Patience in Suffering

  • Thread starter Thread starter _AnnoDomini
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

_AnnoDomini

Guest
In Christian theology, patience is held as a virtue.To withstand suffering and hold on to hope is considered a sign of true faith. But I’m a bit confused: is it wrong to stand up for yourself? If a woman is living with a physically and verbally abusive husband, is it a sin for her to leave? If a young boy is getting severely bullied at school, should he just sit and take it? Enduring situations that are out of our control is one thing, but what about those that you can leave?
 
“Lord, give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
Click to expand...
A woman being abused by her husband can leave him. However, there are other things in life that we may have to suffer through that we have no control over (temporary unemployment, the pain of something falling on our foot, etc.). And in those cases, we are called to be patient.
 
Last edited:
Jesus stood up for truth and righteousness obviously-and actually suffered more because of it! Either way we have the right and even duty to stand up to injustice the best we’re able, and suffering happens in this life regardless. Plenty of material out there to test and refine our patience with. 🙂
 
Last edited:
With regard to your question of a woman living with a physically and verbally abusive husband, the Church permits separation (with the marriage bond remaining intact) where there is “grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring.” (CIC, Canon 1153). Have listed the applicable sections from the Catechism and Canon Law:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.176 If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

176 Cf. ⇒ CIC, cann. 1151-1155.

Code of Canon Law

SEPARATION WITH THE BOND REMAINING

Can. 1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

§2. Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery. It is presumed, moreover, if the spouse observed conjugal living for six months and did not make recourse to the ecclesiastical or civil authority.

§3. If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

Can. 1154 After the separation of the spouses has taken place, the adequate support and education of the children must always be suitably provided.

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.

This article from Catholic Answers goes into more detail:

 
Last edited:
With regards to your questions generally, staff apologists, Michelle Arnold and Tim Staples, at Catholic Answers have also answered similar questions on whether Catholics are called to be “doormats” here:

Tim Staples:


Michelle Arnold:
40.png
What's the difference between a saint and a doormat? Ask an Apologist
In the literature of saints there are plenty of stories of Christian men and women who allowed others to treat them abusively; or, less seriously, allowed even friends or loved ones to take serious advantage of them. I know there must be a difference between heroic virtue and a passive unwillingness to protect one’s own interests and/or dignity, but what is it and how can I practice this kind of heroic virtue without becoming bitter at being mistreated (even when you know intellectually that th…
Click to expand...
Catholic psychologist, Dr Greg Popcak, has also written a couple of books on this topic too:

https://www.amazon.com/Help-These-P...=1&keywords=greg+popcak&qid=1591198335&sr=8-6

https://www.amazon.com/Help-This-St...1&keywords=greg+popcak&qid=1591198335&sr=8-16
 
Last edited:
The Church also permits, self-defence, even dealing an aggressor a “lethal blow” if necessary as the Catechism puts it:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

65 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art.
66 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art.
 
Last edited:
I think marriage is for good, but staying near someone abusive is not required.nor should we allow ourselves to be abused, Call the cops, have the husband removed, let him cool down in custody, seperate, distance yourself. Pray and pray…I had a grandmother who took her many children during the depression away from a neglectful unloving husband and remained married for the next 50 yrs staying away from her husband and out living him. She was the happiest person ive ever known. very devout catholic all of her life. She put her trust in God, always.
 
Separation is not just prudent but may be an obligation to oneself or one’s children in the case of abuse. That sometimes lead to divorce To further protect the abused, and sometimes a decree of nullity is in order (as the abuse can be indicative of an issue that was pre-existing at the time of marriage)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top