Tag Archives: marriage

Francis cardinal George and pedophiles in the Roman Catholic Church’s clergy

Francis cardinal George (Chicago, 2012)

Francis cardinal George (Chicago, 2012)

Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George has issued a letter (read here and here) stating same-sex marriages are “a legal fiction” and that gay people must live celibate lives or risk the vengeance of a hate-filled, holocaust sanctioning and murderous God whose idea of love is sadistic: complete with the killing of babies and fetuses, denial of education to the masses, and demands that the poor give the godhead their wealth in exchange for salvation gained only by caving into eternal extortion, robbery, and mutilation.  Among the most biblically ignorant men in the Roman Catholic Church who possesses no stellar academic credentials, Cardinal George, published the abhorent birlling letter New Year’s Day in advance of an upcoming Illinois bill that would make same-sex marriages legal.  The craven cardinal added that the Church will refuse to bow to the will of the majority on marriage equality, but falsely foreswears that the Roman Catholic Church is not anti-gay—it cannot be—as there are too many priests, nuns, bishops, cardinals, and popes throughout history who have been homosexuals and lesbians—and are today.

Francis cardinal George of Chicago

Francis cardinal George of Chicago

“Civil laws that establish ‘same-sex marriage’ create a legal fiction,” George wrote. “The State has no power to create something that nature itself tells us is impossible,” the Cardinal schizophrenically stated, apparently forgetting that corporations are people and states are corporations and therefore can perform marriages at will.  George argued that marriage between a man and a woman follows “natural law”.  Six auxiliary bishops: Francis J. Kane (two bachelor degrees) Vicariate II, John R. Manz (M. Div.), Vicariate IV, Joseph Nathaniel Perry (M. Div. with coursework in canon or church law) Vicariate VI, George J. Rassas (MA) Vicariate I, Alberto Rojas, Vicariate III (originally educated in seminaries in Mexico); Andrew P. Wypych (M.Th, Poland), Vicariate V), none with any exemplary education or respectable publications showing in-depth research or investigation, and their sermons being plagiarized for the most part, penned: “Marriage comes to us from nature [sic; animals mate and plants cross-pollinate, but nothing in nature but mortal beings marry; read here and here and here and here for a legal challenge]. The human species comes in two complementary sexes, male and female. Their sexual union is called marital. It not only creates a place of love for two adults but also a home for loving and raising their children [sic: not all of nature cares for its young, as with salmon spawning, as do turtles, cukkoos, butterflys, frogs, flys, worms and rattle snakes, etc.]. It provides the biological basis for personal identity [sic]”.

University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey R. Stone wrote in The Huffington Post: Cardinal George insists that same-sex marriage is incompatible with ‘nature.’ One might just as easily say the same about celibacy. There is such a thing as right and wrong, but invocations of what ‘nature’ commands is no way to get there.” 

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki (Chicago)

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki (Chicago)

Chicago’s auxiliary bishops quickly sided with the cardinal, as their own tarnished history of removing pedophile (defined as any adult who is sexually attracted to children (male or female) priests has dulled any luster their ministry might have had. Thomas J. Paprocki, one of George’s auxiliary bishops in Chicago who heads the Springfield diocese, wanted to be a bishop as a child and played at saying Mass, had a priest Father Tom Donovan from Springfield, Illinois, an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriages, get caught gagged and in handcuffs in his rectory.  Paprocki, who has a degree in secular law degree and a church license in canon law, gave a sermon October 15, 2007, for the Red Mass: a gathering of lawyers and jurists, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The bishop scorned the church’s escalating financial losses to victims of predatory priests. “The church is under attack,” Paprocki declared, comparing the civil litigation to Henry VIII’s seizure of “church property and kill[ing] those who did not accept his notion of the supremacy of the crown” and warned all listeners of “intrinsic evils” in the Democratic Platform.  Paprocki also examined the Republican Party platform and found that it has “nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin.”  The platform’s support for allowing courts the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases is not inherently opposed to Church teaching, the bishop claimed in agreement with Thomas Aquinas’ stand (following the Holocausts prescribed in the bible, especially the bloodthirsty Ps. 100:8, Aquinas argued that the death penalty (Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2) was merited in cases of heresy (Summa contra gentiles, Book III, chapter 146) in the same manner as Sharia law mandates death for heretics, apostates and unbelievers, following Augustine (De Civitate Dei contra Paganos, Book 1, chapter 21), that would be used by Pope Pius V in his demonic Horrendum illud scelus (August 30, 1568, in Bullarium Romanum, Roma:  Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, Mainardi, 1738, chapter 3, p. 33) that demanded that all homosexual priests be put to death (cp. Fifth Lateran Council chap. 4, X, V, 31), and would be followed my Martin Luther (Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi), and other “reformers”), and cravenly cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s teaching that the death penalty is permissible if it is the only possible way to defend human life that has nothing in common with any teaching by the Jesus of the New Testament, but fulfills Pauline Christianity as invented by the Emperor Constantine I in 325 CE. Jesus of the New Testament was forgotten by the end of the First Century CE.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue

Catholic League president Bill Donohue

Priests who sexually molest little boys and little girls are not defrocked unless there is sufficient public outcry, an arrest, and a trial—but even these civil and criminal actions do not always lead to the Roman Catholic Church exiling, expelling, defrocking, or denying pedophile priests access to children because, as Bill Donohue of the Catholic League stated: “The refrain that child rape is a reality in the Church is twice wrong: let’s get it straight—they weren’t children and they weren’t raped … the most common abuse has been inappropriate touching (inexcusable though this is, it is not rape).” Those who are “post-puberty”, according to Bill Donohue’s definition, is that they are “young adults” who seek to entrap priests, bishops and cardinals in carnal knowledge and satanic sex (read here and here in following and defending despotic denials by Father Benedict Groeschel

Father Benedict Groeschel claims children seduce priests for sex (2012)

Father Benedict Groeschel claims children seduce priests for sex (2012)

Groeschel told the National Catholic Register that in a “lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer.”).  Little girls are especially dangerous as the Daughters of Eve who lead the Sons of Adam into sin (read here and here). Priests, bishops, and cardinals actually molest more little girls than boys (read here and here and here and here and here and here for Father Uriel Ojeda confessed to sexually molesting a teenage girl:  while Father Jaime Duenas admitted to giving “massages” to teenage girls; the Transportation and Security Administration (TSA) hired a priest (Thomas Harkins) who was accused of sexually assaulting two school girls in the Philadelphia archdiocese) convicted of molesting girls to pat down” children before it completed a thorough background check. 

Father Felix Owino (West Virginia)

Father Felix Owino (West Virginia)

Father Felix Owino, originally from Nairobi, Kenya, is a member of the Apostles of Jesus missionary congregation, an African congregation of priests and brothers and a philosophy teacher at Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia and as an associate pastor at St. Paul Roman Catholic Church in Weirton, West Virginia attacked an eleven-year-old girl who reported the assault to her parents.  Young boys receive more news coverage (read here for a conservative response that disagrees and here for more information).

Bishop Paprocki with John Paul II

Bishop Paprocki with John Paul II

Displaying the callousness that has cursed so many Catholic bishops for so long, Paprocki insulted the victims of the scandals, as well as the attorneys and judges in their cases, with these words: “We must use our religious discernment to recognize that the principal force behind these attacks is none other than the devil.”  It was as if Paprocki was living in the cloistered world of Umberto Eco’s Name of the Rose and is even more vile than John Paul II.  The speeches match those of Roman Catholic bishops who supported Adolf Hitler, as when Hitler greeted Ludwig Müller the “[Protestant/Lutheran] Bishop of the Reich” and the Roman Catholic bishops, led by Michael cardinal Faulhaber, praised Hitler “as a man of peace” (October 2, 1938)  in the Völkischer Beobachter, the official newspaper of the Nazi Party (cf. Billig, Joseph (1964).  Alfred Rosenberg dans l’action idéologique, politique et administrative du Reich hitlérien, Paris: Editions du Centre; Piper, Ernst (2005).  Alfred Rosenberg: Hitlers Chefideologe. Munich: Blessing).

Bishop Juan Arzuba (d. January 11, 2008)

Bishop Juan Arzuba (d. January 11, 2008)

Chicago underground papers list three of the auxiliaries in Chicago as being frequent visitors to gay bars within the city. Interestingly, as of 2009 the bishops who have been publicly alleged for sexually abusing minors include Juan A. Arzube of Los Angeles was accused of molesting an 11-year-old boy and forced the Church to pay out one of its greatest settlements.  Tod D. Brown of Orange, CA repeatedly sexually abused a 12-year-old boy in the name of giving the juvenile “faith”. Robert Brom from Duluth MN to San Diego CA,  molested a seminarian to teach the consequences of sin.  Paul Dudley was accused of molesting a woman in Florida. 

Bishop John McCormack (Manchester) and NH Attorney General pressing charges

Bishop John McCormack (Manchester) and NH Attorney General pressing charges

John McCormick of NH won a distinction from the NH GOP leader who referred to the bishop as a “pedophile pimp”.  Thomas Dupré, himself a pedophile, introduced his victims to pornography prior to sex; he retired a day after being accused of sexually assaulting 12- and 13-year-old boys.  Joseph Ferrario of Hawaii who covered up Rev. Arthur O’Brien, the pedophile pastor’s penchant for ten-year-old boys (read here and here).  Louis E. Gelineau of Providence RI, similarly ignored accusations against pedophile priests including one suffering from schizophrenia.  Francis Joseph Green of Tucson, Arizona, had a keen fondness for youth as did Timothy Harrington (read here and here

Bishop Joseph Hart

Bishop Joseph Hart

Bishop Joseph Hart of Cheyenne, Wyoming had six sexual assault charges filed against him, filed by victims who were attacked when they were pre-teenagers, with at least one assault taking place at St. Regis Church in Kansas City, Mo.  There were at least two charges officially launched against the bishop.

Bishop Joseph Hart (1975-1976 at the time of the sexual assault)

Bishop Joseph Hart (1975-1976 at the time of the sexual assault)

Hart also molested three children while bishop of Wyoming and though retired still has access to small children.  Hart’s crimes were covered up from 1977 – 2004 by Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph Bishop Raymond J. Boland, and its Vicar General the Rev. Patrick Rush.

Howard Hubbard of Albany, NY molestation led to the exposure of Edward cardinal Egan whom Father Robert Hoaston, a priest, declared was an “active homosexual” and consistently covered up pedophile priests.  Anthony J. O’Connell (10 May 1938 – 4 May 2012, last diocese was Palm Beach, FL) allowed known pedophiles to serve on vocation committees, and admitted to molesting boys at St. Thomas Seminary in Hannibal, MO, where he served as rector or more than two decades, before resigning his bishopric in 2002.

Bishop James Rausch

Bishop James Rausch

James Rausch, bishop of Phoenix was named with two priests in pedophile cases and molested Brian F. O’Connor (whose drug addiction was halted by Msgr. Robert C. Trupia).  Later O’Connor and Trupia had a sexual relationship while O’Connor was growing into adulthood.

Msgr. Robert C. Trupia

Msgr. Robert C. Trupia

 Trupia had a history of child sexual abuse that Rome covered-up for eighteen years at the demand of John Paul II.  John Paul II sought “forgiveness” for pedophiles and only toward the end of his pontificate began to feel any pain for the suffering of the victims of pedophile priests that preyed upon young boys and girls from Ireland to South America, the USA to the Philippines.

