Masking Morality 101

https://www.12newsnow.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/southeast-texas-doctor-talks-about-recovering-from-covid-19/502-e833549d-0a00-4322-a851-525fe3740377

August, 4, 2020 BEAUMONT, Texas — A Southeast Texas doctor is talking about his recovery from COVID-19, and says he never expected to get it. 

Dr. Ray Callas says on July 27, he had symptoms he'd never felt before.

"I couldn't bend down to tie my shoes. All my muscles and my bones ached and that's never happened before," Callas said.

He tested positive for the coronavirus. 

"My temperature was normal but I had some of the worst chills you could possibly imagine," Callas said. 

He doesn't know where he got it.

"I wore a mask everywhere I went. I used hand sanitizer everywhere I went," Callas said. 

He wants to share his story, letting others know what to do if they test positive.

"They need go get treated right away," Callas said. 

Dr. Callas acknowledges there's no known treatment for COVID-19.

"I also took hydroxychloroquine, and that's very controversial. I just felt personally that I needed to throw the kitchen sink at it," Callas said. 

According to the FDA, doctors can make their own decisions about hydroxychloroquine. 

Dr. Callas also took an antibiotic cocktail that included Albuterol, vitamin C and zinc.

He believes the medications helped him recover.

"It gets rough very quickly and a couple of times last week I was concerned about going to the ER. The shortness of breath is very scary and you just letting it sit in your body, and you think it is going to go away is not the right away to approach," Callas said. 

The story brings up a point that has concerned me from the beginning of the restrictions: the effectiveness of the measures in preventing the spread of the virus to any given individual. If an individual has known comorbidity, the morality of the risk of exposure becomes subject to more scrutiny. Prudence in such circumstances requires a close examination of the true efficacy of the personal equipment one is using, not only for the protection of others, but for the protection of oneself, primarily. This is simply a very basic application of the principles of morality. One cannot knowingly expose oneself to the threat of deadly disease without a sufficient reason. This is a perplexing moral issue because there has been so much confusion coming from so-called experts. Indeed, from a moral point of view, some things we have heard have been wrong and accepting of the ignorance of the people to whom this is directed. This method of operation is not the stuff of moral action. Indeed, duress, ignorance, and fear all reduce the moral quality of an act. My impression is that many people are still of the opinion that by wearing a mask they are protecting themselves. In fact, however, the scientific literature up to this point disputes that point. There are different types of masks and the masks that we don are allegedly more effective at preventing the spread of the disease agent from the wearer to others than they are at preventing the wearer from becoming infected. According to the Mayo Clinic surgical masks and cloth masks "may" protect others by reducing exposure to the mask wearer's secretions. https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449. This is why it is often asserted that wearing a mask is an act of kindness or charity because by doing so one is preventing another person from being exposed to the virus. Of course, the mask may mean nothing at all as a disease preventative. Wearing a cloth mask only has a real pragmatic effect, to whatever degree, if the wearer is carrying the disease and is capable of spreading it. Moreover, there are many other factors that would suggest that one with comorbidity must exercise great caution. There are reasons that most of us are not permitted to visit our relatives in the hospital who have COVID-19. For those of us who are permitted to go in to a patient's room, the type of equipment is very specific. It is designed to prevent the wearer from contracting the disease and it is far more extensive than a mere mask. This is certainly our experience as priests. I would suggest that everyone in healthcare knows this. No professional would send one of us into a COVID patient's room with a homemade cloth mask.

Under the circumstances, the mask mandate gives concrete expression to two assumptions, one that is somewhat well-suited to the purpose while the other is a social control measure. The first assumption is that wearing a mask lessens the chance of expelling the contagion though the nose or mouth. This is a morally acceptable position though the degree to which such is effective is far from clear. The best the Mayo Clinic seems to muster here is by suggesting that it "may" be effective. The second assumption is that the only way to control the spread is to assume that everyone is contagious and should, on that basis, be required to wear the cloth mask. As I have said before, that is a social policy determination. It is not a medical or scientific conclusion. The degree to which a society should enforce the action based upon that assumption is a matter for public debate. There could be other factors that mitigate against it. This is the reason that there are health exemptions from the mandate. Without better scientific evidence, we simply trust the one with the authority to make such mandates. And while we might, for a time, concede that such authority exists, we still do not know why a particular individual should or should not be forced by political authority to wear a mask. Or, to put it another way, we do not know why it would be more dangerous for one individual to be permitted an exemption than to risk spreading the disease. How, exactly, is that calculation made? Does anyone know? Of course, not. It is a public policy estimation at this point.

