|VATICAN PROMOTOR OF JUSTICE FREEZES FUNDS AT IOR ATTRIBUTED TO NUNZIO SCARANO|
Vatican City, 12 July 2013 (VIS) – The director of the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Federico Lombardi S.J., gave the following update this morning regarding the ongoing investigations into the case of Msgr. Nunzio Scarano by the competent authorities. Msgr. Scarano was the director of the accounting analysis service of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA) and was arrested at the end of June by Italian authorities in the context of a corruption and fraud investigation.
“By court order on the 9th of July, the Vatican Promoter of Justice has frozen funds at the IOR attributed to suspended Vatican employee Nunzio Scarano as part of an ongoing investigation by the Vatican judicial authorities. The investigation was triggered by several suspicious transaction reports filed with AIF and could be extended to additional individuals.
“IOR commissioned an objective review by Promontory Financial Group of the facts and circumstances of the accounts in question and is fully cooperating with the Vatican Financial Intelligence Unit AIF and judicial authorities to bring full transparency in this matter.
“The IOR is currently undergoing an outside review by Promontory Financial Group of all client relationships and the anti-money-laundering procedures it has in place. In parallel, the Institute is implementing appropriate improvements to its structures and procedures. This process was initiated in May 2013 and is expected to be largely concluded by the end of 2013. Over the past weeks, the IOR nominated a Chief Risk Officer at Directorate level with a specific brief to focus on compliance, and introduced measures to substantially strengthen the reporting system.
“As President Ernst von Freyberg recently pointed out, the IOR is systematically identifying and will have zero tolerance for any activity, whether conducted by laity or clergy, that is illegal or outside the Statutes of the Institute.”
|MESSAGE FOR SEA : RAISE AWARENESS OF THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF THOUSANDS OF SEAFARERS|
Vatican City, 12 July 2013 (VIS) - “Sea ” will be celebrated on and to mark the occasion the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant Peoples has released a message signed by the president of the dicastery, Cardinal Antonio Maria Veglio ,and the secretary, Archbishop Joseph Kalathiparambil, published in full below:
“'This world of the sea, with the continuous migration of people today, must take into account the complex effects of globalization and, unfortunately, must come to grips with situations of injustice, especially when the freedom of a ship’s crew to go ashore is restricted, when they are abandoned altogether along with the vessels on which they work, when they risk piracy at sea and the damage of illegal fishing. The vulnerability of seafarers, fishermen and sailors calls for an even more attentive solicitude on the Church’s part and should stimulate the motherly care that, through you, she expresses to all those whom you meet in ports and on ships or whom you help on board during those long months at sea'. These words were addressed by Pope Benedict XVI to the participants of the XXIII AOS Congress held in the Vatican City, November 19-23, 2012. As a matter of fact, for more than 90 years the Catholic Church, through the Work of the Apostleship of the Sea with its network of chaplains and volunteers in more than 260 ports of the world, has shown her motherly care by providing spiritual and material welfare to seafarers, fishers and their families.
“As we celebrate Sea , we would like to invite every member of our Christian communities to become aware and recognize the work of an estimated 1.2 to 1.5 million seafarers who at any time are sailing in a globalized worldwide fleet of 100,000 ships carrying 90 per cent of the manufactured goods. Very often, we do not realize that the majority of the objects we use in our daily life are transported by ships criss-crossing the oceans. Multinational crews experience complex living and working conditions on board, months away from their loved ones, abandonment in foreign ports without salaries, criminalization and natural (storms, typhoons, etc.) and human (pirates, shipwreck, etc.) calamities.
“Now a beacon of hope is beaming in the dark night of these problems and difficulties encountered by the seafarers.
“The ILO Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (MLC 2006), after being ratified by 30 Member countries of the International Labour Office, representing almost 60 per cent of the world’s gross shipping tonnage, is set to enter into force in August 2013. This Convention is the result of several years of relentless tripartite (governments, employers and workers) discussions to consolidate and update a great number of maritime labour Conventions and Recommendations adopted since 1920.
“The MLC 2006 establishes the minimum international requirements for almost every aspect of seafarers’ working and living conditions, including fair terms of employment, medical care, social security protection and access to shore-based welfare facilities.
