Furthermore it is apparent it is a choice for the benefit of the principals rather than the children.

That is a bigoted and loaded assertion. Who are you to look into the souls of every gay person with children or who wishes to have a family with children? Are you God? Perhaps you should be in charge of a moral test for ALL prospective parents. Has it occurred to you how many straight people have children for "selfish" reasons? Yes according to your standard, only SAINTLY people should be allowed to have families with children. This demonization of gay people, this pushing us out of the human family, is quite simply ... A SHANDA. This apparently is something you share with Papa F. He also said gays having children is an act of discrimination against the children. Argentine president Kirchner called that MEDIEVAL thinking. I think Kirchner is right. I get it devout Catholics think they are doing "God's" work but unless you're in a THEOCRACY, that is irrelevant for civil law and civil rights for minorities in societies.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not talking about morals, I'm talking about nature. The same nature gay people claim that gives them civil rights, which I agree with. And please don't come back with the inter-racial thing either. That has zero bearing on procreation. Also, nvoking a corrupt, failed, latter day Peronista doesn't make your claims more credible I assure you. And BTW I am not a devout Catholic.

I think a Shanda is only directed at Jewish persons, which I know you are, but my comments weren't.

to ease the situation a bit ...JT's "Shanda" is the yiddish version of the german "Schande" (nearly identical pronunciation) meaning "shame".

Furthermore it is apparent it is a choice for the benefit of the principals rather than the children.

That is a bigoted and loaded assertion. Who are you to look into the souls of every gay person with children or who wishes to have a family with children? Are you God? Perhaps you should be in charge of a moral test for ALL prospective parents. Has it occurred to you how many straight people have children for "selfish" reasons? Yes according to your standard, only SAINTLY people should be allowed to have families with children. This demonization of gay people, this pushing us out of the human family, is quite simply ... A SHANDA. This apparently is something you share with Papa F. He also said gays having children is an act of discrimination against the children. Argentine president Kirchner called that MEDIEVAL thinking. I think Kirchner is right. I get it devout Catholics think they are doing "God's" work but unless you're in a THEOCRACY, that is irrelevant for civil law and civil rights for minorities in societies.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not talking about morals, I'm talking about nature. The same nature gay people claim that gives them civil rights, which I agree with. And please don't come back with the inter-racial thing either. That has zero bearing on procreation. Also, nvoking a corrupt, failed, latter day Peronista doesn't make your claims more credible I assure you. And BTW I am not a devout Catholic.

I think a Shanda is only directed at Jewish persons, which I know you are, but my comments weren't.

to ease the situation a bit ...JT's "Shanda" is the yiddish version of the german "Schande" (nearly identical pronunciation) meaning "shame".

Oh, we're just goofing around. Thanks for the definition.

The title of this thread is "What problems will the new Pope face?"

The last several pages of the thread are all about homosexuality, which is not a problem - it is clearly prohibited in the Bible.

So, what problems will the new Pope face?

Such as :-

• Having a living Pope Emeritus down the road?
• Paedophile priests?
• Funding of the Church?
• Falling congregations in the Western world?
• Rising congregations in Latin America and Africa?
• Islamic demonisation of the West?
• Western demonisation of Islam?
• Returning to the Tridentine Mass?
• Reviewing the contents of the Bible and bringing in some of the prohibited books?
• Repealing the findings of the Nicean Congress?
• ?????

Too many of the threads here are being hijacked by people concentrating on one subject, a subject of concern to only a small minority of the human race. If you want to discuss just the one subject, start a specific thread on that subject and confine your postings on that subject to that thread.

This thread was started on the subject "What problems will the new Pope have to face?"

That isn't true. The rise of gay marriage in many countries is something the Catholic church has stuck their nose into. This Pope did that already in Argentina; happily the church didn't have the power there to stop the progress of CIVIL rights for their people. This is a problem for the church because it reminds people of how sexually oppressive their dogma is in general. This hurts their propaganda conversion machine in the more advanced countries. Heck, they still have the same office running that was responsible for the inquisition!

The title of this thread is "What problems will the new Pope face?"

The last several pages of the thread are all about homosexuality, which is not a problem - it is clearly prohibited in the Bible.

So, what problems will the new Pope face?

