From the Pastor – 30th Sunday in Ordinary Time

October 23, 2020

From the Pastor – 30 th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Today’s readings are all about the radical love of God for His people and the radical love we are called to live out in response. The stewardship way of life is nothing more and nothing less than the practical application of loving God and neighbor in our daily lives.

Jesus sums up the message of all the prophets, as well as the purpose of all God’s laws in today's Gospel passage, from Matthew. It is a message we have likely grown up hearing — but it is so beautiful and so challenging, it bears repeating again and again. It is Christ’s response to a question about which commandment is greatest. His answer reveals both the greatest and the second greatest commandments.

He says, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind... The second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

How is the second like the first? What do the two commands have in common? Love.

Love God first and love neighbor as self. This is the heart of the stewardship way of life — simple enough for a child to understand, challenging enough to be the life’s work of every “grown-up.” © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2020.

Pastoral Pondering — The following is the conclusion to A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters by Father Stephen Torraco, Ph.D.

8. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life?

As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), "...when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects." Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.

9. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?

In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in question 8 above.

10. What if all the candidates from whom I have to choose are pro-abortion? Do I have to abstain from voting at all? What do I do?

Obviously, one of these candidates is going to win the election. Thus, in this dilemma, you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm. However, as explained in question 5 above, you should not place a candidate who is pro-capital punishment (and anti-abortion) in the same moral category as a candidate who is pro-abortion. Faced with such a set of candidates, there would be no moral dilemma, and the clear moral obligation would be to vote for the candidate who is pro-capital punishment, not necessarily because he is pro-capital punishment, but because he is anti-abortion.

11. Is not the Church’s stand that abortion must be illegal a bit of an exception? Does not the Church generally hold that government should restrict its legislation of morality significantly?

The Church’s teaching that abortion should be illegal is not an exception. St. Thomas Aquinas put it this way: "Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like." [ emphasis added]. Abortion qualifies as a grievous vice that hurts others, and the lack of prohibition of this evil by society is something by which human society cannot be maintained. As Pope John Paul II has emphasized, the denial of the right to life, in principle, sets the stage, in principle, for the denial of all other rights.

12. What about elected officials who happen to be of the same party affiliation? Are they committing a sin by being in the same party, even if they don’t advocate pro-choice views? Are they guilty by association?

Being of the same political party as those who advocate pro-abortion is indeed a serious evil IF I belong to this political party IN ORDER TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF with that party’s advocacy of pro-abortion policies. However, it can also be true that being of such a political party has as its purpose to change the policies of the party. Of course, if this is the purpose, one would have to consider whether it is reasonable to think the political party’s policies can be changed. Assuming that it is reasonable to think so, then it would be morally justifiable to remain in that political party. Remaining in that political party cannot be instrumental in the advancing of pro-abortion policies (especially if I am busily striving to change the party’s policies) as can my VOTING for candidates or for a political party with a pro-abortion policy.

13. What about voting for a pro-abortion person for something like state treasurer, in which case the candidate would have no say on matters of life in the capacity of her duties, it just happens to be her personal position. This would not be a sin, right?

If someone were running for state treasurer and that candidate made it a point to state publicly that he was in favor of exterminating people over the age of 70, would you vote for him? The fact that the candidate has that evil in his mind tells you that there are easily other evils in his mind; and the fact that he would publicly state it is a danger signal. If personal character matters in a political candidate, and personal character involves the kind of thoughts a person harbors, then such a candidate who publicly states that he is in favor of the evil of exterminating people over the age of 70 - or children who are unborn - has also disqualified himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. I would go further and say that such a candidate, in principle - in the light of the natural law - disqualifies himself from public office.

14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the less damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.

From the Pastor

From the Pastor - Sixth Sunday of Easter

By Lauren Rupar • May 15, 2026
On this sixth Sunday of Easter, our readings remind us that God must come first in our lives, and that love of God is shown through concrete actions — this is precisely why the stewardship way of life is so necessary. Our second reading, from St. Peter, challenges us to “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts.” In other words, we are to put Christ above all else. His role is not only as Savior — as essential as that is — but as Lord of our lives. As His disciples, we are called to place Him at the center of everything — our time, our talent, and our treasure. The beauty of the stewardship way of life is that it gives us a concrete way to live this out. It allows us to demonstrate that Christ truly is Lord of our lives, because love is not merely a feeling. “Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me,” Jesus tells us in our Gospel from John. True love is an act of the will. It requires obedience, humility, and deep trust in God. But the reward is extraordinary. Christ tells us, “Whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.” Could there be anything more fulfilling than living in such a way that the God of the universe reveals Himself more fully to us? © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2026 Pastoral Pondering Lately, with various discussions in the news, particularly with regard to a recent perceived back and forth between the Holy Father and President Trump, the issue of Catholic teaching and the authority of that teaching has come up. Hence, I thought it might be helpful to outline the levels of magisterial teaching in an effort to help folks navigate the different types of teaching along with the required response to each level. Summary: Levels of Magisterial Teaching The Catholic Church teaches with Christ’s authority through the Magisterium , but not all teachings carry the same weight or demand the same level of assent. Understanding these distinctions helps Catholics know how to respond faithfully to Church teaching. 1. Solemn Definitions (Extraordinary Magisterium) These are infallible dogmas formally defined by an ecumenical council or by the pope speaking ex cathedra. They concern truths revealed by God (e.g., the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption). Required response : The assent of faith. Denial is heresy. 2. Ordinary Universal Magisterium Teachings consistently and universally held by the bishops in communion with the pope, even without a formal definition. When universal agreement is clear, these teachings are also infallible (e.g., the intrinsic evil of abortion, male-only priesthood). Required response : The assent of faith. Denial is heresy. 3. Definitive Teachings (Non‑Revealed but Certain) Teachings proposed definitively because they are necessary to safeguard or explain divine revelation, even if not themselves formally revealed (e.g., canonizations, invalidity of Anglican orders). Required response: Definitive assent. Denial is grave error, though not heresy. 4. Authoritative but Non‑Definitive Teaching Non‑infallible teachings of the pope or bishops, such as many encyclicals or pastoral directives. Required response : Religious submission of intellect and will — a sincere openness and respect, not casual dismissal. 5. Prudential Judgments and Pastoral Applications Concrete applications of moral principles to specific situations (e.g., policy approaches in economics or immigration). Required response: Respectful consideration. Legitimate disagreement is possible. Why this matters : Recognizing these levels avoids two extremes—treating all Church teaching as optional opinion (laxism) or treating every Church statement as infallible dogma (rigorism). The Church teaches as a structured, living authority guided by the Holy Spirit, calling for responses proportionate to the level of teaching involved.

