The announcement of a consistory was expected. So it was that of the membership in the Cardinals’ Commission for the Oversight of the Institute for Religious Works (Istituto per le Opere di Religione, IOR), also known as the Vatican bank (misleadingly). Pope Francis, however, surprised everybody, almost accelerating timeframes.

Perhaps Pope Francis decided to play the surprise card: he never does what it is expected, also because – as he clearly wrote in the apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium – he does not want to be beholden to a «it has always been like this» maxim. Traditions – full of meaning – are not as important as the signals Pope Francis wants to project. Regarding the choice for new cardinals, Francis wanted to elevate the profile of the peripheries of the world, and at the same time show that there are no “class A” and “class B” dioceses. Regarding the IOR cardinals’ commission, there is the feeling that Pope Francis is following the path of Benedict XVI.

Benedict XVI’s huge effort for financial transparency was also marked by a change in the Holy See’s strategy at the international level. Benedict XVI was conscious that the Vatican’s borders were no longer just with Italy, but at the very least also with Europe, and that the privileged relationship with the Italian neighbor should not be a double-edged sword for the Holy See. The multilateral approach – together with a specific striving toward the truth, the “guiding light” of Benedict XVI’s pontificate – had to be pursuit at every level. This multilateral approach was carried forward according to the logic of collegiality.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of State until last September, had also called for more collegiality. Even before the Vatileaks scandal, as some leaks were already coming out from the Vatican corridors, Bertone underlined the need for more coordination in the drafting of documents, in the preparatory paper of one of the periodic meetings of heads of Vatican dicasteries. Bertone provided the example of the method used by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

This logic of collegiality was carried forward to every field, also to the financial area. For this reason, Benedict XVI appointed the president of the Administration for the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (also known by its Italian acronym, APSA) among the members of the IOR cardinals’ commission. When Benedict XVI had to renew the commission on February 16, just a few days before the end of his pontificate, he replaced the former president of the APSA Nicora with his successor Calcagno. On the other hand, Benedict XVI had to renew the commission to leave the house in good order, since its mandate was going to expire. But he also wanted to leave a free hand to his successor, and that is why he only replaced Nicora (who had become President of the Authority for Financial Information) and confirmed all the other members.

Pope Francis wanted to wait and study the issue. In the end, he opted for a radical change. Only Jean Louis Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, kept his post within the commission, the only bridge between the old and the new management. Pope Francis appointed as a member of the new board: Santos Avril y Castellò, Archpriest of the Roman Basilica of Saint Mary the Major and a good friend of the Pope; Cristoph Schoenborn, Archbishop of Wien, Austria; Thomas Christopher Collins, Archbishop of Toronto, Canada; and Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State.

Neither Calcagno, nor any other APSA representative, have been included in the ranks of the commission. More than a “discontinuity” choice, or as an end to Cardinal Bertone’s era, Pope Francis’ decision should be read as one of strong continuity with Benedict XVI’s policy on finances.

Multilateralism brought the Holy See to look at international standards when dealing with its own financial transparency. Undergoing the evaluation process of the Council of Europe’s MONEYVAL committee, as the Vatican did, means engaging in a multilateral dynamic and peer-to-peer relations with other States, on the basis of international standards.

This is the reason why the collegiality policy cannot be applied anymore to the Vatican financial intitutions, since there must be a clear distinction between a public authority (APSA) and a financial institution (IOR), and this is exactly the reason why Cardinal Calcagno can no longer be part of the IOR Cardinals’ Commission.

Nothing extraordinary, from this perspective. Pope Francis merely took Benedict XVI’s work and carried it on, until bringing to a conclusion the reform of the Vatican financial system. The new anti-money laundering law, and the establishment of the Committee for Financial Security, enhanced and surpassed the first anti-money laundering law, which was drafted by external consultants and then completely rewritten by Vatican experts in order to fully comply with international standards.

It would have been perhaps useful if someone would have explained what was going on, in terms of financial reform. For months, newspapers wrote about an “examination” of the Holy See finances by the European commissioners; about the Vatican need to be included in a “white list” which in fact does not exist; and about a report which purportedly represented either an upgrading or downgrading of the standing of Vatican finances by European authorities, while it was merely a “peer review.”

These sort of clarifications seemed to come late, and were also obscured by internal feuds that led to many flawed characterizations of the transparency process. Misinformation often leaked to newspapers by Vatican individuals with an agenda.

Left unanswered is the question about who in particular had wanted to undermine Benedict XVI’s pontificate. As is the question of whether Pope Francis’ pontificate is being rightly defended, by the Vatican institutions themselves.

Pope Francis loves to speak off-the-cuff, and his spontaneity has led to some misunderstandings and to more or less instrumentalized controversies regarding what he says. So, the Vatican felt obliged to deliver a note (posted Jan. 13 on the Facebook page for the Vatican’s “news.va”) in order to precisely enumerate every official websites where Pope Francis’ statements and comments can be read, in order to avoid any further misunderstandings.

It was a necessary measure. Today, many in the Vatican are profoundly aware that it is necessary to shed light on what the Church is really all about. These are Vatican officials that go beyond the business-like approach that consultants take.  Consultants like McKinsey, which has already begun its meetings in the Vatican in order to see how to rationalize the Holy See’s media operations (in fact, the debate about a reorganization of Vatican media goes back to 1983, when a commission confidentially met in the Vatican).

Those who look at the Vatican as if it were just a big company, with a need for a rationalization of its structures and a good press office to communicate innovations, can never fully grasp the issues. Many Vatican officials, on the other hand, have dedicated their whole life to the Holy See and are thus fully aware of the need to shed light on the Church’s reality.

It may be true that, regarding Vatican finances, clarifications had come late. However, Father Federico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See Press Office, was really timely in delivering a note explaining in detail why the Holy See was presenting a report on children’s rights to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on January 16.

In 1990, the Holy See signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Two optional protocols, on “the involvement of children in armed conflict” and on “sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography” complement the convention. Ratification of these kinds of conventions generally require its states parties to present periodic reports on their implementation.

Every state party must report about its implementation of the convention, but the media did not underline this. The media wanted to exploit a “juicy” target of opportunity. After a state submits its written report to the committee, the independent experts who comprise the committee may submit questions in writing to the state party, which also answers them in written form. These questions and answers in some ways guide the dialogue in Geneva. Among the questions, there was one about children sex abuse by the clergy.

The Holy See gave an articulated answer, explaining the differences between the Holy See, the Vatican City State, and the Catholic Church; and about Penal Canon Law and criminal domestic laws. The Holy See briefers stressed that the Vatican encouraged every local bishops’ conference to establish guidelines to address cases of abuse on the basis of their domestic law, emphasizing the commitment of popes to fight the abuses, from John Paul II on.

In his intervention, Silvano Maria Tomasi, the Holy See Permanent Observer to the UN Office at Geneva, listed the most recent Vatican initiatives, not included in the written answers because these initiatives had taken place after the written responses were delivered. Tomasi also stressed the Council of Cardinals’ decision to establish an international commission for the protection of children.

From all of the above, the only thing that the media focused on, yet with a superficial perspective, is the Holy See’s admission that «there are no excuses» for the abuse cases. This despite the fact that Father Lombardi issued a long note clearly explaining that the report is part of a continuous evaluation process, and how to read the Holy See’s answers. Father Lombardi wanted to clear up any possible doubts.

