Is smoking a mortal sin???

[Fox]

Innocent,
Nonsense, taking care of the body is being a good steward to what God has given you. Ignorance is not an option in this day and age, drinking 15 cups of coffee is harmful to the body, smoking, chewing, eating tobacco is harmful to the body. These things have been proven to do so.

People need to make defenses like the above one, to mitigate and justify their excesses, it still doesn’t make it right.

 

[Fox]

Valt,

1. "And smoking again is not that bad for you, I’m getting tired of saying it…"

Yea keep saying this to yourself, blame yourself when you come down possibly with cardio pulmonary disease, cancer, and/or emphysema from your “safe” habit.

2. "Yes there are plenty of reasons to smoke, especially for health benefits;
Some small quantity of nicotine does account for some of the beneficial effects of smoking, e.g., improved mental concentration;
studies suggest that tobacco contains a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI). MAOI’s are anti-depressants, which work by increasing serotonin levels in the brain. They are used in medicine to treat Parkinson’s disease, which may explain why a number of studies have shown that smokers have a far lower rate of Parkinson’s than non-smokers."

The benefits don’t outweigh the risk, you can take the herbal Ginko Biloba and get the same results for mental clarity. Next.

3. "What I don’t understand is why you still cling to such incorrect notions…"

They are facts my friend.

4. "No it’s called enjoying a good smoke as well as enjoying the health benefits…"

Its called find better healthful thing with your friends, health benefits suuuuure, keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel better and justifed.

5. "And some how thats supposed to be left out of all instances in a smokers diet, but no it was the smoking that killed him, no not the **** he ate…"

*This is for all people not just smokers. We are the only animals that can make conscious food decisons and what we put into our bodies. *

6. "We might as well since we are being spoon fed flaws, lies, and ignorance. And we still don’t know jack about smoking…"

*I think I’d go with the professionals on what smoking can do to you. Go ahead a refute the evidence and the correlation fo smoking and various lung diseases." *

7."Yes, but moderation is good,and trying to slap on an “but smokers always smoke in excess” is baseless excusing…"

***The smokers I have known and seen can’t wait for their next fix. Tell you what do an experiment, quiet smoking, and see if you can, if you can’t your addicted and for YOU smoking is excessive. ***

---

Any habit you have and can’t shake is because it was done excessively to get to that point.

 

[Valtiel]

Yea keep saying this to yourself, blame yourself when you come down possibly with cardio pulmonary disease, cancer, and/or emphysema from your “safe” habit.
*

I won’t come down with emphysima because thats genetic, you can’t get cardio pulminary disease or cancer because it hasn’t been honestly proven, and you can keep up with your rhetoric despite evreything to the contrary…
The benefits don’t outweigh the risk, you can take the herbal Ginko Biloba and get the same results for mental clarity. Next.

The same risks are there with drinking alcohol, there are no greater risks, hopefully your ignorance will let go of you…
*

They are facts my friend.

Facts require concrete evidence, in the face of the current anti smoking data, there is no substantial fact…

lcolby.com/index.html
skepticism.net/faq/health_scares/ets/
ncpa.org/~ncpa/pd/pdenv4.html
junkscience.com/feb99/sexton.htm
joejackson.com/smokingissue.htm
www.davehitt.com/facts
www.junkscience.com
www.forces.org
Its called find better healthful thing with your friends, health benefits suuuuure, keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel better and justifed.

It’s not a lie unless you can dismantle the fermingham study, the over 4 years study on smoking and it’s effects…
And I have backed up my assertians, it’s you who has to keep up the rhetoric to justify your own incorrect notions…
*

*This is for all people not just smokers. We are the only animals that can make conscious food decisons and what we put into our bodies. *

Still you fail to respond, couldn’t that be factor isntead of the actual smoking???..

*I think I’d go with the professionals on what smoking can do to you. Go ahead a refute the evidence and the correlation fo smoking and various lung diseases." *

As if profesionals ahve always been right or have no always let biasness operate how they run, let me remind you that professionals had data as to why blacks should not be let in the army. And lets not forget professional back before prohibition had the exact same proffesional fortitude against drinking, and had so called official data to back it up. Proffesionals have been lead led by their own bias, and own flaws many a times. And that last part is just plain ignorance, yes I will refute it, and you know what that then makes your proffesional’s data? It makes it wrong…

lcolby.com/index.html
skepticism.net/faq/health_scares/ets/
ncpa.org/~ncpa/pd/pdenv4.html
junkscience.com/feb99/sexton.htm
joejackson.com/smokingissue.htm
www.davehitt.com/facts
www.junkscience.com
www.forces.org

---

The smokers I have known and seen can’t wait for their next fix. Tell you what do an experiment, quiet smoking, and see if you can, if you can’t your addicted and for YOU smoking is excessive.

