What should the proper punishment be for a disobedient wife? I'm not talking about one that has committed adultery, but rather one that flouts her husband's authority in other matters. Should the husband beat her? Should the husband refuse to permit her to leave the family home? In a Catholic society, should the courts punish her?
I am surprised to find this thread in a "Catholic" forum. This bs should not have any place here.
Bend her over your knee and give her a good and proper spanking.
Wives are just little girls in big girl bodies. :wink:
Quote from: GuestI am surprised to find this thread in a "Catholic" forum. This bs should not have any place here.
How long have you been trad? I for one am not surprised.
Quote from: GuestQuote from: GuestI am surprised to find this thread in a "Catholic" forum. This bs should not have any place here.
How long have you been trad? I for one am not surprised.
A couple of years only.... but still, beating one's wife as a punishment for disobedience, really? That's just not Catholic.
Quote from: GuestQuote from: GuestQuote from: GuestI am surprised to find this thread in a "Catholic" forum. This bs should not have any place here.
How long have you been trad? I for one am not surprised.
A couple of years only.... but still, beating one's wife as a punishment for disobedience, really? That's just not Catholic.
This isn't about "beating," it's about the husband's right to assert order and justice in the house including, but not limited to, corporal administration of that justice.
What's not Catholic is to assert that women have an equal role in the household to their husbands, and exempting them from any corporal punishment is asserting just that. That's pure modernism / feminism.
I can only assume you never knew many Catholic old timers from the Old World. The husband was unquestionably the boss in those marriages, and he was unafraid to use his God-given size and strength to assert that fact if need be.
Wives are just little girls in big girl bodies. :wink:
What should the proper punishment be for a disobedient wife?
How much 'flouting' and at what frequency and regarding what subjects would give a husband just cause to physically correct his wife?
Bend her over your knee and give her a good and proper spanking.
Wives are just little girls in big girl bodies. :wink:
What a sick and despicable thread. Why does Matthew allow this?
Quote from: GuestHow much 'flouting' and at what frequency and regarding what subjects would give a husband just cause to physically correct his wife?
I got spanked for getting a driving ticket. I was not driving safely and it cost our household the money for the fine. I knew I deserved it.
Quote from: GuestWhat should the proper punishment be for a disobedient wife?
Make her listen to your day!
Quote from: GuestQuote from: GuestHow much 'flouting' and at what frequency and regarding what subjects would give a husband just cause to physically correct his wife?
I got spanked for getting a driving ticket. I was not driving safely and it cost our household the money for the fine. I knew I deserved it.
That is absolutely creepy. I could see my husband telling me that I couldn't spend x amount of money until I made up the speeding ticket fee, but no way would he spank me and actually mean it as a punishment.
Does that mean you get to spank him when he comes home with a speeding ticket or???
Quote from: AleahQuote from: GuestQuote from: GuestHow much 'flouting' and at what frequency and regarding what subjects would give a husband just cause to physically correct his wife?
I got spanked for getting a driving ticket. I was not driving safely and it cost our household the money for the fine. I knew I deserved it.
That is absolutely creepy. I could see my husband telling me that I couldn't spend x amount of money until I made up the speeding ticket fee, but no way would he spank me and actually mean it as a punishment.
Does that mean you get to spank him when he comes home with a speeding ticket or???
Would you suggest a husband spanking his children for disobedience is "creepy"? If not, why do you so suggest for a wife? Both are under his authority, and if he feels corporal punishment is necessary for punishment and correction, so be it. Years ago, we wouldn't have thought twice about a criminal being flogged for illegal behavior. Clearly corporal punishment for adults isn't unheard of.
And no, a wife cannot spank a husband. The husband is the head of the household, and is not subject to correction from the wife.
The wife can be corrected for her sin of fornication not only by this punishment but also by words and blows [verbere (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=verbere&la=la#lexicon)]; wherefore if she be ready to be corrected otherwise, her husband is not bound to have recourse to the aforesaid punishment in order to correct her.
people are advocating for domestic abuse on a Catholic forum. despicable.Textual histrionics... despicable.
Because it's merely controversial, and apparently people want to discuss it.
Get off this forum right now!The Church has allowed many practices that are of human tradition to continue, even if they are not in line with Christ's teachings. This human tradition that men are the head of the household and have the power of life or death over that household (spouse, children, servants and slaves) has been civil law for centuries, but these civil laws have been abused with many children and wives being killed, even today, especially in Muslim countries.
This has been the practice of the Church for 2000 years. Thats why it is in the moral theology books of the Church. All explained.
Go ask your priest. If you go to an SSPX Mass that might be a problem.
The Church has allowed many practices that are of human tradition to continue, even if they are not in line with Christ's teachings. This human tradition that men are the head of the household and have the power of life or death over that household (spouse, children, servants and slaves) has been civil law for centuries, but these civil laws have been abused with many children and wives being killed, even today, especially in Muslim countries.Again, I forgot to click that pesky box.
This is very troublesome. It appears as if some men on this forum are adapting Islamic ideas, instead of putting on Christ, controlling their passions, and praying unceasingly. These men want to marry young women who are rated 10 out of 10, and be able to beat any relative who disagrees with them. They appear to be very narcissistic -- me, me, and more me.
If husbands and wives were to pray together and pray unceasingly as St. Paul urges, many of these urges of men to spank or use violence in a rage would not take place. Violence and violent tempers are not of Christ. Instead a firm look and a simple sentence, "Stop, we need to pray" would be adequate.
Yes, sometimes corporal punishment may be necessary. Did not Christ chase the money-changers from the Temple using whips? But the money changers were not family, and family ties and filial love can be broken by the violence of spankings or worse, severe beatings.
Temperance, patience, meekness, humility, and love are manly virtues that need to be inculcated in the family. The husband should lead by example, not by his fists.
Again, I forgot to click that pesky box.Lord have mercy. I need to get some tea to stay awake and see that box.
Well, my experience is that if a husband loves his wife as she deserves to be loved, disobedience is never a problem long term. [Yeah, there might be little spats here and there, but we're just frail human beings.] Most women will readily obey a man who treats her well and shows her the love and the affection that she deserves. She will strive to please her husband, because he in turn always seeks to please her. She sees that if the husband exercises authority, he does so out of love and for their own good rather than in a self-serving way or to boost his ego on some kind of power trip. Consequently, if she sees this, she has no problem obeying when she sees that everything is calculated for her good and for the good of her children.Exactly, in Ephesians, St. Paul instructs a husband to love his wife as Christ loves the Church.
Sounds like a skirt needs a bit of a "tuneup".
:jester:
DZ PLEASE
What should the proper punishment be for a disobedient wife? I'm not talking about one that has committed adultery, but rather one that flouts her husband's authority in other matters.You never state what exactly the "disobedience" is? If you want advice, be precise and give examples.
Well, my experience is that if a husband loves his wife as she deserves to be loved, disobedience is never a problem long term. [Yeah, there might be little spats here and there, but we're just frail human beings.] Most women will readily obey a man who treats her well and shows her the love and the affection that she deserves. She will strive to please her husband, because he in turn always seeks to please her. She sees that if the husband exercises authority, he does so out of love and for their own good rather than in a self-serving way or to boost his ego on some kind of power trip. Consequently, if she sees this, she has no problem obeying when she sees that everything is calculated for her good and for the good of her children.Exactly this. Thankyou.
In the 1500s in England, the law said a husband could discipline his wife. In the life of St. Thomas More, it is said that early in their marriage, his wife, Jane, was most uphappy/acting out. St. Thomas was urged (I think by her father?) to "beat" her into submission, as allowed by law. But he said he simply didn't want to do that. Eventually she came around and they had a very happy marriage.Was Jane not the one who died, and he followed up by marrying a second wife with undue haste?
Sweetheart, it's not up to you.Notice how manly are Messrs. Anonymous!
This is why this discussion is for the men only forum.
The talk of legal charges is scaremongering. If there is enough trust between the two then she will accept her punishment as we all should when punished by God with purgatory, or some tribulation in this life.
Honest to goodness, this thread is really showing up the liberals on this forum.
Notice how manly are Messrs. Anonymous!Exactly. And so condescending too.
Sweetheart, it's not up to you.Anonymous- I'm not sure which part of my post, or if all of it, you would consider liberal. It's an honest question.
This is why this discussion is for the men only forum.
The talk of legal charges is scaremongering. If there is enough trust between the two then she will accept her punishment as we all should when punished by God with purgatory, or some tribulation in this life.
Honest to goodness, this thread is really showing up the liberals on this forum.
Well said, Jen.Thankyou, Nadir! It's nice to see you as well.
Good to see you around!
Was Jane not the one who died, and he followed up by marrying a second wife with undue haste?Yes - St. Thomas' first "fancy" was for the younger sister. The reason for the second marriage was St. Thomas still had young children and could not leave them and still work. He did marry an older, nearby widow - Alice. A marriage of convenience? Maybe. But happy enough I am not here to criticize St. Thomas More on his approach to marriage or anything else.
Also, he didn't love Jane. He fell in love with her younger sister, but married Jane because she was the elder and was still unmarried, so he felt it right and proper for the elder sister to be married first, and he 'took her to wife' instead of the sister he truly loved.
For such a clever man, he was actually a bit thick when it came to personal relationships. Jane was uneducated, and could neither read nor write. So when St. Thomas tried to get her to learn sermons by rote, and she refused out of a lack of interest, he marched her home to her father. Her father suggested that he beat her to force her to learn the sermons, which he refused to do.
What should the proper punishment be for a disobedient wife? I'm not talking about one that has committed adultery, but rather one that flouts her husband's authority in other matters. Should the husband beat her? Should the husband refuse to permit her to leave the family home? In a Catholic society, should the courts punish her?Doesn't anyone else think it's strange that the FIRST RESPONSE for a disobedient wife is PUNISHMENT?
Doesn't anyone else think it's strange that the FIRST RESPONSE for a disobedient wife is PUNISHMENT?Sorry I forgot to check to box
To me that response doesn't seem very Catholic, mature or mentally healthy on the part of the husband.
Doesn't anyone else think it's strange that the FIRST RESPONSE for a disobedient wife is PUNISHMENT?99.9% of Catholics would think so, but the OP is a troll trying to make traditionally minded look unbalanced.
To me that response doesn't seem very Catholic, mature or mentally healthy on the part of the husband.
Doesn't anyone else think it's strange that the FIRST RESPONSE for a disobedient wife is PUNISHMENT?
To me that response doesn't seem very Catholic, mature or mentally healthy on the part of the husband.
Sorry I forgot to check to box
99.9% of Catholics would think so, but the OP is a troll trying to make traditionally minded look unbalanced.
It is liberal to deny or PRACTICALLY NEGATE the churches teaching on something. Especially so when you use the "modern age" to negate it. God always finds a way for those who love him. A woman who loves God and her husband deeply can still commit mortal sins. If she receives punishment for this, she should THANK the good Lord for such a husband.Thankyou for answering my question. God bless.
It is also total naivety of so many trads to think that the prideful manipulation of so many trad women is not a serious matter. Depends on the object, of course, but it can lead to very serious consequences especially with relation to the children. (refusing to homeschool is a common one, NFP is another... perhaps we can list going to an SSPX Mass?)
We are not angels and our reason is hindered. Corporal punishment is Gods merciful way of helping us to be just.
Anonymous on October 23, 2017, 11:02:06 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/proper-punishment-for-a-disobedient-wife/msg574310/#msg574310)What is the source for claiming that St. Thomas More did not love his first wife? I have never come across anything that suggests that. Here is an article that is consistent with what I have seen elsewhere and says that he loved both of his wives:QuoteWas Jane not the one who died, and he followed up by marrying a second wife with undue haste?
Also, he didn't love Jane. He fell in love with her younger sister, but married Jane because she was the elder and was still unmarried, so he felt it right and proper for the elder sister to be married first, and he 'took her to wife' instead of the sister he truly loved.
It is liberal to deny or PRACTICALLY NEGATE the churches teaching on something. Especially so when you use the "modern age" to negate it. God always finds a way for those who love him. A woman who loves God and her husband deeply can still commit mortal sins. If she receives punishment for this, she should THANK the good Lord for such a husband.Man's reasoning ability is often limited by his emotions. Today with improper diets and lack of sleep, inordinate rage is commonplace. A man might judge his wife to be disobedient and lazy when she is simply tired due to allergies, anemia, arthritis, Lyme disease, and/or her pregnancy, when she is uneducated to teach advanced math, science, and the arts due to her lack of any college education, and when she is simply scared at her husband's senseless rage where he strikes her and her children for the smallest and inappropriate reasons. A man might even be jealous that his wife gets to stay home and do the housework, not realizing how much work it entails with the children constantly complaining, crying, and demanding her attention so that she finds it difficult to rest or to pray.
It is also total naivety of so many trads to think that the prideful manipulation of so many trad women is not a serious matter. Depends on the object, of course, but it can lead to very serious consequences especially with relation to the children. (refusing to homeschool is a common one, NFP is another... perhaps we can list going to an SSPX Mass?)
We are not angels and our reason is hindered. Corporal punishment is Gods merciful way of helping us to be just.
Whether or not this may or may not be permitted under some circuмstances, and in strict justice -- the consensus is that it is -- my general observation is that the men who vocally advocate their rights in this regard are in fact insecure in their manhood, often because they struggle with being dominated by women via their own tendency to impurity. True men needn't resort to corporal punishment but can lead their wives otherwise. And, for all practical purposes, in all prudence, it would be sinful to practice it in this day and age ... since it would undoubtedly result in the ruination of the family and very likely some jail time for the husband (along with the accompanying loss of employment). Rarely is the man's motivation love of the woman and the desire to correct and improve her, but it's either cruelty, loss of temper, or a need to beat one's chest in order to feel like a man. So if you want to go around fantasizing about beating women in order to make yourself feel more like a man, go ahead. But unless you have a wife who wants to be treated this way, it would be sinful for reasons of prudence and, also, most likely, charity, to engage in this behavior.Now here is reason at its finest :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
It's usually those who are the least manly who feel the need to put their manliness on display and exert themselves in this manner. Sorry, but that's the truth.
I was just looking for something funny to say. TBH it is more about avoiding unnecessary hassle. Women should not ultimately be "discussing" this topic because it is not up to them. But there are good women out there so I hold out that they will listen....I'm sorry, what was your name again?
Ratcheer...
(https://youtu.be/-9WjG-VtXCg?t=19s)DZ P
I'm sorry, guys, but my experience is that love and affection are the strongest motivators for women. If you give them love, affection, and your attention, they'll love you to death and will not stray. If you give your wife all the love she has a right to, almost without fail "obedience" isn't even a problem. It's not even a "thing", as it were. "Husbands, love your wives." How many men, while blustering about THEIR rights, forget about the right of their wife to be loved. Wives who are loved like this will simply WANT to do anything they think will please their husbands and there's never a question of having to "force" them to do anything. You simply tell them what would please you and make you happy ... and they do it. No need to rage and bluster and beat. Try it. You might like that kind of relationship.This post is mine. Neglected to hit the checkbox.
With all due, the topic is what again?Crud.
Man's reasoning ability is often limited by his emotions.
Relevance?
Today with improper diets and lack of sleep, inordinate rage is commonplace.
Relevance?
A man might judge his wife to be disobedient and lazy when she is simply tired due to allergies, anemia, arthritis, Lyme disease, and/or her pregnancy, when she is uneducated to teach advanced math, science, and the arts due to her lack of any college education, and when she is simply scared at her husband's senseless rage where he strikes her and her children for the smallest and inappropriate reasons.
Relevance? What was the topic again?
A man might even be jealous that his wife gets to stay home and do the housework, not realizing how much work it entails with the children constantly complaining, crying, and demanding her attention so that she finds it difficult to rest or to pray.
Relevance? If you've been rashly judged and subject to injustice, then I'm sorry; however, the topic is predicated upon the wife, and not the husband, actually being "the villain" here.
A man is not like God. He lacks justice.
Entirely? Too bad God leaves us hangin' like that, it almost seem unjust.
Look at the saints. They practiced heroic patience, love, kindness, gentleness, meekness, and humility. Those virtues should be exercised rather than focus on corporal
Let's look at the OP again, and see exactly where, when, how or if CORPORAL punishment was mentioned. Regardless, the TOPIC is what again?
punishment as a kind glance and a loving disposition by a husband will often assist a wife to do overcome her fear of failure and/or immobilizing fear of punishment.
Do not forget that husbands do kill their wives,
Seems a bit severe, granted.
especially their pregnant wives, and that pregnancy is a dangerous time for women.
Are you "The Real Slim Shady", or perhaps a pregnant woman? This emotional appeal is coming in manipulative and unreadable.
I'm sorry, guys, but my experience is that love and affection are the strongest motivators for women. If you give them love, affection, and your attention, they'll love you to death and will not stray. If you give your wife all the love she has a right to, almost without fail "obedience" isn't even a problem. It's not even a "thing", as it were. "Husbands, love your wives." How many men, while blustering about THEIR rights, forget about the right of their wife to be loved. Wives who are loved like this will simply WANT to do anything they think will please their husbands and there's never a question of having to "force" them to do anything. You simply tell them what would please you and make you happy ... and they do it. No need to rage and bluster and beat. Try it. You might like that kind of relationship.That's nice but, relevance? Why do you assume the form when the form is that which is trying to be determined?
What should the proper punishment be for a disobedient wife? I'm not talking about one that has committed adultery, but rather one that flouts her husband's authority in other matters. Should the husband beat her? Should the husband refuse to permit her to leave the family home? In a Catholic society, should the courts punish her?It seems that the OP who wishes to remain anonymous is not being sincere.
It seems that the OP who wishes to remain anonymous is not being sincere.
It also appears that the OP revealed later on that the wife (hypothetical or real, he does not say), does not want to homeschool.
Beating would be a last resort and would have legal consequences. Back in pagan Roman times, yes, the husband had the power of life or death over his entire household (wife, children, servants, and slaves). Go read ancient history. However, we are under a new law of Christ: Love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself, so would you beat yourself?
Beating wives, refusing them permission to leave the family home, mandating that they wear veils, and forbidding them from driving a car (leaving the home unattended) is approaching Sharia law -- what the moslems do. Is the OP a secret Moslem?
Go to the priest, thou sluggard.
Why is it that just about everybody here can make a distinction between just corporal punishment and beatings when there is a discussion of children, but, in a discussion of wives, uses the terms interchangeably?
Emotional rants about wife beating do not address questions about just corporal punishment.
..
Some women are very prideful but once they become aware of it they learn how to hide the fact.
.
So are you proposing that people put other forms of corporal punishment on the table ... e.g. burning with hot irons, bamboo under the fingernails, putting her outside with little clothing on in the Winter?I would propose that people discuss this topic logically, but that is probably too much to ask for. The quoted comment, for example, does not follow from what I said and is an obvious logical fallacy.
I would propose that people discuss this topic logically, but that is probably too much to ask for. The quoted comment, for example, does not follow from what I said and is an obvious logical fallacy.
There are several questions to ask: Does the Catholic Church teach that a husband has authority over his wife? Can this authority be enforced with corporal punishment? What are reasonable and appropriate forms of corporal punishment?
The answer to the first question is undeniably "yes". The second question, until several decades ago, was generally recognized to also have the answer "yes".
