Catholic Church and medicinal marajuana?

[Dan_Grelinger]

This is actually a big problem in the US. In some states, it is legalized for medicinal use…however federally, it is still banned. This means that one can legally obtain a prescription from a doctor to address their medical concerns, buy it legally in their own state or grow it themselves, but then the federal government decides to “crack down” so they come in to the state and arrest everyone who uses it medically. So is it legal or not? Personally, I think it needs to left up to the individual states to decide. This huge loophole/gray area is just…well, ludicrus. How can one follow the law when the law is so convoluted.

By legalized, I assume you mean ‘not criminalized’? The law is clear. At any given time, you are in a country, a state, a county, and perhaps a city. Each will have their own laws. To the extent that each is a licit authority, (accepted), all laws must be followed. Since no state ‘mandates’ marijuana use, or its prescription, there is no real conflict. It is possible to follow all laws, by following the federal law, which prohibits its use.

As an example, there is no federal law against murder. I doubt municipalities pass such laws either. Does this mean that those jurisdictions have ‘legalized’ murder? Of course not. Murder is a state offense, and the other jursidictions do not need to also criminalize the behavior for it to still be accepted as illegal. Some states have decided to decriminalize marijuana use. This does not mean there is any conflict. It would only be if they mandated its use that there would be confusion.

Dan Grelinger

 

[stringbeanduck]

Stringbeanduck,

Thoughfulness went into your posts. There is one area, however, that is very critical to this discussion that you did not delve adequately into in your last three posts.

To the extent that marijuana use is illegal, it cannot be considered morally licit, except for some very specific situations that I don’t believe appear in our situation in the U.S.

I believe that if the appropriate jurisdictions were to legalize marijuana use for specific purposes, then, within some of the bounds that you mention (and perhaps others), its use could be licit.

The Church respects legitimate authority on this earth, even if it is secular. All legitimate authority comes from God.

Dan Grelinger

Thank you very much. I see what your are saying.​

God made poison ivy, hemlock, rattlesnake venom, botulinum toxin etc. etc. Do you consume all these too? Or did God make a mistake with them but not with Cannabis?

Everything that is made up of matter is a poison. It is only the dosage that determines how bad or lethal the affect might be. Big difference though in consuming hemlock and Cannabis. Also God never makes mistakes. Everything He created has it’s purpose and we as man are to discover it’s potential. Who know’s maybe hemlock does have a benefit that we don’t know of yet and rattlesnake venom is really useful in antivenom.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

So why is it legal in Oregon and California?

It’s not a sin to use a legal substance from a plant that God created to ease one’s agonizing pain. It’s not a sin.

You are wrong.

A little more thorough study of the law would be of benefit. Our system of governments accepts that federal law overrides state law, until such time as the Supreme Court would decide otherwise. Its all part of being a state in the ‘union’.

If only that it is still illegal to use in the U.S., marijuana use would be a violation of a licit authority, and therefore a sin.

Please practice a little more restraint in accusing someone of being wrong.

Dan Grelinger

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

By legalized, I assume you mean ‘not criminalized’? The law is clear. At any given time, you are in a country, a state, a county, and perhaps a city. Each will have their own laws. To the extent that each is a licit authority, (accepted), all laws must be followed. Since no state ‘mandates’ marijuana use, or its prescription, there is no real conflict. It is possible to follow all laws, by following the federal law, which prohibits its use.

As an example, there is no federal law against murder. I doubt municipalities pass such laws either. Does this mean that those jurisdictions have ‘legalized’ murder? Of course not. Murder is a state offense, and the other jursidictions do not need to also criminalize the behavior for it to still be accepted as illegal. Some states have decided to decriminalize marijuana use. This does not mean there is any conflict. It would only be if they mandated its use that there would be confusion.

Dan Grelinger

One could argue that murder is indeed a federal law since the constitution guarantees “life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.” Although, given that abortion is legal, who knows how anyone really feels about murder in this day and age.

