As the crisis of confidence grows in the scandal-ridden American Catholic Church, many in the laity and clergy are skeptical that Church hierarchy will take effective corrective action and are moving toward reforming the institution from the grass-roots level.

According to long-time observers of the Church, June’s conference of bishops arrived at no real solution to the decades-long problem of clerical abuse, providing only vague reassurances and a “charter” on abuse to a thoroughly disgusted nation.

The “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People” promises in its preamble: “We reach out to those who suffer. We apologize to them and offer our help for the future.” The body of the charter guarantees that child abuse will be reported and the faithful supported in their grief.

“If they [the bishops] think they’ve solved the underlying problem, they’re deluding nobody but themselves,” declared the Rev. Charles Fiore, a veteran of the struggle to expel abusers from the Catholic priesthood.

Fiore, a Catholic priest for 42 years, has fought the homosexual influence in the clergy almost from the date of his ordination. With degrees in philosophy and theology, as well as clinical training at Menninger’s and the State Hospital in Topeka, Kan., Fiore has both condemned the actions of homosexual priests and counseled the victims of their abuse.

The solutions offered by the bishops were nothing but a “band-aid applied to the real problem of the pandemic corruption of the Church in the United States,” Fiore declared, adding that the bishops gave no evidence of “an intention of addressing the skeletons in their own episcopal closets.”

The charter itself remains voluntary until the Vatican gives its approval and may, in fact, never have the force of law. Negotiations over the charter may take years, and the American bishops have for decades ignored Vatican directives they found to be objectionable.

While allowing some priests to go behind bars, American Catholic bishops have a firm track record of protecting their brother bishops, even under the most adverse circumstances.

The Catholic reform group Roman Catholic Faithful, or RCF, closely follows the continuing careers of disgraced bishops and, among many similar instances, has noted the following:

• Bishop Keith J. Symons resigned from his diocese of Palm Beach, Fla., in 1998 after he admitted abusing five boys, and since then has led at least one retreat entitled “A Marian Day of Prayer.” After Roman Catholic Faithful made Symons’ abuse record public, Bishop Kenneth J. Povish, the retired bishop of the Lansing Diocese, condemned RCF and referred to Symons as a “wounded healer.”

• Bishop Patrick Ziemann resigned his post in the Santa Rosa, Calif., Diocese in 1999 after admitting to a two-year affair with one of his clergy. The priest who was involved in the affair claimed Ziemann had forced the relationship by threatening to bring allegations of theft of church funds if the priest did not cooperate. Ziemann is still active giving retreats in Arizona, according to RCF.

• Bishop Daniel Ryan, disgraced former leader of the Springfield, Ill., Diocese, resigned one week prior to the filing of a lawsuit naming him as one of its defendants. The lawsuit charges Ryan with misconduct with priests and male prostitutes, and creating “an atmosphere of tolerance to the sexual abuse of minors …” in his diocese. Ryan, however, remains active in both the Springfield and Joliet dioceses, offering Mass, giving retreats and participating in confirmations.

• By mid-year 2002, four Catholic bishops, including Archbishop Rembert Weakland, had resigned after admitting their sexual activities.

Currently, Bernard Cardinal Law, Roger Cardinal Mahony and Edward Cardinal Egan are among the top Church officials under legal and media scrutiny for their handling – or mishandling – of child-abuse cases in their jurisdictions.

Roman Catholic Faithful, founded in 1996 by Stephen Brady and located in Petersburg, Ill., has devoted itself to bringing to account priests and bishops for their moral outrages and criminal activity. By 1999, Ryan resigned under pressure initiated by RCF, while not admitting any guilt.

Brady’s group also has brought to the public’s attention a priest-oriented international homosexual Internet site called St. Sebastian’s Angels, which continues to operate at various Web locations.

Brady’s activities have earned him the enmity of the homosexual community.

One individual with ties to the Catholic homosexual group Dignity, as well as St. Sebastian’s Angels, published Brady’s private home address and phone number on the Internet, referred to RCF as a “hate group,” described Brady as motivated by “evil purposes” and labeled him as a “perpetrator.”

In another incident, which was reported to the FBI, Brady learned from a second-hand source that an e-mail message was circulating on the Internet stating that someone has placed a “contract” out for Brady’s assassination.

Murder tied to priests’ club?

While the threats against Brady are unsettling, there are indications that those who delve too deeply into the connection between clerical homosexuality and child abuse – finding perversion slipping into an abyss of satanic ritual – may pay for their curiosity with their lives.

In the late 1980s, two young Chicago private investigators, Bill Callaghan and Hank Adema, agreed to assist a “friend of a friend,” whose child had been molested by a priest of the Chicago Archdiocese.

The parents of the abused child sought help after the Archdiocese under Joseph Cardinal Bernardin threatened to counter-sue following their original allegations. Before the scandal of clerical child abuse came to the public’s attention through the efforts of the mass media, it was common practice for a diocese to file a libel suit against parents who charged diocesan clergy with abusive behavior.

As their investigation into the background of the abusive priest proceeded, Callaghan and Adema discovered the existence of a homoerotic group, made up mostly of priests, calling itself The Boys’ Club.

During their inquiry into the membership and activities of The Boys’ Club, a woman identifying herself as the girlfriend of a murdered church organist contacted the investigators and stated that she had information that would be useful to them.

The woman’s friend was one Frank Pellegrini, once the organist and choir director at All Saints-St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church on Chicago’s South Side. Pellegrini had also served as chair of the Sociology Department of Loyola University of Chicago.

According to the information obtained from the girlfriend, Pellegrini had a homosexual relationship with one of the priests involved in The Boys’ Club, but was in the process of leaving the priest-lover and marrying her.

