You have not read his encyclical on modernism then. You need to probably re-read it. He never condemned science. I've read the whole thing, and many others in the Enchiridionregarding modernism. He condemned something called by the term "biblical", not the actual studying of scriptures. And states that the scriptures must be read within the light of the apostolic deposit, the ancient fathers, and the analogy of the faith. His words have just as much weight back then as they do now. Just like Humanie Vitie does.
The issue of Psychology is brought up because it taught people they should work out their problems without God. He condemned the secular form of it.
Actually, I just studied the document two weeks ago in my 19th and 20th century theology class, with a very orthodox professor. We covered issues in the document itself, and the historical interactions of the pope and theologians of the time. I only repeated the things we read and learned in class.
I have a BA from an orthodox Catholic university and I am applying for a master's degree in theology - so I am not stupid. I just disagree that it is a grave sin for a woman to work if need be.
A woman was not considered property. A marriage was understood as a union. Both spouses are property of each others. They become one flesh and one unit. Like St. Paul says. The Church always understood that marriage is a union, not where 2 independent people live together. It also condemned the ownership of slaves and taught that no one is property and everyone is made in the dignity of God's image. Hence women were not property in families following the Catholic faith. The teaching that a wife should be submissive to her husband, does not make her property, but is found in the context of love, trust, and self giving which guides spouses on the code of conduct in marriage.
Perhaps you need to read some 19th century history. Marriage was indeed understood as I reported. What you are describing is how the Church currently understands marriage. Yes, we always held a covenantal understanding, but it was also tainted by the historical understanding of marriage - wherein a woman was subsumed into the man, and she and her property became his property. That was how "two become one" was understood - one being subsumed into the other. Just google it. You'll find a wikipedia article. Our understanding of two becoming one new marital entity, instead of one being subsumed into the other, has only been prominent within the last 60 years or so.
It is like we are talking two different languages here. Everyone else in this thread is saying, "It is not a grave sin for a woman to work," and you are hearing, "women have a right to be materialistic and neglect their familial obligations". No one has said that, not even once.
Anyway, I'm writing this from the hospital and I have surgery in a few hours, so I'm bowing out. I can see that we are talking past each other and you do not care what any of us have to say. You are only concerned with condemning a view that none of us hold (that a woman can neglect her family if she feels like it), which serves no purpose.
