Accept the Myth of "Brain Death" and Live with the Body Snatchers' Unrestrained Use of Vivisection

No action that has as its only end the death of an innocent human being is morally licit, and those who continue to insist that it is licit must reckon with the fact that the medical industry today, far from wanting to keep people alive until they become “one hundred twenty-five year-old headless corpses,” has been basing medical care on the basis of subjective” “quality of life” determinations made by teams of “professionals” trained in programs funded by the anti-life Robert Wood Johnson and George Soros foundations. The starvation and dehydration of innocent human beings” is being employed by medical “professionals” to play God, which is exactly what they did in the case of Mrs. Theresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo seventeen years (see Twenty Years Later: The Court Ordered Execution of Mrs. Theresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo) and what they are doing every day of the year without making headlines as most people accept this cruel killing of their relatives as “normal” because the “professionals” have said that is the “merciful” thing to do. There is nothing “merciful” about starving and dehydrating an innocent human being to death.

Moreover, one has to recognize that the myth of “brain death” was invented by a team of “ethicists” at the Harvard Medical College in 1968 to provide an ex post facto justification for the killings of Denise Darvall in the first heart transplant cases:

Enter South African surgeon Christian Barnard who had received part of his post graduate medical studies in the United States at the University of Minnesota. It was here that he first met Dr. Norman Shumway, who did much of the pioneering research leading up to the first human heart transplant. Barnard performed the first kidney transplant in South Africa in October 1967, but his primary interest was cardiac surgery. He wanted to do a human heart transplant.

In November 1967, Barnard found a 54-year-old patient by the name of Louis Washkansky who agreed to participate in the medical experiment as a heart recipient.

One month later, on December 3, 1967, the father of Denise Darvall, a young woman who was seriously injured in a car accident that killed her mother, gave his permission to have his daughter's heart excised and transplanted to Mr. Washkansky. That same day, the world's first human heart transplant operation took place. Bernard was assisted by his brother, Marius. The operation lasted 9 hours and employed a team of 30 medical personnel.

The immediate problem facing Barnard was that, although Denise's brain was damaged, her heart was healthy and beating, indicating she was still alive by traditional whole body standards. So what would make her heart stop so that it could be legally excised? Barnard later told reporters that he had waited for her heart to stop naturally before cutting it out, but this was a lie. It was not until 40 years later that the public learned the truth.

At Marius's urging, after his brother had cleaved open the chest cavity, Christian had injected a concentrated dose of potassium to paralyze Denise's heart, thus rendering her "technically" dead. (2) Everything had already been prepared so Bernard proceeded to quickly cut the major vessels, cool the heart and sew it into the recipient. Denise was alive before her heart was excised. She was truly dead after it was cut out of her body.

Three days after the Barnard murder, not to be outdone by a doctor in South Africa, Dr. Adrian Kantrowitz, a surgeon at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn cut a beating heart out of a live 3-day-old baby and transplanted into an 18-day-old baby with heart disease. At the end of the day both babies were dead. (Don't Give Your Vital Organs - Part I.)

Mrs. Engel's article, which was published in 2010 on the Tradition in Action website, detailed the gruesome aftermath of the killing of Denise Darvall in Cape Town, South Africa: 

The controversy following the Kantrowitz killings was instrumental in the formation of the Harvard Medical School ad hoc Committee to study "brain death" as the new criteria for death.

The obvious conundrum facing transplantation surgeons was that organs taken from cadavers do not recover from the period of ischemia (loss of blood supply to organs) following true death. After circulation and respiration has stopped, within 4 to 5 minutes the heart and liver are not suitable for transplantation. For kidneys the time is about 30 minutes.

Equally clear was the realization that in order to continue unpaired vital organ transplantation it would be necessary to redefine death, that is, to establish a new criterion for death that would legally permit the extraction of vital organs from living human beings. Such a redefinition would permit transplantation surgeons to kill with legal immunity.

In August 1968, the Journal of the American Medical Association published "A Definition of Irreversible Coma: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death." (3) No authors were listed. (4)

The Harvard Committee cited two reasons for establishing "brain death" as the new criteria for death. The first was the problems surrounding the use of resuscitation and other supportive measures to extend the life of severely injured persons. The second reason was "obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation."

It should also be noted that the criteria of "brain death" did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method of observation and hypothesis followed by verification. The Committee presented no substantiating data either from scientific research or case studies of individual patients. The Committee did not determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death. Rather, its mission was to see that it was established as a new criterion for death. In short, the report was made to fit the already arrived at conclusions. (Don't Give Your Vital Organs - Part I.)

Dr. Paul Byrne explained in his interview eighteen years ago now with Mrs. Randy Engel in The Michael Fund Newsletter that the medical industry invented the myth of "brain death" to justify this killing less than a year after Christian Barnard "opened shop" for the body snatching industry that has killed untold thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings:

Editor: When we speak of vital organs, what organs are we talking about?

Dr. Byrne: Vital organs (from the Latin vita, meaning life) include the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys and pancreas. In order to be suitable for transplant, they need to be removed from the donor before respiration and circulation cease. Otherwise, these organs are not suitable, since damage to the organs occurs within a brief time after circulation of blood with oxygen stops. Removing vital organs from a living person prior to cessation of circulation and respiration will cause the donor’s death.

Editor: Are there some vital organs which can be removed without causing the death of the donor?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. For example, one of two kidneys, a lobe of a liver, or a lobe of a lung. The donors must be informed that removal of these organs decreases function of the donor. Unpaired vital organs however, like the heart or whole liver, cannot be removed without killing the donor.

Editor: Since vital organs taken from a dead person are of no use, and taking the heart of a living person will kill that person, how is vital organ donation now possible?

Dr. Byrne: That’s where “brain death” comes in. Prior to 1968, a person was declared dead only when his or her breathing and heart stopped for a sufficient period of time. Declaring “brain death” made the heart and other vital organs suitable for transplantation. Vital organs must be taken from a living body; removing vital organs will cause death.

Editor: I still recall the announcement of the first official heart transplant by Dr. Christian Barnard in Cape Town, South Africa in 1967. How was it possible for surgeons to overcome the obvious legal, moral and ethical obstacles of harvesting vital organs for transplant from a living human being?

Dr. Byrne: By declaring “brain death” as death.

Editor: You mean by replacing the traditional criteria for declaring death with a new criterion known as “brain death”?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. In 1968, an ad hoc committee was formed at Harvard University in Boston for the purpose of redefining death so that vital organs could be taken from persons declared “brain dead,” but who in fact, were not dead. Note that “brain death” did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method. The Harvard Committee did not determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death. Rather, its mission was to see that it was established as a new criterion for death. In short, the report was made to fit the already arrived at conclusions.

