Register with FOSIL

View Fosil Newsletters

Roger Karban

Ordained in Rome in 1964, Roger R. Karban is a priest of the Diocese of Belleville with scholarly expertise in the Sacred Scriptures. He received a Licentiate in Theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and did his doctoral studies in Scripture at St. Louis University.

Karban has been the chair of religion departments at Mater Dei and Gibault Catholic High Schools; director of the diocesan diaconate program and is currently the administrator of Our Lady of Good Council Parish, Renault, IL. A part-time faculty member of St. Louis University and Southwestern Illinois College where he teaches the Bible as literature, Karban also teaches adult weekly scripture classes in Belleville, Breese, Carbondale and Lebanon, IL. With the vision of Vatican II, Karban presents workshops, not only in the diocese, but throughout the country.



Roger's Essays

Click here to see Archived Articles



Acts 6:1-7; I Peter 2:4-9; John 14:1-11

Serious students of Luke/Acts realize how exceptional today’s first reading is. Usually, in depicting the early Christian community, Luke assures us that everything is going along hunky-dory. Jesus’ first followers are living an ideal existence: constantly loving one another, always sharing their belonging and property with the needy, and continually growing in number. That’s why today’s “bump in the road” demands some explanation.

It’s logical that communities made up of different cultural groups, each with their own languages, will eventually develop snags in their relationships. In this case, Greek-speaking Hellenists are having problems with Aramaic-speaking Hebrews. The issue revolves around the daily distribution of food to the community’s widows.

The Twelve’s way of resolving the conflict is actually more important for today’s church than the solution itself. “Select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task . . . .” The seven chosen men are then listed. Except for providing a pronunciation obstacle for lectors, the names don’t mean a lot to us. We might recognize Stephen and Philip, who will appear later in Acts, but the other five are easily forgotten.

I guarantee none of the seven would have been forgotten in the Jerusalem community. Each man is a Hellenist! If Greek-speaking Christians are having a problem, then Greek-speaking Christians are expected to solve their problem. Christian problems are solved from within, not from outside the community.

Growing up in a pre-Vatican II church, I presumed our revered pastor would have the answer to any parish crisis. I certainly wasn’t alone in that belief. Remember the old story of the pastor who calls a parish meeting to discuss a pressing issue facing the parishioners? After announcing, “We have a problem,” he’s immediately challenged by a parishioner who reminds him, “The only way we could be having a problem, Father, is if you’ve got a mouse in your pocket.”

The recent establishment of parish councils has given the “laity” some say in what happens in their faith community. But some priests (and bishops) are quick to remind the various council members that they’re purely “advisory.” The pastor (and bishop) still retain veto power over any of their suggestions. A far cry from the high esteem Luke, the author of I Peter and John’s Jesus hold the Christian community.

“You are a chosen race,” the writer of I Peter reminds his newly baptized catechumens, “a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his (God’s) own, so that you may announce the praises of him who called you out of darkness into this wonderful light.” How do one or two individuals wield veto power over such a prestigious group?

John’s Jesus carries respect for the community even further. “”Whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do greater ones than these . . . .” The risen Jesus trusts all of us not just to carry on his/her ministry, but to go beyond what the historical Jesus was able to do between 6 BCE and 30 CE.

Ignoring Jesus’ teachings, we eventually divided Christians into clergy and laity. One group became superior, the other subservient. One group called the shots, the other took the blows. We 21st century Catholics are witnesses of this; still suffering moral consequences 50 years after the church’s hierarchical decision on birth control and today being forced to deal with ever-dwindling Eucharistic celebrations due to the artificial shortage of male, celibate priests.

The early followers of Jesus believed he left them a way to deal with such problems. But unless we dare to be committed to that way, our problems will certainly remain and increase.


This essay comes to you from FOSIL, The Faithful of Southern Illinois,
Email:, or write FOSIL, P.O. Box 31, Belleville, IL, 62222



Acts 8:5-8, 14-17; I Peter 3:15-18; John 14:15-21

Many of us have a built-in problem keeping us from correctly understanding today’s three readings. Our catechism-oriented education assured us we’d always know we’re doing what Jesus wanted us to do as long as we’re following the teachings of the institutional church. The Galilean carpenter deliberately set up that organization during his earthly ministry to guarantee his message would always be presented the way he intended it to be presented.

