Talk:Institute for the Works of Religion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"further clarifying documentation"[edit]

An anonymous contributor who apparently has the inside scoop, has removed the following statement: " It is expected that release of further clarifying documentation will clear the air." If further information is not to be offered, this entry should state so. Wetman 08:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This document is rife with error, historically and otherwise. Peter's Pence is a uniquely American institution, that had nothing to do with the formation of the Secret Vatican Bank. Secondly, the vast majority of the Bank's assets were accorded it (in, unfortunately, what became worthless assets) in the form of Gold Notes (which were actually bonds drawn on the Italian Government under Mussolini) provided the Holy See in favor of dissolution of the Papal States. There is much, much, more...and perhaps I should simply rewrite the document entire. Perhaps the worst article in aggregate I have ever seen on WP from the perspective of bias. The Sindona scandals need to be added, as of course does the fact that the Bank owned the Watergate Complex (albeit prior to the alleged incursions there).

Perhaps, for a start, this correspondent could sign her posts, or even log in. Improved balanced revisions, especially supported by references, would be splendid. --Wetman 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And just what difference would either one make? "Wetman," is perfectly as anonymous as an IP address, or some made-up silly "handle." Address the point, if you please. 69.153.58.34 06:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the confusion is the statement that "Peter's Pence is a uniquely American institution." Please visit link below. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/obolo_spietro/documents/index_en.htm

Calvi and Banco Ambrosiano[edit]

This could use a mention of Roberto Calvi and the Banco Ambrosiano scandal. —No-One Jones 00:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Panel Revives Claims That Vatican Bank Aided Nazi Puppets[edit]

See this article. Adraeus 20:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


WP Article resolution template[edit]

All Sourceable material[edit]

Any Article here should be either informative in cultural, historical or scientific terms. This article should present all appropriate cultural and historical information. What I wrote above is still in order. There is nothing new about the "interests" which influenced Vatican politics, as visible in recent books and it is incorrect to see these as novel and thereby suspect. The attitude of editors here should be that full elucidation of our World be achieved through Wikipedia by inclusion of all sourceable material. Whether such material re-inforces criticism should itself be a matter of sourceable report, in so far as criticism, however directed, itself relates to a sourced reality. Apologist stance should rest on that source which it presents (which it clearly does by providing sourced comments by known persons) EffK.

Historical Ignorance[edit]

I would say that the criticism as presented by some of the present 'parties' to what is a legal and cultural dispute with the Vatican and its Bank, appear not to possess sufficient historical clarity. I refer to what is labelled as RFA-17 by http://www.spitfirelist.com/rfa.html . It is apparent that Wikipedia is a very true reflection of the outside world, and that the confusions that reign within WP are much the same as those without. The highly complicated history of inter-war Germany has, due to its complexity, disabled our understanding of the forces and interests at work. The un-revealed nature of trans-Atlantic interests(& their relationship to the subject of this Article) has, it appears, thus far been occluded by the un-revealed nature of the 'inter-European' interests. Again, none of this history is new , nor is it the fact that de-mystifying it can be original research. Even some of the prime accusers against this Bank show that they are in confusion as to the history. This is much the same confusion that circulates the erroneous definition of there having ever been a single Hitler's Pope.EffK

Hagiography and Culture[edit]

If the Wikipedia is able to distinguish the hagiography from the sourced documented history, by means of articles where hagiography can be represented and proved as such because verifiable upon its very contradiction of sourced history, then the existence of such hagiography must itself be worthy of true sourced report and inclusion. Apparent hagiography which verifies history is not hagiography, but would nervertheless be best parked closely but separately from un-supported hagiography/apologia. All religious concepts being POV , allows them to be culturally represented, but only as such. Hagiography needs to be coralled under 'culture'.EffK

Inclusion of Contradiction[edit]

Therefore the way to deal with such as the forgoing section title -"Inherently POV"- here at Vatican Bank or elsewhere, is to include everything sourceable and to order it by its correct association. If there is disagreement by editors, such disagreement should be reflected in the Articles . Such disputed interpretations or contradictory sourced statements should all, therefore, appear. An erroneous statement made by a pope , for example-and I can name one- is reportable however erroneous. By a bishop or a priest or anybody sourceable and relevant, whether a trade unionist, or policeman or politician or cultural figure.EffK

Inclusion of Error[edit]

An erroneous statement by a historical writer or person should be allowed and categorised by those who would so identify such error as determinable. The error of itself is relevant, as demonstrating a real-world relationship to the subject of the Article, however erroneous (and accusatory) as it be. A completely cultural reflection since artistic and un-sourced, such as Rolfe Hochhuth's The Deputy, is relevant to this Article on a cultural basis alone, as representing the opposite to hagiography.EffK

A Nuremberg trial reference , a denunciation emanating from the Church, anything- must be sorted correctly. If it transpires that contradiction exists, those sources that publish even erroneous analyses of such contradiction, must be allowed but correctly labelled. The contradiction that exists cannot be 'undone' in Wikipedia, and in such case the errors themselves are important, both within WP and with-out.

