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

[JackieMom]

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?

Clearly it is because men were designed by nature to not have a significant presence in the household for long periods of time. Or because they simply aren’t created by nature for housework and child care and other “womanly” duties. Or maybe it’s just because the winners get to write the history books and make the rules.

 

[sweetpetunia]

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?

I don’t think it is, Debora. The blessing of you wanting to be at home with your children is also being borne by your husband who will be financially and emotionally supporting you and the family in that wonderful role. You will both be making sacrifices for the family.

 

[Litcrit]

I think that as long as she doesn’t neglect her family, working is just fine. Then again, I think that holds true for the father as well.

God bless both – working mothers and stay at home mothers.

And God bless both - working fathers and stay at home fathers.

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 pseudo-reason of professional work???

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?

All excellent points! Mothers are divided, with both groups feeling somehow attacked for how they have managed to organize their family life, while no one even thinks to ask a father “So, are you really going to keep working now that you have a child? How can you stand to leave him to go to work?”

I think this is unfair to men as well. Even in countries with parental leave, they can be penalized or discriminated against at work for taking it. They’re less likely to be understood when they ask to leave work early because of their children. If they decide to be SAHDs, people think it must be because he’s incompetent, and not because he actually wants to father his children.

The divide is relatively new and relatively privileged. There were times and places where a baby would be brought to a mother working all day at the factory to be nursed through the fence every 3 hours. Nobody asked the mother what her choice was.

The world we live in so often keeps people away from their homes and families just so they could have those homes and feed those families. It’s getting better with internet and the ability for both parents to work with increased flexibility and closer to their children - just like in the olden days, when both men and women worked at home (farms and trade shops). I have hope.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I think this is unfair to men as well. Even in countries with parental leave, they can be penalized or discriminated against at work for taking it. They’re less likely to be understood when they ask to leave work early because of their children. If they decide to be SAHDs, people think it must be because he’s incompetent, and not because he actually wants to father his children.

Oh yes, that too. My wife and I are close to conceiving, God-willing. I don’t think either of us will stay at home.

However, if either of us were to stay at home, it would make so much more sense for that to be me.

I am a teacher and she is a doctor. So, her income right now is 1.5X higher than mine.

Further, I am experienced in working with internet enterprises. I am capable of doing a number of non-teaching jobs online due to my skill set.

So conceivably, between these two factors, our income if I stay at home would probably be double what it would be if she does.

I am not denying the longing of children for their mother, but I have to ask, honestly, would it not clearly be better for us, in our circumstances, to choose that route?

 

[Lochias]

Oh yes, that too. My wife and I are close to conceiving, God-willing. I don’t think either of us will stay at home.

However, if either of us were to stay at home, it would make so much more sense for that to be me.

I am a teacher and she is a doctor. So, her income right now is 1.5X higher than mine.

Further, I am experienced in working with internet enterprises. I am capable of doing a number of non-teaching jobs online due to my skill set.

So conceivably, between these two factors, our income if I stay at home would probably be double what it would be if she does.

I am not denying the longing of children for their mother, but I have to ask, honestly, would it not clearly be better for us, in our circumstances, to choose that route?

Depends. Given what the Church has had to say on the matter, it still sounds as though the mother is better suited to family-rearing. What does your Catholic faith in God and His designs have to say?

 

[Baelor]

If, dear brother, the notion of women being “keepers at home” (Titus 2: 5) was “heterodox” as you argue,

I never said that women being keepers at home was heterodox.

Your remarks, dear brother, respecting the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, are extremely problematic,

Hardly, given that I certainly respect their validity and the concepts therein. You, on the other hand, have expressed problems with the idea of mutual subjection, explicitly stated in a papal encyclical that is more recent than either of the documents listed above. Forgive me if I do not trust your judgment when it comes to problematic understandings of Church teaching.

for they imply that authoritative Church teaching can somehow become mouldy and go bad, a view which cannot be sustained.

That is not the case at all. It would be, however, fallacious to say that the Church has only ever taught infallibly. While the concept of fallibility does not diminish in all cases our call to obedience, the Church would hardly say that Her teachings are not infalliable unless she recognized that they were perhaps…not infallible. Furthermore, it is not a matter of rejecting concepts wholesale, but rather a narrow interpretation of particular disciplinary conduct that does not follow according to natural law or even sacred texts.

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:

If the Roman Catechism were considered perfectly adequate, it would simply have been republished.

Therefore, dear brother, by referencing the Catechism of Trent, the current CCC refutes the view for which you are contending.

