Author Topic: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ? (Read 11101 times)

Vintagewife3 · « **Reply #225 on:** January 05, 2019, 09:41:12 AM »

I feel like the video is a bad example for a few reasons

1) you can see on the husbands face he’s not comfortable. Maybe it’s having everyone staring at them? Some people don’t do well in those situations. I am an introvert, but my husband is double the introvert I am. So, I help him in social situations he’s not comfortable in, but i certainly wouldn’t make him sit there like an idiot with his mouth open like that.

2) pulling the fork back once is cute, twice is annoying. But she did it 6 times I think? Maybe 5. That’s rude, annoying, and immature during a serious moment.

3) you can see on her face the slap didn’t bother her at first, and then she got this spoiled brat face.

He should have handled it privately. Only because you don’t want to give the family a way to talk down about him. If a situation like that is to happen, and a wife fully gives such submission to her husband. It should be done privately not in front of kids, or family. It shouldn’t be done to the wife’s humiliation.

Cantarella · « **Reply #226 on:** January 05, 2019, 10:54:09 AM »

Thank you Trad123 for such excellent sources. God bless.

It is very good that a Catholic thinker of the caliber of St. Chrysostom has made such an explicit condemnation of the corporal punishment against women. Chrysostom's preaching offers one of the best Christianized philosophical exposition on the Sacrament of Marriage. Although the wife is to submit to her husband, he emphatically distinguishes her submission from the submission of a slave to a master, an inferior to a superior, just as Pope Leo XIII and Pius XI of happy memory have done as well.

Quote

And I say not this for a wife to be beaten; far from it: for this is the extremest affront, not to her that is beaten, but to him who beats. But even if by some misfortune thou have such a yoke fellow allotted you, take it not ill, O woman, considering the reward which is laid up for such things and their praise too in this present life. And to you husbands also this I say: make it a rule that there can be no such offense as to bring you under the necessity of striking a wife. And why say I a wife? Since not even upon his handmaiden could a free man endure to inflict blows and lay violent hands. But if the shame be great for a man to beat a maidservant, much more to stretch forth the right hand against her that is free. And this one might see even from heathen legislatures who no longer compel her that has been so treated to live with him that beat her, as being unworthy of her fellowship. For surely it comes of extreme lawlessness when your partner of life, she who in the most intimate relations and in the highest degree, is united with you; when she, like a base slave, is dishonored by you.

From this paragraph we see that corporal punishment dishonors wife and we know from the Catechism of Trent that the fist duty of husband is to honor his wife. Not dishonor her. Therefore, we can conclude that a husband who dishonors his wife by striking her, fails in his duty as a husband and does something against the will of the Church, as defined in Trent. This is to say, this man does something against the very will of God. "if indeed one must call him a man and not rather a wild beast, I should say, was like a parricide and a murderer of his mother".

Quid Retribuam Domino · « **Reply #227 on:** January 05, 2019, 11:06:11 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on January 04, 2019, 07:05:55 PM

Please help me better understand your position. Do you consider the type of light spanking seen here acceptable? (Notice the pain itself is minimal and will leave no mark) yes / no. Why?

Exactly what type of offenses do you believe would be reasons to *lightly* spank your wife and what part of her body would you spank? Would you use a tool such as a wooden spoon or your bare hand?

If we we're living in a patriarchal society and you happened to be the father of that girl, would you intervene at seeing this "light spanking" inflicted upon your daughter?

This video is a poor example because nobody here condones this type of corporal punishment against wives for the lady's mere antic in the video.

That guy is likely a fαɢɢօt sodomite. His countenance and aura emits an effeminacy, which explains his irascible outlash, too. St. Bernadine of Siena says that one of the characteristics of fαɢɢօts is their irascible behavior. He obviously resents being married to this woman, and he has a deep disdain and hatred for women, which is a core disposition of most fαɢɢօts.

They don't look American. Maybe he only married her due to cultural or family pressure, and to satisfy his rich daddy who established a trust fund for him with the condition that he gets married and not remain a sodomite; or maybe her family is rich.

Cantarella · « **Reply #228 on:** January 05, 2019, 11:10:11 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on January 05, 2019, 09:09:02 AM

It is clear that St. Chrysostom considers refraining from corporal punishment to be the ideal.

This is an underestimation. Not only he considers refraining from it to be "the ideal". He repudiates it in the strongest terms. He calls is a "disgrace".

Quote

For it is a disgrace for a man to strike a woman

Quote

Or do you not feel how disgraceful a thing it is for a woman to be beaten?

Quote

Does your wife abuse you? Do not thou become a woman: to be abusive is womanly: it is a disease of the soul, an inferiority.

It is the part of men that are strong, to bear the weak.

Men who must recourse to physical force against their women are men who have failed to exert their masculine authority over them. They are, as St. Chrysostom says, rather wild beasts using brute force.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #229 on:** January 05, 2019, 11:15:43 AM »

All of you read the first 2 St John sermons but did you read the 3rd one? St John clearly says that punishment done for the good of the soul is to be commended, which is the only type of corporal punishment I’ve been taking about. So, yes, St John DOES SUPPORT punishment when done for spiritual reasons.

What then, ought one not to strike at all?" No, I say not so, (for it must be done,) but then it must be neither frequently, nor immoderately, nor for any wrongs of your own, as I am constantly saying, nor for any little failure in her service, but only if she is doing harm to her own soul. If you chastise her for a fault of this kind, all will applaud, and there will be none to upbraid you; but if you do it for any reasons of your own, all will condemn your cruelty and harshness.

Cantarella · « **Reply #230 on:** January 05, 2019, 11:20:47 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 05, 2019, 11:15:43 AM

All of you read the first 2 St John sermons but did you read the 3rd one? St John clearly says that punishment done for the good of the soul is to be commended, which is the only type of corporal punishment I’ve been taking about. So, yes, St John DOES SUPPORT punishment when done for spiritual reasons.

What then, ought one not to strike at all?" No, I say not so, (for it must be done,) but then it must be neither frequently, nor immoderately, nor for any wrongs of your own, as I am constantly saying, nor for any little failure in her service, but only if she is doing harm to her own soul. If you chastise her for a fault of this kind, all will applaud, and there will be none to upbraid you; but if you do it for any reasons of your own, all will condemn your cruelty and harshness.

St. Chrysostom is referring here to the maid-servants. NOT free women, and definitely NOT wives.

Also, he is addressing this sermon to the WOMEN themselves, not the men. He is addressing these words to the women (the mistresses) when they became angry with their maid-servants (female slaves) and hit them for unjust reasons

Jaynek · « **Reply #231 on:** January 05, 2019, 11:32:48 AM »

Well, Cantarella, since you consider St. Chrysostom to be such a high authority, I suppose you will retract your position that the husband is not superior to the wife.

Quote

1 Corinthians 11:9
For neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.

This is again a second superiority, nay, rather also a third, and a fourth, the first being, that Christ is the head of us, and we of the woman; a second, that we are the glory of God, but the woman of us; a third, that we are not of the woman, but she of us; a fourth, that we are not for her, but she for us.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220126.htm

Or does the Saint only speak authoritatively when you can use it to support your opinions? You are quite happy to ignore the words of St. Thomas who is equal in authority to St. Chrysostom. Both are Doctors of the Church, but neither is Magisterial teaching. All that the St. Chrysostom passages show is that your opinion is reasonable, not that it is one that Catholics are obliged to hold.

Quote from: Cantarella on January 05, 2019, 11:10:11 AM

This is an underestimation. Not only he considers refraining from it to be "the ideal". He repudiates it in the strongest terms. He calls is a "disgrace".

Yes, "disgrace" is language that one uses to exhort to an ideal rather than a statement that the man lacks authority.

Quid Retribuam Domino · « **Reply #232 on:** January 05, 2019, 11:46:25 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on January 05, 2019, 10:54:09 AM

[...] Since not even upon his handmaiden could a free man endure to inflict blows and lay violent hands [...]

