From the Pastor – 29th Sunday in Ordinary time

October 16, 2020

From the Pastor – 29 th Sunday in Ordinary time

Today’s readings encourage us Christian stewards to always be mindful of who we are and Whose we are in every aspect of our lives.

Jesus reminds us of this truth in our Gospel passage today as He cleverly puts the Pharisees in their place during their attempt to verbally entrap Him. They ask Him whether it is lawful to pay the tax to Caesar. But the Pharisees were thinking small. Christ, on the other hand, thinks big.

We all know how the story goes. Christ asks to see the coin that pays the tax and has them state whose image is on it. They of course, reply, “Caesar.” In response Christ tells them to “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.”

With that, He reminds us that while civil authorities should be obeyed, we answer to an infinitely higher Authority, God, Who is Lord of everything and everyone. All things and all people were created by God. In Baptism we have been claimed for Christ. Our lives are a gift from God and we have the privilege and responsibility to use every aspect of our lives in grateful response to Him.

Let us joyfully give thanks to this wonderful God by the way we live our daily lives. We belong to Him and there is no other! © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2020

Pastoral Pondering

With a little more than two weeks before the election and with many already having participated in early voting, I wanted to continue offering guidance that could be helpful to the faithful as we seek to exercise our constitutional rights and allow our faith to guide us in that endeavor. The following information is taken from A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters written by Fr. Stephen Torraco, Ph.D. The first half is included here and the remainder will be included next week.

1.  Isn’t conscience the same as my own opinions and feelings? And doesn’t everyone have the right to his or her own conscience?

Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature and is identical with the Ten Commandments. Unlike the civil laws made by legislators, or the opinions that you hold, the natural moral law is not anything that you invent, but rather discover within yourself and is the governing norm of your conscience. In short, Conscience is the voice of truth within you, and your opinions need to be in harmony with that truth. As a Catholic, you have the benefit of the Church’s teaching authority or Magisterium endowed upon her by Christ. The Magisterium assists you and all people of good will in understanding the natural moral law as it relates to specific issues. As a Catholic, you have the obligation to be correctly informed and normed by the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. As for your feelings, they need to be educated by virtue so as to be in harmony with conscience’s voice of truth. In this way, you will have a sound conscience, according to which we you will feel guilty when you are guilty, and feel morally upright when you are morally upright. We should strive to avoid the two opposite extremes of a lax conscience and a scrupulous conscience. Meeting the obligation of continually attending to this formation of conscience will increase the likelihood that, in the actual operation or activity of conscience, you will act with a certain conscience, which clearly perceives that a given concrete action is a good action that was rightly done or should be done. Being correctly informed and certain in the actual operation of conscience is the goal of the continuing formation of conscience. Otherwise put, you should strive to avoid being incorrectly informed and doubtful in the actual judgment of conscience about a particular action or omission. You should never act on a doubtful conscience.

2.  Is it morally permissible to vote for all candidates of a single party?

This would depend on the positions held by the candidates of a single party. If any one or more of them held positions that were opposed to the natural moral law, then it would not be morally permissible to vote for all candidates of this one party. Your correctly informed conscience transcends the bounds of any one political party.

3.  If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate?

If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a "disqualifying issue." A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights. A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to understanding the point above about "disqualifying issues" is the distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal. For example, in a society’s effort to distribute the goods of health care to its citizens, there can be legitimate disagreement among citizens and political candidates alike as to whether this or that health care plan would most effectively accomplish society’s goal. In the pursuit of the best possible policy or strategy, technical as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason is operative. Technical reason is the kind of reasoning involved in arriving at the most efficient or effective result. On the other hand, no policy or strategy that is opposed to the moral principles of the natural law is morally acceptable. Thus, technical reason should always be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the kind of reasoning that is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral law.

4.  If I have strong feelings or opinions in favor of a particular candidate, even if he is pro-abortion, why may I not vote for him?