Such as :-

• Having a living Pope Emeritus down the road?
• Paedophile priests?
• Funding of the Church?
• Falling congregations in the Western world?
• Rising congregations in Latin America and Africa?
• Islamic demonisation of the West?
• Western demonisation of Islam?
• Returning to the Tridentine Mass?
• Reviewing the contents of the Bible and bringing in some of the prohibited books?
• Repealing the findings of the Nicean Congress?
• ?????

Too many of the threads here are being hijacked by people concentrating on one subject, a subject of concern to only a small minority of the human race. If you want to discuss just the one subject, start a specific thread on that subject and confine your postings on that subject to that thread.

This thread was started on the subject "What problems will the new Pope have to face?"

That'll be the day when a long-running thread sticks to its topic!

I opened a thread about what the Bible says about being gay; most people get it wrong.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/626433-what-does-the-bible-say-about-being-gay/

It is an issue for the Pope to deal with, because of the files allegedly about a gay clique in the curia which Benedict XVI passed on to Pope Francis (we presume he did pass them on). But I agree that this thread is far too much about one thing, and not enough about the others.

One important topic you omitted is reform of the curia.

When a man is elected Pope, he sometimes behaves far differently from what people expected. John XXIII, from being a rather obscure Vatican diplomat, in a few short years turned the Church upside down, and incidentally became the most loved Pope of the past century.

From what we have seen of Pope Francis since his election (and I don't much care what he did before his election), he is intent on reinforcing the positive side of Christianity, love God and love your neighbour, and is less interested in the legalistic aspects. In this he has much in common with the beloved Pope John.

After posting this, I came across an interesting article on exactly this topic, much more knowledgeable than the rather tired rhetoric which has dominated this thread.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/francis-rebuild-my-church-will-pope-francis-heed-the-call_b_3017045.html

Furthermore it is apparent it is a choice for the benefit of the principals rather than the children.

That is a bigoted and loaded assertion. Who are you to look into the souls of every gay person with children or who wishes to have a family with children? Are you God? Perhaps you should be in charge of a moral test for ALL prospective parents. Has it occurred to you how many straight people have children for "selfish" reasons? Yes according to your standard, only SAINTLY people should be allowed to have families with children. This demonization of gay people, this pushing us out of the human family, is quite simply ... A SHANDA. This apparently is something you share with Papa F. He also said gays having children is an act of discrimination against the children. Argentine president Kirchner called that MEDIEVAL thinking. I think Kirchner is right. I get it devout Catholics think they are doing "God's" work but unless you're in a THEOCRACY, that is irrelevant for civil law and civil rights for minorities in societies.

Ok, I've just learned you're a member of yet another disenfranchised minority, a Cubs fan. My empathy only grows.

Ok, I've just learned you're a member of yet another disenfranchised minority, a Cubs fan. My empathy only grows.

No worries. That was just a short phase for me. Actually, it's much worse. My true heart belongs here:

First in war, first in peace, and last in the American League.

Have a heart, JT!

After posting this, I came across an interesting article on exactly this topic, much more knowledgeable than the rather tired rhetoric which has dominated this thread.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/francis-rebuild-my-church-will-pope-francis-heed-the-call_b_3017045.html

A good article (unusual for the Huffington Post) and much of it could also apply to the new Archbishop of Canterbury when applied to the Anglican Church.

I have yet to make up my mind on him, as the media quotes from day-to-day vary from traditionalist to reformist like a pendulum.

We'll have to wait a few months on both these gentlemen, I think.

After posting this, I came across an interesting article on exactly this topic, much more knowledgeable than the rather tired rhetoric which has dominated this thread.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/francis-rebuild-my-church-will-pope-francis-heed-the-call_b_3017045.html

A good article (unusual for the Huffington Post) and much of it could also apply to the new Archbishop of Canterbury when applied to the Anglican Church.

I have yet to make up my mind on him, as the media quotes from day-to-day vary from traditionalist to reformist like a pendulum.

We'll have to wait a few months on both these gentlemen, I think.

Yes, Huffington Post is not my favourite source!

Quite right, HB; we should wait a few months at least. I know this is the Instant Gratification Generation, but anyone who expects instant change from the Catholic Church should think again.

