Francis Must Be Wary Confronting Rats In The Vatican Bank

As the news surrounding more Vatican intrigue erupts, e.g. with headlines like 'Vatican Financial Troubles Run Deep, According to New Book', in the New York Times, the media and others appear to forget or omit the source is not the Vatican per se- but the Vatican Bank.  And it's nothing new, not at all for those of us who've done deep politics research into its issues - including ties to notorious intel and gangster outfits like P2.

As long ago as 1978 Pope John Paul I had planned to change the culture and operations at the Vatican Bank to make them more transparent and accountable. At the time of Albino Luciani's ascension it was run by renegade padre, Paul Marcinkus and shady sleaze bags like Licio Gelli .   The new Pope had become aware that the Bank had been funneling money to unsavory types such as P2 in Italy and the gangsters connected to it  didn't want any light cast on their deeds.

As documented by David Yallop, ('In God's Name').  they eliminated their primary threat, as well as took measures against secondary ones such as Roberto Calvi (P2 member and 'executioner', found hanging under Blackfriar's Bridge, London, June 17, 1982. )

In the wake of these sort of revelations it is nothing short of amazing that Pope Francis would dare to make this misshapen Bank accountable and transparent again.  But he needs to watch every step he takes because the same breed of nasty vipers are again in charge. This has been disclosed by the new book, 'Merchants In The Temple' by Gianluigi Nuzzi,  who portrays Francis as a lonely crusader. Which he is, as much as Pope John Paul I in 1978.

Among the information disclosed in the book:

- The fierce revolt against the Pope's efforts to make sweeping changes at the Bank

- A real estate portfolio that is worth seven times as much as the Vatican shows on its books

(All deep politics researchers grasp that this template is the M.O. for black budgets, i.e. to fund operations outside of the purview of the Bank or the Vatican)

And the most repugnant:

- Donations from around the world intended for the poor which actually went into a slush fund to pay running costs.

All the revelations are based on secret recordings of meetings the Pope held with senior cardinals- recordings which were then leaked and have been published by Nuzzi in his book.

A statement released by the Holy See in the wake of the book's publication read in part:

"Such actions are a serious betrayal of trust granted by the Pope"

Maybe, but as in the case of Edward Snowden releasing the transgressions of the NSA, the transgressions of the Vatican Bank superseded those of the ones who leaked the recordings. Clearly, the leakers - as in the case of whistle blowers everywhere- had to have experienced strong moral revulsion at the goings on and believed it their bounden duty to enlighten the rest of us - through Nuzzi's book. I applaud them as I do Snowden, and only rats would defend rats.

And also, let's realize the Pope's quest for action and accountability may actually have been given a serious boost by all this publicity.  With so much media light now shining on Francis and his efforts, it is doubtful the rats will come out of the woodwork to exact vengeance like they did against John Paul 1 in the summer of 1978.

Meanwhile, Francis has recently released a tweet in the wake of the kerfuffle:

"Onward with serenity!"

This is good, but as he goes "onward", especially in regards to exposing the vipers at the Vatican Bank, it is critical Francis ensure he protect his "blind side". Alas, Pope John Paul I didn't. A pity! Had Albino Luciani survived his papacy I'd likely never have left the Church and become an atheist.


See also:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-05/pope-francis-reforms-a-vatican-bank-steeped-in-dan-brown-intrigue

Props- Then Brickbats - For the Pope!

Pope Francis needs to butt out in commenting on personal end of life decisions like Brittany Maynard's

First, let me give props to Pope Francis - good news before bad: His courageous standing up to the reactionaries at the Vatican who seem to believe they can comment on anything the Pope says or does. (Note: They are under him in the Vatican hierarchy, I can comment since I am not a Catholic but an outside observer, hence not shackled by Church authority.)

Props are especially due for removing the reactionary Cardinal Raymond Burke, former St. Louis archbishop,  from his post as head of the Vatican high court, after the little miscreant said that: "the Church is like a ship without a rudder under Francis."  Burke is lucky, because under the Borgia Pope he'd have been boiled in oil by now. But this sort of constant challenge to papal authority has been ongoing for years now - questioning and commenting on almost everything Francis puts forward, including his statement a year earlier that "even an atheist can get to heaven" (homily delivered at the Chapel of the Domus Santa Marta).

According to John Thavis, former Rome bureau chief for Catholic News Service, quoted in a Denver Post piece ('Bishops Clashing With Francis', Nov. 9, p. 9A):

"Many of the U.S. Bishops have been disoriented by what this new pope is saying and I don't really see them embracing the pope's agenda."