What typically happens in forum discussions of this topic is that people start talking about inappropriate and unreasonable punishments as a way to avoid admitting the answer to the first two questions.
I would propose that people discuss this topic logically, but that is probably too much to ask for. The quoted comment, for example, does not follow from what I said and is an obvious logical fallacy.Have you become a saint yet?
There are several questions to ask: Does the Catholic Church teach that a husband has authority over his wife? Can this authority be enforced with corporal punishment? What are reasonable and appropriate forms of corporal punishment?
The answer to the first question is undeniably "yes". The second question, until several decades ago, was generally recognized to also have the answer "yes".
What typically happens in forum discussions of this topic is that people start talking about inappropriate and unreasonable punishments as a way to avoid admitting the answer to the first two questions.
Is it an actual teaching of the Church that a man has the right to beat his wife?As far as I know, there are no magisterial docuмents specifically addressing the question of the corporal punishment of wives, either for or against. However, there are countless references to the husband's authority over his wife. It is the nature of authority that it may be enforced and, for many centuries, Christians understood that this enforcement could involve corporal punishment (within reasonable limits).
Yeah, it's some sketchy business; I'm starting to suspect guile/bad will, instead of just poor thinking.Please get rid of the anonymous section, at least until it gets fixed.
DZ P
So are you proposing that people put other forms of corporal punishment on the table ... e.g. burning with hot irons, bamboo under the fingernails, putting her outside with little clothing on in the Winter?Yeah you're full of crap. DISHONEST. Sophist.
Have you become a saint yet?I am married. My wedding was in 1980. I have 7 children and 8 grandchildren. Also I am a woman.
If not, then I hope you earnestly strive through prayer and fasting to become a saint before you marry (if you are not already married).
Then there would be no need for you to continue arguing for the use of corporal punishment against your future wife or your future children (if you are not already married).
Lead by example, not by brute force.
Yeah, it's some sketchy business; I'm starting to suspect guile/bad will, instead of just poor thinking.
Earlier in this thread, we saw a passage cited from St. Thomas Aquinas about a specific instance in which corporal punishment of a wife by her husband is appropriate.
Yeah you're full of crap. DISHONEST. Sophist.
As far as I know, there are no magisterial docuмents specifically addressing the question of the corporal punishment of wives, either for or against. However, there are countless references to the husband's authority over his wife. It is the nature of authority that it may be enforced and, for many centuries, Christians understood that this enforcement could involve corporal punishment (within reasonable limits).I posted the above and forgot to check the "not anonymous" box.
Earlier in this thread, we saw a passage cited from St. Thomas Aquinas about a specific instance in which corporal punishment of a wife by her husband is appropriate. While this falls short of being magisterial, St. Thomas almost always represents the mind of the Church.
More sophistry and bad use of Rhetoric. You're hitting about 900 with that "charity" bat though....
I am married. My wedding was in 1980. I have 7 children and 8 grandchildren. Also I am a woman.Again, I accidentally left off my name.
I suggest that people not assume that the only men accept that Church teaching involved the concept of a husband using corporal punishment on his wife.
Yeah you're full of crap. DISHONEST. Sophist.
Right. Because someone disagrees with your view, then obviously they are to be suspected of bad will or guile.1. What, exactly, is my view?
Do you beat your wife?
Have you not taken your meds today?etc. ...
"What if the woman was raped?!!!!!! What if it was your wife, mother, or daughter?!!!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!!"
DZP
I would propose that people discuss this topic logically, but that is probably too much to ask for. The quoted comment, for example, does not follow from what I said and is an obvious logical fallacy.
1. What, exactly, is my view?That may explain why you have been married and divorced, what, twice, is that right?
2. Regardless of what it is, if she were you, then likely yes.
That may explain why you have been married and divorced, what, twice, is that right?... etc. ...
Enough with the white-knighting already.
You're are not supposed to be arguing with men. It's up to us men to decide whether or not we're allowed to beat you. So keep silent, woman.
"What if the woman was raped?!!!!!! What if it was your wife, mother, or daughter?!!!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!!"This is an irrelevant appeal to emotion.
This is an irrelevant appeal to emotion.Exactly
You're are not supposed to be arguing with men. It's up to us men to decide whether or not we're allowed to beat you. So keep silent, woman.:laugh1:
So let's sum it up.
No Magisterial teaching regarding the question.
We have the opinion of St. Thomas. St. Thomas is not infallible and has known to be wrong.
Evidently the line of thinking is that due to the fact that women are subordinate or subject to their husbands, a certain amount of corporal punishment (to be defined by its proponents) is permitted in strict justice.
I submit, however, that this does not take into account the dignity of the wife in a Christian marriage. There's a union and a partnership in God that makes this something more than a natural relationship, and as such it is absolutely inappropriate and even sinful for a husband to subject his wife to corporal punishment. Subjection in the strict sense is the result of Original Sin, but the Sacrament elevates the relationship to something more sublime. To me it's a sin against the Sacrament to strike one's wife.
So, for instance, it is never permitted for a son to strike his mother or any child to strike a parent. Why? Because we owe our parents HONOR ... as enshrined in the law of God. Similarly, we owe our wives HONOR, not unlike that which we have for our parents. Wives are the mothers of our children, and it's an affront to their dignity as wives for us to strike them. It's a sin against the holiness of Christian marriage.
So, yes, I disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas. Sorry.
So, for instance, it is never permitted for a son to strike his mother or any child to strike a parent.
II. Duties of the husband, 1. The husband should love his wife as a partner (Coloss. iii. 18, and remember that he holds in her regard the place of a father and a brother. 2. The husband should honor his wife, trusting her, treating her as a helpmate and not a slave (i Peter iii. 7). 3. The husband must provide for the decent support and protection of his wife and family, according to their state. 4. The husband must bear with the defects of his wife and charitably correct her when necessary. 5. The husband, by word and example, is bound to promote the moral and spiritual welfare of his wife and family.
So let's sum it up.You are claiming that something is a serious sin that was the accepted practice for centuries. Somehow, during all that time, the Church neglected to teach against it. That seems rather improbable.
No Magisterial teaching regarding the question.
We have the opinion of St. Thomas. St. Thomas is not infallible and has known to be wrong.
Evidently the line of thinking is that due to the fact that women are subordinate or subject to their husbands, a certain amount of corporal punishment (to be defined by its proponents) is permitted in strict justice.
I submit, however, that this does not take into account the dignity of the wife in a Christian marriage. There's a union and a partnership in God that makes this something more than a natural relationship, and as such it is absolutely inappropriate and even sinful for a husband to subject his wife to corporal punishment. Subjection in the strict sense is the result of Original Sin, but the Sacrament elevates the relationship to something more sublime. To me it's a sin against the Sacrament to strike one's wife.
So, for instance, it is never permitted for a son to strike his mother or any child to strike a parent. Why? Because we owe our parents HONOR ... as enshrined in the law of God. Similarly, we owe our wives HONOR, not unlike that which we have for our parents. Wives are the mothers of our children, and it's an affront to their dignity as wives for us to strike them. It's a sin against the holiness of Christian marriage.
So, yes, I disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas. Sorry.
http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Duties%20of%20Married%20People.html
Corporal punishment is not compatible with holding a person in honor. So it is not permitted for a husband to lay violent hands on his wife any more than it is permitted for a child to lay violent hands on his parents. This is rooted in the teaching of Sacred Scripture in I Peter iii.7.
You are claiming that something is a serious sin that was the accepted practice for centuries. Somehow, during all that time, the Church neglected to teach against it. That seems rather improbable.
My understanding of Church teaching is that it is grave matter for a person to strike another in extreme anger.I have seen an examination of conscience that asked, "Have I struck a person over whom I do not have authority?" so the relationship obviously makes a difference.
So if a man is allowed to strike his wife, then it is only grave matter if it is done in anger?
Or, is it only grave matter when a man strikes someone other than his wife? In other words, if he strikes his wife in anger, then it's not a mortal sin. But if he strikes someone other than his wife in anger, then it is a mortal sin.
Is this how a priest in the confessional would see it?
I have seen an examination of conscience that asked, "Have I struck a person over whom I do not have authority?" so the relationship obviously makes a difference.I share Ladislaus's frustration with the way the "not anonymous"feature works.
To strike a wife when she does not deserve it would be a sin against justice. I suspect that the issue of justice is more important than that of anger in these cases.
Amen. Thank you!
[from a man]
Jaynek, you really need to stop egging on these sɛҳuąƖly-insecure little men who feel the need to thump their chests. You are thereby doing a great disservice to Traditional Catholic women. Might as well start issuing a line of "Trad" wife-beater shirts. I'm sorry to say, but I am well acquainted with their type ... know many personally, the Trad men who treat their wives like complete garbage under the pretext of wives having to obey their husbands. And it sickens me. These are nothing more than sɛҳuąƖly-insecure pathetic excuses for men who act the part of tough guy only against the defenseless. They used it to "lord it over" their wives, inflate their own egos and sense of self-importance, and do not exercise loving authority over them ... for the good of their souls. They are not arguing from a point of reason, but from emotion. And it's usually because they have issues with impurity.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm claiming. At one point the Church taught that usury was wrong, and now it's "accepted practice" and the Church no longer teaches against it. I'm afraid that there's no protection of infallibility regarding what the Church does NOT teach about.Until around 100 years ago, corporal punishment was accepted in almost every area of life: civil, military, domestic, and education institutions all took it for granted. The feelings most people in our culture have towards corporal punishment differ from those of most times and places.
It's utterly incompatible with the honor and dignity of a wife for her husband to lay violent hands on her. Period.
http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Duties%20of%20Married%20People.htmlYou've either never done time behind a gun, more generally under arms, or if you did it didn't stick.
Corporal punishment is not compatible with holding a person in honor.
Jaynek, you really need to stop egging on these sɛҳuąƖly-insecure little men who feel the need to thump their chests. You are thereby doing a great disservice to Traditional Catholic women. Might as well start issuing a line of "Trad" wife-beater shirts. I'm sorry to say, but I am well acquainted with their type ... know many personally, the Trad men who treat their wives like complete garbage under the pretext of wives having to obey their husbands. And it sickens me. These are nothing more than sɛҳuąƖly-insecure pathetic excuses for men who act the part of tough guy only against the defenseless. They used it to "lord it over" their wives, inflate their own egos and sense of self-importance, and do not exercise loving authority over them ... for the good of their souls.::)
Jaynek, you really need to stop egging on these sɛҳuąƖly-insecure little men who feel the need to thump their chests. You are thereby doing a great disservice to Traditional Catholic women. Might as well start issuing a line of "Trad" wife-beater shirts. I'm sorry to say, but I am well acquainted with their type ... know many personally, the Trad men who treat their wives like complete garbage under the pretext of wives having to obey their husbands. And it sickens me. These are nothing more than sɛҳuąƖly-insecure pathetic excuses for men who act the part of tough guy only against the defenseless. They used it to "lord it over" their wives, inflate their own egos and sense of self-importance, and do not exercise loving authority over them ... for the good of their souls.I would like to see a discussion of what is taught by the Church that does not involve ascribing bad motives to those with whom one disagrees. Personal attacks have no place in logical debates.
:applause:
I would like to see a discussion of what is taught by the Church that does not involve ascribing bad motives to those with whom one disagrees. Personal attacks have no place in logical debates.:applause:
I have seen an examination of conscience that asked, "Have I struck a person over whom I do not have authority?" so the relationship obviously makes a difference.
To strike a wife when she does not deserve it would be a sin against justice. I suspect that the issue of justice is more important than that of anger in these cases.
If you can't see that Christian marriage brings a man and a woman into a relationship that rises above that of mere authority and subjection, then I truly feel sorry for you. You are one of those self-hating women I take it. It was as a result of ORIGINAL SIN that women became "SUBJECT" to men. But, otherwise, before then, the relationship was more that of helpmate (as per the text I cited before). And the Sacraments are different ways of undoing the damage wrought by Original Sin. In Christian marriage, the woman is in a place of honor and not one of mere subjection, as a helpmate with great dignity. You completely miss that in your analysis.
And, yes, I also think that it's wrong and immoral to "own" people as slaves ... as if they were your property.
Until around 100 years ago, corporal punishment was accepted in almost every area of life: civil, military, domestic, and education institutions all took it for granted. The feelings most people in our culture have towards corporal punishment differ from those of most times and places.
While corporal punishment may feel, to people in this culture, incompatible with honour and dignity, I do not see any objective basis for such a claim.
Well said.
Women are seen by some here as property, as like a slave, with whom one must treat as a child. Sounds very Puritanistic to me.
So you've never heard of the 10 Commandments. Why is it such a horror for a child to strike a parent? If a soldier were to strike a military superior, while it would be wrong and punishable, it's not the same horror and affront to God as a child striking his parent. Why? That's because the child-parent relationship involves HONOR ... as confirmed by God Himself. This isn't about corporal punishment. Corporal punishment of children is permissible for parents. But the husband-wife relationship ... as plainly seen in Scripture requires that the husband HONOR his wife (St. Peter). Nowhere are parents required to honor their children.Or has been sufficiently punished to know her place.
I'm starting to suspect that Jaynek's husband is posting with her account.
If you can't see that Christian marriage brings a man and a woman into a relationship that rises above that of mere authority and subjection, then I truly feel sorry for you. You are one of those self-hating women I take it. It was as a result of ORIGINAL SIN that women became "SUBJECT" to men. But, otherwise, before then, the relationship was more that of helpmate (as per the text I cited before). And the Sacraments are different ways of undoing the damage wrought by Original Sin. In Christian marriage, the woman is in a place of honor and not one of mere subjection, as a helpmate with great dignity. You completely miss that in your analysis.As I understand it, original sin makes the experience of being subject to one's husband often difficult and unpleasant. But I do not think that subjection is intrinsically a bad thing. Relationships are often, by nature, hierarchical. To be under authority and to obey another is clearly a good thing in some cases.
I would like to see a discussion of what is taught by the Church that does not involve ascribing bad motives to those with whom one disagrees. Personal attacks have no place in logical debates.
As I understand it, original sin makes the experience of being subject to one's husband often difficult and unpleasant. But I do not think that subjection is intrinsically a bad thing. Relationships are often, by nature, hierarchical. To be under authority and to obey another is clearly a good thing in some cases.
No, this is absolutely relevant. I'm describing a "cultural" phenomenon among Traditional Catholics whereby they justify ill treatment of women on the basis of this "subjection" theology. And I'm accusing you of contributing to these attitudes.That is a separate issue from understanding what the Church teaches. If Church teaching about the husband's authority allows for corporal punishment (as I think it does) then it does, regardless of how people might misuse that teaching to justify wrong actions.
As I understand it, original sin makes the experience of being subject to one's husband often difficult and unpleasant. But I do not think that subjection is intrinsically a bad thing. Relationships are often, by nature, hierarchical. To be under authority and to obey another is clearly a good thing in some cases.To be under true authority and to obey such as such is not a good, even hypothetically, in which case or cases?
Personal insults; feminine nature ABUSED.Yup, but it does much good to expose which banner each marches under.
In your view, is a women who behaves badly to be treated and disciplined as a child would be disciplined?
In your view, is a women who behaves badly to be treated and disciplined as a child would be disciplined?I think that in our culture that this would not be practical. It would be illegal and considered grounds for divorce.
What is the difference between using corporal punishment on a child, and using corporal punishment on a woman, by her husband? If it's so obvious that the Church teaches that it's good to use corporal punishment on a wife, when needed, then it shouldn't be difficult to describe the difference.
No one ever said it was the same! The moral theology of the Church does not say it is the same!
There is a certain amount of maturity expected of an adult woman. But liberals here on this forum think that woman are perfectly mature and almost never need correction.
As BW says we just need to be "NWICE..."
That is a separate issue from understanding what the Church teaches. If Church teaching about the husband's authority allows for corporal punishment (as I think it does) then it does, regardless of how people might misuse that teaching to justify wrong actions.Wow ma'am, you're stellar; your hubs is one blessed bro seems like, at least thus far.
If there is, in fact, a problem among trad men of misusing their authority, it would be more effective to acknowledge that the authority exists and go on to discuss its proper limits.
I think that in our culture that this would not be practical. It would be illegal and considered grounds for divorce.
However, understanding that it is theoretically something permitted by Church teaching might help us have a greater appreciation of the husband's authority.
To be under true authority and to obey such as such is not a good, even hypothetically, in which case or cases?I cannot actually think of any cases. I only said "some cases" to allow for overlooking something.
As I understand it, original sin makes the experience of being subject to one's husband often difficult and unpleasant. But I do not think that subjection is intrinsically a bad thing. Relationships are often, by nature, hierarchical. To be under authority and to obey another is clearly a good thing in some cases.
I think that in our culture that this would not be practical. It would be illegal and considered grounds for divorce.And what of true tolerance, specifically of error?
However, understanding that it is theoretically something permitted by Church teaching might help us have a greater appreciation of the husband's authority.
I cannot actually think of any cases. I only said "some cases" to allow for overlooking something.Understood, as I do the same; thank you ma'am.
TOTALLY FALSE.
No, subjection is the direct result of Original Sin. Original Sin didn't simply make it "often difficult and unpleasant". Before that there was a naturally harmonious complementarity with an active role (man) and a more passive role (woman). Subjection is a violent way to restore the natural harmony that was severed by Original Sin. This has to be forced now whereas it was just naturally there before Original Sin.Can you provide authoritative sources to support this view? It is not how I understand Catholic teaching.
The moral theology of the Church says that it must be only for serious matters. Children can be spanked for venial matters.
As for the practicalities, it all depends on the crime in question. Every marriage is different.
Like the punishment of the state, there is liberty given to the discretion of the husband. What it does say is that it is for serious matters.
The moral theology of the Church says that it must be only for serious matters. Children can be spanked for venial matters.
As for the practicalities, it all depends on the crime in question. Every marriage is different.
And what of true tolerance, specifically of error?I think that corporal punishment is permissible in principle, but probably imprudent in most cases in our culture. But I have no trouble believing that there are rare cases in which it works well (as claimed in another post).
There is a distinction to be made regarding what may be permissible in principle, and what is or should be avoided as imprudence, i.e on another principle, such as is the case with tolerating a evil to avoid or mitigate a greater evil.
I think that this is part of what you are attempting to express, but please clarify either way.
I don't have it to hand because those books are expensive and hard to come by.If the only source for your assertion is difficult to come by, then its obvious that it's not Church teaching. We're not a Secret Society.
I am pretty sure it is in Prummer which is what all SSPX priests use.
Your source is your priest. Go ask him.
Can you provide authoritative sources to support this view? It is not how I understand Catholic teaching.
Scripture tells us that the relationship between a husband and wife is like that of Christ and the Church. There is no question that the Church is subject to Christ and that this is inherent in their natures, rather than as a result of sin. A wife is to obey her husband as the Church obeys Christ. How is either of these forms of obedience violent?
The Church leaves the manner in which it is done to the prudential judgement of the husband.
The man-hating tradies on this forum will of course say this is impossible.
THIS IS NOT A THEOLOGICAL ISSUE!!!!!!!!! This is a MORAL issue. In the natural law. Ask your priest if you don't believe me!!! It's in there!Uh, Moral Theology...
