Sunday, March 22, 2015

OH THE HUMANITY OF IT ALL! RAIN THREATENS MACON'S CHERRY BLOSSOM FESTIVAL PARADE TODAY AND MY PARTICIPATION IN IT!

Pretty in pink from past parades!





I'm posting this at 5:35 AM Sunday morning and the forecast especially for later today is 100% rain which means Macon's Cherry Blossom Festival Parade will be canceled, more than likely, which means I can't be in the parade which is so much fun, especially wearing that borrowed pink blazer, but everyone in town to the most macho, like me, are wearing pink, so there is no stigma. I wore it last week too, but at Holy Mass for Laetarae Sunday. Did your priest wear his pink last Sunday?

For a couple of years St. Joseph Church was the host church for the festival kick-off "worship" service, but ours was a regular Sunday Mass. I had to warn our parishioners that we would have many extra visitors for our 12:10 PM Mass and that they might choose to go to another Mass to make room for them. It is odd celebrating a Sunday Mass with more than half the congregation not Catholic! Can anyone say "evangelization?" 

But here are some photos of Cherry Blossom Festivals past that might not be duplicated today (the other priest depicted is former parochial vicar Fr. Dawid Kwiatkowski)!



 Now retired US Senator Saxby Chambliss speaking after Holy Communion, a really, really nice prince of a man!





Cherry Blossom Tree by rectory back door:

20 comments:

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Regarding your comment that Senator Chambliss is a “prince of a man:

"On February 7, 2008, there was a serious dust explosion at the Imperial Sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, Georgia. The explosion killed 14 people and injured over 40, making it one of the very worst industrial disasters in Georgia history. Much of the machinery used in the refinery was badly outdated, and safety regulations went widely ignored. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, in its investigation after the disaster, concluded that the accident was not only preventable, but that refinery management had been alerted to the unsafe work environment and had failed to act, and proposed penalties of over $8.7 million.

This leads us to Senator Saxby Chambliss. In July, the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety held hearings on the Imperial Sugar explosion. Chambliss, though not a member of the subcommittee, showed up for the hearings along with fellow Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson. Chambliss took a particular interest in the testimony of Graham H. Graham, an Imperial Sugar whistleblower who testified that he had issued repeated warnings to upper management about safety conditions at the plant.

Philip Hilder, a lawyer for Graham, accused U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga, of using Imperial material to try to discredit his client.

Chambliss browbeat Graham near the end of the hearing in Washington, but denied he was using Imperial-supplied questions.

"I ask my own questions," said Chambliss, who received $1,000 from Imperial’s political action committee in 2007.

The Savannah Morning News elaborates on Chambliss’ "browbeating" of a whistleblower testifying against one of Chambliss’ donors:

“Tuesday apparently was payback time. The Georgia Republican badgered Graham, twice telling him he questioned the executive’s sincerity. Then the lawmaker had the nerve to ask – perhaps after prompting by sugar daddies – this question: "Why are you still working for this company?"

Chambliss, apparently, went the extra mile to try and discredit Graham, whose testimony even Senator Isakson found "credible", per the Morning News article. He continued to do so outside the hearings:

"My question is if it was that bad, and you thought somebody was fixing to get killed, why in the world weren’t you more forceful?" he said. "Why didn’t he really do something? Because … as a result of his failure to do something a serious accident did happen, in my opinion."

"This guy Graham knows he’s on the hook," Chambliss added.

Chambliss, who works closely with the sugar industry as the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, insists he is not trying to defend Imperial, which is among the largest U.S. sugar producers.

But his comments are the latest in which he has focused on Graham as a culprit instead of the company, despite a recent government investigation that accused Imperial of willfully and egregiously violating dozens of safety standards. (From http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2008/10/28/a-double-good-deed/)

OSHA fined Imperial $8.8 million, the third largest fine in history, in May, 2010 after citing the company for 211 violations at the Port Wentworth plant and a plant in Gramercy, Louisiana. After settlement negotiations the company agreed to pay $6 million, while admitting no fault.

A prince of a man? Bought and paid for.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Describing a man as a prince does not imply he is not a sinner. As a pastor you should know this before you browbeat him.

And how many good and holy bishops and priests, allow rich politicians who are Catholic (Chambliss isn't, he's Episcopalian) to receive Holy Communion despite their voting record on abortion and their pro-abortion politics and we know who they are and the lavish funerals they receive, such is the case in Napoli for Mafia dons!

Daniel said...

Too bad about the parade.
Any event that brings so many outsiders to see the beauty of St. Joseph's, and allows Father McDonald (and Father David) to cut up in public is a great thing.

Anonymous said...

Really lame reply, Fr.AJM.

Michael (Quicumque Vult) said...

Father, I love your rose vestments. ;)

Anonymous said...

and do you REALLY think we want to see 15 pictures of you in pink?

John Nolan said...

