jump to navigation

This Stinks: Gene Cernan dead at 82 January 16, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Four Last Things, General Catholic, history, manhood, sadness, Society, technology, Victory.
8 comments

The old Apollo guys are going to their reward one by one.  Who is left at this point that walked on the moon?   Buzz Aldrin, Al Bean, Dave Scott, John Young, Charlie Duke, and Jack Schmitt.  All are in their 80s.

But today the last man to walk on the moon died.  Gene Cernan, who lived outside Kerrville, was 82:

Gene Cernan, an early NASA astronaut who was the last man to set foot on the moon, died Monday, NASA announced in a tweet. He was 82.

Cernan was the commander of Apollo 17 in December 1972 – the last lunar mission and one of the final Apollo flights. When Cernan stepped out from lunar module “Challenger” he became the 11th person to walk on the moon. His lunar module pilot, Jack Schmitt, was the 12th. But as commander, Cernan was the last to re-enter the module, making him the last person to walk on the lunar surface.

Cernan had previously served as the lunar module pilot on Apollo 10 and was a pilot on the Gemini IX mission.

Cernan logged 566 hours and 15 minutes in space, of which 73 hours were spent on the surface of the moon, according to NASA.

Cernan was one of only three men to travel to the moon twice.  The other two were Jim Lovell (still alive) and John Young.

There was a big row in NASA in the first half of 1970 when Nixon foolishly decided to gut the Apollo program (although, in his defense, most all of NASA management wanted it gutted, too).  After it was announced that Apollos 18-20 would be cancelled, even though the hardware was already almost entirely built (everything but the LMs for Apollo 19 and 20), the scientific community got all fired up because the then-current crew rotation would mean that no scientist would fly to the moon if Apollo 17 was the last mission.  The first scientist scheduled to go was Jack Schmitt to the Tycho Crater on Apollo 18 with Commander Dick Gordon.  No Apollo 18 meant no scientist on the moon.

But not so fast.  The science guys raised a big enough ruckus that NASA management was “encouraged” to change the crew rotation.  Gordon and Schmitt had been training together for 6 months at that point so Gordon hoped the entire crew for 18 would just replace Gene Cernan’s crew for 17.  That would have left Cernan out in the cold.  But instead, the awesomely skilled former X-15 pilot Joe Engle was bumped as LMP from Apollo 17 in favor of Schmitt, and Dick Gordon had to watch his chance to be the somewhat famous last man on the moon go up in smoke.

Gene Cernan was a bit of an anomaly among early Apollo astronauts in not being a test pilot.  He was an attack aviation guy in the Navy, flying Skyhawks, when he found out he had been accepted into the third round of astronaut selectees.  Cernan was generally viewed as a competent straight shooter who perhaps had the flaw of being a bit aggressive in his self-promotion.  There was quite a bit of that among the Apollo astronauts, of course.  After his time in NASA and almost de rigeuer collapse of his first marriage, Cernan became a bit of a sad creature, a sort of a caricature of his salad days version of himself, always Captain Cernan, always the former astronaut, not Geno or Gene anymore.

Still, they rarely make men like this anymore.  We’re much too soft to produce such steely eyed missile men as those who flew to the moon in a delicate, lowest-cost government-run contraption.  Engineering was done on slide rules back then, with no 3-D solid modeling and with less computing power in the entire NASA basement than one smart phone today.  And yet they did it, and the engineers of back then were probably far, far better than those of today, man for man.

Gene Cernan was at least a nominal Catholic most of his life.  Not sure if he died one.  I pray for the repose of his soul.

Few know Cernans’s most dangerous mission was not Apollo 17, was not on Apollo at all, but was on Gemini 9A.  During the mission he was to perform only America’s second spacewalk, the first since Ed White briefly flew outside Gemini 4.  What most people did not know at that time, is that White barely made it back inside the spacecraft.  His inflated pressure suit did not want to fit in the cramped capsule and he and commander Jim McDivitt struggled mightily to get it closed. As a result, White got quite severely overheated.

Well, White’s walk lasted perhaps 20 minutes, whereas Cernan’s was scheduled to last several hours.  However, he also ran into problems with inadequate cooling in his spacesuit, especially when in the 250 degree temperatures on the sunny side of the world.  Physical exertion, of which there was plenty, made him sweat profusely.  Then, when the capsule went around the night side of the earth, all that moisture inside his suit froze.  His visor was almost completely frosted over and Cernan was blind.  He barely managed to make it back inside the ship, and probably had a heat stroke trying to get the hatch shut.

Cernan and Stafford repeated their two-man team on Apollo 10, when another accident could have killed them both.  An incorrect setting on a guidance computer caused their Lunar Module to tumble out of control while practicing the landing maneuvers that Apollo 11 would perform on the first lunar landing.  The telemetry showed the LM “Snoopy” doing three 360s before Stafford flipped the switch to go from backup abort guidance to the Apollo Guidance Computer.  That fixed it.

s66-15621

as17-145-22224-1

apollo_14_backup_commander_gene_cernan

astronaut_eugene_a-_cernan_prime_crew_lunar_module_pilot_of_the_apollo_10_lunar_orbit_mission

More and More (Curial) Priests Apparently Can’t Stand Francis January 13, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, priests, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
10 comments

That’s what Damian Thompson says, anyway. Some interesting observations below – some revelations as to Francis’ character.  It might even be considered a bit psycho-analytical. I was not aware of Francis’ scandal in reinstating a scandalous progressive boy-raping priest that Benedict had previously defrocked.  That’s a damning indictment that Francis’ mercy extends only to perceived ideological allies, and not those whom he is most charged to shepherd and defend:

On 2 January, the Vatican published a letter from Pope Francis to the world’s bishops in which he reminded them that they must show ‘zero tolerance’ towards child abuse. The next day, the American Week magazine published an article that told the story of ‘Don Mercedes’ — Fr Mauro Inzoli, an Italian priest with a passion for expensive cars and underage boys.

In 2012, Pope Benedict stripped Inzoli of his priestly faculties, effectively defrocking him. In 2014, however, they were restored to him — by Pope Francis, who warned him to stay away from minors.