~ St. John Chrysostom

Does that mean this "handmaiden" (nanny) should not be struck either?

Are you sure SJC's words are categorical in teaching that in no circuмstances should a man strike a handmaiden or wife?

Cantarella · « **Reply #233 on:** January 05, 2019, 12:23:37 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on January 05, 2019, 11:32:48 AM

Well, Cantarella, since you consider St. Chrysostom to be such a high authority, I suppose you will retract your position that the husband is not superior to the wife.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220126.htm

I do not have any problem with St. Chrysostom's words here. He is talking about men and women as created beings. Men are the glory of God, women the glory of men. This is another subject. My argument is that both roles that of husband and wife are equal in dignity before God in the context of a Catholic marriage. Your belief that corporal punishment of wives is permissible on the grounds of a superior-inferior type of relationship, just as we would think of a master-slave relationship, is completely flawed, and not according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. It would seem more like a Protestant or Jєωιѕн distortion.

Quote

Or does the Saint only speak authoritatively when you can use it to support your opinions? You are quite happy to ignore the words of St. Thomas who is equal in authority to St. Chrysostom.

So we have one single word from the Summa, specifically the word "blows", in St. Thomas single quote referring strictly to cases of adultery vs. three sermons of St. Chrysostom on the subject. At least, you must admit that the second Doctor has written much more about it.

Quid Retribuam Domino · « **Reply #234 on:** January 05, 2019, 12:43:13 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on January 05, 2019, 12:23:37 PM

[...]

Cantarella, if a wife commits the same abuse, or even worse, against her child as the "handmaid" (nanny) in the video I posted a few comments up, should she not be struck by her husband, even post hoc? Do you think what SJC taught in his homilies is categorical?

Please answer the question.

Incredulous · « **Reply #235 on:** January 05, 2019, 01:15:26 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on January 05, 2019, 12:23:37 PM

I do not have any problem with St. Chrysostom's words here. He is talking about men and women as created beings. Men are the glory of God, women the glory of men. This is another subject. My argument is that both roles that of husband and wife are equal in dignity before God in the context of a Catholic marriage. Your belief that corporal punishment of wives is permissible on the grounds of a superior-inferior type of relationship, just as we would think of a master-slave relationship, is completely flawed, and not according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. It would seem more like a Protestant or Jєωιѕн distortion.

So we have one single word from the Summa, specifically the word "blows", in St. Thomas single quote referring strictly to cases of adultery vs. three sermons of St. Chrysostom on the subject. At least, you must admit that the second Doctor has written much more about it.

Thank you Cantarella for the Summa clarification on "blows". That would be with a closed hand, as a punch.

So we see, a little open handed slap or "bitch-slap" as they call it nowadays is okay

After all, even Bp. Williamson has endorsed it in one of his recorded lectures, as a means to correct a wife after she "get's out of line".

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #236 on:** January 05, 2019, 01:27:55 PM »

I would argue that St John’s first sermon is preaching against the practicality of corporal punishment; he does not say it’s immoral. He is arguing that 1) you are missing out on graces and opportunities to be charitable and gentle to your wife, by not beating her when she’s insolent. 2) that a man who puts up with the faults of his wife earns great merit and will help lead her to virtue, 3) a beating will not work, generally, because a wife will become bitter and thus her actions will not change.

Nowhere does he say it’s wrong, except in cases where it’s extreme. But this is obvious.

Jaynek · « **Reply #237 on:** January 05, 2019, 01:52:05 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on January 05, 2019, 12:23:37 PM

I do not have any problem with St. Chrysostom's words here. He is talking about men and women as created beings. Men are the glory of God, women the glory of men. This is another subject. My argument is that both roles that of husband and wife are equal in dignity before God in the context of a Catholic marriage. Your belief that corporal punishment of wives is permissible on the grounds of a superior-inferior type of relationship, just as we would think of a master-slave relationship, is completely flawed, and not according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. It would seem more like a Protestant or Jєωιѕн distortion.

A relationship in which one commands and the other obeys is, by definition, a superior-subordinate relationship. The Church teaches that marriage is such a relationship. It is explicitly not identical to a master-slave relationship, but has some similarities to it.
Arcanum Divinae describes the roles in marriage:

Quote

Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help. The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties. For "the husband is the head of the wife; as Christ is the head of the Church. . . Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things."

The husband is the head of the wife. She must be subject to her husband and obey him. He commands; she obeys. These are characteristics of the superior-subordinate relationship. It differs from the master-slave relationship in the dignity and honour given to the wife.

The encyclical gives this underlying principle which all Catholics must accept. There is, however, no explicit mention of corporal punishment. Many Catholics throughout history believed that, since it was a superior-subordinate relationship, corporal punishment was permissible. St. Chrysostom gives a view, especially popular in modern times, that the dignity and honour of the relationship means that corporal punishment should not be used. Neither of these views is Magisterial teaching. They are two different interpretations of Magisterial teaching and Catholics are free to believe either.
Your opinion is merely your opinion, not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Cantarella · « **Reply #238 on:** January 05, 2019, 07:25:46 PM »

Quote from: Quid Retribuam Domino on January 05, 2019, 12:43:13 PM

Cantarella, if a wife commits the same abuse, or even worse, against her child as the "handmaid" (nanny) in the video I posted a few comments up, should she not be struck by her husband, even post hoc? Do you think what SJC taught in his homilies is categorical?

Please answer the question.

Violence is justifiable in cases of self defense, or protecting the life of the helpless, such as this baby. However, this is a completely different topic from the domestic corporal punishment of wives. Now you ask me, if this were to be a wife and the husband witnesses such a demented act against the children, I believe that this wife is no longer in need of correction or chastisement; but she needs to be put away altogether. This offense merits bodily separation as to remove the children and himself from an evidently disturbed woman for which no amount of blows would cure.

The husband should separate from this individual and remove the children to a safe place as soon as possible, on grounds of "Bodily danger":

From The law of christian marriage according to the teaching and discipline of the Catholic church
by Devine, Arthur, 1849-1919

Cantarella · « **Reply #239 on:** January 05, 2019, 07:47:23 PM »

Many considerations about such situation arises. For instance:

Firstly, I think that anyone who watches this video would want to angrily punch this negro in the face, male or female. That would be our first human emotive reaction. However, this reaction would be a highly emotional response and therefore, would come from a place of weakness. A serene man of regular strength could easily remove the baby to a safer place and restrain the negro using a minimal physical effort.

Secondly, what type of man would marry up a savage such as the one showed in the video? If a man is stupid enough to marry that female and make her the mother of his children, then that it is a strong indication of the poor quality and low IQ of the man himself. It is unlikely therefore, that this savage would be ever become the wife of anyone.

Thirdly, this savage is a female who is broken beyond repair. No amount of blows would fix it. She needs to be placed in a mental institution and be removed from civilized society altogether. Why would any man degrade himself to the same level of the savage? As I said, she can be physically removed from such situation and handled by a man of normal strength and intellect. Chances are, that this is the type of broken woman who would actually enjoy the physical punishment, and perhaps even fall in love with the inflictor, because he is giving her some male attention, (even if it is negative attention, which for these broken women, is still better than the zero attention they are capable to inspire. Many worthless women who tolerate physical abuse do it on these grounds).

Author Topic: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ? (Read 11101 times)

Vintagewife3

Re: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ?

Cantarella

Re: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ?

Quid Retribuam Domino

Re: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ?

Cantarella

Re: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ?

Pax Vobis

Re: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ?

Cantarella

Re: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ?

Jaynek

Re: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ?

Quid Retribuam Domino

Re: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ?

Cantarella

Re: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ?

Quid Retribuam Domino

Re: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ?

Incredulous

Re: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ?

Pax Vobis

Re: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ?

Jaynek

Re: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ?

Cantarella

Re: Going into 2019, Will Cathinfo offer banned souls a "Week of Mercy" ?

Cantarella

Re: Corporal punishment on wives within marriage