I hope to become a better husband to and for my wife.I suspect that women are not the best source of information on this topic. Women can tell you what we like but what we like is not always what is best for us. A husband and father needs to do what is best for his family, but his family will not always like it at the time. There have been many times when letting me have my own way would not have been good for me or the family. Being a good husband sometimes means saying no.
All responses welcome, but I would especially appreciate seeing what the women have to say, especially wives.
I suspect that women are not the best source of information on this topic. Women can tell you what we like but what we like is not always what is best for us.I told my wife about this topic and she suggested, tongue-in-heek, "Do whatever your wife wants".
Husbands should also remember the kids are a joint responsibility. They means feeding, cleaning, and caring. If you see your wife struggling don’t just look on, but jump in to help! It’s always appreciated.
But I’m also in the minority here by believing he, and I are equals. Yes, he makes the money, gets final say, but I also get a say in that too. I tell he when he’s being unfair, and to strick on anything. He doesnt own me. That doesn’t mean I pout when it doesn’t go my way... my job is to support him too!
What works my my husband, and I would not work for anyone here. We have equal say in a lot of matters, but he gets finally say on big purchases/budget.
Children should always been a joint task. Dad’s don’t get to come in, and lay down laws without being someone who helps take care of the kids.
He doesn’t get to tell me if I have a say or not.
I suspect that women are not the best source of information on this topic. Women can tell you what we like but what we like is not always what is best for us. A husband and father needs to do what is best for his family, but his family will not always like it at the time. There have been many times when letting me have my own way would not have been good for me or the family. Being a good husband sometimes means saying no.
Vintagewife, your reply to the thread about wives is the spark that got me to post this. Could you maybe expand on your reply in this thread?And now you know why she probably didn't expand sooner. And probably why many women won't respond to this thread.
Most importantly, and above all else husbands need to be the leaders in the family’s spiritual life. We live in a time of spiritual ware fare, and every army needs a leader. Learn your faith, go to church, pray the family rosary, and bible study.Yes, leaders. Having said that, both spouses are supposed to help each other get to Heaven. Therefore, both should look out for each other and offer spiritual guidance if the other is doing something sinful, etc. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm fairly certain that it is the other's "business"....husband or wife.
And now you know why she probably didn't expand sooner. And probably why many women won't respond to this thread.
Because, based on most male replies, it will be less about what makes a good husband and more about criticizing the female posters here.
Also, he needs to be generous with his resources, and not stingy. Stinginess in men is a red-flag and a deal-breaker.
He most certainly does.You're right on this, Ladislaus.
Everything else in the article was pretty spot-on, but why generosity in particular? What if he errs a bit on the frugal side?There is a difference between stingy and frugal. My husband is the latter.
This point sounds a bit convenient, a bit biased, because it would be a very beneficial virtue for the woman who is on the receiving end! She might say, "he better blow a lot of money on me during courtship, or else he's stingy and that's a deal breaker."
What's the line between generosity in this context, and prodigality (the opposite of stingy) with one's money?
How would a young single woman know the difference between "he just wants to not waste his money, he's saving up for a house", and "he's Ebeneezer Scrooge"?
Like I said it depends for each marriage. But I’m also in the minority here by believing he, and I are equals.This is what St John Chrysostom, has to say in Homily 34 on First Corinthians.
Husbands should also remember the kids are a joint responsibility. They means feeding, cleaning, and caring.The husband's responsibility for his children does not involve feeding, cleaning and caring in a normal balanced family situation.
But he should also remember that when female emotions and children are concerned, sometimes gentle guidance is more prudent.
A man's constitution should never be based on females' emotions. To concede to female feelings is a recipe for disaster. Female emotions change like a river's undercurrent. The Lord God tells us in holy scripture that wives should fear their husbands. It doesn't say for wives to influence husband's decisions by emoting to them.I think a wise husband would often take into account his wife's emotions before making rational decisions for the family. God gave us womanly emotions and tenderness to help soften the world and make it a more pleasant and civilized place for men to dwell.
Regarding children, they should, also, fear their fathers as much as they love him. One reason children are chaotic, undisciplined, disrespectful brats these days is because their false sense of "security" and willingness to engage in behaviors without accountability or fearing consequences is the result of not fearing their fathers (if they even have a father in the household).
I think a wise husband would often take into account his wife's emotions before making rational decisions for the family.
God gave us womanly emotions and tenderness to help soften the world and make it a more pleasant and civilized place for men to dwell.
What does it take to be a good husband, ladies? (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/what-does-it-take-to-be-a-good-husband-ladies/msg636000/#msg636000)This is something your father and mother should have taught you, at least by example.
Great thread! Being married over 50 years, we're learned that:Great post! Who in their right mind would downthumb over 50 years of marital experience and such wisdom?
God created men and women to compliment each other.
God created the husband to provide and protect.
God created the woman to nurture and to build faith and relationships.
The husband is to cherish his wife.
The wife is to respect her husband.
For me, the most important thing I've learned is that I would rather be cherished than be right.
The more I respect him, the more he cherishes me.
The more he cherishes me, the more willing I am to overlook things.
The more I overlook things, the more he cherishes me.
This is something your father and mother should have taught you, at least by example.Did you bother to read past the title of the thread?
You have a point. This is where Quid reminds me of a now-banned user named Croix de Fer, who shared similar sentiments about women. Now he was a pompous ass, and Quid is not. But the sentiments are kind of similar.ha ha ... Your personality assessment aside, considering the videos Quid posted a few days ago from Pastor D's protege, I'd say there's a decent probability that Croix & Quid are the same person.
Did you bother to read past the title of the thread?People can give all kinds of advice over the internet and yet they do not live by their advice. The OP will receive all kinds of military grade chaff and at the end won't know what his name is.
What do you know of the OP's past?
LT, some people’s parents have given horrific examples of gender roles, and how to be in a good Catholic marriage. So, asking advice from other Catholics who are trying to keep the true faith is probably the better road to take.Asking complex advice about life in cyberspace is a total waste of time. Only by direct long term observation and friendship with an exemplar family can one learn how to behave.
Did you bother to read past the title of the thread?Two questions. Answers?
What do you know of the OP's past?
at the end (Cruiser) won't know what his name is.What are you implying? That he is totally bamboozled? He seems intelligent enough to me. So if you think this thread is a waste of time ... there is a way out.
Asking complex advice about life in cyberspace is a total waste of time. Only by direct long term observation and friendship with an exemplar family can one learn how to behave.That’s not how it always works. I’m sure some people are able to break the cycle, but others have problems. That’s why child abuse can go on for generations before someone stops it. I think asking questions opens up ideas for research for what the church has to say, and the Bible.
Horrific parents can be examples of what not to do.
A man's constitution should never be based on females' emotions. To concede to female feelings is a recipe for disaster. Female emotions change like a river's undercurrent. The Lord God tells us in holy scripture that wives should fear their husbands. It doesn't say for wives to influence husband's decisions by emoting to them.You know that has always bothered me. Why should I fear my spouse? I feared my first husband because my life was endanger, but I don’t fear this spouse. I will admit maybe I am being to literal with the word “fear”. So, please explain your interpretation.
Regarding children, they should, also, fear their fathers as much as they love him. One reason children are chaotic, undisciplined, disrespectful brats these days is because their false sense of "security" and willingness to engage in behaviors without accountability or fearing consequences is the result of not fearing their fathers (if they even have a father in the household).
Quote from: Last Tradhican on Today at 01:39:09 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/what-does-it-take-to-be-a-good-husband-ladies/msg636053/#msg636053)Read again what I wrote.QuoteAsking complex advice about life in cyberspace is a total waste of time. Only by direct long term observation and friendship with an exemplar family can one learn how to behave.
That’s not how it always works. I’m sure some people are able to break the cycle, but others have problems. That’s why child abuse can go on for generations before someone stops it. I think asking questions opens up ideas for research for what the church has to say, and the Bible.
ha ha ... Your personality assessment aside, considering the videos Quid posted a few days ago from Pastor D's protege, I'd say there's a decent probability that Croix & Quid are the same person.
You know that has always bothered me. Why should I fear my spouse?
Because the Lord God tells women to fear their husbands: "Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband." ~ Ephesians 5:33 (Douay-Rheims)So, if a wife doesn’t fear her husband, what happens then? I don’t fear my husband, but I do what we tell eachother out of respect not fear.
If you have a problem with it, then you have a problem with the Holy Ghost Who is the Author of the Bible.
Fear corrects behavior, thus harmony ensues. The Lord God still forgives sins through the Sacrament of Penance, even if the motivation of the penitent is fear of the Lord more than love for Him. That's how necessary fear is to the human condition. Of course, a more perfect contrition would stem from love for God, but contrition due to fear of God still suffices.
The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ, and we are to fear the Lord God as told in holy scripture. Our Blessed Mother tells us to fear Him: "And His mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear Him." ~ Luke 1:50 (Douay-Rheims)
Listen to your Heavenly mother. She's the only woman whose counsel is foolproof.
Likewise, the wife should fear her husband, lest she be rightfully corrected by her husband who, like a refiner of silver, should put her through the fire as to remove the impurities, and this would be painful, as to maintain their harmonious union as one (Ephesians 5:31) before the Lord God. The husband must see his reflection in his wife, just as the Refiner of Silver (Malachi 3:3) must see His reflection in the silver. This can only happen when the silver is pure. Harmony in marriage is necessary for both husband and wife to support each other in their quest to Heaven.
The word of God further tells us: Being subject one to another, in the FEAR of Christ. Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. ~ Ephesians 5:21-24 (Douay-Rheims)
A wife's true love for a her husband is best reflected by her obedience to him. A woman who doesn't fear her husband, she doesn't truly love him, nor does she respect him. She thinks he's a joke, and he is a joke. Disobedience of the wife is sure to follow. Sooner or later, she'll clandestinely entice a man who has the disposition and willingness to put her in her place. Such is the duality of woman. She disobeys her husband because he's a eunuch in the first place, yet she seeks a real man who will have no scruples in making her realize it's in her best interest and well being to be obedient to him.
