Pope Francis' motu proprio Spiritus Domini, promulgated about four years ago on January 10, 2021, introduced a small but significant change to the Code of Canon Law, extending the ministries of lector and acolyte to women. This decision, which reforms a two-thousand-year-old tradition, did not receive much attention nor did it provoke significant reactions or analyses from the traditional Catholic world. However, I believe it is useful to revisit it today, in the aftermath of the conclusion of the last session of the Synod on Synodality (October 27, 2024), to try to fully understand its scope and implications, perhaps even its hidden intentions. To do this, it is necessary to analyze its content, historical and theological context, and finally its possible consequences for the life of the Church.

The document is based on precise reasoning. It starts by considering the action of the Holy Spirit, who gives all the faithful, men and women, the charisms necessary to contribute to the growth of the Church and the spread of the Gospel. While the ordained ministries (bishops, priests, deacons) are so called because they are based on the sacrament of Holy Orders and exercise its offices, the minor ministries, which are now significantly called 'lay ministries,' would be based not on the sacrament of Holy Orders, but on Baptism. Pope Francis argues that, in the years preceding the promulgation of the motu proprio, a doctrine (it would be interesting to understand by whom) was developed that would clearly and definitively distinguish the efficient cause of lay ministries from that of ordained ministries. In the former, the efficient cause would indeed be Baptism; in the latter, Holy Orders. This distinct sacramental causality would make ordained ministries and lay ministries not only distinct but even independent of each other in their nature, although connected from a functional point of view, in the sense that the latter remain functional to the former. Lay ministries are 'at the service' of deacons, priests, and bishops. Consistently, this distinction, if accepted, can only pave the way for the conferment of minor ministries also to women, as Francis has indeed done with the publication of this motu proprio. Interestingly enough, according to what Francis wrote, this difference in the efficient cause of ministries would be 'implicitly' present in can. 230 § 2, but evidently only because it does not specify male exclusivity: “Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law.” Nevertheless, this canon refers to temporary assignments and those that have always been outside the minor ministries. It is not clear, therefore, where the implicit connection would be.

Francis deemed it appropriate to approve the new version of can. 230 § 1. In its old version, it read: “Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte.” The updated version of this canon removes the specification ‘men’.

Following this reasoning, Francis deemed it appropriate to approve the new version of can. 230 § 1. In its old version, it read: “Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte.” The updated version of this canon removes the specification ‘men’ (whose presence, however, demonstrates that the Law did not intend to make any implicit allusion against male exclusivity, at least regarding this canon). Naturally, the Pope concludes the document by citing his authority, stating: “I order that the provisions of this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio have firm and stable effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, even if worthy of special mention.”

From a theological point of view, however, Francis’ reasoning (which, as we will see, was actually already prepared in its premises by the reform of the minor orders by Paul VI) presents some critical issues. The Tradition of the Church, confirmed by the perennial magisterium (as we will see in analysis shortly, albeit briefly), has for centuries taught that the minor ministries do indeed have their efficient cause in Baptism, but at the same time had as their final cause the sacrament of Holy Orders. In other words, the minor ministries (today called 'lay ministries') have always been considered preparatory steps towards the sacrament of Holy Orders, but did not confer the sacrament of Holy Orders in the strict sense, and in this analogical sense, these ministries have always been called 'minor orders.' According to Francis and other neo-modernist theologians, however, the purpose of these ministries is only to assist the ordained ministers.

We know that the ecclesiastical hierarchy, by divine right, has a sacerdotal character and for this reason is based on Holy Orders, which consists of three main degrees: episcopate (which represents its fullness), presbyterate, and diaconate. These three degrees are therefore irreformable. Over the centuries, these three degrees have been accompanied by other offices, reaching a total of seven ministries, distinguished as major orders and minor orders. The major orders were four, and in addition to the three of divine right already mentioned, the subdiaconate was added at least since the 3rd century. The minor orders have been, for centuries, from highest to lowest, as follows: acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter.