Before completely severing ties with the priest, however, Pellegrini discovered that The Boys’ Club was involved with far more than homosexual relations. Tied closely with their sexual exploits was ritualistic satanic worship and the regular abuse of young children from low-income, ethnic families.

Pellegrini informed the Chicago Archdiocesan Chancery, and scheduled a meeting with one of the archdiocese’s top officials.

The day before the meeting, Pellegrini was brutally murdered in his home, which showed no signs of forced entry.

Callaghan, who spoke with police personnel originally working on the case, stated that Pellegrini was found with his hands tied with barbed wire and had been stabbed repeatedly.

Even Pellegrini’s dog was slashed, leaving it seriously wounded but alive.

In the opinion of police detective/profilers working on the case, the brutality and manner of the killing indicated that it was carried out either by a woman or a homosexual, Callaghan stated.

Pellegrini was stabbed 47 times – the same number of years he had lived.

Just after Pellegrini’s body was discovered, and while police were still on the scene of the murder, police observed two unusual incidents, Callaghan reported.

The first involved the arrival of then-Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago – and one of the most powerful men in the American Catholic Church – Joseph Bernardin. Although there was never an indication that Bernardin met Pellegrini, he arrived at the murder scene and quizzed police personnel on the progress of the investigation.

Left unanswered was how Bernardin learned of the killing and why he should personally visit the scene of a relatively unimportant individual whom he had no reason to know.

The second incident involved Pellegrini’s dog. As the police conducted their investigation at the scene, the dog remained quiet, still suffering from its wounds. When the dog saw priests come into the apartment, it suddenly became aggressive and barked wildly.

The Pellegrini murder occurred in 1984 and was “reopened” with federal funds in the early 1990s, but many of the investigation’s informal police notes have been “lost,” and important leads in the case have never been fully followed up, according to Callaghan. The Pellegrini case, at present, remains one of the many hundreds of unsolved Chicago murders.

Although Callaghan never met Pellegrini, nor participated in the original investigation, he and Adema found that whatever secrets the case entailed posed a direct threat to their own lives.

As Callaghan and Adema pressed on with their investigation on behalf of their client, they learned of a warning, which came through contacts in the Chicago Police Department.

Callaghan learned that mob informants had stated that a contract had been offered on his life, and on that of Adema, by an individual closely tied to the Pellegrini case.

Although no one in the local underworld was interested, there did exist the real possibility that the contract could be accepted by “a black or biker gang,” Callaghan revealed.

The full extent of The Boys’ Club influence in Chicago – and beyond – still remains unclear, as does the extent of ritual abuse associated with clerical assaults on children.

Hush money?

There is, however, ample evidence that ritual abuse does occur, and it is most obvious in the case of “Agnes.”

In the opening pages of his best-selling book, “Windswept House,” The Rev. Malachi Martin describes a satanic ritual carried out on a young girl. Although Martin used a degree of literary license in the description of the event, there is a real individual behind the story and an actual instance of satanic abuse.

“Agnes,” a pseudonym for her actual name, met Fiore some years ago for assistance with spiritual guidance and counseling for the long-term effects of cult abuse she had suffered at age 11.

Agnes has consented to and passed several polygraph examinations and is now married with a family in a Southern city. She has made her accusations in sworn affidavits, written statements to Vatican officials and has directly confronted those whom she has accused.

Among those Agnes has implicated in the attack upon her was a young, rapidly advancing priest named Joseph Bernardin.

Agnes states that in the fall of 1957, in Greenville, S.C., with her father present, Bishop John Russell of the Charleston Archdiocese and his chancellor, Bernardin, raped her as part of a satanic ritual, which included, as a RCF report stated, “a perverted, sacrilegious use of a [consecrated] host.”

According to Catholic teaching, a consecrated host is the true and total body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Agnes also became acquainted with Steven Cook, another individual who accused Bernardin of abuse. Cook accused Bernardin of coercing him into homosexual acts while he was a seminarian and Bernardin was archbishop in Cincinnati, Ohio.

While the media consistently have reported that Cook “recanted” his accusation against Bernardin, Cook, who was dying of AIDS, simply stated that he could “no longer trust his memory.”

Callaghan interviewed Cook as part of his own investigation, and verified that Cook did not “recant.” He learned that the dying homosexual, formerly of very modest means, suddenly had developed considerable financial resources. Estimates of the value of the newly established estate range from $250,000 to several million. After Cook’s death, the money was divided between his mother, his sister and his male lover.

Bernardin, who said he had never met Cook, also left the dying man a costly chalice, which Bernardin had used to offer Mass in Cook’s Philadelphia apartment. In addition to Cook and Bernardin, Cook’s homosexual lover was also in attendance at the Mass. Cook made no secret of his homosexuality, and there is no indication that Cook would have hidden the identity of his male lover.

Giving Holy Communion under such circumstances, according to traditional Catholic teaching, constitutes sacrilege.

Bernardin also was implicated in an alleged incident of abuse perpetrated against seminarians attending the Immaculate Heart of Mary Seminary in Winona, Minn., in the 1980s.

According to a Boston Globe report, Bernardin, along with several “top prelates,” were accused of “coercing seminarians at Immaculate Heart of Mary Seminary … into having sex.”

The rector of the seminary, the Rev. Robert H. Brom, was also implicated in the sex-abuse charges. At the time the seminarian made his allegations, Brom served as Bishop of Duluth, Minn. Brom now is bishop of San Diego, Calif.

The Winona seminarian later retracted his charges, but he received a settlement payment of “less than $100,000,” according to the Globe report, which quoted Archbishop Roger L. Schwietz, of Anchorage, successor to Brom as bishop of Duluth.

The circumstances of the seminarian’s retraction, however, recently have come into question.

