Posted on 04/22/2005 11:26:47 AM PDT by donbosco74
The story behind it dates to 1971-1989 (34 years old).
But the Archbishop is alive and well today, April 22nd, 2005. He is still protected by diplomatic immunity thanks to JPII "the great."
What is Benedict XVI going to do about it?
>>Archbishop Edwin Josef Ender, German representative of the Pope in the German capital, expressed his "joy" to ZENIT over the "felicitous decision" and said that...[Benedict XVI] "is seen as John Paul II's closest collaborator and as a person who will carry his legacy forward."<<
Does this principle apply to maintaining the political immunity of fugitives, too?
>>And so one of the most notorious figures in the history of the Catholic Church remains shrouded in secrecy.
>>Archbishop Paul Marcinkus was president of the Vatican Bank from 1971 to 1989.
>>He was considered by many to be the second most powerful man in the church.
>>He arguably held the most power in the Catholic Church of any American in the history of the church.<<
And now he lives quietly in peace, while his erstwhile local bishop, Thomas O'Brien, is under investigation for hit-and-run manslaughter! Why is Marcinkus immune and O'Brien is not? What kind of power does Marcinkus hold over the heads of the popes?
One pingy-dingy...
O'Brien was convicted of hit and run, and sentenced to 1000 hours of community service last year; he has been replaced with Bishop Thomas Olmsted who is a good and conservative bishop.
I don't know anything about the money guy you were talking about, but I feel like I just went through a time warp.
I didn't keep up on O'Brien. But the question stands: Why was he subject to the full force of the law, while Marcinkus abides behind boilerplate immunity?
Another thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385980/posts#comment?q=1
I wouldn't take too seriously the fact that Italian judges went after Marcinkus. It is pretty well known that Italian judges are a way-out-of-control bunch. They have gone after all sorts of people, including Berlusconi. There are no checks and balances in Italy, and the judges are all-powerful. I think the view of sober people is that Marcinkus was naive and incompetent and in over his head. There was a huge and complex financial scandal that involved vast sums of money and a sensational suicide. However, the Vatican Bank was only involved in a peripheral way, and there is no evidence that Marcinkus knowingly did anything wrong. Obviously Pope John Paul II was convinced of his innocence, because he didn't hand him over to the Italians.
The Vatican paid an enormous fine, while adamantly insisting upon their complete innocence. Never was there a better example of the importance of the need for the temporal independence of the Vatican. It prevented them from being persecuted by a bunch of left-wing conspiracy-mad nuts.
Marcinkus is "guilty" the way Bolton, Clarance Thomas, Senator Tower, Judge Bork, etc. etc. etc. were guilty.
A bad one whether it be earthly or beyond. Since Pope Benedict wants to stay alive for a few years so I think he'll defer to the Holy Ghost to render judgement on that fateful day.
I did a google on him, and there is a lot of conspiracy theories involving him. I suspect a lot of it is just that - conspiracy theories.
When I see lots of conspiracy theories, I tend to think of Karl Rove and the things DU says about his abilities....
I wish I had your optimistic outlook. It must be nice.
A) Is the "sensational suicide" you mention the body of Roberto Calvi? It
>>was found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge in London on the morning of June 19, 1982. At the time, the death was ruled a suicide...In the late 1990s, Italian criminal investigators exhumed Roberto Calvi's body. Using forensic technologies not available 20 years ago, pathologists determined that Calvi had indeed been murdered. They determined he had been strangled before he was hung from the bridge.<<
B) You assert, "there is no evidence that Marcinkus knowingly did anything wrong." Have you heard of any collection of all the evidence? Have you seen any interview of Marcinkus?
C) You think "Obviously Pope John Paul II was convinced of his innocence, because he didn't hand him over to the Italians." Did JPII ever explain his actions?
D) You ought to check out the other thread that died a few days ago:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385980/posts?page=11#11
Like I said, I wish I had your optimism.
Must be nice.
There is a conspiratorial subculture in the Church. It was largely fueled by the hysterical writings of Malachi Martin, who is the patron saint of the conspirazoids. He proposed all kinds of bizarre goings-on in the Vatican through his "fictional" works, which weave in just enough fact to lead some of his more zealous followers to treat the fiction as fact as well.
Did you see this post? The indictments happened this past Monday, April 18th, 2005.
4 indicted in Italian financier's death ("God's banker")
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385980/posts?
>>The key issue here is: If the indictment waited more than 20 years, why it was made known in the week after John Paul II funeral?
IMHO, it is in bad taste. One could conclude that justice could not be served as long as John Paul II was alive.
>>11 posted on 04/18/2005 12:27:57 PM PDT by DTA <<
I did use to read him, but in my normal tendency to avoid conspiracy theories in general, I gave up the habit.
Gee, do you think the author has it in for the Roman Catholic Church? Naaaaaa...
I'm not against justice, mind you. If it's there, the truth will come out, maybe.
It's classic conspiracy theory.
It also contains many blatant inaccuracies and half-truths.
The truth, in reality, is more boring.
--The truth, in reality, is more boring--
That's the way it usually is, anyway.
The picture that seems to fit the facts most closely is quite pedestrian.
Marcinkus was not a particularly adept financier and the odd financial conditions that prevailed in the 1970s (remember stagflation?) stumped him. He mismanaged the Vatican's finances into the red.
As is usual in such cases, he was approached by bankers who knew that he was having difficulty and who offered him several seemingly attractive ways to invest the money for above-average returns in order to make up the shortfall.
At this time in Italy the Mafia was more influential in finance than it is today and it's obvious that Signore Calvi was a banker whom the mob had something on.
He worked as a front man for the Mafia trying to find willing suckers to invest in fake businesses that were really Mafia scams.
The elderly churchman who was in dire straits and who was extremely eager to improve his portfolio bought Calvi's salesmanship and invested aggressively with him and others.
Then the losses started coming in and the Mafia found out that Calvi was skimming the Mafia's money off the top.
Calvi was killed, as were others.
The Vatican realized that it had been taken and worse, the prestige of the Church had been used by Calvi to market the scams to other pigeons, i.e. "Hey, the Vatican has invested heavily in this you know - I could see if they would be willing to let you in."
Realizing they had been taken for a ride and that Marcinkus had been duped, the Church tried to make up for the losses of others who had been scammed by Calvi by making a capital infusion so other investors could be made whole, while the Church took the full hit.
The Church felt that the anticlerical, Socialist government of Italy had put a target on Marcinkus' back, which was convenient for them, since they knew that if they convicted Marcinkus they would be praised by the secular press and be safe, while if they aggressively went after the Mafia, they might get assassinated like other Italian prosecutors at that time.
The Church refused to sacrifice Marcinkus to please the newspapers.
And for the record, the Vatican never claimed that Pope John Paul the first died from "overmedication". He had a heart attack and medicine had nothing to do with it.
I'd heard a bit of this...Didn't know the bit about the Church making up the deficit...wow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.