Vatican City, Jul 3, 2020 / 04:30 am (CNA).- The Vatican’s financial watchdog authority reported Friday that it received 64 suspicious activity reports in 2019, 15 of which it forwarded to the Promoter of Justice for possible prosecution.
In its annual report, released July 3, the Financial Intelligence Authority (Autorità di Informazione Finanziaria, or AIF) hailed “the rising trend in the ratio between reports to the Promoter of Justice” and cases of suspicious financial activity.
The report comes ahead of a scheduled inspection by Moneyval, the Council of Europe’s anti-money laundering watchdog, which has put pressure on the Vatican to prosecute breaches of financial regulations.
Unlike in previous years, the report was not presented at a Vatican press conference.
The AIF was established by Benedict XVI in 2010 to oversee Vatican financial transactions. It is charged with ensuring that internal banking policies comply with international financial standards.
The number of suspicious activity reports (SARs) is seen as an important indicator of the AIF’s performance. In 2017, there were 150, while in 2018 there were 56.
The AIF forwarded 11 reports to the Promoter of Justice in 2018, four fewer than in 2019.
In the introduction to the new report, AIF director Giuseppe Schlitzer wrote: “Overall, the tendency towards higher quality SARs is strengthening, thanks to the guidelines on more specific anomaly indicators which was provided and a more conscious implementation of a risk-based approach.”
In the introduction Schlitzer said that in 2019 the AIF had “intensified its action in every branch of activity, while consolidating forms of collaboration with other states and jurisdictions.”
“At the system-wide level, also thanks to the Vatican authorities’ strong commitment to fighting money laundering and the financing of terrorism, there was further progress towards a better functioning and international recognition of the jurisdiction,” he wrote.
He noted that the AIF had carried out two onsite inspections at the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR), commonly known as “the Vatican Bank.”
The first, in June, “aimed at assessing the technical compliance with the legal and regulatory framework for payment services.” The second, in August, “consisted in a general compliance assessment in the fields of money laundering and the financing of terrorism.”
The annual report said that the AIF exchanged 66 requests for information with foreign financial intelligence units concerning 373 subjects.
It also said: “Domestic cooperation with the competent authorities of the Holy See and the Vatican City State is intense and led to 24 requests for information and concerned 423 subjects.”
“A marked increase in exchanges with the authorities of the Holy See and Vatican City State was observed as compared with the previous year, which confirms the trend of greater domestic cooperation and exchange of information, as well as greater involvement of Holy See and Vatican City State authorities in countering money-laundering and the financing of terrorism.”
Moneyval was due to carry out a scheduled inspection of the Vatican in spring 2020. But the inspection was delayed due to the coronavirus outbreak.
In a July 3 statement on the AIF’s annual report, the watchdog’s president Carmelo Barbagallo said that the Moneyval evaluation team would begin its inspection of the Holy See and Vatican City State Sept. 29.
“The inspection, which will last about two weeks, was actually scheduled to begin in April but was postponed because of the pandemic. AIF has been tasked with heading the Vatican’s delegation,” he said.
He continued: “Several years have gone by since Moneyval’s first inspection of the Holy See and Vatican City State, which took place in 2012. During this time span, Moneyval has remotely monitored the many advances made by the jurisdiction in the fight to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism. As such, the upcoming inspection is especially important. Its outcome may determine how the jurisdiction is perceived by the financial community.”
“The Moneyval inspection will be broad-based. It will cover both the legislative framework and its effective implementation. It is crucial to arrive well prepared, to highlight the progress achieved in recent years in the system of controls, and to underscore what has been done in recent months to assure further progress.”
Last year was a turbulent period for the financial watchdog.
On Oct. 1, Vatican gendarmes raided the AIF’s offices in connection with a controversial London property deal. This led to the suspension of five employees and officials, including Tommaso Di Ruzza, the AIF’s director. They were also blocked from entering the Vatican.
