Ever New Laws and New Ways to Kill Innocent Human Beings, part one

Although I had not planned to do, I suppose a second volume of might be in order one of these days as the merchants of death continue to pass new laws and to invent new ways of killing innocent human beings, who are at risk of arbitrary execution from the moment of their conception throughout all subsequent stages of life.

The merchants of death have used all manner of emotional manipulation to accustom the masses to accept the word of its “experts,” who present themselves as possessing something akin to an “infallibility” that only “conspiracy theorists” would dare question. Remember how the righteously arrogant Anthony Fauci dismissed all criticism of his “expertise” that was responsible for so many needless deaths by saying, “I represent the science,” meaning that anyone who questioned him, no matter how many years of clinical experience and/or the number of peer-reviewed articles they had published, were charlatans who were unworthy of any serious consideration.

The average person today has been taught to be docilely submissive to the medical industry (“Whatever you say, Doctor. I will do whatever you tell me to do, Doctor. I will take whatever pharmaceutical product you want to me take, Doctor,” no matter what the side-effects as I know that you will prescribe another pill to deal with those if develop them.” “You’re the expert. I don’t want my husband to live a ‘useless’ life. If you say it’s time for hospice, then it is time for hospice.” “Sure, I want to give the ‘gift of life.’ Sign me up to be an organ donor and thus give my consent to vivisected to death”). It should go without saying that the unquestioning submission that most people render to physicians and others in the medical industry is nothing other than a mockery of the submission that everyone on the face of this earth is meant to render to a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter in everything that pertains to Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals. Alas, the high priests and priestesses of Big Medicine, Big Pharma, Big Law, Big Tech, and Big Government have such an effective hold on the minds of so many people even after the scandalous lies they told during the scamdemic that is has become easier and easier for officials in public life to sanction more and more practices that make innocent human life more vulnerable to being executed under this or that manufactured pretext.

It is important to understand that the push for “assisted suicide” is over thirty years old, although its antecedent roots are to be found in The Hemlock Society of nearly a century ago:

Stealth Death

Euthanasia must be understood both spiritually and tacitally.

Spiritually it is evil and like all evil it will appear as something virtuous where no virtue exists.

Tactically, persons who have researched this over one or more decades, tell me it has a defined history in this country going back to the Hemlock Society (1930s) and defined tactics. 

See www.lifetree.org

From the beginning, by the 1980s, two opinions/strategies emerged.

The Oregon side wanted a militant approach in assisted suicide.

The New York side wanted to do things in a more nuanced way.

This “new” eugenics” movement is all about influence over the minds and hearts of the people who care for the dying—caregivers, physicians, nurses, chaplains, social workers to name just a few—so that they can control the timing and the place of death.

Alphabet Soup

The Oregon side, the militants, rebranding themselves from the Hemlock Society to Compassion and Choices to Death with Dignity all pushed for legal assisted suicide. 7/1/16 New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Unanimously There is No Right to Assisted Suicide reported by LifeNews.com. A recent defeat for Compassion and Choices and the ACLU which brought the suit.

The New York side became the Euthanasia Society of America by morphing into the Society for the Right to Die and Concern for the Dying in the 70s and 80s. Choice in Dying in the early 90s and Last Acts Partnership in the early 2000s. The wing claimed to be against physician assisted suicide. Beware. These so-called moderates have tried to distinguish themselves as offering the moral high ground. See enclosed June 5, 2016 WSJ “Canada Debates Right-To-Die Limits,” by Paul Vieira.

In 1987, Dr. Josefina Magno of Washington, D.C., and Dr. Gerald Holman of St. Anthony’s Hospice in Amarillo, Texas, called a meeting of hospice physicians in Granby, Colorado, to for what would later become known as the American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Care (AAHPM), the professional organization for palliative care physicians.

A pivotal event took place in 1998 when Ira Byock, then-President of AAHPM formed an alliance with Choice in Dying to form Partnership for Caring and therein was born a major public-relations campaign to gain public support and a political mandate for their agenda. Then they seemed to disappear, but the evidence shows that they quietly filtered into the new field of palliative medicine. In her 2005 book Terri’s Story: The Court Ordered Death of an American Woman, author Diana Lynn describes it as the “third path to death, not wholly natural, not suicide, but something in between. The “moderates” insist there is a big difference between withholding and withdrawing medical treatment and giving someone access to a lethal dose of barbiturates.

The Never Satisfied Elites

In November 1995, George Soros called 20 foundations together who were committed to transforming the culture of dying. See enclosed Participants at Soros Meeting, 11/1995. In addition to Sorors’ Project on Death in America and his Open Society Institute, attendees included AARP, Commonwealth Fund, Greenwall Foundation, Mayday Fund and Cornfield Foundation, Milbank Memorial Fund, Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Office, and the Gerbode Foundation. Also in 1995, the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation began a big communications and outreach effort called Last Acts. Last Acts worked at the grass roots level. They held a big communications and outreach effort in March 1996. 140 national leaders came to Washington, D.C. See enclosed participants at First Last Acts Conference, 3/1996. Representatives of bioethics (Hastings Center, Center for Practical Bioethics in Kansas City and Par Ridge Center in Illinois), providers (American Hospital Foundation, American Nurses Association, Hospice Foundation of America, National Association for Home Care) and euthanasia (Concern for Dying) and many foundations were there. All told 140 nationa leaders met in Washington, D.C.

Two major funders stand out: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded research and infrastructure and George Soros’ Project on Death in America fund a cadre of professionals. (Institutionalizing Death by Palliative Care.)

This is critical to understand and to digest.

George Soros is the notorious atheistic Talmduist who funds everything evil imaginable and, of course, has worked closely with the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, up to and including the late Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who supported Soros's efforts to fund Alinsky-style “community organizing” movements that agitate in favor of “open borders” and “economic justice.” Soros, of course, also supports the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn and perverse acts in violation of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law and is a major contributor to candidates who support these evils.

Soros’s money continues to influence politicians worldwide on the life issues as he and his son, Alexander, use their money to promote the chemical and surgical execution of the preborn, “brain death”/vital organ vivisection, the starvation and dehydration of suffering patients, palliative care/hospice, suicide, physician-assisted suicide, direct euthanasia, sodomy, the mutilation of mentally ill people by chemical and surgical means in the vain and ontologically impossible attempt to become a member of the opposite gender, perversity, statism, globalism, open borders, and outright totalitarianism in the supposed “free” nations of Europe, the United States of America, and Canada.

Although there are certainly many other factors at work, one can be assured that Soros and like-minded allies had their hand in the recent action taken by the British Parliament to remove the limited restrictions that on baby-killing that existed in this land that had been thorough Catholic for over nine centuries:

MPs have voted to change abortion legislation to stop women in England and Wales being prosecuted for ending their pregnancy.

The landslide vote to decriminalise the procedure is the biggest change to abortion laws in England and Wales for nearly 60 years.

Women who terminate their pregnancy outside the rules, for example after 24 weeks, will no longer be at risk of being investigated by police.

The law will still penalise anyone who assists a woman, including medical professionals, in getting an abortion outside the current legal framework.

Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi put forward the amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which was passed by a majority of 242 votes.

As an issue of conscience, MPs were allowed to vote according to their personal beliefs.

The current law in England and Wales states that abortion is illegal but allowed up to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy and beyond that in certain circumstances such as if the woman's life is in danger.

Women can also take medication at home to terminate their pregnancies under 10 weeks.

Setting out her arguments in Parliament, the Gower MP flagged that nearly 99% of abortions happen before a pregnancy reaches 20 weeks, leaving just 1% of women "in desperate circumstances".

Antoniazzi highlighted a series of cases where women had been arrested for illegal abortion offences, such as Nicola Packer, who was taken from hospital to a police cell after delivering a stillborn baby at home after taking prescribed abortion medicine when she was around 26 weeks pregnant.

She told jurors during her trial, which came after more than four years of police investigation, that she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than 10 weeks.

Antoniazzi urged MPs to support her amendment to recognise "these women need care and support, and not criminalisation".

"Each one of these cases is a travesty, enabled by our outdated abortion law," she said.

"Originally passed by an all-male parliament elected by men alone, this Victorian law is increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls."

The Antoniazzi amendment won the support from 379 MPs, with 137 against.

The new clause will not change any law regarding the provision of abortion services within a healthcare setting, including but not limited to the time limit, telemedicine, the grounds for abortion, or the requirement for two doctors' approval.

It was backed by all the main abortion providers, as well as 180 MPs from across the Commons and 50 organisations including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG).

Labour MP Stella Creasey had put forward a second amendment urging MPs to go further than Antoniazzi's, proposing to ditch any abortion-related clauses of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act - which outlaws abortion - and enshrine abortion access as a human right.

Creasy asked why MPs would want to retain outdated laws "in any shape or form, rather than learning from what is best practice around the world for all of our constituents".

Creasy's proposed amendment was publicly backed by 108 MPs before the debate - but abortion providers, including the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), said the amendment was not the right way to achieve "generational change", and it did not go to a vote.

Conservative shadow health minister Dr Caroline Johnson put forward a third amendment, aimed at stopping pills-by-post abortions by requiring a pregnant woman to have an in-person consultation before being prescribed medication to terminate her pregnancy.

The Johnson amendment was defeated, with 379 MPs voting against and 117 voting for.

RCOG President Prof Ranee Thakar welcomed the decision to accept the Antoniazzi amendment and reject Johnson's as "a victory for women and for their essential reproductive rights".

She said: "This sends a powerful signal that women's rights and autonomy matter.

"The College has been campaigning to see this achieved for many years, and the decision reflects the voices of over 50 medical, legal and public health organisations.

"It also reflects the views of the public, who overwhelmingly support the right of women to access abortion care safely, confidentially, and without fear of investigation and prosecution."

The amendment still needs to complete its legislative journey through both the Commons and the Lords before it can become law.

Campaigners welcomed the decision, including BPAS chief executive Heidi Stewart, who has been pushing for the change since 2016.

She said: "This is a landmark moment for women's rights in this country and the most significant change to our abortion law since the 1967 Abortion Act was passed.

"There will be no more women investigated after enduring a miscarriage, no more women dragged from their hospital beds to the back of a police van, no more women separated from their children because of our archaic abortion law."

However, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) said it was "horrified" by the vote.

The organisation's public policy manager, Alithea Williams, said: "If this clause becomes law, a woman who aborts her baby at any point in pregnancy, even moments before birth, would not be committing a criminal offence."

"Now, even the very limited protection afforded by the law is being stripped away," she added. (MPs vote to decriminalise abortion for women in England and Wales.)

It is important to remember that the warfare waged by King Henry VIII against the sanctity and indissolubility of Holy Matrimony made inevitable his false religious sect’s warfare against the fecundity of marriage at its Lambeth Conference in 1930:

Resolution 15

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. (Resolution 15 - The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage.)

This decision opened the floodgates of Protestant acceptance of contraception, which, of course, had been promoted for the previous fifteen years in the United States of America by the nymphomaniac revolutionary anti-Theist named Margaret Sanger. An organization known as the Federal Council of Churches in America (which merged in 1950 with other such organizations to form the “National Council of Churches”) endorsed contraception in 1931, prompting the following editorial to appear, amazingly enough, in The Washington Post:

The Federal Council of Churches in America some time ago appointed a committee on "marriage and the home," which has now submitted a report favoring a "careful and restrained" use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.   

The mischief that would result from an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for "regulating the size of families" is evidently quite beyond the comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the churches are to become organizations for political and 'scientific' propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time religion. ("Forgetting Religion," Editorial, The Washington Post, March 22, 1932.)

The Lambeth Conference’s Resolution 15, which prompted Pope Pius XI to issue Casti Connubii on December 31, 1930, accustomed the British people to “planned” pregnancies and opened the way to the public acceptance of one degrading practice after another over the course of time, up to and including the legalization of surgical baby-killing by means of the Abortion Law of 1967 that was passed Parliament at the behest of Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Here is a brief history of surgical baby-killing in the United Kingdom as found on the website of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn in England:

In 1938, a London gynaecologist, Aleck Bourne, tested the laws by performing an abortion on a 14-year-old girl who had been sexually assaulted by five off-duty British soldiers. Dr Bourne was a supporter of the Abortion Law Reform Association.

He was charged with an illegal abortion, and pleaded not guilty on the basis that the girl's mental health would have been adversely affected by giving birth. Dr Bourne was acquitted after the judge, Mr Justice Macnaughten, invited the jury to decide whether in acting to preserve the girl's mental health, as he saw it, the doctor's action had amounted to saving her life. The judge evidently condoned the abortion, and the jury acquitted the doctor.

The effect of the Bourne case was to give legal sanction for abortions to prevent damage to a woman's physical or mental health, a test which became interpreted more and more liberally, and which was incorporated into the Abortion Act. This marked a watershed and although medical grounds are still formally required, doctors can practice abortion virtually on request provided they claim mental health is at risk. Aleck Bourne eventually became appalled at the results of his case and became an early member of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

Steel's 1967 Abortion Act

The Abortion Act was introduced by the liberal MP David Steel with the tacit support of the Labour government under Harold Wilson. Steel introduced the bill as a Private Member's Bill after drawing third place in the ballot on 12th May 1966. The bill would not have reached the statute book but for the support of the government which provided the parliamentary time needed to get the bill through. The government was sympathetic to the measure but did not want to include it in its own legislative programme. The bill was eventually given a third reading by the House of Commons on 14th July 1967, and came into force on 27th April 1968.

The operation of the Act proved controversial from the outset, and a committee of inquiry was set up under Mrs Justice Lane in 1971 to review the working of the Act. Obstetricians and gynaecologists who refused to provide abortions, were put under pressure, and although those in senior posts were protected by the 'conscience clause' in the Act others were forced out of the specialism, or out of the country, as pro-abortion officials in the Department of Health demanded that NHS hospitals should provide wide access to abortion services.

Pro-life reform attempts

Pro-life MPs sought to amend the Act, first introducing amendment bills as early as 1969. But despite numerous attempts through the 1970s and 1980s, they all failed to achieve any reform of the Act, as government ministers of various parties and Department of Health officials studiously defended the legislation and its abuse.

In 1990 the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher introduced a bill (the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act) to legislate for in-vitro fertilisation, and agreed to allow amendments to the Abortion Act to be attached to the bill, thereby overcoming the major obstacle to getting abortion amendments onto the statute book. This proved a miscalculation on the part of pro-life MPs, as it later became clear that the government's agenda was not to introduce any significant restriction, but to widen the abortion law to accommodate new abortion techniques and to extend abortion for disabled babies up to birth (previously it had been restricted to the point at which the baby could be born alive).

