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

[thewanderer]

Dear gmarie21,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

The portrait, dear friend, of the virtuous woman in that elegant passage describes a woman who works diligently from within the home, which is the centre of all her operations. Her husband confides to her the management of the household and is confident that all will be well whilst he is absent (v. 11), which seems to imply that she is engaged as a full-time worker at home. Whilst it is true that she does provide from all quarters maintenance for her household, it should be observed that she carefully watches over the conduct of her family and domestics (v. 27), which she could not do with such efficiency were she to be away from the home for too long a period. This pious woman is a worker at home and an ideal wife and homemaker and therefore this lovely chapter actually compliments the Pauline passage in Titus 2: 4,5. At any rate we cannot appeal to the Proverbs passage to support married women working outside of the home in the modern sense in which we understand women working outside the home.

Moreover, dear friend, in the passage in Titus, St. Paul does not say that married women could be workers at home a**nd workers outside of the home, he only enjoined them to be workers at home. Undoubtedly he understood only too well that being a wife and mother was a jolly demanding job per se and that such work could only be properly undertaken by her being at home full-time. With the aggressive disparagment of women homemakers nowadays, for example by the likes of Cherie Blair, Catholics need to loudly declare that home building and motherhood is an indispensable work of supreme importance - ‘the hand that rocks the cradle still rules the world’.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Portrait, did you not noticce the bolded verses?

From Proverbs (which is older than the Council of Trent)
"Who can find* a woman of worth?a
Far beyond jewels is her value.
11
Her husband trusts her judgment;
he does not lack income.
12
She brings him profit, not loss,*
all the days of her life.
13
She seeks out wool and flax
and weaves with skillful hands.
14
Like a merchant fleet,*
she secures her provisions from afar.
15
She rises while it is still night,
and distributes food to her household,
a portion to her maidservants.
16
She picks out a field and acquires it;
from her earnings she plants a vineyard.
…

All of which imply that the good wife not only earns money for her household, but does so, at least in part, precisely by leaving her house and going out afar, by going out and looking at land to choose which is the best land to aqcuire? This is not a woman who sits in the house all day asking her husband for permission to go to the store. This is an industrious woman who spends her time working both in and out of the home for the sake of earning money for the survival (and beyond survival, beyond the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter, for her husband apparantly does quite well for himself according to the later verses) of her family. There really is no way to get around it, there is absolutely nothing sinful with a woman working outside of the home when that is what is best for the family. In fact, in such an instance it would in fact be sinful for the woman to stay at home to the detriment of her family. It is rather ridiculous that this thread is still even open. The answer is clear, of course it is not wrong.

 

[Litcrit]

We could probably scrape by on my salary alone if we added two children to our family. Probably scrape by. I mean scrape by, not live a lavish lifestyle. I’m talking small house, 1 car (needed to get to work and buy groceries), very low almost non-existent entertainment and clothing budget, etc.

The thing is, Debora, what would happen if I lose my job for some unforeseen reason? There are teacher cutbacks happening all across the country. You just never know, it could happen without having anything to do with performance.

IF my wife was the only out-of-the-house worker, however, and IF I contributed a thousand or two a month by working from home (as she could not do), then we could probably afford a better lifestyle AND have enough to sock away $1,500 a month for savings, retirement and college funds to better prepare ours (and our children’s) future and insure ourselves against the potential of job loss/job problems AND we would still have 1 parent at home for the kids… while she would still get maternity leave at the very least (not a picnic by any means, but it’s something.)

That, to me, is a no-brainer.

It sounds like a no-brainer to me, too, but we’re also a WOHM/SAHD family, so I might be biased. You’re a teacher - do you work with kids? Do you like working with kids? If you can be with other people’s kids in a large group all day long and not wish to bite their heads off, you sound like the right guy for the job! My husband is patient and calm and a homebody, which makes him a great candidate.

