Radical Liberalism

This line "for the good of the Church" has been the excuse used by many bishops to cover up crimes or unfair practices.  Innocents were sacrificed by some bishops because they thought they were protecting the Church when in reality they were following the wiles of Satan who influenced them to do it "for the good of the Church."  A bishop who sacrifices an individual "for the good of the Church" is not following Jesus Christ because Christ never sacrificed anyone for the "good of the Church."  Rather, he sacrificed HIMSELF and only HIMSELF for the good of the Church. The bishop would have done better had he stood up for the truth and turned in the priest to the civil authorities for committing a crime.  Likewise, a bishop who sacrificed an innocent priest to appease a hateful mob "for the good of the Church" is no better.  He would have done better had he stood up for the truth and taught the mob to oppose hatred, which is a sin offensive to God. 

Some priests have now come out to tell their stories anonymously.  According to Catholic News Agency:

Seminarians and priests from ordination classes spanning 30 years, during the terms of McCarrick and Myers, reported to CNA that they had observed an active homosexual subculture of priest and seminarians within Newark’s Immaculate Conception Seminary.  

One priest ordained in the early years of McCarrick’s term in Newark said that “a lot of people lost their innocence in the seminary.”

He told CNA that there were two distinct groups of students. “You had the men who were there because they had a deep love of the Lord and a vocation to serve his Church,” he said, adding that those men were the majority of seminarians.

“But there was a subculture, with its own group of men, that was openly homosexual and petty and vindictive with everyone else,” he explained.

In his book entitled Goodbye Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into The Catholic Church, published in 2015, investigative reporter Michael S. Ross uncovered how radical liberalism had infiltrated the Catholic Church, attenpting to overthrow traditional beliefs and doctrines, especially the Church teachings on human sexuality.  This book went on to become a bestseller.  By the way, I read the book.  

Radical liberalism and the gay activists have not only infiltrated our Church, but also our government and schools.  In fact, the Guam Legislature has already introduced a bill to allow transgenders to change the gender in their birth certificate despite the fact that they never went through a sex change.  According to KUAM news (the bold is mine):

Legislation has been introduced that would allow individuals who identify as transgender to change their birth certificates without having to undergo a sex change operation. Supporters say similar laws have now been passed in 19 states and 200 cities across the country.  

Bill sponsor Senator Fernando Esteves explained, saying, "It allows them to do this and make the amendment to their birth certificate without having to undergo the surgical procedure. And so with that, it allows them to live and be recognized as the gender that they identify with, which I believe is inherent in their ability to live freely, and live happily with who they are."

Senatorial candidate Lasia Casil, who identifies as transgender herself, says it's a tool for empowerment that can help lift them up in the face of discrimination. "It is a means for gaining employment, health care, housing and safety. I was fired from a job in 1993 because of these ID problems. Not being able to get a job put me out homeless and working on the street. As many, many people, transyouth are subject to cause they can't get the right ID," she said.

But one woman testified against the bill citing concerns about individuals who have not undergone a sex change who might use the same public restroom as their child. Esteves says the bill requires name change applicants to undergo a psychological evaluation, and a criminal record check.

These are my comments regarding what I placed in bold.  Ms. Casil who identifies as transgender claimed she was fired from a job in 1993 because of these ID problems.  Was the ID really the issue or was it because she checked marked herself on the application and document forms as "male" instead of female?  Guam's ID only specifies "male" and "female" on the form.  As long as your physical gender is female, it should be marked "female" regardless of whether you THINK you are male, Superman, or Santa Claus.  Senatorial candidate Lasia Casil is physically a female and should enter the women's restroom.  After she gets a physical sex change, then he can enter the men's restroom.       

One woman testified against the bill citing concerns about individuals who have not undergone a sex change who might use the same public restroom as their child.  Her concerns are legitimate.  Once the bill is passed, a person can change their ID, passport, and other forms of identification to the gender they identify with despite the fact that they have not had a sex change.  This certainly means that a male person can enter a female restroom.  And to prove it, he has a ID labeling his gender as "female" despite that his physical gender is still a male.  

Are our senators thinking ahead?  Are they aware of the consequences of this bill if they choose to pass it into law?  Don't you think it would be wiser to first install a "transgender" restroom before even considering that bill into law?  After all, how is a psychological exam going to be helpful in a society that is starting to accept homosexuals and transgenders as "normal" rather than as an "intrinsic disorder."  

We are seeing the consequences of accepting homosexual seminarians into a Catholic seminary today.  It caused a depravity in our Church.  Do we want to see depravity in the rest of our society starting with the restrooms of men and women?  Are our senators thinking ahead?  Are they thinking of the consequences of this bill if passed into law? If passed into law, law enforcement will be unable to stop a male who holds a "female" ID from using the women's restroom. When the Guam Legislature introduced a same-sex union bill, Archbishop Apuron vehemently opposed the bill.  Now that a bill has been introduced, allowing transgenders to change the gender in their birth  certificate despite that they have not gone through a sex change, where is Archbishop Byrnes on this issue?  And where is CCOG?  Are they not concern of a man being in a woman's restroom with their mothers and daughters and vice versa?