Rev. Paul R. Shanley entering San Diego courtroom.

Rev. Paul R. Shanley entering San Diego courtroom.

The Rev. Paul R. Shanley, who was indicted for child rape, kept quiet until recently about his own experience of being raped by a cardinal (Bernard Law).  George E. Rueger an Auxiliary Bishop of Worchester MA was the subject of a civil suit for running a pedophile ring and covering for pedophile priests (read here and and here.  It is claimed that Rueger was especially adept at getting young boys to go to clerical cottages and homes to offer “services” to “desperate priests”.  Rueger expected to get a “kickback” from any revenues the young received for their time and talents.

Bishop Daniel L. Ryan

Bishop Daniel L. Ryan

Bishop Daniel L. Ryan of Springfield, IL (read here and here) was especially active.  He liked males of any age, especially priests and male prostitutes.  He had no fondness for females and was always willing to pay using donations ot the church or save as funds for the poor.

 

Bishop William S. Skylstad greets students

Bishop William S. Skylstad greets students

William Skylstad, had been a parish priest since 1974 where he had been a co-pastor with Father Patrick O’Donnell.  Father O’Donnell was accused of sexually abusing young children, and some of O’Donnell’s victims claim that they had informed then-Father Skylstad in the 1970s that they were sexually abused by Father O’Donnell.  Skylstad took no action, but the memories and whispers about the abuse grew and filtered out of the parish and across the state. 

When sex abuse became common knowledge in the Spokane diocese where Skylstad was its fifth bishop, and had taken an active role in reaching a financial settlement with the victims, Skylstad was asked to resign by prominent Spokane, WA,  Roman Catholics Donald Herak, Thomas Tilford, James Workland, and Ronald Caferro.  The four pillars sustaining the church of Spokane informed the prelate that they refused to pay “one dime to this unfortunate, costly and mistaken mediated settlement of $48 million dollar settlement” that led the diocese into bankruptcy for covering-up pedophile priests in the diocese. Skylstad claimed that the laity were the blame for the “sins of the clergy”.
 

Iowans want answers from Catholic Church

Iowans want answers from Catholic Church

Iowa’s Roman Catholic clergy and bishops have a long history of sexual abuse of little boys and little girls, and of women almost exceeds that of Pentecostal pastors in the state. Laurence (also spelled Lawrence) Soens of Sioux City, IA, himself a pedophile (read here and here). 

Bishop Lawrence Soens (Sioux City, Iowa)

Bishop Lawrence Soens (Sioux City, Iowa)

Bishop Lawrence Soens was charged with 31 cases of sexual abuse against young boys (read here page 2 middle of chart with allegations of sexually abusing students at Iowa City Regina High School in the 1950s and 1960s, and at St. Ambrose Seminary).  

Joseph Keith Symons of Palm Beach, FL, resigned his diocese after admitting to sexually abusing five boys during his 40 year ministry.   Many in the diocese stood behind him and claimed that the accusastions were false, despite testimony from the youths that the bishop attacked.  There was the mentality that youth encourage priests and nuns to abuse them as another means of demonstrating their own vulnerability to sin.

Bishop Christopher J. Weldon

Bishop Christopher J. Weldon

Christopher J. Weldon, Springfield, MA, abused William E. Burnett three times when Burnett was between ten- and 13-years-old at St. Michael’s Cathedral before Burnett committed murder and accused the bishop of molestation when he was nine years old.  There is a problem with the Burnett account, as the molestation occured in the 1950s, and was by more than one priest.  Other priests named include Revs. Bernard L. Doheny, George A. Berthiaume [deceased 12/3/1985], James T. Walsh and Oscar Gatineau, and a relative: Msgr. Raymond Page who, it was alleged, introduced him to the other priests.   J. Kendrick Williams of Lexington, KY, abused no less than 100 under-age males. 

Archbishop Rembert Weakland

Archbishop Rembert Weakland

Archbishop Rembert Weakland, Milwaukee, resigned over sex scandals on May 23, 2002, paying $450,000 in hush money to cover up long-term abuse allegations and resigned. He admitted to being gay in 2009 and did nothing to stop pedophile priests in Milwaukee (read: Weakland, Rembert (2009). A Pilgrim in a Pilgram Church: Memoirs of a Catholic archbishop. Grand Rapids, Mich. : William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co; Weakland is also the author of Faith and the Human Experience: a Post-Vatican II Vision. Maryknoll, N.Y. : Orbis Books, 1992), and three books on Catholic teaching and US economic policy).

Father Francisco Xavier Ochoa-Perez ministered to Latino Catholics in Sonoma County (2000-2006).

Father Francisco Xavier Ochoa-Perez ministered to Latino Catholics in Sonoma County (2000-2006).

Daniel F. Walsh brought to his Santa Rosa, CA, diocese a self-admitted pedophile priest:  Jesuit Father Xavier Ochoa.  Ochoa told the bishop he had engaged in rape and oral sex with young boys.  He had given full details of the encounters, but did not state that the youngest was age 5 or the oldest age 14–and he had been arrested with child pornography and cocaine.  They did not bother Bishop Walsh, who worried more about the priest than the victims.  Instead of turning the priest over to the legal authorities, Bishop Walsh allowed Ochoa to flee to Mexico. Lawrence Welsh spent most of his energy in protecting pedophile priests whom he ordered to undergo counseling and prayer. 

Bishop Bad Boy (cover)

Bishop Bad Boy (cover)

George Patrick Ziemann, who was known in gay circles known as Bishop Bad Boy and was arrested for “shaking down a priest for sex” in Santa Rosa, CA, has been considered for higher offices in the Roman Catholic Church by the Vatican and John Paul II, even after stepping down for several other dioceses.  A police report reveals that Ziemann had a young priest orally copulate him on the eve of their joint celebration of a special Sunday Mass, while continuing to have the support of San Francisco Archbishop William J. Levada and Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony who was elevated to the cardinalate by John Paul II in 1999. In clerical circles of pedophiles Ziemann, Levada and Mahony, who all went to St. John’s Seminary College in Southern California, were known as the Tricking Trinity, with Ziemann passing on to his South American toy boys who he took to seminaries in California to study for the priesthood while he was plagued with venereal infections. 

Bishop G. Patrick Ziemann (before resigning 1999)

Bishop G. Patrick Ziemann (before resigning 1999)

Carefully plotting, in order to cover up seductions, Ziemann began to pay out, on a grand scale, to those who threatened to report the preying prelate to the authorities.  One-night trysts were rewarded with $50 or $100 notes, despite having a long-time lover: Father Jorge Hume Salas who he brought into California from South America and raised to the priesthood. Father Hume Salas won a settlement from the diocese of Santa Rosa in the amount of $535,000 when Father Jorge Hume Salas claimed that Bishop G. Patrick Ziemann demanded sex in return for covering up Salas’ theft from his Ukiah church.  Hume Salas’ theft was ignored.

When professionals put together a learned study on how to end pedophilia in the clergy, the Doyle Manual was ignored.  Instead bishops, archbishops, and cardinals throughout the USA began to clamor against gay marriages since, homosexuality was only considered “friendship with benefits” as intoned by Chicago’s pseudo-primordial primate Francis cardinal George while letting pedophiles stay in his house, with the claim that the unsaintly John Paul II (read here and for the Amnesty International report here and on the connection with Pope John Paul II here and Benedict XVI here).  More vile, vitriolic  and criminal than Opus Dei founder Jeanmarie Escrivá or his pathetic pandering protégé Juan Luis cardinal Cipriani Thorne of Lima (Perú), John Paul II did nothing, and appeared to have approved of his actions (read here and here and here).  On Benedict XVI’s connection, read here.

Cardinal George declared that gays “invited obvious comparison” with the KKK since they did not follow the Roman Catholic Church’s objections. George told Chicago Fox affiliate: “You don’t want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism.”  The Chicago cardinal wrote:

the organizers invited an obvious comparison to other groups who have historically attempted to stifle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church. One such organization is the Ku Klux Klan which, well into the 1940′s, paraded through American cities not only to interfere with Catholic worship but also to demonstrate that Catholics stand outside of the American consensus. It is not a precedent anyone should want to emulate

The Chicago Church’s handling of priestly cases with cardinal George ignoring complaints from parents (read here and here) . This short survey does not include bishops accused of sexual misconduct with adults, such as Archbishops Robert F. Sanchez, Eugene Marino, or Theodore Mc Carrick nor Bishops Manuel D. Moreno or James F. McCarthy (read here and here and here and here and here). The crass cavernous of Christianity in general reflects, embeds, and reduces homophobic religion to an absurdity that many will leave. The greatest error is the lack of knowledge of pedophilic overtures, actions, and results, as most victims and their abusers are unwilling to discuss their afflictions and inflictions. This must stop. The Roman Catholic Church’s regular release of statements on pedophile priests and pedophile nuns and protecting the young of the church are worthless (read here and here with the Irish government’s Commission report here:  cp. here and here).

What has not been said or printed by the mainstream media is the number of gay and lesbian “confessors and martyrs” who have been raised to the altar by popes as saints within the Roman Catholic Church.  This goes back to the original founding of the Christian Church (Paulinity) in the fourth century with recognition of same-sex marriages back to the first century CE.

The youth protection charter says that a priest accused of child abuse must be removed until his case is resolved. For bishops who conceal or move or condone such priests, there is no penalty. Bishops, archbishops, cardinals and auxiliaries serve at the pleasure of the pope. The problem has been that many popes throughout the history of the Roman Catholic Church have been pedophiles and/or homosexuals (i.e. John XII (r. 955-964) , Benedict IX: (r. 1033-1045; 1047-1048), Paul II (r. February 23 – August 30, 1471 who died in a homosexual activity (he was being sodomized by a teenage page in the Vatican); Deschner, Karlheinz (2007). Storia criminale del cristianesimo (tomo VIII), Ariele, Milano, p. 216.  Cawthorne, Nigel (1999).  Das Sexleben der Päpste. Die Skandalchronik des Vatikans, Benedikt Taschen Verlag, Köln, p. 171. Kühner, Hans (1977). Das Imperium der Päpste, Classen Verlag, Zürich 1977, p. 254. Rendina, Claudio (1983)  I Papi, Storia e Segreti, Newton Compton, Roma, 1983, p. 589), Sixtus IV (Francesco Della Rovere, 1414-84; reigned 1471-84; his nephew, who was his lover, persauded the pope to build the Sistine Chapel that, ultimately Michelangelo would paint passages from the Bible on the ceiling and walls).

