| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 26.942
Post: 9.423 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Master | |
|
Thursday, July 18, 15th Week in Ordinary Time
Today's saint is familiar from the July 14 observance of his liturgical feast in the United States, as it was before the post Vatican-II liturgical reforms.
Center photo: The saint's statue in the Founders Gallery of St. Peter's Basilica; poster at right looks towards the 400th centenary of his death in 2014.
ST. CAMILLO DE LELLIS (Italy, 1550-1614), Priest, Founder of the Camillian order, Patron of Nurses
The saint was born in Bocchianico, Italy. He fought for the Venetians against the Turks, was addicted to gambling, and by 1574 was penniless in Naples. He became a Capuchin novice, but was unable to be professed because of a diseased leg he contracted while fighting the Turks. He devoted himself to caring for the sick, and became director of the San Giacomo Hospital in Rome. He received permission from his confessor (St. Philip Neri) to be ordained and decided, with two companions, to found his own congregation, the Ministers of the Sick (the Camellians), dedicated to the care of the sick. They ministered to the sick of Holy Ghost Hospital in Rome, enlarged their facilities in 1585, founded a new house in Naples in 1588, and attended the plague-stricken aboard ships in Rome's harbor and in Rome. In 1591, the Congregation was made into an order to serve the sick by Pope Gregory XIV, and in 1591 and 1605, Camillus sent members of his order to minister to wounded troops in Hungary and Croatia, the first field medical unit. Gravely ill for many years, he resigned as superior of the Order in 1607 and died in Rome on July 14, the year after he attended a General Chapter there. He was canonized in 1746, was declared patron of the sick, with St. John of God, by Pope Leo XIII, and patron of nurses and nursing groups by Pope Pius XI. A church in Rome is dedicated to him.
Readings for today's Mass:http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/071813.cfm
AT THE VATICAN TODAY
No events announced for Pope Francis.
The Press Office released the text of a telegram sent in the Pope's name by Cardinal Secretary of state Tarcisio Bertone to the Bishop of Cayenne in French Guyana, expressing his condolences for a bus accident in which one passenger was killed - a young Parisian girl who was bound for WYD in RIO with other companions - and many others were injured.
One year ago...
No events were announced for Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo. But at the Vatican, a news briefing was held as scheduled on Moneyval's first status report on the financial transparency measures undertaken by the Holy See.
Vatican passes Moneyval evaluation
on 9 out of 16 key criteria
July 18, 2012
The following statement was delivered by Mons. Ettore Balestrero, Vatican Under-Secretary for Relations with States, regarding the Moneyval latest evaluation of measures undertaken by the Holy See to meet international standards of transparency in its financial operations. The original text is in English.
As the Head of Delegation of the Holy See to the Plenary Session of Moneyval that discussed and adopted the Holy See’s First Mutual Evaluation Report on July 4, 2012, I welcome you to this briefing, which aims to present the key findings of the Report and to share with you also some insights as to where the Holy See has been and where it is going.
The goal: Making moral commitments concrete
For the Holy See, this process is first and foremost a moral rather than a technical commitment. As Pope Benedict XVI stated in his 30 December, 2010 Motu Proprio, just as the rest of the international community equips itself with the tools necessary to fight these evils, it is right and good that the Holy See share in these efforts, adopting such tools "as its own" and thereby also "carrying out the mission of the Holy See."
As the Secretariat of State clarified in requesting this evaluation, the Holy See recognizes that moral commitments must be accompanied by the technical compliance and effective implementation of the international standards necessary to fight money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Compliance and effective implementation are indeed what render moral commitments concrete.
Our jurisdiction
Vatican City State has a very small territory, with a small population, a very low level of domestic crime, and no market economy. It is not a financial centre and its financial activities are meant to support its works of charity and of religion.
However the Holy See enjoys a recognized moral voice and in this sense is deeply connected not only with its immediate neighbors, but with all countries of the world.