Editor: Does this mean that a person who is in a cerebral coma or needs a ventilator to support breathing could be declared “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: Yes.

Editor: Even if his heart is pumping and the lungs are oxygenating blood?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. You see, vital organs need to be fresh and undamaged for transplantation. For example, once breathing and circulation ceases, in five minutes or less, the heart is so damaged that it is not suitable for transplantation. The sense of urgency is real. After all, who would want to receive a damaged heart?

Editor: Did the Harvard criterion of “brain death” lead to changes in state and federal laws?

Dr. Byrne: Indeed. Between 1968 and 1978, more than thirty different sets of criteria for “brain death” were adopted in the United States and elsewhere. Many more have been published since then. This means that a person can be declared "brain dead" by one set of criteria, but alive by another or perhaps all the others. Every set includes the apnea test. This involves taking the ventilator away for up to ten minutes to observe if the patient can demonstrate that he/she can breathe on his/her own. The patient always gets worse with this test. Seldom, if ever, is the patient or the relatives informed ahead of time what will happen during the test. If the patient does not breathe on his/her own, this becomes the signal not to stop the ventilator, but to continue the ventilator until the recipient/s is, or are, ready to receive the organs. After the organs are excised, the “donor” is truly dead.

Editor: What about the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA)?

Dr. Byrne: According to the UDDA, death may be declared when a person has sustained either “irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions” or “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.” Since then, all 50 states consider cessation of brain functioning as death.

Editor: How does the body of a truly dead person compare with the body of a person declared “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: The body of a truly dead person is characterized in terms of dissolution, destruction, disintegration and putrefaction. There is an absence of vital body functions and the destruction of the organs of the vital systems. As I have already noted, the dead body is cold, stiff and unresponsive to all stimuli.

Editor: What about the body of a human being declared to be “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: In this case, the body is warm and flexible. There is a beating heart, normal color, temperature, and blood pressure. Most functions continue, including digestion, excretion, and maintenance of fluid balance with normal urine output. There will often be a response to surgical incisions. Given a long enough period of observation, someone declared “brain dead” will show healing and growth, and will go through puberty if they are a child.

Editor: Dr. Byrne, you mentioned that “brain dead” people will often respond to surgical incisions. Is this referred to as “the Lazarus effect?”

Dr. Byrne: Yes. That is why during the excision of vital organs, doctors find the need to use anesthesia and paralyzing drugs to control muscle spasms, blood pressure and heart rate changes, and other bodily protective mechanisms common in living patients. In normal medical practice, a patient’s reaction to a surgical incision will indicate to the anesthesiologist that the anesthetic is too light. This increase in heart rate and blood pressure are reactions to pain. Anesthetics are used to take away pain. Anesthesiologists in Great Britain require the administration of anesthetic to take organs. A corpse does not feel pain. (The Michael Fund Newsletter.)

“Brain death” is a lie and “palliative care” is euthanasia disguised under various euphemisms to disguise the reality of what it does: to kill a person by the use of various pharmaceutical cocktails designed to cause a person to become disoriented and seemingly aggressive before the protocols for the final doses of what can be called the hemlock treatment to be administered, sometimes at home by a patient’s own relatives in the belief that they are “relieving” of a loved one from pain when they are actually serving as unwitting accomplices in deaths that are the result of decisions made by men, not by God. We are to accept the suffering that comes out way at every moment of our lives, which is why we pray for the grace to bear the sufferings of whatever kind of death God has willed for us to undergo so that we can pay back perhaps a small amount of the punishment that we owe because of our sins.

One must recognize the simple fact that those who have given the world what has become common life-taking practices are not motivated by a love of God and His Holy Commandments. Instead, of course, the monsters of Modernity desire to play God, and we have seen this with especial clarity in the ongoing fear mongering and actual medical malfeasance with respect to what is called “Covid-19” as well as the development of gene therapy treatments (“vaccines”) that are injuring and killing hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people around the world.

The monsters of Modernity are indistinguishable from the monsters of the German Third Reich, the monsters of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the monsters of Red China at this time.

Indeed, Pope Pius XII explained that it was vital to know who developed and/or propagated various medical experiments or treatments in order to understand whether Catholics could cooperate with them legitimately, focusing principally on the necessity of respecting innocent human life and avoiding subordinating to alleged “needs” of the “community”:

Nevertheless, for the third time we come back to the question: Is there any moral limit to the “medical interests of the community” in content or extension? Are there “full powers” over the living man in every serious medical case? Does it raise barriers that are still valid in the interests of science or the individual? Or, stated differently: Can public authority, on which rests responsibility for the common good, give the doctor the power to experiment on the individual in the interests of science and the community in order to discover and try out new methods and procedures when these experiments transgress the right of the individual to dispose of himself? In the interests of the community, can public authority really limit or even suppress the right of the individual over his body and life, his bodily and psychic integrity?

23. To forestall an objection, We assume that it is a question of serious research, of honest efforts to promote the theory and practice of medicine, not of a maneuver serving as a scientific pretext to mask other ends and achieve them with impunity.

24. In regard to these questions many people have been of the opinion and are still of the opinion today, that the answer must be in the affirmative. To give weight to their contention they cite the fact that the individual is subordinated to the community, that the good of the individual must give way to the common good and be sacrificed to it. They add that the sacrifice of an individual for purposes of research and scientific investigation profits the individual in the long run.

25. The great postwar trials brought to light a terrifying number of documents testifying to the sacrifice of the individual in the “medical interests of the community.” In the minutes of these trials one finds testimony and reports showing how, with the consent and, at times, even under the formal order of public authority, certain research centers systematically demanded to be furnished with persons from concentration camps for their medical experiments. One finds how they were delivered to such centers, so many men, so many women, so many for one experiment, so many for another. There are reports on the conduct and the results of such experiments, of the subjective and objective symptoms observed during the different phases of the experiments. One cannot read these reports without feeling a profound compassion for the victims, many of whom went to their deaths, and without being frightened by such an aberration of the human mind and heart. But We can also add that those responsible for these atrocious deeds did no more than to reply in the affirmative to the question We have asked and to accept the practical consequences of their affirmation.

26. At this point is the interest of the individual subordinated to the community’s medical interests, or is there here a transgression, perhaps in good faith, against the most elementary demands of the natural law, a transgression that permits no medical research?