Now, ideally, I’d like to see mothers get at least a year of paid maternity leave so they could nurse their babies - like mothers get in the rest of the civilized, and even barbaric world. I didn’t have to leave my babies before they were 18 months old. But Americans think this is communism, so I won’t dwell on this. I’m just mentioning it because I do believe it is ideal for a mother to (also) be around an infant, while toddlers and older children

Portrait, did you not noticce the bolded verses?

All of which imply that the good wife not only earns money for her household, but does so, at least in part, precisely by leaving her house and going out afar, by going out and looking at land to choose which is the best land to acquire? This is not a woman who sits in the house all day asking her husband for permission to go to the store. This is an industrious woman who spends her time working both in and out of the home for the sake of earning money for the survival (and beyond survival, beyond the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter, for her husband apparently does quite well for himself according to the later verses) of her family. There really is no way to get around it, there is absolutely nothing sinful with a woman working outside of the home when that is what is best for the family. In fact, in such an instance it would in fact be sinful for the woman to stay at home to the detriment of her family. It is rather ridiculous that this thread is still even open. The answer is clear, of course it is not wrong.

And let’s not forget that her husband was most probably similarly employed - he tended to his lands and perhaps had a store in or near his home. They were both working inside the house and around it. Neither had to leave their children behind. The children grew up close to both their parents.

There were no careers in Paul’s day taking people away from their homes to feed their families. Paul’s words are simply not applicable to this situation. The only reason early followers of Christ were advised to “keep at home” (or “work in the home” or “mind their business”) in order to avoid scandal was because what they apparently were doing was gossiping around the neighborhood.

 

[Portrait]

Well, she also considers a field and buys it, so she must be spending some time outside. Pretty sure she also looks after vineyards.

(

Dear Kamaduck,

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

Undoubtedly, dear sister, she does spend “some time” beyond the borders of her house, providing from all quarters maintenance for her household. However, we are told in that passage (Prov. 31: 27) that this virtuous woman carefully watches over the conduct of the family and domestics, which she simply could not have competently done had she been absent from her home from any great length of time. What is perfectly clear is that her home is the centre of all her operations because this is her responsibility as a woman. If, as Sacred Scripture tells us, a “Man goeth forth to his work and to his labour until the evening” (Psalm 104: 23), a woman finds her true work as a “keeper at home” (Titus 2: 5), for she is by nature best fitted for this work. It has been assigned to her by the Divine Providence and so she should embrace it wholeheartedly and accept it as a part of true womanhood. The pious woman of Proverbs does not live a life of self-indulgent inactivity at home but is occupied in personal and domestic industry, ready and willing to undertake any work that befits her sex and station. What we have here is a godly and industrious woman homemaker and therefore a true model for all married women to emulate, especially given the destructive ideology of radical aberrant feminism which speaks disparraginly of women homebuilders.

It is very easy, dear sister, to come to a passage like Proverbs 31 and then attempt to impose upon it our own modern views respecting the role of women and use certain isolated texts like pegs on which to hang our particular theories. By doing this Sacred Scripture can be twisted to support almost any bizzare and unorthodox opinion and this frequently happens, of course, with Protestant Fundamentalism. Look, our passage is quite clear that the virtuous woman’s centre of operations is the domestic hearth and only those with some particular theory to uphold would insist on maintaining otherwise. At any rate, I have yet to see any reputable exegete use it for polemical purposes to lend support to married women working outside of the home.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

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 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.

Dearly beloved friends.

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

The citations above from the pre-Vatican II Popes are still sound and othrodox teaching for the Catholic faithful today and should certainly be given more weight than the rantings of a warped radical feminist ideology. Moroever, this teaching of the Popes has never been officially repudiated or declared obsolete, and neither could they be since they treat of timeless truths that are continually valid for all generations.

How long are, dear friends the teachings of Paul VI, H.H.JPII and Benedict XVI good for? Thus, for example, if a Pope does not issue another Encyclical on birth prevention for the next hundred years, at what point are the faithful no longer under an obligation to obey Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae? If the teachings of the pre-VII Popes go bad after a certain period of time, then surely that would equally apply to the post-VII Popes, unless it is argued that we are living in some sort of unique theological timewarp.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent is still good today and our the current CCC refers to it “as a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian doctrine” (para. 9), not was a work, but is a work of the first rank. Thus the faithful can still be instructed from this veritable source of sound Catholic doctrine, including what it says about women.