Moreover, the Holy See, as primarily responsible for the universal mission of the Church, has a special ability – even duty – to guide and orient Catholic religious organizations throughout the world. While those organizations exist within their own civil jurisdictions and are bound to follow the laws of those jurisdictions for AML/CFT issues, it is important that the Holy See use its moral authority to raise maximum awareness about the far too frequent transnational crime of money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
Beginning along the path
and first accomplishments
Now, let’s see where we are coming from. The last nineteen months have been months of work and learning.
Before starting this process, we already had a good number of requirements in place. Above all, there has always been a clear determination to fight money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as a legal system that already had several of the elements necessary to tackle ML/FT problems.
At the end of 2010, we passed an AML/CFT law and requested evaluation in February 2011 by MONEYVAL. Our law came into force on April 1, 2011. Our Financial Intelligence Authority was operational by June. In November 2011, we received our first MONEYVAL onsite visit. The team of our evaluators was widely considered to be perhaps the strongest team MONEYVAL had ever assembled.
It included the President, the Secretary and an Administrator of MONEYVAL, the President of the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, two senior financial experts, and a Professor of International Law. We take both the praise and criticism contained in the report with seriousness.
Revision of the first AML/CFT legislation
Based on the preliminary remarks of the evaluators in November, it became apparent that the first version of the law, while representing an important effort at proper legislation, contained gaps and other difficulties that needed to be addressed in order to move forward.
All jurisdictions that receive an on-site visit are given two months time to introduce changes in their legislation, that will be included in the evaluation report. Within this timeframe, on January 25, 2012 a new law was introduced that provided for more effective cooperation among the Vatican Authorities involved in the prevention and countering of money laundering and the financing of terrorism. The new law stressed the importance of their mutual connections and the need to better allocate their respective competences in order to establish a stronger and more sustainable system AML/CFT system.
The present AML/CFT system
Now I would like to draw your attention to some of the more important elements of the current AML/CFT Regime:
- The establishment of a risk-based approach to AML/CFT work, particularly in regard to the identification of suspicious transactions;
- Enhanced emphasis on international cooperation, including full exchange of information with foreign counterparts. And I stress that this includes exchange of information including information prior to April 1, 2011;
- Laws relating to financial institution secrecy are consistent with the international standards;
- The criminal law is significantly improved, by providing a comprehensive definition of money laundering, and an array of predicate crimes in line with the international standards, as well as the criminalization of the financing of terrorism;
- The power of the courts to prosecute money laundering, financing of terrorism, and its predicate crimes, as well as to freeze and confiscate the proceeds of ML/FT activity has been strengthened;
- The sanctions for failure to fulfill AML/CFT requirements are enhanced and made applicable to legal persons;
- Entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a requirement for the exchange of financial information with financial intelligence units from other states. We pledge this to be an effective and reliable tool for exchanging information on the basis of reciprocity with those jurisdictions that are also committed to fight money laundering and the financing of terrorism;
- The power of the AML/FT supervisor to perform an inspection of any financial institution is made explicit and the law provides for the creation of a specific and detailed regulation upon the basis of which that inspection could be conducted.
In addition, the Holy See, acting also on behalf of Vatican City State, has ratified the following Conventions:
- the Vienna Convention against Illicit Traffic on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988).
- the New York Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999).
- the Palermo Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000).
These Conventions are immediately applicable in our legal system, without any further need to implement legislation regarding extradition and cooperation.
In addition, the area of international cooperation was carefully assessed. The findings of the evaluators were that the current system of the Holy See and of Vatican City State is largely compliant with the international standards.
Areas re where evaluators noted a need for improvement
We are aware that, like other jurisdictions, some areas of the Vatican’s systems to fight money laundering and the financing of terrorism still need to improve. After the new law was adopted in January, we addressed many of these issues in the course of our continuing exchanges with the evaluators. Other issues will be addressed expeditiously and giving proof of effectiveness.
