Saturday, 30 June
Vigil of Sunday
05:30 pm — LEO FULGINITI
by Mimi, Mike and Eddie Sincavage

Sunday, 01 July
13th Sunday in Ordinary Time)
11:30 am — JAMES LANGON
by Henry and Eileen Wayne

Monday, 02 July
by Dolores Pitts

Tuesday, 03 July
St. Thomas, apostle (Fst)
by Jean Birster Weist

Wednesday, 04 July
St. Elizabeth of Portugal (OptMem)
by his wife, Alice

Thursday, 05 July
St. Anthony Mary Zaccaria, priest (OptMem)
by Jerome and Marie Gilmartin

Friday, 06 July
St. Maria Goretti, virgin, martyr (OptMem)
08:00 am — WILLIAM DeLUCA (34th anniversary)
by Celeste

Saturday, 07 July
08:00 am — Deceased: StJosPar MEMORIAL SOCIETY
by StJosPar
Vigil of Sunday
by Butch and Mary Jane Ritzo

Sunday, 08 July
14th Sunday in Ordinary Time)
by the Catizone family


Saturday, 30 June
Vigil of Sunday
by Uncle Kelly, Aunt Sharon, cousins Kelly, Tara and Mitchell

Sunday, 01 July
13th Sunday in Ordinary Time)
by the McKeown family

Monday, 02 July
07:00 pm — Health and God’s blessings: TOM BERNOTAS
by Bernie Yackera

Tuesday, 03 July
St. Thomas, apostle (Fst)
08:00 am — God’s blessings: SISTER MARY RAYMOND, OP
by her Mom and Dad

Wednesday, 04 July
St. Elizabeth of Portugal (OptMem)
07:00 pm — DAN WOZNISKY
by OPM

Thursday, 05 July
St. Anthony Mary Zaccaria, priest (OptMem)
06:30 pm — Deceased: HOLY ROSARY SOCIETY
by the HRS

Friday, 06 July
St. Maria Goretti, virgin, martyr (OptMem)
(9th anniversary – 03 July)
by her son, Edmund

Saturday, 07 July
Vigil of Sunday
by Josette Machese

Sunday, 08 July
14th Sunday in Ordinary Time)
08:30 am — Deceased: HOLY NAME SOCIETY
by the HNS

stjos/stvdp: 07.01.2012 - 01

23 / 24 June

Saint Joseph Parish
Receipts for parish purposes: : $585.00 from the Sunday envelopes; $77.50 from the second collection (plate); $31.00 from the Dues envelopes; $11.00 from the Building maintenance envelopes; $80.00 from the loose.
Total: $784.50
Receipts for non-parish purposes: — $20.00 from the Peter’s Pence envelopes —
Analysis: When one deducts from the total of the receipts for parish purposes ($784.50) our weekly financial obligation to the Diocese, i.e. assessments ($329.54), plus our weekly premium for property and casualty insurance ($464.00), plus our weekly subsidy to Trinity Academy ($358.17), the sum total of which is $1,151.17, one sees that ($366.67) is available from this collection for operating the parish. THIS IS A DEFICIT!

Saint Vincent DePaul Parish:
Receipts for parish purposes: $668.00 from the Sunday envelopes; $80.00 from the second collection (plate); $5.00 from the Dues envelopes; $71.00 from the loose.
Total: $824.00
Receipts for non-parish purposes: — 0 —
Analysis: When one deducts from the total of the receipts for parish purposes ($824.00) our weekly financial obligation to the Diocese, i.e. assessments ($229.38), plus our weekly premium for property and casualty insurance ($282.46), plus our weekly subsidy to Trinity Academy ($250.98), the sum total of which is $762.82, one sees that $61.18 is available from this collection for operating the parish.