You know that has always bothered me. Why should I fear my spouse? I feared my first husband because my life was endanger, but I don’t fear this spouse. I will admit maybe I am being to literal with the word “fear”. So, please explain your interpretation.Fear does not necessarily lead to flight from danger, but healthy, holy fear leads us to feel discomfort at knowing that there may be an impending unpleasant correction.
How do all of you handle noisy toddlers in church?If the child does not fear the parent the result of his upbringing could be disastrous - as we see all around us in society.
Fear does not necessarily lead to flight from danger, but healthy, holy fear leads us to feel discomfort at knowing that there may be an impending unpleasant correction.I don’t believe that is the correct motivation.
I don’t believe that is the correct motivation.VW3 seems to be confused about what is meant by fear. We are to fear God. How is that wrong motivation? I did not use the word punishment. Selfish actions need correction. Correction is a loving, not negative, action.
I do not fear an ‘impending unpleasant correction’ from my husband.
Fear of disappointing him, now that I can see.
And it is similar with God, it is more of a fear of disappointment in my selfish actions, and not a potential correction or punishment.
Positive, healthy love, not negative.
VW3 seems to be confused about what is meant by fear. We are to fear God. How is that wrong motivation? I did not use the word punishment. Selfish actions need correction. Correction is a loving, not negative, action.I was speaking from personal experience that for me it comes from a positive place, that fear of disappointing my husband is healthier, and not a fear of correction which to me seems negative. Perhaps there is a definition by The Church of what kind of fear Scripture is referring to in regards to wives and their husbands.
Uhm, the word fear in this context refers to respect and submission rather than fear as of an abuser.
And it is similar with God, it is more of a fear of disappointment in my selfish actions, and not a potential correction or punishment.
Positive, healthy love, not negative.
You talk like a Protestant. Try reading a Catholic Bible, not the Protestant translations that water down and misinterpret the true scriptures.
I’m asking where is the line? Because from what you are saying anything goes when a husband punishes his wife. I’m pretty sure Gods 5th commandment forbids causing bodily harm.
So, for instance, I would likewise hold that it would be wrong for a bishop to impose corporal punishment on a priest who is subordinate to him ... due to the dignity of a man ordained to the priesthood.
Look at the original terms in Greek and Latin for fear, and they are much broader than the fear one would experience when being attacked by a bear or something.
I always refer to the originals rather than any translation.
Oh, boy. :)I’m inclined to agree with you. Plus, hurting your spouse like that would make it harder for them to respect you. If my husband treated me like that I wouldn’t trust him.l to have my best interest at heart.
There was a thread on this subject that went on forever. I was on the side of those who felt that it is wrong or illicit for a husband to impose corporal punishment on his wife. My reasoning had to do with the honor that a husband owes to his wife. Some theologians held that it would be permitted because a wife is subordinate to her husband. But I argued that it is not permitted due to the requirement for a husband to honor his wife, and that corporal punishment is inherently degrading and incompatible with holding someone in honor. The husband-wife relationship is not a simple unqualified superior-subordinate relationship. So, for instance, I would likewise hold that it would be wrong for a bishop to impose corporal punishment on a priest who is subordinate to him ... due to the dignity of a man ordained to the priesthood.
Quid, why don’t you come it and just say you think it’s ok to hurt women? There isn’t a huge difference between punishing a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priest, and a priest who committed a lesser sin.
You make no sense.ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a sin punishable by death, but not every sin is on that level of evil so it doesn’t deserve the same outcome. No, one has the right to cause bodily harm to anyone unless the sin calls for it. God created those rules.
Carissima, this is what St Paul teaches in Chapter 5 of his Epistle to the Ephesians:Yes I’ve read many times and it is beautiful. Nothing about fear though which is all I was disagreeing with, and that is the definition of it in regards to husbands and wives.
[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. (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=5&l=24-24&q=1#x)[25] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=5&l=25-#x) Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: [26] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=5&l=26-#x) That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: [27] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=5&l=27-#x) That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. [28] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=5&l=28-#x) So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. [29] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=5&l=29-#x) For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: [30] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=5&l=30-#x) Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. [31] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=5&l=31-#x) 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. [32] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=5&l=32-#x) This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. [33] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=5&l=33-#x) Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband.
[24] "Church is subject to Christ": The church then, according to St. Paul, is ever obedient to Christ, and can never fall from him, but remain faithful to him, unspotted and unchanged to the end of the world.
How beautiful!
Yes I’ve read many times and it is beautiful. Nothing about fear though which is all I was disagreeing with, and that is the definition of it in regards to husbands and wives.Epistle to the Ephesians:Chapter 5
Punishment from God (and husband towards wife as commissioned by God) is a JUST punishment. Period. It has NOTHING to do with "positive" or "negative". Those are false Greek constructs that distort the true meaning of God's word.You should read the biographies of the Saints, they are beautiful representations of the love each one had for God, and their holy fear was always motivated by their LOVE, not potential punishment.
All this advice might just be coming from unemployed unmarried childless men (and women) in their underwear from their basement computer. What at waste of time on minute details.Good advice, although in today’s day and age the likelihood of having a good example of a married couple around to imitate is so slim, (.1% possibly) Catholics are better off reading the lives of married Saints, like St Monica,St Elizabeth of Portugal, St Bridget, Louis and Zellie Martin. All are excellent examples and there are so many more.
Like I said, go by a real example you can actually see and talk to over time, in every situation and obstacle. Go to people who are examples of what you want to be and make friends with them and learn from them. The more friends the better.
Well, Quid/Croix II wants an Aisha. Many fundamentalist Muslim men beat their wives using Muhammad's example in the Koran of his child bride, Aisha, who he abused and beat regularly.
Yes I’ve read many times and it is beautiful. Nothing about fear though which is all I was disagreeing with, and that is the definition of it in regards to husbands and wives.
Quote from: Last Tradhican on Today at 07:42:21 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/what-does-it-take-to-be-a-good-husband-ladies/msg636083/#msg636083)You will find them at trad chapels, really all you need is one exemplar family. You will also find other families that are almost there and still others that have only a small portion, but it is what is missing in the "almost there family". You also learn by others mistakes, which is safer than learning from your mistakes. All of that is how I learned and continue to learn and improve as a father and husband. To me all this talk on the internet is fantasy and untried and unproven theories, "a picture is worth a thousand words", real people you can observe every day is the way to learn. It is hands on learning, no theories or fantasies there.QuoteAll this advice might just be coming from unemployed unmarried childless men (and women) in their underwear from their basement computer. What at waste of time on minute details.
Like I said, go by a real example you can actually see and talk to over time, in every situation and obstacle. Go to people who are examples of what you want to be and make friends with them and learn from them. The more friends the better.
Good advice, although in today’s day and age the likelihood of having a good example of a married couple around to imitate is so slim, (.1% possibly) Catholics are better off reading the lives of married Saints, like St Monica,St Elizabeth of Portugal, St Bridget, Louis and Zellie Martin. All are excellent examples and there are so many more.
St Bridget, in particular, has fantastic insights into the married life of Mary and Joseph and it reads like nothing I’ve read so far in these forums as of recent.
There's a reason the Lord Jesus Christ called His disciples to follow Him by themselves, and not take their wives, for the women would compromise their husbands by sowing confusion and error. It's the fallen nature of the woman which she inherited from Eve.Jesus never said to abuse authority over them in anyway. Physical, emotional, or verbal.
Jesus never said to abuse authority over them in anyway. Physical, emotional, or verbal.
You will find them at trad chapels, really all you need is one exemplar family. You will also find other families that are almost there and still others that have only a small portion, but it is what is missing in the "almost there family". You also learn by others mistakes, which is safer than learning from your mistakes. All of that is how I learned and continue to learn and improve as a father and husband. To me all this talk on the internet is fantasy and untried and unproven theories, "a picture is worth a thousand words", real people you can observe every day is the way to learn. It is hands on learning, no theories or fantasies there.So every poster here should attend a "trad chapel", (that's if you can find one within a few hours of you, otherwise you can stay at a motel overnight), consult with a super duper trad like e.g. LT, who has the wisdom of Solomon, and stop posting on CI.
If you seriously think that being abusive won’t have long lasting effects on your intimacy with her, and how your children perceive love you are wrong.
Woman, just punishment is not being abusive.Ok, but you still haven’t explained how you wouldn’t be breaking the 5th commandment by causing bodily harm. Because God doesn’t make contradictions.
I didn't read the rest of your emotional diatribe. You've proven to be a waste of time.
So every poster here should attend a "trad chapel", (that's if you can find one within a few hours of you, otherwise you can stay at a motel overnight), consult with a super duper trad like e.g. LT, who has the wisdom of Solomon, and stop posting on CI.
How silly you are, Cruiser, :fryingpan: to start this thread which is wasting LT's valuable time.
Ok, but you still haven’t explained how you wouldn’t be breaking the 5th commandment by causing bodily harm. Because God doesn’t make contradictions.
The Lord God commanded the Hebrews to wipe out enemies of God. Kill every adult and child. Kill even the animals. Allow nothing to live. I can gladly give the verses, if you'd like me to provide them.I would say the Crusades, and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are extreme cases. I also recognize God using corporal punishment in the Old Testament.
The Catholic Church issued the Holy Crusades.
Pope St. Pius V authorized the handing over of sodomite priests to civil authorities for execution.
You just read the verses where God instructs man to strike his children as a means to keep them from sin.
Please, explain to me how God doesn't use corporal punishment on people.
Indeed, God doesn't contradict Himself. He has always used and instructed His children to use, corporal punishment.