No Refusal of Sources[edit]

The very effort to determine the report of the history and the culture, is itself a long and relevant history. There can be no refusal of sources, only the ordering within the Articles of their presentation. Contradiction is not solved by omitting one part of the contradiction and, therefore, all inter-opposing hagiographies and histories must co-exist, however unhappily. In this way the Articles may proceed and serve purpose. I believe the template for this is being constantly tested at Eugenio Pacelli's own page. I shall send there a link of this editorial view. EffK 13:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification[edit]

The purpose of article talk pages is to discuss how the articles can be improved. Is there something in particular that EffK thinks should be added to the article? Robert McClenon 17:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly there is a great deal to be included. As you have enough information to make a contribution to Wikipedia by representing the multiple source provided relevant to our discussion at Pope Pius XII, I could concentrate on this provision of source.EffK 23:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Study/Clarification of a pro-Nazi Accusation[edit]

Example from link above of accusation re Fascism/Nazism from http://www.spitfirelist.com/rfa.html (fair use/educational) should be considered for comment if its gist is to be accorded as worthy of full sourced inclusion . I EffK deal with the early era , the institution of toatalitarian control and what is called the quid pro quo or bargain. This settled the relationship between the Vatican and Hitlerism between 1933 and 1945. It is absent from the article but is central to the understanding of the accusation made . The text is broken for comment. I relate to things I have sourced in regards to the history. I am unable to confirm or deny beyond that which I do. I suggest that the Article would be entirely NPOV to include the salient ponts when source confirms them.

"Terrified of communism, the Vatican actively supported European fascism prior to, during and after the Second World War. The Vatican/fascist association helped spawn institutions and networks which loom large in the investigation, such as the IOR (the Vatican Bank), the P-2 lodge of Mussolini supporter and former Waffen SS officer Licio Gelli and the Vatican's historical association with reactionary American and European intelligence elements. Much of the program focuses on Eugenio Pacelli (later Pope Pius the XII), members of the Pacelli family and their role in the Vatican/fascist alliance. As the Papal representative to Munich, then Archbishop Pacelli reportedly channeled Vatican funds to Adolf Hitler as early as 1919. Pacelli and close family members were instrumental in forging the Lateran Treaty of 1929. In addition to making Roman Catholicism the official state religion of Mussolini's Italy, the treaty established the Vatican as a sovereign state and led to the creation of the IOR (Institute for Religious Works), the Vatican Bank. With the establishment of the Vatican as a financial power, the stage was set for events leading to the probable murder of one Pope and the shooting of another. It should be noted that the Pacelli family profited handsomely from the treaty. Eugenio Pacelli's cozy relationships with fascists continued after he became Pope. With Pius XI having died before issuing a condemnation of Nazism, Pius XII (Pacelli) established a mutually beneficial relationship with the Fuehrer. The pope refrained from actively opposing Hitler and Hitler, in turn, established a "Church Tax," which added significantly to the Church's coffers in Germany. This tax was still part of the German tax structure in the mid 1980's. (It should be noted that Catholic priests in Germany were being persecuted by the Nazis, even as Pius XII and Hitler cooperated.)

