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. 

God Who Saves the Weak--Or a Weak "god"? Purity Makes the Difference

There is a huge difference between the God who saves the weak and a god who is created out of human weakness.

On its face, the account of the Transfiguration of Jesus teaches us that Jesus is God.  Seeing Jesus transfigured, taking on the radiance of His Divine Nature, speaking to Moses and Elijah, Jews like Peter, James and John would understand the meaning of this.  The Law, represented by Moses, and the Prophets, represented by Elijah, testify to the truth of Jesus, the one who stands before them.  What they see is God unveiled, not hidden, but God, awe-inspiring and majestic, just as Moses witnessed on Mt. Sinai.  This is the One, as St. Paul writes, Christ Jesus, who is at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us.  This is the Beloved Son, who speaks for God and is God, the One to whom we are to listen.

There is, at the same time, in the account of the Transfiguration, a meaning that has practical significance for our spiritual journey during Lent.  It is about the discipline with which we approach it through prayer, fasting and giving alms.  It is about repentance, which only comes about when first we recognize that we have sinned.  The Beatitudes teach that the pure of heart are blessed; they shall see God.  The Jesus encountered on Mt. Horeb is the one we must make every effort to encounter ourselves.  Lent is designed to assist us in that quest as we seen to purify ourselves of all that is not of God in order to receive Him with a pure heart.  We are deceived in this world and this culture of death. As St. John’s first letter says: 1 John 2:15-17  Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God abides forever.  Again, recall the Beatitude, “blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.” 

We are being put to the test like Abraham who was told to go sacrifice his son.  Our Lenten test is much easier, however.  Our goal is to be purified, to put to death worldly desires.  Abraham was put to the test to see if he valued the one true God above even his own son.  In passing the test, Abraham gave us an image of God the Father who sacrificed the Christ for our sake.  Abraham, thus, walked with God.  St. Paul suggests that Abraham knew Christ even though he lived centuries earlier.  Abraham’s vision was pure.  His trust in God was not marked by anything less than the goal of eternal happiness.  His example, unique in salvation history, nevertheless is an example to us to be purified lest we not gain an eternal inheritance in the land of the living.

Let us ask ourselves, why do we not see this Lord in his glory?  Why is it that we refuse to lay aside everything in order that we might walk constantly with God and see his glory?

For the most part, God is not forcing the issue with us as he did with Abraham.  But this does not mean that we are left without opportunities to step out in faith.  We have Lent to voluntarily remove from between the Lord and each one of us the desires that cloud the vision of our minds and hearts and prevent us from ascending the mountain, that prevent us from seeing Jesus Christ as do the pure of heart.

If we are honest with ourselves we would have to admit that, on account of our desire for pleasure, our rebelliousness, our stubbornness, our pride, our laziness, or our greed, that we find the price of seeing God too great, much like the Israelites who fearfully refused to ascend the mountain with Moses in his day.

The Church today is in turmoil.  Publicly, Catholics openly deny the truths of the faith.  Where is the one who accepts in the heart that the Church speaks for God? Often, matters related to purity separate them from the Church.  Many Church leaders, those charged before God to protect the integrity of the faith, do nothing about politicians who are teaching falsehood and even claiming a greater authority than the bishops, or for that matter, than Christ himself. Many teachers of the faith do nothing about the errors that are thrust upon us, choosing instead to run while the wolf devours the sheep.  Catholics are as likely as anyone to fall into the errors condemned in St. Paul’s teaching regarding sexual purity and holiness in marriage.  Out of wedlock births now exceed 40 percent, and in some places, they constitute the majority of births.

If we are to see God, the Beatitudes say we must be pure.  Let me begin with the priests.  Priests must be pure in heart and body--and I speak of myself first--if we are to testify to the truth.  Young men and women must learn again the importance of purity of heart and of body.  They must learn to respect their bodies as God’s temples if they are not to lose their souls on account of the evils the unruly desires unleash.  The culture of death is against them. Who will rise up to protect them? Husbands and wives need to begin again to respect the proper role of purity and chastity in their marriage, be open to life, not contracepting, but trusting in God’s plan.  If God gives Abraham a son, cannot he not also provide for him?  Spouses can learn the sacred signs of fertility and space births scientifically and morally according to the way God made the body.  Learn to love and respect each other as God intended and the true Christ, radiant and powerful, will be part of marriage again.  You do not have to go to Mt. Horeb to see Jesus transfigured.  You can see him everyday in your homes if you, like Abraham, are willing to believe that God is all-powerful and put him first instead of some anemic god created out of human weakness.  There is a huge difference between the majestic God who comes to save the weak and a weak god created out of human frailty.

Freedom of Religion without Exemption--Tax Exemption, That Is?

Since my last post on the Obamacare mandate I have had many thoughts about the matter, mostly born of frustration. It seems likely to me that the notion of religious liberty will prevail in the end.  However, the persons in control of the executive and legislative branches of the government will not back down from the mandate or revise the regulations in a way that restores respect for the freedom of religious groups in this country.  The solution could be a legal one fought in court.  To me, that means that there is going to be a great deal of constitutional hair-splitting.  I wonder if the meaning of religious liberty that comes out the other end of this fight will look exactly like the one we have come to rely upon.