There’s just one problem with that reasoning: modern Scripture scholars – like the late Raymond Brown – are unanimously convinced the historical Jesus never intended to found a church as we know it today. More than anything, he was simply a reformer of Judaism, not the founder of a new religion.

So if he didn’t create a formal institution to carry on his ministry, what did he do to guarantee it would always be done the right way? As we hear in today’s liturgical passages, he gave his followers his Spirit.

John’s Jesus couldn’t have said it better. “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows him. But you know him, because he remains with you and will be in you.” According to John, only those who give themselves over to Jesus’ Spirit are authentic other Christs.

That’s why Luke believes it’s essential for Peter and John to travel from Jerusalem up to Samaria to make certain that community’s newly baptized actually have received Jesus’ Spirit. Philip – knowing nothing of our modern Trinitarian formula - had only baptized them “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” By the laying on of the apostles’ hands, Jesus’ Spirit also comes upon them. Their conversion is complete.

We have no idea what formula the author of I Peter employed in baptizing those to whom this homily is directed. But he certainly takes for granted they’ve received the Spirit in whatever action preceded his speaking to them. Just as the historical Jesus could defend his ministry and message, so they should be able to follow suit. This is important since suffering is always an integral part of carrying out that ministry and conveying that message. In the author’s mind, a person’s defense of being another Christ doesn’t come in a harmless school exam, but in the midst of suffering. No reason to defend it unless we’re in pain because of it. Our unknown writer is convinced that just as Jesus was “put to death in the flesh and was brought to life in the Spirit,” so his Spirit gives us life especially when our suffering is most severe.

In some sense, it’s easy to understand why many Christians quickly traded the Spirit for an institution. The late Carroll Stuhlmueller always taught that there are two rules to know when the Spirit’s actually talking to us. First, what suddenly comes into our mind is an insight, not a process of reasoning. Two and two equals four, for instance, probably isn’t from the Spirit. Inspiration from the Spirit comes out of nowhere. One instant there’s nothing, then suddenly . . . !

Second, actually following through on what pops into our mind will cost us big time. The Spirit always demands we leave where we’re comfortably ensconced and move to a place where we’d rather not be, a place which makes new demands on us. The Spirit never tells us, “Stay right here! Don’t move a muscle!”

According to our sacred authors, only when we’re disturbed about what God expects us to do can we be certain the risen Jesus’ Spirit is actually at work in our lives.


This essay comes to you from FOSIL, The Faithful of Southern Illinois,
Email:, or write FOSIL, P.O. Box 31, Belleville, IL, 62222

05/25 or 05/28/2017

MAY 25th or 28th, 2017: ASCENSION OF THE LORD

Acts 1:1-11; Ephesians 1:17-23; Matthew 28:16-20

It’s clear from today’s first and third readings that our four evangelists often contradict one another, even about things we believe essential to our faith. Because of our liturgical calendar, we Catholics presume Jesus died on Good Friday, rose on Easter Sunday, ascended to heaven 40 days later, and sent the Spirit 10 days after that. Few of us realize that this chronology is only a re-enactment of Luke’s theology, a theology every other evangelist contradicts.

Probably many of us will hear a homily today in which the speaker concentrates on Jesus’ gospel words about being with us “until the end of the age,” a promise, the homilist tells us, Jesus makes immediately before he ascends into heaven. Few priests or deacons notice today’s gospel is from Matthew, an evangelist who never speaks about an ascension! Matthew’s gospel ends where today’s pericope ends. Matthew’s risen Jesus is still “out there somewhere,” appearing where and to whom he/she wishes, especially in our daily lives. Unlike Luke, Matthew’s Jesus doesn’t have a heavenly zip code.

For our sacred authors, Jesus’ risen existence isn’t as black and white as many of us presume. The Pauline disciple responsible for the letter to the Ephesians, for instance, feels comfortable conceiving of a glorified Christ “seated at God’s right hand in the heavens, far above every principality, authority, power and dominion . . . .” In some sense, each writer zeros in on a particular aspect of the risen Jesus, and leaves others in the background.

