There's no law for abstianance on marijauna or alcohol to my knowledge.  I think what St. Paul says about everything is lawfull but not everything is helpful applies here.  In fact he demanded that the Chruch not drink water only but wine also.  

It was my understanding from my college days at a trad college that the problem with smoking pot (unless medically necesarry) was that 1) the purpose of it was to take one outside of the real world, and 2) it is addictive and considered to be a starter drug for other drugs whose use are definitely not allowed as they go against the "thou shalt not kill" commandment, so it could be considered at the very least an occassion of sin.  And with regards to alcohol, that there is nothing per se wrong with drinking alcohol, but all things in moderation, and one can't use it to get drink or "use" it really for anything.  One should enjoy it, for its merits, not for how it can affect the human brain - so a wine specialist is going to have a greater appreciation for alcohol then the wino, and the specialist has the right of it.

What I am getting at is that If you read Gen 9-3 the word herbs has been changed to herb in the KJV. I guess from the Puritanical Prot philosophy one could argue MJ is verboten while it would be hard to exclude any green herb from Catholic thought. Unless of course there is something in NT that overrides Gen 9-3.

What I am getting at is that If you read Gen 9-3 the word herbs has been changed to herb in the KJV. I guess from the Puritanical Prot philosophy one could argue MJ is verboten while it would be hard to exclude any green herb from Catholic thought. Unless of course there is something in NT that overrides Gen 9-3.

You know, I think there's actually a Protestant sect that uses marijuana in their "sacraments". Maybe they're using the New KJV?

Are you talking about the Rostifarians?

I just look at their website and yes, they are Rostafarians. Turns out they do use the KJV, nut it's not the new version.

Quote from: clare

Would it not also be sinful for one spouse to defraud the other of the marital debt?

How would this be confessed?:

"I'm married. I can't have children anyway, and I wouldn't want them if I could, but I still engage in marital relations."

What would the priest say to that? I mean, one spouse ought not to refuse the other anyway.

In response to that bolded part... If I am the priest and someone asked me that, I'd respond: "Why are you engaging in these acts? What are you trying to achieve?"

I think the answer is pretty obvious. She is engaging in these acts purely for pleasure and only to achieve pleasure. Whether or not a woman is barren, or has menopause, or whatever else, the primary end of marriage must still be observed.

You are right in saying that one ought not to refuse intercourse with their spouse, but if what the requester is requesting is sinful, then the requestee has the moral obligation to refuse.

I don't think the Church teaches that. In fact, doesn't Casti Connubii hint that it's ok for the non-sinning spouse to submit to the sinning one even when the sinning one insists on using artificial contraception?

59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin.

Also, the secondary ends still exist, and the primary end isn't being deliberately thwarted.

Another thought, what if someone has the attitude, "I can't have children, I don't want them particularly, but if God performs a miracle and I conceive I will accept"?

I was taught that as long as the primary end (having children) isn't artificially thwarted, there is nothing to worry about.

I've never heard anywhere (except for this thread) that infertile couples must live as brother and sister.

Unless the woman is infertile because she's popping birth control pills...

Anyhow, my impression is that we have a classic case here of a "knee jerk reaction" to the other extreme. Vatican II inverts the ends of marriage, so some people swing completely the other direction and DENY the other ends of marriage altogether.

Looks that way!