Pope Francis did more to elevate women than any other pope. Will his successor cement or narrow his reforms?
For centuries, it was believed that in the Middle Ages, a woman who was particularly astute and talented disguised herself as a man and rose through the ranks of the Catholic Church until she eventually became pope. For two years, it was said, Pope Joan led the church, until her gender was shockingly discovered during a procession and she was stoned to death.
This was spoken of from the 13th to the 16th century, when writers began to query the lack of evidence, though some historians claim to have now gathered some
While mounting a horse. Gave birth. Just popped out a baby, mid-air. Find me one woman who has ever given birth whilst hopping onto a horse and I'll tell you the name of the next pope.
I understand people's fascination with the story, though; so fierce and enduring has been the church's tamping down of any suggestion of full equality for the women in their midst. Nuns have been disciplined, sisters hushed, laity forbidden from speaking about women priests, for challenging the idea that because Jesus's apostles were male, all priests must always be.
Photo shows
Pope Francis acknowledges the crowd as he arrives for his Inauguration Mass on March 19, 2013 in Vatican City.
The leader of the Catholic Church Pope Francis has died. The Argentinian Jesuit oversaw one of the most tumultuous periods in the Church's modern history.
There's good reason women get impatient with the institutional church. A century or so after being granted the right to vote, several decades after they began occupying the highest political positions in the world — Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher — the pace of change in the Catholic Church remains, to an outside eye, glacial.
With the passing of the widely admired Pope Francis, and the soon-to-be-seen spectre of 130-odd men dressed in scarlet robes gathering to vote for their next leader, we are reminded yet again of the complete absence of women in the upper echelons of the church, in rooms where decisions are made that will impact even the most intimate parts of their lives. This is despite the fact that Francis did more to elevate women than any other pope, often angering traditionalists in his ranks by doing so.
As a cardinal, he had washed the feet of a young mother in a maternity hospital. As pope, he washed the feet of two women in a juvenile detention centre, one of them a Muslim. This practice is a holy ceremony based on Jesus washing the feet of his disciples; for 200 years the Pope had only washed the feet of men. To include women was quietly radical and startled conservatives.
He also
Why won't the church rethink the place of women?
Importantly, Francis appointed more women to influential positions in the Vatican than any of his predecessors. Earlier this year, he made a religious sister the head of a department and appointed the first female president of the Vatican City State's government. He included women in the world 2024 Synod, and 57 had voting rights. He refused, though, to talk about the possibility of women in the priesthood, and has repeatedly blocked the ordination of women deacons, saying "not now".
Amongst Catholic intellectuals, the debate about women has centred on the diaconate — it remains frowned upon to even discuss women being made priests (John Paul II actually forbade any mention of it). Deacons, whilst on the lowest rungs of clergy, are the entry point to clerical status, and would implicitly possess some decision-making ability.
In the Catholic tradition, jurisdiction is the authority granted to individuals to govern or lead within the church. To lead, you most usually need to have been ordained — with a few exceptions of abbesses in the Middle Ages, and the early church female diaconate.
All the while, a growing number of people in the pews have been wondering why a church with thinning clerical ranks won't rethink the place of women. In
Nuns attend a rosary for Pope Francis at the Vatican following his death.
(
Reuters: Guglielmo Mangiapane
)
More specifically, in 2024, a Pew Research Center
Not long after Francis was elected, the Pontifical Council for Culture's annual assembly
In 2021, a worldwide listening session on the future of the church instituted by Francis and called Synod on Synodality began. In February this year, the National Catholic Reporter
Many have questioned whether the presence of more women higher up in the church could have punctured cultures of impunity when it came to child abuse years ago. But Francis has insisted: "The fact that the woman does not access ministerial life is not a deprivation because her place is much more important."
But Francis also admired what he called "feminine genius", even if he caused some
The Vatican remains overwhelmingly male
When asked to explain opposition to women becoming priests, he often cited two principles: the "Marian", which means that women, like Mary, are meant to serve the church in a motherly role, and the "Petrine" which means that men, like Peter the Apostle, are given the duty of ordained institutional leadership.
He was also seeking to de-clericalise the church and to decentralise authority. He devised a way to usher in more women by allowing people who were not priests to have more senior roles. At the local level, he allowed women to become
Photo shows
Pope Francis grinning while wearing white robes and a silver Catholic cross chain and waving with his left hand
Speculation is swirling about who could be the new leader of the Catholic church. But the secretive nature of papal elections means it's hard to pick a single frontrunner.