Wednesday, 04 July
02:30 to 03:30 pm
St. Vincent dePaul Church

Thursday, 05 July
05:30 to 06:30 pm
St. Vincent dePaul Church

Friday, 06 July
06:30 to 07:30 pm
St. Joseph Chapel


Wednesday, 04 July
02:00 to 04:00 pm
St. Vincent dePaul Church
Scripture Rosary at about 03:40 pm, followed by Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament

Friday, 06 July
06:00 to 08:00 pm
St. Joseph Chapel
Vespers at about 07:30 pm, followed by Chaplet of Divine Mercy,
concluding with Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament

I THOUGHT ABOUT CHANGING the Exposition / Confession from Wednesday to Tuesday this week because Wednesday is the Fourth of July. Then I thought, “No, I think I’ll keep it on Wednesday. Independence Day is the perfect day for special prayer for the United States of America.” So, if you can pull yourself away (even if it’s for just a few minutes) from the firecrackers, the hamburgers, hot dogs and ginger ale, and from the swimming pool on the Fourth, why not stop in to church and ask the Lord Jesus to help our beloved and endangered nation?

stjos/stvdp: 07.01.2012 - 02


The following appeared in the 29 June edition of THUNDER / ENLIGHTNING, the popular “call-in / don’t give your name / sound-off” feature in the Pottsville Republican.

To the Catholic Church: If you look in the Bible at 1 Timothy 3, it says your pastor and his wife should be fine, upstanding citizens and their children well disciplined. The Catholic priests should be married, but Catholics aren't living by the Bible. They make their own rules. They don't want to pay for hospitalization and housing of large families. That's why their church is crumbling.                                         Frackville

Pottsville Republican Commentator: Churches have diminishing memberships because they have failed to adjust. Look in the pews on a Sunday morning. All the hair is white and it has nothing to do with hospitalization or housing large families, which quite frankly doesn't make any sense.

My comment on the above
For the sake of those who are not devout readers of Thunder / Enlightning, the “Commentator” is an anonymous functionary who performs a useful (sometimes acerbic but frequently entertaining) function. Often, but not always, he comments on what people have to say when they call in. Let me comment first on the Commentator’s comment and then get down to the main event.
The Commentator says that churches have diminishing memberships “because they have failed to adjust”. I am suspicious of the hidden agenda of those who suggest that the Church has to “adjust”. “Adjust to what?” I ask myself (and anyone who happens to be standing around). “Adjust to cynicism? Adjust to loss of the Faith? Adjust to the sexual revolution? Adjust to the demand that entertainment be substituted for authentic divine worship? Adjust to the spirit of the age? Adjust to endemic ADHD?” If congregants have become customers and if priests have become retailers, then please stop this bus and let me off!” That’s the End of my Rant!
But now onto more important matters: The caller says that “Catholics aren’t living by the Bible” and he offers as evidence the third chapter of First Timothy and what it has to say about the qualifications of “pastors”. The caller interprets that chapter as saying that God wants the clergy to be married! Hogwash and Fiddlesticks!
Who wrote First Timothy? Answer: Saint Paul wrote First Timothy. Was Paul married? No, Paul was not married. So, how could Paul, the pastor par excellence of the Gentiles and a dedicated celibate, tell Timothy that pastors must be married? Does that make sense? I think not! I could stop right there and say, “The defense rests. The jury may retire and consider its verdict!”
But let’s not stop there. Let’s realize the situation in the very early Church. Things were just getting under way. It was perfectly normal and to be expected that married men would be ordained to the ministries of episkopos (bishop) and diakonos (deacon).
(Note: It seems that what we today call “priests” were not immediately distinguished in the first century from those we today call “bishops”. So, what Paul writes about “bishops” would be equally applicable to “priests”.)
Taking the situation as it actually was at the time, Paul lays down a caution: A man who has been married more than once ought not be ordained to the ministry! In other words, if a widower were to have re-married, he ought not be ordained to the ministry. And, if a man had been divorced and re-married, he ought not be ordained to the ministry! We see in this that, already in the first generation of the Church, there was building up a preferential option for bishops and priests who were free from the obligations of wife and children. Indeed, when we read 1 Corinthians 7, we find that Paul is recommending (although not commanding) the state of celibacy for those to whom the Lord gives the grace of perfect continence. So, any attempt to interpret the third chapter of First Timothy as a forbidding of clerical celibacy is utter nonsense. But that’s what happens when you take the Bible away from the Church. You wind up talking nonsense!

stjos/stvdp:07.01.2012 - 03


Your Holiness, we know that all human beings end up either in Heaven or Hell, depending on whether they choose to cooperate with God's grace and die in his friendship. What role is there, then, for Purgatory?
For those who find themselves in a condition of being open to God, but still imperfectly, the journey towards full beatitude requires a purification, which the faith of the Church illustrates in the doctrine of 'Purgatory' (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1030-1032).

