Frustrating confession. Validity?

[fre803]

Actually, whether or not 5-hour energy is a drug is absolutely pertinent to the issue at hand.

No, it is not. The issue at hand is whether, when the Catechism was written, the reference to “drugs” included cannabis. It did, because then and now, cannabis was considered a “drug.”

Attempting to evade that obvious result, you argue that “[a] drug, according to the catechism, causes harm to human health and life. Those are the criteria laid out for us.” Sequentially-stated, the theory of that argument is:

• that the catechism defines the use of “drugs” as serious subject-matter,
• that it defines a “drug” as a substance that “causes harm to human health and life,” and
• that it therefore remands to the individual Catholic to determine whether a particular substance causes harm, and is therefore a drug.

That theory is false. Paragraph 2291 of the Catechism is not definitional; it does *not *say that “a drug is a substance that causes harm to human health and life.” It says that “[t]he use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life.” Those are very different statements. To say that a drug inflicts grave harm is not to say that that which inflicts grave harm is a drug, which would be circular nonsense, just as to say that a water can drown a child is not to say that that which drowns children is water.

What the Catechism says is that drugs (1) cause harm to human health and life, and (2) are, when used other than for therapeutic purposes, gravely sinful. You quibble point 1 with regard to cannabis, but your disagreement on that point is irrelevant because point 2 is freestanding. Point 2 defines the non-therapeutic use of drugs as gravely sinful, and any attempt to restrict the definition of drugs to those that meet the criticism of point 1 is desultory.

Because the Catechism does not define the word “drug,” the only relevant question is whether cannabis was generally considered a drug at the time of the Catechism’s promulgation. It was, and paragraph 2291(2) (so to speak) thus supplies your “straight answer.”

 

[HelenRose]

Which of the 10 commandments does the twice a year use of marijuana break? I don’t believe that one can mortally sin without expressly breaking one of the commandments. Thing is with drugs, smoking ten joints a day will lead you to sin, guaranteed. If some priest says marijuana use for recreational purposes is intrinsically evil, let him back it up with something that doesn’t come out of his hat. Hint: he can’t.

A priest doesn’t have to back it up. If you disagree with him go somewhere else.

Why even bother going to confession if you are going to argue with the priest. The purpose of confession is to grow closer to God and not quibble about the technicalities of sin.

If you do not believe the Church is speaking the truth in this regard, go somewhere else. There are plenty of quasi-religious organizations that make pot smoking a virtue.

 

[DoNotWorry]

Melatonin is already produced by your body, so taking it if you aren’t producing enough is in no way analogous to taking THC. Caffeine has been shown to have numerous health benefits and not only does it not impair mental faculties, it has been shown to improve them in moderate doses.

You can’t just compare every chemical to THC, each one has its own pro’s, con’s, and overall context.

And THC has NUMEROUS medical benefits and has actually been shown to REGROW ( yes, that’s right) brain cells, unlike alcohol, which kills them. Alcohol has ZERO medical applications as well.

 

[HelenRose]

Let us toss in food while we are at it. It is definitely a sin to over eat.

Can you just imagine how silly this whole argument is.
“Please tell me how far I can push the envelope before I sin?
Tell how many little sins I can do before I am in danger of mortal sin?”

How many milk shakes can I drink before I sin?
How many candy bars is sinful?

There is not one of us on this thread who doesn’t try to quibble with God. We all want what we want and we resent like hell being told that what we are doing is wrong. We want validation for our own special misbehavior.

Why aren’t we asking what can we do to help break the bonds of addiction for those who are addicted? Does smoking one joint help a another soul break addiction.

Sins of omission are just a serious as sins of commission. If my drinking alcohol is an excuse for someone else to smoke pot then I will not drink.

 

[HelenRose]

I love the word “quibble”

 

[DoNotWorry]

No, it is not. The issue at hand is whether, when the Catechism was written, the reference to “drugs” included cannabis. It did, because then and now, cannabis was considered a “drug.”

Attempting to evade that obvious result, you argue that “[a] drug, according to the catechism, causes harm to human health and life. Those are the criteria laid out for us.” Sequentially-stated, the theory of that argument is:

• that the catechism defines the use of “drugs” as serious subject-matter,
• that it defines a “drug” as a substance that “causes harm to human health and life,” and
• that it therefore remands to the individual Catholic to determine whether a particular substance causes harm, and is therefore a drug.

That theory is false. Paragraph 2291 of the Catechism is not definitional; it does *not *say that “a drug is a substance that causes harm to human health and life.” It says that “[t]he use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life.” Those are very different statements. To say that a drug inflicts grave harm is not to say that that which inflicts grave harm is a drug, which would be circular nonsense, just as to say that a water can drown a child is not to say that that which drowns children is water.

