Vatican Bank

BBC

In January the Italian central bank suspended all bank card payments in the Vatican, citing its failure fully to implement anti-money laundering legislation.

The Holy See was required to meet European Union safeguards on finances by the start of 2013.

Pope Benedict has promised greater transparency in Vatican finances and the operations of its bank.

A group of experts from the Council of Europe said last year that the Vatican had made progress in reforming to meet EU standards but that a lot of work remained to be done.

I'm confused.  What is the obligation here for the Vatican?  Or is it the EU saying, "do this because I'm bigger than you"?   Click the link to read more about the Vatican Bank's newly appointed head.

Missing Priest In Greece

For the last few days, I've been following the case of Father Christiaan Kappas (or Kappes), a priest of the diocese of Indianapolis who has been studying in Athens under the aegis of some Vatican institute.

The details and timeline of events from a week ago when Father Kappas went missing are emerging slowly, but the gist of it is that last weekend and on Monday he contacted his family in a state of fear and told them of people wanting him and his translator friend dead due to an inheritance.

Last Monday, the pair visited the police, the US embassy, the airport, and the US embassy again before disappearing.  At the second stop at the US embassy, Father Kappas spoke to his family for the last time and they haven't heard from him since.

Father Kappas' sister Nadia is updating her Facebook page with information as it is learned by the family in Indiana. There is a thread at Websleuths, a form where missing persons and famous cases are discussed.

Please join me in prayers for the safe return of Father Kappas and his translator.

Baghdad Massacre

Rorate Caeli has the full text by Father Raymond J. de Souza. Or if you prefer, Father Z is it as well with his own interspersed commentary.

It's a race against time and we're probably going to lose the Middle East before we reach the finish line.

Eventually though, Globalization is going to neuter the Muslim countries as it has the West with its tools of abortion and contraception to the point where their own populations will start falling. Iran with its huge population of young people born since the Revolution of 1979 who have collectively chosen to not procreate is the prime example of this demographic trend (check out the graph at the right).

The battlefield now truly is Europe where the question is if the European states (for example, Germany and Merkel's recent statement that multiculturalism has failed) will be able to rouse themselves soon enough to hold off the tide or if the Muslims will take control of a decayed secular Europe just in time for their own implosion.

Not So Classy

I was watching EWTN's rerun of the Pope consecrating Sagrada Família today (it happened live early this morning when I was assleep). Off to the side were seated a man and a woman whom I assumed were the king and queen of Spain (the lady had on white). The king didn't receive communion from the Pope, but the queen did.

1. A kneeler was right in front of her, but she chose to awkwardly bend her knees and bend forward since she was on this step up from the Pope.
2. Then she stuck out her hand.

Not the way to do it with Benedict XVI.

Blasphemy in Italy

ANSA.it: Soccer: Blasphemy cards to be used 'with care'

(ANSA) - Rome, March 17 - Italian soccer's new crackdown on blasphemous comments by players and coaches should be applied "with common sense," the head of the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) said Wednesday.

Responding to protests from clubs, CONI President Gianni Petrucci recalled that blasphemy is a crime under Italian law and he was glad to have suggested the campaign to Italian Soccer Federation chief Giancarlo Abete.

Petrucci, whose organisation oversees all Italian sport, said the campaign to give offending players red cards would go ahead but "FIGC will apply it with common sense".

"Blasphemy is not at all a secondary thing," he insisted, "but we have to handle it with care".

The drive to stamp out irreligious oaths has claimed international headlines and spurred protests from coaches including Juventus's Alberto Zaccheroni who said "championships could be altered by this overzealous campaign".
[...]

In an amateur match, three red cards were handed out for sacrilegious language, leaving one team with ten men and the other with nine.

I'm impressed. When I first glanced at the headline on the main English page, I thought it would be an article about a Muslim majority country in the Developing World, but Italy! That surprised me. Yeah, I know Italy is fighting the crucifix ruling from the EU, but a crucifix in a classroom seems pretty tame compared to referees handing out red cards for blasphemy. True, it's not the state mandating this...