I would say the Crusades, and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are extreme cases. I also recognize God using corporal punishment in the Old Testament.
But I don’t believe it has any place in a marriage.
This isn’t some emotional rant, but coming from someone who was severely abused by a spouse. I’m telling you there are parts of me I will never get back from such an experience. If my husband decided the only way to get me to listen was through corporal punishment any and all trust I had in him as a leader would be gone.
1 Peter 3:7
Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel, and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered.
Of course, but if the wife scandalizes their children or puts her or her husband's own soul at risk of damnation, the husband can render corporal punishment to straighten her out.You know we are very obviously talking about different levels of disrespect here. I don’t disagree with you on that. That’s just scarey, and I think I may have even said that on that post.
The latest example of that Jezebel woman trying to convince her young son is a "girl", and making him dress in girl clothes, all to the father's opposition and dismay. She has even gone to her REAL spouse, the court system, to enable and defend her iniquity. The fact is a real man would make that woman a permanent missing person as to protect the soul of his son.
Of course, but if the wife scandalizes their children or puts her or her husband's own soul at risk of damnation, the husband can render corporal punishment to straighten her out.Yes Croix, because every Traditional Catholic Wife has an inner jezebel lurking within them just waiting to break free, so they must be slapped and whipped into shape or murder will be the inevitable end of her :fryingpan:
The latest example of that Jezebel woman trying to convince her young son is a "girl", and making him dress in girl clothes, all to the father's opposition and dismay. She has even gone to her REAL spouse, the court system, to enable and defend her iniquity. The fact is a real man would make that woman become a permanent missing person as to protect the soul of his son.
Yes Croix, because every Traditional Catholic Wife has an inner jezebel lurking within them just waiting to break free, so they must be slapped and whipped into shape or murder will be the inevitable end of her :fryingpan:
Honestly, you won’t change his mind. He is just abusive by nature. The best you can do is hope any girl in his sights has an extremely aware dad, and her dad can somehow get access to these post.
JєωAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA !!!It’s funny you think of yourself as a protector when you’d be the one doing the attacking. I’m also having a hard time wrapping my brain around you being a good lover. When the only vibe I get from you is selfish, and abusive which would mean you probably don’t care about her needs at all.
Yeah, I'm sure all of those daddies out there would rather have a boy like JezusDeKoning be their protector, provider and lover of their daughters, and father of their daughter's children.
JєωAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....HAHAHAHAH....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!
It’s funny you think of yourself as a protector when you’d be the one doing the attacking. I’m also having a hard time wrapping my brain around you being a good lover. When the only vibe I get from you is selfish, and abusive which would mean you probably don’t care about her needs at all.
You are not God, you are not a priest, and you certainly are not the woman’s father. You don’t get to dole out punishments. Just because God gave you authority as head of house doesn’t mean you have His authority. Just because the Bible said love your wife as God loves the church, doesn’t mean who are even close to being on His level. So, yeah God in his almighty power, and infinite wisdom can punish as He sees fit. You a simple man don’t get that option.
Could you please band this idiot (formerly known as Croix)? It should be an automatic ban to create a new account after getting banned the first time.
Honestly, you won’t change his mind. He is just abusive by nature.
This isn’t some emotional rant, but coming from someone who was severely abused by a spouse.
I’m telling you there are parts of me I will never get back from such an experience.
I personally find it far more offensive that a self-proclaimed divorcée that has remarried, has dominated this thread equally to that of Croix(?)... and nobody is taken her to task on this.I mean, the fact that she has come back into the Church is at least, a start. More can be done later.
If I'm abusive by nature, then you seem to enjoy abuse, which is why you keep responding to my comments.My husband works for living, and gives me more then enough attention. It’s called carrying on a debate. Sure there are two sides to both stories, but my story has witnesses.
I'm sorry your husband doesn't give you enough attention, but don't keep probing me for attention.
There are two sides to every story.
#BelieveWomen
My husband works for living, and gives me more then enough attention.
Could you please band this idiot (formerly known as Croix)? It should be an automatic ban to create a new account after getting banned the first time.
I personally find it far more offensive that a self-proclaimed divorcée that has remarried, has dominated this thread equally to that of Croix(?)... and nobody is taken her to task on this.It’s silly that you think my opinion doesn’t matter because of a horrible mistake which I’ve done everything I can to rectify. I’m not going to lie about my past, and I’m not going to pretend to be something I’m not. When I started coming around I’ve kept Saint Joseph close, and prayed to st. Mary Magdalene to help me continue to turn my life around as she did. Do you all still judge her by her past? Because Jesus certainly proved he didn’t. Since that time I’ve tried hard to be a good wife, and a good mom. There are times I fall, but unlike you men, God forgives me. So I keep trying! Past mistakes are the reason I’ve come closer to God, and continue to follow the faith closely so as to help my children avoid such mistakes as I have made.
Strawman argument with female emotional undercurrents.No strawman, silly man , it’s called sarcasm look it up :laugh1:
Try again.
This DID start out to be a good thread.
Such a simple question! "What does it take to be a good husband?" It has now degenerated to the level of name-calling and emotionalism.
Aren't we all adults here?
Ignoring a certain person's posts and carrying on as if they weren't there would probably be more effective than attempting to argue them.
*Sigh* I'll suppose I'll get taken to task over this: my emotionalism. My inner feminist. My closet Jєω. Did I miss one? Oh, yes...My secret Jezebel...Or maybe I'm a cow?! Oh, well.
WHy don’t you just admit you think it’s ok to hurt people weaker then you?This really is not relevant. Questions of corporal punishment involve issues of authority and justice, not who is stronger. Did the one being punished actually do something worthy of punishment? Does the one punishing have authority to do so?
This really is not relevant. Questions of corporal punishment involve issues of authority and justice, not who is stronger. Did the one being punished actually do something worthy of punishment? Does the one punishing have authority to do so?I fully, and firmly believe that a husband has a right to correct both his wife, and Children. The correction with his wife should not come from physical force. I can look at it without it being abusive too, but it still doesn’t change my mind. If a husband expects his wife to correct his children than she needs to be elevated above corporal punishment. Or else how are they to take her seriously? There are multiple reasons why I think hitting/spanking a wife could be detrimental to a marriage. Just because it has been done doesn’t mean it should be done or continue being done.
Practically everyone here believes that parents may use corporal punishment on their children when warranted. This is a Scriptural view and has always been the traditional practice. It is part of the authority that parents have over children. It would be silly to say that it is wrong because children are weaker than adults.
The question of a husband using corporal punishment on a wife is more controversial now, but historically this was understood as something within the husband's authority. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that it was acceptable and this was the prevalent view among Catholics up until the last century. Just punishment is not the same as abuse. Abuse means using excessive force or punishing without good reason.
Since you have been abused in the past, it is likely an emotional topic for you. It may be difficult for you to make the distinction between just punishment and abuse. But these are very different things in terms of philosophical/theological implications.
I have noticed that almost all discussions of husband's authority end up involving the topic of physical abuse. It appears, in some cases, to be a way to avoid acknowledging that a husband has authority over his wife. He does have the authority to correct her. The wife ought to fear and obey her husband. These are clear Church teachings that we as Catholics must accept, although we can discuss what they look like in practice.
While some husbands may abuse their authority, this does not mean that a husband exercising his authority is the equivalent of abuse. It is right and good that a husband have this authority.
There's a reason the Lord Jesus Christ called His disciples to follow Him by themselves, and not take their wives, for the women would compromise their husbands by sowing confusion and error. It's the fallen nature of the woman which she inherited from Eve.The Church Fathers taught that the fall did not occur until Adam ate of the forbidden fruit (because he is the head of the family.) So the fallen nature of all humanity is thanks to Adam.
Could you please band this idiot (formerly known as Croix)? It should be an automatic ban to create a new account after getting banned the first time.Amen and good riddance.
I fully, and firmly believe that a husband has a right to correct both his wife, and Children. The correction with his wife should not come from physical force. I can look at it without it being abusive too, but it still doesn’t change my mind. If a husband expects his wife to correct his children than she needs to be elevated above corporal punishment. Or else how are they to take her seriously? There are multiple reasons why I think hitting/spanking a wife could be detrimental to a marriage. Just because it has been done doesn’t mean it should be done or continue being done.I suspect that your opinion on this is common now, but, for most of Church history, Catholics believed that a husband could rightfully use corporal punishment on his wife. (The past view of corporal punishment in general, was different from the modern one.) While I do not see how it is practical under the current circuмstances, I am not prepared to dismiss the historical teaching and practice as wrong or detrimental.
Well, I’ve had 3 kids, and unlike you I’m actually married. So, I’m saved.Be careful, VW3!
Be careful, VW3!Yes, and you’re absolutely right. I let him get under my skin, and I should have been more careful with saying that. I do not assume I am saved :) I have a lot of work!
Not even the great St Paul dared to say I'm saved. We are not presumptious protestants.
800 cruiser, I am very sorry for adding to the drama here! This subject gets under my skin.You mean the subject that derailed the original gets under your skin right? ;)
800 cruiser, I am very sorry for adding to the drama here! This subject gets under my skin.
Vintagewife3
Yes, and you’re absolutely right. I let him get under my skin, and I should have been more careful with saying that. I do not assume I am saved :) I have a lot of work!
The Church Fathers taught that the fall did not occur until Adam ate of the forbidden fruit (because he is the head of the family.) So the fallen nature of all humanity is thanks to Adam.
Admission that your emotions guide you rather than reason and logic. Such is the trait of woman.Yes, you’re right. I am a woman, and I own that fact very well. It would seem both of us let emotions take its course. Such is the trait of a man to look that over 😉
You mean the subject that derailed the original gets under your skin right? ;)Yes, love! Thank you!