Federal law prohibits its use, yes. State law allows its use medicinally. I live in a medical marijuana state. It seems odd to me that state and federal law are in conflict. It needs to be addressed. I think state laws should prevail in this issue. Prohibition has never really done anyone any good, unless of course are partake in organized crime. Just my :twocents:

 

[LittleSoldier]

A little more thorough study of the law would be of benefit. Our system of governments accepts that federal law overrides state law, until such time as the Supreme Court would decide otherwise. Its all part of being a state in the ‘union’.

If only that it is still illegal to use in the U.S., marijuana use would be a violation of a licit authority, and therefore a sin.

Please practice a little more restraint in accusing someone of being wrong.

Dan Grelinger

Please don’t tell me what to do. It is not appreciated.

The poster who I was responding to is wrong. The use of marijuana as a medicine is not a sin.

 

[LittleSoldier]

One could argue that murder is indeed a federal law since the constitution guarantees “life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.” Although, given that abortion is legal, who knows how anyone really feels about murder in this day and age.

Federal law prohibits its use, yes. State law allows its use medicinally. I live in a medical marijuana state. It seems odd to me that state and federal law are in conflict. It needs to be addressed. I think state laws should prevail in this issue. Prohibition has never really done anyone any good, unless of course are partake in organized crime. Just my :twocents:

Again, I agree with you. I would like to add that allowing people to die while in excruciating pain is wrong, even if the federal government has not made the medical use of marijuana legal. We have the responsibility to take care of people who are suffering, and for those of us who are suffering, we have the right to reduce the amount of pain we must endure.

If we go by federal law and the Supreme Court we shouldn’t argue against abortion on demand. According to the Supreme Court abortion is a right.

There are universal laws. Easing one’s pain and/or nausea fall under universal laws protecting one’s life and health.

 

[Jermosh]

Please don’t tell me what to do. It is not appreciated.

The poster who I was responding to is wrong. The use of marijuana as a medicine is not a sin.

Its no more of a sin then taking oxycontin for a back ache or a morphine drip after surgery, or even cocaine for facial surgery.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Its no more of a sin then taking oxycontin for a back ache or a morphine drip after surgery, or even cocaine for facial surgery.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[lordssoldier]

ahhhhh sheet, you fools know christ and his homes ripped on the bong.

fluck.

 

[JZSWASDISBIG]

Damn, FLuckin Straight… Hittin that Shiat like it twas goin out a style… he smoke the bubonic, choke, and then take his ho Mary(The Hooker) back to his room and do all types of crazy nasty things to her… FO REAL!!! Get on it.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Its no more of a sin then taking oxycontin for a back ache or a morphine drip after surgery, or even cocaine for facial surgery.

I suggest that such a stance puts you at odds with the Catholic Church. Please support your bold statements with reference to official Church teaching. The catechism is an excellent start, and is easily available online. You are posting in a Catholic forum. As Catholics, we accept Church teachings, that is what it means to be Catholic.

It is easy to espouse one’s own opinion, and present oneself as the authority on what is sin. It is another to search for what is true using the wealth of knowledge and reason that is available to us from the Church. The Church’s teachings are supported by over 2000 years of work by thousands of wiser theologians than us, and based upon the direct teachings of Christ. That is way to valuable to ignore.

If you are right, you will be able to show us.

Initially, what you will find in the catechism is a respect for the laws of the state, which require us to be lawful to be moral. You will also find very direct statements as to the licitness (allowability) of medication (drugs) for therapeutic purposes. Perhaps if you dig deeper you will find things that support drugs for other purposes, and exceptions to the inherent morality of constraining oneself to laws in these circumstances, but I have not been able to find such things.

Dan Grelinger

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Its no more of a sin then taking oxycontin for a back ache or a morphine drip after surgery, or even cocaine for facial surgery.

I suggest that such a stance puts you at odds with the Catholic Church. Please support your bold statements with reference to official Church teaching. The catechism is an excellent start, and is easily available online. You are posting in a Catholic forum. As Catholics, we accept Church teachings, that is what it means to be Catholic.

It is easy to espouse one’s own opinion, and present oneself as the authority on what is sin. It is another to search for what is true using the wealth of knowledge and reason that is available to us from the Church. The Church’s teachings are supported by over 2000 years of work by thousands of wiser theologians than us, and based upon the direct teachings of Christ. That is way to valuable to ignore.