Pope Benedict IX, age 20

Pope Benedict IX, age 20

Benedict IX (c. 1012 – c. 1056), born in Rome as Theophylactus of Tusculum, he was a nephew of Pope Benedict VIII and Pope John XIX and was Pope on three occasions between 1032 and 1048, the first time being a gift from his father,  Alberic III, Count of Tusculum.  One of the youngest popes in the official list ofpopes (he was 18 or 20, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913–although some records have him being age 11 or 12 (Russel, Bertrand (1945).  History  of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 412)–the first time he was enthroned).  Benedict was known for repeated sodomies that he “forced him” to proclaim it was proof of his election as a superior man given his “staying power”, and “other irregularities” that included the actual sale of the papacy.  The pope had a desire for any one who was sufficiently “ample”; cf. Damian, Liber Gomorrhianus; “Cuius vita quam turpis, quam freda, quamque execranda extiterit, horresco referre”), Pope Victor III (1934). Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Libelli de lite (Dialogi de miraculis Sancti Benedicti Liber Tertius auctore Desiderio abbate Casinensis ed.). Hannover: Deutsches Institut für Erforschung des Mittelalters. pp. 141, cf. Bishop Benno, “Post multa turpia adulteria et homicidia manibus suis perpetrata, postremo, etc.” Dümmler, Ernst Ludwig (1891). Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Libelli de lite. I (Bonizonis episcopi Sutriensis: Liber ad amicum ed.). Hannover: Deutsches Institut für Erforschung des Mittelalters. pp. 584).  He flaunted his homosexuality and delighted in orgies in churches, “adulteries and murders” making himself unwelcomed everywhere (“Post multa turpia adulteria et homicidia manibus suis perpetrata, postremo, etc.”Dümmler, Ernst Ludwig (1891) (in Latin), Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Libelli de lite, I (Bonizonis episcopi Sutriensis: Liber ad amicum ed.), Hannover: Deutsches Institut für Erforschung des Mittelalters, pp. 584).
 

Pope Benedict XII

Pope Benedict XII

Benedict XII (de Rosa, Peter (1988/2000). Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy. Dublin:  Poolbeg Press, pages 211-215), like other Pope Benedicts, Benedict XII preferred to hide his sexual excesses.  Born at Saverdun in the province of Toulouse, France, and christened with the name of Jacques Fournier (he is also known as Jacques Bertrand de Got).  Son of Pope John XXII and grandson of Pope Clement V, Jacques became a Cistercian, and ultimately the third of the Avignon Popes, when his father Pope John XXII died on December 4, 1334.  Jacques the younger was made Pope by the now dominant French Cardinals fourteen days later on December 20th 1334 at the age of 27 and reigned from 1334 to 1342, dying at the age of 35.  Benedict XII  issue papal bulls that were heretical on previous well established doctrine of the Catholic Church including a Papal Bull (since destroyed) denouncing the concept of Immaculate Conception since it has no biblical foundation. Contemporary records note that he opened churches for sexual orgies, and enjoyed the torture of children as an entertainment while he dined and was known for sexual exploitation of very young girls and boys. In  1337, Benedict XII sent soldiers into Bavaria, Austria and Poland to attack 51 Jewish towns. 

Pope Julius II (by Titian)

Pope Julius II (by Titian)

Julius II (r. 1503-1513) the warrior Renaissance pope who commissioned Michelangelo and other artists, sculptors and silverworkers (read here and here) had a fondness for soldiers in uniform. Julius was universally known as a passive sodomite and the quickest way to rise in both the armed forces of the Vatican states or in the hierarchy of the church was to be active in all things, especially in bed. Most of the cardinals he appointed “came from the papal bedchamber” after “suitable and audible” groaning.  One characteristic that most pedophiles have had in the past and today, is Julius always kept a choir of young male voices in his bedroom to sing to him when he was weary or wanted company.

Pope Leo X

Pope Leo X

Leo X (r. 1513-1521; Falconi, Carlo (1987).  Leone X: Giovanni de’ Medici, Milano: Rusconi, 1987) who was pope at the time of Martin Luther (who also had at least one male friend), and believed Luther to be a “mad monk” who could be enticed with Vatican “appeal” to denounce his own theses.  Leo X was convinced that he could win the allegiance of Luther with well-placed gifts.  He was the last “non-priest” (he was not a priest at the time of his election, only a deacon) to be elevated to the papal throne.  Francesco Guicciardini, considered one of the major political writers of the Italian Renaissance (cf. Gilbert, Felix (1985). Machiavelli and Guicciardini: Politics and History in Sixteenth-Century Florence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), wrote, “At the beginning of his pontificate most people deemed him very chaste; however, he was afterwards discovered to be exceedingly devoted – and every day with less and less shame – to that kind of pleasure that for honour’s sake may not be named”.  Bishop and writer, Paolo Giovio, explained that Leo seemed to have “an improper love for some of his chamberlains” especially the very young and those with a “well turned [muscular] thigh” (McCabe, Joseph (1939). History of the Popes. London, UK: Watts & Co., p. 409).

Pope Julius III

Pope Julius III

Julius III (1550-1555; Burkle-Young, Francis A., and Michael Leopoldo Doerrer. The Life of Cardinal Innocenzo del Monte: A Scandal in Scarlet, Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1997) was a a homosexual pedophile who  preferred males 11 to 13 year of age, unlike many of his crony heterosexaul pedophile cardinals who preferred young girls.  One notable scandal surrounded his adoptive nephew (“nephew” was a title, not a family distinction in the Renaissance), Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte, a 13 or 14-year old beggar-boy whom the future Pope had picked up off the streets of Parma some years earlier and with whom he had allegedly fallen in love.  The pope showered the youth with gifts and found no place too sacred to have sex.  Julius III ultimately making Innocenzo a cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church and primary pimp in the Vatican.

Throughout the sordid history of the papacy, the popes have protected themselves by protecting other pedophiles. While traditional marriage advocates cite Scripture as the basis of their objections to civil unions and gay marriage (while in the Bible there is no rule that marriage is reserved for one man + one woman; read here and here), Roman Catholic leaders have been highlighting their belief that same-sex relationships violate natural law, which it does not as more than 1500 species practice homosexuality regularly and repetitively (read here and here and here; cp. Sommer, Volker & Paul L. Vasey (2006). Homosexual Behaviour in Animals, An Evolutionary Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press) and is especially common among herding animals (where both genders are available). According to the tradition of “natural law”, every human being must seek a fundamental “good” that corresponds to the natural order to flourish and propagate, that Francis George bases on Tomas Aquinas Dark Ages ideology (Summa Theologica IaIIae 91, 2, 94, 4; 94, 6, but were modified by Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan, xv, ¶35, ¶36, ¶41).  Natural-law proponents say heterosexual intercourse between a married man and a woman serves two intertwined good purposes: to procreate and to express a deep, abiding love. Based on that absurd definition and there are species that experience “virgin births” (parthenogenesis: παρθενος, “virgin”, + γενεσις, “birth”.  The primary objection by religion is that it takes away the necessity of there being a male in the birth cycle; theologically it means that no man would have been necessary any more than any deity for Mary to conceive and give birth as it would be a dividing and evolution of cells), they say, homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual ones.  That fact is that there are fewer gay divorces than there are straight divorces. “It is physically impossible for two men or two women to consummate a marriage, even when they share a deep friendship or love,” George writes in psychological and intellectual ignorance (Kurdek, Lawrence A.; Schmitt, J. Patrick (1986). “Relationship quality of partners in heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabiting, and gay and lesbian relationships”. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.711 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 51(4), October, pp. 711-720; the stagnation between differences (heterosexual and homosexual) are the focal point of Greenberg, Leslie S. Goldman, Rhonda N. , (2008). “Emotion-focused couples therapy: The dynamics of emotion, love, and power,” (pp. 111-134), in Greenberg, Leslie S.; Goldman, Rhonda N. Culture and Gender. doi: 10.1037/11750-006 Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, x, 405 pp.  Cp. Kurdek, Lawrence A. (1992). “Assumptions versus standards: The validity of two relationship cognitions in heterosexual and homosexual couples”. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.6.2.164. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol 6(2), December, pp. 164-170) in his letter, meant for inclusion in parish bulletins distributed on the weekend.  At the same time, Chicago’s cardinal George, President of the US Council of Roman Catholic bishops in 2007 (he retained the post until 2010 when Timothy Dolan was elected because of his open denunciation and extreme denunciations that are reminiscent of the speeches of senior NAZIS from 1933-1945 of the LGBT community (Rector, Frank. Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals. New York: Stein and Day, 1981. pp. 105-107; Giles, Geoffrey J. (1992), “‘The Most Unkindest Cut of All’: Castration, Homosexuality and Nazi Justice,” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 27 (1992): pp. 41–61; Giles, Geoffrey J. (2002). “The Denial of Homosexuality: Same-Sex Incidents in Himmler’s SS”, Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 11, No. 1/2, Special Issue: Sexuality and German Fascism (January – April), pp. 256–290 and cp. here and here and here); on Dolan’s lack of canonical qualification for the episcopacy and contempt for those who report pedophile priests, read here), continues to cover up the increasing number of cases against pedophile priests.

When Father Andrew D. McCormick of Philadelphia was arrested for molesting one boy and later confessed to molesting five boys, the cardinal of Philadelphia did nothing, but followed precedent. McCormick made a number of trips to Poland with parish boysMcCormick made a number of trips to Poland with parish boys, and it is believed he molested several.

Father Patrick G. McCormick of Philadelphia was arrested for “patronizing a prostitute.”  The priest tried to bully parishioners into “forgiving” abusive clergy, but many would not.

The same is true when Father Daniel McCormick of Chicago was arrested in 2007, for molesting boys (plural), but in the case with the cardinal of Chicago involved, George fired the principle, Barbara Westrick (read here and here and here), who reported the abuses to the police since the cardinal refused to do anything (but later said he was not informed of the molestation), and changed the name of the school from Our Lady of the Westside School to St. Agatha’s School (named after a lesbian saint).  Daniel McCormick was ultimately transferred to a mental health center as a sexually violent person in Rushville, IL. This came after October 2005, when George ignored his own archdiocesan review board’s recommendation to remove McCormack.

George allowed the self-admitted pedophile priest to continue teaching and coaching. George’s ever increasing ignorance and pretense of lack of knowing what was going on in schools to his own house cost the Chicago archdiocese $3.2 million to one victim, another $1.5 million to pay off one of the young male victims, with some declaring that the cardinal was in bed with an altar boy while the money from congregations continued to hemorrhage for more than 186 victims from the torn tithing extorted from ignorant faithful who supported their cavorting cardinal.

George’s payoffs were quickly matched or exceeded by other bishops throughout the USA, including Bishop Tod Brown of Orange County paying $100 million to 90 victims, Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles paying $660 million to settle 500 cases, Bishop Robert Brom of San Diego paying $198 million to 140 cases, Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane paying $48 million to settle a non-disclosed number of victims, Bishop Martin Amos of Davenport, Iowa, paying $37 million for 157 cases, and the Society of Jesus in Oregon paying $50 million for 110 cases (read: Jason Berry “Is the Church really this blind?” Los Angeles Times. 11-11-07 on-line.  Paul A. Likoudis (2002).  Amchurch Comes Out – The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda,” Petersburg, Illinois: Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc, inside cover. The New York Times online, February 2, 2005). George still refuses to admit the seriousness of the problem of pedophile priests, and even invited several to stay in his house in Chicago over the protest of parishioners who knew what the guests had done in previous. “People live out their sexual identity in different ways, but the Church offers the means to live chastely in all circumstances, as the love of God both obliges and makes possible,” George’s letter states, meaning gay people should live celibate lives or risk going to Hell.  John Paul II rejected the existence of a literal (real) hell. On July 28, 1999, Pope John Paul II noted that the Scriptural references to hell and the images portrayed by Scripture are only symbolic and figurative of “the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. ” He added, “Rather than a physical place, hell is the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy.” He said hell is “a condition resulting from attitudes and actions which people adopt in this life.”  Benedict XVI brought back a physical hell to further intimidate dissenters.

