Jan 24, 2021

Whether Americans Must Wear Masks - A Disputed Question

If I have no choice, my choice would be the InvisiSHIELD (on Amazon)


Objection 1: It seems that Americans must wear masks because the president asks for it and because the president is exercising lawful authority in this request, and Americans must obey lawful authority.

Objection 2: It seems that masks act as a filter to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. Therefore, if everyone would have just obeyed and wore masks, the general transmission of COVID-19 would have been stopped, and the COVID-19 Pandemic would have been ended within a matter of weeks.   


Objection 3: It seems that Americans must wear masks for the sake of the common good.

Objection 4: It seems Public Health is the common good that must be sought. Masks have an influence on the summaries that we use to measure public health. Therefore Americans must wear masks.

Objection 5: It seems that the risk of spreading COVID-19 to others must be avoided by wearing a mask. Avoiding this risk is a necessary form of charity toward others.

Objection 6: It seems that an intervention of Nation-wide mandates for managing the pandemic is legitimate because interventions on the State level have not been able to take care of the problem. Therefore Americans would need to wear masks if requested by a Nation-wide mandate.

Objection 7: It seems that Nation-wide mandates would be a kind of Socialist solution to address perceived threats to public health. It seems that a Socialist solution is necessary. Therefore Americans must wear masks as part of a Socialist programme for public health.

Objection 8: It seems that Commerce clause of the Constitution gives the Federal government has the authority to quarantine peoples. Masks are a method of quarantining peoples. Therefore the Federal government has the authority to quarantine all citizens through the use of masks. State governments also have authority to regulate commerce and to quarantine peoples. Therefore they also have the authority to mandate masks for all their citizens.  It seems that the National Government should step in when State Governments are not doing a good job of quarantining their citizens.


On the Contrary: Americans live in the "land of the free."




I respond that America was founded on the principle of limited government. Furthermore, the principle in which a problem should be handled at the most local level wherever possible (the principle of Subsidiarity) is the "spirit" that animates and guides this most foundational American ideal of limited government, when it is expressed and fleshed out in many and varied ways in the United States Constitution and especially in the first 10 Amendments. The principle of Subsidiarity is directly opposed to Socialism because it is the literal opposite of the principle that guides the advancement of Socialism, namely that universal solutions to problems should be sought from the highest levels wherever possible. Furthermore, Socialism is not just an idea. It is a very big problem. The definitive Socialist dream is an efficient but unattainable utopia where every human need is provided for, even to the degree that money is no longer needed. A couple of very catastrophic examples of Socialism in the past century include the National Socialist Party of Germany (the NAZIS) and the United Soviet Socialist Republic (the USSR). A modern catastrophic example is the Socialist country of Venezuela, where the collapse of their currency was recently achieved but the crimes against humanity that are now occurring there are arguably just as unspeakable as the former examples. Of the modern Socialist regimes that now govern much of the developed world, many of them have established legalized abortion, which is practiced at a scale just as unspeakable as the above examples. The modern Socialist states are also trending toward legalized involuntary euthanasia, which conveniently helps to make the Socialist healthcare services more sustainable. No wonder that Papal encyclicals condemning National Socialism were read aloud from nearly every pulpit of the Catholic Church in the past century. Perhaps this teaching has been forgotten and it needs to be preached again. Don't get me wrong, the ideals of Socialism aren't all bad. But Socialism only works on the small scale, and only among saints living in religious orders. It is because of fallen human nature that Socialism will never work on the National level or in any secular government. History has shown that National Socialism tends toward a tyranny that destroys men.  It cannot save man from himself and it must be opposed, especially by those who would defend the Constitution of the United States. 




Reply to Objection 1: The President of the United States is a puppet. President Trump would have begged to differ, but there is a lawful sense in which the president of the United States is actually supposed to be a puppet. The executive branch, which he directs, is supposed to simply carry out and execute, not the will of those who have the power to control the reins of a political party, but the will of the people as it is most clearly expressed in the laws written by the legislative branch. When the president is executing the law, he is exercising lawful authority. But if he instead makes himself a puppet of the mainstream media and the technocracy, if he says what the media tells him to say and if he does what the technocracy tells him to do, he is not exercising lawful authority. Insofar as Biden is a puppet of the mainstream media and the technocracy when he asks for Americans to wear masks, he is not exercising lawful authority. A command of unlawful authority can and must be opposed, for the sake of the common good, which includes the good of democracy, practiced lawfully within a republic. An unlawful request that all Americans wear masks can and must be opposed. 



