Recent efforts

Further attempts to amend the law by pro-abortion MPs were attached to a later embryology bill in 2008. These also failed for reasons that are not apparent.

Recent efforts have focused on unlawful abuses of the abortion law, such as the practice of sex-selection abortion, and the discriminatory nature of abortion for disabled babies.  The policy of the Department of Health to allow "unwanted" pregnancy to be deemed a threat to mental health is another way in which the law is being treated with contempt.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson

We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures ... we sensationalized the effects of illegal abortions, and fabricated polls which indicated that 85% of the public favoured unrestricted abortion, when we knew it was only 5%. We unashamedly lied, and yet our statements were quoted (by the media) as though they had been written in law. (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.)

British authorities admitted in 2013 that over eight million children had been killed since 1967 (Over eight million abortions since 1967), although a chart found here provides statistics that date as far back as the very year of the infamous 1930 Lambeth Conference. The British Isles have been a killing field since 1534, and it is thus only logical that it has been the scene of so much carnage in recent decades. Only seventeen percent of the British people believe that the killing of preborn children by surgical means is wrong in all instances (Ipsos Mori Research Publications), a figure that is very similar to that here in the United States of America, where nineteen percent of the public believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (Gallup Poll.)

By the way, good readers, perhaps it should be pointed out the august Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal assent to then Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s law that decriminalized the killing of innocent preborn children, something that her apologists might claim was her “constitutional duty” even though one’s duty to God and His Commandments come before the dictates of unjust laws. Many of these same apologists might contend that she had no choice but to give her royal assent to the Parliamentary bill legalizing the absurdity that is “marriage” between people of the same gender, but the very fact that the English Parliament, whose origins can be traced back to 1295 when England was a thoroughly Catholic kingdom, would even consider passing legislation to permit baby-killing and “gay marriage” is the consequence of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King in England and its replacement by the “church” of which the English monarch is the nominal head.

Unlike England, of course, the United States of America has never been a Catholic nation, and the pull of Americanism and pluralism has been such that, even absent the influences the Soros and Robert Wood Johnson Foundations, there continues to be a long and very sordid “tradition” of Catholics in public life support every offense against the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law imaginable.

It is thus no surprise, therefore, that the New York State Senate passed a bill on June 9, 2025, to permit so-called “physician-assisted suicide,” a bill that is awaiting the signature of the pro-abortion, pro-perversity “Catholic” statist governor, Kathleen Hochul:

The New York state senate on Monday approved a controversial assisted suicide bill that has been circulating in Albany for nearly a decade. The Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) Act is now on Kathy Hochul’s desk—forcing her to take sides in a fight from which the Democratic governor has consistently shrunk.

Hochul has not commented on the act, which was introduced and supported by members of her own party, since it passed through the senate along partisan lines. A spokesman told The American Conservative said that Hochul will “review” the bill, which allows terminally ill people to seek medical prescriptions for life-ending drugs. 

This apparent ambivalence is consistent with Hochul’s attitude since she took office in 2021. At that time, the bill, which was first introduced in the State Assembly in 2016, had not gained significant legislative traction during any session. Hochul, who, for what it is worth, is a Catholic, has studiously avoided staking a position on assisted suicide.

“My personal opinions do not have a place in public policy,” she told reporters shortly after taking office. “I will be listening to both sides of the debate.”

For several years that strategy worked, and the bill never made it to a vote. But last year, spurred by the increased visibility of the issue, MAiD’s supporters claimed that they were close to whipping enough votes to get the bill on Hochul’s desk. If she signs, New York will join nine states and the District of Columbia with assisted suicide laws on the books (plus Montana, which has no law but whose Supreme Court ruled that the practice is legal in the state).

If she vetoes the bill, then Hochul will be the second Democrat in as many years to do so. Around this time in 2024, John Carney, the outgoing governor of Delaware, faced a similar decision. His party pushed through an assisted suicide bill—on much narrower lines than the New York proposal—and sent it to his desk for approval. Carney, who is also a Catholic, vetoed the bill, citing his own religious convictions, as well as the opinion of the American Medical Association (AMA), which holds that physician-assisted suicide is “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer.”

Carney’s decision provoked an uproar among MAiD’s supporters in Delaware. The backlash emboldened his successor in office, Matt Meyer, to campaign on a promise to sign the bill into law should he be elected. He was elected, and he did sign the bill after it once again squeaked through the state legislature.

Hochul in some ways is in a similar position to Carney. Although assisted suicide is more popular among state lawmakers in New York, its opponents remain just as committed to stopping it. Catholic organizations in the state have fought the bill’s progress since it was introduced and even now are urging the governor to reject it. And, significantly, on the day of the state senate’s vote the AMA reaffirmed its opposition to assisted suicide.

“Medical aid in dying,” the organization wrote, is a contradiction in terms. The terminology “could apply to palliative care practices and compassionate care near the end of life that do not include intending the death of patients.” But the euphemism itself “is unacceptable for providing ethical guidance” on how to treat people who are near death.

Yet that opposition, well-spoken as it may be, may be too little, too late. Unlike Carney, Hochul is the governor of one of the largest states in America, and her decisions are closely watched—and held against her. Significantly, she is up for reelection next year. Assisted suicide is broadly popular, and support for it is only growing. To resist is to endanger one’s own ambitions. Hochul may well sign the bill into law.

In fact, for those who have been watching this fight since the beginning, the whole thing feels like fait accompli. Earlier this spring, after the bill passed through the state assembly, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, the state senate’s majority leader, told reporters that she only intended to bring the bill up for a vote if she was certain it would pass her chamber to the floor. 

And, she added, she was also hesitant to move on the bill unless she had some assurance Hochul would sign, an outcome about which she could only speculate.

“She’s supportive,” she told reporters. “But I haven’t gotten a personal call.” (Will Hochul Sign New York’s Assisted Suicide Bill?.) 

Kathleen Hochul’s only set of “convictions” involves pleasing the multitudes. Her supposed “dichotomy” between personal belief and public policy is but a variation of the old “I am personally opposed to abortion but cannot impose ‘my views’ on others” canard that was invented by the likes of Senators Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Edward Moore Kennedy, and United States Representative Hugh Leo Carey, who would serve as the pro-abortion “Catholic” governor of New York from 1975 to 1983, in the aftermath of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, was anticipated and condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, and in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work."Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

Accordingly, We first of all declare that all Catholics have a sacred and inviolable duty, both in private and public life, to obey and firmly adhere to and fearlessly profess the principles of Christian truth enunciated by the teaching office of the Catholic Church. In particular We mean those principles which Our Predecessor has most wisely laid down in the encyclical letter "Rerum Novarum." We know that the Bishops of Prussia followed these most faithfully in their deliberations at the Fulda Congress of 1900. You yourselves have summarized the fundamental ideas of these principles in your communications regarding this question.

These are fundamental principles: No matter what the Christian does, even in the realm of temporal goods, he cannot ignore the supernatural good. Rather, according to the dictates of Christian philosophy, he must order all things to the ultimate end, namely, the Highest Good. All his actions, insofar as they are morally either good or bad (that is to say, whether they agree or disagree with the natural and divine law), are subject to the judgment and judicial office of the Church. All who glory in the name of Christian, either individually or collectively, if they wish to remain true to their vocation, may not foster enmities and dissensions between the classes of civil society. On the contrary, they must promote mutual concord and charity. The social question and its associated controversies, such as the nature and duration of labor, the wages to be paid, and workingmen's strikes, are not simply economic in character. Therefore they cannot be numbered among those which can be settled apart from ecclesiastical authority. "The precise opposite is the truth. It is first of all moral and religious, and for that reason its solution is to be expected mainly from the moral law and the pronouncements of religion." (Pope Saint Pius X, Singulari Quadam, Sepetember 24, 1912.)

The modern world, shaped as it is by the anti-Incarnational lies of Judeo-Masonry and its hatred for the Social Reign of Christ the King and of the true Social Teaching of the Catholic Church, she who is our mater and magister (mother and teacher), is awash with amorality in almost every aspect of public life and what passes for “popular culture” in these wicked times that celebrate every form of licentiousness, including wanton misuse of the gift that God has given to man to bring forth new souls to give Him honor and glory in this life and to spend all eternity with Him in Heaven after dying as faithful sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church and the subsequent killing off of children by self-centered parents who live without regard to their Particular Judgment and of outright perversity of the sort that destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

My native state of New York was in the vanguard of promoting the killing of the innocent preborn under cover of the civil law. Although not the first state in the United States of America to have done so, the Empire State of New York quickly became the baby-killing capital of the world after the New York State Legislature passed a bill on April 10, 1970, that repealed an 1830 prohibiting baby-killing and permitted the slaughter of the innocent preborn up through the twenty-fourth week of their development within their mothers’ wombs. This monstrous effort, which was spearheaded by a Democratic Assemblyman named Albert Blumenthal, was made possible by the votes of several Catholic legislators, one of whom, a Republican State Senator Thomas Laverne of Rochester, New York, said that he would not be “dictated” by his church while State Senator Edward Speno of East Meadow, Long Island, New York, and a member of Saint Raphael the Archangel Church there, heralded his “independence” in voting for the bill. Another Catholic, New York State Senate Majority Leader at the time, Earle Brydges, however, openly wept at the baby-killing bill was passed: 

ALBANY, April 10—The State Senate, after more than two hours of quiet but emotional debate, voted 31 to 26 today to accept an Assembly bill that strikes the state's 140‐year‐old abortion law from the books.

Cardinal Cooke issued an appeal on behalf of the Roman Catholic bishops of the state for Governor Rockefeller to veto the bill, but the Governor said in New York that he would sign the bill tomorrow morning.

Today's vote successfully ended a bitter and tenacious campaign begun in 1966 by a Manhattan Democrat Assemblyman, Albert H. Blumenthal, to reform the law passed in 1830 that permits an abortion only to save a woman's life.

The new law makes an abortions a matter between a woman and her doctor up to the 24th week of pregnancy. After the 24th week, the new law would allow an abortion only when necessary to save the woman's life. However, abortions generally are per formed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Today's vote added New York to a growing list of states caught up in a national wave of abortion reform, beginning with a 1967 Colorado reform law, and is considered a key to possible reform in other states.

Emotions continued to run high in the Senate debate today, but they did not reach the depth and scope of the eight‐ hour session on March 18 when the Senate passed an even more liberal version of the reform bill—one without the 24‐week time limit added in the Assembly. The vote today was identical to that of March 18.

Senate Majority Leader Earl W. Brydges, a Niagara Falls Republican whose opposition to reform in past years prevented consideration of such a bill, openly wept as the bill passed.

Mr. Brydges, whose craggy features and gritty voice gen erally reflect complete control, rose to end debate on the bill by reading from what he de scribed as “The Dairy of an Unborn Child.”

He began to read of a child on the day of conception when—“it is already determ ined even that I will love flowers.” His voice broke and television lights reflected from the tears on his cheeks.

I'm sorry, Mr. President,” he stammered, “I try to keep myself under control...I can not read it all, sir, but I want to read the final entry in this diary, dated Dec. 28 and it says, ‘Today, my parents killed me.’” He dropped to his seat, trembling.

Debate Lacks Conviction

Except for two of the 13 other speeches, debate lacked any of the conviction that words would sway votes.

Fighting to the end, Senator James H. Donovan, Oneida County Republican, pointed an accusing finger at his colleagues and said:

“Your hands will reach into the womb with the doctor and you are going to kill, K‐I‐L‐L, when you pass this law. I urge you in God's name not to do this ... Instead, kill this bill and you will please the people of New York. What's more, you will please God.”

Senator Thomas Laverne, Rochester Republican, who like Mr. Donovan is a Roman Catholic and has been under pressure from his church not to vote for the bill, responded angrily to the religious tone of Mr. Donovan's argument.

“How dare anyone say because I believe this way everyone else should believe this way,” Mr. Laverne said. “I have been told I am obviously not a good Catholic ... Even that I am a phony ... But many do not support the church on this issue, 60 per cent of the Catholics in my district don't agree with the church on this issue.”

“I don't think,” he concluded, “I have the right to force my morality on anyone else.”

The new law, which will take effect July 1, has raised a number of hopes and fears, all of which have been expressed during the three major debates during this session.

Primarily, supporters hope the law will end the illegal abortion business that has resulted in the death or mutilation of the women involved. These same sponsors, however, warn against what they call “probably unrealizable” hopes that the new law will cause a major reduction in welfare caseloads—especially in aid to dependent children. (Final Approval of Baby-Killing Law Voted in Albany; Rockefeller to Sign.)

This report from fifty-five years ago—that’s right, half a century ago—signified the fact that a few Catholic legislators, having been formed and immersed from the cradle in the myth of “majority rule” and the old shibboleth of “imposing morality upon others,” thereby demonstrating that even baptized and confirmed Catholics believed that it was within the provenance of men, whether acting individually or collectively with others in human institutions of civil governance, to dispense with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, thus opening up the path to “permitting” every manner of licentiousness, up to and including perversity and the killing of those after birth under the pretexts of a variety of myths that make gods out of mere men and have turned the Hippocratic Oath on its head.

The New York Times report of April 10, 1970, also demonstrated that the lies about large numbers of women being mutilated and/or killed by illegal abortionists in “back alleys” had taken hold in the minds of those who simply wanted to give full expression to the moral anarchy that was let loose in the 1960s four hundred years after the lustful, lecherous, bigamous, adulterous drunkard and glutton named King Henry VIII began the English revolution against the Holy Faith so that he would be able to satisfy his own carnal desires with the “blessing” and support of the bishops who followed him into apostasy.

Alas, the campaign to decriminalize baby-killing in the 1960s was based on a pack of lies and appeals of an emotional and/or utilitarian nature (baby-killing was a “medical” issue, not a moral one; inflating the numbers of women killed by “illegal abortions;” painted the Catholic Church as the “enemy” of women) that a reformed baby-killer, the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, exposed in the 1980s:

In the mid-1960s, with the sexual revolution roaring after Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent but influential “scientific” studies of sex and sexuality in America, Hugh Hefner’s aggressive campaign to legitimize pornography and, perhaps above all, the wide distribution of the anovulant birth control pill, [Bernard] Nathanson became a leader in the movement to overturn laws prohibiting abortion. He co-founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), which later became the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and is now NARAL Pro-Choice America. Its goal was to remove the cultural stigma on abortion, eliminate all meaningful legal restraints on it, and make it as widely available as possible across the nation and, indeed, the globe.

To achieve these goals, Nathanson would later reveal, he and fellow abortion crusaders pursued dubious and in some cases straightforwardly dishonest strategies.