We do not know the degree to which the social whole is protected by the universal wearing of cloth masks. We think it will help. As the experts say, it "may." The degree that it alleviates the spread of the contagion is completely unknown. 

"Brain Dead" Man Recovers Before Doctors Can Take His Organs | LifeNews.com

"Brain Dead" Man Recovers Before Doctors Can Take His Organs | LifeNews.com

Please take the time to read the story at the link, above.  I have been warning about this for a number of years.  Organ donation is a sensitive subject. I have complete sympathy for those who need organs, but no one should be required to die in order to provide their organs for another person. It must be remembered that the person who is to become a donor of unpaired vital organs must certainly be dead before the removal of the organs.  Perhaps infrequently, but often enough for concern, individuals declared brain dead are not dead and can make significant recoveries. The reasons for this are misdiagnosis, failure to rigorously apply the criteria for brain death, or there is something wrong with the concept of brain death altogether.  My personal opinion is that we do not know enough about this and that advances in the "science" of defining death will eventually result in further clarification of the morality of organ donation.  Criteria for cardiac death, these days, can be a cause for concern, as well.  A person who is not "brain dead" can be removed from a respirator if he or she has a living will or other advance medical directive and, then, organs can be removed.  The argument is that such persons are dead because their heart stops beating for a brief period of time.  However, after this brief time, they are immediately restored to the respirator as their body is being prepped for organ harvesting.  In such cases, the harvesting is often done with anesthesia because the person's body reacts to the injuries of the surgery.

Contraception Insults God!

The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and from it flow all the other mysteries of the faith.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that this mystery is the mystery of “God in himself.” All that is revealed about the meaning of God’s creation, particularly the image of God, male and female, is built upon this most fundamental and essential teaching.


The life to which men and women are called from the moment of their creation is found precisely in friendship with God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the saints.  This pattern inherited from the Most Holy Trinity, a unity of life and love, is essential to all human relationships, and, in a particular way, to that special form of friendship between husband and wife.  Spousal love that is authentically human, after the communion of the Most Holy Trinity, is open to new life.  Why?  Because God, Love, is the source of all life and generates new life.  To prevent life is to kill love.  To step in and block the gift of the human faculty of generating new life is an insult to God who created that power.


From the beginning of the Church, in fidelity to the teaching of the Jesus regarding the human person and human love, she has expressed the truth about the Most Holy Trinity in the moral principle that being faithful in marriage means that every act of marital must be open to life.  Throughout the Church’s 2000 year history this truth about the human person and human sexuality has been taught consistently by the Church’s pastors. Practically, this means that doing anything to prevent the procreative end of the marital act is an offense against the pattern of human married love who is God Himself.  The time since the formulation of the first oral contraceptive pill, which prevents life, has been devastating for family life because the family is patterned on God.  Now, sexually transmitted diseases are epidemic, as many people divorce as remain married, and almost half of all children born in the US are born out of wedlock.


A report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention states, “Contraceptive use in the United States is virtually universal among women of reproductive age: 98 percent of all women who had ever had intercourse had used at least one contraceptive method.” A significant portion of this percentage is attributable to the “pill,” now in use for slightly over 50 years.


The moral teaching in the Catechism is clear: contraception in all its forms is a grave sin and intrinsically evil. When the Catechism says intrinsically evil, it means there is no motive that would allow one to contracept directly. More serious still are the forms that can result in the death of the embryo, such as the pill. 