For example:
- There are some concerns expressed in the report regarding the use of an MOU to establish the basis for international cooperation between financial intelligence units;
We feel that the adoption of this requirement, which is in line with international standards, represents the right approach for the Vatican, which, as a smaller jurisdiction, wishes to interact on fair and fully reciprocal terms with other countries. Indeed, this is a common choice made by many jurisdictions, including New Zealand, Canada, Australia and others; nor is this choice disfavored by such noted FATF members as the United States;
- The Pontifical Commission is mandated by the law to provide for a regulation permitting the AML/CFT Supervisor to perform on-sight inspections. The evaluators note that until such a regulation becomes law, the supervisors inspection powers are not yet defined. We agree. That regulation, which is already being drafted, will reflect our seriousness of purpose;
- The report notes that the original structure of a Financial Intelligence Authority, which combines the financial intelligence unit function and the regulatory functions of a Supervisor, appears to create difficulties. This structure of the FIA, which concentrated all AML intelligence and supervision was inherited from the first version of the law. It was retained in the second version of the law. The evaluators have expressed certain skepticism as to its "workability" . We are grateful for this observation which we take seriously;
- The report notes that conflicts of interest may arise due to the same person working at the same time in a Supervisor and in one of the supervised entities.
Steps taken after passing the new law
After adoption of the present law, the Holy See has continued to improve its anti-money- laundering system. Above all, the Holy See and the Vatican Authorities have moved from shorter-term solutions to the creation of long term, sustainable and effective solutions; and will continue to do.
For example, after January 25, that is after the above mentioned period of two months following the first on-site visit:
- The Holy Sere established and implemented a terrorist list in line with the measures required by the United Nations Security Council;
- We have officially applied to join the Egmont Group, which is the internationally accredited group of Financial Intelligence Units formed to favor rapid and reciprocal exchanges of information;
- Through the execution of memoranda of understanding, we have expeditiously moved to insert our own financial intelligence authority into the international network of financial intelligence units;
- As mentioned, the Cardinal’ Commission for the Vatican City State is in the process of adopting an inspection regulation;
- We have initiated further revision of our criminal law, with a view to further modernize its provisions in light of the international standards;
- Shortly we will complete our risk assessment;
- We are considering ratification of other crime fighting conventions and new legislation regarding non-profit organizations.
CONCLUSION
Therefore the report released today is not an end, but a milestone in our continuing efforts.
In regards to the actual findings, simply stated we obviously wish to strengthen the overall system; in particular out of the 16 key and core recommendations of the international standards to fight ML/FT there are 7 areas where the Holy See must and will focus on.
In this light, the report released today is not the end, but is rather an important passage of our continuing efforts to marry moral commitments to technical excellence.
We have taken a definitive step to lay the foundations to a structure – a house if you will – that is to a robust and sustainable system to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Now it is our wish to fully construct a building that effectively shows the Holy See’s and Vatican City State’s desire to be a reliable partner in the international community.
With pride in what we have accomplished, tempered by recognition of what we must still do, I now welcome your questions.
The AP report stressed that the Vatican "received poor grades for the effectiveness of its new financial watchdog agency and the ability of its bank to track suspicious transactions", but also added the following information:
The so-called Moneyval committee praised the Holy See for making so much progress in a short amount of time to come into compliance with the norms, and the Vatican scored compliant or largely compliant grades overall in 49 percent of the criteria.
Moneyval's executive secretary, John Ringguth, said the uniqueness of the Holy See as a state stood out to evaluators. It is the seat of the Roman Catholic Church and a state with financial institutions but without a private sector.
"One of the first things that we had to get our head around was the law of 1929, which basically creates a public monopoly system in the Vatican City State and Holy See," he said in a phone interview.
Overall he said the Vatican fared well in its first round evaluation, noting that it comes out "somewhere in the middle" of Moneyval member states in terms of rankings; some of those states, however, have had years to come into compliance whereas the Vatican only began the evaluation process last year.
