Saturday, 19 April
Vigil of Sunday
4:30 p.m. - ANTHONY J. LUPPINO (55th anniversary of wedding)
by his wife, Mary

Sunday, 20 April
5th Sunday of Easter:
7:45 a.m. - MARION, VINCENZO and ANTHONY CODY
by James Cody
10:45 a.m. - IRENE ROEDING KREIGER STECKLEY
by her friend, Vicki LaPlaca Hoffecker

Monday, 21 April
St. Anselm, bishop, doctor (OptMem)
12:05 p.m. - DECEASED MEMBERS: MICHAEL and MARY BARONE FAMILY
by Abe and Kay

Tuesday, 22 April
Easter Weekday
12:05 p.m. - JOSEPH A. FABIANI
by John and Gloria Barnetsky
7:00 p.m. - God's Blessings on AMELIA MORRIS STAGLIANO LUPPINO
by St. Joseph Parish Women's Guild

Wednesday, 23 April
St. George, martyr; St. Adalbert, bishop, martyr (OptMems)
12:05 p.m. - JOSEPH A. PALKO and JOANNE PALKO BACH
by their wife / mother, Carmella

Thursday, 24 April
St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen, priest, martyr (OptMem)
12:05 p.m. - ANNA MARTINKO PADINSKE
by Francis A. ["Herb"] Tamburelli
7:00 p.m. - ANDREW J. FEELEY (anniversary of birth)
by his sister, Patti Feeley Garland

Friday, 25 April
St. Mark, evangelist (Fst)
12:05 p.m. - ANNA MARTINKO PADINSKE
by St. Joseph Parish Women's Guild

Saturday, 26 April
Easter Weekday
8:00 a.m. - PETER G. and HELENE C. (Cooch) ALONGE
by their children: Patti and Robert
Vigil of Sunday
4:30 p.m. - VERONICA J. KEVY
(1st anniversary)
by Rev. Christopher J. Butera

Sunday, 27 April
6th Sunday of Easter:
7:45 a.m. - LEONARD D. PASCUZZO
by Albert and Martha and family
10:45 a.m. - RALPH OWENS
(41st anniversary)
by Kitty Owens DiCello

Saint Joseph Parish
$1,175.00 from the envelopes and $95.00 from the plate. Thank you.
When one deducts from the sum of these two figures, $1,270.00 the parish's weekly financial obligation to the Diocese, i.e. assessments, $410.08 plus the weekly premiums for property and liability insurance, $160.01, the sum of which is $570.09, plus its weekly obligation to All Saints School, $941.06 the sum total of which is $1,511.15, one sees that ($241.15) of this collection is available for operating the parish. This is a deficit!

Saint Francis deSales Parish
$126.00 from the envelopes and $50.50 from the plate. Thank you.
When one deducts from the sum of these two figures, $176.50 the parish's weekly financial obligation to the Diocese, i.e. assessments, $46.15 plus the weekly premiums for property and liability insurance, $60.67, the sum of which is $106.82, plus its weekly obligation to All Saints School, $188.21, the sum total of which is $295.03, one sees that ($118.53) of this collection is available for operating the parish. This is a deficit!

THE SANCTUARY LAMP LAMP is offered, during the week of 20 - 26 April, in loving memory of Anthony J. Luppino, at the request of his wife, Mary - with warm recollection of the day of their wedding, fifty-five years ago.

THE CATHOLIC VOTER
When deciding for whom to cast one's ballot, it is important to recognize that the following five issues are non-negotiable:

Generally speaking, a Catholic cannot in good conscience support a candidate for public office who is on the wrong side of any of these issues.
However, it happens not infrequently that a Catholic voter finds that there is no viable candidate who is on the right side of all of these issues. [Such a situation will surely present itself in the presidential election in November of 2008.]
In that case, what should the Catholic voter do?
Some say that the Catholic voter should leave that part of the ballot unmarked or else vote for "none of the above".
My advice is this: Rather than forfeit one's vote entirely, it is better to vote for the candidate who is the "least bad" on the issues.
Reason: "Doing something" is better than "doing nothing". It is better to "do something" to try to minimize evil than to decline to get one's hands dirty by voting for a candidate who is less than 100% on the non-negotiable issues.
We are called upon to be strategic in such matters. Like doves, simple; like serpents, prudent!

Candidates marked with an asterisk (*) are considered to be at least generally sympathetic to pro-life issues, even if, in some cases - lamentably - one or more might deviate from pro-life principles.
Politics is, after all, the art of compromise.

You will also see twenty-six other names - candidates for Delegate to the Republican National Convention (17th District) and Alternate Delegate to the Republican National Convention (17th District) and Member of Republican State Committee.
I have no solid information about how any of these stand on pro-life / pro-family issues.