In the same days, Associated Press published a Holy See statistics proving that Benedict XVI defrocked nearly 400 priests for raping and molesting children. The report finally shed light on Benedict XVI effort in combating the clergy sex abuses. The Associated Press got the Vatican analysis statistics, and this was not presumably by chance. In 2010, when another milestone in the sex abuse saga came out with hundreds of cases reported in the media across Europe and beyond, Associated Press quoted a 1985 letter by the then prefect for the Congregation of the Faith Joseph Ratzinger in which he reportedly resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including «the good of the universal Church.»

In fact, Vatican communications seem to be evolving around Pope Francis, sensitive to his particular approach and also giving a wider perspective to his comments, and at the same time it is also working to change the narrative for what concerns the Benedict XVI’s pontificate. There is also a clear message that there has not been a breach with the past. There is a continuity in pastoral action, even if there are, as could be expected, differences in style between Benedict XVI and Francis. The report presented in Geneva is a testament to that continuity in diplomatic action.

Ultimately, the statements of Vatican diplomats show that the Church is the largest “values agent” in the world. While keeping a consistent stance (that of the common good and of the defense of human dignity), Vatican diplomats know how to enshrine, in the best possible ways, every papal comment. The same is true of Vatican officials charged with drafting official documents. In this way, the Pope’s worldviews and concerns are preserved and his guiding principles are embraced by the people.

The Catholic Church is still alive precisely because of the completeness of its content. No professionalizing of her communications will ever be able to displace this expertise. The Church has been nurturing this expertise for several millenniums.

In just a few months, this is the second time Pope Francis decrees a canonization independently from the collegial opinion of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The first time was when he decided “for certain” the canonization of John XXIII. But there are some differences with Faber’s case. In the case of John XXIII, there had been deliberations within the Congregation for the Causes of Saints about a miracle attributed to the late Pope’s intercession. In the end, there was no unanimity of views regarding whether it was a miracle for sure, and Pope Francis settled the question with his «for certain.»

For Faber, Pope Francis decided independently, without any group deliberations. He wanted Peter Faber, who put forth the notion of spiritual reform, to be a model for the whole universal Church. And this is why Francis took this decision to decree an equipollent canonization.

This is just but one of the instances showing that Pope Francis’ way of governing can be everything but collegial. At the moment, the Roman Curia seems to be completely deprived of authority. The Council of Eight Cardinals named by Francis to look at a possible general revision of the Pastor Bonus constitution (which regulates the functions of the dicasteries of the Curia) has not reached out to the Vatican dicasteries’ to seek their views. Instead, Council members reached out individually to people they trusted within the dicasteries, and asked them for an opinion. Then, Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, President of the Vatican City State Governorate, was tasked with collecting the different opinions. In fact, there has not been an ordered procedure yet to evaluate how to carry the reform forward. It is only known that this will be a “profound” reform.

There had been several comprehensive reforms in the past few years. The most important, and clearly the most discussed, was the reform of the Holy See’s financial system. In just a couple of years, the Holy See adopted a specific financial system that has been internationally accepted as valid. This system, as could be expected, can still be improved (as is true for the systems of other states), but it has nevertheless received the Council of Europe’s unanimous praise. This was an achievement that, after the first visit of the Council of Europe MONEYVAL evaluators in November of 2011,  seemed reachable only in the long term.

Following the visit, the MONEYVAL evaluators had asked for substantial changes to the then Vatican anti-money laundering law. The law to be modified had been drafted by external consultants. Subsequently, Vatican officials worked to improve the draft, rewriting and aligning the law with international standards. Further adjustments followed, after an overall positive MONEYVAL report issued in July of 2012. These Vatican officials were in a position to understand the legal peculiarities of the Holy See, and thus were able to explain these peculiarities in international forums.

The whole world of the Vatican has changed as a result of work carried out by its in-house professionals. The Vatican penal code reform, the reform of the Prefecture for Economic Affairs enacted in March 2012 (as a result of which, the Prefecture can now be considered a modern ministry of finance), and the reform of Caritas Internationalis statutes and that of the jurisdiction of Catholic charitable associations, have all been carried out by Vatican officials themselves, without an extensive need for external consultants.

However, the use of external consultants and commissions has increased significantly under Pope Francis. Just in the last thirty days, the Vatican has hired the international consultants Ernst & Young, KPMG and McKinsey to render advice on communication, rationalization of expenses, and auditing. Every time the Vatican announced the hiring of an external company, the release specified that “the hiring came after a procedure of selection.” None of these procedures have been made public, nor is it known how much the external consultants will cost. It is rumored that the Vatican is spending millions of euros in consultants, just for having them look at the Holy See as if it were merely a company on which to apply some general international rules for communication, auditing and so on.

This Christmas season, in the Vatican corridors, officials can sense a strong current towards special commissions.  Only those that go with the current get any media attention, riding on the waves of fresh air brought about by Pope Francis.

For example, much has been written about the commitment to transparency of the Institute for Religious Works (IOR). The Institute, headed by Ernst von Freyberg and often referred to (misleadingly) as “the Vatican bank”, is now hosting the men of the Promontory Financial Group.  The Promontory has been criticized in the United State for being a sort of shadow regulator of the market. The Promontory’s men have seized top positions at the Vatican financial institution (Rolando Marranci, the new IOR general director, spent his earlier career with the group) and are screening its accounts. Just a few remember that, in fact, a first screening of the IOR accounts had already been made, as documented in the July 2012 MONEYVAL report and the December 2013 MONEYVAL progress report on the Holy See/Vatican City State.

In the meantime, Promontory was charged with looking into “customer due diligence” at the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA), thus creating somewhat of a precedent in the reformed APSA because it treats it as a private company. “Due diligence” is the evaluation of risks in investments and loans with regards, in particular, to the clients of a bank. However, APSA is not a bank. The Holy See explained this clearly to the MONEYVAL evaluators, noting that while APSA holds some accounts, such banking-type activity is minimal and will be phased out.

There are several internal short-circuits that can occur as a result of the extensive use of external consultants.

Pope Francis seems to be managing everything in a very personalistic manner. Rather than entrusting a “proven” structure like the Roman Curia, possibly inserting in its ranks people he trusts, Pope Francis prefers to confirm in their positions the heads of the Vatican dicasteries and at the same time change its members (as it happened with the Congregation for Catholic Education and the Congregation for Bishops) and make decisions on the basis of his personal knowledge.

Not by accident, his second secretary, Monsignor Fabian Pedacchio Leaniz, has not been inserted in the ranks of the Secretariat of State, as is customary, and keeps going to work every morning at the Congregation for Bishops, where Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio sent him in 2007 with the task – according to the Spanish web portal Intereconomía – of letting him know anything going there.

There is always the impression that the Pope is acting as if he were still under the dictatorship in Argentina, thinking that the Curia – with its workings and machinations – must be bypassed, even at the risk of taking on board the advice of friends of his who are leading him to treat the Church as a company or a non-governmental organization.  Yet, this is precisely what Pope Francis has always maintained should not happen: «We are not a charity NGO,» Pope Francis has often stated.

