Saint Joseph Parish:
Receipts for parish purposes: $1,363.00 from the Sunday envelopes; $120.00 from the second collection (plate); $352.00 from the Dues envelopes; $271.00 from the Holy Thursday envelopes; $3,704.00 from the Easter envelopes; $110.00 from the Building Maintenance envelopes; $246.00 from the loose. Total: $6,166.00
Receipts for non-parish purposes: - $83.00 from the Rice Bowl envelopes; $205.00 from the Good Friday (Shrines of the Holy Land) envelopes
Analysis: When one deducts from the total of the receipts for parish purposes ($6,166.00) 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 $5,073.26 is available from this collection for operating the parish.


Saint Vincent DePaul Parish:
Receipts for parish purposes: $731.00 from the Sunday envelopes; $117.00 from the second collection (plate); $319.00 from the Dues envelopes; $402.00 from the Holy Thursday envelopes; $1,965.00 from the Easter envelopes; $184.00 from the loose. Total: $3,718.00.
Receipts for non-parish purposes: - $16.00 from the Rice Bowl envelopes; $149.00 from the Good Friday (Shrines of the Holy Land) envelopes
Analysis: When one deducts from the total of the receipts for parish purposes ($3,718.00) 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 $3,015.29 is available from this collection for operating the parish.

If these times don't suit you, you can always call for an appointment to go to Confession. If you don't like Fr. Connolly, you can always confess your sins to Kateri, but keep in mind that she is not bound by the seal and she does tend to be a blabbermouth.

After Mass this morning (10 April), I sat down with a cup of coffee and my copy of today's Pottsville Republican. At the top of the page was this blurb: "WORLD NEWS / VATICAN LETTER / Correspondence: Future pope stalled pedophile case / 4"
I turned to page 4 and read the article, the headline of which was: "Letter: Future Pope Benedict stalled Calif. Pedophile case"
Given the pressure of time, I don't have the leisure to give anything more than a superficial analysis, but I do want to say something very important in this bulletin article.
What I want to say is this: The Associated Press article is blurring an extremely important point! The letter written by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1985 to the Bishop of Oakland (CA) deals exclusively with the matter of the LAICIZATION of Fr. Kiesle. "Laicization" is the canonical term for what the press commonly calls "defrocking".
"Laicization" is NOT the process whereby a priest is removed from public ministry. At the time that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the letter, Fr. Kiesle had long since (seven years) been removed from public ministry. This had been done by the appropriate ecclesiastical authority, viz. his own diocesan bishop, the Bishop of Oakland.
A casual reader of the Associated Press article would probably conclude from the article that Cardinal Ratzinger made a decision not to remove Fr. Kiesle from priestly ministry.
Such a conclusion would be absolutely false!
It is my opinion that the Associated Press intends for us to believe that Cardinal Ratzinger refused to remove the offending priest from priestly ministry. It is further my opinion that the Associated Press knows better, but wants to mislead the public in order to vilify the Pope and the Church.
It is absolutely untrue that Cardinal Ratzinger did anything to "stall" the removal of Fr. Kiesle from priestly ministry!
If there is evidence that a priest has abused a child or that he has acted in any other way, such that the continuation of his public priestly ministry would represent a danger to the public or a scandal to the Church, the proper response (in addition to notifying the police) is that the priest should be suspended. The authority to suspend a priest rests with the diocesan bishop. The diocesan bishop does not have to consult with Rome in order to suspend a priest from priestly ministry. In the case of Kiesle, he had already been suspended from priestly ministry.
A bishop has the discretion to suspend a priest from public ministry or, if the circumstances warrant it, to suspend him even from private ministry. The basic difference is this: If a priest is suspended from public ministry, he is still allowed to say Mass privately, i.e. without any congregation. If he is suspended even from private ministry, then he is not allowed to say Mass at all - not even privately.
A diocesan bishop does not have the authority to laicize a priest. This authority is reserved to the Pope (acting in concert with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).
Now, the question arises: Should Cardinal Ratzinger in 1985 have acted more promptly in order to expedite the laicization of Fr. Kiesle? I don't know. Maybe. But I remember that it is easy for me (sitting at my kitchen table in Girardville in 2010) to second-guess Cardinal Ratzinger. But, I say to myself: What practical benefit would have come to the Church if Kiesle had been laicized in 1985 rather than in 1987 (when, as a matter of fact, Rome did laicize him)?
Would laicizing him in 1985 have made any difference? I can't imagine that that would have made any practical difference. Remember that Kiesle (ordained in 1972) had been arrested in 1978 and had not functioned as a priest since 1978. Remember also that laicization is not so much a practical action as it is a symbolic action.
The Church is rightly hesitant to laicize a priest and does so only when all the facts are in and have been judiciously weighed.