Reply to Objection 2: A surgeon wears a mask to block droplets of blood from entering his orifices. virus is much much smaller and can easily pass through the spaces between the fibers of the mask material. This is true for all masks currently in use to slow the spread of COVID-19, including surgical masks, cloth masks, and also the N95 masks. The N95 masks do not filter out 5% of the airborne particles. Viruses fall within this category of particles. Therefore, masks themselves do not function as effective filters to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. However, when everybody wears masks, this changes the behavior of peoples, and the changes of behavior contribute toward a slower spread of COVID-19. The mask can also contribute mechanically, not as a filter, but as a wall that slows down and disperses any high-velocity puffs of air that may exit a person's mouth when coughing, sneezing, or speaking a word with the letter "p", thus dispersing any COVID-19 virus particles that may be present in the burst of air and making it less likely that others nearby will be exposed to the potentially higher-concentration of particles that would otherwise be trapped in the vortex that is formed when the high-velocity puff of air travels across a room. The clear-plastic face shields can also disperse air, especially if they are more of the wrap-around type, but they bring about less of a change in the behavior of peoples. They are still effective at slowing the transmission of COVID-19 through behavior modification insofar as they are a visual reminder to keep conversations short. 















Reply to Objection 3: Masks have the effect of obscuring communication. Masks can slow the communication of disease, but they also obscure both verbal and nonverbal communication, and they are a kind of barrier to a fully human encounter. For example, when you see a masked stranger, how much harder is it to catch his attention and strike up a conversation? How much harder will it be to recognize the stranger the next time you see him? How much harder is it to become introduced or really get to know a masked stranger?  How many times have you had to ask a person to repeat what they said, because it could not be understood from behind the mask? In these examples, masks are a limitation to both the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly. Clear and effective communication is necessary for the common good. Freedom of assembly is also necessary for the common good. A common good is something that we create together, something that is more than just the sum of individual goods. The common good is more than the sum of the goods enjoyed by individuals because the common good is vulnerable to being lost when communion fails. The common good includes the good of democracy, defined as "rule by the people." Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are necessary constitutional (First Amendment) rights for the sake of democracy because democracy fails when the exercise of these rights are not protected and promoted, when communion is broken and communication is restricted. The exercise of these rights of free speech and assembly is necessary for the existence of other common goods, as well. Masks are not "for" anything in common; masks rather have the effect of obstructing that which would be common. Because they obstruct that which would be common, they are not, strictly speaking, for the common good.











Reply to Objection 4: Masks can be used to preserve the good of public health. But public health is not a common good in the strict sense because public health can be regarded as no more than the sum of individual goods, namely the sum health status of all of the individuals under consideration, according to quantifiable measures, such as the count of active COVID-19 hospitalizations, or, in a more positive, straight-forward sense, the count of the number of people who are healthy and do not have COVID-19. If these quantifiable summary representations of public health can be improved by eliminating or removing the weakest members, then the idea of advancing public health by this means is not even a "good" for all, and it can never be a common good if it is contrary to the good of individuals. Public health should not be regarded as more important than actual common goods. Furthermore, when an overemphasis on public health causes personal goods to be reduced to quantifiable measures of health, it can be very dangerous. For example, Biden's chief doctor who advises him on his COVID-19 task-force thinks that his own life will not be worth living after 75 years, and for this reason he will not use life-preserving measures such as a flu vaccine after he is 75 years old. The idea that a life might not be worth living has been promulgated before. It has the potential for disastrous effects on a grand scale when such an idea is held by those influencing public policy, especially when combined with the totalitarian tendencies of National Socialism. 














source 1
source 2


Reply to Objection 5: For a young person, the risk of death from COVID-19 is less than the risk of death from driving a car. Driving a car is a necessary risk that we take. Communicating without a mask is also necessary in many situations, for the sake of building up some common good. It does not matter what the risk is, people still have a right to communicate together and assemble together without a mask between them. They ought to use this right responsibly, of course, and people are free to withdraw or refrain from communicating fully, using prudence and charity. On the other hand, there are some situations where there is practically no risk of communicating COVID-19 to others. For example, someone who has had COVID-19 and recovered from it would only have a chance of catching it again, and further spreading it, if he himself has a compromised immune system. If COVID-19 causes a (temporary) weakening of the immune system, then this may need to be taken into account. But if his immune system is working properly, and his body responded with the production of the proper antibodies, T-cells, and whatever else it uses for immunity which yet remains a mystery, then he is not likely to catch COVID-19 again, and he is not likely to spread it to others. If someone is not likely to spread COVID-19 to others, he shouldn't have to wear a mask. 




