Marks reply #210 spells out his views which are consistent with moral theology. Either 1) y’all don’t understand theological distinctions, 2) you are purposefully ignoring them or 3) you don’t have the reading comprehension to understand what Mark was saying.
It’s all there. There’s nothing more to say.
And yet people keep posting. I notice that my previous response got downthumbed.
Whenever I have advocated a non-rigorist position regarding an aspect of moral theology, I've been accused of actually engaging in said action ... simply because I followed approved Catholic theological sources regarding the matter. For the record, I have never used marijuana in my 53 years on this earth, nor do I intend to do so (unless some medical situation were to arise), and so I have "no horse in this race." I just call it as I see it. I'll pass over the other situations where I have done this, and I can think of two offhand, where I was accused of engaging in the practice under discussion, and had to aver that I did not do so ... in the face of accusations.
Then, in a couple cases, I did admit that the activity was sinful, but that it was a "only" venial sin (based on theological sources). After which I was accused of claiming that venial sin is permissible or OK, and so I had to answer that charge as well. To which the retort was that "it doesn't matter," that sin is sin. Not sure then why the moral theologians spend most of their works explaining what is mortal and what is venial. Well, 1) it clarifies the principles inolved in the sin and is incredibly helpful toward that end, and 2) it's necessary to know for the purposes of Confession, and 3) it's simply the truth.
There also have been a few times where I disagreed with the more lax opinion, but even those cases I hold that as a personal standard and cannot bind the consciences of others. If one were to appeal to an approved Catholic source, I am in no position to declare that person a sinner (even if I disagree and consider it a sin for myself to do).
In America, many Catholics have been a little poisoned by the Protestant/Puritan ethic, which does not derive from Catholic principles, even if in many cases it happens to run parallel to it in its conclusions. And then of course, among Traditional Catholics, there's a temptation toward Pharisaism, of "holier than thou" thinking, so I think that a blend of those two things might be at work here.
In conclusion, as Jone indicated, the REASON that narcotics would be wrong (same as with alcohol) is that it would impair one's faculty of reason (and also moral reasoning). If it completely impairs the use of reason (based on the amount used), then there has to be proportionally serious reason to use it. So, for instance, if someone would otherwise be in extreme pain, use of morphine is permitted. So the complete loss of reason requires a proportionately serious reason. When the use of reason it partially impaired, this would be a venial sin ... again, if there's not a proportionate reason (which need not be as grave since it results only in a partial loss of reason). Among these Jone even lists the need for relaxation (i.e. to calm the nerves). So, for instance, if someone is suffering from anxiety, a tiny use of some alcohol or a narcotic might be justifiable. Extraneous considerations that might make the activity sinful: risk of addiction or habitual use, risks caused to self or others while under the influence (driving a vehicle or operating dangerous machinery), or (Jone doesn't mention this) the risk of losing one's job (in places, for example, where one might be subjected to random drug testing ... so the putting one's ability to support a family at risk). Finally, there's a consideration of it being illegal. Yet in many states even recreational use is no longer illegal, ad one could argue that the curtailment of such things would be an unjust law (where it would be morally justified). So, for example, it's technically illegal to use morphine without a doctor's prescription, but there would be no sin if you used some if you were badly injured and had access to morphine. Similarly, if a person has some condition that response only to the use of marijuana, e.g. if a person suffers from anxiety and the only relief they can find is to use a littel marijuana (a micro-dose that doesn't cause them to use loss of reason), then I don't feel that the law would be binding in that situation. So I think the justness and application of the law depends on whether you have morally legitimate reason to use it. So Jone does not even speak of the illegality in the context of this moral question.
There it is in a nutshell. If someone wants to disagree, that's up to them, but they should have the honesty to properly address the principles above (as laid out by Jone and others), and they should stop accusing others of sin who hold to these principles from an approved Catholic source. None of us can bind the consciences of others. Only the Church has the authority to bind and to loose. And I think that the dogmatic Traditional priests who regularly "excommunciate" people (by refusing them the Sacraments) should really take that to heart. Faithful, by Canon Law, have a right to the Sacraments, and our Traditional priests have no jurisdiction whatsover, and so their only roles during this time of crisis is to dispense the Sacraments to the faithful. Period. They are not even "pastors" much less true "bishops" who have authority. Even the bishops are merely "auxiliary" bishops or (the Eastern term "chor" bishops), and their roles also is entirely to help the real bishop with the dispensation of Sacraments that ordinary priests cannot confer (e.g. confirmations and ordinations). There are some obvious situations where the Church has ruled where they can and sometimes should withhold the Sacraments, but that's due to Canon Law, and not their authority ... e.g. if someone who's (seriously) immodestly dressed approaching Communion or a notorious sinner or a known non-Catholic. So if a woman approaches Communion dressed in a mini-skirt or very low-cut dress, Canon Law bids them to refuse the Sacraments. Or if a notorious public sinner (someone who's cohabitating) comes to receive. Or if some Greek Orthodox or notorious heretic. Now it's this that these priests try to wrongly apply toward why the refuse Sacraments, for instance, to Feeneyites or to the CMRI (as the SSPV tend to do). But no Cathoilc authority has ever declared Feeneyites or CMRI to be outside the Church, and indeed no Catholic authority has declared those who belong to the Conciliar Church to be outside the Church. Only Father Feeney was personally excommunicated (for disobedience) but his followers or people who agreed with his opinions never were. No one has ever declared the CMRI to be a schismatic group. And no Catholic authority has ever declared the Conciliar Church to be a non-Catholic institution. Nor can you force the faithful who receive the Sacraments through the Thuc-line to re-receive the Sacraments because these are invalid. As simple emergeny priests, they can render an opinion and admonish the faithful (I think you really should re-confess the sins you confessed to a CMRI priest, since I think that you're putting your souls at risk). But if that person disagrees, they need to be admitted to the Sacraments. It's entirely improper for these priests to be mini-popes and tyrants or Sacramental terrorists, and hold the Sacraments hostage in the servie of their own private theological opinions which absolutely cannot bind the consciences of others. This entire state of affairs is absolutely deporable. If they're truly concerned about the faith receiving valid Sacraments, they should simply conditionallly-consecrate one another and thenn conditionally ordain all their priests so that no one has qualms any longer about the validity of the Sacraments. But this childishess continues.
Topic: Marijuana use sinful for Catholics? (Read 59812 times)