Heritage of Violence is a report on wife abuse published last fall by the Quebec Assembly of Catholic Bishops (AEQ). The 60-page consciousness-raising document was prepared under the auspices of the AEQ’s social affairs committee by a working committee of four women and two men, including Auxiliary Bishop Pierre Morissette of Quebec City.

The report sheds little light on the pastoral needs of women living with an abusive spouse, but astonishing as it may be, it goes to great lengths to discredit the Catholic Church’s traditional teaching on Christian marriage.

Media and women’s groups have delighted in the authors’ assertion that in the past the Church has contributed to wife battering by insisting on keeping the marriage bond intact at all costs.

Feminist perspective

Heritage of Violence is unapologetically feminist in perspective. It totally lacks a spiritual dimension. This may be a reflection of the nature of the team which produced the document. Fourteen of the fifteen resource people listed are women, apparently feminists all, and, with the exception of Bishop Morissette, all members of both the working committee and the resource group are lay.

According to a report in the Montreal Gazette (“Catholic Church fosters wife-battering, Quebec bishops say,” Nov. 21, 1989). “[Bishop] Morissette said that the document does not purport to establish Church doctrine but tries to review the best of what is known about domestic violence to help priests and church workers deal with the problem.”

The same article reports, “Morissette said priests should work with other agencies – sending a woman to a shelter, for example – even if the agency is run by people whose stand on such issues as abortion and birth control is contrary to church doctrine.”

There is no attempt in Heritage of Violence to integrate valid women’s concerns with traditional church teaching. The authors simply assume there is a cycle of violence which begins with psychological violence by the husband and advances through verbal, physical to sexual violence. They assert that this escalation is inevitable and therefore the cycle must be broken.

The document ignores the possibility of mutual violence or behaviour patterns of both spouses which might contribute to violence. The authors assume the only solution is to remove the woman from the home, indeed with a caution to do so before she succumbs to efforts at reconciliation, “to save the dignity of these women who are loved by God.”

There may be situations so grave as to require such action. But, given the broadly defined spectrum of violence, surely separation is not the only solution or even the best one under most circumstances. The lack of respect for, or understanding of the Christian marriage commitment is evident in the document’s omission of any positive approach to reconstruction of damaged marriages. Not only does it fail to examine such issues as birth control’s negative influence on intimacy, but it pointedly does not distinguish between formal, sacramental marriage and informal, common law arrangements.

Patriarchy is to blame

After a cursory examination of the factors which might induce a man to become violent against his wife (alcohol, abusive childhood), the heart of the argument is revealed. Violence against women is caused by patriarchy, whereby men rule or dominate society. Patriarchy is assumed to be based on sexual stereotypes such as “Human nature is masculine. “Feminine nature is to be a companion to man, and doesn’t exist except in reference to him./   “The natural qualities of men are: strength, rationality, authority, initiative, and control of emotions.” “The natural qualities of women are: sensitivity, intuition, submission, passivity and compassion.”

Church stands accused

Because of patriarchy, the authors assert, women must assume familial duties in exchange for economic security. The reality for women, they claim, is a life of subservience, dependence and poverty. Because women lack economic value, it is alleged, they are more likely to be abused.’

The authors believe patriarchy detracts from a realistic vision of the family. The dream of an ideal family is appealing, they claim, but the reality is usually very different. They mistakenly claim that the Church does a disservice to people by failing to acknowledge this. The Church “encourages…perpetual reconciliation in the name of a mystery which is very difficult to attain, sacrificing people to maintain the marriage bond.

“However, the marriage bond no longer makes sense in certain cases. It no longer signifies the relationship between Christ and his Church which is the basis for the permanence of marriage.”

Simplistic secularism

Finally, the authors’ advice to those who counsel battered wives is as simplistic as it is secular: they should affirm, without judging, that violence is unacceptable and intolerable. They should refer women to the appropriate organizations. They should refer men to rehabilitation programs. They should also support community efforts against domestic violence.

Heritage of Violence also recommends that couples preparing for marriage receive instruction to counter sexual stereotypes.

They should learn that women are not limited to the role of wife and mother. They should be encouraged to value the “new conception of man,” as a cooperative, gentle partner. Likewise, the Church should prepare its new priests to understand the problems of domestic violence.

Heritage of Violence is 60 pages of wasted opportunity. The bishops could have reached out to women and men and recognized that spousal abuse is symptomatic of frustration and pain which can get out of hand in a marriage. The destruction caused by separation and divorce to all members of a family as well as to society is not even touched upon.

Reconciliation

No thinking person would ever suggest that a woman should stay and tolerate being beaten, but even in severe cases where separation is necessary to defuse a very violent situation, the Church’s goal must always be reconciliation. Unfortunately, the authors of Heritage of Violence see reconciliation as a failure of the woman to assert herself and so disparage the Church’s sound teaching on marriage.

This document is offensive to the countless couples whose love of God and faith in the church have motivated them  to overcome serious problems in their marriages. These people deserve the support and encouragement of their bishops.

Regina Farrell, a mother of two, lives in Montreal and has followed the growing feminist influence within the Church in Quebec for some years.