Pope Francis makes important decisions and takes on strong stands, expediently. He meets everybody, and speaks to everyone. Then he makes up his mind, often – as recounted by his first ‘first secretary’, Monsignor Alfred Xuereb – after having prayed. Pope Francis takes his decisions the way Jesuits give their responses. i.e., in a short, straightforward way, leaving to the others the opportunity to personally develop the response.

Hence, the establishment of Pontifical commissions of reference on the Institute for Religious Works (the so called Vatican bank) and on the governing of the Vatican. The commissions had a limited mandate (they gave their final report to the Pope on May 22) and had been established with the idea of counseling the Pope. Likewise, the Secretariat for the Economy, the new Council for the Economy, as well as the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors: all of these bodies have been established without statutes, which are left to the internal discussion of the members within the new bodies. Similarly, the “complaint office” for ‘delicta graviora’ within the disciplinary branch of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: the office does not have a stated mandate yet, but the chairman has been already appointed in the person of bishop José Luis Mollaghan of Rosario (Argentina), whom Pope Francis transferred from a dioceses which did not particularly loved him. And also similarly, the Council of Eight Cardinals, whose establishment was legitimated by a chirograph only at the eve of their first meeting.

Those who see behind these decisions a defined program of action probably do not take into account that Pope Francis himself, in an interview he granted to the Italian prominent newspaper “Corriere della Sera”, underscored that he «did not have a specific plan for the Church,» and the he just «followed the indications of the General Congregations,» i.e. the pre-Conclave meetings of Cardinals.

Pope Francis has in the end one only true goal: that the Church be missionary. In order to have a missionary Church, Pope Francis wants a credible Church. Not only must the Church not be too “mundane” (bound to earthly preoccupations), it should not seem mundane. The Church should not be confined by earthly tasks and linked to struggles for power.

Hence, a series of other Papal choices. For instance, the first Pope Francis’ consistory surprised everyone for the promotion of archbishops (and, in the Haiti case, of a bishop) hailing from a peripheral and unimportant dioceses, while on the other hand Pope Francis did not give the red hat to archbishops in charge of dioceses who have always received them and become cardinals because of tradition and influence. This was how the Pope wanted to show that there are no first and second class dioceses, and that bishops in all dioceses may become cardinals, if they dedicate their lives to serve.

Even the reshuffles among members of the congregations, which led to a list of “promoted” and “dismissed” drafted by media outlets, should be read with a broader view. Simply, Pope Francis did not want power to be concentrated in the hands of very few people, and wanted to show that everyone can be equal.

A victim of this view was Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference. In the reshuffles of the members of the Congregation, Cardinal Bagnasco had been relieved of being a member of the Congregation for Bishops and replaced by his vice-president at the Italian Bishops’ Conference, the Archbishop of Perugia Gualtiero Bassetti, whom the Pope later created cardinal. Cardinal Bagnasco had been confirmed as a member of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, but only until his mandate expires.

These choices were interpreted as a clear Pope Francis repudiation of Cardinal Bagnasco and his way of managing the Italian Bishops’ Conference. Pope Francis’ speech last Monday indicated this was not so. The Pope had not gone to the Italian Bishops’ Conference to impose his personal views. He was giving the inaugural speech by invitation of the very same Cardinal Bagnasco, to back once more a missionary turn.

The Italian bishops discussed and decided that they still want the Pope to choose their president. On the other hand, they paved the way for more collegiality, thus outlining the reform of their statutes: they will vote to elect three candidates, and the Pope will be able to choose among the three chosen. It was said the Pope was deeply disappointed, since it was not exactly what he expected and wanted from the bishops. In fact, the Pope just wanted to promote a wider discussion, in order to reach more collegiality. He is not interested in how the election will be handled. He wanted the bishops to show their unity.

Looking back at Pope Francis’ decisions, it is evident that his missionary zeal takes precedence over any other issue. And the missionary zeal goes together with the social dimension, as shown in the “Evangelii Gaudium” chapter entitled: ‘The social dimension of evangelization.”

Pope Francis has in fact a strong sensitivity to social issues. He had been a young militant of the “Guardia de Hierro” (the Iron Guard), a rightist branch of Peronism. And Peronism, ultimately, is not just a regime. It is a sort of “box of ideas,” where social issues, Populism, even some Christianity, are mixed up together. An Argentinean source defined Peronism a “mystic box.”

To this background, Bergoglio added the ideas of the “Theology of the People,” the Argentine branch of Liberation Theology, Marxism-free and at the same time imbued with the promotion of popular piety which Pope Francis really put at the basis of his formation. Theology of the People taught Pope Francis not to go overboard on moralism and academicism. Jorge Mario Bergoglio used to say that diocesan synods’ outcomes could be just documents to be kept on bookshelves. He rather wanted priests to spend their time with people and bring the issue of the poor of the Villas Miserias to public attention. This kind of sensitivity, Pope Francis transferred to his pontificate.

