CathInfo.com

It said right in the passages I quoted what "corrective punishment" means.  It is a punishment with the end of repentance and amendment.  This excludes not only the death penalty, but also excludes corporal punishment when less severe means of correction achieve its end or when corporal punishment will not achieve its end.

There is no support for the definition you are claiming.  It looks like something you are making up.

I have been making clear statements based on distinctions long-accepted accepted in Catholic thought.  You are dishonestly ignoring these distinctions and pretending that I am contradicting myself.  

I have made very few comments that could been considered ad hominems.  You have incorrectly claimed that my stating that your position is false is an ad hominem. Of course, I denied that.  (An example of an actual ad hominem is your comment: "You are really not very intelligent, despite your lengthy posts.")

I have been posting under my forum user name, making my long history as a member here available to anyone who cares to examine it.  This includes the fact that I am a convert from Judaism.  Why would an infiltrator reveal something that would automatically arouse suspicion?  How would an infiltrator have a history of thousands of posts that bear no resemblance to the sorts of things that infiltrators write?   You, hiding behind anonymity, making false and outrageous claims about Catholic teaching, are far more likely to be an infiltrator than I am.

This is yet another unsupported assertion from you.  Show where the principle of subsidiarity was mentioned in Catholic teaching before the encyclicals I named.

It is clear to anyone honestly reading this thread that I am writing things that are consistent with Catholic teaching and that you are taking a position that is not.

I just think this is a case of feeding a troll.  If we stop feeding him, he'll get bored and go away.  If an actual, regular, non-anonymous member were involved in this discussion, I might be more inclined to participate.

And you have the audacity to attack JayneK for using ad hominems (and in fact she hadn't when you accused her of it).

No, I've gone silent because I'm not interested in wasting my time on a troll coward like yourself.  This is no tactic, merely an expression of my contempt for you and my complete lack of interest in wasting my time arguing with you about this.  JayneK makes multi-paragraph arguments, and you respond with half-sentence hack jobs where you simply allege that the Catholic sources are on your side.  Now THAT is a common "tactic," to pretend that your interpretation of various sources is the equivalent of the sources themselves.

I find JayneK's argument convincing, and your total lack of one pathetic and obnoxious.  That's another reason I wouldn't waste 5 minutes of your time on you.  I see poor Jayne writing for paragraphs to make a point and you blithely dismissing it with a half sentence.  I'm not going to be lured into such a thing with you.

You are just a plain run-of-the-mill misogynist who tries to pretend that Catholic theology favors misogyny.  Most misogynists come from a place of insecurity in their own masculinity, generally due to struggles with purity and a desire to exert themselves against women in general in lieu of being able to overcome their own weakness.

I'm guessing that you're Croix.  Croix, for as much of a man's man as he claimed to be, was one of the most childish and effeminate excuses for a man who's ever posted here on CI.