One of the reasons Luke has Jesus definitively ascend revolves around his conviction that the risen Jesus’ Spirit is now guiding the church. In his theology, we should be anticipating encounters with that Spirit, not with the actual risen Jesus. Luke seems to believe those encounters best take place when the Christ is taken out of the picture; thus his idea of a definitive resurrection.

In my own experience as a minister, I prefer the “he/she’s still here” theology of the other three evangelists.

We usually presume the Spirit is going to communicate with us through our minds, not through the actual individuals with whom we come face to face in our daily lives. A risen Jesus residing in heaven is often conceived of as simply a “resuscitated Jesus:” Jesus as he was during his earthly ministry, simply brought back to life after his death on the cross. We forget the basic difference between resuscitation and biblical resurrection.

As I often remind you, a resurrected Jesus is, in Paul’s words, a “new creation.” That unique individual is no longer a first century CE free Jewish man. We know from Galatians 3 that the Apostle is convinced such a person is as much a slave as free, a Gentile as a Jew, and a woman as a man. I believe it’s far more difficult to surface the risen Jesus in the people we encounter in our daily lives than it is to encounter Jesus’ Spirit in the inspired thoughts which flash through our minds.

Though the Spirit certainly helps us know what to do in concrete situations, surfacing the risen Jesus in concrete individuals helps us build the body of Christ among us. I have no problem conceiving of Jesus being rewarded by the Father for dying for us, as long as that reward doesn’t make him/her more distant from us.

Today’s feast might be a reason why we should have included one or more inspired books in our collection of early Christian writings. Our sacred authors believed there’d always be “another way” of looking at our faith, a way different from their own. If that’s true, after 2,000 years we have a perspective on the faith those first century writers simply didn’t have.


This essay comes to you from FOSIL, The Faithful of Southern Illinois,
Email:, or write FOSIL, P.O. Box 31, Belleville, IL, 62222



Acts 1:12-14; I Peter 4:13-16; John 17:1-11a

Today’s liturgical readings seem to have been chosen precisely to prepare us for next Sunday’s feast of Pentecost.

Among other things, our Christian sacred authors want their readers to understand that Jesus of Nazareth not only expects his followers to carry on his ministry, but that they’re actually doing so.

That’s why, for instance, Luke, in our Acts pericope, names many of the individuals who will be in Jerusalem’s upper room when the Spirit comes. It’s a scene similar to the ending of the Broadway musical and movie 1776, when the names of all the Declaration of Independence’s signers are dramatically read off. In this case, these are the people who will initially make up the biblical church; a community which comes into existence only when the Holy Spirit arrives. (It’s important to note that Luke dares include Mary and “some women” in that list!) Along with Paul of Tarsus and a few others, they’ll continue Jesus’ ministry throughout the Acts of the Apostles.

That’s also why, during John’s last supper narrative, Jesus spends a lot of time speaking about and to “those whom you (the Father) gave me out of the world.” They’re a unique group of people. It’s only through them that the risen Jesus can expect to be “glorified.”

John’s Jesus especially reflects on the fact that the “words you (the Father) gave to me I have given to them, and they accepted them and truly understood that I came from you and have believed that you sent me.” It’s up to them to “accomplish the work” God initially entrusted to the historical Jesus, to pass the words they received from him to others, to carry on his ministry.

After my early years of Catholic education, I thought the primary reason I was on this earth was simply to get into heaven when I died. It never occurred to me that I was expected to carry on Jesus’ work. If anyone was to do that, it was the priests and bishops. That idea was reinforced when I was in the seminary. Today’s gospel pericope, for instance, was always proclaimed in one of my seminaries before the special meal held for and with the newly ordained priests, introduced by the reader as “Jesus’ prayer for his priests.” Back then – in the early 1960s - no one seemed to realize that when John wrote his gospel there were no priests as we know them today. That development most probably wouldn’t take place for another century. In those unique days before the Christian community was split into clergy and laity, this prayer was said for all Jesus’ followers; each of his disciples was expected to be another Christ.

