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 - 19th Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • August 8, 2025
Whether you are just beginning your stewardship journey or have been living a stewardship way of life for years, today’s readings invite us to ask ourselves an important question. The question is this: “What do you treasure?” Of course, we all know the “right” answer: we treasure our faith, our family, and our friendships. But Jesus tells us in the Gospel passage from Luke how we can discover the real answer to this question. He says, “For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.” To discern what we really treasure, we need to do a check on our hearts. We can each ask ourselves, “Where do I spend the majority of my energy? Where do I find my thoughts dwelling? How do I choose to spend my time when I find myself with a few spare moments? What do my spending habits reveal about my what is important to me? As Christian stewards, we are called to live our lives in grateful response to all that God has given us. Do I recognize and treasure these gifts? © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering A couple of weeks back, I wrote about the various types of prayer. Following up on that, I wanted to address what I would call emotionalism and faith. Over the years I have encountered quite a few Catholics who complain that they do not get anything out of Mass or they don’t “feel” God’s presence. This often leads to their searching all over the place – sometimes in all of the wrong places – for something to fill that void. There is a danger here that needs to be avoided. The Catholic view of emotionalism, while not explicitly addressed as a single concept in official doctrine, can be understood through the Church’s teachings on emotions, reason, and the role of the will in spiritual life. Emotionalism, broadly defined as an excessive or uncontrolled reliance on emotions over reason or disciplined faith, is generally approached with caution in Catholic theology. Below is a concise explanation based on Catholic principles: Emotions as Part of Human Nature : The Catholic Church teaches that emotions (or "passions") are natural components of human psychology, created by God. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1763-1768), passions like love, joy, sorrow, or anger are neither good nor bad in themselves but become morally good or bad based on how they are directed by reason and the will toward God’s purpose. Balance of Reason and Emotion : Catholicism emphasizes the integration of emotions with reason and faith. Emotionalism, as an overemphasis on feelings without grounding in truth or moral reasoning, can lead to spiritual imbalance. St. Thomas Aquinas, a key Catholic theologian, teaches that passions must be governed by reason, which is informed by divine law and grace, to align with virtue (Summa Theologiae, I-II, Q. 24). Dangers of Emotionalism in Worship : In the context of liturgy and prayer, the Church values authentic emotional expression but warns against emotionalism that prioritizes subjective feelings over objective truth or the sacredness of worship. For example, Pope Benedict XVI, in his writings on liturgy, critiqued overly sentimental or entertainment-driven worship styles, advocating for reverence and focus on Christ’s sacrifice (The Spirit of the Liturgy). The Church encourages heartfelt devotion but rooted in doctrine and tradition. Sadly, there are many examples of contemporary Catholic worship that ignore this basic principle. Discernment in Spiritual Life : Catholic spirituality, as seen in the works of mystics like St. Ignatius of Loyola or St. Teresa of Ávila, stresses discernment to distinguish genuine spiritual consolations (from God) from fleeting emotional highs. Emotionalism that lacks discernment may lead to self-deception or instability in faith. Charismatic Movements and Emotional Expression : The Catholic Charismatic Renewal, for instance, embraces expressive worship and emotional experiences like joy or spiritual gifts (e.g., speaking in tongues). However, the Church regulates such movements to ensure they align with doctrine and are not driven by unchecked emotionalism. Vatican documents, like those from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, emphasize that charismatic expressions must be tested against Scripture and Tradition.  In summary, the Catholic Church views emotions as valuable but subordinate to reason, will, and faith. Emotionalism, when it overrides these, is seen as potentially misleading or spiritually immature. The goal is a balanced faith where emotions enrich but do not dominate one’s relationship with God. In the end, the goal of prayer, especially liturgical prayer, is to worship God. It is not about seeking heavenly warm fuzzies to make us feel better. On occasion we may certainly receive these signal graces, and we should thank God for those. Nonetheless, they are not ends in themselves. The only end of the spiritual life if God Himself.

From the Pastor - 18th Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • August 2, 2025
Today’s Gospel passage comes as a pat on the back from Heaven for all of us striving to live a stewardship way of life. It reminds us why we live the way we do and why we make the choices we make. Let’s face it, if we truly embrace this way of life, there will be people who find our choices — based on serving God and others — downright foolish. But let’s see what God thinks. Spoiler alert: turns out Christian stewards are not the fools! In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that life is not about “stuff” as he tells the parable of the wealthy businessman who thought he had everything figured out. The man had such an abundance of stuff that he didn’t have room to store it all. So, thinking of earthly things and not on what is above, he decided to build a bigger place to store all that stuff. Patting himself on the back, he thought about what good times he would have in the years ahead. But Jesus tells us that day would turn out to be the man’s last day on the earth. And he had spent it thinking only of himself. How foolish! Don’t be ashamed of living differently from the people around you. Be confident as you set priorities based on what is above. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering With the election of Pope Leo XIV, many folks have expressed an interest in understanding the history of his most recent predecessor with the same name, Pope Leo XIII, who is considered a great proponent of Catholic Social teaching. His encyclical, Rerum Novarum, is the basis for our understanding of this important branch of Catholic theology, so I thought it might be useful to share a summary of that document. Rerum Novarum, an encyclical issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1891, addresses the social and economic challenges of the modern world, emphasizing the Church's role in addressing injustices within the rapidly industrializing society. It marks the beginning of modern Catholic social teaching and sets a framework for dealing with issues related to labor, capital, and society. Key Themes of Rerum Novarum: Dignity of Labor : It affirms the dignity of work and the rights of workers, including just wages, the right to form unions, and decent working conditions. Work is not merely an economic activity but a means for the personal development of individuals. Private Property : The encyclical upholds the right to private property, stating that it is natural and beneficial for individuals and families. However, this right carries with it the responsibility to use one's property for the common good. Role of the State : It outlines the role of the state in promoting justice and protecting the rights of individuals, especially the poor and vulnerable. The state should act as an agent for social order and the common good but should not overreach into individual freedoms. Class Cooperation : Pope Leo XIII advocates for the cooperative relationship between employees and employers, encouraging a spirit of mutual understanding and collaboration rather than conflict, aiming to harmonize interests for societal benefit. Social Justice : The encyclical is concerned with the effects of unchecked capitalism and socialism, critiquing both extremes and emphasizing a balance that respects human dignity while promoting social justice and the well-being of all members of society.  Rerum Novarum serves as a cornerstone for subsequent Catholic social thought, inviting us to consider how we can address economic and social issues while respecting human dignity and the common good.