As explained in question 1 above, neither your feelings nor your opinions are identical with your conscience. Neither your feelings nor your opinions can take the place of your conscience. Your feelings and opinions should be governed by your conscience. If the candidate about whom you have strong feelings or opinions is pro-abortion, then your feelings and opinions need to be corrected by your correctly informed conscience, which would tell you that it is wrong for you to allow your feelings and opinions to give lesser weight to the fact that the candidate supports a moral evil.

5.  If I may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, then should it not also be true that I can’t vote for a pro-capital punishment candidate?

It is not correct to think of abortion and capital punishment as the very same kind of moral issue. On the one hand, direct abortion is an intrinsic evil, and cannot be justified for any purpose or in any circumstances. On the other hand, the Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor may resort to the death penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, in his encyclical  Evangelium Vitae , Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is "rare, if not virtually nonexistent." Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a "rare" case arises that warrants the death penalty. Moreover, if such a rare case does arise and requires resorting to capital punishment, this societal act of self-defense would be a *morally good action* even if it does have the unintended and unavoidable evil effect of the death of the aggressor. Thus, unlike the case of abortion, it would be morally irresponsible to rule out all such "rare" possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately.

6.  If I think that a candidate who is pro-abortion has better ideas to serve the poor, and the pro-life candidate has bad ideas that will hurt the poor, why may I not vote for the candidate that has the better ideas for serving the poor?

Serving the poor is not only admirable, but also obligatory for Catholics as an exercise of solidarity. Solidarity has to do with the sharing of both spiritual and material goods, and with what the Church calls the preferential option for the poor. This preference means that we have the duty to give priority to helping those most needful, both materially and spiritually. Beginning in the family, solidarity extends to every human association, even to the international moral order. Based on the response to question 3 above, two important points must be made. First, when it comes to the matter of determining how social and economic policy can best serve the poor, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches proposed, and therefore legitimate disagreement among voters and candidates for office. Secondly, solidarity can never be at the price of embracing a "disqualifying issue." Besides, when it comes to the unborn, abortion is a most grievous offense against solidarity, for the unborn are surely among society’s most needful. The right to life is a paramount issue because as Pope John Paul II says it is "the first right, on which all the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost." If a candidate for office refuses solidarity with the unborn, he has laid the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone.

7.  If a candidate says that he is personally opposed to abortion but feels the need to vote for it under the circumstances, doesn’t this candidate’s personal opposition to abortion make it morally permissible for me to vote for him, especially if I think that his other views are the best for people, especially the poor?

A candidate for office who says that he is personally opposed to abortion but actually votes in favor of it is either fooling himself or trying to fool you. Outside of the rare case in which a hostage is forced against his will to perform evil actions with his captors, a person who carries out an evil action, such as voting for abortion, performs an immoral act, and his statement of personal opposition to the moral evil of abortion is either self-delusion or a lie. If you vote for such a candidate, you would be an accomplice in advancing the moral evil of abortion. Therefore, it is not morally permissible to vote for such a candidate for office, even, as explained in questions 3 and 6 above, you think that the candidate’s other views are best for the poor.