As I said above, just like the corporal discipline of the state, the means are up to the husband. This is normal. If you read recommendations, then they are JUST recommendations.
THIS IS NOT A THEOLOGICAL ISSUE!!!!!!!!! This is a MORAL issue. In the natural law. Ask your priest if you don't believe me!!! It's in there!
As I said above, just like the corporal discipline of the state, the means are up to the husband. This is normal. If you read recommendations, then they are JUST recommendations.
I think that corporal punishment is permissible in principle, but probably imprudent in most cases in our culture. But I have no trouble believing that there are rare cases in which it works well (as claimed in another post).Sure but there is yet another question wrapped up here, first noting the perils of pragmatism, namely "Works well for what, to what end or ends?"
You're too lazy to ask a priest aren't you?
TWO SPANKS for you.
This is the main problem with this Anonymous forum ... when any 12-year-old can jump in and post.
If the only source for your assertion is difficult to come by, then its obvious that it's not Church teaching. We're not a Secret Society.Really? How about, for just one example, "Mortalium Animos"? Ring any bells for any pew geezer trads here, or is that not Church teaching either(?)?
But I have no trouble believing that there are rare cases in which it works well (as claimed in another post).
You simply came up with this "understanding" because it suits your purposes in the context of this discussion. Read the Church Fathers, use Google. It's not my job to educate you. Ask your husband. Except, of course, you likely are Jaynek's husband. If I'm not mistaken, Jaynek's husband has posted under her account before.It is your job to support any assertions that you make in a debate. If you do not support them, people will assume that you are not able to.
This is the main problem with this Anonymous forum ... when any 12-year-old can jump in and post.While I hate this section, how is it any different from the others in this respect?
Okay, I'm sorry, but :laugh1:
HEY!
I'm 12 and half mister!
Right because you are so ENLIGHTENED and above original sin.
Really? How about, for just one example, "Mortalium Animos"? Ring any bells for any pew geezer trads here, or is that not Church teaching either(?)?
Really? How about, for just one example, "Mortalium Animos"? Ring any bells for any pew geezer trads here, or is that not Church teaching either(?)?
This is a question of justice.Even granting that, I don't think that you've followed the figurative breadcrumbs all the way home in this instance.
The implementation of justices is ALWAYs going to be imperfect because we are SINNERS.
But clearly have the need to misrepresent others arguments because you don't want to accept Church teaching.
It is your job to support any assertions that you make in a debate. If you do not support them, people will assume that you are not able to.
These sorts of accusations give the impression that you have run out of good arguments for your position.It would be helpful for you to quote/cite/link said arguments for the sake of acknowledgement, rigor, clarity and, hopefully, resolution.
No your priest will tell you when you ask him. I have been very open that I just don't have the book to hand, because I don't even own it. Because if I did most editions are in Latin.
So stop trolling the thread pretending that this is some inaccessible teaching.
It is not. It's right there in the books. One phone call to your priest will solve it.
call 1800-PRIEST.
:facepalm:You are correct, at least broadly speaking, if you mean that it has nothing in particular to to with this topic, however:
Mortalium Animos is about false ecuмenism and has nothing to do with this subject.
So, tell me, what was it back in the day? LSD? Cocaine?
Why don't you cite the relevant part of Mortalium Animos, where it says that corporal punishment may be used on a wife by a husband?Just forget it.
After you. You made the unsbustantiated gratuitous assertion that the "subjection" of woman to man after Original Sin was just made "more difficult" rather than causing a new state that was itself the punishement. So you prove YOUR assertion first. I love how you try to impose criteria on me that you yourself don't abide by. That's self-serving hypocrisy. You prove that "subjection" existed before Original Sin citing sources.
Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 92, Article 1
Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates. Nor is inequality among men excluded by the state of innocence, as we shall prove
St. Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence, Bk 1, Ch 10
“Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man;’ and, ‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.’ So also the Apostle Peter writes: ‘Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.’”
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians 5:22
“Then after saying, ‘The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is of the Church,’ he further adds, ‘and He is the Saviour of the body.’ For indeed the head is the saving health of the body. He had already laid down beforehand for man and wife, the ground and provision of their love, assigning to each their proper place, to the one that of authority and forethought, to the other that of submission. As then ‘the Church,’ that is, both husbands and wives, ‘is subject unto Christ, so also ye wives submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto God.’ For she is the body, not to dictate to the head, but to submit herself and obey.”
Do whatever is noble and godly, living in the Presence of Christ. Certainly hitting one's wife is not noble, instead it dishonors her and any children witnessing such actions leading them to hit their own wives when they reach marriageable age. Indeed, we can act like immature brats, and swat our wives whenever they displease us, but there will be eternal consequences for our immature behavior.Perhaps, in "charity", so as not to deal perversely and please don't be provoked to anger or to think ill by the request, but if you would please bear with me and endure the request of a donation of your name?
We can justify our immaturity and use all the PROOF TEXTS from the saints to support our pitiful arguments, but if we have not love in our hearts, it will profit us nothing for St. Peter will never listen to proof texts, but he will discern what is in our hearts, for we are all called to be saints, to exercise prudence, love, generosity, temperance, kindness, meekness, humility, and forgiveness of failings.
Do not forget the words of St. Paul in 1 Cor. 13 [Douay-Rheims]
IF I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
I for one don't have the book to hand as I mentioned earlier. Any good trad priest can confirm it is in there.I was able to find an old moral theology manual online:here (https://books.google.ca/books?id=2RYPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=%22moral+theology%22+wife+punishment&source=bl&ots=uYxsD_CRlU&sig=lcOUbpIK3kX-8IRkqhlJfrg-Djk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb7pLf7YzXAhVL74MKHS3PBboQ6AEIPzAD#v=onepage&q=%22moral%20theology%22%20wife%20punishment&f=false)
As for moderate whipping it may be permitted, if the wife is much in fault, and there is no hope that she may be corrected in any other way; but this case is very rare.I see no reason to doubt the claims that this idea is part of traditional Catholic moral theology.
Perhaps, in "charity", so as not to deal perversely and please don't be provoked to anger or to think ill by the request, but if you would please bear with me and endure the request of a donation of your name?It's just me again.
I was able to find an old moral theology manual online:here (https://books.google.ca/books?id=2RYPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=%22moral+theology%22+wife+punishment&source=bl&ots=uYxsD_CRlU&sig=lcOUbpIK3kX-8IRkqhlJfrg-Djk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb7pLf7YzXAhVL74MKHS3PBboQ6AEIPzAD#v=onepage&q=%22moral%20theology%22%20wife%20punishment&f=false)The term moderate is up for grabs.
It is called A Synopsis of the Moral Theology of Peter Dens written in 1838.
It has a section on "Is it lawful for a husband to whip his wife?" It says, in part, I see no reason to doubt the claims that this idea is part of traditional Catholic moral theology.
It's just me again.It's funny the first few times, perhaps.
The term moderate is up for grabs.Given that the Church recognized that a husband has a right to use corporal punishment on his wife (and I think there is overwhelming evidence for this) we can then consider what are the limits on that right.
What is moderate to one man (40 lashes of a whip) can kill.
A man is much stronger than his wife and can inflict mortal wounds especially if the woman screams in pain.
Sometimes even the primate screams can arose an animal instinct in a psychopath and encourage him to kill his prey.
I'm starting to suspect that Jaynek's husband is posting with her account.And whose account are you posting under, nameless?
Given that the Church recognized that a husband has a right to use corporal punishment on his wife (and I think there is overwhelming evidence for this) we can then consider what are the limits on that right.What you are writing here, dear, could very well subject the Resistance and the Catholic Church to civil penalties and closure by the government.
But they are two separate questions: Does the right exist, in principle? What is the proper way to implement it? We need to determine the answer to the first question first before we can answer the second.
The fact that there are cases of excessive use of force against wives tells us nothing about what the Church teaches about the husband's authority.
The term moderate is up for grabs.One shudders to think what one such as you would offer as immoderate.
What is moderate to one man (40 lashes of a whip) can kill.
A man is much stronger than his wife and can inflict mortal wounds especially if the woman screams in pain.
Sometimes even the primate screams can arose an animal instinct in a psychopath and encourage him to kill his prey.
Given that the Church recognized that a husband has a right to use corporal punishment on his wife (and I think there is overwhelming evidence for this) we can then consider what are the limits on that right.... and where there is excess...
But they are two separate questions: Does the right exist, in principle? What is the proper way to implement it? We need to determine the answer to the first question first before we can answer the second.
The fact that there are cases of excessive use of force against wives tells us nothing about what the Church teaches about the husband's authority.
What you are writing here, dear, could very well subject the Resistance and the Catholic Church to civil penalties and closure by the government.Liberal, and possibly non-Catholic, advisory in effect.
Perhaps what you are saying is true, that in certain theology books, this stuff was written, but it is not in the Holy Scripture. Perhaps these books should be burned because they really do not teach what the Catholic Church was taught by Christ to His Apostles.
What you are writing here, dear, could very well subject the Resistance and the Catholic Church to civil penalties and closure by the government.Historically, both Church and civil law allowed for a husband to chastise his wife. It is a matter of historical fact. I have specifically mentioned that I think it is imprudent and illegal to do such things now.
Perhaps what you are saying is true, that in certain theology books, this stuff was written, but it is not in the Holy Scripture. Perhaps these books should be burned because they really do not teach what the Catholic Church was taught by Christ to His Apostles.
Just what evidence would people accept?Whatever shows that you're wrong, and they aren't?
Historically, both Church and civil law allowed for a husband to chastise his wife. It is a matter of historical fact. I have specifically mentioned that I think it is imprudent and illegal to do such things now.It is obvious, dear one in Christ, that you have an unfortunate agenda -- to teach corporal punishment -- rather than to teach the love of Christ.
But just what is the standard for determining Church teaching here. When I quote Church fathers, it is dismissed as "proof versing". When I cite a moral theology manual, somehow that is not really what Christ taught. Just what evidence would people accept?
It is obvious, dear one in Christ, that you have an unfortunate agenda -- to teach corporal punishment -- rather than to teach the love of Christ.FINALLY another Catholic to join Ladislaus
Christ came to institute a new commandment: To love God, to love one's neighbor as oneself, and most incredible of all, to love one's enemy. This new commandment not only went against the eye-for-an-eye teachings that preceded Christ, but also went against the paganistic Roman teachings that men had the power of life and death over their families. St. Paul even commented on this in his epistles. Yes, men had power over their families, but the Gospel now compels men to teach by love and by good example. For example, men can meat, even that meat which is offered to idols, but if doing so causes another man to stumble, then it is wrong and a sin to do so because of the scandal involved. If you wish to be beaten by your husband, that is your right, do it in secret, not in the sight of your children. However, preaching spousal corporal punishment in the open is not a good idea at all.
Think what harm can be done if some stupid young man filled with passions and narcissism follows your lead? Think about the consequences if his attorneys lay the blame on CathInfo when it is your own indiscretion that might even cause a murder to occur. Did Christ preach spousal beatings? No.
I am not going to download boiler plate proof texts as does Freedom, but I am urging you to read prayerfully the New Testament using the method called lectio divina. Cease this false and dangerous academic study trying to prove your agenda that corporal punishment of wives is permissible and good.
It is obvious, dear one in Christ, that you have an unfortunate agenda -- to teach corporal punishment -- rather than to teach the love of Christ.I have not advised anyone to use corporal punishment. I have explicitly said that it is not practical in our current circuмstances. I was just irritated by all the logical fallacies and emotionalism in this thread. I don't have an agenda, but I wish that people would think more clearly. Vague mushy talk about love is a big part of the problem.
It is obvious, dear one in Christ, that you have an unfortunate agenda
I have not advised anyone to use corporal punishment. I have explicitly said that it is not practical in our current circuмstances. I was just irritated by all the logical fallacies and emotionalism in this thread. I don't have an agenda, but I wish that people would think more clearly. Vague mushy talk about love is a big part of the problem.Vague, mushy, false, implicitly dichotomous and anonymous "talk"; ashamed of the gospel are we, oh haloed one?
Sorry, I've run out of my supply of upthumbs, Jayne.Yeah, you gotta "love" the "Holy Banjo of Benevolence", it's almost as "charitable" as...
Note, also, how the anonymous posters tend to intemperance and their "charity" just oozes.
I have not advised anyone to use corporal punishment. I have explicitly said that it is not practical in our current circuмstances. I was just irritated by all the logical fallacies and emotionalism in this thread. I don't have an agenda, but I wish that people would think more clearly. Vague mushy talk about love is a big part of the problem.Ma'am, what have you done or said that was wrong?
FINALLY another Catholic to join LadislausYeah, that's not sophistic all all...
Too many hear appear to welcome Sharia Law.
just passing through. I couldn't help but notice that the common assumption here is that wives can never do anything wrong, and they're harmless.*skank or an icebox
it is as if no one's ever heard of a blank or an icebox before. oh, am I a jerk now for mentioning those scenarios.
Sorry, I'll be good. It's always the man's fault!
just passing through. I couldn't help but notice that the common assumption here is that wives can never do anything wrong, and they're harmless.I've not seen that assumption once in this thread. What are you talking about? It's wether the wife deserves a beating that we're talking about here. I think most agree wives don't do something so wrong that she deserves a spanking. Are you saying that every offense deserves a spanking?
it is as if no one's ever heard of a blank or an icebox before. oh, am I a jerk now for mentioning those scenarios.
Sorry, I'll be good. It's always the man's fault!
I've not seen that assumption once in this thread. What are you talking about? It's wether the wife deserves a beating that we're talking about here. I think most agree wives don't do something so wrong that she deserves a spanking. Are you saying that every offense deserves a spanking?this whole conversation makes me think of that scene from High Plains Drifter
I've not seen that assumption once in this thread. What are you talking about? It's wether the wife deserves a beating that we're talking about here. I think most agree wives don't do something so wrong that she deserves a spanking. Are you saying that every offense deserves a spanking?Don't know about that guy but, save some exceptional exceptions, I was leaning more towards "bounty".
I think questions of corporal punishment and physical abuse (which are two different things, btw) are a distraction from the important issue, which is understanding the husband's authority in Christian marriage. Even on trad forums one sees this seriously misunderstood, even though it is a fundamental concept for marriage.
Nonsense. That's what this thread is about. Most Trad Catholics acknowledge that wives owe obedience and submission to their husbands. As for the "misunderstood ... fundamental concept of marriage", I submit that it is the proponents of wife-beating who have a flawed concept of marriage. They rely upon the notion that, generally speaking, superiors have the right to inflict corporal punishment on subordinates. But what they're missing is that the husband-wife relationship entails MORE than a simple superior-subordinate relationship. They neglect the principle that, as per Sacred Scripture, husbands have an obligation to HONOR their wives. Generally speaking, superiors do NOT have an obligation to HONOR their subordinates. So your logical fallacy is that this is just like any other simple superior-subordinate relationship. Not ALL superior-subordinate relationships entail a right to inflict corporal punishment. So, for instance, a bishop may not strike a priest. In fact, such an act would cause the excommunication of the bishop. Why? Canon Law deems it incompatible with the honor and dignity of the priesthood for anyone to lay violent hands upon a priest.
So what are the implications of this obligation to HONOR one's wife? We have a parallel. God enjoins us to honor our parents, and it's always been considered a mortal sin to lay violent hands upon one's parents. So the burden of proof is on the proponents of wife-beating to demonstrate a distinction that would allow a husband to lay violent hands on his wife while being forbidden to lay violent hands on his parents.
Proponents of wife beating cite common practice, civil law, and Church law. I doubt that Church law promotes or even sanctions this practice. Please cite the relevant Church law rather than making gratuitous assertions. Nevertheless, unless it's Universal Canon Law, it's not infallible and can be wrong and questioned.
In addition, the proponents of wife-beating seem to have Old Testament "eye for an eye" standards, completely disregarding the teaching of Our Lord that we should turn the other cheek as well as the example He gave regarding the adulteress who was about to be stoned.
Not ALL superior-subordinate relationships entail a right to inflict corporal punishment. So, for instance, a bishop may not strike a priest. In fact, such an act would cause the excommunication of the bishop. Why? Canon Law deems it incompatible with the honor and dignity of the priesthood for anyone to lay violent hands upon a priest.I wish to address this side point even though it has little relevance to the main discussion, since you seem to have misunderstood something.
The expression "wife-beating" is pejorative and does not convey the concept of just corporal punishment.
I wish to address this side point even though it has little relevance to the main discussion, since you seem to have misunderstood something.
I wish to address this side point even though it has little relevance to the main discussion, since you seem to have misunderstood something.
It is true that the 1917 Code of Canon Law contains a rule against laying violent hands on clerics and religious. (Canon 2342, s.4) It is highly unlikely that the expression "laying violent hands" included corporal punishment given by superiors. It was a long-standing practice within monasteries to allow for corporal punishment under some circuмstances. For example, this is discussed in Chapter 23 of the Rule of St. Benedict.
I doubt that anyone before recent decades would have considered physical chastisement by those in authority as an act of violence. That just isn't the way people thought then.
So you gratuitously assert that I have "misunderstood" something but then speculate how it is "highly unlikely" that this applied to superiors. But the law does not make any exception for superiors, so your speculation goes against the plain meaning of the Canon.
In practical terms, the question is moot.
No, it's not moot. You're going around promoting the licitness of wife-beating, and you'll have to answer for it if someone were influenced by your post to attack his wife.
So all you can do is cite a text from St. Thomas and one moral theology manual. Slam dunk.
Again, you speak of logic, but you fail to address the logical argument I'm making ... but keep falling back on those two sources.
My point is precisely that I am disagreeing with these sources and am giving my logical argument for WHY I disagree with it. It's really quite simple. Demonstrate a valid provable distinction between the honor we must have for our parents and the honor we must have for our wife that justifies applying violence to one's wife but renders violence towards one's parents sinful.
Otherwise we are in danger of thoughtlessly accepting society's values.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
If I didn't know any better, Jaynek, I'd say that your husband should give you a smack on the mouth for spreading erroneous and potentially harmful opinions on a forum while attempting to exert yourself above men and argue against them in public. That's not your place as a woman. You have a grave misunderstanding of the position of women in society. Keep silent and let your husband come on her and argue your case.
I Timothy 2:12
You speak of logic, but you have no real grasp of it nor ability to apply it. This is absolutely relevant. It's an illustration of the fact that not ever superior-subordinate relationship entails a right to inflict corporal punishment.Your evidence for this "fact" was a misunderstanding of Canon Law. It does not mean what you think it does. What you consider "the plain meaning" would be in conflict with various monastic constitutions. If it were actually the intent of the canon to overrule these, it would do so explicitly.
No, it's not moot. You're going around promoting the licitness of wife-beating, and you'll have to answer for it if someone were influenced by your post to attack his wife.So are those of us who believe that parents may use corporal punishment on our children responsible when some people abuse children? There will always be people who try to justify wrong actions. It does not mean we should refrain from speaking the truth out of fear of how it might be misused.
So all you can do is cite a text from St. Thomas and one moral theology manual. Slam dunk.
Again, you speak of logic, but you fail to address the logical argument I'm making ... but keep falling back on those two sources.
