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 - 1st Sunday in Lent

By John Putnam • February 20, 2026
As we begin the season of Lent, the Church invites us into 40 days of renewal and refocusing. Lent is not only about giving something up, but about making room for God. For Christian stewards, this season invites us to reflect on how we are using the time entrusted to us. In the first reading, Adam and Eve turn their attention away from God and allow doubt to take root. Trust is replaced by self-reliance, and the harmony of the Garden is broken. These same temptations remain familiar when our days become crowded with distractions that pull us away from God. In the Gospel, Jesus shows us a different path. In the desert, He gives time to prayer and fasting, remains grounded in Scripture, and places His complete trust in the Father. By intentionally giving time to God, Jesus resists temptation and remains faithful. Lent invites us to do the same. By making space in our schedules for prayer, Scripture, and quiet reflection, we grow in trust and gratitude. When we place God at the center of our time, stewardship becomes a way of life, and our hearts are prepared to celebrate the joy of Easter. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2026) Pastoral Pondering  Folks often asks the priests, “Father, how do you pray?” The question is not that different from the request the apostles made of Jesus in Luke 11:1-4 when they asked Him to teach them how to pray. There are lots of possibilities out there. One of those that I find particularly helpful is Lectio Divina or Divine Reading. What follows is a brief outline of the method that some may find helpful. In our busy lives, it's easy to read the Bible quickly or skim through it like any other book. But what if we approached Scripture not just to learn information, but to encounter God personally? That's the heart of Lectio Divina, an ancient Catholic practice of "divine reading" that transforms ordinary reading into a profound prayerful conversation with the Lord. Lectio Divina dates back to the early monastic communities, encouraged by figures like St. Benedict, and has been a cherished method in the Church for centuries. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes, it engages our thoughts, imagination, emotions, and desires to deepen our faith and draw us closer to Christ (CCC 2708). Today, it's experiencing a beautiful renewal as more Catholics rediscover this simple yet powerful way to let God's Word speak directly to our hearts. The traditional steps of Lectio Divina are four (sometimes with a fifth for action): 1. Lectio (Reading) Choose a short passage of Scripture—perhaps from the day's Gospel or a favorite psalm. Read it slowly, perhaps aloud, several times. Listen attentively, as if God is speaking the words to you personally. Pay attention to any word, phrase, or image that stands out or "shimmers" in your heart. This isn't about covering ground; it's about letting the Word sink in. 2. Meditatio (Meditation ) Reflect on what you've read. Ask: What is this passage saying? What does it reveal about God? How does it connect to my life right now? Ruminate on it like a cow chewing cud—slowly, thoughtfully. Let your mind and heart ponder the meaning, imagining yourself in the scene if it's a Gospel story. 3. Oratio (Prayer) Turn your reflection into a personal conversation with God. Respond honestly: Thank Him, praise Him, ask for forgiveness, seek guidance, or simply tell Him how the Word moves you. This is where prayer flows naturally from the Scripture—it's no longer just words on a page, but a dialogue with the living God. 4. Contemplatio (Contemplation) Rest quietly in God's presence. Let go of words and thoughts. Simply be with Him, allowing His love to envelop you in silence. This is the moment of resting in the peace that comes from encountering the Lord. Some traditions add a fifth step: **Actio (Action)**—carrying the grace received into daily life through concrete changes or acts of charity. Lectio Divina is for everyone—not just monks or scholars. You don't need hours; even 15-20 minutes can be transformative. Try it with the Sunday readings or start with a single verse like "Be still and know that I am God" (Psalm 46:10). Find a quiet spot, invite the Holy Spirit to guide you ("Come, Holy Spirit"), and open your heart. As Pope Benedict XVI encouraged, Lectio Divina helps us hear God's voice in Scripture and respond with our whole lives. In a world full of noise, this ancient practice invites us to slow down, listen deeply, and grow in intimacy with Christ. Why not give it a try this week? Your soul—and God—will thank you.

From the Pastor - 6th Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • February 13, 2026
Today’s readings challenge us to reflect on the true state of our hearts as it relates to stewardship. Do we think of stewardship as something we take care of once a year, simply a matter of ticking off boxes on a commitment card — or do we choose to embrace it as a spirituality and a way of life that allows us to grow in conformity to Christ every day? Our first reading, from the Book of Sirach, teaches that our good God has given us the freedom to make this choice — “Before man are life and death, good and evil, whichever he chooses shall be given him.” The concept of stewardship helps us live out this fundamental choice to put God first. Stewardship is not meant to be a mere external exercise that we participate in on an occasional basis. It is meant to be embraced as a way of life — a life that involves a continuous conversion of heart. In our Gospel passage from Matthew, Jesus illustrates the difference between an external observance of the law and a true conversion of heart, saying, “You have heard that it was said … you shall not kill … But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.” Our Lord is asking us not only for exterior acts, but for a true change of heart. In stewardship terms, that means seeing everything as a gift from Him, to be used for His glory and the good of others. In the week ahead, let us examine the state of our hearts and ask whether we have allowed stewardship to shape the way we live each day. When we do, we open ourselves to its deeper meaning and its power to change our hearts. The choice is ours. Pastoral Pondering I am appreciative of the cooperation we have had with the recent changes in the distribution of Communion. Please be mindful that each person has the right to choose the manner in which he or she receives Holy Communion. As long as that choice is in conformity with what the Church allows, the individual is free to exercise that right. We all have preferences and pious practices that are important to us. It is important, however, that we do not pass judgment on the reasons someone else chooses differently from us. No one knows the heart of another; God alone knows those things. Clearly, if someone is doing something that is improper or sacrilegious, we have a moral obligation to say something. However, when another is making a legitimate choice, he or she is free to do so. We all need to be conscious of the importance of exercising charity, especially with one another. As we prepare to embark on our Lenten journey, please take time to pray and ponder what you need to do (and not do) to make this a truly fruitful Lent. Taking time for prayer and reflection and asking the Lord to guide you in choosing your Lenten sacrifices and works of charity, is a wonderful way to prepare for and to receive the full grace of this special season of the liturgical year. Penance, of course, is a regular part of Catholic life. Every Friday throughout the year is a day of penance. During Lent, every Friday is a day of abstinence from meat; outside of Lent, one may choose an alternative form of penance. Ash Wednesday and Good Friday are days of fasting for those between the ages of 14 and 60. Let us pray for one another that our Lenten observances may help us grow in holiness, become more attentive to the promptings of the Spirit, and be instruments of the light of Christ in the world.