Saint Joseph Parish: $1,028.00 from the Sunday envelopes; $101.00 from the second collection (plate); $290.00 from the Dues envelopes; $132.00 from the Summer Banks envelopes; $101.00 from the loose.
Total: $1,652.00.
Non-parish receipts: - 0 -
Analysis: When one deducts from the total of the parish receipts ($1,652.00) our weekly financial obligation to the Diocese, i.e. assessments ($290.08), plus our weekly premium for property and casualty insurance ($444.49), plus our weekly subsidy to Trinity Academy ($358.17), the sum total of which is $1,092.74, one sees that $559.26 is available from this collection for operating the parish.

Saint Vincent DePaul Parish: $$778.00 from the Sunday envelopes; $79.00 from the second collection (plate); $173.00 from the Building Maintenance envelopes; $89.00 from the loose. Total: $1,119.00.
Non-parish receipts: $41.00 from the Mission Co-op envelopes.
Analysis: When one deducts from the total of the parish receipts ($1,119.00) our weekly financial obligation to the Diocese, i.e. assessments ($183.92), plus our weekly premium for property and casualty insurance ($267.81), plus our weekly subsidy to Trinity Academy ($250.98), the sum total of which is $702.71, one sees that $416.29 is available from this collection for operating the parish.

THREE LOW-KEY ANNIVERSARIES THIS WEEK
#1 — Tuesday, 14 July, 2009 is the fifth anniversary of the day that Kateri and I first met, the day she moved in with me at St. Joseph Rectory, Pottsville. I could lie and say that it was “love at first sight”. It was no such thing. It was strictly a relationship of mutual convenience. My previous cat, Tigress, had died unexpectedly, leaving behind a perfectly good litter box and a supply of cat food. I don’t like to throw anything away, so I told some people I was open to getting another cat. Two reasons I was open to getting another cat: (a) I just love cleaning litter boxes. My life would be empty and pointless without a litter box to clean. It is such a joy to dig down into the litter with my little scooper to remove those marvelous clumps. (b) I had a supply of wet and dry cat food that needed to be eaten and I sure wasn’t going to eat it myself.

Now it just so happened, around about the time that Tigress died, that parishioners of mine from St. Francis deSales Parish (Mount Carbon) acquired a Baby Boy and, around the same time, also a Baby Cat. The Baby Boy they acquired in the usual way, i.e. as a gift from God; the Baby Cat they acquired in a different way, as a gift from a neighbor who was giving away kittens born to a prolific momma cat. This couple engaged my services to baptize the Baby Boy (but not the Baby Cat). Not long afterwards, perhaps out of spite at not having been baptized, the Baby Cat jumped up onto the Baby Boy and scratched his pink and chubby little cheek. Baby Boy let out a yelp. The mother of the Baby Boy, up in arms about the assault on her little snookums and probably fearful that word of this would get back to Schuylkill County Children & Youth Services, decreed that Baby Cat should be exiled to the cellar. Then the parents of the Baby Boy got a bright idea. It occurred to them that they could kill two birds with one stone: (a) endear themselves with their pastor by providing him with a pre-owned Baby Cat and (b) protect Baby Boy from being eaten by Baby Cat. So, they called me and offered me a free cat. I said, “Sure, why not?” So, I drove to their house, fetched the aforementioned Baby Cat, threw her in my car and, despite her loud protests and implied threats to call the cops on me if I didn’t let her go, took her to the rectory. She soon changed her mind about running away. She knew where her bread was buttered. The rest is history.

#2 — Tuesday, 14 July, is also the optional memorial of Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha, that heroic young Mohawk woman (1656-80) who gave her heart to Jesus Christ and asked for Baptism, despite the fact that, by doing so, she knew she would be alienated from her family and her tribe. She is a model of heroic purity, fortitude and charity.
While driving my kitten back to the Rectory on 14 July 2004, I was mulling over various names. All of a sudden, it came to me in a flash: Today is the Memorial of Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha. What better name for my new cat? So, that’s how Kateri (the cat) got to be called Kateri. I don’t know how Kateri (the blessed) got to be called Kateri.

#3 — Wednesday, 15 July 2009, is the first anniversary of Kateri’s arrival in Girardville. Bishop Cullen needed to find a place for her after closing down St. Joseph Parish, Pottsville, and St. Francis deSales Parish, Mount Carbon. So, he assigned her to be the Official Parish Cat of Girardville and gave me permission to accompany her here in order to take care of her needs and, incidentally, to do various chores associated with being pastor. This all took effect on 15 July 2008. So, it’s been a year now.

Speaking now only for myself and not for Kateri, I would like to say that I give thanks to God for the privilege of being the pastor of Girardville. I love it here and am grateful to all the people who have been so kind and gracious to me. Together, may we make Girardville a place where Jesus Christ is known, loved, praised and glorified — more and more each day!