No one is arguing that homosexuality is not natural. In my opinion, it is - for a very small percentage of the population. The argument is about changing the traditional definition of marriage from one man and one woman, rather than simply having civil partnerships cover other types of unions.

Yes, they are. I am.

Maybe in your opinion it is 'natural' for a small minority, but to me it is a perversion of God's design for the universe.

Also a perversion of Mother Nature if you do not accept God. The basic purpose of sexual union is to procreate and thus produce the next generation of bugs, dogs, ants, whales, human beings, what-have-you.

For homosexuals this is not possible, it is perverting the purpose of the act to being solely an indulgence for one or both the participants, exaxctly the same as paedophilia or bestiality.

Where have you been for the last decade, I wonder.

I actually disagree with HB, as I do believe it is "natural" for many gays to have this proclivity from birth. It is also "against nature" in that it doesn't lead to species sustainability. I can't explain why a large percentage of gay men come from families with overbearing mothers or why a large percentage of lesbian women come from families with abusive fathers or husbands. I accept that's just the way it is. I also accept that these people so afflicted are free to engage in whatever behaviour between themselves that they like, so long as it doesn't harm others.

I do not accept that it is a lifestyle that leads to nuclear family formation however , which IMO is in the very best interests of children, including gay children BTW. Therefore I don't agree with measures that put gay marriage and gay adoption on the same footing with heterosexual marriage and adoption. It is the child's rights I'm thinking of and it is with child's rights in mind that the institution of civil marriage and familial tax benefits was created.

Homo Sapiens have been on this earth about 200k-250k years. Their evolution has come strictly from heterosexual pairings. I have to laugh and think the authors foolish when I see comments on this subject like "the latest poll shows" and "where have you been the last decade".

I'll reply to your post even though the thread has moved on, as it was addressed to me and I was off-line for a few days. I'll reply paragraph by paragraph:

1.) Thanks for your acceptance. By the way, my mother was not overbearing, but that's beyond the point.

2.) It is not a lifestyle, as has been said in the meantime, as it is not a choice. I won't say much about gay adoption, though.

3.) All offspring in nature is from homosexual parents (or at least parents who mate in a heterosexual way). This does not mean that homo sapiens is the only species to produce homosexual offspring. I think this was mentioned earlier in this thread. many species have homosexual offspring, it's quite normal in nature. 5% or so of the offspring being homosexual and another percentage being infertile does not jeopardize the species, otherwise all these more than 100 species would have been extinct already. In the last decade, people learned about homosexuality, and that it is not unnatural or a sin against mankind itself. HB posted arguments that were discussed a long time ago - putting pedophilia and homosexuality in the same basket is beyond ridiculous, for example. Or, the purpose of marriage being to produce offspring, forcing infertile couples, or couples deciding to not have children on the list criminals.

If you (not you personally, but the general you) believe in God (any god), it is He who made me gay. If you believe in Nature, it is She who made me gay. If you criticise my being gay, take your pick but don't blame Me. I am not divine.

I know this is the Instant Gratification Generation, but anyone who expects instant change from the Catholic Church should think again.

It took over 3 centuries for the CC to admit they were wrong about Galileo. Change is ever so slow and usually involves the activities of dragging, kicking and screaming.

Where have you been for the last decade, I wonder.

I actually disagree with HB, as I do believe it is "natural" for many gays to have this proclivity from birth. It is also "against nature" in that it doesn't lead to species sustainability. I can't explain why a large percentage of gay men come from families with overbearing mothers or why a large percentage of lesbian women come from families with abusive fathers or husbands. I accept that's just the way it is. I also accept that these people so afflicted are free to engage in whatever behaviour between themselves that they like, so long as it doesn't harm others.

I do not accept that it is a lifestyle that leads to nuclear family formation however , which IMO is in the very best interests of children, including gay children BTW. Therefore I don't agree with measures that put gay marriage and gay adoption on the same footing with heterosexual marriage and adoption. It is the child's rights I'm thinking of and it is with child's rights in mind that the institution of civil marriage and familial tax benefits was created.

Homo Sapiens have been on this earth about 200k-250k years. Their evolution has come strictly from heterosexual pairings. I have to laugh and think the authors foolish when I see comments on this subject like "the latest poll shows" and "where have you been the last decade".

