A Domestic Violence Paradox: Catholic Teachings as Source and Solution

Introduction

Sociologist Allan Johnson describes patriarchy using the image of a “patriarchal tree.”^[1] This tree is rooted in core values, beliefs, and principles of male-domination, male-identification, and male-centeredness. Its trunk is institutions, including family structure and religion, which supports the branches comprised of groups, communities, and families. Finally, its leaves are “individuals who participate in systems.”^[2] Since religion shapes values, beliefs, and principles, the Catholic Church has the power to both enforce patriarchy and, alternatively, promote equality and justice. Sociological studies show that patriarchy perpetuates domestic violence against women; thus, the Church has the power to be both a source of such violence and afford a solution. This study will first analyze the specific patriarchal norms that contribute to domestic violence, then identify the biblical and Catholic theological texts that encourage these norms, thereby illuminating the Church as an indirect source of domestic violence.

This study proposes that once the Church has recognized the root cause of domestic violence, that is, patriarchy, it has the theological resources to advance a solution to it. This remedy is family justice, which involves eradicating the dominate-subordinate relationship between a husband and wife and promoting minimal requirements of justice, including mutuality and equality. Rather than focusing on getting women out of abusive marriages—a complicated task given the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage—this study focuses on how the Church can proactively create safe marriages by advancing family justice. Family justice not only protects women, but also advances Jesus’ mission for justice.

The Problem

A 2021 World Health Organization report claims that nearly one in three women will experience physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner in their lifetimes, not including emotional abuse.^[3] No research has been found with specific data on domestic violence in Catholic families; however, studies show that there are no variations of domestic violence among different religions.^[4] Thus, psychologist Christauria Welland approximates that one in three Catholic women are victims of physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner.^[5] Nonetheless, every statistic on domestic violence will be unrepresentative because many victims do not report abuse.^[6] Although there are no studies on domestic violence specifically in Catholic families, Catholic marital teachings indirectly contribute to domestic violence and encourage women to stay in abusive relationships.^[7] This research will show this by analyzing sociological research that illustrates how domestic violence against women is perpetuated by patriarchy, and then how Catholic theological texts have supported patriarchal norms.

Analysis: Patriarchal Norms

Johnson’s sociological work in The Gender Knot: Unraveling our Patriarchal Legacy offers a definition of patriarchy and the norms that underlay domestic violence. Patriarchy is socially constructed. After all, there is archeological and anthropological evidence for pre-patriarchal societies.^[8] Some gender norms—social expectations about how men and women ought to act—are that men are active, dominant, and aggressive, while women are passive and submissive.^[9] These roles normalize dominance and submission in male and female relationships, respectively. A woman’s acceptance of her submissive role can cause her to stay in an abusive relationship.^[10] Additionally, society normalizes this hierarchical relationship as long as it is in the private sphere. Philosopher Patricia Smith argues, “so long as . . . beating your wife is not as serious as assaulting someone on the street . . . the physical integrity of women will not be determined by their own voluntary choices.”^[11] Overall, Johnson emphasizes that domestic violence is not caused by violent individuals, but rather by patriarchal norms, such as dominance and subordination in private spheres, that shape the attitudes and beliefs of individuals.

Patriarchy is a focus of this study because research confirms that it perpetuates domestic violence. Michael Johnson, based on thirty years of sociological research in A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence, counters the anti-feminist argument that men are as likely as women to be victims of domestic violence. He argues that this claim is based on oversimplified evidence, so his research studies domestic violence in relation to controlling behaviors.^[12] Accordingly, he finds that men tend to perpetrate violence against women in combination with controlling mechanisms, including intimidation, social isolation, or economic abuse.^[13] Thus, women are more likely than men to be victimized by “intimate terrorism,” which is violence used as a means to control.^[14] He holds that the cause of this is patriarchal socialization, including gender traditionalism, the predominance of male power, and broader social contexts that grant men power.^[15] Johnson’s sociological study reveals that domestic violence against women is usually a means to control women, exacerbated by patriarchal norms that accept this power structure and the violence that sustains it.

Although sociological research indicates that domestic violence against women is caused by patriarchy, the Church has not recognized this root cause. In a 2002 statement, “When I Call for Help: A Pastoral Response to Domestic Violence Against Women,” the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops addressed domestic violence reactively, emphasizing that women are not expected to stay in abusive marriages and encouraging them to seek an annulment.^[16] Although the Church’s reactive response to individual cases of domestic violence is laudable, it has yet to take a systematic—and therefore more proactive—approach to the issue.