What Scriptural principles back this up?
In Sacred Scripture, we can grasp certain elements that help us to understand the meaning of this doctrine, even if it is not formally described.
They express the belief that we cannot approach God without undergoing some kind of purification.
According to Old Testament religious law, what is destined for God must be perfect.
As a result, physical integrity is also specifically required for the realities which come into contact with God at the sacrificial level such as, for example, sacrificial animals (cf. Lv 22:22) or at the institutional level, as in the case of priests or ministers of worship (cf. Lv 21:17-23).
Total dedication to the God of the Covenant, along the lines of the great teachings found in Deuteronomy (cf. 6:5), and which must correspond to this physical integrity, is required of individuals and society as a whole (cf. 1 Kgs 8:61).
It is a matter of loving God with all one's being, with purity of heart and the witness of deeds (cf. ibid., 10:12f.)
The need for integrity obviously becomes necessary after death, for entering into perfect and complete communion with God.
Those who do not possess this integrity must undergo purification. This is suggested by a text of St Paul.
The Apostle speaks of the value of each person's work which will be revealed on the day of judgment and says:
"If the work which any man has built on the foundation [which is Christ] survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:14-15).

One of the Church's teachings is that we can help those in Purgatory, such as by our prayers or by having Masses said for them. Are there Scriptural principles that back this up as well?
At times, to reach a state of perfect integrity a person's intercession or mediation is needed.
For example, Moses obtains pardon for the people with a prayer in which he recalls the saving work done by God in the past, and prays for God's fidelity to the oath made to his ancestors (cf. Ex 32:30, 11-13).
The figure of the Servant of the Lord, outlined in the Book of Isaiah, is also portrayed by his role of intercession and expiation for many; at the end of his suffering he 'will see the light' and 'will justify many', bearing their iniquities (cf. Is 52:13-53, 12, especially vv. 53:11).
Psalm 51 can be considered, according to the perspective of the Old Testament, as a synthesis of the process of reintegration: the sinner confesses and recognizes his guilt (v. 3), asking insistently to be purified or 'cleansed' (vv. 2, 9, 10, 17) so as to proclaim the divine praise (v. 15)

Sometimes our Protestant brethren argue that Purgatory dismisses the role of Christ. What role does Jesus himself have here?
In the New Testament Christ is presented as the intercessor who assumes the functions of high priest on the day of expiation (cf. Heb 5:7; 7:25).
But in him the priesthood is presented in a new and definitive form. He enters the heavenly shrine once and for all, to intercede with God on our behalf (cf. Heb 9:23-26, especially, v. 24). He is both priest and 'victim of expiation' for the sins of the whole world (cf. 1 Jn 2:2).
Jesus, as the great intercessor who atones for us, will fully reveal himself at the end of our life when he will express himself with the offer of mercy, but also with the inevitable judgment for those who refuse the Father's love and forgiveness.
This offer of mercy does not exclude the duty to present ourselves to God, pure and whole, rich in that love which Paul calls a '[bond] of perfect harmony' (Col 3:14).

Sometimes people feel that if they can just get into Purgatory--and thus be assured Heaven--that will be "enough." Should we settle for this minimalist attitude?
In following the Gospel exhortation to be perfect like the Heavenly Father (cf. Mt 5:48) during our earthly life, we are called to grow in love, to be sound and flawless before God the Father 'at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints' (1 Thes 3:12f.).
Moreover, we are invited to 'cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit' (2 Cor 7:1; cf. 1 Jn3:3), because the encounter with God requires absolute purity.
Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected.
Purification must be complete, and indeed this is precisely what is meant by the Church's teaching on Purgatory.

Is Purgatory a place?
The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence.
Those who, after death, exist in a state of purification, are already in the love of Christ who removes from them the remnants of imperfection (cf. Ecumenical Council of Florence, Decretum pro Graecis: DS 1304; Ecumenical Council of Trent, Decretum de iustificatione: DS 1580;Decretum de purgatorio: DS 1820).

Is Purgatory a second chance that we get after death, to keep us from going to Hell?
It is necessary to explain that the state of purification is not a prolongation of the earthly condition, almost as if after death one were given another possibility to change one's destiny.
The Church's teaching in this regard is unequivocal and was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council which teaches:
"Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed (cf. Heb 9:27), we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where ‘men will weep and gnash their teeth'” (Mt 22:13 and 25:30)" (Lumen gentium, n. 48).
Thank you, Your Holiness.