Even Pope Francis diplomatic stances are imbued with this view. Prayer is the main Pope Francis’ diplomatic tool. It was proven during the most recent trip to Israel: in a an unprecedented gesture, Pope Francis stopped to pray at the wall that separates Israel from the West Bank in the city of Bethlehem on Sunday; then, he invited the Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas for a joint prayer in his house in the Vatican; and at the end of the Ecumenical Celebrations at the Holy Sepulcher, which he celebrated with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Costantinople Bartholomew I, he was inspired by popular piety, and concluded his speech saying that «when disunity make us disheartened, let us pray the Holy Mother of God.»

As a Pontiff, Pope Francis preaches, but he does not want to take strong stances on the big issues. When he meets the most important people in the world, Pope Francis speaks to them in general terms. Last November, the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, went to visit Pope Francis and told him about his difficulties within the World Bank (he is not a banker, and he faces strong internal resistance) and explained to the Pope the World Bank’s project for the poor. Pope Francis replied paternally: «I pray for you.»

Speaking to the UN agencies on May 9, Pope Francis strongly stood for the rights of the unborn children, but at the same time he did not even mention a possible reform of the United Nations, that the Holy See has been requesting for years. When Italian lawmakers asked him to have mass with them, the Pope simply made his homily on the readings of the day and then left without greeting anyone. The homily was about corruption, since the Gospel was on corruption, and perhaps the interpretation of the homily as an admonishment to politicians is too far-fetched, not reflecting the actual sense of his words.

This is how Pope Francis combines evangelization and social issues. He does not address the big issues. He just gives the Church’s view, yet trying to concretely use his influence to advance some social issue (human trafficking, the struggle against poverty) while maintaining a purely pastoral point of view.

Given these examples (and more could be provided), it is possible to assume that – after one and a half year of pontificate – Pope Francis has not been fully understood yet. His actions are interpreted through categories which are simply nonsense for a bishop nurtured in the Latin American environment. In Latin America, evangelization, social issues and popular piety are mixed together, and the big issues rarely grab the attention of people. Pastoral works comes before everything. From the other side of the ocean, the Pope’s role in the global world is considered something very far.

The new statute of the Vatican Financial Information Authority (AIF) better aligns the Authority with new Vatican legislation, and with international standards. It also develops a new kind of Authority. Conceived by the drafter of the first Vatican money laundering law as a sort of «monocratic» authority (a Vatican dicastery presided by a cardinal with broad overall powers) the Financial Information Authority is taking a new shape as a result of progressive improvements to its statue.  

The appointment procedures for the president of the authority have changed. According to article 4 of the old motu proprio that established the Authority, the president was appointed by the pope, just like the head of a Vatican dicastery, and so it was taken for granted that the president should be a cardinal, or at least an archbishop. From November 21 on – when the new statutes has come into effect – the president will be chosen, together with the other four members of the board of directors, «among persons of proven reputation, free from any conflicts of interest and having recognized professional competence in the legal, economic and financial fields as well as in the subject-matters that fall within the scope of activity of the Authority.»

The statute of the Financial Information Authority makes the Authority brand new. The director becomes one of the statutory office holders, to be appointed together with a deputy director. Both are appointed by the Secretary of State.

This is how the Vatican legal/institutional framework to counter money laundering and prevent the financing of terrorism has been further improved, following the recommendations given by MONEYVAL, the Council of Europe’s committee that evaluates the path to financial transparency of its member states.

Tracing back the path that led to this new statute helps us to appreciate all the work done at an institutional level by the Vatican.

The old money laundering law, modeled in the Italian money laundering law, focused the Authority’s functions on its president, just as if he was the head of a Vatican dicastery. Cardinal Attilio Nicora, one of the sponsors of the former law, was appointed president of the Authority. Nicora is still the president of the reformed Authority, which will oversee all the Holy See’s financial and economic affairs.

At the time he was appointed president of the AIF, Nicora was also president of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA) and a member of the board of cardinals of the Institute for Religious Works (IOR) and of the Governorate of Vatican City State. All of these entities were under his supervision as president of the AIF.

The former money laundering law had several shortfalls. For example, a division of labor was missing. The responsibilities of the Vatican Gendarmes Corps, Vatican City State Governorate and Secretariat of State were not precisely delineated. The international cooperation system did not take into account the Holy See’s idiosyncrasies.

These «shortcomings» were a result of the law having been written by external consultants, surely competent on money laundering, but seemingly not cognizant of the Holy See’s sovereignty and its particular nature.

This is why Holy See officials had to adjust the legal/institutional framework. The new money laundering law was issued in a decree on January 25 and met many of the MONEYVAL evaluators’ observations. The new law represented the first quick fix of the institutional framework, to give more weight to the Secretariat of State and to build a customized financial system, tailored to Vatican City State’s particularities (such as the Vatican having no banks and no market economy.)

The MONEYVAL plenary assembly welcomed the changes, and it issued in July 12, 2012 a generally positive report on the Holy See/Vatican City State. The report, as could be expected, requested some adjustments to the law.

Some of these adjustments regarded the Financial Information Authority, and the Holy See carried forward the reform process step by step. In December 2012, two adjustments to the money laundering law gave the AIF the power to issue memorandums of understanding with its counterparts in other countries without the prerequisite of a nihil obstat (no objection) from the Secretariat of State.

