Author Topic: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful (Read 26240 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** April 21, 2022, 07:20:06 AM »

Excerpt from a 2019 SSPX article (Note this article discusses recreational use, not medical use):

Is Using Marijuana a Sin?
The primary effect of the THC is to induce the “high,” and it is practically very rare that one could effectively avoid the stultifying effects of the drug.
For all of the above reasons – that is, impairing of the ability to think and judge properly, damage to the brain, fleeing from reality, unknown physical or psychosomatic effects, difficulty in dosing - moralists conclude that, even though the use of marijuana does not entirely totally suppress the use of reason, it is certainly gravely imprudent to use it.
Thus, the deliberate use of marijuana for recreational purposes is a mortal sin.“

https://florida.sspx.org/en/news-events/news/get-pot-just-say-no-47742

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #1 on:** April 21, 2022, 07:36:58 AM »

Quote

the deliberate use of marijuana for recreational purposes is a mortal sin.“

Recreational usage has not been the pro-MJ argument here.

And thanks for starting yet another thread on the topic after the last one was locked.

rochefrogcauld · « **Reply #2 on:** April 21, 2022, 07:46:15 AM »

Response to Ladislaus in response to my post in the locked thread:

Some here are advocating recreational use or at least implying it via meme. But what I am getting is deeper. Why do Trads lock themselves into a certain conceptual language clown box? Why not just call someone a jerk instead of theologizing it? Are those who oppose marijuana really motivated by Jansenism, c'mon.

The reason I say this is unless more nuanced, I don't trust such claims as pharisee, jansenist, rigourist, etc by instinct because the same people who use them are almost always looking to undermine Catholic morality, while pushing their own morality via racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism, etc. You may not believe me, but before 2015 there was growing acceptance of the homo stuff within Traditional Catholicism. I knew Trad women who spoke of having "gαy friends," a turn off, and it was one the things that prompted me to leave the states. I can tell you that no Trads in Europe or Latin America would advocate for marijuana, probably not even in its medical form.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #3 on:** April 21, 2022, 07:52:38 AM »

Quote from: rochefrogcauld on April 21, 2022, 07:46:15 AM

The reason I say this is unless more nuanced, I don't trust such claims as pharisee, jansenist, rigourist, etc by instinct because the same people who use them are almost always looking to undermine Catholic morality, while pushing their own morality via racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism, etc.

Because there are three individuals here attempting to read the interior forum of others and outwardly lying about what some of us do in our personal lives without any actual knowledge of it, while themselves offering up only subjective and emotional counterpoints to the argument. Dismissing traditional moral theology on the matter and offering post-Conciliar lay-opinions on the subject. Had you taken the time to actually read through the mire posted, you would have seen that. (Though, I don't blame you for not doing so)

Sean here has actually posted something objective that I don't entirely disagree with. He is also not among those being derided for their Pharisaism.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** April 21, 2022, 07:57:20 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2022, 07:20:06 AM

Excerpt from a 2019 SSPX article (Note this article discusses recreational use, not medical use):

Is Using Marijuana a Sin?
The primary effect of the THC is to induce the “high,” and it is practically very rare that one could effectively avoid the stultifying effects of the drug.
For all of the above reasons – that is, impairing of the ability to think and judge properly, damage to the brain, fleeing from reality, unknown physical or psychosomatic effects, difficulty in dosing - moralists conclude that, even though the use of marijuana does not entirely totally suppress the use of reason, it is certainly gravely imprudent to use it.
Thus, the deliberate use of marijuana for recreational purposes is a mortal sin.“

https://florida.sspx.org/en/news-events/news/get-pot-just-say-no-47742

1. No one on CathInfo.com has posted anything promoting Marijuana for recreational use (aside from "roscoe", who interestingly hasn't been posting in these threads! Has he?) But at any rate, talking about recreational use being a mortal sin is a non-issue. No one disputes that here. It is a red herring.

