C
CaptBell800
Guest
That’s what I meant. What is embarrassing about women not being able to become priests?
Does a Catholic women have a God given right to work (Have a Career)
- Status
P
Portrait
Guest
FAO Baelor
Dear Baelor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well and thankyou for your response.
First, dear brother, our Church does indeed recognise that some men and women will remain single, however it was God’s intention that marriage, for procreation and mutual companionship, would be normative for the vast majority of mankind. If it is not good for a man to be alone then it cannot be good for a woman to be alone either (Gen. 2: 18).
Traditional Catholic Catechisms (teaching on the Fourth Commandment), uphold that the vocation of the married women is best fulfilled within the home and in this they were simply reflecting the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the ages. Moreover, dear brother, this Church teaching, which has not gone mouldly, has only been challenged since the emergence of radical feminist ideology in the Sixties. Unfortunately, either wittingly or unwittingly, this subversive thinking has been embraced by not a few modern Catholic women (and some misguided men also), such has been its phenomenal impact on Western thought.
An obligation is laid upon a married women to provide for the formation of her children and her exclusive concern is to be a ‘helpmate’ for her breadwinning husband. This Christian teaching, dear brother, has also been reinforced by the Popes when the subversive woman’s emancipation movement began to gather momentum in the 20th. century. It is almost as if, by the divine providence, they anticipated the full-blown radical feminism of the 1960’s - the sad legacy of which we are having to contend with today.
Already in 1917, Pope Benedict XV warned that a revolution was making particular effort to snatch women from the home and into the world of work:
"With the decline of religion, cultured women have lost their sense of shame along with their piety. Many, in order to take up occupations ill-befitting their sex, took to imitating men. Others abandoned the duty of housewife, for which they were fashioned, to cast themselves recklessly into current life (Letter Natalis trecentesime, 1917, added emphasis mine).
Pope Pius XI refered to the movement to liberate women from domestic home life and the godly rearing of children:
“It is the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the wall of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soo be reduced to the old state of slavery and become as among the pagans, the mere instrument of man” (Encylical Casti Connubii 1930).
Pius XI also observes opportunely that the best way to destroy Catholic family life is “to withdraw the wife from the care of the family and the care of the children” and “thrust her instead into public life and collective production under the same conditons as the man”. This, ultimately leads to a materialist collective society and actually to the degradation of true womanhood.
Pope Pius XII frequently addressed what he termed “the temptations of our day” for women to be lured by a “false independence” away from the family hearth and "the task assigned her for the good of society, by nature and by marriage" (added emphasis mine).
Moreover, he insists that to take a woman away from the family is to extinguish the flame in the hearth of the home - jolly strong sounding stuff to us who have been unrelentingly subjected to a steady stream of feminist propaganda:
“The atmosphere of the home cools, the family circle ceases to exist and the centre of daily life will be found eslewhere for her husband, for the wife herself and for her children” (Allocution to newly-weds 1943 in The Woman and the Modern World, pp. 79-81).
The Pope was only too well aware that some women - both then and now - will protest rebelliously against this life of sacrifice, convincing themselves and others that its not for them, thus he wisely responds: "Do you really believe, however, that there is any true solid happiness here below not won through sacrifice and self-denial?. For the wife and mother, it is those daily sacrifices for husband and children - “in an office given her by nature" - that will ensure the life of all to develop and floursish, and win her satisfaction” (Allocution to newly-weds 1942, added emphasis mine).
These Popes being dead yet speaketh forcefully, dear brother, to our present confused generation, plagued by deviant feminist thinking. It could well have been written for our own age, for it is timeless teaching that does not become mouldy and irrelevant with the passage of time. Moreover, I hope that those viewing this thread will see, perhaps for the first time, that these excerpts give a good idea of what a grand and glorious vocation it is to be a full-time Catholic mother and wife.
Finally, these extracts need no elabloration from me, for their meaning is perfectly clear. The Popes are very rigorous in stating that a mother should remain at home and not go out to work. You will observe, dear brother, that they also considered the modern tendency to want to “emancipate the mother” to be a jolly bad thing. Therefore a person seeking orientation need only apply those teachings, for they have not become obsolete and worthless. On the contrary, dear brother, they apply now more than they ever did.
God bless .
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
Dear Baelor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well and thankyou for your response.
First, dear brother, our Church does indeed recognise that some men and women will remain single, however it was God’s intention that marriage, for procreation and mutual companionship, would be normative for the vast majority of mankind. If it is not good for a man to be alone then it cannot be good for a woman to be alone either (Gen. 2: 18).
