Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Remembering Our Founder of the American Catholic Church in the United States, the Most Reverend Lawrence Harms, D.D.


It must have been 6 or 7 years ago I discovered, through my life partner, the website for the American Catholic Church in the United States (an Independent Catholic Jurisdiction not under jurisdiction of Rome).  From that day, to the first phone conversation I had with Archbishop Harms, I knew that I could finally fulfill my promise I made to God way back in high school - that I would go into ministry.

I will never forget that first phone call with Archbishop Harms.   He introduced himself as Larry.  I asked how he would like to be addressed.  He said, "Please, just call me Larry".  I knew from that one response that this was a man who was unpretentious, kind, gentle, and genuinely caring.   I responded, "Whatever you ask, Your Grace".  

From that first phone conversation, I began phone dialogue periodically with Archbishop Harms.   After the 4th phone call over five years, I went back to college and completed my degree in Sociology from Indiana University.  I finally graduated in 2009.  My last phone call with Archbishop Harms before I applied for seminary, he asked me what type of ministry did I see myself in.   I responded that for the last three (3) years I had worked in the HIV Community on the Ryan White Part B Advisory Council Program, ensuring those with HIV get the services they need, and those who don't have HIV, how to protect themselves.  He simply said to me, "I want you to focus your ministry with the HIV Community".   I had my call and my mission.

In the fall of 2010, I started on my application to St John XXIII Theological Institute, a seminary which Archbishop Harms also had a vision so that new priests could be trained.   On March 28, 2011, I received my acceptance letter from the Most Reverend William Johnson, Bishop of the Diocese of St Luke, in which I resided, and the Auxiliary Bishop for The American Catholic Church in the United States.   

That was over two years ago, and I am now in my third (3rd) year at St John XXIII Theological Institute in their Master of Divinity Program.   I also last year launched a Not for Profit organization called, The Kristen Center (named after one of our first donors).  It is focuses on delivering programs and services to those with HIV and those who care for them.  We are unofficially launched.  The official launch will be after my graduation from St John XXIII Theological Institute and I pray, after I am called Sacred Order of Priest.  


This past Sunday, April 28, 2012, Archbishop Harms rested his personal ministry and returned to Our Lord. But the legacy he left will continue for years and years to come.  He left a thriving independent Catholic jurisdiction with its motto "Serve All with Love", with parishes (Pastoral & Outreach Centers) from the east coast to the west coast.  He also left a seminary in which students called to serve can obtain training.  Quite a legacy for such a short time that ACCUS has been around (launched May 23, 1999).

For me, I rest in comfort knowing that the late Archbishop Emeritus Harms is there when I pray for ACCUS every day; that he is interceding for ACCUS as well in prayer to God for us; and for our current  Presiding Archbishop the Most Rev. William Johnson, D.D, whom he personally chose to continue His good work.  

I continue my studies with vigor, even against great personal struggle at home, because the HIV ministry I serve here is one that the late Archbishop Emeritus Harms asked me personally (over the phone) to pursue and continue.  

Therefore the best way I can honor Archbishop Emeritus Harms is to pursue my studies and ministry with vigor.  I thank God everyday for ACCUS, for without it, I would not be in ministry.

Please remember His Grace, the Most Reverend Lawrence Harms, D.D, Archbishop Emeritus and founder of ACCUS in your prayers.   Thank God everyday he had the courage to live his life as Pope John XXIII - looking at the cross with Christ's arms wide open, welcoming EVERYONE.

Peace,
Bro Jeff

Rev Brother Jeff Wolfe
St John XXIII Pastoral & Outreach Center
The Kristen Center
The American Catholic Church in the United States

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Ken Blackwell's Article "In Defense of Religious Freedom" - A Response

Today I was reading an article in the Religion/Christianity section of the Huffingtonpost.com.  There is a regular Op Ed by Mr. Ken Blackwell, a Fellow of The National Academy of Public Administration and the Family Research Council. 

