Now, I know several great Catholic women who in different capacities work outside the home, and I believe that some ways of working outside the home are perfectly fine for mothers. It would be wrong to arrive at the conclusion that women must become homemakers and stay in the home forever after getting married. I chose to stay home myself, but I am absolutely not trying to say that all women must make that choice in order to live out their Catholic faith.
On the other hand, it is definitely a thorny, tricky question trying to arrive at the proper balance of work and family life from a Catholic perspective. The main limitation on any career, it seems to me, is the imperative of staying open to life in a marriage, and then being responsible for raising that new life. Here’s what I mean:
We are supposed to have babies
Once we get married, the Catholic Church teaches that a marriage ought to remain generously open to life whenever prudentially possible. This means that NFP is not to be understood as a “natural” form of contraception! No, we are not supposed to be using NFP as an “organic” alternative to artificial contraceptives like the pill or condoms (by the way, some secular people do use NFP this way). Let me unpack this further:
What about the mom wanting to launch her career? Well, I am not a priest but my hunch is that it would not be okay in most circumstances (unless the family depends on her income) for the mother to cite the desire for a career as a good reason for shutting the gates of the womb, so to speak, and using NFP to avoid having more children. In other words, the Catholic mother cannot say “well, we have four kids and I am 35, so now we are done with having children because I want to focus on me and go ahead with my career”.
What this appears to mean (and correct me if I’m wrong), is that once a woman marries, she should then be open to having children for the rest of her fertile years, as long as no serious difficulties present themselves (financial strains, health problems, etc).
The result is exactly what happens in many Catholic families - women bearing several children until their fertility runs out in the late 30s or early to mid 40s. It also means that many practicing Catholic mothers in their 40s still have infants or very young children at home.
BUT - follow the logic here - if moms keep having small children, and they are committed to raising those small children in the early years, then where does that leave space for their careers? In effect, it appears to mean that a married Catholic woman without fertility issues will end up being available for a career only when she is in her late forties or older. So, for a Catholic mom, 45 or 50 would be the new 20, the time when she could finally go out into the world and start working.
Does that mean Catholic moms can’t work outside the home?
No, I will not end with the conclusion that mothers can’t leave the home until they are almost 50. That would be completely unfair.
Some people do claim this as the Catholic position, and they argue that the woman’s role as the wife and mother is to stay in the home while the husband provides for the family. In my opinion, that is confusing traditional cultural practices with religious teaching (which is not unusual, incidentally - people fairly often believe that something is required by religion when in fact it is merely a cultural tradition).
I believe that Catholic mothers can indeed choose to work outside the home, and if they choose to do so, it does not mean they have been brainwashed by feminism (as I have seen others suggest). Women have a lot to contribute to our society with their intellect, skills and abilities, and they do not have to employ 100% of their talents and energies only on raising their own family.
Happily, in reality I see various possible arrangements being made by Catholic families, which do allow mothers - even the mothers of large families - to work outside the home at least to some extent.
Dad is a parent too
The main acceptable alternative arrangement, I believe, is labour-sharing with the father. For instance, I see some Catholic families working out arrangements where the parents “change shifts,” so to speak. When the mother is out working, the father is home caring for the children, and vice versa. That way the children are always cared for by at least one of their parents.
While this arrangement can place more strain on a marriage, because the spouses might see each other less often, it might actually even strengthen the relationship and attachment that fathers have with their children, because they experience times of being the primary caregiver. It’s great that we are living at a time when many men are much more open to such arrangements.
Grandparents can help out
The other possible arrangement that might work to some extent is the use of extended family, especially grandparents, to watch the children while the mother is working.
This kind of labour-sharing has been used for centuries, of course. Back when most people lived in villages with extended family all around them, parents did not experience the kind of pressure they are under today, to single-handedly raise their children and juggle all family responsibilities only among two people. It used to be common for grandparents and even great-grandparents to help watch and raise the new generations. Aunts and uncles, and even long-time neighbours who had become like family, also used to help out.
Today in our mobile society, the nuclear family is often very much isolated, and many people don’t have the option of getting the extended family involved in helping with their children. Grandparents and other family members may live far away, and neighbours hardly know each other in many of our large cities. Urban sprawl has often placed even good local friends out of easy reach.
For those who still do have the option, the use of extended family is a good arrangement in smaller doses.