In 2022, he reformed the Roman Curia's constitution, formally separating the power of governance in the Vatican from sacramental power (the power bestowed on a man by holy orders). In other words, this separated administrative work from priestly work, which enabled him logically to appoint women to functional roles previously only held by male cardinals and bishops, whilst refusing to contemplate a woman might ever have the sacramental power of a cardinal or bishop, let alone deacon or priest.
Francis openly praised women's efficiency in government and finance. In 2010, women formed 17 per cent of Vatican employees, and
Still, the Vatican remains overwhelmingly male, and feminists shrugged off these changes as marginal, pointing to the fact that women are still locked out of rooms where the most important decisions are made.
As Benedictine nun and high profile author Joan Chittister wrote in a
Pope Francis touches an icon of the Virgin Mary after reciting the holy rosary at the St. Mary Major Basilica in Rome in May 2013.
(
AP: Gregorio Borgia
)
"The call for women in official positions at higher echelons in the church is promised — but ignored," Chittister wrote. "Women have nothing to do with the theological commissions where decisions are made that affect the spiritual lives of their half of the church." They have nothing to do with the choice of the next pope, or the core decisions about marriage, contraception, divorce, sexuality, abortion — about what it means to live in a woman's body.
Many millions are grieving the loss of the much-loved pope who worked until his last moments, who lived humbly and eschewed the trappings of high office, who continued to serve when infirm and in pain, who spent his final days addressing the faithful at Easter, calling for the ceasing of war in the Middle East, and meeting with the American vice president, a man whose immigration policies he had been sharply critical of. (In an open letter to American bishops, Francis
Loading
Here lies the rub
Pope Francis steered the church away from a focus on sin to a focus on suffering, and whilst many conservatives protested what they saw as his liberalism, he softened the image of the church, and tried to portray it a place of healing, tenderness and understanding.
He powerfully described the church as a field hospital, a place where the wounded should be bound, the sick cared for, the migrants housed, the lost embraced and the marginalised heard, before any other matters be addressed.
But
The truth is that women are the poorest of the poor. Men have paid jobs; few women in the world do. Men have clear civil, legal and religious rights in marriage; few women in the world do. Men take education for granted; few women in the world can expect the same. Men are allowed positions of power and authority outside the home; few women in the world can hope for the same. Men have the right to ownership and property; most of the women of the world are denied these things by law, by custom, by religious tradition. Women are owned, beaten, raped and enslaved regularly simply because they are female. And worst of all, perhaps, they are ignored — rejected — as full human beings, as genuine disciples, by their churches, including our own.
Our own
— here lies the rub. Recent revelations of poor treatment of women inside the church caused considerable alarm — and resentment.
In 2019, historian Lucetta
Lucetta Scaraffia quit her job as editor-in-chief of Women Church World in 2019.
(
AP: Domenico Stinellis
)
This is not entirely fair — in 2021 sociologist Maria Lia Zervino
The next year, Francis promoted her, electing her as a member of the Vatican's
And, as
The question today for those who wish women to exercise their full talents in the church is whether Francis's successor will continue, cement or narrow his reforms. The likes of Chittister and Zervino will be watching carefully.
For now, any suggestion that there could be a scenario whereby, scandalously, someone other than a man could become pope, will need to turn to fictional Hollywood films such as Conclave, or dust off the myths of history.