Traditional Catholic Catechisms (teaching on the Fourth Commandment), uphold that the vocation of the married women is best fulfilled within the home and in this they were simply reflecting the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the ages. Moreover, dear brother, this Church teaching, which has not gone mouldly, has only been challenged since the emergence of radical feminist ideology in the Sixties. Unfortunately, either wittingly or unwittingly, this subversive thinking has been embraced by not a few modern Catholic women (and some misguided men also), such has been its phenomenal impact on Western thought.
An obligation is laid upon a married women to provide for the formation of her children and her exclusive concern is to be a ‘helpmate’ for her breadwinning husband. This Christian teaching, dear brother, has also been reinforced by the Popes when the subversive woman’s emancipation movement began to gather momentum in the 20th. century. It is almost as if, by the divine providence, they anticipated the full-blown radical feminism of the 1960’s - the sad legacy of which we are having to contend with today.
Already in 1917, Pope Benedict XV warned that a revolution was making particular effort to snatch women from the home and into the world of work:
"With the decline of religion, cultured women have lost their sense of shame along with their piety. Many, in order to take up occupations ill-befitting their sex, took to imitating men. Others abandoned the duty of housewife, for which they were fashioned, to cast themselves recklessly into current life (Letter Natalis trecentesime, 1917, added emphasis mine).
Pope Pius XI refered to the movement to liberate women from domestic home life and the godly rearing of children:
“It is the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the wall of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soo be reduced to the old state of slavery and become as among the pagans, the mere instrument of man” (Encylical Casti Connubii 1930).
Pius XI also observes opportunely that the best way to destroy Catholic family life is “to withdraw the wife from the care of the family and the care of the children” and “thrust her instead into public life and collective production under the same conditons as the man”. This, ultimately leads to a materialist collective society and actually to the degradation of true womanhood.
Pope Pius XII frequently addressed what he termed “the temptations of our day” for women to be lured by a “false independence” away from the family hearth and "the task assigned her for the good of society, by nature and by marriage" (added emphasis mine).
Moreover, he insists that to take a woman away from the family is to extinguish the flame in the hearth of the home - jolly strong sounding stuff to us who have been unrelentingly subjected to a steady stream of feminist propaganda:
“The atmosphere of the home cools, the family circle ceases to exist and the centre of daily life will be found eslewhere for her husband, for the wife herself and for her children” (Allocution to newly-weds 1943 in The Woman and the Modern World, pp. 79-81).
The Pope was only too well aware that some women - both then and now - will protest rebelliously against this life of sacrifice, convincing themselves and others that its not for them, thus he wisely responds: "Do you really believe, however, that there is any true solid happiness here below not won through sacrifice and self-denial?. For the wife and mother, it is those daily sacrifices for husband and children - “in an office given her by nature" - that will ensure the life of all to develop and floursish, and win her satisfaction” (Allocution to newly-weds 1942, added emphasis mine).
These Popes being dead yet speaketh forcefully, dear brother, to our present confused generation, plagued by deviant feminist thinking. It could well have been written for our own age, for it is timeless teaching that does not become mouldy and irrelevant with the passage of time. Moreover, I hope that those viewing this thread will see, perhaps for the first time, that these excerpts give a good idea of what a grand and glorious vocation it is to be a full-time Catholic mother and wife.
Finally, these extracts need no elabloration from me, for their meaning is perfectly clear. The Popes are very rigorous in stating that a mother should remain at home and not go out to work. You will observe, dear brother, that they also considered the modern tendency to want to “emancipate the mother” to be a jolly bad thing. Therefore a person seeking orientation need only apply those teachings, for they have not become obsolete and worthless. On the contrary, dear brother, they apply now more than they ever did.
God bless .
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Baelor,
Hello again.
The notion, dear brother, that domestic duties should be a shared responsibilty is based upon a false egalitarianism and has nothing to do with an authentic Catholic understanding of domestic life. The woman has been specifically fashioned for the task and duties of a housewife - “the task assigned her for the good of society, by nature and by marriage” (Pope Pius XII, added emphasis mine). Of course, if a wife is indisposed then her husband will gladly undertake whatever domestic duties need doing, but that is a situation that will only occasionally arise, unless the wife is permanently unwell. However, the modern “house-husband” is a non-entity and is an example of the subversive thinking of radical feminism, which is fanatically devoted to blurring the distinction between the sexes.