As Johnson argues, “to understand violence against women as both a social and psychological problem, we have to ask what kind of society would provide fertile ground for it to take root and flourish as a recurring behavior.”^[17] Therefore, this study does not focus on violence perpetrated by individual Catholics, but rather on Catholic institutions that create gender inequality in the household, thereby contributing to domestic violence.

Theological “Roots” of Patriarchy

Theologian Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite has found in working with Catholic women that, as opposed to their non-Catholic Christian counterparts, “biblical material has not formed the religious framework for their acceptance of battering. Rather, it has been the church and its teaching about the role of women, divorce, and contraception that has provided religious legitimation for battering.”^[18] Because traditional Catholic marital teachings are so pervasive in the lives of Catholic women in abusive relationships, this study will evaluate these teachings from their origins in Augustine to the present.

Augustine and Aquinas

Both Augustine and Aquinas formulated their thought with ancient Greek worldviews and lived in patriarchal cultures.^[19] Nevertheless, as theologian Lisa Sowle Cahill noted, they “established the shape of the theological tradition about marriage.”^[20] Augustine established three goods of marriage that were continued by Aquinas and are still accepted by the Church today: sacrament, indissolubility, and procreation. This began with Augustine’s interpretation of Genesis with traditional biblical discourse that, according to biblical scholar Susan Calef, establishes “male authority and female subordination.”^[21] Aquinas then adopted Augustine’s three goods of marriage and gave them a “natural” basis from faulty Aristotelian science.

Augustine’s writings on marriage assumed that women were inferior. He held that “marriage was instituted for the purpose of having children,” based on God’s call to “increase and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).^[22] He not only saw the purpose of marriage as procreation, but also reduced women’s identity to procreation: “I do not see in what sense the woman was made a helper for the man if not for the sake of bearing children.”^[23] Augustine believes that to deny this would be to deny the entire Christian belief system because Eve gave birth to humanity, which eventually led to the coming of Jesus Christ.^[24] If you take away her ability to birth children, then there would have been no point for God to create the woman, and another man would have been a more suitable companion for Adam.^[25] This comes from the Aristotelian belief that women are not suitable friends for men because women are inferior and only equals can be true friends.^[26]

Augustine was the first to articulate marriage as a sacrament, in which the two become “one flesh.”^[27] To Augustine, this union was not one of equality; rather, a woman’s nature was to submit to a man. He “justified” this with Genesis 3:16, where God punishes the woman with labor pains and says, “your turning around shall be towards your man, and he shall lord it over you.” He held that since it does not say “they shall lord over one another,” God is commanding that the man be lord over his wife.^[28] To Augustine, it was “by her own fault she deserved this,” and so it would distort nature to disobey this commandment.^[29]

Augustine believed the sacramental union entailed the indissolubility of marriage and the only acceptable reason for divorce was adultery because this was Jesus’ only exception.^[30] However, since husband and wife are sacramentally bound, they cannot remarry even after divorcing in an adulterous marriage.^[31] Aquinas adopted Augustine’s three goods of marriage—sacrament, indissolubility, and procreation—and gave them a “natural” basis from patriarchal assumptions in faulty Aristotelian science that was generally accepted at the time. This included the idea that the man was “active” in reproduction and the woman was “passive.”^[32] Aquinas also made procreation the primary purpose of marriage while placing women’s value in the production of children, stating that they were made helpers for men “in the work of procreation.”^[33]

Aquinas articulated marriage as a sacrament that mirrored the union between Christ and his Church, reinforcing a hierarchy: the man is the head of the woman just as Christ is the head of the Church.^[34] Aquinas’s acceptance of marriage as a sacrament also entailed its indissolubility: "Indissolubility belongs to marriage in so far as the latter is a sign of the

perpetual union of Christ and his Church."^[35] As he did with the inferiority of women, Aquinas gave this fact a natural basis, arguing that the indissolubility of marriage is grounded in the natural law.^[36]