I'll reply to your post even though the thread has moved on, as it was addressed to me and I was off-line for a few days. I'll reply paragraph by paragraph:

1.) Thanks for your acceptance. By the way, my mother was not overbearing, but that's beyond the point.

1) What I mean is I accept the argument, not that I accept or don't accept the person. I didn't say your mother was overbearing

2) It is not a lifestyle, as has been said in the meantime, as it is not a choice. I won't say much about gay adoption, though.

2) I didn't say it was a lifestyle, I said for gay people to choose to form families with children is a lifestyle choice.

3.) All offspring in nature is from homosexual parents (or at least parents who mate in a heterosexual way). This does not mean that homo sapiens is the only species to produce homosexual offspring. I think this was mentioned earlier in this thread. many species have homosexual offspring, it's quite normal in nature. 5% or so of the offspring being homosexual and another percentage being infertile does not jeopardize the species, otherwise all these more than 100 species would have been extinct already. In the last decade, people learned about homosexuality, and that it is not unnatural or a sin against mankind itself. HB posted arguments that were discussed a long time ago - putting pedophilia and homosexuality in the same basket is beyond ridiculous, for example. Or, the purpose of marriage being to produce offspring, forcing infertile couples, or couples deciding to not have children on the list criminals.

3) I said i thought it was natural

I understand we have people here who speak many different languages, but c'mon. Here's a hint, don't let JT do your translating for you. He kind of cherry picks things and distorts other things. That's fair on a message board suppose but It would probably help tomaybe read the followup posts before commenting.

If you (not you personally, but the general you) believe in God (any god), it is He who made me gay. If you believe in Nature, it is She who made me gay. If you criticise my being gay, take your pick but don't blame Me. I am not divine.

I do not believe in God. I do not criticize you for being gay. All my arguments in this thread pertain to civil benefits and tax benefits that accrue to parents. I DO believe that children benefit from being raised my a mother and a father, including gay children.

I know this is the Instant Gratification Generation, but anyone who expects instant change from the Catholic Church should think again.

It took over 3 centuries for the CC to admit they were wrong about Galileo. Change is ever so slow and usually involves the activities of dragging, kicking and screaming.

Pope Francis has appointed a group of non-curia Cardinals to advise on curia reform.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22135247

I know this is the Instant Gratification Generation, but anyone who expects instant change from the Catholic Church should think again.

It took over 3 centuries for the CC to admit they were wrong about Galileo. Change is ever so slow and usually involves the activities of dragging, kicking and screaming.

Pope Francis has appointed a group of non-curia Cardinals to advise on curia reform.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22135247

The bureaucracy, or Curia, has been blamed for the Church's hesitant response to sex abuse and other crises.

I don't see how speeding up the Church's refusal to take responsibility is going to do anything.

This is not 'speeding up the Church's refusal to take responsibility'.

Pope Francis is doing exactly what the head of any huge organisation does, appoint groups to come up with a solution to perceived problems, and he makes the final decision.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/14/pope-francis-church-advisory-panel

The Guardian's account. Much more than just forming a committee!

For those who are, rather ignorantly, crying for instant reform, the Curia is the organisational hub of the Catholic Church. It has been dominated by Italians for generations.... and has often been accused of Byzantine intrigue. Like all bureaucracies, it also tends to delay things. The new panel, with representation from all six continents, is clearly aimed at de-Italianising the Curia, and bringing the bishops from around the world into the central organisational system. A revitalised Curia will enable the Church to react more quickly than it has often done in the past.

This is not 'speeding up the Church's refusal to take responsibility'.

Pope Francis is doing exactly what the head of any huge organisation does, appoint groups to come up with a solution to perceived problems, and he makes the final decision.

I didn't mean that appointing eight people of questionable moral values is a attempt to speed up the Church's refusal to take responsibility but that the outcome will be that.

Pope condemns Bangladesh 'slave labour' after tragedy

(AFP) – 8 hours ago

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis on Wednesday condemned as "slave labour" the conditions for hundreds of workers killed in a factory collapse in Bangladesh and urged political leaders to fight unemployment in a sweeping critique of "selfish profit".