Really? Aren't these miter -headed twits obligated to follow him unquestioningly in matters of faith and morals? Infallibility and all that? Besides, what would their predecessors have done if faced with a REALLY audacious Pope - say like John Paul I (Albino Luciani)  repealing the idiotic opposition to artificial birth control? (See David Yallop's book, 'In God's Name' detailing how the Vatican's fossil reactionaries had it in for him, and assassinated the poor guy in 1978)

Of course, make no mistake that just as the reactionary press and media here in the States have sought to cover up the conspiracy in the murder of JFK, so also the reactionaries in the Catholic Church - e.g. using the 'National Catholic Reporter' have declared "myths" about Luciani's 33-day reign - and sought to do the same. Vermin never ever want the truth to out because it threatens their hegemony - whether in a nation or a church. Meanwhile, dumb conspiracy phobics play right into their hands as useful idiots.

But let me now deliver a 'brickbat' or two to Francis - who is no Pope John Paul I, nor will likely ever be. This is in regard to his weighing in last Saturday on the matter of euthanasia and especially as it pertains to personal use by a terminally ill person. These comments follow earlier ones by Igniacio Carrasco de Paula, "President of the Pontifical Academy for Life",  whatever the hell that means. Carrasco, high on his high horse, actually said:

"Assisted suicide is an absurdity. Dignity is something different to putting an end to your own life. Society does not want to shoulder the cost of disease and this risks becoming the solution,"

To which I responded in an earlier post:

"To the moral provisionalist what is absurd is allowing a sentient being to descend into a totally vegetative state lacking any life quality - with excruciating pain to go with it. Hence, Brittany's choice to end her life is a greater good over merely existing in a debased vegetative condition based on the specious presumption of "sanctity of life" demanded indiscriminately for any and all conditions.

Hence, the greater good here is ending the suffering and degradation of life quality rather than allowing it to progress to the stage one can make no authentic choice. "

And I stand by that, including that it is a choice for dignity as opposed to indignity in descending to an unconscious vegetable. Further, Brittany's decision was a PERSONAL one, not to do with "cost to society" or having it take on her expenses. Even given the latter, Brittany didn't wish to wallow in her poop and urine endlessly while barely conscious and in agonizing pain until drawing her last breath - or being put on some fucking machine. She demanded an END to her suffering, and took it - something this Vatican asshole would certainly do if in the same predicament.

As Brittany herself said in her final interview (with Jan Crawford of CBS), when Crawford asked her  to respond to some critics' assertions that she is ending her own life:

"It is cancer that's ending my life. I am choosing to end it a little sooner and in a lot less pain and suffering."

Reality and reason for once!

 But evidently Francis doesn't. In his Saturday statement he opined:

"Euthanasia is a sin against God, the Creator".

Which is astonishing  given the words issue from the mouth of a former scientist (chemist) who ought to know and grasp what an MRI scan for a terminal brain cancer patient means, and the suffering it portends. So either he doesn't know, or is of the mindless take that humans have no right to take action and perhaps they must  offer propitiation for their "sins" or some such tommyrot..

If the latter, then his words merit dismissal, because the sign of an advanced being is to at least grant what we would to a suffering animal and put it out of its misery (though humans are allocated the choice as to how much they are willing to bear). In the words of Brittany's mom (Deborah Ziegler), as seen this morning on CBS Early Show - from a letter she posted online:

"Such strong public criticism from people we do not know is more than a slap in the face, it's like kicking us as we struggle to draw a breath. The right to die for the terminally ill is a human rights issue. Plain and simple. The imposition of belief on a human rights issue is wrong."

Which is spot on correct and reinforces what she said in an interview last month:

"As an adult you are in charge with how much pain or suffering and plodding forward you want to do."

But the Vatican's reactionary clowns and the Pope would take that away because, well, they don't wish the choice to be a human right - just as centuries earlier they didn't acknowledge that for many humans being free of slavery was not a fundamental right.  Author Julian Pleasants has observed ('Contraception and Holiness'., p. 88) the Vatican has always been hostage to:

"Aristotelian modes of thought which tend to fix behaviors within very limited and fixed definitions and categories."

Thus, the Church once believed it "natural" that some men be enslaved because they were “unable to manage their own affairs”  (ibid.).   

So why be surprised when the same Church now seeks to deny humans facing the "slavery" of agonizing suffering from disease (and literally being 'unable to manage their own affairs'),  the free choice not to endure it?  Clearly neither pope or Vatican has moved from these limiting Aristotelian modes of thought to define a misbegotten ethics.

The rest of us can't afford to be so blasé  given it impacts critical life choices.

Hence, a virtual brickbat at the Pope!

Timothy Dolan is WRONG! Catholic Doctrine CAN and HAS BEEN Changed!

Cardinal Bergoglio Becomes Pope Francis one year ago.

