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

What Should the Next Roman Catholic Pope Do?*

The world was shocked yesterday when Pope Benedict XVI of the Roman Catholic Church announced he will resign from the Papacy.   The last time that a Pope resigned was over 600 years ago.   In modern times, the Roman Catholic Church has never had to deal with this issue.   When a Pope is elected to the See of Peter, it is typically a life position which they leave only upon death. Pope Benedict XVI in the short 8 years which he has served as the leader of the 1.2 Billion member Roman Catholic Church, ironically he has, as noted by many of his contemporaries within Vatican, moved the Roman church back 200 years.  

Within his short 8 year Papacy, he brought back the Latin mass which has not been practiced in the Roman Catholic church since Vatican II.  The spirit of ecumenism which Vatican II brought into the church like a breath of fresh air, he has alienated almost every major religion.  The bridges to every major religion and to many, many other different Catholic jurisdictions (there are more Catholics than just Roman Catholics) to which his predecessor took 25 years to build bridge in order to move toward a truly universal Christian church as much as possible, it has taken Benedict XVI 8 short years to undo.

It is my hope that the 118 brothers in the College of Cardinals will strongly look at the church and its decline and its movement backward in tradition and theology, will once again consider a Cardinal who will once again embrace Vatican II even more than Pope John Paul II.   I pray the brothers will for the first time in the history of the Roman Catholic church, consider their brothers and sisters in other Catholic jurisdictions whom are linked together through Apostolic Succession and a Valid Eucharist as valid true particular churches in their own right.   It is also my hope that the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church will finally see that celibacy is not a mandate from Christ.  I pray that the Roman Catholic church will recognize that God calls people of all genders and status in life.   I hope and pray the Roman Church will have the wisdom to recognize women as priests, and married men and women as priests, are equally qualified as celibate priests.  I pray that they will even recognized that LGBT persons are called to serve as priests as equally as their straight counterparts.

What a difference the world of Roman Catholicism would be to celebrate and be in communion with all Catholic jurisdictions of the world.  It would be a first step in the Roman church moving the world toward a truly "universal church".   I recognized that not all Catholic jurisdictions will necessarily agree equally on dogma, doctrine and policy, but as Catholics all bound together by Apostolic Succession and a Valid Eucharist, we are all one universal Catholic community.  Finally, at the very least, I pray the brothers will consider a electing a Pope from Latin America (such as South America).  It would go so far in healing wounds of disenfranchised Roman Catholics in the Latin World.  

Whatever happens,  I hope that all Catholics of all jurisdictions will continue to pray, press, push, and explore "outside the box" new ways of reaching non-Christians and spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ through its actions and not just it words - by serving all with love.   Pope John XXIII when moved by the Holy Spirit to call for a General Council (Vatican II), when he looked at the crucifix, with Christ's arms wide open, I can imagine him saying - Christ died with His arms wide open welcoming all - ALL - persons to Him.   May God give wisdom and strength as they prepare for their upcoming conclave after Pope Benedict XVI's resignation takes effect at 8:00pm local time in Rome on February 28th and may the Holy Spirit inspire them with the spirit which Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI brought to Vatican II.

Peace,
Bro Jeff

*The opinions noted in this article are my own and reflect no organization opinions - just my own

There are Catholic Churches other than Roman

By Rev. Brother Jeff Wolfe, October 19, 2012

Back in March of this year, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF)[i] took out a one page ad[ii] (see attachment) in the New York Times pleading those liberals who don’t agree with the [Roman] Catholic church’s stance on contraception and its stand on women priests.  

It is important for the reader to understand that there are many more Catholic churches other than Roman Catholic churches.  Unfortunately, the article leaves the impression that there is only one Catholic Church – Roman.

Recently, Rev. Dr. Jayme Mathias, Pastor of Holy Family American Catholic Church in Austin, Texas, a parish of the American Catholic Church in the United States (ACCUS – http://www.accus.us), pointed out that indeed there are many other Catholic Churches than Roman.  Taken from the “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQ) page on the Holy Family American Catholic Church website (http://www.holyfamilyacc.org), Fr Jayme reminds visitors to Holy Family’s website that indeed there are many “Catholic” churches beyond the traditional “Roman Catholic Church”.

Is the American Catholic Church even Catholic?

Yes, definitely. There are several expressions of Catholicism, and many Catholic churches comprise the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" which is professed by all.

In many Western countries, the most well-known expression of Catholicism is the Roman Catholic Church. In Asia and Eastern Europe, however, the most well-known expression of Catholicism is the Orthodox Catholic Church, which possesses over 300 million adherents.