The "liberation theology" movement got bogged down when it allowed itself to be co-opted by Marxists. I think it may make greater progress if it works the other way around.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hd6YLDGFtAcoEaZRVb0NTdGrYxRg?docId=CNG.ee1ff03838977d7f01500710e68d27ce.261

Pope condemns Bangladesh 'slave labour' after tragedy

(AFP) – 8 hours ago

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis on Wednesday condemned as "slave labour" the conditions for hundreds of workers killed in a factory collapse in Bangladesh and urged political leaders to fight unemployment in a sweeping critique of "selfish profit".

The "liberation theology" movement got bogged down when it allowed itself to be co-opted by Marxists. I think it may make greater progress if it works the other way around.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hd6YLDGFtAcoEaZRVb0NTdGrYxRg?docId=CNG.ee1ff03838977d7f01500710e68d27ce.261

I am going off-topic here, to question what the Pope knows about Bangladeshi poverty and the desperate struggle to live in this country.

When East Pakistan revolted against the terrible way that West Pakistan treated the country (see Operation Searchlight and the general massacres up to 1971) the population of Bangladesh was around 40 million. It is now over 160 million, but without any natural resources to speak of. The country gets flooded on an annual basis, with rivers swelling from a couple of hundred metres wide to ten kilometres and more. It makes the installation of transmission lines very interesting. Roads and bridges are difficult, and many roads are high above the surrounding land. As driving standards are worse than poor, it makes every journey a frightening trip. I used to have to go between Dhaka and Ashuganj, a two- to three-hour journey on a weekly basis and I couls guarantee to pass three or four fatal wrecks on each journey.

Anyway, many buildings in and around Dhaka are of the quality of Rana Plaza, planned and approved for 5 or 6 floors, but built with an extra 2 or 3 added, and doubtful quality of concrete and steel. To condemn all these buildings, which should be done, would put millions, literally, out of work. To re-invest in good quality buildings is beyond the financial resources of the country. I was refurbishing 40 year-old electrical generators in order to give them another 15 years of life. These generators were designed for a 25 year lifespan. The country is extremely poor, grossly overpopulated and with no resources. To work in these dodgy buildings, for pennies a day, is the only life open to the millions without other jobs, without land, without somewhere to sleep. I used to walk from my (Bangla three star) hotel to the office and pass a hundred street sleepers every day. And this was the more prosperous Banina district of Dhaka. Whole families sleep in the streets, raising children there, washing in the gutters, relieving themselves in the gutters, so on. To have a job is to be prosperous, one can buy fresh food and not live off the rotten cast-offs that are the only source of food for many millions.

For Western companies to pay more for the clothing would not change anything, just make the owners of the factories richer. It would not improve the quality of the factories, nor would it improve living standards. It may be possible if Bangladesh was to follow the example of Vietnam and allow the Western clothing companies to set up their own factories (Nike in Vietnam have excellent factories and good quality control systems), but this will not happen with either of the madwomen who run politics in BD. They both are fanatic nationalists whose hate for each other is the only thing stronger than their hate for outside interference. Factories, and the buildings they occupy, are all owned by Bangladeshis, as is almost everything else in BD. Foreigners are deeply distrusted, although their money is welcome.

I personally think the only solution would be a return to colonialism, and a mass sterilisation programme, but neither thing will ever happen. To keep buying their cheap cotton goods is the only way to keep the country from sinking completely, so pop down to Primark, Gap or wherever today and buy some T-shirts.

I don't think the Pope knows anything about poverty in Bangladesh, HB. But I may be doing him an injustice.

World leaders are expected to comment on all sorts of things about which they know nothing; they are fed information by underlings, and hope the information is correct.

I don't think the Pope knows anything about poverty in Bangladesh, HB. But I may be doing him an injustice.

World leaders are expected to comment on all sorts of things about which they know nothing; they are fed information by underlings, and hope the information is correct.

I think the Pope took an event he read in the news, which occured on or about May Day, and decided he wanted to change the dialogue. Instead of focusing on Labor vs Capital he is turning the discussion into a human rights issue. IMO he has some ability to make a difference, perhaps only a small one, because labor persons, capital persons, management persons, government persons, controllers of resources may all be present within his church.

Bangladesh is a particularly sad case. I haven't toured factories there, but I have seen Bangladeshis working in other Muslim countries. They are treated terribly; and if they see that as an improvement on remaining in Bangladesh, that speaks volumes as to what they are escaping.

