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.
So you have not established that there is a superior-subordinate relationship that does not entail a right to inflict corporal punishment. Personally, I cannot think of any examples occurring before the last century. Corporal punishment was the norm in every area - schools (including university students), military, monasteries, civil law, etc.
But let's say, for the sake of argument, that you had been correct that priests could never be disciplined by their superiors. It does not logically follow from this that a wife cannot be disciplined. A wife is not a priest and there is no reason to think that the honour given to a priest is the same as the honour given to a wife. You were committing the fallacy of false analogy.
Historically speaking, many (if not all) superior-subordinate relationships included corporal punishment and it is a matter of historical fact that most people in the past (including Catholics) believed this of the husband-wife relationship. It is not relevant to this whether you can find an example of a superior-subordinate relationship that did not include corporal punishment.