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

Click on a date to jump to that day's commentary.
April 14
Thursday, April 18
Easter Vigil
April 28
May 5
May 12
All archived articles



Isaiah 50:4-7; Philippians 2:6-11; Luke 22:14-23:56

One reason we have four gospels and not just one revolves around the early Christian conviction that there’s more than one way to experience the risen Jesus in our lives. This is especially true when it comes to the gospel Passion Narratives. Each narrative provides us with a different dimension of Jesus’ dying and rising; a different way for each of us to become another Christ.

Our sacred authors didn’t think the way we do. We basically analyze when we think, tearing the object of our thought apart, imitating the classic Greek philosophers whose goal was always to come up with an either/or answer for any problem. Our biblical writers, on the other hand, thought semitically, not Greek. Instead of analyzing, they synthesized; instead of eventually reaching an either/or conclusion, their thought process always finished with a both/and pronouncement, constantly providing at least several ways of looking at the same person or situation. One of the classic Jewish sayings is, “Where three rabbis are discussing theology there are always at least five theological opinions on the floor.” After my own course in rabbinics I was convinced it’s impossible to flunk a true/false exam on the subject. No matter the “correct” answer, you can always surface a rabbi who holds the opposite opinion.

Since Semites, not Greeks, wrote and passed on our gospels, we have four of them, not one.

For instance, this year on Palm Sunday we’ll hear Luke’s unique take on the suffering Jesus. Unlike the other three evangelists, he constantly zeros in on Jesus’ concern for others, giving us several passages we don’t find in Mark, Matthew and John. He’s not content just to show the impact of Jesus’ suffering and death on himself, but he also stresses Jesus’ concern for how his pain affects others.

Only Luke’s Jesus heals the ear of the high priest’s arresting servant, makes eye contact with Peter after his denial, comforts the women mourning his impending crucifixion along the road to Golgotha, and assures the “good” thief, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” Though scholars debate whether the famous line, “Father, forgive them they know not what they do,” was originally in Luke’s gospel or is a latter addition, it’s significant that if the latter, the guilty scribe added it to Luke’s gospel and not to one of the other three. It’s the only gospel in which it fits. (As Fiddler on the Roof’s Tevye would say, “If it isn’t in there, it should be!”)

Luke’s theology was certainly triggered by Paul’s advice to the Philippians, “Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus.” (Why these words were left out of the Apostle’s introduction to today’s liturgical passage blows my mind.) Acquiring Jesus’ unique mentality is the goal of all his followers. Why else would the Christian Scriptures been written and saved? If our mindset isn’t his/her mindset, how can we dare call ourselves other Christs? The emptying of ourselves – as it was for Jesus - is an ongoing process. It doesn’t stop until we experience our own resurrections.

Deutero-Isaiah tells us exactly how we’re to empty ourselves: by listening for Yahweh’s word every morning, even before our feet hit the floor. Carrol Stuhlmueller always stressed there’s no better biblical definition of a disciple. God’s always talking, but only those who make an effort to listen actually hear his/her voice.

As I mentioned above, there’s no one way to listen or one group to whom we’re to listen. Carrol once mentioned that if he told me who God’s prophets are for him and his list got around, he’d never be permitted in another Catholic pulpit the rest of his life.

Afraid he took his list to eternity with him.


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



Exodus 12:1-8, 11-14; I Corinthians 11:23-26; John 13:1-15

Our ancestors in the faith could never have understood why so few of us participate in tonight’s liturgy. It was one of the highlights of their liturgical year. So many longed to take part in tonight’s celebration that the community’s penitents who had completed their years of penance were usually absolved on Holy Thursday morning so they could once again join in tonight’s festivities. (They were forbidden to participate in the Eucharist while they were still completing their penances.)

It’s not only on this night that we have so few Eucharistic participants. We’ve experienced similar drop-offs in all our weekend parish celebrations. Church after church constantly cuts back on the number of its Eucharists. The diminished numbers can’t be blamed solely on the ongoing priest shortage. In a great part, this appalling situation comes from the way we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Tonight’s second and third readings tell us this has been a problem from Christianity’s earliest days. In both passages, Paul and John are concerned with the community’s “freeloaders” who refuse to die with Jesus during the celebration.

