, 1875-09-12

| at the "ecstssies" " to prove that deception VA
| ever practiced-
The occasion OF q reference to Louise Lateac
in this article is the following dispatch fron
Paris to the London Times:
| According to Brussels paper, Louise Lateau, the
belgian gil whose alleged fasting and stigmats havt
Leeu so much yaunted BY tbs UtrazaoDtanes, has re-
sumed the habits Of ordinary life. Her sister, con
to ,he house to the parish priest and the Episcopal
delegates from which time tho fasting, Visions. and
atigtaa1 have ceased
The case Of this Young girl has occupied the
attention Of the world for seven OF eight years:
! Uas and continues to be the subject of many
Curious and lengthy notices in almost every uaws-
| paper IN Christandom the subject even OF two
OF three large-sized books, written by dis
unguished physiclans, men OF nide experience,
| acknowledged ability, and unimpeachable YER
| acity; she has been visited from all parts OF
Europe by infiiel as we'll as Catholic and sub
jected to the closest examination By well-kno IN
! notwithstanding Of whom are noted for their
hostility to the Church and DOW her case is dis
missed, and the conduct OF priest and Bishop held
| up to opprobrihm, onsthe strength Of dispatch
from Paris in the London 11mex-a dispatch
which fortunately reveals the only source Of lts
information, according to Brussels paper"
In less Important or at least less prominent,
matters, the London Times would have sent
special correspondent TO Bos d'Haine, where
the young girl resides. But in this instance no
such 6xpedieDt is dreamt OF, simply because the
aim Of the paper is to cry down this alleged mau-
Hesitation, and to investigate her case would be
to reveal tho mendacious character Of the dis
patch. 1t is not true ''tha. the girl has resumed
the habits of Ordinary life !" neither ls it true
that "her Rister has refused admission to the
house to the parish priest and The Episcopal del
eeates." They are admitted as heretofore aud
they and Others continue to witness On each Fri
day the manifestations concerning which so
much has been said aud written, and for which
no adequate explanation has yet been offered.
But there was no need OF entering 30 minutely
upon rafutation OF tho charges contained IN
the article on Modern Miracles" The writer
does it far more effectively himself In tho first
paragraph he states most snphat1oally that these
frances, ETC., were the result Of epilepsy and
various disease; he iB quite positive about that.
Scientlsts, he says, are agreed upon that point.
Her case is but one Of the numerous cases al
more explicit? But the writer-who, it would
appear, did not know when he took his pen in
hand what he WAS going to write, or perhaps,
being Catholic in disguise, waa fully deter
mined to make the article ridiculous BY its corr
tradictlons and thus help the Cause which he was
depused to sneer nt-quite forgot in the third |
paragraph what he had 50 forcibly stated in the /!
first, for he writes: But unfortunately for |
their (tbe priests) pretensiops. she has got out
of their hands, and the miracle, like the Bank of
California. has busted" So. after ali, these |
manifestations are not the results of nervous !!
disease, but are to be attributed to the trlckery
and artidces OF the Priests What specimen
IT Intelligent journalism!
,ot pronounced on the case Of Louise Lateau.
md Catholics are not obliged to admit the eu-
,e1natural chnracter Of the wonderful nan!festa-
ions. They are forbidden, however, to believe
a the imposibilty OF divine manifestation 10 the
church; and they and all others would certainly
in against all rules OF evidence il in the case of
his poor girl, whose condition remains puzzle
0 scientific investigation, in spite OF the uHe Of
very preventative against fraud and deception,
hey attributed their phenomepa 20 the artihces
nd decelts Of priests. a CATHOLIC.