Plenty of priests make the same distinctions as Ladislaus.  

Such as whom? 

I think we have a bunch of self-righteous busybodies, mostly women, who imprudently want to get involved with some of the more difficult moral questions, (an especially treacherous proposition given the apparent lack of authority during the Church’s Crisis) moral questions, which are FAR above their pay grade. 

But by all means, if you want to be judged as a head of household (or head of Christ’s flock) in such a perilous time as this, then I’m sure Jesus will be accommodating of your ambitions on Judgement Day. 

Fr Scott is talking about a specific situation; the Church has NEVER issued a blanket ban on drugs, whether natural or synthetic, because the basic theological principle (which you cannot grasp) is that the litmus test of immorality = loss of reason. 


This is what Ladislaus has been saying for the last 2 weeks.  Plenty of priests make the same distinctions as Ladislaus.  Have you ever talked to any of them?  Obviously not.

It's not just what I say.  I got those distinctions from Jone, and they make perfect sense to me.  They're right there in proverbial black-and-white.  I never really thought much about the issue, since I've never used the stuff, until one of the early MJ threads here, so I looked it up in Jone, and what he wrote was perfectly reasonable and seemed unassailable.  I have yet to see anything here that comes close to a refutation of the principles he laid out ... and I don't expect anything.

Why is it a sin?  Due to the loss of reason.

Complete loss of reason is mortal sin ... unless there's a serious justification (e.g. extreme pain)
Partial loss of reason is a venial sin ... unless there's a less-serious justification (e.g. to relieve anxiety) ... provided there's no risk of serious addiction.

I'm not really sure what's so difficult to understand about this.

It's not just what I say.  I got those distinctions from Jone, and they make perfect sense to me.  They're right there in proverbial black-and-white. 

Right, Fr Jone = church teaching and you've gone out of your way to "dumb it down" but some still don't get it. 

Right, Fr Jone = church teaching and you've gone out of your way to "dumb it down" but some still don't get it.

Right.  He's not infallible, of course, and I'm open to hearing someone making a RATIONAL objection to something.  "Father Jone" missed this aspect or that aspect of the question in his analysis.  I'm all ears, and then if I were won over, I might respectfully disagree with Father Jone.  But nothing here has come CLOSE to that.  It's all just huffing and puffing and blustering.

He was a pot advocate?

I asked for an example of a priest who teaches as Ladislaus teaches on the subject of pot. Still waiting.....

#1) I'm not "teaching" anything.  I'm merely repeating what I saw in Fr. Jone.

#2) I've cited the passages from Fr. Jone at least a half dozen times already.

Please do name even one trad priest who advocates pot the way that forum members here do.

Please do read Proverbs Chapter 31