  • Terrified is sourced to 10 April1933. Pius XI to Goering.Churchill confirms anti-Bolshevism of Pius XI. This is widely known. An encyclical also confirms the extent to which the socially aware Pius XI was prepared to contemplate authoritarianism should it be beneficial to the intersts of Christianity. This Dilectissima Nobis is published at the time that the newly empowered Hitler is awaiting the approval of the Church with the Concordat. Much literature exists concerning all relations inside and outwards from the Roman Catholic Church( as from other Protestant Churches). Communism was atheistic and thus of specific inimity to christianity.
  • Support came through pressure to orchestrate the Centre party if no more than to dissolve itself as part of the Reichskonkordat quid pro quo. At least starting on 9 April 1933.
  • Sourced history shows Vatican change of German Hierarchy standpoint re: Nazis exists to 19 march at least. Earliest History rpresenting Centre Party /German catholic press u-turn is written even by 1934(The Saar , by Margaret Lambert, Faber). *Earliest (?) Pacelli financial allegations exist by 1949, Avro Manhattan, 50 editions published specifying Nazi Pope, accusing Centre chairman Prelate Monsignor Ludwig Kaas.
  • Journalistic allegation sources pro-Hitler pressure on Centre to May 1932 Edgar Ansel Mowrer. This was made only following Rolf Hochhuth's Play alleging investment in German heavy Industry(armaments) influenced the Vatican. If un-true, nevertheless sourced Mowrer alleges 1932 direct order from Vatican via Ludwig Kaas.
  • The same is brought from Heinrich Brüning chancellorship who records himself telling Pacelli to lay-off interference in German Politics and criticising his placing faith in Hitler, made by Bruning within the Vatican. Acrimony resulted. Pacelli proves to be close associate of Kaas, by father Gumpel ,sourced Postulator for beatification of Pope Pius XII and generally.
  • General Cornwell/Kershaw-type recent accusation that Kaas acted for Pacelli 'policy',itself needing of definition, also clealy alluded to by standard historians, such as Shirer. Kaas and Franz von Papen were the two architects( key figures) in the quid pro quo allegations.
  • Allegations widespread that the quid pro quo persuaded the Centre to accede to the Enabling Act. Source confirms that Kaas ran solo from his party, entering his own bargain or negotiation with Papen( and therefore Hitler) on 6 march 1933. Source is of a Kaas solo negotiation with Hitler of a promised written general Constitutional Guarantee. That, Kaas swung his specifically catholic Party bloc on this promise. Source cannot confirm that Pacelli made an order or that Pacelli was involved. There is one remove between Kaas and Pacelli. Bruning criticises Kaas. Bruning faction adheres to vote on basis of receipt of written Guarantee. Kaas does not adhere, and votes for the whole bloc on 23 without it arriving. Hitler gains the Dictatorship/ Fuhrerdom from this bloc vote.
  • Hitler recorded as breezily expectant of this full Centre capitulation from 15 March.
  • Unspecified biased announcements follow, of unspecified origin, immediately prior to 19 March. These somehow suggest vatican approbation for Nazism. These need a German speaker to source for us.
  • Cardinal Primate Bertram calls von Papen to account for these 'announcements' at a requested meeting on 19 March 1933. The announcements do not accord with the anti-Nazi German Hierarchy interdiction of Nazism hitherto in place.
  • The source is clear after the Enabling Act. The quid pro quo is admitted only for the bargaining by the Vatican or Holy See itself, of the Centre Party's by now carcass, between 9 April and 5 July. The British Ambassador to the Vatican reports the deal first, from inside the Vatican . The limitation as to the bargain or quid pro quo, or scandalous kick-back scheme, suggests that the dissolution was insignificant. The opposite view is that it was specifically a Hitler demand, made as part of the Concordat, to further hood-wink the German population. To present the conspiracy to institute totalitarian Government as proper, beneficial and acceptable to Christians and even the Vatican .
  • Source shows that in fact there was not only a volte-face by the Bishops' Fulda Conference of 28 March 1933, but,through the Concordat terms, that Hitler effectively and totally coralled the autonomy of the Church in Germany.
  • Hochhuth Play suggests actual finacial interest.This should be sourced, if it is true. On this page an editor speaks of Gold Bonds and therefore may have source to disprove the Hochhuth allegations.
  • The general quid pro quo accusations incude that "Though it was not without antimodernists, the Catholic Zentrum party had antagonized the Vatican during the 1920s by forming governing coalitions with the secularized, moderate Left-oriented Social Democrats. This changed in 1928, when the priest Ludwig Kaas became the first cleric to head the party. To the dismay of some Catholics, Kaas and other Catholic politicians participated both actively and passively in destroying democratic rule, and in particular the Zentrum.(from [1] This is sourced in Arthur Rosenberg's 1936 A History of the Weimar Republic. The Centre actively destabilised the Reichstag , even against its professed interest, certainly once. The paliamentary allegations are sourceable.

The Vatican/fascist association helped spawn institutions and networks which loom large in the investigation, such as the IOR (the Vatican Bank), the P-2 lodge of Mussolini supporter and former Waffen SS officer Licio Gelli and the Vatican's historical association with reactionary American and European intelligence elements. Much of the program focuses on Eugenio Pacelli (later Pope Pius the XII), members of the Pacelli family and their role in the Vatican/fascist alliance. As the Papal representative to Munich, then Archbishop Pacelli reportedly channeled Vatican funds to Adolf Hitler as early as 1919.

  • There is accusation of this funding, emanating from Sister Pascalina, this Muncio's housekeeper throughout his career, of him Pacelli handing a bag of cash to Hitler in the 1920's. This could confirm the allegation , or could if false deny it. Confirmation of source is required.

Pacelli and close family members were instrumental in forging the Lateran Treaty of 1929. In addition to making Roman Catholicism the official state religion of Mussolini's Italy, the treaty established the Vatican as a sovereign state and led to the creation of the IOR (Institute for Religious Works), the Vatican Bank.

  • These statements appear to be based in source, and this is required in detail. Pacelli's grand-father was financial advisor to the Vatican and the connection therefore is long and close as stated. Pacelli's brother was involved with what is alleged.

With the establishment of the Vatican as a financial power, the stage was set for events leading to the probable murder of one Pope and the shooting of another.

  • This refers to the allegations deriving from the succeeding Wartime era below.

It should be noted that the Pacelli family profited handsomely from the treaty.

  • This appears almost redundant.

Eugenio Pacelli's cozy relationships with fascists continued after he became Pope. With Pius XI having died before issuing a condemnation of Nazism, Pius XII (Pacelli) established a mutually beneficial relationship with the Fuehrer. The pope refrained from actively opposing Hitler and Hitler, in turn, established a "Church Tax," which added significantly to the Church's coffers in Germany. This tax was still part of the German tax structure in the mid 1980's. (It should be noted that Catholic priests in Germany were being persecuted by the Nazis, even as Pius XII and Hitler cooperated.)