The Egmont Group, through which 164 financial intelligence authorities share information and coordinate their work, suspended the AIF Nov. 13.
René Brüelhart, a Swiss lawyer who had served as president of the AIF since 2012, resigned Nov. 18.
Marc Odendall, a Swiss-German banker and member of the AIF board, resigned the same day, citing the Egmont Group’s decision and Brüelhart’s departure.
“We cannot access information and we cannot share information. There is no point in staying on the board of an empty shell,” he told the Associated Press.
During an in-flight press conference Nov. 26, Pope Francis confirmed that Di Ruzza remained suspended because of suspected “bad administration.”
“It was AIF that did not control, it seems, the crimes of others. And therefore [it failed] in its duty of controls. I hope that they prove it is not so. Because there is, still, the presumption of innocence,” Pope Francis said.
Barbagallo, an auditor and Italian banking consultant, was named Brüelhart’s successor Nov. 27.
Barbagallo announced in January that the Egmont Group had lifted its suspension of the AIF.
Addressing the incident in his statement on the AIF’s annual report, Barbagallo said: “The suspension was lifted after only two months, once adequate reassurance was provided to Egmont. Crucial to this aim was the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by AIF and the Promoter of Justice.”
“With this memorandum, we were able to assure our foreign counterparts that, should the need arise to seize confidential documents and information, the seizure would be carried out in accordance with the confidentiality standards established by the Egmont Group concerning financial intelligence.”
The Vatican announced the appointment of Schlitzer as director of the AIF April 15. He succeeded Di Ruzza, who completed his five-year term of office January 20, according to the Vatican.
In his July 3 statement Barbagallo said that the AIF hoped to issue “a new statute and the first internal regulation.”
“First and foremost, pursuant to the new statute, the name of the Authority would change to the Supervisory and Financial Information Authority (SFIA), a name that highlights the Authority’s dual nature as intelligence unit and supervisory (and regulatory) authority,” he wrote.
[…]
About geometry, and parsing St. Thomas More:
“Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will James Martin’s duplicity make it round? And if it is round, will James Martin’s duplicity flatten it? No, I will not sign” (Robert Bolt’s “A Man for all Seasons,” 1960).
To say—”people with deep-seated homosexual tendencies…must be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”–does not square the circle, either, for blessing incongruous couplings as “couples,” or justify cross(!)-dressing Calvary with a rainbow banner.
And, to think that James Martin’s duplicity started so simply, when another Martin (Luther) likewise embraced the still-binary (!) bigamy of Henry VIII and the German elector Philipp of Hesse…strange bedfellows.
[A disclaimer: my comment concerns so-called “LGBTQ+ activists” and not common people with different sexual orientation]
I remember, when the situation in the Church began turning decisively bad, I was thinking about purchasing a t-shit “Orthodoxy of Death”, to separate myself from the environment (man-focused homilies, Christ being pushed away by self-glorification etc.) via publicly stating my identity (“true = correct = uncorrupted faith”). But then I realized that it would be a bit silly and proud, in a context of Christ/Christianity, to wave a smaller identity. “Christ or Death” would be more appropriate, for a Christian, but there is no need to shout out the obvious. And so, I continued going to Mass as I am used to i.e. without t-shirts with slogans, simply with a Crucifix around my neck.
If “Orthodoxy of Death” looks a bit silly and proud in the context of the Catholic Church/Christ, then to march on pilgrimage wearing a “LGBTQ+” Catholics” t-shirt, waving rainbow flags is even more stupid, as long as being Catholic means being Christian. If “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” then there is also “nor gay nor lesbian for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. Hence, waving “LGBTQ+” Catholics” identity is nothing else but a refusal to be a mere Christian, like millions of others.
I suspect the point of a pilgrimage is not so much about “Christian” or Christ but about “LGBTQ+” or better to say there is an attempt to subordinate Christ to “LGBTQ+”, to use Him as a mere tool to achieve something. This is not the news. The Church itself in recent years has attempted to use (and abuse) Christ for various, purely human or even diabolical agendas. What we see now is just another (albeit very bold and decisive) step in that direction.
