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.

You think so, huh, Glen?

Cera said:
  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...

One example among many:
Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.
From: www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

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.

“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).

"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33

You lose. Truth wins.

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.

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.

St. Thomas also never addressed the argument that water is not wet.  This is no reason for us to question the wetness of water.

Idiotic attempt at a rebuttal.

What this does is to invalidate his argument.  He failed to distinguish the husband-wife relationship from any simple authority-subject relationship, and thus any principles he drew from a simple authority-subject relationship depend entirely on whether or not the honor distinction applies.  Since he did not even address the honor distinction, his argument is fatally flawed.  That is the whole point of the scholastic method, the anticipation of objections based on valid distinctions that could be applied to the argument at hand.  He missed this one, and so his argument is logically invalid.

"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33

You lose. Truth wins.

How is one true, but the other not? Especially if they come from the Bible. Not attacking, not arguing. Just curious.

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.

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.  As traditional Catholics, we normally give a lot of weight to such a consensus.  While it is not Tradition, it is tradition.

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 argument has been refuted by pointing out that it rests on the assumption that corporal punishment is inherently degrading.  You have never justified this assumption, nor are you likely to be able to since it is clearly contrary to Scripture.

[Heb 12: 6] For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. [7] Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct? [8] But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons.

You claim:

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.

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.

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.

You are making an argument from silence.  These are typically weak or fallacious.  (This was the point I was making when I said that St. Thomas also never addressed the argument that water is not wet.)

You seem to think that the historical lack of rebuttal to your argument shows that it has no rebuttal. But that does not logically follow.  It is just a possible that your argument is so obviously wrong that nobody ever made it or even thought that anyone would make it.  I contend that this is, in fact, the case.  It is so obvious to the traditional Catholic worldview that corporal punishment is compatible with honour that nobody even imagined someone claiming otherwise.

For example, a king holds a position of honour.  It is, nevertheless, possible for a king to receive corporal punishment.  This is what happened to Henry II of England after the murder of Thomas a Becket.  Here is the Wikipedia description:

"The king performed a public act of penance on 12 July 1174 at Canterbury, when he publicly confessed his sins, and then allowed each bishop present, including Foliot, to give him five blows from a rod, then each of the 80 monks of Canterbury Cathedral gave the king three blows."