My point is precisely that I am disagreeing with these sources and am giving my logical argument for WHY I disagree with it. It's really quite simple. Demonstrate a valid provable distinction between the honor we must have for our parents and the honor we must have for our wife that justifies applying violence to one's wife but renders violence towards one's parents sinful.
If I didn't know any better, Jaynek, I'd say that your husband should give you a smack on the mouth for spreading erroneous and potentially harmful opinions on a forum while attempting to exert yourself above men and argue against them in public. That's not your place as a woman. You have a grave misunderstanding of the position of women in society. Keep silent and let your husband come on her and argue your case.Since you are concerned, I will ask my husband if he has any objections to my posts in this thread. I do have general permission to post on forums, but I will check on what he thinks of this thread specifically.
I Timothy 2:12
Your evidence for this "fact" was a misunderstanding of Canon Law.
Since you are concerned, I will ask my husband if he has any objections to my posts in this thread. I do have general permission to post on forums, but I will check on what he thinks of this thread specifically.
I was not aware of any Catholic teaching that women should not argue with men in public. Of course, teaching men as if I had authority over them would be wrong, but I do not see how that applies to forum discussions. I am not usurping anybody's authority; I'm just giving my opinions.
I said that your husband should smack you ... while the whole time I've been arguing that it's wrong. So I figured that the satire would be obvious.
My post was satirical. I do not believe that women are not allowed to express their opinions publicly or to argue with men ... just as I don't believe that husbands should spank their wives. I don't believe that it was the meaning of St. Paul. But women, especially wives, should be respectful while disagreeing with men, especially their husbands.I have been working very hard on being respectful to you. You should see the things I thought of writing to you but did not. ;D
I said that your husband should smack you ... while the whole time I've been arguing that it's wrong. So I figured that the satire would be obvious.It was confusing because of the way you phrased it - "If I didn't know any better, Jaynek, I'd say that your husband should give you a smack on the mouth..."
I have been working very hard on being respectful to you. You should see the things I thought of writing to you but did not. ;DMore emotional responses.
Back again folks. Glad to see this thread is active, and annoying the liberals on this forum.
This topic is very interesting because it is a litmus test. Those who accept the teachings of the Church even if they hurt.
It also shows up those who are mental PERVERTS. Yes, I said it, those who are against corporal discipline of wives are PERVERTS.
Why? Because this is in the natural law. If you are at the point of resisting this issue when it is pointed out to you, then you are TOO FAR GONE. You have bitten the apple and it tastes too good to go back.
So the liberal trolls are trying to stall this thread on the question of whether it is even part of the teaching of the Church, so that normal, good Catholics cannot get talking about the ins and outs of what constitutes a just punishment. These are legitimate questions and what anonymous discussion forums are for.
So a word of warning to the liberals; the more you resist this teaching, the more hardened you will become in your heart, and this will affect your whole Catholic life. You will have a lot more time to suffer in purgatory, (if you even get there) and it will be more painful than any corporal punishment on this earth.
I have never, to my knowledge, encountered a trad man who mistreats his wife. While I occasionally see online comments that seem to reflect a bad attitude toward women, these are virtually always made by unmarried men. The married trad men that I see all seem to understand their responsibilities as a husband.Pretty insightful ma'am.
I think that it is understandable for young unmarried men to feel some hostility toward women. This is a natural response to the dominance of feminism in our culture. It is a truly evil ideology that makes men and women into enemies of each other. In such a context, it would not be surprising for men to feel tempted to use their greater strength against women. Nevertheless, I do not think that is where most of the writers in this thread are coming from.
I think that for people of this culture, the idea of corporal punishment of a wife is symbolic of a time when a husband's authority over his wife was accepted by society. It is a symbol of rejecting feminism and restoring the proper relationship between husband and wife. I see it as similar to my choice to normally wear skirts rather than pants. It is a way to show that I despise the values that feminism has introduced into society. I suspect that most, if not all, of the men writing here in favour of corporal punishment of wives would not actually mistreat a wife.
Husbands are the servants of their wives.
And you wonder why you get called a pervert?I agree that it sounds weird to refer to the husband as the servant of the wife, but there is a way to understand it that is consistent with Catholic thinking. Our Lord taught that leaders should see themselves as servants. Here is a passage from Matt 20:
[25] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=20&l=25-#x) But Jesus called them to him, and said: You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that are the greater, exercise power upon them.Unfortunately, we live in a world that want to make husbands into actual servants, rather than servant-hearted leaders, so it is not easy to see the point that Ladislaus was trying to make.[26] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=20&l=26-#x) It shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister: [27] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=20&l=27-#x) And he that will be first among you, shall be your servant.
I have never, to my knowledge, encountered a trad man who mistreats his wife.
I agree that it sounds weird to refer to the husband as the servant of the wife, but there is a way to understand it that is consistent with Catholic thinking. Our Lord taught that leaders should see themselves as servants. Here is a passage from Matt 20: Unfortunately, we live in a world that want to make husbands into actual servants, rather than servant-hearted leaders, so it is not easy to see the point that Ladislaus was trying to make.
I guess that you haven't gotten around much. I know PLENTY of these guys.
I guess that you haven't gotten around much. I know PLENTY of these guys.The marriage that I am most familiar with is my own. I can't even imagine a husband better than mine. I admit that this colours my ideas about marriage.
Well if you consider normal discpline sinful, then yea lots are doing it.
I agree that it sounds weird to refer to the husband as the servant of the wife, but there is a way to understand it that is consistent with Catholic thinking. Our Lord taught that leaders should see themselves as servants. Here is a passage from Matt 20: Unfortunately, we live in a world that want to make husbands into actual servants, rather than servant-hearted leaders, so it is not easy to see the point that Ladislaus was trying to make.
What's so difficult about this point? Yes, society would have men be actual slaves to women. But the contrary extreme, as evident in many Trad Catholic men, is to use their authority as a means of "lording it over" their wives and feeding their own egos.It is not evident to me that there are many trad men at that extreme.
What's so difficult about this point? Yes, society would have men be actual slaves to women. But the contrary extreme, as evident in many Trad Catholic men, is to use their authority as a means of "lording it over" their wives and feeding their own egos.
It is not evident to me that there are many trad men at that extreme.
So some men can be a bit childish and OTT.
And you wonder why you get called a pervert?
It is not evident to me that there are many trad men at that extreme.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Detail_of_Quo_Primum_tempore.JPG/1200px-Detail_of_Quo_Primum_tempore.JPG)
As I said, though, there are many more Trad Catholic wives who refuse to obey, honor, and respect their husbands. In fact, there are VERY FEW among Trad Catholic women who do.Perhaps it is because I am a woman, but that seems to me to be the more serious problem here. Of course men will be nostalgic for the time when corporal punishment was accepted in society, if there are so many women acting like they deserve it.
Perhaps it is because I am a woman, but that seems to me to be the more serious problem here. Of course men will be nostalgic for the time when corporal punishment was accepted in society, if there are so many women acting like they deserve it.I feel sorry for you if you believe anyone deserves to be hit. We are more civilized than that, especially Catholics.
I feel sorry for you if you believe anyone deserves to be hit. We are more civilized than that, especially Catholics.There are plenty of people who should be shot, let alone hit, such as those less "civilized"; besides, what exactly does "lay a finger on her and you'll have me to deal with" mean, besides an instant invite to just sort it right then and there? What are they gonna do, use harsh language ma'am?
Hitting is just a start down the slippery slope to abuse.
I can remember 60 years ago fathers and brothers often telling a groom, "lay a finger on her and you'll have me to deal with". Now that is the tradition I remember.
I feel sorry for you if you believe anyone deserves to be hit. We are more civilized than that, especially Catholics.When a wife refuses to honour, obey, and respect her husband she is committing a serious sin. She would be far better off getting hit in this life, if it prevented her from going to hell or spending more time in purgatory.
Hitting is just a start down the slippery slope to abuse.
I can remember 60 years ago fathers and brothers often telling a groom, "lay a finger on her and you'll have me to deal with". Now that is the tradition I remember.
Perhaps it is because I am a woman, but that seems to me to be the more serious problem here. Of course men will be nostalgic for the time when corporal punishment was accepted in society, if there are so many women acting like they deserve it.That's "okay" ma'am, let's just watch those pews empty.
Perhaps it is because I am a woman, but that seems to me to be the more serious problem here. Of course men will be nostalgic for the time when corporal punishment was accepted in society, if there are so many women acting like they deserve it.
When a wife refuses to honour, obey, and respect her husband she is committing a serious sin. She would be far better off getting hit in this life, if it prevented her from going to hell or spending more time in purgatory.
No. Not every act of disobedience is a grave sin. As with most things, there are degrees of veniality before there's serious sin. Trad Catholics also seem to believe this about modesty, as if a woman wearing an otherwise-modest sleeveless shirt is the same as a woman wearing a mini-skirt or exposing 2/3rds of her breasts ... with the former being venial while the latter serious/mortal. Same thing with disobedience or disrespect by a wife to her husband.
Well, men need to make sure they don't marry someone who might end up "deserving" it. Problem is that too many men just go after women for shallow reasons (looks and physical attraction) and then only later find out that their other qualities make them a problem.
It seems quite likely that many women are failing in their duties as wives because there are no consequences in this life. Women feel like they can get away with these things and so imperil their souls.
Perhaps it is because I am a woman, but that seems to me to be the more serious problem here.
Well, men need to make sure they don't marry someone who might end up "deserving" it. Problem is that too many men just go after women for shallow reasons (looks and physical attraction) and then only later find out that their other qualities make them a problem.This is ridiculous. You are blaming men for women's bad behaviour. Sometimes women hide their bad qualities while "on the catch" for a husband and he only finds out later. It is unfair to assume that it is the man's fault when things go wrong. Do you assume that women with bad husbands married for shallow reasons?
Toddlers are spanked because you can't reason with them.
I agree with this. Many, maybe even most, women are ruined by feminism and disciplining them is not a practical option.
Not at all. Women behave this way because of the mentality with which they were raised. They're deeply imbued with feminism. And good luck disciplining this type ... you'll end up in jail.
This is ridiculous. You are blaming men for women's bad behaviour. Sometimes women hide their bad qualities while "on the catch" for a husband and he only finds out later. It is unfair to assume that it is the man's fault when things go wrong. Do you assume that women with bad husbands married for shallow reasons?
The only thing you will teach an adult human being of either sex to do by striking them is to fear and hate you.
The only thing you will teach an adult human being of either sex to do by striking them is to fear and hate you.Not true, at least not the hate part necessarily and what is necessarily wrong with fear? I've know of lives and limbs not lost because of people hitting each other. Sometimes you don't have time to molly coddle someone who is being thick, and not paying attention, nor do you have the manpower to replace them.
Your response is utterly absurd. I'm not blaming men for the women's behavior. I'm blaming men who make the wrong choices in selecting a wife in the first place for the trouble and headaches they get down the road. Yes, every once in a while a woman could be so good at hiding this kind of thing that the man has no idea. But in 99% of cases, the signs are there from the getgo, but the husband is too clouded with emotion and attraction to notice, or else he minimizes them.Except that you still have the duty to get your family to Heaven, and Jezebel ain't gonna make it.
And, yes, many women who marry bad husbands also knew what they were like before they married them. I've had married women ADMIT this to me, that they married a husband because he was attractive and good-looking and then later regretted it. In fact, woman tend to be attracted to the "bad boy" type and then marvel when the bad boy treats them like dirt. Often the women delude themselves into thinking that they can "change" them with their "love".
I don't know what rock you've been living under, but this behavior pattern is very common. Both men and women do it all the time.
I marry a woman who's disrespectful and uppity and "independent" ... and then afterwards I realize that I need to beat her to keep her in submission? I made my own bed, and now I have to lay in it.
And I'll bet you'll be laying in it alone. LOL
I marry a woman who's disrespectful and uppity and "independent" ... and then afterwards I realize that I need to beat her to keep her in submission? I made my own bed, and now I have to lay in it.
And I'll bet you'll be laying in it alone. LOLIf that's what it takes, which explains ~90% of how men end up in dresses and women in pants; we get led around by our privates.
we get led around by our privates.
Except that you still have the duty to get your family to Heaven, and Jezebel ain't gonna make it.
No, you have the duty to see they are equiped with what they need to get to Heaven. Even women have been given free will from God and will answer for how they've used it. You can't force or beat someone into Heaven.
Also, people do change, and usually for the worse.
I totally agree.
Again
Forgot to check that box again.
Why should Ladislaus ask a priest? He is completely right.
Can any of you imagine what would happen if a priest condoned corporal punishment of a wife?
He'd loose half his parishoners.
Adults don't resort to hitting each other. Any adult who does is just a bully who hasn't grown up.
Toddlers are spanked because you can't reason with them.
From reaching the age of reason (5-6) to teens a good smack is a wake up call.
After 16-17 they should know how to understand and other punishment is more meaningful than hitting.
As mentioned earlier Joseph never hit Mary when he found out she was with child
If you must hit........be prepared for the consequences!
.
I can remember 60 years ago fathers and brothers often telling a groom, "lay a finger on her and you'll have me to deal with". Now that is the tradition I remember.
the moral theology books do make it clear that corporal punishment is permitted for wives
When a wife refuses to honour, obey, and respect her husband she is committing a serious sin. She would be far better off getting hit in this life, if it prevented her from going to hell or spending more time in purgatory.
False.
For us men, not being punished corporally by the state for our sins is a very horrible position to be in.
No. Not every act of disobedience is a grave sin. As with most things, there are degrees of veniality before there's serious sin. Trad Catholics also seem to believe this about modesty, as if a woman wearing an otherwise-modest sleeveless shirt is the same as a woman wearing a mini-skirt or exposing 2/3rds of her breasts ... with the former being venial while the latter serious/mortal. Same thing with disobedience or disrespect by a wife to her husband.
So you can't find it in yourself to have remorse for your sins and purpose of amendment out of love for God and sorrow for having offended Him? Then you are indeed in a horrible position.
Did you ask your priest that?
No?
well go do it. I have seen it myself in TWO separate moral theology books used by priests.
So go chew on that for a while.
But hey I am glad you are such an angel that you always are totally aware and conscious of every sin you commit
We have already agreed to that. Try to move the conversation forward, not backward.
I studied moral theology in seminary.
It doesn't work that way for adults.
So women will change their attitudes if they think they'll get smacked across the face every time they speak disrespectfully to the husband. Quite to the contrary, they'll only resent men all the more and will be that much more inclined towards feminism.
The only thing you will teach an adult human being of either sex to do by striking them is to fear and hate you.
Which is why the moral theology books say it is for serious sins only
Nope. This needed to be corrected ... along with all the other bogus information on this thread that can do harm. Not every act of disrespect is a mortal sin. This response of mine was made almost immediately after Jaynek posted it, so at the time nobody had "already agreed to that". So you're full of it.
So why don't you quote these moral theology books you claim to be citing? I think that your'e just making this up.
This is ESPECIALLY true when one strikes a woman. If a MAN, say a soldier, is disciplined by his drill sergeant, a man can even respect that on a certain level. Women, on the other hand, take stuff like that very personally.Modern women who do not want to learn and become better Catholics. Those women burn in hell. Praise be God for creating such a place.
Modern women who do not want to learn and become better Catholics. Those women burn in hell. Praise be God for creating such a place.
And even if you could find a source here or there that says this, I dispute their position.
So, explain again why you're too cowardly to reveal yourself but insist on posting anonymously? If you believe in your opinion, you should man up and take ownership of it.
So, according to you, women who do not want to "become better Catholics" burn in hell? Nonsense. In many cases, it just may mean a long stay in Purgatory. And now you're relishing the fact that they might burn in hell? You're an incredibly warped individual. No wonder you're afraid to reveal yourself. You know that most people would recoil in horror.
I studied moral theology in seminary. Have never seen it. Cite references. Otherwise, you're probably just a liar making this up to promote your own agenda.You have seen the moral theology book that I cited in this thread. It is very very likely that if the one I found said it was permissible, then other such books also said it. There is no reason whatsoever to think a person who claims to have seen this in moral theology books is lying.
Which is why the conversation can't go forward with you.
My rationale: Practice and Tradition of the Church and moral theology books.
Your rationale: Masonic modern peverted ideas with no precedence in the Church.
Very sad considering how much of defender of Church teaching you set yourself up to be.
You have seen the moral theology book that I cited in this thread. It is very very likely that if the one I found said it was permissible, then other such books also said it. There is no reason whatsoever to think a person who claims to have seen this in moral theology books is lying.
You really diminish your own credibility when you make comments like this.
There is no reason whatsoever to think a person who claims to have seen this in moral theology books is lying.
You really diminish your own credibility when you make comments like this.
Evidently you are not acquainted with logic and reasoning ... aka theology. That's why it's not possible to discuss this with you.
It is all or nothing.
It is important to avoid all sins, not just mortal ones. Disobeying and disrespecting one's husband is potentially a mortal sin or it might be a venial one. In both cases it is harmful to the woman's soul.
I already made clear, that disobedience is relative to it's object. And therefore is not always mortal.
lol. This is like talking to a child.
I have every reason to believe that this guy would lie. He's promoting an agenda and does not have a high moral character ... as evident from his posts.I see no evidence for this in his posts. Your use of personal attacks, rather than logical arguments, makes your position look weak.
It is important to avoid all sins, not just mortal ones. Disobeying and disrespecting one's husband is potentially a mortal sin or it might be a venial one. In both cases it is harmful to the woman's soul.written by me
All sins, in justice, deserve punishment. That is the nature of sin.
I have every reason to believe that this guy would lie. He's promoting an agenda and does not have a high moral character ... as evident from his posts.
As far as I can tell, this is exactly how the two sides line up.
My rationale: Practice and Tradition of the Church and moral theology books.
Your rationale: Masonic modern peverted ideas with no precedence in the Church.
No it isn't. That's why God in His Mercy created a place called Purgatory.
Not true, at least not the hate part necessarily and what is necessarily wrong with fear? I've know of lives and limbs not lost because of people hitting each other. Sometimes you don't have time to molly coddle someone who is being thick, and not paying attention, nor do you have the manpower to replace them.The common outcome of causing someone to fear or hate you is that they either leave or plot revenge against you. Is that what outcome you're going for here?
Who is afraid of a Catholic man any more? Nobody, esp. our enemies and they should fear us.
Our women are more manly than our Nancy boy men by-and-large, the women see it, and that in turn breeds disrespect, and insecurity because it sends the message that we've neither spine to sand to either take care of business, or them when it all goes sideways, which only reinforces women trading clothes with us.
Pathetic. I don't want some sissy like you anywhere near me when it starts getting really ugly and bloody.
The common outcome of causing someone to fear or hate you is that they either leave or plot revenge against you. Is that what outcome you're going for here?I will respond to you further, on one condition; show your digital "face" and identify yourself. Otherwise, enjoy typing at air.
I am new here, but you sure sound a lot like Pablo the Mexican in KY.Did someone hear something?
I have. Several, in fact. All traditional, some independent, some sspx, some resistance, some sedevecanti.
The answers are varied.
Some say, beat the hell out of her and she's supposed to offer it up.
Some say, if he touches her he should be shot.
Can't go by what priests say today.