But if it's a law and the sport wants to regulate itself and its players, I'm all for it.

I am interested in what constitutes blasphemy under Italian law and if it is specific to the Judeo-Christian God.

Arrogance in Action

From Telegraph.co.uk:

Holland scrapping liberal policies on drugs and brothels to clean up image

The Dutch are rethinking their famously liberal polices on legalised brothels, prostitution and soft drugs, such as magic mushrooms and cannabis, amid fears of growing crime and social decline.

This little quote stood out:

"The country is turning more conservative," said historian and author Han van den Horst. "There is a move away from sex, drugs and rock'n'roll towards some pretty bourgeois values."

'Conservative' equals 'bourgeois.' Right, got it.

Useless Reform

At the German-language Facebook equivalent I joined some time ago, it asked me for my political preference. Since it was listed, I chose 'monarchist' because I like monarchies. I think their place in history and the convoluted ways they've survived into the present day is a fun thing to study.

Then I go and read this.

The monarch has no real power. The legislature has emasculated the monarchy over time and basically gutted the House of Lords so that the British system is a tyranny of the majority. If they're so intent on reducing it down to nothing, why don't they just abolish it and be done with it?

There are horror stories from the NHS, Shariah is taking hold as a viable method of legal adjudication and a top ethicist wants to euthanize old people with dementia and all these Labourites can thing of is screwing around with an institution that is powerless anyway?

And to think they make fun of American politics...

The Leeds Crisis

Damian Thompson has been keeping abreast of this at his blog Holy Smoke. In his latest post, Mr. Thompson describes the reaction of the bishop of Leeds to the recent protest actions of parishioners whose parishes are being closed rather arbitrarily under false pretenses.

The whole thing came up at Mr. Thompson's blog with the issue of the bishop wishing to deal with one Father Lawler, the pastor of St. John the Evangelist at Allerton Bywater for being insubordinate. But Mr. Thompson indicated it had more to do with the good father's using Latin in the Mass and saying Mass while facing liturgical east.

In the latest post:

This whole business stinks, and I hear that the smell is beginning drift as far afield as the Vatican.

Bishop Roche I think has overplayed his hand. As Mr. Thompson has stated repeatedly, he's a member of the magic circle that dominates the English hierarchy and is in the running for succeeding to the archbishopric of Westminster. Coming to the Vatican's attention now not only exposes him as a member of that magic circle that has caught flack before for its /resistance/ to the pope's initiatives, but it also gives truth to the position that /all/ of that group is pretty much unfit for office. If Cormac and his chums hope to retain the see of Westminster, they'd do well to step in and tell their friend Bishop Roche to stop making waves.

South Ossetia V

This post at Hot Air is pretty damning. Sarkozy negotiating away Georgia's sovereignty for a ceasefire... That's pretty sad.

So why are the Russians packing it in for a 'retrograde maneuver?'

Obviously, the cease-fire agreement did not chase the Russians back into South Ossetia. So what did? The unexpectedly strong American response is most likely responsible for the Russian reconsideration. George Bush went from oddly passive in the first hours of the crisis to angry within days. His order to start military airlifts to provide, ahem, “humanitarian” aid to Georgia probably took Russia by surprise. The EU move to kick Russia out of the G-8, where they don’t belong anyway, may also have gotten Putin’s attention.

Suppression: Such a Harsh Word

Damien Thompson is reporting the suppression of a parish and the punishment of its priest.

The priest:

Fr Lawler told me [Thompson] today: "This is a parish that does exactly what the Holy Father tells us to do, celebrating the Mass reverently in the old and new forms. The bishop is determined to squash it, and to destroy me because he doesn't want me moving to another parish and doing the same thing."

