Planned Barrenhood's Business Has Been Dirty and Deadly from the Beginning

Most Americans go about their daily business without giving a moment’s thought to the killing of the preborn, and many of them participate in such killing by the use of contraceptives. As the late Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., said so clearly on so many occasions, “Most contraceptives abort, and most contraceptives abort all of the time.”

There has been a long history of social engineering in the world that long predated and actually led up to the crimes of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Third Reich of Adolph Hitler, the ongoing crimes of the so-called “People’s Republic of China,” which continue to play a very large, if not predominant, role in the direction the West’s own social engineers have taken to exploit a virus, that, though capable of causing serious health problems all on its own, especially for those who are elderly and have preexisting comorbidities, is not deadly if caught early and, as noted before in my "Sin: More Deadly Than the Coronavirus" series, treated properly according to sound use of both medical procedures, certain drugs, and massive doses of Vitamins C and D and Zinc.

To wit, the unification of the Germanic states into a single country as a result of Prussia’s victory in the Franco-Prussian War in 1871 ushered in the triumph of social engineering in northern Europe’s industrial and economic giant. Masterminded by Otto von Bismarck, the “Iron Chancellor,” the social engineering that began in Germany during the Kulturkampf sought to create a brave new world where people would become more and more dependent upon the beneficence of the state. Bismarck knew that one of the ways to solidify political power was to create a sense of dependence on the part of the citizenry, who would become convinced that it was impossible for them to live their lives without the direction and largesse of government bureaucrats.

Bismarck’s Kulturkampf, which started off as a direct assault upon the Catholic Church (viewed by Bismarck as an obstacle to the social and economic advancement of human society), occurred at a time when two complementary schools of thought were coming to the fore: Darwinian evolutionism and the historical-critical method of Scriptural exegesis. The latter was designed by Protestant Scripture scholars in Germany as a means of “demythologizing” Scripture, a goal that dovetailed neatly with the agendas both of the Darwinians and of Hegelian philosophers who were intent on creating the illusion of change in the very nature of God Himself. The old way of religion had to yield to the new ways of progress and social advancement. And that social advancement would entail, among other things, the discarding of those who were economically unproductive and thus relatively useless for the life of society.

Bismarck was not as aggressive as his successors in Germany would be during the period of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933). However, he laid the groundwork for the sterilization and euthanasia policies that would be the hallmarks of both Weimar and the Third Reich. One of Bismarck’s principal legacies was the establishment of the modern welfare state, paving the way not only for the Weimar democrats and Hitler but also for V.I. Lenin and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Social Security was the crown jewel of Bismarck’s welfare state. For Bismarck desired to create a world where grown children believed that they were relieved of the natural-law responsibility to care for their elderly parents when they became incapable of caring for themselves. He wanted to rally the elderly to his side by making it appear as though he was their friend — and he wanted to do the same with the young, convincing them that he had made it possible for them to live a more comfortable life materially by relieving them of the “burden” of providing for their parents (never mind the nasty little fact that confiscatory taxes were used to pay for Social Security). Thus, Bismarck sought to pit generations against each other in preparation for the day when those who were retired could be deemed useless to society and thus worthy of liquidation. Bismarck relied upon the German traits of obedience to authority as the means by which he could convince the public that he, their chancellor, knew best.

Social scientists and natural scientists had a field day in Germany during the Weimar Republic. Yes, democratic Germany was home to scores of biological and eugenic experimentations. Science is a tool given us by God to use as a means of assisting the legitimate development of human progress in the natural world. Absent the direction provided it by the true Church, however, science can become a terrible weapon of destruction and of maniacal social and biological engineering.

Thus, the fuller development in the Third Reich of the monstrous policies pursued during the Weimar Republic was quite logical. In 1935, the German populace quite docilely accepted Hitler’s implementation of the wholesale extermination of the retarded and infirm. Germans had become used to the principle that the state knew best. Only Clemens von Galen, the Bishop of Munster, had the courage to speak out publicly against Hitler’s eugenics, which is why it is useful at this juncture to keep in mind the degenerative state to which the so-called “professionals” in the medical, scientific, “public health” and pharmaceutical world bears a striking if not identical resemblance to what the famous Bishop Clemens von Galen denounced in his three sermons against the Nazi eugenics laws in 1941:

It is a deeply moving event that we read of in the Gospel for today. Jesus weeps! The Son of God weeps! A man who weeps is suffering pain either of the body or of the heart. Jesus did not suffer in the body; and yet he wept. How great must have been the sorrow of soul, the heartfelt pain of this most courageous of men to make him weep! Why did he weep? He wept for Jerusalem, for God's holy city that was so dear to him, the capital of his people. He wept for its inhabitants, his fellow-countrymen, because they refused to recognise the only thing that could avert the judgment foreseen by his omniscience and determined in advance by his divine justice: “If thou hadst known . . . the things which belong unto thy peace!" Why do the inhabitants of Jerusalem not know it? Not long before Jesus had given voice to it: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" (Luke 13,34).

Ye would not. I, your King, your God, I would. But ye would not! How safe, how sheltered is the chicken under the hen's wing: she warms it, she feeds it, she defends it. In the same way I desired to protect you, to keep you, to defend you against any ill. I would, but ye would not!

That is why Jesus weeps: that is why that strong man weeps; that is why God weeps. For the folly, the injustice, the crime of not being willing. And for the evil to which that gives rise which his omniscience sees coming. which his justice must impose if man sets his unwillingness against God's commands, in  opposition to the admonitions of conscience, and all the loving invitations of the divine Friend, the best of Fathers: “If thou hadst known, in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But then wouldst not!.: It is something terrible, something incredibly wrong and fatal. when man sets his will against God's will. I would) than wouldst not! It is therefore that Jesus weeps for Jerusalem.

Dearly beloved Christians! The joint pastoral letter of the German bishops, which was read in all Catholic churches in Germany on 26 June 1941, includes the following words.

“It is true that in Catholic ethics there are certain positive commandments which cease to be obligatory if their observance would be attended by unduly great difficulties; but there are also sacred obligations of conscience from which no one can release us; which we must carry out even if it should cost us our life. Never, under any circumstances, may a man, save in war or in legitimate self-defence, kill an innocent person.”

I had occasion on 6th July to add the followings comments on this passage in the joint pastoral letter:

“For some months we have been heating reports that inmates of establishments for the care of the mentally ill who have been ill for a long period and perhaps appear incurable have been forcibly removed from these establishments on orders from Berlin. Regularly the relatives receive soon afterwards an intimation that the patient is dead, that the patient's body has been cremated and that they can collect the ashes. There is a general suspicion, verging on certainty. that these numerous unexpected deaths of the mentally ill do not occur naturally but are intentionally brought about in accordance with the doctrine that it is legitimate to destroy a so-called “worthless life,” in other words to kill innocent men and women, if it is thought that their lives are of no further value to the people and the state. A terrible doctrine which seeks to justify the murder of innocent people, which legitimises the violent killing of disabled persons who are no longer capable of work, of cripples, the incurably ill and the aged and infirm!”

I am reliably informed that in hospitals and homes in the province of Westphalia lists are being prepared of inmates who are classified as “unproductive members of the national community” and are to be removed from these establishments and shortly thereafter killed. The first party of patients left the mental hospital at Marienthal, near Munster, in the course of this week.

German men and women! Article 211 of the German Penal Code is still in force, in these terms: “Whoever kills a man of deliberate intent is guilty of murder and punishable with death”. No doubt in order to protect those who kill with intent these poor men and women, members of our families, from this punishment laid down by law, the patients who have been selected for killing are removed from their home area to some distant place. Some illness or other is then given as the cause of death. Since the body is immediately cremated, the relatives and the criminal police are unable to establish whether the patient had in fact been ill or what the cause of death actually was. I have been assured, however, that in the Ministry of the Interior and the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Dr Conti, no secret is made of the fact that indeed a large number of mentally ill persons in Germany have already been killed with intent and that this will continue.

Article 139 of the Penal Code provides that “anyone who has knowledge of an intention to commit a crime against the life of any person . . . and fails to inform the authorities or the person whose life is threatened in due time . . . commits a punishable offence”. When I learned of the intention to remove patients from Marienthal I reported the matter on 28th July to the State Prosecutor of Munster Provincial Court and to the Munster chief of police by registered letter, in the following terms:

“According to information I have received it is planned in the course of this week (the date has been mentioned as 31st July) to move a large number of inmates of the provincial hospital at Marienthal, classified as ‘unproductive members of the national community’, to the mental hospital at Eichberg, where, as is generally believed to have happened in the case of patients removed from other establishments, they are to be killed with intent. Since such action is not only contrary to the divine and the natural moral law but under article 211 of the German Penal Code ranks as murder and attracts the death penalty, I hereby report the matter in accordance with my obligation under article 139 of the Penal Code and request that steps should at once be taken to protect the patients concerned by proceedings against the authorities planning their removal and murder, and that I may be informed of the action taken".

I have received no information of any action by the State Prosecutor or the police.

I had already written on 26th July to the Westphalian provincial authorities, who are responsible for the running of the mental hospital and for the patients entrusted to them for care and for cure, protesting in the strongest terms. It had no effect. The first transport of the innocent victims under sentence of death has left Marienthal. And I am now told that 800 patients have already been removed from the hospital at Warstein.

We must expect, therefore, that the poor defenceless patients are, sooner or later, going to be killed. Why? Not because they have committed any offence justifying their death, not because, for example, they have attacked a nurse or attendant, who would be entitled in legitimate self-defence to meet violence with violence. In such a case the use of violence leading to death is permitted and may be called for, as it is in the case of killing an armed enemy.

