Go ahead, Mr. Anonymous.  Make my day.  

That wasn't me. But I don't think he was advocating abuse. Just that you shouldn't really be posting here on this forum. You are stubborn.

You want to make it seem venial to stop men from doing their duty.

There is no duty of husbands to use corporal punishment.  None of the Catholic sources said there was a duty.  There was limited permission.  It is allowed under certain circuмstances.  Permission is not obligation.  

Some examples to illustrate this:
We are allowed to go to Mass every day, but we are not obliged to go to Mass every day.
We are allowed to eat meat (unless it is a day of abstinence), but we are not obliged to eat meat.
The residents of my city are allowed to get a library card, but they are not obliged to get a library card.

How many examples do you need to see before you can grasp this concept?  The existence of permission to use corporal punishment in no way means or implies that it is an obligation.  There is no duty to do it.  

You keep going on and on about this supposed duty, but it does not exist.  Your false statements about a duty to hit women will not become true no matter how many times you repeat them.

I object to these statements because they are false, not because I am unwilling to endure suffering.  I am in my 60s.  Do you think that I got to this age with no sufferings?  If nothing else, I have been through childbirth 7 times.

Someone has said that I am being stubborn.  If you stop stubbornly making your false claims, I will stop stubbornly pointing out that they are false.

Do you want this wife:



Or this one:

If a husband is excessive in his discipline, it is called cruelty. Cruelty may or may not be mortal. A person can be cruel to anyone, wife or not. Various factors go into deciding whether it is mortal or not.


There is no particular reason why it should always be a mortal sin for a wife, and not for other people or animals.

Cruelty towards a wife is an especially bad form of cruelty for many reasons.

It is an abuse of the husband's authority. It is a violation of his duty to love her.  It is a contradiction of his duty to protect her. It is a failure in his duty to honour her. In most cases, he is significantly stronger than she, so it is bullying. Because he is her spiritual head, his cruelty also harms her spiritually possibly to the point of endangering her soul.  Cruelty to a wife is never merely cruelty but brings with it a host of other serious sins.  This is why it is virtually always grave matter and likely to be a mortal sin.

But the anonymous proponent's (henceforth AP) attempt to undermine the teaching that corporal punishment of a wife is only permitted on the condition that it is moderate is part of a pattern.  At every point he distorts, contradicts, or undermines the Church teaching. 

St. Alphonus Ligouri (SAL):  It is a sin to maltreat a wife by "beating her, slapping her face, or calling her insulting names."
AP: It is only a venial sin. Don't worry about it. If a wife suffers, that's just life.

SAL: A wife can be chastised by her husband (i.e. permission)
AP: A husband has a duty to use corporal punishment on his wife (i.e. obligation)

SAL: if there is just cause, particularly adultery and 
AP: whenever in his opinion she commits a serious sin

SAL: if she is verbally correctly several times but it does not work and
AP: let's pretend this part isn't there

SAL: if done in moderation.
AP:  he should beat her until she bleeds

SAL: It is not lawful to use corporal punishment for trifling defects
AP: There is no objective basis for determining what is trifling and serious; it is up to the opinion of the husband.  In effect, he may beat her whenever he wants.

AP: Don't worry about meeting SAL's conditions properly. It is only a venial sin if you make a mistake.  The important thing is that you must beat her.  Make sure you do it, no matter what. Even if it is illegal. Even if it will destroy your life and lead to your children being raised by a single mother. 

Any intellectually honest person can see that AP's position is significantly different from the Catholic teaching of St. Alphonsus. The only support for AP comes from men who like the idea of beating women so much that will accept any excuse to justify it.  We can only speculate about what causes them to be like this.  For that matter, we can only speculate how many of them there actually are, since none of them dares to use his name. I would like to think that there are only one or two of them taking this intellectually and morally deranged position.

While I do not expect AP to acknowledge that his ideas are not Catholic teaching, it is not a good use of my time to respond to every post.  I am going to switch to occasional summaries of his false and misleading statements.

There is no reasoning with a mentally  sick person.

They are moslem in teaching, not Catholic.

Cruelty towards a wife is an especially bad form of cruelty for many reasons.

It is an abuse of the husband's authority. It is a violation of his duty to love her.  It is a contradiction of his duty to protect her. It is a failure in his duty to honour her. In most cases, he is significantly stronger than she, so it is bullying. Because he is her spiritual head, his cruelty also harms her spiritually possibly to the point of endangering her soul.  Cruelty to a wife is never merely cruelty but brings with it a host of other serious sins.  This is why it is virtually always grave matter and likely to be a mortal sin.

But the anonymous proponent's (henceforth AP) attempt to undermine the teaching that corporal punishment of a wife is only permitted on the condition that it is moderate is part of a pattern.  At every point he distorts, contradicts, or undermines the Church teaching.

St. Alphonus Ligouri (SAL):  It is a sin to maltreat a wife by "beating her, slapping her face, or calling her insulting names."
AP: It is only a venial sin. Don't worry about it. If a wife suffers, that's just life.

SAL: A wife can be chastised by her husband (i.e. permission)
AP: A husband has a duty to use corporal punishment on his wife (i.e. obligation)

SAL: if there is just cause, particularly adultery and
AP: whenever in his opinion she commits a serious sin

SAL: if she is verbally correctly several times but it does not work and
AP: let's pretend this part isn't there

SAL: if done in moderation.
AP:  he should beat her until she bleeds

SAL: It is not lawful to use corporal punishment for trifling defects
AP: There is no objective basis for determining what is trifling and serious; it is up to the opinion of the husband.  In effect, he may beat her whenever he wants.

