The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

                   The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

                   §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors 

                         their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, 

                         without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

Dear Bishop Gracida,

Every believer has their small role in testifying to some part of the whole Truth. 

I exercise this duty under Canon 212 in the form of the communication forwarded below.

Testifying to truth is all I am looking for.

Anything beyond that is in someone’s else’s hands.

Please find below a copy of the communication sent to my Bishop January 1 and my Pastor today.

God bless you for your own testimony to truth, Claude Culross


Canon 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, 

                         inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

                   §2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

                   §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors 

                         their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, 

                         without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

From: Claude Culross <
Sent: Friday, January 1, 2021 11:31 AM
Subject: A Mask Requirement Lacks Catholic Morality

January 1, 2021 – Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God

Dear Bishops (Dear Bishop Duca)/Dear Priests/Dear Laity,

I have heard, read and seen some outrageous things in connection with what’s called the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

By “outrageous” I mean things that plainly contradict proven truth.

One is reflexively deemed “obedience” but is demonstrably disobedience to truth.

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)

Therefore, it is always the case that acting against truth, whether inadvertently or willfully, acts against Jesus who is truth in Divine Being.

Catechism nos. 1902-1903 help get into specifics.


1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. 

         It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. 

Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22

[21] GS 74 § 2.

[22] St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,93 3, ad 2. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,93 3, ad 2.

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. 

         [underline added; “and” means both conditions must be fulfilled, otherwise authority acts illegitimately.]

            If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. 

            In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”23

[23] John XXIII PT 51.


This communication is addressed primarily to those in authority in any capacity, whether Catholic or non-Catholic.

It is that which imparts moral legitimacy to authority that helps us understand whether or not choices by that authority obey eternal law.

Should the choice between earthly authority and eternal law be forced on us, we would always obey eternal law.

The opposite is disobedience toward God, either objective (lacking awareness of that disobedience) or willful (aware but nonetheless choosing disobedience).

Such is the case with any regulation requiring cloth or surgical masks.

     (From here on, I will say only the one word “mask(s)”, but I mean cloth and surgical masks.)

Online open source references to the peer-reviewed published medical literature will be provided on request which prove the medical assertions in this letter.

There is no interpretation here – it is strictly a mathematical-statistical comparison of those who wear masks to those who don’t, or a visual test of mask permeability that demonstrates its own truthfulness.

Peer-reviewed published medical research is what determines right reason with respect to masks.

Right reason in the form of peer-reviewed published medical research proves that masks offer no benefit against small viruses, not even a small benefit.

The lack of benefit makes a mask requirement evil in itself (apart from personal moral considerations), since it is an unjust law not binding in conscience by going against right reason.

This communication focusses not on who to blame, but instead on what’s true about masks, and how we should act to be faithful to that truth, as well as to Jesus, “The Truth”.

While it may seem as if masks should reduce infections, this is in reality an urban myth, an assumption contradicted by proven truth.

Masks do indeed stop large droplets expelled by forceful nasopharyngeal actions, such as coughing or sneezing.

However, large droplets are irrelevant to influenza or SARS-CoV-2 infection because they drop out of the air quickly by Stokes-type settling.

The fact that infection rates are statistically the same for both mask-wearers and non-wearers in the case of both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 means that something other than a sneeze or cough is the key infection vector.

Airborne aerosols are that vector of infection.

Aerosol particles — defined as less than 5 microns in size — are so small that they are drafted by currents for many minutes to hours.

This is especially true when there is induced turbulence from air handling systems.

Aerosols are produced by physiological forces far less than coughing or sneezing, such as breathing or talking.

Aerosols are so small that they go through the fiber weave of masks.         

This isn’t difficult since the fiber weave of masks creates holes that are 60-500 microns in cross-section which easily accommodate aerosols (small viruses are about 0.05-0.15 microns in size.)

Of greater consequence is the fact that masks are unsealed at the edges.

Mask wearers prove this to themselves by observing or experiencing the “foggy glasses” effect on cold days.

Regardless of whether the “foggy glasses” effect is eliminated or not, all mask edges are open pathways.

This provides easy access and egress for virus aerosols that follow air currents, as made visible by an online mask demonstration using smoke-like 0.15-0.25 micron vape aerosol.

Highly penetrating airborne aerosols are the vector of infection, not large droplets expelled during coughing or sneezing.

Those in authority must act consonant with the proven truth that masks provide zero benefit against small viruses.

Authority must align with right reason to be morally legitimate.

Right reason in the form of peer-reviewed published medical literature proves that masks provide zero protection against influenza and SARS-CoV-2 viruses.