Two days later, inn his weekly column, John Allen Jr. would be the first among the Vaticanistas of any nationality to come out and present the resent Moneyval report on the Holy See's financial transparency in the right context - as a solid nuts-and-bolts governing achievement of Benedict the Legislator, as Sandro Magister has called him, from whom all sectors might learn a lesson.
Contrary to Allen's own favorite label of Benedict XVI as 'a teaching Pope', as if that were his only qualification, he is far from a 'one-trick' Pope. In a role that is more complex and universally demanding than any leadership function that could have been imagined by man, he does what he has to do, and can do, according to a sensible scheme of priorities that are not confined to spiritual transcendence, as he never loses sight of the everyday context in which man tries to achieve such transcendence.
]G]Along with the Church's now all-out war against sex predators in the clergy and the bishops who cover up for them, this transparency effort would never have been possible without the political will of one man, a most enlightened - and most likely, divinely illuminated - sovereign monarch, in a world where the exercise of 'democracy' has often meant inherent stalemate, and therefore inaction, among battling partisan interests on any significant policy... Papa Bene also shows that at 85, he has the leadership, dynamism and initiative of men half his age.
A Vatican watershed on transparency,
and a new tool for reformers
July 20, 2012
For sure, I’m no Nostradamus. To cite just one example of my failures as a prognosticator, in 1999 I published a biography of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger containing four reasons why his election as pope was improbable. We’re now, of course, into the eighth year of his reign.
A month ago, however, I finally got one right.
On June 22, previewing an evaluation of the Vatican’s financial transparency by Moneyval, the Council of Europe’s anti-money laundering body, I wrote: “The report is probably destined to trigger confusing and conflicting headlines about how well the Vatican did.”
On cue, these headlines ran shortly after the report’s release on Wednesday, July 18:
o Associated Press: “Vatican passes key financial transparency test”
o AGI: “Moneyval flunks the Vatican”
o L’Espresso: “Moneyval passes the Vatican”
o RTE: “Serious failings identified in Vatican Bank”
p Sunday Times: “Report cites progress in Vatican anti-money laundering efforts”
Sometimes the juxtaposition actually came in the same piece. The Italian daily Il Messaggero ran a headline (“Moneyval: Still little transparency at Vatican Bank”) which was at odds with its own opening paragraph (“The Vatican Bank is not quite transparent, but almost, the report says.”)
Why the confusion? In reality, the Vatican probably did about as well as was reasonable to expect, but the report contains plenty of criticism too. As a result, it’s a Rorschach test for broader attitudes, open to being spun in whichever direction someone feels like taking. [The fact is there is no need to spin anything - though the media could not resist doing so, as foolish as that is. The report is down-to-earth and specific, and it was never expected to be undiluted praise. It is in the nature of an interim report that while certain aspects will be praised, others will be criticized, the point being to achieve as close to full compliance with the evaluating agency's criteria. The Vatican itself struck the right note and balance in its statements. ]
We’ll get to the results in a moment, but first a word about the historical significance of the process. Without a doubt, the word is: “Watershed.”
Never before has the Vatican opened its financial and legal systems to this sort of external, independent review, with the results made public. In centuries past, had secular authorities shown up to conduct such a review, they would have been fought off tooth and nail. For Moneyval, the red carpet was rolled out instead.
American lawyer Jeffrey Lena, an advisor to the Vatican on the Moneyval process, told me that evaluators were able to examine records of judicial and diplomatic cooperation, anti-money laundering certifications, accountancy management letters, foundation registry records, and other confidential legal documents.
To say that the Vatican traditionally has been reluctant to grant such access is a bit like saying the Tea Party is lukewarm about Obama — in other words, it really doesn’t do justice to the depth of emotion involved.
In quick-and-dirty fashion, here’s a summary of the key Moneyval findings.