  • This is the general accusation/criticism. They were cosy in that they did continue, and the cosiness was based in the quid pro quo and in the statement of Pope Pius XII on 10 April. This welcomed the un-compromising anti-communist leader. The cosiness was based in the defence of christendom from atheistic nihilist russian communism.
  • The source cannot show active resistance against Hitlerism. Neither Pope Pius can be sourced mentioning Jews by that name,though Abraham is mentioned by Pius XI.
  • Sourced criticism or resistance for the first year of the money channelling Reichskonkodat era needs making.
  • There is considerable source of Hierarchy approbation. There is source of despair and protest within the Hierarchy at the lack of spoken resistance, only from 1940 and only partial , and not dealing with the anti-semitism.
  • The Concordat tax structure remains today. Hitler obtained power to negotiate foreign treaties such as this specifically with the Enabling Act.The Enabling Acr was only achieved thruough illegal un-constitutional arrest and imprisonment of the entire Communist Deputies. In effect the Enabling Act is more a conspiracy than a constitutional action, and is considered part of the totalitarian conspiracy by the 4 Powers at the Nuremberg Trial.
  • The persecution of priests existed prior and post the bargain. The seizure of power is effected on March 23 and the abdication of right to criticise the Government or continue to speak publicly comes in the Concordat. This entails a silencing of all priestly protest, and actual avowal to the contrary is enforced throughout. The regulations are imposed from the Holy see upon the ranks within the Church. This is the quid , for Hitlerism.

The linked accusation is one of many and ciontinues into the post-war, rat-line, lawsuit era represented in the article. i try to show what is POV or NPOV. I repeat that just because one doesn't like it, doesn't make it false or POV, and believe I have shown that which it says as credible NPOV . Obviously I can direct inquisition towards source I have made , as the subject here overlaps with that of the inter-action or kick-back scheme elsewhere. No one likes it, but that proves nothing. Sympatheic POV does not rule WP: the article as osurced appears in the above to be an example of NPOV . I believe the same can be said for the early 1949 supposed hate literature of Avro Manhattan. EffK 03:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Pages Are About Articles[edit]

What do you want to have the article say about these allegations? Robert McClenon 04:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The highlighted relevant studied section, with words changed minimally?EffK 11:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What highlighted relevant studied section? There is so much highlighting in these talk pages that I am not sure what the emphasis is. What section of the article, and with what minimal changes? Robert McClenon 20:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot commend your concentration- perhaps you never read anything I place in good faith, or you would easily see that there is only one relevant highlighted section at the top , and that all the others break out of it purely for the good faith analysis of the salient points. All the work is to justify the NPOV of the text as far as it goes. You doubtless read it once, and I placed it specifically for some clear third-party to check. And when I say minimal changes, I of course would find it perfectly reeasonable for it to be stated that this represents the POV of the accusations where the facts are accusation and not fact. IE it can be expressed by NPOV as purely POV out-there, but only as as due consequent upon these proofs in discussion. A proof , of course , to the contrary, shall be profferred , if it is possible, which it seems it is not. After that, all being equal in Wikipedia, then the text can be integrated fathfully without total plagiaristic Copyright problem, a relevant link put with its appropraite due to the original. and thorough linkage made to whichever other desired Article. There would be likely future under-standing towards the surroundings of Franz von papen and the banking connections he forged, and via that future diclosure to Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates, except, you require deletion of that , despite sourced basis, don't you? I think it is not good faith to answer to relevant discussion without considering the relevant discussion. I think that what you do is a type of filibuster , except tiny and purely wiki-technicalAs you never present source, and add apparently nothing to Wikipedia that I see, Then your aim is to disrupt the truth, as you complete ignoral of the sense of this dscussion here has shown. In contrast I always try in good faith to show the verity of claims as and when reported. The title of this section is itself an assumption of bad faith . EffK 10:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EFFK, please keep a civil tongue in your head. You may not agree with the previous user or his approach, but this is not the place for personal insults or diatribes, regardless. If you are unable to stay civil, and maintian NPOV, then you need to consider whether you should be editing this article. In either case, civility is not an option here, it's a requirement. This is not about personal squabbles (especially when his comments did not involve ad hominem attacks on you, but posed a legitimate question.), it is about what's best for the article. Jbower47 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited Claims[edit]

Almost the whole article is uncited, but I removed the paragraph I thought was the harshest and most clearly demanding proof. Do not replace it until the claims are cited, but feel free to remove other uncited claims.

The Vatican Bank was a successful and profitable bank. By the 1990s, the Bank had invested somewhere over US$10 billion in foreign companies. Part of what made the Bank so profitable was that it offered certain illegal services; for 5%, the Bank would launder industrialists' money, or money of those well-connected with the Catholic Church. The money laundering scandal leaked out in 1968 due to a change in Italian financial regulations, which would have mandated more transparency. To prevent the scandal that would occur when the public learned that the Vatican Bank (which was supposed to funnel all profits directly and immediately to charity) had in fact retained most of its profits and expanded its operations, Pope Paul VI enlisted Michele Sindona as papal finance advisor to sell off assets and move money overseas to hide the full extent of Vatican wealth. It was Sindona who was chiefly responsible for the massive influx of money when he began laundering the Gambino crime family's heroin monies (taking a 50% cut) through a shell corporation "Mabusi". This laundering was accomplished with the help of another dirty banker, Roberto Calvi, who managed the Banco Ambrosiano. Interestingly, both Calvi and Sindona were members of the P2 Lodge.
When Pope John Paul I became Pope, he learned of the Bank's doing, and instructed Cardinal Jean Villot (papal secretary of state and head of the papal Curia) to investigate the matter thoroughly. Curiously, a month later, after informing Villot that he was going public with the scandal (and firing Villot among others), John Paul I died. John Paul II ignored the matter, and allowed Sindona free play for a number of years after.