No wonder the unknown author of I Peter insists that “no one among you be made to suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as an intriguer.” (Though I’m not too certain what an “intriguer” is, I think it might have something to do with chancery offices!) According to the sacred author, we’re not to be such sinful people because that behavior would stop us from getting into heaven but because such actions would hinder us from carrying on Jesus’ ministry. We’re the people who stand out in this world, working “in the name of Christ.”

Perhaps today especially it might be good to recall that old axiom attributed to Francis of Assisi: “Preach the gospel always, and if necessary, use words!” If we’re serious about being other Christs, then Jesus’ priorities must be our priorities, his lifestyle, our lifestyle. But before anything else, we have to actually “keep the word” we proclaim. How can we palm it off on someone else and still be glorifying Jesus?


This essay comes to you from FOSIL, The Faithful of Southern Illinois,
Email:, or write FOSIL, P.O. Box 31, Belleville, IL, 62222



Acts 2:1-11; I Corinthians 12:3b-7, 12-13; John 20:19-23

If you’re participating in a Bible Trivia contest, how would you answer the question, “On what day did the Holy Spirit come down on Jesus’ disciples?”

The correct answer is, “I don’t know.” At least two different dates are given in today’s liturgical Scriptures alone. In our Acts passage, Luke tells us it was on the Jewish feast of Pentecost – seven weeks after Passover; while John puts the event on Easter Sunday night – several days after Passover. You have no choice but to pay your money and take your pick.

Those who first collected our Christian sacred writings and eventually gathered them into one book couldn’t have appreciated our problem. Falling back on their Semitic “both/and” way of thinking, they expected to find such contradictions. More concerned with the implications of our faith than with exact historical happenings, they often chose a date that would convey the meaning of a particular event, ignoring the actual calendar day that event took place. That’s certainly why Luke puts the Holy Spirit event on Pentecost.

The Jewish feast of “Weeks” - or Pentecost - commemorates the Israelites entering into a covenant with Yahweh on Mt. Sinai. It’s that agreement which formally creates the Chosen People. No longer just a ragtag band of runaway slaves, they’re now Yahweh’s people.

In a similar way, the arrival of the Holy Spirit transforms Jesus’ disciples into the new people of God, committed to carrying on his ministry. This seems to be why Luke makes a big thing out of the many foreign pilgrims understanding the disciples’ message in their native tongues. Throughout Acts, with the Spirit’s help, these followers are going to spread Jesus’ message to the “ends of the earth.”

John, on the other hand, picks Easter Sunday night as the time for the Spirit’s arrival because of his conviction that the Spirit is an integral part of Jesus’ (and our) dying and rising, something we especially demonstrate in our forgiveness of others.

But there are many more scriptural implications of the Spirit than just these two. Paul shows that in our I Corinthians pericope. For the Apostle, it’s precisely the risen Jesus’ Spirit which provides us with the gifts that mold us into the Body of Christ. “There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit,” he writes, “. . . who produces all of them in everyone.” The key insight is his well-known teaching: “As the body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ.” If the Spirit doesn’t gift each of Jesus’ followers in a unique way, the risen Jesus would be “bodiless.” No one Christian can completely convey Christ’s image. It takes all of us to pull that off, each one employing the gifts the Spirit’s given him or her.

Paul’s Corinthian experience of the Spirit’s gifts creating conflicts in the church dovetails with Luke’s Pentecost images of the Spirit: wind, noise and fire. Each one not only causes confusion, but also creates situations we’d prefer to avoid. Yet if we’re serious about being the Body of Christ, we have to be willing to accept and deal with such problems, a sign we accept the Spirit’s gifts.

Perhaps the most important line in today’s three readings is Paul’s remark, “To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit.” When we refuse to put up with the wind, noise and fire which accompany the Spirit in our lives, we’re also refusing to do the good which comes from being the Body of Christ.

If we have lots of peace and tranquility in our particular church, we’re probably squelching the Spirit.