No: these unfortunate patients are to die, not for some such reason as this but because in the judgment of some official body, on the decision of some committee, they have become “unworthy to live,” because they are classed as “unproductive members of the national community”.

The judgment is that they can no longer produce any goods: they are like an old piece of machinery which no longer works, like an old horse which has become incurably lame, like a cow which no longer gives any milk. What happens to an old piece of machinery? It is thrown on the scrap heap. What happens to a lame horse, an unproductive cow?

I will not pursue the comparison to the end, so fearful is its appropriateness and its illuminating power.

But we are not here concerned with pieces of machinery; we are not dealing with horses and cows, whose sole function is to serve mankind, to produce goods for mankind. They may be broken up; they may be slaughtered when they no longer perform this function.

No: We are concerned with men and women, our fellow creatures, our brothers and sisters! Poor human beings, ill human beings, they are unproductive, if you will. But does that mean that they have lost the right to live? Have you, have I, the right to live only so long as we are productive, so long as we are recognised by others as productive?

If the principle that men is entitled to kill his unproductive fellow-man is established and applied, then woe betide all of us when we become aged and infirm! If it is legitimate to kill unproductive members of the community, woe betide the disabled who have sacrificed their health or their limbs in the productive process! If unproductive men and women can be disposed of by violent means, woe betide our brave soldiers who return home with major disabilities as cripples, as invalids! If it is once admitted that men have the right to kill “unproductive” fellow-men even though it is at present applied only to poor and defenceless mentally ill patients ” then the way is open for the murder of all unproductive men and women: the incurably ill, the handicapped who are unable to work, those disabled in industry or war. The way is open, indeed, for the murder of all of us when we become old and infirm and therefore unproductive. Then it will require only a secret order to be issued that the procedure which has been tried and tested with the mentally ill should be extended to other “unproductive” persons, that it should also be applied to those suffering from incurable tuberculosis, the aged and infirm, persons disabled in industry, soldiers with disabling injuries!

Then no man will be safe: some committee or other will be able to put him on the list of “unproductive” persons, who in their judgment have become “unworthy to live”. And there will be no police to protect him, no court to avenge his murder and bring his murderers to justice.

Who could then have any confidence in a doctor? He might report a patient as unproductive and then be given instructions to kill him! It does not bear thinking of, the moral depravity, the universal mistrust which will spread even in the bosom of the family, if this terrible doctrine is tolerated, accepted and put into practice. Woe betide mankind, woe betide our German people, if the divine commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, which the Lord proclaimed on Sinai amid thunder and lightning, which God our Creator wrote into man's conscience from the beginning, if this commandment is not merely violated but the violation is tolerated and remains unpunished!

I will give you an example of what is happening. One of the patients in Marienthal was a man of 55, a farmer from a country parish in the Munster region I could give you his name who has suffered for some years from mental disturbance and was therefore admitted to Marienthal hospital. He was not mentally ill in the full sense: he could receive visits and was always happy, when his relatives came to see him. Only a fortnight ago he was visited by his wife and one of his sons, a soldier on home leave from the front. The son is much attached to his father, and the parting was a sad one: no one can tell, whether the soldier will return and see his father again, since he may fall in battle for his country. The son, the soldier, will certainly never again see his father on earth, for he has since then been put on the list of the “unproductive”. A relative, who wanted to visit the father this week in Marienthal, was turned away with the information that the patient had been transferred elsewhere on the instructions of the Council of State for National Defence. No information could be given about where he had been sent, but the relatives would be informed within a few days. What information will they be given? The same as in other cases of the kind? That the man has died, that his body has been cremated, that the ashes will be handed over on payment of a fee? Then the soldier, risking his life in the field for his fellow-countrymen, will not see his father again on earth, because fellow-countrymen at home have killed him.

The facts I have stated are firmly established. I can give the names of the patient, his wife and his son the soldier, and the place where they live.

“Thou shalt not kill!” God wrote this commandment in the conscience of man long before any penal code laid down the penalty for murder, long before there was any prosecutor or any court to investigate and avenge a murder. Cain, who killed his brother Abel, was a murderer long before there were any states or any courts of law. And he confessed his deed, driven by his accusing conscience: “My punishment is greater than I can bear . . . and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me the murderer shall slay me” (Genesis 4,13-14).

“Thou shalt not kill!” This commandment from God, who alone has power to decide on life or death, was written in the hearts of men from the beginning, long before God gave the children of Israel on Mount Sinai his moral code in those lapidary sentences inscribed on stone which are recorded for us in Holy Scripture and which as children we learned by heart in the catechism.

“I am the Lord thy God!” Thus begins this immutable law. “Thou shalt have not other gods before me.” God ” the only God, transcendent, almighty, omniscient, infinitely holy and just, our Creator and future Judge ” has given us these commandments. Out of love for us he wrote these commandments in our heart and proclaimed them to us. For they meet the need of our God-created nature; they are the indispensable norms for all rational, godly, redeeming and holy individual and community life. With these commandments God, our Father, seeks to gather us, His children, as the hen gathers her chickens under her wings. If we follow these commands, these invitations, this call from God, then we shall be guarded and protected and preserved from harm, defended against threatening death and destruction like the chickens under the hen's wings.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Is this to come about again in our country of Germany, in our province of Westphalia, in our city of Munster? How far are the divine commandments now obeyed in Germany, how far are they obeyed here in our community?

The eighth commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not lie.” How often is it shamelessly and publicly broken!

The seventh commandment: “Thou shalt not steal”. Whose possessions are now secure since the arbitrary and ruthless confiscation of the property of our brothers and sisters, members of Catholic orders? Whose property is protected, if this illegally confiscated property is not returned?

The sixth commandment: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Think of the instructions and assurances on free sexual intercourse and unmarried motherhood in the notorious Open Letter by Rudolf Hess, who has disappeared since, which was published in all the newspapers. And how much shameless and disreputable conduct of this kind do we read about and observe and experience in our city of Munster! To what shamelessness in dress have our young people been forced to get accustomed to” the preparation for future adultery! For modesty, the bulwark of chastity, is about to be destroyed.

And now the fifth commandment: “Thou shalt not kill”, is set aside and broken under the eyes of the authorities whose function it should be to protect the rule of law and human life, when men presume to kill innocent fellow-men with intent merely because they are “unproductive”, because they can no longer produce any goods.

And how do matters stand with the observance of the fourth commandment, which enjoins us to honour and obey our parents and those in authority over us? The status and authority of parents is already much undermined and is increasingly shaken by all the obligations imposed on children against the will of their parents. Can anyone believe that sincere respect and conscientious obedience to the state authorities can be maintained when men continue to violate the commandments of the supreme authority, the Commandments of God, when they even combat and seek to stamp out faith in the only true transcendent God, the Lord of heaven and earth?

The observance of the first three commandments has in reality for many years been largely suspended among the public in Germany and in Munster. By how many people are Sundays and feast days profaned and withheld from the service of God! How the name of God is abused, dishonoured and blasphemed!

And the first commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” In place of the only true eternal God men set up their own idols at will and worship them: Nature, or the state, or the people, or the race. And how many are there whose God, in Paul's word, “is their belly” (Philippians 3:19)” their own well being, to which they sacrifice all else, even honour and conscience ” the pleasures of the senses, the lust for money, the lust for power! In accordance with all this men may indeed seek to arrogate to themselves divine attributes, to make themselves lords over the life and death of their fellow-men.

When Jesus came near to Jerusalem and beheld the city he wept over it, saying: “If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the day shall come upon thee, that thine enemies . . . shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.” Looking with his bodily eyes, Jesus saw only the walls and towers of the city of Jerusalem, but the divine omniscience looked deeper and saw how matters stood within the city and its inhabitants:       “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings ” and ye would not!" That is the great sorrow that oppresses Jesus's heart, that brings tears to his eyes.   I wanted to act for your good, but ye would not!

Jesus saw how sinful, how terrible, how criminal, how disastrous this unwillingness is. Little man, that frail creature, sets his created will against the will of God! Jerusalem and its inhabitants, His chosen and favoured people, set their will against God's will! Foolishly and criminally, they defy the will of God! And so Jesus weeps over the heinous sin and the inevitable punishment. God is not mocked!

Christians of Munster! Did the Son of God in his omniscience in that day see only Jerusalem and its people? Did he weep only over Jerusalem? Is the people of Israel the only people whom God has encompassed and protected with a father's care and mother's love, has drawn to Himself? Is it the only people that wou1d not ? The only one that rejected God's truth, that threw off God's law and so condemned itself to ruin?

Did Jesus, the omniscient God, also see in that day our German people, our land of Westphalia, our region of Munster, the Lower Rhineland? Did he also weep over us? Over Munster?

For a thousand years he has instructed our forefathers and us in his truth, guided us with his law, nourished us with his grace, gathered us together as the hen gathers her chickens under her wings. Did the omniscient Son of God see in that day that in our time he must also pronounce this judgment on us: “Ye would not: see, your house will be laid waste!” How terrible that would be!

My Christians! I hope there is still time; but then indeed it is high time: That we may realise, in this our day, the things that belong unto our peace! That we may realise what alone can save us, can preserve us from the divine judgment: that we should take, without reservation, the divine commandments as the guiding rule of our lives and act in sober earnest according to the words: “Rather die than sin”.

That in prayer and sincere penitence we should beg that God's forgiveness and mercy may descend upon us, upon our city, our country and our beloved German people.