Reply to Objection 6: Interventions on the State level were actually quite effective at lengthening the curve, which is what they intended to do. There was much disinformation on this point. In order to understand what was intended by the interventions, imagine a chart where the x-axis is time and the y-axis is the number of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Draw a bell-curve on the chart that resembles a normal distribution. This represents what the curve would have looked like, without the interventions. Now stretch the curve to be much more wide, much less tall, but with the same area under the curve. The new curve represents the goal. The goal of the interventions was not to shorten the duration of the pandemic, but rather to lengthen the duration of the pandemic by slowing the spread of the virus as it ran its course through the population, therefore reducing the number of active hospitalizations due to the virus at any one time. The goal was to "flatten the curve" by "lengthening the curve." It seems that these interventions were taken on by the State because the State believed that it was fully responsible for making sure that the sick are cared for. I believe that the Catholic Church would beg to differ. The Catholic Church is the biggest provider of healthcare, not the State. The State should not consider itself the sole responsible provider of healthcare because when it does, it always proves itself unable to provide sufficiently, and unable to provide the necessary but unquantifiable dimension of Love, when healthcare is reduced to a bureaucracy. Furthermore, State-wide interventions were not wise because they caused hospitals in rural areas to close or reduce their staff when too few people were coming in. Nation-wide interventions would have the same unfortunate effect but on a larger scale. A much better approach to the pandemic would be to ask, or even require, for local communities to actively regulate and promulgate their own health guidelines, with a close eye on the number of severe cases and deaths in the local hospitals. It would be prudent if these local health guidelines asked for households with vulnerable members to follow certain guidelines, while the other households without vulnerable members could be more free to make their own risk assessment following the advice of the doctor of their choice, and proceed as they see fit. This will result in a better-managed, shorter curve, less quarantine time for families who must protect vulnerable persons, less of a timeframe in which vulnerable persons are at-risk while waiting for the virus to finish the course of the curve, less depression, less poverty, and less suicides. Therefore, a Socialist, Nation-wide solution is not necessary.






















Reply to Objection 7: A universal mask mandate is Socialist because it presents a one-size-fits-all, universal, society-wide, top-down, solution. A Nation-wide Socialist solution is not necessary, as demonstrated above. A good American citizen is faithful to the Constitution and stands up for this "supreme law of the land," in opposition to any National mandates which are Socialist and unnecessary. Therefore all Americans do not need to wear masks.







Reply to objection 8: Commerce always involves some kind of commercial activity, and commercial activity is when things are bought and sold. Persons themselves may not be bought and sold, and therefore they may not be regarded as goods of commerce. Although certain categories of persons (slaves) were being bought and sold as goods of commerce when the Constitution was written, slavery was and always will be a violation of human dignity and must be opposed. Furthermore, insofar as the communication of a disease is unintentional, it is not something that is bought or sold. Therefore, the regulation of the unintentional communication of disease is not authorized by the commerce clause. Furthermore, while the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to regulate inter-state commerce and reserves the regulation of the intra-state commerce to the states, it denies states the authority to prohibit the freedom of assembly and therefore denies states the authority to quarantine peoples from one another through domestic-level lock-downs, social distancing, or the wearing of masks. However, families are free to choose methods of self-quarantine to help slow the spread of disease among themselves and in their local community. Governments at all levels may still advise and inform. In the present situation they have the duty to inform. Here is what they can do: local governments could greatly assist families by assembling maps of the local county similar to the picture above, where each dot represents a hospital. Outlined Hospital Regions should also be included which encompass all locations for which a given hospital is the closest. An Infected (Red) Hospital Region has active COVID-19 hospitalizations. A Susceptible (Yellow) hospital-region has no active COVID-19 hospitalizations. Furthermore, when arrows of equal sizes are drawn between all of the Infected (Red) Hospital Regions, and the midpoint of the arrow is placed at the midpoint of their shared border, with each arrow pointing toward the region with the faster day-to-day increase of active COVID-19 hospitalizations, and when a circle around a hospital with no COVID-19 hospitalizations is expanded to include the midpoints of one, three, or five of the nearest arrows, if in most of these three circles there are more arrows pointing inward, then it is a Susceptible (Yellow) Hospital Region. If, in most of these circles there are more arrows pointing outward, then it is a Recovered (Black) Hospital Region. If there is a noticeable trend where the number of active COVID-19 hospitalizations seems to be increasing toward a peak, then the red dot could be encircled in yellow. To provide even more info, it could be a normal-sized yellow dot whose radius represents the number of active COVID-19 hospitalizations plus the number of empty beds, under a circumscribed red dot whose proportionate radius represents the number of active COVID-19 hospitalizations. If, on the other hand, there is a noticeable trend where the number of active COVID-19 hospitalizations is decreasing after a peak, then the red dot could be encircled in black. To provide even more info, it could be a normal-sized black dot whose radius represents the number of active COVID-19 hospitalizations at the peak plus the number of empty beds at the peak, circumscribed under a red dot whose proportionate radius represents the number of active hospitalizations. A hospital that has reached peak capacity might be represented by a purple dot. If a hospital has reached peak capacity and there are active COVID-19 hospitalizations which would have come there but had to be outsourced to another hospital, this could be represented by the normal-sized purple dot whose radius represents the hospital's active COVID-19 hospitalizations, circumscribed over a larger-than-normal red dot whose radius represents the hospital's active COVID-19 hospitalizations plus the active hospitalizations which would have gone to that hospital but had to be outsourced elsewhere. Local governments should compile this information and provide it when advising families and other households who need to make the tough decisions regarding how to best protect any vulnerable members in their midst or who they associate with. Higher levels of government should compile what the lower levels compiled, to assist travelers. 


