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 - Second Sunday of Advent

By John Putnam • December 5, 2025
On this Second Sunday of Advent, our second reading from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans encourages us to focus our Advent preparations in this way: “Welcome one another, then, as Christ welcomed you, for the glory of God.” And how does Christ welcome us? With unconditional love. This is the essence of Christian hospitality, a vital aspect of stewardship living. Fully embraced, it has the power to transform our lives and the lives of those who experience it through us. The practice of Christian hospitality is also a way for us stewards to answer the call of John the Baptist, in our Gospel passage from Matthew. His words apply just as much to us today as they did to the people awaiting the Savior’s arrival. John says, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” And he recalls the words of the prophet Isaiah, “Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.” There is a definite connection between repentance and effective hospitality. So how can we make repentance a regular part of our everyday lives? We can make an “examination of conscience” a daily part of our prayers, thanking God for the times we said “yes” to Him, and asking forgiveness for the times we chose our own will. We can (and should!) go to Confession this Advent. We can reach out to a family member or friend where there is distance or discord and make peace. As we “straighten the paths” of our own hearts and minds, we become more hospitable people, better stewards of God’s grace and mercy, and far more open and ready to invite others into our lives, homes, and parish. This is preparation fitting for our merciful Savior. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering Pope Leo XIV, the 267th Bishop of Rome, undertook his inaugural apostolic journey abroad from November 27 to December 2, 2025. This six-day itinerary encompassed Turkey (November 27–30) and Lebanon (November 30–December 2), marking a deliberate choice of destinations in the Middle East amid ongoing regional conflicts and global ecclesiastical anniversaries. As the successor to Pope Francis, who had planned a similar trip before his passing in April 2025, Leo XIV’s voyage fulfills a commitment to ecumenical and inter-religious engagement while advancing themes central to his nascent papacy: peace, unity, and dialogue. Historical and Ecumenical Significance in Turkey The Turkish leg of the journey centered on İznik (ancient Nicaea), where Pope Leo XIV participated in commemorations of the 1,700th anniversary of the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD). This ecumenical council, convened by Emperor Constantine I, produced the Nicene Creed—a foundational statement of Christian faith affirming the divinity of Christ and shared by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions. The event underscored the common heritage of Christianity, with Leo XIV joining Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople for a joint declaration and doxology at the Patriarchal Church of Saint George in Istanbul. This collaboration highlights efforts to bridge the schism between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, echoing historical papal visits to Turkey (e.g., by Popes Paul VI in 1967 and Benedict XVI in 2006). In a broader context, the visit to predominantly Muslim Turkey (where Christians constitute less than 0.5% of the population) served as a gesture of interfaith outreach. Key moments included a prayer at Istanbul’s Blue Mosque—though Leo XIV refrained from visibly praying there, distinguishing his approach from predecessors—and a meeting with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Discussions addressed tensions over sites like the Hagia Sophia, reconverted to a mosque in 2020, and emphasized mutual respect amid Turkey’s role as a crossroads of early Christianity and St. Paul’s homeland. The pilgrimage thus reinforced the papacy’s commitment to fostering “what unites us” over divisions, as articulated by Vatican spokespersons. Humanitarian and Diplomatic Significance in Lebanon Transitioning to Lebanon, Pope Leo XIV’s itinerary addressed the nation’s profound challenges: economic collapse since 2019, the devastating 2020 Beirut port explosion (which killed over 200 and displaced thousands), and renewed violence from Israeli airstrikes in 2024 targeting Hezbollah positions, despite a fragile Gaza ceasefire. Lebanon’s Christian community, the largest in the Arab world (comprising 30–35% of the population), faces emigration and instability, making the visit a vital affirmation of solidarity. Notable engagements included meetings with President Joseph Aoun, Parliament Speaker, Nabih Berri, and Prime Minister, Nawaf Salam; an inter-religious prayer at Beirut’s port memorializing explosion victims; and visits to the tomb of St. Charbel and the statue of Our Lady of Lebanon. An open-air Mass at Beirut’s waterfront, anticipated to draw 120,000 attendees, symbolized communal resilience. Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem extended a formal welcome, delivering a letter via group members and framing the visit as an opportunity for dialogue on regional peace. This outreach to Muslim-majority Lebanon (65–70% Muslim) amplified Leo XIV’s message of coexistence, drawing parallels to Pope John Paul II’s 1997 visit and Benedict XVI’s in 2012 amid the Syrian civil war. Broader Geopolitical and Papal Implications Occurring against the backdrop of a “piecemeal” third world war—encompassing Ukraine, Gaza, and Middle Eastern flashpoints—Leo XIV’s journey positioned the Holy See as a moral voice for de-escalation. In addresses, he invoked his predecessor Pope Francis’s warnings on humanity’s endangered future, urging world leaders to prioritize peace negotiations. The trip’s timing, covered by over 80 journalists from 15 countries (including major U.S. networks), amplified its global resonance, particularly as the first foreign voyage of an American pope. Symbolically, selecting Muslim-majority nations for his debut underscores a pontificate rooted in Augustinian spirituality (Leo XIV being the first from the Order of Saint Augustine) and social teaching, echoing Pope Leo XIII’s emphasis on justice in industrialized eras. It signals continuity with Francis’s bridge-building while introducing Leo XIV’s vision: unity across faiths, support for persecuted minorities, and advocacy for the vulnerable. By December 2, 2025, the visit had already prompted reflections on its potential to influence fragile truces and inter-communal harmony in the region.  This apostolic journey, therefore, transcends ceremonial bounds, serving as a strategic affirmation of the Catholic Church’s role in promoting global stability and religious solidarity.