The teaching of the Popes which I referenced earlier in the thread, dear friends, is not timebound for the simple reason that it treats of perpetually valid truths which are not subject to change or modification. Thus when, for example, Pope Benedict XV spoke of “others abandon the duty of housewife, for which they were fashioned” and Pope Pius XII spoke of a “false independence” away from the family hearth and the “task assigned her for the good of society, by nature and by marriage”, they were uttering timeless truth that does not become bad or irrelevant with the passage of time - how could it if it was immutable truth? Therefore, it is as wholesome and good as it was when it was first spoken by the Popes and can be relied upon by the faithful today to guide them into the truth. To reject previous older Church teaching merely on account of its antiquity is not to think with an authentic Catholic mind. Such an approach, moreover, probably originates with an intense dislike of any older teaching which forcibly refutes certain modern notions, in this case modern notions respecting the role of women and motherhood. This, I would contend, is what is taking place among some contemporary Catholics who have either, wittingly or unwittingly, imbibed some of the ideological tenets of warped radical feminism. If that is the case then it a monumental tragedy of the first order.

Dearly beloved friends, it is time, I feel, for me to bow out now so this will be my final post in this thread. It only remains for me to wish all contributors and viewers of the thread a jolly splendid and relaxing weekend, whatever are your plans. Thankyou for a jolly lively discussion and sorry I was unable to reply to everyone.

Blessings be upon thee and may the peace of God be thine now and always.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[gmarie21]

Dearly beloved friends.

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

The citations above from the pre-Vatican II Popes are still sound and othrodox teaching for the Catholic faithful today and should certainly be given more weight than the rantings of a warped radical feminist ideology. Moroever, this teaching of the Popes has never been officially repudiated or declared obsolete, and neither could they be since they treat of timeless truths that are continually valid for all generations.

How long are, dear friends the teachings of Paul VI, H.H.JPII and Benedict XVI good for? Thus, for example, if a Pope does not issue another Encyclical on birth prevention for the next hundred years, at what point are the faithful no longer under an obligation to obey Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae? If the teachings of the pre-VII Popes go bad after a certain period of time, then surely that would equally apply to the post-VII Popes, unless it is argued that we are living in some sort of unique theological timewarp.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent is still good today and our the current CCC refers to it “as a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian doctrine” (para. 9), not was a work, but is a work of the first rank. Thus the faithful can still be instructed from this veritable source of sound Catholic doctrine, including what it says about women.

The teaching of the Popes which I referenced earlier in the thread, dear friends, is not timebound for the simple reason that it treats of perpetually valid truths which are not subject to change or modification. Thus when, for example, Pope Benedict XV spoke of “others abandon the duty of housewife, for which they were fashioned” and Pope Pius XII spoke of a “false independence” away from the family hearth and the “task assigned her for the good of society, by nature and by marriage”, they were uttering timeless truth that does not become bad or irrelevant with the passage of time - how could it if it was immutable truth? Therefore, it is as wholesome and good as it was when it was first spoken by the Popes and can be relied upon by the faithful today to guide them into the truth. To reject previous older Church teaching merely on account of its antiquity is not to think with an authentic Catholic mind. Such an approach, moreover, probably originates with an intense dislike of any older teaching which forcibly refutes certain modern notions, in this case modern notions respecting the role of women and motherhood. This, I would contend, is what is taking place among some contemporary Catholics who have either, wittingly or unwittingly, imbibed some of the ideological tenets of warped radical feminism. If that is the case then it a monumental tragedy of the first order.

Dearly beloved friends, it is time, I feel, for me to bow out now so this will be my final post in this thread. It only remains for me to wish all contributors and viewers of the thread a jolly splendid and relaxing weekend, whatever are your plans. Thankyou for a jolly lively discussion and sorry I was unable to reply to everyone.