--Superm401 - Talk 02:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --maru (talk) contribs 00:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


So now it is "sourced". Does that mean that the source has any credibility? Run a google search on "The Moneychangers: How the Vatican Bank Enabled Roberto Calvi to Steal 250 Million Dollars for the Heads of the P2 Masonic Lodge". There are TWO unique hits. One hit is the wikipedia article on the Vatican Bank, and the other is Amazon.com (not surprisingly, this book is "not in stock" and has "no comments"). Translation: this book is about as worthy of citation as a Jack Chick pamplet aimed at the Catholic Church.

If Wikipedia allowed citations of any and every conspiracy theory, it would be full of junk. If you cite a questionable source, you should at LEAST make that clear to the casual reader (who will typically not bother to confirm source accuracy in "Wikipedia", which some people view as a serious source in its own right). --Jos231 06:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only source there, and it does make it clear that it is alleged. -- Gwern (contribs) 11:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Class action suit against the Vatican Bank and others[edit]

I patched up the article for that. It needs help... --Joy [shallot] 03:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag issues etc.[edit]

POV & Disputed Badges[edit]

This article is extremely POV - apart from the fact that it only presents facts uncomplimentary to the Vatican Bank and makes no attempt to present the institution's view of itself, it strongly implies that the Vatican Bank has been involved in shady dealings or has concealed evidence. Although this may be a given for the authors, it shouldn't be for an encyclopedia. I've added a {{Npov}} tag for the overall content and a {{Disputed}} tag for phrases like For its part, the Vatican has repeatedly denied any Franciscan participation in Ustasi crimes or the disappearance of the Croatian Treasury, yet has refused to open its wartime records to substantiate its denial. - the fact that an institution happens not to have investigated any particular absurd and unsubstantiated claim does not make that claim worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 20:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What criticism of a central Papal institution would not be "POV"? The Roman Inquisition? The more fastidious Wikipedians avoid the debased tag "POV"— so often simply meaning "not my point-of-view"— and work instead to provide additional, balancing information. --Wetman 21:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that an article should not be a negative criticism overall, if it can possibly avoid it. And be honest, I doubt you'd call this article balanced. I agree with you 100% that it's better to expand an article rather than mark it up for someone else to do, and I'll add it to the list of things I hope to do when I've finished disambiguating Vatican (also an important job). In the meantime, I don't think articles like this do Wikipedia much credit, and that's why I added the tags. Do you really think I was wrong to do so? ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 22:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would greaty help if it had a history section. 12.220.47.145 02:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is the purpose of the NPOV badge not to alert casual readers to the fact the neutrality of the point of view is in dispute? AWO 00:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove POV tag[edit]

The user has had sufficient time to attempt to balance the article, so I remove the tag . It is argued (by me) that whitewashing does the WP little credit , too . Balance should be achievable, but is not reached by critics removing source , nor apologists removing source. Not liking something , does not make it false. Liking something does not make it true . Political comment made by scholars and historians is source , like it or not .EffK 14:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently POV[edit]

This article exists to present an accusation. Presenting alternative viewpoints is like responding to "When did you stop beating your wife." Articles like this do not belong in an encyclopedia. (Anonymously posted by Ghosts&empties)

Any large bank deserves a Wikipedia article. Perhaps if you could find something positive to add, you wouldn't have to add a little label. --Wetman 19:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, the resposibility to write a balanced article lies with the original authors. All the sources cited exist to promote a controversy. Terms like "spymaster" are perjorative. This article should be made to look more articles on other banks including more information on the bank's history before WWII.

NPOV[edit]

This article has serious ongoing problems with NPOV. Take this for example in the September 13 2006 version:

When Pope John Paul I became Pope, he learned of the Bank's doing, and instructed Cardinal Jean Villot (papal secretary of state and head of the papal Curia) to investigate the matter thoroughly. Curiously, a month later, after informing Villot that he was going public with the scandal (and firing Villot among others), John Paul I died.

This is a clear attempt to insinuate that Pope John Paul I was murdered, which is against Wikipedia policy on good writing style, see the Wikipedia NPOV Tutorial at [2]. The Wikipedia article on Pope John Paul I is well written and makes clear that there is a consensus that he died from natural causes, although some medical experts believe that he may have died from a pulmonary embolism or an adverse reaction to the medication that he was taking rather than the official cause of a heart attack. Too much of the Vatican Bank article seems to have been written by people with an axe to grind, and with insufficient time given to sourcing or alternative viewpoints. I do not have the time to get involved with a major rewrite of this page, but would ask others to do this. I have rewritten the poorly phrased paragraph about the death of Pope John Paul I.--Ianmacm 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Sindona[edit]