Yes, you’re right. I am a woman, and I own that fact very well. It would seem both of us let emotions take its course. Such is the trait of a man to look that over 😉
No. I didn't get emotional one bit, except to find the responses from most of the women, and the guys who eat too much soy, to be humorous. I, also, enjoyed calling out your fallacies. It's half-way decent brain exercise.Listen, Man, I don’t want to argue anymore. I was making a joke. I can’t say that everything you say is wrong, but I do strongly disagree with your view on corporal punishments/wives. I think men, and women are equal in abilities. We all have faults though, and you can’t get around that.
Shed yourself of that feminist mindset that there is equality in faults (and abilities) of woman and man in every act.
Listen, Man, I don’t want to argue anymore. I was making a joke. I can’t say that everything you say is wrong, but I do strongly disagree with your view on corporal punishments/wives. I think men, and women are equal in abilities. We all have faults though, and you can’t get around that.
Also, I am sorry for comparing you to an abuser. I don’t know you in real life, and I’m sure you would agree that violent attacks on women are disgusting.
If you spent as much time to attending to your homemaker duties, rather than monitoring this thread and commenting with your illogical, emotionally-driven conjectures, maybe you'd have a little more contentment and, perhaps, some bliss in your life.Well as it happens my husband, and kids are sick this week. So since they are all sleeping I get to enjoy some time in between checking on them. Today my two toddlers slept on me while we sat on the sofa because all they wanted was cuddles. So thanks I’m doing just fine ;)
Let's not forget: #BelieveWomen
Well as it happens my husband, and kids are sick this week. So since they are all sleeping I get to enjoy some time in between checking on them. Today my two toddlers slept on me while we sat on the sofa because all they wanted was cuddles. So thanks I’m doing just fine ;)
Listen, Man, I don’t want to argue anymore. I was making a joke. I can’t say that everything you say is wrong, but I do strongly disagree with your view on corporal punishments/wives. I think men, and women are equal in abilities. We all have faults though, and you can’t get around that.I just caught this now, but I mean UNEQUAL. *UNEQUAL*. I don’t want any more confusion 😃
Also, I am sorry for comparing you to an abuser. I don’t know you in real life, and I’m sure you would agree that violent attacks on women are disgusting.
#BelieveWomenThe "believewomen" slogan promotes the absurd idea that one ought to accept any accusation of assault that a woman makes against a man because women would not lie about that. Therefore things like due process and evidence are unnecessary. This is clearly wrong and foolish.
#BelieveWomenI am wondering what this means or rather the origins of it. Can you explain please, Quid.
#BelieveWomenWrong context and therefore offensive. You should be banned for bringing nothing but sour grapes to the table.
Nadir, I believe this hashtag started with the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh for the US Supreme Court, with Ms. Ford bringing her accusations public.There is a short Wikipedia article on the expression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_women)
Posting this as a response to VW3 implies that you think there is no reason to believe her claims. Obviously, we would not automatically assume she is truthful merely because she is a woman. However, my personally policy is to start from the assumption that my fellow posters on this forum are telling the truth until I have reason to believe otherwise. I have never seen anything posted by her that rang false or led me to doubt her honesty. Also, her story about having more time than usual to post today matches her posting history.It’s an unfair situation, but without doubt to many men would be wrongly convicted.
Quid:
I have five children, homeschooled. My wife runs the house, manages the finances, cares for the children and runs a business from home. Kids age from nearly two years old to nearly twelve years old.
Despite all this she still has plenty of time to post here, frequently, and well. As can be seen from her posts here, despite all of the other things going on, she is quite attentive to her spiritual well being also, as well as that of myself and our children.
That post about being more attentive to homemaking is making assumptions and is degrading and belittling. It is that kind of thing that I have asked for the cessation of.
The question of a husband using corporal punishment on a wife is more controversial now, but historically this was understood as something within the husband's authority. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that it was acceptable and this was the prevalent view among Catholics up until the last century. Just punishment is not the same as abuse. Abuse means using excessive force or punishing without good reason.
Cera said:One example among many:
The Church Fathers taught that the fall did not occur until Adam ate of the forbidden fruit (because he is the head of the family.) So the fallen nature of all humanity is thanks to Adam.
Quad said:
No they didn't.
Provide citations. I'll wait...
“For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22).
Corporal Punishment of Wives by their Husbands
#1) there is no official Church teaching on this subject, but only the opinions of some theologians
#2) the argument made by these theologians is fatally flawed.
These theologians extrapolate from the general notion that, in principle, under certain circuмstances, it is permissible for a superior to inflict corporal punishment on those subject to him ... for just cause and in due proportion. However, these theologians fail to take into account that the husband-wife relationship is no simple authority-subject relationship. In no other authority-subject relationship is the one in authority divinely required to give "honor" to his subjects ... as husbands are required to honor their wives. Corporal punishment, or physical violence in general, is inherently incompatible with any notion of honor ... since it's inherently degrading. This objection is never anticipated and addressed by St. Thomas or any of those who follow in his footsteps.
When you phrase it like this, it could be understood as some theologians thought one way while others thought otherwise. That is not the case.
In your opinion. I would find your opinion far more compelling if there were any evidence of any pre-modernism Catholics also holding it.
St. Thomas also never addressed the argument that water is not wet. This is no reason for us to question the wetness of water.
It is reasonable to see marriage as comparable to other authority-subject relationships because this is how Scripture presents it.
"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33How is one true, but the other not? Especially if they come from the Bible. Not attacking, not arguing. Just curious.
You lose. Truth wins.
No, theologians are NOT the Magisterium. Period. When you phrase it the way you do, you're pretending that a theological consensus among theologians is the equivalent of the Magisterium.
Too bad you've never been able to refute my argument that the factor of honor was never considered and rebutted by theologians, who consistently treated this as if it were any other simple authority-subject relationship.
Your quote has to do with love and not honor. Indeed, corporal punishment is compatible with love, but not with honor. When you use violence against someone, it's an act of force and brutality, one that is not compatible with honor.
False. Honor owed by the authority to the subject are not a part of every other authority-subject relationship but is unique to the married state. So the question is whether honor precludes corporal punishment. This was never addressed by the theologians who considered the question of corporal punishment of wives by husbands. Consequently it's a fatal flaw in their argument to argue from the principles of any generic authority-subject relationship.
One is not obliged to accept the consensus of theologians the way that one is obliged to accept Magisterial teaching, so they are clearly not equivalent. Nevertheless, it is imprudent to take the consensus of theologians lightly, especially one held for almost the entire history of the Church.
16th century theologian Jean Benedicti first introduced the same distinction I am making, stating that the husband, in punishing his wife, must "not overstep the bounds of modesty and reason; for even though she is inferior, nevertheless she is not the slave or the chambermaid but the companion and flesh of her husband."You are begging the question. There is nothing to show that "not overstepping the bounds of modesty and reason" entails forbidding the use of corporal punishment under all circuмstances. On the contrary, reason shows us that it could be a just punishment.
This relationship between husband and wife is NOT the same as between a master and a slave, and most of the wife-beating advocates here on CI speak as if the wife were effectively an indentured servant. And this is the very kind of thinking that begets feminism in the first place. And it's an absolute scandal to keep presenting this as the teaching of the Church, when it's nothing of the sort. JayneK, you attack the Flat Earthers on these very grounds, and yet you continue to engage in this behavior.I did not raise this subject. If there was scandal, it was already occurring when I joined in the ongoing discussion. I did so in order to approach it using logic and Catholic principles while avoiding personal attacks. I hope that this would reduce any scandal involved.
This quote identifies two qualities of corporal punishment. One, which you are admitting, is that it is a sign of love. The other, which you are ignoring, is that it is a sign of legitimate sonship. If you know anything at all about the historical context, you know that the legitimate son holds a position of honour while the bastard holds a position of dishonour. It is simply untrue to claim that this passage has nothing to do with honour. It is saying that the honoured position is the one accompanied by corporal punishment, while the dishonoured position is marked by its absence. It is not possible, in light of this passage, to claim that corporal punishment is not compatible with honour.
You are begging the question. There is nothing to show that "not overstepping the bounds of modesty and reason" entails forbidding the use of corporal punishment under all circuмstances. On the contrary, reason shows us that it could be a just punishment.
You are begging the question. There is nothing to show that "not overstepping the bounds of modesty and reason" entails forbidding the use of corporal punishment under all circuмstances. On the contrary, reason shows us that it could be a just punishment.Depending on the corporal punishment it could hurt the wife’s modesty, and therefore would be over stepping bounds....
Nobody's taking it "lightly". This is a serious argument against it. Abelard questioned a teaching of St. Augustine that had been held universally by theologians for nearly 700 years before his time, and the Church eventually adopted his position as her own.No, you are not making a good argument and you have not invalidated the traditional view. Scripture, in both Ephesians and Colossians, groups together three different authority-subject relationships in a way that shows the reciprocity of these relationships. Both passages discuss the relationships of husband-wife, parent-child, and master-slave. It is clearly not saying that these are all exactly the same thing. It is, however, showing that they have points in common. In all cases, authority in human relationships comes from divine authority and should be modelled on it. Subjects owe obedience. The ones in authority should not be harsh or unreasonable.
One need only find a valid distinction that was not addressed in the original argument to invalidate the argument. Even if, materially, the conclusion ends up being the same, the probative value of the argument itself becomes entirely undermined. That's why the scholastics "anticipated" distinctions.
It's CLEAR that the husband-wife relationship is not the same as that between, say, a master and a slave, or any other simple authority-subject relationship.
It's required to address this difference in being able to come to that conclusion. This has not been addressed, and it invalidates the argument.
Problem is that the honor that a parents has for an older son, or a legitimate son vs. an illegitimate, is most certainly not the same as the honor a husband owes his wife. To honor a son here means simply to esteem him above others.
Yes, a father can discipline his son. But let's say as 16-year-old son of his were ordained to the priesthood (as sometimes happened in Medieval times). Would he be allowed to beat this son after that point? I argue no, by the same principle I am applying to husbands and wives.