Biblical references to the Breaking of Bread have nothing to do with a special person saying special words over unleavened bread and grape wine. From the disciples sharing their bread with the crowd to Jesus’ last meal with his followers, whenever the Eucharist biblically comes up or is referred to – except for John 6 - the sacred author’s message always revolves around giving yourself or what belongs to you to others.

The second half of I Corinthians 11 is triggered by some of the wealthy in the local church refusing to share their Eucharistic food and drink with the poor. Through various gimmicks, they avoid taking part in the early celebrations’ potluck format. That’s why Paul reminds his readers that the original reason they “ate this bread and drank this cup” was “to proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.” They weren’t there to “get graces” by receiving communion or to fulfill a church regulation to “go to Sunday Mass.” Their presence at the Eucharist was to somehow show their determination to die with Jesus. One way the Corinthians demonstrated this determination was to share their food and drink with those who had nothing. Only when they died by recognizing the risen Jesus in all around them, did the risen Jesus also become present in the bread and wine.

John, on the other hand, experiences that same death in the community’s service to one another. In their culture, nothing demonstrated their giving better than washing one another’s feet. Such a demeaning action was usually a job for slaves. No wonder Peter, the leader of the apostolic community, initially refuses to take part in such a ritual. It’s far below his dignity. (A friend once pointed out that its neigh on impossible to wash someone’s feet while you’re standing on a pedestal.) The gospel Jesus is basically telling Simon, “It’s my way or the highway!” There are no limits to how far we’ll go in giving ourselves to others.

Obviously we’ve got to change this ridiculous new translation that’s been foisted on us. (Even Pope Francis agrees!) And we must acquaint ourselves with the history of the Eucharistic celebration. Once we do we’ll see how absurd it is to ring bells during the celebration or zero in on the elevation. But more than anything, we again must find ways to give ourselves to one another during the Lord’s Supper. We should die in more ways than just suffering through meaningless rituals. Once we surface and implement meaningful ways to give ourselves, I presume we’ll again have to worry about turning people away from our Eucharistic celebrations, not attracting individuals to them.


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



Genesis 22:1-18; Exodus 14:15-15:1; Isaiah 55:1-11; Luke 24:1-12

(Ideally all nine readings should be proclaimed tonight. But because of space limitations, I can only comment on four.)

If we’re determined to prove the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection from the four gospel accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb, we have an impossible task. There are so many contradictions within those four narratives that, taken together, no one can be certain about what exactly happened at the tomb on Easter Sunday morning.

Each of tonight’s nine readings wasn’t chosen for what it could prove, but for what it could help us understand about the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection. There are probably as many implications of that event as there are people who believe it took place. In many ways, we’re free to look at it from any perspective we choose.

Early Christian communities frequently turned to tonight’s Genesis and Exodus narratives of Abraham sacrificing Isaac and the Chosen People crossing the sea as ways to understand the resurrection’s significance. Just as Yahweh delivered Isaac from death at the last second, so God also delivered Jesus of Nazareth. And just as the enslaved Israelites went from death to a new life at the Red Sea, so Jesus went from death to a new life by his dying and rising. In each situation, people expected death, but found life.

Yet as Deutero-Isaiah reminds us, one thing is consistent as they face their deaths: God’s word. No biblical author emphasizes that word more than this unnamed prophet. Preaching during Israel’s 6th century BCE Babylonian Exile, Yahweh’s word is the prophet’s only recourse. Few people believe him when he speaks about Yahweh freeing them and returning to the Promised Land. Such good news can only be a figment of his imagination. But over and over again he insists in the name of Yahweh, “My word shall not return to me void.” Once God’s word is spoken, it happens. Its effect is just as certain as the effect of the rain and snow.