Any habit you have and can’t shake is because it was done excessively to get to that point.**

I already have I can go without smoking, I can go as long as needs be without it, I acutally have to sometimes because I’m low on money. And smoking is not addictive, if so then tell mr. I’m so high and mighty anti smoker why are the numbers of ex smokers far out numbering current smokers???

 

[InnocentIII]

Fox:

Innocent,
Nonsense, taking care of the body is being a good steward to what God has given you. Ignorance is not an option in this day and age, drinking 15 cups of coffee is harmful to the body, smoking, chewing, eating tobacco is harmful to the body. These things have been proven to do so.

Fox, you keep saying this as though eventually I will give up and say you are right. I am 52, I have to have regular medical checkups for my work, I have passed them all, including this year. Many things are harmful to the body but that doesn’t mean that it is a) a sin or b) that all activity must be cut out.

You are entitled to your opinion and that is all it is. I am entitled to mine. In fact the Church has specifically spoken ruled out making a fetish of bodily health. Our Lord nowhere gave instructions on the level of health we had to maintain. I dislike people who preach down to me as though I was a simpleton. I AM aware of studies and claims made about smoking. I repeat the studies are conflicting and inclonclusive. This does not mean it is necessarily good for me but likewise it doesn’t mean its a form of suicide either. Nor do I inflict my preferences on others as others appear to want to do to me. And don’t tell me about second hand smoke. I don’t smoke around non-smokers.

As Scott said, its about elevating pet peeves into religious laws. It ain’t so. I dislike vegetarians and think their diet is unhealthy but I do not accuse them of moratl sin nor preach to them the need for meat. As far as i can see the only uncharitable posters on this thread are those who insist on smokers being evil sinners and demanding that they give it up.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I can find anything too, but not all are from a truly scientific, statisical, or logical procedural and comprehensive stand point. This is again excusing, there is no actual point or relevence to this against an actual reputable study…

What it comes down to is that you are choosing for yourself which study or studies you claim to be reputable.

You’re making yourself the Martin Luther of smoking studies.

“Oh these ones don’t count.”

“Oh this one is a study of straw.”

“Oh well this one does count but we have to interpret it this way instead of the way that we’ve been interpreting it for years.”

 

[paramedicgirl]

InnocentIII:

In fact the Church has specifically spoken ruled out making a fetish of bodily health.

Innocent lll, can you please reference where that information is ? I would like to read it. I suppose it is a sin of vanity and pride to overdo bodily health.
Thank you.

 

[Lazerlike42]

You accuse me of flawed logic… just one example from your websites:

The CDC would have us believe that in the blue areas, fewer people are smoking cigarettes. There is, however, another explanation, which I believe to be more logical. All of the blue areas are areas where there has been a heavy Hispanic immigration.

It is well known that the lung cancer rate in American Indians is very low. Like Asians, they seem to possess a genetic resistance to the disease. The Hispanics who have immigrated into the blue areas are descendants of the same ancestors as our Native Americans. Thus, the changes in demographics more likely account for the changes in LCDR's than do any other single factor.

I don’t even think I need to point out how ridiculous that line of reasoning is and how much of a stretch it is. This is flawed reasoning if I ever saw it, for a NUMBER of reasons.

1. Assuming it’s true that the lung cancer rate among American Indians is low, it is ASOLUTELY necessary if one wishes to make such conclusions as this to determine and indicate WHY lung cancer rates are lower amongst American Indians. To fail to do so is either deceptive or just plain ignorant, but in either case it leaves a MAJOR hole in the reasoning.
2. Why is it necessary to go through this winding road to get to the conclusion? The question is this: are lung cancer rates lower in HISPANICS, who actually immigrated? I would venture to say not. If that were the case, the author would have pointed out that Hispanics have a lower lung cancer rate. He didn’t do that, though. Why? The statistics are readily availible I’m sure. I would venture to say that he didn’t do that because the statistics DON’T say Hispanics have a lower lung cancer rate. Why is this important? Because
3. A common ancestor doesn’t mean a common affinity. For instance, I am descended from the same folks as both the Hispanics and the American Indians. That doesn’t mean my liklihood to get lung cancer is comparable to their’s. Of course the Hispanic’s heritage might be more closely related to the American Indians’ than mine is, but that raises the question of how I got different from them if we had the same ancestor?