Then, finally, the Italian civil authorities caught up with this serial groper of teenagers in the confessional. Last summer Inzoli was sentenced to four years and nine months in jail for paedophile offences. The Vatican, under ‘zero-tolerance’ Francis, refused to supply evidence that prosecutors wanted…….. [I doubt he was guilty only of “groping,” and I hate how the media continues to soft-pedal these men’s crimes.  They, painfully and cruelly, rape young boys, destroying their irreplaceable innocence and scarring them for life. Those who suffer childhood sex abuse are never quite right again.  Reducing that to “groping” is yet another example of why so many of us have no respect for the media.  As for Francis, his “zero-tolerance” depends entirely on whether one is seen as an ally or not.  Leftism is always about power – those perceived as aiding that pursuit of power can never do any wrong, those who oppose it can never do any right.]

……A man who, when he took office, seemed endearingly informal — paying his own bill at his hotel, refusing to live in the Apostolic Palace, making surprise phone calls to members of the public — now cuts a less sympathetic figure.

He has broken with a far more significant papal tradition than living in the papal apartments or travelling in limousines. He has defied the convention that a pope, once elected, ceases to play nasty curial politics. [I’m shocked, shocked that a convicted Peronist would behave like a…..convicted Peronist]

Pope Benedict respected this convention. [Probably too much. It undermined his ability to effect any change – if he even wanted to.] Liberals who were worried that the ‘Rottweiler’ would harbour ancient grudges watched in amazement — and relief — as he turned into a virtual hermit. This created the factional chaos that led to his resignation — but right up until the end, Benedict was always ‘the Holy Father’.

That title has almost dropped out of use inside the Vatican under Francis, at least in everyday conversation. And, when you hear it, there is an edge of sarcasm. For example: ‘As the Holy Father so wisely says, we all have a natural tendency to eat shit.’

The priest in question is no fan of Francis. But the fact is that the Pope did say it — in public. Last month, he told the media to stop spreading fake stories because ‘people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia’. Which means eating excrement.

Why did he say it? The traditionalist blog Rorate Caeli suggested that ‘ageing or an underlying medical issue’ was responsible for his ‘persistent anger, rancour, vituperation, use of uncouth words (which is known to be increasingly frequent in private)’. [Nah.  It’s just who he is. It’s who he’s always  been.  This is a severely intemperate man.  This is a man who is not in control of his appetites. Humility is what gives us the moral strength (and grace) to practice penance and limit our appetites.  Francis may or may not limit his physical, material appetite, but his appetite for more ethereal things like obeisance and the gathering of power appears voracious.]

Again, this is an opponent speaking. There is no evidence that the Pope is mentally ill. However, plenty of Vatican employees will testify to his outbursts of temper, rudeness towards subordinates and vulgar language. [Again, intemperance.  Intemperance also speaks to a lack of solid interior life driven by humility and devotion to prayer.]

He can also be genial, funny and compassionate. But this side of his personality is increasingly reserved for his inner circle and his allies.

All popes have inner circles, it goes without saying. What distinguishes Francis from his recent predecessors is the nature of the alliances he forms. He is far more brutal in the exercise of his power than, say, Pope John Paul II, who certainly had an authoritarian streak in him. [Indeed.  Some say Francis is even more authoritarian than Pius XII, the supposed epitome of the “bad old Church.”]

‘Bergoglio divides the church into those who are with him and those who are against him — and if he thinks you’re in the latter camp then he’ll come after you,’ says a priest who works in the curia. [Think that had much impact on the Franciscans of the Immaculate?]

‘Bergoglio’, note: he doesn’t even call him ‘Francis’. Tellingly, this priest used to be a fervent supporter of some of the Pope’s administrative reforms and he doesn’t look back nostalgically at the reign of Benedict, whom he blames for neglecting his papal duties.

But, like so many Vatican employees, he’s sick of Francis’s habit of telling the entire Roman curia that they are modern-day Pharisees — an analogy that casts the Argentinian pontiff in the role of Jesus. [Convenient, that.]

Clearly Francis believes that relaxing the rules on communion for Catholics in irregular marriages is an act of Christlike compassion. [Could there be more to it than that?  As a point of attack against the entire moral edifice of the Church, a more insidious one could hardly have been chosen.  I don’t think that’s accidental in the slightest.] This is also the view of the venerable liberal cardinals who campaigned to elect him. It is often said that he is enacting their agenda — and it’s true that Francis is well disposed to liberal demands for women deacons and married priests. [Thus the upcoming terror of Synod 2018.  Lord, please prevent this from taking place.]

He is not, however, their instrument. In the words of a Vatican observer who held an important position in Rome for many years, ‘He hasn’t taken on the old progressive mantle so much as created his own personality cult.’ Theological niceties bore him. Personal loyalty obsesses him — ‘and if the cardinal electors had done due diligence they would have discovered that he was an extraordinarily divisive figure among the Argentinian Jesuits’.

It’s not hard to detect a Latin American flavour to the deal-making and settling of scores that has become blatant over the past year. Most Catholic bishops had thought Francis was a plain-spoken and perhaps touchingly naive reformer. Instead, they are confronted by a pope who is simultaneously combative, charming, bad-tempered, idealistic and vengeful……..

Oh, I think the naivete is an act.  I think he – as the scion of those who elected him – knows exactly what he is doing and the impact it will have.  This is a man bent on remaking the Church in his own ideological image.  Niceties mean nothing to him, all that matters is the end result.

He’s a leftist Borgia, minus the appetites against the 6th and 9th Commandments.

Prayer Request and Thanks January 5, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, Holy suffering, reading, sadness, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

A couple of “housekeeping” items, if you will – please pray for A, wife of longtime reader “ADG,” who gave birth to their 9th child a couple of months ago and shortly after developed some serious medical conditions.  She is still recovering and her health remains under 100%.  If you could please add her to your prayers, I know it would be greatly appreciated.

