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 - Palm Sunday

By John Putnam • March 27, 2026
We begin this Holy Week with the reading of the Lord’s Passion from the Gospel of Matthew. It is fitting that during this week we intensely focus our minds and hearts on the steps of our Savior as He laid down His very life for us. But let us also examine the seemingly small acts of stewardship by some who encountered Jesus during this most eventful week. One occurred when Jesus gave instructions about the room where He would celebrate the Passover. Jesus said, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him…” ‘In your house I shall celebrate the Passover with my disciples.’” While we do not know this man’s name, we do know he agreed to this request — he shared the material gift of his home and the gift of hospitality. Because of his good stewardship, his own home became the site of the institution of the Eucharist! There was also Simon the Cyrenian, who offered the gift of his physical strength, helping the Lord to carry His Cross. Consider, too, the actions of Joseph of Arimathea — he generously shared a material gift of the tomb that was his, and he gave the gift of service to our Lord by giving Him a proper burial. Then there were the "two Marys” who gave Jesus the gift of their time. Keeping watch in tender vigil after His death, they “remained sitting there, facing the tomb.” Each of these were simple acts of good stewardship, yet God used them in mighty ways. God invites each of us, too, to cooperate with Him in small ways through the sharing of our time, talent, and material gifts. Small gifts can become mighty deeds when placed in God’s service. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2026. Pastoral Pondering  Recently, a new translation of The Order of the Anointing of the Sick and of Their Pastoral Care was released by the USCCB. In keeping with our review over the last two weeks, I think it would be good to have a reminder about when it is proper to ask to receive this wonderful sacrament of healing. The following is adapted from an article by Father Dylan Shrader, an edited version of which appeared in the journal of the Society for Catholic Liturgy Antiphon 16, no. 1 (2012):52-61. Anointing of the Sick Before Surgery: When and Why? Many Catholics wonder: “Can I receive Anointing of the Sick just because I’m having surgery?” It’s a common question in parishes. Some assume that any procedure requiring general anesthesia carries enough risk to qualify for the sacrament. Fr. Dylan Schrader’s clear article (published in Antiphon, 2012) shows why this view, though well-meaning, does not match Church teaching. The sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is not a “good-luck charm” against surgical complications. It is a healing sacrament Christ gave specifically for those who are already suffering a dangerous bodily infirmity —a serious illness, injury, or the frailty of old age that puts them in danger of death right now. Scripture (James 5:14) and the Councils of Florence and Trent are unmistakable: this sacrament is for the sick, not for anyone facing an external danger (battle, travel, or upcoming surgery) if they are otherwise healthy. The Church’s official Ritual says anointing can be given before surgery—but only when “a dangerous illness is the cause of the surgery itself.” The Catechism echoes this: it is “fitting” to receive Anointing before a serious operation for those who already qualify because of their illness. The point is pastoral wisdom, not a new rule: if someone is already sick enough to need anointing, it’s better to receive the sacrament before the added stress of surgery than to risk delaying it or missing it entirely. The special grace of Anointing does not “wear off.” Once received with faith, it lasts throughout the entire period of that same infirmity, giving strength, peace, union with Christ’s suffering, forgiveness of sins (if needed), and even possible physical healing. It can be repeated only if the person recovers and then falls seriously ill again, or if the same illness becomes markedly worse. Practical Guidance for Parishioners - If your surgery is because of a serious illness or injury (e.g., cancer surgery, heart procedure, complications from an accident), ask your priest about Anointing beforehand. He will gladly celebrate it. - If your procedure is elective, precautionary, or cosmetic (wisdom teeth removal with no infection, knee replacement for a stable condition, organ donation, etc.), you are not yet a candidate for Anointing. The Church offers beautiful alternatives: the blessing of the sick, prayers from the Book of Blessings, or simply the sacraments of Penance and Eucharist. - Always prepare spiritually with Confession and Holy Communion. These are available to everyone, healthy or ill. Priests are happy to explain the sacrament and resolve any doubt in favor of celebrating it when the criteria are met. The goal is never to withhold grace but to honor the beautiful purpose Christ gave this sacrament: to strengthen us precisely in the suffering we already carry. Christ instituted Anointing of the Sick so that, in our weakness, we might be united to His Passion and receive every grace we need to bear illness as Christians. When we understand its true purpose, we receive it with greater faith—and experience its full power. If you or a loved one faces serious illness, don’t wait. Call your priest today. The Church wants you to have this sacrament at the right time, for the right reason, and with full confidence in Christ’s healing love.

From the Pastor - 5th Sunday in Lent

By John Putnam • March 20, 2026
At this point in our Lenten journey, it is tempting to grow weary of the spiritual disciplines we have taken on. Today’s readings inspire us to remain faithful, in grateful response to a God who loves us so much. In our first reading, the prophet Ezekiel speaks God’s own words to us. “I will put my spirit in you that you may live… I have promised and I will do it, says the Lord.” Our God wants to be so closely united to us that we are one with Him. And He has promised He will do it. But only if we make room for Him by making Him THE priority of our lives. Putting God first is a grateful response that is very pleasing to Him. How can we do this? Our second reading, from Romans, tells us. “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh… you are in the spirit if only the Spirit of God dwells in you.” The disciplines of Lent and a stewardship way of life are wonderful gifts that free us from too great an attachment to “the flesh.” The sacrifices we make as Christian stewards are not meant to restrict our freedom and joy. Quite the contrary. They are tools to help us find the real freedom and joy that only come when we make room in our lives for God. As we journey closer to the Passion of our Lord, let us intensify our Lenten resolutions and our stewardship way of life, inviting the Holy Spirit to take over more and more of our lives. By Easter, we will be freer to rejoice in Him and truly pleasing to God. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2026. Pastoral Pondering On September 29, 1916, the Angel of Peace appeared to the three shepherd children in Fatima. During this encounter, the Angel shared with the children the following prayer: "Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I adore thee profoundly, and I offer Thee the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the same son Jesus Christ, present in the Tabernacles of the world, in reparation for all the sacrileges, outrages, and indifferences by which He Himself is offended. And by the infinite merits of His Most Sacred Heart and through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of Thee the conversion of poor sinners." In keeping with the theme that I began last week, about reviewing the basics, I thought it might be useful to address the importance of Eucharistic reverence and devotion. In the prayer given by the Angel, sacrileges, outrages and indifferences are specifically mentioned. Perhaps looking at each of these is a helpful way to address this.