The myth of “Healthy Marriage //Responsible Fatherhood” turns to be out a turnkey system for administrative expansion of an imperialist (increasingly fascist) federal control of all aspects of life in the “States.” It is a theology of domination on the basis of assumed superiority, which means, in violation of basic human rights. Humans are divided into two genders, and one is judged to be superior or more valuable than the others.

Like most theologies it’s also hypocritical — and justifies turning the pendulum towards “fatherhood” because the SAME ENTITIES (i.e., the welfare system, centralized wealth redistribution through income taxes, etc.) were allegedly unfair to men as a whole by virtue of feminism, which is a threat to the state, etc.

In that, they are probably right.

To appeal to the basest instincts of all humans — fear, and paranoia about change, and whipping up some hate. This is overt, but when tied perhaps to the emotional topic of “children’s best interests” and the noble concept of “work” (which turns out to mean, translated, “produce more income taxes and consumer purchases” for the bureaucracy), with most likely a Puritan/Calvinist spin in there somewhere — distracts most of us from paying attention to the central HQ operations because we are frantically planning for the future and trying to stay ahead of the crowd, and within our local social circles, IF they existed — or exit them, if they were dangerous or substandard.

Recently, I spent some time on a site called “Crying out for Justice” and “Not Under Bondage” (the name of a book by a survivor of abuse, and apparently aware of Christian marital abuse also); a related (though I believe this one is intercontinental) pastor had a sudden awakening ca. 2009 and is talking about domestic violence IN THE CHURCH, often citing and promoting Lundy Bancroft, whose field is therapy and mental health, not religion, and who has his data, originally (it seems) from batterers intervention programs many years ago. There are accounts nearby of a church, suddenly exercising its corporate rights, suing a former? member, which brings up two topics — Corporations, and Church MEMBERSHIP.

The publications and blogs are then reviewed and circulated, apparently by third parties, under blog titles such as A Cry for Justice: How the Evil of Domestic Abuse Hides in Your Church, teaching that the real key is to recognize an abuse (assuming that the problem is,not recognizing it, and that, if recoqnized, surely someone will clean house somehow and take appropriate action…. and if they don’t, it’s because they don’t understand (which of course the publications and trainings can help with).

I find that a little disturbing coming from a former police officer, who, one would think, would already know the relevant laws regarding abuse (domestic violence), and something of the arrest, prosecution, and release factors — which knowledge, in addition to all the spiritual knowledge imparted,  I believe would be more useful.  In addition, someone oughter edumacate the flocks, as I’m at least TRYING to, and others (see links!) HAVE been reporting, after any separation.  Especially after any child support or custody/visitation order — they are going to have to deal with the family court system in whichever jurisdiction it lands.  Basically, if one steps in a courtroom (or near it) and files, you’re in that ballpark, possibly as the ball…

As it turns out, the family courts are also inhabited by all kinds of corporations with specialized memberships and world views as well.  So we should get this “What’s a Corporation?” thing on the table anytime a myth (or even relevant and reasonable) world view is being propagated, and that propagation and dissemination involves the exchange of goods and services for a fee, i.e., it’s commerce.

Acknowledging that many (if not most) churches in THIS century in the US exist as corporations, and often engage in commerce as landlords or owners of real estate, would bring up the topic of incorporating — and of taxes — and of the law.  From there, having a better-informed congregation (or parishioners), perhaps that might be ONE way pastors could address the matter of “abuse. ” Simply, as the authoritative and trusted spiritual guides they can be, and often wish to be, they can gently remind people that along with the laws of heaven as citizens of the coming kingdom, citizens of THIS world are to comply with the the laws of their country of jurisdiction. Should I put up a sample page to remind us that they exist?

Perhaps this should also be posted in public places with a link to a website, and NOT just a link to a local domestic violence agency, either.

Particularly if they wish to convert or win (as opposed to give birth to or just internationally adopt orphans) more to the cause, it would be helpful to admit that there are earthly authorities around, and earthly laws against beating up on women, or having sex with (or otherwise molesting — or stealing) minors.

And in this (earthly) kingdom/world (choose a noun), at least on the books — at least in the penal code and part of the family code — you don’t go around breaking the law against your “beloved,” even IF you are both “one flesh” and have vowed before God and witnesses to love one another faithfully til death do you part (or whatever vows were uttered).

For one, it’d be a standard of comparison for the flock.  For another, time is of the essence once the abuse has begun, often with kids in attendance.  I sure could’ve used such information countless assaults (and years) before it was finally brought in front of my face, at which time I acted on it; information of what lay ahead in the family court venue was on a “Need To Know” basis, which apparently women didn’t need to know. Finally, I got tired of “not knowing” and set about “finding out.”

Other Subtitles which come up in a search result include Crying Out for Justice: Awakening the Evangelical Church …. or I found one from a “Complementarian” site (specialized religious term, interesting…) Why Abusive Men Repudiate True Manhood: Letter to an Abusive Husband attempting to appeal to his better nature, and not abuse the manly headship God has given him as a husband (Ephesians 5)…. it is a stench in God’s nostrils, etc. A sample:

Ephesians 5 teaches that a man is head of his wife.  There is no textually faithful way to take this verse other than to conclude that it teaches manly leadership in the home.  But this does not mean that a man can lord his God-given strength over his wife and family

Hmm. Using the word “textually faithful” doesn’t mean that the verse fragment is in context, which it isn’t. Here’s the link to the entire chapter, which is Chapter 5 out of 6. There is a verse I’ll bet almost every battered Christian woman knows by heart, as it contains the word “wives” and the word “submit,” and may be indeed one of the few verses that her batterer a.k.a. spouse, actually understands and that the local congregration is going to back him up on, as they also demand submission to themselves, sometimes abusing it also.