I went to write a comment to Mr. Blackwell's article, but found I quickly hit the Huffingtonpost.com word limit on the "Post a Comment" section under Mr. Blackwell's article.

Therefore I have posted Mr. Blackwell's article below.  Immediately following Mr. Blackwell's article is my response  - "My Comment" to Mr. Blackwell's article "In Defense of Religious Freedom".  I did write a short comment in the comment section of Mr. Blackwell's article referring them to this blog, because I quickly hit the limit on the Huffingtonpost.com website for length of comments....

"IN DEFENSE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM"  by Mr. Ken Blackwell

Recently, Jay Michaelson wrote a piece for The Daily Beast titled "The 'Religious Liberty' Bullies and Their Fight Against LGBT Equality." In it, he suggests that those who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons are the same as the racists who opposed desegregation laws. He calls those who protect religious liberty, and who therefore are willing to stick up for the rights of religious people who oppose same-sex marriage, insincere and "racist," as well. "Today is a different age -- but the players, and the rhetoric, are the same," he states. Later on, he says that defenders of religious liberty are "simply repurposing an old, racist rhetoric to fight the same social battles as always."

There are three points to be made here. One, there can be no comparison between the fight for racial equality and the movement for same-sex marriage. Two, supporting the traditional definition of marriage is not the same (or even akin) to supporting institutionalized racism. Three, concerns about religious liberty are both sincere and valid, especially regarding the social trends Michaelson discusses in both his article and a related report he recently released.

My first point is that there can be no comparison between the fight for racial equality and the movement supporting same-sex marriage. To begin with, race occupies a singular place in our country's history and laws. Our country fought a bloody Civil War and passed three separate Constitutional Amendments to rid our society of the injustice that was slavery. The segregation laws that followed were ugly remnants of a culture of racial slavery, and they were immoral and unjust. They defied the American promise "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Black Americans were enslaved, literally deprived of their liberty, often robbed of life, and denied the opportunity to pursue happiness. Segregation laws were a legal statement of inequality. No other law in American history spells indignity and injustice like they did, and no other law so explicitly rings false to our country's founding principles.

Now, for the second point. Applying the racism of segregation-era America to today's "social battles" does not make for a compelling comparison. To state what should be obvious, not all racists oppose same-sex marriage, and not all who oppose same-sex marriage are racists. To say otherwise is disrespectful and frankly ludicrous. No reasonable person is advocating "segregation" between the opposite-sex attracted population and the same-sex attracted population. I don't need to go into detail on this point. It should be enough for readers to simply think of their own family, friends, and acquaintances -- some of whom, no doubt, are uncertain about or against same-sex marriage -- and realize that pairing "racist" with "opposed to same-sex marriage" means labeling many reasonable people as outright bigots. That kind of accusation has heavy consequences and is dangerous to healthy discourse.

Marriage, as it stands and has stood for centuries, is not an institution that was driven into existence by bigotry, or constructed to deny some right to same-sex partners. People who oppose same-sex marriage do so for a variety of reasons. There are many who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons, and others for reasons grounded in history, philosophy, and our country's Constitution. What traditional marriage supporters generally want, is to uphold a centuries-old definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. It is a fixed definition. They see marriage as unique and unchanging, valuable because of (and contingent on) its singular male-female union, and meaningless without it.

My third point refers to the idea that those who are concerned about religious liberty rights in and around same-sex marriage are covertly advancing some right-wing agenda. This is misleading, false, and insulting. Religious liberty is a real, fundamental right, first in our Constitutional Amendments. It's what allows a man to be a conscientious objector, or a church to choose its own minister. In general, it's what protects religious people who hold views that are out of political favor. Michaelson admits that intellectuals and politicans on both ends of the political spectrum support religious liberty. He simply thinks that religious liberty is much more limited than it is or ever has been.