BRISTOL McKINLEY ZENDROSKY,
second child (first daughter) of Michael M. and Teressa (Heintzelman) Zendrosky, will be baptized today (Sunday) at St. Joseph Church.
Here are three paragraphs from The Cathechism of the Catholic Church that will help us to understand what will be transpiring in the life of this beautiful little girl:

1213
Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."
1214
This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."
1215
This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."
1216
"This bath is called enlightenment, because those who receive this [catechetical] instruction are enlightened in their understanding . . . ." Having received in Baptism the Word, "the true light that enlightens every man," the person baptized has been "enlightened," he becomes a "son of light," indeed, he becomes "light" himself: Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift....We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God's Lordship.

Applying some of this doctrine to Bristol, we come to understand what God the Father is doing for her:
He is taking her through the gate that leads into the Church. He is freeing her from the curse of sin, both original and personal --- in the latter case, even before she is capable of any. He is giving her the new birth and making her His daughter. He is giving her insurance against eternal death. He is making it possible for her to go to Heaven. He is making her a member of the priesthood of all the believers. He is enlightening her. He is putting His seal upon her and declaring His Lordship over her.
We give thanks to God for the gift of this child. May she live forever!

YOU ARE INVITED TO A PARTY!

Q. Who are the “you” who are invited?
A. The “you” who are invited are all of the members of St. Vincent dePaul Parish and of St. Joseph Parish, plus anyone else who would like to come.
Q. When will this party be held?
A. This party will be held at about 7:00 pm on Tuesday, 21 July 2009.
Q. Where will this party be held?
A. This party will be held in the St. Vincent dePaul Parish Hall.
Q. What is the occasion for this party?
A. The occasion for this party is the 80th birthday of our pastor emeritus, Father David M. Liebner. (His actual birthday is the following day, 22 July, but we decided to go with 21 July.)
Q. Are there any conditions for attending this party?
A. Yes, there is one condition --- and we ask you to observe it: Father Liebner explicitly requests that there be no gifts, no presents of any sort. I assured him that I would let the people know about this condition.
Q. Who is in charge of the party?
A. The Holy Rosary Society is in charge.
Q. Anything else I should know?
A. Yes! There will be a Mass of Thanksgiving on 21 July at 6:30 pm in St. Vincent dePaul Church. Fr. Liebner will be the celebrant. We are hoping that people will attend that Mass.

We published in the bulletin a few weeks ago a lengthy description of the process whereby a priest is appointed to be a bishop. Now we need to clarify something. A man does not actually become a bishop by virtue of the fact that he is appointed to be one. For example: At the present time (11 July 2009), Msgr. John O. Barres, although he has been Bishop-elect of Allentown since the day in May 2009 when Pope Benedict XVI officially appointed him, is NOT “the Bishop of Allentown”, nor is he even a bishop.
Question: Since appointment alone does not make him a bishop, what will make him a bishop?
Answer: Ordination will make him a bishop, i.e. the reception of the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Order of Bishop. Msgr. Barres has already been ordained twice: once to the Order of Deacon and once to the Order of Priest. On 30 July 2009, God willing, he will be ordained a third time — this time to the Order of Bishop.
“Holy Orders” is a plural term. It is the only one of the seven sacraments whose name is plural. That is because it is the only one of the seven sacraments that admits of levels. We do not say “Sacrament of Baptisms” or “Sacrament of Confirmations”. This is because there are no levels of Baptism or Confirmation. But we do say “Sacrament of Holy Orders” because there are three holy orders, each requiring a separate ordination.
Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders — all three of these are “once-and-done” sacraments. They leave a permanent character on the soul. They cannot be repeated, nor can they be revoked. Once a deacon, always a deacon. Once a priest, always a priest. Once a bishop, always a bishop. When we say that Holy Orders cannot be repeated, we mean, of course, that it cannot be repeated within the same level. A deacon cannot be “re-ordained” a deacon. A priest cannot be “re-ordained” a priest. A bishop cannot be “re-ordained” a bishop.
What are the fundamental sacramental differences between a deacon and a priest?
The fundamental sacramental differences are the following: Only a priest is able to: (a) consecrate the bread and wine; (b) absolve from sin; (c) anoint the sick; (d) with due permission, administer the sacrament of Confirmation. A deacon can do various things, but he cannot do any of the four things listed.
What is the fundamental sacramental difference between a priest and a bishop?
The fundamental sacramental difference between a priest and a bishop is this: Only a bishop is able to ordain a man to the order of Deacon, Priest or Bishop. A priest can do many things, but he cannot administer the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Here is an important term to know: ONTOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE.
An ontological difference is a difference that is permanent and enormously consequential. It causes a person to exist and to function on an entirely new level of being — e.g. the “power” to consecrate the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is due to an ontological difference.

Every validly baptized person is ontologically different from every non-baptized person.
Every validly confirmed person is ontologically different from every non-confirmed person.
Every validly ordained deacon is ontologically different from every non-deacon.
Every validly ordained priest is ontologically different from every non-priest.
Every validly ordained bishop is ontologically different from every non-bishop.