27. One would have to shut one’s eyes to reality to believe that at the present time one could find no one in the medical world to hold and defend the ideas that gave rise to the facts We have cited. It is enough to follow for a short time the reports on medical efforts and experiments to convince oneself of the contrary. Involuntarily one asks oneself what has authorized, and what could ever authorize, any doctor’s daring to try such an experiment. The experiment is described in all its stages and effects with calm objectivity. What is verified and what is not is noted. But there is not a word on its moral legality. Nevertheless, this question exists, and one cannot suppress it by passing it over in silence. (Pope Pius XII, The Moral Limits of Medical Research, September 14, 1952.)

Parenthetically but not unimportantly, though, it should be noted that there are even some fully traditional Catholic prelates and priests who continue to accept uncritically the claims by “medical science” about “brain death/vital organ vivisection,” the starvation and dehydration of brain-damaged people, “palliative care” and even the well-documented effort on the part of those are acting under the demands of the “Global Reset” to keep pushing poisoned potions as a means to avoid or at least mitigate the effects of man-made bioweapons designed to depopulate the earth. It is morally and theologically irresponsible to pass over these things in silence and to surrender one’s intellectual judgment to physicians who are part and parcel of what Dr. Paul Byrne rightly calls our “system of death.”

Pope Pius XII further explicated on this point in his allocution:

28. In the above mentioned cases, insofar as the moral justification of the experiments rests on the mandate of public authority, and therefore on the subordination of the individual to the community, of the individual’s welfare to the common welfare, it is based on an erroneous explanation of this principle. It must be noted that, in his personal being, man is not finally ordered to usefulness to society. On the contrary, the community exists for man.

29. The community is the great means intended by nature and God to regulate the exchange of mutual needs and to aid each man to develop his personality fully according to his individual and social abilities. Considered as a whole, the community is not a physical unity subsisting in itself and its individual members are not integral parts of it. Considered as a whole, the physical organism of living beings, of plants, animals or man, has a unity subsisting in itself. Each of the members, for example, the hand, the foot, the heart, the eye, is an integral part destined by all its being to be inserted in the whole organism. Outside the organism it has not, by its very nature, any sense, any finality. It is wholly absorbed by the totality of the organism to which it is attached.

30. In the moral community and in every organism of a purely moral character, it is an entirely different story. Here the whole has no unity subsisting in itself, but a simple unity of finality and action. In the community individuals are merely collaborators and instruments for the realization of the common end.

31. What results as far as the physical organism is concerned? The master and user of this organism, which possesses a subsisting unity, can dispose directly and immediately of integral parts, members and organs within the scope of their natural finality. He can also intervene, as often as and to the extent that the good of the whole demands, to paralyze, destroy, mutilate and separate the members. But, on the contrary, when the whole has only a unity of finality and action, its head-in the present case, the public authority-doubtlessly holds direct authority and the right to make demands upon the activities of the parts, but in no case can it dispose of its physical being. Indeed, every direct attempt upon its essence constitutes an abuse of the power of authority.

32. Now medical experiments-the subject We are discussing here immediately and directly affect the physical being, either of the whole or of the several organs, of the human organism. But, by virtue of the principle We have cited, public authority has no power in this sphere. It cannot, therefore, pass it on to research workers and doctors. It is from the State, however, that the doctor must receive authorization when he acts upon the organism of the individual in the “interests of the community.” For then he does not act as a private individual, but as a mandatory of the public power. The latter cannot, however, pass on a right that it does not possess, save in the case already mentioned when it acts as a deputy, as the legal representative of a minor for as long as he cannot make his own decisions, of a person of feeble mind or of a lunatic.

33. Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live.

34. We cannot refrain from explaining once more the point treated in this third part in the light of the principle to which one customarily appeals in like cases. We mean the principle of totality. This principle asserts that the part exists for the whole and that, consequently, the good of the part remains subordinated to the good of the whole, that the whole is a determining factor for the part and can dispose of it in its own interest. This principle flows from the essence of ideas and things and must, therefore, have an absolute value. (Pope Pius XII, The Moral Limits of Medical Research, September 14, 1952.)

The presumption must be in favor of life, not of death, and certainly not of "death" as defined by those in the contemporary medical industry who have popularized the chemical and surgical assassination of preborn children, infanticide after birth, suicide, assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, "brain death"/vital organ vivisection, the starvation and dehydration of brain-damaged human beings, and hospice/palliative care, which is nothing other than indirect euthanasia under a soothing euphemism that, sadly, some within fully traditional Catholic communities still accept uncritically because they "trust the experts." Yes, the same "experts" who gave us the plandemic, the poistoned jabs, the mask mandates, the social distancing mandates, and lockdowns. Those experts.

Pope Pius XII's admonitions of sixty-eight years ago, of course, mean nothing to the monsters of Modernity in medical community, who still looking ever new ways to snatch vital human bodily organs under an ever “evolving” definition of “brain death," although the American College of Physicians, which supports the morally and medically flawed Uniform Determination of Death Act, has issued a notice to remind physicians that their principal obligtation to treat the medical conditions of their patients to help get well, not the harvesting of human bodily organs:

(LifeSiteNews) — Acknowledging recent controversies in organ transplantation, the world’s largest medical specialty organization, the American College of Physicians (ACP) has just published a new position paper on transplant ethics.

This paper reminds physicians that patient care is their primary duty, and that end-of-life decision making must center around the best interests of these individual patients — not the interests of other people who might benefit from their organs. “It is unethical, before the declaration of death, to use any treatments or interventions aimed at preserving organs or assessing their suitability for donation that may harm the still-living patient by causing pain, causing traumatic injury, or shortening the patient’s life.” (American College of Physicians Reminds Doctors that Organ Harvesting is Not Their Primay Duty.)

A Brief Comment:

Patient care under all circumstances must be made according to the laws of God, which forbid any course of action whose one and only end is the death of a human being.

The problems that have arisen with “brain death,” “circulatory death,” and normothermic regional perfusion (see Here’s how organ harvesters get away with making patients ‘brain dead’) are the consequence of defying the immutably binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law and thus of not seeing the Divine impress within humans whose bodies are animated by a rational and immortal soul.

Thus, the recommendations made by the American College of Physicians to curb the zeal for procuring human bodily organs are premised upon the falsehood than there is something other than true death that can be “determined” according to its twisted protocols.

First, as demonstrated at the beginning of this commentary, there is no such thing as “brain death,” which was invented to justify the killing of living human beings to obtain their vital bodily organs.

Second, one must never agree to be an organ donor nor to encourage anyone else to be one as to do so makes one complicit in his own murder by vivisection.

