Pope Francis addresses cardinals and senior Vatican officials during his annual Christmas speech to the Roman Curia, Dec. 22, 2024 / Credit: Vatican Media
Rome Newsroom, Jan 7, 2025 / 14:45 pm (CNA).
In a move that raised eyebrows among Vatican observers, Pope Francis on Monday created an unprecedented leadership structure at the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life by appointing both a nun as prefect and a cardinal as pro-prefect — a solution that begs clarity in law and theology.
The unusual decision to appoint Sister Simona Brambilla as prefect and Cardinal Ángel Fernández Artime as pro-prefect has sparked discussion about the intersection of traditional Church hierarchy and Pope Francis’ vision for reform.
Understanding the pro-prefect role
The office of pro-prefect of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life is not provided for in the constitution Praedicate Evangelium, which regulates the functions of the Roman Curia.
However, Pope Francis instituted the office ad hoc when he appointed the cardinal as pro-prefect and the nun — the secretary until now — as prefect of the dicastery.
It has not been stated how there will be a balance of power between the new prefect and the pro-prefect. However, speaking of a relationship of subordination with a cardinal who would be the “second in rank” to the prefect does not seem to be a correct reading. What is the logic that pushed Pope Francis to make this choice?
Power and authority in the Church
Throughout history, there has been a broad, complex, and sometimes controversial reflection on the relationship between the power of orders, which is received with ordination and which enables one to administer certain sacraments — such as presiding over the Eucharist — and the power of governance, which gives authority over a part of the people of God, such as a diocese, a religious order, or even a parish.
For a long time, it was believed that the two powers were distinct and that it was possible to exercise them separately — St. Thomas Aquinas shared this position, too.
As regards the Roman Curia, it was believed that all those who carried out their service in it received their power directly from the pope, who conferred authority on them regardless of whether or not they were ordained. This also applied to cardinals, whose authority derived from papal creation — which is not a sacrament. The pope chooses the cardinals as collaborators and advisers of the pope in the government of the Church.
This approach has characterized the history of the Church for a long time, so much so that there have been cardinals who were not priests — for example, Cardinal Giacomo Antonelli, Vatican secretary of state from 1848 to 1876, was ordained deacon but was not a priest. Further back in time, there were cardinals appointed at a young age who only received orders after a long time, and even popes who were only deacons at the time of their election to the papal throne.
In the past, some abbots had not even been ordained priests and governed an ecclesiastical district, or there were figures who seem strange to us but who responded to this logic, such as the so-called bishops-elect, who governed dioceses without receiving episcopal consecration but did so because of their election. Other examples include the so-called mitered abbesses, “women with the pastoral staff,” who exercised their authority over a territory and the faithful.
Vatican II’s impact on Church governance
Over time, however, another approach has emerged that goes back to the Church of the first millennium: The power of government is closely linked to the sacrament of holy orders, so it is not possible to exercise one without the other except within certain limits, which are rather narrow.
Hence, Pope John XXIII in 1962 decided that all cardinals should be ordained archbishops with the motu proprio Cum Gravissima.
This is the approach of the Second Vatican Council, which is found, for example, in Lumen Gentium, No. 21, in the Explanatory Note at No. 2, and in the two Codes of Canon Law, the Latin and the Eastern one.
Vatican II authoritatively reiterated that the episcopate is a sacrament and that by episcopal consecration, one becomes part of the College of Bishops, which, together with and under the authority of the pope, is the subject of supreme power over the entire Church.
This approach was followed in the two Curia reforms that followed the Second Vatican Council: Pope Paul VI’s constitution Regimini Ecclesiae Universae (1967) and Pope John Paul II’s Pastor Bonus (1988). John Paul II delineated the Curia into congregations and pontifical councils, which in lay terms might be defined as “ministries with portfolio” and “ministries without portfolio.”