Vatican II to Today

Augustine and Aquinas lived in a time when “marriage and sexuality itself had functions that were more institutional, familial, and social” according to Cahill.^[37] Since the eighteenth century, marriage has been a commitment based on love rather than a communal practice organized by families.^[38] Additionally, requiring every couple to reproduce is no longer necessary to maintain the functioning of society. Considering this context, the Church made a change in the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). It shifted from Augustine and Aquinas’s naturalistic view of marriage to declaring conjugal love and friendship as central to the marriage relationship.^[39] However, the Church still held that “marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained towards the begetting and educating of children” and justified this with God’s call to “increase and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).^[40] Furthermore, like Augustine and Aquinas, this was based on a patriarchal assumption: “The children, especially the younger among them, need the care of their mother at home. This domestic role of hers must be safely preserved, though the legitimate social progress of women should not be underrated on that account.”^[41] The Council also upheld the idea of marriage as a sacrament and the indissolubility of marriage.^[42] Overall, despite the Church’s shift to conjugal love as foundational to marriage in Vatican II, it maintained traditional teachings about the gender roles in marriage, inherited from Augustine and Aquinas.

Today, the naturalistic teaching of Augustine and Aquinas still underlies the Church’s teachings on marriage. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines marriage in terms of a sacramental union reflecting the union of Christ and His Church.^[43] Additionally, the Church is referred to often with feminine pronouns and defined as a “Mother.”^[44] What follows is that a man is always in place of Christ in the union, whether as a husband or a priest—one reason for women’s exclusion from the priesthood.^[45] The sacramental bond entails the “indissolubility of marriage.”^[46] The Catechism also states that "divorce is a grave offense against the natural law, which comes directly from Aquinas’s view that the indissolubility of marriage is grounded in the natural law.^[47] It adds that separation is permitted by the Code of Canon Law.^[48] This law states that “if either spouse causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring,” a local Church authority can allow a spouse to stop cohabiting or a spouse may do this under their own discretion if there is danger in delay.^[49] Regardless of separation, however, husband and wife are always sacramentally bound.^[50] The Catechism also holds that marriage is “ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation of offspring.”^[51] The procreation component is again substantiated by God’s call in Genesis to “increase and multiply.”^[52] Overall, the Church maintains Augustine and Aquinas’s three goods of marriage: sacrament, indissolubility, and procreation.

Contesting Voices

Catholic Sexual and Marital Teachings: A Critical Analysis

Augustine and Aquinas theologized in a time when women were seen as naturally inferior and marriage was a contractual relationship, yet the Church still accepts their teachings on marriage. Now Aristotle’s science about the inferiority of women has been disproven and sociological research has shown that gender norms are socially constructed, not “naturally” ordained.^[53] Additionally, marriage is now a relationship based on love and friendship.^[54] Therefore, these traditional teachings no longer fit today’s context, yet are maintained by the Church and still diminish Catholic women’s power, thus contributing to domestic violence.

The theology of marriage as a sacrament silences women’s voices in the Church, which in turn perpetuates patriarchy. The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith in 1977 proclaimed that since Christ was a man, only another man can “act in the place of Christ.”^[55] Consequently, men are always “head,” either in place of Christ as priests, united with the Church, or as husbands in the marital sacrament that reflects Christ’s bond with the Church. Although the Congregation did not believe this entailed the natural inferiority of women, the teaching has harmful implications for them, including the prohibition of women from the priesthood. Consequently, unmarried men, like Augustine, Aquinas, and the Vatican II Council members, have formulated Catholic marital teachings without the voices of married Catholics and all Catholic women. This perpetuates an element of patriarchy, that is, male-domination, as Johnson argues, “whatever groups have the most access to and control over resources and institutions through which reality is shaped—from education to the media to religious dogma to political ideology—will see their views and interests reflected in the results.”^[56]

Theologian Susan Gray argues that the Church’s male-dominated structure has led to a more general group bias. The Church has uncritically accepted Augustine and Aquinas’ teachings on marriage because the priests who lead it oftentimes come from conservative, Catholic backgrounds and move directly to entirely male seminaries. Thus, they lack in genuine interaction with women on the margins.^[57] Without knowing the single mother struggling to feed her children, the young woman with an unwanted pregnancy, or the battered woman, priests are unaware of the effects of Catholic marital teachings on women.^[58] Consequently, priests have accepted outdated teachings that do not reflect the modern woman.^[59] This section will show the effects of these teachings on modern women, specifically how they perpetuate unequal family structures, which is linked to domestic violence.^[60]

