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 - 3rd Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • January 23, 2026
Today’s readings remind us that stewardship is not just a thing we do — rather, stewardship is at the core of who we are as disciples of Christ. Our first reading, from Isaiah, contains this prophecy of Christ and what His saving message would mean to all who embrace it. “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; upon those who dwelt in the land of gloom a light has shone.” We are among those blessed people on whom the light of Christ has shone. By virtue of our Baptism, we, who were once in the darkness of original sin, have been reborn into the great light that is God’s grace in us. We are cherished members of God’s family. What a privilege! Yet, with this privilege comes the responsibility to actually live for God and to bring His Good News to all those we meet — at work, at school, in our community and right in our own home — in other words, to live as His good stewards. And there is a certain urgency that comes with the call to a stewardship way of life as we see in our Gospel passage from Matthew. Jesus says, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” In other words, turn away from selfishness, turn towards God and live as His disciple now — don’t wait! In this same passage, the very first disciples give us examples of a good steward’s prompt “yes” when the Lord called to them. Our Lord invites them to “Come after me and I will make you fishers of men.” They did not hesitate but “at once they left their nets and followed him.” They put our Lord and His will first. This is the essence of a stewardship way of life — to be always ready for the ways that our Lord is calling us to bring His light to others. It’s more than something we do — it’s who we are. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025. Pastoral Pondering  This past Thursday was the 53rd anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion. Even though that decision and the one that followed have been overturned by the Court, the work of defending life continues. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade and returned abortion regulation to the states, the Catholic Church's commitment to the sanctity of human life remains unchanged and multifaceted. From a Catholic perspective, grounded in scripture, tradition, and teachings like those in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (e.g., CCC 2270-2275), advocacy for life isn't solely tied to one court ruling or legal framework—it's a holistic moral imperative that extends beyond abortion to all threats against human dignity. The key reasons why Catholics are called to continue this work: 1. Abortion Remains Legal and Accessible in Many Places Including NC The Dobbs decision didn't ban abortion nationwide; it simply decentralized the issue. As of 2026, abortion is still legal in over half of U.S. states, often with few restrictions up to viability or beyond in some cases (e.g., California, New York). Millions of abortions occur annually, and access has expanded through measures like mail-order abortion pills (e.g., mifepristone). Catholics are urged to advocate for protective laws at the state and federal levels to safeguard the unborn, as the Church views direct abortion as intrinsically evil and never justifiable. Beyond legislation, this includes supporting crisis pregnancy centers, adoption services, and policies that help women facing unplanned pregnancies, aligning with the Church's emphasis on mercy and practical charity. 2. Ongoing Cultural and Political Challenges Pro-abortion initiatives continue to gain traction, such as ballot measures in states like Florida and Arizona that have sought to enshrine abortion rights in constitutions, or federal proposals to codify Roe-like protections. The Church teaches that Catholics have a duty to participate in the public square (e.g., via voting, lobbying, and education) to counter these efforts and promote a "culture of life," as articulated by Pope St. John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (1995). Globally, abortion rates remain high, and issues like international funding for abortion providers (e.g., through U.S. foreign aid) persist, requiring advocacy on an international scale. 3. The Broader Pro-Life Ethic Catholic pro-life advocacy isn't limited to abortion; concern for life issues encompass all stages of life. This includes opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide (now legal in 10+ U.S. states and parts of Canada/Europe), promoting alternatives to the death penalty, embryonic stem cell research, human trafficking, poverty, war, and environmental degradation that harms the vulnerable. Overturning Roe was a milestone, but it doesn't address root causes like economic inequality, lack of family support, or societal pressures that lead to abortion. Catholics are called to build a society where life is welcomed and protected through social justice initiatives, echoing Pope Francis's calls in Fratelli Tutti (2020) for integral human development. 4. Spiritual and Moral Witness Ultimately, the Church's stance is rooted in the belief that every human life is sacred, created in God's image (Genesis 1:27), and that protecting the innocent is a core Gospel mandate (e.g., Matthew 25:40). Laws may change, but moral truth doesn't—Catholics are to witness to this truth through prayer, education, and personal example, fostering conversion of hearts rather than relying solely on legal victories. Organizations like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) emphasize that the fight for life is ongoing, urging parishes to engage in initiatives like Walking with Moms in Need to provide tangible support. In summary, while Dobbs was a significant win, it's not the end of the road. The Catholic call to "stand up for life" is perpetual, driven by faith, compassion, and a vision for a just society.

From the Pastor - 2nd Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • January 16, 2026
Today’s readings provide clear and inspiring reminders of the most fundamental aspect of our identity — that of servants of our most high and holy God, His modern-day disciples, and stewards. John the Baptist recognized the holiness of Jesus and the response due to Him when he encountered Christ in person on the day they met at the Jordan River. His response, which we read in our Gospel passage from St. John was, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world… He is the one of whom I said, ‘A man is coming after me who ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.’” What a powerful description of our Lord and the place He should rightfully have in each of our lives. He is truly our Savior, the only one who can free us from our sinfulness. We are utterly and completely dependent on His power, love, and mercy. Therefore, He truly does “rank ahead” of us; he deserves to be first, above all other priorities and plans in our lives. Let us examine our daily lives and encourage our children to do the same. Does the way I spend my time reflect that God comes first? Do prayer and weekly Mass, regular confession, and time with my family “rank ahead” of everything else on my calendar? Do I use my talents, skills, and energy to serve my family, parish and community in thanksgiving and recognition that God’s kingdom ranks ahead of any other goals or ambitions? Do I spend my money and use my material possessions to glorify God? Challenge questions, to be sure. But questions worthy of our high calling as Christian stewards offered a glorious mission in service of our Lord and His kingdom. What will our response be? © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering As I write this, I am just getting back from the Holy Land Pilgrimage with more than 20 of our seminarians. Spending the Octave of Christmas and celebrating the New Year in the Holy Land was very special and being with such a close-knit group was especially heartening. One of the questions that was posed before the pilgrimage began was, “Father, is it safe to go over there?” I can say without a doubt that it is safe to visit the Holy Land. We had no issues. What was sad was to see the Christian community suffering because of the lack of tourists. If you have the opportunity to go to the Holy Land, especially with Christopher Cross, I encourage you to go. The next scheduled trip is in March with Father Martinez. There are still slots available. We began the New Year on the Mount of Beatitudes with Mass and Holy Hour. One of the seminarians noted that it was amazing to the sermon of the Lord in the very place where He gave it while He was there on the altar in the monstrance. Another highlight was having two Masses in the Holy Sepulcher itself. Because of the size of the tomb, many in the group had to participate from the anteroom. One of the seminarians noted that it touched him deeply when the priest came out of the tomb to distribute Communion. “Literally, the Lord was coming out of the Tomb to give Himself to us.” For me personally, the Mass that we celebrated in Bethlehem in the Church of the Nativity complex was very moving. We celebrated Mass in the Chapel of St. Helena on the Feast of St. John the Apostle, just a short walk away from the grotto of the Nativity. The seminarians provided the music for the Mass, and it was “otherworldly”. I could feel the Lord’s presence and was overwhelmed with the reality that we were celebrating Christmas where Christmas was first celebrated. I have no doubt that the experience will impact the life and ministry of each of the seminarians who participated, especially those preparing for priestly or diaconal ordination this coming May. One cannot walk where Jesus walked without leaving with a new appreciation of all that He did for us.  Finally, thank you to all who made this pilgrimage possible. Through your kindness, you have enriched these men and helped them grow in their knowledge and love of Jesus Christ.