Smoking a Sin??

  • Thread starter Thread starter iguana27
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Sherlock:
agname,

You wrote: “It’s very clear…if one knows the facts of smoking (ie, that even in moderation it destroys the human body)…and one knows they’re addicted and do not care, etc…then it is a mortal sin.”

Funny, I must have missed that particular papal decree…

Tell me, agname: since we KNOW that not exercising is bad for one’s health, is one guilty of a mortal sin if a person does not exercise, even if they know they should, but don’t?

Since we KNOW that eating the good Colonel’s chicken is not good for us, is one guilty of a mortal sin if one eats a whole bucket? How about a half-bucket? 3 pieces?
Click to expand...
Sherlock…re-read my prior posts slowly. Your comparison is completely fallacious. There is no comparison between Fried Chicken and Cigarettes. First, chicken and tobacco are not the same…chemically, etc. Second, we know fried chicken in moderate doses is not harmful…cigarettes are.

If you want to try and compare cigarettes with alcohol…then…re-read…
  1. Individuals smoke cigarettes purely
    for its narcotic effect.
  2. Even the moderate use of cigarette
    smoking destroys lung tissue.
  3. The moderate utilization of alcohol
    does not have negative effects on the
    human body. The body can safely metabolize
    alcohol in moderate doses.
  4. Doctors are known to tell patients
    to drink two glasses of wine a day…
    in conjunction with prescribing either crestor,
    gemfibrozil, probucol, or clofibrate.
    Alcohol is believed to reduce the risk of
    coronary heart disease (at least in part) by
    reducing serum levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol.
  5. 99% of doctors are against cigarette smoking.
  6. In can be shown that heroin use intavenously
    is safer for the human body…than an individual
    smoking a cigarette. For instance, heroin when used intravenously
    bypasses the liver, etc. Cigarette smoke can not
    by pass the lungs. Cigarette smoking is shown to
    be more addictive than heroin and cocaine.
  7. What’s the difference between enhanced delivery cigarettes (we
    know tobacco companies deliberately worked on increasing
    the addictiveness of cigarettes) or tobacco laced with heroin?
And read…

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2221919.stm

cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/11/lung_cancer030811

healthday.com/view.cfm?id=513954

my.webmd.com/content/article/79/96239.htm?lastselectedguid=%7B5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348%7D

thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/10565904?source=Evening%20Standard

telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2003/06/18/hsmokefact.xml&sSheet=/health/2003/06/18/ixhright.html

familydoctor.org/x1923.xml
 
40.png
agname:
Snippy? It’s straight forward.

And give yourself a cookie.
Click to expand...
agname,

Your bitterness is unbecoming.

Without making a statement either way about whether smoking is mortal sin or not, consider this: if smoking is not a mortal sin, anyone who tells others it is is guilty of creating a false stumbling block for his/her fellow Catholics. As its name implies, mortal sin is very serious and thinking that one has committed a mortal sin can have profound effects on a sensitive conscience. This, of course, can be a good thing if a mortal sin has indeed been committed. If the sin is not mortal or, even worse, there is no sin at all, this stress is not only unecessary but also confusing. To knowingly create this conflict for others is a significant offense against charity.

In a way, the debate in this thread–which I have participated in–is ridiculous; we’re arguing about whether or not something is a mortal sin when no action is per se a mortal sin. For a sin to be deemed mortal, there are two other criteria that must be addressed: consent and knowledge. Our debate would be better served if we acknowledged that we’re really talking about whether smoking is a grave matter that can become a mortal sin in certain circumstances. This distinction may seem tedious to some but mortal sin is a serious enough topic to deserve such attention.
 
40.png
j_arden:
agname,

Your bitterness is unbecoming.

