Need ladies' input

[chevalier]

We have both, and other catechisms and teachings. The Truth does not contradict Truth. The 1992 cathechism does not conflict with the Council of Trent Catechism. What was True in the 16th Century is just as true in the 21st. Part of the beauty of the Catholic Faith is that particular thing- our Church was founded by Christ on Peter. We can trace back our beliefs and our Church. When you read the new Cathechism you will find quote after quote from people who lived long ago- Aquinas, Augustine, etc. It’s not a book made up of ideas from the 20th Century. It’s a book full of timeless Truth.

Because the Cathechism of Trent and the new CCC are not in conflict, reading them both can help understand them both. Casting aside the Cathechism of Trent (or any other earlier Church teachings) as only valid for their time and not really True, would call into question the CCC as well.

Pax.

Essential truths remain, teaching evolves. But we need to be careful with historical contexts and even old language, e.g. words and phrases do not carry the same mood nowadays if only for the fact that e.g. 19th century phrasing wasn’t old-fashioned in 19th century. From one of these threads, I remember a phrase that went more or less, “the wife should cheerfully accede to her husband’s wishes,” (or was it desires), which was normal English as of 1830, but it carries a totally different mood in 2011.

(I believe a more modern writing on the same subject would use modern English and, in line with modern sensitivities, say that spouses shouldn’t unnecessarily turn down each other’s wishes, should be accommodating and willing to compromise… expressing the same or almost the same meaning and landing home without scaring anybody away with the language.)

Further to develop on your argument, Dan, but in the opposite direction, if the modern CCC expresses the same truths as the Trent one, we don’t need to go to Trent because our current CCC is at least equally good for us. In fact, it should be better since it uses familiar language, references and ranges of issues that are more natural to us, as well as taking account of the development of all sorts of knowledge and science (which do help improve human understanding of the faith), and even the continued work of theologians.

What’s more, if our current catechism, in comparison with the Trent one, doesn’t say that a woman “should love to stay home (unless she has a very good reason to go out)”, I am inclined to see it as a development (with John Paul II’s marvellous teaching about women being a major milestone in discovering more about those truths which are for the Church to strive to understand also by continuous work of its theologians) and certainly this kind of detailed precept about a minor matter can’t be put on par with infallible truths that form the central part of the deposit of faith (and is at any rate not infallible).

Also, one thing is what is written there, another is what we understand. The typical common person, even with a university degree, even actually a Catholic with some formation, is not a philologist and historian and theologian in one person. For a person like you or me, it’s hard to claim to be able correctly to dissect the meaning of obsolete syntax such as “should love to stay home etc.” Does it mean she should, each time she would like to go out (e.g. to tend to some business), examine her conscience to find out if the reason is good enough? Or does it mean she should generally be a home-loving person not leaving her duties (and running a house entails a lot of them, and in 16th century often entailed more) unattended? Or perhaps, after all, the as-of-then state of social perception (I don’t use the word “awareness” because I’m no liberal) found way into this expression? What does even “should love to” mean? Is it an elaborate grammatical subjunctive (the familiar “I’d love to!” with “should”) or does it say she should “love” it in terms of actually loving it (feeling or choice, by the way?). I don’t think Joe Catholic can answer this kind of questions, as much as the issue was probably very clear (or a non-issue) to a 16th century educated Catholic. And there’s gonna be a lot of such spots in any given old Church document (one day there was a document saying secular princes should kiss the pope’s foot, and it was indeed a practice for some time… is it unchangeable truth of the Church and if so, why doesn’t Pope Benedict give his foot for kissing? ). This is why I believe we should be cautious with older documents. We could too easily read a wrong meaning out of them without even noticing it.

 

[Dan_Daly]

On the passage, by now you should know my views. I believe in equality of all, both men and women are responsible for their own spirituality.

I’m fairly new to Catholic Answers, and don’t always remember who posts what and As far as I know we’ve never met, so I wouldnt’ presume to know what you think on something.

I agree in the equality of all in that we are all made in the image and likeness of God. Obviously, we are not all “equal” in terms of size, health, wealth, talents, etc.

I also agree that we each bear primary responsibility for our spirituality. However, we also have responsiblity for others. Everyone has responsiblity towards neighbors- the 2nd great commandment. There are also special responsibilites some have.- parents towards children, children towards parents, husband to wife, wife to husband etc. Part of husband’s God given responsibities is to lead his wife and children. This is not a command to be a tyrant. It’s a directive to lead like Christ- with selfless, sacraficial love.

