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

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.
By Lauren Rupar May 15, 2026
On this sixth Sunday of Easter, our readings remind us that God must come first in our lives, and that love of God is shown through concrete actions — this is precisely why the stewardship way of life is so necessary. Our second reading, from St. Peter, challenges us to “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts.” In other words, we are to put Christ above all else. His role is not only as Savior — as essential as that is — but as Lord of our lives. As His disciples, we are called to place Him at the center of everything — our time, our talent, and our treasure. The beauty of the stewardship way of life is that it gives us a concrete way to live this out. It allows us to demonstrate that Christ truly is Lord of our lives, because love is not merely a feeling. “Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me,” Jesus tells us in our Gospel from John. True love is an act of the will. It requires obedience, humility, and deep trust in God. But the reward is extraordinary. Christ tells us, “Whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.” Could there be anything more fulfilling than living in such a way that the God of the universe reveals Himself more fully to us? © Catholic Stewardship Consultants, 2026 Pastoral Pondering Lately, with various discussions in the news, particularly with regard to a recent perceived back and forth between the Holy Father and President Trump, the issue of Catholic teaching and the authority of that teaching has come up. Hence, I thought it might be helpful to outline the levels of magisterial teaching in an effort to help folks navigate the different types of teaching along with the required response to each level. Summary: Levels of Magisterial Teaching The Catholic Church teaches with Christ’s authority through the Magisterium , but not all teachings carry the same weight or demand the same level of assent. Understanding these distinctions helps Catholics know how to respond faithfully to Church teaching. 1. Solemn Definitions (Extraordinary Magisterium) These are infallible dogmas formally defined by an ecumenical council or by the pope speaking ex cathedra. They concern truths revealed by God (e.g., the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption). Required response : The assent of faith. Denial is heresy. 2. Ordinary Universal Magisterium Teachings consistently and universally held by the bishops in communion with the pope, even without a formal definition. When universal agreement is clear, these teachings are also infallible (e.g., the intrinsic evil of abortion, male-only priesthood). Required response : The assent of faith. Denial is heresy. 3. Definitive Teachings (Non‑Revealed but Certain) Teachings proposed definitively because they are necessary to safeguard or explain divine revelation, even if not themselves formally revealed (e.g., canonizations, invalidity of Anglican orders). Required response: Definitive assent. Denial is grave error, though not heresy. 4. Authoritative but Non‑Definitive Teaching Non‑infallible teachings of the pope or bishops, such as many encyclicals or pastoral directives. Required response : Religious submission of intellect and will — a sincere openness and respect, not casual dismissal. 5. Prudential Judgments and Pastoral Applications Concrete applications of moral principles to specific situations (e.g., policy approaches in economics or immigration). Required response: Respectful consideration. Legitimate disagreement is possible. Why this matters : Recognizing these levels avoids two extremes—treating all Church teaching as optional opinion (laxism) or treating every Church statement as infallible dogma (rigorism). The Church teaches as a structured, living authority guided by the Holy Spirit, calling for responses proportionate to the level of teaching involved.