Curiously, Cardinal George’s letter, which was also signed by six Illinois Bishops, adds that if same-sex marriage becomes legal in Illinois, it will be challenging for him and, supposedly, all Catholics, to maintain their respectability. George is worried same-sex marriage equality will make the public label Catholics who don’t support the new law “bigots.” The dictionary defines “bigot” as “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.” (Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009). “We will all have to pretend to accept something that is contrary to the common sense of the human race. Those who continue to distinguish between genuine marital union and same sex arrangements will be regarded in law as discriminatory, the equivalent of bigots. This proposed legislation will have long term consequences because laws teach; they tell us what is socially acceptable and what is not, and most people conform to the dictates of their respective society, at least in the short run.” George, mocking the very concept of civil rights, also pretends that the Bible gives him this authority (this is a rank misreading of Matthew 16:18: κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς, a verse that was transmogrified in a ninth century monastery in Dark Europe with a papal reinforement of the nineteenth verse: καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς), and that his bigotry is merely “God’s law,” and the law of nature: “If we ignore in law the natural complementary of man and woman in creation, then the natural family is undermined. Our individual lives become artificial constructs protected by civil “rights” that destroy natural rights. Human dignity and human rights are then reduced to the whims of political majorities. When the ways of nature and nature’s God conflict with civil law, society is in danger. It is to that danger that we direct your attention.” He adds: Marriage [defined as a social union or legal contract] comes to us from nature (but animal: fowl, beast, fish, etc. do not marry, and 90% of all observed birds (especially trumpeter swans) do mate for life as a source of sex and because of altricial offspring, which require large amounts of parental care for survival (like humans), demand the efforts of two parents and therefore are more likely to be found in monogamous species, but marriage is not natural as there is no record of any observation of a ceremony being performed by or for any animals, save the one case in Lima, Peru, where former Congresista and erotic dancer Suzy Diaz married had her dog marry another dog. Marriage is manmade). The human species comes in two complementary sexes, male and female. Their sexual union is called marital [sic; it actually means “married man”. Haviland, William A.; Prins, Harald E. L.; McBride, Bunny; Walrath, Dana (2011). Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge (13th ed.). Cengage Learning. Bell, Duran (1997). “Defining Marriage and Legitimacy”. Current Anthropology 38 (2): 237–254. Bell describes marriage as “a relationship between one or more men (male or female) in severalty to one or more women that provides those men with a demand-right of sexual access within a domestic group and identifies women who bear the obligation of yielding to the demands of those specific men.” This inbreeds the ignorance of the writers of the Letters of “Paul” and early misogynism as in Colossians 3:18 Αἱ γυναῖκες ὑποτάσσεσθε τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς ἀνῆκεν ἐν κυρίῳ, cp. mulieres subditae estote viris sicut oportet in Domino and Nevestelor, fiţi supuse bărbaţilor voştri, cum se cuvine în Domnul, and Жены, повинуйтесь мужьям своим, как прилично в Господе] or the 1569 version of the Sagradas Escrituras Casadas, estad sujetas a vuestros propios maridos, como conviene en el Señor. It not only creates a place of love for two adults but also a home for loving and raising their children. It provides the biological basis for personal identity.” Exposing extreme ignorance of the reality of psychology and science, George finalized: “It is physically impossible for two men or two women to consummate a marriage, even when they share a deep friendship or love.’ George ignores that LGBT people engage in sexual intercourse and have the same commitment and emotions as heterosexual couples (Herek, Gregory M. (2007). “Science, public policy, and legal recognition of same-sex relationships”. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.7.713b. American Psychologist, Vol 62(7), October, pp. 713-715; Thyer, Bruce A. (2007). “Psychologists’ advocacy for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships”. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.7.713a. American Psychologist, Vol 62(7), October, p. 713.; Herek, Gregory M. (2006). “Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective”. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.607.  American Psychologist, Vol 61(6), September, pp. 607-621; Solomon, Sondra E.; Rothblum, Esther D.; Balsam, Kimberly F. (2004).  “Pioneers in Partnership: Lesbian and Gay Male Couples in Civil Unions Compared With Those Not in Civil Unions and Married Heterosexual Siblings”. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.275. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol 18(2), Jun 2004, 275-286; and on relationship interchange, read Kurdek, Lawrence A.; Schmitt, J. Patrick (1986). “Relationship quality of partners in heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabiting, and gay and lesbian relationships”.  doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.711.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 51(4), October, pp. 711-720).  There is no substantative evidence or information by psychologists or psychiatrists that support the Chicago cardinal Frances George after 1979, except among reparative therapists all of which are discredited by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Pediatric Association and numerous other professional groups that require peer review of articles before publishing, unlike the Regenerus Report published in the Journal of Marriage and Family that was printed without peer review (read here and here where studies show that gay parents tend to be more motivated that heterosexal parents, and here on studies showing that academic scores are higher in same-sex parents’ households, and Kate Kendell Esq.’s comments “It was financed by a staggering $785,000 in grants from two far-right foundations, the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation. Even Regnerus himself acknowledges he wasn’t comparing apples to apples: “I realize that one same-sex relationship does not a lesbian make, necessarily. But our research team was less concerned with the complicated politics of sexual identity than with same-sex behavior.”‘ are elaborated here).

What the Roman Catholic Church in the USA is doing, is what is happening in Germany today–with the German hierarchy stopping all investigations into child abuse by its religious leaders: priests, nuns, bishops, archbishops and cardinals.  In an interview with public broadcaster “Deutschlandfunk,” Christian Pfeiffer, the head of the KFN institute accused Church officials of hampering his team’s research efforts by continually attempting to intervene in and control the investigation. In an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper he spoke of censorship.In an interview with public broadcaster “Deutschlandfunk,” Christian Pfeiffer, the head of the KFN institute accused Church officials of hampering his team’s research efforts by continually attempting to intervene in and control the investigation. In an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper he spoke of censorship.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Bullying, Christian Terrorists, Church history, Homosexuality, Leo X (Pope), Papacy, Roman Catholicism

Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman: what the Bible says

Keith Ratliff Sr.

Many contemporary evangelists, such as Keith Ratliff Sr of Des Moines, Iowa, a Black Southern Baptist preacher who extols hatred at the Maple Street Missionary Baptist Church, when denouncing the Iowa Supreme Court that stood up for human rights, claiming that the Iowa Supreme Court cannot “overturn the laws of [his] god” by allowing basic civil  rights to all people of Iowa while supporting slavery and forced labor in foreign nations, declaring that he speaks for god and uses a bible that is a poor translation of original documents.  Not only does Ratliff misuse the actual statements in the bible in its original sense (he has never had a professional course in translation and interpretation, nor wants one) but he claims that his particular version of scripture is sacred and not to be questioned, making him not only controversial but ludicrous as he has no concept of what he is talking about but does grandstand to an adorning and illiterate congregation. Ratliff is the president of the Iowa-Nebraska chapter of the NAACP, and goes against the official NAACP stand for the rights of all people, declaring that there is “no parallel” between the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the gay rights movement of the twenty-first century  (see: http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2009/04/iowas-leading-black-pastor-no-compromise-on-homosexuality.html), and rapid preachers such as

New York State Senator Ruben Diaz who claims to be a Pentecostal preacher

New York State Senator and Pentecostal preacher and former drug addict (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/nyregion/10marriage.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) Ruben Diaz who has a 22-year-old lesbian granddaughter (http://www.examiner.com/bronx-county-political-buzz-in-new-york/lesbian-granddaughter-of-anti-gay-ny-state-sen-ruben-diaz-sr-speaks-out?fb_comment=33984746) and two openly gay brothers (http://gothamist.com/2009/11/10/senator_ruben_diaz_sr_wont_let_gay.php),

Erica Diaz (r) with partner Naomi Torres and sons Jared (L) and Jeremiah Munoz.; Credit: New York Post

who have never studied the original scriptures in scroll or redactions claim that marriage is between one man and one woman.  In most cases, televangelists argue that marriage is where a woman submits to a man as if he were her “lord and master”—an absurdity found frequently among early Protestant leaders such as Martin Luther of eastern Germany and Jean Calvin of Geneva (Switzerland). What [(ὃ)] is not “those” (Οι meaning αυτές) and is a translation error. That is not what any ancient document defines marriage as being: a submission of one to another, but rather a united workforce of two (or more) people.  The full text comes from Matthew 19:4: but this is not about marriage, but about divorce, and the text is not a reference to individuals but to a unity of purpose and work, for the word that is used is “enjoined” or “cleaved” that means “knit together” (or “glued”) as if it were one (ο δε αποκριθεις ειπεν αυτοις ουκ ανεγνωτε οτι ο ποιησας απ αρχης αρσεν και θηλυ εποιησεν αυτους και ειπεν ενεκεν τουτου καταλειψει ανθρωπος τον πατερα [αυτου] και την μητερα και προσκολληθησεται τη γυναικι αυτου και εσονται οι δυο εις σαρκα μιαν).  There is no gender reference in this line.  It is copied from Mark 10:9 and was adapted to Romans 7:1-3. 

Exegetical writers argue that the aorist tense (denoting the occurrence of an event at some past time, considered as a momentary act) seems to refer to the original ordinance of God at the creation—but this does not exist. Matthew 19:4-5 is strengthened by the word Συνεζευξεν, which translates as “yoked together,” in the same was as oxen are yoke together at the plough, where each must pull equally, in order to bring the plough through the field and ultimately benefit from their labor. This is a very ancient symbolism and found in all Abrahamic communities, where their people who were newly married, put a yoke upon their necks, or chains upon their arms, to show that they were to be one, closely united, and pulling equally together in all the concerns of life.

Marriage of the god Cupid and goddess Psyche

The ancient custom of putting on a yoke in the Middle East was generated by practical needs: the understanding that unless the two worked together the two would not eat, as the symbolism is quite different from the ancient Greek theology as defined in the marriage of Cupid and Psyche.  In this far older religious perspective, Cupid (not a baby nor a boy but a robust man) wed Psyche and the two became “one flesh”—a term that later Hapiru moving from India into the Canaanite valley would adopt.  This changed only slightly with time, as can be seen in the interpretations of the translation from the Greek into the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions that read, “one body”: with the subjection of the “weaker vessel” that is given the title “wife” (it had nothing to do with gender” is to be beloved by the husband (the stronger vessel) as his own body, as himself, as his own flesh, which appears in paraphrasing in the Pauline Letter to the Ephesians 5:28. The idea, in its earliest days did not include a contract for “eternity” but while the union was mutually beneficial.  The ancient Egyptians defined that as being a contract for “marriage” (mutual help) understood as a social institution that culminated in the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people (gender not specified) to live as a married couple and work for each other, protect each other, love each other, nurture each other and be supportive of each other.