In a sworn affidavit, Mark Brooks, a friend of the seminarian who received the settlement payment, claims that the retraction of the charges against the bishops is false, according to a report in the San Diego Union-Tribune. The retraction was issued, according to Brooks, because the seminarian “needed the money.”

Brooks’ affidavit was filed in San Diego Superior Court in connection with a press investigation of abuse allegations against Brom.

In the mid-1980s, the Diocese of San Diego settled a lawsuit initiated by Brooks claiming abuse. The Diocese settled for an undisclosed sum.

Accountability to the laity

Confronted with constant scandal, and a sometimes callous, hostile clergy, many Catholics have lost their faith and left the Church.

Other Catholics, however, have banded together and are seeking to support the faithful clergy, while denying money to those elements that they feel are bent upon the destruction of the Catholic Church.

Michael J. Tario, who works closely with Wall Street traders, is leading a group called the Ad Hoc Committee for the Prevention of Clergy Sex Abuse.

Tario is suggesting that Catholics redirect – not boycott – contributions to the Church.

“Good Stewardship,” said Tario, “is not just sending money to the chancery for a cover-up.” Tario is urging Catholics to contribute only to Church organizations that use their funds for charitable purposes, rather than legal expenses and costly settlements.

Tario lives in the Chicago Archdiocese and personally knows parents whose children have been abused by archdiocesan clergy. Their callous treatment at the hands of the Archdiocese and a growing awareness of the extent of clerical abuse in the Chicago area and around the United States have compelled Tario to take action. Tario’s group works closely with other organizations having similar goals across the nation.

The group is demanding that the Chicago Archdiocese implement four basic reforms:

1. The chancery open all its files regarding abuse, including those considered most secret.

2. All “gag” orders be lifted. No individual should fear a Church libel suit if he or she speaks of their experience with clerical abuse.

3. A “Blue Ribbon Committee,” independent of the archdiocese, be put in place to examine archdiocesan financial records, as well as all abuse files.

4. All archdiocesan financial reports be independently audited to ensure transparent financial operations.

Tario periodically cites a statement of Bishop William B. Friend of the Diocese of Shreveport, La., on the right of the laity to know where and how the money they contribute is spent. “The Church consists of the people, so the people ought to know what is going on,” declared Friend, who was a banker before becoming a priest.

Chicago Archdiocesan Financial Director Tom Brennan claims, however, that Tario’s group is having little impact. Brennan expressed his confidence that archdiocesan revenues would continue to flow, stating that “we’re expecting growing revenues,” according to a report from the Rome-based Zenit news agency.

Quizzically, Brennan also stated in the same report that “he has not yet seen hard numbers from the past six months.”

Others dispute Brennan’s claim of financial tranquility.

Tario cites reports from several of the wealthiest parishes in the Archdiocese where contributions have significantly fallen, with some estimates noting a drop by as much as 25 percent. The information confirms an earlier Business Week article documenting a steep decline in donations as well as an increased need for funds from a top-heavy, lay bureaucracy.

As Tario’s campaign of redirected giving gains momentum, another ominous threat to the American Catholic Church’s money supply is appearing on the horizon.

What one attorney terms the “unholy trinity of litigation” – liability, damages and “deep pockets” – may prove to be the most potent stimulus for reform and relief to a hard-pressed laity, since Church structures would no longer be able to support the abusers within its ranks.

The possibility of a poorer but more faithful Church does not appeal to all.

When Tario proposed a program of redirected giving to Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, the cardinal archbishop asked in response if Tario wanted the archdiocese to go back to an “immigrant Church,” poor and struggling.

Many observers, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, are pressed to respond that, if necessary to gain a more faithful Church, the answer would be, “Amen.”

Related stories:

Diocese ‘reaching out’ to homosexuals

‘Gay’ culture in Catholic Church grows

Catholics learning sex from Kinsey disciples

Confab pushes homosexuality in Church

Related special offer:

WND probe exposes ‘gay’ rights’ secret agenda – How the homosexual activist movement has targeted America’s children
.

The United States’ decision to remain independent of the International Criminal Court and pursue a foreign policy in its own “national interests” is being sharply criticized throughout Europe, especially in Germany and Britain.

The treaty establishing the ICC was originally signed during the closing hours of the Clinton administration, but President George W. Bush withdrew America’s signature. Bush cited U.S. service personnel vulnerability to a foreign court and potential violations of U.S. sovereignty to justify his position.

America’s refusal to recognize the ICC “could lead to paranoid relations” between the U.S. and its European allies and “may cloak a hidden agenda,” according to Deutsche Welle, the official broadcasting service of the German government.

The “hidden agenda” revolves around the U.S. attempt to avoid the loss of influence over U.N. decisions, since the ICC will decide issues now handled by the U.N. Security Council, where the U.S. has a veto, Deutsche Welle declared.

U.S. concerns that its citizens could be harassed by “frivolous claims” are answered by “the right to a vigorous defense” before the judges of the ICC, the German broadcasting service asserted.

“At stake … is the institution empowered to address the issues of human rights, which drives to the spiritual and moral heart of international law,” pleaded Deutsche Welle, adding that “the concept of war as a sovereign act belongs to the past.”

Observers note that under the principle that “war as a sovereign act belongs to the past,” Bush’s actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world would have been open to international debate, and he would have had to await international approval before any serious commitment could take place.

The influential German news weekly Der Spiegel shares Deutsche Welle’s anger, stating that the U.S. wants international cooperation, but only on America’s terms.

“The United States refuses to cooperate with every form of globalization, if the rules were not written in Washington,” protests Der Spiegel in its online version.

The European reaction to the U.S. refusal to support the world criminal court was “sheepish,” according to Der Spiegel, which then lamented that “it isn’t American might, but European weakness, that is the problem.”