Without making a statement either way about whether smoking is mortal sin or not, consider this: if smoking is not a mortal sin, anyone who tells others it is is guilty of creating a false stumbling block for his/her fellow Catholics. As its name implies, mortal sin is very serious and thinking that one has committed a mortal sin can have profound effects on a sensitive conscience. This, of course, can be a good thing if a mortal sin has indeed been committed. If the sin is not mortal or, even worse, there is no sin at all, this stress is not only unecessary but also confusing. To knowingly create this conflict for others is a significant offense against charity.

In a way, the debate in this thread–which I have participated in–is ridiculous; we’re arguing about whether or not something is a mortal sin when no action is per se a mortal sin. For a sin to be deemed mortal, there are two other criteria that must be addressed: consent and knowledge. Our debate would be better served if we acknowledged that we’re really talking about whether smoking is a grave matter that can become a mortal sin in certain circumstances. This distinction may seem tedious to some but mortal sin is a serious enough topic to deserve such attention.
Click to expand...
“This, of course, can be a good thing if a mortal sin has indeed been committed. If the sin is not mortal or, even worse, there is no sin at all, this stress is not only unecessary but also confusing.”

This is why I believe it should be debated.

“For a sin to be deemed mortal, there are two other criteria that must be addressed: consent and knowledge.”

As I’ve stated…if one knows what they are partaking in destroys the human body…even in moderate doses (which cigarette smoking does)…and doesn’t care (which most smokers don’t)…but enjoys the narcotic effects of a substance (which cigarette smoking provides)…and it can and will destroy those around them (which cigarette smoking does)…and the individual doesn’t care (which most smokers don’t)…then yes…it would be no doubt a mortal sin.
 
I think it’s interesting that one often hears of the ravages of alcohol abuse on families. I personally have never heard one story of cigarettes tearing a family apart. I have personal experience w/ living w/ both alcoholics and smokers. I much prefer the smoker.

Who was it that said that there is no contradiction between a pipe, pint, and a prayer? GKChesterton, maybe?
 
40.png
karisue:
I think it’s interesting that one often hears of the ravages of alcohol abuse on families. I personally have never heard one story of cigarettes tearing a family apart. I have personal experience w/ living w/ both alcoholics and smokers. I much prefer the smoker.

Who was it that said that there is no contradiction between a pipe, pint, and a prayer? GKChesterton, maybe?
Click to expand...
There have been numerous reports and articles done on the ravages of smoking on families…wither it’s divorce…or the death of infants.

You can find a list of info here…or your MD…can provide more.

ash.org/statistics.html
 
Sorry to post twice in a row.

If the original issue is whether smoking is a MORTAL sin, then one must consider the definition of a mortal sin. Is smoking in moderation a serious matter? Perhaps we can apply the “reasonable person” test to this – I doubt a reasonable person would argue that someone who smokes less than 10 cigarettes a day is doing serious damage to his body. Anyone who argues that he is must decide then whether pepsi, fast food and candy bars fall in the same category when we overindulge in them.
 
Agname,

You wrote: " Your comparison is completely fallacious. There is no comparison between Fried Chicken and Cigarettes. First, chicken and tobacco are not the same…chemically, etc. Second, we know fried chicken in moderate doses is not harmful…cigarettes are."

I was not suggesting that tobacco and fried chicken are the same chemically—where did you get that idea?

The comparison is not fallacious, as both fried chicken and cigarettes are both regarded by health professionals as unhealthy to some degree. I am not suggesting that they are equally unhealthy; merely, that they share the trait “unhealthiness”, although in differing degrees. THAT is the basis for my comparison, not that they are chemically the same. I am just wondering at what point does a person’s consumption of fried chicken constitute a mortal sin in your eyes, rather than constituting “poor judgement” in matters of health.

You wrote: “If you want to try and compare cigarettes with alcohol…”

I never mentioned alcohol in any of my posts. Why do you suggest that I did?

This seems to be an area that you are overly concerned about. Have you talked to a priest about this? You may be suffering from scrupulosity.
 
40.png
karisue:
Sorry to post twice in a row.