Blessings be upon thee and may the peace of God be thine now and always.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

Portrait, I appreciate your concern and while I believe the extremity of your views is a little misguided there is something to be said that our culture (businesses, media, government, etc.) should do a better job in supporting the family unit. But I would encourage you to reflect on St. Paul’s words regarding that we must be like others without sinning in order to win souls for Christ. That means we need to meet people where they are, and that begins with listening, not with a judgmental heart, but a heart with love as Christ has called us. It also means speaking with them in a fashion that they can understand. I do not know how you interact in real life with people but if it is as you are here I can tell you for certainty that those you could reach you aren’t going to reach because you are not talking their language. I am saying this because I see that you do have some valid points but your presentation is one that needs to be a little more “worldly” without sinning in order to win souls for Christ.

So I leave you with this for reflection from 1 Corinthians (I know that it has helped me greatly in remembering love and listening are the first steps in living holy lives for Christ):

All Things to All.
19

• Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible.n
  20
  To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law—though I myself am not under the law—to win over those under the law.
  21
  To those outside the law I became like one outside the law—though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ—to win over those outside the law.
  22
  To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some.o
  23
  All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it.

 

[Kamaduck]

However, we are told in that passage (Prov. 31: 27) that this virtuous woman carefully watches over the conduct of the family and domestics, which she simply could not have competently done had she been absent from her home from any great length of time.

This is insulting. The woman in question has multiple servants and children to be supervised. Her children, at least the girls, probably do not go to school. She owns several fields and vineyards, she spins her own clothes and makes clothes for other people, and she runs the affairs of her (apparently very large) family. Unusually, for her time, she seems to be in charge of her own finances- she planted the vineyard with her own money.

Modern women in the west do not have fields and vineyards around their houses, and they do not have houses full of servants and children to look after. Children go to school. Clothes are bought at the store, and appliances make cooking, cleaning, and washing clothes easier than ever before. It is not necessary for every woman to stay home. Many of them would have nothing to do if they tried.

H
What is perfectly clear is that her home is the centre of all her operations because this is her responsibility as a woman. If, as Sacred Scripture tells us, a “Man goeth forth to his work and to his labour until the evening” (Psalm 104: 23), a woman finds her true work as a “keeper at home” (Titus 2: 5), for she is by nature best fitted for this work. It has been assigned to her by the Divine Providence and so she should embrace it wholeheartedly and accept it as a part of true womanhood.

If you had at least said “wife” or “mother” instead of “woman”, it would have been less absurd. Not all women can be homemakers. Not all women should be homemakers. Some are single, some are widows, some are childless. Some have other talents and interests that they want to pursue. The fact is, I’m not “by nature best fitted for” doing housework all day. I will do housework out of necessity, but I have no intention of making it my primary goal. God has gifted me with other talents as well.

I mean you no disrespect, Portrait. I certainly mean no disrespect to the stay-at-home-moms on this thread. I acknowledge that caring for a family is extremely worthwhile- but it is not the only thing a woman can responsibly do. The Bible does not say it is sinful for women to work outside the home. It is neither sinful nor irresponsible.

 

[JackieMom]

I’ve posted it twice, now, but Portrait refuses to answer my question about married but childless women. I wonder what that means? Off to darn some socks…
Jackie

 

[Kelfa28]

How long are, dear friends the teachings of Paul VI, H.H.JPII and Benedict XVI good for? Thus, for example, if a Pope does not issue another Encyclical on birth prevention for the next hundred years, at what point are the faithful no longer under an obligation to obey Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae? If the teachings of the pre-VII Popes go bad after a certain period of time, then surely that would equally apply to the post-VII Popes, unless it is argued that we are living in some sort of unique theological timewarp.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent is still good today and our the current CCC refers to it “as a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian doctrine” (para. 9), not was a work, but is a work of the first rank. Thus the faithful can still be instructed from this veritable source of sound Catholic doctrine, including what it says about women.