What the various writers of the Gospels and Epistles ignored (or were expunged of in the various redactions of the scriptures, especially during the era 440 – 1120 CE) was that the objection, allegedly posed by the Jesus of the New Testament, is to the indifference of married couples where Moses allowed the husband to give his wife a letter of divorce is found in Deuteronomy 24:1.  By the time that the Book of Deuteronomy is written and with its various redactions put into place, the two partners become gender specific, so that if a man (the stronger of the two) marries a woman (the weaker of the two) who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, he is allowed to write her a certificate of divorce, give it to her and send her from his house (as property was the prerogative and right of the stronger of the two in a union, and women lost, over time, their rights in a “marriage” (cp. Matthew 5:31 but that is allowed only in case of infidelity because the wife will seek sex elsewhere and that was considered, wrongly, as adultery, and the individual having sex with the one divorced is considered guilty as well to the charge of adultery: the key is in verse 32: εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι ος αν απολυση την  γυναικα αυτου παρεκτος λογου πορνειας ποιει αυτην μοιχασθαι και ος  εαν απολελυμενην γαμηση μοιχαται that is taken from Jeremiah 3:9 and reflects Babylonian law; it is definitely not new with the Jesus of the New Testament (cf. Matthew 19:8 where Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning”).  The Matthew account is directly copied from the Marcian account (Mark 10:11 which matches the Babylonian directive. It must be remembered that the Gospel of Mark is the source for the other synoptic gospels—not Matthew and this is best seen in the misuse of the word “wife.”

Wife, originally, meant “helpmeet” [a person suitable to help a lord or leader, and was used in the original King James Version of the Bible; in the original Genesis 2:18, it means “suitable” and usually came after investigation, interview, dialogue, and terms of the employment or living agreed upon] or “helpmate” [a companion, from the Hebrew ‘ezer keneghdo’ [וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים לֹא־טֹוב הֱיֹות הָאָדָם לְבַדֹּו אֶעֱשֶׂהּ־לֹּו עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדֹּו׃] it does not become one unified word until 1673].  Wife did not mean a woman married to a man until shortly before 900 CE, and then it is an evolutionary word that comes from the Old English wif  “woman,” from Proto-Germanic *wiban  (cf. Old Saxon and Old Frisian wif , Old Norse vif , Danish and Swedish viv , Middle Dutch and Dutch wijf , Old High German wib , and German Weib ), of uncertain origin. Some proposed Proto-Indo-European (hereafter cited as PIE) roots include *weip–  “to twist, turn, wrap,” perhaps with sense of “veiled person” [which various religions in the subcontinent and Middle East will adopt when they turn to “covering the wife” with a Burqa] (see vibrate: Latin vibratus,  past participle of vibrare meaning to “move quickly to and fro, shake,” which was expected from a helper to show that the individual was working’ from PIE *w(e)ib–  “move quickly to and fro” (cf. Lithuanian wyburiu  “to wag” (the tail) as a helper was expected to move quickly and the labor would require that the entire body was not resting, thus bending over, or swaying when harvesting, planting, and so forth was required and later used to “wag the tongue” (to speak quickly in defense of the house, to correct a disobedient child, or to speak out against a wrongful act), as it appear in the Danish vippe, Dutch wippen  “to swing,” that originate out of the Old English wipan meaning “to wipe” as the drying of a dish, cleaning of a table, and so forth; or *ghwibh– , a proposed root meaning “shame,” also “pudenda,” but the only examples of it are wife  and Tocharian (a lost Indo-European language of central Asia) kwipe, kip  “female pudenda.” The modern sense of “female spouse” that began as a specialized sense in Old English was transmogrified into the current the general sense of “woman” and can be seen in the preservation of such words as midwife, old wives’ tale, etc.  The Middle English sense of “mistress of a household” survives in housewife and it gave the house tender control over supplies, ordering victuals, disciplining servants and churls, and so forth.  It was later restricted in the sense or terminology of “tradeswoman of humble rank” as in fishwife. This is seen in the Dutch Wijf.  All became subject, in time, to the control of a male as patriarchy became increasingly more dominant and the fertility mother (alma mater) and her statues (such as the Venus of Willendorf; 24,000 – 22,000 BCE; cf. Berlant, Stephen (July, 2011). The Venus of Hohle Fels: Its Entheomycological Significance in Relation to The Venus of Willendorf and

Venus von Willendorf

Other, Anthropoid, Female Figurines. http://www.anistor.gr/english/index.htm Art Section) disappeared to be replaced by patriarch and masculine representations when displaced males (such as the ancient Hapiru invaded, conquered, and destroyed the more advanced civilizations such as Canaan and demoted their goddesses (Asherah, for example) to raise up their totems of male dominance, or transmogrified female deities into male deities, as seen in the Yah from ancient Egypt).

It is claimed, in error, that the ordinance of marriage was sanctioned in Paradise (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6). It is also stated by evangelicals that monogamy was the original law under which man lived, but polygamy commenced at a very early date (Genesis 4:19), and continued to swell in number and frequency and prevail all down through Jewish history.

The laws of Moses regulated but did not prohibit polygamy. A man might have a plurality of wives, but a wife could have only one husband. A wife’s legal rights (Exodus 21:10) and her duties (Proverbs 31:10-31; 1 Timothy 5:14 being a plagiarism from past Hebraic writings taken from Akkadian scripts) are specified. The wife could be divorced in special cases (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), but the wife could not divorce her husband.

It is alleged that divorce was restricted by the Jesus of the New Testament to the single case of adultery (Matthew 19:3-9) as discussed earlier, but the authenticity of this inclusion is now under scrutiny. The duties of husbands and wives in their relations to each other are distinctly set forth in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 7:2-5; Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18, 19; 1 Peter 3:1-7). What is unique is the role of the “husband”?

The word “husband” originally meant a manager and a frugal person (a change occurred with the advent of the Industrial Revolution).  The husband controlled all income (including the wife’s dowry that was brought to the marriage) and purchases in the house).  The word “husband” is from Old Norse hūsbōndi,  which is a combination of hūs  house + bōndi  one who has a household, from bōa  to dwell reflecting the Old English husbonda:  “male head of a household,” probably from the Old Norse husbondi  “master of the house,” from hus  “house” + bondi but with the unique meaning of  “householder, dweller, freeholder, peasant,” from buandi,  present participle of bua  “to dwell”.  It was originally used for a “peasant farmer” (early thirteenth century) and is preserved in husbandry (first attested in the late fourteenth century). Beginning late in the thirteenth century it replaced the Old English wer as “married man,” as the companion of a wif, which has been recognized by many scholars as a sad loss for English poetry. The verb “manage thriftily” appearing in the middle of the fifteenth century is from the noun, in the obsolete sense, “steward” (mid-fifteenth century); before 1000 CE.  The Middle English husband ( e ), Old English hūsbonda  meant anyone who was master [controller] of the house and comes from the Old Norse hūsbōndi,  equivalent to hūs (house) + bōndi  ( bō-,  variant of bū-)  dwell (see the word boor in any quality dictionary as it refers to a peasant or an unruly person: a country bumpkin; rustic; yokel or one who acts like a pig: is boorish) + -nd  present participle suffix + -i  inflectional ending).

To build a theology around the antiquity of “marriage” led to the invention of many words by giving a false definition to them as found in the Christian Bible. For example, the Biblical name of the first man, from the Hebrew adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎) does not mean “man,” but must be translated “from the ground”.  It is a horticultural term: a lump of red clay (Hebrew is adamah  “ground”) and comes from the Canaanite word for “workers of the earth” and is plural in number and gender neutral; cf. Latin: homo that is misused and mistranslated as “man,” but is actually a Greek word meaning “same”; this is, however, found in the words for humanus for “human,” and humus  “earth, ground, soil.” The misuse of translation and interpretation skills have brought such nonsense into the language as “Adam’s apple” (first appearing in 1755) being an inexact translation of the Hebrew tappuah haadam, literally: “man’s swelling,” from ha-adam  “the man” + tappuah  “anything swollen” that actually described the swelling of the earth when there was an earthquake or volcanic eruption. The allusion is to the fact that a piece of the forbidden fruit (commonly believed to be an apple) that Eve gave Adam is supposed to have stuck in his throat. To not know (someone) from Adam “not know him at all” is first recorded 1784.

The issue of “red” for the earth is from ancient Babylonia and has been used by the invading Hapiru and other barbarians from the north as a generic name for man, having the same meaning in the Hebrew and the Assyrian languages. The order of creation written in Genesis 1 and 2 very significantly (Ide, Arthur Frederick (1982). Woman in ancient Israel under the Torah and Talmud : with a translation and critical commentary on Genesis 1-3; Mesquite: IHP) , as does the “sin” that saw the mortals expelled from the Garden, once “Eve” is created and she eats the forbidden fruit. At that point she becomes a woman, and her punishment for sinning against the orders of the landlord was to give birth to children—although she only had three sons. We have the names of only three of Adam’s sons, viz., Cain (it means “farmer”), Abel (it means “shepherd”, and Seth (it has various meanings, including “trickster” and “substitute”) who has his origins in ancient Egyptian theology.  Genesis 5:4 reads that other children were born—and from them all came all the nations of the earth.  This line shows that incest was acceptable and a common form of “marriage”, and while the “children” of Genesis 5:4 says “sons and daughters” and Josephus claims (Antiquities 1:1) that Adam had thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters, Cain would have had to marry (had sex) one of them to have children. Josephus is not a reliable writer, nor is he a historian or scientist, and his books are saturated with errors (http://www.isaiah18.com/josephusvsnature.html).

Eve is the only “living human” that can be based on the Bible. It is a feminine noun, and is in Hebrew Hawwah that liberally has been translated as “a living being” but actually is a word that means “life” or “the growing earth.”  What history there is of her comes from various texts, but few are in agreement.  The birth of her first son cannot linguistically be attributed to Adam, as Genesis 4:1 states “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord,” suggesting that the overseer was the father and follows the outline and words of most ancient civilizations from Ethiopian to Hindu on the generation of species. 

Eve named her son Cain as if he had been the Promised One the “Seed of the woman.” While this topic is too involved to enter into this essay, what must be answered is the evangelical biblical literalists argument that Adam and Eve were “married”.  Their claim is based on Genesis 2:24 (repeated in Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7) but the word references a sexual act and not a contract to continue laboring together.  Then, too, there is the argument that Adam only had one wife; but legend and other scriptures argue that he had two: the first wife was known as Lilith first appearing in what is considered a pseudepigraphic eighth to tenth century Alphabet of Ben Sira is considered to be the oldest form of the story of Lilith as Adam’s first wife, with Eve as his second wife, but Lilith and her legend is found earlier in the Babylonian Talmud (completed between 500 and 700 AD/CE, although legend has it that it was begun around 200 CE). Lilith is also found in Mesopotamian and Akkadian texts that predate both, with the Tree of Life being a part of the Babylonian Gilgamesh.

Seth was the third son of Adam and Eve (Genesis 4:25; the word means “appointed” or “substitute”, (Genesis 4:25; 5:3). His mother gave him his name, “for God,” said she, “hath appointed me [i.e., compensated me with] another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.” However, the name can be directly traced to an ancient Egyptian god, patron of the 11th nome (or province) of Upper Egypt.

Egyptian God Set/Seth (horns indicated enlightenment, as with Michelangelo's statue of Moses)

Seth has been recorded with the symbols of pigs, donkeys, and fishes. His cult centers were at Tanis, Ombos, and he was regarded as the Lord of Lower (Northern) Egypt.  Most commonly, Seth was represented by a big-eared imaginary animal with red (reflecting Adam: the red earth) hair resembling a donkey or maybe an aardvark. He was associated with the desert and storms. The Greeks associated Seth with their god, Typhon.  His story is more complete in ancient Egyptian theology than the mythology of Genesis.

