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

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.

Ecumenism as Dogma: Tavares and Pinheiro as Agents of Vatican II

Leo XIV’s governance of the Church has made one thing abundantly clear: the ecclesiology of Vatican II is now the magisterial norm. Leo himself has explicitly stated that Vatican II’s teachings remain “the guiding star” for the Church’s journey. In practice, this means promotion for those prelates who embody the Council’s spirit of ecumenical and interreligious engagement. Two recent appointments, Bishop Teodoro Mendes Tavares and Bishop Francisco (Agnelo) Pinheiro, illustrate how strongly dialogue has become an almost dogmatic priority. Their careers serve as a showcase of Vatican II ideals in action.

Bishop Tavares, a Cape Verdean Spiritan missionary, was plucked from obscurity in the Brazilian Amazon to assume leadership of his homeland diocese. A closer look at his background speaks volumes. The 62-year-old bishop actually holds an advanced degree in Ecumenism from Trinity College Dublin; an unusual specialty that would have been unthinkable for a Catholic prelate prior to the Council. His academic formation in the 1990s focused on fostering unity among Christians, precisely echoing Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio.

Tavares then spent 15 years as a missionary in the Amazon rainforest, implementing inculturation and pastoral “accompaniment” in remote communities. In Brazil, he rose to become Bishop of Ponta de Pedras (Pará state) and even chaired an episcopal commission on ecumenism and interreligious dialogue. In short, his entire ministry has been oriented toward the post-conciliar agenda: from bridging confessional divides to marrying the Gospel with local cultures.

By appointing him to the prominent Diocese of Santiago de Cabo Verde, Leo effectively rewarded Tavares’s orthodoxy to the Council. This new bishop returned to Cape Verde with fanfare, hailed for a “journey marked by formation in Portugal and mission in the Amazon.” Indeed, local reports highlight that he “dedicated a large part of his life” to Amazonian ministry and note his formal training in ecumenical theology. Tavares is the face of the Church that Vatican II envisioned: globally minded, dialogical, and untethered from Tridentine rigidity.

On the other side of the world, Bishop-Elect Francisco “Agnelo” Pinheiro represents a similar model in Asia. A Goan priest just named to lead the Diocese of Sindhudurg in India, Fr. Pinheiro has long been known as his archdiocese’s point-man for interreligious dialogue. Since 2018 he served as the Archdiocese of Goa’s official responsável for the Apostolate of Interreligious Dialogue, working to build “harmony among different religious communities” in a multi-faith society. He is literally a specialist in Nostra Aetate-style outreach.

The announcement of his episcopal appointment prominently noted Pinheiro’s efforts at promoting understanding between religions. In effect, the Vatican has sent a message: expertise in interfaith dialogue is now a key credential for the episcopacy. Like Tavares, Fr. Pinheiro is a Vatican II agent on the ground; a man who for years has embodied the Church’s openness to the modern world and its religions. Now, as bishop, he will carry that banner into the heart of India’s Catholic community. It is telling that Leo XIV chose him over more traditional candidates. The decision underscores that ecumenical and interreligious engagement is viewed as an essential virtue, practically a non-negotiable “dogma” for Church leaders today. Those steeped in the pre-conciliar mentality, prioritizing confessional integrity and missionary conversion, are passed over for promotion. Instead, the new princes of the Church are bridge-builders and dialogue-partners.

These developments confirm a long-suspected reality: the “spirit of Vatican II” has hardened into a ruling ideology. Leo XIV’s Vatican is institutionalizing that spirit by elevating men like Tavares and Pinheiro. In their personas, one sees Vatican II as a permanent template for Catholic life. The Council’s emphasis on collegial openness, religious pluralism, and aggiornamento is no longer up for debate; it is treated as a settled magna carta, the “prophetic teaching” to inspire every new initiative. Any lingering hopes that Vatican II might be reinterpreted or corrected have effectively been dashed by this papacy’s actions.

The Council’s ecclesiology, the Church as “mystery of communion” open to the world, is now the magisterial yardstick. Every ambitious prelate knows it and conforms accordingly. Thus we witness a kind of reverse litmus test: show robust commitment to ecumenical projects, and you rise; show skepticism of the post-conciliar consensus, and you remain sidelined (or worse). The appointments of Tavares and Pinheiro are declarations of principle. They announce that Leo will cement Vatican II’s legacy as the paradigm for the future, to the exclusion of any pre-conciliar restoration.