Jul 25, 2017

Come, Meet Jesus and Grow Deeper in His Love

Hi! If you've encountered the joyful witness of a Christian and want to know the One Who motivates her, or if you've met someone on fire with the Faith which you had as a child but never explored into adulthood, then this post is for you!

May 9, 2014

Health Coverage Options for Catholics (An Open Letter)


"Hi, Donnie!  A young woman asked me to advise her about taking health insurance from a provider that funds abortions. She says she has to do this under state law...  I told her that she had options... She asked me for them... How can she get insurance from a company that does not go along with abortion coverage, etc.?  Thanks!...God bless!"

Dear [Friend],

May the Lord give you His peace! Thank you for sharing with me the concern of the young woman you know about her health insurance covering abortions. I followed this issue very closely after the USCCB gave a primer a couple of years ago about the way in which these abortions would be funded http://goo.gl/HCPjvb and this is the bad news that has been like a thorn irritating our consciences.

The good news is that there are a few good options out there, as you suggested to her. There are a total of three Christian alternatives to health insurance, called health sharing ministries, whose members are exempt from the individual insurance mandate. Also, for Catholic organizations and Catholic business owners, there is still the option to obtain insurance, along with the Little Sisters of the Poor, from an insurance company run by the Christian Brothers, http://goo.gl/sbkpYj as long as their battle in court does not fail. This might be the best option for your friend if she works for someone who is Catholic. Otherwise, one of the three health-sharing ministries might work for her:

1) For an individual who is looking for an alternative to insurance that functions just like insurance, Medishare http://goo.gl/jJSDST would be the best option, because when you sign up you are given a card that functions just like an insurance card when you present it to your medical provider.

2) For an individual who is looking for the least expensive health coverage option, I would invite them to join CHM, Christian Healthcare Ministries, http://goo.gl/PfLP1S of which I have been a member for over a year. It is less expensive than Medishare or insurance because I do not have to pay the ministry to negotiate with my healthcare provider to arrange the payment, but rather, I present myself as if I
were a self-pay patient, explaining that I have "something better than insurance," in which my medical bills are shared by thousands of other Christians. As a self-pay patient, I am still entitled to ask for the same discount that they give to the insurance companies, which is usually around 60%. This little bit of effort on my part is the key to keeping costs low for the ministry. Within the ministry, there are three different levels of coverage, the highest of which, for $150/month, covers most medical expenses.  I chose the lowest level of participation, at $45/ month, in which I will be responsible for the first $5,000 (you might call this a deductible) of medical bills from an illness or injury that requires hospitalization, while the rest of these bills are paid by the ministry, up to a certain capped amount. However, even at this level, I was able to join a program within the ministry called Brother's keeper, in which "catastrophic" medical bills above the usual limit are shared among the other members who opt-in to this program. To opt-in to this program costs $40/ yr, and these costs are shared quarterly. Because of the rapid growth of this program, my brother's keeper bill has been very low, around $12/quarter. Also, my most recent $45 monthly bill was waived, because someone else who signed up said that I was the one who referred them to the ministry, and so I got a month free.

3) The third option is called Samaritain: http://goo.gl/GEY14f 
*Important Updates: There is now a Catholic version of Samaritain with a group called Christ Medicus There is also a Catholic Ministry just rolled out called Solidarity Healthshare

For someone considering one of the health-sharing ministries, I would encourage them to compare all of the essential details in this handy chart: http://goo.gl/4KuS4r

Certainly this is good news, and woe to me if I do not share it. I do hope that this is helpful, and that it is more widely shared. I will pray for your friend. Please continue to pray for me.

In Christ,

Donnie Schenck
(513) 849-oo22
CHM Member # 156332

Oct 4, 2013

Good News for Catholics in America


Contemplating the life of St. Francis, humble image of Christ and lover of poverty, let us consider how we can be better stewards of the good things God has given us. Let us follow the example of Pope Francis in his financial motu propio, and make sure that whatever resources we have, be they great or small, are being used to do good, not evil. 

As I write this, the United States federal government has "fallen sick" because we cannot agree on a morally acceptable budget.  There is more than just math involved in formulating a budget—there is an intrinsic moral dimension involved whenever someone makes a choice on how he is going to spend his money.

Let us find the courage to say, "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Let us be courageous in doing what is right in the sight of the God who loves us, because this is the key to our happiness.  Let us take a stand against the dictatorship of relativism by opening up dialogue and renewing the pursuit of the truth.

For those who feel compelled to finance abortion under the disputed healthcare law, there is good news: A class-action lawsuit has been launched under the Beckett Fund in order to defend a morally acceptable health insurance option with the Christian Brothers. If you do not know who the Christian Brothers are, they are a religious order that has adopted the ministry of providing many different financial services, including health insurance for dioceses, religious organizations, and Catholic employers—an option worth looking into—and good news, indeed—especially if you are a Catholic employer, or are employed by someone who is Catholic, or know of anybody else struggling with issues of conscience under Obama-care. There is also another morally acceptable option, especially for individuals, called health sharing ministries. Brothers, while we have time, let us do good! God bless you!