Given the very clear teaching on the matter and the widespread use of contraceptives, particularly the pill, over the last 50 years, the Church in the US is faced with a chronic and pervasive pastoral problem.  It would be a mistake, however, to think that this problem is one that is only practical--only a failure of priests to teach or in the failure of the faithful to adhere to this teaching.  What is missing is the authentic concept of the human person that the Church has a duty to uphold in society.  It is the Church’s responsibility to stand as a beacon in society, illuminating the truth about the dignity of the human person.  What is lacking, however, in the preaching and teaching of many of the Church's pastors is that pastoral connection between the sin of contraception and the loss of the sense of human dignity.

The loss of human dignity associated with the rise to dominance of the pill and other forms of contraceptives in the place of human love provokes a profound sense of sadness.  Men and women united in the state of Holy Matrimony have received the gift and responsibility of showing the world a reflection of the mystery of  “God in himself.”  From that perspective, the sadness of the matter comes not so much from the sin committed, which God forgives and heals, as from the good that is lost.

Within the Church many of us, priests and lay faithful, are living with a woefully impoverished concept of the human person.  We have all but replaced the concept of the human person modeled upon the Most Holy Trinity with a false concept that leaves little room for vigorous faith and authentic human love, something we need to work to rediscover.  The only way we could be content with the status quo is to give in to the materialistic notion that life requires choices of economic prudence over the value of the divine image.  When we rediscover the truth of the Most Holy Trinity as the divine pattern for love and believe again in who we are, Catholics, all Christians, and many others will, again, see the pill for the awful curse upon the human family that it is.

(For about 12 years I wrote editiorials for the St. Louis Review.  I wrote this in 2010 and reworked it here for the blog.)

Ella and the President's Mandate

Ella causes abortion. This link tells how.

Ella is covered under the new HHS mandate for insurance as a so-called emergency contraceptive.  So Catholic dioceses and agencies will have have to pay for plans that include this coverage.  Ella is a progesterone modulator that is called ulipristal acetate.  It could be described as a weaker formula of the drug mifepristone popularly known as the abortion drug, RU-486.

Of course, the promoters of the drug argue it stops ovulation while acknowledging that it is a selective progesterone receptor modulator.  The problem with that argument is that the science behind the drug completely contradicts their claim.  Their claims are purely political, not scientific.  If the drug blocks progesterone production, it can act to prevent implantation of an embryo.

Menstrual cycle

The chart to the right, which one can find almost anywhere, clearly shows that progesterone levels certainly do not rise much prior to ovulation, but after ovulation there is a notable increase. The chart also shows how the endometrial lining which can support the embryo develops under the influence of progesterone after ovulation has occurred.

Apparently, Ella makers and the FDA claim that blocking progesterone production in turn blocks ovulation and nothing more. That is absurd as any scientific chart similar to the one shown here will demonstrate. In the body, following upon ovulation, progesterone is produced by the corpus luteum, which is what remains of the ovarian follicle after ovulation occurs. To suggest that a progesterone blocker such as Ella only prevents ovulation is nothing short of a deliberate falsehood and a political hoax of the worst kind.

Progesterone acts to prepare the endometrium, the lining of the uterus, to sustain the developing embryo that is formed at conception.  No progesterone, no continuation of pregnancy.  In other words, if a woman is ovulating around the time of taking Ella, after intercourse, the consequence of ingesting the drug will be the ejection of the young embryo from the womb of the mother.  This is quite clearly an abortion.
On the basis of experience with RU-486, those who testified before the FDA against approval of the drug warned of the serious adverse effects for women who would use the Ella drug.  RU-486 was linked directly to deaths and numerous hospitalizations.  Much like the science behind the drug itself, this testimony was completely ignored.

It should be clear to all concerned what is at stake here for the Church.  The Church cannot follow the mandate because the Church herself would be implicated in the direct killing of innocent human life which she condemns with the most severe of remedial penalties. According to the universal law of the Church, the penalty for deliberately aborting is automatic excommunication.  Abortion includes the ejection or destruction of the embryo between conception and implantation.  Ella does exactly that.  Ella is also potentially dangerous to women.  The use of the drug can only be rejected.

The Life-Giving Process is Sacred

I taped a television spot for the diocese today and one of the questions involved something I had written about some time ago.  It seems somewhat relevant to the debates about contraception coverage.  I thought I would post is here.  This was a response to a question which I answered for the St Louis Review.  Be sure to read the last paragraph.