Second, no one should “participate” in any “do not resuscitate” scheme and should follow the instructions in Dr. Paul Byrne’s addendum to his advance care directions without deviation:

 -No DNR orders

- No POLST orders denying any treatments or care

- No Comfort Care 

- No Palliative Care

- No Hospice 

- No to any apnea testing (not the same as sleep apnea test) whether or not considered part of the neurological exam or for assessment of any neurological injury and/or whether or not for the diagnosis or determination of “brain death” 

- No to any blood brain flow tests for the determination or diagnosis of “brain death” 

- No to organ donation

- No to being declared dead using any “neurological criteria” i.e., “brain death” criteria 

- No to being sedated to unconsciousness unless having anesthetic and operative procedure and then preferring as little drugs as possible.  

- Yes to feeding tube including PEG tube or other more permanent devices

- Yes to intravenous feedings and hydration

- Yes to CPR including chest compressions even if ribs/sternum are broken 

- Even if the Yes treatments above will not “treat” or “reverse” my condition I want them done to prolong my life, even if overall health is persistently, severely and prognosed to be irreversibly injured or disabled.  

I do not consider the “Yes” treatments, or care “burdensome” nor “extraordinary" AND I WANT THEM!  

My life has meaning and merit to and for me and I believe for others on a spiritual level, whether or not they agree, even if I am or become severely disabled, even if doctors or some clergy, et al. think the opposite and they would be within their moral or legal rights to refuse them.  

I want and accept these treatments and care that may be considered in the realm of “curative medicine” to protect and preserve my life, even if “cure” of underlying conditions are not expected. Some people use time and money to play golf.  I will use mine to continue to live, even if that means assistance to be ventilated, fed, etc. My life itself will be my prayer and work, my meaningful existence, offered for the salvation of my and others’ souls.

Obviously, these very specific instructions mean nothing to the so-called “medical professionals”, but they should mean everything to us.

For the sake of brevity, perhaps five principal falsehoods can be summarized as follows:

1) Vital bodily ormembers such as hearts can be taken only from living human beings. There is no such thing as "brain death" (please see Triumph of the Body Snatchers and Dr. Paul A. Byrne's Refutation).

2) Some people are kept alive solely so that they can be dissected alive when a suitable "match" for their body members is found in the international body snatching network.

3) There is no such thing as a "persistent vegetative state" as brain-damaged human beings are not vegetables nor are they, to use the words of a traditional prelate in an e-mail exchange with me nearly over seventeen years ago, "headless corpses."

4) Human beings are not "products" whose bodily integrity can be violated by those seeking to deny the simple truth that God has given each man the specific set of body members that he is to take with him to the grave barring accident, injury or illness.

Thus it is that babies who are alive must be deemed to be dead.

Those who might otherwise be considered "unsuitable" because of age or health problems should be included in the pool of those from whom body members are to be dissected alive.

All for what?

For profit, that's what. 

For profit.

For profit at the expense of the lives of innocent human beings as the false prophets prophesy falsehoods in order to maximize their "profits" in the name of "giving the gift of life."

The very same people who believe that the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage can be frustrated by pills and devices and who believe that innocent human beings can be executed in the sanctuaries of their mothers' wombs are supposedly dedicated to "giving the gift of life"?

Not on your life.

Not on your physical life and, much more importantly, not on your eternal life.

One lie begets other lies.

The lie of the Protestant Revolution has resulted in the proliferation of Protestant sects numbering as many as thirty-three thousand, producing irreligion in its work as a logical consequence.

The lie of "civil liberty" without the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His true Church, the Catholic Church, has resulted in the lie of the monster civil state of Modernity that is now being used by God as a chastisement upon us for refusing to take seriously Holy Mother Church's Social Teaching.

The lie of "religious liberty" has led people to believe that the path to social order and personal salvation can be found in any religion or in no religion at all.

The lie of "public education" has led to a taxpayer-subsidized machine to program their captives to be steeped in one ideologically-laden slogan after another to make them willing servants of the monster civil state and to participate merrily in neo-barbaric practices that were eradicated in Europe in during the First Millennium and in most parts of the Americas in the second half of the Second Millennium by the missionary work of the Catholic Church.

The lie of contraception and "family planning" led to increases in the rates of marital infidelity, the abandonment of spouses and children, the proliferation of children with stepmothers and stepfathers and step-siblings, leaving many children rootless and without any sense of being loved unto eternity that each person craves for whether or not he realizes it.

The lie of contraception led steadily to the acceptance of eugenic sterilization and then sterilization for any reasons and, ultimately, to the acceptance of surgical baby-killing on demand.

The lies of contraception and explicit instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments broke down the natural psychological resistance of children to matters that are age inappropriate, robbing them of their innocence and purity, turning them into hedonists as they have grown older, leading eventually to the widespread acceptance of the sins that destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone.

The lies that were told by Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., in the 1950s gave us unprecedented and most radical changes in the Holy Week ceremonies that started to accustom Catholics to ceaseless change as an ordinary feature of the liturgical life of the Catholic Church, climaxing in the Trojan Horse that was the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service that, no matter how many times the conciliarists to "fix it," will always be an instrument of innovation and experimentation as it was designed to be precisely that from the moment Bugnini and Antonelli began their plans for the "Mass of the Future."

Thus it is that the lie of "brain death" has accustomed most people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, into accepting uncritically the representations made by a medical industry that endorses the violation of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage and of the violation of the surgical dismemberment of the innocent preborn and that is in league with the pharmaceutical industry to use us a walking guinea pigs for drugs designed to keep us dependent on them as the "high priests and priestesses" of "modern medicine."

When did the lie of "brain death" originate? At the beginning:

[1] Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? [2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. [5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3: 1-5.)

It is very easy to be deceived.

It is very easy to be deceived by the lie of how "special" we are, of how we are "not like others."

It is very easy to be deceived by others and to let human respect get in the way of a firm defense of the truth when necessity compels such a defense lest souls be imperiled.

It is very easy to be deceived by the prevailing trends in what passes for popular culture, to give unto the "high priests and high priestesses" of banking, commerce, industry, education, law, entertainment, social science, politics, law, government, news and information and medicine the status of near-infallibility as even Catholics have been convinced to live as naturalists without regard for anything supernatural whatsoever.

Do not believe the false prophets.

Do not follow the priests and presbyters who have swallowed the falsehoods of the false prophets of the medical industry hook, line and sinkers.

Suffer for the truth without compromise as consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, our Immaculate Queen, no matter what you might have to suffer in this passing, mortal vale of tears.

Never sign up to be an "organ donor."

Tell your family members that they must sign up to be "organ donors"--or, if they have, to rescind the "permission" that they have given to be unwitting accomplices and accessories in their own execution by means of being dissected alive.

