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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Subsidiarity was not "introduced". It has always existed as a principle of Catholic action.
This is modernist talk.
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.
Topic: Disciplining wife (Read 40643 times)