Leo Appoints a Sister to Rule Over Bishops

[Stone]

[Pope] Leo Appoints a Sister to Rule Over Bishops, While a Cardinal Says Laity Can Now Rule Over the Ordained

Meanwhile Leo XIV appoints three more terrible bishops, including one praised by a female "bishop" of the womenpriest movement

Chris Jackson via Hiraeth in Exile | Feb 18, 2026

Women in the Episcopacy? The Brambilla Appointment and Its Implications

When Sister Simona Brambilla was appointed prefect of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life in January 2025, shockwaves rippled through Catholic media. Here was the first woman (and first non-cleric) ever to head a major Roman dicastery. In practical terms, Sr. Brambilla’s promotion means she now exercises authority over one of the largest departments in the Vatican and even oversees a subordinate Cardinal-Pro-Prefect assigned under her. On February 14, 2026, Leo XIV escalated the experiment by naming Brambilla a member of the Dicastery for Bishops, inserting a woman religious into the curial machinery that shapes the selection of bishops. The Holy See Press Office bulletin announcing the appointment listed her among the dicastery’s members alongside a roster of Francis-era cardinals and synodal officials, making clear that this was a formal integration into the consultative body tasked with episcopal nominations.

“She has authority over a cardinal; that has never happened in the Church,” marveled one amazed observer. Indeed, this appointment, made by Francis and enthusiastically carried on by Leo XIV, blurs the line between the lay and clerical roles in Church governance. While women remain barred from Holy Orders, the Brambilla precedent effectively creates a female quasi-bishop at the highest levels of the Curia. She wields decision-making power akin to that of a diocesan ordinary, except over all religious orders globally and now over the selection of bishops. It is little wonder that leftists and feminists described her elevation as “completely new” and a “very good news” symbol for women in the Church.

From the Vatican’s perspective, this move was made possible by Francis’s 2022 constitution Praedicate Evangelium, which explicitly opened the door for laypeople (including women) to lead Vatican departments. In other words, the constitutional framework no longer treats curial offices as participating in sacred authority derived from ordination, but as delegated administrative tasks that the Pope can entrust to anyone competent.

The underlying theology, spelled out by Cardinal Marc Ouellet, among others, posits that governance in areas like religious life or education does not strictly require the grace of Holy Orders, but can be exercised by those with particular charisms and expertise. Ouellet argues that the Holy Spirit’s gifts “have their own weight of authority” wherever sacramental ordination is not necessary, and that even a layperson or nun can be legitimately placed in charge, “without detract[ing] from the value” of their service despite a “lack of holy Order”. The Brambilla appointment puts this theory into practice on an unprecedented scale.

Still, the implications are profound and troubling. For one, Brambilla’s role as Prefect grants her a status long reserved to bishops and cardinals. She will be a voting member of episcopal conferences when invited, participate in high-level synods, and be treated as a peer by prelates. This has prompted talk (half in jest, half in alarm) of “women in the episcopacy” in all but name. Canonically, she is not a bishop, yet functionally Sister Brambilla occupies an office indistinguishable from that of a diocesan bishop curially. The symbol is powerful: a woman religious now sits at a desk historically held by apostolic men, issuing directives that affect clergy and laity alike.

This sets the stage for a push toward female deacons or even female cardinals (offices that, while not requiring priestly orders, confer significant ecclesial authority). The Vatican insists nothing about Brambilla’s job involves sacred ordination; she cannot confer sacraments or govern a diocese. Cardinal Ouellet himself emphasized that appointing a woman prefect “does not mean entrusting [her] with tasks that are strictly sacramental,” only administrative leadership under the Pope’s ultimate jurisdiction. Yet optics and ecclesiology often intertwine. The Church now visibly operates with two tracks of authority: one sacramental-hierarchical, the other charismatic-administrative. The former is male-only; the latter is open to females. Such a bifurcation is a novelty.