Seth was the brother of Osiris, Isis and Nephthys who was also his wife. Nephthys’ son, Anubis was born from her tryst with Osiris, carrying out the Middle East acceptance of adultery and incest. Seth never had any children, as emphasis of his association with the barren desert and of his status as the antithesis of the fertile Osiris. During his battles with Horus, the goddess Neith suggested a compromise by giving Horus the throne, and Seth the Semitic goddesses Astarte (Venus who in Canaanite theology was known as Asherah) and Asat, which gave him two wives like other Middle Eastern Semitic men.

Egyptian God Set/Seth

The story of Seth in Egypt is similar to that of Cain in the Old Testament for Seth became famous for the fratricide of his brother Osiris which most likely is the source for the Genesis account of Cain and Able, and for the attempted murder of his brother’s son, Horus. Horus survived though and avenged his father’s death by ruling all of Egypt and exiling Seth to the desert for all time—similar to Cain’s exile. Seth, however was not willing to accept the loss of his “birthright” and, like the legend of Jacob and Esau, was tricked out of it by his father’s wife.  While Jacob covered his hairless arms with the skins of goats, to fool his father Isaac, Isis transformed herself into a beautiful young woman and went to Seth with tears streaming down her face.  Seth asked the young woman what the matter was and Isis told a story like the situation that she found herself in with Horus: where an evil man had killed her husband and was trying to steal her family’s flocks. Seth became angry at her plight and insisted that the evil man be destroyed and that the young woman’s son should inherit the family’s estate. By his own words, Seth condemned himself, and lost the throne of Egypt.

Story of Seth in ancient Egypt

In the Legend of Osiris, Seth/Set kills Osiris and scatters his body, then claims the throne of the gods for his own. He is later struck down by Horus, the son of Osiris, who restores order to the world and sets up the pharaohs as the guardians of Maat. Seth/Set and Horus continue to battle for control of the world, setting up an epic conflict of good versus evil as would Michael the archangel battle the Fallen Angel (some who claim is Lucifer, others Satan; they are not the same angels: Satan is a Babylonian Son of God who is known as the Adversary or Advocate/Lawyer in Job 2:1, and Lucifer was an angel/god of light {lucem ferre}, while the one Cast Down was “The Devil” (Isaiah 14:3-20), but he is not said to have been “cast down” from heaven—this comes from the Second Book of Enoch Verses 29:4, 31:4 of the longer recension manuscript R.) For an English translation of the story, read:  http://www.touregypt.net/godsofegypt/legendofosiris.htm.  There are, however, many early Church Fathers celebrated this fiction which in time was accepted as fact, as with Tertullian (Contra Marcionem, v. 11, 17), Origen (Homilies on Ezekiel 13), and others, who identify Lucifer with the Devil, erroneously interpreting the Devil as being “cast down from heaven” (by mistranslating  Revelation 12:7–10; cf. Luke 10:18).

As for marriage being between “one man and one woman” as the hate mongers hiding behind the poorly translated bibles argue throughout the Christian world, there is no biblical support for the idea or concept.  Genesis 4:19 says “Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah.” That means that marriage is between one man and two women (which can lead to jealousy and murder: Genesis 4:23).  Jacob, who was not of the House of Cain, also had a plurality of wives, with Leah and Rachel (who were polytheists) being the best known (Genesis 29:32 sqq), including the rare glimpse into their use of sexual devises (they sat on phallic statues of their gods to hide them from their father).

Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 12:10-20), Sarah (Genesis 11:29-31), then “married” (had sex with) her servant Hagar (Genesis 16:1–21:21).  After the death of his wife Sarah takes another wife, Keturah, who has six sons (25:1-4).

Esau, the elder twin son of Isaac and Rebekan (Genesis 25:25) also liked the ladies and married frequently.  The names of Esau’s wives differ in two traditions (Genesis 26:34 and 28:9; cf. 36:2-3).

Moses had at least two wives.  One was Zipporah (who was Moses’ cousin: Exodus 2:15-16 and in Exodus 18:1-6 and continued the Egyptian practice of female circumcision: Exodus 4:24-26).  Moses’ second wife was the “woman of Ethiopia” (http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Ethiopian-Princess the author of this article develops the reality found in the ancient spelling of the Torah where evangelicals attempt to claim that Moses had but one wife—which would be unusual in that day; cf. Numbers 11:35-12:2).  Moses’ polygamy is matched by Elkanah who had two wives: Hannah and Penninah (1 Samuel 1:2).

Saul offers his daughter Michal to David

David had numerous wives (Michal {daughter of King Saul; I Samuel 18:20,28 is unique as it is the first Biblical account of a woman saying that she loved a man, but here the Hebrew word is ahava and it does not mean a romantic love; Saul set a bride-price for the groom David to receive Michal; to risk his life harvesting the foreskin of 100 Philistines, but David returned with the foreskin of 200}, Ahinoam {mother of Amnon; Ahinoam was King Saul’s wife and daughter of Ahimaatz (I Samuel 14:50) and David married her while Saul was still alive and had not divorced her}, Abigail {mother of Kileab; Abigail is the wife of Nabal (whose name denotes a fool or glutton), a wealthy landowner in the Hebron. She is noted as wise and beautiful (I Samuel 25:3) especially in contrast to her husband}; Maacah {mother of Absalom and Tamar and daughter of King Talmai of Geshur}; Haggith {mother of Adonijah}, Eglah {mother of Ithream}, and Abital {mother of Shephatiah}. David’s last wife was Bathsheba, mother of Solomon {David married Bathsheba after having her husband killed; Bathsheba is named as the daughter of Eliam (II Samuel 11: 3) himself the son of Ahithophel one of David’s counselors (II Samuel 23:34) and David had sex with her despite the fact she was menstruating, which was illicit according to Jewish law)’ it is also possible that David married his own sister: According to the Book of Chronicles David had a sister named Abigail (I Chronicles 2:16) whose her husband is named Ithra (or Jether) (2 Samuel 17:26; and I Chronicles 2:17). It is possible that after Nabal’s death David’s sister rule over Hebron, which baits the question of whether or not there were two Abigail’s – one David’s third wife and one his sister, who most likely were sisters-in-law, and even possibly the same person? That implies that David married his sister after the death of his rival Nabal to inherit her estates. Could David marry his sister – it was not unheard of in the ancient mid-east (cf. Levenson, Jon D. (1978) in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, p. 27); David is accused of two sins:  murder and adultery (where death is commanded for both the man and the woman {Leviticus 20:10}), including having sex with his own granddaughter.  For murder, the prophet intoned, David’s punishment was to be ‘the sword shall never depart from your household. (II Samuel 12:10). For adultery his punishment is ‘[God] will raise up against you evil out of your own house . . .  Your wives . . . will lie with your friend . . . in sight of this sun . . . you shall not die . . . the child that is born to you shall surely die’ (II Samuel 12:11-14).  David readily admits his sin and the prophet responds that God will forgive, but David must nevertheless be punished. David’s immediate acceptance of his crime saves his own life but not that of the unborn child (‘And the Lord struck the child’ (II Samuel 12:15). King

Jonathan loved David

David also loved at least one man (Jonathan). David’s love for Jonathan is Biblical evidence that marriage (sexual) union occurred between men, as with David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:1-3) for in the account we read the Hebrew word ahab, used to describe how Jonathan loved David and it does not mean “platonic”; it occurs 208 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. It is translated love in the KJV 169 times and occurs in the story of David and Solomon in 1 Samuel 16:21, 18:1, 3, 16, 20, 20:17 and II Samuel 1:26.

Solomon outdid all of the men in the Old Testament for polygamous marriages.  Solomon had 700 official wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-3).

No where in the Bible is there a rule, law, proclamation, statement from any god in the Old (אֱלהִים: elohim is a plural noun and refers to “god(s)” and/or “goddess(es)”) or New Testament nor is the Jesus of the New Testament that marriage between one man with one woman. 

"Constantine burning Arian books" MS CLXV, Biblioteca Capitolare, Vercelli, a compendium of canon law produced in northern Italy ca. 825 (a political lie, as Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop, this cartoon appears 500 years later). The emperor burned no Arian books.

The Holy Spirit [which was not a part of the Trinity until the fourth century, and was considered one of three divine “persons” {ὑποστάσεις} but of one being {οὐσία} the invention of the Τριάς was established at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE under the order of the Emperor Constantine] used ahab in Genesis 29:20 to describe Jacob’s love for his wife Rachel and in Song of Solomon 3:1-4, to describe the love of the Shunamite girl for Solomon. The love of the Shulamite girl for Solomon is described as coming from her nephesh-soul, just as Jonathan’s love for David sprang from his nephesh-soul. Scripture uses ahabahto describe sexual love in the context of opposite sex marriage in Proverbs 5:19. Compare Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1), Centurian and his servant (Matthew 8), Daniel and Ashpenaz in Daniel 1.  None of these were Sodomites, which refers to a city and the “pagan” (non-Hebrew worshippers of a fertility goddess: Asherah).  A sodomite in the Bible was always a shrine prostitute who worshipped the Canaanite fertility goddess? In many ways, the ancient Sodomites were similar to today’s cult of the Westboro Baptist Church that claims that “god hates…” and the god of Westboro Baptist Church will destroy nations that do not follow the dictates of his priesthood. Cf. Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7 and the non-Hebrew Book of Job 36:14;  all that use the word qadesh: it means “shrine prostitute” or “sacred whore” worshipping and interceding for a non-Hebrew deity.  This is the same term in Isaiah 1:9-10, 3:9, 13:19; Jeremiah 23:14, 49:18, 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Ezekiel 16:46, 48-49 (which clearly defines the sin of the City of Sodom), 53, 55-56; Hosea 4:14 – harlots, qadeshah, shrine prostitutes; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; Matthew 10:15, 11:23-24; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12, 17:29; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 5-7 talks about people and makes no references to LGBT individuals, as it speaks of the past when the Jews were in Egypt (it is worthy of note that the author(s) of Jude uses the Greek word, heteras {ἕτερος: meaning different, as in Acts 2:4 referencing speaking in different tongues} from which we get our English word, heterosexual, instead of the Greek word, homoios, {ίδιο: meaningsame} from which we get our English word, homosexual); Revelation 11:8, 22:15 – dogs (compare Deuteronomy 23:17-18 – “dog” was a derogatory name for a shrine prostitute: a “dog priest”; read: http://levendwater.org/companion/append42.html. The base line is clear: The participles ἐκπορνεύσασαι (ekporneusasai, “having indulged in sexual immorality”: going against consent or using sex in worship) and ἀπελθοῦσαι (apelqousai, “having pursued”) have concord with “cities” (πόλεις, poleis), a feminine plural noun, rather than with Sodom and Gomorrah (both masculine nouns) indicates non-Hebrew values or actions and thus were condemned and had nothing to do with sex between consenting individuals. 

A nephilim and a daughter of man

The Testament of Asher 7:1 boldly declares that the people of Sodom should haveknown that the angels were strangers and thus would have sought them out as occurs in lands where xenophobia is strongest since throughout the Middle East there was a belief that angels/giants {or “Fallen Ones”} sought out the daughters of mortals (Testament of Naphtali 3:3-5; cp. Genesis 6:1-4; Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie March 15, 1905).  These “fallen ones” have long been questioned as to whom they were, what they wanted, etc.  Among the most interesting interpretations is that of Matthew Henry who argued that god had to intervene (Henry, Matthew (1961) Commentary on the Whole Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House):

“The sons of Seth (that is the professors of religion) married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done. They inter-mingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain.”