This essay comes to you from FOSIL, The Faithful of Southern Illinois,
Email:, or write FOSIL, P.O. Box 31, Belleville, IL, 62222



Exodus 34:4b-6, 8-9; II Corinthians 13:11-13; John 3:16-18

All the theses we were expected to defend during our seminary dogmatic theology courses began with a “definition of terms.” We had to give the meaning or “essential nature” of every word or concept in the thesis. A good way to begin if one is an “either/or” Greek thinker. But if one thinks like our Semitic “both/and” sacred authors, defining terms can be a problem – especially if one of those terms is “God.”

It’s no accident that our Trinitarian definition of God as “three persons in one” wasn’t formulated as such until the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, long after Greek thought had hijacked Christianity. If the question of defining God had come up in the first Christian century I’m certain our biblical authors would have challenged the questioner’s faith. The essential nature of God isn’t something a person of scriptural faith can provide with a simple either/or response. And certainly not something today’s three sacred authors would even think of doing. They’re much more concerned with talking about what they’ve experienced God doing in their lives than in defining who God is.

In today’s Exodus pericope, for instance, we must appreciate that our biblical writers presume a person’s name actually stands for the person. So when God proclaims the name “Yahweh” in front of Moses he/she is giving the great lawgiver an intimate glimpse into God’s nature, a nature which can only be grasped by someone to whom Yahweh’s been “merciful and gracious, slow to anger and rich in kindness and fidelity.” In the mind of the sacred author, Yahweh is what Yahweh does.

By the way, I trust more and more Christians will gradually begin to use Yahweh’s name and not God or the Lord in their prayers. It’s a long story why that name isn’t employed in most English translations of the Bible. (The Jerusalem Bible is a notable exception.) But, as we hear in this Exodus passage, Yahweh certainly wishes to be called by that name. Why do we constantly refuse to honor his/her wishes?

Though Paul refers to God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in our I Corinthians passage, he doesn’t mention anything about three persons in one God. He simply seems to be reminding his community about the different ways in which the God we follow is a “God of love and peace.” No matter how God comes into our lives – for Christians through Jesus and the Holy Spirit – these two attributes are always present. According to the Apostle, they’re parts of the divine nature we can and should be imitating.

John especially zeros in on the love dimension. In one of the best-known lines of the Christian Scriptures, he reminds his readers, “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” For John, being God’s Son doesn’t help Jesus lay claim to being the Second Person of the Trinity, but as proof positive that God loves us. He presumes that without some sort of sacrifice there can be no legitimate love. Especially in this passage the evangelist points us to the depth of God’s sacrifice.

It might be providential that Greek thought eventually permeated Christian faith. We probably couldn’t have catechisms without it. (Had we “stuck” with Semitic thought our books of Christian formation would be at least as thick as the Bible!) But on the other hand, such a way of either/or thinking also made it more convenient for us to define God rather than reflect on God’s actions in our lives. Certainly left us off the hook. I don’t know how someone would go about imitating a definition.


This essay comes to you from FOSIL, The Faithful of Southern Illinois,
Email:, or write FOSIL, P.O. Box 31, Belleville, IL, 62222



Deuteronomy 8:2-3, 14b-16a; I Corinthians 10:16-17; John 6:51-58

The early biblical Christian community would have looked at today’s feast through different eyes than those looking at it today. We’ve been trained to see the “feeding” element of Christ’s Body and Blood; they saw the “presence” element.

We see the former in today’s choice of a first reading. The comparison of Christ’s Body and Blood to the manna in the wilderness is classic. Moses reminds the Chosen People, “He (Yahweh) let you be afflicted with hunger, and then fed you with manna . . . .” No matter the dangers the Israelites faced during their desert wanderings, Yahweh’s timely manna provided the strength to see them through their journeys unscathed. The similarity with Christ’s Body and Blood needs no explanation.

John’s late first century CE reflection on both Eucharistic elements certainly reinforces that theology. Immediately after the bread miracle, his Jesus states, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them on the last day.” The evangelist is convinced Christ’s Body and Blood are the only “true food and true drink” Christians need to attain eternal life.

