00
Santa Rita – Our Lady of Guadalupe4,956.00
Sinajana – St. Jude Thaddeus2,633.00
Talofofo – San Miguel100.00
Tamuning – St. Anthony & St. Victor3,210.00500.003,710.00
Toto – Immaculate Heart of Mary150.00
Tumon – Blessed Diego Luis De San Vitores2,130.00
Umatac – San Dionisio300.00
Yigo – Our Lady of Lourdes14,977.79
Yona – San Francisco De Asis425.00

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Last Supper Icon

Apparently, people read too much into icons and do not seem to see the message in it.  After examining the white robes of Jesus Christ, they now want to examine the background.  According to one of the commenters under my last entry post: 

No, Diana, the background in the ebay icon you just mentioned is definitely composed of buildings, and Eastern icons commonly use them to signify Jerusalem. The background of the Kiko's icon that White discusses is the mountains/wilderness and not "wooden posts". Look closely. They are very common in icons portraying Jesus's baptism in the Jordan. Click here to see.

You need to study more authentic icons of the Russian and Greek tradition.
So, this commentor wants to know about the background of the Last Supper in Kiko's icon.  Perhaps, he/she is correct that the background is a jagged mountain or the wilderness.  Nevertheless, the photo below is a Coptic Orthodox icon of the Last Supper.  It is very clear from the background that Jesus and the Apostles were not in a room.  The background is surrounded by TREES.  So, does the Eastern Orthodox Church ever teach that Jesus and the Apostles had the Passover meal OUTSIDE in the wilderness????? No, of course not  This icon can be found here.  The caption on this icon states that it is a Coptic Orthodox icon of Jesus and His Apostles in the Last Supper.  It did not say "heavenly banquet."  Some people can debate that the icon below is the heavenly banquet because all the 11 Apostles shown in the icon have halos.  But it is NOT the heavenly banquet despite those halos. Why? Because John is seen leaning against Jesus, and Judas Iscariot is seen leaving in the background. There are many icons of the Last supper with many different backgrounds, and the junglefolks only judge Kiko's icon?????   

Coptic Orthodox of the Last Supper

Only the painter can tell why he painted the icon the way he did.  Some artists paint because he found it pleasing to his eye.  Others paint a historical setting, while others paint with a message or catechesis in it.  Many artists paint the Last Supper in a different way.  Each one is different simply because the artists are different. 

The person who interprets the icon, however, is also a different matter.  Dan Brown, the author of Da Vinci Code, is anti-Catholic who insisted that the person lying on Jesus' chest was Mary Magdalene.  Nevermind the fact that for thousands of years, Christians have always believed that it was the Apostle John who reclined on Jesus' chest.  Chuck White, the author of Thoughful Catholic, is anti-Neo who insisted that Kiko taught that Judas Iscariot is saved.  Nevermind the fact that Chuck White could never quote Kiko on it.   

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Judas Iscariot

An anonymous commenter wrote the following under my last entry post: 

Diana, does the NCW teach that Judas Iscariot is saved? Does the NCW believe that a Judas Iscariot is necessary.

Although Jesus certainly foreknew Judas would betray him[2], Judas had free will. He was not created or predestined by God to sin, but rather, chose that path himself. The Council of Trent, which Kiko has been known to berate, taught:

“If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined unto life, but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil: let him be anathema.”[3]

The Doctrine of the Necessary Judas has a sectarian purpose. It allows Kiko’s followers to tag the label of “Judas” upon anyone who criticizes “the Way”, and to do so quickly with out thinking, and without discernment.

First of all, where does it say that Kiko said that Judas Iscariot is saved?????  Where is the quote from Kiko Arguello??  Apparently, Mr. Chuck White was putting words in Kiko's mouth because I do not see any quote from Kiko saying that Judas Iscariot is saved.  According to Mr. White: 
"Second, despite the preponderance of Scriptural evidence to the contrary (e.g. Matthew 26:24, and John 17:12), and despite the fact that the Church has never made a definitive pronouncement on the matter, Kiko teaches that Judas Iscariot has been saved!"
The NCW does not teach that Judas Iscariot is saved nor do we teach that he is condemned to Hell.  We follow the Pope and the teaching Magisterium of the Church.  Why?  Because only the Pope and the teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church can correctly interpret Sacred Scripture.  According to Pope Francis: 
 But let us not pass a hasty judgment here. Jesus never abandoned Judas, and no one knows, after he hung himself from a tree with a rope around his neck, where he ended up: in Satan’s hands or in God’s hands. Who can say what transpired in his soul during those final moments? “Friend” was the last word that Jesus addressed to him, and he could not have forgotten it, just as he could not have forgotten Jesus’ gaze.