It directly follows that a mask requirement is inconsistent with right reason and the eternal law.

Any authority or other entity (e.g., a business) that does not require masks or lobbies against masks is morally legitimate by aligning with right reason and the eternal law.

In contrast, a mask regulation “falls short of right reason and…is said to be an unjust law…”.

It cannot be over-emphasized that wearing a mask is a type of violation of the 8th Commandment, a divine command that requires truthfulness in all communications.

That truthfulness must be actively sought; depending on cognitive osmosis or opinion to receive truth is sloth.

This violation of truthfulness is either objective, that is, lacking awareness of the infraction, or willful lying (see Catechism nos. 2482-2487).

Sadly, lying is not absent.

Certain recommendations are presented as scientifically proven when in fact those alleging such have no idea.

For example, the CDC certified the PCR test as being specific to SARS-CoV-2, yet their own report admits that no isolated virus was available upon which to base the test.

There has been a steady drumbeat from media and vaunted “experts” which is counter to reality: For example, “mask up” or risk being labeled a potential killer by asymptomatic virus transfer.

The notion of an asymptomatic carrier is a myth, as indicated by a study conducted on the almost 10 million population of Wuhan, China.

The World Health Organization eventually called asymptomatic carriers “rare”.

How many people saw through the self-contradiction of a personal virus count insufficient to make that individual ill (so-called asymptomatic), yet sufficient to infect any other person?

The constant drumbeat of myths like this convinced most that masks possess a life and death urgency, instead of the unvarnished reality that masks provide zero benefit against small viruses.

In hiding the truth, this whole mask-querade reveals itself to be about something else having nothing to do with health.

Even from within this very solid medical and theological framework, other important questions may arise that should be addressed despite adding significant length to this communication.


What if a person wears a mask knowing it provides no protection against infection by small viruses, such as influenza and SAR-CoV-2?

Wearing a mask cannot be a morally legitimate non-verbal way of saying that masks provide a health benefit toward influenza or SARS-CoV-2.

In fact, there are many serious adverse health consequences to wearing a mask, such as the possibility of facial or nasopharyngeal staph infection.

There are certain situations not elaborated here due to lack of space in which a knowledgeable mask wearer may not be non-verbally implying a benefit to masks.

They have another reason which we will not discuss because it would take the focus off what’s true.

There is no moral solid ground on which a person can say “I know masks don’t do any good, but I wear one to make my neighbor comfortable.”

Our neighbors are owed truth as a matter of charity and justice, not a false signal or false allegation that masks have any benefit.

Deciding against a mask is not primarily an issue of freedom; it is primarily a moral choice for good in accord with truth determined by right reason.

Going without a mask is not anti-social or irresponsible in any way, since it is proven beyond doubt that masks provide zero protection against small viruses.

But this is a highly lethal disease, according to the Center for Disease Control! So, shouldn’t we wear a mask anyway to at least do SOMETHING?

There is a “SOMETHING” which we’ll discuss in a moment.

But you’re better off without a mask even without this ”SOMETHING”.

A recent large scale meta-analysis of the United States by Rational Ground showed a large benefit for non-wearers compared to mask wearers.

Rational Ground is a grassroots group of data analysts, computer scientists, and actuaries.

CDC data shows that almost 80% of a group ill with COVID-19 wore masks always or most of the time.

Even without the peer-reviewed published medical research showing zero benefit to masks, believing that masks do any good in view of these CDC data is simply a bridge too far.

The percentage in the COVID-19 group who seldom or never wore a mask was substantially smaller.

A person is better off without a mask, consistent with the Rational Ground finding.

The general public is at a dreadful disadvantage from being unaware that there’s sometimes a huge leap from raw data to interpretation which may not be correct.

Two things occurring together (such as COVID-19 and death) doesn’t always automatically mean one causes the other; that requires additional proof.

Here is another CDC data set that strains credibility beyond the breaking point.

These data indicate that only 6% of the deaths lumped under COVID-19 are directly “FROM” COVID-19.

94% are deaths are categorized as “WITH” COVID-19.

But note: those 94% have on average 2.6 “co-morbidities” such as terminal cancer, terminal dementia, terminal diabetes, terminal heart disease, etc.

In other words, in 94% of deaths lumped under COVID-19 there are co-morbidities which are known to cause death all by themselves from past years’ (COVID-free) statistics.

Regardless of what these 94% die from in reality, the death is logged as a COVID-19 death, and so COVID-19 statistics are enormously and shamefully inflated.

