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 - 30th Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • October 24, 2025
In last week’s readings, we were encouraged to remain persistent and constant in our prayer life. Today, we focus on the proper attitude of a steward at prayer. In the Gospel passage from Luke, Jesus illustrates the humble attitude we must have as we approach God in prayer through a parable of two praying men. One is a Pharisee, a man with respected status, theological training, and all the right credentials. He marches right up to the front of the temple to speak a prayer “to himself,” thanking God for making him just a little bit superior to everyone else! The other man is a tax collector, known by those of his day to be a cheater and a sell-out to his fellow Jews. In contrast to the Pharisee, he stands near the back and cries out to God in a simple and honest way: “Be merciful to me a sinner.” Jesus tells us that it is the tax collector and not the Pharisee who leaves the temple justified. Why? The Pharisee was full of self as he approached God. He felt no real need for God as he rattled off his resume of good works and spiritual practices. He was simply going through the motions of prayer. His lack of humility prevented him from entering into a real dialogue with the Father. He was not transformed by his time of prayer because he was so full of himself that He left God no space to enter in. The tax collector, by contrast, emptied himself as he approached God. He recognized who he truly was (a sinner) and asked simply for mercy, leaving all the rest up to God. This is the kind of attitude that God can work with! This is how a good steward prays — with trust, with complete openness to God’s will, with a listening mind and heart, ready to serve as God leads. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering November is the month which begins with All Saints and All Souls. It is a good time to reflect on the importance of our connection with those who have gone before us “marked with the sign of faith.” We have a special obligation (spiritual work of mercy) to pray for the dead, especially remember the souls in purgatory. Here is an outline of Catholic teaching to help us make better use of and have a better understanding of this important Catholic obligation. Importance of Praying for the Dead in Catholic Theology In Catholic theology, praying for the dead holds profound significance as an act of communion of saints, mercy, and * * solidarity ** within the Church. It is rooted in Scripture, Tradition, and the Church's magisterium, affirming that the living can aid the deceased in their journey toward full union with God. Below, I'll outline the key theological foundations, biblical and historical support, and practical implications. 1. Theological Foundation: The Communion of Saints · The Catholic Church teaches that the faithful—whether on earth (Church Militant), in Purgatory (Church Suffering), or in heaven (Church Triumphant)—form **one mystical Body of Christ** (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 946–962). · Death does not sever this bond. Prayers from the living can remit the **temporal effects of sin** for souls in Purgatory, a state of purification after death for those destined for heaven but not yet fully sanctified (CCC 1030–1032). · Why it matters : This practice underscores human interdependence in salvation. Just as saints intercede for us, we intercede for the dead, fostering charity and hope in the resurrection. 2. Biblical Basis Catholic theology draws directly from Scripture, emphasizing prayer for the dead as an ancient practice: Scripture Reference | Key Passage | Theological Insight 2 Maccabees 12:38–46 | Judas Maccabeus offers sacrifices and prayers "for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." | Explicit endorsement of prayers and offerings for the deceased to atone for sins; foundational for Purgatory doctrine (accepted in Catholic canon). 1 Corinthians 15:29 | "Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead?" | Implies a custom of rites benefiting the dead, supporting intercessory prayer. 2 Timothy 1:16–18 | Paul prays for mercy on Onesiphorus, who has died. | Shows apostolic practice of praying for the deceased by name. These texts affirm that such prayers are **pleasing to God** and effective, countering Protestant objections by highlighting pre-Christian Jewish roots (e.g., Maccabees) and New Testament continuity. 3. Historical and Doctrinal Development · Early Church : Inscriptions in Roman catacombs (2nd–3rd centuries) request prayers for the dead. St. Augustine (Confessions, Book IX) recounts his mother Monica's prayers for his father. Tertullian (c. 200 AD) describes annual Masses for the deceased. · Councils : The Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Trent (1563) dogmatically affirmed Purgatory and suffrages (prayers, Masses) for the dead as meritorious. · Modern Teaching : Pope Benedict XVI's Spe Salvi (2007) explains Purgatory as "God's mercy transforming us," where our prayers "help complete what is lacking" (cf. Colossians 1:24). Pope Francis echoes this in Misericordiae Vultus (2015), calling it an act of divine mercy . 4. Spiritual Benefits and Practices Aspect | Importance | Common Practices For the Dead | Accelerates purification; applies merits of Christ's sacrifice through the Church's treasury (CCC 1477). | Offering Masses, Rosary for the deceased, indulgences (e.g., All Souls' Day). For the Living | Purifies our own sins via charity; gains plenary indulgences (e.g., visiting cemeteries Oct. 1–8). | November's Month of the Holy Souls; Eternal Rest prayer ("May they rest in peace"). Communal Impact | Strengthens parish unity; reminds us of judgment and heaven's reality.| All Souls' Day (Nov. 2) Masses; Book of the Dead in parishes. Key Prayer Example : Eternal Rest – "Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. May they rest in peace. Amen." Recited after Masses or privately. 5. Addressing Common Objections · “Purgatory isn't biblical" : While the term "Purgatory" is post-biblical, its reality is inferred from 2 Maccabees, 1 Corinthians 3:13–15 ("fire will test... works"), and Matthew 12:32 (forgiveness "in the age to come"). · “Why pray if salvation is by faith alone?": Protestants reject it, but Catholics affirm faith *works through love* (Galatians 5:6); prayers apply Christ's merits, not "earn" salvation. · Evidence of Efficacy : Miracles (e.g., St. Gregory the Great's Mass freeing a soul) and near-death experiences reported in Catholic lore reinforce its reality. In summary, praying for the dead is essential to Catholic soteriology (theology of salvation), embodying hope in God's mercy and the interconnectedness of salvation history. It transforms grief into active love , urging Catholics to "remember their mercy" (Sirach 7:33). For deeper study, consult the *Catechism* (CCC 958, 1030–1032) or Vatican documents like Indulgentiarum Doctrina (1967).