Namely, what?

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.

That is certainly telling. Why has no modern Church document on marriage cited the Roman Catechism’s teaching on the woman not being able to leave her house without her husband’s permission? Please explain.

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.

That is not what I am asking. Why is it that modern documents rehash older teaching, but do not mention this apparent requirement at all? Please explain.

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.

Nice try. Veiling was explicitly required in the Code of Canon Law. The edition requiring veiling was abrogated in its entirety except for those laws held over into the new edition, which did not include veiling.

So, basically, your example can be considered justification for my own point (while remembering that former documents were not abrogated in their entirety, etc.).

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.

I agree. And yet you have not explained the absence of such a basic part of matrimony in the Roman Catechism in all modern documents. Why is this teaching not present in the most recent Papal Encyclicals and the current Catechism when most other teaching about matrimony is?

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.

“Timeless truths” implies infallibility. While we are called to obedience, we are not called to consider infallible what the Church does not.

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.

I am not wanting to drive such a wedge.

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.

That is certainly the case. And yet the total silence on the issue described in the Rerum Novarum while other statements and beliefs reflected in the encyclical are affirmed is telling.

“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.

And yet that is the only mention of what is directly related to “homework.” Women are by nature fitted for homework, viz. (not e.g.) rearing and educating of children in godliness. Few would dispute this. But nothing in Church teaching defines “homework” with any specificity of note outside of child-rearing.

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”.

Again, Church teaching simply does not teach that women are by nature fitted to things like washing the dishes or cleaning the house.

 

[Baelor]

The Council of Trent was not “written”, it was an ecumenical council

You misunderstand history. The Roman Catechism was indeed written because it was not a direct product of the Council of Trent. It was commissioned at the Council but does not enjoy the authority that the conciliar documents do.

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.)

See above; it was not actually passed by the council.

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!

I am interpreting it in the way Portrait has in the past. He believes that women should not spend more than hours per week outside the home. If you want citations, I am happy to research them (if other posters do not vouch for me in the meantime) unless the threads have been deleted, which many have.

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.

Indeed. My question is why any modern document does not cite the more restrictive requirements of older documents about women in the home.

 

[gmarie21]

In a word: No.

However, I’m a working mom, but would give my left arm to be a stay-at-home mom right now (and always). I have the job that pays the best, so I work full time and it has caused a lot of tension, sadness, resentment, and lack of understanding in my marriage. My husband loves being a “stay-at-home-dad” because he loves his kids, but it is taking a toll on him and myself. He has moments where he feels less like a man, and I have many moments where I disagree with how he parents. We have tiny babies with a 3rd on the way, so the added tension of another one doesn’t seem to help us lately.

P.S. I hope I didn’t distract too much from the purpose of this thread. I’m merely offering a view, and while we have no other option in our family, I wish it WAS wrong to be a working mom so that I could be home with my little ones. I’d give almost anything and my husband could use some “man” time to himself. Every family dynamic, perception, and need is different though.

In my personal opinion, if you can afford for at least one of you to be home with your children, you should do it, especially in the early years of child development. These are the most impressionable years of their lives.

I could have written this. My husband does work as a musician on weekends (not every weekend anymore due to the economy). He homeschools our children (something I wish that I could do) makes dinner and cleans. He watches them grow full-time while I watch them grow 3 hours per day 5 days per week and then, of course, I watch them grow on the weekends. I know that my husband wishes he knew some other homeschooling stay-at-home dads in the area.

I work in childcare and have seen plenty of parents where the family could afford to live on one income but the other parent chose to work. It boggles my mind on why the other parent (who made considerably less) would rather leave their children with a non-relative during the formative years. While the kids I watch are loved by us, we do NOT replace the love they can receive from their parents. And they feel the absence too (some even calling me mama in which I immediately correct them). And then there are the parents who can pick up their children early due to their schedules but rarely do. I know that for me, as soon as I can, I leave and get home to my family as soon as possible. I hate being away from them! They are only little for so long, I always think parents should do all they can to have their babies and young children at home with family as much as possible. The more caretakers the more a child has to learn multiple rules and standards. I do not think this builds trust like it should. If many adoptees have trust issues as adults I believe we will see the same (maybe not as extreme) in children who spent their early years in the care of non-family.

 

[sweetpetunia]

You misunderstand history. The Roman Catechism was indeed written because it was not a direct product of the Council of Trent. It was commissioned at the Council but does not enjoy the authority that the conciliar documents do.

