Rewriting the Canon: Why We Need a Genealogy of Women’s Catholic Thought Today
In July 2024, the Vatican announced that its doctrinal office would prepare a document on women in leadership roles within the Catholic Church, marking a significant step toward acknowledging their participation in ecclesiastical life. While Pope Francis has reaffirmed the ban on women priests, he has also appointed women to high-ranking Vatican positions and encouraged broader discussions on their role in shaping the Church’s future. Notably, he granted them the right to vote in the synod process —a practice previously reserved for men.
However, as this week’s #WomensWednesday post seeks to highlight, expanding women’s leadership within the Church must go beyond increasing their presence in institutional roles. It also requires a deeper recognition, understanding, and integration of their intellectual contributions —tracing how women have engaged with, influenced, and sometimes even shaped theological debates. These debates, in turn, have defined the very institutional structures and academic disciplines that govern religious discourse and that provide the legalistic recognition of women’s intellectual and apostolic agency. Remarkably, women have done so despite being formally barred from studying theology until the mid-20th century.
From the earliest days of Christianity, women have actively engaged with and shaped religious communities and ideas (Schüssler Fiorenza; Beverly Mayne & J. Walker, P.; Rorem). Yet despite this effort by scholars, women’s intellectual and theological contributions continue to be overlooked. Societal expectations have frequently confined female religious leadership to the realm of mysticism or, at worst, heresy. At the same time, women who used faith to navigate their everyday lives were primarily recognized as spiritual figures, rather than intellectual contributors. This narrow perception has fuelled the misconception that women lacked a tradition of theological engagement.
However, as recent scholarship has shown, the absence of female voices in dominant religious intellectual traditions is not due to their non-existence, but rather to profound historiographical and hermeneutical neglect (Rakoczy; Dillen; Briggs and McClintock Fulkerson). This is the second key point that this week’s #WomensWednesday seeks to highlight: fully affirming women’s place in the Church requires more than simply uncovering their intellectual contributions. In order to be truly effective, this initiative demands for a true genealogical effort, one that reexamines how we relate to the intellectual legacy of Catholic women, that illuminates the struggles that shaped women’s role in the development of Catholic thought, that challenges the boundaries of the official canon, and that restores women to their rightful place within the tradition of Catholic theological and intellectual inquiry. Only by confronting this history can we fully grasp the deeper roots of contemporary debates. This recognition is essential for advancing a more inclusive vision not only for the future of Catholicism, but also for the broader role played by women in contemporary societies (a topic to be explored in a future post).
Genealogy, as conceptualized by Michel Foucault, is not a mere search for origins but an examination of the descent and emergence of canons and the sources of authority that shape knowledge. Rather than assuming a linear or inevitable progression, genealogy uncovers the contingent, fractured, and often suppressed histories that inform our present understanding of intellectual and historical phenomena. As Foucault explains, genealogy does this on multiple levels (see: Nietzsche, Genealogy, History). First, it disturbs what was previously thought immobile. Second, it fragments what was thought unified. Finally, it shows the heterogeneity of what was imagined consistent with itself.
In this light, a genealogical approach to women’s roles in Catholic thought exposes how their marginalization, misrepresentation, or omission was not incidental, but produced by broader structures of power and epistemology, which often operate in unconscious ways that extend well beyond the religious sphere (for example, in disciplines like history). At the same time, it reveals how women actively navigated and reshaped religious discourse despite these structural constraints, sometimes by adopting a subversive stand, but also by strategically advancing their ideas while remaining within the constraints of the ‘respectable’ or that which was permitted. Tracing this genealogy is not just an act of historical recovery but a means of critically interrogating how these exclusions continue to shape contemporary debates and practices —both within Catholicism and in society at large— so that women are included as full intellectual agents in current spaces of intellectual inquiry, as well as in historical narratives, theology and contemporary discussions on faith and leadership.
Among other things, this hermeneutical method allows us to interrogate the dominant narratives that have framed the Second Vatican Council as a foundational moment or point de départ for women in the Church. This narrative is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, it does not allow us to fully understand the important work by the so-called ‘pioneers’ that came before the 1960s. Secondly, it indirectly silences the tensions, resistances, and negotiations that preceded and, above all, followed this event, particularly the difficulties that Catholic women leaders had to face in the 1970s as the reception of the II Vatican Council and neoliberal societal norms geared towards conservatism.
Feminist theology has long emphasized the recovery of women’s history from biblical and early Christian sources. However, it is equally essential to extend this inquiry to more recent historical periods, recognizing that women have continued to shape key theological and religious debates —including those of the Second Vatican Council. TheoFem seeks to make visible and critically examine laywomen’s participation in international organizations in postwar global societies as a means of reassessing their role as meaningful intellectual agents. As I have previously argued (Núñez Bargueño 2023, as well as in numerous conferences), their presence as periti (i.e. auditors or experts) during the final two sessions of Vatican II cannot be seen in isolation or as a starting point; rather, it must be understood in the context of their prior engagement in religious and civic organizations.