Admittedly, this becomes a bit subjective at this point. Someone might consider physical violence compatible with honor; another might not. But the point I have been making is that this notion of honor MUST be addressed, and if it's not addressed, the argument is not valid.
No, you're missing the point. The core principle, here enunciated, is that the husband-wife relationship is NOT the same as any other authority-subject relationship.St Paul says that the husband-wife relationship is like Christ-Church, therefore the husband has the duty to correct his wife to the same degree that Christ corrects the Church. This definitely applies in the spiritual sense, as the Husband is given more (potential) spiritual insights into running the family than the wife, since he’s ultimately responsible.
The distinction you are introducing is not a valid one. It has no bearing on the common nature of the authority-subject relationship.
The notion of honour does not need to be addressed because it is irrelevant to the nature of authority. You are asserting that it is a significant distinction but you have not given an adequate argument to support your assertion.
So are you saying that there's no difference whatsoever between how a husband must conduct himself towards his wive vs. how he might conduct himself with a servant? Anything that goes for a servant also goes for the wive? This very attitude is precisely why you'll find so many Traditional Catholic men who mistreat their wives.
While honor is indeed irrelevant to the nature of authority per se, it's absolutely relevant to how the authority can be exercised in practice.
Simply because there's commonality between the different types of authority-subject relationships does not mean that they are the same in all respects and that everything that's permissible in one is permissible in the other. This depends entirely on the DIFFERENCES between them and not the commonalities. What may be permitted for a master vis-a-vis a slave can be forbidden for a husband vis-a-vis his wife ... based on the DIFFERENCE.
Since you continue to cause scandal by promoting this position as if it were the teaching of the Church, I think that your husband owes you good beating. :laugh1:I’d bet my last dollar that not one of those women that has spoken in favor of corporal punishment here on CI has ever been spanked by their husbands.
I’d bet my last dollar that not one of those women that has spoken in favor of corporal punishment here on CI has ever been spanked by their husbands.You have no way of knowing this. It would be imprudent for a woman who has been spanked to announce this on the forum because there is potential for her to be identified and for it to have a negative effect on her husband. I strongly advise women who have been spanked not to say so, except possibly on the anonymous subforum.
Hypocrites.
They are only speaking in favor of ‘other women’ being punished corporally, and not themselves.
I’d bet my last dollar that not one of those women that has spoken in favor of corporal punishment here on CI has ever been spanked by their husbands.You’ve said what I’ve been thinking this whole time. I’ve been reading this to my husband as it goes, and he made a joke about how I’m over do for a spanking to meet him in the bedroom. He says that the idea of hitting women as punishment, and putting the on the level of a child is what will help fuel feminism. That it only humiliate the wife. He says when he disciplines me he wants me to feel to still feel Safe, and loved. He said that kind of spanking doesn’t convey his respect for me. #goshdarnilovehim
Hypocrites.
They are only speaking in favor of ‘other women’ being punished corporally, and not themselves.
Question for all those Pro-spankings-of-wives..If all women, (including Traditional Catholic) have feminist tendencies, then all of those ‘pro-spank-the-wife women here on CI should have a history of being punished physically by their husbands? Right?
A slap here, a pat there?
Paddle or no?
Hand or shoe?
Or perhaps some of you were already perfect to begin with, and so far have escaped the wrath of hubs.
Sorry for my sarcasm, but I just can’t take seriously some of the women here. Your supposed remedy for feminism in wives doesn’t include yourself. Be honest.
Simply showing there is a difference, however, does not mean the difference is significant to the issue at hand.
He said that kind of spanking doesn’t convey his respect for me.
I should, however, clarify that I have been defending the Catholics of history rather than proposing this as a good method for current day Catholics.
"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."
And it is possible to bring injury to the Catholic Church herself by defending the "Catholics of history" in all things. Many Catholics of history also believed that the earth was flat, and you have no problem denouncing these.I have not denounced those early Christians who actually thought the earth was flat. I have denounced the claim that Catholics throughout history generally believed the earth was flat since the claim is untrue. On the contrary, it was a belief that virtually disappeared by the end of the Patristic period. My problem is mostly with people who make claims about the history of the Church that are not true.
So, where do you draw the line? Could I smack my wife across the face because she spent too much money last week? If not, why not? What principles draw a line? Is corporal punishment limited to spanking? Based on what principle? Could I have her flogged for committing adultery? What kind of society would we have if Catholics regularly smacked, spanked, and flogged their wives?Since you are living in a place in which it is illegal to hit your wife, I advise you not to do it. A society based on traditional Catholic beliefs would accept the corporal punishment of wives although there would be checks in place to prevent it from being misused. I would imagine a society based on traditional Catholic beliefs would be far superior to the one we live in.
Since you are living in a place in which it is illegal to hit your wife, I advise you not to do it.
But you didn't answer my question. Would you consider it morally acceptable for me to smack my wife across the face for, say, spending too much money one week? If not, why not?
JayneK, please give a clear cut and precise example on when a wife should be disciplined.
Hitting in the face is a bad idea because it is too easy to cause a serious injury. There can be permanent damage to eyes or nose. Also, bruises there are highly visible and likely to cause embarrassment. This is not a morally acceptable punishment, no matter what the offence, because these reasons mean that it is an act of excessive force. Corporal punishment is meant to inflict a controlled amount of pain, not serious or permanent damage.
Whether spending too much money in one week were an offence that justified corporal punishment would depend on other factors. I can imagine circuмstances in which it would be one and circuмstances in which it would not.
I'll expand on Lad's example of a woman spending too much money. Circuмstances that would morally justify corporal punishment would be the she is overspending to a degree that is depriving the family of their needs, that it is a repeated offense, that she has not responded to other means of correction, and that she has been warned she will be punished this way. Even under these circuмstances, however, it would not be prudent in our time.
I suspect that women are not the best source of information on this topic. Women can tell you what we like but what we like is not always what is best for us. A husband and father needs to do what is best for his family, but his family will not always like it at the time. There have been many times when letting me have my own way would not have been good for me or the family. Being a good husband sometimes means saying no.
I suggest you look to older men who have been married for a long time for advice. A man whose grown children are still practicing the Catholic faith is likely to be someone who knows what he is talking about.
Ah... an honest woman speaks! :farmer:Just think, if Father Adam had said "No" to Mother Eve when she offered him a bite of the forbidden fruit, we would not be in the mess we are in today.
Our first Father, should have said "No!" to Mother Eve, when she wanted to hang-out at the wrong area of the Garden.
Just think, if Father Adam had said "No" to Mother Eve when she offered him a bite of the forbidden fruit, we would not be in the mess we are in today.
Says who? What principle of yours states that a man could only punish his wife for repeated acts of disobedience with regard to the budget? Even a single act of disobedience merits punishment in strict justice, and, according to you, that punishment can be of the corporal variety. Do you not see the slippery slope this leads to, ultimately justifying all manner of ill treatment against women?You are making an argument that applies just as much to corporal punishment of children as it does to that of wives. You are being inconsistent, since you believe that corporal punishment of children is acceptable. You apparently think that a man is capable of determining just and prudent punishment for his children and are not concerned about this justifying ill treatment against children. If a man is capable of applying principles of justice in one case, why would he not be in the other?
I never said that the slap would be hard enough to cause damage or lasting visible marks ... a use of excessive force. You went there because you really didn't want to answer the question. Based on your principles, there's nothing to limit this corporal punishment to mere spanking. You have to say that it's OK for a husband to slap his wife in the face (provided that excessive force is not applied) if she went $100 over budget the prior week.I "went there" because that is what I think. That is the exact reason that I never hit in the face when applying corporal punishment to children. While it is not necessarily excessive force, even a slight miscalculation of placement or force could damage eyes, nose or teeth. I consider it imprudent because the risk of excessive force is too great. Spanking is a significantly safer form of punishment.
alternatively, would their offspring have Original Sin transmitted through Eve alone had Adam not fallen?Cant say for sure but most theologians say Eve’s sin alone wouldn’t have transmitted Original Sun.
I actually wonder sometimes what would have happened if Eve had given in but then Adam didn't follow suit. Interesting exercise in speculative theology there. Would God have made Adam another companion? Or, alternatively, would their offspring have Original Sin transmitted through Eve alone had Adam not fallen?The above question on Adam and Eve and Original Sin is being discussed at https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/what-if-adam-had-refused-to-taste-the-forbidden-fruit/
I "went there" because that is what I think. That is the exact reason that I never hit in the face when applying corporal punishment to children. While it is not necessarily excessive force, even a slight miscalculation of placement or force could damage eyes, nose or teeth. I consider it imprudent because the risk of excessive force is too great. Spanking is a significantly safer form of punishment.It is far better to use time out especially when dealing with children. When they have calmed down, then try to reason with them so that behavior will not reoccur. Try to get to the root of the problem. Spanking does not get to the root of the problem, but can aggravate an already upset child.
I do not have to say the words you wish to put in my mouth. One of the characteristics of just punishment is that it is proportionate to the offence. Corporal punishment is relatively severe so should not be used for minor offences.
Thus, it is a sin to strike in anger as much harm can be done physically, emotionally, and spiritually.Not necessarily. Scripture says "Be angry, and sin not." (Eph 4:26) The point is, one can be angry and yet not sin. Therefore, one can punish properly (and justly) even if one is angry.
Not necessarily. Scripture says "Be angry, and sin not." (Eph 4:26) The point is, one can be angry and yet not sin. Therefore, one can punish properly (and justly) even if one is angry.Isn't anger a capital sin?
Cera saidTruth does win. The New Testament fulfills and completes the Old Testament.
Quote from: Cera on December 16, 2018, 06:23:33 PM
“For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22).
Quid said
"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33
You lose. Truth wins.
