In some traditional Catholic circles, it is argued that it is “incumbent on” mothers to be stay-at-home moms, under pain of mortal sin, unless there is a “sufficient reason” necessitating their work outside the home, like the husband’s death. On the other hand, feminist celebrities encourage women to freeze their eggs so they can “take control of their future” and not worry about their career being infringed upon. (Now, nearly one in three Gen Zers has expressed a desire to freeze her eggs.) So we find ourselves surrounded by extreme takes on women’s place in the workforce.
But when we look to the Church, we see a more moderate take: a mother’s primary vocation is motherhood, and the call to work must be integrated with it—not neglected or placed above it.
The Church first began discussing women’s roles in the workforce beginning in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries:
Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity (Quadragesimo Anno 71).
A woman is by nature fitted for home work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family (Rerum Novarum 42).
Although these quotes seem to endorse the extreme traditionalist view—limiting a mother’s role strictly to tending the home and the children—they are usually taken out of context.
When Pope Leo XIII penned Rerum Novarum in 1891, he was responding to the inhumane conditions produced by the Second Industrial Revolution: men, women, and children being forced to work in dangerous, dirty factories, for as many as eighty hours per week, without being properly fed or permitted breaks. When it comes to what an employer can reasonably expect, Leo discusses how “work which is quite suitable for a strong man cannot rightly be required from a woman or a child.” He concludes that women are best suited for work inside the home, not the harsh labor awaiting them in factories, which also threatens their modesty and prevents them from properly educating their children.
We see something similar in Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, which he wrote to commemorate Rerum Novarum, published forty years prior. The context of the above quote begins with Pius urging that a worker “be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family” (71). He continues by encouraging the rest of the family to contribute to the father’s work, which is embodied especially in the life of a farmer or craftsman, but also warns against abusing for labor’s sake the years of childhood and the limited strength of women. He condemns it as an “intolerable abuse” for employers to pay their workers so little that their wives are forced to work outside the home and neglect the education of their children.
Thus, both popes condemn systems that force mothers into the workforce (especially when the job is dangerous and abusive) due to unjust and unfair wages for fathers. They also establish that there are certain forms of work mothers should not do, whether by force or by choice, such as work that is harshly laborious or interferes with household duties and the upbringing of their children.
The Church teaches that “work is a fundamental dimension of man’s existence on earth” (Laborem Exercens 4). This applies to both Adam and Eve, to both men and women. But what does “work” entail for mothers? Does it entail literally nothing but bearing, raising, and educating children? No. Does it mean getting a nine-to-five corporate job to serve their families and fulfill their vocation? Absolutely not.
Historically, mothers worked and contributed to their household income. But they worked at home, or in its vicinity, cooking, cleaning, weaving clothes and blankets, tending to animals and the garden, and of course raising and educating their children. They helped on the farm. They helped in craftsmanship. The family unit worked together, and children, too, contributed to the family’s livelihood in ways appropriate to them.
Both the home and the world have always benefited from mothers’ contributions, in the market square in the past and in myriad other ways today. In 1995, Pope St. John Paul II addressed a letter to women throughout the world:
Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life—social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of “mystery,” to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity (emphasis mine).
He insists that women’s involvement in education beyond the family—such as in schools and parishes—is highly valuable, since women naturally serve the weakest and most vulnerable people in a generous and motherly spirit.
But in each text that praises women’s desire for work, the popes also caution against the absence of mothers from home life:
While it must be recognized that women have the same right as men to perform various public functions, society must be structured in such a way that wives and mothers are not in practice compelled to work outside the home, and that their families can live and prosper in a dignified way even when they themselves devote their full time to their own family. Furthermore, the mentality that honors women more for their work outside the home than for their work within the family must be overcome. . . . Society should create and develop conditions favoring work in the home (Familiaris Consortio 23, emphasis mine).
So it is a good thing that women have equal opportunities for education and a career—to add their feminine touch to the world—but it is not good when motherhood is put on the back burner for a career or when young children are deprived of their mother’s steady presence. Thus, the Church urges the societal establishment of “protection for working mothers” and “fairness in career advancements” so that women’s careers are not jeopardized by motherhood, which is their first and foremost priority (Dignitas Infinita 45). John Paul II expresses this most clearly:
There is no doubt that the equal dignity and responsibility of men and women fully justifies women’s access to public functions. On the other hand the true advancement of women requires that clear recognition be given to the value of their maternal and family role, by comparison with all other public roles and all other professions. Furthermore, these roles and professions should be harmoniously combined, if we wish the evolution of society and culture to be truly and fully human (Familiaris Consortio 23, emphasis mine).
The saintly pope is clear: women’s unique role as mothers, and their callings to work, need to be integrated, not eliminated. The temptation for women to indefinitely postpone or sacrifice motherhood altogether for the sake of a career must be rejected. In the same vein, the temptation to forbid mothers from pursuing any kind of outside work must also be rejected.
But this has its boundaries. Any career that causes moms to forfeit their steady presence and availability to their families must be carefully reconsidered. Likewise, any job that requires an early return to work postpartum—which will certainly diminish moms’ and their children’s health, both mental and physical—must also be scrutinized. All in all, families must prudentially decide on these matters with the consideration that a mother’s presence to her young children is invaluable and cannot be sacrificed lightly.
You may be wondering what options this actually leaves moms. What we must first acknowledge is that not all motherhood looks the same. Some families can have only one or two children, and send them to Catholic school, resulting in Mom having much free time—time she could spend serving her family, perhaps through a freelance job or side hustle. Other families have seven or eight children, and Mom chooses to homeschool all of them, dedicating her full time and attention to teaching. Or perhaps Mom chooses to get a flexible part-time job so her husband’s work schedule becomes less demanding, and he can be more present for their kids, too.
Thus, it is reductionist to say all moms must stay at home and keep out of the workforce. Instead, our response should be that all moms must have the choice to stay home, and that moms who choose to work do so to better serve God and their families—and not their own glory.