The thanks comes from me, to those who sent me items from my Amazon wishlist and/or a gift certificate.  I thank you very much and feel quite humbled by your generosity.  I have just come across some really good new sources of Catholic catechesis and have added a number of items to my wishlist.  If any feel called to buy something on there for me, all will be greatly appreciated.  Pretty much everything on the list is directly blog related, and if you do send me something, you can rest assured any good material I draw from it will show up on this blog at one time or other.

One of those new items of catechesis is The Catechism in Examples, a five volume set produced by Fr. D. Chisholm and published over 100 years ago in Britain.  Reader SL sent me a link to this massive tome (over 2000 pages!) and it looks really powerful.  Many find the 1990s Catechism painfully dry, and sometimes questionable doctrinally.  I tend to imagine the doctrine in this 100 year old set of volumes will be unimpeachable, while its format is easier to read since it gives concrete examples for each point of doctrine discussed, rather than relaying them in a purely theological way.  The Catechism in Examples is also available at The Internet Archive for free if you happen to read books online.

 

Do You Think They Will? GOP “Plans” to De-Fund Planned Barrenhood Next Year November 30, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Basics, contraception, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, sadness, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society.
comments closed

We’ve heard it before.  Voters gave the GOPe party unprecedented majorities in both the House and Senate in recent years, and yet we were told they could do essentially nothing on the pro-life front because they didn’t have the presidency.  Now they have that, too, though a reduced majority in the Senate, so the PR is now that the GOP will now, finally, try to de-fund Planned Barrenhood.  I’ll believe it when I see it.  With Collins and other libs remaining among the Repubnik Senate Caucus, and with dems always possessing what seems to be far greater moral fervor for their cause than the R’s have for any socially conservative cause, I remain firmly skeptical.  We’ve been lied to far too many times for me to trust just about anything these cats say:

“The entire movement is poised for a victory,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an advocacy group that opposes abortion. “We have every assurance [from congressional leaders] that it’s going to happen. Nobody is saying ‘whether,’ the question is ‘when.’”…

Eliminating Planned Parenthood’s approximately $550 million in federal funding — most of it through Medicaid — would be abortion opponent’s most tangible victory since 2007, when the Supreme Court upheld a ban on so-called partial birth abortions.

One possible approach is to attach the defunding of Planned Parenthood to a repeal of Obamacare and pass both items using reconciliation. That would only require a simple majority, though there is disagreement even among GOP Senators about whether a full repeal of Obamacare is possible using this maneuver.  No one seems ready to commit to a plan of action yet which is probably wise given the level of push-back it will generate.

Republicans say no final decision has been made about what they’ll do next year, although one GOP congressional aide said that among conservatives “there is an expectation that it will be included in any reconciliation bill.” But if the Obamacare repeal legislation runs into any roadblocks because it includes defunding Planned Parenthood, the provision could be cut.

Naturally, Democrats are prepared to make sure any such effort runs into every possible roadblock. And with the GOP’s narrow advantage in the Senate, it will matter if some GOP Senators refuse to back the plan:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) opposed using the reconciliation tactic to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal Obamacare in 2015. Another moderate, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), supported it. But she also introduced an amendment with Collins to strike the Planned Parenthood provision, indicating that she had reservations about cutting off funding. [Of course they would.  Both are strident pro-aborts]

As for President-elect Trump, he made clear during the primaries that he is committed to defunding PP because his position on abortion (which he said had evolved over time), but he was also the only Republican who defended the group saying, “millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood.”

You can see why I am underwhelmed.  It smells to me like more kabuki-theater, deliberate failure, “well, we tried, but those darned democrats with their tiny minority just foiled us again,” etc.  In other words, a set up.  Good for the pro-life groups, though.  Great pitch angle for donations – “donate to us and we’ll de-fund Planned Parenthood!”

Perhaps I’ve become a bit jaded, but as I said, I’ll believe it when I see it.  I think the GOP could foul up de-funding Planned Barrenhood, let alone repealing Obamacare, with a 72-seat majority, let alone a 52-seat one.  That’s because most Republican senators don’t want it repealed.  Think of all the graft they can skim off federal control of 20% of the economy?  Cha-ching.

What Diabolical Narcissism Wrought: Self-Described Sluts Bragging About Having STDs November 29, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, rank stupidity, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

And not just any STD, but one of the worst, most impossible to recover from, and most insidiously contagious: herpes simplex 2.

I don’t think the phrase popularized, if not coined, by Anne Barnhardt, diabolical narcissism, could have a better definition than being so morally lost – heck, amoral – as to be able to convince oneself that not only was one’s catting around not something to be ashamed of, but something to be boldly extolled as a badge of honor, something to be admired and emulated.  That is what the culture, the media, and the sicko feminist fringe have convinced millions of women to believe – that selling themselves cheap to the lowest, most momentary bidder is “empowerment,” that murdering babies that come from this activity is “women’s health,” and that what could easily be conceived of as God’s wrath against wanton behavior is just something that happens to people accidentally, like contracting an allergy or some congenital disease.  The complete divorce of action and consequence, the constant self-justification and self-exaltation, and the absolute lack of any kind of even remote attachment to moral standards has been a deliberate goal of the cultural-political left for two centuries or more, and it has produced what was always desired: people so divorced from any conception of dignity, let alone their unspeakable worth as unique children of God, that they – rather desperately, one might add – proclaim the evil they have wrought to be good, and the only evil to be to shame or judge them for their hedonistic behavior, that hurts not only themselves but who knows how many others.  I would not believe the world in which we live, if I were not confronted with the evidence of its wickedness every day.

And, naturally, this self-described “slut” got a letter of congratulations from Hillary Clinton, during her campaign for the presidency, applauding this young woman for her………for what I have no idea.  Because promiscuity is a vital part of the Left’s war on religion, and thus always and everywhere to be praised?  Because the evil religion of feminism, which has taught women that giving themselves away to any dude who happens along for a night is empowering, and must always be praised?  Because diabolical narcissism demands it?

