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 once wondered whether a man was allowed to strike his wife to punish her, and one day I saw a discussion on this forum where someone made a quotation of St. Thomas implying that a man was indeed allowed to do it. But most of the time, I believe that it is not suitable at all, because of the possible consequences (especially today).

Of course, such kind of punishment should be rare, and only used in cases of adultery and such things.

Even among Catholic trads, women are imbued with feminism. Very few of them are really humble and obedient.

(I forgot to login, I am Amakusa)
« on: Today at 12:23:15 PM » ABOVE

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.  

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'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 made a false analogy.  You did not make a good argument.

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. 

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.   

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.  

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.

At this point, we may just have to agree to disagree.  I know that there's something inherently wrong with hitting a nun because of her honor and her dignity.  It's not just wrong because I have no authority to hit her and simply made worse because of her honor.  Catholic common sense tells us that it's wrong to hit a nun because she's consecrated to God and not merely because I don't have authority over her.  It's wrong to stomp on a crucifix due to the honor and reverence we should have for an image of Our Lord ... and that has nothing to do with authority.  If you can't/won't see this, then there's probably no point in continuing this debate.

Look man, you're heading towards fαɢɢօtry pretty fast. Quit while you are ahead.

I understand that using polysyllabic vocabulary (aka "big words") might seem like fαɢɢօtry to an inbred West Virginia yokel such as yourself, but perhaps you could embroider one or two of them on the front of your wife-beater shirt to help you remember them.  PS, if my race is with you, then I'll never NOT be "ahead".