When the Magisterium has been silent on a subject, that's what you're going to find ... a variety of opinion.I have thoroughly refuted your argument.
So let's return to argument.
I have made a case for the position that husbands are not permitted to lay violent hands on their wives. No one has attempted to refute it.
I see no evidence for this in his posts. Your use of personal attacks, rather than logical arguments, makes your position look weak.
I have thoroughly refuted your argument.
I have thoroughly refuted your argument.Not so.
I made my argument and then demonstrated that you must establish a valid distinction between the honor owed to parents and the honor owed to wives that would forbid violence against the former while permitting it against the latter. Honor precludes any violence towards one's parents. How, then, does honor not do the same for wives? Burden of proof is on you who advocate violence towards wives.
You haven't even come close. If you think that you have, then it clearly shows that you are simply not competent to discuss this issue. Go home and take this up with your husband.If J's husband is like mine, he is standing right besides her telling her exactly what to type. In other words, she is merely his secretary.
Oh, stop your tedious BS in pretending that I have not made logical arguments. I have made them and you have ignored them because you are not capable of making a refutation. Chances are you don't even understand how to logically approach an argument, what a syllogism looks like, etc. And yet you pontificate about logic. Your only argument is a citation from St. Thomas and a moral theology book that you scrounged up somewhere. In other words, you have a weak argument from authority ... weak because there's no root for it in the Magisterium and also because it's not a universally held opinion. Consequently, what remains is to discuss the position itself. And you are clearly incapable of doing so ... while pontificating about logic.When I took a logic course for my Masters degree I got an A+. This suggests that I have some knowledge of logic. I definitely have enough to recognize the fallacies that you have committed throughout this thread.
I made my argument and then demonstrated that you must establish a valid distinction between the honor owed to parents and the honor owed to wives that would forbid violence against the former while permitting it against the latter. Honor precludes any violence towards one's parents. How, then, does honor not do the same for wives? Burden of proof is on you who advocate violence towards wives.
When I took a logic course for my Masters degree I got an A+. This suggests that I have some knowledge of logic. I definitely have enough to recognize the fallacies that you have committed throughout this thread.But repetitious lying is shown to be so much easier, and more effective ma'am.
I have already responded to your point about honour in an earlier post. There is nothing logical about ignoring what your opponent has written and then claiming that noone has attempted to refute you.
And the burden of proof rests on those who wish to overturn the historical practice of the Catholics for almost 2000 years.
If J's husband is like mine, he is standing right besides her telling her exactly what to type. In other words, she is merely his secretary.
When I took a logic course for my Masters degree I got an A+.
I have already responded to your point about honour in an earlier post. There is nothing logical about ignoring what your opponent has written and then claiming that noone has attempted to refute you.
And the burden of proof rests on those who wish to overturn the historical practice of the Catholics for almost 2000 years.
Most likely. I'm sorry that your husband treats you like that. I, for one, value my wife's mind and her opinions ... even when they differ from my own, even if I don't always agree with her on everything. She's a human being with a mind and will created by God. I do not own her. Nor am I interested in controlling her. There would be nothing interesting to me about having a wife who's been beaten into a mindless replica of myself. I don't want another copy of myself in my wife.https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrNH8BAj_dZDE0AyvKjzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBpcGszamw0BHNlYwNmcC1pbWcEc2xrA2ltZw--/RV=2/RE=1509425088/RO=11/RU=http%3a%2f%2f1.bp.blogspot.com%2f_CRtq1HC7y80%2fTLx9GVWQn7I%2fAAAAAAAABIg%2fgiVxAO8kdzE%2fs1600%2fWhite%2bKnight.jpg/RK=1/RS=z4QgXEDdnCwagYl8E3_iRarYkSc-
Most likely. I'm sorry that your husband treats you like that. I, for one, value my wife's mind and her opinions ... even when they differ from my own, even if I don't always agree with her on everything. She's a human being with a mind and will created by God. I do not own her. Nor am I interested in controlling her. There would be nothing interesting to me about having a wife who's been beaten into a mindless replica of myself. I don't want another copy of myself in my wife.My husband values my mind and opinions so much that he paid for me to take part-time university courses throughout our marriage. He thinks of me as a highly intelligent and articulate person and that is one of the things he finds attractive about me.
Also, the logic course I took was given by a seminary. There were too few men studying for priesthood so the opened many of the courses to lay people. Admittedly it was Novus Ordo, but I think that even they are capable of doing a basic logic course right.
Secular University logic is crap. Sorry, I took that too, so I know. It doesn't compare to the scholastic logic courses one receives at seminary; it's watered-down garbage.I also took scholastic logic at a Catholic university and secular logic at a secular university. Scholastic logic was superior as it was based on the logic used by St. Thomas Aquinas and others. On the contrary, secular logic is based on the logic currently used by atheists to debunk God.
My husband values my mind and opinions so much that he paid for me to take part-time university courses throughout our marriage. He thinks of me as a highly intelligent and articulate person and that is one of the things he finds attractive about me.
I wasn't talking to you, so be quiet. My only reference to you was the implication that your husband might be telling you how to think on this subject ... and you did not object to that. Other comment to which you responded was not addressed to you, so stay out of it.... as if on cue...
That "historical practice" argument is garbage. You'll find just as many husbands, and I would argue more, who would never dare lay a hand on their wives because of the Christian charity they have for them and the honor they hold them in. Just because you can find wife beaters everywhere in history, that doesn't prove anything. You'll also find murderers and thieves throughout all of history. You can find SOME writers who hold this opinion regarding wife-beating. Others are against it. So there's no probative value in this "historical practice" whatsoever, Ms. Logic 101.People in this thread have cited sources which hold corporal punishment to be permissible. Nobody on the other side has cited sources which support their position. So far, all we have seen is your assertion that there were people against it.
False. Novus Ordo seminaries had the same crap logic classes that colleges did.I do not think that you can make a fair judgment of the course with the amount of information that you have about it. Rest assured that I do know what a syllogism is and all the other basic terminology and concepts.
If J's husband is like mine, he is standing right besides her telling her exactly what to type. In other words, she is merely his secretary.Apparently I need to go on record as objecting to this or people will assume that it is true. Consider yourselves told.
[...]Everyone can observe that I posted this earlier in the thread.
One distinction between the honour given to parents and that given to a wife, is that honouring parents is one of the 10 Commandments. Another distinction is that a wife is subject to her husband, but parents are not subject to their children.
People in this thread have cited sources which hold corporal punishment to be permissible. Nobody on the other side has cited sources which support their position. So far, all we have seen is your assertion that there were people against it.
What authoritative Church teaching has been specifically cited, where it is clearly shown that a man may strike his wife?There was a quote from St. Thomas and another from a moral theology manual. While neither of these is infallible, they are a good indication of what Catholics thought and did in the past.
There was a quote from St. Thomas and another from a moral theology manual. While neither of these is infallible, they are a good indication of what Catholics thought and did in the past.That doesn't make it Church teaching.
That doesn't make it Church teaching.Your point has been made and addressed earlier in the thread.
Your point has been made and addressed earlier in the thread.
I will respond to you further, on one condition; show your digital "face" and identify yourself. Otherwise, enjoy typing at air.Sorry, I failed to click the box- this one and the first concerning "hate and fear" are mine, the other anonymous posts are not.
You're an idiot.Is there a bee on me?
It's no wonder your wife left you.
The post made to Facebook today by the "Resistance" in favor of beating your wife is disgraceful.More a "cane" person?
The post made to Facebook today by the "Resistance" in favor of beating your wife is disgraceful.Please could you quote from that Resistance post? My husband does not like Facebook, especially its CEO.
The post made to Facebook today by the "Resistance" in favor of beating your wife is disgraceful.
Please could you quote from that Resistance post? My husband does not like Facebook, especially its CEO.
Think they were talking about this videoTo better, saner times...
https://youtu.be/nm9MEBPZkcU
People in this thread have cited sources which hold corporal punishment to be permissible. Nobody on the other side has cited sources which support their position. So far, all we have seen is your assertion that there were people against it.
You have made a specious argument against corporal punishment and seem to expect your readers to count it as having equal weight to the writing of St. Thomas Aquinas. You have not made a compelling argument for your position at all.
You're an idiot.
It's no wonder your wife left you.
You haven't even come close. If you think that you have, then it clearly shows that you are simply not competent to discuss this issue. Go home and take this up with your husband.
If J's husband is like mine, he is standing right besides her telling her exactly what to type. In other words, she is merely his secretary.
But repetitious lying is shown to be so much easier, and more effective ma'am.
That "historical practice" argument is garbage. You'll find just as many husbands, and I would argue more, who would never dare lay a hand on their wives because of the Christian charity they have for them and the honor they hold them in. Just because you can find wife beaters everywhere in history, that doesn't prove anything. You'll also find murderers and thieves throughout all of history. You can find SOME writers who hold this opinion regarding wife-beating. Others are against it. So there's no probative value in this "historical practice" whatsoever, Ms. Logic 101.
To better, saner times...
Amen brotherIt was funny before, because it reflected reality.
τίμα and τιμήν -- same root word.It is not even the same expression in the Greek. The first passsage has τίμα while the second has ἀπονέμοντες τιμήν.
τίμα and τιμήν -- same root word.
It is obvious that these texts are talking about two very different sorts of relationships and it is absurd to conclude that a wife should be treated the same way as a parent.
No one argued against this before the 20th century.
The post made to Facebook today by the "Resistance" in favor of beating your wife is disgraceful.
More personal jabs.
Avoiding the issue.
So the Anonymous clown here on CI has some ties to the Resistance Facebook page? Maybe we can flush this guy out.
Do you have a link to this post?
If I were to strike my wife, I would consider it a mortal sin, would apologize to her (and try to make amends), and would go to Confession before returning to Holy Communion.
Think they were talking about this video
https://youtu.be/nm9MEBPZkcU
τίμα and τιμήν -- same root word.The command to honour parents uses an imperative verb that orders to honour. The Greek phrase referring to women, translated as "giving honour," uses a participle (ἀπονέμοντες) that does not simply mean give, but carries the connotation "give the portion due to." So your proof-verse is actually saying a husband should give his wife the honour due to her, considering that she is both his inferior and also his sister in Christ.
Bishop Williamson of The Resistance would reprimand Jaynek as a feminist for attending University.And he would be right to do so. Although I did not identify myself as a feminist at the time, I accepted most of their ideas. By taking those courses (all from a Novus Ordo, Protestant, and/or secular perspective), I picked up a lot of wrong ideas and bad attitudes that I have had to unlearn after discovering traditional Catholicism. In many ways it made me less fit to do my duties as a Catholic wife and mother.
The command to honour parents uses an imperative verb that orders to honour. The Greek phrase referring to women, translated as "giving honour," uses a participle (ἀπονέμοντες) that does not simply mean give, but carries the connotation "give the portion due to." So your proof-verse is actually saying a husband should give his wife the honour due to her, considering that she is both his inferior and also his sister in Christ.
Answer: no, it's not. If I were a soldier in the army and struck my commanding officer, that would be an act of insubordination, and potentially sinful depending on the situation and the reason for it, but it would not in and of itself be an egregious and heinous an act as if I were to strike one of my parents. So subordination by itself isn't what makes striking someone abhorrent. But, assume for a second, that there were no Canon Law prohibiting striking religious. Let's say I smack a nun across the face. She's not my superior and I am not her subordinate. But that would be a heinous thing to do based on the honor that's owed to her as a religious.It would be wrong for you to strike a nun because you have no authority to do that. It was accepted for centuries that a nun's superior could apply apply corporal and other punishments to her. The question of discipline is determined by who has authority and not by honour.
So let's lay it out:
Parents: Honor + Superior ... striking = an egregious and heinous act
Soldier + Commanding Officer: Superior ONLY (no honor owed) ... striking USUALLLY = sinful (though not always) and not a heinous act
Nun : Honor ONLY (not superior) ... striking = an egregious and heinous act
Based on these examples, it's the honor alone that makes striking the person an egregious and heinous act.
I would no more strike my wife than I would a nun. If I were to strike my wife, I would consider it a mortal sin, would apologize to her (and try to make amends), and would go to Confession before returning to Holy Communion.
Ridiculous. Greek isn't theological math of some kind. There's no indication that the slightly differing phraseology has any theological significance. Even when honoring your parents, you're giving them the amount of honor that's due to them ... since the only absolute measure of honor owed is God Himself. This has no probative value whatsoever in this at all.The fact that Catholic moral teaching throughout the centuries did not understand that verse the way that you do is a very good indication that your understanding is wrong.
It would be wrong for you to strike a nun because you have no authority to do that. It was accepted for centuries that a nun's superior could apply apply corporal and other punishments to her. The question of discipline is determined by who has authority and not by honour.
The fact that Catholic moral teaching throughout the centuries did not understand that verse the way that you do is a very good indication that your understanding is wrong.
False. This has nothing to do with the reading of the text. Those who advocate wife-beating simply disagree with or don't understand the implications of "honor" due to poor theological reasoning. That has nothing to do with some distinction they understood between these two texts.I would be a lot more convinced of the existence of these alleged implications of honour if there was some evidence that they were mentioned in traditional Catholic teaching. At this point it just looks like something made up by a random guy on the Internet.
Nearly every post of yours oozes with contempt for women ... as the male misogynists jump in and give you high fives for it.Do you think that I should be proud of what women are like these days? Of course I have contempt for feminism and am critical of the state it has left women in.
I would be a lot more convinced of the existence of these alleged implications of honour if there was some evidence that they were mentioned in traditional Catholic teaching. At this point it just looks like something made up by a random guy on the Internet.
Do you think that I should be proud of what women are like these days? Of course I have contempt for feminism and am critical of the state it has left women in.
You're the one who tried to draw some conclusion from the slightly different phraseology used in the passages, and not I. I said that this was not convincing. You then responded that you're unconvinced that I'm unconvinced. That argument is a waste of time.You claimed that we should understand the honour due to wives by considering the honour due to parents. You claimed that it was not possible to make a distinction between them. It is very easy to see that they are distinctly different and the different phraseology is just one of the indicators.
You claimed that we should understand the honour due to wives by considering the honour due to parents. You claimed that it was not possible to make a distinction between them. It is very easy to see that they are distinctly different and the different phraseology is just one of the indicators.
But the phraseology doesn't prove that they're different. In both cases, the notion of HONOR applies. That word is there in both phrases. But you repeatedly ignore honor as if it doesn't exist ... like when you said that the only reason it's wrong to strike a nun is because I don't have the authority to do it ... and not because she's a nun.When speaking of parents, Scripture gives an absolute command to honour. When speaking of wives the instruction is qualified. This is because they are very different things.
Do you think that I should be proud of what women are like these days? Of course I have contempt for feminism and am critical of the state it has left women in.
When speaking of parents, Scripture gives an absolute command to honour. When speaking of wives the instruction is qualified. This is because they are very different things.
It is wrong to strike anyone whom one does not have the authority to strike. It is even worse to strike without authority when it is a person due special honour. This in no way implies that the mention of giving honour to a wife in one verse of the Bible means that corporal punishment is never permissible.
Boohooo.
Dude, do you want a hankie. Pwoor wittle girl likes to insult instead of thinking rationally like a man.
Grow up!
Look man, you're heading towards fαɢɢօtry pretty fast. Quit while you are ahead.
Boohooo.
Dude, do you want a hankie. Pwoor wittle girl likes to insult instead of thinking rationally like a man.
Grow up!
Do you beat your wife?
OK, so now you've shifted to saying that the honor simply makes it WORSE. Before you said that honor had nothing to do with it. Interesting how you keep having to shift your position. Makes it obvious that it was never on solid ground to begin with. And, when you shift your position, it's usually an indicator that you made up your mind from the outset due to various emotional reasons and are looking for reasons to justify your conclusion after the fact.I said that unauthorized hitting is worse when done to those to whom special honour is due. I also said that questions of discipline are determined by authority rather than honour. This is neither a contradiction nor a shift in position. These are two complementary points.
I said that unauthorized hitting is worse when done to those to whom special honour is due. I also said that questions of discipline are determined by authority rather than honour. This is neither a contradiction nor a shift in position. These are two complementary points.... and, more broadly, genetic.
Your continued speculation about my emotional state and motivation are irrelevant as well as being classic examples of the ad hominem fallacy.
Possum? Ah shuvveld it muhself. It ain't rurnt, nur rurnt over, jest bounstit offin' uh truk yestiddy.
Great to have such wonderful enlightened city folk to guide us all.
Who ever said snobbery was dead among Catholics, look no further than the above.
I already explained that I am 12 and 1/2.A very precocious twelve...
Pay attention!
Your continued speculation about my emotional state and motivation are irrelevant as well as being classic examples of the ad hominem fallacy.
When speaking of parents, Scripture gives an absolute command to honour. When speaking of wives the instruction is qualified.
But you still deserve a beating.
distinguish beat from discipline.
I don't beat.
Great to have such wonderful enlightened city folk to guide us all.
Who ever said snobbery was dead among Catholics, look no further than the above.
Unfortunately many trad Catholic men confuse being a manly man with being an arrogant bully.
Too many Trad men are control freaks with very poor self control who think it is ok to lose their temper in an argument and do things like grab their wife by her throat and hold her up against a wall, shove her backwards through a screen door, grab her by the upper arms and violently shake her leaving bruises, shove her down on the couch by her face breaking her nose, etc.That's really... specific.
I'm sure these examples of Catholic manhood and wife discipline are found in the example of the Holy Family. /sarcasm
Too many Trad men are control freaks with very poor self control who think it is ok to lose their temper in an argument and do things like grab their wife by her throat and hold her up against a wall, shove her backwards through a screen door, grab her by the upper arms and violently shake her leaving bruises, shove her down on the couch by her face breaking her nose, etc.?
Indeed. And this bullying arrogance is incompatible with the honor that husbands owe their wives. Jaynek is only helping to fuel this degradation of women that is far too common among Traditional Catholic men. She has nothing good to say about women and nothing at all to say about their right to being treated with honor by their husbands. She's almost worse than the male misogynists here. Misogyny is a very real thing among Trad Catholic men, but Jaynek refuses to acknowledge this.I have never witnessed misogyny among Trad Catholic men so, of course, I do not say that I have. I know about my own marriage and have a few close trad friends who all seem to have good husbands. The only other place I see Trad men is before and after Mass. I have not seen anybody mistreating his wife there. While I see people's forum posts, I am not going to jump to conclusions or try to read their minds from that.
It is quite reasonable that I prefer to focus on this.Yes ma'am, it is; however as far as this thread is concerned, you passed "impasse" back at the pass, if you'll pardon a feeble attempt to defuse things.
Yes ma'am, it is; however as far as this thread is concerned, you passed "impasse" back at the pass, if you'll pardon a feeble attempt to defuse things.I have been thinking the same thing. Continuing to post to this thread does not seem to be a good use of time.
It has long been worse than fruitless, all summed.
I have been thinking the same thing. Continuing to post to this thread does not seem to be a good use of time.Please don't misconstrue ma'am, for if naught else you've somewhat encouraged at least one.
I am glad that I wrote something, though. I think it was useful to show that some women can understand and accept the traditional Catholic view of a husband's authority.