2. This article seems to be highly influenced by Fr. Scott's article from the 90's. Using phrases like "practically very rare" is a red flag -- it's the kind of vague language used by someone who hasn't studied the issue very deeply and frankly has few facts to offer. I know that is the language *I* would use if I were short on scientific data and hard facts.

I didn't hear about CBD oil back in the 90's. Nor were there so many varieties of pot, with varying levels of THC. Growers have almost total control over the final product now, it seems.

I would also be willing to entertain the notion that Mark79, who has done quite a bit of research, actually knows MORE about the issue than many ordained SSPX priests with 6 years of Trad seminary formation under their belts. Sometimes a priest has to humble himself (at least in one limited area), giving place to a layman in certain matters of science, business, etc. At the very least, an individual priest is NOT infallible, nor is he the final word on the matter!

6 years in the seminary, and the priestly character received at Ordination, elevates a man above other laymen in certain areas and in certain ways -- but not in all areas. A professional engineer knows WAY more about design than most priests. Which makes sense: he studied engineering for 6 years, instead of the Faith, theology, and philosophy.

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** April 21, 2022, 08:07:49 AM »

I have a better perspective on just how *limited* many SSPX priests are. I got to know a huge group of Seminarians from 2000 - 2003, many of whom are priests today.

One, for example (I refuse to give or confirm his name, as this is not about personalities) went right into the seminary after Homeschooling. Talk about naive and inexperienced in worldly matters! He might be pious, he might get good grades at the seminary, but he could be quite idealistic and naive about life out in the big bad world.

And some might shoot me for saying this: but getting 100% of one's information from the SSPX and Trad Cat sources is NOT the same thing as learning it for yourself, from different sources, on your own, through life experience, out in the world.

When you rely on parents or other busy authority figures for most of your knowledge of the world, you can usually forget about things like nuance and distinction. You will be getting the 10-second soundbite, simplified version. Personally I go out of my way NOT to do this -- I'm a stickler for truth, accuracy, which makes me long-winded. But I don't want to be ham-fisted when teaching my children. But I also realize I'm the exception. I am a good teacher (not everyone is) and I seem to have a gift from God for objectivity (For humility sake I'd love to assume everyone has this gift, but life experience has sadly taught me how rare it is).

Fellow laymen over 25: You know how countless experiences have broadened your horizons, and made the world seem different somehow? It boggles my mind how many experiences I've had, which gave me a broader (and therefore, higher elevation) perspective and more accurate perception of the "whole world".

How could a young man of 18, who never left his hometown (let's say a majority white town in a conservative/rural area), POSSIBLY have an objectively accurate (i.e., realistic) perception of the world? He's been almost completely sheltered his whole life. How many experiences, how many kinds of people, are but cardboard cutouts or "placeholders" for the real thing?

I remember being shocked to meet someone so naive and sheltered, who was only 4 years younger than me at the time. He wasn't 18 any more, because he had been in Seminary for a couple years already when I got there. I don't remember what the issue was, but my 6 years "in the world" made me seem closer to being his father than a peer of his!

You don't want to throw kids to the wolves at 5 years old (as the world advocates) and you certainly don't want to throw your kids into a grave occasion of sin (like public school, or hanging around children who WILL introduce them to grave sins and vicious behavior). I think the solution is to form them well, in the Truth, but at some point you have to let them live and experience the world themselves. It's called growing up.

But let's just say I wouldn't want any 18 year old writing moral theology manuals...

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #6 on:** April 21, 2022, 08:24:24 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on April 21, 2022, 07:57:20 AM

1. No one on CathInfo.com has posted anything promoting Marijuana for recreational use (aside from "roscoe", who interestingly hasn't been posting in these threads! Has he?) But at any rate, talking about recreational use being a mortal sin is a non-issue. No one disputes that here. It is a red herring.

2. This article seems to be highly influenced by Fr. Scott's article from the 90's. Using phrases like "practically very rare" is a red flag -- it's the kind of vague language used by someone who hasn't studied the issue very deeply and frankly has few facts to offer. I know that is the language *I* would use if I were short on scientific data and hard facts.