Comparing the Church to a private company is something that Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui has done several times (even if later saying she was not doing so). Chaouqui is a member of the Pontifical Commission for Reference established by Pope Francis to oversee the simplification and rationalization of the institutions of the Holy See and to monitor Curia-related expenses.

The external advisors had all been hired by recommendation of this commission, and the fact that a “procedure of selection” had taken place does not dispel the notion of a conflict of interests, since Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui is also employed by Ernst & Young.  Chaouqui is believed to have the Pope’s ear, and might have spoken with him at the Domus Sanctae Marthae some Sundays.

What will be the impact of the external consultants over the Vatican? To what extent will they be faithful to the Holy See? How much will their work be just marketing and not mission? These are all open questions, together with those regarding the costs of hiring them. In the Church “poor (and) for the poor”, taking away responsibilities from the Curia is costing an unknown amount of money. It is rumored that this money will be recovered by marketing the Pope’s image, with the Vatican Television no longer making available its image feed for a token fee to Catholic networks and instead selling it to the highest bidder.

It is conceivable that Pope Francis does not trust the men of the Curia. His is mostly a reform in attitudes, as he noted in the interview he granted to the Jesuit-run Italian magazine La Civiltà Cattolica. It is also true that many intelligent people who are part of the Holy See and love the Church are mortified by this behavior. Moreover, their talents are unused, even if they are readily available to work ad majorem Dei gloriam (for the greater glory of God).

These are the risks of an informal Papacy. In a sense, Pope Francis is someone who is used to live and continues to live as if under a dictatorship.  During the military dictatorship in Argentina, he stood out for his heroism, a fact that made him some enemies who have later insinuated he was in connivance with the Argentine military regime. These are rumors that time and again have proven to be completely baseless.

Living in the Vatican, Pope Francis seems to be sticking to the same forma mentis of the times he lived under a dictatorship. He is very suspicious toward the Curia (which he defined in a recent interview as «a plague»); he trusts only his friends; he decided to live in the Domus Sanctae Marthae because he can be seen by all, minimizing the risk to fall victim to malicious gossiping. Since the Pope is there, visible, it should be more difficult for some to spread rumors about his way of proceeding, or about “corruption” in the Pontifical family.  To be on the safe side, Pope Francis manages his own agenda, as he always did in Argentina, since the time of the dictatorship there.

But Argentine was ruled by a regime, while the Pope is himself the regime in the Vatican. Thus, the Pope should govern, organize, delegate. In order to govern most appropriately, he must also use the Curia. A Vatican saying reminds all, very timely, that «you cannot reform the Curia without the Curia.»

There is another, not less important, problem: the Pope’s vision of the Curia corresponds and feeds the image of the Curia portrayed by the media: a nest of plots, corruption, and wrongdoings. Unintentionally, Pope Francis risks giving impetus to an old media campaign against the Church.

Yet another consequence is that the “curiali,” who are «as shrewd as snakes but not peaceful as doves, » have more space to act.

The persistence call of the Pope to stop the gossiping sort of «terrorizes» the Curia. This kind of feeling parodoxically inhibits those who act honestly, and favors those who have always shrewdly pushed for their personal agendas. 

While waiting for Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State Elect, to take officially his post on Oct. 15, many in the Curia are busy trying to strengthen their own influence, regardless of what the Pope may wish. One particular field for these «hidden battles «» is that of the «financial management» of the Holy See.

The commission appointed by Pope Francis to supervise Vatican finances has seen its share of scandals.  They evolve around one of its members, Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui.

Chaouqui was very critical of Benedict XVI’s Curia. She also accused Cardinal Bertone of corruption, in a tweet.  She supported Ettore Gotti Tedeschi when he confronted (unsuccessfully) a no confidence vote from the Institute of Religious Works (IOR) board of laymen, and is reportedly one of the aggressive sources of the gossip Italian web portal Dagospia. Chaouqui has also been considered one of the Vatican’s «crows,» i.e. one of those responsible for the leaks of reserved documents from the Apostolic Palace.

Chaouqui is a public relations expert, and it is also rumored that she was the «mastermind» of the financial tycoon Alessandro Proto’s media campaign. Proto gained prominence when it was reported that he was about to raid the stocks of important companies in Italy. His fame increased when he personally denounced –with harsh press releases and lawsuits– characterizations that he was a financial raider.  Later, it became known that Proto himself (on Chaouqui’s suggestion?) leaked news about his financial raids in order to give rise to opportunities to reply to his critics and grab newspapers headlines.

The «Proto approach» could find traction in the Vatican, where the season of poisons has already begun.

 Cardinal Attilio Nicora, president of the Authority for Financial Information, is very active. He agreed to changes to the Vatican anti-money laundering law only because the Council of Europe asked for the modifications, and because they led to a generally positive evaluation by the Council of Europe committee of MONEYVAL.

In fact, the old law made Nicora a sort of man of the compromise, the mediator between the Vatican and Italy. The new law (further revised in January and then on Aug. 8) strengthened the Holy See’s sovereignty and increased its international weight.

The Holy See chose to favor a model of transparency based on international recognition, rather than a special relationship with a nearby State. The first anti-money laundering law, a sort of «good neighbor pact» between the Vatican and Italy, could in fact put the sovereignty of the Holy See at risk.

The MONEYVAL report mentioned just one conflict of interests: that of Nicora, at the time president of the Authority for Financial Information (a controller), president of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, APSA (a controlled agency) and member of the IOR cardinals’ commission. He had to leave the presidency of APSA.  When Benedict XVI – having already announced his renunciation – renewed the mandate of the members of the cardinals’ commission, he appointed Domenico Calcagno as Nicora’s successor as president of the APSA, and as Nicora’s replacement in the commission.

 An APSA led by Calcagno is still in fact an APSA led by Nicora. The scandal of Nunzio Scarano, the APSA employee who was not dismissed even after the numerous complaints about his performance throughout the years (complaints that had been forwarded to Nicora), is a direct result of Nicora’s personalist management style.

The Scarano affair had other ramifications. Massimo Boarotto, president of the Ordinary section of the APSA, who blocked the rising of Scarano, is back to Verona as parish priest. He was replaced by Don Mauro Rivella, a Canon law expert (he is part of the scientific committee of the Rivista di Diritto Ecclesiastico, headed by Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts) and part of Nicora’s circle. Rumors says that this is why Nicora backed his candidature for the APSA ordinary section post, even though the Italian Bishops’ Conference – in which central secretariat Rivella served for some years – decided that Rivella’s service in the “central government” of the conference had come to an end, and sent him back to his dioceses, Turin.

In the meantime, the IOR (the Institute for Religious Works), which had been constantly under attack, issued an annual report on its 2012 activities, even though the cardinals’ commission of the IOR has not issued its conclusions yet.  [The cardinals’ commission is waiting for the appointment of the IOR general director (von Freyberg took the post over ad interim, after the resignation of the former general director Paolo Cipriani) before issuing its conclusions. A meeting with the Pope is anyway expected for the next week. ]

Von Freyberg promised the publication of the annual report in a May, 30 interview granted to Vatican radio. There are several risks that one should take into consideration. The first: doing what the media expect the IOR to do makes the IOR subservient to the media, as if it would have to justify everything it does. Secondly, if the IOR would do everything a bank does, it would fail. From the very beginning, there has been a debate about its very nature: is it a bank or is it not? The Vatican always had to explain that the IOR is not a bank, but a financial institute.

