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 - 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • September 19, 2025
After today’s readings, we can’t say we have not been warned about the dangers of mixed-up priorities. God’s Word is so very clear today on the necessity of putting Him first in all areas of our lives. We see this in the First Reading from Amos. The Lord has harsh words for those who would take advantage of the poor and whose priorities are not aligned with God’s In the Second Reading from St. Paul’s letter to Timothy, Paul gives us the antidote to the self-centeredness condemned in our First Reading. The antidote is to imitate Christ, “who gave Himself as a ransom for all.” Rather than thinking of Himself and how to “get ahead,” Christ gave Himself away — completely — for our sake. That is how we are to live. In our Gospel passage from Luke, the Lord shows us how to bridge the gap between worldly thinking and priorities and eternal thinking and priorities. Jesus tells the parable of the corrupt but clever steward who is about to be fired when the master discovers the steward has been squandering his property. Realizing his imminent unemployed status, the clever steward reaches out to the various debtors of his master to wheel and deal with them, making friends who would look out for him when he became jobless. What if we put that kind of effort into our own tasks as good stewards of all God’s gifts to us? Into our ministries, into the ways we could make more time for prayer as individuals, as couples, as families, and as a parish? What if we got as creative as the “bad steward” in the use of our finances so that we could give more generously to the poor and the advancement of God’s kingdom on the earth? That’s our lesson and our challenge. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025. Pastoral Pondering I am writing this in the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk in Utah. It was a sad day for the country, and we should certainly pray for Charlie’s family, especially his wife, Erika, and their two children. Certainly, the assassination itself was horrifying, but what the act represented was perhaps worse, the attempt to destroy respectful debate in a constitutional republic that values freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas. I watched many of Charlie Kirk’s campus visits, and I always found him to be challenging but respectful. He intentionally wanted to listen to and dialogue with those who disagreed with him. Sadly, an assassin’s bullet silenced his efforts. From a Catholic viewpoint, debate and dialogue are not merely intellectual exercises but essential expressions of Christian charity, truth-seeking, and evangelization. The Church teaches that engaging others in conversation—especially on matters of faith, morality, or social issues—must always be rooted in love, humility, and respect for the dignity of the human person, as every individual is made in God's image (Genesis 1:27). This approach transforms potential conflict into an opportunity for mutual growth, reconciliation, and the proclamation of the Gospel. As Pope Francis emphasizes in Laudato Si', the Church encourages "honest debate" among experts while "respecting divergent views," recognizing that genuine solutions emerge from dialogue, not domination. The Church identified key reasons for this emphasis drawn from Scripture, Church teaching and tradition. 1. Rooted in Christ’s Command to Love and Speak Truth in Charity Catholic teaching holds that respectful debate reflects Jesus' model of engaging opponents with compassion, even amid disagreement. In the Gospels, Christ debates Pharisees and Sadducees not to "win" arguments but to reveal truth mercifully (e.g., Matthew 22:15-46). St. Paul echoes this in Ephesians 4:15: "Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ." Harsh or condescending rhetoric, by contrast, risks sinning against charity, which the Catechism describes as the "bond of perfection" (CCC 1827). This is why Catholic apologists like those at Catholic Answers stress cultivating a "calm and friendly manner" in debates, warning against becoming "debate junkies" who prioritize controversy over spiritual health. A morbid craving for disputes, Paul warns, breeds "envy, dissension, slander" (1 Timothy 6:4-5). Respectful engagement, therefore, safeguards the debater's soul while inviting others to Christ. 2. Promotes Unity and Ecumenism in a Divided World The Church views dialogue as a path to unity, fulfilling Christ's prayer "that they may all be one" (John 17:21). In an era of polarization—whether over politics, immigration, or theology—respectful debate counters division by fostering understanding. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' president, Archbishop Timothy Broglio, recently urged promoting "the importance of dialogue [and] respect for the other" amid U.S. political tensions, linking it to the defense of human dignity from conception to natural death. Similarly, Pope John Paul II's message for the 2001 World Day of Peace calls for "dialogue between cultures" that overcomes "ethnocentric selfishness" through mutual respect, building a "civilization of love." Ecumenically, this means avoiding misrepresentations, such as falsely accusing Catholics of "worshiping" Mary or saints—instead of veneration—or dismissing Tradition outright. The Catechism (CCC 821) encourages such respectful exchanges to bridge divides, as seen in interfaith colloquia hosted by the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue, where Pope Francis stresses seeing the "other" not as a threat but as a "gift" for growth. 3. Essential for Evangelization and Proclaiming the Gospel Debate, when respectful, is a form of dialogue and proclamation, as outlined in the 1991 Vatican document of the same name. It allows Catholics to share the faith persuasively without coercion, respecting freedom of conscience. The Church has a long history of public disputations, from medieval scholastic debates to modern apologetics, but always under safeguards: priests may not initiate challenges, and discussions require episcopal approval to ensure reverence for sacred mysteries (Catholic Encyclopedia on Religious Discussions). In practice, this means prioritizing witness over victory. As one Catholic writer notes, debates with atheists often fail because "faith... is the belief in a thing for which there is no evidence," so the best "win" is living virtuously as a testimony to Christ. Recent examples include calls for Christians to lead "respectful debate" on issues like immigration, modeling Gospel civility in public discourse. 4. Guards Against Sin and Builds a Culture of Life Unrespectful debate erodes human dignity, a core Catholic principle. It can devolve into personal attacks, violating the Fifth Commandment's call to honor others (CCC 2262-2268). Pope Francis warns in addresses on interreligious dialogue that polarized discussions risk becoming "polemical and inconclusive" without trust and shared vision. Instead, respectful exchange upholds the "sanctity of human life," opposing atrocities and promoting harmony across religions, ethnicities, and cultures. In apologetics, this translates to avoiding condescension or assuming bad faith, as both Catholics and Protestants seek to follow Christ. Debates on topics like sin, evolution, or authority should seek common ground—e.g., natural moral law binding all—while humbly acknowledging limits.  In summary, respectful debate is vital in Catholic thought because it mirrors Christ's merciful truth-telling, advances unity, and evangelizes without compromising dignity. As Vatican teachings repeatedly affirm, it requires "respect for differences" and a commitment to our shared "common home." In a noisy world, Catholics are called to be voices of dialogue, proving the Gospel's power through love, not force. For deeper reading, explore Laudato Si' or the Catechism's sections on charity and dialogue.