It was not the sex between the two, but rather that they was an “intermixing” (true believers and nonbelievers) that would ultimately come into being an excuse for condemning interracial marriages and other merging of people.  Henry’s arguments are as spurious and nefarious as most evangelical commentaries, especially those by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Pentecostal movements such as the Adventists, because at no time, before the Flood (a worldwide myth) or after, has God destroyed or threatened to destroy the human race for the alleged sin of “mixed marriages.” 

Like other evangelicals, Henry is over reading the text, as there is no mention of Seth anywhere in this account. The contrast made in Genesis 6:2 is not between the descendants of Seth and the descendants of Cain, but between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.”  Furthermore, only the daughters of Cain were involved—not the sons, and there is no indication of anything but traditional sexuality—definitely no reference to homosexuality with the Fallen Ones.  While Genesis 6:12 acknowledges that “all flesh” is corruptible (and subject to passion”, St. Augustine noted (Aurelius Augustine,The City of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1949), Transl. Marcus Dods) precisely:“Like the gods they have corporeal immortality, and passions like human beings.” The major problem is that the angels in the Old Testament were “Sons of God” (Job 2:1), but in the New Testament are “Servants of God”, and sex is not involved.  There is no reference to specific limitations on marriage—just that a person is to “sin no more” or encounter “strange flesh.”

The last point here is critical.  If Jesus was the Son of God, as many (but not all) fourth century Christians claimed, he would have been tempted by the flesh, had a girl friend, and following Jewish custom, would have married and had children.  Jesus did none of these things.  Instead, the Jesus of the New Testament had no girl friend nor girlfriends, never married (quite strange in during that time, and would led to a family and public rebuking), had 72 male disciples (it is recorded only in Luke 10:1–24; the number is in dispute, between 70 and 72, as The King James, New King James, and the New American Standard Bible read that Jesus “sent forth 70 disciples,” while the New International Version, The Jerusalem Bible, and the New Living Translation reflect that Jesus “sent forth 72 disciples”.  The difference is found in Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece, where the Greek word μετα δε ταυτα ανεδειξεν ο κυριος και ετερους εβδομηκοντα και απεστειλεν αυτους ανα δυο προ προσωπου αυτου εις πασαν πολιν και τοπον ου εμελλεν αυτος ερχεσθαι (“hebdomekonta“).  However, immediately following this word is the Greek word δύο or “duo” in brackets (duo) and must be translated “two.” Footnotes of several translations indicate that the Greek manuscripts are divided between 70 and 72 as the number sent out and there is no way to be sure of which one is the original. Both represent the number of nations in the world in Genesis 10, with the Hebrew text having 70 names while the Greek text has 72) and stayed with twelve men (only one who was married but never was with his wife: Peter according to the Bible (Matthew 8:14), but early Church Fathers claimed that all were married except “John the Beloved of Jesus” who “remained chaste for Jesus”; cf. http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=489266&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2006&Author=&Keyword=apostles+were+married&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=; Saul of Tarsus/St. Paul was never married: 1 Corinthians 9:5), and let another man (John the Beloved) lay his head on his chest {John 13:25 and 21:20}, who

St. John rests his head on the chest of Jesus

Jesus allowed to rest his head there “because he loved him”—as he had loved the brother of Mary and Martha who died but after he was restored to life disappeared—when John enters into Jesus community as being “born again” {John 11:1-44}), and have a nude youth follow him out of the Garden of Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives (Mark 14:51-52 that is a revision of the Expulsion from the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve were expelled).  These are marks of a

Codex Sinaiticus Luke 11:2 on the prayer of Jesus

servant—which is emphasized in Jesus’ ultimate speech where he prays (cf. Luke 11:2) that “this cup” (of impending death) be removed—a power that, as the Son of God, he would have been able to do, as the Advocate (Satan) noted in the Temptation in the Desert—but which Jesus rejected as would a faithful servant.  

 Jesus made no statement on marriage throughout his three-year career as a teacher (http://preachersfiles.com/jesus-teaching-on-marriage-and-divorce/).  Neither did his disciples nor apostles. He had no quarrel with women; he had no interest in what people did privately provided they did not go against trust, charity, or the spirit of the law (Matthew 19:9).

Council of Nicaea 325 CE (Constantine I, depicted twice on the vertical axis of the icon, seated on an elevated throne above and below, standing on a pedestal in conversation with St. Nicholas, flanked by the Bishops in attendance, St. Alexander of Alexandria, who presided over the council, kneeling to the left and praying to the image of the youthful Christ under a baldachin, standing to the right of Constantine, Arius and his followers, identifiable by their lack of halos, in the lower right corner)

These acts brought into question the very divinity—an argument that tore apart the Christian community until the Emperor Constantine stepped in to the argument in the fourth century CE and formed his Christian Church when he called the Council of Nicaea to iron out their differences.  Chief among these “heresies” was Arianism. Arianism was a major heresy that arose in the fourth century and denied the divinity of Jesus Christ.  First effectively advanced by Arius (256-336), a priest of Alexandria, who denied that there were three distinct divine Persons in God, Arius saw most of the early Fathers turn to favor his position; in fact, Eusebius of Caesarea (who wrote the first fifty copies of the bible under the direct order of the Emperor Constantine, was an Arian, and the bishop who baptized the emperor on his deathbed (against the will of the emperor) was also an Arian). For Arius, there was only one Person, the Father. According to Arian theory, the Son was created (“There was a time when he was not”). Christ was thus a son of God, not by nature, but only by grace and adoption. This theory logically evacuates the doctrine of the Incarnation of God in Christ of all meaning: if God did not become man, then the world has not been redeemed and the faith itself eventually dissolves.

In 321, Arius was denounced by a synod at Alexandria for teaching a heterodox view of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father. Because Arius and his followers had great influence in the schools of Alexandria—counterparts to modern universities or seminaries—their theological views spread, especially in the eastern Mediterranean.

By 325, the controversy had become significant enough that the Emperor Constantine called an assembly of bishops, the First Council of Nicaea, that formally condemned Arianism and, under imperial pressure, formulated and promulgated the Nicene Creed.  Arianism, however, did not disappear as the emperor’s son and heir was an Arian, and Arianism was furthered by Anomeanism which was a radical variant of Arianism that held that the Son was “unlike” (Greek: animoios) the Father.

The letter ascribed to Jude, the brother of Jesus, brought many back to the original meaning: indicating that the sexual dimension of Sodom’s sin involved going after “flesh” (Greek: σάρκα transliterated as sarkos) that was “different/strange” (Greek: ἕτερος transliterated as heteras)–of nonbelievers or Fallen ones–and that the ultimate sin was lack of charity and friendship.  The word “homosexual” does not exist anywhere in the text, nor does “same-sex.”  “Homosexual” does not appear before the end of the nineteenth century, and “same-sex” relationships are not defined before the twentieth century. To find the word “homosexual” in a Bible is easy with the numerous modern editions published by various sects and cults, but it does not appear in any of the original documents.  The words “homosexual” and “same sex” are inserted words in numerous contemporary erroneously bad editions and have led to the rise of hatred for people, the drive to execute LGBT members in the most diabolical nations on this planet from Uganda and Nigeria to the USA.  At the same time it has led to the creation of a separation of people worse than what the German people did when Adolf Hitler rose to power and the Christian

Interior of Berlin synagogue after Kristallnach 1938

churches celebrated the destruction of Jewish synagogues (Kristallnacht), arrest of women, children, elderly and babies and festivals given on news of the Jews mass extermination (Reichskristallnacht, Pogromnacht, and Novemberpogrome), with the Roman Catholic church, the Lutheran (official) Church of Germany, the Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other evangelicals celebrating publicly and in private.  Ninety-one Jews were killed and 30,000 Jewish men—a quarter of all Jewish men in Germany—were taken to concentration camps, where they were tortured for months, with over 1,000 of them dying. Around 1,668 synagogues were ransacked, and 267 set on fire (“‘German Mobs’ Vengeance on Jews,” The Daily Telegraph, November 11, 1938, cited in Gilbert, Martin (2006). Kristallnacht: Prelude to Destruction. Harper Collins, p. 42).

Translation: With Luther and Hitler for faith and nationality (Poster of the Saxon Bishop Friedrich Coch and Nazis, which illustrates the "church struggle" of the German national socialist-minded Christians and the Confessing Church in 1933 in Saxony. The Dresden Frauenkirche in the Nazi era became a focal point of confrontation between the "German Christians" and the "Confessing Church". The parish staff was split.)

This evil not only impregnated the German Reich but spread like a thunderous virus into Austria where in Vienna alone 95 synagogues or houses of prayer were destroyed (loc. cit., pp. 30-33) and the Roman Catholic, Protestant and evangelical clergy celebrated the destruction in a manner almost as nefarious as the encouragement of genocide of homosexuals in Nigeria by the pseudo-pastor Scott Lively and would-be but unlicensed psychologist Marcus Bachmann of Minnesota, husband of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (both are Lutherans and celebrate the writings of the spiritual grandfather of Adolf Hitler and the Lutheran church in Germany) whose xenophobia is worse than any Nazi who breathed from 1939-1945. 

Bishop Martin Sasse, a leading Protestant churchman, published a compendium of Martin Luther’s writings shortly after the Kristallnacht; Sasse “applauded the burning of the synagogues” and the coincidence of the day, writing in the introduction, writing: “On November 10, 1938, on Luther’s birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany.”   Sasse urged the German people to heed these words “of the greatest anti-Semite of his time [Martin Luther], the warner of his people against the Jews” (read: Bernd Nellessen, “Die schweigende Kirche: Katholiken und Judenverfolgung,” in Büttner (ed), Die Deutschen und die Judenverfolgung im Dritten Reich, p. 265; the German evangelicals were the strongest supporters of Hitler’s murderous programs as exists identically in the USA with the insanity of Iowa’s self-proclaimed prophet-pastor and former coach Robert Vander Plaats who leads the charge against those who do not share his concept of god nor accept his diktat on the correct lifestyle in a Kingdom of God that Vander Plaats terms FAMiLY [sic].) Diarmaid MacCulloch argued that Luther’s 1543 pamphlet Von den Jüden und jren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) was a “blueprint” for the Kristallnacht (MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2004). Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490-1700. New York: Penguin Books Ltd, 2004, pp. 666-667).

