A
apriori
Guest
Is It a Mortal Sin to Take Illegal Drugs!
ANSWER:
ANSWER:
*]YES
*]NO
*]MAYBE
Explain:
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
YES it is a grave sin.
The Church teaching:
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. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.
L
LtPaint
Guest
Are we talking about something like cocaine or something like maurijauna?
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
F
ForwardProgress
Guest
YES!! Stop smoking the Ganjh. In fact stop smoking period!
T
tvdxer
Guest
I’d answer “Maybe.”
I can’t imagine that smoking marijuana is per se a mortal sin. I would rather think the same rules that apply to the consumption of alcohol would apply to the consumption of marijuana: it would be a mortal sin to “get drunk” to the point of losing your ability to reason / make judgments, while simply smoking it would be a venial sin (because it is illegal?) or perhaps even no sin at all.
Other drugs, such as heroin, crack cocaine, and meth seem (from what I know) to be so addicting and damaging that their usage would indeed be a mortal sin.
L
LtPaint
Guest
Would breaking the law necessarily be a mortal sin, though? The morality of the said substance should be weighted heavier on the actual effects, physically and mentally.
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
That’s a principle that can’t hold up. It leads to the concept of “victimless crime,” and there is no such a thing.
Also, the effect of something does not determine its moral legitimacy. “I can do ‘x’ so long as no one gets hurt” does not legitimize any action. What physical or mental harm does it do to eat meat on a day of abstinence? But to do so in direct disregard for the directions of the Church is a mortal sin.
Further, in 1 Cor. 8, St. Paul sets out our duties to the consciences of our fellow believers. So even in the face of a claim that the person doing the act is not harmed, what of others?
As for physical and mental effects, when used non-therapeutically, we are speaking of an intoxicant which impairs the user, that can harm the lungs worse than tobacco.
Many people point to alcohol use, but to argue that because alcohol is permitted, so should 'x" be is a logical fallacy (“tu quoque”).
One final note. The Church has binding and loosing authority, given to her by her founder and head. The Catechism has been quoted, so we know what she has bound. There it is, full stop.
Blessings,
Gerry
M
mystified
Guest
At the risk of sounding like the question of the meaning of “IS”, the answer is “Maybe”.
It would depend upon what is classified as an illegal drug. Unless US laws have changed,
it is illegal to bring certain prescription drugs into this country even if they are legal in the country of origin.
Then there is my godson’s wife who believes that instant coffee and marijuana are the same thing, and illegal.
It would depend upon what is classified as an illegal drug. Unless US laws have changed,
it is illegal to bring certain prescription drugs into this country even if they are legal in the country of origin.
Then there is my godson’s wife who believes that instant coffee and marijuana are the same thing, and illegal.
N
Non_sum_dignus
Guest
Well, giving your life over to an intoxicating substance must certainly be considered a mortal sin, legality notwithstanding. Using highly addictive drugs like cocaine, heroin, meth, unprescribed painkillers, et. al. places one in the near occasion of addiction. Using drugs also makes one more likely to engage in sinful behavior because of the intoxicating effects.
With drug use, I think the first question should always concern the motivation for taking drugs. If God is truly at the center of one’s life, why would one be seeking some sort of high?
With drug use, I think the first question should always concern the motivation for taking drugs. If God is truly at the center of one’s life, why would one be seeking some sort of high?
S
selylidne
Guest
(Remember, a mortal sin is grave matter + full knowledge + complete consent.)
Some illegal drugs are very dangerous to one’s body. In that case taking them is grave matter (chemical mutilation).
The purchase of illegal drugs often funds horribly violent organizations. Yes, it’s true that this is only because of the illegality and has nothing to do with the drugs themselves, but as long as the drugs remain illegal and the money goes to those organizations, this would make purchase of illegal drugs grave matter also (participating in evil).
Many illegal drugs are neither dangerous nor connected with other crime, but are addictive enough that in taking them you risk losing self-control and shirking your obligations. In that case they would also be grave matter (risk of sloth).
Some illegal drugs are neither dangerous nor seriously addictive nor connected with other crime, but attempting to buy, sell, or use them would likely be caught and incur severe penalties from the state. In that case they would be grave matter (imprudent).
A few illegal drugs are neither dangerous, seriously addictive, connected with other crime, nor likely to be punished severely. In that case it’s not a sin.
Some illegal drugs are very dangerous to one’s body. In that case taking them is grave matter (chemical mutilation).
The purchase of illegal drugs often funds horribly violent organizations. Yes, it’s true that this is only because of the illegality and has nothing to do with the drugs themselves, but as long as the drugs remain illegal and the money goes to those organizations, this would make purchase of illegal drugs grave matter also (participating in evil).
Many illegal drugs are neither dangerous nor connected with other crime, but are addictive enough that in taking them you risk losing self-control and shirking your obligations. In that case they would also be grave matter (risk of sloth).
Some illegal drugs are neither dangerous nor seriously addictive nor connected with other crime, but attempting to buy, sell, or use them would likely be caught and incur severe penalties from the state. In that case they would be grave matter (imprudent).
A few illegal drugs are neither dangerous, seriously addictive, connected with other crime, nor likely to be punished severely. In that case it’s not a sin.
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
I read:
The Church teaching:
And I checked St. Thomas Aquinas, and find no reference to the consequences of the act being a determining factor in its moral licitness.