Beyond the numbers and the “philosophical” problems about its nature, the IOR annual report states that the last modification on the anti-money laundering law (into effect via a Motu Proprio issued in Aug. 8) has been accelerated by Pope Francis. This is at the least inaccurate. Vatican experts have been working for about one year to tailor the law to the Vatican in order to create a Vatican model of financial transparency.

 Ultimately, there is a sort of “publicity craze” that affects almost everybody in the Vatican.

This craze can be augmented by Pope Francis’ behavior, who calls anybody he wants whenever he wants, and often speaks off the cuff. There had been much said about an interview he granted to Eugenio Scalfari, founder of the prominent Italian newspaper La Repubblica. The interview (mostly an ongoing conversation) is not a premiere. As long back as 1959, John XXIII asked his secretary to call the Corriere della Sera to say he was ready for an interview, which he granted to the famous Italian journalist Indro Montanelli.

 Scalfari’s free-flowing conversation with Pope Francis was reported by the journalist in such a general manner, that there are still questions about whether the Pope’s words can be quoted as official positions or not.

The Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, took the decision to report the interview in its entirety, making the Pope’s words sort of official. The Osservatore Romano’s independent decision (not the first one) de facto cut off the Holy See Press Office from any communications strategy. Father Lombardi had no choice but to point out that the content of the interview may be faithful to the Pope’s words, since the Pope did not complain about it, but that he could not confirm they were his exact words.

This is the Vatican today. A Vatican always more prone to outsourcing, while the central institutions are pushed away in a sort of war against Rome. The cardinals of the commission Pope Francis appointed to reform the Curia seem to want to push the Curia away, rather than reform it. They are thinking about re-writing the Pastoral Constitution Pastor Bonus, but all the proposals that came out from their first meeting (the Secretary of State must be a Secretary of the Pope; more space for laymen; a moderator curiae, which mean a sort of director of personnel) are already in the Pastor Bonus. The local Churches have taken over and want to push any central institution aside.

 Will it be just a dismantling of everything?

In the Curia, in the dioceses, in the parishes, there are good Catholics, in love with their missions and doing a great job. But in the Vatican it seems now that what people outside the Church think is more important than what people inside the Church think. The Vatican turns to VIPs to promote what it does, and never thinks about valuing the high professionals it already has.

While the Holy See Press Office works to explain this Papacy, the Pope grabs the newspaper headlines with initiatives that the Holy See Press Office simply is not made aware of. While the Vatican Secretariat of State keeps on doing its job, it is also challenged by sudden Papal decisions, taken without any coordination.

This kind of anarchy is not something new in the history of the Church. The issue is that the institution previously managed this anarchy. Now, the institution itself feeds the anarchy. The informal Vatican of the Pope, a Pope in a “under a dictatorship” permanent mindset, risks giving credence to the view of those who think that the Church is only a “confluence” of strong interests. The goal of the latter is to dismantle the Church.  Will the informal Vatican help them to succeed? 

So, barring any surprises, Bertone will perform the bishops’ ordination in Saint Peter’s on April 27, and this means that he will remain at his post until that day. In fact, it is rumored that Bertone will keep his post until September.

This will not stop speculation on who the next Secretary of State may be.

The speculation is also fed by the schedule of the meetings Pope Francis have had until now. The Pope has received almost all of the members of the Curia’s old establishment: Piero Marini, John Paul II’s master of ceremonies who under Benedict XVI turned down running a diocese and remained in Rome as president of Eucharistic Congresses; James Michael Harvey, who hired the unfaithful butler Paolo Gabriele and has been promoted cardinal and Archpriest of Saint Paul Outside the Walls Basilica, away from the papal apartment; Fernando Filoni, who – to sidestep his uneasy relations with his direct boss, cardinal Bertone– has been promoted Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of People; and Leonardo Sandri, Prefect of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches and longa manus of cardinal Angelo Sodano –the latter one of the most prominent representatives of that old circle of diplomats never at ease with Benedict’s rule.

Are these meetings to thank and politely dismiss the old establishment, or are they a signal that nothing will change, in the Curia?

In the meantime, ambitions to become Secretary of State are played off against the future of the so called “Vatican bank,” the IOR (Istituto per le Opere di Religione).

Very recently, John Allen interviewed Federico Wals for the National Catholic Reporter. Wals was, since 2007, the spokesperson of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Wals maintains that it is possible that Pope Francis «will move all the Vatican funds to the Bank of Italy, or something like that.»

Wals told Allen that Bergoglio swiftly took personal responsibility for the financial mess of his diocese of Buenos Aires. The key move, according to Wals, was that Bergoglio decided to sell off the archdiocese’s bank shares and to transfer its funds to international banks such as HSBC and UBS, «as an ordinary client» rather than a partial owner.

That step – Wals suggested – not only imposed greater restraint on borrowing and spending, but it also spared the church the potential embarrassment of being linked as an owner to banking scandals.

In fact, that of the IOR is a different story. The IOR is a fund which profits are at the sovereign’s disposal. It is not a bank, and no-one can buy IOR shares. Rightly or wrongly, the IOR has been implicated in several scandals, but the path toward full financial transparency the Holy See began is intended to prevent future scandals.

Certainly, outside of the Vatican, in the dioceses, there is a certain impatience about Rome and its centrality. Many cardinals see headlines about the IOR as a warning alert, and an obstacle to their evangelizing.

This is the reason why, during the pre-conclave congregations, Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz (Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life) and John Olarunfemi Onayiekan (Archbishop of Abuja, Nigeria) voiced some criticism about the existence of the IOR. «The IOR is not essential – cardinal Onayekan said – since Peter did not have a bank.»

The cardinals were also worried about controversial stories about the IOR and Vatican finances in newspapers headlines.

A Holy See official –who speaks on condition of anonymity– explained that «it is not a ‘if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you’ matter. Finance is not a goal in itself, or the Holy See’s objective, and the Vatican is not a financial center. Under strict conditions, finance is a tool for the institutional works of religion and charity. »

The populist use of the IOR issue has come up in the competition to lead the Secretariat of State. Claudio Mario Celli, President of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications and someone with strong diplomatic credentials, entered that arena when he told The Times that Pope Francis would consider appeals made by two cardinals during the pre-conclave meetings (cardinals Braz de Aviz e Onayiekan) to abolish the Institute for Religious Works, the so-called “Vatican bank”.

Celli’s move – made to advance his odds of becoming Secretary of State– grabbed headlines. But it also served to cast a shadow over the odds of another strong contender for Secretary of State,  Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, former Permanent Observer to the United Nations in Geneva and Apostolic Nuncio in Italy, now President of the Vatican City State administration.

Bertello, as president of the Vatican City State administration, backed the Secretariat of State efforts to have a new anti-money laundering law, one coherent with the mission of the Church.

In this context, the new IOR president, Ernst von Freyberg, has assumed his post in the midst of a subtle media campaign aimed at abolishing the IOR or, at least, diminishing its range of action.

To understand this debate, it is important to understand the purpose of the IOR. That of the IOR’s “transparency” was one of the last battles of the old establishment during Benedict XVI’s Pontificate.