It is true that in speaking to the Father about his disciples Jesus had said about Judas, “None of them is lost but the son of perdition” (Jn 17:12). But here, as in so many other instances, he is speaking from the perspective of time and not of eternity. The enormity of this betrayal is enough by itself alone, without needing to consider a failure that is eternal, to explain the other terrifying statement said about Judas: “It would have been better for that man if he had not been born” (Mk 14:21). The eternal destiny of a human being is an inviolable secret kept by God. The Church assures us that a man or a woman who is proclaimed a saint is experiencing eternal blessedness, but she does not herself know for certain that any particular person is in hell.
To put it in simple terms, the Catholic Church does not teach that Judas Iscariot is saved nor does she teach that he is condemned to Hell.  The Church remains silent as to the whereabouts of the soul of Judas Iscariot. 
Furthermore, Mr. White goes on to say: 
Judas Iscariot certainly had an active role in the Passion of Christ, but was he necessary?  Without him, would Christ have died for our sins?  Did God will that he betray Jesus?
Lino Lista, a prolific critic of the Neocatechumenal Way, responds:
“The decision to kill Jesus had already been taken (John 7:1) and He had already escaped from the hands of his adversaries, escaping from the precipice and stoning (Luke 4: 29-30; John 8:59; John 10: 31-39 ). Had he wanted to, Christ could have escaped capture capture even in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:53: ” Do you think I can not call on my Father, that would give me more than twelve legions of angels ? “).  It was only up to Christ, therefore, to decide the time (John 7:30), the place and manner of his Passion. Only Christ is essential: Judas is not necessary and not even enough.”

It is unfortunate that Mr. White chose to listen to Lino Lista rather than to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Judas Iscariot was necessary because he was PART of God's plan of salvation.  It is true that God did not predestine Judas to become a sinner.  It was Judas' choice to sin, which God already knew.  Predestination has a different meaning to Catholics compared to Protestants.  According to the Catholic teaching on predestination:   Predestination is a term used to identify God’s plan of salvation, in which according to His own decree, He “accomplishes all things according to his will” (Eph. 1:11). God gives us the gift of salvation through grace and faith. In turn, we must use our free will to persevere in good works “prepared beforehand” by God Himself (Eph. 2:8-10; cf. Phil. 2:12, 13). 


The Catechism of the Catholic Church also states (the bold is mine):  To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness. (CCC 600). 

In other words, Judas Iscariot was PART of God's plan of salvation.  God used Judas Iscariot's choice and free will to sin to bring about His plan of salvation to mankind in accordance with Scripture.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (bold is mine): 

CCC 599   Jesus' violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God's plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first sermon on Pentecost: "This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God."393 This Biblical language does not mean that those who handed him over were merely passive players in a scenario written in advance by God.394

CCC 600  To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.396
"He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures"  

CCC 601  The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401 

To put it simply, the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled according to God's divine plan of salvation.  The prophets of the Old Testament prophesized about a betrayer because God already knew the future and Judas' choice to sin, and the prophecy came to pass in order to fulfill God's plan of salvation in accordance with Scripture.  Mr. White interpreted Kiko's painting according to his prejudice view.  Kiko painted Christ in white robes and with wounds to show that He was indeed the unblemished Lamb of God who offered His body as a sacrifice at the Last Supper.     

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Catholic seminarians embrace strict rules

Catholic seminarians embrace strict rules

The above weblink is a very interesting article.  It compares the life of seminarians in the Redemptoris Mater Seminary to other Catholic seminarians. 

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Back To The 1970s

Same-sex marriage became legal on Guam.  The state is becoming more powerful as they take over a little at a time.  There are 37 states with same sex marriage.  Of those 37, only Maine, Maryland, and Washington were by popular vote.  In other states, same-sex marriage were legalized by court decision or state legislature. 

Only 13 states ban same sex marriage.  On Guam, same-sex marriage was legalized by the ruling of U.S. District Court Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood.  Let us all come together and pray that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in favor of traditional marriage. 

But how did all this happen?  It all started in the 1970s when gay activists attacked the APA (American Psychiatric Association).  The APA was intimidated in taking homosexuality off the DMS as a mental disorder.  Had homosexuality still been label a mental disorder, these court rulings would never be in their favor.  The gay activist has a political motive, which is to take away our freedom.

“It was never a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast…It was a political move.”