The chancery:

Instead, the Vicar General, one Mgr McQuinn, has written to him [Father Lawler], telling him: "The Bishop ... believes your ministry to be divisive, is uncertain that ordinary pastoral care of parishioners is taking place and does not have confidence that you will celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass with a generous heart for the vast majority of parishioners who expect Sunday and weekday Masses to be in English and at an altar facing the people."

Apparently Father Lawler has been on the bishop's list for awhile and this seems to be the climax of much tension. The parish has retained a canon lawyer and appealing to Rome.

I would assume that Mr. Thompson would not report such a blatant act as this without first getting his ducks in a row. That the bishop of Leeds would take such drastic action is telling. I would personally like to know the circumstances behind the 'planned' round of closings and if this church was slated for closure before or after all this cropped up. That would be even more damning.

One Dead, One Wounded

My grandfather had all kinds of pro-life bumper stickers. One of them went along the lines of 'One dead, one wounded.' I guess in this case, it would be 'Three dead, period.'

Telegraph.co.uk: Artist hanged herself after aborting her twins

An artist killed herself after aborting her twins when she was eight weeks pregnant, leaving a note saying: "I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum."

Emma Beck was found hanging at her home in Helston, Cornwall, on Feb 1 2007. She was declared dead early the following day - her 31st birthday.
[...]

Emma was happy to find out she was pregnant, but Emma's boyfriend wasn't happy. Emma had a history of depression. When she finally got to the hospital after missing a few appointments as she struggled, a certified counselor was not to be found... They gave her a number to call because everyone was off on holiday leave.

Welcome, my friends, to the NHS.

Her suicide note read: "I told everyone I didn't want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is too late. I died when my babies died. I want to be with my babies: they need me, no-one else does."

...

Requiescat in pace.

The Future of Europe?

Spengler's essay posted today needs to be read.

Salient points:

Europe’s Man of Destiny is Geert Wilders, the 35-year-old leader of Holland’s tiny Freedom Party. He has provoked the world Muslim community in order to draw the violent jihadists out of the tall grass, and he seems to be succeeding. Call what Wilders has done nasty but necessary, and blame Europe’s so-called mainstream leaders for abandoning their posts, and leaving the standard in the hands of a young man with the courage to grasp it. At the moment the Dutch government is quaking over the consequences of a 10-minute film that Wilders plans to release in April denouncing the Koran.
[...]

Thus far, the authorities of Europe have made clear that they will do nothing to prevent the murder of a prominent citizen. If Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose plea to the European Parliament made headlines, can expect no help from the authorities when her life is at imminent risk, what succor can the anonymous victims of Islamist violence expect?

I am ashamed to say that it did not become clear to me that Wilders has taken the only appropriate course of action until I read carefully the Archbishop of Canterbury’s now-infamous "sharia" speech. Stripped of casuistry, he proposed that Muslim women subject to forced marriages, genital mutilation, or domestic violence should be handed over to Muslim religious courts, rather than be offered the protection of English Common Law. To my knowledge, this is the first time that one of Europe’s spiritual leaders has proposed to abandon innocent victims to their fate.

Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams, to be sure, has a point. But he should have stated plainly what he really thinks. What he wanted to say is more or less: "To protect a few hundred or a few thousand colored ladies, the English state will have to put its big boots on, kick down the doors of Muslim homes, trample through Muslim living rooms, tear up the fabric of Muslim communities, and disrupt the social order. Why not turn such cases over to religious courts and wash our hands of them?" I reiterate: this is satanic hypocrisy.

If decent and well-meaning men like Dr Williams are so afraid of communal violence as to abandon the founding principles of common law and Judeo-Christian ethics, it is long past time to debate the fine points. Blessed are the pre-emptors, for they will get on with it.
[...]

The man must be batty?

Almost a thousand years of slow and steady legal evolution that has defined the rights of Englishmen...

Dr. Williams thinks we all can't get along without separate courts:

An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger...

You, sir, are the danger!

On second thought, maybe he agrees with Irene's friend that imposing one's creed upon another is 'a damned cheek'?

The "La Sapienza" Affair

I've been busy... But on to business.