WRITE ON, DANIEL JIMENO ROMERO!
Daniel Jimeno Romero is (was) a 27-year-old Spaniard who died on Friday, 10 July 2009.
I know nothing about him other than the cause of death: He was tossed and gored by a bull during the annual Running of the Bulls in Pamplona, Spain. He was one of a number of young men who had partied hardy all Thursday night and into the wee hours of Friday, in preparation for running through narrow streets in front of confused and frightened toros — not a high IQ activity.
I mean no disrespect to the dead, but I would like to use the death of Daniel as a springboard for saying something to the young men of Girardville and vicinity --- and to any young man who might happen to read this bulletin.
God is not the least bit happy with young men who live in such a way that, even though they might not be literally putting themselves in the path of the stampeding bulls of Pamplona, they are doing so at least metaphorically.

I don’t think it takes a whole lot of imagination to know what kinds of activity I’m referring to. If you don’t have a clue what I’m talking about, ask your parents. For that matter, ask your peers, if you have any peers who are still alive.

Lots of people say, when someone dies, “Well, you know, we all have to die sometime and — well, sure he was young, but, well, it was just his time to die, you know? So, let’s get over it and party on!”
Whoa! Just a minute! It was NOT “his time to die”!

Saying “it was his time to die” might be appropriate when a person dies of natural causes, but not necessarily in other cases. While it is true that 10 July 2009 was, de facto, the date of Daniel Jimeno Romero’s death, it is not true that 10 July 2009 was the date set by God for Daniel to die.

Does this confuse you? Do you think that, whenever someone dies, it is because God wanted him or her to die? Well, I respectfully point out to you that this is not true.

Now, let’s make a distinction here. We have to distinguish between God’s Ideal Will and God’s Permissive Will. This is not too hard to understand. All it means is this: There is a difference between what God wants to happen and what God permits to happen.

What God wants to happen is what actually happens when human beings cooperate fully with God.

What God permits to happen is what happens when human beings refuse to cooperate fully with God.
Sometimes God’s Permissive Will is referred to as His Tolerating Will or His Circumstantial Will.

Think of it this way: In The Lord’s Prayer, we say, “Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. What are we actually praying for when we make this petition? We are praying for the implementation of God’s Ideal Will. This implies that we are willing to cooperate with that Ideal Will.

In 1963, when I was 25 years old, I went to Mexico to spend the summer as a kind of “mission experience” for prospective priests. The trip was sponsored (but not financed) by the Maryknoll missionaries. Going to Mexico was an entirely voluntary act on my part. No one made me go. There were lots of reasons for me not to go, all of which were recited to me by my mother, who was extremely sensible and passionately devoted to what she was sure were my best interests — and she did not see my best interests as having anything to do with spending a summer in Mexico!
Being 25, I knew it was no sin for me to disobey my mother. So, I went to Mexico. It was among the top five best decisions I have ever made.
It changed my mind completely about the proper relationship between the United States of America and Mexico, between norteamericanos and mexicanos, between gringos and gente de color.
The Mexicans I met were among the kindest, most honorable and most beautiful people I have ever known.
It had always been my thought, prior to the summer of 1963, that we Americans were smart and enterprising and just naturally superior to people of other cultures (although always very humble and aw-shucks about it).
I came to think otherwise, while not at all losing my fundamental patriotism towards the USA.
While I was in Mexico, I realized how we gringos had really done a number on our Mexican hermanos and hermanas.
We stole most of their real estate from them, by various and sundry means. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Utah and Colorado — all of these used to be part of Mexico.
Do I think we should give them back to Mexico?
No, to tell you the truth, I don’t think we should “give them back to Mexico”, but I think we should be most extraordinarily generous in allowing citizens of Mexico to migrate to the USA in order to find work and, if they choose to do so, to be put on the fast track to citizenship.
Notice I did not say “everybody and anybody”. I said “citizens of Mexico”. Notice I did not say “Spanish speaking people” or “Latin Americans”. I said “citizens of Mexico”.
I think the day is coming — and I think leading politicians of both parties realize it — when the USA and Mexico will be one nation. When this happens (not “if” this happens), I hope it will be “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.
I read something recently that puts into context the plight of young Mexican men. What I read really rang true to me:

“…… ambitious young Mexicans receive three life choices: (a) obtain an education, and hope their families have the connections and the money to bribe their way into decent jobs; (b) go to work for the country’s warring drug cartels or (c) illegally immigrate to the United States.

If I were a young Mexican from a non-prestigious family, I would probably be looking northward and making plans to cross the border, not get caught, find a job and a place to live, get “lost” in the USA and send a few dollars home to my family.
We should do as we would be done by if the shoe were on the other foot.
Meanwhile, we should welcome the Mexicans in our midst.
At the very least, we must do them no harm and we must speak them no harm.
And, when we pass them on the sidewalk, we greet them with a smile and a nodding of the head.