How to reconcile these? Either they're responsible for their actions or they aren't. If they're responsible for their actions, then why does it matter that they have a disease? Or, if their disease means they have no control over their actions, then how is that NOT an excuse for their actions?
Here's my $0.02.
It's a disease such that their brains are wired differently than a non-addict or non-alcoholic. I, for example, can enjoy a glass or two of really good scotch, and then not touch alcohol for months afterwards. The alcoholic's response to that scotch, on the other hand, is extreme. Two glasses isn't enough. A thousand glasses isn't enough. Why is that bit flipped in their brain? I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, it is what it is.
That being said, it's up to the alcoholic/addict to manage the disease. If I, for example, have high cholesterol or high blood pressure, it's up to me to take medication to manage it if I want to be healthy. It's up to the alcoholic/addict to manage their illness. That may mean going to meetings 3 times a day if necessary. It may mean detaching from previous relationships with people who are associated with past destructive behaviors. It may mean therapy once a week. But what it
always means is not drinking and/or not using.
My masseuse's husband recently completed treatment for alcoholism and tried the whole "it's a disease and I can't control it" act on her. I have a one word response for that: bullsh!t. When they say something like that, what they're really trying to do is give themselves permission to indulge their worst impulses without ever having to take responsibility for their choices and the consequences of those choices.
One more thing: physical violence is simply unacceptable.
Period. No one is ever obligated to put up with that.