Monday, November 05, 2012

Usury in the Name of Jesus

Michael Hoffman's Note: Here below is current information from a generally reliable journalist on the usury bank ("IOR" - "Institute for Works of Religion") of the Catholic Church. This is another case where mortal sin is institutionalized and conducted without controversy. Usury in the name of Jesus Christ becomes business-as-usual, operated as the "religious works" of God.

EXCERPT: “...there has never been a sample testing of the CDD files maintained by the IOR or a supervisory assessment by the FIA including the scrutiny of transactions and the origin of funds in transactions carried out by the IOR.”

Translation of the subtle code employed above: the usury bank of the Catholic Church has never been in compliance with anti-money laundering laws.  A certain "René Brülhart" has been hired to give the Vatican Bank a better image.  The report's emphasis is on the crime of money-laundering. The crime (and mortal sin) of usury is not an issue.

Here is another excerpt from the article, this time in uncoded language:

 "...the Italian looking into suspect money flows noticed in the Vatican Bank’s accounts...Despite the introduction of anti-money laundering laws and the assurance given by Vatican Bank heads that it no longer holds any anonymous accounts, investigators found that dirty money can also pass through non-anonymous accounts belonging to priests or clerics..."

It might seem strange to present this information on the day before the presidential election. Yet nothing exceeds the empire of the Money Power when it comes to nullifying the laws of God or threatening our liberties. Like more foreign wars in places like Iran, the rule of the Money Power has largely escaped scrutiny in the Romney-Obama election contest.

Hoffman is the author of Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not (paperback, 416 pages), forthcoming  in December from Independent History and Research.


The Holy See’s Swiss anti-money laundering advisor, René Brülhart, is playing an increasingly key role in the Vatican’s finances. Meanwhile, the Vatican Bank (IOR) still has no president

By Andrea Tornielli
La Stampa (Italy) November 5, 2012

VATICAN CITY --[H]is success, combined with his good looks, led one magazine to dub the 40-year-old Swiss lawyer the James Bond of the financial world.”

This is how The Economist described René Brülhart, the director of Liechtenstein’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), in its 20 October issue. Brülhart is now the Vatican’s new financial advisor, whose job it will be to get the tiny State onto the “white list” of territories deemed to comply with international standards on combating financial crime. Last September, Fr. Lombardi had announced that Brülhart was being hired to strengthen the Vatican’s armor in the battle against financial crime.

In actual fact, Brülhart had, albeit in an informal and low key way, Brülhart had already started working with the Holy See back in December 2011, when, in a matter of weeks, the Secretariat of State changed its anti-money laundering law, in line with Moneyval’s requirements. Moneyval is the Council of Europe’s anti-money-laundering group. These changes, which were set in stone by a new law promulgated in January 2012, were at the centre of a heated internal debate, whose protagonists included the President of the FIA (Financial Information Authority), Cardinal Attilio Nicora and the President of the IOR (Institute for Works of Religion, commonly known as the Vatican Bank), Ettore Gotti Tedeschi. Both these figures were concerned about a downsizing of the body in charge of combating anti-money laundering.

In the Moneyval report published last July, Strasbourg experts recognised the progress made by the Vatican and indicated areas where work still needed to be done. The legislative basis for the surveillance of money-laundering practices needed further reinforcement. Assessors commented the role, responsibilities, authority, powers and independence of the FIA were not clear. The FIA is the financial authority created by the Vatican to intervene in cases where suspicious operations are performed or when transferrals of money of dubious provenance are made.

Furthermore, experts observed, “there has never been a sample testing of the CDD files maintained by the IOR or a supervisory assessment by the FIA including the scrutiny of transactions and the origin of funds in transactions carried out by the IOR.” Hence “it [was] strongly recommended that IOR is also supervised by a prudential supervisor in the near future as currently there is no adequate, independent supervision of the IOR and that the supervisor should have adequate powers of enforcement and sanction against financial institutions, and their directors or senior management for failure to comply with or properly implement requirements.”

Brülhart has begun to play an increasingly central and important role, significantly lightening the workload of American lawyer Jeffrey Lena who had been part of the Vatican Secretariat of State’s team in charge of changing the anti-money laundering law, right from the start. According to The Economist, Brülhart has two aims: the first is to “build a financial-intelligence unit that can investigate suspicious money flows properly.” The second is “to create a truly independent supervising authority for the Vatican Bank and the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, which manages the Vatican’s property and securities holdings.” This is given that the FIA “lacks the legal powers and independence necessary to monitor and sanction these financial institutions.”

