(LifeSiteNews) — The recent appointment of Sister Simona Brambilla as Prefect of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, announced by Pope Francis on January 6, 2025, is yet another controversial decision of this pontificate. It is an appointment that has left many observers puzzled for reasons worth examining closely.
First, it is important to underline that Sister Brambilla does not have the appropriate qualifications for such an important position. A trained nurse with a doctorate in psychology, the new prefect has no specific training in canon law or theology, fundamental skills for leading a dicastery that deals with erecting institutes of consecrated life, granting them licenses, merging, uniting or suppressing them, approving or regulating constitutions, and ensuring fidelity to the Church’s mission. Meanwhile, Sister Brambilla is perfectly in tune with the ‘synodal’ mentality, as evidenced by her appointment as a member of the XVI Ordinary Council of the General Secretariat of the Synod in December 2024 (that and the fact she is a woman being the underlying reason why the Pope chose her). This raises further concerns: what vision will she bring to the governance of such a delicate sector of ecclesial life?
Secondly, the appointment of Sister Brambilla seems – according to some analysts – to violate openly the Code of Canon Law. I write “seems” because, as we will see, the issue is complex. Canon 129 §1 of the Code of Canon Law states: “Those who have received sacred orders are qualified, according to the norm of the prescripts of the law, for the power of governance.” Indeed, Catholic theology has always taught that the power of jurisdiction or governance generally derives from the power of orders (i.e., being validly ordained as a priest). Note: generally does not mean absolutely, i.e., it does not mean always. The same Code prescribes, in Canon 131 §1, that “ordinary power of governance is that which is joined to a certain office by the law itself; delegated, that which is granted to a person but not by means of an office.” And again, in Canon 131 § 2: “the ordinary power of governance can be either proper or vicarious.”
The proper ordinary power of jurisdiction is primarily exercised by the Pope, as the supreme pastor of the universal Church, and by the bishops, as governors of their respective dioceses. The authority of the curial officials is not of proper ordinary jurisdiction, as they act as collaborators of the Pope and, therefore, as his vicars. It is debated, in truth, whether the power of jurisdiction of the Roman Curia is delegated or vicarious. The debate is not resolved, but the documents seem to lean – in my opinion quite clearly – towards the second option, i.e. vicarious.
It is sufficient to say that both vicarious and delegated authority derive from the proper ordinary power of a superior. Vicarious and delegated powers differ from each other in that the former is permanent and allows for an extension of action coinciding with that of the proper ordinary power from which it derives (for example, the vicar of a bishop acts in all respects as a bishop and ceases to be a vicar when his superior ordinary ceases to be such), while delegated power is limited, both temporally and in terms of purpose and scope of competence (for example, the bishop can delegate to a priest the administration of the sacrament of Confirmation). The bishop is called, in canonical language and not by chance, an ‘ordinary,’ precisely because only the pope and bishops possess a proper ordinary power of governance, which derives from their power of orders.
Article 1 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus by John Paul II (1988) explicitly states: “the Roman Curia is the complex of dicasteries [note how even before Francis this term was used to refer to curial entities in a generic sense] and institutes which help the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his supreme pastoral office for the good and service of the whole Church and of the particular Churches. And the subsequent Article 6 § 1 establishes: “on the death of the Supreme Pontiff, all moderators and members of the dicasteries cease from their office.” This latter article particularly highlights how curial appointments have the nature of vicarious power of governance because it is a property of vicarious power to cease when the office of the holder (i.e., the Pope) ceases.
The principles and criteria for the service of the Roman Curia found within Francis’ Praedicate Evangelium (II.5) are, at least in this, in continuity with the vicarious conception of curial appointments adopted by Tradition and in particular, as we have seen, by John Paul II in Pastor Bonus, so much so that it is explicitly stated: “Each curial institution carries out its proper mission by virtue of the power it has received from the Roman Pontiff, in whose name it operates with vicarious power in the exercise of his primatial munus. For this reason, any member of the faithful can preside over a Dicastery or Office, depending on the power of governance and the specific competence and function of the Dicastery or Office in question.”
