13 Jun '08 20:23>
Originally posted by Conrau KThat the moral sense of the faithful has been in no doubt and has firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.
That what is true?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPerhaps from their perspective, the absence of any public resistance to the teaching against masturbation suggests that the Christian faithful must be united in their disapproval.
That the moral sense of the faithful has been in no doubt and has firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.
Originally posted by Conrau KBut that's just silly. After all, the Church excommunicates people who offer public resistance to their teachings. That is just willfully ignorant bias to think that silence constitutes affirmation.
Perhaps from their perspective, the absence of any public resistance to the teaching against masturbation suggests that the Christian faithful must be united in their disapproval.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe Church excommunicates members who publicly resist declared doctrine. The prescription against masturbation is an ordinary teaching.
But that's just silly. After all, the Church excommunicates people who offer public resistance to their teachings. That is just willfully ignorant bias to think that silence constitutes affirmation.
Originally posted by Conrau KThen I don't think I can help. This is just about as obvious an instance as there is.
The latter.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe Church teaches from a position of authority that masturbation is wrong, and then concludes that its followers also think that masturbation is wrong since they do not publicly resist, and then turns around and uses that conclusion as partial justification for the teaching.
Then I don't think I can help. This is just about as obvious an instance as there is.
It's also an atrocious case of circular reasoning. The Church teaches from a position of authority that masturbation is wrong, and then concludes that its followers also think that masturbation is wrong since they do not publicly resist, and then turns around ...[text shortened]... ss that you wouldn't accept from any other institution that you weren't blindly devoted to.
Originally posted by Conrau KI am employing the same epistemic justification as you claim that the Church does in its assertion in the catechism, namely the Catholic majority's silence.
So it could not possibly be ordered in a different sequence?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe Catholic Catechism never said that the Magisterium proscribed masturbation and then the Christian faithful believed it was immoral. It said that the two have always maintained together that it is wrong. My epistemic justification is that the absence of any major public resistance (which would include time before the Church taught masturbation was wrong) suggests that the Christian faithful have been united in disapproval.
I am employing the same epistemic justification as you claim that the Church does in its assertion in the catechism, namely the Catholic majority's silence.
Why do you question my use of it but not the Church's?