Cherubino da Siena, O.F.M. (1477) «Rules for Married Life»

[Geremia]

I cannot even imagine circumstances occurring in our society in which physical correction would have any spiritual benefit.

For the individual wife or for the society as a whole?

[Geremia]

There is no reason to consider what he writes as authoritative or even representative of Catholic thinking.

it is also not licit for any man to correct a delinquent and errant woman other than her husband.

is an application of the principle of subsidiarity:
Quadragesimo anno

it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.

[Geremia]

Islam is a perversion of Christianity.

Or simply a perversion.

[Greg]

So he said nothing about doing 5 years in jail.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

As far as I understand, Greg is concerned he'd spend 5 years in jail if he beat his wife. But as Friar Cherubino da Siena reminded us, "it is better to be scourged in the body and to heal the soul than to lose the body and damn the soul."

The husband's main responsibility is the spiritual welfare of his wife. If that can only be achieved through physical correction, then it should be done. 5 years in jail is the least a faithful husband should be willing to sacrifice for the salvation of his wife.

Any wife you have to beat, is not going to be around when you get out after 5 years.  She will have the house, all your money, and her boyfriend will have a new motorbike (you paid for) and your children will call him "Dad".  You will have a restraining order to stay away until they are grown up.

Good luck saving any of them.

[Jayne]

There is no reason to consider what he writes as authoritative or even representative of Catholic thinking.

it is also not licit for any man to correct a delinquent and errant woman other than her husband.

is an application of the principle of subsidiarity:
Quadragesimo anno

it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.

My comment above was referring to the ideas in your first post - the recommendation of physical correction and the avoidance of sex. 

As for your claim this is an application of the principle of subsidiarity, I doubt it.  St. Thomas teaches that a husband does not have the authority to enforce capital punishment; this must be done by the state.  So, in the case of capital crimes, at least, it is not licit for a husband to correct his wife.  Apparently this random monk is contradicting St. Thomas.

I cannot even imagine circumstances occurring in our society in which physical correction would have any spiritual benefit.

For the individual wife or for the society as a whole?

I was thinking of the individual wife when I wrote it, but it is also true of society as a whole.

We live in a society with no understanding at all of the authority that a husband has over his wife.  It does not make sense to talk about correction (even verbal correction) when there is no understanding of the underlying principle.   

This topic is of historical interest only.  It is impractical and imprudent for anyone in a modern Western country to use physical correction of a wife.

[Graham]

Geremia, consider not editing the Subject line of your individual posts. I have never seen anyone here do this except you. It makes the forum view confusing by displaying "threads" that don't really exist, and there is really no benefit of any kind.

[Graham]

Patiently resigning yourself to whatever your dumb wife gets up to (and this is the impression I get from the Chrysostom quotation) is pretty awful advice, not a whole lot better than prescribing beatings. Someone like James03 could probably give much better practical advice on this subject than a monk or priest.

[Geremia]

Thomas teaches that a husband does not have the authority to enforce capital punishment; this must be done by the state.  So, in the case of capital crimes, at least, it is not licit for a husband to correct his wife.  Apparently this random monk is contradicting St. Thomas.

This "random monk" is not speaking of capital punishment.

It does not make sense to talk about correction (even verbal correction) when there is no understanding of the underlying principle.

Errant wives should be corrected somehow. Not to do so, the husband commits a sin of negligence.

[Geremia]

Someone like James03 could probably give much better practical advice on this subject than a monk or priest.

Why? Priests are very well-versed in pastoral advice.

[Geremia]

the avoidance of sex.

Not avoidance but moderate, temperate use of

[Jayne]

the avoidance of sex.

Not avoidance but moderate, temperate use of

He was claiming that sex (according to science, as understood at that time) leads to weakness and sickness.  This implied that it ought to be avoided beyond the minimum necessary for reproduction.  And it is nonsense. He was making a science claim, not a moral one, and we have no obligation to accept Aristotle as an authority on biology.

You are not married and yet you have a history of posting about how often married people ought to be having sex.  This is not a topic you should be writing about or even thinking about.

[Jayne]

Thomas teaches that a husband does not have the authority to enforce capital punishment; this must be done by the state.  So, in the case of capital crimes, at least, it is not licit for a husband to correct his wife.  Apparently this random monk is contradicting St. Thomas.

This "random monk" is not speaking of capital punishment.

It does not make sense to talk about correction (even verbal correction) when there is no understanding of the underlying principle.

Errant wives should be corrected somehow. Not to do so, the husband commits a sin of negligence.

There is nothing in the statement "it is also not licit for any man to correct a delinquent and errant woman other than her husband" to indicate that he makes an exception for capital crimes.  He states it as a general, universal principle and that is obviously false.  It is a principle that applies except for when it doesn't. In other words, it is not a principle at all.

As for correction, St. Thomas teaches that there is only an obligation to correct when there is reason to believe it will be effective.  If one expects that an attempt at correction will make the situation worse, one should not make the attempt.  It is not a sin at all, of negligence or any other kind, to refrain from attempting to correct under such circumstances.  On the contrary, it is prudent and virtuous to refrain from it.

[Geremia]

You are not married and yet

Are you saying married people make more cogent arguments?

[Geremia]

You are not married

Clearly you haven't looked at my profile.

[Geremia]

He was claiming that sex (according to science, as understood at that time) leads to weakness and sickness.

He writes:

doing the marriage act with discretion is not bad; but when it is done superfluously, it is harmful and damaging.

Just like how "eating and drinking is a useful and necessary thing for human living" but done superfluously (gluttony), it harms.