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.

Now you're finally getting closer to making an argument.  But, no, it's NOT "obvious".  You overstate your case ... as per usual ... because of your agenda.

Let me help you.  One could argue that the heinous nature of striking one's parents comes as a result of the COMBINATION of the honor and their superiority and not from the honor by itself.  In the case of wives, you hold them in honor but not as superiors.  That's the "distinction" I was looking for.

Now, for the next, part ... is this a VALID distinction?

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.

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.

The post made to Facebook today by the "Resistance" in favor of beating your wife is disgraceful.

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?

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?

Bishop Williamson of The Resistance would reprimand Jaynek as a feminist for attending University.

Think they were talking about this video

Ah yes, the film, "The Quiet Man."

Funny you should mention it, Dizzy. John Ford, who wrote and directed the film, was known as a bully in Hollywood. Not a nice guy (which shows why you like his style).

Maureen O'Hara couldn't stand him, though she loved the film. 

Frankly, I suspect that the vast majority of men who advocate striking their wives derive some sort of perverse sɛҳuąƖ pleasure from it or are otherwise insecure in their manhood.  It's not effective.  It's not prudent.  And it's degrading to a woman whom God demands that we honor.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For someone who prides herself in being so logical and so educated, you missed the ENTIRE point.

According to your principle, that it's wrong to strike a nun merely because I do not have the authority to strike her, there's no difference between:

1) I go up to some random guy in the street, get irritated with him, and punch him in the face.
       AND
2) I go up to a nun, she says something to annoy me, and I punch her in the face.

If you claim that these are the same thing, then you've simply lost your moral compass and likely your mind.

No, #2 is HEINOUS AND EGREGIOUS because of the HONOR due to the nun.

I spent the entire previous post distinguishing between the simple wrongness of a subordinate striking a superior (case of the soldier) and the egregious and heinous wrongness of a child striking a parent ... with the latter clearly being HEINOUS AND EGREGIOUS due to the honor owed the parent.  While the former might be wrong, the latter is MORE than just wrong.  And that's due to honor ... which you effectively reduce to nothing.