This is about linguistic honesty, and about institutions. Bear with me, please…it is political, and it’s relevant to you atheists, nonProtestants, and even nonparents…for one, we have to function in a common commercial world, and might as well understand how some spiritual enclaevs find their places in it.

The link I provided is to a hyperactive (“KJS”) version in which you can click on any single word and see the related Greek. I did this because, the context of this book is about (see Chapter 1 — good place to start!), the “Hope of the calling” and spiritual matters regarding the body of Christ, and for that matter (after three chapters of the unity in the spirit) and another, chapter 4, on “one Lord, One Faith, One Baptism,” and how through the resureection and God’s wisdom, the “wall of separation” was broken down (etc.) — the “Church” is to walk worthy of this calling. However, the average “church” is not on that model anyhow, and the word in our culture has become a muddied theological confusion over who’s in, who’s out, who’s off, who’s on, and how to (yes, Protestants in particular) excommunicate dissidents and turn a cold shoulder to them, particularly if they actually bring problems (like spousal abuse, incest, molestation — lying stealing, cheating, adultery, etc. — the usual….) into the place which the “church” doesn’t feel like facing yet, as they may cut too close to home for comfort.

I’m bolding the word “church’ which pops up in this so often, because a lot of this post, and for that matter, a WHOLE lot of American culture, is being framed by the varying concepts of “church,” which is also a corporate status under the tax code, and is moreover a form of nonprofit organization. It’s a BUSINESS in our time. However, in that time, the word meant something different.

The Greek word for “church” is simply “ekklesia” which relates to “calling” which is in many ways the theme of the book. It’s HARDLY about who’s on top among the church, and the word “manly” doesn’t occur in there, which shows our “letter to an abusive husband” man, above, may not have seen fit to quote the section, or be in the habit of quoting scripture, let alone doing so in context.

For the record (as I do consider scripture, including the epistles of Paul, among the most elegant, beautiful and inspiring texts around. Apparently others do (visit the Hallmark religious section of any drug store around mothers’ day, fathers’ day, graduation, times of sympathy (death in the family), illness, graduation, marriage, anniversary, or almost ANY other time — and you will see religious cards, among them sometimes one on “LOVE” (taken from I Corinthians 13). Apparently this small dosage of verse, people can handle, if it’s not too confrontational…

IN CONTEXT is easily found just by READING MORE:

Prior to this oh-so-favorite reference for many conservative churches (plus the Catholic church of course), in context, that book (epistle to the Ephesians), in its natural flow, talks about walking (i.e., manner of life, behavior) in light of this wonderful calling and future purpose of God. It talks about walking WORTHY, walking NOT AS OTHER GENTILES (i.e., lyng stealing, etc.),walking in LOVE, walking in LIGHT, walking CIRCUMSPECTLY, and so forth.

Further down on this post, I have another table, same background-color, which a little better defines “church” in action, in our day and time, according to practice.

End of Chapter One — although it begins with the word “chosen” the book is definitely more about “called,” and what this signifies. The practical matters (family relationships while waiting for the return of Christ) are not the focus of the book; they are neither first, nor last, but near the end. This, however, is near the beginning (i.e., Chapter 1, not that it originally had chapters, OR verses….). Please notice, apparently the writer was aware of the groups FAITH and LOVE, was thankful for it, prayed that they might be spiritually enlightened also as to the HOPE of their calling. (See end of this chapter, that’s the famous trio of end of I Corinthians 13: “Now abide these three Faith, Hope, Charity (love/agape), but the greatest of these is charity.” Apparently male dominance and female submission, even “family,” let alone building buildings and incorporating associations in the name of Christ, didn’t make the list of the most important qualities for “the church”

Where’s the “manly leadership of wives” in this opening chapter? Where’s the word “fatherhood”? And what’s the word “church” mean there, anyhow? What it means now?

What happened to the word “CHURCH” and where did it come from? The word “assembly” or “Congregation” or “those called” would be more accurate. The word should be eradicated, updated, or (as that’s not likely to happen), we (ALL — including atheists) ought to have a mental translator which puts its usage in context. And in this century in America, post-1941, it means literally a state-subsidized nonprofit organization, which means, accumulating wealth (and real estate) is going to be easier for such organizations (despite some obvious marketplace competition with the same); it is (post-2001 for sure) going to attract “faith-based” funding to start up some nice little 501(c)3 grantees — sometimes out of the same address — and its pastors’ housing costs are deductible; yes, even Joyce Meyer’s… There are many, many current usages which have nothing to do with what’s in the Bible, even now.

As the general purpose of “empires” is to subjugate, why then are we so shocked or surprised when this also happens, regularly, in “churches”?

“CHURCH” in the favorite “SUBMIT” verse

In this context, “church” has nothing to do with Gothic cathedral or storefront, or the Crystal Cathedral in southern California, or Saddleback and pastors who issue multiple trademarks and write books about Purpose-Driven Lives (I saw one the other day, about a “Purpose Driven Prophet, (co. 2009, USA only)” in the “Men of Integrity” series, good grief! Then other, more correct teachers get to lambast it on the blogosphere.