The above question on Adam and Eve and Original Sin is being discussed at https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/what-if-adam-had-refused-to-taste-the-forbidden-fruit/That presupposes that God is not All-Knowing.
You are begging the question. There is nothing to show that "not overstepping the bounds of modesty and reason" entails forbidding the use of corporal punishment under all circuмstances. On the contrary, reason shows us that it could be a just punishment.Please cite your source that corporal punishment of a wife was the traditional, historical position of Catholics. Protestants probably.
The distinction between a wife and a slave was not introduced in the 16th century. That has been there all along. What is absent is Catholic teaching that this difference means that corporal punishment may never be used on a wife.
I did not raise this subject. If there was scandal, it was already occurring when I joined in the ongoing discussion. I did so in order to approach it using logic and Catholic principles while avoiding personal attacks. I hope that this would reduce any scandal involved.
It is not magisterial teaching, but it is the traditional, historical position of Catholics. It would be dishonest to pretend otherwise merely because it is upsetting to people influenced by feminism.
Truth does win. The New Testament fulfills and completes the Old Testament.
The Old Testament declares that man was separated from God through sin (Genesis chapter 3), and the New Testament declares that man can now be restored in his relationship to God (Romans chapters 3-6).
Hebrews 8:7, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second." 8:13, "In that He ( God) says, " A new covenant," He has made the fist obsolete.
Women need to be physically reprimanded for their Jezebel ways. One reason civilization of yore was more decent, stable and God-fearing is because women weren't allowed to be let loose to corrupt society, for if they stepped out of line, they'd get smacked down, and rightfully so...Do you even realize how sadistic you just sounded? Like you’re just waiting to slap women around....
Today, these two-legged erect pigs have no fear of man, but they should, because the matrix in which they live, protects their Jezebel ways, and artificially props them up, will sooner or later evaporate in an instant. Very soon afterward, the natural order is gonna put a hurtin' on them in their "female liberation". Their "strength" that they thought they manifested won't be there to protect them, nor will the State.
Do you even realize how sadistic you just sounded? Like you’re just waiting to slap women around....
I honestly don’t think think as a God fearing Catholic you do, but you should seriously watch how you sound
No. You're simply a modern woman who can't handle the truth.What truth is that? Husbands have the right to discipline their wives physically? Sure, fine. I can accept that because it happened in the past. But it doesn’t make it right.....
What truth is that? Husbands have the right to discipline their wives physically? Sure, fine. I can accept that because it happened in the past. But it doesn’t make it right.....
Nobody cares about your own dealings with your former live-in boyfriend. It's not a logical premise to build an argument categorically against husbands using corporal punishment against wives.I’m not even bringing that up. I was speaking of historically.... ::)
Of course it makes it right. It's just, not abuse.
I’m not even bringing that up. I was speaking of historically.... ::)
Another attempt at spin. You brought it up a number of times on these threads, and you implied it, again, several comments up.Oh my gosh! You seriously need to see a priest.
#BelieveWomen
Oh my gosh! You seriously need to see a priest.
I didn’t apply my past. I was speaking historically! My gosh man, stop being so defensive, and angry all the time.
LOL !!Yes! But not in that post! Why does my past story bother you so much? It’s a valid argument that some men take it to the extreme.
No, you clearly brought up your own "abuse" from your "first husband" (boyfriend) whom you "married" outside the Church. You made sure everyone knew about it on these threads, then you proceeded to use it as a premise to build your illogical arguments.
Yes! But not in that post! Why does my past story bother you so much? It’s a valid argument that some men take it to the extreme.
It doesn't bother me one iota. Nobody cares. That's my point, other than to underscore how your flawed arguments are induced by an (womanly) emotional attachment to your purported experiences.Seriously, you just ignore me on here, and I’ll return the favor. We seriously don’t have to have conversations like this.
Seriously, you just ignore me on here, and I’ll return the favor. We seriously don’t have to have conversations like this.
And actually some people do care.
I'll expand on Lad's example of a woman spending too much money. Circuмstances that would morally justify corporal punishment would be the she is overspending to a degree that is depriving the family of their needs, that it is a repeated offense, that she has not responded to other means of correction, and that she has been warned she will be punished this way. Even under these circuмstances, however, it would not be prudent in our time.Hmm..I would have thought just limiting the amount of money she has access to would be a much more effective and logical consequence.
Take your own advice, woman. You're the one who comments right after me on other threads unrelated to these topics, too. It's as if you stalk me. LOL.It’s an Internet forum it’s going to happen. Just ignore it. You obviously can’t stand that I have an opinion, and won’t submit to you. But God said I only had to submit to my husband.
Hmm..I would have thought just limiting the amount of money she has access to would be a much more effective and logical consequence.
It’s an Internet forum it’s going to happen. Just ignore it. You obviously can’t stand that I have an opinion, and won’t submit to you.
But God said I only had to submit to my husband.
Not when she gets a credit card behind her husband's back, and the debt collectors are now calling.Can that even happen? How does a woman that does not work/have credit history get a credit card behind her husband's back?
Jєω credit card companies hand out credit cards and "credit" (debt-inducers) like candy. There are really no prerequisites for them, which is why so many college idiots are easy game by credit card companies.Example please.
If the wife is a habitual offender, a justifiable smack across her face will stop her from further risking the livelihood of the family and equity of the homestead.
Example please.
As for college students, I'm fairly certain they need a co-signor.
😂😂 no woman is under the obligation to submit to any other man except her husband, and father. No courting man has that right! It’s never happened that way.
Vermont, oddly enough I went to the bank this week to get a new debit card. They told me I qualified for a credit card. I said how is that even possible I haven’t worked in 7 years, and I have no credit. They were like well let’s sign you up! I said no thank you! I think it’s a trap to cause people to fall into debit.
She really know is, but she's trying to cast doubt in the reader on the Jєωιѕн predation that so real in these credit card companies.I felt uncomfortable to because if I qualified because of my husbands credit I didn’t earn that credit, or any right to it.
Example please.I think if your husband has good credit you automatically qualify these days. But I’m not sure if that’s the true case, or a bank by bank situation. All I know is I have no business having a credit card married or not, and still qualified.
As for college students, I'm fairly certain they need a co-signor.
I felt uncomfortable to because if I qualified because of my husbands credit I didn’t earn that credit, or any right to it.
Also, a debit card is so different from a debit card. I may have permission for one, but not the other. My name is on the account too, but that doesn’t mean I’m allowed access to all of it.
Feels weird agreeing with you lol
Please cite your source that corporal punishment of a wife was the traditional, historical position of Catholics. Protestants probably.Here are a couple of examples: St. Thomas mentions in the Summa that a wife may be corrected with blows.
Here are a couple of examples: St. Thomas mentions in the Summa that a wife may be corrected with blows.I asked about this to someone way smarter then me. He said it only applies to cases of cheating. That corporally ounishing your wife for other reasons was still frowned on outside of that.
A Synopsis of the Moral Theology of Peter Dens, written in 1838, has a section on "Is it lawful for a husband to whip his wife?" It says, in part, "As for moderate whipping it may be permitted, if the wife is much in fault, and there is no hope that she may be corrected in any other way; but this case is very rare."
Both of these are Catholic sources.
I asked about this to someone way smarter then me. He said it only applies to cases of cheating. That corporally ounishing your wife for other reasons was still frowned on outside of that.While St. Thomas mentions corporal punishment in the context of a wife committing fornication, he does not say that is the only time it is permitted. The other quote I gave says nothing about cheating, although it does say it is for serious offences. I see no reason to think that it only applies to cases of cheating. What evidence does your smart friend have to support his claim?
😂😂 no woman is under the obligation to submit to any other man except her husband, and father. No courting man has that right! It’s never happened that way.Well, things have changed a lot since I got my first credit card. Given I don't have any children i'm not on top of these things.
Vermont, oddly enough I went to the bank this week to get a new debit card. They told me I qualified for a credit card. I said how is that even possible I haven’t worked in 7 years, and I have no credit. They were like well let’s sign you up! I said no thank you! I think it’s a trap to cause people to fall into debit.
Well, that didn't take you long...lol. Good thing jaynek agrees with you. :laugh2:
She really knows this, but she's trying to cast doubt in the reader on the Jєωιѕн predation that's so real from credit card companies.
Well, things have changed a lot since I got my first credit card. Given I don't have any children i'm not on top of these things.
2Vermont, how old are you, if you don't mind me asking?As if that really matters to you Croix.
Well, that didn't take you long...lol. Good thing jaynek agrees with you. :laugh2::jester: :D :cheers:
Well, that didn't take you long...lol. Good thing jaynek agrees with you. :laugh2:
Jaynek has proven herself to be a sincere convert. I'm not saying you're not one, but sometimes your comments and (baiting or rhetorical) questions lead me to believe that the Jєω is not dead in you as it should be as exemplified by St. Paul announced in Galatians 2:20-21.:sleep:
As if that really matters to you Croix.
Yeah, debit cards are good for emergency cases when you don't have enough cash on hand. I'm an oddity because I've never had a credit card in my entire life. I always instinctively knew, since the advent of my adulthood, the traps and malevolent nature of credit cards. They never made sense to me, either.Sounds like you're afraid you can't handle it correctly. I'm about to pay several thousand dollars for a single purchase. If I charge that to my CC, I get 1% of that back in my pocket. I'm going to offer the seller the option of cash for giving me the same 1% discount, but if they aren't interested, it's getting charged and then paid off with the cash I already have on hand. That $50+ is plenty of motivation for me to keep a credit card.
Sounds like you're afraid you can't handle it correctly.
Sounds like you're afraid you can't handle it correctly. I'm about to pay several thousand dollars for a single purchase. If I charge that to my CC, I get 1% of that back in my pocket. I'm going to offer the seller the option of cash for giving me the same 1% discount, but if they aren't interested, it's getting charged and then paid off with the cash I already have on hand. That $50+ is plenty of motivation for me to keep a credit card.