One of our problems in experiencing that effect is that we simply don’t notice it. Dealing with God is completely different from dealing with human beings. Deutero-Isaiah refers to this in his well-known passage describing the contrast between Yahweh’s immanence and Yahweh’s transcendence. “Seek Yahweh while he may be found, call him while his is near . . . . For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways . . . . As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts.” In the same instant, God is as close to us as the air we breathe and as distant as the furthest galaxy.

No wonder our sacred authors only tell their readers about Jesus’ empty tomb and never attempt to describe his resurrection. That unique event is part of his transcendence. As Rudolf Bultmann observed, “How does one describe the ‘other side’ for people on ‘this side?’” The evangelists can only talk about the effects, and those differ person to person. Luke, for instance, zeros in on the necessity of the death that precedes the resurrection. In tonight’s pericope, the angels tell the women, “The Son of Man must be handed over to sinners and be crucified . . . .” It’s not a matter of choice. It’s the way God set things up.

Some in Luke’s community were looking for loopholes to attain life, akin to the ways we learned in grade school – such as wearing a special medal around our necks or receiving communion on specific days of the month. Luke’s angels assure us there are no shortcuts to dying with Jesus. Though there are a million ways to die, die we must.


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



Acts 5:12-16; Revelation 1:8-11a, 12-13, 17-19; John 20:19-31

One of the reasons Luke composed a double volume gospel revolves around his belief that whatever Jesus does in the gospel, the Christian community also does in Acts. Though he doesn’t directly employ Paul’s image of the Body of Christ, he certainly shares his theology. It’s up to us to continue Jesus’ work. No matter what he accomplished during his earthly ministry, if we refuse to carry his ministry forward, it remains unfinished. Only other Christs can pull that off. That’s why we should be well-versed in both understanding and copying Jesus’ personality. The second point is most important. As the late Fr. Dan Berrigan insisted, “Our task is to become Christians, not experts on Christianity.” Luke constantly reminds his community that it isn’t what we know but what we do. And based on today’s first reading, one of the main things we do is heal, even going beyond just healing physically. That seems to be why Luke includes in his cures “those disturbed by unclean spirits.” In the evangelist’s day and age, unclean spirits were thought responsible for all evils, not just moral evils. For instance, those with mental problems were believed to have as many demons in them as someone afflicted with cancer.

Following that line of thought, John’s Jesus, on the night of his resurrection, gifts his disciples with the Holy Spirit, enabling them to forgive one another’s sins. Nothing rids us of our demons more than forgiving and being forgiven. Both help us create the kind of world the risen Jesus envisions.

Yet, as the author of Revelation states, unless we keep the risen Jesus as the “first and last” of our lives, we’ll be trapped in our humdrum existence. Only he/she provides us the life for which we dream, as long as we remain participants and not just spectators.

One of the key elements in our participation can easily be overlooked – at least I overlooked it until recently. When John’s Jesus reminds Thomas, “Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed,” we correctly include ourselves in that number. Yet at the same time, there’s usually a group we leave out: our sacred authors. All scholars tell us that no one who physically came in contact with the historical Jesus ever wrote anything about him that we have today. None of our sacred authors – including the evangelists – directly heard or saw Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus who lived between 6 BCE and 30 CE. They, like we, encountered only the risen Jesus. Everything we read in our Christian Scriptures has come down to us from those who have not seen, yet believe. If they didn’t pass on their second and third generation reflections to fourth and fifth generation Christians, we’d have no Christian Scriptures.

Obviously no one alive today has had an experience of the historical Jesus. Along with our sacred authors, we can only have contact with the risen Jesus. Though we might sluff off our risen Jesus experiences as insignificant, thankfully our Christian biblical writers didn’t share that state of mind. Rembert Weakland, the former archbishop of Milwaukee, once wrote that all Christians have an obligation to put their risen Jesus experiences into a format others can later surface. The Spirit didn’t share them with us for our benefit alone.

Hard to tell what that format would entail. (Weakland suggested that, given specific circumstances, it could simply be a letter to the editor of our local newspaper.) Though I imagine few of us will ever write a gospel, we should at least share our reflections with certain family members or close friends. Just as our sacred authors have helped us, we might be a help to others – people who we don’t realize need them.