“Church” above had nothing to do with 501(c)3s — this is pre-tax code, as to at least the United States. In this time, the Roman empire ruled Jerusalem, and there was no Christianity, or even Judaesm as an official state-sanctioned religion, it was pre-Constantine. It has also nothing to do with evangelical protestants vying with the older, larger, and wealthier Catholics, who were “the bad guys” religiously for customers. This was before King Henry the VIII started the Church of England to get divorced; it was simply a different time, a different place, and what a shame people dono’t bother to translate, even a little bit, “what time it is” when throwing around this word “church,” as if what was then actually is now.

If you want a little more etymology of the word “church”– but I still think it relevant for the discussion to keep in mind how very LITTLE relationship there is between what was then, what is now, and even the word “church” to the words of the Bible. Even Tyndale (ca. 1500s and obviously one of my personal heroes when it comes to the scriptures) didn’t use the word in his translations (for which he was eventually hunted down by the King and burned at the stake, as others before him, while attempting to translate on the fly. He was a prodigious tranlator and scholar, and paid the ultimate price for it, too):

from The origin and meaning of the word ‘church’

. . .
Some bible-translations do not use the word “church”. For instance Tyndale in his 1525 translation used it only twice, in both cases as a reference to buildings that were used for idol worship.

Acts 14:13 Then Iupiters Preste which dwelt before their cite brought oxe and garlondes vnto the churche porche and wolde have done sacrifise with the people. (TYN)

Acts 19:37 For ye have brought hyther these me[n] whiche are nether robbers of churches nor yet despisers of youre goddes. (TYN)

Again, the above-quoted 1525 Tyndale translation uses the word “church” only in these two passages, both of which refer to idol temples. – When it comes to the Greek word ekklêsia, he rendered it as “congregation” (using the spelling congregacion).

If you want to see me struggling, or arguing the topic of scripture versus corporate identities (as well as where I’m coming from in general), I did start a blog “JESUSLORDCHRIST.blogspot.com” (last post Dec. 2012), but found the skinny width of posts too much. However, from 9/6/2012, “How Crazy Is It? Boilerplate Creeds vs. Scripture. Plus Incorporation” That was a few posts before I discovered there was a business entity called “The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,” which should be filed right alongside “Responsible Fatherhood” — in the Trash. Apparently “complementarian” means, keep the headship of males, but be nice about it. I say, no deal — churches are 501(c)3s, special status, that, should we ever have a world in which those privileges are actually revoked, we’d have more peace and less need for soup kitchens and homeless shelters. But for the record, I do not identify as an “atheist,” and try to steer clear of actual assemblies where the theme is, “Woman (a.k.a. “Eve”) get thou behind me.” and walk my own walk somewhere else. I do have a sense of calling that is tied now to a sense of justice as well. A lot of this has to do with getting language straight, and simply more honest labeling…

I think this next topic has universal relevance. But that’s just me…. I was thinking, actually, about a single phrase from an archaeological site about the Assyrian empire (way back when) stating “the principal business of government.” It’s on this blog. Expansion for plunder, and with the spoils, building monuments ot the national gods.

I don’t know why we think that the USA, or EU, specifically, are somehow exceptions to that rule. While the US allegedly and historically was supposed to be unique, individual, and wholly different upon the earth — if they were (I believe so, actually), they STILL did it wiping out indigenous populations, starting as colonies, and for the most part, as slave-holders. And, after fighting a war for independence, they had DEBT. As these things goes, the debtor is always going to be subjugated to the lendor; it’s the way of life.

If we understand the entire topic of “abuse” or “batterers” and “family courts” from this perspective, it would probably fit together more coherently. Batterers are tyrants, and one of the aspects of having to continually stand up to one (other than pain!) is you can’t work to full productivity, and if you stand up to one through the courts (criminal or civil), you are smack into the territory of federal policies towards men adn women, fathers, mothers, and children — and into the economic sphere. ou are into the core essence of what our taxes go towards — and in this matter, sooner or later, we have to face the acts — which facts are shown NOT just in effects and affects, but on Articles of Incorporation and on Financial Statements. As to government, these are CAFRS, moreso than the Budgets. If you cannot accept that yet, understand that The Vatican has all these components, and this particular City-State/Holy See/ etc. is possibly the “mother of them all” when it comes to corporations, and if it does indeed date back to the time of Constantine, then what we are dealing with in “Churches” has little to do with “Jesus” (and the gospel) except for drawing in the crowds.

This also applies for evangelical and any other kind of “Protestants” which came afterwards and had to form in response to, or flight from, the same. We are in the world of empires, whether corporate or monarchy or Pope, or megachurch (etc.).

It is actually very relevant to discuss the history of one of the oldest civilizations around, which started as it turns out, in the (fertile) plains of Nineveh, on the Tigris (can you say “Fertile Crescent”), and whose history continues right up to this century. The Assyrians were mentioned with fear and dread in the Bible, and they were an empire. I learned today that in the first century BC (it’s said) they converted to Christianity, and now as Christians they are being persecuted and decimated (and fleeing) Northern Iraq, particularly after an American President decided to invade. The primary god “Asshur” bears some resemblance to what, from what I can tell, the current CORPORATE Christianity worships today.

I find this fascinating. You may not; hey — that’s fine. But I’m still telling what I can see — if we are expecting JUSTICE from an EMPIRE, then we are the ones that need our heads examined. It turns out that the manner in which the Assyrians (back then) expanded their territories bears a STRONG resemblance to our current federal system, in which the place is regionalized, and loyalty is assured to the palace (loyalty to royalty) as all are fed from the central system, and feed into it.

