[ad_1]
It’s easy to talk about Joseph ratzinger as of an immobile pontiff who had little impact on the balance of the Roman Curia. Just as it is easy to judge the pontificate of Benedict XVI as a simple moment of transition in the history of the Catholic Church. That of a weak Benedict XVI devoid of reformist ambitions is a common vulgar one that does not correspond to the truth. Similarly, dismissing Ratzinger’s reign as short or meaningless is typical of progressive reconstructions.
This type of narrative, focused or not on “weakness”, is not only valid for the “peaceful theologian” of Tübingen: they say that Pope Luciani wanted to close the For, but that his premature death prevented the first John Paul from at least working toward that goal. However, above all there is talk of Luciani’s meekness. And Francesco? Jorge Mario Bergoglio began his pontificate wondering if the Catholic Church really needed a “bank.” For now, the IOR is still there.
the “Vatican Finances” they have always been a useful argument to clarify what the true programmatic intentions of a Pope are, as well as a fair ground for “scandals.” Those with whom the last four popes have had to deal especially. Ratzinger and Bergoglio have different communication styles and pastoral priorities, but many times the experts unite them for an intention that concerns them both (the one that for Bergoglio’s critics is presumed in the majority or, in any case, everything is verified): the economic and financial situation of the Holy See and its institutes is transparent. This is a will that is valid both internally, with this transparency that must necessarily affect the Vatican “banks”, as well as externally, such as for the relations between the IOR, which is not a real bank. “but an institute of religious works, and commonly understood financial institutions.” Those that operate inside and outside the borders of other states.
The internal “battle” for the law against money laundering
Amid rumors and insinuations that have not been corroborated by facts (conspiracy theories are always around the corner when it comes to “Vatican stuff”), it is true that Joseph Ratzinger tried to do something that was never proven. The same operation that Francisco would try to carry out: a global reform in economic and financial matters. Let’s take a few steps back. It was 2009, and the German pontiff had just nominated Ettore Gotti Tedeschi to the presidency of the IOR. A prominent figure, who was later sidelined by the holy palaces, probably not by order of Benedict XVI. In fact, our sources (and not only those) claim that Joseph Ratzinger simply heard the news, when in short, the “expulsion” had already occurred.
Another of the protagonists of these historical passages was the cardinal Attilio Nicora, who died in 2017 and who, during Benedict’s reign, held the position of first president of the Financial Information Authority, an entity that the then Pope had decided to create. Nicora’s role should have been decisive for Ratzinger’s battle for transparency within the lion’s walls. And the AIF would not have had to submit to other “powers” or to the direct or indirect control of a secretariat of the Holy See. However, something does not seem to have turned out as the cardinal and others had chosen. And the “father” would end up being “controlled.”
The latter, at least, is an element that always derives from the reflections of our sources. Let’s jump to the news for a moment:“You can talk about bankruptcy – recently revealed to us by Don Nicola Bux, Ratzinger’s former collaborator in the former Holy Office and elsewhere – . But none of the courtiers and opportunists will be able to evade it: not so much because of the origin of the money from the San Pedro Pennies, the CEI funds, etc., and not even because of the fact that Becciu had already aroused suspicions about the operations that performed, until now. building in London, but for opposing the anti-money laundering law desired by Benedict XVI and for having fired President IOR Gotti Tedeschi and the deceased identity card. Nicora “. Was there an opposition that prevented the implementation of the Ratzinger reform? Monsignor Becciu, the high ecclesiastic whom Bergoglio deprived of the faculties of cardinal, was he part of a curial “cap” capable of limiting the action of the Pope?
What Benedict XVI would have wanted for the “finances of the Vatican”
Given that it is practically impossible to understand whether or not this “plug” really exists, it is worth asking what was the tool that Benedict XVI had identified so that the situation of economic and financial institutions would tend to improve. A law. Specifically, a macro-project that touched more areas, from the procedural to the sanctioning. Something that would have equated the “accounts” of the Vatican and its management with international regulations. The package has taken the name of “law against money laundering”, and these days it seems that there are those who see in the interruption of the reformist Ratzingerian parable one of the keys, if not the “key”, to interpret the “disasters” from today. Those who have released the news of these days, which however do not concern the IOR.
