Does the Holy See already consider the Second Vatican Council, with regard to the power of governance, merely as a «point of view»?
With the approval of Pope Leo XIV, on March 10, 2026, the Holy See published a disturbing document titled «The Participation of Women in the Life and Governance of the Church». The document was prepared by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
It is not a matter of determining whether the laity can exercise the power of governance in the Church. As the title already indicates, this topic is addressed rather from the perspective of the possibility that women can exercise the power of governance. Therefore, it is not seeking a theological analysis of the mission of the laity. Rather, it is about the intention to grant women a supposed «gender justice». This already demonstrates that the interest is not theological, but ideological. A criterion foreign to the issue is the motivation for the attempt to modify the doctrine of the Church.
The document is not only disconcerting but also revealing. In fact, in the past it has been repeatedly stated that the appointment of a «prefect» of the Dicastery for Religious constituted an exceptional case. The Pope, in his capacity as holder of the supreme primatial authority, would have conferred that position in a unique manner. This procedure would not, therefore, be applicable to dioceses and parishes. However, the document emphasizes several times that the Pope’s action constitutes a «model» for the universal Church (Second Part, II, nn. 20, 25 and 28 b.). It would be about implementing something similar in the particular Churches, for example, through episcopal «delegates» equivalent to the vicar general. The assertion that it would be solely the special case of the Roman Curia was, therefore, a fake news.
The verdict is unequivocal: the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith distances itself from the Second Vatican Council and takes a step back with respect to it. The last Council resolved the issue, which had been pending since the Council of Trent, regarding the theological nature of episcopal consecration. And with that, it also clarified in its function as the Magisterium of the Church the question of the possibility of conferring the power of governance on the laity. According to the clarification given by the last Council, the bishop is not the priest perfected juridically, since he would already have received the fullness of the sacrament of orders. Rather, it is the episcopal consecration itself that confers the fullness of the sacrament of orders. And with the office of sanctifying, it also transmits the offices of teaching and governing (Lumen Gentium [= LG], n. 21). The sacrament of orders therefore confers an «ontological participation» in the sacred offices. Pope Paul VI clarified this in the «Nota explicativa praevia», which is an integral part of the LG (n. 2). The government of the Church therefore finds its foundation in the sacrament and is subsequently specified in law, insofar as the Pope assigns to a bishop, and the bishop to a priest, through legal instruments, a concrete task in which they exercise their sacramental gift, including that of governance. To the laity, and not only to women, the decisive requirement for exercising the power of governance is therefore lacking.
If we now examine the document of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, the situation becomes strange. Its publication takes place in the context of a «Synod of Bishops». However, the highest form of synodality is an ecumenical council. Yet, the Second Vatican Council is not even cited by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in the main text regarding the issue of «Potestas sacra» (Second Part, II.). This only occurs in Appendix V. But this has no repercussions on the discourse of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Moreover, the doctrine of the Council is defined by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith as a «line of thought» and as a «point of view» of the authors (Appendix V, nn. 18‒20). The Second Vatican Council is therefore placed, according to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the same level as the opinions of theological schools.
Once the magisterium of the Second Vatican Council has been declared de facto non-binding in this way, the question arises of how it can be justified that the laity can exercise the power of governance. Unlike what the Second Vatican Council established, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith no longer considers that the capacity (ability) for it resides solely in the sacrament of Orders, but also in baptism and in the charisms of the Holy Spirit.
It is maintained that baptism already creates a «capacitas» for exercising the power of governance (Second Part, II, n. 23 and Appendix V, n. 20). Through the legal assignment conferred by the authority, the laity would then receive the «habilitas» for the exercise of an office. The same «habilitas» was conferred on the clergy through the sacrament of orders. These word games cannot even be defined as sophistic distinctions. It is pure theofantasy. In fact, the assertion that baptism would already create the foundation for receiving the power of governance is an invention «ex nihilo», for which there is no support in the doctrine of the Church.
For the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, the foundation of the argument is no longer the doctrine of the Church, but Protestantism. It adapts it to arrive at the desired result. Already Martin Luther, in his writing «An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation» (To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation) of 1520, had declared: «Anyone who has emerged from baptism can boast of having already been ordained a priest, bishop, and pope, although not everyone is given to exercise such ministry» (D. Martin Luthers Werke, Weimar 1888, vol. 6, p. 408). In fact, according to the «logic» of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, a layperson could exercise the role of parish priest, vicar general, bishop, curial prefect, and Pope, simply through a legal appointment. And if one wants or must maintain that, by virtue of «Ordinatio sacerdotalis» (1994), women are still prevented from receiving the sacrament of orders, they could resort to a vicar or an auxiliary bishop to perform the liturgical functions of their office. This would not change their authority of governance in any way. In fact, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has clarified—as has been outlined—that the «potestas sacra» is one and the same everywhere, both for the Pope and for the diocesan bishop. Also, the distinction of the «potestas sacra» into «proper» and «vicarious» is merely a distinction of canon law. There is only one «potestas sacra». And it should not be said, by the way, that we have not already had all this. In the Middle Ages, as is well known, there occurred the grave abuse whereby numerous bishops exercised the power of governance without having been ordained priests or bishops. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith seems to long for those times when the doctrine on the episcopal office had not yet been sufficiently clarified. The only novelty would simply be that, according to the opinion of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, now there could also be lay female bishops—in the extreme, even a lay female pope. It would not be a small irony if a 21st-century Augustinian monk were to complete in this sense the work of a 16th-century Augustinian monk.
