There's been some speculation on here if you're even married to a woman.
But I've been meaning to ask, has it been determined if you're even  male or female?
Or have you decided yet?

I am blessed to have married a woman so holy that I cannot remember a time when I would have had to do anything close to striking her, yet alone raising my voice. The trick is to marry the right person. If you marry a holy-God fearing woman, I don't see why this would be a problem.

In “De quarto praecepto decalogi,” he says that ordinarily, a husband sins mortally against the fourth commandment by saying insulting things or seriously striking his wife in any way (but not if done playfully or lightly as part of a joke, as is obvious). In proportion to a grave cause, he may sometimes rebuke her with harsh words. But recourse to corporal punishment is almost always forbidden to him, or more properly, requires a higher bar than corporally chastising a child or servant, since a wife is neither one of those, but his “companion.” The rare exception is in the case of a direly grave cause, in which case it is sometimes licit to rebuke her with “moderate blows.” But even this must be in proportion to her status: it is almost never acceptable if she is a woman of noble birth. (This is similar to where he says a noble/aristocratic wife is under no obligation to obey a husband who demands that she clean or cook, and that if she does fulfill these wishes, she can compensate herself by secretly taking/spending his money).

In “De divortio,” he explains what the direly grave cause which makes moderate corporal punishment licit is: adultery. This is in accordance with St. Thomas and most other theologians. That is, rather than have to divorce an adulterous wife, a man can chastise her with words or even moderate blows if that will adequately correct her.



So in “De quarto praecepto decalogi,” he says that ordinarily, a husband sins mortally against the fourth commandment by saying insulting things or seriously striking his wife in any way (but not if done playfully or lightly as part of a joke, as is obvious). In proportion to a grave cause, he may sometimes rebuke her with harsh words. But recourse to corporal punishment is almost always forbidden to him, or more properly, requires a higher bar than corporally chastising a child or servant, since a wife is neither one of those, but his “companion.” The rare exception is in the case of a direly grave cause, in which case it is sometimes licit to rebuke her with “moderate blows.” But even this must be in proportion to her status: it is almost never acceptable if she is a woman of noble birth. (This is similar to where he says a noble/aristocratic wife is under no obligation to obey a husband who demands that she clean or cook, and that if she does fulfill these wishes, she can compensate herself by secretly taking/spending his money).

In “De divortio,” he explains what the direly grave cause which makes moderate corporal punishment licit is: adultery. This is in accordance with St. Thomas and most other theologians. That is, rather than have to divorce an adulterous wife, a man can chastise her with words or even moderate blows if that will adequately correct her.

Finally, we're moving the discussion forward a bit here.
First, can you provide the exact references please?
I presume you took the time to read St. Alphonsus also.

In any case, the moral theology books do not specify adultery. Any serious sin is necessary. Limiting it to adultery seems rather arbitrary. May women give grave scandal by persistently contradicting their husbands in front of the children and even in front of other families. Dominating the marriage (usurping his authority - a mortal sin) is a frequent one too.

As traditional Catholic who need to be counter cultural, we need to push against this all the more. Husbands who want their families to be like this, have a right to mould them in this way.

Corporal punishment is not some kind of evil we should try to avoid.

It is meritorious.