Prevost’s motu proprio recenters decision‑making in APSA, echoing Francis’ earlier intent but clarifying roles: “Now, clearer responsibilities.”

Vatican City

With an Apostolic Letter issued motu proprio on October 6, Pope Leo XIV — born Robert Prevost — redrew the map of the Holy See’s financial governance. The document, titled “Coniuncta cura,” repeals the 2022 rescript that had granted the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR) an exclusive role in handling the Holy See’s financial investments. In its place, the new decree restores a shared architecture: the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA) returns to the foreground as the ordinary manager of investments, while the IOR remains a key service provider rather than the sole gatekeeper.

At the heart of the reform is a simple but consequential idea: co‑responsibility. Financial investment activities, the text states, must align with an Investment Policy approved by the Council for the Economy and overseen by the Investment Committee created under the Apostolic Constitution *Praedicate Evangelium*. In operational terms, APSA is tasked with carrying out investments “through” the IOR’s structure — unless the competent bodies determine that using external intermediaries is more efficient or appropriate. The nuance is decisive: the IOR’s capabilities are recognized, but not monopolized.

For insiders, “Coniuncta cura” reads like both a course correction and a continuity document. As Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis) did across a decade of reforms, Leo XIV underscores ethical criteria, risk discipline, and independent oversight. But where a 2022 tightening centralized execution within the Vatican bank, the new text re‑balances functions to match institutional charters: APSA as the sovereign asset manager of the Apostolic See; the IOR as a prudentially regulated institute serving the Church’s works; and the Council for the Economy, Secretariat for the Economy, and Investment Committee as the supervisory spine.

Why move now? First, the Holy See’s investment posture has been under scrutiny for years, buffeted by market volatility, reputational risks, and headline‑making judicial cases. Second, a new papacy’s credibility often turns on whether it can translate principles into operating rules. By tying investment decisions to a policy framework and a standing committee — then letting APSA choose the most efficient channels under that framework — Leo XIV signals a preference for professional mandates, clear accountability, and optionality in execution.

The change also rewires incentives. Under the exclusivity model, all investment roads led to the IOR, consolidating operational leverage in a single institution. The new regime introduces competitive tension: if the IOR’s platform is the most efficient, it will be used by default; if specialized mandates or cost structures favor an outside intermediary under the Investment Committee’s guardrails, APSA may look outward. This ‘qualified openness’ aims to minimize concentration risk while avoiding the fragmentation that dogged the Holy See in the past.

Crucially, “Coniuncta cura” does not diminish the IOR’s stature so much as redefine it. The institute remains central to custody, payments, and fiduciary execution within Vatican jurisdiction; it is expected to compete on service quality, transparency, and pricing. For APSA, the reform is both a responsibility and a test: as the ordinary manager, it must prove that strategic asset allocation, manager selection, and risk control can be handled with the same professionalism expected of sovereign asset owners elsewhere.

The policy framework is designed to keep ethics front‑and‑center. The Investment Policy, previously codified and now reaffirmed, excludes speculative behavior inconsistent with the Church’s mission and bars instruments that conflict with human dignity, creation care, and social justice. The Committee’s job is to calibrate prudence and purpose — ensuring that returns are sustainable, risks are measured, and capital is not put to uses that undermine the very witness the Church seeks to offer.

Historically, Vatican finance swung between dispersion and centralization. Before *Praedicate Evangelium* (2022), multiple dicasteries and foundations stewarded funds with limited coordination. Francis’ reform introduced a single investment policy and stronger controls, but — critics argued — left confusion about ‘who does what’ in execution. Leo XIV’s move answers that ambiguity: policy and oversight remain centralized; execution is entrusted primarily to APSA; the IOR is the preferred, not exclusive, channel; and external intermediaries are permissible when they demonstrably serve the Holy See’s interests.

In practice, the next twelve months will hinge on plumbing rather than proclamations. APSA will need to map existing portfolios, review mandates, and stress‑test liquidity under different scenarios. The IOR will likely expand its service‑level agreements to compete for APSA’s business on transparent terms. The Investment Committee will monitor that decisions adhere to the policy and that exceptions — for example, hiring an external custodian or manager — are documented and justified.

The Council for the Economy, composed of cardinals and lay financial experts, becomes the reform’s stabilizer. Its ability to demand timely reporting — performance, risk, and compliance dashboards — will determine whether the new architecture produces better outcomes or merely shifts boxes on an org chart. The Secretariat for the Economy will remain the nerve center for budgeting and control, providing the horizontal oversight that binds the system.

Reactions across Rome were quick and revealing. Reform advocates welcomed the end of a ‘single‑pipe’ investment model as a victory for best practice. Others warned of a return to past fragmentation if governance lacks teeth. Yet both camps conceded that the document’s phrasing is more precise than prior norms — a sign that the drafters learned from a decade of experimentation. One senior official, speaking on background, described the reform as “Francis’ ends with Leo’s means.”

For Pope Leo XIV, the stakes are more pastoral than technical. Financial credibility underwrites the Church’s freedom to evangelize, serve the poor, and maintain institutions that educate and heal. Clear roles reduce temptation; clean rules reduce suspicion. If the new balance holds — APSA accountable, IOR competitive, committees vigilant — the Holy See may finally move past the cycle of scandal‑reform‑scandal that has overshadowed valuable work performed daily in silence.

Two metrics will reveal whether “Coniuncta cura” succeeds. First, transparency: will public reports on investment policy adherence, returns, and costs become more regular, intelligible, and complete? Second, resilience: will portfolios meet liquidity needs, ethical screens, and long‑term obligations without assuming undue risk? Neither metric requires revealing sensitive positions; both require institutional humility and disciplined process.

Ironically, by loosening the IOR’s exclusivity, Leo XIV may make the bank stronger. Competition can sharpen focus; service to mission can trump turf wars. In short, the reform is not anti‑IOR — it is pro‑clarity. And clarity is the currency the Vatican most needs in the markets and in the minds of the faithful.

In the short term, expect transitional frictions: contract reviews, reporting backlogs, and spirited debates on whether to internalize specific mandates or outsource them. In the medium term, if APSA and the IOR align on shared KPIs and risk limits under the Investment Committee’s oversight, the Holy See’s investment posture could become more coherent, less politicized, and more credible to counterparties. That, not headlines, is the real prize of this counter‑reform.

Analysis: “Coniuncta cura” codifies co‑responsibility — policy centralized, execution professionalized, and ethics operationalized. The next test is implementation discipline.