Do not delay.

Do not follow their false prophets or the priests/presbyters who proselytize in their behalf.

We must pray to Our Lady to keep us from being so deceived, especially by the lies that we tell to ourselves, which is why we must be assiduous in praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

We must always raise the standard of Christ the King as we exhort one and all to recognize that Our King, Who awaits in tabernacles for our acts of love and thanksgiving and reparation and petition, must reign over each man and each nation and that His Most Blessed Mother, Our Immaculate Queen, is to be honored publicly by each man and each nation, including by the government of the United States of America, in order to know what it is to be blessed abundantly by the true God of Revelation.

May each Rosary we pray this day, and every day help to plant seeds for this as we seek to serve Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary our Immaculate Queen, who do not view any living human being as a ready product for dismemberment in the name of the lie "providing the gift of life."

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Charles Borromeo, pray for us.

Saint Vitus and Agricola, pray for us.

All the Saints, pray for us.

Appendix A

Dom Prosper Gueranger on Saint Charles Borromeo

Humilitas. This word already stood, crowned with gold, upon his family escutcheon, when Charles was born at the castle of Arona. It had been said of the Borromeos that they knew nothing of humility, except to bear it on their coat of arms: but the time had now come, when the mysterious device was to be justified by the most illustrious scion of that noble family; and when, at the zenith of his greatness, a Borromeo would learn to void his heart of self, in order that God might fill it. Far, however, from abjuring the high-mindedness of his race, the humble Saint was the most intrepid of them all, while his enterprises were to eclipse the noble exploits of a long line of ancestors. One more proof that humility never debases.

Charles was scarcely twenty-two years of age when Pius IV, his maternal uncle, called him to the difficult post of Secretary of State, shortly afterwards created him Cardinal and Archbishop of Milan, and seemed to take pleasure in heaping honors and responsibilities on his young shoulders. The late Pontiff, Paul IV, had been ill requited for placing a similar confidence in his nephews the Caraffas, who ended their days upon the scaffold. His successor, on the contrary, as the event testified, was actuated by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, not by the dictates of flesh and blood.

Sixty years of that fatal century had already elapsed, while the evils consequent on Luther’s revolt were ever increasing, and the Church was daily threatened with some new danger. The Protestants had just imposed upon the Catholics of Germany the treaty of Passau, which completed the triumph of the fanatics, and secured to them equality and liberty. The abdication of Charles V in despair left the empire to his brother Ferdinand; while Spain, with its immense dominions in both hemispheres, fell to his son Philip II. Ferdinand I inaugurated the custom of dispensing with Rome, by crowning himself with the diadem which St. Leo III had placed upon the brow of Charlemagne; and Philip, enclosing Italy by taking Naples in the South and Milan in the North, seemed to many to be threatening the independence of Rome herself. England, reconciled for a brief period under Mary Tudor, was replunged by Elizabeth into the schism which continues to the present day. Boy kings succeeded one another on the throne of St. Louis, and the regency of Catharine de Medici involved France in the wars of religion.

Such was the political situation which the minister of Pius IV had to cope with, and to utilize to the best of his power for the interests of the Holy See and of the Church. Charles did not hesitate. With faith to supply for his want of experience, he understood that to the torrent of errors, which threatened to deluge the world, Rome must first of all oppose, as an embankment, that undivided truth of which she is the guardian.

He saw how, in contest with a heresy, which claimed the name of Reformation while it let loose every passion, the Church might take occasion from the struggle to strengthen her discipline, elevate the morals of her children, and manifest to the eyes of all her indefectible sanctity. This thought had already, under Paul III and Julius III, led to the convocation of the Council of Trent, and inspired its dogmatic definitions and reformatory decrees. But the Council, twice interrupted, had not completed its work, which was still under dispute. It had now been suspended for eight years, and the difficulties in the way of its resumption continued to increase, on account of the quarrelsome pretensions of princes. The Cardinal-nephew bent all his efforts to surmount the obstacles. He devoted day and night to the work, imbuing with his views the Sovereign Pontiff himself, inspiring with his zeal the nuncios at the various courts, vying in skill and firmness with diplomatic ministers in order to overcome the prejudices or the ill will of monarch. And when, after two years of these difficult negotiations, the Fathers of Trent gathered together once more, Charles was the providence and the tutelary angel of this august assembly. To him it owed its material organization, its political security, the complete independence of its deliberations and their thenceforward uninterrupted continuity. Himself detained at Rome, he was the intermediary between the Pope and the Council. The presiding legates soon gave him their full confidence, as is proved from the pontifical archives; to him, as to the ablest counselor and most reliable support, they daily had recourse in their solicitudes and anxieties.

For her (wisdom’s) sake, says the Wise Man, I shall have glory among the multitude, and honor with the ancients, though I be young … and the faces of princes shall wonder at me. They shall wait for me when I hold my peace, and they shall look upon me when I speak, and if I talk much they shall lay their hands on their mouths. (Wisdom 8:10-12) Such was truly the case with St. Charles, at this critical moment of the world’s history. No wonder that divine Wisdom, to whom he listened with such docility, and who inspired him so copiously, rendered his name immortal in the memory of a grateful posterity.

In his Defense of the too famous Declaration, Bossuet, speaking of the Council of Trent which owed its completion to St. Charles, says that it brought the Church back to the purity of her origin, as far as the iniquity of the times would permit. (Gallia orthodoxa, Pars III., 6:13, 7:40) And when the ecumenical sessions at the Vatican were opened, the Bishop of Poitiers, the future Cardinal Pie, spoke of “that Council of Trent, which deserved, more truly even than that of Nicæa, to be called the great Council; that Council, concerning which we may confidently assert, that since the creation of the world no assembly of men has succeeded in introducing among mankind such great perfection; that Council whereof it has been said that, as a tree of life, it has forever restored to the Church the rigor of her youth. More than three centuries have elapsed since its labors were completed, and its healing and strengthening virtue is still felt.” (Discourse pronounced at Rome, in the Church of St Andrew della Valle Jan 14, 1870)

“The Council of Trent is perpetuated in the Church by means of the Roman Congregations charged with its continual application, and with ensuring obedience to the pontifical constitutions which have followed and completed it.” (Pastoral instruction on occasion of the approaching Council of Bordeaux, June 26, 1850) Charles suggested the measures adopted for this end by Pius IV, and approved and developed by succeeding Pontiffs. He caused the Liturgical Books to be revised, and the Roman Catechism to be compiled. But first, and in all things, he was himself the living model of his renewed discipline, and thus acquired the right to exercise his zeal for or against others. Rome, initiated by him in the salutary reform, of which it was fitting she should set the first example, was in a few months completely transformed. The three churches now dedicated to St. Charles within her walls, (St Charles at the Catinari, one of the most beautiful in Rome; St Charles on the Corso, which possesses his heart; St Charles at the four fountains.) and the numerous altars which bear his name in other sanctuaries of the holy City, are the testimony of her enduring gratitude.