From the Pastor

From the Pastor - 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • August 29, 2025
Today’s readings remind us of a chief virtue that characterizes the Christian steward: humility. This is a virtue that is widely thought of as a form of self-abasement. That understanding, however, is off the mark. Humility is simply the awareness of who (and Whose) we truly are. On one hand, we are children of the Most High God who loved us into existence and who, by virtue of our Baptism, have the Holy Trinity dwelling within us. On the other hand, we are children who are completely dependent on God for our existence and for every breath we take. Our Lord speaks of true humility in our Gospel passage from Luke, telling the parable of the guests invited to a wedding banquet and instructing us not to seek a place of honor at the banquet table, lest a more distinguished guest arrives and we are asked to move to a lower place. Jesus has much more in mind here than an etiquette lesson. He is reminding us that all glory belongs to God. The visual image He offers in having to slink down to a lower seat at the table points out how silly we are when we forget to give God the credit for our blessings and talents. On the other hand, when we live in humility — recognizing that all we have is a gift from God and using those gifts to serve Him and others — then God “exalts” us by filling us with even more of Himself and His grace. Jesus goes on to encourage us to serve and share our blessings with people facing circumstances that would make it impossible for them to offer us any worldly advantage or prestige — “the poor, the crippled, the lame.” Our attitude and how we serve and share should be centered on true humility — recognizing that we are all “little” ones in the eyes of God. We are all His children; brothers and sisters invited to our Father’s heavenly banquet. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering  In the last couple of weeks, I have heard various news stories regarding a push to legalize marijuana nationally. I thought, in light of that, it might be helpful to review Catholic teaching. In Catholic thought, the morality of marijuana use is evaluated through the lens of natural law, Church teaching, and principles of human dignity, reason, and stewardship of the body. While the Catholic Church does not have an explicit, definitive teaching on recreational marijuana use, its moral framework provides guidance based on related principles, particularly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and papal statements. Key Principles: Respect for Human Dignity and the Body : The Church teaches that the human body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) and must be cared for responsibly. Actions that impair the body or mind without sufficient reason are considered morally problematic (CCC 2288-2291). Use of Substances and Reason : The Catechism addresses the use of drugs, stating: “The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense” (CCC 2291). This suggests that recreational use of substances like marijuana, which can impair reason, judgment, and health, is generally viewed as morally wrong unless justified by medical necessity. Moderation and Prudence : Catholic moral theology emphasizes the virtue of temperance, which governs the use of pleasurable things. Any substance use that leads to loss of self-control or addiction is contrary to this virtue. Intention and Context : The morality of an act depends on its object, intention, and circumstances (CCC 1750-1756). Using marijuana for medical purposes, under professional guidance and with legal approval, may be permissible if it alleviates serious suffering and does not lead to abuse. Recreational use, however, is often seen as problematic because it typically seeks intoxication or escape, which can undermine human flourishing. Obedience to Just Laws : Catholics are called to respect legitimate civil authority (CCC 2238-2243). If marijuana use is illegal in a given jurisdiction, using it recreationally would generally be considered sinful, as it violates just laws meant to protect the common good. Where marijuana is legal, the moral question shifts to its effects on health, reason, and responsibility. Application to Marijuana: Medical Use : If marijuana is prescribed by a competent medical authority for a serious condition (e.g., chronic pain, epilepsy), its use could be morally permissible, provided it is used responsibly and does not lead to dependency or impairment that harms one’s duties to God, self, or others. Recreational Use : Recreational marijuana use is generally viewed as morally problematic in Catholic thought, especially if it impairs reason, leads to addiction, or harms physical or mental health. The Church’s emphasis on sobriety and the proper use of human faculties suggests that using marijuana to achieve intoxication or euphoria is contrary to human dignity. Cultural and Social Considerations : Some Catholic theologians note that moderate use in a legal, controlled context (e.g., akin to moderate alcohol consumption) might not always constitute a grave sin, depending on the circumstances. However, the potential for abuse, addiction, and harm to self or others makes recreational use a serious moral concern. Papal and Magisterial Guidance: Pope Francis has spoken against the legalization of recreational drugs, including marijuana, stating in 2014: “Drug addiction is an evil, and with evil there can be no yielding or compromise.” He emphasized the harm of drugs to individuals and society, particularly youth. The Catechism’s broad condemnation of non-therapeutic drug use (CCC 2291) is often interpreted to include recreational marijuana, though it does not explicitly name it. Practical Considerations: Discernment : Catholics are encouraged to discern their intentions and the effects of marijuana use. If it leads to escapism, neglect of responsibilities, or harm to relationships, it would be considered sinful. Addiction Risk : Marijuana’s potential for dependency raises concerns, as addiction undermines freedom and responsibility. Social Justice : The Church also considers the societal impact, such as the exploitation in the drug trade or the normalization of substance use in ways that harm vulnerable populations. Conclusion: In Catholic moral theology, marijuana use is permissible only for legitimate medical purposes under strict conditions. Recreational use is generally considered immoral due to its potential to impair reason, harm health, and violate the virtue of temperance. Catholics are called to exercise prudence, respect civil laws, and prioritize their responsibilities to God and others. For specific guidance, consultation with a priest or moral theologian is recommended, as individual circumstances can influence moral judgments.

