Faith can never conflict with reason

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If you have serious scientific evidence proving NOT performing masturbation has serious negative health consequenses you have a point.

This is not the Church's stance. It believes that the act of masturbation is
unhealthy in some way or another, in that the sin the results damages the
soul. It provides arguments for this position (though I do not know them
intimately).

It would be like a prohibition on apples, which are healthy but non-essential.
Would a prohibition on apples be reasonable? No way!

Similarly, when there are obviously positive effects that arise from (moderate)
masturbation, how can the Church claim the rational high-ground by stating
that it is evil?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is not the Church's stance. It believes that the act of masturbation is
unhealthy in some way or another, in that the sin the results damages the
soul. It provides arguments for this position (though I do not know them
intimately).

It would be like a prohibition on apples, which are healthy but non-essential.
Would a prohibition on apples be r ...[text shortened]... ation, how can the Church claim the rational high-ground by stating
that it is evil?

Nemesio

Nemesio: "This is not the Church's stance."

It is my stance.


Nemesio: "It believes that the act of masturbation is
unhealthy in some way or another, in that the sin the results damages the
soul. "

The Church looks upon masturbation as an unordered act. It is not aimed at serving God. The scientific health effects as you describe them are not relevant in determining the moral (im)permissability of performing masturbation.

Chasing old ladies in the park can have very positive effects on your health, your heart condition will improve, your muscles will develop, etc etc, but I'm sure you agree with me that these scientific facts are not relevant in establishing the moral (im)permissibility of chasing old ladies in the park.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I do not notice any contradictions here. Do you ?

Apparently that pope forgot to mention the RCC had killed Bruno in 1600 for saying that "inconceivable" stuff about the cosmos. The obvious conclusion to make is that the RCC practices using selective history.
They would like a "that's o.k." about executing Bruno, however, they aren't going to get that o.k., not from me or anybody that expects an "infallible" person to actually be infallible.
Here's the deal :
Bruno said that the observer was central, Einstein said that the observer was central, the obvious conclusion is that the "inconceivable" was known in Galileo's time.