Blog Layout

From the Pastor – 30th Sunday in Ordinary Time

October 23, 2020

From the Pastor – 30 th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Today’s readings are all about the radical love of God for His people and the radical love we are called to live out in response. The stewardship way of life is nothing more and nothing less than the practical application of loving God and neighbor in our daily lives.

Jesus sums up the message of all the prophets, as well as the purpose of all God’s laws in today's Gospel passage, from Matthew. It is a message we have likely grown up hearing — but it is so beautiful and so challenging, it bears repeating again and again. It is Christ’s response to a question about which commandment is greatest. His answer reveals both the greatest and the second greatest commandments.

He says, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind... The second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

How is the second like the first? What do the two commands have in common? Love.

Love God first and love neighbor as self. This is the heart of the stewardship way of life — simple enough for a child to understand, challenging enough to be the life’s work of every “grown-up.” © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2020.

Pastoral Pondering — The following is the conclusion to A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters by Father Stephen Torraco, Ph.D.

8. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life?

As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), "...when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects." Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.

9. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?

In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in question 8 above.

10. What if all the candidates from whom I have to choose are pro-abortion? Do I have to abstain from voting at all? What do I do?

Obviously, one of these candidates is going to win the election. Thus, in this dilemma, you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm. However, as explained in question 5 above, you should not place a candidate who is pro-capital punishment (and anti-abortion) in the same moral category as a candidate who is pro-abortion. Faced with such a set of candidates, there would be no moral dilemma, and the clear moral obligation would be to vote for the candidate who is pro-capital punishment, not necessarily because he is pro-capital punishment, but because he is anti-abortion.

11. Is not the Church’s stand that abortion must be illegal a bit of an exception? Does not the Church generally hold that government should restrict its legislation of morality significantly?

The Church’s teaching that abortion should be illegal is not an exception. St. Thomas Aquinas put it this way: "Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like." [ emphasis added]. Abortion qualifies as a grievous vice that hurts others, and the lack of prohibition of this evil by society is something by which human society cannot be maintained. As Pope John Paul II has emphasized, the denial of the right to life, in principle, sets the stage, in principle, for the denial of all other rights.

12. What about elected officials who happen to be of the same party affiliation? Are they committing a sin by being in the same party, even if they don’t advocate pro-choice views? Are they guilty by association?

Being of the same political party as those who advocate pro-abortion is indeed a serious evil IF I belong to this political party IN ORDER TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF with that party’s advocacy of pro-abortion policies. However, it can also be true that being of such a political party has as its purpose to change the policies of the party. Of course, if this is the purpose, one would have to consider whether it is reasonable to think the political party’s policies can be changed. Assuming that it is reasonable to think so, then it would be morally justifiable to remain in that political party. Remaining in that political party cannot be instrumental in the advancing of pro-abortion policies (especially if I am busily striving to change the party’s policies) as can my VOTING for candidates or for a political party with a pro-abortion policy.

13. What about voting for a pro-abortion person for something like state treasurer, in which case the candidate would have no say on matters of life in the capacity of her duties, it just happens to be her personal position. This would not be a sin, right?

If someone were running for state treasurer and that candidate made it a point to state publicly that he was in favor of exterminating people over the age of 70, would you vote for him? The fact that the candidate has that evil in his mind tells you that there are easily other evils in his mind; and the fact that he would publicly state it is a danger signal. If personal character matters in a political candidate, and personal character involves the kind of thoughts a person harbors, then such a candidate who publicly states that he is in favor of the evil of exterminating people over the age of 70 - or children who are unborn - has also disqualified himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. I would go further and say that such a candidate, in principle - in the light of the natural law - disqualifies himself from public office.

14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the less damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.