The highly regarded British newspaper the Independent also attacked the U.S. stand on the ICC, declaring that the real reason for Washington’s hostility to the ICC is that America regards the world criminal court “as a threat to the supremacy of its own judicial system.”

The U.S. is demanding “different treatment” because of America’s special role in the world. … This reasoning simply will not do,” asserted the Independent.

“Washington’s behavior is both arrogant and unacceptable,” the Independent declared.

Despite severe foreign criticism, Bush remains adamant in his opposition to the ICC, stating that it is “very troubling” to him that American personnel could be liable to international prosecution “as the United States works to bring peace around the world,” according to a recent AP report.

Bush press spokesman Ari Fleischer also noted that some of the members of the ICC have already negotiated immunity for their own personnel.

The row between the U.S. and its European allies occurs as the struggle against international terror continues, and the terror network falls into the hands of a new, undaunted leadership.

As Europe grows increasingly restive over American concerns for its national sovereignty, some in Europe look to Russia as a new “strategic partner” and military ally.

Ironically, Russia has signed but thus far has refused to ratify the ICC treaty, and Moscow’s own “strategic partner,” communist China, has neither signed nor ratified the covenant.

As sudden death, vengeance and mayhem increasingly grip the Middle East, a young woman has turned her back on the culture of suicide bombings.

Unlike others who had followed in her path, Sarin Ahmad, a 20-year-old computer student, found that memories of past friendships and guilt over her participation in a random killing overcame her own feelings of hatred and her desire for vengeance. Ahmad spoke of her encounter with terrorism – and her rejection of it – in an interview with the Italian news daily La Stampa.

“To those who wish to blow themselves up … I want to say to you – think twice,” said Ahmad. “Now is the time that the two peoples, the Israelis and the Palestinians, should cease killing one another.”

Her involvement with terrorism began when she started her studies at the University of Bethlehem and fell in love with Jad Salem, a 26-year-old fellow student – and terrorist.

Their romance was intense, but brief, and ended with the news of Salem’s death. Ahmad heard that Salem was assassinated by the Israelis, while official Israeli records state that Salem died while attempting to assemble a bomb, La Stampa reported.

The death of Salem was the latest loss for Ahmad, whose father had died earlier and whose mother had moved to Jordan after remarrying.

Salem’s terrorist friends soon visited Ahmad and offered their assistance to her. Ahmad now believes that even before Salem’s death, the terrorist group had targeted her for recruitment.

They offered Ahmad acceptance into their group and urged her to follow “God’s will.”

Soon after the meeting, Ahmad was taken to a rendezvous with others in the terrorist group and met a 16-year-old boy, Issa Badir. In a house that served as the staging area, Ahmad was shown the explosives. She found the bomb she was to carry into a crowded Jewish street to be frightening – and very large. In her interview with La Stampa, Ahmad estimated the weight of the bomb to be some 70 pounds, although the weight was actually around 22 pounds.

Her terrorist handlers urged her to pray and be a “brave girl.” Ahmad stated to La Stampa that she did pray – five times a day, as do all devout Muslims – but she found that her concept of heaven was different from that which was taught to her.

Instead of a sensual Paradise, Ahmad’s concept of the afterlife is “to be in the hands of God.”

Ahmad felt that the attack was “without preparation,” and felt that if she carried out her orders, she was 90 percent sure that she would “go into the Inferno.”

After they were delivered to the area where they were to carry out the assault, both Ahmad and Badir had second thoughts. Ahmad considered that her intended victims “were humans, too.” She recalled friends she once had met at a kibbutz and wondered if she could kill some of her friends “by accident.”

Ahmad and Badir telephoned their contact in the terrorist group and asked not to go through with the attack.

The contact rejected their decision, Ahmad stated. “He said we must die.”

Badir carried out his orders, as the terrorists demanded; three died along with Badir.

Ahmed dropped her bomb in an abandoned car and fled.

Eventually, the Israeli police found Ahmad, and she expects to spend the next five to six years in prison. After her time behind bars, she hopes “to continue her studies.”

As the administration of President George W. Bush weighs an attack against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, international terrorist groups are taking firm hold in South America – often referred to as “America’s backyard” – according to recent testimony given to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Both Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida and the Palestinian terrorist group Hezbollah are active in Latin America, with Hezbollah having “broader penetration in the Western Hemisphere than any other terrorist organization,” stated the U.S. State Department’s acting coordinator for counterterrorism, Mark F. Wong, in testimony before the U.S. House International Relations Committee.

Hezbollah “is a multi-faceted, multinational” organization that “has a presence in virtually every country in North and South America. …” Wong reported.

Addressing the problem of “international terrorist threats to Americans and American interests” in South America, Wong described a “collaboration among terrorist groups,” which included the apparent cooperation between the Irish Republican Army, or IRA, and the communist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

The IRA and FARC have had “established links … since at least 1998,” according to the summary of findings regarding links between the IRA and FARC issued by the majority staff of the House International Relations Committee.

The Marxist FARC’s “ability to carry out terrorist bombings” in Colombia is linked directly by that nation’s government to “the IRA’s activity,” according to the committee report.

In addition to ties with the IRA, the FARC also has close relations with the communist Cuban government of Fidel Castro, which, in turn, hosts an IRA liaison office on the island.

The government of Colombia includes Iran in the mix of foreign entities operating in FARC-controlled areas and supporting the FARC movement.

Both al-Qaida and Hezbollah are active in the common border area of Colombia, Peru and Ecuador, according to an earlier statement of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in hearings before the Foreign Appropriations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, cited in a report from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

The activities of the Irish Republican Army, Iran, Cuba and various international terrorist networks operating in Colombia may turn that Latin American nation into a “breeding ground for international terror equaled perhaps only by Afghanistan,” according to the committee report.