Catching up on Father Z this morning, I read his piece on the Holy Father's canceled visit to "La Sapienza" University in Italy because professors and students were protesting madly and his security and dignity could not be guaranteed.

I was referred then to Zadok, who has all the details on the ground:

Pope to Visit the Sapienza University

Gah! It's not about Galileo!

Credit where credit is due

They're worse than I thought...

Ruini - Show support for the Pope on Sunday!
I don't have much to add to this myself beyond what Father Z and Zadok have to say. In the comments to the various quotes, a lot of biblical verses are quoted to support His Holiness. Dusting yourself off after being thrown out is a good one, as is the story of Peter turning back to Rome after Jesus asks him where he's going.

When the Church Attacks

Octave of the Holy Innocents, martyrs
Feria

From the National Secular Society (of the UK):

The Government and the Catholic Church are at loggerheads again in Spain following a mass demonstration in Madrid over the New Year. The rally, organised by the Church, was supposed to be “in defence of the family” but was, in fact, an attack on the Spanish Government’s legalisation of gay marriage, its new fast-track divorce law and a new civics course that parents can choose for their children instead of religious indoctrination in schools. The Pope made an appearance via a video link to cheer on the bigots. The Church claimed that two million people had taken part in the rally, but an independent count by El Pais newspaper put the number at less than 160,000. Even they had to be bussed in from all over the country, and some even from Portugal.
[...]

My bolding. It goes on like that. It's funny how they phrase that. I bolded the attack words in the article. But they criticize the rally because it was claimed that it was in support of the family while they rattle off a list of criticisms of government policy. But if they bothered to think through their argument, maybe they'd realize that support of something usually means support of something against something else, namely the policies listed of the Spanish government.

I got through the first paragraph and stopped. If anyone else has the fortitude to go on, feel free.

Catholic World News:

Madrid, Jan. 3, 2008 (CWNews.com) - Spanish government leaders have asked the country's Catholic bishops to apologize for the massive pro-family rally held in Madrid on December 30, Vatican Radio reports.

Leaders of the Socialist governing party have charged that the Church intervened in partisan political affairs with the rally, which drew nearly 2 million participants. (The government is reporting that only 160,000 took part in the demonstration.) The government has asked the bishops' conference for an apology.

Although 40 bishops took part in the pro-family event, and the hierarchy gave clear support to the event, the rally was organized primarily by lay Catholic activists. The organizers have consistently argued that the rally was not intended as a partisan political event, but as a public expression of support for the traditional family founded on Christian marriage.

One part of the Secular Society's bit that I didn't quote was the part on numbers. There's some dispute over if the rally's attendance was six digits or seven. Note the distinction given between clerical and lay organization of the rally.

What will those secularists say next?

national secular society (which does not capitalize its name at its website, so why should I?):

Title:
Italians Give The Pope A Kick In The Pants

First paragraph:
Pope Ratzinger spent most of last week hysterically berating the Italian government for bringing forward a new partnership law that gives legal rights to unmarried cohabiting heterosexual couples and to homosexual couples. Italy’s most senior cardinal, Camillo Ruini, then announced that he would issue an ‘official note’ to Catholics, asking them to make “a personal commitment to defend marriage and oppose de facto couples”. That was seen as a direct call on Catholic lawmakers to vote against the bill.

Second paragraph:
But a new poll shows that the Vatican is out of step with public opinion in Italy. [...]

Kick in the pants, hysterically berating... A good smile is needed before going into Lent. ;)

The Maltese situation

MaltaToday:

At a time when the Italian Episcopal Council was already at loggerheads with Italy’s centre-left over a proposed law on civil unions, Archbishop Pawlu Cremona’s recent declaration during Georg Sapiano’s discussion programme Doksa came as a genuine surprise to many.
In apparent dissonance with Rome, Archbishop Cremona replied with a resounding “yes” to Sapiano’s question concerning the necessity or desirability for the party in government to continue working to deliver on an electoral promise, made in 1998, to legislate on the rights and obligations of cohabiting couples.
Mgr Cremona said that the Church has already made it clear that the state must legislate to safeguard the rights and interests of those who live together, including, for example, brothers and sisters who share the same house.
[...]