If you can’t see that when conceptualizing and considering the IRS and the USA — you’re blind. Wake up! There are religious/government parallels. It’s time to understand it and adjust the language when seeking justice, redress, or change.

A friend of mine recently talked about how the colonists got the idea of more equality (which I see included, between the sexes) from the Native Americans, i.e., the people living on this Great Turtle Island (the word “America” comes from an Italian) before them. Gradually, I am coming to understand this, even though as a Christian (non-attending) and person with high appreciation of the Bible, I have to understand that the same Bible is opposed to anything occult, shamanic, or what we might call “new age.” But above and beyond that, I see that the primary message — and especially the messenGERS — of those carrying “the gospel” has been social transformation to facilitate colonization. And that as part of disrupting others’ social structures, they HAD to institute the domination of men over women, who in many other cultures are respected for their life-giving roles and capacities, and for who they are.

With the ability to hate, fear, and plan to dominate and exploit WOMEN (the entire gender) comes the tendency (and purpose) to also hate, fear, and plan to dominate and exploit “the other” — other people. And in the process, as technology advances, to increasingly tear up the planet wiping out native species (not just people), and polluting the place. As a person who respects and seeks truth — I have to address this.

Coordinating Community Response (“CCR”) Model of Preventing Violence is still a MODEL

This “model” has made people famous, I can cite a certain technology provider it helped make a millionaire, not that this wouldn’t have happened otherwise, and for “MODELS” to work, someone must pay for the model, and there has to be a substance to work with which is going to be re-formulated (like clay, marble, or bronze) into the desired shape.

What I object to in this regard is that the “substance” is people themselves, and the funds come from us to start with. Like any truly inspired visionaries, those who came up with this have a significant ability to tune out others — it’s called “focus.” I know plenty about it. My vision, however, doesn’t entail taking public funds to create a personal vision while ignoring where mine might conflict with others. MY vision is leave more of those funds in the original hands, and dismantling any institution which tells me I must die, risk dying, or risk my kids in order to live, because I was born female and chose to give birth. As a mother, I also am not inclined to pay tribute, tithes, or even taxes, towards things that destroy, to the best of my ability.

Where I differ from the DV groups (if you’re aware of this) such as Ellen Pence (Domestic Abuse intervention Project, MPDI, Duluth power and control wheel, etc.) and the “CCR” Coordinated Community Response” concept — is that while this is talked about, the operational concept fo the organizations started to TALK about that CCR concept, and run trainings about it, IS the western (patriarchal/domineering), CORPORATE model. I’ve looked at the grants and the tax returns, and am a qualified witness to say this. Ms. Pence (now deceased) was not a mother and was not, that I’m aware of, a personal victim of DV, although was acquainted and working with plenty of (us). I do not believe she was heterosexual, which simply means a certain perspective on religions per se (like, underestimating them when it comes to abuse of women!).

This tribute (to Ms. Pence I believe) mentions “Rock Stars of the Battered Women’s Movement” and the first section of text on the site mentions about three major CORPORATIONS which I have shown are problemmatic for battered women, that they are supposed to be helping, and who have formed coalitions of nonprofits to get federal grants to produce technical assistance and training. Ms. Pence began WITHIN government in the 1970s (advocating for battered women’s shelters) and then in the 1980s formed her main corporation and took it from there. This entire time these same individual “rock stars” and “rock star organizations” have proved immune to feedback from outside the “rock star//expert” categories of how things work NOW (post 1990s) in the field, and of the harm that their own policies have done to battered women.

For example, once the field was established, grants are labeled “Discretionary” and only some goes to battered women’s shelters — big chunks go to webinars, trainings (including an entire created field, “Batterers Intervention” and “Supervised Visitation” idiocracies) which are all TOP-DOWN, DINING AT THE KING’S TABLE, WHOSE WEALTH COMES ORIGINALLY FROM THE PEOPLE. AFCC is considered a “Rock star” and permitted to collaborate with DAIP and/or the NCADV (look ’em up if you want, they are nonprofits). But women saying, we need to dismantle the family court system — and quit putting its constituents on your advisory capacity counsels, quit compromising with it) — will not be heard. I have actually called and written many of them, and like others, got the complete brush-off.

The problem is with the financing of the system — and the problem is, it’s too centralized in power and wealth; it is simply too large. EVERYONE either eats from, on, or underneath this table; that’s the dividing line in our day and time, and it has to be addressed.

From Assyria to Constantine to Corporate Christianity

There is no reward for Ignorance, and the fact is, it’s the container, not the verbal idea contents, which bear scrutiny. The concept of “Responsible Fatherhood” is so vague as to be idiotic — but in practice and usage it has very real, and horrendous meanings, to stable and ethical people.

It’s essentially the ideology of sacrifice. We should sacrifice our children, lives, tribute, and sense of individual identities — to submit all on the platform (or is it altar?) of this national religious idea.

I have been struck recently by how few “Christians” understand their own history, and a few transformations that took place between very late B.C. and very early A.D., or why it seems to be in the Churchly DNA to abuse, excommunicate, and even sue dissidents. That can be exceptionally cruel (most of us need some social network or other to keep life meaningful) — but I guess it beats the former? practices of burning them at the stake for translating the official script into an “indigenous” language (i.e., at the time, German, English, Spanish, etc.) or for not believing a specific variety of Trinity, of Predestination, of Charisma, or of (particularly) the role of women, and whether they can speak or not without fear of retribution.

