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 - 15th Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • July 10, 2026
In today’s Gospel from Matthew, Jesus shares the familiar Parable of the Sower. It is a powerful image for the stewardship way of life, demonstrating the gradual but transformative effect that a life centered on God can have on us over time. In the parable, some seed falls on a path where birds quickly carry it away. Other seed falls on rocky ground, where it begins to grow but cannot develop deep roots. Still more seed falls among thorns that eventually choke the young plants. Finally, some seed falls on rich, fertile soil and produces an abundant harvest. Jesus explains that the seed is the Word of God, generously scattered for all to receive. The question is whether our hearts are prepared to receive it and allow it to take root. This is where the stewardship way of life comes in. When we offer our time, talent, and treasure to God and place Him first in our lives, we help create the “good soil” needed for the Kingdom to flourish within us. Stewardship removes the “rocks” of mistrust as we grow in confidence that God will provide for our needs. It clears away the “thorns” of worldly concerns that can distract us from what matters most. Through prayer, the sacraments, and generous service, the soil of our lives is continually nourished and renewed. Let us deepen our commitment to this way of life, allowing the Divine Sower to do His work within us. In time, He will produce an abundant harvest through our lives. ©Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2026. Pastoral Pondering A Pastoral Reflection on the Earthquakes in Venezuela Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ, In these days, our hearts are heavy as we learn of the devastating earthquakes that struck Venezuela on June 24, 2026. Two powerful tremors, measuring approximately 7.2 and 7.5 in magnitude, have caused great loss of life, injured thousands, and left many families homeless and grieving. As your pastor, I invite you to join me in prayer for all those affected— the deceased, the injured, the missing, and those working tirelessly in rescue and relief efforts. May the Lord grant them strength and comfort in this time of trial. The Catholic Church offers us clear guidance on how to understand such natural disasters. They are not punishments from God directed at specific sins or peoples. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, our world is “in a state of journeying” toward its ultimate perfection (CCC 310). In God’s wise plan, creation includes both life-giving and destructive forces of nature—such as the shifting of tectonic plates that cause earthquakes. Physical evils like these remind us of the disorder introduced into the world by Original Sin, yet they are not direct divine judgments. Jesus Himself rejected such thinking when asked about tragedies in His time (see Luke 13:1-5 and John 9:1-3). Instead, these events humble us, turn our eyes from fleeting earthly goods toward heaven, and call forth the best in us: compassion, solidarity, and trust in God’s providence. Our Holy Father, Pope Leo XIV, has expressed his deep closeness to the Venezuelan people. He has offered prayers for the victims and their families, entrusted the rescuers to the Lord, and sent an initial emergency donation of €100,000 to support relief efforts through the local Church. He urges the international community to respond with generous solidarity. In moments like this, we remember that creation itself “groans” in labor pains as it awaits full redemption (Romans 8:22). Yet we are not without hope. God does not abandon His children. He is present in the suffering Christ who walks with us, and He brings good even from tragedy—through heroic acts of charity, stronger communities, and hearts turned more fully toward Him. What can we do here at St. Mark’s? - Pray: Offer Masses, Rosaries, or personal prayers for Venezuela. Consider a special intention at weekend Masses. - Help: Support reliable Catholic relief organizations such as Catholic Relief Services (CRS) or efforts coordinated by our Diocese of Charlotte. Even small donations can provide food, shelter, and medical aid. - Reflect: Use this as an opportunity for personal conversion and gratitude for the blessings we enjoy.  Let us entrust our Venezuelan brothers and sisters to the intercession of Our Lady of Guadalupe and St. Mark, our patron. May the Risen Lord bring healing, peace, and hope to all who suffer. And may we, as one parish family, respond with the love of Christ.

From the Pastor - 14th Sunday in Ordinary Time

By John Putnam • July 10, 2026
The theme of humility is central to our readings today. God Himself is a humble God, so if we wish to follow Him as Christian stewards, we too, must be humble. In fact, humility is key to the stewardship way of life, and to a peaceful and fulfilling life. In our Gospel passage from Matthew, Jesus Himself speaks to the Father about the privileged role that humble souls play in God’s plan of salvation. “I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to little ones.” What does it mean to be a “little one”? It means that we acknowledge we don’t have it all figured out, but that we are very much in need of a savior. It means we recognize that all we are and all we have been given is a gift from God. It means we embrace the stewardship way of life. It is not easy, but deep peace and consolation come with this way of life. Jesus offers these warm and encouraging words to entice us to embrace them. “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.” Let us resolve to follow in the footsteps of our Savior, embracing the humble path of stewardship. It is the path that leads to peace here and now, and ultimately leads us to heaven. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2026. Pastoral Pondering One of the struggles that confessors often have to face is the reality of scrupulosity. It is not something new and has in fact been recognized as a spiritual obstacle throughout the centuries. Hence, I thought a discussion of the issue, albeit brief, would be helpful to those who face it or know someone who does.  Scrupulosity is a condition in which a person experiences excessive, persistent anxiety and doubt about sin, often seeing mortal sin where there is none or obsessing over past faults that have already been forgiven. It is sometimes described as a religious form of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and can cause great spiritual distress, frequent confessions, and difficulty trusting in God’s mercy. The Church has long recognized scrupulosity as a heavy cross, not a sign of weak faith but a challenge that even great saints like St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Alphonsus Liguori faced. The Catholic response emphasizes trust in God’s infinite mercy, the reliability of the sacraments, and obedience to a trusted confessor or spiritual director. Key principles include: once a sin is confessed and absolved, do not revisit it; temptation is not the same as consent or sin; and venial sins are forgiven through ordinary acts of love and the Eucharist. If you struggle with scrupulosity, choose one regular confessor, follow his guidance faithfully, and resist the urge to “priest-hop” for repeated reassurance. Professional help from a therapist familiar with OCD and Catholic teaching can also be a valuable complement. Remember the words of Jesus : “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest” (Mt 11:28). God’s mercy is greater than our fears. If you or someone you know suffers in this way, speak with a priest, seek spiritual direction, and know that you are not alone. Resources such as *Scrupulous Anonymous* (a free newsletter) and books like Fr. Thomas Santa’s *Understanding Scrupulosity* can offer further encouragement. May the Lord grant peace to all who carry this burden.