If you are right, you will be able to show us. If we are ‘wrong’ as LittleSoldier is so fond of saying, you will be able to use official Catholic teaching to show us where we err.

Initially, what you will find in the catechism is a respect for the laws of the state, which require us to be lawful to be moral. You will also find very direct statements as to the licitness (allowability) of medication (drugs) for therapeutic (curative) purposes. Perhaps if you dig deeper you will find things that support drugs for other purposes (e.g. mental affects), and exceptions to the inherent morality of constraining oneself to laws in these circumstances, but I have not been able to find such things.

Dan Grelinger

 

[LittleSoldier]

I just read a report today that indicates that today’s more powerful marijuana increases the chances of becoming schizophrenic sixfold. If you know anyone with this illness you’ll understand that it is a serious, dreadful mental illness for which there is no cure.

On the other hand, an alcoholic can discontinue drinking.

I think we have enough legal means of poisoning ourselves. Do we need to legalize more?

Would you please provide a link?? Thank you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I suggest that such a stance puts you at odds with the Catholic Church. Please support your bold statements with reference to official Church teaching. The catechism is an excellent start, and is easily available online. You are posting in a Catholic forum. As Catholics, we accept Church teachings, that is what it means to be Catholic.

It is easy to espouse one’s own opinion, and present oneself as the authority on what is sin. It is another to search for what is true using the wealth of knowledge and reason that is available to us from the Church. The Church’s teachings are supported by over 2000 years of work by thousands of wiser theologians than us, and based upon the direct teachings of Christ. That is way to valuable to ignore.

If you are right, you will be able to show us. If we are ‘wrong’ as LittleSoldier is so fond of saying, you will be able to use official Catholic teaching to show us where we err.

Initially, what you will find in the catechism is a respect for the laws of the state, which require us to be lawful to be moral. You will also find very direct statements as to the licitness (allowability) of medication (drugs) for therapeutic (curative) purposes. Perhaps if you dig deeper you will find things that support drugs for other purposes (e.g. mental affects), and exceptions to the inherent morality of constraining oneself to laws in these circumstances, but I have not been able to find such things.

Dan Grelinger

I’ve noticed that although you state the poster you are responding to should provide references, you yourself failed to do so in this post.

First of all I would like to quote The US Constitution:

—Article the twelfth [Amendment X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.—

Michael Bolden (founder of the Tenth Amendment Center) puts it this way:

"Any honest person reading the Constitution through the intent and understanding of the founders would recognize that the federal government has no delegated power to be involved in the marijuana issue, in any way.

Keep in mind, though, that the federal courts (and the DEA), don’t really care what the Constitution has to say about it. They’ve interpreted it in their own way, and have made it quite clear that they don’t recognize state marijuana laws as ‘valid.’"

(examiner.com/examiner/x-19678-Cannabis-Revolution-Examiner~y2009m9d23-The-federal-courts-and-the-DEA-dont-really-care-what-the-constitution-says-about-marijuana)

We do not live in a constitutional democracy - we should, but we don’t. The federal government’s stance on the legality of medical marijuana is unconstitutional (not that the Constitution has been any sort of hindrance in the past).

Beyond that, I would like to ask you why one country’s federal laws determine whether an action is considered to be a sin by the Catholic Church. If we follow federal law, a Catholic can have an abortion for convenience, even though the CCC expressly forbids such an action. There is a contradiction here: either the laws of the US federal government are to be followed in all cases or they are not. That contradiction can be remedied with the inclusion of one word: “just.” We are only required to follow just laws and we are forbidden to follow laws which are in contrast to Church teaching. That is why abortion is a grave offense according to the Catholic Church, and is also why medical marijuana is permissible.

CCC 2242: The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.* Refusing obedience *to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community…“We must obey God rather than men.” [italics in original; bolding is mine.]

I also recommend CCC 1950 through 1960, as they explain what the Church terms “moral law” and I term “universal law.” These laws take precedence over man-made laws.