Church leaders are probably thinking more right now about the freedom to live the faith in the public arena and the best way to continue to operate their programs.  The question on the minds of many Church leaders has to be, "What will I do if my ______________ is forced to provide this coverage?"  Fill in the blank with diocese, hospital, school, university, etc.  Some will pay the penalty or go to jail if it comes to that.  I know that many bishops and religious superiors are willing to fight for the identity of these institutions.  I have to ask, though, if the fight is really going to end on the issue of whether the offensive practices are covered under insurance plans.

On the judicial side, the sense of drama will peak when the concern for keeping the Church's institutions identity intact comes up against the tax exempt status enjoyed by the Church.  Is this issue the crux of the underlying plan of the administration? Does the government want to force the Church, indeed all religious groups, to chose between tax exemption and public witness?  The government's coffers would be greatly enhanced by taxation of religious bodies.

I know that there are those who would consider me ignorant and even foolish for suggesting that tax exemption and religious liberty do not go hand in glove.  I would counter that the weight of authority is against that idea, though.  I know Chief Justice John Marshall's 1819 dictum, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."  In days past that close connection could have been logically self-sustaining in any case, not only taxation of the federal government by the states involved in the McCulloch v. Maryland case.   However, the weight of the arguments might go the opposite direction and support taxing religious organizations.

The tax exemption granted to religious institutions is based, in part, on the fact that these institutions serve a secular purpose.  Will there be arguments now that the tax exemption will not be allowed if the requirements of the HHS mandate are not met by religious employers? In my estimation, the only way to stop this is to teach the demagogues a good lesson by a sound electoral trouncing, a position that tax-exempt organizations are not able to advocate.

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).

 

Where Did It Go? The End of the Law

The Natural Law (NL) is a well-developed scientific theory of law and is the basis of all legal systems in Western Thought. It was a system of law and political thinking which placed the law at the service of the human person. It presupposed that the human mind was capable of knowing truth, particularly the truth about the human person and the goal of human life.

The value system in the NL was based upon a rational concept of human nature and the perfection of that nature. The goal for the law, both civil and moral, was to protect the common pursuit of authentic human happiness. This good was not individualist and subjective. It was based in the human ability to know truth, universal and objective. NL presupposes the freedom of the human person to choose means appropriate for the attainment of the authentic good of human life, the good which is actually capable of winning the desire of all human beings. The subjective experience of that good is what is known as happiness. NL was not created by the Catholic Church but was the system of law and morality that, of necessity, was acknowledged and presupposed when Christians began their dialogue with the world.

Natural law wisdom was considered to be scientific wisdom and was accepted by the US political and legal systems until the early twentieth century. The most cited law books in the decisions of the US Supreme Court in the first half of the history of this country were the volumes of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone's views on Natural Law were essentially those accepted for millenia and acknowledged by Catholic thinkers. Natural Law was eventually replaced in the US legal system due to the strident efforts of certain legal thinkers who created a new system of thought. Most legal students today have no knowledge of the principles of the radical reinvention of the legal system that took place about a century ago.

NL began to be questioned by legal philosophers under the influence of the Pragamatists and political Progressivist Movement at the end of the 19th Century. Those who sought to revise the legal system believed in a theory of Social Darwinism and thought that law should be used as a means to bring about the new social eutopia. The "end" in this case were goals that the legislators and judges selected apart from any theory of human nature or other systems of valuing based upon a rational understanding of nature. The novelty of these ideas in the history of law can be seen in the inchoate state of the revised theory of law.

The new legal theory did not contain a system of valuing. The influence of the theory led to the creation of system of law that is no longer concerned with human flourishing which leads to happiness. Instead, by default, the orientation of legal theory became something akin to HLA Hart's view of freedom, the maximum expression of social freedom against every limitation. However, that has not solved the problem resulting from the lack of a theory of value. It is recognized that there must be limitations upon freedom of choice, but without a rational basis for valuing behavior, it is not clear today what the basis should be for establishing such limitations. This hiatus continues to lead to critical conflicts in political and legal processes. As the influence of the new theory continues to advance, there is an increasing tendency to equate any limitation on free choice as an impediment to happiness. But this concept is purely subjectivist. One will note that the concept of the "pursuit of happiness" as a value for law, and as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is unintelligible and seems unattainable in a diverse and pluralistic culture.

The early scholars of the transformation of the US political and legal system in the 20th were Roscoe Pound, Dean of Harvard Law School, and US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Their main objective was to use the law to achieve social ends. Pound, in particular, sought to transform the judiciary into a means for a "more effective social engineering" (Pound's own words). Those familiar with Holmes will be aware of the fact that Holmes was a eugenicist, as were many of his contemporaries. Holmes and Pound were familiar with, and apparently accepted, the instrumentalist logic of John Dewey and the similar legal views of the German legal scholar, Gerhard von Ihering who wrote, Law as a Means to an End. Holmes's eugencist views apparently became part of his way of using the law to achieve desired social ends. Holmes wrote the US Supreme Court decision upholding the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck in Virginia saying "three generations of imbeciles is enough." By the middle of the 20th Century, the revisionists' theory of law, which was pragmatic and instrumentalist, became predominant at bench and bar and in the law schools of the country. This information has been well documented in research by Roberts Summers of Cornell University School of Law and other legal historians.