What are your opinion on Shakespeare s The Taming Of The Shrew.

It's famous pirtrayal of married life causes some controversy nowadays. Do you think that its portrayal of marriage life in accordance with Catholic teaching?

What are your opinions on Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew.

It's famous portrayal of married life causes some controversy nowadays. [Huh? Among Trads? Which ones?] Do you think that its portrayal of marriage life [accords] with Catholic teaching?

It's a play (strictly speaking, a play within a play). What's more, it's a comedy.What's still more, it's not about married life at all; it's about a most unusual courtship. What's still still more, nobody's compelling anyone else to read it* or buy a ticket to a production of it. In other words, it's not a species of ObamaCare.

But most of all, have you noticed that in this comedy, Petruchio and Katherina aren't married until she gives her consent. Even then, Petruchio's drunkenness and his assault upon the officiating priest might be considered** grounds for questioning the validity of the wedding ceremony. But if you did, you'd be screaming to the world at large that you don't see that this is a comedy.

Did I mention that the play is a comedy? Aren't there enough noncomedic matters to be concerned about in 21st-century America? What's more (did I say that earlier?), didn't someone that everyone hereabouts respects say something to the effect that each and every day comes with so many woes and problems that we need not go hunting for more?
_____________________________

*Given all the time required in present-day public high schools to teach the novels of Alice Walker and the plays of LeRoi Jones / Amiri Baraka, the odds of TTotS being required reading for a student not taking a feminist-oriented Shakespeare course in college or grad school are vanishingly small.

**By literal-minded folks with little or no sense of humor and far too much time on their hands.

I just read an article by a Novus Ordo priest on TotS.

Besides his forced introduction of "the dignity of man," it's very interesting.  He basically argues that the play is an expose on Thomistic-Aristotelian concepts of love and virtue; Lucentio goes to Padua to study moral philosophy and is swept away by an unreasoned love exercised clandestinely which ends in domestic strife, whereas Petruchio has a rational and elective love which achieves domestic bliss.

I love this play if for no other reason than how insufferably irritable it makes moderns.  Don't you love to watch liberals squirm?  Sorry.  I'm in a righteous mood at the moment.  

Claudel is right, it's a comedy.  It would be a mistake to read too much into any of these characters, but more see how Shakespeare uses them, and to what end.  Petruchio has is shares of unsavory activity-- hitting the priest, dressing like a slob at his own wedding, drunkeness, etc.  None of which are compatible with a paragon of virtue.  Ne'ertheless, his unsavory side probably serves the moral that nasty women end up with nasty men.  

Here is a link to the article for anyone interested: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.portsmouthinstitute.org%2FLiteratureRetrieve.aspx%3FID%3D122752&ei=bWwNU5HCJOvOyAHHxYHQCg&usg=AFQjCNFk9QKjbY0ieZQbqFFsjwFsSsojJQ&sig2=BTFaUDGMoXHPmSMZQ6Mk8w