Unfortunately, there is no option here to post a photo of the so-called ‘Rainbow Cross’ which I saw today in the online article about “LGBTQ+ pilgrimage”. It was a very good example of how the sacred images are used and abused for the sake of “an agenda”, the bigger/infinite for the smaller. “Rainbow Cross” is the wooden Cross with cloth overthrown, like it is done on the Passion Friday in the Catholic churches. But instead of the white cloth, the rainbow cloth is being used. But this is not all: the inscription on the Cross, “INRI” = “Jesus King of the Jews” which is the title of Christ, is swapped with the new inscription, “LGBTQ+”. So, now we have “LGBTQ+” people instead of Christ on the Cross. No Christian = one who loves Christ = one who has an identity in Christ would do such a thing so it is very self-revealing. Christians worship the Cross because Christ was crucified on it bringing the Salvation; those who changed the letters into “LGBTQ+” effectively worship “LGBTQ+” = themselves – and invite the rest of the world to worship them as well. It is an extreme act of malignant self-love that knows no sacred, thus it has nothing to do with the “Christians” part of the slogan.
To put it bluntly, if you feel entitled to use the sacred symbols which belong only to Christ, changing and degrading them to suit your agenda, you are not Christians. Truly, either you give up this entitlement, take off your t-shirts with slogans, throw away the flags and go on pilgrimage as all do, not attracting attention to oneself because the purpose of any pilgrimage is to come to Christ, not make your point, whatever it is. The two cannot be reconciled.
PS As for “the rejection and prosecution of “LGBTQ+” in the Church, about 50% of Roman Catholic clergy are homosexual/bisexual (according to surveys). How friendlier it can be?
Life is short and sweet. Evangelization and conversion are ongoing and never-ending opportunities. We need to pray for the wellbeing of fellow pilgrims on journey.
Gradualism: Here we come!
Are we as a welcoming Church endorsing disordered behavior or seeking to convert to Christ? LGBT attendees received the Holy Eucharist.
“Bishop Savino said St Paul’s writings in the New Testament teach us that ‘a small step’ in the midst of great human limitations may be ‘more pleasing to God than the outwardly correct life’ of those who do not experience trials in life. We all have to convert, that is, we turn, we look in the opposite direction than before. The Acts of the Apostles documents this experience as defining and definitive”.
Savino’s remarks [specifically a small step] are right out of Amoris Laetitia, where Francis says in allusion to reception of the Eucharist for those in ‘irregular unions’ – this can be a first step. Although does reception of the Eucharist when one is given the impression of accommodation of their behavior going to inspire conversion?
The Eucharist is not magic. There must be at least an interior desire to reform one’s life to Christ and his commandments. Unless of course there is a different Christ being taught at the Vatican other than the Christ revealed to Paul and the Apostles.
We read: “LGBT attendees received the Holy Eucharist.”
Apparently the abyss of receiving the Eucharist sacrilegiously applies only to conscientious individuals, but not to a privileged category such as the tribal LGBTQ aggregate…
“To respond to this invitation [the Eucharist as the Real Presence, CCC 1374] we must ‘prepare ourselves’ for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: ‘Whoever therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drink judgment upon himself.’ Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion” (CCC 1385).
Far be it from any of us to judge another (“who am I to judge?”)! But, as for “judgment upon himself,” what of the beckoning clerics at the head of the line? And, what of the roadmap discerned by St. John Chrysostom: “The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path.”
Whatever?