Marriage as a sacrament diminishes women’s agency because it entails the inferiority of women and the indissolubility of marriage.^[61] Placing men as the “head” and women as the “body” diminishes women’s power in marriage. One example of this is abusers’ common use of Ephesians 5 to justify domination in the form of violence.^[62] The indissolubility of marriage stemming from the sacramental bond also limits women’s power. Nancy Nason-Clark’s sociological study reveals that this teaching oftentimes causes women to stay in abusive relationships because it can be used by husbands as a controlling mechanism to keep them from leaving.^[63] Not only does this teaching keep women in abusive relationships, but it is also a root cause of domestic violence because it gives women less power in the relationship: a woman that is devoted to the indissolubility of marriage has a limited right to exit, while the man has more power in the relationship because he can take advantage of her limited right to leave. Thus, this contributes to the dominant-subordinate relationship—a root cause of domestic violence.^[64]

In a time when marriage served communal and social purposes, Augustine and Aquinas’s procreation requirement of marriage may have been necessary; however, today it must be rethought because it can put women at risk. Raising children places a heavier burden on women because they are often expected to stay at home with children if either spouse must do so, confirmed by the fact that the current childcare shortage has taken women out of the workforce.^[65] This oftentimes causes a woman’s financial dependence on her husband—something that sociological research connects to a greater likelihood of domestic violence.^[66]

Although important, mere financial independence does not entirely free women from potential violence. As theologian Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza argues, “the fact that upper class, independent women stay in abusive marriages shows that we need to do more than just get women in the workplace.”^[67] She recognizes that the root of the issue is not only women’s dependency on men, but also the way religion has placed women’s value in marriage and motherhood.^[68] This is especially true in the Catholic Church due to its “persisting overwhelming nostalgia for ‘the family.’”^[69] Additionally, studies show that as women have moved into the public sphere, their Christian religious observance has decreased, illustrating a tension between Christian family values and women in the workplace.^[70] Thus, although Augustine and Aquinas’s belief that women’s purpose lies in procreation is no longer an overt assumption of the Church, the procreation requirement has covertly identified women’s value with marriage and motherhood.

Overall, Catholic women have unique challenges because Catholic marital teachings give them less power in marriage, specifically by making the man the “head” of the household, limiting women’s right to exit, and making openness to life a requirement in marriage. This perpetuates inequality between a husband and wife—a source of domestic violence.^[71] This study proposes a solution that requires rethinking—but not abandoning—Catholic marital teachings to adhere to family justice by granting women equal power in marriage. This is not possible, however, until the Church moves beyond its reactive approach and refocuses on family justice, a proactive solution. The first step towards justice involves rethinking the image of Jesus as a suffering servant on the cross and instead emphasizing his identity as an advocate for justice.

A Theological Barrier: The Suffering Servant

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has clearly stated that no woman is expected to stay in an abusive marriage and encourages these women to seek an annulment.^[72] However, studies on the experiences of battered, Christian women indicate that this is not always enough to free women from abusive marriages. Rebecca Ann Parker, a female minister who has counseled many abused women, writes in Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and the Search for What Saves Us, “almost every woman who’s come here for refuge has gone back to her violent husband or boyfriend. She thinks it’s her religious duty. I counsel her otherwise.”^[73] Additionally, Nason-Clark points out that it is rare for Christian clergy to tell women to “go back home and pray” about their abusive situation, yet most of these women return to the abuse.^[74] She argues that the underlying reason for this is “religious ideology that glorifies suffering and posits the woman as suffering servant.”^[75] The fact that women return to their abusive husbands despite religious authorities’ advice otherwise illustrates that, in order to free battered women, the Church cannot merely assert that women are not expected to stay in abusive marriages or allow annulments in this case. Rather, there is a deeper theological challenge that must be addressed.

Fiorenza points out that two barriers to Christian women leaving abusive marriages are a belief in redemption through suffering and love as forgiveness, which cause them to forgive their batterers and further endure the suffering.^[76] Rita Nakashima Brock and Parker linked these same barriers to Christianity’s teaching of the atonement, the idea that humanity was saved through Jesus’ death on the cross.^[77] By thinking the cross was “God’s plan” for Jesus, this theology overlooks the historical perpetrator of Jesus’ execution: “The Roman Empire—whose agenda was exploitation, backed up by terror, when needed.”^[78] Due to the theological interpretation of Jesus’ death as God’s loving plan, victims interpret their intimate partners’ violent actions as God’s will, causing them to stay in the abusive relationship to fulfill “God’s plan.”^[79] This leads Brock and Parker to conclude that traditional atonement theology “sanctions violence.”^[80]