Perhaps wary of treading on the Church’s traditional monopoly on family affairs – unaltered by 160 years of British rule, and only remotely tampered with by Dom Mintoff – the Maltese State has left cohabiting couples in a legal vacuum. Relegated to the status of second class citizens, they have no right of inheritance if their partner dies without leaving a will, no rights to the common home if abandoned by their partner, no say in any decisions affecting their partner’s health and not even a legal right to organise their partner’s funeral.

The first few paragraphs explain the basic situation along with the archbishop's interesting position on the issue. What I find most interesting though is the line that I bolded that gives away in my mind the true intent of the legislation. If all it takes is a will to make sure that person A cohabitating with person B have clear rights of inheritance to each other's property, that's easily remedied. But instead, more rights are demanded in the slippery slope down into the abyss.

Whatever Archbishop Cremona's thoughts are on 'pastoral statements' and the like, he ought to look over the cliff at what lies below before he takes the plunge. The Church's primary goal ought to be protecting the family, not facilitating the ease in which cohabitating couples can simulate family life with all the legal bells and whistles.

General symptoms or just a few extremists?

AKI:

Rome, 1 Feb. (AKI) - A television report to be aired in Italy on Thursday night shows that clerics in three Italian mosques are campaigning for Islamic sharia law in the country. The report by a Somali and an Iraqi journalist who attended services at the mosques of viale Jenner in Milan, at the center of several anti-terror investigations, Centocelle in Rome and Varese, in northern Italy, also shows how the imams promote poligamy, which is illegal in Italy, according to transcripts from the programme published by Italy's leading paper Corriere della Sera on Thursday.

Footage to be aired by 'A veil between us' on satellite television news channel Sky TG24, shows Abu Imad, an imam at the Viale Jenner mosque, saying that "their (Italy's) democracy is useful to us, as a community and as individuals. The truth is that in the land of Muslims, if we are Muslims, we must be governed by Sharia." The imam concludes his speech that the majority Catholic country "will become an Islamic state."

The cleric in Milan is also quoted as saying that "poligamy is a problem which can be solved." "Those in poligamous marriages are few and if someone wants to have two wives, it is possible to find a solution. For example, he could marry officially one in a civil ceremony and the second one only under Sharia. It's not a problem."

Bolding is of course mine. These guys are either really stupid or they know something we don't. Or maybe they're just hoping for general apathy.

1. There will be calls of 'they're just a few extremists, they don't represent Islam in Italy', and they'll disappear back under the radar again for five to ten years until they start putting together sizeable communities with electorial clout. Then the democratic system will be in trouble.

Or:

2. We've seen lately a subtle trend towards dealing with 'immigrants' and the like in Europe. Europe seems to be finally realizing that things are not great and with clerics like this speaking out more and more boldly than before, they ought to be getting the message loud and clear. Hopefully they'll remember the lesson of Mein Kampf and realize their enemies have publicly stated their intentions and are now only biding their time and waiting for general European apathy to grow and birthrates to fall even further.

When life stops

Saint Martina
Feria

Sandro Magister has an article out putting in context of his past statements Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini's comments from January 21. In those comments in a leading Italian newspaper, the cardinal proposed that as Magister summarizes, "the seriously ill person has at every moment the right to interrupt the care that keeps him alive."

It's a long back-and-forth of statements and counter-statements with the Welby case in Italy at their center. Be sure to read the entire article. A few of them stuck out. Bolding is mine:

This set of norms – the cardinal clarifies – need not imply “in any way the legalization of euthanasia.” The objective is “difficult, but not impossible: they tell me that, for example, the recent French law in this matter seems to have struck a balance that, if not perfect, is at least able to realize a sufficient consensus in a pluralistic society.”

