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 - 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.

From the Pastor - Fourth Sunday of Easter

By John Putnam • April 24, 2026
Today’s readings on this fourth Sunday of Easter offer us a glimpse into the heart of our loving Savior. He is the Good Shepherd and we can confidently place our trust in Him as we live the stewardship way of life. This endearing image of Jesus as our shepherd, and His personal love for each one of us, is described in our Gospel passage from John, through the words of Jesus Himself. Here we read Jesus’ description of Himself as the “Good Shepherd.” He says of Himself, “The sheep hear his voice, as the shepherd calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has driven out all his own, he walks ahead of them and the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice.” This aspect of our Lord’s tender and personal love for each one of us is a compelling reason to embrace the stewardship way of life — in the offering of our time, talent, and treasure to Him, we can express our gratitude to Him for the incomprehensible love He has for us. Embracing this way of life certainly requires trust on our part. But Christ has proven Himself worthy of our trust. He “bore our sins in His body.” He calls Himself our shepherd and He offers Himself as the guardian of our souls. He has withheld nothing of Himself and His goodness from us. He would never ask anything of us that would bring us harm. He tells us “I came so that [you] might have life and have it more abundantly.” This Easter season, let us resolve to entrust ourselves and our lives gratefully to Him. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2026 Pastoral Pondering As we continue our treatment of the basics of the faith and following up on last week’s discussion of cohabitation, this week I wanted to focus on Natural Family Planning which some people misconstrue as Catholic contraception. Natural Family Planning: The Catholic Way to Responsible Parenthood Natural Family Planning (NFP) consists of moral, scientific methods that help married couples achieve or postpone pregnancy by observing a woman’s natural signs of fertility—such as cervical mucus and basal body temperature—without drugs, devices, or surgery. The Catholic Church fully supports NFP because it respects God’s design for marital love, which is both **unitive** (bonding) and **procreative** (open to life). Unlike artificial contraception, which deliberately blocks fertility, NFP works with the body’s natural cycles through periodic abstinence when needed. Church Teaching In Humanae Vitae (1968), Pope St. Paul VI taught that couples may use the infertile periods for serious reasons, while always remaining open to the gift of children. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2370) affirms that methods based on self-observation and infertile periods are morally acceptable because they respect the dignity of the spouses and promote authentic freedom. NFP is not “Catholic contraception.” The difference is in the heart: contraception rejects fertility in the act itself; NFP involves responsible discernment and periodic continence when there are just reasons (health, financial, emotional, or other proportionate circumstances). Couples should prayerfully discern together, ideally with a priest or spiritual director, avoiding a selfish “contraceptive mentality.” NFP can also help couples conceive by identifying the fertile window. Benefits for Catholic Couples - Strengthens marriage through better communication, mutual respect, and shared sacrifice. - Respects the woman’s body and natural rhythms. - Highly effective when properly learned and used. - Supports monitoring of reproductive health. Popular Church-approved methods include the Sympto-Thermal Method , Creighton Model , and Marquette Method . Instruction from a certified teacher is strongly recommended. A Parish Invitation As the domestic Church, families thrive when they live God’s plan for love and life. If you are preparing for marriage, newlywed, or seeking to grow in this area, contact your diocesan Family Life Office or visit the USCCB Natural Family Planning page for resources and local classes.  May the Lord bless all married couples as they cooperate with God in the beautiful vocation of responsible parenthood!