For one thing, my geneaology had other ancestors add into it. I had folks from Ireland and France mix things up and dilute the gene pool. Well, so did the Hispanics. From European travelers to other people that may have immigrated to Central America from various islands or other parts of the world, their gene pool got dilluted as well, even if it was to a lesser extant. Also, just the sheer course of time, lifestyle, and environment led my ancestors to become a little different. So did the Hispanics. Their lifestyle, the sorts of food they ate, the sorts of bacteria they were exposed to, all of these things were different from the American Indians. This led to differences and to slight adaptations that the race made over time.

Even if we took two distinct groups of American Indians we would find major differences. Peublo Indians would have a lot of differences from Indian tribes of the northeast, for instance. I’d venture to say that the various disease rates would be quite different between the two groups. Similarly, there are differences between the disease rates for Hispanics and American Indians.

The author contends that lung cancer rates dropped because Hispanics came in and Hispanics have lower lung cancer rates because their ancestors the American Indians do.

But forget the middle man. Do Hispanics have lower rates? Why didn’t the author simply say that Hispanics have lower lung cancer rates? Because they probably don’t. Because he is stretching the truth to make the claim he wants to.

 

[Valtiel]

Lazerlike42:

What it comes down to is that you are choosing for yourself which study or studies you claim to be reputable.

No it doesn’t, and your still pussyfooting around making baseless and almost off the subject rants. This is just asinine right here, what you fail to understand is that it’s a weigh in and judgement criteria, a study has this flaw so it can’t be credible, a study is taken out of context hence we are not getting the true scope of it, and so forth. It doesn’t take rocket scientist to think well maybe then it’s wrong. If it’s not inherently or fundamentaly reputable then it’s not reputable, and the links do so to the vast numbers of said studies. What this comes down to is a flailing about in attempt to hit some one, you want to come up with generalized conjecture that doesn’t even come close to the specific structures and fundamnetals demanded in statistics and scientific studies, I mean what else can I say, none of this is relevant…

You’re making yourself the Martin Luther of smoking studies.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

“Oh these ones don’t count.”

If they are flawed then they do not count, this is another generalized conjecture almost to the point of a straw man…

“Oh this one is a study of straw.”

This doesn’t even make sense…

#2 attemp at trying to excuse your way into nonsense and painlfully ignorant excuses without actually haveing to take any bulk of the argument or burden of proof of why smoking is not bad for you…
And your making yourself look like a fool, and starting to irritate me at that with all this sillyness…

“Oh well this one does count but we have to interpret it this way instead of the way that we’ve been interpreting it for years.”

The way it’s been interpreted for years??? There is only one interpration most of it has been lost due to PC, there are cited examples when they purposely misinterpreted for their own ends.
MAny studies that have been interpreted one had to be reinterpreted due to new knowledge and so forth…

 

[Lazerlike42]

No it doesn’t, and your still pussyfooting around making baseless and almost off the subject rants. This is just asinine right here, what you fail to understand is that it’s a weigh in and judgement criteria, a study has this flaw so it can’t be credible, a study is taken out of context hence we are not getting the true scope of it, and so forth. It doesn’t take rocket scientist to think well maybe then it’s wrong. If it’s not inherently or fundamentaly reputable then it’s not reputable, and the links do so to the vast numbers of said studies. What this comes down to is a flailing about in attempt to hit some one, you want to come up with generalized conjecture that doesn’t even come close to the specific structures and fundamnetals demanded in statistics and scientific studies, I mean what else can I say, none of this is relevant…

Your studies primarily seem to focus on ETS, which is itself a difficult thing to study. It’s not a direct thing. You can’t have this fellow who is smoking and study what the smoking is doing to him. Instead, you have to study indirect effects.

I’ve spent my entire LIFE living in a home with multiple smokers. I bet my lungs are pretty good, though, because I’m never home! Even when I am, I avoid (and have avoided most of my life) breathing in the stuff. Whenever I walk near it I hold/have held my breath. So if you study me you’re not going to find any effects of ETS. That doesn’t mean ETS doesn’t have any effects.

That’s the sort of problem you run into. It’s just so indirect. I don’t think we can conclude much about ETS unless we did a very, very, very controlled study.

The one study you do appeal to, the Framingham study, was a general heart health study. It wasn’t focused on smoking, it just looked at all sorts of factors that can effect heart health. It doesn’t even address the lungs, which are the primary problem that somkers run in to. When it addresses the heart, it’s starting out from a generalized pov. I don’t think it’s nearly important enough to base your whole view of smoking on. If they did a study like this and focused exclusively on smoking, that would be a good start. You can say that just because it’s not focused on smoking that doesn’t mean it can’t produce accurate findings, and that’s true. However, when you do a generalized study, you don’t get into the nitty gritty enough, and the nitty gritty is so often where the important things are in this sort of thing.