Our Church, dear brother, has consistently taught, as I demonstrated in my previous post to you, that the proper place for the married women is within the home, attending exclusively to the domestic duties, which are the sphere of operation assigned to her by God. Therefore it necessarily follows that the husband must be the breadwinner who provides for his family whilst the woman remains at home and fulfills her obligations of being a full-time wife and mother - “an office given her by nature” (Pope Pius XII) and therefore by God. This is a timeless teaching that does not change with the passage of time because God has fitted her for domestic duties and nurturing children. It would be a denial of manhood for a man to permanently usurp this womanly role, save in the rare case of a woman’s ill-health, temporary or long-term.
The Church, dear brother, in its consistent teaching has decided that the welfare of the family is best served by the married woman remaining in the home and exclusively devoting herself to domestic duties. Therefore, it must be of the view that that set up will best provide stability within home life. Pope Pius XI observes (Casti Connubii) that the best way to destroy Catholic family life is to “withdraw the wife from the care of the family and the care of the children”. Who can deny that the modern fashion of married women abandoning the home to go out to work has not extinguished the flame in the hearth of the home? Is our Western society a better place for all these working women, or have we just bred more ungovernable and confused children, in addition to placing intolerable pressures on both men and women? Both spouses going out to work has been mostly inspired by a greed for gain and a more affluent ‘middle-calss’ lifestyle. Even in cases of genuine chronic hardship, there has not always been a reliance upon God and an pious acceptance of one’s portion. Modern man has forgotten that “godliness with contentment is great gain” (I Tim. 6: 6) and that those who are truly devout have learned with St. Paul, in whatever state they are in, to be therewith content. If we have the basics of food and shelter, we shall not hanker after luxuries or a more exciting event filled life.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
A
aspirant
Guest
This is a strange interpretation of the world when we consider that it does not actually apply to most human persons over the course of human history.
Most work undertaken by both men and women over the course of history, especially free owners of property, has been done at or very close to home. In a predominantly agricultural society, for example, almost all labor is domestic, whether one is raising animals for milk, eggs, meat, wool, feathers, and/or leather; growing various plants like grains, vegetables, fruits, herbs, and/or textile crops; doing various farm-related jobs like making & repairing tools, making & repairing clothes, and so forth. Even craftspeople, artisans, and other small tradespeople such as smiths, coopers, cobblers, candlers, carpenters, weavers, brewsters and brewers, grocers, millers, bakers, butchers, seamstresses and tailors, and (later) printers would be working at or very close to home in such a way that one could not discretely separate out what is “domestic work,” regardless what sexual division of labor might be common in a given society. It’s almost all domestic work, and husbands, wives, and children were all doing it.
Pope John Paul II alluded to this in 1995 when he said that “Mary worked at Joseph’s side in a personal, feminine manner, which the Gospel accounts allow us to glimpse. Doubtless their harmony was greatly fostered by the husband’s trade: Joseph could work close to his family and introduce the young Jesus to his skilled labor as a carpenter.”
This is also glimpsed in biblical passages such as Proverbs 31: “An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels… She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands… She considers a field and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard… She perceives that her merchandise is profitable. Her lamp does not go out at night. She puts her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the spindle… She makes linen garments and sells them; she delivers sashes to the merchant.” Here is a woman who is a viticulturist, probably a vintner, and also a weaver. There is no distinction in such a life between domestic and non-domestic labor for most people.
The “public sphere” in such pre-Industrial societies was the domain of politics and civic works, which varied according to the form of government but was in any case pretty much never the domain of the many (unless we count standing armies in this category). And for those who were not free or property owners, an unfortunately large group of people in many times and places, domestic work in one’s own domus was something of a luxury. One might truly say these men did not do domestic work in their own homes, but neither was domestic work in their own homes the primary work of their wives.
If we turned back the clock to hunter-gatherer societies in order to find a large number of men “working outside the home,” we would also find large numbers of women “working outside the home” as well. And, again, there’s no way to discretely divide out what counts as “domestic work,” since all this sort of “work outside the home” was fundamentally domestic, regardless what sexual division of labor may have prevailed in a given society.
A
aspirant
Guest
The Church by no means teaches that a married woman’s “proper place” is “attending exclusively to the domestic duties.” What you say here directly contradicts papal teaching. To give just a few examples:
Blessed John Paul II:
Blessed John Paul II:
Blessed John Paul II:
Blessed John Paul II:
A
aspirant
Guest
The same pope also called fathers to be more attentive to their domestic responsibilities on a number of occasions. For example:
Blessed John Paul II:
Blessed John Paul II:
Blessed John Paul II:
The truth is that regardless whether we are male or female, if we live in family our primary responsibility is the domestic sphere. Work done “outside” this sphere is and must be open to both women and men, but it is always --for both men and women-- family life which takes priority.