Juila Baird is an author, broadcaster, journalist and co-host of the
.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

ABC News
8 hours ago
- ABC News
ACT Greens announce bill that would make institutions vicariously liable for sexual abuse by employees
The ACT Greens have unveiled a bill aimed at making institutions such as the Catholic Church, Scouts and sporting groups vicariously liable for the actions of those associated with them who have sexually abused children. This includes priests, Scouts leaders, and sports coaches who may have a relationship with the organisation akin to employment, even though it is not strictly an employment relationship. The move was prompted by a High Court ruling last year that found a priest, accused of child sex offences, was not an employee of the church, so the institution could not be held vicariously liable for his actions because that only applies in employment relationships. "I am deeply concerned that we are now seeing a situation where institutions that have had people abused in their care are now able to avoid responsibility because of this apparent lack of connection where people who were priests, coaches other roles, as part of these institutions, are now not seen to be covered by that organisation," Greens leader Shane Rattenbury said. The High Court case involved a man who was allegedly sexually abused by the family priest in 1971, during pastoral visits to his family home. The man was only five at the time. The priest was Father Bryan Coffey, who was convicted of offences against other children in the 1990s and has since died. The High Court ruling was a bitter blow for the alleged victim, who had won two Victorian court cases, which found the church was vicariously liable for the damage caused to him. In both rulings it was found Father Coffey was not an employee of the church but had a special place within the hierarchy of the church, which gave rise to vicarious liability. The High Court found that simply wasn't the case, and only an employment relationship matters. "My observation of having read the material from the High Court is that they were looking at the broader picture of vicarious liability, and its broad status in the law, as opposed to the specific matters of child sexual abuse," Mr Rattenbury said. "So the High Court was thinking much more about a range of corporate matters and the like rather than the specifics." Mr Rattenbury said his proposed law would target child sex abuse. Lawyer Alessandra Pettit, who was involved in the launch of today's draft law, says the real problem is for the victims. "We spent $370 million on a royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse and whilst a lot of the recommendations have been helpful, it seems to be a bit of a pendulum in this area that it keeps swinging each way," Ms Pettit said. "I am really really concerned about the effect of this on my clients. "You are dealing with a cohort of people who have already been abused as children by someone in a position of power. "To stand up in court is not an easy thing for anyone and then to have technical legal arguments take that away is really really difficult." Mr Rattenbury said the Council of Attorneys General was looking at the issue, but it was something that had to be addressed more locally. "This will not be a national response, it is one that will sit with states and territories," Mr Rattenbury said. "So my view is to move forward. "And the ACT can act as a template and a guide for other jurisdictions." Mr Rattenbury said he was hoping his private members bill would get some traction in the Assembly. "This bill is about ensuring victims have access to justice for the crimes committed against them as children and it's about ensuring institutions make amends for the harm caused by their institutions and the people participated and took significant roles in those institutions," Mr Rattenbury said. The bill will be presented later in the month.


The Advertiser
10 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Muslim preacher defends 'dehumanising' sermons on Jews
An Islamist preacher's speeches that allegedly painted Jewish people as "vile and treacherous" were not racist but formed part of a robust discussion, his lawyer has argued. Sydney-based Al Madina Dawah Centre cleric Wissam Haddad has been accused of racial discrimination after a series of fiery sermons from November 2023, which have racked up thousands of views online. In one of his speeches, he appears to blame the roots of "the enmity that we see today" on "none other than the Jews ... because their forefathers had shown the same enmity to the Prophet (Mohammed)." Mr Haddad is being sued by Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim and deputy president Robert Goot, who are seeking the removal of the allegedly racist speeches. They also want Mr Haddad to be barred from making similar comments again. Mr Wertheim told the Federal Court on Tuesday the speeches used "overtly dehumanising" language. "Making derogatory generalisations, calling Jews a vile and treacherous people, calling them rats and cowards ... are things which I think would be experienced by most Jews as dehumanising," he said. His barrister Peter Braham SC told the court the speeches drew on a large range of offensive tropes and were designed to threaten, humiliate and denigrate all Jewish people. The court was told Mr Haddad, who is also known as Abu Ousayd, addressed a camera and engaged with media coverage of his commentary. But his barrister Andrew Boe argued the preacher's speeches were intended for a private Muslim audience of 40 people and he was not responsible for publishing them online. He said it was unlikely any Jewish people would have come across the speeches if they had not received coverage by media organisations. "It would be analogous to a person of a prudish sensitivity seeking out pornography on the web and then complaining about being offended by it," Mr Boe said. Mr Haddad denies breaching anti-discrimination laws and claims he was delivering historical and religious lectures on