But with those who continue to provoke God's judgment, who blaspheme our faith, who scorn God's commandments, who make common cause with those who alienate our young people from Christianity, who rob and banish our religious, who bring about the death of innocent men and women, our brothers and sisters with all those we will avoid any confidential relationship, we will keep ourselves and our families out of reach of their influence, lest we become infected with their godless ways of thinking and acting, lest we become partakers in their guilt and thus liable to the judgment which a just God must and will inflict on all those who, like the ungrateful city of Jerusalem, do not will what God wills.

O God, make us all know, in this our day, before it is too late, the things which belong to our peace!

O most Sacred Heart of Jesus, grieved to tears at the blindness and iniquities of men, help us through Thy grace, that we may always strive after that which is pleasing to Thee and renounce that which displeases Thee, that we may remain in Thy love and find peace for our souls!

Amen. (Three Sermons of Bishop Clemens von Galen.)

Anyone who does not think that the situation in Nazi Germany that was described so clearly and condemned so forcefully by the late Bishop Clemens von Galens in 1941 obtains in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world at the present time is spiritually blind. We are living through the precise situation now as that described and condemned by Bishop Clemens von Galens.

Please do yourself a favor and re-read the late bishop's remarks again.

Bishop von Galens's remarks resonate with Catholic truth and serve as prophetic warnings to us not to trust in the diagnoses and judgments of so many doctors today who have accustomed themselves to lying and killing, something that is especially the case as a result of everyone in the medical industry having to undergo “training” in the ethos of “palliative care.” Patients are evaluated by many, although not all, medical professionals now on a “quality of life,” cost-benefit basis that dehumanizes them and permits medical “professionals” to start the processes, tailored to the “needs” of each person and carried out by conditioning patients and their families to accept the “inevitable,” of expediting their deaths in the name of “mercy” and “compassion” in hospices across the word.

Bishop von Galen's comments also serve as a reminder that bloody, dirty business of Planned Barrenhood has been undertaken in direct defiance of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony and to permit carnal licentiousness, adultery, fornication, the destabilization of marriages caused by infidelity and divorce, the feminization of poverty, and the systematic breakdown of the stabilty of black American families to make them virtual wards of the civil and to enslave the descendants of chattel slavery anew by means of slavery to Federal and state bureucracies whose programs only seem to end the poverty of those who administer the programs not the recipients. 

After all, Planned Barrenhood has been in the business of evil from its very racialist and eugenicist origins a century ago now. Planned Barrenhood, which traces its history to the nymphomaniac racialist social engineer named Margaret Sanger, has long championed efforts to control human reproduction so as to make possible a supposedly “better” society. It has made hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars of blood money from undermining the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of what is proper to the married state alone and from its killing of untold numbers of innocent preborn babies both by chemical and surgical means.

No one who reads this website should be at all surprised to learn the the bloody business of Planned Barrenhood is as dirty and unsafe and even as deadly to women as its entire has always been and continues to be to innocent reborn human beings:

Planned Parenthood is facing “scores of allegations” of botched abortions and other injuries, including “misplaced IUDs,” its staff members often lack the most basic medical training, and its facilities are “in dire need” of repairs, according to a report on Saturday by The New York Times.

The Times, which is strongly pro-abortion, highlighted the case of a woman in Albany, New York, who sought an abortion from Planned Parenthood after realizing that she was eight weeks’ pregnant.

Several weeks after the procedure, she was still bleeding heavily and suffering from painful cramps. She took another home pregnancy test, and when it came back positive, the clinic staff assured her they had seen the aborted (baby) and there was nothing to worry about,” the Times related. 

However, after going to an emergency room she discovered that the baby was still in her womb. “Twelve weeks after the failed abortion, Alston went into labor and delivered a baby who quickly died,” according to the report.

The woman sued Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood for malpractice, which the Times said is “one of several complaints” against the New York facility brought by clients to the woman’s lawyer. 

“The case of the botched abortion in New York is one of scores of allegations reviewed by The Times that accuse Planned Parenthood of poor care,” the report added:

In a case settled in California last year, a woman accused the organization of improperly implanting a birth control device in her arm and causing nerve damage.

A Nebraska clinician in 2022 did not realize that a woman was four months pregnant when she inserted an IUD. Several hours later, the patient was rushed to an emergency room and gave birth to a stillborn (baby).

Last year, the North Central States Planned Parenthood affiliate, which oversees the facility in Nebraska, failed to upload test results for sexually transmitted diseases for months, and “patients wrongly believed that their results were negative when they did not hear back.”

The Times also reported that “many” Planned Parenthood facilities “are in dire need of upgrades and repairs.”

“Employees at various affiliates said it was common to run out of over-the-counter pain medication and IV flushes,” the Times said. 

In Omaha last year, sewage from a backed-up toilet seeped into the abortion recovery room for two days, according to interviews with staff members and photographs and text messages shared with The Times,” the report noted. “Employees shoved exam table pads under the bathroom door to block the leak. Patients vomited from the stench.”

Workers additionally “complained they did not receive adequate training for patient intake, blood draws and other tasks,” according to the Times.

“Scores of former employees have sued Planned Parenthood,” it added, “raising complaints that include refusing to pay overtime or provide breaks, pushing out employees who needed time off to deal with injuries or newborn babies, and firing people who complained about discrimination or clinic practices.” 

“Salaries are so low, it is not unusual for staff members to qualify for Medicaid and federal food assistance. Turnover is hovering at around 50% a year in many parts of the country,” the Times stated. 

Though Planned Parenthood took in nearly $500 million in donations in 2022, the year that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, most of the money went to political and legal expenses. “Few donations go to state affiliates,” according to the Times report.

Indeed, many Planned Parenthood facilities “operate with aging equipment and poorly trained staff,” it said.

One local Planned Parenthood affiliate in California eliminated a “prenatal care program” to save money, the Times noted. 

“Planned Parenthood of Northern California made a hard funding choice last March when it ended a prenatal care program that served 200 to 250 low-income women a month,” according to the report.

Planned Parenthood is notorious for botching abortions and regularly sending women to the hospital, sometimes killing them, in addition to facilitating abortions of underage girls and trafficking victims, enabling their continued abuse. The abortion giant has been caught selling the body parts of aborted babies, altering abortions to obtain more useful tissue samples, and potentially committing partial-birth abortions or infanticide as well.

In recent years, Planned Parenthood has also been one of the largest suppliers of dangerous transgender hormone drugs to American youth and a major promoter of “comprehensive sexual education,” which encourages deviant sexual practices in children.

Planned Parenthood nevertheless receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal taxpayer funding per year, including almost $700 million in 2023.

Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk, who leads President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, have suggested that the Trump administration may defund Planned Parenthood. (Planned Parenthood faces numerous allegations of botched abortions, other injuries: New York Times. See Planned Parenthood in Crisis as Patients Report Botched Care and Tired Staff.)

Readers of this website know full well that the “work” of Planned Barrenhood and all related organizations would be banned in a country organized under Catholic principles that require a due subordination to the binding precepts of the Divine Law and the Natural Law in all that pertains to the good of souls. Such a situation does not exist, but that does not mean that we must not pray for its restoration.

The New York Times report as summarized by LifeSite News evokes memories of the wretched baby-butcher Kermit Gosnell, whose dirty, death-dealing practices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, went unchecked by the pro-abortion Republican Governor Thomas Ridge, Republican Governor Mark Schweiker, and Democratic Governor Edward Gene Rendell before those practices became too notorious to hide from public view and eventual prosecution during the administration of Republican Governor Thomas Corbett in 2011:

Abortion activists worship abortion. It is sacred to them. Nothing on earth, according to the faithful, should ever desecrate the “holy ground” upon which this ritual is performed over 1,000 times a day. Even if that ground is soaked with the blood of women killed and maimed and babies brutally murdered after being born alive.

That was Philadelphia’s “House of Horrors”, run by millionaire abortionist Kermit Gosnell. For 17 years his unimaginably squalid clinic went uninspected by state officials. Nestled in a community surrounded by churches, colleges and next door to an elementary school, the innocuously named “Women’s Medical Society” was a cesspool of filth, blood-stained equipment, crumbling walls, and body parts in jars, bags and bottles.

Gosnell proudly displayed jars of severed babies’ feet as trophies.

The Philadelphia District Attorney, R. Seth Williams (who is a Democrat), in a nearly 300 page Grand Jury Report details Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” on 3801 Lancaster in Philadelphia. “My comprehension of the English language can’t adequately describe the barbaric nature of Dr. Gosnell,” D.A. Williams said of the unspeakable conditions of the clinic that was inspected by the pro-abortion National Abortion Federation in recent years but never reported to authorities.

The best reporting on this is actually by a team of creative professionals from Pennsylvania who captured this gruesome story in one of the best issue-oriented documentaries I’ve ever seen: 3801 Lancaster (see video at bottom of article).

And as if murdering babies born alive (by severing their spinal cords with scissors) wasn’t enough, Gosnell, who is black, made sure that his white “patients” were placed in the cleaner rooms while all others were placed in the filthy rooms. This way, according to the Grand Jury Report, it would be less likely that the white women would report the abortionist or the foul clinic.

Gosnell had been getting away with utter disregard for the lives of women and children for years. I wrote about his “supercoil” abortion experiment on poor, black women bussed in from Chicago back in 1972. He seriously injured many of them, causing one to get an emergency hysterectomy. He was never held accountable for their injuries nor the illegal abortions he performed (that were filmed by a New York film crew)!