From the Pastor - Fifth Sunday of Easter

By John Putnam • May 1, 2026
The readings on this fifth Sunday of Easter present us with themes of dwelling places and home. As Christian stewards, we recognize that this world is not our permanent home. We are pilgrims here, making our way through the stewardship way of life toward our true home — heaven. Yet, as we journey toward heaven, we are called to make our dwelling here — whether in a household of one or a full and busy family — a true “domestic church.” In other words, the stewardship way of life begins long before we set foot on parish grounds. Stewardship starts at home. It begins with our families — our domestic churches. The domestic church plays a key role in our sanctification because it is the primary place where we learn and practice selfless love of others. In our Gospel passage from John, Jesus speaks of heaven as a home filled with dwelling places. “In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?” This is a beautiful image of the glory that awaits us and the personal love our Lord has for us — preparing a place for each one of us who remains faithful to Him. Let us respond to this great love by becoming good stewards of our earthly dwellings, making our homes true “domestic churches” where we honor God through prayer, care for one another, and generous hospitality. Let us never forget that stewardship starts at home! © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2026 Pastoral Pondering A common question that comes up is why non-Catholics can’t receive Communion at weddings or funerals . Hence, it continuing to address basics of the faith, I offer the following: The Holy Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life, the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ—Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Because the Eucharist both signifies and effects the unity of the Church, the Catholic Church approaches the question of Eucharistic sharing, often called “intercommunion,” with profound reverence and care. Catholic teaching holds that full participation in the Eucharist expresses full communion in faith, worship, and ecclesial life. For this reason, the Church ordinarily admits to Holy Communion only those who are fully initiated Catholics and who are properly disposed: in the state of grace, having observed the Eucharistic fast, and free from grave sin. Intercommunion with Other Christians Members of other Christian communities are not ordinarily admitted to Holy Communion at Catholic Masses. As the USCCB Guidelines for the Reception of Communion state: “Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion.” Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. A clear distinction exists between different Christian traditions: Eastern Churches (such as the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church) possess a valid priesthood and Eucharist by apostolic succession. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist, and Anointing of the Sick to members of these Churches if they spontaneously request them and are properly disposed (Canon 844 §3). However, these Christians are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches, many of which do not permit reception in Catholic celebrations. Other Christians (including Protestants) do not share the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence or the priesthood in its fullness. For them, reception of Holy Communion in a Catholic celebration is permitted only in cases of grave necessity—such as danger of death—when they cannot approach a minister of their own community, they request the sacrament freely, and they manifest Catholic faith in the Eucharist while possessing the required dispositions (Canon 844 §4). General invitations at weddings, funerals, or other occasions are not permitted, as they could imply a unity that does not yet exist. Catholics, in turn, may receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers, with very limited exceptions for the Eastern Churches when necessary (Canon 844 §2). Catholics are not permitted to receive Communion in most Protestant services, as those celebrations do not possess a validly ordained priesthood. A Call to Charity and Prayer These norms are not rooted in exclusion but in fidelity to the truth of the Eucharist as the sacrament of ecclesial unity. The Church recognizes the real, though imperfect, communion that exists with all the baptized through faith in Christ and the gift of Baptism. We are encouraged to foster unity through joint prayer, Scripture study, works of charity, and dialogue, while patiently awaiting the full visible unity for which Christ prayed. As the Catechism teaches, “Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation… have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, which is why Eucharistic intercommunion is not possible” (CCC 1400). Yet we rejoice in the elements of sanctification and truth present in these communities and pray earnestly for the day when all Christians may gather at one altar in complete communion. If you have questions about these teachings—perhaps in the context of family members of other Christian traditions—please speak with a priest. He can offer pastoral guidance tailored to your situation while remaining faithful to Church discipline. May our reverence for the Most Blessed Sacrament deepen our love for Christ and our longing for the unity of His Church.