Is it wrong for a Catholic woman to work and have a family?

[Debora123]

I just want to know… who are all these guys that are earning enough to let their wives be housewives?

My bro does it, but he’s stinking rich.

Otherwise, maybe it’s just my area which is somewhat pricy, but it seems exceedingly difficult.

My dad works and my mom is a stay at home mom. He’s a mechanical engineer and is not rich by any means, though he’s not poor either. Very middle class. Growing up (before I got my own job), I never was able to have a lot of very nice clothing or anything like that. We had the essentials, but that was it. I never had my own television, or my own computer, or phone, like many of my friends did. The only times we ever went out to eat were on xmas and new years. Though he was able to afford sending us to Brazil every summer to visit family.

I plan on being a stay at home mom myself, and my husband is in pilot training for the Air Force. I hope we can still afford to give our kids more than what my parents were able to afford giving me, but in order for that to happen I think I’ll have to end up having less kids than my parents had.

I want to be able to afford getting them new clothes, and I want to be able to afford having more than one single computer in the house lol. I’d also like to be able to go on vacations to visit family.

I guess we’ll see how that all works out…

 

[sweetpetunia]

The same dynamic is at work when people use the term “working mom.” Intend it or not, you are slapping moms not paid wages for their work in the face.

I’ve got it, how about “Bacon Bringin’ Moms!”

Bacon Bringing’ Moms is adorable, but I would disagree that using the term working moms to differentiate them from stay-at-home moms is a slap in the face. If one followed this with a comment inferring that stay-at-home moms sit on their derrieres and eat bon-bons all day, then yes, that would be a slap in the face, but I think many stay-at-home moms are secure in the fact that what they do is one of the most important jobs on earth, and consider “staying-at-home” with their children to be an honor Sometimes political correctness can be a nuisance. It makes sense to not call them “work-at-home” moms, to not be confusing to those moms who work from home, whether running a personal business or working remotely for a corporation.

That being said, I think “stay-at-home” mom is still a huge misnomer in many cases. I find that if you take small children during the day on a weekday to a library, or a pool, or a skating rink, or an aquarium, or a playgroup, or a playground, or a science center, or an art gallery, or a museum, the vast majority of moms you talk to or see regularly are so-called “stay-at-home” moms, (whether receiving income on mat leave or not.) It just makes sense that they have more flex hours than moms who also have to work, say, a 40 hour week cooped up at a specific job site, even though stay-at-home parenting is a full-time, around-the-clock job!

 

[sweetpetunia]

Is it possible that that is just one responsibility she has and that he helps her with the child care in other ways?

Or possibly he works evenings and weekends. I personally know of families where this is the case.

 

[Baelor]

First, the whole notion of a bread-winning husband and home-making wife is a family pattern that is firmly rooted in Sacred Scipture (see Titus 2: 4,5). This arrangement, which gave stability to both the family and wider society, has sadly been gradually abandoned, reaping a bitter harvest in terms of family breakdown and emotionally damaged children.

Women are not required to stay in the home according to Catholic teaching. The notion that they are is heterodox.

As the Catechism of the Council of Trent states: “The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent”.

The Council of Trent was written in the 16th century in response to the Reformation. Even at the time of publication, it did not enjoy the authority of more formal documents. We now have the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Church’s views become refined over time. It is certainly not the case that Catholicism teaches that wives must obtain their husbands’ permission to leave each time they depart the home.

Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical, Rerum Novarum, clearly favours the position that a married women will ideally be a ‘keeper at home’ and care for her husband and children:

“Women, again, are not 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”.

The Catholic Church does not currently teach that women are naturally fitted for home-work in its most formal authoritative documents. It also does not teach that modesty is a reason for staying home. Finally, none of the modern encyclicals on marriage mention any of these issues in such a manner. You must consequently justify the silence on these matters in modern encyclicals and the return to much earlier encyclicals. You must also explain why the Catechism does not include any information about this.

It should be observed, dear friends, that Pope Leo does not establish his remarks upon any social circumstances or customs which can and do indeed change, but rather upon the nature of woman, which never changes from one generation to the next.