As the recent (large) batch of cases against the Health and Human Services contraceptive mandate demonstrates, America has a diverse and principled religious population of citizens willing to fight for the right to express their faith in all aspects of life. That some, like Michaelson, don't agree that buying contraception for others violates a person's faith, does not suddenly appease the troubled consciences. Those who advocate strong conscience protections -- whether from a contraceptive mandate or from federal recognition of same-sex marriage -- do so sincerely.

We can all agree that the topic of same-sex marriage draws intense emotions from both sides. But those emotions do not justify branding people who disagree with us as liars or bigots. That's a cheap way to silence dissenters, when there is real and substantive debate to be had. It's also a grave insult to honest, truth-seeking individuals, and a violation of the principles of American society. All people should be free to explore and define their beliefs. And all should be free to speak, act, vote and advocate according to their beliefs.

The following is my comment to Mr. Blackwell's article...

Mr. Blackwell:

I respect you opinion and your right to state it.  This is certainly one of the Rights in our Constitution of our great land - Free Speech.  

You lay out a premise, list three major considerations in defense of your premise, then conclude based on your considerations and your view of those considerations, an opinion.  All focused round the concept of Religious Freedom. And I certainly respect your right to your opinion.  It is also one the tenets of good debating.  Each side states their opinion and then debate and defend their issue to the best of their ability.

I would like to ask a few questions, if I may?  I am going to assume that you are heterosexual.   The simplest definition of a heterosexual is someone attracted to the opposite sex.   Now I assume that you are married.  So let's go back to the time before you were married.  What made you attracted to the opposite sex?  What is your rearing?  Was it the fact that because your mom and dad were heterosexual, you assumed that you should be heterosexual?   When you saw for the first time the woman you fell in love with - did you feel butterflies in your stomach?  Did your palms sweat?  Did your heart beat faster?   Were these "involuntary" (meaning automatic response for which you had no control) biochemical responses factors which helped you decide that you were heterosexual?  Or was it because you had a strong male figure as role model in your life (your father) and a loving, caring and comforting female role model in your life (your mother)?  Can you say for sure that you did not choose to be heterosexual?  You stated in your 2nd consideration the following:

"What traditional marriage supporters generally want, is to uphold a centuries-old definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. It is a fixed definition. They see marriage as unique and unchanging, valuable because of (and contingent on) its singular male-female union, and meaningless without it."

Now let's consider the following.  Are you attracted to members of the same sex?  Why not?  What happens to you when you even consider having sex with someone of the same sex?  Do you get sick to your stomach?  Do you want to run away?  What if some accused you of being "gay" because of the way you walked, or talked, or held your hands, or the manner in which you blinked your eyes?   Would you again have a biochemical response?   Would it not be repulsive? 

Do you think you had a choice when you were born to determine the color of your eyes?  The color of your skin?   Being gay is no more a choice than the ability for us to choose our skin color.  The questions I asked above are exactly what individuals who are gay or lesbian feel when they see that special someone they want to marry - the biochemical responses - those "involuntary" biological responses their bodies produce - the same ones which helped you decide you must be heterosexual.

Research - double-blind, statistically significant, academic research - has shown us time and time again that those individuals who determine they are gay or lesbian, often know at a young age.  In most cases, before puberty.  Most around the age of 6-10 years of age.   Sociologist and Psychologists will tell you that in the brief short period of time between birth and the age of 6 or 7 or 8 or even 9, no amount of socialization can "turn" their sexual orientation from straight to gay or vice-versa.   Gay and Lesbians are not gay by choice or socialization.  They are not gay because they had a weak male role model and a dominant female in their life.  They have not been "brainwashed" into "thinking" they are gay.  99% can say that they were never molested (which often is a reason given for why an individual "turns out" gay or lesbian.  Psychologists will also tell you that children at that age don't have the guile to get away with lying. 