But Gosnell isn’t the exception. He is the rule.That is the natural result of abortion clinics being able, unlike any other “medical” facility, to operate in the dark. Pro-abortion activists and multi-million dollar abortion lobbying groups like NARAL, National Abortion Federation, NOW and Planned Parenthood fight against every common sense protection to regulate abortion clinics and ensure safety to, at least, the women having abortions. Of course, death is always the outcome for the unborn child, and increasingly for women who seek these “safe” and “legal” abortions.

Ask Tonya Reaves’ family. She died from a botched abortion in a Planned Parenthood clinic as her abortionist allowed her to bleed for 5.5 hours without ever calling 911. Protecting abortion was more important than protecting, and saving, her life.

Abortionists across the country have been charged with murder, illegal drug trafficking, botched abortions, rape, and millions worth of Medicaid fraud. When your business centers around killing human life, corruption in any other area is easy.

Abortionist Steve Brigham had his license revoked or suspended in numerous states. But that never stops an abortionist. State medical boards show little to no oversight or concern for abortionists who simply set up shop in another state, continuing their killing for profit. He was charged with multiple counts of murder of viable babies in secret late term abortion clinics, one of a dozen clinics he ran (many found in violation of health codes).

His cohort, fellow abortionist Nicola Riley was also charged with murder for performing illegal late term abortions. Her license was suspended in Maryland. She moved back to Utah to continue performing abortions there.

Georgia millionaire abortionist Dr. Tyrone Malloy was indicted by a Georgia grand jury of Medicaid Fraud. He killed a 23 year old woman due to a botched abortion. The State Board of Medical Examiners fined him $10,000 and allowed him to continue doing abortions.

Famed late-term abortionist, George Tiller, performed many illegal abortions in conjunction with an illegal financial relationship with another “doctor” who approved the abortions. In Kansas, another doctor had to confirm that the abortion was needed, but that medical professional could not have any ties to the abortionist. Tiller has been deified by Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby. Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, praised the abortionist who claimed to have performed over 80,000 abortions and told other pro-abortion doctors to be “more like George”.

Continuing in the vein of infamy, Planned Parenthood has been taken to court in state after state (most recently Iowa and Texas) for millions and millions of Medicaid fraud. But this should come at no surprise. There are no “ethics” in a billion dollar industry that endangers, and kills, human life daily.

Zero women and children have been harmed in the nation’s 2000 pregnancy care centers. Millions, since Roe, have been helped, cared for, loved and financially, emotionally, and medically provided for.

However, over 55 million children and 400 women have died inside abortion clinics, at least of the ones actually reported. We may never know as long as mainstream media plays the role of abortion advocate instead of public informer. (Kermit Gosnell and His House of Horrors.)

Killers in white coats abound in this country and around the world, and they go unmolested by the civil law because they are acting in complete accord with that law, which is in full violation of the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment.

Although those who claimed that the killing of innocent babies in the later stages of their development inside the sanctuaries of their mothers' wombs was "extreme" the truth is that each and every act of baby-killing, no matter the methods employed or the age of the preborn child killed, is the same crime morally before God

The existence of chemical and surgical baby-killing under cover of the civil law is the logical, inexorable result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and cemented in place by the rise of Judeo-Masonry and the scores of naturalistic "philosophies" and ideologies spawned thereby. There is no other way to retard this evil than by praying and working for the conversion of the United States of America to the true Faith, something that is, of course, rejected by the conciliar revolutionaries as thoroughly unnecessary, if not actually opposed to what they think and contend is Catholic teaching.

Additionally, of course, Planned Barrenhood has done great violence to the innocence of children by its development of programs designed to program the young into living lives of promiscuity and licentiousness. Its evil tentacles control the “health curricula” in most elementary and secondary “schools” that are under the control of the civil state. Variations of its programmatic assault upon the innocence and the purity of the young are part of most elementary and secondary schools under the control of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

It must not be forgotten that the “Margaret Sanger” of breaking down the innocence and purity of children, Mary Calderone, the founder of the Sex and Information Committee of the United States of America (SIECUS) worked very closely with the-then “Monsignor” James T. McHugh of the National Conference of Catholic “Bishops”/United States Catholic Conference to introduce, propagate and institutionalize “sex education” in conciliar schools (see Mrs. Randy McHugh's The McHugh Chronicles and her definitive Sex Education - The Final Plague). This was done despite the explicit prohibition against such instruction found in Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri that was reaffirmed by the Holy Office on March 21, 1931:

65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

66. Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

67. In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:  

Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice. (Passage and double-indented quotation as found in Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

I) Can the method be approved, which is called "sexual education," or even "sexual initiation?"

Response: In the negative, and that the method must be persevere entirely as set forth up to the present entirely as set forth up to the present by the Church and saintly men, and recommended by the Most Holy Father in the Encyclical Letter, "On the Christian Education of Youth," given on the 31st day of December, 1929. Naturally, care must especially be taken that a full and solid religious instruction be given to the youth of both sexes without interruption; in this instruction there must be aroused a regard, desire, and love for the angelic virtue; and especially must it be inculcated upon them to insist on prayer, to be constant in the sacraments of penance and the Most Holy Eucharist, to be devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mother of holy purity, with filial devotion and to commit themselves wholly to her protection; to avoid carefully dangerous reading, obscene plays, associated with the wicked, and all occasions of sin.

By no means, then, can we approve what has been written and published in defense of the new method especially in these recent times, even on the part of some Catholic authors. (Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma--referred to as "Denziger," by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, Nos. 2183-2185, pp. 597-598.)

It does not get any plainer than that.

Yet it is that the conciliar revolutionaries have miseducated several generation of young Catholics to place themselves openly in occasions of sin. This is a denial of the efficacy of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into human hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All  Graces.

How do children learn to grow in purity?

By being taught to love God with their whole hearts, minds, bodies, souls, and strength.

By eliminating, as far as is humanly possible, the incentives to sin as found in popular culture (eliminating the television as a starting point, of course), refusing to expose children to the near occasions of sin represented by immodestly dressed relatives or friends, refusing to permit them to associate with playmates whose innocence and purity have been undermined by the culture and by "education" programs that serve in public schools to be instruments of promoting sin and that serve in conciliar schools as the means of justifying it. By keeping our children close to the Sacraments, which means, of course, getting them out of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and making sure that the family Rosary is prayed every day with fervor and devotion.

Too Catholic?

Too unrealistic?

Just take a look at the statement issued by the Holy Office on March 21, 1931.

Do we need "theft instruction" in order to keep our children from stealing?

Do children, who are naturally curious, have to learn about the various forms of thievery available to them in order to know that it is wrong to violate the Seventh Commandment? Might such "theft instruction" actually serve as an incentive to the mischievous to steal?

The fact that the conciliar authorities in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River have seen fit to defy the prohibitions against explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments because they are penultimate naturalists. That these hideous revolutionaries have had to ask the questions that they did is the direct result of their own defiance of Catholic teaching. This is not surprising as they are living and breathing apostates whose almost every word and action is in defiance of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Yes, Planned Barrenhood has spread its evil tentacles everywhere to accustom people to speaking and thinking about “protection” so as to make evils such as fornication and adultery supposedly “free” of their physical, emotional and, most importantly, spiritual consequences of any kind. The conciliar authorities may use different front organizations to provide them with textbooks and programs. However, these front organizations march in lockstep with Planned Barrenhood. Sadly, so do many “teachers” in conciliar schools. One should read Leaving Behind A Legacy of Incalcuable Devastation to review the late Father Theodore Hesburgh's association with the population controllers such as the Ford Foundation to discover how deep the institutionalization of evil is within the conciliar sect, which is evil from its own very diabolical origins.

Planned Barrenhood has murdered far more many souls than they have bodies, and that is quite  statement when one considers that the sheer number of preborn babies killed by chemical and surgical means, including the women who have died in its abortuary chambers as their babies were being killed, is vast. Vast.

As is well-known, Planned Barrenhood’s employees use highly-developed skills to pressure women who may be wavering going through with the execution of their preborn children to do so. These high-powered efforts designed to emotionally manipulate the weak, the confused, the uncertain and the abused. Indeed, women have been abused bodily in Planned Barrenhood facilities over and above the killing of their children. There is no “health care” being provided by Planned Barrenhood, which has helped to destabilize the family, feminized poverty, and created one-parent households all through the economic strata of the United States of America, especially in areas where black and Spanish-speaking people live in relatively poverty within urban areas.

We must remember that it is that those steeped in the anti-Incarnational lies of Modernity, including any and all variations of the naturalistic myths of Judeo-Masonry, have prepared the way for the demographic annihilation of their own by defying the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted solely to the Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. The practice of contraception and of even "natural" forms of "family limitation" and the widespread use of surgical methods of killing innocent preborn babies in the "civilized" West has placed the indigenous populations of the formerly Catholic countries of Europe on an irreversible path to extinction. This self-annihilation has already change the demographics and hence the politics and the laws and the culture of such countries as France and Germany and England. Various "nationalist" groups have arisen in European countries to "defend" these indigenous populations when the truth is that Europeans, having rejected the true Faith entirely, including the corrupted version advanced by the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church that is the conciliar church, have brought this on themselves, thus making inevitable, barring a miraculous intervention by God Himself, there.

The systematic attack on all of the vestiges of Christendom in Europe began with Martin Luther’s and Henry VIII’s embrace of divorce and “remarriage” in the Sixteenth Century and spread over the course of time to the denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. It was the very false church created by King Henry Tudor in 1534 that endorsed contraception 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 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.)

