The real disaster of the appointment of Sister Simona Brambilla as “Prefect” of the Administrative Office for Institutions of Consecrated Life and Apostolic Institutes does not lie in the fact that this top position is now occupied by a woman – although the usual shallow minds are now once again talking about “breaking down patriarchal structures”, “ending discrimination against women” and, in particular, “empowerment”. And presumably this is exactly how Pope Francis wants it to appear, given his nature and objectives. But there is more – but one thing at a time.
We would have nothing particularly strong to say against Sr. Brambilla IMC (https://www.consolata.org/) as a person, based on what we have learned about her so far. She is an enthusiastic supporter of the synodal path and a typical representative of the Bergoglian new church – like almost all of the current senior curia personnel. After beginning her career in the missions, the now 59-year-old psychologist first served in a functionary capacity in her community and in recent years in the Curia, without attracting particular attention. She studied at the Institute of Psychology at the Gregoriana, where she also had teaching assignments, and wrote a doctoral thesis on “Evangelization and Inculturation in Mozambique”, which, however, is not yet available to us.
So far, everything is within the bounds of what is to be expected under Pope Francis. The questionable and fateful aspect of the appointment of Sr. Brambilla as “prefect” lies in the fact that she, as a laywoman, has been assigned the top position in an administration that is associated with predominantly spiritual tasks and with jurisdiction over numerous consecrated persons, including many priests, bishops, and cardinals.
The dicastery for public relations is already headed by the layman Paolo Ruffini. This is not problematic insofar as this authority is a specialized authority with a predominantly secular function and mode of operation. Even priests or bishops working there will generally have no problem with being subject to the authority of a non-ordained person for their “non-ordained” work – and therefore the appointment of a laywoman as head of office would be less problematic in this dicastery. One problem here is that the renaming of the Public Relations Department as a “dicastery” by Pope Francis in 2018 has elevated it to the same level as the traditionally spiritual “congregations” of the past.
This equalization of the differences between “secular” and “spiritual” is one of the core elements of the Bergoglian attack on the traditional structure of the Church, and with the appointment of a laywoman as prefect of the Dicastery this attack is entering a new phase. This has nothing to do with gender or emancipation: a male layman in this position would be just as disastrous.
To understand the direction and depth of this attack, we must at least briefly explain that the Latin Church, in its understanding of ecclesiastical offices and leadership functions, has always assumed a complicated interrelationship between sacramental acts of grace (munus) and the assignment granted by canon law (officium). A perhaps overly simplified example: a man receives the spiritual ability to forgive sins in his ordination to the priesthood. He receives the authority to actually exercise this ability through the corresponding order of the bishop.
Generally speaking, spiritual offices and positions in the Church are assigned by order of the spiritual superior, and in the case of higher positions by the Pope. However, they can only be actually exercised within the framework and in connection with the “munus” conferred by the respective level of ordination. This has not always been uncontested, but has been considered theologically certain for two or more centuries, and so it is also determined by current canon law: Cardinals, who are generally expected to take on special spiritual leadership roles, are obliged to receive episcopal consecration immediately after their appointment – if they are not already bishops – so that the Pope can appoint them to all leadership roles.
The full exercise of spiritual leadership is then inextricably linked to the special powers conferred by episcopal consecration. This is not only stated in the current canon law, but was also solemnly confirmed by the Second Vatican Council in its partial redefinition of the episcopal ministry and episcopal consecration.
By appointing Sr. Brambilla as prefect of a dicastery whose main responsibilities include the spiritual guidance and, where necessary, the regulation of religious and similar communities, Pope Francis has disregarded this regulation. In terms of canon law, this is less problematic in that the Pope, according to the current understanding of his office, exercises full sovereignty over canon law and, with an order that contradicts canon law as it was until yesterday, automatically creates new law today without any special circumstances. It took an unscrupulous power politician like Bergoglio and his co-conspirators to draw attention to the problematic nature of this understanding of law and office. But they can still invoke its validity.
In contrast to that, the Bergoglianist may not find it so easy to explain the special bond between the power of spiritual leadership and the episcopal office and sacramental consecration as laid down in Lumen Gentium 21 and its additional articles by the Second Vatican Council. Here it is difficult to explain away the blatant contradiction to a teaching of the Church that was not completely newly created by the Council, but was newly accentuated and solemnly proclaimed. A process that lends additional weight to the repeatedly raised accusation against Pope Francis and his backers that they are deviating from the teaching of the Church.
It was probably in order to counteract precisely this accusation that the Pope, together with the appointment of the prefect, also appointed a bishop, the Spanish Cardinal Angel Fernandez Artime, who was created a year ago, as “pro-prefect” of the dicastery, in an equally unprecedented act. How this ad hoc new office for Artime will function, what authority it has and how it can replace or compensate for the episcopal authority of the prefect remains to be seen.
Michael Charlier
January 9, 2025