The fact is that there are countless studies saying smoking is bad, and this one single study saying it’s not bad or that it’s good. Even if you try to discount all of the other studies, that still only leaves ONE study that you are basing this entire decision on. I also think it’s quite naive to assume that everything all of those websites say is true. You can find anything you want on the internet. The studies they are criticizing have at least been put together by professional folks. Could they be flawed? Sure. Are they? Probably in some ways. Are they flawed enough to disprove their entire thesis? I’d say probably not. Could they be biased? Sure. Are they? Some probably are. Are they all? Doubt it.

 

[InnocentIII]

paramedicgirl:

Innocent lll, can you please reference where that information is ? I would like to read it. I suppose it is a sin of vanity and pride to overdo bodily health.
Thank you.

CCC2289

2289 If morality requires respect for the life of the body, it does not make it an absolute value. It rejects a neo-pagan notion that tends to promote the cult of the body, to sacrifice everything for it’s sake, to idolize physical perfection and success at sports. By its selective preference of the strong over the weak, such a conception can lead to the perversion of human relationships.

 

[paramedicgirl]

InnocentIII:

CCC2289

2289 If morality requires respect for the life of the body, it does not make it an absolute value. It rejects a neo-pagan notion that tends to promote the cult of the body, to sacrifice everything for it’s sake, to idolize physical perfection and success at sports. By its selective preference of the strong over the weak, such a conception can lead to the perversion of human relationships.

Thank you for looking that up for me!

 

[thistle]

InnocentIII:

Yes. the last time I checked Fr Corapi had not been elevated to the papacy, nor had he suddenly been endowed with the grace of infallibility. I have raised this issue with many priests over the years in discussions - not once have I been told that smoking per se is a sin let alone a mortal one. Are you holding up Fr Corapi as a higher authority than these? Priests are entitled to their own pet peeves too but they aren’t the magisterium.

Interesting. I wonder where the Christian Charity is that you talked about previously???

By the way I am certainly no expert which is why I wanted someone to comment on (but nobody has so far) on the Confession Book I have which states excessive smoking is a mortal sin. It has an Imprimatur (Bishop of Paterson) which I thought meant the contents of the book are error free as far as the Church is concerned.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

thistle:

Interesting. I wonder where the Christian Charity is that you talked about previously???

By the way I am certainly no expert which is why I wanted someone to comment on (but nobody has so far) on the Confession Book I have which states excessive smoking is a mortal sin. It has an Imprimatur (Bishop of Paterson) which I thought meant the contents of the book are error free as far as the Church is concerned.

Maybe I missed it in the previous posts somewhere, but I don’t think anyone here is disputing that excessive smoking is potentially a mortal sin. Most of us as far as I can tell are taking issue with the idea that any and all tobacco use is inherently wrong–something simply not supported by Church teaching.

Scott

 

[thistle]

Scott Waddell:

Maybe I missed it in the previous posts somewhere, but I don’t think anyone here is disputing that excessive smoking is potentially a mortal sin. Most of us as far as I can tell are taking issue with the idea that any and all tobacco use is inherently wrong–something simply not supported by Church teaching.

Scott

If that is the case then my apologies. My impression was that many of the posters were saying that smoking of any amount (even excessive) was not a sin.

 

[Fortiterinre]

rjs1:

It is true that in previous generations smoking was not regarded as particularly bad. However we must take account of our vastly increased knowledge about the true effects of smoking on our bodies and on the bodies of those around us.

I think the Church may have to reconsider its position about the seriousness, and possible sinfulness, of smoking. St Paul tells us that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and should be respected as such.

Rjs1, thank you for such a reasoned presentation of this position. I completely disagree, but you have given almost a perfect summary.

I disagree because I categorize this approach as moral incrementalism; new things constantly become progressively more immoral based on modern concepts of “vastly increased knowledge.” Something can be BAD without being SINFUL; we live in a fallen world where people do all kinds of bad and mediocre things that are not sinful, but merely by-products of a broken world.

I am impressed at the length of this thread, because I think I cracked wise somewhere here that half the Vatican was going to hell based on these prelates’ constant and unbearable smoking! But on a more serious note, moral incrementalism greatly weakens the ability of the Church to teach, because to stay “current” she “may have to reconsider [her] position about the seriousness, and possible sinfulness, of smoking” [insert other current controversies here]. The beauty of the Catholic Church is that she DOESN’T have to seriously reconsider her moral teachings. There are plenty of things in her past that are unpleasant and embarrassing, but they were a result of human brokenness and not perpetual moral retooling.