Pax.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Further to develop on your argument, Dan, but in the opposite direction, if the modern CCC expresses the same truths as the Trent one, we don’t need to go to Trent because our current CCC is at least equally good for us. In fact, it should be better since it uses familiar language, references and ranges of issues that are more natural to us, as well as taking account of the development of all sorts of knowledge and science (which do help improve human understanding of the faith), and even the continued work of theologians

The CCC and the CCT (to shorthand the Cathechism of the Council of Trent) both teach Truth. They do not neccessarily teach all the same Truths, they also do not teach contrary to each other. The choice of picking one or the other is a false one. We can and should have both…and LOTS of other sources of Church Teaching. It’s physically not possible to fit the entire deposit of faith into one book. The CCC does not claim to be a “one stop shop” for everything you ever need to know about our faith. Rather, it’s PART of the entire Tradition of the Church.

I’m not badmouthing the CCC, and apologize if I have come across that way. It’s teaches Truth. The CCT also teaches Truth. We can’t and shouldn’t try to pick one or the other, because it is all God’s truth.

Pax.

 

[Dan_Daly]

and certainly this kind of detailed precept about a minor matter can’t be put on par with infallible truths that form the central part of the deposit of faith (and is at any rate not infallible).

I would strongly disagree that whether or not a woman stays home as a housewife or goes out to work in a career is not a minor matter. It’s of central importance to the family and the Church. I think this is something people on all “sides” of the issue would agree with, as both families where the wife stays home and ones where the wife works outside the home wouldn’t consider changing their circumstances something minor.

Secondly, if we disregard every teaching that has not been infallibly declared, we will have a lot fewer teachings. I don’t know if CCT was declared infallible, but I would guess that you are correct. However, the CCC is also not guaranteed to be infallible. Correct?

Does anything in the CCC contradict the passage I quoted from the CCT? I don’t think so, as the Holy Ghost protects the Church from teaching error. So if they don’t contradict, why not try to gain understanding of both as True.

Pax.

 

[chevalier]

Dan, all I’m saying is one should be cautious with old documents (as in a zeal to find a better truth, as if more reliable because the document is older and e.g. safer from civilisational problems of our times). We can’t reliably determine the contexts or even understand the language and we may misunderstand the text, to the detriment of our knowledge.

For example, you’re understanding that passage as if it says a woman should be a stay at home mother unless she has a good reason otherwise. In my view, the wording refers to simply leaving the house (e.g. for shopping or to visit a friend etc.). We already have a problem which is caused by the old syntax and unfamiliar contexts. This is why I’d stick with documents written in reliably understandable modern English and with familiar contexts (unless we’re willing and able to learn enough about the language and themes to understand it properly). To read those documents safely one needs a lot more preparation than just being a reasonably educated and catechised Catholic.

Besides, there are theologians, including JP2, who very well knew and understood older documents (certainly much, much better than we could claim to), and wrote for our times, such as the legacy of JP2’s teaching about women. I’d rather go to them for answers than look in old texts for what captures my interest (presuming I’m not prepared by e.g. proper patristic studies or indeed an expert in the language and society of the particular time of origin of the specific piece of Church-related writing).

And if you’re going to claim that every single letter and mood expressed in older documents is set in stone forever, then as I said, what do you do when you find a document saying that the Pope is basically the overlord of all earth and secular princes are to kiss his feet? You certainly aren’t going to plant it verbatim in 21st century politics and diplomatic protocol but rather explain the context of it.

 

[severus68]

The passage I quoted isn’t my or anyone else’s personal view. It is official teaching of the Catholic Church. The passsage doesn’t say men and women are unequal. It doesn’t say that women should be treated as children. It says that men and women are different and that men should lead their families.

I am not anti Vatican II, and will follow the 1992 Cathechism. The passage of a Cathechism to parish priests published in the 16th century says that. The Cathechism I need to follow as a Catholic does not say that.

The husband and wife support, respect and complement each other in marrriage, Neither has to lead the other. That presupposes an inequality.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Indeed. I agree, understanding our faith is the work of a lifetime, and none of us, myself definitely included will arrive at a perfect understanding in this life. Modern documents, including the CCC, aren’t always the easiest things to read and comprehend either. Which is why it’s a good thing we are a Church made up of people as well as books. I agree that greater understanding of documents of all times and types can and should be gained by seeking the guidance of others.