Further to the south in Latin America, Hezbollah and the terrorist Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) are operating in the tri-border region of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. The suspected activities of these groups include counterfeiting U.S. currency and drug smuggling, with the area in which they function described as a “haven for Islamic extremists” by the administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Asa Hutchinson, in testimony before the House International Relations Committee.

“The situation in the tri-border area [of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil] highlights the ease with which terrorist organizations can infiltrate and assimilate in other countries and go relatively undetected for an extended period of time,” Hutchinson stated.

The linkage among various terrorist groups and nations associated with support of terrorism in Latin America combines considerable financial resources and technological expertise.

In addition to the vast oil wealth of Iran, the South American terrorist network can rely upon South American drug money to finance its activities. Colombia alone produces 90 percent of the cocaine and “at least” 70 percent of the heroin sold in the U.S., according to estimates of the House International Relations Committee.

FARC reaps about $2 million per day in illegal drug profits, according to the committee.

Sophisticated techniques in the fields of weapons development and use, espionage and infiltration are readily available to terrorist organizations operating in South America.

Cuba possesses one of the most well-equipped and well-trained intelligence services in the world, and it has only one target – the United States.

Like Cuba, Iran has a sharply honed intelligence capability, and, as with Cuba, Iran has close ties – including technological and military ties – with China and Russia.

The international community fears that the former Yugoslav republic of Bosnia, which is located near the center of the Balkan Peninsula – a region close to the heart of Western Europe – could become a “lawless black hole” of conflicting ethnic rivalries, according to a report from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

“A similar case may be made for Kosovo and possibly Macedonia,” stated Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, referring to areas that have also sustained years of ethnic struggle.

At nearly the same time as the radio service issued its report, a small ultra-right wing Albanian nationalist party, calling itself the Party for National Unity, openly demanded the creation of “Greater Albania,” which it named “Chemeria,” comprising all Albanians in the Balkan region. The claim was first noted by Athenian Radio, relayed by the Macedonian Information Agency and cited by Reality Macedonia.

Observers have long claimed that the formation of a “Greater Albania” was a driving force behind Albanian ethnic struggles throughout the Balkans and have noted that ethnic Albanian politicians have consistently objected to the borders imposed on ethnic Albanians by a 1912 agreement, brokered by the major European powers of the time.

A “Greater Albania” or “Chemeria” would include all of Kosovo, nominally a part of Serbia, half of the nation of Macedonia, the western region of Greece and nearly half of Montenegro. The national capitals of Macedonia and Montenegro, Skopje and Podgorica respectively, would also fall under Albanian control.

The pro-Albanian site www.Alb-net.com includes a map entitled “Historical Ethnic Albania,” although the site claims that it does not advocate a change in present Balkan borders.

The ethnic Albanian struggles throughout the Balkans have received support from Muslim nations including Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as from the al-Qaida terrorist network.

In a recent development, the former Bosnian interior minister, Bakia Alisahic, was indicted on charges of running an Iranian supported “terrorist training center” in Bosnia in 1995, according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

In an attempt to halt inter-ethnic conflict in Bosnia, and to prevent the eruption of a “lawless black hole,” U.N. High Representative for Bosnia Wolfgang Petritsch issued a new constitution that lessens the power of the ethnic-oriented parties in Bosnia.

Petritsch issued the new governing document because the Serb and Croatian/Muslim governing entities did not agree upon a new method of government within the specified time limit, according to a report from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Denying that the new form of government was forced on Bosnia by the international community, Petritsch stated, “This is not an outright imposition. … This is clearly … a partnership,” reported Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

In issuing his new constitution, Petritsch offended each of the major ethnic groups in Bosnia – the Croats, Muslims and Serbs.

Among the three ethnic groups, the Serbs feel particularly snubbed by the West, believing that the West has consistently favored Muslim forces in the region. The recent release of a 7,000-page Dutch report, which, in part, documents U.S. assistance to Muslim forces in Bosnia during the 1992-95 Bosnian civil war, has added to Serb bitterness.

A large Serb population is in Bosnia, which borders on Serbia proper. Kosovo was at one time 10 percent Serbian, but many fled during the NATO air war in 1999. Serbs revere Kosovo, considered the “cradle” of Serb culture. According to U.N. Resolution 1244, the area remains technically part of Serbia, although administered by the U.N. through a Muslim-controlled government.

A mood of defiance among the Serbs toward the West and the international community is palpable.

Radovan Karadzic, the former president of the Serb entity in Bosnia known as the Republic of Srpska, is an indicted war criminal and the man most wanted by The Hague War Crimes Tribunal.

The support for Karadzic remains firm, despite great pressure from the U.S., NATO and the U.N. for his arrest.

“I have made thousands of new friends, about whom my pursuers do not know,” boasted Karadzic, according to a British Broadcasting Corporation report.

Although he has a $5 million price on his head, posters have appeared with Karadzic’s image throughout the Serb cities of Belgrade and Novi Sad, stating that “every Serb is Radovan,” according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

In response to demands that he surrender to The Hague Tribunal, Karadzic defiantly sent a letter to a Serbian law professor offering his “regrets” that he could not attend the war crimes trials, the BBC stated.

Karadzic has also published, through his friends and supporters, a book entitled “The Situation, A Light Comedy.”

The plot contains five characters, according to a Reuters report: a waiter, an aspiring leader, an “image maker,” a representative of the “international community” and the voice off stage of a Muslim who advises the international community representative.

Related story:

U.S.-led forces desecrate Serbian church?

“Catholic priests in Russia are ‘persona non grata,’” and Russia’s domestic intelligence service, the FSB, has compiled a list of priests termed “undesirable,” according to an internationally respected news source.

“An authentic anti-Catholic campaign is being conducted not only by the Russian Orthodox Church and nationalist forces, but also by State agencies,” stated the Italian news daily La Stampa.