I think this is probably because it’s not in the corporate church interest to actually tell people about these things… Going to a church means what??? There are better explanations, with which I agree, but the one with the best photos was scatalogical (every third sentence was rated “R” but it makes a point), the one with the best outline (i.e., “Three Cities that Rule the World”) and the logos, was put out by the International People’s Organization (I.e., socialists or communists) so I’ll go with one that makes the point, in words only, and was smug enough to convey this truth:

Vatican City Explained by CGPGrey:

And speaking of Vatican City citizens, they are perhaps the strangest consequence of the Pope’s dual role as religious leader and monarch.

While other countries mint new citizens with the ever popular process of human reproduction Vatican City does not. No one in Vatican City is born a citizen — and that’s not just because, within a rounding error, there are no female Vaticans.

The only way to become a citizen is for the King of Vatican City to appoint you as one. And the King only appoints you a citizen if you work for the Pope — who is also the King.

And because the King is all-powerful your citizenship is at his whim. If you quit your job for the Pope, the King — who is also the pope — will revoke your citizenship.

These rules mean that Vatican City doesn’t have a real permanent population to speak of: there are only about 500 full citizens — which is fewer people that live in single skyscrapers in many countries — and all these citizens work for The Holy See as either Cardinals or Diplomats or the Pope’s bodyguards or other Catholic-related jobs.

So it’s best to think of Vatican City as a kind of Sovereign Corporate Headquarters that grants temporary citizenship to its managers rather than a real city-state like Singapore: which has a self-reproducing population of citizens engaged in a variety of economic activities both of which Vatican City lacks.

But in the end, the reason the world cares about Vatican City is not because of the citizens within its walls but because of the billion members of its church outside those walls.

I do recommend reading, however, all three links above, because in OUR day and time, the “Corporate” construction — which is a legal fiction (appropriately linked with mythological and religious fictions, or should I say “beliefs” or “theories” for the single and uniform purrpose of PROFIT (wealth accumulation).

And most of us just don’t understand it, or understand why we can’t get “JUSTICE” — or why members of religious groups are some of the WORST of all — but then why are family courts so radically devastating? (other than the relationship between the unifying religion of the profit motive?).

And profit isn’t about justice, it’s just about profit, and keeping the contributions coming in.
“The Richest Man on Earth” by Jack Chick, point well taken, but I sense almost a jealousy. See biography and Statement of Faith. Basically believes the same stuff. Here’s more about the Pope dissolving the Vatican Resolution Banking Corporation, which is going to (2/11/2013). This is about restructuring the debt to generations of people the church has hurt(?), but does serve to point out — It’s a Corporation!

VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI has stunned financial insiders with his decision to liquidate VBRC this morning. The move, which will see a restructuring of the substantial debt owed by the Holy See to survivors of decades of institutional abuse throughout the world, comes years after the moral bankruptcy of the Church which brought the global plenary indulgences market to its knees.

“The liquidation of VBRC will see the abolition of the promissory note that had proved to be so costly for the Church in favour of a long term Vatican bond,” says Cardinal Vesuvius Honaghan, Chairman of the Vatican Central Bank. “Instead of offering a lump sum apology to investors in orphanages and Magdalene laundries, the Church will instead break the apologies owed down into smaller, more manageable segments that will be paid out over an inexorably long period of time to the point that these apologies will have a negligible effect on the Church’s moral assets.”

(Feb 14, 2013, “Inside the Vatican: the $8 billion global institution where nuns answer the phones”, NBC News) — if we can understand this, we stand a fighting chance of understanding the United States. First of all, the tiny city is geographically surrounded and separate, but has offices all over which are “judicially separate” from Italy.

Even the more secular aspects of the Vatican, the city state, are complex thanks to its geography. Squeezed into a triangular site in central Rome, the smallest country in the world has grown well outside its original footprint and much of its buildings and offices – including its own hospital – lie outside its boundaries but are granted the same judicial separation from the rest of Italy.

Read Carefully:

Although the wealth of the church has been on display throughout history, its financial details are not. Paolo Cipriani – director of The Institute for Works of Religion (IOR), often referred to as the ‘Vatican Bank’ – last year pledged to “lift the veil of secrecy” surrounding the organization. The institute manages $8 billion of the church’s worldwide wealth and investments as well as 33,000 accounts for clergy and parishes, held in euros.

That’s $8 billion OF the churche’s worldwide wealth and investments, which is considerably more….

‘A pretty lean organization’
It is an environment at once opulent and modest. Despite the vast assets of the Church, the Holy See made a loss of $18.4 million loss in 2011.*** Its $308 million income from IOR revenues – and supporters including its biggest single donor, the United States – fell short of the $326.4 million cost of running its global missions and operations such as Vatican Radio.

A separate budget for the Vatican City state, which deals with the administration of the church’s “home” in Rome made a $12.4 million profit in 2011, with most of its $113 million coming from tourists at its museums.

**This is all relative to what there is available to “lose,” which brings us back to the concept of the “CAFR” (statement of collective assets & liabilities — for governments, of which there are probably over 200,000 individual ones in the USA alone). OK, suppose I went to Las Vegas and started gambling and I LOST $18.4. If I only had $20 — is it likely I’d be gambling? But If I had $20,000 — would $18.40 “break the bank?” However, to keep donations coming in (See who’s the largest donor, above) — it’s expressed in terms of INCOME LOSS and REVENUES. Two entirely diferent concepts.

