MJ is not a narcotic??!

Oh, okay, Sean, now I get it. You're just messing around here, you're not having a serious conversation. My mistake.

Didn’t you know? MJ is an otherworldly substance that exceeds the boundaries of existence. You literally smoke a puff, and not only does it transport you to Satan’s throne in hell, where you immeadiately bow down and worship him, but it is also a neurotoxin (like alcohol, but like 5000 times worse man!) and rots your entire brain to the point that you are a drooling, moronic, doofus for the rest of your life - Except when you are defending this fabled plant (which God made for a good reason)  because then Satan takes over your mind and your mouth and you suddenly make arguments like intelligent people.

————-

Catholic Puritanism needs to die if you are going to properly educate your children about drug abuse. The devil’s nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is 5 steps ahead of you otherwise, and ready to unleash it all upon a godless world that has lost all sense of true morality.

Pot supporters here are not going to allow a logical conversation about pot.

Is it possible for you to say this with a straight face?  Those who have been advocating the licitness of marijuana under certain circuмstances (whom you smear as "pot supporters") have been nothing but logical, laying out the syllogisms based on the principles of moral theology.  It's your crowd who have done nothing but emote, bluster, huff and puff, make ad hominems, slanders, and calumnies.

Well, you kind of invite it with a comment like that (a drive-by jab, without any substantial/material contribution to the topic).

I like you, and we're on the same side, but comments like that become a self-fulfilling prophecy (I've regretably made enough of them in my time here to know).

You've not been involved in the pot debates for very long. Good luck with debating with the pot supporters. You'll soon see what happens when you go against them. 

You've not been involved in the pot debates for very long. Good luck with debating with the pot supporters. You'll soon see what happens when you go against them.

I hope you’re done sniffing people at church. Jesus would prefer meditation I think. 

As I said previously, I'm all ears awaiting the introduction of a rational principle that would make different considerations apply to marijuana than to alcohol (apart from extrinsic considerations such as legality, etc.).  I have never used pot, and therefore have no horse in this race.  I did not find the "food stuff" argument by the Novus Ordo "theologian" at all convincing (not to mention that marijuana can be and has been consumed as a food).  I don't find that relevant to its morality.  Even the question of benefit vs. potential harm is somewhat peripheral (and is medically debated) and is more a practical concern (such as what one might have with cigarette smoking, etc.).

I'm pretty sure that if big pharma isolated THC, put it in tiny doses in some kind of pill, combined it with one or two other ingredients, called it something else, and marketed it for its therapeutic effects, it would therefore somehow get "sanitized" and made acceptable in many people's minds.  I feel that this is all about perception, with people having visions of college students sitting around a bong getting high.  No one here has ever said that was permissible and not a grave sin.  I see no difference in taking small amounts of THC and, say, taking a Xanax for anxiety, simply because the latter was developed by big pharma in a lab.

Sean, your article uses "recreational use" in it's title, but then later on, it discusses an additional category of "casual use". 
1) I'll bet that their "recreational use" is not the same as your definition.  That is, their "recreational use" means getting high, which further means that, yes, the health risks for getting high 1-2x a week are VERY serious, just like having 4-5 drinks a few times a week will damage your liver over time.

2) "casual use" is probably more in line with catholic teaching...or...it means someone who only uses pot once every few months.  ??  Who knows.

3)  Point being, how do they define "recreational" vs "casual"?  If you asked 100 people, you'd get 100 different answers.  You can't cite an article and assume they mean what you mean, especially a "science loving" org who isn't catholic.

Hi Pax-

I think they're using the terms "recreational" and "casual" interchangeably.  

But I'm not sure the frequency standard you are considering would be a reliable moral gauge, because even if you only got drunk one time in your life (or high), it would still be a sin.

If that is conceded, then the definitional poblem you are raising vanishes.

As I said previously, I'm all ears awaiting the introduction of a rational principle that would make different considerations apply to marijuana than to alcohol (apart from extrinsic considerations such as legality, etc.).  I have never used pot, and therefore have no horse in this race.  I did not find the "food stuff" argument by the Novus Ordo "theologian" at all convincing (not to mention that marijuana can be and has been consumed as a food).  I don't find that relevant to its morality.  Even the question of benefit vs. potential harm is somewhat peripheral (and is medically debated) and is more a practical concern (such as what one might have with cigarette smoking, etc.).

I'm pretty sure that if big pharma isolated THC, put it in tiny doses in some kind of pill, combined it with one or two other ingredients, called it something else, and marketed it for its therapeutic effects, it would therefore somehow get "sanitized" and made acceptable in many people's minds.  I feel that this is all about perception, with people having visions of college students sitting around a bong getting high.  No one here has ever said that was permissible and not a grave sin.  I see no difference in taking small amounts of THC and, say, taking a Xanax for anxiety, simply because the latter was developed by big pharma in a lab.

B.S. - I've posted articles by the SSPX and can just Google "Catholic marijuana" and post Catholic articles by the 100's, meanwhile in all of Lent and now this week all you post in the same personal interpretation of Jone. YOU have NOTHING from any Catholic source, just your own convenient interpretation. All one has to do is ask any trad priest if they could smoke marijuana and they'll be told the same as Fr. Scott wrote, "no you can't smoke marijuana, what planet are you from?".

Marijuana smoking is a scandal and harmful to the family, any Catholic knows that. Why don't you tell your parents and your children that you have decided to smoke marijuana and see what happens. You are a total idiot when it comes to dealing with the real world, you can only play in the speculative relm where there are no consequence and no correct complete answer (like your ad-nauseum lecturing on the 57 flavors of whether the pope is the pope or not. ).

The article is a poor attempt to make an unpleasant issue go away. Who are the “moralists” it cites? We’ve dug up pre-v2 imprimatured theologians. Some of them have outstanding reputations. The application of Catholic moral principles seems to unanimously suggest getting high = getting drunk. What is the problem here? Do we not hate the same thing as the other side on this argument?

What authority does the SSPX even have? Only what you give it. I’d expect mental deficiencies such as this from Fisheaters, but it is surprising to find it from those who understand the authority crisis that Catholics have been dealing with for at least 5 decades. 

I think there are quite a few Trads getting lost in woods. I recommend exercising some Charity, slowing down, and researching what the Church always taught (duh?) before throwing around calumnies, suspecting people of being Jews, and literally sniffing out potheads at Church. Not only are the rigorists (a condemned moral theory by the way) apparently wrong on this, but the manner in which they’ve guided this “debate” is also wrong. Time to take a break, sheath your ridiculous pride and go pray for some humility and magnanimity.