If you believe that we must obey the laws of the federal government, even if such laws are unconstitutional, I would think that you would also believe that the “soon to be American” citizens involved in the US Revolution were sinning as they were breaking the laws of the government then in power: the British government.

Second, I would like to bring up the Church’s stance on drugs. I will provide the reference:

CCC 2291: The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds is a grave offense. [italics in original; bolding is mine.]

Using marijuana for strictly therapeutic purposes (pain reduction, severe nausea, etc.) is not a grave offense.

So, we have a federal government with unjust laws and a Church that agrees that drugs used for therapeutic purposes is legitimate.

Third, I would like to bring up your little comment about my use of a certain word. I have used that word three times in this thread, and one of those times I was repeating a statement I had already posted. How you take this bit of data and infer that I am “fond” of saying this word is beyond my understanding. It also borders on an ad hominem attack.

 

[Indyann]

I’ve noticed that although you state the poster you are responding to should provide references, you yourself failed to do so in this post.

First of all I would like to quote The US Constitution:

—Article the twelfth [Amendment X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.—

Michael Bolden (founder of the Tenth Amendment Center) puts it this way:

"Any honest person reading the Constitution through the intent and understanding of the founders would recognize that the federal government has no delegated power to be involved in the marijuana issue, in any way.

Keep in mind, though, that the federal courts (and the DEA), don’t really care what the Constitution has to say about it. They’ve interpreted it in their own way, and have made it quite clear that they don’t recognize state marijuana laws as ‘valid.’"

(examiner.com/examiner/x-19678-Cannabis-Revolution-Examiner~y2009m9d23-The-federal-courts-and-the-DEA-dont-really-care-what-the-constitution-says-about-marijuana)

We do not live in a constitutional democracy - we should, but we don’t. The federal government’s stance on the legality of medical marijuana is unconstitutional (not that the Constitution has been any sort of hindrance in the past).

Beyond that, I would like to ask you why one country’s federal laws determine whether an action is considered to be a sin by the Catholic Church. If we follow federal law, a Catholic can have an abortion for convenience, even though the CCC expressly forbids such an action. There is a contradiction here: either the laws of the US federal government are to be followed in all cases or they are not. That contradiction can be remedied with the inclusion of one word: “just.” We are only required to follow just laws and we are forbidden to follow laws which are in contrast to Church teaching. That is why abortion is a grave offense according to the Catholic Church, and is also why medical marijuana is permissible.

CCC 2242: The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.* Refusing obedience *to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community…“We must obey God rather than men.” [italics in original; bolding is mine.]

I also recommend CCC 1950 through 1960, as they explain what the Church terms “moral law” and I term “universal law.” These laws take precedence over man-made laws.

If you believe that we must obey the laws of the federal government, even if such laws are unconstitutional, I would think that you would also believe that the “soon to be American” citizens involved in the US Revolution were sinning as they were breaking the laws of the government then in power: the British government.

Second, I would like to bring up the Church’s stance on drugs. I will provide the reference:

CCC 2291: The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds is a grave offense. [italics in original; bolding is mine.]

Using marijuana for strictly therapeutic purposes (pain reduction, severe nausea, etc.) is not a grave offense.

So, we have a federal government with unjust laws and a Church that agrees that drugs used for therapeutic purposes is legitimate.

Third, I would like to bring up your little comment about my use of a certain word. I have used that word three times in this thread, and one of those times I was repeating a statement I had already posted. How you take this bit of data and infer that I am “fond” of saying this word is beyond my understanding. It also borders on an ad hominem attack.

I wanted to post the same thing, but do not have the time to look up the references. You said it very well:thumbsup:

Sometimes humans are just WRONG.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I’ve noticed that although you state the poster you are responding to should provide references, you yourself failed to do so in this post.

I have not said that anyone is wrong. You said that. When you are so bold, you should back up those words with substance.

First of all I would like to quote The US Constitution:

The Supreme Court is the authority on the interpretation of the US Constitution. That is in the Constitution as well. If you’re going to concern yourself with the Constitution, don’t just take the parts that you agree with. If there is a disagreement between the states and the Legislative or Executive Branch of the Federal government, the place to address that is in the Supreme Court. That is the law of the land. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but when it comes to what the law of the land really is, it is only the opinion of the courts that matter.