So as you consider your three-point article, with this new information, who determines that being straight is better for people than being gay.  Is it because straight couples can have children?  So what about the hundreds of couples who can have children who choose to not have children?   What about the Gay Couple that chooses to adopt several children because they  have an internal drive to be a parent and rear offspring? 

So based on your premise above, you would not consider calling people who believe that all public places are ok to be "separate but equal" bigots or racists?

Please also consider  the Lovings v. the State of Virginia.  This case was about the Lovings (a Caucasian male and African American female) who were married in a state where interracial marriage at the time was illegal in Virginia.  Who determined in Virginia that interracial marriage was wrong?   Was this discrimination, or simply the Supreme Court making a bad ruling and interracial marriage should still be illegal? Is that your opinion or your society's decision?  Should we not call the individuals who said "interracial marriage is wrong" bigots?

Being gay is no more a choice that being African American or Caucasian.   I make this with statement with some trepidation because on the opposite spectrum, there are those who would say there is a "gay gene" that we can "remove" to make people "normal".   Hitler tried that and because he determined that blond hair and blue eyed children were "better" than other persons not having those traits, even though they did not choose them.   Should we not call Hitler a racist?   Or should we say its ok to "live and let live"?  Where are the moral standards in your article and what of ethics?

Finally, as you consider your premise in your article entitled "In Defense of Religious Liberty", let me finally ask one last question.   Who do you think God loves more?   A straight man married to a woman who is an adulterer and breaks a commandment from the Decalogue OR a monogamous gay christian couple who attend church every Sunday and keep all the commandments in the Decalogue?  Do we call the straight man an adulterer or the gay couple sinners? 

I would suggest that, just as there are inherent qualities of which we have no control which make us "gay" or "straight", there are, at some basic level, morals and ethics which are common to all and upon which we all agree.  It is from these that we begin to determine how to proceed.  But does that mean we cannot call a racist a racist or a bigot a bigot?  If not, what do we call them?  I do not claim to have the answers.   I only have questions with which I struggle - just like the millions of individuals every day do - struggle and wrestle with decisions based on their consciences.

So even after considering all of the above, you would still say that those who oppose "same-sex" marriage are in no way equal to those who opposed "integration"?   Why?   As I mentioned earlier, individuals cannot change the color of their skin or choose their skin color.  Likewise, Gay and Lesbians can no more choose to be "gay" or "lesbian" any more than you chose to be "straight"   And yet, you would imply by the considerations in your article that LGBT discrimination is less of a societal "sin" than racial discrimination simply because our history is replete with a civil war over "racism" where LGBT discrimination has no pedigree?  If both have no choice (people cannot choose their skin color; people cannot choose their sexual orientation), then your argument is based purely on a longer history of racism than LGBT discrimination.   Do you as heterosexual man, think you would choose to be gay so that you can be mocked, ridiculed, laughed at, discriminated against, simply and only because you chose it?    Who in their right mind chooses to be discriminated against?

Your article itself. surprisingly,  stirs up powerful emotions even within me.   Does that mean from the tone of your article I assume you are against same sex marriage?  If not, why?   Just are there inherent laws in physics which guide the manner in which the universe works, are their not inherent morals and ethics from which people are guided to operate in the world?   Do you believe that there are inherently basically good in everyone?  Or do you believe their is inherently basically evil in everyone?   Do we have more "Religious Freedom" because we refrain from using words like "Bigot" and "Racist", even if in their proper context?   I am not sure.   But part of what drives me is my faith, yet the faith in which I believe, from the same bible that individuals who divine that "same sex marriage is wrong in the eyes of God" is the same bible in which I derive my faith that says God doesn't care about sexual orientation, but how we treat one another and how we love him (The Golden Rule and the Greatest Commandment).

It is an argument that I suppose has been going on for centuries and will probably go one for centuries.  But none the less you have made me think about what I believe and how I came about that belief - for that I am grateful.

Peace,
Bro Jeff