From the Pastor

February 21, 2025
In today’s Gospel, taken from the sixth chapter of Luke, Jesus offers a very challenging, seemingly impossible approach to daily life. “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak do not withhold even your tunic.” It makes one want to say, “Seriously, Lord?” And He doesn’t stop there. Jesus adds, “Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.” It seems so unfair! That is, unless we look at this way of life from a stewardship point of view. Then, not only does it seem doable (though challenging), but it also actually makes perfect sense. A steward understands clearly that all he has and all that he is — his very life — is a gift from God given to him from an unfathomable abundance of love. This changes everything! This means “my” cloak, “my” tunic, “my” money, and time — all of it ultimately belongs to God. He has entrusted these things to each of us in love to use for His purposes and His glory. Does this mean we are to be passive “doormats” to anyone who wants to take advantage of us? Certainly not. Jesus explains this in the next verse of this passage when He says, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” There is nothing wrong with loving oneself since God loves us and has made us in His own image and likeness. Jesus is simply asking that we also approach others, and the sharing of our gifts, with this same attitude. He is giving us a definition here of real love, a steward’s love! ©Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering Work is good, man is born for work, but that does not mean that we should forget that rest is good as well. A lot of times we hear the third commandment of remembering and keeping holy the Sabbath, and we think the commandment is only fulfilled when we attend Mass on that day. The commandment, of course, extends to more than that. Can. 1247 reminds us that in addition to participating at Mass on Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to abstain from works and affairs that hinder the worship due to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or suitable relaxation of mind and body. This canon, of course, is an adaptation from the 1917 code which stated explicitly that one is to abstain from servile work, judicial work, and commercial operations (1917 CIC 1248). The specific wording is not present in the recent code but it still requires us to abstain from such works or acts. Regarding the mention of work, there are 4 common ways work can distinguished: The works we hear of frequently in the third commandment are Servile works which are works that require mainly bodily activity and seek to serve the welfare of the body. It gets its name from the fact that this was work that was usually done by servants. So these would include works like digging or ploughing, and mechanical works. Servile work’s character is such that it is not determined by the worker’s intention, the fatigue of the work, nor if there is payment involved. The character is determined by the nature of the work itself. There are also Liberal works/cultural works which are works of the mind. They proceed from the soul and look to cultivate the mind. Examples are reading, writing, singing, playing instruments, drawing and painting. Theologians hold that these works remain liberal even if one is paid for it or expends a lot of energy in performing the work. A third type is called ordinary (natural) work which is done for the daily sustenance of the body. Examples include eating, hunting, driving, cooking etc. A fourth type of work is judicial and commercial work which takes place in court or in the course of public trading. Examples here include sitting in court, defending criminals, buying and selling, etc. There are other forms of work whose natures are difficult to determine, and in such cases one is guided by the common opinion of men. For example painting, rowing, exercise seem like servile work but common opinion sees acts like these as recreation and regard them as lawful. I’m inclined to call exercise an ordinary work because it can be for the daily sustenance of the body. So which ones are not permitted on Sunday? The principle that exists for this subject is that any form of servile, judicial, and commercial work is forbidden on Sundays and holy days of obligation, but cultural and ordinary work is permitted. The reason as stated earlier is that servile, judicial, and commercial work prevent us from giving sufficient attention to the Lord, because of its effect on the body, and this is what the commandment and canon law warn against. Ordinary and liberal work do not have the same effect so they are allowed. Although to this I would add that we do not let them hinder the specifications of Can. 1247. Can we be permitted to do servile work on Sunday? Yes, several causes can allow for servile work to be done on Sundays and on holy days: Dispensations , if there is a just cause, may be granted by the Pope, a bishop in his diocese, or a pastor of his Church. The Custom existing in a place could be a reason why servile work is excused, so long as the custom is permitted and has not been censured by the bishop. Charity , done as a form of relief for one's neighbor who is in need, is sufficient to excuse servile work. Some examples are taking care of the sick and the poor. Necessity excuses one from the obligation if he cannot otherwise support himself. It excuses one when one would not have food for the day if he did not work, or when a person works so as not to lose the job or certain goods. Some might be compelled to work on Sundays, and can’t refuse doing so, such would be a sufficient excuse from the obligation. As is necessary, one is welcome to perform household chores that keep the family fed and the house in proper order. Sometimes the personal necessity might exist if there is a danger of sinning because of idleness. Smallness of the matter can also excuse from violating the obligation. Servile work, if done, should not last more than two hours. And if perhaps the work is light in character, then three hours is good. Piety towards God excuses the violation of the precept. This would mean that works which proximately/directly consider the worship of God are lawful. Best examples of these could be actions that take place within the liturgy, some altar serving roles, ushering duties, working in the church to clean or decorate it. Some final thoughts. Regarding servile works, perhaps they are not the same as they previously were, i.e., the works that servants would do. But many of us are servants in a way, and so what we do on a regular basis could be the servile work that we are called to avoid on Sundays and holy days. Recognize that we should joyfully seek to give God due to worship and relax our minds and bodies.  Rest is good! And what I want for us is to make sure that we are faithful to all, and not just one of the stipulations of the third commandment. — Fr. Chinonso Nnebe-Agumadu