The Vatican has assured it is not thinking about establishing a new body, although the idea was taken into consideration ten months ago. It is, however, working on responding effectively to Moneyval’s requests. In recent weeks the Italian judiciary, which is looking into suspect money flows noticed in the Vatican Bank’s accounts, sent some rogatory letters to the Holy See. Despite the introduction of anti-money laundering laws and the assurance given by Vatican Bank heads that it no longer holds any anonymous accounts, investigators found that dirty money can also pass through non anonymous accounts belonging to priests or clerics who are deceived or who are too complaisant. This problem exists in banks in every State but is particularly embarrassing for a “sui generis” State like the Vatican.

The path towards transparency which Benedict XVI is so eager for the Vatican to follow is not simple by any means, despite the impressive efforts of the sturdy young Swiss “Deus ex machina” the Holy See has placed its trust in. This is partly because there are some in the Catholic Church who, following the scandals of recent months, are wondering whether it is really necessary for the Vatican today to keep an institution like the IOR going.

Meanwhile, no progress seems to have been made in the choice of a successor to the Vatican Bank’s former president, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi. He was fired last May in a way that had never been seen before in the history of the Holy See.”There is no hurry; there is no reason to do things in a hurry,” reliable Vatican sources assure. According to information “filtering through” from the Holy See, the Vatican Banks’ new president will neither be Italian nor American. Instead, it looks likely that a German (the 74 year old Ronald Hermann Schmitz, the former MD for Deutsche Bank and current vice president of the IOR who is temporarily standing in for Gotti Tedeschi, is a German). A decision is expected before Christmas.

The selection process appears incredibly thorough, which is a sign of the significant interest and attention which Secretariat of State authorities are giving to this issue. The fact a new president has not been chosen, five months after Gotti Tedeschi’s dismissal, shows that the position does not urgently need to be filled and that the bank’s management, which has been entrusted to the IOR and its director general, Paolo Cipriani, is currently deemed satisfactory.


Linda Low said...


In the past, I have been quite appreciative of some of your work, particularly those works that expose the Talmud for what it is. So much so, that I had intended to make Revisionist History the sole beneficiary of my estate, after clearing up a few reservations about your work. Those rather vague uncertainties were clustered around a lack of clarity as to where exactly you stood in relation to the Catholic Church, and your rather disturbing term, “Churchianity”.
Your approach to the usury question has served to clarify where you stand. Not unlike the erring Fr. Feeney in his “discovery” of baptism of desire as a long-standing and glaring heresy (let the reader recognize my sarcasm), you declare that you have discovered the tolerance of interest on money loaned to be a heresy in the teachings of the Catholic faith that had gone unnoticed until you turned your penetrating eye on the subject. This time I am neither grateful nor impressed.
My hat's off to those with Catholic sensibilities who have walked away from you in response to your diatribe against the papacy, and who have recognized the lunacy of laying blame for today's predatory criminal usury at the feet of the Church. I now have the answer to that nagging question that formed in my mind early in reading your works: What exactly does this man mean by "Churchianity"? Your contempt for the authority of the Church is apparent in your incredible audacity in regarding yourself so wise that, through the mists of history, and in direct opposition to Catholic doctrine, you believe and teach others that you have discovered that not only the pope, but the entire Catholic hierarchy throughout the world not only accepted but taught heresy for hundreds of years. From these and other assertions, I now know that "Churchianity", at least in some of your usages, reflects your contempt for the legitimate authority and prerogatives of the papacy.
Your assertions allege the papacy to be the instigator of evil, and the Church's bishops to be the tolerators and propagators of sin over several centuries. No wonder you take such a sympathetic tone with regard to Protestantism, and feel so passionate about defending its innocence. Your attitude toward the papacy is indistinguishable from that of Protestants. The undeclared logical implication of your assertion is that the papacy and Catholic hierarchy defected from Christianity in the Medieval era. This is indistinguishable from Luther’s doctrine. As is your appeal to personal interpretation of scripture. May I suggest that, with a timber hanging out of your eye, it’s difficult to see through the mists of time.