Actually, not at all. I am (and was) fully aware that the Catechism of Trent sprang out of the Council of Trent, and that it was decreed at the Council of Trent that the Catechism of Trent be written, so naturally, the first draft of the Catechism of Trent was not published until about three years after the Council ended. I am also fully aware that it was intended to be a clear reference and guide for priests who provide spiritual care, and that, in addition to being ordered by the Council of Trent, it was published by decree of Pope Saint Pius V. (As a neat little factoid, it was also edited under St. Charles Borromeo, or at least says my hard copy of the Roman Catechism ) I do think it is a mistake to refer to the Council of Trent as though it were a document (and a non-binding on at that!) instead of an ecumenical council or event that spanned a few decades, and a few popes, and I also think that it should not be dismissed as lightly as you seem to suggest.

I am interpreting it in the way Portrait has in the past. He believes that women should not spend more than hours per week outside the home. If you want citations, I am happy to research them (if other posters do not vouch for me in the meantime) unless the threads have been deleted, which many have.

I must admit, I haven’t read all of Portrait’s past comments. I didn’t see anything in this thread that suggested mothers and their children need to be confined to the four walls of their house and not go on outings beyond a certain number of hours per week, other than what you wrote, but if this were indeed true, than it is indeed a strange and damaging statement. If this were true, there is a very apt quote for this as well in Familiaris Consortio.

Indeed. My question is why any modern document does not cite the more restrictive requirements of older documents about women in the home.

Which requirements specifically are you speaking of?

 

[Debora123]

Oh yes, that too. My wife and I are close to conceiving, God-willing. I don’t think either of us will stay at home.

However, if either of us were to stay at home, it would make so much more sense for that to be me.

I am a teacher and she is a doctor. So, her income right now is 1.5X higher than mine.

Further, I am experienced in working with internet enterprises. I am capable of doing a number of non-teaching jobs online due to my skill set.

So conceivably, between these two factors, our income if I stay at home would probably be double what it would be if she does.

I am not denying the longing of children for their mother, but I have to ask, honestly, would it not clearly be better for us, in our circumstances, to choose that route?

yes

 

[Baelor]

Actually, not at all. I am (and was) fully aware that the Catechism of Trent sprang out of the Council of Trent, and that it was decreed at the Council of Trent that the Catechism of Trent be written, so naturally, the first draft of the Catechism of Trent was not published until about three years after the Council ended.

I misspoke in my original post – By “Council of Trent” I meant “Catechism of Trent,” or Roman Catechism; I made a typo. The Council of Trent was obviously convened.

I do think it is a mistake to refer to the Council of Trent as though it were a document (and a non-binding on at that!) instead of an ecumenical council or event that spanned a few decades, and a few popes, and I also think that it should not be dismissed as lightly as you seem to suggest.

See above.

Which requirements specifically are you speaking of?

For example: “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”.

I am interested in the complete silence in modern documents that describe marriage in detail but do not mention these things. Why the change? Presumably they are worth mentioning in comprehensive theological examinations of matrimony. Why are they not there?

 

[sweetpetunia]

Oh yes, that too. My wife and I are close to conceiving, God-willing. I don’t think either of us will stay at home.

However, if either of us were to stay at home, it would make so much more sense for that to be me.

I am a teacher and she is a doctor. So, her income right now is 1.5X higher than mine.

Further, I am experienced in working with internet enterprises. I am capable of doing a number of non-teaching jobs online due to my skill set.

So conceivably, between these two factors, our income if I stay at home would probably be double what it would be if she does.

I am not denying the longing of children for their mother, but I have to ask, honestly, would it not clearly be better for us, in our circumstances, to choose that route?

From a monetary standpoint, clearly. The rest, not so clear

 

[Debora123]

From a monetary standpoint, clearly. The rest, not so clear

By saying it this way, you’re making it sound like it would be materialistic to have the person who makes less money stay home.

But we need money to survive in this world and to sustain our families with security and good quality of life.

A teacher’s salary alone, sustaining a spouse and multiple children (if he decides to have more), would be extremely tight.

It’s not about only about just “monetary”… it’s about providing for a good and secure quality of life. And perhaps even afford more children this way.

 

[sweetpetunia]

By saying it this way, you’re making it sound like it would be materialistic to have the person who makes less money stay home.

But we need money to survive in this world and to sustain our families with security and good quality of life.

A teacher’s salary alone, sustaining a spouse and multiple children (if he decides to have more), would be extremely tight.

If you think so, then let me clarify. Only the financial aspect is clear, because that is all he posted. Prayerful discernment involves not only means, but capabilities and inclinations (among other things).