I have removed the line which claims that Paul VI hired Michele Sindona for the purpose of "covering up" the Vatican's wealth. While Sindona was certainly corrupt, there is NO reason to believe that Paul VI was personally responsible for commissioning him to "hide Vatican wealth". If someone wants to put that phrase back into the body of this article, I will ask you to provide both specific citation AND a reason why the source cited is credible. (We all know that there is plenty of conspiracy theory literature in the world, including rather extensive Holocaust denial works, etc.) --Androsi 05:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of article[edit]

I have tagged the article with a template requesting more reliable references and sources. Also, I removed this claim:

Part of what made the Bank so profitable in the past is that it offered certain illegal services; for 5%, the Bank would launder industrialists' money, or money of those well-connected with the Catholic Church. The money laundering scandal leaked out in 1968 due to a change in Italian financial regulations, which would have mandated more transparency.

This definitely needs reliable sourcing as it is a serious allegation. There is a need for the article to comply with Wikipedia:NPOV, and the best sources are mainstream media articles.--Ianmacm 14:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent book in Italy criticizes bank and mafia connections[edit]

Gianluigi Nuzzi's book http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaticano_S.p.A., which covers criticism on vatikan bank and mafia support. The book's publisher also shares thousands of documents on the case in their site. Emanuela Orlandi, Sabrina Minardi other insiders. Kasaalan (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article in Financial Times[edit]

Istituto per le Opere di Religione was on the 17th October 2009 the topic of an article in the Financial Times that could be used as a source. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5fffa790-bab4-11de-9dd7-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottestad (talk • contribs) 20:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican Bank scandal[edit]

I was wondering whether it might be appropriate to transfer some elements of this article into a more specific entry entitled Vatican Bank scandal. The primary motive for this is that the content should probably be subdivided into two parts : one that talks about the legal and normative apsects of the bank, and the other which details the illegal or illicit activities it has been involved in. In a similar way, there are two separate article for archdiocese of Boston and the sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese, because one of them talks about the legal and normative aspects of the archdiocese, while the other mentions the various abuse affairs it has been involved in. ADM (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to; the article isn't that long, and the scandal is really integral to the topic - it is quite likely the reason 99% of the people who know of it know of it. Plus, splitting it out might make it a POV fork or put the spun out article at risk for perversion & deletion. --Gwern (contribs) 21:01 27 December 2009 (GMT)
Just my two cents: does a single event that occurred 20+ years ago warrant inclusion as the second stanza introducing the bank? Imagine if I introduced a friend at a party, and then, as the second sentence in my introduction, I raised a major and negative event pertaining to him that occurred 20+ years ago. Would that be a normal introduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.15.68 (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It doesn't make a lot of sense, nor does the fact that the majority of the article covers scandal and reforms. The article should maybe be renamed to reflect that focus? Or more info added on the rest of the history and function of the institution. natemup (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is it?[edit]

There are plenty of sentences describing what the Institute is not:

  • its assets are not considered property of the Holy See
    • it is not overseen by the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See
  • It is... not a department of the Roman Curia
    • is... not among the departments of t(he) central administrative structure of the Roman Catholic Church
  • (It is not) a central bank
  • It is unlike a normal bank

Leaving the assertive sentences:

  • (It) is located inside the Vatican City
  • It is run by a professional bank CEO
  • it is listed in the Annuario Pontificio
  • (Its) purpose... is "to provide for the safekeeping and administration of movable and immovable property transferred to entrusted to it by physical or juridical persons and intended for works of religion or charity"

So who actually owns it? Is it like Queen Elizabeth as monarch, holding in trust art, resources and and treasures for her people? Or is it like Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor's private inheritance, totally separate as the heir of her forebearers? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I mangled Her Majesty's name. I am trying to emphasis the distinct between the monarch and the woman, and I do not know how else to do so. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

I've just added an NPOV tag; I now see that one has just been taken off... this is not a good NPOV sign! My concerns are that the article does not give due weight to what the "bank" supposedly does, and (perhaps) undue weight to its alledged short-comings. Improvement to the article should be directed towards the description of verifiable and legitimate functions of the "bank" (assuming that these exist), as "controversies" are already well covered. Physchim62 (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going to add sources, and to remove the NPOV template. --Nicola Romani (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added, but I'm adding the NPOV template on the current investigation section, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedya, not a Newspaper! for that we have Wikinews!!! ...and last but not least, an Investigation doesn't mean nothing, the entire section seems drive the readers to "some" conclusions. Conclusions we doesn't know yet because investigations are necessaries to understand if there are some offence and people to process for that... and eventually waiting for the judgment. --Nicola Romani (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)addition of sources is not enough to address NPOV issues. The article should start by saying what this organization does in theory; then what in uncontroversially does in practice; only then should it get to the controversial bits. Addition of controversy should beware of WP:UNDUE: basically, no more controversy than real information, as an absolute maximum. Physchim62 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it should be add that: As provided by its statutes, aims to: "... ensure the safekeeping and administration of movable and immovable property transferred or assigned to the same IOR by natural or legal persons and are intended for works of religion and charity. The Institute therefore accepts goods with the destination, and future are at least partially, in the previous paragraph. The Institute may accept deposits of assets by entities and persons of the Holy See and the State of Vatican City (so only from thems or via thems e.g. Cardinals and/or Bishops)." --Nicola Romani (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the Wikinews style section? --Nicola Romani (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IOR "cannot be considered a bank in the current usage of the term"[edit]

