D
DrewC
Guest
I am a smoker and I have talked to my priest about it and he says it is not a sin, however for some reason im not convinced. Can anyone help?
- Status
W
water
Guest
you may read this newly created thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1632124#post1632124
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1632124#post1632124
B
blessedstar
Guest
I would say smoking in moderation is not a sin whilst smoking in excess could be a sin whether venial or mortal is with the conscience of the individual. In itself smoking is not grave matter, just as alcohol is not grave matter but when abused becomes grave matter.
R
rpp
Guest
I do not think smoking is, in itself, a sin. However, since it quickly becomes an attachment and is often offensive to other people (nowadays), it is probably best avoided.
C
Caesar
Guest
My grandfather told me that in the days when smoking wasnt bad for you, everyone smoked: doctors while examining you, teachers in the classroom, and of course the priest at Mass 
G
GoldenArrow
Guest
I’m slightly addicted to Caffeine and I’ve never considered my drinking caffeinated tea a sin. I do in in moderation. Like … no caffeinated beverages after 5PM, or else I won’t sleep that night.
I do like the occasional single shot 16 OZ Soy Hazelnut Latte. Yummy.
So … what’s the difference between being addicted to Caffeine vs Nicotine?
I think the key is excess vs. moderation.
I do like the occasional single shot 16 OZ Soy Hazelnut Latte. Yummy.
So … what’s the difference between being addicted to Caffeine vs Nicotine?
I think the key is excess vs. moderation.
T
T.A.Stobie_SFO
Guest
Somking near others without their permission is a sin as you are inflecting harm on them.
C
carol_marie
Guest
I don’t know about sinful… it IS horrible for you though and the very best thing you can do for yourself and those who love you is quit.
If you chose to smoke, please don’t do it where I’m forced to breathe in your second hand smoke, and also please don’t litter! Throw your butts in the garbage - not just on the ground or out your car window.
Gosh, I sound like an annoying public service announcement.
C
cynic
Guest
nicotine stimulates the pleasure centres of the brain, thus if could be said that it bears a resemblence to (illicit) drug taking, although on a much milder level.
Basically you’re using something for pleasure that has no beneficial effects for the body at all, so it could be argued that even if smoking wan’t bad for you, it is still a sin.
Basically you’re using something for pleasure that has no beneficial effects for the body at all, so it could be argued that even if smoking wan’t bad for you, it is still a sin.
R
rpp
Guest
I think eating macaroni and cheese does the same thing to me. Ice cream too. Is it sinful to eat them? Or is it sinful to eat them only in excess? Neither is particularly good for you.
The real argument that I can see, and I am not sure about it, is that we are to cre for our bodies as temples of the Lord. We now know smoking is harmful to our bodies. To continue to knowingly inflict harm on our bodies is a sin. Now I am not sure I agree with this reasoning, but it does seem sound. It also strikes a warning note of Jansenist (everything is sinful) heresy.
S
Scottgun
Guest
You are right to be suspicious of the temples of the Holy Spirit argument. read in context, this passage refers to objectively immoral things like fornication. Smoking is not objectively immoral. Fortunately the Church teaches common sense. We must take reasonable care of our bodies, but not so much that we make a false god out of health. Common sense says that moderation in eating, drinking alcohol and smoking will not adversely affect health. Common sense says that those who smoke excessively are usually also immoderate with other things like eating junky food, not getting excercise, etc. hence compounding the likelihood of health problems. Common sense also says that limited exposure to second-hand smoke will be no more harmful than sitting in a traffic jam. Common *courtesy *says we should not smoke around others who don’t want to be offended by the smell or if they are sensitive to smoke.
A
Aleii
Guest
Scott, that’s not “common sense” to places like American Cancer Society
cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2x_Questions_About_Smoking_Tobacco_and_Health.asp
Some people would consider a couple cigarettes a day as moderate, but even just 1 cigarette a day causes health damage.
cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2x_Questions_About_Smoking_Tobacco_and_Health.asp
Anyways, instead of just copying over posts, there is already an extensive thread already in place here, with links to statements from the American and British Medical Association, the World Health Organization and more concerning cigarette safety: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=117623
S
siamesecat
Guest
Caffeine does not harm your body unless you take massive amounts at once - then it can be deadly. Even a few cigarettes a day can cause massive damage. It is not the nicotine that is so bad for you, it’s the mix of smoke and chemicals in your lungs. The nicotine just makes it addictive. A lot of things can turn compulsory, and perhaps be spiritually harmful, like masturbation, but only some of these compulsions are physically harmful, and smoking is one of them.