Traditional ecclesiology, from St. Paul through Pope Pius XII, linked governance (the munus regendi) inseparably with Holy Orders. By contrast, the novel and erroneous post-conciliar approach, especially under Leo, leans into a more “democratic” distribution of power (in the non-sacramental realm) as a fulfillment of the Council’s call for lay co-responsibility. This is another sign of rupture: a concession to modern egalitarianism that subtly undermines the Church’s divinely ordained hierarchy. If a nun can run a congregation of the Roman Curia, and have a role in selecting bishops, does it not suggest that ordination is a contingent accident rather than an intrinsic necessity for governing the Church?

Rome may answer “no,” but the ambiguity is unescapable. In sum, the Brambilla precedent accelerates the Vatican II project of “updating” structures, even at the risk of doctrinal muddiness about the nature of authority. It is a risk the current regime is clearly willing to take.


The Ouellet Thesis: Laity Have Power Over the Ordained

Providing the theological underpinning for reforms like Brambilla’s placement is what might be called the Ouellet Thesis; a line of reasoning championed by Cardinal Marc Ouellet (Prefect Emeritus of Bishops). In essence, Ouellet proposes that the Church rediscover the role of the Holy Spirit’s charisms as a source of authority alongside the sacrament of Orders. He notes that Vatican II already “happily revalued” charisms and non-ordained ministries after “centuries of mistrust.”

While affirming that the episcopate remains a sacrament with the full tria munera (teaching, sanctifying, governing), Ouellet incredibly argues that this does not imply that “the sacrament of Holy Orders is the exclusive source of all government in the Church”. In a recent Vatican News article, he reflects on Francis’s “bold decision” to appoint laypeople and religious to high office, asking whether this is a mere temporary concession or a true “ecclesiological advance.”

Ouellet leans toward the latter. He discerned in Francis’s move “the authority of the Holy Spirit at work beyond the link… between the ordained ministry and the government of the Church.” In plainer terms, charismatic gifts bestowed by the Spirit can empower a person for governance tasks even without ordination. Ouellet hastens to add that this is “not a question of substituting charismatic governance for hierarchical government.” The Pope’s delegates still govern in communion with the ordained pastors. But it is a question of integrating the laity and women “without reservation” into the Church’s administrative and pastoral apparatus.

Conciliar Canon law already permits laity to cooperate in power of governance (cf. Canon 129 §2); Francis and Leo have simply taken this to a new level. According to Ouellet, having dicasteries “directed by competent persons, lay or religious, with a charism recognized by the supreme authority, does not detract” from their service just because they lack Holy Orders. In fact, he insists the charisms themselves carry a genuine “weight of authority” in certain fields, e.g. in social communications, education, finance, or dialogue, where specific expertise is needed and ordination per se adds no technical competence.

This erroneous thesis fundamentally changes how the Church understands authority. It shifts emphasis from the ontological character of the ordained minister (the traditional Catholic focus) to the spiritual and natural gifts of individuals, irrespective of clerical status. For example, if a lay woman has a proven charism for leadership in religious life, the Pope can appoint her to oversee nuns globally, trusting the Holy Spirit’s guidance in her work. The sacramental priesthood remains intact for sacramental duties, but in governance the hierarchy can at times yield to the charismatically endowed non-ordained.

Ouellet grounds this in a “richer” pneumatology: we must better discern the Holy Spirit’s action “beyond the sacraments” and within the Church-as-communion. It’s a warped theology that takes Vatican II’s talk of the “people of God” and “universal call to holiness” to its logical administrative conclusion. To its proponents, this development corrects an overly clerical vision of authority and allows the Church to use all her gifts. In reality, it is a spiritual veneer on what is, in effect, a managerial revolution.

One cannot ignore that this thinking conveniently aligns with modern secular values of egalitarian governance and meritocracy. In practice, the Ouellet Thesis smooths the path for more appointments like Sister Brambilla’s. It provides the doctrinal justification: the Pope is not “making” a woman a bishop; he is “entrusting a person recognized as competent… by virtue of a charism” with a responsibility, all under his own supreme authority. The hierarchical principle is preserved at the very top (the Pope as source of jurisdiction), but below that, flexibility reigns.

This “flexibility” is actually a rupture disguised as development. Did Christ or the Apostles ever envision charismatic governance separate from the sacramental hierarchy? No. Governance flows from Orders. The new paradigm means an uncoupling and a false disfigured view of authority in the Church.


Read more here.