The purpose of the Institute is established by Art. 1 of the IOR’s Chirograph (i.e., its Statute) of 1990: «The purpose of the Institute is to provide for the custody and the administration of moveable and immovable property transferred or entrusted to the Institute by natural or legal persons and destined for religious works or charity.»

In 2009, Vatican City State signed a Monetary Agreement with the European Union, according to which the Vatican pledged to comply with international anti-money laundering standards. To this end, a new law was adopted on December 30, 2010 – and came into force in March 2011. The law also established the Financial Intelligence Authority.

In 2011, the Holy See agreed to submit to a mutual evaluation on his standards by MONEYVAL, a body of the Council of Europe. During their first site visit on November 2011, MONEYVAL evaluators concluded that the law had some weaknesses.

The law has since been substantially re-written and amended, in order to fulfill international standards. As stressed by the MONEYVAL Report, the «original AML/CFT Law was rapidly revised after the first MONEYVAL visit, largely to take into account the evaluators emerging findings. […] The revised AML/CFT Law introduced a significant number of necessary and welcome changes» (Executive Summary, 11).

The same report emphasized that «further important issues still need addressing in order to demonstrate that a fully effective regime has been instituted in practice» (Executive Summary 10), but it gave high marks to other IOR arrangements: the IOR security standards surpass those required by Vatican law (Executive Summary, 39); and the Vatican legislation on secrecy was considered overall compliant with international standards (paragraph 50).  The report also praised the high level of international cooperation the Vatican engages in.

Unmistakably, the report dismissed a vision of the IOR as a place of opacity and illicit dealings, and of an uncooperative Vatican closed to scrutiny and full of financial mysteries.

In the public debate, two polarized positions have emerged. One is to consider having a financial system a goal that should be pursuit. The other one is to view the managing of financial arrangements as something that the Holy See should not be involved with.

Pressures «to abolish» the Institute seem to be part (or the effect) of the «new media-narrative» relating the Church: «The election of Pope Francis changed (the tone and substance of) newspapers headlines regarding the Church», said Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary of the conclave, in an interview to the Catholic News Agency published on March 25.

However, that kind of pressure fails to realize that the Holy is not a financial hub, but it is an international legal entity with financial sovereignty, that is, the capacity to carry out its institutional works of religion and charity without interference from foreign financial institutions. This is why the Holy See and Vatican City have pledged to comply with international anti-money laundering standards.

Some maintain that Benedict XVI’s pontificate has in effect come to an end, and that everything is to be put on hold. Benedict XVI does not think so. There is no need to accelerate the handling of daily affairs, but they do not come to a halt either. Everything must go on, at normal speed. Appointments for different positions are made as usual, with no exceptions. No matter if there are controversies, if every appointment is exploited and used as an excuse to feed resentments and stir feuds, or to attack the Church. The Church must go on, beyond all of this.

So, this last week, during the Lent Spiritual Retreat, two appointments were published. Scandalous, some cried out. In fact, these appointments had been decided a long time ago. The first appointment is that of the new president of the Religious Works Institute (IOR) Council of Superintendence. Ernst von Freyberg, of the Order of Malta, is a business lawyer with remarkable experience in finance. Meanwhile, nearly all of the IOR Cardinal Commission members will stay on.  The second appointment is that of Ettore Balestrero, currently the Vatican’s «Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs», as apostolic nuncio to Colombia, in order to strengthen the Church in Latin America.

The IOR – a sort of Vatican trust fund – had been nine months without a president.  Since the Council of Superintendence voted to pass a no confidence motion on the former president, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, the IOR «board of laymen»  had been headed by its vice president, Rolando Schmitz. The latter recommended to use Spencer & Stuart – a specialized «headhunter» agency – to look for candidates for a new president. Since July, specialists from this Frankfurter agency had been visiting the Vatican to gather information about the role of IOR president of the board, and the ideal profile of the next office holder. Spencer & Stuart first identified about 40 candidates, then selected six who were personally interviewed by the Council of Superintendence.  There were three finalists, who were interviewed by both the board of laymen and the board of cardinals.

Finally, the German Ernst von Freyberg was chosen. His managerial experience was not his only qualification. Yet, it is worth noting that he is cofounder and managing director of Dc Advisory Partners.  Formerly he had been an analyst at Three Cities Research, and president of Blohm+Voss, a naval industry. Von Freyberg was also chosen for his catholic credentials. He is an active member of the Order of Malta, a promoter of pilgrimages to Lourdes, and a nobleman. His appointment seemingly signals a return to an ancient practice: the Vatican puts its trust once again on a highly qualified personality from a Catholic and noble family, whose loyalty to the institution is independent from, and goes beyond, job-related contractual obligations.

The mandate of the IOR Cardinal Commission for Oversight, and of the new board, will expire in 2017. Card. Tarcisio Bertone is still the president of the Commission, since he is Secretary of State (he will be replaced when a new Secretary of State is appointed).  The appointments of cardinals Scherer (Brazilian), Toppo, (Indian), and Tauran (French) have been confirmed. Card. Nicora, on the other hand, has left the commission because he was also president of the Authority for Financial Information, which could have lead to a conflict of interest. Nicora had joined the board as the then president of the APSA (the Vatican «central bank»).  He is replaced by his successor as APSA President, Card. Domenico Calcagno.

Choosing a new IOR president was a process which began a long time ago, before Benedict XVI announced his decision to resign from the Petrine ministry. So was the process leading to the appointment of Ettore Balestrero, Undersecretary for Relations with States, as apostolic nuncio to Colombia.

During the past few years, Balestrero has worked to advance the Holy See’s path toward full financial transparency: he led the Holy See delegation at the plenary assembly of MONEYVAL – the body of the Council of Europe that evaluates the adherence of its member states to international standards – and he briefed journalists about the findings of the MONEYVAL report. Ettore Balestrero’s work went beyond, certainly: working as Undersecretary for Relations with States, he worked on the negotiations with the state of Israel and opened up Vietnam – where soon there will be a Holy See resident representative. Before that, he had worked in Korea and the Netherlands, and at the Vatican Secretariat of State, where his portfolio included relations with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). His main interests have always been peace, integral disarmament and religious freedom: he was among the organizers of the first conference ever held on intolerance and discrimination against Christians. While at the Secretariat of State, he also participated in the meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace with non-institutional military chaplains. In that occasion, the Colombian military chaplain was present. Was it a sign of what the future held?

Certainly this background was taken into account when Balestrero was chosen to be apostolic nuncio in Colombia. The challenges he will face are those outlined by Benedict XVI in 2012. The Pope met Colombian bishops during their ad limina visit, and asked them to strengthen catechesis and relations with other Christian confessions. But he also underlined that bishops should not forget those «compelled to emigrate from their homeland» or those «harmed in their fundamental rights» or «forced to abandon their homes or families under the threat of the obscure hand of terror or of criminality», or still «those who have fallen in the nefarious networks of trade in arms and drugs. » The Catholic Church looks at Colombia with much interest: it has 102 bishops and a lively Church, so much so that there was talk of a papal apostolic visit. This project did not come to fruition with Benedict XVI, but may very well happen with his successor.