Come on! Laetare Sunday was last week. Today (Passion Sunday) you should have been going around your church making sure everything was veiled. And the Mercedes, showing you to be a pastor of bling? Papa Francesco would surely have mandated a Model T Ford.

rcg said...

More Tame Reply from rcg: Maybe FrAJM and Senator Chambliss were simply showing good manners ala Pope Francis.

Joseph Johnson said...

John Nolan,
If Father wants to ride in a Model T Ford, I have a running 1923 Model T open touring car that I could trailer up to Macon . . (to drive it up there from where I live would take a whole day). It's the customary black, of course.

Joseph Johnson said...

John Nolan,
If Father wants to ride in a Model T Ford, I have a running 1923 Model T open touring car that I could trailer up to Macon . . (to drive it up there from where I live would take a whole day). It's the customary black, of course.

Marie said...

Love the pink! Thanks, Fr. McD, for wearing rose for Laetare Sunday.
I know of some priests who wouldn't wear rose on Laetare and Gaudete. They say it make them feel like a giant bottle of PeptoBismol. I think it takes courage and humility.

Petra said...

Fr. Kavanaugh, do you have your own blog?

Jdj said...

Fr., I have to say it: there is not one politician I have ever been willing to describe as a "Prince of a man". Believe me, I have been all over the spectrum of politics over the past 50+ years. Just sayin'...

Fr. MJK said...

No blog

Paul said...

An opinion of an opinion of an opinion.

During the season of Lent perhaps another purchase would be better contemplated.

Sunday, the priest at the church I went to wore purple...

"I don't know about those Catholics."

Anonymous said...

I believe Chambliss's father was an Episcopal "minister" (these days Episcopalians tend to call their clergy "priests", but in the more Protestant, Low-Church days of decades ago, "minister" was the norm.) Being from Moultrie, Chambliss would be part of the (Episcopal) Diocese of Georgia, whose boundaries largely overlap those of the Diocese of Savannah... haven't had a Catholic governor or US Senator in Georgia in modern times (since at least the 1930s)---are we overdue for one? Even Bible-Belt Alabama and Mississippi have elected Catholic governors in modern times!

Bee said...

Fr. Kavanaugh: "No blog."

That's too bad. I was going to "visit" your blog every day to be contrary, disagree, and prove myself right over matters of opinion, as you often do here. I figure you must think it is good and right to do so (and therefore would think it good and right for me to do so too on a blog you had) since you spend a lot of time doing it. Never mind. I suppose you rationalize your participation here as offering "balance" and "a different perspective."

One thing is for sure, I am absolutely positive you will not be able to resist responding to this comment. I have yet to see you not have to have the last word. It says a lot about you.

Fr. McD must be doing something right to have attracted such a one.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Bee - If I ran a blog and made it possible for readers to post comments, I would expect and welcome comments, including those who might disagree with my opinions.

I would welcome corrections if I made errors in matters of fact. For example, if I posted that King Richard III of England died at the Battle of Bunker Hill, I would be pleased to approve for posting the correction. (He died at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, the last King of England to die in battle.)

You seem to think that it is inappropriate to post opinions that differ from yours, or to make comments that you may not agree with. I don't share that view, obviously. Neither does Fr. McDonald. He has total control over which comments are posted here, so the fact that he allows those who do not share his views to be heard should be an indication to you that as much as you don't want to hear "a different perspective" on the matters we discuss here, that is going to be the reality.

I don't think the comments section on a public blog should be merely an echo chamber for the opinions of the blog owner or those who may share his views.

As to "resisting" the impulse to post a reply to your comment, well, it never even crossed my mind. You not only expected a response, you wanted one.

Bee said...

Yes, Fr. K. you do have a "right" to post to a blog that is open for comments, and to disagree with the topics discussed and comments of other posters, and to correct errors of fact, and yes, the fact that comments are screened implies tolerance of your point of view, but do you have to be so disagreeable while doing it?

I said: I am absolutely positive you will not be able to resist responding to this comment. I have yet to see you not have to have the last word."

Was I right? I guess I was.

You said: "As to "resisting" the impulse to post a reply to your comment, well, it never even crossed my mind. You not only expected a response, you wanted one."

So, not only did you respond, you claim it's not because you MUST HAVE THE LAST WORD, but rather because it's what I expected and wanted! That is rich! That I was taunting you, yep, I own up to that. That you took the bait, then excused yourself under the pretense it was ME who expected and even wanted a response, wow, that is the epitome of self absorption. You sure are a hoot.

Never mind, Father K. I, unlike you, have enough self control to end this exchange with this comment, regardless if you post a response, regardless of what it says. Peace be with you.


Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Bee - I think you find disagreement disagreeable. I don't.

I choose to post here and on other blogs; I am not forced to do so, even by taunts. I don't need excuses to do so.

Good night, and peace be with you, too.