Evaluators found that the Vatican “has come a long way in a very short period of time”, and said that “the Holy See and Vatican City State authorities have cooperated closely with the evaluators, and reacted quickly to remedy a number of the deficiencies highlighted during the first on-site visit.”
The evaluation reflects the situation between November 2011 and January 2012, and the report lauds the Vatican for continuing “to move forward to improve and modernize its laws and practices” since that time.
Yet evaluators also found that “important issues still need addressing in order to demonstrate that a fully effective regime has been instituted in practice.”
In light of the Vatican’s checkered history of financial scandals, this finding seems especially key: “Although there have been recent unsubstantiated allegations of corruption in the media,” the report states, “there is no empirical evidence of corruption taking place within the Vatican City State.”
(For the record, the media didn’t just invent those allegations. The Vatican’s current ambassador in Washington wrote a letter two years ago, while he was a top official in the Vatican City State, complaining to thePpope about “so many instances of corruption and dishonesty.” The correspondence came to light amid the Vatican leaks scandal, though it’s been described as exaggerated or inaccurate by other officials.) [And for the record, Mr. Allen and all you reporters and commentators out there, as I have been hammering home ad mauseam, you are simply taking the word of Vigano about alleged "so many instances of corruption and dishonesty", when he only cited one example - the now oft-repeated tale of the cost overprice in the 2009 Nativity scene in St. Peter's Square [which, moreover, has been explained by the Governatorate Technical Services Department as having represented a one-time investment in a permanent base and frame for the annual construction]. Considering the detail into which Vigano went into describing the alleged personal misconduct of his 'enemies' at the Vatican, does anyone really think that if there had been more than the creche overprice, he would not have presented them in detail? Why has no one in MSM pointed this out at all? Because it is convenient for their purposes - to paint the Vatican and therefore the Church in the most negative light - to simply quote Vigano and not investigate what he said? What happened to independent reporting and corroboration? Well, now we have the presumably unbiased conclusion of the Moneyval inspectors themselves to tell us otherwise. But has anyone else besides Allen picked this out from the 240-page report?]
Overall, Moneyval found that “the threat of money laundering and terrorist financing is very low.” The report said that three factors, however, increase the risk:
- A high volume of cash transactions and wire transfers. (The report acknowledges that cash transactions “are an important contributor to the funding of the global mission of the church”.)
- The global footprint of the church’s activities, which include transactions with countries that insufficiently apply transparency standards.
- Limited information on non-profit organizations operating within the Vatican.
The Vatican has said that it’s already initiated a risk assessment in these areas, which presumably will be examined during the next round of Moneyval review.
In evaluating European states, Moneyval uses the 49 benchmarks established by the Financial Action Task Force, founded by the G8. Four were judged non-applicable to the Vatican, while it got passing grades on 22 and failing marks on 23. Most importantly, the Vatican was judged “compliant” or “largely compliant”, the highest marks available, on nine of the sixteen “key and core” standards.
Those results put the Vatican squarely in the middle of the global pack, with scores similar to recent evaluations of Germany, Italy, and the Czech Republic. The Vatican actually earned better scores on the “key and core” recommendations than 19 of the 29 countries Moneyval has evaluated, and most of those states have been through two previous evaluation cycles.
In other words, the Vatican almost finished in the top third of European nations the first time it took the test.
As a result, the Vatican will not be placed into Moneyval’s “Compliance Enhancing Procedures,” designed for problem states -- as close as they come to saying that a country has “failed”. Instead, the Vatican will be subject to the normal follow-up process for states seen as moving in the right direction.
* * *
In terms of deficiencies, Moneyval found that the “role, responsibility, authority, powers and independence” of a new financial watchdog unit created by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010 need to be clarified and strengthened. At the time, the creation of that watchdog, called the Financial Information Authority, was touted as a cornerstone in Benedict’s campaign for a financial glasnost.