I do, however, thank you for this: I no longer need to generate a codicil to my will. That's one more thing ticked off of my "to do" list.

Michael Hoffman said...

Dear Linda Low

Is it possible that as of the day you sent your comment, today, Nov. 28, 2012, you have already received and read my entire 416-page book,“Usury in Christendom”?

If not, on what do you base your extravagant claims and charges?

Is truth an issue for you? If it is true that the Renaissance Roman Catholic Church, as manifested within the papacy of the first Medici pope, permitted the heresy of interest on money, and then expanded the dimensions of that permission in successive pontificates throughout the centuries, into our own time, how then is it wrong, unethical or anti-Christian to state this truth?

I define Churchianity as any religious system which claims Christ as its head yet in actuality prefers the Talmudic system of man dictating to God and His people what is true. Authentic Christianity, on the other hand, subjects human knowledge and authority, however elevated, to subservience to divine dogma, and adheres unwaveringly to that dogmatic truth in the face of any rebellion by man.

The heretical situation-ethics which permitted the mortal sin of interest on money in Christendom, beginning at the dawn of the Renaissance, is the same situation ethics which empowered the heresy of ecclesiastic modernism in the 19th and 20th century and enables it now, in the new millennium.

I am merely the messenger of a harsh truth and the excavator of a revisionist history, both of which, in my opinion, must be faced by anyone sincerely committed to finding the source --and overthrowing the abominable plague of-- the Money Power.

If you have more faith in Renaissance and post-Renaissance papal authority than the Law of God, then you are correct to suggest that you and I are far apart on this matter. The war is between the True Church of All Time and the usurping agents of the Money Power who occupied positions in the Renaissance Church, and who continue to occupy positions of authority in the post-Renaissance Catholic Church, including the highest earthly position.

Where there is Truth there is Christ, and that is where I aspire to be, in the face of whatever vituperation or threats which the supporters of religious corruption and mammon-worship choose to hurl.

The allegation that my work is “indistinguishable from Luther’s doctrine” is a cheap shot. The anti-Catholic revolutionaries are to be found among those Renaissance theologians, canonists and popes who overthrew the eternal law against interest on money. Their revolution began to mature before Martin Luther was even born.

Your accusations are unlikely to deter truth-seekers from discovering the genuine history of the subversion of the Catholic Church by the popes and prelates of Mammon, who betrayed the saints, councils and true popes of the Church of All Time.

I do not assert that there was no Catholic resistance to these Renaissance and post-Renaissance heretics. Some among the hierarchy stood against the heresy and mortal sin of interest on money even after 1500. At the parish level there was resistance as well, when intrepid priests such as Fr. Jeremiah Callaghan grasped the revolutionary heresy that was in place; an act of perception which was often a formidable task, given the degree of chutzpah and “plausible denial” which, then as now, continues to assert, against all evidence, that usury is not permitted anywhere by Rome. This risible claim is a function of a mind control consortium whose victims often resist deprogramming.

God willing, in the future you will be granted a better understanding than the one you are now exhibiting in your hasty reaction.

Linda Low said...


That you haven't published or responded to my last comment speaks for itself. Your exhortation not to criticize your work until after reading it reminds me of a certain serpent's suggestion that the knowledge of good and evil is superior to knowing only the Good, with the implication that one can only know by tasting. After having the benefit of Eve's example, and knowledge of the suffering that has resulted, I need only know that it is forbidden fruit.

Also, your apparent lack of even an inkling of curiosity regarding the true motives of Lefebvre et al is most revealing. One must ask whether it is you who has a problem with the truth.

Before writing my original comment, I attempted to convince other more competent writers who understand the issues to do the honor of contending with you. They demurred, saying that intelligent men who stake their reputations on shrilly stated opinions against the Church are usually obstinate beyond recall. I had admitted that they were probably right, but in the end I needed to clarify with you and your readers that I would not support this most recent work of yours.

It is enough for me to know what how you have responded, for my own reference, and for the edification of those with whom I am in communion. Still, I appreciated your works on the Talmud and white slavery, and I'll look forward to future works that confine themselves to historical fact, and that leave the definition of faith and morals to the Church.

For your sake, I hope that you are simply in error, and not a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s just hard to understand how someone of your intelligence and research skills could have missed the lowdown on Lefebvre.

Until then,

Linda Low