Saint Joseph Parish: $1,332.00 from the Sunday envelopes; $84.00 from the second collection (plate); $50.00 from the Dues envelopes; $248.00 from the Rice Bowl envelopes; $143.00 from the loose. Thank you.

Saint Vincent DePaul Parish: $951.00 from the Sunday envelopes; $56.00 from the second collection (plate); $25.00 from the Building Maintenance envelopes; $167.00 from the Rice Bowl envelopes; $87.00 from the loose. Thank you.

A QUESTION SOMEONE ASKED ME
A friend of mine noticed when she was visiting a certain church “south of the mountain” that the tabernacle lamp was “white”, not red. (I’m not certain whether she meant that the globe that encloses the flame was made of white glass or of clear glass.) Her point was that the globe was not made of red glass, as is customary.
So she asked me if it is permitted for the tabernacle lamb — sometimes referred to as “the sanctuary lamp” — to be some color other than red.
I told her that, as far as I know, there is nothing in Church law that requires the tabernacle lamp to be red, although red is customary.
The only thing I can find in Church law in regard to this matter is the following from the Code of Canon Law:
Canon #940
A special lamp is to burn continuously before the tabernacle in which the blessed Eucharist is reserved, to indicate and to honor the presence of Christ.

So, since the canon does not specify any color, I guess one would have to say that the tabernacle lamp (by which we really mean the globe that contains the flame) can be of any color or of no color.
De gustibus non est disputandum. (There is no disputing about tastes.)

ANOTHER QUESTION SOMEONE ASKED ME
Another friend of mine told me that, when he goes to Mass at a certain church (also “south of the mountain”) that the priest, when he washes his hands at the Lavabo of the Mass, says: “Lord, wash away our iniquities. Cleanse us from our sins.” In other words, he pluralizes the singular, so that “my” becomes “our” and “me” becomes “us”. Apparently, being of generous heart and disposition, this priest wants the iniquities and sins of EVERYONE present to be blotted out, not just his own — which is thoughtful, but out of place.
Unfortunately, while the priest’s heart is in the right place, I would say that he is possessed by three ill spirits, kindred to one another: (a) the spirit of hyper-inclusiveness; (b) the spirit of egalitarianism; (c) the spirit of failure to make due distinctions.
This particular prayer in the Mass is meant to refer to the particular need of the priest alone to be free from sin and iniquity because of the fact that he is about to enter into a level of intimacy with the Sacred Mysteries of the Lord’s Body and Blood that will exceed the level of intimacy afforded to anyone in the congregation. No one is more proximate to the sacred action than the priest himself. Among other things, the priest (and only the priest) is obliged to consume the Sacred Species. On him depends the very integrity of the sacrifice that is about to be offered. He is like the high priest in the days of the Levitical priesthood who needed a special level of purity before daring to enter through the veil into the Holy of Holies.
One of the distressing things in the Church today is the attempt to democratize the Mass, together with the attempt to de-emphasize the role of the ordained priest, to see him as the humanly designated facilitator of an act of the congregation rather than as the divinely ordained agent of an act of God.
A priest does his people no favor when he presents himself as “just one of the gang”. It throws everything out of kilter.
That way lie chaos and such dreadful disorders as Protestantism.

The public school system — to which the vast majority of Catholics entrust their children — promotes the use of condoms.
Did you know that?
Many parents don’t know that, for the simple reason that they don’t have a clue as to what is being taught in the classrooms — in addition to which it is not characteristic of adolescents to initiate conversation with their parents about sexual matters (although there may be an exception or two or three).
If you have a son, ages 14 to 18, do you think it is likely that he carries any condoms in his wallet?
Have you ever thought of asking him?
If you have a daughter, ages 14 to 18, do you think it is likely that she carries any condoms in her purse (or whatever girls call that gizmo in which they carry their worldly treasures)?
That question caught your attention, didn’t it?
Thought it would!
Somehow we go “wink, wink” and “chuckle, chuckle” and “boys will be boys” when the question is asked about our sons, but we tend to get a little bit on edge when the question is asked about our daughters.
But girls are taught, you know, that “safe sex” requires that a prudent girl carry condoms — not because she is promiscuous, mind you! — but just in case her boyfriend forgets.
All I can say is this: If your son or daughter carries condoms, it is not a sign that he or she is in the state of sanctifying grace. That’s putting it about as mildly as I can put it.
Putting it a bit less mildly, it is a sign that your kid is not in the state of grace.
Putting it bluntly, it is a sign that your kid is on his or her way to Hell, unless someone or something intervenes.
I suggest to all of the parents of teenagers in St. Joseph Parish and St. Vincent dePaul Parish that they raise their level of awareness about what is going on in the lives of their offspring.
What a waste of time, money and effort it is to invest so much of it in raising kids, only for them to wind up in Hell.
Dear parents of Girardville and Mahanoy Plane and the western suburbs of Lost Creek, just exactly WHAT are you doing to keep your kid from going to Hell?
May I suggest the following? (a) burn the condoms and (b) make a good confession.
Special family rates for the Sacrament of Penance.
Inquire in the confessional.