Leaving aside the institutional amnesia of The Washington Post’s current editorial writers, the work of Margaret Sanger her cohorts in eugenics and social engineering and junk science gained more and more traction after these twin endorsements. Sanger’s desire to eliminate blacks and to destabilize two-parent family in black neighborhoods had received important “religious” endorsements, and there is a direct link between her work and the breakdown of the black family that has left so many black children, especially boys and young men, rootless and angry as they have never know true parental love even on the natural, no less supernatural, level.

Yes, the prevalence of crime in areas with a population of predominantly black Americans is caused, at least in large part, by the breakdown of the stable two-part family that was engineered by racialists and eugenicists such as Margaret Sanger and her equally demonic cohorts. It was the racialist social engineering of Sanger and her cohorts that was designed to break down the stability of the black family and enslave blacks yet again, this time to their supposed “benefactors,” the bureaucrats of the welfare state that was created to become, in essence, the minders of the descendants of chattel slavery. Sanger and her cohorts knew that the creation of a class of citizens dependent upon the civil state for their livelihood would give such people an incentive to keep electing the very people who enact and perpetuate programs designed to enslave them.

A 1992 article from something called Citizen magazine provided great evidence to prove Sanger’s racialist agenda of eugenics and social control of the “undesirables”. Here are some excerpts from that article:

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

These eugenic and racial origins are hardly what most people associate with the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which gave its Margaret Sanger award to the late Dr. Martin Luther King in 1966, and whose current president, Faye Wattleton, is black, a former nurse, and attractive.

Though once a social pariah group, routinely castigated by religious and government leaders, the PPFA is now an established, high-profile, well-funded organization with ample organizational and ideological support in high places of American society and government. Its statistics are accepted by major media and public health officials as "gospel"; its full-page ads appear in major newspapers; its spokespeople are called upon to give authoritative analyses of what America's family policies should be and to prescribe official answers that congressmen, state legislator and Supreme Court justiices all accept as "social orthodoxy”. . . .

It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger's organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.

Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestion for Negro Project." Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in charge as it was at an Atlanta conference.

It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with "contributions" to come from other local cooperating ministers. A "colored nurse" would follow, supported by a subsidized "colored doctor." Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.

Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." In 1940, money for two "Negro Project" demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary. (Black Genocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger.)

Sanger knew that frustrating the natural end of what is proper to marriage, the procreation of children, by means of contraception would lead to widespread promiscuity, including adultery by men and women alike. Such promiscuity would result in the destabilization of the stable two-parent family, thus necessitating the intervention of the civil state to provide “assistance” upon which the children of broken families could receive their sustenance as their minders saw to it that they were “educated” about the ways to frustrate the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of that which is proper to be married state and thus become as promiscuous and irresponsible as their father and/or mother had been.

Although Sanger died on September 6, 1966,  a year after the full-scale launch of then President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Great Society, which including “Title X” funding for “family planning” programs such as those offered by Planned Parenthood, she had planted the seeds for the complete demolition of the stable two-parent family in black neighborhoods that empowered the statists of the Johnson administration, worthy inheritors and enlargers of the social engineering represented by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal” thirty years before, to complete the job of creating a sense of entitlement among those who had been “taught” to depend upon government programs for their every need.

Sanger’s policy racialism and eugenics was such that she embraced the director of Adolf Hitler’s own eugenics program, Ernst Rudin, who was permitted to publish an article in 1939 in her own Birth Control Review:

Ernst Rudin was director of the foremost German eugenics research institute (Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy, in Munich, Germany). "On June 2, 1933, [German] Reich Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick announced the formation of an Expert Committee on Questions of Population and Racial Policy .... to plan the course of Nazi racial policy. The committee brought together the elite of Nazi racial theory: Alfred Ploetz, ..... Ernst Rudin, director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy in Munich;...." (4) On July 14, 1933 this committee's recommendations were made law, the sterilization law ("Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring"); the start date for exercising the law was 1 Jan 1934. What was Ernst Rudin's opinion of Adolf Hitler and eugenics ('racial hygiene')?:

Academic William H. Tucker (The Science and Politics of Racial Research, 1994, University of Illinois Press) tells us about Ernst Rudin (p. 121):

In an address to the German Society for Rassenhygiene [Race-hygiene] Ernst Rudin, a professor of psychiatry who was one of the organization's original members and now its head, recalled the early, fruitless days when the racial hygienists had labored in vain to alert the public to special value of the Nordic race as "culture creators" and the danger of "unnatural" attempts to preserve the health of heredity defectives. Now Rassenhygiene [Race-hygiene] was finally receiving the attention it deserved, and Rudin virtually slavered over the man whose efforts produced this change: "The significance of Rassenhygiene did not become evident to all aware Germans until the political activity of Adolf Hitler and only through his work has our 30 year long dream of translating Rassen- hygiene into action finally become a reality." Terming it a "duty of honor" (Ehrenpflicht) for the society to aid in implementing Hitler's program, Rudin proclaimed, "We can hardly express our efforts more plainly or appropriately than in the words of the Fuhrer: 'Whoever is not physically or mentally fit must not pass on his defects to his children. The state must take care that only the fit produce children. Conversely, it must be regarded as reprehensible to withhold healthy children from the state.' (E. Rudin, "Aufgaben and Ziele der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Rassenhygiene," Archiv Fur Rassen- und Gesellschafts- biologie 28 (1934): 228-29)

Who is author William H. Tucker? He is an associate professor of psychology at Rutgers University, Camden, New Jersey. Tucker is apparently somewhat left of center politically, since he complains about the 'Reagan slash and burn spending cuts.'

How many Germans were 'force sterilized'? Most estimates are in the range of 250,000-500,000. The Germans started twenty-seven years later that the U.S. but within a few years they greatly outpaced them.

Did Ernst Rudin advocate sterilization of Americans?

Three months before the German 'sterilization law' was passed, Rudin's "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need" article was published in the journal (BCR) Margaret Sanger started and continued to influence until its demise in 1940.

In addressing an American audience Rudin is much more circumspect with his choice of words:

The following essay is concerned only with sterilization as a voluntary practice, that is, when undertaken with the consent of the patient himself or his statutory guardians......

But as the essay wears on, the mask begins to slip:

My experience has led me to the conclusion that systematic and careful propaganda should be undertaken where sterilization is advisable. Such propaganda should, of course, be gradual and should be directed in the first instance at the medical directors in institutions and schools, medical officers of health, and finally at private practitioners.....

Margaret Sanger corresponded with Ernst Rudin and never once renounced his eugenic views. (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization.)

Just as Woodrow Wilson believed that he could engineer “peace” in the world by breaking up the Austro-Hungarian Empire and creating completely secular, Masonic states in Central and Eastern Europe, so did Margaret Sanger believe that engineering of population rates could contribute to “peace” in the world.

Here is Sanger’s “Plan for Peace,” which was published in the Birth Control Review in April of 1932:

First, put into action President Wilson's fourteen points, upon which terms Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies in 1918.

Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science: this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of individuals. The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.

b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.

c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.

The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.

Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense---defending the unborn against their own disabilities.

The third step would be to give special attention to the mothers' health, to see that women who are suffering from tuberculosis, heart or kidney disease, toxic goitre, gonorrhea, or any disease where the condition of pregnancy disturbs their health are placed under public health nurses to instruct them in practical, scientific methods of contraception in order to safeguard their lives---thus reducing maternal mortality.

The above steps may seem to place emphasis on a health program instead of on tariffs, moratoriums and debts, but I believe that national health is the first essential factor in any program for universal peace.

With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace.

There would then be a definite effort to make population increase slowly and at a specified rate, in order to accommodate and adjust increasing numbers to the best social and economic system.

In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain World Peace. (Black Genocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger.)

Here is what Pope Pius XI told us was the foundation of true peace:

It is possible to sum up all We have said in one word, "the Kingdom of Christ." For Jesus Christ reigns over the minds of individuals by His teachings, in their hearts by His love, in each one's life by the living according to His law and the imitating of His example. Jesus reigns over the family when it, modeled after the holy ideals of the sacrament of matrimony instituted by Christ, maintains unspotted its true character of sanctuary. In such a sanctuary of love, parental authority is fashioned after the authority of God, the Father, from Whom, as a matter of fact, it originates and after which even it is named. (Ephesians iii, 15) The obedience of the children imitates that of the Divine Child of Nazareth, and the whole family life is inspired by the sacred ideals of the Holy Family. Finally, Jesus Christ reigns over society when men recognize and reverence the sovereignty of Christ, when they accept the divine origin and control over all social forces, a recognition which is the basis of the right to command for those in authority and of the duty to obey for those who are subjects, a duty which cannot but ennoble all who live up to its demands. Christ reigns where the position in society which He Himself has assigned to His Church is recognized, for He bestowed on the Church the status and the constitution of a society which, by reason of the perfect ends which it is called upon to attain, must be held to be supreme in its own sphere; He also made her the depository and interpreter of His divine teachings, and, by consequence, the teacher and guide of every other society whatsoever, not of course in the sense that she should abstract in the least from their authority, each in its own sphere supreme, but that she should really perfect their authority, just as divine grace perfects human nature, and should give to them the assistance necessary for men to attain their true final end, eternal happiness, and by that very fact make them the more deserving and certain promoters of their happiness here below.

It is, therefore, a fact which cannot be questioned that the true peace of Christ can only exist in the Kingdom of Christ -- "the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ." It is no less unquestionable that, in doing all we can to bring about the re-establishment of Christ's kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Margaret Sanger’s prescriptions for “peace” were founded on making warfare upon the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, thus helping to predispose men to be at war with each other at a moment’s notice in the domestic cell that is the family, in their neighborhoods and their cities and in their country. Yes, there is a direct line from Father Martin Luther to Margaret Sanger to the events in Ferguson, Missouri. Sanger was one of the most successful evangelists of evil that the world has ever known, more successful than the man under whose auspices Ernst Rudin worked, none other than the murderous Adolf Hitler himself (see Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part one and Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part two).