His administration, however, and his sojourn in Rome lasted only during the six years of Pius IV’s pontificate. On the death of that Pope, in spite of the entreaties of Pius V, whose election was done chiefly to his exertions, Charles set out for Milan, which called for the presence of its Archbishop. For nigh a century, the great Lombard city had scarcely known its pastors save by name; and this abandonment had delivered it, like so many others at that period, to the wolf that catcheth and scattereth the sheep. Our Saint understood far otherwise the responsibility of the cure of souls. He gave himself entirely to this duty, without care for himself, without a thought for the judgments of men, without fear of the powerful. His maxim was: to treat of the interests of Jesus Christ in the spirit of Jesus Christ; (Acta Eccl. Mediolanensis, Oratio habita in Concil. prov 6) his program, the ordinances of Trent. Charles’s episcopate was the carrying out of the great Council; its living form, the model of its practical application in the whole Church, and the proof of its efficiency, demonstrating that it sufficed for every reform, and could, of itself alone, sanctify both pastor and flock.

We would gladly have given more than a passing notice of these Acts of the church of Milan, which have been lovingly collected by faithful hands, and which show our Saint in so grant a light. Herein, after the six provincial councils and eleven diocesan synods over which he presided, follows the inexhaustible series of general or special mandates dictated by his zeal; pastoral letters, the most remarkable of which is the sublime Memorial written after the plague in Milan; instructions upon the holy Liturgy, upon the tenure of churches, upon preaching, upon the administration of the Sacraments, and notably the celebrated instruction to Confessors; ordinances concerning the archiepiscopal court, the chancellorship, canonical visitations; regulations for the archbishop’s domestic family, and his vicars and officials of all ranks, for the parish priests and their meetings in conference (a custom introduced by him), for the Oblates he had founded, the seminaries, schools, and confraternities; edicts and decrees; and lastly various tables, and complete forms of administrative acts, so drawn up that nothing remains but to insert names and dates. It is a true pastoral encyclopedia which, in its magnificent amplitude, would appear to be the work of a long life, yet St. Charles died at the early age of forty-six; and moreover all this was written in the midst of trials and combats sufficient to have been his sole preoccupation.

But it is time to listen to the Church’s account of him.

Charles was born at Milan, of the noble family of Borromeo. His future pre-eminent sanctity was foreshown by a heavenly light shining at night over the room where he was born. He was enrolled in his boyhood in the ranks of the clergy, and soon provided with an Abbey; but he warned his father not to turn its revenues to private use; and as soon as its administration was entrusted to him, he spent all the surplus income on the poor. As a youth he pursued his liberal studies at Pavia. He had the greatest love for holy chastity; and several times put to flight, with the greatest firmness, some shameless women sent to tempt him. In the twenty-third year of his age, his uncle Pius IV created him Cardinal; and he adorned that dignity by his great piety and remarkable virtues. Being soon afterwards made Archbishop of Milan, he labored strenuously to carry out, in his whole diocese, the decrees of the Council of Trent, which had just been concluded mainly through his exertions. To reform the evil customs of his people he held many synods, and moreover was ever himself a perfect model of virtue. He also labored much to expel the heretics from Switzerland and the country of the Grisons, and converted many of them to the true faith.

The charity of this holy man was strikingly exhibited when he sold the principality of Oria, and in one day distributed the price, amounting to about forty thousand gold pieces, among the poor. With no less generosity he, on another occasion, distributed twenty thousand gold pieces left him as a legacy. He resigned the many ecclesiastical benefices which his uncle had bestowed upon him, except a few which he retained for his own necessities and for relieving the poor. When the plague was raging in Milan, he gave up the furniture of his house, even his bed, for the support of the poor, and thenceforward always slept on a bare board. He visited the plague-stricken with unwearied zeal, assisted them with fatherly affection, and, administering to them with his own hands the Sacraments of the Church, singularly consoled them. Meanwhile he approached to God in humble prayer as a mediator for his people; he ordered public supplications to be made, and himself walked in the processions, with a rope round his neck, his feet bare and bleeding from the stones, and carrying a cross; and thus offering himself as a victim for the sins of the people, he endeavored to turn away the anger of God. He strenuously defended the liberty of the Church, and was most zealous in restoring discipline. For this reason some seditious persons fired upon him while he was engaged in prayer, but by the divine power he was preserved unharmed.

His abstinence was wonderful: he very often fasted on bread and water, and sometimes took only a little pulse. He subdued his body by night-watchings, a rough hairshirt and frequent disciplines. He was a great lover of humility and meekness. Even when occupied by weighty business, he never omitted his prayer or preaching. He built many churches, monasteries and colleges. He wrote many works of great value especially for the instruction of bishops; and it was through his care that the catechism for parish priests was drawn up. At length he retired to a solitary place on Mount Varallo, where the mysteries of our Lord’s Passion are sculptured in a lifelike manner, and there after spending some days in severe bodily mortifications sweetened by meditation on Christ’s sufferings, he was seized by a fever. He returned to Milan; but the illness growing much worse, he was covered with sackcloth and ashes, and with his eyes fixed on the crucifix he passed to heaven, in the forty-seventh year of his age, on the third of the Nones of November, in the year of our Lord 1584. He was illustrated by miracles, and was enrolled among the Saints by Pope Paul V. (As found in Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint Charles Borromeo, November 4.)