Sep 5, 2013

"Blessed are You..."







St Gregory wrote a rule calling for heroically virtuous priests. But in our day, when heroic virtue is needed across the whole Church, how many of us are listening to that call in the words and actions of our priests?

To this deafness we say...YES WE CAN...handle the truth! As we consider going to War against Syria, as if to punish someone, when it is we ourselves who are responsible for the bloodshed there, let us repent, let us return to the sacrament of Confession, receive the gifts of forgiveness and peace, and follow the example of Pope Francis in his most recent motu propio: let us stop our financial cooperation in "terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction!"

With the same determination, let's strive to stop financing Abortion: Here is a call to "heroic" virtue: Pay no premium that contributes to this evil. Yes, your health insurance is now paying for abortions, just check the list of benefits. This means it may be time to join one of the 3 health-sharing ministries and drop the insurance. Wait...Do you hear that?...People are complaining about the cost of insurance. No reason to waste time complaining! Save yourself some money as you save your soul!

Sep 4, 2013

"How Can This Be?" Rainbows and Metaphysics

Many are being swayed by the "dictatorship of relativism" because they do not have enough confidence in the human capacity for truth. Looking the other way when our leaders fail to secure the necessary conditions for a just war is only one example of this problem. Acting in accordance with our capacity for truth is not only a right, but a grave duty, precisely because we have the capacity for truth. The way to truth is traveled by means of dialogue, and this way of encounter is the only path to peace. 



How can there be "certainty" of knowledge?—Is any knowledge absolute?

A good scientist knows that what he studies is reality. His quest is to understand "that-which-is." He has an inquisitive and active imagination, and as he experiences a given reality, he approaches that reality with the question, "how can this be?," searching for possible explanations. 

Often, there are many possible explanations, and a persisting sense of wonder and awe before the reality indicates that there are still more not-yet-thought-of explanations regarding the thing's manner of existence, of it's way of being. He does not approach the reality alone, but in dialogue with the rest of humanity. This dialogue will critically examine the many different hypotheses that are put forward, and it will falsify some. But it does not stop there, because that is not sufficient for scientific understanding. Real scientific knowledge comes also from demonstrating an understanding of the thing--an understanding which would provide sufficient cause for that thing's manner of being--an understanding with such clarity and grasp of the reality (i.e. "completeness") that the scope of all possible explanations could be seen, within which all but one explanation is shown to be false or insufficient. 

This kind of true, certain knowledge of reality is possible, and actually exists when the attitude of Aristotle, the attitude of "Metaphysics" is utilized as the most fundamental philosophical approach to reality. The closing of the modern mind to the horizons of truth is due to the fact that Epistemology and Logic has replaced Metaphysics as being the most fundamental, and this causes us to first ask the question, "how can I know this?," a question that seeks only certainty, but not understanding of being, leaving us stuck in our own minds, seeking to know ideas rather than the reality itself, and these ideas are dogmatically imposed as scientific conclusions, without, along the way, making any differentiation between theories and demonstrably certain truths, because we often do not have the prudence or the courage to enter into the kind of dialogue that is oriented toward demonstratiive, scientific knowledge. For a more complete explanation of the role of Metaphysics in the areas of Philosophy and human knowledge, I intend to read "Being and Truth," by Martin Heidegger. 

One example of real scientific knowledge is with the way a rainbow is formed. Here is a video where someone demonstrates both scientific and unscientific knowledge. http://goo.gl/HWk0Fn He demonstrates scientific understanding of the way in which a simple rainbow is formed, but not when he attempts to explain the formation of the second rainbow. [Also, isn't the refraction of light still kind of "mysterious"?] Perhaps a few more diagrams would have been helpful to demonstrate the reality:http://goo.gl/MH2J5L http://goo.gl/glhJBu Those pictures are worth a thousand words.

Here is another person whose demonstration (and excitement) comes more from a sense of understanding (understanding not just the ideas that he has been taught but the reality itself) and an attitude of wonder and awe at the depth of the reality, recognizing the element of mystery involved for the learner, and what it is like to be "surprised" by truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k85eD_tQZo . 

Here's the Bottom Line:  Let's question authority the way Mary did, "How can this be?," rather than the way Zechariah did, "How can I know this?"