THE WORLD, THE POPE AND THE CONDOMS

The big news this past week in the area of religion has been the ongoing attack by the World, the Flesh, the Devil, the New York Times and the Democratic Party against the Catholic Church and against Pope Benedict because of our (his) teaching that it is immoral to use condoms to combat the AIDS virus — with particular reference to the pandemic in Africa.
So what else is new?
There is no point in being Catholic if you can’t stand the heat.
We are the Body of Him Who is the perennial sign of contradiction.
Please read these profoundly wise words of the Holy Father, spoken this past week, in response to a French reporter who said that the Church’s opposition to the use of condoms (in particular as an anti-AIDS measure in Africa) is “frequently considered unrealistic and ineffective”.

"I would say the opposite. I think that the reality that is most effective, the most present and the strongest in the fight against AIDS, is precisely that of the Catholic Church, with its programs and its diversity.
I would say that one cannot overcome this problem of AIDS only with money -- which is important, but if there is no soul, no people who know how to use it, (money) doesn't help.
One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem.
The solution can only be a double one: first, a humanization of sexuality, that is, a spiritual human renewal that brings with it a new way of behaving with one another; second, a true friendship even and especially with those who suffer, and a willingness to make personal sacrifices and to be with the suffering. And these are factors that help and that result in real and visible progress.
Therefore, I would say this is our double strength -- to renew the human being from the inside, to give him spiritual human strength for proper behavior regarding one's own body and toward the other person, and the capacity to suffer with the suffering. I think this is the proper response and the Church is doing this, and so it offers a great and important contribution. I thank all those who are doing this."

However, just to show that the Pope is getting through and that the battle for the truth is not a completely hopeless case, please be aware of the fact that a distinguished gentleman from Harvard has come out in public support of the Pope’s position (i.e. the Catholic Church’s position) on condoms. This gentleman approaches the subject from the purely pragmatic point of view. Here is a statement by Edward C. Green, PhD, a medical anthropologist, who is the Director of the Aids Prevention Research Center for the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies:
"We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working. The Pope is correct or, to put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the Pope’s comments. Condoms have been proven not to be effective at the ‘level of population. There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys’, between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology. I also noticed that the Pope said ‘monogamy’ was the best single answer to African AIDS, rather than ‘abstinence.’ The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates, the other major factor being male circumcision.”

There is a point to be made here and I would like to make it: If we obey the teachings of the Catholic Church, we will find not just that we will attain happiness in the LIFE TO COME, but we shall also attain the greatest measure of happiness possible in THIS VERY LIFE WE ARE LIVING RIGHT NOW.

NICKNAMES
• If Laura, Kate and Sarah go out for lunch, they will call each other Laura, Kate and Sarah.
• If Mike, Dave and John go out, they will affectionately refer to each other as Fat Boy, Godzilla and Four-eyes.

EATING OUT
• When the bill arrives, Mike, Dave and John will each throw in $20, even though it's only for $32.50. None of them will have anything smaller and none will actually admit they want change back.
• When the girls get their bill, out come the pocket calculators.

MONEY
• A man will pay $2 for a $1 item he needs.
• A woman will pay $1 for a $2 item that she doesn't need, but it's on sale.

BATHROOMS
• A man has six items in his bathroom: toothbrush and toothpaste, shaving cream, razor, a bar of soap, and a towel.
• The average number of items in the typical woman's bathroom is 337. A man would not be able to identify more than 20 of these items.

ARGUMENTS
• A woman has the last word in any argument.
• Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.

FUTURE
• A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband.
• A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.

SUCCESS
• A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend.
• A successful woman is one who can find such a man.

MARRIAGE
• A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn't.
• A man marries a woman expecting that she won't change, but she does.

DRESSING UP
• A woman will dress up to go shopping, water the plants, empty the bin, answer the phone, read a book, and get the mail.
• A man will dress up for weddings and funerals.

NATURAL
• Men wake up as good-looking as they went to bed.
• Women somehow deteriorate during the night.

OFFSPRING
• Ah, children! A woman knows all about her children. She knows about dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favorite foods, secret fears and hopes and dreams.
• A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
A married man should forget about his mistakes.
There's no use having two persons making it a point to remember the same thing!