This is the 1st year anniversary of Pope Francis' election as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, and facts are already getting skewed and distorted by the "princes" of the Church. This is in regard to Francis' novel takes on RC doctrine, and also how permanent it is. This was brought up this morning on the CBS Early Show when Charlie Rose asked Cardinal Timothy Dolan if Church doctrine could ever be changed and he responded 'No.'   Then I pondered whether I'm living in an alternate universe, because in the one I inhabit it most certainly CAN be changed and HAS been changed!

Let me again remind readers that the Church's birth control proscription, for example,  is not any kind of a central doctrine-  issuing as it does from the Magisterium or teaching office, and not ex Cathedra or from the 'Chair of St. Peter' (which office designates "infallibility"). Hence, and logically, as Hans Kung has pointed out ('Infallible?') it could be wrong ....so there is no absolute compelling reason to follow it and most priests in the day (late 1960s-70s) regarded it as matter of personal conscience.

More to the point, Pope Paul VI actually formed a commission to look into the matter in 1968, with the view to altering this teaching and was roundly informed he needed to do so - or the Church would lose millions in first world nations  (as it has, including me).  Paul rejected the conclusions of his Papal Commission, likely owing to some arm twisting by the relics in the Vatican Curia. 

Fast forward to 1978, and Pope John Paul I had planned to change the birth control doctrine, understanding the ferocious and unseemly burden too many children put on families that could ill afford them, such as his own (David Yallop, 'In God's Name').  Alas, John Paul I was murdered before he could do so, though most deep politics observers believe this was more to do with his intended shake up of the Vatican Bank - run at the time by renegade padre, Paul Marcinkus.   The Bank had been funneling money to unsavory types such as P2 in Italy (op. cit.) and the gangsters involved didn't want any light cast on their deeds. A pity! Had Albino Luciani been elected Pope I'd likely never have left the Church and become an atheist.

It wasn't to be. A new, much more conservative pope (John Paul II) was elected, and the Church could breath easier again. There’d be no Vatican Bank shake ups, and several papal encyclicals

But let's move on!

The majority of Catholics (and probably non-Catholics) are probably totally unaware that the Church DID ALLOW abortions to be performed up until the third trimester, and until 1869. John Connery, S.J. a leading historian of the Church’s teaching on abortion, has been quoted as citing a long standing collection of Canon Law that “it was not until 1869 that abortion for any reason became grounds for excommunication” (See, e.g. Druyan and Sagan, PARADE, April 22, 1990). At the time the lack of dogmatic ruling created such furore that conservatives in the Church pushed for a higher dogma that would transcend the wishy-washy Magisterium ruling. They thereby succeeded in foisting the very late (1870) doctrine of "infallibility" which was more a rear guard action -addition to protect the Church from any possible subsequent alterations of moral teaching.

Thus, if a ruling came "ex cathedra" and applied to faith or morals, the Pope couldn't make a mistake. (Of course, as the “papal infallibility” doctrine was only first proclaimed in 1870, it conveniently didn't apply to rulings made earlier such as the ones on abortions allowed up to the 3rd trimester). But the larger point here is that clearly, the fact the Church already changed its doctrine on abortion shows its moral positions are malleable and not set in stone!

What this means is that the Church itself cannot be free of errors in faith or morals if it has already made one that was since covered up. Obviously, if you can alter a position, it is hardly "absolute". In his marvelous book, Infallible?, Hans Kung observes (p. 143):

" no one, neither Vatican I, nor Vatican II, nor the textbook theologians, has shown that the Church - its leadership or its theology - is able to put forward propositions which inherently
cannot be erroneous."

Then there is the subtle doctrinal change embodied in "papal primacy",  first enunciated with force in the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, of July 18, 1870. As some readers may know and which Theologian Hans Kung makes clear ('Infallible?' p. 77):

"the definition of papal infallibility presupposes the definition of papal primacy". 

Before Pastor Aeternus, the Body of the Church held paramountcy, i.e. the body as in the people. The order was reversed from July 18, 1870 with papal primacy trumping the people. How or why did papal primacy and infallibility (not in evidence before 1870 in any Church doctrines) transpire?

This is made clear in the Introduction of Pastor Aeternus:

"With daily increasing hatred on all sides, the Gates of Hell are rising, to overturn the Church, if it were possible, against its divinely established foundation. Therefore we judge it necessary, for the protection, safety and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, to propose the doctrine of the Institution, perpetuity and nature of the sacred apostolic primacy, in which the strength and solidity of the whole Church consists, to be believed and held by all the faithful, according to the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church and to prescribe and condemn the contrary errors so pernicious to the Lord's flock."

Though wordy and somewhat convoluted, the message is:  The faithful themselves can't be trusted to judge  from whence the threats to their faith issue. Hence, they require a  spiritual "Papa" (pope) to decide and adjudicate all spiritual threats for them.  Whenever his utterances are declared ex cathedra, or from the Chair of St. Peter, they are "infallible" and can't be contradicted.

