Talk:Vatican Bank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 "further clarifying documentation" 2 Calvi and Banco Ambrosiano 3 Panel Revives Claims That Vatican Bank Aided Nazi Puppets 4 WP Article resolution template 4.1 All Sourceable material 4.2 Historical Ignorance 4.3 Hagiography and Culture 4.4 Inclusion of Contradiction 4.5 Inclusion of Error 4.6 No Refusal of Sources 4.7 Request for clarification 5 Study/Clarification of a pro-Nazi Accusation 5.1 Talk Pages Are About Articles 6 Uncited Claims 7 Class action suit against the Vatican Bank and others 8 POV tag issues etc. 8.1 POV & Disputed Badges 8.2 Remove POV tag 8.3 Inherently POV 8.4 NPOV

[edit] "further clarifying documentation"

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)

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)

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

[edit] Calvi and Banco Ambrosiano

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

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

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

[edit] WP Article resolution template

[edit] All Sourceable material

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.

[edit] Historical Ignorance

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

[edit] Hagiography and Culture

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

[edit] Inclusion of Contradiction

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

[edit] Inclusion of Error

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.

[edit] No Refusal of Sources

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)

[edit] Request for clarification

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)

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)

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

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)

[edit] Talk Pages Are About Articles

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

The highlighted relevant studied section, with words changed minimally?EffK 11:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] Uncited Claims

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)

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

---

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)

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)

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

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

[edit] POV tag issues etc.

[edit] POV & Disputed Badges

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)

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)

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)

It would greaty help if it had a history section. 12.220.47.145 02:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Remove POV tag

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)

[edit] Inherently POV

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)

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.

[edit] NPOV

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)