S
Scottgun
Guest
A
Aleii
Guest
They don’t believe in the virtues of moderation? Funny because they encourage moderation of alcohol consumption… as well as quitting smoking.
cancer.org/downloads/PRO/alcohol.pdf
I already stated that smoking alone, by yourself, and getting rid of all traces of smoke might not be called a sin, even though it is detrimental to the body. My goal isn’t to say its a sin or not, my main goal is to say it hurts the body! Man didn’t enter the world knowing everything about it. Science is critical to understanding the effects of technology and our health habits. The Church and Science can and do coexist.
Wow thanks for the attack
I’m glad that bringing information which states the health detriments to smoking, and, encouraging quitting and not smoking around others means that I am evil, out to destroy mankind’s freedom. I quote so much to show that its not just my opinion, there’s a lot of research out there backing that up.My point is not to beat you up. Its to try to debate the point that smoking is a serious health concern. The WHO says
“Smoking is the single biggest preventable cause of death.” This is why I am taking the time to post. Biggest preventable cause of death!
If you want to believe that there is a big conspiracy theory against smokers and their rights, then have at it. But if you are going to tell a thread that it is “common sense” that “moderate” smoking is not harmful, I will be right behind you with the view from the medical community, which resoundingly states to the contrary: that smoking is harmful and quitting smoking needs to be encouraged.
S
Scottgun
Guest
I’ll accept that point.
cancer.org/downloads/PRO/alcohol.pdf
Good.
In excess I agree, in moderation that detriment is insignificant.
I potentially can hurt the body in an unacceptable way. Merely hurting the body is irrelevant to the question of the morality of it because plenty of activities hurt the body and are not immoral.
Man in the past could not give a complete scientific description of it, but they could put two-and-two together in that they could see an excessive smoker getting health problems and a moderate smoker living to ripe old ages.
Never said they could not co-exist. The problem is when scientists try to be ethicists. Because they are human, they can morally reason of course, but if they are guided by a principle that this life is all there is and therefore NO thing that could be remotely unhealty is acceptable, we have a problem.
I didn’t mean to imply that you personally believe that. My apologies I DO think there is a heretical component to anti-smoking camps that make health the all-encompassing end to which all other things are subordinate. And it is the arbitrary selectivity that is troubling. There are plenty of risky behaviors out there that get glossed over. Smoking is simply too easy a targer.Wow thanks for the attack
Excessive smoking is a potential health concern. I agree.
Except that smoking does not equal death. Excessive smoking might equal death.
Again, this is my-scientist-can-beat-up-your-scientist. People should look at it from all quarters and make the prudential judgement for themselves. Perhaps it is not your intent but when we look at the Church teaching:
**
The virtue of temperance [read moderation] disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.**
it looks like that you are trying to do an end-run around the teaching by suggesting there is no such thing as moderate or temperate smoking, hence making it objectively wrong by the back door. Perhaps this is not your intent.
S
Scottgun
Guest
I am going to post my final thoughts on this matter and then bow out for a long break from forums.
To sum up:
-I am not encouraging anyone to start smoking.
-I am not particularly discouraging anyone from starting smoking.
-I wholeheartedly encourage and pray for anyone who has developed a bad habit of smoking and desires to quit, to indeed quit.
-I do think there is a vast difference between fine cigar and pipe smoking and smoking mass-produced cigarettes. I have not talked about it because I didn’t think it was strictly necessary, but I should note that if one was to start smoking, they should learn to truly enjoy and savor good tobacco as opposed to smoking fag after fag of what are essentially the Big Macs of tobacco. (Not that there is anything wrong with eating Big Macs.)
-I do believe that smoking of any kind does entail some risk and a person should prudentially inform themselves of the risks, do serious self-examination, and adjust their habits accordingly to obviate those risks.
I am suggesting throughout all of this that the hostility, alarmism, and heavy-handed state-activism against smoking is far, far disproportionate to the risks. There are many behaviors out there that are much more risky and do not get anywhere near the same treatment that smoking does. There has been an animus against smoking since its discovery in 15th century long before the first rat was stuck in a box full of smoke. From noted blowhard King James I to the Nazi’s anti-smoking campaigns in the 20th century, anti-smokers have thought that any stick to beat tobacco and tobacco users with was a good one. Why is this? I would suggest the heresy of utilitarianism.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to find smoking personally distasteful. The odor, sensitivity to smoke, etc. but perhaps the core of the hostility is the notion that there is no benefit to smoking. There is a benefit and it is pleasure. And it is pleasure with an eye to gladness of heart. For some reason certain folk of all ages have it in their mind’s that there is something wrong with this. It isn’t when the means are morally acceptable and it is pursued in its proper amount and orderliness.