“While, as AOS, we are welcoming the entering into force of the Convention and confidently hope to see improvements on the life of the seafarers, we remain vigilant and express our attentive solicitude by focusing our consideration on the Regulation 4.4 of the Convention, the purpose of which is to: ensure that seafarers working on board a ship have access to shore-based facilities and services to secure their health and well-being.
“We should cooperate with the proper authorities in our respective ports so that shore leave be granted to all seafarers as soon as possible after a ship’s arrival in port, for the benefit of their health and well-being.
“We should remind port states to promote the development of shore-based welfare facilities easily accessible to seafarers, irrespective of nationality, race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, or social origin and of the flag state on which they are employed.
“We should assist the proper authorities in establishing national and local welfare boards that would serve as a channel for improving seafarer’s welfare at ports, bringing together people from different types of organization under one identity.
“We should also encourage the port authorities to introduce, aside from other forms of financing, a port levy system to provide a reliable mechanism to support sustainable welfare services in the port.
“Our final responsibility is towards the seafarers. We should provide them information and education about theirs rights and the protection offered by this Convention, which is also considered the fourth and final pillar of the international maritime legislation, the other three being the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) 1973, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, and the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) 1978. Effective implementation will be possible and real changes will happen only if the people of the sea are aware of the content of the MLC 2006.
“Let us ask Mary, the Star of the Sea, to enlighten and accompany our mission to support the work of the faithful who are called to witness to their Christian life in the maritime world.”
Saturday, July 13, 2013
St. Henry II
GERMAN KING AND HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR
Feast: July 13
German King and Holy Roman Emperor, son of Duke Henry II (the Quarrelsome) and of the Burgundian Princess Gisela; b. 972; d. in his palace of Grona, at Gottingen, 13 July, 1024.
Like his predecessor, Otto III, he had the literary education of his time. In his youth he had been destined for the priesthood. Therefore he became acquainted with ecclesiastical interests at an early age.
Willingly he performed pious practices, gladly also he strengthened the Church of Germany, without, however, ceasing to regard ecclesiastical institutions as pivots of his power, according to the views of Otto the Great. With all his learning and piety, Henry was an eminently sober man, endowed with sound, practical common sense. He went his way circumspectly, never attempting anything but the possible and, wherever it was practicable, applying the methods of amiable and reasonable good sense. This prudence, however, was combined with energy and conscientiousness. Sick and suffering from fever, he traversed the empire in order to maintain peace. At all times he used his power to adjust troubles. The masses especially he wished to help.
The Church, as the constitutional Church of Germany, and therefore as the advocate of German unity and of the claims of inherited succession, raised Henry to the throne. The new king straightway resumed the policy of Otto I both in domestic and in foreign affairs.
This policy first appeared in his treatment of the Eastern Marches. The encroachments of Duke Boleslaw, who had founded a great kingdom, impelled him to intervene. But his success was not marked.
In Italy the local and national opposition to the universalism of the German king had found a champion in Arduin of Ivrea. The latter assumed the Lombard crown in 1002. In 1004 Henry crossed the Alps. Arduin yielded to his superior power. The Archbishop of Milan now crowned him King of Italy. This rapid success was largely due to the fact that a large part of the Italian episcopate upheld the idea of the Roman Empire and that of the unity of Church and State.
On his second expedition to Rome, occasioned by the dispute between the Counts of Tuscany and the Crescentians over the nomination to the papal throne, he was crowned emperor on 14 February, 1014. But it was not until later, on his third expedition to Rome, that he was able to restore the prestige of the empire completely.
Before this happened, however, he was obliged to intervene in the west. Disturbances were especially prevalent throughout the entire north-west. Lorraine caused great trouble. The Counts of Lutzelburg (Luxemburg), brothers-in-law of the king, were the heart and soul of the disaffection in that country. Of these men, Adalbero had made himself Bishop of Trier by uncanonical methods (1003); but he was not recognized any more than his brother Theodoric, who had had himself elected Bishop of Metz.
True to his duty, the king could not be induced to abet any selfish family policy at the expense of the empire. Even though Henry, on the whole, was able to hold his own against these Counts of Lutzelburg, still the royal authority suffered greatly by loss of prestige in the north-west.