According to the report, the Financial Information Authority lacks adequate powers to carry out its duties. It also lacks the ability to issue sanctions with regard to APSA, the Apostolic Patrimony of the Holy See, one of the Vatican’s two main financial entities, along with the Institute for the Works of Religion, popularly known as the “Vatican Bank.” [I wonder if this was part of the 'weakening' of the original FIA concept by the 2011 amendments made by Bertone and company to the original law signed by the Pope in December 2010?]
Evaluators found that the Financial Information Authority has not yet conducted any on-site inspections, nor has it done any sample testing of files. The report also said that the watchdog unit hasn’t yet performed an inspection of either APSA or the Vatican Bank, despite the fact that bank officials requested one. [What good would inspections be if, as the previous paragraph says, the FIA has no ability to impose sanctions???]
Further, evaluators said the number of reports the Financial Information Authority has received regarding suspect transactions is low, even allowing for the small size of the Vatican’s financial sector.
As a result of the Vatican leaks scandal, we know that similar concerns have percolated internally.
Earlier this year, Italian Cardinal Attilio Nicora, the president of the watchdog unit, wrote a confidential memorandum voicing concern that limits on its authority from the Secretariat of State could be seen as a “step back” on reform, and could “create serious alarm in the international community.”
The Vatican has said that new regulations providing inspection powers with teeth for the Financial Information Authority are on the way. Officials say it’s more important to get those regulations right than to get them fast, but when they’re issued, they vow, they’ll satisfy international standards.
Moneyval also proposed that the watchdog unit should inspect not just the Vatican’s own institutional entities, but also the 46 non-profit organizations housed within the Vatican. These are mostly small foundations created by a cardinal or other senior figure to promote some pet project, such as inter-faith dialogue, and are largely unregulated. [But one understood the December 31, 2010 law signed by the Pope to cover all financial transactions by any agency operating in the Vatican!]
On the Vatican Bank, the Moneyval report suggested that it be subject to independent supervision. The lack of such oversight, it warned, “poses large risks to the stability of the small financial sector of the Holy See and Vatican City State.”
Though there is a Commission of Cardinals that governs the bank, evaluators apparently felt that because the commission is technically a part of the institution, it’s not an objective overseer. In part, this reflects eternal confusion over whether the Institute for the Works of Religion is or isn’t a “bank”. Commercial banks are normally subject to an external regulatory agency, such as the FDIC in the States, while the IOR is a non-profit public entity.
The question of oversight is especially current in the wake of the late May firing of Italian economist Ettore Gotti Tedeschi as the bank’s president. Gotti Tedeschi had been seen in some quarters as a symbol of the Vatican’s new commitment to transparency, though officials insisted that his removal was a personnel issue related to what they described as “erratic” behavior and basically not doing his job. [No, Mr. Allen, Carl Anderson's now infamous internal memo detailing the reasons for the no-confidence vote in Gotti Tedeschi specifically said that he had himself become an obstacle to transparency!]
Moneyval also recommended that a formal statute should set out the kinds of legal and natural persons eligible to hold accounts at the bank, while applauding its internal efforts to review its database of just over 33,000 accounts -- an inspection which actually predates the Moneyval process...
[Allen then provides the links to the Moneyval site containing the 24-page Executive Summary of the report and the 240-page report itself. I must admit I skimmed through these 240 pages after the briefing on Wednesday but decided that I do not have the time - nor the technical wherewithal - to get into the details.]
Standing back from the specifics, here are three final observations about the significance of the Moneyval report.
First, journalists probably need to update their draft obituaries of Pope Benedict XVI. Up to this point, the consensus [OF WHOM? Allen and his fellow Vaticanistas who largely shape the way the public perceives the Vatican, the Church and the Pope?] has been that Benedict is a teaching Pope, not a governor, and that his inattention to management has allowed a string of train-wrecks to happen. There’s still truth to that assessment, but we now have independent secular evaluators saying that considerable progress on financial rigor has been made on Benedict’s watch.