If only because, at a certain point, that legislation ceased to be (at least in part) the same as that of the men of the “leadership” of Benedict XVI, that is, especially Cardinal Attilio Nicora and the man who had been elected to the presidency of the IOR, which is Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, they had imagined it in the first place. Why? For a legislative change that had not been foreseen and that perhaps could not even have been foreseen. If there was a moment when the “cork” was revealed, it was this. Ratzinger’s attitude on Vatican finances, and more generally on the relationship between the Catholic Church and money, can also be summed up through the German Church’s “ecclesiastical tax” thought: “…Historical examples show that the missionary witness of a Church detached from the world emerges more clearly. Freed from material and political burdens and privileges, the Church can better dedicate itself to the whole world in a truly Christian way, it can be truly open to the world. ” Ratzinger was, in short, in favor of simplification and transparency.
Changes in the initial project
According to this article published at that time the The Corriere della Sera, the law against money laundering wanted by Ratzinger and packaged by Cardinal Nicora and Gotti Tedeschi, it was a done deal. Then, through some modifications, some cardinal principles were revised. This is true at least for some passages, which however, according to the promoters of that provision, was not insignificant. Everything would revolve around this decree, which involved more than one article considered central in the original structure of the text. With this legislative act, the inspection powers of the Secretary of State would have been expanded with respect to the previous version, while AIF, the Financial Information Authority, which had been commissioned by Benedict XVI as a strictly independent body, would have undergone a change in size partial.
In this reconstruction of The newspaper of 2013, we read that “The powers of inspection provided by law 127 had been weakened, despite the fact that on the previous March 8, the Vatican had finished for the first time on the ‘black list’ of countries at risk of money laundering.” Still: “… the amendments to” 127 “also established that the exchange of information with the financial authorities of other countries was subject to a memorandum of understanding that had to be submitted to the authorization of the Vatican Secretariat of State, chaired by Bertone.” This is the preeminent role of the Vatican’s “foreign ministry”. “Law 127” is the “anti-laundering”, while the substantial changes are those that Cardinal Attilio Nicora (but also the other jurists and economists who had worked on the first version) would not have received in a positive way. In political terms, today we would speak of a “Small hand“able to redirect proportion of a provision (and of rowing against Ratzinger’s original project). Cardinal Nicora, at that time, also wrote a letter (the letter that has de facto opened the Vatileaks case) through which, in essence, he signaled “a step backward.” A withdrawal that would have depended on those changes. With this decree, the “battle” for transparency – the one that Benedict XVI, after the last phases of the pontificate of Saint John Paul II – phases in which it is said that the curial “weed” ruled the majority – had decided to undertake, had suffered a setback. At least in the opinion of the Iron Ratzingerians. “Confidentiality” – a favorite concept of the duo formed by Nicora and Gotti Tedeschi – “against” “secret”, which was instead preferred by a “stopper”: what some Vaticanists define as an ecclesiastical barrier not inclined to change.
The strange “expulsion” of Ettore Gotti Tedeschi
Ettore Gotti Tedeschi was “expelled” from the presidency of the IOR with a vote of no confidence from the Board of Superintendency. It was May 2012. Could it be that the “little hand” that had changed the law had also gotten involved in this case? Hard to say. Joseph Ratzinger’s esteem for Gotti Tedeschi is well known. Otherwise, the emeritus would not have involved the banker in the drafting of what is perhaps, still today, the manifesto of Ratzinger’s socio-economic thought: Charity in truth. And then some of this story doesn’t add up. In Latest conversations, a book-interview by Peter Seewald on and with the Pope Emeritus – Ratzinger seems to be vindicating the choice of the changing of the guard, but there is a feeling that Benedict XVI may not have understood the question that was asked. Perhaps, this is the essence of the question, Joseph Ratzinger in answering was confused with the president who preceded Ior Gotti Tedeschi. And this hypothesis can be corroborated by what Monsignor later declared Georg gaenswein, private secretary of the former prefect emeritus of the papal house: “Benedict XVI, who had called Gotti to the IOR to follow the transparency policy, was surprised, very surprised …”. And again as we read Future: “…He esteemed and loved him, but out of respect for the abilities of those who were responsible, he chose not to intervene at that time. ” In conclusion, Gaenswein added that “Subsequently, for reasons of convenience, although he never received Gotti Tedeschi, he maintained contact with him appropriately and discreetly.” More than enough arguments – considering the declarant – to affirm that Gotti Tedeschi was not removed by the German pontiff.