That does not make his beliefs on the nature of woman correct or binding.

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

Here is what John Paul II (we love you) writes:

Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life-social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of “mystery”, to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html

 

[Lochias]

It’s not wrong at all.

Personally speaking, I don’t think it’s ideal, either. I know several Catholic women, all moms, who agree.

But, we do what we gotta do. It’s hard, these days, to have a household wherein only one person works. I wish it was otherwise.

 

[SlackerCatholic]

It’s not wrong for women to work outside the home, but I think we are morally obligated to make sure our children are cared for by their own parents as much as possible. In my family, that means I work night shift and my husband works a day schedule. In some families it might mean one parent works full time and one works part time. Or it can mean either Mom or Dad stays home while the other parent works outside the home. I was a SAHM for most of my marriage and only recently started working full time. I couldn’t have done it when they were younger and I wouldn’t have wanted to. I had my children to raise them with my husband, not to pay some stranger to fill their formative waking hours. I am proud that we got all our children to school age without using daycare, and continue to live our commitment to always provide our kids’ care ourselves.

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. Baelor

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

If, dear brother, the notion of women being “keepers at home” (Titus 2: 5) was “heterodox” as you argue, then St. Paul himself would have been guilty of teaching heresy. In any event, the statements from the Cat**echism of Trent and Pope Leo XIII undeniably show that our Church has implicitly upheld St. Paul’s (Catholic) teaching. It is only in very recent decades with the emergence and impact of radical aberrant feminism that this position has been challenged, which should have all orthodox Catholics on enquiry and their suspicions aroused.

Your remarks, dear brother, respecting the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, are extremely problematic, for they imply that authoritative Church teaching can somehow become mouldy and go bad, a view which cannot be sustained. Moreover, if this is your criteria, then you cannot use the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, since the CCC itself goes back to the Catechism of the Council of Trent numerous times and states:

"The ministry of Catechesis draws ever fresh energy from the councils. The Council of Trent is a noteworthy example of this. It gave catechesis priority in its constitutions and decrees. It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council and which is a work of first rank as a summary of Christian teaching. “The Council of Trent initiated a remarkable organization of the Church’s catechesis. Thanks to the work of holy bishops and theologians such as St. Peter Canisius Borromeo, St. Turibius of Mongrovejo or St. Robert Bellarmine, it occasioned the publication of numerous catechisms” (added emphasis mine and you will note that its clearly states that the Trent Catechism “is a work of first rank as a summary of Christian teaching”, not was in some remote distant past).

Therefore, dear brother, by referencing the Catechism of Trent, the current CCC refutes the view for which you are contending. Moreover, you will find that almost all modern Church documents cite works (including Sacred Scripture) that are at least as old as the Trent Catechism. The continuity of Church teaching is never a problem for an authentic Catholicism, for it is compelling evidence that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ.

There is, dear brother, no silence to justify in modern Church documents, provided that we do not reject the principle of continuity in Church teaching. What contemporary Catholics need to appreciate is that the entire deposit of faith is not contained within the pages of the present Catechism, a sort of ‘sola catechism’ mindset. For example, whilst women are no longer required to veil at Holy Mass, this is not because it is not in the Catechism. Indeed, the requirement to veil was actually changed before the current Catechism was even published and, besides, it could re-instituted without having to issue a new Cathechism.

What I would like to make perfectly clear is that I am not contending that we should read the Catechism of the Council of Trent rather than our current Catechism, I am arguing that we should read* both* and not exclude either, especially (God forbid) for polemical reasons. Thus we should read both Catechisms and listen to the teachings of all of our Popes, always remembering that truth cannot contradict truth, especially timeless truth that is not subject to change or modification. It appears, dear brother, that you want to drive a wedge between the older teaching of the Church and contemporary teaching, which is an erroneous either/or approach. This is a quite common error nowadays, when oftentimes the correct answer lies in both. Mooreover, the Church has never either implicitly of explicity declared the teaching of Rerum Novarum to be no longer valid or binding and, would not, since that teaching only restates the timeless biblical teaching.

