Traditional Catholic morality wrt "drugs"

  • Thread starter Thread starter GWright
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GWright

Guest
Hi there,

I have posted this in the traditional form, as it relates to something I saw on an SSPX website (see below).
In conclusion, therefore, the use of marijuana, like any hard or soft drug, must be considered a mortal sin
Click to expand...
sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/is_smoking_marijuana_a_sin_10-30-2012.htm

(its in the section “is it a mortal sin to use drugs?”, near the bottom).

All of marijuana, alcohol and nicotine (tobacco) are all examples of soft drugs.

How can the SSPX state that using soft drugs, like these, are mortal sins (or indeed any kind of sins)?

This flies in the face of the great Monastic beer and wine making traditions of the Catholic Church. My Mothers uncle was a Monk in Buckfast Abbey (England) for over 50 years - they produce Buckfast Tonic Wine there.

Some of the finest red wine in the world (Chateauneuf-du-Pape) bears the name and symbology of the Papacy.

Everyone knows of the world famous Trappist Monks beers.

I understand Pope Benedict XVI used to smoke cheroots (unfiltered cigars) earlier in life.

Many clergy enjoy a tipple or a cigarette.

(ETA - and lets not forget, our Lord changed water into wine at the wedding at Canna)

I understand, of course, that allowing an addiction to take hold, or indulging in great excess - to the point where a loss of reason or dignity occurs - is sinful, but what about (eg) a husband and wife enjoying a bottle of wine over a romantic dinner, or someone enjoying the company of friends with a few beers in the pub?

How can the SSPX credibly state that these innocuous occasions of “soft drug use” are mortal sins? (if they are correct, I am going straight to hell!)

Thanks if you can help.

👍
 
Alcohol wouldn’t be on their list for one reason; proper moderation does nothing to dull or alter the senses. You drink half a beer for example, and you will feel no ill effects. It’s when you get sloshed that it becomes an issue.

Marijuana and other narcotics on the other hand, are different. Even a little bit will alter or dull the senses, causing impaired judgement.
 
Melchior said:
Alcohol wouldn’t be on their list for one reason; proper moderation does nothing to dull or alter the senses. You drink half a beer for example, and you will feel no ill effects. It’s when you get sloshed that it becomes an issue.

Marijuana and other narcotics on the other hand, are different. Even a little bit will alter or dull the senses, causing impaired judgement.
Click to expand...
Every drink has an effect on the brain. Given the choice of getting into a car with a person who has had one drink versus a person who has had none I would always choose the non drinker.

I figure that as more and more states allow the use of medical marijuana or careful recreational use it will become more popular.

I cared for a dying family member, I wish I had had access to marijuana to assuage her mind and body.

As I was writing this I marveled at my generation (baby boomer) we loved experimenting drugs …now…we HAVE to take them and it’s not so FUN anymore! Let me qualify that with SOME of us loved experimentation.
 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but is the SSPX not the group that was excommunicated for believing we haven’t had a valid pope since Pope St. Pius X?
 
Razanir said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but is the SSPX not the group that was excommunicated for believing we haven’t had a valid pope since Pope St. Pius X?
Click to expand...
Yes. This is the first reason why I would not listen to their stance on moral issues. They are not inline with the Catholic church. Therefore, right or wrong, their stance has no meaning for me.
 
Razanir / Catholicgeek1

That is not correct about the SSPX. They do acknowledge and accept the Popes - including the current one - they are not sedevacantists (which means “seat vacant”). It is sedevacantists who do not recognise the Popes. Sedevacantists are very few in number, as I understand it.

The issues of the SSPX come / came with regard to the 2nd Vatican Council, which they rejected for a number of reasons (“modernism” as they would call it, such as the change in style of worship etc).

SSPX were founded in 1988, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a frenchman. He consecrated 4 Bishops without permission of John Paul II and so they essentially automatically excommunciated themselves.

Benedict XVI removed these excommuciations and ever since the SSPX and Vatican have been in talks about how to normalise the SSPX within the structures of the Church. The stumbling block remains aspects of Vatican II, however.

So currently, the SSPX has an unusual status within the Church. The Church says that their ordinations are valid, but they do not currently have faculties to administer the sacraments, because of this unusual status.

Its all very confusing, eh?

Cheers
GWright
 
Rx marijuana is quite different from recreational marijuana. The same goes for strong narcotics (suboxone, methadone, etc). Having a doctor prescribe such drugs for a good reason is quite different from allowing anyone to use them recreationally.

Someone who is prescribed a strong drug and follows exactly what the doctor orders will not encounter the same harm as someone who is using them recreationally.
 
GWright said:
Razanir / Catholicgeek1

That is not correct about the SSPX. They do acknowledge and accept the Popes - including the current one - they are not sedevacantists (which means “seat vacant”). It is sedevacantists who do not recognise the Popes. Sedevacantists are very few in number, as I understand it.

The issues of the SSPX come / came with regard to the 2nd Vatican Council, which they rejected for a number of reasons (“modernism” as they would call it, such as the change in style of worship etc).

SSPX were founded in 1988, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a frenchman. He consecrated 4 Bishops without permission of John Paul II and so they essentially automatically excommunciated themselves.