Aug 11, 2013

The Disputed Question Regarding Compliance with the HHS Mandate

["You are the Salt of the earth...You are the Light of the World."]*


Whether or not we, as Catholics, "cannot, will not comply" with the HHS-mandated cooperation in abortion and sterilization? [—Is that a loaded question, or what?]*


1.  It seems that the principle of "double-effect" can be invoked in order to justify compliance with the HHS Mandate.


ON THE CONTRARY: The principle of double-effect can only apply to a single act, which must be good in itself. It cannot be applied to two separate acts, one of which is good and the other of which is bad, because an objectively evil act cannot be justified (We cannot choose to do something evil so that something good might come from it). Caring for the health of a person is a good act, and we must do this. But choosing a means to pay for healthcare services is a different act, and must be regarded as a separate act. Consider that the dignity of the human person demands that the person be cared for regardless of their own ability to pay.

Furthermore: The choice to buy an insurance product (which is designed to use the collected funds to make payments for healthcare services on behalf of those who have bought the product) is, in a sense, a choice to help others to pay for the healthcare services that they receive.

One problem: Abortion, contraception, and sterilization are not healthcare services. They are objectively unhealthy, contrary to the natural functioning of the body and to the very lives, health, or eternal salvation of each person involved in these acts. The choice to buy an insurance product that covers abortion, contraception or sterilization is a choice to help other people pay for these "services" and it is a choice to cooperate in these objectively evil acts. We have, not only the right, but the duty to refuse to cooperate. Consider that our freedom depends entirely on our moral adherence to the truth.

2.  It seems that the concept of "duress" can be invoked in order to justify compliance with the HHS Mandate.


ON THE CONTRARY: The circumstances of duress can indeed lessen moral culpability, but they cannot make an evil act good. Even when people seem to be "forced" to act against their conscience, such a situation is a very great evil, and in a certain sense, it is even "worse than killing them." (YOUCAT, 296) It follows that it would be better to die a martyr than to comply with the HHS mandate, even under "duress." Consider that the early Christians refused to eat meat sacrificed to idols, even to the point of martyrdom—Nor would they agree to burn a single grain of incense to an image of the emperor as if he were God.

3.  It still seems that we are not responsible for the abortions funded by our insurance product.


ON THE CONTRARY: suppose that there is a girl considering abortion, who is covered by an insurance product which we have bought. If she ultimately makes her decision based on whether or not the abortion would be covered by the insurance, and if she therefore chooses to have an abortion, then the insurance product would be "necessary" with regard to the procurement of the abortion, and we [would all be, as a whole, responsible for that abortion, in a "network of complicity" (please see Evangelium vitae, 58-59). Furthermore, those of us]* who knowingly chose this insurance product that pays for abortions, would be formally cooperating in that abortion. This is so serious that we would be automatically excommunicated [if we are aware of this specific penalty]*, so as to bring us, without delay, to repentance, and to the peace of reconciliation with God through the Sacrament of Confession. (please see Evangelium Vitae, 62)

4.  It seems that we have no other options than to buy insurance that violates our conscience.


ON THE CONTRARY: I, personally, was not happy with my insurance before the Affordable Care Act was signed into Law. In fact, it [literally]* made me sick to find out that my plan was paying for abortion and contraception. But when I sat down to read the new law, I discovered that there are alternatives to health insurance called "health sharing ministries," and that members of those ministries will be exempt from the individual insurance mandate. Thanks to this provision in the law, I, as a Catholic and as an individual, have been able to avoid cooperating in what I clearly understand to be a grave evil. Please promote this option to other Catholics and people of good will who object to the insurance mandate on grounds of conscience, and it would go a long way to restoring peace in our nation.

Furthermore: If we, as a nation governed by law, can show respect for the conscience rights of individuals, it wouldn't seem to be too difficult to make provisions that respect the conscience rights of various groups of people as well. With groups of people, there is more than just immoral cooperation to consider. These groups, whether they be religious organizations or family-run businesses, have the right (and the duty) to prevent harmful things from falling into the hands of their children, and this duty is so profound and such an intrinsic aspect of society that society itself cannot survive without it.


In Conclusion:

Some things will never be in our control (or under the control of the government, for that matter). One of those things is the conscience of the people, which is free insofar as it is informed by the Truth, which is not something that we can create on our own, but something which we receive from God and through the natural order of Creation. Let us then be willing, even to the point of laying down our lives, to defend this authentic freedom for every human being, which is the crown of glory given to us by God.

PLEASE, SAY SOMETHING:  A good place to engage in the nation-wide dialogue about this question is on the USCCB Facebook Event Page which was launched for the Fortnight for Freedom. You could also write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.

May 20, 2013

"For Freedom Christ Has Set us Free."



Dear Friend,

I want to share with you some Good News:

Christ loved us so much that He found the human courage to lay down His life for us. Let us also find the courage, with His help, to do what is right and just, and not submit to the HHS Mandate.

A few years ago, I had health insurance with Anthem. Then one day, I had the opportunity to go online and find out that we were paying for Mifepristone, an abortion-inducing drug. 

I was outraged, and then I was sickened (literally) when I could not find a single health insurance company that did not cover contraception or abortion (this was before the HHS Mandate!) 
I thought that I could run away from the responsibility by embracing a life of absolute poverty, but even there I was stuck with using my insurance with Anthem!