What the Catechism says is that drugs (1) cause harm to human health and life, and (2) are, when used other than for therapeutic purposes, gravely sinful. You quibble point 1 with regard to cannabis, but your disagreement on that point is irrelevant because point 2 is freestanding. Point 2 defines the non-therapeutic use of drugs as gravely sinful, and any attempt to restrict the definition of drugs to those that meet the criticism of point 1 is desultory.

Because the Catechism does not define the word “drug,” the only relevant question is whether cannabis was generally considered a drug at the time of the Catechism’s promulgation. It was, and paragraph 2291(2) (so to speak) thus supplies your “straight answer.”

Actually, I think the question would be whether or not cannabis “causes grave harm to human health and life”. If it does not, then it is not a drug as set forth by the catechism because according to the catechism, this is something that drugs inherently do.

 

[maryjk]

And THC has NUMEROUS medical benefits and has actually been shown to REGROW ( yes, that’s right) brain cells, unlike alcohol, which kills them. Alcohol has ZERO medical applications as well.

But you are not using it medically. In fact, you are very clear in your posting that you are using it “to relax.”

 

[GEddie]

Please send a link relating to your claim that cannabis regrows human brain cells.

Seriously, I really want to know.

ICXC NIKA

 

[DoNotWorry]

Thank you all for the replies. My pastor emailed me and is very against cannabis, and out of obedience, I must comply. The bottle it is then

See? Not looking to disobey here, just in utter disbelief about the misinformation that people believe. Hopefully, the science will be disseminated and dispel the myths.

Thanks again. Have a blessed week.

 

[SecretCatholic]

I have difficulty believing that using cannabis is immoral, although I can definitely see the point of abusing it, as it also pertains to food, sex, alcohol or anything else.

I also have difficulty with the idea that because something is illegal it becomes immoral to partake in. So if worshiping becomes illegal, does it become immoral? If taking aspirin becomes illegal, does it become immoral? Would you have to confess taking aspirin to a priest then?

And what about the fact that our own government doesn’t follow the rule of law? Should we have to follow laws that are, by the highest law in the land, invalid and illegal, but just haven’t been legally challenged yet? Or should we act as if we lived under occupation and just “give to Caesar” no matter how outrageous and unconstitutional the law? What about the fact that there are so many laws on the books, that we all violate some on a daily basis? Or should we only pay attention to “enforced” laws?

We’re not talking about traffic or obscenity laws, but laws that regulate what you do by yourself in privacy. Keeping up with the ever-changing and outrageous law books is a bit much for me. Morality is objective, and I’d worry about keeping those laws, not man’s ever-changing ones.

That said, the greater problem here is the consistency and objectivity of priests in general. Why should you be bound by the opinion of the priest, whether liberal, conservative or otherwise? This is not some unknown, obscure issue. This is a pretty popular one. If the Vatican is silent on this issue, shouldn’t the priest also be? Or our we bound by his personal opinion on the issue?

 

[Robertanthony]

Since the 70’s I have lived in pot country. I have known that Hotchkiss Colorado and Paonia Colorado produce wonderful strains of marijuana. It was and is a standing joke that if our communities could enter the pot in the county fair, it would take first prize.

It was the adventure of the young boys (my son included) to dress up in army fatigues late at night and cut down whole fields of marijuana just for the fun of it. Some of my neighbors have fought long and hard to make marijuana legal in this state.

There are so many wonderful goals and wonders of this world. I live in one of the most beautiful places on Earth and so many people here, smoke their pot, gaze at the scenery, feel very little pain for others and sleep their lives away.

You’re trying to demonize pot because some or lots of people misuse/abuse it. Marijuana is certainly not an intrinsic evil, it has a number of therapeutic benefits. There is no similarity, like none whatsoever between DoNotWorry and people who dream and sleep their lives away. Nobody would mind the slightest if she popped an occasional anxiolytic when she felt the need to. While you’re at it, ban hammers because although they’re used to build houses, occasionally, they’ll be used by a criminal to smash someone’s skull. For the sake of total disclosure, I used pot once or twice in my lifetime, and that was long ago, 50 pounds ago to be accurate. So I’m neither a fan nor an activist.

Alcohol is a culturally accepted mood-altering substance. Some people literally worship it, no less. It causes massive problems, leaves many victims in its wake. Cultural acceptance is the key concept. You pet dogs in North American, you eat dogs in certain parts of Africa.

 

[fre803]

Actually, I think the question would be whether or not cannabis “causes grave harm to human health and life”. If it does not, then it is not a drug as set forth by the catechism because according to the catechism, this is something that drugs inherently do.