Margaret Sanger and her cohorts were not the only ones who were on the cutting edge of “progressive” social thought in the 1920s and 1930s. White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS) sought to curb the procreation of “undesirables,” most especially blacks and “imbeciles,” and to convince Catholics to rebel against a “rigid” teaching of Holy Mother Church that kept them from “enjoying” the “freedom” that supposedly was to be found in a debased use of that which is proper to the married state.

The eugenics crowd received judicial support from the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the infamous case of Buck v. Bell, May 2, 1927. The Court’s majority opinion was written by the notorious utilitarian and legal positivist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Here are some chilling passages of what this “enlightened” jurist wrote as he justified a Commonwealth of Virginia law, that mandated sterilization of those deemed to be “imbecilic”:

The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck 'is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,' and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the Legislature and the specific findings of the Court obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. [274 U.S. 200, 208]   But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside. It is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow. Of course so far as the operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached. (See the text of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of  Buck v. Bell, May 2, 1997.)

The only dissenter in this case was Pierce Butler, a Catholic who, though a Democrat, had been appointed by a Republican president, Warren Gamaliel Harding. Holmes believed that Butler’s religion caused him to dissent, thereby preventing the Supreme Court from issuing its decision in Buck v. Bell unanimously. Holmes was a “progressive.” He wanted to remake society according to supposedly “scientific” principles and believed that those principles could be enforced upon all if a legislative and/or judicial majority decided upon so.

The decision in Buck v. Bell was welcomed by Margaret Sanger and her pals just as much as Holmes’s lecture at Harvard University nine years before, that is, in 1918, came at a time she was opening “birth control clinics” in predominantly black neighborhoods:

Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that were not so. If I may quote myself again, property, friendship, and truth have a common root in time. One cannot be wrenched from the rocky crevices into which one has grown for many years without feeling that one is attacked in one’s life. What we most love and revere generally is determined by early associations. I love granite rocks and barberry bushes, no doubt because with them were my earliest joys that reach back through the past eternity of my life. But while one’s experience thus makes certain preferences dogmatic for oneself, recognition of how they came to be so leaves one able to see that others, poor souls, may be equally dogmatic about something else. And this again means skepticism. Not that one’s belief or love does not remain. Not that we would not fight and die for it if important—we all, whether we know it or not, are fighting to make the kind of a world that we should like—but that we have learned to recognize that others will fight and die to make a different world, with equal sincerity or belief. Deep-seated preferences cannot be argued about—you cannot argue a man into liking a glass of beer—and therefore, when differences are sufficiently far reaching, we try to kill the other man rather than let him have his way. But that is perfectly consistent with admitting that, so far as appears, his grounds are just as good as ours.

The jurists who believe in natural law seem to me to be in that naïve state of mind that accepts what has been familiar and accepted by all men everywhere. No doubt it is true that, so far as we can see ahead, some arrangements and the rudiments of familiar institutions seem to be necessary elements in any society that may spring from our own and that would seem to us to be civilized—some form of permanent association between the sexes—some residue of property individually owned—some mode of binding oneself to specified future conduct—at the bottom of all, some protection for the person. But without speculating whether a group is imaginable in which all but the last of these might disappear and the last be subject to qualifications that most of us would abhor, the question remains as to the Ought of natural law. . . .

The most fundamental of the supposed preexisting rights—the right to life—is sacrificed without a scruple not only in war, but whenever the interest of society, that is, of the predominant power in the community, is thought to demand it. Whether that interest is the interest of mankind in the long run no one can tell, and as, in any event, to those who do not think with Kant and Hegel it is only an interest, the sanctity disappears. I remember a very tender-hearted judge being of opinion that closing a hatch to stop a fire and the destruction of a cargo was justified even if it was known that doing so would stifle a man below. It is idle to illustrate further, because to those who agree with me I am uttering commonplaces and to those who disagree I am ignoring the necessary foundations of thought. The a priori men generally call the dissentients superficial. But I do agree with them in believing that one’s attitude on these matters is closely connected with one’s general attitude toward the universe. Proximately, as has been suggested, it is determined largely by early associations and temperament, coupled with the desire to have an absolute guide. Men to a great extent believe what they want to—although I see in that no basis for a philosophy that tells us what we should want to want.

Now when we come to our attitude toward the universe I do not see any rational ground for demanding the superlative—for being dissatisfied unless we are assured that our truth is cosmic truth, if there is such a thing—that the ultimates of a little creature on this little earth are the last word of the unimaginable whole. If a man sees no reason for believing that significance, consciousness and ideals are more than marks of the finite, that does not justify what has been familiar in French skeptics; getting upon a pedestal and professing to look with haughty scorn upon a world in ruins. The real conclusion is that the part cannot swallow the whole—that our categories are not, or may not be, adequate to formulate what we cannot know. If we believe that we come out of the universe, not it out of us, we must admit that we do not know what we are talking about when we speak of brute matter. We do know that a certain complex of energies can wag its tail and another can make syllogisms. These are among the powers of the unknown, and if, as may be, it has still greater powers that we cannot understand, as Fabre in his studies of instinct would have us believe, studies that gave Bergson one of the strongest strands for his philosophy and enabled Maeterlinck to make us fancy for a moment that we heard a clang from behind phenomena—if this be true, why should we not be content? Why should we employ the energy that is furnished to us by the cosmos to defy it and shake our fist at the sky? It seems to me silly. (Natural Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes)

This elegy in behalf of the relativism that is legal positivism (the belief that morality is whatever “the law” says it is; in other words, that legal might makes moral right) had come into its own in the early-Twentieth Century, taking its place along with the other “scientific” ideas of “enlightened progressives,” including Margaret Sanger. Moreover, much of the language used by Holmes in 1918 reflects the mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio with perfection as the Argentine Apostate rejects the certainty of Catholic doctrine and condemns as “rigid” those who believe it to be certain.

Interestingly, the Virginia sterilization statue at issue in Buck v. Bell had been based on the same set of eugenics directives that had been devised at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor, New York (which I have driven past hundreds upon hundreds of times in my life as it was located near my beloved Oyster Bay Cove, New York; this facility of pure evil was very visible the across the body of water known as Cold Spring Harbor from the Whaler’s Cove Yacht Club where my parents had a twenty-seven foot cruise boat docked between 1967 and 1972), that Adolf Hitler himself used as the model for his own eugenics laws that were denounced in 1941 by Bishop Clemens von Galen of Munster, Germany (see Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part two).

As bad as things are now, they will only get worse and worse. They have gotten worse in the past forty-five years since the wellsprings of a superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces began to dry up after the institutionalization of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on Sunday, November 30, 1969 (see Nothing New Under Jorge's Sun).

The downward spiral, though, was over four centuries in the making, longer yet if one considers how certain elements of the Renaissance helped to undermine the integrity of Faith and Morals in various intellectual and artistic circles in the century before the rise of Martin Luther.

This is a time of profound chastisement.

As should be abundantly clear by now, the false opposite of the naturalist “right” is not going to restore even a rudimentary adherence to the rule of law under the terms of the Constitution of the United States of America, no less to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. And putative “pope” in the Casa Santa Marta actually celebrates the rot of popular culture as he promotes a “theology of encounter” with his fellow minions of the devil.

We do not, however, despair.

We are Catholics.

We trust in the motherly care of Our Lady, Who gave birth miraculously to her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in piercing cold at Midnight on Christmas morning.

We just need to keep close to her, especially through her Most Holy Rosary as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, as we seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Viva La Virgen de Guadalupe!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

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.

Appendix

On Sexagesima Sunday

Remember, every Ave Maria we pray helps us to prepare for the hour of our deaths as we seek to repair the damage caused by our sins and those of the whole world. May we be generous in praying our Rosaries as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, remembering, as true Charity demands, to pray fervently for the conversion of the conciliar revolutionaries before they die. We must never be unbent in our own sins, and we must never be unaware of how we must give God the honor and glory that are His due as members of the Catholic Church who have fled to the catacombs to seek to sanctify an thus save our immortal souls.

Praying Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary for our fellow Catholics, many of whom put fully traditional Catholics to shame insofar as modesty of attire and rejection of the popular culture are concerned, is the most efficacious means to help them to see the truth of the state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal, and we had better remember that seeing the truth of the papal vacancy during this time of apostasy and betrayal does not make us one whit better than anyone else.

Indeed, the biggest mess of them all is the one might exist right within our own immortal souls, which is why we must make frequent use of the Sacred Tribunal of Penance if it is all possible to do so during this time of apostasy and betrayal. We must pray to Our Lady that her Divine Son will give us the length of days necessary to clean up the mess we have made by means of our sloth, our anger, our impatience, our of lack of charity, our rash judgments, our harshness, our unwillingness to forgive others, our holding of grudges and stewing over offenses or dangers, real and/or imagined, to say nothing of our gossiping and time wasted on the farcical agitations of this passing, mortal vale of tears.