Note: The answers in this “interview” are authentic statements of Blessed Pope John Paul II. The placing of these statements in the form of an interview format is a literary device constructed by apologist Jimmy Akin.

stjos/stvdp: 07.01.2012 - 04 / 05


It’s still a little over five years away, but October of 2017 will be the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s break from Rome, a break usually called the Reformation, but what was in reality actually a revolt — as in revolution.
Luther had some serious and genuine concerns about corruption, both financial and spiritual, in the Church of the 16th century but, true to form of all egomaniacs, threw the baby out with the bathwater.
The Augustinian priest went from raiser of legitimate concerns to destroyer of the unity of the Faith in just a few short years, leaving in his wake these past five centuries, hundreds and hundreds of millions and millions deprived of the glory and grace flowing from the sacraments of the One True Church established by Jesus Christ. In short, he tore Christendom asunder.
So why are we talking about this now, five years early? Because this man (see photo), Cardinal Kurt Koch, has said publicly — just a few weeks ago — that he refuses to celebrate the anniversary of the so-called Reformation. He has said it will be nothing more than “a remembrance of the Reformation” and (pay close attention to this) because “We cannot celebrate sin!”
Did we mention that Cardinal Koch is not just any plain old, every day, run-of-the-mill Cardinal, but is the head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. So, his statement takes on an even greater importance, considering his role in the Curia — the Church’s internal government of which the Pope is supreme. It’s been a long time since you’ve heard that kind of straight talk about Protestantism.
Imagine coming out and actually saying for the whole world to hear: The Reformation and its effects are a sin. And, what’s more, he added that he is fully aware that his comments could be branded as anti-ecumenical. So, obviously, despite the possibility of such backlash, he doesn’t care AND good for him! Who cares what a bunch of deceptive-minded Modernists will caterwaul about?
What is Protestantism? It’s a huge collection of various ideologies and personal opinions about Jesus Christ and what He said and did and how that impacts people today and in eternity.
And, except for the parts taken from the Catholic Church — like the teaching that God is a Trinity, Jesus is God, He was born of the Virgin Mary was crucified and rose from the dead — much of the rest of it is wrong, just flat out wrong.
From the monumentally ridiculous teaching that Scripture interprets itself to the utter denial of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, as well as a huge number of other essential teachings, Protestantism strikes out at every level — every level which it did NOT take from Rome.
Consider this simple story. I was talking with a Protestant preacher at a radio studio a couple of years ago and he said what’s important is that the followers of Jesus agree on the — what he called ESSENTIALS. The “non-essentials”, as he termed them, didn’t matter. That statement is ludicrous, and can’t come close to being supported logically. Why?
Because of one simple philosophical point: Who determines what’s essential and what’s non-essential?
But there’s more! His statement implies that there are things which the Son of God taught which are NOT essential. Anyone want to take a crack at that? So I asked him exactly what things did Jesus teach that were non-essential.
He responded, “divorce and re-marriage for example”. SERIOUSLY?!?! That is one of the most idiotic responses one could offer and one which makes you wonder if he has the same Bible as we do. Oh wait! Thanks to Martin Luther, he doesn’t. This is one up close and personal reason why Cardinal Koch is right and there is no reason to have a party over the so-called Reformation.
The Church has undergone reformation plenty of times. Some might even suggest that there is a reformation of sorts beginning now as a backlash to a century-plus of Modernism run amok.
But every meaningful reform of the Church happens from INSIDE the Church, not outside and that means ALWAYS remaining in the ship, staying in the barque of Peter.
And this is why this battle must be fought, because it is a battle over truth, and Jesus Christ is the truth. This impoverished soul, who understand himself to be right in line with what Christ taught, couldn’t be further from the truth. And when you further consider that he is looked to as a spiritual “expert” and that he counsels people that God doesn’t care about divorce, that it’s “non-essential”, you don’t need to have the mind of a Doctor of the Church to imagine the impending catastrophe down the road.
Thanks to Martin Luther, we don’t have to imagine it. To perhaps paraphrase the Cardinal: Nothing to see here, folks! The party’s over! Move along! - Michael Voris -