I felt uncomfortable to because if I qualified because of my husbands credit I didn’t earn that credit, or any right to it.Income isn't the only factor in good/bad credit. Plenty of people with stable income have horrible credit. In this case, you've said your name is on a joint account and you've (presumably) never over-drafted that account, so of course they're going to offer you a credit card.
Also, that 1% cash back isn't free money. It's your own money that you're paying but becomes liquid in the sense it goes to your pocket in form of cash. It's merely a ruse to get you to use the credit card, as they hope you don't make payments by the deadlines and charge you penalties.After 20+ years, I think they've figured out that I'm not going to be paying them any fees or interest. They get more than 1% from the seller, so they're happy either way, which is why I feel obligated to offer the seller the option of giving me the discount personally for such a large purchase.
Income isn't the only factor in good/bad credit. Plenty of people with stable income have horrible credit. In this case, you've said your name is on a joint account and you've (presumably) never over-drafted that account, so of course they're going to offer you a credit card.That makes sense, but I still didn’t feel comfortable with it since I wasn’t the one putting the money in the account. I understand they can’t know exactly who is making the money. Just my opinion.
After 20+ years, I think they've figured out that I'm not going to be paying them any fees or interest. They get more than 1% from the seller, so they're happy either way, which is why I feel obligated to offer the seller the option of giving me the discount personally for such a large purchase.
Quid, You base your pronouncement of the sanctimonious JayneK being a sincere convert on what?So did you just join the forum and immediately take me into dislike or were you already acquainted with me? I'm wondering if my speed at making enemies is at a level where I should do it competitively.
He said it was what was implied in his writings. That wives were to be punished corporally for cheating, but it also wasn’t explicitly written that a husband had a right to punish his wife outside of such an error.I do not see the implication claimed by your smart friend. The passage in which the Summa mentions corporal punishment is considering the question of whether a man is obliged to separate from his wife if she commits fornication. St. Thomas says he is obliged to punish her in some way or else he shares the guilt of her sin. However it is not necessary to put away the wife, since he could also correct her using words or blows.
So did you just join the forum and immediately take me into dislike or were you already acquainted with me? I'm wondering if my speed at making enemies is at a level where I should do it competitively.I don’t think he/she meant he/she didn’t like you. She just meant the only reason he didn’t talk down to you was because you agreed with him. Which is really unfair because he doesn’t know you in real life, or us. He makes assessments based on what we agree with him on. If you don’t agree with him he likes to light the pyre. But if you agree with him somehow you become a saint. Thank God he is not our perfect Judge!
:jester:
Isn't anger a capital sin?Just anger, which is anger at sinful things or actions (i.e. disobedience), is not a sin.
St. Thomas Aquinas is not God, nor is he the Church. IMO he got this one wrong, just as he got a number of other things wrong. Husbands must honor their wives, and subjecting them to corporal punishment degrades them and is therefore not compatible with honor.Agree 100%.
I don’t think he/she meant he/she didn’t like you. She just meant the only reason he didn’t talk down to you was because you agreed with him. Which is really unfair because he doesn’t know you in real life, or us. He makes assessments based on what we agree with him on. If you don’t agree with him he likes to light the pyre. But if you agree with him somehow you become a saint. Thank God he is not our perfect Judge!
St. Thomas was human, and how ever smart he was. He still isn’t God. So he was subject to human error. There is nothing wrong saying that. Saints are there to help give us examples, guide us, but not to act like Church Doctrine.
1) holiness that is truly outstanding, even among saints;
2) depth of doctrinal insight; and
3) an extensive body of writings which the church can recommend as an expression of the authentic and life-giving Catholic Tradition.
St. Thomas Aquinas is not God, nor is he the Church. IMO he got this one wrong, just as he got a number of other things wrong. Husbands must honor their wives, and subjecting them to corporal punishment degrades them and is therefore not compatible with honor.You continue to make the same argument without addressing the flaws that I have pointed out. Your argument rests on unsupported assumptions and assertions.
This is why it is also especially wrong for a child to strike his parent ... because of the honor. It's not just that it is wrong for a subordinate to strike his superior, but it's heinously wrong because of how children are enjoined by God to honor their parents. Similarly, husbands are to honor their wives, and if it's a violation of a parent's honor to become physically violent with them, then it's similarly a violation of a wife's honor. If a soldier were to strike his commanding officer, that would be wrong, but not wrong in the same way that it would be wrong for a child to strike his parent ... due to the aspect of honor, which St. Thomas failed to consider.
St. Tomas has received the title of Doctor of the Church. The requirements for this are:Jayne, corporal punishment has it’s place, but that doesn’t mean it belongs in a marriage. The world needs its justice system, and there also has to be corporal punishment with children. Husbands and wives should have the same level of respect/honor for eachother. That doesn’t displace a man as head of house hold. It doesn’t change roles either. We aren’t probably never going to agree on this.
While his teaching falls short of being magisterial and is not infallible, it has been recommended to us by the Church. It is not something to lightly dismiss.
At any rate, I was not discussing his teaching on corporal punishment in order to prove that this position is correct. I was responding to doubts of my claims about the historical, traditional view of Catholics. The fact that St. Thomas thought that corporal punishment of wives is morally acceptable is very strong evidence that this was the traditional Catholic view.
This historical aspect of the issue is the reason for my strong interest in the subject. There is a long list of anti-Catholic myths about the past and the trend in the post-conciliar Church has been to accept these myths as true and apologize for them. I find this trend annoying and want to see people learning the truth. Some examples:
The Crusades were just.
The Inquisition was an attempt to bring due process to a situation characterized by mob violence.
The Church did not teach that the earth is flat.
Galileo was treated in a reasonable and merciful way.
The Church did not oppress women.
It bothers me that people judge the traditional understanding of corporal punishment with no regard to the historical context or the underlying Catholic principles regarding authority and just punishment. I do not like seeing our ancestors in faith unfairly judged and defamed.
Wrong. I base my assessment on her (Jaynek's) exegesis and theological arguments, and her aversion to world Jєωry.You don’t get to doubt anyone’s conversion.
Jaynek and I have actually butted heads a few times, but I don't doubt her sincerity of conversion to Catholicism.
Jayne, corporal punishment has it’s place, but that doesn’t mean it belongs in a marriage. The world needs its justice system, and there also has to be corporal punishment with children. Husbands and wives should have the same level of respect/honor for eachother. That doesn’t displace a man as head of house hold. It doesn’t change roles either. We aren’t probably never going to agree on this.
While his teaching falls short of being magisterial and is not infallible, it has been recommended to us by the Church. It is not something to lightly dismiss.
While this may be made worse in a case in which the one struck is one to whom honour is due, it does not logically follow that honour precludes corporal punishment in cases where the authority to punish does exist.
You don’t get to doubt anyone’s conversion.You are fairly new here so you probably don't realize that there have been several people over my years on the forum who have been quite vocal and nasty in expressing doubts about my conversion. QRD's comments are not about him judging me, but about him differentiating himself from those who made harsh and hurtful judgments in the past. I greatly appreciated seeing that he accepts the sincerity of my conversion. It is unfortunate that people are making this a reason to criticize him.
You are fairly new here so you probably don't realize that there have been several people over my years on the forum who have been quite vocal and nasty in expressing doubts about my conversion. QRD's comments are not about him judging me, but about him differentiating himself from those who made harsh and hurtful judgments in the past. I greatly appreciated seeing that he accepts the sincerity of my conversion. It is unfortunate that people are making this a reason to criticize him.Jayne, it wasn’t about you. I was saying he doesn’t get to say who is real in their conversion, and who isn’t. Since he tends to do that a lot.
St. Tomas has received the title of Doctor of the Church. The requirements for this are:Jayne, I’m even going to comment on the actual issue anymore. You, nor quid, get to decide who is learning the faith or not. Who is true in the faith or not. I wouldn’t be here if I wasn’t serious about learning. I’ve always known since I was 14 Matthews board is the place to come for the most undiluted truth. So, I read, and I comment, and ask questions. Just because I disagree with ONE THING so far doesn’t mean I disagree with anything else. I’m a cradle Catholic, and while I fell away for 3 years, I came back home to the true church. I didn’t get side tracked by vactican II mess. I am learning more about why it’s wrong, and what I can do to be a better Catholic. That’s it. I know the bases of the faith, and the Church. I’ve never doubted Roman Catholic as the one true faith started by our Lord.
While his teaching falls short of being magisterial and is not infallible, it has been recommended to us by the Church. It is not something to lightly dismiss.
At any rate, I was not discussing his teaching on corporal punishment in order to prove that this position is correct. I was responding to doubts of my claims about the historical, traditional view of Catholics. The fact that St. Thomas thought that corporal punishment of wives is morally acceptable is very strong evidence that this was the traditional Catholic view.
This historical aspect of the issue is the reason for my strong interest in the subject. There is a long list of anti-Catholic myths about the past and the trend in the post-conciliar Church has been to accept these myths as true and apologize for them. I find this trend annoying and want to see people learning the truth. Some examples:
The Crusades were just.
The Inquisition was an attempt to bring due process to a situation characterized by mob violence.
The Church did not teach that the earth is flat.
Galileo was treated in a reasonable and merciful way.
The Church did not oppress women.
It bothers me that people judge the traditional understanding of corporal punishment with no regard to the historical context or the underlying Catholic principles regarding authority and just punishment. I do not like seeing our ancestors in faith unfairly judged and defamed.
nor squid...
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I just edited that, and I’m sorry! Total typo.
I was never in the Navy. I'm a falcon not a squid. I was in the Air Force.