Unbelievable. Here’s a 1987 article from Fortune (reprinted in 2013) which has great explanatory detail, for example:

The Vatican comprises two separate administrations, the City-State and the Holy See. The Vatican City-State, a 108.7-acre enclave within the city of Rome — the last remnant of the once powerful Papal States — is thriving financially. Its government provides municipal services for the world’s smallest sovereign nation. The City-State also maintains the Vatican Museum and runs a 200-man security force featuring a platoon of spear-carrying Swiss guards. Last year the City-State’s income exceeded its $64 million operating budget by $6 million. The surplus went into a reserve fund used to make lump-sum payments to retirees.

Tourism is a bonanza. Some 1.8 million visitors paid $9 million to visit the Vatican Museum last year, and many bought Vatican stamps and coins. The City-State has a knack for making deals with corporations. Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel frescoes are getting a thorough cleaning, courtesy of Nippon Television Network Corp. of Japan. The network is spending $3 million for the exclusive right to film sections of the frescoes until 1995. Belser Verlag, a West German publishing company, recently paid the Vatican library $4 million for permission to reproduce its illuminated manuscripts. The Holy See is the fiscal headache. It not only rules the Church but also organizes the Pope’s trips, operates 116 diplomatic missions around the world, and runs the Vatican’s radio station, Radio Vatican, and its newspaper, Osservatore Romano. Carrying out policy in the Pope’s name are 40 commissions, including a dozen congregations and assorted secretariats, councils, and services. One service with a staff of 13 gives small amounts of money to the parish priests of Rome who come seeking alms for beggars.

AND:

Thanks to a celebrated political settlement with the Italian government earlier in this century, the Vatican has sizable investments.[[***, Yeah, let’s talk about that below]] Nineteenth- century Popes reaped rich tax revenues as monarchs of the Papal States, a realm that encompassed Rome and much of southern Italy. But the Italians stormed Rome in 1870, seizing control of the Papal States and rendering the Pope a virtual prisoner of the Vatican. Reconciliation came in 1929, when dictator Benito Mussolini and Pope Pius XI signed the Lateran Agreements. Italy recognized the Vatican’s sovereignty and, as compensation for confiscating the Papal States, paid the Vatican $92 million.

[[So, what did it do with that?]]

The windfall went to construct buildings and to buy gold and securities. About half the Vatican’s $500 million in investments generate little or no income. Some $100 million is parked in bank accounts, and the Vatican’s gold hoard, bought in the 1930s at an average price of $35 an ounce, is now worth $100 million at $450 an ounce. Not a single bar of the papal bullion, which sits in the vaults of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, has ever been sold.
. . . .
The Vatican earned some $15 million last year from its portfolio of more than $150 million in stocks and bonds, and in interest on bank accounts. Money management has been archconservative since the turn of the century, when Pope Leo XIII hid the Vatican’s liquid wealth — a trunk crammed with gold coins — under his bed. The Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See (APSA), which doubles as the Vatican’s treasury, handles the financial investments. Most of

APSA’s 26-man staff are lay professionals. APSA’s top money manager is Benedetto Argentieri, formerly a market researcher at the Common Market’s Banque Europeene d’Investissement in Brussels. Soft-spoken and cultivated, Argentieri is an avid collector of 16th- century mannerist art. He occupies a marble-floored salon with 30-foot-high vaulted ceilings in an ornate 19th-century palace.

Argentieri and his team of four traders manage some $100 million in U.S. and Italian government and corporate bonds. The $50 million balance is spread among 100 stocks, including such Italian blue chips as automaker Fiat and insurer Generale Assicurazione, a stock the Vatican has owned for more than 30 years. The Vatican has a firm policy against holding majority stakes. In the 1960s it controlled Immobiliare Roma, builder of the Watergate Hotel in Washington and a producer of bathtubs. The Vatican took a bath. Says Argentieri: ”Every time the company needed capital to cover losses or workers threatened to strike, Pope Paul VI just gave it the money to avoid bad publicity.”

(again, this is froom a 1987 cover story of FORTUNE magazine)

Again, a quick summary from “Chick.com” (Jack Chick) reacting to the 1989 announcement that “The Vatican is Broke” explains the switch from real estate holdings into stocks and bonds. I think we need to hear this and understand just how close “Church” is actually “state” (gov’t, that is) which is “Corporation.”

The most intriguing section of “The Vatican Billions,” deals with the Vatican’s switch from accumulation of wealth in land and estates to the amassing of vast fortunes in corporate stocks and bonds. Using monies accumulated over the centuries, Rome invested heavily in devalued companies during the great depression of the 1930s and reaped vast profits as these companies expanded rapidly to meet the World War II defense demands. Since true ownership of such securities is not easily tracked, only rough estimates can be made of the Vatican’s holdings.

Which comes from this article:

Is The Vatican Broke?

Issue Date: July/August 1989

From time to time, news reports surface that the Vatican will run some $50 million in the red for the current year. The object is to press the “faithful” into increasing their “Peter’s Pence,” an annual collection from all Catholics around the world to “support” the “Holy See,” the pope’s home base.

To those who know somewhat of the financial resources of the world-wide Roman Catholic Institution, these figures are microscopic and the charade ludicrous. When pressed, Vatican officials admit that this deficit is only in the pope’s operating budget and has nothing to do with overall finances.