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



Acts 5:27-32, 40b-41; Revelation 5:11-14; John 21:1-19

An inherent problem in appreciating Scripture is that a lot of things which happened over a long period of time are often telescoped by our sacred authors to appear they took place more quickly. The apostles’ understanding of Jesus’ resurrection provides a classic example. The angels at the empty tomb, the women’s experiences and Jesus’ Easter Sunday appearances seem to have provided his disciples all the proof they needed to convince them he’d truly risen. And all this happens in less than 24 hours.

Thankfully someone attached today’s chapter 21 to John’s finished gospel to let us know it didn’t happen exactly that way. The vast majority of today’s scholars are convinced our first reading contains the earliest account of a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus we have. There are no angels, no prior appearances. After their disastrous Passover pilgrimage, Jesus’ disciples trek back to Capernaum and do what most people do when their world has crashed, just mope around, doing nothing. Probably in that condition for weeks, Peter finally does what Elizabeth Kübler-Ross tells us we all must eventually do: return to work. “I’m going back to fishing,” he announces.

It's only when the Rock and his fellow fishermen return to doing what they did before they encountered Jesus of Nazareth that they discover this itinerant preacher is now present in their lives in a new, unique way, present especially when they share a meal, something they had often done with the historical Jesus. Yet notice there’s not ironclad recognition of the risen Jesus, either at the sea or on the shore. Only the “beloved disciple” recognizes him from the boat, and though all recognize him during the meal, some seem to still have questions about whether it’s the Christ or not.

But it’s a significant aspect of John’s theology that when they recognize the risen Jesus, they also recognize they’ve been called by him/her. Peter provides the example. In a classic reversal of his three denials, this leader of the apostolic community now professes his love three times. Like Jesus, he’s a changed person.

Luke also zeros in on Peter’s changed personality. All his gospel readers remember how he cowered from a serving girl on the night Jesus was tried. Yet now in Acts, just a few weeks later, he boldly stands up in public and challenges the high priest’s command to “stop preaching in (Jesus’) name.” Though he once feared the suffering that would be his by admitting his association with this Capernaum carpenter, he now “rejoices that (he) had been found worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name.” What once brought pain and death, now brings life.

Likewise the author of Revelation looks at the “Lamb’s” suffering and death through different eyes. By enduring such pain, he wasn’t destroyed, he was “enthroned.”

But, as I mentioned above, it took some time for Jesus’ followers to reach that amazing conclusion. Presuming the weakness of our human nature, it’s almost impossible for us to instantly morph into the individuals the risen Jesus expects us to be. That’s why we shouldn’t feel inferior to our biblical heroes. Those who described their scriptural transformations weren’t interested in setting up a timeline for us to copy; they were much more concerned with giving us an ideal picture of what our own transformations should one day become.

I’d personally love to find out how long it actually took Jesus’ disciples to put two and two together and discover the meaning of the empty tomb, or for Peter to build up the courage to eventually “witness” for the risen Jesus. I presume those closest to the historical Jesus would be the first to understand that, in old age, I’m still trying to become another Christ.


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



Acts 13:14, 43-52; Revelation 7:9, 14b-17; John 10:27-30

One of the reasons Luke wrote Acts is found in today’ first reading. Some early Jewish critics of Christianity were claiming that from the beginning Jesus of Nazareth was planning to destroy Judaism by opening the reform he preached to non-Jews. According to them, the Gentile converts multiplying in Christianity during Luke’s day and age weren’t accidental. The whole process was part of the Capernaum carpenter’s master plan from day one.

Luke responds, “No way!” The Gentiles who were accepting the risen Jesus’ faith were a total surprise. If non-Jews were becoming other Christs it was only because many of those who were originally invited to experience Jesus’ dying and rising personally rejected the invitation.

Luke shares his read on this unexpected situation in today’s first reading. Paul and Barnabas, as good Jews, initially bring the message of Jesus’ death and resurrection to their fellow Jews in the Antioch synagogue. Only after those worshipers contradict what the pair proclaim with “violent abuse,” do the two state the evangelist’s thesis: “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first, but since you reject it and condemn yourselves as unworthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.”