AP: Don't worry about meeting SAL's conditions properly. It is only a venial sin if you make a mistake.  The important thing is that you must beat her.  Make sure you do it, no matter what. Even if it is illegal. Even if it will destroy your life and lead to your children being raised by a single mother.

Any intellectually honest person can see that AP's position is significantly different from the Catholic teaching of St. Alphonsus. The only support for AP comes from men who like the idea of beating women so much that will accept any excuse to justify it.  We can only speculate about what causes them to be like this.  For that matter, we can only speculate how many of them there actually are, since none of them dares to use his name. I would like to think that there are only one or two of them taking this intellectually and morally deranged position.

While I do not expect AP to acknowledge that his ideas are not Catholic teaching, it is not a good use of my time to respond to every post.  I am going to switch to occasional summaries of his false and misleading statements.

Jayne you are making up those cruelty comments! You have no basis  in theology for them. They are purely your opinion. A reminder that your husband should not be even letting you post here. But nonetheless, lets carry on....
Simply because you have organized the comments well does not mean that you are right. All my points stand. People can read the quotes themselves. They can ask their priests who can get the moral theology books which say it is for any mortal sin.
This is a duty of a husband. Your husband does not do it to you. I feel resentment in your whole tone. Which is why you lash out and accuse me of engaging in sɛҳuąƖ fantasies? Catholic moral teaching = sɛҳuąƖ fantasies!??
The husband is the head. He is made man and men are made to judge. He judges when she sins mortally. If a woman doesn't like that, don't get married! Corporal discipline is only part of his duties, yet you imply that I think it should be used all the time. Now who is dishonest!
The quotes you give are for when it is done in cruelty, not when it is legit punishment. Round and round in circles we go...

I won't deny that my original argument could've used some clarification (which I provided afterward), but my accusation of your poorly-worded argument still stands. If you need reasoning for why it still stands, I suggest you refer back to my original response to your poorly-worded argument and the clarification of my original response (and actually pay attention, since you have a track record of not paying attention to what even you yourself have said).
I don't have a problem with a husband's authority (although it's funny you say the husband is the ultimate authority in marriage because last I checked, God is the ultimate authority in all things). I have a problem with the husbands here (or even unmarried people) who insist that spousal abuse is good and necessary.
And if you think spousal abuse is good and necessary, then I suggest you take that up with almighty God.

 I think all your arguments need clarification. They are completely incoherent. And liberal.

A husband has duty of discipline over his whole family. Which includes his wife. We are not obliged to go to Mass every day because their are other obligations which are more important that sanctify our souls. However a husband fails in his duty to not correct his wife when she sins mortally. Sometimes that requires corporal punishment.

I agree with everything but the last sentence.  Yes, the husband has authority over the wife and he should correct her when she sins.  

But, in our society, that never requires corporal punishment. There is an obligation to use means of correction that are likely to be effective.  And corporal punishment cannot be effective under these conditions.  As I explained earlier, the sort of wife who would accept it does not need it.  The wife who will not accept it, will turn him in to the police.  Perhaps corporal punishment sometimes made sense in another time and place, but it never does here and now.

Jayne you are making up those cruelty comments! You have no basis  in theology for them. They are purely your opinion. A reminder that your husband should not be even letting you post here. But nonetheless, lets carry on....

Simply because you have organized the comments well does not mean that you are right. All my points stand. People can read the quotes themselves. They can ask their priests who can get the moral theology books which say it is for any mortal sin.

You can ask a priest if what I said about cruelty was correct. Also, my husband read that post and approved it. He, like everyone else, can read the quotes from Catholic teaching and see how different they are from your opinions.  

This is a duty of a husband. Your husband does not do it to you. I feel resentment in your whole tone. Which is why you lash out and accuse me of engaging in sɛҳuąƖ fantasies? Catholic moral teaching = sɛҳuąƖ fantasies!?? 
The husband is the head. He is made man and men are made to judge. He judges when she sins mortally. If a woman doesn't like that, don't get married! Corporal discipline is only part of his duties, yet you imply that I think it should be used all the time.

I resent people making false statements about Church teaching, especially ones that portray the Church in a negative light.  When you claim your opinions are Catholic teaching, it is not simply false, but it is insulting to the Church.
Your ideas do not come from Catholic moral teaching.  We have looked at several passages from Doctors of the Church and there was nothing about a duty to use corporal punishment in any of them.  There was, at most, conditional permission to do it which is something quite different from a duty or obligation.

Since your ideas do not come from Catholic teaching they must come from somewhere else.  sɛҳuąƖ fantasies is one possibility. I do not want to put a lot of energy into speculating about why you are so wrong.  The important point is that Church teaching is not what you say it is.

The husband is the head.  I believe that strongly.  A few years ago, we had a scare about my husband's health and I had some time thinking about what it would be like without him.  There are many things that I would miss terribly, but the one that I would miss the most is his judgment.  My husband is a very good and wise man and I rely on his leadership. I constantly turn to him for advice. I respect him and admire him.  I obey him easily because it is obvious that he deserves to be obeyed.  

I wish you could learn about being a husband from my husband because that would straighten out all the messed up ideas you have.  Seeing him would help you to understand what the Church really teaches about the duties of husbands.