First, they promoted the idea that abortion is a medical issue, not a moral one. This required persuading people of the rather obvious falsehood that a normal pregnancy is a natural and healthy condition if the mother wants her baby, and a disease if she does not. The point of medicine, to maintain and restore health, had to be recast as giving health care consumers what they happen to want; and the Hippocratic Oath’s explicit prohibition of abortion had to be removed. In the end, Nathanson and his collaborators succeeded in selling this propaganda to a small but extraordinarily powerful group of men: in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, seven Supreme Court justices led by Harry Blackmun, former counsel to the American Medical Association, invalidated virtually all state laws providing meaningful protection for unborn children on the ground that abortion is a “private choice” to be made by women and their doctors.

Second, Nathanson and his friends lied—relentlessly and spectacularly—about the number of women who died each year from illegal abortions. Their pitch to voters, lawmakers, and judges was that women are going to seek abortion in roughly equal numbers whether it is lawful or not. The only effect of outlawing it, they claimed, is to limit pregnant women to unqualified and often uncaring practitioners, “back alley butchers.” So, Nathanson and others insisted, laws against abortion are worse than futile: they do not save fetal lives; they only cost women’s lives.

Now some women did die from unlawful abortions, though factors other than legalization, especially the development of antibiotics such as penicillin, are mainly responsible for reducing the rate and number of maternal deaths. And of course, the number of unborn babies whose lives were taken shot up dramatically after Nathanson and his colleagues achieved their goals; and they achieved them, in part, by claiming that the number of illegal abortions was more than ten times higher than it actually was.

Third, the early advocates of abortion deliberately exploited anti-Catholic animus among liberal elites and (in those days) many ordinary Protestants to depict opposition to abortion as a “religious dogma” that the Catholic hierarchy sought to impose on others in violation of their freedom and the separation of church and state. Nathanson and his friends recognized that their movement needed an enemy—a widely suspected institution that they could make the public face of their opposition; a minority, but one large and potent enough for its detractors to fear.

Despite the undeniable historical fact that prohibitions of abortion were rooted in English common law and reinforced and expanded by statutes enacted across the United States by overwhelmingly Protestant majorities in the 19^th century, Nathanson and other abortion movement leaders decided that the Catholic Church was perfect for the role of freedom-smothering oppressor. Its male priesthood and authority structure would make it easy for them to depict the Church’s opposition to abortion as misogyny, for which concern to protect unborn babies was a mere pretext. The Church’s real motive, they insisted, was to restrict women’s freedom in order to hold them in positions of subservience.

Fourth, the abortion movement sought to appeal to conservatives and liberals alike by promoting feticide as a way of fighting poverty. Why are so many people poor? It’s because they have more children than they can afford to care for. What’s the solution? Abortion. Why do we have to spend so much money on welfare? It’s because poor, mainly minority, women are burdening the taxpayer with too many babies. The solution? Abortion. Initially, Nathanson himself believed that legal abortion and its public funding would reduce out-of-wedlock childbearing and poverty, though (as he later admitted) he continued to promote this falsehood after the sheer weight of evidence forced him to disbelieve it.

Within a year after Roe v. Wade, however, Nathanson began to have moral doubts about the cause to which he had been so single-mindedly devoted. In a widely noticed 1974 essay in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, he revealed his growing doubts about the “pro-choice” dogma that abortion was merely the removal of an “undifferentiated mass of cells,” and not the killing of a developing human being. Referring to abortions that he had supervised or performed, he confessed to an “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”

Still, he was not ready to abandon support for legal abortion. It was, he continued to insist, necessary to prevent the bad consequences of illegal abortions. But he was moving from viewing abortion itself as a legitimate solution to a woman’s personal problem, to seeing it as an evil that should be discouraged, even if for practical reasons it had to be tolerated. Over the next several years, while continuing to perform abortions for what he regarded as legitimate “health” reasons, Nathanson would be moved still further toward the pro-life position by the emergence of new technologies, especially fetoscopy and ultrasound, that made it increasingly difficult, and finally impossible, to deny that abortion is the deliberate killing of a unique human being—a child in the womb.

By 1980, the weight of evidence in favor of the pro-life position had overwhelmed Nathanson and driven him out of the practice of abortion. He had come to regard the procedure as unjustified homicide and refused to perform it. Soon he was dedicating himself to the fight against abortion and revealing to the world the lies he and his abortion movement colleagues had told to break down public opposition. (The Public Discourse.)

The American Life League had published its own summary of how Nathanson and Lader helped to form the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and the lies they told to “reform” existing legislation that criminalized the surgical execution of the innocent preborn:

Historically, every revolution has to have its villain ... Now, in our case, it makes little sense to lead a campaign only against unjust laws, even though that's what we really are doing. We have to narrow the focus, identify those unjust laws with a person or a group of people ... There's always been one group of people in this country associated with reactionary politics, behind-the-scenes manipulations, socially backward ideas. You know who I mean, Bernie ... the Catholic hierarchy. That's a small enough group to come down on, and anonymous enough so that no names ever have to be mentioned ...

National Abortion Rights Action League co-founder Larry Lader.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

We have been nice, pleasant too long. We can be restrained no longer — Right to Lifers have a total lack of respect for human life. We can no longer move restrainedly, sit on our apathy and hope Rome will burn.       

Early History of the NARAL.

Above all, society must grasp the grim relationship between unwanted children and the violent rebellion of minority groups.

Introduction.

The most powerful philosophical push for abortion was generated by an elite cadre during the heady 1960s, when authority was being challenged or ignored everywhere, and when the Neoliberal agenda seemed to be advancing almost everywhere against, at best, scattered and disorganized opposition.

One of the most effective organizations pushing for abortion law reform or repeal was the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), which is now known as the National Abortion Rights Action League.

NARAL: Bigoted to the Core.

Whatever else may be said about them, the leaders of NARAL had their priorities right when the group was first organized. Bernard Nathanson, Bill Baird, Larry Lader, and other pro-abortion activists defined their mission, identified their enemy, and set up a strategic framework within which to operate, Nathanson summarized the beginnings of NARAL in a 1980 speech:

I want to take you back some twelve years to 1968 at which time I, and later Betty Friedan and Carol Grietzer, organized a political action group known as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. We organized it as a tight, well-structured, and dynamic little cadre. It was the right time. Feminism was on the move, the Vietnam War was raging, authority was being destroyed everywhere and, very important to all of us here, there was no organization of those opposed to abortion.

There was only silence from the opposition. We fed a line of deceit, of dishonesty, of fabrication of statistics and figures; we coddled, caressed, and stroked the press. We cadged money from various sources and we, in one short year, succeeded in striking down the abortion laws of New York State and in one fell swoop established the city of New York as the abortion capital of the world. We were calling ourselves pro-abortionists and pro-choice. In fact what we were were abortifiers; those who like abortion.[4]

The most critical action taken by the early leaders of NARAL was their correct identification of their natural enemies the Catholic and Fundamentalist churches. The utter contempt that the NARAL leaders held for any view other than their own is graphically displayed in Figure 62-1. The members of the NARAL committee agreed that the Pope was "running our country" and that Catholics would "stop at no ends to reach their goals," even if such actions included outright terrorism.

ANTI-CATHOLIC QUOTES BY LEADERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE REPEAL OF ABORTION LAWS AT THE 1972 NARAL NATIONAL STRATEGY MEETING

NOTE: These summaries are exact quotes transcribed by a secretary for the minutes of the May 12, 1972 meeting of the executive board of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, later the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). All quotes below are copied verbatim from the Minutes.

"Lawrence Lader, Chairman, NARAL Executive Committee

(1) Stated Billy Graham and the Pope running our country.
(4) Catholics trying to overthrow the most humanitarian legislation of our time.
(7) [Catholic] Priests went into assembly and terrorized [Texas] legislators.
(10) Stressed that he [Lader] uses every opportunity — Television appearances, radio interviews, newspapers to criticize the way the Catholic Church uses its tax free monies, etc.

Hon. Lorraine Beebe, former State Senator, Michigan
(1) Stressed financial strength of the Catholic Church.
(2) We have been nice, pleasant too long. We can be restrained no longer — Right to Lifers have a total lack of respect for human life. "We can no longer move restrainedly, sit on our apathy and hope Rome will burn."
(3) Catholics waged a smear campaign against me when they learned I had had a therapeutic abortion. They made threatening calls, threw eggs at my house. Had signs — 'A vote for Beebe is a vote against the Pope.'
(4) The catholics will stop at no ends to reach their goals.

Lawrence Lader— I share Mrs. Beebe's attitude, "I don't care if we have a Belfast and Dublin here in the U.S. we must have a direct conflict with the Catholic Church."

Reverend Robert T. Cobb— Associate Executive Director, N.Y. Council of Churches.
Rev. Cobb made a very dramatic entrance — ripping off his collar and asking "who are you afraid of" — when you thought I was a Catholic Priest you looked stunned. You should not be afraid of a church that condemns but does not forgive. "Protestants have been bought by the Roman Catholic Church." He proceeded to knock ecumenism and state[d] that if the Churches go to Rome he will go walking on his hands.
(5) A good Roman Catholic Liberal can be valuable.

William Baird, Director, Parent's Aid Society
(1) Single Greatest Threat to Women — Roman Catholic Church
(3) In attacking Catholic Church — concentrate on separation of church and state.

Summary —
(3) Their [NARAL] attack will be concentrated — even to court cases — against then [sic] Catholic Church and trying to make people believe that Pope is trying to run the country, and that the Catholic Church is trying to take over Protestant Churches.

"At this point we had to leave — It was after 5 ... I was getting a bit nervous — the anti-catholic, anti-Right to Life feeling in that room was close to violent."

The two people who contributed most to the framework of early NARAL strategy were Bernard Nathanson and Larry Lader. In his book Aborting America, Dr. Nathanson describes part of a 1969 conversation he had with fellow abortophile Larry Lader; "Historically, every revolution has to have its villain ... Now, in our case, it makes little sense to lead a campaign only against unjust laws, even though that's what we really are doing. We have to narrow the focus, identify those unjust laws with a person or a group of people ... There's always been one group of people in this country associated with reactionary politics, behind-the-scenes manipulations, socially backward ideas. You know who I mean, Bernie ... the Catholic hierarchy. That's a small enough group to come down on, and anonymous enough so that no names ever have to be mentioned ... "[1]  (The Formation of the National Abortion Rights Action League.) 

Things are so bad in the state of birth seventy-three years, seven months, twenty-five days ago that legislators in the State Legislature actually stood on their desks while cheering and applauding after they had passed a bill on January 23, 2019, the Feast of Saint Raymond of Pennafort and the Commemoration of Saint Emerentiana, that  “strengthened” New York’s  existing pro-death laws by assuring that baby-killers could continue to kill babies in the later stages of the development in their mothers’ wombs for the “health of the mother” even when the babies are in their mothers’ birth canals and/or are “unable” to survive after an attempted abortion because they are said to suffer from various physical deformities and/or illnesses whose “quality of life” is not deemed by “medical professionals” to be worth living as part of the state’s “health code:

On Tuesday, coincidentally the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the New York State Senate passed the Reproductive Health Act, and it was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The law, which is likely the most expansive abortion bill in the country, allows late-term abortion until the baby’s due date if it meets certain requirements. Not only is this kind of legal protection of late-term abortion an affront to the humanity of the unborn and the dignity of society, but New York celebrated it publicly, as if it had just won the Super Bowl.

When the bill passed, video shows the assembly chamber erupting into cheers, with politicians and audience members applauding the bill as if it were a victorious symbol of strength.

That night, One World Trade Center lit up in the color pink to honor the passage of the bill. Imagine, a beacon of capitalism, shining not to showcase freedom and prosperity but the “liberty” marking the path toward infanticide.

Cuomo says One World Trade Center's 408-foot spire, the Gov. Mario M. Cuomo Bridge, the Kosciuszko Bridge and the Alfred E. Smith Building in Albany will be lit in pink tonight to celebrate passage of Reproductive Health Act https://t.co/TmDEmj18Vy pic.twitter.com/XYdgxPNaoC

— Joseph Spector (@GannettAlbany) January 23, 2019

Of course, Planned Parenthood applauded the passage of the bill with words of affirmation and an emoji.

This. Is. Huge.@NYGovCuomo JUST signed the Reproductive Health Act into law — a big win towards securing safe, legal abortion & access to contraception for all!

Can't wait to see other states follow New York's lead to protect our health and rights. 

Two of the most heinous parts of the bill describe the new parameters of abortion: if “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy” and second, and this is the worst qualifier, “or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” The wording of that second phrase is so comprehensive, even in legal lingo, protecting the patient’s health could mean almost anything.

This new bill ensures that New York remains the most progressive of all the states in pushing forward “reproductive rights” (an absurd term for baby-killing). Per the CDC, about one in three unborn babies are aborted in New York City. Statistics also show more black babies are aborted than born alive in New York City.

Still, New Yorkers not only failed to be discouraged by this news, they also celebrated it.

To be clear, this is not the passage of abortion rights, but the permission to commit infanticide and call it by another name — an eight-pound baby can survive outside the womb with very little medical aid. Late-term abortion procedures are ghoulish and graphic: The Lozier Institute reports that "Abortions performed after 20 weeks gestation, when not done by induction of labor (which leads to fetal death due to prematurity), are most commonly performed by dilation and evacuation (D & E) procedures. These particularly gruesome surgical techniques involve crushing, dismemberment and removal of a fetal body from a woman’s uterus, mere weeks before, or even after, the fetus reaches a developmental age of potential viability outside the mother.”

Did the State Assembly and Senate know this and still applaud, or are we to assume somehow in the age of information they are willfully ignorant of the procedure?

With thousands of families waiting to adopt, passage of a bill that allows and celebrates abortion of this magnitude is disgusting. The reaction to this bill demonstrates that politicians in New York have overlooked the dignity and sanctity of the least in our society to further their own progressive self-interests. (Disgusting: New York Not Only Legalized Late-Term Abortions but Celebrated it like it won the Super Bowl.)

ALBANY, N.Y. (NEWS10) - The Reproductive Health Act passed in the New York State Senate and Assembly on Tuesday. 

When it passed, the gallery erupted into cheers for about 20 seconds. After it died down, some protesters screamed out as well.

The bill protects abortion rights in the state's health law as opposed to penal codes. It allows for late-term abortions after 24 weeks if the mother's life is at risk or if the fetus is nonviable.

This has been a goal of the legislature now that the Senate is no longer Republican controlled. Similar bills had failed in the past.

The previous law was passed in 1970, three years before Roe v Wade. NEWS10 ABC has been told this is an update to the outdated law.

Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the bill into law Tuesday evening and reaction continues to pour in.

“If we as a New York State don't value life in the womb does your life matter, does my life matter?” Liz Joy with the Republican Women of Schenectady County says the law will mean more late term abortions.

Emma Corbett with Planned Parenthood says 89-percent of abortions happen before the 12 week mark. The new law maintains abortions are legal up to 24 weeks and after in rare and circumstantial cases.

“Often, when we look at late term abortions, it’s often a very wanted pregnancy, some other health crisis or extenuating health circumstances come up where that care needs to be administered. To kind of look at these isolate incidences as thoughh they’re going to become the norm is really inaccurate and not something that we’re seeing at our health centers,” she said

The New York State Catholic Conference saying, “Let us all pray for the conversion of heart for those who celebrate this tragic moment in the history of our state. And we pray in a special way for the lives that will be lost, and for the women of our state who are made less safe under this law.” (NY Lawmakers Cheer Upon Passing Monstrous Baby-Killing Law.)

Members of the New York State Senate stood up and cheered upon passing a bill crafted by agents of the devil and his demons who dwell in the lowest reaches of hell. They cheered. They applauded.

That’s right. Elected officials, including not a few Catholics who are in “good standing” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, cheered for a bill that permits the vivisection of living human beings in the birth canal up to the moment of birth.

Although each abortion is infanticide, a point lost on many Americans who can themselves “pro-life” as the killing of a preborn child at any stage of his development is the same crime morally as his killing on the day of birth or at any time thereafter, it is nonetheless quite a telling commentary that Catholics in public life have become so shameless as to cheer evil in the name under the slogan of “reproductive rights” that is used to mask the reality that each surgical abortion kills a living human being. After all, why is it necessary to kill an innocent child in the womb if he, a distinct human being with his own rational, immortal soul and a unique DNA, is not alive?

It is not necessary to kill a person who is not alive. The only way to do this is to dehumanize the innocent child and to glorify his execution as an exercise of “women’s rights” and “reproductive health care.” There is no such thing as “potential” life, and the fact of one’s humanity comes from his creation in his mother’s womb, not from the recognition or lack thereof afforded him by the civil law.

As we know, however, it becomes relatively easy to dispense with belief in and acceptance of the theology of Redemptive Suffering

The triumph of emotionalism over the serene acceptance of redemptive suffering as the means to expiate the debt owed to God for our own sins and as the means to gain merit to help provide a salutary example to others in the midst of suffering that we suffer with Our Crucified Redeemer and His Sorrowful Mother, she who is the Co-Redemptrix of the human race, is the result of Protestantism and the subsequent rise of Judeo-Masonry. It is no accident that the Protestant Revolution abandoned crucifixes in honor of the barren cross as Protestantism eschews redemptive suffering, thus leading its adherents into believing that pain and suffering must be anesthetized whenever possible. Conciliarism itself has embraced the barren cross in many of its church buildings, symbolic of its own doctrinal and sacramental barrenness that has robbed many Catholics themselves of any understanding of redemptive suffering.

The world has degenerated into such a state of paganism and barbarism that, having done away with hundreds of millions preborn babies by chemical and surgical means, it has become “natural” to accept the unnatural. It is thus not in the least bit surprising that the actual truth about what “palliative care” is and how it expedites the deaths of innocent human beings is not beginning to seep out into the mainslime media. The merchants of death who masqueraded for so long under the pretext of “compassion” have become emboldened by public acceptance of their schemes to state the obvious for all to see.

Consider this report from The New York Times, July 5, 2018:

By then, the cancer had spread everywhere, from her colon to her spine, her liver, her adrenal glands and one of her lungs. Eventually, it penetrated her brain. No medication made the pain bearable. A woman who had been generous and good-humored turned into someone hardly recognizable to her loving family: paranoid, snarling, violent.

Sometimes, she would flee into the California night in her bedclothes, “as if she were trying to outrun the pain,” her older sister Anita Freeman recalled.

Ms. Martin fantasized about having her sister drive her into the mountains and leave her with the liquid morphine drops she had surreptitiously collected over three months — medicine that didn’t relieve her pain but might be enough to kill her if she took it all at once. Ms. Freeman couldn’t bring herself to do it, fearing the legal consequences and the possibility that her sister would survive and end up in even worse shape.

California’s aid-in-dying law, authorizing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to certain terminally ill patients, was still two years from going into effect in 2016. But Ms. Martin did have one alternative to the agonizing death she feared: palliative sedation.

Under palliative sedation, a doctor gives a terminally ill patient enough sedatives to induce unconsciousness. The goal is to reduce or eliminate suffering, but in many cases the patient dies without regaining consciousness.

The medical staff at the Long Beach acute care center where Ms. Martin was a patient gave her phenobarbital. Once they calibrated the dosage properly, she never woke up again. She died within a week, not the one or two months her doctors had predicted before the sedation. She was 66.

“At least she got into that coma state versus four to eight weeks of torture,” Ms. Freeman said.

While aid-in-dying, or “death with dignity,” is now legal in seven states and Washington, D.C., medically assisted suicide retains tough opposition. Palliative sedation, though, has been administered since the hospice care movement began in the 1960s and is legal everywhere.

Doctors in Catholic hospitals practice palliative sedation even though the Catholic Church opposes aid-in-dying. According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the church believes that “patients should be kept as free of pain as possible so that they may die comfortably and with dignity.”

Since there are no laws barring palliative sedation, the dilemma facing doctors who use it is moral rather than legal, said Timothy Quill, who teaches psychiatry, bioethics and palliative care medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York.

Some doctors are hesitant about using it “because it brings them right up to the edge of euthanasia,” Dr. Quill said.

But Dr. Quill believes that any doctor who treats terminally ill patients has an obligation to consider palliative sedation. “If you are going to practice palliative care, you have to practice some sedation because of the overwhelming physical suffering of some patients under your charge.”

Doctors wrestle with what constitutes unbearable suffering, and at what point palliative sedation is appropriate — if ever. Policies vary from one hospital to another, one hospice to another, and one palliative care practice to another.

The boundary between aid-in-dying and palliative sedation “is fuzzy, gray and conflated,” said David Grube, a national medical director at the advocacy group Compassion and Choices. In both cases, the goal is to relieve suffering.

But many doctors who use palliative sedation say the bright line that distinguishes palliative sedation from euthanasia, including aid-in-dying, is intent.

“There are people who believe they are the same. I am not one of them,” said Thomas Strouse, a psychiatrist and specialist in palliative care medicine at the UCLA Medical Center. “The goal of aid-in-dying is to be dead; that is the patient’s goal. The goal in palliative sedation is to manage intractable symptoms, maybe through reduction of consciousness or complete unconsciousness.”

Other groups such as the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, which advocates for quality end-of-life care, recommend that providers use as little medication as needed to achieve “the minimum level of consciousness reduction necessary” to make symptoms tolerable.

Sometimes that means a light unconsciousness, in which the patient may still be somewhat aware of the presence of others. On other occasions it might mean a deep unconsciousness, not unlike a coma. In some cases, the palliative sedation is limited; in others it continues until death.

Whether palliative sedation hastens death remains an open question. Pain-management doctors say sedation slows breathing and lowers blood pressure and heart rates to potentially dangerous levels.

In the vast majority of cases, it is accompanied by the cessation of food, drink and antibiotics, which can precipitate death. But palliative sedation is also administered when the underlying disease has made death imminent.

“Some patients are super sick,” Dr. Quill said. “The wheels are coming off, they’re delirious, out of their minds.”

In that circumstance, palliative sedation doesn’t accelerate death, he said. “For other patients who are not actively dying, it might hasten death to some extent, bringing it on in hours rather than days.” He emphasized, however, that in all cases the goal isn’t death but relief from suffering. . . .

Harlan Seymour didn’t need to rely on those signs after his wife, Jennifer Glass, a well-known San Francisco public relations executive, received palliative sedation in 2015. A nonsmoker, she had metastatic lung cancer and faced a miserable death from suffocation brought on by fluids filling her lungs, her husband said.

She desperately wanted to die, he said, but aid-in-dying, which she advocated for, wasn’t yet legal. Instead, she received palliative sedation.

“The expectation was this cocktail would put her into a peaceful sleep and she would pass away” within a day or two, Mr. Seymour said. “Instead, she woke up the third night in a panic.”

Doctors upped her dosage, putting her into a deep unconsciousness. Still, she didn’t die until the seventh day. She was 52. Mr. Seymour wishes aid-in-dying had been available for his wife, but he did regard palliative sedation as a mercy for her.

“Palliative sedation is slow-motion aid-in-dying,” he said. “It was better than being awake and suffocating, but it wasn’t a good alternative.”  (Palliative Sedation: An End of Life Practice That Is Legal Everywhere.)

This is nonsense and propaganda.

“Palliative care” is all about the expediting the deaths of human being no matter the “noble intentions” of those who practice it, and it is all-too-frequently the case that it not “chosen” but forced upon patients and their families who mistake overt, high-pressure tactics for “compassion” and legitimate “healthcare.”

The grown daughter of a man, suffering from cancer, upon whom hospice “care” was forced upon wrote to me recently to explain the experience that she witnessed with her own eyes:

My brother was pressured into signing up for the home hospice program while my Dad was hospitalized for a fall. He was set for discharge and was waiting for a very long time for a nurse to come with the wheelchair, as they do not let you walk out on your own accord, and as they were taking so long, my Dad got a bit nervous. Over the last year, he had started getting very excited in situations like this.  So, my Dad went to the bathroom, and while sitting on the toilet, he started to tremble. My brother called a nurse, and this set into action a whole series of events that led my father into the home hospice program.
My brother never really understood what home hospice was. He thought they would give him a ride home, a more comfortable ride than trying to get him into our old Oldsmobile, and that a nurse would show up twice a week to help with a shower. No one ever sat down with my brother to explain the implications of the home hospice program.  In fact, the Nigerian doctor made him sign the papers while standing in the hallway! He was not aware that he was signing away all future rights for my father to see his doctors and make future emergency room or hospital visits!

But back to my father trembling on the toilet. 

A battleax nurse arrived to proclaim, that the cancer must have now gotten into the brain and that is why he is having a seizure (my brother is convinced he started trembling as he got anxious waiting forever for the wheelchair). This was never proved and they never gave my brother the results of the CT scan they did on his head from the fall, even though he asked for it multiple times.

So then the hospital home hospice people arrived quickly on the scene. The RN of this program wrote out several prescriptions!  Yes, the RN did, not a doctor.  And they gave my brother several prescriptions.  Despite the fact that my father did not have pain, he was given opioids (the Brett Favre pain pills my brother said); and then a medicine for seizures, (even though he had only been trembling); and then something they my brother to give him when he started “the death breath”. What a callous evil witch! My brother was exhausted and didn’t really catch on. They said to continue the seizure medicine at home and not to abruptly discontinue as they had started at hospital. 

Well, the first day my brother gave it to my father and it left my father in such a state of near comatose that my brother became scared out of his wits. He called me, nearly crying!  This is when my brother started reading all the prescription prospectuses which clearly stated “do not combine this seizure medicine with an opioid or sudden death will occur!”

So clearly, if my brother had not paid attention and had just blindly followed the RN, my father would have died the end of March! It is as if they were happy for this to happen! It is as if they want you to kill off your supposed loved one! At the very least, they MAKE IT EASY TO DO SO and nobody would ask any questions!!! So my brother stopped giving him all medication. 

Then, when I arrived, a home hospice nurse came while I was there, and she was annoyed with my brother for stopping the medication. She was just interested in filling out her forms and getting her hours in.

My father asked for a urinal while the home hospice nurse arrived and she said, cruelly, “Why don’t you put on a diaper?

Responding, I said, “Because we are here precisely to help him, not have him sit all day in a wet diaper!

Well, after the nurse left, I started researching, and we decided to call her and tell her we were opting out of the program. She was annoyed with us!! She was an evil woman, a death nurse, cold and callous.
Later when my Dad was in a very bad state near in a hospital before he died, those attending him did take him to a different hospice from the hospital as they had to free up a bed, and my brother could not take him home, but he was there less than 12 hours before he passed away, and he was not given anything we are told. (But then you never know, do you?). My brother told them about the home hospice experience and the women at the desk just started crying, and how horrible.  Apparently, there are many hospice programs, but the home hospice we experienced was a part of [name omitted] which are notoriously bad in [a Western city.]

There are several lessons to be learned from this very typical experience.

First, everyone who reads this site should have a copy of the Advance Care Directives that were composed by Dr. Paul Byrne and a Catholic attorney in Denver, Colorado. Every healthcare provider one visits must be given a signed copy of these directives. While there is no guarantee that the directives will be followed, they might slow down the merchants of death. It is thus important for Catholics not to panic in situations when they might be subject to pressure from medical “experts” seeking to make them complicit in their own executions. Here, once again, is the link to Dr. Byrne’s Advance Care Directives: Advance Care Directives.

Second, do not trust any kind of hospice or “palliative care program.” Make sure to provide documented information about these death-dealing programs to everyone in your family. While they are free to accept or reject the information you provide them, it is important nevertheless to do so.

Third, ask questions of medical professionals. Dr. Byrne says that there are only four other doctors in the United States of America who understand the medical industry’s manufactured, profit-making myth that is “brain death” and vital organ “donation.” Be alert. Be cautious. Be aware of the fact that it is now a requirement for those graduating from medical schools and colleges to receive indoctrination in “palliative care,” which is incorporated into every aspect of conventional medicine today.

The “professionals” may not like having their diagnoses, prognoses and prescribed courses of treatment questioned. Indeed, they may get positively defensive about such questioning. Do not back down. Insist on knowing facts, not predetermined courses of treatment that are tailored by ideologues to accomplish social engineering goals. The “professionals” are used to deference and docility from the masses. Just be aware of the fact that most in the medical industry support the chemical and surgical execution of innocent human beings and are fully supportive of the agenda of the homosexualist collective. Most, although not all, of these “professionals” have been trained to make the unnatural appear to be natural while using various means of intimidation to denigrate anyone who says that the emperor is wearing no clothes.

Fourth, secure sound spiritual and moral direction only from fully Catholic priests who reject as myths the practices that go by the euphemisms as “brain death,” “vital organ donation as part of ‘giving the gift of life,’” the starvation and dehydration of innocent human beings who are said to be in a “vegetative state” or “brain dead,” hospice and “palliative care.” It is never permissible to take any course of action that has as its only end the death of an innocent human being. Accept no casuistic rationalizations of the modern medical “practices” herein listed.