No less absurd is the second variant proposed by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith: charisms would be the foundation that allows the laity to exercise the power of governance: «Alongside the sacramental way, and distinct from it, there exists the charismatic way, which can be fruitfully pursued to open new spaces of participation to the lay faithful, and to women in particular». The laity can therefore exercise the power of governance on the basis of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Second Part, II, n. 25). The charism of the Holy Spirit confers this capacity on them, independently of the sacrament of Orders.
This topic opens up a broad field that extends to Trinitarian theology. If one continues to take seriously the «Filioque» of the Creed, it is clear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and does not act alongside the latter nor independently of Him. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith therefore recalled some elementary facts in the document «Iuvenescit Ecclesia» of 2016: «In fact, every gift of the Father implies reference to the joint and differentiated action of the divine missions: every gift proceeds from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. (…). For this reason, the Holy Spirit cannot in any way inaugurate an economy different from that of the incarnate, crucified, and risen divine Logos. In fact, the entire sacramental economy of the Church is the pneumatological realization of the incarnation. (…). The original bond between the hierarchical gifts, conferred with the sacramental grace of Orders, and the charismatic gifts, distributed freely by the Holy Spirit, has its ultimate root in the relationship between the incarnate divine Logos and the Holy Spirit, who is always the Spirit of the Father and the Son. To avoid equivocal theological visions that would postulate a ‘Church of the Spirit’, separate and distinct from the hierarchical-institutional Church, it must be emphasized how the two divine missions imply each other in every gift granted to the Church. In fact, the mission of Jesus Christ already implies, within itself, the action of the Spirit» (n. 11).
Therefore, there does not exist a «charismatic way» «separate» and «distinct» from the «sacramental way», with regard to the essence of the Church, the Body of Christ, and its governance rooted in the sacrament. With its contrary assertion, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith contradicts itself. What it ultimately proposes is pure theofantasy.
The denial of the doctrine of the Church according to which governance in the Church is transmitted sacramentally and only secondarily requires a more precise legal definition is not new. This is reflected in the writings of Joseph Ratzinger from the 1970s. But it is clear that those who consider the Second Vatican Council only as a non-binding expression of opinion feel a true physical repulsion toward receiving the reasoning of the future Pope Benedict XVI. Therefore, one can try to approach them in another way. To the second edition of the «Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche» were added, after the Council, three supplementary volumes containing the conciliar texts. The opportunity was taken to involve some of the main consultants of the Second Vatican Council as commentators. LG 21 was commented on by Karl Rahner. He defined the fact that with the sacrament of orders the office of governing is also conferred as a «theological progress (…) with respect to the usual theology of the theological schools». And he continued: «The legitimate distinction between potestas ordinis and potestas iurisdictionis was, in fact, commonly interpreted in the sense that the potestas ordinis was conferred through sacramental ordination, while the potestas iurisdictionis was conferred originally and exclusively through the missio canonica by the Pope or other holders of sovereign power. The intrinsic unity of the two powers and, consequently, the ultimate communion of their essence were not so evident. The Constitution [= LG, n. 21] now affirms (using the schema of the three offices) that the three munera (sanctificandi, docendi, regendi [= governance]) are conferred by the same ordination». And Rahner summarized: «Thus, the unity of all ministerial powers in the Church, the sacramental rooting and the pneumatic nature of all powers (therefore also of the juridical ones!) becomes clear. Doctrine and law are also ‘spiritual’ and have their foundation in the Church in grace, which manifests itself sacramentally» (Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 2nd ed., Freiburg – Basel – Vienna 1966, supplementary volume I, pp. 219 ff., underline in the original).
Those who, on the contrary, reject the Second Vatican Council transform the Church into a juridically ordered machine that functions like an industrial company and like the State. Moreover, it possesses a cultic dimension. For this reason, there are two orders of governance in the Church. Some act in the name of the hierarch who has legally appointed them. Others act by virtue of the sacrament of orders «in persona Christi». The facts that divide the Church in this sense, desacralize it, reduce it to a mere legal institution, legalize it and secularize it, have been created under the pontificate of Pope Francis, in a manner analogous to the grave abuses of the Middle Ages that led to the Reformation. Then, as today, it is therefore a matter of the same thing: when the sacramental nature of the Church is suppressed, it is secularized. How can people continue to see the divine work in a secularized Church? The believers among them will also seek it elsewhere today.
The supreme authority of the Church is already cutting off the branch on which it is sitting in this sense. But that is not all. In fact, in the light of the fundamental manipulations described, the doctrine of the faith seems like a malleable paste that can be shaped according to the needs of the moment. The final consequences are not juridification, desacralization, and secularization of the Church. But the following signal is sent: we are the masters of your faith (2 Cor 1,24). The doctrine must serve purposes foreign to the Church, such as «gender justice». For that purpose, it is molded. Hans Küng wrote a book: «Farewell to the Devil. Theological Meditations». The supreme government of the Church is currently writing a much more fundamental work: «Farewell to God. Genderist Manipulations». Because if the Church contradicts itself on central issues of the faith, everything is up for discussion. And the so-invoked spirit is no longer anything more than the spirit of the masters.
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has confirmed the validity of Carl Schmitt’s thesis: «Sovereign is he who decides on the state of emergency». In fact, the image of the Pope sketched by the Dicastery fits this: he can do and undo as he pleases. He is the indisputable sovereign, to whom not even the doctrine of an ecumenical council matters. The law of the strongest triumphs over the faith. «Si veut le roi, si veut la loi» (If the king wants it, the law wants it). Thus summarized the jurist Antoine Loysel (1536-1617) the French monarchical absolutism. This principle should now also be the new supreme form of synodality.