Songbird, please do not be confused by Lad's comment. It is one thing to disagree with St. Thomas based on a dogma of the Church and another when it is based on one's personal interpretation of Scripture.
St Thomas was a Doctor of the Church and one of the most brilliant men in the history of mankind. Disagreeing with him is not something to take lightly.
I love it how everyone here on CI puffs up all the authorities that happen to agree with their position: "one of the most brilliant men in the history of mankind". I disagree with St. Thomas and I have explained why. It's not based on a personal interpretation of Scripture but on analogies with other moral principles ... e.g. how it's abhorrent to strike one's parent. I argue that it's due to the "honor" that we owe them ... as per the 4th Commandment. But were are likewise required to honor our wives. I argue that striking one's wife, which is an extremely degrading act, is not consistent with "honor". I laid out how it's abhorrent to strike one's parents due to this requirement to honor them rather than because they're our superiors. If a simple subordinate struck a superior (e.g. a soldier striking his commanding officer), while that would be wrong in most circuмstances, it's not abhorrent as it is in the case of parents. And that's due to this missing ingredient of "honor". St. Thomas Aquinas did not consider the "honor" factor but treated the husband-wife relationship as a simple superior-subordinate relationship. Because he did not take this into account, I think he was mistaken. Despite Jaynek's lavish praise of St. Thomas, which is not undeserved but is little more than a self-serving cynical attempt on her part to bolster her position, St. Thomas is not infallible and is known to have been mistaken on quite a few points (one informal survey, if I recall, found about 4 dozen such errors).
Jaynek has an agenda. It would be one thing if she simply argued this point, but it's become clear that she is a misogynist ... due to regrets for various misdeed in her feminist past. Consequently, she has refused to admit the fact that there exist any men among Traditional Catholics who degrade and dishonor their wives by taking this "subjection" theology too far. Every time I cite examples of how this can be abused, Jaynek justifies and condones the behavior of the man and blames the woman. She's essentially a self-hating woman who's swung too far to the other extreme in reaction to her prior feminist leanings. She likes to beat up on herself but then won't take into account that she's implicitly beating up on other women as well ... and encouraging the misosgynist Trad wife abusers (yes, these do exist and I have met quite a few of them).
Guess what, Jaynek, nobody's really going to listen to you. None of us who believe that we should honor our wives and not degrade them like children by beating them is going to suddenly start beating our wife. There's no REQUIREMENT anywhere in Church teaching or in the teaching of St. Thomas to beat our wives. So I'm not going to beat my wife. You can argue all you want til you're blue in the face. You won't change any of our minds. So the only thing you're accomplishing is condoning, enabling, and abetting the abuse of women by the men who use your position as justification for their abuse. Congratulations.
Topic: Misogyny and Traditional Catholic Men (Read 7472 times)