Finally, I found some hope in an unexpected place: buried in the 2,000-page Obamacare legislation is a clause exempting members of a "health-sharing ministry" from the individual insurance mandate.  This means that we now have three moral, legal choices:  "Medishare," "Samaritain," and “Christian Healthcare Ministries" (CHM).  [Comparison ChartI chose to join CHM because it has the least expensive membership option.


This kind of ministry is not foreign to the Church—in fact, the "ministry of charity" is precisely the reason why deacons were instituted in the early years.  But today, we have the welcome opportunity to cooperate with our separated brethren in one of the three legally recognized "health-sharing ministries," because it is no longer legal for us to initiate such a ministry on our own.  Pope Benedict XVI recently put it into Canon Law that a bishop "is to promote charitable initiatives in cooperation with" our separated brethren in Christ, "where appropriate."  Considering the gravity of the HHS Mandate, it is definitely appropriate in this situation. Please encourage your bishop to promote these charitable initiatives. 

Pope Benedict XVI also wrote into Canon Law that we must now seek to form our own parish-based ministries of Charity. Your bishop may already have given subtle directives for this to happen.  


What hope this means for the Church!  If we do not have  to comply with the HHS Mandate,  let us choose  not to!  Let us be martyrs—martyrs of Charity!

Sincerely Yours in Christ,

Donnie Schenck (Trenton, OH)



Apr 25, 2013

"There is no Authority except from God..."


Is it Illegal to give Legal Advice?

Well, here goes--Let's let God be the Judge--In the end, His opinion is the only one that matters. All authority comes from God, but just as the Lord gives, the Lord can take away.

So, here is my legal advice for anyone seeking peace:  Obey God, Who created you, loves you, and wants to give you the fullness of life.  Obey the divine Law, which is present in Nature, governing the created order of the universe, an order which is understandable by human reason and sheds light on the moral quality of human choices--obey the divine Law, which was gradually revealed to our Fathers in Faith, and made crystal clear in Jesus Christ and His Love for the Church.

Obey the Law, first and foremost, at its most fundamental level--as a reality that we receive, not as a reality that we would create--Consider that only God can create something from nothing, and while He does share with us the capacity to create things, we are limited in the use of this creative power--we can only create something from something else, respecting the nature of the things we started with, the things God gave us--Whether we are building something out of wood, or endeavoring to build a just and peaceful society, we must respect the integrity of the wood itself in such a way that it does not splinter or shatter, just as we must respect the Family, given to us by God, as the fundamental building-block of society.

Now, here is some more legal advice:  Obey all human laws out of respect for the divine Law, and heed, insofar as you are able, all reasonable requests from human authorities (Parents, Teachers, community Leaders at every level and branch of government and free association, and yes, your Spouse). But do not neglect to listen to God when He vindicates his Truth and Love through the Church and even whispers to you through your conscience--At the right moment, He will speak to your heart, prompting you to do for your neighbor what you would want him to do for you, what is good or necessary for his well-being, even (and especially) if he would be ashamed to ask you for it. This "Golden Rule" is at the heart of the Natural Law.

That said, here is my last bit of legal advice for those who truly seek peace:  Do not be afraid!  Obey God's Law at all costs, whether it is the Law of Moses and the Law of the Gospel, or the more subtle expression of the same divine Law inherent in Creation. Here is a summary, but please examine it for yourself with the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
  1. Seek the Truth ...............................................................(CCC 2104)
  2. Confess the Faith without Fear .......................................(CCC 2145)
  3. Sunday is a Day of Protest..............................................(CCC 2172)
  4. Family is the Foundation of Freedom ..............................(CCC 2207)
  5. Do not provide abortifacent drugs to women ...................(CCC 2272)
    Do not look the other way, and do not be silent, when the innocent sick or elderly receive a death sentence. Do not fail to give them nutrition and hydration, even by artificial means, if it is possible and safe for the patient. (CCC 2277) (Clarification)
    Yea--human life is sacred ...............................................(CCC 2258)
  6. ...and so is human sexuality .............................................(CCC 2361)
  7. Do your part to take care of Creation and the Poor...........(CCC 2443) 
  8. Bear witness to the Truth .................................................(CCC 2471)
    Do not allow the truth to be silenced by the powerful........ (CCC 2499)
  9. Modesty is decency......................................................... (CCC 2522)
  10. The Poor will see God......................................................(CCC 2547)
Keep in mind that any human law that does not respect the divine Law is actually an act of violence, and is therefore no law at all, and that any unjust request by human authority must not be obeyed, insofar as doing so would [clearly and] objectively violate God's Law [and not just be perceived as a "lesser good"].  In such a situation, God permits those in authority to abdicate their own authority by the very act of issuing an unjust law or command, but only with respect to that particular law or command.  However, they abdicate their authority entirely [their authority "breaks down completely" and is regarded as "null"] when there is a certain, grave, and prolonged abuse of their power. We must be very careful here--The HHS abortion mandate has now been clearly identified, both by the bishops and by the faithful, as such a "grave" and "sustained" abuse...What's next?  I don't know--It is like [riding with poor Dorthy] in a house that has been ripped off its foundation.  [But let us be patient. When the house finally lands on its proper foundation, Jesus Christ, the wicked ways of the West will lie squashed under His feet!]