In theory (and this has also happened in practice), it is possible for a non-ordained person (such as a nun) to receive a governance assignment by delegation or by vicarious designation from the office holder. If Sister Brambilla is to be considered a vicar, and she is at the head of the Dicastery, from which office does her power derive? The answer is simple: she is the vicar of Francis himself, who holds the principal office, that of the Pope. In fact, all Dicasteries (which before Francis were called Congregations or Pontifical Councils, and the change of name is not accidental: the word ‘dicastery’ has a more generical, less hierarchical and softer connotation) have never been offices in themselves, but dependent on the principal office, which is the papacy, as can be seen from the regulatory framework we have just indicated.
The real novelty is this: Pope Francis is pursuing a strong policy of centralizing the governance of the Church. While in the classical vision of governance subsidiarity prevails – the principle that local problems are solved by local authorities due to the proximity to the interest to be taken care of – in Francis’ vision of governance everything must be under the direct control of the Pontiff. Thus, it is necessary, so to speak, to reduce the number or autonomy of the subordinates. The curial Dicasteries must become longae manus of the Pope. In this way, the centralization of governance carried out by Francis becomes increasingly evident. In recent years, we have had several examples of centralizing measures by Francis. Just think of the recent reorganization of the Vicariate of Rome, which has led to a depletion of the functions of the Cardinal Vicar and a centralization of major decisions in the hands of the Pope (see Apostolic Constitution In ecclesiarum communione, 2023, and Regolamento Generale del Vicariato di Roma, October 2024).
It should be noted, therefore, that the scandalous novelty of this appointment does not lie in the fact that a non-ordained person receives the power of governance, because her power of governance is indeed ordinary, but vicarious, nor that it is a woman who receives it, although Sister Brambilla is the first woman in history to hold the position of prefect. This has already happened in other contexts, for example, in the Middle Ages. Consider the case of the mitred abbesses of Conversano, in Italy. They were Benedictine superior nuns who, from 1266 and with the approval of Pope Clement IV, had the power of governance equivalent to that of an abbot (i.e., an ordinary), so much so that they wore a mitre and crosier, despite not being ordained or ordainable as bishops. The mitred abbesses enjoyed ordinary power of governance, but vicarious, and did so lawfully even without having the power of orders. Consider also the case of Cardinal Giacomo Antonelli (1806-1876), the famous Secretary of State under Pope Pius IX, who was appointed secular prelate and referendary of the supreme tribunal, and then also assessor of the criminal tribunal (all positions of power of governance, according to the canon law doctrine of that time), ten years before receiving diaconal ordination in 1840, and was never consecrated as a priest or bishop. These are rare cases, but they do set a precedent.
I believe that what Pope Francis has done is in line with the Apostolic Constitution Praedicate Evangelium, which he himself signed in 2022 after nine years of long work, and which opened the door to the possibility of assigning curial positions to laypeople: “The Pope, the Bishops and other ordained ministers are not the sole evangelizers in the Church. – as stated in p. 10 of Preamble – This must necessarily be taken into account in the reform of the Curia, which should consequently make provision for the involvement of lay women and men, also in roles of government and responsibility”; and it also seems to me to be in line with the Code of Canon Law, which, I reiterate, as illustrated by historical cases, enunciates a general and not absolute principle.
According to Cardinal Ghirlanda, Pope Francis’ trusted canon lawyer, the power of governance in the Church does not come from the sacrament of Orders, but from the canonical mission. This statement is incorrect because it contradicts the general principle expressed by the Code of Canon Law mentioned earlier. Some have seen in these words a break with Tradition, and they are correct. Certainly, as we have seen, there have been historical exceptions, but they are only apparent exceptions, in the sense that anyone who has received the power of governance without having the orders power received it from the principal office of the Pope, and therefore the power of governance of the delegate or vicar descends from the orders power of the delegator or by canonical designation from the holder of the principal office. It can never be the case that a man without orders power attributes to himself or others a power of governance.
In this sense, Praedicate Evangelium, at least from this point of view, is in line with other past documents that regulate the Curia and the relationship between power of orders and power of governance. In the Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (1943), Pius XII teaches that bishops “are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.” Only the Pope and the bishops, as the latter being the governors of the dioceses, are ordinaries in the proper sense.
