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.
The expression "wife-beating" is pejorative and does not convey the concept of just corporal punishment. I suspect the vast majority of this forum's members believe that parents have a right to use corporal punishment on their children and would object to the practice being referred to as "child-beating".
I am not sure that anyone here is offering it as their personal opinion that the authority of the husband should include a right to give corporal punishment. My position (and of others in this thread) is that this is how the Church, and Western society in general, have traditionally understood the authority of the husband.
We have already seen enough evidence in this thread to conclusively support that position. We have seen quotes from Saints and from a moral theology manual. (Church law was not codified until 1917 so the manual also indicates Church law on the subject.) It does not matter what any of us think about the honour due to wives because that is not relevant to questions of historical belief and practice. At no point in this thread has anyone offered any evidence that our forefathers in the Faith thought that a husband should never be permitted to use corporal punishment on his wife. I strongly suspect such evidence cannot be found because they did not think that.
As far as I know, it is true that there is no infallible teaching on this subject. There is none to say that such corporal punishment is permitted and none to say that it is not. But there is nothing strange about traditional Catholics looking to the past for guidance rather than taking a minimalist approach of only considering infallible teaching. Nor is it strange that some of us are reluctant to sit in judgment on our ancestors and proclaim them to have sinned for their understanding of the husband's authority.
In practical terms, the question is moot. Given the current civil laws, it is highly imprudent for a man to strike his wife in any way. Secular society gives no support or even recognition of the husband's authority. This is the other extreme from those who would abuse that authority. Both extremes are wrong.
My emphasis on this question of authority is not because I see marriage a merely a superior-subordinate relationship. I am fully aware that it is more than that. This authority, however, is one of the most misunderstood aspects of marriage. The Christian understanding of the husband's authority is in opposition to the beliefs of the surrounding culture which means we must give this issue much thought and attention. Otherwise we are in danger of thoughtlessly accepting society's values.
Topic: Proper Punishment for a Disobedient Wife (Read 47100 times)