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 - 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • September 4, 2026
Today's readings remind us of the importance of our relationships. God created us to live in communion with Him and with one another. Our families, neighbors, friends, and parish community need us, and we need them as we grow together in holiness. In today's Second Reading, St. Paul gives us a simple but profound guide for living in relationship with others. Echoing the words of Christ, he writes, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love is the guiding principle that helps us become good stewards of every relationship God has entrusted to us. In today's Gospel, Jesus shows us what that love looks like, even when relationships become strained. He tells His disciples, "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother." Rather than ignoring conflict or allowing resentment to grow, Jesus teaches us to approach one another with humility, charity, and a sincere desire for reconciliation. This is faithful stewardship of our relationships. He also reminds us of the strength found in Christian community: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." God never intended us to journey to heaven alone. May we care for the relationships He has entrusted to us and help one another grow as faithful disciples. ©Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2026 Pastoral Pondering Next Saturday the Diocese of Charlotte celebrates the annual Eucharistic Congress at the Convention Center in Charlotte. Events begin on Friday evening, with the majority of activities happening on Saturday and culminating with the Congress Mass in the afternoon. I encourage everyone to take advantage of this opportunity to come together as a Diocesan family and celebrate the source and summit of our faith. Our own Father Kevin Martinez will be the homilist for the Holy Hour on Saturday morning at the conclusion of the Eucharistic procession. Public processions of the Eucharist and the saints (especially their relics and images) are ancient and enduring expressions of Catholic faith. They combine liturgical prayer, public witness, communal pilgrimage and public piety. They visibly proclaim core doctrines—the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the communion of saints—while symbolizing the Church as a pilgrim people journeying toward the heavenly Jerusalem. These types of processions are found in the Old Testament when the Ark of the Covenant was processed on different occasions, e.g. the conquest of Jericho or the joyful entrance of the ark into Jerusalem. In the early Church processions developed by the 4 th century in both the East and the West. They marked festivals, thanksgivings, penance, the translation (solemn transfer) of relics, the consecration of churches, funerals and times of calamity. Eucharistic processions arose later, in the high Middle Ages, amid intensified theological reflection on the Real Presence (Fourth Lateran Council 1215; development of the language of transubstantiation) and growing devotion to the Eucharist outside Mass. The elevation of the Host during Mass became common around 1200. The Solemnity of Corpus Christi originated in the visions of St. Juliana of Liège (early 13th century), who saw the Church’s liturgical year as a full moon with a dark spot—the lack of a dedicated feast for the Eucharist. The feast was first celebrated in Liège in 1246. Pope Urban IV (formerly archdeacon of Liège) extended it to the universal Church in the bull Transiturus de hoc mundo (1264), commissioning St. Thomas Aquinas to compose the liturgical texts (including Pange lingua, Lauda Sion, and Adoro te devote). A Eucharistic miracle at Bolsena (bleeding Host) around the same time, brought to Urban at Orvieto, reinforced the impetus. Formal public processions with the Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance appeared soon after—early records from places such as Benediktbeuern (1273) and Cologne (1270s)—and spread rapidly across Europe by the 14th century. Pope Clement V and the Council of Vienne (1311) helped regulate the feast and its observance; later papal encouragement and indulgences supported the processions. They typically followed Mass, moved through streets or fields (sometimes stopping at outdoor altars for Gospel readings and petitions), and concluded with Benediction. The Council of Trent strongly endorsed them as a public profession of faith in the Real Presence, especially against Protestant denials. In the Counter-Reformation and Baroque periods they grew elaborate, involving civic authorities, guilds, military escorts, music, and decorations (flower carpets, banners). They continued as major public events in Catholic countries and were revived or defended in later centuries (e.g., against 19th-century secularizing pressures or under Communist regimes). Popes such as St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI emphasized their value; John Paul II restored the Roman Corpus Christi procession and wrote of the need to proclaim the incarnate God “especially in our streets and homes.” The Church continues to encourage them. Liturgical books describe the annual Corpus Christi procession as particularly desirable for the pastoral life of a parish or city when circumstances permit, as a public witness of faith and devotion. Processions of saints remain part of popular piety and local traditions (feast-day celebrations, Rogation observances where retained, translations of relics, etc.).  In short, these processions are not mere pageantry. They are embodied proclamations that the risen Christ walks with His people in the Eucharist and that the saints, as members of the one Body, continue to intercede for and accompany the Church on earth.