That being said, I would disagree, and I think the CCC, would disagree, that we should ignore older documents because it may take more work to properly understand them. The rich history of our Church and its teachings is a treasure, not something to hide from. If that was true, it would make no sense for the Vatican to post all the old documents online so modern men and women, like all of us, can read them on our computers.

Pax.

 

[Dan_Daly]

The husband and wife support, respect and complement each other in marrriage, Neither has to lead the other. That presupposes an inequality.

Leadership does not presuppose and inequality.

A bishop leads leads his diocese.

A priest leads his parish.

Parents lead their children.

A supervisor leads his employees.

A Sergeant leads his soldiers.

None of those relationships makes any of the people involved not equal in the eyes of God. I think part of the adversion to authority we all have to some degree, often enhanced by the “anti-establishment” streaks in our culture, but certainly present throughout all of history, is the idea that “in charge” means “better than”. That’s not true. Leadership, at least Christian leadership, is not domination.

While you are free not to read the CCT, it is the teaching of the Church, just as much as the CCC. Do you disagree?

 

[chevalier]

That being said, I would disagree, and I think the CCC, would disagree, that we should ignore older documents because it may take more work to properly understand them. The rich history of our Church and its teachings is a treasure, not something to hide from. If that was true, it would make no sense for the Vatican to post all the old documents online so modern men and women, like all of us, can read them on our computers.

If you put it that way, I would disagree too. BUT, if something requires more work to be understood, then we should put in that work or else not presume that we understand it, which is basically what I’ve been saying in all my previous posts. (And understanding them would also require taking a look at what the Church said later on the same subject.)

 

[Dan_Daly]

Agreed. And the CCT is not the only source I consult on this or any other topic. To give an example one topic I’m trying to gain a better understanding on right now is the proper manner of observing the Lord’s Day. I’m reading the CCT, the CCC, other Catholic books and documents, talking to Priests, talking with my wife, and talking with trusted Catholic friends who are grounded in their faith. I’m learning a lot and I still don’t have a “final answer” but I’m working on it.

I am also not the all knowing master of marital relations- I’m working on it and attempting to grow in understanding, just like any other married man or woman.

That being said, if we all wait until we have a perfect understanding to contribute to conversations…we wouldn’t have any more conversations about anything. The CCC is brought up quite a bit here. The CCT hadn’t been brought up in this thread, so I posted the passage I did to contribute to the conversation.

Again, the CCT passage I posted is not contradicted by the CCC, so the two compliment one another.

 

[chevalier]

The husband and wife support, respect and complement each other in marrriage, Neither has to lead the other. That presupposes an inequality.

Severus, while neither the husband nor the wife is to behave like a slave owner (using the other for his own interest) or boss in a commercial enterprise (handing out tasks, supervising the career path, performing quarterly assessment, handing out promotions and pay rises) or military superior (handing out strict, absolute commands, drilling etc.) or monastic superior (guiding the conscience, compelling through a vow of obedience etc.), it very clearly says in St. Paul’s letters that the husband is the leader. Yes, the example is Jesus Christ who washed the feet of His apostles and died for us all on the cross. Yes, we should “submit to one another”, be accommodating and cooperate rather than being egoists unwilling to step down from any right or cut slack with any obligation, we should serve each other. But we cannot say that the husband is not to lead.

It is definitely not a good idea to focus on the husband’s leadership role in the sense of his being able to force a decision which the wife would be obliged to comply with despite not agreeing with it. There are better ways of telling what a marriage should look like and what it’s all about. Anybody who thinks about drilling, commanding etc. is simply not getting it. (As well as anybody who thinks the husband is entitled to get his way simply put.) However, we can’t say that the husband is not to lead or is not the head of the household. St. Paul’s letter give a very clear contrary impression.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I also have not presumed to understand the older document at all. I merely posted a passage from it. I didn’t post my thoughts or commentary on what it said…merely what it said. So reaction to the contents of the documents is not reaction to my opinions.

 

[horselvr]

OHY! What a thread. Very interesting the take some have.

“It doesn’t say that women should be treated as children.”

Really? How would you feel if YOU had to report to your spouse and ask permission if you could leave the house ? I know, you can’t put yourself in those shoes because you are a man—the leader, and you don’t have to get permission. Do you? Nope, your busy directing everyone and telling them what they need to be doing because—your the leader, the Big Brains of the outfit.