Balestrero’s appointment had been announced together with that of the new apostolic nuncio to El Salvador (Msgr. Leòn Kalenga) and that of the apostolic nuncio to Liberia (Miroslaw Adamczyk), the latter on his very first postings as “Pope’s ambassadors”. All of these appointments come at the end of a cursus honorum of about 15 years. Balestrero’s appointment, ultimately, has a precise goal: to strengthen the Church in Latin America. That is why Balestrero’s predecessor in the Secretariat of State, Pietro Parolin, was assigned apostolic nuncio to Venezuela, and its former head of protocol, Fortunatus Nwachukwu, was appointed Papal nuncio to Nicaragua.

The news of the law modifications have not been officially announced by the Vatican. This is not unusual, though. The changes are ultimately not going to make substantial modifications to Vatican City State law — they are merely adjustments that improve the law and make it more compliant with international standards. All countries make these sorts of adjustments periodically.

On the other hand, the news that the Bank of Italy (Italy’s central bank) has blocked all electronic payments through cash machines and by credit cards in Vatican City State has provoked a small media storm. The blocking – according to Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office – was due to a “technical problem”: the supplier, i.e. Deutsche Bank Italia, did not ask for the «required authorization» to operate. Deutsche Bank Italia manages since 1997 the electronic payments circuit in Vatican City State. Back in 1997, Italian regulations against money laundering were different (based on law 197, promulgated in 1991, and updated through the decree 153/1997) and Deutsche Bank Italia likely thought that it had to guide itself by Vatican legislation, not Italian.

The inspection that lead to the blocking took place in 2010 – right when the Holy See path to gain full financial transparency began. The Bank of Italy wanted to make it clear that Deutsche Bank Italia is under Italian jurisdiction, and thus under Bank of Italy oversight. When Deutsche Bank Italia applied for the required authorization, it was denied. The reason: Italy considers Vatican City State a «not equivalent extra-communitarian country» with regards to financial and anti-money laundering oversight – as underlined by several «anonymous» and «financial circles» sources that have spoken to journalists about this issue recently.

There is still no information about when this «technical problem» will be resolved. Some sources say that everything should be ok within a week, while others maintain that more time is needed because Vatican City State is not in the Italian white list.  Italy may want to wait for the MONEYVAL fifth-round evaluation report – that will take place within the next four years – before including Vatican City State in its white list.

Anyway, all of this would hardly amount to a new Vatican financial controversy. On the contrary, the most recent changes to the anti-money laundering law (contained in the law n. CLXXXV of 2012) are another Holy See step toward full financial transparency, in view of the inclusion of the Vatican Authority for Financial Information (AIF) to the Egmont Group, the global network of Financial Intelligence Units (FIU). That the Vatican initiated the membership procedure to join the Egmont Groups is significant: it places the Holy See among reputable countries on financial transparency.

The network of FIUs is named after the «Egmont Hotel» in Brussels, where Units from all over the world gathered in 1995. The aim of the group is to have a common framework  to cooperate in combatting money laundering and the financing of terrorism, and to improve each country’s program. The AIF initiated long time ago the process to join the Egmont Group, and communicated this decision to MONEYVAL evaluators (MONEYVAL is the body of the Council of Europe that assesses if its member states are meeting international standards against money laundering and the financing of terrorism) while the MONEYVAL peer evaluation on Holy See/Vatican City State was taking place. Already in the MONEYVAL report released in July, it is clearly stated that the Holy See was considering to join the Egmont Group. «The FIA – it is written in point 30 of the report – is seriously considering joining the Egmont Group and has already taken steps to initiate the membership procedure which would enable it to cooperate directly with other FIUs in the Egmont Group in accordance with Egmont principles.»

MONEYVAL evaluators rendered a positive assessment of the Holy See’s economic/financial structure, but they also identified some areas for improvement. One such area noted that the Authority for Financial Information only had limited powers to exchange information and sign Memorandums of Understanding with other Financial Intelligence Units.

Everything changed with the law modification that the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State – i.e. the Vatican legislator – approved on December, 14. Small changes, with a big impact. Clause 7 of article 2 of the Vatican anti-money laundering law (Vatican law n. 127) previously stated that «the Authority for Financial Information, if the State Secretariat will grant the nihil obstat, can enter into Memorandums of Understanding with comparable authorities of other countries in order to exchange information about financial transfers suspected of money laundering or of financing terrorism.» The law modification eliminated the need for a Secretariat of State’s nihil obstat. The Secretariat of State is already the body in charge of the foreign policy and the coordination of internal policy, including anti-money laundering policies.

Article 41 of the law n. 127 also changes. In its new version, it widens the range of the international exchange of information, no longer limiting it to suspect transactions only.  Instead, it is now generally oriented towards preventing and combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

These two changes can be considered in the end another step of the Holy See toward the building of an economical/financial structure projected for the long term. As such, it should be welcome both by MONEYVAL and by individual States – for example, Italy – that pay a lot of attention to the Vatican path to financial transparency.

One area for improvement concerned the functions of the AIF, which operates both as a Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and an oversight mechanism.  MONEYVAL judged AIF «not compliant» in its oversight function (Intergovernmental Financial Action Group (GAFI) recommendation 23) and «largely compliant» as a FIU (GAFI recommendation 26).  MONEYVAL recommended a clear separation of the two functions, without addressing if they can remain under a common AIF umbrella.

After the publication of the MONEYVAL report, the Holy See resumed its initiatives for greater transparency.  The goal now was to address the «not compliant» or «partially compliant» assessment with respect to specific recommendations for transparency,  and to harmonize further reforms with the GAFI’s own realignment of recommendations.  GAFI had a list of 40+9 recommendations, which the MONEYVAL evaluators used as their guide.  Recently, GAFI realigned its set of recommendations: there are now 40 recommendations, including several that are completely new – for example, recommendations that deal with financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which also meets the Holy See commitment.  The Holy See has always been engaged in raising awareness about non proliferation issues, and is thus particularly attentive to these new recommendations.

The Holy See needed to thrust a new impetus to the AIF.  Francesco De Pasquale had been AIF’s director since its establishment.  De Pasquale is an appeals lawyer, and had 20 years of experience dealing with anti-money laundering legislation.  He is also a former Bank of Italy official.  Marcello Condemi, who drafted the first Vatican City State anti-money laundering law (law n. 127, later reformed), had also been a Bank of Italy official.  But even if there were plenty former Bank of Italy officials at the Vatican, the Bank of Italy showed some hostility towards the Vatican.  Jeffrey Lena, the Holy See lawyer and international law expert, plainly stated in an interview that the Holy See maintains cordial financial relations with all the countries, except Italy, the only country that «considers the Vatican non equivalent for what concerns anti-moneylaudering»

(Ultimately, the way in which financial relations are managed is a matter in which the very sovereignty of the Holy See is at stake.  All too often, Italy falls into treating the Holy See as if the Vatican were a multinational company on Italian territory –which is not.  History reminds us how the Holy See preferred to sign a Concordat with the dictator Mussolini rather than with the previous Italian liberal administrations, as only Mussolini was disposed to recognize the Vatican City State’s sovereignty, «that piece of land that allows us to carry out our mission,» as Pope Pius X used to say).