Successor of Ambrose, thou didst inherit his zeal for the house of God; thy action also was powerful in the Church; and though separated in time by a thousand years, your names are now united in one common glory. May your prayers also mingle before the throne of God for us in these times of decadence; and may your power in heaven obtain for us pastors worthy to continue, or if need be to renew, your work on earth. How obviously applicable to both of you were those words of Holy Writ: What manner of man the ruler of the city is, such also are they that dwell therein. (Ecclesiasticus 10:2) And again: I will fill the soul of the priests with fatness; and my people shall be filled with my good things, saith the Lord. (Jeremiah 31:14)

Rightly didst thou say, O Charles: “Never did Israel hear a more awful threat than this: Lex peribit a sacerdote. (The law shall perish.) (Ezekiel 7:26) Priests are divine instruments, upon whom depends the welfare of the world; their abundance is the riches of all, their default is the ruin of nations.” (Concio 1 ad. clerum, in synod. diæces xi)

And when, from the midst of thy priests convoked in synod, thou didst pass to the venerable assembly of seventeen bishops thy suffragens, thy language became, if possible, still more vehement: “Let us fear lest the angered Judge say to us: If you were the enlighteners of my Church, why have you closed your eyes? If you pretended to be shepherds of the flock, why have you suffered it to stray? Salt of the earth, you have lost your savor. Light of the world, they that sat in darkness and the shadow of death have never seen you shine. You were Apostles; who, then, put your apostolic firmness to the test, since you have done nothing but seek to please men? You were the mouth of the Lord, and you have made that mouth dumb. If you allege in excuse that the burden was beyond your strength, why did you make it the object of your ambitious intrigues?” (Oratio habita in concil. prov 2)

But by the grace of God blessing thy zeal for the amendment of both sheep and lambs, thou couldst add, O Charles: “Province of Milan, take heart again. Behold, thy fathers have come to thee, and are assembled once more for the purpose of remedying thy ills. They have no other care than to see thee bring forth the fruits of salvation; and for this end they multiply their united efforts.” (Oratio habita in concil. prov 6)

My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you. (Galatians 4:19) Such is the aspiration of the Bride, which will cease only in heaven: and synods, visitations, reformation, decrees concerning preaching and government and ministry were, in thy eyes, but the manifestation of this one desire of the Church, the expression of the mother’s cry as she brings forth her children. (Concio 1 ad. clerum, in synod. diæces xi)

Deign, O blessed Pontiff, to restore in all places the love of holy discipline, wherein the pastoral solicitude that rendered thee so glorious (Collect of the feast) found the secret of its marvelous fecundity. It may be sufficient for the simple faithful merely to know that among the treasures of the Church there exists, side by side with her doctrine and Sacraments, an incomparable code, the work of ages, an object of legitimate pride to all her sons, whose divine privileges it protects. But the priest, entirely devoted to the Church, cannot serve her usefully without that profound and persevering study which will give him the understanding of her laws in detail. But clergy and laity alike must beseech God that the miseries of the times may not impede the meeting of our venerated superiors in the councils and synods prescribed at Trent, (Session 24, de. Reformatione, Cap. 2) and so grandly carried out by thee, O Charles, who didst prove by experience their value for the salvation of the world. May heaven, for thy sake, hear our prayer; and then we shall be able to say with thee to the Church: “O tender mother, let thy voice cease from weeping … for there is a reward for thy work, saith the Lord; and thy sons shall return out of the land of the enemy. And I will fill the soul of the priests with fatness: and my people shall be filled with my good things.” (Jeremiah 31:16, 14)

Let us offer our homage to two Martyrs, whose memory was celebrated on this day even before that of St. Charles. Vitalis the slave and Agricola his master, combating together in the glorious arena proved that social inequality counts for nothing with regard to heaven’s nobility. St. Ambrose, when sojourning at Bologna where they had suffered, discovered their bodies and celebrated their triumph. (Ambrose, Exortations on Virginity) The Church, following his example, has ever associated them in one common homage. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Charles Borromeo, November 4.)

Appendix B

Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., Sermon on the Feast of Saint Charles Borromeo

The great and holy Charles Borromeo is justly accounted one of the most celebrated Saints that lived in the sixteenth century, and who, by their virtues and the miracles they performed, made the Catholic Church glorious in the very face of her enemies. Charles was born of very illustrious parents, in 1538, at the castle of Arona, fourteen miles from Milan. A bright light which shone above the castle at the time of Charles' birth, and which, sending its rays afar off, continued for over two hours, was doubtless a sign of the great virtue and holiness with which this new-born child would ornament and illuminate the Church of Christ.

Charles, even in childhood, evinced great inclination for the religious state, as he imitated at home everything he saw the priests do at Church. In later years, when he began his studies, he served as a model of virtue to every one. His purity he kept inviolate amidst the greatest dangers; no one ever heard him speak an unchaste word, and if others said anything that in the least offended his ear, he immediately withdrew, and carefully avoided all frivolous, idle or disobedient youths.

As soon as he had arrived at the proper age, pope Pius IV. called him to Rome, and bestowed upon him the Cardinal's hat, with the Archbishopric of Milan. When afterwards his brother died without issue, the friends of the family urged Charles to abandon the clerical state in order to perpetuate his lineage; but he remained constant in his resolution to serve the Lord in celibacy. He had assisted at the Council of Trent; and was the first who endeavored to reform his See in perfect accordance with its decrees. He made the beginning at his own court, which he composed of priests to whom he prescribed certain regulations, by the observance of which, they might become perfect laborers for the vineyard of the Lord.

His resolve, on becoming a prelate of the Church, had been: "I will either be no Cardinal and Archbishop, or I will endeavor to gain such virtues as are in accordance with my dignity." And it may be truly said that the Saint possessed, in an eminent degree, all those virtues which a prelate of such high standing ought to possess. He held many councils, and made the most wholesome regulations to exterminate abuses and to restore Christian morals. Of his revenues as bishop nothing went to his relatives, but all to promote the honor of God and to assist the poor.

The number of churches he built and restored, as well in his own diocese as elsewhere, is almost incredible. All these he most liberally endowed. Above the door of each church, he placed an image of the Blessed Virgin, not only to admonish all to honor her, but also to teach them to seek through her, admittance to Christ, our Mediator and Redeemer. He erected many religious houses for both sexes, that God Almighty might be praised by their inmates, and His blessing drawn down by their prayers. He also built many hospitals for the sick, and several for houseless strangers, for orphans, and for women who desired to lead a better life. He also instituted schools for children, and seminaries for students of theology, so that his parishes might be filled with pious, learned and zealous priests.

Besides this, he instituted a society of priests, whom he named Oblates, to be employed in preaching and other spiritual functions. To secure to his Episcopal city the benefits of a truly Christian education of the highest order, he introduced the priests of the Society of Jesus at Milan, and gave them a college and a magnificent church. Those who knew all the rich foundations he made, deemed it impossible that one Cardinal could collect so much money as he spent, especially as he had resigned all other benefices which he had received from the Pope, desiring to live only upon the income of his Archbishopric. Still more wonderful and miraculous was the fact, that, besides supporting the above-mentioned foundations, he had yet so much left him to comfort the poor.

His palace was always open to all the poor and to strangers, especially to religious; and all received not only food, but also alms, devout books, rosaries, etc. He had two servants whose only duty was to distribute alms. One of them had the care of the poor who came to the palace; the other carried the alms to the houses of the indigent. After the death of his brother, Saint Charles had been declared, by Philip II., of Spain, heir to the principality of Oria, the annual income of which was nearly 10,000 ducats. Of this he used not one farthing for himself or his relatives, but gave one part of it to the poor, the other to churches and hospitals. From the great care he took of the temporal welfare of the poor, we can easily conclude how great must have been his solicitude for the souls of those under him.

