Women need permission to leave the home?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gracepoole

Guest
The Catechism of the Council of Trent states, “The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent.”

Since doctrine cannot change, does this mean that women today need permission from their husbands to leave their homes?
 
That was never a doctrine. It was an understanding of the “duties of a wife” particular to a given historical and cultural setting. It’s worth noting that the Catechism, under the same section as your quote, also forbids the “plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel”.

In addition, the Tridentine Catechism’s regulation of married women’s movements is not particularly uncommon in an anthropological context. Most pre-modern societies strictly regulated the movement of married women. As an example, it was done so in many cities of Classical Greece (c. 450 BC).
 
This was mentioned in a past thread on CAF which had 236 replies! -
40.png
Ephesians 5:22....revisited Family Life
From the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which is a universal Catechism (one of two) and was formulated by a full council of the Church (the only such catechism) Duties Of A Husband It is the duty of the husband to treat his wife generously and honourably. It should not be forgotten that Eve was called by Adam his companion. The woman, he says, whom thou gavest me as a companion. Hence it was, according to the opinion of some of the holy Fathers, that she was formed not from the feet but…
Click to expand...
 
imo, I would think most wives have their husbands understanding (and consequently implied permission) of what they do each day. It’s more to recognize that the husband is head of the household (family) I think. Also the wife due to the change of her life, should thus not be continuing to live her life as she did before getting married - the freedoms are completely different.

When single, you pleased yourself. When married you considered your husband and made decisions accordingly.
 
You’re saying that something included in a catechism is not a doctrine? Please supply support for this claim — the claim, that is, that the catechism includes non-doctrinal content.
 
Yet it doesn’t say husbands need their wives’ permission to leave the home. Husbands were once single too and once married they must consider their wives and make decisions accordingly.
 
Last edited:
That statement isn’t doctrine, but is the application of Church teaching to the society using the Catechism. Doctrine doesn’t change, but our application of it in society changes over time and can even be different for two different societies existing at the same time in different places.

I’m also sure husbands were expected to be reasonable about giving permission, like if the wife wanted to go out to Mass or to visit her mother, a husband should say yes unless it would somehow put his wife in serious bodily danger to go out.
 
Last edited:
A few years ago a friend travelled to India to attend a wedding. She was not Indian but was invited to stay at her friend’s parent’s house, who was getting married. When there, people asked how she travelled so far, without an escort, and she got very uncomfortable that she was not safe. She had planned on staying a number of weeks but came home early because she felt like there were men on the property who may have been looking for an opportunity to get her alone.

I think that we can read that teaching and get bristley about it, and yet we should remember that women out and about and alone would make a very easy target for someone looking for one. Try not to read it like the wife is some kind of child that needs permission to go outside.
 
Your perspective is refreshing, in this day and age. “Old-fashioned” norms of this sort tend to be heavily criticized as oppressive, controlling, and sexist. Fact is that most men excercise them not to be oppressive but protective and providing. Has such ideology been subject to abuse? No doubt about it. But to deny it any honor or dignity whatsoever is not the best direction, imho.
 
gracepoole said:
Please supply support for this claim — the claim, that is, that the catechism includes non-doctrinal content.
Click to expand...
Because it was never a doctrine of the Church that women must also refrain from plaiting their hair, wearing gold jewellery and putting on haute couture.

Likewise, such “duties of the wife” are not replicated in the current Catechism as they are not applicable to the vast majority of social and cultural contexts.
 
PennyinCanada said:
I think that we can read that teaching and get bristley about it, and yet we should remember that women out and about and alone would make a very easy target for someone looking for one.
Click to expand...
At the time of that statement, husbands were also usually much more worldly wise than their wives, and might have enemies or feuds going on or be aware of other dangers the wife wouldn’t necessarily know about. The husband was responsible for protecting his wife so he may very well tell her to stay in because he knows someone might kidnap or kill her.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
That statement isn’t doctrine, but is the application of Church teaching to the society using the Catechism. Doctrine doesn’t change, but our application of it in society changes over time and can even be different for two different societies existing at the same time in different places.

I’m also sure husbands were expected to be reasonable about giving permission, like if the wife wanted to go out to Mass or to visit her mother, a husband should say yes unless it would somehow put his wife in serious bodily danger to go out.
Click to expand...
Can you offer a source that says what’s included in the catechism is not doctrine?
 
gracepoole said:
You’re saying that something included in a catechism is not a doctrine? Please supply support for this claim — the claim, that is, that the catechism includes non-doctrinal content.
Click to expand...
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...ts/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum.html
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!”
Click to expand...
Nowhere does St. John Paul II say that everything contained in the Catechism is doctrine. He in fact says it is a statement of both the faith and doctrine.
 
Bithynian said:
40.png
gracepoole:
Please supply support for this claim — the claim, that is, that the catechism includes non-doctrinal content.
Click to expand...
Because it was never a doctrine of the Church that women must also refrain from plaiting their hair, wearing gold jewellery and putting on haute couture.

Likewise, such “duties of the wife” are not replicated in the current Catechism as they are not applicable to the vast majority of social and cultural contexts.
Click to expand...
How do you know what in the Roman Catechism has been abrogated?
 
It is my understanding that catechisms build on each other. Nothing in a newer one can diminish or take away from a previous… why I am content to rely on the cctrent alone.
 
Last edited:
Fauken said:
40.png
gracepoole:
You’re saying that something included in a catechism is not a doctrine? Please supply support for this claim — the claim, that is, that the catechism includes non-doctrinal content.
Click to expand...
Fidei Depositum (October 11, 1992) | John Paul II
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!”
Click to expand...
Nowhere does St. John Paul II say that everything contained in the Catechism is doctrine. He in fact says it is a statement of both the faith and doctrine.
Click to expand...
Thank you, but I don’t think that answers the question. Are you claiming that women needing permission from their husbands to leave the home was at one time a matter of faith?
 
Fauken beat me to it. I know we just had another Catechism thread so if I find something else later I’ll post. I’m on a mobile with battery abt to die.

The recent change in Catechism re the death penalty, as well as the numerous changes about Catholics dealing with or marrying Protestants, have similarly evolved.
 
Are they actual changes or elaborations and additions?
 
Last edited:
Yes, but the difference is that the man is the head of his family. God created man first and from him God made woman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top