I have been thinking the same thing. Continuing to post to this thread does not seem to be a good use of time.Now, there goes my through and through melancholia again because just writing of the Blessed prompted a memory; while she's all mercy, sometimes that mercy requires severity, like when she supposedly burned down a building, and the revelers inside, for profaning a day meant for her Son.
I am glad that I wrote something, though. I think it was useful to show that some women can understand and accept the traditional Catholic view of a husband's authority.
I have never witnessed misogyny among Trad Catholic men so, of course, I do not say that I have.
Don't know who the author is of "The Catholic Resistance." on Facebook, @sspx.resistance
Here it is.
Equivocation and retrenchment on the question of the future of Catholic families in the nations that were once faithful daughters of the Church. Yes, it's certainly true that feminism destroys nations. Of course, there does not seem to be serious opposition to the feminism anywhere in the Western world today. Especially among "trads." The rule of the husband and father in the home and the rebellious spirit of woman that tests that authority so as to prove it, has no shelter in the law. The two no longer becoming one body in the law, the husband lacking authority and dignity and being at the mercy of his wife and her relatives who can call the police to drag him out of "his castle" in handcuffs on the barest pretexts. Blanket accusations of "abuse" and "cruelty" cannot be met by any reliable defense. Separation is the only legitimate recourse for severe dissension. I do not believe any woman can take her marriage vows seriously, who would call the police to punish her husband instead of yielding humbly before hard words and blows that wound pride more than the flesh. The common man lacks the basic rights in law that were the basis of marriage, and marriage itself is dissolved by women with impunity. We must return to the ancient ideal of patriarchal authority, recognizing strife in the home as a matter to be settled by the master of the house.
Gentleness and mildness are great virtues, but they are never respected in those without real power. The Gentleman, must first be a Man, therefore, he must possess Man's primeval rights in marriage.
https://www.rt.com/news/408118-europe-dramatic-sterility-pope/
You really have a perverse notion of marriage.It is really sad to see one person post anonymously repeatedly and try to dominate the thread. This is bossiness and immaturity to the extreme.
Talk about taking honor to excess. You will pay dearly for the scandal you are causing to those around you.
It is really sad to see one person post anonymously repeatedly and try to dominate the thread. This is bossiness and immaturity to the extreme.My post.
Marriage is to be a life of martyrdom (denying one's will and deferring to the other spouse), a school of sanctity (learning patience, humility, and love), and a domestic church consecrated to prayer and love.
There is no place in church for spousal beatings. Read the life of St. Dominic de Guzman. Never a harsh or angry word came from his mouth when he had to correct someone. He always corrected in love. He bore witness to the Transfiguration of Christ as his face shown with a holy light. His relics were found to be fragrant. May we all learn to be meek and humble of heart.
Read the life of St. Dominic de Guzman. Never a harsh or angry word came from his mouth when he had to correct someone. He always corrected in love. He bore witness to the Transfiguration of Christ as his face shown with a holy light. His relics were found to be fragrant. May we all learn to be meek and humble of heart.
A conscience turned in on itself because you refuse to measure it against the teaching of the Church.
You really have a perverse notion of marriage.
Talk about taking honor to excess. You will pay dearly for the scandal you are causing to those around you.
It's in the monastic rules. I have read it myself.
... Jaynek has been one of the rare examples of a woman who exercises her reason with the help of grace.
Bring it.
Can't think of a quicker way to divorce than to take a hand to the old lady.Point: V2
Women must be subservient to their husbands, but men must love their wives like their own bodies. Show me a man who spanks his own backside and this whole thing will be settled.There is a long standing tradition in Catholicism of physical mortification and penance. It included self-flagellation. I guess it's settled then.
I'm trying to imagine the woman bad enough to deserve a spanking who would tolerate a spanking and benefit from it. This thread is ridiculous.
Show me a man who spanks his own backside and this whole thing will be settled.
There is a long standing tradition in Catholicism of physical mortification and penance. It included self-flagellation. I guess it's settled then.Hardly. Those who flaggelate themselves do not do it to women.
:laugh1:Ha. Indeed. Have at it boys. Spank your own fannies to your delight. In truth, it's the effeminate men who don't know how to relate to women who think spanking will work. Or they just enjoy the male hormone rush when they get rough with the ladies. If the later, no bueno.
I wouldn't be surprised if that Anonymous blowhard does exactly that ... and enjoys it just a little too much.
So all the saints who flagellated themselves were sadists?
Only because she accepts Catholic teaching.
You won't believe me even if I did.
Over the top reaction to distract from the teaching of the Church.
Corporal punishment belongs in love.
A husband loves his wife if he loves her soul more than her feelings.
You people are traitors to our Lord and will pay the price.
That's just creepy.Everyone who is, will.
This is nonsense, and goes to show how liberalized Catholic peoples have become. Hispanics, just like the other catholic ethnicities have drunk the Masonic cool-aid right down.I believe you are mistaken about our "Masonic infection" because this is the way it's been for many generations. I don't know, maybe they call that custom or even tradition???
I appreciate that the threads are long, but you should catch up. We have already provided one moral theology book. There are many more. You can end this scruple for yourself by asking your priest if it is in there. Don't ask him for his interpretation, but just if it is in there.
And regardless of where a husband is, if he has to discipline his wife he would do it discreetly.
Snitches are everywhere. As this forum shows quite abundantly.
You people are traitors to our Lord and will pay the price.
"We have already provided one moral theology book", The name of which was never given even once.I gave a name and a link to it. I posted it Wed Oct 25 2017 19:11:04 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I was able to find an old moral theology manual online:here (https://books.google.ca/books?id=2RYPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=%22moral+theology%22+wife+punishment&source=bl&ots=uYxsD_CRlU&sig=lcOUbpIK3kX-8IRkqhlJfrg-Djk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb7pLf7YzXAhVL74MKHS3PBboQ6AEIPzAD#v=onepage&q=%22moral%20theology%22%20wife%20punishment&f=false)
It is called A Synopsis of the Moral Theology of Peter Dens written in 1838.
It has a section on "Is it lawful for a husband to whip his wife?" It says, in part,
"As for moderate whipping it may be permitted, if the wife is much in fault, and there is no hope that she may be corrected in any other way; but this case is very rare."
A man is lower in nature than his mother.
Equal to other men, but superior to his wife.
That's actually patently false. Man's nature is higher than that of his mother (cf. St. Thomas). But, then, you really have no idea what you're talking about, theologically speaking.
Again, the point is, before this you stated that corporal punishment is allowed because of love, in order to prevent sin. But you forgot to mention anything else. Based on that, it would be permissible to strike one's mother.
I believe you are mistaken about our "Masonic infection" because this is the way it's been for many generations. I don't know, maybe they call that custom or even tradition???
Catch up? I wasted a lot of time reading all 37 pages to be told to "catch up"? Wow... that means there's nothing to this thread 'til now, most likely...
"We have already provided one moral theology book", The name of which was never given even once. Sure, I'll ask my nearest cleric if opportunity permits, but don't hold your breath cause I doubt it will be immediately cited on the spot.
... I still say you are a wimp. If you are going to call me a turncoat you should have the decency to say it with your user-name visible. Maybe you are anonymous for fear of no lady wanting anything to do with the likes of such, or worse, henpecked?
So there, back atcha! But pointless, banter.
"Husbands should Love there wives as Christ Loves the Church"
I bet the pusillanimous types recommending bending the wife over a knee get their jollies from it.
Catholics only started disputing this teaching of the Church after the arrival of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. End of story.
I never said it wasn't a sin to be disrespectful of a wife.
A man is lower in nature than his mother.
That's just creepy.
That's just creepy.
Agreed. There's something seriously wrong with this guy.
... I still say you are a wimp. ... Maybe you are anonymous for fear of no lady wanting anything to do with the likes of such,
^This.Forget to tick the box?
Or abuse her in any way...
Based on this thread I no longer wonder why my daughter says all traditional Catholic prospects she has met are "off".
The woman who does wrong is already beyond spankings from her husband.
Traditional Catholic ladies may wish to ask any prospective husbands, before they get married, whether they think it's OK for a husband to beat his wife.If a lady is truly a traditional Catholic then she would understand that Gen 3:16 punished all women after the Fall to "be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee."
Do try to make distinctions.
Abuse is not the same as dicsipline and punishment.
God punishes women corporally with hell and purgatory.
Men are not better than God.
As per usual, you're skirting the actual issue. Everyone knows the difference between abuse and punishment. Question is who has the right to discipline whom. I do not have the right to impose and carry out the death penalty against my neighbor; only the state can do that. I do not have the right to discipline my parents. This is not a question of being "better than God". Rather, when you arrogate unto yourself the authority to discipline people you have no right to discipline, you're actually playing God, pretending that you're His equal. My argument has been and is that the honor husbands are required to show their wives precludes using corporal punishment against them ... as the latter is degrading to them and incompatible with honor. You guys think that by establishing the licitness of corporal punishment in the abstract you're proving that it's permissible for a husband to discipline his wife.that was mine
For most women it is the THREAT of corporal discipline which is enough to keep her in line.
:laugh1:
For most women the threat of corporal punishment is enough to make them hate you even more. I don't know who these "most women" are. If your wife needs the threat of corporal punishment to do right and to avoid sin, then she's already a lost cause and you really should have married better. If she needs the threat of corporal punishment to avoid sin, then she's likely at a point where she'll continue to sin but will do better to avoid getting caught.
As per usual, you're skirting the actual issue. Everyone knows the difference between abuse and punishment. Question is who has the right to discipline whom. I do not have the right to impose and carry out the death penalty against my neighbor; only the state can do that. I do not have the right to discipline my parents. This is not a question of being "better than God". Rather, when you arrogate unto yourself the authority to discipline people you have no right to discipline, you're actually playing God, pretending that you're His equal. My argument has been and is that the honor husbands are required to show their wives precludes using corporal punishment against them ... as the latter is degrading to them and incompatible with honor. You guys think that by establishing the licitness of corporal punishment in the abstract you're proving that it's permissible for a husband to discipline his wife.Ladislaus, this is a really weak argument that can't convince anyone because there are hundreds of years of the Church teaching that a husband does have a right to use corporal punishment on his wife. There is no precedent for saying for saying it is incompatible with the honour due to a wife. Your position just comes a cross as a novelty based on your personal interpretation of Scripture. The question of who has the right to discipline whom has been answered many times over in this regard.
Ladislaus, this is a really weak argument that can't convince anyone because there are hundreds of years of the Church teaching that a husband does have a right to use corporal punishment on his wife. There is no precedent for saying for saying it is incompatible with the honour due to a wife. Your position just comes a cross as a novelty based on your personal interpretation of Scripture. The question of who has the right to discipline whom has been answered many times over in this regard.
I think you could make a stronger case by acknowledging that the right exists but should be waived.
No, it's a very strong argument. It's stronger than anything on the pro-wife-beating side. Those who advocate wife-beating discuss the issue as if it were a simple case of a superior disciplining a subordinate. Once the element of honor is introduced ... which none of the wife-beating advocates consider ... then the burden shifts to them to demonstrate that honor permits physical violence of husband against wife ... while it precludes it from children against parents.
And, guess what, you're not going to convince anyone who's against wife beating in principle to be for it either ... because we consider your argument to be extremely weak also. You have made NO argument whatsoever except to cite "authorities" who think as you do and to reiterate the notion that a superior can physically discipline an inferior.
Ladislaus, this is a really weak argument that can't convince anyone because there are hundreds of years of the Church teaching that a husband does have a right to use corporal punishment on his wife. There is no precedent for saying for saying it is incompatible with the honour due to a wife. Your position just comes a cross as a novelty based on your personal interpretation of Scripture. The question of who has the right to discipline whom has been answered many times over in this regard.
I think you could make a stronger case by acknowledging that the right exists but should be waived. I found your argument in another thread about how this can cause scandal thought-provoking and persuasive. There is no question that the idea of corporal punishment of a wife is shocking and disturbing to modern people, to a point where it can interfere with them accepting the Faith.
This reminds me of the situation that St. Paul wrote about in I Corinthians 8. As you know, the people were arguing over whether it was permissible to eat food that had been sacrificed to idols. St. Paul acknowledged the position of those who believed it was permissible by saying that they were right that the false gods did not not exist and the sacrifices had no real power. But he told them that even if, strictly speaking, they had a right to do it, it was spiritually harmful to others. He told them to consider their weaker brothers.
The idea that we must consider the effect our actions have on others when determining the morality of the action is well established in traditional Catholic moral teaching. This makes a much better basis for an argument against corporal punishment.
So I thought you were going to back off the scandal you are causing by condoning and enabling violence and disrespect towards women ... as well as scandalizing people who might otherwise consider Traditional Catholicism except for this kind of garbage. What happened? Just couldn't help yourself?
No, it's a very strong argument. It's stronger than anything on the pro-wife-beating side. Those who advocate wife-beating discuss the issue as if it were a simple case of a superior disciplining a subordinate. Once the element of honor is introduced ... which none of the wife-beating advocates consider ... then the burden shifts to them to demonstrate that honor permits physical violence of husband against wife ... while it precludes it from children against parents.Traditional Catholics are likely to look at tradition to determine what is right. Traditionally marriage has been understood to be a superior/subordinate relationship. Traditionally, this involved the right to use corporal punishment. Traditionally, the element of honour was not introduced into this issue. Of course we look at "authorities" to understand what the traditional teaching was. This is how trads do things. It is pretty much what makes us trads.
And, guess what, you're not going to convince anyone who's against wife beating in principle to be for it either ... because we consider your argument to be extremely weak also. You have made NO argument whatsoever except to cite "authorities" who think as you do and to reiterate the notion that a superior can physically discipline an inferior.
So I thought you were going to back off the scandal you are causing by condoning and enabling violence and disrespect towards women ... as well as scandalizing people who might otherwise consider Traditional Catholicism except for this kind of garbage. What happened? Just couldn't help yourself?This is what I was telling you when I wrote about 1 Corinthians 8. When the issue is scandal, one needs to acknowledge that this is the problem rather than making weak arguments that the thing is intrinsically wrong.
So, Jaynek, where's the "weakness" of this argument?Right here:
In other situations where honor is required, honor precludes the use of physical violence because it's degrading to the one receiving it and incompatible with honor. So, for instance, it's considered a heinous act for a child to strike his parent.This is a false analogy. You need an example in which a superior must honour a subordinate and it is never permissible to use corporal punishment. You are claiming that the wrongness of striking a parent derives from the honour due to them, but it is not possible to separate this honour from the fact of it being a superior position.
And with every post you simply embolden that Anonymous cretin who interleaves his posts with yours.And when you call him an Anonymous cretin you strengthen his belief that your opinions have no value.
And when you call him an Anonymous cretin you strengthen his belief that your opinions have no value.Has it occurred to you Jayne that it is very likely that wife-beaters are usually cretins too?
In order to persuade people to change their behaviour one speaks to them respectfully and establishes some common ground. Name-calling hardens people in their positions.
I think you would have a lot more success if you acknowledged your opponents as trying to do the right thing and having a legitimate basis for their beliefs. How is anyone going to be convinced by being called a wife-beater and a cretin?
And if your goal is not to persuade people, then what is your reason for posting about this?
What the hell... People must really not have anything better to do than post on such a despicable subject??Settle down, madam.
And then we wonder why the trad world isn't flourishing. My my, what wonder.
To the OP- get lost.
To Matthew And Mater- Please, for the sake of God, delete this thread.
Has it occurred to you Jayne that it is very likely that wife-beaters are usually cretins too?There is no reason to think that anybody posting in this thread is a wife-beater. I suspect that some of the men posting here spank their wives which is not the same thing at all. (I recently saw somebody on another forum say he did this.)
There is no reason to think that anybody posting in this thread is a wife-beater. I suspect that some of the men posting here spank their wives which is not the same thing at all. (I recently saw somebody on another forum say he did this.)The term 'cretin' was used specifically to describe wife-beaters. It wasn't meant in a general way. One definition of 'cretin' is to be stupid, which I believe is an appropriate description for wife-beaters and wife-spankers. You are distracting away from the subject by stating this, which you often do. And you aren't even looking at the argument against wife-beaters or wife-spankers (as if spanking is more acceptable!).
If one were to dismiss people as cretins merely for the position they take, I expect we would see a lot of flat earth proponents called cretins. I prefer to look at the arguments people make for their positions. Although even Ladislaus, whom I think is very smart, is making a bad argument in this thread. So even that does not always work.
The term 'cretin' was used specifically to describe wife-beaters. It wasn't meant in a general way. One definition of 'cretin' is to be stupid, which I believe is an appropriate description for wife-beaters and wife-spankers. You are distracting away from the subject by stating this, which you often do. And you aren't even looking at the argument against wife-beaters or wife-spankers (as if spanking is more acceptable!).I myself have made several arguments against using corporal punishment throughout this thread. My position is that this was a traditional belief and practice of the Church, but is not prudent now and probably impractical.
The argument has been made that it has not been a practice of the Church. You haven't paid attention to those arguments.
I myself have made several arguments against using corporal punishment throughout this thread. My position is that this was a traditional belief and practice of the Church, but is not prudent now and probably impractical.
The argument has been made that it has not been a practice of the Church. You haven't paid attention to those arguments.
Just because it has been a practice in a culture (Catholic culture) to beat wives, doesn't men that it has been a stated teaching of the Church.
The argument has been made that it has not been a practice of the Church. You haven't paid attention to those arguments.Those saying it has not been a practice of the Church have not supported their position. Nobody has offered any authoritative sources against corporal punishment. In contrast, there have been authoritative sources for it.
Just because it has been a practice in a culture (Catholic culture) to beat wives, doesn't men that it has been a stated teaching of the Church.
Those saying it has not been a practice of the Church have not supported their position. Nobody has offered any authoritative sources against corporal punishment. In contrast, there have been authoritative sources for it.
It is not enough to assert something. One must provide evidence and the opponents of corporal punishment have not done so. The proponents are the ones who made a better case for their position.
The proponents wife-beating and wife-spanking absolutely did not make a better case.Using excessive force on a wife is wrong and that has always been the position of the Church. But that is a different issue from corporal punishment.
And since when would 'making a better case' really count in the overall scheme of things? The Modernists in the conciliar church believe that they make a better case for their liberal views than do the Traditionalists. That doesn't mean that the Modernists are correct.
There is right and there is wrong. Wife-beating is wrong.
Using excessive force on a wife is wrong and that has always been the position of the Church. But that is a different issue from corporal punishment.
You appear to prefer going with your gut feeling to figuring out what the Church has taught. That is actually a characteristic of modernists.
Traditional Catholics are likely to look at tradition to determine what is right. Traditionally marriage has been understood to be a superior/subordinate relationship. Traditionally, this involved the right to use corporal punishment. Traditionally, the element of honour was not introduced into this issue.
Has it occurred to you Jayne that it is very likely that wife-beaters are usually cretins too?
The Church has not taught that wife-beating or excessive force is acceptable. Just because a theologian or two held the view does not mean that it has been an actual teaching of the Church.You are not adding anything new to the discussion. I am not going to restate all the evidence that this was an actual teaching of the Church. I was, however, convinced by this evidence. Making up other motives for me is neither logical nor honest.
You are not adding anything new to the discussion. I am not going to restate all the evidence that this was an actual teaching of the Church. I was, however, convinced by this evidence. Making up other motives for me is neither logical nor honest.