From the Pastor - 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • August 22, 2025
Today’s readings show us that it is not enough to be Christ’s disciples in name only. To be a real disciple, we must live for Christ every day and in every aspect of life. This kind of life takes strength and discipline. Intentionally and consistently offering the Lord the best of our Time, Talent, and Treasure through a stewardship way of life is a form of spiritual discipline. These spiritual disciplines teach us to become ever more aware of God’s constant provision for us and they keep us on the narrow path towards the Kingdom of Heaven. The more we embrace this way of life, the more we can be “trained” by the Lord in the ways of true discipleship. Though difficult, these disciplines become a source of spiritual strength. Our Lord Himself speaks of the difficult path to the Kingdom of Heaven in today’s Gospel passage from Luke. He is asked, “Lord, will only a few be saved?” Jesus responds, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough.” Showing up for Mass on Sunday while living as if Christ is an afterthought the rest of the week does not make us disciples. What’s more, this approach to our faith is an unjust and unloving response to our good God who has given us all that we have and are. Jesus does not want us to merely go through the motions of faith. He wants much more from us and for us. He wants to know us deeply and for us to get to know Him so that we become His holy disciples. This is not a burden; it is a privilege. But it does take discipline, the discipline of a stewardship way of life. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering As the school year ramps up again, I wanted to let you know that another young man from the parish has begun his propaedeutic year at St. Joseph College Seminary. John Yellico, the son of Glen and Lissette Yellico, was accepted to the program earlier this summer. He is also the brother of Father Joseph Yellico, recently ordained and Sister Mary Agnes Yellico of the Daughters of the Virgin Mother. Please keep him and all of our seminarians in your prayers. Recently, the Diocese has been working on developing policies to govern the use of artificial intelligence for our employees and ministry sites. AI is almost constantly in the news and most everyone is familiar with Chat GPT, Truthly (the Catholic option) and any number of other efforts to harness this new technology. Earlier this year, the Holy See’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document dealing with this topic. I thought it might be useful, therefore, to offer some thoughts that might be helpful to some of you. Here’s a pastoral reflection based on Antiqua et Nova, tailored for inclusion in a pastoral letter: In our time, we are witnessing extraordinary advances in technology, especially in the realm of Artificial Intelligence (AI). These developments bring both promise and challenge, and as your pastor, I feel called to reflect with you on what this means for our faith, our humanity, and our shared journey toward holiness. The Vatican’s recent document, Antiqua et Nova, reminds us that while AI may imitate certain aspects of human intelligence, it cannot replicate the fullness of what it means to be human. Our intelligence is not merely computational—it is relational, moral, and spiritual. It is a gift from God, rooted in our capacity to love, to discern, and to seek truth. AI can assist us in many ways, from medicine to education to communication. But we must never forget that machines do not possess souls. They do not pray, suffer, or hope. They do not know mercy or grace. Only we, created in the image and likeness of God, bear the responsibility to use these tools wisely, ensuring they serve the dignity of every person. Let us not be seduced by the illusion that technology can replace human wisdom or divine guidance. Instead, let us cultivate a “wisdom of heart,” as the document urges—a wisdom that listens to the Spirit, that seeks justice, and that places love above efficiency. In our homes, schools, and parishes, may we teach our children not only how to use technology, but how to remain human in a digital age. May we accompany one another with compassion, and may our choices reflect the Gospel values of truth, humility, and care for the vulnerable. Let us pray for discernment, for courage, and for a renewed commitment to the common good. And may we always remember: the most powerful intelligence is not artificial—it is the wisdom that comes from walking humbly with our God. The full document is worth the read and may be found on the Vatican website at Antiqua et nova. Note on the Relationship Between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence (28 January 2025)