The authentic Catholic position, dear brother, articulated by Leo XIII is that men and women are complimentary but are also different. “A women is by nature fitted for homework…” (Rerum Novarum, added emphasis mine), which means that she is naturally adapts to being engaged in domestic affairs, including the rearing and educating of children in godliness. Her key role as a wife and mother has been ordered by the Divine Providence, not only for her good but for the good of the wider society of which she is a part. This teaching does not go bad or become irrelevant with the passage of time because “by nature” a woman is “fitted for homework”, something which St. Paul knew only too well when he penned that passage in Titus 2: 5 regarding women being “keepers at home”. This is, dear brother, timeless teaching that has perpetual validity from one generation to the next and if we take issue with it then are argument is with the Almighty who so ordered it. Remember, Eve was created to be a ‘helpmate’ and this is clearly seen within the domestic hearth, where a woman undertakes the domestic duties for which she ideally fitted “by nature”. True, a chap can do do some nurturing tasks occasionally and do domestic chores, and must do them if is wife is indisposed, but this is not his natural or proper sphere of operation “by nature”.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Kelfa28]

Just because a woman may or may not be “designed” to work at home…does not make it a requirement for her to remain home.
It’s not a sin either. A woman working breaks no commandment.

That is all anyone needs to hear.

Being a “help-mate” will mean it’s prudent that she does go out and earn a living for her family. After all. Bills need to be paid and children seem to do best when they have a stable roof over their head.

But I thought that was common sense.

I’m a SAHM. But, currently, my husband is unemployed. If he doesn’t find a job soon, I’ll have to start job searching as well. This increases the odds that someone will find a job and be able to pay the bills.
If it has to be me to do so…then it has to be me.

At the end of the day…it is simply a suggestion that woman stay home and be the one who takes care of the home and rears the children. It’s not a requirement, according to the Catholic Church.

In conclusion…a woman is committing no sin by working outside the home.

It’s just a suggestion that she may be better suited for it.

Personally…I just never liked the idea of children being dumped off a daycare at the age of 6 weeks for an all day affair so both parents can earn a living.
Those babies should be home.

But that is just my personal opinion.

 

[JackieMom]

F.A.O. Baelor

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

If, dear brother, the notion of women being “keepers at home” (Titus 2: 5) was “heterodox” as you argue, then St. Paul himself would have been guilty of teaching heresy. In any event, the statements from the Cat**echism of Trent and Pope Leo XIII undeniably show that our Church has implicitly upheld St. Paul’s (Catholic) teaching. It is only in very recent decades with the emergence and impact of radical aberrant feminism that this position has been challenged, which should have all orthodox Catholics on enquiry and their suspicions aroused.

Your remarks, dear brother, respecting the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, are extremely problematic, for they imply that authoritative Church teaching can somehow become mouldy and go bad, a view which cannot be sustained. Moreover, if this is your criteria, then you cannot use the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, since the CCC itself goes back to the Catechism of the Council of Trent numerous times and states:

"The ministry of Catechesis draws ever fresh energy from the councils. The Council of Trent is a noteworthy example of this. It gave catechesis priority in its constitutions and decrees. It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council and which is a work of first rank as a summary of Christian teaching. “The Council of Trent initiated a remarkable organization of the Church’s catechesis. Thanks to the work of holy bishops and theologians such as St. Peter Canisius Borromeo, St. Turibius of Mongrovejo or St. Robert Bellarmine, it occasioned the publication of numerous catechisms” (added emphasis mine and you will note that its clearly states that the Trent Catechism “is a work of first rank as a summary of Christian teaching”, not was in some remote distant past).

Therefore, dear brother, by referencing the Catechism of Trent, the current CCC refutes the view for which you are contending. Moreover, you will find that almost all modern Church documents cite works (including Sacred Scripture) that are at least as old as the Trent Catechism. The continuity of Church teaching is never a problem for an authentic Catholicism, for it is compelling evidence that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ.