The little woman in the house can’t make a decision as she’s so emotional, a dither head, but you, You can make the decisions because your the leader.

I can remember asking my parents for permission to go outside when I was a child.

I shouldn’t have to ask anyone if I can go outside as an adult woman.

And all of this head of household stuff—where does this leave us women that have no husband to lead us poor, little, muttled headed girls around. Surely, we are wayyy too emotional to even make a decision without some man to lead us around.

Having a wonderful husband and father is truly a blessing from God as is having a good wife. Notice I said a “good wife” not a child that needs Big Daddy to tell her what move to make next.

 

[severus68]

OHY! What a thread. Very interesting the take some have.

“It doesn’t say that women should be treated as children.”

Really? How would you feel if YOU had to report to your spouse and ask permission if you could leave the house ? I know, you can’t put yourself in those shoes because you are a man—the leader, and you don’t have to get permission. Do you? Nope, your busy directing everyone and telling them what they need to be doing because—your the leader, the Big Brains of the outfit.

The little woman in the house can’t make a decision as she’s so emotional, a dither head, but you, You can make the decisions because your the leader.

I can remember asking my parents for permission to go outside when I was a child.

I shouldn’t have to ask anyone if I can go outside as an adult woman.

And all of this head of household stuff—where does this leave us women that have no husband to lead us poor, little, muttled headed girls around. Surely, we are wayyy too emotional to even make a decision without some man to lead us around.

Having a wonderful husband and father is truly a blessing from God as is having a good wife. Notice I said a “good wife” not a child that needs Big Daddy to tell her what move to make next.

Thank you. You made me laugh and have said it as it really is with those who say a man has to lead.

 

[Dan_Daly]

You are inserting a lot of ideas that weren’t in the passage I quoted and that I have not said either. For one thing it didn’t say men were more intelligent than women. Each person has different gifts. Some are more intelligent than others. Perhaps in one marriage a wife is smarter than her husband. So? There are other qualifications for leadership besides intelligence. But the bottom line is qualifications and talents don’t matter. A wife, could be smarter, stronger, wiser, etc, etc, better in every measurable way then her husband- he would still be the head of the family. Not because he chose it. Or because she chose it. Or because the culture said so. Because God made it so.

Let take a real example much like the hypothetical I just outlined- the Holy Family. Our Mother Mary, was “better” than St. Joseph in pretty much every way. He still lead the family, and she still submitted to his leadership. Not because St. Joseph was better than Mary or liked to boss her around, but because they were obedient to God.

You do raise a very good question about single woman. It’s one we’ve thought about a good bit and have come to the following conclusion- if we are blessed with female children, we will be willing to care for them in our home- until they are either married or discern a call to the convent. If our daughter is not called to either a married or religious vocation, then she would be welcome, and strongly encouraged to stay as a part of our home for her entire life.

Pushing women out into the world- go to college, get a job, etc, and then telling them that they should submit to their husband’s leadership and stay home as a wife and mother, does sound unfair- and it is unfair. It is unfair to build expectations of a career and at the same time say women should stay home. How can I teach my daughters to find a husband through courtship, not dating, if I live in another city and can’t play my role in the courtship process?

I know this sounds like a very radical viewpoint. In today’s American culture it is one. Not too long ago here and in many places around the world, it was the norm.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

You are inserting a lot of ideas that weren’t in the passage I quoted and that I have not said either. For one thing it didn’t say men were more intelligent than women. Each person has different gifts. Some are more intelligent than others. Perhaps in one marriage a wife is smarter than her husband. So? There are other qualifications for leadership besides intelligence. But the bottom line is qualifications and talents don’t matter. A wife, could be smarter, stronger, wiser, etc, etc, better in every measurable way then her husband- he would still be the head of the family. Not because he chose it. Or because she chose it. Or because the culture said so. Because God made it so.

Let take a real example much like the hypothetical I just outlined- the Holy Family. Our Mother Mary, was “better” than St. Joseph in pretty much every way. He still lead the family, and she still submitted to his leadership. Not because St. Joseph was better than Mary or liked to boss her around, but because they were obedient to God.