This is a specific instance of what’s mentioned above: 2 things like COVID-19 and death occurring together doesn’t always automatically mean one caused the other.

In fact, many if not all of these deaths “WITH” COVID-19 are from the co-morbidities themselves, and there’s a simple way to know that.

The best indication is a comparison of the average age of death in the U.S. to the average age of COVID-19 death.

There is no difference.

So, where’s the COVID-19 effect?

It’s not there, and so those deaths are a co-morbidity effect in most cases lumped under COVID-19.

Moreover, there is no medical reason in 2020 for these morbidity factors to decrease in number.

A person with unresponsive Stage IV terminal pancreatic cancer is going to die quickly, and so we should expect that the number of these and other terminal conditions should NOT decrease.

But they have decreased in 2020, and there is no good reason for that.

If deaths from traditional morbidity factors were incorrectly moved into the COVID-19 column, then deaths from these morbidity factors should incorrectly decrease in comparison to previous years.

In fact, they have incorrectly decreased, making the situation look like deaths that should have been attributed to morbidity factors other than COVID-19 were instead attributed to COVID-19.

Calling this an accounting error is being too generous.

If no accounting error were made, these morbidity factors should not decrease.

This insight indicates that death is caused by age-related co-morbidities themselves in the vast majority of cases lumped under COVID-19, as was the case in COVID-free past years, rather than due to COVID-19.

But the CDC decided that every instance where a person was headed toward death from a co-morbidity was a COVID-19 death when the (unreliable and unvalidated) PCR test gave a positive.

Disturbing as this is, we should not be distracted by this from the central truth.

The central truth is that deaths strictly “FROM” COVID-19 is a much smaller number (for example, 6% of 400,000 is 24,000, and deaths attributed either “FROM” or “WITH” COVID-19 will not exceed 400,000 for the year.)

This does not deny that people genuinely contracted serious cases of COVID-19, and some died.

It merely says that the narrative of hundreds of thousands of deaths is a sizeable exaggeration by a verified accounting error.

However, there is much that can be done to protect oneself, whether the number is 400,000 or 24,000, a subject we’ll address in detail in a moment.

But first realize that a mask is not only useless, it’s harmful mind control (as well as physically harmful).

Misplaced belief in a mask impedes people from pro-actively searching for truly effective measures or being open to others who present these measures.

Recently, the CDC announced that it would in the future lump together deaths from pneumonia, influenza and COVID-19 (“PIC”) making it virtually impossible to determine true COVID-19 mortality.

They couldn’t make the situation more confusing if they tried.

Therefore, the statistics are at best highly skewed indoctrination that is almost certainly factually unreliable and is designed to be indecipherable.

We now know SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 is no more lethal than influenza, even using highly skewed statistics.

This insight comes from focused studies that determined that the extent of infection is as much as 10 times greater than is generally being measured.

Of primary importance to understanding is realizing that what’s undetected is people who survive.

Every dead body gets reported by a coroner or hospital report – they get paid more for reporting a death as due to COVID-19 –but many survivors go undetected, especially if they have mild cases.

That means that the mortality rate is about one-tenth of what we’re told (just for illustration, influenza-like 0.13% instead of 1.3%).

Speaking of influenza, no less than 10 Randomized Control Trials demonstrate that masks provide no benefit with respect to influenza infection.

A much more recent Danish study on about 6,000 subjects demonstrates that masks provide no benefit with respect to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

But here’s a crucial point: people should not leap to the conclusion that we have no answers for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19.

We’ve had answers for 6 months or more.

In an effort to herd us in a different direction, what we have is a medical-pharmacological establishment unwilling to deploy those answers that are inexpensive and available in large supply.

In fairness it should be said that there are individual doctors who fight to get their patients proven remedies.

We know of several over-the-counter items that are highly effective as both prophylaxis and cure, not to mention prescription medications as demonstrated by clinical experience in multiple locations.

The mainstream medical-pharmaceutical establishment wants to herd us toward vaccination, and so they do not circulate this information because it would eliminate their control and profits.

The mainstream media and “Big Tech” actively participate in censorship of this life-saving information.

True love of neighbor would start with self-education about these effective measures and then educate others on how to protect themselves by means much more effective than masks.

That’s the “SOMETHING” everyone should be doing to protect themselves against the virus and against medical-pharmaceutical profit-seeking that presents its own medical and ethical dangers.

In reality, what we know about managing this disease is remarkable, given that release occurred not much more than a year ago in Wuhan, China, and given genetic clues that it is manmade.

We owe a debt of gratitude to third world researchers who – free of the vaccine paradigm — searched for and succeeded in finding inexpensive solutions for their people.