Candidates marked with an asterisk (*) are considered to be at least generally sympathetic to pro-life issues, even if, in some cases - lamentably - one or more might deviate from pro-life principles.
Politics is, after all, the art of compromise.

You will also see ten other names - candidates for Delegate to the Democratic National Convention (17th District) and Alternate Delegate to the Democratic National Convention (17th District). All of these are pledged either to Senator Obama or to Senator Clinton, both of whom are pro-abortion.

Abortion Advocates Hold Up Congressional Resolution Honoring Pope Benedict

by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Pope Benedict XVI is receiving bipartisan praise and support for his visit to the United States and his advocacy of human rights. However, that spirit of unity wasn't enough to trump old fashioned abortion politics in the U.S. Senate as abortion advocates held up a resolution to honor the pope.
Sen. Sam Brownback, a leading pro-life Catholic lawmaker, introduced what would normally be a non-controversial Senate resolution to honor someone.
The measure included praise for Pope Benedict's heartfelt position advocating the Catholic Church's teachings in respect for human life and against abortion and anti-life bioethics practices.
"Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life," the draft originally said.
The words were too much for Sen. Barbara Boxer who objected to the pro-life language and single-handedly held up the resolution welcoming the pontiff.
The Senate only approved the resolution after Brownback withdrew the pro-life language and the lawmaker had to text his staff to tell them to drop the pro-life wording from the resolution they were slated to present to Pope Benedict.
"There was some politics involved here, and the objectionable language has been withdrawn," a senior Democratic Senate aide told Politico.
A Boxer spokeswoman eventually said, "we are very pleased we were able to reach an agreement with Senator Brownback to remove the political language and pass this resolution welcoming Pope Benedict."

My comment
To: The Honorable Barbara Boxer
From: Father Edward B. Connolly
Re: your intervention in the matter referenced above
Dear Senator Boxer:
You know what you are, Barbara? You're a real sweetheart! You're a 100% genuine honest-to-goodness All American Sweetheart! That's what you are!
Thank you so much for your vigilance in the cause of death and for your enthusiastic dedication to preserving our constitutional right to kill our babies!
Did I tell you what a sweetheart you are?

THAT SINS MAY - OR MIGHT - BE FORGIVEN?

A woman asked me a question recently.
She said that she occasionally attends Mass in a church where the priest, when he consecrates the wine, says:

Notice the word "might". (I underlined it on purpose.)

The woman noted that in every other church, when she goes to Mass, she hears the priest say:

She wanted to know which is correct or if both are correct and she wanted to know whether, if "might" is incorrect, the validity of the consecration is questionable.
The simple and uncomplicated answer is this:
"So that sins might be forgiven" is incorrect, for the very simple reason that it is a departure from the approved text.
"So that sins may be forgiven" is correct, for the very simple reason that it is in conformity with the approved text.
As to whether the substitution of "might" for "may" renders the consecration of the wine invalid, I can only say that I don't really know. Probably it does not. On the other hand, it certainly renders it questionable and ought not be done, if for no other reason than admiratio populi --- i.e. it confuses people.

When it comes to The Words of Institution (i.e. the Sacred Words pronounced over the Bread and the Wine at the Consecration) MIGHT cannot be substituted for MAY without doing significant harm to the meaning.
We should take a look at the Latin formula. This is the gold standard, against which all translations into any vernacular must be measured.

We notice that the Latin says "for (or unto) the remission of sins". It is clear-cut and unambiguous. No condition is implied.
It is my opinion that those responsible for translating the Mass into English would have saved us all a lot of trouble if they had given us a more literal translation of the Words of Institution, instead of trying to be colloquial. If they had, then we would be hearing something like this: "It will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins."
(Notice "many" instead of "all". But that is another story for another day!)
MAY and MIGHT are often interchangeable in informal speech. However, when it comes to formal speech, MIGHT usually implies a certain tenuousness or uncertainty or doubt.
This is especially true when one is referring to an action in the future. When Jesus was speaking the words over the chalice, He was speaking about something - the shedding of His Blood - that had not yet happened but would happen and about the effect of this shedding of His Blood until the end of time. So, Jesus was speaking about two separate but related future events (the shedding and the forgiving).
But Jesus was not in any doubt about the power of His Blood to forgive sins. While it is true that there is doubt in regard to whether some particular member of the human race will choose to accept the saving benefit of the shedding of the Blood of Jesus, there is no doubt that the saving benefit of the shedding of the Blood of Jesus will be offered to every human being and is efficacious for every human being.
Bottom line: No priest should change "may be forgiven" to "might be forgiven" in the Words of Institution.
Two reasons:
#1 - There is no authorization for him to do so. The Mass is not something to play around with.
#2 - It introduces an element of doubt about the efficacy of the Blood of Jesus, even though the priest almost certainly does not intend to suggest any doubt.