A
Ana
Guest
Is herbalism compatible with Catholicism?
The use of herbs for healing or prevention is fine. The use of herbs for mystical potions, spells etc. is not. In other words the question to be asked is are these being used as a benefit of the bounty of nature that God intended or are they being used to seek help outside of God? BTW home rememdies are not usually potions. I don’t want to imply that some age old family recipes may be potions. That would be like saying chicken is good for you but chicken soup is evil. lolIs herbalism compatible with Catholicism?
The most High hath created medicines out of the earth, and a wise man will not abhor them. Ecclesiasticus 38:4 DRC
Oh no, Peter. I get to argue with you againThe Church teaches us that we must be good stewards of the health of our bodies and not deliberately damage them. That would include taking the advice of reputable and qualified doctors rather than charlatans.
Taking echinacea for a few days when you have a cold will probably do you no harm if you’re otherwise healthy (though it won’t help you either). Taking herbs in preference to proven, standardised treatments of known composition, when you have a serious illness, is abuse of your body.
Of course it depends on the circumstances too. If you are an impoverished African peasant far from the nearest doctor, it may be justifiable to use traditional folk herbal medicines until you can get to see a doctor. Unfortunately the use of such herbs is usually tied up with shamanism and superstitions.
Herbs **are **pharmaceuticals. Anything which is potent enough to have a beneficial effect on the human body will necessarily also have some undesirable effects on the body.Oh no, Peter. I get to argue with you againCertainly, I agree that for some things you absolutely need pharmacuticals. Antibiotics come to mind. For other things, herbs can be the answer.
No moral problem with that, as long as they checked that you weren’t pregnant before giving you the methotrexate, and as long as you didn’t use contraceptives.For example, I have rheumatoid arthritis. My doctor started me on ibuprophrin. Eventually I was up to 3200 milligrams a day and still in horrific pain and having stomach problems. Then she put me on Methaltraxate (spelling?) which, as you know, is an abortifactant. She made me promise that I wouldn’t get pregnant. This was at a Catholic clinic, too.
There were some other medications in between, but they all did horrible things to my stomach.
Finally, I said enough. I’m tired of poisoning my body and not getting any results. I found Dr. Andrew Weil’s books. He recomended Feverfew and Ginger. Within a few weeks, I was in remission.
I do agree that you need to find qualified advice. It’s preferable to use a licensed Herbalist. Here, in America, that’s a little hard. Andrew Weil is an M.D. as well as an alternative physican, so I follow his work. Sometimes natural can be better.
Indeed. Many effective medicines come from natural sources, e.g. morphine, digoxin. These drugs are extracted, purified and standardised and tested and proven so that we know exactly what is in them, how they work and what side-effects to expect. On very rare occasions, it is necessary even for those with access to the best of health care, to use raw herbal products because there is no pure drug available. But if you think that using raw herbs (like opium and foxglove) which contain literally thousands of different chemicals in unknown proportions, instead of pure drugs (like morphine and digoxin respectively) you are very wrong and to follow this idea in treatment is to abuse your God-given body.
Ah, yes. I agree with you on most of your points. Definately, most of the synthic drugs we use were orginally derived from natural sources and some still are. And, of course, just because something is natural, doesn’t mean it’s not dangerous.Herbs **are **pharmaceuticals. Anything which is potent enough to have a beneficial effect on the human body will necessarily also have some undesirable effects on the body. No moral problem with that, as long as they checked that you weren’t pregnant before giving you the methotrexate, and as long as you didn’t use contraceptives. Indeed. Many effective medicines come from natural sources, e.g. morphine, digoxin. These drugs are extracted, purified and standardised and tested and proven so that we know exactly what is in them, how they work and what side-effects to expect. On very rare occasions, it is necessary even for those with access to the best of health care, to use raw herbal products because there is no pure drug available. But if you think that using raw herbs (like opium and foxglove) which contain literally thousands of different chemicals in unknown proportions, instead of pure drugs (like morphine and digoxin respectively) you are very wrong and to follow this idea in treatment is to abuse your God-given body.
Btw rheumatoid arthritis is one of the diseases which quacks love, because it’s a chronic incurable relapsing-remitting disease. i.e. you’re likely to seek their treatment when the disease is at the worse end of its cycle, then when it inevitably improves as it heads towrds the remission part of its natural cycle, the quack will claim the improvement was because of his treatment. Just another version of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy really.
I agree with MOST of what you say here too : try not to be too shocked!Ah, yes. I agree with you on most of your points.
Nah. I’m finished too. This was a good discussion.I agree with MOST of what you say here too : try not to be too shocked!
:bigyikes:
I don’t have anything further to add really as I don’t wish to rehash an endless debate on “alternative” therapies. You can find such a debate on old threads if you are interested.