At what age, if ever, did you start spanking your children? Whenever you could tell they were being defiant?

Shouldn't spanking only begin when one is morally culpable, i.e., once one attains the age of reason (~7 years old)? Or when one at least knows why one is being spanked? (But children don't need to know moral theology and casuistry to know something is wrong, even if they don't understand why it is wrong.)

The Japanese wait until ~3 years to start disciplining. This doesn't seem right because habits take repetition over time to perfect.

Have you ever read St. Thomas's analysis of "Whether it is lawful for parents to strike their children, or masters their slaves?" from his Treatise on the Cardinal Virtues, Summa Theolgiæ II-II q. 65 ("Other injuries committed on the person") a. 2:

Article 2. Whether it is lawful for parents to strike their children, or masters their slaves?

Objection 1. It would seem unlawful for parents to strike their children, or masters their slaves. For the Apostle says (Ephesians 6:4): "You, fathers, provoke not your children to anger"; and further on (Ephesians 6:6): "And you, masters, do the same thing to your slaves [Vulgate: 'to them] forbearing threatenings." Now some are provoked to anger by blows, and become more troublesome when threatened. Therefore neither should parents strike their children, nor masters their slaves.

Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 9) that "a father's words are admonitory and not coercive." [Those who say children must understand why they are being punished would agree with "The Philosopher" here.] Now blows are a kind of coercion. Therefore it is unlawful for parents to strike their children.

Objection 3. Further, everyone is allowed to impart correction, for this belongs to the spiritual almsdeeds, as stated above (Question 32, Article 2). If, therefore, it is lawful for parents to strike their children for the sake of correction, for the same reason it will be lawful for any person to strike anyone, which is clearly false. Therefore the same conclusion follows. [In today's radically egalitarian culture, this is the predominant argument against juvenile corporal punishment.]

On the contrary, It is written (Proverbs 13:24): "He that spareth the rod hateth his son," and further on (Proverbs 23:13): "Withhold not correction from a child, for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." Again it is written (Sirach 33:28): "Torture and fetters are for a malicious slave."

I answer that, Harm is done a body by striking it, yet not so as when it is maimed: since maiming destroys the body's integrity, while a blow merely affects the sense with pain, wherefore it causes much less harm than cutting off a member. Now it is unlawful to do a person a harm, except by way of punishment in the cause of justice. Again, no man justly punishes another, except one who is subject to his jurisdiction. Therefore it is not lawful for a man to strike another, unless he have some power over the one whom he strikes. And since the child is subject to the power of the parent, and the slave to the power of his master, a parent can lawfully strike his child, and a master his slave that instruction may be enforced by correction.

Reply to Objection 1. Since anger is a desire for vengeance, it is aroused chiefly when a man deems himself unjustly injured, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii). Hence when parents are forbidden to provoke their children to anger, they are not prohibited from striking their children for the purpose of correction, but from inflicting blows on them without moderation. The command that masters should forbear from threatening their slaves may be understood in two ways. First that they should be slow to threaten [This is tricky because with children, mustn't the punishment immediately follow their wrong action so that there is no doubt about the punishment's association with that action? Some parents set aside a time for whipping their children (e.g., when the father comes home from work, etc.), but this seems to only work with older children (say, ~5-year-olds and up).], and this pertains to the moderation of correction; secondly, that they should not always carry out their threats, that is that they should sometimes by a merciful forgiveness temper the judgment whereby they threatened punishment.

Reply to Objection 2. The greater power should exercise the greater coercion. Now just as a city is a perfect community, so the governor of a city has perfect coercive power: wherefore he can inflict irreparable punishments such as death and mutilation. On the other hand the father and the master who preside over the family household, which is an imperfect community, have imperfect coercive power, which is exercised by inflicting lesser punishments, for instance by blows, which do not inflict irreparable harm.

Reply to Objection 3. It is lawful for anyone to impart correction to a willing subject. But to impart it to an unwilling subject belongs to those only who have charge over him. To this pertains chastisement by blows.

1. At what age, if ever, did you start spanking your children? Whenever you could tell they were being defiant?

2. Shouldn't spanking only begin when one is morally culpable, i.e., once one attains the age of reason (~7 years old)? Or when one at least knows why one is being spanked? (But children don't need to know moral theology and casuistry to know something is wrong, even if they don't understand why it is wrong.)

3. The Japanese wait until ~3 years to start disciplining. This doesn't seem right because habits take repetition over time to perfect.

2. No.
Below age 7, you are TRAINING them to act a certain way. That's why we don't reason/discuss with children that young. At that age, it's simply "Because I told you so." As they get older, you can -- and should -- deign to give detailed explanations as to the "why". But I always shake my head when a grown man/woman is expostulating and arguing with a 2 year old over the correct course of behavior!

Some parents make the mistake of treating their children all the same, or treating their older children like their younger ones. BIG MISTAKE and the #1 recipe for rebellion and black sheep among your children.

3. The Japanese are hardly a model for ANYTHING, especially matters of discipline. I know what you're talking about -- in fact, I think it's older than 3 years old that they start. I studied Japanese language and culture for many years (I can still speak Japanese quite well).

Have you ever gardened?  It's must easier to train a vine to go a certain way AS IT'S GROWING rather than to have to hack and prune tons of growth later to force it into the trellis (etc.) you want it to grow on.


