Motherhood and careers

[Jen7]

I didn’t say that. Of course not.

 

[Shadow_of_Caravaggio]

Well, the Church (as I’m positive you are aware) condemns contraception so that is a no go; I do not think I want to speak much on NFP as that can be a very technical discussion with lots of nuances (for instance, from my understanding the actual language in English is “serious reasons”, not “grave reasons”… see Humanae Vitae, Section 10 http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-...ments/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html).

Again, to me, this more gets into the realm of moral theology which is not my strong suit (and reminder, I’m not even a theologian), so I would urge anyone to talk to a priest about these kinds of issues and what would qualify as a “serious reason”.

Also, the situation of a religious is different. If they take a vow of obedience, then they are bound by that vow. But their superiors, knowing they possess a talent that could benefit the world, could permit them to pursue something (like, presumably, in the case of these nuns: The scientist nuns: In pursuit of faith and reason). But their superiors could also deny this.

As far as vocations, in the Catholic sense “vocation” means religious life, priesthood, married life, or single life.

Finally, if you want to read the full text of the C.D.F. document, you can read that here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html

 

[Lifeisbeautiful3]

If married husband wants to work outside the home, he may.

If married wife wants to work outside the home, she may.

If single parent wants to work outside the home, he or she may.

Simple as that.

 

[Shadow_of_Caravaggio]

[6/6]

(wanted to edit it, but I couldn’t, so I am reposting it here)

So as one can see, the Church’s prudential decision has been reformed, and for good reason. We do not live in the same historical conditions as someone in the 1500s, or even as someone in the 1930s. The invention/widespread use of the automobile, widespread electricity, better appliances, better communication networks, shift of focus from blue collar to white collar labor, better safety for women–in addition to the Church’s newer focus on combating inequality and injustice. The Church can reform its own, non-irreformable prudential decisions. That’s not for us to decide or reform it ourselves, that’s the Church’s call.

The core principle, however, that wives and mothers cannot neglect their duties as wives and mothers, remains fully intact and fully in force. But as the recent Magisterial statements suggest, this fundamental vocation of a woman should not be grounds for barring women from work she is capable of doing. Notice, for instance, the C.D.F. document does not mention “grave necessity” or “grave injustice” as reasons facilitating women working. Rather, it says if wives and mothers wish to work. Wish to. In other teachings, the Church speaks of professional formation and advancement. It speaks of women needing to play a serious part in the solutions of society.

So like I said, it seems to me, in regards to the totality of the Magisterium, the Church’s teaching is the following: wives and mothers cannot neglect their duties as wives and mothers, but if these needs are met, they are permitted to work and society should structure itself so that this option is made available to women if this is freely chosen and not chosen by societal or economic pressures.

 

[Lea101]

The document seems to put the burden on others & society to make it possible for the woman to get out of the home.

This sounds like a rather cynical interpretation. Of course society should be structured in a way that’s beneficial for families-this includes parents being able to have a good work-life balance.

 

[Jen7]

This sounds like a rather cynical interpretation. Of course society should be structured in a way that’s beneficial for families-this includes parents being able to have a good work-life balance.

It’s just that when society doesn’t the woman always seems like the first one to suffer.

 

[Lea101]

It’s just that when society doesn’t the woman always seems like the first one to suffer.

Stats show that mothers generally take more off days and miss out on bonuses/promotions because of having to take time off on top of facing discrimination from employers who would prefer a single woman or a man because of mom obligations.

So in a way…yes? They’re often the hardest hit, as there are less expectations of men having to handle little kids. Now that cultural norms are shifting where men are expected to do such duties, we see men starting to voice out how they would like paternity leaves, 4 day work week etc.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

, as there are less expectations of men having to handle little kids.

As a guy, you really start to notice it. You’ll take your kid to the park or something as get comments like “look at you, I bet your wife really appreciates you helping out with the baby!” as though it’s not equally your kid and you changing a diaper is really going above and beyond.

 

[Jen7]

As a guy, you really start to notice it. You’ll take your kid to the park or something as get comments like “look at you, I bet your wife really appreciates you helping out with the baby!” as though it’s not equally your kid and you changing a diaper is really going above and beyond.

Yup, this. I watched a documentary on the Amish once and was amazed. The dads worked out in the field and the little children ran around nearby while he worked. Sometimes they helped. The wife was inside with one baby doing the cooking and cleaning. She did not have all six kids attached to her skirt all day long.