How was the Authority for Financial Information improved? At first, by hiring René Bruelhart as a Secretariat of State ad hoc consultant for anti-money laundering issues. Young (he is just 40) and hailing from Freiburg, Bruelhart had ran for 8 years the Lichtenstein Financial Intelligence Unit.  In 2010 he was named vice president of the Egmont Group, the FIUs global network.  Bruelhart’s experience makes him one of the most eminent international experts in the prevention of money laundering and the financing of terrorism.  His recruitment also made the anti-money laundering team at the Vatican more international.

Now, the Holy See felt it was time for a further step.  Card. Attilio Nicora, president of the AIF Board of Directors, supported the notion that it was time for a change.  This was significant, because Nicora himself was one of the most strenuous defenders of the first Vatican anti-money laundering law.  The law had been later reformed, following the first on site visit of MONEYVAL evaluators (who felt very strongly about the need for this reform).  Nicora, however, referred to the reform as «a step backwards».  But Nicora held a position subject to «conflict of interests», as the MONEYVAL report points out, even if Nicora was never explicitly mentioned.  Paragraph 797 of the Report mentions a «serious conflict of interests» for a cardinal that is a member of the IOR Cardinals’ Commission and, at the same time, president of the AIF Board of Directors.  The report did not question Nicora’s personal performance.  Rather, it merely underscored incompatibility among these two responsibilities.

In fact, Nicora’s remaining on board is not at stake, even though he has reached retirement age.  Because Nicora understood that a change was needed, he named René Bruelhart director of the AIF, to make the authority increasingly more independent and international (even inside the Vatican, the board of the AIF was considered disproportionately Italian, compared with the relatively international Holy See personnel).  Francesco De Pasquale was promoted to member of the AIF Board of Directors (AIF Board of Directors members are named by the Pope).  This choice would indicate that De Pasquale had never lost the confidence of  the Secretariat State or the AIF.  Notwithstanding lively internal debates –De Pasquale was also a strong supporter of the first anti-money laundering law– the contribution of the now ex AIF Director was crucial during the first year of the AIF and during these past recent months. When the MONEYVAL report was then published, the Holy See vigorously undertook the commitment to achieve full financial transparency.

What will be De Pasquale’s new responsibilities? The AIF statutes note that AIF Board members must «program, manage and control the Authority’s activity.»  Thus, De Pasquale will be able to contribute his experience to the Vatican’s path to full financial transparency.

At the same time, the appointment of Bruelhart as new director of the AIF may be considered a first step toward the reforms in the Authority recommended by MONEYVAL, and certainly the first of the steps needed to strengthen the AIF’s internal structure.

The Church in the community of nations

This is the reason why the Holy See is present within the diplomatic framework of the community of nations  –the only religious, not political, institution therein. «Reawake and inspire consciences», this is the task of the Church’s international agenda, according to Mamberti. The Social Doctrine of the Church, in fact, is rooted in the heart of man. As is the Charter of the United Nations. In the preamble of the Charter, the founders of the United Nations reaffirmed «faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small». The choice of the word «faith» is revealing. Faith makes reference to  deeply held beliefs. So, the United Nations is based on this faith in man’s rights that all peoples can relate to, no matter what their religious beliefs may be.

Mamberti explains that «the Holy See has always worked to uphold the centrality of the human person. This vision comes from the human person’s true nature. No one should lose sight of the basic principle that man is at the center of the concerns of the international community».

The Church’s struggles

Mamberti presents an example. He remembers the Church’s struggles for life, he underlines that «even if the right to life is affirmed, it is also ever increasingly questioned. It suffices to think about the debate on abortion, on human embryo experimentations, on euthanasia. Countries speak about “reproductive health” euphemistically. And “to die with dignity” is just a slogan to support euthanasia. It is very important to be alert to defend the right to life».

The Holy See diplomatic work is never ending, and it is always more sophisticated. Diplomacy must «fight» a change of vocabulary that Silvano Maria Tomasi, permanent observer of the Holy See to the UN office in Geneva, described as the change of a way of thinking: «The change of the vocabulary –Tomasi wrote –  began with the sexual revolution of 1968 and asserted itself after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989». It was then that the two blocks of the Cold War were replaced by a plurality of actors in the international scenario. «In this new situation – Tomasi explained in a debate on February 17, 2011– the United Nations felt freer.  Moreover: they felt charged with the specific mission to promote practical priorities that – according to the advisors involved – would have led to a more rightful and free world.»

From 1989 on, the new language to sustain this mission has been built up on a series of «key words»: human globalization, sustainable development, good governance, world ethic, cultural diversity, dialogue among civilizations, quality of life, gender, equal opportunities, homophobia, sexual orientation, safe abortion, future generation rights, non-governmental organization, partnerships, civil society, participative democracy, transnational networks, consensus building, inclusive approach, agent-actor of social transformation, best practices, sexual and reproductive rights, right to choose, equal commerce, diverse forms of family.

On the other hand, the words that belong to the Christian-Judaic tradition are excluded, or even tend to disappear: truth, morality, conscience, reason, earth, will, parents, spouse, husband, mother, father, son, daughter, chastity, complementariness, service, authority, hierarchies, law, commandment, dogma, sin, nature, marriage.

The Church’s new (and old) challenges

This new vocabulary is – Tomasi explained – «a mix of words of authentic human aspirations and values with words that represent an individualistic ideology taken to the limit. The latter inspires and guides the managers of world governance. This is how we get to a systematic and lasting transition of words in the documents of the United Nations: from government to governance, from authority to autonomy and rights of the individuals, from spouse to partner, from happiness to quality of life, from given to built, from family to family in all of its forms, from dignity sufferance to the right to die, from majority decision to consensus, from dogma to freedom of interpretation.»

The language of specialized fields also evolved: the Holy See path to financial transparency forced Holy See officials to come to terms with the terminology of international financial law. How to be a «secure» country in the community of nations was the most important topic during the talks with MONEYVAL – the body of the Council of Europe that evaluates the financial adherence of the member States.

Nevertheless, the diplomatic contributions of the Holy See, disseminated like gems inserted in several international documents, gave its fruits. For example, the right to assistance for victims of cluster bombs was a struggle fought by the Holy See in the drafting of the International Convention in Dublin in 2008. The Cluster Munition Convention was signed in Oslo at the end of 2008.

Mamberti reminded the students of Studium Aquinatis that «the Holy See has always been active in the diplomatic front of disarmament. The Holy See was among the founding members of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) in 1957, which goal is to limit, reduce and eliminate nuclear armaments and to facilitate the shared use of atomic energy for pacific purposes. The Holy See has been and is among the countries that negotiated the treaty of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as other related international conventions and treaties. With regards to cluster bombs, the Holy See was one of the most active States: I personally signed on behalf of the Holy See the adhesion to the Convention and I deposited the ratification documents on the first day it was possible in Oslo on December 2008. The Holy See wanted to send a signal to the international community».

A piece of the history of the negotiations of the Cluster Munitions Convention shows the struggles the Holy See is facing in the international arena. After gaining acknowledgement for the right of victims to be assisted, a delegation wanted to amend the paragraph concerning this right, asking that the assistance needed to be «gender sensitive». The Holy See was very aware of  this: from this addition, each country could be forced to be «gender sensitive» and to develop legislation for a new kind of «health care system» – this process is called “soft law”. This is why the Holy See  worked in order to make clear that everything was applied according to the legislation of each State. It is the same reason why the Holy See did not want to sign the document for the UN declaration on decriminalization of homosexuality, thus becoming the target of international complaints. It was not because the Holy See is against «LGBT rights». The Holy See maintains that, already, the Universal Human Rights Declaration covers all human beings. The so-called «gender sensitivity», or the declaration on decriminalization of homosexuality, would in some ways assess that there are men that are more equal than other men. The question is: why to state the need to decriminalize the homosexuality, why to have anti-homophobic law, when Universal Righet already protect all the human beings from every discrimination?

