From the Pastor - 6th Sunday in Ordinary Time

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.

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.