J
Julianna
Guest
I advise all young women, work, learn a skill, earn your money. Should you marry and decide to be a SAHM, great! You have learned something you can fall back on if your family falls into financial problems. If you still work outside the home after marriage and kids, great! It’s what I love about this country. America! I am my husband’s helpmate…when he lost his job and was looking…I went to work. The mortgage and the electric bill have to be paid.
Going from high school, to Mr and Mrs. is a lose, lose situation, unless she is marrying someone right off the bat with a huge income. 99.9% that is not the case.
and yes…I will probably get some negative feedback…
"People call me feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat "
Going from high school, to Mr and Mrs. is a lose, lose situation, unless she is marrying someone right off the bat with a huge income. 99.9% that is not the case.
and yes…I will probably get some negative feedback…
"People call me feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat "
L
Linux
Guest
What’s wrong with the idea of all women in the world living out the rest of their existence in a kitchen slaving over a hot stove? Not only that, but also they can’t leave the kitchen…her bed is in the kitchen.I advise all young women, work, learn a skill, earn your money. Should you marry and decide to be a SAHM, great! You have learned something you can fall back on if your family falls into financial problems. If you still work outside the home after marriage and kids, great! It’s what I love about this country. America! I am my husband’s helpmate…when he lost his job and was looking…I went to work. The mortgage and the electric bill have to be paid.
Going from high school, to Mr and Mrs. is a lose, lose situation, unless she is marrying someone right off the bat with a huge income. 99.9% that is not the case.
and yes…I will probably get some negative feedback…
"People call me feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat "
Just kidding.
B
Baelor
Guest
While I hope you are doing well, all is not well when I am given very (/too) long posts to read.
Please also consider the following. I espouse the Ancient Greek ideal of dialectic and actual interactions in such disputes as this one. This requires response to actual statements. Instead of pontificating through long paragraphs, please only respond to the statements that I make and address each one specifically in turn. That is, please quote specific statements and then respond to them, as I do. I know that this is different from your usual method, but I implore you to try it just once. If it does not work at all, you may return to your previous posting style. But your posts are often disrespectful to me because I take the time to precisely address and specifically respond to points raised in yours, and your responses are often so broad that I feel as if you have given only a cursory glance at what I am saying. Please show me that you respect me enough to respond to what I am saying instead of using my posts as a soapbox for tangentially related theological treatises.
There is only the Catholic Catechism. Whether they are “traditional” or not is immaterial since truth does not change.
That is not the same thing as saying that they cannot work.
Do you mind providing some nice references for this, so that we have something concrete with which to work?
Men are not morally bound to provide the income for the family. Your statement, if true, still does not mean that women cannot work.
The Pope’s statements are not the same as Catholic doctrine unless they are provided in the form of an authoritative document.
Furthermore, he does not condemn working women, but women who are impious and attempt to imitate men. Women working is not the same thing as women imitating men.
Housewife does not mean that women cannot work. The letter is not an authoritative document. I cannot even corroborate its existence.
This is not the same thing as women working.
Again, no condemnation of women working.
Again, no condemnation of women working.
Again, no condemnation of women working.
You are correct: the teachings clearly say that women may work as long as this does not lead to a neglect of their other duties toward the family and children.
Nowhere did they say this.
B
Baelor
Guest
“Domestic duties” like cooking and cleaning? The Church very obviously does not state that the woman must perform these duties. The very notion is absurd and contrary to natural law.
How has nature fashioned the woman to cook and clean and take out the garbage and tend to gardens? Answer precisely, explaining how the woman is naturally better at these tasks from a physiological perspective, omitting everything except scientific fact. If she is indeed fashioned by nature for such mundane domestic tasks much better than a man is, it should be obvious why. So explain from a scientific perspective how this is true.
The Church does not condemn stay-at-home husbands.
Nowhere was it stated that women must remain at home, that they cannot work, or that they are solely responsible for domestic duties.
It does not.
Again, the teachings do not state that she must remain at home.
It is not a timeless teaching since it is simply not authentic Catholic teaching.
The Church does not teach this.
That is not a condemnation of women working or even stay-at-home dads.