[Bishop Giuseppe Betori, secretary general of the Italian bishops’ conference] “On a topic like this, politics wants to make too many laws. It seems to me that there is a desire to strip the doctor’s role and assign decision-making instead to the will of the person, who is then influenced by very clear ideological pressures.”

Returning to the Welby case, the paradox is that while cardinal Martini declines to see this as an act of euthanasia, it has been defined as such a number of times by Welby’s relatives and by the supporters of the legalization of euthanasia in Italy. The most prominent of these, professor Umberto Veronesi, an oncologist of worldwide fame, defined it in a parliament hearing, without mincing words, as “a suicide.”

Adopting we will go, adopting we will go... Oh no!

Conversion of Saint Paul, Com. of St Peter
Conversion of Saint Paul, apostle

Bolding is mine throughout.

Ekklesia:

As government ministers last night (24 January 2007) made it clear that they would not bow to strong pressure from Catholic and Anglican leaders who wish to retain the right for church-sponsored adoption services to refuse lesbian and gay couples, Harriet Harman, Minister for Justice at the Department for Constitutional Affairs, has reminded churches that it is not possible to be “a bit opposed to discrimination”.

Ms Harman, a QC, MP and former UK Solicitor General, made the comment in an interview which appears today (25 January 2007) in the News Statesman magazine. Ms Harman is bidding for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party, and she has been backed by US Catholic politician Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to have run for national office in the USA as the nominee of a major party – the Democrats.
[...]

The article goes on, describing how critics think the Church is blackmailing and how the Archbishop of Westminster's efforts have backfired...

Guardian Unlimited:

Tony Blair today sought to quell the row over gay adoptions, insisting he was "committed to finding a way through this sensitive and difficult decision".

Proposals to resolve the dispute will be brought forward next week, the prime minister said in a statement.

Reports today suggested that Mr Blair had "caved in" to cabinet colleagues who do not want to see any exemption for Catholic adoption agencies from new regulations that will require them to offer children to same-sex couples.

Mr. Blair's comments from the same article:

Mr Blair said: "There is one last aspect within the new regulations to resolve and it concerns adoption.

"I have always personally been in favour of the right of gay couples to adopt. "Our priority will always be the welfare of the child."

He added: "Both gay couples and the Catholic agencies have a high level of success in adopting hard-to-place children. It is for that reason we have taken time to ensure we get these regulations right.

"How do we protect the principle of ending discrimination against gay people and at the same time protect those vulnerable children who at the present time are being placed through, and after-care provided by, Catholic agencies, who everyone accepts do a great job with some of the most disturbed youngsters?

"We will announce a decision next week and then vote, probably next month.

"I am committed to finding a way through this sensitive and difficult decision."

Oh ho! So it's about ending discrimination against gay couples versus the welfare of the child? I guess freedom of conscience doesn't weigh in there at all...

From the same article:

Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris (Oxford West and Abingdon), a member of the National Secular Society, told Today: "In my view, if people want to provide services, or engage in welfare work using state money, or under a system co-ordinated by the state, they have to accept they can't discriminate."

Dr Harris added that, at the same time, such people should not "proselytise" either.

Remember, readers, what other system of thought in the world does not like it when Christians 'proselytise'? An instructive thought, is it not?

EDIT: I forgot an article I wanted to which I wanted to link: the one at Gay.com. It's a great article.

After much spin, threats of blackmail and swirling rumours, it seems that for now, the Catholic church will have to accept gay adoptions. Despite the Anglicans joining the fray, the education secretary, Alan Johnson, today confirmed reports that the Catholic church has lost its battle for special treatment over gay adoption rules.

The no-frills statement brings to an end weeks of speculation over the issue, fuelled by the idea that Tony Blair and the communities secretary, Ruth Kelly - were sympathetic to the concerns of the Catholic church. It seems that the apparent Catholic fringe have been forced to back down at the prospect a full-blown cabinet revolt.

That is a powerful intro! Progressive journalism at its best!