The norms of Pastor Bonus confirm that the Dicasteries act in the name and on behalf of the Pontiff and therefore enjoy the vicarious power of governance by the Pope. Francis, in the Apostolic Constitution Praedicate Evangelium (2022), writes that “the Roman Curia is not set between the Pope and the Bishops” (I.8) and that, although it “is primarily an instrument at the service of the successor of Peter to assist him in his mission,” (II.1) it also serves “the Bishops, successors of the Apostles, in ways that correspond to each one’s specific nature” (III. article 1).
What, then, is the scandalous novelty? There are three elements to consider in addition to Sister Brambilla’s lack of appropriate training. First, Pope Francis has bowed to worldly logic, that is, he appointed Sister Brambilla simply because she is a woman, to introduce DEI in the Vatican and once again enjoy the worldly applause that follows these senseless ideologies. Secondly, we are dealing with a convinced synodalist (the effects of which are already visible, as we will see later). Thirdly, she has been accompanied by a pro-prefect, that is, a deputy whose functions and areas of competence are unclear.
Emphasis must be placed on this third novelty: the Pope has appointed Cardinal Ángel Fernández Artime, former Rector of the Salesians, as pro-prefect alongside Sister Brambilla. This solution seems to be a facade. The division of powers has been tried out in another Dicastery, and it is no coincidence that it is the Dicastery for Evangelization, newly established by Pope Francis in 2022 and considered by him to be one of the most important, where the prefect is explicitly indicated as the Pope himself, and its governance is accompanied by two pro-prefects. This element further highlights how Pope Francis wants to reform the Curia to increasingly centralize power and delegate it as little as possible.
RELATED: Pope Francis appoints first woman to lead a Vatican dicastery
What are the strategy and effects of this dual management? Simply put, the strategy is to separate the media aspect from the real one, so that everything appears good and open-minded in the eyes of the world. In reality, substantial decisions remain firmly in the hands of the Pontiff. The pro-Bergoglio effect is one of mutual control: the pro-prefect controls the designated prefect, and vice versa, somewhat like the ancient Spartan diarchy or Roman Consulate, to prevent one of the two from taking too much initiative, something very undesirable to the Pontiff, as Vatican events of recent years amply demonstrate.
However, one should not ignore the possibility that this dual power could also have an effect that works against Pope Francis, namely that this decision to appoint a pro-prefect could increase the number of discontented people, even among his own supporters. Does Cardinal Artime, created by Pope Francis in the consistory of September 30, 2023, accept subordination to a nun?
Finally, the first act of governance by Sister Brambilla has been emblematic. She sent pontifical delegates to the Institutes of the Incarnate Word and the Servants of the Lord and the Virgin of Matará. Officially, the issues raised regarding these Institutes concern “deficiencies in vocational discernment, inadequate formation of candidates and religious, the inexperience of formators, and governance entrusted to inexperienced superiors.”
However, one cannot help but wonder whether this move signals a broader agenda to resize yet another promising religious order, particularly one deeply rooted in the Church’s Tradition. The Institute of the Incarnate Word, for instance, declared in 2007 that its charism is centered on 11 ‘non-negotiable elements.’ Among these are: the reverent and dignified celebration of the Liturgy, marked by profound Eucharistic devotion; obedience to the Magisterium ‘of all times’; a clear adherence to the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas; and a fourth vow of ‘Marian slavery’, according to the spirituality of Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort.
These elements place the Institutes squarely at odds with the progressive tendencies of synodal reform, which often downplay such traditional hallmarks in favor of more fluid interpretations of doctrine and governance. The choice to begin the mandate with such an action confirms the fears of those who see in Sister Brambilla the executor of a plan aimed at homogenizing the Church according to the dictates of a synodal progressivism not inclined to fidelity to doctrine.
The appointment of Sister Brambilla is also another example of the emotional nature of several of Pope Francis’ decisions. In 2015, Francis had downplayed the idea of appointing a woman to head a Dicastery, calling such a choice an act of “functionalism.” Yet today, we witness the reversal of that idea. The appointment of Sister Simona Brambilla is another step in a very clear, albeit not directly evident, political strategy of this pontificate. The concern is that such decisions may further compromise the credibility of the Church and alienate those faithful already disoriented by years of doctrinal and pastoral turbulence. A Church that aspires to be more synodal is a Church that wants to sacrifice truth in a democratic sense and revolutionize governance in an absolutist sense.
READ: Italian bishop defends nation against Islam: ‘Equating religions is an insult to intelligence’