During my recent research stay at the Vatican Archives*, I found further confirmation of the depth of this involvement, revealing that these women’s influence was neither marginal nor incidental. In the years leading up to the Council, they played a significant yet often overlooked role within international organizations (such as the United Nations) laying crucial groundwork for the intellectual and social transformations of the 1960s. While some studies have addressed their participation in the Council (Valerio, Madigan), their earlier intellectual contributions remain largely unexplored, and the historical significance of their thought, social and apostolate action has yet to be fully re-examined. A genealogical approach is essential to uncover how these women navigated institutional structures (both within and without the Church), how they negotiated authority, expanded their agency, and shaped—or critically engaged with— contemporary secular and Catholic thought, including the magisterium and theological discourse.
While researching for an upcoming article on the role of Spanish women in the modernist crisis, I have come to realize that Catholic women have played a bigger role in many crucial contemporary religious and social debates that they are usually given credit for. However, adequately identifying and contextualizing their contributions requires a fundamental reconsideration —not only of how we define key historical moments in intellectual history (such as the modernist crisis) but also of what constitutes theology or intellectuality itself. In this, I follow Jacqueline R. deVries. She has argued that the work of women writing at the turn of the twentieth century is often not recognized as theology because it was expressed through what she defines as ‘domestic’ genres: letters, small devotional books, hymns, poetry, novels, and periodical articles (2023, 355). This insight strongly resonates with Bernard McGinn’s concept of ‘vernacular theology**.’ For McGinn, vernacular theology represents a largely unacknowledged third strand of medieval theology —alongside scholastic and monastic traditions— in which women played a significant role. Again, the emphasis is on alternative modes of expression: literary forms such as treatises, poetry, songs, and visionary accounts. Crucially, McGinn also highlights the broader readership of vernacular theology, which extended beyond the academically trained audiences addressed by scholastic and monastic theology, thus it implies a certain democratization —if still very limited, of course— of intellectual inquiry. This dynamic finds a striking parallel in the mid-to-late twentieth century, particularly in the proliferation of Catholic publications for women, mainly within (but not limited to) Catholic Action and other lay organizations such as the JOC and the Legion of Mary, which points to a greater informal participation in the conversation by an increasing number of women (particularly, if one takes into account the religious boom that took place in post 1945 world, see for example, McLeod). Thus, revisiting these sources with different eyes may allow us to integrate Catholic women’s vernacular theology within the greater debates taking place in contemporary religious and secular intellectual circles, such as ecumenism, lay apostleship, personalism, human dignity, developmentalism, etc.
A critical genealogy of women in contemporary Catholic thought further challenges what Adrienne Rich has termed as ‘compensatory history’. In Blood, Bread, and Poetry: Selected Prose 1979–1985 (1994, 10), Rich warns readers against the tendency in Women’s Studies to become a history that acknowledges women’s contributions without fundamentally challenging existing intellectual and political structures, one that runs parallel to the ‘accepted’ view of history (as heteronormative male dominated). Instead, she calls for a feminist perspective that reexamines history through a female lens, advocating for a cultural shift that prevents women’s history from being relegated to mere appendices in mainstream narratives.
This insight is particularly relevant to theology, where women’s contributions, though increasingly recognized in pre-modern and modern contexts, remain significantly overlooked in contemporary religious debates. Notably, this is the case for the period preceding their official admission to theological studies —that is, the early to mid-twentieth century. By situating laywomen’s work within broader social, intellectual, and religious currents, a genealogical approach not only recovers their voices but also redefines the historical narratives that have shaped the intellectual, theological, feminist and historical canon.
In particular, with regards to laywomen’s intellectual contributions, while it is true that their study is gaining traction, significant scholarly gaps remain. English-speaking scholarship has advanced through works such as Mary J. Henold, and forthcoming research by Mary Kate Holman. An interesting initiative led by Bonnie Lander Johnson and Julia Meszaros for the Catholic University of America Press is the publication series Catholic Women Writers. Italian studies have also made significant strides (Adriana Valerio, Perroni & Melloni). However, they mostly focus on women’s agency but not so much (or enough) on their intellectual output. Parallelly, similar efforts are still lacking in other linguistic contexts. In France, Clarisse Tesson’s work is a notable exception (see the Newsletter of her current project: Les femmes dans les facultés de théologie catholique) while Spanish, Dutch and German scholarship remain sparse (Martínez Cano, Derks, Heyder & Muschiol). Bridging these gaps requires a community of scholars committed to a shared purpose —recovering and integrating these women’s voices into the broader intellectual and theological canon. A collective effort across linguistic and national boundaries is essential to fully grasp the depth and continuity of their contributions.
