A
Anonymous06/19/25, 07:08No.24478581Wtf?
Thomas Aquinas says you can beat your wife if she cheats on you???
>The wife can be corrected for her sin of fornication not only by this punishment but also by words and blows; wherefore if she be ready to be corrected otherwise, her husband is not bound to have recourse to separation in order to correct her.
How do Catholics defend this???
81
Replies
A
Anon06/19/25, 09:21No.24478719
Do you get your information concerning the bible from the dnc?
A
Anon06/19/25, 09:34No.24478724
Wtf?? That's fucked up. He should kill her instead
A
Anon06/19/25, 14:03No.24479124
Man I was not aware about Christian doctrines being this based. Why is this not common-place today?
A
Anon06/19/25, 17:53No.24479639
Yeah, that's great. This is a literature thread. GTFO
A
Anon06/19/25, 19:14No.24479846
>How do Catholics defend this???
You do realize they write books defending the inquisitions, tortures, and murders of their cult, right?
A
Anon06/19/25, 23:36No.24480511
Fascinatingly, according to Federici's book Caliban and the Witch, the official doctrine that a man had a god-given right to beat his wife was well-known in the middle ages, but almost never enforced. Peasant villages had gender-segregated labour, but it wasn't like later centuries where men worked together in a single workplace, while women did domestic labour in isolation, from other women, rather women's work was done on one side of town, while men's work was done on the other, so if a man actually *did* beat his wife, then she would turn up to the women's work the next day with bruises, and each of those women would then go home to their own husbands, with statements of grievances, resulting in the wifebeater being, himself, viciously beaten by the other men in the village the next day.
A
Anon06/19/25, 23:58No.24480542
>How do Catholics defend this???It's indefensible. The punishment is too light. Augustine must be a cuck
A
Anon06/20/25, 08:14No.24481245
>Thomas Aquinas says you can beat your wife if she cheats on you???
I agree, beatings are far from enough for cheating wives. Beheadings or stonings should be on the table.
A
Anon06/21/25, 03:14No.24483727
Based
A
Anon06/21/25, 04:29No.24483861
Care to cite the work?
A
Anon06/21/25, 19:07No.24485593
Aquinas was fat. By Christians own standard (the physique check) all his writings are inadmissible.
A
Anon06/22/25, 19:15No.24488025
Just look at this blasphemous FILTH that Catholics actually believe in pic related.
A
Anon06/22/25, 19:49No.24488123
It's just so weird to me that pagan idolatry is so important to them. Like, imagine idolatry like the Catholic or Ortholarp idolatry being so important to you that you reject God's biblical salvation.But as the Bible says, those that trust in idols are like unto them
>Psalms 115:4-8
>4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.
>5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:
>6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:
>7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.
>8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.
A
Anon06/22/25, 19:50No.24488125
do you disagree?
A
Anon06/23/25, 24:04No.24488700
Aquinas is addressing the question of whether a husband must divorce and excommunicate his wife for the sin of adultery. Not whether that punishment goes too far, but whether mercy is even allowed. Aquinas comes down on the side of mercy. He says that if she repents, that's the end of the story. If repentance is the result of words, that's wonderful. If words do not break through to her hardened heart, repentance may be the result of blows. That's still mercy, because if she insists on staying on that road and separating from her husband in medieval France, there's a good chance that she either starves or has to become a prostitute, and dies in her sin. If you aren't putting this hypothetical woman's eternal spiritual wellbeing over her temporary physical wellbeing, you aren't actually putting her interests first and are acting as her enemy.Corporal punishment is not intrinsically wrong. And as the head of the household, it is not intrinsically wrong for a husband to administer it either to wife or to children. Those are countercultural ideas, but you cannot legitimately dispute them from within Catholicism. However, just because something is not intrinsically wrong does not mean anyone today has recourse to it. The death penalty is the most salient example. If the Church commands inaction even in a situation where action would not be intrinsically wrong, then you stay your hand. And if the secular authorities have banned an action, the action is not permissible except when it violates a divine command to act.So striking one's wife to dissuade her from adultery is not wrong just because it could be misused by a man with an anger problem, nor because of a tautology that striking a wife is wrong. It's wrong because divorce is no longer effectively a death penalty to the wife, because the secular authorities have outlawed it, and because the Church has judged that violence and civil disobedience are generally not to be used to prevent others' sin.
A
Anon06/23/25, 24:18No.24488727
Yes? If anything you should be allowed to kill them.
A
Anon06/23/25, 01:28No.24488852
You can hit your children when they misbehave. If a woman acts childish, a light tap. Not in her face though.
A
Anon06/23/25, 01:39No.24488869
you guys just look for excuses to beat women as an outlet for your repressed homolust. While I agree with Aquinas in this quote, your specific idea of beating your wife is unchristian and unbecoming of a man
A
Anon06/23/25, 03:57No.24489088
That is to say, if your bitch will take your beatings then you are stuck with her. So sayeth the lord.
A
Anon06/24/25, 05:38No.24491924