'Dear Father'
What did the saints really write about abortion?
by Father Edward Richard, MS


Q: I've read people try to justify abortion by citing the writings of Sts. Aquinas and Augustine. How can they do that?

A: The argument that certain writings of Sts. Augustine and Aquinas are not consistent with the truth of Church teaching on the grave sinfulness of abortion is false. These saints taught the serious sinfulness of deliberate abortion and they believed that the child in the womb was human from the start. (See Anne B. Gardiner's article in the New Oxford Review, 2004.) In a published interview on the subject (National Catholic Reporter, Jan. 17, 2003), bioethics expert and professor Father Brian Johnstone, CSSR, stated, "There was never any question (in Augustine and Aquinas) of whether terminating a pregnancy was sinful, but rather what kind of sin it was in the early stages -- homicide or something else."

The tortuous logic of the claim originates in a 1970 article by Father Joseph F. Donceel, SJ. Father Donceel uses the medieval biology of St. Thomas Aquinas to question the arguments used by Catholics in support of the teaching identifying abortion as a killing of an innocent human being.

Father Donceel used the outdated biology to assert that in the first several weeks the fetus went through two prior stages, possessing first a vegetative soul then an animal soul, before becoming human. More recent arguments arising out of Father Donceel's musings have gone so far as to assert that no human person exists until the eighth month when the brain is developed to a point when it is capable of a certain level of knowledge.

However, in a refutation of Father Donceel's archaic analysis, David Granfield wrote that according to Thomistic philosophy a rational soul is infused at the moment of fertilization ("Abortion Decision," 1971).

Moreover, Germain Grisez ("Abortion: The Myths, the Realities and the Arguments," 1970) summarizes the whole issue when he states, "If St. Thomas had known about the specific and individual genetic uniqueness of the zygote which makes it biologically a living organism of the human species, he would have supported immediate animation." Grisez is referring to the point that human life begins at fertilization.

The history of the matter and the unbroken tradition condemning abortion is much clearer than those who challenge the Church on this issue would allow. In his book titled "Contraception," John T. Noonan reviews the historical evidence beginning with the very earliest writing we have, the Didache, and continuing on through the Letter of Barnabas from the early second century which holds, "You shall not kill the fetus by an abortion or commit infanticide." Referring to such documents and numerous other writings the testimony of history is so strong it leads Noonan to conclude, "The Christians taught that all life must be inviolate, and, using the terms the law reserved for the killing of adults, they charged that not only the destruction of existing life but the interruption of the life-giving process was homicide and parricide. They were led to attach sanctity not only to life but to the life-giving process."


First printed in the St. Louis Review, January 14, 2005.

The Evil of the Mandate

We are going to hear all sorts of attempts to accommodate the President's Mandate "accommodation" within Catholic ranks.  The chiefs of Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association were obviously given the advance notice they needed to be ready to give the President the shout out on this. There will be many more. They will all make their comments based upon convoluted, moralistic platitudes about the good of providing universal access to health care which, they say, trumps participation in moral evil.  These positions will be mortally flawed.  Will they be corrected?  I would hope so.

Willing cooperation in grave evil in order to secure a benefit for oneself makes the person who cooperates equally guilty of the grave evil.  What is the goal, exactly, of agreeing with the President on this?  Is it because those who go along with the President's mandate want people to have access to these so-called preventive services?  If so, the cooperation in the program of contraception, sterilization, and chemical abortions is immoral and gravely sinful.  Is it because they want to maintain government funding and the ability to "serve" the general public?  The cooperation is still gravely sinful.

In fact, it is quite clear that these agencies and their affiliated institutions cannot cooperate in this plan to provide abortion, sterilization, or contraceptives.  Indeed, this plan of the President's is morally evil, in itself.  It is what moral theology and Catholic doctrine refer to as "intrinsic evil."  Yes, that's right.  The plan itself, not just the acts of abortion, contraception and sterilization, is intrinsically evil.