I didn't hear about CBD oil back in the 90's. Nor were there so many varieties of pot, with varying levels of THC. Growers have almost total control over the final product now, it seems.

I would also be willing to entertain the notion that Mark79, who has done quite a bit of research, actually knows MORE about the issue than many ordained SSPX priests with 6 years of Trad seminary formation under their belts. Sometimes a priest has to humble himself (at least in one limited area), giving place to a layman in certain matters of science, business, etc. At the very least, an individual priest is NOT infallible, nor is he the final word on the matter!

6 years in the seminary, and the priestly character received at Ordination, elevates a man above other laymen in certain areas and in certain ways -- but not in all areas. A professional engineer knows WAY more about design than most priests. Which makes sense: he studied engineering for 6 years, instead of the Faith, theology, and philosophy.

1) As Rochefoucald has observed, several posts have heavily implied support for recreational use. Perhaps they were disingenuous, and/or taunting their adversaries, but to clear up any confusion, I posted the article.

If nobody here is advocating recreational use, it’s difficult to understand Ladislaus’s repeated example of microdosing not being sinful (which seems to have no other purpose than to “prove” small amounts can be taken -even recreationally- without sin).

Even if that is conceded, see #2 below...

2) “practically very rare” (ie., that a pot user avoids the stultifying effects of MJ) is exactly accurate, not a “red flag” as you seem to think. It clearly means that, unlike alcohol use, 1-2 puffs of weed are taken precisely to produce -and not avoid- this effect (and in fact, that effect is almost always produced). Again, Ladislaus had to go all the way to “microdosing” to avoid recognizing that fact.

3) Mark79 is looking at the issue from the vantage of medicinal benefit, and in that regard he seems to have some knowledge. But from the moral perspective, I’m sure he would not presume to know more about morals that traditional priests. But in any case, the article is not discussing medicinal use.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #7 on:** April 21, 2022, 08:53:37 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2022, 08:24:24 AM

1) As Rochefoucald has observed, several posts have heavily implied support for recreational use. Perhaps they were disingenuous, and/or taunting their adversaries, but to clear up any confusion, I posted the article.

If nobody here is advocating recreational use, it’s difficult to understand Ladislaus’s repeated example of microdosing not being sinful (which seems to have no other purpose than to “prove” small amounts can be taken -even recreationally- without sin).

Even if that is conceded, see #2 below...

2) “practically very rare” (ie., that a pot user avoids the stultifying effects of MJ) is exactly accurate, not a “red flag” as you seem to think. It clearly means that, unlike alcohol use, 1-2 puffs of weed are taken precisely to produce -and not avoid- this effect (and in fact, that effect is almost always produced). Again, Ladislaus had to go all the way to “microdosing” to avoid recognizing that fact.

3) Mark79 is looking at the issue from the vantage of medicinal benefit, and in that regard he seems to have some knowledge. But from the moral perspective, I’m sure he would not presume to know more about morals that traditional priests. But in any case, the article is not discussing medicinal use.

Just wanted to add to #1 that, besides Ladislaus’s microdosing justification, there were several others in the various MJ threads which attempted to draw a false equivalence between 1-2 glasses of wine/beer, and 1-2 puffs of MJ (for which there is no proportion in the effect produced), which again heavily implies its alleged moral recreational use.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** April 21, 2022, 09:03:17 AM »

Quote from: rochefrogcauld on April 21, 2022, 07:46:15 AM

Some here are advocating recreational use or at least implying it via meme.

Memes were obviously a joke ... a bit of chain-yanking if you will. Matthew even joined in (sans meme).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** April 21, 2022, 09:05:29 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2022, 08:53:37 AM

Just wanted to add to #1 that, besides Ladislaus’s microdosing justification, ...