The Council of Trent, in its XXIII Session (July 15, 1563), promulgated, engaging infallibility, the document on the Doctrine and Canons concerning the sacrament of Holy Orders. In it, the intention was to affirm the “true Catholic doctrine on the sacrament of Holy Orders” (Denz. 1763) and it was taught that “in the sacrament of Holy Orders [...] the character is imprinted” and that “if anyone says that all Christians, without distinction, are priests of the New Testament, (...) then he seems to do nothing but disturb the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is like ‘troops with banners’ (cf. Song of Songs 6, 3.9); just as if, contrary to what the blessed Paul teaches, all were apostles, all prophets, all evangelists, all pastors, all teachers (cf. 1Cor 12, 29; Eph 4, 11)” (Denz. 1767).

This change introduced by Spiritus Domini is therefore not without consequences for ecclesial life. By extending the so-called lay ministries (minor orders) to women, it breaks with a two-thousand-year-old tradition that reflected the hierarchical, sacerdotal, and sacramental nature of the Church.

And again, Trent explained the relationship between minor orders and major orders as follows: “Since the ministry attached to such a holy priesthood is a divine thing, it has followed that, to exercise it more worthily and with greater veneration, in the orderly articulation of the Church there should be several orders of ministers and different from each other, connected by their office to the priesthood, and distributed in such a way that those who had already received the clerical tonsure would arrive at the major orders through the minor ones. [...] It is known that from the beginning of the Church the names of the orders listed below and the ministries proper to each were in use, namely: subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, porter, although not with equal rank.” (Denz. 1765). Therefore, it has always been the official doctrine of the Church that the minor orders, while finding their efficient cause in the sacrament of Baptism, see as their end and reason for being the sacrament of Holy Orders, not the simple 'ancillarity' to priesthood.

Paul VI, renewing this centuries-old discipline with the motu proprio Ministeria quaedam (January 1, 1973), in fact laid the groundwork for Francis’ reform, whose implications, as we will see shortly, are not so minimal. St. Thomas Aquinas said: a small error at the beginning leads to a grave error at the end. In his document, Paul VI, among other things, officially renamed the 'minor orders' as 'ministries' (p. II), thus emphasizing at the terminological level that they “can also be entrusted to lay people, so that they are no longer considered as reserved for candidates for the sacrament of Holy Orders” (p. III). He also abolished the fourth major order of the subdiaconate, delegating and distributing its tasks to the minor orders (now called ministries) of lector and acolyte. The minor orders of exorcist and porter were also abolished, reducing the former to a particular office for priests only, to be exercised by appointment of the ordinary and concerning the administration of a sacramental (exorcism, precisely); and the latter to a generic office of supervision of the sacred place, to be entrusted to any layperson, and which does not require necessary skills.

Regarding the subdeacon (which once belonged to the major orders), he had the task of preparing the altar and the sacred vessels, assisting the deacon and the priest during the liturgy (a duty that today is also referred to as 'ministering'), carrying the book of the Gospels during processions, overseeing the discipline of the minor clergy and the faithful during celebrations, and was obliged to recite certain parts of the Liturgy of the Hours. It was considered a major order precisely because it was the link between the minor orders and the major orders proper, the latter being irreformable because they are of divine right, namely the diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate. It was the connecting link that led those aspiring to the priesthood towards the reception of Holy Orders proper, which occurred with the conferment of the diaconate.

Therefore, affirming that these ministries proceed from Baptism is certainly correct from a theological point of view, but it is not sufficient to make them independent from the major orders, since the final cause that Francis and Paul VI before him see for the minor ministries is partial compared to what the Church has always indicated. To prove this, consider the fact that, for centuries, the term 'clergy' did not only refer to the group of deacons, priests, and bishops, but also to all the candidates who had been 'approved' by the ordinary bishop to receive priestly ordination, and who had therefore embarked on the climb of the minor orders. Significantly, this climb began with the rite of the First Tonsure (abolished by Paul VI with the same motu proprio), which consisted of the cutting of five locks of hair by the bishop, thus symbolizing the aspirant priest's renunciation of the world. This 'death to the world' is precisely one of the peculiar vocations of the priest, eminently represented by the use of the black cassock (which, not coincidentally, has also fallen into disuse today). Furthermore, consider the fact that, even today, in common Italian language, the acolyte is often referred to as 'chierichetto,' meaning 'little cleric’.