The president of the Conference of Catholic Bishops in the Russian Federation, Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, issued a protest statement declaring “with grave concern” that “an organized campaign is being waged against the Catholic Church in Russia,” according to the independent Zenit news agency.

While authorities in the Russian city of Pskov, at the request of the local Russian Orthodox bishop, forbade the construction of a Catholic church, the State Duma, the Lower House of the Russian legislature, has gone so far as to urge Russian president Vladimir Putin “to ban Catholics from Russian territory,” according to La Stampa.

The Catholic Church in Russia, like nearly all other faiths, has no clear legal status. Following the adoption in 1997 of the “Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations,” only four religions – Russian Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism – have official recognition in Russia.

Russia’s law on religions has received scathing criticism from various quarters, including the International Coalition for Religious Freedom, which describes itself as a “non-profit” and “non-sectarian” defender of religious liberty.

The International Coalition for Religious Freedom condemned Russia’s law on religions as a “blatant manifestation of intolerance and religious discrimination toward practically all religious organizations.”

The position of the Catholic Church in Russia perceptively worsened when the Vatican raised the status of its four “apostolic administrations” to formal diocese.

The Russian Orthodox Church condemned the action as part of a plan to convert Orthodox Christians to the Catholic Church. The Russian government took offense, claiming that the Vatican failed to inform either the government or officials of the Russian Orthodox Church.

An official of the Catholic hierarchy in Russia denied the allegation, and stated that both the Russian government and the Orthodox Church were appraised of the move in advance.

Two influential Catholic churchmen have also been banned from reentering Russia, after traveling out of the country. La Stampa reported that in late March, Fr. Stefano Caprio, who had been working in Russia for 12 years and has sought to obtain Russian citizenship, was barred from returning to Russia, having been accused of “activities incompatible with his priestly duties.” Two weeks later, Bishop Jerzy Mazur, recently named to the diocese of Irkutsk in Siberia, was denied entry into Russian territory, and labeled an “undesirable” person.

On the Sunday following Mazur’s failed attempt to take his post in Irkutsk, a crowd of some 350 gathered outside of the Roman Catholic Cathedral of the Immaculate Heart in Irkutsk during morning services, and shouted, “down with expansion of Catholicism in Russia,” according to an Associated Press report.

In his statement, Kondrusiewicz also cited the “particularly disappointing … silence” from the Russian government and “international organizations for the defense of human rights” in response to treatment of Mazur and others of his flock in Russia.

Referring to the present state of religious expression in Russia, Kondrusiewicz asked, “What is in store for Catholics of our country. … Are the times of persecution of the faith returning?”

Although Putin on several occasions has described Russia as a “secular state,” the Russian government continues to work closely with religious leaders of the Russian Orthodoxy. Observers note that since the time of Czar Peter the Great (d.1725), Russian Orthodoxy has remained nearly a department of state, having little autonomy from the central government.

]]> http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13639/feed/ 0 http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13596/ http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13596/#comments Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:00:00 +0000 Toby Westerman http://wp.wnd.com/?p=13596

Cuba has accused a high-ranking U.S. State Department official of masterminding the coup that briefly toppled Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Otto J. Reich is “an expert in sabotage and assassination plots,” official Cuban sources said, without giving specific evidence for the allegations.

Reich has extensive experience in Latin American affairs, including the posts of assistant administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, ambassador to Venezuela and special adviser to the Secretary of State.

Cuba tied Reich with “right wing forces” who sought to overthrow Chavez, and “destroy the revolutionary process in Venezuela.” It also condemned international organizations, including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and “Wall Street,” for having “hurried to celebrate the coup in Venezuela.”

The statements were reported by Radio Havana, the official broadcasting service of the Cuban government.

Upon Chavez’s return to power, “each and every one” of the international organizations “suffered the joy and happiness of regional peoples,” according to Radio Havana.

Cuba and Venezuela under Chavez have built strong ties with each other, while Chavez has long admired the Marxist revolution of Cuban President Fidel Castro. In turn, Castro has praised the new Venezuelan constitution inaugurated by Chavez as the “most progressive in the world.”

The close relationship between Cuba and Venezuela angered many Chavez opponents and led to demonstrations of violent hostility against the Cuban embassy in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital.

Shortly after Chavez’s return to power, Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque flew to Caracas to congratulate Chavez and to award each member of the Cuban embassy staff with the “Medal of Courage” for heroism in resisting attacks [against the Cuban embassy] … at the risk of their lives.”

During the coup, cars belonging to embassy officials were burned, and gasoline bombs were thrown at the embassy building, though no substantial damage or injuries have been noted.

Following the short-lived coup, Chavez issued a statement of reconciliation declaring that he was “disposed to make corrections where I have to make corrections,” and promised that “there will be no witch hunts, no persecution, no disrespect for free expression or thought,” according to a British Broadcasting Corporation report.

The Chavez government has sought to emphasize Venezuela’s return to calm and stability following the abortive coup.

“Venezuela is completely back to normal,” stated Venezuelan Defense Minister Jose Vicente Rangel, in remarks carried by Radio Havana. He insisted that those responsible for the coup were routed, and Chavez’s victory was complete.

Rangel proclaimed that “the people have regained their confidence, the government of Hugo Chavez is well consolidated, and his opponents have been defeated,” according to the Radio Havana report.

Rangel’s understanding of “normal” was not given, but international press reports indicate that political violence continues in Venezuela, with anti-Chavez groups on the receiving end of most of the violence.

The French news daily Le Figaro commented that the present political situation in Venezuela is difficult for those opposed to Chavez with “several [hostile] actions directed against members of the opposition.”

“Nothing has changed, and the conditions which have led to recent events continue unchanged,” stated Chavez’s opponent Julio Borges in an interview with Le Figaro.