There was no "microdosing justification". It was an attempt to draw out the principles from people's thick skulls. Microdosing involves the use of just enough THC to provide benefits of relaxation, relief of anxiety and depression, etc. WITHOUT there being a high or even a buzz ... the principle being that the morality hinges entirely on the impairment of the faculties, as the pre-V2 moral theologians very clearly explained. This is not particularly difficult stuff.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #10 on:** April 21, 2022, 09:06:56 AM »

Sean, please define "recreational". This is key to a rational debate.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** April 21, 2022, 09:08:43 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2022, 08:53:37 AM

false equivalence between 1-2 glasses of wine/beer, and 1-2 puffs of MJ (for which there is no proportion in the effect produced), which again heavily implies its alleged moral recreational use.

How much is required to produce the same effect is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the principle ... that's merely a practical consideration. It only "heavily implies" anything due to the thick skulls and lack of intellectual capacity of some involved in the debate.

[Whatever the amount is ...] to produce a similar level of impairment as [whatever amount of alcohol] doesn't really matter. What matter is the level of impairment of the higher faculties and a justification is required proportional to the level of impairment.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** April 21, 2022, 09:11:18 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 21, 2022, 09:06:56 AM

Sean, please define "recreational". This is key to a rational debate.

Yeah, I tried to elicit a definition (in Catholic terms) of "recreation" on the other thread ... and it was all in vain. These people aren't interested in a rational discussion or debate. They simply emote, huff and puff, use personal attacks, even to the point of slandering those who disagree with them by propping up a strawman position.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #13 on:** April 21, 2022, 09:15:37 AM »

Quote

there were several others in the various MJ threads which attempted to draw a false equivalence between 1-2 glasses of wine/beer, and 1-2 puffs of MJ (for which there is no proportion in the effect produced), which again heavily implies its alleged moral recreational use.

Alcohol is highly regulated and manufactured, so when you look at a bottle, you know how much alcohol % is contained and you drink according to your tolerance (which is still subjective...because it drinking on an empty/full stomach can DRASTICALLY alter its effects).

MJ is not uniformly grown nor produced. It is impossible to say that 1-2 puffs will get you high, or won't, without knowing the plant, producer, etc. Again, it also depends on the person and how they react to such substances.

Some people can use asprin for pain relief; some people who take asprin will die from allergic shock. The point is...people have to know what they are drinking/smoking and if they aren't responsible, they will sin. God will hold them accountable according to their conscience, lukewarmness or carelessness.

But...for people who do research...they can safely and morally use MJ, in theory (I wouldn't know nor will I ever care to find out).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #14 on:** April 21, 2022, 09:21:34 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2022, 08:53:37 AM

Just wanted to add to #1 that, besides Ladislaus’s microdosing justification, there were several others in the various MJ threads which attempted to draw a false equivalence between 1-2 glasses of wine/beer, and 1-2 puffs of MJ (for which there is no proportion in the effect produced), which again heavily implies its alleged moral recreational use.

Additionally, I would observe that the article which I posted in the OP, which clearly states it is only condemning recreational use of MJ, has already garnered 3 quick down thumbs (a number soon to grow)?

The conclusion most normal people would arrive at is that they don’t want recreational use of MJ to be considered sinful.

cuмulatively, therefore, it’s difficult to concur that nobody here is advocating for the recreational use of MJ.

Drawing false equivalency between beer/wine and pot; microdosing; down-thumbing articles condemning recreational use of MJ...these certainly would create the impression in many folks, barring further explanation, that some here want recreational use of MJ to be “ok.”

Author Topic: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful (Read 26240 times)

SeanJohnson

Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful

DigitalLogos

Re: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful

rochefrogcauld

Re: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful

DigitalLogos

Re: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful

Matthew

Re: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful

Matthew

Re: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful

SeanJohnson

Re: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful

SeanJohnson

Re: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful

Ladislaus

Re: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful

Ladislaus

Re: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful

Pax Vobis

Re: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful

Ladislaus

Re: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful

Ladislaus

Re: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful

Pax Vobis

Re: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful

SeanJohnson

Re: Why Marijuana is Gravely Sinful