Wives Needing Permission to Leave the Home?

[_AnnoDomini]

Hello everyone! I’ve been doing some reading on the duties of husbands and wives in marriage, and I was wondering what everyone’s thoughts are on this. I’ve read that in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, it states that one of the duties of a wife is to not leave her home unless there is necessity and has her husband’s permission. This sounds absolutely absurd to me, because according to this logic a wife wouldn’t be able to go out with her friends for lunch (as it’s not a necessity). Was this rule more of a cultural thing, or is it still something that Catholics are expected to follow? Am I misinterpreting it?

 

[Cecilia2017]

I think you can ignore that particlar part, it having been written sometime between 1545 and 1563.

I can imagine that a modern wife being told that nowadays would probably say something quite un-Christian and unprintable to her husband before promptly leaving the house…possibly permanently!

*Edited to remove a word from the phrase ‘probably ignore’. What was I thinking?!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There were a lot of things wives didn’t do in the mid-1500s that are perfectly okay for them to do today, because society has changed. In the 1500s, wives were generally not experienced with a lot of things going on in the world, and may well have been putting themselves at physical and spiritual risk by going out needlessly and/or without permission of their husband. The husband in turn had the duty of protecting and guiding his wife, just as her father had this duty before she was married. Presumably a loving husband would also be reasonable and allow a wife to go out when it was both necessary and safe for her to do so, for instance to visit her family, care for a sick person etc.

Catechisms are written for a specific time/ place/ culture, and the non-doctrinal aspects of them dealing with social mores do change and differ as society changes and differs. I would note that since the 1500s, the Church has also declared some teachings as dogmas, which would not have been presented as dogmas in the old catechism. For all these reasons, you should follow the current Catechism of the Catholic Church and not be concerning yourself with one from the 1500s unless you are studying it for scholarly purposes or to better understand what Catholic life was like back then.

It should also be noted that some Catholic women who didn’t like the idea of marriage back then found other ways to live their lives and serve God. St. Teresa of Avila was a prime example. She certainly traveled a lot of places.

 

[Lea101]

Definitely not!

Of course, a married couple should keep each other informed in general and check with each other if it’s okay to make plans (especially when there are kids involved). But that doesn’t mean that one needs to ask permission from her husband.

I can imagine that a modern wife being told that nowadays would probably say something quite un-Christian

Modern husbands would even be weirded out if their wives were to ask permission for this too, hahaha

Was this rule more of a cultural thing, or is it still something that Catholics are expected to follow? Am I misinterpreting it?

It’s cultural, don’t worry

 

[poche]

I think that that would be a cultural issue.
However it could be thought of in a more broad sense as in leaving town for one reason or another. Of course a husband should get his wife’s permission if he plans on leaving town on business for any extended period of time.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Of course, a married couple should keep each other informed in general and check with each other if it’s okay to make plans (especially when there are kids involved). But that doesn’t mean that one needs to ask permission from her husband.

Yeah, I was married for 23 years and I never asked permission from my husband to do anything. The idea is laughable. He was my husband, not my boss, and he didn’t want to be my boss. Of course I checked with him about and we discussed things that impacted both of us, such as one of us going out of town or making a major purchase like a car.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

It’s a six hundredish year old document. Of course it contains stuff that is weird and anachronistic in 2020.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Of course, a married couple should keep each other informed in general and check with each other if it’s okay to make plans (especially when there are kids involved). But that doesn’t mean that one needs to ask permission from her husband.

Of course. My wife might text me “is it okay if I run to the grocery store after work?” but she’s really asking “is that going to mess up your plans at all?”

She’s not asking, “please sir, may I go pick up some onions without you beating me?”

 

[neophyte]

This sounds absolutely absurd to me, because according to this logic a wife wouldn’t be able to go out with her friends for lunch (as it’s not a necessity).

I’ve got a hundred dollars that says that this referred to taking gainful employment, and wasn’t at all intended to be taken literalistically as “can’t walk out the front door”. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a wife should get her husband’s agreement on that, just as a husband should get his wife’s agreement on his place of work.

