Vatican On Money Laundering List

[THE MATRIX]

My link

VATICAN CITY, March 8 (Reuters) - The Vatican has for the first time appeared on the U.S. State Department's list of money-laundering centres but the tiny city-state is not rated as a high-risk country.

The 2012 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report was made public on Wednesday and Washington's list of 190 countries classifies them in three categories: of primary concern, of concern and monitored.

The Vatican is in the second category, grouped with 67 other nations including Poland, Egypt, Ireland, Hungary and Chile.

It was added to the list because it was considered vulnerable to money-laundering and had recently established programmes to prevent it, a State Department official said.

[questionmark]

Now, you are going to tell me that you are surprised? Just Google Banco Ambrosiano.

[Paracelse]

In the late 7O's a book was published in the States by a former NYcity cop about vatican buying even fake stolen coca cola ibm and other bonds

[Imaginarynumber1]

Now, you are going to tell me that you are surprised? Just Google Banco Ambrosiano.

Or the P2 conspiracy.

Edit: Wait, I think those two are part of the same thing. Too lazy to google it, though.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1

[Simbi Laveau]

Why do you think they kiss the popes ring.

Just call him Don

[Paracelse]

Why do you think they kiss the popes ring.

Just call him Don

I call him ziegheilbenny but to each is own

[CommunitarianKevin]

There is no way the Vatican is about wealth and power...

[JayMark]

There is no way the Vatican is about wealth and power...

Of course. Of course...

[AdealJustice]

The vatican, the pope is the biggest scam artist ever. they ahve enough money to solve poverty and hunger. BUT WHAT DOES THAT *snip* DO? donate 100000$ to a church in africa , or brazil. *snip* all clergy should be abolished

Edited April 2, 2012 by Saru
Please keep your comments civil and respectful, thank you.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Oh dear - Poland, Egypt, Ireland, Hungary and Chile..... are all also on the same list in the same category as Vatican City. Let's panic and blame these countries for being corrupt also??????!!!!!!!!?????

Edited April 2, 2012 by Paranoid Android

[Star of the Sea]

Ssssh Seller.... he is still considered by millions of Catholics as the Head of their Church and that includes me. Try not to attack another leader of faith as it only undermines your own integrity.

[JayMark]

Ssssh Seller.... he is still considered by millions of Catholics as the Head of their Church and that includes me. Try not to attack another leader of faith as it only undermines your own integrity.

Just because the Pope and the Vatican are "leaders of faith" dosen't mean we should close our eyes on all the atrocities that have been done and said by them and their followers.

For me, they basically are human beings just like everyone else so they aren't to be considered any diffrently in regards to what they do and have done.

I have many horrible stories about catholic preists vs some of my family members. Literally. Does that mean I condemn them all? Of course not. I've met many really nice preists/religious people. But does that mean I shall ignore the facts just because they are leaders of faith? Certainly not.

No harm intended.

Peace.

[Star of the Sea]

Just because the Pope and the Vatican are "leaders of faith" doesn't mean we should close our eyes on all the atrocities that have been done and said by them and their followers.

For me, they basically are human beings just like everyone else so they aren't to be considered any differently in regards to what they do and have done.

I have many horrible stories about catholic priests vs some of my family members. Literally. Does that mean I condemn them all? Of course not. I've met many really nice priests/religious people. But does that mean I shall ignore the facts just because they are leaders of faith? Certainly not.

No harm intended.

Peace.

Yes, we can all have our opinions, but there is a way to convey it. What Seller said about Pope Benedict being a Nazi for instance just isn't called for. Nobody is closing their eyes to the wrongs that have happened in the Catholic Church but posting a hateful and spiteful post, which just doesn't convey the truth isn't the way forward.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Star of the Sea

[+Sherapy]

Yes, we can all have our opinions, but there is a way to convey it. What Seller said about Pope Benedict being a Nazi for instance just isn't called for. Nobody is closing their eyes to the wrongs that have happened in the Catholic Church but posting a hateful and spiteful post, which just doesn't convey the truth isn't the way forward.

I stand with you Star, It is a wonderful suggestion to seek a way to present dissent or disagreement in a way that is not offensive to anyone.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Sherapy

[Star of the Sea]

I stand with you Star, It is a wonderful suggestion to seek a way to present dissent or disagreement in a way that is not offensive to anyone.

Sheri! Why thank you

[eight bits]

The actual report alluded to in the OP is available here

http://www.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2012/index.htm

Despite the artful spinning, the State Department's purpose for including an entity in the report is bureaucratic and ho-hum. In the words of the introduction, emphasis added,

The 2012 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Money Laundering and Financial Crimes, highlights the most significant steps countries and jurisdictions categorized as “Major Money Laundering Countries” have taken to improve their anti-money laundering/counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) regimes.

