cross-posted from: https://wolfballs.com/post/20466
A Catholic Marriage Manual from 1958 states (p. 116):
(It’s this book but you’d need an account to borrow it to check it: https://archive.org/details/catholicmarriage00kell)
“Danger of the working wife [Section Title] … In 1890, only 4% of married women in the United States were gainfully employed. By 1940, that number had increased to fifteen percent, and by 1956 thirty per cent of all married women held jobs outside the home. … The wife should work outside the home only in cases of great necessity. Experience teaches that the path of the working wife is strewn with difficulties, both for herself and her family. … In other cases, if the wife’s income approximates or exceeds that of her hsuband [sic], his pride may be deeply wounded, and friction may easily develop over the question of who is head of the household. Work outside the home may also foster traits undesirable in a wife. She may become economically independent, and be less willing to make sacrifices and emotional adjustments to keep relations with her husband on a happy basis.”
And so on. You get the gist. I am not aware of this teaching being formally rejected in any way and so many “Catholics” would be in violation of it today (?).
It also seems to imply the “house husband” arrangement is unthinkable, or a choice for a minority (?).
To me the rise of female breadwinners, and house husbands, stems from a rejection of Christian teaching and social norms.
Yes, no? What is to be thought of “house husbands” today?
The One True Faith