Burgundy afforded compensation for this. The lord of that country was Rudolph, who, to protect himself against his vassals, joined the party of Henry II, the son of his sister, Gisela, and to Henry the childless duke bequeathed his duchy, despite the opposition of the nobles (1006). Henry had to undertake several campaigns before he was able to enforce his claims. He did not achieve any tangible result, he only bequeathed the theoretical claims on Burgundy to his successors.
Better fortune awaited the king in the central and eastern parts of the empire. It is true that he had a quarrel with the Conradinians over Carinthia and Swabia: but Henry proved victorious because his kingdom rested on the solid foundation of intimate alliance with the Church.
That his attitude towards the Church was dictated in part by practical reasons, primarily he promoted the institutions of the Church chiefly in order to make them more useful supports his royal power, is clearly shown by his policy. How boldly Henry posed as the real ruler of the Church appears particularly in the establishment of the See of Bamberg, which was entirely his own scheme.
He carried out this measure, in 1007, in spite of the energetic opposition of the Bishop of Wurzburg against this change in the organization of the Church. The primary purpose of the new bishopric was the germanization of the regions on the Upper Main and the Regnitz, where the Wends had fixed their homes. As a large part of the environs of Bamberg belonged to the king, he was able to furnish rich endowments for the new bishopric. The importance of Bamberg lay principally in the field of culture, which it promoted chiefly by its prosperous schools. Henry, therefore, relied on the aid of the Church against the lay powers, which had become quite formidable. But he made no concessions to the Church.
Though naturally pious, and though well acquainted with ecclesiastical culture, he was at bottom a stranger to her spirit. He disposed of bishoprics autocratically. Under his rule the bishops, from whom he demanded unqualified obedience, seemed to be nothing but officials of the empire. He demanded the same obedience from the abbots. However, this political dependency did not injure the internal life of the German Church under Henry. By means of its economic and educational resources the Church had a blessed influence in this epoch.
But it was precisely this civilizing power of the German Church that aroused the suspicions of the reform party. This was significant, because Henry was more and more won over to the ideas of this party. At a synod at Goslar he confirmed decrees that tended to realize the demands made by the reform party. Ultimately this tendency could not fail to subvert the Othonian system, moreover could not fail to awaken the opposition of the Church of Germany as it was constituted.
This hostility on the part of the German Church came to a head in the emperor's dispute with Archbishop Aribo of Mainz. Aribo was an opponent of the reform movement of the monks of Cluny. The Hammerstein marriage imbroglio afforded the opportunity he desired to offer a bold front against Rome. Otto von Hammerstein had been excommunicated by Aribo on account of his marriage with Irmengard, and the latter had successfully appealed to Rome.
This called forth the opposition of the Synod of Seligenstadt, in 1023, which forbade an appeal to Rome without the consent of the bishop. This step meant open rebellion against the idea of church unity, and its ultimate result would have been the founding of a German national Church. In this dispute the emperor was entirely on the side of the reform party. He even wanted to institute international proceedings against the unruly archbishop by means of treaties with the French king. But his death prevented this.
Before this Henry had made his third journey to Rome in 1021. He came at the request of the loyal Italian bishops, who had warned him at Strasburg of the dangerous aspect of the Italian situation, and also of the pope, who sought him out at Bamberg in 1020. Thus the imperial power, which had already begun to withdraw from Italy, was summoned back thither. This time the object was to put an end to the supremacy of the Greeks in Italy. His success was not complete; he succeeded, however, in restoring the prestige of the empire in northern and central Italy.
Henry was far too reasonable a man to think seriously of readopting the imperialist plans of his predecessors. He was satisfied to have ensured the dominant position of the empire in Italy within reasonable bounds. Henry's power was in fact controlling, and this was in no small degree due to the fact that he was primarily engaged in solidifying the national foundations of his authority.
The later ecclesiastical legends have ascribed ascetic traits to this ruler, some of which certainly cannot withstand serious criticism. For instance, the highly varied theme of his virgin marriage to Cunegond has certainly no basis in fact.
The Church canonized this emperor in 1146, and his wife Cunegond in 1200.