Hence, the need for papal primacy (and its implicit authority)  over the outlook or message of the faithful, including any upstart nuns.  This is why the likes of Ratzinger, for example, never hesitated to smack down any nuns whose messages appeared to be I conflict with the Curia's.   They'd do this if  nuns like Sister Margaret Farley e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/nun-articulates-sexual-ethics-for.html

breathed even a word about things like birth control or masturbation being in any way acceptable - never mind that Ratzinger and his predecessor were busy shuttling priest abusers around so they wouldn't be found out, and covering up any documents.

The fact is, contrary to Dolan's bollocks, the Church CAN and HAS changed its doctrines, in subtle and not so subtle ways. The problem is that most Catholics aren't aware of Church history so don't know about it. The casting of changeless doctrines is done for a very strategic reason - to make the flock believe that nothing ever will change in any real way. Hence, all Francis can do is resort to soft rhetoric but never change the doctrines themselves.

If Francis really believes that, then I am sorry for the Church - including its followers, and believers!

Pope Francis - a 'Feel Good' Choice for TIME Person of the Year

Two main contenders: Edward Snowden and Pope Francis. Snowden was runner up for Person of the Year, but ought to have taken it.

Well, the votes have come in and Pope Francis beat out Edward Snowden as TIME's 'Person of the Year'.  While I love this Pope and his plucky statements, let's face it: he hasn't affected world events, governments to the extent that Snowden has by his revelations of NSA snooping worldwide. Those have shaken governments to their core, re-aligned relationships, created diplomatic turmoil in the highest reaches of power, and informed citizens across the globe that their freedom is essentially a myth. Based on lots of fulsome rhetoric - but when the state or states can spy on them at will (see previous post )grabbing emails, cell phone messages, etc.  they are basically puppets.

Let us get it clear that the basis of the 'Person of the Year' award is not for the one "best loved" or even "most popular" or "most moral" - which is why TIME had no problem choosing Adolf Hitler once, to the consternation of most Americans.  It is based on the Person who MOST AFFECTED global events for that year. Thus, it would have been a no-brainer to choose Edward Snowden.

Pope Francis, as loveable as he is, has simply not actually affected the world beyond the 1.1 billion Catholics.  While he has chided the Vatican's fossils for their overweening attention to the "pelvic sins" (contraception, masturbation, abortion etc.) he has not actually changed any of the Church's doctrines in these areas or altered the Magisterium- based pronouncements or issued new encyclicals to redefine ethics.

Indeed, he comes nowhere near to the actual actions that had been planned by Albino Luciani (Pope John Paul 1, assassinated in September, 1978) who had intended to repeal the proscriptions against artificial birth control and also shake up the Vatican Bank, including ridding it of Paul Marcinkus. (See David Yallop's book, 'In God's Name').

So while on the religious ethics front Francis has delivered some terrific rhetoric, he hasn't really delivered in terms of actions.

He does merit credit for coming out strong against 'trickle down economics' and Neoliberal market capitalism, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/bravo-to-pope-francis-for-warning-of.html

But even here, embedded Neoliberal Catholic columnists like Ross Douthat (of The New York Times) have written about Frances' remarks and exhortations can still be rendered compatible with Neoliberal market principles, e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-pope-and-the-right.html

Excerpt:

it’s true that there is no Catholic position on, say, the correct marginal tax rate, and that Catholics are not obliged to heed the pope when he suggests that global inequality is increasing when the statistical evidence suggests otherwise.        But the church’s social teaching is no less an official teaching for allowing room for disagreement on its policy implications. And for Catholics who pride themselves on fidelity to Rome, the burden is on them — on us — to explain why a worldview that inspires left-leaning papal rhetoric also allows for right-of-center conclusions.

Meanwhile, by taking actual ACTIONS - Snowden has upended the entire national security state and even opened the door to powerful legislation to curb the excesses of the NSA. He has also opened the world's eyes, including those of tech companies, citizen users, to just how insecure their communications are and how unstable the platforms and the 'cloud'. Never mind the Neoliberal Constitutional traitors regard Snowden as the traitor.  This just shows how far removed they are from taking seriously their oaths to "protect and defend the Constitution."

In other words, TIME's choice of 'Person of the Year' amounted to a feel good choice that wouldn't upset too many other than a small coterie of hard-backed conservative Catholics.  By contrast, if they'd selected Snowden they'd have had the whole constellation of Neoliberal politico assholes, puppets, media and zombies screaming at them and calling down perdition for TIME "honoring treason".

So, while one can understand the reason why TIME punked out and made the easy, non-controversial choice,  one also understands it embodies the lack of courage that has dogged American journalism since Bernstein and Woodward helped expose Watergate.

In any case, Snowden was named as runner up but we all know - those of us with sense and perception - he ought to have been first.