I state the truth, and if people don't like, well, they can literally go to hell.
For people like you, when they get to that stage, the only thing they need to wake them up is a good flogging.
There is no reason to think that anybody posting in this thread is a wife-beater.
Traditionally my foot ... unless you mean traditionally with a lower-case t. Tradition with a capital T necessarily derives from Church teaching, and there's no Church teaching on this matter. There were theological errors that remained unchallenged for sometimes hundreds of years that were eventually questioned and then overturned by the Church. Just because you can find a handful of theologians who support wife-beating, that doesn't make it "Traditional". You simply make the gratuitous assertion that my argument is wrong but can't actually refute it.It was merely not a handful of theologians. This is what was taught in the manuals for priests and in canon law. This was the official teaching. This was also was the common understanding of most people. I am not aware of any evidence of any Catholic, theologian or not, thinking anything else.
THIS is why I call this Anonymous blowhard a cretin. So, Jaynek, do you really think this buffoon is not capable of abusing his wife? He's already calling for a "good flogging" for someone who disagrees with him on a theological point. Heaven help the poor woman who burns his toast.I had assumed it was a rhetorical flourish. If he meant it literally, I suppose it is possible this person could be abusive.
I had assumed it was a rhetorical flourish. If he meant it literally, I suppose it is possible this person could be abusive.
It was merely not a handful of theologians. This is what was taught in the manuals for priests and in canon law. This was the official teaching. This was also was the common understanding of most people. I am not aware of any evidence of any Catholic, theologian or not, thinking anything else.I don't recall Anonymous providing any source regarding the issue being taught in manuals, or in canon law. Earlier in the thread, he said he couldn't remember exactly where the information was, so maybe it was found later.
It was merely not a handful of theologians. This is what was taught in the manuals for priests and in canon law. This was the official teaching. This was also was the common understanding of most people. I am not aware of any evidence of any Catholic, theologian or not, thinking anything else.
I do not see how anyone on this forum has the authority to say they were wrong. I have repeatedly explained why your argument is logically flawed and unconvincing. If you actually believe that women are being threatened by people's beliefs on this subject, focus on the arguments that have some hope of convincing people.
I don't recall Anonymous providing any source regarding the issue being taught in manuals, or in canon law. Earlier in the thread, he said he couldn't remember exactly where the information was, so maybe it was found later.In this thread, one manual was cited. In another thread, a secondary source compiled multiple sources. here (https://books.google.fr/books?id=sHlpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=Domestic+violence+in+classical+canon+law&source=bl&ots=BCpPei0OKP&sig=KrzfQkYNMUPXb8PwBpRDwSVCjkw&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjygs2-pqDXAhUNPVAKHfW7Dy0Q6AEIQzAD#v=onepage&q=Domestic%20violence%20in%20classical%20canon%20law&f=false)
I'll go through the thread and get back to you later.
I was being entirely honest and logical in reminding you of your past liberal views. Just because you don't want to be reminded doesn't mean that it isn't relevant or that it's dishonest. That is uncharitable of you.
Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal logical fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.
Really the only thing that you're accomplishing is encouraging those men who use this position to abuse their wives and to disrespect them and to treat them like garbage. And, yes, they DO exist. I know quite a few of them.As I have pointed out, if such men exist, your contributions to the thread are probably encouraging them even more than mine.
Men like Ladislaus have to use so many insults because their agression is so pent up an distorted. This is because you cannot bring yourself to be humble enough to accept the Churchs teaching.I don't like this attributing bad motives to each other no matter which side is doing it. I wish we could just look at evidence and logical arguments without this sort of thing.
I did mean it literally.
here is why:
Because you are causing a public scandal by arguing obstinately against Church teaching. A flogging is only a warning. It is not burning. Consider it light.
Honestly, you really must live a pampered life if you are freaking out over that remark.
His motive has been made clear by himself. We don't need to expose it. He simply rejects the Church's teaching no matter how much evidence is presented. Because he doesn't like it. Ignorance is no longer an excuse for him
Because you are causing a public scandal by arguing obstinately against Church teaching. A flogging is only a warning. It is not burning. Consider it light.One might make a case that flogging is an appropriate punishment for heresy, but that is not the level of teaching involved here. Permissibility of corporal punishment is not a dogma or even a magisterial teaching. I doubt there is anything seriously wrong with arguing against it.
Not very charitable to bring up that. Ever heard of a conversion?
Too far in the direction of the truth? Not likely....
You only want to decloak so you can poison the well with ad hominem arguments. THAT is what is cowardly.
Don't be jealous because I am simply prudent.
Personally, I would have him dragged by his hair from behind his computer to the square in his town. And have it administered there.
Personally, I would have him dragged by his hair from behind his computer to the square in his town. And have it administered there.
CLEARLY, I was talking about the administration of corporal discipline by the local authorities.
I didn't say I would do it, but WOULD HAVE IT DONE. If I were a local magistrate, that is what I would prescribe.
This is what you deserve for your obstinacy.
Marriage today is a secular contract.When did you stop beating your wife? 😂
The Church priests should not ever ask for nor condone a marriage license, which is a secular instrument used to enforce and usurp an Mans right to his property, including his wife.
There are little benefits to marriage today for any man. I believe in a Church sacrament but no license, or common law with witnesses and a priest presiding.
No Fault divorce states mean you work and if she tires of you or finds another, yes it happens to Trads too, she takes hald + Your monthly income, whatever Judge Goldstein thinks is fair that day, + Child Support. Lose/Lose.
Be Smart, men.
So, Jaynek, do you still think that this guy isn't a wife beater? I figured him out about two posts in.If I had to guess, I would say that he is not married. He seems to be thinking about the ideal in the absence of practical experience. I would expect a married man's views to be tempered by his tenderness for his wife.
If I had to guess, I would say that he is not married. He seems to be thinking about the ideal in the absence of practical experience. I would expect a married man's views to be tempered by his tenderness for his wife.
Alot of white knights defending feminism, knowingly or unknowingly.Gee man, I don't know, I seem to recall a woman by the name Isabella who put together the Spanish Empire, drove out the Moors and Jєωs, and had tried to reform the corrupt Catholic Clergy... ::)
The phrase- General rule of Thumb.
Where have we heard it?
It comes from Old English & Scottish Law where a husband was permitted to use a stick No thicker than his thumb to administer corporal punishment to a wife that was in need of said punishment.
By refusing to take such measures and allowing women to vote, we are literally witnessing the death of the West.
Women in their entire lives, have never built anything. NOTHING>
White Men, mostly of Germanic origin, have built and created Western Civilization. And now our women run nations like Sweden, wearing Hijabs and inviting Muslims in to destroy it.
If you dont think any of this is a problem and recipe for disaster, you havent thought things through very much.
Diversion from the issue at hand....
The Church's teaching is universal.
Don't criticise those who defend it.
Church's "teaching" is silent on this particular matter.This is our point of disagreement. I find it misleading to say that the Church's teaching is silent when a matter appears in morality manuals and canon law. If you mean to say that there is no magisterial teaching, then it is necessary to say that explicitly to make matters clear.
This is our point of disagreement. I find it misleading to say that the Church's teaching is silent when a matter appears in morality manuals and canon law. If you mean to say that there is no magisterial teaching, then it is necessary to say that explicitly to make matters clear.
It is a matter of historical record that a husband's right to use corporal punishment was taught by Catholic authorities, believed by the majority of Catholics and practiced, all until relatively recently. One could concede these things and still make good arguments as to why the practice is not appropriate in our time.
Denying the facts of history, or even sounding like one is denying the facts of history, cannot move the discussion forward.
This is our point of disagreement. I find it misleading to say that the Church's teaching is silent when a matter appears in morality manuals and canon law. If you mean to say that there is no magisterial teaching, then it is necessary to say that explicitly to make matters clear.
It is a matter of historical record that a husband's right to use corporal punishment was taught by Catholic authorities, believed by the majority of Catholics and practiced, all until relatively recently. One could concede these things and still make good arguments as to why the practice is not appropriate in our time.
Denying the facts of history, or even sounding like one is denying the facts of history, cannot move the discussion forward.
So you agreed that it is not prudent and is harmful to the faith to promote this as Church teaching ... and yet you continue to promote it as Church teaching? You're doing the same thing that the Flat Earthers do ... vis-a-vis St. Augustine's criticism.I am not "promoting" it. I am acknowledging the historical facts. I can't lie about what happened. I have no doubts that this was taught (at a non-magisterial level) believed and practiced. I cannot say anything else or even be silent when others make false claims. I can't pretend it didn't happen, just because I'm concerned it will make the Church look bad.
I think that any potential harm to the faith can be mitigated by explaining the historical context and by saying it does not apply today. I am not trying to convince anyone to actually use corporal punishment on his wife.
Well, except that you're saying that this is Church teaching. As such it's simply not true that "it does not apply today" because Church teaching doesn't expire.Defined doctrines about faith and morals do not expire. But other matters may be contingent or changeable. For example, at different times, the Church has taught different things about the age to begin receiving Holy Communion. That can change even though the doctrines about the Eucharist do not expire.
Defined doctrines about faith and morals do not expire. But other matters may be contingent or changeable. For example, at different times, the Church has taught different things about the age to begin receiving Holy Communion. That can change even though the doctrines about the Eucharist do not expire.
Similarly, the defined doctrines concerning marriage will not expire, but specific practices, like the age at which one may marry, can change. That the husband is in authority over his wife is a teaching that will not expire , but specific ways in which the husband exercises his authority can change.
Why on earth are people getting so emotional over this. Corporal punishment was CLEARLY allowed and practiced in Catholic countries and, as has been pointed out, was even talked about by theologians who did not condemn it. Of course it should only be used when necessary; I don't think anyone here is advocating for widespread spousal abuse. :fryingpan:
That being said, some women need it. I am a woman, I've never been beaten...but I probably deserved it a time or two. :-[
What if a woman is about to commit a mortal sin? Would it not be better to give her a good flogging (within a TRUSTING marriage....not with some psychotic wife who is going to go to law enforcement afterwards) than to see her fall so far from grace, potentially ruining her chance of salvation? I genuinely think it's a quicker way of resolving conflict than bottling things up and turning passive aggressive toward your spouse. It's like when I spank my toddler....matter-of-factly...quick...she apologizes, I forgive her, we move on.
:laugh1:It also seemed so to me, and the "I am a woman" was kind of jarring when I read it for that reason.
This newbie is clearly a guy and not a woman. You can tell by his writing style.
So you're saying that the licitness of wife-beating is simply a disciplinary matter, then, and not a moral teaching. Uh, no, the Church did not "teach" different things about the age to receive Communion. You're mixing terms now and being disingenuous. Church established various disciplines regarding the age for Holy Communion.I don't think we are using the terminology quite the same way, but I am not being disingenuous. I am trying to communicate clearly and honestly. The words "doctrine" "teaching" and "discipline" all refer to teaching and instruction but with different connotations. One might say that the Church teaches to abstain from meat on Fridays and one might say that the Church teaches that Christ is really present in the Eucharist. Even though the same word "teach" is used, they are not the same kind of teaching. This is a limitation of language rather than me being deliberately unclear.
But if it's subject to change, then it could be wrong, and I am entitled to question it, right?
So you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You claim on the one hand that this is Church "teaching" and then on the other hand suggest that it's changeable like a Church discipline.
The punishment above was in relation to your PREACHING against a husbands right and duty to do so.I was thinking about this and I realized that this poster is wanting to recreate an entire historical social structure in which corporal punishment of wives was a part. This was a society that used corporal punishment to enforce the authority of virtually all superior-subject relationships. And, the scenario described, a man being held responsible for the behaviour of his wife and punished for it, really happened. A woman might even escape punishment by civil authorities on the assumption that she would receive it from her husband instead. In a society like this, it would be unjust for a man not to be allowed to punish his wife because he was facing punishment himself if he did not enforce proper behaviour from her.
But even if you did not preach, and if your wife was causing sufficient grave public scandal, then I would (as magistrate) have you flogged as well as her.
I have been called a man on this forum before (before i was banned). I am a woman, albeit an apparently masculine woman, but a woman all the same. I have birthed two children so far, but oh well...I'm not going to try to convince either of you. :-XI was called a man for espousing this view too. It seems to be a standard practice. I am just grateful that you are using a name rather than being yet another anonymous poster contributing to the discussion. It is so confusing.
As I understand it, the licitness of corporal punishment derives from the husband's authority which is an unchanging doctrine.
I think that any potential harm to the faith can be mitigated by explaining the historical context and by saying it does not apply today.
I was called a man for espousing this view too. It seems to be a standard practice. I am just grateful that you are using a name rather than being yet another anonymous poster contributing to the discussion. It is so confusing.
Of course, even when we are trying to use names, it is easy to omit them. :facepalm:
I was thinking about this and I realized that this poster is wanting to recreate an entire historical social structure in which corporal punishment of wives was a part. This was a society that used corporal punishment to enforce the authority of virtually all superior-subject relationships.
Bishop Williamson of The Resistance would reprimand Jaynek as a feminist for attending University.?? And this coming from the "I respect my wife as an independent-thinker" side??
earlier you wrote:Corporal punishment of a wife by her husband is licit in principle and always will be because it logically follows from an unchanging doctrine. It is the nature of authority that it may be enforced.
So either it's unchanging doctrine or it's not that corporal punishment of a wife by her husband is licit. Which do you say it is?
I think that any potential harm to the faith can be mitigated by explaining the historical context and by saying it does not apply today."I was trying to say that one may make a case that it does not apply in practice. I was not sufficiently clear.
Corporal punishment of a wife by her husband is licit in principle and always will be because it logically follows from an unchanging doctrine. It is the nature of authority that it may be enforced.
When I wrote
I was trying to say that one may make a case that it does not apply in practice. I was not sufficiently clear.
And yet my argument stands that the husband-wife relationship is not a simple unqualified superior-subject relationship but has the additional element of honor. Very few superiors are required to honor their subjects. This aspect of the marital relationship was never treated by the authors who advocated wife beating. Consequently, those positions are invalidated ... since they never addressed this objection.I think that the marriage relationship is unique in being both one of superior-subject and one of mutual honour. There is no reason to assume that the authorities who wrote supporting corporal punishment were unaware of this merely because they did not explicitly state it.
?? And this coming from the "I respect my wife as an independent-thinker" side??
I'm sorry, but even you can't play both sides, Mr. White-Knight.
I think that the marriage relationship is unique in being both one of superior-subject and one of mutual honour. There is no reason to assume that the authorities who wrote supporting corporal punishment were unaware of this merely because they did not explicitly state it.
There is no principle in logic that a position automatically becomes invalid simply because one raises an objection that was not addressed by the proponent. The objection must be examined on its own merits. Obviously you believe your objection to be unassailable, but I think otherwise.
Well, as you know, I dispute the logical flow ... as per my honor argument.But for how many other topics on Cathinfo could we make the same argument? We already mentioned that this could apply to outsiders' impression of the Flat Earth proponents. What about the many posts that would be labeled as from the perspective of "nαzι sympathizers"? Even the debates on various points of doctrine could appear to those outside the Church as an obsession over trivialities. I think that carrying the stumbling block argument to its logical conclusion would involved shutting down this forum or least drastically changing it.
So you then believe that this is unchanging Church teaching. And that brings us back to my earlier point, that at the very least it may be a stumbling block to those outside the Church to be confronted by "Church teaching" that it's OK for husbands to lay violent hands on their wives. While the notion of a husband's authority over his wife cannot be compromise, I think it extremely imprudent to continue arguing in favor of this principle being Church teaching.
I think that the marriage relationship is unique in being both one of superior-subject and one of mutual honour.
Frankly, I suspect that the vast majority of men who advocate striking their wives derive some sort of perverse sɛҳuąƖ pleasure from it ...I once read an article about the Christian Domestic Discipline movement that made a similar point. This is a movement among Fundamentalist Protestants who understand Scripture as supporting the position that a husband may/should use corporal punishment on his wife. Both men and women ascribe to this position and it is possible to find many female proponents saying that they are very happy to have a husband who spanks her. The article claimed that both the men and women were motivated by sɛҳuąƖ pleasure.
But for how many other topics on Cathinfo could we make the same argument? We already mentioned that this could apply to outsiders' impression of the Flat Earth proponents. What about the many posts that would be labeled as from the perspective of "nαzι sympathizers"?
I once read an article about the Christian Domestic Discipline movement that made a similar point. This is a movement among Fundamentalist Protestants who understand Scripture as supporting the position that a husband may/should use corporal punishment on his wife. Both men and women ascribe to this position and it is possible to find many female proponents saying that they are very happy to have a husband who spanks her. The article claimed that both the men and women were motivated by sɛҳuąƖ pleasure.
Whether or not this is true, we are living in a society in which a man cannot use corporal punishment on his wife unless she allows it. We can only speculate about her reasons.
Certainly it's unique when compared to a simple superior-subject relationship. So, then, it's possible that arguments from superior-subject regarding the licitness of corporal punishment do not apply to this unique situation because there's something special about this relationship that would rule it out. I argue that physical punishment is particularly (and inherently) degrading and therefore incompatible with honor.It may be true that physical punishment is felt to be particularly degrading in our culture, but it was not seen this way for most of the history of Western civilization. One can see how drastic the shift in attitude has been by looking at penitential practices. For most of Christian history, self-flagellation and other forms of corporeal penance were seen as normal and even meritorious. They are now viewed with suspicion and considered problematic.
That's why it's so repugnant for a child to strike his parent, a mortal sin, (vs. just talking back or disobeying in a light matter) ... because it's extremely degrading to the parent and therefore incompatible with the honor. And, again, the only possible rebuttal to this is that there's something so different about honor to parents, compared to honor to wife, that makes it forbidden in the one case but permitted in the other. But I have yet to see a valid distinction which would bear this out.The honour due to parents occurs within a superior-subject relationship in which the parents are the superior. It is always wrong for the subject to strike the superior. It is not possible to measure how much of the wrongness of a child striking a parent comes from it being a superior-subject relationship and how much of it is comes from being a violation of honour. We cannot separate out the element of honour to see what effect it might have in isolation.
Let's pick our battles. How can we even win this battle if we haven't first established the superior-subject relationship ... which the modern world denies? Let's start there and put this question aside completely. There's no point to discussing it or promoting it.I too would much rather establish the superior-subject relationship. It is a very important and generally misunderstood idea. I agree that it would be far more edifying to discuss than corporal punishment.
It may be true that physical punishment is felt to be particularly degrading in our culture, ...
To quite a few, I imagine. I agree that it applies to Flat Earth as well as to nαzι sympathizing and even, IMO, to h0Ɩ0cαųst "denial". Even though I myself agree with the fact that the h0Ɩ0cαųst was largely fabricated for political gains, I would be very careful about every mentioning that in public ... especially in a way that it could be tied to Traditional Catholicism or to the Catholic Church. Whether or not the h0Ɩ0cαųst happened as the common narrative holds it, it's not of direct import to the faith ... and it's not a battle I would choose to fight.This is very much the way that I see the h0Ɩ0cαųst too.
The honour due to a wife is honour due to a subject which makes it vastly different from the honour due to a superior. It is certainly enough of a difference to account for a difference in the licitness of striking.