The assessment of Borges was supported by the mayor of Caracas, Alfredo Pena, in whose city much of the past weeks’ riots and bloodshed have occurred.

Pena, who is also one of the principal opposition leaders to Chavez, denounced “the fascist violence of Chavez sympathizers.” While pointing to bullet holes in the city building housing the mayor’s office, Pena stated that following Chavez’s return a group of 40 pro-Chavez gunmen attacked his offices, and threatened to assassinate him.

Not long after Chavez returned to power, unidentified gunmen riddled a car belonging to Carlos Tablante, a member of the Venezuelan parliament as well as the Opposition Movement to Socialism, according to a report in the Italian news daily La Stampa. Tablante’s chauffeur was killed in the attack.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is calling for a “new philosophy of international relations,” and an end to restrictions on the amount of oil and natural gas his nation can supply to Western Europe, according to official Russian sources.

“There’s a need for a new realization of the world process,” Putin stated and urged the European Union to remove limitations on the amount of energy imports from Russia, calling the restrictions “hardly justified” in view of the new relationship growing between Russia and the EU.

Putin’s remarks were carried by the Voice of Russia World Service, the official broadcasting service of the Russian government.

Russia’s relations with Germany, the acknowledged economic powerhouse of Europe and traditionally America’s closest ally in Europe, is now at a “new level.”

Germany and Russia are now “strategic partners,” according to the Voice of Russia broadcast.

Putin met with Germany’s Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder for a two-day summit April 9 and 10, 2002, during which the Russian debt to Germany was slashed from an estimated $1.2 billion to 500 million Euros, about $440 million. The debt originated from money owed to the old East Germany by the now defunct Soviet Union.

Both Western European and Russian politicians have stressed the need for a new approach to foreign relations following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR more than a decade ago.

Many Western politicians have become increasingly dissatisfied with U.S. leadership of Western nations, as memory of the Cold War period recedes.

As Putin calls for a “new philosophy of international relations,” Russia has forged ahead with Belarus, a nation led by Alexander Lukashenko, an admirer of Joseph Stalin, and the object of accusations ranging from political manipulation to murder.

The day following his meeting with Schroeder, Putin met with Lukashenko in Moscow during a session of the Supreme State Council of the Union of Russia and Belarus.

Lukashenko holds the title of Chairman of the Supreme State Council of the Union State of Russia and Belarus, as well as President of the Republic of Belarus.

The Council consists of the presidents, prime ministers, and parliamentary speakers of Russia and Belarus.

The treaty establishing the Union State received Putin’s enthusiastic support when it came before the Russian legislature in 1999, which superseded an earlier Union State agreement signed on April 2, 1996.

Although at present comprising only Russia and Belarus, the Union State treaty allows other states to join the Union.

Both Moldova’s communist government, and Kirgizia, under the leadership of its pro-leftist leader Askar Akayev, have expressed their intent to join the Union, and various political forces in Ukraine are working to have their nation join the Union State.

Yugoslavia, under the rule of Slobodan Milosevic, had observer status in the Union, and sought full membership.

Some observers have speculated that the Union State could become the foundation for a new – and more dynamic – socialist-communist state.

Putin acknowledged that the process of establishing the Union State was “difficult,” but stated that he advocated “deeper integration” of Russia and Belarus.

The areas addressed by the Supreme State Council include a common Russian-Belarusian defense, foreign policy, budget, and constitution, as well as the integration of the Russian and Belarusian economies.

Although decrying the slow pace involved in completing the union of Russia and his nation, Lukashenko nevertheless declared that he and Putin agreed on “all” substantive matters during their meeting.

On the occasion of the anniversary of the April 2, 1996 Union treaty – a public holiday in Belarus known as the Day of Unity – Lukashenko issued a statement to his nation proclaiming that “six years ago we firmly chose the integration road, and time has proven the correctness of this course.”

The Belarusian president’s press service released a message from Putin commemorating the anniversary, which, in part, stated that “The strategic partnership potential gained by our two countries … allow (sic) us to find optimal solutions in the construction of the Union State.”

The United States was “openly behind” the attempted coup against Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, and those participating in the rebellion were “selling out to the United States,” according to official Cuban sources.

The remarks were made at a mass rally prior to Chavez’s return to power. Coup leaders stated that Chavez had resigned and was replaced by Pedro Carmona, a respected business leader, but Carmona resigned after one day in office following large pro-Chavez demonstrations. Some estimates of the number of participants in the demonstrations reached as high as 200,000.

Cuba also claimed that most of those killed during the anti-Chavez demonstrations leading up to the coup attempt were actually Chavez supporters. No evidence for the claim was given.

The remarks were carried by Radio Havana Cuba, the official broadcasting service of the Cuban government.

Referring to the large number of those demonstrating for his return, Chavez paraphrased one of Christ’s statements in the New Testament upon his return to power. “Give to God what is God’s, to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to the people what is the people’s,” Chavez said, according to a report from the Italian news daily, La Stampa.

Deep divisions, however, remain in Venezuelan society.

Chavez is an admirer and close friend of Cuban President Fidel Castro, and of Castro’s communist model of government and society. Many in Venezuela fear the imposition of a Marxist state in their country, while Castro has praised the constitution Chavez promoted in Venezuela as “the most progressive in the world.”

Since his first election to the presidency in 1998, Chavez has developed close cooperation between Venezuela and Cuba, especially evident in an exchange agreement of oil for medical and sports expertise. Cuba receives approximately 160 thousand barrels of oil per day in exchange for Cuban medical personnel and sports expertise sent to Venezuela.

Venezuela also assisted Cuba in developing its own petroleum industry.

The policies fostered by the Chavez government have caused concern that Venezuela is becoming another Marxist state, as well as a determined opponent of the United States.