The teaching of the Popes which I referenced earlier in the thread, dear friends, is not timebound for the simple reason that it treats of perpetually valid truths which are not subject to change or modification. Thus when, for example, Pope Benedict XV spoke of “others abandon the duty of housewife, for which they were fashioned” and Pope Pius XII spoke of a “false independence” away from the family hearth and the “task assigned her for the good of society, by nature and by marriage”, they were uttering timeless truth that does not become bad or irrelevant with the passage of time - how could it if it was immutable truth? Therefore, it is as wholesome and good as it was when it was first spoken by the Popes and can be relied upon by the faithful today to guide them into the truth. To reject previous older Church teaching merely on account of its antiquity is not to think with an authentic Catholic mind. Such an approach, moreover, probably originates with an intense dislike of any older teaching which forcibly refutes certain modern notions, in this case modern notions respecting the role of women and motherhood. This, I would contend, is what is taking place among some contemporary Catholics who have either, wittingly or unwittingly, imbibed some of the ideological tenets of warped radical feminism. If that is the case then it a monumental tragedy of the first order.

Dearly beloved friends, it is time, I feel, for me to bow out now so this will be my final post in this thread. It only remains for me to wish all contributors and viewers of the thread a jolly splendid and relaxing weekend, whatever are your plans. Thankyou for a jolly lively discussion and sorry I was unable to reply to everyone.

Blessings be upon thee and may the peace of God be thine now and always.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

The biggest difference I see is the fact that contraception is considered a grave matter. The church makes that quite clear.
Humanae Vitae is crystal clear with this.

Whether the document falls into obscurity or not…the fact remains that the Church recognizes that contraception is always wrong in every situation.
This is doctrine and will never change.

However, a woman is under no moral obligation to stay at home. It is not a grave matter for her to do so. This is not doctrine and she is not sinning by working outside of the home.
It would have been made crystal clear within the Catechism and it’s not.
You cannot reference another document and make up an entire argument around it. It’s not going to change the fact that it is not a grave matter for a woman to work outside of the home.

There are millions upon millions of Church documents that discuss many, many different things. This is par for the course when you’ve influenced the greater part of the world for over two thousand years.

Once again. ANYONE READING THIS POST who may be confused.

The Catholic Church DOES NOT consider woman working outside of the home a grave matter. It is NOT sinful for her to do so.

the end.

 

[Serap]

Hey guys!

I am adamently against women working outside the home! It’s so terrible!

Ok…my boss is calling me…gotta go…

 

[Baelor]

Portrait,

It is not a matter of denial of the laid-out Catholic doctrine. It is a question of why encyclicals on the same topics, the current Catechism, and current rite of matrimony do not discuss any of the things discussed in the older documents. This absence does need to be explained, because it is generally without parallel.

Furthermore, your formulation of the practical meanings of the laws are not syllogistic. You condemn wives working part-time outside of extreme necessity using statements that do not condemn them. This is unacceptable on a Catholic forum.

 

[sweetpetunia]

Once again. ANYONE READING THIS POST who may be confused.

The Catholic Church DOES NOT consider woman working outside of the home a grave matter. It is NOT sinful for her to do so.

the end.

This is true. It is indisputable that families have different means and capabilities. What the Church wants is for the irreplaceable role of the family in society to be upheld. Raising our children is truly an amazing, awe-inspiring vocation, as is that of married life. I really, really recommend Pope John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio. It is not a huge book by any means, but it has a lot of wisdom in it. In English, they re-titled it “The role of the Christian family in the modern world.”, and it’s true. It address the needs and struggles of the family in the modern world. (It also addresses, Debora, your point about husbands who are voluntarily absent and uninvolved, as well as oppressive husbands!)

I’m going to cut and paste the section on “Women and Society” here, as it’s not long and beautiful written. Any highlighting of text will be my own.

"Without intending to deal with all the various aspects of the vast and complex theme of the relationships between women and society, and limiting these remarks to a few essential points, one cannot but observe that in the specific area of family life a widespread social and cultural tradition has considered women’s role to be exclusively that of wife and mother, without adequate access to public functions which have generally been reserved for men.