No, that is not the question. That would be the question if the Catechism defined a drug as something that “causes grave harm to human health and life,” which is the premise of your argument, but as my post above demonstrates, that premise is false. The Catechism does not define a drug as something that “causes grave harm to human health and life,” it assumes the common and ordinary definition of “drugs” and asserts that they “cause] grave harm to human health and life.”

Your unwillingness to accept that assertion—rightly or not—has no bearing on the relevant questions which are, again, (1) does the Church teach that use of “drugs” is a grave sin, and (2) do the magisterial documents that express the Church’s teaching on “drugs” understand cannabis to be a “drug”? The answer to both of those questions is, beyond serious cavil, “yes.”

 

[Robertanthony]

I have difficulty believing that using cannabis is immoral, although I can definitely see the point of abusing it, as it also pertains to food, sex, alcohol or anything else.

I also have difficulty with the idea that because something is illegal it becomes immoral to partake in. So if worshiping becomes illegal, does it become immoral? If taking aspirin becomes illegal, does it become immoral? Would you have to confess taking aspirin to a priest then?

And what about the fact that our own government doesn’t follow the rule of law? Should we have to follow laws that are, by the highest law in the land, invalid and illegal, but just haven’t been legally challenged yet? Or should we act as if we lived under occupation and just “give to Caesar” no matter how outrageous and unconstitutional the law? What about the fact that there are so many laws on the books, that we all violate some on a daily basis? Or should we only pay attention to “enforced” laws?

We’re not talking about traffic or obscenity laws, but laws that regulate what you do by yourself in privacy. Keeping up with the ever-changing and outrageous law books is a bit much for me. Morality is objective, and I’d worry about keeping those laws, not man’s ever-changing ones.

That said, the greater problem here is the consistency and objectivity of priests in general. Why should you be bound by the opinion of the priest, whether liberal, conservative or otherwise? This is not some unknown, obscure issue. This is a pretty popular one. If the Vatican is silent on this issue, shouldn’t the priest also be? Or are we bound by his personal opinion on the issue?

I think the Church’s purpose is not to micromanage our lives, the way some OCD/ scrupulous people seem to think, There is actually a great deal of leeway. If any amount of pot is sinful, then so is alcohol and tobacco. We’re not bound by anyone’s opinion. If a priest really thinks using pot a couple of times a year is a grievous sin, then the onus is on him to back it up with something more substantial than his mere opinion.

 

[DoNotWorry]

You’re trying to demonize pot because some or lots of people misuse/abuse it. Marijuana is certainly not an intrinsic evil, it has a number of therapeutic benefits. There is no similarity, like none whatsoever between DoNotWorry and people who dream and sleep their lives away. Nobody would mind the slightest if she popped an occasional anxiolytic when she felt the need to. While you’re at it, ban hammers because although they’re used to build houses, occasionally, they’ll be used by a criminal to smash someone’s skull. For the sake of total disclosure, I used pot once or twice in my lifetime, and that was long ago, 50 pounds ago to be accurate. So I’m neither a fan nor an activist.

Alcohol is a culturally accepted mood-altering substance. Some people literally worship it, no less. It causes massive problems, leaves many victims in its wake. Cultural acceptance is the key concept. You pet dogs in North American, you eat dogs in certain parts of Africa.

Agreed. Cultural acceptance is the key.

And let us be honest here. If alcohol were not used by Jesus so frequently, the Church would be shouting up and down about how evil it is, how many people it kills, how it makes people violent and depressed and is addictive and ruins lives, all of which would be true. It is a legal, sanctioned drug that does more harm to people and society than all the others combined

 

[fencersmother]

Well, if we can’t convince you of the immorality of marijuana, how about this report?

Pot’s harmless, right?

foxnews.com/health/2014/04/15/casual-marijuana-use-linked-with-brain-abnormalities-study-finds/

 

[fre803]

I think the Church’s purpose is not to micromanage our lives, the way some OCD/ scrupulous people seem to think, There is actually a great deal of leeway. If any amount of pot is sinful, then so is alcohol and tobacco. We’re not bound by anyone’s opinion. If a priest really thinks using pot a couple of times a year is a grievous sin, then the onus is on him to back it up with something more substantial than his mere opinion.

Let me be as direct with you as love demands, dear brother. The Church teaches that use of drugs—a term that doubtless includes cannabis—is serious sin, i.e. a mortal-illegible sin. The remaining elements of mortal sin are scienter, and consent; given the force with which you had been apprised of the facts here, you will not be able to claim ignorance, and consent won’t be a problem for the “prosecutor” (so to speak). If you continue to smoke cannabis, and if you die without having sought and obtained a valid absolution, you will die in a state of mortal sin and will “descend into hell, where [you will] suffer the punishments of hell,” “eternal fire” and “eternal separation from God.…” CCC ¶ 1035.