Blessings,
Gerry
and:
The Church teaching:
I see no reference to exceptions in the Catechism, so I’m having very serious difficulties reconciling these two statements.
And I checked St. Thomas Aquinas, and find no reference to the consequences of the act being a determining factor in its moral licitness.
Blessings,
Gerry
S
selylidne
Guest
Then you’re an incompetent reader, frankly.
Furthermore, the Catechism explicitly bases its teaching about illegal drugs on several premises about the consequences. If none of the premises apply, then the conclusion is no longer validly deduced from them. It’s a well-known and even scientifically demonstrated habit of religious conservatives to skip reasoning processes upon which conclusions are based and focus only on the conclusion in isolation. Those of us who have pronounced religious conservative tendencies should keep that in mind and be on guard against this cognitive bias.
In point of fact, the above quote is identical to the first criterion I listed. The second half of the CCC paragraph is identical to my second criterion. I then listed two criteria not covered by the CCC which could also, in my view, make drug use seriously sinful. I acknowledge that I’m being considerably stricter than the Catechism, but I think it’s justified.
W
wjp984
Guest
Unless one is abusing it, I doubt smoking marijuana is sinful. It is legal in some countries and although federal law prohibits it, it is actually legal according to some city and maybe even now state ordinances (not just for medical purposes). California for example is suffering so bad right now economically that I heard they might legalize it completely to make money off the taxes.
Therefore, I doubt whether this drug is sinful. If it were legal and FDA approved and there was definitively no more risk than alcohol at damagin one’s brain, then it probably would not be bad under most situations.
The other drugs however are. They can ruin your brain or just cause bad things to happen to you. Damaging one’s self like that is sinful.
Therefore, I doubt whether this drug is sinful. If it were legal and FDA approved and there was definitively no more risk than alcohol at damagin one’s brain, then it probably would not be bad under most situations.
The other drugs however are. They can ruin your brain or just cause bad things to happen to you. Damaging one’s self like that is sinful.
T
thistle
Guest
Because something is legal in certain countries does not mean it is not sinful. Look at abortion. That is legal in many countries but it is still a grave sin.
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
A pity there isn’t a way to ask you to step outside and repeat that personal abuse, if you dared to.
What of a Catholic’s responsibility to the good order of the State? Because it gets you stoned, it seems, this can be disregarded. Remember: we are not speaking of drugs alone, but of illegal drugs. Is that why we can flout the law, because it feels good? This is moral uprightness!?
And what of obedience? It is very thoughtful that our Holy Mother the Church sees fit to give reasons for her conclusions. But she certainly does not do this so that each of her children can use them as a basis to avoid her conclusions and directions.
This is rather like the driver who gets caught running the stop sign when the street is virtually empty. The stop sign is there to promote traffic safety, and safety was not in jeopardy when he ran it, so there was no offense committed since safety was not compromised. I was actually in court (as a witness) when someone tried to argue that before the judge. Even the people waiting to have their cases heard laughed out loud, and the guy got the fine and points levied. And rightly so. Who wants to share the road with a bozo who thinks he can decide for himself when to obey the law?
It’s always troubling when the first concern is looking for a loophole, rather than seeking to obey our Holy Mother.
Blessings,
Gerry
S
selylidne
Guest
Calm down, 'roidy. You don’t have to prove your masculinity here.
A competent reader would have noticed that it was my sixth concern to notice that the conditions on that teaching have limits.
Blind obedience is never appropriate. That is why it is “very thoughtful” that the official teaching gives reasons. When uncompromising obedience to a conclusion is expected, the Church has no problem saying so, on countless subjects; this one explicitly provides for exceptions, as any competent reader would see.
Nice, you project an argument onto me that I didn’t make and also project a past history onto me that doesn’t apply.
To answer your question: Me, for one, and most other drivers, too. There was a truck stalled on the road yesterday. Legally, we should have all waited for hours until it could be removed. In reality, we drove around it when traffic was clear.
More generally, it’s odd to make a comparison from civil law, with all its grotesque injustices, to try to prove a point about the eternal moral law.
Plonk.
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
The good news about people who consider themselves a law unto themselves, particularly when it comes to taking illegal drugs, is that they are Darwin Award candidates who are rather like self-limiting viruses. They someday take it upon themselves to vary one law too many, in their self-certified wisdom, and cease to be a problem any more. The hope is that they take no one else with them.
Meanwhile, it is to be hoped that they learn the principles of moral theology in time to avoid being victims of their own foibles. It just may save them. The first thing to learn is that although consequences of immoral behaviour may well be cited, the consequences themselves play no part in determining the moral nature of the act itself.
And one wonders how it is is that “cafeteria Catholicism” came about so easily. One word from the Church, and, we are to believe, we can do as we please.
Blessings,
Gerry
PS: It is to be hoped that those who take it upon themselves to ignore stop signs do not also take it upon themselves to do the same thing at railway crossings. Trains are expensive to fix.
Meanwhile, it is to be hoped that they learn the principles of moral theology in time to avoid being victims of their own foibles. It just may save them. The first thing to learn is that although consequences of immoral behaviour may well be cited, the consequences themselves play no part in determining the moral nature of the act itself.
And one wonders how it is is that “cafeteria Catholicism” came about so easily. One word from the Church, and, we are to believe, we can do as we please.
Blessings,
Gerry
PS: It is to be hoped that those who take it upon themselves to ignore stop signs do not also take it upon themselves to do the same thing at railway crossings. Trains are expensive to fix.
- Status