After Pope Francis flew to the protestant reformation’s 500th anniversary in Sweden he was greeted by the primate of the Church of Sweden, Archbishop Antje Jackelen, who is a woman. Pope Francis known commonly for bringing looser interpretations of catholic law, gave a surprisingly ridged verdict on the law that prohibits women from becoming priests. Citing an apostolic letter written in 1994 By Pope John Paul II, Francis reiterated that the letter said that ordaining women was not possible because Jesus chose only men as his apostles. The article stated that Francis’s remarks are likely to cheer Catholic traditionalists, who are increasingly prone to accusing the pope of confusing the flock on doctrinal matters. But the same remarks will probably dismay other Catholics who have said they would like to see women eventually serve as priests.
Micheal Bayles suggests that following rules is sufficient for moral conduct but only if it is done in the right way. It can readily be agreed too that the Pope should pay special attention to moral conduct, he is the pope after all. With Pope Francis’s recent allotments towards the LGQBT community and updated interpretations of Catholic law I argue that he has been behaving morally not repeating moral judgment that was decided outside of the current situation. This verdict however strays into what Bayles would consider blind rule following. It has been proven through studies that there is not evidence that shows that women are unsuited to perform the duties of a priest. This results in a clear case of sexism. Which according to Kant’s humanity formulation is immoral. This is because its nature deprives them of the dignity and respect. I argue that this is blind rule following rather than malicious rule following because Francis has proven through his other decisions that ill intent towards women remains to be seen. I see this as being more like case where Francis simple wasn’t able to give a reason so he relied on catholic law.