From the Pastor - 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • August 28, 2026
Living the stewardship way of life is not easy. Dying to self and living for Christ and others requires sacrifice. It is the work of a lifetime. Yet it is also the only work that truly matters and the only life that ultimately satisfies. In today's Gospel from Matthew, Jesus tells His disciples, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me." At first, those words may sound difficult to accept. Why would anyone willingly embrace such a path? Jesus immediately gives us the answer: "Whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Everything comes down to love. Jesus loved us completely, giving Himself for us on the Cross. He continues to give Himself to us through His Word and, most especially, in the Eucharist. Each day we are faced with a choice: to live for ourselves or to live for God and for others. The second path is more demanding, but it leads to lasting joy and the promise of eternal life. Christ assures us that He "will come with his angels in his Father's glory and then he will repay all according to his conduct." May we choose each day to lose our lives for Christ's sake, offering them back to Him in grateful response to His immeasurable love. ©Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2026 Pastoral Pondering Two Italian dioceses (Rome and Ventimiglia-Sanremo) recently blocked planned Catholic funeral Masses for two prominent Freemasons after their Masonic affiliations became publicly known just before the ceremonies. This happened on August 7–8, 2026, and applies longstanding Church discipline rather than a new nationwide policy from the Italian bishops’ conference. Since some folks asked about this, I thought it would be a good article. The cases - Rome: Bruno Battisti D’Amario (88), a classical guitarist and professor closely linked to Ennio Morricone’s film work, died on August 5. His funeral Mass was scheduled for August 7 th at Santa Maria in Montesanto (the “Church of the Artists” in Piazza del Popolo). The Grand Orient of Italy (GOI) publicly eulogized him as a “master brother,” founder of the Roman Giuseppe Leti lodge, composer of the GOI’s official anthem, and holder of senior positions (including twice president of the Lazio District College of Worshipful Masters). Cardinal Baldassarre Reina, Vicar General of the Diocese of Rome, consulted the diocesan legal office and denied authorization for the funeral Mass, allowing only a brief prayer as a gesture of Christian charity. - Ventimiglia-Sanremo (Liguria): Mario Tarducci (73), a former Venerable Master of the local Mimosa lodge (no. 985, Orient of Bordighera), was scheduled for a funeral the next day at the parish church of San Marco in Camporosso. Bishop Antonio Suetta learned of the affiliation only after arrangements were made—via local news and public Masonic death notices. After consulting the family and pastor, and noting the simultaneous Rome case, he suspended the ecclesiastical funeral under the same principles, limiting it to simple prayers outside. Canonical and doctrinal basis Both decisions explicitly invoked Canon 1184 of the Code of Canon Law. It denies ecclesiastical funerals to those who, without signs of repentance before death, are “notoriously apostate, heretical or schismatic” or “other manifest sinners” whose funerals would cause public scandal among the faithful. This aligns with the Church’s consistent teaching that Freemasonry is incompatible with Catholicism. The 1983 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declaration (under then-Cardinal Ratzinger) reaffirmed that Catholics who join Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion; the negative judgment on Masonic principles remains unchanged. Public, high-level membership without known repentance creates the “public scandal” element that triggers the canonical denial. These were not blanket bans on all Freemasons but responses to notorious cases where the affiliation was openly proclaimed by the lodges themselves, making a Catholic funeral appear to endorse or ignore the incompatibility. Similar past applications have occurred (e.g., high-profile cases involving public scandal). Pastoral care for the grieving family is still encouraged—Mass intentions or a memorial Mass sine corpore (without the body present) can be offered.  In short, two bishops applied existing law firmly once the memberships became public and notorious. The episodes have drawn attention precisely because they reinforce the long-standing discipline amid ongoing tensions between the Church and Freemasonry in Italy. It also reminds all of us that one cannot present themselves as Catholic and live in a manner that contradicts longstanding teaching of the Church.