Yesterday on the Osservatore Romano here:

"Secondo quanto si è appreso da molti media, l'iniziativa della procura di Roma - che ha tra l'altro condotto all'iscrizione nel registro degli indagati del presidente dell'Istituto per le Opere di Religione (Ior), Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, e del direttore generale, Paolo Cipriani - è partita da una comunicazione dell'Unità di informazione finanziaria (Uif) della Banca d'Italia. Questa ha segnalato all'autorità giudiziaria una possibile violazione delle norme antiriciclaggio. Eppure, dall'inizio di quest'anno, gli organi della Banca d'Italia e dello Ior operano in stretto collegamento proprio in vista dell'adeguamento delle operazioni dello Ior alle procedure antiriciclaggio. A questo scopo è stato istituito nell'ambito dello stesso Ior un ufficio di informazione finanziaria, sotto il controllo del cardinale Attilio Nicora. E in questa direzione vanno lette la costante collaborazione con l'Unione europea e soprattutto le missioni intraprese nei mesi scorsi dai vertici dello Ior a Parigi, sede dell'Ocse (Organizzazione per la cooperazione e lo sviluppo economico) e del Gafi (Gruppo di azione finanziaria internazionale contro il riciclaggio di capitali). Ai due organismi è stata allora prodotta la documentazione per l'iscrizione della Santa Sede alla cosiddetta White List, che raccoglie i Paesi che aderiscono alle norme antiriciclaggio. Per l'adeguamento alle esigenze che nascono dall'inclusione della Santa Sede tra gli Stati che operano contro il riciclaggio e il terrorismo, il segretario di Stato, cardinale Tarcisio Bertone, ha anche nominato un'apposita commissione presieduta dallo stesso cardinale Nicora. La direzione dello Ior è inoltre impegnata da tempo - e anche di questo la Banca d'Italia è bene informata - ad adeguare le sue strutture informatiche alle regole vigenti in materia di lotta al riciclaggio. Così lo Ior intende porsi sulla stessa linea delle banche italiane. Per tutti i motivi summenzionati, è facile comprendere che la natura e lo scopo delle operazioni ora oggetto di indagine potevano essere chiariti con semplicità e rapidità. Si tratta infatti - come già sottolineato - di operazioni di tesoreria il cui destinatario è lo stesso Ior su conti di sua pertinenza, presso altre banche. L'inconveniente è stato causato da un'incomprensione, in via di chiarimento, tra lo Ior e la banca che aveva ricevuto l'ordine di trasferimento. Nella certezza che nessun nuovo conto è stato aperto senza la stretta osservanza delle regole dettate da Bankitalia. Vale la pena ribadire che lo Ior non può essere considerata una banca nell'accezione corrente. Esso amministra infatti i beni di istituzioni cattoliche a livello internazionale ed, essendo ubicato nello Stato della Città del Vaticano, è al di fuori della giurisdizione delle diverse banche nazionali. Inoltre, l'integrità e l'autorevolezza del professor Gotti Tedeschi sono ben note negli ambienti finanziari italiani e internazionali."

the underlined sentence has been tanslated and reported on This article as "cannot be considered a bank in the current usage of the term"

Articles that I'm going to put as sources. --Nicola Romani (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This other source [3] and the answer of Her Majesty's Treasury should be also used as well -- Nicola Romani (talk 07:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't mean anything. It just means the British gov't doesn't have info on the Vatican Bank, which would make sense considering it's a privately held foreign bank. The source saying "cannot be considered a bank in the current usage of the term" is the Vatican itself. Since it's not independent of the subject, it's not considered reliable. Feel free to keep fishing though. ~DC We Can Work It Out 11:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Controversies needs to be properly sourced or deleted[edit]

All the sources used are from NON reliable source as per Wiki guidelines. These are not from noted scholars by a long shot and in no way reflect mainstream views of the bank. 24.149.201.162 (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you going to do? This makes the article even more exciting. To liberals, its like Vatican porn. The conspiracy theorist think its the best treasure best exposing, reliably or unreliably source doesnt matter. 38.121.17.167 (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"sensationalist" and "anti-Catholic"[edit]

...

This article includes a sentence that carries two curious usages, describing books as "sensationalist" and "anti-Catholic" ...

No one is quoted as making either such claim, much less quantifying them. Books may be critical and indeed sensational without necessarily being either untrue or "anti" anything.

Am deleting both words due to their making an obvious value statement that has no place in an encyclopedia. The sentence reads fine without them, setting out their "critical" nature.

Avaiki (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...

Not a Bank addition[edit]

I reverted the statement that the IWR is "wrongly" known as the Vatican Bank because it didn't include an explanation of why this designation is incorrect. Please provide an explanation of why the designation is incorrect. A short paragraph would be appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual past[edit]

A "scandalous" sexual past would have the same affect on a candidate for this position as it would in any other important position in the First World. A sentence reads "Reports were then published that Ricca was in the past involved in consensual homosexual acts." This is no different (to the Church) than saying that Ricca was involved in "consensual heterosexual acts." In the latter, the Vatican would probably prefer that these were within a marriage, but would not necessarily eliminate a candidate. Nor would "homosexual acts."