Beyond the highly probable 'synodalist' and revolutionary intention just expressed, there is the more problematic aspect of this decision, namely its negative impact on priestly vocations. Serving at the altar is, in fact, the privileged place for vocational discernment. Not the seminary, not spiritual exercises, not directions, not sessions with psychologists, but the Altar is the place of the call.

The decision to extend the ministries of lector and acolyte to women is not an isolated act, but part of a broader strategy of gradually normalizing the introduction of women into the liturgical sphere. To confirm this, Pope Francis, at the end of the recent Synod on Synodality, stated that “times are not yet ripe” for the female diaconate. As if to say: the majority of the faithful are not yet ready to accept it. This statement, far from being a definitive closure (unlike, for example, what John Paul II had stated), seems rather to indicate a path to be developed gradually, according to the Overton window technique: shifting public debate towards initially unthinkable positions until they become acceptable. The official introduction of women in the presbytery contributes to this strategy. Women acolytes and lectors at the altar, in fact, have been accustoming the majority of Catholic faithful - actually, long before the promulgation of Francis' motu proprio - to a female presence in formal liturgical roles, making the next step, which would be admission to the diaconate, less unthinkable (whether this goal will actually be achieved is another matter: personally, I find it very unlikely).

Beyond the highly probable 'synodalist' and revolutionary intention just expressed, there is the more problematic aspect of this decision, namely its negative impact on priestly vocations. Serving at the altar is, in fact, the privileged place for vocational discernment. Not the seminary, not spiritual exercises, not directions, not sessions with psychologists, but the Altar is the place of the call. As Sacred Scripture teaches us, the young Samuel understood that he was called by the Lord during his service in the Temple, under the guidance of the priest Eli. After three calls, Eli realizes that it is God calling Samuel, and commands him to respond: “Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth.” (1Samuel 3, 10). Many priests discovered their calling by serving as altar boys, experiencing the beauty of the liturgy and the closeness to the Eucharistic Christ. However, the introduction of girls into this role has generated a dissuasive effect on adolescent boys. Those with educational experience know that young people, at this stage of growth, tend to avoid mixed environments, particularly those where the female presence is predominant. The introduction of girls into liturgical service, in fact, and not coincidentally, has led to a decrease in the number of boys involved in the same, further reducing opportunities for vocational discernment.

This change introduced by Spiritus Domini is therefore not without consequences for ecclesial life. By extending the so-called lay ministries (minor orders) to women, it breaks with a two-thousand-year-old tradition that reflected the hierarchical, sacerdotal, and sacramental nature of the Church. This change might seem minor, but it actually has significant symbolic and practical implications. Tradition is not merely a matter of custom, but the expression of a theological truth: liturgical ministries find their reason for being in Holy Orders, even when it comes to minor orders. Their separation from Holy Orders is a step towards a more functionalist and less sacramental view of ministry in the Church. Furthermore, by normalizing the female presence at the altar, there is a risk of further confusing the specific role of the priesthood, contributing to an identity crisis that already afflicts many faithful. For the theological and psychological reasons why Christ - not the Church - wanted to institute an exclusively male priesthood, this is not the appropriate place to delve into. For a partial but authoritative response, refer to the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

It is essential that parents, priests, and bishops regain full awareness of the pedagogical and vocational dimension of the acolyte. Parents have the task of promoting in their sons a genuine love for service at the Altar, explaining the profound meaning of this ministry. Priests, as spiritual guides, have the duty to transmit this awareness through their example and their words, educating young people to the sacredness of liturgical service. Bishops, finally, as shepherds of the dioceses, must guard and protect the respect for this Holy Nursery of God's vineyard that is the Altar, encouraging proper formation and sensitivity. Together, with renewed zeal, they can contribute to preserving the dignity and function of the acolyte, despite these directives, perhaps lawful, but certainly not as convenient, so that the acolyte continues to be a testimony to the beauty of divine liturgy and the fertile ground for vocations.

Latest from RTV — ABUSE OF POWER: Pope Accused of Violating Religious Freedom