FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? (/showthread.php?tid=42231)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - The_Harlequin_King - 02-13-2011

Reposting my old post since I don't think I got a single response.


(02-12-2011, 09:07 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Drinking and smoking aren't comparable. Alcohol has been a part of the human diet for thousands of years, and is also a necessary part of the liturgy. God has sanctified wine. It's Biblical, and sacramental.

Smoking was introduced to Christian culture only after "discovering" the New World and picking it up from native Americans, so it's only 500 years old at best. The early popes of the smoking period condemned the practice as pagan, and King James I wrote a tract about its unhealthiness centuries before the Surgeon General was invented. Smoking on church property was once an excommunicable offense. But as time passed, even the popes were addicted to snuff, so the practice became permissible and "baptized" into the culture.

I'm not really an anti-smoker, nor do I think it merits a confession...... even though nicotine almost certainly shortened my dad's lifespan. But I do a bit of an eyeroll every time the trad guys in my area organize a men's hangout at a pub, and I get choked with cigar smoke. The smoking culture sometimes gets conflated with traditionalism in general, but we all know it's more of a 1950's-ism than anything else. The same cigar-puffing trad men will frown upon the sight of a woman smoking a cigar, or (God forbid) a pipe, which is unladylike or whatever. But before the 20th century, women typically smoked pipes and cigars. What else? Cigarettes hadn't been invented yet. And I understand it's typical in some Latin American countries to see older women smoking cigars even today.


I'd honestly be impressed if some Remnant columnist took up his pen and condemned the use of tobacco as pagan/Indian nonsense. He would find a sympathetic audience with King James I and Pope Urban VII. Is it any surprise that the excommunication for using tobacco on church property was lifted only in 1724, by Benedict XIII, who was a snuffer himself!?


King James I Wrote:"What honour or policie can move us to imitate the barbarous and beastly maners of the wilde, godlesse, and slavish Indians, especially in so vile and stinking a custom?"



Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - JayneK - 02-13-2011

(02-13-2011, 04:36 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Reposting my old post since I don't think I got a single response.

Good idea.  Even after you posted it people were saying that the Church has never taught that smoking is sin.  I was wondering if I was the only one who read your post.


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Bakuryokuso - 02-13-2011

i was deeply impressed with your post too, hk.


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - The_Harlequin_King - 02-13-2011

And while snuffing looks kinda cool when the Scarlet Pimpernel does it, I think even most average trads would feel a whiff of disgust if they saw our current Pontiff put two dabs of that stuff on his thumb and snort it right up.


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Tim - 02-13-2011

(02-13-2011, 03:35 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(02-13-2011, 03:27 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: tim, I think is evidence of non-smoking waitresses who have contracted lung cancer thru second hand smoke

The "bars going out of business" was a big line used here in Montreal but the doomsday scenario hasnt come to pass cos the anti-smoking legislation affects every bar equally. Folks just smoke outside. If anything I go to restaurants more since there is no more smoking sections in them

Smoking outside isn't any fun when it's cold. I hate it when I go to parties in the winter and the host makes people smoke outside.

Unlike the Canada we are losing bars in working class neighborhoods. It has been done on purpose, and the smoking prohibition has added to it, but is not the entire reason.  They will not give a license if it lapsed during the sale of the bar,so we lose them through attrition. To get a "new" license for a new bar it must be a fern bar with food for the yuppies or no deal. They won't issue them for a  "new" working class neighborhood saloon.

If a waitress contracted a disease from second hand smoke, that is anecdotal. One of the things I did was "design experiments" and there is no way to make a double blind experiment concerning disease and second hand smoke. I'll grant you I'm only an engineer so a scientist might devise a way, but I haven't seen any test results yet.

tim


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - JayneK - 02-13-2011

While Wikipedia is not known as an unbiased source, the claims in its article on second-hand smoke (aka "passive smoking") do seem to be well-supported: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking

For example:
On September 22, 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a racketeering lawsuit against Philip Morris and other major cigarette manufacturers.[147] Almost 7 years later, on August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler found that the Government had proven its case and that the tobacco company defendants had violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).[6] In particular, Judge Kessler found that PM and other tobacco companies had:

    * conspired to minimize, distort and confuse the public about the health hazards of smoking;
    * publicly denied, while internally acknowledging, that secondhand tobacco smoke is harmful to nonsmokers, and
    * destroyed documents relevant to litigation.

The ruling found that tobacco companies undertook joint efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that passive smoking causes disease, notably by controlling research findings via paid consultants. The ruling also concluded that tobacco companies continue today to fraudulently deny the health effects of ETS exposure.[6]



Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - SouthpawLink - 02-13-2011

(02-13-2011, 04:40 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(02-13-2011, 04:36 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Reposting my old post since I don't think I got a single response.