Indeed, one of the ironies of our time is that some fully Catholic priests make the same error about “brain death,” “vital organ donation” and hospice and “palliative care” as does the Argentine Apostate himself, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is in these matters little other than a stooge of George Soros. Although there are certainly circumstances that do arise in many medical cases that are complex, it is nevertheless true that, by and large, the medical industry globally has an agenda to kill off human being who are either “suffering” or have “outlived” their “usefulness” to society. Anyone who ignores or denies this fact doing himself and others a disservice.

Obviously, as noted in The New York Times article cited above, the conciliar “bishops” of the United States of America have eschewed any mention of redemptive suffering in favor of dying “comfortably” and in as “little pain as possible” as this but an indication of their loss of the sensus Catholicus. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself was not “comfortable” or “free of pain” as He hung on the gibbet of the Holy Cross to redeem us. We are to embrace whatever sufferings God in His infinite goodness chooses to send us, recognizing that there is nothing that any of us can suffer in this passing, mortal vale of tears that is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused His Divine Son to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and Good Friday and that caused the Swords of Sorrow to be thrust through and through His Most Blessed Mother’s Immaculate Heart.

Although it is morally permissible to alleviate pain, it is not morally permissible to do so to such an extent that one slips into a state of unconsciousness or a state of euphoria that robs one of the ability to see clearly that the end is near and that an effort must be made to ward off the enemies of our salvation and to prepare to meet Christ the King, Our Divine Judge, at the fearful moment of the Particular Judgment.  One should pray daily for the gift of full consciousness and lucidity of speech to make his last confession and to receive, if possible, Holy Viaticum before dying. Indeed, it is paramount to put Last Things first in the considerations of medical care.

Contrast the American “bishops’” collective eschewal of redemptive suffering with two prayers found in The Raccolta:

Lord Jesus Christ, who willest that no man should perish, and to whom supplication is never made without the hope of mercy, for Thou saidst with Thine own holy and blessed lips: All things whatsoever ye shall ask in My name, shall be done unto you”; I ask of Thee, O Lord, for Thy holy Name’s sake, to grant me at the hour of death full consciousness and the power of speech, sincere contrition for my sins, firm hope and perfect charity that I may be able to say unto The with a clean heart: Into Thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit: Thou hast redeemed me, O God of truth, who art blessed for ever and ever. Amen. (S. C. of the Holy Office, Jude 5, 1913; S.P. Ap., Dec. 12, 1933 and June 14, 1949. As found in The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences: approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, Number 644, p. 517. An indulgence of three years once a day.)

My journey toward eternity, dear Lord, is encompassed round about by powerful enemies of my soul. I live in fear and trembling especially at the thought of the hour of death, on which my eternity will depend, and of the fearful struggle that the devil will then have to wage against me, knowing that little time is left for him to accomplish my eternal ruin. I desire, therefore, O Lord, to prepare myself for it from this hour, by offering Thee this day, in view of my last hour, those protestations of faith and love for Thee, which are so effectual in repressing and bringing to naught all the crafty and wicked arts of the enemy and which I resolve to oppose to him at that moment of such grave consequence, even though he should dare alone to attack with his deceits the peace and tranquility of my spirit.

I N.N., in the presence of the Most Holy Trinity, the blessed Virgin Mary, my holy Guardian Angel and the entire heavenly host, protest that I wish to live and die under the standard of the Holy Cross. I firmly believe all that our Holy Mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, believes and teaches. It is my steadfast intention to die in this holy faith, in which all the holy Martyrs, Confessors and Virgins of Christ have died, as well as all those who have saved their souls.

If the devil should tempt me to despair because of the multitude and grievousness of my sins, I protest that from this day forth I firmly hope in the infinite mercy of God, which will not suffer itself to be overcome by my sins, and in the Precious Blood of Jesus which has washed them all away.

If the devil should assail me with temptation to presumption by reason of the small amount of good which by the help of God I may have been able to accomplish, I confess from this day forth that I deserve hell a thousand times by my sins and I entrust myself wholly to the infinite goodness of God, through Whose grace alone I am what I am.

Finally, if the evil spirit should suggest to me that the pains inflicted upon me by our Lord in that last hour of my life are too heavy to bear, I protest now that all will be as nothing in comparison with the punishments I have deserved throughout life. I thank God that He should deign to give me by these sufferings an opportunity in this life to discharge my debt to Him, which I should have to pay hereafter in the pains of purgatory.

In the bitterness of my soul I call to remembrance all my years; I see my iniquities, I confess them and detest them. Ashamed and sorrowful I turn to Thee, my God, my Creator and my Redeemer. Forgive me, O Lord, by the multitude of Thy mercies; forgive Thy servant whom Thou hast redeemed by Thy Precious Blood.

My God, I turn to Thee, I call upon Thee, I trust in Thee; to Thine infinite goodness I commit the entire reckoning of my life. I have sinned exceedingly; enter not into judgment with Thy servant, who surrenders to Thee and confesses his guilt. Of myself I cannot make satisfaction unto Thee for my countless sins; I have not wherewith to pay Thee, and my debt is infinite. But Thy Son hath shed His Blood for me, and greater than all mine iniquity is Thy mercy.

O Jesus, be my Saviour! At the hour of my fearful crossing to eternity put to flight the enemy of my soul; grant me grace to overcome every difficulty, Thou who alone doest mighty wonders.

Lord, according to the multitude of Thy tender mercies I shall enter into Thy dwelling place. Trusting in Thy pity, I commend my spirit into Thy hands!

May the Blessed Virgin Mary and my Guardian Angel accompany my soul into the heavenly country. Amen. (An indulgence of 3 years. A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions for the daily recitation of this prayer for a month. (S.P. Ap., Feb. 6, 1934 and May 15, 1937. As found in The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences: approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, Number 646, pp. 519-522. An indulgence of three years, plenary if said daily for a month.)

The merchants of death in the world stand in stark contrast to the life and work of Saint Camillus de Lellis, whose feast was celebrated yesterday, Friday, July 18, 2025, along with a Commemoration of Saint Symphorosa and her Seven Sons, and of Saint Vicent de Paul, the great Apostle of Charity whose feast day is celebrated today, Saturday, July 19, 2025, in the Catholic Church, not the counterfeit church of conciliarism).

Saint Camillus de Lellis was a saint who was "made" by God directly after a life of sin. He was a headstrong, heartless young boy who was cruel to other children. He threw a rock at a girl who told him that she was going to report his bad behavior to her parents, telling her, "Good. You can tell them about this, too!" before launching his projectile. He caused great heartache to his saintly mother, who prayed the same kind of copious tears that Saint Monica had said for her wayward son, Augustine.

There was a difference, though: Saint Augustine lived a life of wanton pleasures before he was baptized while Saint Camillus de Lellis had had the benefit of infant Baptism. Camillus de Lellis simply rejected the graces that God sent to him through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, preferring his disordered will to the love of God. There was another difference: Saint Camillus's bad behavior brought his mother to an earthly death while he was yet a young boy. This made it possible for her, purged of whatever self-love and faults she possessed, to pray for her more purely and perfectly from eternity than she ever could while on the face of this earth. It was those prayers from our saint's mother, no doubt, that caused God to intervene directly in his life.

Camillus de Lellis gambled so much that he quite literally lost the shirt off his back once. He would engage in fisticuffs at the drop of a hat. God had to intervene directly in his life to change it as Camillus de Lellis, despite all his terrible sins that were driven by his pride and his anger and his greed, had been a chosen soul all along although no one looking at him prior to God's direct intervention would have known that this was so. Perhaps it wise for me to "get out of the way" in order to let Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., paint the picture with his exquisite perfection as his introduction takes us to the account of the saint's life as found in The Roman Breviary: 

The Holy Spirit, who desires to raise our souls above this earth, does not therefore despise our bodies. The whole man is His creature and His temple, and it is the whole man He must lead to eternal happiness. The Body of the Man-God was His masterpiece in material creation; the divine delight He takes in that perfect Body He extends in a measure to ours; for that same Body, framed by Him in the womb of the most pure Virgin, was from the very beginning the model on which ours was formed. In the re-creation which followed the Fall, the Body of the Man-God was the means of the world's redemption; and the economy of our salvation requires that the virtue of His saving Blood should not reach the soul except through the body, the divine sacraments being all applied to the soul through the medium of the senses. Admirable is the harmony of nature and grace; the latter so honours the material part of our being that she will not draw the soul without it to the light and to heaven. For in the unfathomable mystery of sanctification, the senses do not merely serve such as a passage; they themselves experience the power of the sacraments, like the higher faculties of which they are the channels; and the sanctified soul finds the humble companion of her pilgrimage already associated with her in the dignity of divine adoption, which will cause the glorification of our bodies after the resurrection. Hence the care given to the very body of our neighbour is raised to the nobleness of holy charity; for being inspired by this charity, such acts partake of the love wherewith our heavenly Father surrounds even the members of His beloved children. I was sick, and ye visited Me, our Lord will say on the last day, showing that even the infirmities of our fallen state in this land of exile, the bodies of those whom He deigns to call His brethren, share in the dignity belonging by right to the eternal, only-begotten Son of the Father. The Holy Spirit, too, whose office it is to recall to the Church all the words of our Saviour, has certainly not forgotten this one; the seed, falling into the good earth of chosen souls, has produced a hundredfold the fruits of grace and heroic self-devotion. Camillus of Lellis received it lovingly, and the mustard-seed became a great tree offering its shade to the birds of the air. The Order of Regular Clerks, Servants of the Sick, or of Happy Death, deserves the gratitude of mankind; as a sign of heaven's approbation, angels have more than once been seen assisting its members at the bedside of the dying.

The liturgical account of St. Camillus' life is so full that we need to add nothing to it:

Camillus was a born at Bachianico, a town of the diocese of Chieti. He was descended from the noble family of the Lelli, and his mother was sixty years old at the time of his birth. While she was with child with him, she dreamt that she gave birth to a little boy, who was signed on the breast with a cross, and was the leader of a band of children, wearing the same sign. As a young man he followed the career of arms, and gave himself up to a time of worldly vices, but in his twenty-sixth year he was so enlightened by heavenly grace, and seized with so great a sorrow for having offended God, that on the spot, shedding a flood of tears, he firmly resolved unceasingly to to wash away the stains of his past life, and to put on the new man. Therefore on the very day of his conversion, which happened to be the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, he hastened to the Friars Minor, who are called Capuchins, and begged most earnestly to be admitted to their number. His request was granted on this and on a subsequent occasion, but each time a horrible ulcer, from which he had suffered before, broke out again upon his leg; wherefore he humbly submitted himself to the designs of Divine Providence, which was preparing him for greater things, and conquering himself he twice laid aside the Franciscan habit, which he had twice asked for and obtained.

He set out for Rome and was received into the hospital called that of the Incurables. His virtues became so well known that the management of the institution was entrusted to him, and he discharged it with the greatest integrity and a truly paternal solicitude. He esteemed himself the servant of all the sick, and was accustomed to make their beds, to wash them, to heal their sores, and to aid them in their last agony with his prayers and pious exhortations. In discharging those offices he gave striking proofs of his wonderful patience, unconquered fortitude, and heroic charity. But when he perceived how great an advantage the knowledge of letters would be would be to him in assisting those in danger of death, to whose service he had devoted his life, he was not ashamed at the age of thirty-two to return again to school and to learn the first elements of grammar among children. Being afterwards promoted in due order to the priesthood, he was joined by several companions and in spite of the opposition attempted by the enemy of the human race, laid the foundation of the Congregation of Regular Clerks, Servants of the Sick. In this work Camillus was wonderfully strengthened by a heavenly voice coming from an image of Christ crucified, which, by an admirable miracle loosing the hands from the wood, stretched them out towards him. He obtained the approbation of his order from the Apostolic See. Its members bind themselves by a fourth and very arduous vow--namely, to minister to the sick, even those infected with the plague. St. Philip Neri, who was his confessor, attested how pleasing this institution was to God, and how greatly it contributed toward the salvation of souls; for he declared that he often saw angels suggesting words to disciples of Camillus, when they were assisting those in their agony.

When he had thus bound himself more strictly than before to the service of the sick, he devoted himself with marvellous ardour to watching over their interest, by night and by day, till his last breath. No labour could tire him, no peril of his life could affright him. He became all to all, and claimed for himself the lowest offices, which he discharged promptly and joyfully, in the humblest manner, often on bended knees, as though he saw Christ Himself present in the sick. In order to be more at the command of all in need, he of his own accord laid aside the general government of the order, and deprived himself of the heavenly delights with which he was inundated during contemplation. His fatherly love for the unfortunate shone out with greatest brilliancy when Rome was suffering first a contagious distemper, and then from a great scarcity of provisions; and also when a dreadful plague was ravaging Nola in Campania. In a word, he was consumed with so great a love of God and his neighbour that he was called an angel, and merited to be helped by the angels in different dangers which threatened him on his journeys. He was endowed with the gift of prophecy, and the grace of healing, and he cold read the secrets of hearts. By his prayers he at one time multiplied food, and at another changed water into wine. At length, worn out by watching, fasting, and ceaseless labour, he seemed to be nothing but skin and bone. he endured courageously five long and troublesome sicknesses, which he used to call the "Mercies of the Lord"; and, strengthened by the sacraments, with the sweet names of Jesus and Mary on his lips, he fell asleep in our Lord, while these words were being said: "May Christ Jesus appear to thee with a sweet and gracious countenance." He died at Rome, at the hour he had foretold, on the day before the Ides of July, in the year of salvation 1614, the sixty-fifth of his age.

Angel of charity, by what wonderful paths did the Divine Spirit lead thee! The vision of thy pious mother remained long unrealized; before taking on thee the holy Cross and enlisting comrades under that sacred sign, thou didst serve the odious tyrant, who will have none but slaves under his standard, and the passion of gambling was well nigh thy ruin.

O Camillus, remembering the danger thou didst incur, have pity on the unhappy slaves of passion; free them from the madness wherewith they risk, to the caprice of chance, their goods, their honour, and their peace in this world and in the next. Thy history proves the power of grace to break the strongest ties and alter the most inveterate habits: may these men, like thee, turn their bent towards God, and change their rashness into love of the dangers to which holy charity may expose them! For charity, too, has its risks, even the peril of life, as the Lord of charity laid down his life for us: a heavenly game of chance, which thou didst play so well that the very Angels applauded thee. But what is the hazarding of earthly life compared with the prize reserved for the winner?