stjos/stvdp: 07.01.2012 - 06

This is an email exchange I had with a friend of mine. (I won’t mention his name.) He is alarmed that the ruling that upheld Obamacare is a prelude to a ruling that will establish “gay marriage” as the law of the land! Given the current make-up of the Court, I think that this is unlikely, although I think it could very well happen if the balance of the Court swings leftward in the near future. This is a distinct possibility, depending on who makes the appointments in the next few years.
Dear Fr. Connolly:
Now I am even more certain that the Roberts Court will rule in support of homosexual marriage in the next two to three years. The DOMA and the California Proposition 8 are in the courts somewhere and it will probably come from there.
Roberts has already ruled in favor of homosexual marriage in the District of Columbia. As you know, Congress has the right to override any law in the city within 30 days of it being passed by the city council. When the city passed its gay marriage law, Congress did not act. When Roberts was asked to intervene and put it "on hold" so the people could vote on a referendum on it, Roberts refused. Previously, the city council had voted that nothing in its Human Rights Act can be subject to a referendum. However, the city charter does not limit the power of referendum so, legally, the gay marriage law SHOULD have been subject to a referendum.
I suspect, when gay marriage gets to the Supreme Court, Roberts will simply see it as a matter of "states must recognize the acts of other state courts." A marriage lawfully contracted in one state must be recognized by all other states and the federal government. I think they will rule 6 - 3 on that. It will be Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Roberts against Scalia, Thomas and Alito. The latter three will vote against it, citing ancient common law and cultural definitions of marriage as between a man and a woman, states' rights or some such combination of conservative ideas.
I don't think, however, that there will be an absolute statement that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex. That will be left to individual states. However, it will be mostly meaningless if it is left to states to define marriage if they must recognize other states’ marriages. In time, then, lower courts will whittle away at any distinctions, ruling them discriminatory and the issue will not go back up to the Supreme Court.
I should think this will happen in the summer of 2014.
Dear XXX:

Despite the accurate information you cite in your email, I am not ready to give up on Chief Justice Roberts — not by a long shot!
My reasons: (a) It seems to me that the Constitution of the USA does not have ANYTHING to say, one way or the other, about the NATURE of marriage and (b) John Roberts is acting like a strict constructionist, which is what we conservatives have been saying all along is what we want a Supreme Court Justice to be.
I think the following words of the Chief Justice (in his majority opinion on Obamacare) are powerful and insightful:
“Members of the Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
Please understand me when I say that I believe that two men have the CONSTITUTIONAL right to “marry” one another. The Constitution permits whatever it does not explicitly forbid!!! (No, I guarantee you, I have not lost either my mind or my morals or my religion!) Quite obviously, I am not saying that two men have the MORAL right to do so.
It is PERMANENTLY and IMMUTABLY contrary to MORAL law for two men to “marry” one another.
But, as far as two men having the LEGAL right to do so, all I can say is that this is up to the people of each of the fifty states to decide via their elected representatives. If a state decides to grant the LEGAL right for two men to “marry” one another, it does so at its peril — and at the peril of all of the other states in the Union.
The Chief Justice may be wiser than we think. He is being “conservative” inasmuch as he recognizes the limitations on judicial power, even the judicial power of the Supreme Court! For this, we can be grateful. He refuses to provide a “quick fix” to the idiocies either of Congress or of state legislatures — or of the DC City Council, all of whose members are elected by the people of the District.
You mention the “full faith and credit” provision of the Constitution. Here are the words of that provision (Article Four):
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”
It seems clear to me, then, that if Massachusetts says that John and Harry are a married couple, then, if John and Harry move to Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania must recognize that John and Harry are a married couple! __________
We have to recognize that we brought this disaster upon ourselves way back in 1787 when Pennsylvania entered into federal union with Massachusetts! Never in their wildest dreams did Jimmy Madison and the rest of the lads in Philadelphia ever anticipate that any of the states, present or future, would ever legalize the marriage of John and Harry! The only way out of this dilemma is a Constitutional amendment, not simply a Defense of Marriage Act. Constitutional amendments are hard to come by. The only other way out of this dilemma would be secession from the Union. But ever since I was a little boy, I have been pledging allegiance to “the Flag of the United States of America” and to “one nation under God, indivisible, etc.” And, as you know, secession was tried once before. You know how that worked out! I’m not in favor of secession but, if things continue the way they have been going, I could be persuaded otherwise. If we’re not under God, maybe it’s best that we be divisible.