In truth, of course, most of us are the worst enemies of our salvation, and while none of us will be called to clean up the mess in the Church Militant on earth that has been created by the conciliar revolutionaries, we have to be about the business of cleaning up the mess that we have made of our lives by means of our sins, which have played their own nefarious roles in worsening both the state of the world at large and the state of the Church Militant.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., reflecting upon the Gospel reading on the Parable of the Sower and the Seed for today’s Holy Mass on Sexagesima Sunday, reminded us in his brief reflection for Sexagesima Sunday that must work assiduously for the seed of God’s Holy Word and His Holy Graces to take deep root in the soil of our immortal souls that we have despoiled so frequently through our own fault:

St. Gregory the Great justly remarks, that this Parable needs no explanation. since Eternal Wisdom himself has told us its meaning. All that we have to do, is to profit by this divine teaching, and become the good soil, wherein the heavenly Seed may yield a rich harvest. How often have we not, hitherto, allowed it to be trampled on by them that passed by, or to be torn up by the birds of the air? How often has it not found our heart like a stone, that could give no moisture, or like a thorn plot, that could but choke? We listened to the Word of God; we took pleasure in hearing it; and from this we argued well for ourselves. Nay, we have often received this Word with joy and eagerness. Sometimes, even, it took root within us. But, alas! something always came to stop its growth. Henceforth, it must both grow and yield fruit. The Seed given to us is of such quality, that the Divine Sower has a right to expect a hundred-fold. If the soil, that is, if our heart, be good; if we take the trouble to prepare it, by profiting of the means afforded us by the Church;- we shall have an abundant harvest to show our Lord on that grand Day, when, rising triumphant from his Tomb, he shall come to share with his faithful people the glory of  his Resurrection.

Inspirited by this hope, and full of confidence in Him, who has once more thrown his Seed in this long ungrateful soil, let us sing with the Church, in her Offertory, these beautiful words of the Royal Psalmist: they are a prayer for holy resolution and perseverance:

Perfect thou my goings in thy paths; that my footsteps be not moved. O incline thine ear unto me and hear my words. Show forth thy wonderful mercies; who savest them that hope in thee, O Lord. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Sexagesima Sunday.)

Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will triumph. We simply need to be faithful we accept hardship as the price of our sanctification and salvation:

For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear: but of power, and of love, and of sobriety. Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but labour with the gospel, according to the power of God. (2 Tim. 1: 6-8.) 

With our Rosaries prayed well, let us take refuge in the simple fact that millions upon millions who have gone before us marked with the Sign of Faith, that is, the Sign of the Cross, have been willing to embrace that Cross with love, joy and gratitude.

Why can't we in the midst of our own difficulties?

Why can't we?

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 Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachin and Anne, pray for us. 

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthazar, pray for us.

Appendix A

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori on Sexagesima Sunday

On The Unhappy Life Of Sinners, And On The Happy Life Of Those Who Love God

 “And that which fell among the thorns are they who have heard, and, going their way, are choked with the cares and riches of this life, and yield no fruit.” LUKE viii. 14.

In the parable of this day’s gospel we are told that part of the seed which the sower went out to sow fell among thorns. The Saviour has declared that the seed represents the divine word, and the thorns the attachment of men to earthly riches and pleasures, which are the thorns that prevent the fruit of the word of God, not only in the future, but even in the present life. Misery of poor sinners! By their sins they not only condemn themselves to eternal torments in the next, but to an unhappy life in this world. This is what I intend to demonstrate in the following discourse.

First Point. The unhappy life of sinners.

Second Point. Happy life of those who love God.

 First Point. Unhappy life of sinners.

 1. The devil deceives sinners, and makes them imagine that, by indulging their sensual appetites, they shall lead a life of happiness, and shall enjoy peace. But there is no peace for those who offend God. ”There is no peace to the wicked, saith the Lord.” (Isa. xlviii. 22.) God declares that all his enemies have led a life of misery, and that they have not even known the way of peace. ”Destruction and unhappiness in their ways: and the way of peace they have not known.” (Ps. xiii. 3.)

2. Brute animals that have been created for this world, enjoy peace in sensual delights. Give to a dog a bone, and he is perfectly content; give to an ox a bundle of hay, and he desires nothing more. But man, who has been created for God, to love God, and to be united to him, can be made happy only by God, and not by the world, though it should enrich him with all its goods. What are worldly goods? They may be all reduced to pleasures of sense, to riches, and to honours. “All that is in the world,” says St. John,” is the concupiscence of the flesh,” or sensual delights, and “the concupiscence of the eyes,” or riches, and “the pride of life” that is, earthly honours. (1 John ii. 16.) St. Bernard says, that a man may be puffed up with earthly goods, but can never be made content or happy by them. ”Inflari potest, satiari, non potest.” And how can earth and wind and dung satisfy the heart of man? In his comment on these words of St. Peter”Behold, we have left all things” the same saint says, that he saw in the world different classes of fools. All had a great desire of happiness. Some, such as the avaricious, were content with riches; others, Ambitious of honours and of praise, were satisfied with wind; others, seated round a furnace, swallowed the sparks that were thrown from it these were the passionate and vindictive; others, in fine, drank fetid water from a stagnant pool and these were the voluptuous and unchaste. O fools! adds the saint, do you not perceive that all these things, from which you seek content, do not satisfy, but, on the contrary, increase the cravings of your heart?”Hæc potius famem provocant, quam extinguunt.” Of this we have a striking example in Alexander the Great, who, after having conquered half the world, burst into tears, because he was not master of the whole earth.

 3. Many expect to find peace in accumulating riches; but how can these satisfy their desires?” Major pecunia,” says St. Augustine, “avaritiæ fauces non claudit, sed extendit.” A large quantity of money does not close, but rather extends, the jaws of avarice; that is, the enjoyment of riches excites, rather than satiates, the desire of wealth. ”Thou wast debased even to hell; thou hast been wearied in the multitude of thy ways; yet thou saidst not, I will rest.” (Isa. Ivii. 9, 10.) Poor worldlings! they labour and toil to acquire an increase of wealth and property, but never enjoy repose: the more they accumulate riches, the greater their disquietude and vexation. “The rich have wanted, and have suffered hunger; but they that seek the Lord shall not be deprived of any good.” (Ps. xxxiii. 11.) The rich of this world are, of all men, the most miserable; because, the more they possess, the more they desire to possess. They never succeed in attaining all the objects of their wishes, and therefore they are far poorer than men who have but a competency, and seek God alone. These are truly rich, because they are content with their condition, and find in God every good. ”They that seek the Lord shall not be deprived of any good.” To the saints, because they possess God, nothing is wanting; to the worldly rich, who are deprived of God, all things are wanting, because they want peace. The appellation of fool was, therefore, justly given to the rich man in the gospel (Luke xii. 19), who, because his land brought forth plenty of fruits, said to his soul: “Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years: take rest, eat, drink, make good cheer.” (Luke xii. 19.) But this man was called a fool. ”Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee; and whose shall those things be which thou hast provided?” (v. 20.) And why was he called a fool. Because he imagined that by these goods by eating and drinking he should be content, and should enjoy peace. “Rest,” he said, “eat, drink.” “Num quid,” says St. Basil of Seleucia, “animam porcinam habes ?” Hast thou the soul of a brute, that thou expectest to make it happy by eating and drinking?

4. But, perhaps sinners who seek after and attain worldly honours are content? All the honours of this earth are but smoke and wind (“Ephraim feedeth on the wind” Osee xii. 1), and how can these content the heart of a Christian? “The pride of them,” says David, “ascendeth continually.” (Ps. lxxiii. 23.) The ambitious are not satisfied by the attainment of certain honours: their ambition and pride continually increase; and thus their disquietude, their envy, and their fears are multiplied.

 5. They who live in the habit of sins of impurity, feed, as the Prophet Jeremiah says, on dung. “Qui voluptuose vescebantur, amplexati sunt stercora.” (Thren. iv. 5.) How can dung content or give peace to the soul? Ah! what peace, what peace can sinners at a distance from God enjoy? They may possess the riches, honours, and delights of this world; but they never shall have peace. No; the word of God cannot fail: he has declared that there is no peace for his enemies. ”There is no peace to the wicked, saith the Lord.” (Isaias, xlviii. 22.) Poor sinners! they, as St. Chrysostom says, always carry about with them their own executioner that is, a guilty conscience, which continually torments them. ”Peccator conscientiam quasi carnificem circumgestat.” (Serm. x. do Laz.) St. Isidore asserts, that there is no pain more excruciating than that of a guilty conscience. Hence he adds, that he who leads a good life is never sad. ”Nulla poena gravior poena conscientiæ: vis nunquam esse tristis? bene vive.” (S. Isid., lib. 2, Solit.)

 6. In describing the deplorable state of sinners, the Holy Ghost compares them, to a sea continually tossed by the tempest. “The wicked are like the raging sea, which cannot rest.” (Isa. Ivii. 20.) Waves come and go, but they are all waves of bitterness and rancour; for every cross and contradiction disturbs and agitates the wicked. If a person at a ball or musical exhibition, were obliged to remain suspended by a cord with his head downwards, could he feel happy at the entertainment? Such is the state of a Christian in enmity with God: his soul is as it were turned upside down; instead of being united with God and detached from creatures, it is united with creatures and separated from God. But creatures, says St. Vincent Ferrer, are without, and do not enter to content the heart, which God alone can make happy. “Non intrant ibi ubi est sitis.” The sinner is like a man parched with thirst, and standing in the middle of a fountain: because the waters which surround him do not enter to satisfy his thirst, he remains in the midst of them more thirsty than before.