According to the commandment of the Gospel read by the Church in thy honour, may we all, like thee, love our brethren as Christ has loved us! Few, says St. Augustine, love one another to this end, that God may be all in all. Thou, O Camillus, having this love, didst exercise it by preference towards those suffering members of Christ's mystic Body, in whom our Lord revealed Himself more clearly to thee, and in whom His kingdom was nearer at hand. Therefore, has the Church in gratitude chosen thee, together with John of God, to be guardian of those homes for the suffering which she has founded with a mother's thoughtful care. Do honour to that Mother's confidence. Protect the hospitals against the attempts of an odious and incapable secularization, which, in its eagerness to lose the souls, sacrifices even the corporal well-being of the unhappy mortals committed to the care of its evil philanthropy. In order to meet our increasing miseries, multiply thy sons, and make them worthy to be assisted by Angels. Wherever we may be in this valley of exile when the hour of our last struggle sounds, make use of thy precious prerogative which the holy Liturgy honours today; help us, by the spirit of holy love, to vanquish the enemy and attain unto the heavenly crown! Amen. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Volume XIII, Time After Pentecost: Book IV, pp. 126-130.) 

Saint Camillus de Lellis may have laid aside the Franciscan habit. He lived out the spirit of Saint Francis of Assisi, however, until he had breathed his last on July 14, 1614, as it was in the spirit of the Seraphic Saint, who had led a carefree, frivolous (but not sinful) life as a youth, that our saint of charity to all who needed it regardless of their circumstances or the state of their immortal souls at the time he found them in need exhibited throughout the course of his inspirational service to the sick and the dying.

Saint Camillus de Lellis never viewed someone who was sick as a “burden”, and he never viewed them in a utilitarian cost-benefit manner. He gave to the suffering as he knew he was serving Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ mystically through them. In other words, Saint Camillus de Lellis was the antithesis of the worldly wise Aztecs, who are enabled all too frequently by “well-trained” theological “experts” who have never met a “brain dead” person they did not want to see killed off, and he approached the sick, the suffering and dying in a manner that puts to shame the “palliative care” industry whose minions are trained to incant soothing euphemisms robotically to convince pa patients and/or their relatives in a program of “care” that winds up killing them in the name of “compassion.”

Saint Vincent de Paul, the founder of the Congregation of the Mission, whose charity for the poor and outcast was based in his love for Our Lord as He revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church, including a profound hatred of heresy for love of God and for the good of the souls for whom His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem.

compromise. Saint Vincent de Paul, the founder of the Congregation of the Mission and an apostle of charity for the poor and forgotten, inveighed against Jansenism and urged one and all to obey Pope Innocent’s papal bull condemning it without making any reservation or qualification as befits the docile obedience must render and the docile submission that a Catholic must demonstrate at all times to a legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

At issue were five points that Bishop Jacques-Benigne Lignel Bossuet had summarized from Cornelius Jansen’s Augustinus that were deemed to be heretical. Saint Vincent himself worked to gather signatures to have the five propositions be condemned by Pope Innocent X:

Denounced to the Sorbonne in July 1649, these five propositions were referred to Rome in a letter signed by nearly eighty-five bishops. Our saint worked hard to obtain these signatures. He wrote on all sides, and even got Anne of Austria to apply to the Pope to hasten the definition of faith on the point. “I have made my prayers,” he said, “for three months on the doctrine of grace, and God, by new lights every day, has confirmed me in the belief that our Lord died for all, and that He wished to save every one.” And so, too, as regards the question of grace being given to all and sufficient for all “Truly I cannot understand how a God, so infinitely good, who every day stretches forth His hands to embrace sinners, expandi manus meas quotidie, could have the heart to refuse grace to all those who ask it, and allow Himself to be excelled in goodness by David, who sought among his enemies some one to who he might be merciful.”

It is thus Saint Vincent discovers in his own heart, in the intuitions of his spiritual life, the true answer to the cruel sophisms of this heresy.

While Saint Vincent was collecting the signatures for the letter to be forwarded to the Pope denouncing the five propositions, he was uniting with M. Olier and M. Bretonvilliers, to send theologians to Rome to show the danger to which these propositions  were exposing the Church of France. The Jansenists had already sent others, especially Pere des Mares, the celebrated Oratorian. It is not our business to recount the endless discussions which then took place; the meetings of the special congregations appointed by the Pope, and at ten or twelve of which, each lasting for three or four hours, Innocent X, thought it his duty to be present; or the last and solemn sitting, at which Pere des Mares spoke for four hours before the Pope; and the innumerable other conferences of a similar kind, until at last, on June 9, 1653, Innocent X., having recommended himself to God in prayer, summoned one of his secretaries and dictated the Bull Cum occasione. The same evening it was promulgated in Rome, and immediately forwarded to France.

Here are the five points contained in Pope Innocent X’s Cum Occisione, May 31, 1653:

1092. 1. Some of God’s precepts are impossible to the just, who wish and strive to keep them, according to the present powers which they have; the grace, by which they are made possible, is also wanting.

 Declared and condemned as rash, impious, blasphemous, condemned by anathema and heretical.

1093. 2. In the state of fallen nature one never resists interior grace.

Declared and condemned as heretical.

1094. 3. In order to merit or demerit in the state of fallen nature, freedom from necessity is not required in man, from freedom from external compulsion in sufficient.

Declared and condemned as heretical.

1095. 4. The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of a prevenient interior grace for each act, even for the beginning of faith; and in this they were heretics, because they wished this grace to be such that the human will could either resist or obey.

Declared and condemned as false and heretical.

1096. 5. It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men without exception.

Declared and condemned as false, rash, scandalous, and understood in this sense, Christ died for the salvation of the predestined, impious, blasphemous, contumelious, dishonoring to divine piety, and heretical. (Pope Innocent X, Cum Occisione, “The Errors of Cornelius Jansen,” May 31, 1658. As found in Denziger, Nos. 1092-1096, p. 316.) [The date listed in Denziger is erroneous. May 31, 1653, was the actual date of the bull’s issuance, noting that Bishop listed it as June 9, 1653.]

Bishop Emile Bougaud then explained the joy of Saint Vincent de Paul upon receiving the text of Cum Occisione and the necessity of everyone submitting to it:

The joy of Saint Vincent when the Bull arrived was profound. He immediately wrote to Mgr. Alain de Solminihac, Bishop of Cahors: “My lord, I am sending you most agreeable news – the condemnation of the Jansenists, their five propositions having been declared heretical on June 9. The Bull was published the same day in Rome, and reached Paris on the feast of Saint Peter. Their Majesties received it very warmly, and his Eminence is about to put it in force. All Paris is rejoicing, at least those better disposed, and the others declare their willingness to submit. M. Singlin, who, with M. Arnault, is one of the leaders, has acknowledged that the Holy See must be obeyed, and M. Hamel, cure of Saint-Merri, one of the foremost, is in like dispositions and ready to publish the Bull in his church. Many of the others, as M. and Zmmme. De Liancourt, declare they are no longer what they were. In a word, it is expected that all will acquiesce. Not, indeed, that some did not find it difficult to submit, saying that although the opinions of Jansenius are condemned, there are not. I only heard this from one person. So great a blessing, my lord, is this decision, that everybody here rejoices, and those who saw the evil that the strife was causing cannot feel sufficiently grateful.” (Letters, vol. I. p. 554.)

At the same time he went to Port-Royal, having been told that the recluses, the disciples of Saint-Cyran, had resolved to fully submit to the Bull. He spent several hours with them, tenderly congratulated them on their obedience to the Holy See, and showed them every mark of esteem, affection and confidence. Alas! That absolute submission to the Pope was destined to last but a day.

We may well conclude that a man so zealous to shield from error both the sheep and their shepherds was ever watchful over his own Congregation and each of its members. “O Jesus,” he would say, “it is not expedient for us to maintain different opinions in the little Company; we must always be of one mind, otherwise we shall be torn asunder among ourselves! And the remedy is to submit to the Superior's opinion. I say it is not to the superior that we submit, but to God, to the Popes, the councils, the saints; and should any one be unwilling to do so, it will be best for him to leave, and that is what the Company wishes. Many orders in the Church afford us this example. The Discalced Carmelites, in their chapter last year, ordained that their professors of theology should teach the long-established opinions of the Church and oppose novelties. Every one knows that the Jesuits act likewise, while the Congregation of Saint Genevieve follows the opinions of Saint Augustine, which we do too, explaining, however, Saint Augustine by the Council of Trent, and not the Council of Trent by Saint Augustine, for the first is infallible, the second is not.” One day he was asked what should be done to moderate the harshness towards the Port-Royal party. “Why drive them to extremities? Would it not be better to come to an agreement? They are disposed for it if treated with more moderation, and there is no one better suited than you to soften the irritation on both sides, and to effect a complete reconciliation.”

--Sir,” Saint Vincent merely replied, “when a decision is given, there is nothing to be done but submit to it. What union can we make with them if they have not an honest and sincere intention of submitting? How can we modify what the Church has decided? It is a matter of faith, which cannot be altered or tampered with, and consequently we cannot accommodate it to suit their sentiments. It is for them to submit their private judgment, and confidently unite with us by a true and sincere submission to the head of the Church. Without that, sir, the only thing we can do is to pray for their conversion.”

It was by such vigour of thought, such force of expression, such ardour and firmness of doctrine, that Saint Vincent preserved his Congregation from all taint of Jansenism. How admirable! Of the three Congregations seemingly raised up by God for the education of the French clergy, the first was unwillingly and in a mysterious manner led away from this employment, and alone was affected by Jansenism. The other two, that of Saint Vincent de Paul and that of M. Olier, remained absolutely exempt. Free from all error, as deeply conscious as the Abbe Saint-Cyran of the divinity of our Lord, of the grace of His priesthood, of the holiness necessary for priests, but without his exaggerations or excesses, they began to form that great clergy of France which was the wonder of the second half of the seventeenth century, which traversed the wretched and impure eighteenth with little loss, and was still fresh and vigorous enough in 1793 to yield confessors and martyrs, and after exile and persecution, to win the reputation of being the holiest, the purest and the grandest of any clergy.  (Bishop Emile Bougaud, History of St. Vincent de Paul, Founder of the Congregation of the Mission and of the Sisters of Charity, Longmans, Green and Co., 19 Paternoster Row, London, 1899, pp. 204-208.)

It is important for present purposes to highlight one passage from Bishop Bougaud’s biography on Saint Vincent de Paul that is worth repeating and highlighting in order to demonstrate the absolute incompatibility between the “resist while recognize” position, which is, after all, a recrudescence of Gallicanism, itself condemned as a heresy, and the true Catholic teaching concerning the unyielding submission that Catholics must render to a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter and Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth:

--Sir,” Saint Vincent merely replied, “when a decision is given, there is nothing to be done but submit to it. What union can we make with them if they have not an honest and sincere intention of submitting? How can we modify what the Church has decided? It is a matter of faith, which cannot be altered or tampered with, and consequently we cannot accommodate it to suit their sentiments. It is for them to submit their private judgment, and confidently unite with us by a true and sincere submission to the head of the Church. Without that, sir, the only thing we can do is to pray for their conversion.”

There must never be any compromise on matters of truth. None. There is nothing to "discuss" or, to use a term that has been popularized by the conciliar revolutionaries, "dialogue" about as truth is irreformable. Truth exists. Truth does not depend upon human acceptance for its binding force or validity. Truth is. Period. No compromises.

Anyone who can still claim after reading these quotes that he is not certain about the papal vacancy that has existed since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, has fallen prey to the Kantianism’s supposition of the impossibility of knowing anything for certain, a supposition that had been advanced by Michel de Montaigne during the Renaissance.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., contrasted Saint Vincent de Paul’s true charity with the false, narcissistic philanthropy of his own day one hundred sixty years ago:

But from the Bagnio of Tunis, where he was a slave, to the ruined provinces for which he found millions of money, all the labours he underwent for the relief of every physical suffering were inspired by his zeal for the apostolate: by caring for the body, he strove to reach and succor the soul. At a time when men rejected the Gospel while striving to retain its benefits, certain wise men attribute Vincent’s charity to philosophy. Nowadays they go further still, and in order to logically deny the author of the works they deny the works themselves. But if any there be who still hold the former opinion, let them listen in his own words: What is done for charity’s sake is done for God. It is not enough for us to love God ourselves; our neighbor must also love him also must love him; neither can we love our neighbour as ourselves unless we procure for him the good we are bound to desire for ourselves – viz., divine love, which unties us to our Sovereign Good. We must love our neighbour as the image of God and the object of His love, and must try to make men love their Creator in return, and love one another also with mutual charity for the love of God, who so loved them as to deliver His own Son to death for them. But let us, I beg of you, look upon this Divine Saviour as a perfect pattern of the charity we must bear to our neighbour.'

The theophilanthropy of a century ago had no more right than had an atheist or a deist philosophy to rank Vincent, as it did among the great men of its Calendar. Not nature, nor the pretended divinities of false science, but the God of Christians, the God who became Man to save us by taking our miseries upon Himself, was the sole inspirer of the greatest modern benefactor of the human race, whose favourite saying was: 'Nothing pleases me except in Jesus Christ.' He observed the right order of charity, striving for the reign of his Divine Master, first in his own soul, then in others; and, far from acting of his own accord by the dictates of reason alone, he would rather have remained hidden for ever in the face of the Lord, and have left but an unknown name behind him.

'Let us honour,' he wrote, 'the hidden state of the Son of God. There is our centre; there is what He requires of us for the present, for the future, for ever; unless His Divine Majesty makes known in His own unmistakable way that He demands something else of us. Let us especially honour this divine Master's moderation in action. He would not always do all that He could do, in order to teach us to be satisfied when it is not expedient to do all that we are able, but only as much as is seasonable to charity and conformable to the Will of God. How royally do those honour our Lord who follow His holy Providence, and do not try to be beforehand with it ! Do not, and rightly wish your servant to do nothing without your orders? And if this is reasonable between man and man, how much more so between the Creator and the creature ! ' Vincent, then was anxious according to his own expression, to 'keep alongside of Providence,' and not to outstep it Thus he waited seven years before accepting the offers of the General de Gondi's wife, and founding his establishment of the Missions. Thus, too, when his faithful coadjutrix, Mademoiselle Le Gras, felt called to devote herself to the spiritual service of the Daughters of Charity, then living without any bond or common life, as simple assistants to the ladies of quality who the man of God assembled in his Confraternities, he first tried her for a very long time. 'As to this occupation,' he wrote, in answer to her repeated petitions. 'I beg of you, once for all, not to think of it until the Lord makes known His will. You wish to become the servant of these poor girls, and God wants you to he His servant. For God's sake, Mademoiselle, let your heart imitate the tranquility of our Lord's heart, and then it will be fit to serve Him. The Kingdom of God is peace in the Holy Ghost; He will reign in you if you are in peace. Be so then, if you please, and do honour to the God of peace and love.'