Please see the following Doctrinal Statement issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on March 13, 1975.  It was called "Quecumque sterilizatio." Some will argue that this doctrinal statement does not apply because we are talking about health insurance plans and not the health care institution as the statement does.  I say, however, that this is a distinction without a difference.  As a matter of fact, on the basis of principles espoused in the document itself, one must conclude that providing the approval of a plan for such gravely immoral actions across a wide array of institutions and circumstances is itself a greater evil than a plan which consents to the evil in one single institution. 

I will post later on the abortion drug issue. 

For convenience sake, I have highlighted some of the more pertinent elements of the CDF's statement.  

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING STERILIZATION IN CATHOLIC HOSPITALS

This Sacred Congregation has diligently considered not only the problem of contraceptive sterilization for therapeutic purposes but also the opinions indicated by different people toward a solution, and the conflicts relative to requests for cooperation in such sterilizations in Catholic hospitals. The Congregation has resolved to respond to these questions in this way:  

1. Any sterilization which of itself, that is, of its own nature and condition, has the sole immediate effect of rendering the generative faculty incapable of procreation, is to be considered direct sterilization, as the term is understood in the declarations of the pontifical Magisterium, especially of Pius XII¹. Therefore, notwithstanding any subjectively right intention of those whose actions are prompted by the care or prevention of physical or mental illness which is foreseen or feared as a result of pregnancy, such sterilization remains absolutely forbidden according to the doctrine of the Church. And indeed the sterilization of the faculty itself is forbidden for an even graver reason than the sterilization of individual acts, since it induces a state of sterility in the person which is almost always irreversible.  

Neither can any mandate of public authority, which would seek to impose direct sterilization as necessary for the common good, be invoked, for such sterilization damages the dignity and inviolability of the human person². Likewise, neither can one invoke the principle of totality in this case, in virtue of which principal interference with organs is justified for the greater good of the person; sterility intended in itself is not oriented to the integral good of the person as rightly pursued “the proper order of goods being preserved”³ inasmuch as it damages the ethical good of the person, which is the highest good, since it deliberately deprives foreseen and freely chosen sexual activity of an essential element. Thus article 20 of the medical-ethics code promulgated by the conference in 1971 faithfully reflects the doctrine which is to be held, and its observance should be urged. 

2. The Congregation, while it confirms this traditional doctrine of the Church, is not unaware of the dissent against this teaching from many theologians. The Congregation, however, denies that doctrinal significance can be attributed to this fact as such, so as to constitute a “theological source” which the faithful might invoke and thereby abandon the authentic Magisterium, and follow the opinions of private theologians which dissent from it⁴. 

3. Insofar as the management of Catholic hospitals is concerned:  

a) Any cooperation which involves the approval or consent of the hospitals to actions which are in themselves, that is, by their nature and condition, directed to a contraceptive end, namely, in order that the natural effects of sexual actions deliberately performed by the sterilized subject be impeded, is absolutely forbidden. For the official approbation of direct sterilization and, a fortiori, its management and execution in accord with hospital regulations, is a matter which, in the objective order, is by its very nature (or intrinsically) evil. The Catholic hospital cannot cooperate with this for any reason. Any cooperation so supplied is totally unbecoming the mission entrusted to this type of institution and would be contrary to the necessary proclamation and defense of the moral order. 

b) The traditional doctrine regarding material cooperation, with the proper distinctions between necessary and free, proximate and remote, remains valid, to be applied with the utmost prudence, if the case warrants. 

c) In the application of the principle of material cooperation, if the case warrants, great care must be taken against scandal and the danger of any misunderstanding by an appropriate explanation of what is really being done. 

This Sacred Congregation hopes that the criteria recalled in this letter will satisfy the expectations of that episcopate, in order that, with the uncertainties of the faithful cleared up, the Bishops might more easily respond to their pastoral duty. 