Unfortunately, I have also seen this taken to extremes that I don’t believe to be in the best interests of the children. For example, I know grandmothers who have become, for all intents and purposes, the mothers, raising the kids all day, every day while the mother is AWOL. It broke my heart when one grandmother told me that her granddaughter whom she watches constantly, tries to call her “mom”.
If the children are being raised by the grandparents most of the time, then they are still being robbed of a deeper relationship with and primary attachment to their parents. And the parenting of grandparents, while it is often a good addition to the parenting of parents, is actually not a great substitute for the parenting of parents - grandparents may not share our faith or values, and they tend to have less energy, be more permissive, etc.
What about paid caregivers?
For those without other options, what about the use of paid caregivers, such as daycare or nannies? (I am not talking about the use of occasional babysitters, which is surely done at some point by most families).
First of all, there is no official Catholic teaching on this. It is in the prudential judgment of Catholic parents to figure out the best way to raise their own kids, and the option of paid caregivers is not precluded by our faith.
At the same time, it does strike me as not exactly in the spirit of Catholic teaching to have your children be raised by strangers so that you can both pursue your own careers. Working to bring bread to the table is one thing, but working for reasons of personal choice is quite another thing. Even if you are doing great good in the world, your own children are paying the price at home.
As Catholics we believe that each person is called to the service of others, but as mothers this would appear to mean that we place our children first in our lives and focus on raising them, especially in their earliest years, even if we have to sacrifice our personal ambitions for that time period.
So look, you can do what you want, but how different are you being from your secular neighbours if your family looks like this: parents at work full time, small kids in daycare or with nanny?
I think we all know at this point that such an arrangement is not ideal, and that children often pay the price in the short and long term. It might not be a price that is immediately evident - your children will continue to be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, they might perform well at school and in their activities. But I do believe that a lot of research confirms just how important parents are to their children in the first few years of their life, and there are indeed psychological and emotional consequences, among other things, to being raised by paid caregivers.
As practising Catholics, it does seem to me that we should be setting a higher standard of childcare for ourselves, and that we should be willing to sacrifice more in order live out our vocations. Otherwise, I question the extent to which we are putting our energies in the wrong places. Our vocation within the family is supposed to be primary, and this goes against the current practices of society.
Can Catholic women have it all?
The honest answer is that no woman has it all, including the secular moms who are trying madly to balance full-time jobs with being moms: I have seen these women have lots of regrets down the road about not developing close relationships with their kids.
For practicing Catholic moms, remaining genuinely open to life in a marriage will often mean more compromises than are necessary for secular moms. You will likely have more children, and if you keep having babies who need their mommy above all else, then your career will probably end up snoozing in the back seat while you focus on your vocation as a wife and mother.
But while Catholic moms may not “have it all,” they can have the most important thing in life. I don’t want to sugar-coat it, but there is great happiness to be found in raising great kids. As much satisfaction as your job can give you, the ultimate reward in life is surely having wonderful adult children that you can be proud of. Conversely, if you do everything else in life well, but your own children turn out rotten, then how much joy can a parent really feel in life?
What’s more, Catholic moms can still have a slice of the working world pie, if they desire it. There are various alternative arrangements for childcare that can allow these moms to have a leg out in the working world, though probably not as CEOs of startups working 80-hours per week. Which might be a good thing, because research has shown that workplace stress is as big a killer of women as of men.
Photo: GSCSNJ via photopin cc
- If the finances are tight, if there are serious health issues or other major difficulties that would make it hard for the parents to care for a new life at that time, then the spouses have a total right to use NFP to avoid pregnancy (while still not using artificial means, thereby remaining open to the possibility that God has a different plan). They can do this until circumstances improve and they are able to care for a new baby again.
- On the other hand, unless they have such serious impediments presenting themselves, it is not okay for the spouses to say: “hey, we’ve got two kids so we’re done, let’s stop there.” If the spouses could actually afford to raise 8 kids and if they have no other serious issues standing in the way of more babies, then they should not be using NFP to avoid conception. Otherwise they are actually participating in the contraceptive mentality and turning NFP into the “environmentally friendly” equivalent of using artificial contraception.
What this appears to mean (and correct me if I’m wrong), is that once a woman marries, she should then be open to having children for the rest of her fertile years, as long as no serious difficulties present themselves (financial strains, health problems, etc).
The result is exactly what happens in many Catholic families - women bearing several children until their fertility runs out in the late 30s or early to mid 40s. It also means that many practicing Catholic mothers in their 40s still have infants or very young children at home.