He was a perfect model of a watchful shepherd. Inexpressibly great were the pains he took to drive away' from his flock the heretics who, at that period, wandered about like ravenous wolves; and to keep his own in the fold of Christ, the true Church. He preached in several churches, not only on Sundays and Feast-days, but also during the week. He admonished and instructed the people in their own houses, visited the sick and comforted the dying. He strove to uproot the bad customs which prevailed at the carnival. He visited his entire diocese, accompanied by several priests. There was not a town or village to which he did not go. Everywhere he renewed the churches, preached, gave instructions, administered the holy Sacraments, and exhorted all to lead a Christian life.

None could understand how the holy Cardinal, whose health was delicate, could bear so much fatigue in traveling, without permitting heat or cold, snow or rain to prevent him. His apostolic zeal and untiring care for his beloved flock made all labor and hardship easy to him. The most splendid proof of this solicitude he gave in 1575, when the pestilence ravaged Milan for several months. To save his life from the terrible disease, he was begged to leave the city; but he could not be persuaded. " A good shepherd," said he, " gives his life for his sheep." Hence he remained, and he assigned priests for every street, that no one might die without the holy Sacraments. He himself went into the houses of those stricken down, especially into those of the poor, heard their confession, administered the holy Sacraments to them and attended to their bodily comfort.

The number of poor, who came to him from other places for aid, was so great, that for want of money, he divided among them the provisions which had been stored away for his own use. He also sold his plate and the furniture of his house, and gave the money to the needy. The hangings of the walls, the curtains of the windows, and even his own clothes were not spared : everything was given away to assist the poor. His own bed was carried into the hospital, and he took his short rest on some hard boards. These were surely proofs of his great love for his neighbor.

Further, the holy Cardinal ordered several penitential processions to avert the anger of God. He himself appeared in them, barefoot, with a rope around his neck and a heavy cross on his shoulders. He offered to the Almighty his own life, ready and willing to die for his sheep. After the pestilence had disappeared, he gave due thanks to the Almighty, and enjoined upon all to do the same. When some one justly praised his zeal, he said: " I have only fulfilled the duties of a true shepherd towards his sheep." We should fill many pages were we to attempt to describe the devotion and virtues of this holy man.

He possessed in an eminent degree the spirit of prayer, and employed several hours of the day and of the night in contemplation. At the time of the " Forty hours' devotion," he more than once remained in church from early morning until evening. He fasted almost daily, and in the last years of his life, on water and bread. During the 40 days' fast, he even abstained from bread, and ate only a few figs. He always wore a rough hair-shirt, and scourged himself mercilessly. He never warmed himself at the fire during the winter, and allowed himself very little time to sleep, constantly mortifying his body. But above all, how admirable were his heroic patience and fortitude under vicissitudes, his winning gentleness, his deep humility, and his perfection in other virtues! He, however, closed early a life so fruitful in good and great deeds.

Although the Cardinal was still in his best years, he resigned himself to the will of the Almighty, when an inner voice told him that his death was near. He made a pilgrimage to Mount Varallo, where he spent 15 days in the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius, under the direction of a priest of the Society of Jesus, whom he had chosen as his confessor. He cleansed his soul, which had never been stained by a mortal sin, by a general confession. Feeling that he was attacked by the disease which he knew would release him from earth, he returned to Milan where he arrived on the second day of November. On the third, he received the holy Sacraments with great devotion, and desiring to die like a penitent, he had himself laid upon haircloth strewed with ashes. Continually praying, he remained in this penitential position until the third hour after sundown, when, raising his eyes to the image of the Savior, he gave his soul to his Maker, in the 47th year of his life.

It would require a whole volume to relate all the miracles which the Almighty wrought to honor this untiring servant, as well during his life as after his death. The splendid example of his virtues is sufficient to merit our highest esteem. I will only add that the holy Cardinal, after his death, appeared to one of his friends, radiant with heavenly glory, and said: "I am happy."

 

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
 

I. "I am happy," said St. Charles after his death. How can it be otherwise with one who kept his innocence unimpaired among so many dangers; who evinced such constant zeal in prayer, fasting and almsgiving; who labored so faithfully for the honor of God and the salvation of souls; who was so severe towards himself, and so kind to the poor, the sick, and the forsaken? It is the promise of God that the just shall be happy. " Say to the just man that it is well" (Isai. hi.). Will it, however, be well with you after your death? This depends, by the grace of God, on yourself alone. Follow St. Charles in avoiding sin, in practicing good works, in mortifying your body, in kindness towards the poor, and, as much as is in your power, in zeal to work for the honor of God and the salvation of souls : and I assure you that you will be happy after your death. But should you persist in the contrary, if you voluntarily commit sin, if you are indolent in the practice of good works, if you live only for your own pleasure and comfort, and are not charitable to the poor; I can only, according to the Gospel, foretell that you will not be able to say with St. Charles : " I am happy: " but you will cry with the rich man: "I am tormented in this flame " (Luke, xvi.).

II. St. Charles employed all his income for the honor of God and the comfort of the poor. The building and renewing of many churches, the founding of many convents and hospitals, the rich alms given to the poor, are proofs of it. Even today this speaks much more in favor of the holy Cardinal, than if he had given his possessions to his relatives and friends, or had employed them to build magnificent palaces, or to maintain useless animals, to purchase luxurious garments, to indulge in splendid banquets and vain amusements, as too many of his rank have done both before and after him, whose very names are forgotten. But this is the least portion of his merit.

Think of the praise and honor which the holy Cardinal received from God; the joy and glory that became his in heaven. What would it benefit him at this moment, if he had dissipated his wealth, as many others have done? He would not have gained the love either of God or of men; nor would he have been received into the glories of heaven; but on the contrary, he might have earned eternal shame and damnation. And what benefit will those one day have, who use their temporal possessions quite differently from St. Charles? What comfort, what advantage will it bring to them? Certainly, neither advantage nor comfort, but great responsibility, heavy punishment, because they have not used what God had given them, for the end and aim for which they received it. The conclusion from this you may draw yourself. "Not only the spiritual possessions come from God, but also the temporal," says St. Leo; "hence, God will justly require us to account for them; as He gives them to us not so much to possess, as to distribute them. We must consequently endeavor to make a right use or the gifts of the Almighty, so that the occasion of good works may not become the occasion for doing evil."