Overall, you should also keep in mind that you can't be spanking your children constantly. So you should pick your battles, and don't expect a military level of discipline from your young children. Children need to have a bit of leash -- a bit of freedom to be silly, run around, play, etc. Just teach them to channel it into the right time and place.

I once read a great article, written by a priest, about the "sparing the rod" bit, and how certain circles have long used this verse to justify corporal punishment. He wrote that in biblical times, many people were shepherds, and they called the staff a rod, or at least it translates that way. The shepherd doesn't hit the sheep with the rod, it is intended to guide. The verse is really saying "spare your child guidance (training if you will), and the child is spoiled." makes sense to me. I had the article bookmarked on my old pc, wish I could find it. I can speak from personal experience that sparing my child a spanking certainly did not spoil them. I am fairly sure my eldest is the most well-behaved person I know, and spanking has never been part of our parenting plan, perse.

It boils down to this, parenting is hard and there is no perfect way. Most of the time, spanking is an emotional reaction by the parent (angry/ frustrated/ embarassed), not a parenting strategy. If a child is not old enough to control their excrement and understand the bathroom must be used to relieve themselves, how in the world are they supposed to understand that mommy/ daddy hitting them is for their own good/ lesson learned? That has never made sense to me.

I find many folks in the traditional crowd tend toward some very Dr.Spock/ Freudian beliefs about the bringing up of very young children. Not sure why, it certainly isn't church doctrine. As a matter of fact, the most distracting thing I encounter at mass is the harsh (HARSH) treatment of very young children by their parents. I cannot fathom how one can be so near God, surrounded by statues of the Blessed Virgin cradling her Child, and still show a literal baby such nastiness. Our Blessed Mother is an example for us as parents. Just three weeks or so ago, a baby under one was spanked right in front of me for crying. He was not able to talk. Crying is a baby's communication, not a personal jab at a parent. Also, the silly "mouth-slapping" parents do with babies babbling. That baby has no clue why mommy is popping their little mouths, they do not have reasoning skills enough to figure that out. Most people at mass are parents, grandparents, aunts/ uncles, brothers/sisters. We are all used to baby noise. The sound of a little baby babble or a sweet toddler question is much less distracting than the hissing, swatting, spanking, slapping, pinching melodrama I see so often played out.

I also think there is a lack of understanding what "age appropriate behavior" means. I also think some parents spank in public and do nothing about boundary-setting at home. So sad.

All that said, I know we all must parent the best way we know how. I just wish more folks would learn and try other ways before going right to spanking. Spanking is not for everyone, just like I know not-spanking might not be for everyone. I do know that I take much time reading and preparing for my parenting decisions, and we all owe it to our children, families and selves to do the same.

To claim the Bible didn't mean to speak of corporal punishment sounds like modernist trash.

"He that loveth his son, frequently chastiseth him"

Ecclesiasticus

We all have opinions. I can disagree with other's opinions without being insulting. Since the OP asked for opinions, that is what I gave.  

Since when does chastise mean, specifically, spanking? Synonyms would be to penalize or discipline, neither of which are defined by hitting.  I would agree, then, with your quoted verse.

Quote from: keepingitsafe

Quote from: Telesphorus

To claim the Bible didn't mean to speak of corporal punishment sounds like modernist trash.

"He that loveth his son, frequently chastiseth him"

Ecclesiasticus

We all have opinions. I can disagree with other's opinions without being insulting. Since the OP asked for opinions, that is what I gave.  

Since when does chastise mean, specifically, spanking? Synonyms would be to penalize or discipline, neither of which are defined by hitting.  I would agree, then, with your quoted verse.

This is a problem is that you are trying to change the meaning of words retroactively.  This is why I said it's modernist trash.  From time immemorial corporal punishment of children has been regarded as normal, but now, suddenly, we're supposed to think the Bible didn't mean that?

Not changing the meaning, defining the meaning. It seems like you take chastisement as absolutely physical punishment, and I don't. Perhaps this fundamental difference is causing all the confusion?

"From time immemorial corporal punishment of children has been regarded as normal, but now, suddenly, we're supposed to think the Bible didn't mean that?"

Show me proof if you are making this claim. Throughout time-periods and cultures you find all sorts of differences in the way that particular society works. It is absolute conjecture to claim that children have always been hit by their parents, always and all of them. How silly.

Secondly, I would point out how, while some things are better in an unchanging and constant form, when it comes to things like parenting "when we know better, we do better..." why fall into a behavior only because that is the way it has always been done? Why not search for a better way? Parents used to put soda in baby bottles. Now we  know how bad that is, and it is not common practice. (Now before you jump my case here, I am not equating soda-giving to spanking)

No where did I say all spanking was all bad all the time. I said it isn't for everyone.
 

Once people start deciding they can change the meaning of passages in the Bible in order to conform to modern prejudices - well, the fact of the matter is that's the reason why things are falling apart.

Your opinion isn't legitimate.  It's dead wrong, and it's unacceptable.

The Church always accepted corporal punishment.  Now to try to re-read the Bible to read corporal punishment out of it is modernistic.

anything new or helpful to offer.

This isn't about offering anything "new"

However, it is absolutely necessary, when falsifiers try to corrupt the meaning of scripture, that they be called out on it.

You have a personal prejudice against the use of corporal punishment, and you spread deception about the meaning of the Bible, in order to suggest corporal punishment is not Biblical or legitimate.

It's garbage, and you're not backing down even though you know you're wrong, which shows you're trying to subvert Catholic teaching.