Anyway, to the article, which is old, but worth your attention (emphasis in original, my comments):

“I’m a slut, and I have herpes. I still am a person who deserves respect,” blogger Ella Dawson tweeted as part of her campaign to remove the “cultural stigma” surrounding sexually transmitted diseases. The Wesleyan grad gained notoriety and celebrity online after writing an article in Women’s Health titled “Why I Love Telling People I Have Herpes.” A follow-up article at Medium defended her position.  [But she doesn’t mean respect in the sense that no one should be treated with undue cruelty or as less than anyone else.  What she means, in the lexicon of the modern left, is to be never questioned, called to account, or Robespierre forbid, shamed for having engaged in extremely risky and self-destructive behavior and now being afflicted with the almost inevitable natural consequence of such behavior.  This becomes obvious as her “logic” unfolds.  She wants to be lionized as a sublime and pure princess, while having all the “benefits” of behaving like a slattern – the constant feminist double standard]

Some — like Hillary Clinton — praised Dawson for being “brave and insightful,” while others condemned her for being “stupid.”……

………Hillary Clinton certainly agrees with House. She even sent Dawson a thank you note praising her for speaking out against the “stigma” and for standing up to her critics. [I continue to thank God that, no matter what Donald Trump may be, Hillary Clinton will never be president.  Thank you, Lord]

Dawson was thrilled to receive the letter, of course, because it elevated, at least in the minds of some, her campaign to make contracting oozing sores on your genitalia “cool.”

In other words, and like other “sex-positive” feminists and liberals who want to legitimize every social deviancy while stigmatizing anyone who disagrees with them, the 24-year-old Dawson is using social media platforms and a hashtag campaign (#ShoutYourStatus) to justify her behavior and to ease her feelings of guilt. [As  you will see, however, Dawson’s end was perfectly predictable, and was, in fact, made virtually inevitable by the flawed ideology she holds.  Who listens to a 24 year old anyway?!?  I at least had the decency to wait till my mid-30s to afflict the world with my opinions]

Instead of simply making the common-sense case for respecting people who are hurting and not stigmatizing them because they made a mistake — you know, the Golden Rule — Dawson goes much further.

She denies the moral context of how an STD is contracted. She refuses to take responsibility for her bad behavior. She perpetuates misinformation about the seriousness of the disease.

And, she plays the victim. Isn’t feminism glorious?

Writes Dawson:

I wasn’t the sort of person STDs happened to. I was a Planned Parenthood volunteer, a sexuality studies major, and everyone’s go-to friend when they had questions about losing their virginity. How could I have caught something when I had always been so careful? [As I said, her ideology almost guaranteed this outcome, indoctrinated in the baby-murdering sex cult of Planned Murderhood for who knows how long. She has been steeped in demonic lies regarding the gift of sexuality, only to be made use of within the confines of sacramental marriage, for years.  She even worked at the whore of Babylon itself, Planned Butcherhood.  That she has had numerous partners, and eventually contracted an STD, is entirely predictable, based on her embrace of the errors preached by Margaret Sanger’s satanic spawn. But she is so lost in this ideology, and, one fears, her sins, she still, even when afflicted with a cursed, incurable disease, refuses to question her assumptions and the ideology she has been very carefully brainwashed to fervently accept and even proselytize for.]

First of all, being a feminist isn’t a full-body condom. Second, there is no such thing as 100-percent certified safe sex when you’re doing it with strangers or just having casual sex with multiple partners………

……….Dawson also, nonsensically, believes that contracting herpes has nothing to do with her behavior.

She writes:

On a logical level. I knew that getting herpes had nothing to do with my actions and didn’t say anything about my character[You keep telling yourself that, sweetheart.]

On a logical level? Really? She repeats this brilliant display of logic in a TED Talk[As if I didn’t have a low enough opinion of “Ted talks”]

An STI, especially herpes, is not a reflection of your character or a consequence of a bad decision. 

Neither is it, as she writes at Medium, “a consequence of personal choices.”

Sorry to break this to you, but an STD is the direct result of a personal choice. And if you’re a slut — as she claims — that is, by definition, a reflection of your character.

Fact: if she had never had casual sex, she would have never contracted genital herpes. [And this is where we see the ultimate evil that is diabolical narcissism revealed.  This woman – and she is far from alone – has turned logic, reason, and even decency on its head in her constant attempts at self-justification.  There is hardly anything that could be MORE a consequence of one’s actions that contracting an STD, unless one happened to be a spouse to a partner who was adulterating and contracted it through them.  Contracting an STD may involve bad luck, it may involve incredible naivete, but it always – in the practical sense – involves promiscuity, that is, deliberate sex outside marriage for pleasure’s sake alone.  I have had some female commenters in the past who tried to argue that there is “good” and “bad” feminism, but that’s bullocks.  THIS WOMAN’S FAILED LINE OF THINKING IS AN EXACT REPRODUCTION OF THE IDEOLOGY AT THE HEART OF FEMINISM!!]

Instead of taking responsibility for her own bad choices, Dawson wants to throw logic — and morality — to the wind and justify her behavior by recasting the entire narrative about STDs into something positive: It’s just something that magically happens to you. You’re a passive victim, and there’s nothing you could have done to stop it. So you’re not guilty of anything. And most of all, you don’t have to feel ashamed.  [Do you think this woman is driven by guilt, perhaps on some fundamental level?  Or is it something else?]

This might come as a shock to Dawson and other moral relativists, but shame isn’t always a bad thing.

The personal shame you feel when you’ve done something wrong is healthy, because it leads you (or should) to conviction that will help you change your behavior. [But when you’ve killed God in the minds of millions, and carefully indoctrinated them to believe that this life is the only one they’ll ever have and so they better get in all the possible pleasure they can, because after this there’s nothing, such reasoning is generally lost on them in their headlong pursuit of pleasure]

……..She goes so far as to sayherpes is “harmless,” and that’s dangerous misinformation.

In an interview with Salon, Dawson said the disease has actually made her sex life better:

Herpes is such a great way to weed out jerks. It’s like the metal detector of douchebags because if somebody is scared of something so harmless, they’re just not worth your time. I have a really high bar for the people I date. [I’m sorry my dear, but you can’t have both a “high bar” and be a self-described slut. Not sure what the idiot college was where you majored in bedding losers, but you need some remedial English and logic] Most people have risen to it amazingly. That’s not to say I’ve only had committed relationships; I’ve had casual sex since getting diagnosed, it’s just always with the conversation of: This is a reality, how do we want to handle this? Do you want to use condoms? What are you most comfortable with? What makes sense for you?  [I am willing to bet a substantial sum she has engaged in casual sex without that conversation.]