historical events from the Koran and the war in Gaza. The speeches occurred in the context of a vigorous political debate characterised by an intensity of feeling on both sides and set against the background of a long religious history, Mr Boe said. He advocated for the preservation of free speech and argued the boundaries of debate couldn't be set so narrow as to exclude views which were not polite, bland or balanced. Mr Wertheim said being exposed to challenging ideas in robust conversations did not insult him "as long as they don't cross the boundary into vilification". His lawyer told the court that the Jewish community lived with "a communal memory of past persecution and which remains conscious of threats to its safety by reason of race". The hearing continues. Lifeline 13 11 14 beyondblue 1300 22 4636 An Islamist preacher's speeches that allegedly painted Jewish people as "vile and treacherous" were not racist but formed part of a robust discussion, his lawyer has argued. Sydney-based Al Madina Dawah Centre cleric Wissam Haddad has been accused of racial discrimination after a series of fiery sermons from November 2023, which have racked up thousands of views online. In one of his speeches, he appears to blame the roots of "the enmity that we see today" on "none other than the Jews ... because their forefathers had shown the same enmity to the Prophet (Mohammed)." Mr Haddad is being sued by Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim and deputy president Robert Goot, who are seeking the removal of the allegedly racist speeches. They also want Mr Haddad to be barred from making similar comments again. Mr Wertheim told the Federal Court on Tuesday the speeches used "overtly dehumanising" language. "Making derogatory generalisations, calling Jews a vile and treacherous people, calling them rats and cowards ... are things which I think would be experienced by most Jews as dehumanising," he said. His barrister Peter Braham SC told the court the speeches drew on a large range of offensive tropes and were designed to threaten, humiliate and denigrate all Jewish people. The court was told Mr Haddad, who is also known as Abu Ousayd, addressed a camera and engaged with media coverage of his commentary. But his barrister Andrew Boe argued the preacher's speeches were intended for a private Muslim audience of 40 people and he was not responsible for publishing them online. He said it was unlikely any Jewish people would have come across the speeches if they had not received coverage by media organisations. "It would be analogous to a person of a prudish sensitivity seeking out pornography on the web and then complaining about being offended by it," Mr Boe said. Mr Haddad denies breaching anti-discrimination laws and claims he was delivering historical and religious lectures on historical events from the Koran and the war in Gaza. The speeches occurred in the context of a vigorous political debate characterised by an intensity of feeling on both sides and set against the background of a long religious history, Mr Boe said. He advocated for the preservation of free speech and argued the boundaries of debate couldn't be set so narrow as to exclude views which were not polite, bland or balanced. Mr Wertheim said being exposed to challenging ideas in robust conversations did not insult him "as long as they don't cross the boundary into vilification". His lawyer told the court that the Jewish community lived with "a communal memory of past persecution and which remains conscious of threats to its safety by reason of race". The hearing continues. Lifeline 13 11 14 beyondblue 1300 22 4636 An Islamist preacher's speeches that allegedly painted Jewish people as "vile and treacherous" were not racist but formed part of a robust discussion, his lawyer has argued. Sydney-based Al Madina Dawah Centre cleric Wissam Haddad has been accused of racial discrimination after a series of fiery sermons from November 2023, which have racked up thousands of views online. In one of his speeches, he appears to blame the roots of "the enmity that we see today" on "none other than the Jews ... because their forefathers had shown the same enmity to the Prophet (Mohammed)." Mr Haddad is being sued by Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim and deputy president Robert Goot, who are seeking the removal of the allegedly racist speeches. They also want Mr Haddad to be barred from making similar comments again. Mr Wertheim told the Federal Court on Tuesday the speeches used "overtly dehumanising" language. "Making derogatory generalisations, calling Jews a vile and treacherous people, calling them rats and cowards ... are things which I think would be experienced by most Jews as dehumanising," he said. His barrister Peter Braham SC told the court the speeches drew on a large range of offensive tropes and were designed to threaten, humiliate and denigrate all Jewish people. The court was told Mr Haddad, who is also known as Abu Ousayd, addressed a camera and engaged with media coverage of his commentary. But his barrister Andrew Boe argued the preacher's speeches were intended for a private Muslim audience of 40 people and he was not responsible for publishing them online. He said it was unlikely any Jewish people would have come across the speeches if they had not received coverage by media organisations. "It would be analogous to a person of a prudish sensitivity seeking out pornography on the web and then complaining about being offended by it," Mr Boe said. Mr Haddad denies breaching anti-discrimination laws and claims he was delivering historical and religious lectures on historical events from the Koran and the war in Gaza. The speeches occurred in the context of a vigorous political debate characterised by an intensity of feeling on both sides and set against the background of a long religious history, Mr Boe said. He advocated for the preservation of free speech and argued the boundaries of debate couldn't be set so narrow as to exclude views which were not polite, bland or balanced. Mr Wertheim said being exposed to