And, incidentally, both teachers’ salaries and the cost of living vary greatly, depending on location

 

[Debora123]

If you think so, then let me clarify. Only the financial aspect is clear, because that is all he posted. Prayerful discernment involves not only means, but capabilities and inclinations (among other things).

And, incidentally, both teachers’ salaries and the cost of living vary greatly, depending on location

True. I guess Veritas can chime in here and shed some light into what their situation would be.

 

[Kelfa28]

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.

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.

You know what? I actually think that women are best to raise their children.
But it’s still not a requirement.

Until the Church explicitly states that women must stay at home because it’s considered a grave matter if they don’t, no one will convince me or any other sensible Catholic otherwise.

You still haven’t addressed what I’m supposed to do when and if my husband can’t find a job. Besides overhauling the entire system and disregard the liberal/socialist agenda that has taken effect.
Unfortunately, despite my best prayer efforts, I don’t see that changing anytime soon. It’s still incredibly difficult for men to find jobs in this economy.
I also can’t sit back and watch our ship sink because certain Church documents suggest that it’s in our best interest to keep me at home.

Once again, the bills need to be paid. If my husband is going to take over the child-rearing and housekeeping duties…he will be doing that out of survival and necessity.

Woman are quite able and free to work and earn a living. It’s not a sin for them to do so. Sometimes it must be seriously considered given our economic circumstances.

I will say again that I don’t think it’s a good idea for a 6 week old infant to be dropped off in daycare so both mom and dad can earn a living.

But that is only my opinion. A couple has every right to discern how their children will be raised. If two incomes are needed and they feel comfortable putting their children in daycare. Then the Church is not going to tell them no.

I see these arguments on the same line as Breastfeeding. It’s highly recommended and it’s clearly the best nutrition for a baby. But not all mom’s can make it happen.
I physically couldn’t make that happen…despite every intention of doing so. The Church clearly recommends it but their is nothing that says it’s a grave matter and we are committing a sin if we don’t.

 

[Debora123]

You know what? I actually think that women are best to raise their children.
But it’s still not a requirement.

Until the Church explicitly states that women must stay at home because it’s considered a grave matter if they don’t, no one will convince me or any other sensible Catholic otherwise.

You still haven’t addressed what I’m supposed to do when and if my husband can’t find a job. Besides overhauling the entire system and disregard the liberal/socialist agenda that has taken effect.
Unfortunately, despite my best prayer efforts, I don’t see that changing anytime soon. It’s still incredibly difficult for men to find jobs in this economy.
I also can’t sit back and watch our ship sink because certain Church documents suggest that it’s in our best interest to keep me at home.

Once again, the bills need to be paid. If my husband is going to take over the child-rearing and housekeeping duties…he will be doing that out of survival and necessity.

Woman are quite able and free to work and earn a living. It’s not a sin for them to do so. Sometimes it must be seriously considered given our economic circumstances.

I will say again that I don’t think it’s a good idea for a 6 week old infant to be dropped off in daycare so both mom and dad can earn a living.

But that is only my opinion. A couple has every right to discern how their children will be raised. If two incomes are needed and they feel comfortable putting their children in daycare. Then the Church is not going to tell them no.

I see these arguments on the same line as Breastfeeding. It’s highly recommended and it’s clearly the best nutrition for a baby. But not all mom’s can make it happen.
I physically couldn’t make that happen…despite every intention of doing so. The Church clearly recommends it but their is nothing that says it’s a grave matter and we are committing a sin if we don’t.

 

[Portrait]

By saying it this way, you’re making it sound like it would be materialistic to have the person who makes less money stay home.

But we need money to survive in this world and to sustain our families with security and good quality of life.

A teacher’s salary alone, sustaining a spouse and multiple children (if he decides to have more), would be extremely tight.

It’s not about only about just “monetary”… it’s about providing for a good and secure quality of life. And perhaps even afford more children this way.

Dear Debora,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Indeed, dear sister, we do need money to survive and sustain us, but as Catholics we must needs think about other important issues also, such as the spiritual welfare of our families. The Psalmist could say with great confidence that he had never seen “the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread” (Ps. 37: 25), and I can personally testify to the truth of this when my wife and I were bringing up our child. By UK standards we were extremely poor and disadvantaged, but we enjoyed a nutritious diet and had clothes on our backs, even though they were often from charity shops. My wife is a very capable woman and had she worked we would have enjoyed a better standard of living, along with greater financial security, for sure. However, she decided that she was going to be obedient to the biblical mandate regarding women being ‘keepers at home’ (Titus 2: 5) and fully embrace the role of wife and mother. We have never had any regrets about that decision and found in our own experience that God will honour them that honour Him. We did surivive, although being of slender means was jolly hard at times, especially with a young child. Treats were very occasional but very much appreciated when we had them.