Pope condemns Bangladesh 'slave labour' after tragedy

(AFP) – 8 hours ago

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis on Wednesday condemned as "slave labour" the conditions for hundreds of workers killed in a factory collapse in Bangladesh and urged political leaders to fight unemployment in a sweeping critique of "selfish profit".

The "liberation theology" movement got bogged down when it allowed itself to be co-opted by Marxists. I think it may make greater progress if it works the other way around.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hd6YLDGFtAcoEaZRVb0NTdGrYxRg?docId=CNG.ee1ff03838977d7f01500710e68d27ce.261

I personally think the only solution would be a return to colonialism, and a mass sterilisation programme, but neither thing will ever happen.

Well that's "robust Christianity" if I'm not mistaken..

For a slightly more nuanced view on Bangladesh see below.. (to bring Rosling's data up to 2011 the fertility rate is now 2.24 and the child mortality rate 4.6%, just to underline the continuing nature of this miracle).

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/gapmindervideos/gapcast-5-bangladesh-miracle/

Pope condemns Bangladesh 'slave labour' after tragedy

(AFP) – 8 hours ago

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis on Wednesday condemned as "slave labour" the conditions for hundreds of workers killed in a factory collapse in Bangladesh and urged political leaders to fight unemployment in a sweeping critique of "selfish profit".

The "liberation theology" movement got bogged down when it allowed itself to be co-opted by Marxists. I think it may make greater progress if it works the other way around.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hd6YLDGFtAcoEaZRVb0NTdGrYxRg?docId=CNG.ee1ff03838977d7f01500710e68d27ce.261

I personally think the only solution would be a return to colonialism, and a mass sterilisation programme, but neither thing will ever happen.

Well that's "robust Christianity" if I'm not mistaken..

For a slightly more nuanced view on Bangladesh see below.. (to bring Rosling's data up to 2011 the fertility rate is now 2.24 and the child mortality rate 4.6%, just to underline the continuing nature of this miracle).

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/gapmindervideos/gapcast-5-bangladesh-miracle/

So, you consider this to be accurate and truthful.

It does not match with what I have seen in and around Dhaka and out to Ashuganj. I have seen very little of the rest of the country, but the guys who were supervising the erection of transmission lines say that most of what they saw was similar to the countryside around Ashuganj.

This Scandinavian (Hans Rosling) says that the ratio of children born to each woman in BD has fallen from 7 per woman to 3 per woman (approx) since 1965. Child death has fallen from >25% to 6%. So for every 100 women there were 700 kids born, of whom approx. 180 died, leaving 520 survivors. There are now 300 kids per 100 women, of whom 18 die. Thus 280 survive. That ain't too different, is it? Less than 50% reduction. It still means that the population of this country, the most densely populated country in the world by a factor of two, is producing more children than there are parents - thus making it even more densely populated. That is why I advocate sterilisation - although, as I said above, it will never happen. Neither will any form of restraint or contraception. It is against the teaching of this nearly 100% muslim country.

It is very poor, it's leaders have no idea (and, maybe, no will) to seek solutions. About three years back I was involved in discussions with the Power Board regarding the discovery of off-shore gas and the need for more generating capacity. I felt that this could be a part of the salvation of the country. Unfortunately the 'discovery' failed to materialise and the Power Board went back to sleep. The Chinese offered a nuclear plant - to be built and run by the Chinese - but pressure from the West shelved that project. I really have no solution - it's much the same as the Philippines - no natural resources except for the human population. So it's export people, sweat people, do anything and everything to bring in money, without regard to how you use the one vast resource - people.

In bold move, Pope names commission to reform Vatican bank

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - By Philip Pullella | Reuters

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-francis-sets-special-review-vatican-bank-110039523.html

Pope Francis set up a special commission of inquiry on Wednesday to reform the Vatican bank, his boldest move yet to get to grips with an institution that has embarrassed the Catholic Church for decades.

The high-powered, five-member panel, which includes four prelates and a female Harvard law professor, will report directly to him, bypassing the Vatican bureaucracy that itself has sometimes been hit by allegations of scandal and corruption.

The Institute for Works of Religion (IOR), as the bank is formally known, has long been tarnished by accusations that it has failed to meet international transparency standards intended to combat money laundering and tax evasion.

In bold move, Pope names commission to reform Vatican bank