Herpes is not harmless.

According to the Mayo Clinic, genital herpes is highly contagious with many health risks, including brain damage, blindness or death in a newborn, bladder problems requiring a catheter, meningitis, rectal inflammation, damage to the nervous system, and an increased risk of “transmitting or contracting other STDs.” [We’ve fallen so far, this even needs to be said?  That says everything.]

And there’s always a risk of contracting it if you have sex with someone who has the disease, even if they’re not experiencing a breakout.

So if you’re a guy who doesn’t want to risk, say, brain damage? Dawson thinks you’re a jerk. A douchebag.

If you want to remain healthy and not get painful pustules on your lower regions? Dawson says you’re a terrible human being.

I’m sure it does make her feel bad when someone doesn’t want to have sex with her because he’s afraid of getting herpes — but that’s not stigma. If Dawson would take responsibility for her own actions and stop playing the victim, she might understand that, and respect that other people’s decisions can’t cater to her feelings.

If anyone is being a douchebag when it comes to STDs, it’s Dawson.

Indeed. A douchebag that is almost guaranteed to be a divorcee, and highly likely a multiple-divorcee, should she ever decide to marry.  The data is incontrovertible on that score. Women who have a high number of lifetime partners are a statistical lock to divorce.  Barring, I suppose, a true conversion, but since she worships at the altar of Moloch/Planned Parenthood, that would require a substantial miracle.

Whether it’s shame or not that serves as motivation, this entire line of thinking is just reeks of the victimhood mentality that has apparently gone from small segments of the population to infecting most of an entire generation.  But the only person this particular “victim” has to blame, is herself, and that’s the one realization diabolical narcissism absolutely prevents.

Of course, she wouldn’t have to make such a hideous public spectacle of herself, and her shame, driving away any man of quality permanently, if she would find that salve her conscience needs through Jesus Christ.  He is the only One that can take away the pain of our past sins – which we all have, some, fortunately, not quite so spectacularly public – not this further descent into endless rationalization and self-justification which this poor creature is demonstrating, showing absolutely no ability to learn from her past mistakes. The shame of it is, in refusing the Grace of Jesus Christ, freely offered, she is damning herself to a lifetime of endless pain and self-induced suffering, no matter how many brave words she uses to try to talk herself off the ledge.

It’s not the sins that damn the diabolical narcissist.  It’s the refusal to countenance that they have sinned, that they must repent, and experience conversion in trying to live a life of virtue in concert with the Truth Christ has revealed to us all.  We see in the above the tragedy of a soul who manifestly refuses to acknowledge she is capable of grievously sinning, and so continues in that hellish form of living.  Her Cure awaits her, patiently, infinitely patiently, but pride prevents her from seeing how easy it is to admit to sin and seek forgiveness.

Poor lost soul.  One of so very many. She needs many prayers.  She, and those she afflicts with her lies and false propaganda.

 

Now On To Really Important Topics: When Should Christmas Lights Come Down? November 28, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Christendom, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, Liturgical Year, paganism, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society.
comments closed

Our house is one of “those” houses.  The one with the Christmas lights up until February 2nd.  Because that’s when the season ends, people!  We also don’t put them out on Thanksgiving, but generally just a few days before Christmas itself.  It varies, depending on the amount of time we have, because we put up quite a bit, usually, though the kids have thankfully taken over much of the task in recent years.  We certainly don’t put them up the day after Thanksgiving and rip ’em down the day after Christmas, or even New Years.

Apparently this topic was worthy of a news story, and, interestingly, not only do most people believe Christmas lights should come down very quickly, a growing number of municipalities are instituting laws to that effect:

When we see the first twinkle of the lights in early December, it is amazing, even magical. But eighteen days after the holiday? So, when is the right time to take down Christmas decorations?…….

………“Today while I shoveled, somebody honked at me, I waved. He slowed down and said ‘Christmas is over’ and with an expletive,” he said.

It’s not like with political campaign signs. It’s Minnesota law those have to be down 10 days after the election. But in San Diego, California, you can get a $250 fine if your lights are still up after Feb. 2. [Well at least it’s till the 2nd.  But a fine?  C’mon.]

The Urban Dictionary even has a term for these people: Nerkles. It’s a combination of nerd and sparkle.

In Minneapolis, Brad Sutton admitted his giant wreath probably should be unplugged.

“I’ll be honest, we’re past that point. A week past the New Years, that’s enough,” said Sutton, as he sheepishly walked to the second story of his house and pulled the power cord.

Lisa Scherber said the end of January is her drop-dead point for leaving the lights on.

“It starts to look a little pathetic when the snow is melting, so we do turn them off,” she said.

Todd Zimmerman proposed a staggered system of light deadlines: “Christmas Lights stay on until the day after Christmas then they are off period. I actually don’t take down the outside Christmas lights until is is warm enough (like March, April, June, whatever) and the snow is off the roof. Inside Christmas lights and decorations come day New Years Day.”

But as Nancy Aleshire wrote on my blog, “Keeping lights up is a matter of personal preference. There are no laws against it. If people don’t like it they should get a life.”

This is a small thing, in the grand scheme, but indicative of a culture that has completely lost the meaning and spirit of Christmas.  Christmas isn’t a day, a build up to a much longed for greed fest that ends the day hours after the presents start getting unwrapped, it’s a season that STARTS on the 25th, extends through a glorious Octave, and continues on until Candlemas on February 2nd.  We see the continuing commercialization and diminution of all the great holidays, both secular and religious.  I was disgusted to see “Black Friday” commercials advertising stores opening at 6pm, 3pm, even noon on Thanksgiving day.  And we’ll be inundated with “after Christmas sales” and all the rest – starting almost certainly on the holy day itself.  I remember when the whole world was pretty much shut down on Christmas day.  It was a big thing when a few convenience stores started staying open on Christmas in the mid-80s.  Now it’s just another freaking day to shop. The religious nature of the holiday has been almost completely turned upside down, with the commercialization subsuming the sacred character of the season, as it has virtually everything else.  ‘

But it’s happened, because people have wanted it to happen. If stores and businesses received a very cold shoulder, and, more importantly, absolutely no customers, then they wouldn’t be opening on these holy days.  They do it because people want it, they want to exchange their not quite perfect gift for a more perfect one, which will be old and forgotten hours – days at best – after being bought.

