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 - Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul

By John Putnam • June 27, 2025
During June, we have celebrated key moments in the life of the Church — Pentecost, the Most Holy Trinity, Corpus Christi — culminating today with the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul. Though very different men, they are united in faith, mission, and martyrdom, and the Church has honored them together since the third century. St. Peter, the first Pope, was chosen by Christ as the rock on which the Church would be built. The Catechism tells us that because of the faith he professed, Peter remains the “unshakeable rock of the Church.” Despite his human weaknesses, Peter's loyalty, repentance, and leadership make him a powerful model of stewardship. St. Paul, once a persecutor of Christians, became one of the Church’s greatest evangelists. In today’s second reading, Paul reflects on his mission, saying, “I have finished the race… the crown of righteousness awaits me.” The Greek word he used for “crown” — stephanos — refers to a victor’s crown, not a royal one, showing his view of faith as a race well-run for the sake of Christ. Though they were martyred separately, tradition holds that Peter and Paul were in Rome at the same time, and their shared witness and sacrifice tie them closely together in Church history. They embody two vital aspects of stewardship — Peter in his faith and leadership, and Paul in his zeal and wisdom. As stewards, we are called to follow their example — to build the Church through our commitment, to overcome our failures through God’s mercy, and to proclaim the Gospel with courage. Like Peter and Paul, we are invited to give all we have for the sake of Christ and His Church. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering  This Solemnity marks the beginning of summer vacation in Rome. The Holy Father will be traveling to Castelgandolfo for some time away from the heat of Rome. For the rest of us, the weeks of summer are in full swing, and as we move into July this week, I hope that families have an opportunity to spend some time in rest and relaxation. Spending time with family, friends, and the Lord, are among the best things that we can do with our “down time”. Leisure is essential to a well-lived life, but it has to be understood properly in the context of the Christian life. Anthony Esolen’s Leisure: The Basis of Culture is a contemporary reflection and expansion on the classic work of the same name by Josef Pieper. Esolen argues that modern society has lost its understanding of true leisure, mistaking it for mere idleness or entertainment. In contrast, he defines leisure as a contemplative, receptive state that allows individuals to encounter truth, beauty, and God. True leisure, according to the author, distinguishes leisure from passive consumption or busyness. True leisure is rooted in wonder, worship and reflection – activities that are ends in themselves, not means to productivity. He critiques how modern life has turned all human activity into something utilitarian. Education, art and even religion are often reduced to tools for social mobility or economic growth, rather than pursued for their intrinsic value. Esolen emphasizes that leisure finds its highest expression in worship and liturgy. Time spent in contemplation of the divine is the deepest form of leisure, because it directs the soul toward eternal realities. He draws on classical and Christian sources to affirm that man is not simply a worker or consumer but is made for contemplation and communion. In the end, he calls for a return to genuine leisure as the only path to restoring culture, education, and the dignity of the human spirit. The author argues that without true leisure, civilization cannot thrive, because it loses contact with what is eternal and meaningful. Leisure, rightly understood, is not a break from life – it is at the heart of what makes life worth living.

From the Pastor - Corpus Christi

By John Putnam • June 20, 2025
Today we observe the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ. This beautiful feast celebrates the gift of the Eucharist, which the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches is the source and summit of our Christian faith. “For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ Himself” (CCC paragraph 1324). The very word, Eucharist, means “thanksgiving” or “gratitude” and so this feast is especially meaningful to all of us who are striving to live as grateful stewards of all God’s blessings to us. Surely the Eucharist is the greatest of all blessings because it is not only from God, the Eucharist, is God — the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Today’s second reading from St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians reminds us of the depths of love our Lord has shown us in the gift of the Eucharist, recalling Christ’s words at the very first Eucharistic celebration. “The Lord Jesus… took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you.’” In that moment, and at every celebration of the Mass thereafter, Jesus gives us His very self in an act of complete humility and perfect love. How can we possibly show our gratitude for such a sublime gift? We can receive the gift of the Eucharist with the greatest possible reverence and love. And, following our Lord’s example, we can give ourselves generously to others in the week ahead. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering The Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ naturally follows the Solemnities of Pentecost and the Holy Trinity. Each of those celebrations highlight a profound experience of God. The Eucharist invites us into the very life of God which is the Holy Trinity. We are nourished by the Lord to sustain us as we strive to run the race and fight the good fight. The Church in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II describes the Eucharist as the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows… At times perhaps we allow our assistance and participation at Mass and reception of the Eucharist to become habitual or common place. Such an attitude should always be avoided since it diminishes the centrality that the Eucharist is to play in each of our lives. Nonetheless, it is a common pitfall that many of us fall into. There are a number of ways in which we can help ourselves to avoid falling into that trap. First and foremost, we should prepare ourselves for participation at Mass. This can be accomplished in a number of ways but especially by taking some time to read and reflect on the Scriptures before we arrive at the church. Arriving early at Mass so that we can actually spend some time in prayer, quieting our hearts and minds before the celebration begins is also helpful. Outside of Mass, we can make spiritual Communions and make visits to the Blessed Sacrament. These moments of grace can also inspire us to live more authentically Christian lives by our concern for and service to the poor. Serving our neighbor and loving the neighbor as we love ourselves is a true expression of our love for God.  I also want to offer a word of thanks to all those who assisted with the diaconate and priestly ordinations the previous two Saturdays. A great deal of work goes into these events, and the St. Mark staff and volunteers always “step up” to do their part. We as a parish are honored to host these important Diocesan events and appreciate all of those who contribute to their success.
More Posts