stjos/stvdp: 07.01.2012 - 07

JOSEPH PAUL WOMER Sr. died suddenly on Tuesday, 26 June. Many of us in Girardville knew him as “Jiffy Joe” — the man who owned and operated the JIFFY MART on North 2nd Street. Some of his friends knew him by his nickname, “Horse”. All of us were surprised and saddened when we heard that he had died. He was only 53 years old.
Joe is a son of the late Raymond and Mary (Coldren) Womer. He has four children: Joseph P. Womer Jr.; Austin R. Womer; Kelly (Heck) Cortes; Tia Caruso. He has one brother and three sisters: Harry Haldeman; Mary (Womer) Purcell; Barbara (Haldeman) Tokarick; Dorothy (Haldeman) Schane. He has four grandchildren: Vincent Caruso; Jaytia Jenkins; Kaiden Eminhizer; Kael Eminhizer.
All of the above will miss him, as will his many friends. His customers will miss him as well.
We pray for Joe, that the Lord Jesus will find a place for him in His Heart.
We remind the Lord that Joe was kind to the poor.
Funeral services were held on Saturday, 30 June, at the Walukiewicz–Oravitz–Fell Funeral Home in Shenandoah.
Eternal rest grant unto Joseph, O Lord, and let the perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.
THANK YOU to Bob Getzey and son, Ian, for a job well done. The two of them did a neat job cementing the broken curbing at the corner of 2nd and “C” Streets, on the side of St. Vincent dePaul Church. I think, to be technical about it, the curbing is the responsibility of the borough, but our borough work crews have more than enough “things to fix”. It’s always good when private citizens see something that needs to be fixed and then fix it!
I JUST HAD A GREAT THOUGHT! (I get a great thought every once in a great while!) Actually, I had this thought a while back, but it seems more appropriate now to share this thought than it did a few months ago.
Let me preface the “great thought” with a question: As of right now, who is the most despised person in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? Not only “despised” but “indisputably guilty of doing the deeds that have earned him the title of ‘most despised’”? Would you say, “I think that might be Jerry Sandusky!”
You know what? I agree with you! I think you’re right on target!
Jerry Sandusky has got to be the most despised person — at least currently — not only in Pennsylvania, but throughout the USA! However, these distinctions don’t last indefinitely. Eventually, someone else will take his place. It’s hard to stay on top! But Jerry will always be on the list.
Now, what’s the point of mentioning this in the parish bulletin?
Here is the point: I remember reading somewhere — probably in the Bible and the Catechism and some spiritual books — and I remember hearing somewhere — in some of those umpteen million homilies I have heard in my life — that it is a distinctive mark of CHRISTIANS to pray for the most despised people on the planet.
So, I have already prayed for Jerry Sandusky and I plan to do so again and probably again.
I would like Jerry to use whatever time he has left in this life (he is 68 years old) to “get right with God” by means of an Act of Perfect Contrition. (Too bad he’s not a Catholic. If he were, he could go to Confession.) I would like to think that when Jerry checks out — as we must all eventually check out — he will go back to God for a kind and merciful judgment. I would like Jerry to wind up in Heaven. This might very well require a detour through Purgatory but, of course, if Jerry is wise, he will make his imprisonment a kind of prep for Purgatory. It might be hard for a former defensive coach to drop his defenses but it is only by dropping one’s defenses that one will ever see God face to face.
Would everyone please say at least one “Hail Mary” for Jerry Sandusky? Do it now while it’s fresh in your mind!

I would like our two parishes to be involved in selling BOYER’S SUPERMARKET CERTIFICATES!
This is an easy and painless way for us to raise a few dollars.
In order to do this efficiently, we need parishioners to volunteer to sell them.
They can be sold in the back of the church and people can always come to StVdP Rectory in order to buy them.
The concept is as simple as pie! You give us twenty dollars. We give you a certificate worth twenty dollars. You use it at Boyer’s precisely as you would use cash. If you are willing to be a seller, would you call the Rectory?

stjos/stvdp: 07.01.2012 - 08

StJoseph Mass Schedule | StVincent Mass Schedule

Sacrament of Penance | Related Links

Web Site designed, donated & maintained by BackDoor Web Design

Disclaimer and Terms of Use