The United States Supreme Court, that equal branch of the Federal Government to Congress and the Executive, ruled that certain closely held corporations with fundamental religious beliefs are granted religious liberty under an existing federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. This law, cited in the Hobby Lobby case as well as the Supreme Court?s ruling in said case, is now under attack by certain federal legislators. It is interestingly sad how so much misinformation (falsehoods) is being used in their talking points to criticize the Justices? ruling and more importantly to cloud the real issue.

Some legislators are claiming that women will no longer be able to obtain birth control. False! Only four out of some 16 kinds of birth control?and these four are abortifacients?were covered in this Supreme Court ruling?not all birth control; in fact, nearly all forms of birth control are free of charge at Planned Parenthood and other organizations, are covered by your federal tax dollars and readily available. Also, the notion that this Su-preme Court ruling prevents the use of the diaphragm is an out-right falsehood (lie).

On another interesting attack: a July 3rd New York Times ad in which headlined ?Dogma should not trump our civil liberties,? that claimed that the ?all-male, all-Roman Catholic majority? on the Supreme Court ?puts religious wrongs over women?s rights.? This ad was sponsored by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a very anti-Catholic organization, and which was painted by Cardinal Timothy Dolan as ?In keeping with a long, shadowy, legacy of antipathy, where justices who happen to be Catholics? are branded and bullied by a group who only succeed in providing the latest example of a prejudice that has haunted us for centuries.? Cardinal Dolan facetiously thanked the Freedom from Religion Foundation for giving him ?yet anoth-er handout? for his talks on anti-Catholic bigotry in the U.S.

Is this a surprise? It shouldn?t be. After all, the secular world crucified Christ our Savior; we should not expect to go through this life without persecution for our beliefs on human life and its dignity.

Editor?s Note : I was just sent an email from a parishioner who was on Facebook and read that some have commented of late on how they ?love? our parish because of its welcoming spirit. That is great! But one individual went on to say that they don?t like the ?politics? of the homily when it focuses on topics such as religious freedom or on the sanctity of human life.

I have to comment on this because I believe that this statement carries with it a serious misunderstanding of our
Christian faith as well as a misuse of the word ?politics/political,? and that this is a very important?even fundamental aspect?of true Christianity.

First, as an individual I want to be very clear that my homilies are not political. I do not call anyone to vote for or against any individual candidate or office holder, nor do I name political parties as targets for people to consider supporting or being against. I stick to the issues?the public issues?which the Church not only has a right, since it is a corporate citizen in the United States, but also an obligation as the Magisterium or chief teaching authority of the Catholic Church?s theology to speak to the issues from a religious and Catholic point of view. In fact, what seems clear to me is that in today?s 24/7 media-driven world, it is that religious views are being politicized for other purposes, not the other way around. The Church has not updated or amended or changed its teachings on human life or dignity but remains resolute in its compassion for the good of all.

Second, The Roman Catholic Church, like other religious entities, plays a major role in the public arena. In fact, no other church provides more food for the hungry, nor shelters for the homeless, nor free medical care for the poor, nor counseling services for the troubled, nor education for the disadvantaged, nor after school programs for the needy, nor shelters for the battered and abused women in urban areas?than the Roman Catholic Church. People-at-large, and I dare say even government leaders of all stripes, expect the Catholic Church ?to be there? in a crisis or humanitarian storm. Yet, they don?t want to hear the Church speak on the six o?clock news on how we should care for the human person or defend the weak. Somehow, our action is acceptable but our words become a ?war on women? or bigotry, or at best antiquated thinking.

But what really confuses me is when I hear Catholics question why a priest is preaching in a homily on the sanctity of human life or the ability of the Church to freely practice its faith in the world-at-large? Where would one expect to hear that we are commanded by Christ to feed the hungry, offer care and comfort to the sick and dying, defend the weak and the vulnerable or call attention to the Church?s teaching on marriage, faith and love?if not within our four walls?the Church? We live in a world that really likes to focus on ?me-isms? in that I want only what?s good for ?me,? what fits into my myopic little world of comfort: some-one sent me a Facebook posting this week in which they were looking for a liberal Christian church where religious education was important but that they wouldn?t hear too much about Jesus? Another post put it more confusingly, saying: someplace that isn?t ?too Jesus-y.?

What kind of God do we want? What kind of Jesus are we really looking for? If we are not committed to the fullness of Christ?His Love and Compassion along with His Truths, then what type of commitment toward us and salvation do we really want Jesus to have? Half-hearted or fully compassionate and merciful? I guess the old saying?you get out of it what you put into it?really has an eternal impact attached to it. I know what I am hoping for. Read on for a little more clarity from this
Sunday?s gospel.