From the Pastor - 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • September 5, 2025
Today’s readings make very clear the demands that will be made of those wanting to be called disciples of Christ. We must be prepared to give our all to Him. But in the end, the life of discipleship — the stewardship way of life — is the only life that can truly satisfy. In the Gospel passage from Luke, Christ says, “If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” Our Lord is speaking here not of emotions but rather of priorities. He must come first in all aspects of our lives. Period. He goes on. “Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.” In other words, it’s all or nothing. Compromise is simply not possible. Christ wants us to give all of ourselves, all aspects of our individual lives, our family life, our parish over to Him and to the pursuit of His kingdom. And just when we think our Lord might soften His message to make it a little more palatable, He goes further! “Anyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.” Why is our Lord being so demanding? Only because He knows us so well and loves us so much. He knows that if we do not live by putting Him first before all else, we will easily be swallowed up by the earthly cares that weigh us down — our material things, our status, and our egos. He knows these things cannot satisfy us. He knows this because He is our Maker, and He made us for more. We are made to be His disciples, to seek after Him and His Kingdom. Embracing stewardship as a way of life allows us to count the cost and then run after Him with all our might. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering Over the last several years, I have noticed, and statistics seem to bear this out, that suicides and attempted suicides have been on the rise, especially among young people. The 18-30 demographic seems to be especially susceptible. I’m sure the roots of that type of despair start much younger, but funerals that I have celebrated or know about are always very heavy, spiritually. I have been speaking with my leadership team about ways that we, as a parish, could address this issue and be proactive in providing outreach and support. I thought it would be helpful to provide an outline of the Church’s teaching on the topic and encourage us all to think of ways that we can be a help in slowing the tide. Hope in Christ: A Catholic Reflection on Suicide The Gift of Life The Church proclaims that every human life is sacred and created in love by God. “God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2258). Suicide is a grave matter, because it rejects the gift of life entrusted to us (CCC 2280–2281). Yet the Church also teaches that grave psychological suffering, fear, or illness can lessen a person’s responsibility. For this reason, we do not despair of the salvation of those who have taken their own lives but entrust them with hope to the mercy of God (CCC 2282–2283). Why Young Adults Are at Risk Many young people today face loneliness, anxiety, and the pressure to be “perfect.” Pope Francis, in Christus Vivit, reminds the Church that young adults need to know they are not alone: “The Church must be a place of compassion, where they are listened to and accompanied with respect” (CV 242–247). Suicide often grows out of a crisis of meaning, when life feels empty or burdensome. The Gospel answers with a promise: each life has a God-given purpose that no failure or suffering can erase. Our Christian Response Compassion and Mercy. The Church rejects judgment and instead offers prayer, accompaniment, and hope for those who have died and for their families. A Community of Belonging. Gaudium et Spes teaches that we only find ourselves through sincere gift of self (GS 24). Our parishes must be places where every young person knows they belong. Seeking Help Is Holy. The Catechism calls care for health a moral duty (CCC 2288). Turning to counseling, medical support, or trusted mentors is a way of honoring God’s gift of life. The Cross Brings Meaning. Saint John Paul II wrote that our suffering, united with Christ’s Passion, can become a source of redemption (Salvifici Doloris 18–19). No suffering is meaningless in Christ. A Word of Hope As followers of Jesus, we must say clearly: if you are struggling, you are not alone. Your life is not a mistake. God loves you. The Church loves you. Reach out — to a friend, to your priest, to a counselor. Asking for help is an act of courage and faith. Prayer God of mercy, embrace all who struggle with despair, especially our young people. Fill their hearts with the light of Your love. Receive into Your peace those who have died, console their families, and make our parish a home of hope, healing, and belonging. Amen. If you or someone you know is struggling, please reach out. 📞 In the U.S., dial 988 (Suicide & Crisis Lifeline).