I have tried in the past few years to be off work the entire 12 days of Christmas, from the 25th to the 6th.  That probably won’t work this  year because of my new job but I hope to return to the practice next year (inability to transfer vacation from one year to the next can be frustrating).  Something else my wife and I try to do is to only allow the kids to open some presents on Christmas day and keep some for following days, allowing them to open one each day for a while. We usually haven’t enough for the full twelve days, and to be honest our attempts at spreading the joy haven’t always completely worked out.  We’ll try again this year, and as the kids get older, it tends to get a bit easier.

But the lights are staying up until the 2nd, period.  I really miss it when they come down.  It’s very sad and contributes – as it should – to the sense of termination of a festive season and the start (nominally) of Septuagint, which often follows closely on Candlemas when it does not preempt it.

Economic Reasons for Birth Control/Frustrating Fecundity: “Hypocrisy at Its Zenith; Folly at Its Height” November 17, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, catachesis, contraception, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Interior Life, mortification, sadness, scandals, Society, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

That, according to Fr. Fulgence Meyer, OFM, from his 1920s treatise Plain Talks on Marriage.  Of course use of artificial contraception of any type is always and everywhere sinful.  Periodic abstinence can of course be practiced legitimately, but even here there are moral dangers, contrary to what far too many NFP promoters convey to their followers. While there may be occasional, and, according to Father, quite rare, family economic situations that couples may find themselves in, permitting them to engage in periodic abstinence to prevent reproduction, Fr. Meyer notes that the economic justifications for such are often self-serving and dominated by worldly, materialist concerns.  What is far more virtuous for Catholics to engage in, should circumstances force a perceived need to minimize the likelihood of reproduction, is total cessation from the marital act if at all possible, rather than recourse to periodic abstinence.  Of course, this must be agreed to by both parties to the marriage, and if periodic abstinence is all that can be withstood by one or both, they must of course keep the most open heart and soul towards any children that may still result.  I still believe, however, that some couples do make use of NFP in a way that is identical to contraception, and with the same overall intent.  But that may be getting a bit far afield.

Fr. Meyer presents a very compelling case for the mainstream of Catholic opinion on this subject in the first half of the 20th century, before much of the rot had risen to the surface and broken out into the open.  From pp. 83-87, cut and paste to make a concise point:

The economical reason is perhaps the most universally alleged justification for sinful birth control.  It is at the same time the most flimsy and hypocritical, and nowhere more so than in our country of great and splendid opportunities for making a living.  People say: “We want to give our children a good education.  Education costs money.  Our money will only erach for the education of one or two children.  it would therefore be folly and unfair to have more.”  Very well.  But conduct yourself accordingly, and practice virtuous abstinence while you desire no more children.  No matter to what schools and colleges they send them, parents, who through sinful and selfish prevention have but one or two children, give these children the worst possible education by their own unvirtuous conduct and godless selfishness.  They would do immensely better by their children, whether they have few or many, if they did their own duty to God conscientiously, and transmitted to their children this, the best element of true education, the fear of the Lord.

Large families thrive much better economically than small families. This is accounted for naturally……..and supernaturally, since God always provides for those who serve Him in truth and rely upon His fatherly providence.  Educationally, too, a child of a large family as a rule is better off for many reasons than the solitary child.  The best education of life is in its main elements obtained in the home.  At any rate, if selfish couples succeed in deceiving themselves with specious reasons, they must know that they will never deceive God, Who searches the heart and mind……..

What are the reasons of the spread of this moral cancer among our American Catholics?  One reason is the husband’s neglect of his duty to assert himself as, and actually to be, the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the Church.  The head should lead by superior intelligence and a higher sense of duty, instead of yielding in weak connivance or acquiescence when the woman feels, and winces under, the burdens of her sex and its responsibilities in married life, and directly or indirectly pleads for sinful consideration in asking her husband “to be careful” in the performance of the marriage act. [A clear reference to frustration by withdrawal, or limiting the act to less fertile times]  From the very beginning a Catholic man should set himself firmly against the very suggestion. He will be willing and glad, for good reasons, to observe continence to spare his wife; but he will never consent to any unnatural process of conjugal love.  Much less will he ever himself take the initiative in intimating or insinuating so wicked a conduct.  By weakly yielding to the suggestion and invitation of Eve, Adam brought a tremendous series of evils upon himself and her and all their descendants……

……In reality, however, man is probably as often, if not oftener than woman, the more guilty party in the sin of contraception.  Maybe it were more correct to say that the guilt is about equally divided. If so, it is a sign that they both are practically ignorant of the high privilege and inestimable distinction of parenthood.  This, more than anything else, accounts for the prevalence of the detestable  sin of the violation of nature in marriage.  If our Catholic husbands and wives truly recognized what it means to be a parent, they would never be tempted sinfully to shirk or evade their sacred responsibilities in marriage.  To be a parent means to be assumed by God as an active partner in the procreation of an immortal being, made after God’s own image and likeness, redeemed by the Precious Blood of His only begotten Son, and destined to shine before the throne of God in indescribable glory and blessedness throughout all the ages of eternity. [Conversely, those who embrace the contraceptive mentality, whether they use artificial contraception or not, on some level reject this beautiful theology of life just outlined by Fr. Meyer. They must, otherwise, they would not make use of the means they do to frustrate fecundity immorally]  But, for this parent, this being will never be called into existence to give glory to God, and enjoy God, forever and ever……[That’s a really beautiful point.  It is horrifying to consider how many billions of souls have been snuffed out of existence by chemical contraception, or never came into being at all through barrier or other means.  This country alone has been economically devastated by the lost tens of millions of souls who should have been born.]