Leo XIV Appoints Neocatechumenal Bishop - Praised By “Female Bishop”

The February 14 appointment of Msgr. Rubén Darío Jaramillo Montoya as Bishop of Montería landed inside an ecclesial ecosystem where “pastoral credibility” is increasingly measured by the applause of constituencies that Catholic discipline once treated as warning signs.

Begin with the liturgical subculture attached to him. Multiple profiles and commentaries situate Jaramillo as closely aligned with the Neocatechumenal Way, presenting his formation and ministry as emerging from that world. The Neocatechumenal milieu is associated with a distinctive “community” approach to worship that has repeatedly generated controversy, especially around the manner of receiving Communion and the movement’s practical customs. Leo XIV’s appointments tend to favor men formed inside precisely those postconciliar spiritual and liturgical systems that treat inherited Roman instincts as negotiable. When Rome itself has had to issue corrective directives to the Neocatechumenal leadership about concrete liturgical practices, it signals that the “it’s just a different style” defense carries less weight than its advocates pretend.

One report highlights favorable treatment from the LGBT “Catholic” site Cristianos Gays, praising his public stance against violence and his visible pastoral presence in marginalized contexts. Even when such praise is framed around social concerns rather than explicit doctrinal dissent, the sociological meaning stays the same: these are the circles most invested in the post Francis ecclesial ethos, and they recognize allies by instinct. In an older Catholic time, their approval would have raised immediate questions about a man’s theological priorities and pastoral signaling. In the current Vatican, it functions almost as a credential, a confirmation that the bishop speaks the moral language of the regime.

The same dynamic appears, even more starkly, in the warm commendation offered in 2017 by Ms. Olga Lucía Álvarez, a figure associated with the Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement and its derivative “women bishops” claims. On a post describing an encounter with Jaramillo, Álvarez depicts him in affectionate terms, praising his human warmth and closeness to the people, offering prayers and support for his ministry. The optics here are devastating. Alvarez is a member of a movement that openly defies Catholic teaching on Holy Orders extending affirmation to a cleric Leo XIV selected for promotion.

The Church has treated attempted ordination of women as a grave delict carrying excommunication. So when a self styled “woman bishop” voice offers enthusiastic endorsement of a rising diocesan cleric, the signal is hard to miss: whatever this cleric represents, it is legible as compatible with the postconciliar direction and nonthreatening to its most radical edge. The older Catholic reflex would have been to recoil from such endorsement as toxic, a sign that something has gone wrong in the public witness of the shepherd. The newer reflex treats it as irrelevant background noise, because controversy itself has been reclassified as the real enemy.

The Montería appointment can be analyzed as another data point in a pattern: Leo XIV’s episcopal selections align with the ecclesial culture that normalizes interreligious indifferentism, managerial liturgy, and therapeutic moral language. But the deeper point is simpler and more corrosive. When the Church’s symbols of dissent applaud the Church’s new leaders, something has shifted in the hierarchy’s moral and doctrinal immune system. The regime increasingly produces bishops whose rise is easiest to celebrate for those most opposed to Catholic order.

Conclusion

In sum, the conciliar Church’s recent trajectory is one of internal contradictions and a tragic co-opting of tradition. Leo XIV’s reign so far consolidates the revolutions of Vatican II and Francis: ecumenism and interreligious outreach have been enthroned as guiding principles, even quasi-dogmas, shaping episcopal appointments and papal pronouncements. Hand in hand with this goes a redefinition of authority, where charism and bureaucracy increasingly overshadow apostolic order. Amidst it all, the timeless Roman Mass and the immutable doctrines it symbolizes are pushed to the margins; sometimes politely, sometimes forcefully.

Taken together, these episodes depict an ecclesial order that now governs as though the Council were a settled constitution and the preconciliar instinct for confessional clarity were an embarrassing relic. Under Leo XIV, ecumenism and interreligious dialogue are operating as tests of fidelity. The result is a Church that increasingly measures authority by managerial placement. The crisis has moved well beyond its initial phase in the years after the council. We have now entered a stage where even the authority in the conciliar church is being turned on its head. The laity are now able to govern the ordained in the modernist infected minds of the innovators. As Satan rules a kingdom of inverted order in Hell, it seems as if the conciliar Church cannot wait to copy the paradigm.

---

If you value independent Catholic analysis and want to help keep this work going, you can make a contribution or subscribe below. Every donation and subscription directly supports the writing, research, and production of Hiraeth in Exile.

Thank you for helping preserve independent Catholic journalism rooted in truth and tradition.