“That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”
-Barbara Gittings, Same-gender sex activist

Let us, for a moment, rewind to the year 1970. In this year, same-gender sex activists began a program of intimidation aimed at the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Activist Frank Kameny states the movement’s objective clearly, “I feel that the entire homophile movement…is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it…” (The Gay Crusaders, by Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, p. 98)

In 1970, psychiatrists generally considered sexual desires toward members of one’s own gender to be disordered. Karoly Maria Kertbeny’s term, “homosexual” was the official descriptor for those inflicted by this mental-physical disassociative disorder. Psychiatry’s authoritative voice influenced public opinion, which at the time was negative toward same-gender sex. Of course, public sexual activity in parks and public restrooms contributed to societies negative views about the types of people that did such things, but “scientific opinion” was crucial in the public attitude.

Led by radicals like Frank Kameny, same-gender sex activists attacked many psychiatrists publicly, as Newsweek describes, “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. ‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’ shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’” (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)
Ironically, at the very moment Franklin Kameny was claiming that same-gender sex was healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation as a result of the promiscuous, unhealthy nature of the sex they were having. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying, of AIDS.

On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse, disruptions. In this letter he states, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.” (The Gay Crusaders p. 130-131)

Same-gender sex activists continued to pressure the APA through 1973. A same-gender sex magazine, The Advocate, talks of “…what happened in 1973…referring to the widespread protests by the gay and lesbian community that led to the APA’s dropping homosexuality from the DSM.” (The Advocate, 12-28-93, p.40) As a result of the pressure, in the words of the prominent journalist and same-gender sex activists, Andrew Sullivan, in December of 1973 the APA, “…under intense political pressure…removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders…” (Love Undetectable, book by Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p. 107) Under this “intense political pressure” the APA’s board of trustees finally caved in to the demands of same-gender sex activists. Another same-gender sex activist Mark Thompson writes, “Just before the first of the year, the American Psychiatric Association’s board of trustees declared we were no longer sick.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 97)

After the vote by the American Psychiatric Associations Board of Trustees, some members of the APA, led by Dr. Charles Socarides called for a full vote by the APA’s 17,905 members. (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 104)

On April 9, 1974, results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members had voted in the election. The results were as follows,

Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905
Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555
Number of members that “Abstained”: 367
Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810
Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854

It should be noted that the number of “Yes” (5,854) made up only 32.7 percent of the total membership of the APA. Only slightly less than one-third of the APA’s membership approved the change. It should be further noted that the “National Gay Task Force” was able to obtain APA members addresses and the “NGTF” (with-out identifying itself) and they sent creepy letters to all members urging them to vote to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM. Bruce Voeller, the head of the NGTF admits, “Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 105-106) Dishonesty and intimidation had won the day for the same-gender sex movement, and when activists publicly claim that this vote was a scientific decision; they hide three years of deceit and intimidation. In same-gender sex publications, however, activists are remarkably candid about the reality of the vote. For example, Kay Tobin Lahausen, co-author of The Gay Crusaders describes a variety of activism. “We did all sorts of protests…When the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations came out of some meeting and got in his big black limousine, I remember going crazy, rocking and beating on the limousine…He had never been besieged by a bunch of homosexuals before. But he had said something that got us going.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.216-217) (–Author Marcus has worked as an associate producer for “CBS This Morning” and “Good Morning America.”)

Lahausen’s lover, Barbara Gittings was a well known activist during this time as well. Gittings was the first head of the American Library Association Gay Task Force, although she was not a librarian her objective was to bring books advocating the same-gender sex movement to the attention of librarians in hopes of having them included in libraries. At one American Library Association meeting Gittings set up a same-gender kissing booth, to attract attention to the same-gender sex. Gittings tells about her activism against the APA. “Besides the ALA, I was also very involved, along with many other people, in efforts to get the American Psychiatric Association… to drop its listing of homosexuality as a mental illness. Psychiatrists were one of the three major groups that had their hands on us. They had a kind of control over our fate, in the eyes of the public, for a long time. “Religion and law were the other two groups that had their hands on us. So, besides being sick, we were sinful and criminal. But the sickness label infected everything that we said and made it difficult for us to gain any credibility for anything we said ourselves. The sickness issue was paramount.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.221)

Gittings took place in the disruptive attacks (“saps”) on the APA. She states, “I am not opposed to sap tactics. In fact, I spearheaded a sap at a psychiatrists meeting and I’m ready to do it again.” (The Gay Crusaders, p.234) Barbara Gittings recounts, “The 1970 convention in San Francisco was disrupted by a group of feminists and gay men who were enraged by what the psychiatrists were saying about them—and newspapers all around the country carried the story” (The Gay Crusaders, p.216). The “Gay” Militants, a book about that time, adds details, “On May 14, 1970 psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of ‘gay’ and woman’s liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco to protest the reading of a paper by an Australian psychiatrists on the subject of ‘aversion therapy,’ a system of treatment which attempts to change gay orientation by keying unpleasant sensations (such as electric shocks) to homosexual stimuli. By the time the meeting was over, the feminists and their gay cohorts were in charge…and the doctors were heckling from the audience.’” (The Gay Militants, by Donn Teal, p.272-273)