Avro Manhattan, in his book “The Vatican Billions,” describes in detail the 2,000-year ebb and flow of the Vatican’s financial fortunes. Beginning with Constantine, who took the name “Christian” and merged it with pagan religion and politics, Manhattan describes how “The early apostolic tradition of poverty became an abstraction; at most, a text for sermons or pious homilies. . . Thenceforward a new phase was initiated. The Church Triumphant began to vest herself with the raiment of the world. The state became her protector. With this came not only power, but also wealth.”

©1984-2013 Chick Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Some portions of http://www.chick.com are copyrighted by others and reproduced by permission,. as indicated by copyright notices on individual pages.

This site came up (hey, Google search, don’t blame me!) — also mentioned in one or more of the above references — about what the Vatican got in 1929; we are talking Mussolini, and PREVIOUS to many events in America which relate to the Social Security Act, the price of gold, etc., FDR type things:

Actually, start one chapter before the next quote; we are back in the 1800s, and in 1870, the Papal States again lost some territory, and apparently complained constantly. In 1929, Mussolini rectified that, but just take a quick read:

Vatican City: Its Own Little Country

Back in the 1880’s when Ellen White penned her prediction of a revival of the papacy’s world dominance, some found it hard to believe. The papacy had just been dealt another blow in 1870 when she lost control both of the Papal States and of the city of Rome itself. Not until Mussolini in 1929 ceded the Vatican to the papacy did the papacy have its own little country again.

The papacy lost both its supremacy and its temporal power (its sovereign territory) in 1798. While it has not since regained its supremacy, it did regain its temporal power in 1800 when a new pope ruled over the papal states. It lost its territory again in 1809, and regained it again after 1815.

According to papal loyalist Malachi Martin, the situation after that point was anything but pretty: [[described]]
Many today think that the old fears back then about the papacy being a threat to freedom were just anti-Catholic bigotry. Hardly. Even Catholics of the nineteenth century thought that the papacy was a menace.

The above situation led to the papacy losing its territory once again in 1848, but it regained it again in 1849. Then it lost it one last time in 1870.

For 59 years, from 1870-1929, the papacy complained about this loss of territory. Why should it? No other church in the world has its own little country. Why should the papacy care?

In 1870 multitudes of Catholics thought that the loss of all temporal power was a good thing. Divested of all civil power, the popes could concentrate on spiritual things for a change and leave worldly things alone. Why then did the papacy insist on having its own little country?

((GOOD QUESTION!!))

The answer concerns a point of papal dogma, and has a direct bearing on the papacy’s plans for regaining world dominion. The Vatican teaches that the pope replaces Jesus Christ on earth, and holds on this planet the place of God Almighty. It follows logically that if you can’t tell the Father and the Son what to do, then you really can’t tell the pope what to do either.

But that leaves us with a big problem: If the pope is a mere citizen of a country such as Italy, then he must be subject to the authorities of Italy like the Bible commands (Rom. 13:1). However, if he is the head of his own country, then he answers to no one whatsoever and can do as he pleases. Thus the possession of his own sovereign state is of vital importance.

Moreover, it serves as a base of international operations that no other church can match. The fact that the Vatican is considered a sovereign country aids its objective of exchanging ambassadors with as many nations as possible. It can then through its ambassadors influence the legislation and policies of the entire globe, more than any other denomination.

It was in 1867 that the U.S. Congress ceased funding the U.S. diplomatic mission in Rome, which caused its closure. The reason for the cessation of funding was that Congress had heard that the papacy had forbidden Protestant religious services to be conducted in the city of Rome.

In 1939 Franklin Roosevelt began some sort of diplomatic relations with the Vatican by sending his personal representative. In 1984, Ronald Reagan established formal diplomatic ties, and regular ambassadors were exchanged between the Church of Rome and Washington….

Ellen G. White: Rome Shall Rule the World Again [[i.e., looks like an adventist site]]

. . . .Given the secretive nature of Vatican goings on, and its lack of public disclosure laws, that’s hard to tell for sure. But Joe Coffey, a Catholic detective from New York City, can tell you where he knows some of the wealth came from.

Along with the founding of the “state” of Vatican City in 1929, the papacy got its own bank, its own radio station, and its own post office. The bank is what we want to look at for a moment.

Joe Coffey describes what happened in a 1982 book called The Vatican Connection. His job was to investigate the mob, and in doing so he followed around a fellow named Vincent Rizzo, which took him to Munich, Germany in February 1972. There he was with some other cops listening in on a bug to the conversation going on in Rizzo’s hotel room, when the Vatican came up (p. 74).

Turns out that Vatican officials had contracted with the American mafia to purchase $950 million in counterfeit securities, securities such as stocks and bonds. The Vatican and the bank of Italy would pay the mafia $625 million for these securities, and the mafia would in turn give a kickback to the prelates of $150 million, leaving the mafia with $475 million for their trouble (p. 212).

Why would the Vatican want counterfeit stocks, you ask? The way modern banking works, you can loan out and invest in proportion to the amount you have on deposit. In actuality, you can loan out more than what you are holding on deposit. So if the Vatican Bank’s policy was that it could loan out ten times its reserves, a billion dollars of phony stocks on deposit would allow it to make ten billion dollars of investments.