You do raise a very good question about single woman. It’s one we’ve thought about a good bit and have come to the following conclusion- if we are blessed with female children, we will be willing to care for them in our home- until they are either married or discern a call to the convent. If our daughter is not called to either a married or religious vocation, then she would be welcome, and strongly encouraged to stay as a part of our home for her entire life.

Pushing women out into the world- go to college, get a job, etc, and then telling them that they should submit to their husband’s leadership and stay home as a wife and mother, does sound unfair- and it is unfair. It is unfair to build expectations of a career and at the same time say women should stay home. How can I teach my daughters to find a husband through courtship, not dating, if I live in another city and can’t play my role in the courtship process?

I know this sounds like a very radical viewpoint. In today’s American culture it is one. Not too long ago here and in many places around the world, it was the norm.

Pax and God Bless.

“Pushing women out into the world- to go to college, to get a job, etc”…WHAT??? I am hoping against all hope that I misread your post because it sounds like you think your daughters (and everyone else’s) should have nothing more than a high school diploma, since either Daddy or a husband will always be there to take care of them (provided they aren’t called to the religious life). Seriously? With the way the economy has been, I can’t imagine anyone would not want their daughters going to some kind of college to get an education or learn a skill that can provide an income for the family…even if it is their goal/plan to be a “stay at home mom”. Whether she is getting a Bachelor Degree from a university, becoming an X-ray Tech from a Community College, or learning how to cut/style hair at a cosmetology school, young women need to have some kind of employable skill to assist their family if needed…especially if their dear hubby gets laid off, injured, or even dies unexpectedly/prematurely. Would you please elaborate on what you meant?

 

[Katie966]

Pushing women out into the world- go to college, get a job, etc, and then telling them that they should submit to their husband’s leadership and stay home as a wife and mother, does sound unfair- and it is unfair. It is unfair to build expectations of a career and at the same time say women should stay home. How can I teach my daughters to find a husband through courtship, not dating, if I live in another city and can’t play my role in the courtship process?

What happens if your daughters don’t happen to find a suitable husband? You really think they would be content to simply live in your house for the rest of their lives? What happens when you die? What happens if they don’t want this kind of life?

 

[severus68]

You are inserting a lot of ideas that weren’t in the passage I quoted and that I have not said either. For one thing it didn’t say men were more intelligent than women. Each person has different gifts. Some are more intelligent than others. Perhaps in one marriage a wife is smarter than her husband. So? There are other qualifications for leadership besides intelligence. But the bottom line is qualifications and talents don’t matter. A wife, could be smarter, stronger, wiser, etc, etc, better in every measurable way then her husband- he would still be the head of the family. Not because he chose it. Or because she chose it. Or because the culture said so. Because God made it so.

Let take a real example much like the hypothetical I just outlined- the Holy Family. Our Mother Mary, was “better” than St. Joseph in pretty much every way. He still lead the family, and she still submitted to his leadership. Not because St. Joseph was better than Mary or liked to boss her around, but because they were obedient to God.

You do raise a very good question about single woman. It’s one we’ve thought about a good bit and have come to the following conclusion- if we are blessed with female children, we will be willing to care for them in our home- until they are either married or discern a call to the convent. If our daughter is not called to either a married or religious vocation, then she would be welcome, and strongly encouraged to stay as a part of our home for her entire life.

Pushing women out into the world- go to college, get a job, etc, and then telling them that they should submit to their husband’s leadership and stay home as a wife and mother, does sound unfair- and it is unfair. It is unfair to build expectations of a career and at the same time say women should stay home. How can I teach my daughters to find a husband through courtship, not dating, if I live in another city and can’t play my role in the courtship process?

I know this sounds like a very radical viewpoint. In today’s American culture it is one. Not too long ago here and in many places around the world, it was the norm.

Pax and God Bless.

I am not sure who you are responding to here but I will respond.

Yes, you do not know me, I was referring to my posts on the subject.

You keep saying that God made it so. From the Gospels we know that Christ told us what the greatest commandment is, spoke against divorce, spoke directly to a foreign woman to the shock of the apostles. He did not ask women to submit to men. You choose some passages fromPaul to justify your position. Paul also said that with Christianity it is different, men and women are from each other, all are equal.

Really, where in the Gospels do you find any narration of the married life of Mary and Joseph.They always pertain to Jesus. When Mary and Joseph had to travel for the census, Joseph would have had to make all the arrangements etc as his heavily pregnant wife would not have been able to do much especially with the lack of facilities of that time. We are told clearly that Mary submitted to and obeyed God. Anyway, we are not talking of Jewish culture of that time.

