Is it allowable for a Catholic husband to be the sole provider for his wife?

[CRUE_CAB]

Do you actually know a man who insists that his wife does not work other than when there is child rearing involved? Almost every case I know of in which the woman does not have a paying job, she is staying home to be with children or because she plans to have them soon.

My husband certainly prefers me to be home, but I doubt he would insist on me staying home if an outside job were important to me. He did feel strongly that I be home when the children were younger, but I could see that he was right, so he did not have to insist.

Anyhow, if a man can afford for his wife to be home and that is what he wants, that is for the two of them to figure out. It is none of your business. It does not necessarily mean he wants her as a pet or is a control freak. He might just be from a culture which ties a man’s masculinity to his ability as a provider.

Short answer yes. I do know guys that “wont” let the wife work. Or at least they put it in such a way that it seems that way.
I call it fear that the wife may end up meeting someone or making more money than them.
Otherwise “control freak”.

 

[CRUE_CAB]

CRUE CAB: I think you should consider that your mom loved you so much that she devoted her time to staying at home with you.

I’m getting married in a few months and my fiance supports me in my choice to stay at home with each child until pre-school (age 3), which could mean many years if we have kids sequentially. We have to be really smart with money, and it can mean forgoing vacations, expensive cable TV packages, and only going to an outing/movie theater/restaurant once a month. My fiance and I agree that, if we don’t have to, we do not want someone else to raise our babies and experience their first steps, first words, etc while we are away all day working which in the end means nothing to us.

Of course, if something terrible happens then I will seek employment, but the goal for me is children first, luxuries second.
There are some choices to work from home such as selling catalog items. If I worked outside the home, we would also have to pay a Day Care Center, which around here costs $400 a month per child under age 1.5, which takes a lot of what I would earn anyway, better to stay at home, raise and educate my children and eat food cooked at home.

Yes I know what my parents did for me, but it was the early 60s when I came along.
Not recently.
There was no expensive cable tv, big cars, fur coats, two story homes.
My dad was a cop. Not Mitt Romney.

 

[CRUE_CAB]

teens need parenting as much as little kids. I will never regret staying home until my kids were past age 16. It was a revelation to me how much they needed me and because I was home they were able to avoid a lot of temptations.

My father was old school. He instilled just enough fear in me to keep most temptations at bay.
Not to say he wouldnt walk through fire then kill or die fo rme at the drop of the hat, but I didnt want to disappoint the old man.
Fortunatly by the time I was 16 he was retired and I couldnt get away with nothing.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Greetings, JohnSmith2025, and welcome to the forums!:heaven:

I know of no such Church ruling either way. Definitely something extremely important to be discussed during courtship, though, as far as what each other’s expectations and abilities are.

Times have changed so much since the 1940’s through the sixties about these issues! I wonder about these fellows you speak of already insisting that their future brides will “have to” be income providers, but then, the economy presses in on everyone. Respect, love, adult expectations certainly must be discussed well before and after the wedding day. Parents should discuss these issues with their teens.

The best example is always a loving home :grouphug:where the parents respect each other and talk about issues with their children at age appropriate levels. I wonder if they still teach simple check book keeping, real home economy and things like that in the high schools today? But the teens need to see their parents respecting and loving one another so they will be able to have that in their own future marriages.

I have to say that I think it’s refreshing for a gentleman:knight1: to enjoy being the sole income provider, IF that is agreed upon by both husband and wife. Just my personal opinion.

One wants to make sure though that the husband has no issues with his wife enjoying whatever she likes creatively. There are cultures in which a man likes to keep the lady inside the home or other cultures in which the man expects perfection in the keeping of the house, etc. I’ve seen situations in which the “sole provider” makes the other feel inferior, or become bossy, even violent.

I witnessed one fellow who got angry when his young wife was simply putting on a little makeup for her first trip out to the store with the baby and some other new mothers. He demanded to know why on earth she needed makeup just for a short visit to the store. You can imagine the rest. Anger, tears, accusations.

I’ve also seen wives who make more money than their husbands. In some cases, the wife doesn’t make any mention of her making more money. I know of one lovely couple where income levels make no difference at all and they are the happiest couple I know.