…...If you then appear before the judgment seat of God with but one or two children, or even none at all, [Which some NFP advocates maintain is perfectly fine, to use periodic abstinence to prevent having any children] when, as you and  your partner enjoyed the privileges of married life, you should have had 6, 8, 10 or more; and the Judge asks you sternly: “Where are the rest?” – it will not avail you to answer, “Lord, I was the richest man in town, or the whole territory round about; I had the most sumptuous mansion, the finest automobiles, and the largest number of friends”……..All this will be futile over the cutting question of the Judge: “Where are the rest?”

Nor will you have the heart to advance as an excuse of your conduct the empty and futile pretexts of poverty, economic stress, disease and what not, with which you now try to ease and hush your conscience; for in the light of the omniscience of God all their hollowness and speciousness will be apparent and ghastly……..

……But if in judgment you can appear with all the children God gave you, and you can say in the words of Our Lord: “Of them whom Thou hast given me, I have not lost anyone” (Jn xviii:9); then no matter how poor and struggling you were on earth,how socially inconspicuous and politically obscure, the Judge will compliment you highly, and rewarded you amply, saying: “Well done, good and faithful servant: because thou hast been faithful over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord” (Mt xxv:23).

————-End Quote————–

I should stress in fairness, as Fr. Meyer does, that of course periodic abstinence done out of necessity and with a will open to having children should God provide them even during supposed periods of infertility can be morally acceptable, and often is.  But in this culture of diabolical narcissism and endless selfishness, I would simply caution that it is incredibly easy to fool oneself into concluding that what are actually prurient reasons for preventing children are morally justifiable.  The “default setting” for Catholics should be – totally contrary to what the culture tells us – be completely open to children throughout marriage, and take no steps to reduce or block fecundity if at all possible.  Some couples follow that precept and have only two or three kids – that’s perfectly fine, it’s what God willed for them. Others may have 9 or 10 or 15.  God knows what we need for our salvation, and what we can stand in terms of work or suffering, and will provide to us both in perfect measure.

I know this topic is probably preaching to the choir for readers of this blog, but perhaps you have some friends, family, or acquaintances with which you could share it.

 

Burke: If Francis Won’t “Clarify Serious Error,” Cardinals Must Take Corrective Action November 16, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Put another, less diplomatic way, what Cardinal Burke is essentially saying is that, if Francis will not abjure the errors, or, at the very least, extremely dubious assertions, of Amoris Laetitia, Burke and others will move to try to correct him according to canon law, which could include the convoking of a general council to make a judgment of the pope’s adherence to the Sacred Deposit of Faith.  I can’t imagine how that would play out in any way that would lead to a negative judgment against Francis, given the state of the Church today and with so many prelates clearly given over to his view of things, but it’s most definitely a very serious warning.  I can’t really even see a sufficient number of prelates to be in agreement with Burke and other more faithful bishops – which are not inconsiderable in number, but I would think far short of a majority – to even call a general council against the will of the pope.  The last time such a thing occurred there were kings and princes with the ability to summon councils, but such do not exist any more.

Nevertheless, the plot thickens, and significantly so:

After joining a group of four cardinals in releasing a call for Pope Francis to clarify grave errors in his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, Cardinal Raymond Burke has now indicated the cardinals are contemplating a “formal correction” should the pope fail to address their concerns.

The cardinals had written to the pope with their concerns on September 19, but after failing to receive a response for nearly two months, they released the letter publicly on Monday morning.

Now, in an interview with the National Catholic Register’s Ed Pentin, Burke discusses the next steps should the pope fail to address the cardinals’ concerns. Here is Pentin’s question and the cardinal’s response:

What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?

Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error. [So, Burke is claiming that Amoris Laetitia contains more than mere vague or confusing statements, but actually promotes and contains serious error.  In the history of the Church, there is only one means for dealing with those who persist in manifest, obdurate error (heresy) – and that is a declaration that they are outside the Church.  But such has never been formally declared of a reigning pontiff in the history of the Church, has it?]

Burke goes on to insist that in a case of conflict between the pope and Church Tradition, the Tradition is binding. “Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition,” Burke explains. “I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if ‘even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.’”

Historically, in the rare cases where popes have taught heresy, Burke explains, “It is the duty…, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.” [And on the rare instances this has occurred, the popes in question have, to a man, I believe, had the decency to abjure any errors they professed, or even contemplated, well before the issue got to the level of a formal rebuke.  Will such be the case with Francis?  The evidence we have to date is not terribly hopeful.]

The September 19 letter, signed by Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner, asked the pope 5 short questions which call for ‘yes or no’ answers that would immediately clarify the meaning of the confusion-plagued document on precisely those points where theologians, priests and even bishops have offered contradicting interpretations. [Hey, want to know some other documents where precisely the same confusion reigns, with even prelates taking completely contradictory stands?!?  How about Guadium Et Spes, Dignitatis Humanae, Nostra Aetate, etc.]

In the interview, Burke emphasizes that the cardinals have sought to act for “the good of the Church,” which, he says, “is suffering from a tremendous confusion” on the points they have raised especially. He notes, for example, that priests in different dioceses are being given contradictory directions on how to handle the question of access to Communion for those in adulterous unions. [Thus, does a practical schism not exist in the Church today?]

“We, as cardinals, judged it our responsibility to request a clarification with regard to these questions, in order to put an end to this spread of confusion that is actually leading people into error,” he says.

Again, I am heartened to see this, and it will be quite revealing to see this situation unfold.  Burke is getting very, very close to stating Francis formally promotes error.  Amazing. I pray that the Lord will give abundant strength to Burke, Meisner, Caffara, Brandmuller, and their allies. It is interesting that Cardinal Muller at the increasingly marginalized CDF has not responded, either.  For all those who have steadfastly maintained for  years that Francis hasn’t promoted any error, nor even made any significant failings of prudential judgment, I must wonder what they are thinking now?