These two adjustments further improved the procedures for cooperation and international exchange, and facilitated the AIF joining the Egmont Group (comprised of financial intelligence units from all over the world) in July 2013.

The enhanced authority of the AIF led to the signing of several memorandums of understanding, the most important of them with the U.S.’ FinCEN and with the Italian Unit for Financial Information.

In the meantime, a more general reform of the Vatican financial system was being prepared. With a motu proprio issued August 8, 2013 Pope Francis established the Financial Security Committee (whose members include the director of the Authority), and in October 8, 2013 a new law was issued, which gave the Holy See a sort of «single reference text for financial issues,» according to its characterization by the Vatican Secretary for the Relations with States, Monsignor Dominique Mamberti.

There are three important novelties in the new AIF statute: first of all, it strengthens the independence of the Authority, thus protecting it from possible interferences and power struggles among very prominent people within the Roman Curia; it officially assigns to the Authority prudential supervision, an important issue noted in the MONEYVAL report; and, lastly, as requested by the evaluators, it distinguishes the two functions of the Authority, by establishing two different departments, the Office of Supervision and Regulation and the Office of Financial Intelligence. This distinction made some observer note that the Authority for Financial Information could even be renamed “Authority for Oversight and Financial Information.”

The new AIF president will probably be a lay person, while the tenure of current board of directors seems to be reaching to an end. The board is comprised of Italians, coming (with a couple of exceptions) from the Bank of Italy milieu, who view their work through the anachronistic lens of  a Vatican-Italy special relation.

The appointments of the new president and board of directors, expected soon, will put an end to the only conflict of interest that the MONEYVAL report highlighted. The report did not name the person in the conflict of interest, but it was evident that it was Cardinal Nicora. In paragraph 797, the report underscores that «one of the members of the Cardinals’ Committee is also President of the AIF. This could raise concerns regarding a serious conflict of interest. It is therefore strongly recommended that the same person should not hold positions in the supervisory body and a supervised body.»

One of the very last actions of Benedict XVI was the renewal of the IOR cardinals’ commission. In the commission, Nicora was replaced by Cardinal Domenico Calcagno, his successor as head of the APSA. The decision was clearly to avoid a conflict of interest, but it was nevertheless criticized.

In the Holy See Press Office Bollettino that broke the news about the issuing of the new AIF statute, it was also announced that the professional services agency Ernst & Young was being hired by the Vatican City State Governorate as a consultant. According to the Bollettino, the choice was made after a «procedure of selection, » but this note cannot dispel the shadow of a conflict of interest, since Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui, one of the members of the commission that Pope Francis appointed to rationalize expenses and functions in the 37 Vatican offices, works for Ernst & Young.

Are external consultants really able to understand the Vatican’s peculiarities? The progression of the money laundering law proved that, ultimately, only institutional decisions taken within the walls of the Vatican succeed in projecting the Vatican forward to face new challenges in the world.

The experts of the Promontory Financial Group, retained by the IOR to screen its accounts, are doing nothing more that carrying out what the IOR was already doing. MONEYVAL’s report praised the IOR’s commitment, welcomed the Institute guidelines to apply international transparency standards, and underscored (in paragraph 476) that «the IOR launched a process of client  database review and update in November 2010. The IOR demonstrated a clear commitment and dedication to complete this process by the end of 2012. Six persons are involved in this project and are actively approaching clients to receive updated information.»

Some complaints are already percolating inside the Vatican Walls. It is rumored that the hiring of the Promontory Financial Group has been particularly expensive, although it is not known how much it is actually costing. It would also be interesting to know how much the Vatican is spending to have the Spanish bank Grupo Santander (whose representative in Italy is Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, former president of the IOR Council of Superintendency until he got a no confidence vote) to counsel the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See.

While nothing is known about these costs, there is a downsizing of the Vatican dicasteries’ personnel taking place. It has been explained as a response to a needed austerity and spending review. Five people have been reportedly removed from the Congregation for the Clergy, and it is rumored there is a list of 30 people in the various Vatican dicasteries ready to leave, some of them recalled by their dioceses but others sent back by initiative of the dicasteries themselves. This list would have been put together at the request of Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, President of the Vatican City State Governorate and, it seems, a veritable deus ex machina inside the Vatican.

Reasons for downsizing the Curia would be part of a wider project of reform. Instead of sending Vatican officials around the world to report back any problems, the Vatican Congregations would be asking the countries’ conferences of bishops to report any problems, leaving them the possibility to take decisions and thus making Roman central power gradually less important. Pope Francis’ reform is intended to give more power to the «peripheries». In the meantime, in the very center of the «empire», there is a risk of a multiplication of small conflicts of interest that would damage the Holy See’s reputation. Consultants are external, with a finite commitment defined in contracts subject to expiration and early termination. The mandates of the commissions appointed by Pope Francis are also limited in time.  Is it truly a good idea to base the reform of the Curia on the advice of outsiders? Is outsourcing in the Vatican really the solution?