Same-gender sex activists took over the podium and microphones. Then, “Konstantin Berlandt, of Berkeley GLF, paraded through the hall in bright red dress. Paper airplanes sailed down from the balcony. With two papers still unread, the chairman announced adjournment.” (Ibid., p.274) On June 23, 1970 same-gender sex activists disrupted yet another meeting, this time in Chicago, be repeatedly shouting down the main speakers discourse. (Ibid., 275) Then, in October at a meeting at the University of Southern California, same-gender sex activists shouted down a speaker and then took over the stage and the microphone. (Ibid., pp.276-280)

Kay Lahusen and Barbera Gittings know what really happened to the APA. In the book, Making History they are quite open about the reality.

Kay: This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision.

 Barbara: It never was a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first sapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a political move.” (Making History, p.224)

The APA was thoroughly intimidated. Later in the same year (1974), after the APA’s vote, Gittings was interviewed by a historian of the same-gender sex movement, Jonathan Ned Katz. Gittings brags, “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.” (Gay American History, by Jonathan Ned Katz, 1992, p.427. This interview was taped July 19, 1974). Anytime a scientific organization endorses same-gender sex, remember Gittings words: “They are running scared.” Same-gender sex activists have learned that intimidation works and they are never hesitant about using intimidation, psychological manipulation and deceit to reach the goals of their radical agenda.

Later in 1974, same-gender sex activists set their vicious sights on an individual member of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. David Rueben, who was perhaps the best-known psychologist in the area of human sexuality at the time. Unbeknownst to Dr. Reuben, same-gender activists were lying in wait outside one of his lectures, and his physical safety was at risk. A same-gender sex activist and writer, Leigh Rutledge describes the attack in her book The Gay Decades, “June 16, A fist fight broke out at a Philadelphia playhouse when ten gay activists interrupt a lecture by Dr. David Rueben and denounce him as ‘a criminal’ for his views on male homosexuality. One policeman and a protestor are injured in the melee.” (The Gay Decades, by a man that engages in same-gender sex and writer, Leigh W. Rutledge, 1992, p.69) On that same page, this book tells us that, “The Centers for Disease Control estimate that gay or bisexual men account for as much as one-third of the syphilis cases in the U.S.”

Apparently, the American Psychological Association also got the message of intimidation, because they caved in to same-gender sex activists in 1975. In the book, The Long Road to Freedom the author writes, “January…The American Psychological Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science echoed the American Psychiatric Association in deeming homosexuality not an illness.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.115) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) publishes the scientific journal Science, intimidation by same-gender sex activists was over for them. “Under pressure from gay scientific groups, Science magazine banned anti-gay bias in its staff hiring and advertisement.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.214)

Could the AAAS have been thinking about “pressure from gay scientific groups” when they published the poorly done studies by LeVay (“gay” brains) and Hamer (“gay” gene)? Two scientists who protested the LeVay study raise serious questions about AAAS, Science, and same-gender sex activists. “The appearance of LeVay’s paper highlights a serious issue in science public policy. Should such a study, based on a questionable design, with subjects drawn from a small, highly selected and non-representative sample, receive the kind of international attention and credibility that publication in a journal with the stature of Science lends?” (Science, 11-1-91, p.630)

If Dr. LeVay was not able to draw a proper sample and to fulfill other basic requirements for a scientific study, why did he conduct the study at all? If the study was not done for scientific reasons it must have been done for political reasons. Indeed, LeVay’s study was part of a public relations campaign, (the born “gay” hoax) to make the public believe that individuals were born “gay.” Science, a supposedly reputable publication, must have been intimidated to risk their own legitimacy by published such shoddy work. When unethical political movements dominate science, pushing science in unscientific directions, science suffers and leads society astray. One lesson from these facts is unmistakable: every time a scientific group repeats the same-gender sex movement’s propaganda, you may justifiably suspect that these groups are acting out of ignorance or intimidation.

Another lesson is that same-gender sex activists are so desperate to cover their deeply dysfunctional condition that they will stop at nothing to hide the facts from the public. Award-winning writer and same-gender sex activist Randy Shilts describes the denial among men that have sex with men, about their unhealthy lifestyles causing AIDS to be epidemic among them when he writes, “…the desperation of denial: how when something is so horrible you don’t want to believe it, you want to out it out of your mind and insist it isn’t true, and how you hate the person who says it is.” (And the Band Played On, 1988, p. 182) Desperate denial –this seems to be what drives the deceit, psychological manipulation, and intimidation of both scientific groups and the public.

Here is a link to a video about same-gender sex activist, Frank Kameny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_4S_iQ3fEo