So according to you, women should stay at home under the control of their fathers and not seek education other the minimum as they will never be able to use that education?They will either be stay at home wives, nuns or stay at home unmarried daughters.

Yes, it may have been the norm in the Dark Ages. I am horrified.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

What happens if your daughters don’t happen to find a suitable husband? You really think they would be content to simply live in your house for the rest of their lives? What happens when you die? What happens if they don’t want this kind of life?

Exactly! Now, let me throw something else in (and that kind of expands on my original reply to DanDaly…

If a man is the head of the family and the protector of his wife and children, wouldn’t his responsibilities also include ensuring the well-being and safety of his daughters…for all circumstances? In this fallen world, we know that sadly enough, even seemingly Godly men leave their families (a certain Catholic paperback author comes to mind) and we all know of someone that was laid off, either in this present economy or in times past. Quite often it was the wife who needed to work outside the home for a time to avoid having their home foreclosed on…especially when unemployment didn’t make ends meet or the man was only able to find a job with lesser pay. There is nothing in Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or any ancient, Church-approved writings or texts that state a young lady (or any female for that matter) is not allowed to get an education. Good grief, we have a canonized Saint who was a wife, mother, and medical doctor**. Now, that doesn’t mean you need to send all your daughters through medical school (although having more female, prolife, NFP doctors would be a wonderful thing), a father needs to make sure his daughters are able to “provide for themselves”…having at least an Associate Degree in a useful field would certainly accomplish this and could be done commuting from home to a local junior college if Dad is concerned about daughters moving away without being passed off to a husband first.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

You are inserting a lot of ideas that weren’t in the passage I quoted and that I have not said either. For one thing it didn’t say men were more intelligent than women. Each person has different gifts. Some are more intelligent than others. Perhaps in one marriage a wife is smarter than her husband. So? There are other qualifications for leadership besides intelligence. But the bottom line is qualifications and talents don’t matter. A wife, could be smarter, stronger, wiser, etc, etc, better in every measurable way then her husband- he would still be the head of the family. Not because he chose it. Or because she chose it. Or because the culture said so. Because God made it so.

Let take a real example much like the hypothetical I just outlined- the Holy Family. Our Mother Mary, was “better” than St. Joseph in pretty much every way. He still lead the family, and she still submitted to his leadership. Not because St. Joseph was better than Mary or liked to boss her around, but because they were obedient to God.

You do raise a very good question about single woman. It’s one we’ve thought about a good bit and have come to the following conclusion- if we are blessed with female children, we will be willing to care for them in our home- until they are either married or discern a call to the convent. If our daughter is not called to either a married or religious vocation, then she would be welcome, and strongly encouraged to stay as a part of our home for her entire life.

Pushing women out into the world- go to college, get a job, etc, and then telling them that they should submit to their husband’s leadership and stay home as a wife and mother, does sound unfair- and it is unfair. It is unfair to build expectations of a career and at the same time say women should stay home. How can I teach my daughters to find a husband through courtship, not dating, if I live in another city and can’t play my role in the courtship process?

I know this sounds like a very radical viewpoint. In today’s American culture it is one. Not too long ago here and in many places around the world, it was the norm.

Pax and God Bless.

Now, let me throw something else in and that expands on my original reply to your post:

If a man is the head of the family and the protector of his wife and children, wouldn’t his responsibilities also include ensuring the well-being and safety of his daughters…for all circumstances? In this fallen world, we know that sadly enough, even seemingly Godly men leave their families (a certain Catholic paperback author comes to mind) and we all know of someone that was laid off, either in this present economy or in times past. Quite often it was the wife who needed to work outside the home for a time to avoid having their home foreclosed on…especially when unemployment didn’t make ends meet or the man was only able to find a job with lesser pay. There is nothing in Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or any ancient, Church-approved writings or texts that state a young lady (or any female for that matter) is not allowed to get an education. Good grief, we have a canonized Saint who was a wife, mother, and medical doctor. Now, that doesn’t mean you need to send all your daughters through medical school (although having more female, prolife, NFP doctors would be a wonderful thing), a father needs to make sure his daughters are able to “provide for themselves”…having at least an Associate Degree in a useful field would certainly accomplish this and could be done commuting from home to a local junior college if you are concerned about daughters moving away without being passed off to a husband first.