I have been praying for some time that, should push ever come to shove like this, Francis would turn away from his seeming errors and return to the constant belief and practice of the Faith.  It’s a longshot, I know, but hope springs eternal.  The damage to the Church of a public trial of the pope’s belief – which, again, I can hardly believe would actually happen – would be immense.  But what alternative is there, if he keeps on this same course he has been pursuing for nearly 4 years?

It is truly heart-breaking that it has come to this.  What a nightmare, for the entire world.

What Used to Be Common, Expected, in the Church, Today is Unimaginable November 14, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, error, General Catholic, history, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Could you imagine finding a nearly full page ad for the Church in a major national weekly magazine, not only encouraging souls to become Catholic, but even arguing – if tacitly – for the Church as the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ?  Can you imagine a piece of evangelization produced by an institutional source like the Knights of Columbus making plain the Precept of the Faith to assist at Mass on Sunday in such a secular environment?

I bought a bound volume containing all issues of Newsweek for the first half of 1954.  About once a month, the ad below ran:

20161113_164153_001

Bringing out a bit of the text:

Catholics believe that Christ not only called upon us to honor and serve God…..but prescribed the ways in which we should do so.  He did not say how often we must go to church  [I disagree with this.  He did, Author/Inspiration of Sacred Scripture, command us to keep the Sabbath holy, every week]……….nor how many prayers we were to recite.  But He did establish a Church with the power and authority to carry on His work…..and He promised that His Church would last to the end of time-that it would have God’s protection in teaching all men to observe all things.  He had commanded, especially to believe and to be baptized and thereby become members of His Church to attain the purpose of their lives.

And how do Catholics know theirs is Christ’s Church?

Because it possesses the distinguishing marks Christ gave His Church. It covers the earth as Christ said it would.  Unchanged after nearly 2000 years, it continues to live and grow, in fulfilment of His promise that His Church would last to the end of the world.

But the most convincing mark that He gave it is its unity of faith, worship and obedience under the authority of the lawful and historical successor of Peter, the first Bishop of Rome and the “rock” upon which Christ built His Church.  Just as Peter was the first Pope and the first Vicar of Christ, so also is Pius XII the 262nd Pope and the Vicar of Christ today.

If you would like to know more……

First of all…..what effective catechesis and apologetics!  In a couple hundred words, hugely important and key truths of the Faith and brought out in a most convincing manner.  No wonder so many tens of thousands were converting the Church every year in this timeframe!  Geez, it’s almost like believing this Catholic stuff is actually good for winning over souls, rather than constantly apologizing for it (in a negative way), undermining it, and trying to explain it away.

Secondly…..how about the near total implosion of the unity of Faith that could, quite honestly, still be promoted in 1954?  Yes, there were seething currents of modernism and leftism hidden under the surface, but for most believers and those outside the Church, she still presented then a vibrant bastion of faith, truth, and morality.  That vibrant face attracted many millions before the Church began her program of self-demolition just a few years later, with the death of Pius XII.

Thirdly…..while it is not directly stated, it could be understood from the above that the Church is the ONLY TRUE Church.  I do think the wording regarding baptism could have been sharpened up, but we almost all have experience of just how embarrassing Catholics, leader and lay alike, would find even such hints at the Church’s unique, Christ-given role today.  Especially under Francis, but going back decades, such clarion calls to the necessity of conversion through baptism and then membership in Christ’s Church for salvation have been notably absent.  Concomitant with that absence has been the near total implosion of the Church’s evangelization efforts, the hemorrhaging of souls, and the rise of all kinds of errors and demonic sects.

Again, it is important to notice the context: this was not an advertisement in a spiritual magazine, or a mid-50s copy of America (even then, not so spiritual), or anything of the sort, where one might expect a bit more direct language.  This was in a liberal-leaning (at that time) secular magazine.  We haven’t seen anything like this in decades.  And that sums up the crisis in the Faith in very stark terms.

Local Boy with Disfiguring Disease Refuses Surgery….. November 11, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Dallas Diocese, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Latin Mass, manhood, mortification, persecution, sadness, sanctity, Society, Virtue.
comments closed

…….so he won’t lose his smile.  This is a bit different for me, but we’ve seen this family around occasionally at Mater Dei and while I’ve never had the opportunity to speak with them, their story is quite inspirational.

Ethan D’Amato was born in 2003 with obvious defects.  He was diagnosed with neurofibromatosis type 1, which causes tumors to grow on nerve endings on his face.  He lost his right eye and obviously has some disfigurement of his face. But he refused surgery to remove the tumors because it likely would have left part of his face paralyzed and left him unable to smile.

He has received a fair amount of media coverage but I had never heard of him until earlier this week.  There is a Youtube channel dedicated to sharing aspects of his life and helping spread awareness of this disease.  There is also a GoFundMe page which I think is still active.  Apparently the boy has experienced bullying or negative reactions caused by his appearance, which is a tragedy but typical of human nature.

Some videos on his situation and experience below:

One way we’ve seen Ethan around Mater Dei is through violin practice he takes there.  He’s quite a good violinist for his age:

Not sure if I can get this video to load.  Not a big fan of Maury Povich or any shows of that type, but here is some background on the bullying Ethan has suffered:

That’s an inspiring boy and family.  I commend them for their faith in our Lord and trust in His will.  That is a heavy cross to bear.  I don’t know if I would bear up under that load as well as they seem to.  God bless them.

Shoot, I meant to include this prayer in the post.  Updating now.  A prayer to Our Mother of Sorrows composed by Pope Pius XII:

O clement and pious Mother, whose soul was pierced by the Sword of Sorrow, behold us poor sick beside you on the Calvary of your Jesus.

We, chosen for the sublime grace of suffering and desirous of fulfilling also in our own flesh that which is wanting in the Passion of Christ, for that body of His which is the Church, consecrate to you our persons and our sufferings, so that you may offer them both on the altar of the Cross of your Divine Son as the humble victims of propitiation for our spiritual well-being and that of our brothers.

Accept, O Sorrowful Mother, this our dedication and confirm in our hearts the great hope that, as we share the sufferings of Christ, we may thus share in His comfort here and in eternity.  Amen.