OK, back to Reality. :Realitybloger.wordpress.com, that is. I quoted ALL the above for again pointing out that empires are empires (then and now), even if they’re called “corporations.” Corporations are kinda just what they’re called moreso these days — ALTHOUGH one of the oldest in the world does appear to be this one right here, i.e., The Vatican. (The Vatican is simultaneously a CORP & a COUNTRY. The power belongs to “The Holy See” (?) which is the Chair (throne, seat of power, what have you), itself, which has had various occupants throughout the years called POPES… Splendor and glory, earthly magnificence the better to preach poverty to the masses with…. And that preaching is working…. No wonder so many of us don’t understand finances….

This is just a segment from “CAFR — Is the Vatican Really Broke?” It’s the part that compares gov’t to the Vatican so we can better understand the former, and how to translate when it talks budget deficits and what we must do to fill the gaping holes and produce tribute for the cause:

I hadn’t really set out to again explain the concept of Corporation and CAFR and its connection to religion. But I think a good comparison, in our day and time would be to understand that both corporations, and governments, and the corporation “churches” (whether Catholic or Protestant, it looks like between them, they have the United States Congress nailed down tight — see demographics of the same (and I will probably post).

But there you have it!

Explosive Christianity in West Texas?. That’s about an explosion in a Fertilizer Plant (two days after the Boston Marathon bombing) that was storing tons of anhyrdrous ammonia and ignoring various warnings about the danger.

…on April 17 killed 14 people, left 200 others with injuries (including burns, lacerations, and broken bones), flattened houses and a 50-unit apartment building, destroyed a nursing home, damaged a local school, and left a crater 93 feet by 10 feet. The explosion was so devastating that investigators, almost two months after the incident, are unable to definitively determine the exact cause of the explosion.

Adair lives five miles from West and attends a local church. He also owns Adair Grain (the parent company of West Fertilizer) and Adair Farms, including about 5,000 acres of cropland and grassland in the area, worth several million dollars. But while Adair might be a folksy local businessman who rescued the failing fertilizer plant, all the evidence points to the fact that he didn’t do enough to protect his employees and the surrounding community at risk.

[[out of sequence…]]Why isn’t the American public calling for the arrest and trial of Adair, the owner of the West Fertilizer Company in West, Texas?

I don’t know where we got the idea that “goes to church” doesn’t have anything to do with “runs corporations, expands business interests.” Business interests, for some reason, are always interested in pouring money into missions, churches, evangelism, etc. at least in the United States. There appears to be a connection between (corporate wealth) empire-building and religion-endorsing. While this post is background, the related one shows that only 2% of the United States Congress (both houses combined) declares to state an affiliation; there’s only one open atheist (Peter Stark) and of all the religions our country represents, somehow when it comes to Congress, most of them are Christian. Largest collective block, Protestants (under that, Baptists), but largest single “denomination”, Roman Catholicism. As it turns out, I heard the Vatican was one of the oldest Corporations in the world, in that sense of the word.

For example, it means that innocent children, and their mothers, should be paying the price for the state’s concept of “what works better” and “what reduces poverty” and “what reduces abuse” and why there is “Crime.” It’s not necessary for any of those theories (which bear STRANGE close resemblance to certain religious ideas) to have an intrinsic merit when someone holds the power to enforce, extort, extract, re-arrange households, and (did I mention this yet?) TAX.

This concept is an old one and it’s purpose is to de-stablize the relationships between the sexes for the purpose of destabilizing communities for the purpose of stripping them of their assets. It has been done before. It is centralized, and it buids pyramids with slave labor, or international banking empires with private equaity and private armies, and starts wars to protect the profits.

http://www.christiansofiraq.com/civilizationmay96.html Peter BatSoo corrects Carly Fiorina of HP, who later made a try for a Senator from California. See left column….

Here’s her wide-ranging education, including law-school dropout, etc. Powerful businesswoman, but perhaps a little under-informed on some world history.

Defying Deletion A documentary about post-2003 Iraq and the attempted extermination of the Assyrians, that is, descendants of one of the earliest civilizations around, based in Northern Iraq/Plains of Nineveh. They also tend to be Christian, and some of the earliest ones:

Defying Deletion is an emotionally charged documentary that focuses on the struggle of the Assyrian race in Iraq. The history of the Assyrians is rooted deep into the northern Nineveh Plains of Iraq, but their religion is Christian, and after the US led invasion in 2003, they have been the target of ethnic cleansing, cultural genocide and region-based killing. This ongoing genocide has led to over 70 of their churches bombed, hundreds of them killed and hundreds of thousands of them forced to flee Iraq and take refuge in unwelcoming countries like Syria, Jordan and Turkey. They are experiencing one of the world’s largest humanitarian crises.

Many people are not aware of the fact that unlike many ancient cultures, modern descendants of the ancient Assyrians survive. I am one of them. Despite the fall of the Assyrian Empire, we have lived in continuity for thousands of years in the lands of ancient Assyria in northern Mesopotamia. We were among the first converts to Christianity in the first century of the modern era and in turn helped spread, at the time, our new founded religion from the Middle-East eastward throughout Asia. . . .While Assyrians do live in Iran, Turkey, and Syria, the overwhelming majority of Assyrians surviving today trace their ancestry to the lands of modern northern Iraq, where the ancient Assyrian Empire was based. With the exception of a small Armenian community in Iraq, Assyrians make up almost all of the Christians in Iraq. . . .
. . .
For Assyrians, this is not a battle of Eastern Values versus Western Values, Monarchy versus Democracy or Christianity versus Islam. For Assyrians, it is and has simply been about our survival.

http://www.aina.org/aol/peter/timeline.htm

TO BE CONTINUED….