On the bright side, it’ll be easy to spark one up in the lake of fire, but I don’t think it’s worth it.

 

[DoNotWorry]

Well, if we can’t convince you of the immorality of marijuana, how about this report?

Pot’s harmless, right?

foxnews.com/health/2014/04/15/casual-marijuana-use-linked-with-brain-abnormalities-study-finds/

Interesting. When I was a very heavy user, I was intensely motivated, earned awards at college, obtained my Master’s in a foreign language with nearly a 4.0, was extremely creative and much more focused and spiritual than I am now. I was extremely content to sit and study for hours. Look at the number of college professors who use it. Extremely high. And what about this study?

healthland.time.com/2012/10/29/how-cannabinoids-may-slow-brain-aging/

 

[DoNotWorry]

Let me be as direct with you as love demands, dear brother. The Church teaches that use of drugs—a term that doubtless includes cannabis—is serious sin, i.e. a mortal-illegible sin. The remaining elements of mortal sin are scienter, and consent; given the force with which you had been apprised of the facts here, you will not be able to claim ignorance, and consent won’t be a problem for the “prosecutor” (so to speak). If you continue to smoke cannabis, and if you die without having sought and obtained a valid absolution, you will die in a state of mortal sin and will “descend into hell, where [you will] suffer the punishments of hell,” “eternal fire” and “eternal separation from God.…” CCC ¶ 1035.

On the bright side, it’ll be easy to spark one up in the lake of fire, but I don’t think it’s worth it.

If an otherwise good and charitable person burns in hell for smoking a joint, then what chance does anyone really have? You better HOPE this is not the case, because if smoking a joint is a mortal sin, I bet making jokes about one of God’s children burning forever in Hell isn’t far behind. Doesn’t mocking someone for a “sin” that is no temptation to you feel amazing?

I’m sorry, I knew it was foolish of me to come to this site. Every time I do I am reminded of the ugliness that comes out in people. So far in this thread, I have personally been basically called a drug addict, a bad mother, a bad Catholic who should just leave the Church and join some other faith, etc. etc. there is a reason I left long ago and my faith blossomed in the interim. This site has some very toxic people and it is easy to forget and lose sight of the MERCY of Jesus here.

Sorry, it’s not just you. I know you were just being glib, but this site is rife with flip pomposity. I’m sick of it.

 

[fre803]

Lovely. If an otherwise good and charitable person burns in hell for smoking a joint, then what chance does anyone really have?

If an otherwise good and charitable person burns in hell for [insert sympathetic mortal sin here], then what chance does anyone really have?

You better HOPE this is not the case, because if smoking a joint is a mortal sin, I bet making jokes about one of God’s children burning forever in Hell isn’t far behind

That wasn’t a joke, and if you think it was, that’s a serious problem. Those who die in a state of mortal sin go directly to Hell. That’s what the Church teaches. Our Lady warned that people were falling into hell like snowflakes because they have no one to pray for them, but that was a century ago; today, they are falling into hell like snowflakes in a blizzard because no one is willing to man up and tell them that what they are doing is a mortal sin for fear of “offending” them. No one wants to say that homosexuality is a mortal sin. No one wants to say that divorce is a mortal sin. No one wants to say that imbibing drugs is a sin. That isn’t love, it’s cowardice. It’s fear. We must do better, because we are dealing with eternal consequences.

 

[HelenRose]

You’re trying to demonize pot because some or lots of people misuse/abuse it. Marijuana is certainly not an intrinsic evil, it has a number of therapeutic benefits. There is no similarity, like none whatsoever between DoNotWorry and people who dream and sleep their lives away. Nobody would mind the slightest if she popped an occasional anxiolytic when she felt the need to. While you’re at it, ban hammers because although they’re used to build houses, occasionally, they’ll be used by a criminal to smash someone’s skull. For the sake of total disclosure, I used pot once or twice in my lifetime, and that was long ago, 50 pounds ago to be accurate. So I’m neither a fan nor an activist.

Alcohol is a culturally accepted mood-altering substance. Some people literally worship it, no less. It causes massive problems, leaves many victims in its wake. Cultural acceptance is the key concept. You pet dogs in North American, you eat dogs in certain parts of Africa.

At least you didn’t say I demonized pot users.

I just don’t understand with all the other addictions floating around, there are people who have made it a crusade to add pot to the mix. It seems to me there are far better causes to take up.

So what if pot and alcohol are equivalent? Why do we need another drug for children to get their hands on?

If you don’t think it is a sin, don’t go to a priest confess. On the other hand, don’t expect a priest to give anyone the go ahead to use pot.