And the lady (or the gentleman for that matter) may have a change of mind over the years about these choices. Children might be the prime focus for many years. This goes both ways, of course. There are marriages where the woman is the sole income provider. There are fathers who are full time home-makers while their wives are the sole income earners. Sometimes they share all the burdens as equally as they can. Either way, home-makers are providers in other ways just as important as income providers and respect for each other is very important no matter who takes on which role.

Sadly, our economy has put such pressure on young couples just trying to get into a decent home and make ends meet. I pray every day for people struggling to raise children, whether they be single parents, divorced, or living in abusive situations, or happily married and just doing the best they can. Where I live, there are a number of grand-mothers raising children for all kinds of reasons and doing a fantastic job. I’ve seen them “carrying” as they say in the South, their grade- school grand-children to Mass, everyone grateful for each other, doing their best. :angel1:

May God bless families in a special way during these challenging times.

Blessings to you,
Kathryn Ann

 

[floresco]

Short answer yes. I do know guys that “wont” let the wife work. Or at least they put it in such a way that it seems that way.
I call it fear that the wife may end up meeting someone or making more money than them.
Otherwise “control freak”.

My father is from a culture in which a man’s sense of self-worth comes from his ability as a provider, so I’ve seen this up close. For men like this, it is really rough on them to have a wife bringing in income, especially if she makes more than he does. A man in this situation is going to feel like a failure. A wife who loves her husband is going to be sensitive to issues like this.

I have never encountered a man objecting to his wife working because he is a control freak, so I doubt that it happens very often. In my experience, objections are usually due to concern for the children or to cultural expectations.

 

[CRUE_CAB]

My father is from a culture in which a man’s sense of self-worth comes from his ability as a provider, so I’ve seen this up close. For men like this, it is really rough on them to have a wife bringing in income, especially if she makes more than he does. A man in this situation is going to feel like a failure. A wife who loves her husband is going to be sensitive to issues like this.

I have never encountered a man objecting to his wife working because he is a control freak, so I doubt that it happens very often. In my experience, objections are usually due to concern for the children or to cultural expectations.

If your self worth is some how tied to you making more than your wife, you are a control freak for not allowing her to work.
My ex wife made more than I some years, I made more others. Depended on overtime, bonuses, incentives.
But it didnt bother me one bit when at the end of the year if her w2 added up to more than mine.
I say get out there and pull in all you can while you can.
Iam not saying neglect home and family. Make those decisions together and try to plan ahead for them as well as you can.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

Has someone in this thread been claiming that the Church prefers men to be the sole income provider?

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

The traditional position of the church is that it is preferable for the Catholic husband to be the sole provider, leaving the wife to educate and raise the children and keep a harmonious home.

 

[floresco]

If your self worth is some how tied to you making more than your wife, you are a control freak for not allowing her to work.

Self-worth has nothing to do with being a control freak. Where one derives one’s sense of self worth comes from one’s culture and experiences. Apparently it is common for men in this culture to derive their self worth from sexual performance or athletic ability. Men can also derive self-worth from their identity as providers. Among men there is a statistical correlation between retiring from their jobs and increased death rate. This suggests that working and providing are very important to men. Women tend to be more oriented to family than to jobs.

A man who thinks in terms of “allowing” his wife to work might have control issues, but there is no reason to assume there is something wrong with men who want a wife who stays home.

What about a man who insists that his wife has to work? Is he a control freak?

 

[Walking_Home]

Self-worth has nothing to do with being a control freak. Where one derives one’s sense of self worth comes from one’s culture and experiences. Apparently it is common for men in this culture to derive their self worth from sexual performance or athletic ability. Men can also derive self-worth from their identity as providers. Among men there is a statistical correlation between retiring from their jobs and increased death rate. This suggests that working and providing are very important to men. Women tend to be more oriented to family than to jobs.

A man who thinks in terms of “allowing” his wife to work might have control issues, but there is no reason to assume there is something wrong with men who want a wife who stays home.

What about a man who insists that his wife has to work? Is he a control freak?

floresco:

My father is from a culture in which a man’s sense of self-worth comes from his ability as a provider, so I’ve seen this up close. For men like this, it is really rough on them to have a wife bringing in income, especially if she makes more than he does. A man in this situation is going to feel like a failure

. A wife who loves her husband is going to be sensitive to issues like this.

---

Sounds like a culture embroiled in “machismo”.

