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 - 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • November 14, 2025
As we approach the end of the liturgical year, our readings offer a sober reminder that this life is not our aim and that God’s justice will triumph in the end. Now is the time to get our priorities in order, putting God above all else as his faithful stewards. Our Lord brings home the urgency of right priorities in our Gospel passage from Luke, reminding the people around him who were looking at the temple nearby, “All that you see here—the days will come when there will not be left a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down.” Our Lord reminds us that all in this world is passing. We must keep our focus on eternity. Yet before the eternal bliss of heaven, we should expect to be tried and tested. “Before all this happens, however, they will seize and persecute you, they will hand you over to the synagogues and to prisons and they will have you led before kings and governors because of my name.” Sounds scary. But if you are living a stewardship way of life, there is nothing to fear. You have a plan in place. All you need to do is stick with it. Put our Lord first in your time, with your talents, and through your use of treasure. This way of life is not easy. But Jesus promises it will lead to eternal salvation and the joy of union with Him. “You will be hated by all because of my name, but not a hair on your head will be destroyed. By your perseverance, you will secure your lives.” Onward, Christian stewards, the struggle is worth the joy that awaits! Pastoral Pondering On November 4th the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released Mater Populi Fidelis, a 20-page doctrinal note which was approved by the Holy Father. The Document addresses longstanding requests for clarification on Marian titles related to Mary’s cooperation in salvation. It emphasizes Mary’s unique role as Mother of believers while safeguarding Christ’s sole mediatorship, aiming to foster authentic devotion, Catholic fidelity, and ecumenical dialogue. The Note responds to decades of proposals, including petitions for new Marian dogmas, often amplified via social media and private revelations. It draws on Scripture, Tradition (e.g., St. Augustine), and prior papal reflections, including Joseph Ratzinger's 1996 and 2002 critiques of certain titles as unclear or prone to misunderstanding. The document appreciates popular piety but cautions against expressions that could confuse the faithful or obscure Christ's centrality. It promotes "participated mediation"—Mary's supportive role in union with Christ—without equating her to the Redeemer. The document goes on to underscore “approved titles/expressions” and “discouraged titles/expressions.” Those that are encouraged include: Mother of God (Theotokos), Mother of Believers, Spiritual Mother, Mother of the Faithful People of God, and Mediatrix (in a general sense of intercession). It notes that these underscore Mary's maternal bond with Christ and the Church, directing devotion to the Son. They are biblically rooted (e.g., John 19:26-27) and foster hope, tenderness, and unity. Those titles discouraged are Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces. It notes that these risk eclipsing Christ's unique mediation (1 Tim 2:5) and redemption; not explicitly in Scripture or early Tradition; potential for confusion or imbalance in faith, especially ecumenically. I know in my own discussions over the years; it is very easy (especially for my non-Catholic relatives) to get confused over certain Marian titles. They can certainly be explained, but as the DDF points out, those titles that require greater explanation for common understanding should be discouraged. To be sure, you can find both titles used in various Catholic resources, and the document certainly does not forbid their use. Nonetheless, it approaches the topic in a balanced and pastorally sensitive way that recognizes the importance of Marian devotion and piety while, at the same time, reminding us all of the importance supporting and encouraging doctrinal harmony.

From the Pastor - Dedication of Lateran Basilica

By John Putnam • November 7, 2025
Today, the Church celebrates the Feast of the Dedication of the Lateran Basilica in Rome — the cathedral church of the Pope and the mother church of all Christendom. While this feast honors a sacred building, it also reminds us of a deeper truth: we, the People of God, are the living temple of His presence. In the first reading, Ezekiel describes life-giving water flowing from the temple, bringing renewal wherever it goes. This image calls us to be channels of God’s grace in the world. St. Paul tells us, “You are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you” (1 Cor 3:16). As stewards, we are entrusted with the sacred task of caring for this temple — our own hearts and our parish community — so that God’s presence may shine through us. In the Gospel, Jesus cleanses the temple, declaring that His body is the true dwelling place of God. Through our baptism, we sare in this mystery and are called to reflect God’s holiness in all we do. Today’s feast is an invitation to renew our commitment to the Church — to participate actively in her mission, to serve generously, and to let our lives be signs of God’s living presence in the world. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering Last year, I noted that the norm for the distribution of Communion in the United States is standing and on the hand. I brought it up because parishioners were questioning why Bishop Martin, when he visited the parish, did not utilize the altar rails. This is not the norm universally, but each conference of bishops is asked to adopt that posture which is to be normative. The USCCB website states the following: The General Instruction asks each country's Conference of Bishops to determine the posture to be used for the reception of Communion and the act of reverence to be made by each person as he or she receives Communion. In the United States, the body of Bishops has determined that "[t]he norm... is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling" and that a bow is the act of reverence made by those receiving (no. 160). The right to receive Communion on the tongue or on the hand and whether to receive kneeling or standing belongs to the individual. The normative practice, however, is clear and is set by the body of bishops. https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-reception-of-holy-communion-at-mass When we began offering the Traditional Latin Mass a number of years ago, we added the altar rails to meet the requirements of that particular celebration. The use of the rails gradually became the norm at the parish because more and more people started to use them. Many believe it promotes reverence and devotion. At the same time, obedience is a virtue, and I think it is important to be united with other parishes in the Diocese and return to the normative practice as noted above, which we will implement here at St. Mark on the First Sunday of Advent, November 30. ( Correction: The previous sentence was updated to clarify that this change applies only at St. Mark .) As noted above, each individual retains the right to kneel to receive the Eucharist. I also want to be clear that love and devotion for the Eucharist can be expressed in any number of ways within the life of the Church. No one can argue that the Diocese of Charlotte does not have a deep love for the Eucharist. It is the center of our lives, and it is certainly the center of our parish here at St. Mark. From our love for the Eucharist flows our commitment to effective catechesis, evangelization, and our tremendous outreach to the poor. Those things remain unchanged. Any time changes are made, especially in the liturgy, it touches people deeply. My hope is that after almost 11 years as your pastor, you know how much I love and care for you and for the liturgy entrusted to us. I simply believe that it is better that we are faithful to the liturgical norms given to us by legitimate Church authority as outlined in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. Personal preferences, including my own, which go beyond these norms should not encroach on the liturgical celebration. As our Holy Father reminds in his pontifical motto, In Illo Uno Unum (In the One (Christ) we are one), in the liturgy and in our Catholic life.