If the original issue is whether smoking is a MORTAL sin, then one must consider the definition of a mortal sin. Is smoking in moderation a serious matter? Perhaps we can apply the “reasonable person” test to this – I doubt a reasonable person would argue that someone who smokes less than 10 cigarettes a day is doing serious damage to his body. Anyone who argues that he is must decide then whether pepsi, fast food and candy bars fall in the same category when we overindulge in them.
Click to expand...
A regular joe off the street…not knowing the effects might not have a problem with 10 cigs a day.

A reasonable doctor…scientist…etc. would.
 
40.png
Sherlock:
Agname,

You wrote: " Your comparison is completely fallacious. There is no comparison between Fried Chicken and Cigarettes. First, chicken and tobacco are not the same…chemically, etc. Second, we know fried chicken in moderate doses is not harmful…cigarettes are."

I was not suggesting that tobacco and fried chicken are the same chemically—where did you get that idea?

The comparison is not fallacious, as both fried chicken and cigarettes are both regarded by health professionals as unhealthy to some degree. I am not suggesting that they are equally unhealthy; merely, that they share the trait “unhealthiness”, although in differing degrees. THAT is the basis for my comparison, not that they are chemically the same. I am just wondering at what point does a person’s consumption of fried chicken constitute a mortal sin in your eyes, rather than constituting “poor judgement” in matters of health.

You wrote: “If you want to try and compare cigarettes with alcohol…”

I never mentioned alcohol in any of my posts. Why do you suggest that I did?

This seems to be an area that you are overly concerned about. Have you talked to a priest about this? You may be suffering from scrupulosity.
Click to expand...
The comparison is fallacious.

Scientists and MDs agree…cigarette smoking is harmful on the body (destroying lung tissue, etc.) with moderate use…and even in cases of casual smoking. To compare the ingestion of a fried food (which in extremely high amounts…can be harmful)…is quite different than that of a luxury narcotic…that proves to be very harmful to the human body with moderate use…and even sometimes with casual use. Studies have shown that tobacco causes more health problems and early deaths than all illegal drugs combined.

Finally, “I never mentioned alcohol in any of my posts. Why do you suggest that I did?”

It’s the next step individuals take…when they can’t put forth a valid argument in regards to smoking…they will attempt to compare the two.
 
Agname,

I did not say that they were equally unhealthy, merely that they shared the trait of being considered “unhealthy choices” by those in the medical field. By your reasoning, a non-smoker with high cholesterol is guilty of a mortal sin if indulging in fried chicken.

By what authority do you tell those around you that they are committing a mortal sin? Now, I don’t mind if you abstain from cigarettes or fried chicken or anything else because you think you’d be committing a mortal sin; I might advise you to talk to your priest about possible problems regarding scrupulosity; and I would pray for you; but otherwise I would leave you to it. However, you seem very free in telling others here what is and is not a mortal sin, and in contradiction to the Catechism to top it off. You have no authority to “bind and loose”—you’re not the Church. So until you assume the throne of Peter, I’d appreciate a more moderate tone.
 
40.png
agname:
Saints aren’t sinless…no one is.
Click to expand...
Since Saints mean that he goes to Heaven ASAP (most likely after his death), that means that he never gone to purgatory, that means that he never committed any sin. Even if the saint (such as Pius X) had the Last Rite (Extreme Unction), if smoking is a sin and he’s forgiven by that last rite, he should be in purgatory for a short while. Yet, he’s a saint.

Oh, and smoking is not a sin. No matter how much you want it to be.
 
40.png
agname:
It’s very clear…if one knows the facts of smoking (ie, that even in moderation it destroys the human body)…and one knows they’re addicted and do not care, etc…then it is a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
This type of statement does not help convince people not to smoke. Where do you find the facts that “in moderation” smoking “destroys the human body”. The evidence against smoking is statistical. It has to do with risks. Moderate smoking has relatively mild direct risks on the body. I would argue the indirect risk that you will become addicted is the real problem.