Many popular priests support moral incrementalism; Fr. Corrapi talks about smoking as sinful, Fr. Trujilio suggests garage sale bargains are sinful if they are too good, etc. In a broken world, the temptation to pass new moral laws to tidy up the details is strong. With no disrespect to the Jersey prelate’s imprimatur, “excessive” can make almost any neutral action sinful; the sin is in degree, never kind. But calling the neutral actions sins weakens the power of the Church’s teaching.

 

[InnocentIII]

Thankyou Fortiterinre for that excellent summary of moral incrementalism.

This is an importnat issue because it also touches on the whole concept of the Church’s eternal teaching vs the Church keeping up to date with the secular world. If the Church has to revise her teaching in the light of new knowledge every few decades then she becomes not a witness to the eternal truth but to human relativism. Incrementalism is a way in which the Church can be remade into something completely different without anyone noticing. It is interesting that the push for women priests also uses the argument of “new knowledge” to justify why the Church shoulld change its teaching of 2000 years.

While new knowledge should not be discounted, especially in the area of science, it should not simply be siezed on holus bolus to introduce the latest fad. As a teacher I have seen the disastrous impact of new knowledge being used to apply the latest fad leading to a destruction of sound teaching. We are now being forced to return to many of the things we gave up on 20 years ago.

In the case of smoking, it has been condemned by various people since the 17th century when James I wrote his counterblast to tobacco, yet the Church does not declare smoking per se a sin. It does condemn excess in everything. Thus the Church does not need to update anything. I strongly agree with Scott that this is all about trying to elevate our pet issues into Church dogma. Thankfully the Church stands for eternal truths and not just the latest craze. It would be interesting to consider what would happen if the Church were to declare certain foods sinful on the basis of new (and ever changing) knowledge.

 

[thistle]

InnocentIII:

Thankyou Fortiterinre for that excellent summary of moral incrementalism.

This is an importnat issue because it also touches on the whole concept of the Church’s eternal teaching vs the Church keeping up to date with the secular world. If the Church has to revise her teaching in the light of new knowledge every few decades then she becomes not a witness to the eternal truth but to human relativism. Incrementalism is a way in which the Church can be remade into something completely different without anyone noticing. It is interesting that the push for women priests also uses the argument of “new knowledge” to justify why the Church shoulld change its teaching of 2000 years.

While new knowledge should not be discounted, especially in the area of science, it should not simply be siezed on holus bolus to introduce the latest fad. As a teacher I have seen the disastrous impact of new knowledge being used to apply the latest fad leading to a destruction of sound teaching. We are now being forced to return to many of the things we gave up on 20 years ago.

In the case of smoking, it has been condemned by various people since the 17th century when James I wrote his counterblast to tobacco, yet the Church does not declare smoking per se a sin. It does condemn excess in everything. Thus the Church does not need to update anything. I strongly agree with Scott that this is all about trying to elevate our pet issues into Church dogma. Thankfully the Church stands for eternal truths and not just the latest craze. It would be interesting to consider what would happen if the Church were to declare certain foods sinful on the basis of new (and ever changing) knowledge.

I’m quite happy to accept that smoking is not a sin if that’s the Church’s official position but for my edification can someone then explain to me the purpose of a book having an Imprimatur. Doesn’t it mean that the contents of that book are doctrinally error free. If that’s the case then how can the book state that excessive smoking and drinking is a mortal sin?

 

[Lazerlike42]

thistle:

I’m quite happy to accept that smoking is not a sin if that’s the Church’s official position but for my edification can someone then explain to me the purpose of a book having an Imprimatur. Doesn’t it mean that the contents of that book are doctrinally error free. If that’s the case then how can the book state that excessive smoking and drinking is a mortal sin?

Well that’s not a matter of doctrine. That’s a matter of moral theology, which is not so much defined by the Church. You’ll find different folks with different opinions on these things, and as long as they keep their opinions within a particular range one way or the other, they are not wrong in what they say.

 

[thistle]

Lazerlike42:

Well that’s not a matter of doctrine. That’s a matter of moral theology, which is not so much defined by the Church. You’ll find different folks with different opinions on these things, and as long as they keep their opinions within a particular range one way or the other, they are not wrong in what they say.

Are you saying, for example, that you can have two books with an Imprimatur and one says smoking or whatever is a sin and the other says smoking or whatever is not a sin?

 

[waxednwaned]

An Imprimatur does not guarantee it is without error:
It simply means that a Bishop said that the book could be writen, with or without errors. An “Imprimatur” is only as good as the Bishop who put it there.