As we have gone through this stats have been bandied about which I have not interacted with much because I don’t deny that excessive smoking is potentially harmful. I do however suggest that these need to be taken with a grain of salt because just as big tobacco companies have an interest in selling their product, so anti-smoking and health organizations have an interest in justifying their existence and making careers out of fighting smoking, and they do that by being as alarming as possible. What is alarming however is the selectivity of what they point their guns at. Big drug companies of course are out to sell the cure for tobacco habits, but note their muteness about birth control and its link to breast cancer, decreased immunity to STD’s, etc. Particularly appalling is the fog they generate about the number one STD known as HPV which can cause cervical cancer. Watch the recent collection of commercials about HPV. They say it is a virus, but* nowhere* do they mention that it is a sexually transmitted virus. OR, most damning of all, that the condom is useless in preventing its spread because it is transmitted skin-to-skin from the thighs to the abdomen. At a panel of NIH doctors was asked about this and remarked that we can’t tell the public about the uselessness of the condom because it would start a panic and telling people to exercise self-control was not an option. (?!)
That last bit may seem like a digression, but it goes to my point. I am not at all saying that one should cavalierly dismiss any pronouncements that come from health organizations, but that we need to abandon the special pleading that says that anything from smoker’s unions or tobacco interests is hopelessly biased and anything from health organizations with a self-interest in funding is gospel. Since none of us have the means or wherewithal to fund and oversee our own double-blind research projects we need to apply common sense and prudential judgement.
I need to take a long break from these forums as they have become a bad habit for me (without nicotine no less!) It is exhausting and frustrating to watch folks trying to elevate smoking to an objective wrong on the one hand, and on another thread seeing otherwise good Catholics attempting to downgrade lying from an objective wrong to a situational ethic as if Church teachings were not authoritatively binding truths, but were more like the pirate code in Pirates of the Caribbean, which Captain Barbossa said were more like “guidelines.” I have however discovered another benefit to smoking other than the pleasure–smoking has all the right enemies and God ain’t one of them.
God bless you all,
Scott
To sum up:
-I am not encouraging anyone to start smoking.
-I am not particularly discouraging anyone from starting smoking.
-I wholeheartedly encourage and pray for anyone who has developed a bad habit of smoking and desires to quit, to indeed quit.
-I do think there is a vast difference between fine cigar and pipe smoking and smoking mass-produced cigarettes. I have not talked about it because I didn’t think it was strictly necessary, but I should note that if one was to start smoking, they should learn to truly enjoy and savor good tobacco as opposed to smoking fag after fag of what are essentially the Big Macs of tobacco. (Not that there is anything wrong with eating Big Macs.
)-I do believe that smoking of any kind does entail some risk and a person should prudentially inform themselves of the risks, do serious self-examination, and adjust their habits accordingly to obviate those risks.
I am suggesting throughout all of this that the hostility, alarmism, and heavy-handed state-activism against smoking is far, far disproportionate to the risks. There are many behaviors out there that are much more risky and do not get anywhere near the same treatment that smoking does. There has been an animus against smoking since its discovery in 15th century long before the first rat was stuck in a box full of smoke. From noted blowhard King James I to the Nazi’s anti-smoking campaigns in the 20th century, anti-smokers have thought that any stick to beat tobacco and tobacco users with was a good one. Why is this? I would suggest the heresy of utilitarianism.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to find smoking personally distasteful. The odor, sensitivity to smoke, etc. but perhaps the core of the hostility is the notion that there is no benefit to smoking. There is a benefit and it is pleasure. And it is pleasure with an eye to gladness of heart. For some reason certain folk of all ages have it in their mind’s that there is something wrong with this. It isn’t when the means are morally acceptable and it is pursued in its proper amount and orderliness.
As we have gone through this stats have been bandied about which I have not interacted with much because I don’t deny that excessive smoking is potentially harmful. I do however suggest that these need to be taken with a grain of salt because just as big tobacco companies have an interest in selling their product, so anti-smoking and health organizations have an interest in justifying their existence and making careers out of fighting smoking, and they do that by being as alarming as possible. What is alarming however is the selectivity of what they point their guns at. Big drug companies of course are out to sell the cure for tobacco habits, but note their muteness about birth control and its link to breast cancer, decreased immunity to STD’s, etc. Particularly appalling is the fog they generate about the number one STD known as HPV which can cause cervical cancer. Watch the recent collection of commercials about HPV. They say it is a virus, but* nowhere* do they mention that it is a sexually transmitted virus. OR, most damning of all, that the condom is useless in preventing its spread because it is transmitted skin-to-skin from the thighs to the abdomen. At a panel of NIH doctors was asked about this and remarked that we can’t tell the public about the uselessness of the condom because it would start a panic and telling people to exercise self-control was not an option. (?!)