BUT - follow the logic here - if moms keep having small children, and they are committed to raising those small children in the early years, then where does that leave space for their careers? In effect, it appears to mean that a married Catholic woman without fertility issues will end up being available for a career only when she is in her late forties or older. So, for a Catholic mom, 45 or 50 would be the new 20, the time when she could finally go out into the world and start working.
Does that mean Catholic moms can’t work outside the home?
No, I will not end with the conclusion that mothers can’t leave the home until they are almost 50. That would be completely unfair.
Some people do claim this as the Catholic position, and they argue that the woman’s role as the wife and mother is to stay in the home while the husband provides for the family. In my opinion, that is confusing traditional cultural practices with religious teaching (which is not unusual, incidentally - people fairly often believe that something is required by religion when in fact it is merely a cultural tradition).
I believe that Catholic mothers can indeed choose to work outside the home, and if they choose to do so, it does not mean they have been brainwashed by feminism (as I have seen others suggest). Women have a lot to contribute to our society with their intellect, skills and abilities, and they do not have to employ 100% of their talents and energies only on raising their own family.
Happily, in reality I see various possible arrangements being made by Catholic families, which do allow mothers - even the mothers of large families - to work outside the home at least to some extent.
Dad is a parent too
The main acceptable alternative arrangement, I believe, is labour-sharing with the father. For instance, I see some Catholic families working out arrangements where the parents “change shifts,” so to speak. When the mother is out working, the father is home caring for the children, and vice versa. That way the children are always cared for by at least one of their parents.
While this arrangement can place more strain on a marriage, because the spouses might see each other less often, it might actually even strengthen the relationship and attachment that fathers have with their children, because they experience times of being the primary caregiver. It’s great that we are living at a time when many men are much more open to such arrangements.
Grandparents can help out
The other possible arrangement that might work to some extent is the use of extended family, especially grandparents, to watch the children while the mother is working.
This kind of labour-sharing has been used for centuries, of course. Back when most people lived in villages with extended family all around them, parents did not experience the kind of pressure they are under today, to single-handedly raise their children and juggle all family responsibilities only among two people. It used to be common for grandparents and even great-grandparents to help watch and raise the new generations. Aunts and uncles, and even long-time neighbours who had become like family, also used to help out.
Today in our mobile society, the nuclear family is often very much isolated, and many people don’t have the option of getting the extended family involved in helping with their children. Grandparents and other family members may live far away, and neighbours hardly know each other in many of our large cities. Urban sprawl has often placed even good local friends out of easy reach.
For those who still do have the option, the use of extended family is a good arrangement in smaller doses.
Unfortunately, I have also seen this taken to extremes that I don’t believe to be in the best interests of the children. For example, I know grandmothers who have become, for all intents and purposes, the mothers, raising the kids all day, every day while the mother is AWOL. It broke my heart when one grandmother told me that her granddaughter whom she watches constantly, tries to call her “mom”.
If the children are being raised by the grandparents most of the time, then they are still being robbed of a deeper relationship with and primary attachment to their parents. And the parenting of grandparents, while it is often a good addition to the parenting of parents, is actually not a great substitute for the parenting of parents - grandparents may not share our faith or values, and they tend to have less energy, be more permissive, etc.
What about paid caregivers?
For those without other options, what about the use of paid caregivers, such as daycare or nannies? (I am not talking about the use of occasional babysitters, which is surely done at some point by most families).
First of all, there is no official Catholic teaching on this. It is in the prudential judgment of Catholic parents to figure out the best way to raise their own kids, and the option of paid caregivers is not precluded by our faith.
At the same time, it does strike me as not exactly in the spirit of Catholic teaching to have your children be raised by strangers so that you can both pursue your own careers. Working to bring bread to the table is one thing, but working for reasons of personal choice is quite another thing. Even if you are doing great good in the world, your own children are paying the price at home.
As Catholics we believe that each person is called to the service of others, but as mothers this would appear to mean that we place our children first in our lives and focus on raising them, especially in their earliest years, even if we have to sacrifice our personal ambitions for that time period.
So look, you can do what you want, but how different are you being from your secular neighbours if your family looks like this: parents at work full time, small kids in daycare or with nanny?