This is very much the way that I see the h0Ɩ0cαųst too.
I think that many members of CI treat the forum as if it were not "in public". Because we, for the most part, only see posts from other trads, it feels like we are among trads. It is natural to feel like we can make known our real opinions here.
But it is, in reality, public. I wonder how many non-trads look at what is posted here. I suspect that we must make a bad impression on them.
No, it's inherently degrading ... which is why it's an egregious mortal sin for a child to strike a parent. "Self-flagellation", your example, is not the case of one person administering it to another by force. When one person administers it to another by force, it's an assertion of dominance and therefore by definition degrading to the other person. [see the definition of the word "de-grade" ... it means to lower someone's status or rank]How is an assertion of dominance wrong when the person actually is the superior? It seems that your reasoning would lead to us saying that it is wrong for parents to use corporal punishment on their children.
How is an assertion of dominance wrong when the person actually is the superior? It seems that your reasoning would lead to us saying that it is wrong for parents to use corporal punishment on their children.
One of the questions in the examination of conscience in my Missal is whether I have "threatened or struck others not under [my] charge." What assumptions underlie this question?
But then perhaps I have a different concept of honor than you. And, at the end of the day, isn't this the difference between us? Perhaps I have a loftier notion of honor than you do?I don't know that we see honour in itself differently, but we do differ as to how it interacts with the role of a superior. There does seem to be a difference at a fundamental level. I do not expect it to be overcome by any amount of good-willed discussion.
Alot of white knights defending feminism, knowingly or unknowingly.
The phrase- General rule of Thumb.
Where have we heard it?
It comes from Old English & Scottish Law where a husband was permitted to use a stick No thicker than his thumb to administer corporal punishment to a wife that was in need of said punishment.
By refusing to take such measures and allowing women to vote, we are literally witnessing the death of the West.
Women in their entire lives, have never built anything. NOTHING>
White Men, mostly of Germanic origin, have built and created Western Civilization. And now our women run nations like Sweden, wearing Hijabs and inviting Muslims in to destroy it.
If you dont think any of this is a problem and recipe for disaster, you havent thought things through very much.
Whether it is in scripture or not is not important. It is in NATURE and in the moral theology books of the Church.
In the natural law. Something that we simply know is right because it is the way human beings behave with or without the Catholic faith. Desires, reactions etc that happen regardless how much we try to crush them.
Marriage is in nature. A womans love for her children is in nature. A mans desire to be in charge is in nature. so on and so forth.
In the natural law. Something that we simply know is right because it is the way human beings behave with or without the Catholic faith. Desires, reactions etc that happen regardless how much we try to crush them.Sorry, I messed up the quote thing!
Marriage is in nature. A womans love for her children is in nature. A mans desire to be in charge is in nature. so on and so forth.
I would contend that it is rather a part of man's fallen nature. Nature, yes, but fallen nature.
God disciplined His people, as we are to disciplines our wives and children if and when it is appropriate..
"Even as a betrothed bride, Christ disciplined his Church through his Apostles who acted as the protector and guides of his bride.When speaking to his seven churches in Revelation (chapters 2 & 3) Christ rebukes and disciplines all but one because of their failings and Christ says this to his churches:So my point in all this is – Those who say God does not discipline his bride are ignoring passages of Scripture that show both in his previous marriage to Israel as well as his current betrothal to the Church that he in fact does discipline his bride."
God disciplined His people, as we are to disciplines our wives and children if and when it is appropriate..
"Even as a betrothed bride, Christ disciplined his Church through his Apostles who acted as the protector and guides of his bride.When speaking to his seven churches in Revelation (chapters 2 & 3) Christ rebukes and disciplines all but one because of their failings and Christ says this to his churches:So my point in all this is – Those who say God does not discipline his bride are ignoring passages of Scripture that show both in his previous marriage to Israel as well as his current betrothal to the Church that he in fact does discipline his bride."
Whip for horse, bridle for ass, and never a rod for the fool’s back? Proverbs 3Your quote from Proverbs is ridiculous. :facepalm:
God disciplines corporally.
The state disciplines corporally
Proper order requires that the role of disciplining a married woman is to that of her husband.
Why don't you email bishop Williamson and ask him what he thinks the Church's teaching on this matter is?
Whip for horse, bridle for ass, and never a rod for the fool’s back? Proverbs 3
God disciplines corporally.
The state disciplines corporally
Proper order requires that the role of disciplining a married woman is to that of her husband.
Why don't you email bishop Williamson and ask him what he thinks the Church's teaching on this matter is?
Jaynek,
you are complicating things.
More Muh Feels.
Order & Discipline is bad, right? Leave women to their own devices, and all they do is destroy.
The Greeks tried it once, they gave them the right to vote. It almost destroyed their empire. Quickly thereafter, their right to vote was rescinded.
A womans value is in her womb. That is the sum total of their greatness.
Or perhaps you can enlighten me and the board on all of the great female classical composers, philosophers, inventors and creators of civilization.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/672/32619938745_10a8d85072_m.jpg)
For the, oh, 851st time now, nobody is disputing whether corporal punishment is licit. So your point is, as usual, entirely irrelevant. What's at issue is who has the right to administer corporal punishment to whom Yes, the state has the right to inflict capital punishment. Do I have a right to administer it to my neighbor? No. Do I have a right to administer it to my parents? No. Do I have a right to administer it to my children? Yes. So the question is whether or not a husband has the right to inflict corporal punishment on his wife. While I don't agree with her on this issue, at least Jaynek is capable of discussing it logically and intelligently.
A womans value is in her womb. That is the sum total of their greatness.
Somebody has to discipline married women when they step out of line.
The Church always leaves things to the lowest natural level. This is the husband. It is disordered to expect the state to discipline women who are married.
If you can't make things simple, then you don't understand them yourself. I am not trying to impress you with long posts. Its like trying to convince people that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is wrong. People should just know it.
I am beginning to suspect that people who are against corporal punishment were not punished this way themselves.
The meme posts above are not mine.
The best and most effective discipline for an obedient wife is a holy husband. Beyond that, she cannot be overcome.
Misogynists like yourself are usually insecure in their own manhood (what are you, 5'4" and 100 lbs., with a tiny membrum virile, and lacking in other aspects of manhood?) and/or have issues with purity so that you feel the need to deride women who otherwise control and exert themselves over you through your lust.People can't control their size, you ass. For someone who claims to be so wise and erudite, you sure are a prideful individual. Do us all a favor and keep your superiority complex out of this thread.
I also reject your comment that the "Church always leaves things to the lowest natural level"; that's just absurd.I took this as a reference to the principle of subsidiarity. I thought it was a good point.
I took this as a reference to the principle of subsidiarity. I thought it was a good point.
People can't control their size, you ass. For someone who claims to be so wise and erudite, you sure are a prideful individual. Do us all a favor and keep your superiority complex out of this thread.
So, Jaynek, you've claimed that you never met a misogynist. Can you agree now that based on the above comment this punk is clearly a misogynist ... as I called him out to you in the beginning? Do you enjoy enabling scuм like this to deride women?It really is hard to judge from forum posts. When emotions get heated people use a lot of hyperbole and polemics. After all, I would not have a very good impression of you if I only considered how you write when you are angry.
It really is hard to judge from forum posts. When emotions get heated people use a lot of hyperbole and polemics. After all, I would not have a very good impression of you if I only considered how you write when you are angry.
And in the anonymous section it could even be just trolling. Also, I have a lot of trouble keeping track of who all the anonymous people are. It's hard to differentiate them by style.
A womans value is in her womb. That is the sum total of their greatness.
"A womans value is in her womb. That is the sum total of their greatness."
So, then, you think that this is a valid comment:That interpretation of 1Timothy 2: 11-15 is not unusual:QuoteA womans value is in her womb. That is the sum total of their greatness.
If so, then you need to get off this forum and resume breeding.
[11] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=61&ch=2&l=11-#x) Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. [12] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=61&ch=2&l=12-#x) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. [13] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=61&ch=2&l=13-#x) For Adam was first formed; then Eve. [14] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=61&ch=2&l=14-#x) And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. [15] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=61&ch=2&l=15-#x) Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.I am months away from my 60th birthday and no longer able to have children. I think the passage more applicable to my situation is Titus 2:3-5
[3] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=63&ch=2&l=3-#x) The aged women, in like manner, in holy attire, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teaching well: [4] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=63&ch=2&l=4-#x) That they may teach the young women to be wise, to love their husbands, to love their children, [5] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=63&ch=2&l=5-#x) To be discreet, chaste, sober, having a care of the house, gentle, obedient to their husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
That interpretation of 1Timothy 2: 11-15 is not unusual:
As per usual, you just bend over backwards to defend the misogynists ... instead of asserting the greatness of Virgin saints and martyrs. Carry on.If someone really were a misogynist or even just fed up with feminists, I doubt that having a woman arguing and asserting things would help. Wouldn't it just confirm all his negative feelings? It seems to me that I should try to be gentle and submissive in such situations.
Women have literally never created anything, invented anything, produced anything other than cosmetics, composed classical literature with the greats, philosophers.
Of the Greatest 100 Chess Players in the World today, only 1 is ranked in the top 100 as female, and that is a stretch.
We are not equal, and not designed to be equal.
Women can do things men cannot, like conceive and raise children, I grant you. That is the sum total of their greatness.
When left to their devices- (Muh Feels) they will destroy themselves and civilization with it
Camille Paglia once wrote, “If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts.”http://mccluresmagazine.com/articles/women-ruled-world (http://mccluresmagazine.com/articles/women-ruled-world)
A provocative statement to be sure, but was it true? How could we ever know? Enter reality TV.
During a season of Dutch Survivor, they put men on one island, women on another. Both groups were dropped off with a bag of rice and otherwise left to fend for themselves.
The experiment was on.
In episode one, the men built a shelter. The women formed a group hug and told each other how brave and special they were.
At the end of the episode, it rained.
The men were under their crappy, hastily built shelter – but off the ground and out of the rain. Meanwhile, the women were getting drenched, until they were given yellow plastic raincoats by the production crew.
Next day, the men set about doing whatever each one thought was needed – there was no leader giving orders. Men who felt like hunting went hunting. Men who felt like fishing went fishing. One guy improved the shelter. Another foraged for berries and roots.
It was in a word: anarchy. No government, no agreement, no rules, no group hugs.
But within days a small civilization was growing. With the division of labor and free trade, the men were growing more prosperous. Their lives were improving.
The women also settled into a routine. After drying their towels, they proceeded to lay in the sun and argue. Unlike the men, the women proved unable to do anything without the agreement of the whole group. And since the dozen women could never agree on anything, nothing was ever done.
Over the next few episodes, the women ate all their initial supplies, were eaten alive by sand fleas, and were generally miserable.
Sensing that the show was not going in a sustainable direction, the producers sent three men to the women’s island and vice versa.
The men selected to go to the women’s island were initially excited by the prospect of joining a dozen women on a deserted island. But that delight soon gave way to despair.
The first man was greeted with a “to-do” list. Even after explaining to the women how to get things done, the women continued to sunbathe and chat, while the man went about doing the hard work.
Meanwhile, the first woman sent to the men’s island was amazed. The men by now had individual shelters, plenty of food, firewood, and even a dining table.
And that, is what the “patriarchy” looks like.
Now it could just be a fluke, but that season of Dutch survivor is not unique. CBS also ran a few seasons with groups dividing men and women into separate groups. In both those series, the men got food, fire, and shelter while the women wasted time in petty squabbles, eating their initial supplies, and generally being pathetic.
The opposite situation, where men didn’t get their act together while women quickly built a functional micro society, has not yet been observed outside of feminist fiction, and it probably never will.
So it appears that Camille Paglia’s prediction may have been too optimistic.
If women had been left in charge, we might not even have grass huts yet.
I am the one who has been posting supporting the Church teaching on discipline, yet I do at the same time think that women contribute enormously to civilisation.I think you got to the heart of the matter by using the word "contribute". Woman was made as a helper to man. Women without men are not going to build a civilization, but women can help. Men need to be the leaders that give direction to everything.
There is a reason that God created them. He could have chosen some other means of reproducing men without women, but He did not. They do help a lot. When they are good....
In recent years, studies by scientists such as Professor Simon Baron-Cohen at the University of Cambridge have proved what we already know: women are more adept at empathy and boys are better at systematising. That is to say, that the male brain is better at understanding how a system works and thus how a system can be controlled or improved. Men’s brains are the perfect tool for battling and overcoming the natural world, for example to build cities or aircraft or ships.http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/04/in-defence-of-the-patriarchy/ (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/04/in-defence-of-the-patriarchy/)
The final defining difference between men and women is more abstract. Women tend to have less difficulty making peace with their place in the world, while a man’s sense of purpose is often more fraught. Men can find contentment harder to achieve. There’s an innate desire in men to prove one’s worth, to overcome the natural order, to achieve and to satisfy the ego. It’s what people mean when they say men are competitive: boys have an innate desire to win.
That desire to control, a greater propensity towards extreme intelligence and an obsessive compulsion to prove oneself are at the root of both the vilest crimes and greatest achievements of the male species. To again quote Camille Paglia, “there is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.”
When it is perverted, masculinity can indeed be terrifying. But masculinity itself is not a perversion. The patriarchy gifted us fire, agricultural ploughs, wheels, textiles, capitalism, painting, writing, medicine, music, metal, paper, literature, the pyramids, canals, bridges, sculpture, optics, pottery, fireworks, printing, industrialisation, mechanics, electricity, planes, trains, cars, spaceships, phones, radio, TV, sports, towns, cities, skyscrapers, nuclear fusion, computers, the internet, politics, philosophy, economics, democracy, the enlightenment, microwaves, hoovers, disposable nappies, washing machines...
(https://thoughtcatalog.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/credithuffingtonpost.jpeg?w=1140&h=1001)
Marriage today is a secular contract.
The Church priests should not ever ask for nor condone a marriage license, which is a secular instrument used to enforce and usurp an Mans right to his property, including his wife.
There are little benefits to marriage today for any man. I believe in a Church sacrament but no license, or common law with witnesses and a priest presiding.
No Fault divorce states mean you work and if she tires of you or finds another, yes it happens to Trads too, she takes hald + Your monthly income, whatever Judge Goldstein thinks is fair that day, + Child Support. Lose/Lose.
Be Smart, men.
The state controls every aspect of a man today and his property, including His wife.
Yes, I said it.
Property defined- That which is proper to a man. Wife falls into that category.
Jayne, what do you think of the idea that a wife is a man's "property"?I do not think there is any basis in Church teaching for claiming that a wife is her husband's property. This is not compatible with the relationship described in Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae:
They [husband and wife] are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help. The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties.
not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity
Yes
A Woman takes on Her Husbands Name. I really hope youre not that dense.
In most culture, some still today, a man buys his bride, or pays a dowry.
She is his property for all intents and purposes. Feminists of course take issue with that fact.
It is the natural order, and his job is to love, honor, respect and protect her.
not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity
Still refusing to call this guy out for the misogynist that he is? You have no problem judging the intentions and motivations of the Flat Earthers ... because you disagree with them.I do not recall judging the intentions and motives of the Flat Earthers. I am not sure what you are referring to. I really try to avoid doing that to people, whether or not I agree with them.
YesAre you from the Middle East? A Muslim maybe?
A Woman takes on Her Husbands Name. I really hope youre not that dense.
In most culture, some still today, a man buys his bride, or pays a dowry.
She is his property for all intents and purposes. Feminists of course take issue with that fact.
It is the natural order, and his job is to love, honor, respect and protect her.
Still refusing to call this guy out for the misogynist that he is?I'm the one who asked Jayne:
Jayne, what do you think of the idea that a wife is a man's "property"?
Marriage today is a secular contract.
The Church priests should not ever ask for nor condone a marriage license, which is a secular instrument used to enforce and usurp an Mans right to his property, including his wife.
There are little benefits to marriage today for any man. I believe in a Church sacrament but no license, or common law with witnesses and a priest presiding.
No Fault divorce states mean you work and if she tires of you or finds another, yes it happens to Trads too, she takes hald + Your monthly income, whatever Judge Goldstein thinks is fair that day, + Child Support. Lose/Lose.
Be Smart, men.
The state controls every aspect of a man today and his property, including His wife.
Yes, I said it.
Property defined- That which is proper to a man. Wife falls into that category.
Yes
A Woman takes on Her Husbands Name. ...
In most culture, some still today, a man buys his bride, or pays a dowry.
She is his property for all intents and purposes. Feminists of course take issue with that fact.
It is the natural order...
Dowry is the wealth transferred from the bride's family to the groom or his family, ostensibly for the bride. A dowry is the transfer of parental property to a daughter at her marriage (i.e. 'inter vivos') rather than at the owner's death (mortis causa). A dowry establishes a type of conjugal fund, the nature of which may vary widely. This fund may provide an element of financial security in widowhood or against a negligent husband, and may eventually go to provide for her children. Dowries may also go toward establishing a marital household, and therefore might include furnishings such as linens and furniture.
I'm the one who asked Jayne:The historical secular institution of marriage in Western society often involved transfers of property and forming alliances between families. And there are/have been cultures in which a man pays a "bride price." (see link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price)) It is possible that a person speaking of a wife as property is not a misogynist, but is speaking of social structures. He might not mean that he personally sees a woman as an object to be owned.
But what I was really getting at, and should have asked, was if his point-blank saying that he thinks a wife is a man's "property" finally convinced her that he is a misogynist.
So Jayne, maybe we need to ask you point-blank, do you think the [thankfully now-banned] poster who said that is a misogynist?
For reference:
Quote from: Anonymous on November 26, 2017, 06:40:08 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/proper-punishment-for-a-disobedient-wife/msg580979/#msg580979)
Quote from: budDude on November 28, 2017, 01:40:23 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/how-marriage-became-one-of-the-sacraments-the-sacramental-theology-of-marriage/msg581360/#msg581360)
So Jayne, maybe we need to ask you point-blank, do you think the [thankfully now-banned] poster who said that is a misogynist?
I have also been asked whether I think the main anonymous proponent for corporal punishment for wives is a misogynist. If I am categorizing the posts correctly, then I do not think so.
His position does not seem based on negative feelings or attitudes toward women. He seems to be an admirer of historical social organization that included corporal punishment at all levels. I think he would restore all of it if it were in his power and I can't say I blame him. It appears to have been a more functional society than our own in many ways.
:facepalm: you're completely hopeless.That may be so. :laugh1:
That may be so. :laugh1:
But budDude conveyed the feel of a misogynist, whether real or just acting. There was a feeling of rage and violence. That is what I associate with misogyny. I don't sense anything like that from Main Anonymous Proponent (henceforth to be identified as MAP). Don't you read them as very different?
MAP seems to me like a trad who, rather than being influenced by fiftiesism, looks back farther in history for his models of traditional Catholicism. He is disgusted with the modern world but not ragey.
Tone is far more difficult to detect accurately in written media than in face to face encounters. We lack input from body language and tone of voice. We can probably tell when it is something extreme like buddude, but it is pretty hard when dealing with normal posters.
:laugh2: :fryingpan: :facepalm: :jester: :popcorn:
One can't help but admire his evil genius as a writer.