I would like to ask you why one country’s federal laws determine whether an action is considered to be a sin by the Catholic Church.

We are required by the Church to respect licit authority, even secular authority. If the state says we should only drive 40 mph on a certain road, for the safety of all, then we must do it. If another state decides that 45 is a good speed limit for a similar road, then so be it. It seems arbtitrary, but as long as the law does not require us to do anything immoral, we are obliged to follow it, or sin.

If we follow federal law, a Catholic can have an abortion for convenience, even though the CCC expressly forbids such an action. There is a contradiction here: either the laws of the US federal government are to be followed in all cases or they are not.

This logic would only work if federal law required you to have an abortion. There is no law that requires it, so there is no breaking of the law if you don’t, and also no sin. There is no contradiction between the law and the CCC, only in your logic.

That contradiction can be remedied with the inclusion of one word: “just.” We are only required to follow just laws and we are forbidden to follow laws which are in contrast to Church teaching. That is why abortion is a grave offense according to the Catholic Church, and is also why medical marijuana is permissible.

Whoa, big jump. See my previous paragraph.

CCC 2242: The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.* Refusing obedience *to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community…“We must obey God rather than men.” [italics in original; bolding is mine.]

So, you are suggesting that to NOT smoke marijuana is a sin. C’mon, you can’t be serious. This is the only way your logic here would work.

I also recommend CCC 1950 through 1960, as they explain what the Church terms “moral law” and I term “universal law.” These laws take precedence over man-made laws.

Only if in conflict. A law prohibiting the use of a substance that is not required to be moral, is not in conflict with moral law.

If you believe that we must obey the laws of the federal government, even if such laws are unconstitutional, I would think that you would also believe that the “soon to be American” citizens involved in the US Revolution were sinning as they were breaking the laws of the government then in power: the British government.

I think the issue here was rule from England with no representation. Not an analogy to what exists in America today.

Second, I would like to bring up the Church’s stance on drugs. I will provide the reference:

CCC 2291: The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds is a grave offense. [italics in original; bolding is mine.]
Using marijuana for strictly therapeutic purposes (pain reduction, severe nausea, etc.) is not a grave offense.

If you have a dictionary, look up the important word here, therapeutic. It has a very clear meaning. If the marijuana does not cure the disease, then it is not therapeutic. Try again.

Third, I would like to bring up your little comment about my use of a certain word. I have used that word three times in this thread, and one of those times I was repeating a statement I had already posted. How you take this bit of data and infer that I am “fond” of saying this word is beyond my understanding. It also borders on an ad hominem attack.

Interesting. You directly say someone is ‘wrong’, and when I ask you to use discretion in such accusations, I am the guilty party?

Dan Grelinger

 

[Jermosh]

I suggest that such a stance puts you at odds with the Catholic Church. Please support your bold statements with reference to official Church teaching. The catechism is an excellent start, and is easily available online. You are posting in a Catholic forum. As Catholics, we accept Church teachings, that is what it means to be Catholic.

Uh no it doesn’t. Please show where the Church says using prescribed Oxycontin for a backache is illicit? Of course if we abused it, it would be a differant story, but we are not speaking of abuse.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I have not said that anyone is wrong. You said that. When you are so bold, you should back up those words with substance.

What I stated is that, according to your post, you expect another poster to provide references but don’t provide references yourself.

The Supreme Court is the authority on the interpretation of the US Constitution. That is in the Constitution as well. If you’re going to concern yourself with the Constitution, don’t just take the parts that you agree with. If there is a disagreement between the states and the Legislative or Executive Branch of the Federal government, the place to address that is in the Supreme Court. That is the law of the land. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but when it comes to what the law of the land really is, it is only the opinion of the courts that matter.

I noticed that you didn’t respond to my discussion on whether the federal government even has the right to interfere with states’ rights, including the quote from Michael Bolden. You can ignore this but it won’t go away.