From the Pastor - First Sunday of Advent

By John Putnam • December 2, 2025
Today we begin the beautiful season of Advent — a season of preparation. For what are we preparing? The celebration of the birth of our Savior, and the anticipation of His second coming. These are weighty tasks with eternal consequences. So, let us as Christian stewards make the words of the Prophet Isaiah our motto for the season: “Come, let us climb the Lord’s mountain to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may instruct us in his ways and we may walk in his paths.” In the weeks leading up to Christmas, it seems everywhere we turn we are pushed to spend more, do more, entertain more, and generally rush around at a frantic pace — all to create a “perfect” Christmas day. In contrast to this worldly pressure, the Church’s guidance to use these weeks as a time to focus on our spiritual lives can indeed seem like a mountain climb. But the intentional and wise use of the gift of time is exactly what the Christian steward is called to do, and with even greater intensity during Advent. How can we use our time to prepare for a holy celebration of Jesus’ birth on Dec. 25 and for his second coming at a date we do not know? We can push back against the world’s pressure to have the “perfect Christmas.” Scale back on the material kind of gift-giving, the complicated menus, the unessential trappings of the season so that we have more time for the spiritual preparations: Confession, weekday Mass, adoration, family prayer time, lighting the Advent wreath, acts of kindness. It may feel like a mountain climb, but in the end, we will be prepared to celebrate a truly meaningful Christmas, we will have become more like our Savior, and we will be ready for Him to come again. Let’s go climb the Lord’s mountain! © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 From the Pastor Advent brings a time of new beginning. A new liturgical year is upon us, but it is also a time to prepare our hearts for something – for the coming of the Lord. The first weeks of Advent focus on the Lord’s coming at the end of time, and the latter weeks of Advent focus on preparing to celebrate His coming at the Nativity. Both, however, are interconnected. The first coming of the Lord facilitates His coming into our hearts, which, in the end, facilitates His second coming to judge the living and the dead. The “in between” of these two comings is where time and eternity come together. We are called to live each day in expectation of His coming. We are called to hope for His coming and to expect it even when it seems long delayed. It is in this expectation that we must learn to live our lives. Daily life is messy and unpredictable. We must deal with disappointments, sickness and loss. Yet, we do so as people of hope who know that in these crosses, there lies ultimate joy because of the love of the Father who sent his Son to love us to the end. As we begin a new journey in a new liturgical year, let us do so with joyful expectation. Knowing that the end of the journey, if we are faithful, is paradise.