From the Pastor - 29th Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • October 17, 2025
The four pillars of parish stewardship are hospitality, prayer, formation, and service. Today’s readings show us the immense value of prayer and the privileged place it must have in our individual lives and in our parish community Our Lord Himself calls us to prayer — and persistence in prayer — in the Gospel passage from Luke. Jesus tells the parable of the nagging widow who finally wears down the judge with her unrelenting persistence in her pursuit of a just ruling from him on her behalf. Jesus goes to great lengths to describe this judge, saying he “neither feared God nor respected any human.” Yet even this corrupt judge responds with a just judgment because of the widow’s persistence. Jesus uses this outlandish example to draw a vivid contrast between a reluctant, dishonest judge and our loving, all-merciful Father. If even a bad judge will give a good result in response to a persistent request, how much more (infinitely more) eagerly and perfectly will our good Father respond to our persistent prayers to Him. If he delays in responding, if he provides a different response from the one we were expecting, we can remain confident and trusting in His goodness, knowing that His response, whenever it comes and in whatever form, will be the very best one for us. Our job then, as Christian stewards, is simply to remain faithful to our relationship with God through prayer. We must lean on each other in our communities — family and parish — as we support each other in prayer. A strong pillar of prayer will make all our other stewardship efforts fruitful. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering I have noticed for a while now that many folks in the parish, and many Catholics in general, seem to have an erroneous or at least a confused understanding of the “Sunday obligation.” The obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days is rooted in our fundamental obligation to worship God and keep the Lord’s Day holy. In light of this, I thought it opportune to present a summary of the Church’s teaching in this regard. I hope you find it helpful. Catholics are obligated to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation primarily because it is a precept of the Church, rooted in both divine law and ecclesiastical authority. This obligation stems from the Third Commandment (“Remember to keep holy the Lord’s Day”), which in Christian tradition applies to Sunday as the day commemorating Christ’s Resurrection, marking it as a day of worship, rest, and renewal. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) explains this in detail, particularly in sections on the precepts of the Church and the Third Commandment. Biblical and Theological Foundations The obligation draws from Scripture, where God commands the sanctification of the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11; Deuteronomy 5:12-15). For Christians, this shifts to Sunday—the “Lord’s Day”—to honor Jesus’ Resurrection on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10). The Eucharist is seen as the “source and summit” of the Christian life (CCC 1324), making participation essential for spiritual nourishment, community unity, and fulfilling one’s relationship with God. As CCC 2180 states, the faithful are bound to participate in Mass on these days to sanctify them through worship. Holy Days of Obligation are additional feasts (such as Christmas, Assumption of Mary, or All Saints’ Day, varying by region) that the Church designates as equally important for similar reasons—honoring key mysteries of faith, the Virgin Mary, or saints—requiring the same level of observance. Church Law and Precepts This is formalized as the first precept of the Church: “You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor” (CCC 2042). It requires active participation in the Eucharistic celebration and abstaining from work that hinders sanctification or rest. Canon Law reinforces this: “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass” (Canon 1247). The Sunday Eucharist is described as the “foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice,” making attendance obligatory unless excused by serious reasons like illness, infant care, or a dispensation from a pastor (CCC 2181). Deliberately missing without such cause is considered a grave (mortal) sin. Practical and Spiritual Reasons Attending Mass orients believers toward God at the start of the week, fosters community, and provides grace through the sacraments. It’s not just a rule but an opportunity for encounter with Christ. The Church emphasizes this as the highest form of worship, essential even during travel or vacations, underscoring its priority in Catholic life. This obligation applies to all Catholics who have reached the age of reason (around 7 years old) and are physically able, with exceptions for valid impediments. Parents have a very important obligation to assist their children to fulfill this obligation. In general, children under the age of 16 cannot get to Mass without the assistance of the adults in their lives. Hence, the culpability for missing Mass usually falls to those adults rather than the children.  In the end fulfilling the “Sunday obligation” is more about loving God than anything else. Do we love Him enough to give Him at least an hour on Sundays and holy days? It would seem this is the least we can do in offering this act of love to the One who loved us first.