I think we all know at this point that such an arrangement is not ideal, and that children often pay the price in the short and long term. It might not be a price that is immediately evident - your children will continue to be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, they might perform well at school and in their activities. But I do believe that a lot of research confirms just how important parents are to their children in the first few years of their life, and there are indeed psychological and emotional consequences, among other things, to being raised by paid caregivers.
As practising Catholics, it does seem to me that we should be setting a higher standard of childcare for ourselves, and that we should be willing to sacrifice more in order live out our vocations. Otherwise, I question the extent to which we are putting our energies in the wrong places. Our vocation within the family is supposed to be primary, and this goes against the current practices of society.
Can Catholic women have it all?
The honest answer is that no woman has it all, including the secular moms who are trying madly to balance full-time jobs with being moms: I have seen these women have lots of regrets down the road about not developing close relationships with their kids.
For practicing Catholic moms, remaining genuinely open to life in a marriage will often mean more compromises than are necessary for secular moms. You will likely have more children, and if you keep having babies who need their mommy above all else, then your career will probably end up snoozing in the back seat while you focus on your vocation as a wife and mother.
But while Catholic moms may not “have it all,” they can have the most important thing in life. I don’t want to sugar-coat it, but there is great happiness to be found in raising great kids. As much satisfaction as your job can give you, the ultimate reward in life is surely having wonderful adult children that you can be proud of. Conversely, if you do everything else in life well, but your own children turn out rotten, then how much joy can a parent really feel in life?
What’s more, Catholic moms can still have a slice of the working world pie, if they desire it. There are various alternative arrangements for childcare that can allow these moms to have a leg out in the working world, though probably not as CEOs of startups working 80-hours per week. Which might be a good thing, because research has shown that workplace stress is as big a killer of women as of men.
Photo: GSCSNJ via photopin cc
I wouldn't say I "chose" to be a mother who works full time outside the home. I never really had a choice. Both my husband and I need to work to pay for groceries, etc. In many parts of the country, unless one spouse has a high-paying job, there isn't really an option for the other spouse to be a SAHM. And since we are infertile, it isn't really an issue of whether we are being open to life! We have two beautiful sons through adoption and they are tremendous blessings in our lives. This is our reality. Sometimes reality means you have a bit of a cross to bear, which means balancing a full-time job with being a wife and mother, but I do believe it is my cross and not our children's. They are two joyful, inquisitive, loving children, and they are both getting a good foundation in our faith. I am fortunate to have a job I enjoy working in a family-friendly (Catholic) environment with great vacation time. We are still our children's primary catechists, and we are raising our children. Just because a child has other caregivers does not mean those people are raising your child. I agree that Catholic women can't have it all, but they can give it all, and sometimes that means giving in a way you might not have imagined you'd be asked to give. And so I give and do as much as I can for our children and for my husband--and that includes earning money for our family. As for women who choose to work in a career outside the house, I imagine they feel they have a different calling. I couldn't say. But please don't assume that mothers who work outside the home are any less committed to their faith and to their calling. Some of us would not have chosen this path, but we embrace it because this is clearly where God needs us to be.
ReplyDeleteRita, thanks for your thoughtful comment. The issue of balancing work and family is certainly one of the thorniest and most emotional of areas. We as women tend to feel guilt no matter what we do, and we can easily feel accused or somehow judged negatively.
DeleteSo I want to make clear that I don’t intend to judge any particular mother in any way. Individual situations vary to such a great extent, and parents are in the best position to judge what is right for their circumstances. Most parents genuinely want to do what is best for their children and for this reason, I think often, parents arrive at the best possible arrangements given their particular situation.
I also agree with you that the question of whether to work or stay home is a question that many women do not have the luxury of asking today, because they work out of financial need and cannot choose to stay home. My own mother worked for this reason; as first-generation immigrants, my parents could not afford to sacrifice her salary.
Ironically, this need for two salaries is a regrettable side-effect of women’s liberation. Just as women used to feel locked into their roles in the home, so we have now locked ourselves into a life outside the home. Thus, the result of women wanting to work just like men is, as you describe, actually a “cross” for those women who can’t choose to stay home anymore.
It sounds like you are one of the women who is working out of necessity, and as such, the post I wrote doesn't really apply to your situation. I am speaking in particular about those cases where the mother does have a choice, usually because her husband’s salary would be sufficient to support the family. Those families might well be in the minority today, but they are still quite numerous, and many women (often professionals) do continue to choose careers over a life in the home.