It is only the opinion of the courts that matter? If the Supreme Court states that a law is constitutional and I violate that law I automatically sin? So it makes no difference if the laws are just, moral, or universal? Moral and universal laws transcend man-made laws.

We are required by the Church to respect licit authority, even secular authority. If the state says we should only drive 40 mph on a certain road, for the safety of all, then we must do it. If another state decides that 45 is a good speed limit for a similar road, then so be it. It seems arbtitrary, but as long as the law does not require us to do anything immoral, we are obliged to follow it, or sin.

We are not required by the Church to follow unjust laws. The federal government’s laws regarding marijuana used for medical reasons are not just. As Catholics we do not need to follow these laws.

This logic would only work if federal law required you to have an abortion. There is no law that requires it, so there is no breaking of the law if you don’t, and also no sin. There is no contradiction between the law and the CCC, only in your logic.

What I am saying is that, according to federal law, it is permissible to obtain an abortion for convenience. If a Catholic procures an abortion for convenience, she is not violating federal laws, although she is violating Church and universal laws. There is a definite contradiction between the federal laws concerning abortion on demand and moral laws defined by the Church.

I’ll give you another example. Before there was emancipation, slavery was legal in this country. So any Catholic who helped a slave to escape was breaking the law. And, according to your logic, they were also sinning.

Catholics who use medical marijuana do not sin, even though they are violating federal laws. This is because they are following Church laws, moral laws, universal laws.

Whoa, big jump. See my previous paragraph.

Whoa. See my previous paragraph.

So, you are suggesting that to NOT smoke marijuana is a sin. C’mon, you can’t be serious. This is the only way your logic here would work.

Perhaps you didn’t understand the quote from the CCC (CCC 2242). Maybe you should read it again.

I am not saying that one must ingest marijuana to not sin. I am saying that a Catholic who uses marijuana for therapeutic purposes is allowed to do so because the federal laws are unjust. Also, I did not mention smoking marijuana.

It is unjust to deny people the use of a therapeutic agent which can ameliorate their severe pain and nausea. The federal government’s laws regarding medical marijuana are unjust.

Only if in conflict. A law prohibiting the use of a substance that is not required to be moral, is not in conflict with moral law.

A law prohibiting the use of a substance that is needed as a therapeutic agent for suffering people is in conflict with moral law.

I think the issue here was rule from England with no representation. Not an analogy to what exists in America today.

The point is that citizens subject to a legal authority took it upon themselves to revolt against that very legal authority which was subjecting its citizens in the colonies to unjust laws. Current federal laws against the use of medical marijuana are unjust. It is an analogy to what exists in America today.

If you have a dictionary, look up the important word here, therapeutic. It has a very clear meaning. If the marijuana does not cure the disease, then it is not therapeutic. Try again.

Here is a dictionary definition of therapeutic:

“used in treating disease: relating to, involving, or used in the treatment of disease or disorders;
maintaining health: working or done to maintain somebody’s health;
Synonyms: healing, beneficial, relaxing, calming, satisfying, salutary, helpful, tonic, curative, remedial, corrective, restorative, medicinal, beneficial”

(bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+therapeutic&FORM=DTPDIA)

Your definition of “therapeutic” is remarkably limited in scope and usefulness.

Interesting. You directly say someone is ‘wrong’, and when I ask you to use discretion in such accusations, I am the guilty party?

Dan Grelinger

I have no idea what you are writing about here. I will repeat what I stated (in green):

Third, I would like to bring up your little comment about my use of a certain word. I have used that word three times in this thread, and one of those times I was repeating a statement I had already posted. How you take this bit of data and infer that I am “fond” of saying this word is beyond my understanding. It also borders on an ad hominem attack.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I have not said that anyone is wrong. You said that. When you are so bold, you should back up those words with substance.

What I stated is that in your post you told another poster to provide references but didn’t provide references yourself.

The Supreme Court is the authority on the interpretation of the US Constitution. That is in the Constitution as well. If you’re going to concern yourself with the Constitution, don’t just take the parts that you agree with. If there is a disagreement between the states and the Legislative or Executive Branch of the Federal government, the place to address that is in the Supreme Court. That is the law of the land. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but when it comes to what the law of the land really is, it is only the opinion of the courts that matter.