There is no doubt that the equal dignity and responsibility of men and women fully justifies women’s access to public functions. On the other hand the true advancement of women requires that clear recognition be given to the value of their maternal and family role, by comparison with all other public roles and all other professions. Furthermore, these roles and professions should be harmoniously combined, if we wish the evolution of society and culture to be truly and fully human.

This will come about more easily if, in accordance with the wishes expressed by the Synod, a renewed “theology of work” can shed light upon and study in depth the meaning of work in the Christian life and determine the fundamental bond between work and the family, and therefore the original and irreplaceable meaning of work in the home and in rearing children. ** Therefore 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. **This is of particular importance in education: for possible discrimination between the different types of work and professions is eliminated at its very root once it is clear that all people, in every area, are working with equal rights and equal responsibilities. The image of God in man and in woman will thus be seen with added luster.

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.

**With due respect to the different vocations of men and women, the Church must in her own life promote as far as possible their equality of rights and dignity: and this for the good of all, the family, the Church and society.

But clearly all of this does not mean for women a renunciation of their femininity or an imitation of the male role, but the fullness of true feminine humanity which should be expressed in their activity, whether in the family or outside of it, without disregarding the differences of customs and cultures in this sphere."

 

[Walking_Home]

This is insulting. The woman in question has multiple servants and children to be supervised. Her children, at least the girls, probably do not go to school. She owns several fields and vineyards, she spins her own clothes and makes clothes for other people, and she runs the affairs of her (apparently very large) family. Unusually, for her time, she seems to be in charge of her own finances- she planted the vineyard with her own money.

Modern women in the west do not have fields and vineyards around their houses, and they do not have houses full of servants and children to look after. Children go to school. Clothes are bought at the store, and appliances make cooking, cleaning, and washing clothes easier than ever before. It is not necessary for every woman to stay home. Many of them would have nothing to do if they tried.

If you had at least said “wife” or “mother” instead of “woman”, it would have been less absurd. Not all women can be homemakers. Not all women should be homemakers. Some are single, some are widows, some are childless. Some have other talents and interests that they want to pursue. The fact is, I’m not “by nature best fitted for” doing housework all day. I will do housework out of necessity, but I have no intention of making it my primary goal. God has gifted me with other talents as well.

I mean you no disrespect, Portrait. I certainly mean no disrespect to the stay-at-home-moms on this thread. I acknowledge that caring for a family is extremely worthwhile- but it is not the only thing a woman can responsibly do. The Bible does not say it is sinful for women to work outside the home. It is neither sinful nor irresponsible.

Kelfa28:

The biggest difference I see is the fact that contraception is considered a grave matter. The church makes that quite clear.
Humanae Vitae is crystal clear with this.

Whether the document falls into obscurity or not…the fact remains that the Church recognizes that contraception is always wrong in every situation.
This is doctrine and will never change.

However, a woman is under no moral obligation to stay at home. It is not a grave matter for her to do so. This is not doctrine and she is not sinning by working outside of the home.
It would have been made crystal clear within the Catechism and it’s not.
You cannot reference another document and make up an entire argument around it. It’s not going to change the fact that it is not a grave matter for a woman to work outside of the home.

There are millions upon millions of Church documents that discuss many, many different things. This is par for the course when you’ve influenced the greater part of the world for over two thousand years.

Once again. ANYONE READING THIS POST who may be confused.

The Catholic Church DOES NOT consider woman working outside of the home a grave matter. It is NOT sinful for her to do so.

the end.

Baelor:

Portrait,

It is not a matter of denial of the laid-out Catholic doctrine. It is a question of why encyclicals on the same topics, the current Catechism, and current rite of matrimony do not discuss any of the things discussed in the older documents. This absence does need to be explained, because it is generally without parallel.

Furthermore, your formulation of the practical meanings of the laws are not syllogistic. You condemn wives working part-time outside of extreme necessity using statements that do not condemn them. This is unacceptable on a Catholic forum.

