Turns Out the "Vatican Call" for a Central Bank was from a Flunky in the Backroom

I said to a friend last night that the "Vatican" document sounded like it was written by one person who had read George Soros and no one else. It turns out that just might be the case. Candice Blackburn emails:

I came across some info on the recent press release you wrote about, the vast majority of the Press got the source of the document wrong. Here is a further explanation as to the origins of the document. Doesn’t make the items proposed any less insane, but it does clarify that it isn’t exactly coming from the Vatican per se:

George Weigel writes:

The truth of the matter is that “the Vatican” — whether that phrase is intended to mean the Pope, the Holy See, the Church’s teaching authority, or the Church’s central structures of governance — called for precisely nothing in this document. The document is a “Note” from a rather small office in the Roman Curia. The document’s specific recommendations do not necessarily reflect the settled views of the senior authorities of the Holy See; indeed, Fr. Federico Lombardi, the press spokesman for the Vatican, was noticeably circumspect in his comments on the document and its weight. As indeed he ought to have been. The document doesn’t speak for the Pope, it doesn’t speak for “the Vatican,” and it doesn’t speak for the Catholic Church.

Regardless of where the document came from, Tom Woods has an important commentary on the points raised, here.