CathInfo.com

Given that the coward remains anonymous, it's always possible that this is nothing but a troll deliberately intent upon bringing disrepute to Traditional Catholicism.  We should probably ignore him until he has the courage to actually come forward.

Unlike the argument itself, this is a question for which the poster's motivations are relevant.

If he is an infiltrator with the intention of damaging the reputation of Catholic teaching and traditional Catholics, then it seems good that I continue to oppose him.  I should demonstrate that his ideas are clearly different from Catholic teaching and the vast majority of traditional Catholics, for that reason, reject what he is saying.

On the other hand, there is also a possibility that he is a loser incel who is so desperate for female attention that he writes things that he knows are outrageously wrong in order to provoke reactions from women online. If this is the case, it would be better to ignore him.

Either of these motives fits what he has been writing, so I am not sure which one to act on.  When I showed some of his posts to my husband, his gut reaction was that it was a forum infiltrator, so I am more inclined to act on that possibility.  It does, however, seem likely that most people are sick of this thread and wish that it would end.  I can certainly appreciate that perspective.  

If your misunderstanding of subsidiarity were correct then a husband would be permitted to kill his wife if she committed a capital crime.  However, St. Thomas clearly says that this is not so in this discussion of adultery, something which could be punished by the death penalty in his time:  

Therefore in no case is it lawful for a husband to kill his wife on his own authority.... The law has committed the infliction of this punishment not to private individuals, but to public persons, who are deputed to this by their office. Now the husband is not his wife's judge: wherefore he may not kill her, but may accuse her in the judge's presence.

He further says:

There are two kinds of community: the household, such as a family; and the civil community, such as a city or kingdom. Accordingly, he who presides over the latter kind of community, a king for instance, can punish an individual both by correcting and by exterminating him, for the betterment of the community with whose care he is charged. But he who presides over a community of the first kind, can inflict only corrective punishment, which does not extend beyond the limits of amendment, and these are exceeded by the punishment of death. Wherefore the husband who exercises this kind of control over his wife may not kill her, but he may accuse or chastise her in some other way.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5060.htm

Yet again he specifies that a husband is limited to  "corrective punishment, which does not extend beyond the limits of amendment".  He does not have any authority to inflict any other kind of punishment.  He is not his wife's judge and has neither the duty nor authority to impose penal compensation to satisfy justice.  This distinction is clear in the Summa and you cannot claim to be doing traditional Catholic moral theology if you ignore its definitions and distinctions.  You commit the fallacy of equivocation by treating all punishment as if it were the same.

The principle of subsidiarity is not an absolute statement that all actions must be carried out at the lowest level of social organization, as you seem to think.  Rather, they should be taken at the lowest level that is competent and authorized to perform the action.  

The principle of subsidiarity was first introduced into Catholic teaching by Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891 and further developed forty years later by Pope Pius XI in Quadragessimo Anno.  These encyclicals are about political/economic issues and the principle is used to critique the errors of individualism and collectivism.  There has never been any Catholic teaching that even comes close to suggesting that this principle means that a husband has any authority to punish his wife for crimes against the state or sins against God in order to satisfy justice, protect the common good, or any reason other than correction.  Obviously, any authentic Catholic teaching is not going to contradict the Summa that a husband's authority is limited to correction ordered toward repentance and amendment.  

  

You are really not very intelligent, despite your lengthy posts.
Corrective punishments are those punishments which are not the death penalty. The theft of stealing, which I gave in my example is not something that would ever merit death. And thus comes under the remit of the husband. If the sin is not public. Which would be rate.

Unlike the argument itself, this is a question for which the poster's motivations are relevant.

If he is an infiltrator with the intention of damaging the reputation of Catholic teaching and traditional Catholics, then it seems good that I continue to oppose him.  I should demonstrate that his ideas are clearly different from Catholic teaching and the vast majority of traditional Catholics, for that reason, reject what he is saying.

On the other hand, there is also a possibility that he is a loser incel who is so desperate for female attention that he writes things that he knows are outrageously wrong in order to provoke reactions from women online. If this is the case, it would be better to ignore him.

Either of these motives fits what he has been writing, so I am not sure which one to act on.  When I showed some of his posts to my husband, his gut reaction was that it was a forum infiltrator, so I am more inclined to act on that possibility.  It does, however, seem likely that most people are sick of this thread and wish that it would end.  I can certainly appreciate that perspective.  

First,you tried to minimize the importance of this teaching saying there was no obligation. Then you were shown that there was, and then try to lie, by basically contradicting yourself, by saying your opponents were saying there was an absolute obligation.  Nobody ever said that.
You are constantly engaging in ad hominems, and when challenged, try to deny it.
Add to this that you are former jew.

Now who is more likely to be an infiltrator?