Now is the time to Pray--and to pray earnestly for an increase in Faith.
Now is the time to Examine our Consciences--accept the forgiveness and mercy of Jesus Christ, and with the grace of the Sacraments of Baptism and Reconciliation, make concrete amends.

God Bless You.

P.S.--As a reference in support of what has been said here, You may also want to read:

In the Bible, the Book of Acts and the Book of Revelation
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Paragraphs 1897-1904, but especially para. 1903)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Paragraphs 2238-2243, but especially para. 2242)
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (paragraphs 393-399, but especially para. 399)
The Gospel of Life (paragraphs 68-74, but especially paragraph 74)
Peace on Earth (paragraphs 48-52, but especially paragraph 51)
The Long-Continued and Most Bitter War (Paragraph 15)
The Service of Authority and Obedience (paragraph 5, etc.)

Mar 15, 2013

"Come, Let us Walk Together in the Light of the Lord"

Pope Francis approaching the altar of the Sistine Chapel.

I was struck by how slowly, thoughtfully, and prayerfully Pope Francis delivered his first homily, at the Mass with the Cardinals to close the conclave. He reminds me of a mystic, who is not afraid of the kind of silence which allows the Word of God to resonate in the heart, even to become "incarnate" in one's life. These are some of my reflections on his homily. Referring to the readings (Is. 2:2-5, 1 Pt. 2: 4-9, and Mt.16: 13-19) he highlights the theme of action, or "movement:" "In the first reading it is the movement of a journey; in the second reading it is the movement [of] building the Church; in the third, the Gospel, it is the movement of confession [the profession of faith]." He explains, leaving time for the hearer to ponder the meaning:

"Journeying.  'House of Jacob, come, let us walk together in the light of the Lord' (Isaiah 2:5). This is the first thing that God said to Abraham: Walk in my presence and you will be blameless. Journey: our life is a journey and when we stop it does not go on. Journey always in the presence of the Lord, in the light of the Lord, seeking to live with that blamelessness that God asked of Abraham in his promise.
 "Building. Building the Church. Stones are spoken of: the stones have a consistency, but they are the living stones, stones anointed by the Spirit. Building the Church, the Bride of Christ, upon that cornerstone that is the Lord himself. Building is another form of movement in our life.
 "Third, confessing. We can journey as much as we want, we can build many things, but if we do not confess Jesus Christ, the thing does not work. We will become a welfare NGO but not the Church, the Bride of Christ. When we do not journey, we stop. When we do not build upon the stones, what happens? Everything collapses, loses its consistency, like the sandcastles that children build on the beach. When we do not confess Jesus Christ, I am reminded of the words of Léon Bloy: 'Whoever does not pray to the Lord, prays to the devil.' When we do not confess Jesus Christ, we confess the worldliness of the devil, the worldliness of the demon."

The "way" of the Church, then, includes "Journeying, building-constructing, [and] confessing." Pope Francis warns us that these actions, these "movements," are not easy, because "there are movements antithetical to the journey: there are movements that take us backward." This statement should come as no surprise to the faithful endeavoring to read the Catechism during this Year of Faith, since these "antithetical movements" were summed up in paragraphs 675-677. Because the Church herself "will follow her Lord in his death and resurrection," we, as Christians, must have the courage to embrace the Cross in every aspect of our lives:

"This Gospel continues with an important moment. The same Peter who had confessed Jesus Christ said to him: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. I will follow you, but let’s not talk about the cross. This is not a part of it. I will follow you in other directions, but not to the cross. When we journey without the cross, when we build without the cross and when we confess a Christ without the cross, we are not disciples of the Lord: we are worldly, we are bishops, priests, cardinals, popes, but not disciples of the Lord."

Let us ask for the grace to set our hearts on the "New Heavens and the New Earth," "of which the pilgrim Church has been [a sign,] 'in the nature of a sacrament.'" (CCC 1045) It is this Hope that gives us courage:

"I would like for us all, after these days of grace, to have courage, precisely the courage, to walk in the Lord’s presence, with the cross of the Lord; to build the Church upon the blood of the Lord, which was poured out on the cross; and to confess the only glory there is: Christ crucified. And in this way the Church will go forward."

Let us remember that this hope, this courage, is truly a gracea gift from God. Let us ask for it, with Pope Francis:

"It is my wish for all of us that the Holy Spirit – through the prayer of Our Lady, our Mother – bestow upon us the grace of journeying, building, confessing Jesus Christ crucified. Amen."