A
aspirant
Guest
Not from me!
J
Julianna
Guest
love it! My brain works just fine too! Oh no…I forgot to take my Stepford wife medication…well, back to polishing the Westinghouse Fridge, and gushing over the iron my DH gave me for my birthday!Iron, really, what is that???
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
By the way, it is possible that “working” and “having a career” may be two totally different things.
“Career” seems to imply that the person would be working in some kind of bureaucracy … and we have too many of those [bureaucracies and people working in bureaucracies] already.
“Career” seems to imply that the person would be working in some kind of bureaucracy … and we have too many of those [bureaucracies and people working in bureaucracies] already.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear aspirant,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response and apologies for the delay in replying but I was otherwise engaged and so could not post yesterday.
Whatever situation may have pertained at certain periods in the pagan world, dear friend, this does not necessarily mean that it was the ideal family model from a Catholic standpoint. The papal teaching (Casti Connubii), which I cited in a previous post, clearly frowns upon liberating the married woman from domestic home life and the godly rearing of children - “the task assigned her for the good of society, by nature and by marriage” (Pope Pius XII, added emphasis mine). The pagan world has, and continues to do, many things which are at variance with our most holy religion and which do not promote happy and healthy home life.
In a still very highly relevant passage Pope Pius XI says the following concerning a living family wage:
“In the first place, the wage paid to the working man must be sufficient for the support of himself and of his family…Intolerable and at all costs to be abolished is* the abuse whereby mothers of families, because of the insufficiency of the father’s salary, are forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the domestic walls, to the neglect of their own proper cares and duties, particularly the upbringing of their children*” (Encyclical Quadrigesimo Anno, pp. 71-4, added emphasis mine).
First, you will observe that Pope Pius terms married women working outside of the home an “abuse” that results in the neglect of her “proper cares and duties”. Second, please note here Pope Pius’s use of the words “proper cares and duties” in relation to the married woman, which are manifestly not the same as the working man’s, the family breadwinner. This is anathema to our present age, which has been brainwashed by the false egalitarianism of radical feminism into believing that a woman does not have her own specific “proper cares and duties”. However, the magisterial teaching of the Encylical Quadrigesimo Anno cannot be squared with this subversive feminist ideology, which is dedicated to wrenching a married woman away from domestic life and into the working world so that she does not have to be reliant upon a man.
As regards the virtuous woman of Poverbs chapter 31, dear friend, it is true that she spends some time beyond the borders of her home, providing from all quarters maintenance for her household. However, we are told in that lovely passage (v. 27) that this godly women carefully watches over the conduct of her family and domestics, which she simply could not have done had she been absent from the home for any great length of time. Moreover, it is perfectly clear that her home is the centre of all her operations because she is fully aware that this is her proper care and duty, unlike many women today. If, as Sacred Scripture tells us, “Man goeth forth to his work and to his labour until evening” (Psalm 104: 23), a married women finds her true work as a “keeper at home” (Titus 2: 5), which is “the task assigned her for the good of society, by nature and by marriage” (Pope Pius XII). If the role of being a full-time wife and mother has been assigned to women by the divine providence, then surely they should embrace it wholeheartedly. The pious woman of Proverbs does not live a life of self-indulgent inactivity at home, but is occupied in personal and domestic industry, ready and will to undertake any work that befits her sex and station. What you have here is actually a godly and industrious home-builder and therefore a true model for all married women to emulate.
It is so easy, dear friend, to come to this elegant passage and then seek to impose upon it our 21st. century notions respecting the role of women and their ‘emancipation’ from allegedly unfulfilling domestic duties and child rearing. Of course one can take isloated texts and use them as pegs on which to hang our own particular avant garde opinions, but that is not the approach of an authentic Catholicism. We look at the context of a passage and then the perenial teaching of the Church throughout the ages to determine its meaning. At any rate, I have yet to see any Catholic exegete, ancient or modern, use this lovely Proverbs passage for polemical purposes to lend support to married women working beyond the borders of the home. It is the subversive ideology of radical feminism which has unrelentingly stressed the emancipation of womanhood and the place of women beyond the home in every sphere of life that a man occupies. This false and toxic ideology has asserted that a woman has the ‘right’ to make for herself a career as well as her husband, notwithstanding that this means the sacrifice of the divine pattern for home home life and healthy family relationships.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
A
aquohn
Guest
From Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII:
This: bonald.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/when-a-woman-should-work/ is a good discussion of when to make exceptions.
