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? - Jitpring - 02-14-2011

"But most important of all, surely, is that it [excessive concern for bodily health] also makes any kind of learning, thought, or meditation by oneself hard; it is always on the watch for tensions and spinning in the head....It always makes one suppose he's sick and never cease to take pains about his body."

-Plato, Republic 407c


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - SouthpawLink - 02-14-2011

(02-14-2011, 01:54 PM)JayneK Wrote: I think that everyone agrees that the Church teaches it is a sin to smoke excessively.  But apparently many people proceed to make the teaching meaningless by the way they define "excessively".  They define excess as an extreme amount (that is more than they smoke) so they do not have to change their behaviour.  But when we apply traditional principles of Catholic morality to the question, abuse of tobacco means using tobacco in a way that harms one's body.  And we need to make a sincere effort to determine what is harmful to the body.  We should look to medical authorities not to tobacco company propaganda.  For most situations smoking every day would qualify as smoking to excess.  This means that the vast majority of smokers are committing at least a venial sin.

According to TV commercials that I have seen, every smoked cigarette does harm to your body (even if only minimally).  So the principle would make every cigarette or cigar sinful.  Therefore, any use of tobacco is "abusive."  But is that what the Catechism intends to say?

Is it truly sinful to have a cigar and scotch at the end of night, as gentlemen are wont to do?  A proportionate reason justifies the use of narcotics, one of which is to calm the nerves.  Certainly, tobacco could be justified in the same manner, no?  Besides, the old theology manuals don't even attempt to "justify" the use of tobacco, but rather they simply accept their use.

P.S. - I don't have a horse in this race, although I have had heart surgery and less than perfect use of my lungs, so it'd be a very bad idea for me to smoke.  But what I care about, as do you, is whether or not smoking is sinful, and if not, then how much can be deemed as moderate/not excessive.


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Jitpring - 02-14-2011

JayneK, do you still attend the Novus Ordo?


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Jesse - 02-14-2011

(02-14-2011, 06:58 PM)Jitpring Wrote: JayneK, do you still attend the Novus Ordo?

That question has nothing to do with with her questions of 1) is smoking in excess sinful and 2) what is the definition of excess.

It seems like a low-blow to me, actually, because the implication is that you are trying to discredit her because of it.  Maybe I'm reading too much into it (and if I am, my apologies), but it appears that you are trying to attack the person instead of the argument (ad hominem), or at the least say that the argument is tainted because of the person giving it (genetic fallacy).

For example, a person can attend the Novus Ordo and teach orthodoxy.  It would be silly to dismiss that orthodox teaching simply because it comes out of the mouth of someone who attends the Novus Ordo.

Pax,
Jesse



Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - JayneK - 02-14-2011

(02-14-2011, 06:39 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: According to TV commercials that I have seen, every smoked cigarette does harm to your body (even if only minimally).  So the principle would make every cigarette or cigar sinful.  Therefore, any use of tobacco is "abusive."  But is that what the Catechism intends to say?

Is it truly sinful to have a cigar and scotch at the end of night, as gentlemen are wont to do?  A proportionate reason justifies the use of narcotics, one of which is to calm the nerves.  Certainly, tobacco could be justified in the same manner, no?  Besides, the old theology manuals don't even attempt to "justify" the use of tobacco, but rather they simply accept their use.

P.S. - I don't have a horse in this race, although I have had heart surgery and less than perfect use of my lungs, so it'd be a very bad idea for me to smoke.  But what I care about, as do you, is whether or not smoking is sinful, and if not, then how much can be deemed as moderate/not excessive.

I find it unlikely there is good scientific evidence to support the claim that every smoked cigarette does harm to one's body.  There has been little research done on very low levels of smoking.  In many studies the people who smoke very little are grouped with non-smokers.

The sermon that was linked to earlier gave the principle that causing slight harm means it is a venial sin and causing great harm means it is a mortal sin.  This seems consistent with the quote you found in Jone: "Immoderate indulgence in food or drink is only a venial sin even though one foresees that he will thereby shorten his life to some extent" (Jone, Moral Theology, sec. 208, IV, p. 135).

I agree that smoking seems to be parallel to use of narcotics in which case this applies:  "The use of narcotics in small quantities and only occasionally is justified for a proportionately good reason, such as to calm the nerves" (cf. sec. 110, p. 57).  Note that only small quantities and occasional use are justified.

I really appreciate that you are treating this discussion as a way to understand Church teaching and contributing relevant quotes.  Your posts to this thread are one of its highlights, as far as I am concerned.


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Baskerville - 02-14-2011

This thread is stupid. JayneK are you a Puritan by any chance? I think I finally get what a candylander is.


I like to come home after work and smoke my Pipe and no effeminate Priest is going to stop me. And I could give a rats ass what the new Catechism says I follow the Baltimore Catechism (ya know the Catholic one ) and it doesn't say anything about smoking.

:pipe:


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - SaintSebastian - 02-14-2011

(02-14-2011, 08:14 PM)Baskerville Wrote: I follow the Baltimore Catechism (ya know the Catholic one ) and it doesn't say anything about smoking.

:pipe:

Baskerville and his brood  ;D

[Image: catholicfamily.png]




Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Baskerville - 02-14-2011

(02-14-2011, 08:25 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(02-14-2011, 08:14 PM)Baskerville Wrote: I follow the Baltimore Catechism (ya know the Catholic one ) and it doesn't say anything about smoking.

:pipe:

Baskerville and his brood  ;D

[Image: catholicfamily.png]

:laughing: :laughing: I even have my Pipe.




Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Jitpring - 02-14-2011

(02-14-2011, 07:05 PM)Jesse Wrote: That question has nothing to do with with her questions of 1) is smoking in excess sinful and 2) what is the definition of excess.

It seems like a low-blow to me, actually, because the implication is that you are trying to discredit her because of it.  Maybe I'm reading too much into it (and if I am, my apologies), but it appears that you are trying to attack the person instead of the argument (ad hominem), or at the least say that the argument is tainted because of the person giving it (genetic fallacy).

For example, a person can attend the Novus Ordo and teach orthodoxy.  It would be silly to dismiss that orthodox teaching simply because it comes out of the mouth of someone who attends the Novus Ordo.

Pax,
Jesse

In other words, you too attend the Novus Ordo?


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Baskerville - 02-14-2011

(02-14-2011, 07:05 PM)Jesse Wrote: [quote='Jitpring' pid='698408' dateline='1297724335']
llacy).

For example, a person can attend the Novus Ordo and teach orthodoxy.  It would be silly to dismiss that orthodox teaching simply because it comes out of the mouth of someone who attends the Novus Ordo.

Not really since the NO is a protestant communion service. I tend to ignore the teaching of anyone who attends the New Order Religion.