Originally posted by Conrau K
That what is true?

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 DoctorScribbles
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.

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 Conrau K
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.

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 DoctorScribbles
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.

The Church excommunicates members who publicly resist declared doctrine. The prescription against masturbation is an ordinary teaching.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The Church excommunicates members who publicly resist declared doctrine. The prescription against masturbation is an ordinary teaching.

Simon Says.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Simon Says.

Why?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Why?

Do you not know what the Simon Says phenomenon is in general, or do you just not see how this is an instance of it?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you not know what the Simon Says phenomenon is in general, or do you just not see how this is an instance of it?

The latter.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The latter.

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 and uses that conclusion as partial justification for the teaching. It's just an absurd process that you wouldn't accept from any other institution that you weren't blindly devoted to.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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.

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 and uses that conclusion as partial justification for the teaching.

Do you think that is an authentic reconstruction of the historical development of this moral?

Originally posted by Conrau K

Do you think that is an authentic reconstruction of the historical development of this moral?

I haven't noticed the majority of Catholics asserting otherwise, so I suppose it must be.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I haven't noticed the majority of Catholics asserting otherwise, so I suppose it must be.

So it could not possibly be ordered in a different sequence?

Originally posted by Conrau K
So it could not possibly be ordered in a different sequence?

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?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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?

The 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 see no reason for your historical account that the Christian faithful believed masturbation immoral because the Church taught so.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You would need identify an historical moment in which the majority of Christian faithful had approved of masturbation.

You try asking 100 people if they masturbate and see how many say yes.