Franjo Cardinal Šeper
Prefect 

Most Rev. Jérôme Hamer, O.P.  Titular Archbishop of Lorium 

Secretary 

l. Cf. especially the two Allocutions to the Catholic Union of Obstetricians and to the International Society of Hematology: AAS 43 (1951) 843-844; 50 (1958) 734-737 and in the encyclical of Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 14: AAS 60 (1968) 490-491.
2. Cf. Pius XI, the encyclical Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930) 565.
3. Paul VI, the encyclical Humanae Vitae: AAS 60 (1968) 487.
4. Cf. Vatican Council II, constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 25, 1: AAS 57 (1965) 29-30; Pius XII, Allocution to the Most Reverend Cardinals: AAS 46 (1954) 672; the encyclical Humani Generis: AAS 42 (1950) 568; Paul VI, Allocution to the meeting regarding the theology of Vatican Council II: AAS 58 (1966) 889-896 (especially 890-894); Allocution to the Members of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer: AAS 59 (1967) 960-963 (especially 962).

 

I have been saying this for a long time...

From Bioedge: Doctors Call for Moratorium on Organ Donation after Cardiac Death

Organ Donation after Cardiac Death (DCD), formerly known as the non-heart beating donation protocol (NHBD) is a misused and deadly form of organ donation. When I was an editorial writer for the St. Louis Review, the Review published an editorial calling for a moratorium on donations following this protocol.  It was criticized by some so-called bioethicists and some who claimed to be Catholic moralists.  Still, to be honest, it remains a questionable practice.  It is interesting that this group of doctors now is calling for the same.

The fact of the matter is that there are doctors on the other side of the issue who argue that we should abandon the dead donor rule for the same reasons that these doctors say that there should be a moratorium on this practice, that is, that the intended donors are not dead.  I think it is embarrassing that those who claim to support organ donation will not deal the practical side of the dead donor rule.  Why stick one's head in the sand?  Isn't it best to get this out in the open?  If you claim to support ethical organ donation, why not allow an open an honest discussion? Why not support full disclosure to potential organ donors?  Shouldn't potential donors know that when the decision is made to take their organs that they, the donors, might not be dead?

Looking for the Wrong Rights Will End Life and Religious Freedom

Just recently, the Executive Branch of the US Government authorized the Department of Defense to allow its chaplains to celebrate so-called marriages of same sex couples wherever it is allowed by state law.  Archbishop Broglio of the Archdiocese for Military Services said under no circumstances will Catholic chaplains witness so-called same sex marriages.  Archbishop Broglio also noted that he did not see how the administration could authorize such unions when Federal Law prohibits it in the Defense of Marriage Act.

Recently, as well, the executive branch has drafted new guidelines which could require catholic doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, even those working in Catholic hospitals and the institutions themselves, to perform direct sterilizations and abortions. 

You might not think that so-called same sex marriage and these other issues are related, but I can tell you that many people who study these things in our society know they are.

As Rev. Dr. Leonard Childress, writing in BlackNews.com, states:

This generation's elites combat truth with ideology, character assassination, deception, and of course, denial. The two defining issues of the day which will determine the course of our culture, and the destiny of our nation, are abortion and homosexuality... Pro-choice, and homosexual and lesbian activists, all claim their cause is a Civil Rights issue. Yet the "Civil Rights" of the unborn children are being denied, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim a "right" for yourself, and by so doing, deny the rights of someone else, especially when that someone is an unborn infant.”  Writing in an article entitled “Homosexuality, Abortion and Dr. Martin Luther King, he adds, “What probably grieves me the most is that they both claim Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King as an icon for their cause, when essentially nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. King was a chief facilitator of the Civil Rights Movement, and by his death at the hand of an assassin, paid the ultimate price for his cause. Freeing African-Americans from centuries of slavery, bigotry and racism, does not equate with sexual preference, and so in some ways, Dr. King's writings are more relevant, imperative, and apropos today than when he first penned them decades ago… The pimping of Dr. King by the racist abortion industry and by homosexual and lesbian activists, needs to cease.

Frankly, it is difficult to see how these troubling developments in the government do not constitute a direct attack on religion, particularly Christians, and especially Catholics.  There appears to be little effort in these new guidelines to provide for genuine respect of conscience in such a way that we would not be required to participate in these moral evils.  As you may know, already in some major metropolitan areas Catholic Charities has been forced to remove itself from placing babies for adoption because of state laws that require that we place them with same sex couples. 

