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 - 16th Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • July 18, 2025
In today’s Gospel reading from St. Luke, we receive a reminder about the proper use of the gift of time, a fundamental aspect of a stewardship way of life. Our passage highlights one of the most famous dinner parties ever thrown, recalling the day that Martha and Mary hosted our Lord in their home. We are told that Martha, as a good steward, welcomes Christ in but then becomes “burdened with much serving” while her sister and fellow hostess chooses to simply sit with Jesus, listening to Him speak. Martha becomes indignant at Mary’s behavior and complains to Jesus, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me.” But Jesus, in His infinite wisdom, refuses to get pulled into this sisterly spat. Instead, He offers Martha a fresh way to look at the situation. “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only one thing.” What is that one thing? It is to put Jesus first in our lives and above all other things; to “sit at his feet” and listen as Mary did, giving Him the priority of our time no matter how busy we think we are. When we truly commit to putting Christ first in our daily lives through a regular time of prayer and frequent participation in the sacraments, we will find that all our other concerns become less pressing, less overwhelming. Why is this so? Because the time we invest in our relationship with God saturates all aspects of our lives with His grace. And because God cannot be outdone in generosity. He will abundantly reward any sacrifice we make to spend time with Him. ©Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering In the Catholic tradition, prayer is a foundational practice, understood as a personal and communal relationship with God. It’s seen as a dialogue, not a monologue, where the individual lifts their heart and mind to God, seeking communion, guidance, and alignment with His will. Below is a concise overview of the Catholic understanding of prayer, grounded in Church teaching and tradition: Definition and Purpose : The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2559) defines prayer as “the raising of one’s mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God.” It’s an act of love, trust, and dependence on God, fostering a covenant relationship. Prayer’s primary aim is communion with God, aligning human will with divine will, as modeled by Jesus in the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13). Types of Prayer (CCC 2626-2643): Adoration : Worshipping God for His infinite goodness and majesty (e.g., Eucharistic adoration). Petition : Asking for personal needs or forgiveness, acknowledging human dependence on God. Intercession : Praying for others, reflecting charity and solidarity (e.g., praying for the living and the dead). Thanksgiving : Expressing gratitude for God’s gifts, as seen in the Eucharist (“thanksgiving” in Greek). Praise : Glorifying God for who He is, beyond what He does. Forms of Prayer : Vocal Prayer : Spoken prayers, like the Rosary, Our Father, or Hail Mary, engaging both body and soul. Meditative Prayer : Reflecting on Scripture or sacred mysteries (e.g., Lectio Divina or meditating on the Rosary’s mysteries). Contemplative Prayer : A silent, loving gaze toward God, seeking deeper union, as taught by saints like Teresa of Ávila and John of the Cross. Theological Foundations : Prayer is rooted in the Trinity: Catholics pray to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit (CCC 2655). Jesus is the model of prayer, seen in His constant communion with the Father (e.g., John 17). The Holy Spirit inspires and sustains prayer (Romans 8:26). Mary and the saints are intercessors, not mediators, whose prayers join ours to God (CCC 2673-2679). Role in Catholic Life : Prayer is essential for salvation, as it nurtures faith, hope, and charity (CCC 2558). It’s a daily obligation, often through practices like morning/evening prayers, Mass, or the Liturgy of the Hours. The Eucharist, as the “source and summit” of Christian life (CCC 1324), is the highest form of prayer, uniting believers with Christ’s sacrifice. Prayer strengthens against temptation and fosters virtues, as seen in the lives of saints like Thérèse of Lisieux, who called prayer “a surge of the heart.” Practical Expressions : Liturgy : The Mass and sacraments are communal prayers, uniting the Church on earth and in heaven. Devotions : Practices like the Rosary, Divine Mercy Chaplet, or novenas deepen personal devotion. Spontaneous Prayer : Heartfelt, unscripted prayer is encouraged alongside structured forms. Challenges and Growth : Catholics are taught to persevere in prayer despite distractions or dryness, trusting God’s presence (CCC 2729-2733). Prayer requires humility and openness, as St. Augustine said: “Man is a beggar before God.” Supporting Evidence : The Catechism (Part Four, CCC 2558-2865) provides a comprehensive guide to prayer, emphasizing its centrality. Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium highlights liturgy as the primary expression of prayer, uniting the Church. Saints’ writings, like St. Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises, offer practical methods for deepening prayer. For further exploration, consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church or resources from the Vatican (vatican.va). Prayer, in Catholicism, is not just a practice but a way of life, drawing believers into God’s love and mission.

From the Pastor - 15th Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • July 11, 2025
In today’s Gospel passage, from Luke, we read the well-known parable of the Good Samaritan. Here, Jesus teaches us in rich detail what stewardship in action looks like. In fact, this parable could just as accurately be called the parable of the Good Steward. The first thing we note about the Good Samaritan is that he is aware of the needs of those around him and responds generously. While the priest and Levi brush right past the man on the side of the road, the Samaritan is watching for those who might be in need. He has a hospitable way of looking at the world around him and so he is able to “see” in a way that the others did not, and he was “moved with compassion at the sight” of the man. Next, we see the Good Samaritan spring into action to serve this man, setting aside his own schedule and plans to meet his needs. He does not just give the man a few dollars or offer quick words of encouragement from across the road. He goes right up to the man. He cleans and bandages his wounds. He puts the man on his own animal and brings him to an inn where he can heal. He ensures the innkeeper would continue to look after him, and he commits to re-turning to the man on his way back. That is how we live out God’s commandments. That is true hospitality and service.  That is how a good steward springs into action when he comes upon a neighbor in need. And Jesus says to each of us personally, just as He did in today’s Gospel, “Go and do likewise.” ©Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering I want to welcome Father Christopher Angermeyer to St. Mark as Parochial Vicar. As many of you know, Father was ordained in June. After completing his undergraduate studies at Belmont Abbey and St. Joseph College Seminary. He completed his theological studies and priestly formation at Mount St. Mary’s in Cincinnati. His home parish was St. Thomas Aquinas in Charlotte. We are happy to have Father Angermeyer with us. I know you will do your part to make him feel welcomed here at St. Mark. I will be away for the next couple of weeks on pilgrimage with a group of seminarians and faithful. Please know that the parish will be in my prayers, and I take all of your intentions with me to the Shrine of Our Lady.