Reception of the Blessed Sacrament when one is in an adulterous or fornication relationship, which is the case for those who are sexually active outside of the bond of a sacramental marriage between a biological man and a biological woman, is objectively always a serious sacrilege – and the engagement in such a sexual relationship is an intrinsic evil. To ignore or violate this perennial teaching of the Catholic Faith is not a small step – it is a large step that will send one to hell, if not repented of – and ceased altogether. Our failure to re-iterate this truth in today’s world, where relativism reigns supreme, makes prelates, clergy, and teachers in the Church complicit in the deadly sins of so many. Enough with the emotionally-laden, inclusive language. Tell it like it is. Think of the number of souls confirmed in deadly and sacrilegious sin by this so-called LGBT+ Jubilee weekend – not just those who attended – but all who viewed the support of the Vatican for its events via the media. How much longer do we think Our Lord will stand idly by and allow this loss of souls to continue?
The issue isn’t treating gays rudely or dismissively. No one says that’s okay.
The issue is accepting sin as normal.
These pilgrims actually identify as “the gay community.”
They march under banners proclaiming, celebrating — even advocating for — their sins.
This is the doing of James Martin, yes, but also of so many more in the Dark and demonic Vatican. Including and especially Bergoglio himself.
*This* is the legacy of the most evil and destructive pope in history.
Pope Leo must now set about to restore sanity — and sanctity. May God bless and sustain him.
I think if Leo was genuinely interested in addressing the issue of homosexuality in the church, this vile display would never have taken place.
No one has been “denied dignity,” and God’s love is not unconditional in the sense that I can flagrant sin sexually and expect God to look favorably on that. Catering to the LGBT lobby is profoundly sinful.
“. . . the outwardly correct life of those who do not experience trials in life”.
Who would those “those” be?
This guy needs to get out more.
Yikes! I don’t feel peaceful about this. Am I misreading it? To me, this sounds like the organizers are trying to deny that homosexual acts are sinful. Am I committing a sin of judgmentalism to draw this conclusion? I am a musician so I have plenty of gay friends, including sexually active and celibate gay friends. I don’t try to “preach”
to them, but I pray for them. I’m not sure how to interpret this occurrence.
We read: “Yikes…. this sounds like the organizers are trying to deny that homosexual acts are sinful.” Dear Sharon, please consider that rather than simple-minded denial, this “occurrence” almost completes the insurgency of past decades and especially the past twelve years.
Three points:
FIRST, the game is to claim “validation” (!), first in the secular world through the oxymoron of gay “marriage,” and then by the tribal gang-raping of the Church in Rome itself with the position (so to speak) that this staged occurrence is unopposed, and therefore consensual, and therefore the new normal in moral theology and human relations.
Now all that’s needed is the paperwork…
SECOND, for this mere formality we might look to the post-“synodal” Study Group #9 which is charged to conjure “theological criteria and synodal methodologies for shared discernment of controversial doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues.” But how can one argue any longer with the “spontaneous, informal, non-liturgical” blessing of irregular couples, as “couples” (!), under the kissing car[di]nals Fiducial Supplicans, now that it’s non-spontaneous, formal, and liturgical—and even sacrilegious? A done deal with needed fingerprints! One is almost reminded how in revolutionary France, the altar of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was likewise hijacked—as a dance platform for a nude prostitute. The issue here is much broader than even LGBTQ…
THIRD, over half a century ago, Georges Bernanos said it this way:
“The modern world will shortly no longer possess sufficient spiritual reserves to commit genuine evil. Already . . . we can witness a lethal slackening of men’s conscience that is attacking not only their moral life, but also their very heart and mind, altering and decomposing even their imagination . . . The menacing crisis is one of INFANTILISM.” (Interview with Samedi-Soir, Nov. 8, 1947, cited in Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Bernanos: An Ecclesial Existence” [Ignatius, 1996], p. 457, caps added).
Wha we need is an Inquisition by the Laity of homoheretics, starting with James Martin SJ.
Theologians and Cannon Lawyers can probably argue the nuances of this action and come up with some level of apologetics to create a definition of acceptance for this action. As an average pew buffer, let me provide a “theologically uneducated view” of what this action shouts…Sodomy, and multiple other perversions are, not just O.K., but have the support and encouragement of the Roman Catholic Church.