Ladislaus, this is a really weak argument that can't convince anyone because there are hundreds of years of the Church teaching that a husband does have a right to use corporal punishment on his wife.  There is no precedent for saying for saying it is incompatible with the honour due to a wife.  Your position just comes a cross as a novelty based on your personal interpretation of Scripture. The question of who has the right to discipline whom has been answered many times over in this regard.

I think you could make a stronger case by acknowledging that the right exists but should be waived.

Ladislaus, this is a really weak argument that can't convince anyone because there are hundreds of years of the Church teaching that a husband does have a right to use corporal punishment on his wife.  There is no precedent for saying for saying it is incompatible with the honour due to a wife.  Your position just comes a cross as a novelty based on your personal interpretation of Scripture. The question of who has the right to discipline whom has been answered many times over in this regard.

I think you could make a stronger case by acknowledging that the right exists but should be waived.   I found your argument in another thread about how this can cause scandal thought-provoking and persuasive.  There is no question that the idea of corporal punishment of a wife is shocking and disturbing to modern people, to a point where it can interfere with them accepting the Faith.  

This reminds me of the situation that St. Paul wrote about in I Corinthians 8.  As you know, the people were arguing over whether it was permissible to eat food that had been sacrificed to idols.  St. Paul acknowledged the position of those who believed it was permissible by saying that they were right that the false gods did not not exist and the sacrifices had no real power.  But he told them that even if, strictly speaking, they had a right to do it, it was spiritually harmful to others.  He told them to consider their weaker brothers.

The idea that we must consider the effect our actions have on others when determining the morality of the action is well established in traditional Catholic moral teaching.  This makes a much better basis for an argument against corporal punishment.

So I thought you were going to back off the scandal you are causing by condoning and enabling violence and disrespect towards women ... as well as scandalizing people who might otherwise consider Traditional Catholicism except for this kind of garbage.  What happened?  Just couldn't help yourself?

So I thought you were going to back off the scandal you are causing by condoning and enabling violence and disrespect towards women ... as well as scandalizing people who might otherwise consider Traditional Catholicism except for this kind of garbage.  What happened?  Just couldn't help yourself?

So, Jaynek, where's the "weakness" of this argument?  

In other situations where honor is required, honor precludes the use of physical violence because it's degrading to the one receiving it and incompatible with honor.  So, for instance, it's considered a heinous act for a child to strike his parent.

And when you call him an Anonymous cretin you strengthen his belief that your opinions have no value.  

In order to persuade people to change their behaviour one speaks to them respectfully and establishes some common ground.  Name-calling hardens people in their positions.  
I think you would have a lot more success if you acknowledged your opponents as trying to do the right thing and having a legitimate basis for their beliefs.  How is anyone going to be convinced by being called a wife-beater and a cretin?

And if your goal is not to persuade people, then what is your reason for posting about this?

Has it occurred to you Jayne that it is very likely that wife-beaters are usually cretins too?