The Church’s struggle for human rights

The Holy See cares deeply about human rights. The concern for religious freedom has always been one of the core commitments of the Holy See. «Christians or other believers – Mamberti says – are persecuted and discriminated in subtle ways, and this happens when religious freedom is reduced to freedom of conscience or freedom of worship. Religious freedom does not only deal with a personal religious component, it also deals with community». Mamberti recalled that «John Paul II said that religious freedom is the litmus test of human rights. Where religious freedom is under threat, all human rights are under threat. I can assure you that defending religious freedom is the main task of the Holy See, and this brings benefits not only to Christians and Catholic believers, but to all believers.»

The human person is at the core of the Holy See International agenda. That is why the Holy See is committed to the common good. «Human rights – Mamberti says – are a common patrimony to defend, without any alteration. Fundamental rights are not the fruit of a consensus or of majorities, they do not come from the State or from any other human institution. Human rights are part of the human being: they are  a gift  that God gave to humanity».

Recently, the Church has been accused of being a champion of a New World Order, because of the recent reflections of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace about an «authority with universal competences», a super partes international organization to regulate international finance and also the relations among States in order to get to the Common Good – as John XXIII put it in Pacem in Terris. Is this authority a sort of great Leviathan? Or is international finance the Leviathan, as msgr. Mario Toso, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, maintained? The United Nations seems to aim to a New World Order, and this is the reason why it is creating – in its documents – a sort of new anthropology.

A book has been published in Italy that brings to light for the first time in a direct and detailed way the anti-Catholic aversion of the UN and the EU: «Contro il cristianesimo. L’ONU e l’Unione Europea come nuova ideologia  [Against Christianity: The UN and the European Union as a New Ideology] », by Eugenia Roccella and Lucetta Scaraffia.  In the introduction to the volume, Roccella and Scaraffia identify the roots of the new ideology as the «separation between sexuality and procreation». «More –they write– than a different model of sexual behavior, but conceptually analogous to those that have preceded it in history, this is a question of a real and true utopia, because it is based upon the idea that human beings can find happiness in the realization of their sexual desires, without the moral, biological, social, and relational limitations linked to procreation. This utopia has its roots in the sexual revolution in the West during the 1960′s, and it has not yet been disputed, even though it seems not to have kept its promises. It is a utopia that echoes another, one that brings painful memories: that the selection of new human beings can create a better, more healthy, more beautiful humanity».

It is not just a matter of words. It is a matter of ideology. The conceptual scenario has its own dynamics, and this leads to concrete transformations in several branches of social and political life. Religious freedom and the way it has been handled is an example. An approach to religious freedom linked to intolerance was first included in the Declaration on the principles of Tolerance of UNESCO in 1995 and was then promoted in the Resolution 2004/36, adopted in the 60th session of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations in 2004. A new chapter was then opened with resolution 61/164 (Combating the defamations of religions), adopted in the General Assembly of the United Nations December, 19th, 2006. In that resolution, religion is used to limit other basic freedoms (the right to freedom of expression) and to oppress religious minorities when some impose with force and terrorism their religious ideologies, and deny a place in the public sphere to others’ faith and beliefs.

As always, one should look back in time. It was in 1981 – when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief – that the concept of tolerance  was placed side by side to religion or belief. «But tolerance – Tomasi explained – is a tool, not a right. In fact, while with religious freedom we mean the guarantee of Government that individuals have freedom of belief and the guarantee of freedom of worship for individuals and groups – including the freedom not to believe in any god– religious tolerance is about accepting or permitting beliefs or religious practices that are different from one’s own.»

These are just some of the hurdles the Holy See faces in its commitment to the Common Good. A commitment that comes out from believing in the inherent dignity of human beings. The same belief that the founders of the United Nations identified in reaffirming «faith» in fundamental human rights, and in the dignity and worth of the human person.

The most relevant, positive ratings are two: the one concerning the IOR (the Vatican’s Religious Works Institute), which security standards surpass those required by Vatican law (paragraph 39 of the Executive Summary of the Report); and the one on the Vatican legislation on secrecy, that is considered largely compliant with international standards (paragraph 50).  It is also important to note the positive rating regarding the level of international cooperation. Unmistakably, the report dismisses a vision of the IOR as a place of opacity and illicit dealings, and of an uncooperative Vatican closed to scrutiny and full of financial mysteries.

The Holy See’s path to financial transparency dates back to 2009, when it signed the Monetary Agreement with Europe.  The agreement requested the Holy See to develop anti-money laundering legislation within one year. The year after, a Benedict XVI’s motu proprio promulgates anti-money laundering Vatican law n. 127 , and establishes the Authority for Financial Information (AIF). Cardinal Attilio Nicora is appointed president of the AIF, while Marcello Condemi – the “architect” of law 127 – and Francesco De Pasquale are respectively appointed member and general director of the AIF. Both Condemi and De Pasquale come from the Bank of Italy, where they were mid-ranking  bank officials.

Condemi drafted a law based on Italian legislation to combat money laundering.  In February, the Holy See asked MONEYVAL to submit to a peer evaluation process.  The process allows States to ensure financial transfers within and among them are legitimate.  MONEYVAL starts the procedure in April and – in November 2011 – the evaluators come for an on-site visit to the Vatican.  They seek to understand how the law worked, and above all to have it adhere to international standards. The evaluators found several vulnerabilities – in many cases these weaknesses are the same than Italy’s, described in that country’s GAFI peer evaluation in 2005 – and asked the Holy See to meet international standards. The Holy See complied:  Law 127 is revised and substantially amended.  In January, through decree 159, the changes go into effect.  In April, the revised provisions are more permanently enacted in a new law.The old world is turned upside down at the Vatican.  The MONEYVAL evaluation promotes positive change, and the evaluators themselves commend the new law, which separates roles and responsibilities, incorporates international recommendations and engages the Secretariat of State. The dynamics between the then president of the IOR, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, the AIF members and the Vatican Secretariat of State change. It is an internal cold and hot war, that explodes in the media with the publication of several leaks.  In the meantime, the MONEYVAL evaluators return to the Vatican for a follow up visit, and overall  give the new law a thumbs up.

The MONEYVAL report is released on July, 18, and presented to the press by msgr. Ettore Ballestrero under-secretary for the relations with the States of the Vatican Secretariat of State.  The report is substantially positive.  It takes into consideration HOLY SEE peculiarities – like being an economic monopolistic State where the market does not exist.  The most serious flaw the report identifies has to do with the AIF: it underlines that the double role of Cardinal Nicora as President of the Authority and member of the Cardinal Commission –  n. 797 of the report – of the IOR constitutes a “serious conflict of interests”, and recommends to separate the Authority’s function of intelligence gathering from the everyday supervision of Vatican finances. The next step will probably be further reforms of the Authority for Financial Information.