In today's world, where traditional values often intermingle with scientific approaches, the topic of treating prostatitis has become a stage for ironic remarks.

Reassessing Prostatitis: Embracing Science Over Moral Judgments

In today's world, where traditional values often intermingle with scientific approaches, the topic of treating prostatitis has become a stage for ironic remarks. The term “priest's prostatitis” is used sarcastically to denote the absurd attempts to link the disease with the concept of sin and moral decay. Here, the discussion is less about medical aspects and more about ridiculing dogmas that obstruct an objective view of the condition.

The main idea of these statements is that prostatitis cannot be reduced to moral characteristics. The real issues of the disease lie in biological, age-related, and emotional factors, and treatment should be based on scientific methods rather than on dogmatic moral principles. There are instances when certain specialists offer dubious recommendations; instead of using proven treatment methods, they provide advice that only worsens the situation. Rather than relying on established medicine, such recommendations are allegedly motivated by a desire to associate the disease with a kind of sinfulness—a simplification of the problem that only brings suffering to patients.

In conclusion, it is important to note that any attempts to link the onset of prostatitis with moral decay are erroneous. The great strength of modern medicine lies precisely in a comprehensive approach that considers all factors—from physiological to psychological. Only in this way can real results be achieved, rather than getting lost in superficial moral reasoning that distracts from the core of the problem.

What is meant by the term “priest's prostatitis,” can it be linked to sinfulness, and what factors may contribute to its onset?

The term “priest's prostatitis” is used here in a caustic, mocking tone to describe not so much the painful pathology itself as the approach to its treatment and the interpretation of its causes. According to a quote from file link txt, it is stated:
"What can be said here? Prostatitis is not a new disease. But in our time, immorality and debauchery have taken hold of all layers of society and classes, including doctors. No sin can underlie treatment. Sin does not create; it only destroys." (source: link txt)

Here, the author points out that attributing the onset of this disease to some “sinfulness” or moral decay is incorrect. It is implied that linking its occurrence with the concept of sin is pointless: specifically, the idea that the disease could be caused by moral depravity is mistaken.

Furthermore, another excerpt from the same file notes:
"But such a demonic thought does not create; it destroys, and is therefore sinful. Prostatitis is not a new disease. Nowadays, there are many modern drugs and methods for treating this disease. Unscrupulous doctors sometimes give simply terrible advice." (source: link txt)

Here, the author criticizes medical recommendations based on moral judgments, when doctors—rather than using modern treatment methods—offer advice that only causes additional suffering, as evidenced by the case of a man who, after experiencing personal tragedy, was advised to engage in “casual encounters” as a way to “recover.” A similar observation can be made when looking at the material from file link txt:
"And now even other doctors advise treating certain diseases (for example, prostatitis) through casual encounters. If a man does not have a wife, they suggest that he get a mistress in order to 'recover'... No sin can underlie treatment." (source: link txt)

Thus, in this context, the term “priest's prostatitis” serves as an ironic label for the attribution of disease solely to moral characteristics, often in an attempt to justify substandard medical advice. In reality, prostatitis has numerous causative factors—biological, physiological, age-related, stress-induced, and emotional—as well as the impact of inadequate therapy. Relating it to sinfulness is an oversimplified and mistaken judgment which, according to the cited authors, should not form the basis for either treatment or understanding of the disease.

To sum up:
1. The term is used in a sarcastic tone to criticize moralizing in medicine.
2. Its association with sinfulness is outright rejected since sin does not create but only destroys (source: link txt).
3. According to the authors, the factors contributing to the onset of prostatitis are not tied to moral qualities but rather to biological factors, emotional stress, and, in theory, the flawed recommendations of unscrupulous doctors (sources: link txt and link txt).

Thus, instead of relying on a simplified moral explanation, it is necessary to depend on scientifically substantiated methods for diagnosis and treatment and to consider the full range of factors influencing the onset of the disease.

Supporting citation(s):
"What can be said here? Prostatitis is not a new disease. But in our time, immorality and debauchery have taken hold of all layers of society and classes, including doctors. No sin can underlie treatment. Sin does not create; it only destroys." (source: link txt)

"And now even other doctors advise treating certain diseases (for example, prostatitis) through casual encounters. If a man does not have a wife, they suggest that he get a mistress in order to 'recover'... No sin can underlie treatment." (source: link txt)