There is, dear brother, no silence to justify in modern Church documents, provided that we do not reject the principle of continuity in Church teaching. What contemporary Catholics need to appreciate is that the entire deposit of faith is not contained within the pages of the present Catechism, a sort of ‘sola catechism’ mindset. For example, whilst women are no longer required to veil at Holy Mass, this is not because it is not in the Catechism. Indeed, the requirement to veil was actually changed before the current Catechism was even published and, besides, it could re-instituted without having to issue a new Cathechism.

What I would like to make perfectly clear is that I am not contending that we should read the Catechism of the Council of Trent rather than our current Catechism, I am arguing that we should read* both* and not exclude either, especially (God forbid) for polemical reasons. Thus we should read both Catechisms and listen to the teachings of all of our Popes, always remembering that truth cannot contradict truth, especially timeless truth that is not subject to change or modification. It appears, dear brother, that you want to drive a wedge between the older teaching of the Church and contemporary teaching, which is an erroneous either/or approach. This is a quite common error nowadays, when oftentimes the correct answer lies in both. Mooreover, the Church has never either implicitly of explicity declared the teaching of Rerum Novarum to be no longer valid or binding and, would not, since that teaching only restates the timeless biblical teaching.

The authentic Catholic position, dear brother, articulated by Leo XIII is that men and women are complimentary but are also different. “A women is by nature fitted for homework…” (Rerum Novarum, added emphasis mine), which means that she is naturally adapts to being engaged in domestic affairs, including the rearing and educating of children in godliness. Her key role as a wife and mother has been ordered by the Divine Providence, not only for her good but for the good of the wider society of which she is a part. This teaching does not go bad or become irrelevant with the passage of time because “by nature” a woman is “fitted for homework”, something which St. Paul knew only too well when he penned that passage in Titus 2: 5 regarding women being “keepers at home”. This is, dear brother, timeless teaching that has perpetual validity from one generation to the next and if we take issue with it then are argument is with the Almighty who so ordered it. Remember, Eve was created to be a ‘helpmate’ and this is clearly seen within the domestic hearth, where a woman undertakes the domestic duties for which she ideally fitted “by nature”. True, a chap can do do some nurturing tasks occasionally and do domestic chores, and must do them if is wife is indisposed, but this is not his natural or proper sphere of operation “by nature”.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I take it you’re single.

 

[Debora123]

Women are not required to stay in the home according to Catholic teaching. The notion that they are is heterodox.

The Council of Trent was written in the 16th century in response to the Reformation. Even at the time of publication, it did not enjoy the authority of more formal documents. We now have the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Church’s views become refined over time. It is certainly not the case that Catholicism teaches that wives must obtain their husbands’ permission to leave each time they depart the home.

The Catholic Church does not currently teach that women are naturally fitted for home-work in its most formal authoritative documents. It also does not teach that modesty is a reason for staying home. Finally, none of the modern encyclicals on marriage mention any of these issues in such a manner. You must consequently justify the silence on these matters in modern encyclicals and the return to much earlier encyclicals. You must also explain why the Catechism does not include any information about this.

That does not make his beliefs on the nature of woman correct or binding.

 

[Lochias]

I take it you’re single.

 

[Debora123]

I take it you’re single.

:yup::clapping:

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

youtube.com/watch?v=P3Pwl8jTLK8

All joking aside, I would want a housewife. Not because I want to “put women in their place”, but because I want my wife to dedicate her time to our children. And like it or not, she can’t as easily mother if she has a job. I have no problem with a woman having a job, and if for financial reasons my wife needed to have a job (Or just wanted to) it would be fine if she had one. It just makes things a little different and more difficult in some ways.

 

[fpt]

This is my question: Is it wrong for a Catholic man to work and have a family? !!! I am sad to note the social bashing concerning the women, in general, and even in the catholic world. Stop, stop with that. It is a wrong attitude and a very odd mentality. We are catholic.

Do you criticize the husbands who stay away from his wife and his family, in using the speudo-reason of professional work???

I am very tired, annoyed, bored, sad… by this type of view about women in the professional world. IT IS A SHAME, in my humble opinion.

THE ISSUES SHOULD BE ASKED, BUT NOT LIKE THAT!!!

 

[Portrait]

Just because a woman may or may not be “designed” to work at home…does not make it a requirement for her to remain home.
It’s not a sin either. A woman working breaks no commandment.