I noticed that you didn’t respond to my discussion on whether the federal government even has the right to interfere with states’ rights, including the quote from Michael Bolden. You can ignore it but it won’t go away.

It is only the opinion of the courts that matter? If the Supreme Court states that a law is constitutional and I violate that law I automatically sin? So it makes no difference if the laws are just, moral, or universal? Moral and universal laws transcend man-made laws.

We are required by the Church to respect licit authority, even secular authority. If the state says we should only drive 40 mph on a certain road, for the safety of all, then we must do it. If another state decides that 45 is a good speed limit for a similar road, then so be it. It seems arbtitrary, but as long as the law does not require us to do anything immoral, we are obliged to follow it, or sin.

We are not required by the Church to follow unjust laws. The federal government’s laws regarding marijuana used for medical reasons are not just. As Catholics we do not need to follow these laws

This logic would only work if federal law required you to have an abortion. There is no law that requires it, so there is no breaking of the law if you don’t, and also no sin. There is no contradiction between the law and the CCC, only in your logic.

What I am saying is that, according to federal law, it is permissible to obtain an abortion for convenience. If a Catholic procures an abortion for convenience, she is not violating federal laws, although she is violating Church and universal laws. There is a definite contradiction between the federal laws concerning abortion on demand and moral laws defined by the Church.

I’ll give you another example. Before there was emancipation, slavery was legal in this country. So any Catholic who helped a slave to escape was breaking the law. And, according to your logic, they were also sinning.

Catholics who use medical marijuana do not sin, even though they are violating federal laws. This is because they are following Church laws, moral laws, universal laws.

Whoa, big jump. See my previous paragraph.

Whoa. See my previous paragraph.

So, you are suggesting that to NOT smoke marijuana is a sin. C’mon, you can’t be serious. This is the only way your logic here would work.

Perhaps you didn’t understand the quote from the CCC (CCC 2242). Maybe you should read it again.

I am not saying that one must ingest marijuana to not sin. I am saying that a Catholic who uses marijuana for therapeutic purposes is allowed to do so because the federal laws are unjust. Also, I did not mention smoking marijuana.

It is unjust to deny people the use of a therapeutic agent which can ameliorate their severe pain and nausea. The federal government’s laws regarding medical marijuana are unjust.

Only if in conflict. A law prohibiting the use of a substance that is not required to be moral, is not in conflict with moral law.

A law prohibiting the use of a substance that is needed as a therapeutic agent for suffering people is in conflict with moral law.

I think the issue here was rule from England with no representation. Not an analogy to what exists in America today.

The point is that citizens subject to a legal authority took it upon themselves to revolt against that very legal authority which was subjecting its citizens in the colonies to unjust laws. Current federal laws against the use of medical marijuana are unjust. It is an analogy to what exists in America today.

If you have a dictionary, look up the important word here, therapeutic. It has a very clear meaning. If the marijuana does not cure the disease, then it is not therapeutic. Try again.

Here is a dictionary definition of therapeutic:

“used in treating disease: relating to, involving, or used in the treatment of disease or disorders
maintaining health: working or done to maintain somebody’s health
Synonyms: healing, beneficial, relaxing, calming, satisfying, salutary, helpful, tonic, curative, remedial, corrective, restorative, medicinal, beneficial”

(bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+therapeutic&FORM=DTPDIA)

Your definition of “therapeutic” is remarkably limited in scope and usefulness.

Interesting. You directly say someone is ‘wrong’, and when I ask you to use discretion in such accusations, I am the guilty party?

Dan Grelinger

I have no idea what you are writing about here. I will repeat what I stated (in green):

Third, I would like to bring up your little comment about my use of a certain word. I have used that word three times in this thread, and one of those times I was repeating a statement I had already posted. How you take this bit of data and infer that I am “fond” of saying this word is beyond my understanding. It also borders on an ad hominem attack.

 

[Jermosh]

Well said LittleSoldier.