From Martin Luther to Adolf Hitler

On November 15, just days after the initial pogrom was started by the Nazis, Evangelical Lutheran Bishop Sasse distributed a pamphlet entitled Martin Luther on the Jews: Away with Them! (Martin Luther über die Juden: Weg mit Ihnen!).  In this tract the German Lutheran bishop reprinted excerpts from Luther’s notorious 1543 pamphlet, Against the Jews and Their Lies, urging the destruction of Jewish property (cf. http://jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/article6524.html?articleid=452).  Rejoicing in the terrorism of the Nazis in the early years of the twentieth century, identical to the call for the execution of homosexuals in Nigeria, Uganda, Liberia, and other intolerant African nations by Scott Lively and other far-right evangelical extremists in the USA, Bishop Stasse claimed that Kristallnacht was fulfilling the goals of Luther; the Nazis were acting as Christians.  Luther’s psychology has been studied by numerous professionals, but the most succinct reads:

Was Luther am ordinären und kriminellen Ablaßhandel und Papsttum geißelte und anprangerte, war sicher echte Empörung, aus grundanständiger Motivation und wirklichem Gerechtigkeitsempfinden entstanden. Aber Luther war nicht nur ein Großer im Guten, es war auch ein ganz Großer im Schlechten: in der Glaubensfrage überhaupt, in der Frauenfrage, in der Bauernfrage, in der Herrschafts- und Obrigkeitsfrage und in der Judenfrage, und er litt auch an dem paranoiden Auserwählt-Syndrom, wie die meisten religiösen Führer. Seine haßerfüllten und vernichtenden Urteile gegenüber den Juden, Fremden und Andersdenkenden unterscheiden sich, obwohl “nur” religiös und nicht rassisch motiviert, wenig – aber doch in der Vernichtungsfrage – von denen der Nationalsozialisten, kein Wunder, daß diese sich gern auf ihn beriefen, im Einklang mit einigen evangelischen Bischöfen (z.B. Sasse, Lebensdaten). Betrachtet man die Blutspuren, die die meisten Religionen hinterlassen haben, muß man zu dem zwingenden Urteil gelangen, daß die meisten nichts taugen, mit am wenigsten die der “drei Betrüger” (Moses, Jesus, Mohammed), wobei man Luther hier ruhig als den vierten großen Betrüger dazu zählen darf; sie sind zum großen Teil Tarnkappen und Verkleidungen psychopathischer, psychopathologischer,  soziopathischer und krimineller Machenschaften. Religionen und Sekten sind vielfach ein Hort und Schutzreservat für psychisch Gestörte, Verbrecher und Geschäftemacher. So sicher Luther kein lumpiger Geschäftemacher war, wie vielfach die Päpste, Bischöfe und ihre globale Ablaß-Mafia (Tetzel) seiner Zeit, so sicher liefert er – zumindest aus heutiger Sicht – dramatische Zeichen von Soziopathie und Verbrechertum. Seine Psychopathographie sei einer anderen Arbeit vorbehalten. Hier geht es um den Lutherischen Antisemitismus, von dem die evangelische Kirche sich längst hätte klar und deutlich – sozusagen “lutherisch” – distanzieren müssen.

(On the “Jewish Question” and Luther which can be compared with Hitler, see: http://www.sgipt.org/sonstig/metaph/luther/judens.htm) The continuing assault on homosexuals and those seeking same-sex marriages in the wasteland of Iowa and other backward states in the USA under the grip of theological terrorists from Wisconsin’s Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) and Indiana to New Jersey and Florida, Sasse, held to a strict literalist interpretation of scripture and not only opposed the Jews, but those who committed adultery, were homosexuals, and read, saw, or even printed pornography, his arguments now used by Iowa’s self-proclaimed defender of the family, Robert Vander Plaats and other dangerous demagogues in the

Robert Vander Plaats

USA.  The fact that Iowa and other radical right states take no action against the incendiary invocations of Vander Plaats and his rabid army of Christian defenders, makes Iowa and other states complicit in future assassinations of LGBT communities and other marginalized groups: their governors and legislators must be held accountable for their people’s crimes against humanity and each legislator who does not raise his or her voice against Vander Plaats and similar miscreants are no better than those who remained silent during the purge and putsche of Adolf Hitler.

Salem Evangelical Lutheran Church, North Minneapolis MN

So popular was the German Luther, that until July 2011, presidential candidate Michele Bachmann praised her radical WELS church and the writings of Martin Luther before abandoning it in favor of political opportunism.  Martin Luther’s treatise On the Jews and their Lies (1543), exercised a major and persistent intellectual influence upon the German practice of anti-Semitism against Jewish citizens and has led to numerous members in the WELS to enter the KKK and USA version of the Nazi Party.

The Nazis in Hitler’s Germany publicly displayed an original of On the Jews and their Lies during the annual Nuremberg rallies, and the city presented a first edition of it to Julius Streicher, the editor of Der Stürmer, which described Luther’s treatise as the most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published (cp. Michael, Robert (2006). Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, chapter 4 “The Germanies from Luther to Hitler,” pp. 105–151; and Hillerbrand, Hans J. “Martin Luther,” in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2007. Hillerbrand writes: “[H]is strident pronouncements against the Jews, especially toward the end of his life, have raised the question of whether Luther significantly encouraged the development of German anti-Semitism. Although many scholars have taken this view, this perspective puts far too much emphasis on Luther and not enough on the larger peculiarities of German history”).

Heinrich Himmler

Schutzstaffel (SS) Chief Heinrich Himmler, initially a supporter of, defended Ernst Röhm — the homosexual leader of the Sturmabteilung (SA [Brown Shirts]) after the Nazis the Nazi Party purged the homophile clubs of LGBT Berliners. In keeping with the writings of Luther and other evangelicals, Hitler outlawed academic and pornographic sexual publications in a manner that Iowa’s Vander Plaats has copied for his infamous “Contract” for Tea Party and conservative GOP presidential candidates to sign—a contract that Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum rushed to sign with a fervor greater than any Nazi known while Hitler lived.

Divorce - Marriage rate comparison in USA

Following the spirit and law of Hitler, Vander Plaats whose extremist speechifying has barked out orders to outlaw all pornography, re-establish the mythological family in Christianity—a family where there are twice as many divorces as there are marriages, and end homosexuality in the same manner that occurred in March 1933, when Kurt Hiller, the organizer of Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institut für Sexualwissenschaft(Institute of Sex Research), was imprisoned to a concentration camp. Vander Plaats supporters in private “schools” such as the Pella, Iowa “Christian school”, like the Hitler Youth, began their attacks in private, in imitation of that fateful day of 6 May 1933, when Hitler Youth members attacked the Institute of Sex

The Pope as the Whore of Babylon, as portrayed in a woodcut by Martin Luther's friend and artist, Lucas Cranach, September 1522.

Research and publicly incinerated its library and archives in the streets, are irrational panic-mongering mercenaries in Vander Plaats’ xenophobic army in a wacky exercise in revisionist history by claiming that basic rights have never been guaranteed in the USA.  Bachmann’s pastor requested that the presidential candidate in the USA leave the Salem Evangelical Lutheran Church for fear that its controversial stand (its pastor, who no longer accepts calls from the media or researchers and requires his secretary to ask all callers the nature of their inquiry and their church affiliation as if the secretary was the Grand Inquisitor, claims that the Pope is the anti-Christ which the church claims is Biblical {as did Martin Luther, but has no foundation when reading Matthew 16:18}and holds the former German monk Martin Luther as being divinely inspired { http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/michele-bachmanns-church-says-the-pope-is-the-antichrist/241909/}, a view Mrs. Bachmann publicly claims she does not hold as she “loves Catholics”) could hurt her chances to win the presidency and thus restore the USA to being a Protestant Christian nation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bachmann-left-church-at-pastors-request-official-says/2011/07/15/gIQAfGGuGI_story.html?wprss=).  Although Bachmann and her family had stopped attending the church in 2009, it was not until June 21, 2011, that her name was formally withdrawn from its membership roles.

Book burning in Sioux Falls, South Dakota

The Nazis of the Third Reich, being prototypes for FAMiLY functionaries and supporters in Iowa and South Dakota, including the Bachmanns and Santorum, destroyed some 20,000 books and journals, as well as some 5,000 images. They also seized the Institute’s rosters of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender patients.  After the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler promoted Himmler, who then zealously suppressed homosexuality, saying: “We must exterminate these people root and branch … the homosexual must be eliminated” (Plant, Richard (1986), The Pink Triangle: the Nazi war against homosexuals. New York: H. Holt, p. 99).  In 1936, Himmler established the “Reichszentrale zur Bekämpfung der Homosexualität und Abtreibung” (“Reich Central Office for

Vander Plaats' website (see the final entry) and compare it with Hitler's printed propaganda

the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion”). The Nazis officially declared that homosexuality was contrary to “wholesome popular sentiment”, identifying gay men as “defilers of German blood” (this is the same argument used by Robert Vander Plaats who equates all sexual diseases from STDs to HIV and AIDS to homosexual activity, although medical science shows that no one, heterosexual or homosexual, is immune to the equal opportunity viruses, and makes Vander Plaats crusade for dollars easier as most Iowans remain ignorant of medical fact because of evangelicals misuse of scripture that none can read in the original Attic Greek). The Nazi régime incarcerated some 100,000 homosexuals during the 1930s (Bennetto, Jason (1997-11-01). “Holocaust: Gay activists press for German apology”. The Independent at  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_/ai_n14142669), with concentration camp prisoners, homosexual men were forced to wear pink triangle badges (cp. Pretzel, Andreas (2005). “Vom Staatsfeind zum Volksfeind. Zur Radikalisierung der Homosexuellenverfolgung im Zusammenwirken von Polizei und Justiz”. In Zur Nieden, Susanne (2005). Homosexualität und Staatsräson. Männlichkeit, Homophobie und Politik in Deutschland 1900-1945. Frankfurt/M.: Campus Verlag, p. 236).  It is interesting to note that Hitler used the Bible and Martin Luther to define marriage—and like Martin Luther, Hitler had no idea of what the Bible really said—as he was busy reading Martin Luther’s “translation” of the scriptures that had little in common with the original scrolls and texts, and nothing in common with the Codex Vaticanus, which is one of the oldest extant manuscripts of the Greek Bible (Old and New Testament and is dated, palaeographically, to the 4th century CE; there major differences in the two

Codex Bezae (6th century CE)

codex and other codices, for Codex Bezae (written in the sixth century and has been used for centuries to argue that Jesus was Cesar, see: http://www.carotta.de/subseite/echo/tumult-e.html although the Greek characters do not come through easily) says that Jesus was angry, rather than compassionate {Codex Sinaticus}, when he healed a leper (Mark 1.41). The Sinaiticus omits “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever” from the Lord’s Prayer; and are words that Protestants add to the end of the Lord’s Prayer, as with Martin Luther and evangelicals) and the Codex Sinaiticus (Hebrew: קודקס סינאיטיקוס‎, Greek: Σιναϊτικός Κώδικας) which is an ancient, handwritten copy of the Greek Bible written in the fourth century CE. 

NOM's original president Maggie Gallagher speaking at the Cato Institute, February 17th 2010

Contrary to Maggie Gallagher who was the original founder for the National Organization for Marriage (its oversight committee includes Chuck Stetson who is Chairman of the Board, Bible Literacy Project that has as its purpose to put the Christian Bible in all classrooms public and private and educate teachers as its authenticity, reliability and historicity), Luis Tellez (President, Witherspoon Institute Board of Trustees to promote traditional marriage, wants divorce illegal, and works against stem cell research and other scientific issues) and others, and who has spoken out that the Bible demands that marriage is between one man and one woman–that is not true anywhere in the Bible.  The word “marriage” is found only as a reference to sexual union without gender specification.

11 Comments

Filed under Adolf Hitler, Ancient Egypt, Bible, Black Americans, Church history, Evangelical Christianity, Homosexuality, Iowa, Jesus Christ, Martin Luther, Michele Bachmann, Nazis, Robert Vander Plaats, Third Reich