That is all anyone needs to hear.

Being a “help-mate” will mean it’s prudent that she does go out and earn a living for her family. After all. Bills need to be paid and children seem to do best when they have a stable roof over their head.

But I thought that was common sense.

I’m a SAHM. But, currently, my husband is unemployed. If he doesn’t find a job soon, I’ll have to start job searching as well. This increases the odds that someone will find a job and be able to pay the bills.
If it has to be me to do so…then it has to be me.

At the end of the day…it is simply a suggestion that woman stay home and be the one who takes care of the home and rears the children. It’s not a requirement, according to the Catholic Church.

In conclusion…a woman is committing no sin by working outside the home.

It’s just a suggestion that she may be better suited for it.

Personally…I just never liked the idea of children being dumped off a daycare at the age of 6 weeks for an all day affair so both parents can earn a living.
Those babies should be home.

But that is just my personal opinion.

Dear kelfa28,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

The issue, dear friend, is not whether a married is committing a sin by working outside of the home, but more an issue of the task assigned her for the good of society and the best interests of family life, including the rearing of well-adjusted children. Certainly the traditional Catholic Catechisms (in their teaching on the Fourth Commandment) uphold that the vocation of a married women is best fulfilled within the home, not beyond its borders. Now we may choose not attach any great weight to these Catechisms, but the fact is that their teaching did, nonetheless, reflect the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the ages. The normal Catholic paradigm has always been for a married women to remain at home and provide for the formation of her children, in addition to supporting her bread-winning husband (cf. Titus 2: 4,5). Moreover, this wholesome teaching has also been reinforced in Sacred Tradition by the Popes when the woman’s emancipation movement began to raise its ugly head and gather momentum in the 20th. century. It is almost as if, by the Divine Providence, they anticipated the full-blown radical feminism that was to be foisted upon us in the 1960’s - the sad legacy of which we are having to contend with today, even, I am sorry to say, within the bosom of Holy Mother Church.

Already in 1917, Pope Benedict XVI warned that a revolution was making a particular effort to snatch women from the home and into the world of work:

"With the decline in 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).

What would the good Pope think of our Western society today where the godly influence of religion has waned even more since the permissive revolution of the Sixties? As regards He being dead yet speaketh, for his words are still immensely relevant, even more so than when they were first uttered.

Pope Pius XI refered to the movement to liberate women from domestic home life and the vital task of rearing 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”. (Encyclical Casti Connubi, 1930).

Pope Pius XI 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".

He insists, moreover, that to take a woman away from the family is to extinguish the flame in the hearth of the home:

“The atmosphere of the home cools, the family circle ceases to exist…and the centre of daily life will be found elsewhere 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 rebelliously protest against this life of sacrifice and thus 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 chilldren - “in an office given her by nature” - that will ensure the life of all to develop and flourish, and win her sanctification (Allocution to newly-weds 1942, added emphasis mine).

The above citations, dear friend, on the role of a wife at home require no elaboration from me, for they are perfectly clear in their meaning. The Popes are, incontrovertably, very rigorous in declaring that a mother should remain at home. Therefore any person seeking orientation, such as the OP, need only apply those sound teachings. They have not become obsolete and irrelevant and neither have they been swept aside and officially abrogated. On the contrary, they are even more applicable in our confused and unhappy times and it would yeild very beneficial effects, as regards domestic life, if spouses would only heed the wise counsel of these Popes.

God bless you.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Debora123]

This is my question: Is it wrong for a Catholic man to work and have a family? !!! I am sad to note the social bashing concerning the women, in general, and even in the catholic world. Stop, stop with that. It is a wrong attitude and a very odd mentality. We are catholic.

Do you criticize the husbands who stay away from his wife and his family, in using the speudo-reason of professional work???

I am very tired, annoyed, bored, sad… by this type of view about women in the professional world. IT IS A SHAME, in my humble opinion.

THE ISSUES SHOULD BE ASKED, BUT NOT LIKE THAT!!!

This is a good point, and I have never thought about it before.

Why does this world give women such a hard time about everything?

