But Jesus was in town, and she had a believing heart working in conjunction with a sanctified mouth.

That’s always bad news for devil.

And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, and who had endured much suffering under [the hands of] many physicians and had spent all that she had, and was no better but instead grew worse. She had heard reports concerning Jesus, and she came up behind Him in throng and touched His garment, For she kept saying, If I only touch His garments, I shall be restored to health. And immediately her flow of blood was dried up at source, and suddenly she felt in her body that she was healed of her distressing ailment (Mark 5: 25-29). We’ve all read this story before, and we’ve marveled at her tenacity, her faith and compassion of Jesus.

I want to focus on something very interesting that led up to her healing in this portion of scripture. I want to take a close look at what she said.

Twelve years is a long time to put up with anything undesirable, especially when you’ve poured everything you have into fixing problem. You know this woman wanted to throw in towel. In fact, she probably had given up years ago.

However, once she had Jesus in her sights, she didn’t worry about what her circumstances dictated. She could care less what others in crowd thought. Something was welling up within her. Somewhere, deep inside, a mustard-seed-sized faith was exploding, and where that type of faith leads, your words will follow.

There was no doubt in her mind…if she didn’t grab hold of his garment, she would suffer with this ailment until she died. But as she fought through crowds to touch Christ, she knew exactly how to align her mouth with her faith. She hadn’t even touched him yet, but she was already claiming her victory.

Taking cover under familiar "voting my conscience" defense, he contends that his actions are proper to his professed religion. Endless debates have erupted over whether his behavior constitutes grave scandal to American Catholics and, by extension, whole Church. His flagrant disdain for Church teaching forces question of whether he, and all Catholic politicians of similar ilk, should be refused Eucharist given perceived disgrace engendered by their participation.

The Catechism of Catholic Church is very clear on sanctity of human life. It echoes position held by Christians throughout ages. In addition, two recent documents remind public officials of how they must carry out their duties in light of their Catholic faith. One is "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding Participation of Catholics in Political Life" issued by Vatican in 2002. The other is "Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility" issued by American bishops in 2003. Finally, Code of Canon Law (No.915) clearly asserts that those "...who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Communion." Taken collectively, it is fair to say that Church has made itself quite clear with respect to value of life and role Catholics, elected or not, have in its protection.

Many bishops and noteworthy members of laity have weighed in on this divisive issue. Some steadfastly contend that Eucharist must be protected from scandal and therefore refused to certain public figures. Others, however, say that Eucharist is not to be used as a weapon for behavior modification. Prayer, dialogue and proper catechesis should be employed to address problem, not Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Son of God. The furor continues.

Observing this maelstrom prompts some reflection on its root cause. While storm rages in media, true instigator remains quietly under radar. I refer, of course, to contraception. Perhaps we have forgotten that contraception is bedrock of abortion. In America, contraception is mainstream doctrine. It is anchor of feel-good philosophies like choice, freedom and rights. Americans happily justify their use of contraceptive drugs or devices as part of life in a modern, enlightened age. We employ them without a second thought as to their sinister capabilities.