To conclude, writing a genealogy of women in Catholic thought is not merely about reinserting women into historical narratives but about critically examining the power structures that have shaped —and continue to shape— our understanding of their contributions and the cannon that has not fully included them. It reveals the ways in which past gender biases persist in contemporary scholarship (and beyond religious studies), underscoring the need to reassess how intellectual authority has been constructed. Moreover, it highlights the broader societal implications of reclaiming women’s roles in religious history, demonstrating how such work can empower women —both within and beyond Catholicism— to challenge patriarchal structures. By foregrounding women as essential agents of intellectual change, genealogical research serves as a tool of a postsecular feminist historical analysis (Bradiotti), connecting individual voices to larger socio-political frameworks and reshaping our understanding of religious and intellectual traditions. A further significant step would be to de-centralise the role of western voices in this history, and to include women intellectuals belonging to the Global South in the cannon (Oduyoye; Tamez; Kwok)
Stay tuned for more #WomensWednesday’s food for feminine thought! See you in two weeks!
*I would like to express my gratitude to the École Française de Rome for having granted me the opportunity to serve as a visiting fellow (chercheuse résidente), allowing me to spend three months immersed in fruitful research across Rome’s diverse archives. I am also deeply thankful to Alejandro Mario Diéguez for his invaluable support in navigating these immensely complex and rich archival collections, helping me to interrogate them in new and insightful ways.
**I am deeply grateful to Alana Harris for introducing me to this fascinating concept, and to my colleagues at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies —particularly Dries Bosschaert and the members of CRIID (https://criid.be/) for the enriching conversations that continue to shape my thinking on this and other related themes, which are central to the advancement of TheloFem.
Cited works and further food for thought:
Beverly Mayne, K. and J. Walker, P. eds. Women Preachers and Prophets through Two Millennia of Christianity. University of California Press, 1998.
Braidotti, R. (2008). ‘In Spite of the Times: The Postsecular Turn in Feminism.’ Theory, Culture & Society, 25(6), 1-24.
Briggs, Sheila, and Mary McClintock Fulkerson, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theology. Oxford University Press, 2012.
de Vries, J. 2023. “Women and Theological Modernism.” Modern Believing 64(4).
Derks, M. 2013. “Changing Lanes: Dutch Women Witnessing the Second Vatican Council.” Trajecta 22 pp. 81-102.
Dillen, Annemie. Women’s Studies, Religion and Theology. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Faculty of Theology, 2009.
Foucault, Michel. 1971. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.” In Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, edited by Donald F. Bouchard, 139-164. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Henold, Mary J. 2020. The Laywoman Project: Remaking Catholic Womanhood in the Vatican II Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Henold, Mary J. 2008. Catholic and Feminist: The Surprising History of the American Catholic Feminist Movement. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Heyder, R., and G. Muschiol. 2018. Katholikinnen und das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Münster: Aschendorff.
Kwok, Pui-lan., editor. Hope Abundant: Third World and Indigenous Women’s Theology. Orbis, 2010.
Lander Johnson B. and Meszaros J., Catholic Women Writers, Catholic University of America Press: https://www.cuapress.org/search-results/?series=catholic-women-writers
Madigan, P. 2018. “Women During and After Vatican II.” In Catholicism Opening to the World and Other Confessions: Vatican II and Its Impact, edited by V. Latinovic, G. Mannion, and J. Welle, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 79-96.
Martínez Cano, Silvia. 2024. “Pero Ellas Dijeron. 70 Años De Teología Feminista En España.” Proyección. Teología Y Mundo Actual 295 (December): pp. 399-414.
McGinn, B. 1994 “Introduction,” in: Meister Eckhart and the Beguine Mystics: Hadewijch of Brabant, Mechtild of Magdeburg and Marguerite Porete, New York: Continuum, pp. 1-14
McLeod, H. 2007. The Religious Crisis of the 1960s. Oxford University Press.
Núñez Bargueño, N. 2024. “Between anti-modernism and modernism? The complex legacy of Spanish Catholic Women as Intellectuals and Agents of Change (1878-1958)”. In: Modernism, Annual Journal of Contemporary Religious Reformism, Fondazione Romolo Murri (forthcoming).
Núñez Bargueño, N. 2023. “Recovering the Legacy of the Thought of Catholic Lay Women (1945-62)”. JoMaCC, 2(1), 21-44.
Oduyoye, Mercy Amba. 2001. Introducing African Women’s Theology. Sheffield academic press.
Pelletier-Baillargeon, H. 1966. “Un Concile pour le deuxième sexe?” Maintenant 53: 145-149.
Perroni, M., A. Melloni, and S. Noceti, eds. 2012. «Tantum aurora est»: Donne e Concilio Vaticano II. Münster: LIT.
Rakoczy, Susan. 2004. In Her Name : Women Doing Theology. Cluster.
Rorem, Paul. 2003. “The Company of Medieval Women Theologians.” Theology Today (Ephrata, Pa.), vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 82–93,
Rich, A. 1994. Blood, Bread, and Poetry: Selected Prose 1979-1985. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Schüssler Fiorenza, E. 1983. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad.
Tamez, Elsa, editor. 1989. Through Her Eyes : Women’s Theology from Latin America. Orbis Books.
Tesson, C., and Mohr, M. Newsletter: Les femmes dans les facultés de théologie catholique:
Valerio, A. 2012. Madri del Concilio: Ventitré donne al Vaticano II. Rome: Carocci.