Benedict also has launched various reforms on the clerical sexual abuse scandals, and while their effectiveness is still debated, few observers doubt that the Vatican is in a better place today than seven years ago. His record may thus have to be reconsidered: Still primarily a teaching pope, perhaps, but one who’s made management strides in at least a couple of key areas. [Unfortunately, rather than being a 'concession' that Benedict XVI has other achievements other than teaching, this sounds more like condescension! "Oh look, he may have more than one trick to show!"]
As a footnote, one might make a similar point about Benedict’s top deputy, Italian Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Secretary of State. Fairly or not, Bertone has taken a beating in the press over the last seven years for his alleged incompetence, related to such spectacular flame-outs as the Holocaust-denying bishop affair. This time around, however, Bertone’s team managed to avoid snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. [One wonders, if the Pope had not overruled Bertone and the latter had succeeded to involve the Vatican in San Raffaele and the Toniolo Isntitute, what might Moneyval have thought of such financial excursions?]....
[Allen then devotes a couple of paragraphs singing the praises of Mons. Balestrero, whose mother is American, as a potential future Secretary of State. As it happens, Balestrero was unexpectedly named Apostolic Nuncio to Colombia in one of Benedict XVI's last nominations before he stepped down as Pope.]
Third, it’s the nature of the Catholic system that everything a Pope does, for good or ill, sets a tone. [I wish! It seems too many are out of tune with his initiatives in the sex-abuse issue and on liturgy!] By subjecting the Vatican to a Moneyval review, Benedict XVI in effect has handed financial reformers across the Catholic world a new club with which to beat recalcitrant officials over the head and shoulders.
From now on, any bishop or religious superior who resists an independent audit; any pastor who drags his feet about proper controls on receipts from the collection plate; any head of a Catholic school, hospital or charity who plays fast and loose with the books; anybody in authority, in fact, who shrugs off concerns about money management; will inevitably face the question, “If the Pope’s open to criticism, why aren’t you?” [Not that this has worked in the case of liturgy and the sex-abuse issue!]
Whether a sea change in accountability ensues remains to be seen, but even the prospect suggests that the Moneyval process could be of consequence not just for the Vatican, but for the Church everywhere.
So, once again, as we Benaddicts think all the time -
DEO GRATIAS!
BRAVO BENEDETTO XVI IL GRANDISSIMO.
BENEDICTUS QUI VENIT IN NOMINE DOMINI!
Unfortunately, few commentators even conceded the historicity of the entire Moneyval process with regard to Vatican finances, much as they had virtually ignored the genuine revolution represented by Benedict XVI's December 2010 promulgation of a Vatican financial transparency law for the Vatican. For the first time in the Church's history, her central government opened itself up to external scrutiny in an area that has always been closely guarded - ''highly secretive' is the media word - its finances.
None of the cardinals who, at the pre-Conclave congregations in March 2013, sanctimoniously painted the governance of the Vatican by Benedict XVI as an unmitigated disaster ever once cited this development. And I reiterate my perplexity as to why Cardinal Bertone and his four colleagues on the cardinals' oversight commission for IOR did not make this point (unless they chose not to do so in order to avoid having to get into the can of worms represented by Gotti Tedeschi's dismissal.
In any case, how can one forgive and forget - in the days and weeks that immediately followed BenedictXVI's retirement - the virtual and, one must think, deliberate snub made by Benedict XVI's critics, especially the sanctimonious cardinals, of the unprecedented acts of transparent governance that he showed? When all he got from them was an almost insulting form telegram such as a corporation might give to an aged employee who had just retired? The callous gesture and the utterly generic character of the telegram's tone and content said it all - to them, Benedict XVI was yesterday's trash who must now be consigned to the garbage dump of history.
This post was for yesterday, obviously... So sorry for yet another blot on my increasingly spotty record as a 'chronicler'... |