That last bit may seem like a digression, but it goes to my point. I am not at all saying that one should cavalierly dismiss any pronouncements that come from health organizations, but that we need to abandon the special pleading that says that anything from smoker’s unions or tobacco interests is hopelessly biased and anything from health organizations with a self-interest in funding is gospel. Since none of us have the means or wherewithal to fund and oversee our own double-blind research projects we need to apply common sense and prudential judgement.
I need to take a long break from these forums as they have become a bad habit for me (without nicotine no less!
) It is exhausting and frustrating to watch folks trying to elevate smoking to an objective wrong on the one hand, and on another thread seeing otherwise good Catholics attempting to downgrade lying from an objective wrong to a situational ethic as if Church teachings were not authoritatively binding truths, but were more like the pirate code in Pirates of the Caribbean, which Captain Barbossa said were more like “guidelines.” I have however discovered another benefit to smoking other than the pleasure–smoking has all the right enemies and God ain’t one of them.God bless you all,
Scott
N
nana3
Guest
I just wanted to say what our Pastor said on the topic. He was going through the Ten Commandments and when he got to “Thou shall not kill,” he mentioned that smoking would fall into this commandment. He said that now a days we know that smoking can lead to cancer and that cancer kills. So he was saying we are killing ourselves when we smoke and know it for it is common knowledge in todays world.
R
rpp
Guest
I belive your pastor may be using Jansenist reasoning to make this point. (That is a heresy where essentially everything, even cutting a prayer short, is a sin.)
Disease or death is not certain. My father smoked 7 (yes, seven) packs of cigarettes a day for more than 40 years. He is now 83. He still smokes (down to a pack a day), his blood pressure is 120/80, his cholesteral is 165. The only prescription that he has are his bi-focal glasses and the only medical treatment he has needed in the last 20 years is some skin cancer (He loves to spend time in the sun.) and knee surgery. Oh my father spent quite a bit of time in nuclear power plants since he was an engineer who designed them. Isn’t that two “big strikes”; very heavy smoking and potential exposure to low-level radiation? (Yes. I know. Radiation exposure is a big deal!)
My mother, on the other hand, does not smoke. My parents have been married for 60 years. She has never lung cancer, or mouth cancer or any other smoking related disease. She does have has health problems that you would expect a typical 80-something have, high blood pressure, etc.
Are my parents some kind of bizzarre exception to the rule about smoking? Are they some kind of supermen? No, not really. They represent, I think the majority of people who smoke. The way you hear some people talk, they claim, that if at one point in your life you were exposed to cigarette smoke foir only 5 minutes, you are going to die off lung cancer. Don’t believe me, look at this link. askquestions.org/details.php?id=160&gclid=CIDEvNuwu4gCFRY7GAodIlw0zw
There zero, none, nada scientific support for this claim and there can never be. What about other smoke, say wood? Like tobacco it is a plant. Until the 20th century everyone cooked with wood fires. Did all those people die of lung cancer. No.
Smoking seems to cause serious health problems in many people, but it is far from the majority. Most people, like my parents, seem generally unaffected.
If a person is aware of this, I think the claim made by the priest is theologically unsupportable. On the other hand, if you believe that smoking is as deadly as cyanide, just slower, and you intentionally expose someone, that is a different story. For some things, the sin is part of the act itself, e.g. adultery. For other things, sin is about intent. If I poured what I thought was poison into someone’s glass, the fact that it was really surgar would not change the fact that I intended to kill someone. That I failed is good. But still, the sinful intent was there.
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
You are not entitled to damage your own body, except for some serious higher purpose.
So smoking is basically a sin, now that we know the damage it causes.
However not in all circumstance. For instance soldiers in abttle often find that tobacco calms their nerves. Mentally ill people can also find it helpful - in Britian mental hospitals are exempted from the general ban on smoking in hospitals.
Also someone who is advised by a doctor, say, to cut down gradully rather than try to go cold turkey, is not committing further sins.
Lastly, it is not a super-serious issue. Cigarette smoke only shortens life by a few years, and most smokers die of unrelated causes. If you are already addicted, it might be better not to try to tackle this particular problem if you have a lot of other issues in your life.
- Status