 

[floresco]

Sounds like a culture embroiled in “machismo”.

You are a product of a culture too. You are judging others based on your cultural assumptions.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

Face it people…we are all products of a culture. The goal and ideal is to make sure the culture we become a product of is a Catholic one…faithful to the Magisterium with no “if, and, or buts” when it comes to what Rome says or does. That’s why we have current Popes to lead us by their words and encyclicals that are in keeping with our times.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

Face it people…we are all products of our culture. The goal and ideal is to make sure the culture we become a product of is a Catholic one…faithful to the Magisterium with no “if, and, or buts” when it comes to what Rome says or does. That’s why we have current Popes to lead us by their words and encyclicals that are in keeping with our times.

 

[LilyM]

My father was old school. He instilled just enough fear in me to keep most temptations at bay.
Not to say he wouldnt walk through fire then kill or die fo rme at the drop of the hat, but I didnt want to disappoint the old man.
Fortunatly by the time I was 16 he was retired and I couldnt get away with nothing.

Same here - both of my parents worked full-time, but they put a lot of time and effort into raising us well, and were always there for all the good stuff - school plays, long summer vacations, school dropoffs and pickups (an advantage of working for themselves) and parent-teacher meetings. We got decent food, although most of it wasn’t fancy.

Most of all, they lived as good examples of faith and good character - and all of us children are good characters as a result.

I’ve seen plenty of stay at home parents who are less involved, less caring and whose children turn out worse. Merely sharing the same house with someone is not really much of a guarantee of anything. A child AFAICS doesn’t notice who washes it’s clothes or cooks it’s meals. It’s the other stuff - stuff that working parents can do equally well if they are determined to - that counts.

 

[severus68]

The quote from Familiaris Consortio answers the question posed by the OP and in the subject title: “Is it allowable for a Catholic husband to be the sole provider for his wife?”

This phrase in particular, “society must be structured in such a way that wives and mothers are not in practice compelled to work outside the home, and that their families can live and prosper in a dignified way even when they themselves devote their full time to their own family,” shows that the husband being the sole provider is both allowable and also ought to be an option for all who wish.

Pope John Paul II taught in this encyclical that wives should not be compelled to work outside the home. They should not be compelled by economic pressure, by social expectations nor by their husbands. It is a good thing for women to be at home. This choice should be valued and made possible.

I agree with you up to your second para. I think you are extending what JPII said to make it seem that staying at home is best for a woman. Some husbands stay at home with the kids. Each couple have to decide on whats best for them.

 

[severus68]

See, that is the problem with society today. The family, the home and caring for it has become extremely devalued, to the point of women who care for their homes and building a home have become considered nothing more than animals. It is shameful. It isn’t about men being control freaks when women stay home. They can be just as much of a control freak when they pull their wife away from her God given calling to be a wife and mother and homemaker and send them out into the world to bring in money to satisfy their need for material things, newer cars, bigger houses, big screen tv’s, videogames and on and on. Gotta keep up with those Joneses.

The point is people seem to equate work with work outside the home. Not taking into consideration that there is work that needs doing inside the home also. I could list it but I won’t. Some one once said if you want your husband to know what you do all day stop doing it, it will be seen.

1."But speak thou the things that become sound doctrine: [2] That the aged men be sober, chaste, prudent, sound in faith, in love, in patience. [3] The aged women, in like manner, in holy attire, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teaching well: [4] That they may teach the young women to be wise, to love their husbands, to love their children, [5] To be discreet, chaste, sober, having a care of the house, gentle, obedient to their husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Titus 2:1-5

The bold part is mine. In the New American Bible from the USCCB site the word is “homemakers.”

There is nothing wrong with a woman staying at home with the kids and of course she is valued, or for the husband to do so. Neither is there anything wrong with a wife having a career/job outside the home. Its not all about more money for non essentials. Some women find it more fulfilling to have a career in addition to being a wife and mother.

 

[Lujack]

There is nothing wrong with a woman staying at home with the kids and of course she is valued, or for the husband to do so. Neither is there anything wrong with a wife having a career/job outside the home. Its not all about more money for non essentials. Some women find it more fulfilling to have a career in addition to being a wife and mother.