challenging ideas in robust conversations did not insult him "as long as they don't cross the boundary into vilification". His lawyer told the court that the Jewish community lived with "a communal memory of past persecution and which remains conscious of threats to its safety by reason of race". The hearing continues. Lifeline 13 11 14 beyondblue 1300 22 4636 An Islamist preacher's speeches that allegedly painted Jewish people as "vile and treacherous" were not racist but formed part of a robust discussion, his lawyer has argued. Sydney-based Al Madina Dawah Centre cleric Wissam Haddad has been accused of racial discrimination after a series of fiery sermons from November 2023, which have racked up thousands of views online. In one of his speeches, he appears to blame the roots of "the enmity that we see today" on "none other than the Jews ... because their forefathers had shown the same enmity to the Prophet (Mohammed)." Mr Haddad is being sued by Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim and deputy president Robert Goot, who are seeking the removal of the allegedly racist speeches. They also want Mr Haddad to be barred from making similar comments again. Mr Wertheim told the Federal Court on Tuesday the speeches used "overtly dehumanising" language. "Making derogatory generalisations, calling Jews a vile and treacherous people, calling them rats and cowards ... are things which I think would be experienced by most Jews as dehumanising," he said. His barrister Peter Braham SC told the court the speeches drew on a large range of offensive tropes and were designed to threaten, humiliate and denigrate all Jewish people. The court was told Mr Haddad, who is also known as Abu Ousayd, addressed a camera and engaged with media coverage of his commentary. But his barrister Andrew Boe argued the preacher's speeches were intended for a private Muslim audience of 40 people and he was not responsible for publishing them online. He said it was unlikely any Jewish people would have come across the speeches if they had not received coverage by media organisations. "It would be analogous to a person of a prudish sensitivity seeking out pornography on the web and then complaining about being offended by it," Mr Boe said. Mr Haddad denies breaching anti-discrimination laws and claims he was delivering historical and religious lectures on historical events from the Koran and the war in Gaza. The speeches occurred in the context of a vigorous political debate characterised by an intensity of feeling on both sides and set against the background of a long religious history, Mr Boe said. He advocated for the preservation of free speech and argued the boundaries of debate couldn't be set so narrow as to exclude views which were not polite, bland or balanced. Mr Wertheim said being exposed to challenging ideas in robust conversations did not insult him "as long as they don't cross the boundary into vilification". His lawyer told the court that the Jewish community lived with "a communal memory of past persecution and which remains conscious of threats to its safety by reason of race". The hearing continues. Lifeline 13 11 14 beyondblue 1300 22 4636


West Australian
10 hours ago
- West Australian
Muslim preacher defends 'dehumanising' sermons on Jews
An Islamist preacher's speeches that allegedly painted Jewish people as "vile and treacherous" were not racist but formed part of a robust discussion, his lawyer has argued. Sydney-based Al Madina Dawah Centre cleric Wissam Haddad has been accused of racial discrimination after a series of fiery sermons from November 2023, which have racked up thousands of views online. In one of his speeches, he appears to blame the roots of "the enmity that we see today" on "none other than the Jews ... because their forefathers had shown the same enmity to the Prophet (Mohammed)." Mr Haddad is being sued by Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim and deputy president Robert Goot, who are seeking the removal of the allegedly racist speeches. They also want Mr Haddad to be barred from making similar comments again. Mr Wertheim told the Federal Court on Tuesday the speeches used "overtly dehumanising" language. "Making derogatory generalisations, calling Jews a vile and treacherous people, calling them rats and cowards ... are things which I think would be experienced by most Jews as dehumanising," he said. His barrister Peter Braham SC told the court the speeches drew on a large range of offensive tropes and were designed to threaten, humiliate and denigrate all Jewish people. The court was told Mr Haddad, who is also known as Abu Ousayd, addressed a camera and engaged with media coverage of his commentary. But his barrister Andrew Boe argued the preacher's speeches were intended for a private Muslim audience of 40 people and he was not responsible for publishing them online. He said it was unlikely any Jewish people would have come across the speeches if they had not received coverage by media organisations. "It would be analogous to a person of a prudish sensitivity seeking out pornography on the web and then complaining about being offended by it," Mr Boe said. Mr Haddad denies breaching anti-discrimination laws and claims he was delivering historical and religious lectures on historical events from the Koran and the war in Gaza. The speeches occurred in the context of a vigorous political debate characterised by an intensity of feeling on both sides and set against the background of a long religious history, Mr Boe said. He advocated for the preservation of free speech and argued the boundaries of debate couldn't be set so narrow as to exclude views which were not polite, bland or balanced. Mr Wertheim said being exposed to challenging ideas in robust conversations did not insult him "as long as they don't cross the boundary into vilification". His lawyer told the court that the Jewish community lived with "a communal memory of past persecution and which remains conscious of threats to its safety by reason of race". The hearing continues. Lifeline 13 11 14 beyondblue 1300 22 4636