 

[Newhills]

Why so many people just claiming “it was written a long time ago so just ignore it”?

Doesn’t seem like a justifiable reason to me. The Gospels were written much longer than 500 years ago & we don’t ignore them on the basis of them being written too long ago.

It doesn’t seem odd at all to me that my wife would give me some idea of where she is going. I’m not saying she says “please may I leave the house” at all, but I would expect that I have an idea of her whereabouts. As she does of mine.

 

[Pitcairn17]

Who knew Fr. Longenecker was at Trent?

 

[Adamek]

The concept of “going out to lunch” is a very modern one. This practice developed for the vast majority of people very recently. It is still very rare for anyone to go out to lunch in most parts of the world today.

 

[Convert3]

I would never think I could stop my wife from going anywhere. But for the first time in our marriage, I’ve told her I’m not happy with her travel plans. She’s traveling soon to see family and flying there. This COVID thing has me spooked. The part of the country she’s going to is one of the current hot spots. There is also a lot going on here at home, so it’s just a bad time. But it’s her choice. No arguments or demands in the discussion, but she knows my concerns.

 

[Freddy]

It’s a six hundredish year old document. Of course it contains stuff that is weird and anachronistic in 2020.

Indeed. A lot of stuff that was written a long time ago seems anachronistic and weird today.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Why so many people just claiming “it was written a long time ago so just ignore it”?

No one is claiming that. The point is that when something was written by people from the 1500s, you should expect some references and cultural attitudes that seem a bit strange centuries later.

That doesn’t mean you chuck the whole thing out of the window. It just means you read it in that context.

Indeed. A lot of stuff that was written a long time ago seems anachronistic and weird today.

Sure. But a lot of themes and ideas are also timeless, even if they’re expressed in somewhat anachronistic ways.

 

[Freddy]

Newhills:

Why so many people just claiming “it was written a long time ago so just ignore it”?

No one is claiming that. The point is that when something was written by people from the 1500s, you should expect some references and cultural attitudes that seem a bit strange centuries later.

That doesn’t mean you chuck the whole thing out of the window. It just means you read it in that context.

Indeed. A lot of stuff that was written a long time ago seems anachronistic and weird today.

Sure. But a lot of themes and ideas are also timeless, even if they’re expressed in somewhat anachronistic ways.

If only there was some way to tell…

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

If only there was some way to tell…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[goout]

RolandThompsonGunner:

Newhills:

Why so many people just claiming “it was written a long time ago so just ignore it”?

No one is claiming that. The point is that when something was written by people from the 1500s, you should expect some references and cultural attitudes that seem a bit strange centuries later.

That doesn’t mean you chuck the whole thing out of the window. It just means you read it in that context.

Indeed. A lot of stuff that was written a long time ago seems anachronistic and weird today.

Sure. But a lot of themes and ideas are also timeless, even if they’re expressed in somewhat anachronistic ways.

If only there was some way to tell…

Ummm… we have intellect. And we have others to help us with that. Like anything else.

 

[Adamek]

But a lot of themes and ideas are also timeless, even if they’re expressed in somewhat anachronistic ways.

This is worth repeating.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Why so many people just claiming “it was written a long time ago so just ignore it”?

Because, as I explained above, catechism teaching on social issues (as opposed to doctrinal issues) varies by time, place and culture.

Also because, as I also explained above, a 500-year-old catechism is going to be missing several of the more recently declared Dogmas of the Church.

In addition, having an idea of your wife’s whereabouts is NOT the same as her asking your permission to go places. My husband and I had an idea of each other’s whereabouts at all times, especially after cell phones made it easy to call or text and say, “I’m over at Sue’s house” or “I just got sent on an emergency overnight work trip to _____, I’ll be back tomorrow morrning”, or “I’ve safely arrived at my mom and dad’s 5 hours away, I’ll call you tomorrow” etc.