President Bush senior is going to sky dive on his 80th birthday. He is taking a risk. Would you argue that this type of risk taking is sinful?
 
40.png
agname:
  1. Individuals smoke cigarettes purely
    for its narcotic effect.
  2. Even the moderate use of cigarette
    smoking destroys lung tissue.
  3. The moderate utilization of alcohol
    does not have negative effects on the
    human body. The body can safely metabolize
    alcohol in moderate doses.
  4. Doctors are known to tell patients
    to drink two glasses of wine a day…
    in conjunction with prescribing either crestor,
    gemfibrozil, probucol, or clofibrate.
    Alcohol is believed to reduce the risk of
    coronary heart disease (at least in part) by
    reducing serum levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol.
Click to expand...
Your number one is not absolutely true

Breathing the air in Chicago injures lung tissue. We are not morally obligated to move to the country. Fortunately the body has good repair mechanisms. Although you might find some changes at a cellular level from moderate cigarette use, the long term negative effects are more difficult to prove.

Moderate use of alcohol does stress the liver. In addition you cannot know whether you will be a person who is biologically more sensitive to the liver damage that alcohol causes. Some people have what seems to be moderate alcohol intake and yet develop significant liver disease.

The data that alcohol is beneficial to your health is dubious. There is something called publication bias. Its pretty hard to publish a study that showed no benefit to moderate alcohol drinking. Yet if there is one small study that shows a health benefit it gets plastered all over the national media. It seems that we desire alcohol to be good for our health so much that we cling to any study that might show a benefit. I am not a believer. I wouldn’t drink alcohol for some health benefit. I would consider drinking alcohol for enjoyment. Even moderate alcohol drinkers are taking a risk. You need to understand that risk. You need to guard against addiction/dependence.

Both cigarette smoking and alcohol use are risky behavior but certainly not absolutely sinful.
 
40.png
agname:
Studies have shown that tobacco causes more health problems and early deaths than all illegal drugs combined.
Click to expand...
I was surprised to see this thread still running strong. Agname, you continue to quote parts of the catechism that are only loosely related to the subject at hand. The quote that is most pertinent is:

“The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine.”(CCC 2290)

Temperance does not equal abstinence. Temperance does not equal excess either. Temperance is temperance. There are people, myself included, who smoke tobacco temperately.

Whether it is harmful to the health or not (depending on frequency), is irrelevant to the question of whether temperate smoking constitutes “grave matter”. The Church says it doesn’t. And until, as you suggest might happen, the Church reforms its ways on this issue, I will go with the Church.

One final quote, Chesterton:

"The standard of abstract right and wrong apparently is this. That a girl by smoking a cigarette makes herself one of the company of the fiends of hell. That such an action is much the same as that of a sexual vampire. That a young man who continues to drink fermented liquor must necessarily be evil' and must deny the very existence of any difference between right and wrong. That is the standard of abstract right and wrong’ that is apparently taught in the American home. And it is perfectly obvious, on the face of it, that it is not a standard of abstract right or wrong at all. That is exactly what it is not. That is the very last thing any clear-headed person would call it. It is not a standard; it is not abstract; it has not the vaguest notion of what is meant by right and wrong. It is a chaos of social and sentimental accidents and associations, some of them snobbish, all of them provincial, but, above all, nearly all of them concrete and connected with a materialistic prejudice against particular materials. To have a horror of tobacco is not to have an abstract standard of right; but exactly the opposite. It is to have no standard of right whatever; and to take certain local likes and dislikes as a substitute. "
 
Here is just a little extra info for everyone

The damage done on the lungs when Inhaling the fumes of nail polish remover is equivient to smoking 125 cigarettes!
 
