Church Historically Condoning Domestic Violence

[Attercop]

Hi all,

I promise this is not an inflammatory post. It is an honest question.

As a background, I grew up in an evangelical home where my father was violent toward my mother and me. Now, obviously various Bible passages where husbands are supposed to love their wives makes this wrong. And yet, it turns out it hasn’t been historically obvious.

I’ve been reading from medieval historians Sara M. Butler and Barbara Hanawalt. (Sara Butler the historian, not the same as the nun.) They posit that not only did secular law in Europe give husbands the right to chastise their wives, but that church canon law did as well. They bring forward cases where men have gotten off the hook by church courts and wives petitioning for divorce from bed and board being turned down by the church and told to go back and submit to their husbands. (And no, Protestants have not been any better on this account.)

If the Church is supposed to be a pillar of truth, then how can it teach that it’s okay for husbands to beat their wives (so long as they don’t maim them excessively)? It did this for centuries! It has only stopped in recent times, and even then, we still have cases of Protestant and Catholic pastors/priests alike telling women to go home and submit. I used to think my dad was an exception, as well as how my childhood church ignored the abuse. Now I know this is business as usual, and that the modern concern by Christians for domestic violence is actually the historical exception. On top of it all, marital rape has only recently in Western society been outlawed, in large part due to feminism (which is largely considered evil in most Christian circles).

If Christianity supposedly elevates women, why has it failed so drastically in the most basic of ways? Remember, I am reading from historians, not atheist propagandists. At the end of my post is a link to just one of Sara Butler’s papers (and she has books published as well) that will give you an idea.

If the Church is the pillar of truth, then how can it conceivably blow it this badly, so consistently? Where was the Holy Spirit to guide the Church during this time? Why did God leave us as orphans? How can I know He really loves women when the consistent testimony of His Church is that we are property and chattel and need to be beaten into our place?

I am very depressed over this. I can’t ignore the injustice any longer. Using cultural relativism, such that you say the Church is so much better than the surrounding pagan culture, just falls flat on its ears. It’s just relative, in which case truth keeps shifting to stay relative to a shifting culture. Also, to say that this isn’t the official teaching of the church and that some men just messed up also falls flat. This was their Magisterium, back then, teaching this! It was in their canon law, starting at least as early as Gratian!

Please help me. I don’t want to lose my faith in God. But I don’t know how to believe God loves me any more.

Please, if you know of anything that disproves Butler or Hanawalt, please bring it forward. I would welcome it. Please help me.

https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk3/ftp05/NQ66649.pdf

 

[joeybaggz]

Are you seeing the actions of hundreds and even a thousand years ago through the perch of 21st century morals and practices?? From your post I would say you are.

For example, if I said to you that I was going to go home, sit on my veranda, drink a mint julep,and listen to my Negro slaves sing “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot” while they picked my cotton on the back 40, you would be correct to consider me a racist devil and a terrible sinner. But if the year was 1840, and I was living in, say, Greensboro, North Carolina, you wouldn’t bat an eye. Society was what it was back then.

I don’t think the church has ever sanctioned spousal abuse. Did the church meddle in the customs of the times, no, and it doesn’t today. The church has no place in the implementation and enforcement of civil law. It has always stood for the proper treatment of all men. That has changed over time as social mores and customs have changed over time, becoming more in tune with the wishes of the societies in which the Church lives. Turn a blind eye, or not meddle in something that is not necessarily its affair. You say tomato, I say … The church can only teach, it can’t enforce.

Why are you so locked in the past?? Today’s teaching from the popes on down to the local pulpit castigate the idea of spousal abuse. I’m sorry that happened in the past just like I’m sorry slavery existed In the past, but there is nothing I can do about it (outside of making sure it doesn’t make a comeback). May not be what you want to hear, but I think you just might be looking for a justification of your agita. Who today says that women are property and chattel and need to be beaten into our place? Not anyone in any Catholic organization from the Magisterium down to the local Knights of Columbus chapter that I know of.
Shalom

 

[Attercop]

So basically truth is relative to the times in which we live? And the Church therefore has no responsibility to teach an absolute truth? Did you not read any of the paper I linked to? It was in canon law! That meant that the Church did indeed meddle with the civil, especially in regulating marriage and hearing cases of marital discord.

No, I really don’t have an agenda. I really do suffer very real depression from this. Either these historians are wrong about what the Church historically taught (which I would be glad to find proof of), or the Church does not always teach truth very well. And one only needs to read the countless threads here on this very forum of people reporting that their parish priests told them to submit to an abusive spouse and not leave. It was even a big thing recently in the news in Australia about the problem being rampant.

Please, I am begging for truth that doesn’t change and a Church that reflects that. Please help me find proof of these historians being biased or outright wrong.

 

[joeybaggz]

So basically truth is relative to the times in which we live? And the Church therefore has no responsibility to teach an absolute truth? Did you not read any of the paper I linked to? It was in canon law! That meant that the Church did indeed meddle with the civil, especially in regulating marriage and hearing cases of marital discord.

No, the truth is constant, what is relative is the understanding and implementation of truth at the society level relative to the times in which it is examined.
I did not read the entire paper. I read (lightly) the first few pages. What I find uncomfortable is that the subject matter is confined to a couple of counties in England and if that is your basis, it seems you are extending the climate of two counties in England to an immense fault within the entire Catholic Church. Don’t think that is fair.
As to your statement of the countless threads, was the subject matter that it is a wife’s responsibility to submit to abuse and violence, or was it advisable to return to the situation and attempt to better it through working with clerical or professional help to remedy the situation. I am on the same forum, read the same posts, and haven’t seen this wholesale recommendation of submission to abuse you seem to be seeing.

That the church doesn’t always teach well. I would agree 100% with you on that count. And I think, so would a lot of others. Poor catechesis is a oft heard complaint here. But poor teaching doesn’t mean that the truth held by the Church, is either poor or lacking.

 

[joeybaggz]

And, I might suggest you evaluate your source material. What you cite as a link is a doctoral thesis by a student. It cites feminists who most likely have an agenda.

The church doesn’t condone spousal abuse. In fact, the late Pope John Paul II was a serious critic of the amount of decrees of nullity being afforded by the domestic USA churches. Yet even he promulgated the idea that spousal abuse, even if it was not evident at the time of the marriage ceremony, is a valid reason for the issuance of a decree of nullity. If you are depressed, again I say, you might want to look at what the situation is today, not 300 years ago. It may not be perfect everywhere, but it is a far cry from the situation you describe.
Shalom.

 

[Entwhistler]

If there is one thing I’ve learned in historical research class it’s that you need to take colleges theses with a grain of salt.

 

[Attercop]

Yes, it is a doctoral thesis, but she went on to become a professor, and has even more scholarly works since then. While she is largely focuses on late medieval England, other historians have done similar work for the rest of Europe. And again, Gratian’s Decretum, which was foundational for better unifying canon law throughout Europe.

Point well taken regarding the society understanding truth differently. I suppose we all see things through our own lenses.

Look, I’m not saying the modern Catholic church is evil. In fact, it’s more modern bishops, canon law, and popes are downright kindly, especially in comparison with a lot of contemporary Protestantism. It is on my short-list to consider if my Anglican parish closes or goes crazy hyper-patriarchical. But what I am really looking for that would really help me personally is a historian who can counter Butler’s and Hanawalt’s research, or well, something…

I have seen threads (some very old) where people are reporting being let down by their parish priests. Some priests are helpful in these cases. Others not so much. So the application of teaching is still not uniform.

I wish domestic violence would be certain grounds for an annulment! It’s presence definitely speaks towards ill intent to exert control over the innocent spouse and a gross misunderstanding of marriage as a loving partnership. Good for JPII for pushing for that.

 

[joeybaggz]

I have seen threads (some very old) where people are reporting being let down by their parish priests. Some priests are helpful in these cases. Others not so much. So the application of teaching is still not uniform.

I’m afraid that is something that is never going to cease. I’m a senior citizen Catholic and have all through my life been frustrated at times by older (now deceased) priests ordained in the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s and 50’s an the seemingly antiquated way they approached situations like you are describing. Unfortunately there will always be those who take a hard and literal line on that idea of “wives being submissive.” But they are the minority if that is any consolation. Just find a place you like and are comfortable. Yours is an age old situation, that, unfortunately, is probably going to be around as long as there are overly scrupulous people.

 

[Kei]

They bring forward cases where men have gotten off the hook by church courts and wives petitioning for divorce from bed and board being turned down by the church and told to go back and submit to their husbands. (And no, Protestants have not been any better on this account.)

Let’s look at the actual claim against the Church.

The matter is not that we condone domestic violence, but it seems to me a matter of not allowing divorce. We still do not allow divorce. Domestic abuse can indicate but does not de facto mean that your marriage can be annulled.

Instead of divorce, and if annulment isn’t allowed, the couple may be able to separate (though this is difficult in the past as women were not independent), I think.

 

[Arkansan]

There are many areas where the natural law does not exhaustively delineate all of the rights and obligations which people have, so many of the specifics must be supplied by positive law or social custom. There is nothing scandalous in that. After all, there have been many different societies which have existed throughout history, each with different specific norms concerning the details of personal rights and obligations. It would be a priori absurd to hold that we happen to be living in the only time and place in history with a moral social order.

I’m not aware of any theologian who held that forced marital sex could be licit.

 

[angell1]

previously, it was also a popular train of thought that if a saintly woman stayed with her husband, her prayers and sufferings woule eventually lead to his conversion. Probably not the most sound advice, but im thinking that was most likely the basis of it

in certain cases this did end up happening, but I am sure there are plenty of cases where it did not.

doesn’t mean that the church approved of domestic violence. As with today, the church teaches plenty of things thata good percentage of catholics choose to ignore

 

[Attercop]

The matter is not that we condone domestic violence, but it seems to me a matter of not allowing divorce.

The divorce I mentioned in the above was “separation”, which historically has been referred to as “divorce from bed and board”, otherwise known as (in Latin) as “Divorce a Mensa et Thoro”. I am not talking about the kind of divorce where there is the right to remarry. In medieval times and even in more modern times it was very difficult to get even what we would call a legal separation today granted by the Church for any abused spouse. The abuse had to be very extreme, and even then, there were no guarantees. Fleeing could mean being forced to return to live with the abusive spouse, as well as harsh penance for having left. (Butler has a book on this called “Runaway Wives: Husband Desertion in Medieval England”.)

Incidentally, Butler does list some priests and bishops in that last work who helped the abused wives escape and gave shelter, but then they’d come under censure from their own church. (Apparently it was considered a form of “abduction” to provide shelter to an escaping wife, and friends and family could be sued for it.)

 

[Xantippe]

previously, it was also a popular train of thought that if a saintly woman stayed with her husband, her prayers and sufferings woule eventually lead to his conversion. Probably not the most sound advice, but im thinking that was most likely the basis of it

Yes. There was also the issue that (economically speaking) there weren’t a lot of realistic options.

 

[Kei]

Ah, I see. As I mentioned, separation would have been difficult as women weren’t able to be independent, really. If they didn’t join a convent, then they didn’t have much a chance out in the world to my knowledge.

Still, yes, marriage is a Sacrament and considered very sacred. The sepation would be difficult to come by during strict times.

 

[Genesis315]

You should really read St. John Chrysostom’s homily on the passage in Ephesians dealing with marriage–both as to what the wife being the subject of the husband means and what the husband loving his wife like Christ loves the Church means.

Here are some excerpts specifically on the topic of this thread, but the whole thing is a good read (the forum didn’t let me copy and paste as much as I wanted to!):

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230120.htm

St. John Chrysostom:

You have seen the measure of obedience, hear also the measure of love. Would you have your wife obedient unto you, as the Church is to Christ? Take then yourself the same provident care for her, as Christ takes for the Church. Yea, even if it shall be needful for you to give your life for her, yea, and to be cut into pieces ten thousand times, yea, and to endure and undergo any suffering whatever — refuse it not. Though you should undergo all this, yet will you not, no, not even then, have done anything like Christ. For thou indeed art doing it for one to whom you are already knit; but He for one who turned her back on Him and hated Him. In the same way then as He laid at His feet her who turned her back on Him, who hated, and spurned, and disdained Him, not by menaces, nor by violence, nor by terror, nor by anything else of the kind, but by his unwearied affection; so also do thou behave yourself toward your wife. Yea, though thou see her looking down upon you, and disdaining, and scorning you, yet by your great thoughtfulness for her, by affection, by kindness, you will be able to lay her at your feet. For there is nothing more powerful to sway than these bonds, and especially for husband and wife. A servant, indeed, one will be able, perhaps, to bind down by fear; nay not even him, for he will soon start away and be gone. But the partner of one’s life, the mother of one’s children, the foundation of one’s every joy, one ought never to chain down by fear and menaces, but with love and good temper. For what sort of union is that, where the wife trembles at her husband? And what sort of pleasure will the husband himself enjoy, if he dwells with his wife as with a slave, and not as with a free-woman? Yea, though you should suffer anything on her account, do not upbraid her; for neither did Christ do this.

And after noting the fact that a wife should not revile and denigrate her husband about being poor compared to others:

Neither, however, let the husband, when he hears these things, on the score of his having the supreme authority, betake himself to revilings and to blows; but let him exhort, let him admonish her, as being less perfect, let him persuade her with arguments. Let him never once lift his hand — far be this from a noble spirit, — no, nor give expression to insults, or taunts, or revilings; but let him regulate and direct her as being wanting in wisdom. Yet how shall this be done? If she be instructed in the true riches, in the heavenly philosophy, she will make no complaints like these. Let him teach her then, that poverty is no evil. Let him teach her, not by what he says only, but also by what he does.

 

[Attercop]

Thanks! Yes, I’ve read Chrysostom’s commentary Ephesians. However, he also has some troubling views as well:

In the same manner then do thou also reckon that if your husband give you disgust, and thou endure it, you shall receive a glorious crown: but if he be gentle and mild, what will there be for God to reward in you? And these things I say, not bidding the husbands be harsh; but persuading the wives to bear even with harshness in their husbands. Since when each is careful to fulfil his own duty, his neighbor’s part also will quickly follow: as when the wife is prepared to bear even with rough behavior in the husband, and the husband refrains from abusing her in her angry mood; then all is a calm and a harbor free from waves….

Let not then the wife tarry for the virtue of the husband and then show her own, for this is nothing great; nor, on the other hand, the husband, for the obedience of the wife and then exercise self-command; for neither would this any more be his own well-doing; but let each, as I said, furnish his own share first. For if to the Gentiles smiting us on the right, we must turn the other cheek; much more ought one to bear with harsh behavior in a husband.

And I say not this for a wife to be beaten; far from it: for this is the extremest affront, not to her that is beaten, but to him who beats. But even if by some misfortune thou have such a yokefellow allotted you, take it not ill, O woman, considering the reward which is laid up for such things and their praise too in this present life. (John Chrysostom, Homily 26 on 1 Corinthians)

In other words, he advises women married to abusive husbands to suck it up and get a martyrs crown. And in case you were thinking that women didn’t have much of a choice back then, you’ll even note that in the same homily, Chrysostom admits that even the heathen permit abused women to leave the marriage. Apparently, he himself won’t, at least not as far as I can tell from this particular homily.

But if the shame be great for a man to beat a maidservant, much more to stretch forth the right hand against her that is free. And this one might see even from heathen legislatures who no longer compel her that has been so treated to live with him that beat her, as being unworthy of her fellowship. (John Chrysostom, Homily 26 on 1 Corinthians)

I hope you can understand why it is I am looking so hard for something positive that the Church has done to protect the abused. Quotes as I have provided above are not that encouraging.

 

[Genesis315]

In the rest of that homily he doesn’t condone the abuse–in fact, his language against it is much more harsh against it than in the homily I provided. He is not saying separation is not unjustified either–he points to the heathen law saying even they allow it. The Saints tend to always encourage the bearing of sin against oneself patiently according to the example of Christ Himself, not just in this particular context. This is not exclusive to women, but applies to all. But that doesn’t mean one is bound as a matter of justice to do so.

We can see this in the fact that the Church has always considered physical danger as a just cause for separation. It is listed as a cause in both the 1983 Code (can 1153) and the 1917 Code (1131). Commentaries on both include “maltreatment” and “wife-beating” as examples of physical danger. They both also have the catch-all of anything that makes common life unduly difficult.

The footnotes of the 1917 Code on this point include various sources going back centuries, including the Corpus Iuris Canonici, which goes back to the 12th century. and of course, that compilation includes other older sources. That’s probably where your search would have to go.

The author of that paper herself admits that cruelty was always a justification for separation in Church law. I admit, I only scanned it, but it looks like she just examines a handful of cases in England (York in particular) on this point which had certain results. I don’t think that can be seen as providing a universal principle in the Church condoning abuse–especially when the universal law provided it as a justification for separation.

 

[Attercop]

The footnotes of the 1917 Code on this point include various sources going back centuries, including the Corpus Iuris Canonici, which goes back to the 12th century. and of course, that compilation includes other older sources. That’s probably where your search would have to go.

The author of that paper herself admits that cruelty was always a justification for separation in Church law. I admit, I only scanned it, but it looks like she just examines a handful of cases in England (York in particular) on this point which had certain results. I don’t think that can be seen as providing a universal principle in the Church condoning abuse–especially when the universal law provided it as a justification for separation.

Thank you! That is the exact sort of information I am looking for!

The author of that paper herself admits that cruelty was always a justification for separation in Church law. I admit, I only scanned it, but it looks like she just examines a handful of cases in England (York in particular) on this point which had certain results. I don’t think that can be seen as providing a universal principle in the Church condoning abuse–especially when the universal law provided it as a justification for separation.

True. However, as any medieval historian will tell you these days, “cruelty” was relative and vague. It was usually taken to mean “life endangering”.

I have read elsewhere from another medieval historian (I forget now, sorry) that France was even harder to get a separation granted from the Church, as they required both adultery and cruelty combined to be committed by the husband. England was cuddly by comparison. It seems the right of the medieval husband to chastise his wife was largely upheld, so long as he didn’t come close to killing his wife. But, again, having a historian presented who can present counter evidence would be much appreciated.

 

[LilyM]

Remember divorce/separation were not generally easy for anyone historically, even very rich and powerful men like King Henry VIII. By contrast, Henry’s sister Margaret Tudor did successfully get a marriage annulled. So perhaps it wasn’t so much gender discrimination or condoning of abuse as you think.

 

[ChunkMonk]

So gently did she put up with his marital infidelities that no quarrel ever broke out between them on this score, for she looked to you to show him mercy, knowing that once he came to believe he would become chaste.

Although he was outstandingly generous, he was also hot-tempered, but she learned to offer him no resistance, by deed or even by word, when he was angry; she would wait for a favorable moment, when she saw that his mood had changed and he was calm again, and then explain her action, in case he had given way to wrath without due consideration.

There were plenty of women married to husbands of gentler temper whose faces were badly disfigured by traces of blows, who while gossiping together would complain about their husbands’ behavior; but she checked their talk, reminding them in what seemed to be a joking vein but with serious import that from the time they had heard their marriage contracts read out they had been in duty bound to consider these as legal documents which made slaves of them. In consequence they ought to keep their subservient status in mind and not defy their masters.

These other wives knew what a violent husband she had to put up with, and were amazed that there had never been any rumor of Patricius striking his wife, nor the least evidence of its happening, nor even a day’s domestic strife between the two of them; and in friendly talk they sought an explanation. My mother would then instruct them in this plan of hers that I have outlined. Those who followed it found out its worth and were happy; those who did not continued to be bullied and battered. (Confessions, Book IX, #9, 19, Boulding translation)
-St. Augustine (about his mother, St. Monica)

Catholics used to be heavy on the Red Pill. Though you’ll notive that even then, St. Augustine considered the men to be in the wrong with the way they treated their wives.