Yet a generation or two before John wrote his gospel, Paul looked at the Eucharist through a different filter. Today’s I Corinthians passage is very significant; it contains the earliest known biblical reference to the Lord’s Supper. But once pulled out its chapter 10 context, it’s almost impossible to appreciate Paul’s unique Eucharistic theology.

At this point of his letter, Paul’s challenging the overconfidence of some in the Corinthian community who believe they can continue taking part in their old pagan sacrifices yet remain followers of Jesus in good standing. He argues that just as receiving from the Eucharistic cup makes them one with the risen Jesus, so the pagan temple rituals in which they engage make them one with those other gods; an obvious contradiction for a disciple of Jesus. Then, bringing up a point John never makes about the Lord’s Supper in his oft-quoted chapter 6, the Apostle mentions his belief that receiving the cup and bread also make the participants one with one another. Symbolized by the one loaf, it transforms them into the one Body of Christ. (I wonder what our use of individual “hosts” signifies.)

Paul doesn’t have to ask the next question. It’s obvious. How could the Body of Christ take part in such an abomination?

One of the reasons Catholic celebrations of the Lord’s Supper eventually transformed themselves into just a series of “robotic actions” springs from our church’s zeroing in only on John 6 and ignoring other early Eucharistic theologies, especially that of Paul in I Corinthians. The “Mass” simply became the way this special food and drink was produced. No longer was it a communal meal in which the participants became one with both the risen Christ and one another. One special person did all the “work;’ everyone else just “applauded” when it was over. (Until the liturgical reforms of the mid-20th century practically no one – except the priest - even dared to actually eat any of this unique food!)

Ad nauseam I repeat the late Bishop Frank Murphy’s 1964 instruction to us about-to-be-ordained priests. “Your main task during the Eucharist isn’t just to say the right words or make the right gestures; it’s to help form the participants into the Body of Christ.”

Unfortunately, it didn’t take us long to figure out it was far easier to “cook” the meal than it was to create the unique environment in which that one of a kind meal was to be eaten.


This essay comes to you from FOSIL, The Faithful of Southern Illinois,
Email:, or write FOSIL, P.O. Box 31, Belleville, IL, 62222

Archives in PDF format:
adobe Documents are in Adobe Acrobat PDF format.
Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader

Each archive file has two articles with the most recent at the bottom.

2017 Essays
June 11 & 18, 2017
May 28 & June 4, 2017
May 21 & 25 or 28, 2017
May 7 & 14, 2017
April 23 & 30, 2017
April 13 & 15(vigil), 2017
April 2 & 9, 2017
March 19 & 26, 2017
March 5 & 12, 2017
February 19 & 26, 2017
February 5 & 12, 2017
January 22 & 29, 2017
January 8 & 15, 2017

2016 Essays

December 25, 2016, & January 1, 2017
December 11 & 18, 2016
November 27 & December 4, 2016
November 13 & 20, 2016
October 30 & November 6, 2016
October 16 & 23, 2016
October 2 & 9, 2016
September 18 & 25, 2016
September 4 & 11, 2016
August 21 & 28, 2016
August 7 & 14, 2016
July 24 & 31, 2016
July 10 & 17, 2016
June 26 and July 3, 2016
Jun 12 & June 19, 2016
May 29 & June 5, 2016
May 15 & May 22, 2016
May 5 & May 8, 2016
April 24 & May 1, 2016
April 10 & April 17, 2016
March 27 and April 3, 2016
March 24 & 26, 2016
March 13 & 20, 2016
February 28 and March 6, 2016
February 14 and 21, 2016
January 31 and February 7, 2016
January 17 and 24, 2016
January 3 and 10, 2016

2015 Essays
December 25 and 27, 2015
December 13, 20 and 25, 2015
November 29 and December 6, 2015
November 15 and 22, 2015
November 1 and 8, 2015
October 18 and 25, 2015
October 4 and 11, 2015
September 20 and 27, 2015
September 6 and 13, 2015
August 23 and 30, 2015
August 9 and 16, 2015
July 26 and August 2, 2015
July 12 and 19, 2015
June 28 and July 5, 2015
June 14 and 21, 2015
May 31 and June 7, 2015
May 17 and 24, 2015
May 10 and May 14 or 17, 2015
April 26 and May 3, 2015
April 12 and 19, 2015
April 4 and 5, 2015
March 29 and April 2, 2015
March 15 and 22, 2015
March 1 and 8, 2015
February 15 and 22, 2015
February 1 and 8, 2015
January 18 and 25, 2015
January 4 and 11, 2015