Other less-known expressions of Catholicism include the Orthodox Catholic Church of America, the American Apostolic Catholic Church, the American National Catholic Church, the Independent Old Catholic Church of America, the Old Catholic Apostolic Church, the Old Roman Catholic Church of North America, the United American Catholic Church, the United Catholic Church, the Ecumenical Catholic Church, and the expression that we enjoy here in Austin: the American Catholic Church of the United States. That's more diversity in the Body of Christ than many people ever imagined![iii]

The American Catholic Church in the United States (ACCUS) is a “Catholic” church.  According to the ACCUS website, the American Catholic Church in the United States is a progressive, inclusive, Vatican II church which truly takes to heart the idea put forth by Pope John XXIII that “….Christ died on the cross with his arms open… welcoming everyone… EVERYONE”.

The idea that the Roman Catholic Church is the only valid Catholic Church is false.   Again, Fr Jayme, in his “Frequently Asked Questions” page under the “About Us” section of the website for Holy Family American Catholic Church explains the “litmus test” for determining of a Catholic church other than Roman is a valid Catholic church.

The litmus test of any Catholic church is apostolic succession.

The American Catholic Church in the United States (or ACCUS, for short) is currently led by Presiding Archbishop William A. Johnson, D.D. On October 3, 2009, Archbishop Johnson was validly consecrated by bishops representing eleven valid lines of succession from the apostles, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Old Catholic Church, the Malankara/Syrian/Jacobite Churches, and six Orthodox Churches…

Despite St. Paul's vision that we are "all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28), a split within the Church occurred in 1054 A.D. Though the five patriarchs of the Church historically worked together to formulate doctrine, the Patriarch of Rome (now known as the pope) tampered with the Church's creed, thus changing the Church's Trinitarian theology. In what is now known as the East-West Schism, the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Patriarch of Rome, and the Patriarch of Rome excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, leading to the creation of the Orthodox Catholic Church (i.e., the church perceived to be orthodox and in communion with the four patriarchs of the East) and the Roman Catholic Church (the church that aligned itself with the independently-acting Patriarch of Rome). Interestingly, no one thought in terms of a new church being formed. Rather, the Church now had two valid expressions of apostolic Catholicism.

After that split, the next great divide would occur in 1517-1521 when a Catholic priest, Father Martin Luther, began raising questions about the sale of indulgences (viz., time out of purgatory, a concept that was made doctrine in 1274) which were being used to finance the construction of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. This led to a division between "Roman Catholics" and "Protestants."

Three centuries later, another significant split would occur when the Patriarch of the West (now known as the pope) pushed for the declaration of his own infallibility.

More recently, divisions in the Church have occurred over such issues as contraception (1968) and the place of women within the Roman church (1994).

Despite these events, bishops who were validly consecrated through apostolic succession have continued to share the gift of the Spirit with others, and the ministry of the Body of Christ has continued. The Church is comprised of individuals who are at once saints and sinners. They are human beings who, like Peter, the Rock upon which the Church was built, have at times denied Christ (Mt 26:74-75), or who, like James and John, have sometimes jockeyed for positions of supposed power (Mt 20:20-28). Fortunately, the love of Christ continues to unite us all and lead us as the sinners-and-saints we are![iv]

So, if you are a Roman Catholic, and the one page ad taken out by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), affected you and gave you pause to consider to “leave the Catholic church” as their ad puts it, please remember, you do not have to leave being “Catholic” if you feel strongly about the issues the FFRF points out in their one page ad.  The one page ad is referring to the “Roman Catholic Church” – not all valid Catholic churches. I would ask you to consider not leaving your faith altogether because of these issues.  Search for a valid Catholic community which does align with your values and mores without sacrificing your faith.  

If you would like more information about what it means to be Catholic in today’s society, and learn more about valid Catholic churches other than Roman, contact the nearest ACCUS parish to you.  You do not have to leave your Catholic faith because of the issues noted in FFRF’s one page ad.  As members of humanity, we are all children of God and as Catholic Christians, we believe in “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”.  

---

[i] Freedom from Religion Foundation, http://www.ffrf.org.

[ii] Gaylor, Annie Laurie, and Barker, Dan, “It’s Time To Quit the Catholic Church”, New York Times, March 9, 2012, New York Times, Pg 10, Front Sections © 2012, Freedom from Religion Foundation.  All Rights Reserved.

