Corporal Punishment and the Teachings of the Saints

  • Thread starter Thread starter MysticMissMisty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MysticMissMisty

Guest
Hello.

As I understand it, there is still some debate within the Church about whether corporal punishment is permissible as a means of disciplining children.

However, I fail to understand why this is even a matter of debate, since many saints have taught against it. I think primarily of St. John Bosco but also of Crysostom and others.

Since these men were saints and, so, went straight to heaven after death, do I understand it correctly that they couldn’t teach anything that was sinful? If you believe corporal punishment is allowed or even necessary for the proper raising of children, then you are effectively saying that these saints were teaching something false/sinful, which, as I understand it, they could not do and still make it to heaven. I mean, perhaps these saints believed differently by the time they died, which honestly seems unlikely. But, if they didn’t, why do so many people who believe in corporal punishment (and who historically believed in it) contradict the teachings of these saints on the matter? Because these men are saints, ought their teaching not to be contradicted in such a way?

For those who believe in any way in corporal punishment, how do you justify it in the light of the teachings and, indeed, the status of these saints as saints?

Thanks.
 
Maybe you could provide a quote from one or more of the saints that you’re referring to.

But here’s the thing about saints. They weren’t always right about everything. Even the “Doctors of the Church” were very wrong about some things. So there isn’t any requirement to follow a saint’s teachings. The requirement is to assent to the Church’s teachings, not the opinions of saints.

Parents aren’t obligated not to spank (their) children. It’s a prudential judgment about when and why to do it if a parent chooses to do so.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
Parents aren’t obligated not to spank (their) children. It’s a prudential judgment about when and why to do it if a parent chooses to do so.
Click to expand...
Yes, and any priest or religious person in evaluating a parent’s spanking of a child would be looking at the individual circumstance: what led to this, how old is the child, is there a better way for parent to react, did parent act out of anger or extreme frustration, was the spanking excessive, does this happen often, is the parent generally a mature and good parent, etc.
 
Pope Francis says that spanking a child is beautiful.

I’m sure a lot of his fans disagree. But it is the opinion of the current pontiff that it is ok, if not a thing of beauty. Of course he said this in contrast to a father hitting a child in the face. Spanking on the bottom I guess is preferable. But that can be cultural. In the Pope’s culture spanking is common.
 
I would love to see some quotes on this. I know for a fact St. Benedict recommended corporal punishment in his rules.

I doubt the saints you mentioned actually said what you are implying (e.g. ban on beating street kids by law enforcement not same as banning parents from swatting their kids).
 
Personally I’ve never really understood the reasoning that a person is not allowed to beat/hit their pet or their wive but is allowed to beat/hit their children.
I don’t think it should be illegal but I just don’t understand the reasoning.
Coming from a European patriarchal background where corporal punishment,really to an abuse level,was accepted and it does have a damaging effect on more sensitive children so for the most part I don’t support hitting children.
Many Americans seem to accept it but can anyone really guarantee it won’t be done because it’s the easy option,or from frustration or because of the parent lacking control over their own emotions?
Also can every supporter realistically have the ability and skill to monitor whether the child is acting fine from the effect of it or acting traumatized?
 
Last edited:
There’s also an enormous difference to whacking a kid on the backside who just attempted to dart into traffic and beating a child with a stick.

Loss of screen time is prolly the most painful punishment of all.
 
If someone is hitting their kid, one of three things (or a combination of three things) is going on with the person doing the hitting:
  1. Ignorance
  2. Being overwhelmed
  3. Laziness
There is no good reason for EVER hitting a child.

Had to say it. Will say it again when I believe it is warranted. I know a bunch of people here will tell me how wrong I am and how hitting a kid is a reasonable response to bad behavior, dangerous behavior, etc etc etc.

And please, let’s not blame the saints from ceturies ago.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top