What a lesson given to the feverish zeal of an age like ours by a man whose life was so full! How often, in what we can call good works, do human pretensions sterilize grace by contradicting the Holy Ghost ! Whereas Vincent de Paul, who considered himself 'a poor worm creeping on the earth, not knowing where he goes, but only seeking to be hidden in Thee, my God, who art all his desire,' – the humble Vincent saw his work prosper far more than a thousand others, and almost without his being aware of it. Towards the end of his long life he said to his daughters; 'It is Divine Providence that set your congregation on its present footing. Who else was it, I ask you? I can find no other. We never had such an intention. I was thinking of it only yesterday, and I said to myself Is it you who had the thought of founding a Congregation of Daughters of Charity? Oh ! Certainly not. Is it Mademoiselle Le Gras? Not at all. O my daughters, I never thought of it, your “saeur servant” never thought of it, neither did M. Portail (Vincent's first and most faithful companion in the Mission. Then it is God who thought of it for you' Him, therefore, we must call the Founder of your Congregation, for truly we cannot recognize any other.'

Although with delicate docility, Vincent could no more forestall the actions of God than an instrument the hand that uses it, nevertheless, once the divine impulse was given, he could not endure the least delay in following it, nor suffer any other sentiment in his soul but the most absolute confidence. He wrote again with his charming simplicity, to the helpmate given him by God; 'You are always giving way a little to human feelings, thinking that everything is going to ruin as soon as you see me ill. O woman of little faith, why have you not more confidence and more submission to the guidance and example of Jesus Christ? This Saviour of the world entrusted the well-being of the whole Church to God His Father; and you, for a handful of young women, evidently raised up and gathered together by His providence, you fear the He will fail you! Come, come, Mademoiselle, you must humble yourself before God.'

No wonder that faith, the only possible guide of such a life, the imperishable foundation of all that he was for his neighbour and in himself, was, in the eyes of Vincent de Paul, the greatest of treasures. He who had pity for every suffering, even though well deserved; who, by an heroic fraud, took the place of a galley-slave in chains, was a pitiless foe to heresy, and could not rest till he had obtained either the banishment or the chastisement of its votaries. Clement XII, in the Bull of canonization, bears witness to this, in speaking of the pernicious error of Jansenism, which our saint was one of the first to denounce and prosecute. Never, perhaps, were these words of Holy Writ better verified: The simplicity of the just shall guide them: and the deceitfulness of the wicked shall destroy them. (Prov. Xi, 3.) Though this sect expressed, later on, a supreme disdain for Monsieur Vincent, it had not always been of that mind. 'I am,' he said to a friend, 'most particularly obliged to bless and thank God, for not having suffered the first and principal professors of that doctrine, men of my acquaintance and friendship, to be able to draw me to their opinions. I cannot tell you what pains they took, and what reasons they propounded to me; I objected to them, amongst other things, the authority of the Council of Trent, which is clearly opposed to them; and seeing that they still continued, I instead of answering them, quietly recited my Credo; and that is how I have remained firm in the Catholic faith.'

But it is time to give the full account which Holy Church reads today in her liturgy. We will only remind our readers that in the year 1883, the fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of the St. Vincent de Paul Conferences at Paris, the Sovereign Pontiff Leo XIII proclaimed our saint the patron of the societies of charity in France. 

Vincent de Paul was a Frenchman by nation, and was born at (Ranquines, in the parish of) Pouy, not far from Dax in Gascony, (upon the 24th day of April, in the year of salvation 1576.) From a little child he showed remarkable charity towards the poor. His father removed him from keeping his cattle, in order to give him a school education, and he learnt earthly things at Dax, and theology both at Toulouse and at Saragossa. He took Priest's orders, and a degree in Divinity. In 1605, he was taken prisoner by Mahommedan pirates, who carried him off, and sold him for a slave in Africa. In his slavery he converted his owner, who was an apostate, back to Christ. Under the protection of the Mother of God, Vincent escaped from Barbary. He first visited the thresholds of the Apostles, and afterwards returned to France. He was the saintly Rector first of the Parish of Clichi, and afterwards of that of Chatillon. He was appointed by the King, Chaplain General for the galleys of France, and worked with extraordinary zeal for the health of the souls both of those who commanded and of the convicts who rowed. He was made Superior of the Nuns of the Visitation by St Francis de Sales, and discharged this duty for about forty years, with a wisdom which so approved itself to the judgment of their holy Founder, that he was used to say he knew no worthier Priest than Vincent.

The preaching of the Gospel to the poor, especially peasants, was the work at which he toiled unweariedly, till he was disabled by age. To this special work he bound himself and the members of the Congregation which he founded under the missionary Congregation of Secular Priests, by a perpetual vow approved by the Holy See. How great were his labours for bettering the discipline of the clergy, is attested by the building of Seminaries for the final education of young clerks, the number of meetings of Priests to discuss holy things, and the religious exercises preparatory to Ordination, for which, as well as for godly retreats by laymen, he wished that the houses belonging to his Institute should be always freely open. To spread wider the growth of faith and godliness, he sent his Gospel labourers not only into the several provinces of France, but also into Italy, Poland, Scotland, and Ireland, and also to Barbary and India. He assisted Lewis XIII. on his death-bed, and the Queen Anne of Austria, mother of Lewis XIV., put him upon the young King's Council of Conscience during the Regency, in which position it was his unceasing effort that none but the most worthy should be named to churches and monasteries, that civil contests, duels, and creeping false doctrines, from which himself shrank as soon as he met them, should be put down, and that all men should yield the obedience which was due to the decisions of the Apostolic See.

There was no kind of misery which he did not strive with fatherly tenderness to relieve. Christians groaning in Mahommedan slavery, foundlings, deformed children, young maidens exposed to danger, houseless nuns, fallen women, convicts sent to the galleys, sick foreigners, disabled workmen, lunatics, and beggars without number, all these he relieved, and devoutly housed in divers charitable institutions which remain to this day. When Lorraine, Champagne, Picardy, and other districts were desolated by plague, famine, and war, he made immense efforts for their relief. He founded many charitable societies, to find out and succour the unfortunate. Among these are remarkable that of Matrons, and that of Sisters of Charity which hath been so widely spread. By those of the Cross, of Providence, and of St. Guinevere he aimed at bringing up young girls as school - mistresses. Amid all these and other most anxious business-matters, he remained always looking simply to God, kind to all, true to himself, plain, upright, and lowly. From all honours, riches, and pleasures, he ever shrank, and was heard to say, that nothing gave him any pleasure, except in Christ Jesus, Whom it was his wish in all things to follow. With a body worn out with hardships, work, and old age, he gently fell asleep in the house of St. Lazarus at Paris, the chief house of the Congregation of the Missions, upon the 27th day of September, in the year of salvation 1660, and of his own age the 85th. He was famous on account of his life, his works, and his miracles, and Clement XII. inscribed his name among those of the saints, appointing for his Feastday the 19th day of the month of July. Finally, at the earnest prayer of many prelates, Leo XIII. proclaimed and established this hero of charity, illustrious for his services to all classes of men, as the patron before God in heaven of all charitable societies throughout the whole Catholic world which derive their origin in any way from his institution. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint Vincent de Paul.)

How full a sheaf dost thou bear, O Vincent, as thou ascendest laden with blessing from earth to thy true country ! O thou, the most simple of men, though living in an age of spendours, thy renown far surpasses the brilliant reputation which fascinated thy contemporaries. The true glory of that century, and the only one that will remain to it when time shall be no more, is to have seen, in its earlier part, saints powerful alike in faith and love, stemming the tide of Satan's conquests, and restoring to the soil of France, made barren by heresy, the fruitlessness of its brightest days. And now,  two centuries and more after thy labours, the work of the harvest is still being carried on by thy sons and daughters, aided by new assistants who also acknowledge thee for their inspirer and father. Thou art now in the kingdom of heaven where grief and tears are no more yet day by day  thou still receivest the grateful thanks of the suffering and the sorrowful.

Reward our confidence in thee by fresh benefits. No name so much as thine inspires respect for the Church in our days of blasphemy. And yet those who deny Christ now go so far as to endeavor to stifle the testimony which the poor have always rendered to Him on thy account. Wield, against these ministers of hell the two-edged sword, wherewith it is given to the saints to avenge God in the midst of the nations: treat them as thou didst the heretics of thy day; make them either deserve pardon or suffer punishment, be converted or be reduced by heaven to the impossibility of doing harm. Above all, take care of the unhappy beings whom these satanic men deprive of spiritual help in their last moments. Elevate thy daughters to the high level required by the present sad circumstances, when men would have their devotedness to deny its divine origin and cast of the guise of religion. If the enemies of the poor man can snatch from his death-bed the sacred sign of salvation, no rule, no law, no power of this world or the next, can cast out Jesus from the soul of the Sister of Charity, or prevent his name from passing from her heart to her lips: neither death nor hell neither fire no flood can stay him, says the Canticle of Canticles.

Thy sons, too, are carrying on thy work of evangelization; and even in our days their apostolate is crowned with their zeal; develop in them thy own spirit of unchanging devotedness to the Church and submission to the supreme Pastor, Forward all the new works of charity springing out of thy own, and placed by Rome to thy credit under thy patronage. May they gather their heat from the divine fire which thou didst kindle on the earth; may they ever s4ek first the kingdom of God and His justice, never deviating, in the choice of means, from the principle thou didst lay down for the, of 'judging, speaking, and acting, exactly as the Eternal Wisdom of God, clothed in our weak flesh, judged, spoke, and acted.' (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Volume 13, Time After Pentecost, Book IV, pp. 138-146.)

As we know, of course, the Vincent Fathers and the Daughters of Charity have succumbed to the conciliar revolution. I saw this first-hand in the immediate aftermath of the “Second” Vatican Council while an undergraduate at St. John’s University, Jamaica, Borough of Queens, City of New York, New York, from February of 1970 to January of 1973 (summer sessions were just beginning back in those days, and I availed myself of them to graduate in three years). Although I had much to learn about that insidious council, to which I paid no attention during my high school years (1965-1969) at Oyster Bay High School, Oyster Bay, New York, I knew that what was being taught by some of the theology and philosophy professors had nothing to do with the solidity of the Faith as I had learned it at St. Aloysius School, Great Neck, New York (1956-1962). Bizarre is the only word to describe some of those course, including one taught by a Passionist who believed that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was but a mere allegorical figure (he required us to read the indecipherable works of Joseph Ratzinger, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, and Edward Schillebeeckx). The situation got worse over time (see the anecdote in the appendix below), and I can’t even imagine what it has become like at my undergraduate alma mater since the ascendancy of the Argentine Apostate. Sadly, DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois, is one of the major hotbeds of conciliar revolutionary activity, including active support of the homosexualist agenda (see, for example, "Diversity Partners"), and there is also a like association at the St. John's University School of Law that is listed on the university's official website (Celebrating Pervesity at the Law School Alma Mater of Mario Cuomo, Hugh Leo Carey, Ronald Brown, and Charles Rangel).

More to the point of this particular commentary—but not entirely unrelated—is the fact that the hospitals run by the Daughters of Charity Health System in California were sold to Verity healthcare systems in 2016, a sign of the sterility of the conciliar religious sect. However, as one could expect, those healthcare systems still administered by the Daughters of Charity provide “palliative care.”

Here is one example:

Palliative Care is an interdisciplinary healthcare approach that focuses on improving quality of life for persons living with or affected by chronic or life-threatening conditions, through the prevention, assessment and relief of pain and other physical, psychosocial and spiritual symptoms, from the time of diagnosis throughout the process of living and dying.

Such excellent care will be provided according to need either concurrently with disease-modifying treatment or as the main focus of care, respecting the values and goals of individuals, their families and other loved ones. It will assist them to live fully in community, optimize function, facilitate goals and decision making, provide opportunities for personal growth and healing, and will support families, other survivors and communities in their bereavement. (Ascension Health.)

How far the Congregation of the Mission and the Daughters of Charity have fallen in the past sixty years, how very far.

Only a relatively few Catholics even know that the Daughters of Charity once enjoyed the favor of Our Lady so much that she appeared to two Daughters of Charity in the Rue de Bac ten years apart to give them sacramentals to help the children of the Church Militant on earth in perilous times.

It was in 1830 that Our Lady appeared to Saint Catherine Laboure in the image that she wanted stuck on the Miraculous Medal of Grace (In Ways That Baffle the Minds of Modern Men), and it was a mere ten years late, in 1830, that she gave the Green Scapular to Sister Justine Bisqueyburo. Poor Father Jean-Marie Aladel, C.M., was the spiritual director of both sisters. Both of these sacramentals are related to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and it is no accident that it is under that title that Our Lady is the Patroness of the United States of America.

We must pray to the Immaculate Conception that she will help to convert those in the contemporary deathcare industry from their being instruments of murder to instruments of the true charity exhibited by Saint Vincent DePaul and that took deep root in the institutions established to carry on his mission. Additionally, of course, we must be fervently devoted to Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary, which was given to Saint Dominic de Guzman in 1208, as we protect ourselves with both the Miraculous Medal of Grace and her own very shield, the Brown Scapular that she gave to Saint Simon Stock in 1215.

May this prayer to Our Lady, Health of the Sick, plant a few seeds in the souls of those who are so wrapped up in the carrying out of wickedness in the name of “compassionate healthcare” and “death with dignity” that they have forgotten that there is nothing charitable about causing the deaths of innocent human beings:

Virgin, most holy, Mother of the Word Incarnate, Treasurer of graces, and Refuge of sinners, I fly to thy motherly affection with lively faith, and I beg of thee the grace ever to do the will of God.

Into thy most holy hands I commit the keeping of my heart, asking thee for health of soul and body, in the certain hope that thou, my most loving Mother, will hear my prayer.

Into the bosom of thy tender mercy, this day, every day of my life, and at the hour of my death, I commend my soul and body.

To thee I entrust all my hopes and consolations, all my trials and miseries, my life and the end of my life, that all my actions may be ordered and disposed according to thy will and that of thy Divine Son. Amen.

Vivat Christus Rex! 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 Camillus de Lellis, pray for us.

Saint Symphorosa and her Seven Sons, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Saint Jerome Emiliani, pray for us.