Which, by an amazing coincidence, the Holy See has recently done and now continues to do. And, what of the Holy See's classification in the "middle" group of countries? Reuters helpfully points out that there are more than 60 other countries in the same category.

So who's in the category of most concern? Besides the United States itself, of course. Are there any countries whose head of state, like the Pope, is also the head of a church in the more urgent category? Why yes, as a matter of fact. The United Kingdom is a country of "Primary Concern."

Well, OK, but we all know that religion is on its way out in the UK. Is there any other country that has a constitutional commitment to a single religion in the "Primary Concern" group? Why, yes, again. Israel is also a country of Primary Concern. Well-known for being soft on terrorism, too.

"Oh, dear," thinks the writer at Reuters, "I can't write about that, people will think I'm anti-Semitic." Anti-Semitism, of course, is looked down upon by people who can read and write. Unlike anti-Catholicism, which is hip and up-market, anti-Semitism is associated with ignorance, lack of social skills and a more knuckle-dragging, slack-jawed kind of bigot.

"But all is not lost" the writer thinks, "the Holy See is at least mentioned in the report. What does it say about them?"

He reads what the report says, rhat the Holy See is not of primary concern.

"What kind of story is that?"

The kind that writes itself. For those with an axe to grind, just put "money laundering" and "Catholic Church" in the same sentence, and it really doesn't matter what else the sentence says.

-

Edited April 3, 2012 by eight bits

[JayMark]

Yes, we can all have our opinions, but there is a way to convey it. What Seller said about Pope Benedict being a Nazi for instance just isn't called for. Nobody is closing their eyes to the wrongs that have happened in the Catholic Church but posting a hateful and spiteful post, which just doesn't convey the truth isn't the way forward.

I understand.

About the bold part though, I strongly disagree. I have seen many people do that.

[Beckys_Mom]

There is no way the Vatican is about wealth and power...

Nooooo NEVER lol...

[+Sherapy]

The actual report alluded to in the OP is available here

http://www.state.gov.../2012/index.htm

Despite the artful spinning, the State Department's purpose for including an entity in the report is bureaucratic and ho-hum. In the words of the introduction, emphasis added,

The 2012 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Money Laundering and Financial Crimes, highlights the most significant steps countries and jurisdictions categorized as "Major Money Laundering Countries" have taken to improve their anti-money laundering/counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) regimes.

Which, by an amazing coincidence, the Holy See has recently done and now continues to do. And, what of the Holy See's classification in the "middle" group of countries? Reuters helpfully points out that there are more than 60 other countries in the same category.

So who's in the category of most concern? Besides the United States itself, of course. Are there any countries whose head of state, like the Pope, is also the head of a church in the more urgent category? Why yes, as a matter of fact. The United Kingdom is a country of "Primary Concern."

Well, OK, but we all know that religion is on its way out in the UK. Is there any other country that has a constitutional commitment to a single religion in the "Primary Concern" group? Why, yes, again. Israel is also a country of Primary Concern. Well-known for being soft on terrorism, too.

"Oh, dear," thinks the writer at Reuters, "I can't write about that, people will think I'm anti-Semitic." Anti-Semitism, of course, is looked down upon by people who can read and write. Unlike anti-Catholicism, which is hip and up-market, anti-Semitism is associated with ignorance, lack of social skills and a more knuckle-dragging, slack-jawed kind of bigot.

"But all is not lost" the writer thinks, "the Holy See is at least mentioned in the report. What does it say about them?"

He reads what the report says, rhat the Holy See is not of primary concern.

"What kind of story is that?"

The kind that writes itself. For those with an axe to grind, just put "money laundering" and "Catholic Church" in the same sentence, and it really doesn't matter what else the sentence says.

-

Thank you for the link and post 8ty.

[Star of the Sea]

I understand.

About the bold part though, I strongly disagree. I have seen many people do that.

Hi Jay,

Sorry to hear that, truly I am.

[JayMark]

Hi Jay,

Sorry to hear that, truly I am.

No problem.

That's because some of my family members (grand-parents) have been sexually, physically, morally, psychologically abused by "religious people". And I have seen others dissmissing it out of their religious beleifs. When I got aware of that at a younger age, I decided to treat all people the same no matter their religion. I would not let myself be blinded by it anymore.

Thing is I do not condemn religion for that. Or religious people in general. For me, it's only a matter of seeing them as human beeings to begin with. Now using religion as a "shield" or in a justificative way is only envenoming the situation because inevitably, some people will blame the whole religion and their followers all at once.

But all that is true also for ethnicities, skin colors, titles, gender, sexual orientation etc. So I'm really more towards the problem in general. I do not wish to assicoate specifically religion with it.

My thoughts.

Peace.