Blog Layout

From the Pastor – 29th Sunday in Ordinary time

Oct 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 - Sixth Sunday of Easter

By John Putnam • 03 May, 2024
Our readings today call us to love as Christ loves. In our Gospel, Jesus says, “Love one another as I have loved you.” The ways Jesus has loved us and continues to love us are endless. We are called to imitate this love. And He tells us the greatest way to do this when He said, “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” It is difficult to live that out in our humanity. Yet, it is made much easier when we faithfully love Christ. The fact of the matter is, as our love for Christ increases, so too does our capacity to love others. There are countless moments when we can do just that — for instance, waking up Saturday morning to attend daily Mass instead of sleeping in, or talking to God in the car on the way to work instead of listening to music. These are simple ways to express our love for the Lord by laying down our lives for Him. The more we find ways to love the Lord, the more we will find it easier to put aside our selfishness and serve others. Christ’s command to love others may seem daunting. Yet, Christ would never ask something of us that we cannot live out. All we need to do is take baby steps. Ask yourself, "How can I better love Jesus right now?" for it is in loving Christ that we will better love others, and it is in loving others that we love Christ Himself. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2024 Pastoral Pondering  Last week I had the opportunity of spending the afternoon with my childhood pastor, the Reverend Fred Thompson. He served as the pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Newton, NC for over 30 years. He is now 91 years old and continues to live a fairly independent life. We lost touch when my family moved from Newton to Hickory as I began grammar school but reconnected during my undergraduate studies at Lenoir-Rhyne College. We have stayed in touch since then. Such connections from the past are very important. At least in my case, Fred knew things about my parents and my adoption that I never did, and he is always happy to share a story or two. I bring this up because memory, what we refer to in the Mass as anamnesis, is essential not only to our faith but to society as a whole. Our collective memory is important. Significant events of the past are passed on from one generation to the next, and we hopefully learn from our mistakes so that we don’t repeat them. In the Catholic context, we are being obedient to Christ’s command at the Last Supper, do this in memory of me.” And it is through that remembrance that we cannot the past with the present and look with hope to the future – Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. This is why Sacred Tradition is so very important to our understanding of the Faith. That which is handed over (traditio) is essential because it forms the framework upon which the Church travels throughout the centuries. The same is true in families. In the past multiple generations would live together or in close proximity to each other. Children learned about life from a variety of family members with varying degrees of lived experience and a wealth of memory. With our society becoming more transitory and human interaction being impoverished by the reality of technology, families need to be very intentional about connecting with the past. It helps us all understand who we are, why we are here and for what we were made.

From the Pastor - Fifth Sunday of Easter

By John Putnam • 26 Apr, 2024
Our readings today teach us what it means to bear fruit as disciples of Christ. We hear in each of our readings that it is from the Lord that good effects will be produced in our lives. In our first reading, we hear about disciples who were preaching the Good News and defending the faith. The work they were doing was “with the consolation of the Holy Spirit.” It was not their work alone, but the work of God. We must ask ourselves, ‘how is God bearing fruit in my life?’ and ‘have I invited the Holy Spirit to work in me?’ The more we try to produce good effects in our lives, the more we will become disappointed if all we are relying on is our own efforts. It is only by inviting the Holy Spirit into our everyday moments that we will see goodness poured out. Jesus clearly tells us how to do this in our Gospel. He says, “I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit.” We can remain in Christ by staying faithful to His commandments and frequently receiving the sacraments. And our day-to-day moments should be a reflection of those commitments. That could mean opening our day with a prayer of thanksgiving, smiling at those we see on the street, asking God for help as we begin our workday, praising God in moments of trial, taking time to listen to our spouse after a long day. To remain in Christ means, in all that we do, we do it with the Lord. When we live a life like that — as a branch never separated from its vine — God will produce bountiful fruit in our lives. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2024 Pastoral Pondering I have had a few folks interested in what exactly occurs when a diocese received a new bishop, so I thought I would outline the process a bit for a contribution to your knowledge of Catholic trivia. Before a new bishop can be appointed, the diocese in question has to be vacant. A vacancy occurs through death, retirement, resignation or removal. In our case, Bishop Jugis submitted his resignation based on his deteriorating health, one of the reasons that a bishop can ask to be relieved of the administration of a diocese. Once the Holy Father accepts the resignation, the See becomes vacant. During the interim or sede vacante (vacant seat) period, the diocese needs to have someone to keep things going. This is done by either a priest, who is appointed administrator or by a bishop, who is known as an apostolic administrator. In our case Bishop Jugis continues as the apostolic administrator. Since his successor has already been named, Bishop Jugis can help prepare for the new bishop’s transition. As soon as a see is vacated, several offices and one advisory body cease to function. Any vicars general or episcopal vicars lose their office and the Presbyteral Council ceases until reconstituted by the new bishop. Both the Judicial Vicar and the Chief Financial Office of the diocese continue in office to insure the ongoing functions of their offices. Bishop Jugis, as Apostolic Administrator, has asked those priests who were serving as his vicar general and episcopal vicars to continue performing their functions in the interim. When the new Bishop is installed, he can reappoint the vicars or appoint others to take their places. If a priest is appointed as the new bishop, he must be ordained a bishop before he can assume the office. Once ordained, a ceremony occurs, usually a Mass, during which the newly ordained bishop takes possession of the diocese and assumed the full pastoral care of the Diocese. Hence, Bishop-elect Martin will be ordained on May 29 th and then will take possession of the Diocese on the following day.  A lot of work can be done to prepare for the new bishop’s arrival prior to his coming. Nonetheless, the first few weeks of his administration will be taken up with settling into his new position and getting his bearings. This is very similar to a new pastor coming to a parish; albeit, on a larger scale. During these early days of the new administration, the new bishop decides on vicar appointments and reconstitutes the Presbyteral Council and makes any other decisions that he deems appropriate for pastoral care. Often new bishops spend a good bit of time visiting the new parishes of the new Diocese to get to know his priests and meet his people. In Bishop-elect Martin’s case, he will be ordaining transitional deacons on the Saturday following his own ordination and then ordaining priests two weeks later, so he will indeed “hit the ground running”. Keep him in your prayers.
More Posts
Share by: