-
In this great battle among the many Trad factions,
will Matthew Augustus provide a "Week of Mercy" for previously banned members to return to the Cathinfo Coliseum?
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reidsguides.com%2Fitaly%2Fimages%2Flazio%2Frome%2Fsights%2Fcolosseum-gladiator-salute.jpg&f=1)
-
.
This would be a good week, when everyone is busy with vacations and not working, so they're not likely to notice the Week of Mercy.
.
Missing caption!!
.
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reidsguides.com%2Fitaly%2Fimages%2Flazio%2Frome%2Fsights%2Fcolosseum-gladiator-salute.jpg&f=1)
WE, WHO ARE ABOUT TO DIE, SALUTE YOU!
.
(Just a friendly reminder, that's COLOSSEUM in Rome but Coliseum in Los Angeles and "where the drinks are (http://www.coliseumfdl.com/)." -- Roman spelling due to the fact it commemorated the Colossus of Rhodes, one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world, which BTW no longer exists.)
.
(https://s16-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcTVbJ2VQF1RlskrcmCPJs6nrUTycIKeurYd8iJD1ydedksZYXRUhg&sp=edc7099f568dca7b6794a83809b1966d&anticache=807626)
Colossus of Rhodes
-
Ah, these guys come back as either Anonymous posters or simply create new accounts. They rarely go away for good.
-
Going into 2019, can we just ban Poche?
-
Going into 2019, can we just ban Poche?
But Poche loves everyone.
-
I miss Telesphorus.
ETA: I know he's not banned anymore, or at least I don't think, since Matthew did a mass lifting of bans a while back. And maybe it's good he's not online anymore, maybe that means he found a nice girl and has lots of exciting "real life" stuff to tend to. But I still miss him.
-
Going into 2019, can we just ban Poche?
That maybe out of the question.
Poche serves an important function as Cathinfo's court jester :jester:
-
I miss Telesphorus.
ETA: I know he's not banned anymore, or at least I don't think, since Matthew did a mass lifting of bans a while back. And maybe it's good he's not online anymore, maybe that means he found a nice girl and has lots of exciting "real life" stuff to tend to. But I still miss him.
I've seen him on FB every once in a while...
-
It would be interesting to see the results of a vote choosing who should be banned, me or Poche. I'd like to see how many vindictive, crypto-feminist women, effeminate guys and crypto-Jєωs would choose their hurt feelings and bias over doctrine. Never have I espoused modernism or heresy on this forum. Poche is notorious for his modernism and apologetics for the Montinian Sect. Would these people still choose me to be banned, and allow Poche to remain?
-
Very interesting thought...I wonder too. For the record, I wouldn't vote to ban you.
-
Very interesting thought...I wonder too. For the record, I wouldn't vote to ban you.
I second that!
We need to protect the "Masculinists" on this forum. :cowboy:
-
I could see voting for members to be banned turning into the hunger games here....
-
But Poche loves everyone.
And everyone loves poche.
-
It would be interesting to see the results of a vote choosing who should be banned, me or Poche. I'd like to see how many vindictive, crypto-feminist women, effeminate guys and crypto-Jєωs would choose their hurt feelings and bias over doctrine. Never have I espoused modernism or heresy on this forum. Poche is notorious for his modernism and apologetics for the Montinian Sect. Would these people still choose me to be banned, and allow Poche to remain?
Well, since you've already been banned once, technically your new account here is in violation of forum rules.
-
FrancisMercy :fryingpan: or actual mercy? :P
-
FrancisMercy :fryingpan: or actual mercy? :P
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Ipd57xXN9mO6IJg4SjyRAgHaFj%26pid%3D15.1&f=1)
More like the "Count of Monte" Christo mercy
-
Incredulous, who would be your picks of past members or inactive members to come back? I offered my list some months ago.
-
I miss Telesphorus.
ETA: I know he's not banned anymore, or at least I don't think, since Matthew did a mass lifting of bans a while back. And maybe it's good he's not online anymore, maybe that means he found a nice girl and has lots of exciting "real life" stuff to tend to. But I still miss him.
.
I TOTALLY agree!
.
Speaking of Tele, are you aware that he took his name from the Roman martyr, St. Telesphorus, Pope, who hails from the days when popes were really CATHOLIC?!?!
.
You have to kind of look for his information, because his feast day (Jan 5) falls every year during that time when we're still in the Christmas season liturgically and so your missal will have a bit different arrangement for daily feast days, which you might expect to find in the Sunday Mass entries, as Christmas usually falls on a weekday, not Sunday. For example, the very next day after Christmas is St. Stephen, the protomartyr (this year Wednesday), followed by St. John (this year Thursday, who is considered a martyr inasmuch as on May 6th his being boiled alive in oil is commemorated, a process which he endured the pains thereof, however nonetheless miraculously survived), followed by the Holy Innocents on the 28th, this year Friday, shared by others including St. Francis de Sales, bishop in France, and Doctor of the Church, followed by St. Thomas of Canterbury, whom the wicked English murdered, this year Saturday -- yesterday. And so on. The Church doesn't dwell for long on the Nativity of Our Lord and Savior. Today, if not by Sunday's Mass, the Roman Martyrology commemorates St. Felix I, p. m., St. Sabinus, St. Exuperantius and St. Marcellus [remember the St. Marcel Initiative??], St. Venustian, his wife and sons --- while their martyrdoms having occurred at different times, they are commemorated on the same day.
.
The Martyrology gets specific here: "Marcellus and Exuperantius were fist racked, then severely beaten with rods; afterwards being torn with iron hooks, and burned in the sides, they fulfilled their martyrdom. Not long after, Venustian was put to the sword with his wife and sons. St. Sabinus, after having his hands cut off, and being a long time confined in prison, was scourged to death."
.
[Note: if prison life wasn't already bad enough, try to imagine being there in those days, with bleeding stumps as forearms, etc...]
.
The entry for St. Telesphorus is no less edifying, since we have already been informed regarding the general character of such tortures.
.
"The Vigil of the Epiphany of Our Lord ... At Rome, in the time of Anotninus Pius,
St. Telesphorus, pope, who, after many sufferings for the confession of Christ, underwent a glorious martyrdom ..."
.
Perhaps if we ask Tele to "come on back, the water's fine," and that we'd like him to tell us about the specifics of his namesake's many sufferings, he would be enticed to do so. Eh? (...as they say in Canada, which is closer to where he lives, last we heard.............)
.
.
Furthermore, Jan 5 is shared with other martyrs whose feasts are of a lesser rank than Pope Telesphorus:
St. Edward, King of England, whose feast was transferred to October 13th (the day Our Lady later chose for the Miracle of the Sun), known for illustrious CHASTITY and the gift of MIRACLES...
Under Diocletian, in Egypt many holy martyrs were put to death in Thebais by various kinds of torments...
St. Simeon, monk of Antioch, lived for many years standing on a pillar, wherefore he is called Stylites ...
St. Emiliana, Roman virgin, was called to heaven by her sister Tharsilla, who had preceded her ...
St. Syncletica of Alexandria, her noble deeds have been recorded by St Anthanasius [same as the "other creed" of the Church, attributed to him, while skeptics argue he didn't compose it!] ...
St. Apollinaris, virgin in Egypt........................ [if "apollo" were really Catholic, he might have preferred "apollinaris" instead!!!!]
.
-
.
FrancisMercy :fryingpan: or actual mercy? :P
.
I was reading fast and thought your post said "Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ." :) (Just in time for the Rose Parade, which is Freemasonic from stem to stern.)
-
I miss Telesphorus.
ETA: I know he's not banned anymore, or at least I don't think, since Matthew did a mass lifting of bans a while back. And maybe it's good he's not online anymore, maybe that means he found a nice girl and has lots of exciting "real life" stuff to tend to. But I still miss him.
Yes, CI was buzzing when Tele was here!
It would be great to have Tele back.
-
Incredulous, who would be your picks of past members or inactive members to come back? I offered my list some months ago.
Rum,
Thanks for the question! Please send me your list through pm and I'll go through it.
Off the top of my head, I liked the debate offered in posts by Wessex and Croix de Fer.
They may have gotten excited and out-of-line occasionally, but nothing that couldn't be dealt with by good counsel.
My general impression is that Cathinfo is suffering from lack of good writers and creative, instructive topics.
For example, Croix's string on pre-nuptial contracts was thought provoking. His logic was the reverse of what we Catholics normally think. But in the Catholic days of old, the bride did come with a dowry.
Common sense was linked to this practice, but today it's a revolutionary idea!
And we know, more than ever, the ʝʊdɛօ-freemasonic state wants to destroy the family and they have many mean "legal" means for doing so.
To help revive Cathinfo's relevancy, it would seem Matthew should seek out the trad-intellectuals he banned and repatriate them onto the forum. Just my 2-cents :cowboy:
-
"To help revive Cathinfo's relevancy, it would seem Matthew should seek out the trad-intellectuals he banned and repatriate them onto the forum. Just my 2-cents "
I greatly suffer from nostaligia, but I preferred the Cathinfo of a few years ago to how it is now which is why I do not contribute as much as I used to. I miss a lot of the old members who have left or been banned. I sometimes think some of the best members are the ones who get banned because they push the limits of acceptable speech and bring about robust debate. A good example is Croix-de-Fer in his late quasi-MGTOW Pastor Dowell anti-feminism stage. I thought those posts and others like them were intriguing and wished he was not banned. The best debates are the ones in which dozens of people complain to Matthew about and try to get one of the debaters banned. (However I do not like the flat-earth debates or the seemingly dishonest pro-Novus Ordo ones). I liked Wessex and many others. I have a soft spot for the anti-NFP Feeneyites who used to periodically invade the forum with links to websites with names like "true-saints.com" talking about sɛҳuąƖ sins and how the "missionary position" is the only acceptable way to engage in the marital embrace. As far as old members I wish would post again, I nominate Belloc, Raoul76 if he would engage and not simply apologize for all of his old posts, Caminus, Spouse of Jesus, and CM (who is no longer a Feeneyite). I also liked Joan Scholastica, and like everyone else I liked Telesphorus. And I liked gladius_veritatis. And sedetrad. And the poster whose avatar was Bishop Williamson with duct tape covering his mouth. And it may be blasphemous to admit it, but I liked ggreg, especially when he was debating Tele (I sided with Tele in those debates). And ServusSpiritusSancti who fell off the face of the earth. I wonder where he is and wish he would come out of hiding and post again and explain to us what happened to him and why he disappeared. I think the trad forums I frequent are all ill and possibly dying and becoming "irrelevant". I think the resistance split and the strife between the SSPX and Williamson / Zendejas and Pfeiffer is a tragedy that has harmed Cathinfo greatly, not that Cathinfo is that important, but because Matthew has clearly taken sides and has used his power to censor the debates instead of being impartial kind of like he was during controversies that do not concern him directly. And I find there is a growing split between sedevacantists trads and non-sedevacantist trads and they want less to do with each other (I do not like the strong anti-sedevacantism of the "resistance" or the opposite stance of NOW) I like sedes going out with non-sedes for coffee after Mass and talking about things instead of the wholesale declarations of "error", "schism," and "heresy".
I know I am very different from when I started posting here. However I have no intention of going back through all six thousand of my old posts and apologizing for everything I said years ago that I disagree with now like Raoul76 did. But I do wish all of the old faces would come back. The forum has been around for twelve years and we remember some of the old faces who used to post here and I wish none of them had ever left and we would all be regular posters at the same time and would have interesting discussions.
-
I think Mr. McFarland should be allowed back. It would be good practice for the Resistance supporters to have a dedicated die-hard SSPX supporter to debate against.
-
I can think of just one word for Matto's analysis... "Fantastico!"
Happy New Year to you Matto :cheers:
-
I think Mr. McFarland should be allowed back. It would be good practice for the Resistance supporters to have a dedicated die-hard SSPX supporter to debate against.
Hear, hear! Bringest back the old SSPX PR-man so we can beat upon him... regularly :fryingpan:
-
I had no idea he was banned! Jus thought he wasn’t around anymore. I knew that guy! He and my mom were real life friends. and I thought he was great to learn from....
-
I had no idea he was banned! Jus thought he wasn’t around anymore. I knew that guy! He and my mom were real life friends. and I thought he was great to learn from....
Don't know for sure... only Matthew Augustus knows.
My impression was Mr. McFarland imposed a self-ban on his Cathinfo posts because communicating with us directly, was beneath his dignity.
The latest I've heard of him is when he uses Matthew as an intermediary to send messages concerning Cathinfo topics.
-
Don't know for sure... only Matthew Augustus knows.
My impression was Mr. McFarland imposed a self-ban on his Cathinfo posts because communicating with us directly, was beneath his dignity.
The latest I've heard of him is when he uses Matthew as an intermediary to send messages concerning Cathinfo topics.
In thought I quoted properly but I was referring to gladius!
-
.
I can think of just one word for Matto's analysis... "Fantastico!"
Happy New Year to you Matto :cheers:
.
That would be the one where he said:
.
"And the poster whose avatar was Bishop Williamson with duct tape covering his mouth."
.
------------ That would be Antifellayism. -------------
.
"To help revive Cathinfo's relevancy, it would seem Matthew should seek out the trad-intellectuals he banned and repatriate them onto the forum. Just my 2-cents "
I greatly suffer from nostaligia, but I preferred the Cathinfo of a few years ago to how it is now which is why I do not contribute as much as I used to. I miss a lot of the old members who have left or been banned. I sometimes think some of the best members are the ones who get banned because they push the limits of acceptable speech and bring about robust debate. A good example is Croix-de-Fer in his late quasi-MGTOW Pastor Dowell anti-feminism stage. I thought those posts and others like them were intriguing and wished he was not banned. The best debates are the ones in which dozens of people complain to Matthew about and try to get one of the debaters banned. (However I do not like the flat-earth debates or the seemingly dishonest pro-Novus Ordo ones). I liked Wessex and many others. I have a soft spot for the anti-NFP Feeneyites who used to periodically invade the forum with links to websites with names like "true-saints.com" talking about sɛҳuąƖ sins and how the "missionary position" is the only acceptable way to engage in the marital embrace. As far as old members I wish would post again, I nominate Belloc, Raoul76 if he would engage and not simply apologize for all of his old posts, Caminus, Spouse of Jesus, and CM (who is no longer a Feeneyite). I also liked Joan Scholastica, and like everyone else I liked Telesphorus. And I liked gladius_veritatis. And sedetrad. And the poster whose avatar was Bishop Williamson with duct tape covering his mouth. And it may be blasphemous to admit it, but I liked ggreg, especially when he was debating Tele (I sided with Tele in those debates). And ServusSpiritusSancti who fell off the face of the earth. I wonder where he is and wish he would come out of hiding and post again and explain to us what happened to him and why he disappeared. I think the trad forums I frequent are all ill and possibly dying and becoming "irrelevant". I think the resistance split and the strife between the SSPX and Williamson / Zendejas and Pfeiffer is a tragedy that has harmed Cathinfo greatly, not that Cathinfo is that important, but because Matthew has clearly taken sides and has used his power to censor the debates instead of being impartial kind of like he was during controversies that do not concern him directly. And I find there is a growing split between sedevacantists trads and non-sedevacantist trads and they want less to do with each other (I do not like the strong anti-sedevacantism of the "resistance" or the opposite stance of NOW) I like sedes going out with non-sedes for coffee after Mass and talking about things instead of the wholesale declarations of "error", "schism," and "heresy".
I know I am very different from when I started posting here. However I have no intention of going back through all six thousand of my old posts and apologizing for everything I said years ago that I disagree with now like Raoul76 did. But I do wish all of the old faces would come back. The forum has been around for twelve years and we remember some of the old faces who used to post here and I wish none of them had ever left and we would all be regular posters at the same time and would have interesting discussions.
.
I seem to recall reading on another forum that ServusSpiritusSancti passed away. But I could have him mixed up with someone else.
.
I like sedes going out with non-sedes for coffee after Mass and talking about things
instead of the wholesale declarations of "error", "schism," and "heresy".
.
I had to read that sentence 3 times before realizing I do this myself, and find it's quite informative and enjoyable.
.
Although, there seems to be a certain kind of person, usually it's a man, who just can't get off a topic, and becomes obsessed with it, like sedevacantism. I knew a man who, all he ever had to say was a complaint about how the priest did something not in accord with the rubrics.
.
Then I knew another who was so thoroughly invested in Paul VI and his successors being all anti-popes, that he couldn't carry on a civil conversation about ANYTHING else. Both of these men have disappeared as far as I know. Maybe they moved to Madagascar or Fiji.
-
A good example is Croix-de-Fer in his late quasi-MGTOW Pastor Dowell anti-feminism stage. I thought those posts and others like them were intriguing and wished he was not banned.
It wasn't about WHAT Croix was saying, but about how he said it. He was an obvious misogynist and was constantly making derrogatory comments to and about women ... at one point referring to them as "cows". He was an immature loose cannon. Any good points he may have made in his posts was far outweighed by his obnoxious attitude. He spent too much time on secular boards and had some badly-infected thinking.
-
Off the top of my head, I liked the debate offered in posts by Wessex and Croix de Fer.
They may have gotten excited and out-of-line occasionally, but nothing that couldn't be dealt with by good counsel.
Well, it was more than just "occasionally" for Croix, and Matthew did warn him to tone it down several times.
-
Let's not forget Hobbledehoy, although he could never get himself banned, of course! He went on his own volition, but he was a valuable poster.
.
Sometimes I think to myself that I must request my husband to let you all know when I die so you can pray for me. But even before the event would be good. Thanks.
-
It wasn't about WHAT Croix was saying, but about how he said it. He was an obvious misogynist and was constantly making derrogatory comments to and about women ... at one point referring to them as "cows". He was an immature loose cannon. Any good points he may have made in his posts was far outweighed by his obnoxious attitude. He spent too much time on secular boards and had some badly-infected thinking.
I think it's unfair to call women "cow" for an insult, because in my view, it's not one. If one has never had a beautiful, docile creature which is a family cow, I pity you. Ours was a beautiful, docile creature you could cuddle with in a corner who "danced" to drums and loved her children (calves). Lots of personality and knew us by name.
That aside, ggreg would be a good poster to have back. Kinda before my time, but I remember seeing some intelligent, inspiring bits from him.
-
.
That aside, ggreg would be a good poster to have back. Kinda before my time, but I remember seeing some intelligent, inspiring bits from him.
.
Methinks ggreg dished out far too many (DISTINGUISHED FROM "ONE TOO MANY") personal insults to the OWNER. Enough is enough.
Period. New paragraph.
.
Matthew did what he had to do. And he earns our respect and appreciation by doing so.
It's nice to be appreciated, that is, so I've been told. HAHAHAHA
-
Let's not forget Hobbledehoy, although he could never get himself banned, of course! He went on his own volition, but he was a valuable poster.
.
Sometimes I think to myself that I must request my husband to let you all know when I die so you can pray for me. But even before the event would be good. Thanks.
.
Good ol' Hobbles. He must have posted about 3,000 rare book scans, and I doubt anyone had time to read them as fast as he put them up.
.
But the fatal flaw in that project was, he used Photobucket for his source where he uploaded the images.
Because he didn't have to. He (or anyone) can upload images directly onto the CI server, which Matthew maintains flawlessly;
And for which service he garners our highest praise and doesn't get it often enough.
..
Now, unfortunately, all those wonderful scans are LOST because Hobble's Photobucket account was deleted. I don't know why.
It makes me think he might have died.
CI was obviously a passion for him, and he wouldn't have let all those scans go down the tubes if he could have prevented that.
So he must have been oppressed with money troubles to let his PB account go down. They charge a fee for membership.
.
It sounded like he was frantically trying to preserve the books he wanted to share and did what he knew, without the foresight he needed.
He mentioned having to "move" and seemed to be in a hurry to get scans posted before it was too late.
Perhaps he was being evicted, and in such cases, personal property (like rare books) often get buried in a local landfill.
-
It wasn't about WHAT Croix was saying, but about how he said it. He was an obvious misogynist and was constantly making derrogatory comments to and about women ... at one point referring to them as "cows". He was an immature loose cannon. Any good points he may have made in his posts was far outweighed by his obnoxious attitude. He spent too much time on secular boards and had some badly-infected thinking.
There were provocations and insults from most, if not all, parties involved, including yourself, and you know it.
The feminism and soy culminating in those final 4 weeks, which resulted in vindictive down-thumbing and changing the reputation's positive-to-negative ratio from around 2,000/200 to a, now, deficit reputation, and concurrent narking because their feelings were hurt, obviously proves a narrative was being pushed to effect a ban. All because your pride and feelings were hurt.
-
First things first, I would like to wish all of you a happy 2019 filled with God's grace and His abundant blessings.
Second of all, you're basically admitting that you're Croix, Quid. It went from "maybe you're Croix de Fer" to "He's definitely Croix de Fer".
That's not good.
-
There were provocations and insults from most, if not all, parties involved, including yourself, and you know it.
How do you know, since you only joined after Croix was banned?
In any case, what you deem provocations were nothing more than objections to your posts. Because I objected to your allegation that eating sugar was good for you and that good, healthy fats were bad, you started calling me "tubby" even though you've never seen me. Women who objected to your posts you called cows. You come across like an immature 16-year-old.
-
Way to infuse sanctimonious false piety with derision.
#effeminate
#soy
#immature
#bitter_incel
-
How do you know, since you only joined after Croix was banned?
In any case, what you deem provocations were nothing more than objections to your posts. Because I objected to your allegation that eating sugar was good for you and that good, healthy fats were bad, you started calling me "tubby" even though you've never seen me.
You were calling people "stupid" and "idiot" before your weight problems were mentioned as a retaliatory response. You're projecting. You shot off the insults simply because sugar was advocated over dead flesh.
-
#bitter_incel
You wish. Tell that to my chicks of yore. Are you jealous? Sounds like it.
-
#bitter_incel
I just wanted to respond to this insult. I am a man and I try to have sympathy for other men. I have so much sympathy for INCELS. I feel so sorry for them. To think that all they want is female companionship and they cannot have it because the way the world is today unattractive men have so much trouble finding women. I am not an INCEL, as I am not a virgin, and have had sex a thousand times, though I was never married because I lived in sin before I was a trad Cahtolic. I am single now and because of my disability I am unable to marry, so perhaps I am kind of an INCEL now, but I also do not want to marry anymore so perhaps I am instead a MGTOW. Who knows. But to imagine that being with a woman is to them like the joys of heaven are like to a trad Catholic. The only reason for existence and they know that they cannot ever have them and imagine that their lives are worthless because of it. I can understand their bitterness. It would be like wanting to convert to Catholicism and to be baptized but knowing that for some reason you will never be baptized and that no matter what you are doomed to burn in hell forever. So have pity on the INCELS, they are poor souls who need our prayers and not our derision.
-
Seriously, why was gladius veritatis banned? When I knew him I thought he was super SSPX.
-
Seriously, why was gladius veritatis banned? When I knew him I thought he was super SSPX.
He was not banned. He left on his own accord and is still a member who hasn't posted in five years. Was he ever super SSPX? He was SGG and then went on a crusade against the SGG after abuses he witnessed and where he is now who knows, but I thought he was always a sede.
-
I like the highly articulate members who also weren't pansies. I was never a fan of Hobbledehoy, considering him Judaized and hiding behind a holy shtick, and outright Judaizers and possible cryptos such as ggreg, who didn't even try to hide it.
JohnGrey, Graham, Claudel, Raoul76, Caminus, PilgrimageofGrace, Ethelred, PereJoseph, Telesphorus ... those are the types I find are missing. They probably have high IQs. BTNYC is the only person posting recently of that caliber.
Croix's a bit overrated by some here. I, like him, was once attacked by the bulk of regular ABLF members, including the mods and owner, for exposing feminism on that forum. Even Telesphorus attacked me, of all people. I used only Catholic sources to make my points, whereas Croix used lots of Jєωy sources, which compromised him. Feminism also isn't run by women, it's Marxism applied to gender. Female femininsts are merely the faces of the movement. The brains and money behind feminism has always been Jєωιѕн men. It's as patriarchal as anything else.
-
Remember glaston? lol
He was always talking in riddles and about the druids. ROFL
-
Way to infuse sanctimonious false piety with derision.
#effeminate
#soy
This sounds so much like Croix.
So, no need to fight amongst ourselves now.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
-
.
Good ol' Hobbles. He must have posted about 3,000 rare book scans, and I doubt anyone had time to read them as fast as he put them up.
.
But the fatal flaw in that project was, he used Photobucket for his source where he uploaded the images.
Because he didn't have to. He (or anyone) can upload images directly onto the CI server, which Matthew maintains flawlessly;
And for which service he garners our highest praise and doesn't get it often enough.
..
Now, unfortunately, all those wonderful scans are LOST because Hobble's Photobucket account was deleted. I don't know why.
It makes me think he might have died.
CI was obviously a passion for him, and he wouldn't have let all those scans go down the tubes if he could have prevented that.
So he must have been oppressed with money troubles to let his PB account go down. They charge a fee for membership.
.
It sounded like he was frantically trying to preserve the books he wanted to share and did what he knew, without the foresight he needed.
He mentioned having to "move" and seemed to be in a hurry to get scans posted before it was too late.
Perhaps he was being evicted, and in such cases, personal property (like rare books) often get buried in a local landfill.
Oh wow... I was unaware of this story? I hope he's still alive.
-
Rum, claudel is still with us. Last active today!
-
.
I TOTALLY agree!
.
Speaking of Tele, are you aware that he took his name from the Roman martyr, St. Telesphorus, Pope, who hails from the days when popes were really CATHOLIC?!?!
.
You have to kind of look for his information, because his feast day (Jan 5) falls every year during that time when we're still in the Christmas season liturgically and so your missal will have a bit different arrangement for daily feast days, which you might expect to find in the Sunday Mass entries, as Christmas usually falls on a weekday, not Sunday. For example, the very next day after Christmas is St. Stephen, the protomartyr (this year Wednesday), followed by St. John (this year Thursday, who is considered a martyr inasmuch as on May 6th his being boiled alive in oil is commemorated, a process which he endured the pains thereof, however nonetheless miraculously survived), followed by the Holy Innocents on the 28th, this year Friday, shared by others including St. Francis de Sales, bishop in France, and Doctor of the Church, followed by St. Thomas of Canterbury, whom the wicked English murdered, this year Saturday -- yesterday. And so on. The Church doesn't dwell for long on the Nativity of Our Lord and Savior. Today, if not by Sunday's Mass, the Roman Martyrology commemorates St. Felix I, p. m., St. Sabinus, St. Exuperantius and St. Marcellus [remember the St. Marcel Initiative??], St. Venustian, his wife and sons --- while their martyrdoms having occurred at different times, they are commemorated on the same day.
.
The Martyrology gets specific here: "Marcellus and Exuperantius were fist racked, then severely beaten with rods; afterwards being torn with iron hooks, and burned in the sides, they fulfilled their martyrdom. Not long after, Venustian was put to the sword with his wife and sons. St. Sabinus, after having his hands cut off, and being a long time confined in prison, was scourged to death."
.
[Note: if prison life wasn't already bad enough, try to imagine being there in those days, with bleeding stumps as forearms, etc...]
.
The entry for St. Telesphorus is no less edifying, since we have already been informed regarding the general character of such tortures.
.
"The Vigil of the Epiphany of Our Lord ... At Rome, in the time of Anotninus Pius,
St. Telesphorus, pope, who, after many sufferings for the confession of Christ, underwent a glorious martyrdom ..."
.
Perhaps if we ask Tele to "come on back, the water's fine," and that we'd like him to tell us about the specifics of his namesake's many sufferings, he would be enticed to do so. Eh? (...as they say in Canada, which is closer to where he lives, last we heard.............)
.
.
Furthermore, Jan 5 is shared with other martyrs whose feasts are of a lesser rank than Pope Telesphorus:
St. Edward, King of England, whose feast was transferred to October 13th (the day Our Lady later chose for the Miracle of the Sun), known for illustrious CHASTITY and the gift of MIRACLES...
Under Diocletian, in Egypt many holy martyrs were put to death in Thebais by various kinds of torments...
St. Simeon, monk of Antioch, lived for many years standing on a pillar, wherefore he is called Stylites ...
St. Emiliana, Roman virgin, was called to heaven by her sister Tharsilla, who had preceded her ...
St. Syncletica of Alexandria, her noble deeds have been recorded by St Anthanasius [same as the "other creed" of the Church, attributed to him, while skeptics argue he didn't compose it!] ...
St. Apollinaris, virgin in Egypt........................ [if "apollo" were really Catholic, he might have preferred "apollinaris" instead!!!!]
.
Pope St Telesphoros aslo wrote the Gloria and mandated that it be sung at mass on Sundays.
-
whereas Croix used lots of Jєωy sources, which compromised him.
Jєωy sources weren't used. "Hebrew Israelites" aren't Jєωs. They actually believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and they oppose the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan and the state of "Israel". They're not even blood Jєωs, not any more than Catholics who have blood Jєωs.
Feminism also isn't run by women, it's Marxism applied to gender. Female femininsts are merely the faces of the movement. The brains and money behind feminism has always been Jєωιѕн men. It's as patriarchal as anything else.
Of course. Feminism is a form of Jєωιѕн control:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcUd8GGRffo
-
I probably need to post about 7 responses in this thread, but I'll post one at least;
Neil Obstat,
Hobbledehoy left CathInfo and then subsequently went back to the Novus Ordo. Amazing how someone with such a treasure of old Catholic books, timeless truth, and inspiring, beautiful artwork could go back to such a banal "mass".
There is another thread on here with more details about him -- I just remember that "he's not Trad anymore".
Another person who went back to the Novus Ordo is a Lebanese woman named Fabiana, who lived in California and I think she knew Raoul76. She had two accounts (not at the same time) but she has been gone for many years.
Living in the world of Tradition you WILL get to know turnover and "the fallen". Not just at a seminary, but at your chapel, Trad Catholic forums, in your personal circles, your family, etc. there are casualties all around us.
-
JohnGrey, Graham, Claudel, Raoul76, Caminus, PilgrimageofGrace, Ethelred, PereJoseph, Telesphorus ... those are the types I find are missing. They probably have high IQs. BTNYC is the only person posting recently of that caliber.
Most of the members listed are not banned. Raoul flipped in some way -- I don't remember the details (so don't quote me) but I don't know if he's Trad anymore. Except for Tele, who I banned and then un-banned later (but he understandably didn't come back), all the others left on their own.
Several of these left for the first edition of the "Archbishop Lefebvre Forum" started by ServusSpiritusSancti (who is another enigma in the Trad world, BTW. No one has heard from him in years) After that forum shut down, a couple others tried to carry the torch, but none of them was ever 1/20th as popular or active as the original. Both successors today are basically or literally dead. But even when these forums dead-ended, the members never came back to CathInfo. Go figure.
Why do so many good members leave CathInfo? I have no idea. The reason is different for each member. Perhaps they need more time to earn a living for their families. Raising a Trad Catholic family, or even just living a Trad Catholic life, in the 21st century is not an easy task.
You say "they probably have high IQs" -- but you're not sure? First of all, many members on CI have "high" or above-average IQs. But I can't force high IQ people to stay, or to spend X hours a week on CI.
I don't know what you're implying here -- because I certainly can't think of any fundamental reason why high IQ people would tend to leave CI in significant numbers.
But as for personal/individual reasons for leaving CathInfo, there are a million reasons, let's face it. Reversion to the Novus Ordo and/or apostasy, marital trouble (up to and including divorce), nervous/mental/psychological breakdown, personal conflict(s) with other members, crisis of Faith, corruption by the world, personal weakness, lack of discipline, burnout, new job, new living conditions, new family situation, health crisis, financial difficulties, new hobby, new fervor in some other area of life/hobby, just to name a few!
-
I just wanted to respond to this insult. I am a man and I try to have sympathy for other men. I have so much sympathy for INCELS. I feel so sorry for them.
LOL ... I just used that ad hominem against Croix, since in his world that's the most insulting thing to say to someone. Croix always bragged about his (undoubtedly impure) conquests of women and bragged about how many hearts he had broken over the years. But, evidently, despite the superficial attention he got from females, once they got to know him they ran in the other direction.
-
This sounds so much like Croix.
So, no need to fight amongst ourselves now.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Of course it's Croix. That was obvious after Quid's first two or three posts.
-
You wish. Tell that to my chicks of yore. Are you jealous? Sounds like it.
Hardly. You'd be jealous if you got to know my wife and would be trying to hit on her ... and, even if she weren't been married, she's reject you within about 5 seconds.
-
Hi, Matthew. What exactly is your policy regarding forum members who have been banned returning with a new account? I have no issue if you wanted to unban Croix and let him back, but it bothers me in principle that someone could flaunt the forum rules by returning with a new account. When you banned me for a year or so, I stayed away (except for reading anonymously) out of respect for your forum. And I contacted you offline.
-
LOL ... I just used that ad hominem against Croix, since in his world that's the most insulting thing to say to someone. Croix always bragged about his (undoubtedly impure) conquests of women and bragged about how many hearts he had broken over the years. But, evidently, despite the superficial attention he got from females, once they got to know him they ran in the other direction.
He does say the church approves concubines.....
Gladius was sgg! I remember now hearing him talk about it. It’s just sad to never hear from him because my family knew him personally. He even visited a few times! It was always a lively conversation about the church with him. I wasn’t around his last visit, but I remember my mom telling me he was upset about scandals that happened in the group. Well, I hope he is well!
-
But, evidently, despite the superficial attention he got from females, once they got to know him they ran in the other direction.
That's not true. A number of hearts were broken. Even some soft stalking on their part.
-
Jєωy sources weren't used. "Hebrew Israelites" aren't Jєωs. They actually believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and they oppose the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan and the state of "Israel".
When a "Christian" group gives themselves a name like "Hebrew Israelites" it is a huge red flag that they are Judaizers. There was no question that this group took heretical, protestant positions. Matthew rightly forbade the posting of videos from this group.
Hi, Matthew. What exactly is your policy regarding forum members who have been banned returning with a new account? I have no issue if you wanted to unban Croix and let him back, but it bothers me in principle that someone could flaunt the forum rules by returning with a new account. When you banned me for a year or so, I stayed away (except for reading anonymously) out of respect for your forum. And I contacted you offline.
If you were really so respectful of the forum, you would not be publicly conducting a campaign against Quid Retribuam Domino. You would leave the matter to Matthew. He is perfectly capable of figuring out if QRD is a previously banned poster and whether QRD ought to be allowed to post here. I have lost count of the number of posts you have made mentioning/complaining about this. Given the animosity you display toward QRD (and Croix) it looks a lot more like a personal vendetta than a matter of principle.
It looks to me like QRD is Croix and Matthew is aware of this and does not care. None of which seems especially problematic.
-
That's not true. A number of hearts were broken. Even some soft stalking on their part.
One should never be proud of one's past sins, not even fornication which is held up as a virtue (or a badge of honor) in the modern world.
Even impure dating short of fornication (kissing, touching, etc.) should be a source of shame rather than pride.
No one brags about a host of women he chastely courted...who's going to be jealous of that? Give me a break.
-
A couple points of clarification:
1. I know QRD is Croix, but I'm basically giving him another chance. But he needs to behave himself. If I find myself having to spend much time (>1 minute every 2 days) moderating his posts, cleaning up his messes, etc. I'm going to ban him. I don't have time for that, especially with a new job starting tomorrow.
2. I never banned all videos of "the hebrew israelites" because that would include videos from Pastor Joe Fox as well. The latter is a much better character, in my opinion, with much more to teach, more mature, more prudent, etc. Croix was posting TOO MANY videos, of Pastor Dowell. That was what I said "NO MORE" to. Paster Dowell is NOT the same as Pastor Joe Fox, even though they are on good terms with each other and in the same religion.
With regards to Pastor Fox: In my opinion, the occasional "supernatural insanity" is outweighed by the sheer volume of good advice, thoughts, philosophizing, and training offered by Pastor Fox's videos. Pastor Fox is ex-special forces and has been into preparedness and survival since the 1980's. He is able to professionally train people in a huge variety of topics. So he has a lot of sage advice.
Pastor Dowell got too much into relationships. Plus he strongly hinted that he wanted to get married to a 2nd (younger) wife to "have another shot" at having children who weren't lost. His first attempt at a family ended with his kids all flying the coop and none of them have religion to speak of.
Pastor Joe Fox was married for 35+ years to the same woman, had 3 kids, and all of them are still of his religion. So he's obviously a better man/father in general -- at least more prudent, smarter, etc.
-
Congrats on the new job.
-
1. I know QRD is Croix, but I'm basically giving him another chance. But he needs to behave himself. If I find myself having to spend much time (>1 minute every 2 days) moderating his posts, cleaning up his messes, etc. I'm going to ban him. I don't have time for that, especially with a new job starting tomorrow.
Thanks.
Should I start posting as Quid or Croix from here on out?
If my Croix account gets unblocked, should I let other people decide if they want me to post as Croix or Quid? Not that it really matters, but I'll go with whatever you all decide.
Congrats on your new job.
And thank you, Jaynek.
-
Indeed V.W.3, how about that concubine thing?
-
Indeed V.W.3, how about that concubine thing?
I have no idea. You’ll have to ask quid for references, but he mentioned something about church approval when I was upset over him being mean to seraphina. It’s in the thread “why we don’t need SSPX”.
I agree with Jayne. It just matter at this point. I also don’t mind him adding color to the board with his topics... just so long as everyone is nice. I know I’ve lost my temper with him quite a few times. So, he really isn’t the only one to blame. I’ve also come
To see if I don’t agree with him on something to just avoid the topic all
Together. So I won’t comment on threads we don’t agree with each other on things.
Matthew, congratulations on your job! I’ve been praying for you since your post. I’m happy to hear for your family!
-
Indeed V.W.3, how about that concubine thing?
"But if a man has no wife, but a concubine instead of a wife, let him not be refused communion; only let him be content to be united with one woman, whether wife or concubine" (Can. "Is qui", dist. xxxiv; Mansi, III, col. 1001).
-
"But if a man has no wife, but a concubine instead of a wife, let him not be refused communion; only let him be content to be united with one woman, whether wife or concubine" (Can. "Is qui", dist. xxxiv; Mansi, III, col. 1001).
I think people need some historical background to understand this. It was written around 400 AD, when the word concubine had a wider meaning than it does now. It could refer to either licit and illicit relationships. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on "concubinage" explains:
The meaning of the term in Roman law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09079a.htm), and consequently in early ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) records and writings, was much the same; a concubine was a quasi-wife, recognized by law if there was no legal wife. She was usually of a lower social grade than her husband, and her children, though not considered the equals of those of the legal wife (uxor) were nevertheless termed natural (naturales) to distinguish them from spurious offsprings (spurii). For this legitimate concubinage the Roman law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09079a.htm) did not require the intention of the two parties to remain together until death as man and wife; the Lex Julia and the Papia Poppæa allowing both temporary and permanent concubinage. The former was always condemned as immoral by the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), who excluded from the ranks of her catechumens (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03430b.htm) all who adopted this mode of living, unless they abandoned their illicit temporal, or converted it into lawful permanent, wedlock. Permanent concubinage, though it lacked the ordinary legal forms and was not recognized by the civil law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09066a.htm) as a legal marriage, had in it no element of immorality. It was a real marriage, including the intention (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm) and consent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04283a.htm) of both parties to form a lifelong union. This the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) allowed from the beginning, while Pope Callistus I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03183d.htm) broke through the barrier of state law, and raised to the dignity of Christian marriage (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm)permanent unions between slave and free, and even those between slave and slave (contubernium).
The Council of Toledo, held in 400, in its seventeenth canon legislates as follows for laymen (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08748a.htm) (for ecclesiastical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) regulations on this head with regard to clerics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm) see CELIBACY (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm)): after pronouncing sentence of excommunication (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm) against any who in addition to a wife keep a concubine, it says: "But if a man has no wife, but a concubine instead of a wife, let him not be refused communion; only let him be content to be united with one woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm), whether wife or concubine" (Can. "Is qui", dist. xxxiv; Mansi (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09609c.htm), III, col. 1001). The refractory are to be excommunicated (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm) until such time as they shall obey and do penance.
-
One should never be proud of one's past sins, not even fornication which is held up as a virtue (or a badge of honor) in the modern world.
Even impure dating short of fornication (kissing, touching, etc.) should be a source of shame rather than pride.
No one brags about a host of women he chastely courted...who's going to be jealous of that? Give me a break.
See, this is the kind of thing which makes me think he should be banned. He has incredibly worldly attitudes ... from a world which revels in and glorifies sin. If people are banned for offenses against the faith, I think that offenses against morals should not be taken lightly either.
-
Here's my issue. Had Croix just e-mailed you and said, "Hey, Matthew, please give me another chance; I promise to behave." ... that would be one thing. But he snuck back onto the board ... so to speak, illegally. There's an analogy here to be made with illegal immigration.
Some leftist at my office was pontificating aloud about how people who are against illegal immigration "hate people". I couldn't take that, so I went after her. I said that I'm in favor of TRIPLING the legal immigration quotas ... provided the economy can sustain them, so that the people immigrating have something good to come to.
In any case, the issue isn't immigration but, rather, ILLEGAL immigration ... and issues of national sovereignty and rule of law.
So I have a problem with Matthew granting legalization/immunity to the rule-breaker. That undermines the rule of law (such as it is) on the forum.
Creating a new account without permission after a ban should be an ipso facto ban on the new account.
I would ban Quid/Croix, put him on a month-long hiatus/suspension, and then have him petition to return after that time ... when he would return as Croix.
-
See, this is the kind of thing which makes me think he should be banned. He has incredibly worldly attitudes ... from a world which revels in and glorifies sin. If people are banned for offenses against the faith, I think that offenses against morals should not be taken lightly either.
You baited him into talking about his past relationships by calling him a "bitter incel". Just about anybody, worldly or not, when provoked that way, would say that he had no trouble attracting women in the past. I did not see him glorifying in sin so much as defending himself from your personal attacks.
It was reasonable enough for Matthew to comment on how one should speak of past sinful relationships, but you are not in a position to do so. This seems far more about your dislike of Croix than about Catholic morality.
Here's my issue. Had Croix just e-mailed you and said, "Hey, Matthew, please give me another chance; I promise to behave." ... that would be one thing. But he snuck back onto the board ... so to speak, illegally. There's an analogy here to be made with illegal immigration.
As far as I know, this forum does not have a list of rules. Matthew appears to prefer to deal with situations on a case by case basis. So it is not a close analogy to illegal immigrants who are disobeying explicit laws.
-
It should just be respected that Matthew said he can stay. The conversation should end there.....
-
You baited him into talking about his past relationships by calling him a "bitter incel". Just about anybody, worldly or not, when provoked that way, would say that he had no trouble attracting women in the past.
Indeed I baited him ... quite deliberately. It was part of my attempt to expose him as Croix ... since I knew how Croix would respond. He had a long history of bragging about such things as Croix ... without any prior baiting ... so I tried to get him to make the Croix-like response that I knew was coming.
-
So it is not a close analogy to illegal immigrants who are disobeying explicit laws.
Wrong ... as usual. Despite your usual self-righteous arrogance, 90% of the time you miss the mark in your arguments. Not all rules need to be explicit, but are a reflection of the law-giver. Once the law-giver bans someone, it's clearly contrary to his intention for someone to simply create a new account and return. But at one point, yes, Matthew did call this out as inappropriate (when some others tried it) and imposed ipso facto bans against them. Obviously, if Matthew wants to allow someone to flaunt his intention to ban them, then it's on him. I'm just calling it out and saying that I would not tolerate that were I running the forum.
-
It was reasonable enough for Matthew to comment on how one should speak of past sinful relationships, but you are not in a position to do so. This seems far more about your dislike of Croix than about Catholic morality.
You're correct that I don't like the guy; he's an immature, worldly, misogynistic twerp who attempts to infect this forum with his worldly attitudes. I completely agree with Matthew's reasons for originally banning him, and my opinion of him has not changed ... since he has not changed, despite the fact that he might try to lay low a bit in order to avoid getting banned again.
Just as Catholic theology was polluted in the 19th and 20th century by people attempting to blend worldly phenomenology with classic Thomism (most of the Modernists came from this milieu), we have Croix on the moral front attempting to blend worldly thinking with Traditional Catholicism. And it's a pernicious thing. So, for instance, the worldly view of the classic "Alpha Male" runs completely contrary to the Catholic notion of an "Alpha". Worldly Alphas subordinate others to themselves, but are unwittingly enslaved to their own pride and their own passions, and are putting others to the service of these. Catholics "Alphas" obtain mastery over themselves, and strive to subject others only to God rather than to themselves. Their leadership is one of service, as Our Lord taught His Apostles (and us) at the Last Supper, rather than an attempt to "lord it over' others.
-
It was reasonable enough for Matthew to comment on how one should speak of past sinful relationships, but you are not in a position to do so.
Nonsense ... unless Matthew were to state otherwise, I am perfectly entitled to post comments about his worldly and sinful behavior. People go after each other all the time here on CI. This is, after all, a forum ... the intent of which is for people to exchange ideas, often at conflict with one another. I am not interested in merely posting on the "what's for dinner" thread. I could extend your "logic" and state that "you are not in a position" to declare that I am "not in a position to do so." But you rarely think through your logic.
-
As far as I know, this forum does not have a list of rules.
Unfortunately, this is true. I wish Matthew would post a set of rules. I believe that there was such a set of rules years ago.
-
Unfortunately, this is true. I wish Matthew would post a set of rules. I believe that there was such a set of rules years ago.
Yep. I recall seeing these at one point also. Perhaps they never made the transition over to the new forum software. And one of them explicitly forbade people creating multiple accounts.
-
See, this is the kind of thing which makes me think he should be banned. He has incredibly worldly attitudes ... from a world which revels in and glorifies sin. If people are banned for offenses against the faith, I think that offenses against morals should not be taken lightly either.
Calumny and detraction.
My past comments about my previous dealings/relationships/courtship with women weren't reveling and glorifying in sin. Nothing was even stated in detail that could cause scandal to the reader, either. I merely stated that I've had relationships with women and some of them have been rather attached to me. The point was to highlight the fact that, because I have experience with women, I know a lot about their way of thinking and behavior. I wasn't an abuser, serial user nor an incel (another person hurled that insult, too, back when I was Croix) who hates women because I could never get one. I mentioned these very general anecdotes after my arguments (cautions) about state marriage licenses and the gynocentric court system, and to encourage men to get a prenup, if they're considering marriage. (Most of you know, I've never been married) Instead of arguing against the points I made, my foes hurled ad hominems that I was some "incel who hates & blames women" or an "abuser".
In fact, I left out another experience because I'd further be accused being a chauvinist, egotistical, narcissist, or worldly. But the truth would be to highlight the mindset of many women in these latter days (even though this particular incident happened when I was 19 and she was 33, married, and had 4 or 5 kids, and a devout Novus Ordo). To my credit, I didn't take the bait. Nothing happened.
I challenge you to quote me glorifying in sin.
Just accept the fact that you lost. Get over it.
-
You annoy many people, but to your credit, you're not a heretic. I have no problem, personally, if you stay. Just behave yourself and stop with the weird ad-hominems after decent points -- you'll be fine.
So what Ladislaus is doing is kind of encroaching on a witch hunt. Find his state, drive over there, invite him for golf or breakfast or shooting guns or something and talk it out over there. We get it, you don't like him.
-
Calumny and detraction.
My past comments about my previous dealings/relationships/courtship with women weren't reveling and glorifying in sin.
Well, Matthew has come away with the same impression:
One should never be proud of one's past sins, not even fornication which is held up as a virtue (or a badge of honor) in the modern world.
Too bad you don't have the guts to call HIM out for "calumny and detraction". My post, which you quote, was simply expressing agreement with Matthew's original comment.
-
Well, Matthew has come away with the same impression:
Too bad you don't have the guts to call HIM out for "calumny and detraction".
You lost.
Your pride is your liability.
Pride precedes the fall.
-
You lost.
Your pride is your liability.
Pride precedes the fall.
Hardly. I've exposed you as a gutless coward who criticized me for agreeing with a comment made by Matthew, and then being too gutless to go after the original comment.
Plus, I submit that it's completely cuck-ish behavior to come back with a new fake account, and then being too cowardly to admit that you're Croix when called out.
True "alphas" don't go around trying too hard (as you have done) to establish their credentials as alphas. They don't need to. That's the behavior of a beta cuck who fantasizes about being an alpha and tirelessly attempts to portray himself as such in the fake world of online anonymity.
-
Hardly. I've exposed you as a gutless coward who criticized me for agreeing with a comment made by Matthew, and then being too gutless to go after the original comment.
Plus, I submit that it's completely cuck-ish behavior to come back with a new fake account, and then being too cowardly to admit that you're Croix when called out.
True "alphas" don't go around trying too hard (as you have done) to establish their credentials as alphas. They don't need to. That's the behavior of a beta cuck who fantasizes about being an alpha and tirelessly attempts to portray himself as such in the fake world of online anonymity.
#SoreLoser
#LameNarratives
-
Nonsense ... unless Matthew were to state otherwise, I am perfectly entitled to post comments about his worldly and sinful behavior. People go after each other all the time here on CI. This is, after all, a forum ... the intent of which is for people to exchange ideas, often at conflict with one another. I am not interested in merely posting on the "what's for dinner" thread. I could extend your "logic" and state that "you are not in a position" to declare that I am "not in a position to do so." But you rarely think through your logic.
This is the fallacy of equivocation. I did not use the expression "you are not in a position" in the sense that you use it above. It is true enough that you are not breaking any rules by accusing Croix of worldly behaviour. But jumping all over a person for saying what you have deliberately baited him into saying is not the moral high ground. You have tried to portray yourself as a defender of Catholic morality and it simply does not work. You are coming across as petty and vindictively acting on your feelings.
I am a far more logical person than you are because I actually value logic and am committed to it. You use logic when you think it will serve you but are just as happy to shame, brow-beat or personally attack your opponents. Your posts are driven by emotion.
-
Guys, Matthew has spoken. We need to respect his position. And, and everyone needs to calm down with the name calling. We are all adults here.
Why don’t we all apologize for things said in the past, and agree to disagree? I mean I get it’s not about looking for an apology, but why doesn’t everyone start from that point. Then we all move on.
Quid, I’m sorry for accusing you of being an abuser. It was a very heated topic on my end. I understand after speaking with you what you were trying to say. I may still disagree, but I will do so politely and never discuss it again.
Now as JDK has said let’s move on with clean hearts this year.
-
Ladislaus, one cannot truly establish an alpha or a beta caste system over the internet. LOL... Don't put so much merit into the internet. It's only the internet. One little switch can make everything that transpired over it disappear forever.
I can't believe a man such as yourself, who is married, and has kids, is so obsessed with a stranger over the internet. What's wrong with you?
-
Ladislaus, one cannot truly establish an alpha or a beta caste system over the internet. LOL... Don't put so much merit into the internet. It's only the internet. One little switch can make everything that transpired over it disappear forever.
I can't believe a man such as yourself, who is married, and has kids, is so obsessed with a stranger over the internet. What's wrong with you?
100% agree. Seriously, Lad. Find his address and take him out for breakfast or something. It's getting out of hand.
-
Quid, I’m sorry for accusing you of being an abuser. It was a very heated topic on my end. I understand after speaking with you what you were trying to say. I may still disagree, but I will do so politely and never discuss it again.
No problem, VW3. Thanks for the apology. I'm sorry for being a little abrasive to you.
-
Why Jaynek, thank you for the history lesson.
Please explain what this has to do with our current time. Since Quid was speaking of it in the present.
-
Why Jaynek, thank you for the history lesson.
Please explain what this has to do with our current time. Since Quid was speaking of it in the present.
I looked up the post in which Quid first mentioned this:
Women need men a lot more than men need women. A normal woman has the biological instinct to attract a man and bear his children, and remain with him so he can protect and provide for her and her children. She has no real meaning in life, if she doesn't accomplish this natural order. The man's biological instinct is to give his seed to woman, subsequently, go off and give his seed to another woman. He can do such a thing without really needing the woman, yet, the woman needs the man.
The Church even permitted man to have a concubine and not a wife. Hark:
"But if a man has no wife, but a concubine instead of a wife, let him not be refused communion; only let him be content to be united with one woman, whether wife or concubine" (Can. "Is qui", dist. xxxiv; Mansi, III, col. 1001).
Why would you say that he was speaking of it in the present? It was clear in this post that he was quoting a historical source and it was properly cited such that any one who cared to do so could look it up.
I am not sure how well the passage he quoted supports his opinion because the discussion was cut off before he could expand on his reasoning. I do agree that women need men more than men need women, but, based on the account in Genesis, we both need each other. The Lord God said "It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself."
Men need women because it is not good for man to be alone. Women need men because we were created to be a help to man.
-
LOL ... I just used that ad hominem against Croix, since in his world that's the most insulting thing to say to someone. Croix always bragged about his (undoubtedly impure) conquests of women and bragged about how many hearts he had broken over the years. But, evidently, despite the superficial attention he got from females, once they got to know him they ran in the other direction.
I don't think impurity is something to brag about.
-
He does say the church approves concubines.....
Gladius was sgg! I remember now hearing him talk about it. It’s just sad to never hear from him because my family knew him personally. He even visited a few times! It was always a lively conversation about the church with him. I wasn’t around his last visit, but I remember my mom telling me he was upset about scandals that happened in the group. Well, I hope he is well!
The Catholic Church has never approved of concubinage. At one time it was illegal due to the influence of the Church.
-
Indeed V.W.3, how about that concubine thing?
Concubinage is a mortal sin. You could go to Hell for that
-
Yep. I recall seeing these at one point also. Perhaps they never made the transition over to the new forum software. And one of them explicitly forbade people creating multiple accounts.
I thought a part of his rules were so well put that I translated them and quoted them in other forums as to how Catholics should approach one another.
-
Calumny and detraction.
My past comments about my previous dealings/relationships/courtship with women weren't reveling and glorifying in sin. Nothing was even stated in detail that could cause scandal to the reader, either. I merely stated that I've had relationships with women and some of them have been rather attached to me. The point was to highlight the fact that, because I have experience with women, I know a lot about their way of thinking and behavior. I wasn't an abuser, serial user nor an incel (another person hurled that insult, too, back when I was Croix) who hates women because I could never get one. I mentioned these very general anecdotes after my arguments (cautions) about state marriage licenses and the gynocentric court system, and to encourage men to get a prenup, if they're considering marriage. (Most of you know, I've never been married) Instead of arguing against the points I made, my foes hurled ad hominems that I was some "incel who hates & blames women" or an "abuser".
In fact, I left out another experience because I'd further be accused being a chauvinist, egotistical, narcissist, or worldly. But the truth would be to highlight the mindset of many women in these latter days (even though this particular incident happened when I was 19 and she was 33, married, and had 4 or 5 kids, and a devout Novus Ordo). To my credit, I didn't take the bait. Nothing happened.
I challenge you to quote me glorifying in sin.
Just accept the fact that you lost. Get over it.
If you act in a way that would lead others to think that what is sinful is ok then you commit the sin of scandal. It is not necessary to go into lurid details.
-
Why Jaynek, thank you for the history lesson.
Please explain what this has to do with our current time. Since Quid was speaking of it in the present.
She was explaining how the idea of concubinage had a different meaning in the middle ages than it does today. In the middle ages a man could be living in concubinage and be validly married while today if you live in concubinage you are living in sin.
-
Yep. I recall seeing these at one point also. Perhaps they never made the transition over to the new forum software. And one of them explicitly forbade people creating multiple accounts.
It was just a post (or two), so it's still around here somewhere. I don't think it was ever "pinned" because they're more like guidelines than rules. Saying "I didn't break and rules" or "he's breaking the rules" isn't going to have much effect on whether or not Matthew decides to ban someone. Several times when it seemed members were in need of a refresher on what is tolerated discussion and what isn't, the "rules" post was bumped, but I don't think that's going to keep you & Croix from tossing personal insults back and forth. I think they only line you both need from that post is, "In all things charity."
-
You have to admit, Quid does come up with interesting topics.
I have to agree about the ad hominems. They really detract from the good points made.
And I owe you a thank you, Quid, if you're still following this. You told me to look up a chapter and verse in Timothy--the one that tells a woman to be silent. I'm going to copy it out and post it by the kitchen sink where I'll see it frequently. Not going to go into marriage issues here, but let's just say it will help things a lot.
-
It was just a post (or two), so it's still around here somewhere. I don't think it was ever "pinned" because they're more like guidelines than rules.
Yes, this sounds right. I think it was the first couple of posts of the Intro thread (or some announcement type thread)? I don't see it in the Intro thread now though.....
-
I've always felt, as y'all know, that permabans suck. And apparently, they can have deleterious effects on a forum.
-
Yes, this sounds right. I think it was the first couple of posts of the Intro thread (or some announcement type thread)? I don't see it in the Intro thread now though.....
The very first post (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/introduce-yourself!/msg10888/#msg10888) of the intro thread (written in 2007) contains some guidelines:
So, acknowledging the reality concerning Catholics in the Traditional movement, as well as the great need these Catholics have for a forum that functions as the online equivalent of a parish hall, CathInfo has striven to allow free and unfettered discussion on every debatable topic. Anything contradicting the Catholic Faith or Catholic morality is deleted, but open discussion is allowed as much as possible. CathInfo strives to be a unifying force in the Traditional movement, bringing Traditional Catholics together as much as possible, and permitting a variety of opinions (within the bounds of the Catholic Faith) to peacefully co-exist on the forum.
CathInfo's philosophy can be summarized in the famous quote: "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas" which translates to, "In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity."
Almost two years later he wrote another post (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/introduce-yourself!/msg30685/#msg30685) in the intro thread (reply #26) containing guidelines:
"In necessary things, unity. In doubtful things, liberty. In all things, Charity."
And to clarify: anything related to the current UNPRECEDENTED crisis in the Church is considered DOUBTFUL by this forum. That goes for everyone, no matter how "clear" it seems to you that this or that position is "the only way".
Therefore you can't call someone a heretic just because they chose this or that nuanced position regarding the Crisis.
We simply must give people the benefit of the doubt when talking about the Crisis.
Anyhow, the only things that are going to be censored on Cathinfo are: blasphemy, filthy language, and grossly uncharitable comments. Stuff that "cries out" for censorship, as it were. Anything else I like to keep the forum free and open, even if that means a heated discussion or two (or three).
This second post alludes to a previous "rules thread" but has a non-functioning link to it. Since the above is the version he likes better, presumably he did not bother to preserve the superseded one.
-
My past comments about my previous dealings/relationships/courtship with women weren't reveling and glorifying in sin. Nothing was even stated in detail that could cause scandal to the reader, either. I merely stated that I've had relationships with women and some of them have been rather attached to me. The point was to highlight the fact that, because I have experience with women, I know a lot about their way of thinking and behavior. I wasn't an abuser, serial user nor an incel (another person hurled that insult, too, back when I was Croix) who hates women because I could never get one. I mentioned these very general anecdotes after my arguments (cautions) about state marriage licenses and the gynocentric court system, and to encourage men to get a prenup, if they're considering marriage. (Most of you know, I've never been married) Instead of arguing against the points I made, my foes hurled ad hominems that I was some "incel who hates & blames women" or an "abuser".
It is easy for me to believe what you say about this because of what I have seen in other forums. Years ago, before I became a trad, I encountered online criticism of feminism on secular discussion forums. The evidence against feminism was overwhelming and I eventually came to recognize feminism as evil and irrational. (This helped to lay the groundwork for me becoming a trad, since the traditional Catholic teaching on marriage/ women is the gold standard for understanding these issues.)
These discussions made me familiar with the standard tactics used against those who are critical of feminism and the women under its influence. Proponents of feminism did not have logical arguments and relied on ad hominems. When I began opposing feminism, countless people accused me of being a man pretending to be a woman and/or using his wife's account. Invariably the men who opposed feminism were accused of being unattractive men who were bitter over their inability to attach a woman.
Coincidentally, one of forum members opposing feminism was an acquaintance of mine in real life. I happened to know that he was quite attractive and seemed constantly surrounded by women showing interest in him. Like QRD, he had no way to prove that the attacks against him were untrue, but I was in a position to know he was telling the truth.
The discussions here have some strong similarities to the ones I remember. Because of my background, QRD's comments about his past come across as a legitimate defense against untrue accusations rather than bragging. I have seen too many other men in his position for it to even cross my mind that it is some sort of glorification of impurity.
Feminism is a profoundly wrong and unjust ideology. People who love justice, if they understand what feminism truly is, will hate it. There is no reason to explain away negative responses to feminism as some sort of personal grievance. More than likely, rejection of feminism is a sign of clear thinking.
-
Concubinage is a mortal sin. You could go to Hell for that
I’m not entirely sure about that... since it does seem the church condoned it at one point. It does state that you have to have one or the other. You can’t have a wife, and a concubine. They also didn’t want you just up and leaving. Jayne’s post did imply the church expected the men to treat them as wives, but without such title.
-
I mentioned these very general anecdotes after my arguments (cautions) about state marriage licenses and the gynocentric court system, and to encourage men to get a prenup, if they're considering marriage. (Most of you know, I've never been married) Instead of arguing against the points I made, my foes hurled ad hominems that I was some "incel who hates & blames women" or an "abuser".
This happened a lot on those "pastor dowell" threads, also to me. Feminism is the mindset of the day. If you point out its errors and how people are infected with it (without even knowing they're infected), you'll be chastised. Most people can't discuss the topic without being super emotional, especially women. Feminism is becoming as sacred as the h0Ɩ0cαųst - accept it or else.
-
This happened a lot on those "pastor dowell" threads, also to me. Feminism is the mindset of the day. If you point out its errors and how people are infected with it (without even knowing they're infected), you'll be chastised. Feminism is becoming as sacred as the h0Ɩ0cαųst - accept it or else.
Well, there has always been a very fine line between the denunciation of feminism and misogyny. Women need to be subject to their husbands, but this is no license for them to be treated like slaves, but, rather, with honor. So, as I said, it's an extremely fine line. It's all too common for people to combat one evil by swinging too far in the other direction. As the saying goes, more often than not veritas in medio stat.
There are good women and bad women, good men and bad men ... and everything in between along the spectrum. There are cases of divorce where the man is mostly to blame, and cases where the woman is, and ... mostly ... cases where both are, to varying degrees.
-
This happened a lot on those "pastor dowell" threads, also to me. Feminism is the mindset of the day. If you point out its errors and how people are infected with it (without even knowing they're infected), you'll be chastised. Most people can't discuss the topic without being super emotional, especially women. Feminism is becoming as sacred as the h0Ɩ0cαųst - accept it or else.
This is an accurate description of the situation today, even, to some extent, here on a trad forum. I remember your posts in those threads and you did not "cross a line" into misogyny or anything else bad. While Croix often adopts an abrasive style that is understandably difficult for some, your posts had nothing wrong with them. Nevertheless you came under personal attack.
For us women, we need to be working on eradicating every trace of feminism that exists in us. We are surrounded by it and need to work really hard to escape its influence. When trad men speak against feminism we need to give a lot of weight to their words because that is one of the best methods for learning about it. We need to fight our tendency to take it personally and be defensive.
I am grateful to Pax and men like him who take a stand against feminism. You face unpleasantness and downvotes for doing the right thing and I appreciate your efforts.
-
Well, there has always been a very fine line between the denunciation of feminism and misogyny. Women need to be subject to their husbands, but this is no license for them to be treated like slaves, but, rather, with honor. So, as I said, it's an extremely fine line. It's all too common for people to combat one evil by swinging too far in the other direction. As the saying goes, more often than not veritas in medio stat.
There are good women and bad women, good men and bad men ... and everything in between along the spectrum. There are cases of divorce where the man is mostly to blame, and cases where the woman is, and ... mostly ... cases where both are, to varying degrees.
Very true, but the problem with feminism is it's an evil IN THE MIND. Women today are corrupted (as well as many men). There's nothing you can do to combat it except preach against its errors. You can't use violence or any other actions to stop it (which is what many feminists falsely suggest that anti-feminists will do). No one can truly make anyone else do something, except through brute force. Obviously, this isn't the answer and never can be.
Yet the main problem continues, which is that any questioning or criticisms of the current societal-matriarchy is said to be a "violent" or "hateful" or "oppressive" to women. This attitude is complete nonsense and anti-catholic. And many on this board have swallowed it, hook, line and sinker. As Scripture says, "charity rejoices in the truth". In the same way, it is honorable to women to point out their flaws, to save them from hell. To think that feminism is catholic or not a moral question is to not understand the first sin of Eve (and Adam) which was pride. Feminism is just pride, pure and simple, with the consequences of hell attached, if it is not rooted out.
-
Very true, but the problem with feminism is it's an evil IN THE MIND. Women today are corrupted (as well as many men). There's nothing you can do to combat it except preach against its errors. You can't use violence or any other actions to stop it (which is what many feminists falsely suggest that anti-feminists will do). No one can truly make anyone else do something, except through brute force. Obviously, this isn't the answer and never can be.
Yet the main problem continues, which is that any questioning or criticisms of the current societal-matriarchy is said to be a "violent" or "hateful" or "oppressive" to women. This attitude is complete nonsense and anti-catholic. And many on this board have swallowed it, hook, line and sinker. As Scripture says, "charity rejoices in the truth". In the same way, it is honorable to women to point out their flaws, to save them from hell. To think that feminism is catholic or not a moral question is to not understand the first sin of Eve (and Adam) which was pride. Feminism is just pride, pure and simple, with the consequences of hell attached, if it is not rooted out.
:applause:
-
I don't think it's right that someone who is banned can just sneak back in (Though in Croix's case, he was pretty transparent) and carry on with a new name. What's the point of being banned then? They should at least have to post a public acknowledgment of their bad behavior and apology. Reminds me of our border crisis- just waltz back in brazenly and rake up the benefits.
-
It would be interesting to see the results of a vote choosing who should be banned, me or Poche. I'd like to see how many vindictive, crypto-feminist women, effeminate guys and crypto-Jєωs would choose their hurt feelings and bias over doctrine. Never have I espoused modernism or heresy on this forum. Poche is notorious for his modernism and apologetics for the Montinian Sect. Would these people still choose me to be banned, and allow Poche to remain?
"Give us Barrabas". (?)
-
You know it’s totally a great idea to teach against feminism. No one disagrees. It is a sin, and to some extents mortally sinful. That being said it should be done out of charity, and kindness. Those actions are met with such. That Being said being two faced, and unkind won’t be met kindly, Jayne. It’s just a no brainer......
-
You know it’s totally a great idea to teach against feminism. No one disagrees. It is a sin, and to some extents mortally sinful. That being said it should be done out of charity, and kindness. Those actions are met with such. That Being said being two faced, and unkind won’t be met kindly, Jayne. It’s just a no brainer......
A lot of the time Croix/Quid is posting on ideas that I agree with while using a tone that is likely to upset and offend people. I find this frustrating precisely because I agree with him. I want to see him being as persuasive as possible. I think his posts would be more effective if he were kinder and gentler.
But there has been plenty of unkindness from both sides of the argument and everyone says it was the other who started it. It is beyond me to figure out who was unkind first and I don't think it matters. What matters is that everyone ought to be kinder now. This, however, is totally beyond my control. The only person whom I have any chance of making kinder is me. And that seems to take all my efforts.
-
A lot of the time Croix/Quid is posting on ideas that I agree with while using a tone that is likely to upset and offend people. I find this frustrating precisely because I agree with him. I want to see him being as persuasive as possible. I think his posts would be more effective if he were kinder and gentler.
But there has been plenty of unkindness from both sides of the argument and everyone says it was the other who started it. It is beyond me to figure out who was unkind first and I don't think it matters. What matters is that everyone ought to be kinder now. This, however, is totally beyond my control. The only person whom I have any chance of making kinder is me. And that seems to take all my efforts.
Yes, and that’s why I said we should all just apologize then move forward like adults. Everyone has been quite rude, and mean to everyone in those debates. What’s important to remember while we are not as educated on some subjects as others might be. Charity is the winning virtue. We all agree on the same thing in the end: Modern feminism is the death of our country.
-
The fact of the matter is that feminism destroys the family and the spiritual image of the Trinity, which the family represents. Most people (including Trads) don't connect feminism with this evil, so they don't pay much attention to it. I've heard women say, "I'm not a feminist - I don't hate men." as if that's the extent of it. That's like saying, "I'm not a bad person - I don't kill people." We've had 2 generations of fathers/husbands who've allowed women to be corrupted by the joos and who have drunk the "women are oppressed" kool-aid.
Feminists will go to hell. How can they not? They lust for power in their marriages, and disobey their husbands (if they even allow him an opinion). They abandon their children to daycares and sitters, to either work outside the home or to have a life of ease and recreation. They lift not a finger to control their emotions, they practice no mortification to put their feelings in check, they act as if their god-given reasoning abilities are subservient to any and all sentimental whims.
Women did not use to act like this. Women use to realize their limitations and work on improving themselves (just as men have to work on many things related to their nature). There's a reason that God designed marriage for both sexes; so both can balance each other out AND so that each's natures can be improved. Yet today, women do not recognize ANY need to limit or curb their moods - and they have been taught by society to indulge them at every opportunity. Conversely, women see no advantages with men being less emotional, so they listen not (and many times argue with) the more rational approach to a situation, not because the rational approach is wrong, but because their pride will not let them accept the fact that their natural talents are limited in this area.
As Eve wanted to be "like God", so the modern eves want to be "like men". As they cannot be like men (just like men cannot be good mothers), they unknowingly fall prey to the plan of the satan to destroy masculinity from society (or severely limit it). The political elites know that their plans for an anti-christ and world government cannot succeed if men stand up and fight. So they have used the false ideals of "women power" and "women's oppression" to subvert masculinity and rational thinking, because they know that men see through political b.s. very easily, while women can be tricked by the sentimentality of socialism and scared by the brutality of war.
We are reaching the end of the Western world because masculinity is dead. Islam doesn't have this problem, and neither does China (nor maybe, Russia). The nations of the East, who have not been corrupted by feminism and a false-matriarchy (because the elites want the anti-christian East to conquer to historically-catholic West, to wipe Christ and Catholicism from the face of the earth). So the East will conquer the weak-willed, pansy-a$$ west who will only wake up too late.
If you don't understand the "whys" and "hows" of feminism, you can't truly see the depths of its evil. Feminism is more than a gender war; it's a war on Catholic culture and on our civilization.
-
They abandon their children to daycares and sitters, to either work outside the home or to have a life of ease and recreation.
See, this is the kind of generalization that isn't helpful in the discussion. Some "abandon" their children to daycare when they do not have to, but at the same time I've known women who did so only in extreme distress because they needed the second income in order to just get by. I'm not talking about wanting the extra money for vacations or frivolities. And the economy has been rigged deliberately to create this condition. Had women not entered the workforce in the first place, wages would have to have been kept higher, due to it being an employee's market, as it were. This also keeps the prices of good inflated. But now that the condition has been created, some women are basically forced into the workplace. It's very important not to paint with a broad brush, since it is in so generalizing about women that the impression of misogyny can be created.
-
Pax, thank you for these posts on feminism. I find them helpful and edifying. I hope that every woman on this forum will read them and take your words to heart.
-
So they have used the false ideals of "women power" and "women's oppression" to subvert masculinity and rational thinking, because they know that men see through political b.s. very easily, while women can be tricked by the sentimentality of socialism and scared by the brutality of war.
Yeah, but you kid yourself if you think that the men of current society, from the millennials forward, haven't also been reduced to "sentimentality". And some men can be warmongers who prosecute unjust wars due to complete insensitivity regarding the horrors of war, and so some balance from women may be in order. So there's the rub; many of the tendencies that are distinctly masculine can also go awry (due to Original Sin), and so a balance between the masculine and the feminine is needed. That's why families have mothers and fathers. Mothers bring qualities to the marriage and to the raising of children that men do not, and vice versa.
With that said, in a society where the men have not been corrupted, I would strongly favor removing women's right to vote; they can exercise their influence by their influence over their husbands. But I would weight any given man's vote according to the size of his family. So, for instance, a father of 8 should have a greater say over whether or not his children are sent to war than some single guy.
-
It's very important not to paint with a broad brush, since it is in so generalizing about women that the impression of misogyny can be created.
Obviously there are exceptional cases and there is no reason to think that Pax is not aware of this. Rather than tell him to walk on eggshells lest people mistakenly see misogyny, encourage people to understand his words correctly. Everything he is saying is right.
-
Obviously there are exceptional cases and there is no reason to think that Pax is not aware of this. Rather than tell him to walk on eggshells lest people mistakenly see misogyny, encourage people to understand his words correctly. Everything he is saying is right.
Neither his views nor yours have the proper balance; they're expressed in entirely one-sided terms. And it's more likely that women would take things "to heart", as you put it, if it were balanced with even a little bit of the positive that women have to offer.
So, for instance, instead of simply framing it as "women are irrational by nature," one can rightly express it ALSO in terms of the positive corollaries regarding a woman's strengths, their natural tendency to have empathy, compassion, and the desire to nurture ... that men lack, or, rather, have to a lesser degree. Both are needed. But I guess that's to be expected from you, since you are in fact just another irrational female.
So, for instance, with regard to the earlier example regarding the prosecution of war. One could say that women are incapable of making such decisions due to "sentimentality", or else one can also call out the fact that women would be more reluctant to prosecute war due to their greater capacity for compassion. And the callousness of one man regarding the consequences of a war might be balanced by a woman's compassion for the human cost. Men can be informed by their wives with regard to such decisions.
-
We are drowning in feminism right now. It is destroying us as individuals and as a society. This is not a situation that calls for "balance". We need strong statements that can help us to understand the seriousness of the problem. Pax is getting this right.
When somebody is sounding the alarm that the house is on fire, we do not need a "balanced" statement that the fire is only on the the main floor and the basement is not too bad.
-
See, this is the kind of generalization that isn't helpful in the discussion. . . . It's very important not to paint with a broad brush, since it is in so generalizing about women that the impression of misogyny can be created.
He is trying to talk about common trends among a hundred million women. It is impossible to have any meaningful discussion about so many people without generalizations and painting with a broad brush so I would argue that not only are those generalizations indeed "helpful", they are "necessary" for the discussion to take place. Such generalizations and broad brushes are the only way any such discussion can ever happen. Of course Not All Women Are Like That but in today's feminist America many of them are. Generalizations are not meant to be taken personally by every member of every group being discussed as there are exceptions to every trend. Eggshell walking is not very productive. It is like everyone on the right spending all their time trying to refute claims that they are "fascists". I prefer Croix's bull in a china shop technique. At least that is more interesting. Just as we are all considered αnтι-ѕємιтєs, we are all considered misogynists and Jayne is a "self-hating misogynist". As if you could tell Croix or others to walk on eggshells and be balanced and not generalize women as that would create the impression of misogyny to "normies" and then in your next post say that women should not be allowed to vote seems absurd to me.
-
See, this is the kind of generalization that isn't helpful in the discussion.
If the shoe fits...
Yeah, but you kid yourself if you think that the men of current society, from the millennials forward, haven't also been reduced to "sentimentality".
This is a form of feminism.
Neither his views nor yours have the proper balance; they're expressed in entirely one-sided terms.
We've had centuries of wars (1800s to WWII) and extreme-masculinity, which destroyed society, just in a different way. Now we're dealing with a total swing of the pendulum to anti-male, pro-feminine craziness. Communism loves to swing from 1 extreme to the other. Pointing out the current extreme of feminism does not condone the earlier extremes of misogyny. It's not "either-or", it's both. I can't believe this has to be spelled out. It goes without saying.
-
Neither his views nor yours have the proper balance; they're expressed in entirely one-sided terms.
Current society promotes the greatness of females on a daily and hourly basis. No one needs to be reminded of their talents and (theoretical) virtues. What is lacking a is discussion of the challenges and natural vices that females succuмb to. The elites are pandering to female vanity so that they can control them through their emotions. And the elites whip up females in a frenzy against men, when men try to balance out the lack of rationality. Thus, men are controlled indirectly by the elites. The lack of balance to the feminine spirit is what's causing our problems - too much sentimentality, unregulated emotion, and misguided empathy.
I'm speaking out against these feminine extremes. A sinking ship is already "out balance".
-
We are drowning in feminism right now. It is destroying us as individuals and as a society. This is not a situation that calls for "balance".
Ah, but that's precisely where you're mistaken. What is your objective in posting long screeds against feminism? Is it to exalt yourself, make yourself feel better, pat one another on the back with clappy emoticons, or is it, rather, to convince either hardened feminists or fence-sitters regarding the traditional Catholic view? If it's the latter, as it should be, then you will NOT persuade a hardened feminist, and you will serve to push the fence sitters in the other direction, farther away from the traditional perspective, with such unbalanced views. It is precisely this kind of polemic that creates the intractable polarization of various sides on so many issues. You have a woman who's open to traditional views, but then sees someone posting in favor of corporal punishment of wives by their husbands. What effect do you think that's going to have, eh? If she was on the fence, you can be pretty sure that you've just pushed her away in the wrong direction. But it does make you feel good about yourself in posting, and you can expect a few virtual pats on the back, to be hailed as an anti-feminist heroine. That is true with regard to SO MANY issues, and not just feminism. Sedevacantists and R&R have been involved in this type of polarizing polemic for so long now. Instead of each group, from time to time, saying, "you know, you do have a point there," you get the hostile rhetoric that just pushes the two camps farther aside. I'm quite certain that the "dogmatic" sedevacantists were largely created by the strong R&R rhetoric, and vice versa, that many R&R have a hostility towards the sedevacantists due to their presentation.
Why not make the case in favor of the traditional perspective by calling out how it benefits women, and suits their nature, and will make them the most happy, rather than attacking feminism in purely negative terms? Because women naturally tend towards following the lead of a man, many if not most feminists are created by the (often not entirely inaccurate) perception that they are being abused, mistreated, or denigrated in some way. Women are more inclined to be subject to their husbands if in fact they feel that they are loved, cherished, valued, and respected ... instead of always criticized.
-
This is a form of feminism.
Nonsense. This was a criticism of modern men who have been feminized.
-
Jaynek says:
We are drowning in feminism right now. It is destroying us as individuals and as a society. This is not a situation that calls for "balance".
I agree. The "middle ground" or "balance" is a Jєω trick. That's how they incrementally push values, mores, thoughts, principles, doctrines, the social & political order, etc. further to the left. As a society progressively decays, the Jєω maintains this dynamic by creating a dialogue between supporters and opponents. The objective is to effect a "middle ground" which is actually a more leftist position than the prior 5 or 10 years. Anyone who objects to this "middle ground" is immediately demonized as an "extremist", "partisan", "irrational", "uncooperative", "bull-headed", etc.
-
Nonsense. This was a criticism of modern men who have been feminized.
I'm agreeing with you. I'm not saying your comment was feminism, but the "sentimentality" of men is feminism.
-
.We've had centuries of wars (1800s to WWII) and extreme-masculinity, which destroyed society, just in a different way. Now we're dealing with a total swing of the pendulum to anti-male, pro-feminine craziness. Communism loves to swing from 1 extreme to the other.
Precisely. And you are playing right into this dynamic.
-
I'm agreeing with you. I'm not saying your comment was feminism, but the "sentimentality" of men is feminism.
OK. Got it. I misunderstood.
-
Precisely. And you are playing right into this dynamic.
No, i'm not advocating violence but education. The Church does not preach violence but She does preach authority. Individuals, both male and female, can decide to follow the Church or not. The violence they will face is in hell, but also here on earth (in the form of societal madness and corruption), if people don't heed proper authority.
-
Ah, but that's precisely where you're mistaken. What is your objective in posting long screeds against feminism? Is it to exalt yourself, make yourself feel better, pat one another on the back with clappy emoticons, or is it, rather, to convince either hardened feminists or fence-sitters regarding the traditional Catholic view? If it's the latter, as it should be, then you will NOT persuade a hardened feminist, and you will serve to push the fence sitters in the other direction, farther away from the traditional perspective, with such unbalanced views. It is precisely this kind of polemic that creates the intractable polarization of various sides on so many issues. You have a woman who's open to traditional views, but then sees someone posting in favor of corporal punishment of wives by their husbands. What effect do you think that's going to have, eh? If she was on the fence, you can be pretty sure that you've just pushed her away in the wrong direction. But it does make you feel good about yourself in posting, and you can expect a few virtual pats on the back, to be hailed as an anti-feminist heroine. That is true with regard to SO MANY issues, and not just feminism. Sedevacantists and R&R have been involved in this type of polarizing polemic for so long now. Instead of each group, from time to time, saying, "you know, you do have a point there," you get the hostile rhetoric that just pushes the two camps farther aside. I'm quite certain that the "dogmatic" sedevacantists were largely created by the strong R&R rhetoric, and vice versa, that many R&R have a hostility towards the sedevacantists due to their presentation.
I doubt that there are any hardened feminists on Cathinfo. I think that most of the women here, like myself, wish to reject feminism but need help understanding all the ways that it can unconsciously affect us. I think that many, if not most, of the women here appreciate the sort of guidance that men like Pax offer us. There is nothing special about me.
I am not a polemical writer at all. You are the one who constantly introduces polarizing polemics into the discussion with personal attacks and misrepresenting the views of others. I do not "post in favour of corporal punishment of wives by their husbands" and yet you repeatedly make this claim about me. My position is that the traditional position in support of such punishment is reasonable when understood in its historical context, but that it is neither practical nor prudent in our current setting. I have written this many times.
If you were genuinely concerned about the effect on women of seeing someone support corporal punishment of wives, you would stop telling people that this is my view. I very clearly do not hold it. You obviously prefer to make a straw man argument than to deal with my actual position. What you seem to be actually concerned with is that I have dared to disagree with you. You habitually go to any length of incivility and illogic when you encounter disagreement. You are one of the major sources of hostile rhetoric on this forum, so you would do better to correct yourself than lecture others.
Why not make the case in favor of the traditional perspective by calling out how it benefits women, and suits their nature, and will make them the most happy, rather than attacking feminism in purely negative terms? Because women naturally tend towards following the lead of a man, many if not most feminists are created by the (often not entirely inaccurate) perception that they are being abused, mistreated, or denigrated in some way. Women are more inclined to be subject to their husbands if in fact they feel that they are loved, cherished, valued, and respected ... instead of always criticized.
You are the one who keeps claiming that it is common for trad men to abuse and mistreat their wives. You foster this perception that you say leads to feminism. Whenever I write of my personal experiences, I write of how much I appreciate being loved, cherished and respected by my husband.
-
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/01/02/feminism-is-the-parasitic-rider-chivalry-longs-for/ (https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/01/02/feminism-is-the-parasitic-rider-chivalry-longs-for/)
This thread reminds me of a blog I follow. It is a protestant anti-feminism blog. Telesphorus has linked to it in the past on Cathinfo.
-
You are the one who constantly introduces polarizing polemics into the discussion with personal attacks and misrepresenting the views of others.
Lad, you do this more than you realize. You quickly "up the ante" in an otherwise civil discussion.
You are the one who keeps claiming that it is common for trad men to abuse and mistreat their wives.
Anytime people claim that feminism has hold of many trad women, Lad tries to argue that just as many men abuse their wives. He's very wrong.
I do not "post in favour of corporal punishment of wives by their husbands" and yet you repeatedly make this claim about me. My position is that the traditional position in support of such punishment is reasonable when understood in its historical context, but that it is neither practical nor prudent in our current setting.
He has a point that you consistantly argue in favor of corporal punishment. The problem is, you've never distinguished between history vs today. Your views are VERY muddy and confusing. But in your favor, it's a confusing topic. Yet, if you want to wiegh in on a confusing topic, you better have a clear, logical view or else your view is pointless.
-
He has a point that you consistantly argue in favor of corporal punishment. The problem is, you've never distinguished between history vs today. Your views are VERY muddy and confusing. But in your favor, it's a confusing topic. Yet, if you want to wiegh in on a confusing topic, you better have a clear, logical view or else your view is pointless.
I have repeatedly distinguished between history vs. today. Much of the confusion comes from Lad making false claims about what my views are. If you ignored what he says I believe and only read what I have written you would find it far more clear and logical than you currently perceive.
-
What was confusing was that you allowed Ladislaus to bait you into 2 different, present-tense, scenarios: 1) could a man discipline his military subordinate father? 2) could a man discipline his wife for financial overspending?
If your answer is truly that "corporal punishment was historically allowed but shouldn't be practiced now" then you wouldn't have entered into the above 2 debates. But you did enter those debates and it confused your main argument; that's my only point.
-
Well said. The condescending, sanctimonious one always inserts her opinion and enters into debates with men. Unless she has a commission to do so, she is a contradiction to younger women.
-
Endeavor, you are new here, having made 14 posts, at least 6 of which have been veiled or unvieled snide remarks against Jayne, and some directed against others.
You are not giving much away. I wonder why you are here. Nevertheless, I do hope you will begin to feel more comfortable here.
Maybe you'd consider introducing yourself on the thread: Introduce yourself, which I can't find right now.
-
What was confusing was that you allowed Ladislaus to bait you into 2 different, present-tense, scenarios: 1) could a man discipline his military subordinate father? 2) could a man discipline his wife for financial overspending?
If your answer is truly that "corporal punishment was historically allowed but shouldn't be practiced now" then you wouldn't have entered into the above 2 debates. But you did enter those debates and it confused your main argument; that's my only point.
Ah, I see what you mean. I was trying to disprove Lad's claim that he had made an irrefutable argument against the position of St. Thomas. It probably was too ambitious to do that along with my main point. I can see that could be confusing.
-
Indeed, I can see why I you feel as such, Nadir. However, I was not long a member when I read the "Corporal Punishment" posts.
Jayne is now clarifying her position and I am sure that will help in my understanding.
I would be afraid that a poorly formed Catholic conscience could lead to an abusive situation.
-
Well said. The condescending, sanctimonious one always inserts her opinion and enters into debates with men. Unless she has a commission to do so, she is a contradiction to younger women.
Oh, lighten up. An internet discussion about politics and theology is totally different from a woman showing disrespect to her husband, relative or priest by debating important matters.
-
I’m not entirely sure about that... since it does seem the church condoned it at one point. It does state that you have to have one or the other. You can’t have a wife, and a concubine. They also didn’t want you just up and leaving. Jayne’s post did imply the church expected the men to treat them as wives, but without such title.
That was before the Council of Trent was promulgated. An important part of the council of Trent came the rule that all marriages had to be performed before a priest and two witnesses. In the Notre Dame archives there is a ruling from the Vatican that says that in areas where the rulings of the Council were not promulgated then the pre-Tridentine rules would apply. Prior to the Council of Trent a couple could make their wedding vows privately, after the Council of Trent that was no longer possible.
Therefore, if you live in concubinage, you are living in sin and are in danger of going to Hell.
-
That was before the Council of Trent was promulgated. An important part of the council of Trent came the rule that all marriages had to be performed before a priest and two witnesses. In the Notre Dame archives there is a ruling from the Vatican that says that in areas where the rulings of the Council were not promulgated then the pre-Tridentine rules would apply. Prior to the Council of Trent a couple could make their wedding vows privately, after the Council of Trent that was no longer possible.
Therefore, if you live in concubinage, you are living in sin and are in danger of going to Hell.
I believe Canon Law allows for a couple to validly marry themselves before witnesses, if they cannot find a priest, and after waiting a period of 30-days. This quoted by Bp. Williamson in one of his lectures on the Sacraments.
-
Why do so many good members leave CathInfo? I have no idea. The reason is different for each member. Perhaps they need more time to earn a living for their families. Raising a Trad Catholic family, or even just living a Trad Catholic life, in the 21st century is not an easy task.
You say "they probably have high IQs" -- but you're not sure? First of all, many members on CI have "high" or above-average IQs. But I can't force high IQ people to stay, or to spend X hours a week on CI.
I don't know what you're implying here -- because I certainly can't think of any fundamental reason why high IQ people would tend to leave CI in significant numbers.
I'm not implying you drove them away. I agree that the reasons for people leaving are any number of things. Maybe it's a zeitgeist thing as well.
As far as the IQ thing, I read somewhere that people who participate on internet forums tend to have above-average IQs. But above-average isn't the same as gifted or genius. Those members I listed probably have IQs in the gifted range, as opposed to merely above-average range. But they're not only intellectually gifted but also high-caliber reactionaries.
I'm not knocking you. I've always said this is the best forum going in tradland.
-
However, I was not long a member when I read the "Corporal Punishment" posts.
Jayne is now clarifying her position and I am sure that will help in my understanding.
This was a discussion carried on in multiple threads, in hundreds of posts, over a period of many months. You registered in this forum more than a year after the discussion began. It is not surprising that it was not clear to you. I will attempt a summary here:
It is my position that the typical Catholic belief throughout most of the history of the Church was that the authority that a husband holds over a wife includes the possibility of just corporal punishment of the wife by the husband. (Ladislaus agrees with this much.) I consider this a logical extension of Catholic teaching on the authority of the husband and the nature of just punishment. I think that our ancestors in faith were reasonable in believing this and that we should reject the feminist narrative that our ancestors' belief shows that the Church oppressed women or that men oppressed women. In the historical setting, corporal punishment was neither unusual nor degrading and was potentially part of every superior/subject relationship. While I do not consider corporal punishment of wives to be intrinsically wrong, I do not see it as practical or prudent in our current situation. I have explicitly stated this many times. I have at no point encouraged or promoted corporal punishment of wives for people of today.
Ladislaus takes the position that the historical-traditional view was flawed. He claims to have made an irrefutable argument to show this. I think that his argument is the one that is flawed. A large proportion of my posts have been offering evidence and counter-arguments against his "proof" that the traditional view is wrong. This aspect of the discussion is involved and complex and I can see that it might be difficult to follow, especially in the disjointed format of a forum discussion. There is further confusion due to Ladislaus repeatedly referring to me as a proponent of corporal punishment (or even as a proponent of wife-beating) to win rhetorical points against me. It is a straw man fallacy and he knows very well this is not my actual position.
-
Ladislaus takes the position that the historical-traditional view was flawed. He claims to have made an irrefutable argument to show this.
I didn't claim that it was irrefutable ... just that it had not actually been refuted to my satisfaction, since the scholastics who dealt with the issue did not anticipate the distinction I was applying.
Apart from that, however, I have no intention of re-opening the debate on this thread.
-
There is further confusion due to Ladislaus repeatedly referring to me as a proponent of corporal punishment (or even as a proponent of wife-beating) to win rhetorical points against me. It is a straw man fallacy and he knows very well this is not my actual position.
No, this was argumentum ad absurdum, taking your principles to their logical conclusions. I repeatedly asked for you to articulate the principle that would prevent your principles from being drawn to the justification of wife-beating.
-
No, this was argumentum ad absurdum, taking your principles to their logical conclusions. I repeatedly asked for you to articulate the principle that would prevent your principles from being drawn to the justification of wife-beating.
That is not what you said:
Quote from: Jaynek on October 27, 2017, 07:58:10 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/proper-punishment-for-a-disobedient-wife/msg575205/#msg575205)
The expression "wife-beating" is pejorative and does not convey the concept of just corporal punishment.
Indeed it is. I use the term deliberately an expression of my disdain for the notion that a husband can be permitted to apply corporal punishment to his wife.
And I have addressed the question you raise here. If wife-beating were the logical conclusion of corporal punishment of wives, then child-beating is the logical conclusion of corporal punishment of children. You have mentioned that you accept corporal punishment by parents of children. Do you beat your children?
-
That is not what you said:
That refers to my choice of words, not to the argument itself. You mis-labeled it "straw man" when it was in fact an argumentum ad absurdum.
You claim "straw man" because you never said that, but argumentum ad absurdum is the assertion that the principles LEAD to that point even if you did not explicitly make the point. So, NOT "straw man" but argumentum ad absurdum.
-
If wife-beating were the logical conclusion of corporal punishment of wives, then child-beating is the logical conclusion of corporal punishment of children.
Indeed, child beating is in fact the logical conclusion of the punishment of children. When I spank my children on a regular basis, I am engaging in child-beating ... by definition. Not child "abuse" but child-beating. Beating connotes a regular pattern of behavior vs. a single incident, and is not necessarily abusive. Consequently, if you say it's permitted to corporally punish a wife, then what principle prevent the application of such being used consistently ... as one might with children? Nothing. What's there to prevent me from smacking my wife every time she talks back to me ... just like I might smack a child after every incident? Nothing.
I can see it being justified to smack a child (without being excessive or causing harm) after every incident ... to curb the behavior. Nothing inherently wrong with that. So what principle is there to prevent treating a wife the same way?
-
You guys are just arguing over semantics. Who defines what a "beating" is vs a "correction" vs a "spanking/smacking". Also, the definitions for all these terms vary now vs 50 years ago, let alone in the middle ages. Your debate needed to start with a definition of terms.
-
You guys are just arguing over semantics. Who defines what a "beating" is vs a "correction" vs a "spanking/smacking". Also, the definitions for all these terms vary now vs 50 years ago, let alone in the middle ages. Your debate needed to start with a definition of terms.
You're right. My choice was of a term with negative connotations, but that wasn't the substance of the argument. My word choice was, quite deliberately, meant to highlight how the advocation of corporal punishment would be PERCEIVED by the outside world.
-
That refers to my choice of words, not to the argument itself. You mis-labeled it "straw man" when it was in fact an argumentum ad absurdum.
You claim "straw man" because you never said that, but argumentum ad absurdum is the assertion that the principles LEAD to that point even if you did not explicitly make the point. So, NOT "straw man" but argumentum ad absurdum.
But you continued to refer to me as a proponent of wife-beating even after I showed that your assertion was incorrect. If one claims that accepting corporal punishment in principle necessarily leads to abuse, then this must also be true of corporal punishment of children. However, since you accept in principle the corporal punishment of children, you presumably reject the position that this necessarily leads to child abuse. Therefore you cannot make that claim.
You cannot continue to claim it is an argumentum ad absurdum after it has been disproven. At that point, persisting in calling me a proponent of wife-beating is a mere "straw man". Even if I had not disproven it, you often alluded to me this way without any reference to the argument. This is just the sort of hostile rhetoric that you denounced a few posts ago. How can you criticize me for polemicism when it is such a notable characteristic of your posts? It is the pot calling the polar bear black.
Whether we call it a "straw man" or not, you have consistently misrepresented my views. I am not a proponent of wife-beating. I am not even a proponent of corporal punishment of wives in any practical sense. My actual position is that the traditional Catholic understanding of corporal punishment was correct but is not practical in our time. And you are perfectly aware of that.
-
You're right. My choice was of a term with negative connotations, but that wasn't the substance of the argument. My word choice was, quite deliberately, meant to highlight how the advocation of corporal punishment would be PERCEIVED by the outside world.
You said you chose that word as an expression of your disdain.
But if you are so concerned about the perceptions of the outside world, why foster misunderstanding of my position by consistently misrepresenting it. I was not advocating corporal punishment.
-
Indeed, child beating is in fact the logical conclusion of the punishment of children. When I spank my children on a regular basis, I am engaging in child-beating ... by definition. Not child "abuse" but child-beating. Beating connotes a regular pattern of behavior vs. a single incident, and is not necessarily abusive.
This is nonsense. I have never come across anyone who uses these words this way. Not even you until you made it up just now.
Consequently, if you say it's permitted to corporally punish a wife, then what principle prevent the application of such being used consistently ... as one might with children? Nothing. What's there to prevent me from smacking my wife every time she talks back to me ... just like I might smack a child after every incident? Nothing.
I can see it being justified to smack a child (without being excessive or causing harm) after every incident ... to curb the behavior. Nothing inherently wrong with that. So what principle is there to prevent treating a wife the same way?
If I were consistently talking back to my husband, I hope he would do something to correct me. What a horrible habit! If we lived in a culture in which corporal punishment were practical, I don't see why he should not use it.
-
I've been giving the idea of physically correcting your wife some thought for a while now, and I've come to the conclusion that I think I agree with JayneK.
The idea appalled me at first, quite frankly. BUT. Who said it needed to be a spanking? Or a beating? Or being slapped across the face? For me, my worst fault as a wife is coming across as being disrespectful. I've had to work quite hard at learning to keep my mouth shut. IF my husband were to warn me once, and I transgressed...IF he were to take me aside, privately, in a closed room, and gently slap my wrist or hand with his...I think it'd go a long, long way in curing my sharp tongue more quickly. He loves me very much, and I know it would pain him to do such a thing. As crazy as it sounds I can actually see how it could be beneficial.
That being said, with human nature being what it is, I can certainly see the problem with spousal correction. It would most surely have to be something decided between the couple and with strict principles adhered to by the husband, and done with the utmost respect toward his wife.
-
... It would most surely have to be something decided between the couple ...
This bit is one of the main reasons why I say that the traditional Catholic understanding of corporal punishment is not practical in our culture. The traditional understanding did not have any concept of it being mutually agreed upon, while this feature would be completely necessary for a couple attempting it now. This would make any current corporal punishment significantly different from the traditional model.
-
Hey Jayne, have you ever told your Jєωιѕн family members, who you're still in good standing with, that the h0Ɩ0cαųst didn't happen?
2Vermont should tell her Jєωιѕн family members as well.
Griff Ruby/Ubipetrus should tell his Jєωιѕн friends and/or family as well.
I mean, that's good news, isn't it?
All this talk of "cucks" and "incels" and "alphas" and "spankings" is giving me the vapors!
Tackle the h0Ɩ0h0αx first and then go on to bigger things.
-
It is my position that the typical Catholic belief throughout most of the history of the Church was that the authority that a husband holds over a wife includes the possibility of just corporal punishment of the wife by the husband.
JayneK, what legitimate ecclesiastical sources can you provide us (besides the St. Thomas' quote on blows dealing with adultery) to support such position?
Unless you come up with robust Magisterial teaching in the form of Papal encyclicals, Council Decrees, Canonical Law, Doctrinal Docuмents, or even Catechisms / Christian Morality Manuals, I will have to believe that this statement is just a personal conjecture, which I will consider barbarian, until you can prove it otherwise.
I am not interested in your opinion at this point; but I am always interested in what the Church has actually said, so I would appreciate it if you just provide me with the resources I can look up.
-
How did we come back to corporal punishment, and wives.......
-
By the way, the corporal punishment inflicted by the husband upon the wife on the grounds of adultery (St. Thomas?) was explicitly forbidden by the Church. We know this from Pope Leo XIII' encyclical Arcanum,
On Christian Marriage:
14. In like manner, moreover, a law of marriage just to all, and the same for all, was enacted by the abolition of the old distinction between slaves and free-born men and women;[23] and thus the rights of husbands and wives were made equal: for, as St. Jerome says, “with us that which is unlawful for women is unlawful for men also, and the same restraint is imposed on equal conditions.”[24] The self-same rights also were firmly established for reciprocal affection and for the interchange of duties; the dignity of the woman was asserted and assured; and it was forbidden to the man to inflict capital punishment for adultery,[25] or lustfully and shamelessly to violate his plighted faith.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13cmr.htm
* [25]
25. Can. “Interfectores” and Canon “Admonere,” quaest. 2 “Corpus juris canonici” (Leipzig, 1879), Part 1, cols. 1152-1154.
-
How did we come back to corporal punishment, and wives.......
This thread already went off in lots of different directions from the OP, though I do see "beating" mentioned on this very page.
I figure the thread's an off-topic free-for-all.
Jayne should be ecstatic to inform her Jєωιѕн family members that there was no Holocuast. I would think that would rank a notch or two higher than telling them that feminism is bad.
-
By the way, the corporal punishment inflicted by the husband upon the wife on the grounds of adultery (St. Thomas?) was explicitly forbidden by the Church. We know this from Pope Leo XIII' encyclical Arcanum,
On Christian Marriage:
* [25]
25. Can. “Interfectores” and Canon “Admonere,” quaest. 2 “Corpus juris canonici” (Leipzig, 1879), Part 1, cols. 1152-1154.
Thank you! I swear when I was reading St. Thomas I was missing something, but everything he said was only for adulterous women.
-
If one claims that accepting corporal punishment in principle necessarily leads to abuse, then this must also be true of corporal punishment of children. However, since you accept in principle the corporal punishment of children, you presumably reject the position that this necessarily leads to child abuse. Therefore you cannot make that claim.
Corporal punishment of children is NOT the same as corporal punishment of wives. The Church has explicitly made the difference between the subjection of wives to that of children:
From Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubi:
26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church."[29]
27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
The great thing about being a Roman Catholic is that we do not have to rely upon our own flawed and darkened understanding, but we can simply look at what the Church has taught through her infallible Magisterium and the clear voice of the true Vicars of Christ. It is a matter of humility to recognize that the Church knows best and She speaks in simple terms.
-
JayneK, what legitimate ecclesiastical sources can you provide us (besides the St. Thomas' quote on blows dealing with adultery) to support such position?
This teaching appears in morality manuals and I have already provided citations on this at least twice. I do not want to rehash the entire argument yet again.
By the way, the corporal punishment inflicted by the husband upon the wife on the grounds of adultery (St. Thomas?) was explicitly forbidden by the Church. We know this from Pope Leo XIII' encyclical Arcanum,
On Christian Marriage:
* [25]
25. Can. “Interfectores” and Canon “Admonere,” quaest. 2 “Corpus juris canonici” (Leipzig, 1879), Part 1, cols. 1152-1154.
You cited a quote which forbids capital punishment of wives by husbands: "and it was forbidden to the man to inflict capital punishment for adultery" This means that a husband does not have the authority to kill his wife, even for adultery. It has nothing to do with the question of whether he is permitted to hit her.
Corporal punishment of children is NOT the same as corporal punishment of wives. The Church has explicitly made the difference between the subjection of wives to that of children:
I have never claimed that corporal punishment of children is the same as the corporal punishment of wives. I have said that it is inconsistent to make arguments against corporal punishment of wives that would also apply to corporal punishment of children. For example, some people claim that corporal punishment of wives is wrong because it is likely to lead to abuse. But if this were so, then corporal punishment of children would also be likely to lead to abuse and should also be considered wrong.
There is no explicit Church teaching that a husband may not use corporal punishment on his wife. Catholics accepted that it was permissible for almost the entire history of the Church. If you think that corporal punishment of wives is wrong, that is your personal opinion, not something that you are getting from humbly following the teaching of the Church.
-
Jayne should be ecstatic to inform her Jєωιѕн family members that there was no Holocuast. I would think that would rank a notch or two higher than telling them that feminism is bad.
I am interested in having my Jєωιѕн family members become Catholics. I do not see how arguments with them about either feminism or the h0Ɩ0cαųst would help with that. My family of origin has typical liberal Jєωιѕн views on just about everything. There is no end of subjects on which I disagree with them. I avoid arguing about all these things because it does not seem likely to lead toward their salvation but rather be counter-productive.
-
There is no explicit Church teaching that a husband may not use corporal punishment on his wife. Catholics accepted that it was permissible for almost the entire history of the Church. If you think that corporal punishment of wives is wrong, that is your personal opinion, not something that you are getting from humbly following the teaching of the Church.
Yes. It was common law within the Catholic nuclear family and upheld by tradition until the engineered break down of the nuclear family increased, exponentially, during WWII, maybe earlier, and feminism's diabolical insertion into modern/post-modern cognition.
Also, *JUST(ified)* corporal punishment by husband towards wife is an act of love, and he's not taking away her free will. Just as God never took away free will of sinners after He numerously sent His punishments upon man throughout history.
Everything else Jaynek said is correct, too, but I just wanted to give a little elucidation on the above quote.
-
I still wonder why the wife wouldn’t have the power like this over her husband? She may not be physically able to carry out a punishment, but surely something. I just find it hypocritical that a husband would be able to just say sorry, or nothing at all for a transgression against the family/wife/God, or he may just confess to his priest, but the wife must be physically corrected. I just find that sort of power an intimacy, and communication killer for a marriage. I could also see it building some softball of resentment between them. That’s the part I struggle with the most.
I understand that maybe my brain is just not fully understanding this, and I may need to be helped with logic. I know I still have some seeds of feminism left to be rid of.
-
There is no explicit Church teaching that a husband may not use corporal punishment on his wife. Catholics accepted that it was permissible for almost the entire history of the Church. If you think that corporal punishment of wives is wrong, that is your personal opinion, not something that you are getting from humbly following the teaching of the Church.
When have I said otherwise, that this is explicit teaching of the Church and not my personal opinion? I am making an argument drawn FROM Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Church. That is the entire point of theological argument. You believe that to address the argument all you have to do is to cite a couple of approved sources that hold the contrary opinion. I am, precisely, DISAGREEING with those sources and making an argument for the contrary position. That is how theology has always proceeded throughout the history of the Church. You might find one theologian having one opinion, and another comes up with a different opinion. And then people make different arguments in support of said opinions. How is this so difficult for you?
-
Corporal punishment of children is NOT the same as corporal punishment of wives. The Church has explicitly made the difference between the subjection of wives to that of children:
From Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubi:
The great thing about being a Roman Catholic is that we do not have to rely upon our own flawed and darkened understanding, but we can simply look at what the Church has taught through her infallible Magisterium and the clear voice of the true Vicars of Christ. It is a matter of humility to recognize that the Church knows best and She speaks in simple terms.
Thanks, Cantarella. This is precisely the argument I'm making. Theologians who upheld the right of husbands to impose corporal punishment on their wives argued without making any real distinction between the husband-wife relationship and any other superior-subordinate relationship. But there are real differences ... as clearly taught by Pius XI. In what other superior-subordinate relationship is the superior enjoined by God to "honor" his subordinate? This objection was never adequately treated by those sources JayneK cites ad nauseam. What we're trying to work out here is what are the implications of these differences with regard to husbands and wives and any other simple superior-subordinate relationship? What are the implications of the "honor" that husbands must show their wives?
I made an analogy with the "honor" God requires us to show our parents. Such honor precludes the imposition of physical violence (except in the most extraordinary circuмstances) against our parents.
JayneK asserted that I had no theological (syllogistic) "proof" that the "honor" would prevent striking a wife. And I countered that no such proof exists, since I similarly cannot "prove" that it's wrong to strike a parent. Yet everyone with any kind of moral sensibility recognizes that it's wrong. So that's the current state of the argument. I finished by telling JayneK that if she could demonstrate that the honor owed to a parent by itself does not preclude striking a parent, then she can convince me that the honor that a husband owes to a wife does not preclude the same.
-
Also, *JUST(ified)* corporal punishment by husband towards wife is an act of love, and he's not taking away her free will.
That's irrelevant. I could similarly slap my aging/frail father if he regularly blasphemed ... as an "act of love" to curtail his sinful habit. This does not mean it's permitted. There's an aspect of physical violence that is inherently degrading and contrary to honor.
-
JayneK asserted that I had no theological (syllogistic) "proof" that the "honor" would prevent striking a wife. And I countered that no such proof exists, since I similarly cannot "prove" that it's wrong to strike a parent.
The relationship of husband-wife is not at all similar to parent-child. Yes, you can prove it is wrong to strike a parent because the subordinate cannot correct a superior (except using fraternal correction, which normally does not allow physical punishment).
The husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church. Does Christ lovingly chastise His Church, to increase Her holiness? Yes. Then a husband also can do the same, in theory. How is this applied in practice? I don't know.
One must understand "honor" as it is used in relation to Christ/Church, not as it is used today. Does "honor" prevent Christ from allowing martyrs/persecutions of the Church and of requiring sacrifices, fastings, scourges and other physical pains from His Saints, in order to stop heresies? No. Therefore, in theory, the husband can also inflict physical pain on his wife and family for their spiritual benefit (though in our day and age, this is not prudent, for social, legal and scandalous reasons).
-
When have I said otherwise, that this is explicit teaching of the Church and not my personal opinion? I am making an argument drawn FROM Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Church. That is the entire point of theological argument. You believe that to address the argument all you have to do is to cite a couple of approved sources that hold the contrary opinion. I am, precisely, DISAGREEING with those sources and making an argument for the contrary position. That is how theology has always proceeded throughout the history of the Church. You might find one theologian having one opinion, and another comes up with a different opinion. And then people make different arguments in support of said opinions. How is this so difficult for you?
Cantarella had just claimed there was explicit teaching of the Church against corporal punishment and I was explaining her misunderstanding to her. There is no reason to take my comments addressed to her as if I meant them for you.
I am quite aware that you acknowledge the historical reality of Catholic acceptance of corporal punishment of wives and that you understand you are expressing a personal opinion.
JayneK asserted that I had no theological (syllogistic) "proof" that the "honor" would prevent striking a wife. And I countered that no such proof exists, since I similarly cannot "prove" that it's wrong to strike a parent. Yet everyone with any kind of moral sensibility recognizes that it's wrong. So that's the current state of the argument. I finished by telling JayneK that if she could demonstrate that the honor owed to a parent by itself does not preclude striking a parent, then she can convince me that the honor that a husband owes to a wife does not preclude the same.
It is simple to prove that it is wrong to strike a parent. Corporal (or any other form of) punishment can only be applied by those who have authority to do so. Since children do not have the authority to punish parents, it is wrong to strike them.
What is impossible to prove is your claim that honour precludes corporal punishment. There is no such principle in Catholic moral theology and there are many historical examples of people in positions of honour receiving corporal punishment. Your arguments rely on making up scenarios and saying whom you would feel comfortable striking. You have no objective evidence in support of your position. Your entire argument relies on your subjective sense of what is honourable and claims that any right-thinking person would feel the same way. You have failed to make a logical argument for your position.
-
I still wonder why the wife wouldn’t have the power like this over her husband? She may not be physically able to carry out a punishment, but surely something. I just find it hypocritical that a husband would be able to just say sorry, or nothing at all for a transgression against the family/wife/God, or he may just confess to his priest, but the wife must be physically corrected. I just find that sort of power an intimacy, and communication killer for a marriage. I could also see it building some softball of resentment between them. That’s the part I struggle with the most.
I understand that maybe my brain is just not fully understanding this, and I may need to be helped with logic. I know I still have some seeds of feminism left to be rid of.
Just punishment can only be done by a person who has the authority to do so. A wife does not have authority over her husband. Therefore she cannot punish him. A husband does have authority over his wife. Therefore he can punish her.
Let's leave aside the question of corporal punishment. Let's say I was using my credit card irresponsibly and my husband punished me by confiscating it. He has a right to do that. If he were the one spending irresponsibly, I would not have a right to punish him for it.
It is not an equal relationship. The idea that it ought to be equal does not come from Christian sources.
-
Just punishment can only be done by a person who has the authority to do so. A wife does not have authority over her husband. Therefore she cannot punish him. A husband does have authority over his wife. Therefore he can punish her.
Let's leave aside the question of corporal punishment. Let's say I was using my credit card irresponsibly and my husband punished me by confiscating it. He has a right to do that. If he were the one spending irresponsibly, I would not have a right to punish him for it.
It is not an equal relationship. The idea that it ought to be equal does not come from Christian sources.
So, a family can fall to ruin because of a husbands actions, and no one can correct him. That doesn’t seem right.
-
The relationship of husband-wife is not at all similar to parent-child. Yes, you can prove it is wrong to strike a parent because the subordinate cannot correct a superior (except using fraternal correction, which normally does not allow physical punishment).
The husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church. Does Christ lovingly chastise His Church, to increase Her holiness? Yes. Then a husband also can do the same, in theory. How is this applied in practice? I don't know.
One must understand "honor" as it is used in relation to Christ/Church, not as it is used today. Does "honor" prevent Christ from allowing martyrs/persecutions of the Church and of requiring sacrifices, fastings, scourges and other physical pains from His Saints, in order to stop heresies? No. Therefore, in theory, the husband can also inflict physical pain on his wife and family for their spiritual benefit (though in our day and age, this is not prudent, for social, legal and scandalous reasons).
Man, what happened to our moderator on this topic? :clown:
Oh yeah, I forgot... he got a new job.
-
So, a family can fall to ruin because of a husbands actions, and no one can correct him. That doesn’t seem right.
The husband is corrected by his priest or is chastised by God directly.
Yet, a family can be ruined by the husband just as the Church can be ruined by a bad pope. But this only means temporally speaking, for even if a family endure a bad husband or the Church endure a bad pope, the members of each family have an obligation to God, spiritually, and they cannot blame their spiritual sins on any temporally poor circuмstances.
St Paul also teaches that a wife can pray for her husband:
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband: otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy. (Corinth 7:14)
-
So, a family can fall to ruin because of a husbands actions, and no one can correct him. That doesn’t seem right.
The wife can respectfully discuss the problem with him, but she has no authority to punish him.
It is likely that what "seems right" to you is due to feminist indoctrination. It is just about impossible for us to avoid the idea of equality of husband and wife.
-
I don’t think me thinking that is feminist thinking. That’s a terrifying thought my husband could make us fall to ruin, and besides verbally I’m powerless to stop it. I don’t even mean physically hitting him because I do see that assaulting him would be a direct attack on his authority. But if I were to confiscate the card. Why would that be a problem? I do have control issues, admittedly. So, I expect that’s why I’m struggling with this.
By the way. I’m not saying I’m in this position except when it comes to religion/spirituality. I just was going with the argument Jayne have as an example. I don’t want anyone thinking I’m married to a cruel, or irresponsible man.
-
But if I were to confiscate the card. Why would that be a problem?
The wife could legitimately prevent the husband from sqandering the $ of the house. She has a right to feed herself and children. She just doesn't have the right to control the bank account. Lots of gray area.
In former times, the wife could appeal to her brother in laws, or the husband's uncles, family, etc so they could "beat some sense into him". But that was before the extended family unit was destroyed, when more families lived close together and could work together to solve issues before society/police/courts had to get involved.
-
I don’t think me thinking that is feminist thinking. That’s a terrifying thought my husband could make us fall to ruin, and besides verbally I’m powerless to stop it. I don’t even mean physically hitting him because I do see that assaulting him would be a direct attack on his authority. But if I were to confiscate the card. Why would that be a problem? I do have control issues, admittedly. So, I expect that’s why I’m struggling with this.
A wife in this situation could suggest that he turn over his credit card to her and he might willingly do so. But she has no authority to take it against his will. (I agree with Pax that there is some grey area if she is in danger of starving, etc.)
If you have control issues then the Catholic teaching will be difficult for you. The husband is the leader and the one with the final say. The wife gives up control to him.
I understand that it sounds scary, but a good man does not misuse his authority. Having my husband in authority over me is a constant source of joy and delight. It makes me feel safe, protected and loved.
-
That's irrelevant. I could similarly slap my aging/frail father if he regularly blasphemed ... as an "act of love" to curtail his sinful habit. This does not mean it's permitted. There's an aspect of physical violence that is inherently degrading and contrary to honor.
#soy
#Secular_Judaized
-
I swear when I was reading St. Thomas I was missing something, but everything he said was only for adulterous women.
St. Thomas said that it is necessary to correct a wife for fornication, but not necessary for the correction to take the form of putting her away. It was also permissible to correct her using words or blows.
There is nothing that suggests that correction by words or blows is reserved for cases of adultery. However, if one insists this means that correction by blows is only permitted for adultery, it logically follows that correction by words is also only permitted in those cases.
-
I still wonder why the wife wouldn’t have the power like this over her husband? She may not be physically able to carry out a punishment, but surely something. I just find it hypocritical that a husband would be able to just say sorry, or nothing at all for a transgression against the family/wife/God, or he may just confess to his priest, but the wife must be physically corrected. I just find that sort of power an intimacy, and communication killer for a marriage. I could also see it building some softball of resentment between them. That’s the part I struggle with the most.
I understand that maybe my brain is just not fully understanding this, and I may need to be helped with logic. I know I still have some seeds of feminism left to be rid of.
VW3, if a husband puts the soul or physical security of his wife and/or children in danger of harm, she has a right to use force - physical or litigious - as a deterrent to save herself and/or children. That would be the only case that a wife can override a husband. Any other case, the husband is the authority and the wife must submit to him. That doesn't mean the husband has a right to strike his wife because she cooked his steak "well done" after he requested it "medium rare". Nor does it mean he should strike her if she falls into mortal sin on occasion because of a vice. This use of (just) corporal punishment would apply when she flagrantly or clandestinely, and obstinately, puts the souls, livelihood, family cohesion, health and/or physical security of herself, husband and/or children at risk of harm or death.
-
VW3, if a husband puts the soul or physical security of his wife and/or children in danger of harm, she has a right to use force - physical or litigious - as a deterrent to save herself and/or children. That would be the only case that a wife can override a husband. Any other case, the husband is the authority and the wife must submit to him. That doesn't mean the husband has a right to strike his wife because she cooked his steak "well done" after he requested it "medium rare". Nor does it mean he should strike her if she falls into mortal sin on occasion because of a vice. This use of (just) corporal punishment would apply when she flagrantly or clandestinely, and obstinately, puts the souls, livelihood, family cohesion, health and/or physical security of herself, husband and/or children at risk of harm or death.
This is the best explanation you’ve given, and now between you, and pax. I completely understand. It does actually change my feelings towards it. Because the church does not give any reason for a divorce. So, if the husband has exhausted all other methods I could see why a spanking would be in order. I just don’t think face hitting would be appropriate, and may be to violent.
-
This teaching appears in morality manuals and I have already provided citations on this at least twice. I do not want to rehash the entire argument yet again.
In other words, I still do not have anything but your word on it, so I will discard it.
I do not know your reason to believe the way you do, nor I understand your personal motivation for talking so much about it online, but given that your position is indefensible with solid Catholic Magisterial teaching, I will consider it as false.
You cited a quote which forbids capital punishment of wives by husbands: "and it was forbidden to the man to inflict capital punishment for adultery" This means that a husband does not have the authority to kill his wife, even for adultery. It has nothing to do with the question of whether he is permitted to hit her.
In the same encyclical, Pope Leo XIII describes the uncivilized state of utter corruption that the institution of marriage had fallen into, before Our Lord Jesus Christ elevated it to a Sacred Sacrament. Barbarian practices which defiled Marriage included that of the husband inflicting capital punishment on the wife, among many others:
From Arcanum, On Christian Marriage:
7. But the corruption and change which fell on marriage among the Gentiles seem almost incredible, inasmuch as it was exposed in every land to floods of error and of the most shameful lusts. All nations seem, more or less, to have forgotten the true notion and origin of marriage; and thus everywhere laws were enacted with reference to marriage, prompted to all appearance by State reasons, but not such as nature required. Solemn rites, invented at will of the law-givers, brought about that women should, as might be, bear either the honorable name of wife or the disgraceful name of concubine; and things came to such a pitch that permission to marry, or the refusal of the permission, depended on the will of the heads of the State, whose laws were greatly against equity or even to the highest degree unjust. Moreover, plurality of wives and husbands, as well as divorce, caused the nuptial bond to be relaxed exceedingly. Hence, too, sprang up the greatest confusion as to the mutual rights and duties of husbands and wives, inasmuch as a man assumed right of dominion over his wife, ordering her to go about her business, often without any just cause; while he was himself at liberty "to run headlong with impunity into lust, unbridled and unrestrained, in houses of ill-fame and amongst his female slaves, as if the dignity of the persons sinned with, and not the will of the sinner, made the guilt."(4) When the licentiousness of a husband thus showed itself, nothing could be more piteous than the wife, sunk so low as to be all but reckoned as a means for the gratification of passion, or for the production of offspring. Without any feeling of shame, marriageable girls were bought and sold, tike so much merchandise,(5) and power was sometimes given to the father and to the husband to inflict capital punishment on the wife. Of necessity, the offspring of such marriages as these were either reckoned among the stock in trade of the common-wealth or held to be the property of the father of the family;(6) and the law permitted him to make and unmake the marriages of his children at his mere will, and even to exercise against them the monstrous power of life and death.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum.html
-
St. Thomas said that it is necessary to correct a wife for fornication, but not necessary for the correction to take the form of putting her away. It was also permissible to correct her using words or blows.
There is nothing that suggests that correction by words or blows is reserved for cases of adultery. However, if one insists this means that correction by blows is only permitted for adultery, it logically follows that correction by words is also only permitted in those cases.
Even if we continue with nothing but personal speculations on the matter, can you think of a greater offense against a husband than that of the sin of adultery (and the devastating results to the which can emanate from it, such as bastard children?)
We know that the Church explicitly condemned such conduct, probably because it has become the practice. I cannot think of a greater offense to the dignity of a man than making him a cuckold. If the man witnesses it, he may go into uncontrollable fury in which he loses all his senses, and perhaps hit the wife in the heat of the moment. The Church has condemned this behavior. Logically, it follows that lesser offenses would not be legitimate reasons for the husband to inflict corporal punishment upon the wife. Or are you trying to say that a husband is forbidden by the Church to hit his wife over adultery, but perhaps he is allowed to do so, if his dinner is not served on time or the wife is spending too much money?
So what would be a greater offense than adultery that would permit such a barbarian practice? Perhaps if the wife is attempting to actually murder him, or the children, a case of legitimate self-defense may arise. I believe nobody would argue against that.
-
Barbarian practices which defiled Marriage included that of the husband inflicting capital punishment on the wife, among many others:
Cantarella,
You are deliberately confusing CAPITAL punishment (i.e. death sentence) with CORPORAL punishment.
All capital punishment is corporal punishment but not all corporal punishment is capital punishment. The Church forbids husbands from killing their wives for crimes, i.e. Shiria Law or the Old Testament stoning for adultery. This is what the pope was condemning, not corporal punishment, which is used to correct behavior not inflict justice or pain.
-
Catholics accepted that it was permissible for almost the entire history of the Church. If you think that corporal punishment of wives is wrong, that is your personal opinion, not something that you are getting from humbly following the teaching of the Church.
Well, show me the teaching of the Church...
That was my initial request.
-
The enormous off-topic turns that threads like this take tend to lower my expectations for decent conversation, and in time a forum becomes irrelevant. Because all you're going to get is a multi-headed hydra of conversation that talks about anything except original post topics.
I'm still waiting for this thread to branch into either sede-talk or flat earth theory.
I wonder who will host the next Oscars? Do you suppose probiotics are REALLY healthy, or just a scam? Now, I will talk about my cat.
-
The enormous off-topic turns that threads like this take tend to lower my expectations for decent conversation, and in time a forum becomes irrelevant. Because all you're going to get is a multi-headed hydra of conversation that talks about anything except original post topics.
I'm still waiting for this thread to branch into either sede-talk or flat earth theory.
I wonder who will host the next Oscars? Do you suppose probiotics are REALLY healthy, or just a scam? Now, I will talk about my cat.
Just wait till someone brings up sedevacantism, Flat Earth or Feeneyites.
-
Even if we continue with nothing but personal speculations on the matter, can you think of a greater offense against a husband than that of the sin of adultery (and the devastating results to the which can emanate from it, such as bastard children?)
We know that the Church explicitly condemned such conduct, probably because it has become the practice. I cannot think of a greater offense to the dignity of a man than making him a cuckold. If the man witnesses it, he may go into uncontrollable fury in which he loses all his senses, and perhaps hit the wife in the heat of the moment. The Church has condemned this behavior. Logically, it follows that lesser offenses would not be legitimate reasons for the husband to inflict corporal punishment upon the wife. Or are you trying to say that a husband is forbidden by the Church to hit his wife over adultery, but perhaps he is allowed to do so, if his dinner is not served on time or the wife is spending too much money?
There is nothing logical in what you are saying. Yes, adultery is a very serious sin. It does not follow that corporal punishment can only be used in cases of adultery. St. Thomas said that a man is obliged to correct fornication in his wife. He is permitted to do so with either words or blows or by putting her away. The last of these is especially for cases of adultery. He did not say blows can only be used in cases of adultery nor did he say that words can only be used in cases of adultery.
The Church has not condemned corporal punishment of wives (blows) but capital punishment (death). The Church has never explicitly forbidden husbands from using corporal punishment. Just punishment is expected to be proportional to the offense.
In other words, I still do not have anything but your word on it, so I will discard it.
I do not know your reason to believe the way you do, nor I understand your personal motivation for talking so much about it online, but given that your position is indefensible with solid Catholic Magisterial teaching, I will consider it as false.
I am glad that I did not waste time on looking up the citations from manuals for a person who continues to assert that Church teaching on capital punishment refers to corporal punishment even after the difference has been explained to her. At first I assumed that it was an honest mistake, but that is difficult to do if you persist in this claim.
There is no "solid Magisterial teaching" against corporal punishment of wives. Your quotes do not say what you claim they do.
My motivation writing about this that I respect our ancestors in the faith. I turn to them for wisdom and do not assume that people of today know better than those of the past. When their view differs from the modern one, I look into it with sympathy for them. I do not treat them as misogynistic monsters to be repudiated and apologized for. I try to understand why they thought as they did. And when I examined their understanding of corporal punishment, I discovered it was completely consistent with Church teaching and was reasonable in their cultural context.
There is nothing at all strange about a traditional Catholic feeling as I do about the traditional wisdom of the past. It is more surprising that a traditional Catholic forum does not have more people who agree with me.
-
There is no "solid Magisterial teaching" against corporal punishment of wives.
Nor it seems to be nothing in favor of.
Has the Church remained totally silent on the subject?
Still waiting for your Magisterial sources. If you think that corporal punishment of wives is right, that is your personal opinion, not something that you are getting from humbly following the teaching of the Church.
My motivation writing about this that I respect our ancestors in the faith. I turn to them for wisdom and do not assume that people of today know better than those of the past. When their view differs from the modern one, I look into it with sympathy for them.
What ancestors? You are unable to even cite more than one.
I find it especially disturbing when it is the women themselves who justify degrading practices against them. Croix said one time and I agree with him on this, that many women seem to actually enjoy the abuse, rationalize it afterwards, and then even defend the abuser and love him more for it. Terrifying aspect about female nature and yet another reason why women need male protection from themselves.
-
Nor it seems to be nothing in favor of.
Has the Church remained totally silent on the subject?
Still waiting for your Magisterial sources. If you think that corporal punishment of wives is right, that is your personal opinion, not something that you are getting from humbly following the teaching of the Church.
The Summa and moral theology manuals are not Magisterial sources. There is nothing that I know of about specific means of punishment taught at the Magisterial level and I am not surprised by this. Church teaching on marriage seems to be more about general principles.
But we have a lot of information about how Catholics of the past thought about this. It is my personal opinion that they were right. I know very well that, in the absence of Magisterial authority, nobody is obliged to agree with me. I have never claimed otherwise. But you have no right to claim that I am disregarding "solid Magisterial teaching".
-
Cantarella,
Are you going to admit your misuse of your thrice-used quote concerning CAPITAL punishment?
-
Cantarella,
Are you going to admit your misuse of your thrice-used quote concerning CAPITAL punishment?
Capital punishment is a form of corporal punishment. The most drastic one.
All capital punishment is corporal punishment but not all corporal punishment is capital punishment.
I can accept that. I am hoping I can find some Church teaching which deals with lesser forms of corporal punishments.
-
I am hoping I can find some Church teaching which deals with lesser forms of corporal punishments.
We should be hoping to conform our minds to the Church rather than hoping to find Church teachings to back up our opinions.
-
The Summa and moral theology manuals are not Magisterial sources.
I do not know which moral theology manuals you speak of and you won't tell me.
As for the Summa, this is all we have, dealing with adultery.
Article 2. Whether the husband is bound by precept to put away his wife when she is guilty of fornication?
I answer that, The putting away of a wife guilty of fornication was prescribed in order that the wife might be corrected by means of that punishment. Now a corrective punishment is not required when amendment has already taken place. Wherefore, if the wife repent of her sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), her husband is not bound to put her away: whereas if she repent not, he is bound to do so, lest he seem to consent to her sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), by not having recourse to her due correction.
Reply to Objection 1. The wife can be corrected for her sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) of fornication not only by this punishment but also by words and blows; wherefore if she be ready to be corrected otherwise, her husband is not bound to have recourse to the aforesaid punishment in order to correct her.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5062.htm#article1
-
We should be hoping to conform our minds to the Church rather than hoping to find Church teachings to back up our opinions.
I agree. That is the reason why I asked you for your Magisterial sources.
-
I am hoping I can find some Church teaching which deals with lesser forms of corporal punishments.
Men correcting their wives, sometimes using force, was an accepted practice during the entire Middle Ages, the height of Catholicism. The fact that there is no Church teaching AGAINST this practice, says that it was accepted as normal. It is not a Church teaching, because such authority is obvious and flows from the husband's status as head, just as superiors have authority to punish inferiors.
-
Men correcting their wives, sometimes using force, was an accepted practice during the entire Middle Ages, the height of Catholicism.
That does not make it right, even if Catholic men (who are supposed to be distinguished from the heathen men) were doing it.
The fact that there is no Church teaching AGAINST this practice, says that it was accepted as normal.
"Normal" does not mean right. Also, not just because the Church does not condemn something, necessarily means that She endorses it.
It is not a Church teaching, because such authority is obvious and flows from the husband's status as head, just as superiors have authority to punish inferiors.
The relationship between a husband and wife in the context of a Catholic marriage is different from the relationship between a superior and an inferior or a master and a servant. As Pope Leo XIII says, "the man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church."
-
The bottom line is that there is no Church Teaching forbidding corporal punishment of wives, since St Thomas mentions it as an option, even if an extreme option. Therefore, such a practice was seen as accepted.
Unless you find a teaching saying it’s wrong, we have to presume it was accepted historically.
It was probably very rarely needed in the past because women were docile and humble, unlike today.
-
Yes, yes, we acknowledge that it has never been explicitly condemned. Nor has it been explicitly endorsed. There are many issues like that in the Church's history where the Church chose to remain silent while the theologians battled it out. In one case, Thomism vs. Molinism, the Church explicitly refused to resolve the controversy. So refusing to condemn the one side does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the other side. Some of you are starting to sound like those dogmatic sedevacantist types who argue that an imprimatur on some Catholic work was tantamount to a standalone note of infallibility.
Here's the scholastic argument:
Major: Superiors can (in ordinary circuмstances) subject their subordinates to corporal punishment.
Minor: Husbands are the superiors of their wives.
Conclusion: Husbands may subject their wives to corporal punishment.
I distinguish the minor. That husbands are superiors of their wives simpliciter, nego. That husbands are the superiors of their wives secundum quid, concedo. This distinction is supported by Pius XI in the passage cited by Cantarella from Casti Conubii. Consequently, since the minor is not true simpliciter, then the argument is invalid.
In order to arrive at the true conclusion, one must address the distinction between an ordinary or simple superior-subordinate relationship and the husband-wife relationship, and draw conclusions from their implications.
I relied on the implications of the "honor" required to be shown by husbands to their wives. I drew an analogy between the honor owed to parents and the honor owed to wives and assert that honor precludes the application of corporal punishment (except in very extreme or extraordinary circuмstances).
-
The bottom line is that there is no Church Teaching forbidding corporal punishment of wives ...
No, that is not the "bottom line". We are challenging the position (as the Church has not endorsed it either). So it's in the realm of argument at this point. Join the actual argument if you will, but it's been duly noted (many times now) that the Church has not explicitly treated of this subject, so if that's all you've got, you can run along now. Your tedious repetition of this (already conceded) assertion is becoming tiresome and boring.
-
Gotta love the silent negative downthumb from one of the resident misogynists ... who are nevertheless unable to understand, much less answer, the argument.
Not that everyone who holds this position is necessarily a misogynist, but the misogynists will jump on the bandwagon in their continuing effort to denigrate women. And most of those men who like denigrating women do so from a place of insecurity (usually due to their struggle with concupiscence). Then there are self-hating women who in regret over their past extreme feminism have swung too far in the other direction, and otherwise enjoy the attention (clappies and pats on the back) they receive from the band of misogynists. They take pride in their extreme humility ... not unlike Pope Francis the Humble. Very few of those who advocate this position are doing so from a position of objectivity and with pure motives. Yet these women pay no heed to the fact that they are only emboldening the men out there who mistreat and denigrate their wives ... by giving them further ammunition. I've known many Traddie misogynists over the years who justify their ill treatment of women and their wives in particular with Scripture quotes ... and this only serves to give them more ammunition.
-
Ok, here's an additional argument from another, historically-accepted angle. (This obviously doesn't apply today, but it did long ago).
Major: Owners can (in ordinary circuмstances) subject their property/slaves to corporal punishment.
Minor: Husbands legally owned their wives, though not as slaves, still wives were considered property.
Conclusion: Husbands may subject their wives to corporal punishment.
-
Ok, here's an additional argument from another, historically-accepted angle. (This obviously doesn't apply today, but it did long ago).
Major: Owners can (in ordinary circuмstances) subject their property/slaves to corporal punishment.
Minor: Husbands legally owned their wives, though not as slaves, still wives were considered property.
Conclusion: Husbands may subject their wives to corporal punishment.
Thanks for actually making an argument.
Is this actually even true? I'm not sure. Certainly some societies historically treated some women in SOME respects as if they were property, but I don't know if any Catholic society (at least) ever explicitly declare women to be property or slaves. I know that women in Roman society were legally treated as if they were minors.
Assuming that it's accurate, even if it were a legal condition in secular society, the Church has never declared this to be something inherent in the husband-wife relationship.
So, for instance, today, secular society might acknowledge a "divorce", but the Church does not recognize it as an objective reality. It's merely a legal construct that does not actually effect the essence of the husband-wife relationship. There's no support in Church teaching that wives are the property of their husbands in the eyes of God, even if they have sometimes been treated that way by secular society.
So if we were in a society where the state considered our wives to be our property, this would still not permit us to treat them that way in all respects simply because of this legal status (cf. Pius XI in Casti Conubii). This legal construct or legal fiction does not trump our obligations and rights before God and in the eyes of the Church.
Similarly, in societies where children were treated a property, a Catholic could not morally sell the child into slavery to some third party or execute them (as if they were inanimate objects), or severely abuse them.
-
I relied on the implications of the "honor" required to be shown by husbands to their wives. I drew an analogy between the honor owed to parents and the honor owed to wives and assert that honor precludes the application of corporal punishment (except in very extreme or extraordinary circuмstances).
The honor owed to a parent is God-given and much higher than that owed to one's spouse. Even the marriage vows do not include a promise to "honor" so such honor is implied and not specifically vowed to God, meaning it is owed based on circuмstances (and choice) and not to the same degree as to a parent, which honor is required as to a King, since one does not choose his parents or King, but does choose his spouse.
Apples to oranges.
-
There's no support in Church teaching that wives are the property of their husbands in the eyes of God, even if they have sometimes been treated that way by secular society.
Yes, the fact that a woman takes the man's last name, signifies she vows to become his helpmate and to raise his family, in his name. Legally speaking, in most all of history, women were not allowed to own property, to vote, to take part in govt (aside from a queen) or to run a business. As a priest once said, "a family is not created until a man takes a wife." The woman cannot create a family, only the man can, because the woman becomes part of, and supportive to, the man's vocation - which is to start, protect, grow and rule a family.
-
The honor owed to a parent is God-given and much higher than that owed to one's spouse.
And this is where we are in the argument.
Sacred Scripture teaches that husbands must honor their wives. I do not see how a declaration of Sacred Scripture does not also mean that it's God-given.
Even if it were established that it's a different honor, one has to determine whether the difference suffices to permit corporal punishment in the one case while precluding it in the other.
At the end of the day, there's no easy resolution to this issue ... since it's somewhat subjective.
I believe that the honor due to one's wife precludes the degradation of corporal punishment. I believe that this honor also precludes other forms of mistreatment, such as, say, calling your wife a bitch in public or in front of the children. I believe that honor precludes treating her like a slave, "Wife, get me my dinner." vs. "Could you please get my dinner for me?" Some things I might, for instance, say to my misbehaving daughter without feeling the need to confess, I would not be able to do without the sense that I had committed at least a venial sin against her honor.
-
Yes, the fact that a woman takes the man's last name, signifies she vows to become his helpmate and to raise his family, in his name. Legally speaking, in most all of history, women were not allowed to own property, to vote, to take part in govt (aside from a queen) or to run a business. As a priest once said, "a family is not created until a man takes a wife." The woman cannot create a family, only the man can, because the woman becomes part of, and supportive to, the man's vocation - which is to start, protect, grow and rule a family.
All of this certainly speaks to subjection or subordination ... but that's not necessarily tantamount to her being property or a slave. No Catholic can dispute that women are subject to their wives, are subordinate to them, and owe them obedience and respect. Otherwise, if the wife were property in the eyes of the Church, what's to prevent a husband from selling her to a third party in exchange for a six-pack of beer? I'm sure there were some pagan societies where a husband could sell off his wife to a neighbor and thereby transfer ownership.
-
I believe that the honor due to one's wife precludes the degradation of corporal punishment.
Corporal punishment is not a degredation, it's a means to correct bad actions. If we assume that valid corporal punishment is done with an end to stop vice, then it's an act of honor and love.
You continue to act as if all corporal punishment is similar to a trailer-park redneck who drunkenly slaps his wife for no reason.
Similarly, in societies where children were treated a property, a Catholic could not morally sell the child into slavery to some third party or execute them (as if they were inanimate objects), or severely abuse them.
There you go again. Talking of abuse and severe physical violence, which NO ONE is advocating. Corporal punishment, for me, means light spanking of children or (I assume) the wife. Not excessive, not violent, but constructive physical punishment, as when the Church use to give public penances such as floggings or wearing of sackcloth and ashes, or kneeling on the outside steps of the Church during an excommuication.
Our modern world is so wimpy and soft that if we hear the world "punishment" we immediately jump to some harsh, violent, near-death imagery - ignoring the fact that corporal punishment and physical violence used to be part of the spiritual life of catholics for centuries. But those were the days when impurity wasn't as out-of-control as it is today. Coincidence? No.
-
There you go again. Talking of abuse and severe physical violence, which NO ONE is advocating. Corporal punishment, for me, means light spanking of children or (I assume) the wife. Not excessive, not violent, but constructive physical punishment, as when the Church use to give public penances such as floggings or wearing of sackcloth and ashes, or kneeling on the outside steps of the Church during an excommuication.
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?
https://youtu.be/wdTT6pw9Mts
-
From Pax Vobis:
The honor owed to a parent is God-given and much higher than that owed to one's spouse. Even the marriage vows do not include a promise to "honor" so such honor is implied and not specifically vowed to God, meaning it is owed based on circuмstances (and choice) and not to the same degree as to a parent, which honor is required as to a King, since one does not choose his parents or King, but does choose his spouse.
Wrong. The honor given to wives is also God-given. It is the duty of the husband, says the Catechism of Trent, to treat his wife courteously and with honor. Eve was called by Adam "his companion" and in the opinion of the Church Fathers, she was formed not from the feet but from the side of man, (just as she was not formed from his head, meaning she must be obedient to her husband). It is the first husband duty, by the way, that the Tridentine Catechism cites.
From the Catechism of Trent, on the Sacrament of Matrimony, Duties of a Husband:
The more easily to preserve the happiness of this holy union
undisturbed by domestic broils, the pastor will instruct the faithful
in the duties of husband and wife, as inculcated by St.
Paul and by the prince of the Apostles.
1. It is then the duty of the husband to treat his wife liberally and honourably :
it should not be forgotten that Eve was called by Adam " his
companion :" " The woman," says he, " whom thou gavest
me as a companion." Hence it was, according to the opinion
of some of the Holy Fathers, that she was formed not from the
feet but from the side of man ; as, on the other hand, she
was not formed from his head, in order to give her to under stand that it was not hers to command but to obey her husband.
https://archive.org/stream/thecatechismofth00donouoft/thecatechismofth00donouoft_djvu.txt
-
Here's the scholastic argument:
Major: Superiors can (in ordinary circuмstances) subject their subordinates to corporal punishment.
Minor: Husbands are the superiors of their wives.
Conclusion: Husbands may subject their wives to corporal punishment.
I distinguish the minor. That husbands are superiors of their wives simpliciter, nego. That husbands are the superiors of their wives secundum quid, concedo. This distinction is supported by Pius XI in the passage cited by Cantarella from Casti Conubii. Consequently, since the minor is not true simpliciter, then the argument is invalid.
In order to arrive at the true conclusion, one must address the distinction between an ordinary or simple superior-subordinate relationship and the husband-wife relationship, and draw conclusions from their implications.
I relied on the implications of the "honor" required to be shown by husbands to their wives. I drew an analogy between the honor owed to parents and the honor owed to wives and assert that honor precludes the application of corporal punishment (except in very extreme or extraordinary circuмstances).
This is an over-simplification of the scholastic argument. We know more than that husbands are superiors of their wives. There is a body of Scripture describing the relationship of husband and wife, for example: "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: [23] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=5&l=23-#x) Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. [24] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=5&l=24-#x) Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things."
The husband is not merely the superior, but superior as Christ is to the Church.
The implications of honour that you speak of are not based on an objective source. There is no established principle in Catholic thought that honour precludes corporal punishment. The analogy to the honour due to parents is false because, since the parents are superior to the child, there is no question of using corporal punishment on them. There is no basis for positing that the reason one does not use corporal punishment on a parent is because of honour. Also the honour due to parents is different from the honour given to wives, which Scripture describes as honour to a weaker vessel.
If honour is irrelevant to the question of corporal punishment (and nothing you have written shows otherwise) then there is no reason for the scholastic argument to address it. The scholastic argument is a valid syllogism. Your argument is not.
-
Wrong. The honor given to wives is also God-given. It is the duty of the husband, says the Catechism of Trent, to treat his wife courteously and with honor.
My point is that the honor due to a parent is God-given because one does not choose one's parents, God does. So, one must honor their parents on 2 levels - 1) out of Divine obedience because it is God who appointed your parents as your superiors and 2) out of natural obedience, to your parents directly. The honor to one's parents is not by vow/promise but by Divine command.
The honor a husband owes his wife is 1) by choice, since a man does not have to marry her and 2) of a companionship/friendship relationship. The honor is NOT God-given because a spouse is not God-given in the same way as a parent is and 2) the husband is the ruler of the wife, and the child is NEVER the ruler of the parent.
The honor a husband owes his wife is not a direct, vow-based promise, therefore it is of a lower obligation than the double-obedience based parent honor. It is an honor that is implied in the relationship because Christ honors the Church, since He created the Church and His Bride has a lofty purpose in His eyes, much like a wife is created by the husband who asks her to marry him and start a family.
The honor owed a parent is based on the status of the parent, which will never change and existed before child was born. The honor owed a wife is dependent upon the husband, who creates the honor/obligation when he decides to marry her and is implied but not a direct obligation. The 2 couldn't be more different, both in their obligations and degree.
-
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?
I'm only arguing that it's ok in theory and the Church has never condemned it. Specifically, I don't know and have said so more than once.
It's impossible to judge the video without knowing 1) the woman's intentions and if she was being playful or has a habit of controlling/disrespectful behavior...and the husband would know this 2) if she knew her husband doesn't like playfulness at serious times and did it anyway, to test him, 3) if the husband has a bad temper and she did nothing wrong, 4) if she was passive-aggressively "getting back at him" for some earlier insult, real or imagined, 5) all of the above. Who knows?
-
This is an over-simplification of the scholastic argument. We know more than that husbands are superiors of their wives. There is a body of Scripture describing the relationship of husband and wife, for example: "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: [23] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=5&l=23-#x) Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. [24] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=5&l=24-#x) Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things."
The husband is not merely the superior, but superior as Christ is to the Church.
The Catechism of Trent perfectly describes such relationship as established by God. The husband therefore is evidently compared by the Apostle to Christ and the wife to the Church herself. They both have obligations to each other (honoring wife being the first one listed on the part of the husband, being subject to husband on the part of the wife). I have not ever heard the Sacrament of Matrimony being described in terms of a superior / inferior relationship. Husbands and wives are one flesh before God.
Marriage a That marriage is a sacrament has been at all times held by
Sacrament fa e church as a certain and well ascertained truth ; and in this
she is supported by the authority of the Apostle in his Epistle
to the Ephesians : " Husbands," says he, " should love their
wives, as their own bodies : he who loveth his wife, loveth
himself, for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth
and cherisheth it, even as Christ doth the Church, for we are
members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this
cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave
to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great
sacrament, but I speak in Christ, and in the Church." 1 When
the Apostle says : " This is a great sacrament," he means, no
doubt, to designate marriage; 3 as if he had said: The conjuga
union between man and wife, of which God is the author, is a
sacrament, that is, a sacred sign of the holy union that subsists
between Christ and his Church. That this is the true meaning
of his words is shown by the Holy Fathers who have inter
preted the passage ; and the Council of Trent has given to it
the same interpretation. 3 The husband therefore is evidently
compared by the Apostle to Christ, the wife to the Church ;*
"the man is head of the woman, as Christ is of the Church;" 3
and hence the husband should love his wife, and again, the wife
should love and respect her husband, for " Christ loved his
Church, and gave himself for her;" and the Church, as the
same Apostle teaches, is subject to Christ.
-
The Catechism of Trent perfectly describes such relationship as established by God.
The sacrament is established by God, but your individual marriage was a choice you made. God did not force you to marry your husband and vice versa. God did force your parents on you.
The husband therefore is evidently compared by the Apostle to Christ and the wife to the Church herself. They both have obligations to each other (honoring wife being the first one listed on the part of the husband, being subject to husband on the part of the wife). I have not ever heard the Sacrament of Matrimony being described in terms of a superior / inferior relationship. Husbands and wives are one flesh before God.
The husband is the creator of the wife, the superior of the wife, since the husband creates the marriage relationship. The husband is ruler of the house and head of the family.
Christ is the creator of the Church, the superior of the Church, since Christ created the God-Church relationship. Christ is ruler of the Church and head of the spiritual order.
The only difference is that both husband-wife are of the same kind, naturally speaking, since they are both humans. Yet Christ is God and is superior to His Church spiritually AND naturally. Therefore, the husband owes honor/love to his wife on a natural level, being that they are both equally created in the eyes of God, with both having a soul. Yet spiritually, he is greater. Therefore, the honor owed to a husband by the wife is greater and of a different kind than the honor owed by the husband, since he has authority which the wife does not have. The wife must honor the husband out of respect for his authority; the husband honors his wife out of duty and of his obligations to protect and serve her, because superiors have an obligation to help those inferior to them.
-
Long quote
St. Chrysostom, Homily 26 on First Corinthians
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220126.htm
8.
(. . .)
For if to the Gentiles smiting us on the right, we must turn the other cheek; much more ought one to bear with harsh behavior in a husband.
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 yokefellow 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. Wherefore also such a man, 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. For if for a wife's sake we were commanded to leave even father and mother, not wronging them but fulfilling a divine law; and a law so grateful to our parents themselves that even they, the very persons whom we are leaving, are thankful, and bring it about with great eagerness; what but extreme frenzy can it be to insult her for whose sake God bade us leave even our parents?
But we may well ask, Is it only madness? There is the shame too: I would fain know who can endure it. And what description can set it before us; when shrieks and wailings are borne along the alleys, and there is a running to the house of him that is so disgracing himself, both of the neighbors and the passers by, as though some wild beast were ravaging within? Better were it that the earth should gape asunder for one so frantic, than that he should be seen at all in the forum after it.
"But the woman is insolent," says he. Consider nevertheless that she is a woman, the weaker vessel, whereas you are a man. For therefore were thou ordained to be ruler; and were assigned to her in place of a head, that you might bear with the weakness of her that is set under you. Make then your rule glorious. And glorious it will be when the subject of it meets with no dishonor from you. And as the monarch will appear so much the more dignified, as he manifests more dignity in the officer under him; but if he dishonor and depreciate the greatness of that rank, he is indirectly cutting off no small portion of his own glory likewise: so also thou dishonor her who governs next to yourself, will in no common degree mar the honor of your governance.
Considering therefore all these things, command yourself: and withal think also of that evening on which the father having called you, delivered you his daughter as a kind of deposit, and having separated her from all, from her mother, from himself, from the family, entrusted her entire guardianship to your right hand. Consider that (under God) through her you have children and hast become a father, and be thou also on that account gentle towards her.
Do you see not the husbandmen, how the earth which has once received the seed, they tend with all various methods of culture, though it have ten thousand disadvantages; e.g., though it be an unkindly soil or bear ill weeds, or though it be vexed with excessive rain through the nature of its situation? This also do thou. For thus shall you be first to enjoy both the fruit and the calm. Since your wife is to you both a harbor, and a potent healing charm to rejoice your heart. Well then: if you shall free your harbor from winds and waves, you shall enjoy much tranquility on your return from the market-place: but if you fill it with clamor and tumult, thou dost but prepare for yourself a more grievous shipwreck. In order then to prevent this, let what I advise be done: When any thing uncomfortable happens in the household, if she be in the wrong console her and do not aggravate the discomfort. For even if you should lose all, nothing is more grievous than to have a wife without good-will sharing your abode. And whatever offense you can mention, you will tell me of nothing so very painful as being at strife with her. So that if it were only for such reasons as these, let her love be more precious than all things. For if one another's burdens are to be borne, much more our own wife's.
Though she be poor do not upbraid her: though she be foolish, do not trample on her, but train her rather: because she is a member of you, and you have become one flesh. "But she is trifling and drunken and passionate." You ought then to grieve over these things, not to be angry; and to beseech God, and exhort her and give her advice, and do every thing to remove the evil. But if you strike her thou dost aggravate the disease: for fierceness is removed by moderation, not by rival fierceness. With these things bear in mind also the reward from God: that when it is permitted you to cut her off, and you do not so for the fear of God, but bearest with so great defects, fearing the law appointed in such matters which forbids to put away a wife whatsoever disease she may have: you shall receive an unspeakable reward. Yea, and before the reward you shall be a very great gainer, both rendering her more obedient and becoming yourself more gentle thereby. It is said, for instance, that one of the heathen philosophers , who had a bad wife, a trifler and a brawler, when asked, "Why, having such an one, he endured her;" made reply, "That he might have in his house a school and training-place of philosophy. For I shall be to all the rest meeker," says he, "being here disciplined every day." Did you utter a great shout? Why, I at this moment am greatly mourning, when heathens prove better lovers of wisdom than we; we who are commanded to imitate angels, nay rather who are commanded to follow God Himself in respect of gentleness.
But to proceed: it is said that for this reason the philosopher having a bad wife, cast her not out; and some say that this very thing was the reason of his marrying her. But I, because many men have dispositions not exactly reasonable, advise that at first they do all they can, and be careful that they take a suitable partner and one full of all virtue. Should it happen, however, that they miss their end, and she whom they have brought into the house prove no good or tolerable bride, then I would have them at any rate try to be like this philosopher, and train her in every way, and consider nothing more important than this. Since neither will a merchant, until he have made a compact with his partner capable of procuring peace, launch the vessel into the deep, nor apply himself to the rest of the transaction. And let us then use every effort that she who is partner with us in the business of life and in this our vessel, may be kept in all peace within. For thus shall our other affairs too be all in calm, and with tranquility shall we run our course through the ocean of the present life. Compared with this, let house, and slaves, and money, and lands, and the business itself of the state, be less in our account. And let it be more valuable than all in our eyes that she who with us sits at the oars should not be in mutiny and disunion with us. For so shall our other matters proceed with a favoring tide, and in spiritual things also we shall find ourselves much the freer from hindrance, drawing this yoke with one accord; and having done all things well, we shall obtain the blessings laid up in store; unto which may we all attain, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father, with the Holy Ghost, be glory, power, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.
-
St. Chrysostom, Homily 15 on the Acts of the Apostles
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210115.htm
(. . .)
The publican, when insulted by the Pharisee, insulted not in return, though, had he wished it, he might have done so: but he bore it like a philosopher, saying, "Be merciful to me a sinner." Luke 18:13
Mephibosheth, having been accused and calumniated by his servant, neither said, nor did, any evil to him, not even in the presence of the king himself. 2 Samuel 19:26 Shall I tell you even of a harlot, what philosophic magnanimity she showed? Hear Christ saying, as she was wiping His feet with her hair, "The publicans and harlots go into the kingdom before you." Matthew 21:31 Do you see her standing, and taking courage, and washing away her own sins? Observe, how she was not angry even with the Pharisee, when reproached by him: "for had He known," says he, that this woman is a sinner, He would not have suffered her Luke 7:39: and how she said not to him, "What then? Say, are you pure from sins?" but felt more, wept more, and let fall hotter tears.
But if women and publicans and harlots play the philosopher, and that before grace (i.e. of Baptism), what pardon can they deserve, who, after so great grace, fight, and worry, and kick one another, worse than beasts? Nothing is more base than passion, nothing more disgraceful, nothing more frightful, nothing more odious, nothing more hurtful.
These things I say, not only in order that towards men we may be gentle, but also if a wife be a talker, that you may bear it: let your wife be to you a school for training and exercise (παλαίστρα καὶ γυμνάσιον). For how can it but be absurd, to submit to exercises which yield no profit, where we afflict the body, but not to practise exercises at home, which, even before the contest, present to us a crown?
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. Think not that it is unworthy of you, when your wife abuses you. Unworthy it is, when you are abusive, but she bears patiently (φιλοσοφῇ): then do you act unseemly, then are you disgraced: but if, having been abused, thou bear it, great is the proof of your strength. I do not say this, to induce wives to be abusive: God forbid: but only in case it should so happen at the instance of Satan. It is the part of men that are strong, to bear the weak. And if your servant contradict you, bear it philosophically: not what he deserves to have said to him, do thou say or do, but that which it behooves you both to do and to say.
Never insult a girl by uttering some foul word against her: never call your servant, scoundrel (μιαρὸν): not he is disgraced, but thou. It is not possible to be master of one's self, being in a passion. Like a sea rolling mountains high, it is all hurly-burly: or even as a pure fountain, when mire is cast into it, becomes muddied, and all is in turmoil. You may beat him, you may rend his coat to rags, but it is you that sustain the greater damage: for to him the blow is on the body and the garment, but to you on the soul. It is your own soul that you have cut open; it is there that you have inflicted a wound: you have flung your own charioteer from his horses, you have got him dragging along the ground upon his back. And it is all one, as if one driver being in a passion with another, should choose to be thus dragged along.
You may rebuke, you may chide, you may do whatever if be, only let it be without wrath and passion. For if he who rebukes is physician to him who offends, how can he heal another, when he has first hurt himself, when he does not heal himself? Say, if a physician should go to heal another person, does he first wound his own hand, first blind his own eyes, and so set about healing that other? God forbid. So also, however thou rebuke, however thou chide, let your eyes see clearly. Do not make your mind muddy, else how shall the cure be wrought? It is not possible to be in the same tranquillity, being in a passion, and being free from passion. Why do you first overturn your master from his seat, and then discourse with him as he lies sprawling on the ground? Do you see not the judges, how, when about to hold the assize, they seat themselves upon the bench, in their becoming attire? Thus do thou likewise dress your soul with the judicial robe (which is gentleness). "But he will not be afraid of me," say you. He will be the more afraid. In the other case, though you speak justly, your servant will impute it to passion: but if you do it with gentleness, he will condemn himself: and, what is of the first importance, God will accept you, and thus you will be able to attain unto the eternal blessings, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father together with the Holy Spirit be glory, dominion, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.
