Cardinal Ouellet defends Francis’ lay appointments as ‘prophetic’ shift in authority

VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Marc Ouellet defended Pope Francis’s appointment of lay men and women to positions of authority in the Roman Curia as a development rooted in the Church’s “theology of charisms.”

On February 16, Vatican News published an article by Ouellet, prefect emeritus of the Dicastery for Bishops, in which he examines Pope Francis’s decision to appoint lay faithful and religious sisters to governing roles in the Roman Curia – positions traditionally reserved for ordained ministers – and asks whether this represents a temporary concession or an ecclesiological development.

“Among Pope Francis’s bold decisions was the appointment of lay people and nuns to positions of authority usually reserved for ordained ministers, bishops or cardinals in the dicasteries of the Roman Curia. The Pope justified this innovation by the synodal principle, which calls for greater participation of the faithful in the communion and mission of the Church,” Ouellet said.

The Church has traditionally linked the authority to govern with the sacrament of Holy Orders: in other words, ordained ministers (deacons, priests, bishops) have normally exercised leadership. Even though the power of governance and the power of orders are distinct, they have long been understood as connected. As Ouellet notes, this view was reinforced by the Second Vatican Council, which “defined the sacramentality of the episcopate.”

Pope Francis’s choice breaks with this traditional view, creating a sense of “unease about a papal decision that is respected but perhaps considered temporary.”

READ: Pope Leo XIV protects Francis’s legacy in key Vatican office overseeing appointment of bishops

Ouellet therefore suggests moving beyond the traditional canonical debate about the relationship between the power of orders and the power of governance. In his view the “charisms of the Holy Spirit carry their own weight of authority in areas where sacramental ordination is not required, and where it may even be appropriate for competence to be of another order, for example, in human resource management, the administration of justice, cultural and political discernment, financial administration, and ecumenical dialogue.”

According to Ouellet, contemporary theology suffers from a serious gap: it tends to overlook the Holy Spirit and His role in shaping the life of the Church.

The Canadian cardinal also laments that the Code of Canon Law “ignores the word ‘charism’ and refers to it only in terms of patrimony.” For this reason, he argues that “a renewed dialogue between canon lawyers and theologians is needed in the light of pneumatology, so that a ‘law of grace’ may peacefully develop to the point of allowing charismatic lay people and religious to be freely integrated into positions of authority in the Roman Curia and in diocesan administrations.”

According to this view, Francis’s decision appears “prophetic” and “will contribute in particular to restoring the image of pastoral authority, which has been discredited by the scourge of clericalism, caste mentality, the safeguarding of privileges, the ambition to climb the hierarchy, in short, a closed mentality that conceives of governing ministry in terms of power and is reluctant to valuing charisms according to their own degree of authority.”

This analysis by Ouellet seems to prepare the ground for the upcoming consistory in June, during which – in all likelihood – the two topics left unaddressed at the extraordinary consistory in January will finally be discussed: the relationship between the Holy See and the local Churches in light of Praedicate Evangelium, and long‑standing questions on the liturgy.

However, a careful reading of Ouellet’s analysis reveals several problematic points. First, it is based on a concept of “charism” that is deeply sentimental and therefore vague, partly due to certain strands of contemporary theology which, contrary to what the cardinal suggests, have placed strong emphasis on a Protestant‑style charismatic approach.

Moreover, the Code of Canon Law preserves a centuries‑long theological reflection on the notion of charism. The Latin word munus, often translated in the Code as “office,” is in fact a possible translation of the Greek term charisma, or “gift.” In ecclesiastical Latin, there are two different words for “gift”: donum and munus. The distinction is important: a donum becomes the full possession of the recipient, whereas a munus remains shared, implying a form of co‑responsibility between the giver and the one who receives it.

The fundamental charisms of the Church are always ordered to the three munera (“gifts” or “offices”) of Christ: the office of sanctifying, the office of governing, and the office of teaching.

Ouellet’s line of argument appears weak. Rather than clarifying the relationship between the power of governance and the power of orders, he seems to be calling for its sidelining, or even its outright abolishment.

Ouellet does not question the primacy of Peter, which he in fact presupposes as the ultimate juridical framework for ecclesial appointments. However, his argument – by relativizing the structural link between the two powers and grounding authority in a broad and vague notion of “charism” – introduces a theoretical principle that, if developed consistently, could lead to a redefinition of the very origin of ecclesial authority.

This is not a remote possibility, given today’s democratic tendencies often presented under the label of “synodality”: if authority is understood primarily in charismatic and functional terms, the hierarchical‑sacramental structure risks becoming secondary to participatory dynamics. In short, this line of reasoning is precisely the first step toward what Ouellet claims to reject: “[S]ubstituting charismatic governance for hierarchical government.”