No, the honor does not simply make the offense worse. It's a violation of the honor itself, per se, to strike someone whom you are to honor. It is incompatible with showing honor. You're claiming that whether a soldier strikes his commanding officer, or a child strikes a parent, those sins are essentially the same thing, with the offense against honor merely exacerbating the offense. I disagree.
If I am an adult and no longer under the authority of my parents, can I strike them? Could I slap my father if I caught him committing adultery? Subjection is no longer at issue, since I am no longer under his authority and subject to him. Answer is obviously no ... because of the honor itself, without any reference to authority.
But you have not made a cogent argument for doing so.
How do you explain all those people who participated in beating Henry II? They were obliged to honour him as king, yet the Church authorized them to administer a just punishment to him.
And you have made no argument whatsoever, merely gratuitous denials.The example of Henry II is not a gratuitous denial. It is a clear case of corporal punishment justly being administered to a person to whom honour is owed. This disproves your claim that corporal punishment is not compatible with honour. This assumption is the basis of your argument, so none of your conclusions have any validity.
The scenario you propose does nothing to support your position.
The example of Henry II is not a gratuitous denial. It is a clear case of corporal punishment justly being administered to a person to whom honour is owed. This disproves your claim that corporal punishment is not compatible with honour. This assumption is the basis of your argument, so none of your conclusions have any validity.
Nowhere in Scripture does it state that the Church must honor a king. It was the Church which authorized the action, and the subjects who administered the punishment were merely acting as agents of the Church. They could not have done so of their own authority. They were merely instrumental causes of the punishment authorized by the Church. Similarly, an executioner is acting as an agent of the state. Of his own authority, he is not permitted to take the life.Yes, the ones punishing the king received the authority to do so from the Church. The Church had authority over the king and could delegate her authority to punish him. Nevertheless, the ones carrying out the punishment were individuals who owed honour to the king. If honour really were incompatible with punishment as you claim, they would not have been able to do that.
Wives are not subject to their husbands simpliciter but merely secundum quid.
If you can convince me that it would be OK for me, as an adult, to slap my father, then I would be open to considering whether a husband could slap his wife. As it is, I would find both to be equally abhorrent.
Oh, it most certainly does, despite your gratuitous denial. You're saying that it is the state of subjection which precludes physical violence against parents. I raise the case of an adult who is no longer under the authority of his parents. Is it permitted for the adult to slaps his father if he utters a blasphemy? No, it is not. Why? Solely because of the honor which remains despite his emancipation from the authority of his parent. Your contention was that it's the authority relationship which precludes physical violence against the parent, rather than the honor, which merely exacerbates the grievousness of the action. But I lay out a scenario which disproves that. Unless you think it's OK for an adult to slap his father. Let's say it's some stranger I slapped on the mouth, blaspheming at a bar. Probably not even a sin, perhaps even a praiseworthy action. Now let's say that my father is blaspheming. Can I slap him across the face without sin? No ... because of the honor I owe him as my father. I would rebuke him verbally.
The only people who may justly administer punishments are those with authority to do so. It is not simply subjects who may not strike superiors. Nobody should strike anybody unless he has the authority to do so. Therefore, without any reference to honour, you would not have any authority to slap your father. He is not subject to you. It is wrong for this reason and worse because he is someone whom you should honour.What is your reasoning for thinking you are justified in slapping a stranger for blaspheming? You do not have any authority to punish him.
If you can convince me that it would be OK for me, as an adult, to slap my father, then I would be open to considering whether a husband could slap his wife. As it is, I would find both to be equally abhorrent.If you could convince me that you have a right to slap people who are not under your authority, then I would think that you could slap your father.
If you could convince me that you have a right to slap people who are not under your authority, then I would think that you could slap your father.
Ah, OK, so if, after my emancipation from his authority, I were in a position of authority over my father, say, for instance, if we both enlisted in the armed forces and I was made his commanding officer, then I could smack him upside the head if he became insubordinate or kick him in the butt if he were moving too slow through an obstacle course. Well, I guess that you and I just have a completely different moral compass. I could never do that. And I could never hit my wife. Because I hold them both in honor. In your hubris, you've lost all sense for honor. No, I don't have any "authority" to "punish" a stranger, but no consideration of honor would prevent me from smacking him upside the head if he called my wife a whore and calumniated her ... whereas I could never hit my father for the same offense. In fact, the need to defend my wife's honor would inspire me to beat the tar out of him.
These situations in which you imagine yourself being violent toward strangers are not about punishment. They are scenarios in which you express anger (perhaps even justified) through violence.
If you and your father were both in the army and you were his commanding officer, you would have authority over him. If he deserved to be punished and you refrained from doing so because you wish to honour your father you would fail in your duty as an officer. The just course of action is to treat him exactly the same as all the other men under your command. Doing otherwise, as well as being morally wrong, would create resentment and lead to loss of morale.
Wrong. I cannot strike him even if he's under my authority. I could give him commands, and in all other respects treat him as the others, but I could not strike him. Nor could I speak to him in a degrading manner as I might to someone else. If you think that it's OK to strike my father or otherwise degrade him simply because he's under my authority, you have completely warped sensibilities. And if I could not perform my duties under those conditions, I would have to recuse myself and ask for him to be transferred from under my command. Period. You really have a twisted mind.While it is obvious that you feel it is wrong, you have not adequately shown that this follows from objective Catholic principles. If it were part of your duty as an officer to punish wrong behaviour by striking or speaking in a degrading manner, then this would also be your duty toward your father if he were under your command. It would be wrong to single out one of your men for special treatment on the grounds that you owe him honour. I agree that it would be best to avoid being in that situation.
While it is obvious that you feel it is wrong, you have not adequately shown that this follows from objective Catholic principles.
In this situation you might need to slap his hand away from a hot stove, lock him into the house, authorize pain control medication which shortens his life, or decide to end extraordinary means of maintaining his life, resulting in his death.
You demand a standard proof that is not possible on this issue, because one of the premises is simply a consideration of natural law. I can no more prove, the way you demand, that it is wrong for a child to strike a parent. But everyone knows it's wrong.
Major: God commands that we honor our father and mother. [Proven from Sacred Scripture]
Minor: Becoming physically violent towards our father or mother violates their honor.
Conclusion: It is sinful to be physically violent towards our father or mother.
Everyone knows this to be true, despite the fact that the minor cannot be proven from theological principles.
And the syllogism for husbands and wives is identical.
Major: God commands that husbands honor their wives. [Proven from Sacred Scripture].
Minor: Becoming physically violent towards one's wive violates her honor.
Conclusion: It is sinful for husbands to be physically violent towards their wives.
If the first syllogism proves the conclusion, then so does the second.
Both of them depend on the truth of the minor.
In attempting to reject the second, you also must reject the first. Which in fact you have done.
So I say again, if you could convince me that the first syllogism does not prove the conclusion, then you could convince me that the second one does not either. In other words, as I stated earlier, if you could convince me that it's OK for a child to strike a parent, then you could convince me that it's OK for a husband to strike his wife.
I am making a case from the first syllogism above to demonstrate the second.
You deny the minor. I uphold the minor. You claim that my assertion of the minor is gratuitous, while I assert that your denial is equally fortuitous.
Consequently, we reach a theological impasse.
And so what you believe depends on the demonstration of the minor, that physical violence violates honor.
I could no more strike my wife than I could strike my father. You on the other hand have no problem with striking either one.
Furthermore, you would drive people towards a hostile rejection of Traditional Catholicism by continuing to attribute something to the Church that the Church has never taught, the very objection you have against what you deem to be scandalous behavior on the part of the flat earthers. People would be scandalized against Traditional Catholicism if they were to think that these are a bunch of kooky flat earthers. Well, similarly, people would be scandalized against Traditional Catholicism if they were to think that Traditional Catholics defend and condone wife-beating. But you, in your hubris, and your inability to ever admit that you might be wrong, continue down this path, defending this position tooth and nail as if actually were the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. You should be ashamed of yourself.
None of these actions constitute a degrading act of punishment using physical violence.
If it would not be too much trouble, can we please get back to my original post, about being a good husband?
This back and forth about corporal punishment does absolutely nothing to answer a legitimate question of mine. Frankly, this is a failure to support a newly minted Catholic in trying to understand and put into practice what is supposed to be my role.
I was genuinely believing I could gain much needed information and thought processes to assist me. Please do not let me down. I am not necessarily looking to you people to be my role models, but am attempting to draw on the variety of experiences to help point me in the right ways and directions.
Again, someone mentioned (I do not recall who) a St. Bridget to look into. Can I get a more precise name please so that I can find this? It would be appreciated.
Thank you all again, the back and forth on the corporal punishment while interesting and enlightening, is not what I started this thread for.
Again, someone mentioned (I do not recall who) a St. Bridget to look into. Can I get a more precise name please so that I can find this? It would be appreciated.Here is a little resume of her life:
If it would not be too much trouble, can we please get back to my original post, about being a good husband?Like I keep saying - People can give all kinds of advice over the internet and yet they do not live by their advice. You will receive all kinds of military grade chaff here and at the end won't know what your name is. My advice is to get to know a real family that is a good example by the way they actually live, not a cyberspace "ideal" family created by what people say over the internet. There's a lot involved in being a good husband, wife, father, mother, brother, it is learned from observing real people over time. "By their deeds you shall know them".
This back and forth about corporal punishment does absolutely nothing to answer a legitimate question of mine. Frankly, this is a failure to support a newly minted Catholic in trying to understand and put into practice what is supposed to be my role.
I was genuinely believing I could gain much needed information and thought processes to assist me. Please do not let me down. I am not necessarily looking to you people to be my role models, but am attempting to draw on the variety of experiences to help point me in the right ways and directions.
Again, someone mentioned (I do not recall who) a St. Bridget to look into. Can I get a more precise name please so that I can find this? It would be appreciated.
Thank you all again, the back and forth on the corporal punishment while interesting and enlightening, is not what I started this thread for.