-
St. Chrysostom, Homily 15 on Ephesians
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230115.htm
(. . .)
Women, whenever they are angry with their maid-servants, fill the whole house with their own clamor. And oftentimes too, if the house happens to be built along a narrow street, then all the passers-by hear the mistress scolding, and the maid weeping and wailing. What can possibly be more disgraceful than the sound of those wailings? What in the world has happened there?
All the women round immediately peep in and one of them says, "Such a one is beating her own maid." Whatever can be more shameless than this? "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.
And what is more base than all, there are some so fierce and so savage as to lash them to such a degree, that the bruises will not disappear with the day. For they will strip the damsels, and call their husbands for the purpose, and oftentimes tie them to the pallets. Alas! At that moment, tell me, does no recollection of hell come over you? What? Do you strip your handmaid, and expose her to your husband? And are you not ashamed, lest he should condemn you for it? And then do you exasperate him yet more, and threaten to put her in chains, having first taunted the wretched and pitiable creature with ten thousand reproachful names, and called her "Thessalian witch, runaway, and prostitute"?
For her passion allows her not to spare even her own mouth, but she looks to one single object, how she may wreak her vengeance on the other, even though she disgrace herself. And then after all these things forsooth, she will sit in state like any tyrant, and call her children, and summon her foolish husband, and treat him as a hangman. Ought these things to take place in the houses of Christians? "Aye" say ye, "but slaves are a troublesome, audacious, impudent, incorrigible race." True, I know it myself, but there are other ways to keep them in order; by terrors, by threats, by words; which may both touch her more powerfully, and save you from disgrace. Thou who art a free woman hast uttered foul words, and do you not disgrace yourself more than her? Then if she shall have occasion to go out to the bath, there are bruises on her back when she is naked, and she carries about with her the marks of your cruelty.
"But," say ye, "the whole tribe of slaves is intolerable if it meet with indulgence." True, I know it myself. But then, as I was saying, correct them in some other way, not by the scourge only, and by terror, but even by flattering them, and by acts of kindness. If she is a believer, she is your sister. Consider that you are her mistress, and that she ministers unto you. If she be intemperate, cut off the occasions of drunkenness; call your husband, and admonish her. Or do you not feel how disgraceful a thing it is for a woman to be beaten? They at least who have enacted ten thousand punishments for men, — the stake, and the rack — will scarcely ever hang a woman, but limit men's anger to smiting her on the cheek; and so great respect have they observed towards the sex, that not even when there is absolute necessity have they often hung a woman, if she happen to be pregnant.
For it is a disgrace for a man to strike a woman; and if for a man, much more for one of her own sex. It is moreover by these things that women become odious to their husbands. "What then," ye may say, "if she shall act the harlot?" Marry her to a husband; cut off the occasions of fornication, allow her not to be too high fed. "What then, if she shall steal?" Take care of her, and watch her.— "Extravagant!" you will say; "What, am I to be her keeper? How absurd!" And why, I pray, are you not to be her keeper? Has she not the same kind of soul as thou? Has she not been vouchsafed the same privileges by God? Does she not partake of the same table? Does she not share with you the same high birth? "But what then," you will say, "if she shall be a railer, or a gossip, or a drunkard?" Yet, how many free women are such?
Now, with all the failings of women God has charged men to bear: only, He says, let not a woman be an harlot, but every other failing besides bear with. Yea, be she drunkard, or railer, or gossip, or evil-eyed, or extravagant, and a squanderer of your substance, you have her for the partner of your life. Train and restrain her. Necessity is upon you. It is for this you are the head. Regulate her therefore, do your own part. Yea, and if she remain incorrigible, yea, though she steal, take care of your goods, and do not punish her so much. If she be a gossip, silence her. This is the very highest philosophy.
Now, however, some have come to such a height of indecency as to uncover the head, and to drag their maid-servants by the hair.— Why do ye all blush? I am not addressing myself to all, but to those who are carried away into such brutal conduct. Paul says, "Let not a woman be uncovered." 1 Corinthians 11:5-15 And do you then entirely strip off her headdress? Do you see how you are doing outrage to yourself? If indeed she makes her appearance to you with her head bare, you call it an insult.
And do you say that there is nothing shocking when you bare it yourself? Then you will say, "What if she be not corrected?" Chasten her [the handmaid] then with the rod and with stripes. And yet how many failings have you also yourself, and yet you are not corrected! These things I am saying not for their sakes, but for the sake of you free-women, that you do nothing so unworthy, nothing to disgrace you, that you do yourselves no wrong.
If you will learn this lesson in your household in dealing with your maid-servant, and not be harsh but gentle and forbearing, much more will you be so in your behavior to your husband. For she who, though having authority, does nothing of the sort, will do it much less where there is a check. So that the discipline employed about your maid-servants, will be of the greatest service to you in gaining the goodwill of your husbands. "For with what measure you measure," He says, "it shall be measured unto you." Matthew 7:2 Set a bridle upon your mouth. If you are disciplined to bear bravely with a servant when she answers back, you will not be annoyed with the insolence of an equal, and in being above annoyance, will have attained to the highest philosophy. But some there are who add even oaths, but there is nothing more shocking than a woman so enraged. But what again, you will say, if she dress gaily? Why then, forbid this; you have my consent; but check it by first beginning with yourself, not so much by fear as by example. Be in everything yourself a perfect pattern.
(. . .)
-
Seneca
Anger, Mercy, Revenge (The Complete Works of Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
On Clemency, Book I, Translated by Robert A. Kaster
16.
(. . .)
This is the sort of clemency worthy of a prince: wherever he goes, he makes all gentler. For a king, no one is of so little account that his death goes unfelt: whatever sort of person he is, he is part of the dominion. Let us look to lesser forms of authority to find a model for great authority. There is not just one kind of command: a prince commands his citizens, a father his children, a teacher his pupils, a military tribune or centurion the common soldiers. A man who disciplines his children with constant beatings for even the least offenses will seem the worst sort of father, right? Or again, which teacher is more worthy of the studies befitting free men: the one who savages his students if their memory fails or their eye clumsily falters when reading, or the one who prefers to correct and teach with admonitions that bring a blush to the students' cheeks? Show me a brutal tribune or centurion, and I'll show you one who makes soldiers desert--pardonably. It's not reasonable, is it, to be more harshly overbearing in giving an order to a person than to an animal incapable of speech? And yet an experienced trainer doesn't frighten a horse with frequent blows, for it will become skittish and stubborn unless you soothe it by stroking it. The same is true of a hunter who uses well-trained dogs to track, flush, and chase his prey: he doesn't keep threatening them (that dulls their spirits and, by cowing them, makes them inferior to their breeding), nor does he grant them license to go wandering off hither and yon. To these examples you can add the handlers of the slower beasts of burden, which-for all that they're born to woe and abuse-are driven by excessive cruelty to refuse the yoke.
17. No animal is more cross-grained or requires more skillful handling than a human being, and none stands in greater need of forbearance. For what could be more foolish than to blush at becoming angry at mules and dogs, but to want to subject one human being to another on the worst possible terms? We treat diseases and don't become angry, and yet this is a disease of the mind, requiring not just gentle treatment but also a healer who is in no way hostile to the patient. It's the mark of a bad physician to despair of finding a cure: the person entrusted with the well-being of all will have to take the same approach in the case of those whose mind is affected, not quickly giving up hope and declaring that the symptoms are fatal. Rather, he should struggle against the faults and resist them, confronting fronting some people with their disease, deceiving others by using a gentle regimen, intending to heal them more quickly and effectively with remedies that work undetected. The prince should be anxious not only to restore health but also to leave no disfiguring scars. A king gains no glory by punishing brutally (who could doubt that?) but instead gains the greatest glory if he keeps his own power in check, saves many from another's anger, and offers up no one as a victim to his own.
18. Giving orders to slaves in a temperate fashion deserves praise. Even in the case of chattel, you must consider not how much you can get away with making them suffer, but how much license you are given by the nature of morality and fairness, which bids you spare even captives and those you've purchased. When people are free then, freeborn and honorable, is it not even more just for you to spare them-treating them not as chattel, that is, abusively, but as persons of lower rank who have been handed over to you as wards, not slaves. Slaves are allowed to take refuge at a statue; though it is permitted to do anything and everything to a slave, the common rights of living creatures say that some things cannot be done to a human being. Who did not hate Vedius Pollio more keenly than his slaves did, for fattening his morays on human blood and ordering those who had given some offense to be thrown into a fish pond filled with eels? The man deserved to die a thousand times, whether for feeding slaves to morays intended to feed him in turn, or for raising eels only with the aim of feeding them this way. Just as cruel masters are pointed out as objects of hate and loathing throughout the entire community, so both the wrongs and the infamy of kings get wider circulation, and hatred for them gets passed on to posterity: how much better not to be born than to be counted among those born to the people's misfortune!
-
I have not ever heard the Sacrament of Matrimony being described in terms of a superior / inferior relationship. Husbands and wives are one flesh before God.
The leg is superior to the arm in strength, mobility and endurance, despite they're of one flesh.
" Husbands," says he, " should love their
wives, as their own bodies : he who loveth his wife, loveth
himself, for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth
and cherisheth it, even as Christ doth the Church, for we are
members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Jesus Christ, also, says, "And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell." ~ Matthew 5:30
"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." ~ Matthew 5:29
-
The St. Chrysostom quotes offer objective support to Lad's assertion that corporal punishment dishonours the person who receives it. For example, in the homily on I Corinthians: "For therefore were thou ordained to be ruler; and were assigned to her in place of a head, that you might bear with the weakness of her that is set under you. Make then your rule glorious. And glorious it will be when the subject of it meets with no dishonor from you."
This objective support makes his argument considerably stronger and also eliminates my main counter-argument. I concede the debate.
I do not think that the St. Chrysostom passages deny that a husband's authority implies that he may punish his wife. However, these passages contain an exhortation to husbands to refrain from using their authority harshly. It is clear that St. Chrysostom considers refraining from corporal punishment to be the ideal.
-
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.
-
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.
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".
-
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?
https://youtu.be/wdTT6pw9Mts
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.
-
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".
For it is a disgrace for a man to strike a woman
Or do you not feel how disgraceful a thing it is for a woman to be beaten?
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
1 Corinthians 11:9
For neither was the man created for the woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm), but the woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) for the man.
This is again a second superiority, nay, rather also a third, and a fourth, the first being, that Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) is the head of us, and we of the woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm); a second, that we are the glory (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06585a.htm) of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), but the woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) of us; a third, that we are not of the woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm), but she of us; a fourth, that we are not for her, but she for us.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220126.htm (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.
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.
-
[...] 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?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4iwGjqQSnM
-
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 (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.
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.
-
[...]
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.
-
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.
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.medscape.com%2Fnews%2F2014%2Fdt_140425_fist_punch_800x600.jpg&f=1)
So we see, a little open handed slap or "bitch-slap" as they call it nowadays is okay :cowboy:
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".
-
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.
-
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:
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, 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":
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/49853279_10156157676193691_6775238238593351680_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=7d291ee5ceb399eed4183a69b8cc74d9&oe=5CC6FBEF)
From The law of christian marriage according to the teaching and discipline of the Catholic church
by Devine, Arthur, 1849-1919 (https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Devine%2C+Arthur%2C+1849-1919%22)
-
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).
-
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 says it is shameful. I hope you would agree that any Catholic man worth his name would refrain from engaging in all shameful or dishonorable conduct which would disgrace himself.
He also says that "it is the part of men that are strong, to bear the weak" and that being abusive is actually womanly, an inferiority, a disease of the soul. This means that a man who behaves in such a way is in reality, and perhaps unknowingly, displaying an effeminate behavior. We all know that women are physically (and in other forms) weaker than men.
-
He says it is shameful.
It could be shameful, it could be weak, it could be effiminate but that doesn't mean it's sinful, per se.
If the answer was simply "A man who hits his wife commits a sin" then St John's 1st sermon (as posted in this thread) wouldn't have been very long. On the contrary, he was preaching quite persuasively and making an argument BASED ON PRACTICALITY AND RESULTS. He was NOT making a moral argument, which would've been quite short and had quotes from Scripture and other saints. The fact that his sermon was rather lengthy, shows that his argument was not clear, not simple and not easily made.
-
Thank you Cantarella for the Summa clarification on "blows". That would be with a closed hand, as a punch.
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.medscape.com%2Fnews%2F2014%2Fdt_140425_fist_punch_800x600.jpg&f=1)
So we see, a little open handed slap or "bitch-slap" as they call it nowadays is okay :cowboy:
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".
How positively different our lives would be if.... Father Adam would have firmly slapped Mother Eve for hanging-out near the Tree of Knowledge?
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsixdegreesofkosherbacon.files.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F06%2F8438422_f248.jpg&f=1)
-
The husband is the head of the wife. She must be subject to her husband and obey him. He commands; she obeys.
She obeys and he loves. Such are the explicit commands of the Church. A master does not love his slave, nor does he honor her, but a husband is commanded by God to love and honor his wife . This is an extremely important distinction between such relationships. There is no reason to suspect that one command is more important than the other. If a wife disobeys her husband, she does something against God’s will. If a husband does not love his wife, he does something against God’s will. The actions of husbands who love and honor their wives as their own flesh are usually unequivocal. They are easily distinguished from the husbands who do not.
Man is the head and woman is the body (this second part was omitted in your post), just as Christ is the Head, and the Church, the body. That is the definition of a true Catholic Marriage. Any other distortion either comes from man or the Devil. The head should not despise the body, just as Christ does not despise the Church.
St. Chrysostom in his homily 20 on Ephesians explains the mechanics of this relationship:
However not for the husband's sake alone it is thus said, but for the wife's sake also, that he cherish her as his own flesh, as Christ also the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), and, that the wife fear (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06021a.htm) her husband. He is no longer setting down the duties of love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) only, but what? That she fear (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06021a.htm) her husband. The wife is a second authority; let not her then demand equality, for she is under the head; nor let him despise her as being in subjection, for she is the body; and if the head despise the body, it will itself also perish. But let him bring in love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) on his part as a counterpoise to obedience (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11181c.htm) on her part. For example, let the hands and the feet, and all the rest of the members be given up for service to the head, but let the head provide for the body, seeing it contains every sense in itself. Nothing can be better than this union.
-
How positively different our lives would be if.... Father Adam would have firmly slapped Mother Eve for hanging-out near the Tree of Knowledge?
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsixdegreesofkosherbacon.files.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F06%2F8438422_f248.jpg&f=1)
Right here ^ , baby.
-
Many Catholics throughout history believed that, since it was a superior-subordinate relationship, corporal punishment was permissible.
The domestic Catholic society has been established as an "order of love" as St. Augustine calls it. It is not a superior-subordinate relationship in the sense that you are thinking. The head cannot live without the body, just as the body cannot live without the head. In a true Catholic marriage, the man and the woman truly become one flesh in Christ. Wife is commanded to be subject to her husband. Husband is commanded to love his wife as Christ loves the Church, even laying his very life for her. Any other alteration to this doctrine does not come from the Church, but from twisted protestantized minds.
Pope Pius IX, Casti Connubii:
26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church."[29]
27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .
-
She obeys and he loves. Such are the explicit commands of the Church.
You obviously ignore whatever does not fit your opinion. I just showed you a passage from Arcanum Divinae that contained the phrase "let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties." The Church says the husband commands and the wife obeys. There is nothing wrong with describing marriage that way.
It is too frustrating discussing this with you. I need to stop.
-
Right here ^ , baby.
No, I was thinking more about this.
What should Adam have actually said?
"Eve, drop the apple, raise your hands and get back from the tree!"
"After I beat the crap out of that snake with this stick, you're not going to be able to sit-down for a week"
-
No, I was thinking more about this.
What should Adam have actually said?
"Eve, drop the apple, raise your hands and get back from the tree!"
"After I beat the crap out of that snake with this stick, you're not going to be able to sit-down for a week"
.
That sounds like a scene from an opera.
-
I have seldom ever seen a thread so thoroughly derailed.
From "CathInfo granting mercy to banned users in 2019", to "Corporal punishment on wives within marriage"
Could the topics have anything less to do with each other?
-
I have seldom ever seen a thread so thoroughly derailed.
From "CathInfo granting mercy to banned users in 2019", to "Corporal punishment on wives within marriage"
Could the topics have anything less to do with each other?
Some people have a one-track mind, which is focused on the corporal.
Would that we all would learn to engage in unceasing prayer, then there would not be so much focus on the physical.
-
.
I have seldom ever seen a thread so thoroughly derailed.
From "CathInfo granting mercy to banned users in 2019", to "Corporal punishment on wives within marriage"
Could the topics have anything less to do with each other?
.
I've been on forums where anyone who dares to step over the narrow limit lines of what constitutes "THE CURRENT TOPIC" gets punished with demerits or points, which they keep track of, and after a member gets too many zingers he's automatically put into quarantine (read-only mode), for a time, shorter or longer, or perhaps permanently.
.
Mercy to banned users and how Adam could have dealt with Eve might be related through the mystery of how the saints of heaven will interact with Adam in paradise. Adam not only became a "banned user" of the Garden of Eden, he took the entire human race out of that perfect world along with him. Msgr. Perez said in his last sermon that "there must be a line going around the block in heaven -- all the people who are waiting to have a word with him" for having committed Original Sin. Surely Adam and Eve didn't have a wedding, nor was there a priest to officiate the sacrament, nor did they have ANY sacraments in the old dispensation; but Eve was Adam's wife, nonetheless. And if there has ever been a wife who was deserving of corporal punishment, certainly Eve takes the cake.
.
-
I have seldom ever seen a thread so thoroughly derailed.
From "CathInfo granting mercy to banned users in 2019", to "Corporal punishment on wives within marriage"
Could the topics have anything less to do with each other?
Ah, it happens all the time here. And this is less of a stretch than many. Discussion quickly turned to individual users who had been banned, with notable mention of Croix, since Croix had effectively unbanned himself anyway by creating a new account. I think that it was I who made the comment along the lines of "What difference does mercy make when these guys just come back anyway either as Anonymous or by creating new accounts?" Now, then, Croix had been banned for various reasons, among which was referring to some ladies in the forum as "cows", which turned to the subject of misogyny.
I've seen threads about completely unrelated topics quickly blow up into 300-page threads about sedevacantism. All it takes is one comment that makes a reference to it to completely derail a thread. Just mention one of a handful of hot-button topics: sedevacantism vs. R&R, EENS and BoD, Flat Earth, corporal punishment of wives ..... and there you go.
-
Matthew: I have seldom ever seen a thread so thoroughly derailed.
From "CathInfo granting mercy to banned users in 2019", to "Corporal punishment on wives within marriage"
I agree. But I have been making similar observations for years concerning numbers of other topics which got off track on CI.
But the resolution to this particular topic could have have been handled 6000 views ago. Matthew has it entirely within his power to to grant "mercy to banned users." But, to my knowledge, he hasn't. So it has meandered along meaninglessly for ages, yet still occupies a top spot on the CI discussion depth chart. Of course, several of these banned individuals have probably re-inserted themselves with new accounts and different user names.
My question is this: Why doesn't Matthew simply kill the topic? Why does he let it go on and on? Only he knows.
-
Ah, it happens all the time here. And this is less of a stretch than many.
I've seen threads about completely unrelated topics quickly blow up into 300-page threads about sedevacantism. All it takes is one comment that makes a reference to it to completely derail a thread. Just mention one of a handful of hot-button topics: sedevacantism vs. R&R, EENS and BoD, Flat Earth, corporal punishment of wives ..... and there you go.
.
So then could be next, we need a subforum for corporal punishment of wives ............ :)
-
Matthew has it entirely within his power to to grant "mercy to banned users." But, to my knowledge, he hasn't. So it has meandered along meaninglessly for ages, yet still occupies a top spot on the CI discussion depth chart. Of course, several of these banned individuals have probably re-inserted themselves with new accounts and different user names.
While Matthew did not mention it, during the course of this thread, ggreg resumed posting. As I recall, he is banned user. (He has always used that same name.) I would not be surprised if there were some connection to this thread. Perhaps it inspired ggreg to ask permission to resume posting here.
I must say I am surprised that ggreg wants to post here, given his many disparaging comments elsewhere about this forum and the Resistance.
-
I think sometimes the totally derailed threads are the most interesting. (That is, if they don't suddenly blow up and spew shrapnel everywhere...)
-
Some threads are better off getting derailed. This thread seemed to have been started for the purpose of pressuring and/or criticizing Matthew.
In general, the people whom he bans have been disrupting the forum. How is it "mercy" to arbitrarily allow them back? I'm pretty sure that any banned poster who wants a second chance and is willing to change the behaviour that got him banned can contact Matthew and ask for this. It would actually be mercy to allow them back. Why should Matthew, merely because of the date, invite back problematic posters who are likely to continue being problematic?
Way back near the beginning of this thread Matthew made it clear that he was not going to act on the unreasonable demand of the original topic. The thread was effectively over then. Of course, it has meandered all over the place since then.
-
I didn't ask permission. I just logged back in with the original username and password.
Waiting for a 3 month contract to start. I'll disappear soon.
-
Greg, before you disappear again:
https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/thread4greg-an-englishman's-perspective-on-russian-perspective/
-
Greg, before you disappear again:
https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/thread4greg-an-englishman's-perspective-on-russian-perspective/
I'm always curious how ggreg will wiggle out of things. Not to my satisfaction, but that of other people's satisfaction.
-
I'm always curious how ggreg will wiggle out of things. Not to my satisfaction, but that of other people's satisfaction.
This must mean you're a scrupulous intellectual whereas other trads... just get by.
-
I have seldom ever seen a thread so thoroughly derailed.
From "CathInfo granting mercy to banned users in 2019", to "Corporal punishment on wives within marriage"
Could the topics have anything less to do with each other?
I actually forgot what the thread was about until I saw your post.
-
One or two calls to 911 will put an end to that.
-
Hobbledehoy left CathInfo and then subsequently went back to the Novus Ordo. Amazing how someone with such a treasure of old Catholic books, timeless truth, and inspiring, beautiful artwork could go back to such a banal "mass".
There is another thread on here with more details about him -- I just remember that "he's not Trad anymore".
:o