Carlos Molina Tamayo, vice admiral of the Venezuelan navy, recently condemned Chavez for abandoning Venezuela’s traditional friends, seeking links with Cuba, and “other communist countries,” according to the Italian news daily Corriere della Sera.

In addition to praising the unabashedly Marxist Castro, Chavez also indirectly aids the ELN, a communist guerrilla group operating in Colombia, Venezuela’s neighbor to the west.

Chavez’s policy of welcoming ELN representatives to Caracas, purportedly for goodwill mediation of the conflict, has caused hostility among various factions in Venezuela and “infuriated” Colombian president Andres Pastrana, according to a recent Corriere della Sera report.

While the reappearance of Chavez is good news to Cuba, it is an unfavorable development for the U.S. economy.

During his presidency, Chavez has consistently been an enthusiastic advocate of a firmly united OPEC oil-pricing policy, capable of maintaining stable, high prices for producing states.

Venezuela, the world’s fourth largest oil supplier, is of major importance to the United States. The fall of Chavez and replacement with individuals friendly to the U.S. could have substantially reduced U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil, replacing it with Venezuelan oil at a stable, reliable price.

During the early hours of the coup, the French news daily Le Figaro commented that “the object of the new responsible parties” in Venezuela is to “become the prime source” of oil for the United States

Juan Carlos Sosa, an oil consultant in Caracas, stated that “we [Venezuela] must increase our share of the U.S. market,” and that the supposed fall of Chavez meant that “we will be in a good position to arrive [at this goal].”

The coup against Chavez also caused concern that the entire pricing structure of OPEC would be undercut. The fall of Chavez would have added to “the lack of discipline” of the oil cartel, according to Nordine Ait-Laoussine, former energy minister of Algeria, and currently president of the Geneva-based energy consulting firm Nalcosa, as quoted in Le Figaro.

Venezuela will also be renamed for the second time in less than a week.

Chavez, an admirer of the 19th century Latin American revolutionary leader Simon Bolivar, is seeking to follow Bolivar’s idea of uniting all of Latin America into one nation.

As an early step toward the fulfillment of the goal, Chavez changed the name of his country from the Republic of Venezuela to the “Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” indicating the eventual goal of one united Latin America.

Both Chavez and Castro have advocated the union of Latin America into a single union — dominated by Marxist theory — which would stand in opposition to its wealthy neighbor to the north, the United States.

Among Carmona’s first acts was to return the nation to its former name.

With the reinstatement of Chavez, that step will now be reversed, and Venezuela will again become the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The end of the regime of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will bring an increased and more dependable supply of petroleum to the United States, according to international sources.

It also represents the latest failure of an attempted socialist/Marxist government in Latin America.

Venezuela is the world’s fourth largest oil supplier, and could substantially reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

“The object of the new responsible parties” in Venezuela is to “become the prime source” of oil for the United States, according to a recent report in the internationally respected news daily, Le Figaro.

In contrast to policies under Chavez, the United States will find a friend instead of an opponent in the oil-rich Latin American nation.

“We must increase our share of the U.S. market,” declared Juan Carlos Sosa, an oil consultant located in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas. “After the fall of [former President Hugo] Chavez, we will be in a good position to arrive [at this goal].”

The fall of Chavez will also impact directly upon world oil prices. “The precipitous departure of Chavez reinforces the lack of discipline … in OPEC,” said Nordine Ait-Laoussine, former energy minister of Algeria, according to Le Figaro. Ait-Laoussine is currently president of the Geneva-based energy consulting firm Nalcosa.

During the years of his presidency, Chavez was an enthusiastic advocate of a firmly united OPEC oil pricing policy, capable of maintaining stable, high prices for producing states.

While the end of the Chavez regime — his successors claim he resigned, his supporters say he was overthrown — is good news for U.S. oil supplies, it is a major blow to the communist government of Fidel Castro.

The new government of business leader Pedro Carmona will end the close relationship with Cuba, and is expected to terminate the oil-exchange agreement Chavez concluded with Castro.

At stake is 160,000 barrels of oil per day to Cuba in exchange for Cuban medical personnel and sports expertise.

Venezuela also assisted Cuba in developing its own petroleum industry.

Castro and Chavez had developed a close friendship since Chavez’s first election to the Venezuelan presidency in 1998. Chavez often praised Castro, and Radio Havana Cuba, the official broadcasting service of the Cuban government, recently deemed the Venezuelan constitution which Chavez instituted as “the most progressive in the world.”

In addition to praising the unabashedly Marxist Castro, Chavez also indirectly aided the ELN, a communist guerrilla group operating in Colombia, Venezuela’s neighbor to the west.

Another, larger Marxist revolutionary group, the FARC, operates in areas not under attack by the ELN.

Chavez’s policy of welcoming ELN representatives to Caracas, purportedly for good will mediation of the conflict, has “infuriated” Colombian president Andres Pastrana, according to the Italian news daily Corriere della Sera.

The pro-Communist position of the Chavez government drew hostility from elements of the Venezuelan military.

Carlos Molina Tamayo, vice admiral of the Venezuelan navy, recently condemned Chavez for abandoning Venezuela’s “traditional friends” and seeking links with Cuba and “other communist countries,” according to a recent Corriere della Sera report.

Venezuela will also regain its former name: the Republic of Venezuela.

Chavez is an admirer of the 19th century Latin American revolutionary leader Simon Bolivar, who sought to unite the continent into a single central government.

Both Chavez and Castro have advocated the union of Latin America into a single union — dominated by Marxist theory — which would stand in opposition to its wealthy neighbor to the north, the United States.

As an early step to the fulfillment of the goal, Chavez changed the name of his country to the “Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” from the original “Republic of Venezuela.”

Among Carmona’s first acts was to return the nation to its former name, Corriere della Sera stated.