Benedict XVI removed these excommuciations and ever since the SSPX and Vatican have been in talks about how to normalise the SSPX within the structures of the Church. The stumbling block remains aspects of Vatican II, however.

So currently, the SSPX has an unusual status within the Church. The Church says that their ordinations are valid, but they do not currently have faculties to administer the sacraments, because of this unusual status.

Its all very confusing, eh?

Cheers
GWright
Click to expand...
It is indeed quite confusing. Thank you for the clarification.

I maintain however, that until such time as they are in full communion with Rome and are competent to administer the sacraments, I am not going to put alot of stock in anything they have to say, but that is just my opinion.
 
GWright said:
Hi there,

I have posted this in the traditional form, as it relates to something I saw on an SSPX website (see below).

sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/is_smoking_marijuana_a_sin_10-30-2012.htm

(its in the section “is it a mortal sin to use drugs?”, near the bottom).

All of marijuana, alcohol and nicotine (tobacco) are all examples of soft drugs.

How can the SSPX state that using soft drugs, like these, are mortal sins (or indeed any kind of sins)?

This flies in the face of the great Monastic beer and wine making traditions of the Catholic Church. My Mothers uncle was a Monk in Buckfast Abbey (England) for over 50 years - they produce Buckfast Tonic Wine there.

Some of the finest red wine in the world (Chateauneuf-du-Pape) bears the name and symbology of the Papacy.

Everyone knows of the world famous Trappist Monks beers.

I understand Pope Benedict XVI used to smoke cheroots (unfiltered cigars) earlier in life.

Many clergy enjoy a tipple or a cigarette.

(ETA - and lets not forget, our Lord changed water into wine at the wedding at Canna)

I understand, of course, that allowing an addiction to take hold, or indulging in great excess - to the point where a loss of reason or dignity occurs - is sinful, but what about (eg) a husband and wife enjoying a bottle of wine over a romantic dinner, or someone enjoying the company of friends with a few beers in the pub?

How can the SSPX credibly state that these innocuous occasions of “soft drug use” are mortal sins? (if they are correct, I am going straight to hell!)

Thanks if you can help.

👍
Click to expand...
I don’t think that SSPX considers alcohol or tobacco to be a soft drug. When used in moderation, these are not sinful. They put marijuana use in a different category.
 
GWright said:
Hi there,

I have posted this in the traditional form, as it relates to something I saw on an SSPX website (see below).

sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/is_smoking_marijuana_a_sin_10-30-2012.htm

(its in the section “is it a mortal sin to use drugs?”, near the bottom).

All of marijuana, alcohol and nicotine (tobacco) are all examples of soft drugs.

How can the SSPX state that using soft drugs, like these, are mortal sins (or indeed any kind of sins)?

This flies in the face of the great Monastic beer and wine making traditions of the Catholic Church. My Mothers uncle was a Monk in Buckfast Abbey (England) for over 50 years - they produce Buckfast Tonic Wine there.

Some of the finest red wine in the world (Chateauneuf-du-Pape) bears the name and symbology of the Papacy.

Everyone knows of the world famous Trappist Monks beers.

I understand Pope Benedict XVI used to smoke cheroots (unfiltered cigars) earlier in life.

Many clergy enjoy a tipple or a cigarette.

(ETA - and lets not forget, our Lord changed water into wine at the wedding at Canna)

I understand, of course, that allowing an addiction to take hold, or indulging in great excess - to the point where a loss of reason or dignity occurs - is sinful, but what about (eg) a husband and wife enjoying a bottle of wine over a romantic dinner, or someone enjoying the company of friends with a few beers in the pub?

How can the SSPX credibly state that these innocuous occasions of “soft drug use” are mortal sins? (if they are correct, I am going straight to hell!)

Thanks if you can help.

👍
Click to expand...
If you read the whole article, I think it is clear that the SSPX puts moderate alcohol use and marijuana use in different categories. Although illegal drug use is sinful, they make exceptions for those drugs which are prescribed for medical reasons.
 
CCC 2290 The virtue of temperance 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.

Excess and abuse is what we have to avoid.

Illegal drugs may be prescribed by doctors for a medical condition and that is allowed.
 
The SSPX also says that owning a television set in your home is a mortal sin when the Church has never said anything on this issue. They believe that they’re the only ones left who are the “true Church” and what they say is right, just like all of the 25,000+ Protestant denominations. They are a cult and they’re willing to listen to anything that Archbishop Lefebvre has to say and take all of his words as Gospel. “If the Archibishop says it, it’s true.” They really have no evidence that correlates their extreme beliefs to Church teaching, they just listen to their leader(s).
 
Catholic4Jesus said:
The SSPX also says that owning a television set in your home is a mortal sin when the Church has never said anything on this issue. They believe that they’re the only ones left who are the “true Church” and what they say is right, just like all of the 25,000+ Protestant denominations. They are a cult and they’re willing to listen to anything that Archbishop Lefebvre has to say and take all of his words as Gospel. “If the Archibishop says it, it’s true.” They really have no evidence that correlates their extreme beliefs to Church teaching, they just listen to their leader(s).
Click to expand...
Luke 6:42
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top