As we consider these things, we realize that we are speaking of the institution of marriage, the meaning of sexuality, and the freedom of man and woman to fulfill their parental role.  Marriage and child bearing as a holy institution has always been the subject of attack, even in the time of Jesus.  When the Pharisees approach Jesus about the question of divorce, as is reported in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus tells them that Moses allowed divorce due to the hardness of their hearts but it was not so from the beginning when God created man and woman and instituted marriage.  Jesus, of course, makes it clear that what God has joined, no man can separate.

Very early in the Church, St. Augustine defended marriage as a holy institution against those who saw marriage and child-bearing in all sorts of strange ways.  Some of his opponents considered conception of a child as an imprisonment of a divine spirit.  Others thought that men and women ought to be able to engage in every sort of strange act without consequence. 

Later on, the Council of Trent spoke of the importance of marriage as a holy institution.  It was for the sanctification of the spouses through their mutual love.  It was not intended as a remedy for concupiscence as some of the reformers taught. 

In more recent times, marriage has come under attack from the Birth Control League and its successor Planned Parenthood.  This attack has taken place on several fronts, mostly in the attempt to limit the reproduction of persons these groups and persons considered undesirable, although their movement was always grounded in the efforts of population control.  Margaret Sanger, the founder of this group had this to say:  Birth control clinics, or bureaus, should be established "in which men and women will be taught the science of parenthood and the science of breeding…"to breed out of the race the scourges of transmissible disease, mental defect, poverty, lawlessness, crime … since these classes would be decreasing in number instead of breeding like weeds."

The website blackgenocide.org reports this important information:  At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood. (Life and Education Resource, blackgenocide.org)

The rise of the push for birth control was completely tied up with the attempts by various racist and elitist organizations to root out of society people they considered to be undesirable. 26 states in the United States, because of the efforts of such groups, drafted legislation that forced certain people to be sterilized.  These laws were upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1920’s. In one important case, Buck v. Bell, a case from Virginia in which the state’s eugenics officer wanted to sterilize a young woman, Justice OW Holmes Jr. upheld the law saying that “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

It is not surprising that we do not learn about these things in our history books.  They are just kept quiet because they arose out of the Progressivist Movement that is so popular today.  We would still be dealing with these things out in the open but for one terrible group and their deeds—the Nazis.  You see, the Nazis and the people like the Birth Control League and Planned Parenthood in the United States are born of the same ideas.  The Nazi’s thought that they should purify the race of undesirables.  It started with what were called “useless eaters.”  And it began with the doctors, the scientists, not the politicians.

I would encourage you to visit websites like blackgenocide.org to learn more about the birth control movement, abortion and the devastating effects these things are having in our society.

The roots of the evil of abortion and the holocaust are ideas that spread hatred and death like the plague.  It takes many forms and the greatest threat to any of these horrors is the truth of Jesus Christ and his Church.   So-called same-sex marriage is the latest front in the attack on the definition of marriage and the procreation and education of children.  The efforts to silence the Church will increase all the more as these evils march forward.

Is assisted suicide the easy way out for Medicine?

A couple of recent stories on Lifesite News discuss the developments on the Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia front. This is a growing phenomenon that shows how inconstant and foolish our society as a whole can be.

While one can easily understand the pain of suffering which would make persons want to escape the suffering which becomes seemingly intolerable, more and more, people are asking for suicide even when they do not have a terminal condition.

Those who support assisted suicide are doing more than providing an "out" from the hardships of living, however. Certainly, our medicine is truly remarkable and what wonderful care-givers we have. Discoveries abound. Many resources are put into treating the sick with great success. But with success comes a trap. There is a tendency on the part of our society to adopt an attitude that those who have incurable conditions are burdens to the rest of us. Some ask why should we waste resources on someone who is going to end up dying anyway? (Who isn't?)

I do not attribute this attitude as much to the medical professionals as to the whole of our culture. We have taught ourselves to value the lives of others more for what they can do than for the fact that they are human beings. If more and more of the sick and infirm take the suicide route, will this work against encouraging doctors and researchers treating similar patients and finding new treatments?