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 - Pentecost

By John Putnam • May 22, 2026
Throughout our readings today for Pentecost Sunday, we see the powerful truth that the Holy Spirit gives us gifts and guidance in a deeply personal way. We are meant to use these gifts to build up the Body of Christ — each in our own unique way. In our first reading from Acts, we hear of the dramatic outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles. A strong driving wind filled the house, and tongues of fire came to rest on each of them. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues. Notice how personal this moment is. The Spirit came upon each individual, equipping them in a unique way to share the Gospel. The same is true for us today. Embracing the stewardship way of life means allowing the Holy Spirit to guide us in using the unique gifts He has given to each of us for the mission entrusted to us. In our Gospel, Jesus sends His disciples forth: “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” This is our mission as well. But we are not sent alone. Jesus gives us His peace — “Peace be with you.” As this Easter season comes to a close, let us be at peace and resolve to rely more fully on the Holy Spirit as our guide through the stewardship way of life. ©Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2026 Pastoral Pondering This weekend we are celebrating a number of events that I am extremely thankful for. First, three of our own parishioners were ordained deacons on their road to the Priesthood. Bradley Loftin, Patrick Martin and Connor White were ordained deacons by Bishop Martin. I have had the privilege of watching each of these young men grow up, in many respects, and mature in their discernment of God’s call in their lives. Each will be serving in a parish this summer. Deacon Loftin will be serving at St. Eugene in Asheville, Deacon Martin will be serving at St. Matthew in Charlotte and Deacon White will be serving at the Cathedral of St. Patrick. Secondly, on Pentecost afternoon we will be receiving our candidates, those who received baptism in a non-Catholic Christian church, into the full communion of the Catholic Church with the reception of Confirmation and Holy Communion. Each of them has studied and prayed and prepared for this special occasion. Please pray both for our new deacons as well as our newest Catholics. These events are a reminder that God is never outdone in generosity, and He continues to produce an abundance of fruit when we willingly open our hearts and cooperate with His grace. Happy Pentecost!!

From the Pastor - Ascension of the Lord

By John Putnam • May 15, 2026
Today we celebrate the great feast of the Ascension of our Lord — that moment when Jesus, 40 days after His Resurrection, was lifted up into heaven as the apostles looked on. It must have been an extraordinary sight. But the first reading tells us they were not meant to stand there for long. “Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky?” In other words — don’t just stand there. Do something. This is a message for us as Christian stewards. We have been given every grace and blessing — through the Mass and the sacraments, through the Word of God, and through the gifts of our time, talent, and treasure. We are not meant to simply receive these gifts. We are meant to use them — in gratitude to the One who gave them. Like the apostles, we are called “to be [His] witnesses… to the ends of the earth.” And we do this not by our own strength, but through the power of the Holy Spirit at work within us. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2026 Pastoral Pondering Just War Theory: The Catholic Moral Framework for Armed Conflict Just War Theory is one of the most important and carefully developed areas of Catholic moral theology. It does not glorify war — quite the opposite. The Catechism begins its section on war with a solemn reminder that "the fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life," and because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and action so that God may free us from the ancient bondage of war. And yet, while war always involves evils, sometimes the choice not to engage in war can be an even greater evil — and this is the theory behind the Church's teaching that a nation *can* wage a just war. Historical Roots The theory of when and how war can be morally justified goes back at least to the pre-Christian Roman orator Cicero, and was taken up by St. Ambrose, then systematically developed by St. Augustine. Augustine's account was later refined by St. Thomas Aquinas, whose rendering was normative for Catholic theorists from the Middle Ages onward. The Second Vatican Council re-presented the classical account, placing much greater emphasis on the avoidance of war and offering a forceful condemnation of weapons of mass destruction. The current Catechism (CCC 2307–2317) develops this by conceiving war as a means of legitimate societal self-defense. Two Dimensions of Justice in War The Catholic Church distinguishes between two types of justice concerning war: jus ad bellum (justice before the war) and jus in bello (justice during the war). Most discussion focuses on jus ad bellum — the four conditions inherited from St. Augustine that determine whether going to war is justified. Jus in bello refers to how the war is actually conducted once it has begun. It is entirely possible for a country to fight a war that meets the jus ad bellum conditions for being just, and yet to fight that war *unjustly* — by targeting innocent civilians or dropping bombs indiscriminately. The Four Conditions for a Just War (CCC 2309) As long as the danger of war persists and no international authority has sufficient power to prevent it, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense once all peace efforts have failed. The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require that all four of the following be met simultaneously : 1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain . 2. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective . 3. There must be serious prospects of success . 4. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. These are hard conditions to fulfill, and with good reason — the Church teaches that war should always be the last resort. Justice During War (Jus in Bello) Even in a just war, moral law does not evaporate on the battlefield. The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict — "the mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties." Noncombatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations are crimes, as are the orders that command them. Blind obedience does not excuse those who carry them out. The extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin — and one is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide. As the Catechism states clearly: "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." Catholics in the Armed Forces A Catholic who serves in the armed forces must discern the morality of any conflict. If ordered to commit an intrinsically evil act — such as the direct killing of an unarmed civilian or the torture of a prisoner of war — a Catholic soldier must *refuse* that order, even if it is legal and even if punishment results. The Challenge of Modern Warfare Pope John Paul II suggested that the threshold for a just war has been raised very high by the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) went even further, asking "whether as things stand, with new weapons that cause destruction that goes well beyond the groups involved in the fight, it is still licit to allow that a 'just war' might exist."  Just War Theory is not a loophole for violence — it is a moral fence around it. The presumption always begins with peace. War is a tragic concession to human sinfulness, never a first resort, and always bound by the permanent demands of justice and human dignity.