What’s in control of the public here that shouldn’t be is enormous irrational fear, instead of the available rational understanding of the virus.

The fear is so great that intelligent people will believe falsehoods like masks, even after seeing solid proof against masks, in order to have something to hide behind to decrease fear.

As a result, psychological trauma and the physical and emotional dysfunction caused by that are the greatest ill effects – far greater than the virus itself.

We are raising a younger generation who would rather commit suicide than live under the perceived threat of this virus.

This condition can only be alleviated by courageous truthfulness, but at the moment courage and truth are lacking.

Given the above facts, it is reasonable to question whether some other hidden factor(s) is the goal of requiring masks.

Or, we could be more specific and say that the Great Reset requires two initial conditions based off a virus myth hyped to be so threatening that it justifies just about anything.

     1/ Complete breakdown of society into chaos and lawlessness which is well underway.

     2/ Political license to impose any measure, no matter how extreme, and violate any tenet of human dignity, no matter how established in tradition and law.

A person who hides behind a completely ineffective cloth or surgical mask and asks God for a cure is sending a mixed message.

The mixed message is that trust in God takes second place to incorrect understanding and flawed human measures, as if God doesn’t hear the prayer.

When Jesus says, “if you ask anything in my name, I will do it”, do we believe it? (John 14:14)

And “these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name…they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover”, do we believe it? (Mark 16:17-18)

But “when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8)

The fact that Jesus found it necessary to publicly ask this question should give us great pause.

Living faith will not be easy.

Shouldn’t we obey government authority?

Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself.” (Catechism no. 1902 above)

We obey right reason as an expression of the eternal law of the Eternal God, rather than groundlessly obeying authority simply because it is authority.

It is immoral to ask a person to lie in order to obey government authority.

Wearing a mask is evil, even when it’s an objective rather than a willful lie for the person wearing a mask (the wearer lacks awareness of the lie; therefore, the person lacks moral culpability.)

     “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” [Catechism no. 2482]

     “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” [Catechism no. 2483]

It may not be the case, but should it be the case that neither the authority nor the person asked realizes the mask lie, it nevertheless remains a type of lie.

What makes the mask a lie is that it is deceitful in itself, even apart from personal intention.

Wearing or requiring a mask is at best an objective lie (untrue in itself) because right reason is violated in the form of peer-reviewed published medical research demonstrating no benefit to masks against small viruses.

If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience.” (Catechism no. 1903, see above.)

Lying is an intrinsically disordered action (Catechism no. 1753); when a person lacks awareness of participating in a lie, the lie still remains untrue in itself.

We must speak in this measured, nuanced way because it is the non-trivial responsibility of authority in this matter to know what’s true and what’s not true.

By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.” [Catechism no. 2485]

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context.” (Catechism no. 1756)

No intention, no matter how good, justifies an intrinsically evil action such as lying.

Unknowingly proclaiming or living under a false premise may avoid moral culpability, but the physical and emotional harm from that false premise remain.

Thus, we call the mask what it is: a lie irrespective of intention and knowledge.

People who know of medical research on masks yet still insist on their use do intend to deceive.

Our medical-pharmaceutical leaders do know of this research, particularly when one of the major pieces appeared in May 2020 in the CDC’s own journal, Emerging Infectious Diseases.

Thus, it can be said with certainty that some people are intentionally lying about masks.

There is no moral solid ground on which a person can say “I know masks don’t do any good, but I’m wearing one out of obedience.”

Obedience is not binding when a regulation is an unjust law because it violates right reason in the form of peer-reviewed published medical research demonstrating zero benefit for masks against small viruses.

Won’t refusal to wear a mask possibly result in churches being closed again?

This question leads to the wrong answer unless one realizes the components of Catholic morality and whether or not they are determinative of good or evil.

The same thing is going to be said about 4 or 5 different ways so that the main point gets highlighted repeatedly.

In moral language, closed churches would be a “consequence”, a form of “circumstance” in the morality of human acts (see Catechism nos. 1750-1761.)

It’s important to distinguish a specific consequence from an intention or choice (also called “object”, or action) in order to correctly express its differing moral character and weight.

A human act is always evil if either intention or choice is evil, or always good when both intention and choice are good (see Catechism nos. 1753-1754).

Intention and choice are determinative of good or evil; consequences are not determinative of good or evil.

Intention and action are strictly our choice, but consequences often are a result rather than a choice.

Thus, consequences are given a lesser moral weight than intention or choice.

Unlike intention and choice (“object”, action), a consequence never determines good or evil (see Catechism no. 1754).

