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.

This clearly illustrates the twisted mind of most Trad wife-beaters.  Considering it improper to strike your wife is now "against natural law" and "liberal" against the "teaching of the Church" and "perversion".  Please cite said teaching of the Church.  None of you have produced anything from the Magisterium about this subject.  And now the man who doesn't want to strike his wife has a "hard heart" while the wife beater has the soft heart overflowing with tenderness.

You are a wicked, twisted individual who has no business entering the state of Holy Matrimony.  It's one thing to disagree with our position that the honor and dignity of a wife precludes striking her, but quite another to call those who think that way "perverts".  You are a sick individual.  Plus, being such a big man, why don't you decloak from your anonymity?  Effeminate cowards hide in the shadows instead of having the fortitude to call you out to your face.

No, most of the ardent advocates of wife-beating are in fact the perverts.  By and large they have problems with purity and are insecure in their masculinity.  Consequently, feeling dominated by women via their tendency to impurity, they feel the need to artificially exert their manhood and their machismo.  You're probably the type who would try lifting your hand against a woman and would find yourself knocked out by her.

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.

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?

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] 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.

[26] It shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister: [27] And he that will be first among you, shall be your servant.

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 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.

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.  

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 am fully aware of this sense of the term servant in the way you explain. I have read the gospels. But it is not really the sense he was using. This is the classic tactic of liberals, to bury messages in words and phrases, and when they are challenged to claim it was the innocent sense.

People who don't accept the Churchs teachings are liberals. This is the definition and essence of liberalism.

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.

So some men can be a bit childish and OTT. But this is nowhere near as serious as a wife being insolent. This is contrary to nature, and can in many instances be gravely sinful. There are different standards for the sexes, based on their different natures.