Such women are undoubtedly doing a lot of good in their fields, and I agree with you, they have probably often concluded that they have a “different calling” - one that involves work outside the home. But I do ask the question, and this is especially for Catholic women, whether this is truly the right way to order our lives given our vocation as mothers and wives, and given the consequences for our children of so much time with other caregivers.
You mentioned that “Just because a child has other caregivers does not mean those people are raising your child” - well, I would say this depends on the frequency and duration of that care. I have encountered situations where the children spend only a fraction of their waking time with the parents, compared to the whole day spent with caregivers. In those situations, I really do wonder who is raising the child.
The Proverbs 31 woman has it all. The Word of God does not need our feeble explanations.
ReplyDeleteThe Proverbs 31 wife is surely a great example for wives. She works in the home/farm with great prudence and virtue, of course. Women back then didn't have the option of working outside this environment, so the question is, would the Proverbs 31 wife head out into the world to pursue a career if she could have done so?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYes, I believe the Virtuous, ideal woman would have worked for someone else to earn money to support her household if she COULD and NEEDED to.
DeleteYes, I agree with you.
DeleteIn typical fashion, we humans have taken something good (giving women opportunities to have careers they couldn't have had 50 years ago) and taken it too far to the extreme (creating a society in which women feel obligated to work). I suppose sometimes we have to go from one extreme to the other before we find where we are supposed to be. I think the fact that statistics show that more women in the past few years are choosing to stay at home with their children is a sign that maybe we are getting to where we are supposed to be. I wouldn't want to go back to where we were 50 years ago but I also think we are far from where we need to be. Women keep trying to fit into a cultural paradigm that was created over a period of hundreds of years by men. It is just not a good fit which is why it makes so many of us, whether we work outside the home or stay at home, uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteLynda, you sum it up perfectly, those are my thoughts exactly. The problem is that our society, at least in many professions, has made it so difficult for women to maintain a reasonable balance between work and family - the result is that women often have no choice but to leave their professions if they want to really be there for their children.
DeleteAs you say, we so need a new paradigm, a new way of thinking about careers that is a better fit for women who are also mothers. I am not sure what that paradigm would be, as no answer seems ideal. This post is, really, part of my process of trying to tease out that paradigm.
I think if a mother is working for reasons other than necessity, then we should assume she is working out of personal preference for her own interests. We should also realize that most people in the western world are living so affluently, that they are used to a certain "standard" of living. I think even today, most people are working to pay for luxuries to meet societal standards that are achieveable on two salaries, but would be beyond the means on one salary alone. I personally think one salary means accepting a lower standard of living, and this is the hard part for most people. The fact is, children can be just as happy living in poverty as they can in affluence, as long as they are loved.
ReplyDeleteYes, we don't need to have a lot in order for our children to be happy. In fact, having less is often preferable and teaches the children more valuable lessons than growing up too affluent.
DeleteIf the mother is working for personal preference, as you say, there is nothing wrong with that unless the children are suffering from her personal absence, which is where I draw the line. It's a matter of balance.
What a great article! As a Catholic revert who is heading towards marriage, this is such a great piece. I am a doctor and I love my profession. I have always loved caring for others in the health setting and in other settings as well. My Catholic faith has completely reshaped the way I view marriage and life- something I never paid mind to as a nominal Cradle catholic. I prayed about if I was called to marriage vs religious life vs non-religious celibate and I saw God answer my prayer by introducing me to my current wonderful fiance.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when I prayed for vocational discernment, a huge part of me was terrified of being called to religious life and I was able to rationalize why I was called to marriage. Once, I entered that vulnerable space of seeking God's will and trying to emulate Mary's fiat, I got my answer and I also was reminded to always trust God, without having to pretend it is easy. All of this is just to say that I believe many women who hear the call to marriage and thus a family, are good hearted people...but they are humans in a world with conflicting values and may rationalize their call to work outside the home even if it is not necessary for the family to sustain themselves. So many women are told that a career is crucial for self development, success and social impact and that this should not be compromised at all or too much..by kids- I don't believe Catholics are excluded from the effects of such thinking. Even the best of us may subconsciously embrace this desire to be fruitful on worldly terms. If that is the case, then we may have clouded vision when discerning if we are called to be open to more babies, or to stay at home with our one more kiddies for a certain amount of time. Both parents may be clouded in their discernment on if they really need both the doctor and lawyer salary. Catholics live in the world and the world tells you to work hard and play hard. Society has defined the "Work" that is valuable and worthy of praise...and staying at home after attaining a degree in dentistry is not really part of that definition for many people. I am talking about sentiments and attitudes..not the politically correct "it all about what you choose" dialogue. Additionally, "success" is not necessarily defined as being fruitful and instilling morals and the love of God in your kids. In fact, many people view large families as irresponsible-without knowing if that family is self sustaining.