By John Putnam February 14, 2025
Today’s readings speak of an essential quality for the Christian steward — hope. This is especially fitting this year, as Pope Francis has designated 2025 as a Jubilee Year with the theme, "Pilgrims of Hope." According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit (CCC 1817).” In many ways, this is the very definition of a stewardship way of life — focusing on eternity as we live our daily lives and relying on God to provide for our needs and satisfy our deepest longings for meaning and happiness right now. In today’s Gospel from Luke, Jesus describes the true richness of life that is possible for those of us who are willing to live as his hope-filled disciples. We are all familiar with this passage in which Jesus reveals the Beatitudes: blessed are the poor; they have the kingdom of God. Blessed are those now hungry because they will be satisfied. Blessed are those who weep because they will laugh. Blessed are those who are hated, excluded, and insulted because they are disciples of Jesus; they will be greatly rewarded in heaven. Jesus is describing here the character of one who is living a life of hope – the life of a Christian steward whose trust is firmly rooted in God and who is focused on others and eternity. It is not always an easy life, but it is a deeply meaningful life and one that leads to eternal reward. © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2025 Pastoral Pondering Lately, I have had a number of folks ask me different questions regarding the Sacrament of Penance (Confession), so I thought it might be a good idea to address some of those questions that might be of interest to a wider audience. Back in 1983 the International Theological Commission issues a document encouraging a renewal of understanding the sacrament. The opening statement of the document is a beautiful reminder of what it is all about: In the preaching of Jesus, the call to conversion is connected immediately with the good news of the Kingdom of God. (see Mt. 1:14 ff.). Thus, when the Church following Jesus, and by virtue of the mission which it has received, calls to conversion and announces the reconciliation which God has worked through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 2 Cor. 5:18-20), it preaches a God who is rich in mercy (Eph. 2:4)...Penance must be seen in an organic relationship with the other sacraments. In the first place, it is present in all as the word of reconciliation in the comprehensive teaching of the Church. A central witness to this is the article in the creed: “I believe...in the forgiveness of sins.” (“Penance and Conciliation,” in Origins, 23 [January 12, 1984], pp. 513-524. 1. Is confession necessary for the forgiveness of sins? The two introductory canons concerning the sacrament from the Code of Canon Law answer this question. Can. 959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a lawful minister, are sorry for those sins and have a purpose of amendment, receive from God, through the absolution given by that minister, forgiveness of sins they have committed after baptism, and at the same time they are reconciled with the Church, which by sinning they wounded. Can. 960 Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the sole ordinary means by which a member of the faithful who is conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and with the Church. Physical or moral impossibility alone excuses from such confession, in which case reconciliation may be attained by other means also. So, grave or mortal sin, under normal circumstances, can only be absolved through the sacrament. 2. Does confession have to be celebrated in a confessional? Can. 964 §1 The proper place for hearing sacramental confessions is a church or oratory. §2 As far as the confessional is concerned, norms are to be issued by the Episcopal Conference, with the proviso however that confessionals, which the faithful who so wish may freely use, are located in an open place, and fitted with a fixed grille between the penitent and the confessor. §3 Except for a just reason, confessions are not to be heard elsewhere than in a confessional. The canon simply states the norm that sacraments should normally be celebrated in a church or oratory. A just cause can justify celebrating the sacrament outside a church or oratory, e.g. a parish office, but this is not the norm. Moreover, confessionals are to be available in accordance with the norms of the Episcopal Conference. The proper norm for the United States was promulgated in 1999: “The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in accord with the prescriptions of canon 964, §2, hereby decrees the following norms governing the place for sacramental confessions: Provision must be made in each church or oratory for a sufficient number of places for sacramental confessions which are clearly visible, truly accessible, and which provide a fixed grille between the penitent and the confessor. Provision should also be made for penitents who wish to confess face-to-face, with due regard for the Authentic Interpretation of canon 964, §2 by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, July 7, 1998 (AAS 90 [1998] 711).  3. Can a priest refuse to hear confessions face-to-face? The answer to this question is addressed by the reference to the authentic interpretation noted above. It states the following: “The minister of the sacrament of penance may legitimately decide, even if there is no necessity, to hear confessions in a confessional with a fixed grill.” Hence, the general norm is that the faithful have a right to have their confessions heard. They can also request face-to-face confession; however, the priest-confessor has the right to refuse this request. This is rooted in the protection of the priest in light of situations that have arisen of false accusations made against confessors in the administration of penance. A priest is at a great disadvantage because of the sacramental seal and the inviolability of the sacrament. Therefore, some priests are more comfortable not hearing confessions face-to-face.
More Posts
Share by: