Church Historically Condoning Domestic Violence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Attercop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ChunkMonk said:
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.
Click to expand...
No wonder convent life used to be so popular!
 
ChunkMonk said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’ve read that one, too. It’s strange how Augustine has so much to say about the violence of the Gladiators in the Circus, and for Just War Theory, but so little to say for women trapped in abusive marriages. He got it from his mother. His mother, bless her heart, was just trying to survive. Sadly, she made other women feel bad with her ability to survive. (Some survivors do develop a superiority complex even in our own day. If they had to suffer through it, then so does everyone else.)

I’ve always felt Monica was a bad choice for being a patron saint for domestic violence victims. Stay and pray. Ugh…
 
Ok, first of all, no where does the Church teach that domestic abuse is ok. Nor did the Church ever teach that.

However, did society, esp among the nobel class? Yes.

Did some priests and Bishops look the other way or condone such sins? Yes.

Any person who committed or commits domestic abuse, slavery, etc and tries to say the Church condones it is a heretic, plan and simple .

This is like saying the Church condones fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, and pedophilia because some priests have engaged all four sexual sins.

The sins of the clergy do not constitute the teachings of the Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
That which is objectively wrong now has always been wrong regardless of history, law, tradition, etc. So, rather than be disturbed by history, be grateful you are in possession of the truth.

Let me suggest also to you that it is objectively true that God loves you unconditionally. Nothing on earth or in history will ever change that.
 
LOL. You sit here in judgement of St. Monica and St. Augustine. Classic CAF.
 
Of course not. He doesn’t sacrifice his Christianity at the altar of feminism.

What married Saints would you consider a great authority on marriage? (I say married because I already know one you are going to say and I’m preempting that right now.)

I have a feeling you’ll cafeteria pick the ones that already agree with your preconception. If there are many who do.
 
Last edited:
ChunkMonk said:
What married Saints would you consider a great authority on marriage? (I say married because I already know one you are going to say and I’m preempting that right now.)
Click to expand...
Our married saints have almost never been theologians–those two circles have almost no overlap because it’s only been recently that married people were able to become trained Catholic theologians. I want to say since Vatican II, but I’m not totally sure that there wasn’t a widowed priest theologian here or there. But, generally speaking, theological training was closed to the laity until Vatican II.

(St. Augustine wasn’t married, by the way–he had a concubine that he sent away and a son.)

I was thinking of Karol Wojtyla/St. John Paul II as the primary theological inspiration for contemporary thought on marriage. But I realize that saying JPII to some people is anathema.

Any contemporary Catholic thought on marriage that ignores John Paul II is inadequate and impoverished.
 
Augustine was the product of a very dysfunctional home. His father was a brute and his mother was an alcoholic, so it’s not unexpected that he wouldn’t have a lot of insight into the question of what a happy home looks like, if he didn’t especially devote himself to studying the question (and he didn’t).
 
My first reaction to the thought of anyone having to submit to abuse, be they male or female, for the conversion of the abuser, is to unload a barrage of swear words gained from my military days.

If anything, it is enabling the abuser to remain mired in their own sin. Not the result one is hoping for is it? Is it doing anyone, the abuser and the abused any favors? I think not.
 
Last edited:
ChunkMonk said:
Of course not. He doesn’t sacrifice his Christianity at the altar of feminism.

What married Saints would you consider a great authority on marriage? (I say married because I already know one you are going to say and I’m preempting that right now.)

I have a feeling you’ll cafeteria pick the ones that already agree with your preconception. If there are many who do.
Click to expand...
St Thomas More had two seemingly happy marriages - his first wife unfortunately died. I don’t know that he ever said or wrote much about marriage, or at least not his own, but then many great teachers tend to teach by doing rather than speaking or writing.
 
I asked my husband (he does some academic work based on John Paul II’s writings on love and marriage).

Husband confirmed my suspicion that there are probably no married saint theologians who wrote on marriage, for the reasons I mentioned (lay theologians being pretty new to the Church).

He suggests Dietrich von Hildebrand as a non-saint married theologian who wrote on marriage.


You can get a pretty good feel for his work just from the titles of his works in the Wikipedia article.
 
So I was trying to find that commentary on that old canon law, but I found this article instead (from Catholic Exchange):
Essentially, most canonists of the time held a “lowest common denominator” approach to marriage. So pervasive was this approach that many well-intentioned pastors counselled abused women to go home to their abusive husbands merely because the couple were “married,” meaning they had stood in the right place and said the right things during a wedding ceremony.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess that settles how things used to be handled historically. I guess Prof. Butler and Hanawalt are being honest, then. I’m sad to find that out. I was truly hoping things could not have been bad all the time like this.

I don’t understand. Why would God allow His Church to have such a blind spot regarding marriage for nearly 2000 years? Why isn’t His compassion reigning supreme in enough people’s hearts to see that DV is evil and that victims need to be rescued, and shouldn’t be told to “stay and pray”? I don’t understand why it took 2000 years to figure it out. And even in most of the rest of the world, they still haven’t figured it out, even in supposedly Christian nations.
 
ChunkMonk said:
Of course not. He doesn’t sacrifice his Christianity at the altar of feminism.
Click to expand...
Ah, “feminism”, the new F-word. Considering it was originally a Christian movement with ties to the abolitionist movement, it never ceases to surprise me when all feminism is treated with such disdain by Christians. (You do know that first wave feminists were pro-life and are largely responsible for lobbying for laws in all 50 states against abortion, as there weren’t any at the time?)

But how interesting that you mention sacrifice on an altar. You see, from my early childhood, my church told my mom that she had to sacrifice both herself and me to Molech (aka, my dad). But don’t worry! Sacrificing ourselves into Molech’s flaming arms to be burned alive somehow honors God. He’ll reward us for it, right? Serve the paterfamilias as you would Christ! Even if the paterfamilias is anything but Christlike.

It never ceases to make me wonder how it is people can claim to be pro-life, and yet as soon as the children are born, their lives and well-being are suddenly expendable. I’m sorry if my dim hope that I might be worth something more than a burnt offering to Molech offended your sensibilities. I’ll return to my despair, PTSD, and chronic depression from the childhood abuse I endured and abandon that dim shred of hope, if it makes you feel any better.
 
Attercop said:
Serve the paterfamilias as you would Christ! Even if the paterfamilias is anything but Christlike.
Click to expand...
As opposed to men, who are called to be like Christ. Christ who sacrificed himself for the very people who arrested him, scourged him, and then nailed him to a cross. Which means the paterfamilias is called to love his wife even if she abandons him, abuses him, or God forbid, kills him.

If you will only serve the perfect, you aren’t acting like Christ. He served murderers and prostitutes. Is it a hard obligation? Sure.

There comes a time when the abuse is so great that a spouse must leave in order to protect themselves or others. That’s an individual discernment I have no right or desire to judge. I speak in generalities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top