[iii] Mathias, Rev. Dr. Jayme, Holy Family American Catholic Church website (http://www.holyfamilyacc.org), “Frequently Asked Questions” page under the “About Us” section, © 2012 Holy Family American Catholic Church, Austin, Texas.  All Rights Reserved.

[iv] Ibid.

About the Author

Rev. Brother Jeff Wolfe is the Director and Administrator of St John xxiii Pastoral & Outreach Center (POC) in Indianapolis, IN. It was founded April 4, 2011 in Indianapolis on the East-side in Irvington. Br Jeff attends seminary as a third year student at St. John xxiii Theological Institute enrolled in the Master of Divinity Program.

Brother Jeff also serves as founder and a member of the Board of Directors for The Kristen Center, a faith-based not-for-profit community based organization dedicated to providing programs and services to those with HIV and those who care for them. Currently The Kristen Center offers targeted, customized HIV Support Groups for: Newly Diagnosed; Long Term Survivors; Family & Caregivers of those with HIV; and, Women with HIV.

To learn more about Brother Jeff, visit his Facebook Page or visit his blog, Following My Calling. 

Attachment

ARTICLE: Religious Americans' Perspectives on Same-sex Marriage

A huge area of discrimination which many overlook because of bias, cultural or learned, is that of HATE crimes.

Today in the US, many states are beginning to recognize same sex marriage (or unions).   I really don't understand why there is so much tug against this simple act - two individuals, regardless of gender, fall in love, and get married.

But even if all 50 states approve same sex unions, it still does not equate to marriage between a man and a woman when it comes to Federal benefits.  Same sex unions are not recognized for Tax purposes.  Sames sex unions are not recognized for Social Security purposes (if a man and woman are married, and one dies, the other obtains the higher of the two social security payments - same sex couples do not); Same Sex couples for disability purposes (if one or both of married heterosexual couples are disabled and one dies, the other does not get the higher of the two disability payments); It truly won't be equal until same sex marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage until ALL federal benefits named above and other benefits, to which heterosexual couples in marriage by law, are entitled, are also accessible to legally married same sex couples.

Religious Americans' Perspectives on Same-sex Marriage

Peace,
Bro Jeff

A Call for Peace and Tolerance

Recent events in Muslim world, violence which has exploded against the West and in particular the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya which killed the U.S. Ambassador, an IT engineer, and two former U.S. Seals which has been brought to light by modern media.

The U.S. experienced a horrific experience itself not too long ago in a small town in Wisconsin against members of a Sikh Temple.  As a result, our presiding Archbishop wrote a call for peace.

I thought at this time, it might be appropriate to share again Archbishop William Johnson, D.D., Metropolitan and presiding Archbishop for the American Catholic Church in the United States, the Catholic community in which I hope to become a priest one day.

Here is Archbishop Johnson's message:

Archbishop Johnson's remarks could easily be applied to the filmmaker of this horrific film which defile a religion's leader.

In light of recent events of the riots in the Muslim world over a terrible and undeserving film created by one individual, it seemed appropriate to call along with Archbishop Johnson for Peace and Tolerance among all religions.  There is a book written by an Episcopal Priest, Matthew Fox, entitled, "One River, Many Wells".

In chapter 1 of his book, Fr Fox quotes author Howard Thurman, author of Creative Encounter.

"It is my believe that in the Presence of God, there is neither male, nor female, white nor black, Gentile nor Jew, Protestant nor Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, nor Moslem [sic], but a human spirit stripped to the literal substance of itself before God"

Fr Fox throughout this book looks through each of the religions listed above and reminds us that though all have their own leader, own style, own liturgy, own practice, they are but many wells leading to One River - God.

As a seminarian I have had the opportunity to read many books, and been exposed to many theological ideas, Catholic and others, and I too must pray that God of all of us will bring peace to the hearts of all those suffering, those feeling insulted by one man's incorrect view of a great religious leader, those feeling angered by the callus approach one man's vision in a small insignificant film.

I pray that those who feel anger will remember their great religious leader and find peace.  Fr Fox may be right (along with Howard Thurman), that we really are many wells leading to One River and when we insult another's religion, we really insult not only his, but ours as well.

Peace
Bro Jeff

Sadness and Joy for ACCUS

The last week has been a difficult time for all members and ACCUS (The American Catholic Church in the United States).  Our Presiding Archbishop, Founder of ACCUS, and the person responsible for bringing me to ACCUS returned to Our Lord (see ACCUS Facebook Page for details).

This past Sunday was the funeral mass in Frederick, Maryland and yesterday was the service for his internment. His Grace launched ACCUS on May 23, 1999 in Frederick Maryland. From the time the church began until now, there are dozens of ACCUS parishes throughout the use (see ACCUS Locations Map).

The many locations throughout the US and Worldwide is the legacy which His Grace, Archbishop Emeritus Harms, D.D., left to the current church and the world.   His mission was simple - "Serve All With Love".

This legacy was passed onto our new Presiding Archbishop, Most Rev William Johnson, D.D. personally by His Grace Archbishop Emeritus Harms, D.D. before his return to Our Lord.

I would ask for prayers for our new Presiding Archbishop that he will continue the mission and vision of ACCUS and especially I would ask for your prayers for Archbishop Harms personal Secretary and friend for over 20 year, Rev Vincent Robinson as well as the entire Harms family.

As a result, classes for seminary were canceled last week.  Classes will resume sometime this week.

When I made first contact with His Grace,Archbishop Harms, almost 5 year ago via telephone, that started an ongoing dialogue which led me to St John XXIII Theological Institute, applying to seminary, becoming a religious brother, certified candidate for Holy Orders and Eucharistic Minister and now a 2nd year seminarian.   

Right before I submitted my application to seminary I had a phone conversation with Archbishop Emeritus Harms.  He asked me where I saw my calling.  I explained to him my experience with the HIV Community in Indianapolis over the previous several years.  I also explained that after talking with the Director of Indiana State Board of Health's HIV/STD division (which manages the Ryan White Funds for Indiana), he (the Director) said he wished there were more "faith-based" care coordination centers (a care coordination center is a location were all services necessary for those with HIV are centralized and where those with HIV go to receive free Health care, medicines, financial assistance etc.).

Archbishop Harms told me on the call right before applying to seminary, "Why don't you keep that as your primary focus for your ministry".  Ever since I have done just that. 

So Archbishop Emeritus Harms legacy expands even into the HIV Community in the creation of The Kristen Center here in Indianapolis, a soon to be Not for Profit focused on delivering services and programs to those with HIV (sponsored in part through the ministry of St John XXIII Pastoral & Outreach Center (ACCUS parish) here in Indianapolis).

May God be with both Archbishop Emeritus Harms and with Presiding Archbishop Johnson as ACCUS continues to grow and go forward to "Serve All With Love".

Peace, 
Br Jeff 

2012/04/23 Spring Semester 2nd Year & The Kristen Center

Well, once again I am a little more than 1/2 way through my spring semester of my 2nd year in seminary.  I can't believe it!  Time has really flown by.  This semester has been probably one of the most difficult semesters of seminary.  I have 15 credit hours (5 courses).  To give you an idea, most colleges and universities consider 12 hours a full semester.   So I have been really busy once again.

This semester I am taking the following courses:

• Ecclesiology
• Reform and Modern Church History
• Moral Theology
• Christology
• Synoptic Gospels

I am in the middle of my mid-term papers.  I just finished two papers.  The first one was for Christology.  My paper assignment was to compare, contrast, and explain the differences between the Christologies of Fr Karl Rahner, OFM and John Dominic Crossan.  The 2nd was for R/M Church History.  I had to basically cover the history of the church from the 12th - 16th centuries.  I still have two exegetical papers due for my Synoptics class and a basically a book report on the book "Communion Ecclesiology" by Dennis Doyle, professor of Theology at University of Dayton.  I also completed a paper for Moral Theology.

One reason this semester has been more difficult than other has been the subject matter.  Pretty heady stuff.  The other has to do with the amount of required reading this semester.  Just for one class alone I had over 12 different required texts!  And that was one class.  For me this has been quite a challenge as I am not the fastest reader (No Evelyn Wood Speed Reading courses here).  But, with the thanks and help of God and Jesus and Mary, and a supporting family, I am making it!

I have also been for the last two to three months been busy in preparing to launch a new "faith-based" HIV Community organization.  I received word early this year that I had an individual wanting to donate a home for our HIV Support Groups.   So I have been busy planning the transition of all the HIV ministries from St John XXIII Pastoral & Outreach Center to the new faith-based community service organization (The Kristen Center - see http://www.thekristencenter.com).  The website is still in development and not yet complete, but it will give you an idea.  The goal is to complete the transition and launch the Support Groups this year.  The goal is by fall of 2013 to launch a faith-based Care Coordination Center through The Kristen Center (a Care Coordination Center is a central location where those with HIV may go to receive a myriad of services for those with HIV and those who care for them).

Well that is about it for now.  I had to papers left and a lot of ground to cover.  But I did want to provide an update since it has been a while.

Peace,
br jeff