God, dear sister, has promised to supply our needs, not necessarily our wants and this is why many are so disastisfied with their lot today. They want a comfortable lifestyle that is mostly free from any severe hardship, indeed they feel somehow cheated if this is denied to them for some reason. However, working people who murmmer about having a poor quality of life ought to try living on state welfare payments, for then they would know what real poverty and deprivation is. People in this position often have to choose between eating and heating during the cold winter season, which is very grim indeed. Moreover, if they have a long-term mental or physical health problem that precludes them from working and no family to call upon, then living on welfare handouts can be an immense trial, in more ways than one. Thus many spouses who would complain about having to exist on only a husband’s ‘meagre wage’ should think about the plight of those who really are suffering severe hardship, but who still have to survive.

We expect far too much too soon these days and that is why there is so much discontent, especially among the youth. Some spouses convince themselves that they require two incomes and cannot possibly get by without them, but often they just do not want what they deem to be a low standard of living where they are ‘working for nothing’. These people often say that they will not get our of bed in the morning unless a job pays them a ‘decent wage’.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[SlackerCatholic]

I am morally convicted that I am obligated to provide more than bare subsistence to my children as I am able, to allow them to develop as whole balanced people. I also find it morally repugnant to rely on socialized government, like those in Western Europe, to provide for my children what I am obligated to provide through the sweat of my brow (and my husband’s).

And frankly, having five children is expensive in a way a person with only one just cannot fathom.

The Church allows us to make prudential judgments for ourselves on this, and nothing you say can change that, Portrait.

 

[Julianna]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

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. Only by a diminuition of Christian principles could our current situation ever have become possible, a situation where children frequently come home from school to empty homes (‘latch-key children’) and where mothers are no longer available as full-time guides and carers, always on hand to counsel and console and sharing in the daily ups and downs of young life in sympathy and understanding.

Whilst, dear friends, I do not think that we can argue that it is intrinsically evil for a woman to work and have a family in every single circumstance, I do not believe that it is desirable or in the best interests of the children. 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 s**he should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent”. **Thus, for example, if a husband has a long term physical or mental health problem that precludes him from working, then there may be a necessity for the wife to go out and earn a living if possible.

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”.

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. Again, although it is manifestly obvious to housewives themselves, many others, especially today, overlook the fact that being a housewife* is* work. In Pope Leo’s remarks the Church acknowledges it as such, thus when other subsequent Popes speak of ‘working women’ we ought to see that as not excluding being a ‘keeper at home’ or homemaker.

Unfortunately, dear friends, owing to a barrage of aberrant feminist propaganda, especially since the permissive Sixties, woman have been made to feel unfulfilled and somehow incomplete unless they are a part of the workforce. This is a monumental tragedy of the first rank and is actually demeaning to women because it is tacit denial of the true ‘nature’ of womanhood. How very sad it was last year to hear Cherie Blair (wife of the former UK Prime Minister and a professing Catholic) launch an astonishing attack on women homemakers, warning that it was ‘dangerous’ for women to rely upon their husbands. Moreover, she criticised what she termed “yummy mummies” (where do they get these silly phrases from?) who marry wealthy men and put their energies into rearing children rather than concentrating on their careers. How deeply saddening to hear such remarks from someone who professes the holy religion of Christ!
God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

That was written in 1566, really? She can’t work outside the home without her husband’s consent. Really? Are you kidding me? He’s my husband, not my father. I hope the OP is not confused. OP, if your wife wants to work outside the home, and you “both” discussed it through, there is no reason and no fire and brimstone will befall you if she does. Portrait, dearest, do you have any idea what a mess the economy is in right now? Do you really think a young man of 20, with a wife and a baby and no skills can have a decent family life while working for $9.00 an hour and no health insurance? Really? How much is the Council of Trent planning on kicking in for the rent, utilities and the rising cost of gas? In 1566 women were second class citizens, people were divided by a class system. Women were on the bottom wrung of the ladder no matter which social class or lack their of they were born into.

My husband doesn’t give me “consent”, “permission” and in my wedding vows in 1981 (in the Catholic Church), there was no mention of the word “obey” directed at me.

Reality is the order of the day.