Appendix A

Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J. on Saint Camillus de Lellis

On the Festival of the Holy Apostles, St. Peter and St, Paul, in the year 1746, Benedict XIV., with great solemnity, canonized Camillus, the founder of the congregation of regular priests, who, besides the three usual vows, bound themselves especially to serve the sick. Camillus was born in 1550, in the diocese of Theatie, in the kingdom of Naples. His mother dreamed before he was born, that she had given birth to a boy, who wore upon his breast a cross, and who was followed by a great many other boys, who wore the same emblem. The signification of this dream was not recognized until St. Camillus had founded an order, whose members, in consequence of a decree of the Pope, wore a dark red cross on the right side of the breast. The first years of his life were spent piously under the eyes of his parents; but later he became so addicted to games of chance, that he not only lost all he possessed, but also visibly injured his health. Obliged by poverty, he hired himself as nurse in a hospital, but soon becoming tired of this, he joined the army. The life of a soldier pleased him still less, and he therefore took service in a Capuchin cloister, not knowing what other course to pursue.

God at length had compassion on the lost sheep, and once more led him upon the right road. The cause of this was a sermon which he heard by chance, and even against his will. Pondering on it, he suddenly recognized his iniquities, and the judgment which he had to expect on account of them, and casting himself on the ground, he bitterly bewailed his past life, and resolved most earnestly to change it. From that moment, he appeared a different man, and having made a sorrowful confession, he not only avoided every shadow of sin, but also desired to be admitted into the seraphic order of St. Francis. He was received, but dismissed again before his probation had ended, in consequence of a sore on one of his feet, from which he had suffered a long time, and which made it impossible for him to perform the work assigned him. Sadly disappointed, Camillus went to Rome, to the hospital of St. James, where, as mentioned above, he had served for a time. God so directed it, that he was entrusted with the administration of the finances; in which office he consecrated himself entirely to the sick. Perceiving that the hired nurses performed their duties with negligence, he deliberated within himself, how he might obtain nurses, who, to receive an eternal recompense, should, after his example, wait upon the sick. Consulting St. Philip Neri, who was then living at Rome, he founded a society to which were admitted only those who were willing to serve the sick without any temporal reward. This society at first consisted of only a few secular persons ; but these were soon joined by several priests, who bought themselves a house in which they might reside in common.

This society formed itself into a religious order, and it spread as well over Italy and Sicily, as over other parts of Europe. The members of it nursed the sick, day and night, as well in hospitals as in private houses, and gave them every assistance, as well temporal as spiritual. St. Camillus was an example to all. Exhorted by St. Philip Neri, he had followed the example of St. Ignatius, and though already advanced in years, had devoted himself to study and was ordained priest, that he might assist the sick spiritually as well as corporally. The bull of his canonization proves that the most devoted mother could not have nursed her only child with greater love, than St. Camillus bestowed without exception upon all the sick. Whenever one was found, he went to comfort and to cheer him: he gave medicine, cleansed the bed and room, bandaged wounds, and in one word, did all that charity could think of or the condition of the sick require. Thus he acted uniformly towards all, but especially towards those who awakened in others aversion, on account of many sores, bad odors, or other disgusting circumstances. He often remained whole nights, without food or sleep, with them, although greatly suffering himself from the sore on his foot, to which we have alluded above. More than once he was so exhausted by his labors, that he fainted away by the side of the sick; but he continued in his work of love, while he had any strength left.

At the time of a terrible pestilence which ravaged Rome and several other cities, he worked real miracles of Christian charity. He went with his brethren through all the streets, assisting the suffering. He carried many, whom he found lying in the streets, stricken down by the pestilence, into the house where he and his priests resided, and nursed them there most tenderly, without in the least fearing death or infection. The same zeal he manifested at Milan and Nola, whither he went to nurse the sick at the time of the pestilence. He was incited to these great sacrifices by the love of God, which, since his conversion, inflamed his whole heart. He desired to gain numberless souls, to awaken in them an equal love to God and hatred of sin. Hence, his first care was that the sick should reconcile themselves to their Maker, by confession, and bear their sufferings patiently. The whole life of this Saint was, according to the above mentioned bull, truly divine. At the time of prayer they often found him in ecstacy, and surrounded by a heavenly light, or raised high up from the ground. St. Philip Neri gave evidence that he frequently saw angels standing beside St. Camillus while they waited upon the sick. God graced him also, with the gift of prophecy, and of miraculously restoring the sick in an instant, of which his life offers many examples.

The Inhabitants of Rome, therefore, looked upon him as a Saint, and greatly esteemed him ; he, however, humbled himself beneath all on account of the sins of his youth, over which he daily wept bitterly; he deemed himself unworthy to live among men. He esteemed and called himself the greatest sinner, who had deserved hell a thousand times. To praise him was only to rouse his indignation or to sadden him. He firmly refused the name of Founder of a religious order, and although for twenty-seven years he discharged the functions of an Abbot, he rested not until he was allowed to resign the office, and live under the obedience of another. St. Camillus united with profound humility and desire to obey, the virtue of mortification. Notwithstanding the great hardship of nursing the sick, and the pain that for years his foot gave him, he mortified his body by continual fasting, watching, and other penances, in such a manner that the prolongation of his life was regarded as a real miracle. A happy death ended, at last, his holy and useful life. In the year 1614, at the age of 60, after he had endured for 33 months, a most painful malady.

The thought of the torments of hell which he had merited by his transgressions, made, according to his own words, all suffering easy to bear. Before his end, he admonished his brethren to continue in their work of love to God and men. The many miracles that have taken place since his death by his intercession, have made the name of St. Camillus famous over the whole Christian world.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
 

St. Camillus was for sometime in his youth, addicted to gambling, and on account of it, not only his fortune had suffered, but also his health. This fault he corrected later, and weeping over it as long as he lived, he spent his remaining years in prayer and constant works of Christian charity. Playing is in itself no sin, if it is honest, not overstepping proper bounds, and is not done with sinful intentions. But it is also sure that by play we can commit not only venial, but mortal sin: first, if the play is dishonest, or such as gives occasion to mortal sin: secondly, if we give too much time to play, like it immoderately, or make a habit of it, neglecting, in consequence of it, the duties of our office, or station in life: or if by it we do considerable damage to our temporal affairs; thirdly, when we play only because we do not love to work, or from an unbounded love of money or from any similar cause ; fourthly, when we know that play will lead us to cursing, blaspheming, lying, &c; finally, when we tempt others to dishonest or otherwise sinful plays.

If you have done wrong in such a manner, correct it earnestly while time is left you: it will otherwise harm you more than you imagine. St. Francis Borgia used to say that play carried with it a three-fold injury: for we lose by it, first our money, secondly, our time; thirdly, our devotion and recollection. There may be some who do not lose money, but only time, which in itself is more unpardonable and injurious than if we lost all that we possess. This alone should prevent you from play: for, according to the words of St. Anthony: "As no temporal good is more precious than time, hence no loss can be greater, nor do us more harm." To this must be added the loss of devotion or recollection. Those who play are not devout. They prefer the game to devotional exercises, as experience teaches; and their conscience is generally soiled with many sins to which play either gives indirect occasion, or which occur during it. How terrible a damage for soul and body! Can the gain which we seek in gaming ever be a recompense for all this?.

St. Camillus thought, while afflicted with his painful malady, of the torments of hell and by this eased his suffering. Follow his example. If you have to suffer, think of hell which you have oftener deserved than the Saint, and give thanks to God that He so graciously punishes you in this world, when He in accordance with divine justice, might have punished you so much more terribly. If your trials are hard to bear, say to yourself: "All my suffering is not yet that of hell: my pains are as nothing compared with the pains of hell." If your afflictions last long, cheer yourself with the thought: "My sorrows do not last as long as those of the damned in hell: my grief will end, but that of the damned never ends.

How would those condemned rejoice and give thanks to God if their torments were not greater and lasted not longer than mine! "If you thik and speak thus, no impatience will overpower you, much less will you begin to murmur and complain. One ought to give thanks to the Almighty," says St. Jerome, " and say always: "Praised be the Most High! I recognize that I suffer much less than I deserve. My suffering is small in comparison with my sins." (St. Camillus of Lellis.)

Appendix B

Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., on Saint Vincent de Paul

Vincent de Paul, a Frenchman, was born at Pouy, not far from Dax, in Gascony, and from his boyhood was remarkable for his exceeding charity towards the poor. From the care of his father's flocks he was sent to study letters. He learned the humanities at Dax, and theology first at Toulouse, then at Saragossa. Having been ordained priest, and having taken a degree in theology, he fell into the hands of the Turks, and was led captive by them into Africa. But being sold into slavery, he won his owner (an apostate) back to Christ. By the help of the Mother of God, therefore, Vincent and his owner hurried away from the shores of the barbarians. Then Vincent undertook a journey to Rome, to visit the thresholds of the Apostles. Having returned to France he governed, in a most saintly manner, first, the parish of Clichy, and then that of Chatillon. He was appointed by the king as principal chaplain of the French galleys, and showed marvelous zeal in striving for the salvation of both the drivers and the rowers. The holy Francis de Sales appointed him superior of the nuns of the Visitation, whom he ruled for nearly forty years with so great prudence, that he amply justified the opinion of their most holy founder, who confessed that he knew no worthier priest than Vincent.

To the preaching of the Gospel unto the poor, especially to the country people, he devoted himself unweariedly, until he was disabled by old age. To this apostolic work he obligated both himself and the members of the congregation, which he specially founded under the name of secular Priests of the Mission, by a perpetual vow confirmed by the Holy See. And how greatly he labored for bettering the discipline of the clergy, is attested by the seminaries erected for senior clerics, by the frequency of sacred conferences among the priests, and by the religious exercises preparatory to the sacrament of Holy Orders; for which purposes, as well as that of giving pious retreats for laymen, he desired that the houses of his institute should be freely opened. Moreover, for the extension of faith and piety, he sent evangelical laborers, not only into the provinces of France, but also into Italy, Poland, Scotland, Ireland, and even to Barbary and to the Indies. And at the death of Louis XIII, whom he had attended and exhorted on his deathbed, Vincent himself was summoned by the queen, Anne of Austria, mother of Louis XIV, and made a member of the young King's Council of Conscience. In this position he most zealously urged that only the more worthy men should be placed in authority over the churches and monasteries; that civil discords, single combats, slowly-spreading false doctrines, which he both perceived and dreaded, should be ended; and that due obedience should be rendered by all to the apostolic decisions.

There was no kind of misfortune which he did not, with fatherly tenderness, endeavor to relieve. The faithful groaning beneath the Turkish yoke, infants which had been abandoned, wayward youths, maidens exposed to danger, nuns driven from their convents, fallen women, convicts condemned to the galleys, infirm strangers, disabled workmen and even lunatics, and beggars without number, all these he received and devoutly assisted with resources and in hospices which have lasted to this day. When Lorraine, Champagne, Picardy, and other provinces were devastated by plague, famine, and war, he relieved their necessities with an open hand. He founded many societies for seeking out and alleviating the lot of the wretched, among them a celebrated association of matrons, widely spread under the name of Sisters of Charity. He likewise promoted the foundation of the Daughters of the Cross, of Providence, and of St. Genevieve, for the education of the weaker sex.

Amid these and other most important affairs he was ever intent upon God, affable to everyone, and always true to himself, simple, upright, lowly, and ever shrank from honors, riches, and luxuries. He was heard to say that in nothing was there any pleasure for him except in Christ Jesus, Whom he desired to imitate in all things. At length, worn out with bodily pains, labors, and old age, on September 27th, in the year of salvation 1660, and in the eighty-fifth year of age, at Paris, in the house of St. Lazare, which is the mother-house of the Congregation the Mission, he calmly fell asleep. Since he became illustrious for virtues, merits, and miracles, Clement XII placed him among the Saints, assigning July 19th as his annual feast. And Leo XIII, at the earnest request of many bishops, claimed and appointed this notable hero of divine charity, who has deserved so exceedingly well of every class of men the special patron before God of all the charitable societies existing in the entire Catholic world, and in any way soever emanating from his foundation.

 

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
 

I. The continual labors and cares of St. Vincent had only one aim: the spiritual welfare of others and the prevention of all offences to God. He declaimed against those who incited others to sin and vice, and thus led them to eternal destruction. He fully comprehended the truth of the words of St. Dionysius the Areopagite: "Among all divine works none is more divine than laboring with God for the salvation of souls." Have you no opportunity to perform a work which is so agreeable in the sight of the Lord? Think well, and do not neglect it. St. Vincent was also convinced that among all evil works, there is none more evil and displeasing to God than when we incite others to sin and thus assist the devil in gaining souls. Those who do this are called by the Holy Fathers of the Church messengers, representatives, vicars of the devil, because they are sent and incited by him to execute his plans for the destruction of men. They are his vicars, because they do that which is really the devil's work. Still more severely speaks St. James of Nisibis: "All those," says he, "deserve the name of devils, who prevent others from keeping those commandments, which appear hard to keep, and who advise them to follow the devices of the flesh." He means to say that such people may be regarded as real devils; but I add that they are worse, more hurtful and more to be feared than the devils themselves, as many a person whom Satan cannot tempt, is incited to sin by their flatteries, promises, and still more by their bad example, and, hence is led to destruction. If you, therefore, desire to be a representative of the devil, or his vicar, you ought to be informed that his abiding place belongs also to you. According to the words of Christ, hell is prepared for the devil and his angels: "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels " (Matth. xxv.). Angel means a messenger, a representative. For you and your equals, as angels and messengers of the devil; for you, deceiver, as a representative of the devil, for you is hell, and in hell the eternal fire, if you do not leave your wicked ways. Endeavor to repair the evil you have occasioned, and do penance. What will you do?

II. The countenance of the dying St. Vincent expressed the comfort and happiness that filled his soul. This was probably because he thought of his innocent life, his zeal in the service of God, his constant endeavor to do good. You may well believe me when I say that you will not be thus consoled in your last hour, when you remember your sinful, unchaste life, your negligence in the service of the Almighty, your idleness in performing good works. The recollection of them will cause you inexpressible fear and horror. Before all, will the thought of those sins torment you which you committed so wantonly, and which you have not even confessed rightly, much less expiated. "They shall come with fear at the thought of their sins," says the Holy Ghost, "and their iniquities shall stand against them to convict them." (Wisdom, iv). The wicked Antiochus did not heed his sins during the time that his health was unimpaired; he gave them not even a thought: but when his last hour approached, he said: "But now I remember the evils that I did in Jerusalem." (I. Macc, vi.) Now, not before: now that I am called into eternity, to appear before the judgment-seat of the Most High, now I remember them against my will. But what resulted from this remembrance? "Into what tribulation am I come, and into what floods of sorrow." (I. Mace, vi.) If you would not experience equal woes, but die comforted and happy, lead a Christian life after the example of St. Vincent. Avoid evil, and practice good works. Should your conscience be stained with sin, expiate it by sincere penance, without losing another day. (St. Vincent de Paul.)