You hardly see any threads or any controversy over a man being in the military, for example, and having to leave behind his wife alone with the children for months and months at a time. Why isn’t there ever any controversy over whether a family man should have a job that would require him to leave his family behind for a year, but there is TONS of controversy over women who might work 8 hours a day?

Why does society give women such a hard time?

How is this fair? Does anyone else see the horrible double standard here?

 

[Walking_Home]

Women are not required to stay in the home according to Catholic teaching. The notion that they are is heterodox.

The Council of Trent was written in the 16th century in response to the Reformation. Even at the time of publication, it did not enjoy the authority of more formal documents. We now have the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Church’s views become refined over time. It is certainly not the case that Catholicism teaches that wives must obtain their husbands’ permission to leave each time they depart the home.

The Catholic Church does not currently teach that women are naturally fitted for home-work in its most formal authoritative documents. It also does not teach that modesty is a reason for staying home. Finally, none of the modern encyclicals on marriage mention any of these issues in such a manner. You must consequently justify the silence on these matters in modern encyclicals and the return to much earlier encyclicals. You must also explain why the Catechism does not include any information about this.

That does not make his beliefs on the nature of woman correct or binding.

---

 

[Rence]

Why does this world give women such a hard time about everything?

I really don’t think it does, but rather just a lonely few. And in my experience, and granted there were only two, they tend to be pretty dysfunctional socially.

 

[sweetpetunia]

Women are not required to stay in the home according to Catholic teaching. The notion that they are is heterodox.

The Council of Trent was written in the 16th century in response to the Reformation. Even at the time of publication, it did not enjoy the authority of more formal documents. We now have the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Church’s views become refined over time. It is certainly not the case that Catholicism teaches that wives must obtain their husbands’ permission to leave each time they depart the home.

The Catholic Church does not currently teach that women are naturally fitted for home-work in its most formal authoritative documents. It also does not teach that modesty is a reason for staying home. Finally, none of the modern encyclicals on marriage mention any of these issues in such a manner. You must consequently justify the silence on these matters in modern encyclicals and the return to much earlier encyclicals. You must also explain why the Catechism does not include any information about this.

That does not make his beliefs on the nature of woman correct or binding.

I find this statement extremely problematic, but even more so, I find it confusing. The Council of Trent was not “written”, it was an ecumenical council (read: “legally convened assembly of ecclesiastical dignitaries and theological experts for the purpose of discussing and regulating matters of church doctrine and discipline”) that spanned two decades and the reign of a few popes (five to be exact!). It was specifically convened to definitively determine the teaching of the Church in response to the heretical beliefs circulating at the time. And, as a matter of fact, “the decrees passed by the council during the pontificates of Paul III and Julius III were read and proclaimed to be binding.” (see the Catholic Encyclopedia for more information.)

Further, you are misinterpreting the statement. The statement in question is not that wives have to call their husbands for permission every time they want to pick up a bag of milk from the grocery store, nor that they should only leave the house on an outing when absolutely compelled to by state of emergency. Bahaha, talk about cabin fever! Read it again. This statement should not even be offensive to our self-proclaimed new-wave feminist Catholics here!

“To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of [wives’] attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent.”

Should a woman love to be with her children? Yes, she should. Our bodies are biologically ordered to bond with our children. Should her decision to work outside of home be only reached with her husband’s consent? Yes it should. They are a team. Decisions that affect the outcome of the family should definitely include the husband’s consent.

I’m not really sure what you mean by “We now have the Catechism of the Catholic Church”, as the CCC frequently CITES the Roman Catechism (i.e., Catechism of Trent). Many popes throughout the centuries have affirmed it authority and authenticity, including Pope John Paul II. I can provide many sources, if you wish.

Here is a beautiful and relevant quote written by Pope John Paull II in Familiaris Consortio:

“The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home, be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value.

While it must be recognized that women have the same right as men to perform various public functions, 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.

Furthermore, the mentality which honors women more for their work outside the home than for their work within the family must be overcome.

This requires that men should truly esteem and love women with total respect for their personal dignity, and that society should create and develop conditions favoring work in the home.”