I suppose one could say that, given that wives should work in the home, it is not "unjust" to encourage them to stay there.

The late John Paul II also wrote, in a "Letter to Women" in 1995: "4. And what shall we say of the obstacles which in so many parts of the world still keep women from being fully integrated into social, political and economic life? We need only think of how the gift of motherhood is often penalized rather than rewarded, even though humanity owes its very survival to this gift. Certainly, much remains to be done to prevent discrimination against those who have chosen to be wives and mothers. As far as personal rights are concerned, there is an urgent need to achieve real equality in every area: equal pay for equal work, protection for working mothers, fairness in career advancements, equality of spouses with regard to family rights and the recognition of everything that is part of the rights and duties of citizens in a democratic State.

"This is a matter of justice but also of necessity. Women will increasingly play a part in the solution of the serious problems of the future: leisure time, the quality of life, migration, social services, euthanasia, drugs, health care, the ecology, etc. In all these areas a greater presence of women in society will prove most valuable, for it will help to manifest the contradictions present when society is organized solely according to the criteria of efficiency and productivity, and it will force systems to be redesigned in a way which favours the processes of humanization which mark the 'civilization of love'." (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html)

Maybe this is one of those passages of John Paul II's that, as John Zmirak once quipped, requires a 400-page book to elucidate.

In any case, it's not an infallible statement.

And the Council of Trent in the section "Holy Matrimony" still is pertinent: "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.

"Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience." (http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-m.htm)

First: modern schooling is not remotely education. Education has to do with formation not information. Modern schooling has to do with programming modern people to be good little consumers and workers, "to do", in John D.s words, "perfectly what their parents did imperfectly". It consists, overwhelmingly in propaganda, brainwashing, and vocational training. And not that there is anything wrong with vocational training as everyone needs to earn a living, but it is not education. There is no longer any "Art" in a Bachelor of Arts degree, just a bunch of droning lecture hours.

Second: "economic growth" is measured in dollars which have been multiplying exponentially since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 in order to transfer the wealth of this country to the likes of John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan, etc and heirs. The dollar has depreciated in value about 98% since then. A dollar today is not the same thing as a dollar yesterday and they cannot logically be compared. Things and dollar bills, the frenetic quest for which so many are over-occupied, do not make real growth. How many people have made pilgrimages to and been inspired by the Sears Tower or a modern freeway cloverleaf versus say the Cathedral of Notre Dame, or the remains of Roman aqueducts, or Roman and Greek theatres. With all the economic growth we have had, why are so many people so worried by the economy; why are so many people just a pay check away from losing everything they have? With all the economic growth we have had, why, in the face of mere weather, do so many people flee from CITIES, not just beach shacks, but cities like Houston and New Orleans? Economic growth, if anything it seems to me, should mean an eventual accumulation of lastingly valuable, ie well made, useful, beautiful, inspiring things, both material and spiritual, by individuals, families, and communities. I don't see this!

According to the statement of the Catholic Church to the Beijing Conference of Women in 1995: "A woman has a right to choose between having a profession, being a mother and simultaneously carrying on a profession, and being being a mother and dedicating all her activity to the home."

That seems clear enough, and unless there is an authoritative statement to the contrary, I would infer that in carrying on a profession a woman has the right to rise to a position of leadership if her work merits it--according the the Catholic Church.