Although Brock and Parker are not Catholic pastors, their observations are also a roadblock for Catholic women. The idea that the cross was “God’s plan” for Jesus is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.^[81] This theology disproportionately affects women because holy, Catholic women are encouraged to be “suffering servants.”^[82] This is obvious in a close examination of how the Catholic Church portrays women saints, specifically the way their suffering and purity are glorified.^[83] One may argue that dealing with this theological barrier is a reactive approach—an approach that is not enough to protect Catholic women in households—because it is a way to get women out of marriages where abuse is already present. However, it is also proactive, as it gives women more power to exit, helping equalize the power structures in the household that contribute to domestic violence. Furthermore, Brock and Parker point out that a personal redemption and forgiveness approach ignores “the larger social contexts that create cycles of human violence.”^[84] Therefore, overcoming this theological barrier can protect women in households proactively by changing the image of Jesus from a suffering servant to “a Galilean Jewish teacher” who “resisted Roman Exploitation and cultural domination by teaching and healing.”^[85]

A Liberating Theology: Jesus as an Advocate for Justice

A liberating theology for battered women can be found in Catholic Theologian Edward Schillabeechx’s work, Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord. He recognizes that too often “the symbol of the cross legitimizes social abuses.”^[86] In contrast, he argues “. . . that we are not redeemed thanks to the death of Jesus but despite it.”^[87] He offers an alternative image of Jesus, not as the suffering servant, but rather as the initiator and agent of the Kingdom of God, where there is no injustice or suffering due to exploitation or servitude.^[88] Similarly, Brock and Parker, who had both suffered from violence, write, “when I could see him in his historical context and culture, his struggle against the oppressive powers of his day and his search for justice brought him alive for me.”^[89] This emphasis on Jesus’ ministry is necessary to address the root cause of domestic violence by focusing on Jesus’ call for justice.

Towards a Just Love^[90]

A valuable resource for the Church to advocate for family justice is readily available in Catholic Social Teaching’s commitment to social justice. The United States Bishops argued, “Christian love of neighbor and justice cannot be separated. For love implies an absolute demand for justice, namely, a recognition of the dignity and rights of one’s neighbor.”^[91] Yet, as Calef recognizes, “Catholic social teaching fails to attend to, identify, and critique the various forms of gender injustice in societies around the world.”^[92] Unfortunately, although the Church is committed to justice, it has not sufficiently recognized the importance of family justice, which involves equalizing the power structure in married couples.

Family justice is necessary for the Church’s mission of broader social justice. Philosopher Susan Moller Okin, in Justice, Gender, and the Family, argued that “family justice must be central importance for social justice” because the family is where children learn fairness and commit themselves to just institutions.^[93] It is impossible for children to develop a sense of justice when their own home does not emulate equality, much less personal safety. Therefore, if the Church wants to address any injustice—whether it be violence to the environment, the poor, or racial and ethnic minorities—it must concern itself with gender injustices in the family.

The first step to overcoming patriarchal norms to promote family justice in Catholic families, and thus broader social justice, involves Johnson’s recommendation to recognize the problem of patriarchy first and foremost.^[94] This includes acknowledging the problems with Catholic marital teachings that this study has discovered, such as the fact that they were inherited from theologians who held overt patriarchal assumptions or how they contribute to unequal power structures between a husband and wife. Once the problem is recognized, the Church can promote justice in Catholic families, and thus advance the mission of Catholic Social Teaching.

Theologians who are concerned with justice for women have focused on the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and annulments. Theologian Colleen Mary Carpenter has pointed out that although the Church allows physical separation in grave danger, a woman in this case is still sacramentally bound to her abuser.^[95] She could seek an annulment, but doing so would involve Church officials deciding whether the marriage was invalid from the beginning.^[96] For these reasons, Carpenter rebuts the Church’s understanding of indissolubility and believes that annulments ought to be an issue of discernment, giving agency to the healing woman rather than Church officials.^[97] Although laudable, this discussion is not the focus of this study because it is merely reactive, that is, an approach that focuses on getting women out of abusive relationships rather than proactively preventing abusive marriages. The Church is likely to continue enforcing the indissolubility of marriage, and in this case, it must focus on proactively creating just marriages that do not need to be dissolved.

Carpenter’s discernment model can be employed during couples’ engagement—rather than in the annulment process—to proactively address domestic violence. Catholic couples must complete Catholic marriage preparation to be married in the Church. Accordingly, the Church can recommend discernment in these stages by providing resources to reflect on how the relationship will foster justice. It would also give time to discern one’s marital commitment, ultimately avoiding a woman rushing into a marriage that may not be healthy—a likely outcome from the Church placing women’s value in marriage and motherhood.^[98] Discernment during engagement would proactively foster healthy relationships, decreasing the number of unhealthy marriages that the Church must react to.