SIGNS OF THE TIMES
I saw the following billboard message while driving to New Philadelphia last week. It was on Route 209 and was visible to northbound traffic shortly after one leaves Port Carbon. It is a billboard sponsored by the Soul's Harvest Baptist Church in Port Carbon.

I reflect on that message.
It is typical of Baptist (and other evangelical Protestant denominations) to emphasize "personal relationship with Jesus".
There is certainly nothing wrong with that - in and of itself.
I am all in favor of everyone having a personal relationship with Jesus.
Long live personal relationship with Jesus!
As a matter of fact, I would be so bold as to claim that I have a personal relationship with Jesus and have had one ever since I was a very young child.
(I would be more theologically correct if I were to say that Jesus established a personal relationship with me when I was a very young child, rather than the other way around.)
My problem with this message is that "personal relationship" is set in opposition to "religion".
The message seems to say that one can have either a "personal relationship with Jesus" or else "religion" - but not both!
But I ask this question: Does not membership in the Baptist Church constitute "having a religion"?
I answer my own question: Of course it does!
If I were to ask a member of the Soul's Harvest Baptist Church whether or not he adhered to any particular religion, I presume he would tell me that he adhered to the Christian religion. If I pressed him to be more specific, I presume he would say that he adheres to the Baptist version of the Christian religion.
Implicit in the billboard message is that Catholics and Orthodox (and most or all non-Baptist Protestants) do not have a personal relationship with Jesus.
All I know is this: I can't think of any relationship with Jesus more personal than the devout and faithful eating of His Body and drinking of His Blood!
I mean: How personal can you get???
In addition to which (and I speak for many of my fellow Catholics, not just for myself): Never a day goes by that I don't think of Jesus and pray to Him and love Him and beg Him to stay with me and to help me and to save me.
No religion is more "personal relationship with Jesus" than the Catholic religion!

WE SHARE THE MAIL
Email #1
The man who sent me the following email had the courtesy to sign his name. I appreciate the fact that he did so. I respect persons who do not hide behind anonymity when offering a criticism. However, I am omitting his name in this reprint. The gentleman to whom he makes reference in his email is the man who gave me a "D" for my St. Patrick's Parade Day homily. I made mention of this in a recent bulletin. (I think I need to buy myself an umbrella.)

Dear Father:
After reviewing last weekend bulletin, I must say, I agree with "a gentleman" about your homily. I have the same problem and have thought about stopping going to Mass because of this. Then I realized that the homily is an important part of Mass, but it only part of the Mass and I should enjoy the rest of the Mass.
This may rain on you parade, but I feel better knowing I am not alone in the way I feel about your homily.
Thanks
XXXXX

Dear XXXXX:
I hope you would never stop going to Mass because of a priest's homilies.
As you correctly observe, the homily is "only part" of the Mass.
The most important part of any Mass (by far) is the Eucharistic sacrifice and communion.
I'm sorry I can't put a face with your name.
Maybe you could tap me on the shoulder sometime to let me know who you are.
Meanwhile, I suggest you say the Rosary during the homily.
Don't worry about raining on my parade.
It has been rained on before and will be again, I have no doubt.
Happy Easter!
Fr. Edward B. Connolly

Email #2
In last week's bulletin, I made a point of thanking Annetta Scully Whitecavage for spearheading the St. Patrick's Parade Day breakfast. This is Annetta's email in response.

Father:
Although I am happy that you think of this Scully girl as a person who can spearhead many things and I thank you for that but, unfortunately, I did not spearhead the breakfast. I only helped before the breakfast in a very small way. It was Jack McCarthy and his family that deserve all the credit for this one.
Please let everyone know that it was Jack and his family including his mother and brother, wife and daughter.
Thanks and Happy Easter.
Annetta

Dear Miss Annetta:
Duly noted!
I stand corrected!
Thanks -
EBC
P.S. And thanks to Jack McCarthy and family!