I say all of this not to point fingers. I just simply am realizing the various layers of societal attitudes that strongly compel women to try and be independent, have career success and thus have a "positive world impact"...while many faith values and natural tendencies may compel this same woman to want to focus MORE on her home and children.
As I pray for discernment, I am thankful for blog pieces like these, which don't project blanketed extremes. I am a doctor whose income will be the major source of income for a while, but God willing I will have children. And...I am starting to see that while I may have many talents and gifts to offer the world..motherhood is held in incredibly great esteem by God. Raising a child, forming a soul is worth more than the many noble acts I may perform as a doctor. This may sound offensive, but I think in religious terms it is important to assert that a child's formation is a more important detail for a mother than any other wonderful thing she may do (yes "pro-only women" radicals may gasp- LOL that used to be me!). Staying at home for some or all time IS a major sacrifice , with an added dimension for women who do work outside the home and don't have the desire to leave work (because to be fair some women do not want to work out the home and thus leaving work is not a sacrifice for them in particular...although being a good mother is in itself always a sacrificial lifestyle regardless of work location status!). Listening to God is not always easy and we have to be honest as well, about the societal ideas and worldly values that affect our reasoning, promptings and discernment...even well meaning, devout Catholics. God Bless.
ReplyDeleteI NEVER thought I could even think this way, but we are supposed to decrease and let Christ increase in us! God Bless.
LB, excellent commentary and thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic. You and I are on the same wavelength regarding these matters. Congratulations on your coming marriage, and may you be blessed with children. I am sure you will be a great mom!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think a major part of your argument has a flaw in it, and I think it seriously impedes the discernment you can have over the issue of Catholic, working women. I don't think it is the case that every woman who possibly can (barring serious health or financial circumstances) is obligated by the Church to have as large of a family as possible. I think you are confused by the differences in the Pauline translation and the Vatican translation of Humanae Vitae, the first of which uses the word "grave reasons" and "deliberate" and the second of which uses the words "serious reasons" and "prudent". In the Vatican translation, the spacing of children is seen as a way of enacting responsible parenthood; the phrasing even raises the question that having many children in an "imprudent way" is irresponsible parenthood. (For more information - see this link: http://www.hprweb.com/2008/03/humanae-vitae-grave-motives-to-use-a-good-translation/)
ReplyDeleteAnother reason this part of your argument is wrong is because of faulty reasoning about the relationship between a natural capacity and how frequently it is used. You are drawing a moral mandate from the existence of a natural capacity, but what is there to make us think that the repeated use of the capacity is what God desires of us? You rightly observe women's natural ability to get pregnant, but translate this into a directive that the priority of women is to bear children as often as possible. Something can be good (for example, our natural capacity to eat food, our natural capacity to run or exercise, our natural capacity to communicate), but these things can become vicious if they are not not moderate. The virtue of prudence requires that we figure out what moderation is, and the question of vocation is a part of the context of prudently deciding what moderate behavior is. You are basing the question of women's vocation to have large families on their capacity for child-bearing, but for the reasons we are discussing, this alone itself is not enough to conclude what a particular married, Catholic woman's vocation is. It seems that instead if we want to reason rightly about this, we need to start with the question of what a particular married Catholic woman's vocation is, and then contextualize her childbearing in the telos of that vocation as a wife, mother, and possibly, as a teacher, or a doctor, or a nurse, or a businesswoman (etc., etc.). To say that all healthy, non-destitute Catholic women have the vocation to have as many children as possible is something that you cannot know, because you don't have the interior discernment the individual would have for their own vocation. And as you point out, there are numerous ways that child-rearing can be accomplished alongside a career.
In the end, I think you are right to say that Catholic women can't "have it all". But Catholic men should not be "having it all", either. Both Catholic men and women must make career sacrifices that the world might not understand for the sake of their children. How this is accomplished seems to be a matter or prudential discernment, a discernment that only that individual can accomplish.