The relation between husband and wife is demonstrated clearly as that between God and Israel (Song of Solomon) or God and Church (Jesus and Mary as archetypes). The man provides and protects, the woman nurtures the children. This is the immutable teaching of the Roman Church, no matter what the feminists within and without say, and is reflected in natural law. The true goal of Catholic social teaching is to enforce this arrangement. The true sin of Communism is that it attempts to replace the father with the state.
This: bonald.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/when-a-woman-should-work/ is a good discussion of when to make exceptions.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Your post also demonstrates what is wrong with attempting to have two men or two women substituting for a man and a woman in a marriage, preferably in a covenant with God as the third “partner” because very often Divine Intervention is an essential element in overcoming life’s challenges.
God created this world … and He said “it is good”.
When we tinker and tamper with what God created, then we get into vast amounts of difficulty.
T
Transalosania
Guest
No they should not work unless they are the sole provider of the family or under exceptional circumstances.
God gave each gender roles stop thinking you know better renounce the spirit of the world and do what you were called to be.
Also women cannot handle work as well as the man can they are just not designed to work,
sorry but it is true don’t have society tell you otherwise women simply cannot do men’s roles.
God gave each gender roles stop thinking you know better renounce the spirit of the world and do what you were called to be.
Also women cannot handle work as well as the man can they are just not designed to work,
sorry but it is true don’t have society tell you otherwise women simply cannot do men’s roles.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
VERY few women take jobs involving putting hot tar on a roof in August.
Men do it all the time.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear acquohn,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Splendid contribution and thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
It was, dear friend, my intention also to cite Rerum Novarum in my next post as this Encylical provides magisterial support for the position of women ideally being “keepers at home” and rearing children (Titus 2: 4,5):
“Women, again, are suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family” (added emphasis mine).
It should be observed that Pope Leo XIII does not base his remarks here upon timebound social circumstances which can and do change over time, but on the *nature *of a woman which is not subject to modification. The Popes have spoken of this many times thus, for example, Pope Pius X of the “task assigned her for the good of society, by nature and by marriage”. Incontrovertably, dear friend, this is timeless Church teaching and as such it has not gone mouldy but is as relevant to day as it always has been, even more so.
There may, I freely admit, be times of severe economic necessity when a woman must work to bring in some additional income so that the family can stay afloat. However, these cases are not as common as some some people would have us believe. In quite a few cases it has more to do with being greedy for gain and wanting a comfortable lifestyle with plenty of money for wants rather than needs - hardly economic necessity. How many can say with St. Paul “Having food and raiment let us be therewith content”? That said, I do recognize that some women have no option but to work, if only part-time, so that a family can survive and meet essential bills and rents etc. The ideal wage is one paid with the family in mind - “The wage paid to the working man must be sufficient for the support of himself and his family…Every effort must therefore be made, that fathers of families receive a wage sufficient to meet adequately normal domestic needs. If under present circumstances this is not always feasible, social justice demands that reforms be introduced without delay, which will guarantee such a wage to every adult working man…In settling the amount of wages one must also take into account the business and those in charge of it…Finally the wage-rates must be regulated with a view to the economic welfare of the whole people” (Encyclical Quadrigesimo Anno, pp. 71-4).
This magisterial teaching continues to be highly relevant today and rather than trying to argue for married women working beyond the home, perhaps contemporary Catholics need to be demanding reforms that will secure for a man a sufficient living wage that will adequaltely meet his families needs (not wants). Sadly, the more current secular feminism persuades married women of the superior status and rewards of work outiside the home the more married women will seek it, and this is bound to have considerable impact on men’s joob opportunities. What is so very unfortunate today is that there exist households with both spouses working, whilst in others the man cannot even find one job support his family.
We need, I think, dear friend, to look again at the modern way of living and ask honestly whether it has truly promoted a healthy and happy home life with well-adjusted children, but that is daring to think the unthinkable. Catholics must reject the new feminism which rebelliously repudiates the Catholic role of women being mothers and nurturers - “the proper cares and duties” (Pope Pius XI) of a married woman within the domestic walls. What should greatly concern the faithful is that the subversive ideology of feminism encourages the neglect of children, which in turn engenders the many social problems with which our Western society is now beset, for example ungovernable children and high-divorce rates because of the intolerable pressures involved with both the spouses working.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
L
livingwordunity
Guest
So for the times when I went on a job interview and they didn’t choose me they were denying me my right to work? By the way, the most common reasons given for not hiring someone is either education, work experience/training, or age.
- Status