The congregations had to be governed by cardinals because they participated in the decisions of the universal Church with the pope and, therefore, their heads had to have the rank of first advisers to the pope. The pontifical councils, on the other hand, could also be led by archbishops, but in any case, by ordained ministers because they still had to be in collegiality with the bishop of Rome — that is, the pope.
Francis’ Curia reform: breaking new ground
The apostolic constitution Praedicate Evangelium, with which Pope Francis reformed the Curia in 2022, departed from this approach. There was no longer a distinction between congregations and pontifical councils, which were all defined as dicasteries. Therefore, there was no longer a difference in who could be the head of the dicastery, a position that could also go to a layperson.
However, when presenting the reform of the Curia on March 21, 2022, the then-Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda — created cardinal by Pope Francis in the consistory of Aug. 27, 2022 — explained that there were still some dicasteries in which it was appropriate for a cardinal to lead and noted that the “constitution does not abrogate the Code of Canon Law, which establishes that in matters that concern clerics, clerics are the ones to judge.”
In practice, the canonical mission was no longer given by order but by the pope’s decision. This is why a layman like Paolo Ruffini could be at the head of the Vatican Dicastery for Communication.
This is the heart of the debate: Are there offices that can be exercised only by papal appointment, or are there offices that, despite papal appointment, can be exercised only if one is ordained?
The question arises when a pro-prefect supports Sister Brambilla. The Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life has various competencies, but all competencies are generic acts of government that can be exercised without priestly ordination. There are situations of clerics’ judgment, though, and likely it was thought that these decisions cannot be managed without an ordination.
Thus, the figure of the pro-prefect was created. The definition of pro-prefect seems, however, to be used improperly. The document Praedicate Evangelium describes two pro-prefects who are the heads of the two sections of the Dicastery for Evangelization. That is because these two pro-prefects lead the sections of the dicastery “in place of” (i.e., pro-) pope, who is considered the prefect of the dicastery.
In other cases, a prelate who did not yet have the rank to hold the office formally was appointed pro-prefect. For example, when Angelo Sodano was appointed Vatican secretary of state on Dec. 1, 1990, he was still an archbishop. He was thus appointed pro-secretary of state because the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus provided that the secretary of state was always to be a cardinal. Sodano retained the title of pro-secretary of state until the consistory of June 28, 1991, when he was created cardinal and formally took the title of secretary of state starting July 1, 1991.
Pro-prefect Artime, however, is already a cardinal and does not exercise jurisdiction in place of the pope. If anything, he works alongside the prefect, Sister Brambilla. His role is more co-prefect, and it remains to be seen whether the pope will appoint a secretary for the dicastery to understand the organizational chart.
A Jesuit model for Church governance?
The choice to place an ecclesiastic alongside the prefect reflects some religious orders, which have “brothers” (consecrated laypeople) at their helm but are appointed alongside figures with sacramental authority.
Therefore, Pope Francis would have chosen to follow a path already followed by religious congregations for the governance of the Church. This is not new. Pope Francis, for example, also intervened in the governance crisis of the Order of Malta precisely by operating on the order as if it were only a religious and monastic entity, authoritatively imposing the new constitutions in September 2022 and establishing that the Holy Father needs to confirm the election of the grand master of the order.
Even the Council of Cardinals, established by Pope Francis at the beginning of his pontificate in 2013, resembles the general council that supports the government of the Jesuit General.
Many of these settings are given by Pope Francis’ main legal adviser, Cardinal Ghirlanda, also a Jesuit, who personally followed the reform of the Order of Malta and the reform of the Curia — as well as various other reforms, such as that of the statutes of the Legionaries of Christ.
Looking ahead: implications and questions
Pope Francis established an innovation in the Roman Curia without outlining it with a precise law, leaving the management of the competencies to subsequent decisions, not using the criteria of the government of the Curia but rather those of the religious congregations. It seems “inside baseball.”
However, it speaks of a small revolution — or potentially a misuse of terms that could cause some confusion in the future.
Discover more from Scottish Catholic Guardian
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