The "problem", if any, with either, is a lengthy history of promiscuity, unrepentant sexual behavior which goes against Catholic teaching. Not sure that the accusation indicates that. Mere homosexual contact in the past would not preclude anyone from anything as far as I know. The report of this accusation should indicate that. Student7 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was the press, wasn't it, not the Church, that made a big thing out of his alleged homosexual involvement? (The addition of the word "consensual" was some Wikipedia editor's unsourced idea, of unclear motivation.) I doubt if the press would have made quite as much fuss if Ricca was said to have had in the past a relationship with a woman. Journalists would not have been able to fill columns with speculation that he was protected by a "heterosexual lobby" in the Vatican! Esoglou (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Termination of the work of the Papal Commissions[edit]

Hi, on 24 May 2014, it was announced that the Papal Commission on the IOR, the so-called CRIOR Commission, has terminated its work, see: http://www.news.va/it/news/conclusi-lavori-commissioni-referenti-il-grazie-de. Please do update this information under the Organisation section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Works_of_Religion#Organisation. Many thanks --CNC IOR (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the organization section (since it's not operating more) to the 2013 reform section. Not a perfect place since

it ended in 2014, but I'll think about changing it later (and please feel free to suggest another place). I also shortened the organization section a bit; since we don't use to be too detailed with the names of those working for an organization. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lux Vide/ Tarcisio Bertone issue[edit]

On 20 May 2014, German tabloid BILD reported that former Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone is under investigation for the suspected embezzlement of 15m euro. According to unnamed sources in the Vatican, Cardinal Bertone initiated the transfer of funds from the IOR to the Lux Vide media company run by a friend, Ettore Bernabei The loan was approved when IOR was under interim management following the resignation of Ettore Gotti Tedeschi and before the appointment of Ernst von Freyberg in February 2013. The Vatican denied that Cardinal Bertone was under investigation by Vatican magistrates. see: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3b1111fe-e0e7-11e3-a934-00144feabdc0.html#axzz32vaNRi8y Please do insert this paragraph into the controversy section. Many thanks --CNC IOR (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lux Vide loan itself may seem like it's worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia; I just need a bit more time to look into it and consider what to include. Otherwise, Wikipedia has very strict rules for how we write about living persons so I don't believe we shall include the BILD allegations since it is denied by the Vatican and Bild is not a very good source.Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reform steps 2014[edit]

On 19 May 2014, the Vatican financial watchdog AIF published its annual report 2013. (see for the original document: http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/pt/bollettino/pubblico/2014/05/19/0355/00794.html) There was a significant increase in suspicious transaction reports to 202 from 6 in 2012. The increase is because of “a greater awareness” of potential criminal activities, as AIF's Director René Brülhart stated. The first inspection on the IOR conducted by the AIF in the first quarter of this year showed that the Institute hat made "substantial progress", as Brülhart said. Another inspection will be done next year, he added. (see: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-19/vatican-says-it-s-boosting-efforts-to-prevent-financial-crimes.html)

According to media reports in May 2014, Promontory has completed the screening of the 18,900 accounts held at the IOR. (see: http://religion.orf.at/stories/2648401/)

Please do insert this into the reform section. Many thanks, --CNC IOR (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Publication Annual Report 2014[edit]

On 25 May 2015 the IOR published its Annual Report for 2014. Please do insert this information in the introductory sector of the article.

Sources: Press relesase IOR, 25.05.2015 http://www.ior.va/content/dam/ior/documenti/ComunicatiStampaNotizie/2015/inglese/IOR_Press%20Release_Annual%20Report%202014_20150525.pdf; Annual Report 2014 http://www.ior.va/content/dam/ior/documenti/rapporto-annuale/IOR_AnnualReport_EN_2014.pdf; ANSA news agency, 25.05.2015 http://www.ansa.it/english/news/vatican/2015/05/25/profits-jump-at-vatican-bank-amid-reform_ba8478b6-fa47-4136-9496-c8238667773e.html

CNC_IOR is acting on behalf of the IOR as a payed service provider. The amendments suggested above aim to keep the Wikipedia-article on an up-to-date basis.--CNC IOR (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful to have a feedback whether the proposed information can be inserted in the article. Thank you!--CNC IOR (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my suggestions (see above), I updated the article. If you have any amendments or comments, I'll be glad to discuss them with you. --CNC IOR (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Institute for the Works of Religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Institute for the Works of Religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Institute for the Works of Religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institute for the Works of Religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Institute for the Works of Religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vical Vicar infobox typo?[edit]

Hi, in the infobox, under "Politcs ...", there is an entry for the "Vical General", which links to the Vicariate. I suppose the term might be "Vicar General", but I don't want to make an uninformed "miscorrection" based on my absolute non-mastery of 'hierolinguistics'. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Institute_for_the_Works_of_Religion&oldid=1207721263"