Good idea.  Even after you posted it people were saying that the Church has never taught that smoking is sin.  I was wondering if I was the only one who read your post.

I had read his post earlier.  The question becomes, how firmly and consistently did the Pontiffs condemn smoking as a sin?  Because if they treated it as inherently sinful, then we have a problem on our hands, as that teaching's been contradicted for a long time now (in statements as high-up as the 19 March 1957 Motu Proprio of Ven. Pius XII and the new Catechism, and repeated in various theology manuals).


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Adam Wayne - 02-13-2011

Banning smoking in restaurants and bars must also be helping out tremendously in the selling of appetizers. Instead of joking around, having a few drinks, and smoking, you now get to stick a fried cheese stick in your mouth.

I'm in advertising. When I was showing my book around to land my first job, people actually asked me if I smoked. It was frowned on by these people who asked if I did not. One guy even told me that you'll notice the people having the best time in a restaurant is in the smokng section. The rest are a bunch of uptight weirdos. That was his take anyway. Of course that was when there were smoking sections. No it's all sanitized.

(02-13-2011, 04:46 PM)timoose Wrote:
(02-13-2011, 03:35 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(02-13-2011, 03:27 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: tim, I think is evidence of non-smoking waitresses who have contracted lung cancer thru second hand smoke

The "bars going out of business" was a big line used here in Montreal but the doomsday scenario hasnt come to pass cos the anti-smoking legislation affects every bar equally. Folks just smoke outside. If anything I go to restaurants more since there is no more smoking sections in them

Smoking outside isn't any fun when it's cold. I hate it when I go to parties in the winter and the host makes people smoke outside.

Unlike the Canada we are losing bars in working class neighborhoods. It has been done on purpose, and the smoking prohibition has added to it, but is not the entire reason.  They will not give a license if it lapsed during the sale of the bar,so we lose them through attrition. To get a "new" license for a new bar it must be a fern bar with food for the yuppies or no deal. They won't issue them for a  "new" working class neighborhood saloon.

If a waitress contracted a disease from second hand smoke, that is anecdotal. One of the things I did was "design experiments" and there is no way to make a double blind experiment concerning disease and second hand smoke. I'll grant you I'm only an engineer so a scientist might devise a way, but I haven't seen any test results yet.

tim



Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Adam Wayne - 02-13-2011

(02-13-2011, 05:27 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(02-13-2011, 04:40 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(02-13-2011, 04:36 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Reposting my old post since I don't think I got a single response.

Good idea.  Even after you posted it people were saying that the Church has never taught that smoking is sin.  I was wondering if I was the only one who read your post.

I had read his post earlier.  The question becomes, how firmly and consistently did the Pontiffs condemn smoking as a sin?  Because if they treated it as inherently sinful, then we have a problem on our hands, as that teaching's been contradicted for a long time now (in statements as high-up as the 19 March 1957 Motu Proprio of Ven. Pius XII and the new Catechism, and repeated in various theology manuals).

Too bad we can't ask John XXIII. Benedict XVI, might say it could be a step to a new morality if smoking a cigarette might help a wife from hitting her husband over the head with a frying pan or a rolling pin.

[Image: John%20XXIII%20with%20cigarette.jpg]


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - sheep101 - 02-13-2011

Why claim that smoking is not a sin?

answer: because it is not a sin

It is impossible to prove a negative the burden of proof is on you to prove that smoking is a
sin.

Here is your argument:


Anything that damages the human body is a sin

smoking damages the human body

therefore smoking is a sin

lets apply this argument to other cases:


Anything that damages the human body is a sin

Childbirth damages the human body

Therefore childbirth is a sin


Both arguments are valid, but they are not sound premise one must be wrong. Premise two in argument
one may be wrong as well if one smokes moderately, and even heavy smoking may be negligible to the
overall health of some individuals. Chesterton argued against those who said that smoking serves no good purpose his
arguments are just as valid today as they were then. He was arguing against the neo-Puritan attitude that has been displayed
on this thread that pleasure without a purpose is bad. :smokin:

By the way second hand smoke being a significant danger is bogus pseudo science. Just think about this
smokers get cancer after directly inhaling thousands of cigarettes, it usually takes about thirty years of
heavy smoking to start lung cancer, person who smoked a pack a day for 30 years would have smoked
216000(360x20x30) cigarettes the amount of smoke inhaled by a person from secondhand smoke is negligible
compared to this.