THOMAS GEOFFREY SMITH,
fifth child (fifth son) of Brian K. and Marie (Torquato) Smith, will be baptized today (Sunday) at St. Joseph Church. Msgr. Edward J. O'Connor, pastor of St. Patrick Parish, Pottsville, kindly gave permission.
At the request of the child's parents, Fr. Connolly will baptize Thomas Geoffrey according to the Ordo Baptismi Parvulorum found in the Rituale Romanum By doing so, he made use of the permission granted by Pope Benedict XVI in the apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum - Article #9 of which reads as follows:

Art. 9. § 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

By the will of God the Father, by the death and resurrection of God the Son and by the work of the Holy Spirit, Thomas Geoffrey Smith will be freed from the curse of Adam and Eve and made a participant in the life of the Holy Trinity. This precious child is destined for eternal life on high with all the saints. May he attain to that exalted destiny, together with his parents, his brothers and all other members of the family.
By the way, Thomas's four brothers are (in order of age): Matthew, Marcus, Luke and John. Some friends of the Smith family had anticipated that Child #5 would be named Acts, but his parents decided otherwise, which was probably a merciful decision.
One cannot help noting that there is an apocryphal gospel named "Thomas". However, the child's father insists that the name "Thomas" has nothing to do with any apocryphal writings but was chosen in honor of St. Thomas More, the illustrious 16th century Lord Chancellor of England, who gave his life in defense of the Catholic Church in the days of the late and unlamented Henry VIII. The child's secondary patron is St. Geoffrey of Clairvaux, a holy monk of the 12th century and a disciple of St. Bernard of Clairvaux.
May St. Thomas More and St. Geoffrey of Clairvaux intercede before the Throne of God for Thomas Geoffrey Smith.

ALL OF THE FIRST HOLY COMMUNION CHILDREN will meet with Father Connolly on Tuesday, 13 April, from 04:00 to 05:00 pm in St. Vincent dePaul Rectory. This will be the first of six meetings. It is of utmost importance that the children be present for these meetings.

According to a priest who is very much in the know about such dismal topics as this, there have been about 3,000 priests worldwide who have been charged, over the past fifty years, with sexual crimes against minors.
Given that there are about 400,000 priests in the world, that would mean that a statistical average of three priests out of every four hundred priests have been charged with such crimes.
That means that, statistically, if you were to gather into one huge assembly place all of the priests in the world from over the past fifty years and if you were them to divide them at random into one thousand groups of 400 each, it is likely that you would find in each group of 400 that an average of three of them have committed a sexual crime against a minor and that an average of 397 of them have not.
If you put that in terms of percentages, it would mean that about .75% (three-fourths of one percent) of the priests in the world over the past fifty years have been charged with a sexual crime against a minor.
Is this something to boast about?
Certainly not!
If zero percent of the priests in the world had ever been charged with a sexual crime against a minor, we might tentatively and tremblingly boast. One priest in the world guilty of a sexual crime against a minor is sufficient cause for weeping and gnashing of teeth. Three thousand is beyond weeping and gnashing. It is a disaster!
Nevertheless, always looking for the bright side of things in this world of sin and darkness, we gently suggest that three scoundrels out of 400 is insufficient to tip the balance.
There is much virtue among priests. I think I can say that without blinking an eye.
What do you think?
But there is more! Please read on!
The three thousand priests who have been accused of sexual crimes against minors are subdivided as follows:
a) Ten percent of the 3,000 (i.e. 300) have been charged with pedophiliac offenses. Pedophilia is sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent (pre-adolescent) children.
b) Thirty percent of the 3,000 (i.e. 900) have been charged with heterosexual offenses, i.e. indecent actions with adolescent girls.
c) Sixty percent of them (about 1,800) have been charged with homosexual offenses, i.e. indecent actions with adolescent boys.

Conclusions to be drawn
a) Any adult who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children is "pathologically unwell" (to use the gentlest term possible). My serious point is that pedophilia is a defect in a person's nature. One can hope that, with advances in psychological screening, the Church will, in the future, be able to screen out such persons before they get anywhere near ordination.
b) Any adult male who experiences a generic sexual attraction to adolescent girls is certainly within the range called "normal". It is not a "defect in nature" for an adult male to experience generic attraction to adolescent girls. It would, however, be a serious defect of cooperation with grace if a priest were to act on this attraction. I don't know of any way that the Church can (or should) screen out candidates for the priesthood who experience generic attraction to adolescent girls. All we can hope for is that priests who minister to adolescent girls will be men of prayer, integrity and prudence.
c) Any adult male who is sexually attracted to adolescent boys is a homosexual. Homosexuality is a defect in a person's nature. One can hope that, with advances in psychological screening, the Church will, in the future, be able to screen out men who have SSA (Same-Sex Attraction) from being advanced to ordination to the priesthood.
The basic statistics cited in this article are not mine. However, I do take responsibility for the conclusions!