A model for just marriages that is worthy of reflection can be found in Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics by Margaret Farley, a Catholic religious sister who establishes minimal requirements of justice in intimate relationships. One of these requirements is mutuality, defined as “active receptivity and receptive activity.”^[99] Rethinking the marital sacrament with mutuality would involve an emphasis on mutual self-giving love rather than a hierarchical union between the “head” and “body.” The sacrament is still a union, entailing the indissolubility and sacrifice of oneself for the other. Nevertheless, mutuality requires a delicate balance that maintains equality and mutual self-gift: “one can give one’s self in a just and true love, but one ought not obliterate one’s self in the giving.”^[100]

Mutuality must also be emphasized in the procreation element of Catholic marriage. This study has shown that procreation and childcare oftentimes place a heavier burden on women.

Therefore, the Church must emphasize mutual responsibility in raising children, specifically by attacking the assumptions that place women’s value and self-confidence in the household. Farley argues that equality is “a necessary qualification for mutuality.”^[101] In this case, mutual responsibility for children cannot be achieved without gender equality in private and public spheres. Equality is possible with the recognition that after childbirth, men are just as qualified as women to raise children.^[102] Thus, the Church must emphasize that men take responsibility for household chores and give or promote incentives for women to work outside the home, such as adequate childcare. The most important consequence of this is children seeing their parents in a just relationship, working together in terms of equality and mutuality, which develops a sense of justice in future generations.

It could be argued that rethinking Catholic marital teachings in terms of mutuality and equality strays too far from traditional Catholic teachings that maintain constancy in the everchanging world. The first response to this argument is the fact that the Church has unquestionably accepted these teachings even though they were created by Augustine and Aquinas, two men who held patriarchal assumptions. As Gray argues, this tradition “certainly does not reflect the interaction that Jesus had with women,” thereby violating his mission for a more just world.^[103] The Church must at least consider the implications of these traditional teachings in the contemporary world, where sociologists have proved that patriarchy has been socially constructed and contributes to domestic violence. Additionally, historical evidence allows Catholics to consider Jesus’ teachings in his historical time. For example, his proclamation that adultery was the only allowance for divorce was likely a response to men abusing divorce in his time.^[104] Most importantly, this study does not suggest abandoning Catholic marital teachings, but rather transforming them in light of new contexts and knowledge, specifically by rethinking the sacrament and procreation to foster justice in marriage.

Furthermore, this enforces the indissolubility of marriage by proactively creating safe and loving marriages instead of reacting to unhealthy marriages. This not only protects women, but also aligns with Catholic Social Teaching’s pursuit of social justice by advancing family justice.

Conclusion

The Catholic Church is an indirect source of domestic violence because its marital teachings perpetuate patriarchy. Inequality in the household created by patriarchy can only be solved with family justice, which involves eradicating the dominate-subordinate relationship between husband and wife. Once the Church recognizes the root cause of domestic violence, it can promote family justice by rethinking and articulating Catholic marital teachings with mutuality and equality. This proactive solution is inspired by Jesus’s identity as an advocate for justice.

Further research is needed to continue the mission for justice in Catholic families. There are no sociological studies on domestic violence specifically in Catholic families. These studies could not only offer statistics of its prevalence, but also address whether Catholic women are likely to leave the Church after divorce or seek an annulment. There are also opportunities to study women’s power in the Church, specifically the effect of women’s exclusion in the priesthood on their agency and self-confidence. Jesus as the “suffering servant” could also have implications on women’s power if they relate to Jesus’ suffering more than men. Thus, studies could evaluate the portrayal of women saints and other ways that Catholic women are glorified as suffering servants. New Testament research on Jesus’ ministry, specifically his search for justice and inclusion of women, is also needed to remedy the negative effects of atonement theology on women. Any further research on this topic would be in the service of uprooting the “patriarchal tree” in search of family justice, thereby pursuing a more just society and furthering Jesus’ mission for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

Acknowledgments

Gabrielle Tremblay graduated from Creighton University in 2023 with majors in Philosophy and History. She is now pursuing her J.D. at the University of St. Thomas. The author extends her gratitude to her research mentor, Dr. Susan Calef, whose expertise and encouragement made this project possible. The author also thanks her family, notably her grandmother Susan Baron, her mother Diane Tremblay, and her fiance JJ Mark, for their continuing support and inspiration.