40.png
Mandi:
Here is just a little extra info for everyone

The damage done on the lungs when Inhaling the fumes of nail polish remover is equivient to smoking 125 cigarettes!
Click to expand...
So my wife has done more damage to me than me to her! 🙂
 
40.png
SHEMP:
I beg to differ. Smoking has direct effects on brain tissue. It also has indirect effects on brain tissue. The hardest part about quitting smoking is the psychological dependence. For those of you who smoke and think it is ok, then try this. Stop for six months to prove that you have control of your body! If you cannot then you are dependent on the nicotine (drug) and this could be defined as smoking in excess!!
Click to expand...
Listen closely. I’m a “dipper” and have been for 25 years since my undergraduate days. I took it up when a guy in my fraternity offered it to me. I thought the idea was disgusting. The first time I tried it, I threw up. The next time, it was tolerable. Before I knew what had happened, I was hooked. I’ve tried to quit, but just don’t have the inner character or willpower or strength or whatever to quit. Before I got hooked on this, I had quit smoking (after smoking for less than two years) after numerous fruitless attempts. I’m hooked and too stressed to quit. I’ve got a family, two jobs and responsibilities to constantly keep balanced.

Of course, it’s the nicotine that has me hooked. And, dipping, I’ve found, provides nearly all the nicotine, while smoking burns off 90% of the drug.

It’s a vice, and it’s dangerous, and I wish that I could wish this addiction away, but it isn’t easy. Quitting smoking was a picnic by comparison. I don’t believe God will condemn me to hell for chewing tobacco. I hope not and pray not, anyway.

I don’t know what people are talkinga about, in addition, when they talk about “moderate” consumption of tobacco. "A smoke in the morning and a smoke after dinner. This isn’t a dinnertime glass of wine, we’re talking about. When your body needs a shot of nicotine, it wants it. The cravings start, and they won’t stop until they’re “fed”. It becomes like a need for food. Your body is accustomed to regular doses of nicotine and it doesn’t care what time of day it is. That does not call for “moderate” consumption.

That’s why, in my mind, the only way to quit is “cold turkey.” I’ve just not been in a position to put myself through two weeks of withdrawal and the discomfort that goes with it – and deal with the stresses of life that come at me every day.

What concerns me is the holier-than-thou attitude I see in reading some of these posts. It seems apparent to me that some of these posters seem to think they have some special window into the state of the souls of us tobacco users, and that offends me. “Puritannical” seems all too appropriate.

Yes, I’ll have to answer to God for my tobacco use, I’m sure, as I will for all the other vices I have. I hope and pray that he’s more understanding than some of the attitudes that I detect on this thread.

Try living life in my shoes before you condemn the steps I’ve taken.
 
I don’t smoke, and I would not touch the stuff.

I think that smoking cigarettes in the presence of non-smokers is morally wrong. It is very selfish, which is the nature of addictions.

If they want to hurt themselves, that’s one thing, but another thing is when they want to hurt others by smoking in front of them, what right do they have to hurt others? None.
 
40.png
beng:
Since Saints mean that he goes to Heaven ASAP (most likely after his death), that means that he never gone to purgatory, that means that he never committed any sin. Even if the saint (such as Pius X) had the Last Rite (Extreme Unction), if smoking is a sin and he’s forgiven by that last rite, he should be in purgatory for a short while. Yet, he’s a saint.

Oh, and smoking is not a sin. No matter how much you want it to be.
Click to expand...
Beng, I think you are confused about what being a canonized Saint means. Your post is a little unclear but I think you are saying that part of being a Saint is that you did not go to purgatory. Is this a correct summation? Just because someone is declared a Saint, that doesn’t mean that he/she did not go to purgatory before recieving the Beatific Vision. Also, I think your blanket statement about smoking is misguided. Certainly there are instances when smoking can be sinful. If someone has lung cancer from smoking and continues to smoke, knowing that doing so will greatly hasten his/her death, I think it is reasonable to conclude that smoking would be a sin. Whether or not it is a mortal sin is another question–one which this thread is clearly focused on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top