2014 Essays
December 25 & 28, 2014
December 14 & 21, 2014
November 30 & December 7, 2014
November 16 & 23, 2014
November 2 and 9, 2014
October 19 & 26, 2014
October 5 & 12, 2014
September 21 & 28, 2014
September 7 & 14, 2014
August 24 and 31, 2014
August 10 and 17, 2014
July 27 and August 3, 2014
July 13 and July 20, 2014
June 29 and July 6, 2014
June 15 and June 22, 2014
June 1 and June 8, 2014
May 25 and May 29, 2014
May 11 and May 18, 2014
April 27 and May 4, 2014
April 19 & 20, 2014
April 13 & 17, 2014
March 30 & April 6, 2014
March 16 & 23, 2014
March 2 & 9, 2014
February 16 & 23, 2014
February 2 & 9, 2014
January 19 & 26, 2014
January 5 & 12, 2014

2013 Essays
December 25 & 29, 2013
December 15 & 22, 2013
December 1 & 8, 2013
November 17 & 24, 2013
November 3 & 10, 2013
October 20 and 27, 2013
October 6 and 13, 2013
September 22 and 29, 2013
September 8 and 15, 2013
August 25 and September 1, 2013
August 11 and 18, 2013
July 28 and August 4, 2013
July 14 and 21, 2013
June 30 and July 7, 2013
Jun 16 & 23, 2013
Jun 2 & 9, 2013
May 19 & 26, 2013
May 9 & 12, 2013
April 28 and May 5, 2013
April 14 and 21, 2013
March 30 and April 7, 2013
March 24 and 28, 2013
March 10 and 17, 2013
February 24 and March 3, 2013
February 10 and 17, 2013
January 27 and February 3, 2013
January 13 and 20, 2013
December 30, 2012, and January 6, 2013

2012 Essays
December 23 & 25, 2012
December 9 & 16, 2012
November 25 and December 2, 2012
November 11 and 18, 2012
October 28 and November 4, 2012
October 14 and October 21, 2012
September 30 and October 7, 2012
September 16 and September 23, 2012
September 2 and September 9, 2012
August 19 and August 26, 2012
August 5 and August 12, 2012
July 22 and July 29, 2012
July 8 and July 15, 2012
June 24 and July 1, 2012
June 10 and 17, 2012
May 27 and June 3, 2012
May 17 and May 20, 2012
May 6 and May 13, 2012
April 22 and April 29, 2012
April 7 (Easter Vigil) and April 15, 2012
March 25 and April 1, 2012
March 11 and March 18, 2012
February 26 and March 4, 2012
February 12 and February 19, 2012
January 29 and February 5, 2012
January 15 and January 22, 2012
January 1 and January 8, 2012

2011 Essays
December 18 and December 25, 2011
December 4 and December 11, 2011
November 20 and November 27, 2011
November 6 and November 13, 2011
October 23 and October 30, 2011
October 9 and October 16, 2011
September 25 and October 2, 2011
September 18, 2011
September 4, 2011
August 21, 2011
August 07, 2011
July 24, 2011
July 10, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 12, 2011
June 6, 2011
May 22, 2011
May 5, 2011
April 10, 2011
May 8th, 2011
April 24, 2011
April 3, 2011
March 20, 2011
March 6, 2011
February 20, 2011
February 6, 2011
January 30, 2011
January 16, 2011
January 2, 2011

2010 Essays
December 25, 2010
December 10, 2010
November 28, 2010
November 14, 2010



Copyright © 2017 · All Rights Reserved · Faithful of Southern Illinois
P.O. Box 31, Belleville, Illinois  62222
Contact Us

Web Site Design & Hosting by Moonlight Computing, LLC