7. Speaking of the unhappy life which he led when he was in a state of sin, David said: ”My tears have been my bread, day and night, whilst it is said to me daily: Where is thy God ?” (Ps. xli. 4.) To relieve himself, he went to his villas, to his gardens, to musical entertainments, and to various other royal amusements, but they all said to him: “David, if thou expectest comfort from us, thou art deceived.  “Where is thy God? Go and seek thy God, whom thou hast lost; for he alone can restore thy peace.” Hence David confessed that, in the midst of his princely wealth, he enjoyed no repose, and that he wept night and day. Let us now listen to his son Solomon, who acknowledged that he indulged his senses in whatsoever they desired. “Whatsoever my eyes desired, I refused them not.” (Eccl. ii. 10.) But, after all his sensual enjoyments, he exclaimed: “Vanity of vanities:… behold all is vanity and affliction of spirit.” (Eccles. i. 2 and 14.) Mark! he declares that all the pleasures of this earth are not only vanity of vanities, but also affliction of spirit. And this sinners well know from experience; for sin brings with it the fear of divine vengeance. The man who is encompassed by powerful enemies never sleeps in peace; and can the sinner, who has God for an enemy, enjoy tranquility?” Fear to them that work evil.” (Prov. x. 29.) The Christian who commits a mortal sin feels himself oppressed with fear every leaf that moves excites terror. ”The sound of dread is always in his ears.” (Job xv. 21.) He appears to be always flying away, although no one pursues him. ”The wicked man fleeth when no man pursueth.” (Prov. xxviii. 1.) He shall be persecuted, not by men, but by his own sin. It was thus with Cain, who, after having killed his brother Abel, was seized with fear, and said: ”Every one, therefore, that findeth me shall kill me.” (Gen. iv. 14.) The Lord assured him that no one should injure him: “The Lord said to him: ’No; it shall not be so’” (v. 15.) But, notwithstanding this assurance, Cain, pursued by his own sins, was, as the Scripture attests, always flying from one place to another “He dwelt a fugitive on the earth.” (v. 16.)

 8. Moreover, sin brings with it remorse of conscience that cruel worm that gnaws incessantly, and never dies. ”Their worm shall not die.” (Isa Ixvi. 24.) If the sinner goes to a festival, to a comedy, to a banquet, his conscience continually reproaches him, saying: Unhappy man! you have lost God; if you were now to die, what should become of you? The torture of remorse of conscience, even in the present life, is so great that, to free themselves from it, some persons have put an end to their lives Judas, through despair, hanged himself. A certain man who had killed an infant, was so much tormented with remorse that he could not rest. To rid himself of it he entered into a monastery; but finding no peace even there, he went before a judge, acknowledged his crime, and got himself condemned to death.

9. God complains of the injustice of sinners in leaving him, who is the fountain of all consolation, to plunge themselves into fetid and broken cisterns, which can give no peace. ”For my people have done two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and have digged to themselves cisterns broken cisterns that can hold no water.” (Jer. ii. 13.) You have, the Lord says to sinners, refused to serve me, your God, in peace. Unhappy creatures! you shall serve your enemies in hunger, and thirst, and nakedness, and in want of every kind. “Because thou didst not serve the Lord thy God with joy and gladness, … thou shalt serve thy enemy in hunger, and thirst, and nakedness, and in want of all things.” (Deut. xxviii. 47, 48.) This is what sinners experience every day. What do not the vindictive endure after they have satisfied their revenge by the murder of an enemy? They fly continually from the relations of their murdered foe, and from the minister of justice. They live as fugitives, poor, afflicted, and abandoned by all. What do not the voluptuous and unchaste suffer in order to gratify their wicked desires? What do not the avaricious suffer in order to acquire the possessions of others? Ah! if they suffered for God what they suffer for sin, they would lay up great treasures for eternity, and would lead a life of peace and happiness: but, by living in sin, they lead a life of misery here, to lead a still more miserable life for eternity hereafter. Hence they weep continually in hell, saying: “We wearied ourselves in the way of iniquity and destruction, and have walked through hard ways.” (Wis. v. 7.) We have, they exclaim, walked through hard ways, through paths covered with thorns. We wearied ourselves in the way of iniquity: we have laboured hard: we have sweated blood: we have led a life full of misery, of gall, and of poison. And why? To bring ourselves to a still more wretched life in this pit of fire.

 Second Point. The happy life of those who love God.

 10. “Justice and peace have kissed.” (Ps. lxxxiv. 11.) Peace resides in every soul in which justice dwells. Hence David said: “Delight in the Lord, and he will give thee the requests of thy heart.” (Ps. xxxvi. 4.) To understand this text, we must consider that worldlings seek to satisfy the desires of their hearts with the goods of this earth; but, because these cannot make them happy, their hearts continually make fresh demands; and, how much soever they may acquire of these goods, they are not content. Hence the Prophet says: ”Delight in the Lord, and he will give thee the requests of thy heart.” Give up creatures, seek your delight in God, and he will satisfy all the cravings of your heart.

11. This is what happened to St. Augustine, who, as long as he sought happiness in creatures, never enjoyed peace; but, as soon as he renounced them, and gave to God all the affections of his heart, he exclaimed: “All things are hard, O Lord, and thou alone art repose.” As if he said: Ah! Lord, I now know my folly. I expected to find felicity in earthly pleasures; but now I know that they are only vanity and affliction of spirit, and that thou alone art the peace and joy of our hearts.

 12. The Apostle says, that the peace which God gives to those who love, surpasses all the sensual delights which a man can enjoy on this earth. ”The peace of God, which surpasseth all understanding. ” (Phil. iv. 7.) St. Francis of Assisium, in saying “My God and my all,” experienced on this earth an anticipation of Paradise. St. Francis Xavier, in the midst of his labours in India for the glory of Jesus Christ, was so replenished with divine consolations, that he exclaimed: “Enough, Lord, enough.” Where, I ask, has any lover of this world been found, so satisfied with the possessions of worldly goods, as to say: Enough, O world, enough; no more riches, no more honours, no more applause, no more pleasures? Ah, no! worldlings are constantly seeking after higher honours, greater riches, and new delights; but the more they have of them, the less are their desires satisfied, and the greater their disquietude.

 13. It is necessary to persuade ourselves of this truth, that God alone can give content. “Worldlings do not wish to be convinced of it, through an apprehension that, if they give themselves to God, they shall lead a life of bitterness and discontent. But, with the Royal Prophet, I say to them: ”taste, and see that the Lord is sweet.” (Ps. xxxiii. 9.) Why, sinners, will you despise and regard as miserable that life which you have not as yet tried?” “Taste and see.” Begin to make a trial of it; hear Mass every day; practise mental prayer and the visitation of the most holy sacrament; go to communion at least once a week; fly from evil conversations; walk always with God; and you shall see that, by such a life, you will enjoy that sweetness and peace which the world, with all its delights, has not hitherto been able to give you. 

Appendix C

Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., on Sexagesima Sunday

My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity ~ 2 Cor. xii. 9

To all who are striving to lead a good Christian life the example of the saints is a powerful means of encouragement, and the more so when we see in the saints themselves the evidences of our common human nature, when we see them encountering the same difficulties and struggling with the same temptations which we ourselves experience. Their great deeds and miracles exalt them to a sphere far above us, and, while they fill us with admiration, would yet have a tendency to discourage us were it not for those other passages in their lives when they seem to brought down to our own level by contact with those evil influences which are ever seeking to sway our fallen nature. The fact that the saints have had to engage in conflict with the basest passions is so far from lowering them in our eyes that it only serves to make them dearer to us and to stimulate us to a more faithful imitation of them.

And so St. Paul’s account of himself in the Epistle of today has been a ground of encouragement to many a soul that had grown weary of an incessant warfare with temptation. The Apostle tells us that, in spite of the wondrous revelations and heavenly favors which he had received from God, he was yet tormented with temptations of the flesh. “And lest the greatness of the revelations should puff me up, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan to buffet me.  For which thing I thrice besought the Lord, that it might depart from me; he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity.” To every soul struggling with temptation God speaks these same words of comfort. “What if you are weak and the temptation is strong? My grace is sufficient for you.  My power shall be shown forth through your weakness, for what you could never do of your own strength I can and will do for you with my grace.”

Many are the lessons we can learn from this text. When we see the great Apostle of the Gentiles engaged in a hard conflict with the demon of impurity, it shows us that God does not spare in this respect even his most chosen servants. On the contrary, by refusing to grant the prayer of St. Paul that he might be delivered from this sting of the flesh, God teaches us that temptation is often a special mark of his favor, even as a general would place his best and bravest soldiers in the thickest of the fight. We are also taught that, no matter how vile the suggestions of the evil one, they cannot soil the heart of him who resists them. If, as soon as the sinfulness of the foul thought or imagination is realized, resistance be at once begun, and kept up until the suggestion is banished, we may be sure we have not yielded, especially if we have had recourse to prayer.  From the shield of prayer the arrows of the tempter are sure to glace and fall harmlessly to the ground.

But, on the other hand, these temptations teach us what we are in ourselves, or rather what we should be without the aid of God’s grace. St. Paul tells us that God permitted those buffetings of Satan to preserve in him the virtue of humility, “lest the greatness of the revelations should puff me up.” The evil imaginations arising in our minds show us to what a depth we should sink were God to withdraw his grace from us and leave us to ourselves.  We should, therefore, make of such temptations an occasion of humility, acknowledging our own worthlessness, our own weakness, yet glorying, as St. Paul did, in the power of God’s grace, which is able to make us strong, and endow us with supernatural merit.  And here lies the greatest value and use of temptations- God’s power is made perfect in our infirmity.  A crown of merit is the reward of victory in the fight.  Without the temptation we should not have had the merit of overcoming it. In the hour of trial, then, take courage from these words of God to St. Paul: “My grace is sufficient for thee, for power is made perfect in infirmity.” (As found at: Sexagesima Sunday ~ The Uses of Temptation.)