No secret plan existed to evangelize Gentiles. Paul and his co-evangelizers were forced to develop one out of necessity when the unexpected happened. Though Jewish Christians were still obligated to keep the 613 Mosaic laws along with imitating the risen Jesus, Gentile Christians simply concentrated on the latter.

The greatest 20th century scholar of the Christian Scriptures – Rudolph Bultmann - once observed, “Eventually the preacher became the preached.” During his earthy ministry, Jesus of Nazareth preached a reform of Judaism. After his death and resurrection, he/she became the reform he had once preached. Nowhere is this change clearer than in today’s famous gospel pericope about Jesus, the Good Shepherd.

Most probably written in the mid-90s, this Johannine passage speaks about Jesus shepherding his people. It isn’t the first time the gospel Jesus lists the characteristics of a good shepherd. He does so a generation or two before in both Matthew and Luke. But in those prior passages, he never identifies with the shepherd. He simply speaks about God – as a shepherd – wasting lots of time and effort going after “lost” sheep. Only at the end of the first Christian century does someone eventually identify the risen Jesus as such a shepherd. The preacher has finally become the preached.

Of course, once people no longer have the “Jewishness” of their faith to fall back on, they have no choice but to concentrate completely on the Christ, as does the author of Revelation. His theology closely parallels John: “The Lamb . . . will shepherd them and lead them to springs of life-giving water . . .” If you’re not following the risen Jesus, you’ll end up dying of thirst.

The basic problem for non-Jewish Christians is that those who break concentration on the risen Jesus among them are going to have terrific difficulties accomplishing the reform he preached. I presume that was the main reason celebrations of the Eucharist were essential for the earliest Christians. They simply couldn’t be who they were expected to be without creating frequent occasions to give themselves to one another.

It’s more than a shame that the biblical Breaking of Bread eventually developed into just a series of prayers and rituals by which a person gains sufficient graces to one day get into heaven. None of our Christian sacred authors could have foreseen that development.

Church historians tell us reform of the church must begin with reform of the Eucharist. Considering the recent translation foisted on us by Rome, we’ve got a long way to go.


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.

2019 Essays
May 5 & 12, 2019
April 20 & 28, 2019
April 14 & 18, 2019
March 31 & April 7, 2019
March 17 & 24, 2019
March 3 & 10, 2019
February 17 & 24, 2019
February 3 & 10, 2019
January 20 & 27, 2019
January 6 & 13, 2019

2018 Essays

December 25 & 30, 2018
December 16 & 23, 2018
December 2 & 9, 2018
November 18 & 25, 2018
November 4 & 11, 2018
October 21 & 28, 2018
October 7 & 14, 2018
September 23 & 30, 2018
September 9 & 16, 2018
August 26 & September 2, 2018
August 12 & 19, 2018
July 29 & August 5, 2018
July 15 & 22, 2018
July 1 & 8, 2018
June 17 & 24, 2018
June 3 & 10, 2018
May 20 & 27, 2018
May 10 & 13 2018
April 29 & May 6, 2018
April 15 & 22, 2018
March 31 (vigil) & April, 2018
March 25 & 29, 2018
March 11 & 18, 2018
February 25 & March 4, 2018
February 11 & 18, 2018
January 28 & February 4, 2018
January 14 & 21, 2018

2017 Essays

December 31, 2017, & January 7, 2018
December 24 & 25, 2017
December 10 & 17, 2017
November 26 & December 3, 2017
November 12 & 19, 2017
October 29 & November 5, 2017
October 15 & 22, 2017
October 1 & 8, 2017
September 17 & 24, 2017
September 3 & 10, 2017
August 20 & 27, 2017
August 6 & 13, 2017
July 23 & 30, 2017
July 9 & 16, 2017
June 25 & July 2, 2017
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 © 2019 · All Rights Reserved · Faithful of Southern Illinois
P.O. Box 31, Belleville, Illinois  62222
Contact Us

Web Site Design & Hosting by Moonlight Computing, LLC