I think this is an essential part that is often missed. My mother has lived a very fulfilling life, and I don’t feel bad for her in any way-but when she was at the age of going to college, she had three choices-nurse, secretary, or teacher. The other paths were not open to her-legally, yes, but culturally, no. Now things have worked out for her…but at the same time, there is still something sad about that.

And I look at the girls whom I am close friends with now, who are pursuing the paths of becoming lawyers, National Park rangers, academic historians, athletic trainers…and I wonder what it must have been like to be born in an earlier time and know that those jobs were only there for men. That to get married meant to surrender your own ambitions entirely.

 

[odile53]

Of course, it’s allowable, and it’s nice if you can manage it financially. However, the wife is still as much a partner as the husband in the marriage, despite her apparent fiscal noncontribution.

Note I said “apparent.” Back in the late sixties, at the dawn of the feminist movement, some sociologist or another attempted to cost out the financial worth of the services and roles that a homemaker filled, if those services needed to be purchased. At the time (in 1968 dollars,) it came to something like $120,000. I’m talking about services such as housekeeper, secretary, bookkeeper, practical nurse, chauffeur, logistics expert, sanitation engineer, child care provider, dietitian and cook, private tutor, home interior decorator, social secretary, event organizer, and, well, you get the drift. To consider that a housewife makes no economic contribution to the family is the height of naive arrogance! Most men would not be able to afford such services if they had to be provided by outsiders that needed to be paid in cold cash. A homemaker is a working woman.

There was even an old joke, circa the 1970 census, where the census worker knocks on a door and is met by the lady of the house, with a baby in her arms, a toddler in tow, two schoolage children doing their homework, a vacuum cleaner at the ready, dinner in the oven. The census taker asks her what her job is. The woman draws her self up to full height and says, with great dignity, “I am not gainfully employed!”

And all of this, of course, is leaving aside the inherent dignity of the wife as well as the husband.

 

[stephe1987]

I think the #1 priority should be the children rather than whether or not we can afford the car/house/vacation we want. PEOPLE are more important than money. It is much better to live in a small house or an apartment with a close, loving family, than a mansion and a family that never spends time together because both parents have to work overtime just to pay the bills.

IMO, children need their mothers to stay at home for at least the first part of their lives. If the child is old enough to talk and start preschool, then I see nothing wrong with women going back to work, especially during the time their kids are at school. There are before and after school programs for elementary school kids who have both parents working.

I also think a lot of problems with teenagers could be avoided if there was someone to supervise them and give them guidance. Teens left home alone with no parents can get into a lot of trouble. Teenagers may be almost adults, but they are hormonal and can act pretty stupid at times.

I also don’t think there is anything wrong with mothers choosing to homeschool their children while the father works during the day. The kids will get the education and faith formation that they need. This can also be achieved at Catholic schools, but not everyone can afford a Catholic school, even with two incomes. Or you can send your kids to a public school but then you will be 100% responsible for the faith formation and will have to undo some of the false and anti-Catholic/anti-Christian teachings at schools these days.

 

[floresco]

I agree with you up to your second para. I think you are extending what JPII said to make it seem that staying at home is best for a woman. Some husbands stay at home with the kids. Each couple have to decide on whats best for them.

I do not see how you get “staying at home is best for a woman” from “Pope John Paul II taught in this encyclical that wives should not be compelled to work outside the home. They should not be compelled by economic pressure, by social expectations nor by their husbands. It is a good thing for women to be at home. This choice should be valued and made possible.”

Pope John Paul wrote about recognizing the irreplaceable work of women in the home. He did not say anything about men staying home with children. Therefore when I summarized his ideas, I did not say anything about fathers staying home with children.

 

[floresco]

1. 
   

   And I look at the girls whom I am close friends with now, who are pursuing the paths of becoming lawyers, National Park rangers, academic historians, athletic trainers…and I wonder what it must have been like to be born in an earlier time and know that those jobs were only there for men. That to get married meant to surrender your own ambitions entirely.

   In most cultures, most people have little choice in professions they pursue as adults. Usually people do what their parents do. There are advantages and disadvantages to having limited choices. While we are conditioned to think of choice as a completely positive thing, in fact, too many choices make people feel overwhelmed and stressed. It also leads to lower levels of satisfaction.
   
   Clear social expectations promote a sense of security among individuals and social stability. We should not judge other times and cultures by our culture’s values. They were probably at least as happy as we are.