---

 

[Debora123]

Portrait,

It is not a matter of denial of the laid-out Catholic doctrine. It is a question of why encyclicals on the same topics, the current Catechism, and current rite of matrimony do not discuss any of the things discussed in the older documents. This absence does need to be explained, because it is generally without parallel.

Furthermore, your formulation of the practical meanings of the laws are not syllogistic. You condemn wives working part-time outside of extreme necessity using statements that do not condemn them. This is unacceptable on a Catholic forum.

 

[Debora123]

The biggest difference I see is the fact that contraception is considered a grave matter. The church makes that quite clear.
Humanae Vitae is crystal clear with this.

Whether the document falls into obscurity or not…the fact remains that the Church recognizes that contraception is always wrong in every situation.
This is doctrine and will never change.

However, a woman is under no moral obligation to stay at home. It is not a grave matter for her to do so. This is not doctrine and she is not sinning by working outside of the home.
It would have been made crystal clear within the Catechism and it’s not.
You cannot reference another document and make up an entire argument around it. It’s not going to change the fact that it is not a grave matter for a woman to work outside of the home.

There are millions upon millions of Church documents that discuss many, many different things. This is par for the course when you’ve influenced the greater part of the world for over two thousand years.

Once again. ANYONE READING THIS POST who may be confused.

The Catholic Church DOES NOT consider woman working outside of the home a grave matter. It is NOT sinful for her to do so.

the end.

 

[Debora123]

This is insulting. The woman in question has multiple servants and children to be supervised. Her children, at least the girls, probably do not go to school. She owns several fields and vineyards, she spins her own clothes and makes clothes for other people, and she runs the affairs of her (apparently very large) family. Unusually, for her time, she seems to be in charge of her own finances- she planted the vineyard with her own money.

Modern women in the west do not have fields and vineyards around their houses, and they do not have houses full of servants and children to look after. Children go to school. Clothes are bought at the store, and appliances make cooking, cleaning, and washing clothes easier than ever before. It is not necessary for every woman to stay home. Many of them would have nothing to do if they tried.

If you had at least said “wife” or “mother” instead of “woman”, it would have been less absurd. Not all women can be homemakers. Not all women should be homemakers. Some are single, some are widows, some are childless. Some have other talents and interests that they want to pursue. The fact is, I’m not “by nature best fitted for” doing housework all day. I will do housework out of necessity, but I have no intention of making it my primary goal. God has gifted me with other talents as well.

I mean you no disrespect, Portrait. I certainly mean no disrespect to the stay-at-home-moms on this thread. I acknowledge that caring for a family is extremely worthwhile- but it is not the only thing a woman can responsibly do. The Bible does not say it is sinful for women to work outside the home. It is neither sinful nor irresponsible.

 

[Debora123]

Portrait, should women be allowed to vote and/or go to college? Just curious to know your opinion on these matters.

 

[severus68]

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.

Lol!

 

[severus68]

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.

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

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.

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

I agree and confirm that Portrait has taken that position as well as others based on his opinion that women are subject to and under the authority of men.

 

[severus68]

I don’t remember who it was that said this, and perhaps it wasn’t portrait… but someone did say once on here that unless a woman either gets married and has babies, or becomes a nun, she is selfish and not fulfilling her duties here on earth.

.
It was He! Just being melodramatic

 

[severus68]

This thread is hysterical!

Reminds me of my new great big waste o’ time: reading Amazon Customer Reviews.

Best one regarding the Bic Cristal for Her: (wickedly funny!)

I love BIC Cristal for Her! The delicate shape and pretty pastel colors make it perfect for writing recipe cards, checks to my psychologist (I’m seeing him for a case of the hysterics), and tracking my monthly cycle. Obviously, I don’t use it for vulgar endeavors like math or filling out a voter application, but BIC Cristal for Her is a lovely little writing utensil all the same. Ask your husband for some extra pocket money so you can buy one today!

I am hysterical with laughter.