Color me surprised... NOT.
In this article shared by Ms. S.H., the Vatican recently sponsored a committee that called for (surprise surprise) a global central bank:
I definitely think this to be a colossally, hugely, unabashedly bad (and furthermore) stupid idea, but one certainly in line with what the Vatican, and Papacy, really are, based on claims much of the Christian world, and most of the secular humanistic world, regard as egregiously false, and those claims are tyrannical. There is no other word for them. There is no dressing them up, no explaining them away, and no softening of them, for that institution itself has not softened them nor rejected them.
Why is this a colossally, hugely, unabashedly bad and stupid idea?
Years ago, on one of many interviews with the late George Anne Hughes of The Byte show, and in conjunction with a prolonged series of interviews about my book Babylon's Banksters, I offered the opinion that eventually one would see the Vatican jump on the global government central bank bandwagon. My reasons were simple: throughout history, one has seen an alliance between the debt-money model, central banks, and religion... in short, an alliance between "money changers" and "the Temple," and it seems to me I remember a certain Someone having something to say about that a couple of millennia ago. (Apparently, that Someone and His supposedly infallible "Vicar" are now in a bit of ideological conflict.) In a private correspondence with a friend, I also predicted that inevitably one would see a move toward a European currency, or a global currency, backed by the "moral suasion" represented by religion. The trouble is, what religion makes such universal political and temporal claims?
Answer: the Papacy.
And it's been very clever in trying to distance itself not only from its own past, but from its own claims about itself. Recall that after the revolution of Vatican Two, Popes abandoned their sedan chairs and the papal tiara, the triple crown that symbolized and embodied the claims of the institution to have authority over the church triumphant (in heaven), the church suffering (in purgatory) and the church militant (on earth), each represented by one of the three crowns in the tiara. Pope Pius XII (Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli) was the last person to wear it, though Pope Paul VI was crowned with it, he seldom wore it in public functions. But amid all the flannel- and cotton-mouthed pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council, one central doctrine was treated in the old fashioned language: the papacy, and its claims, itself, and those pronouncements of Vatican Two stressed all the vocabulary of plenitudo potestatis that one was accustomed to from the mediaeval popes like Boniface VIII and Innocent III. It was, after all, Boniface VIII whose (aptly named) Bull, Unam Sanctam, stated clearly and unequivocally that it was necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff. Not in communion with, not adherent to other Catholic doctrine, but simply subject to the Papacy. And this itself was the subject of critique, not only by Eastern Orthodox theologians of the day (and since), but also of Roman Catholic theologians themselves: in the face of such supreme authority, what did the rest of Catholic doctrine really matter, if the sine qua non of being Catholic were mere submission to a claim of authority, whether or not that authority in other respects was even Catholic. The critique was leveled again by Roman Catholics, some even bishops, at the first Vatican Council that defined papal infallibility, and universal and immediate jurisdiction, in 1870-71.
The whole papal edifice and its claims have come again under scrutiny by Catholics dismayed by some of the current occupant of these claims' recent pronouncements, some of which don't sound all that "Catholic." Francis has called for his more traditionally-minded opponents to be "flexible and adaptable"; but when push comes to shove, invokes papal authority. The rest of Catholic tradition and doctrine are wholly subservient to it. And that means, effectively, all Catholic doctrine and practice are up for grabs.
In short, as the Orthodox Churches have stated clearly and unequivocally since these claims were pressed on it a millennium ago: such claims are no part of Catholic doctrine or practice, and lie at the heart of the West's schism from Orthodoxy ever since. The Protestants took up this renunciation of papal claims during the Reformation. It is the papacy, and its claims, that are at the heart of the disunity of Christendom, and that are at the heart of the issue.
So now the Vatican calls for a global central bank, and taxes on all financial transactions. And this is but another clue that the world of Boniface VIII is still alive and well, for one can assume that the Vatican wants its "cut of the action" in return for bartering away what remains of Catholic doctrine and tradition within that church in return for a seat - a central seat - at the table of Mr. Global. Some of the statements, when viewed against this backdrop of papal claims, are chilling:
It condemned what it called “the idolatry of the market” as well as a “neo-liberal thinking” that it said looked exclusively at technical solutions to economic problems.
“In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviors like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale,” it said, adding that world economics needed an “ethic of solidarity” among rich and poor nations.
“If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice, the negative effects that will follow on the social, political and economic level will be destined to create a climate of growing hostility and even violence, and ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic institutions, even the ones considered most solid,” it said.
It called for the establishment of “a supranational authority” with worldwide scope and “universal jurisdiction” to guide economic policies and decisions.
And what "supranational authority" with "world wide scope" has such claims to "universal jurisdiction"?
Surprise, surprise, it's the papacy. And who would arbitrate "the various forms of injustice"? I suspect the reader knows the answer to that already.
So I don't know about you, but giving in here would be to undo the centuries of resistance, by both Orthodox, Protestants, and secular humanists, to the claims of this institution. And let's be clear here: that institution's own claims about itself are nothing less than tyranny, pure and simple.
Let's hope that Russia, and its Patriarch, and everyone else with a stake in a future of freedom, say a very firm nyet at this latest attempt to revive the Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII, going now under the name of Francis I.
See you on the flip side...