A consequence like churches being closed can at most increase or decrease the good or evil of a human act, but it never changes good into evil or evil into good (Catechism no. 1753).

At the risk of being repetitive: 

     / As a (potential) consequence of not wearing masks, the closing of churches cannot morally justify a mask regulation.

     / A negative consequence can never outweigh the at least objectively evil action of requiring a mask which is a lie because it violates right reason.

     / The requirement of wearing a mask becomes willfully evil when the person issuing that regulation knows that masks provide no benefit against small viruses, or should know.

In summary, the inherently evil requirement of a mask that is a lie in action can never be morally justified to avoid the negative consequence of church closings, no matter how undesirable that is.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

The choice for masks is not legitimately made based on a potential consequence like churches being closed, even if that closing would reduce the moral good of choosing against masks.

The choice against masks is legitimately made by right reason aligned with the eternal law, since masks do no good against small viruses.

Should churches be closed as a consequence of not wearing masks, that is simply part of carrying one’s Cross in order to align truthfully with right reason and the eternal law.

On the other hand, wearing a mask is not a morally legitimate form of carrying one’s Cross precisely because one never takes up one’s Cross through false witness.

Wearing a mask to prevent church closings would be like Jesus alleging He wanted what the Father willed (intention) by testifying to truth (choice/”object”/action) but ultimately avoiding the Cross (consequence).

We cannot be obedient (intention) by testifying to truth (masks do no good) yet attempt to avoid church closings (consequence) by wearing masks that contradict truth.

If we are willing to lie ostensibly to keep churches open, why not lie to avoid any kind of persecution for being Christian?

One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” (Catechism no. 1761).

One may not contradict truth by action (wearing a mask), or by saying or implying that masks do any good as a strategy for keeping churches open.


No person in any position of leadership, whether governmental or ecclesial or lay or medical, has the authority to overturn the eternal law or side against right reason.

While intention may be to seek the common good, which fulfills the first of two moral requirements placed on the legitimate exercise of authority, the second requirement is not fulfilled (Catechism no. 1903, above).

Asking people to lie by requiring a mask fails to employ “morally licit means to attain it [the common good]”, as if the mask does any good when peer-reviewed published research proves no benefit against small viruses beyond any doubt.

     (Masks have a myriad of other negative effects which space does not allow us to enumerate.)

Such failure to satisfy both requirements is illegitimate exercise of authority which the Catechism rightly labels as “shameful abuse” that “would not be binding in conscience.” (Catechism no. 1903, above)

In this instance, the shamefulness of a mask regulation comes in when authority requires masks, either knowing that they provide no benefit, or failing to know what they should know as a person in a leadership position.

Authentic obedience is exercised toward truth with love of the Divine Source of all truth AND constant effort to acquire truth, while not being cowed by power or falsehood or the threat of negative consequences.

Authentic love of neighbor is exercised by educating oneself about truly effective means of virus prophylaxis or cure, preferably over-the-counter, and then sharing that knowledge, rather than relying on completely ineffective masks.

In summary, a mask requirement operates against the truth required by the 8th Commandment, that is, disobedience of eternal law by violating right reason.

No governor, mayor or other government official, nor any Bishop, Priest or Lay church official has the authority to overturn the eternal law or disregard right reason, nor suggest any strategy that violates right reason.

Leaving masks as a personal choice is not a moral violation when the person lacks the ability to understand research results and/or lacks the requisite facility with right reason.

However, we owe them the truth even when they can’t understand the conclusive evidence against masks, and even when they won’t accept it.

That truth must come through Church clergy especially, although everyone is obligated to follow Jesus by testifying to truth as He did.

This letter focusses on the objective moral aspects of scientifically proven results applied to a church environment.

This letter doesn’t cover all issues the average person faces who chooses either to wear a mask or not against unjust societal pressure.

This letter doesn’t primarily focus on which specific persons in authority are morally culpable and which aren’t but instead focusses primarily on objective medical-scientific truth.

However, in the case where a person in authority either knows how useless masks are or should know as a part of leadership, yet requires them, that is where moral culpability enters in.

In Christ,

Claude Culross


About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

  1. ancilladomini2 says:

    Bishop Gracida, I sincerely thank you for your faithfulness to God, His Church and truth! And thank you for posting this letter from Mr. Culross. I would like to get in touch with Mr. Culross and would like to know if you have contact information you are able to share, or if you would so kindly forward my email address to him to contact me. I’d like to use his letter for good, but would like to discuss it with him first.

    Thank you and God love you! Mary Sue Lareau


Comments are closed.